The Fear of Calvinism in the SBC

[Revmitchell]

and I see we have even more "cagey" calvinists.

 

[JonC]

Hello Iconoclast, and Merry Christmas!

I would submit to you the unbiblical attitude is the non cal,slandering and attacking the cal.

Yes, I agree. Unbiblical attitudes are not restricted to believers on either side of the debate.

I have never spoken with a Cal who explains how he feels trapped:laugh:

:laugh: Of course not - neither have I. Once a person feels trapped in a particular doctrine and realize that they are degrading the Word by not acknowledging the whole counsel of Scripture they tend to become “untrapped.” It doesn’t mean that they reject a particular doctrine, but that their eyes are opened to a fuller view of the Word. This is not mere a Calvinistic issue - it occurs with any doctrine that overshadows God’s complete Word.

Demonstrate your point perhaps by showing a biblical Calvinist who urges someone to Calvinism apart from it being Jesus teaching?

That’s silly (as I’m sure you realize) - I’m not talking about biblical Calvinists…I’m talking about unbiblical Calvinists who replace Christ with their understanding of DoG as central to their faith, those who cannot fellowship or learn from other biblical Christians who do not share their Calvinistic views because if elitist attitudes. Your argument seems to imply that if one considers himself a “Calvinist” he is by that virtue superior to non-Calvinistic believers. If so, then maybe you fall into the category of unbiblical Calvinist - however, I don’t believe this to be the case.

Or...perhaps you cannot see what they clearly see??????

This may be true - spiritual growth, maturity, and understanding is a lifelong process - we are never at a point in this lifetime where we possess a perfect understanding of all aspects of the Divine. In this case, while it is possible, doubt I do not clearly “see” for a couple of reasons. First, I agree for the most part with the doctrines that these unbiblically zealous Calvinists hold (there are so many nuances in doctrine I cannot make a blanket statement). Second, I have witnessed some using the DoG to separate, divide, and damage other brothers in Christ (I don't think this was their intention, which is kinda the point here) rather than addressing disagreements in love and a Christ-like attitude (whether or not they are resolved and whether or not this results in separating yet remaining united in Christ). I disagree with their placement of the doctrine, and while their zeal is admirable I believe it to be at the expense of other biblical doctrines and destructive rather than edifying to the Church in general. Again - I am talking about some, not all, and this is not restricted to one particular view.

really.....

Yes…really. Calvinistic doctrine by necessity incorporates human reasoning, as does non-Calvinistic doctrine, however Calvinism has more biblical support than other theological systems (in my view - otherwise I would not be Calvinistic in my beliefs). If anything is wrong with Calvinism it is not Scripture but human reasoning of Scripture (an error in putting it together). Personally, I don't believe this to be the case with my understanding...or I'd change my understanding and then it wouldn't be the case. :smilewinkgrin:

Anyway, the only place where we appear to be in disagreement is that I do believe that a minority of Calvinists are immature and limited in doctrine and can cause real damage in the local church. I believe this is true of other views as well. You, correct me if I am wrong, seem to imply by your objection that once one acknowledges the DoG as true they are incapable of misapplying this doctrine. If this is not your position, then I really don't see where we disagree here.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC
hello JonC... Merry Christmas! Good and helpful post:thumbsup:

That’s silly (as I’m sure you realize) - I’m not talking about biblical Calvinists…I’m talking about unbiblical Calvinists who replace Christ with their understanding of DoG as central to their faith

,

Okay....thanks for clarifying- this group of people is what other cals refer to when speaking of cage stage.They for a time become consumed with the teaching itself,and as they try to take in an overabundance of truth in a short time. The wisdom and grace that come in time is sometimes not sought in prayer quite as eagerly.:love2:

those who cannot fellowship or learn from other biblical Christians who do not share their Calvinistic views because if elitist attitudes.

I did not read your post correctly....this in and of itself is a good topic for discussion. Biblical Christians can do this. In fact biblical Christians can even learn much from error.

