Calvinism, The Gospel, and Adrian Rogers

yadda, yadda, yadda is a Jewish expression; Nicodemus was a Jew, I see the contextual connection in this.

John 3.16 has been dealt with in context of John chapter 3. We still, maintain, yadda, yadda, yadda, that man cannot be saved by his 'free-will' because that free-will of man is non-existent until after salvation.

Remember Jesus' other conversation with the Jews in which they too denied being in bondage to anyone, but being born children of Abraham have been born free; yet Jesus maintained they were in bondage to their sinful nature. And Scripture agrees with Jesus.

Bro. Dallas

 

SBCbyGrace said,

You did not read my remarks in context or you misunderstood. I have no problems with Non Calvinists disagreeing with Calvinism as long as they know what Calvinism teaches. Some of my best friends are Classical Arminians.

Some on this board who are not Calvinists and disagree with it do understand it better than others and are not ignorant of the subject (BTW Ignorance means in definition lack of knowledge not lack of intelligence) and it can be seen in their arguments against Calvinism. I appeciate their arguments and I do not question the intelligence of those who disagree with Calvinism.

I do however question how knowledgeble some people are on the 5 points of Calvinism, who equate Calvinism with Communism, Cults, Taking John 3:16 out of the Bible, All Calvinists are Hypers etc...Ignorance means lack of knowledge on a subject, not lack of intelligence. I am Ignorant when it comes to Calculus and the Chinese Language but that simply means I lack knowledge or information and not lack of intelligence. I was Ignorant 8 years ago of Calvinism because I had read only what others said Calvinism teaches. If you are going to attack Calvinism, at least know what it teaches and read it from primary sources.

Some men such as James Merrit, Paige Patterson and even Billy Graham who are not Calvinists seem to have a better understanding of it than Rodgers, Estep the late Hershell Hobbs and other SBC leaders.

What irritates me is people writing against Calvinism who have no idea what they are talking about such as Dave Hunt, Curtis Hudson, John R, Rice. I like Dr. Rodgers but from comments he makes I wonder if he has ever read the Canons of Dort, 1689 Baptist Confession. So I hope that clarifies my position and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

Kiffin,
Ignorance is also the deliberate ignoring of facts and/or truthes and perhaps should be written "ignor-ance". That is my statement regarding npetreley and other staunch Calvinists' stands regarding humanity. I was not belittling the person, but simply announcing how astounding their ability to ignore those facts that exist where the bible is "silent" regarding those facts.

The image of God is a very good example. To understand what God is like one needs to look at what man is like. Not human nature vs holy nature, but rather what God in creation God gave us the same attributes that He himself has. Though our attributes are limited to the appropriateness of created beings, and none of them is prefixed with "omni", they function within us in the same manner that God's attributes function for him.

You must keep in mind that those of us who, though agreeing with much of Calvinism, disagree with much of it too! We have only the words on our computer screens from the Calvinists with which to debate. So if they write words with which we disagree, then we are compelled to respond, thus it seems as though we are miles apart on the issues, when all the while we are within hugging distance. While it seems we are being disagreeable, we only have words on a screen to show that we do have love though we cannot express it well on screen. We do not have body language or tonal inflection or demeanor with which to convey our thoughts. We have only words, and most often they fail us. This has been the condition of man from the dawn of time. Thus we argue and strive to understand others and to have ourselves understood.

 

Yelsew,

Thanks for the reply and I appreciate your explanation of your statement.

 

1) If these men know their Baptist/Southern Baptist history well, then they know that the leading figures in the founding of the SBC were Calvinists. For that matter, the founding doctrinal confession of Southeastern Seminary was the Abstract of Principles, a clearly "Calvinistic" document.

2) From statements that Patterson has made publicly, he either does not know his Baptist history well or else he is twisting history to force confrontation with Calvinists. I want to think the better of him, hoping that he does not have a good grasp on Baptist history.

 

1) If these men know their Baptist/Southern Baptist history well, then they know that the leading figures in the founding of the SBC were Calvinists. For that matter, the founding doctrinal confession of Southeastern Seminary was the Abstract of Principles, a clearly "Calvinistic" document.

