Keep Calvinist leanings secret?

You know what? My baptist church is made up of people from many different backgrounds. A portion is mennonite or formerly mennonite. Some members come from a reformed (or calvinistic) background, some come from other evangelical background, quite a few are immigrants who don't speak English very well. The church was founded on the principle of unity on THE ESSENTIALS by a group of mennonites and baptists. We have had calvinist pastors, and noncalvinist pastors. From THE PULPIT, I have never heard any of those words mentioned by either calvinist or noncalvinist pastors.

Why? Well, for one thing, the most important things to the church as a whole is expository teaching. And to exposit passages of scripture doesn't require using nonbiblical terms, does it? And if those nonbiblical terms would more likely divide a unified congregation than enlighten it, wouldn't it be foolish of a pastor to do that?

(Actually, I take that back. I remember that the pastor we now have did once say, "Doen't matter if you're a calvinist and believe such and such, or an arminian and believe such and such, we all agree on this one thing....." )

It would be appropriate to discuss these terms in an adult Sunday School class on doctrine, where people can choose which class they are interested in and feel prepared for, but is it appropriate from the pulpit to the whole congregation where there are many people who don't even speak English very well, or don't like theological discussions?

It has nothing to do with at what level they are thinking. It has to do with whether they are familiar with the "jargon" and whether they even want to be familiar with the jargon. I'm glad my doctor doesn't use medical jargon when he discusses things with me, because I shouldn't have to learn it. Its his job to translate the jargon into simple English for someone who didn't attend medical school. The fact that he explains things to me as much as possible in language I am already familiar with is hardly and insult to my intelligence. Actually, that he bothers to translate for me is a confirmation that he thinks I'm intelligent enough to understand the concepts even if I don't understand the jargon.

Nobody wants a congregation that is forever stuck on elementary things, but you don't need to use "seminarese" to move them on to more mature things, and it would seem to be counterprodutive to do so, since people who would very likely understand the concepts might get slowed down by having to learn the specific theological language.

[ December 30, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

In ministry, I have conversed with a lot of people who share your views. I have noticed that a great deal of them are insistent on using certain terms to describe us, as if those terms will convince people to doubt us. My references for that are personal conversations over a number of years in ministry. I didn't create a caricature at all. I wasn't born yesterday. I have dealt with this for a long time.

As for ad hominem attacks, I have made none.

Fortunately, those types of things can be changed. One of the goals of my ministry is to teach people to think theologically. I am less interested in their agreement than I am in their learning to think biblically about life. If teaching them to think is making them more "clever" to use your word, then I hope to accomplish that. As Russell pointed out, it is not about what people can think or can understand, it is about what they want to understand and what they need to understand. When it comes to Scripture, they need to know the truth of God's word. The names attached to it are unnecessary. We could talk about Amyraldianism, Donatism, Arianism, Monism, Dynamic monarchianism, modalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Augustinaism, and the list goes on and on. And in the end, the names mean nothing substantive. What we are interested in is "What does God teach in his word?" That is why using the names is not of great value. It may cause more problems because it can create confusion. It can create animosity. Many people hate Calvinism, not because they knowingly rejected it, but because they have heard preachers refer to it negatively and so the name creates tension. If we go through the Scriptures and study what they say and then come to a conclusion, we have shown from the Scripture what the truth is. Then we call it a name (whatever you like). But the important is that we arrive at truth from Scripture, not from labels.

 

If I was in a serious discussion with a JW, I would avoid the term, "Trinity."

 

Has it occurred to you that you don't know my views, other than to think that pastors should be forthright. I'm not arguing against Calvinism. </font>[/QUOTE]I think you have been pretty clear, both here and in other places. There is no doubt about what your views are.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Way to go on applying your policy #2 Pastor Larry.

 

How does this contribute to the point of the thread??? It seems off topic to me.

If you have read this topic or Ignazio-er's other posts, you know that he has made his position pretty clear. I haven't attributed anything to him that he has not brought forth himself. So you are correct, I have indeed applied my policy #2 to this situation.

Do you not have anything better to do?? Like contribute something substantive to the discussion????

 

Yes, I see that he very clearly told you that he was not arguing Calvinism, but the honesty of Pastors who are ingratiating themselves into pulpits falsely -- he told you this more than once. I also see that you 1) did not ACCEPT that, 2)Have not asked for any kind of reconciliation of differences in what you and he are saying in this thread, 3) continue to repeat false statements about his beliefs in this thread, and even defend them, and 4)ratchet up the tensions.

Yes, I do have much better things to do. After all, we all know that you have been clear both here and in other places. There is no doubt what your views are. Thank you, and Happy New Year.

 

You are wrong. In this place and others he has made it clear that he is not a Calvinist. This thread is not the only place. He may well not be arguing against Calvinism in this thread. I am not disputing that (if you read what I said). What I said was that he had made it clear what he believed. He didn't dispute that, did he??

