Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Milady, Jun 27, 2007.
See the rest here:
That's really funny!!! Net Finney!
I especially like the pictures of the 3 kids on the box.
Oh Good! You had me worried when I saw the title
Funny, FBC Hammond has their own filter...
I heard that Dr. Schaap has an internet filter and I found www.fundamentalfilter.com - now that is funny.
Did anyone notice the headline on the page "Net Finney Guards Families Against the Harmful Affects of Calvinism"?
Schaap's deal looks like it is just www.cleaninternet.com linked to Schaap and charging more for it. It's a good filter. Just skip Schaap and get it cheaper.
It is a spoof against the absurd idea that Calvinism is damaging.
A lovely satire. Loved it. See, we Calvinists have a sense of humor.
Well, most of us, anyway.
Okay, some of us.
Okay, I know at least one other Calvinist who does.
That wasn't funny Tom.
Can you think of any ism taught in scripture as an ism? If I spend time studying scripture and understand it well where is the need for any ism or for that matter what is needed beyond scripture other than obedience?
We have had this discussion before and it was demonstrated to you that these labels are a shorthand for beliefs. To harp on the name is quite silly. It misses the point.
The need or usefulness of an "ism" label is to save the trouble of you taking three hours to explain what you believe about something when you can do it with one word. Rather than taking a bunch of time to explain to you what the Bible teaches about soteriology, I can simply say I am a Calvinist, and people know what I believe. Historically, the doctrines would have been better called "biblicism" but that is confusing for some. So Calvinism is a shorthand way of referring to a set of beliefs about the Bible's teaching on soteriology.
It was also pointed out that there are variations within the particular ism. SO not all agree. So how does it specifically point out the specifics of a belief. Dispensationalism has undergone radical changes in the last 50 years.
While I understand your point and agree with it some I also believe there are many things that confuse the matter because the beliefs in the isms keep changing yet scripture does not. When I ask someone what they believe about _______ I do not expect to get a ______ism answer but rather what the person believes. There are often "right" answers on a page but it does not include all the person believes. Read the Christian Church statement of faith on salvation and see if you do not believe everything they state yet we know they do not believe in eternal security.
I often do find that those who claim to believe a particular ism does not really know what it stands for. I find often that those who claim to be calvinists limit what they claim to believe. A good example of that was brought out in the thread on God creating evil. Of those I find claiming to be calvinist also "cherry pick" bits and pieces of what Calvin taught. I have found a number of Presbyterians who have studied Calvin.
When I hear a person claim to be a calvinist I do not know if that person is a 3, 4, 5, or 6 point calvinist. I still do not know if that person is calvinistic or a hyper-calvinist. I do not know if that person believes in eternal security or if they believe they are even saved and have a "hope so" salvation.
While you may believe that a label defines a person I do not believe that you will ever find two people who completely agree. I see that isms label people but they do nothing to promote healthy discussion on exegesis and promote division.
The basics of dispensationalism hasn't changed that much. When someone says that they are a dispensationalist, you have an idea of what they believe. That's the point.
If you ask me what I believe about salvation, I can talk to you for an hour and a half, or I can tell you I am a Calvinist. Either way, you will understand what I believe.
And those who don't claim a particular ism often do not really know what they believe either.
Of course. As a Calvinist, I limit what I believe. You may simply not understand what Calvinism actually is, though. We have certainly seen a lot of that around here.
Case in point. (I didn't think it would be so easy). Calvinism is not about what Calvin taught. It is shorthand for a set of beliefs about what Scripture teaches. As a Calvinist, I disagree with a good number of things that Calvin taught.
If you understand Calvinism, you understand that some of these things are not relevant to the broad category. A Calvinist is someone who believes that God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation without respect to anything in that individual. An Arminian is someone who does not believe that God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation without respect to anything in that individual. It's really pretty simple to get the broad categories down. You are trying to make it hard for some reason.
I see that as nonsense. The problem is that people don't understand issues. It isn't the label that's problematic.
But let's not derail this anymore. We have beat it up before, and it is off topic here.
Armenians believe that salvation can be lost, so to put non-Calvinists in this camp is wrong. It is not either/or.
I would have said that until I met some hyper-calvinists. When I met them I began to see them in many ways as being more closely aligned with arminianism and they claimed to not even know if they are saved.
I AGREE!!! That is exactly the reason why we must study scripture and not spend time on so many other things. Professors in theological schools say that the Bible literacy rate is declining. That clearly shows a great need for basic Bible knowledge. Look at what Bible bookstores sell in terms of reference books compared to the "make me feel good" books or how to get out of __________, God's answer to _________.
It can be very hard to know what scripture says being clouded by 3 or 5 points of view before studying the text itself. In numerous cases when I started studying scripture in light of its historical context in regards to a theological issue I found that neither sides of an issue were right and the answer was completely different. As we saw on BB we saw a number who did not believe God created evil and were vehemently against it. Yet as I study more and more looking at both the MT and LXX I find it impossible to escape the words of God being connected to evil. When I first read those verses I was troubled and was stunned. Yet as I studied I came up with what I feel comfortable with and think I can explain it well in a way that people can understand and is consistent with who God is. I would hope that all of us would agree that the Bible is the standard. The real issue comes down to what the Bible teaches and where God stands. Many listen to preachers on the radio and TV, and read books, but when it comes to interpreting the text of scripture I believe we are becoming more and more preacher and idea centered and less and less Bible centered.
I think it is because too many are either unwilling or get sidetracked from a life of disciplined study and hard work to understanding scripture by other things that take their time. If one does not know his Bible he would not even come close to knowing and discussing the issues. Seems to me that because the Bible literacy rate is declining it opens the door for cults and any other false teacher who coems alomng and sound good and right. I see a huge need to implementing good Bible studies and discipleship that helps the person to implement what the Bible teaches.
I may not always agree with you but you do may me think, and for that I am glad. I am also glad that you are trying your best to do what God wants you to do. The more I read about what you are doing the more I am encouraged by you. God knows that we need people today who are doing there best to live the Christian life despite the many things that come at us with octopus arms to entice us.
Not all of them. The fact is that a person believes one of the two positions on election that I described above, and that puts them in one camp or the other.
Tom Butler said:
I tell you, I'm going to have to quit trying to be funny, because I just can't bring it off. Here I am, trying to make a little fun of those who caricature Calvinists as narrow-minded, humorless prudes, and what happens? I get taken seriously. That's the kiss of death, isn't it? Being taken seriously when you're trying to be funny.
Even Leno bombs from time to time.
Apparently, I am the only Calvinist with a sense of humor.
I was playing along, Tom. I knew you were being funny. I was playing the part of the people you were mocking.
Whew! I'm glad to know that. I feel better now. So that makes three of us Calvinists with a sense of humor. You, me, and the one other guy that I mentioned.
Sometimes being funny is a lot of work.:laugh: