Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am going to, once again, quote directly from this article. Read this and tell me if this man is telling people to hide their Calvinism. Keep in mind, I am quoting this directly from the article.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Teach your people that they are utterly depraved and dead in their sins without God.
Teach them that God chose the elect for salvation from the foundation of time out of his own mercy and desire, and that Christ died as a propitiation for his people.
Teach them that it is the Holy Spirit who effectively calls sinners to salvation.
Teach themthat no one who has been converted can ever, for any reason, lose his salvation, but that true believers will persevere until the end. [emphasis added by PappaBear]
Now keep in mind, those are his words about what a pastor should preach. That is strict straightforward unadulterated Calvinism. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, there is a contradiction there, but you seem to ignore it, easily. Missing the difference in words again, I see. I highlighted some words from that article for you in hopes that they will jump out to you. First, you contradict what he says by saying he said the pastor should "preach" while he is definitely indicating a teaching program. (You do know the difference, my Calvinist friend, don't you?)
Secondly, you still don't recognize the fact that what you have been answered, pointed out, and all but had your face rubbed into is the truth that the writer of this article is NOT advocating a pastor lose his Calvinism. What you have quoted above emphatically states that he should agressively indoctrinate it into this unsuspecting congregation. BUT!! (There is always a "but") He urges this conversion process be done without using terms which readily identify even to non-seminary trained, doctrinal novices that these teachings are "strict straightforward unadulterated Calvinism." I.E. Larry, he is a wolf hiding in a sheep's cloth. He is still a wolf and will still eat the sheep. The problem is not whether or not he is a Calvinist (wolf), the problem is that he is gaining entry to the sheep fold by use of disguise lest someone should get angry and oppose him vehemently. Remember this statement from the article?
From "Walking Without Slipping: Instructions for Local Church Reformation":
Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you. Teach your people the biblical truth of these doctrines without providing distracting labels for them.
Now, even in that statement even you should be able to see that the man is
NOT advocating that a person should refrain from teaching Calvinism. But he is most certainly advocating it should be hidden.
Let's take a "for example," shall we Larry? Someone comes to a church and is a member there for the required 2 years in faithful attendance. They never challenge the teachings or preachings. Someone (Pastor or SS Director) decides to ask them to teach a Junior-Hi boys SS class. They agree. A matter of weeks later, reports are coming to the pastor about this person's false doctrine. The pastor interviews the teacher and finds out that yes, he is teaching that you can be saved, then lost, then re-saved. In the interview process, the pastor asks, "If you disagreed so strongly with our doctrine here, then why didn't you tell us you didn't believe as we do?" The man answers, "since I didn't want to inflame you with theological labels such as 'eternal security' or 'OSAS' because you would not have allowed me the opportunity to reform what I see as the defective superstructure of teaching in your young people's lives ..." As a pastor, I'm going to bounce this man out of my office, and out of any kind of teaching position just as soon as possible. Wouldn't you? Are there not those "whose mouths must be stopped"?
In the Instruction Manual above, the man is not training teachers of Calvinism to go into churches where a pastor is over them to remove them as soon as their heresy is made known. He is training these men to go into churches in positions of authority for the purpose of "reforming" them from what he perceives as a poor foundation and doing "that awful task of tearing down some false superstructure that had been built without a doctrinal foundation, that had been built by cheap, shallow, man-centered evangelism. This rotting edifice must be torn down before a solid foundation can be laid."
Now, when you understand that this man is not using obvious labels by his own account, and that he is a Calvinist, and most Cals think that all non-Cals are "Arminians", to them the most despicable degradation of religion ever known whom they routinely accuse that they build their churches without a [Calvinist] doctrinal foundation, employing cheap, shallow, man-centered evangelistic method, then you can easily understand he is advocating clandestine infiltration into non-Cal churches deceptively. Translation? This man is "reforming" a church that is Non-Cal to one that is more to his taste and liking. He is using the "wolf principle." That of false teachers who enter in among these churches, not sparing the flock.
Our ministry printed a book on Church Planting once. The pastor who wrote this, in a section dealing with taking an existing church, advocated that the pastoral candidate make a very plain statement to the church covering what he believes and practices, and not to shy away from potentially thorny issues. The purpose in this was so that later, when opposition comes (as it almost always does), he could point back and truthfully say, "I am doing what I said I would do to begin with." The author of this Founders Movement article is arguing the very opposite of this. He is not looking to revitalize a dead/dying church, he is looking to take over Non-Cal churches and convert them.
