Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

RSS Robot

Calvinism Committee Issues Report, Urges Sbc To 'stand Together' For Great Commission

Recommended Posts

He claimed calvinism often for himself and preached at least two messages that I have personally read that were on the five tulip points in a positive sense.
However, he also claimed the free will of man on this issue and almost every message he preached dripped with a free will call to Salvation.

it could easily be claimed that on this point he was decidedly schizophrenic.
And he admitted the quandary of his stand and position but claimed the high things of God, much as the vast majority of us would with the understanding of the Triune God.

 

1st,  I admit, I know little about him, have read only a few of his sermons.

 

Do you suppose he was preaching to a divided group & knew it & trying to keep both them happy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why the thread has migrated to "Spurgeonism" except that he clearly demonstrated that ALL the objections to "calvinism" are spurious. We preach Christ & call on sinners to repent. If they reject the Gospel one day that is no proof they are not elect. God uses the Gospel of Christ to convict sinners & call them to repentance.

 

Why should it be an issue for this thread to deviate into a thread about Spurgeon? Don't most of the threads on OB usually get side-tracked? Honestly I welcome the change, because it gives us a chance to get away from an issue that has been causing divisions and argument. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethern to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore." Should we back down from the truth? God forbid! However after the first and second admonition of someone who refuses to listen, it is time to let it go. Also, if we are not (mind you I do not mean to say anyone in particular but rather that it is human tendencies) willing to look at what we believe and see if it is wrong; we have a ungodly attitude and need to repent of our wickedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should it be an issue for this thread to deviate into a thread about Spurgeon? Don't most of the threads on OB usually get side-tracked? Honestly I welcome the change, because it gives us a chance to get away from an issue that has been causing divisions and argument.

While true (I do it too)--- that is what starting a separate thread is for,   such as ... How firmly Calvinistic was Spurgeon?      hint,hint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st, I admit, I know little about him, have read only a few of his sermons.

Do you suppose he was preaching to a divided group & knew it & trying to keep both them happy?


I would seriously doubt it.

he seemed to have little regard for men's opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure why the thread has migrated to "Spurgeonism" except that he clearly demonstrated that ALL the objections to "calvinism" are spurious. We preach Christ & call on sinners to repent. If they reject the Gospel one day that is no proof they are not elect. God uses the Gospel of Christ to convict sinners & call them to repentance.

The anticalvinists misunderstand the doctriens of grace, & attempt to refute their own misunderstanding.


Not at all. What it demonstrates is that not everyone who calls themselves calvinist believes what calvin taught.

Calvin would condemn Spurgeon as a heretic for his teaching on free will.

I think in fact many "Calvinists" don't really understand what calvin taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While true (I do it too)--- that is what starting a separate thread is for,   such as ... How firmly Calvinistic was Spurgeon?      hint,hint

 

 

Not me, not now, I would like to see this topic rest for a while. I don't believe there can be any gain from it at the present time. Let feeling settle down just a bit on both sides.

 

That is only my humble opinion. I think its very good to let some topics rest at times no matter what side of the issue one may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. What it demonstrates is that not everyone who calls themselves calvinist believes what calvin taught.

Calvin would condemn Spurgeon as a heretic for his teaching on free will.

I think in fact many "Calvinists" don't really understand what calvin taught.

 

Perhaps,but we cannot be positive.

 

And sure, its easy to know that Calvin would not approve.

 

Wrong, there are Calvinist that understand just what they teach, that is why they take such a strong stand on all 5 points. Of course many of them teach it in a different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me, not now, I would like to see this topic rest for a while. I don't believe there can be any gain from it at the present time. Let feeling settle down just a bit on both sides.

 

That is only my humble opinion. I think its very good to let some topics rest at times no matter what side of the issue one may be.

The vital context of my comment is obtained from the excerpt I quoted of Musician's post to head off the continuance of a Spurgeonian (I tink I made up a word ... I did, I did make up a word) vein in contrast to a return to the original parameters (SBC, Calvanism, unity, compromise, Great Commission).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's Texarkana Gazette there was an article entitled, Southern Baptist Convention divided over centuries-old Calvinist question.

 

They say there not divided, but the world knows their divided over this doctrine, & its watching to see if they run with the false teachings of Calvinism calling their self being in unity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In today's Texarkana Gazette there was an article entitled, Southern Baptist Convention divided over centuries-old Calvinist question.

 

They say there not divided, but the world knows their divided over this doctrine, & its watching to see if they run with the false teachings of Calvinism calling their self being in unity.

 

 Like the famous quote ..."When you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Like the famous quote ..."When you stand for nothing, you'll fall for everything"

 

And it seems they may be falling. At present time it seems if anyone in the SBC stands against Calvinism they are put down quite badly by even some of their brothers & sister who claim not to hold to Calvin's doctrine. At this time it seems that perhaps most of the Calvinist are trying to play it cool knowing that they're highly outnumbered. I feel they are hoping to hang on while gaining many converts over the next few years. If they ever gain the numbers they may not be so nice. Of course that's just speculation on my part.

 

One thing for sure, both sides can't be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for the S.B.C. is that there have ALWAYS been Calvinists in their ranks, and in their earlier days, there were as many if not MORE "Calvinists" than others.  Thus, it would be awfully hard for them to eradicate "Calvinism" completely.  Some of their earliest and most formative preachers, missionaries and theologians were Calvinists.  Non-Calvinists were "tolerated" along-side some majority Calvinists for a long time within the S.B.C.  Thus, it would seem a little un-sporting to split from all Calvinists within the S.B.C. at this point.  Although some of the movers and shakers within their ranks DO want to separate.

 

I agree with the proposition that "unity" is not good for the S.B.C.  While I love and respect many of my Calvinist brethren, I do not believe that we can walk shoulder to shoulder.

 

Decidedly, for the time being, it DEFINITELY behooves Calvinists to seek "unity".  But in time, they may not always be so unifying anymore.  Churches are splitting over the issue, and (usually young) men are graduating from their seminaries as "Y.R.R's." and then pastoring at non-Calvinist Churches and they are not always forthright and forth-coming with their beliefs. 

 

It behooves churches and their pulpit committees to ask and demand clear and concise answers to one's doctrine on those issues.  Churches need to dig into detail as well on the matter in order to force candidates to spell out their beliefs.  Many a time, non-Calvinist churches have un-wittingly hired a Calvinist and it sometimes takes them a LONG time to realize what they are being taught from the pulpit.  It is not as though these folks come out on day 1 and admit that Jesus didn't die for everybody and that God had no desire to save nor intention of saving the vast bulk of humanity whatsoever.  It takes years sometimes for them to have spelled that out so clearly, and by then, they have a following, and churches are led astray or split.  It's a sad scenario, and that is what is so tragic.

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had just this a few years ago.

When I first took over at the church from the missionary pastor, I was encouraged to take on a young man as associate to help both him and me.
None of us knew that while in Bible college in the USA he had changed to this view and he certainly Didn't say anything.
it was a few months before I established his position.
At first a thing was said here or there that Caught my attention, but could have been Inexperienced phrasing.

Once I was certain I told him that I did not hold that position and would not have it taught at our church.
To his credit he abided by my wishes in his preaching, although I know he had conversations with some.
He always had a specific time with us so I let his time run.
There was no need to cause a fuss while he respected my wishes, and the majority of the people never knew about it.

It did force me Into a great deal of study though.

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SBC has always been a conglomeration of churches which were not in total agreement on a number of points. This particular battle has been in play before, as well as the battles between liberal and conservative and points in between, and other factions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptists have always complained about persecution by so-called "calvinists." It is ironic that when they gain power, they seek to persecute the calvinists.

 

ALL forms of persecution are contrary to the Gospel of love. That of course does not mean we should tolerate error.

 

We should either separate ourselves from error, excommunicate those who teach error, or as in this case, carefully consider the Scriptures to establish whether the different interpretations are both valid.

Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptists have always complained about persecution by so-called "calvinists." It is ironic that when they gain power, they seek to persecute the calvinists.

 

Who is "they"?  Are you not a Baptist?  And do you honestly BELIEVE that "PERSECUTE" is an accurate word to use in relation to modern Baptist Calvinist relations?  Are Calvinists regularly being burned at stakes or something I personally am unaware of?

 

ALL forms of persecution are contrary to the Gospel of love. That of course does not mean we should tolerate error.