My participation in this thread has been to point out that what he is saying is not actually what the article says. He is basing his whole point off of one paragraph, while ignoring the main thrust of the author, who explicitly affirms what Ignazio-er denies. As such, I have tried to get Ignazio-er to merely work through the actual article rather than taking this one paragraph out of context. In no place in this article does the author encourage any pastor to "falsely ingratiate themselves" into pulpits. In no place does he encourage hiding what he believes, To the contrary, he says make it explicit. The problem is that Ignazio-er has never dealt with reconciling those words, in spite of the fact that I have pointed them out several times.

Wrong. I did accept it. I didn't dispute that he was arguing against Calvinism. I merely said that he had made his position clear. (Please don't tell me we are back to the old tricks of reading words that aren't there.) I realize what he is arguing in this thread. But in so doing, in conjunction with other posts, he has made clear what he believes. Those other posts include things that are private communications which I am not at liberty to reveal here. Trust me, he is not a Calvinist unless he is playing a really good devil's advocate. What I said was absolutely true.

Wrong again ... I did ask for reconciliation. I have repeatedly asked for him to read the article and to explain how he maintains that the article encourages hiding what a pastor believes. I have quoted numerous places where it actually explicitly encourages the pastor to teach what he believes.

Where have I repeated a false statement about his belief? Where have I defended it? Please take the time to show me these places.

Wrong. I haven't ratcheted up the tension. I merely asked him to deal with what the article said and to clarify how he was getting to his conclusion. He refused to do either. He has not explained how an admonition to teach total depravity and inability amounts to "hiding what you really believe." He never answers how encouraging a pastor to teach teh doctrines of grace amounts to "hiding what you really believe." These are real issues that need to be dealt with.

There seems to be a real difficulty reading what is actually being said, whether here on this forum or in other articles. I realize we all read things quickly and skim over some stuff and in so doing are liable to miss some things. It is also not inappropriate to draw conclusions from statements, since statements have implications. But when problems are pointed out and one still refuses to deal with it, what are we to say??? Recently there have been some very petty discussions going on, centering on trying to catch me in some inconsistency. I may well be inconsistent. I don't think you will be surprised to find I am not perfect. I don't think any great inconsistency has been shown yet but if people differ that is fine. I am not sure why pages and pages are being taken up to try to show that. Who cares?? If someone does something in grossly inappropriate, I say something by PM. Most stuff I just let go. I see people violate common decency all the time. I have seen it several times today and I just let it go. There is no need to be hunting around for stuff.

Then I hope you will find them. You are always welcome to contribute to the actual topics on the threads here. I hope your participation will be along those lines.

That is certainly true. I have made an effort to be clear in what I am saying. Glad to know it is being accomplished.

Same to you.

 

*sigh* ... Yes, Larry, he does. Truth is, the author is not saying that the Founders Calvinist should renounce his Calvinism and never teach it, which is the straw man you are arguing against. But he most certainly does indicate that one should hide it from those who would identify it for the reeking doctrine that it is and oppose bringing that kind of wolf into the flock. So, his advice is to move in surreptitiously and teach your Calvinism underhandedly, thereby "reforming" those churches. Will you admit to this? Not likely. Not because it isn't true, because it is, as Ignazio_er has pointed out to you time and again. But because you are the type who does not admit to anything, even when I have pointed out your not-too-well concealed personal attack against Ignazio_er. I see your wall has a fresh coat of white paint.

Wrong. I did accept it. I didn't dispute that he was arguing against Calvinism. I merely said that he had made his position clear. (Please don't tell me we are back to the old tricks of reading words that aren't there.) [emphasis by PappaBear]</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe. Did you notice your Freudian Slip, Larry? What word are you wanting me to read into "I didn't dispute that he was arguing against Calvinism" that clearly isn't there? Did you happen to notice that he repeatedly said that he was NOT arguing against Calvinism, maybe? Perhaps that is why you didn't accept it -- you just didn't bother to notice it in the first place.

Whether he is or is not a Calvinist is irrelevant. He did not deny that he is not a Calvinist. What he said was that he was not arguing Calvinism in this thread. You did not accept that and continue to argue over his lack of Calvinism, first with him and now with me. Or do you not notice that you just wasted a lot of space doing that? Read this, Larry, if you read nothing else: HIS CALVINISM OR NON-CALVINISM IS IRRELEVENT. Unless, of course, you are one of those convinced that all Non-Cals have a conspiracy going on to misrepresnt Calvinists by directly quoting their own words.

Yes, you have -- repeatedly. Very disingenuous, dishonest, and irresponsible of you too, I'm afraid. Who started the thread? Hint: Not you. Who posted the link? Hint: Not you. No reasonable person is going to assume the man would start a thread about an article he had not read, and provide a link and direct quotes from that article in the bizarre belief he had not read it. He has repeatedly posted the quote from the article to you in answer, which you repeatedly ignore and sidestep.

You once told me on another thread that you do not have the time to even proof your own material. You have also told me before to do my own homework. Well, you seem to be in a strait, now. You see, I'm not going to do your homework for you. What you seem to be missing is that your postings are there for honest denizens of the Baptist Board to read through and laugh at you over. I can't help it that you don't take the time to look back over your own work to see what is plain to others.

