Examining some of the misguided claims of 316 Tradionalists

[Iconoclast]

From their preamble:

While Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days and have made very important contributions to our history and theology, the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Calvinism

.

The majority of southern baptists could be goats also...so what does that prove?Many are biblically illiterate and need to try and crawl through lifeway booklets...

Even the minority of Southern Baptists who have identified themselves as Calvinists generally modify its teachings in order to mitigate certain unacceptable conclusions

Nonsense...no God called Pastor will wimp out and compromise such as is suggested here.

(e.g., anti-missionism, hyper-Calvinism, double predestination, limited atonement, etc.).

Strawmen on display....

The very fact that there is a plurality of views on Calvinism designed to deal with these weaknesses

Another falsehood.... Calvinism does just fine when it is taught by those who actual know the teaching.

(variously described as "3-point," "4-point," "moderate," etc.) would seem to call for circumspection and humility with respect to the system and to those who disagree with it.

Cals are patient with sincere learners...not so much with false teaching persons who attack 24/7

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is more of the same;
[QUOTE]For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but "non-essential" theological matters.[/QUOTE]
This only takes place if no one speaks up on anything.

The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself.

Not really...if you speak up a little bit you are asked to move on...

And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard

.

They know people need time to learn the truth.

We would be fine if this consensus continued,

Again...fine if NOBODY speaks about it, or teaches it.

but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this longstanding arrangement.

Some actually want to study the bible...

 

[Iconoclast]

The anti truth/anti Cal statement continues...

We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called "Traditional" Southern Baptist soteriology

,

Ignoring the truth taught by the Founders....falling away from, or apostasizing from it's solid biblical heritage.

which should be understood in distinction to "Calvinist" soteriology.

It is a falling away, a decline from truth....it is obvious.

Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message, "Article IV." While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism.

yes...we noticed the decline.

For almost a century, Southern Baptists have found that a sound, biblical soteriology can be taught, maintained, and defended without subscribing to Calvinism.

Switching from sheep food, to goat food leads to congregations of mostly goats...with a few emaciated sheep trying to hang on....

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a clear denial of the biblical truth of the full effects and guilt of sin in the fall upon all persons;
Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person's sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit's drawing through the Gospel.

 

[Iconoclast]

The man centered error pours forth;
Article Three: The Atonement of Christ
We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ is the only available and effective sacrifice for the sins of every person.

We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person's free response of repentance and faith.

We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person's free will.

We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

look at this one;
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.

now they deny biblical election of persons;
We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God's eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.

We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.

 

[Iconoclast]

I like how their statement begins with the truths they deny;
We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person.
We deny that there is an "effectual call" for certain people that is different from a "general call" to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

 

[InTheLight]

This is a very strange thread...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

[Benjamin]

This is a very strange thread...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Yes, the resentment here of the long held traditional interpretation of John 3:16 is rather astounding. Someone must have really hit a nerve telling this devout Calvinist that the Gospel is powerful and a genuine offer that truly gives hope to "whosoever" as every common major English Bible translation reveals.

Maybe it was the question of does a Calvinist lie to their children when they put them to bed at night and tell them that Jesus loves them or do they tell them their “bible truth” that they hope they are one of the pre-selected few? ...or nailing them on half-truths as they sidestep the issue.

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Maybe it's their guilt over sinfully attempting to put darkness into the light of the Gospel for those who have mocked and scoffed their preaching?

Perhaps it was the obvious evasion and lack of transparency pointed out in the Calvinist gospel, I can only assume...

But, yes, a rather strange thread...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

,


Switching from sheep food, to goat food leads to congregations of mostly goats...with a few emaciated sheep trying to hang on....

You noticed that as well .... they call them eunuchs. Then the women take over.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, the resentment here of the long held traditional interpretation of John 3:16 is rather astounding. Someone must have really hit a nerve telling this devout Calvinist that the Gospel is powerful and a genuine offer that truly gives hope to "whosoever" as every common major English Bible translation reveals.

Maybe it was the question of does a Calvinist lie to their children when they put them to bed at night and tell them that Jesus loves them or do they tell them their “bible truth” that they hope they are one of the pre-selected few? ...or nailing them on half-truths as they sidestep the issue.

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Maybe it's their guilt over sinfully attempting to put darkness into the light of the Gospel for those who have mocked and scoffed their preaching?

Perhaps it was the obvious evasion and lack of transparency pointed out in the Calvinist gospel, I can only assume...

But, yes, a rather strange thread...

So you tell them, yes Virgina there is a ... so be good for goodness sake.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is a very strange thread...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

Yes...it appears quite strange to those who support the 316 nontraditional ideas...whose very statement is a statement of....we deny, we deny,we deny....very telling indeed

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, the resentment here of the long held traditional interpretation )

Long held???? A couple of years..This is a handful of people who claim.....We deny one truth after another, we deny the actual events of the fall,we deny God's election of persons,instead we substitute our"plan" concept instead of biblical truth.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes...it appears quite strange to those who support the 316 nontraditional ideas...whose very statement is a statement of....we deny, we deny,we deny....very telling indeed

No, it's strange because your desire to denigrate Christians who hold different views than yourself causes you to start threads and have multiple posts wherein you talk to yourself.

