Skip to comments.Southern Baptists: Agree to Disagree over Calvinism
Posted on 06/17/2013 6:59:32 AM PDT by marshmallow
Cant we all just get along?
That was the question that Southern Baptists, torn between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, seemed to be asking as they opened their two-day annual meeting in Houston.
Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Conventions Executive Committee, created a 19-member advisory committee that produced a report in time for the meeting called Truth, Trust and Testimony.
Southern Baptists have been divided over Calvinism since their denomination began in 1845, but Page said Monday (June 10) that disagreements had reached a tipping point.
The truth is, I see an anti-Calvinism now that frightens me; its a vitriol that is nasty, he said, adding he also has friends who were concerned about extreme Calvinists. So it was my opinion that we need to deal with this. . Trust is hitting a new low.
Calvinism, based on the teachings of 16th-century Protestant Reformer John Calvin, differs from traditional Baptist theology in key aspects, particularly on the role of human free will and whether God chooses only the elect for salvation.
The 3,200-word report calls for mutual respect among the differing factions, saying opponents should talk to each other rather than about each other, especially on social media. Churches and would-be pastors also need to be honest about whether they embrace or shun Calvinism, it said.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.washingtonpost.com ...
In the absence of any divinely instituted human ecclesiastical authority with competence to rule in this matter, this is the inevitable result. Either this or a rupture.
Both sides will claim the authority of Scripture. Yet they're stuck at an impasse. And where is truth to be found in all of this? Why, in Scripture of course. We simply have different understandings of its meaning so we'll "agree to disagree". Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Is God a God of confusion, compromise or ambiguity? Is there more than one Church, one truth?
No, the ecclesial model here is mortally flawed.
Well my Church is perfect because some man said so.
My my church was imperfect because I said so -
God knew you’d post this
And the waffeling that Rome has demonstrated over the last 2000 years?
Once bookmarked, always bookmarked...
I've been saying that for years. In before the thread hijack.
My church was perfect until someone showed up to worship. Oh wait the church is the people, argh now I’m confused.
It was predestined you would write that.
Europeans love having an authority to rule over them. But that simply isn’t Baptist. Baptists go to the word, approach god directly without a human intermediary required, and do not have any centralized structure.
The Southern Baptist convention has no power over any church. Each church may associate with them to share in mission funding, etc. But Baptists have happily fought off that European and foreign impulse to resemble a typical European monarchy.
And Calvin even Baptized infants! Baptists of course do not. Nor do they burn people at the stake as Calvin and some others have done while searching for heresy and witches.
What Christians should be looking at...is what will our reaction be...when the feds show up to close our churches. This is at most twenty years away.
Just another example of what separates religion from Christianity.
There is only one name in which we can be saved, and it is not Calvin, Luther or even Peter, it is Christ.
You are pretty close I think. The revolutionary socialist American government wants them to be a version of the church in the USSR era. They want to remove them utterly from the public arena, and use what cannot be rooted out as a method of people control.
But they have over reached already and will not make that 20 years without a fight they cannot win. So I think we will not see that day that the government closes churches here, (though they wish they could).
If that's the test then St. Augustine was clearly a "Calvinist".
“There is only one name in which we can be saved, and it is not Calvin, Luther or even Peter, it is Christ.”
“I’ve been saying that for years. In before the thread hijack.”
I don’t get it. Did the poster actually not expect discussion and dissent?
Amen and AMEN!
God is the one who justifies. Who is he that condemns?
You have stated the obvious and the issue. It reminds me of things territorial and tribal when all the various Christian doctrines and churches might some day be sitting in conference. I think I would pay for a ticket to see, because unless something changes dramatically, they will not all be able to agree in doctrine and so in some ways will never be able to come together, without of course that dramatic change.
Far better I think to agree in principle that we are a Christian nation, those early pioneers coming here for liberty, freedom, and the good word of God. Far better to get our stuff together along those lines than suffer the consequences of a religious fight being divided along doctrinal lines and watching the nation collapse because we the “church” were not united. I would say the “church” is going to be all that saves this nation, it certainly won’t be government.
Then why is the SBC spending time on addressing the problem of Calvinism within its ranks?
There are some Baptists who evidently think that Calvin's theology is true to the Bible and some who don't. My understanding of Baptist polity is that both (mutually exclusive) beliefs should be allowed.
But, this is only news since it involves the SBC. There are subsets of Baptists - Free Will and Primitive to name only two of many. They consider their differences serious enough to separate themselves.
Should have I think included “the Church and it’s people will save this nation...
