Must a Fundemental baptist be A calvinist?

[Winman]

continued

Barnes was a true scholar, and I agree with much of what he writes. His commentary sold more than any other in the 19th century, so he was no flash in the pan.

He was accused of heresy because he did not support Limited Atonement.

The fact is, real born-again Christians can read and study the scriptures and come to completely different conclusions than you.

You act as if hundreds of verses that contradict Calvinism is meaningless. Fact is, you ignore any scripture that disagrees with Calvinism, which is volumes. Real scholars, real students of the Word do not ignore scripture that disagrees with their presuppositions. But that is what you do. Take those blinders off and you will see Calvinism is error.

 

[Robert Snow]

Winman LITERALLY believes he has hundreds of verses that refute Calvinism. He is not being disingenuous. He REALLY believes that mess. He is that deluded...

Looks like another rock has hit another howling dog! :laugh:

 

[Van]

Van,

I agree, but I was responding to your misunderstanding that we were not scholarly. Please do not misrepresent my rebuttal of that specific objection to make it what I was not trying to make it. Your assertion was ridiculous and I called it such and gave evidence to the contrary.

Way back in the past I did say, and still believe, that Calvinist scholarship is sloppy. However, in this thread I did not say Calvinists were not "scholarly"
Here is what I did say, "Not to put too fine a point on it, but Calvinism is the most anti-intellectual theology on the block.

Scholarship does matter, but I would put it rightly dividing the word of Truth matters. Intellectual pretensions are the sum and substance of anti-intellectualism. For example, the argument from authority, a logical fallacy and therefore anti-intellectual, runs like this, "you should accept my view because I have gone to school and hold a degree in Theology or Greek studies, or Hebrew studies.

 

[Winman]

Looks like another rock has hit another howling dog! :laugh:

Yeah, instead of addressing these hundreds of verses, he attacks his opponents. He is no scholar, real scholars would not intentionally ignore scripture that contradicts one's presuppositions, a real scholar searches for the truth.

That is why I like Barnes. He argued that Romans 5 did not support Original Sin. He was an honest scholar. He argued against Limited Atonement and was called a heretic, as anyone who does not toe the line will be in Calvinism.

Luke is just a Reformed Catholic, he thinks the church fathers hold the key to knowledge, he fears any who disagree. Calvin was the same, disagree with him and you would land in prison or worse. These dictator types have actually turned millions into athiests.

 

[Van]

Reply to Ruis,

Again, these are ridiculous stereotypes. I spent about 5-6 years researching this issue, exploring the Biblical case for and against reformed theology. I can say that I disagree with people in the past, I do on many areas of theology. I, though, refute the fact that we are not scholarly as just a ridiculous statement.

I agree with those verses and believe they are great verses. Yet, the reason I don't argue it anymore is not because I am anti-intellectual (hey, I have three masters and am a professor), but because of the stereotypes that others have that makes it into a bash the Calvinist party instead of a real dialog.

LOL, you are stereotyping me, saying I am interested in bashing Calvinists, instead of bashing Calvinism.

You are simply justifying continuing to hold to the bogus views of the past, rather than taking a fresh look at the basis of your views.

Many years ago, when my mind was less feeble than today, I worked with very smart and well educated people. One fellow, lets call him Joe, went by either his first name, Joe, or his last name, Smith. One day I shouted to him, hey, Dr. Joe, hold up a minute. When I caught up to him, he smiled and said, "its just Joe, Van. The only time people call me doctor (he held double PhD's,) he said was when they are mad at me." So here was a guy, who held a math degree in something called Statistical Analysis, and another in Physics, called Nuclear Engineering, who didn't even want others to know how well credentialed he was - he just wanted them to objectively consider his work.

Present your understanding of a verse of scripture that supports Calvinism.

My statement is this, Calvinism is a fiction added to scripture with no actual support contextually considered.

 

[Ruiz]

LOL, you are stereotyping me, saying I am interested in bashing Calvinists, instead of bashing Calvinism.

You are simply justifying continuing to hold to the bogus views of the past, rather than taking a fresh look at the basis of your views.

Many years ago, when my mind was less feeble than today, I worked with very smart and well educated people. One fellow, lets call him Joe, went by either his first name, Joe, or his last name, Smith. One day I shouted to him, hey, Dr. Joe, hold up a minute. When I caught up to him, he smiled and said, "its just Joe, Van. The only time people call me doctor (he held double PhD's,) he said was when they are mad at me." So here was a guy, who held a math degree in something called Statistical Analysis, and another in Physics, called Nuclear Engineering, who didn't even want others to know how well credentialed he was - he just wanted them to objectively consider his work.

