Is anyone else growing tired of the Calvinism/Arminianism discussions?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

“The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.” - George Bernard Shaw

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names [or attempt to silence him]." - Elbert Hubbard

"It is not necessary to hope in order to undertake, nor to succeed in order to persevere." Charles the Bold

 

[Skandelon]

"It is not necessary to hope in order to undertake, nor to succeed in order to persevere." Charles the Bold

"People who think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do." -- Anonymous
:laugh:

 

[humblethinker]

It has and it is...

I'm currently in the early stages of pursuing a new pastorate and the very first under-the-carpet question posed by a member-at-large is, "Please explain Calvinism and are you one? Would you preach Calvinism?" The assumption is that if I are one, I'm not qualified to be the pastor.

I don't know what kind of environment this question took place in but that question didn't seem to me to be under-the-cover at all. I would be very interested in what your answer would be to the 'member-at-large'. I have recently been through a 'church calling a pastor' situation only for me to discover just before we were about to join that he was 'Reformed'/Calvinist. IMO, clarity is vital but what good is clarity if there is no specificity? Would you answer his question with either in public or in private?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't know what kind of environment this question took place in but that question didn't seem to me to be under-the-cover at all. I would be very interested in what your answer would be to the 'member-at-large'. I have recently been through a 'church calling a pastor' situation only for me to discover just before we were about to join that he was 'Reformed'/Calvinist. IMO, clarity is vital but what good is clarity if there is no specificity? Would you answer his question with either in public or in private?

Well if I was in the evaluation committee, I would want to know the prospects views on election. Could you imagine not asking those questions?

 

[Skandelon]

Well if I was in the evaluation committee, I would want to know the prospects views on election. Could you imagine not asking those questions?

:thumbs: Totally agree!!!

 

[glfredrick]

When a church came to me about being or meeting them about becoming their pastor, after prayer, I would ask them their beliefs and doctrine. Then I would tell them my views and theology. If they differed from me, they weren't my enemy but I felt it would be wrong for me to come in with my views, which didn't match to their's. I don't want to cause a split in a church. If I felt called to that town or city I would plant a church which I've done.

I'll be praying for you that you will be lead to the church or work that God is leading you to.

The problem is that the church (or rather, her people) don't really even have a firm grasp on the terms they are asking about, but they've "heard stuff" out there and that is causing them to ask questions. Otherwise we would be a good fit.

 

[JesusFan]

The problem is that the church (or rather, her people) don't really even have a firm grasp on the terms they are asking about, but they've "heard stuff" out there and that is causing them to ask questions. Otherwise we would be a good fit.

Also think that at times we are either SO trying to prove our point, refuse to hear/learn from other side, and we also tend to NOT addressing the actual points others make to us, as we tend to hold to what WE thinks their theologies are, and not WHAT they actually are!

 

[Jkdbuck76]

This is why the leaders in the church (if not everyone else) should have
a good theological grounding and actually know the real issues.

I mean, nothing is worse than going to a pastoral or deacon ordination
and one of the examiners asks 15 questions about bake sales (I've seen it).
Sure, we all know bake sales are straight from the pits of hell ( ), but for
someone to keep asking about it is silly. I guess down here in my association, we got some real rubes. It was after this incident that we decided to have all questions of candidates written down and given by an interrogator.

The point: churches had better elect deacons and Sunday school teachers who are educated and given the gift of discernment to sniff out a heretic.

 

[glfredrick]

Also think that at times we are either SO trying to prove our point, refuse to hear/learn from other side, and we also tend to NOT addressing the actual points others make to us, as we tend to hold to what WE thinks their theologies are, and not WHAT they actually are!

I've noticed a distinct lack of ability for many people to express their theology in terms that are meaningful -- both here on the board and in our churches.

