-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
ROSES, a reasonable baptist position?
- Thread starter quantumfaith
- Start date
- Status
glfredrick
New Member
My pleasure. We WILL one day stand arm-in-arm and worship our Lord together. May as well start now.
Many of the theological difficulties that we still have after 2000 years of the church are not resolved because they cannot be resolved. They are antinomies (literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws) of which only our infinite God can grasp. We dance around the edges and pick up on this or that of these doctrines, but so far I've not seen any human effort that bridges the gap with total satisfaction to where one may add "Q.E.D." to the end of any given proposition.
I have said before that we probably need to come down on one side or the other; if for no other reasons, pragmatic ones. It is difficult to live and teach without having a grounding in a proposition that is doctrinally supported. In that case, I come down on the side of God's sovereignty, even if that means that I loose any aspect of human free will. So be it. God is my King. I am indebted to follow Him, for "I am not my own, I was bought with a price..."
In a sense, Adam (and Eve) were the only humans who truly had a real freedom of will. They were God's, but free. They were the only humans that ever existed (save the man Jesus Christ, born of a woman, but not of a man) who were free creatures. ALL the rest of us were born slaves to sin. We do not choose to sin. We are sinners. It is God rescuing us from our sin that makes any true choice possible, for we are born again into freedom -- redemption -- our penalty paid, and we walk with our God once again.
If there is freedom, it is after the re-birth from above. But (and this is where my opinion enters) I don't feel that we are truly free as was Adam. Our free choices are limited to items of morality, and we are held culpable for those choices; but we cannot choose what is not ours to choose.
In the mean time, what to do with brothers and sisters who see our choice as a viable option in their theology? Again, my reasoned opinion, but it really doesn't matter. If they come to Christ and it seems to them that they were instrumental in their conversion process (even if that is not true from God's perspective) so be it. We'll all sort that stuff out when we see God face-to-face, and I'm of the opinion that all of us will have some 'splainin' to do. :thumbs:
I once pastored a General Conference Baptist church for 5 years. While there, I was also the Associational Moderator for 3 years. The theology of the GCGB was vastly different than my own, yet I got along with those brothers and sisters very well. I preached my most "Calvinistic" sermon ever during an annual Associational gathering. Based on a text from 1 Peter 1 (a passage FULL of references to our election and God's sovereignty) to these solid Arminians and they were standing on the pews and shouting praise to God during the sermon. Imagine that... Bible is Bible, and anyone (ANYONE) who tries to explain it away with other Bible is either a fool or the devil himself. At least, from Scripture, that is our example (Satan used Scripture against the Author of Scripture during the temptation, and used the Word of God against Free Man, Adam in the Garden).
Why must there only be 2 choices? Why not side with Scripture regardless which side of the fence it's on? If both sides are false, regardless of whether our intentions are good in siding with God's sovereignty, we are still accountable for believing and teaching that which is false. I believe in making this decision to "side with God's sovereignty", the theology created in essence does the exact opposite...it strips part of God's sovereignty by telling Him how things need to be in order for His sovereignty to fit our model.
Quite bizarre...I've never heard of a regenerated person without hope...ever.
The OP was the one that used the term.
glfredrick
New Member
Because there are two choices. I do note that the Bible indicates that there is one choice -- there is no "side of the fence" with the Word -- it indicates both sovereignty and free will (to an extent), but we are faced with this ongoing discussion of how that one choice plays out. It is for that, that I chose a side. If there were truly one reconcilable choice, then we would not be having this discussion (for the past 2000 years or so...).
I am of the opinion that the sovereignty of God is the "stronger" choice according to the Scriptures and according to giving the maximum honor and power to God, hence my decision to fall on that side.
I cannot see -- clearly expressed -- a place in the Scriptures where it says that our salvation is our choice, or that we can bring something to the table that will enable us to be saved. Let me say this below in another form...
Wherever we look, God is there before us. Hence, if we are "saved" it is because first, there was a God who ordained it. Though it "seems" like we make a decision for Christ, we can make no decision that was not already provided for us.
If Scripture indicates both God's sovereignty and free will, that is one choice, is it not?
...but you just alluded to Scripture teaching sovereignty and free will.
Is it because it is not there, or can it possibly be because you are approaching it with the presupposition based on the side of the fence you are on? "Choose you this day..."
Having said that, nobody on the other side of the fence ever says it is because of something inherently within man...that is a non sequitur.
