Reformed and Southern Baptists

[Iconoclast]

Well....Arminianism never entails "faith + works"....never.
Your post means well, and there are certainly S.B.C's who are not Calvinist who also deny the label "Arminian"....but usually that's only because they believe in "Eternal Security"...something which, strictly speaking, Arminians don't "deny" (but are at least open to)....

Most of those who insist on the meaningless and awkward term "non-Cal", REALLY ARE "Arminians"...they just don't like to own it, or are confused as to it's meaning.

Arminianism, however, never believes in "faith + works"....never.

Even those Arminians who do believe that one can "lose" their salvation, usually believe that that is due to a choice to "forfeit" and willingly...not because they sinned too much or weren't "good" enough.

Personally...I loathe the meaningless moniker "non-Cal". It means essentially nothing. Buddhists are "non-Cals"...and so are Muslims. "Non-Cal" is, to me, an essentially cowardly term devised to simply insulate oneself from EVER being nailed down on any point of Theology. WE SHOULD have points we can be "NAILED DOWN" on though. I claim "Arminianism"...only the caveat that I don't accept "Original Guilt".. Outside of that, I'm "Arminian" though.

:thumbs::wavey::thumbs:an honest post.

 

[Iconoclast]

As a P.S. to my previous post. I have absolutely no problem being called a Calvinist. Why? Because I am not ashamed of what I believe. Even if I am not a paedobaptist I do not feel threatened by the label. Everyone knows what the labels mean when debating election and predestination. I think most people that have an aversion to these labels are afraid to be pinned down. They want to retain a Jello theology; the ability to shuck and jive when their arguments break down.

yes of course this is the bottom line 95% of the time:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Inspector Javert

[

B]So, your particular Soteriology is so VERY sophisticated and complex and utterly unique that probablistically NNE has ever heard of it before???

Is that what you think? Is your particular Soteriology so VERY sophisticated and complex that NNE within the last 500-years or so has possibly nailed down the thought process well enough for you to take a moniker? Oh, ok...[/B]

Yes....no one can even conceive of these secret ideas.They are so secret that we never see them posted. In fact anyone who posts any other idea than these unique perspectives....is arrogant and rude. Why do you fail to grasp this IJ????:laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

Inspector Javert

[

Yes....no one can even conceive of these secret ideas.They are so secret that we never see them posted. In fact anyone who posts any other idea than these unique perspectives....is arrogant and rude. Why do you fail to grasp this IJ????:laugh:

Icon,

Your posts ring true as to experience with either serving in a Presbyterian or Reformed church. In most of the postings, it is obvious that only books were read about the subject. So is my hunch right, you have actual experience serving in one of the two? By the way, Tom and I are still awaiting your trip through West Kentucky.

 

[Yeshua1]

yes of course this is the bottom line 95% of the time:thumbs::thumbs:

Think some hold to an anti theology, as as long as its anti cal, anti arm, anti dispy etc...

So don'r really have a well thought out biblical theology in place, just as long as its against the one don't like!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes...:wavey:

see, cals and arms can play nice here!

just curious, how would you describe the cal viewpoint of salvation?

 

[Tom Butler]

I could be wrong, but I think I was one of the earlier posters who adopted the term Non-Cal to describe those who were not Calvinist.

Yep, it's pretty vague, but remember, this is a predominately Baptist forum, most of whom are not Calvinists or Predestinarians, yet would reject the term Arminian. So, in the context of our discussions here, the use of the term "non-Cal" is a way to have a decent conversation. I doubt if anyone here, Baptist or not, will equate "non-Cal" with Islam or Buddha.

I have also adopted the occasional use of "DoG" (short for Doctrines of Grace). Two reasons: One, I have been looking for another way to describe my soteriology besides Calvinism; and two, it's sort of a light-hearted way to describe myself. When I use the term, just about all of you will know exactly what I mean.

So far, I have been able to avoid having a non-Cal describe me as a "Dirty DoG" or "Junkyard DoG."

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,

Your posts ring true as to experience with either serving in a Presbyterian or Reformed church. In most of the postings, it is obvious that only books were read about the subject. So is my hunch right, you have actual experience serving in one of the two? By the way, Tom and I are still awaiting your trip through West Kentucky.

