The dislike of Calvinism may rest upon the attitude of Calvinists

[quantumfaith]

can the SBC even consider itself as being formally either Cal/Arm though, for isn't one of the Cardinal beliefs is that each Baptist can hold to what they feel persuaded the bible teaches, as long as that is with orthodoxy?

Why try to 'force" he Church to be either/or?

Wow, we agree on this. Each church should in fact be "free" to decide which theological tangent they will hold to. My own personal experience, unfortunately, thus far, has been that "churches" did not know and understand what they were getting. When reality hits, it often then splits and separates the church. Potential pastors of both perspectives need to be upfront with Search Committees, and in turn, the Search Committees need to know and understand the theological proclivities of the church.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

BTW, I've not considered you a truth suppressor.

Well, at least that's good to know. Thank you.

There is no need to go personal on this as my post wasn't directed at you nor at your church.

In this post to which I've replied, you qualified your statements as not being about SBC churches in general, whereas the first post was not qualified in that way, so yes, I took it personally. It is good to know you did mean it so.

Why you've done this is beyond me. It seems to me perhaps it's you not willing to do the same, or you're holding a grudge and trying to twist this thing personal.

I'd really like to know why you always read ulterior motives into anyone's post that happens to disagree with your spiritual view.

I started this thread as a dialogue. I made it very clear that is what I did. You seem to want it to take another direction. I choose not to participate.

 

[preacher4truth]

Well, at least that's good to know. Thank you.

In this post to which I've replied, you qualified your statements as not being about SBC churches in general, whereas the first post was not qualified in that way, so yes, I took it personally. It is good to know you did mean it so.

I'd really like to know why you always read ulterior motives into anyone's post that happens to disagree with your spiritual view.

I started this thread as a dialogue. I made it very clear that is what I did. You seem to want it to take another direction. I choose not to participate.

Thanks friend. But you must realize that this last line of yours above is a misnomer. When you stated why I cannot do as others, and took the personal route, THAT is what I rebutted, and had nothing to do with a 'spiritual view' it had to do with your accusation that I called you a truth suppressor.

I simply took what you've stated when you turned it personal and shared that what I said had not one thing to do with anything personal concerning you. It was an attempt to get you back on track with dialogue and off the track of hurt feelings and alleged motives directed toward me for nought.

There was no ulterior motives to be read into anything. You came right out and accused, and I addressed it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Thanks friend. But you must realize that this last line of yours above is a misnomer. When you stated why I cannot do as others, and took the personal route, THAT is what I rebutted, and had nothing to do with a 'spiritual view' it had to do with your accusation that I called you a truth suppressor.

Did you, or did you not, refer to SBC churches in your first post as "suppressors of the truth"?

Am I, or am I, not a Southern Baptist?

Is it, therefore, or is it not, reasonable for me to have assumed you were referring to me as a suppressor of truth, given you made no qualification that "not all churches, but many, and most in my area" as you did in your second post?

I simply took what you've stated when you turned it personal and shared that what I said had not one thing to do with anything personal concerning you. It was an attempt to get you back on track with dialogue ...

Get me back on track?? I'm not the one who chose to call SBC churches truth suppressors, which is not the subject of this thread.

... and off the track of hurt feelings and alleged motives directed toward me for nought.

I have no hurt feelings. Truthfully. But your post is an example of exactly what I did not want on this thread, which is why I addressed it in the first place. So please discuss the merits of the OP, not the side-track issues you brought up. Thank you in advance.

There was no ulterior motives to be read into anything. You came right out and accused, and I addressed it.

You have a truly strange concept of what an accusation is, but thanks for participating. Please direct any further comments to the subject of the OP.

 

[preacher4truth]

Did you, or did you not, refer to SBC churches in your first post as "suppressors of the truth"?

Am I, or am I, not a Southern Baptist?

Actually, no, I didn't mention SBC in my post. IFB, yes. But you wanted to get offended and did, and took it down the 'peronal' and 'ad hominem' trail when neither you your church nor affiliation were mentioned. Interesting! :thumbs:

 

[agedman]

This post paints with a very broad brush!

