Truth, Trust, and Testimony

[PappaBear]

It appears a significant sign of the trend at the new FFF that such a significant event as the SBC Report on Calvinism goes without comment in the Calvinism forum here.  Calvinists have always been an arrogant bunch that seeks to exclude any who dare disagree.

Ron Comfort had to deal with it at Ambassador Bible College.  The infection threatened to tear that institution up until firmly dealt with by the administration.  Now, the SBC is having to consider whether it can merge the heresy of Calvinism into its long standing Baptist Faith and Message.  According to some, the issue threatens to split the Convention.  They have gone so far as to form a "Calvinism Advisory Committee."  However, considering how far the disease has spread, it may be too late.

Here is the report from the Calvinism Advisory Committee.  I wonder what the result will be concerning the Offer of the Gospel, the disagreements on the Atonement, and especially this gem on Conversion:

The Necessity of Conversion
We affirm that salvation involves the conversion of the sinner, whereby the sinner consciously clings to Christ by faith, repents of sin, believes the promises of the Gospel, and publicly professes faith in Christ. We affirm the necessity of conversion and the truth that conversion involves the will of the believer as well as the will of God.

We deny that salvation comes to anyone who has not experienced conversion. We also deny that salvation comes to any sinner who does not will to believe and receive Christ.

Do you think Piper and Mohler can agree to that statement?  Any thoughts about how these issues will resolve?

 

[pastorryanhayden]

If I could, I'd sign it.  But I won't.  Neither will Piper, for the same reason i wont - because he is not a part of the SBC.  (He's  Baptist general conference.). I would be highly surprised if Al Mohler does not sign that document.
What are you after here Papabear? Are you seriously contending that the modern variant of SBC Calvinism is anything close to the hyper, anti-evangelistic Calvinism that was prevalent in the 17 and 1800s?
If so, I think you are either very ignorant about modern SBC Calvinists or you are just looking for something to rant about.  The leaders of the SBC Calvinist resurgence - Al Mohler, David Platt, and Mark Dever are all extremely evangelistic - often confrontationally so.  They are also militant in their attacks of true liberalism and anyone who denies scripture.  You can find a session from last years southern baptist convention called "the state of the SBC" on the 9 marks podcast.  I challenge you to listen to the whole thing and not say that it is encouraging.
If I were to go after something about the modern SBC, it would be the cultural Christianity that you find so prevalent in the big SBC churches of the south.  I've met many SBC members who were southern baptist because they were born that way and because it brought them cultural cred and for no other reason.  But it would be intellectually dishonest to say that all of the churches are that way.  I also might go after the embrace many of the SBC churches have given to the Christian rock scene or the church growth movement, but again, many is not the same as all. 
Why not remark on the false doctrine prevalent within IFB churches?  We had a heretic spewing corse sexually themed sermons and it took prison to knock him off of the big IFB platforms.  We have whole hosts of people pushing a 1-2-3 pray after me mechanical salvation.  Please tell me that you can say with a straight face that moderate Calvinistic soteriology doesn't have 1,000 times more bible and more history to back it up than that heresy.  We have unabashed man worship even though its forbidden in 1 Corinthians.  Where's the outrage there?  We have preachers who worship strife and aim to be as confrontational as possible, totally ignoring what scripture says should characterize a minister of the gospel or one with spiritual wisdom.  Where's the forum topic there?
I'm a kjvo independent baptist pastor.  But I refuse to throw these bombs at the SBC to make myself feel better.  We've got our own problems brother.  Just because it says independent on our sign doesn't make us any less tied to them.  Let's start at home.  Let's criticize ourselves first.
Rant over.

 

[PappaBear]

Bro. Hayden, notice the forum this thread is in.  Please re-read my post.  The issue is not an attack on my SBC brothers and sisters, who have a long history of sticking with the truth.  The issue is Calvinism, an invasive disease that rots churches and schools, causes division by the arrogant pride of its members, and has a long legacy of that goes much further back than Piper or Mohler of altering the important doctrines of soteriology (to convenental salvation without a conversion experience), the Atonement, Regeneration, and the unrestricted free offer of the gospel to everyone.  Furthermore, historically ALL kinds of Calvinism kills evangelistic fervor and obedience to the Great Commission.

