Liberty Baptist is Back

meh, I'm a graduate of LU and this is nice but doesn't compell me to recommend anyone to their seminary. I don't know how inserting a doctrinal name in a seminary makes it more evangelistic or biblically centered. I hope all goes well for them.

Denominationalism is anathema, because our denominations have lost legitimacy and are too busy throwing ideological snowballs at each other form their respective ivory towers.

 

I have a question in light of this portion of Dr. Caner's statement:

Are there some aspects of reformed doctrine that are not baptistic?

 

By inserting "Baptist" in the name of an institution does not insert a "denominiation." Baptists are not a denomination but a faith group. They are being honest about their what they believe.

 

I didn't bring Calvin into this discussion. But I'm not going to back down from false presentations of what Calvin wrote, believed, and practiced.

Beza does not a Calvin make.

 

I think that they are trying to take on Southern Baptist Seminary.

It would have been better to have left "Baptist" out of the name. Caner admits that enrollment went up.

 

I'm just glad they put "baptist" back in the name.
It seems that there are those who shy away from the term.

 

I'm not assuming anything my friend. I have read John Calvin's works and am taking what he wrote at face value. It was John Calvin who wrote that Jesus Christ died "indiscriminately" for all. It was John Calvin who wrote that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ are "doubly condemned." A phrase that refutes an argument from my PCA friends.

 

I have read "The Institutes", parts of Calvin's commentaries, and some other light reading by Calvin as well as listening to a set of 17 lectures on Calvinism and th Institutes. The old time Calvinist may well have been a Baptist but I doubt he/she was as abrasive and dogmatic as todays TULIP Calvinist Baptist.
I'm glad that Liberty is now Liberty Baptist again, thank you Dr. Craner. There are so many sides to the Baptist that there are many histories for Baptist. We should,nt be so sensitive if our particular history is left out from time to time. After all when you make a remark concerning Baptist history do you go back and include history from all 500 different kinds Baptists , of course not. Loosen up.:godisgood:

 

OK, OK -- As you were only speaking specifically of Southern Baptists, I will amend my comment. Instead of "absolute" bunk, it was only partial bunk.

As to the major "Calvinist" river and the "mere creek" of Arminianism that flowed to create the SBC -- I have a slightly different take. It is true that most (though I certainly wouldn't concede "all") SB theologians were indeed Calvinists -- at least in the 19th century. They were the intellectual elite of the denomination then -- much like many are now. If you looked on the pews and in the pulpits of many SBC churches then (just as now) most "common" SB's with any Bible knowledge at all were/are at most "modified Calvinists," and in fact most laymen are Arminians.

Then again, the fact is most Evangelicals of all stripes -- because they lack Biblical knowledge -- probably come closer to being semi-Pelagian than anything else. :tear:

JDale

 

I just recently finiished a class that Dr Caner lectured in, and his theology was right on the money.

You guys always argue over nitpicky minute details. Can't you at least agree on "saved by grace" ? How you gonna get anyone to believe in Jesus when you look like antagonists all the time?

The Great Commission is what we should all be paying close attention to.
Go ye therefore.....eh?

Debbie Mc

 

Liberty is not a denominational school -- but a private seminary with its own policies, admissions, etc. While I think his comments were uncharitable, the fact that LBTS doesn't welcome Calvinists in the end does 2 things: (1) it spares the Calvinists student any illusions about going there to change things or feel "at home," (2) it loses $$ for the seminary by "disinviting" a sizable minority of the SBC from attendance.

As to Seminary -- I went to Columbia International University, a non-denominational/multi-denominational school which is heavily attended by Calvinists. It was fun, being an Arminian in a virtual sea of Calvinists. There were 2 types: OR's and SR's -- the SR's were Sufficiently Reformed -- believing tulip but generally charitable. The OR's were Obnoxiously Reformed -- They were right, predestined and not to be questioned.

It was always fun to tell them I was a Reformation Arminian -- they couldn't deal with that concept


JDale

 

How do you know how much time they have spent in reading Calvin's works in comparison to me?

You said it well. You haven't read Calvin for yourself. I would encourage you to read Calvin for yourself. You might be surprised at what you find.

There is a difference between the followers of Calvin and Calvin himself. The same is true for Arminius.

We need to be careful to distinguish between Scripture and theology. We also need to be careful to distinguish between Calvin and Calvinists.

Blessings.:godisgood:

 

It was "changing world views"

Hmmm....this is not a debate section, the last time I looked.

Debbie Mc