IS Albert Mohler Considered A "stauch" calvinist then?

AMEN, AMEN :godisgood:

 

God & Man----which leads to "do I submit to the will of God or pursue my own will" ------next is modern man becomes his own authority and point of reference.

20 years ago now my wife says " We are going to the local Presbyterian Church cause Jr needs his Religious Education" Back then I meet with the pastor who talks about doctrine, Westminster Confessions but with a very liberal bias & I accept this cause I couldn't care less about it (its & hour on Sunday out of my life-- I can endure it provided it dont interfere with the NFL). Fast FWD & that guys dead, the church is dead & there is a sign outside saying that Everyone's Welcome....not just Presbyterians. There also interviewing a Lesbian as the next Pastor. Go ask J. Gresham Machen what he thought about the slide from Orthodoxy to Liberalism among the Presbyterian community. Sorry, he's dead too.

 

Or you could just ascribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which says those things (and does not address the gifts) so much better and more thoroughly.

THAT'S why we value confessions.

 

Allan:

While we are, as pointed out before, well off topic, I did want to respond.

Please cite your statistical evidence.

I have yet to see a campaign where Reformed folks have actively engaged in any campaign to have churches attempt to "smoke out" non-Reformed ministers or to purge the ranks. So this is not an accurate assessment nor comparison. However, there is growing vitriol that will damage the kingdom. Look around on here and you'll see all the evidence you need...and all the evidence needed to make you want to vomit.

Among active pastors? Around 17%. In a neigboring association? 25% Almost half of another neighboring association. Numbers are similar if not worse in West TN, West KY and in Indiana (more on that later). Again, this is purely ancedotal, but you asked for numbers (especially in light of your assertion you have data) so there you go. It is merely what it is.

States don't have associations. States have conventions. I made no assertion regarding the TBC. A friend has told me that the Convention in Indiana has started doing some things behind the scenes, and even as a Non-Cal he is alarmed. But again, I have no written evidence.

?????

I did already. But assumptive views? I referred to the comments by Morris Chapman (http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=10423 and http://www.downshoredrift.com/downs...tly-take-on-calvinism-in-the-sbc-sbc2009.html)& by speakers at COSBE http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=13120. http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35596

Are you trying to deny this happened? Were you there? Is BP wrong?

Wrong. I've stated that my observations and opinions are merely that.

I've challenged you for citation of this. We'll see.

Wrong again. You appeared to be making a sweeping generalization. I merely stated that my experience was different. If that was what you were doing, you can't have it both ways. Either we're both making experiential observations, or we're not. I'm clearly arguing an observation as an observation. I'll give you the opportunity to clarify your assertion.

There are divisive people on both sides. That's not the issue. You're attempting more fallacy to divert the argument. I asserted that there was a group making a concerted attempt which is making inroads. You are the one speaking of majority and minority.

It seems you didn't believe so here http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1690664&postcount=156 (when taken in totality of context). You assert that the Abstract is the founding document of SBTS and historically drove it as Reformed. So which is it? There are others along this line, but you get the point.

No offense my brother, but this is absolutely astounding logic. "It's Calvinistic, but it's not Reformed.....but the Theology school has to be exempted.....and the whole reason it's non-cal and Cal is because both non-Cal and Cal teach there." Wow. This is circular equivocation.

Again, yes you did. But this is pointless if you're going to deny something you typed.

Begging the question again. Once again, we disagree. I don't applaud worldy, divisive methods to drive out anyone. You appear "baffled" at this. So be it.

Facts are not value judgments or experiential observations. This is where we differ greatly. At the end of the day, I'm far less existential or experiential. Your observations and experiences are just that....they are not facts. It is a fact that X correlated with Y in one instance. However, when you extrapolate that X led to Y, then you violate rules of thinking known properly as post hoc ergo propter hoc. X may lead to Y, but you cannot state that X always leads to Y. Nor can I. That's why I haven't.

Red herring. No one is saying this doesn't exist. I will unequivocally state (thought I had already) that it no doubt has happened - Calvinism has split churches because people poorly stated or failed to state their theology. However, I offer another proposition which you seem to refuse: churches are derelict in their hearing or questioning. That said, ecclesiology has split many churches. Where is the outcry and the movement to ask people to smoke out certain ecclesiological types? Or eschatology? Worship styles? Bible versions? Again, what else goes on your list since Calvinism is there by your own admission?

Assumes facts not in evidence. Agreed pastors should know their prospective flock's doctrinal views. But you assume that this hasn't happened. Maybe that's true. But it's possible it's not true. And we haven't even broached the atheological nature of many churches.

I haven't met a pastor yet who didn't come into a church and realize their preconceptions may have been inaccurate.

This is a stretch, and I think you know that. You don't seem to be reading my posts carefully brother.

I'm going to let this one slide. Prima facie, your posts belie you. But like I said, I'll let it go.

You're kidding, right? Again, you deny making soteriology as a litmus test, yet you deny that issues I raised are of the same importance. Which is it?

Wrong. I cited your statements and could've cited more had a moderator not had to step in.

More to come......

 

Sorry, my brother, but when I cite your own arguments, that's not inventing ones.

Wait, now you're back to applauding this...however, you also add:

I'm going to give you the chance to clarify. I've had to interpret based on sp and grammar, so there may have been a word that should have been redacted or added for clarity. Goodness knows I've done it :tongue3:

If you're saying you've opposed non-Cals who've been divisive, I applaud you. However, given your rejoicing at the Cals who have been ousted, it does make one wonder. But I'll take you at your word.

