Reformed and Southern Baptists

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Where do you get this bit of info? If you think the SBC is mostly dispy and that there are arminians in the SBC, you are probably wrong on a whole lot of other facts.

And where do you get the idea that Reformed baptists use the KJV to a great extent?

Yes....his information is very flawed.....back to the drawing board for you Detroit Boy!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

Where do you get this bit of info? If you think the SBC is mostly dispy and that there are arminians in the SBC, you are probably wrong on a whole lot of other facts.

And where do you get the idea that Reformed baptists use the KJV to a great extent?

Unless there has been a large recent change, MANY SBC wiuld hold to a Dispy view on eschatology, especially in area of a pretrib rapture!

And many would not see themselves as being calvinistic, so many would identify with say a Charlesd Stanley, as arms holding to eternal security!

And many reformed do seem to quote and use the Kjv version, no so much KJVO, more like KJVP!

 

[Revmitchell]

as arms holding to eternal security!

Uh no they do not.

 

[Yeshua1]

Uh no they do not.

many arminians do hold to eternal security, or at least would see it as only Apostasying as when could lose salvation!

Aren't those like charles Stanley seen as being arms?

 

[Revmitchell]

many arminians

No they do not. You are labeling the wrong people arminians. Newsflash here everyone else who is not a cal is not automatically an arminian.

 

[Yeshua1]

No they do not. You are labeling the wrong people arminians. Newsflash here everyone else who is not a cal is not automatically an arminian.

I realise that not all non cals are arminians...

You do view yourself as being one though, correct?

 

[Tom Butler]

No they do not. You are labeling the wrong people arminians. Newsflash here everyone else who is not a cal is not automatically an arminian.

My understanding is that Arminianism involves a couple of things:
Salvation by faith plus works.
Possible loss of salvation (falling from grace, apostasy).

I don't know any Baptists who would fit this label.

I know, I know, some Free-Will Baptists and General Baptists believe in apostasy, but not in works salvation. I'm talking SBC here.

The best descriptor I can come up with for SBC-ers who are not Calvinists is "non-Calvinist."

 

[Revmitchell]

I realise that not all non cals are arminians...

You do view yourself as being one though, correct?

Of course not. Systems of theology like calvinism etc are far to broad. I do not study a system and then claim it as my view. I study the word. For example some might call me a dispy but the truth is I hold on a couple of the views that dispies have. Calling me a dispy would be like calling someone who only hold to two points of the tulip a calvinist.

In the same fashion I hold to eternal security, and the total inability of man to come to God outside of his pursuit of man and grace to receive Him. I also hold to what some call the Lordship salvation. The word of God just calls is salvation. But you cannot have a Savior and no Lord. But I reject irrisistable grace and the heretical idea that God does not offer grace to some.

My theology is a result of my own careful study. It is not a result of studying someone else systemized theology.

 

[Revmitchell]

My understanding is that Arminianism involves a couple of things:
Salvation by faith plus works.
Possible loss of salvation (falling from grace, apostasy).

I don't know any Baptists who would fit this label.

I know, I know, some Free-Will Baptists and General Baptists believe in apostasy, but not in works salvation. I'm talking SBC here.

The best descriptor I can come up with for SBC-ers who are not Calvinists is "non-Calvinist."

Thank you.............

 

[Inspector Javert]

My understanding is that Arminianism involves a couple of things:
Salvation by faith plus works.
Possible loss of salvation (falling from grace, apostasy).

I don't know any Baptists who would fit this label.

I know, I know, some Free-Will Baptists and General Baptists believe in apostasy, but not in works salvation. I'm talking SBC here.

The best descriptor I can come up with for SBC-ers who are not Calvinists is "non-Calvinist."

Well....Arminianism never entails "faith + works"....never.
Your post means well, and there are certainly S.B.C's who are not Calvinist who also deny the label "Arminian"....but usually that's only because they believe in "Eternal Security"...something which, strictly speaking, Arminians don't "deny" (but are at least open to)....

