Have Southern Baptists Strayed?

Are you afraid to tell us what you think for fear of exposing your ignorance?

 

You make accusations and then can’t answer a simple question but only with another question. Is that the best you can do?

I really thought someone like you claims to be so conservative could answer such a question. If you cannot just say you have not studied the Bible well enough to know.

I really thought you would jump on the last quote, but you just went on by.

 

Yes we can. Every line of Scripture supports limited atonement, if you would just let your tradition get out of the way of your exegesis. If it didn't we'd all believe in universalism. Arminians limit the atonement's power and not its scope. We Calvinists limit its scope, not its power.

Well according to Scripture, the words we in English translate as "unbelief" "disbelief" and "disobedience" are all the same Greek word, "apeitheta." It is on the sons of apeitheta that God pours out His wrath, and it is God's wrath that Jesus propitiated. I would point out the the standard position on the atonement put forth by dispensationalists is that Jesus paid for the sins of all persons, except the sin of unbelief. (That is, in fact, the stated position of Dallas Theological Seminary). Where is that in Scripture?

You are correct that we are not saved according to foreknowledge, but those who are glorified, justified, called, and predestined are foreknown. Arminians typically say that Romans 8:29, 30 means that this is foreseen faith. That is not supported by the text. Additionally, if we are elected according to foreseen faith, how is this any less fixed than the Calvinistic position?

1 John 3:23, "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ..." Since when were commands not compulsory?

What does "elko" mean in Greek? Draw/drag. If this meant "persuade," the verb should be a derivative of "peitheo," not "elko." Clearly the Holy Spirit does not persuade, He draws/drags. One does not woo water from a well, one drags it. One does not stand saying, "Please come up here, water."

Absolutely, but Calvinists teach that all nations are made up of individuals. Romans 9 is about the salvation of individuals, not the election of nations alone. Read the first five verses.

Where does Scripture say He "woos" us, Diane?

AMEN. John 6:45 clearly says that EVERY ONE of those that are instructed by God WILL come to Christ, and we can clearly see from the text that the ones who believe are the same ones that are given, instructed, drawn, and come. The text says EVERYONE WILL...not some, not might, EVERYONE WILL. That sounds a lot like irresistible grace to me.

Yes, Tony, and the definition of irresistible grace is not that man can not resist, it is that the Holy Spirit overcomes the resistance we offer.

I would, because my beliefs are based on sound exegesis not what I feel.

Lots about feelings, what about sound exegesis?

No, it does not. Election is the result of an active decree and an individual effective call. Reprobation aka prederition is not election, but it is similar to it. Justification is not election. Condemnation is not reprobation. The ones elected are justified by faith. The ones reprobated are condemned for their sin. The ones elected are dead and require regeneration in order to have faith and exercise it. The ones reprobated do not require such an act, because they already disbelief. The point is that neither election nor prederition is conditional on anything about man.

I would point out that all Arminians also affirm reprobation and election if they believe God directed the spread of the gospel in Acts. He told them where to go and often to whom to preach. By definition, some groups, cities, regions, etc. were left out, and this was done by God's direction. On that basis, all Arminians also affirm some form of prederition.

Moot point J. You also believe this if you believe that God foreknew what would happen and created them anyway. God created Adam and Eve and they sinned. That does not make God the moral cause of their sin under EITHER view.

Here's one for you that believe in libertine free will...Does God have libertine free will?

Tony, read the Greek text. "Whosoever" are the ones born again, because one must understand in order to believe. One must be born again in order to understand the instruction, and all those instructed are the ones given, drawn, and come, according to John 6, and of those are the ones that believe. All the ones born again believe and have eternal life. "Whosoever" in Greek is simply the participle "believing ones." God so loved all kinds of persons, both Jews and Gentiles, so much that He gave His only begotten Son, so that the believing ones might have eternal life.

Do all the believing ones have eternal life? Certainly.

The call is not an invitation. It is a declaration. It is a command.

Would God ask us to something we cannot do like believe in Him when we can't?
Yes, God would ask us to do something we cannot, doesn't God say, "Be holy, for I am holy," (1 Pet. 1:16)? It is right for God to command us to believe in Him (Ex. 20:1-3) because that is what all should do. We cannot be holy ourselves, yet God grants it to us in Christ. Likewise God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29) not of our own wills (John 1:13).


Rev. 22:17 was written by John, the author of the Gospel. Now, whosoever will can come, but only those born again can come. Those born again are instructed. These same ones are given to Christ by the Father, drawn by the Spirit, come, believe, and are justified. Free will soteriology eventually puts discord in the Trinity, because not all those that Jesus died for are saved, given, etc. and not all those for whom Christ died are mediated for by Him, and so on. This is a disharmony that Arminians can not overcome in their soteriology.

No, Vs. 1 explains v. 2, it says that those who walk according to the course of this world are dead in their trespasses and sins. They do so because they are dead in their trespasses and sins. You are reading it backward, because the same text says we are BY NATURE children of wrath.

God is free, but He is free NOT TO SIN. God can not sin, BY NATURE. Man sins, what does this say about his nature. God can not will Himself to sin or do evil, BY NATURE. Why then can man, who is BY NATURE a child of wrath, and dead in sin, then will anything good toward his own salvation when God, who is the Absolute Actuality with no contingency in Him can not, for similar reasons, sin? Satan said we would be like God when we ate of the tree. He was correct, we DID become like God. This was not a total lie on his part. The lie was that we would not surely die. We are like God. We are free the same way He is free. He is free in the opposite direction than we are but we are free for the same reasons, according to the constraints of our nature.

