A comment from my friend Ed, on a post concerning ‘original sin’:
Whose truth is more truer? Satan used scripture perfectly when tempting Jesus. But Jesus scripture whipped him. You seem to think that what I believe is an invention of my own mind. Not so. We are non-Calvinists for a reason. We believe that Calvinism is of Satan, not of God. It can be equated to this: Allah is the same God that Christians and Jews believe in. WRONG! Calvinism is a pseudo Christianity. Calvin, a former Catholic is NOT the end all, be all for all generations after him. He was wrong, and all who use his name is wrong. Calvinism is infiltrating the Southern Baptist churches…many of the congregation do not believe in Calvinism, but they believe in what I believe, and they are being forced to buy into it. There is problems in your “movement”. Even amongst Calvinists, you cannot even agree amongst yourselves in certain areas. But, you all seem to have those voices inside your heads, claiming it’s the Holy Spirit. So, lets cut to the chase. Whose truth is more truer? Calvinism, or non Calvinism.
Since the original post had nothing to do with Calvin or Calvinism, I thought I would post it on its own, exactly as written.
Yes, my friends, Calvinism is ‘Satanic pseudo-Christianity’, its infiltrating infiltrating the SBC, and Southern Baptist folks are being forced to buy into it! There you have it.
There are too many levels of wrong headedness in the comment to respond – I wouldn’t know where to start. Perhaps Ed would like to elaborate on one or two of his assertions so that there could be intelligent discourse based on careful exegesis of the Biblical text, church history concerning Calvinism and/or the SBC with its Calvinistic roots.
Until that happens, any attempt to dialogue with friend Ed (and his friends who believe like him) would I fear be rather pointless. Neither do I desire to turn this blog into debate about Calvinism. I would rather get to the bottom line, which I don’t think is about John Calvin, but about the nature of Fallen man. Calvin is just a convenient scapegoat.
So if you are reading this, please pray for Ed and his friends, that their hearts might be sufficiently softened and their minds opened to the truth of sovereign grace. Pray also that they might actually study church history before Calvin, and maybe even the history of the SBC, It would help their blood pressure, I’m sure.
The Battle Cry 
As a Bible believing Baptist, I do hold to the 5 doctrines of grace. However, I do not think of myself as a “Calvinist”. To be a Calvinist is implying that I follow and agree with the major teachings of John Calvin. There are several of His beliefs that I find grounds for disagreement: the church, the ordinances etc.
Thanks for the much needed posting on the subject. Lord bless you as you continue to stand for the truth.
LikeLike
Over the years and mostly because of much Bible reading I came to believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace. Had I never heard of John Calvin, I would still embrace them. No man has ever gotten everything right, but Calvin I think had a firm grasp of the sovereignty of God.
LikeLike
Perhaps Ed should study English grammar before he comments. He seems to have a disdain for educated people, but could clearly stand a bit of education himself. “Whose truth is MORE TRUER?” Give me a break! “There IS problems?” His grammar is almost as bad as his theology.
LikeLike
Yes, there is that too. I just chose to not comment on it – hard to do because I am currently on contract as a tech writer/editor.
LikeLike
@ Randy, Tell that grammar thing to those who text people via cell phones. The dictionary is full of words that never existed in a prior generation. Nice redirection on your part tho. NOTE: The word THO is widely used, alTHOUGH it is not proper grammar. Even spell check allows it. AIN’T that a shame? Remember when people used to say that the word “ain’t” isn’t in the dictionary? So, getting back to business, Randy, non-Calvinists do not buy your sovereign God doctrine. And, any Baptist that believes in 5 point Randyism, since some don’t claim the name of Calvin, they are Calvinists no matter who denies the name. Oh, and Randy, the Apostle Paul thought what, about his formal education in theology? I think the KJV states, DUNG. Education means nothing in theology. Opinion is the end result, and opinion is for all people to make up their own mind, not to take your word as truth, but to figure it out for themselves. No education needed. It was a waste of your time.
LikeLike
Hi Randy. You might be putting your fuzzy thinking on display again, but I’ll let Randy respond since you are talking to him with that one.
LikeLike
Ed,
You are using the “everybody is doing it” defense. Since everyone else butchers the English language, it is fine if we do it. Additionally, it is not my “sovereign God doctrine.” The sovereignty of God is clearly taught in the Scriptures. A god who is not sovereign and supreme is not God at all.
