Robert Jeffress and Calvinism

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by RunAway, Nov 22, 2012.

  1. RunAway

    RunAway
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone know where in particular the pastor of Dallas Firs Baptist stands with TULIP, or what he disagrees with? I remember hearing him say in a sermon one time something to the effect of "this is where my Calvinist brothers and I differ"... Can't remember exactly what he said, but I remember that remark...
     
  2. Berean

    Berean
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    817
    Likes Received:
    1
    Jeffress usually stands with the status quo SBC, based on that I would say he is not 5 point
     
  3. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I agree with Berean...probably on points L & I.

    But if you're really interested, just call FBC Dallas and ask. Seriously, they should be ready and willing to answer your question.
     
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I have never heard of Dr. Jeffress, but in reading the DFB articles of faith, its seems standard Baptist, i.e. total omniscience, including future actions of His free creatures. Thus not everything is predestined, only foreknown. The church believes in OSAS. They think condemnation occurs not at conception in iniquity, but when we volitionally choose to sin. It says Christ died for man, probably meaning mankind and thus not endorsing limited atonement as defined by Calvinism.

    But the bottom line is that the Articles of Faith as vague enough for Arminians or Calvinists to worship there.
     
  5. th1bill

    th1bill
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    12
    Van,
    With no understanding of where you stand I will take offense to the "vague" remark. I was Baptized in a Missionary Baptist Church where I served for five vyears before being called out for service. I now teach in an SBC Church in SE Texas where the Statement of Faith is very much standard for the Association but it is anything but vague unless you subscribe to one of the two more popular but questionable positions. The standard for both the Missionay and the Southern Associations is Biblical and fits rather loosely with both the Calvinist and the Arminian positions because both have staked out a portion of the scriptures to stand on, ignoring the context of the Whole of Scripture.

    Both of the extremes ignore the single most important rule of Hermeneutics while paying Hermeneutics lip service. That rule, of course is, no single scripture, running group of scripture nor any collected group of scripture will ever be understood without the light of all other scripture shinning on it. And to that I will add that it is impossible to understand any scripture without submissive prayer and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Natural Man cannot understand scripture no matter how many times he or she has been dunked.

    May God bless!
     
  6. RunAway

    RunAway
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good golly Miss Molly! Van I appreciat your reply.. I've noticed their "vagueness" myself. Was just wanting to see if i was missing something.Don't quite understand why someone would take an offense to your statement, but such is the world we live in..
     
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Those that are offended by my views are free to offer differing views.

    For example natural men of flesh can understand the milk of the gospel, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3. Now some natural men have been so hardened they have lost their innate ability, i.e. the first soil of Matthew 13:1-23, but the rest have the ability. When God hardens a person's heart, God is taking away the natural ability to understand the milk of the gospel.

    Now this view differs from Calvinism's total spiritual inability, and the Arminian view that natural men need prevenient grace in order to understand the gospel. However it is supported by the hermeneutic that if the plain reading makes sense, seek no other sense.

    To be clear, Total Spiritual Inability is mistaken doctrine in my opinion.
    Unconditional Election is a mistaken doctrine in my opinion.
    Limited Atonement as defined by Calvinism is a mistaken doctrine in my opinion.
    Regeneration before faith is a mistaken doctrine in my opinion.

    I believe we are conceived in iniquity and therefore conceived in a separated from God spiritual state and therefore condemned already at conception.

    I believe God's omniscience has not fixed and settled the future totally, that we make autonomous choices that alter the outcome of our lives because God sets before us life and death and begs us to choose life.
     
  8. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,927
    Likes Received:
    96
    Good response Bill.:thumbs:
     

Share This Page

Loading...