AOG guards against threats to the Gospel like atheism, Islam, Buddhism... and Calvinism?

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Since
Thu, 2/11/10
Posts: 2397

Tags: 

http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2012/06/aog-guards-against-threats-to-gospel.... AOG guards against threats to the Gospel like atheism, Islam, Buddhism... and Calvinism?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1787
The blurp advertising this

The http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201203/index.cfm ]blurp advertising this issue of the magazine describes the various Gospel threats discussed in the magazine and ends with this article.

Quote:
George O. Wood concludes the issue with reflections on the practical importance of sound theology.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1585
Unfortunately the ever

Unfortunately the ever ranting Dan Phillips, while possessing one or two points, typically meshes them with strawmen, self-serving narratives and not actually dealing with the issue. Reading the articles Chip linked to helps one see the reason behind the approach by the AOG and its more honest context.

But as Phillips points out via their exegetical and theological failures regarding "charisphernalia" the AOG isn't exactly a bastion of rigorous theological consideration. My suggestion is that the error of Calvinism not be treated as categorically antagonistic toward the Gospel as atheism is, because it is not, rather that as a category it should be cross-examined as expressing the Gospel but erring in its complete soteriology and with appreciation for the robust Teaching by exegetically based Calvinists as opposed to the appropriate examples of philosophically/rationalistically based Teachers who are of the poorer brand such as Piper and Sproul (as Olson mentioned in his article regarding Calvinists with deficient arguments) though brothers and sincere they be.

JobK's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 10/29/09
Posts: 335
Dude, Dan's Entire Post Was 5 Sentences, One Of Them "Yep."

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Unfortunately the ever ranting Dan Phillips, while possessing one or two points, typically meshes them with strawmen, self-serving narratives and not actually dealing with the issue. Reading the articles Chip linked to helps one see the reason behind the approach by the AOG and its more honest context.

But as Phillips points out via their exegetical and theological failures regarding "charisphernalia" the AOG isn't exactly a bastion of rigorous theological consideration. My suggestion is that the error of Calvinism not be treated as categorically antagonistic toward the Gospel as atheism is, because it is not, rather that as a category it should be cross-examined as expressing the Gospel but erring in its complete soteriology and with appreciation for the robust Teaching by exegetically based Calvinists as opposed to the appropriate examples of philosophically/rationalistically based Teachers who are of the poorer brand such as Piper and Sproul (as Olson mentioned in his article regarding Calvinists with deficient arguments) though brothers and sincere they be.

So how could he have possessed "one or two points, typically meshes them with strawmen, self-serving narratives and not actually dealing with the issue" in an item so brief? Also, what did Phillips do but present the cover of the Assemblies of God's own magazine and let it speak for itself? It calls Calvinism and eternal security challenges to the gospel right along with Islam and atheism! If they wanted more "context" then don't put out a cover like that! And by the way ... I was raised Pentecostal. I have read tons of Pentecostal books. "Born-again Christians who don't speak in tongues can't really serve or live for God"? That is in fact what they teach. Many Pentecostals teach that if you don't speak in tongues you aren't really saved. Others acknowledge your salvation, but depict you as a spiritual second/third class citizen. Pentecostalism imposes hierarchies based on the spiritual gifts, or "anointing", that you allegedly possess. "The same that brought us Jimmy Swaggart, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Paul and Jan Crouch, David (Paul) Yonggi Cho" ... well yes. That is 100% true. The false doctrines and the scandals in that group played a huge role in my leaving Pentecostalism. Would there be millions of "Christians" denying the Holy Trinity were it not for popular oneness pentecostals like Tommy Tenney and T.D. Jakes? One guy had this "special revelation" after "speaking in tongues" and now there are several Trinity-denying denominations that have spawned tons of popular televangelists and recording artists. It's gotten to the point where Christianity Today won't even criticize the modalists anymore, and Charisma (the leading Pentecostal magazine) attacks those who stand up for Trinity as divisive. And that is just one issue among MANY in that scene.

Phillips could have actually been 5 times as stern against that group and still been 100% correct.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura
http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1585
Job Much like Phillips you

Job

Much like Phillips you address the issue via ad hominems. All of those are concerns but they are not germane to whethet or not Calvinism's TULIP (that is specifically what Olson addresses) is a threat to the Gospel. I disagree with that categorization though it is a threat to comprehensive soteriology, dude.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 1787
Alex, I appreciate your

Alex,

I appreciate your measured evaluation. As a Calvinist, I could generally espouse the exact same thoughts toward Arminianism - so I can respect the sentiment of those on the other side who perceive a problem but refuse to call it heresy.

Regarding Philips, could you be specific about the straw men you feel he meshed with good points?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 1585
Chip, Sure. His intro makes

Chip,

Sure. His intro makes an appeal against the article bringing a up personalities in the AOG who had doctrinal or moral failures which are irrelevant (the ad hom argument) to the issue. One could present a long list of Christian leaders who have failed to argue against Christianity and of course we know better than to give weight to such arguments in and of themselves.

Then he created a strawman by stating that the AOG teaches "that born-again Christians who don't speak in tongues can't really serve or live for God". This is not how the AOG views the matter categorically and Phillips ought to know better and I say this being of course opposed to proprietary teachings of the AOG.

He is often reckless in my view in this manner. And uou know, of course, that I am adamantly against continuationism in all of its forms so I have no AOG sentiment to protect, only objectivity.