It's not just the SBC we are after..muwhahahahaha

[John of Japan]

John, for the most part we agree. You said,"I believe we have lost our Christian culture in this country because of the failure of many churches to take a stand against evil. " I can't go against what you said, but from my view it has also been trying to proselyte from other churches than going with the Gospel to the lost and right next to it has been the KJO movement and right next would be the infighting between Christians and churches and with in churches. My son will not go into an IFB church due to the KJO movement and my daughter will go but not to one that is KJO are out of the so legalistic camp, due to all of the in fighting. And from my eyes you are correct, it is evil and pride and pride is evil.

But why 20 to 60 years ago, when someone witness to a lost person, they had the foundation that the Jews had when Peter preached at Pentecost? We as Christians and our churches aren't getting the Word out to the lost. All I can say is woe is me, it is easy to find fault, but am I doing my all in His power?

Well, Brother Bob, I hear what you are saying and I'm sure we mostly agree.

I will say this, though. The IFB movement is much, much larger than it was when I was in college. There are over 10,000 IFB churches nowadays by a consdervative estimate. (Our board alone has 6000 churches supporting our missionaries, and there are much bigger boards.) So some fragmentation and fussing among ourselves is completely to be espected--though of course not right. I'm always cautious about generalizing about IFB churches. There are many varieties, many different fellowships.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

When you say "reform," what exactly do you mean? How would you reform an IFB church, being merely the interim pastor?

Sorry, hadn't looked at this thread in many days. I simply set the church in order and taught the Scriptures. I do find you phrase "merely the interim pastor" a bit demeaning to the work those men do. There is nothing "mere" about serving as an elder, whether its for 3 months or 30 years.

This church had unbaptized persons, hadn't taken communion in 6 months, wasn't studying the Scriptures, et. I spent three months teaching on baptism, then baptizing unbaptized persons, teaching on communion, then taking the Lord's Table together regularly, and teaching through the Scriptures. I also taught the doctrines of grace, sought to reform their statement of faith (pretty pathetic), and tried to change the annoying music and a way overpaid musid leader.

Also, you can be disappointed to your hearts content. THis thread was meant to be a light-hearted thing...casual conversation if you will. But I have not found fundamental baptists easily light-hearted.

In case I was not clear, I am adding: I taught the doctrines of grace with the purpose of thrusting out the church the false teaching of modern arminianism and decisional regeneration. I also put an end to altar calls.

 

[John of Japan]

Sorry, hadn't looked at this thread in many days. I simply set the church in order and taught the Scriptures. I do find you phrase "merely the interim pastor" a bit demeaning to the work those men do. There is nothing "mere" about serving as an elder, whether its for 3 months or 30 years.

I did not mean it to be demeaning and I'm sorry you took it that way. What I meant is that it is temporary, as the very term "interim" means. Therefore an interim pastor ought to approach things quite differently than a permanent pastor. He is going to leave after awhile, so if he makes a mess he can walk away, but the poor church people can't.

This church had unbaptized persons, hadn't taken communion in 6 months, wasn't studying the Scriptures, et. I spent three months teaching on baptism, then baptizing unbaptized persons, teaching on communion, then taking the Lord's Table together regularly, and teaching through the Scriptures. I also taught the doctrines of grace, sought to reform their statement of faith (pretty pathetic), and tried to change the annoying music and a way overpaid musid leader.

Baptizing is good for an interim pastor to do, as is the Lord's supper. Teaching the Word of God is good.

Reforming their statement of faith? Trying to change their doctrine? Absolutely wrong for an interim pastor, who is not going to stick around to help them through the church split such an activity almost invariably causes.

Also, you can be disappointed to your hearts content. THis thread was meant to be a light-hearted thing...casual conversation if you will. But I have not found fundamental baptists easily light-hearted.

I find many things light hearted and funny. I love jokes and funny stories. But I don't find anything funny whatsoever about a crusading Calvinist threatening churches, even in jest. When are you crusading Calvinists going to start your own churches instead of trying to change other churches?

