Posted on 11/11/2008 10:28:08 AM PST by topcat54
ATLANTA, GA - The arguments have been made. The debate is finally settled. There is nothing left to discuss.
Calvinism is finished. The Doctrines of Grace have been de-bunked. Reformed theology is has once and for all time been banished to the trash bin of dead theologies.
On November 6-7, Jerry Vines ministries hosted the John 3:16 Conference. At this conference, which billed itself as "A biblical and theological assessment of and response to 5-point Calvinism," noted Southern Baptists took open shots at Calvinism.
Those in attendance were thrilled with the scholarship on display. For example, pastor Bubba Swift of Good Works Baptist Church, told TBNN, "Those speakers sure did a fine job. They just kept quotin' John 3:16 over and over again. No matter what objection was brought to them, they just kept sayin', 'Whosoever will...' It was awesome."
Pastor Wyatt Beasley said, "All I know is Jesus died for the whole world. That means everybody. When I got saved, I could just tell Jesus was cheerin' me on from heaven, just hopin' I'd give myself to Him. That's what I done."
Some of the more notable quotes to come out of the conference were the following:
"Humans are born with original sin but not original guilt."
"A move toward Calvinism is a move away from the gospel.”
"Repentance and faith precede regeneration."
"A 'hyper-Calvinist' is someone who is more Calvinistic than you are.”
"Romans 9-11 have nothing to do with eternal salvation."
The most amazing part of the conference was when one of the speakers reportedly said, "We're right. They're wrong. Who's wrong? A few guys named Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, James Boyce, Arthur Pink, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and especially John Piper."
It is worth noting that no one from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was asked to speak at the conference.
Despite the fact that Dr. Vines said the gathering was not intended to be a "bashing Calvinism" conference, this is exactly what it turned out to be. While those who bothered to attend liked what was said, the broader spectrum of thought within the blog-world has been far less favorable. For some sane thought on this topic, click here and here.
When the conference concluded, there was much ovation and back-slapping. The speakers informed the press that now that Calvinism had been demolished for all time, they would aim their vast intellect at the most important issue facing Protestantism today: alcohol.
-snort-
Ping for chuckle...
Feh — this is only “satire” in the loosest sense of the term. Good satire works because it’s mostly true. This is nothing but an extended strawman that is only funny to those who are already in on the joke.
Does anyone know how many Calvinists can dance on the head of a pin and did they know about it beforehand?
[ SFX: can of worms being opened ]
I can laugh...some won't.
bttt
Well, I'm not a Calvinist, but it's clear from the Bible well before man's repentance is faith is the Holy Spirit operating in that person: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:3)
So, ultimately, do men's description of salvation start with God or with man? (So if they start with man, that's already one major strike against their basic theological suppositions)
conferences like this are (pre)destined to fail....
Agreed.
There is a perceptible odor emanating from the conference which I find unpleasant.
From the little reading I did, there appeared no love, no grace, therefor I conclude no God present...
It goes back to this:
Just because God knows what you are going to do before you do it, it doesn’t mean He has made or forced you to do it. Your God-given free will is what you use to make your choices. The fact that God knows what your choices are - because God is bigger than, and exists outside of time - doesn’t mean He is responsible your decisions.
I have to agree.
If the introductory character about Baptists from the South is “Pastor Bubba ..”, it is a strawman, not a satire.
My thought after reading through it was ... What's the point?
A few of the posts about the article contained some humor, but the article itself? Feh.
Where is “Calvinism” to be found in the Bible?
“Where is “Calvinism” to be found in the Bible?”
Same place as you’d find “trinity” or “atonement.”
These are doctrines taught in Scripture, not particular words you find in Scripture.
For that matter, you won’t find “dispensationalism” in their either.