Did you read the advisory committee report?  Look especially at their "tension" segment.  These are real disagreements that the SBC needs to deal with.  It is from Committee members themselves (which Mohler is one) that have stated this is threatening to divide the SBC. 

Now, as I have pointed out in the past, you have a nasty tendency to paint all of IFB with the HAC and/or Schaap broad brush.  There is a whole world of Independents outside of Hammond.  Fundamentalists are not restricted to only the Baptists.  And believe me, the Baptists who are not in submission to Hammond far, far outnumber those which are, while *MOST* are not even aware of who Schaap or Hyles are or were.  Furthermore, the issues you have stated are not limited only to "IFB."  Try taking on the enemy for a change instead of constantly shooting your own feet.

 

[pastorryanhayden]

I take issue with the point that all Calvinism robs churches of evangelistic fervor.  Ever heard of the Metropolitan Tabernacle?  It's been hotly evangelistic and very Calvinist for over 100 years.  Some of the most evangelistic pastors I know consider themselves Calvinists.
As far as Calvinism dividing the SBC, there is always something dividing the SBC.  It's a HUGE group.  Calvinism has been on the upswing for the last decade and the debate is dividing everyone. 
I do not consider myself a Calvinist.  I'm a chosen but free guy.  I think both predestination and free will are at play in salvation.  Also,  I do not believe in limited atonement, but I appreciate the way that Calvinists have been faithful to the Word.  They do not seem to have the same tendency towards reductionism as your run of the mill baptist.
My extended family is congregational and orthodox Presbyterian.  Some of the IFB preachers I most respect, including the former pastor of my church, are mild Calvinists.
As far as the HAC broad brush, I was merely pointing out that its hypocritical for us to go after southern baptists for there problems when we have do many of our own.  I mistook your OP for an attack on Southern Baptists.  I'm sorry for that. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=PappaBear]The issue is Calvinism, an invasive disease that rots churches and schools, causes division by the arrogant pride of its members, and has a long legacy of that goes much further back than Piper or Mohler of altering the important doctrines of soteriology...[/quote]

Do you have to cross your fingers or grit your teeth when singing Amazing Grace?

[quote author=PappaBear]Furthermore, historically ALL kinds of Calvinism kills evangelistic fervor and obedience to the Great Commission.[/quote]

From a historical perspective, this statement is absurd. But then if Servetus was a good Baptist...

[quote author=PappaBear]There is a whole world of Independents outside of Hammond.  Fundamentalists are not restricted to only the Baptists.  And believe me, the Baptists who are not in submission to Hammond far, far outnumber those which are, while *MOST* are not even aware of who Schaap or Hyles are or were.  Furthermore, the issues you have stated are not limited only to "IFB."  Try taking on the enemy for a change instead of constantly shooting your own feet.[/quote]

True. After all, you have the PCC "independents", the WCBC "independents", the Ruckmanite "independents", the BJU "independents", the....

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Papabear,
Would you say then that people who believe enough in what they see as the clear teaching of scripture enough to fight for it are arrogant?  Would it not be equally true that the old guard baptist that seek to silence any questions that smack of Calvinism with insults, one-liners and hollow straw men arguments are arrogant?
It seems that if a bible preacher agrees with you enough to be militant about it - they are earnestly contending for the faith but if they disagree with you and are bold about it - they are arrogant. 
Again, I'm neither Calvinist nor southern baptist.  I can't stand John Piper (I find his work and preaching incomprehensible) but I know enough Calvinists to know that attributing arrogance to them wholesale is an unfair and uncharitable accusation. 

