Keep Calvinist leanings secret?

Not I or any that I know.

Most good preachers of any theological bent try to use language that communicates with the congregation rather than stale theological terms used in most theological classrooms.

 

The committee has more than likely already asked this question. To be dishonest about Calvinist, Arminian, Pelagian, Open Theism, or any other system to get hired is what amounts to blatant dishonesty.

As far as the pulpit goes, I would say that language of any kind that may be in any way foreign to the listener should be explained, but not explained away. Justification is an important Biblical word that can seem hard to people, but I'm not going to skip over it so I or the students I work with don't have to deal with it and understand it. We talk about total depravity a lot (and I'm not even a five-poitner!) with the students, and I really think that they understand what it means and what it encompasses, at least as well as if not more than the rest of the adult congregation. It is injustice to the sacrifice of Christ to minimize or eliminate that important concept.

I think that you have to be honest when speaking to a congregation. If you feel that you can not speak what God has intructed you to say because of the audience's reaction, perhaps God may be leading you to a church where you can preach that message.

 

Can you give a link to the article you are refering to?

 

Where did you get the idea that they are recommending that these pastors not disclose what they believe?? Did you mean to quote something that said that??? What you quoted above said nothing of the sort.

To suggest that people not use certain terms is indeed good communication skills. The basic idea is use terms people know. If you use terms people don't know about, it can confuse them and accomplish nothing.

My people have heard me use the term Calvinist from the pulpit maybe one time that i can remember (by accident that time). I have never used the term "particular redemption" or "doctrines of grace" or "reformed." But I can assure you that the people here know what the Scriptures teach on these issues. I don't need those terms. I just use the terms Scripture uses.

If there is a place where this site advocates hiding what you believe, please cite it for us. I would like to see it.
______________________

Speaking as a moderator, we ask that when you cite someone else's work you leave a link to it. This is copyrighted material and should not be posted without appropriate documentation. It is fine to give citations. In fact, I encourage it strongly. But when you do, please give the webpage or source that it comes from. Thanks ...

 

[/qb]This is a good article. I appreciate the link to it, even though you posted it because you disagree. I would be interested to know what you disagree with in it. Here is a guy who says the church needs to return to sound doctrine. He identified a number of problems in his church, all stemming from problems in church membership that appear to have sprung from defective teaching. Then he includes this paragraph about his reformation in teh church:

God help my church to become this "defective."

I do think there are some things deserving of critical interaction in this article. For instance, he says that in God-centered evangelism you don't need to follow up. Beleivers willingly become followers. Perhaps he means something different from followup than I mean, but I think we do need to follow up. It is called teaching and it is one of the core values of the NT church. Other things I would take issue with. But overall, I think this article is on the right track. I am certainly going to interact some more with it.

I am not an SBC-er. But Baptistfire has an agenda and they tend very much to be biased in their reporting. We should be aware of that.

I think this is great advice no matter your position. Labels are confusing. I am convinced that many arminians use the labels precisely to raise the dander of the crowd. It is similar to why KJVOs talk about Bible haters and Bible correctors and perversions and the like. They know that they can get an emotional response from uninformed hearers.

My approach has always been to teach what the word says, without using labels. The later, when the label comes up, people realize that they have been taught what Scripture says, not what Calvin or anyone else says.

This is most certainly true, no matter what kind of church you have. There are a good deal too many unregenerate people parading about in churches, whether SBC or not. These are they about whom Christ speaks in Matt 7, where they claim to do many wonderful works in his name, but Christ says he never knew them. Biblical evidences for regeneration must be shown in the life of believers. To give people a free pass because they are a deacon or a leader is to do injustice to the grace of God which saved us. I hope to see a return to the kind of churches he tries to outline in this article.

 

What article are you reading?? I didn't see any encouragement to keep their doctrine hidden. In fact, the whole article included clear admonitions to proclaim doctrine from the pulpit. Are you confused about what link you posted?? Did you perhaps post a link to a different article??

I don't see any admonition in this article to hide what is being taught or what is believed. There is an admonition to teach clear and strong doctrine. Let's take a look at a few quotes on this issue of teaching doctrine.