When I hear that "Calvinism" must also include paedo-baptism because John Calvin practiced such then I understand that the person I am debating doesn't understand Calvinism. Same goes when someone insinuates that the Baptist church has been around since John the Baptist. Those ideas are akin to someone talking to an auto enthusiast and saying that they have "a 3/4 race cam in their 'turbo-fire 350' motor." Camshafts are measured by duration, lift, and degrees of lobe separation, and you may have a 350 cubic inch engine (motors are electric) but the "turbo-fire" part is pure manufacturers marketing and means nothing as far as performance is concerned.

The "talk" of any given discipline, including theology is specific to that field of study, and those who have not taken the time to even understand that there is a specialized field of study probably haven't even cracked open the entry-level works on the subject and therefore are likely not well informed as to their actual theology (or the choices and interactions available).

People toss about the words as if they actually have a handle on what they mean, but like the misguided auto person above, it is plainly evident by the way words are used that there is no comprehension of what is actually being said or why.

 

[JesusFan]

I've noticed a distinct lack of ability for many people to express their theology in terms that are meaningful -- both here on the board and in our churches.

it does seem that many of us here are 'spoon fed" into buying what our own statement of beliefs in our denomination/church, and not to think it thru the scriptures, almost :blind faith" what we think Bible says at times, not what it actually says!

When I hear that "Calvinism" must also include paedo-baptism because John Calvin practiced such then I understand that the person I am debating doesn't understand Calvinism. Same goes when someone insinuates that the Baptist church has been around since John the Baptist. Those ideas are akin to someone talking to an auto enthusiast and saying that they have "a 3/4 race cam in their 'turbo-fire 350' motor." Camshafts are measured by duration, lift, and degrees of lobe separation, and you may have a 350 cubic inch engine (motors are electric) but the "turbo-fire" part is pure manufacturers marketing and means nothing as far as performance is concerned.

I cringe when I hear that Calvinism IS the Gospel, ONLY right way to approach the scriptures...

I also am amazed that that some of us cannot even read/learn from other scholars outside our 'camp"...

I am a dispy, believe in Gifts today, Cal, but also have in study books from those holding the opposite view points , as sometimes those authors have a better grasp of the texts than "my side!"



The "talk" of any given discipline, including theology is specific to that field of study, and those who have not taken the time to even understand that there is a specialized field of study probably haven't even cracked open the entry-level works on the subject and therefore are likely not well informed as to their actual theology (or the choices and interactions available).

People toss about the words as if they actually have a handle on what they mean, but like the misguided auto person above, it is plainly evident by the way words are used that there is no comprehension of what is actually being said or why.

2 biggest faults I see here when discussion about doctrines happen...
We tend to see it thru the lens of our authors/theologians, NOT thru Bible
Almost klike Calvin/luthor/etc filter the Bible not other way around!

Ignorant to what other side actually is stating, if its not "our camp" than by necessity, they cannot have ANYTHING worth wile to listen to /learn from !

 

[glfredrick]

2 biggest faults I see here when discussion about doctrines happen...
We tend to see it thru the lens of our authors/theologians, NOT thru Bible
Almost klike Calvin/luthor/etc filter the Bible not other way around!

Ignorant to what other side actually is stating, if its not "our camp" than by necessity, they cannot have ANYTHING worth wile to listen to /learn from !

In a sense, theology IS dealing with what others have said, for they are writing what they write based on some level of authority -- typically (but not always) the Bible. Interacting with the writings of other theologians is part and parcel of the entire process.

It is HOW we interact that makes it theology instead of fighting.

There is no sense in starting over from scratch to formulate a doctrine of the church directly from Scripture as you seem to suggest. That would take ages and likely cause flawed or false doctrines -- and we tend to see exactly that when we get away from orthodox theology and venture into some new understanding. But, that being said, we SHOULD interact with fellow theologians WITH the Scriptures using sound exegesis and proper hermeneutics. Anything less is something other than theology.