Tell me, what is the name of the Reformed Baptist mission board if it exists? Do you know any Reformed Baptist missionaries personally? Do you support any? If not, you are failing to obey the Great Commission. I have a dear friend who is a Calvinist who would never dream of following your practices. He supports us on the mission field quite substantially and has Japanese tracts sent over every year. I suggest you follow his lead and obey Christ's final command--which was not, "Thou shalt make Calvinists of all."

In case I was not clear, I am adding: I taught the doctrines of grace with the purpose of thrusting out the church the false teaching of modern arminianism and decisional regeneration. I also put an end to altar calls.

Too bad you put an end to altar calls, a good practice begun by Calvinists (not by Finney as Calvinist legend has it).

Recognize here that this is not an anti-Calvinist post. It is a post opposing crusading Calvinism--and there is a great difference.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I did not mean it to be demeaning and I'm sorry you took it that way. What I meant is that it is temporary, as the very term "interim" means. Therefore an interim pastor ought to approach things quite differently than a permanent pastor. He is going to leave after awhile, so if he makes a mess he can walk away, but the poor church people can't.

I don't have such a low view of "poor church people" and such a high view of the elder(s). To apologize for how I took something is silly John. Either apologize for your actions or just clarify what you meant. I take your clarification graciously brother.

Baptizing is good for an interim pastor to do, as is the Lord's supper. Teaching the Word of God is good.

I am not aware of separate duties for intereim elders or long-term elders.

Reforming their statement of faith? Trying to change their doctrine? Absolutely wrong for an interim pastor, who is not going to stick around to help them through the church split such an activity almost invariably causes.

Try not to assume I was going to do all those things at once. These were areas I highlighted with the other elders. I would have stuck with them as long as the Lord willed.

I find many things light hearted and funny. I love jokes and funny stories. But I don't find anything funny whatsoever about a crusading Calvinist threatening churches, even in jest. When are you crusading Calvinists going to start your own churches instead of trying to change other churches?

Crusading Calvinists. Now that is funny! Obviously you do not look too much into Reformed Baptists to see how they do. Most of the Calvinist reform is happening within the SBC. These are pastors who have come to a better understanding of the Scirptures, and the roots of their demonination and are working for reform. Imagine taking your reasoning back in the reformation period!

Tell me, what is the name of the Reformed Baptist mission board if it exists? Do you know any Reformed Baptist missionaries personally? Do you support any? If not, you are failing to obey the Great Commission. I have a dear friend who is a Calvinist who would never dream of following your practices. He supports us on the mission field quite substantially and has Japanese tracts sent over every year. I suggest you follow his lead and obey Christ's final command--which was not, "Thou shalt make Calvinists of all."

The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) is the one I am familiar with. http://65.71.233.194/arbca/ Our Church is prayerfully considering associating ourselves with them.

I see in you John, as I have seen in many missionaries/evangelists/IFBs an over-emphasis on the importance of evangelism and missions. The impression is that it is the highest and nearly only purpose for Christians. This cannot be biblically substantiated. But it sure makes for good newsletters and praise from men when you quote numbers.

I will consider answering your questions regarding my personal support of missions and evangelism. You provoke me to boasting that I may not wish to do.

Too bad you put an end to altar calls, a good practice begun by Calvinists (not by Finney as Calvinist legend has it).

Oh dear John! How wrong you are! The reformed/calvinist churches came out against it, quite ardently, because of that rascally ole' Finney who invented it.

Recognize here that this is not an anti-Calvinist post. It is a post opposing crusading Calvinism--and there is a great difference.

Oppose it all you want. I am not out to make men Calvinists, although you think that is my purpose. I taught the Scriptures, verse by verse using biblical language and biblical exegesis (to the best ability God gave me) and guess what...I was called a calvinist. hahahaha.

I am not about promoting Calvinism, but teaching the whole counsel of God in truth. But I am not ashamed to say I am a Calvinist. When a brother in that church asked me what I believed, I plainly told him. And I was bold about it in the pulpit and very straightforward.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't have such a low view of "poor church people" and such a high view of the elder(s). To apologize for how I took something is silly John. Either apologize for your actions or just clarify what you meant. I take your clarification graciously brother.

