tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post114073445149418526..comments2024-03-29T05:31:07.363-04:00Comments on CAMPONTHIS: James White and Ergun Caner Square OffCalvinism vs. Arminianism - guess who wins?SJ Camphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-38902816902446685052011-11-10T16:11:32.519-05:002011-11-10T16:11:32.519-05:00Ergun Caner is absolutely right. James White and o...Ergun Caner is absolutely right. James White and other Calvinist are heretics. The god they preach about is not the God of the Bible. The god they preach about is a god of hate that predetermines people in your family (those that believe in calvanism)to hell without any chance of repentance. How dare they libel God's character. The One and only true God is a God of love, not willing that any should perish but that all come to the knowledge (repentance is the key). Salvation is open to the who so ever will, for God so loved the world, not the arrogant ones that call themselves god's elect. Selah!read4316https://www.blogger.com/profile/16750510070570235816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1141227044678268342006-03-01T10:30:00.000-05:002006-03-01T10:30:00.000-05:00GRIs there an online record of that quote that I c...<B>GR</B><BR/><BR/>Is there an online record of that quote that I could access? (either audio or written).<BR/><BR/>SteveSJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1141155118487643872006-02-28T14:31:00.000-05:002006-02-28T14:31:00.000-05:00"I appreciate Dr. Falwell's ministry and his love ..."I appreciate Dr. Falwell's ministry and his love for God's Word--I have a great deal of respect for him. But, I can't believe that he would approve of the Dean of Students at his Seminary posting on another's blog with the cheap-shottish, careless attitudes that Mr. Caner expressed."<BR/><BR/>He just might. I sat through a convocation at Liberty University several years ago, and during his talk the gracious Dr. Falwell called calvinism a "heresy." Dr. Caner is at least a step up from the last dean of the seminary, Dr. Lovett. If you think Caner expresses careless attitudes...GRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989796185695642434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1141000631598780252006-02-26T19:37:00.000-05:002006-02-26T19:37:00.000-05:00Mark:I also appreciate the words of Gene and Chad ...<B>Mark:</B><BR/><BR/>I also appreciate the words of Gene and Chad very much too...<BR/><BR/>I must apologize. I accidentally posted a response on "alter calls and evangelism" under the above article, <I>"The Contagious Infectious Doctrines of Grace Thank you Dr. Caner for Calvin's Virus"</I> Too many articles sometimes to keep up with...<BR/><BR/>Please see my response there from yesterday and thank you again for your comments here.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve <BR/>Col. !:9-14SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140989100889783422006-02-26T16:25:00.000-05:002006-02-26T16:25:00.000-05:00genembridges and breuss wane, thanks so much! I go...genembridges and breuss wane, thanks so much! I gotta say those were probably the best answers I've ever gotten to a question online! :) <BR/><BR/>I understand clearly now where y'all are coming from, and while I'm not familiar with some of those other names, I'll check them out. Thanks again both of you, I really appreciate the clarification. <BR/><BR/>By the way, I totally agree about the situation with careless altar calls. I like the examples you gave!~Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01819856178499938127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140929955830396972006-02-25T23:59:00.000-05:002006-02-25T23:59:00.000-05:00Charles:I received this exact same info in an emai...<B>Charles:</B><BR/><BR/>I received this exact same info in an email earlier today. It is not in keeping with this blogs rules of engagement or Christian charity.<BR/><BR/>If you have a biblical argument to make--then make it. But the name calling against James, in Caneresque fashion mind you, will not be tolerated at COT.<BR/><BR/>I am deleting your post. You will only be allowed to repost here if you want to ask questions about what this discussion is about: regeneration, election, or any other Calvinistic teaching and I and others will be happy to address them. If you want to quote James on a doctrinal issue where you think he is skewed, we will be happy also to address that as well. BUT, you must provide accurate documentation from Dr. White's own writings; and then your concern about what he is teaching.<BR/><BR/>BUT, the tenor and content of your post is not acceptable here. BTW: I don't allow anonymous posting either. Complete the necessary bio info, email address, web info, etc. IOW, I want to know who I am addressing before you will be allowed to post again.