Posted on 04/19/2003 7:55:27 AM PDT by Between the Lines
One cannot help noticing the interest in Calvinism lately expressed among some Baptists has prompted from others a cry of alarm. One group tends to represent the Baptist heritage as passively shaped by Calvinism, and the other wishes to deny the Calvinist (or Reformed) influence completely. The truth is somewhere in-between.
The concern for eliminating the Calvinist influence among Baptists is misguided.
Every body of believers needs to be in touch with the best of its theological tradition. For Baptists, that tradition is Reformed, or Calvinist, thought. Those who wish to look into this view need only discover for themselves the evident Calvinism of the Particular Baptist London Confession of 1644 and the even more pointedly Calvinist nature of the Second London Confession of 1677. These statements, along with the Savoy Confession and the Westmins ter Confession, evidently came from a co mmon stock of doctrinal expression. The words of the 1644 Confession and its successors are suggestive of Calvin's "Institutes" and not at all of, for instance, the early Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession. This is true not only in the ordinary sense of common vocabulary and system, but also in regard to the tone and the habitual focus. Again, one can point to the undisguised Reformed theology of John Gill, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, Isaac Backus, Richard Furman, Basil Manly Sr., James Petigrew Boyce and quite a number of others who were powerfully instrumental in the doctrinal expression of Baptists through the middle part of the twentieth century.
All this has been vigorously preached by the defenders of Calvinist theology, only they have sometimes taken an additional, and unwarranted, step further. They often assume that this put Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) right in line with the most extreme expressions of Calvinism. They assume that Baptists must be advocates of the Canons of Dort, the famous five-point Calvinism that was formulated some half- century after John Calvin himself was dead. Or they align Baptists with the hard-edged Calvinism of early New England Puritan thought. In fact, the Reformed thought that most influenced Baptists, especially in the South, was one that had been softened and moderated by Scottish Common Sense philosophy and by the Baptists' own insistence upon the competence of believers to respond in faith to the gospel.
Interestingly enough, along with this Calvinism moderated by Scottish Presbyterians and Baptists of the American South came a real openness to the strongest and best of Christian thinkers from other traditions. The great Broadus, who set the standard for intelligent and heart-felt preaching among Baptists, remembered with gratitude that the advanced students of Boyce, the founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, read from Turrettini (a moderate Reformed thinker) and Thomas Aquinas. E.Y. Mullins, Southern Seminary's president for the first quarter of the 20th century, could adapt Schleiermacher's insights to a basically Reformed worldview.
Some worry about an "aggressive Calvinism" on college campuses. I worry more about a fundamental resistance to any vigorous kind of theological thinking. For the life of me, I cannot see that college campuses are about to be overrun by Calvinists--aggressive or otherwise. If there is genuine theological study going on, which in fact there is, then it is a matter for which we might be grateful. I am concerned about aggressive relativism in ethics and religion; I am concerned about aggressive nihilism in the moral life of college students; I am concerned about aggressive addictions and aggressive sexually transmitted diseases; I am concerned about aggressive indifference in the formation of the intellect among students.
But aggressive Calvinism? I haven't seen that yet. And I do find, however, among our best students an appreciation for the ordered, energetic, biblical teachings of John Calvin and some of his followers. To reject this rich tradition by pretending it has nothing to do with Baptist history would be wasteful and wrongheaded. To confuse the distinctive Baptist form of this tradition with its most radical historical expressions is to miss the Baptist genius that reshaped Calvinism in a way that proved fruitful for the aspiring denomination of Baptist Christians in America.
Laissez faire theology, which forgets its debt to thinkers of the past, may do for a period of time. In fact, that has mostly been the state of things since World War II, after which careful theological teaching was submerged in denominational boosterism and a cult of personality, with results that we have sadly lived with these past two decades. The atheological approach to church life leaves us narrow-minded and unimaginative, merely reciting the prejudices we have gathered like lint over the past 50 years; while a well- wrought theological tradition keeps us alive to conversation partners from every Christian generation, providing a foundation of substance for our mission and our ministry. As P.T. Forsyth once wrote, "The non-theological Christ is popular; he wins votes; but he is not mighty; he does not win souls; he does not break men into small pieces and create them anew."
A.J. Conyers is professor of theology at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary in Waco
Are you trying to say that the Nicene Creed has been badly misunderstood all these centuries? Was all this unBiblical stuff about Three Persons in One Being/Substance in an effort to explain the Nicene Creed all so tragically unnecessary?
May the Lord open your eyes to the things He has said and done and caused to be written!
>> If, as Joseph Smith has said, the KJV IS reliable, then he should have been pointed to IT, to be revealed the TRUTH in IT, to understand God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit thru IT, and to then start an organization built on IT.
