BF&M 1963 and Hobbs

Great quotes, Karen. Where do they come from? Who is Stagg?

How do you feel about the 1963 vs. 2000 BF&M controversy?

Thanks for this post. I was beginning to feel somewhat alone here.

buster

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Buster ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Karen:
Herschel Hobbs and the other authors of the 1963 (SBC) Baptist Faith and Message seem to be among those confused Baptists who are neither Arminian nor Calvinist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, he certainly was - confused.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hobbs, commenting on the BF&M stated,"There are certain pitfalls to be avoided in considering the doctrine of election. One should not magnify certain aspects of God's nature (sovereignty, will, power, pleasure) to the neglect of others(righteousness,love). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. And no biblical Calvinist does this.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Neither should one forget the free will of man and his power of choice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He has just stated an unbiblical concept: freewill. He should have read Calvin, Luther. Augustine and Paul

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, election should not be regarded as God's purpose to save AS FEW as possible rather than AS MANY as possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God does not save as many as possible, but as many as he will. It is amazing how often Romans 9 and John 6 are ignored by anti-Calvinists.

Romans 9:8 (ESV)
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Romans 9:11-16 (ESV)
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— [12] she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
[14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

All the rest of what Hobbs says is unbiblcal Arminian nonsense. Fortunately, Scripture is authoritative and not Hershell Hobbs.

 

The new SBC fundie hierarchy considers Hobbs, as they do Mullins, a heretic.

 

Hershell Hobbs and E.Y. Mullins probably should be called "Barthians" in that their theology resembles Karl Barth's Arminian-Calvinist hybrid theology. Hobbs and Mullins Barthian theology is worst than Classical Arminian theology and is one of the main reasons the SBC lost any kind of theological identity. I wouldn't classify them as heretics but poor theologians they were.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

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

If God does not save as many as possible, ultimately that means that some people are going to Hell for the singular reason that God passed them over just because He wanted to. If He had wanted to, they would have been saved.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are going to hell for the singular reason that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Romans 1:18 (ESV)

And yes, God passed them over just because He chose to, and if He had wanted to, they would have been saved.

Romans 9:15-16 (ESV)
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16] So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

But Chris, read Romans 1:18 again.
It says they SUPPRESS the truth. That means God attempted to show the truth to them but THEY chose to disregard it. God went out of his way to let the truth be known by them. Their rejection of it is why they would go to hell.

Romans 9's discussion of election doesn't refer to New Testament salvation. It discusses the choice of giving the blessing to Jacob over Esau as far as leadership of the nation of Israel is concerned. If it's a picture of salvation, then you have Esau finding no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears (Hebrews 12:26-27), which clearly contradicted the promise of God that those who come to him will in no way be cast out (John 6:37b)

The passage discusses God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Reading the Exodus references, you will see Pharaoh hardened his own heart (fulfillment of Romans 1:18) before God hardened it.

 

Hi Chris:

You said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither should one forget the free will of man and his power of choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has just stated an unbiblical concept: freewill. He should have read Calvin, Luther. Augustine and Paul

Have you read the book of Jeremiah???
I suggest it before the others.
No freewill indeed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
But Chris, read Romans 1:18 again.
It says they SUPPRESS the truth. That means God attempted to show the truth to them but THEY chose to disregard it. God went out of his way to let the truth be known by them. Their rejection of it is why they would go to hell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely because that which may be known about him is clearly seen in the creation so that they are without excuse. God did not "attempt" to show them the truth. They did see it and rejected it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 9's discussion of election doesn't refer to New Testament salvation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why is it in the NT? Of course it has to do with NT salvation because NT salvation is just like OT salvation. It is by the sovereign choice of God who has mercy on whom he will and hardens whom he will. If it is not a picture of salvation, then Rom 9-11 make no sense at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it's a picture of salvation, then you have Esau finding no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears (Hebrews 12:26-27), which clearly contradicted the promise of God that those who come to him will in no way be cast out (John 6:37b)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The text does not say that the repentance Esau was seeking was salvation. I think Esau was trying to find a way to get the birthright back. Therefore, it does not contradict the promise of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The passage discusses God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Reading the Exodus references, you will see Pharaoh hardened his own heart (fulfillment of Romans 1:18) before God hardened it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your references to Pharaoh are incorrect. The first time it is mentioned is in Ex 4:21 where God says, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (hiphil).