If your personally attacking response to him about knowing what he believes after he has told you this thread is not about Calvinism (repeatedly), and your wholesale lack of any substance that pertains to this thread in that post is not ratcheting up tension, then what is? Or are you now going to deny your post to me and declare that you were being honest when you said of Ignazio_er, "I think you have been pretty clear, both here and in other places."?

Then your irate response to me with a thinly veiled threat regarding how it applies to this thread ices the cake. He has you on the ropes, so you are dancing a different jig and trying to fiddle a different tune. I suggest you cut the personal ridicule and deal with the issues instead of what you think he believes about Calvinism. That or truthfully admit that yes, he has been very clear here regarding this and you have no good answer.

Your turn. Show me where he refused? Show me one time in this thread he has said, "I will not deal with what the article said or clarify how I am getting my conclusion." I suggest you reread the thread and examine more carefully his responses to you, because he has done just that, and credibly so.

And you have not dealt with how avoiding terms that correctly identify the -ism connected with those doctrines for the purpose of keeping the church people from becoming "inflamed against you" is honorable. He never claims the man is not going to teach Calvinism. We all know that wolves are going to eat the sheep, that is not what he is disputing. What he is disputing is letting that wolf wear that sheep skin and come in among the sheep to perform his dastardly deed.

Happy 2004.

 

I have never talked to a member of a pulpit committee who had any clue what a calvinist was. I've had them call me and ask, and after I explained, they still did not get it. Once when I candidated, I explained to the committee that I was a Calvinist, and they were very silent. Finally, one fellow said, "well, does that mean yer agin closed communion with wine, or does that mean you're fer it?"

 

Yep, there are more people who know what Calvinism is than those who make disciples.

One time a man asked me to explain what I meant by making disciples. He then told me if they did that the church would have disbanded long ago. I told him that Jesus made disciples. I guess what he didn't realize that the church had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. They were not far from closing their doors and I knew it. I don't think he knew that I knew it though. So I asked him what he would suggest instead. He told me he didn't know. So I asked him about how he was going about meeting people in the community. He said they just needed a pastor. A pastor is their savior. Isn't it amazing how they need a pastor and won't work.

If you won't do their evangelism for them they might think you are a hyper-Calivinist though.

 

This is absolutely incredible. I cannot believe that you are writing this with a straight face. I am going to, once again, quote directly from this article. Read this and tell me if this man is telling people to hide their Calvinism. Keep in mind, I am quoting this directly from the article. I am not making it up. I am using the link Ignazio-er provided so you can use the same link and find the same thing in the article.

Now keep in mind, those are his words about what a pastor should preach. That is strict straightforward unadulterated Calvinism. Those are the five points, plain and simple. Now for you or Ignazio-er or anyone else to suggest that this man is telling pastors to hide their Calvinism is simply wrong. I quoted this before and Ignazio-er never answered it. Why??? You tell me. I have been accused of divining people’s minds before so I won’t try. My only guess, and it is a guess, is that he ran smack into a contradiction and didn’t know what to do with it.

I asked Ignazio-er to read the article and tell us what this man was actually telling pastors not to do. Let me quote that section to save you from having to look it up.

So what did he tell pastors to do?? To hide that they were Calvinists?? No, that is nowhere in this article. You would have to explain how teaching the five points of Calvinism equates to hiding that you are a Calvinist. That doesn’t make sense to me. What this author actually said was to avoid terms that are confusing or inflammatory. He said to teach the biblical truth which to this man is Calvinism. So even in this paragraph that Ignazio-er used as his basis for the whole thing, this author refutes what Ignazio-er is saying. How much clearer can it be that Ignazio-er, for some unknown reason, took off on a track that was wrongheaded from the beginning and refused to straighten it out?

The “n’t” on the end of “was.” My statement was originally to read “I didn’t dispute that he wasn’t arguing against Calvinism.” I thought I fixed that. I apparently didn’t.

Repeatedly? How does “once” qualify for repeatedly?? I read through his posts again and see only two times he said that. I guess two qualifies for “repeatedly” but it is stretch.

Not only did I accept it, I responded to it. Now you are on the horns of a dilemma. If you had looked right below his post where he said that, you would have seen my response where I quoted him. So it is clear that I noticed it, meaning that you are either dishonest or disingenuous about this statement. Why say something like this??? You know good and well that I notice what he said. I responded to it

I did accept it. I already told you that. I responded to him about it. I did not continue to argue with him about it. In fact, I made one post to him and that was the end of it. Then you brought it up. I have focused my attention on the article, not on what he believes.

You are the one talking about it. I am only responding to what you said. If you had not jumped in off topic, this conversation would have ended. For this thread, I agree with you. Whether you are a Calvinist or not is irrelevant in how you deal with the words on the screen.

Why are my questions disingenuous, dishonest, and irresponsible?? And how do those terms fit this discussion?? It makes me laugh to read them because there is nothing here that fits that description. How are these comments irresponsible?? How are they dishonest??

