ROSES, a reasonable baptist position?

"You shall take a high churchman, who is a truly spiritual man, and there are such people, and you shall set him down side by side with the most rigid member of the Society of Friends, and when they begin to talk of Jesus, of the work of the Holy Spirit in the soul, and the desire of their hearts after God, you will hardly know which is which. The nearer we come to him who is the salvation of God, the more plainly we see that among the children of God the basis of agreement is far wider than the ground of division. Andrew Fuller well and pithily said, "There are, I conceive, four things which essentially belong to the common salvation; its necessity, its vicarious medium, its freeness to the chief of sinners, and its holy efficacy." We may differ on the "five points," but we are agreed upon these four points. Ask any true Christian if it be not so." —Charles Spurgeon, The Common Salvation

 

Years ago I put a graph on BB showing the results of a Lifeway survey in 2006 of SBC Pastors. The question was "Are you a 5 Point Calvinist?". The results of the survey was: 85% said no; 10% said yes; and 5% declined to answer. I think I still have the graph in my files.

 

I located the file, but could not retrieve the graph (My computer acts up on these type of things.). However, the date on the file was Sept. 20, 2006. If someone can retrieve the BB files, it was put on during the last few weeks of Sept. 2006 or early October.

 

I'm coming to this thread late.

I read Dr. George's book when it first came out. When I read quantumfaith's summary in the OP, I thought, I don't remember it that way.

I'd have to re-read his book, but my impression at the time was that he wasn't deviating from the the Doctrines of Grace, but was repackaging it with kinder, gentler terminology.

There is no question that such terms as Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace are hot-buttons. Unfortunately, Dr. George's suggestion never really caught on.

 

This demonstrates fundamental confusion over the meaning of total depravity. There is not a Calvinist anywhere who believes we do not retain the image of God. Total depravity does not at all mean that we are as bad as we possibly can be, without any hint of goodness, only that sin penetrates every aspect of our beings, and creation, for that matter.

MMMM....kinda on the fence with this one. Irresistible grace basically means the same thing in that it allows humans to come to faith despite their flesh.

That is a very, very strange theological argument. It's almost laughable. It's like saying that God knew Pharaoh would not believe, and so God chose to harden Pharaoh's heart so he didn't have a choice. Silly and a very obvious attempt to distance oneself from Reformed theology without entering into any serious theological dialogue.

Wow - I always thought that perseverance of the saints was one of the most beautiful reformed doctrines. It in no way, shape or form suggests that we are kept by good works. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of Calvin's doctrines should get this. Perseverance of the saints is purely, simply about grace. "Eternal security" is nothing short of a fake doctrine intended to make an Arminian theology more palatable or to make people feel better. You will not find this doctrine spoken in this way prior to the 19th century.

This is purely academic. Either way, Jesus' atonement is sufficient for all who believe.

The difference with the two camps is more an issue of perspective. For Calvin (or, really, Beza, since he put a lot of words into Calvin's mouth) sovereignty should be preserved at all points. Calvinism is not at all about God sending people to heaven or hell. It is purely a "top-down" theology. Arminianism wants to believe that we can be in charge of our own lives and destiny, which is partially true, since to our perceptions, we have freedom of choice. It is a "bottom-up" theology.

Instead of drawing a distinct position in either camp, I find it better to take the strengths of each. I also believe that we should more easily live with dichotomy and tension, trusting that it is in God's hands, not mine, and that my own assurance of faith lies in Christ's redemptive work, not in my own feelings. Also, in either case, anyone who feels God's call on their lives can make a faith response.

This is somewhat cliche, but I like the thought that on the outside of heaven's gates, there is a sign that says "Whosoever Will May Come," while on the inside, there is a sign that says "Saved from the Foundation of the World."

 

There is no "SBC" that can agree or disagree with the statement. The SBC is only an "entity" once per year during the annual meeting of messengers sent from individual churches, and then they have no sovereignty over autonomous local congregations to insist that they believe any particular thing.

So, no, the SBC does not truly espouse those points. Individuals who cooperate with the SBC may.

I've not heard discussions of ROSES on the campus of Southern Seminary, though I'm sure that there has been some discussion somewhere. That is what happens on seminary campuses. SBTS is not "monolithic" in what the beliefs of the faculty and staff. Not by any means. I work on campus, and have two degrees from the school. Have been here since shortly after Albert Mohler took the helm and watched the re-alignment phase with interest. it was (IMHO) a very good move. The quality and theology of the current administration is solid and biblical. And, probably not at all the way many might think based on readings of blogs, press accounts, etc. I advise popping in for a visit and sitting in on classes. That is allowed and encouraged!

 

Actually it is stated on here quite often by the reformed that man is no longer made in God's image but are now in Adam's image.
The definition you give of "total" depravity does not fit the term.

This is a first for defining the "I". I have always heard it described as once one is regenerated prior to faith they WILL come to Christ, not "allow".

I agree here...the linear understanding of election is quite lacking.

To say that one will persevere if they are "elect" goes against the grain of Scripture in many places, like 1 and 2 Peter. A new believer is a baby, and some babies die as babies. It doesn't mean they were never a baby since they died in that state (the "P" of TULIP). Eternal security is biblical truth.

 

The CBF is not a "split" from the SBC. They are a fellowship of churches under the auspicies of the SBC. They have not removed themselves from the SBC and are, for the most part, still cooperative member churches.

 

I love roses in the flower bowl, but, beware the thorns which adorn all rose plants.

Cheers,

Jim

 

To paraphrase 'Total Depravity', I would say 'Total Helplessness' (to come to God), a state of absolute hopelessness/helplessness.

 

I think that's pretty accurate.

 

Hmmm...I don't think that's the general Calvinist perspective. Total depravity, which is a very old doctrine, does not mean that people are as bad as possible. They are helpless to come to God without grace. The term "total depravity" is a bit misleading without context, but in essence it means that the totality of humanity is affected, but is not as bad as conceivably possible.

You are actually correct. Technically speaking, those regenerated WILL come to Christ, but it could also be said that grace allows them that opportunity. There is obviously a difference between the two, but I guess my issue with it is in how it is stated.

I'd be interested if you elaborated on the specific texts you cited and how they play into the equation. The most staunch Calvinists will still admit that good works are not the issue. The issue is perseverance of faith, instead of merely good works. Calvinists understand that Christians can stray and get themselves into a lot of trouble, but still their faith endures.

 

I am speaking of SBTS, not the entire SBC. On campus, certain professors were changed by various means, largely due to theological differences.

I highly recommend the new book by Wills:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195377141/?tag=baptis04-20

It gives great depth of understanding to the various battles that have been fought in and about Southern Seminary.

Here is a Google Books entry for the same:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2D...&resnum=6&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

"Kinder and gentler" serves no purpose but to dilute the truth and turn it into a lie.

Man is either totally depraved or not. Grace is either irresistible or it isn't. The effect of ROSES is merely to say that man isn't really that deserving of hell.