That doesn’t make sense to me. What this author actually said was to avoid terms that are confusing or inflammatory.
So you agree that "Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc." are inflammatory words? Why then do you ever use them? You seem to use them quite often as a moderator on this board. Is it the policy of the Baptist Board to use inflammatory speech? No, I think not. The words are only inflammatory when someone who understands their meaning disagrees strongly with them. On the same basis, would you advise that pastors of the oppposing view candidate for Cal churches without mentioning inflammatory words like "universal redemption, Arminianism, apostasy, Holy Ghost baptism, etc."?? Why don't we just all hide what we believe until we get into the catbirds seat?
Are you not aware of the many NT scriptures that warn about false teachers coming into our churches? This article is training these Founders Movement pastors to do just that and their method should rightly be warned against. You, on the other hand, appear to be in total agreement, advocating that type of deception. Apparently you have little respect for the Baptist doctrines of the priesthood of the believer and congregational government, preferring a leader come in and promote division claiming that "some will leave, some will want to get rid of the preacher, and thank God, some will get right with God." What makes the Calvinist feel so superior that he feels he has to "reform" a church that may not even desire those changes to the point that some will be inflamed, some will actually leave, and some will be put in the unenviable position of having to oppose the pastor?
The “n’t” on the end of “was.” My statement was originally to read “I didn’t dispute that he wasn’t arguing against Calvinism.” I thought I fixed that. I apparently didn’t.
Did I perhaps use inflammatory words you didn't understand such as "Freudian Slip"? Do you know what a Freudian Slip is, Larry?
Repeatedly? How does “once” qualify for repeatedly?? I read through his posts again and see only two times he said that.
Okay, Math class. How many here understand that "once" does not equal "two times" then please raise your hand. Is your hand up Larry? I was afraid not.
If you had looked right below his post where he said that, you would have seen my response where I quoted him.
Yes, and if you look right below where you quote him, you will find where you reject his answer claiming to know what he believes. In fact, you have spent many words in follow-up posts to me insisting that your statement was a declaration that you knew for certain he was not a Calvinist. You will even repeat that contention in this post I am answering. Do you REALLY need someone to show you how that is a denial of his statement that he was not arguing Calvinism?
I did accept it. I already told you that. I responded to him about it. I did not continue to argue with him about it. In fact, I made one post to him and that was the end of it. Then you brought it up. I have focused my attention on the article, not on what he believes.
Hahahahaha!!! I can but laugh.
Why are my questions disingenuous, dishonest, and irresponsible?? And how do those terms fit this discussion?? It makes me laugh to read them because there is nothing here that fits that description. How are these comments irresponsible?? How are they dishonest??
Your repeated request for a man to read the article he has made a post about, posted a link to, and made several direct quotes from is dishonest in its claim that he has not read it, disingenuous because you already know he has read it, and irresponsible because you, as a moderator, will disclaim seeing any personal attack in it. For example ....
Believe it or not, there are people who see someone else cite a reference, and then just post that citation, along with the original reference without having read the whole document.
You illustrated it perfectly.
Which being translated is, I can’t support the charges I made against you. I will just beg off and tell you to find something that doesn’t exist yourself. What a total sham.
What was that list of principles again? You can translate for me now? I don't think so, Larry.
I have posted substance. I have quoted the article. I have shown the fallacies. Deal with those, not me.
Can we define "irresponsible"? Please tell me how the post I responded to adds any substance to this thread, or quotes the article, or truly shows any fallacies? Your only additional words were, "I think you have been pretty clear, both here and in other places. There is no doubt about what your views are."
It was a personal attack at Ignazio_er from your hand. No substance, just a high-handed "I know what you believe" attack. No dealing with the issues he has brought up, only a bogus denial of his statement.
This thread shows that while not arguing against Calvinism, he doesn’t like it. I have personal correspondence from him that verifies that fact. There are other threads on this board that verify that fact.
But please remember Larry. HIS CALVINISM OR NON-CALVINISM IS IRRELEVENT. Toss that joker out of your hand, it is not a legitimate playing card.
I want you to participate on real issues and get over your stupid vendetta against me. I am not your enemy.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Is it my personal "stupid vendetta"? Really, am I the only one who has pointed out your violation of your own stated rules and personal attacks against members of this board? What I would like is to see you focus on the issues without the other stuff.