Believe it or not, there are people who see someone else cite a reference, and then just post that citation, along with the original reference without having read the whole document. Many times people will skim through an article, reading only parts of it and skipping other parts. Did you really not know that?? That was not an unreasonable question. From time to time, I think we all do that. I hope that is they explanation for the charges you have made against me in this post. I can only hope that you have skipped over some things rather than reading them completely and then being dishonest about what I have actually said.

Again, are you being dishonest or what?? If you look back at my posts, I have addressed that quote that he posted several times. Below, I prove it to you by quoting myself.

Which being translated is, I can’t support the charges I made against you. I will just beg off and tell you to find something that doesn’t exist yourself. What a total sham.

Where did he say this thread is not about Calvism?? Where did he say it more than once?? Dishonest again?? Or you going to beg off and tell me to do my own homework??? Well I have … and I can tell you that I have seen no place where he said this thread wasn’t about Calvinism. Perhaps it’s there and you can show me. What he said was he wasn’t arguing against Calvinism.

I have posted substance. I have quoted the article. I have shown the fallacies. Deal with those, not me.

What are you talking about??? Remember the actual facts. Ignazio-er has not been arguing against Calvinism. (Fine, I accept that.) But has he not made clear what he believes, both here and other places?? This thread shows that while not arguing against Calvinism, he doesn’t like it. I have personal correspondence from him that verifies that fact. There are other threads on this board that verify that fact. Therefore, I am honest. I was right. You simply don’t have all the facts.

I wasn’t irate. I posted no threat of any sort. I asked you to post on topic. I don’t need to threaten you. If I wanted to, I would simply delete your posts. I can do that and no one will say anything to me about it. I don’t want to. I don’t need to. I want you to participate on real issues and get over your stupid vendetta against me. I am not your enemy.

I have been consistent in this thread. I have not danced or fiddled anything differently. I haven’t leveled any personal ridicule against him. Read the posts, the evidence is there and it refutes you.

Another dishonesty?? You are not even consistent with yourself. Just a moment ago, you accused me of dishonesty when I said he was clear about what he believed. Now you say he is clear and are asking me to be truthful and admit that I was wrong. That doesn’t make sense. I think he has been clear; I have said that from the beginning. He has not dealt with the whole article.

He has not addressed how teaching the five points of Calvinism equate to hiding that you are a Calvinist. FYI, a refusal is not always explicit which you should now. A refusal includes ignoring.

Yes I did. Let me quote. I know this is a lengthy quote compilation from all my posts in this thread, but it is necessary to demonstrate that one again you are wrong. I have in fact dealt with this issue:

Clearly, I have dealt with it and explained why is is “honorable” in your words, not to use labels.

Which bears out my point from before. You want these words used because you think people can’t recognize the falseness of it without them. You, in your heart, realize that the case for Calvinism can be made from Scripture. And if Scripture is all that is used, people won’t know how dastardly this doctrine of God’s grace really is.

This is truly sad. Everytime I think I have seen it all on here, someone pops up with more stuff like this. You are so intent on me personally that you have gotten sidetracked from dealing with theology. This is not a forum about Larry. Don’t make it one. You can disagree with me. I don’t really care. But to spend all this time having to answer these inane accusations is crazy. It is just ridiculous. Why do I have to defend myself?? Ignazio-er has dropped it for whatever reason. You should have never gotten involved in it. In this whole thing, you have commented very little about the article; you are devoted to attacking me. What a shame.

From now on, if you have personal issues you would like to address about me, you may do so through PM. Any more posts in this forum will be required to be on topic. I hate to have to say that, but I have spent an hour this morning answering baseless charges and taking up space in this forum so you can deal with your personal issues. In the future, it will not be tolerated. Send me a PM if you wish to address something about me.

[ January 01, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Now keep in mind, those are his words about what a pastor should preach. That is strict straightforward unadulterated Calvinism. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, there is a contradiction there, but you seem to ignore it, easily. Missing the difference in words again, I see. I highlighted some words from that article for you in hopes that they will jump out to you. First, you contradict what he says by saying he said the pastor should "preach" while he is definitely indicating a teaching program. (You do know the difference, my Calvinist friend, don't you?)

Secondly, you still don't recognize the fact that what you have been answered, pointed out, and all but had your face rubbed into is the truth that the writer of this article is NOT advocating a pastor lose his Calvinism. What you have quoted above emphatically states that he should agressively indoctrinate it into this unsuspecting congregation. BUT!! (There is always a "but") He urges this conversion process be done without using terms which readily identify even to non-seminary trained, doctrinal novices that these teachings are "strict straightforward unadulterated Calvinism." I.E. Larry, he is a wolf hiding in a sheep's cloth. He is still a wolf and will still eat the sheep. The problem is not whether or not he is a Calvinist (wolf), the problem is that he is gaining entry to the sheep fold by use of disguise lest someone should get angry and oppose him vehemently. Remember this statement from the article?

