Easily offended Hybrids
THE HYBRID CALVINISTS SEEMTO BE EASILY OFFENDED
It has been rather amusing lately to read some of the piffle by the Flounders-types who are obviously rather easily offended by any who do not welcome them with a "Hail fellow well met."
On Peter Lumpkins' blog, there have been complaints posted by some which alleged that some Hybrid Calvinists such as the Flounders and Pedobaptist R. C. Sproul's Ligonier company were not permitted to secure space to exhibit their products at the John 3:16 Conference at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Georgia.
Also, on Flounder Timmy Brister's blog he is reporting that Pastor Voddie Baucham is evidently whining about some Southern Baptists who have an "anti-Calvinist" attitude toward him.
This is all very amusing and paradoxical to me. It reminds me of how Alexander Campbell and the Campbellites reacted to the Baptists in the 19th century when Baptists began to declare non-fellowship for Campbell and his so-called "reformation" movement among Baptists.
Baucham says he is "fire-breathing" Calvinist, and he affiliates with, and speaks for, the Flounders, and he evidently endorses the Pedobaptist Reformed and Hardshell Baptist heresy of "regeneration before faith." Why does Baucham gripe when Southern Baptists don't welcome him with open arms?
As for the Flounders, they have declared the SBC to be an "unregenerate denomination," and they have sought to "reform" Southern Baptist pastors in Florida by sending them a Pedobaptist DVD which teaches the Pedobaptist heresy of "regeneration before faith."
Might as well let the Hardshell Baptists who teach "born again before faith" secure space to exhibit their products as to let the Flounders exhibit. Might as well let the Campbellites exhibit as to let Sproul's Ligonier company which advocates the Pedobaptist heresy about "baby regeneration."
I would think that any Bible-believing Baptist church or conference would -- and should -- refuse to allow any group to exhibit their products if they taught the heresies of "born again before faith" and/or the alleged "regeneration of babies" such as taught by the Pedobaptist Reformed parties.
It's a free country, and those who hold to the Pedobaptist Reformed heresies are free to use whatever means they wish to spread their propaganda, but it does not seem "cricket" to expect Baptists to accommodate them at Baptist-sponsored meetings.
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 7:13 PM
3 Comments:
ANOTHER GOOD COMMENT
BY IAN
Bob:
I noticed that whenever Timmy Brister posts on Calvinism related subjects he receives a large number of comments. Such is the case today on his post concerning Voddie Baucham (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/).
Early in the comments section one sees regurgitated a phrase and two words that ought to be dropped because they unhelpful and only serve to polarize and misrepresent.
The phrase is "Does man save himself through a decision of his will or does God save him by giving him a new heart and spirit (born again) and changing his will" (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/#comment-38708). This is straw man argument since non-Calvinists believe God saves us as much as Calvinists. And these Calvinists complain that their views are being misrepresented by non-Calvinists? Really.
The words are "monergism" and "synergism" (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/#comment-38710). Whatever position one holds, man must believe to be saved. Their "monergism" is a poor phrase and misrepresents Scripture.
-- Ian
Bob's Note: Thanks, Ian, for the comments. The Flounders have complained about "caricatures," yet they are the "greatest" at caricaturing anyone who does not endorse Pedobaptist Reformed Hybrid Calvinism on "born again before faith."
As for monergism, we have covered that. True monergism does not deny the use of the Word as the Spirit's instrumentality in regeneration -- which is what Reformed Hybrid Calvinism denies.
ANOTHER GOOD COMMENT
BY IAN
Bob:
I noticed that whenever Timmy Brister posts on Calvinism related subjects he receives a large number of comments. Such is the case today on his post concerning Voddie Baucham (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/).
Early in the comments section one sees regurgitated a phrase and two words that ought to be dropped because they unhelpful and only serve to polarize and misrepresent.
The phrase is "Does man save himself through a decision of his will or does God save him by giving him a new heart and spirit (born again) and changing his will" (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/#comment-38708). This is straw man argument since non-Calvinists believe God saves us as much as Calvinists. And these Calvinists complain that their views are being misrepresented by non-Calvinists? Really.
The words are "monergism" and "synergism" (http://timmybrister.com/2008/11/17/voddie-baucham-reflects-on-anti-calvinism-in-the-sbc/#comment-38710). Whatever position one holds, man must believe to be saved. Their "monergism" is a poor phrase and misrepresents Scripture.
-- Ian
Bob's Note: Thanks, Ian, for the comments. The Flounders have complained about "caricatures," yet they are the "greatest" at caricaturing anyone who does not endorse Pedobaptist Reformed Hybrid Calvinism on "born again before faith."
As for monergism, we have covered that. True monergism does not deny the use of the Word as the Spirit's instrumentality in regeneration -- which is what Reformed Hybrid Calvinism denies.
Brother Bob,
Thanks for the link! One point about the SBC being an "unregenerate denomination." Jim Eliff, whose essay you linked wrote:
"Discerning who among us is regenerate is not an exact science, but a closer look at these numbers will at least alert us to the fact that most Southern Baptists must certainly be dead spiritually."
For me, this is incredibly arrogant at best and morally distasteful at worse. This is the kind of statement that has rightfully spawned a concern in SBs at large that Founders has an agenda to do precisely what the anti-missions Baptists did in the early 19th century: peel off the "non-elect" so that only the "elect" are members of the church.
The result, of course, is the tiny, little wooden frame church building scattered all over rural Georgia that has 15-25 family members attending; translated, that means The Primitive Baptist Church.
Additionally, Eliff laments the low numbers attending church: "Out of the Southern Baptist's [membership] only...37%, on average, show up for their church's primary worship meeting. In the average church you can cut the 37% Sunday morning attendance by about two-thirds or more when counting those interested in a Sunday evening service...the number of Sunday evening attenders was equal to only 12.3% of the membership...
Now, know I am one who likes the church house packed, I must admit. I also agree that, even if it may be "old-fashioned" a Sunday evening service is not at all useless.
But I've never been one to gripe because people did not come back on Sunday nights. I was glad for the ones who did come and attempted to make it an enriching, edifying time for them.
Nonetheless, make no mistake: Founders advocates like Jim Eliff is just as concerned about numbers as is the most rank mega-church mania guy. The difference lies only in which set of numbers one is allegedly obsessed. The mega-mania guy focuses on who does attend. The Founders focus on who does not.
Appealing to numbers is an axe that slings both ways, I'm afraid.
Grace,, Brother Bob. With that, I am...
Peter
Post a Comment
<< Home