Calvinistic trend in the SBC

[webdog]

Some folks are just anti-calvinists.

...and some folks are anti non calvinists. Point?

 

[webdog]

Are you speaking for yourself here or others? What missions programs are you involved in? How do you personally spread the Gospel? Seriously, i'm asking.

What part of ...
I personally would be more excited about baptists becoming more extroverted in sharing the Gospel than learning a new theological viewpoint.

would allude I'm speaking for anybody else?

Curious what my spreading the Gospel has to do with anything? Are you calling my out on that or something?

 

[Amy.G]

...and some folks are anti non calvinists. Point?

The point is your attitude toward Calvinists.

Just today you have accused me of twisting scripture, having a bad attitude, and you warned me to be careful or I'd be banned.

 

[webdog]

The point is your attitude toward Calvinists.

Just today you have accused me of twisting scripture, having a bad attitude, and you warned me to be careful or I'd be banned.

I'm not following. If anything, I would say your attitude towards me has been quite hostile on a personal level. I never took it to a personal level.

I do believe you twisted that Scripture. So? I do believe you have had a bad attitude toward me (not my exegesis or view). So? I never warned you about anything, either.

I'm sick of the "poor calvinist" martyr syndrome, that the "free willers" are nothing but hateful, and the calvinists support peace.

 

[Aaron]

Sheesh, and we still think that the SBC can be both Calvinist and Arminian. :BangHead:

 

[webdog]

Sheesh, and we still think that the SBC can be both Calvinist and Arminian. :BangHead:

Since I'm not arminian, I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[kmichael]

Sometimes I wonder if we're experiencing a modern day "scholasticism", in that there is so much emphasis on acknowledging a system of thought over anything else.

I sure hope so. No offense sir, but I find it rather offensive for folks to denegrate the learned (not including myself in this category, though I am seeking a divinity degree at present.) simply because they are not "ready to give an account" themselves. Systematic theology is NOT doctrine. It is a method of classifying doctrine. That is logical and efficient. Adam named animals, we can name doctrine (for the purpose of making the teachings easier.) You think the word Christology is too big a word? Theology determines doctrine and doctrine determines what people think. We MUST get it right in the seminaries or our churches will suffer. We live in an age when we know more about the Bible than ever before. Why? Because it is in every home and nearly every language, and folks like Strong and others have torn apart Scripture and put it back together for us to understand. Plus the Internet makes it all the more easy. Now, the Holy Spirit's part is still the same. But now days we just have more questions and need to seeks His guidance more and more.

 

[dan e.]

I sure hope so. No offense sir, but I find it rather offensive for folks to denegrate the learned (not including myself in this category, though I am seeking a divinity degree at present.) simply because they are not "ready to give an account" themselves. Systematic theology is NOT doctrine. It is a method of classifying doctrine. That is logical and efficient. Adam named animals, we can name doctrine (for the purpose of making the teachings easier.) You think the word Christology is too big a word? Theology determines doctrine and doctrine determines what people think. We MUST get it right in the seminaries or our churches will suffer. We live in an age when we know more about the Bible than ever before. Why? Because it is in every home and nearly every language, and folks like Strong and others have torn apart Scripture and put it back together for us to understand. Plus the Internet makes it all the more easy. Now, the Holy Spirit's part is still the same. But now days we just have more questions and need to seeks His guidance more and more.

Congrats on the divinity degree...although I find it odd you feel the need to bring it up :thumbs: (although that may reveal my point)

My point is that people rely so heavily on a systematic theology (their own personal classification) that they believe to be logical, when in fact, maybe all the things of God are not necessarily logical! So, someone who fails to acknowledge a certain logic is deemed heretical. That doesn't mean I think a systematic way can't be helpful....but taken too far too often.

We must get it right in the seminaries?!? Don't get me started. That is where much of the problem starts. Seminaries often produce egg-heads who haven't stepped out of a library in decades, and expect people to listen to them! THE CHURCHES are the responsibility for teaching/training. The seminaries are beneficial, but I think are expected to do what local churches ought to: train/disciple.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Congrats on the divinity degree...although I find it odd you feel the need to bring it up :thumbs: (although that may reveal my point)

My point is that people rely so heavily on a systematic theology (their own personal classification) that they believe to be logical, when in fact, maybe all the things of God are not necessarily logical! So, someone who fails to acknowledge a certain logic is deemed heretical. That doesn't mean I think a systematic way can't be helpful....but taken too far too often.

We must get it right in the seminaries?!? Don't get me started. That is where much of the problem starts. Seminaries often produce egg-heads who haven't stepped out of a library in decades, and expect people to listen to them! THE CHURCHES are the responsibility for teaching/training. The seminaries are beneficial, but I think are expected to do what local churches ought to: train/disciple.

