Be Careful!

[Iconoclast]

Icon is a good example....

Thank you for the kind words

however from the first part of you post it's evident that you still do not understand what Calvinism is much less new Calvinism so I would commend to you to read archangels fine post in which he explains it to DHK

 

[DHK]

The laughable thing about what you're doing here is this: You, a non-Calvinist, are citing arguments by certain Calvinists against certain other Calvinists--and the arguments are about quite ancillary issues.
The Archangel

In the end you choose to be ignorant, Calvinist or not.
In the end you have no argument so ad hominem is your only route out. You continue personal attack and false allegation such as:

except to say that Calvinists were believing "another gospel."

If I have said such a thing, quote me. This is a false allegation.
What I did say is that "New Calvinists" were preaching another gospel.
What I did say is that there is a movement distinct from Calvinism in general called "New Calvinism" that should be critiqued for the errors that they are spreading.
But ignorance is bliss. You still don't listen to what I say.

Furthermore, of all the links I posted only one was British, and that was Peter Masters. I suppose you don't find him very reputable? A shame!
He was the only one.

Try this one instead:
http://www.newcalvinist.com/who-are-the-new-calvinists-part-1/
--If you don't anything from him, then you are deliberately blind to the truth.
BTW, I have my own books on the subject. The reason I use the internet is because it is easier to copy and paste from the internet than to type portions from my books.

 

[Iconoclast]

The laughable thing about what you're doing here is this: You, a non-Calvinist, are citing arguments by certain Calvinists against certain other Calvinists--and the arguments are about quite ancillary issues.

What you don't realize--because you have no first-hand sources--is that the disagreements are largely between British Reformed Baptists and others. The issues stem from worship style, etc. but you probably have no idea why the Brits don't like the Yanks...

It's simply because most Brits in the Reformed camp are quite committed to Covenant Theology, Americans not as much. Many American Baptists, particularly, are somewhere on the continuum between Covenant Theology and so-called "New Covenant Theology." So, in the mind of the Brits, those who are not deeply committed to Covenant Theology as well as a Calvinistic soteriology are not considered "real" Calvinists.


Having said that, many--though certainly not all--American Calvinists, especially Baptists, are more committed to being biblical with their Reformed theology as opposed to holding to Covenant Theology above the Bible. (Note: The last statement is a generalization; many Americans and many Brits hold to Covenant Theology above all else and many of each group don't).

As far as "my research" goes, I've been doing that for the last 14 years. My theology is very similar to the theology of Al Mohler, Daniel Montgomery, and Adam Greenway. I know what the Calvinist resurgence is about because I'm a member of the group. I have first-hand knowledge and I don't have to search the internet to find the silly sites you've found.

What is more, you--not being a Calvinist and having demonstrated no understanding of Calvinism--have no rubric under which to adjudicate the claims of the websites you've posted. You're simply taking other people's word without any evaluation or mental exercise.

It is you who have embarrassed yourself because you've introduced facts-not-in-evidence to the discussion started by the video. It matters not what the title of the video is; it matters what the content is. You've never approached discussing the content of the video--except to say that Calvinists were believing "another gospel."


Instead you searched the internet for "New Calvinism" and cited websites which make unfounded and ridiculous claims without stopping to ask if those websites fairly represent those people they criticize (they don't). Instead of dealing with the content of the video, you've launched into some bizarre non-sequitur discussion fueled only by your own ignorance. And, on top of it all, when this is pointed out, you turn to the ad hominem argument--a clear sign that you've lost the argument at hand.

You've demonstrated yourself to be absolutely incapable of logical thought and you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable as a moderator (whether you moderate this section of the board or not).

Now, I'm sure you'll try some clever come-back that asks me to do my research... But, as I've mentioned, I am a Calvinist in the camp of Mohler, et al. And, I don't merely know what someone else says about Mohler; I know the man himself. I have several first-hand sources on the issues raised. You have none. You only have what a second or third-party says about Mohler, et al.

In the end, it is you who need to get understanding--which you've never proved willing or able to do.

The Archangel

You have given a solid analysis of this:thumbs:

I have never read or heard Al Mohler speak anything but solid truth...I ordered the book mentioned in two of the links to "see" first hand this evidence.

