Is there really a Calvinistic resurgence?

[preacher4truth]

Also about this time or a little thereafter Gospel music rose to prominence and replaced the dominance of the great, deep theological and rich hymns that we tended to use in worship.

Southern Gospel spawned from that and MOST of it, imo, is so shallow it is hardly worth nodding at, much less singing in worship services. NOT ALL OF IT MIND YOU!!! But let's face it- Gaither music cannot hold a candle to Isaac Watts and Charles Wesley. NOT THAT ALL GAITHER MUSIC IS SHALLOW!!!

We seemed to embrace ignorance and hold in disdain scholarship about the turn of the 20th century. Calvinism and scholarship tend to rise and fall together.

Absolutely correct. I remember hearing at the church we belonged to during college people would say "I'd rather hear singing than sermons!" Their theology proved it.

People don't get mad at unscriptural lyrics in SGM, but they'll be surely mad at theological truth presented in a sermon.

You're going to make a few mad about Southern Gospel music, and I also agree about it. It is theologically incorrect, cheesy, puerile, and doesn't hit home to me, as a matter of fact I can't listen to it.

There may be one song, but I just don't listen to it at all anymore, that and it's association with KJVO, brings memories of issues as no pants for women (trousers) coulottes, and fighting over every issue one can think of, and scrapping over music style, everything is wrong except hymns and SGM because the preacher said so.

Shallow theology breeds shallow theories & traditions.

Back to real, solid, thought out Biblical theology, study, worship, LOVE of God's Word and His Name. This is what the church needs imo.

The "resurgence" of Calvinism/interest in DoG is lending itself toward the desire of a deeper understanding of Biblical truth.

- Peace to His

 

[JesusFan]

Absolutely correct. I remember hearing at the church we belonged to during college people would say "I'd rather hear singing than sermons!" Their theology proved it.

People don't get mad at unscriptural lyrics in SGM, but they'll be surely mad at theological truth presented in a sermon.

You're going to make a few mad about Southern Gospel music, and I also agree about it. It is theologically incorrect, cheesy, puerile, and doesn't hit home to me, as a matter of fact I can't listen to it.

There may be one song, but I just don't listen to it at all anymore, that and it's association with KJVO, brings memories of issues as no pants for women (trousers) coulottes, and fighting over every issue one can think of, and scrapping over music style, everything is wrong except hymns and SGM because the preacher said so.

Shallow theology breeds shallow theories & traditions.

Back to real, solid, thought out Biblical theology, study, worship, LOVE of God's Word and His Name. This is what the church needs imo.

The "resurgence" of Calvinism/interest in DoG is lending itself toward the desire of a deeper understanding of Biblical truth.

- Peace to His

I like the "classic Hymns" but also like Petra/Steven Curtis Chapman/point of grace/Elvis Gospel

Am A 'Music" heretic?
(smiling while typing!)

 

[quantumfaith]

I like the "classic Hymns" but also like Petra/Steven Curtis Chapman/point of grace/Elvis Gospel

Am A 'Music" heretic?
(smiling while typing!)

How about Mercyme, Chris Tomlin, Phil Wickam, 10th Avenue North, Sidewalk Prophets? Just some of my favorites.

 

[JesusFan]

How about Mercyme, Chris Tomlin, Phil Wickam, 10th Avenue North, Sidewalk Prophets? Just some of my favorites.

Not 'quite" Elvis, but ALL of the above will do too!

 

[Skandelon]

Wrong. Winman says that he has no need of ANY teachers at all because he has the Holy Ghost. Quantum supports Winman's assertion with as many thumbs up as baptistboard will allow in a single post.

First, I said "most if not all," I didn't say everyone. Second, to be "self-taught" with the help of the HS while reading and studying on one's own without a present living teacher isn't typically equated to "snuffing scholarship."

The character of God is what we are discussing and before you (anyone) go haphazardly saying things about it that you do not understand you'd better humble yourself and receive some teaching by God gifted teachers on these matters along WITH your own personal study.

You mean like saying things about God that bring reproach upon his Holiness, such as:

"Satan did it [evil] - but so did God." - Luke

"God is DOING these things [evil]. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right." -Luke

"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke

"God willed for evil" -Luke

"God does not just allow these [evil] things" -Luke

Yeah, I agree, people should be very careful when they are talking about our Holy and perfect God.

The haphazard handling of the most sacred thing in the universe, the character and name of God, is unspeakable blasphemy.

I couldn't agree more. :thumbs:

 

[Tom Butler]

So, did we finish off the OP? What was our verdict on a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC?

