You know what? My baptist church is made up of people from many different backgrounds. A portion is mennonite or formerly mennonite. Some members come from a reformed (or calvinistic) background, some come from other evangelical background, quite a few are immigrants who don't speak English very well. The church was founded on the principle of unity on THE ESSENTIALS by a group of mennonites and baptists. We have had calvinist pastors, and noncalvinist pastors. From THE PULPIT, I have never heard any of those words mentioned by either calvinist or noncalvinist pastors.
Why? Well, for one thing, the most important things to the church as a whole is expository teaching. And to exposit passages of scripture doesn't require using nonbiblical terms, does it? And if those nonbiblical terms would more likely divide a unified congregation than enlighten it, wouldn't it be foolish of a pastor to do that?
(Actually, I take that back. I remember that the pastor we now have did once say, "Doen't matter if you're a calvinist and believe such and such, or an arminian and believe such and such, we all agree on this one thing....." )
It would be appropriate to discuss these terms in an adult Sunday School class on doctrine, where people can choose which class they are interested in and feel prepared for, but is it appropriate from the pulpit to the whole congregation where there are many people who don't even speak English very well, or don't like theological discussions?
It has nothing to do with at what level they are thinking. It has to do with whether they are familiar with the "jargon" and whether they even want to be familiar with the jargon. I'm glad my doctor doesn't use medical jargon when he discusses things with me, because I shouldn't have to learn it. Its his job to translate the jargon into simple English for someone who didn't attend medical school. The fact that he explains things to me as much as possible in language I am already familiar with is hardly and insult to my intelligence. Actually, that he bothers to translate for me is a confirmation that he thinks I'm intelligent enough to understand the concepts even if I don't understand the jargon.
Nobody wants a congregation that is forever stuck on elementary things, but you don't need to use "seminarese" to move them on to more mature things, and it would seem to be counterprodutive to do so, since people who would very likely understand the concepts might get slowed down by having to learn the specific theological language.
[ December 30, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]
Keep Calvinist leanings secret?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ignazio_er, Dec 28, 2003.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
As for ad hominem attacks, I have made none.
-
-
-
-
You're right. I'm wrong. Thank your for your insightful, intelligent, and clear-thinking charity.
-
:eek: -
If you have read this topic or Ignazio-er's other posts, you know that he has made his position pretty clear. I haven't attributed anything to him that he has not brought forth himself. So you are correct, I have indeed applied my policy #2 to this situation. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Do you not have anything better to do?? Like contribute something substantive to the discussion???? :confused: -
-
My participation in this thread has been to point out that what he is saying is not actually what the article says. He is basing his whole point off of one paragraph, while ignoring the main thrust of the author, who explicitly affirms what Ignazio-er denies. As such, I have tried to get Ignazio-er to merely work through the actual article rather than taking this one paragraph out of context. In no place in this article does the author encourage any pastor to "falsely ingratiate themselves" into pulpits. In no place does he encourage hiding what he believes, To the contrary, he says make it explicit. The problem is that Ignazio-er has never dealt with reconciling those words, in spite of the fact that I have pointed them out several times.
There seems to be a real difficulty reading what is actually being said, whether here on this forum or in other articles. I realize we all read things quickly and skim over some stuff and in so doing are liable to miss some things. It is also not inappropriate to draw conclusions from statements, since statements have implications. But when problems are pointed out and one still refuses to deal with it, what are we to say??? Recently there have been some very petty discussions going on, centering on trying to catch me in some inconsistency. I may well be inconsistent. I don't think you will be surprised to find I am not perfect. I don't think any great inconsistency has been shown yet but if people differ that is fine. I am not sure why pages and pages are being taken up to try to show that. Who cares?? If someone does something in grossly inappropriate, I say something by PM. Most stuff I just let go. I see people violate common decency all the time. I have seen it several times today and I just let it go. There is no need to be hunting around for stuff.
-
Then your irate response to me with a thinly veiled threat regarding how it applies to this thread ices the cake. He has you on the ropes, so you are dancing a different jig and trying to fiddle a different tune. I suggest you cut the personal ridicule and deal with the issues instead of what you think he believes about Calvinism. That or truthfully admit that yes, he has been very clear here regarding this and you have no good answer.
Happy 2004. -
I have never talked to a member of a pulpit committee who had any clue what a calvinist was. I've had them call me and ask, and after I explained, they still did not get it. Once when I candidated, I explained to the committee that I was a Calvinist, and they were very silent. Finally, one fellow said, "well, does that mean yer agin closed communion with wine, or does that mean you're fer it?"
-
One time a man asked me to explain what I meant by making disciples. He then told me if they did that the church would have disbanded long ago. I told him that Jesus made disciples. I guess what he didn't realize that the church had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. They were not far from closing their doors and I knew it. I don't think he knew that I knew it though. So I asked him what he would suggest instead. He told me he didn't know. So I asked him about how he was going about meeting people in the community. He said they just needed a pastor. A pastor is their savior. Isn't it amazing how they need a pastor and won't work.
If you won't do their evangelism for them they might think you are a hyper-Calivinist though. -
I asked Ignazio-er to read the article and tell us what this man was actually telling pastors not to do. Let me quote that section to save you from having to look it up.
Clearly, I have dealt with it and explained why is is “honorable” in your words, not to use labels.
This is truly sad. Everytime I think I have seen it all on here, someone pops up with more stuff like this. You are so intent on me personally that you have gotten sidetracked from dealing with theology. This is not a forum about Larry. Don’t make it one. You can disagree with me. I don’t really care. But to spend all this time having to answer these inane accusations is crazy. It is just ridiculous. Why do I have to defend myself?? Ignazio-er has dropped it for whatever reason. You should have never gotten involved in it. In this whole thing, you have commented very little about the article; you are devoted to attacking me. What a shame.
From now on, if you have personal issues you would like to address about me, you may do so through PM. Any more posts in this forum will be required to be on topic. I hate to have to say that, but I have spent an hour this morning answering baseless charges and taking up space in this forum so you can deal with your personal issues. In the future, it will not be tolerated. Send me a PM if you wish to address something about me.
[ January 01, 2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ] -
Secondly, you still don't recognize the fact that what you have been answered, pointed out, and all but had your face rubbed into is the truth that the writer of this article is NOT advocating a pastor lose his Calvinism. What you have quoted above emphatically states that he should agressively indoctrinate it into this unsuspecting congregation. BUT!! (There is always a "but") He urges this conversion process be done without using terms which readily identify even to non-seminary trained, doctrinal novices that these teachings are "strict straightforward unadulterated Calvinism." I.E. Larry, he is a wolf hiding in a sheep's cloth. He is still a wolf and will still eat the sheep. The problem is not whether or not he is a Calvinist (wolf), the problem is that he is gaining entry to the sheep fold by use of disguise lest someone should get angry and oppose him vehemently. Remember this statement from the article?
Now, even in that statement even you should be able to see that the man is NOT advocating that a person should refrain from teaching Calvinism. But he is most certainly advocating it should be hidden.
Let's take a "for example," shall we Larry? Someone comes to a church and is a member there for the required 2 years in faithful attendance. They never challenge the teachings or preachings. Someone (Pastor or SS Director) decides to ask them to teach a Junior-Hi boys SS class. They agree. A matter of weeks later, reports are coming to the pastor about this person's false doctrine. The pastor interviews the teacher and finds out that yes, he is teaching that you can be saved, then lost, then re-saved. In the interview process, the pastor asks, "If you disagreed so strongly with our doctrine here, then why didn't you tell us you didn't believe as we do?" The man answers, "since I didn't want to inflame you with theological labels such as 'eternal security' or 'OSAS' because you would not have allowed me the opportunity to reform what I see as the defective superstructure of teaching in your young people's lives ..." As a pastor, I'm going to bounce this man out of my office, and out of any kind of teaching position just as soon as possible. Wouldn't you? Are there not those "whose mouths must be stopped"?
In the Instruction Manual above, the man is not training teachers of Calvinism to go into churches where a pastor is over them to remove them as soon as their heresy is made known. He is training these men to go into churches in positions of authority for the purpose of "reforming" them from what he perceives as a poor foundation and doing "that awful task of tearing down some false superstructure that had been built without a doctrinal foundation, that had been built by cheap, shallow, man-centered evangelism. This rotting edifice must be torn down before a solid foundation can be laid."
Now, when you understand that this man is not using obvious labels by his own account, and that he is a Calvinist, and most Cals think that all non-Cals are "Arminians", to them the most despicable degradation of religion ever known whom they routinely accuse that they build their churches without a [Calvinist] doctrinal foundation, employing cheap, shallow, man-centered evangelistic method, then you can easily understand he is advocating clandestine infiltration into non-Cal churches deceptively. Translation? This man is "reforming" a church that is Non-Cal to one that is more to his taste and liking. He is using the "wolf principle." That of false teachers who enter in among these churches, not sparing the flock.
Our ministry printed a book on Church Planting once. The pastor who wrote this, in a section dealing with taking an existing church, advocated that the pastoral candidate make a very plain statement to the church covering what he believes and practices, and not to shy away from potentially thorny issues. The purpose in this was so that later, when opposition comes (as it almost always does), he could point back and truthfully say, "I am doing what I said I would do to begin with." The author of this Founders Movement article is arguing the very opposite of this. He is not looking to revitalize a dead/dying church, he is looking to take over Non-Cal churches and convert them.
Are you not aware of the many NT scriptures that warn about false teachers coming into our churches? This article is training these Founders Movement pastors to do just that and their method should rightly be warned against. You, on the other hand, appear to be in total agreement, advocating that type of deception. Apparently you have little respect for the Baptist doctrines of the priesthood of the believer and congregational government, preferring a leader come in and promote division claiming that "some will leave, some will want to get rid of the preacher, and thank God, some will get right with God." What makes the Calvinist feel so superior that he feels he has to "reform" a church that may not even desire those changes to the point that some will be inflamed, some will actually leave, and some will be put in the unenviable position of having to oppose the pastor?
It was a personal attack at Ignazio_er from your hand. No substance, just a high-handed "I know what you believe" attack. No dealing with the issues he has brought up, only a bogus denial of his statement.
To disagree with and be opposed to Calvinism (or Arminianism, Amyraldianism, Arianism, Augustinianism, or any other such thing) is the right of the believer, and that congregation. The only reason I can think of that it would be unwise is if you are wanting to infiltrate without being identified, or if that label represented something you did not actually believe.
I, in my heart, realize that false teachers can be deceiving and by their "good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:18) It seems Paul also understood this. You do not.
-
[qutoe]On the same basis, would you advise that pastors of the opposing view candidate for Cal churches without mentioning inflammatory words like "universal redemption, Arminianism, apostasy, Holy Ghost baptism, etc."?? </font>[/QUOTE]I would advise these men of the opposing view to get out of the ministry. They should not be parading about as preachers. I think some arminian preachers have done great things for Christ. I think many of them love God and his word. I think they are mislead and mistaught.
Ignazio-er Larry
Said: I am not arguing against Calvinism Did not say: You are arguing against Calvinism
Did not say: I am a Calvinist Said: You are not a Calvinist.
When you study this little chart and put the implied negatives, you will see that I was right from the beginning and you were wrong.
-
-
In this case, if someone knows to teach particular redemption, perseverance of the saints, etc. then he is a Calvinist whether he runs like a scared jackrabbit from the term or not.
One of the evidences of Christ's deity was that he could read the hearts of men. Are you laying claim to being deity?
-
Larry, you ask why I'm not posting on this thread any more. Did you miss the post where I admitted that you are right about everything and I am wrong about everything? Excuse me now, I have to go stand in the Kool-Aid line.
Larry, had I not read a few of your threads it might surprise me to see you at once try to claim the high road by whining about the awesome responsibility of keeping private messages private, while at the same time in many place revealing that in the private messages I say I am not a Calvinist. What a load of self righteous hypocrisy. Well, I free from your bondage! Here are the posts in question, which were initiated by Larry after he DELETED my thread about James Gruet.
(But, because Larry has not told me I can post his private messages I will protect their content with as much zeal as he protected mine.)
And now you know why I started the thread about who actually read Calvin and why Larry will not respond to it.
Page 2 of 3