Your argument seems to imply that if one considers himself a “Calvinist” he is by that virtue superior to non-Calvinistic believers. If so, then maybe you fall into the category of unbiblical Calvinist - however, I don’t believe this to be the case.

fair enough...I had a wrong take on your post. i do not think that t most cals think in those terms...[superior].
I believe it is that they have already held the other posisitions and zealously defended those ideas....study more....come to what many have already believed.It takes time, trial and error to gain experience to know How to readjust into mainstream evangelicalism.

If they jump right in, they can cause some harm even if they think they are being helpful.

You can kill a mosquito with a fly swatter...or a flamethrower....but it makes a difference to the house...not the mosquito.

This may be true - spiritual growth, maturity, and understanding is a lifelong process - we are never at a point in this lifetime where we possess a perfect understanding of all aspects of the Divine.

:godisgood:

In this case, while it is possible, doubt I do not clearly “see” for a couple of reasons. First, I agree for the most part with the doctrines that these unbiblically zealous Calvinists hold (there are so many nuances in doctrine I cannot make a blanket statement). [/QUOTE]

The fact that there are many issues , lends itself to some confusion.

Second, I have witnesses some using the DoG to separate, divide, and damage other brothers in Christ rather than addressing disagreements in love and a Christ-like attitude (whether or not they are resolved and whether or not this results in separating yet remaining united in Christ).

In cal churches themself..if this is observed it is quickly corrected.

I disagree with their placement of the doctrine, and while their zeal is admirable I believe it to be at the expense of other biblical doctrines and destructive rather than edifying to the Church in general. Again - I am talking about some, not all, and this is not restricted to one particular view.

Again...thanks for clarifying......i was not sure in your other post if it was a one size fits all....

Yes…really. Calvinistic doctrine by necessity incorporates human reasoning, as does non-Calvinistic doctrine, however Calvinism has more biblical support than other theological systems (in my view - otherwise I would not be Calvinistic in my beliefs).

Again...this is another good discussion topic....many issues arise:thumbsup:

If anything is wrong with Calvinism it is not Scripture but human reasoning of Scripture (an error in putting it together).

Yes...the less of us, the more of scripture!!!

Personally, I don't believe this to be the case with my understanding...or I'd change my understanding and then it wouldn't be the case.

Yes...okay sorry if i read your post wrong...lol...used to being on the defensive here on BB.....lol.

Anyway, the only place where we appear to be in disagreement is that I do believe that a minority of Calvinists are immature and limited in doctrine and can cause real damage in the local church.

No...i can agree with this as you have now expanded it.

I believe this is true of other views as well. You, correct me if I am wrong, seem to imply by your objection that once one acknowledges the DoG as true they are incapable of misapplying this doctrine. If this is not your position, then I really don't see where we disagree here.

no..i mostly agree.

 

[JonC]

You can kill a mosquito with a fly swatter...or a flamethrower....but it makes a difference to the house...not the mosquito.

:laugh: I like that (I may borrow it sometimes )

 

[Iconoclast]

I like that (I may borrow it sometimes )

That is the result of inhaling too many diesel fumes....:laugh::laugh::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

and I see we have even more "cagey" calvinists.

The thing is.....you see all cals this way.read Jonc's post as he begins to show differences as to how and why this can happen.

You say the same about Dr.WHITE.....if you feel that strong about it meet him face to face and discuss your differences. Email him...write him....do something ...but do not bear false witness as you are doing.

 

[preacher4truth]

Hi JonC and Merry Christmas.

I am not sure if you mean this seriously or if I am taking this correctly. If so this exemplifies why some are cautious about Calvinism. Too often Calvinists assume those who disagree with their position exhibit a lack of biblical devotion, intellect, etc.

I see what you are saying above, and yes it becomes a stereotype meant to malign. The thing is that many simply do lack Bible devotion, the 'intellect' that comes from much study and meditation (Hebrews 5:11ff). So there is an element of truth to that stance of Calvinists who do see this going on and see why some are not capable of seeing the truths of Scripture beyond a few texts that they've learned through the years, and not advancing in their understanding further. Unfortunately many are fed on milk for too many years, and do not advance. I also want to note that one doctrine they loathe, misunderstand and/or fear, being that of election is the milk of the Word, not meat.

