The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals ^ | R. C. Sproul

[George W. Bush]

Let's parse this, then, and make a rule out of it. He granted his permission for the prodigal son to make his own choices. hmmmmmmmmm........sounds suspiciously like FREE WILL.

You pre-suppose that the Prodigal Son and his father were actually people whose salvation was in question.

It's a parable. Not a biography. You try to remove it very far from its historical and cultural context.

[harbingr]

'The issue, among modern Baptists, is quite divisive and very few individual churches use complete doctinral Arminianism or Calvinism as a formal litmus for preaching or membership.'

(Maybe you need a pope & a catechism...)

[xzins]

Hey, GW, check this out:

http://www.graftongop.org/images/kerryfonda.jpg

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

'bout a nine on the ol' tension scale there, rube.

First, the name ISN'T "rube". Second, about a two on the Curtesy Scale, eh Poindexter? So much for the "New Tone", guess that's why this thread is in the SBR. Third, what posesses you to think so? i haven't done much posting at all as of late.

[George W. Bush]

Been there, seen that. Even if it is Kerry, it doesn't prove the real case against Kerry.

I think making accusation against Kerry on the grounds of just this photo is a battle the libmedia welcomes. They wish to deflect from his real and far more damaging factual record.

[George W. Bush]

(Maybe you need a pope & a catechism...)

Maybe you need a Gospel of grace, not of works.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

No inability at all, just unwillingness to engage further in the Calvinistic endless cycle of twist, spinn, misinterpret, flame, and insult. I have seldom if ever met a Calvinist who was not most contentious, lacking even the most simple graces of civility let alone spiritual consciousness.

Which of course begs the question of why your continued presense and participation in this thread, since you have just admitted "unwillingness to engage". Would it be perhaps to "twist, spinn [sic], misinterpret, flame, and insult"?

I have no desire to engage in an endless debate that profits nothing but the captivity of a process that misinterprets and misapplies scripture to their eternal hurt.

An assertion which you have yet to demonstrate the verasity of. Do you have any response to POINT?

We're still waiting on you to provide substantive respones to OrthodoxPresbyterian's arguments on John 1:12-13, and i still await your explanation of Acts 13:48.

[Vernon]

I gave you the answer, and if you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.

[xzins]

It's a symbol of his real record.

He's a world socialist and has been for some time....a communist sympathizer or a communist.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

There was no answer, only undocummented assertion. You have made the assertion that Acts 13:48 is somehow misconstrued by Calvinists (and apparently by every translation of the New Testament), perhaps you should present your case and put the bluster and B/S on hold for a time. perhaps you may not have noticed, but we do require evidence for assertions.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

You keep bleating this as though it has some meaning.

Hey I can bleat with the best of you guys. :)

Do you think there is actually such a thing as a Baptist denomination?

No, what I'm saying is that 99.9% of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches reject Calvinism. The few that accept don't negate the other 99.9%. And you can take the 99.9% as meaning the majority.

I would say that what is more universally rejected is a dogmatic approach of extremism on either side. Whether they call themselves Calvinist or Arminian or, more commonly, wiggle away from both terms, I would say clergymen tend to get a foot in both camps when it comes to their preaching.

The no guts preacher syndrome, go along to get along instead of standing up against false teaching.

BigMack

[Vernon]

Just facts, and if you choose to ignore them, that is your problem. Keep up the condescension and insults if it makes you feel better, but frankly, it is pathetic and sad. I am not interested in your vitriol and innuendo.

[Frumanchu]

I gave you the answer, and if you choose to ignore it, that is your problem.

Your post 275:

Well, take a look at it. The fact is that this verse has been tragically twisted. The actual word used here for "ordained" includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. Even if it did, which it does not, it is an incredible extension to even suggest that they persevered to the end.

My post 280:

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. -Acts 13:48 (NKJV)

Seems to me that the verb believed refers back to the relative clause as many as had been appointed to eternal life. It doesn't say "and as many as believed were appointed unto eternal life." Their appointment to eternal life preceded their belief, and moreover their belief manifest a prior distinction between them and the other Gentiles who did not believe. They (those who were appointed to eternal life) believed. The others (those who were not appointed to eternal life) did not. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, in English anyway.

