Barna study shows apparent divide between SBC, other denominations on Calvinism
The Barna Group released findings Nov. 15 that said despite what "observers and journalists have described as ... a significant trend" in terms of a Calvinism movement, numbers of Calvinists among Protestant pastors are not greater today (31 percent) than a decade ago (32 percent).
The research includes four studies conducted from 2000 through 2010, each involving a minimum of 600 phone interviews with random, representative samples of clergy.
Barna's results about the broader Christian community seemingly stand in stark contrast to reports released by Southern Baptist Convention entities showing a surge in identity with five-point Calvinism in Southern Baptist life....
kenny wrote: I believe (I'm not kidding) that Jim Lincoln has jumped the fence. I'm not going to ask him anything else (he never answers anyway) or get involved in any more of his mindless postings. I would advise anyone with a love and respect for God's Word to do the same. Jim, if you read this, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You need to be careful about what you say - especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
Well, however you all want to look at it - if Jim was saved in the past he has thus fallen from grace and is of the faith no longer. Or, he was never saved to begin with.
John UK wrote: It is a good thing that Mr Jim is showing his true colours. I
Why not contact his Pastor- Gil Rugh by email and suggest he has a look at Jim's posts and ask if he is in agreement with such attacks on the godly men who translated the KJV and caustic attacks on that very version.
Jim wants to have a word with a Muslim for they use both the Watchtower and new version arguments against the KJV, to PROVE there is no accurate translation!
It is a good thing that Mr Jim is showing his true colours. I knew it would happen, given enough time. His posts are nothing but repetitive rambles, which even a mindless computer could churn out.
He has posted so many lies now that there can be little doubt of who his father is.
To say that the good, Christian and godly men of the AV 1611 translation team were NOT Christian does not bode well for the judgment seat of Christ, when it shall be discovered that by our words we shall be condemned or justified.
It grieves me to say these things, but I think it is high time for the servants of Christ to rally against the enemy, especially against the fifth columnists who can post up here without pastoral discipline.
From this enemy comes nothing but schismatic ramblings, half-truths, doubt-provoking statements about our precious word of God, and generally a big lack of edifying dialogue. He totally ignores important questions because if he attemped to answer them, all his points would fall flat, just like a pancake.
Rise up, saints, and go out to battle! Your own faith is at stake here. Do battle with the enemy who dares discount God's quickening word. With grace, teach those in error and expose their apostasies.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Ah, TS, Satan used the The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer. It supported the prelacy, was done by Baptist killers, and cults have found comfort in it.
Jim All this blasphemy you spout is getting very deep and dark in its wickedness.
"9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:" Isaiah 30.
It is said of Bishops Westcott and Hort;
"You have to be ingenious to convince people that 1% of the evidence is true and 99% of the evidence is false. Hort was a master at this. So is Satan! Dean Burgon did not deal in "cloudland," nor does his defense of the Traditional Text. Because of Westcott and Horts "paradox" referred to by Dean Burgon, they have based their position purely on subtle theories and rank speculation." (D.Burgon Soc)
And don't forget Jim these are two of the Anglican Liberals who helped write your NASB.
Ah, TS, Satan used the The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a sycretic church founded by a serial wife killer. It supported the prelacy, was done by Baptist killers, and cults have found comfort in it.
"....Remember that the KJV has been the favorite Bible of new religions and cults, like Mormonism, that promote salvation by works. Why? Because in many places the KJV verses are less clear than the reliable modern versions." from, [URL=http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/practical-christianity/PC3W0303.pdf]]]The Conflict Over Different Bible Versionsâ€“Part Five[/URL]
No, the AV was a bad Bible in that it incorrectly passed along to much of God's Word, in beautifully sounding Elizabethan. Thank God we have Bibles now done by Christians! [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=665]]]Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today[/URL] and why the [URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/]]]New American Standard Bible[/URL] may very well be.
Oh, back to the topic, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=230691722]]]Calvinism & Arminanism Contrasted[/URL]
Jim Lincoln wrote: You kid of course! even knowing a little history of the English Bible would point out The Geneva Bible Of 1560 was the Calvinist Bible and the AV wasn't Calvinist
No it's absolutely true Jim. As for the Geneva, yes pretty good Bible, (Better than NASB) BUT don't forget that GOD Himself, in all sovereignty, used the KING JAMES BIBLE for centuries AND used the TEXTUS RECEPTUS for centuries - which means that God "authorised" the KING JAMES BIBLE for use with good Biblical Calvinists.
[URL=http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_comparison_of_the_kjv_nasb.html]]]The Errors and Omissions of the NASB[/URL]
You kid of course! even knowing a little history of the English Bible would point out the [URL=http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1960/v17-3-article6.htm]]]The Geneva Bible Of 1560[/URL] was the Calvinist Bible and the AV wasn't Calvinist, [URL=http://bible.org/seriespage/part-ii-reign-king-james-era-elegance]]]Part II: The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance[/URL] was not only not Calvinist but was done by anti-baptists, [URL=http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/bancroft.html]]]The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV[/URL]. to quote from this article,
The Bible Question, 1852 wrote: Bishop Bancroft, to whom the king confided very much in the actual execution of the work [KJV], was one of the most bigoted and bloody sectarians in the civilized world.
But to get back to Calvinism, I would suggest some should read, [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/resources/booklets/calvinism-and-arminianism]]]Calvinism & Arminianism[/URL], or listen to the sermon on SA, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=230691722]]]Calvinism & Arminanism Contrasted[/URL]
I have met people in churches who claim to be Calvinist, but you can hear from their remarks and statements that they are not. Some people seem to like the prestige of being called Calvinist, but don't really provide much evidence of studying and understanding what it really means theologically.
This stat quote is a blatant oxymoron.... -- "A greater number of Reformed/Calvinist pastors identified themselves as theologically liberal (17 percent)"
It seems to become like the term "evangelical" which has been so redefined, over recent years, that some church goers wouldn't know its real meaning from "epeolatry"
Of course as Jim Lincoln will tell you, A good Calvinist is a King James Bible user. Isn't that right Jim.