So what we see is that this article recommends teaching this stuff to the congregation. You are bent out of shape because he said "Don't use words that aren't in the Bible. They cause unecessary inflamation and confusion." Why isn't that good advice?? Any wise teacher removes possible obstacles so long as it doesn't compromise his teaching.

It seems to me that you are either referring to a different article or didn't read all of this one.

I didn't lable a whole class of people "arminians" in an attempt to imply anything. There is a little word before "arminians" that you should have read. I said "many." If by "whole group of people" you mean "many arminians" then I will accept that. But please be more careful in your reading so that you do not miss these words. They are small to be sure; but they carry meaning that should not be overlooked.

Second, I haven't labeled anything. I understand that Calvinism and arminianism are short hand descriptions for what people believe. I have been saying that long before you were around here. They are not however "precise." Calvinists range from 4 points to 5 points, from dispensationalists to covenantalists, from presbyterians to baptists to congreagationalists. Arminians have similar distinctions. These terms are broad terms used for what people believe about salvation.

There are many arminians who use terms to get people roused up and to create an emotional response to something. That is bad method no matter what side it comes from.

Nice attempt at changing the subject. You know these were not the types of labels under discussion. However, I usually don't use the term bible-believing that much. I don't think I have ever used the word degenerate as a noun; I have used it as a verb to describe the process of degeneration in nature, the corruption spoken of in Rom 8. Saved and regenerate are biblical words, as is Christian.

But none of that has anything to do with what we were talking about.

I don't find that hard to believe at all. I do find it hard to support from Scripture. You must remember that we believe is not the issue. The issue is what does Scripture say.

It isn't necessary to teach it that way. It can be taught a number of ways, and depending on the audience, different ways may be appropriate.

Now you are calling the crowds ignorant?? Really???

People need to be taught whatever they believe, whether arminianism or calvinism. They are not too stupid to find it themselves. A great many of them do, just as I did. One of the responsibilites of teh pastor is to teach the word of God. That is my passion. And I go to great lengths to do such. As a result, I reject the implication you are making that I treat people as if they are ignorant. Perhaps some pastors do. I constantly try to educate the people here from God's word, rightly handled, apart from personal pet issues or desires.

You have been taught what you believe. Is it because you were ignorant, too stupid to find it yourself??

The things that you have said in this paragraph can be applied to your side of the discussion as well.

But back to the article, it would be nice if you would go back and support some of the things you have said about it.

 

I assume the point of this thread is to insinuate that there is a plot (isn't there always a plot?) to convert unsuspecting Baptists to Calvinism. I didn't get that impression from reading the quote above. I think it more likely that given the current antipathy toward Calvinism in some circles, pastors who believe in election and predestination are advised to not emphasize Calvinistic code words. I have no problem with that, and I also feel that I'm aware enough of biblical teachings to not be taken in by any insidious plot. Knowledge is the best antidote to any false teaching (assuming for argument's sake that Calvinism is false).

 

Most Calvinist pastors I know of preach their theology. Many do not use Calvinist because of the overall prejudice against Calvinism. For most Church members Calvinism is "Them folks that believe in predestination" or "they believe God drags people kicking and screaming into heaven" or "Calvinists are them fellas that don't believe in John 3:16 or going and doing evangelism" Unfortanately because of such ignorant stereotypes that have been used by many Preachers it may be necessary not to use such terminology. Most Calvinist Baptists will not hide their Calvinist beliefs or not teach them. Some people think that Calvinists are obsessed Day and Night with TULIP. Many theological terms be they Calvinist, Arminian, etc..are foreign terms to a congregation. As long as a pastor preaches and teaches his theology without compromising it there is no problem.

 

When the majority of the members in a congregation don't have any idea what Trinity means, an intelligent and caring pastor of ANY belief system should not load down his people with theology-speak. Preach the Bible, I believe, is the instruction (2 Tim 4:2)

 

Well then post that article here. I would like to read that one.

Their doctrine is Calvinism. I put no words in your mouth. In fact, I quoted you and asked you to clarify.

I read the one you posted here. I quoted from it, showing how this author explicit advocates teaching Calvinism. The words of the lesson should clue them in to what is being taught. What difference does it make if we attach other names to it?? Why not just teach the word?