I am in west central oregon right now...Albany Ore.So Kentucky will not happen for awhile.:laugh:

I have not served in those churches.One of the first study books I read was Berkof's Systematic theology. followed by Matthew Henry,John Murray,William Hendricksen,and others,

I did not learn that Presbyterians were "evil" yet:laugh:
I also attended both family conferences,and other bible conferences at Bill Shishko,OPC church for a number of years.

There were not as many Baptist sources available dealing with God's covenants that were available as there are now.

Many of the puritans and reformers were also of this point of view.
It is only my firm view of Particular redemption that has kept me from leaning that way,biblically,

In other words...when we teach for whom did Jesus die....we know it is the elect, the church. I do not see the NT church as a mixed work,believers and unbelievers. It is only the elect.
Yes unbelievers come among us .....but they are not really part of the church that Jesus died for.That is why judgement begins at the house of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

Think some hold to an anti theology, as as long as its anti cal, anti arm, anti dispy etc...

So don't really have a well thought out biblical theology in place, just as long as its against the one don't like!

Yes....It is easier than actually studying out anything. You just dismiss the scriptures, or ridicule anyone who obeys God in studying the bible.
Real study takes much reading and scriptural meditation.Some notions we first thought made sense need to be set aside when truth comes to town...:thumbsup::wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

I could be wrong, but I think I was one of the earlier posters who adopted the term Non-Cal to describe those who were not Calvinist.

Yep, it's pretty vague, but remember, this is a predominately Baptist forum, most of whom are not Calvinists or Predestinarians, yet would reject the term Arminian. So, in the context of our discussions here, the use of the term "non-Cal" is a way to have a decent conversation. I doubt if anyone here, Baptist or not, will equate "non-Cal" with Islam or Buddha.

I have also adopted the occasional use of "DoG" (short for Doctrines of Grace). Two reasons: One, I have been looking for another way to describe my soteriology besides Calvinism; and two, it's sort of a light-hearted way to describe myself. When I use the term, just about all of you will know exactly what I mean.

So far, I have been able to avoid having a non-Cal describe me as a "Dirty DoG" or "Junkyard DoG."

Agree with DoG, as I tend to see it along the lines of there being reformed/reformed in calvinistic circles....

And think manynon cals might well be real arms, but either don't know that theology, or else hate that label!

 

[saturneptune]

Yes....It is easier than actually studying out anything. You just dismiss the scriptures, or ridicule anyone who obeys God in studying the bible.
Real study takes much reading and scriptural meditation.Some notions we first thought made sense need to be set aside when truth comes to town...:thumbsup::wavey:

This is a little off the subject, but our local church is in search of a pastor. Our former pastor resigned due to his wife's health. There are a handful of people in our church that believe in DoG. Two of them are on the search committee (including Tom). We have never had any arguments to the best of my knowledge over the subject between members.

However, when it comes to pastors, it is a different story. We had a Calvinist pastor in the mid 70s, really before my time. He was still there when I became a Baptist, but did not know much about him. Then, pastor before last was a strong Calvinist. While a distinct majority of our members are not Calvinists, most do not understand what it stands for. I told a few Calvinist jokes at Bible study Wednesday night, and dare say most did not get them.

People who had problems with our last Calvinist pastor did not do so because of his theology, but he did not come across well, and seemed angry and some thought arrogant at times. The major problem our search committee has is when they consider a Calvinist candidate, lots in our congregation will link that term to the demeanor of the pastor before last instead of understanding the doctrine. I would without a doubt vote for him if he was otherwise qualified, but believe the majority of the congregation would not, and we would be back to square one.

 

[quantumfaith]

This is a little off the subject, but our local church is in search of a pastor. Our former pastor resigned due to his wife's health. There are a handful of people in our church that believe in DoG. Two of them are on the search committee (including Tom). We have never had any arguments to the best of my knowledge over the subject between members.

However, when it comes to pastors, it is a different story. We had a Calvinist pastor in the mid 70s, really before my time. He was still there when I became a Baptist, but did not know much about him. Then, pastor before last was a strong Calvinist. While a distinct majority of our members are not Calvinists, most do not understand what it stands for. I told a few Calvinist jokes at Bible study Wednesday night, and dare say most did not get them.

People who had problems with our last Calvinist pastor did not do so because of his theology, but he did not come across well, and seemed angry and some thought arrogant at times. The major problem our search committee has is when they consider a Calvinist candidate, lots in our congregation will link that term to the demeanor of the pastor before last instead of understanding the doctrine. I would without a doubt vote for him if he was otherwise qualified, but believe the majority of the congregation would not, and we would be back to square one.

