Featured Victims of Soteriological Dishonesty

Now, now, he has said this thread is not about Calvinism... :laugh:

Zactly the feeling I got.... :laugh:

 

Kudos, Revmitchell for your concise and provocative thread title.

 

In the OP, we find a pastor who says what he is not, i.e. I am not a Calvinist. Folks who say what they are not, rather than what they are are deceitful. It is a red flag, folks, a red flag.

 

How stupid is it to suggest it was the sheep’s fault for getting too close the wolf’s teeth? Sorry, but this reasoning is on par with: It was the innocent child’s fault for not being diligent and getting too close to the pedophile’s truck because his agenda could have been exposed.

People should be aware of the available ambiguous semantics on the titles which are used for Doctrines of Determinism. Therefore, non-transparency is justified, heck the pastor might even share in OldRegular’s reasoning that titles like “Doctrines of Sovereign Grace” rather than full disclosure such as “Doctrines of Deterministic Sovereign Grace” is an acceptable and honest way to keep one’s little secret. Got it…

This poison should also help justify the lack of transparency. Got it…

Good thinking! After all, he neglected that “Two wrongs makes a right”. What a joker he is for forgetting this logical truth.

I’ll interpret that conglomeration of words as another argument for the attempt at justification of non-transparency.

Ever heard of the fallacies “Circumstantial Ad Hominem” and /or “Poisoning the Well”? i.e., the circumstances involve a Calvinist at that is personally offensive to you, therefore the issue becomes a claim without merit and it’s justified to throw in this red herring/smokescreen and attack the Op – that ought to help your argument. Which is – This is about a Calvinist so all other issues are void…

Oh, not to forget maybe the “Horse laugh” (A rhetorical tool) helps support your “point” (fallacy).

Yup, love the reasoning being given by my Determinist friends here to justify this tactic. With these fine examples you’ve truly outdone yourselves in the quest for logical truth.

 

I don't hear of many Calvinists doing that at all. You have a letter from one woman whose testimony is that the congregation is pretty much on board with this man.

I would want to interview the pastor and the congregation before I judge the situation, and it sounds like if I did, I would find that the woman who wrote you the letter isn't telling the whole story.

One letter where "names are changed" is poop. There is no "trend" of Calvinists stealthily taking over churches. Calvinism is growing, no doubt, and they are outvoting non-cals.

 

Yep, there is the difference. I have NEVER heard of an Arminian or non-Cal pastor sneaking into a Reformed church and trying to change it. It might have happened once or twice, but if it happens it is extremely rare.

But I have heard of Calvinists attempting to sneak into Arminian or non-Cal churches MANY times.

Here is an interesting article on the subject from Sweden.

http://bjorkbloggen.com/?s=calvinists+sneaking+into+churches

Here is a Calvinist who admitted subtly introducing Calvinism into a non-Calvinist church to this blogger;

 

Torn apart.

 

:laugh: Baloney....we. are not dealing with children here....we are however dealing with an entire church with an organized selection committee (all born agains). They should of had enough education in doctrine etc to flesh out a phony. While the pastor was obviously a snake, these people also needed to be both aware and on their guard.

 

Is the man you indict in the op bringing in Purpose Driven stuff? Or do you know?

 

No it doesn't. Sheesh. Anyway, one's calvinism has nothing to do with it.

 

To say he's not a calvinist and then start creeping in the DoG theology is dishonest. To say your not a calvinist but hold to DoG is iffy at best. I have zero problem being called a calvinist, even though I don't hold to infant baptism.

But that "pastor" flat out lied to that church if the woman's story is true.

 

Truthfully, no matter the theology (Calvinistic or Arminian), what you state here is the real problem.

Most people in SBC churches have a theological acumen that stops at "Noah built an Arky-Arky."

The Archangel

 

Just because....

Revmitchell's response was, in a sense, one huge begging of the question. Now, of course the person to whom he was writing was likely the same persuasion as he is.

Since the question has been begged, I will ask--rhetorically--these questions:

1.) Does not the scriptures describe a plurality of elders?

2.) Where is the reporting of information "required" and where is the scriptural impetus to report such things?

3.) Are the "critics" being disciplined because they merely raise a question or for some other scripturally-enumerated sin?

4.) Why can't the Cooperative Program and other missions boards be supported? (After all how many SBC churches support the Cooperative Program and independent missionaries?)

5.) Where is there an alter call in scripture?

So, I'm not intending to derail the thread. But, since the question has been begged, these questions did need to be asked.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. One more question.... What if the opponents of this "Reformation" are wrong?

 

Nice attempt to distract. The problem is people sneaking into churches and trying to change what the church believes. This is wrong no matter who does it, it just seems that Calvinists are almost always the ones doing it.

 

Since you seem more interested in taking pot-shots at me...

You'll kindly notice Revmitchell's original post and my subsequent response:

So, it is in no way a distraction to answer another line of reasoning by the OP. And, unless you are also charging Revmitchell with attempting to "distract," your accusation is simply ignorant and baseless.

The Archangel