 

[FSSL]

The Necessity of Conversion
We affirm that salvation involves the conversion of the sinner, whereby the sinner consciously clings to Christ by faith, repents of sin, believes the promises of the Gospel, and publicly professes faith in Christ. We affirm the necessity of conversion and the truth that conversion involves the will of the believer as well as the will of God.

We deny that salvation comes to anyone who has not experienced conversion. We also deny that salvation comes to any sinner who does not will to believe and receive Christ.

Do you think Piper and Mohler can agree to that statement?  Any thoughts about how these issues will resolve?

Why wouldn't they?
What is wrong with it?

Well admin... obviously PappaBear has stepped in it again. He is not able to give any reason why Piper and Mohler would not agree with the statement of conversion. In fact, I don't know a Calvinist who would disagree with this.

Strawmen... smoking mirrors...

 

[PappaBear]

Well admin... obviously PappaBear has stepped in it again. He is not able to give any reason why Piper and Mohler would not agree with the statement of conversion. In fact, I don't know a Calvinist who would disagree with this.

Strawmen... smoking mirrors...

Well, sir.  Once again, I see your inability to read and comprehend an article.  Which is probably the reason your SS lessons are only worth their price.

btw ... are you a baptist?  Ever study pedo-baptism as it is connected with Calvinism and covenantal salvation? Oh, that's right!  You're a Calvinut!  I'm sorry, running this kind of board I mistook you for a Baptist.  My mistake.

 

[PappaBear]

I take issue with the point that all Calvinism robs churches of evangelistic fervor.  Ever heard of the Metropolitan Tabernacle?  It's been hotly evangelistic and very Calvinist for over 100 years. 

Once upon a time I enjoyed reading at least one sermon in my New Park Street / Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 63 volume set most every day.  I am familiar with the place.  Also, I have read Spurgeon v. The Hyper-Calvinists by Calvinist author Iain Murray.  Ever hear of it?  You should read it.  It reveals a lot about Spurgeon and his Calvinist concerns.

I have also read a good bit about the Metro Tabernacle's history.  I especially remember posts by Phil Johnson on the original FFF describing his visit there, and how it is run down.  He had hopes back then that it would rebound under Masters.  Do you know the current attendance that its "hotly evangelistic" zeal has brought?  It reminds me of a visit I paid to Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga, TN around 1994 after David Bouler had "reformed" it.  Sad, because I knew it well under Dr. Lee Roberson.  It was a very sad experience, indeed.

My extended family is congregational and orthodox Presbyterian. 

And one of my family's dearest friends is a lady elder in a Presbyterian Church.  Family ties nor friendship makes one correct.

 

[PappaBear]

Papabear,
Would you say then that people who believe enough in what they see as the clear teaching of scripture enough to fight for it are arrogant? 

No, but I would say that those who only see their own fleshly doctrines without the life giving Spirit, and oppose all things spiritual, are arrogant.

Would it not be equally true that the old guard baptist that seek to silence any questions that smack of Calvinism with insults, one-liners and hollow straw men arguments are arrogant?

I would say that it is untrue that the old guard Baptists did that.  Understand, The Real Baptist isn't really that old, and certainly not a guard.  Such as you describe is not representative of the whole nor majority of Baptists, "old guard" or otherwise.

It seems that if a bible preacher agrees with you enough to be militant about it - they are earnestly contending for the faith but if they disagree with you and are bold about it - they are arrogant. 

Depends more on the source of their boldness.  Arrogance is an attitude.  Those who produce no scriptural justification for their militancy, but display loads of "attitude" are arrogant.  Our attitude should instead be that of patience and meekness (2Tim 2:24-26).  That is not an attitude of surrender to the ungodly, but one that stands your scriptural ground in hopes of seeing repentance from those snared by Satan.

Again, I'm neither Calvinist nor southern baptist.  I can't stand John Piper (I find his work and preaching incomprehensible) but I know enough Calvinists to know that attributing arrogance to them wholesale is an unfair and uncharitable accusation.