<BR/><BR/>Steve<BR/>Col. 1:9-14SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140929461266408732006-02-25T23:51:00.000-05:002006-02-25T23:51:00.000-05:00Altar calls? There's only 1 Altar of significance...Altar calls? There's only 1 Altar of significance and that Altar renders ours a charade of bad theology (it's a recapitulation of the OT shadow, albeit bloodless). <BR/><BR/>Michael Horton has rightly dubbed the baptist invitation/altar a sacrament:<BR/><BR/>"While we would never have referred to the place where God speaks and acts in Word and Sacrament as an altar, we had no trouble calling this other place -- the stage around which we gathered as we "came forward" to receive Christ--by that name.<BR/><BR/>"To this day, I hear Christian brothers and sisters defend this practice by saying, "Surely you wouldn't deny that many people are saved by coming forward!" In other words, the altar call is regarded as a means of grace. In fact, the medieval view of the Sacraments as working ex opere operato (i.e., just by performing the act, one is saved) finds a Protestant parallel in this new Sacrament.<BR/><BR/>"After all, doesn't the pastor declare, "Now, if you prayed that prayer after me, you are a Christian"? (In fact, if you pray that prayer at the end of some tracts, there is even a place to sign your name and the date of your new birth!) While the ancient church condemned as Pelagian the idea that grace is conferred by saying a prayer (the Council of Orange, 529 a.d.), it is now regarded as a guarantee of saving grace in many circles. Although few evangelicals would be comfortable hearing a Lutheran or Reformed minister announcing God's forgiveness in connection with Baptism or the Lord's Supper, they do not seem to mind when the same grace is linked to "receiving Christ" in an altar call, a Promise Keepers' meeting, a small group, in spiritual disciplines, or at summer camp." -- Michael Horton, Mysteries of God and Means of GraceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140917372353396302006-02-25T20:29:00.000-05:002006-02-25T20:29:00.000-05:00First of all. Invitations. The Calvinists in the...First of all. Invitations. The Calvinists in the SBC are not opposed to the use of invitations. They are opposed to the invitation system itself. There is a time for an invitation, but not every sermon is designed for one. In smaller churches in particular, the invitation time could well be replaced with a Question and Answer time about the sermon from the congregation. This is what many of the churches are doing to replace the constant use of invitations. The result is that pastors are growing more accountable to their congregants and there is more interaction and thinking about the material as it is being presented. This seems much closer to the biblical model; we know there was discussion of the presentation of the Word of God in the early churches. This, IMO, is much more effective than a "raise you hand."<BR/><BR/>I would suggest you read about Asahel Netteton. This is the kind of evangelistic technique that is being advocated.<BR/><BR/>http://www.founders.org/FJ33/article1_fr.html<BR/><BR/>Dr. Caner would have you believe that we oppose the use of invitations. No! We oppose the invitation system and its abuses. We advocate the constructive use of them. We use them when the sermon lends itself to one. For example, imagine a church looking for a new pastor. They have just formed their committee. If I was invited to preach there in supply, The invitation was quite simple. After preaching out of 1 Thess. 1 on the characteristics of a "model" church; I might have the committee members come to the front to present them to the church, and I would call for a deacon or Sunday School teacher to come forward and publicly covenant with the church and with the committee member to pray for them and set up an accountability relationship with them until their duties had been discharged with the calling of a new pastor.<BR/><BR/>As to the inclusion of Dr. Stanley. Nobody denies he is a good teacher, but when it comes to his soteriology, he affirms a Dave Hunt/Norm Geisler/Zane Hodges presentation of the gospel. It puts election and regeneration outside a chain of grace. It has only the work of Christ in view. This is functionally Unitarian. Also, read his book on eternal security. It appears he doesn't affirm that all believers will persevere. If believers can apostatize and still be considered Christians, this is a problem. <BR/><BR/>The criticism of him along with these others goes to this aspect of his teaching. It also goes to the statistics for FBC Atlanta. Like most SBC churches that preach this kind of soteriology (like Johnny Hunt's church) you find that