Sign Up?

[agedman]

It is all about tone. He draws sharp reponses from both sides by the wording of the posts, phrases such as "have you had too much caffine." In theory, theologically we are on the same side, but do not believe these kind of posts foster a good exchange of ideas, but bring out feelings of anger.

You may be right.

Such phrases might not reach the reader with the same intent the sender gives.

We have all experienced that phenomena on the BB.

Personally, sometimes in the heat of posting, communication is throttled by the emotional outbursts that would better have been worded differently or left completely out of the post.

You and Icon are two great scholarly posters who have contributed wise and Godly insight.

I regard you both as intellectually astute in the Scriptures and have repeatedly been challenged by the support you give for your views.

I am not good at applying the part of the verse "a soft answer turns away wrath," but I am great on the "grievous words stir up anger" part.

 

[saturneptune]

You may be right.

Such phrases might not reach the reader with the same intent the sender gives.

We have all experienced that phenomena on the BB.

Personally, sometimes in the heat of posting, communication is throttled by the emotional outbursts that would better have been worded differently or left completely out of the post.

You and Icon are two great scholarly posters who have contributed wise and Godly insight.

I regard you both as intellectually astute in the Scriptures and have repeatedly been challenged by the support you give for your views.

I am not good at applying the part of the verse "a soft answer turns away wrath," but I am great on the "grievous words stir up anger" part.

Thanks for the kind words. If I had a solution to make these threads tone down, I would. Thanks for the post. In a sense, it does not do any good for the same side to be squabbling.

Calvinists are the ones that are accused of manipulating, taking over churches, infecting local congregations, etc, and the other side is pictured as benign. Given that, I think those who support doctrines of grace should go out of their way to create the opposite image.

You are correct, as Luke pointed out, so for my part, it is over.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Part of it is everyone's background and sense of humor. If Iconoclast had called me a Rambo souped up on caffeine I would have taken it as a complement. I may have preferred Jack Bauer, but hey, you take what you can get, right?

 

[Luke2427]

There may be millions of people who could sign it in the sense that it represents their views.

The question is SHOULD they sign it in light of it's AIM?

It's aim is to define Southern Baptist beliefs as anti-calvinistic. It seeks to pretend that the non-cals are the "traditional" Southern Baptists and the Calvinists are stepchildren which the SBC tolerates as long as they know their place.

This does nothing but starts a fight that the SBC does not need.

Signing that document not only assents to the theology represented therein, but it also embraces the divisive motives which hurts the movement as a whole.

 

[markwaltermd]

Here, again, my opponent demeans himself by not agreeing to the Articles simply designed to pin him down on whether or not he truly believes all men have the volition to “really” make that choice. Sorry, but, see, we no longer care about your continued arguments which you are so determined to make at every corner; we are cutting to the chase.

Our differences have been spelled out by whether one is willing to sign the Articles or not. We feel those differences are important and it seems the Calvinist find it demeaning to reveal where their beliefs actually lead and want to continue on with their endless arguments instead. Too bad! The Articles present simple statements of belief and if you can’t agree to them it demeans you? And that somehow supposed to be our fault?!? Here, again, sounds like you got something to hide to me.

Pray for grace.

 

[convicted1]

Thanks for the kind words. If I had a solution to make these threads tone down, I would. Thanks for the post. In a sense, it does not do any good for the same side to be squabbling.

Calvinists are the ones that are accused of manipulating, taking over churches, infecting local congregations, etc, and the other side is pictured as benign. Given that, I think those who support doctrines of grace should go out of their way to create the opposite image.

You are correct, as Luke pointed out, so for my part, it is over.

If you would "photobucket" your high school chess team pic that had you wearing your horned-rimmed glasses, with white tape across the nose, people would laugh so hard, that these threads would tone down. Whenever a thread would start getting out of hand, you could post that pic. Come on, fess up Brother. You know I am right. :laugh:


Either use that pic or the one with you on the beach with an hawaiiian shirt, khaki shorts, black socks(up to your knees), and sandals(plus you trusty horned-rimmed glasses, AND metal detector in your hands). Come on, fess up Brother. :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

Not signing anything that states the Gospel is "a" way of salvation.

Nor one that denys that we are sinners in Adam, by BOTH nature and our choices...
That its by the Will of God that we are saved, not by the will of man!

 

[agedman]

Rather than discussing who would sign up, there are a few threads that take the proof texts of the first article and show the totally unscriptural view is not only frail but false.

By using the very Scriptures the first statement uses for support, it is clearly shown that the affirmation is Scripturally unsound and should be soundly rejected.

What the affirmation uses as proof texts of support actually supports what the affirmation would deny.

Isn't that sort of a bait and switch tactic of highest dishonesty?

 

[Benjamin]

By using the very Scriptures the first statement uses for support, it is clearly shown that the affirmation is Scripturally unsound and should be soundly rejected.

What the affirmation uses as proof texts of support actually supports what the affirmation would deny.

Isn't that sort of a bait and switch tactic of highest dishonesty?

Straight up! The Bible in whole clearly supports what the authors in the Articles say they deny:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.


But you have fun trying to pick out a few verses they have used which you can twist around and argue that they mean something else (like hyper-determinism). :thumbs:

 

[agedman]

Straight up! The Bible in whole clearly supports what the authors in the Articles say they deny:

(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note: You is used 4 times in this verse. You'll be surprised by how much "you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing.


But you have fun trying to pick out a few verses they have used which you can twist around and argue that they mean something else (like hyper-determinism). :thumbs:

Straight up! The Bible DOES NOT support the views, but uses "proof texting" in vain attempt to establish some authority that the Scriptures do not grant.

I didn't use a few verses, nor did I "twist" any argument to support a view!

I didn't declare a view. I showed consistently that the verses the authors used did not support the view that they desired, but rather the opposite.

I used EVERY verse that the article 1 listed that supported their view. NOT ONE was supportive. EVERY verse the authors listed was not applicable to support their affirmation, but in EVERY case the verses were applicable to support what the affirmation would deny.

And as far as the verse YOU used, LOOK at the context. Do not expect "proof text" to support your view; attend to the whole passage of context and here it is given:

Romans 7:
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.​

For the context, Paul is describing the condition of the Israeli, who had a zeal of God, but no knowledge (salvation) experience.

The CONTEXT continues with Paul describing the righteousness of the law in comparison to the righteousness of faith

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.
5 For Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
​

I interrupted the flow to point out that Paul is still dealing with righteousness of faith but has clarified how it is attained. It is when THE WORD is preached and not man's volition or any ability generated by man.

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed.​

The passage clearly shows that man has NO kind of ability outside of God's direct and purposed work through the Word; it is the actual WORD of God declared that produces the faith within the person (in the heart and in the mouth) in which the man then responds.

Without the application of the spoken and read Word to the person and that by the authority of its own power and work of the Holy Spirit being implanted in their heart, and even in their mouth, the verses 9 - 11 are meaningless.

No believer is a believer without the Word having first done the work in the heart and in the mouth that allows that person to declare as stated in verses 9 - 11 happens when the Word's work is complete. Verses 9 - 11 are reactive to what has already taken place in the previous verses. Verses 9 - 11 are not the catalyst for conversion but the results of the conversion.

Benjamin, please do not stumble over these matters. I am not being critical of you, rather desiring and attempting to encourage you to not accept surface issues or merely "sound good statements" of others; spend time looking carefully through the Scriptures; challenge even the views that you hold and may continue to hold. I do that constantly, for no single verse stands in isolation from any other, but all is given collectively to build doctrine.

 

[Tom Butler]

One of the things I try to avoid is putting words in other peoples' mouths, and ascribing views to them that they do not hold.

So, I'm asking questions.

Do not both Calvinists and non-Cals believe that no one is saved apart from the work of the Holy Spirit?

Conversely, do Non-Cals hold that because everyone has free will, that one can be saved independently of the Holy Spirit's work in conviction, illumination, drawing and regeneration?

Just trying to learn.

 

[Benjamin]

I used EVERY verse that the article 1 listed that supported their view. NOT ONE was supportive.

Weeelll, imagine that! :laugh:

Weeelll, you have fun continuing to argue about all that now, and I'll just be looking forward to what the Articles accomplish by bringing some transparency to our differences for all to see. :thumbs:

 

[agedman]

Weeelll, imagine that! :laugh:

Weeelll, you have fun continuing to argue about all that now, and I'll just be looking forward to what the Articles accomplish by bringing some transparency to our differences for all to see. :thumbs:

I have to admit that the flippancy of your post is disappointing.

But, have it as you will.

If you have no courage to pursue the matter and would rather reside in the comfort of what other folks misuse of Scriptures and have not your own work from which to draw, ultimately that may bring you some minor comfort.

 

[Benjamin]

If you have no courage to pursue the matter...

Sir, it would do you well to learn to recognize the difference between one having “courage” and him having the willingness to keep arguing. It may help prevent you from pushing others too far by which they will take action to solve the issue in a way you may not appreciate in the future.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

One of the things I try to avoid is putting words in other peoples' mouths, and ascribing views to them that they do not hold.

So, I'm asking questions.

Do not both Calvinists and non-Cals believe that no one is saved apart from the work of the Holy Spirit?

Conversely, do Non-Cals hold that because everyone has free will, that one can be saved independently of the Holy Spirit's work in conviction, illumination, drawing and regeneration?

Just trying to learn.

I'll answer honestly, trusting your intentions: No, I do not hold to that. I don't believe we can save ourselves.