Present your understanding of a verse of scripture that supports Calvinism.

My statement is this, Calvinism is a fiction added to scripture with no actual support contextually considered.

You called us anti-intellectualism, which is an ad hominem attack, so my statement is true.

I would love to spend time with you discussion Calvinism. What I normally do today because of the stereotypes often given to us is volunteer to walk through a book on the issue. My favorite is Lorraine Boetner. I would love to lead an online book study on his book with discussion. This, I find, helps us eleviate all the stereotypes and read someone who is respected but also turns to the Scriptures as his source.

 

[Winman]

Just imagine what they said 2000 years ago. "That Jesus is a carpenter, he has no formal education. He speaks in simple language and uses stories to demonstrate what he thinks the scripture says. He pulls scripture out of context to argue against us!
And his followers are worse, these guys are fishermen or tax collectors, how dare they challenge our knowledge, authority, and tradition, these fellows are heretics!"

Some things never change.

 

[Van]

You called us anti-intellectualism, which is an ad hominem attack, so my statement is true.

I would love to spend time with you discussion Calvinism. What I normally do today because of the stereotypes often given to us is volunteer to walk through a book on the issue. My favorite is Lorraine Boetner. I would love to lead an online book study on his book with discussion. This, I find, helps us eleviate all the stereotypes and read someone who is respected but also turns to the Scriptures as his source.

Did I really call "us" (Calvinists) anti-intellectual? Nope, so yet another misrepresentation of my view. And those who misrepresent the views of others are using anti-intellectual arguments because they are fallacies.

Here is what I did say: "Calvinism is the most anti-intellectual theology on the block." And I did say Calvinists use "anti-intellectual arguments such as arguments from authority.

I do not own the book, but it is available on line. So please find the section of the book that deals with one of the verses, and post what the book says and you believe about the meaning of the verse.

 

[mandym]

You act as if hundreds of verses that contradict Calvinism is meaningless. Fact is, you ignore any scripture that disagrees with Calvinism,

Which is often done by saying " I look at the whole of scripture, not just a few singled out verses." Or something to that effect. Nothing more than a copout to avoid opposing scripture.

 

[JesusFan]

Did I really call "us" (Calvinists) anti-intellectual? Nope, so yet another misrepresentation of my view. And those who misrepresent the views of others are using anti-intellectual arguments because they are fallacies.

Here is what I did say: "Calvinism is the most anti-intellectual theology on the block." And I did say Calvinists use "anti-intellectual arguments such as arguments from authority.

I do not own the book, but it is available on line. So please find the section of the book that deals with one of the verses, and post what the book says and you believe about the meaning of the verse.

Calvinists though are some of the MOST scholarly students of theBible, so where is this so called "anti-intellectualism?"

 

[Winman]

Which is often done by saying " I look at the whole of scripture, not just a few singled out verses." Or something to that effect. Nothing more than a copout to avoid opposing scripture.

Or they will take Psa 51:5 out of context to "prove" Original Sin, ignoring that David had just said,

MY transgressions- vs. 1
MINE iniquities- vs. 2
MY transgressions- vs. 3
MY sin- vs. 3
have "I" sinned- vs. 4

David is pouring his heart out, confessing his personal sin, but according to Calvinism, David suddenly changes course in vs. 5 and blames Adam and not himself for his sin . Nope, not my fault, it was all Adam's fault, I was born a sinner and that's all I can do.

Yeah, that makes sense!

They should read vs. 6

Psa 51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

A real scholar wants to know truth and does not ignore or explain away scripture that contradicts their presuppositions. You have to have an honest heart.

 

[Van]

Calvinists though are some of the MOST scholerely students of theBible, so where is this so called "anti-intellectualism?"

This is a typical anti-intellectual argument used by one Calvinist. He asserts I used the term "anti-intellectualism" a term that appeared in a Ruis post, but seemed to be a typo. I responded using the term anti-intellectual. Now Jesusfan asks me to defend anti-intellectualism.

But will any Calvinist address the issue, Calvinism rests of logical fallacies and therefore is the most anti-intellectual theology on the block. Still waiting.

 

[Winman]

This is a typical anti-intellectual argument used by one Calvinist. He asserts I used the term "anti-intellectualism" a term that appeared in a Ruis post, but seemed to be a typo. I responded using the term anti-intellectual. Now Jesusfan asks me to defend anti-intellectualism.

But will any Calvinist address the issue, Calvinism rests of logical fallacies and therefore is the most anti-intellectual theology on the block. Still waiting.

Van, don't you know it is blasphemy to tell a Calvinist he is not an intellectual?