Many pastors probably do have a fear that they will have to labor in the word and doctrine to correct the damage that some Calvinistic zealots may cause.

I won't ask for evidence of the damage done by alleged Calvinist zealots. I will comment that any pastor should ALREADY be capable of defending his position, and there should be no fear involved. 2 Timothy 1:7 is applicable. I must also add that I have not found any arguments against Calvinism stemming from anti-cals or arminians Biblically sound and they are typically readily dismantled with Scripture, context, handling the Word correctly.

Too often Calvinists are trapped within the DoG. They cannot see the multifaceted perspectives presented in Scripture because all doctrines do not necessarily and directly support DoG. They cannot fathom a God that does not prioritize to this doctrine in every thought and action. Granted….well, hopefully….this is a minority within the Calvinist camp. But they are a vocal bunch (perhaps some sense a calling to Calvinism rather than Christ and they wish to convert to Calvinism rather than Christ). That said, I do believe that of the theological systems Calvinism has the most biblical support so #1 isn't an issue with me.

The above is typical and stereotypical. I wish when persons did this they offer up real time examples rather than painting with a mop. The indictment that these cannot see 'multifaceted perspectives' (which are unnamed) to me is quite unfair and is unfounded. The DoG perspective has such a rounded and fairly comprehensive view of God, Scripture, man &c, so could you share which multifaceted perspectives they are missing in Scripture because they are allegedly in the said position you've stated? I'm just looking for some practical evidence to support your theory and perhaps we can hash that out.

I do see partly where you are coming from with these attempting to convert to Calvinism rather than Christ. Some hyper groups are in fact more concerned at doing so than evangelizing for obvious reasons, and this is one reason they've gotten/retained their name as hypers.

I've also taken note that you see Calvinist doctrine as the most Biblical, and that is true and good. I think this is why so many do, as you suggest, make noble attempt to win others to further truth in the Word of God. I believe some of this comes along for the reason that they themselves were not learning, seeing or hearing these truths, then they see them, and they feel they missed so much time being ignorant to these things, and see how very disappointed they were in their former theological understanding. The truths they uncover are refreshing, give liberty, and they wish to share this with others and see others given this same liberty.

I believe we shouldn't broad brush this Calvinist camp with such negativity. The Calvinists I know are the most gracious, God loving people I've ever met.

 

[quantumfaith]

That is the result of inhaling too many diesel fumes....:laugh::laugh::wavey:

I knew it!!!!!!!

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
That is the result of inhaling too many diesel fumes....
I knew it!!!!!!!

Do not tell anyone QF...I am keeping it a secret,lol.

 

[JonC]

The above is typical and stereotypical. I wish when persons did this they offer up real time examples rather than painting with a mop. The indictment that these cannot see 'multifaceted perspectives' (which are unnamed) to me is quite unfair and is unfounded. The DoG perspective has such a rounded and fairly comprehensive view of God, Scripture, man &c, so could you share which multifaceted perspectives they are missing in Scripture because they are allegedly in the said position you've stated? I'm just looking for some practical evidence to support your theory and perhaps we can hash that out.

You are right, and I do apologize. My “real life” examples are from personal experience (seminary, online forums, and some face to face), and I’m not sure that you’ll find them acceptable as they are not verifiable (if not, I apologize…again).

I have encountered Calvinists who objected to any type of human responsibility in salvation. They cringe when a pastor tells a congregation to “repent and believe,” or “believe in the name of Jesus and you will be saved.” They seem to need a “but…only if God has elected you” added in (which, while true, is not a biblical presentation of the gospel to the lost). They never get to the part where the pastor is not saying that men are saved by anything on the part of the man. Perhaps part of my objection is that I believe election is a doctrine for the Church, not the world. Some seem obsessed with the doctrines of grace, but not in a good way. They do not care to hear about all of the implications, but instead focus on an elementary presentation of TUILP. When they do hear “repent and believe,” they seem to immediately want to follow up with a “but.”

