Calvinist, Reformed Theology No Longer Allowed

LOL! Well, I said that because I thought my explanation may not be 'Calvinistic' enough for some, since I know most Calvinists teach that man is totally unable instead of totally unwilling.

 

I'd say man is unable because he's unwilling. He doesn't want to, and he won't want to, so he can't.

 

Missionaries and professors were removed in the first split.

 

I thought Christianyouth was a Calvinist. He's now becoming non? And I'm becoming a Calvinist. The world is turning upside down! :laugh:

 

That is just it!
Reading blogs and BB is a small minority (not meaning insignificant) of the whole.

Blogs are used but seldom completely factual and mostly partial to their own view.
Not a really good sourse of information. The BB :laugh: Need I say much more :laugh:

How many of the other side blogs. Not that many, and it has been factually stated the Calvinists are using the internet (blogs and webpages) more than the other side, but the amount of these things do not determine a majority but the actual people must stand and be numbered. There are some on both sides who want total annilation but there are MORE who believe we CAN work together as long as one side or the other does not insist upon absolutism to a view.

 

I don't think he was saying He is stepping away from Calvinism but that his answer would not be as Calvinist as 'some' would like his answer to be.

Read his posting in #41.

 

I never misrepresented mainline reformed theology. However reformed folks make such cliams quite regularly. It seems to be a debate tactic rather than a reality. Webdog made it quite clear.

 

But what happens IF---its a big IF---somehow the current "powers that be" lost control and were no longer the "powers that be"??

Suppose today---there were a reversal of the powers that be??? Suddenly---there were NEW powers that be----the new powers that be would be the NEW "HANGMEN"----and would not hesitate to use a brand new green rope!!!!

IF you know what I mean??

Back in seminary(NOBTS '87)---the rumor was always widely publized----if you were "Calvinist"----you got your walkin' papers---no questions asked!!! Kicked off campus!!!

Of course, that was just rumor---noone could ever come up with real names of Calvinists who actually got "the boot"----and besides---who was gonna boot um----the President of the seminary???

One "association" with a hairy trigger man----does not make the Southern Baptist Convention!!!

 

OK, we'll go over it again since you forgot what your theology says.

Calvinism says man is 'elect" (elect means "saved" to y'all, no?) and even regenerated/indwelt by the Holy Spirit BEFORE he/she hears the gospel.

The SBC says man must hear the word, "the incorruptible seed," repent and receive BEFORE one can be saved.

Salvation takes place in man, not in God. It is not only of God but of man as well. Now the only way I can think that such extremes can co-exist is for one to humble oneself and "acknowledge" God (or at least that this is something you don't understand) or separate unto your "brethren" elsewhere.

skypair

 

Or as Paul said, "there must be sects among you that they which are approved

among you may be manifest." 1Cor 11:19

Yes, it is creative tension so long as it brings us to a common conclusion of the matter. It's not so "creative" when it splits churches though, is it.

skypair​

 

RB, There is a huge difference between the two. If they are unwilling, it is their fault for being reprobate. If they are unable, it is God's. I read your other post, and at first it sounded like you were teaching double predestination, that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, so now that you clarified, I see we don't believe much different at all.

I know, most Calvinists say man is unable to come, but they don't say WHY he isn't unable to come. I do say man is unable, but he is unable BECAUSE he is unwilling, not because God predestined him to hell.

Allen, Bingo. :thumbs:

 

He/she didn't say that. You are distorting the proposition to your self-serving purposes, rb.

What he/she said was that God was loving and merciful in the salvation is offered to ALL!!

Calvinism makes God unloving and unmerciful because they claim God only saves a few and condemns the rest to "please Himself."

skypair

 

No one says that man is regenerated before he hears the Gospel. Atleast not mainline Calvinists, I'm sure there are some fringe groups that would teach this, but they would fall into the classification as Hyper-Calvinists. The Gospel is the means through which God regenerates the hearts of the elect.

"It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that beleive."
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word."
"So then, how shall they believe in him they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher?" - It's rhetorical, they can't believe in Christ's atoning work on their behalf(be saved) if they never hear about it. This is right after Paul lays out Justification by faith very clearly. So he is basically saying, "They can't be saved unless they hear the message."

Not all Calvinists are agreed on the order in of salvation, either. Most teach that regeneration preceeds faith, but some, like myself, are undecided. It's very possible that they both occur at the same time, and are both the same act.(regeneration happening once people repent and believe, but repentance and belief being gifts of God)

 

I am coming at this from a non-calvinist (and therefore suspect) viewpoint. But for the Arbuckle (named for Fatty Arbuckle???) resolution to be adopted, they would have to throw out Dr. Mohler and the Southern Seminary.

Yes, the association's resolution was pure lunacy and idiocy, but the Building Bridges Conference in the SBC with people a whole lot more influential might balance offset a small association.. :laugh:

You might want to check out Dr. Mohler's comments on SBC Today http://sbctoday.com/2007/11/13/interview-with-dr-albert-mohler/

 

I don't know what Calvinism says, but I know what the Bible says.

2Th 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Elect means chosen. Chosen FOR salvation. It doesn't mean "saved".

Yes, man must hear/read/be exposed to the Word of God.

Salvation is not of man.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God;

Salvation is a gift of God. It is by His grace that you have been saved. It is not of yourself.


Wouldn't your time on the BB be better spent doing something besides bashing Calvinists?

If you really want to debate the issue, do some reading on Reformed Theology and get the facts about what Calvinists believe instead of making stuff up. Then, a discussion based on truth can be had.

 

No. And we've told you that so many times I lost count.

 

The SBC has just given the sum of the conversion process, but not each plank in the ordo salutis as presented in Scripture--no contradiction there.