I sorta think you have to go church to church to find out for sure.

In my own congregation there is no perceivable resurgence.

 

[JesusFan]

So, did we finish off the OP? What was our verdict on a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC?

I sorta think you have to go church to church to find out for sure.

In my own congregation there is no perceivable resurgence.

Think we will see the 'fruit" of this IF Lord tarries in next generation, IF leadership gets placed into higher education reformed theology of Sotierlogy!

 

[preacher4truth]

First, I said "most if not all," I didn't say everyone. Second, to be "self-taught" with the help of the HS while reading and studying on one's own without a present living teacher isn't typically equated to "snuffing scholarship."

You mean like saying things about God that bring reproach upon his Holiness, such as:

"Satan did it [evil] - but so did God." - Luke

"God is DOING these things [evil]. But God is not evil in doing them because his motive is pure and right." -Luke

"God willed the most horrible sin of all time"- Luke

"God willed for evil" -Luke

"God does not just allow these [evil] things" -Luke

Yeah, I agree, people should be very careful when they are talking about our Holy and perfect God.

I couldn't agree more. :thumbs:

Wonder what the context of Luke2427's statements are?

None of the things God allows can taint His Person. He is Holy.

I believe Luke2427 has a Job-like belief and acceptance of the total Sovereignty of God, knowing that God allows evil and has willed or determinitively allowed it to happen.

Either that, or He is out of control of it all.

I agree with the former, and reject the latter as fallacy.

In total control.

- Peace and Grace

 

[Skandelon]

Wonder what the context of Luke2427's statements are?

They are in the archives for anyone to read. I encourage it in fact. You will see much more of the same.

None of the things God allows can taint His Person. He is Holy.

I agree, but Luke argues that God doesn't just allow evil, but that He "ordains/decrees/wills" it, but that it's not evil when He does it because His motive is pure.

You can look for yourself under the thread titled the Origin of Evil...there are several of them.

 

[preacher4truth]

They are in the archives for anyone to read. I encourage it in fact. You will see much more of the same.

I agree, but Luke argues that God doesn't just allow evil, but that He "ordains/decrees/wills" it, but that it's not evil when He does it because His motive is pure.

You can look for yourself under the thread titled the Origin of Evil...there are several of them.

I read them (in the past) and don't believe you followed context, perhaps this is where your confusion came from?

Do you know what decrees/ordains/wills mean? Look them up and fit them into a sentence of allowing God to do these things.

For instance "God allowed, by His determinitive choice (will) for wickedness and evil to accomplish His eternal purposes, for His Glory."

Don't you think even Job knew this? He even went as far as to say we receive evil at Gods hand, yet in saying this he never sinned with his lips.

I believe He does these things also. And in so doing it can never change Holy God, for He is immutable.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

I read them (in the past) and don't believe you followed context, perhaps this is where your confusion came from?

Do you know what decrees/ordains/wills mean?

Its really funny you ask that question, because if indeed you did read through those threads you will see that I asked Luke to define those very terms for this very reason. It was like pulling teeth to get him to provided any definitions and he never really followed up on distinguishing between God permissive will and his active will, but of course you know all this since you read those threads, right? :saint:

 

[preacher4truth]

Its really funny you ask that question, because if indeed you did read through those threads you will see that I asked Luke to define those very terms for this very reason. It was like pulling teeth to get him to provided any definitions and he never really followed up on distinguishing between God permissive will and his active will, but of course you know all this since you read those threads, right? :saint:

I've read what he's said and agree with it, whether he responded to you or not, as sometimes I skip what others say. So what does whether or not he answered you have to do with his context or defining theological terms for you? Nada.

Is that OK?

Where's the answer to the rest of my post, or are you having teeth extraction?

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

I've read what he's said and agree with it, whether he responded to you or not, as sometimes I skip what others say. So what does whether or not he answered you have to do with his context or defining theological terms for you? Nada.

I think you got confused. I was the one emphasizing the need for context and defining of terms when speaking of God's nature. It was Luke who was avoiding doing so for three threads. And it was I who, in agreement with your points, argued that God "allowed" evil for a purpose, while Luke argued, "He doesn't just allow it."

Where's the answer to the rest of my post, or are you having teeth extraction?

While it does feel like that in some of my discussions here, no I'm good. Specifically what point would you care for me to address?

 

[preacher4truth]

I think you got confused. I was the one emphasizing the need for context and defining of terms when speaking of God's nature. It was Luke who was avoiding doing so for three threads. And it was I who, in agreement with your points, argued that God "allowed" evil for a purpose, while Luke argued, "He doesn't just allow it."

