« The Calvinist admits freely his position is ridiculous | Main | R.G. Lee on Limited Atonement »

2013.02.17

Comments

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

Dave Miller

Tozer could really knock them out of the park.

Max

Peter, I know your intent with this short piece was not to make "C" your subject - these are indeed good words from Tozer re: marriage of church and world. There is no doubt that the 21st century church is attempting to drag as much world into the house as it can and still appear "Christian." But I'm growing increasingly concerned about compromise headed our way in SBC.

While I would dearly love to see unity around the message of the Cross of Christ, I just don’t see how two divergent views of soteriology can exist in a single denomination going forward. According to my old Webster, “Unity is a continuity of identity without deviation or change.” “Harmony is a pleasing arrangement of parts.” Harmony says to the diverse parts “let’s try to get along, even if it means change.” Unity says to the primary identity “let’s stick together, lest we change.” I was young and now I’m old … and during my journey I’ve come to discern what genuine unity looks like. What is unfolding within SBC is a compromise for the sake of harmony, not unity. Majority Southern Baptists can’t afford to be harmonious but unified when it comes to God’s plan of salvation.

Mark

Max, I think you are confusing uniformity and unity. Was Peter compromising when he sat down and had coffee with me just over a week ago?

See, had Peter or I shared the gospel with someone at Starbucks that night we probably would have said the same thing with different words. We would have been united around the cross of Christ for that person's only hope of salvation.

Had that person believed in Christ whether Peter or I shared the gospel we both would have believed that person was born again by the Holy Spirit. We would both agree that the person would have to respond to the gospel by faith. We would have both believed that the person was saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone; not of their own works or power.

While Peter and I might not uniformly agree on exactly how God saves, we are in unity that God alone saves.

Lydia

Mark, I think you might want to get the leader of the Calvinist wing of the SBC on board. That is the big elephant in the room no one wants to discuss.

If you listen to his definition of New Calvinism on a video he did with DeYoung, it seems he does not think very highly of us non Calvinists when it comes to the Gospel. Not sure how much unity we can have with sort of thinking from our flagship seminary president and others who are his fellow travellors and hang on his every word. Unless, of course, you think he has no influence anymore?

Mark

Lydia, reading your comments here and elsewhere does not exactly bring me to follow your lead toward any form of unity.

Do you have any other false dilemmas to put forward?

Max

Mark, in your example it would depend on which theological grid you looked through as you gazed upon that poor lost soul at Starbucks. The unity around the message of the Cross of Christ I refer to would have us all see all men in reach of a Saviour, rather than viewing folks as the predetermined world of the elect. I can go anywhere on the planet and look anyone in the eye and say "God loves YOU; Jesus died for YOU." I know the reformed brethren can say that to, but it takes more gyrations of Scripture than I choose to use.

In case you haven't seen it, the video Lydia refers to can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

Mark

Max, I tried. Keep misrepresentin' how Calvinists see lost people.

Peter, I can see it was a mistake to even try to interact here. Enjoy your minions.

Lydia

"Do you have any other false dilemmas to put forward?"

That is your opinion. Insults won't work anymore. Does it usually work for you to simply dismiss people's concerns that are obvious? Does it work to tell people they are not hearing and seeing what they have heard and seen?

There is a serious credibility issue here. And a trust issue. One cannot claim folks are leaning toward heresy and then say 'lets have unity'. Nor is it working toward unity to say they should be marginalized when they dare disagree or put forth their beliefs. You cannot interpret that for folks. And one cannot expect people to pay for that sort of behavior, either.

I think there is a real serious cognitive dissonace issue in the Reformed wing of the SBC. It is as if they think they can parse this stuff away and then blame those they offended by calling them names for being offended. There is a term in psychology for that behavior.

Mary

Enjoy your minions?

Max

To whom it may concern: this minion has no desire to misrepresent anyone. In my heart of hearts I am only concerned that none of us misrepresent the character of God.

Mary

If I could just post a random thought here this morning. does anybody else remember when we were all being admonished to "trust the trustees"? Turns out that those doing all the admonishing actually meant "trust the trustees when things are going in the direction the Calvinist want." Turns out that "watch blogs" who are pro Calvinists are to be believed without question. "Watch blogs" that say boo against the Calvinists are evil, antiCalvinist vitriolic - fill n the blank with your favorite pejorative, but pro Calvinists watch blogs are fighing the good fight exposing the evil of antiCalvinism.

Just throwing a thought out there.

Les Prouty

"Christianity is so entangled with the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere."

And we, the church, are are largely ineffectual in the culture because of it. Good quote.

JND

Hey! I'm not a minion. I'm a moderate.

The comments to this entry are closed.