Working for the SBC churches and IFB churches for many decades has given me insight into both worlds.

Both are filled with politics and shameful excess.

Both historically have used the Scriptures as a tool to control the assembly and to put forth some self serving political agendas in the desire to control the assembly.

That said, the same issues are found in every grouping be it for religious purposes or commerce. Very few have a gathering or meeting without some personal agenda oriented folk frittering and flattering in all their glitz like a tinker bell - most contriving for some selfish gain.

What should be paramount in every church is the Scriptures.

The Scriptures and Scriptural truth - learned, systematically applied, and expected by each in daily living - cannot help but unify the assembly, and will ultimately bring it great persecution.

An assembly that isn't going through "hard times" is an assembly that may not be true to the Scriptures. Just as believers who reside without being "pressed on all sides" usually have surrendered at least one side.

Both the SBC and IFB churches that reside in "the blessings of God" most probably are only content in the lap of the devil.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Actually, no, I didn't mention SBC in my post. IFB, yes. But you wanted to get offended and did, and took it down the 'peronal' and 'ad hominem' trail when neither you your church nor affiliation were mentioned. Interesting! :thumbs:

You said, and I quote directly ...

As to the assault on the so called Young, Restless, and Reformed and how they have reacted to coming to the truth, I can say I truly do not blame them for that. Truth has been suppressed, preachers avoid truth to appease the church ...

YRR is a Southern Baptist movement. It is in no other denomination, as it is comprised of young men and women who have recently graduated from SBC seminaries. Now, I will accept your apology, or otherwise will consider you as having excluded yourself from the discussion. God bless.
----------------------------------
Now, for everyone else on the thread ...

I'd like to ask if we can discuss Owen's seven points which I did a poor job of summarizing by merely quoting the first line or two from each point. For example, he brings up the point across several of those enumerated items, a view I see as the basis of Spurgeon's own version of Calvinist/Reformed thought, that while God is sovereign, man is responsible. Owen affirms his own belief that there must be an active role for man in his own salvation, that it is not simply a passive reception of God's gift of faith. Does this essentially undermine any of Calvinist thought, or does it fit into your views?

 

[preacher4truth]

This post paints with a very broad brush!

Incorrect. My post was my experience in this town within several specific church's. It's called context. Think before you accuse.

 

[agedman]

Incorrect. My post was my experience in this town within several specific church's. It's called context. Think before you accuse.

P4T,

I wasn't calling your post into question.

I was posting my own experience (with an admittedly broad brush) with both the SBC and the IFB churches.

 

[preacher4truth]

You said, and I quote directly ...

YRR is a Southern Baptist movement. It is in no other denomination, as it is comprised of young men and women who have recently graduated from SBC seminaries. Now, I will accept your apology, or otherwise will consider you as having excluded yourself from the discussion. God bless.

Yes, thanks for quoting me directly. Where was the SBC in that quote?

Oh, it's not there. Not even once.

And yes, I see it is only inferred in your OP but nowhere to be found in what I stated.

When you went to look at the post wherein you accused me of saying SBC you found nothing of the sort. :thumbs:

I see you STILL can't own up or man up. Stick to facts and know what you're talking about before you accuse. IOW address what I actually did say and don't add to it. Leave your hurt feelings for nought and eisegesis out of it.

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T,

I wasn't calling your post into question.

I was posting my own experience (with an admittedly broad brush) with both the SBC and the IFB churches.

Gotcha, my apologies. It was difficult to discern it was about something else since no one was quoted and it followed my post immediately. Again, I apologize. raying:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Yes, thanks for quoting me directly. Where was the SBC in that quote?

Thank you for your decision. We'll be moving on from here. God bless.
------------------
Again, for everyone else on the thread ...

I'd like to ask if we can discuss Owen's seven points which I did a poor job of summarizing by merely quoting the first line or two from each point. For example, he brings up the point across several of those enumerated items, a view I see as the basis of Spurgeon's own version of Calvinist/Reformed thought, that while God is sovereign, man is responsible. Owen affirms his own belief that there must be an active role for man in his own salvation, that it is not simply a passive reception of God's gift of faith. Does this essentially undermine any of Calvinist thought, or does it fit into your views?