Now, even in that statement even you should be able to see that the man is NOT advocating that a person should refrain from teaching Calvinism. But he is most certainly advocating it should be hidden.

Let's take a "for example," shall we Larry? Someone comes to a church and is a member there for the required 2 years in faithful attendance. They never challenge the teachings or preachings. Someone (Pastor or SS Director) decides to ask them to teach a Junior-Hi boys SS class. They agree. A matter of weeks later, reports are coming to the pastor about this person's false doctrine. The pastor interviews the teacher and finds out that yes, he is teaching that you can be saved, then lost, then re-saved. In the interview process, the pastor asks, "If you disagreed so strongly with our doctrine here, then why didn't you tell us you didn't believe as we do?" The man answers, "since I didn't want to inflame you with theological labels such as 'eternal security' or 'OSAS' because you would not have allowed me the opportunity to reform what I see as the defective superstructure of teaching in your young people's lives ..." As a pastor, I'm going to bounce this man out of my office, and out of any kind of teaching position just as soon as possible. Wouldn't you? Are there not those "whose mouths must be stopped"?

In the Instruction Manual above, the man is not training teachers of Calvinism to go into churches where a pastor is over them to remove them as soon as their heresy is made known. He is training these men to go into churches in positions of authority for the purpose of "reforming" them from what he perceives as a poor foundation and doing "that awful task of tearing down some false superstructure that had been built without a doctrinal foundation, that had been built by cheap, shallow, man-centered evangelism. This rotting edifice must be torn down before a solid foundation can be laid."

Now, when you understand that this man is not using obvious labels by his own account, and that he is a Calvinist, and most Cals think that all non-Cals are "Arminians", to them the most despicable degradation of religion ever known whom they routinely accuse that they build their churches without a [Calvinist] doctrinal foundation, employing cheap, shallow, man-centered evangelistic method, then you can easily understand he is advocating clandestine infiltration into non-Cal churches deceptively. Translation? This man is "reforming" a church that is Non-Cal to one that is more to his taste and liking. He is using the "wolf principle." That of false teachers who enter in among these churches, not sparing the flock.

Our ministry printed a book on Church Planting once. The pastor who wrote this, in a section dealing with taking an existing church, advocated that the pastoral candidate make a very plain statement to the church covering what he believes and practices, and not to shy away from potentially thorny issues. The purpose in this was so that later, when opposition comes (as it almost always does), he could point back and truthfully say, "I am doing what I said I would do to begin with." The author of this Founders Movement article is arguing the very opposite of this. He is not looking to revitalize a dead/dying church, he is looking to take over Non-Cal churches and convert them.

So you agree that "Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc." are inflammatory words? Why then do you ever use them? You seem to use them quite often as a moderator on this board. Is it the policy of the Baptist Board to use inflammatory speech? No, I think not. The words are only inflammatory when someone who understands their meaning disagrees strongly with them. On the same basis, would you advise that pastors of the oppposing view candidate for Cal churches without mentioning inflammatory words like "universal redemption, Arminianism, apostasy, Holy Ghost baptism, etc."?? Why don't we just all hide what we believe until we get into the catbirds seat?

Are you not aware of the many NT scriptures that warn about false teachers coming into our churches? This article is training these Founders Movement pastors to do just that and their method should rightly be warned against. You, on the other hand, appear to be in total agreement, advocating that type of deception. Apparently you have little respect for the Baptist doctrines of the priesthood of the believer and congregational government, preferring a leader come in and promote division claiming that "some will leave, some will want to get rid of the preacher, and thank God, some will get right with God." What makes the Calvinist feel so superior that he feels he has to "reform" a church that may not even desire those changes to the point that some will be inflamed, some will actually leave, and some will be put in the unenviable position of having to oppose the pastor?

Did I perhaps use inflammatory words you didn't understand such as "Freudian Slip"? Do you know what a Freudian Slip is, Larry?

Okay, Math class. How many here understand that "once" does not equal "two times" then please raise your hand. Is your hand up Larry? I was afraid not.

Yes, and if you look right below where you quote him, you will find where you reject his answer claiming to know what he believes. In fact, you have spent many words in follow-up posts to me insisting that your statement was a declaration that you knew for certain he was not a Calvinist. You will even repeat that contention in this post I am answering. Do you REALLY need someone to show you how that is a denial of his statement that he was not arguing Calvinism?

Hahahahaha!!! I can but laugh.

Your repeated request for a man to read the article he has made a post about, posted a link to, and made several direct quotes from is dishonest in its claim that he has not read it, disingenuous because you already know he has read it, and irresponsible because you, as a moderator, will disclaim seeing any personal attack in it. For example ....

You illustrated it perfectly.

What was that list of principles again? You can translate for me now? I don't think so, Larry.

Can we define "irresponsible"? Please tell me how the post I responded to adds any substance to this thread, or quotes the article, or truly shows any fallacies? Your only additional words were, "I think you have been pretty clear, both here and in other places. There is no doubt about what your views are."

It was a personal attack at Ignazio_er from your hand. No substance, just a high-handed "I know what you believe" attack. No dealing with the issues he has brought up, only a bogus denial of his statement.