Most of those who insist on the meaningless and awkward term "non-Cal", REALLY ARE "Arminians"...they just don't like to own it, or are confused as to it's meaning.

Arminianism, however, never believes in "faith + works"....never.

Even those Arminians who do believe that one can "lose" their salvation, usually believe that that is due to a choice to "forfeit" and willingly...not because they sinned too much or weren't "good" enough.

Personally...I loathe the meaningless moniker "non-Cal". It means essentially nothing. Buddhists are "non-Cals"...and so are Muslims. "Non-Cal" is, to me, an essentially cowardly term devised to simply insulate oneself from EVER being nailed down on any point of Theology. WE SHOULD have points we can be "NAILED DOWN" on though. I claim "Arminianism"...only the caveat that I don't accept "Original Guilt".. Outside of that, I'm "Arminian" though.

 

[Revmitchell]

And there are some who's views are so myopic that they have a grand inability to function outside of a named system of theology that ignores a great many things. They need to have these labels in order to be able to discuss theology because of a limited vocabulary.

Just a word of advice, if you want to nail someone down on their theology.....just ask them and expand your vocabulary.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Unless there has been a large recent change, MANY SBC wiuld hold to a Dispy view on eschatology, especially in area of a pretrib rapture!

And many would not see themselves as being calvinistic, so many would identify with say a Charlesd Stanley, as arms holding to eternal security!

And many reformed do seem to quote and use the Kjv version, no so much KJVO, more like KJVP!

You have no clue what you are talking about. You group arminians with anyone who is not calvinists. We are not arminian.

Where do you get your info about us? Are you sbc?

You make these huge generalizations without background. I am in a hardline sbc association with 27 churches and missions. I know 2 who might be KJVP. There are 3 who hold to a pre mill or pretrib position. None of them are dispensationalist.

We have a good cross section of calvinists on here. Are they kjvp? I have not seen that.

 

[Herald]

My understanding is that Arminianism involves a couple of things:
Salvation by faith plus works.
Possible loss of salvation (falling from grace, apostasy).

I don't know any Baptists who would fit this label.

I know, I know, some Free-Will Baptists and General Baptists believe in apostasy, but not in works salvation. I'm talking SBC here.

The best descriptor I can come up with for SBC-ers who are not Calvinists is "non-Calvinist."

Tom, in the same way Baptists who believe in the doctrines of grace are really not Calvinists, but that does stop their detractors on this board from calling them by that name? How many Baptists on this board believe in infant baptism? How many believe in Presbyterian ecclesiology? How many believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant? If they are Baptists the answer is none.

Of course we know the term Calvinist is used to describe a Baptist that believes in the doctrines of grace. Fair enough. The same goes with the term Arminian. Not everyone on the free will side buys into the totality of Arminianism. But they deny total depravity. The believe in a conditional election. They also believe the grace of God can be resisted in respect to salvation. In that sense they are Arminian just as the person who believes in the doctrines of grace is a Calvinist. If we are going to be consistent then neither side should use labels to describe the other.

 

[Herald]

As a P.S. to my previous post. I have absolutely no problem being called a Calvinist. Why? Because I am not ashamed of what I believe. Even if I am not a paedobaptist I do not feel threatened by the label. Everyone knows what the labels mean when debating election and predestination. I think most people that have an aversion to these labels are afraid to be pinned down. They want to retain a Jello theology; the ability to shuck and jive when their arguments break down.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As a P.S. to my previous post. I have absolutely no problem being called a Calvinist. Why? Because I am not ashamed of what I believe. Even if I am not a paedobaptist I do not feel threatened by the label. Everyone knows what the labels mean when debating election and predestination. I think most people that have an aversion to these labels are afraid to be pinned down. They want to retain a Jello theology; the ability to shuck and jive when their arguments break down.

Hard Shell Baptist & Monergist..... IE, the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. Oh & Radical Christian....IE, belief that grace can bring us back to the radix, our roots, and orientate us toward the conversion Jesus called for.

Conversely, dont agree with infant baptism or sacramental theology & Covenant Theology (in any of its forms, Like NCT)....so how the heck does that make me a Calvinist?