That Yehova has chosen an election, a remnant, is strongly supported throughout the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation. Is that what you mean by “Calvinism?”
When I read the headline, my first thought was how is this any different than it has always been. The SBC has always had its Calvinists. The reformed wing and the Arminian wing argue but at the end of the day walk away friends (or at least, not enemies).
You also bring up an important point. Someone doesn't have to accept all of Calvin's teachings to be a Calvinist. Calvinists come in many favors. Every human being on earth has some error in their theology including Calvin.
Discussion and dissent is surely expected. As is the hijack (a Catholic bash in post 6). It's a hijack because neither the article nor the OP's comment has anything to say about the Catholic Church.
Revolt is coming.
>> “I think I would pay for a ticket to see, because unless something changes dramatically, they will not all be able to agree in doctrine and so in some ways will never be able to come together, without of course that dramatic change.” <<
That all of the churches have, and will come together in the worship of man is the cornerstone of prophecy.
I will let the Calvinists (and the Arminians) define themselves. Using Scripture, of course. (I'll pop the corn.)
Christ is the head of the Church, Christ established his doctrine 2,000 years ago and it has not changed since. All else is man’s interpretation, i.e. dogma.
The church (the real one) is not under the control of man. Yeshua, through the Holy Spirit/comforter rules over the church.
The Whore and her daughters are all in the control of man, and worship man.
But those who oppose the Christians in this country will in the end LOSE.
IOW, you have no idea what you mean?
I think this is a good time to dust this one off:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
He said, “Like what?”
I said, “Well...are you religious or atheist?”
He said, “Religious.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
He said, “Christian.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
He said, “Baptist!”
I said,”Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of GOD or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
He said, “Baptist Church of GOD!”
I said, “Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of GOD, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD?”
He said,”Reformed Baptist Church of GOD!”
I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915?”
He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of GOD, reformation of 1915!”
I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.
— Emo Phillips
I am not an adherent to the Calvinist belief. Those who are can defend it, as they should.
But, if the discussion has any relevance to the OP, it needs defending against Arminianism.
“Is God a God of confusion, compromise or ambiguity? Is there more than one Church, one truth?
No, the ecclesial model here is mortally flawed.”
“The church (the real one) is not under the control of man.”
I would entirely agree with your comment, except, I don’t believe you can square your statement with the one above from marshmallow. Which begs the question, (the real one)?
So, Jimmah-- since you "personally feel" what scripture says-- then what church did you go to-- Unitarian Universalist, cause they don't have as many homo keyboard music ministers (him having a very homo son)? Hilarious, and more irrelevancy to the idiot. Yet more proof of a disorganized confused mind, with a driving harridan of a wife behind him.
Some time ago, the SBC met and formally "apologized for slavery", them being southern and all. The hierarchy of ownership and running the "peculiar institution" was not headed up by the Baptists— in no particular order but definitely in the main percentages, it was Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians. This thread is sure to get some more discussion. "People call me Jesus, and people call collect. People try to please Us but sometimes they will neglect.... it's lonely being Jesus, knowing you wrote all the books." It is indeed a long road to Jesus with many quibbling mortals in the way. Deo Vindice.
That is Marshmallow’s problem, not mine.
The confusion comes from accepting man’s ‘church’ over God’s.
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15. As is clearly stated here, God's truth must be rightly divided, if we desire to be approved workmen unto Him. NOT truth from a lie. But truth from truth. Which should tell you there ARE divisions and differences in the TRUTH He has given us, and HE desires we study His word, to understand those divisions HE has made. NOT man, God. The first truth that is easily answered in marshmallow's question is yes, there is more than one truth. 2 Tim. 2:15 shows you that...
Christ is the head of the Church, Christ established his doctrine 2,000 years ago and it has not changed since.
Gosh, that sounds like "an authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." Which would make it . . .
No, that is rightly dividing the truth from the lie.
There is only one truth, Yehova’s Torah, as Yeshua declared to the Pharisees.
You either have Torah, or you lack it. That is where it all divides.
[[Both sides will claim the authority of Scripture. Yet they’re stuck at an impasse.]]
Yes, but basically, both sides agre on many parts of the bible, but dissagree soem on other parts that really don’t undermine the key issues of the bible- Strict calvanists of course beleive peopel don’t need to witness, because everyoen who is ‘suppsoed to be saved will be saved’ as determined by election/destiny- Baptists beleive we have a mandate to witness, that we are the vessels that God chooses to use to spread His word to effect Hi Salvation in people- even if they were predestined to be saved
There are swoem other minor dissagreements- but htis really is the ‘biggie’ disagreement.
A clavanist I lsitened to made his point htat it is God who saves, not the witnessing of man, by sayign he heard a revival meeting’s message once, didn’t go in, but the Holy spirit moved Him to seek salvation, He took up the Word of God, and became saved accordign to scripture-
I heard another Calvanist explain how he got saved- but don’t remember the specifics- but basically it was how hte spirit moved him-
Then you have the baptists saying the ethiopian i nthe bible wanted to be saved, so God supernaturally sent an apostle runnign to meet the person to tell him how to be saved-
And of course we have Jesus Himself tellign Nicodemus how to be saved
Don’t know hwere I stand on the issue- I lean towards predestination and think God does save thsoe whom He will as He will whenever He wishes- I beleive primitive natives who ‘have a feeling’ thjat hteir pagan practices are wrong, wnd who seek God’s face, bnot really knowign anyhtign about Him, and who primitively determien in their hearts to stop their pagan waysi n honor of God may possibly be saved even htough they don’t know how to ‘give hteirl ife to Christ’ i nthe proper baptist manner at salvation
I’ve read pink’s book on the soveriengty of God, and he does make some pretty compelling and frightening points about people beign created specifically for damnation (even though they had the same choice of free wil las everyoen else- God knew they woudl never accept Him, but allowed them to be born anyways)- The book frightened me- and made me realize how little in control we really are- but it opened my etyes soem too- I’m not sayign I agree with everything- but it did shed soem light- the book is available free online- I think his name was albert pink- but just ‘pink soveriegnty of god’ will find it
it’s a hard read as it’s written in old language- but it’s a sobering look into hte soveriegnty of God- personally I think perhaps the ‘truth’ lvies soemwhere inbetween the baptists and hte calvanists, and probably woudl have to settle on beign a hybrid betyween baptist and calvanist myself-
No. Please read 2 Tim. 2:15 again. It says nothing about dividing “truth from a lie”. It says “rightly dividing the WORD OF TRUTH.” There are no lies in God’s word of truth. It would cease to be the word of TRUTH, if there were lies in it.
Calvinism and Arminianism are creations of men, chosing portions of Yehova’s word, rather than the whole word.
Here is a link to an article on hyper-Calvinism written by a Calvinists. FR Calvinists don’t like this being posted because many of them are hyper-Calvinists.
You are imagining a division in the word, and it is not there.
Southern Baptists have long stood for freedom of thought within the denomination. We view the imposition of authority on a local congregation, whether heavy-handed or benign, as intrusive, unwelcome, and anti-Scriptural. The Catholic model has produced wars, a divided church (or what is two Popes about?), and an inquisition that was cruel beyond measure. We Southern Baptists will have our own sins and victories to account for before the Lord one Day. But we won’t have to account for following human leaders who have produced some of the worst living conditions on the planet.
[[That Yehova has chosen an election, a remnant, is strongly supported throughout the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation. Is that what you mean by Calvinism?]]
Not sure what they meant- but it’s deeper than that- soem woudl stop there- callign anyoen who beleives in predestination a calvanist- but the strict calvanists beleive noone needs to witness because God is theop ne doign hte saving- Strict calvanists almsot state that man has no choice i nwhether or not they go to hell or heaven (although in my understandign, they draw the line right at the point of stating man has no choice- they try to reconcile their ‘almost no choice’ claim with free will somehow- pink I beleive was sort of able to do so- it was al ong tiome ago i looked into any of htis -s o I may be a bit fuzzy-
I’m guessign htis might be what they meant by calvanism?
Here is Charles Spurgeon’s sermon regarding predestination. He clearly does not accept the notion that God preselects those to be saved and those to be damned to hell.
One of the most highly regarded Calvinists of the 20th century, Edwin Palmer (a wonderful man of God, who led the effort that resulted in the NIV Bible) wrote a book titled “The Five Points of Calvinism” stated very clearly that if even one of the points of TULIP were wrong, all of them must be wrong. Edwin Palmer also believed that God does predestined individuals to either heaven or hell and that no man can make a decision as to his destiny.
Spurgeon’s got it right, and Palme rwas clearly in error. Read the Spurgeon’s sermon linked above and decide for yourself.
There is only one truth
“But, if the discussion has any relevance to the OP, it needs defending against Arminianism.”
One must be careful to distinguish Arminius from what is claimed about Arminianism, just as one should distinguish Calvin from what some claim about Calvinism.