What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Herald, Jun 4, 2012.

  1. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering the popular debate over the doctrines of grace, I thought it would prove beneficial to explain how these doctrines flourish in the Baptist tradition. The late Pastor William Payne, from Burlington, Ontario, Canada preached a sermon on this very topic. The sermon is condensed here and does a good job of presenting Baptist distinctives within Reformed theology.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If I were to be asked “What kind of a church are you?” I would not hesitate to reply, “We are a Baptist Church!” We hold to those truths which have sometimes been referred to as “Baptist Distinctives”.

    I would also reply that we are a “Reformed Church” inasmuch as we hold to the great doctrines of the Reformation in the areas concerning the salvation of men. In this sense, I am not at all averse to our church being referred to as a “Reformed Baptist” church, and I want to speak on the subject “What is a Reformed Baptist Church?”.

    I. The Scriptures

    First of all, a Reformed Baptist Church is a local church which acknowledges the supreme authority of Holy Scripture. In all matters of faith, that is in the things we believe, and of practice, that is the things which we do, our sole authority is the Word of God. If something, whether of faith or of practice, is contrary to the Bible then no matter who pleads for it, no matter what clever arguments are produced in favor of it, we cannot endorse it.

    We recognize that in the operation of a local church there may be items introduced for which there may be no specific Biblical warrant. For instance, I am thinking of a church secretary as an illustration. It would be hard to find chapter and verse which states that we ought to have one, but we recognize that such things are necessary, and in accordance with the Biblical principle that all things should be done decently and in order.

    However, we would state emphatically that when there is no express Biblical warrant for something, we are not going to look upon it as sacred and binding. When the Word of God does not warrant something, we are not going to be brought under bondage to it; but where the Scriptures clearly call for something, no consideration ought to make us do without it. We desire to have our conscience bound to the Word of God, for there we believe is true freedom. It is my opinion that a number of items in present day Baptist churches have no true Biblical warrant. They are a part of the church because they were introduced some years ago and are now “Baptist tradition.” Perhaps many people take it for granted that they are Scriptural, but if they were challenged to produce Scriptural evidence for these practices they would be hard pressed to find any.

    In other areas there are things which Scriptures clearly calls for which have dropped out of most modern Baptist churches, and we ought to call for them to be brought back. The eldership would be an example of this point. Baptist churches used to have an eldership years ago; in most Baptist churches today you cannot find it. But we believe that if we are going to be truly patterned on the New Testament churches we need to return to the concept of eldership. The Scriptures present it; we ought to have it!

    So Reformed Baptists are not governed by tradition, not by the opinion of man, not by sentiment, nor by pragmatism, but by the Word of God alone. We believe in the authority of Scripture, and we desire in our church life to be patterned after and conformed to the Word of God. We should always be seeking for God to deepen our understanding of His Word, and we should always be ready to reform any of our practices if it becomes apparent that we are out of line with the Scriptures. The attitude which says, “It doesn’t matter what the Bible says, this is the way we have always done it,” is to us frightening; indeed sinful. It must be “to the law and to the testimony”; or what saith the Scriptures?

    II. Preaching

    Secondly, Reformed Baptists believe in the preeminence of the preaching of the Word of God. We believe that the preaching of the Bible must have the central place in our services. We believe that nothing can or should take the place of the preaching of the Word!

    Our conviction is that the church of Christ has suffered because she has downgraded the preaching of the Word. We believe that seminaries and Bible Colleges ought to be preeminently places where preachers are produced and encouraged. We believe that God’s people everywhere ought to be encouraged to pray that God would endow men with gifts of preaching, and that he would give to His churches preachers, great preachers, many preachers. We believe that there is a need in the churches of Christ for a fresh realization of the importance of the preaching of the Word of God, and that young men ought to be encouraged to study theology, church history and the sermons of great preachers of the past; that they ought to work hard to become good preachers of the Bible.

    III. The Doctrines of Grace

    Thirdly, Reformed Baptist unashamedly declare their belief in those doctrines which are sometimes called the doctrines of grace. By this expression we mean in particular the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, definite atonement, effectual calling, and the perseverance of the saints. We rejoice in those glorious truths which uphold the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men, and which so gloriously affirm the great central reality that salvation is all of grace, and that salvation is of the Lord!

