ROSES, a reasonable baptist position?

Colossians 4:6

 

My point, again, was that the doctrine of "eternal security" is an attempt to make Arminianism more palatable to non-Calvinists. The doctrine itself is new - it's very contrived.

Some "babies" do die as "babies." You're absolutely right. The point of POTS is not that all believers continue to become mature at some sort of acceptable rate or that true Christians won't make mistakes, especially the really big ones. All it means is that faith endures, regardless.

 

Jesus said the wicked can give good gifts and love one another, so it cannot be "totality". I think the phrase is often interpreted that man is doomed apart from God acting in his life and is incapable of coming to Him apart from the work of God, and to that I agree completely...but that is redefining a phrase completely in doing so.

The very definition of irresistible is not being able to resist. That eliminates "allow" altogether.

There's Paul's letters to the Corinthians, Peter's letters to the early church (which I referenced). The "P" also does not take into consideration things like dementia and brain damage.

 

The actual phrase, which probably suffers a bit in translation, was originally intended to mean that, though the totality of humanity is affected, they are not as bad as possible. That's the meaning of "total depravity" from the very beginning, as I was taught.

It's all in a manner of speaking. In a sense, "allow" fits here.

Because it's not about works, a cognitive impairment has nothing to do with it. It's not in our strength that we endure, nor is any supposed cognitive awareness of salvation necessary. Faith binds us.

As someone who has suffered from mental instability, I appreciate your bringing that into the discussion. I certainly makes for an interesting shift. I would point you to the great hymn writer William Cowper, who suffered from terrible bouts of insanity and depression, but was able to pen some of the greatest and most theological hymns, such as "There Is a Fountain" and the one I quote in my signature, "O For a Closer Walk With God."

 

Yea, and it's His faithfulness that endures. In Ps 136 alone we're told twenty six times that 'his mercy endureth for ever'.

 

It cannot. If you are told to do something and cannot resist it, there is no allow whatsoever. It's not permissive.

Faith is never a work and does take the mental capacities to exhibit. Faith comes by hearing (understanding), and that by the Word of God.
While our faith can and does waver as has been pointed out, His faithfulness will not. Even when we are not walking by faith even so far as living identical to the world (which does happen and which we are also warned against in Scripture) even forgetting our justification (2 Peter 1) He will remain faithful. The "P" requires man to remain faithful, not God.

 

Except Im in New Jersey....however you can come to Princeton sometime should you wish. LOL

 

It's obvious that we are approaching from two different semantic positions. I see what you mean and that's fine.

Not according to a Calvinist, since sovereignty is ultimate. Those of us who "endure to the end," according to a reformed position, do so through the grace of God and not of ourselves.

Faith does involve mental capacity, but in the event of one later losing them due to injury or age, faith still binds. Grace allows faith to endure.

 

Besides what they are supposed to represent physically...Hint, nudge :smilewinkgrin:

 

You are taking another word (sovereign) and applying yet another definition to it. Sovereign means to be in control (Sove -REIGN), not controlling. The command to endure and the warning on the consequences in not doing so and walking by the flesh are meaningless if we had no control over these actions.

 

Indeed. The first professors to go were the ones most liberal. Also, it is not quite like the seminary "fired" the professors. More like they left (pun intended).

I have some of the writings from some of the profs who left SBTS during that time. Saying that they were liberal would be an understatement akin to saying that the devil has some bad days. One line that sticks from one of their articles, "God, he, she, it..." That writer went on to disavow the God of the Bible in no uncertain terms in favor of an unknowable wholly other god (gods, etc.) that left no certain revelation. Other writings were as bad or worse, and I can give direct quotes if I dig out their booklets and journal articles from my library.

Professors at SBTS currently have a wide range of views. No one is expected to "toe the mark" (whatever that is) save for signing, in good faith, the Abstract of Principles. I've sat under profs who were 5 point strict Calvinists, others who were 4 point (sort of) and the points seemed to shift from time to time, while others still (as in my case) disavowed the TULIP all together. (I was going to say "Calvin's TULIP" but that would be mis-speaking. Calvin did not give us TULIP. His followers did, and they missed some of Calvin's points. Same goes for the Arminian position, BTW. Again, followers, and they missed some stuff.)

I prefer to hold a biblical position, which must incorporate some aspect of both free will and God's sovereignty. Like the Trinity and other difficult to grasp issues with God (antinomy) the issues in Reformed or Arminian theology are difficult, but revealed. Any sense that they cannot be reconciled is our own issue, not God's.

 

I don't see "kinder and gentler" as diluting the truth. It's stating the truth in a different way.

Nor do I see the effect of ROSES the way you do.

It's sorta like my saying "I don't see it the way you do" as opposed to "you idiot, you're just flat-out wrong." See? Kinder and gentler.

 

While some SBC churches are also affiliated with the CBF, they are not "under the auspices" of the SBC. I suspect that most CBF-supporting churches, though, are no longer with the sBC.

 

This is for webdog:

web, I'm curious as to whether you view ROSES as trying to water down TULIP, or trick non-cals. Frankly, I don't think it fools anybody, nor would I expect it to do so.

What do you think?

 

Calvinism does allow for free will. It falls under the category of God's Permissive Will, a subtitle under the absolute sovereignty of God.

This free choice does not include redemption, which is predetermined under God's sovereignty. God also says, under His permissive will, "Thus far and no further".

The fact remains; He is either sovereign or He isn't sovereign at all. Can't have it both ways.........And, foreknowledge is an attribute of an eternal God, and not a determining factor.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Has God ever "wooed" anyone? How does that work, anyway?

I have tried to imagine the God described by the bible wooing a lost sinner who Jesus said "without me ye can do nothing." I have tried to imagine the God the bible says holds the water in the hollow of His hands, who comprehends the dust of the earth in a measure, who meted out the heavens with the span of His hand, to whom all the nations of the earth are a drop in the bucket and our counted as the small dust on the balance, who doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, what doest thou - I've tried to imagine this God wooing a poor undone sinner and I simply cannot imagine it. Why does God need me to do anything? Why does the God who does according to His will - who does exactly what He wants and noone can stop Him - need to woo me? Why does He need to entice me to do anything? And when has He ever done it?

I conclude that any belief system that states that God woos a sinner is unbiblical and unreasonable, not to mention being downright wrong.

 

I think it's contrary to tulip and it wasn't trying to trick anyone. Besides, CHRYSANTHEMUM was a little long...

 

Define "woo"...and who said that here (don't recall)?