2) From statements that Patterson has made publicly, he either does not know his Baptist history well or else he is twisting history to force confrontation with Calvinists. I want to think the better of him, hoping that he does not have a good grasp on Baptist history. </font>[/QUOTE]And as you well know, Baptist history is not isolated to Calvinistic influences (Sandy Creek vs Charlestown traditions). Patterson is one of the most read men I have encountered. He simply reads history with a separate set of tinted glasses than those of the Reformed persuasion.

 

Herein lies the problem: you believe there is a doctrinal difference between Charleston and Sandy Creek. Remember that the Sandy Creek tradition was formed from Separate Baptists. The Separates were former Congregationalists (Calvinists) who embraced believer's baptism. When the Sandy Creek folks joined with the Regular Baptists they adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (Calvinist confession). The differences were not doctrinal, but "practical" (ecclesiology, doxology, etc.).

 

Of the 293 men present at the first convention of the Southern Baptist Convention in Augusta, Ga, 1845, the vast majority believed in individual election to Salvation.

In 1859 when the first Southern Baptist Seminary opened its doors, the Theology textbook chosen was written by a staunch Calvinist.

When the next theology textbook was chosen for the seminary it was again written by a staunch Calvinist and the President of the Seminary.

This remained the case until after the turn of the century.

The consensus theology of the Southern Baptist Convention changed radically between 1900 and 1965 moving from a belief in the Doctrines of Grace or calvinism to belief in a modified Arminianism retaining only one of the five points of Calvinism that of the Security of the Believer.

From a time in the 1970's when Southern Baptist Calvinists could hold a meeting in a broom closet and have room left over to the present there has been a resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC.

Dr. Adrian Rogers represents the modern era Southern Baptist and is a product of the 1900's.

Dr. Al Mohler represents the Historical Southern Baptist of the 1800's and is recognized as one of the leaders in the resurgence of the Doctrines of Grace in SBC life today.

 

That's interesting Harsheller.

Were the SBC leaders who led the denomination out of liberalism into this Conserverative resurgence, Calvinists or Non Calvinists?

I don't know the answer...I'm just wondering. Who were the names of the main players and where do they stand on this issue?

Jacob.

 

Many of them would say they are 3 or 4 point Calvinists. None were 5 pointers. However, 5 pointers rallied to the Conservative resurgence and since the early 1980's have shown up in positions such as Seminary Presidents, Professors and Denominational workers.

The names of the main players are too many to list here - Paige Pressler and Paul Pressler were the main architects of the resurgence. From there the list expands rapidly into many of the leading Southern Baptist Pastors of the late 70's and 80's.

Al Mohler is the most prominent Calvinist among Southern Baptists today. He served as editor of the Christian Index, one of Southern Baptists most historical Baptist State papers and then was tapped for the Presidency of Southern Seminary in the 1990's. He is a brilliant thinker and scholar and has won respect from most Southern Baptists who respect scholarship.

 

We are told before God even created man and woman He formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air out of the soil of the earth. [Genesis 2:19]

What interests me more than this is that God brought each one of the animals and birds before Adam so the first man could name them. Notice God ordained/allowed this project to human dominion of His creation.

Here is my main point. God said that ' . . . whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.' The word, 'whatsoever' Dr. James Strong uses two words. The first word is {kole} in the Hebrew and it means, (the whole, all, any, every, altogether, or whosoever). The other word, {asher} in the Hebrew means, (every or whatsoever). In other words, all of the animals and birds that God sent by Adam were all named by our antediluvian , human father.

The New International Version says, ' . . . and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.'

When we come to New Testament truth when God uses the term, 'whosoever' He means every person, and not a qualified use of the term.

When God wants to express His concern for His human beings it is this word 'whosoever' that surfaces. These verses come to mind. [John 3:16; 4:14; 12:46 Acts 2:21; 10:43; Revelation 22:17 f & g]

God has used this word 'whosoever' lavishly in the Bible; it is referred to some 179 times.

We understand what God meant when He said, ' . . . and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof, ' but are we willing to recognize what He means when He says, 'But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.'

