The Fear of Calvinism in the SBC

[agedman]

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 agree!!!!

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

Agreed. I've progressed in the same manner and within similar circumstances.

 

[quantumfaith]

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.

Agedman,

A perfectly and genuine manner for disagreement. Thank You.

 

[JonC]

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

I bought the electronic banking game as I thought it would be easier (it was) and quicker (it wasn’t). After two hours he decided to just count the money and see who won (which was not me – I was playing the game and investing). With only 3 players (and one being 10), that game is so long.

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.

Thanks. I discovered this and am beginning to understand who is capable of arguing a point and who can only quarrel. I have not always taken the “kinder” approach, unfortunately, but I do try to be faithful to Christ's words.

 

[JonC]

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.

No, but I am an advocate of a fuller appreciation, presentation, and understanding of Scripture than some would allow. When one can only believe Ephesians 2:8-9 by rejecting other passages of Scripture then there is a flaw in that person’s belief system. This is not the case with Calvinism, or even most of the Calvinists that I know of, but it is the case with some Christians. This, I believe, is one reason that many non-Calvinistic churches avoid the topic of election – they cannot easily reconcile it with their belief system.


What part of Ephesians 2:8-9 do I not understand?

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..

I have never experienced it in a church (as stated). Actually, it has been the opposite – non-Calvinists have objected to scripture that was not presented in such a manner to emphasize free-will. But I’ve only seen this twice, that I can recall.

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.

Not when the topic is addressing the extreme side of the issue. I have not seen you object when Arminianism is being presented as flawed by voicing the ways God has used John Wesley. Instead, you have dealt with the issue at hand. R.C. Sproul is right – there are some who are so aggressive and impatient, on a mission to ensure everyone knows the truth of divine election, that they should be locked in a cage to cool down and mature.

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

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

And I really like flame throwers!

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.

My mother once told me that she would never board an airplane if she knew the pilot to be a woman. Her reasoning was that if an emergency occurred, she feared that the pilot would become too emotionally involved in the circumstance to objectively evaluate the situation. Thank you for providing an illustration that emotional blindness and attachment is not gender specific.

 

[preacher4truth]

I agree!!!!

Thanks. Only in today's economy is it seen as quarreling when one is defending brothers against broad brushing, denigrating remarks and unfounded and belittling accusations. :thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

I have not seen you object when Arminianism is being presented as flawed by voicing the ways God has used John Wesley. Instead, you have dealt with the issue at hand.

Could you point me to where this blessed event took place?

I apologize for not jumping in on said topic.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, but I am an advocate of a fuller appreciation, presentation, and understanding of Scripture than some would allow. When one can only believe Ephesians 2:8-9 by rejecting other passages of Scripture then there is a flaw in that person’s belief system. This is not the case with Calvinism, or even most of the Calvinists that I know of, but it is the case with some Christians. This, I believe, is one reason that many non-Calvinistic churches avoid the topic of election – they cannot easily reconcile it with their belief system.


What part of Ephesians 2:8-9 do I not understand?




I have never experienced it in a church (as stated). Actually, it has been the opposite – non-Calvinists have objected to scripture that was not presented in such a manner to emphasize free-will. But I’ve only seen this twice, that I can recall.


Not when the topic is addressing the extreme side of the issue. I have not seen you object when Arminianism is being presented as flawed by voicing the ways God has used John Wesley. Instead, you have dealt with the issue at hand. R.C. Sproul is right – there are some who are so aggressive and impatient, on a mission to ensure everyone knows the truth of divine election, that they should be locked in a cage to cool down and mature.




My mother once told me that she would never board an airplane if she knew the pilot to be a woman. Her reasoning was that if an emergency occurred, she feared that the pilot would become too emotionally involved in the circumstance to objectively evaluate the situation. Thank you for providing an illustration that emotional blindness and attachment is not gender specific.

Id say you didn't inherit your mothers intelligence

 

[JonC]

Could you point me to where this blessed event took place?

I apologize for not jumping in on said topic.

I don’t want to get caught up here too much, but sure.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2065246#post2065246

 

[JonC]

Id say you didn't inherit your mothers intelligence

:laugh::laugh: I'd be inclined often to agree.

How do I misunderstand Eph. 2:8-9?

 

[preacher4truth]

I don’t want to get caught up here too much, but sure.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2065246#post2065246

Cool. I stand on what I've stated and won't recant because it is in fact true. The entire premise of arminianism and anti-cal theologies fail on the very things I mentioned, sin, man, and God.

Now, show me this specific thing wherein I didn't partake which included John Wesley. That link doesn't prove nor come close to supporting your accusation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:laugh::laugh: I'd be inclined often to agree.

How do I misunderstand Eph. 2:8-9?

Tell me how you interpret it

 

[JonC]

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.

As an undergraduate student I was pretty much a Reformation Arminian. I ran into several arrogant, elitist Calvinists (my perspective) who wanted to convert me but were unable to actually communicate as they couldn’t “hear” my objections or view. One classmate was different. He invited me to explain my understanding to him, and listen to his explanation. Afterwards we still didn’t agree, but we did start corresponding via email – the goal being not to change the others mind but to mutually understand the others position. Anyway, what I discovered was that if I were God I’d have done it the Arminian way – but Scripture was much more supportive of the Calvinistic view. For me, it was also in defending my non-Calvinistic view through Scripture that I began to understand and reject that view.