To properly lay out the theology or doctrine of any particular individual, one must first read that individual, grasp what they are saying, discover their methodology (for instance do they accept allegory as a valid means of scriptural discovery?), and then decide, based on our own research in the Word whether what they wrote is valid in part, valid on the whole, or not valid at all. Perhaps their starting point is askew, and all else after that is also off the mark. In cases like that the theologian is not worth pursuing. But, on the other hand, let's say that their methods are sound, their exegesis is correct (as far as it can be, especially counting resource material available for their perusal), and that their orthodoxy is also sound, but a disagreement is found in one or two tenets of their theology. Do we then need to toss out everything they wrote based on those one or two things? I would think not!

And, isn't that the issue with Calvin and Luther, for instance? Because they both had roots in the RCC, they are looked down upon by many who have never read, nor processed their actual works. Because they continued in the practice of paedo-baptism, many discount everything they did theologically. But that really is not a fair assessment of their actual body of work. And just for fair measure, let's toss in Wesley and Arminius, two of the more famous Arminian theologians. As I recall, both also supported paedo-baptism (the Methodist church still does, as do most Arminian non-Baptist churches), and both had other errors in their theology, such as loosing one's salvation, second blessings of the Holy Spirit, etc. Yet, they, like other brothers in the Lord have done good work, written good theology, and furthered the cause of Christ! We stand on their shoulders...

 

[JesusFan]

In a sense, theology IS dealing with what others have said, for they are writing what they write based on some level of authority -- typically (but not always) the Bible. Interacting with the writings of other theologians is part and parcel of the entire process.

It is HOW we interact that makes it theology instead of fighting.

There is no sense in starting over from scratch to formulate a doctrine of the church directly from Scripture as you seem to suggest. That would take ages and likely cause flawed or false doctrines -- and we tend to see exactly that when we get away from orthodox theology and venture into some new understanding. But, that being said, we SHOULD interact with fellow theologians WITH the Scriptures using sound exegesis and proper hermeneutics. Anything less is something other than theology.

To properly lay out the theology or doctrine of any particular individual, one must first read that individual, grasp what they are saying, discover their methodology (for instance do they accept allegory as a valid means of scriptural discovery?), and then decide, based on our own research in the Word whether what they wrote is valid in part, valid on the whole, or not valid at all. Perhaps their starting point is askew, and all else after that is also off the mark. In cases like that the theologian is not worth pursuing. But, on the other hand, let's say that their methods are sound, their exegesis is correct (as far as it can be, especially counting resource material available for their perusal), and that their orthodoxy is also sound, but a disagreement is found in one or two tenets of their theology. Do we then need to toss out everything they wrote based on those one or two things? I would think not!

And, isn't that the issue with Calvin and Luther, for instance? Because they both had roots in the RCC, they are looked down upon by many who have never read, nor processed their actual works. Because they continued in the practice of paedo-baptism, many discount everything they did theologically. But that really is not a fair assessment of their actual body of work. And just for fair measure, let's toss in Wesley and Arminius, two of the more famous Arminian theologians. As I recall, both also supported paedo-baptism (the Methodist church still does, as do most Arminian non-Baptist churches), and both had other errors in their theology, such as loosing one's salvation, second blessings of the Holy Spirit, etc. Yet, they, like other brothers in the Lord have done good work, written good theology, and furthered the cause of Christ! We stand on their shoulders...

Agreed...

we need to "filter" all that we read through the Bible, and use sound historical grammical guidelines to exegete it ...

can learn from all different persuasions within Christiandom...

have read/studied reformed from Covenant perspective, Dispy, Arminians/calvinist etc

Some areas agreement much in disagreement , but took as valid those "essentials" must agree on, and good to learn why all sides believe as they do on each issue...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

glfred states:

I cringe when I hear that Calvinism IS the Gospel, ONLY right way to approach the scriptures...

how bout if I rephrase it to read:

... the only defense against a doctrine of salvation that exalts humanity--and thus the only hope for evangelicalism--is a thoroughgoing Calvinism. Hows that?

