The five points of Calvinism and Eternal Security.

The only Southern Baptists I know are in Founders Movement churches, so they probably do not fit your view of "traditionalism". When I was searching for a church after moving to Central Florida, I did a lot of online research (reading doctrinal statements, vision statements, and listening to online sermons) and also visited quite a few churches. You find out a lot of good information by observing and asking questions.

Although my father's ancestry traces its bloodline back to the Scottish Reformer John Knox, I was raised by my mother's side of the family which was Italian Roman Catholic. I never entered a Baptist church until I was 23. That church was affiliated with the C.B.A. I moved to Maryland after getting married and was a member of an A.B.A. church for 10 years before becoming part of a church plant. That church plant eventually became a Reformed Baptist Church. Nowhere along the line did an S.B.C. church come into the picture. I had this caricature in my mind of an S.B.C. church in which they identified as a Southern Baptist first and a Baptist second. I have had Southern Baptists tell me that caricature was spot on. I can only take their word for it because I have never found out for myself.

I like to deconstruct things down to the lowest common denominator. So, when discussing the different views of predestination/election and the will of man, I conclude that there really are two governing theological models, and all views fall into one or the other (but not both). The first model is Monergism and the second view is Synergism. Some posters on this board reject both models because they view them as pejoratives; an attempt by the one using them to criticize the view they disagree with. There may be some truth to that on an individual basis but that does not negate the truth of the theological models. So, if someone rejects the Calvinist label but believes in Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited (Definite) Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints then they hold to the Monergistic model. Conversely, if someone refuses to be labeled an Arminian but holds to Conditional Election, Resistible Grace, General Atonement, and the ability to lose one's salvation they are a Synergist. Those terms are not pejoratives unless that spin is placed on them.

 

This is where I first heard the majority SBC view called "traditionalism."

 

I have seen four types of Baptists.
1. Classical Arminiam (tiny minority)
2. Calvinists (minority but fast growing)
3. Blended, AKA non-cals
4. Don't study the word enough to have a clue what they are. (Vast majority)

 

Here's how it works. Jesus paid for all of my sins, past, present, and future. And just as in America you cannot be punished twice for the same crime, as a Christian, I cannot be punished for any sin no matter how serious. But, in view of that, God gave me a brand new nature that loves him and hates sin. So even if free to sin, It repulses me and I love the fullness of the Spirit that comes from holiness more than anything else.

 

Please explain to me what these people believe. Please elaborate on how scripturally one could reject at least some form of individual election.

 

Everyone holds to parts of the 5 pts of necessity.
As they grow to maturity they hold all 5 points.
Some never get there, but they serve God with whatever understanding they hold.
God judges what they did with what they had.

 

You can see how this watered down compromise document is held on to ,in the name of "unity".
Hankins holds on to his vague double speak, Dr Mohler while trying to take the high road trusting God will over rule the weak doctrinal stance as truth is preached and taught.

 

Sure it is

 

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19–21)

Who can change this?

 

If I were a "non-cal" I would be embarrassed by Hankins. In All honesty, what can he say? The only two positions you can logically defend are Calvinism and Classical Arminianism. If youyou move any degree toward the middle, your doctrine crumbles.

 

Break it down for us in detail. How is this so?

 

I would disagree on the milk vs meat. What you believe about God, Grace, and Salvation, determines what you believe on just about everything else. It is the core.

 

I think your responses in the past Calvinism threads have sufficiently demonstrated my point.

 

I get it you can't. Big talk for someone who doesn't really know doctrine.

 

I know doctrine. I simply refuse to get into a braying match with you. You have no desire to engage in meaningful dialogue. You simply want to spew meaningless one liners.

 

Constantly