Fighting about fighting- Any hope for us?

[Luke2427]

I started a thread about the fight that some respected members of the SBC are trying to start before the convention about soteriology.

I called for us to avoid a feud that will definitely hurt, possibly cripple, the SBC.

I pointed out that the denomination has been open to both soteriologies since its conception- under the leadership of both Calvinists and non-calvinists.

I said that we need each other in this movement to keep the SBC a viable influence so desperately needed in our culture.

AND BAM!

Out broke a fight over fighting. Not only do we fight but we fight about fighting. And I half expect us on this thread to fight about fighting about fighting.

Is there any hope for us?

 

[Arbo]

Is there any hope for us?

It's what baptists do, so the answer is no.

 

[Bluefalcon]

John 17:22-23 (NKJV):

22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

 

[Alive in Christ]

John 17:22-23 (NKJV):

22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

And what is the response to that wisdom from God, for so many of our baptist brothers and sisters?....


Ahh...God, you just dont understand. We must (((destroy the heritics)))!!! They are the ENEMY, and its my job to anihilate them!!!

God have mercy

 

[Luke2427]

And what is the response to that wisdom from God, for so many of our baptist brothers and sisters?....


Ahh...God, you just dont understand. We must (((destroy the heritics)))!!! They are the ENEMY, and its my job to anihilate them!!!

God have mercy

We are to earnestly contend for the faith and tear down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The Bible could not be more clear on this. We don't attack the people but we do resist the ideas and aberrant theologies.

But we have the Baptist Faith and Message that is sound. We on both sides can ascribe to it.

It is not Pelagian or hyper-calvinistic.

Obviously each side wishes that the denomination were more in line with their own viewpoint.

But when contending actually does more HARM to faith than good- it should be avoided like the plague.

 

[Benjamin]

I suppose there is always hope that God may have predestined an end to the fighting that He determined. It is in His hands alone, He is Sovereign, there is NOTHING you can do! Only a Pelagian would believe he could fight to change what God has ordained.

 

[Luke2427]

I suppose there is always hope that God may have predestined an end to the fighting that He determined. It is in His hands alone, He is Sovereign, there is NOTHING you can do! Only a Pelagian would believe he could fight to change what God has ordained.

Yes, and this proper thinking makes one work even harder knowing that God has privileged men to be the means whereby he accomplishes his divine purposes. It also drives the person who has this proper theology to work with joy knowing that God has a purpose for all things and that these things will work out for our good and his glory.

But I'll tell you something else your post does. It proves that some non-cals hate Calvinists so much that they cannot be Christian toward them and work out the problems they share together with them.

This is not a theology debate thread- yet you come over here and pick a fight over it.

Never let it be said that divisiveness is the product of only Calvinists.

 

[Yeshua1]

I started a thread about the fight that some respected members of the SBC are trying to start before the convention about soteriology.

I called for us to avoid a feud that will definitely hurt, possibly cripple, the SBC.

I pointed out that the denomination has been open to both soteriologies since its conception- under the leadership of both Calvinists and non-calvinists.

I said that we need each other in this movement to keep the SBC a viable influence so desperately needed in our culture.

AND BAM!

Out broke a fight over fighting. Not only do we fight but we fight about fighting. And I half expect us on this thread to fight about fighting about fighting.

Is there any hope for us?

isn't one of the biggest baptist distinctives suppossed to be 'freedom of choice" as regarding "disputable matters" within Christianity though?

Why wouldn't this violate that?

 

[Ed B]

I started a thread about the fight that some respected members of the SBC are trying to start before the convention about soteriology.

I called for us to avoid a feud that will definitely hurt, possibly cripple, the SBC.

I pointed out that the denomination has been open to both soteriologies since its conception- under the leadership of both Calvinists and non-calvinists.

I said that we need each other in this movement to keep the SBC a viable influence so desperately needed in our culture.

AND BAM!

Out broke a fight over fighting. Not only do we fight but we fight about fighting. And I half expect us on this thread to fight about fighting about fighting.

Is there any hope for us?

I think it can partly be blamed on our Baptist distinctives.

It seems many Baptists feel they must staunchly defend their Church from any and all error, and since we hold to Soul Competency and Priesthood of the Believer then, as another person said, “Every man’s hat is his Church”. Thus we Baptist tend to staunchly defend our own personal beliefs, opinions, pet doctrines, and manner of living from every perceived error, every misspoken word, and everyone else’s moral lapse.


Nah, probably not…..

 

[Benjamin]

But I'll tell you something else your post does. It proves that some non-cals hate Calvinists so much that they cannot be Christian toward them...

Note that I made light of your system and you returned with a personal attack on my character along with all "non-cals".

Never let it be said that divisiveness is the product of only Calvinists.

I guess when a Calvinist attacks other's character that would not be considered divisive but justified if they have gone and been apostates on the issue of Determinism? Got it.

 

[Winman]

Yes, and this proper thinking makes one work even harder knowing that God has privileged men to be the means whereby he accomplishes his divine purposes. It also drives the person who has this proper theology to work with joy knowing that God has a purpose for all things and that these things will work out for our good and his glory.