Regarding the Phil. 3 passage, you will note that Paul did not say a single word about education, theological or otherwise. Historically, the great men of the faith who did not have the opportunity to pursue formal training have not despised others who were better educated, but have sought provide opportunities for others. I would never have commented on your ignorance had you not made such a big deal of despising those who are better educated than you.
LikeLike
Isn’t it a shame ignorance isn’t painful?
LikeLike
One thing Ed did for me with his ‘fuzzy’ comment was piquing my interest in the current dialogue concerning Calvinism in the SBC. I have managed to gather some interesting information on the subject, and found audio & video for the 2012 Calvinism Conference held by the Kentucky Baptist Convention.
http://www.kybaptist.org/calvinism-conference-2012/
LikeLike
Hey, Born…I didn’t die for you. Jesus did. LOL!!!! Talk about grammar!!!!
LikeLike
I’m sure there is some sort of veiled sarcasm…..or something…..in that. I just don’t have time to ponder it right now.
LikeLike
Did you happen to read your comment? You specifically said: “One thing Ed died for me…” Yes, it was sarcasm on my part, but that sarcasm was all in fun, not nastiness.
LikeLike
Found it and edited it. I should thank you. Or, I could say that it was a test……….:)
LikeLike
Oh my…praying for Ed
LikeLike
Thank you for praying!
LikeLike
I have started listening to the series of audio messages posted by the Kentucky Baptist Convention last year. The first one is really enlightening – A summary of Baptist theology going back to the original ‘General’ and ‘Particular’ Baptist associations in England. They should be of particular interest to friend Ed, as they trace Reformed theology throughout Baptist history. These messages can be found at:
http://www.kybaptist.org/calvinism-conference-2012/.
I have also listened to a conversation between Al Mohler (Reformed Calvinist) and Eric Hankins (self-identifies as a ‘non-calvinist’) that demonstrates how grown men can discuss these issues amiably (without rancor, name calling, etc. [“ED” language]) The conversation can be found at
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/11/07/a-conversation-with-eric-hankins/
More to follow. . .
LikeLike
Today’s Baptists do not buy off on what the OLD DEAD AND BURIED baptists believed. So, who really cares what they believed some 400 years ago? Some deny the Calvinist take on things today. Some of those Baptists today just want to be left alone from any Calvin influences. But the Calvinists won’t let them alone.
LikeLike
What a silly thing to say, Ed! If they didn’t, why so much dialogue about it? You might want to explain yourself with that one, Ed, although deep thought doesn’t seem to be your style..
LikeLike
In reality, they want to be left alone from any influence of the Scriptures. As long as they can report more baptisms than the guy across town they are happy. Truth doesn’t matter to most of them. It has been that way since “A million more in ’54.” Anyone who takes the Scriptures seriously will have to come to the conclusion that God is on his throne in every aspect of life.
LikeLike
I think it’s good that the sovereignty of God in salvation is making a comeback in the SBC – a much needed reformation. Of course it runs counter to easy believism and descisionism, whether in SBC circles or elsewhere. Have a blessed day, Randy!
LikeLike
Dan, I always enjoy reading your blogs. You have some great stuff on here. I also wanted to thank you for re-posting from my blog “The Thinking Hill”, I do appreciate it. I don’t get as much discretionary time to write on my blog or posts on others as I would like. I posted on one of your earlier posts and I believe it was the one on Original Sin. Our friend Ed jumped all over what I had to say and I was very intent on answering him. I read the dialogue between you and him on your blog and could not follow this man’s reasoning at all. I went to his site to read about him and he tells one right up front that “I seek out controversies on purpose” and that his “latest kick that has lasted a little over a year now is in regards to the Calvinist belief system.” When someone tells you up front who and what they are we need to believe them. He appears to me to enjoy merely arguing with people and takes a rather strange approach to trying to express his views.
I sat down to try to answer Ed on your blog but the more that I thought about it, the harder it was for me to try to find any logic in his ramblings to address. I finally decided it would be an exercise in futility to comment on his statements.
I do enjoy your posts and look forward to the new arrivals.
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by and the encouragement! I really don’t know how to respond to Ed either and keep hoping for something from him that gets to his bottom line ‘issues’ I don’t think it’s really calvinism, but something deeper. I’ve been to his site and wandered around there trying to get a better idea where he’s coming from. If it’s just to argue about stuff, there’s not a lot to discuss. I would like to have an intelligent conversation with him, but like you said, it’s hard to get there from here.