while the membership roll is quite large, only 30 to 40 percent show up to church on Sunday morning. It takes large numbers of members to baptize just one person, and of those baptized 1 in 4 usually stays. <BR/><BR/>I personally can testify to this phenonmenon. My home church is one of these churches, and I interned there while in undergrad and graduate school. I've seen this happen. When confronted they say things like, "We don't take people off the rolls unless they ask." Of course, this presents a whole host of other problems. Take the publications offices. I wonder how many church bulletins and newsletters and offering envelopes are printed and sent to people who are dead, apostatized, or members of other churches? My Mom left that church for her present one a couple of years ago. She is *still* on their roll, even though they transferred her letter. The money being wasted there could be used for missions.<BR/><BR/>The result is a denomination that claims it is 16. 4 million strong, but only 1/3 show up. This is a violation of the 9th commandment. It is also a belittling of the ordinance of baptism. Now, we have no way of knowing how many of those persons baptized were actually converted. We simply assume they are. However, take a look down below this thread at Jim Eliff's article. <BR/><BR/>The current president of the SBC touts his church as a model for growth in his quest to get us to "Baptize a Million." Yet, if you look at his numbers, you find that his church attendance has decreased steadily while his baptisms have increased. Why should we listen to him ask us baptize a million when his church stands in a state of attrition while his baptisms increase?<BR/><BR/>Though the Founders churches are smaller, there are some larger Calvinist churches. There's one in FL, but I can't remember it's name. The point here, however, is that, in these churches it takes fewer to baptize one person, and nearly all of those baptized show up on Sundays. Those that do not show are known quantities. The point here is that the evangelism being espoused does not really build churches at all. It bloats membership rolls, and the "Good Ol' Boys" get together and pat each other on the back year after year at the Pastor's Conferences and hurl anti-Calvinist rants when they do so.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Stanley, I will admit, is not as egregious offender as Dr. Hunt in the anti-Calvinist rant department. He says what he says, but, from what I gather, is quite happy to work with us. However, Hunt, O'Guinn, Graham, the Caners, and others are not so accomodating. <BR/><BR/>On the church growth front, however, Dr. Stanley's church's numbers could stand closer scrutiny. That is why he is included in this group.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140908221387188472006-02-25T17:57:00.000-05:002006-02-25T17:57:00.000-05:00"Calvinism to me should be equated with strong vib..."Calvinism to me should be equated with strong vibrant evangelism. Giving a weak gospel, giving alter calls by raising a hand, signing a card, or telling people to come forward and "let Jesus love on you" for salvation is not evangelism--it is manipulation."<BR/><BR/>~As far as "raising a hand", I must disagree. What's wrong with doing that to show that, <I>after being taught the truth about Christ</I>, you have submitted to Him? I don't understand the current wave of dislike for what is known as "altar calls". Is it because of a specific way they are done? Is such a thing considered unbiblical? What I have always thought was meant by altar call was when, after the teaching, the pastor gives everyone the chance to admit their salvation if they had just become believers. Am I thinking of the wrong thing?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"This is one of the greatest impairments to true biblical evangelism today. A weak gospel produces temporary converts and promises false hope to the listener. You might be able to fill the member rolls (and then lose them just as quickly) by an SBC Hunt, Patterson, Graham, Stanley, Warren kind of invitation (say this prayer and you're in), but it produces little in terms of real spiritual fruit."<BR/><BR/>~Speakign only for one, if this Stanley is Charles Stanley then I have to disagree that he offers a watered-down Gospel. In fact, his are some of the most challenging and informative sermons on the air. I find myself continualy challenged to lay myself before Christ after listening.<BR/><BR/>I definitely don't want to come across as holding him up higher than a man should be, I just don't understand his inclusion here, <B>if</B> he is the Stanley you mean.~Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01819856178499938127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140848651628003612006-02-25T01:24:00.000-05:002006-02-25T01:24:00.000-05:00Candleman,The link is www.founder.org/blog Look fo...Candleman,<BR/><BR/>The link is www.founder.org/blog <BR/><BR/>Look for the thread with about 230 responses or more. It's the one on Johnny Hunt for president.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Bob Ross: Ross seems to be assuming that Dr. White is teaching "hardshellism" a type of hyper-Calvinism that asserts that a person could be regenerate for some time before believing. Dr. White in no wise affirms this.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I> I am not quite sure what your referral to Tim’s site changes. The fact of the matter is John Calvin had a large part in bringing about the execution of Servetus, because Servetus had belief’s that did not align with Calvin’s. I don’t quite get what is so noteworthy about, “It should be noted that Calvin was the only person who suggested a lighter sentence, asking the court to allow Servetus to die painlessly by beheading.” All I can say is I thank God we have progressed over the past few hundred years and we can discuss these issues without the fear of a death penalty.</I><BR/><BR/>True, Candleman, but Calvin was *not* in such a position. He lived in a different day. To us death for heresy isn't a crime v. the state. For them it was.<BR/><BR/>Here's the deal on Servetus.<BR/><BR/>Servetus was an anti-Trinitarian. Next to being a Protestant, this was the worst possible heresy to commit in that century. <BR/><BR/>Servetus came to Geneva to make trouble. He had already been condemned to die by Romanists. Calvin was out of favor at the time. He was not a highly influential person in Geneva. However, he was able to ask for a more merciful death.<BR/><BR/>The civil authorities condemned Servetus. This, under the civil law, was a just death. As an apostate, under the prescription of Scripture, he would have been stoned in OT times. It's not as if his death was unjust under the law.<BR/><BR/>If Calvin had objected and gotten Servetus set free, then the result would have been the invasion of Geneva. This was the age of the Wars of Religion. The Peace of Westphalia would not come until 1648. European states would excuse their internal wars with religion on an ongoing basis. <BR/><BR/>Note again, to be an anti-Trinitarian was a worse heresy than to be a Protestant. Remember, Geneva lies between France and Italy (at the time the Italian states). If Geneva had not executed Servetus, Rome would have thought nothing of inciting either France or the Italians to invade Switzerland. It may well have provoked the Lutherans as well. There was, at that time, antagonism between all three groups. <BR/><BR/>So, what would YOU have done as the most prominent theologian in Geneva, the one that Rome understood to be a major Reformer? Would you comply with Romans 13 and the law of the day? Would you be soft on Servetus and risk the end of the Reformation?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140845985798177462006-02-25T00:39:00.000-05:002006-02-25T00:39:00.000-05:00You are not too touchy feely for this blog. We al...You are not too touchy feely for this blog. We all in progress here brother... no one has arrived here and you are a welcome friend here.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.founders.org/blog/" REL="nofollow"><B>Here is the link you requested</B></A> Scroll down to the article "Johnny Hunt to be nominated for President of the SBC." You will see about 300 comments posted there.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>Col. 1:9-14SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140845281187482082006-02-25T00:28:00.000-05:002006-02-25T00:28:00.000-05:00Carla - you said - “Especially folks who haven't...Carla - you said - <B>“Especially folks who haven't bothered to take the time to make any effort to understand why those who hold to the sovereignty of God, are so certain of it in the first place.”</B><BR/><BR/> I have (still am) taking the time to <B>”truly understand the five points of Calvinism”.</B> I have been blogging for about a year, and about 6 months into it for the first time I ran across people who really challenged my salvation experience. In my background a Pastor preaches the Word, and through the conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit, a sinner responds to the Gospel message. Yes, the sinner makes a choice, to repent of sin,<BR/>and pray/ask ,”Jesus into their life as their personal Lord and Savior” … a starting point, a conversion point of which should be a long and wonderful walk with their new found faith. This was my salvation experience and that of my close personal friends. I can’t quite grasp how the reformed world (at least my understanding of it) says that you have absolutely nothing to do with your salvation, and to think you do is heresy. I heard statements like it is impossible for me to choose Christ, because man is “totally depraved” and can’t possible “choose Christ.” For the first time in many decades I questioned my salvation. Which begun a relentless search, that has lead me to many article’s on Phil’s site <A HREF="http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/06/for-sins-of-whole-world.