But please remember Larry. HIS CALVINISM OR NON-CALVINISM IS IRRELEVENT. Toss that joker out of your hand, it is not a legitimate playing card.

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Is it my personal "stupid vendetta"? Really, am I the only one who has pointed out your violation of your own stated rules and personal attacks against members of this board? What I would like is to see you focus on the issues without the other stuff.

I don't have much time for this. I am going to take just a few to demonstrate your tap-dancing act, but not the whole. That is not because I am ignoring you or cannot do so. It is because I am busy, and recognize that for you it is an excercise in futility, anyway.

No, not confusing labels, but labels that will inflame those who understand them against you. He said, "Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you."

Yes we do, but not in such a way that those who are familiar with it will know it for what it is until it is too late.

But are you not a Calvinist? Would your teaching of "what the word says" agree with the same type of verse-by-verse teaching of a Non-Cal? Or is your teaching heavily influenced by what you believe and have been taught, whether you are honest and label it as such or not? Could those who have been taught by you for a fair length of time and agree with you be properly labeled a "Calvinist" whether they understand that term or not? I suggest that you would not be jumping them with statements like, "but you don't understand Calvinism!", even though they may never have been acquainted with that term through your teaching.

But what did the author say it can accomplish when there are people who DO UNDERSTAND the terms?

Apply the same reasoning to the terms fundamentalist, Trinitarian, premillenialist, separatist, or creationist and your reasoning falls apart. Labels mean things, and appropriately used will communicate what one believes for others to either agree -- or disagree -- with. I want the poisons in my house to be clearly labelled as such. If they are not labelled "POISON", then I surely do not want them in my medicine cabinet packaged in a medicine bottle.

To disagree with and be opposed to Calvinism (or Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Arianism, Augustinianism, or any other such thing) is the right of the believer, and that congregation. The only reason I can think of that it would be unwise is if you are wanting to infiltrate without being identified, or if that label represented something you did not actually believe.

I, for one, would prefer not to subject myself to the teachings of an Amyraldian (second-rate Calvinist) without knowing he was one until long after I had threaded the thorny issues of his teaching. The same goes for an Amillenialist or Preterist or Deist.

You know what is in my heart? If you truly did, then you would realize the fallaciousness of your statement just now. What is in my heart is that the collected doctrines known as Calvinism is rank heresy that twists the true gospel of Christ, preaches another Jesus not of the Bible, rends the scriptures, and promotes immorality, injustice, and hatred. It is dangerous because it is right doctrine taken to extremes; it is poison mixed with good drink. It is sinister, because most do not want to be identified and will labor hard as you have done here and many places throughout this board to deny when others point out the results of their heresy.

I, in my heart, realize that false teachers can be deceiving and by their "good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:18) It seems Paul also understood this. You do not.

You really should spend some time asking yourself this question, Larry. Just remember, it is not just PappaBear who calls your attention to it. The Bible tells us that the just shall live by his faith. In other words, repentance, faith, contrition, and confession are not just one time acts. Pride is dangerous, especially in one who has authority and can wield that power without accountability, as you have boasted that you can do.

 

I never said that he did. In fact, I don’t think anyone here said that. I have maintained that the author not only says you should be Calvinistic, but he also says you should teach it.

He is telling the truth. A wolf is a false teacher. When one teaches Calvinism, they are teaching the word that God has revealed. It doesn’t matter what terms you use for it. As I pointed out, if he teaches Scripture without the terms, he will be teaching Calvinism.

Very funny way of hiding it … What you miss is that I quoted him saying that all five points should be taught. That is not hiding, not by anyone’s definition. Here, you have simply started down a path you can’t defend and won’t break from. You need to simply admit you are wrong. Remember the old proverb, A rose by any other name would smell just the same. That proverb communicates the truth that the labels are not determinative; the substance is.

Yes, but the fact that he didn’t called it OSAS or eternal security is irrelevant. It is the fact that he taught. The bottom line, which you don’t’ seem to get, is that it doesn’t matter what you call it. It is the content of the teaching that is at issue.

I didn’t see that anywhere in the article.

They can be. They are not always.

Or when someone who has false doctrine doesn’t like the truth conveyed by them.

[qutoe]On the same basis, would you advise that pastors of the opposing view candidate for Cal churches without mentioning inflammatory words like "universal redemption, Arminianism, apostasy, Holy Ghost baptism, etc."?? </font>[/QUOTE]I would advise these men of the opposing view to get out of the ministry. They should not be parading about as preachers. I think some arminian preachers have done great things for Christ. I think many of them love God and his word. I think they are mislead and mistaught.

Yes I am. Are you aware than none of these passages talks about buzzwords that these false teacher use? You know why?? Because the labels are not the issue. It is the content that is the issue. That is the problem with your position. You cannot see the simple difference. The labels are not what Paul was concerned about. In fact, Paul doesn’t use labels. In every case, he addresses the substance of their teaching. Paul wasn’t concerned that false teachers weren’t using his preferred labels. He was concerned that false teachers were talking at all.

