About to hit the fan in the SBC

[quantumfaith]

Winman you are 100% correct the majority of southern Baptists are non-cals.

I realize that this is an anecdotal assessment, but from my experience as a SBC'er, I think you are correct. But I must also add, in reality, most lay folks in the pews are unaware of where they stand soteriologically. I am 50 years old, and have been apart of SBC life for most of those years, not once, if my memory is correct, was I ever a part of a "reformed" oriented church. Also, I might add the small Bible College I attended in Graceville Florida was led instructionally either by "non-cal" professors, or they did an exceptional job in hiding their reformed stance.

 

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by kyredneck
Founder's. . .is in line with Reformed, Primitive, and some Old Regular Baptists

Thank you, kyredneck. You're right that it's a throwback to hyper and hardshell innovations that regular Baptists repudiated long ago.

Bob Ross explains:

http://writingsofbobross.tripod.com/0004.htm

Who is Bob Ross? Is he OLD SCHOOL SOUTHERN BAPTIST?

You blanked out the main point of my post; I'll reiterate in RED:

The Founder's (or Old School SB) distinction between regeneration and conversion is in line with Reformed, Primitive, and some Old Regular Baptists:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1803103&highlight=Carroll#post1803103

"James P. Boyce (first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky): "It is not strange, therefore, that they [i.e. regeneration and conversion] are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is that act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart" (Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 374)."

"John A. Broadus (distinguished professor of New Testament and successor to Boyce at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary): "1. Q. What is meant by the word regeneration? A. Regeneration is God's causing a person to be born again. 9. Q. Does faith come before the new birth? A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes" (taken from Broadus' A Catechism of Bible Teaching, reprinted in A Baptist Treasury, pp. 67-68)."

"John L. Dagg (first writing Southern Baptist theologian; president of Mercer University in Georgia): "In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect. . . . But, in his own time and manner, God, the Holy Spirit, makes the word effectual in producing a new affection in the soul: and, when the first movement of love to God exists, the first throb of spiritual life commences" (A Manual of Theology, pp. 277, 279)."

"B. H. Carroll (founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas): "The true scriptural position [concerning regeneration] is this: There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition, repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance and faith are but responses to the antecedent spiritual graces of repentance and faith." Carroll goes on to state that "repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration" (An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 4, p. 287)."


Yea, who is Bob Ross?

 

[pilgrim_99]

Bob L. Ross is the founder of Pilgrim Publications. He republished the classic Passmore and Alabaster set of Spurgeon's sermons a few decades ago (New ParK Street Pulpit and Met Tab Pulpit.) Otherwise he is also known for holding several debates with Campbellites as well as writing a book against Landmarkism.

He calls himself a "creedal Calvinist" but I've never quite been able to ascertain what he means by that. His hobby horse in connection to this is the idea of regeneration preceding faith. In particular what he objects to is the idea that one can be regenerated (i.e. born again) apart from any instrumentality of the Word whatsoever and also the idea that there may be some interval of time between regeneration and conversion, exercising faith, etc. I know that some Presbyterians believe this, and I think I sort of believed it too in my Presby days. I'm not sure how many Baptists believe it apart from Hardshells. I think it's more common to hold to the idea that there's a logical precedence and not a temporal one and that regeneration and faith occur simultaneously. I can't remember if he would agree with the latter idea or not.

 

[kyredneck]

The point is Bob Ross has nothing to do with the ORIGINAL OLD SCHOOL SOUTHERN BAPTIST FOUNDERS such as Boyce, Broadus, Dagg, Carroll, who all held that man is totally passive in the birth from above.

 

[OldRegular]

The point is Bob Ross has nothing to do with the ORIGINAL OLD SCHOOL SOUTHERN BAPTIST FOUNDERS such as Boyce, Broadus, Dagg, Carroll, who all held that man is totally passive in the birth from above.

Good stuff you posted above kyredneck.:thumbs:

 

[saturneptune]

I realize that this is an anecdotal assessment, but from my experience as a SBC'er, I think you are correct. But I must also add, in reality, most lay folks in the pews are unaware of where they stand soteriologically. I am 50 years old, and have been apart of SBC life for most of those years, not once, if my memory is correct, was I ever a part of a "reformed" oriented church. Also, I might add the small Bible College I attended in Graceville Florida was led instructionally either by "non-cal" professors, or they did an exceptional job in hiding their reformed stance.