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm" REL="nofollow">here</A> and very good message by Phil here <A HREF="http://www.webscopedesigns.com/videos/phil10232005.mp3" REL="nofollow">here.</A> I am currently reading Dr. White/Dave Hunt’s – “Debating Calvinism" ... So I am engaged and attempting to understand. Phil himself states he wrestled with Calvinism for as long as ten years before he came to the conclusions he has. So my comment was not made without much research, and if you read other posts here made by fellow Calvinist, they agree that the tone in many Calvinistic circles is one of superiority which some people not in their circle and searching the issue<BR/>can rightly or wrongly view as arrogance.<BR/><BR/>--------------------------------------<BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/>dr - I am not quite sure what your referral to Tim’s site changes. The fact of the matter is John Calvin had a large part in bringing about the execution of Servetus, because Servetus had belief’s that did not align with Calvin’s. I don’t quite get what is so noteworthy about, <B>“It should be noted that Calvin was the only person who suggested a lighter sentence, asking the court to allow Servetus to die painlessly by beheading.”</B> All I can say is I thank God we have progressed over the past few hundred years and we can discuss these issues without the fear of a death penalty.<BR/><BR/>Steve – I do accept your apology, I found the comment about <B>“go read the whole book of Romans”</B> as slightly flippant and dismissive, but not offensive, I did look past it and saw a glimmer of humor in it. However I will take you up on your challange, and I will re-read the book of Romans;) and continue reading the book I have previously mentioned. Of the 5 points of Calvinisim I am half way there…I agree with about 2.5 of them, so we will see where my search will bring me.<BR/><BR/>I also appreciate your point – <B>“But let's state this once for all: we are brothers in the Lord; I must love and like you; I am for the unity of the church on sound doctrine and by fellowship that we have in the Holy Spirit.”</B> However in many Calvinistic blogs I have visited that is not the starting point. The starting point is accept all 5 points, so we can look at you as one of us, one of the elect, and until then you are a heretic. Yes, I know that is my subjective impression, but mine nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>As I re-read Dr. Whites exchange I am still left with the same impression as my initial post, I am not sure why no one with the exception of myself and perhaps Jeff can see the pride, condescension and arrogance in these responses. They lack the love of someone who should be striving to be more Christ like, and sound like one big clanging symbol to me. It hard to really get to the “content” when you need to wade through the tone of the statements Dr. White uses.<BR/><BR/>In my view some of these include:<BR/><BR/><B>I doubt highly, sir, that you have been challenged to debate by anyone with more documented debate experience; I likewise doubt you have been challenged by someone who has taught at a Southern Baptist Seminary since 1995, either. I doubt you have been challenged by someone who has written as many books on the subject, and defended the topic in debate, as often as I have….<BR/><BR/>The commentary on Hunt is likewise almost humorous….<BR/><BR/>I am quite certain you have no idea what I'm talking about, since you have not taken the time to even be aware of the issues you are so confident in addressing. I truly, truly hope you do not engage in apologetics against Islam with the same cavalier attitude, sir. I truly do…..<BR/><BR/>One is again left airing one's tonsils at such writing……<BR/><BR/>There surely is no reason to drag this particularly painful experience out much farther. All who have benefited from the work of Norman Geisler in the past cannot help but feel a true sense of embarrassment at the publication of this response….<BR/><BR/>Sir, your emotionally-based response only shows your incapacity to engage the subject on any other level. I am accustomed to this from laypeople, but it is simply beyond the level of amazement that one who claims a standing as a Baptist scholar would behave as you are behaving. Once again, please, please, do not engage in apologetic encounters if you carry this kind of disrespectful attitude into your work in other areas. Those of us who labor diligently to honor He who is the truth would very much appreciate it….