SBC Faith and Message supports Calvinistic thinking

[agedman]

this is a quote from the SBC Faith and Message. (Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message)

V. Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.​

Is the underlined an indication of agreement with limited atonement? “...his own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer” mark the connection of blood and believer as uniquely Calvinistic.

A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.

Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
​

This is clearly that which Calvinistic thinkers see as irresistible grace. The unconditional choice of the Holy Spirit bring the change in the heart FIRST in which causes that person to respond in repentance and faith in which BOTH are “experiences of Grace” granted by God and not human effort - for that which is of God’s grace his not of human extraction.

B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.


C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.

​

This is truly the perseverance/preservation of the saints.

Genesis 3:15; Exodus 3:14-17; 6:2-8; Matthew 1:21; 4:17; 16:21-26; 27:22-28:6; Luke 1:68-69; 2:28-32; John 1:11-14,29; 3:3-21,36; 5:24; 10:9,28-29; 15:1-16; 17:17; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 15:11; 16:30-31; 17:30-31; 20:32; Romans 1:16-18; 2:4; 3:23-25; 4:3ff.; 5:8-10; 6:1-23; 8:1-18,29-39; 10:9-10,13; 13:11-14; 1 Corinthians 1:18,30; 6:19-20; 15:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; Galatians 2:20; 3:13; 5:22-25; 6:15; Ephesians 1:7; 2:8-22; 4:11-16; Philippians 2:12-13; Colossians 1:9-22; 3:1ff.; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 2 Timothy 1:12; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:1-3; 5:8-9; 9:24-28; 11:1-12:8,14; James 2:14-26; 1 Peter 1:2-23; 1 John 1:6-2:11; Revelation 3:20; 21:1-22:5.

​

So how many SBC pastors want to remain in a convention that so openly endorses its Calvinistic roots?

 

[Revmitchell]

Partner do you know how this BF&M was organized this last time? Do you know the background and who it was on the committee and what their intent was?

 

[agedman]

Partner do you know how this BF&M was organized this last time? Do you know the background and who it was on the committee and what their intent was?

Does it matter?

What I was showing was how it can support Calvinistic thinking.

Do you agree?

 

[Revmitchell]

Does it matter?

What I was showing was how it can support Calvinistic thinking.

Do you agree?

Yes it matters because it goes to the heart of the op. This is the second time today you have posted on a subject in which you do not know all the facts so let me school you. The BF&M committee was set up so as to word it in a way that churches who are calvinistic and who are not both could accept the wording of it. What has happened since then is the [Calvinists] have tried to use to to prove the SBC is largely calvinist. There is a growing divide in the convetion and it is because of attitudes that has been clearly displayed in the op. You [Calvinists] want to keep up divisions like this it is exactly what you will get. There is a growing animosity building up. If not corrected it will come to a head. Its a shame because its not necessary.

 

[agedman]

Yes it matters because it goes to the heart of the op. This is the second time today you have posted on a subject in which you do not know all the facts so let me school you. The BF&M committee was set up so as to word it in a way that churches who are calvinistic and who are not both could accept the wording of it. What has happened since then is the little calvies have tried to use to to prove the SBC is largely calvinist. There is a growing divide in the convetion and it is because of attitudes that has been clearly displayed in the op. You puny little calvies want to keep up divisions like this it is exactly what you will get. There is a growing animosity building up. If not corrected it will come to a head. Its a shame because its not necessary.

For someone who knows so little about me, you certainly assume a lot that isn’t true.

By posting that portion of the document outside of any of the formers bias, and using that document, alone, to demonstrate the truth is certainly not refutated in your post. Rather your post exposes that great desperation to rationalize and avoidance of the truth is becoming more authoritative.

Strange that You can’t use the very document and show how it can be misread. Is it because you know OP is correct.

If you disagree, show such in the document, using as I did that document outside of external former bias.

 

[agedman]

Sorry, but when you call people childish names like "little calvies" and "puny little calvies", you have no right to complain about "divisions" and "animosity".

Wasn’t he one who was complaining about posters who name call?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Wasn’t he one who was complaining about posters who name call?

Don't know. I put him on ignore long ago. I just looked at his post so I could see the context of your reply to him.

 

[Revmitchell]

For someone who knows so little about me, you certainly assume a lot that isn’t true.

By posting that portion of the document outside of any of the formers bias, and using that document, alone, to demonstrate the truth is certainly not refutated in your post. Rather your post exposes that great desperation to rationalize and avoidance of the truth is becoming more authoritative.

Strange that You can’t use the very document and show how it can be misread. Is it because you know OP is correct.

If you disagree, show such in the document, using as I did that document outside of external former bias.

So, you deny that the committee that wrote it did so in the fashion I described?

 

[BobRyan]

Yes it matters because it goes to the heart of the op. This is the second time today you have posted on a subject in which you do not know all the facts so let me school you. The BF&M committee was set up so as to word it in a way that churches who are calvinistic and who are not both could accept the wording of it. What has happened since then is the [Calvinists] have tried to use to to prove the SBC is largely calvinist. There is a growing divide in the convetion and it is because of attitudes that has been clearly displayed in the op. You [Calvinists] want to keep up divisions like this it is exactly what you will get. There is a growing animosity building up. If not corrected it will come to a head. Its a shame because its not necessary.