 

[Rippon]

In the end you choose to be ignorant, Calvinist or not.

If by "ignorant" you mean uninformed; how so? He knows Dr. Mohler personally. Besides, Dr. Mohler has been very public with his beliefs for a long time. If you are not familiar with him --as is readily apparent --you should take some steps back and acknowledge that you spoke out of turn.

To say Dr. Mohler is outside the bounds of orthodxy is absurd. Those kind of statements issuing from your mind casts you in a very unfavorable light. It shows that you are biased in the extreme.

What I did say is that "New Calvinists" were preaching another gospel.

You are so careless with your use of Gal. 1:8,9. You do realize that you are charging them with not being Christians at all --don't you?

You still don't listen to what I say.

We have been listening. It's a two-way street. Perhaps instead of anathematizing so-called New Calvinists with such ardor you should acknowledge your lack of knowlege and intemperance.

 

[Rippon]

As far as "my research" goes, I've been doing that for the last 14 years. My theology is very similar to the theology of Al Mohler, Daniel Montgomery, and Adam Greenway. I know what the Calvinist resurgence is about because I'm a member of the group. I have first-hand knowledge and I don't have to search the internet to find the silly sites you've found.

What is more, you--not being a Calvinist and having demonstrated no understanding of Calvinism--have no rubric under which to adjudicate the claims of the websites you've posted. You're simply taking other people's word without any evaluation or mental exercise.

It is you who have embarrassed yourself because you've introduced facts-not-in-evidence to the discussion started by the video. It matters not what the title of the video is; it matters what the content is. You've never approached discussing the content of the video--except to say that Calvinists were believing "another gospel." Instead you searched the internet for "New Calvinism" and cited websites which make unfounded and ridiculous claims without stopping to ask if those websites fairly represent those people they criticize (they don't). Instead of dealing with the content of the video, you've launched into some bizarre non-sequitur discussion fueled only by your own ignorance. And, on top of it all, when this is pointed out, you turn to the ad hominem argument--a clear sign that you've lost the argument at hand.

You've demonstrated yourself to be absolutely incapable of logical thought and you've demonstrated yourself to be incapable as a moderator (whether you moderate this section of the board or not).

Now, I'm sure you'll try some clever come-back that asks me to do my research... But, as I've mentioned, I am a Calvinist in the camp of Mohler, et al. And, I don't merely know what someone else says about Mohler; I know the man himself. I have several first-hand sources on the issues raised. You have none. You only have what a second or third-party says about Mohler, et al.

In the end, it is you who need to get understanding--which you've never proved willing or able to do.

The Archangel

First-hand knowledge always trumps the stuff of silly websites. And DHK has "linked" to quoite a few absurd ones in his time here.

I look at his handle of DHK and see the word "moderator" attached. It seems so out-of-place.

 

[DHK]

First-hand knowledge always trumps the stuff of silly websites. And DHK has "linked" to quoite a few absurd ones in his time here.

I look at his handle of DHK and see the word "moderator" attached. It seems so out-of-place.

Here is what is out of place Rippon.
Let's set the record straight for Icon, who so generously said that you had a good memory. Why didn't you correct him, and tell him that it wasn't your memory, and you didn't "recall" by memory those posts. That is deceit by default.

Let me demonstrate.
You joined this board in December of 2005.
But you "quote" me from September of 2005 before you were ever a member. That is not memory at work. It is deliberate trolling. And to keep that information on hand for almost ten years is not the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, it is evidence of something else in your life.

Like others you can continue on in unbelief or you can inform yourself.
I will quote the same thing to you as I did to Archangel:

Try this one instead:
http://www.newcalvinist.com/who-are-...inists-part-1/
--If you don't learn anything from him, then you are deliberately blind to the truth.

 

[Rippon]

You joined this board in December of 2005.
But you "quote" me from September of 2005 before you were ever a member. It is deliberate trolling.

How in the world is it trolling? I had quoted you as saying :"I understand Calvinism maybe better than most."

So what if you said it three months before I joined the BB. What possible difference does that make?

And to keep that information on hand for almost ten years

I culled it in the last few days. I didn't keep it in a stash for a decade.

is not the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, it is evidence of something else in your life.