 

So, if one is convinced of a non-Calvinist or Arminian Theology.......are they then not correct to separate themselves from those who teach otherwise?   Let's get to brass-tacks for a second.  It is the good and necessary consequence of Calvinist thought that God the Father does not equally or similarly love all mankind in the sense that he does not, did not, and never will have any interest whatsoever in electing and saving the VAST bulk of humanity.  That's a vaguely critical commentary on God's nature.  Are most  Baptists wrong if many of them feel that walking shoulder to shoulder with Calvinists is un-warranted?

We should either separate ourselves from error, excommunicate those who teach error, or as in this case, carefully consider the Scriptures to establish whether the different interpretations are both valid.

 

They are not BOTH valid.  Either God desires the true flourishing of all of his creatures (which means a right relationship with them) or he has irreparably condemned most of them for no reason other than that it serves his greater glory and magnifies his "justice".

 

That is simply not the same set of attributes which God as understood by Calvinists and God as understood by non-Calvinists possesses.  They cannot, by definition, BOTH be valid, or, at least, correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for the S.B.C. is that there have ALWAYS been Calvinists in their ranks, and in their earlier days, there were as many if not MORE "Calvinists" than others.  Thus, it would be awfully hard for them to eradicate "Calvinism" completely.  Some of their earliest and most formative preachers, missionaries and theologians were Calvinists.  Non-Calvinists were "tolerated" along-side some majority Calvinists for a long time within the S.B.C.  Thus, it would seem a little un-sporting to split from all Calvinists within the S.B.C. at this point.  Although some of the movers and shakers within their ranks DO want to separate.

 

I agree with the proposition that "unity" is not good for the S.B.C.  While I love and respect many of my Calvinist brethren, I do not believe that we can walk shoulder to shoulder.

 

Decidedly, for the time being, it DEFINITELY behooves Calvinists to seek "unity".  But in time, they may not always be so unifying anymore.  Churches are splitting over the issue, and (usually young) men are graduating from their seminaries as "Y.R.R's." and then pastoring at non-Calvinist Churches and they are not always forthright and forth-coming with their beliefs. 

 

It behooves churches and their pulpit committees to ask and demand clear and concise answers to one's doctrine on those issues.  Churches need to dig into detail as well on the matter in order to force candidates to spell out their beliefs.  Many a time, non-Calvinist churches have un-wittingly hired a Calvinist and it sometimes takes them a LONG time to realize what they are being taught from the pulpit.  It is not as though these folks come out on day 1 and admit that Jesus didn't die for everybody and that God had no desire to save nor intention of saving the vast bulk of humanity whatsoever.  It takes years sometimes for them to have spelled that out so clearly, and by then, they have a following, and churches are led astray or split.  It's a sad scenario, and that is what is so tragic.

Yes,

Our new pastor was "preaching" by reading off John Piper sermons practically verbatim and promoting the man's books. He also began stressing things like "the most important thing, to God, is his glory" which is exactly what calvinists do. But this wan't in a SBC church; it was supposed to be IFB.

 

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the GLORY that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God?????            That's not what my Bible says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who is "they"?  Are you not a Baptist?  And do you honestly BELIEVE that "PERSECUTE" is an accurate word to use in relation to modern Baptist Calvinist relations?  Are Calvinists regularly being burned at stakes or something I personally am unaware of?

 

So, if one is convinced of a non-Calvinist or Arminian Theology.......are they then not correct to separate themselves from those who teach otherwise?   Let's get to brass-tacks for a second.  It is the good and necessary consequence of Calvinist thought that God the Father does not equally or similarly love all mankind in the sense that he does not, did not, and never will have any interest whatsoever in electing and saving the VAST bulk of humanity.  That's a vaguely critical commentary on God's nature.  Are most  Baptists wrong if many of them feel that walking shoulder to shoulder with Calvinists is un-warranted?

They are not BOTH valid.  Either God desires the true flourishing of all of his creatures (which means a right relationship with them) or he has irreparably condemned most of them for no reason other than that it serves his greater glory and magnifies his "justice".

 

That is simply not the same set of attributes which God as understood by Calvinists and God as understood by non-Calvinists possesses.  They cannot, by definition, BOTH be valid, or, at least, correct. 

 

How can we have the mind of God on this? Love our enemies. as He loves His. WHen we do that, we cease to persecute.