John 8:43 The ones hearing responded to Jesus, yet Jesus said they did not have the ability to hear, did he not. What does this mean? It means what the text says...they could not hear. You have confused moral ability and natural ability.

The word "Bible" isn't mentioned either, neither is "Trinity," yet we teach them both .


That should stir things up. Good to see y'all are alive and well here. Now, has the SBC strayed from its roots. Yes, it has. Are all its roots good? No, slavery was a pox on us for which we continue to pay as a people. Are others good? Yes. Theologically, we need to return to more solid theological roots.

The road to theological liberalism more often than not lies directly through Arminianism. All Calvinists that have embraced liberalism have done so as soon as they have turned toward Arminianism. Likewise, however, the road to liberalism often starts with legalism. Both must be avoided!

 

I've read enough absurdities in this thread to last a lifetime. Limited atonement is not a biblical doctrine, as no verse can be provided to support it, but against it lies the consensus of all of Scripture. 1 Tim. 4:10 says God is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those who believe. 1 Tim. 2:4 says God would have all men be saved, 2:6 says Jesus gave himself a ransom for all. 1 Jn. 2:2 says Jesus is the propitiation not only for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 2 Pet. 2:2 says heretics will deny the Lord who bought them. 2 Cor. 5:14 says that one died for all. The list goes on and on, and whoever says limited atonement is biblical reads the Bible with a blindfold on.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

At the risk of scaring DD again I'll dare to post this...



Remember Arminianism is NOT simply the rejection of one or two of the points of "Calvinism".

Regarding Southern Baptists...

I think there is something about the "system" of Calvinism that is comforting to the fundamentalist psyche. The rules are set out. This is right and that is not! No room for individual interpretation or cogitation. It is bit of a safety net to have the rules layed out to follow. Now granted all SBC churches I've been to are at most "2 point Calvinist", accepting only total depravity and eternal security.

 

I use "obey God" as a broad category including keeping God's commandments, loving God, fearing God, walking in his ways, serving him, etc., and disobeying as the opposite of obeying. That obeying God is described using just one word in both Hebrew and Greek so absurd as to be laughable. Don't make me laugh. Faith and actions of obedience are tied together, as are disbelief and the actions of disobedience, but that doesn't make them one and the same. Gene, don't simplify things so much as to make them absurd.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

For those who are interested in the original question and in actual verifiable evidence that Southern Baptists have indeed changed their theology on a broad range of issues over the years since 1845, the following book is available for inquiring minds.

"Has Our Theology Changed? : Southern Baptist Thought Since 1845" edited by Paul A. Basden, The book was published in 1994 by Broadman/Holman and is therefore an SBC Book written by an SBC who is not a Calvinist. The chapters are written by various SBC'ers.

I highly recommend it for those who wish to go beyond the personal opinion exchange on the BB.

 

What are some of the major points from the book?

 

Basden's Book.

You'll have to wait until I get to my office to list the chapter titles and conclusions for you.

 

I believe all the SBTS abstract of principles as they are written, because they are quite biblical and nothing more. God elects people according to foreknowledge (regarding what we do not know but can ascertain through the rest of Scripture) and not according to their merit. Calvinists and Anticalvinists add to this simple biblical abstract and make it so the other could not sign it. I could easily sign it because it is, after all, abstract, and as such the majority of Southern Baptists would sign it, too, IMO.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

That's what Roy Honeycutt tried to tell us for years. That's why he also lost his job.

 

J. P. Boyce in 1874 talked about how the SBTS abstract of principles were to be drafted:

The abstract of principles must be: 1. A complete exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of grace, so that in no essential particular should they speak dubiously; 2. They should speak out clearly and distinctly as to the practices universally prevalent among us; 3. Upon no point, upon which the denomination is divided, should the Convention, and through it, the Seminary, take any position.

I thank God for the wisdom of the drafters of this confession to make it something a consensus of all Southern Baptists could agree on. That's also why the conservative resurgence was successful, because a consensus of anything can usually control most everything. I take it from Hardsheller's Roy Huneycutt remark that he's not necessarily for the resurgence.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Oh I am absolutely for the resurgence. What I am not so convinced about is that the Abstract of Principles was anything more than a consise Southern Baptist statement of its prevailing Calvinistic theology.

 

Paul Basden's Book

"Has Our Theology Changed? : Southern Baptist Thought Since 1845"

Introduction - Paul Basden
The Bible - Dwight A. Moody
Predestination - Paul Basden
The Atonement - Walter Draughton III
Perseverance and Apostasy - Clark K. Youngblood
The Church - Bill J. Leonard
Leadership - Brad Creed
The Priesthood of all Believers - Reggie McNeal
The Millennium - James Spivey
Philosophy of Religion - Mark Weldon Whitten
Christian Ethics - Timothy Gilbert
Religious Liebery - William Tillman, Jr.

Conclusions - Paul Basden

1. Diminishing influence of Calvinism in SBC Theology.
2. Influence of Modern Thought has had an impact.
3. Historical and Cultural defining events have made an impact.
4. There is no single "true" Baptist Theology
5. Southern Baptists have sought to be faithful to the written and living Word of God.