<BR/><BR/>Please, sir, you truly need to back up, take a deep breath, and realize what an utter melt-down on the level of simple scholarly behavior you are presenting here. It is egregious, is it not, to treat someone the way you are,……<BR/><BR/>Neither Geisler nor Hunt touched it. They could not do so (Hunt is not a scholar nor can he read Greek, and Geisler ignored it in his response). Can you refute my "laughable" exegesis? Can you deal with the meaning of tetagmenoi?<BR/><BR/>Anyone who would read this exchange could see that one of us offers facts, one unfounded, second-hand opinions…..<BR/><BR/>Nadir Ahmed could not stay on a single topic if is life depended on it, Ergun, nor could he engage any meaningful topic without generous uses of ad hominem and irrational argumentation…<BR/><BR/>Sir, since you have yet to read my response, yes, you are ignorant…..</B><BR/><BR/>--------------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>I guess we are just coming from two different perspectives, Steve, I guess I am just a little to “touchy feely” for your blog. To me the whole email exchange did not represent “speaking the truth in love; seasoned with grace”.<BR/><BR/><BR/>PS You keep mentioning (as does Dr. White) the Founders blog where this all started, but I have yet to see a link to …can you provide please?<BR/><BR/>Grace and Peace<BR/><BR/>{{{Candleman}}}Candlemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07264663139231007870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140835302310329302006-02-24T21:41:00.000-05:002006-02-24T21:41:00.000-05:00Steve wrote:>Could Calvinism really be a virus?Som...Steve wrote:<BR/>>Could Calvinism really be a virus?<BR/><BR/>Someone, please infect me!! Tulipus Syndromus, baby.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140833676262043202006-02-24T21:14:00.000-05:002006-02-24T21:14:00.000-05:00Dr. Caner said that "Calvinism is a virus." Stron...Dr. Caner said that "Calvinism is a virus." Strong words meant to only hurt, intimidate, offend, stir up anger, cause division, wound another Christian and discourage.<BR/><BR/>But take heart dear friends... El Campo thinks that this is a positive. Could Dr. Caner somehow be correct in what he is saying? Could Calvinism really be a virus?<BR/><BR/>Let's see:<BR/><BR/><B>V.</B> - Vitium totalis*<BR/><BR/><B>I.</B> - Irresistible Grace<BR/><BR/><B>R.</B> - Restricted redemption<BR/><BR/><B>U.</B> - Unconditional election<BR/><BR/><B>S.</B> - Saints perseverance <BR/> <BR/>*(<B>vitium latin -</B> fault, moral depravity, corruption, wickedness) and (<B>totalis</B> for complete, total, absolute) = total depravity.<BR/><BR/>YES! There you have it beloved--the definition of an infectious, contagious faith that no earthly antibiotic of sinful men or hellish devil can thwart once it is given to you by God's sovereign predestined plan for our salvation!!! The elect of God; the chosen by Him in Christ before the foundations of the world, sealed with the Holy Spirit unto our day of redemption.<BR/><BR/>Thank you Dr. Caner. Once again the darts that you meant to hurt and wound can be turned into a cause for rejoicing. We are indebted to you sir for helping make our faith stronger in the great doctrines of grace and to learn how to speak the truth with love in the midst of your tirades. You have blessed us in our sanctification this day and we are grateful.<BR/><BR/>May all men everywhere repent and be infected with this contagious grace that can arrest men's souls for eternity and transform every part of their lives! This reformed biblical soteriology is the our great hope...amen? <BR/><BR/>Thank you for the challenge and privilege of taking your cantankerous rant and seeing it used for all our good. We are indebted to you sir.<BR/><BR/>May all Christians lives be infectious with the gospel as salt and light to a lost sinfully healthy world! They need the virus of the doctrines of grace to make them new creatures.<BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/>Steve<BR/>Rom. 3:21-16SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140831530716202662006-02-24T20:38:00.000-05:002006-02-24T20:38:00.000-05:00Gordan said... "...I mean, can you point to someon...Gordan said... <BR/>"...I mean, can you point to someone who, when confronting error with truth, was never "glib, sarcastic," or insensitive to someone's feelings?" <BR/><BR/>Gordan, I'm not saying being glib or sarcastic doesn't or can't serve a purpose. For example, Paul used sarcastic languague in warning the Galatians against the Judaisers. What I *am* saying is that it can be overdone, and many of us are guilty of this. <BR/><BR/>Gordan said:<BR/><BR/>"Do you get the feeling in Matthew 23, for instance, that Jesus cared a lot about the feelings of the Pharisees?"