From my experiences, always best to have a search committee which represents the theological sentiments of the church (assuming that they have some). Also definitely best for candidates under consideration to be upfront from the very beginning as to their theological positions.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is a little off the subject, but our local church is in search of a pastor. Our former pastor resigned due to his wife's health. There are a handful of people in our church that believe in DoG. Two of them are on the search committee (including Tom). We have never had any arguments to the best of my knowledge over the subject between members.

However, when it comes to pastors, it is a different story. We had a Calvinist pastor in the mid 70s, really before my time. He was still there when I became a Baptist, but did not know much about him. Then, pastor before last was a strong Calvinist. While a distinct majority of our members are not Calvinists, most do not understand what it stands for. I told a few Calvinist jokes at Bible study Wednesday night, and dare say most did not get them.

People who had problems with our last Calvinist pastor did not do so because of his theology, but he did not come across well, and seemed angry and some thought arrogant at times. The major problem our search committee has is when they consider a Calvinist candidate, lots in our congregation will link that term to the demeanor of the pastor before last instead of understanding the doctrine. I would without a doubt vote for him if he was otherwise qualified, but believe the majority of the congregation would not, and we would be back to square one.

I cant do it SN.....told you before, Im too busy convertin da dang heathen from the clutches of the Roman Catlik Church! Then you got the PCUSA's & the Peckerwood United Methodists ....those partickuler heathens....too dang busy. And aint a Baptist preacher in sight tryin ta help. Fraid your on yer own bub.:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

saturneptune

This is a little off the subject, but our local church is in search of a pastor. Our former pastor resigned due to his wife's health. There are a handful of people in our church that believe in DoG. Two of them are on the search committee (including Tom). We have never had any arguments to the best of my knowledge over the subject between members.

My first question in thinking about this is.....Why only a handful of people?
If there have been solid teaching with each Pastor...why has the congregation remained uninformed to the truth of God's word.
Doctrine is given in scripture to bring about unity-

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

SN.....I do not know any of these persons on the church role there,only you and Tom online.You have said this here,and at other times-

there has never been any arguments over doctrine among the members

It could be for several reasons;
1] A very mature body of believers ,very actively serving the Lord

2] A very doctrinally weak core of believers who do not even understand the issues being discussed,and why what they believe matters in how they live out their lives.

3] Some baptists replace doctrinal teaching and living with obeying a legal or traditional man made set of rules and doctrine and avoid scripture even though they say things like; my bible says, or I am standing on biblical truth, but never know enough scripture to stand on any issue.

However, when it comes to pastors, it is a different story. We had a Calvinist pastor in the mid 70s, really before my time. He was still there when I became a Baptist, but did not know much about him. Then, pastor before last was a strong Calvinist. While a distinct majority of our members are not Calvinists, most do not understand what it stands for.

Yes...here it is.....

The majority does not even understand the issues. Any pastor who comes in and teaches the truth firmly will later be accused of "sneaking in" to promote a "doctrinal position". Of course like here on BB....many will not really grasp these teachings until someone rises up and says

Hey wait a minute.....someone told me that this teaching is from the puritans...we cannot have that can we???

If your churches doctrinal statement is like many Baptist churches it would only contain 8 or 9 things that they claim to believe...so the church remains unprotected against error.
If a liberal comes in and you and Tom question his ideas...you will be found to be unloving:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I told a few Calvinist jokes at Bible study Wednesday night, and dare say most did not get them.

While I like to joke around about many things....I usually do not joke much about biblical themes.try not to blur the line at all It is a life and death issue so I try not to blur the line at all.

People who had problems with our last Calvinist pastor did not do so because of his theology, but he did not come across well, and seemed angry and some thought arrogant at times.

Was this man called of God? They might have said it was not his theology, but if the majority did not welcome his teaching or profit from it....the question would be was he called to that assembly??? His frustration might have stemmed from his inability to have success at teaching this group:thumbsup:

Keep in mind....I am offering only "ballpark ideas" based on what you are describing...

It is hard for me to think that if bible truth is being preached consistently and without compromise that everyone would just blend together without any disunity.One group or the other usually leaves because they cannot abide with mush instead of meat.....or the word preached with conviction becomes to uncomfortable for the seeker friendly crowd....