The story about Korbin at yuor site was heart-wrenching. My wife of nearly 40 years is a 15 year cancer survivor, one of my closest Christian brothers was taken by brain cancer, and we are attending a memorial service today for a friend who lost her battle with cancer.
Yes, we are going to pray!
LikeLike
You are free to contact me directly. Just click on my name and send me a line. I am glad to debate any doctrine from any denomination. I think my reasoning is pretty clear. I am not the ONLY person that believes what I believe. And, I can provide Bible references for why I believe what I believe. What I find in Calvinism, is the same as I find with other cults…same talking points without being ORIGINAL in thought or dialog. It’s a cut and paste. Born4Battle does a lot of that in his posts. Other peoples articles, dead peoples talking points, etc. Nothing original from his own mind.
LikeLike
So Ed, what is original thought concerning these matters? Just sitting with a Bible and thinking about what is says all on your own? It must be wonderful to have perfect thoughts all on your own, Ed. I’ve been down that road, Ed. It’s sometimes referred to as ‘what this verse means to me Bible study”. Everyone sits around contemplating the same scripture and then shares their individual insights, patting each other on the back for their greaght “insight” even when said insight had nothing to do with the text or context.Discovering what it actually says is much more profitable – trust me on that. It does however, require certain hermeneutical skills learned from other sources. Unless of course you already have a perfect mind.
LikeLike
To answer your second question, YES. What you and most “denominational” people do is to believe what someone else already told you to believe. The Bereans didn’t do that. God reveals things to YOU based on HIS WORD, not the word of someone else. Just because a teacher teaches, scrutinize it with a fine tooth comb…on your own. Be critical. Don’t just take someones word for it. Even in hermeneutics, you are still concluding what someone else concluded. Time and time again, Jesus scolded the Pharisees. Why? They thought that they were right, and no one, not even God, was gonna tell them that they were wrong. The way that I study the Bible is much different than the way that you are taught. And, I might add, my conclusions are in line with many others who do have the formal education. But I learned it before I confirmed it. Bible/Concordance alone. College ruled paper, pens, and lots of coffee. No computer.
LikeLike
Ed, How do you know that we are ‘denominational’ people and what does that mean, anyway? I don’t recall anyone in this conversation claiming to be adherents of a ‘denomination’. We are, however able to discuss issues in denominational terms, having studied what certain denominations might believe, or in this case, different aspects of an issue within the same denomination. And how do you know the order any of us came to believe anything? Is that more of your perfect, always can be trusted mind? If your ‘confirmation’ was merely your own mind, minus any other input outside of the Bible itself, I feel for you, unless your mind is perfect. I choose to trust some of those, living and dead, who have studied scripture much more than I have, and who know more about the original languages than I do. I’ve been busted more than once trusting my own personal thoughts.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that YOU were denominational. I said “YOU” with the word “AND” with the word “MOST” (meaning not all). And, I find it funny that you would criticize my mind, but you are perfectly fine with your mind. Your side claims that you are right, our side claims that we are right. So, to get back to MY original question, using different words, since Randy disapproves of my grammar, who is right, your side, or mine? Whose truth is truer? We both know the other sides talking points, and we both deny the others talking points. We both believe in Jesus, etc., but disagree on many issues. I am more inline with the NON-Calvinist Southern Baptists, although I am not a Baptist.
LikeLike
It’s not about your side or my side, Ed, so I’m not going there.
LikeLike
Ed said “The dialog is that Calvinism is/was being “covertly” integrated, slowly, over time, so as not to lose the congregation all at once.”
That almost sounds like some think there is a conspiracy going on, but I think it’s more a rediscovery of ‘Reformed’ roots, or a result merely of what the Bible teaches about the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men. I have a close friend at work who tells me that the text of scripture comes down on the side of Calvinism, but he is still Arminian. For him, it has to do with the ‘free will’ issue.
LikeLike
http://www.reformedreader.org/chapter_3.htm
Also see chapters 1 and 2.
The main under this topic is:
http://www.reformedreader.org/reforming_a_local_church.htm
Home page is simply reformedreader.org
LikeLike
No conspiracy there that I can see. It seems to set forth how to bring reformation to SBC churches where reformation is needed. Part of that is returning to the historic roots of the SBC. The only mention of Calvinism is that it is a word/term that should not be used in contemporary churches where it might not be understood, along with other terms. There was reference to the churches in Revelation that Christ himself declared that something had been lost that needed to be regained, or reformed.