Apologize for my actions? What actions? And I asked you to apologize for nothing.

As a child I lived through an absolutely horrible church split when the church kicked out my pastor-father. It virtually destroyed my brother's life and affects our family to this day. I despise church splits. If you caused a church split by your efforts to change a church's doctrine in three short months as interim, I have no respect for you. If the church happily changed and is the better for your efforts, fine. Please tell me which happened. In my experience efforts such as your usually splits the church.

Crusading Calvinists. Now that is funny! Obviously you do not look too much into Reformed Baptists to see how they do. Most of the Calvinist reform is happening within the SBC. These are pastors who have come to a better understanding of the Scirptures, and the roots of their demonination and are working for reform. Imagine taking your reasoning back in the reformation period!

I've known reformed Baptists since you were a little child and I was a grown preacher. I'm still not impressed with most of them.

The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) is the one I am familiar with. http://65.71.233.194/arbca/ Our Church is prayerfully considering associating ourselves with them.

Excellent. I see they have several missionaries. I've wondered about this for a long time. There have been no Reformed Baptist missionaries in Japan for many years.

I see in you John, as I have seen in many missionaries/evangelists/IFBs an over-emphasis on the importance of evangelism and missions. The impression is that it is the highest and nearly only purpose for Christians. This cannot be biblically substantiated. But it sure makes for good newsletters and praise from men when you quote numbers.

I agree that there is an unhealthy tendency among many IFB's (and others) to emphasize numbers. I used to. However, I came to a place in my life where I saw that the chief end of man is to glorify God--thanks in large part to some wise words by our IFB mission director. So you will find nowhere in my newsletters any glorying in numbers.

Having said that, the last command of Christ was the Great Commission. No one can be a good Christian who ignores it.

Oh dear John! How wrong you are! The reformed/calvinist churches came out against it, quite ardently, because of that rascally ole' Finney who invented it.

H. Leon McBeth writes, "The Separates apparently helped popularize what is now known as the 'evangelistic invitation.'" He then quotes Rober I. Devin (A History of Grassy Creek Baptist Church, p. 69): "At the close of the sermon, the minister would come down from the pulpit and while singing a suitable hymn would go around among the brethren shaking hands. The hymn being sung, he would then extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves poor guilty sinners, and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation, to come forward and kneel near the stand." McBeth then writes, "The separates thus devised a method of encouraging on-the-spot religious decisions, to the singing of a hymn, well before the revivals of Charles G. Finney, who is often credited with inventing the invitation" (The Baptist Heritage, p. 231)

Oppose it all you want. I am not out to make men Calvinists, although you think that is my purpose. I taught the Scriptures, verse by verse using biblical language and biblical exegesis (to the best ability God gave me) and guess what...I was called a calvinist. hahahaha.

I am not about promoting Calvinism, but teaching the whole counsel of God in truth. But I am not ashamed to say I am a Calvinist. When a brother in that church asked me what I believed, I plainly told him. And I was bold about it in the pulpit and very straightforward.

You're not about promoting Calvinism? My observation says that is exactly what you are about on the BB. You have started thread after thread promoting specifically Calvinist doctrine!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Apologize for my actions? What actions? And I asked you to apologize for nothing.

You said you were sorry if I misunderstood something. Thats not an apology.

As a child I lived through an absolutely horrible church split when the church kicked out my pastor-father. It virtually destroyed my brother's life and affects our family to this day. I despise church splits. If you caused a church split by your efforts to change a church's doctrine in three short months as interim, I have no respect for you. If the church happily changed and is the better for your efforts, fine. Please tell me which happened. In my experience efforts such as your usually splits the church.

I guess you have no regard for Martin Luther. If you have no respect of the reformation I have no respect for you. THe church decided not to continue as a congregation. It was a VERY small IFB church, as many are small in number.

I've known reformed Baptists since you were a little child and I was a grown preacher. I'm still not impressed with most of them.

Since I was a little child and you were an all grown up preacher....*sigh* You have a keen habit of writing in a manner that gives the impression to demean others. Do you do this often? Am I to be regarded as less than you because I may be younger? When do I get to be all grown up since I am a mere 34 years old now. I am not impressed with a majority of the IFB pastors I met in the fellowship. But they are my brethren and I love them.