    We rejoice that the doctrines of grace are clearly set forth in the Second London Confession of Faith of 1689, and in many other historic Baptist creeds. We note that in 1861 when Charles Spurgeon opened the great Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England, that he celebrated the occasion by having sermons preached by esteemed guests on each of those distinctive doctrines. And yet it is not because Spurgeon, or any other Baptist preached these doctrines that we believe them.

    It is not just because these doctrines are found in the historic Baptist creeds, though we rejoice that that is the case, but it is because the doctrines are so clearly presented in the Holy Scriptures that we believe them. We recognize that we live in an age when these great fundamental truths are ignored, and even blatantly denied by many professing the name “evangelical” and the name “Baptist”. We know that they are unpopular truths, but truth they are, and we receive them and rejoice in them.

    We would like to emphasize also that we not only believe them but we further believe that they ought to be clearly preached and taught from the pulpit!
    We have a tragic situation today when men in the pulpits say that they believe the doctrines of grace but they refuse to preach and teach them to their people. The result is that the churches are full of people uninstructed in the great truths of the Scriptures (and of the historic Baptist faith), and these people then imbibe the very opposite doctrines — which they easily receive over the radio and via religious periodicals. Often when a man comes into such a congregation and preaches the truths of grace, uproar and opposition ensue. This is tragic, but common. We believe that our day needs the doctrines of grace, and that our people need to be instructed in them.

    IV. Evangelism

    In the next place, we would like to affirm that Reformed Baptists believe in the necessity and responsibility of evangelism. We have no more liking for Hyper-Calvinism than we have for Arminianism.

    We do not believe that there is an inconsistency between God’s sovereignty in the salvation of His chosen people and His command to us to preach the gospel to every creature. If there seems to be a difficulty in our minds reconciling any of the truths of His Word, we see it as the result of the darkness of our own understanding, and we believe that our duty is to obey the Word whether we understand it all or not. We believe in evangelism!
    Now it is true that we do not believe in much that goes under the name of evangelism in this twentieth century. We believe that much that is called evangelism today is little more than psychology and salesmanship; we are appalled by the superficial work which goes under the name of evangelism; we are appalled by the pressures, gimmicks and schemes all calculated to produce “decisions” and impressive statistics but which work such havoc in the souls of men. No!

    Because we believe in evangelism does not mean that we are going to cooperate with every scheme which bears that name. We believe that in evangelism as in everything else, as we said earlier, we must be governed by the Word of God. The message of evangelism must be according to the Scriptures, and the method of evangelism must be governed by the Word of God! Nevertheless, we repeat that we do believe in evangelism, and our prayer is that God would ever keep us mindful of the need to evangelize. May God ever give us a burden to evangelize, knowing that it is for His glory and for the salvation of men.

    We believe that it is our responsibility to make known the gospel first in our own community, and in Canada at large, and indeed in all the world. We believe in missions, home and foreign and we believe that we ought to seek the souls of men in every way that is consistent with the Word of God.
     
    #1 Herald, Jun 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  2. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Part II

    V. Worship

    Finally, let me say that a Reformed Baptist Church is a local church with a serious approach to worship. The God we worship is a God of majesty, glory and holiness. And the God of the Bible is one before whom the angels of heaven constantly cry, “Holy, Holy, Holy”, they worship Him day and night; He is great and greatly to be praised. We believe that when we come together to worship this great and glorious God of the Bible we ought to do so with reverence and with godly fear. We believe that there ought to be a sense of AWE in our hearts when we gather to worship this God!

    You say, “But surely there must be joy as well.” Yes indeed, we agree, but equally surely it must be a joy which is a joy in God; a joy not arising from some natural “good feeling” but a joy arising out of the knowledge of the Lord, and a joy tempered and controlled by reverence.

    We believe that there is a world of difference between a “dead” service and a serious, spiritual service. The first is not desired; the second is. Now because of this desire for serious worship, we believe that anything which would detract from that ought not to be allowed among us. Frivolity and childishness seem to us to be out of place and incongruous with the worship of God.

