Fundamental View of Faith

[Van]

Mexdeaf and Don seem to be posting one fault finding off topic post after another in a concerted effort to derail the thread. They turn an effort to explore IFB doctrine of faith, into an effort to question anything and everything.

Back to topic:

1. The Majority of IFB churches probably agree that the fallen are able to seek God and trust in Christ.

2. The Majority of IFB churches would probably think God would credit a person's faith in Christ as righteousness if it was in Christ alone for salvation and not based in part on works. You did not provide scripture for this, but I would cite James 2:5 where God chooses those rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love God. In the example of Abraham, we see a person who was a doer, i.e. a person with dynamic faith.

3. The Majority of IFB churches would probably reject faith be lip service faith, i.e. dead faith, or demonic faith where the believer is emotionally attached to their beliefs, but rather would probably embrace dynamic faith, i.e. a faith from which flows works?

Returning to premise #1, how can the God given ability to seek God and trust in Christ be lost during our lifetime? What position is held by IFB churches?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Most "Fundamental" Baptists (I view Independent as a given for this discussion) trace their theological DNA back to the English Particular Baptists of the 17th and 18th centuries. What sets us apart from our Primitive Baptist brethren is we branch off and follow (more or less) William Fuller's brand of Calvinism.

 

[Van]

I think we should explore what we believe today, is it what the Bible actually teaches, rather than study theological DNA rooted in the mistaken views of men. While many of the IFB statements of faith are vague, so I cannot discern whether they are Calvinist or non-Calvinist, the ones I have seen that are specific endorse General Reconciliation rather than Limited Atonement.

Is there a link to an article that shows how "William Fuller's brand of Calvinism" deviates from the TULIP?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

From Google Books:

The Gospel worthy of all acceptation, or, The duty of sinners to believe in Jesus Christ

by Andrew Fuller (I was mistaken in my original post.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=KSkNAAAAYAAJ&authuser=0

Fuller's thinking was the basis for William Carey's venture to India and the birth of modern Anglo-American Baptist missions movement.

and from the late 1850s

Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches

by Francis Wayland

http://books.google.com/books?id=KI-JFHfQ1HwC&authuser=0

I would also recommend Edward Hiscox's New Directory for Baptist Churches.

Hiscox includes the New Hampshire Confession.

Between these three books you've covered about 100 years of Anglo-American Baptist history, at least for the Northern branch.

 

[convicted1]

Van, what folks are trying to tell you is we have gotten tired of debating\fighting the C\A question. So, your dog won't hunt.

And if the dog won't hunt, it needs shot, pronto....:laugh:

 

[Van]

I am no expert on theological DNA, but Fullerism seems to embrace Calvinism, Arminianism and various other views into a double minded theology, where we are admonished to buy the pig in the poke and accept that Christ only died for the elect, but we are to offer that salvation to everybody. Is this what the majority of IFB churches embrace? This sounds like what I would expect from the minority of Calvinist leaning IFB churches.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am no expert on theological DNA, but Fullerism seems to embrace Calvinism, Arminianism and various other views into a double minded theology, where we are admonished to buy the pig in the poke and accept that Christ only died for the elect, but we are to offer that salvation to everybody. Is this what the majority of IFB churches embrace? This sounds like what I would expect from the minority of Calvinist leaning IFB churches.

That would be what majority of calvinist think, not just IBF!

 

[Van]

Exactly right!! This is the view publicly acknowledged by Calvinists, but the Baptist view is Christ died for all mankind. Therefore it is unlikely that the viewpoint advanced by Squire Robertsson actually reflects the majority of IFB churches.

 

[Don]

...seem to be posting one fault finding off topic post after another in a concerted effort to derail the thread.
....
Therefore it is unlikely that the viewpoint advanced...actually reflects the majority of IFB churches.

(sigh)

So, as I proposed earlier: Find the statements of 100 IFB churches. Post them somewhere for analysis and comparison. Determine how many of those 100 match what you're saying about them.

Then we can use terms like "majority."

Seems to me that's entirely relevant to the conversation, because you keep talking about what the "majority" of IFB churches believe.

BTW: Since it's been discussed before, I'm not sure that 100 would actually be a good statistical sampling; I can't recall for sure, but it seems like we put the number of IFB churches in the U.S. around 9,000 or more. And since those typically follow a particular geographical region, or associate with a particular "camp," then perhaps a sampling of churches from each of the regions of the U.S. might be a better method.

Or, alternatively, we can continue to espouse our personal opinions, which is certainly an authoritative and accepted way to determine the truth about things, isn't it?

 

[Mexdeaf]

(sigh)

So, as I proposed earlier: Find the statements of 100 IFB churches. Post them somewhere for analysis and comparison. Determine how many of those 100 match what you're saying about them.

