Comments on: Together for the Church

By: Hyper-Calvinism, Anti-Calvinism, and Founders Ministries « Provocations & Pantings

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:49:47 +0000

[...] other words, if you can’t beat it, try to control it and marginalize it. This was seen in the denominational talking point of the pastor search committee and Calvinists putting all their cards on the table. Calvinists [...]

By: Interview with Collin Hansen, Part Three « Provocations & Pantings

Interview with Collin Hansen, Part Three « Provocations & Pantings — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:05:46 +0000

[...] Posts: * Together for the Church * Building Bridges Conference (audio) * Evangelism, Calvinism, and the SBC * Mark Dever on the [...]

By: 2007 Year in Review Analysis and Compilation « Provocations & Pantings

2007 Year in Review Analysis and Compilation « Provocations & Pantings — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 06:38:29 +0000

[...] Impermanence 4. Are We Creating a Reformed Celebrity Culture? 3. Puritans, We Greet Thee in 2008 2. Together for the Church 1. Go and Sin Some More: A Meditation on the Life and Death of Anna Nicole [...]

By: My Dad’s Advice « Almanac of Captivity

My Dad’s Advice « Almanac of Captivity — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:26:05 +0000

[...] This goes against many SBC higher-ups’ recommendation. (See this post). [...]

By: Timmy Brister

Timmy Brister — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:29:05 +0000

jk,

Again, it appears you an agenda you want to promote, viz. baptismal regeneration. Such agendas are good reasons why you might want to start your own blog rather than giving us a lengthy and irrelevant comment. Please reconsider your posting rationale on other people’s blogs out of respect for the administration and for the integrity of the conversation. Thanks.

By: jk

jk — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 19:26:44 +0000

You cannot find one clear Scripture to support the foundation of Calvinism, which is Augustine’s Manichean doctrine of inherited guilt. Romans 5 is assumed by Augustine to say that infants sin because infants die, since Paul says “all die for all have sinned” but here Paul is not speaking of physical death, but spiritual, and is saying that all who die spiritually die so because of personal sin. Paul says in Roman 7:9 “I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life, and I died” showing that he was born spiritually alive and died after he personally sinned, “for sin taking the occasion provided by the law deceived me, and thereby slew me.” Ezekiel 18 says “the soul that sins will die, the son will not bear the guilt of the father nor the father of the son” which sets forth a clear and solid rule against any doctrine of inherited guilt. Psalm 51:5 clearly says “in sin my mother conceived me” clearly placing the sin on the mother, not the son. The objection that David’s mother was no adulteress is frivolous, being unprovable. That David was the youngest son would seem to preclude her getting pregnant out of wedlock and her and Jesse being forced to marry, until you take into account polygamy being acceptable at the time, and that although already married and having many sons by many wives, he may have committed fornication with David’s mother late in life. Or indeed she may have committed sin in conceiving David by breaking some vow, as she may have vowed a vow of temporary celibacy and yet broke it when David was being conceived. But by all mean, the Psalm says “in sin my mother conceived me” and not “I was guilty of sin from conception” and to reverse the meaning of the Psalm is inexcusable. This doctrine then is nowhere found in Scripture, and that this false doctrine of inherited guilt began with Augustine and not with any other “father” is quite clear from the fact that Tertullian calls infancy “the innocent period of life” and rejects infant baptism and Chrysostom in his homily on John 9 points out the folly of the disciples in thinking a man could sin before birth, quoting Ezekiel 18 and explaining the visiting of iniquity in the law as being the result of following the idolatrous example of parents. But by beginning on this principle that man is born guilty, Calvinism posits that man is totally disabled, and then that regeneration must precede faith. Jesus, however, discussing regeneration with an unregenerate man blames the man not the Holy Ghost for his unregneracy. I mean, that he blames Nicodemus, not God. And he says that a man must be born again “of water and of the Spirit” pointing to Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, where Peter promises that when a believer repents of their sins and is baptized into Christ in order to receive the remission of their sins, not only do they receive this, but also the gift of the Holy Spirit. The apostles view baptism as the “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5) and as the place in which the Holy Spirit cuts off sins (Col 2:11-12). But Calvinism view baptism as a mere symbol of a prior regeneration. Now, even the non-Calvinists of the SBC are Calvinistic in their view of baptism to this extent, although they are ignorant of this fact, for they will fight Acts 2:38-39 till blue in the face. Essentially, they beleive in the Calvinistic system, but simply ignore saying so.

By: Scott Morgan

Scott Morgan — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:23:04 +0000

Timmy,

Always enjoy your post. I have two great concerns among our convention:

1. The non calvinist with their theology and the need to recover the gospel/ tru Baptist Distinctives.

2. The Calvinist in the SBC(Your age and mine 36yrs old) that they are becoming more ecumenical because of the five points. You know I’m a calvinist but I’m meeting more and more guys that openly embrace Padeobaptist views. I don’t want to debate this anymore publicly but I would be happy to email people one on one. We have some huge differences with Sproul, Duncan, and the others. The differences are like dominos: Infant Baptism leads to many errors( Unregenerate church membership, Lord’s Supper, Calling of men to the ministry and etc…). I have at least 30 books in my office just on this subject from the early Southern Baptist and I’m finding many Calvinst(SBC young and old) that don’t want to go here because I believe if they admit things it will turn their world upside down. BTW, How Bout My Auburn Tigers( Were on our way back).

By: Timmy Brister

Timmy Brister — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:17:11 +0000

Billy,

I would be happy to address that argument, but be that as it may, it would be tangential to this post. I hope to give it further treatment in a future article. In the meantime, you might want to check out one that I wrote about this time last year where I addressed it briefly. Here it is:

http://timmybrister.com/2006/10/16/a-question-for-my-arminian-friends/

By: Billy

Billy — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:47:04 +0000

Tim,

Thank you for your comments. I most appreciate your humble attitude on this matter. You said, “I would make the caution, however, that consistent Arminianism should not be allowed, for it is plain to see that it is essentially Open Theism.” If you have some time on your hands, could you delve a little deeper on what you mean by this statement? If not, I understand–I too am a busy boy. But do you think that an Arminian is being inconsistent by not embracing the false teaching of Open Theism?

Thank you,

Billy

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:01:12 +0000

JohnMark said:

…congregations then they aren’t really qualified to choose a pastor.

I would like to spin this a different way — social clubs aren’t qualified to elect pastors, they elect presidents. What actually are named churches in the SBC do not really measure up to Biblically derived standards. Our so-called church system is bankrupt, theologically and often morally, and to play into that system is to feed a system that sucks the life out of the new “pastors” and drives them away from real ministry. If an ‘ism is going to divide and destroy a church then I honestly ask if that church is actually a church or — a social club.