The irony is overwhelming. Calvinists are described as a lot of things. Arrogance is quite common. Yet I just now saw this posted on Tom Ascol's Founder's Blog. The Arbuckle Baptist Association in Oklahoma has motioned for the Convention to "take a stand against the presentation of reformed theology--often called "Calvinism"-- as a legitimate topic that we need to debate; and instead of recommending that we should debate reformed theology, take a public stand against reformed theology."
Notice these open-minded men are not even willing to discuss the differing positions as brothers. Many seem to presume that Calvinism is heretical even though I am willing to bet that these people do not even know what reformed theology is. I can't even count how many anti-Calvinism sermons I have heard, much less the average personal conversations I have had, where people claimed to know what Calvinism is, actually didn't!
Are these people totally unaware of the history Calvinism has had in Baptist life (read Baptist Confessions 1644, 1689, 1742)? Perhaps they are not aware of the fact that the NH 1833 Confession was written so that Calvinists and non-Calvinists could work together? Are these people even aware that doctrines such as the Penal Substitutionary Atonement belongs consistently and squarely in the Reformed/Calvinistic camp? Did not Luther and Calvin defend Justification (with its imputation aspects) within the Lutheran/Reformed Theological frameworks.
I find it strange for people to proceed to tell me what I believe and then describe something completely foreign to me. I find it odd that many Baptists find no need to defend their Traditions simply because they do not believe they even have them. So now we have an entire Baptist organization demanding that their beliefs go unchallenged. Dialogue, why bother? The irony indeed!
A Pastoral Prayer
7 hours ago
2 comments:
"I find it strange for people to proceed to tell me what I believe and then describe something completely foreign to me."
A taste of your own medicine perhaps?
Anonymous,
Is this in reference to my comments about Paul's sermon? Contextually it is the only thing that has happened on this Blog where you could make such a statement.
Keep in mind, I never went back to get the CDs or DVD to demonstrate factually what was said. I only went by a personal letter that was written after the fact. If I were to quote to you the entire sentence from Paul's letter, it might very much change the dynamic of the conversation. He has not interacted with me at all on the subject.
Here is the first sentence from the same paragraph where I quoted that I was in error. "I will only touch on my very strong conviction that Jesus paid for the sins of every person who ever has or ever will live." Now I have to put together two sentences in the same paragraph that are inconsistent with the Penal Substitutionary interpretation. So I am giving the benefit of the doubt that He simply means that Jesus' death is sufficient for everyone, but not applied to everyone. Yet, is that what Pastor Paul means? Am I putting words into his mouth even in my apology?
You simply do not know all of the facts or conversations that have taken place. I challenged Paul privately for over a year to demonstrate the belief that all men have had their sins forgiven or "paid for" without their belief. If I were misrepresenting him, wouldn't one single conversation or email in over 15 months been sufficient to correct my misunderstanding?
I apologized for a misunderstanding I had that should have been corrected many months earlier. Is that really entirely my fault?
If this is an issue everyone wants to revisit, then if I must, I will get the audio and interact with it. If you wish to let it die then I agree. Let us get past it.
BTW: Why remain anonymous? Am I that scary?
God Bless
Howard
Post a Comment