The major problem our search committee has is when they consider a Calvinist candidate,

They should look for a godly candidate first,and chances are good his doctrine will align itself quite nicely with the truth.

lots in our congregation will link that term to the demeanor of the pastor before last instead of understanding the doctrine.

Sounds like the next group of SS lessons should be about qualifications for eldership,and any other questions should be addressed in advance.

I would without a doubt vote for him if he was otherwise qualified, but believe the majority of the congregation would not, and we would be back to square one.

The doctrinal stance of the local church needs to be addressed:thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Maybe you should go down there Tony & straighten them out.....:laugh:

 

[Tom Butler]

It is hard for me to think that if bible truth is being preached consistently and without compromise that everyone would just blend together without any disunity.One group or the other usually leaves because they cannot abide with mush instead of meat.....or the word preached with conviction becomes to uncomfortable for the seeker friendly crowd...[./QUOTE]

Our former pastor was a good pastor, theologically sound, but he was not a Calvinist. But, he never preached against it. It was not about to be discussed from the pulpit.

Part of the reason goes back 25 years, when we went through some division over relocating. Several members who didn't want to relocate left. Many of us vowed that we'd never be part of a church argument again unless it involved heresy or gross misconduct. Since then, we've had pretty good unity.

Two reasons, I think, why we Calvinists don't push this soteriology: One, we can't abide a church fight over the issue. Two, the Calvinists would lose that fight, since we are a definite minority. So, picking that fight is pointless. In the meantime, our SS director (SN), the chairman of the deacons (me) and our best SS teacher are all DoGs. We don't bring up the subject, but DoG is reflected in what we teach and do.

So sum up, if you've ever been in a church fight, you'll do everything in your power to keep it from happening again. So, you pick your fights, and right now, DoG isn't one of them.

 

[sag38]

Tom, you have the right attitude. Others I guess would be willing to split a church wide open by forcing DOG down others throats. Think Dauphin Way Baptist Church in Mobile.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Tom, you have the right attitude. Others I guess would be willing to split a church wide open by forcing DOG down others throats. Think Dauphin Way Baptist Church in Mobile.

That was a mess and we have had a few over here.

 

[Dr. Bob]

We are reformed (small "r") Baptists (big "B").

Love the ARBCA, but not their covenant theology. Most of those pastors (I attend the annual conference) were trained in Presbyterian schools and are slavish faithful to the 1644 or 1689 Baptist Confessions, just as Presbyterians are to the Westminster.

Love the Founders, a fellowship within the SBC for churches that hold to the "founding" doctrines of that group. Tremendous preaching and missions at their meetings and a more diverse overall theology.

Love the Midlands Sovereign Grace fellowship, independent Baptist churches that are reformed soteriologically, but fully dispensational in overall theology. I am a regular speaker at their conferences and "my" crowd totally. But just a handful of churches contrasted to the Founders or ARBCA.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is hard for me to think that if bible truth is being preached consistently and without compromise that everyone would just blend together without any disunity.One group or the other usually leaves because they cannot abide with mush instead of meat.....or the word preached with conviction becomes to uncomfortable for the seeker friendly crowd...[./QUOTE]

Our former pastor was a good pastor, theologically sound, but he was not a Calvinist. But, he never preached against it. It was not about to be discussed from the pulpit.

Part of the reason goes back 25 years, when we went through some division over relocating. Several members who didn't want to relocate left. Many of us vowed that we'd never be part of a church argument again unless it involved heresy or gross misconduct. Since then, we've had pretty good unity.

Two reasons, I think, why we Calvinists don't push this soteriology: One, we can't abide a church fight over the issue. Two, the Calvinists would lose that fight, since we are a definite minority. So, picking that fight is pointless. In the meantime, our SS director (SN), the chairman of the deacons (me) and our best SS teacher are all DoGs. We don't bring up the subject, but DoG is reflected in what we teach and do.

So sum up, if you've ever been in a church fight, you'll do everything in your power to keep it from happening again. So, you pick your fights, and right now, DoG isn't one of them.

Think the ones that would amke calvinism a big enough issue to divide and split the church over it are those who were into it early on, who were trained and raised up on it from the start... Those like me who gradually moved away from what once held to DoG would be more tolerant of having others holding to differing theology and understandings...

Also , not being a church that holds to Confessions would make us mor e"open minded" regarding holding differing viewpoints...

Know some say calvinism is the Gospel, my take is that it explains the Gospel best!