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (BP)--Procedural controversy marred a spirited, but limited debate Oct. 30 over the Baptist General Convention of Texas' move to defund the six seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention. …Debate centered around two proposed amendments. One called for a phased-in, three-year approach to implementing the proposal, offered by [Pastor] Bubba Stahl of First Baptist Church in Boerne. Davis came to the podium to speak against the amendment. ( Baptist Press Articles)
Sounds like you have a good start. Keep studying the Word. The rest of it will start to make sense (if it's predestined to).
Genesis through Revelation (unlike the Dispys, Calvinists don't have to throw out 2/3 of the scriputure).
Calvinists don't have to throw out 2/3 of the scriputure).
Maybe that's how Chuck Missler can maintain that "Isrealology is five sixths of the Bible".
Ping...
I didn't think a dispensationalist would ever use sixths. Sevenths maybe, but not sixths.
You can check yourself, from his podcast, a couple days ago, on Rev. 20. http://www.khouse.org/6640_podcast/feed.xml .
(It was as bad as you might expect. Amil is antisemitic, "replacement theology" is blasphemy (can you feel the looove?), kingdom prophecy is the killer objection, blahblahblah.
I listen to him every once in a while, just to remind myself why I don't listen to him often, if that makes sense.)
“Dr. Vines?”
What happened to Pastor Backus and Sister Venus?
I knew it! I knew it! It just didn’t seem right that man didn’t have a choice in picking God. I mean, who wouldn’t? Once anybody saw the wonders of God, they probably couldn’t help but say, “Man, I want a piece of that. I choose to follow God, forget this lousy life, give me the afterlife!”
Three... and Yes.
How can a dead man choose anything? They can’t. No one chooses to follow God, no one seeks God. It is God who seeks after the lost sheep, it is God who looks for the lost coin. The coin and the sheep don’t jump up and say “Here I am.”
Look to your own conversion (assuming you are a child of God), was there no one pushing you along? Teaching you about God? Was not the Holy Spirit nudging you, putting you in situations that caused you to respond? I bet there were. God chose you, not you choosing God.
And by the way, there is no condemnation for calling God by his whole name, if you are his child. He is God the Father, not G-d the F-th-r. There is no disrespect for writing GOD.
That is something to think about. I write it that way
from respect for custom. I do believe that it was the
Holy Spirit that called me. I haven’t been a Christian
for very long and am still learning.
God calls all his children. I am glad he called you. Remember, you are a child of God, a part of the family. Calling him by name cannot be disrespectful.
May Christ the King bless and keep you now and forever, FRiend.
Come on, give me a break. Why do you speak in extremes. God can empower someone to do something without it having to be an issue of "make" or "force." For example, someone who wanted Jesus to heal them so they could speak wasn't able. It wouldn't matter if, as you claim, that this person who couldn't speak had a God-given free will is what you use to make your choices. (I mean, what good is a "free will" that's in 100% bondage? 100% bondage to vocal chords that won't work would be an illustration to those outside of Christ who are in 100% bondage to sin, Satan, death, etc. -- read up on Romans 6).
The fact that God knows what your choices are - because God is bigger than, and exists outside of time - doesn’t mean He is responsible your decisions.
Oh, sure. Jesus comes along and raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11). But he made sure He had a "decision/choice" from Laz before bringing him out of that stinking grave. Oh sure. We are dead in sin (Eph. 2).
Besides, what did 64 million people just do on Nov. 4? Did they have no "power" to "elect" anybody? Did they just see, "Oh, O wants it more and he's going to be prez anyway, so we'll just call it an 'election' as to what we're doing. We all know we have no power to elect anybody, anyway. O was going to be prez; we happened to have the foresight on that. That was it."
Well, next thing you know they’ll be going after that Edict of Restitution again.
SO would you then blame God for Adam’s original sin? And Eve’s?
God could have made everyone so that there was no way for them not to choose to love Him. That however, would not be a choice at all. If you have no choice, there is no free will. And since people are able to either reject Jesus or receive Him as their personal Savior and Lord, empirically it seems that we do have free will (a limited free will - we can’t think people dead, or wish ourselves a million dollars). Two people can see the same event, and one says “There is no God” and the other says “There is a God.”