Ex 7:3 is the next time: "ut I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." (piel).

Ex 7:13 and 7:22 are the next two, both of them in a passive sense, "his heart grew hard, was hardened" (a qal imperfect.)

In fact, if you go through the verses, there are 18 times that it is referenced and only three of them refer to Pharaoh hardening his own heart. In the rest of them, it is either passive (5x) or the act of the Lord (10x).

It is clear that the Lord initiated the hardening. This coincides perfectly with Rom 9:17 where it tells us that the purpose God raised up Pharoah was to demonstrate his own power and to proclaim His name. The plagues were not some reaction of God to Pharoah's rebellion. They were the plan of God to demonstrate his own glory.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by trueliberty:
[QB]But Chris, read Romans 1:18 again.
It says they SUPPRESS the truth. That means God attempted to show the truth to them but THEY chose to disregard it. God went out of his way to let the truth be known by them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's not what it means at all. Romans 1 is speaking of general revelation.

Rom 1:18-19 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

What God has shown them in creation is that he exists. It is true that in their depraved nature they chose to reject natural revelation. But that is because they are slaves to sin and slaves to the flesh.

Rom 8:7-8 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

No Calvinist argues against choice per se; only that the choices of men are limited by God's sovereignty and man's nature.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Romans 9's discussion of election doesn't refer to New Testament salvation. It discusses the choice of giving the blessing to Jacob over Esau as far as leadership of the nation of Israel is concerned. If it's a picture of salvation, then you have Esau finding no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears (Hebrews 12:26-27), which clearly contradicted the promise of God that those who come to him will in no way be cast out (John 6:37b) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. There is no NT salvation or OT salvation. Salvation is always by grace through faith. Romans 9 is a clear exegesis of God's mercy in divine election of individuals.

Rom 9:18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?"
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

And there is no contradition with John 6:37b; unless Christ contradicted himself in 6:37a.
"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.
44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 "It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The passage discusses God hardening Pharaoh's heart. Reading the Exodus references, you will see Pharaoh hardened his own heart (fulfillment of Romans 1:18) before God hardened it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exodus is clear that God hardened Pharoah' heart to serve his purposes.

Ex 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Yet even if Pharoah first hardened his own heart (which the text does not say) God nevertheless hardened it further, eliminating Pharoah's "free-choice" of if and when to free Israel. The "problem" of God's sovereign action is not alleviated.

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

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

Have you read the book of Jeremiah???
I suggest it before the others.
No freewill indeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Spurgeon's sermon, "FREE-WILL—A SLAVE"

And ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.”—John 5:40.

THIS is one of the great guns of the Arminians, mounted upon the top of their walls, and often discharged with terrible noise against the poor Christians called Calvinists. I intend to spike the gun this morning, or, rather, to turn it on the enemy, for it was never theirs; it was never cast at their foundry at all, but was intended to teach the very opposite doctrine to that which they assert. Usually, when the text is taken, the divisions are:—First, that man has a will. Secondly, that he is entirely free. Thirdly, that men must make themselves willing to come to Christ, otherwise they will not be saved. Now, we shall have no such divisions; but we will endeavour to take a more calm look at the text; and not, because there happen to be the words “will,” or “will not” in it, run away with the conclusion that it teaches the doctrine of free-will. It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense. Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can be­long to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to he guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and be hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.” It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that he gives both; that he is “Alpha and Omega” in the salvation of men.
....You have heard a great many Arminian sermons, I dare say; but you never heard an Arminian prayer—for the saints in prayer appear as one in word, and deed and mind. An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist. He cannot pray about free will: there is no room for it. Fancy him praying,

Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Calvinists. Lord, I was born with a glorious free-will; I was born with power by which I can turn to thee of myself; I have improved my grace. If everybody had done the same with their grace that I have, they might all have been saved. Lord, I know thou dost not make us willing if we are not willing ourselves. Thou givest grace to everybody; some do not improve it, but l do. There are many that wilI go to hell as much bought with the blood of Christ as I was; they had as much of the Holy Ghost given to them; they had as good a chance, and were as much blessed as I am. It was not thy grace that made us to differ; I know it did a great deal, still I turned the point; I made use of what was given me, and others did not—that is the difference between me and them.