Excellent. I see they have several missionaries. I've wondered about this for a long time. There have been no Reformed Baptist missionaries in Japan for many years.

Who cares whether there are Reformed Baptist missionaries in Japan or not. Is the Gospel being preached there? Yes. Nuff said. Are you in Japan to build Independant Fundamental Baptist churches or the Kingdom of God? Surely you dont' think IFB chucrhes are the only true church. I would never expect that from you. But I entirely understand that you believe in the work you do, how you establish order and doctrine in the churches you have planted, et. And you should.

I agree that there is an unhealthy tendency among many IFB's (and others) to emphasize numbers. I used to. However, I came to a place in my life where I saw that the chief end of man is to glorify God--thanks in large part to some wise words by our IFB mission director. So you will find nowhere in my newsletters any glorying in numbers.

That's awesome. The chief end of man is indeed to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Your not getting reformed on me are you John? :laugh:

Having said that, the last command of Christ was the Great Commission. No one can be a good Christian who ignores it.

I agree that we are all called to bear witness to the truth and proclaim the exellencies of Him who called us out dakrness into His marvelous light. Yet not all are called to move to Japan, or China, or whereever to be missionaries.

H. Leon McBeth writes, "The Separates apparently helped popularize what is now known as the 'evangelistic invitation.'" He then quotes Rober I. Devin (A History of Grassy Creek Baptist Church, p. 69): "At the close of the sermon, the minister would come down from the pulpit and while singing a suitable hymn would go around among the brethren shaking hands. The hymn being sung, he would then extend an invitation to such persons as felt themselves poor guilty sinners, and were anxiously inquiring the way of salvation, to come forward and kneel near the stand." McBeth then writes, "The separates thus devised a method of encouraging on-the-spot religious decisions, to the singing of a hymn, well before the revivals of Charles G. Finney, who is often credited with inventing the invitation" (The Baptist Heritage, p. 231)

Well, we could start a histocial debate. But that may not be necessary. A public invitation was not practiced by Jesus or the apostles. While some things may be allowed that are not found in Scripture, this deals directly with the Gospel.

What you described is not an altar call. Altar calls as we know it today were invented in the 19th century by Finney.

You're not about promoting Calvinism? My observation says that is exactly what you are about on the BB. You have started thread after thread promoting specifically Calvinist doctrine!

[/QUOTE]

Wrong. I started thread after thread promoting biblical doctrine. You may not agree with my understanding of it, but I defy you to deny election, predestination, the atonement, God's calling of Christians, perseverance, the nature of man, et. are NOT biblical doctrines. They are, and you know they are. But we may differ in our understanding of them.

Does the bible teach election? So should we. Does the Bible teach predestination? So should we. et. et. et.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

"What you described is not an alter call".My dear brother you have just done what calvinists seem to have a great ability to do. You have taken what anybody else would see as an alter call and dismissed it out of hand .

Just as a note I have read"The Fundamentals " edited by R.A. Torrey, cover to cover.

I have seen so many times on this board calvinists giving the "only interpretation" of scripture".We have several calvinists on the board that are so dogmatic and aggressive they make you want to puke.I also find most calvinists have not read "The Institutes" by Calvin I have and I am no calvinist,I am also not an arminian. What I am is a Bible believing Christian first and foremost and a Baptist second.

As you are doing here as you discuss with others on this thread is taking yourself and calvinism as the final authority on all matters. You will not be taken seriously when you discuss things in this manner.

I am sorry that little IFB church disbanded but it does'nt speak highly of your work there. You did'nt seem to bring anybody together and it does'nt seem that you helped build up the body of Christ there.
I do sense though from reading your posts over time that you are a fundamentalist in belief. What we need to do in times like these is discover our commonalities and see what work we can do together from there.All of this bickering and fighting leads us no where. Men will know we are Christians because we show love for one another.raying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"What you described is not an alter call".My dear brother you have just done what calvinists seem to have a great ability to do. You have taken what anybody else would see as an alter call and dismissed it out of hand .