We have free will because God says we are made in His image - God is a person. He has made us persons, with intelligence, likes and dislikes, abilities, talents, and unique personalities and creativity, and the ability to exercise them through a free will. As persons we have free will. God respects persons enough that He will not force them to accept Him if they do not want to.
Perfect sense. I can't listen to the hardcore dispies like Missler. They make me wretch. I listen Chuck Swindoll every so often. He goes off on a tangent, but at least he doesn't play the cheap trick anti-semite/replacement theology card. I do it just to remind myself why I'm no longer a dispie.
I can never figure out why some Christians are given to write “G-D” but you never see them write “J-S-S CH-I-T” or “H-L- SP-R-T”.
I haven’t been a Christian for very long and am still learning.
We're all still learning. "even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience".
I write it that way from respect for custom.
Not saying this is what it is for you, but from where I sit, for most that practice it, it looks like an ostentatious affectation. "Look at me, I'm doing the Jewish roots thing."
I do believe it dates back to the early Hebrew texts that would not write God’s name but use YHWH using only the consonants. I don’t see the need, you know what G-D is, use the full name.
Hello Irish;
Long time no speak.
The ancient texts (beginning with the Pheonician which was adapted to the Hebrew) did not include the vowels at all. Yahweh was written in the tetragrammaton YHWH because the vowels, to the writers, were transparent and did not exist in the text.
No. Before the fall: Perfect free will. Post-fall: Men and women are in bondage. Adam & Eve each had perfect free will. They were responsible -- even with the "assist" by Lucifer, they were still responsible.
God could have made everyone so that there was no way for them not to choose to love Him.
Uh. Let me give you some good Old Testament clues as to how God views babies:
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. (Ps. 58:3)
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5)
If you have no choice, there is no free will.
OK, first of all, I didn't say people had "no" choices. For example, when the pre-freed slaves in Exodus were in bondage, they still had all kinds of choices they could make and did make. But those choices for the most part didn't effect their liberation. Likewise, some buffets have all kinds of choices to eat from...doesn't mean any of those choices are nutritious -- it just means that buffet happens to have a limited "freedom of choice."
And since people are able to either reject Jesus or receive Him as their personal Savior and Lord, empirically it seems that we do have free will...
OK, before I remind you of those verses above (Ps. 58:3; 51:5), doesn't the Bible say in Isaiah that not any is righteous or seeks after God? Doesn't Paul say in Romans that all have fallen short of the glory of God? And doesn't Ps. 58:3 say that the wicked got their jumpstart at birth?
If all of these are the case, and then you can add all the Bible verses that talk about men being born spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), about the spiritual darkness that envelops the earth, etc. then perhaps you'll note that people already reject Christ from the get-go unless God has intervened thru certain families, who in turn have interceded for that young one.
Based on the gobs of Scripture verses, where did you ever get the notion that people are spiritually neutral and somehow are weighing in the neutral-zone, demiliterized zone either to make this "decision" -- as if supernature didn't abhor a vacuum, either. Doesn't Paul tell the Corinthians that Satan is the god of this world? (That includes your so-called "neutral" cases). Doesn't the apostle John say in 1 John that the whole world belongs to Satan?
Sorry. Except for a very few Biblical verses -- like an OT one, "choose this day whom ye will serve..." and a passage from Rev 3 where Christ says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock..." you'll find very few verses that support your neutral "decision" belief system. Even that Rev. 3 verse is addressed to believers -- not non-believers! (Remember, Rev. 2 & 3 are written to 7 churches...not to random citizens of the world!)
We have free will because God says we are made in His image - God is a person.
Yes, mankind was made in his image. Yes, Adam and Eve perfectly reflected that image and had perfect free will. But in case you haven't noticed, our image of God has become a bit scuffed up since then. It's still there, but it's quite marred and scarred.
He has made us persons, with intelligence, likes and dislikes, abilities, talents, and unique personalities and creativity, and the ability to exercise them through a free will.