There is nothing offensive in that at all. You find it offensive most likely because without the labels, people won't know they are supposed to disagree. They will hear the word of God taught and just blindly believe it because someone forgot to attach a perjorative label to it.

Talk about twisting. I didn't deny labels. I questioned their usefulness in some contexts. Here, I simply acknowledged that I know what the words mean.

What I am teaching is Scripture. I don't need other labels to describe. We open our Bibles and talk about what God said. Some people call it calvinism. That's fine. That label does not mean much to a lot of my congregation, so I don't use it. I just preach the word. The article says that all the way through it.

[q/b]I wasn't hired. I was called by the body whose statement of faith was explicit on this matter long before I was born. I have no intention of teaching Calvinism to anyone. I have no need to hide what I believe and if you read this article you posted, you will find that this man is not hiding what he believes. Go to the article and search for "doctrines of grace" and read the paragraph immediately following it. You will see that this man in no way is hiding what he believes. He is saying that pastors need to make these doctrines extremely clear.

Not actually. You have shown no place where i twisted your words (aside from my comment on your calling the people ignorant, something meant tongue in cheek to make a point). You tried to find something in this article that just wasn't there. When you read the article carefully, you see that this guy is not encouraging anyone to hide anything. I wonder if you read anything besides the actual paragraph you cite. YOu base your whole point on that paragraph and pretend like the rest of it doesn't it. Yes, he says to be careful about using loaded words or confusing labels. What is wrong with that??? Have you ever talked with someone who uses a word that you don't know what it means??? That's confusing and it's no fun. And when you are preaching or teaching, you can usually tell when someone is confused. We do not need to harm the message of God's word in such a manner.

I can't help but wonder if you are not concerned that people might not know to object to biblical teaching if they hear those buzzwords attached to it. I am glad I am not saddled with that concern.

 

This article does not do that. You are simply wrong. The article can be read by anyone who desires, even you. Please read it and see that you are wrong on this issue. YOu have picked out one paragraph where he recommends not using certian buzzwords and built your whole argument on it. But the fact is that he spends the entire article telling the pastor to proclaim what he believes from teh pulpit. Apparently you think that Calvinism can be taught unless you use the word "calvinism." I am not sure where you are getting your ideas from about this article, but I read it one time and could see that the author was saying anything remotely comparable to what you are.

The doctrines are important, not the labels attached to them. If you use the labels fine, but it is not necessary, and it is not always wise.

Bad tactic. Don't accuse me of hiding my true intentions, and don't accuse this author of it either. That is your failure to read the article for what it says. I did not divine your intentions or feelings. I said "most likely" and gave a suggestion as to why you might be so determined to misread this article.

We should. But "meaningful" depends on who understands them correctly. When I spent three months in Brazil, there were a lot of meaningful words used from the pulpit, but I didn't understand them. Therefore, it was not meaningful to me. Good speakers know not to use words that their audience is not familiar with and not to exacerbate unnecessary fears by using inflammatory words.

As I say, you probably like for Calvinists to use these words because you can appeal to the words, rather than trying to deal with the SCriptures.

They are not. This article is about not being afraid about it. How can you miss that? He very clearly advocates standing up and telling people what you believe.

I am not refusing to apply labels. I have no problem being called a Calvinist. I don't care if someone calls me an arminian for that matter. It simply doesn't bother me. The question is "How do we teach?" Should we say, "I am going to teach you to believe calvinism"? Or should we say, "Let's open our Bibles and see what God says about salvation"? I believe the latter.

Remember what I said earlier about the arrogance of pastors who think their flocks are too ignorant to understand simple words?</font>[/QUOTE]And remember what I said earlier about people not understanding certain words???????? The reason why the label doesn't mean anything to the people here is because it doesn't matter. I teach the Scripture. We are not proud to be Calvinists. We are proud to be lovers of God's word and preachers of what he says in it. They can understand the word. But there is no need for me to use it. We just talk about the gospel here. We don't need other names for it.

Where was this???? He talks about teaching total depravity (that is usually considered a calvinistic word). He talks about teaching people that God has to regenerate them so that they can believe (that is usually a calvinist principle). In other words, all through the article he refutes your assertions.

Huh??? The people here don't know what an arminian is either. I don't use either word when I teach. Some people know it from other places, but I don't need those words to teach. Perhaps someday I will use them if the occasion arises. I simply don't need them. We teach the Bible here. I use all kinds of labels here, as they appropriate to use. I have no problem with labels, provided they are accurate. But that doesn' mean they are required.

Surprise there ...

YOu know the complaint I get most often from people????? Most often people question me about something they didn't understand because I didn't make it simple enough for them. I think in seminary terms and post graduate levels. That is a lot different than businessman or teachers or factory workers or retirees think. It is not bad, just different. Don't you think your doctor could blow you away with some terms he uses??? Of course he could. But he speaks to you at your level. Why don't you come to church here and try it. Find out if I hide what I believe. Find out if I am scared to teach the truth.

I wasn't wondering about it all.

I don't have that concern either.

You are beating a dead horse here. You misread an article and are trying to get a lot of mileage out of it. It simply does not say what you think it does.

 

I didn't "dive" your intention. The word is divine and I didn't do that either. I took a guess based on history of people like you. You are scared to death that if the Bible is taught without using these terms, people might be tricked into believing what God actually said. You think they need your labels to understand that they are not supposed to believe these things. I say just preach the word.

What did he say to avoid????? Read it again and tell us what he said to avoid. That's right, he said avoid "terms." You said that he said, "How many Calvinist ministers take the advice of Founders Ministries and keep the fact that they are calvinistic secret from their local congregation? From the FM website: "In the pulpit, don't use theological language that is not found in the Bible. Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you."

Why do calvinists find it necessary to keep their true beliefs and intentions secret? "

Now why does it pain you to admit that what he said and what you said are two entirely different things?

He said to avoid certain terms that people owuldn't understand or would be inflamed by. You said that he said to avoid telling people what he was teaching. Clearly, you are wrong. The article shows you to be wrong.

Larry, this forum it called Calvinism/Arminiam Debate. You certainly show low regard for the intelligence of the posters here by accusing them of not knowing what an arminian is.</font>[/QUOTE]Go back and read what I said. You are lifting things out of context to try to make a point. There are a lot of people who try to refute Calvinism by this method. It won't work with me and with many others. We see through it. Let's post this section so that you don't think I made it up. Here is that section

]Huh??? The people here don't know what an arminian is either. I don't use either word when I teach. Some people know it from other places, but I don't need those words to teach. Perhaps someday I will use them if the occasion arises. I simply don't need them. We teach the Bible here. I use all kinds of labels here, as they appropriate to use. I have no problem with labels, provided they are accurate. But that doesn' mean they are required.</font>[/QUOTE]Now, read the context and tell us where "here" is. The original post that you responded to was about my congregation "here" at my church. Then you refer to "my flock." And then I talk about the people "here." Quite clearly, "here" is my congregation. Why is it so hard for you to simply take things in context?? Are you so desperate that you have regard for what someone is talking about?? You did it in this whole thread by lifting one paragraph out of context and using it to deny everything the article said. I shouldn't be surprised in the least that you did it to me. It is sad that you have to resort to that type of tactic.

No, but I can make a pretty good guess.</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't even tell the truth here. You do know what the complaint is because in the very next line I tell you. But once again you lift something out of context to try to make a point.

I think you should post this in the humor forum.</font>[/QUOTE]Why??? It isn't funny. It is clear from this short exchange that I have said some thing that have totally passed you by. That's not funny.

No, I didn' say that at all. They are seminary trained. They don't know Greek and Hebrew; they haven't read a lot of theology. That is a simple truth. EVeryone knows this except you apparently. Just two weeks ago, I had a very successful businessman who has been in church his whole life ask me if I knew of a book that talked about theological issues in layman's terms. Why? Because of the very thing I am talking about.

The reality is that I don't know much about their worlds. I don't know much about business and finance. They can use terms and talk about ideas that I know nothing about. This is obvious stuff.

Only if the rest of the article isn't there. You cite one paragraph, twist the words slightly, and then pretend like that one paragraph is all there is. I quoted a number of places from this article where this author expressly refutes you.