Funny that they're so concerned about the doctrine that once defined the convention at its inception. Christians don't know their own history and are so short sighted.

I go to their blog site (s) quite often and discuss Calvinism with them.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I think I have a fair understanding of it, as well a fair understanding of Baptist theology.

I try and present another viewpoint which we believe is biblical.

Here's a sample:

http://theoldadam.com/2012/08/17/if-youre-an-advocate-of-free-will-theology-listen-to-this-one/

Thanks, very much.

Look at the Presbyterians who represent the major group that espouses Calvinism today. They are a dying denomination with churches that are drying up, seminaries that are shrinking in importance, an insignificant missionary presence in the world. Wherever Calvinism has infiltrated Baptist churches, a similar result has occurred. Having lived in England, I had the opportunity of knowing the "Particular Baptist Movement," which claims descendency from Charles Spurgeon. Their group of churches have dwindled in number. Their members don't even believe believers can know assurance of salvation because they don't know if they will "persevere to the end or not." God help the Southern Baptists from succumbing to that fate.

That a churches numbers are dwindling does not necessarily mean poor doctrine. Look at the Mormons and Muslims. Growing by leaps and bounds.

I do agree with you on the assurance question (in Calvinism). Their poor doctrine in some areas leaves little or no assurance for the believer without the believer looking inward. And that is a bad place to look for it.

That's why I'm not a Calvinist.

Calvinism will clean out the churches and leave us with a society of atheists and deists. So if you want this society to stay Christian, toss the Calvinists out. Its that simple.

I was thinking more along the lines of trying to convince them of their errant doctrines.

God loves heretics, too.

While good theology is important, we are not saved by it.

Calvinists are deists and Arminians are Pelagians, and it's comments like Steve's that will continue to divide the body of Christ. The rest of the world looks at this debate and says "huh." So do I.

The average believer does not think about words like Calvinism and Arminian. We probably shouldn't either. It's more important to teach and preach the representative truths accurately. So, God's sovereignty is real and important. Free will is real and important. Both affect our life in powerful ways. Let's teach how. Let's not get out of balance on either. One way you have insecurity and the other false security passivity and poor responsibility. Neither is spiritually healthy or full of life. If we rightly divide we are fine. The goal is not to label the two sides of the coin and fixate on that. The goal is to spend the coin in God's kingdom!

The Presbyterian Church is not losing members due to Calvinism, unfortunately this Church hardly mentions Calvin and Calvinism these days. It's funny the Baptists do. Perhaps the PC should go back to what made them gain numbers. Why they're losing numbers now are because of the infiltrating homosexuals which is forcing members and the General Assembly to concentrate on the demands and goals of the homosexuals instead of the beliefs of Calvinism, the worship of God, and the mission of Jesus to spread the word and conquer sin. Now we're being told in church that needs and wishes of the nice homosexuals who are just people and not odd sex addicts are to be put first and not Jesus. People are not asked or taught any more to respect Jesus by at least trying to "go straight" and concentrate on him instead of the new god, any sex like homosexual goes. Parents need today a church to back up parents wishes of no sex until marriage, no babies out of wedlock, girls and women's right to say no and not told to accept the male baloney of you can get an abortion so open your legs, no perverted sex especially with young boys. Church is supposed to be safe for all ages and bringing homosexual sex into the church is not safe for any one. That's why the PC is losing members and having to close churches. Those who put families first are gaining, well, at least in my area. We check every website there is to make sure kids and parents are safe while families at least try to follow Jesus without being told following Jesus means to accept the activity of sin. In my area, black churches are ballooning because they're pretty strict about giving up sin and they work at helping people conquer or at least control their sin. PC needs to go back to being like them again.

It's funny to find this discussion going on here. I went to a Wesleyan college and it wasn't until third semester Greek that I had a prof ask me (with all sincerity), "So what does our resident Calvinist think of this passage?" As usual we had a great conversation, but as I left I was surprised to be labeled. I never thought of myself as a Calvinist. In fact, I couldn't probably outline Calvinist doctrine per se, but apparently the witness of my salvation in Jesus Christ looks "Calvinist" to some other believers. For me my faith has always been rooted in the reality of God's intervention in my life by force. As I read the comments I don't understand the criticism of lack of assurance. I am stunned by the assurance I have from my encounter with the Living God.

I'm not sure what I'm missing. BTW, I find labels unhelpful as a rule.

After Jesus!

Thanks all for an interesting thread.

BTW (Anna). I agree with your statements, with so many churches UMC, PCUSA hemorrhaging members after it's General Assemblies wateed down orthodox doctrine in favor of serving up a more popular, "social" (post-modern?) Gospel that won't "offend people". However I did want to point out one encouraging thing I think you may have overlooked.