Wrong. You've stated it multiple times. Did you use that exact terminology? No. But you've claimed the right to summarize. Why can't I?

And you offered no proof. Okay.

I support my fellow BB leaders and will not criticize my fellow moderators and administrators.

Again, fallacious. You equate opinion and observation with facts. You know that dog don't hunt, as they say in the south.

Red herring. Anyone who knows the SBC knows that there is no official anything. However, there is theological consensus. At various stages of SB history, these have changed in several areas.

It's not like I'm totally ignorant of you. That said, we aren't golfing buddies either :tongue3: I applaud your statement that you are willing to be cooperative and congenial with Reformed folks. I feel much the same way to those who are non-Reformed and my track record speaks for itself. I hope you are always this way, and may your tribe increase.

Okay :thumbs:

Be vary careful about using insults and perjury towards anyone. This is not becoming a Christian, let alone a minister. We all fail though. However, let's be charitable to all.

I don't suspect we're going to resolve a lot with this, and being hopelessly off topic, I won't post much more. I did ask for data, so I'll give you a chance to respond. You are my brother in Christ, and from what I read, you graduated from a seminary where a friend is President and have a couple of friends who are profs (with a Reformed statement of faith in its history, no less :tongue3. May God bless you and yours.

 

Two things:

So does almost every protestant Christian in the history of the the world. So what is your point?

Many millions have with that conviction the good sense to value those things which God gave us that help us to understand the Word of God more fully- like teachers for example. And no finer have existed than those whose collective minds and spiritual gifts gave us canonicity and the ecumenical creeds.

Secondly, your comment inadvertently smacks of super-spiritualness.

And with respect that statement is meaningless because no one has said anything to the contrary.

 

JF

That is a good question. looking at the size of the crowds in the WOF movement.....it looks like very few do. If they are studying scripture fervently they will progress,as long as they are obedient to gospel commands, and serve the Lord.

 

I am obviously not saying you have to have the creeds to grow.

I am saying the creeds are a tremendous tool that God has given the church through men he has raised up and gifted to teach that is immensely helpful for one in the pursuit of growth.

Like it or not, admit it or not MOST of your understanding of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity comes from the Nicene and Athanasian creed.

You thought it came from Sunday School or whatever but the fact of the matter is that what you learned in Sunday School or wherever you learned it can be traced back to these MONUMENTAL Creeds and their marvelous exposition of this Bible teaching.

Did the church believe in the Trinity before the Ecumenical Creeds?

Sure.

Did they understand it as well as they did before these God gifted men hammered it out in Nicea utilizing 300 years of exegetical discoveries by great men before them hammering it out up to the point?

No way.

And you cannot appreciate orthodoxy as opposed to heterodoxy without a deep seated appreciation for the ecumenical creeds.

 

I think this dissertation also serves "somewhat" to explain doctrinal divides.......God forbid we believers of DoG should ever cave into the appeal to no doctrines bunch. Ive seen the results 20 years down the road & their disastrous.

 

Um, have any of you guys actually READ the BF & M? You can't be Arminian, and be Southern Baptist. The SBC is and has always been a Calvinist organization, though the mainstream is what one might call "moderate" Calvinism.

 

One cannot "get" the SBC to become anything... The SBC is made up of autonomous churches that decide their own direction.

Mohler is unabashedly a Reformed Baptist in his soteriology, and he teaches in that regard. After that, he cannot do anything more than any other person -- share his influence through teaching and preaching.

 

A few more people in this age need to read Machen's work, Christianity and Liberalism. They would then, perhaps (but probably not!) realize just how far they have strayed from the biblical message concerning the sovereignty of God in favor of a very human-centered religion.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1115666258/?tag=baptis04-20

 

Why yes I have read it. I have read it and rejected it, thank you very much.

Does Paige know you can't be Arminian and be a Southern Baptist, cause I'm sure it would come as a huge shocker to him.

 

What if I choose to have a woman pastor...not so autonomous then now are we!

SBC uses the autonomous rhetoric to shield themselves from valid criticism, to sooth the duped masses and to insulate themselves from liability issues. The various boards comes up with ideas with what they want to do and those ideas are rubber stamped at the convention each year.

 

Paige is absolutely NOT an Arminian!!

Paige is what Millard Erickson would refer to as a "Moderate" Calvinist. When you take Mr. Patterson's Soteriology, and compare it to a Wesleyan Methodist's, you will see how Calvinistic he really is!

 

GTC, your bitterness is seething from you post.

By the way, a rubber stamp by the convention does not mean a rubber stamp by every SBC church. I'm am a Southern Baptist and I personally did not agree with boycotting Disney. Neither did my church at that time. In fact, that year my family vacationed in Orlando and went to see Micky Mouse. While we do not agree with Disney's hand holding with the homosexual community we felt that a boycott was not the answer.

 

Uh, no. Every church is autonomous. Period.

Perhaps you do not understand what that means. Go look at a Presbyterian church. If a Presbyterian church does something that the Synod does not agree with, they don't just kick them out of a voluntary convention...they seize the Church building itself, and put in their own leadership. THAT is not having autonomy.

Restricting participation in the convention in NO WAY infringes on Church autonomy.