Why, if that is true they will leave the system, this is all Calvinism has going for it. It ain't no fun being a Calvinist if you can't pride yourself as being smarter than everyone else.

 

[Van]

Lets take a specific example. Boettner says Foreordination is explicitly stated in scripture, then lists many verses, one of which is Acts 13:48. But what does "Foreordination" refer to? The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination! And that doctrine states that before creation, God unconditionally chose foreseen individuals, for salvation. And so in support of this fiction, Boettner lists Acts 13:48. But at least in this early statement of doctrine, he provides no exposition of the verse to explain how it fits with the concept.

But the general idea is obvious -as many as were "ordained" or appointed to eternal life believed. Calvinists think that this refers to God preordaining before creation those that believed. But the verse does not say God ordained those that believed, that idea is added to the text by Calvinists. If you just read it you see in verse 46, some Jews rejected Paul's gospel, but in verse 48 others accepted it. It is clear, the sequence is first they were ordained or appointed, then they believed. This much must be gleamed from the grammar.

Next we have two issues (1) what is the meaning of the word translated ordained or appointed. If you look at how the word "tassio" is used, it refers to an appointment by mutual consent. The second issue (2) is what voice is the word in, passive or middle.
In the passive voice, the emphasis is on the person seting the requirements of the agreement, if in the middle voice, the emphasis in on the person or group agreeing with the requirements. But either way, it can be understood to say as many as [Paul] appointed to eternal life believe, or to say as many as were appointed [by acceptance]to eternal life believed.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Closing the thread

The thread was not started as a CvA thread. The OP asked "Must a Fundamental Baptist be a Calvinist?" The question has nothing to do with the CvA debate. It is an historical not a theological question.

Get back on topic or I'll close the thread.

 

[JesusFan]

The thread was not started as a CvA thread. The OP asked "Must a Fundamental Baptist be a Calvinist?" The question has nothing to do with the CvA debate. It is an historical not a theological question.

Get back on topic or I'll close the thread.

just curious, are Fundemental baptists almost exclusively IBF churches?

 

[Don]

just curious, are Fundemental baptists almost exclusively IBF churches?

No. I've come across churches that identify themselves as Southern Baptist, who refuse to join the Southern Baptist Convention, and are more independent and fundamental than a lot of IFB churches.

 

[seekingthetruth]

I would like to point out that my posts about the intellectualism of Calvinists are facetious.

My point is NOT that I believe Calvinists are intellectuals, it's that THEY believe they are intellectuals, and that only an intellectual/Bible scholar can understand the deep mysteries and meanings of the Bible, and that only they have the ability through "systematic theology" to put a whole bunch of unrelated/misrepresented/misinterpreted scriptures together, and come up with Reformed Theology.

No, I don't begrudge education, I wish I had more of it. But I refuse to accept an unbiblical doctrine just because a bunch of self-proclaimed intellectuals tell me I should.

Look at the posts above. Mostly pure arrogance and pride. All of the Calvinists keep refering to this book and that book, this author, ect. Their doctrine is based more on intellectual logic and reasoning than it is on the Bible. They honestly believe they have superior intelligence and therefore cannot be contradicted or corrected. And they will glady show you how intellectual they think they are.

No, my argument is not about being anti-intellectual, my argument is against people changing the meaning of the Bible using intellectuall, HUMAN logic, and then creating a false doctrine based on it.

John

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would like to point out that my posts about the intellectualism of Calvinists are facetious.

My point is NOT that I believe Calvinists are intellectuals, it's that THEY believe they are intellectuals, and that only an intellectual/Bible scholar can understand the deep mysteries and meanings of the Bible, and that only they have the ability through "systematic theology" to put a whole bunch of unrelated/misrepresented/misinterpreted scriptures together, and come up with Reformed Theology.

No, I don't begrudge education, I wish I had more of it. But I refuse to accept an unbiblical doctrine just because a bunch of self-proclaimed intellectuals tell me I should.

Look at the posts above. Mostly pure arrogance and pride. All of the Calvinists keep refering to this book and that book, this author, ect. Their doctrine is based more on intellectual logic and reasoning than it is on the Bible. They honestly believe they have superior intelligence and therefore cannot be contradicted or corrected. And they will glady show you how intellectual they think they are.

No, my argument is not about being anti-intellectual, my argument is against people changing the meaning of the Bible using intellectuall, HUMAN logic, and then creating a false doctrine based on it.

John

& your biased & your a wiseguy:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The dog hit by the rock howls the loudest! :laugh:

My dogs dont howl....but they would attack & rip up the cur that threw the rock....and he would deserve it.:tongue3: