Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

A Sounds Gospel Tract


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

IFB are generally Arminian and their theology flows from there. But as you wish I won't promote Calvinism.

That is incorrect. While there are some, and certainly some IFB who are moving toward reformed, most are neither.

 

Like myself, many see some good in both views, while also seeing major prOBlems in both. We are biblicists, to one degree or another, ideally not seeking to follow any man's doctrinal box. The Bible is plenty narrow without narrowing it any more by seeking to follow a set of man-made rules, of which are CALVINism and ARMIN(ius)anism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

I am in your territory and I came by invite.

I won't discuss Calvinism nor mention any Calvinistic nor Reformed tract ministries.

We have actually had some pretty extensive discussions on the subjects-maybe seek them out in the archives.

 

The main issue is that there tends to be a lot of emotion in them with some, and the discussions inevitable lead to name-calling and generally un-Christian-like behavior. So we try to avoid it anymore. No offense to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mike is not Reformed. There is a difference between Reformed and Calvinistic or Calvinist Dispensationalist. He would not be endorsed at a Reformed seminary.

 

In that case why use the term without qualification? It was you who said 'hey check out these tracts by a Calvinist'. If what you wanted to do was refer to beliefs that aren't distinctly Calvinist, such as dispensationalism, then that seems an odd way to do it. A bit like me saying 'Dave is a Calvinist' when what I want to convey is that Dave is a Trinitarian.

 

And I still think that coming onto an explicitly KJV-only and non-Calvinist forum and saying 'I recommend X,Y,Z to you because it is not KJVO and is Calvinist' sounds bit too unwitting. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

New guy enters a forum for fans of Ford motorcars: "Hey, I want to recommend an article to you. It's a really good article by a guy who hates Fords."

 

Forum regular: "But this forum is about enjoying Fords, so why would we want to read an article about hating them?"

 

New guy: "The article isn't about hating Fords, it's about liking McDonalds. The guy loves eating McDonalds and has written an article about it. He may happen to hate Fords but that doesn't mean he can't also be an enjoyer of McDonalds."

 

Forum regular: ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
In that case why use the term without qualification? It was you who said 'hey check out these tracts by a Calvinist'. If what you wanted to do was refer to beliefs that aren't distinctly Calvinist, such as dispensationalism, then that seems an odd way to do it. A bit like me saying 'Dave is a Calvinist' when what I want to convey is that Dave is a Trinitarian. And I still think that coming onto an explicitly KJV-only and non-Calvinist forum and saying 'I recommend X,Y,Z to you because it is not KJVO and is Calvinist' sounds bit too unwitting. ;)
Apologies. I try and stay united in the essentials of the faith and use tracts by both Calvinist and Arminian. Think of it this way. As I write letters to the false churches do you think they care about this in house debate? No they do not as they preach heresy. Sometimes a Calvinist ministry has a better tract for the false teacher, other times it's a non Cal ministry like Chic tracts that does the jOB. Churches like the gay homosexual churches, the New Age churches, and the Unitarian Universalist churches preach pure heresy. I have no beef with non Cal and KJVO just as long as they respect me and my views. Yes I can work with them as long as they respect me. The fight is not them but the false teachers. Granted I will see in general it's the non Cal types that are more evangelistic so if they can respect me we can work together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

New guy enters a forum for fans of Ford motorcars: "Hey, I want to recommend an article to you. It's a really good article by a guy who hates Fords."

Forum regular: "But this forum is about enjoying Fords, so why would we want to read an article about hating them?"

New guy: "The article isn't about hating Fords, it's about liking McDonalds. The guy loves eating McDonalds and has written an article about it. He may happen to hate Fords but that doesn't mean he can't also be an enjoyer of McDonalds."

Forum regular: ...


No one said I hate non Cal and the KJV but you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We have actually had some pretty extensive discussions on the subjects-maybe seek them out in the archives.

The main issue is that there tends to be a lot of emotion in them with some, and the discussions inevitable lead to name-calling and generally un-Christian-like behavior. So we try to avoid it anymore. No offense to you.


I agree. I should never have mentioned it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Lol, if the analogy was to be taken that literally then I'd have to be saying you hated Ford motorcars, not Cal or KJV. OBviously I'm saying none of those things.


As I said I have no beef with non Cal nor KJVO just as long as they can respect me. All too often however this is not the case. I actually have 3 KJV Bibles and many verses memorized in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...