Featured Present SBC position on Doctrine of Reformation

Apparently it is you who has the reading comprehension problem. Neither I nor the article I posted said there were not both views in the convention either now or from the very beginning.

 

Absolute proof that you lack the intellect to read with even minimal understanding.

 

Again, had you read, with understanding, what I wrote or the article I posted you would have seen both I and the article acknowledges both views have existed from the beginning until now. The difference is only when and why each view reflected the preponderance of the Convention as a whole.

 

I am not sure you can make that statement as a blanket reference to General Baptists. Even the original Five Articles of the Remonstrance, published in 1610, did not completely dismiss eternal security but left the door open, if only a small crack.

 

Perhaps you would like to support your mindless assertion of "bunk." Please point out, in detail, anything I said or the article says that is factually incorrect. If you cannot do so please feel free to bow out of the discussion as "bunk" is not an intellectually coherent response.

 

This is what the "loyal opposition" seems unable to understand. The issue is not one or the other but rather that both have existed in the past and both exist now, the difference being which view reflected the majority. (Although, admittedly, it is often difficult to determine if there was an actual majority as a very vocal minority can make so much noise they seem to be in the majority.)

 

Yes. Article 7 of Helwys' confession clearly denies eternal security. However, most General Baptists today accept eternal security but remain "general" in their understanding of the atonement (as opposed to Particular atonement).

It is the Free Will Baptists of today that are closest to Helwys and his confession.

I agree. I attend an SBC church of about 650. I am in the minority in believing in Particular Redemption. However, as I point out when such discussion arise, to me what is important is that you are in Christ, not how you got there. I suspect that, in heaven, we are all going to see that some of the things we believed turned out not to be the case.

 

As the Seminaries are now more Particular in their Soteriology it stands to reason more of the present and future graduates will be more Particular than General in their views of the atonement. As those current and future graduates move into positions of leadership in the SBC the Convention will become more Particular as opposed to General. However, as many SBC pastors do not attend the 6 SBC seminaries there will always be an outside influence on the Convention (and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Too much inbreeding can ruin any such group).

 

Okay, now I understand. I was not thinking of "General" Baptist in the context of an organized denomination, but rather as a soteriological position taken by most within the SBC. As a denomination, you are correct regarding the General Baptists.

 

Its much better to meet in the middle than to crash head on as most such threads end up!