Southern Seminary (SBTS) Turing Reformed

koreahog,

Awesome website "old man"!

I pray that you and your family would remain safe, and that you would have divine strength and grace to carry on!

I would say your Pastor is a 3pter- possibly 4? What are you hearing about his successor? I k now you are in South Korea, but surely you are keeping up with the biggest news in the SBC right now.

 

Izzaksdad, thanks for your prayers and the compliment on the web site. I don't know who my pastor's successor will be. There was a lot of speculation at the beginning of the process, but I haven't heard anything lately. As for his stand on 5-point Calvinism, he's definitely not a 5-pointer. His classification would depend on how he defines each point.

[ February 16, 2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: koreahog2005 ]

 

hmmm...SBTS is "turning" Reformed?

I thought they already were pretty well reformed...

 

Your prof was making a distinction without a difference. There is no way to teach what you don't truly believe, and that fact will be manifest in some way. For instance, I had a couple of "left-over" profs on campus, and there was no question that they rejected the doctrine of election as stated in the Abstract.

For the record, the doctrine of election in the Abstract is defined thusly: "Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life---not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ---in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified."

Not only is it impossible to teach in accordance with the Abstract while believing otherwise, it is also unethical. The following statement is a part of the original charter of SBTS adopted in 1858, before the seminary actually opened in 1859: "Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part whall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees." As James P. Boyce, who would be the first president of the seminary, wrote, "His agreement with the standard should be exact. His declaration of it should be based upon no mental reservation, upon no private understanding with those who immediately invest him into office."

That is true. They were convinced that such is what the Bible teaches.

I think the "Sandy Creek Baptists" were more Calvinistic than they are often thought to be. Many of them were converted as New England Congregationalists under the preaching of George Whitefield, the Calvinistic Anglican whose followers would later establish Calvinist Methodist churches (sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it?), especially in Wales. An interesting and well-documented article can be found at http://www.founders.org/FJ44/article3.html .

Anytime teaching goes against the current, there is tension. Although Rhetorician does not believe this, unless I misunderstand him, many make the specious argument that those who hold to the doctrines of grace are not involved with or see the need for evangelism. Speaking as a five-point Calvinist myself who serves on the board of directors of a missions agency, our problem is usually that which passes for evangelism in our evangelical culture, in which salvation is an "asking Jesus into your heart" with little emphasis upon repentance and faith, the holiness of God and the rebelliousness of the sinner, and the mercy and grace of God in saving those who should justly be consigned to hell. BTW, I know 3- and 4-pointers who have the same issue with that same kind of superficial "deciding" for Jesus. A well-considered response can be found at http://www.founders.org/FJ45/editorial_fr.html , stating the reformed Baptist response to the charge. Another good article expressing the same concerns about evangelism and written by David Wells, referred to in another thread, can be found at http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0134.htm .

Have some reformed grads/pastors created unnecessary tensions and divisions? Doubtlessly, just as some have done the same in trying to change their church's worship from tradtional to contemporary, supporting or opposing women pastors, seeking to bring other races into their churches, trying to change their church into a little Saddleback, etc. Men can create tensions and divisions, some avoidable and others unavoidable, when they seek any change, good or bad.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Broadus (Bill),
Incredibly well stated. I agree with you 100%.

 

Rhetorician and JGrayhound,

Thank you for your kind affirmation.

Blessings,
Bill

 

Didn't the Baptist church in general START OUT as Reformed? At least that was my understanding then about 200 or perhaps years ago it started change.

 

Two Questions:

1) How can a person be Unconditionally Elect (U) and and resist this election (grace)...(not I)

2) What is the eschatological view held by SBTS or many of the prof.s?

 

Thanks...I was trying to figure out how you can have a T,U,and P without the I and L.

If God has foreknown from the beginning and predestined those He foreknew...then called those He predestined. Then all those who He called are then justified and then glorified. My loss in the loop is... How can someone God has called & elected resist the call? They cannot. Is not that what Irresistable Grace is...(Effectual Calling)? All that the Father gives...comes!

 

It runs the gamut, but all believe in the literal, physical return of Christ.

Blessings,
Bill

 

RD,

You're doing just fine!

Blessings,
Bill

 

Very well said! </font>[/QUOTE]Very well said, indeed.

A 3 point Calvinist from Massachusetts

 

I'm glad I'm not a "Calvinist" or an "Arminian"...I'm just a plain ole Bible Believer....!

John 3:16...."For God so loved the WORLD,that He gave His only begotten Son,that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish,but have everlasting life."

God Bless ya'll!

Greg Sr.