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 ...
| 30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ 32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.” 35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. |
And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12 look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
I guess expecting you to read a post, is expecting too much.
Then, answer this, ...
Was the thief who died with Christ on Good Friday saved?
And when was his “proper baptism”?
So, you’ll only do the right thing if others do the right thing. You refuse to do the right thing because others refuse to do the right thing. You will practice vice until others practice virtue.
Do I have that right?
No, I am not “incorrect.”
Paul uses the term “bread” to describe what people eat during Communion: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Now, do you really believe that consuming literal flesh (which Jesus pronounced as being “of no value”) is more important than participating in the real (and Spiritual) body of Christ? You settle for of-no-value flesh, when you could taste and see that the Lord (who is Spirit) is good? You don’t want MORE than mere of-no-value flesh?
I do. I want to participate in the body of Christ, to be clothed in Christ, to have Christ dwell within me. No, not in bloody fleshly terms (yuck!), but in glorious and Spiritual reality.
Cronos, um, that SEEMS a bit disingenuous. You say that “Jesus doesn’t clear up the Metaphor,” and then you quote verses 60 and 66, but skip the verses where Jesus ... CLEARS UP THE METAPHOR:
“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.”
But those words of Jesus disprove your doctrine, that the most valuable thing in life is the flesh (of Jesus). And so you skip right over it.
Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
Sincerely, do you not hunger for something more than mere flesh? Don’t you hunger for the Spirit of Christ?
Scripture says you are incorrect on that matter.
the majority of Christians believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist -- and that includes Protestants (Lutherans etc) as well as orthodoxy (Catholics, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians). And that's what the majority have always believed, so this belief of yours is an innovation dating back only a few centuries and is thoroughly unscriptural.
And that's the same thing you have done over the past few days with your personal attacks, right?
Do you see how immature that comes across? You refuse to do the right thing ... until everyone else in the world does the right thing? Is that a Roman Catholic doctrine/policy?
you have just resorted to all the things that you accuse me of -- namely
Ths Pot calling the kettle black...
If you sincerely want to change things, why not look at yourself in the mirror? Take the plank out of your eye before commenting on the mote in ours.
I apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you wanted improved communication. It’s clear that you do not; it’s easier for you to simply point out the perceived failings of others than to acknowledge and address your own.
Good day.
OK. Let me present a hypothetical.
On one hand, you have your church leadership and tradition saying one thing. Their scholarly position, in fact, is the standard one, accepted by most people around you.
On the other hand, you have the Word of God saying something else. A few people accept this position.
Which do you believe? The church leadership and tradition, or the Word of God?
Have you had a chance to consider the question I posed in the comment above this one?
Calvinism believes in full determinism. Arminianism does not. It believes in a partial determinism.
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.