Victims of Soteriological Dishonesty

[kyredneck]

Say Rev, I wonder if you would have bothered to put this on the board if the pastor believed like you do.

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

Sounds like granny has a closed mind to the truth, maybe everyone else in the church likes what they are hearing.

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

 

[InTheLight]

Kudos, Revmitchell for your concise and provocative thread title.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[Benjamin]

My question is, How stupid was the congregation for not checking this guys background more thoroughly & asking more pointed questions of the man? I'm sure with some do diligence, it could have been exposed.

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.

I believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace but I am not a Calvinist. It is certainly plausible that a Baptist pastor would make the same distinction that I do.

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…

Of course Southern Baptists Churches are getting as close to baptizing infants as possible so who knows!

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

You're joking, right? After all, noncalvinists never ever ever ever lie in a million quadrillion years.

*rolls eyes*

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

the pastor needs to be honest and upfront on his theology, bit the questions I have are:

Can't a Pastor who holds to reformed sotierology only pastor a local SBC church, as hunch is many would hold to tht in alocal baptist church!

And aren't there 'closet arminians/non cals" who get pastorates also in baptist circles?

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

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

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

How about this then?

If a pastor was upfront and honest about holding to reformed theology, can he then be voted in as the pastor if agreed upon by the local church membership?

Of course, there are hundreds of them and the SBC was founded by both general and particular Baptists.

Is there a difference to you between a Pastor being reformed in sotierology mainly, not entire Reformed theology?

This question is worded odd and I am not sure what you are asking here. What does "not entirely reformed" mean? It all depends on the autonomous local SBC church.

And aren't there 'closet arminians/non cals" within Baptist churches, who bring out that after pastoring also though?

In Calvinist churches? Never heard of one.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have no idea who it was that said:

Of course Southern Baptists Churches are getting as close to baptizing infants as possible so who knows!

But it could not be farther from the truth. And any SBC church that did this would most likely be dis-fellowshiped.

 

[Aaron]

Arron how many non cal pastors have you ever heard of that have gone into a cal church, hid their theology, worked to stealthily change the core doctrines of that church and the form of governance?

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

The op was a post with only one example. That example was not the whole of the post. Sag38 gave an example, I can tell you there is a church in Memphis that was torn apart and if you Google this issue you will see it talked about over and over again.

 

[Winman]

In Calvinist churches? Never heard of one.

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;

”Just yesterday I was teaching (in my A/G church) my high school class the Scriptural truths about God’s sovereignty in salvation. I cleverly did not use the terms “unconditional election” or “Calvinism.” I simply explained what the Bible clearly teaches in, i.e., Ephesians 1 and Romans 8. The kids came up with some good questions, and what I noticed was that we (humans) desperately want to be able to explain everything.

A couple of the students hypothesized that, regarding foreknowledge, it was just that since God knows everything, he already knew who would choose him – that same ol’ saw. I explained that first of all, that that is NOT what “foreknow” means, and then helped them to see that if it were true, then God is essentially bound by our decisions.

We went on from there to talk very briefly about the mysteries of God. At any rate, it was a fun exercise, and what you’ve posted today is just exactly where we were yesterday. I love these bits especially:“The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in the same apophatic domain. We can’t make sense out of them and once we do, we have entered into error.”

 

[Rippon]

I can tell you there is a church in Memphis that was tore apart ...

Torn apart.

 

[Revmitchell]

Torn apart.

Yep thanks

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

: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.

 

[Revmitchell]

While the pastor was obviously a snake, these people also needed to be both aware and on their guard.

There is no doubt that both of these are true. The greater responsibility lies with the pastor.

 

[Aaron]

The op was a post with only one example. That example was not the whole of the post. Sag38 gave an example, I can tell you there is a church in Memphis that was torn apart and if you Google this issue you will see it talked about over and over again.

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

 

[Aaron]

There is no doubt that both of these are true. The greater responsibility lies with the pastor.

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

 

[convicted1]

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.

 

[The Archangel]

I believe proper discipleship has been the problem. What we have had is a bunch of life's little lessons rather than doctrine. We are changing that at my church.

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

 

[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?

 

[Winman]

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

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.

 

[The Archangel]

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:

I believe proper discipleship has been the problem. What we have had is a bunch of life's little lessons rather than doctrine. We are changing that at my church.

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."

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