Just as a note I have read"The Fundamentals " edited by R.A. Torrey, cover to cover.

I have seen so many times on this board calvinists giving the "only interpretation" of scripture".We have several calvinists on the board that are so dogmatic and aggressive they make you want to puke.I also find most calvinists have not read "The Institutes" by Calvin I have and I am no calvinist,I am also not an arminian. What I am is a Bible believing Christian first and foremost and a Baptist second.

As you are doing here as you discuss with others on this thread is taking yourself and calvinism as the final authority on all matters. You will not be taken seriously when you discuss things in this manner.

I am sorry that little IFB church disbanded but it does'nt speak highly of your work there. You did'nt seem to bring anybody together and it does'nt seem that you helped build up the body of Christ there.
I do sense though from reading your posts over time that you are a fundamentalist in belief. What we need to do in times like these is discover our commonalities and see what work we can do together from there.All of this bickering and fighting leads us no where. Men will know we are Christians because we show love for one another.raying:

"Your reply is not even worth the effort of a rebut."

I've change my mind.

An altar call is giving an invitation for people to leave their seats and come to the front, raise their hand, sign a card, et. to make a decision for Jesus. Pertty simple...and unbiblical...and destructive to some degree.

1. Why should I read John Calvin's work just because his name has been attached to certain biblical doctrines?

2. Scripture is the the only final and sufficient authority for doctrine and practice. Sola Scriptura

3. Controversy is inevitable. However, keep in mind that the whole debate on the 5 areas of doctrine was started by Arminius. The churches simply responded to his five points, as they should have.

As for my work at the IFB church and your judgement of it, let the Day test it. I readily admit looking back there were things I could have done differently or better. I hope I learned from it.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

I would accept what that preacher did in his church as a form of an alter call.I am sure others would see it that way also.He went down into the crowd and grasped them by the hand and invited them down to the alter.
Please do not see my observation of your work at that IFB church as judgemental, it was just that, an observation. Anybody can be an armchair quarterback. So I apologize if I came across as judgemental and harsh.
I only mention reading the "Institutes" because most Calvinists I run into first have'nt read Him are are pretty far to the right of his teachings while crying out his name. At the same time I find that most who claim to be Arminian are really wesleyan which far to the left of Arminius and today many are far to the left of Wesley.When I finish my other reading projects I will read Arminius. From my understanding of him he was a 3 point Calvinist on the TULIP scale and agreed with Calvin on many other things.
I agree the Bible is the Word of God and The Rule of Faith.
Just for the record I do not put you into that group of dogmatic Calvinists. I find your approach to be kind and caring which I respect and admire.You generally stick to your guns but are tolerant of others. Anybody can deal with and respect those actions.Again we need to concentrate on our similarities and commonalities and love one another as we should.raying:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

A question probably for another thread:
I once heard a preacher remark, "The Calvin\Arminian v somthing else question comes down to are you looking to have a systmatic theology or a Biblical theology. The two overlap to a great extent. However, a Biblical theology allows for more unclear areas." I like to say trying to systematicly define all of the aspects of soteriology using human language is like trying to describe quantum physics using under grad calculus.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Yeah.:thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

You said you were sorry if I misunderstood something. Thats not an apology.

Well of course it's not an apology! I didn't mean it to be an apology. I've said nothing to apologize for.

I guess you have no regard for Martin Luther. If you have no respect of the reformation I have no respect for you. THe church decided not to continue as a congregation. It was a VERY small IFB church, as many are small in number.

So let me get this straight. In that little Baptist church there were priests selling indulgences, other priests being immoral, and a pope that wouldn't let the people read the Bible. Oh, yes, and they didn't know how to get saved, "justification by faith alone." So you decided it needed to be "reformed" in the Martin Luther way. Do I have that right? And then you "reformed" it out of existence.

Since I was a little child and you were an all grown up preacher....*sigh* You have a keen habit of writing in a manner that gives the impression to demean others. Do you do this often? Am I to be regarded as less than you because I may be younger? When do I get to be all grown up since I am a mere 34 years old now. I am not impressed with a majority of the IFB pastors I met in the fellowship. But they are my brethren and I love them.

