Responding, not attacking
WE ARE RESPONDING TO CERTAINSOURCES, NOT ATTACKING
It seems that some have gotten the false impression from reading The Calvinist Flyswatter that we are "attacking" the Founders Ministries, some professors at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the Presbyterians, Calvinism, Tom Nettles, Ernest Reisinger, and other names or entities which may have been the focus of our posts.
We respond to this by saying that it is a misconception: we are not attacking anybody -- we are simply responding.
I will not attempt to be exhaustive in this, but in summary will just call attention to a few things which illustrate my point.
1. The Founders Ministries, under the guise of promoting "reform" and the alleged representation of certain Baptist "founders" of yesteryear, has been attacking and misrepresenting Baptists on each of those items to which we have responded -- such as the new birth or regeneration, effectual calling, initial confession of faith in Christ, baptism, elders, the baptism of young professors, Baptist confessions, Spurgeon's views (and those of other Baptists in history), etc.
2. Individuals who have either attacked or misrepresented Baptists have likewise been the subjects of our responses. They "fired first," and we have simply returned "fire."
3. On "Calvinism," we have simply limited our materials to showing the contrast between the historic Calvinist Confessions and the modern "Reformed" version. We contend the latter version is a HYBRID and heretical theology represented primarily by post-seventeenth century Pedobaptists (baby baptizers) and their disciples among those who identify themselves as "Reformed." We consider the "Reformed" version to be an attack upon Creedal Calvinism.
4. No effort has been made on this blog to attack Creedal or Confessional Calvinism, nor Spurgeon's Calvinism, regardless of what either Charles or I might think about these. As Charles has carried in his banner since he started this blog, we are "swatting the theological flies produced by the reformed calvinist blogosphere." We are neither promoting nor attempting to refute legitimate Calvinism, but we are responding to sources of aberrant "Calvinism."
There is no instance, to my knowledge, wherein we have been guilty of misrepresenting any source or person to which we have responded. We have taken note of their views as they have presented them, referenced the sources, and then rendered our response.
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 4:22 PM
5 Comments:
Thanks for the clairification. I'm wondering if you could, sometime, go into more detail relative to the distinction between the "old world calvinist" and the new "hybrid" (cute name by the way--I like it)? I've heard of the 3-point, 4-point and 5-point calvinist and, of course, the hyper-calvinist (uber is also a good word) for whom, if I understand correctly, only care about the NT and are happy to throw the OT out the window. Also, what do you two think of the folks over at Strangebaptistfire? I ask that because Mr. Brister is a contributor.
Thanks.
Steve
Reply to STEVE:
Steve wrote --
. . . go into more detail relative to the distinction between the "old world calvinist" and the new "hybrid"
The Hybrids depart from the old Confessions by their theory of "born again before faith." No old Confession ever taught that the new birth precedes faith.
Also, what do you two think of the folks over at Strangebaptistfire? I ask that because Mr. Brister is a contributor.
From what I have read there, they appear to be Hybrids; therefore, the blog is well-named. It is indeed "strange" fire coming from professing Baptists.
Timmy Brister evidently is simply parroting what he has been taught by Hybrids at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. He certainly did not imbibe it by reading Puritans such as Stephen Charnock and John Owen.
Thanks Bob. I'd like to ask another question that may relate to the "new" calvinist. I read a great deal of distain from 5-pointers relative to leaders who don't seem to be harsh enough for them. Conservative credentials (an abused term if there ever was one) don't seem to be enough for them. It really seems that they want a leader who is on the edge of mental stability. In other words anyone except a person with a broad view or in the mainstream. I'm just wondering where this nonsense seems to come from. Is it their beloved Spurgeon or some other prophet of theirs that leads them to think that we all have to be zealots?
Thanks.
Steve
STEVE'S OBSERVATIONS
I read a great deal of distain from 5-pointers relative to leaders who don't seem to be harsh enough for them.
Bob to Steve:
You seem to have in mind the type of person -- perhaps a younger person -- who manifests the attidude that he has "arrived." This attitude, at least as I have observed it, is most frequently a characteristic of the novice. In many cases, time and experience will serve to tone down this state of mind -- hopefully.
Steve: Is it their beloved Spurgeon or some other prophet of theirs that leads them to think that we all have to be zealots?
This type of "Spurgeon" image is not generally the Spurgeon image you see in his sermons and other works. For example, Spurgeon was one of the severest critics of some whom he called "ultra-fine" and "ultra" Calvinists who measured everyone by their version of "Calvinism."
In one sermon, for example, he scolded some who were intent upon "reform" --
>>
You will find another form of the same thing among ourselves. Many
persons row hard to get the ship to land by a notional belief in orthodox doctrine.
This superstition is harder to deal with, but quite as dangerous as
the belief in good works. It is quite as legal an idea for me to think to be
accepted by believing good doctrine as to expect to be pardoned for doing
good works.
Yet we have scores of people who if they can get hold of the
Calvinistic creed at the right end; if they become masters of it and know how to argue against Arminianism; if they become not only sound Calvinists but a little sounder still, having not only the sixteen ounces to the
pound but two or three ounces over and above, so as to make them ultra-
Calvinistic; why then they fancy that all must be well.
“I never can hear a
preacher,” this man will say, “who is not sound. I can tell at once when there is a grain of free will in the sermon.”
This is all very well, but he who boasts thus may be no better than the devil; nay, he may not be so good,
for the devil believes and trembles, but these men believe and are too much
hardened in their own conceit to think of trembling. Away with the idea that believing sound doctrine and chaining ourselves to a cast-iron creed is vital godliness and eternal life. Orthodox sinners will find that hell is hot, and that their knowledge of predestination will not yield a cooling drop to
their parched tongues. Condemning other people, cutting off the saints of
God right and left, is but poor virtue, and to have these blessed doctrines in
the head while neglecting them in the heart is anything but a gracious sign.
>>
-- Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 10, Year 1964, pages 213, 214.
Know any today to whom such a scolding might be somewhat appropriate?
Zowie! Your good.
Ah, I think you're correct when speaking to the younger gen as being the group scrapping for a fight (actually not a real fight for if there is anything I've learned it's that a lot of young bloggers talk tough but not to the point of wanting to serve their country in uniform--so, again, the term "militant" has to be a very qualified word if you're going to use it around me). Actually too, as you've pointed out before, alot of the points these "uber" folk want to make is actually promulgated by people who should know better--professors, staff and seminary leaders. They seem to point these youngsters in a fallacious direction in school, push them off degree in hand, then fan the flame of these keyboard clones who think they are worth listening to because they went to college. This is the biggest downside to the net by far that I've seen. Of course, there are many that are un-schooled who have no business with a site of their own to so I guess we're stuck with them. Ofpphh!!
Thanks again.
Steve
Post a Comment
<< Home