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 ...
Your statement is false — non-hyper-Calvinists do not teach that one is predestined to go to hell.
What about when the shoe is on the other foot? When non-Catholics damn Catholics? If one wishes to play the white knight, isn't it hypocritical?
as I said, the problem may be that the hyper-Calvinists are the most vocal — or even “were”. Unfortunately that means the information we received 2008-2010 made us (at least me) believe that all were of that bent of mind — indeed I was told that was so and to be otherwise was not to be Calvinist.
Not exactly which information you refer to, but Reformed Theology has been around for a long time and the best way to get educated is probably not only on an internet forum, but by researching history (as I find to be true with most things).
I’m referring to freerepublic posts in the period 2008-2010. after reading, however, I do still disagree with the hyper-Calvinist double-predestination viewpoint.
As do many who subscribe to the Reformed tradition.
Not an easy topic (Calvinism), to be sure. But one which one cannot avoid if one is a true student of the Scriptures.
Roman Catholics on FR frequently damn non-Roman Catholics SIMPLY because they don’t share their denomination’s particular doctrines, or SIMPLY because they’re not members of your denomination.
Non-Roman Catholics, by and large, focus on particular Roman Catholic doctrines and convictions, such as transubstantiation, the perpetual virginity of Jesus’ mother, the Apocrypha, Mary as Co-Mediatrix, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, praying to Mary, the Roman Catholic denomination as the only legitimate Church, the Papacy, repeating the lie that there are 33,000+ disparate Protestant denominations, and so on.
Roman Catholics tend to reject others simply because they’re not members of their holier-than-thou denomination. “Protestants” tend to reject doctrines that are unsupported by Scripture.
Roman Catholics seem to relish and foster division, while saying that they condemn it. They seem to gain their identity in their denomination, and how they are so unlike the schismatic “Protestants”; Sso-called “Protestants” tend to gain their identity directly from Christ, and from Scripture, bypassing the clutter of Roman Catholic bureaucracy.
Yes, there are vigorous arguments between Roman Catholics and mere Christ-followers. But the motivations of each seem quite different from each other.
Roman Catholics tend to ridicule non-Roman Catholics, simply because they’re not members of their denomination.
Non-Roman Catholics tend to ridicule Roman Catholic DOCTRINE, because some of it is clearly unsupported by Scripture.
Narses has a few “comments” in his pocket, and regularly copy-pastes them in response to non-Roman Catholics.
These comments are directed to the commenter, personally. They speak of the motives and character of the commenter, personally.
One is an image that communicates that the commenter is a hypocrite, that they are a pot calling a kettle black. That is, by definition, a personal attack against the character of the commenter. This does not further the conversation, but facilitates a degradation of the conversation by impugning the character of the commenter.
Another that he uses regularly is an image with the words “one trick pony.” That is not an engagement of ideas, but a personal insult, impugning the character of the person commenting. It does not further the conversation, but personally ridicules the commenter.
I’m all in favor of a robust conversation. But if I’m going to be asked to restrain the personal insults, then Roman Catholics like Narses and Cronos and others much be restrained from personally insulting those with whom they disagree.
In fact it has calmed down considerably since Easter this year, but last year the entire "Caflixs are going to hell" was on fire -- where were your objections at that time?
And we consider John 6 scriptural -- so why don't you believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist -- to deny this is to deny scripture in our (Catholic, Orthodox AND Lutheran/Anglican) point of view
“and mere ..” — there, your post has said Catholics are not Christian, damning us for being Catholic. Isn’t it hypocritical for the post to say that and the same post accuses us of the same?
For us and the Orthodox and the Lutherans and Anglicans we consider the Eucharist to be the body of Christ, very holy and we have folks you have "supported" on this thread call the Body of Christ any number of names -- and none of those who are busy clamoring about personal attacks say anything
None of those busy clamoring about personal attacks said a word last year when those were tossed pretty much at us -- only when the tide is turned do we see the whines -- isn't that hypocritical?
* you have Bible Believers on one side while you have ___ on the other
* I can't see a born again, bible reading, bible believing Christian continuing to be a Mormon, or a ____ or a muzlim when the bible teaches AGAINST these religions..
your religion of Constantine.<
I object to non-Catholic Trinitarian philosophy compared to Mormonism, yet on the second point there was not a peep from you or any of the other "knights" -- isn't that hypocritical?
Oh, here’s another one —> “If Catholics are Christians, Mormons are just as Christian” ==> where were your comments about ridicule then? Sheesh
Of course John 6 is Scriptural. Jesus explained to His disciples that He wasn’t speaking of physically consuming flesh:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
That is Scriptural. To believe that during the Eucharist bread magically turns into the literal flesh of Christ is, to use Jesus’ words, “no help at all.”
No, I’m saying that your Christianity is wrapped up in being Roman Catholic. For many of us, our Christianity is wrapped up in being Christ-followers.
We are not Roman Catholic Christians; we are mere Christians.
And that is sufficient.
And not a peep from such "knights" as we see here on this thread -- and they wonder why the animosity now?
There you are wrong, Theo — our christianity is wrapped up in us obeying Christ’s message, completely. And we take it very personally that Christ told about the Eucharist etc.
“”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?
“Your statement is false — non-hyper-Calvinists do not teach that one is predestined to go to hell.”
Where did I say anything about Calvinists? Leave out the part where you posted about predenstination Calvinism then.
I asked is this what Catholics teach??
I ask again, ”I’m saved, you are not. You are going to hell...” What part of that do you deny as a Catholic?
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.