The dislike of Calvinism may rest upon the attitude of Calvinists

I'm not too sure that personalities have much to do with the dislike of Calvinism. Seems to me that those who oppose it do so pretty consistently, regardless of who's posting.

I'm a pretty nice guy (and very humble, of course), and non-Cals still disagree with me.

I'm convinced that it's the issue, not the personality of the poster.

 

thisnumbersdisconnected

As much as non cals like to accuse the Cals of arrogance....if you observe the threads 9 times out of ten -the attack comes from the non cals. So many might expect to see that kind of thing at this point.

This is good and most times you will not get harsh treatment if any rightly understand your intent to dialogue.Dialogue can be healthy.

Part of the issue is we see the teaching as bible truth,and any attack on the position as an "Attack on the truth itself". Most calvinists have not read much of Calvin.

.

We should be able to fellowship together as joint heirs covered by the Blood of the Cross. If Calvin happened to see these things in scripture before us...it is only because he lived before us.

let me pause this for a second;

This issue is also called cage stage calvinism by reformed baptists.Persons who study themselves into the doctrine are so surprised and upset that these truths were avoided in their churches that when they come to them there is a full spectrum of reaction and yes...to some degree a hostile reaction not based on wisdom from scripture.

[

When they discover that the root of the SBC was calvinist
It was at the root of the SBC.....the baptist faith and message is a weak and watered down version of the historic confessions of faith held to by the founders...that is why there is a resurgence...
http://www.founders.org/info/about.html

That is not the total focus of the OP...but i offer it for your consideration.

Weak churches will not stand the attacks from cults and enemies of the cross.The desire is to return to strong doctrinally based churches.

Anyone who is serious about the word of God believes the verses.Of necessity there must be substantial agreement on many topics simply because of that alone.
The frustration is from the Cal side for the most part is not that they think a person is uneducated but rather that the position itself is so is-represented and slanted that they feel that a person must overcome a stacked deck against the truth each and everytime these issues surface. many times before a person will give a fair reading to any cal teaching the person rejects it out of hand...there are many examples here on BB.

This is subjective for sure. You might meet someone who is a young believer who does not have quite a solid grasp of truth so instead they go ad hominem on you because they cannot scripturally defend the position correctly.they sense they are on the right path but cannot come up with the correct verses fast enough so they come at you instead...

You see non cals do the same..like RM going after Dr.White. Dr.White constantly is a target because he is on the frontlines.RM could not begin to answer him on many areas...even though Dr.White would be quite courteous to him, despite the harsh attitudes.
I have seen Dr.White many times deal very graciously with those who believe differently.

What many a non cal does is just this....Dr.White gets at the heart of a scripture...gives the greek words and makes a biblical case that the person looks quite foolish trying to refute. Then....what is left...say Dr.White is rude and callous when he truth he is not.I have seen it in person.

:godisgood:

.

:thumbs:

As you post this - we could co-exist on this basis.Look ...there have been many godly men who did not see or struggle with a point or part of a point of the teaching...J.C.Ryle...Richard Baxter..for example.{the Atonement}
Yet most every well read Cal loves the writings of these teachers for their work on sanctification.

I believe God allows certain men to address what is needed in their day in their time.No one believer...HAS IT ALL...even that is by God's design.

:laugh:

This in and of itself is a valid thought and needs serious consideration.

Well lets go over it;

What if this is...indeed the case? is it possible that this is so? In other words God did not send a postcard with the 4 spiritual flaws...he sent 66 books to study. The simplicity of the gospel has roots that are through the bible in total. Covenant theology seeks to root the gospel so a person is not like the seed in the shallow soil.
A sinner is told he is a sinner and is guilty of breaking God's holy law.The blood of Jesus is the Divine antidote. Judgement is coming, all sin will be judged...in the Divine substitute or the sinner himself for all eternity.