You sound like the banned Sat/Nep with that disgraceful line.

Like others you can continue on in unbelief or you can inform yourself.

Using the above phraselogy sounds suspiciously like you are regarding me as a non-Christian.

-- you are deliberately blind to the truth.

And that line too suggests that you want to put me in the unsaved category.

 

[Rippon]

http://www.newcalvinist.com/who-are-...inists-part-1/

It is instructive that half of that piece by E.S. Williams deals with Tim Keller. Apparently Williams thinks Keller is the driving force or center of New Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

1. New Calvinism, in and of itself, stands outside of historic Christian orthodoxy. There is a broad consensus of this among conservative evangelical leaders.

Your Arminianism stands outside of biblical theology.

2. Mohler is among the "founding fathers" of this movement,
3. Thus, this puts Mohler outside of historic Christian orthodoxy.

You still have not retracted that completely outrageous remark. And at no point did your links indicate any such thing.

 

[DHK]

Your Arminianism stands outside of biblical theology.

I am not an Arminian. :sleep:

You still have not retracted that completely outrageous remark. And at no point did your links indicate any such thing.

I am not going to retract remarks that are not outrageous and that are in fact, truth. Wake up!

For Dr Mohler to allow his radio program and the Southern Baptist Seminary to be used to promote hip-hop culture is difficult to understand. As President of a Theological Seminary, Dr Mohler is a mature Christian leader, and therefore should be able ‘to discern both good and evil’ (Hebrews 5.14). He knows the command of Scripture, ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil’ (1 Thessalonians 5.21-22). Surely with his deep knowledge of Scripture, and the gift of discernment that God gives to mature Christians, he must be able to recognise the wickedness of the hip hop scene. Surely he must be able to discern the worldly spirit of rap music. Surely he knows that friendship with the world is enmity with God.
Yet despite his vast knowledge of theology, and his prominent position as a leader of the Church, he has chosen to allow the Southern Theological Seminary to promote the Christian hip-hop movement. And by doing so he has made worldly music acceptable to thousands upon thousands of young theological students who are taking the perverted messages of rap music and hip-hop culture into churches around the USA. All this, dear reader, is difficult to understand. But Scripture, through the prophet Ezekiel, helps us to understand the appalling significance of a Baptist Theological Seminary that promotes hip-hop culture in the name of Christ.

http://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/

 

[DHK]

Using the above phraselogy sounds suspiciously like you are regarding me as a non-Christian.

How? You continue to remain in disbelief about New Calvinism and uninformed about New Calvinism, and perhaps deliberately so. I said nothing about your salvation. Don't take things out of context, or even infer it to be so.

And that line too suggests that you want to put me in the unsaved category.

Again, how so?
you are deliberately blind to the truth.
concerning New Calvinism!

 

[Rippon]

I am not going to retract remarks that are not outrageous and that are in fact, truth. Wake up!

http://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/

The author says that Dr. Mohler is "a mature Christian leader" with "a deep knowledge of Scripture."

You have not demonstrated in the least that Al Mohler "stands outside of historical Christian orthodoxy."

You love to wave your anathemas against brothers and sisters in the Lord. By doing so your Christian sanctification is evidencing a low ebb.

 

[DHK]

The author says that Dr. Mohler is "a mature Christian leader" with "a deep knowledge of Scripture."

You have not demonstrated in the least that Al Mohler "stands outside of historical Christian orthodoxy."

You love to wave your anathemas against brothers and sisters in the Lord. By doing so your Christian sanctification is evidencing a low ebb.

He is following in the steps of Driscoll (the cussing pastor)

But when it comes to conduct, Mohler is not always consistent with the Calvinistic theology that he proclaims. Herein is the dilemma—while teaching sound doctrine for the most part, Dr Mohler’s teaching on Christian conduct does not always match his doctrinal stance. Let us examine what the Albert Mohler Program has to say about hip-hop culture. But first, we need to remind ourselves of the nature of hip-hop culture.

[FONT=&quot]James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.[/FONT]

If doctrine is not complimented by lifestyle then no matter what your doctrine is, you are not orthodox. All the correct doctrine in the world cannot make up for a worldly and ungodly lifestyle.