Wait until you have won a soul or two to Christ and some Calvinist "evangelist" visits them to get them to leave your church where they were saved, baptized and discipled to go to their assembly and learn the greater "doctrines of grace."  I have seen enough of Calvinism on these boards and in person to know that the source of most of the anti-Bible argumentation and antinomianism that is surging up today comes from that rotten, devilish doctrine.  Keep dabbling with it, and given enough time, you too will be popping back a few cold ones and boasting your superiority.

 

[PappaBear]

PappaBear has never read The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Nor has he even read the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

Unless you are a free will Baptist, anyone who claims to be a Baptist and is against a Calvinistic Soteriology is an ill-informed Baptist when it comes to their historical roots.

I have a complete set of lessons you can afford.

I am Baptist in theology and upbringing, but do not demand the name to be used for our church participation.

Tell us why Mohler and Piper would not agree to the statement above. You raised the question... we are waiting for an answer.

Really?  I've never read them, eh?  You know so very much.  How arrogant and superior of you.  Normal for a Calvinist.

Do you think that Piper or Mohler or Johnson would consider such as ...oh, I don't know ... let's say it was your best buddy, Ransom ... would they call them "saved" if they had never had a conversion experience and had posted it on the internet at one time?  Revealing that they trusted in their family ties, had no memory of a time where they had ever "come to faith in Christ" and had "always thought of myself as a Christian"?

Or would they throw caution to the wind and in order to defend a Calvinist warrior such as he, bend every rule to put him dead center within the gates of glory like Dr. Bob, Justy, and Cassidy did, and you are now doing?  Which is more important to you, Bible doctrine of the historical Baptists, or the Calvinist wolf pack?

 

[FSSL]

Really?  I've never read them, eh?  You know so very much.  How arrogant and superior of you.  Normal for a Calvinist.

Well... when you said I could not be a Baptist because I was a "Calvinut," I thought it FAR BETTER to suggest that you were IGNORANT of the historical roots of Baptists instead of LYING about them. So... I guess we had better be careful when you start talking about Baptist theology and history because you are intentionally skewing the subjects.

Here is a good start for you to get informed: http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/historical-theology/baptist-history/

Do you think that Piper or Mohler or Johnson would consider such as ...

That was a non-answer.

 

[PappaBear]

Well... when you said I could not be a Baptist because I was a "Calvinut," I thought it FAR BETTER to suggest that you were IGNORANT of the historical roots of Baptists instead of LYING about them.

Oh?  Which is first, the General Baptists, or the Particular Baptists.  Here is another question:  Is infant baptism a problem for Baptists, or for Calvinists?

Oh, and another thing.  Are you aware of what 2 counts Michael Servetus was condemned to burn for by Calvin's court?

That was a non-answer.

You seem adept at giving those.  I already knew you would support the Calvinist cabal over Bible doctrine, anyway.  Any Baptist title you would lay claim to is only for convenience.  The worship of calvi-baal demands your greater loyalty.

 

[FSSL]

Oh?  Which is first, the General Baptists, or the Particular Baptists.

I probably made too much of an assumption... Since the doctrine of Particular Baptists is anathema to you, you must count yourself as coming from the General Baptists.

Do you deny eternal security?

Is infant baptism a problem for Baptists, or for Calvinists?

The fallacy of false dilemma. You enjoy your fallacies, don't you!

Oh, and another thing.  Are you aware of what 2 counts Michael Servetus was condemned to burn for by Calvin's court?

Being that we are discussing what makes up a Baptist, what in the world does Michael Servetus have to do with this?

You seem adept at giving those.  I already knew you would support the Calvinist cabal over Bible doctrine, anyway.  Any Baptist title you would lay claim to is only for convenience.  The worship of calvi-baal demands your greater loyalty.

Then praytell... what so-called "Calvinist-cabal" do I believe in that is not found in the Bible? Eternal security?

BTW: You still have not told us what differences Mohler and Piper would have regarding that confession.