No argument there...except how you define "free." You need to read or re-read Romans 6 very carefully. Look for how Paul describes our nature repeatedly in terms of slavery. A resistant will that rejects Jesus as Lord -- even if doing Christian "things" or acting in Christian ways -- is still putting an imposter as ruler-in-chief.
As persons we have free will.
No. We are not as free as it once was in Eden. Men are in fear to death. Death still holds us in bondage if we have no new life in Christ. Men are in bondage to Satan -- we are members of darkness if we are not in Christ and His light. Outside of Christ in our natural state, we are bound to sin (Jesus says he who commits sin is a SLAVE to sin...see John 8). "Bound" is a "bondage" word.
God respects persons enough that He will not force them to accept Him if they do not want to.
Exactly. But that doesn't mean we are in some neutral state. We already naturally reject Him. That is our default condition since the onset of original sin. Just because He doesn't "force" doesn't mean He 100% sets aside His power or light or exposure or enlightenment in dealing with us.
Why do you assume the only options are that we are either 100% free or 100% robots? The exodus wasn't about freeing robots -- was it? It was about freeing slaves. What? You don't think that the slaves in Exodus were a type for who we are spiritually?
I foreknew that.
You put words in my mouth. I never said people are spiritually neutral. We all currently have a nature that naturally is against God.
You also seem to think that God somehow doesn’t reach out to some, jsut a select few. God wants everyone to be saved. He says so. The thing is, not everyone responds to Him reaching out to them. Some people do respond, and these are people who are saved. Some people resist, and continue to resist any attempts to know more about Christ, and want nothing to do with Him.
And there are plenty of people out there who do not know God, but sure wish they did. Missionaries in Africa, especially know this. Lots of natives there are aware of the spirit world because they know about demons and having to do sacrifices in order to stay healthy or have a good crop or keep the shaman on their good side. They are often excited to hear about ‘the greatest God’ and want to know Him so they can get out from under the control of the evil spirits that exist around them. You can talk to any African missionary about this. The fact is no mere man, on his own, would ever come to knowledge of the triune God. One God in 3 persons is not something natural man would ever discover on his own, unless God Himself revealed it to us - and He did.
And that is why God HAS to be the one that finds us first, because we’d never find him on our own. Just like, as mortal beings, there is no way for natural, finite man to fix the broken relationship with an infinite God. There is nothing we can do to make the relationship right. We cannot pay the debt we incur by breaking God’s infinite laws. We cannot re-establish a connection with God on our own. Nobody can save themselves apart from God.
I think you seem to have a hard time understanding how devastating and how serious the consequences of sin is. Adam and Eve only had 1 law to obey, and even as perfect people, could not do it. I also think that you don’t want to recognize the magnitude of one persons’ sin, and how it can affect others by it. You seem to be angry at God for what happened to the human race’s nature as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. That somehow it isn’t fair for those people who don’t choose God, it’s God’s fault because their nature is by default, turned against God.
You fail to realize that God does reach out to everyone, in various ways. You seem to think he just lets them live and never makes any attempts to get them to realize who he is or to receive Him as their personal savior. Or for those in remote areas, missionaries, radio broadcasts, tv, evangelical movies smuggled in, contraband bibles or bibles translated into their own languages.
You rattle off all this scripture when it suits you. Why don’t you beleive God when He says in His word He desires that all men would be saved. You think He just says that and does nothing? Further, do you not think that He is unhappy that people die unsaved? Do you not think that weighs on Him? The creator is hated by the one creations that are made in His image, continually rejected, dying lost - you don’t think this doesn’t bother Him?
I think you do not understand the nature of God very well, if you think God doesn’t care or doesn’t attempt to reach out to people who are unsaved, even though He knows they will reject Him.