I have advocated no deception.

Not at all.

It is not opposition to the pastor. It is opposition to the truth of God’s word. If the church doesn’t want to the truth preached, then the pastor has a big problem. This article talks of tremendous growth that came in this church once he started preaching the truth.

Yes, but irrelevant. I made a typo. So what?? Is that what you really want to focus on??

”Once” was an error as anyone with a brain can see. Glad you caught it. I tried to edit it but I couldn’t. But I notice how you didn’t deal with the substance of your statement when confronted with the fact.

You still don’t get it. Read again what I said and what he said. He did not say he was a Calvinist. He said he was not arguing against it. Those are two different things. I did not say he was arguing against it. I said he had made it clear what he believed. Again, these words trip you up because you are unwilling to read and think through what is actually being said. That is unfortunate. View it this way.

Ignazio-er Larry
Said: I am not arguing against Calvinism Did not say: You are arguing against Calvinism
Did not say: I am a Calvinist Said: You are not a Calvinist.

When you study this little chart and put the implied negatives, you will see that I was right from the beginning and you were wrong.

What I need is for you to deal with what is said. Stop making stuff up. In your short time here, you have shown a tremendous penchant for that.

 

This is foolishness on your part. You get upset when I “know” what is in your head, but then presume to tell me what I already knew. How inconsistent of you … and how convenient for you. The truth is, based on what he was saying, I didn’t know whether or not he had read it. I explained very clearly that sometimes people quote someone from a quotation rather than quoting the original article. It is called a secondary citation in technical terms. When someone makes the kind of errors he made about the article, we can only wonder whether he actually read it.

I know, and you still tried to mock me with it. That was not good on your part. You know very well that people do not always read everything they quote from

It addressed a specific contention for clarification. The conversation should have ended there. There is no doubt, and he did not contest it. You are the one who keeps bringing it up for some reason.

If he isn’t a Calvinist (which he isn’t), then it wasn’t a personal attack. You have a very strange understanding of these things. I do know what he believes. As I said, I have the personal correspondence that you do not have. You are commenting from a lack of information.

I didn’t bring it up. You did. I dealt with it with him. You are the one who keeps playing that card.

You haven’t told the truth about some of these things. I have pointed it out many times. But you are not my enemy.

Then stop making false accusations in a vendetta against me.

It is an exercise in futility for me because you are not willing to deal with the truth of the matter.

Notice how he distinguishes between confused and knowing. It confuses some. You yourself have been confused by it because you have demonstrated that you are not entirely clear on what we actually believe.

In many places it would. In some it would not because the “non-Cal” has left the truth of Scripture to support his own view.

If they don’t understand the term, then how could they agree that I could be properly labeled that way?? That doesn’t make sense. If someone asks me, I say, Yes I am a Calvinist. Those who hear me teach and who know Calvinism, know right off what I am.

Emotional inflammation because of their false doctrine.

No it doesn’t. It is still the same. Remember the old saying A rose by any other name would smell just the same. For instance, if you go to a Muslim country and claim to be a fundamentalist, they mean something entirely different and they might be enflamed by you being there or they might be encouraged .. but they would have no idea what you actually are. This is so elementary, I can’t believe it is confusing to you. You are not a fundamentalist in the way that Muslims use that label.

But what if you were in Brazil and the bottle wasn’t labeled “poison.” Would you still want someone to explain to you what was actually in that bottle?? You see, in that case, not even you are interested in the label. You are interested in the substance. Which proves my point. Labels are valuable; they are shorthand that helps those who know what the labels mean. They don’t help those who don’t know what they mean. They might confuse them, just as the Portuguese word for “poison” would probably confuse you.

Or perhaps if someone has been taught wrongly, you can avoid the label until you explain the issues from Scripture. Then you can show them their misunderstanding and false teaching. In so doing, you removed an unnecessary barrier to the truth.

You know that the case can be made. You simply don’t want to accept it and so you resort to these things to avoid it. That is fine. I realize that a case for arminianism can be made from Scripture. I disagree with how they make it and the lengths to which they must go to get around the text. But they can make the case. If you have read as much as you claim to, then you have seen the Scriptures in support of Calvinism. They are not bringing this up out of thin air.

But you know this is a lie.

Yes I do understand this. This is why I would recommend that non-cals get out of the ministry. They can do harm to the cause of Christ and damn the souls of the unsuspecting. They will be held accountable for their teaching (James 3) and they will be judged by a higher standard.

You have correctly understand Scripture on this point.

I am not proud about this. I am disturbed that such false teaching is so easily spewed. I am concerned for those who might believe it. I have the authority but I don’t use it. I don’t need to. I don’t have the interest in it.

 

Actually, I think it to be very arrogant that you think you "know" what is in my head or heart.

Then you are ignoring the obvious.

Your vain attempt at showing him a non-Cal. Did you see his response? I think it reflected the fact that he appears to be pretty much about as finished with you as I am. He said, "You're right. I'm wrong. Thank your for your insightful, intelligent, and clear-thinking charity." You're probably just the kind to believe this was a real capitulation to your superior intelect and debating skills? Hahaha!

