To the earlier question, the churches I referred to were 1-Virginia, 2-Texas, 2-Kentucky, 1-North Carolina. Thinking back, one of them may have had closed communion, but I can’t remember for sure. At any rate, I understand the evidence is anecdotal.

My point is that the BFM is a confession that ‘confesses’ something most churches don’t practice, so it should be changed. We can discuss another day the merits of open/closed communion, but to leave the BFM saying that we believe something that most of our churches don’t practice isn’t a good idea.

If that is where Les stands, then let him state it. But I would also caution him in his statement. Peter Lumpkins quoted Dr. Greg Welty in this statement from Welty,

“I find the popular Spurgeon quote to be unhelpful, that “Calvinism is the gospel.” I understand what Spurgeon was trying to say, but I think it can be both misleading and unhelpful, to the extent that I never use that quote myself.

I believe the wisdom of Welty is superb here.

If a former presidential candidate for the SBC truly wants to bridge differences of opinions, then he might refrain from statements that are “both misleading and unhelpful.”

May you, Les, and all have a blessed Lord’s day.

Robin

It may help to read Spurgeon the way I think he meant to be understood. When he says “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.” He is speaking in the context of his previous statement. He is not saying that only Calvinists believe the Gospel. He is stating his conviction (like so many others around here when referring to their own soteriology) that his understanding of the working of the gospel is what is commonly called Calvinism by ‘nickname.’ That’s like my brothers here which call themselves merely ‘biblicists’ by nickname when they recite their understanding of the Gospel…now, I could get offended at that, because who among us does not consider his theology to be biblical? But, alas, I digress. To Spurgeon, to speak of the Gospel was to speak in terms of God’s gracious, sovereign gift of salvation…and that, he understood in terms of a Calvinist soteriology.

I do not believe that Spurgeon was attempting to cast anyone else in any sort of negative light…by calling them un-Christian or heretical. He passionately stated his belief from a convictional standpoint.

Sola Gratia!

First, I don’t know what you mean. I don’t have the power to exclude anyone.

Second, let me get this straight. You said:

“No I don’t think only Calvinists preach the gospel. I’m not that exclusivist, unlike you guys. Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes. Can the gospel be preached and one not believe in Calvinism? Yes.”

In your “biblical” thinking Calvinism is the gospel, yet when someone does not agree to the tenets of Calvinism and/or preaches contrary to it, they still preach the gospel. WOW! If that is your type of “biblical” thinking, I believe I will stick with mine.

My reference to exclusivist was referencing all of the people you guys are trying to keep away from table. You know exactly what I mean.

Second question: No.

Third question: biblical belief.

Tim,

Now I’m being accused of being a Methodist? LOL!
I suppose there are other things that I don’t agree with young Mr. Finn about. Just because we’re both Calvinists doesn’t mean that we agree on all aspects of doctrine. BTW, I didn’t that Nathan was your standard.

Regarding my explanation of open communion, whether you think it’s schizophrenic or not, it’s still biblical.

As you said on my blog: thanks for the conversation but I think I’ll leave the conversation now.

Have a great Lord’s Day!

Les

Your explanation of open communion is the same as found here. It says; “We practice “open Communion,” welcoming all who love Christ, repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another.”

As to your exposition of the BF&M, I believe you would do well to read here. It seems Dr. Finn would not agree with you. For a more complete understanding of Dr. Finn’s teaching on this subject you can go here.

In all honesty, Brother Les, your explanation of Open Communion seems, to this reader, to be a bit schizophrenic.

Blessings,
Tim

Thank you for your interaction, but please understand what I believe before you label me an exclusivist without defining what you mean. I am exclusive as far as the Bible is exclusive just like I believe you are.

So, are you saying that those who deny limited atonement as a valid doctrine, somehow contradict their own beliefs and preach it anyways if they are preaching the gospel according to your definition of the gospel? Are you saying that those who deny limited atonement, but preach the gospel according to your definition are somehow theologically schizophrenic?

Finally, if my thinking is faulty in that it is linear, then what kind of thinking must I do in order to agree with you that Calvinism is the gospel and that those who may not believe in Calvinism somehow overcome that belief by still preaching the gospel?

Excellent question. No I don’t think only Calvinists preach the gospel. I’m not that exclusivist, unlike you guys. Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes. Can the gospel be preached and one not believe in Calvinism? Yes. I haven’t made those exclusivist claims nor did C. H. Spurgeon. You need to stop thinking so linearly. If you apply your linear thinking to all doctrines, then you’re going to have a terrible time with the Trinity.

If you’re interested in knowing my view on Landmarkism, tune in to my blog on Monday.

David,

LOL! Landmarkish? Please. :)

I said that was MY definition of “open communion.” What would you call it?

It’s real fun to see the way you guys run to each other’s defense and don’t let the poster actually answer the questions posed to him. How many BI guys does it take to answer Les’ questions?

You guys are a lot of fun. :)

Les

You sound real “Landmarkish” to me, too. What is your answer to Robin? Are the only true Churches those that preach and teach the five points of Calvinism?

Also, Les, your communion is not exactly an open communion. You are asking them to all be saved and baptised by immersion.

David