Posted on 10/29/2011 10:01:19 PM PDT by marshmallow
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) – A Southern Baptist Convention official says one of the top challenges facing the nation’s second largest faith group behind Roman Catholics is the increasing influence of Calvinism in churches.
“I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism,” Frank Page, CEO of the SBC Executive Committee said in a blog interview posted Oct. 18 at SBC Today.
“Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public,” elaborated Page, who assumed the post of president and CEO of the SBC fiduciary and executive agency last year. “The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.”
Page, a former South Carolina pastor who served as SBC president 2006-2008, authored an 80-page booklet in 2000 titled Trouble with the TULIP: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism. In it he termed Calvinism a “man-made” doctrine not supported by Scripture and defended what he called "the true teachings of grace."
The book countered a common acronym for the five main points of Calvinism, a theological model named after Protestant reformer John Calvin. They are: Total depravity, Unmerited election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.
Page presented an alternative acronym of GRACE. “Given through Christ, Rejected through rebellion, Accepted through faith and Christ died for all” that summarized four points of a counter view of Calvinism called Arminianism. Page’s final “E” departed from Arminian thought with “everlasting life/security of the believer, a Calvinist doctrine held by most...........
(Excerpt) Read more at abpnews.com ...
What are you talking about?
Is this allowed on this thread?
I don’t think so.
“”I’m saved, you are not. You are going to hell and were predestined to do so, ...”
That is preciously what Catholicism teaches, and that Protestants are not saved.
What part of that do you deny?”
This is what I posted. I ask again.
Otherwise, you are engaging in some sort of your idea of a sick personal attack.
Stop making it personal.
You said you followed Sola Scritura, but none of your arguments are based in scripture, rather they quote lectures and statements of “great Christians”.
Did you know there is equality of believers in Christ? (i.e. the newest, poorest, less educated believer should have his/her words taken as seriously as the richest, most famous, most educated?). Were not the disciples “unlearned men”?
The respected “experts” of the time RE:Spiritual matters missed the boat! Matt 23:8-12.
Denominationalism is nothing. (so any points about who is what denomination are useless). Denominationalism and systematic theology such as Calvinism (rather than the priesthood of the believer) do nothing to add to the church.
They preach to the converted. You can make the point they might encourage (in biblical terms water what others have planted).
I find it telling your examples of great Calvinists (involved in missions) are all dead by over 100 years. But again, this is a specious argument too. Mormons are very efficient missionaries for their beliefs, too.
Also regardless of the fact that Graham was an avowed non-believer in Calvinism, let me state that pointing out individuals on either side of the argument is useless. There are good people on both sides. So what! As I said, these issues DO NOT RELATE TO ONE’S SALVATION. This is why it’s a distraction, and one deadly to those in the world in desperate need of the message that GOD loves THEM.
Do we go to the mission field with this message? “God MAY love you or MAY NOT, depending on if you are predestined, so therefore we don’t know who is saved, and we just showed up here to let those who are predestined know they are safe. There’s no way they can ignore/avoid God’s grace”. NO!! HEAVENS NO! We show up and say John 3:16!!!! and that God is not willing that ANY should perish but all come to the knowledge of God.
Can we reason from the scriptures? Men fail. God’s word does not.
If one cannot support one’s beliefs from scripture, what foundation are they built on?
“”I’m saved, you are not. You are going to hell and were predestined to do so, ...”
That is preciously what Catholicism teaches, and that Protestants are not saved.
What part of that do you deny?
First of all, I am not a Roman Catholic, but do know many, many Roman Catholics who are Christians.
As for many Calvinists on FR, they hold to all five points of TULIP; including double predestination. In other words, they believe that prior to the creation, God specifically determined exactly who was going to heaven and who was going to hell and there is no decision or choice than can be made by that individual to alter their fate.
In fact there was one FReeper Hyper-Calvinist who stated on her Freeper home page that Billy Graham preacher a false Gospel because Graham preached that a man determines his destination by the choice he makes about Jesus in this life.
The problem is that many FR Calvinists go further and claim that man has no chice in his salvation and that if man can choose to either accept ot reject Christ, it means that man can save himself and is then a "work" rather than a "gift." They overlook the fact that gifts can be either accepted or rejected.
Reformed theology has a much wider history and dynamic than what people on FR say. I'm sure many are right and many are wrong. I'm more concerned about the theology iin general or, if you want to get more specific, what the Bible has to say about God's role in salvation.
Knowing that salvation is God's gift and as Jesus said "I've them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand" brings amazing assurance to the believer and this is my main concern.
Cronos has been sowing vitriol on every religion thread on which he participates, and I get the rebuke? I hesitate to correct a moderator, but that is a double standard.
Jim, is there anything you can do to lower the temperature of conversations between Roman Catholics and other Christians? It’s getting very divisive, typically when a Roman Catholic FReeper ridicules another denomination for holding a doctine different from theirs. And it goes downhill from there ...
It is the only thread type on the Religion Forum where "anti"s can express their disdain. It can become very contentious.
If this type of discussion troubles you then IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled "prayer" "devotional" "caucus" or "ecumenical."
But you deleted *my* comment, which was no less “personal” than cronos’ comments.
For a post to be "making it personal" it must be speaking about another Freeper, personally.
Your post #76 which was "making it personal." You said "You love arguing. You thrive on discord."
As another example, "Scientologists are crazy" is not making it personal. But "you are crazy" is making it personal.
Nope. I am passionate about promoting Christ above all, and challenging those who damn non-Roman Catholics precisely because they’re not Roman Catholic.
Cronos isn’t about promoting unity *in Christ*, but in promoting his denomination and denouncing those who aren’t members of his denomination.
I don’t have a problem with Roman Catholics who exalt Christ above all. I do vigorously engage those who deny the truth that salvation and full life is found in Christ alone.
Cronos isn’t about promoting unity *in Christ*, but in promoting his denomination and denouncing those who aren’t members of his denomination.An example of "making it personal". Also, protocol is when you mention a poster to ping them.
If Theo had worded it this way it would not have been "making it personal:"
“You said you followed Sola Scritura, but none of your arguments are based in scripture, rather they quote lectures and statements of “great Christians”.”
Nonsense. The only lectures/statements I quoted were of Spurgeon, which I posted to show that Baptists can be Calvinists, too. Which I have said like four times now.
I quoted no Scripture? Are you reading my posts at all?
I quoted 1st John 5:13,Matthew 26:24 Satan is like a roaming lion, seeking whom he may devour, Titus, Paul & Timothy, God hardening Pharoah’s heart, Ezekiel preaching to the dry bones, we are dead in trespasses and sins, Esau could not find repentance, Romans 8, Romans 9, and the establishment of the church in Rome - ALL Scripture, hello?
It is evident to me that there does exist a double standard here, and it is allowed to grow and feed on itself regardless of the facts.
You are not alone in noticing this fact.
” It’s getting very divisive, typically when a Roman Catholic FReeper ridicules another denomination for holding a doctine different from theirs” —> wow and you don’t complain when non-Catholic Freepers ridicule Catholics? Is that non-divisive?
“but in promoting his denomination and denouncing those who aren’t members of his denomination.” —> and, again, no complaint from you about other denominations doing this?
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.