It has nothing to do with "superiority" but with pure distraction and deflection to non-essentials when the contextual essentials are placed squarely in your face and what does he and you do? IGNORE them and play this silly distraction game.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Fear of Calvinism in the SBC
- Thread starter Thousand Hills
- Start date
- Status
It has nothing to do with "superiority" but with pure distraction and deflection to non-essentials when the contextual essentials are placed squarely in your face and what does he and you do? IGNORE them and play this silly distraction game.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Actually it says its necessary for 'believing' to occur, something YOU ASSUME is impossible apart from an additional irresistible working of grace...one above and beyond the work of grace in the gospel message itself...something the text doesn't even come close to suggesting.
That is because no MAN can come unless they hear, just as Rom. 10:14 affirms. No one is denying the need of all to be drawn, we are denying that that all are being drawn in the context of John 6, because it is NOT UNTIL Christ is raised up from the cross that 'all men are drawn.' If Christ had drawn all men prior to being raised up what might have happened? Imagine if the thousands had come to believe in Christ after his sermon in John 6 as after Peter's sermon in Acts 2. What would that have done? It would have prevented the cross. Jesus had to keep them hardened/blinded for a time.
The gospel is the means of 'drawing,' and the gospel truth is being hidden from their eyes, as they are being sent a spirit of stupor.' AGain, not my words but Christ.
We all are asking, "Why can't Jesus' audience believe?"
Calvinists answer: Because they are born total depraved, meaning unable to see, hear, understand and repent, and God doesn't love them and hasn't chosen to grant them that ability.
Jesus' answer: "For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them." 41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." -John 12:39
And Paul: "" 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"
Jesus also explains why the Jewish leaders of his day couldn't believe in Mark 4 and Matt. 13. Paul likewise in Romans 11.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If you think quoting directly from Strongs and asking if that is the original word to which you were referring is a silly game, so be it. I was just seeking confirmation of what argument you were attempting to make, but apparently you have such a 'debate mode' mentality on this forum you can't see an honest question for what it is. I'm sorry it has lead to this for you as it really removes the benefit of what an iron sharpening iron debate forum can offer. If you wish to drop the pretense and engage in an objective rational discussion about our views, I'll be waiting.
No one denies believing is necessary but it does not say a word about who will believe or how they will believe except Romans 10;17 and that is where the word "rhema" is used. Whether or not it means "word of command" as in 2 Cor. 4:6 is the issue.
It says no such thing and you know it says no such thing. It says "except the Father draw him" not "unless they hear." You know fully well that verses 44-45 is completely about the work of the Father and not a single syllable said about instrumentality or human preachers. Again, your whole interpretation of John 6:44-45 is completely refuted by Christ's own application of this passage directly to unbeleivers in Jn 6:64-65.
False! John 6:64-65 completely repudiates that idea. These men had the gospel preached to them and submitted to baptism (Jn. 3:16; 3:36; 4:1-2; Acts 1:21-22) and yet Christ clearly denies they had been drawn by the Father. That repudiates your whole system. John 6:65 is given as the explanation for their unbeleive in verse 64 and the words "THEREFORE I said unto you that no man can come unto me" is referring to the opposite of unbelief - coming to him in faith just as Hebrews 11:6 says "he that cometh to God must believe".
The fallen nature is totally depraved and completely without ability as Romans 8:8 explicitly states that all "in the flesh CANNOT please God" due to the very characterizations spelled out in verse 7. Judicial hardening is nothing more than the natural response of the fallen nature to light whereby the ability of conscience is "seared" and the process fully described in Romans 1:21-32 engages.
Why is there only ONE KIND of response offered in Romans 1:18-32??? Where is the response you claim is possible for those "in the flesh" in this chapter???? Silence? Yes! and for good reason as this is the condition of the fallen nature as Paul concludes in Romans 3:9-20.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I don't think any of those are valid reasons for the SBC to "fear" Calvinism-- a poorly chosen word, no offense, as I don't believe the SBC fears the doctrine.
What concerns the SBC is #6:
I don't think, as #1 suggests, that the SBC believes Calvinism is a "false teaching." I think we, as a denomination, are wary of the type of divisiveness we find on this forum, the insistence on an "absolutism" regarding Calvinist teaching that Calvin himself didn't ascribe to. Just as Burus said in your quote, "It's not the theology that splits churches, it's the zealots."
He has come a long way in his thinking since 2009, when one of his posts on SBCVoices compared the alleged "fear" of Calvinism to racism. Good grief!
Pleeease! I have made this claim repeatedly many times concerning Romans 10:17 and the word RHEMA. Do you really think quoting Strongs repudiated that claim? You read it before you posted it and knew it contained that meaning, so, what is the point in posting it, especially when you chose to do that while choosing to completely ignore the contextual based evidences that make it sooooo obvious! I placed right in front of your face from the very same writer concerning the very same gospel where it could mean nothing other than that - 2 Cor. 4:6 directly appealing to Genesis 1:3!!!!!
At best what you are doing is a distraction and at worst a nefarious attempt to find an escape from the contextual evidences that so obviously demand that rendering.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Actually it does..."Faith comes by hearing..." but you have chosen to explain that away with an argument about the original language which you won't engage me on because apparently quoting directly from Strongs is all it takes to put you on the defensive and completely shut down the debate.
Hearing the truth is the means of drawing, as has been established. Even Calvinists affirm this, you all just argue that the reason they can't hear (with spiritual ears) is because they haven't yet been born again and due to the FALL they aren't able to hear. We both SHOULD affirm that drawing is accomplished by hearing the Word of God.
But again, I refer you to our last merry-go-round because this is all just a rehash of the same...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
No, but apparently you did because you reacted so defensively against nothing more than a copy and pasted quote. I was simply asking for clarification on your argument.
Come on Skan! You had the confirmation in the very quote before you posted it. You can read can't you? Do I really have to respond and say, "yeah, it confirms the meaning that I claimed it 'may" be translated"!! Really?????
Why did you choose to go this route which is completely unnecessary if one can read, and ignore contextual based data that is sooo obvious this is what it does mean by Paul's own reference to Genesis 1:3 in 2 Cor. 4:6 in regard to the very "substance" of faith provided in the gospel????? I can readily see why you chose to go the unnecessary route and ignore the substantive evidences.
2 Cor. 4:6 is a gospel context and the preaching of the gospel just as Romans 10:17 is a gospel context and the preaching of the gospel, just as 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 is a gospel context and the preaching of the gospel and all are written by the very same author.
Here is what you chose to ignore while choosing to quote something that was completely unnecessary to quote since you obviously read it before quoting it and knew it confirmed RHEMA "may" be translated as suggested and as shown by 2 Cor. 4;6.
Here is how saving faith is produced within the lost which repudiates your "common grace" theory.
Thousand Hills
Active Member
Thanks for sharing your point of view in regard to the OP. Over the past 5 pages or so its actually the only post that has stuck with the intent of the thread. With that I ask the mods to please close it down. :tongue3:
preacher4truth
Active Member
I agree with the former. With the latter? I am not so certain he does.raying:
He made a choice to either deal directly with the evidence I placed in front of him that makes it obvious that a creative word of Command by God is involved in gospel salvation (2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thes. 1:4-5) OR distract by quoting somethiing completely unncessary as he could read that what I said RHEMA "may" mean is found in his own quotation. I think he is intelligent enough to know exactly why he chose to ignore the evidence for that meaning and quote Strong's which includes that meaning and ask me to confirm what his own eyes can confirm.
The evidence provided proves such a command is involved in gospel salvation.
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
My plan was to reference both words in each text, first from Gen. 1:3 and then Romans 10:17, in order to better understand your argument. To do this I simply pulled up those two words on Strongs and copied/pasted them followed by a question asking you to confirm your argument...and this was your reaction. I never made an argument. I never denied you translation. I never suggested anything for or against what you said regarding those two words. I simply pasted Strongs and asked you to affirm if those were the words you were referencing and you replied in this hyper-defensive manner making me out to be someone without common sense. Do you call this a rational and objective discussion? I think you have become too engrossed in the debate...as a contest of sorts, which has caused you to lose objectivity and it has clouded your reason. I'm not the meanie you seem to think I am.
I'm still here when you want to discuss this reasonably.
Then why ask the obvious? And why deny to address the obvious? You can read Strongs as well as I can. The meaning I said it "may" mean is found in your quotation. Yours was an exercise of futility at best and at worst an attempt to simply broaden the meaning of the term in order to deny the obvious contextual meaning! You are a bright and very skilled debater and you know exactly why another debater resorts to this kind of tactic INSTEAD of dealing with the obvious proof that context absolutely demands!
I don't believe this is a reasonable response since you knew before quoting Strong that what I said was in keeping with its range of meaning. The only reason for quoting Strong is to show that someone's idea is not within the range of the meaning of a term or is contrary to it or to broaden the field so that you can escape such a meaning, but to quote it to "confirm" such a meaning when you can easily see and read that it is, is a waste of time - futility at best and destraction from the real evidence at worst.
preacher4truth
Active Member
And are we surprised by this in the least? His method has always been to twist what a person says into something else, or to add another trail to what you've said which is another topic altogether. Then he begins his onlsaught based upon a trail he has created. He's done this as long as I've been here, probably his entire life. He cannot win in the parameters of the actual debate so he creates new ones, gives smoke screens &c.
He ignored it because he couldn't win in arguing against truth, so he put in his diversions.
:thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Oh, this too Biblicist, you'll always get this kind of response:
You've been reasonable and nothing short of that, it's just another one of his tactics. He's a mod, you're not, it's a veiled threat that has no foundation in its accusation.
Carry on.
You've been reasonable and nothing short of that, it's just another one of his tactics. He's a mod, you're not, it's a veiled threat that has no foundation in its accusation.
Carry on.
- Status