Opinion, etc. is fine. I just prefer an irenic tone. If we are all believers, it should be achievable.Yes, I understood that. My point is, if we limit the discussion to content only, there would be nothing to discuss.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinists Should Be Calmest and Kindest
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
I don't think personal opinion has any place in such a discussion. I believe we should stick to what the scriptures say on the subject.
I taught my students a three-fold methodology for the systematic study of the bible.
Observation. Answer the question "What do I see?"
Interpretation. Answer the question "What does it mean?"
Application. Answer the question "How does it apply to me/the issue/ the doctrine?
Works fairly well.
[By the way. The above is not original with me. I heard it first from Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who passed away 3 years ago. Brilliant man.]
I taught my students a three-fold methodology for the systematic study of the bible.
Observation. Answer the question "What do I see?"
Interpretation. Answer the question "What does it mean?"
Application. Answer the question "How does it apply to me/the issue/ the doctrine?
Works fairly well.
[By the way. The above is not original with me. I heard it first from Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who passed away 3 years ago. Brilliant man.
]I don't think personal opinion has any place in such a discussion. I believe we should stick to what the scriptures say on the subject.
I taught my students a three-fold methodology for the systematic study of the bible.
Observation. Answer the question "What do I see?"
Interpretation. Answer the question "What does it mean?"
Application. Answer the question "How does it apply to me/the issue/ the doctrine?
Works fairly well.
[By the way. The above is not original with me. I heard it first from Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who passed away 3 years ago. Brilliant man.
Umm everybody teaches that. It has been taught for centuries. It is nothing new.
With all due respect (a great deal), TCassidy, I believe you're being a bit difficult.
Any matter of observation, interpretation, or application is a matter of opinion. We can try to be as objective as possible, but it's never a perfect process. Differences of opinion emerge because of this.
I was not suggesting that a person's completely ascriptural opinion would be valid, nor was I suggesting that any opinion should remain unchecked.
Any matter of observation, interpretation, or application is a matter of opinion. We can try to be as objective as possible, but it's never a perfect process. Differences of opinion emerge because of this.
I was not suggesting that a person's completely ascriptural opinion would be valid, nor was I suggesting that any opinion should remain unchecked.
It's my spiritual gift!
But still, words mean things. When we read the words (and I recommend a study knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew) we see what the words say. Then we have to understand what they mean. Meaning is conceptual. What the words may have meant to a 10th century BC soldier may be entirely different than what the words mean to an early 21st century Christian. What the words meant to a 1st century Jew may be entirely different from what they mean to an early 21st century Christian.
Case in point. Matthew 16:19 "I will give to you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven."
What did a 1st century Jew living in Jerusalem understand the "keys" to symbolize? When we come to understand that, then we come to the place where we can apply that understanding to our body of doctrine.
We need to model ourselves after the Apostle paul himself, who saw himself as just dimly seeing the truths of the scriptures, and he was the one who had the greatest revelations from God of all of them!
Here is the expanded outline from the class I took at DTS.
Three steps to personal Bible study:
I. Observation – What do I see?
1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. Why?
6. Wherefore? or So what?
II. Interpretation – What does it mean?
1. Content – observe the details of the passage
2. Context – know what comes before and after the passage
3. Comparison – compare to other passages
4. Culture – know the cultural context of the passage
5. Consultation – consult what others have said about the passage
III. Application – How does it work?
1. Know the truth
2. Relate the truth to life
3. Meditate on the truth
4. Practice the truth
Three steps to personal Bible study:
I. Observation – What do I see?
1. Who?
2. What?
3. Where?
4. When?
5. Why?
6. Wherefore? or So what?
II. Interpretation – What does it mean?
1. Content – observe the details of the passage
2. Context – know what comes before and after the passage
3. Comparison – compare to other passages
4. Culture – know the cultural context of the passage
5. Consultation – consult what others have said about the passage
III. Application – How does it work?
1. Know the truth
2. Relate the truth to life
3. Meditate on the truth
4. Practice the truth
I enjoyed hearing him occasionally on the radio....reminded me of Warren Weirsbe... read a book or two by him also as a young believer.I don't think personal opinion has any place in such a discussion. I believe we should stick to what the scriptures say on the subject.
I taught my students a three-fold methodology for the systematic study of the bible.