    We also believe that our music in the church ought to be governed by the great central fact of the One whom we worship. So much of the music invading the churches today seems little more than carnal imitation of the world. There is very little difference between that which is presented on the church platform and that which is presented on the television or the worldly floor show — except, of course, that “religious” words are uttered rather than “secular” ones. But the spirit is of the world; the appeal is to the flesh. This we abhor and reject as having no place in the worship of God. That which is sacred ought not to be prostituted and used as entertainment. If men want to be entertained let them be honest enough to go to some secular hall of amusement and be entertained; let them not pretend to be worshipping or in a service when entertainment is the order of the day. No! When we gather to worship, we want to keep the world out; we want to appeal not to the flesh but to the spirit; we want not the sophistication of the world but the simplicity of Christ. Oh that when we worship we might feel the awe of God in our souls. Oh that we might see something of the glory seen by Isaiah and by the servants of God of old!

    This, then is the kind of church we are seeking to build. Other things could be said, but we have sought to touch on some of the basic points.

    May God raise up many such churches all over the land and all over the world which desire the same things and strive towards them. May God be pleased to visit His people again with showers of blessing that God might be glorified in and through His church!
     
    #2 Herald, Jun 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  3. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I may add, Reformed Baptist distinctives are different than Calvinist Baptist distinctives. There are many neo-Calvinists within Baptist ranks these days. They embrace the doctrines of grace, but bear no markers of historic Reformed Christianity.
     
  4. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's an insult for Calvinists to term their beliefs as the "doctrines of grace", as if what other Christians believe are not the doctrines of grace.

    Methodists believe in the doctrines of grace -- who wrote more about grace than John Wesley.

    General Baptists believe in the doctrines of grace -- you know, the first, original Baptists.

    Catholics believe in the doctrines of grace.

    Etc., etc.
     
  5. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reformed Baptists have never accused other Baptists of denying grace. The term "doctrines of grace" places emphasis on the grace of God in predestination and election. It also differentiates itself from the term "Calvinist." Calvin rightly articulated God's sovereignty and election, but he was also a paedobaptist and a Presbyterian; neither of which are compatible within the Baptist schema.
     
  6. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know what you are saying.

    But I think the term "doctrines of grace" could just as legitimately be applied to Wesley's teachings on grace.
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,374
    Likes Received:
    728
    Michael,
    You know that the synergistic religions are not the same as monergism,RC works gospel is not the same as grace even if they use the word grace in speaking about salvation.
     
  8. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that Roman Catholicism and Calvinism are very far part, and I reject both.

    I still don't think it's right for Calvinists to try to monopolize the term "doctrines of grace", as if their definition of that is the only right one.
     
  9. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,374
    Likes Received:
    728
     
  10. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  11. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,904
    Likes Received:
    94
    I don't understand this last statement .. please clarity
     
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    272
    Yea, I'm curious as to what he means too.
     
  13. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I am generally calvinistic, and I generally agree with Michael Wrenn that using the term "Doctrines of Grace" can be misleading and pajorative, unless one clarifies that they are simply doing so to specify that the Tulip beliefs have come to be known as DOG. I generally don't use the term, because to those unfamiliar with the Cal/Arm issues it simply doesn't mean anything.

    2. I believe I understand what Hereald is saying when he refers to "calvinistic Baptists" or "DOG" baptists who are not 'REFORMED" in any other sense:

    -There are some Baptists who hold to Tulip, but who reject things like the regulative principle, (think mark driscoll), so he may have a Giant cardboard camel rolled out on the platform while he is preaching (true story); or may employ other elements in a worship service that a true "reformed baptist church" would not. (Not just preaching, fellowship, prayer, reading scripture, Singing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs)
    -There are also some Baptist who go the other way, very fundamemtalists Tulip Baptists who hold people to legalistic dress standards and lifestyle standards that are not required by scripture (dresses, head-coverings, don't play cards, go to movies...) This would also not match a traditional "reformed baptist church."
    -There are also some Tulip Baptists who do not have "elder-led" churches...another hallmark of reformed baptist churches.
    -There could be other items, but that's what I could come up with.

