SBTS Chapel: Avoid Labels

[Jerome]

From a Southern Seminary chapel this Spring:

"Our sermons should never smack of parties - Anglican, Calvinist, Amillennial - rather our sermons should be obviously Biblical....avoiding labels, sticking with the text....so the powerful attraction becomes not membership in your party, but faithfulness to God's Word and its truth."

mp3 link

One can understand the advice to tone down the Calvinism and the Amillennialism (it's SBTS after all) but...the Anglicanism? Why would that be an issue for Baptist seminarians?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It's not but by including the Anglicans, the speaker can claim at least some neutrality.

 

[Jerome]

A quite pertinent admonition:

From a Southern Seminary chapel [last] Spring:

"Our sermons should never smack of parties - Anglican, Calvinist, Amillennial - rather our sermons should be obviously Biblical....avoiding labels, sticking with the text....so the powerful attraction becomes not membership in your party, but faithfulness to God's Word and its truth."

mp3 link

 

[TCassidy]

Wait a minute. Isn't "Chapel" a label? Shouldn't we say "that big room with a lot of chairs were we sit and try to stay awake while a guy (ooops, that's a label too) I mean, uh, well, whoever, rants (ooos, anothe label) regarding his pet peeve or doctrine?"

Wait a minute. Strike all of that. Words are just labels for expressing thoughts. If we do away with labels we do away with communication!

But isn't that our job? To communicate the Gospel. (And "Gospel" is a label too!)

 

[Revmitchell]

Wait a minute. Isn't "Chapel" a label? Shouldn't we say "that big room with a lot of chairs were we sit and try to stay awake while a guy (ooops, that's a label too) I mean, uh, well, whoever, rants (ooos, anothe label) regarding his pet peeve or doctrine?"

Wait a minute. Strike all of that. Words are just labels for expressing thoughts. If we do away with labels we do away with communication!

But isn't that our job? To communicate the Gospel. (And "Gospel" is a label too!)

Here is one "obtuse". Do you really try to be obtuse on purpose?

 

[TCassidy]

Here is one "obtuse". Do you really try to be obtuse on purpose?

What part didn't you understand?

 

[Revmitchell]

What part didn't you understand?

Uh no it is you who do not understand.

 

[TCassidy]

Uh no it is you who do not understand.

I understand perfectly that both Monergism and Synergism are historic and well respected theological catagories of two theories of soteriology.

 

[Revmitchell]

I understand perfectly that both Monergism and Synergism are historic and well respected theological catagories of two theories of soteriology.

According to who? With my education at Liberty and Midwestern at no time were those terms used.

But what I am talking about is your application of this topic to everything and everything which is not what anyone is talking about.

 

[TCassidy]

According to who? With my education at Liberty and Midwestern at no time were those terms used.

Systematic Theology, Miner Raymond, Volume II, pages 355-356, Hitchcock and Walden, New York, 1877.

Like something newer?

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: 2nd Edition - Dr. Robert Reymond, Thomas Nelson, 1998, Chapter 19, page 15,

 

[Revmitchell]

Systematic Theology, Miner Raymond, Volume II, pages 355-356, Hitchcock and Walden, New York, 1877.

Like something newer?

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: 2nd Edition - Dr. Robert Reymond, Thomas Nelson, 1998, Chapter 19, page 15,

I am not going to use either one of them. That was not my point.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wait a minute. Isn't "Chapel" a label? Shouldn't we say "that big room with a lot of chairs were we sit and try to stay awake while a guy (ooops, that's a label too) I mean, uh, well, whoever, rants (ooos, anothe label) regarding his pet peeve or doctrine?"

Wait a minute. Strike all of that. Words are just labels for expressing thoughts. If we do away with labels we do away with communication!

But isn't that our job? To communicate the Gospel. (And "Gospel" is a label too!)

Even being called a Christian is a label though!

 

[TCassidy]

I am not going to use either one of them. That was not my point.

Of course. You asked for evidence that Monergism and Synergism were used in Systematic Theology by saying "According to who" [SIC]. When confronted by that evidence you turn tail and run again.

 

[Revmitchell]

Of course. You asked for evidence that Monergism and Synergism were used in Systematic Theology by saying "According to who" [SIC].

I did not ask for evidence. You said "Monergism and Synergism are historic and well respected theological catagories of two theories of soteriology." Not the same thing. I would also state that two book sources do not prove your point.

When confronted by that evidence you turn tail and run again.

"turn tail and run again" So what exact behavior have I done that can be characterized this way? Am i obligated to continue and unending back and forth on this board until a cavlinist decides we are done so that I an not accused of turn tail and run? or is there some other measure or standard (in your calvinist/reformed/particular mind) that I am held to?

Who decides this standard? Does accusing someone of turn tail and run help our conversation? What purpose does it serve? How does using such a term promote peaceful conversations?

 

[TCassidy]

I did not ask for evidence.

"According to who?" I answered with two sources.

I would also state that two book sources do not prove your point.

"According to who?" It answered your question.

You claim not to be a Synergist yet you refuse to tells us why you are not and what you believe that differs from theological Synergism. So all you post is childish one-liners.

 

[Revmitchell]

"According to who?" I answered with two sources.

"According to who?" It answered your question.

Uh no you posted in a manner to lead one to believe this is a widely accepted and normal use of those terms. My point was that they are not used much at all except maybe in reformed,Calvinist, particular circles. That being the case they have no real value except to those who like to use them to win debates.

You claim not to be a Synergist yet you refuse to tells us why you are not and what you believe that differs from theological Synergism.

I have never refused. I have never been asked. Please re-post the post I made where I refused.

 

[TCassidy]

Uh no you posted in a manner to lead one to believe this is a widely accepted and normal use of those terms.

I answered your question.

My point was that they are not used much at all except maybe in reformed,Calvinist, particular circles.

Except of the two examples I gave you of Systematic Theologies, one of the was Synergistic.

That being the case they have no real value except to those who like to use them to win debates.

Except to show that both terms are in common usage in theology.

 

[Revmitchell]

Except to show that both terms are in common usage in theology.

They may be common among Calvinists, Reformed. Particular folks. However, outside of that arena they are unheard of, by and large. It certainly doesn't mean others have to be held to it.

 

[TCassidy]

However, outside of that arena they are unheard of, by and large. It certainly doesn't mean others have to be held to it.

The second reference was to an Arminian Synergist.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is one "obtuse". Do you really try to be obtuse on purpose?

Wow...another label.: