The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals ^ | R. C. Sproul

[P-Marlowe]

Thank you AG.

You know if you can look beyond all the bickering that goes on sometimes in the religion threads, sometimes you can learn something important. I took a look at that those verses from a different perspective last night. I think those two verses kinda say it all in regard to what God wants in accordance with his nature and his holiness, what God allows in accordance with his patience and his grace and his mercy and what will ultimately glorify him in the end in accordance with his justice, mercy and holiness.

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, kudos to you, P-Marlowe!

It is amazing what Truth one sees when self is laid aside (pride, ego, contention, etc.)

Strangely, that is the very subject of Religion Mod's Daily Reflection for today!

[Frumanchu]

Luke 6:42 "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye."

Mmm-hmm. Exactly.

[harbingr]

I think She's Got it...'It is amazing what Truth one sees when self is laid aside (pride, ego, contention, etc.)'

Here is The Truth...

'Pelagius and Pelagianism - Pelagianism received its name from Pelagius and designates a heresy of the fifth century, which denied original sin as well as Christian grace.'

[George W. Bush]

From Brother Cloud's sermon:

"And any theology which hinders and dampens evangelistic zeal is wrong!

"Even in our day, there are some Calvinists who are very zealous for souls. There are some Calvinists who are more zealous for souls than some who do not believe in Calvinism."

"And the Metropolitan Tabernacle is one of those examples. The church which Spurgeon pastored is still there today, although much smaller, in London. And they preach and they have a Sunday school on Sunday afternoon and they go out across London and they have thousands of people in their Sunday school. And they go out and preach on the streets. And they preach the Gospel. And the Word of God tells us that any theology that dampens evangelistic zeal, that is the enemy."

"And I believe there is something even more dangerous than a soul-winning Calvinist. And that is any methodology that corrupts evangelistic zeal...is the enemy."

"I personally feel closer to some Calvinists, soul-winning Calvinists, than I do to some independent Baptists with their man-centered theology and practice in what I call 'quick-prayerism'."

" 'What's that', you say. Well, it's quick to lead someone in a prayer even when there's no evidence of conviction."

"Without the spirit of God, you can't save anybody. If the spirit of God is not bringing that conviction, and that repentance, and that enlightenment, then you're not going to save them by getting them to pray a prayer."

"Not only that, but you're going to give them a vain hope."

David Cloud, audio sermon, ~44:00

[I love that underlined phrase!]

So, try as he might, Brother Cloud can't dismiss Calvinists and their evangelism, historic and modern, entirely. And the tidbit about Spurgeon's church is why Cloud's work is a valuable contribution. Cloud has some good research, digs up good stuff to bring to his preaching and especially his writing.

Personally, I'd be willing to contribute cash money to buy an airline ticket for our own Orthodox Presbyterian to go debate Brother Cloud on this matter of Calvinism and evangelism. I think we could grant OPie honorary Baptist status as an alumnus of a very well-known independent Baptist college. Such a debate would be most instructive.

You'll have to forgive me if I have appointed Rev. Cloud as the primary anti-Calvinist spokeman among IFB churches. There's little evidence that the others make any great issue of it.

Perhaps Brother Cloud fears that ksen might apply for a position in his church.

If there is, as you maintain, no discernible Calvinist element among IFB churches, one must wonder why Rev. Cloud is compelled to speak so forcefully to the issue.

Is that it? Are IFB churches under secret Calvinist assault, battling off hordes of Calvinists quietly infiltrating the pews?

BTW, FR's Calvinist element has many times condemned quick-prayerism in exactly the same terms and at far greater length than did Brother Cloud in his sermon. It is the Arminian element who have consistently defended the practice in debate here.

[Vernon]

YOU were the one who accused me of being a hypocrite, which I flatly reject. Further, I am more than weary of the contentious, arrogant, judgmental, and condescending expressions. I gave you the answer, and if you need to go back to school to learn plain language, never mind another language, I suggest you do so. I would further suggest you learn a little civility instead of demonstrating the typical attitude of those of your persuasion. If that isn't plain enough, please note the following, no parsing, no Greek, just plain old English...

Get Lost!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the encouragement and for the link! It was an interesting read, particularly the part about the Stoics.

[George W. Bush]

"Let me conclude tonight: I'm not saying that some forms of Calvinism are scriptural. By my mention of Spurgeon...I'm not saying that. I don't believe any form of Calvinism is scriptural. I don't accept any form of Calvinism."

"Spurgeon said we need to go back to the Calvinism of John Calvin. I disagree strongly with that. No, we need to go all the way back to the Bible."

"Forget Calvin. Just forget Calvin. He was a great persecutor of God's people, hated Baptists with a passion."

"Forget Calvin, just go straight back to the Bible." ...

David Cloud sermon, ~47:30

Do you agree with Rev. Cloud's assertion against Calvin?

One has to wonder what Brother Cloud is speaking about here in the underlined passage. I think his rhetorical passion has overrun his facts. His writing is, however, far more sound and is still a valuable resource.

[Frumanchu]

YOU were the one who accused me of being a hypocrite, which I flatly reject.

I not only accused you of being a hypocrite, Vern, I PROVED IT WITH YOUR OWN WORDS. Your rejection of it does not make it go away. I didn't start out accusing you of hypocrisy. I started out with a question. I found the answer you gave as unacceptible and gave specific reasons why. You accused me of ignoring your answer, which is demonstrably false. You then proceeded to do precisely that which you lambasted me for: ignore my post. Hence the term hypocrite.

Further, I am more than weary of the contentious, arrogant, judgmental, and condescending expressions.

No doubt...it must require tremendous effort to come up with as many as you have.

I gave you the answer, and if you need to go back to school to learn plain language, never mind another language, I suggest you do so.

I gave a plain, well-reasoned response to the answer you provided. Rather than defend your answer you've chosen to attack me. It is a textbook case of ad hominem if ever I've seen one.

I would further suggest you learn a little civility instead of demonstrating the typical attitude of those of your persuasion.

I would further suggest you take your own advice, Vern.

If that isn't plain enough, please note the following, no parsing, no Greek, just plain old English... Get Lost!

Do I need to point out that, on the heels of admonishing me to be more civil and less "contentious, arrogant, judgmental, and condescending" you then proceed to do exactly that which you're challenging me not to do?

I am willing to lay all this aside and get back to the original questions regarding Acts 13:48 if you will do so.

[Corin Stormhands]

Do I need to point out that, on the heels of admonishing me to be more civil and less "contentious, arrogant, judgmental, and condescending" you then proceed to do exactly that which you're challenging me not to do?

Which, ironically, is exactly the response you've been pushing for all day long.

[Frumanchu]

Which, ironically, is exactly the response you've been pushing for all day long.

On the contrary, I would much rather deal with Acts 13:48. That's why I brought it up in the first place.

[Vernon]

Noted and flatly rejected.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The Ulitimate Perfect will of God is accomplished through the permissive will of God. I.e., the Gospel is freely offered to all men and all men are given the ability and the opportunity to positively respond. Those who respond positively will receive God's mercy and those who respond negatively will receive the judgement of God's holiness.

Of course, all that being said...

• The Bible is adamant that a Spiritually Dead Man WILL NEVER believe on Jesus and repent unto Him while that Man remains spiritually dead (Romans 8:5-8); and...
• The Bible is adamant that a Man must be Spiritually Regenerated in order to believe, and that Regeneration is monergistically effected by God Alone without any action of Will on the part of the Man (John 1:13); therefore...
• We know beyond question that the ONLY individuals who ever DO believe on Jesus and Repent unto Him are specifically those whom God has Unconditionally Elected to grant Regeneration unto Belief, and that all other individuals -- whom God has, of His own pleasure, unconditionally chosen to leave Unregenerate -- will ALWAYS REJECT Jesus, for that is what a Spiritually Dead Man will wlays do: reject God.

And if anyone says that a Spiritually Dead Man will ever Believe on Jesus and Repent unto Him without the prior monergistic regeneration by the Holy Spirit, that man is just a False Preacher; a False Preacher whose "Gospel" is nothing but the Edenic Lie of Satan -- that Men are not really Spiritually Dead.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Yaaawwwwwnnnn.

Got anything of substance to say about the topic, or is this just another pathetic attempt at flame bait?

Disinterestingly,

CDL

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Personally, I'd be willing to contribute cash money to buy an airline ticket for our own Orthodox Presbyterian to go debate Brother Cloud on this matter of Calvinism and evangelism. I think we could grant OPie honorary Baptist status as an alumnus of a very well-known independent Baptist college.

LOL!! For that matter, it may not be "honorary" at all.

For all I know, I am still on the Membership Rolls of a certain little 22,000-member Independent Baptist Church. It's sorta like being a "cradle Catholic", I think -- I never formally requested to be taken off the Rolls, so....

[George W. Bush]

LOL!! For that matter, it may not be "honorary" at all.

I think that attending that first baby-splashing event could endanger your official status. [Not that I'm interested in ecumenical dialogue on that topic.]

For all I know, I am still on the Membership Rolls of a certain little 22,000-member Independent Baptist Church. It's sorta like being a "cradle Catholic", I think -- I never formally requested to be taken off the Rolls, so....

Well, now, that church might not be quite fundamental enough or 'independent' enough for some purists who attend other IFB churches. After all, they do occasionally say something nice about the SBC. It's brazen ecumenism!

In some of these circles, they talk about the Southern Baptist Conference as though it's the church of Rome. It's quite bizarre actually.

[winstonchurchill]

I'll spare you the inane examples I've compiled personally when asking a Baptist preachers (both General and SBC) about Calvinist theology. What's most shocking is that they don't really seem well acquainted with the issue and consider it to be some dry rot they had to absorb in seminary.

Wow. And who would say that the Holy Spirit is not at work in correcting the church in our time?

Hmmm. Calvinist theology = Dry rot. Wouldn't have said it myself, but must admit it has a certain ring to it.

No wonder I am an increasingly happy Baptist.

[George W. Bush]

I meant that they are ignorant of systematic theology. Generally, it seems similar to systematic ignorance.

It's not a Christian virtue. It leaves a person incapable of formulating a comprehensive explanation for scripture.

Either Calvinism or Arminianism is preferable to ignorance.

[winstonchurchill]

I meant that they are ignorant of systematic theology. Generally, it seems similar to systematic ignorance. It's not a Christian virtue. It leaves a person incapable of formulating a comprehensive explanation for scripture. Either Calvinism or Arminianism is preferable to ignorance.

You know, increasingly I'm not so sure. I think that many of us have trouble separating Scripture from our preferred systematic theology and we forget that Scripture is inspired, but systematic theology is not. It is merely man's effort to put his intellectual arms around Scripture - not always successfully, but always 'confidently.'

What exactly would we lose if there were no systematic theology? We would surely still have the Gospel -- the Good News of salvation. I suppose the argument would be that without systematic theology there would be confusion among believers. Yet I would think I could make a pretty good case that we have ample confusion WITH systematic theology -- and possibly, just possibly some of it BECAUSE of systematic theology.

No, I'm not at all sure that all our writings, debates, etc in systematic theology have brought us closer to our Lord Jesus Christ.

One final argument against systematic theology. It God had thought it truly necessary, He could have inspired one of the biblical writers to write one. Instead, He evidently concluded that a quartet of gospels, a history and a bunch of letters would be better -- and quite sufficient. [That's the old 'If God had intended us to fly, He would have given us wings' argument.]

So, don't you agree that we could have gotten along without systematic theology?

[George W. Bush]

So, don't you agree that we could have gotten along without systematic theology?

Calvinists would insist upon it. But no one would say it is desirable.

Systematic theology is simply a term that means we can explain all scripture in context and in the context of all other scripture.

In other words: to rightly divide the Word.

Study of the scriptures requires the development of a thorough understanding and application of scripture. Without it, we are subject to superstition and the holding of inconsistent views or even to be prey for heretics.

You might as well suggest that the study of Hebrew and Greek are useless. I suppose a Calvinist would have to agree that we could have gotten along without them too. But we'd be poorer for their lack.