LikeLike
Who made the decision that reformation was needed in a non-reformed church without first telling the whole congregation as to what was going to happen from the start, without warning people first. That is deception on the reformers part. There are some who have left once they figured it out, and they are giving their story of the dishonesty of the Calvinists changing their church in a covert manner. It was wrong for the Calvinists to reform any church. They should leave the churches alone, and start their own church.
LikeLike
Ed, your arguments seem to be based on the premise that Calvinism is not even Christian, perhaps because it teaches that men are born in a ‘depraved’ condition, also believed by classical Arminianism. You don’t fight with me only, but with all of historical Christianity where the Pelagian heresy has not taken hold (either in part or wholly).
LikeLike
You nailed it. Yes, I believe that Calvinism is of the devil. I do not believe that man is depraved. And yes, I know your talking points about it. I am not an Arminian. I am an American. I never considered an Arminian position when studying the Bible. I have no clue to this day as to what they believe. The same with Pelagian. My study is independent. Therefore, I wish that you Calvinists would stop with the Arminian/Pelagian accusations.
LikeLike
I would NEVR CALL YOU AN Arminian, Ed. Classic Arminians, along with Calvinists believe men are depraved at birth. Some level of a Pelagian (declared heresy, by the way) maybe, but never an Arminian. If you have no clue what Arminisns believe, how is it that you claim to know so much about the evils of Calvinism.
LikeLike
Randy,
I don’t buy what you are selling, in that the Baptists “concealed the truth”. Your Calvin made up doctrine, calling it truth. And what is funny, you actually believe it. Bottom line is this: What you call truth is not truth at all.
Your explanation that division MUST exist is so out of line. Two different belief systems within a church is what I was discussing, and that isn’t allowed. That is division.
But, as we can see from you, you quote a “church father”. A dead guy.
And what about all these confession meetings? That’s about as bad as the Apostles Creed. I can’t stand either. None of those so called confessions comes from the heart, based on individual study, but it’s all based on what someone else came up with. Most notably, dead people.
I am quite sure that you have read and understood the Apostles Creed, right? Part of that confession is that you believe in the Holy Catholic Church. Now, I know that you do not believe in a Holy Catholic Church.
So, you had to mimic the Catholics and come up with a creed of your own, calling it “Confession”.
Nothing original there.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
I don’t know whether you are a SB or not, but if you understand the BF & M, you will understand there is nothing “covert” about teaching so-called Calvinistic doctrine. It is clearly in the SB’s own doctrinal statement. “Election is God’s gracious act. . . .” That means it is not based on our works or our faith but on God’s own purpose. “Faith and repentance are the certain fruits of regeneration. . . .”That means faith and repentance are not the cause of regeneration, but the results of it. These are Calvinistic doctrines. Teaching anything other than this is “covert” and contrary to what SBs confessedly believe. Those who are teaching the biblical doctrines of God’s sovereignty in salvation are simply getting back to their roots. Read the Philadelphia Confession, the New Hampshire confession etc. These are Baptist confessions of faith. The founders of all the SB seminaries believed these doctrines. It is the Semi-Pelagians who have departed from SB doctrine, not the Calvinists.
LikeLike
The takeover was covert, Randy. The SB’s do not believe in your Calvinist doctrine, however, a great STUPID experiment is being done to integrate two different belief systems in one church. What does the Bible say about DIVISION IN THE CHURCH? My advise, leave the SB, and leave them alone.
LikeLike
Since you answered Randy, I need to let this one go, although claiming that Southern Baptists do not believe Calvinist doctrine displays a level of ignorance of tremendous proportions.
LikeLike
Ed,
The reality is that SB pastors have willingly and culpably concealed the truth for decades because they knew hard doctrine would be unpopular. It has been all about building big churches instead of building good churches. What has happened in the past couple of decades is that some pastors have finally found their backbones and have begun to preach the truth. There is nothing covert about that. We don’t proclaim the doctrines of grace as Calvinism because it is not Calvinism but biblical truth. There is nothing covert about teaching God’s truth in a systematic, expository way.
What the Bible says about Division in the Church is that divisions must exist (1 Cor. 11:19). One of the early fathers said, “If offense come because the truth is preached, better it is that offense come than that the truth be concealed.”
