In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

In my opinion, if you have an incorrect view of God's character, then it is impossible to present a truthful witness. Which is what we are to do when we spread the Gospel.

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

For friendly discussion purposes only:

Does anyone have a truly correct view of God's character?

Jabin said:

---

For friendly discussion purposes only:

Does anyone have a truly correct view of God's character?

---

Probably not. But I posted what I thought was a good article on this not long ago. I always think of the fruits of the Spirit as visible displays of God's character.

Peace, patience, joy, love, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, generosity, and self control.

And I agree with A. W. Tozer that what comes to a person's mind when they think about God is the most important thing about us.

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

In my opinion, if you have an incorrect view of God's character, then it is impossible to present a truthful witness. Which is what we are to do when we spread the Gospel.

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

IDK - maybe that he's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Even though it presents a conundrum for me, I choose not to construct a false dichotomy between what God causes and what He allows. If nothing else, I can derive comfort in knowing that he caused, not merely allowed, his only son to be crushed for me. If there is a dichotomy, I suppose it is between what gives God pleasure and what does not.

94chem said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

In my opinion, if you have an incorrect view of God's character, then it is impossible to present a truthful witness. Which is what we are to do when we spread the Gospel.

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

IDK - maybe that he's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Even though it presents a conundrum for me, I choose not to construct a false dichotomy between what God causes and what He allows. If nothing else, I can derive comfort in knowing that he caused, not merely allowed, his only son to be crushed for me. If there is a dichotomy, I suppose it is between what gives God pleasure and what does not.

---

Agree. But the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity and expresses the nature of God. As does Jesus.

I think the list of the fruits of the Spirit gives an insight into God's character as does the ministry of Jesus.

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

---

And I can give you a list who have thought it through and come to different theological conclusions than the list you mentioned,

Yes it makes a difference if you are a Calvinist or not.

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

tk111 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

94chem said:

---

In my opinion, it basically comes down to evangelism. Remember, the SBC was formed as a missions cooperative. If your theology of soteriology prevents you from following Jesus, then it's bad theology. One could, in theory, be a hyper-Calvinist and carry out the Great Commission as a matter of obedience.

---

I will say that in real life, most Calvinists I know are delightful Christians. I sometimes wonder if they have actually thought through what their theology actually says about the character of God.

---

I'm sorry, is this for real?

Just trying to think off the top of my head of a few of the greatest protestant theologians who have devoted the time and thought required to write systematics, which, just perhaps, a few of us might have read and appreciate:
Luther
Calvin
Zwingli
Beza
A Brakel
Edwards
Owen
Turrentin
VanMastrich
Hodge
Bavinck
Vos
Berkhof
Van Til
Strong
Lloyd-Jones
Packer
Grudem
Sproul
Culver
Frame
Letham

Read one or two of those and come back again with a comment as utterly absurd and insulting as this. Maybe you don't agree with them...but cmon man, the bubble you have to live in to be this ignorant of Church history and basic theology to say something like that. Yeah, they just "haven't really thought it through." Good gracious.

---

I am not talking about theologians. I am talking about regular people who claim to be Calvinists.
I do not believe the majority of them do not believe in limited atonemen or double pre destination.

Do you?

---

What makes you say that? Your own introspection? You're all over the place doc. Those who aren't theologians just get thrown into your bucket of "they haven't akshually thought about it?"

The clear implication of your post is that you believe that because these folks you know are "delightful christians," it must be in spite of the fact that they're calvinists or that they have serious theological shortcomings, because that's the only way could make sense to you. You think maybe that's a bit obtuse?

---

Are you a Calvinist?

---

What does it matter? You're not acknowledging the predicament in your statement. Youre saying either a "regular person" (whatever that means) who is calvinist "hasn't actually thought it through," thus he can be a "delightful christian" because his theology is inconsistent, or that everyone on that list I just gave who spent their whole lives "thinking it through" can't be "delightful Christians" (by whatever standard you've set up for yourself) because they would affirm the "five points." Consider the position you've put yourself in.

---

And I can give you a list who have thought it through and come to different theological conclusions than the list you mentioned,

Yes it makes a difference if you are a Calvinist or not.

---

I didn't say people couldn't come to different theological conclusions. Im addressing your fallacious statement. Again, what do my personal beliefs have to do with that? Please explain how telling you my position would affect your answer.

I suppose if you met me and determined me to be delightful, you could answer your own question eh?