This could be on a postcard and in a sense be called good news.Yet there is much more to it.When a cal like Spurgeon says it is the gospel...he means that when fully laid out it is one and the same.It is not another gospel..it is the gospel unpacked and revealed in full.

So all 5 pts are part of this revealing and scripture addresses all 5 pts when properly investigated. A careless reading of such study material will not get it done,and quite frankly if the Spirit does not allow someone to see it , nothing will make it happen. yet God uses means...discussion, posting, sermons, teaching etc.

.
I myself believe that and am prepared to defend that very idea.Simply put if there is a dilution of anything , by definition , what was whole is now less than whole.

I have seen this and others like it..even from cals.

it does not have to, it can be useful if we go over the article.

This is a must as far as a aa common confession goes,it is not debatable.

 

Well maybe you could speak to DR.White personally before you bear false witness against him.DR.White deals with constant attacks like you would attempt to do.Call the dividing line, or DR. White himself...voice your concerns face to face like a man.Then let us know how it went.

 

Rather than take up a great deal of space to quote your entire post, which I found very well measured, brotherly and loving, I just wanted to say this is the kind of response I am hoping for with this thread. I will consider the valid points you have made regarding the dilution of Calvinist thought as equating to a dilution of the gospel, though obviously at this point I can't completely agree with that.

I appreciate your thoughts, and look forward to continuing discussion. Thank you for what you have said here, and God bless you. :thumbsup:

 

I've been trying to explain to my fellow Hyles-ites, that he was at the root an SBC Calvinist. Like John R.Rice, his mentor.
He loved to quote Spurgeon.
He believed in a very light dispensationist view.
Def. Pre-Trib cRapture.

As much as Jack Hyles was critcized for teaching :" Easy-believism", when one considers his Calvinist bent, one must concede that he expected God's elect to hear and respond to His Word, and not to have to be persuaded by much fair speech.

 

Most misunderstandings dissolve when healthy dialog takes place...agreement can only come in God's time...if it comes at all.
Some might not come to an agreement but the disagreement might cause them to study and grow in other areas that they will need to use with others.
I prefer that we all move forward with a positive look at scripture.Many do the same, but others seek to disrupt and attack...ironically it is the ones who call names and attackdogs...do most of the attacking ..then when it gets a defensive response...other names are called:confused::confused:;)

 

Good point. Put up or shut up. His practice of the latter would be an early Christmas gift for many of us. :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

From the OP:

Well that's definitely not a biased stance! :)

The above quote is quite off track and only looking at the issue through a lens of obvious disdain for a certain camp.

Take for instance his statement about men being involved in the debate of theology more so than women. I wish I could say that were a valid point of his against Calvinists, but it is not. Most theological debate forums have a larger amount of men discussing theology than women, no matter the camp they happen to belong to. Many theologically based conferences are headed up by men for the most part. Men perhaps are equipped differently than women and seem to long for dialogue and debate and defense of their beliefs, even in a heated fashion, no matter which camp they belong to.

To be fair I've seen his accusations much more often within the camps of those who are anti-cal. Certainly there is some of this as well amidst Calvinists too, so in other words some of it exists within both camps. As for BB, being honest here still, I see way more attacks, name-calling, accusations, and insults coming from those other than Calvinists. For the most part the so called Calvinists on here are gracious, yet if one rebukes another then the same old stereotype is brought against them. The many Reformed I know in churches and outside in real time have been some of the most kind and gracious persons I've ever met, and compared to the many IFB's I've been in and even pastored I've seen MUCH ugliness and infighting, gossip and much much more. I have often wondered as to why that is, and if it is tied to the fact that within many of them solid doctrine is not very solid. Truth is what set's free, and which sanctifies people to and for God. Take it fwiw, I am being openly honest and I am certain many on here whom I consider brothers would also agree and have seen it all as well.

As to the assault on the so called Young, Restless, and Reformed and how they have reacted to coming to the truth, I can say I truly do not blame them for that. Truth has been suppressed, preachers avoid truth to appease the church, and to which they will give an account, and some are completely upset over this, and rightfully so. Disappointment in theology has lead many of these to seek out truth, and they've found it. It is a very difficult thing to remain in a church that avoids and feeds the congregation from a milk bottle Sunday after Sunday. These have tasted truth, and as sheep, they want more of that diet.

 

One can hold a bias or a false stereotype and be of the same camp to which he uses these.

 

One could insinuate from this post that you believe the Southern Baptist Convention churches are "suppressing truth" and I would take issue with that statement, given my church is one which is one of the best in which I've ever had the privilege of membership. Anyone on this board could walk into my church and feel at home, not just because of the people -- though certainly they would make you feel welcomed and at ease -- but because of the message, and the ministry.

No, we are not five-point Calvinists, but the purpose of the church is not to preach Calvinism, but the gospel, which as I've said, I'm unconvinced the two are synonymous. Iconoclast and I have agreed to discuss this. Are you not willing to do the same, but choose rather to consider me a "truth suppressor"?

 

That may be true of your particular church, but it is not true of all of them, and more specifically it is definitely not true in the case of a few in our town.

One teaches repentance not necessary. Another teaches live any way you want because if you said the prayer you're going to heaven. Several others preach an easy-believism in a differing order than my second example. Another here glorifies Copeland, Savelle, Hinn, Meyer and their ilk from the pulpit. Yet another just outside our town doesn't talk about sin, he calls them mistakes. Be thankful if you've found a good one.

So yes indeed SOME of them are suppressing truth.

BTW, I've not considered you a truth suppressor. There is no need to go personal on this as my post wasn't directed at you nor at your church. Why you've done this is beyond me. It seems to me perhaps it's you not willing to do the same, or you're holding a grudge and trying to twist this thing personal.

 

So we just accept your analysis and commentary, oh forgive me I forgot, you are so much wiser and you can spot all these "easy believism" and "repentance not necessary" churches simply by driving by. Believing is easy, it should be easy, living faithfully and obediently is what is difficult. I bet, if I could peer inside your life and heart, there would be just as much evidence as others to indict you with "easy believism" and "repentance not necessary" characterizations.

 

Yes, and this author says that Calvinism seems to appeal to "obnoxious" personalities.

I don't say every Calvinist is arrogant and obnoxious, but many are.

 

This is an interesting discussion.

It all matters so very little when standing (as I will) before Christ to answer for attitudes; thoroughly embarrassed that He was not exalted in every particle of life; that, though holding to the doctrines of grace thinking, the contentions of truth were expressed inappropriately, inadequately, or so divisively as to cause the unlearned to consider one -especially me - "puffed up."

Of a personal perspective, though I am considered as "reformed, Calvinistic, doctrines of grace..." I don't know that I have not stated some point of disagreement with nearly everyone who regularly posts on the BB. I have been blessed that many of the responses have pointed me to further places of edification and encouragement to discover the view from a different direction on the precipice.

The common goal of all preaching and teaching should be the truth becoming so much a part of each assembly member that they can stand alone. That is, every preacher and teacher should strive to work themselves out of a job. That the flock no longer need to be taught and discipled as new born, but are themselves teachers and masters apt to disciple others.


From what come overly exuberant contentiousness? See James 4.

 

Nope, not destroyed, just confronted with the biblical truths of the doctrines, and ley the Spirit have His way!

ANY brother/sister in the Lord is NOT my enemy, just someone that can discuss frankly right, and try to use the scriptures to convice them of their errors, and they are free to do same with me!

 

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

can the SBC even consider itself as being formally either Cal/Arm though, for isn't one of the Cardinal beliefs is that each Baptist can hold to what they feel persuaded the bible teaches, as long as that is with orthodoxy?

Why try to 'force" he Church to be either/or?

 

Isn't preacher4truth a pastor? So how would he know what these other churches actually preach and teach unless he attended them? Just wonderin'..