I was a Presbyterian for 25 years, and a Southern Baptist now for 35 years, and yes, I believe most in this faith are non-cals. And yes, most do not have a clue what they are. What I do not understand from my experience at my local church, where Tom Butler also serves, is why this subject always, and I mean always, degenerates into angry back and forth at best, and you are a heretic at worst. There are both camps in my church, and we get along fine. It is not an issue that is a test of fellowship, in as, most of the points expressed ad nauseum in thread after thread are opinions of what someone thinks of Scripture. Due to my upbringing, I tend to agree with the Reformed side more. However, these people are treating it like the other side is saying, Jesus Christ is not God. There is really no excuse for it.

Anyway, excellent post, and enjoy your insights.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5097

Dr.White checks in.click on the link for an mp3 download.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

He should be talking about how the Calvinists are trying to get the SBC back to the roots of the Baptist Faith.

He should read the the LBC of 1689 sometime.

You people who keep talking about the roots of the Baptist faith have not gone down or back far enough; the first and original Baptists were General Baptists, not Calvinist Baptists. You can't change history -- sorry. I guess it was predestined that the non-Calvinist Baptists would be the original Baptists. :laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

Why does anyone care about what James White thinks one way or the other about the letter? I mean really, who cares? We have the same brain James White does. God's work is carried out by the local church, not James White and his Alpha Omega send me money circus. Why does this person have any say in dictating Southern Baptist policy, is that not the job of Southern Baptist leadership?

If there just has to be a fight in the SBC about this, it needs to be dealt with by the leadership in member local churches, not an entertainer.

 

[saturneptune]

You people who keep talking about the roots of the Baptist faith have not gone down or back far enough; the first and original Baptists were General Baptists, not Calvinist Baptists. You can't change history -- sorry. I guess it was predestined that the non-Calvinist Baptists would be the original Baptists. :laugh:

Yes, to settle the question, we need a time machine so we can go back and poll the twelve apostles.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Bob L. Ross is the founder of Pilgrim Publications. He republished the classic Passmore and Alabaster set of Spurgeon's sermons a few decades ago (New ParK Street Pulpit and Met Tab Pulpit.) Otherwise he is also known for holding several debates with Campbellites as well as writing a book against Landmarkism.

He calls himself a "creedal Calvinist" but I've never quite been able to ascertain what he means by that. His hobby horse in connection to this is the idea of regeneration preceding faith. In particular what he objects to is the idea that one can be regenerated (i.e. born again) apart from any instrumentality of the Word whatsoever and also the idea that there may be some interval of time between regeneration and conversion, exercising faith, etc. I know that some Presbyterians believe this, and I think I sort of believed it too in my Presby days. I'm not sure how many Baptists believe it apart from Hardshells. I think it's more common to hold to the idea that there's a logical precedence and not a temporal one and that regeneration and faith occur simultaneously. I can't remember if he would agree with the latter idea or not.

Oh, what was Spurgeon's opinion? & wasnt he a Baptist?

 

[matt wade]

and here I thought Bob Ross was just a painter on PBS!

 

[Winman]

Why does anyone care about what James White thinks one way or the other about the letter? I mean really, who cares? We have the same brain James White does. God's work is carried out by the local church, not James White and his Alpha Omega send me money circus. Why does this person have any say in dictating Southern Baptist policy, is that not the job of Southern Baptist leadership?

If there just has to be a fight in the SBC about this, it needs to be dealt with by the leadership in member local churches, not an entertainer.

I listened to quite a bit of White's audio, it is the same thing he always does, he insults and mocks his opponents. He presents the same classic Calvinist arguments and assumes they are the only correct interpretation of scripture, which I and many others would disagree with. I find his tactics to be arrogant and obnoxious. I really have trouble listening to him, not because he presents sound arguments (I do not believe he does), but because he comes across as obnoxious.

It is impossible to debate a Calvinist, because they have their own set of terms. A Calvinist for example will often claim the word "all" means only the elect, or certain classes of men, etc... You cannot really debate with someone who holds a different set of definitions for words that you do. This is why a non-Cal will always appear to lose a debate with a Calvinist to a Calvinist listener, because the Calvinist listener will always agree with the Calvinist definition of a word, when that is not necessarily the correct definition of the word. Another example is the word "death", a non-Cal understands this as separation from God, where a Calvinist has been taught to understand this like physical death and inability.

So, it sounds good to a Calvinist listener, but it is not necessarily correct. This is the strength of his debates.

 

[Winman]

You people who keep talking about the roots of the Baptist faith have not gone down or back far enough; the first and original Baptists were General Baptists, not Calvinist Baptists. You can't change history -- sorry. I guess it was predestined that the non-Calvinist Baptists would be the original Baptists. :laugh:

Well, I think there were both, General and Particular about the same time. So, neither can claim to be the "traditional" view. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject.