Was the "ever" a time when SBC members were "only Calvinist" or "only Arminian"?

 

[Revmitchell]

Was the "ever" a time when SBC members were "only Calvinist" or "only Arminian"?

Nope, never. In recent years they have had more young guys turning their way and they think they are doing something so they teach them to intentionally not reveal their soteriology when interviewing at churches so they can secretly turn them into a calvie church.

 

[agedman]

So, you deny that the committee that wrote it did so in the fashion I described?

Nope.

That was never a consideration.

You seem exercised about it rather then actually attending to the OP.

This diversion of the topic of the OP causes Me to wonder if you hold more allegiance to persons rather then that found in the statement.

Do you hold to that statement?

If you do, do you not see what was pointed out in the OP?

 

[Revmitchell]

If you do, do you not see what was pointed out in the OP?

The explanation of the intention of the committee that wrote it addresses the op. Not sure why that needs to be explained.

 

[agedman]

Was the "ever" a time when SBC members were "only Calvinist" or "only Arminian"?

Baptist press quoted Dockery:

“At the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in May 1845, it would have been difficult to find leaders who were not Calvinistic in their theology,...”. Dockery: Calvinism has roots in SBC history​

 

[agedman]

The explanation of the intention of the committee that wrote it addresses the op. Not sure why that needs to be explained.

It doesn’t even need to be a part of the conversation, although you made it so.

What may have been “intention” does not conform the writing that was printed.

Intention is based in bias.

To remove bias from consideration the OP made no mention of formers, but gave direct quotes and showed the Calvinistic view was involved.

 

[Revmitchell]

Was the "ever" a time when SBC members were "only Calvinist" or "only Arminian"?

"He distinguished between a Calvinistic denominational leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention and its less Calvinist laity."

Dockery: Calvinism has roots in SBC history

 

[Revmitchell]

It doesn’t even need to be a part of the conversation, although you made it so.

What may have been “intention” does not conform the writing that was printed.

Intention is based in bias.

To remove bias from consideration the OP made no mention of formers, but gave direct quotes and showed the Calvinistic view was involved.

Uh, it would not have passed and or been approved otherwise. The issue you are most likely intentionally ignoring is that often cals and the rest of us use the same language with two entirely different meanings. On this alone your argument falls apart.

 

[Revmitchell]

So there are two facts that completely debunk the op:

1. The BF&M committee intentionally wrote it so that the language could be accepted by both cals and the rest of us.
2. Cals and Traditionalists use the same terms with different definitions.

Therefore it is, at its core, completely errant to claim that the BF&M is purely a cal document. The op is nothing but an attempt to create further divide in the convention.

 

[Jerome]

Baptist Press - Clarification at SBTS

"The Southern Baptist family is made up of Calvinists and those who are not, Mohler said. 'The decision to be a Southern Baptist is the decision to work with the people' on both sides of the debate, he said. 'We should not be surprised by differences of understanding of the issues that are comfortably within the Baptist Faith and Message,' Mohler added, citing the SBC's confession of faith, most recently revised in 2000."

"Mohler noted that Southern Seminary's confession of faith, the Abstract of Principles, only requires adherence to three points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints. The other two points of Calvinism are limited (or particular) atonement and irresistible (or effectual) grace."

"Mohler said those who hold to all five points of Calvinism and those who do not are still capable of cooperating together in the Great Commission and other ministries as long as they can both affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. Both men agreed that the BF&M in its current form is sufficient for both sides of the debate. 'I need to say publicly in this conversation with you -- I do not want our Baptist Faith and Message to be any narrower than it is now,' Mohler said."

 

[agedman]

Uh, it would not have passed and or been approved otherwise. The issue you are most likely intentionally ignoring is that often calvies and the rest of us use the same language with two entirely different meanings. On this alone your argument falls apart.

But you did nothing to “prove” this view.

You resorted to assumptions of the framers, where the OP addressed that which was actually stated

 

[agedman]

Baptist Press - Clarification at SBTS

"The Southern Baptist family is made up of Calvinists and those who are not, Mohler said. 'The decision to be a Southern Baptist is the decision to work with the people' on both sides of the debate, he said. 'We should not be surprised by differences of understanding of the issues that are comfortably within the Baptist Faith and Message,' Mohler added, citing the SBC's confession of faith, most recently revised in 2000."

"Mohler noted that Southern Seminary's confession of faith, the Abstract of Principles, only requires adherence to three points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints. The other two points of Calvinism are limited (or particular) atonement and irresistible (or effectual) grace."

"Mohler said those who hold to all five points of Calvinism and those who do not are still capable of cooperating together in the Great Commission and other ministries as long as they can both affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. Both men agreed that the BF&M in its current form is sufficient for both sides of the debate. 'I need to say publicly in this conversation with you -- I do not want our Baptist Faith and Message to be any narrower than it is now,' Mohler said."

But, as evidenced on this BB there are those SBC folks who would deny the basic message is in fact Calvinistic statement.