Then we can use terms like "majority."

Seems to me that's entirely relevant to the conversation, because you keep talking about what the "majority" of IFB churches believe.

BTW: Since it's been discussed before, I'm not sure that 100 would actually be a good statistical sampling; I can't recall for sure, but it seems like we put the number of IFB churches in the U.S. around 9,000 or more. And since those typically follow a particular geographical region, or associate with a particular "camp," then perhaps a sampling of churches from each of the regions of the U.S. might be a better method.

Or, alternatively, we can continue to espouse our personal opinions, which is certainly an authoritative and accepted way to determine the truth about things, isn't it?

Don,

"A man convinced against his will...", etc.- I would stop casting my pearls before swine. JOJ has tried, I have tried, and it's just not worth it, IMHO.

God bless,

Mex

 

[Van]

I see the derailer duo have posted two more off topic posts.

The Position of Fundamental Baptist World -Wide Mission

Fundamental Baptist World-Wide Mission rejects all five points of the doctrine taught by John Calvin which is commonly called TULIP.

 

[Don]

I see the derailer duo have posted two more off topic posts.

The Position of Fundamental Baptist World -Wide Mission

Fundamental Baptist World-Wide Mission rejects all five points of the doctrine taught by John Calvin which is commonly called TULIP.

If I'm so far off topic, then why are you posting the beliefs of IFB churches/organizations?

That's 2; 98 to go.

 

[Van]

I see derailer Don has posted yet another off topic post.

We believe the Lord Jesus Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all men according to the Scriptures, and all who receive Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood (2 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2). Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International Constitution

So much evidence can be found, and so much silence from those disputing the hypothesis, the case has been made.

 

[Don]

I see derailer Don has posted yet another off topic post.

Your topic is: a majority of IFB churches believe a certain way (or, at least, that's what you've morphed it into over the last few pages).

Again, if I'm so far off topic, then why do you keep posting the beliefs of IFB churches/organizations?

So much evidence can be found,

Then by all means, post it.

and so much silence from those disputing the hypothesis, the case has been made.

The only disputation available, my illogical friend, is whether the term "majority" is correct or not.

I don't know about anyone else, but since when has "3" out of over 9,000 been a majority?

Has the case been made? The case was made in your own mind before you even started posting. What I'm afraid of is that you might actually research it, and find out differently. We can't have that happening, now can we?

 

[Van]

Yet another one from Don, devoid of content and simply finding fault with the thread. Such condescending arrogance is amazing from a fundamental baptist. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

 

[Van]

IFB churches seem to be KJVO/KJVP based on a smattering of samples, yet firmly holding to the fundamentals of the faith, that Christ died for all men, that God does not desire any should perish, and that evangelism hastens the day of our Lord's return. Good for them!

 

[Mexdeaf]

Yet another one from Don, devoid of content and simply finding fault with the thread. Such condescending arrogance is amazing from a fundamental baptist. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

You are an expert on arrogance, that's for sure.

 

[Don]

IFB churches seem to be KJVO/KJVP based on a smattering of samples,

Sample size is too small to definitively state this.

yet firmly holding to the fundamentals of the faith, that Christ died for all men, that God does not desire any should perish, and that evangelism hastens the day of our Lord's return. Good for them!

Agreed.

 

[Don]

Yet another one from Don, devoid of content and simply finding fault with the thread. Such condescending arrogance is amazing from a fundamental baptist. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

"Devoid of content."

Comparable to your arrogant declaration that a "majority" of IFB churches believe a certain way, because you've managed to post belief statements from 3 of them (out of 9,000).

Comparable to your arrogant declaration of people "derailing the thread" because they point out the logic errors with your basic premise, rather than actually address the logic errors.

-----
You're right, Mexdeaf; that's enough.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, if you had read the references I cited (especially Wayland), you'd see a slow change in the (Particular\Regular) Baptist position on Soteriology. Said change was completed more or less by 1860.

c. 1750, Particular Baptists held to a fairly strict interpretation of TULIP's "L". However, by 1860, Regular Baptists came to the conclusion that "world" in Jn 3:16 meant "world" not just the "world" of the elect. In other words, our Lord's atonement is potentially effective for the whole world. However, as men love darkness rather than light, our Lord's atonement is practically effective only for the elect.

Now, it's 12:37 am local. I tired of killing electrons. so, I'm stopping here.

Exactly right!! This is the view publicly acknowledged by Calvinists, but the Baptist view is Christ died for all mankind. Therefore it is unlikely that the viewpoint advanced by Squire Robertsson actually reflects the majority of IFB churches.