Free Will compatible with Sovereignty

The doctrine does not mean that sinners cannot do anything good, its just means cannot come to Christ by themselves for salvation!

 

Matthew 23:37 New International Version (NIV)
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.

 

Of course not they need the gospel to be preached to them. It is the gospel that provides faith. The gospel itself has the power. That is not regeneration its just the gospel being preached.

 

My mistake. I should have said "Limited Atonement." Of course I believe that everyone's will was tainted by the fall. I accept the doctrine of original sin. It's just a question of whether someone who has a sinful nature can respond to the gospel using their own free will.

 

Until the Spirit regenerates the sinner, the Gospel will be preached to deaf ears!

 

That is not what scripture says. Faith comes from hearing the word of God. The gospel itself is the power to salvation.

 

The answer would be no

 

Yes, to those who are the Elect of god!

 

It is free to choose God or reject him by God's design.

 

This is a false statement. Check your history people. John Smyth led the first Baptist congregation in 1609 and he was a general baptist. The traditional baptist soteriology can be traced back even earlier than 1609 because the Anabaptists before them also held to the same general atonement. The Calvinist(particular) Baptists came after John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. They were both general baptists and came before the particular baptists. General Atonement was the traditional understanding of the first new testament churches.

 

I still hold to my last statement.
Those who believe the particular baptists came first even if you stated that in an earlier post are wrong.
Revmitchell is correct to say he holds to a traditional baptist view on the atonement.

History of the Baptists

The southern baptist use the term in regards to their own traditional southern baptist view. The southern baptists from the southern baptist convention have adopted the title clearly labeling themselves as traditionalists to distinguish themselves from Calvinist southern baptists.

Why The Term Traditionalism

 

Dr. Leighton Flowers speaks on this topic more here.
The Rise of Soteriological Traditionalism

 

The doctrine of general atonement pre-existed all of them including the reformers. That was my argument. Those of you who hold to Calvinism fine. Be Calvinist baptists but let's not change history in order to convince us of your side or try to make it more believable. The early church father's held to a general atonement. When it comes to the reformation fathers yes John Calvin and Martin Luther were reformed. John Wycliffe was reformed too and went against the Catholic Church just like the others and he held to a general atonement before both of those men came along. A Presbyterian Calvinist could say that they are traditional Presbyterians or by being Calvinistic they are being traditional because of John Calvin. A baptist who chooses to be a Calvinist regardless of the numbers can't claim traditionalism.

 

What is funny? Can you be more specific?