Is there really a Calvinistic resurgence?

Absolutely correct. I remember hearing at the church we belonged to during college people would say "I'd rather hear singing than sermons!" Their theology proved it.

People don't get mad at unscriptural lyrics in SGM, but they'll be surely mad at theological truth presented in a sermon.

You're going to make a few mad about Southern Gospel music, and I also agree about it. It is theologically incorrect, cheesy, puerile, and doesn't hit home to me, as a matter of fact I can't listen to it.

There may be one song, but I just don't listen to it at all anymore, that and it's association with KJVO, brings memories of issues as no pants for women (trousers) coulottes, and fighting over every issue one can think of, and scrapping over music style, everything is wrong except hymns and SGM because the preacher said so.

Shallow theology breeds shallow theories & traditions.

Back to real, solid, thought out Biblical theology, study, worship, LOVE of God's Word and His Name. This is what the church needs imo.

The "resurgence" of Calvinism/interest in DoG is lending itself toward the desire of a deeper understanding of Biblical truth.

- Peace to His

 

I like the "classic Hymns" but also like Petra/Steven Curtis Chapman/point of grace/Elvis Gospel

Am A 'Music" heretic?
(smiling while typing!)

 

How about Mercyme, Chris Tomlin, Phil Wickam, 10th Avenue North, Sidewalk Prophets? Just some of my favorites.

 

Not 'quite" Elvis, but ALL of the above will do too!

 

So, did we finish off the OP? What was our verdict on a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC?

I sorta think you have to go church to church to find out for sure.

In my own congregation there is no perceivable resurgence.

 

Think we will see the 'fruit" of this IF Lord tarries in next generation, IF leadership gets placed into higher education reformed theology of Sotierlogy!

 

Wonder what the context of Luke2427's statements are?

None of the things God allows can taint His Person. He is Holy.

I believe Luke2427 has a Job-like belief and acceptance of the total Sovereignty of God, knowing that God allows evil and has willed or determinitively allowed it to happen.

Either that, or He is out of control of it all.

I agree with the former, and reject the latter as fallacy.

In total control.

- Peace and Grace

 

I read them (in the past) and don't believe you followed context, perhaps this is where your confusion came from?

Do you know what decrees/ordains/wills mean? Look them up and fit them into a sentence of allowing God to do these things.

For instance "God allowed, by His determinitive choice (will) for wickedness and evil to accomplish His eternal purposes, for His Glory."

Don't you think even Job knew this? He even went as far as to say we receive evil at Gods hand, yet in saying this he never sinned with his lips.

I believe He does these things also. And in so doing it can never change Holy God, for He is immutable.

- Peace

 

I've read what he's said and agree with it, whether he responded to you or not, as sometimes I skip what others say. So what does whether or not he answered you have to do with his context or defining theological terms for you? Nada.

Is that OK?

Where's the answer to the rest of my post, or are you having teeth extraction?

- Peace

 

Then your thinking is askew.

Here's my post that you pulled only out of it what you could answer or wanted to argue about:

What problems do you have with the things in bold, and the rest? Job ascribed to God the same things, and didn't sin in doing so. Neither has Luke2427, something you have attempted to say that he has to some extent.

I'm asking you to answer this and do the same things in essence you asked Luke to answer, as directly in the above.

- Peace

 

Yep. I read all of that. It would be folly for any of us to think we totally agree with every single thing someone says.

To answer? The latter, yes. The former (caused)? I am not certain what Luke2427 means by this, so terms need to be defined.

What's the difference between this:

?

and what I said:

to which you say you agree:

Now to this part:

Of course God has permitted sin. Are you saying He doesn't permit sin?

I also believe it is predestined; it's the same as determinitive will above, since "predestine" is to predetermine, so thus it was His determinitive will. Predestine is "to determine before and ordain." It also means "to limit in advance." showing to me God in full control of all aspects of this.

These words that we are using (determine/ordain/predestine) are basically redundant. I don't believe God had a plan B but only a plan A.

Did not God determine beforehand to permit sin? Of course He did.

Do you believe God is Omniscient or not?

(As to the point that He ultimately caused it, I am not certain what is meant here as this isn't really a biblical terminology to me And yes I saw him say this before and I am certain he can answer this himself.)

- Peace

 

OK. What is meant when we say "God determined" the sin? I am using a biblical term (willed) as He most definitely Has determined (willed) it to be so, or, we wouldn't live in this world as we do now.

You need to define "determined" here. An idea you reject and accept reject and accept.

I said this:

You're going in circles here. In one breath you say God permits it. Then you go on a tailspin over Him determining it. I believe God omniscient and that He predetermined all things. But I know my definition. He was certainly "active" (actively determining) in it all.

Predestined it? Yes, He did. Look at the word definition. You saying "predestines/causes" above is trying to make "predestine" the same as actually "causes" the sin in some sense. Those are two completely different terms and the "/" doesn't make them one in the same.

Also you completely skipped over the Job thing to my recollection, that he said the same things Luke and I are saying, yet in saying this he did not sin with his lips. That is Scriptural referencing proving the stance we take backed up Biblically. I however don't include "causes" as I am not certain what is meant by that statement.

That He predestined/determined it actively? Remember it means to predetermine, and also to limit. So He controlled it all from both ends of the spectrum, in allowing it, and in limitting its scope. I believe that 100%.

- Peace

 

Please use biblical terminology such as "will" which means to determine beforehand. This is what I have tried to do. Thus He did determine or will it, obviously.

God made all things, but was passive? I don't think so. He actively allowed it all, He actively did it. Passively means He didn't participate in it when He did by permitting it (not saying He committed sin at all), and is to deny that ALL things come from Him which is totally Scriptural. So, not true. God, who is Sovereign cannot permissively allow and will and determine and be passive. It's like one waiting in the getaway car. They aren't passive. He has already, in time past, determined it, or willed it. So did the one in the car. In other words, nothing is happening now without the counsel of His Will.

Where did this pop in? I smell straw and see the word "cause", something I won't address, and something I've already told you is a different term than predestine. Yet you want to make them one in the same. Of course God has predestined (determined, willed it to be so) that man will sin and for them to be saved. Can you keep that separate from the word "cause?"

The evil that Job received was at the hand of the Lord.

- Peace