Your answer was not ignored, it was directly addressed. You've given no evidence to support your assertion that the verse has been "tragically twisted." I gave you the plain grammatical meaning.

You've given no evidence to support your assertion that the word used includes no idea of pre-ordination or pre-destination of any kind. Again, I showed from the verse that the relationship between being ordained unto eternal life and belief has being ordained PRECEDING belief, which directly challenges the assertion that there is "no idea of pre-ordination."

You made the assertion that it is an "incredible extension" to assume that those people persevered. As has been pointed out, if ordination was unto eternal life, but those people didn't gain eternal life, then it wasn't really unto eternal life was it?

And now I've put forth evidence against yet another of your assertions: that we "choose to ignore" your answers.

Will you offer any further support of your assertions or substantive refutation of my examinations?

[Vernon]

Noted and ignored.

[George W. Bush]

No, what I'm saying is that 99.9% of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches reject Calvinism. The few that accept don't negate the other 99.9%. And you can take the 99.9% as meaning the majority.

But there is no great proof for your assertion.

Examine these pages, for instance, and show me where they condemn the doctrines of grace (Calvinism). Show me where they condemn Spurgeon and Gill, 'Calvinist' Baptists through and through.

What is an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church

WHAT IS AN INDEPENDENT FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST CHURCH?

The first one is a pretty sound historical survey of IFBC's, I think.

It seems to me that you are attempting to muster the (minor) influence of the IFBC's to support your position whereas they do not actually make a great issue of it. Not quite the position you claim for them.

You and David Cloud make far more of the issue than other IFBC's do.

I would suggest, as a matter of doctrine, that IFBC's are far more determined to battle ecumenicalism and New Evangelicalism (Billy Graham, Promise Keepers, etc.) and to uphold biblical inerrancy and proper bibles and study materials than they are concerned over the extent of Calvinist belief among their flocks.

BTW, don't think I'm dissing David Cloud. He has a really wonderful website which I've used many times. And I'm certainly not the only Calvinist to benefit from Cloud's work and to use his efforts to further our own research. His focus on Waldensian history is quite apt and a valuable online resource. Even to those Presbyterian folk.

Brother Cloud has the following to say (among other web pages) on the issue of Calvinism among Baptists:

The Calvinism Debate, Who Is The Enemy? Quicktime embedded in webpage
direct Quicktime movie link, (download to local hard drive or open in Quicktime player).

Really, go listen to it. You'll enjoy it. Notice how he opens by pointing out how all the early Baptist histories were written by Calvinist Baptists. He accuses them of hiding the true history of Baptist churches and that Calvinism virtually killed Baptist churches entirely. Go listen, you'll like Brother Cloud's preaching. David Cloud overstates Calvinism and misreads his history and he further confuses hyper-Calvinism for historic evangelical Calvinism among Baptists like that of Spurgeon and Gill. You'll like the part where he recommends that you might as well blow your brains out if you're not Elect. Brother Cloud, to his credit among Arminians, can actually recite the TULIP accurately. ; )

BTW, I subscribe entirely to the tenets of the independent fundamental Baptist churches. But I tend to favor SBC as a practical matter. The differences should be examined but do not have quite as much merit as some IFBC's would claim.

The no guts preacher syndrome, go along to get along instead of standing up against false teaching.

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.

[Frumanchu]

Noted and ignored.

Your prerogative, but note that you have revealed yourself as a hypocrite by chiding us for "ignoring" your comments (itself a false witness) while at the same time explicitly stating your willfull ignorance of ours.

[Alamo-Girl]

Beautiful commentary! Thanks for the ping!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

But there is no great proof for your assertion.

LOL you guys kill me, Calvinists that have crept in unaware or welcomed in IFBC's are RARE!

BTW, I subscribe entirely to the tenets of the independent fundamental Baptist churches.

If only you could get those poor dumb folks to accept the 5 points.

But I tend to favor SBC as a practical matter.

Of course thats where Calvinism is let in the door, and it is NOT in the majority of IFBC's

You and your buddy's really want to infiltrate the IFBC's it ain't gonna happen, you better off to stick with the SBC, they are already well on their way to being full blown apostate.

BigMack

[Vernon]

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."