John Smyth is often credited with starting the first "Baptist" church. He did not hold to the Calvinist view. Here is what he believed, amazingly similar to this document just presented.

WE BELIEVE WITH THE HEART AND WITH THE MOUTH CONFESS:

(1) That there is one God, the best, the highest, and most glorious Creator and Preserver of all; who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(11) That God has created and redeemed the human race to his own image, and has ordained all men (no one being reprobated) to life.

(111) That God imposes no necessity of sinning on any one; but man freely, by Satanic instigation, departs from God.

(1V) That the law of life was originally placed by God in the keeping of the law; then, by reason of the weakness of the flesh, was, by the good pleasure of God, through the redemption of Christ, changed into justification of faith; on which account, no one ought justly blame God, but rather, with his inmost heart, to revere, adore, and praise his mercy, that God should have rendered that possible to man, by his grace, which before, since man had fallen, was impossible by nature.

(V) That there is no original sin (lit;, no sin of origin or descent), but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed, or a design against the law of God; and therefore, infants are without sin.

(V1) That Jesus Christ is true God and true man; viz., the Son of God taking to himself, in addition, the true and pure nature of a man, out of a true rational soul, and existing in a true human body.

(V11) That Jesus Christ, as pertaining to the flesh, was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, afterwards was born, circumcised, baptized, tempted; also that he hungered, thirsted, ate, drank, increased both in stature and in knowledge; he was wearied, he slept, at last was crucified, dead buried, he rose again, ascended into heaven; and that to himself as only King, Priest, and Prophet of the church, all power both in Heaven and earth is given.

(V111) That the grace of God, through the finished redemption of Christ, was to be prepared and offered to all without distinction, and that not feignedly but in good faith, partly by things made, which declare the invisible things of God, and partly by the preaching of the Gospel.

(1X) That men, of the grace of God through the redemption of Christ, are able (the Holy Spirit, by grace, being before unto them grace prevement) to repent, to believe, to turn to God, and to attain to eternal life; so on the other hand, they are able themselves to resist the Holy Spirit, to depart from God, and to perish for ever.

(X) That the justification of man before the Divine tribunal (which is both the throne of justice and of mercy), consists partly of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, and partly of inherent righteousness, in the holy themselves, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, which is called regeneration or sanctification. since any one is righteous, who doeth righteousness.

(X1) That faith, destitute of good works, is vain; but true and living faith is distinguished by good works.

(X11) That the church of Christ is a company of the faithful; baptised after confession of sin and of faith, endowed with the power of Christ.

(X111) That the church of Christ has power delegated to themselves of announcing the word, administering the sacraments, appointing ministers, disclaiming them, and also excommunicating; but the last appeal is to the brethren of body of the church.

(X1V) That baptism is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying and of being made alive, and therefore does not belong to infants.

(XV) That the Lord's Supper is the external sign of the communion of Christ, and of the faithful amongst themselves by faith and love.

(XV1) That the ministers of the church are, not only bishops, to whom the power is given of dispensing both the word and the sacraments, but also deacons, men and widows, who attend to the affairs of the poor and sick brethren.

(XV11) That brethren who persevere in sins known to themselves, after the third admonition, are to be excluded from the fellowship of the saints by excommunication.

(XV111) That those who are excommunicated are not to be avoided in what pertains to worldly business.

(X1X) That the dead (the living being instantly changed) will rise again with the same bodies; not the substance but the qualities being changed.

(XX) That after the resurrection, all will be borne to the tribunal of Christ, the Judge, to be judged according to their works; the pious, after sentence of absolution, will enjoy eternal life with Christ in heaven; the wicked, condemned, will be punished with eternal torments in hell with the devil and his angels.

http://johnsmyth.org/

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well, I think there were both, General and Particular about the same time. So, neither can claim to be the "traditional" view. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject.

John Smyth is often credited with starting the first "Baptist" church. He did not hold to the Calvinist view. Here is what he believed, amazingly similar to this document just presented.



http://johnsmyth.org/

General came first, by a few years.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yes, to settle the question, we need a time machine so we can go back and poll the twelve apostles.

And the very first Baptist, John the Baptist. :laugh:

 

[markwaltermd]

1. The author of the first book by a Southern Baptist on theology was by John Dagg who believed the Biblical Doctrine of Grace.

2. The founders of the first Southern Baptist Seminary believed the Biblical Doctrine of Grace; Boyce, Broadus, and Manly.

3. One of the more widely referenced books on theology was by the yankee Baptist, Strong who also believed the Biblical Doctrine of Grace.