This is what I mean about limiting God's sovereignty with this view. You have told us (and God) that even if He were to give us the decision to make, based on your understanding of His sovereignty, it is impossible for God to do such a thing.
quantumfaith
Active Member
:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:
quantumfaith
Active Member
RAdam, its short for "woo hoo"....:smilewinkgrin:
Systematic theologians who like to sit in English pubs and drink Guinness and argue will disagree, but I think that it isn't particularly necessary to state this issue cohesively and concretely. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, but this is a doctrine we should hold with an open hand. I love some of the truths about the Calvinist perspective (which should actually be called the Bezinian perspective), while I'm less than convinced about others.
glfredrick
New Member
Nope... I have been fairly up front in saying that the Bible expresses both points of view, but not equally. God's election is everywhere. Human free will has to be gleaned from between the lines.
That being said, what we know is that humans are culpable (responsible) for their sin, but have no remedy for it except to die in it. That is a hard place to be. We need a Savior and Redeemer!
Also, how is it that you still argue with me about this? Are you not arguing for human free will? If it is good for me to see your vantage point, why not the other way, especially when we're both saying that both positions are within the text of Scripture?
quantumfaith
Active Member
I wouldn't say God's election is "everywhere" as defined from your side of the fence. His sovereignty, man's condition, and man's responsibility is everywhere. This encompasses election and free will.
Agree completely. Note your use of responsibility. Responsibility requires ability by definition.
I didn't think I was arguing, but working through this
You are viewing this as my vantage point is opposite yours. It is not. It includes yours while yours does not include mine.
glfredrick
New Member
Which side of the fence? You are assuming that I come to the Scriptures with a preconceived notion. I do not, which is why I do not self-identify with Calvinists (or Arminians for that matter).
I disagree. This "His sovereignty, man's condition, and man's responsibility is everywhere." is correct. It does not automatically lead to this, "This encompasses election and free will." You have made a leap of logic that is not grounded in the text, but rather in your own a priori filter.
That is the gist of "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated..." Our responsibility does not automatically lead to our free will to remedy our sin nature. OUR remedy is to die -- period.
Agree completely. Note your use of responsibility. Responsibility requires ability by definition.
I didn't think I was arguing, but working through this
Not in the case of sinful human beings. As I said above, our only remedy for our sin is to die. We have no "means" to extract ourselves from our precarious position. It is impossible. If we think that WE come to God for relief of our sinful state, then we are sadly mistaken. We cannot come to God unless God, in His infinite mercy and grace allows us, and yes, draws us into His presence.
We cannot even know God's plan unless God first makes us aware that it exists.
And, thanks for acknowledging that we are "working through this." That is my view entirely. Sometimes words can look harsh when simply read, especially when points are made forcefully. Know that I bear you no ill will for all the reasons expressed in my post above and more. If we do not have love for one another, how is it that we are Christian?
You are incorrect. I have stated on more than one occasion that I see both God's sovereignty and human free will in Scripture. As much as that is the solution, it is also the problem. I simply do not see human free will as having the position or authority that would allow it working alone to accomplish salvation.
The only thing in TULIP that anyone could find unkind is its statement on the character of man. "Totally depraved."
It's a straightforward, uncompromising statement. It isn't more unkind or more abrasive than Paul's verdict in Rom. 3:9-18.
The only possible reason one would find TULIP offensive or unkind is because he disagrees with it and holds a higher opinion of himself than God does.
Not true. Speaking as a non-cal, the most unkind thing is limited atonement. Teaching that Christ only died for some when the Bible makes it clear He died for the whole world.
quote: Not true. Speaking as a non-cal, the most unkind thing is limited atonement. Teaching that Christ only died for some when the Bible makes it clear He died for the whole world.
-----------------------------------------------
The problem with calvinism is the false statements, like this, that people make about it.
Just shows they don't know calvinism.
Sad,
Jim
-----------------------------------------------
The problem with calvinism is the false statements, like this, that people make about it.
Just shows they don't know calvinism.
Sad,
Jim
Some scholars actually believe that "world," as in "so loved the world," actually means the elect. I'm not a Greek scholar, so I don't really have a vote, but I know that many believe that.
And, though I'm not a straight Reformed theology backer, there is nothing unkind about Christ dying for some and not all. God can do whatever God wants to do. He created us, we rebelled. The universe belongs to God. End of story.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status