I thought it was a good rejoinder to your supercilious assumption of my ignorance. Still think so.

That's awesome. The chief end of man is indeed to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Your not getting reformed on me are you John? :laugh:

Nope. Dispensational.

Wrong. I started thread after thread promoting biblical doctrine. You may not agree with my understanding of it, but I defy you to deny election, predestination, the atonement, God's calling of Christians, perseverance, the nature of man, et. are NOT biblical doctrines. They are, and you know they are. But we may differ in our understanding of them.

Does the bible teach election? So should we. Does the Bible teach predestination? So should we. et. et. et.

Hmm. Let me look at some of your threads:

"A conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian."
"Foreknowledge, foreknown, predestined."
"Meaning of kosmos."
"It's not just the SBC we are after...."

Nope. My opinion that you are a crusading Calvinist, starting thread after thread on Calvinism, has not changed.

 

[John of Japan]

A question probably for another thread:
I once heard a preacher remark, "The Calvin\Arminian v somthing else question comes down to are you looking to have a systmatic theology or a Biblical theology. The two overlap to a great extent. However, a Biblical theology allows for more unclear areas." I like to say trying to systematicly define all of the aspects of soteriology using human language is like trying to describe quantum physics using under grad calculus.

Exactly! Well said, Squire. :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[paidagogos]

Apology?

You said you were sorry if I misunderstood something. Thats not an apology.

An apology, according to the derivation of the word, is a defense of one's words or action, not an admission of wrongdoing or a request for forgiveness. To say that one is sorry that someone misunderstood is to say that he or she regrets the misunderstanding. It's not the same as the childish "Say you're sorry." It has nothing to do with throwing in the towel or giving up the argument. It appears that you misunderstood again.

BTW, methinks you are a bit too smug and condescending toward Brother John of Japan. Rational arguments are won on force of argument and logical reasoning, not casting darts at one's opponent. Personally, I don't think you advanced the case for Calvinism at all. Perhaps Calvinism would be better served if you kept silent.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well of course it's not an apology! I didn't mean it to be an apology. I've said nothing to apologize for.

As I thought.

So let me get this straight. In that little Baptist church there were priests selling indulgences, other priests being immoral, and a pope that wouldn't let the people read the Bible. Oh, yes, and they didn't know how to get saved, "justification by faith alone." So you decided it needed to be "reformed" in the Martin Luther way. Do I have that right? And then you "reformed" it out of existence.

Is that what you think the Reformation of Luther was solely about? Indulgences? I suppose Sola Fide had nothing to do with it...lol. If the church had unbaptized persons who were professed Christians and I worked by the grace of God to set that in order, is that not reform? Do you not seek to reform yourself under the word of God every day? semper reformanda

I thought it was a good rejoinder to your supercilious assumption of my ignorance. Still think so.

Fancy words make you feel smarter? geesh.

Nope. Dispensational.

Check the shorter catechism for the comment I made on the chief end of man.

Hmm. Let me look at some of your threads:

"A conversation between a Calvinist and an Arminian."
"Foreknowledge, foreknown, predestined."
"Meaning of kosmos."
"It's not just the SBC we are after...."

Did you read the threads? Do you think it false to exhort for good dialogue between Calvinists and Arminians? Is foreknowledge and predestination biblical doctrines? Is Kosmos a biblical term? Isn't this thread intended to be funny?

Nope. My opinion that you are a crusading Calvinist, starting thread after thread on Calvinism, has not changed.

Oh well. I will continue to write for, promote, and contend for the doctrines of God's grace.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

An apology, according to the derivation of the word, is a defense of one's words or action, not an admission of wrongdoing or a request for forgiveness. To say that one is sorry that someone misunderstood is to say that he or she regrets the misunderstanding. It's not the same as the childish "Say you're sorry." It has nothing to do with throwing in the towel or giving up the argument. It appears that you misunderstood again.

BTW, methinks you are a bit too smug and condescending toward Brother John of Japan. Rational arguments are won on force of argument and logical reasoning, not casting darts at one's opponent. Personally, I don't think you advanced the case for Calvinism at all. Perhaps Calvinism would be better served if you kept silent.