4. Grudem who wrote a widely used text on theology also believes the Biblical Doctrine of Grace!

These are all valid points. I think that it's hard to make the case that the historic Baptist position is non-Calvinist.

 

[markwaltermd]

I grew up in Jacksonville, Florida, and you are telling me I don't know anything about Southern Baptists?? Now that's a laugh, there is a saying in Jacksonville that the SBC owns the town! While I do not belong to a SBC church now, I have in the past.

Look fellas, the SBC has made a stand here whether you like it or not. They know what they are doing, a line has been drawn in the sand. This document is just the first salvo, they know a war is ahead.

Just remember the word SARAH;

Shock- most of you are in shock now, that is to be expected.

Anger- this is already showing, it was to be expected.

Reflection- I have a feeling this is going to take a LONG time for Calvinists, it may never happen.

Acceptance- This is hard to see coming from a Calvinist.

Healing- If you get through the first four stages (doubtful), you will be alright.

Did the SBC make a stand or did certain misguided individuals within the SBC make an ill-conceived attempt at division?

 

[saturneptune]

I listened to quite a bit of White's audio, it is the same thing he always does, he insults and mocks his opponents. He presents the same classic Calvinist arguments and assumes they are the only correct interpretation of scripture, which I and many others would disagree with. I find his tactics to be arrogant and obnoxious. I really have trouble listening to him, not because he presents sound arguments (I do not believe he does), but because he comes across as obnoxious.

It is impossible to debate a Calvinist, because they have their own set of terms. A Calvinist for example will often claim the word "all" means only the elect, or certain classes of men, etc... You cannot really debate with someone who holds a different set of definitions for words that you do. This is why a non-Cal will always appear to lose a debate with a Calvinist to a Calvinist listener, because the Calvinist listener will always agree with the Calvinist definition of a word, when that is not necessarily the correct definition of the word. Another example is the word "death", a non-Cal understands this as separation from God, where a Calvinist has been taught to understand this like physical death and inability.

So, it sounds good to a Calvinist listener, but it is not necessarily correct. This is the strength of his debates.

It is an issue that does not merit much argument. It is sort of like the end times order of event debates, what difference does it make? As I posted above, there are non-Cals and Cals in our church, probably the majority non-cal, and we get along just fine. Tom Butler is a Cal in my church. I lean that way, but not with the intensity he has. We have no problems, nor does he have any problems with the non-Cals. Remember, I was brought up in a PCA church and did not become a Baptist until age 26. I have been a Baptist 35 years.

This is a subject that can be talked about in a civil manner, but this board refuses. I see a couple of fundamental problems. One is the name of the doctrine. They are doctrines of God's sovereignty and grace. Calvin is no model for anything. Aside from being involved in the murder of Michael Servetus, he supported infant baptism in his writings. Also, although he wrote of seperation of church and state, he became the ruler of a city-state theocracy. He also had many Catholic tendencies. If we just have to use a name, call it Augustiianism.

Another problem is the electronic yahoo cowboy, James White. Deciding SBC doctrine or policy is a serious matter, and not a circus, which is all his show is. He is there for money and ratings. He uses the Mormon church (which I detest) for the ends of those goals. Another entertainer, just like any Hollywood star, has no business setting doctrine. It should be done by reasonable, spiritually mature men of the local churches that belong to the SBC.

There is a vast difference in his approach to say the Mormon church and a person concerned about our faith. He uses Mormons for his personal enrichment and self attention. We oppose the Mormon church because it is a false doctrine about Jesus Christ. To be honest, this guy makes me sick. All he is going to do is flame the fires and drag our churches down. He needs to be treated by a united front of the SBC like yesterday's trash.

 

[markwaltermd]

I'm not so certain that it is of little consequence. Does it need to be pointed out that those who have accused the Calvinists within their ranks of contention were the very ones to draft this document and -- as another poster put it -- to "declare war" on them? Is that not, itself, a spirit of contention?

This is an event which should be concerning to all true Christians, regardless of their denominational affiliation, the views on soteriology, or their position along the spectrum of Arminian to Calvinist belief. I cannot believe that the Spirit is the guiding force in crafting a document such as this, for the Spirit tends toward the glorification of the Godhead, the furtherance of God's kingdom, and the exaltation of Christ. Does this document achieve those holy aims? I think not. While I know that this document does not represent the entire SBC membership -- and that the SBC does not represent The Church--, this happening should remind us that Satan is always hard at work seeking to create divisions within the body of Christ. This type of thing, rightly, brings on the reproach of the world, for all the wrong reasons. I believe that those who have supported this document -- clearly not a first-order theological crisis -- would do well to abandon any theological stance and to spend time in the Word and prayer for additional grace.