 

[Benjamin]

glfred states:

I cringe when I hear that Calvinism IS the Gospel, ONLY right way to approach the scriptures...

how bout if I rephrase it to read:

... the only defense against a doctrine of salvation that exalts humanity--and thus the only hope for evangelicalism--is a thoroughgoing Calvinism. Hows that?

Luk 14:11
(11)For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


How's that? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[StefanM]

Agreed...

we need to "filter" all that we read through the Bible, and use sound historical grammical guidelines to exegete it ...

We must recognize that this is a hermeneutical assumption, however. I happen to agree with it, but grammatical-historical interpretation is a hermeneutical assumption nonetheless.

 

[Bob Alkire]

The problem is that the church (or rather, her people) don't really even have a firm grasp on the terms they are asking about, but they've "heard stuff" out there and that is causing them to ask questions. Otherwise we would be a good fit.

I can't say you are right or wrong, because I don't know.

But down here with in 200 miles there is right around 20 churches that have gone through splits due to new pastor and church don't have the same views. There is one about 15 miles from me that had the same problem and it cause a church split and it has taken them about 5 years to get over it and the split off has close up.

They came to me saying how they had been fooled. I felt they were wrong not to ask the correct questions to start with and the pastor was wrong to not give his views at the start. But I put most of the blame on the pulpit committee.

As I said, I'm sure God will lead you to the correct fit, the one He wants you in.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I can't say you are right or wrong, because I don't know.

But down here with in 200 miles there is right around 20 churches that have gone through splits due to new pastor and church don't have the same views. There is one about 15 miles from me that had the same problem and it cause a church split and it has taken them about 5 years to get over it and the split off has close up.

They came to me saying how they had been fooled. I felt they were wrong not to ask the correct questions to start with and the pastor was wrong to not give his views at the start. But I put most of the blame on the pulpit committee.

As I said, I'm sure God will lead you to the correct fit, the one He wants you in.

unless of course you have a thing for SB Churches, Id say your next move needs to be a Reformed Baptist Church....just think, no more crud about being a Calvinist. you can tell them to stick it in their hats. Then you can openly practice DoG without condemnation. I think you & Karen want to go home too. From what Im reading, Wisconsin has a void in Baptist Churches

 

[glfredrick]

glfred states:

I cringe when I hear that Calvinism IS the Gospel, ONLY right way to approach the scriptures...

how bout if I rephrase it to read:

... the only defense against a doctrine of salvation that exalts humanity--and thus the only hope for evangelicalism--is a thoroughgoing Calvinism. Hows that?

Not sure where you got that quote from, but I never said that...

 

[glfredrick]

unless of course you have a thing for SB Churches, Id say your next move needs to be a Reformed Baptist Church....just think, no more crud about being a Calvinist. you can tell them to stick it in their hats. Then you can openly practice DoG without condemnation. I think you & Karen want to go home too. From what Im reading, Wisconsin has a void in Baptist Churches

The problem in Wisconsin is funding a church start, AND the SBC in state trends Arminian, so those coming in with an avowed Reformed bent find no traction unless they can go totally independent, then after the fact, unite with a local association and the State Convention. They are very happy to add another paying member, but not so happy to sponsor one that goes askew of their preferred brand. Ask me how I know... :BangHead:

 

[glfredrick]

Agreed...

we need to "filter" all that we read through the Bible, and use sound historical grammical guidelines to exegete it ...

can learn from all different persuasions within Christiandom...

have read/studied reformed from Covenant perspective, Dispy, Arminians/calvinist etc

Some areas agreement much in disagreement , but took as valid those "essentials" must agree on, and good to learn why all sides believe as they do on each issue...

Here is an article from Trevin Wax on the subject:

http://trevinwax.com/2011/05/10/d-a...gn=Feed:+wordpress/trevinwax+(Kingdom+People)

Worth a read!

I also HIGHLY commend Gregg Allison's new book, "Historical Theology" to the members of this board.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310230136/?tag=baptis04-20