While it does feel like that in some of my discussions here, no I'm good. Specifically what point would you care for me to address?

Then your thinking is askew.

Here's my post that you pulled only out of it what you could answer or wanted to argue about:

I read them (in the past) and don't believe you followed context, perhaps this is where your confusion came from?

Do you know what decrees/ordains/wills mean? Look them up and fit them into a sentence of allowing God to do these things.

For instance "God allowed, by His determinitive choice (will) for wickedness and evil to accomplish His eternal purposes, for His Glory."

Don't you think even Job knew this? He even went as far as to say we receive evil at Gods hand, yet in saying this he never sinned with his lips.

I believe He does these things also. And in so doing it can never change Holy God, for He is immutable.

- Peace

What problems do you have with the things in bold, and the rest? Job ascribed to God the same things, and didn't sin in doing so. Neither has Luke2427, something you have attempted to say that he has to some extent.

I'm asking you to answer this and do the same things in essence you asked Luke to answer, as directly in the above.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

Then your thinking is askew.

Here's my post that you pulled only out of it what you could answer or wanted to argue about: I read them (in the past) and don't believe you followed context, perhaps this is where your confusion came from?

Do you know what decrees/ordains/wills mean? Look them up and fit them into a sentence of allowing God to do these things.

And my point was this: If indeed you did read those threads regarding the Origin of Sin (there were three of them), you would have seen that I clearly defined those terms in order to combat Luke's inconsistent uses of the terms. You would also seen that I agree with your point regarding God's allowing of evil as the meaning of "decree/ordain." But I'm sure you knew that since you read them.

Neither has Luke2427, something you have attempted to say that he has to some extent.

Luke and I have sparred over the view of God's allowing of evil, as I pointed out before and as I'm sure you already saw when you read through those other posts. Do you believe God does more than allow/permit evil? Luke says, "Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it." And he also argues, "It [sin] must be PREDESTINED and PERMITTED by God."

Do you agree with him on these points?

 

[preacher4truth]

...You would also seen that I agree with your point regarding God's allowing of evil as the meaning of "decree/ordain." But I'm sure you knew that since you read them..."Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it." "It [sin] must be PREDESTINED and PERMITTED by God."

Do you agree with him on these points?

Yep. I read all of that. It would be folly for any of us to think we totally agree with every single thing someone says.

To answer? The latter, yes. The former (caused)? I am not certain what Luke2427 means by this, so terms need to be defined.

What's the difference between this:

"It [sin] must be PREDESTINED and PERMITTED by God."

?

and what I said:

For instance "God allowed, by His determinitive choice (will) for wickedness and evil to accomplish His eternal purposes, for His Glory."

to which you say you agree:

You would also seen that I agree with your point regarding God's allowing of evil as the meaning of "decree/ordain."

Now to this part:

"It [sin] must be PREDESTINED and PERMITTED by God."

Of course God has permitted sin. Are you saying He doesn't permit sin?

I also believe it is predestined; it's the same as determinitive will above, since "predestine" is to predetermine, so thus it was His determinitive will. Predestine is "to determine before and ordain." It also means "to limit in advance." showing to me God in full control of all aspects of this.

These words that we are using (determine/ordain/predestine) are basically redundant. I don't believe God had a plan B but only a plan A.

Did not God determine beforehand to permit sin? Of course He did.

Do you believe God is Omniscient or not?

(As to the point that He ultimately caused it, I am not certain what is meant here as this isn't really a biblical terminology to me And yes I saw him say this before and I am certain he can answer this himself.)

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

To answer? The latter, yes. The former (caused)? I am not certain what Luke2427 means by this, so terms need to be defined.

That was EXACTLY my point for about three threads, thank you!!! Maybe if you ask him he'll give a good working definition and explanation as to the distinction between God's active and his permissive will.

?

and what I said:

to which you say you agree:

I meant that I agreed with the idea that God permits or as you said, "allowed," evil, whereas Luke argues that God predestines/causes it...which carries a more "active" meaning, not merely a "permissive" meaning. Make sense?

Did not God determine beforehand to permit sin? Of course He did.

That is different than saying God determined the sin. Determining to permit sin is clearly different from God actually determining the actual act of sin, wouldn't you agree?

Do you believe God is Omniscient or not?

Sure I do, but I don't equate omniscience with the predetermination of all things. I believe God can foreknow something without being it's cause/determiner.