Just odd.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

No, it's strange because your desire to denigrate Christians who hold different views than yourself causes you to start threads and have multiple posts wherein you talk to yourself.

Just odd.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

No....notice the complete framework of these people is to deny.
We deny this...We deny that...you cannot be honest enough to notice it and admit it.....now that is strange indeed.
Making observations on their foul intent is not denigrating anyone. It has become yet another strategy for those like you who cannot stand biblically....so you shoot arrows from a distance...but when called to answer you do not answer the bell.
These people want to depart from mainstream teaching...great....leave and start your own denomination...based on what you believe. ...not what you deny.
Fyi.....I was not posting to myself....just breaking up the error...into little pieces so the reading impaired will not complain about how long it is....
There is so much error....it just needs to be shown publically.

You and others are welcome to offer your defense of it...but instead you attack the messenger rather than the message.
I find that strange...but it is the more for 4 or 5 of you....you know who you are

 

[Benjamin]

ICON says, by putting his words into my quote:

Long held???? A couple of years..This is a handful of people who claim.....

Yes!!! “Whosoever will” is absolutely the long held interpretational view of the scripture in relation to the Gospel, …in every common major English translation Bible!!! Now, we got a bunch of New Age Calvinists attacking that interpretation and proclaiming that the Good News is only for the lucky predetermined few and is merely Bad News for all the rest whom God created only so they could spend eternity in HELL suffering for His glory!! Heck yeah, they deny this “truth” someone’s got to stand up against this nonsense and preach the light back into the Gospel, …God bless them!!

We deny one truth after another, we deny the actual events of the fall,we deny God's election of persons,instead we substitute our"plan" concept instead of biblical truth.

What is with this fallacious question begging stuff about "truth"?? Don’t you know people can see through this "teaching" of yours? Where have you been?? Heck yes, these people deny the Calvinist view of Total Inability and Predetermination of the Elect!!! More so they calling out these as false teachings that end in proclaiming that the Gospel is merely for the pre-selected few! Anybody ever involved with soteriological debate that has so much as a clue of the subjects up for debate KNOWS THIS!!

For the life of me, I cannot figure who you are trying to make this argument to unless this is merely your effort to reach those who have never studied these issues as you way of trying to place some presupposition thoughts in the heads of the unlearned! Is that how you formed your soteriological views? By being taught by someone with Calvinist’ blinders on who pronounced such man-made doctrines as biblical truth while being uplifted with the thoughts of being a newly inspired theologian and ready to start instructing others on your insightfulness? …nevermind.

You don’t seem to be able to stand these common objections to your soteriological system and the way you go about refuting them with question begging replies about biblical truth while apparently talking to yourself is not only looking juvenile and somewhat disingenuous but as ITL said is rather strange indeed.

I think you need to hear this Icon, trying to help you out a little here bud, but I just took over a bunch of physical therapy patients today besides running a new PT device business that looks to be getting its wings so I just don’t have the time to join in your “fun” and chase all these rabbits of yours waiting to emerge from their holes.

Anyway, I’d probably just be tempted to go right for your jugular vein and would likely make a bloody mess out your thread. Take care friend.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for your attempted help Benjamin. ..I know you are sincere...I will respond in a few hours

 

[TCassidy]

Yes!!! “Whosoever will” is absolutely the long held interpretational view of the scripture in relation to the Gospel,

Yes. I agree. And who will? Those who have been regenerated and given faith to believe, repentance to turn away from the former life, and obedience to the Law of Christ.

Heck yes, these people deny the Calvinist view of Total Inability

So, which part of man, body, soul, or spirit, did not suffer the effects of the fall and remained pure and holy enough to approach God on its own merits?

Anyway, I’d probably just be tempted to go right for your jugular vein and would likely make a bloody mess out your thread.

Have at it.

 

[InTheLight]

Yes. I agree. And who will? Those who have been regenerated and given faith to believe, repentance to turn away from the former life, and obedience to the Law of Christ.

What translation are you using? I don't see any of those topics in John 3:16.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Rockson]

So, which part of man, body, soul, or spirit, did not suffer the effects of the fall and remained pure and holy enough to approach God on its own merits?

Actually I think the proper order is spirit, soul and body which was the usual order Paul described the structure of man 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and there's a reason for that...BUT...such is another subject.

So what part of man didn't suffer the effects of the fall? The part of man which Jesus even acknowledged can make good choices and be good parents to their children.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Matt 7: 9-11

My point? You're trying to justify a reasoning which says man has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to make a good decision about anything...thus your total depravity view. It's my position that we can by no means fulfill the perfection of carrying out the law...impossible with the unborn again nature. We need Christ living his life through us. One can however respond with their will to receive a higher capacity for walking in a heightened nature of LOVE, which is God. Will we allow him to take out a stony heart of flesh and give us a new one? Such is what each one can choose.