Featured Calvinism and the SBC (a 2013 discussion between Hankings and Mohler)

I'm telling you that you come off as prideful.

 

I have a lot of disdain for people who prop themselves up as leaders, and they're leading a whole generation of young seminarians off the cliff into philosophical drivel

 

That is your judgment. Consider that you may be entirely wrong.

 

I'm witnessing it. Everywhere I turn, there is a steadier and steadier departure from scripture toward the philosophies of men

And have you already forgotten about the quote from Hankins to me? I didn't make that up. Copy and paste it into a search engine if you want to.

Mind you, all of my observations are within the context of the Southern Baptist Convention's debate over Calvinism versus traditionalism - which is the subject matter of this thread

 

Ironically you have refrained from using scripture to support your case...

 

You don't know what all I've said, and who all I've said it to

 

I caught this late. Reformed Theology is SCRIPTURE, anything else is philosophy of men. How often have we seen a debate, we give scriptures "Lord why have you hardened our hearts so we fear you not", or inversely "The Lord opened the heart of Lydia so she could understand what the Apostles said", we quote that and what is the response? PHILOSOPHY, "Oh my God isn't like that", "Well that means that.......".

What liberals need to do is STOP JUDGING GOD BY THEIR OWN, FALLEN SENSIBILITIES. Doesn't scripture say "Lean NOT unto your own understanding, but trust in the Lord", but that's exactly what liberals do, each debate I see, whether here, online, or the over decade I've been debating liberals, they ALWAYS fall into that, "So if that is true, that makes God the author of sin", how many times have we heard that, or "Then men are robots", how about that one?.

It's clear when they say those things they are leaning unto their own understanding, if God says all things that come to pass are ordained by His hand, then all things that come to pass are ordained by His hand! We do not have the right to insert stupid ideas of our own, "Oh, so then God is the author of rape", and other blasphemy out of their ignorant lips. Many of these people are guilty of the severest of blasphemy, and they have no fear of it!

God's ways are not our ways, and if He states that He's decreed all that has come to pass, and has also stated that He is so pure that He can't even look at sin, it's OUR JOB to figure out how they reconcile, not just interject some ridiculous statement. But these, anymore it's truly hard to call them Christians, I've just done this so long, but THEY DON'T, they don't study the Westminster or London Baptist Confession, they don't study the greats, so they remain in ignorance.

If any man has the Holy Spirit in their hearts, which is what we were made for, that is we have thirst, there is water, we have hunger, there is food, we have a empty heart, there is God, ONLY HE can satisfy us, if God put His Spirit in Hitler, Hitler would repent, what about "I WILL TAKE OUT THEIR HEARTS OF STONE AND PUT IN A HEART OF FLESH" is so hard to understand? How is that a robot? When our hearts are filled with LOVE, JOY, PEACE, a sense of home, no man can resist it, so of course we believe, of course we stay. If I had my way I'd have left the faith along time ago, if I could lose salvation I would have, but God has said of our covenant "I will put the FEAR OF ME IN THEIR HEARTS so they won't leave me", again any learning disabilities here?

Oh yeah one last trick they try, when you nail them, they'll come back and try to mischaracterize a point you made or change the subject, "You misspelled xyz", or "You sound judgmental", or "You can't say X", but NEVER can they out debate us, for they are debating God's word. Every scholarly debate online, I mean the best, Doctor so and so versus Doctor so and so, the liberal ALWAYS falls into philosophy.

Doesn't matter whether it's Systematic Theology or Biblical Theology, Liberal Arminians ALWAYS come up short, their only way to attack is what this guy is trying "well your philosophical", he can state that, BUT HE CAN'T DEBATE YOU ON SCRIPTURE. Don't let it bother you, it's just another diversion.

 

You're talking to me and I see no scripture being used. I see you judging others by a standard but not judging yourself by that same standard.

 

I didn't know you were making a philosophical case regarding soteriology. Sorry, I missed it. Can you refer me to the posts I've missed?

 

I'm saying you have no scripture to add to any of your posts. You are merely sharing a philosophical opinion and then complaining that others do the same.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I assumed that you already agreed that we should lean not on our own understanding, and that God laughs at the wisdom of men

I guess it's clear that you don't....?