    (My wife & I have some good friends who attend a reformed baptist church, and so they've told us some things about it)
     
  14. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Calvinistic Baptists can be all over the map on things such as eschatology, systematic theology, worship, and eldership (or not) just to name a few. Calvinistic Baptists may not have a unifying system of belief that binds them together. Reformed (or as our UK brethren call them "Particular Baptists") Baptists typically embrace Covenant Theology, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the plurality of elders. In addition Reformed Baptists are generally unified by confessional subscription; typically the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Critics often accuse Reformed Baptists of following doctrines of men, but careful research will reveal that Reformed Baptists consider all man made documents to be secondary to Scripture. Scripture is the absolute rule for all matters of faith and practice for Reformed Baptists, although they recognize that God has gifted certain men in the area of explaining what the Bible says. It is the duty of every Christian, Reformed Baptist or not, to compare each teaching to the Word of God to make sure those things are so.
     
  15. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Doctrines of Grace" should not be considered a pejorative term against other theological convictions that do not hold to the Reformed view of soteriology (the study of salvation). According to the Reformed view any theological system that teaches man is saved synergistically is guilty of the error of semi-Pelagianism (commonly referred to as "Arminianism"); i.e. man cooperating with God in salvation. The disagreement between those holding to the Reformed view and those opposed to it is not whether grace is operative. Any honest Reformed Christian will affirm that their "Arminian" brethren believe grace is an integral part of salvation. It's whether salvation is grace alone by faith alone according to the way Reformed Christians interpret Scripture. I'm not minimizing the difference of opinion on this doctrine. I know Christians on both sides are passionate about it; so much so that they break fellowship over it as well as going so far as to accuse those who hold to the opposing view of being unsaved.
     
  16. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=glynn.CALVINIST-RHETORIC.Euphemism-and-Dysphemism

    I agree with Michael on this one...It is ultimately disingenuous to call it "Doctrines of Grace" even if those doing so are merely doing so out of innocent habit. (As most I think do). It should be eradicated: It becomes problematic...One needs only to haunt BB here for a few minutes to see that many of those who believe in TULIP actually quote any verse which merely uses the word "grace" as though it makes it a proof-text for the claims unique to Calvinism. I furnish these as examples:

    Non-Calvinists are here being directly accused of:
    1.) Having a different Religion
    2.) Believing a different Gospel


    Why? Because repeated insistence on calling TULIP "Doctrines of Grace" will inevitably work into the mind the sub-conscious association between determinism and grace. How many times has Ephesians 3:5-6 been used to "prove" Calvinism? It becomes a confusion in terms.

    I would love to see the reaction of Calvinists if Arminians consistently began to call Arminianism the "Doctrines of Love" or the "Doctrine of Justice" consistently over the course of several decades, thus tacitly implying that God is not (acc. Calvinism) either truly "loving" or truly "just".....Many Arminians honestly believe that Calvinist doctrine is an insufficient view of either God's love and Justice, but they wouldn't call the claims unique to Arminianism such a thing, nor should they.

    It is of course....ditto.....with regards to, and beyond dis-ingenuous (I believe intentionally so usually) to claim that Arms are "semi-Pelagian". <----That is simply cheap.
     
    #16 HeirofSalvation, Jun 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  17. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's been called "the doctrines of grace" since at least the 17th Century. You may not like it, but it's not going to change any time soon.

    The best argument isn't always made in support of any doctrinal position. However, the passage you quoted does make a strong case that salvation is by grace alone. Be that as it may, here is the passage you quote:

    Romans 11:5-6 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

    By who's choice? God's (v. 5). This passage clearly reveals that election is by God's choice and not on the basis of any work of man.

    But your accusation is:

    John 1:16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

    Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

    Romans 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake,

    1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

    None of the above passages are proof-text for Calvinism or the doctrines of grace, and none who hold to that position use these verses in support of the doctrine. So, your accusation is moot.

