Victims of Soteriological Dishonesty

[Van]

Just a note to observe this is an excellent thread, thanks to all contributors. As seen in this thread, many say they are not Calvinists, but ask them which if any of the five points of the T.U.L.I.P. they disavow and the answer will be none or evasion. Red flag folks, red flag.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just a note to observe this is an excellent thread, thanks to all contributors. As seen in this thread, many say they are not Calvinists, but ask them which if any of the five points of the T.U.L.I.P. they disavow and the answer will be none or evasion. Red flag folks, red flag.

All depennds on how one defines being a calvinist means, as Reformed bethren have tended to see that as one holding to the entire theology of Covenant theology, entire calvinist theology proper, while others like me see it mainly one holding to DoG, the reformed sotierology theology!

 

[JonC]

Just a note to observe this is an excellent thread, thanks to all contributors. As seen in this thread, many say they are not Calvinists, but ask them which if any of the five points of the T.U.L.I.P. they disavow and the answer will be none or evasion. Red flag folks, red flag.

I don’t consider myself a Calvinist - like our Presbyterian friends, I believe that a rejection of enough Calvinistic doctrines precludes the title (although I recognize the fact that within Baptist circles those doctrines are assumed to be abandoned). But more to the point, many accept “TULIP” but not under the definitions that others assume. It is best, IMHO, to discuss doctrine without the summary and ultimately vagueness of an acronym or title.

 

[salzer mtn]

Say Rev, I wonder if you would have bothered to put this on the board if the pastor believed like you do. Sounds like granny has a closed mind to the truth, maybe everyone else in the church likes what they are hearing.

 

[JonC]

Say Rev, I wonder if you would have bothered to put this on the board if the pastor believed like you do. Sounds like granny has a closed mind to the truth, maybe everyone else in the church likes what they are hearing.

That is an issue. What if the individual simply rejected true doctrine (as the woman stated, the majority of the congregation had no complaint, which she equated to an unawareness or unconcern). No one really knows that the pastor “hid” his theology, but the OP has been under the assumption that the pastor was dishonest. The other side of the coin is whether or not the pastor is obligated to preach what the congregation wants to hear, or if he is obligated to preach the word (theological differences aside).

 

[Van]

I don’t consider myself a Calvinist - like our Presbyterian friends, I believe that a rejection of enough Calvinistic doctrines precludes the title (although I recognize the fact that within Baptist circles those doctrines are assumed to be abandoned). But more to the point, many accept “TULIP” but not under the definitions that others assume. It is best, IMHO, to discuss doctrine without the summary and ultimately vagueness of an acronym or title.

Hi JonC, if I asked you which of the 5 points of the TULIP you disavow, I expect you would evade. I disavow the TULI of the tulip. Nothing vague about my position. I like to stand in the light.

T = Total Spiritual Inability, unable in our fallen natural state to seek God and trust in Christ.

U = Unconditional Election, God chose us individually for salvation not through faith in the truth or other characteristic.

L = Limited Atonement, Christ died for only the elect and did not die as a ransom for all.

I = Irresistible Grace, God converts a person unable to believe into a person who irresistibly comes to faith.

In summary, the TULI teaches we were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing we can do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones. I believe it is a mistaken view of scripture.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Powerful strange, specially is a PB Church.

there are some, but very few, PB churches where you can preach anything you want from the pulpit and no one would notice.
I found this to be because they are not really grounded on doctrine, having come from other denominations, or some are just too gracious to come up and confront error.
When I opposed the missions among our people, some thought I was being too harsh and should apply love and tolerance.
I imagine the guy came in and was accepted as a brother from another PB church.

 

[JonC]

Hi JonC, if I asked you which of the 5 points of the TULIP you disavow, I expect you would evade. I disavow the TULI of the tulip. Nothing vague about my position. I like to stand in the light.

T = Total Spiritual Inability, unable in our fallen natural state to seek God and trust in Christ.

U = Unconditional Election, God chose us individually for salvation not through faith in the truth or other characteristic.

L = Limited Atonement, Christ died for only the elect and did not die as a ransom for all.

I = Irresistible Grace, God converts a person unable to believe into a person who irresistibly comes to faith.

In summary, the TULI teaches we were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing we can do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones. I believe it is a mistaken view of scripture.

Van the man,

I don’t recall being less than transparent in my posts. Actually, most here have been fairly forthright. But I suppose I can understand why you would think some evasive.

T - I believe that men are able but inherently unwilling to turn towards God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.

U - I believe that God elects. God elects to give grace to men, apart from any inherent willingness or merit in that person, to believe. This is grace through faith, the grace is of God and not of men. Less there be any misunderstanding, this is an election unconditional on the merit or will of men.

L - I believe that Jesus died to redeem those who would believe. He is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind, but redeems those who believe. In one sense, Jesus died for all of men. But in a particular sense, He died to redeem only those who believe.

I - irresistible grace has always struck me wrong. It is obvious not only from Scripture but also from experience than men resist God. But God prevails. Insofar as irresistible grace means prevailing grace, I concur.

P - we agree here, so I suppose there is no comment necessary. Salvation is eternal.

I hope that this is transparent enough for you, if not please feel free to question me here or via PM. I do not claim to hold these beliefs in such esteem that they are beyond reproof or correction (actually, if I am proven wrong - to my satisfaction via Scripture - I will gladly make corrections to my understanding). This belief does not form the foundation of my faith, but it does generally represent my soteriological understanding insofar as Calvinism is concerned.

 

[OldRegular]

All depennds on how one defines being a calvinist means, as Reformed bethren have tended to see that as one holding to the entire theology of Covenant theology, entire calvinist theology proper, while others like me see it mainly one holding to DoG, the reformed sotierology theology!

TULIP does not a Calvinist make!

 

[OldRegular]

there are some, but very few, PB churches where you can preach anything you want from the pulpit and no one would notice.
I found this to be because they are not really grounded on doctrine, having come from other denominations, or some are just too gracious to come up and confront error.
When I opposed the missions among our people, some thought I was being too harsh and should apply love and tolerance.
I imagine the guy came in and was accepted as a brother from another PB church.

You need to get that Kentucky redneck after them.

 

[Van]

Hi JonC, yes your statement was clear. From my side of the street, you are a 3.5 point Calvinist.

Matthew 13 teaches that some men are unable to understand the gospel, but not all men. It teaches that others are willing to receive the gospel, yet do not make a whole-hearted commitment. Still others commit but do not toss out other worldly treasures. If the "work of the Holy Spirit" refers to the preservation and presentation of the gospel of Christ, then we agree, if it is code for enabling a fallen person to seek God and trust in Christ, then again I am on the other side of the street.

We both agree God elects, but we disagree that God elects individuals unconditionally. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses us through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election.

Again, we disagree on limited atonement, Christ died to become the propitiation for the whole world, not just a subset. 1 Peter 2:1 teaches Christ bought with His blood, those who would not be saved.

We agree (!!!) on irresistible grace. It is a mistaken view of scripture.

And we agree on OSAS.

Thanks for your candor.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hi JonC, yes your statement was clear. From my side of the street, you are a 3.5 point Calvinist.

Matthew 13 teaches that some men are unable to understand the gospel, but not all men. It teaches that others are willing to receive the gospel, yet do not make a whole-hearted commitment. Still others commit but do not toss out other worldly treasures. If the "work of the Holy Spirit" refers to the preservation and presentation of the gospel of Christ, then we agree, if it is code for enabling a fallen person to seek God and trust in Christ, then again I am on the other side of the street.

We both agree God elects, but we disagree that God elects individuals unconditionally. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses us through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election.

Again, we disagree on limited atonement, Christ died to become the propitiation for the whole world, not just a subset. 1 Peter 2:1 teaches Christ bought with His blood, those who would not be saved.

We agree (!!!) on irresistible grace. It is a mistaken view of scripture.

And we agree on OSAS.

Thanks for your candor.

Pk pk dont turn this thread into your little off topic soap box on calvinism.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hi JonC, if I asked you which of the 5 points of the TULIP you disavow, I expect you would evade. I disavow the TULI of the tulip. Nothing vague about my position. I like to stand in the light.

T = Total Spiritual Inability, unable in our fallen natural state to seek God and trust in Christ.

U = Unconditional Election, God chose us individually for salvation not through faith in the truth or other characteristic.

L = Limited Atonement, Christ died for only the elect and did not die as a ransom for all.

I = Irresistible Grace, God converts a person unable to believe into a person who irresistibly comes to faith.

In summary, the TULI teaches we were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing we can do will alter that outcome for ourselves or our loved ones. I believe it is a mistaken view of scripture.

This thread is not about what the tulip teaches.

 

[Van]

From my side of the street, where my "little soap box" sits, this thread is about the deception used by Calvinists to deceive the body of Christ. It is about dictatorial elitists who drive those who trust in God and not man from the church, using deception and malice. Know anybody like that?

 

[Revmitchell]

From my side of the street, where my "little soap box" sits, this thread is about the deception used by Calvinists to deceive the body of Christ. It is about dictatorial elitists who drive those who trust in God and not man from the church, using deception and malice. Know anybody like that?

It is not about debating the merits of Calvinism. Stop derailing the thread.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:laugh::laugh: Oh brother ! ROFL!!!

 

[Van]

My dear Revmitchell, folks that say "its not about" but omit "what it is about" are shoveling sand against the tide. Truth matters. Your OP addressed the deceit of Calvinism. I am addressing the specifics of that deceit.

"We realize the pain caused by such spiritual subterfuge."

 

[Revmitchell]

My dear Revmitchell, folks that say "its not about" but omit "what it is about" are shoveling sand against the tide. Truth matters. Your OP addressed the deceit of Calvinism. I am addressing the specifics of that deceit.

Me thinks thou protest too much.

You do not even know what it is about. I suggest you go back and read it. It is not just about everything and anything one fids deceitful. That is just your excuse to go on your little tirade. Grow up and stop looking for excuses to derail threads in the name of your own uncontrollable habits about Calvinism. We all know you are against it.


Stay on topic or move on.

I will say again this thread is not about just anything one finds deceitful about Calvinism. It is about a very specific issue.

 

[Aaron]

I don't know? Are you ever dishonest?

I am sure this happens, but anecdotally I would be willing to bet that "stealth" non-cal takeovers of predominantly Cal churches is a MUCH more rare event.

The issue here isn't the soteriology, as I said. It's the integrity of a man and the means he employs.

So if you want to compare the degrees to which less than scrupulous individuals of either camp employ a stealth and somewhat underhanded strategy to further an agenda, one needs only look to the way that transistions from spiritual modes of worship to carnal and exhibitionistic styles are accomplished, and your dearth becomes a flood.

 

[Revmitchell]

The issue here isn't the soteriology, as I said. It's the integrity of a man and the means he employs.

So if you want to compare the degrees to which less than scrupulous individuals of either camp employ a stealth and somewhat underhanded strategy to further an agenda, one needs only look to the way that transistions from spiritual modes of worship to carnal and exhibitionistic styles are accomplished, and your dearth becomes a flood.

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 bet you cannot name one.

Are all men dishonest. You bet. But this is not abut dishonesty in general. It is about a very specific use of dishonesty and from pastors to boot.