 

[preacher4truth]

Anyone else reading that post knows where the SBC is in it. You've gotten about as disingenuous as I can stand. God bless, and have a wonderfully blessed life. We're done here, and elsewhere.

You're acting ridiculous. My post had nothing to say about SBC. Your only argument is that since your OP alluded to the SBC then my post automatically has SBC written in it.

Here's what you said:

Did you, or did you not, refer to SBC churches in your first post as "suppressors of the truth"?

No, in fact I didn't say it. :wavey:

And if you believe anyone else can see it in there you're both seeing things that aren't there. Any honest person can read it and see I never stated it. But anyhow I must LOL!!!!!!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

I referred to IFB. It's hard to believe that you cannot own up or man up and admit you were in fact incorrect. Or maybe it's not hard to believe any longer. :type:

 

[preacher4truth]

Now, since you've taken the personal route and have not addressed actual things I stated in my very first post meant to further dialogue, why not go and read what I actually did state which is along the lines of the OP and deal with those things instead of being hurt over something never said? :thumbs: :1_grouphug:

 

[agedman]

Originally Posted by thisnumbersdisconnected
I'd like to ask if we can discuss Owen's seven points which I did a poor job of summarizing by merely quoting the first line or two from each point. For example, he brings up the point across several of those enumerated items, a view I see as the basis of Spurgeon's own version of Calvinist/Reformed thought, that while God is sovereign, man is responsible. Owen affirms his own belief that there must be an active role for man in his own salvation, that it is not simply a passive reception of God's gift of faith. Does this essentially undermine any of Calvinist thought, or does it fit into your views?


No, it doesn't undermine my thinking at all.

I have no problem with God holding humankind responsible and not providing some "active role for man in his own salvation."

Some have taken such to be unequal, or unfair.

But then there seems to be the human thinking that God is unfair if he treats people differently. That a "loving God" wouldn't condemn "good" people.

Every good parent knows that you don't treat your children the same way. Each is unique and requires unique handling.

Every good parent knows that you don't treat you children the same way as what is expected from children of other parentage. Christ stated as much when expressing the parentage of the Jewish rulers.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No, it doesn't undermine my thinking at all.

I have no problem with God holding humankind responsible and not providing some "active role for man in his own salvation."

Some have taken such to be unequal, or unfair.

But then there seems to be the human thinking that God is unfair if he treats people differently. That a "loving God" wouldn't condemn "good" people.

Every good parent knows that you don't treat your children the same way. Each is unique and requires unique handling.

Every good parent knows that you don't treat you children the same way as what is expected from children of other parentage. Christ stated as much when expressing the parentage of the Jewish rulers.

So you don't believe there is any human element to salvation? That God doesn't expect man to have some positive and active role in receiving the gospel for salvation?

I ask, because that is what Owen says in the article, and I've seen writings and sermons by Spurgeon that equate to that viewpoint as well. I don't believe man is passive, simply accepting the inevitable, providing he/she is one of the elect (and that's another discussion).

Given what I believe you're saying, you must believe also that God has created some for destruction. Can you explain that and how it fits into a God that does not show partiality?

 

[quantumfaith]

So you don't believe there is any human element to salvation? That God doesn't expect man to have some positive and active role in receiving the gospel for salvation?

I ask, because that is what Owen says in the article, and I've seen writings and sermons by Spurgeon that equate to that viewpoint as well. I don't believe man is passive, simply accepting the inevitable, providing he/she is one of the elect (and that's another discussion).

Given what I believe you're saying, you must believe also that God has created some for destruction. Can you explain that and how it fits into a God that does not show partiality?

This is precisely the reason that I gladly accept the moniker of synergist.

 

[evangelist6589]

Yes, and this author says that Calvinism seems to appeal to "obnoxious" personalities.



I don't say every Calvinist is arrogant and obnoxious, but many are.

And you are not????

 

[Winman]

And you are not????

I might be obnoxious, but I am not stupid.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And you are not????

I asked in the OP for this type of post to be avoided. Please do so going forward. Thank you.