<BR/><BR/>Gordan, are you comparing our Arminian brothers to the Christ-denying Pharisees? Please clarify this. Do you really see a parallel between the Pharisees in Matt 23 and the average Arminian?<BR/><BR/>(Apologies to all for taking this thread in another direction, just wanted to stand by my original point that how we speak the truth (i.e. the means/motives/methods) is very important. Honestly folks, if I'm wrong to think we need to apply 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 to our internet and other debates, please let me know. I say that with genuine humility - I'm not wanting to gloss over gross sin and heresy with a veneer of phony love).Starchy Archiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10287645176002495664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140829660620681802006-02-24T20:07:00.000-05:002006-02-24T20:07:00.000-05:00How are we to engage others?Good question Steve.I ...How are we to engage others?<BR/>Good question Steve.<BR/><BR/>I would say if they simply go on and on, and have no documentation, and are argumentative, then it may be best to "shake the dust from our cloaks" so to speak. Not in any self-righteous way of course, but simply call it quits.<BR/><BR/>If someone wants to debate, and we meet on the solid common ground of Scripture, then we need to be ever courteous, and kind, and we need to know the Bible and it's teachings. And perhaps have a few "rabbis" or commentators to rely on, without doin' any "rabbi" stacking as they say.<BR/><BR/>I have debated election with Arminians who love the Lord, and they have been very kind. Though the discussing did sometimes become very heated, especially when we discuss limited atonement. The "L" in the tulip has gotten a bad rap, while the other letters, who are just as guilty, seem to not offend as much.<BR/>Sorry I went on too long.<BR/>I love to come to this blog. I feel the Lord is helping me become bolder in the faith, and also growing in His grace and knowledge. Thanks.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140826665008416592006-02-24T19:17:00.000-05:002006-02-24T19:17:00.000-05:00Jeff,Do you have a biblical model in mind for what...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>Do you have a biblical model in mind for what you're talking about?<BR/><BR/>I mean, can you point to someone who, when confronting error with truth, was never "glib, sarcastic," or insensitive to someone's feelings? <BR/><BR/>Do you get the feeling in Matthew 23, for instance, that Jesus cared a lot about the feelings of the Pharisees? In fact, I would submit to you that our Lord, His apostles, and most of the prophets before them used sarcasm as a very effective means of communicating truth. <BR/><BR/>I think you want Calvinists to be nicer than Jesus while seeking to rescue truth from the mouths of wolves.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140824702140171042006-02-24T18:45:00.000-05:002006-02-24T18:45:00.000-05:00Carla said... "Jeff, you said "Carla, I don't thin...Carla said... <BR/>"Jeff, <BR/>you said "Carla, I don't think candleman was questioning the points Dr. White was making, but rather the tone with which he was making them. The reason you hear this so frequently is that many Calvinists come across as unloving and ungracious."<BR/><BR/>I listen to James White twice a week on his radio program,"<BR/><BR/>Carla, I was talking specifically about the tone of the exchange between Dr. Caner and Dr. White, and I do think the tone of the conversation - from both men - was less than gracious. I can't comment on Dr. White's character in general.<BR/><BR/>Carla said... <BR/>"Listen, Calvinists do not corner the market on arrogance, rudeness, flippancy, or any other accusation that is tossed our way all the time. In fact, these things are a sin issue, a pride issue actually, and they have very little to do with anyone's theology." <BR/><BR/>Carla, I'm not making that claim. I'm just saying that in our zeal to defend the truth, brotherly love can be lost. And I'm pointing the finger at myself as well. But the correctness of my doctrinal position doesn't give me license to be glib, sarcastic, or indifferent towards the feelings of others. Compromise the truth to protect someone's feelings? Never! Speak the truth in love? Always!