Should the SBC divide over Calvinism/non-Calvinism?

My comments were made in light of the ridiculous notion that we should divide over them.

 

If a Calvinist and an Arminian cannot have a deep and lasting relationship it is because they are both spiritually immature and will not obey Christ's command to "LOVE ONE ANOTHER".
It has nothing to do with theological differences because we will never agree 100% with every single brother or sister.

 

A big hearty AMEN to that.

 

What could be more deep and lasting than our shared belief in the cross of Christ and his resurrection? I love to search out theological truths and even debate them with other believers. But when these debates turn into division, we have left our first love and are in danger of harming the body of Christ.

 

Great point....I'm still waiting on Aaron's definition of "deep and lasting", and why it is so impossible among those who have Jesus in common.

 

Obviously, the definition of deep and lasting fellowships are those people who agree 100% with me as to what I think the Bible says. All others are excluded. Go form your own group. You do not believe the real Gospel.

There is so much baloney in this thread, some could start a meat packing business.

 

It's not all baloney.

I am distress to see some of the brethren thinking that holding cal or non-cal beliefs exempts/excludes us from fellowship with each other though.

 

I basically agree with you. The church is in the state we find it today because of man made, arrogant exclusionary mindsets. In the example in this thread, the honest truth is that neither side knows for sure if they are right or not. My guess the truth as God sees it does not represent either side.

It does not matter to me what the issue is, unless it compromises who Jesus Christ is and what He came to do, those who have exclusionary, dividing mind sets have caused more harm than good. I guess it is one of my quirks, but I have no tolerance for arrogance, and those who think its their way or no way, when in fact, they dont have a clue what they are talking about.

 

I didn't say relationship. I said fellowship. And I didn't say Calvinists and Ariminians couldn't have some degree of fellowship, but a really deep and abiding fellowship? Calvinism and Arminism isn't about the love one has for Christ, it's about who one thinks Christ is, and, as Tom Butler succinctly put it, "It directly drives how one does witnessing, evangelism and missions. It drives the content of preaching. It affects how one presents the gospel."

How many Arminians would sit still for a comment like this from the pulpit?

I know without having to see it posted, that if you're an Arminian and you read that quote, a fire started in your chest. Is that because you're immature, or is it because of your doctrine of God? Your maturity may affect the decorum of your response, but you'll call it heresy pure and simple.

How many Arminians would attend a church where this is taught in the pulpit and the Sunday schools? And if you attended would you sit quietly by while your view of God is offended so? Don't you believe that Pink here did not describe the God of the Bible, but another god and is preaching another Gospel?

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no real fellowship between Arminianism and Calvinism. They can't peacefully coexist. One doctrine will slay the other, and neither are content until the other is completely irradicated. (I'm personifying the doctrines here, not describing the people, not necessarily anyway.)

 

I have attended churches where free-will is taught from the pulpit and in the sunday schools. It bugged me, yes. But I still had good fellowship with the people there. If free-willers can't do the same, that's awfully hypocritical, isn't it? Aren't they the ones who think God loves everyone - yet they can't love people who disagree with them? Or maybe you're simply wrong about how free-willers would react.

 

The simple fact is that is your opinion, nothing else. You cannot even provide with any certainty that Calvinism and Arminianism represent the debate between the soverignty of God and the free will of man.

Pink is talking about rightly dividing the Word on the essentials of Christianity. You take that and use it as a strawman to further your exclusionary and division type mindset on issues that are secondary, and issues that have been debated for centuries by men lots smarter than you.

Dividing the word does not equate with dividing your opinion.

 

Who said "free willers" can't?
My pastor and half of our elders are calvinists, and that makes no difference to me whatsoever. It doesn't "bug" me either. I eat the cherries and spit out the pits. I think you need to really look into why you are "bugged" in the first place, and what the motivation behind that is.

 

Aaron, it's a little difficult to believe you when I have seen it happen for years, both in my personal life, and in the lives of my pastors. My youth pastor and senior pastor had differing views on the whole C/A debate. Yet they served together for 9 years, and grew very close to one another. It didn't hinder their "fellowship" at all. I have spoken to both of them about it, and it was an amazing example to me as I was figuring all that stuff out, and still am really.

I sure wish you were able to have a "deep" fellowship, although I'm still not sure what you think that means, with those that differ with you. You're missing out on the family of God.

 

Funny how you claim to be so accepting, yet you're so belligerent that you missed the last line in my post.

 

How about Wesley and Whitfield?

 

I didn't miss it, I took that statement as sarcasm. If it wasn't meant as such, my apologies.

 

This thread at its heart has nothing to do with Calvinism vs free will. It is an attempt to further the mindset of exclusionism. The issue doesn't matter. Whenever those who think like this get a chance, they will try and divide.

 

Wesley and Whitfield were not of the same denomination.

 

But they were good friends, weren't they?

 

As I said, there is fellowship to some degree, but they wouldn't have been able to work together.