 

[JonC]

Cool. I stand on what I've stated and won't recant because it is in fact true. The entire premise of arminianism and anti-cal theologies fail on the very things I mentioned, sin, man, and God.

Now, show me this specific thing wherein I didn't partake which included John Wesley. That link doesn't prove nor come close to supporting your accusation.

You misunderstand – it wasn’t an accusation. You shouldn’t have gone into the way God used those who believe Arminian doctrine in arguing against that doctrine. Neither should I when pointing out what I (and others like Sproul, Machaney, White, etc) see as an issue with a few. If it makes you “feel” better – and let’s be clear, I can’t help but see that this is becoming about feelings rather than doctrine – while I believe these few to be misguided and misapplying truth, I am not rejecting their doctrine here.

 

[JonC]

So bluntly, you don't believe in Radical Depravity...nor do you understand Ephesians 2:8-9.

Tell me how you interpret it

That’s on you big boy. You tell me my understanding of the passage (as you have clearly stated it is flawed). While you are at it, tell me my belief of depravity. So bluntly, “put up or shut up” – defend your assessment.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That’s on you big boy. You tell me my understanding of the passage (as you have clearly stated it is flawed). While you are at it, tell me my belief of depravity. So bluntly, “put up or shut up” – defend your assessment.

:laugh:Sure little lady. Here is my prospective.....your an out and out Fullerist. That in effect is your beliefs.....a duty faith bound belief system. Thats what I see your all about. That stance allows you & your ilk to critique truly serious Calvinists as not seeing the whole bible. Of course you cannot explain it all so you just lump it into one ball of wax & critique people as Hyper Calvinists & to you & your arminian friends, thats Bad, Bad, Bad.

 

[preacher4truth]

:laugh:Sure little lady. Here is my prospective.....your an out and out Fullerist. That in effect is your beliefs.....a duty faith bound belief system. Thats what I see your all about.

Exactly. His criticism and denigration is justified because he's being 'extreme' according to him. According to reality he's simply sowing discord against a camp of brothers.

That stance allows you & your ilk to critique truly serious Calvinists as not seeing the whole bible. Of course you cannot explain it all so you just lump it into one ball of wax & critique people as Hyper Calvinists & to you & your arminian friends, thats Bad, Bad, Bad.

He's had two unfounded accusations with no proof within this thread. One is toward all Calvinists in general, and the second being something about what I did or didn't do about John Wesley somewhere on BB. Nothing more than slander and broad brushing on his part and nothing good to say otherwise, accept of course if it is an anti or arm.

 

[preacher4truth]

You misunderstand – it wasn’t an accusation. You shouldn’t have gone into the way God used those who believe Arminian doctrine in arguing against that doctrine.

Seriously? Where did I go against Wesley? That's right, I didn't and you have no proof having presupposed something into my statements. My points were against Skandelon and his false doctrine, so keep your story and accusations straight.

Neither should I when pointing out what I (and others like Sproul, Machaney, White, etc) see as an issue with a few. If it makes you “feel” better – and let’s be clear, I can’t help but see that this is becoming about feelings rather than doctrine – while I believe these few to be misguided and misapplying truth, I am not rejecting their doctrine here.

Now you're assuming. I'm on here speaking the truth and exposing the errors of the brand of arminianism I was addressing.

Now here is the thing, if you believe 'neither should you', change that to 'Jonc shouldn't do this' and leave what I allow in good conscience out of it, and you r false indictment.

In other words judge yourself, don't judge me because you have no clue as to why I do this. OK? See, I don't do this to 'feel' good about it as you assume, just so you know. What that judgment of yours REALLY is is a true reflection of YOUR motives, not mine. See Romans 2:1ff for some evidence of that. :thumbs:

 

[JonC]

Seriously? Where did I go against Wesley?

Nothing...that I know of. I don't know your age, but I suspect you never met the man.

This was your comment:

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.

My point was practice what you preach. I disagreed because I believe one can look at issues independently.

 

[JonC]

:laugh:Sure little lady. Here is my prospective.....your an out and out Fullerist. That in effect is your beliefs.....a duty faith bound belief system. Thats what I see your all about. That stance allows you & your ilk to critique truly serious Calvinists as not seeing the whole bible. Of course you cannot explain it all so you just lump it into one ball of wax & critique people as Hyper Calvinists & to you & your arminian friends, thats Bad, Bad, Bad.

I certainly do not view you as unable to voice your perspective as you have adequately demonstrated to the contrary. :smilewinkgrin: That’s not what I’m asking.

nor do you understand Ephesians 2:8-9.

I will help your lapse in omniscience. In context with the entire passage, my understanding of Ephesians 2:8-9 is that as believers, were once dead in our trespasses and sins. Because of God’s love for us, even when we were dead, He made us alive together with Christ. It is by grace we have been saved through faith. This is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God; not a result of works. I hope that clarifies.

Where does my understanding depart from biblical truth? Don’t just say I’m wrong – show me so I can learn from my mistake rather than view your comment as an unfounded accusation.

One is toward all Calvinists in general, and the second being something about what I did or didn't do about John Wesley somewhere on BB. Nothing more than slander and broad brushing on his part and nothing good to say otherwise, accept of course if it is an anti or arm.

You, perhaps, but I have not intentionally accused Calvinists in general of anything – if so, please show me where.