That is a prayer for the devil, for nobody else would offer such a prayer as that. Ah! when they are preaching and talking very slowly, there may be wrong doctrine; but when they come to pray, the true thing slips out; they cannot help it. If a man talks very slowly, he may speak in a fine manner; but when he comes to talk fast, the old brogue of his country, where he was born, slips out. I ask you again, did you ever meet a Christian man who said, “I came to Christ without the power of the Spirit?” If you ever did meet such a man, you need have no hesitation in saying, “My dear sir, I quite believe it—and I believe you went away again without the power of the Spirit, and that you know nothing about the matter, and are in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.”

Full sermon at http://www.the-highway.com/Freewill_Spurgeon.html

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Hershell Hobbs and E.Y. Mullins probably should be called "Barthians" in that their theology resembles Karl Barth's Arminian-Calvinist hybrid theology. Hobbs and Mullins Barthian theology is worst than Classical Arminian theology and is one of the main reasons the SBC lost any kind of theological identity. I wouldn't classify them as heretics but poor theologians they were.

[ December 16, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Kiffin,
These are rather strong words. I wonder, have you read anything by Hobbs, Mullins or Barth or are you depending for your judgment on what others have previously said about their positions?

Looking forward to your reply,
buster

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Buster ]

 

Hi Buster,

One of Hobbs most famous or infamous statements that can be found in his Sunday School material he wrote.

He compared Salvation this way "God cast a vote for you, Satan cast a vote against you and now it's up to you to cast the deciding vote."

Certaintly it doesn't take a Calvinist to recognize such a ridiculous statement. The implication is humanity is in a neutral condition not only that it has man saving himself.

Hobbs, I'm sure was probably a nice fella but he and Mullins I believe follow Barth's theology that is basically a Arminian-Calvinist hybrid. That should not be shocking to you since most of the SBC including people such as Charles Stanley, and others teaching on Eternal Security is Barthian. In all fairness to Dr. Hobbs his belief on Eternal Security was more Calvinist than Barthian. Unfortunately Hobbs strong emphasis on free will was abandoning historic Baptist teachings as found in the 1744 Philadelphia and 1833 New Hampshire. The belief in Free Will was associated with the more smaller Baptist groups such as General Baptists who also taught Apostasy of the believer.

If you read his comments on Election that we are elected in the "sphere of Christ" that is basically Christ is the elected one and once we believe on Him we are the elect. If I am not mistaken is not that classic Barth theology of election?

Mullins and Hobbs teachings are abandoning historic Baptist teaching. I was repulsed when a State Baptist newspaper stated that theology wasn't important to Baptists until E.Y. Mullins. E.Y. Mullins was not the first Baptist theologian. Other's that are more superior are John Gill (The first truly Baptist theologian) James Boice, J.L. Dagg, B.H. Carroll (of course they are all Calvinists which was the predominant theology of Baptists until Mullins and others)

God Bless,
Randy +†+

 

Randy,
Thanks for your reply, but I don't think you've answered my questions. Part of the problem in these discussions is that we accept the statements of a group's opposition as proof about the stance of the group without investigating the true position of the group. Let me give you an example. In the SBC controversy over the Bible, the conservatives make the claim that the moderates don't believe that the Bible is true because they (the moderates) don't like to use the word "inerrant". Moderates are perfectly comfortable with the statement (from the 1963 BF&M) that the Bible "has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter". That sounds like a good representation of a belief in the truth and importance of the Bible. You can see that if we set up our opponents as straw men and then destroy the caricature that we have set up, we haven't really settled any issues. I would like to know more of how you feel about Barth (although this board may not be the appropriate forum) but I would like most to know from whence cometh your understanding. Karl Barth was an extremely prolific writer. His magnum opus, Church Dogmatics, runs to several volumes. As is the case with many works, including the Bible, Barth's works can be "proof texted" to say many things.