The ungodly spirit of hip-hop culture is well documented and beyond dispute. Hip-hop has come to dominate youth culture in the USA, the UK and other parts of the world. It has generated a multi-billion dollar industry of music, clothes, jewellery, movies, and more. It is not difficult for a true believer to discern that hip-hop is a worldly culture guided by the spirit who works in the sons of disobedience. Hip-hop culture is a bastion of filth—promoting violence (Cop killer by Body Count), drugs, irresponsible sex, (Na Palm’s debut album ‘Late At Night’, we love sex, drugs and hip-hop), excessive materialism, and delinquent behaviour.[1] It appeals to the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and is grounded in rebellion and lawlessness. Almost all hip-hop, gangsta or not, is delivered with an aggressive, arrogant, confrontational cadence. Rap music mirrors the brutality of rap lyrics in its harshness and repetition; it is the music of the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5.6).
The idea that this wicked culture can be redeemed and brought into the Church, and turned into holy hip-hop, is wrong because the music style cannot be separated from its immoral associations. Hip-hip music invariably corrupts God’s people, for they have disobeyed his command to separate from evil. ‘And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them’ (Ephesians 5.11) Our Christian duty is to ‘abstain from every appearance of evil’ (1 Thessalonians 5.22). Therefore, as Christian believers we are not to be ‘unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? …Therefore, “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6.14-18).

http://www.newcalvinist.com/albert-mohler-and-hip-hop-culture/

 

[Rippon]

If doctrine is not complimented by lifestyle then no matter what your doctrine is, you are not orthodox. All the correct doctrine in the world cannot make up for a worldly and ungodly lifestyle.

So you are submitting to the court that Al Mohler is leading a worldly and ungodly lifestyle. You clearly are in need of mentorship.

 

[DHK]

So you are submitting to the court that Al Mohler is leading a worldly and ungodly lifestyle. You clearly are in need of mentorship.

Do you just respond to what I personally post, or do you even read what I have quoted?

 

[Rippon]

Do you just respond to what I personally post, or do you even read what I have quoted?

So is Al Mohler quilty of violating James 4:4 and guilty of leading a worlldly and ungodly lifestyle which makes him unorthodox?

 

[Rippon]

The OP

Someone has said that because a mod doesn't take a full-on Calvinistic stance that it offends some here.

Well that certainly is not the case. It doesn't offend Calvinists that non-Calvinistic views are expressed here. What is offensive is that a mod gets to use Galations 1:8,9 to condemn those with a Calvinistic view of the Scripture. (And 2 Cor. 11:4 by implication.)

If one reads Galatians 1:8,9 carefully they would conclude that someone has distorted the Gospel so radically that they are under the curse of God --eternally condemned. Do you non-Calvinistic folks think that we are preaching a false Gospel? Dr. Bob is one of the few (mainly the only mod/admin here these days. But Larry and Tom Vols, no longer participating, are full-fledged Calvinists. Are they under the ban of Gal.1:8,9? Was Whitefild, Spurgeon, D-M-L-J, James Boice? Is MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, James White and Mark Dever?

Seriously now. To place Calvinists under the eternal curse of God is a disgraceful thing to say. It's absolutely false and inflammatory too. Sincere repentance is needed from those who think they can wield that club with impunity.

It is downright dishonest to claim that that incredibly false charge does not break BB rules.

Approaching 100 posts on this thread now, I want to remind folks what this whole thread is about.

I want certain people to know that to wave their anethema batons at Christian brothers and sisters is certainly not a Christian thing to do. (As ironic as that may sound.)

 

[convicted1]

--If you don't learn anything from him, then you are deliberately blind to the truth.

Reported....not that it will do any good, but it's be reported.

 

[convicted1]

DHK, before bashing people, find a "New Calvinist" church and go and learn for yourself.

I am a Calvinist and I know very little, to any, of this "New Calvinist" movement. So I keep my trap shut.

 

[DHK]

Reported....not that it will do any good, but it's be reported.

What are you offended by?
If I gave you a tract on exposing the lies of the SDA and you didn't learn anything because you are lenient toward the SDA movement, then you would be looking at the tract deliberately with a degree of prejudicial blindness.
That is what is happening here.