    It depends on what type of non-Calvinist is being described. Roman Catholicism is decidedly non-Calvinist. It is a different religion that that teaches a different gospel. Do Calvinists believe that all Baptists have a different religion and believe a different gospel? I'm honest enough to say that some on the hyper-Calvinist side may very well believe that. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you and condemn that belief. I do believe that what passes for mainline Baptist soteriology contains error, but that error does not negate the efficacy of the Gospel message. If a non-Calvinist preacher proclaims man's sin, God's just wrath on sin, Christ's atoning work on the cross, and the call to personal repentance (faith) then I would say the Gospel is being preached. No theological system is without error. We just don't always know what that error is.

    The reaction of most Calvinists would be to ignore it. I'm not trying to be cheeky, but you can call yourself a car wash and it really wouldn't phase me. Why? Because I'm not in competition with any other faction within Christianity for naming rights. Again, I think you're being overly sensitive to an aspect of Christianity that has no bearing on living godly in Christ Jesus.

    It's theologically accurate. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man cooperates with God in salvation. Semi-Pelagianism was an attempt by some in the early church to modify Pelagius' original position on free will that was considered heresy. John Hendryx described semi-Pelagianism this way:

    From the Reformed (or Calvinist) schema, this is the way the the free will stance is viewed. It's not personal. It's not an attempt to demonize those who disagree with the doctrines of grace. It's not a pronouncement that those who hold to that position are unsaved. Grace is still operative in the Gospel, and as long as the basics of the Gospel are preached then that is sufficient for the salvation of souls.

    My advice to you is to simply avoid engaging on the issue if you find the doctrines of grace offensive. I have four regular posters on the BB on "ignore" because of their inflammatory rhetoric and attack dog demeanor. Instead of arguing with them I simply avoid them.
     
    #17 Herald, Jun 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  18. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    Uhhhh....o.k. and it was an equally bad idea to call it that 400 years ago as it is now.

    Yes, it does make the case that salvation is by grace alone....what I am contending is demonstrated by your post....that "grace" and "Calvinism" are being confused as synonymous words :BangHead:

    Precisely....this is what is unique to Calvinism.....their particular view of election and choice...as you stated above. But that is not "grace"...it is "election" and "choice".

    But your accusation is:



    Believe it or not....I have actually seen some of those being used before...granted, I will not claim that those particular ones are regularly used...but I have seen Rom 1:5 before and John 1:16....go to the "Other Christian Denominations" section....you will see it. So, no, my accustation is not "moot". It does indeed happen.

    That was not a distinction made in the post I quoted...The post I quoted equivocated between RCC doctrine...and any form of non-Calvinism. You are doing a good job covering for him. But I assure you, he doesn't want you to. If pressed....he will double-down on exactly what he said. He will not attempt to explain it away as you are.

    Agreed....but you serve as a counter-example to the contention I made in my original post....it is of course, not a universally true statement of all Calvinists....I am saying it leads to that in many cases, and should be eradicated.


    I doubt that, but, then again, we have no way of knowing because Arms have, to date, not been insidious enough to try it.

    Apparently...you are...if you weren't, you would not have responded. You are indeed engaged in that very thing in that you are arguing to keep a certain "naming right" alive and well. Words are powerful (more than most know) and they carry force. Do you not think that it is meaningful to call the position of infanticide enthusiasts "pro-choice"? or the anti-abortion position "pro-life"? Did you read the article?

    If it is "overly-sensitive" to object to the term...it is "overly-sensitive" to defend it.

    Red Herring.....not chasing.




    'nuff said...

    I am objecting to the term, not the "doctrine"; are you not reading the thread? (words have meaning, hence the point).
    I know this trap....Soon enough, I will be objecting to "Bible truths" and the testimony of "Scripture"....I am not biting, find another angle. are you not reading the thread.


    Good for you.
     
    #18 HeirofSalvation, Jun 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  19. Herald

    Herald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    0
    Difference of opinion, of which we're all entitled to.

    No. What I was demonstrating is what grace means in context of a given passage.

    God's election is an act of grace. No one is saved by merit. That's my point.

    Maybe some garden variety Calvinist was scrapping the bottom of the barrel to make a defense, but I haven't seen any of those verses used by a responsible Calvinist theologian. If you're widening the net to include anyone who claims to speak for the doctrines of grace, then so be it, but the boomerang swings the other way too.