Since, as Joseph Smith has said, the Bible is the Word of God, which originally came by the inspiration of God, then he should have been pointed to God, to be revealed the TRUTH in God, to understand God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit by having the heavens opened to him, and to then be obedient to the commandments of God to restore His Church to the earth -- bring it out of the wilderness -- in its ancient plainness, purity, and simplicity, that is, with the "ideas" (your last paragraph) revealed by God to the ancients, which are indeed ancient ideas, but also new and everlasting.
The natural man posts again. His coarse language reveals his unregenerate ways. He has no cloak with which to hide them.
I exhort him to forsake all such language, repent of his sins, come unto Christ, and be born again!
The passage you chose (Revelation 10:1-2) is right along the lines I have been describing. Here is an angel coming down from heaven in ineffably great glory and brilliance, with head, face, hands, and feet, both right and left.
This is consistent with someone who lived with God before he was born, came to earth to obtain a physical body and have the learning experiences of mortality, laid that body down in death, received it again in the glorious resurrection, never to die again, and was then sent back by God as a ministering angel in power and glory.
>> So ... how is it that we have fallen from our angelic status ? I assummed that you were referring to the fall of Lucifer and his following. Was there some other fall of the angels ? Do you have any scripture (that we share in common) to support this position ?
Yes, I do.
Genesis 3:17-24Also this:
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 6:47-50
47 And as Enoch spake forth the words of God, the people trembled, and could not stand in his presence.
48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.
49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.
50 But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent.
You KNOW I'm not.
It's YOUR organization that has made the claim and it's YOUR organization that must state IT'S case that the 'creeds' are an abomination in GOD's eyes.
CAN they do it?
|
THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
SECTION 71
6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.
7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. 8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. 9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you "there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; 10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time. 11Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen. |
I'm no expert, but posting without the courtesy of a ping seems like natural man behavior....
The passage you chose (Revelation 10:1-2) is right along the lines I have been describing. Here is an angel coming down from heaven in ineffably great glory and brilliance, with head, face, hands, and feet, both right and left.
This is consistent with someone who lived with God before he was born, came to earth to obtain a physical body and have the learning experiences of mortality, laid that body down in death, received it again in the glorious resurrection, never to die again, and was then sent back by God as a ministering angel in power and glory.
Or ... the passage describes one created as an angel, ... a creation of God separate from that of mankind, ... yet having the capability to appear to men in human form, ... even though, in this case, ... not of human stature.Genesis 3:17-24Both of the paasages you cite clearly speak of the fall of man, rather than the fall of angels.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 6:47-50
47 And as Enoch spake forth the words of God, the people trembled, and could not stand in his presence.
48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.
49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.
50 But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent.
There is nothing in either passage which even suggests, in any way, that it also can be seen as an angelic fall.
Vulgar language is not appropriate from someone who professes to be a believer in Christ. See my #184.
>> And, you are a coward. Post directly to me when you speak of me you jerk.
Two more examples of natural-man behavior, in this case, name-calling. See my #184.
The poster needs some sensitivity training. There are people who suffer from muscle spasms over which they have little control. True followers of Christ do not indirectly attack people who have such difficulties by turning their condition into an attempted insult.
This is basic Sunday School stuff. If the poster has not yet mastered this, at his age, what has he learned?
The poster refuses to observe the Golden Rule, and will have to answer to Him who gave it.
On other message boards, posters do not have the ability to flag each other. There is something to be said for that. The emphasis there tends to be more on what is posted than on who posts to whom. That is why legislators are required to address the chair, rather than each other, during legislative debate.
Some posters here are hostile and full of false accusations (day and night), natural-man behavior, modern-day Pharisee behavior, wolves in sheep's clothing behavior, you get the idea.
Flagging them is counterproductive. Why should I have the appearance of inviting this hostility? I do flag them sometimes when they are in a better mood, but their hostility returns very quickly. (They seem to pay close attention to my every post whether I flag them or not.)
Maybe because you like to insult people while replying to "All".
The Creator of heaven and earth made the statement, and I offered my opinion on why He said it. When people stop using uninspired creeds to try to cut off faithful, Bible-believing Christians who do not accept them, I do not think any more will need to be said.
I would suggest that you manifest a healthy respect for your own fallibility before challenging any of the other things Jesus has said.
Yes, you have.
Therefore the organization should have on record was was so bad about these things.
It ain't brain surgery or rocket science or bashing to want/need an answer.
Thanks for your views on the subject.
>> Both of the paasages you cite clearly speak of the fall of man, rather than the fall of angels. There is nothing in either passage which even suggests, in any way, that it also can be seen as an angelic fall.
Both of the passages I cited clearly speak of the fall of Adam.
D&C 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
D&C 107:54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
D&C 128:21 And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!
When Jesus comes again, ask Him!
(Shouldn't be that long, the way things are going.)
Or, see James 1:5.
That's right, it's not, but I ask you: Why should LDS Church Headquarters have to "justify" something Jesus said?
Instead of thinking you get to assume that the LDS Scriptures are not the Word of God, and go from there, ask of God concerning them, for I bear witness, and the Holy Spirit bears witness, that they are the Word of God.
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.