Are these things we should be thinking about...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


One of the most influential, yes. One of the greatest, well ... I'll take J.P. Boyce or B.H. Carroll.

A good article on Mullins by Al Mohler can be found at

E. Y. Mullins:The Axioms of Religion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read Mohler on Mullins and, needless to say, do not find much with which I can agree . I believe he states that Mullins' position on "soul competency" was the "acid" that began to eat at the authority of the Church. Sounds like something right out of the RCC to me.

I hope you will continue here. I will contribute more later.

buster

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Buster ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


One of the most influential, yes. One of the greatest, well ... I'll take J.P. Boyce or B.H. Carroll.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you be so kind as to point me to some of Carroll's theological works. I, too, am a fan of this giant of Baptist history but am not aware of any specific works on theology. I must admit, to my shame, that I have NOT read much of Boyce but hope to include sections of his Systematic Theology in my future reading plans.

Thanks for any help.
buster

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buster:
No one is holding you responsible for your inability to choose to fly or to be creative ex nihilo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

People who fall out of trees or off ladders are held responsible for their inability to fly and they will pay the price for not being able to. People who get into debt are held responsible for their inability to create money from nothing and they will pay the price for not being able to. In other words, I think your point is invalid.

Free will takes place in the context of a person's nature. Man in his natural state is not being forced against his will to reject God. He does it because he wants to. He has not interest in God. It would be like setting a plate of liver in front of me; I have no interest in it. I do not want it. I do not struggle with it. I hate the stuff. I will not eat it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


People who fall out of trees or off ladders are held responsible for their inability to fly and they will pay the price for not being able to. People who get into debt are held responsible for their inability to create money from nothing and they will pay the price for not being able to. In other words, I think your point is invalid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respectfully disagree. People who fall out of trees are held reponsible for their free choice to climb in a tree and their lack of attention to safety; and people who get into debt are responsible because of their lack of self control. Both matters in which they are free to choose. I maintain that my point, "To be responsible, man must be free" is valid.

I anxiously await your response.

buster

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buster:
I respectfully disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We all chose to sin in Adam ... federal headship (Rom 5) and therefore we are responsible for that sin.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buster:


As I mentioned on another thread, I am in agreement with E. Y. Mullins, who, in his "Axioms of Religion", states under the moral axiom, "without freedom there is no responsibility". I take that to mean that if I am not free to choose a path of action I cannot be held resposible for the action or lack of action that I take. In a soteriological sense, God cannot hold me responsible for anything in which I have no choice. I think we get onto a slippery slope when we begin to accept the "total depravity" tenet. We are all sinful (the Bible tells me so), but at what point do we become responsible for our sin. My Southern Baptist Church believes (and I agree) that children below the age of accountability are "safe". If they die before they reach an accountable age they will go to heaven. At that point at which they become aware that they can make choices about right and wrong (and we always choose wrong) then they must accept Jesus' free gift of grace in order to obtain salvation. In other words "without freedom" and understanding "there can be no responsibility".

buster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
AMEN BUSTER!!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buster:


I respectfully disagree. People who fall out of trees are held reponsible for their free choice to climb in a tree and their lack of attention to safety; and people who get into debt are responsible because of their lack of self control. Both matters in which they are free to choose. I maintain that my point, "To be responsible, man must be free" is valid.

buster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
AMEN BUSTER!!!!

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Tuor ]

 

Buster,

I agree with you about Mullins. The reason the current SBC fundamentalist dictatorship can't stand him is because of his emphasis on the Baptist doctrine of soul competency--something they have long since abandoned and, with it, any claim to be Baptist.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buster:
I maintain that my point, "To be responsible, man must be free" is valid.

buster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. To be responsible is to be held to a higher standard. Romans one is quite clear that all have knowingly sinned, are sinners by nature, and are willing God-haters. Because all have sinned in Adam as well as individually, all are responsible. Romans 8.7-8 tells us "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can beSo then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." .

Man is addicted to sin. A cocaine addict is unable to choose to move out of his addiction, and choose clean, healthy living. Yet he is responsible before man and law to do so. Only intervention can save him.

Sinful man is much worse than the drug addict. He is not only addicted to his sin, he is dead in it. He is unable to make himself alive. He is as dead as Lazarus. Only Christ can call him and enliven him, freeing him from his death and addiction. The dead sinner cannot keep the law of God nor does he want to. He cannot please God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We all chose to sin in Adam ... federal headship (Rom 5) and therefore we are responsible for that sin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So does this mean that God sees it as if our minds/souls were consciously present in Adam and made the choice for/with him?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wrong. To be responsible is to be held to a higher standard. Romans one is quite clear that all have knowingly sinned, are sinners by nature, and are willing God-haters. Because all have sinned in Adam as well as individually, all are responsible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Responsibility assumes the person could have done differently, but chose wrong, out of free will, but the whole point of the Gospel is that we are helpless to do the right thing. Our sin "in Adam" is inheriting his fallen nature, nothing more. We can't do anything about this, but what we do with this knowledge is where we are responsible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Man is addicted to sin. A cocaine addict is unable to choose to move out of his addiction, and choose clean, healthy living. Yet he is responsible before man and law to do so. Only intervention can save him.

Sinful man is much worse than the drug addict. He is not only addicted to his sin, he is dead in it. The dead sinner cannot keep the law of God nor does he want to. He cannot please God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is where the whole error is. The addict CAN "choose" to move out of his addiction, but will fail on his own. This is where he needs intervention. He may not even want to follow the path necessary to ovecome the problem, but sill can cry out for help. Addicts are not healed because someone came and made them want to be healed while passing over others. To take man's "deadness in sin" to mean he cannot even want to do what's right is adding an interpretation to the scripture, with the sole purpose of justifying Calvinistic doctrine, as is including this act as "pleasing God".

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Buster,

I agree with you about Mullins. The reason the current SBC fundamentalist dictatorship can't stand him is because of his emphasis on the Baptist doctrine of soul competency--something they have long since abandoned and, with it, any claim to be Baptist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael,
Thanks for your support. What do you understand "soul competency" to mean?
buster

 

Buster,

The believer has the right, authority, and ability to go directly to God and to determine God's will directly through Jesus Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit without the need for mediation of any human, church, or denomination. It means that the believer is responsible for interpreting the scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and that no believer is subject to the interpretation of any other believer, church, or denomination. Soul competency is forever linked with the doctrine of the Lordship of Jesus Christ alone over the individual conscience.

 

Michael,
Wow! You really have a way with words. This seems to sum up this doctrine to a T. May I quote you in the future?

buster

 

Likewise, we are to judge those whose beliefs demonstrate that they are not Christian at all.

I know this isn't Baptist, it's just Biblical. Decide for yourself which is more important.

 

Since this thread has moved out of Calvinism and into soul competency, I'll close the thread. Feel free to post one on soul competency on the Theology board.