OK, below is a comment exchange between myself and Colin Maxwell back in 2007. He ask me a question and then I answer him. I wonder if anyone (including, of course, Colin) has any thoughts on what I say here. I am really curious as to whether or not any of you have noticed anything similar or made this observation ... or is it just in my head?
First, I said this to an local anonymous commenter that was sniping at me for going to a "Calvinist" church:Rose said:
The church I go to is "Calvinist" in the sense that most everyone believes in ETERNAL SECURITY and that SALVATION IS A GIFT NOT OF WORKS. From what I understand ... in the last 100 or so years around these parts, that was what "Calvinist" really meant to people. A majority in our church would not recognize the newer "Doctrines of Grace" Calvinism.Colin Maxwell said:
Genuinely and lovingly interested in "the newer "Doctrines of Grace" Calvinism". How old/young are these? In your own time.
By goodnightsafehome at 3/7/2007Rose said:
I do have a basis for saying "newer" and here it is... It might be different in Ireland, but around these parts, in the GARBC circles ... (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches) and other Baptist circles, there has been a certain cap on Calvinistic thought. That is changing... I did not mean to say that the "d.o.g." were newer altogether ... I know better than that... but "newer" in influence around these parts and in these circles.
Here is a good example of the naiveté about "Calvinism" by Dr. Ron Comfort:"When I was a college student, I was naive enough to think that everybody was either an Arminian ora Calvinist, and the determining factor was whether or not they accepted the security of the believer.When somebody would come to you and say, “Are you a Calvinist?,” if you believed in the security ofthe believer, you would say, “Yes, I’m a Calvinist.” Later on as I got to studying more about Calvinism,I realized that there was more involved in Calvinism than the security of the believer.
I exerpted that from an article here.
I know people, who, while not that "green" about it, they just won't carry the thoughts out to the extremes that the "d.o.g." do. They will say they believe in the doctrine of "Total Depravity" but they don't interpret this as "Inability". TD just means to them that man has nothing good to offer to God ... he is tainted by sin. It doesn't mean that He is not able to believe something that God has shown through the testimony of the HS. These same "Calvinists" will not say that Christ did not
die for all, but that His death was not "efficacious" for all. They don't believe in "regeneration preceding faith" or that "faith is a gift." They don't recognize "perseverence of the saints" as the "d.o.g." spells it out, but they would simply present it as resembling "Eternal Security" or (as now scourged by MacArthur Calvinists) "OSAS."
They will tell you that the way they were taught it at BBC or FaithBBC was not what is being spelled out in the "d.o.g."Very simple.
While I might agree with someone who says that the "d.o.g." is just carrying out TULIP in its totality to its logical conclusions ....there it is.
"Calvinism" in the Midwest of the US was not the same as the "doctrines of grace" that we now see in the Midwest of the US. There never used to be much of a "Reformed Baptist" church in existence either. That would have been thought to be a contradiction of terms.