For someone to apologize for my reaction seems quite condecending to me. But John made himself clear. I accept that. I wasn't asking for an apology nor thinking he had thrown in the towel as you say.

As to your last exhortation, do you wish to see Calvinism better served? Do you think I am seeking to win arguments? I am not. I am seeking to bring glory to God by defending His truth as I understand it. I make no pretence that I have often done this poorly and with much frailty. I am not always the best communicator and sometimes I get frustrated by these things.

Perhaps you can share your wisdom in these matters rather than telling me to shut-up?

 

[John of Japan]

Is that what you think the Reformation of Luther was solely about? Indulgences? I suppose Sola Fide had nothing to do with it...lol. If the church had unbaptized persons who were professed Christians and I worked by the grace of God to set that in order, is that not reform? Do you not seek to reform yourself under the word of God every day? semper reformanda

You miss my point. My point was that I see no valid comparison between Luther's reformation and your attempt to change the doctrine of a little Baptist church into Calvinism. As for Sola Fide, did you actually read my whole post? As for personal "reform" according to the Word of God, I think it muddies the waters to compare that to Luther's version reformation. It's not a real sharp debate technique.

And of course we are certainly not Lutherans--though I dated one in high school. :smilewinkgrin: I'm almost as far from the Lutherans as I am from the Catholics. Ever tried to win a Wisconsin Lutheran to Christ? Luther only came out of the Catholic Church as far as he had to.

Check the shorter catechism for the comment I made on the chief end of man.

Sigh. Now you are condescending again. Where do you think I got my modified statement? But I'll refrain this time from showing off with big words in my objection to your condescension.

Did you read the threads? Do you think it false to exhort for good dialogue between Calvinists and Arminians? Is foreknowledge and predestination biblical doctrines? Is Kosmos a biblical term? Isn't this thread intended to be funny?

I read the kosmos thread because I'm a linguist. I didn't bother with the others. Sorry, but it is all old hat to me, warmed over coffee, lukewarm chicken soup. I'm just not interested. And if I were interested I certainly wouldn't look for more knowledge in this area from an Internet "debate" site. The level of discourse is pretty low. (Please don't take this as an insult. It is only a general statement.)

To be honest? I think these BB debates on C/A are a waste of time. Go back and read what Squire said that I agreed with. I'm always amazed at how far Internet theologians will go to prove they understand the Sovereign God and His eternal workings.

 

[John of Japan]

For someone to apologize for my reaction seems quite condecending to me.

It wasn't condescending. It was genuine regret.

 

[John of Japan]

An apology, according to the derivation of the word, is a defense of one's words or action, not an admission of wrongdoing or a request for forgiveness. To say that one is sorry that someone misunderstood is to say that he or she regrets the misunderstanding. It's not the same as the childish "Say you're sorry." It has nothing to do with throwing in the towel or giving up the argument. It appears that you misunderstood again.

BTW, methinks you are a bit too smug and condescending toward Brother John of Japan. Rational arguments are won on force of argument and logical reasoning, not casting darts at one's opponent. Personally, I don't think you advanced the case for Calvinism at all. Perhaps Calvinism would be better served if you kept silent.

Thanks, Paid.

I'll probably bow out of this thread. Debating ReformedBaptist is like trying to nail jello to the wall--to hark back to old Dr. Bob Jr.--and I'm sure you remember that one better than I. :saint:

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SNIP
To be honest? I think these BB debates on C/A are a waste of time. Go back and read what the Squire said that I agreed with. I'm always amazed at how far Internet theologians will go to prove they understand the Sovereign God and His eternal workings.

So, far he hasn't reacted to my comment.
RB, have you read Wayland's Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches? If not I highly recommend it. Remember in the late 19th century, there was a split between the Gillites and Fullerites. Most non-Free Will Baptists today follow the Fullerite tradition.
Further, I view pulpiteering that doesn't seek an action not to be preaching. It's many good and neccessary things but not preaching. Though, all preaching is not neccessarily evangleistic.