 

James, are you going to share scripture or just share your opinion about others?
I notice you are desperately trying to get out of your own dilemma. You are acting exactly like the people you claim to despise. You provide no scripture.

 

I just did, sir.
But apparently you can't recognize it without an address?

You crack me up

 

How about a biblical case? John 6 et al. "No man is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him. All that the Father draws WILL COME, and I will raise him up on the last day". In John 6 and 10 you have TULIP, mans depravity, "why do you grumble amongst yourself, do you not know you are unable to come to me unless that Father draws you", so you have Total Depravity, which doesn't mean we are as deprived as we can be, we are not devils with the Spirit fully withdrawn, God upholds us, and in Him we all live, and move, and have our being. So the Jews were grumbling amongst themselves "How can this be the Christ, don't we know Him", so Jesus clears us the problem, He says "Why Grumble", "Do you not know you CANNOT COME TO ME" unless a certain condition happens, what is that condition?

Jesus says "Unless the Father who sent me DRAW HIM", this word draw is the same word used "They dragged her to the well", Dragged, Draw", either one works in English. So now we are at the point where no man can come to Christ, this is repeated throughout the NT, "The natural man is unable to please God", etc. So something happens, Scripture teaches of the ELECT, those, that before the world was made, the Trinity choose for GOD'S PURPOSE, not for anything in them Romans 9, but "For the praise of His Glory" Eph 1. Why am I saved? For the praise of God's glory, the cross was the penultimate reason Christ came, the ultimate reason is for "His Glory", just as everything else is "You lead me in paths of righteousness FOR YOUR NAME SAKE".

At this point someone says "Well God draws all", wrong, error, for the following sentence says "ALL that the Father Draw WILL COME", this excludes anyone not coming, and second shows particularity just as God has choose one nation over the rest in the OT, Jesus, in His High Priestly prayer the NIGHT He was betrayed prayed "Father I pray NOT for the world, but FOR THOSE YOU HAVE GAVE ME", and let us remember Jesus is God, His prayers always come true. God draws the elect, at different times according to His good pleasure and purpose.

Jesus says "Those that the Father draws WILL COME TO ME AND I WILL IN NO WISE CAST THEM OUT". This is pretty clear, and is Perseverance of the Saints, though I like the term "Preservation", for Perseverance makes it sound like it's us that perseveres, it's not, "He who started a good work in you will finish it on the day of Christ".

So as far as biblical soteriology is concerned, you can find TULIP, the response to the liberal "5 Remonstrants" in one chapter of one book alone. Obviously scripture is filled with it, but John 6 is a quick summary that no man can burrow under or jump over. It's clear that God is the One who saves, we are all dead in trespasses and sins, unable to please God, and God, for His glory, out of a race of rebels, One who has no need of us, One who is a enemy of man, shows His incredible love and mercy to all by sending His Son out of glory, in the form of sinful flesh, to first live a righteous life for the elect, and then to take their sins on His back. The result is that we who are saved have all of our sins taken away, they are "Hurled into the sea", as far as the east is from the west so far has He removed our transgressions", note HE REMOVED THEM, not us. Second Christs Righteous life, through the Holy Spirit is imputed to us. The Holy Spirit has no business being INSIDE OF MAN, the Israelite's, when looking upon Moses, couldn't bear the brightness of the holiness of God's glory, yet that glory now abides in each and every Christian. We even "see" the Lord, being changed from glory to glory.

If you have any questions, just ask.

 

Start a thread with it, and I perhaps will interact

 

What is going to happen is you are going to split the SBC over a secondary doctrine that is nothing more than fuel for egos. Look how simple Jesus made The Gospel. Look how complicated y'all try to make it. The most effective soul winners in SBC history either intentionally avoided these controversies or at worst stayed on the fringe of them.

 

It's not a secondary doctrine when so many will be in hell because they thought saying a prayer was their special incantation that they needed to do to be saved.

 

I have seen two good churches torn to pieces over the debate. Now they are four pretty near worthless churches.

 

I do not know anyone who believes saying a prayer or incantation will save them.
The only pure Armenians I know are Pentecostal and even they believe the prayer without "Lordship" is merely words.

 

I note that God is laughing at you for providing no biblical substance to the discussion. You are just a wolf in sheep's clothing.