true or false: god CANNOT save Anyone Unless You Permit Him Too!

Note the order of the call... JESUS said, "Come unto me..." What you and a lot of others are saying is that MAN says, "Jesus, come unto me..." BIG difference.

 

We are not "blind" to the statement. We are, in fact, not "blind" at all. What we are is biblically informed. GOD is the imitator of salvation, not man. In your stated system, MAN decides, then God rearranges history (before history happens, in fact) based on what MAN does. That places ALL the actual power for salvation in the hands of a MAN and that concept is alien to the Scriptures no matter how you "proof text" the concept by grabbing this or that verse out of context.

Are you familiar with the First Commandment? Perhaps you can post it just so that the rest of us know that you know what it says. I can't count on you reading it just because someone else posts it. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.

 

So how did it turn into the .....nevermind, Heaven forbid I get another demerit for saying what we are all thinking.

 

I think you meant "initiator" of salvation.

And correct, we are not blind at all.

 

Excellent :thumbs:

 

I merely drew an implication from what you wrote. You did not explicitly say that Paul was "already saved." What you DID say was that Paul was already serving God, so the Damascus Road incident was not God coming to Paul out of the blue, and against Paul's will. It ends up being the same difference... Either Paul was ALREADY part of God's salvific plan or he was a lost sinner to whom God broke in, saved, and elected to the work of an apostle. Paul indicated the latter. So, are you right or is Paul right?

See above...

I KNOW that you are not making the declaration that God comes to man first, yet that is exactly what the Scriptures say over and over again. So, which is it? Does God come first or does man. Your entire Christian theology hangs on the answer, for the continuum of belief from nyper-Calvinism through classical Arminianism says that GOD comes first. Any position other than that enters the realm of Pelagianism.

(I've snipped part of the conversation because it is just re-hashing what is covered above.)

 

The founders of the SBC would have been appalled at being called Reformed Baptist.

 

Yeah,they would have been puzzled at that term being applied to them. I think that most of em' would have been content to have been called Calvinists even without the word Baptist attached.

 

On that.. most likely
hehe.. sorry.. I thought it was both true and funny

 

Well... with a powerful case like that- who could argue?

Prove it or yours is just another drive-by post.

 

Liberalism.

It seems that wherever Arminianism goes liberalism is soon to follow or wherever liberalism goes Arminianism is soon to follow.

Many Presbyterians are liberal for example but they are also Arminian.

And where the Anglican are most liberal they are most Arminian.

 

Well,that wouldn't have been appalled,just puzzled. They would certainly have agreed that they were Calvinistic and yet Baptist without seeing any contradiction.

 

Yea, I am holding in my hand "By His Grace and For his Glory" which is a history of Baptist theology by a well respected Church Historian.

I am also holding here a book by Timothy George called "Baptist Confessions, Covenants and Catechisms"

Also here on my desk is a book by William Lumpkin called "Baptist Confessions of Faith"

Another book here that I just got this week and have skimmed is "Don't Call it a Comeback" edited by Kevin DeYoung.

All of these books have at least one common denominator. They establish unequivocally that the SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic in her origins.

 

That is funny.. and I'll give you the same challenge I gave another who tried this last time on the BB, and through helping him understand better SBC history.. He now agrees the SBC never held nor declared, as a convention, to Reformed Theology.

Now to put this to rest quite easily please give me one, JUST ONE statement, document, book, letter, ect.. from the SBC (not revisionists stating an inferred connection it) that state the Abstract Principle of Southern Seminary were considered (at that time and prior to 1925) the SBC's declared Confession, Creed, BF&M.

Name one SBC document, letter, meeting, ANYTHING whereby the SBC (prior to 1925 and the revised NH Confession) stated or implied the Abstract Principles of Southern Seminary were also considered their BF&M. confession, creed, whatever

One thing you seem to miss in your one sided reading (reformed only) is what Ascol and Nettles don't specifically say (though they do speak briefly and allude to it here and there) but they also do not deny either those who were not reformed that were a part of the SBC at its inception. Neither of them deny there were non-Cal baptists in the original formation of the SBC, they just don't talk it much but stay focused on the majority (which I agree was reformed).. in fact it is one of the issues sometimes asked by Calvinistic baptists when looking back at the formation of the SBC. Why didn't they make it for the Reformed baptists only? If the Abstract WAS the considered BF&M then how 1. How where there churches that did not hold agree with it in the convention and 2) why did it leave it's standard of Reformed doctrine so quickly in approx less than 50 years or so, to a Non-Cal view whereby the next Seminary built was NOT Reformed, nor the next build just 10 or so years later - nor the one after that. Are we to deduce the teaching at Southern were that pathetic. Oh no, not even I would make that accusation. Or maybe the preaching of the reformed pastors just not good enough. Again, I would not make such an accusation either. So what happened?

Again, the problem is that history does not agree with your statement. The best arguments given for the SBC being 'thoroughly Calvinistic in it's origins is basically Ascol and Nettles citing that since the majority of the early leadership of the SBC was Reformed, and the Seminary was such as also, that 'must' mean the SBC was reformed in it's theological stance. Again, there is NO historical evidence to make any such assertion or connection. While it might have had leanings toward a reformed view due to a majority being reformed, the SBC neither gave nor declared ANY specific theological stance as a Convention and THAT is your problem! It NEVER declared, nor alleged any specific theological stance, and STILL hasn't to this day.

It is the same for today. Though our Leadership is non-Cal, and the majority of our Seminaries are non-Cal, that does not in itself state the SBC has declared a specific theological stance regarding the Convention. You can't have it one way for the early Convention and say it isn't so now. It never 'was' so and isn't so now.

Another point is that not all the Cals of that time were in fact 5 pointers either, like the Calvinists of present day. Some were even of Amyraldism (4 point Calvinism). And many varied in their ideas of evangelism and mission.. to do it or not!

One thing that will help you understand better why there IS NOT any such declaration of or from the SBC, is when you grasp why the SBC was formed in the first place.

Remember, the SBC was open to all baptists of every flavor, AS LONG AS they held to the essentials of our faith, and reformed doctrine was not that standard.

You, like Ascol and Nettles and others, are confusing the facts. Just because the majority of the Convention holds to a specific theological view (individual churches) does not necessitate nor dictate said view is the declared position and view of the Convention as a whole.

 

I did... My spell checker substituted and I didn't notice the swap.

 

Correct. While they held Reformed doctrine (ever read the First and Second London Confessions?) they were Baptists, not Reformed anything. They had NO NEED to be "reformed." They were right, right from the start.

 

Who said it was the OFFICIAL position?

I said the vast majority of the SBC was Calvinist.

It was.

Canada is not officially a white nation (they have no official documents stating such a thing)- but the vast majority of it's inhabitant are white.

The SBC might not have OFFICIALLY stated it as a denomination but the VAST majority of SBC people were Calvinists.

All of her first several presidents were Calvinists.

Her flagship seminary was thoroughly Calvinist.

Now, you show me one glaring document that attests to her Arminianism in her first 50 years.

 

Historically, sects have adopted the name "Reformed Baptist" temporarily, before eventually abandoning the Baptist church/name altogether. In the era of the founding of the SBC, "Reformed Baptist" commonly referred to Campbellite/Restorationist churches that had recently caused much havoc among Baptists.

Encylopedia of Louisville, s. v. Baptists:

Louisville's Reformed Baptist Church today: First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Do any research on the origins of the Mormonism (same era as the SBC's founding), and you will find the term "Reformed Baptist" used in connection with one of the founders of the LDS church, Sidney Rigdon.