Calvinistic Percentage

[swaimj]

What percentage of the top 10 threads on the theology section are debates about calvinism?

As I post this, excluding sticky threads and this thread, 7 out of 10 are about calvnism?

Is this necessary?

Is this enlightening?

Is this edifying?

I think not. Let's see if we can change the subject around here.

 

[Allan]

What percentage of the top 10 threads on the theology section are debates about calvinism?

As I post this, excluding sticky threads and this thread, 7 out of 10 are about calvnism?

Is this necessary?

Is this enlightening?

Is this edifying?

I think not. Let's see if we can change the subject around here.

I agree, however you and I both know that the change is coming. As soon as some newer or older members come on/back we will have 7 out of 10 threads on Arminianism or Semi-Pelagainism. Either than or Covenant vs Dispensationalism .. AGAIN..and again.. and again

Oh well, welcome to the new BB, where Calvinistic and Non-Cal threads flow like the morning and evening tides.

It is one thing to have them crop up, it is another when it is the intent of the threads being started.

 

[annsni]

I think it's high time we get into a really good deep discussion....


on chairs vs. pews.

Which is Biblical? Which better serves Christ and the church? What should they be made of??

I think that can last us a while.

 

[Rippon]

I agree, however you and I both know that the change is coming. As soon as some newer or older members come on/back we will have 7 out of 10 threads on Arminianism or Semi-Pelagainism. Either than [sic]or Covenant vs Dispensationalism .. AGAIN..and again.. and again.

I'm glad to see that you have come to recognize that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are in the same category.

 

[canadyjd]

These issues remain unresolved for many people because they refuse to accept another Christian can actually disagree with them about election or God's soveriegnty or the extent of the atonement or so on.

Therefore, we continue to regurgiate the same old arguments, pointing to the scriptures we believe support our views and ignoring the "other side's" scripture.

It is shameful that we cannot "work out" our faith in fear and trembling. Rather, we question our brother's salvation. We ridicule our sister's well-reasoned argument. We don't debate, we attack.

We attempt to destroy another Christian's character by labling his/her position as "racist" or "prideful" or anti-biblical (when both sides have their own scriptures in support) or anti-Christian.

I hope I don't become the "fool" that "desires nothing more than to make his own mind known".

peace to youraying:

 

[Allan]

I'm glad to see that you have come to recognize that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are in the same category.

Yes, just as Calvinism belongs in the same catagory as Hyper-Calvinism and Fatelism.

 

[Skandelon]

I am probably the one to blame for this. Admittedly, I have stirred the pot on this point.

It is ironic though that it is you, SwaimJ, that brings this up. After all, you were one of the people who caused me to question my Calvinistic beliefs years ago when I first came to this site.

I do realize that all these posts seem to be related to the Cal/Arm debate, but really they are about Soteriology. The doctrine of our salvation. Are their many more important aspects of doctrine than this? Besides "our faith expressing itself through love," I can't think of many.

 

[Robert Snow]

I find these discussions interesting, although perhaps there are too many of them.

I am alarmed by them as well. This reformed attack on the baptist church has done much damage. I can remember when this was not the case. Most baptist churches were not reformed. Oh, how I miss those days. I would never attend a reformed baptist church and hopefully this trend will pass.

 

[Tom Butler]

I do realize that all these posts seem to be related to the Cal/Arm debate, but really they are about Soteriology. The doctrine of our salvation. Are their many more important aspects of doctrine than this? Besides "our faith expressing itself through love," I can't think of many.

Seems to me that we all, whether Calviinist or not, agree on soteriology.

Don't we all agree that:

We are all sinners deserving of eternal separation from God?
That salvation is totally a work of grace from God?
That it pleases God to save through the "foolishness of preaching?
That the work of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin and to illuminate our minds to the truth of the gospel?
That salvation comes through repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?
That we must confess with our mouth and believe that Christ rose from the dead?
That our salvation is not the result of any works which we do?
That when one trusts Christ for salvation, it is an act of the will?

Do we not all believe that God is sovereign?

If these are points of agreement, can't we disagree about the question of God's choosing without the slash-and-burn warfare? Can't we avoid such hot-button terms as "racist," "disingeneous," and "heresy?"

 

[Steven2006]

IMO, the site would be better served if it went back to having a separate section for the calvinism debate.

 

[kyredneck]

IMO, the site would be better served if it went back to having a separate section for the calvinism debate.

.......along with 'Monergists Only' and 'Synergists Only' forums..... (as long as we're making 'wishes' known)

 

[asterisktom]

This reformed attack on the baptist church has done much damage. I can remember when this was not the case. Most baptist churches were not reformed. Oh, how I miss those days. I would never attend a reformed baptist church and hopefully this trend will pass.

Ah, another Baptist who does know his own history.

 

[AresMan]

I find these discussions interesting, although perhaps there are too many of them.

I am alarmed by them as well. This reformed attack on the baptist church has done much damage. I can remember when this was not the case. Most baptist churches were not reformed. Oh, how I miss those days. I would never attend a reformed baptist church and hopefully this trend will pass.

Before that most Baptist/Congregationalist churches were Reformed.

 

[Tom Butler]

Before that most Baptist/Congregationalist churches were Reformed.

Nearly every founder of the Southern Baptist Convention--if not every one--was a Calvinist.

 

[kyredneck]

Nearly every founder of the Southern Baptist Convention--if not every one--was a Calvinist.

Many who are members of the older SB churches would be shocked at the Calvinistic tone of their original church constitutions. I know that from experience. Many SB churches have left their roots, as have other Baptists.

 

[webdog]

Nearly every founder of the Southern Baptist Convention--if not every one--was a Calvinist.

The fact this is no longer the case amongst the SBC currently is telling.

In regards to the OP I say "so"? I don't care how many threads are started by either camp. If I don't want to read it, I won't...but I will not take the liberal's approach to try to have them all banned just because I do not like them.

 

[Robert Snow]

Ah, another Baptist who does know his own history.

Not true! I know my history. I was saved in 1969 at Grace Memorial Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. I attended Tennessee Temple University for a couple of years in the early 1980s...

Now, I may not be as well verses in baptist history as you are, but I know that there are many baptist churches that reject Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

The fact this is no longer the case amongst the SBC currently is telling.

Yes, they've departed from their roots.

 

[Rippon]

Not true! I know my history. I was saved in 1969 at Grace Memorial Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. I attended Tennessee Temple University for a couple of years in the early 1980s...

Your "history" is rather modern.

Now, I may not be as well verses [sic]in baptist [sic]history as you are, but I know that there are many baptist [sic]churches that reject Calvinism.

Again, you're speaking of contemporary times. You need to go back a lot more in the past.

 

[Jerome]

Oh no, each and every of the hundreds of delegates to the first Southern Baptist Convention in 1845 was a "Founders Ministries" kind of Baptist, yes they were. No doubt about that:laugh:

Now here's something you won't find on the "Founders" website:

From (first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) Rev. James B. Taylor's Virginia Baptist Ministers (1859), s.v. "David Jessee":

In the early part of his ministry he advocated the high-toned Calvinistic view of that subject; but in the latter years of his life he supported the view now generally adopted by the Baptists, viz., that the atonement is general in its nature.