What you don’t seem to understand is that confessionally [if SBs held to any confession at all] SBs have held to Calvinistic confessions. Those confessions were usually the Philadelphia Confession or the New Hampshire Confession. Both these confessions are Calvinistic. As I have already pointed out to you, the Baptist Faith and Message clearly teaches gracious election and regeneration before faith and repentance. What can be covert about teaching what denominational documents set forth as truth?
If I were still a pastor in the SBC, I would urge a split in the Convention. “How can two walk together unless they are agreed?” Truth is more important that denominational unity. J. C. Ryle wrote, “We must never sacrifice any portion of God’s truth on the altar of Unity,” The problem is that for most SBs the convention is more important than any other consideration.
LikeLike
Ed,
There must be a level of ignorance going on, or a huge grammar issue going on with you, but probably both. You keep saying “Southern Baptists” don’t believe Calvinism and that is plainly false, even if you have only read what has been posted here about the issue If you want to know who declared Pelagianism heresy, do a little research. You have a computer and it wouldn’t take long at all. You also deny the historical doctrine of the Trinity, and have made up you own version, And of course you think Calvin invented what he taught concerning the sovereignty of God, which is more utter nonsense. So the term ignorance does apply here, and need not be taken personally – you just either don’t know, or choose to ignore what you might in fact be aware of. Perhaps you are just being argumentative because it’s your ‘style’ I’m not going to respond to every little bit of nonsense you keep spouting, and I hope I have let your other comments to Randy out of moderation. Don’t be surprised if I don’t approve any others. It doesn’t seem to be profitable to either of us.
LikeLike
By the way, all of the comments that I mentioned being in moderation are still in moderation. I would respectfully request that they be approved.
With all due respect, censorship is not a good thing. When you sensor me, your regular readers don’t get to see what I have to say, hence, they think that I am nuts, and by you censoring me, I don’t have the opportunity to prove them wrong. Case in point: Randy telling me that Paul was not discussing Theological Education in Phil. Chapter 3. I disagree 10000000%. Yet, Randy was the educated one, not knowing that the Apostle Paul was Saul, the Educated Pharisee. I believe that the word Pharisee denotes a Theology, does it not? There were also Sadducee’s, too. How is it that Randy does not know this, him being the Edumacated one.
But, since Randy thinks that my grammar stinks, as well as you, here is what I have to say on the subject:
Get Jiggy With It, Homeboy, my nigga (as my daughter would say).
Ed
LikeLike
Well, Ed, I’m afraid all of your comments currently in moderation, except for this one, will remain there. I don’t want to argue with you anymore about obvious things that you deny, no matter what they are. I’m not sure there is room for good dialogue with someone who maintains that there is no such things as ‘saving faith’ and that faith is not a ‘gift’ and then quotes Eph 2:8-9.
LikeLike
Ed, I did read your last two comments from about 7:00 AM my time this morning and will not approve them. As muh as I wouldn’t really mind approving them so you could once again embarass yourselves in front of thinking adults, it would not be very Christian of me to do so for that reason. that would be my sinful self, and I need to instead be praying tht one day we might be able to discuss things in an intelligent and civil manner.
LikeLike
Well, Ed, I am supporting you all the way. I have personally experienced this demonically-inspired, man-thought-up, scripture-raping thing called Calvinism. It is a deadly disease that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. Calvinists cry “Sola Scriptura” at every corner and yet there entire fable is based on extra-biblical nonsense.
All we can do is continue to pray for them, that they see the error of their ways, and turn their lives over to Jesus Christ (not the elitist Jesus” they so demean and downplay . . . who is that weird “jesus” anyway?).
This sect is struggling in my country, and rightly so. Beware of Calvinism: it is not of God, not even one sentence of it.
Love, Ed.
Tracey, Canada
LikeLike
I am posting this only so that you know that I didn’t ignore you. If needed, I will set your future comment to ‘always moderate’. Your comment lacks any Biblical support whatsoever for your thoughts concerning Calvinism. That might be because you know as much truth about John Calvin as does Ed! That would be next to none. Have you ever studied the man and his times, read The Institutes, taken a course in Reformed theology, or anything resembling objective research? I Seriously doubt it. I have, but it,was mostly just reading the Bible that turned me from ‘free will idolatry’ to the doctrines of sovereign grace. It’s what is taught in its pages.
LikeLike