As a more extreme example in history, I think of the anti-missionary Calvinists and the struggles of R.B.C. Howell. Their doctrine was really correct in regards to Reformed belief (although they would be considered “hyper”), but their focus on aspects of the doctrines of grace in exclusion of other biblical doctrines developed into a skewed perspective and unbiblical doctrine. They viewed the command to evangelize through the lens of God’s sovereignty and did not want to get in the way, so they didn’t. I see this possibility (but over different issues with different results) with a small group of men today.

Now, in church the opposite has been my experience. I recall one of our pastors saying that faith unto salvation is God’s grace, and not original to mankind. A friend of mine immediately stressed the will of man. He had the same problem, but from an opposite perspective. He could not accept one biblical truth without immediately adding a “but” into the conversation. Basically he rejected unconditional election because of free-will. Likewise, I’ve seen others reject human responsibility because of Divine Sovereignty…but Scripture teaches both.

I don’t know if these examples are sufficient, but I can’t think of anything else at this time. I’ve just finished two hours of Monopoly with my 10 year old son, so please forgive my absence of focus (but I wanted to answer you before the post was closed). If this is not sufficient, I do apologize and will try to clarify another day.

I believe we shouldn't broad brush this Calvinist camp with such negativity. The Calvinists I know are the most gracious, God loving people I've ever met.

I do need to make clear that I do not mean to broad brush the Calvinist camp - not at all. This concern of mine is only applicable to a few that I see as being obsessed with Calvinistic distinctiveness over and above the gospel of Christ that unites the children of God. I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don’t know if these examples are sufficient, but I can’t think of anything else at this time. I’ve just finished two hours of Monopoly with my 10 year old son,

Get the yellow properties and the rr"s...lol

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are right, and I do apologize. My “real life” examples are from personal experience (seminary, online forums, and some face to face), and I’m not sure that you’ll find them acceptable as they are not verifiable (if not, I apologize…again).

I have encountered Calvinists who objected to any type of human responsibility in salvation. They cringe when a pastor tells a congregation to “repent and believe,” or “believe in the name of Jesus and you will be saved.” They seem to need a “but…only if God has elected you” added in (which, while true, is not a biblical presentation of the gospel to the lost). They never get to the part where the pastor is not saying that men are saved by anything on the part of the man. Perhaps part of my objection is that I believe election is a doctrine for the Church, not the world. Some seem obsessed with the doctrines of grace, but not in a good way. They do not care to hear about all of the implications, but instead focus on an elementary presentation of TUILP. When they do hear “repent and believe,” they seem to immediately want to follow up with a “but.”

As a more extreme example in history, I think of the anti-missionary Calvinists and the struggles of R.B.C. Howell. Their doctrine was really correct in regards to Reformed belief (although they would be considered “hyper”), but their focus on aspects of the doctrines of grace in exclusion of other biblical doctrines developed into a skewed perspective and unbiblical doctrine. They viewed the command to evangelize through the lens of God’s sovereignty and did not want to get in the way, so they didn’t. I see this possibility (but over different issues with different results) with a small group of men today.

Now, in church the opposite has been my experience. I recall one of our pastors saying that faith unto salvation is God’s grace, and not original to mankind. A friend of mine immediately stressed the will of man. He had the same problem, but from an opposite perspective. He could not accept one biblical truth without immediately adding a “but” into the conversation. Basically he rejected unconditional election because of free-will. Likewise, I’ve seen others reject human responsibility because of Divine Sovereignty…but Scripture teaches both.

I don’t know if these examples are sufficient, but I can’t think of anything else at this time. I’ve just finished two hours of Monopoly with my 10 year old son, so please forgive my absence of focus (but I wanted to answer you before the post was closed). If this is not sufficient, I do apologize and will try to clarify another day.



I do need to make clear that I do not mean to broad brush the Calvinist camp - not at all. This concern of mine is only applicable to a few that I see as being obsessed with Calvinistic distinctiveness over and above the gospel of Christ that unites the children of God. I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

And so you are an advocate of Fuller....which leads to full Arminism. So bluntly, you don't believe in Radical Depravity...nor do you understand Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is the result of inhaling too many diesel fumes....:laugh::laugh::wavey:

Flame throwers can be very useful in certain situations....:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

I do need to make clear that I do not mean to broad brush the Calvinist camp - not at all. This concern of mine is only applicable to a few that I see as being obsessed with Calvinistic distinctiveness over and above the gospel of Christ that unites the children of God. I apologize if it seemed otherwise.

