Why I’m Opposed to “New Calvinism”

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by mandym, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://sbcvoices.com/why-im-opposed-to-new-calvinism/
     
    #1 mandym, Jun 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2012
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Good article. Hopefully in the next few weeks many more mature believers will speak up and correct what is going wrong, on both sides.

    I think this is a fair objection to some abuses that might be taking place. The writer seems somewhat objective,and seeks a solution. It is not just a sweeping blind attack. Any abuses should absolutely be corrected.
    The goal is not to prevail at any cost, but to obey Jesus and serve Him.
     
  3. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the link.
     
  4. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,888
    Likes Received:
    112
    The Calvinist author first makes the claim in the OP:

    Then, his article continues with what is not included in the OP: “What’s Our Next Step?” where he rhetorically makes light of that of that these aforementioned "New Calvinists" that he is “opposed to” that are “aggressive in their insistence that others be Calvinists” will be “really hard” to find:


    Apparently, if he is serious in finding these ("New Calvinists" that he is “opposed to” that are “aggressive in their insistence that others be Calvinists”), he needs look no further than the Founders Ministries:

    BTW, the author ends his article with suggestions that "if" we are able to find any that we pamper them and gently correct their behavior. Like that is a realistic alternative proposition. :rolleyes:
     
    #4 Benjamin, Jun 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2012
  5. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0


    Sounds like "correcting your opponents with gentleness" to me!
     
  6. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never thought of the Founders organization as "New Calvinists." It's been around a long time.

    I'm also wondering why it's just fine if those who have promulgated the Affirmations and Denials promote their view, and it's not fine if the Founders supporters do the same thing?
     
  7. Jkdbuck76

    Jkdbuck76
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    64
    This right here is the best answer. I congratulate you, sir.
     
  8. TadQueasy

    TadQueasy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
    There was always a danger in the SBC that when we took an inerrantist position and began teaching it in our curriculum and seminaries that our students might believe us and actually read the Bible and believe what it says. I think this generation wants to be faithful to Scripture, not the Traditional SBC interpretations of it.
     
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,097
    Likes Received:
    49
    Aren't they both the same though?
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Well it all depends how you interpret "traditional".

    When the SBC was founded [across the river] it was founded by those who believed in the Doctrine of Grace. I call that the traditional view!
     
  11. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,888
    Likes Received:
    112
    That's beside the point. What do they say their goals are Butler?!?

    We should just sit there and take it with our heads in the sand, is that right??? I challenge you to find similar goals stated in the Affirmations and Denials... It is a defense, you seem to act as if that should not be allowed.
     
    #11 Benjamin, Jun 6, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2012
  12. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    Benjamin,

    There are multiple threads that expose just the first statement of the affirmations as not only frail but deceitfully false.

    I don't have the time, nor the inclination to continue through the whole document, but invite you to look over the work of those threads and seek out any areas of misrepresentation of the Scriptures you can find. Do your own work without relying upon what someone else states, and prove by Scriptures that the affirmations are in fact not false and displaying a false doctrine.

    The threads use the very Scriptures that the affirmations seek to use, but when shown in the authority of context and audience are actually supportive of what the affirmations would seek to deny.

    Don't sit with "your head in the sand." Do what Paul states - sift everything through the Word and discard what is not Scriptural and hold as apples of gold that which is Scriptural.
     
  13. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh...no they don't. This is an example of the reason for the statement.
     
  14. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    I have historically encouraged the BB folks to check any post I make for Scriptural error, mark any error, and engage in healthy dialogue about the truth of the Scriptures.

    Threads are offered, with my own work on the Scriptures, in which each Scripture the authors of the affirmation used to support the first article are reviewed. I offered no view of my own, but merely responded as to what was an inaccurate and inappropriate use of Scriptures by the authors. Rather than finding validation for the affirmation's view of article one, I found valid support for what they would deny.

    For one to merely accept the affirmation without a serious look at the Scriptural proof offered by the affirmation is just not wise.

    If you disagree and consider what I have posted about this (or any matter) Scripturally inaccurate or unsupported, then make use of the Scriptures the authors of the affirmation used and show how what I have posted about those Scriptures are in error.

    If one be found in Scriptural error, would it not be wise to refute the error using Scriptures that the truth be known?

    After looking at article one of the affirmations, and the Scripture support offered by the authors, they are in error.
     

Share This Page

Loading...