<BR/><BR/>I would add that our theology *should* have VERY much to do with issues of sin. Can we divorce our theology from our sanctification or our ecclesiology? If our understanding of God, the Doctrines of Grace, and the other myriad truths in God's word don't have an impact the way we live, and how we treat eachother as believers, we are missing the point.Starchy Archiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10287645176002495664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140823390772336172006-02-24T18:23:00.000-05:002006-02-24T18:23:00.000-05:00For anyone interested, I just checked Dr. White's ...For anyone interested, I just checked Dr. White's site and he's got a post up that mentions the allegations made here (and apparently other place) by Charles concerning Bob Ross.Gordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14527530618839981892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140822554249470602006-02-24T18:09:00.000-05:002006-02-24T18:09:00.000-05:00To readdress the initial point of this post: Dr. C...To readdress the initial point of this post: Dr. Caner's demeanor obstructing whatever his beliefs maybe in regards to Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>Anyone know of what Caner actually asserts biblically aside from his rants about the doctrines of grace? He feels that Calvinism is a virus; but that doesn't answer anything.<BR/><BR/>Dr. White on the other hand has been very candid, biblical and forthright about his concerns with Dr. Caner. Any audio as well would be helpful.<BR/><BR/>And here is the key issue: how are we to engage others within the church who make these kinds of wild theological claims but yet provide absolutely no documentation to prove their concerns?<BR/><BR/>It's a bit rhetorical, but necessary to ask.<BR/>Steve<BR/>2 Cor. 4:5-7SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140818803929142052006-02-24T17:06:00.000-05:002006-02-24T17:06:00.000-05:00While I don't feel at all qualified as some are to...While I don't feel at all qualified as some are to expound in a very eloquent way, I simply read the gospel according to Jesus (that would make a good song title, wouldn't it?) as one that does not promise us an easy earthly life - John 16:33 - but life eternal in heaven and abundant in spiritual blessings on earth - Eph. 1:3.<BR/><BR/>In my own life, my husband and I have watched a child die with a heart defect. If the promise of only good things all the time, etc. was all there was to the gospel, we would have never made it through that excruciating experience. But as I read 1 Peter 1:3-9 I am reminded that though I suffer in this life, it coming through sovereign hands of love and will result in "praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. <BR/><BR/>That is the truth I would love to see more of in the way many churches operate in the "invitation." It isn't a popular one, though.Canada Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05079785216098298555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140815397677366552006-02-24T16:09:00.000-05:002006-02-24T16:09:00.000-05:00canada fam.Dietrich Bonhoeffer would agree with yo...canada fam.<BR/><BR/>Dietrich Bonhoeffer would agree with you as I do.<BR/>-"When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die."<BR/><BR/>Of course we would need to expound upon this.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140813715331967582006-02-24T15:41:00.000-05:002006-02-24T15:41:00.000-05:00As a member of an SBC church, though not raised in...As a member of an SBC church, though not raised in the SBC, I have long been troubled by the invitation to Christ that is given in today's churches. I suppose the only "invitation" we should give is the one Jesus gave to His own disciples - "come and die."Canada Familyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05079785216098298555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140812129732755312006-02-24T15:15:00.000-05:002006-02-24T15:15:00.000-05:00The regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit i...The regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit is a divine work of God on the creature and precedes faith. Here are two quotes on this issue:<BR/><BR/><B>1689 London</B><BR/>This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead. <BR/>( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 ) <BR/><BR/><B>The Westminister Confession</B><BR/>This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14012689.post-1140809714183779792006-02-24T14:35:00.000-05:002006-02-24T14:35:00.000-05:00I've learned something new. Having been encourage...I've learned something new. Having been encouraged to "read up" on Abraham Booth, I'm now convinced that Booth firmly places himself *outside* of historic Calvinism in rejecting "regeneration" precedes faith. Esp. since the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession so clearly state "regeneration-precedes-faith's" biblicity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03880337516584157981noreply@blogger.com