Let me quote. I know this is a lengthy quote compilation from all my posts in this thread, but it is necessary to demonstrate that one again you are wrong. I have in fact dealt with this issue:
I don't have much time for this. I am going to take just a few to demonstrate your tap-dancing act, but not the whole. That is not because I am ignoring you or cannot do so. It is because I am busy, and recognize that for you it is an excercise in futility, anyway.
he says to be careful about using loaded words or confusing labels.
No, not confusing labels, but labels that will inflame those who understand them against you. He said, "Most people will not know what you are talking about.
Many that do will become inflamed against you."
So what we see is that this article recommends teaching this stuff to the congregation.
Yes we do, but not in such a way that those who are familiar with it will know it for what it is until it is too late.
My approach has always been to teach what the word says, without using labels. The later, when the label comes up, people realize that they have been taught what Scripture says, not what Calvin or anyone else says.
But are you not a Calvinist? Would your teaching of "what the word says" agree with the same type of verse-by-verse teaching of a Non-Cal? Or is your teaching heavily influenced by what you believe and have been taught, whether you are honest and label it as such or not? Could those who have been taught by you for a fair length of time and agree with you be properly labeled a "Calvinist" whether they understand that term or not? I suggest that you would not be jumping them with statements like, "but you don't understand Calvinism!", even though they may never have been acquainted with that term through your teaching.
To suggest that people not use certain terms is indeed good communication skills. The basic idea is use terms people know. If you use terms people don't know about, it can confuse them and accomplish nothing.
But what did the author say it can accomplish when there are people who DO UNDERSTAND the terms?
The doctrines are important, not the labels attached to them. If you use the labels fine, but it is not necessary, and it is not always wise.
Apply the same reasoning to the terms fundamentalist, Trinitarian, premillenialist, separatist, or creationist and your reasoning falls apart. Labels mean things, and appropriately used will communicate what one believes for others to either agree -- or disagree -- with. I want the poisons in my house to be clearly labelled as such. If they are not labelled "POISON", then I surely do not want them in my medicine cabinet packaged in a medicine bottle.
To disagree with and be opposed to Calvinism (or Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Arianism, Augustinianism, or any other such thing) is the right of the believer, and that congregation. The only reason I can think of that it would be unwise is if you are wanting to infiltrate without being identified, or if that label represented something you did not actually believe.
When it comes to Scripture, they need to know the truth of God's word. The names attached to it are unnecessary. We could talk about Amyraldianism, Donatism, Arianism, Monism, Dynamic monarchianism, modalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Augustinaism, and the list goes on and on. And in the end, the names mean nothing substantive. What we are interested in is "What does God teach in his word?" That is why using the names is not of great value. It may cause more problems because it can create confusion. It can create animosity.
I, for one, would prefer not to subject myself to the teachings of an Amyraldian (second-rate Calvinist) without knowing he was one until long after I had threaded the thorny issues of his teaching. The same goes for an Amillenialist or Preterist or Deist.
You want these words used because you think people can’t recognize the falseness of it without them. You, in your heart, realize that the case for Calvinism can be made from Scripture. And if Scripture is all that is used, people won’t know how dastardly this doctrine of God’s grace really is.
You know what is in my heart? If you truly did, then you would realize the fallaciousness of your statement just now. What is in my heart is that the collected doctrines known as Calvinism is rank heresy that twists the true gospel of Christ, preaches another Jesus not of the Bible, rends the scriptures, and promotes immorality, injustice, and hatred. It is dangerous because it is right doctrine taken to extremes; it is poison mixed with good drink. It is sinister, because most do not want to be identified and will labor hard as you have done here and many places throughout this board to deny when others point out the results of their heresy.
I, in my heart, realize that false teachers can be deceiving and by their "good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:18) It seems Paul also understood this. You do not.
But to spend all this time having to answer these inane accusations is crazy. It is just ridiculous. Why do I have to defend myself??
You really should spend some time asking yourself this question, Larry. Just remember, it is not just PappaBear who calls your attention to it. The Bible tells us that the just shall live by his faith. In other words, repentance, faith, contrition, and confession are not just one time acts. Pride is dangerous, especially in one who has authority and can wield that power without accountability, as you have boasted that you can do.
) You never met me, but presume to know what scares me. You create a caricature and pretend it's a person. Did your post-graduate seminary teach you to make ad-hominem attacks or is that an inborn talent?