What can a person say to this kind of "logic?" (shakes head)

 

[reformedbeliever]

Sheesh, and we still think that the SBC can be both Calvinist and Arminian. :BangHead:

Personally I don't think the burning bridges conference accomplished anything. The people who most needed it were not there.... and will not care a thing about listening to it.

 

[dan e.]

What can a person say to this kind of "logic?" (shakes head)

I am in no way saying that seminary/systematic theology is not helpful. Don't misunderstand me. Disagree with me....but don't misunderstand me.

 

[kmichael]

Congrats on the divinity degree...although I find it odd you feel the need to bring it up :thumbs: (although that may reveal my point)

No congrats are in order as I am still in school pouring over books and Scripture daily. (Something anyone can do; and my point for bringing it up was to imply my novice ability in matters such as these. I may not have a complete grasp on the logic of it all, but sir, I have the Holy Spirit in my heart who guides me day and night.

My point is that people rely so heavily on a systematic theology (their own personal classification) that they believe to be logical, when in fact, maybe all the things of God are not necessarily logical! So, someone who fails to acknowledge a certain logic is deemed heretical. That doesn't mean I think a systematic way can't be helpful....but taken too far too often.

All logic is of God, God does not operate outside of logic. Even though his will may seem illogical to you, it cannot be, by definition.

We must get it right in the seminaries?!? Don't get me started. That is where much of the problem starts. Seminaries often produce egg-heads who haven't stepped out of a library in decades, and expect people to listen to them! THE CHURCHES are the responsibility for teaching/training. The seminaries are beneficial, but I think are expected to do what local churches ought to: train/disciple.

I have no intention of getting you "started." In fact, I rather figure out how to get you "stopped." Seminaries determine the face of the church in America. We are slowly coming out of the liberal seminary phase. But the state of the church is a direct result of liberal seminaries from the 50's through the 80's. In the SBC, we are changing that. But the non-denom inational world still has Fuller, Mercer, Truitt, and a host of other liberal neo-orthodox seminaries spewing heresy that INDEED effects the churches. But worry not about the tares. Join a local church which has been shephered, cared for and weeded from the start.


k

 

[reformedbeliever]

I am in no way saying that seminary/systematic theology is not helpful. Don't misunderstand me. Disagree with me....but don't misunderstand me.

Oh, I don't misunderstand you. I've read just enough of your blog, that I don't think I misunderstand you at all.

 

[dan e.]

Seminaries determine the face of the church in America.

k

Yikes. I would say it is the individual lives of believers.

Now your reply: which is the direct result of the seminaries!

By the way, I kind of agree about your statements on logic. I just think there are things that are true that are outside of our logical capabilities. The simplest example is the Trinity. That is not logical, yet true.

 

[dan e.]

Oh, I don't misunderstand you. I've read just enough of your blog, that I don't think I misunderstand you at all.

Ouch. You realize my blog is just random thoughts, right? I'm not espousing anything anti-Christian....but plain and simple thoughts.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Ouch. You realize my blog is just random thoughts, right? I'm not espousing anything anti-Christian....but plain and simple thoughts.

And how else would someone understand a person without understanding their "plain and simple" thoughts?

 

[dan e.]

And how else would someone understand a person without understanding their "plain and simple" thoughts?

Well then, help me out a little. What's wrong?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Well then, help me out a little. What's wrong?

Are you sure you want someone who has had a little formal education in theology to explain to you what is wrong?

 

[kmichael]

[

quote=dan e.]Yikes. I would say it is the individual lives of believers.

You can certainly say that-----And you would be wrong.

Now your reply: which is the direct result of the seminaries!

No, my knowledge of logic and how it relates to the Christian worldview came from "Stormin'" Norman Geisler.

By the way, I kind of agree about your statements on logic. I just think there are things that are true that are outside of our logical capabilities. The simplest example is the Trinity. That is not logical, yet true.

[/quote]

Sure there are logical (true and valid) things outside of our comprehension, but that does not make them illogical. the trinity is perfectly logical, I may not understand it, but through Biblical anthropomorphisms I am able to understand the relationship each "Person" has to the other. To say that the trinity is true but not logical is to say that it is not valid.

This is a common tactic among liberals, if they cannot attack the truthfulness of the Bible, they attact its validity. A reduction in either one (in the minds of the public) can do great harm to the cause of Christ and the Word of God.

That said, we know that our God is greater that all the pesky morons strutting about scoffing and denegrating the name of our most Sovereign Savior and Lord.


"Man didn't invent logic, he only discovered it. God is the author of al logic." -N.G.

 

[dan e.]

Are you sure you want someone who has had a little formal education in theology to explain to you what is wrong?

Teach me, oh reformed one.

I'm being playful, but seriously...what's the problem.