But I'll tell you something else your post does. It proves that some non-cals hate Calvinists so much that they cannot be Christian toward them and work out the problems they share together with them.

This is not a theology debate thread- yet you come over here and pick a fight over it.

Never let it be said that divisiveness is the product of only Calvinists.

Luke, no non-Cal here hates Calvinists, or at least I don't. Now, I absolutely disagree with Calvinism, just as I disagree with many other theologies, but I don't hate them either.

Now, I do get very frustrated with Calvinists. I am sure you know what I believe, and I always post scripture to support what I believe. So, sometimes I get frustrated when I feel that Calvinists will not accept what I view as OBVIOUS proof in scripture that they are in error. I could name many examples right now, but I won't.

But I do not believe any non-Cal hates Calvinists here, and I do not believe any Calvinists hate non-Cals here, we simply disagree.

 

[Ed B]

....
But I do not believe any non-Cal hates Calvinists here, and I do not believe any Calvinists hate non-Cals here, we simply disagree.

Regardless of where one sits on the C to A cline your belief stated above is not always easily discerned from the available evidence.

 

[Yeshua1]

isn't all of this really 'In house' debate among the bethren though?

That we cannot divide oversomething like sotierology, as we ALL would be saved by same lord and in same fashion, even IF we disagree on the fine points of how God does that?

 

[Winman]

isn't all of this really 'In house' debate among the bethren though?

That we cannot divide oversomething like sotierology, as we ALL would be saved by same lord and in same fashion, even IF we disagree on the fine points of how God does that?

But we don't agree that we are saved in the same fashion at all.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Luke...

We are to earnestly contend for the faith and tear down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The Bible could not be more clear on this. We don't attack the people but we do resist the ideas and aberrant the theologies.

I agree with you about that, but we can contend with those brothers and sisters "gracefully", and with love. And I say that with the finger pointed only at me...because I am not without guilt in this area. I can do better.

 

[Iconoclast]

Luke, no non-Cal here hates Calvinists, or at least I don't. Now, I absolutely disagree with Calvinism, just as I disagree with many other theologies, but I don't hate them either.

Now, I do get very frustrated with Calvinists. I am sure you know what I believe, and I always post scripture to support what I believe. So, sometimes I get frustrated when I feel that Calvinists will not accept what I view as OBVIOUS proof in scripture that they are in error. I could name many examples right now, but I won't.

But I do not believe any non-Cal hates Calvinists here, and I do not believe any Calvinists hate non-Cals here, we simply disagree.

Winman,
To your credit....you do offer many scriptures rather than carnal philosophy.
We do not agree however, because you are offering scriptures that you are severly over -working in that they do not prove what you think they are proving.

 

[mandym]

fight that some respected members of the SBC are trying to start before the convention about soteriology.

You are not going to work, yourself, to avoid any feud with false statements like that.

 

[Iconoclast]

But we don't agree that we are saved in the same fashion at all.

Correct....this sentiment sounds nice,and tolerant...but it cannot stand.

 

[Benjamin]

Winman,
To your credit....you do offer many scriptures rather than carnal philosophy.
We do not agree however, because you are offering scriptures that you are severly over -working in that they do not prove what you think they are proving.

Icon, I don't blame you for not wanting to use phikosophy to interpret the scriptures you use to proof-text with because you obvioulsy don't understand the meaning of the word. Your only alternative is to avoid such and think of your interpretaions as being specially inspired insights and any interpretation that disagrees with yours must be declared as carnal. Just so you know, I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, I don't blame you for not wanting to use phikosophy to interpret the scriptures you use to proof-text with because you obvioulsy don't understand the meaning of the word. Your only alternative is to avoid such and think of your interpretaions as being specially inspired insights and any interpretation that disagrees with yours must be declared as carnal. Just so you know, I understand where you're coming from.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::wavey:

At least we understand each other....that is a start.I can finally agree with one of your posts. I have no desire to insert my own poor thoughts over against any scripture. I have no desire to be novel.
I do believe that scripture is the only rule of faith and practice.While i do not claim any "special revelation'....I only offer what I perceive as scriptural truth. The links I offer are solid and you cannot refute most any of them.
That is why you take your frustration out on me...I am an easier target.
You would be better served to not look or concern yourself with me personally....but you should pay attention to the verses and truth offered.

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

I do not know much about philosophy...you seem to not know much about scripture. The thread you started has over 30 posts and not one scripture verse was used, attemped, or alluded to......interesting

Icon, I don't blame you for not wanting to use phikosophy to interpret the scriptures you use to proof-text with because you obvioulsy don't understand the meaning of the word. Your only alternative is to avoid such and think of your interpretaions as being specially inspired insights and any interpretation that disagrees with yours must be declared as carnal

So i will stick to what i know...and you can have all of your discussions on unscriptural speculations about middle knowledge, open theism, and whatever else you give your mind to. Give ravi zacharius a call to discuss your novel ideas on all things philosphical.