You are hung up about why God allows people to reject Him, given He knows where they will wind up. Partly because you don’t think it’s fair because our sin natures are set up to reject Him. But obviously, because there are people that accept Him, that this fact doesn’t mean it isn’t possible for sinful man to recognize 1) he is sinful, 2) that he is in trouble in his standing with God right now, and 3) he needs the solution God has to save him. Some people DO respond to God’s overtures and are saved. Some do not. It isn’t that God didn’t try with them, it is that they ultimately made a decision to say “that isn’t for me, I don’t beleive that.”
If sinful man A can listen to someone talking about what is necessary to be saved, and recognize the position he’s in and that he’s in trouble and needs God, and sinful man B hears the same thing and is not moved to the same conclusion, you want to blame God because B doesn’t?
Why won’t you take God at His word that He desires all men to be saved? Why don’t you think God continues to make attempts at the hard-hearted people who continually reject Him? And why don’t you recognize there are some people, who become so hard-hearted that their consciences sear, and the Holy Spirit stops trying to convict them. This is supposed to be God’s fault? I think you think it is.
Reading the mind of another Freeper - including attributing motives - is a form of "making it personal."
Are you equating the physically dead, with the spiritually dead?
You are absolutly correct, physically dead people can't choose to do anything. However spiritually dead people can make choices all day long. They can choose to watch T.V, or they can choose to open a Bible. One day a spiritually dead person may get an invitation to go to a football game, and on the same day get an invitation to go to a Church service, and then make a choice to go to one or make a choice to go to the other.
Good. We agree on that.
You also seem to think that God somehow doesn’t reach out to some, jsut a select few.
Never said that.
God wants everyone to be saved. He says so.
Good. Another thing we agree on.
The thing is, not everyone responds to Him reaching out to them. Some people do respond, and these are people who are saved. Some people resist, and continue to resist any attempts to know more about Christ, and want nothing to do with Him.
I think people naturally resist Him -- it's more than your "some" ... Jesus Himself said that "wide is the road that leads to destruction; narrow is the way that leads to life." (So that would indicate "most" -- not just "some")
And that is why God HAS to be the one that finds us first, because we’d never find him on our own. Just like, as mortal beings, there is no way for natural, finite man to fix the broken relationship with an infinite God. There is nothing we can do to make the relationship right. We cannot pay the debt we incur by breaking God’s infinite laws. We cannot re-establish a connection with God on our own. Nobody can save themselves apart from God.
More agreement.
I think you seem to have a hard time understanding how devastating and how serious the consequences of sin is.
Now why would I have a hard time understanding that? (It doesn't follow anything I've said)
I also think that you don’t want to recognize the magnitude of one persons’ sin, and how it can affect others by it.
Of course I recognize the magnitude of one person's sin. If Jesus had to become man and die for it, that shows ultimate magnitude. Again, there is no basis for you to draw this conclusion from thin air.
You seem to be angry at God for what happened to the human race’s nature as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. That somehow it isn’t fair for those people who don’t choose God, it’s God’s fault because their nature is by default, turned against God.
I've showed no anger. I'm not angry at God. You've misread me. Illustration: If I'm an alcoholic and if my Dad was one, how would God be to blame for that? Even if sin was family/environmental, God is not the author of that. So again, just because I said that our nature is by default sinful and against God, you've taken that to illogically conclude that I blame God. I don't. People are both responsible for their own sin as well as whatever sinful influence they've had upon others.
You rattle off all this scripture when it suits you.
Hey, the apostle Paul told Timothy to preach the Word both in season and out of season. So Scripture is worth citing all the time -- even if you think it's "out of season." Besides, I'd rather have me rattling off Scripture to base what I say than half of your paragraphs where what you say is empty and based upon zero references from Scripture cited.
Why don’t you beleive God when He says in His word He desires that all men would be saved.
Again. You're assuming a false conclusion. I believe God's Word that He wants all to be saved. But how would that be any different than a Father whose 3 of his 5 sons are wayward. Yes, the father wants all to be saved...but that doesn't in and of itself change the waywardness of some of his kids.