 

[rsc2a]

I find it strange* how much PappaBear can preach about how True Christiansâ„¢ are gracious, humble and not at all arrogant, then turn around and act like his hero, Ruckman, would towards anyone that disagrees with him.


* Not really.

 

[FSSL]

I find it strange* how much PappaBear can preach about how True Christiansâ„¢ are gracious, humble and not at all arrogant, then turn around and act like his hero, Ruckman, would towards anyone that disagrees with him.

* Not really.

It is getting quite nauseating... but I will remain steadfast!

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Papabear,
In our past interactions I've generally admired you and usually agreed with you.  But you are showing a different side of yourself here.  It's amazing to me that you can call everyone names, denounce vast groups of people and go after anyone who disagrees with you and not see that it is you that is being arrogant. You come across as one who thinks he alone hasn't bowed the knee to Baal.  I feel sorry for you in that regard.

Your tone so far completely disregards 2 Timothy 2:24-25:
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

You are intellectually superior to Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, Carey and John Bunyan.  They were arrogant men who didn't care for souls and held to such an obviously unbiblical doctrine.  Mohler, Dever and Platt are heretics all, secretly trying to reintroduce covenantal soteriology into the SBC.  But you're good.  You are so much more spiritual and see thing so much more clearly than these mere mortals. 

Please forgive the sarcasm.  If your trying to win a battle - good luck.  If you're trying to convert me to you're point of view.  Take a different tact.

 

[PappaBear]

Bro. Hayden, nice post.  Back at ya, but substitute Finney, Wesley, Sam Jones, and Billy Sunday.

Think reasonably a moment.  You seem to have been bitten hard by the Calvinist bug on these types of forums.  Test it.  Can you name a non-Cal that you would promote or admire as much as the Cals you named?

Now, is there a single Calvinist you can think of that would be, in your estimation, a lost man?  Is salvation a result of mental assent to theological doctrine or the spiritual working of God in the heart?  For if it is merely head doctrine, then perhaps Calvinist theology is the right way to go and it should be unsurprising that you could think of no lost Calvinists.  On the other hand, if it is a matter of the heart, then such theology that mostly divorces the Spirit and the heart from all things, historically has been passed down by the enemies of Christ (unless you think that Catholic Fathers such as Augustine, the true father of "Calvinist Theology" and John Calvin who hated Baptists and burned Servetus for his views against Infant Baptism are godly friends of Christianity), and attacks the very foundation of our faith, the Bible, should be avoided.  Not promoted as the single lone test of orthodoxy.

No need to post on the forum.  Struggle with your answers to yourself.

You may think of me as violating the principles of 2Tim 2:24, 25, but I do not think so.  Everything has balance.  Another associate of Paul was Titus.  Calvinists on these boards are historically "unruly and vain talkers" and "decievers."  As Paul told Titus in chapter 1:7-13, their mouths must be stopped, and these "liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies" need to be rebuked sharply.

Thank you for the kind words, sorry for your disappointment.  But Elijah's mocking of the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel did not set well with some, either. 

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Can you name a non-Cal that you would promote or admire as much as the Cals you named?

Yes - easily.  Jonathan Wesley, A.w. Tozer, G. Campbell Morgan, F.B. Meyer, Leonard Ravenhill or if you are looking for living preachers Clarence Sexton, Paul Chappell, John Wilkerson, R. B. Oullette, Sam Davidson etc.

Now, is there a single Calvinist you can think of that would be, in your estimation, a lost man?

Sure, I know several.  None of them are famous preachers, but then again, I'd be hard pressed to list more than two or three more famous living Calvinists than I mentioned. 

The prophets of Baal were performing orgy worship and child sacrifice for idols, the Cretans were pagan Gentiles  - they were not bible loving evangelicals or fundamentalists.

There is a difference between preaching against Calvinism (which I do) and preaching against Calvinists.

 

[PappaBear]

What?  No kind words for Finney or Sam Jones?