 

Matthew 5:43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptists have always complained about persecution by so-called "calvinists." It is ironic that when they gain power, they seek to persecute the calvinists.

 

ALL forms of persecution are contrary to the Gospel of love. That of course does not mean we should tolerate error.

 

We should either separate ourselves from error, excommunicate those who teach error, or as in this case, carefully consider the Scriptures to establish whether the different interpretations are both valid.

 

 

 

Persecute them, no, have no company with him, yes, just as God instructs.

 

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a tragic scenario Heartstrings, and unfortunately, it is all too common right now.

 

IMO: part of the "problem" isn't exactly the "Calvinists"............it's the Arminians/non-Cals.

 

There is rarely a systematic and discernible teaching in modern Churches on Soteriology and the attributes of God.  To often, the mantra amongst non-Calvinists is something shallow and akin to:

 

"Well, I just know that Jesus loves everybody, and that only by believing in him and by repenting and asking him for forgiveness and salvation, we can be 'saved' and go to heaven and that's all that 'really' matters."

 

That game is up.  Bible-Believing Baptists are going to HAVE to begin seriously teaching, and I mean TEACHING....the whole of the Scripture, and ALL the oracles of God.

Truth is, non-Calvinists have been about the 95th percentile for about 40years, and we've gotten intellectually lazy.  I don't blame young men in seminaries for becoming "Calvinists".  Too often, it's the only coherent, logical, and systematic explanation of soteriology that they have been exposed to.  They are there to learn, and frankly, "Calvinism" has quite the resume' of brilliant Theologians and brilliant writings to explain some of the toughest questions in Christendom.

 

Calvinism (while mistaken) is perfectly logically consistent, and it is a coherent explanation.  It also has the capacity to appear EXTREMELY pious and "God-Glorifying".  "Calvinism" (as it were) appears to be the system which MOST gives God the glory for salvation.  I reject that premise...........but, we have to have an answer to WHY that's not the case.  Calvinism, is, in it's way, an extremely tempting P.O.V. for young people hungry for serious meat.  And Calvinism, for all of it's flaws.......is definitely "meat".  It's rancid (IMO) but, it's the only meat too many have tasted.

 

I don't agree with most of their answers.....but, they at least have them.

"I don't know"...........isn't an answer.  It never was, and it's definitely gonna fail in the future.  Calvinists RARELY say "I don't know"....because they actually DO.  Again, that's their strength and our weakness.

Truth is, a Calvinist has a real (if mistaken) answer to why "bad things happen to 'good' people", and usually, the non-Calvinists don't.  That dog won't hunt.......not anymore it won't.

 

With respect to your experience.....it is unfortunately ALL too common.  It usually involves a rather young man, and they don't begin by shouting "Limited Atonement" from the rooftops....They simply speak consistently about "grace", "grace", "grace" and God's "Sovereignty". 

 

They then introduce what they euphemistically call the "Doctrines of Grace" upon the unsuspecting congregation and they continue to use phrases about how God is "Sovereign" in his "election" of the saved.

 

We must understand that those are (for them) "BUZZ-WORDS"....it's a language....a certain jargon that fellow Calvies can spot a mile away.  It slips past most (usually un-prepared) and Theologically un-trained non-Calvinists unnoticed.  Soon, about ten new families have joined the church, and un-beknownst to the old populace, they are also "Calvinists" who can translate what is being said when the new Preacher-boy consistently uses phraseology like this:

 

"God has lovingly and Sovereignly Chosen through nothing other than his Grace to save totally wicked and inabled and depraved men who have no ear to hear the gospel, to regenerate and sovereignly elect them from their state of sin, through no attributes or goodness or righteousness of their own to be saved by his Son Jesus Christ.  He has chosen to re-generate them by the hearing of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, by making incurably blind eyes see, and deaf ears to hear that gracious calling unto salvation through his Son to those whom he chose to save."

 

That, right there (while technically correct) is Calvie-speak........for........I'm a Calvinist, and these ignorant Arminians/non-Cals who can't translate this and who pay my salary have NO IDEA that in about 8 months........(they just "A-mened" me actually) we will introduce the idea of Limited Atonement to them, and by then, it will be too late.  This Church which had 75-people two years ago now has 150, and even those who disagree will realize that God has blessed my ministry here, and will be loathe to boot me out (especially now that there are 45 new Calvinists in the Church) who could translate the above phrase perfectly and knew exactly what I was saying when I said it.

