My comments were actually confined to the topic of Calvinism in the SBC, and were no intended to cover another, seperate topic. While I am calvinistic in my personal theological leanings, I would never deny the "free agency" of man nor would I refuse to work with others who held to other views in this debate. In fact, I would find it difficult to work with only two groups: 1) Hyper-Calvinists or who take the "sovereignty of God" so far that they are not obedient to the Great Commission in the work of direct, personal evangelism. 2) Open Theists or those who reject what the Word says God is in His character and power and thus reduce the work, power, and plan of God to a big blob of mush (theological term).
IMHO both of those positions are untennable biblically and create a division for me that is too great to overcome in the work that I am called to accomplish. Open Theism is not the topic on this thread and to even insinuate that non-calvinists and open theists are one in the same is a bit of a stretch... actually a HUGE stretch that would be difficult to prove.
Will the SBC split over the doctrines of sovereign grace?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by reformedbeliever, Sep 27, 2006.
Page 3 of 7
-
2Bhizown writes:
"If those believed in the sovereignty of God in all things there would be no problem! You see, calvinists believe God is sovereign in salvation, from beginning to end! Can that be said by non-calvinist?"
The answer is yes. Non-calvinist believe God is sovereign in salvation, form beginning to end. You just demonstrated my point. I would suggest you use the term "sovereign as calvinist apply it to no freewill" rather than to just use the word sovereign and imply non-calvinists do not believe in the sovereignty of God.. -
Let me clarify my position on the 'free will' possibility!
Man does have a 'will' and can choose. However, he is only able to choose what is against God's will. He is spiritually dead and unable to choose God or what is pleasing to God. It is ONLY after God has regenerated his heart and gifted him with repentance and faith that he is even able to choose anything that would please God.
The best address regarding 'free will' was written by Luther in The Bondage of the Will.
Man isnt sick; he is dead, able to choose only evil until God intervenes by His sovereign grace!
I was of an arminian view for over 60 yrs. When the blinders were removed and the light of God's grace shined into my heart I continued to read the same bible I'd read for years, yet the words became so different, so clear and the doctrines stood out with clarity! I so thank Him! -
-
-
No, we won't split. Liberals are making much ado about nothing.
-
Well I do need the excercise!
-
-
I do believe it possible that there are some saved who dont even realize exactly how it came to be, and perhaps think it was of their doing and by their design. God's word tells us otherwise, that 'no man comes to the Father but by me.' -
My biggest problem and concern with a possible split it this... There are more churches today that have taken a stand in regard to this doctrine, and have ignorantly misrepresented what calvinist truly believe. We see that misrepresentation constantly here on this forum. This has become almost slander and in some cases it is slanderous. There have been personal attacks upon people for what they interpret as biblical doctrine. There is one instance in a church where..... although they didn't name an influential Godly person, they alluded to him, and completely misrepresented his doctrinal stance. If they had mentioned his name it would have been slander... and it still may be. This man could loose his job over what another has misrepresented. I offer this suggestion, please educate yourselves to the other person's position before trying to represent what they believe.
-
I do not think that this will lead to a split.
I do believe that some ill-guided individuals misuse this and similar doctrines to stir up trouble. Yes, if a preacher mis-uses the doctrine of grace - he is just as responsible as a deacon. Any one that intentionally mis-represents what 'must' be believed in order to 'be orthodox' is wrong.
IMHO. -
False doctrine always causes division. To seperate from false doctrine is a good thing.
-
While I agree that "False doctrine always causes division", I am not certaint that I can continue your analogy concerning the OP.
I do not equate the doctrines of sovereign grace to false doctrine.
-
I didn't say which was false. I just said to seperate from that which is false is a good thing.
-
Well, I just want to be clear - I do not believe that we should separate based upon your implication that sovereign grace is a false doctrine.
-
-
I am grateful that you have found the tent that fits you best. -
Its not Calvinism that I believe in its Biblism.
-
Harmonization... -
Page 3 of 7