Observation. Answer the question "What do I see?"
Interpretation. Answer the question "What does it mean?"
Application. Answer the question "How does it apply to me/the issue/ the doctrine?
Works fairly well.
[By the way. The above is not original with me. I heard it first from Dr. Howard G. Hendricks, long time professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who passed away 3 years ago. Brilliant man.
Agree. Although I could never return to the free willer scheme of things I started out as a synergist as I think most do. I've known several free willers I consider to be more spiritual and devoted than I am, living the abundant life. I suppose I generally look at synergism on the whole as 'entry level' Christianity with monergism moving toward the deeper things of God.
Back in the old days in this area it wasn't uncommon for Baptists and Methodists to share the same buildings or attend each other's meeting.
That's basically the problem, lack of toleration.
I think 'new' (rookie?) monergists tend to go through a militant phase that can be offensive to others and ultimately counter productive to their well meant efforts to spread the truth. I know I did; I actually felt as if I'd been lied to or deceived my whole time growing up in the SB Church.
Lol.
IOW, Calvinists should have no love, zeal nor enthusiasm for God's house. And, let's not forget that the slightest sin and imperfection in the adherent nullifies his message.
When did you become a Democrat, Rev?
What seems to have escaped his notice is that D.A. Carson is a Calvinist!
I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love (in the third sense developed in the first chapter). Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect (in the fourth sense developed in the first chapter).
The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement by D. A. Carson, research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.
I guess from studying the NT I am a combo-product of Calvinism and Armenianism.
That some are God's elect (chosen ones) is obvious
... via Romans 9 and many others.
That true believers can choose to be unfaithful, i.e. habitual sinners, is obvious
... via multitudes of warnings in the NT.
That true believers can choose to be unfaithful and LOSE their salvation is obvious
... via several warnings in the NT.
I have spent years in the NT with NO biases or pre-conceived doctrines.
I.E. I approached the NT with a completely OPEN heart and mind.
I hope that's okay with everyone!
And we won't even talk about ...
being led by the Spirit vs. being led by false biases/doctrines.
That some are God's elect (chosen ones) is obvious
... via Romans 9 and many others.
That true believers can choose to be unfaithful, i.e. habitual sinners, is obvious
... via multitudes of warnings in the NT.
That true believers can choose to be unfaithful and LOSE their salvation is obvious
... via several warnings in the NT.
I have spent years in the NT with NO biases or pre-conceived doctrines.
I.E. I approached the NT with a completely OPEN heart and mind.
I hope that's okay with everyone!
And we won't even talk about ...
being led by the Spirit vs. being led by false biases/doctrines.
Last edited:
Luke 13:34-35 (NIV)
34 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[a]”
Why would God condemn some rejecting Him yet He is the one who never drew them?
Many are woefully oblivious to the logical absurdities of their high doctrinal towers
34 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’[a]”
Why would God condemn some rejecting Him yet He is the one who never drew them?
Many are woefully oblivious to the logical absurdities of their high doctrinal towers
Last edited:
It is only a logical absurdity according to your worldly logic. The Bible very clearly teaches that all men are called by God to repent and to trust in Christ (eg. Mark 1:15; Matthew 11:28). It also teaches that people will not come to Christ of their own will, not because God prevents them, but because of their wicked hearts (John 3:19; John 5:40), therefore nobody will come unless God, having loved them from eternity, irresistibly draws them (eg. Jeremiah 31:3; Matthew 11:25-27; John 6:44; Acts 13:48).
You can say that this is paradoxical, but it is what the Bible teaches. I have quoted John 6:37 several times on this forum, but I do so again for your benefit:
'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me........' God the Father has given the Son a people to redeem, and every single one of them will come to Him. '.......and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' There is the universal offer of the Gospel. The very worst of people- child molesters, ISIS members- if they will come to Christ, He will not turn them away. This teaching is repeated for your benefit just a verse or two later (John 6:39-40).
That is the Gospel. You can say with Lt. Spock, "Why Captain, that is illogical!" but 'The foolishness of God is wiser than men' (1 Corinthians 1:25). If you decide to reply, please do not do so with your fallen human logic, but deal with the many Bible texts I have given you.
They don't belong to Him.
41 Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God. Jn 8
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father`s name, these bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. Jn 10
- Status