 

[preacher4truth]

That was EXACTLY my point for about three threads, thank you!!! Maybe if you ask him he'll give a good working definition and explanation as to the distinction between God's active and his permissive will.


I meant that I agreed with the idea that God permits or as you said, "allowed," evil, whereas Luke argues that God predestines/causes it...which carries a more "active" meaning, not merely a "permissive" meaning. Make sense?

That is different than saying God determined the sin. Determining to permit sin is clearly different from God actually determining the actual act of sin, wouldn't you agree?

Sure I do, but I don't equate omniscience with the predetermination of all things. I believe God can foreknow something without being it's cause/determiner.

OK. What is meant when we say "God determined" the sin? I am using a biblical term (willed) as He most definitely Has determined (willed) it to be so, or, we wouldn't live in this world as we do now.

You need to define "determined" here. An idea you reject and accept reject and accept.

I said this:

For instance "God allowed, by His determinitive choice (will) for wickedness and evil to accomplish His eternal purposes, for His Glory."

You're going in circles here. In one breath you say God permits it. Then you go on a tailspin over Him determining it. I believe God omniscient and that He predetermined all things. But I know my definition. He was certainly "active" (actively determining) in it all.

Predestined it? Yes, He did. Look at the word definition. You saying "predestines/causes" above is trying to make "predestine" the same as actually "causes" the sin in some sense. Those are two completely different terms and the "/" doesn't make them one in the same.

Also you completely skipped over the Job thing to my recollection, that he said the same things Luke and I are saying, yet in saying this he did not sin with his lips. That is Scriptural referencing proving the stance we take backed up Biblically. I however don't include "causes" as I am not certain what is meant by that statement.

That He predestined/determined it actively? Remember it means to predetermine, and also to limit. So He controlled it all from both ends of the spectrum, in allowing it, and in limitting its scope. I believe that 100%.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

You're going in circles here. In one breath you say God permits it. Then you go on a tailspin over Him determining it. I believe God omniscient and that He predetermined all things. But I know my definition. He was certainly "active" (actively determining) in it all.

Permit: to allow, to let happen, to not hinder or forbid.
Determine: to decide, cause, to make happen

I see permitting something as passive, while to determine is active, so there is no "tail spinning." I've consistently said that I believe God permissively allows evil for a purpose, but He is not actively causing or determining it to be. Understand my perspective now?

Predestined it? Yes, He did. Look at the word definition. You saying "predestines/causes" above is trying to make "predestine" the same as actually "causes" the sin in some sense. Those are two completely different terms and the "/" doesn't make them one in the same.

So, when you say God predestines someone to be a Christian you don't mean he causes them to be a Christian? Please expound? And are you saying that God actively predestines men to sin and men to be saved?

Also you completely skipped over the Job thing to my recollection, that he said the same things Luke and I are saying, yet in saying this he did not sin with his lips. That is Scriptural referencing proving the stance we take backed up Biblically. I however don't include "causes" as I am not certain what is meant by that statement.

And the reason you are not using the word "causes" is the same reason I'm making the distinction I make above and likewise wouldn't take issue with Job's words.

 

[preacher4truth]

Permit: to allow, to let happen, to not hinder or forbid.
Determine: to decide, cause, to make happen

Please use biblical terminology such as "will" which means to determine beforehand. This is what I have tried to do. Thus He did determine or will it, obviously.

I see permitting something as passive, while to determine is active, so there is no "tail spinning." I've consistently said that I believe God permissively allows evil for a purpose, but He is not actively causing or determining it to be. Understand my perspective now?

God made all things, but was passive? I don't think so. He actively allowed it all, He actively did it. Passively means He didn't participate in it when He did by permitting it (not saying He committed sin at all), and is to deny that ALL things come from Him which is totally Scriptural. So, not true. God, who is Sovereign cannot permissively allow and will and determine and be passive. It's like one waiting in the getaway car. They aren't passive. He has already, in time past, determined it, or willed it. So did the one in the car. In other words, nothing is happening now without the counsel of His Will.

So, when you say God predestines someone to be a Christian you don't mean he causes them to be a Christian? Please expound? And are you saying that God actively predestines men to sin and men to be saved?

Where did this pop in? I smell straw and see the word "cause", something I won't address, and something I've already told you is a different term than predestine. Yet you want to make them one in the same. Of course God has predestined (determined, willed it to be so) that man will sin and for them to be saved. Can you keep that separate from the word "cause?"

And the reason you are not using the word "causes" is the same reason I'm making the distinction I make above and likewise wouldn't take issue with Job's words.

The evil that Job received was at the hand of the Lord.

- Peace