    I'm not covering for anyone. I responded to your post alone. Non-Calvinists, even on this board, come from different sets and subsets of Baptist denominations.

    Both of our positions have extremists. It's part and parcel of being in a "camp." Baptists, being who we are, are independent. There are times to speak out against radical positions within the Church, but it's unlikely we're going to "eradicate" them. Heretical positions have been with the Church since its inception All we can do is to faithfully protect our local flocks from the wolves.

    Some of the things I've read on the BB (about those who hold to the doctrines of grace) would curl your toes. I can't count how many times we're accused of being unbiblical by following the doctrines of men. That's why I've ignored some of the more rabid accusers. I don't have time for them. They don't advance the debate, they simply attack. It's personal. Now, I may use the claims made by certain groups about themselves for apologetic reasons, but other than that I let them be. Most Calvinists I know (especially preachers) are more concerned with teaching the truth.

    Huh? I started this thread in order to shed some light on Reformed Baptist distinctives. Reformed Baptists have real doctrinal distinctives, even from other Calvinistic Baptists. Explaining what I believe is not the same as arguing about what I believe.

    I was correcting a misrepresentation. That's not a matter of sensitivity, its a matter of setting the facts straight.

    Your original post (the one I first responded to) was built on the premise that the term "doctrines of grace" is wrongly used. That's obviously an opinion you're entitled to, but I still don't see it's benefit. It seems like pandering.

    I'll accept that as a compliment of the fine source I cited.

    I know you are. But considering the ancient nature of the term, and the positive way history has judged it, it seems to be much ado about nothing.
     
    #19 Herald, Jun 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 4, 2012
  20. HeirofSalvation

    HeirofSalvation
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    1
    Agreed.........I am also an Arminian. Hence what I think to be the difficulty.
    Yes, you are again correct. It was in fact the "garden variety" of which I spoke.....but do you understand that the responsible Cal. Theologians were probably at one point merely the "garden variety" of which we speak? No responsible Cal Theologian does this...and I understand that, but when it concerns merely convincing the uneducated butts in the pew to tithe......that is what I object to.

    Again, I agree, What I think though, is that there are too many who are easily influenced by the power of words alone....and that because of that, in order to be as objectively honest with the "flock" as possible, one should probably not equate the very doctrine of "grace" itself with "calvinism" itself, because they are not (strictly speaking) synonymous. And are there not those who are
    2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


    I quote this...not specifically in reference to "women" but any who might be easily led or confused.....it is the easily confused or led of whom I speak. I think that much of the strength of Calvinist dogma is often observed when anyone has successfully created a sub-conscious association in the mind between "grace" and "Calvinism". I would also daresay, that I, as a non-Cal am not the only one to see this, and I am quite convinced there are many a Calvinist who do as well!!! :smilewinkgrin: and they take advantage of it. I am not going to let them plead innocent ignorance...they are too smart for that...they know what they are doing. It is time for the non-Cals to enlighten our flocks to this particular tactic as well. Try as you might, this particular trick is now available to be rebutted on the World-wide-web....and it will therefore not last forever....it worked for 400 years.....it will be dead in ten.

    So Solly Chally....you will eventually be forced to defend Calvinism on its merits alone.

    Really....I mean Really....that dude would place the thumbs of non-Calvinists into screws if he could.

    We are not going to let you continue to get away with it....sorry...you will forever be called on it whenever you try it...welcome to world-wide-web.....Calvinism has veritably owned theological popular thought for about 25years.... (specifically with the imminently convincible 22-year-old retards you are catechising in seminaries) but now, Arms have wisened to it, and they are going to fight back with full force....As much ground as it will ever gain has now been gained....watch, (my prediction) as it begins to slowly fade away into pockets of obscurity. The purely Psychological trick of equivocating between "grace" and "determinism" is and will be routed out, exposed, and rejected.

    "History" whatever you mean by that...may have not popularly fought against it until now....but the future will. My advice.......Consider defending determinism on its innate merits alone.

    Obviously not, as you will not concede it. I also know you NEVER will. Prove me mistaken. You are defending the tactic, as you do not want it lost.
     

Share This Page

Loading...