You think He just says that and does nothing?
Who said that? Me? (No) Of course, He acts, but to quote you right back at you, people are not "robots." You can't force people to love you.
Further, do you not think that He is unhappy that people die unsaved? Do you not think that weighs on Him?
Happiness depends upon happenings. Since God is beyond time He is not bound by it or by events. No surprises overtake Him. Is God concerned about the unsaved and express emotion with that? (You better believe it) So, again, why the drawing of these false conclusions. You keep placing words in my mouth I've never uttered. Nor do they logically follow from what I've said.
I think you do not understand the nature of God very well, if you think God doesn’t care or doesn’t attempt to reach out to people who are unsaved, even though He knows they will reject Him.
More of the same. False conclusions that don't follow what I've said.
You are hung up about why God allows people to reject Him, given He knows where they will wind up.
Where did I say that? Be specific. You can't keep making leaps of logic without citing exactly which phrase I've said.
Partly because you don’t think it’s fair because our sin natures are set up to reject Him.
Where did I say this wasn't "fair" -- I haven't even used that word. (So stop putting words in my mouth)
If sinful man A can listen to someone talking about what is necessary to be saved, and recognize the position he’s in and that he’s in trouble and needs God, and sinful man B hears the same thing and is not moved to the same conclusion, you want to blame God because B doesn’t?
No. Man is to blame. Let me go back to my illustration of Lazarus in the grave. Let's say there were two graves -- Lazarus and a "neighbor." So Jesus heals Lazarus. So who gets the credit & glory for new life, Jesus or Lazarus? (Jesus. 100%) But let's say, his graveyard neighbor, whom you reference as "sinful man B" -- let's say he hears the same thing and though Jesus beckons him from the grave, he refuses to emerge. He won't budge. Now you falsely claim that because this man doesn't (spiritually) budge, that I somehow blame the divine one. But I don't. If Jesus heals Lazarus, He gets the glory. If Jesus also heals a neighbor, but the man refuses to walk in new life, now why would I blame Jesus who did all He could for "sinful man B?" I don't. So stop making false accusations.
Why won’t you take God at His word that He desires all men to be saved? Why don’t you think God continues to make attempts at the hard-hearted people who continually reject Him? And why don’t you recognize there are some people, who become so hard-hearted that their consciences sear, and the Holy Spirit stops trying to convict them. This is supposed to be God’s fault? I think you think it is.
Well, this last paragraph has to be, along all your false conclusive statements, the reason why you were warned by the mod.
Stop pretending to speak for me when none of those claims are mine. If somehow you think something I've said (b) doesn't follow something I've said earlier (A), then you just need to put that in a question form: "You said (A). But then you said (b). That doesn't seem to follow. Can you explain how you hold these things together?"
Yes, tho only by illustration.
We need to ask "what is it that physical death has in common with spiritual death?" In both cases, it's...
...(a) men are totally desensitized to relate to others (physical death) or God (spiritually dead);
...(b) men are totally incapable of bringing themselves into a new state of life -- whether it be physical life after physical death or spiritual life after being dead spiritually
...(c) Only God's power can bring new life -- whether it be a physical resurrection or a spiritual one.
So if I'm a spirtually dead person, and my lifelong friend who has always lived a very sinful lifestyle tells me he has accepted Jesus as his savior, and his whole life turns around, I won't be able to realize or make any kind of rationalization that his new life might be due to a Higher Power working in it?
...(b) men are totally incapable of bringing themselves into a new state of life -- whether it be physical life after physical death or spiritual life after being dead spiritually
Perhaps, but spiritually dead people are not totally incapable of admitting their desperate need for a new state of life, ask a recovering drug addict, who's done some hard time. And once they admit their need for a new life, they can then choose to do something about it, like go to a treatment center or turn to a Higher Power. Whereas physically dead people are incapable of doing any of that..
...(c) Only God's power can bring new life -- whether it be a physical resurrection or a spiritual one.
On this point I agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.