It still seems otherwise, and you are in fact still painting with a mop. I see little to nothing but denigration of the reformed in your words.

I have to be honest, I've not seen any of this in a church in real time, not once. This seems to exist only in the minds of some on BB (and other forums I'm sure) then after these make their accusations they run wild with it and spread it on nearly everything everywhere.

When a person has nearly nothing good to say about these believers, then it is nearly exclusively an extreme side that is being presented. That in itself makes it all suspect. This causes me to call many things into question, validity and alleged advocacy included.

 

[quantumfaith]

JonC,

I appreciate your "kinder and gentler" approach to the theological discourse around here. I will suggest, as I suppose you are beginning to understand that there are some with which you cannot have any semblance of a reasonable conversation. They (he) will denigrate and criticize any position that stops at any infinitesimal distance short from precisely what is held sacred in his eyes.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

JonC,

I appreciate your "kinder and gentler" approach to the theological discourse around here. I will suggest, as I suppose you are beginning to understand that there are some with which you cannot have any semblance of a reasonable conversation. They (he) will denigrate and criticize any position that stops at any infinitesimal distance short from precisely what is held sacred in his eyes.

Kinder and gentler .....in here? ROFL!

Come on Dave....you see that side of Winmans or Vans delivery...oh heck LOL.

I personally would perfer the direct and honest hateful aproach to this candy coating horse manure.

And I really like flame throwers!

 

[quantumfaith]

Kinder and gentler .....in here? ROFL!

Come on Dave....you see that side of Winmans or Vans delivery...oh heck LOL.

I personally would perfer the direct and honest hateful aproach to this candy coating horse manure.

And I really like flame throwers!

Well, I am happy that you enjoy that sort of discourse. Nothing wrong with honest, hateful is another thing. Enjoy the roll in the manure, just remember to bathe after, otherwise you can be "smelt" a mile away. And though I will not share it, there is history.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, I am happy that you enjoy that sort of discourse. Nothing wrong with honest, hateful is another thing. Enjoy the roll in the manure, just remember to bathe after, otherwise you can be "smelt" a mile away. And though I will not share it, there is history.

I have said this before & will say it again......dissent, even conflict, are necessary. W/o them there is no understanding.

If Jon wishes to make a veiled attempt at attacking serious Calvinists & Old School Baptists...have at it....call us unbiblical and go so far as to say we believe in doctrine vs gospel. See that's a rock thrown & it does the same damage to Christian unity. Believe me though, we see through it though. And it wont go unnoticed.

 

[quantumfaith]

I have said this before & will say it again......dissent, even conflict, are necessary. W/o them there is no understanding.

If Jon wishes to make a veiled attempt at attacking serious Calvinists & Old School Baptists...have at it....call us unbiblical and go so far as to say we believe in doctrine vs gospel. See that's a rock thrown & it does the same damage to Christian unity. Believe me though, we see through it though. And it wont go unnoticed.

Well, I don't read him "attacking" anyone, if he does, then he has done it in the most pleasant of manners. He uses decorum and the acknowledgement that he may not always be correct and certainly open to opposing views. That is a HUGE difference.

 

[agedman]

Yes…really. Calvinistic doctrine by necessity incorporates human reasoning, as does non-Calvinistic doctrine, however Calvinism has more biblical support than other theological systems (in my view - otherwise I would not be Calvinistic in my beliefs). If anything is wrong with Calvinism it is not Scripture but human reasoning of Scripture (an error in putting it together). Personally, I don't believe this to be the case with my understanding...or I'd change my understanding and then it wouldn't be the case. :smilewinkgrin:

Having grown up and been schooled in the non-cal thinking, and actually believed that the Cal view(s) were Biblical error and dangerous, I needed to gather a systematic rebuttal of the Calvinistic thinking.

What I discovered was very, very weak support of other schemes and overwhelming Scriptural support for that of the Cal. views.

The volume of Scripture support was too consistent not to agree.