Yes, he disavowed arguing against Calvinism in this thread and you pursued it anyway. That is a personal attack from a mistaken belief in superiority.

I didn’t bring it up. You did. I dealt with it with him. You are the one who keeps playing that card.</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't bring it up? Wasn't it just you who said "If he isn’t a Calvinist (which he isn’t), then it wasn’t a personal attack."?? Larry, were you talking about knowing what he believes that he is not a Calvinist, or knowing what he believes about something else?

Actually, I am fairly confident in my lack of confusion regarding the article, which I have read in its entirety. I am also confident in your lack of understanding of it and intentional confusion of the issues. What I am not so confident in, based on our past experiences, is whether or not you have read the article yet.

Now, we are getting somewhere. It is this that blinds you from being a balanced "moderator." You cannot see the other side of anyone who disagrees with you as anything other than wrong. Well, chum, for my part it is the Cal who has to depart from the scriptures to find any verse that has one getting "born again" before he can get saved. It is the Cal who consistently in debate must say "but reason tells us..." and spews a lot of man-centered logic to shore up their unscriptural doctrine. Be that as it may, the truth is that your view as a teacher will come out in what you teach, because most teachers do not approach the Bible from a neutral background. It is dishonest NOT to be upfront about where you intend on taking these people to and what you believe.

If they don’t understand the term, then how could they agree that I could be properly labeled that way?? That doesn’t make sense. </font>[/QUOTE]You didn't understand the question. Let me rephrase it. Can those who you have been indoctrinated by you be defined as "Calvinists" even though they may not understand the term to call themselves that? Are you turning out Calvinist students, or are you turning out Arminians, whether you label them as such or not?

Emotional inflammation because of their false doctrine.</font>[/QUOTE]And it doesn't occur to you as a BAPTIST that believes in the Priesthood of the Believer and congregational church leadership that they may not believe their doctrine is false and may not want to be "reformed"?? Even as a Calvinist, you don't think that God could establish this man as a pastor in that church even if he was up front and aboveboard about his heretical Calvinist beliefs if that was God's will? You believe that then end (converting the church to Calvinism) justifies the means?

But we are not talking within the context of Muslims, but of going to a church. If I went to a Southern Baptist church and candidated for the position of pastor, it would not be in my best interest in obtaining that position if I put in my resume and stated squarely that I am an "Independent Fundamental Baptist." Now, of course, it may not mean the same thing to a Muslim, but we are not discussing an article that is a manual for infiltrating a mosque, but an article teaching Founders Movement Calvinist men to infiltrate Southern Baptist Non-Cal churches and take over. The point was, the "labels" you used were outdated and did not compute. The ones that I used were significant, very much like the term "Calvinist" would be.

Is this another one of your infamous typo's? Think about your statement for a moment. The answer is YES! YES! YES! I want someone who knows what is in the bottle. I don't want them to tell me that in that bottle is ascorbic acid, starch cellulose, a little bit of Stearic Acid and some silicon dioxide! I want somebody who would know beyond doubt that "THIS IS VITAMIN C"! And if the bottle is unlabeled, I dead sure don't want some Brazilian just walking up from nowhere saying, "I think this is probably Vitamin C, but we'll find out soon as you take some." IOW ... how does he know?

In this case, if someone knows to teach particular redemption, perseverance of the saints, etc. then he is a Calvinist whether he runs like a scared jackrabbit from the term or not.

The article didn't say that it would inflame someone who had been taught wrongly. The article outright said that after you are "outed" there would be some who would leave, some who would try to get rid of you, and some who would "get right." The article was particularly wanting you to avoid bringing them to this position too early in the game before you got the opportunity to decieve the simple by delivery of your good words and fair speeches.

You know that the case can be made. You simply don’t want to accept it and so you resort to these things to avoid it. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the Bible disagrees with you here. It says that man looks on the outward appearance, but it is God that looks on the heart. But I do think that case can be made that Calvinists think of themselves as possessing something of a god-like status. But I also know that in that case they are deceived and wrong.

One of the evidences of Christ's deity was that he could read the hearts of men. Are you laying claim to being deity?

I have seen them wrench and tear the scriptures, wresting them out of context, citing prooftexts but fleeing from actual exegesis, denying plain statements of scripture by foolish attempts of setting up contradictions by citing a different verse from another passage. Yes, I am sadly familiar with Calvinist tactics.

I know that you just said another one. It seems to be a consistent problem with you.

And that is why I would recommend that anyone with that kind of idea should not be a "moderator" of any kind regarding the issue because it would be impossible for them to be impartial regarding the issue. The same as anyone or his cronies with the idea that a church, because it is Non-Cal, is in need of reformation and justifies an "anything goes" mentality in order to usurp authority should, lacking faith in the Lordship of Jesus Christ and His ability to administer His own blood-bought church, never be allowed anywhere near the eldership of a church.