Is it possible to be Southern Baptist and...

[Van]

He also teaches that faith is given by God and not the initial natural choice of man.

There is no verse that says God gives faith before He saves us, but instead, it say God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness. See Romans 4

And remember the question how could we be given faith if we are chosen for salvation through faith. So faith before election, and election for salvation after we lived as not a chosen people.

 

[Reformed1689]

There is no verse that says God gives faith before He saves us, but instead, it say God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness. See Romans 4

And remember the question how could we be given faith if we are chosen for salvation through faith. So faith before election, and election for salvation after we lived as not a chosen people.

Ephesians 2:8

 

[Reformed1689]

And remember the question how could we be given faith if we are chosen for salvation through faith.

We are not chosen for salvation through faith.

 

[loDebar]

I am serious, you do not speak the normal type of Calvinism we have seen here:Look at the old threads, you will find you are not the same.

 

[loDebar]

He also teaches that faith is given by God and not the initial natural choice of man.

Faith is given by God but it is up to us how we exercise it.
"O yea of little faith" is not God gave them little faith but they choose to not believe, as others did fully believe

 

[JonC]

Calvinists believe in justification by faith alone, you realize this right?

They just say it like that but that is not what the position necessitates. (kidding...based on your projection on another thread ).

 

[Van]

Ephesians 2:8

Ephesians 2:8 indicates salvation is the gift not of ourselves.

 

[Van]

We are not chosen for salvation through faith.

Saying taint so, when 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen ... through faith in the truth. Or James 2:5 saying we were chosen...rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

There is no actual support for your assertions in scripture, just "this means that" interpretations.

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh, so the BF&M has been elevated to a required creed. Not very "Baptist", is it?

Baptists historically used catechisms and confessions of faith

 

[JonC]

Baptists historically used catechisms and confessions of faith

Some Baptists believe Baptists are not a denomination and that they existed prior to the confessions many now affirm.

But the difference is in that the SBC considers the BF&M to be confessional rather than creedal (reference SBC.net).

 

[Iconoclast]

Southern Baptist do not believe in Election or Predestination for Salvation

Sure they do

 

[Iconoclast]

Some Baptists believe Baptists are not a denomination and that they existed prior to the confessions many now affirm.

But the difference is in that the SBC considers the BF&M to be confessional rather than creedal (reference SBC.net).

The BF M is a watered down document which tells much about where some of the churches are.

 

[Iconoclast]

No they don't that is just your immature misrepresentation. Cage stage strikes again. The problem with your personal theology is that you conflate man's choice to repent with God's choice to save.

Another foul post adding nothing but attacking a member.who believes the bibles teaching of grace.

 

[Iconoclast]

Every southwrn


There are no Southern Baptists that believe that.

You might need to visit some places to know what they do believe. David Taylor was correct.

 

[JonC]

The BF M is a watered down document which tells much about where some of the churches are.

It is not a watered down document. If you are unfamiliar with it I would recommend checking it out here : Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

The difference is in what the F&M is. It is simply not creedal. The SBC does not perscribe belief for churches. The SBC has NO individual members.

I hope this helps you grasp the nature of the SBC as a denomination. These are separate and independent churches coming together for the purpose of gospel work.

SBC pastors and preachers like Paul Washer, David Platt, etc. who affirm this "watered down" document are not doing so because it is demanded of them. It is simply a common ground for cooperation - not a churches entire doctrine.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is not a watered down document. If you are unfamiliar with it I would recommend checking it out here : Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

The difference is in what the F&M is. It is simply not creedal. The SBC does not perscribe belief for churches. The SBC has NO individual members.

I hope this helps you grasp the nature of the SBC as a denomination. These are separate and independent churches coming together for the purpose of gospel work.

SBC pastors and preachers like Paul Washer, David Platt, etc. who affirm this "watered down" document are not doing so because it is demanded of them. It is simply a common ground for cooperation - not a churches entire doctrine.

I know what it is. I do not share you perspective on it. I have been in some of the churches to see firsthand.

 

[JonC]

I know what it is. I do not share you perspective on it. I have been in some of the churches to see firsthand.

I have been in SBC churches for over 40 years, which influences my perspective. Personally, I do not like the SBC. But to say SBC churches are watered down is foolish. Each church is different.

I take it at your word the churches you attended taught watered down doctrine. I have attended a few like that. But I have attended strong, healthy churches as well

I have attended healthy SBC churches and healthy IFB churches. I have attended dead SBC churches and dead IFB churches.

I say this to try and help you to be careful not to slander the faithful as we will be held accountable for our careless words. The problem is not the watered down churches you condemn but the faithful ones you condemn by stereotyping the whole based on your limited experience.

Does that make sense?

 

[Iconoclast]

I have been in SBC churches for over 40 years, which influences my perspective. Personally, I do not like the SBC. But to say SBC churches are watered down is foolish. Each church is different.

I take it at your word the churches you attended taught watered down doctrine. I have attended a few like that. But I have attended strong, healthy churches as well

I have attended healthy SBC churches and healthy IFB churches. I have attended dead SBC churches and dead IFB churches.

I say this to try and help you to be careful not to slander the faithful as we will be held accountable for our careless words. The problem is not the watered down churches you condemn but the faithful ones you condemn by stereotyping the whole based on your limited experience.

Does that make sense?

Jonc,
I did not say the churches were watered down, I said the Baptist Faith and Message is.

 

[JonC]

Jonc,
I did not say the churches were watered down, I said the Baptist Faith and Message is.

That is still wrong.

The F&M is not a churches doctrine, theology, or creed. It is a set of common beliefs under which contributing churches work together.

To suggest it is "watered down" indicates a misunderstanding of the Convention and the F&M. It is not doctrine (it cannot be "watered down"). The question is whether or not the SBC should be more or less restrictive.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not a watered down document. If you are unfamiliar with it I would recommend checking it out here : Southern Baptist Convention > The Baptist Faith and Message

The difference is in what the F&M is. It is simply not creedal. The SBC does not perscribe belief for churches. The SBC has NO individual members.

I hope this helps you grasp the nature of the SBC as a denomination. These are separate and independent churches coming together for the purpose of gospel work.

SBC pastors and preachers like Paul Washer, David Platt, etc. who affirm this "watered down" document are not doing so because it is demanded of them. It is simply a common ground for cooperation - not a churches entire doctrine.

The BF&M was written in a way that both sides could receive it. There is constant tension between cals and traditionalists in the convention and so it was written that way to keep the peace.