SOL Editor declares "Calvinism leaves a dearth"

In stead of being upset about their Opinios (which they state) prove them wrong. People will say all manner of things, some even thinking they are doing God a favor or His duty. They will only be silenced by God when your testimony speaks for itself. No one can deny the testimony of people evangelizing others and from this they (the lost sinner) coming to the Lord AND being discipled, AND in turn propagating this same heart.

But as you noted not many since the 1900s have been seen lately (as a people not just a person or two). The testimony you are stating has faded. This their testimony of now is what will stand when others speak ill, lightly, or even hostily toward that which you love. Without actions establishing our words, our testimony is nothing. It is not for us but against us and therefore of itself condemning us.

As to your question:

Will you honestly give man that kind of glory when you (especially a Calvinist) knows that what we do is for Him, by Him and established through Him no matter what man may say or think - or ever opinionate :thumbsup:

Come on - Stand in Christ, convert (be the vessel that is) the lost sinner, disciple them in the Truths of Gods Word that they may carry on and do likewise.

Now remember - I'm not a Calvinst, but I hold dear those same truths and you are still my brother. We may not agree on the mechanics but I say let your testimony be the means which God uses silence those kinds of comments.

Peace brother, It is for Christ that we live, and death is but gain!

 

So, I kinda guess someone forgot to tell you that several folks on your list were not Baptists.

:saint:

Although, I have heard that Spurgeon was Southern Baptist a time or two . . .

:laugh:

 

Someone forgot to tell you that there was an "and" in the sentence, but not "other".

AND any [no "other"] historically significant Baptist before 1900 that can be named.

 

==I am glad you made the point about Whitefield (etc) because that is exactly what I would say. I would also ask this guy if he things Erwin Lutzer's church is dead, how about John MacArthur's, or D James Kennedy? Would he consider John Newton, author of Amazing Grace, to be a person who promoted dead churches? Historic, and I would argue Biblical, Calvinism does not leave churches dead. What leaves churches dead is traditionalism and stuffy leadership that things its better than everyone else.

 

JD,

A few exceptions don't negate a generality, a stereotype. You ought to reconsider whether a fatalistic view of sotierology, much less an entire theology built around it, can motivate the believers to DO anything.

skypair

 

Are you denying Calvinism's fatalism or that passivity is the usual fruit of fatalistic theology?

skypair

 

==Yes, we are denying that. Anybody who is familiar with Church History will know that it is full of Calvinists who were very evangelistic. Anyone who would deny that has no clue what they are talking about.

I would also deny that Calvinism is fatalistic. How can God's will be fatalistic? Does not Scripture say that election is based on God's love, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1)? How the can will of a Holy, Loving, God be fatalistic? Those who think Calvinism is fatalistic need to carefully re-examine their view of God.

 

Christianity seemed to thrive in America. At the time of the revolution more than 2/3 of the population were taught in Calvinistic churches.

 

So, the SOL's reasoning seems to be: Calvinist believe God has picked those whom he will save, they're gonna be saved regardless, so there's no need for evangelism or missions.

Sounds pretty good to me. Hyper-Calvinists certainly buy the reasoning.
The logic is hard to argue with.

Except----

God has given us--Calvinists, Non-Cals, Arminians all, clear commands which fly in the face of human reasoning. Preach the gospel, witness everywhere and to everyone you can. Paul said it pleased God to save through the foolishness of preaching, and he expressed a willingness to endure all things for the elect's sake.

Glad to be of service.

 

Seems to me that we suffer in this country a lack of persecution. History proves that when Christians had to suffer from lack of tolerance, they flourished. Why not blame the calvinist for the failure of the evangelical church in America? More than likely the ten percent being spoken of are the cause of spiritual apathy which afflicts most churches today. Give me a break! Start teaching and preaching the full counsel of God, the full truth of Holy Scripture, and then God will bless it. I can't wait to find another of God's elect! They come to faith, and when they do, they are on fire for the Lord!

 

This coming from a paper that would edit out certain parts of sermons if it hinted at Calvinism.

I had come to the conclusion many years ago that if the SOL was on my side on an issue, I might be on the wrong side.

 

Yes, and many of those same churches persecuted Baptists before during and after the Rebellion.. So you defend them?

About SOL; I have received several copies of this paper, both older and current. I notice they are a "one pony" paper. IOW; they rarely get off their hobby horse.
Jim

 

==Many of the early American Baptists were Calvinistic. Also the Southern Baptist Convention, when it first formed, was Calvinistic as well. The first President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was a Calvinist. In fact we know that "particular Baptists" were in the colonies by the 1630s and Baptist Theology remained very Calvinistic up until the Civil War. Sure there were "general Baptists" and "free-will Baptists" (etc) that were not Calvinistic. However my point is that history shows that Baptists were Calvinistic in their theology very early on. This early Calvinistic influence can be seen in reading the Southern Baptist statement of faith (etc).

So not all Calvinistic Churches persecuted Baptists. However even "if" it were so it would not be an argument against Calvinism. The issue of the "doctrines of grace" is a Biblical/Theological issue and the debate must center on the Biblical texts.

Btw, I am familiar with the persecution of the AnaBaptists and others by many of those who were of the "Reformed" view (I wrote a term paper on it in seminary). However such actions, as bad as it was, does not disprove Calvinistic theology.

 

That is a totally different branch.

 

I think his point was that Calvinism was common in those churches. The Baptist themselves were Calvinistic. The persecution seemed to come from Catholic influence still in the reformation churches. Either way, that does not disprove Calvinism.

 

Fatalist means that all things are decided already -- all is fate. Calvinists appear so believe this.

I don't think God is fatatlistic -- I believe that Calvinists make their God out to be fatalistic.

skypair

 

Have you ever read Psalms 139 skypair? It is not what the Calvinist says... it is what God says. That is what counts. Your humanism and man centered theology is just that... man centered.