 

It sails right over the heads of non-Calvinists all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HoS, for my part, I picked up those terms and phrases before they progressed further and put a lid on it..... in the preaching.
As I said, this guy was only with us for a specific time, and figured that since he honoured my request there was no need to cause a fuss and we could continue.
I was hoping that he would learn from me and that he would question what he had been taught.

Then we had a young man join who was aligned with his teaching. Again, I spotted it early and had Conversations with this guy.
I thought it was under control, and it mostly was.

But one young man was led astray by them.

He stopped coming. I visited with him. We talked about it several times. Eventually he stopped answering His door and his phone. No reply to letters.

His problem?
He Became convinced that he was not one of God's elect and there was therefore no hope for him.
He told me that in those very words.

Even most Calvinists would be appalled at out that outcome, but by his own words that is where Calvinism led him.

And I learned another lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HoS, for my part, I picked up those terms and phrases before they progressed further and put a lid on it..... in the preaching.
As I said, this guy was only with us for a specific time, and figured that since he honoured my request there was no need to cause a fuss and we could continue.
I was hoping that he would learn from me and that he would question what he had been taught.

Then we had a young man join who was aligned with his teaching. Again, I spotted it early and had Conversations with this guy.
I thought it was under control, and it mostly was.

But one young man was led astray by them.

He stopped coming. I visited with him. We talked about it several times. Eventually he stopped answering His door and his phone. No reply to letters.

His problem?
He Became convinced that he was not one of God's elect and there was therefore no hope for him.
He told me that in those very words.

Even most Calvinists would be appalled at out that outcome, but by his own words that is where Calvinism led him.

And I learned another lesson.

 

And that proves what I've stated, Calvinism is a dangerous doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HoS, for my part, I picked up those terms and phrases before they progressed further and put a lid on it..... in the preaching.
As I said, this guy was only with us for a specific time, and figured that since he honoured my request there was no need to cause a fuss and we could continue.
I was hoping that he would learn from me and that he would question what he had been taught.

Then we had a young man join who was aligned with his teaching. Again, I spotted it early and had Conversations with this guy.
I thought it was under control, and it mostly was.

But one young man was led astray by them.

He stopped coming. I visited with him. We talked about it several times. Eventually he stopped answering His door and his phone. No reply to letters.

His problem?
He Became convinced that he was not one of God's elect and there was therefore no hope for him.
He told me that in those very words.

Even most Calvinists would be appalled at out that outcome, but by his own words that is where Calvinism led him.

And I learned another lesson.

Unfortunately, whether through the world, the flesh or the devil, folks get all sorts of reasons in their heads why they aren't and can't be right with God. I've encountered many who are convinced they have committed the unpardonable sin so they can never be right with God. Others simply believe they are too far gone to be saved. Some just don't believe God could love them after the life they have lived. There are those who think they were right with God at some point in their life but they turned away and don't believe they can ever be restored. There are even those who really think they prefer hell over heaven.

 

One hears so many things from folks when out soul winning or even leading a Bible study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a church is Calvinistic they have hence left behind Baptist and Biblical doctrine, and you should know this by now John.  

 

Nobody is angry but I think it is an error to assume a Calvinist is a brother/sister.  If they believe they were ceremoniously zapped by God and saved, then that is contrary to Biblical doctrine, how then are they saved?  The fact that Calvinist can not agree on their own "doctrine" is another thing that should alert you that the "doctrine" is false.

 

This websites doctrinal statement is clear on the position of Calvinism.

 

 

That is just not true.  The first English baptists were Particular Baptists, an the 1689 and earlier Baptist confessions of faith were all Particular Baptists.  I am not a Calvinist. I just believe what the scripture says.  Freewill baptists came later,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just not true. The first English baptists were Particular Baptists, an the 1689 and earlier Baptist confessions of faith were all Particular Baptists. I am not a Calvinist. I just believe what the scripture says. Freewill baptists came later,


I would dispute that it is provable that the first were particular baptist.
If for no other reason than that the two terms themselves arose about the same time to describe opposing sides of this very argument. Without the descriptor 'general' there is no purpose to 'particular'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...