There are MANY smaller, orthodox, conservative, biblically faithful Presbyterian churches (PCA, OPC) that are steadily GAINING in numbers. (See http://www.thearda.com/Denoms/Families/F_91.asp). ARDA is the Association of Religion Data Archives and shows about every stat about a denomination that one could imagine (like trends, history, demographics, etc). Many folks mistakenly lump "all" Presb. churches in with the large PCUSA, but the smaller ones I"ve visited are (thankfully) light years away from the PCUSA liberal/social doctrinal positions.

While no church is perfect, the PCA we attend holds closely to orthodox tenants and veracity of Scripture as you state. It interestingly (while holding to the Westminster Confession) also does not "push" Calvinism as an "easy beliefism" or "got it made in the shade" doctrine. We still must exert our effort to "persevere to the end" as Paul wrote, as well as "work out our salvation". If I recall, Calvin himself wasn't as "strong" a professor of wielding the "TULIP thing" as were those that continued after his death. (Ref Sproul)

BTW: I don't wish to disparage the PCUSA or UMC here (we have many good Christian friends in those churches). However, given that their recent Assembly decisions are causing many to leave--perhaps it is a good thing for those who are "Bereans" in those churches and who seek to hold God's Word and Sovereignty over man's "traditional" decisions? (as in prior history) Just a thought. Peace.

I am Lutheran who believes in single Predestination. I can live with the "mystery" of why or why not certain people come to faith. I do agree that shrinking numbers in the pews and offering plates have less to do with Calvinism/ Arminian debates and more to do with various churches wrestling with social and personal issues that are not so clear-cut in terms of biblical insight. And of course, every view has their prooftexts, somebody whose life was "transformed" through a given biblical view as well as Greek and Hebrew scholars that will support their views.

But then again, was I "predestined" to think this way?

So where does this put us single Predestination Lutherans at?

It is a shame that most people who speak of calvinism negatively do not even know what John Calvin taught. though, no doubt some of you who spoke negatively about it DID know, most do not. This is no ones fault like it is the ''hyper-calvinist", which is what calvinism is so widely associated with today. John Calvin taught the Bible, the same teachings Paul and Peter taught, and Christ himself. hyper-calvinist have destroyed these teachings and given calvinism an almost anti-christ name. Calvinism is a school of thought that truely requires a higher level of thought and study than what most are willing to give. to understand it takes a lot of study and prayer. On behalf of John Calvin and ALL christians who believe in Calvins interpretation of the Bible, I apologize for the lies hyper-calvinists have told and for the misinformation that arminians and others have been fed and then passed along as though it were fact. Advice: read Chosen By God, by Sproul...that is calvinism. though i do stress one thing, the common denominator is Christ, and christians need not fight over this...we must keep it on a calm discussion level, using only scripture to sway one another, being careful however, not to twist Gods word. thanks.

A little autobiographical info: I am very comfortable labeling myself an Arminian, graduated with my BA in Theology from a Wesleyan institution, and am in ardent disagreement especially with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. That being said, I just don't understand the animosity that so often exists between Arminians and Calvinists. Some of my best friends are Calvinists, and they live lives of devoted faith to Jesus and often have great wisdom and insight. Sure, we disagree on some theological framework, and we have spent plenty of time talking about it, but we view one another as brothers in Christ (I can't actually think of any close female Calvinist friends, so "brothers" is accurate) alongside whom we can easily worship the Triune God and live as disciples.

I am not trying to suggest that we shouldn't pursue the truth together in conversation, study, and prayer, but suggesting that we fail to honor our savior when we call one another names, seek to expel our brothers and sisters who disagree on these issues, and disparage one another's beliefs.

As Paul says in Ephesians 4,
"I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Maybe I should throw this out there, too. Just as many people misunderstand the beliefs of Calvinism, many have very little understanding of what Arminianism actually entails. I would say that I was initially more of a "free will-y" (or, I guess, semi-Pelagian) than an Arminian, with a belief that humans could turn to God in repentance on their own.

Early Arminianism (and Wesley's Arminianism) does not allow for that. While Arm. doesn't accept unconditional election or irresistible grace, it includes a strong concept total depravity and so requires a strong prevenient grace, in which humans in their sinful state are incapable of turning to God in repentance on their own. Instead, it teaches that sinful humans may only turn to God because the Holy Spirit makes the first move of granting to humans the ability to make such a choice, when left to our own devices we could choose only rebellion.

While both Arminius and Wesley believed that Christians could fall away from their faith, I am not convinced that this belief is required by the other key points of Arminianism, and tend to lean toward a preservation of the saints.