If I were in the SBC, I’d find myself in the 40% as one who does not hold to Limited Atonement, yet in agreement with total depravity and unconditional election with a sublapsarian view of God’s decrees. So, the 5-pointers wouldn’t want me, but the Arminians would call me a Calvinist.
WilliamD, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Gospel Coalition, and the T4G, etc. wouldn’t want you. And the Methodists, Nazarenes, and Calvary Chapel would call you a Calvinist.
I’d like to get your take on where the paranoia about Calvinism comes from. Is it from the historical anti-missions stand in William Carey’s day where “Calvinist” ministers thought the heathen could be saved without sending missionaries, or is it more the “new Calvinism” that gets in people’s craw?
James, I think the landscape has evidenced more than disagreement. When those holding the doctrines of grace are vilified and named as heretics (by some, not all) we can safely say some are looking at Calvinists as dangerous to the body. Since this is an unfounded view, we can call it paranoia.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Whether you attribute it to fear, paranoia, or some other emotion, there is more here than friendly disagreement. The term “Calvinist” is definitely used as a pejorative term by many. I’d like to know more what is behind it.
I’d like to get your take on where the paranoia about Calvinism comes from. Is it from the historical anti-missions stand in William Carey’s day where “Calvinist” ministers thought the heathen could be saved without sending missionaries, or is it more the “new Calvinism” that gets in people’s craw?
Your comment represents a certain predisposed bias against those disagreeing with Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism and demonstrates one of the very objections being cited in expressed concerns. You assigned questionable motives to those objecting when you do not even understand their concerns since you asked what it is to which they ate objecting.
James, I think the landscape has evidenced more than disagreement. When those holding the doctrines of grace are vilified and named as heretics (by some, not all) we can safely say some are looking at Calvinists as dangerous to the body. Since this is an unfounded view, we can call it paranoia.
Chip, you and Steve must be rowing together in the same boat, your over-generalization does not serve anything good. It is amusing to read how “your side” holds to doctrines of grace and the other side has the villifiers? LOL. Look, all groups have those who overstate things and are not the most effective representatives of a view. Calvinist ans Neo-Calvinists have their share of nasty demonizers this posture leads no where.Secondly, you complain that some objections include descriptors such as dangerous, so? Are we now demanding objections only be parsed in favorable terms? Talk about predisposed bias.I would like to see a discussion about the concerns themselves if anyone making all the fuss about these concerned SBC Pastors even knows what they are.
Chip and Steve, would you deny that certain Calvinists want to see the SBC completely Calvinist? I have read the opposite. I have read Calvinists fear for the future of the SBC because it isn’t Calvinist. Maybe everyone is paranoid since your statements can be flipped against Calvinists.
Southern Seminary is no doubt kicking out more Calvinists than the others. Southeastern has a mix. Southwestern probably less. The SBC will always be a mixed lot.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
James, I think the landscape has evidenced more than disagreement. When those holding the doctrines of grace are vilified and named as heretics (by some, not all) we can safely say some are looking at Calvinists as dangerous to the body. Since this is an unfounded view, we can call it paranoia.
Sorry, but I guess I don’t understand why you cry foul when you use such inflammatory verbiage. To imply that anyone who doesn’t hold to your doctrinal school of thought denies the doctrine of grace is a little over the top, don’t you think? Maybe there are rabid grace-deniers out there whom I have not met, but it seems to me that questioning the 5 points does not necessitate a denial of God’s grace. A different understanding or application of it, possibly, but not a denial.
Discussion
New30% self identify as strongly
30% self identify as strongly or somewhat Reformed/Calvinist.
30% self identify as strongly or somewhat Arminian/Wesleyan.
Wonder how the other 40% see themselves?
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
NewClueless
Twitter
Jim's Doctrinal Statement
NewChip Van Emmerik wrote: 30%
My blog: http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/
NewThat's fine Alex, I was just
That’s fine Alex, I was just wondering how they would identify themselves.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
NewIf I were in the SBC, I'd
If I were in the SBC, I’d find myself in the 40% as one who does not hold to Limited Atonement, yet in agreement with total depravity and unconditional election with a sublapsarian view of God’s decrees. So, the 5-pointers wouldn’t want me, but the Arminians would call me a Calvinist.
https://expastorsjourney.wordpress.com/
NewClassic
WilliamD, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Gospel Coalition, and the T4G, etc. wouldn’t want you. And the Methodists, Nazarenes, and Calvary Chapel would call you a Calvinist.
But as a Baptist brother, I understand you. :)
Roots by the River
Jesus in Idaho Falls
NewWhere is the paranoia about "Calvinism" coming from?
I’d like to get your take on where the paranoia about Calvinism comes from. Is it from the historical anti-missions stand in William Carey’s day where “Calvinist” ministers thought the heathen could be saved without sending missionaries, or is it more the “new Calvinism” that gets in people’s craw?
NewWhy must it be paranoia? Why
Why must it be paranoia? Why can’t it be a disagreement?
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
NewJames, I think the landscape
James, I think the landscape has evidenced more than disagreement. When those holding the doctrines of grace are vilified and named as heretics (by some, not all) we can safely say some are looking at Calvinists as dangerous to the body. Since this is an unfounded view, we can call it paranoia.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
NewWould you not say it is a gross overreaction?
Whether you attribute it to fear, paranoia, or some other emotion, there is more here than friendly disagreement. The term “Calvinist” is definitely used as a pejorative term by many. I’d like to know more what is behind it.
NewSteve Newman wrote: I'd like
My blog: http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/
NewChip Van Emmerik
My blog: http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/
NewSteve Newman wrote: I'd like
It’s not paranoia if somebody really is out to get you! :)
Lee
NewChip and Steve, would you
Chip and Steve, would you deny that certain Calvinists want to see the SBC completely Calvinist? I have read the opposite. I have read Calvinists fear for the future of the SBC because it isn’t Calvinist. Maybe everyone is paranoid since your statements can be flipped against Calvinists.
Southern Seminary is no doubt kicking out more Calvinists than the others. Southeastern has a mix. Southwestern probably less. The SBC will always be a mixed lot.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Newdoctrines of grace?
Sorry, but I guess I don’t understand why you cry foul when you use such inflammatory verbiage. To imply that anyone who doesn’t hold to your doctrinal school of thought denies the doctrine of grace is a little over the top, don’t you think? Maybe there are rabid grace-deniers out there whom I have not met, but it seems to me that questioning the 5 points does not necessitate a denial of God’s grace. A different understanding or application of it, possibly, but not a denial.