So here's the question again, Have you read Hobbs, Mullins or Barth, or are you depending on others (such as White, Grudem, Sproul and Packer) for information about their positions.

Karen,
As for the 1963/2000 BFM controversy, I agree with you. Unfortunately, we as Southern Baptists have a long history of doctrinal controversy. There's a great quote about this in McBeth's _Baptist Heritage_ but I can't find it right now. If I find it I'll post it later.

This is a great topic. Let's talk some more!

buster

 

Sorry Chris, maybe you misunderstood my question. It was "Have you read Jeremiah?" not "Are you familiar with Spurgeon?".
By the way, I don't, nor does anyone I know, feel man comes to salvation apart from the Spirit. The way of salvation is certainly all God, but we must decide for ourselves to accept it. Coerced "love" is an oxymoron. Were I alive in Spurgeon's time, I too would probably be a Calvinist. Free will would seem absurd in the era of Newtonian physics and Laplacian determinism. Welcome to the 21st century. Absolute causality is a myth. Scripture does not teach absolute determinism. It certainly teaches some things are determined. It also teches moral responsibilty. To be morally responsible is nonsensical in your system. The freedom to choose good over evil is EXPLICITLY taught in Jeremiah, as well as in several other books of the Bible. It is not an IMPLICATION drawn from isolated, out-of-context scriptural passages such as the Calvinistic doctrine of "Total Depravity" is.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by free_wheeler:
By the way, I don't, nor does anyone I know, feel man comes to salvation apart from the Spirit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but your belief is Roman. It is called synergism; God has done all he can, now it is up to us.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Coerced "love" is an oxymoron. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A classic Arminian strawman argument. Nowhere does Scripture or a Calvinist argue for coerced anything. God regenerates a sinners heart, who by his nature hates God, and frees it to love God and turn to Him. The sinner freely chooses Christ and salvation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Were I alive in Spurgeon's time, I too would probably be a Calvinist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you wouldn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Free will would seem absurd in the era of Newtonian physics and Laplacian determinism. Welcome to the 21st century. Absolute causality is a myth. Scripture does not teach absolute determinism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matthew 10:29 (ESV)
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.

Proverbs 16:33 (ESV)
The lot is cast into the lap,
but its every decision is from the Lord.

Psalm 44:9-13 (ESV)
But you have rejected us and disgraced us
and have not gone out with our armies.
[10] You have made us turn back from the foe,
and those who hate us have gotten spoil.
[11] You have made us like sheep for slaughter
and have scattered us among the nations.
[12] You have sold your people for a trifle,
demanding no high price for them.
[13] You have made us the taunt of our neighbors,
the derision and scorn of those around us.

Ephes. 1:11 (ESV)
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

"The Bible teaches God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

"This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).

From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10)." (John Piper)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To be morally responsible is nonsensical in your system. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, its nonsensical when you exalt humanistic rationalism over and above Biblical truth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is not an IMPLICATION drawn from isolated, out-of-context scriptural passages such as the Calvinistic doctrine of "Total Depravity" is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And here is the crux of the matter; a rejection of total depravity. It always is.

Genesis 6:5 (ESV)
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

John 14:17 (ESV)
even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Romans 6:17 (ESV)
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,

Romans 7:5 (ESV)
For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

Romans 8:7-8 (ESV)
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. [8] Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Cor. 2:14 (ESV)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Ephes. 2:1-3 (ESV)
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
[2] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— [3] among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Ephes. 2:11-12 (ESV)
Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— [12] remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

If they are out of context implied proofs of total depravity, I'd really like to see your definition of explicit.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
The new SBC fundie hierarchy considers Hobbs, as they do Mullins, a heretic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1. No such thing as a hierarchy in SBC life.
2. I've never heard conservatives refer to these two in that way regarding the totality of their doctrine. Some disagree with them on certain points. But this is an entirely incorrect statement