« Baptism & The Lord's Supper: The Role of Ordinances in Baptist Life | Main | Who is a Baptist? I am a Baptist by Peter Lumpkins »

2007.01.02

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

cb scott

Peter,

Are there published works under your name?

If not, may it be soon.

cb

Scott Shaffer

Hello Peter,

I trust you had a blessed Christmas and New Year.

Your last paragraph tickled my funny bone:

"If we wait long enough and are patient, nonCalvinists will not need to create counter arguments to the Calvinist. All we have to do is look to the Calvinists themselves. They do a pretty doggone good job in arguing with one another. Hence, we can just relax, have a cup of good coffee and use their own arguments they employ against each other."

Could we not substitute Baptists for Calvinists in the above? Or Lordship? Free Grace? Dispensationalists? Covenantalists? Credobaptists? Arminians? Non-calvinists?

It seems that honest disagreement within each theological camp is something to be expected as godly men and women grapple with the scriptures and try to pin down with some precision the meaning and implications of some of the knottier theological problems. Iron sharpens iron.

Grace,
Scott

volfan007

peter,

i agree with cb. you need to start writing books. but, dont neglect this blog sight. what you wrote here was excellent and very informative. thanks.

now, what shall i have for lunch? oh wait, i'm at the cabinet....for some reason i feel the need for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich...i dont know why.

volfan007

peter

CB,

Thank you for your encouragement. I hope you are well today. With that, I am...

Peter,


Scott,

Greetings. I am glad you found the post entertaining. I trust laughter is always good for the soul.

And know, my brother, you may substitute any and all you wish. You have my explicit permission!

Nevertheless, I do not at all think, at least from my view, that makes the point any less valid that a return to "Calvinism" cannot be seen as the end-all hope for the SBC as our Founders' brothers appear to suggest. "Which Calvinism?" may be the necessary corrective lens to their myopic vision.

Peace and Faith today. With that, I am...

Peter

peter

Volfan,

Again, I thank you for the soothing words. Also, I am glad pbj's are to you available! Grace.

With that, I am...

Peter

selahV

SEE PETER! How long have I been telling you to write books? You were born to write. You were born to preach. God blessed you with the most incredible mind. One of my favorite parts of your mind is your recall ability--a live WikaPetedia! Another part of your mind is the peterisms...all those wonderful whittling things down to "bite-sized chewies". And most certainly, not to give you a big-head, is your appetite for apologetics so succinctly delivered to all who dare think clearly and simply regarding complex and diverse views.

But most importantly is your complete abandon to the Lord for your wisdom and humility of thought. God bless you Peter of 2007! I look forward to reading more. SelahV
P.S. Did you see what them northerners did to the Vols? And the tater makers did to the okies? unbelieveable.

volfan007

selah,

we are not talking about football this week. it's a very sensitive subject at this time. if you would like to talk about football in....say....a couple of months, then i will be able to discuss it with you.

btw, i am sorry selah, but you have never really lived in the south. we count everything north of I-40 as the north. i dont believe that you have lived south of I-40 have you? so, technically, until you've lived below the I-40(the real mason-dixon line), then you have not truly experienced the south.

volfan007

selahV

Volfan: I am so sorry.

I will now go back and tell my daddy I am no longer a southerner and I will tell my brother to stop calling himself Reb.

Peter: When you said, "By far the most interesting--and I might add, the most intense--debates Calvinists entered during this time was not with nonCalvinists. Rather, it was Calvinist vs. Calvinist that became the most formidable dialogs as Calvinism revised itself.", it reminds me of what I've been trying to tell all the Calvinists on their individual sites since I started studying Calvinism in late summer of '06.

How can a non-Cal-gal begin to understand and trust their doctrinal views when they can't even agree on them?

Volfan seems to have run into a lot of "extreme" Calvinists who have solidified his take on the TULIP growers. And I am beginning to see quite clearly some of the kinds of folks that Volfan has bumped into in real life, tip-tapping their way through the Kingdom of Blog.

You, Peter, have come from both sides of the issue and therefore are far more trustworthy a testimony to me than anyone on any site.

Founders has validated my thinking in how they view anyone "outside" their community of founderlings.

I find exclusive clubs which play poker with rules that change in the middle of the game, simply no fun to one showing three kings, holding one in the hole with an Ace of hearts to back them up. I know when to fold them.
selahV

BTW Volfan: doesn't twelve summers in Tennessee count for a few years of southern living? 3 months times twelve is 36 months. 36 months divided by 12 is 3 years. I'll deduct one year for sake of arguement, but according to my calculations, I lived south of I-40 at least 2 years. And whether you think I'm a southerner or not, don't matter to me. I was elected to spend my summers in heavenly places and nobody can take away my elect status cause I wasn't full-blooded southerner til I got regenerated by my stepmother's family. So...there! :o) selahV


peter

SelahV,

Thank you for your kind words, but I fear you possess more confidence in my ability than do I. I am just one veggie in the stew and may only exist palatable to your tastes alone, SelahV.

One reason I found the tasters vs. exercisers interesting was to simply arm vulnerable lay-folks--who may not either possess interest in history or theology proper--with a bit of data that offsets some of the more aggressive SBC "reformers" who insist Calvinism is the answer for our Convention's woes, not to mention the SBC's official heritage.

Grace today. With that, I am...

Peter

selahV

Peter: fore-armed is so much better than being fore-warned. Thanks
:)you are much too modest regarding the book thing(: You do know, of course, that I don't believe you could write a book alone. which is why I know you could write a book worth reading and worth others paying money to read. Yours would be one of the ones folks go ahead and buy after they've perused several in the bookstore while consuming too much caffeine. :))))) You would have such stimulating arguements that you could leave two pages blank for every chapter for readers to argue their points and present another view. Then they'd have to buy it because they wrote in it. selahV

Richard Coords

Peter,

You wrote: "They do a pretty doggone good job in arguing with one another. Hence, we can just relax, have a cup of good coffee and use their own arguments they employ against each other."

This is exactly what I had stated to Alan at the Calvinist Gadfly. Alan would start a discussion on God's love, and then I would quote Calvin on God's love, and enjoy the fireworks. The 4-Pointers, like Ron Rhodes, do a terrific job against Limited Atonement.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html

The Inframlapsarian Single Predestinationist does a good job of refuting their Supralaprian Double Predestinationist brothers, such as Spurgeon when he accused the Doubles of "blasphemy."

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0239.htm

Meanwhile, Doubles like R.C. Sproul, do an effective job of accusing the Singles of "Double Talk."

http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

Meanwhile, the Arminian sits back and says that they are both right!, insomuch as Single Predestinationism is “double talk” and “Double Predestinationism” is “blasphemy.”

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Romans9_22.html

Richard Coords
Editor of ExaminingCalvinism.com

P.S. Recently I had a dialogue with oldtruth.com and I pointed out that Calvinistic Election is a two-election theory, the first and foremost being “in the Father” with the result that these are then given to be chosen into the Son. I was told that I was nuts, on the grounds that no one comes to the Father but by His Son, as per John 14:6. I agreed with John 14:6, and then cited a slew of quotes from Calvinists, and received no response. The point is that Calvinistic Election is primarily a theory in which, from eternity past, God the Father chose and “hid in Himself” an “elect” people, which He “gave” to His Son in order to become His, so at the foreordained time, He would “draw” to His Son. No answer yet.

http://www.studylightforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=870

peter

Richard,

Thanks for stopping by. Also, I've read some of the dialogues you've had. They are stimulating.

Our Lord be with you. Wit hthat, I am...

Peter

The comments to this entry are closed.