Here is what He means. "Whatever Adam called ALL the living animals is what they were named; [Genesis 2:19] and 'ALL who believe in Him will not perish, because God did not die on the Cross to condemn/damn His created beings in His world." [John 3:16 & 17] His atonement was offered for the sins of the world. [I John 2:2] ' . . . and not for ours only, {the church} but ALSO for the sins of the whole world.' [I John 2:2]

'Whatsoever' means what it says in Genesis and 'whosoever' clearly suggests an all inclusive sense of His Divine love for human, lost souls, both under the former and present covenant.

 

'Whatsoever' means what it says in Genesis and 'whosoever' clearly suggests an all inclusive sense of His Divine love for human, lost souls, both under the former and present covenant.

This is interesting:

Whatsoever means; but whosoever clearly suggests.

Actually I don't have a problem with this, because I know the whosoever that will come, will do so, because it has been given them of the Father to do so.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Sorry to say this: you are incorrect.

Glad to say this: It was not the "vast majority" of the delegates, it was ALL of the delegates.

 

1) Both.

2) Most of the leaders, with some exceptions, have been non-Calvinists. However, many leading the grassroots level charge have been Calvinists.

 

You can't be serious when you suggest there were no doctrinal issues as well. The Sandy Creek influence brought a modified Calvinistic flavor to the table. I agree the merger itself centered around "practical" issues but the Sandy Creek heritage also included some non-5-pointer influences.

This discussion has taken a sharp turn at some point. In the end, there must be room for the Adrian Rogers within the SBC camp. This "return to our roots" cry coming from some in the strictly Reformed camp can only be taken so far. There were far more pressing issues in those early days than the C/A debate of today.

 

Ray, you keep chasing this straw man like we are going to change our minds on it. Let me say it again. We believe in "whosover." We believe that "whosoever will may come." We believe the 'will' part of it. No one who is unwilling will come. God is not kicking people out who want to come in. You don't seem to getting that. You don't seem to be listening here. Why?

 

Hi Baptist 4 u;
I don't understand how one can openly claim Calvinism when it is Catholicism with out a doubt
Romanbear

 

I don't understand how one can keep repeating this false statement. You should know better. Calvinism is defended from Scripture, whether you agree with the Scripture or not. It is most assuredly not Catholic. Get over it and dispute real arguments. This kind of post is unnecessary.

 

The Problem I have with that view is that I have read books on the early history of Baptists in Mississipi and Lousiana in the 17-1800's is that I find no Non Calvinists. These were rural states and the State Confessions and local church confessions are all blatanly in the 5 point Calvinist camp. I think theological differances between the 2 traditions mentioned is more of a modern day view. The 1833 New Hampshire has often been said to be a modified Calvinist confession but that is more in the eye of the beholder.The major differance I see between the 2 is worship but not theology.

It is Dr. Rogers who fired the salvo against Calvinists. I like Rogers and I know of no Calvinists wanting Non Calvinists kicked out of the SBC. I don't know if that can be said about Rogers in regard to his Calvinist brothers.

That can be debated. Calvinists such as myself believe TULIP to be the best explanation of the Gospel and many of the "Soul Winning" techniques of Rogers, Bailey Smith and others have produced more Backsliders than Disciples. SBC numbers are overly inflated. Out of the close to 16 million Southern Baptists only about 5 million attend Church. Is this because of a weak presentation of the Gospel by hybrid Arminians?

 

Roman Bear,

Truth rises eternal! You are correct that Calvinism has its roots in Roman Catholic Catholicism. Some of the brethren just cannot swallow the truth because of its purity. Even Dr. John Piper, one of their own, admits this legacy. Here is the quote from the good doctor's own pen. 'The standard text on theology that Calvin and Luther drank from was "Sentences"by Peter Lombard. Nine-tenths of this book consists of quotations from Augustine . . . . Luther was an Augustinian monk, and Calvin immersed himself in the writings of Augustine, as we can see from the increased use of Augustine's writings in each new edition of the "Institutes."' Many of the flawed theologian's views were amalgamated into the hearts of men like Calvin and Luther. Facts are facts. History remains Christian written record, and Calvinistic teachers have made these affirmations of human truth and reality.

The above quote is from, John Piper, "The Legacy of Sovereign Joy: God's Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (Crossway Books, 2000), pg. 18.

Do any Calvinists want to argue with their esteemed, Dr. Piper?