 

[Yeshua1]

You have no clue what you are talking about. You group arminians with anyone who is not calvinists. We are not arminian.

Where do you get your info about us? Are you sbc?

You make these huge generalizations without background. I am in a hardline sbc association with 27 churches and missions. I know 2 who might be KJVP. There are 3 who hold to a pre mill or pretrib position. None of them are dispensationalist.

We have a good cross section of calvinists on here. Are they kjvp? I have not seen that.

No, not SBC, but a Christian that happens to be a Baptist of another stripe!

Amd maybe your church is different, as many SBC were non cals, and held to eschatology of a Dispy view!

 

[Yeshua1]

As a P.S. to my previous post. I have absolutely no problem being called a Calvinist. Why? Because I am not ashamed of what I believe. Even if I am not a paedobaptist I do not feel threatened by the label. Everyone knows what the labels mean when debating election and predestination. I think most people that have an aversion to these labels are afraid to be pinned down. They want to retain a Jello theology; the ability to shuck and jive when their arguments break down.

I am just auggesting that to me, the label of Arminian theology efers to a chrsitian who holds that we as sinners cannot even get saved unless god applies his grace and mercy towards us, but we still have free will intact to respond/deny that!

Non cal to me is one holding that we have intact sufficient free will to need noexternal work of god aplired to us to get saved, byu tthat we just meed to hear about jesus and freely decide to accept/reject!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well....Arminianism never entails "faith + works"....never.
Your post means well, and there are certainly S.B.C's who are not Calvinist who also deny the label "Arminian"....but usually that's only because they believe in "Eternal Security"...something which, strictly speaking, Arminians don't "deny" (but are at least open to)....

Most of those who insist on the meaningless and awkward term "non-Cal", REALLY ARE "Arminians"...they just don't like to own it, or are confused as to it's meaning.

Arminianism, however, never believes in "faith + works"....never.

Even those Arminians who do believe that one can "lose" their salvation, usually believe that that is due to a choice to "forfeit" and willingly...not because they sinned too much or weren't "good" enough.

Personally...I loathe the meaningless moniker "non-Cal". It means essentially nothing. Buddhists are "non-Cals"...and so are Muslims. "Non-Cal" is, to me, an essentially cowardly term devised to simply insulate oneself from EVER being nailed down on any point of Theology. WE SHOULD have points we can be "NAILED DOWN" on though. I claim "Arminianism"...only the caveat that I don't accept "Original Guilt".. Outside of that, I'm "Arminian" though.

you as an arm would hold that you are a sinner who needs to have God apply grace towards you to allow you to get saved, but that you have enough free will toeither reject/accept Jesus after having grace applied to you. correct?

So its still saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, but you do see human free will as playing some part in it, right?

 

[Inspector Javert]

And there are some who's views are so myopic that they have a grand inability to function outside of a named system of theology that ignores a great many things. They need to have these labels in order to be able to discuss theology because of a limited vocabulary.

Just a word of advice, if you want to nail someone down on their theology.....just ask them and expand your vocabulary.

Seriously....You think the issue is simply a limited vocabulary? You honestly think that that's my problem??

Oh, o.k.

So, your particular Soteriology is so VERY sophisticated and complex and utterly unique that probablistically NNE has ever heard of it before???

Is that what you think? Is your particular Soteriology so VERY sophisticated and complex that NNE within the last 500-years or so has possibly nailed down the thought process well enough for you to take a moniker? Oh, ok...

Oh, but my problem is that I haven't a sophisticated enough vocabulary for the likes of you??? Is that your claim?

Here you go:
DUH.... "Which way did he go George.... which way did he go...." :tonofbricks:

 

[Inspector Javert]

you as an arm would hold that you are a sinner who needs to have God apply grace towards you to allow you to get saved, but that you have enough free will toeither reject/accept Jesus after having grace applied to you. correct?

So its still saved by grace alone, thru faith alone, but you do see human free will as playing some part in it, right?

Yes...:wavey: