ROSES, a reasonable baptist position?

[webdog]

Calvinism does allow for free will. It falls under the category of God's Permissive Will, a subtitle under the absolute sovereignty of God.

This free choice does not include redemption, which is predetermined under God's sovereignty. God also says, under His permissive will, "Thus far and no further".

The fact remains; He is either sovereign or He isn't sovereign at all. Can't have it both ways.........And, foreknowledge is an attribute of an eternal God, and not a determining factor.

Cheers,

Jim

Ah yes, the freedom between redemption and not with redemption being out of the question. The mystical Henry Ford Model T "choice" theology consisting only of one thing.

 

[Tom Butler]

I think it's contrary to tulip and it wasn't trying to trick anyone. Besides, CHRYSANTHEMUM was a little long...

Heh, heh, heh.

So, if it's contrary to tulip, could you agree with ROSES? Where would you part company with it?

 

[freeatlast]

Just came across this. Personally I have never heard of this "baptist position" in any official context. Interested in any reasonable and amicable commentary that may ensue.

R.O.S.E.S.

Radical Depravity -- Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that every
aspect of our being was damaged through the Fall and we can do nothing to save ourselves,
but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we retain the image of God despite our
fallenness.
· Overcoming Grace – Compared with irresistible grace, overcoming grace (or effectual
calling) affirms that God accomplishes salvation, but differs in that rather than salvation
being a mechanical and deterministic process, it allows for even sinful, obstinate humans to
respond to God’s persistent wooing.

Sovereign Election -- In contrast to the double predestinarianism of unconditional election,
God sovereignly elects those whom He foreknows will respond to Him.

Eternal Life -- The phrase “perseverance of the saints” might suggest that although we are
saved by grace, we are kept by our good works. The phrase “Once saved, always saved”
could suggest that we could claim Christ as Savior without making Him Lord of our lives.
George prefers eternal life or eternal security to convey the scriptural truth of the assurance
of the believer.

Singular Redemption -- Finally, unlike limited atonement, singular redemption
communicates that Jesus’ death was sufficient to save everyone but is efficient only for those
who repent and believe.

While Calvinistic perspectives have a long history in Baptist life and Southern Baptists
have always tolerated five-point Calvinism as a legitimate position within Baptist life, I do not
believe that the majority of the Southern Baptist Convention will ever embrace or require five
point Calvinism. If most Baptists really are between two and three point Calvinists, there are
countervailing forces in the SBC which constitute a limit factor on Calvinism in the convention.

Timothy George, Amazing Grace: God’s Initiative – Our Response (Nashville:
LifeWay, 2000),

quantumfaith
There is so much there to deal with I just wanted to lift one part and ask a question here is what is stated;
Sovereign Election -- In contrast to the double predestinarianism of unconditional election,
God sovereignly elects those whom He foreknows will respond to Him.

How does He foreknow? Does He look down through history?

 

[Luke2427]

This says that man has some good in him and is chosen on the basis of that good. Complete and utter hogwash, and if that's the position of the "vast majority" of the SBC, then a vast majority of the SBC is not hearing the Gospel.

It is not the position of the vast majority of the SBC. Read "Young Restless and Reformed" by Collin Hansen and you will learn that 44% of SBC pastors are Calvinistic.

Southern Seminary, the SBC flagship Seminary, and often times the largest seminary in the world is thoroughly Calvinistic.

And you are right that this view assumes that unregenerate man has innate goodness in him. This is dangerously close to Pelagianism it seems to me.

And I'll tell you something else. Some of these guys will not yield no matter how much the Word of God says that unregenerate man has NO goodness in him whatsoever.

They think because unregenerate man care for their own, something that wolves, crocodiles and hyenas do, that this means there is good in sinful man.

See the thread, "What can the unregenerate man do" and you will see that no amount of logic and Scripture will convince them otherwise.

 

[Luke2427]

Does the SBC truly espouse those points? What do they do with the 30% coming out of their seminary's as Calvinists & how could they allow Al Mohler run Southern since he is a Calvinist?

It is not the position of the vast majority of the SBC. Read "Young Restless and Reformed" by Collin Hansen and you will learn that 44% of SBC pastors are Calvinistic.

Southern Seminary, the SBC flagship Seminary, and often times the largest seminary in the world is thoroughly Calvinistic.

I am Southern Baptist and I am thoroughly reformed.

 

[Luke2427]

With all due respect sir, I disagree in the strongest, but civil terms. Making the claim that someone, who holds to a solid but different theology than yourself, supported by numerous biblical scholars and Baptist leaders, is somehow someone not hearing the Gospel, is IMHO, inappropriate. There is long tradition of both streams of theology in baptist history.

Yea, and as I much as I appreciate the maturity of a lot of your posts, you need to admit that your only biblical argument for this idea that man is has plenty of innate goodness are passages that say that these unregenerate men care for their own and those who care for them just like roaches and rats do.

You need to admit that you have no REAL biblical argument for this idea that man without God is good.

 

[Luke2427]

Actually, it(that being a split over theology) is a step "up", as often splits in SBC churches can be over much less weighty issues, such as the color of carpet etc.

This is true in every denomination.

 

[quantumfaith]

Indeed. The first professors to go were the ones most liberal. Also, it is not quite like the seminary "fired" the professors. More like they left (pun intended).

I have some of the writings from some of the profs who left SBTS during that time. Saying that they were liberal would be an understatement akin to saying that the devil has some bad days. One line that sticks from one of their articles, "God, he, she, it..." That writer went on to disavow the God of the Bible in no uncertain terms in favor of an unknowable wholly other god (gods, etc.) that left no certain revelation. Other writings were as bad or worse, and I can give direct quotes if I dig out their booklets and journal articles from my library.

Professors at SBTS currently have a wide range of views. No one is expected to "toe the mark" (whatever that is) save for signing, in good faith, the Abstract of Principles. I've sat under profs who were 5 point strict Calvinists, others who were 4 point (sort of) and the points seemed to shift from time to time, while others still (as in my case) disavowed the TULIP all together. (I was going to say "Calvin's TULIP" but that would be mis-speaking. Calvin did not give us TULIP. His followers did, and they missed some of Calvin's points. Same goes for the Arminian position, BTW. Again, followers, and they missed some stuff.)

I prefer to hold a biblical position, which must incorporate some aspect of both free will and God's sovereignty. Like the Trinity and other difficult to grasp issues with God (antinomy) the issues in Reformed or Arminian theology are difficult, but revealed. Any sense that they cannot be reconciled is our own issue, not God's.

Thank you for the info and most especially for your spirit. In my estimation, only my human and fallible estimation, the issues surrounding "theological debates" such as "C (or more rightly B) vs. A will never be resolved, because in fact, I am not sure we "can" resolve it. The best we can hope for in the debate, is to attempt to get to the mature point (intellectually and spiritually) or realizing our limitations and truly love and respect one another and "make every effort" to live our faith and impact our culture.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yea, and as I much as I appreciate the maturity of a lot of your posts, you need to admit that your only biblical argument for this idea that man is has plenty of innate goodness are passages that say that these unregenerate men care for their own and those who care for them just like roaches and rats do.

You need to admit that you have no REAL biblical argument for this idea that man without God is good.

At this time Luke, respectfully, I will not admit such. Although I may not be as biblically aware and eloquent as yourself, at this time I will not admit such. I do remain convinced that the "will" of man is involved in the equation of salvation. So, again, I say, you have planted your foundation in the soil of reformed theology, however, the only "reformed" label that I will accept for myself is that I worship as a protestant rather than a catholic.

 

[quantumfaith]

It is not the position of the vast majority of the SBC. Read "Young Restless and Reformed" by Collin Hansen and you will learn that 44% of SBC pastors are Calvinistic.

Southern Seminary, the SBC flagship Seminary, and often times the largest seminary in the world is thoroughly Calvinistic.

And you are right that this view assumes that unregenerate man has innate goodness in him. This is dangerously close to Pelagianism it seems to me.

And I'll tell you something else. Some of these guys will not yield no matter how much the Word of God says that unregenerate man has NO goodness in him whatsoever.

They think because unregenerate man care for their own, something that wolves, crocodiles and hyenas do, that this means there is good in sinful man.

See the thread, "What can the unregenerate man do" and you will see that no amount of logic and Scripture will convince them otherwise.

Here is the graph spoke of in an earlier post. Statistics do not in and of themselves "lie", one can question the manner in which the statistics were obtained and the way in which survey questions were posed, but mathematics is the most "naturally unbiased" of the sciences. I do disagree with you here, in that I do think most churches (by population) do not ascribe to reformational theology. I will also submit, that most of the lay membership have little to no idea of the distinctions.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23993

 

[quantumfaith]

quantumfaith
There is so much there to deal with I just wanted to lift one part and ask a question here is what is stated;
Sovereign Election -- In contrast to the double predestinarianism of unconditional election,
God sovereignly elects those whom He foreknows will respond to Him.

How does He foreknow? Does He look down through history?

I personally see not contradiction with God's being omniscient while allowing man the freedom of responding to him. I see no need for God to "look through the corridors of time", being omniscient and omnipresent is totally enough and complete. If you have any interest in the "issue of time", Dr. William Lane Craig has an excellent work "Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time" A very interesting and for me very intellectually challenging book.

I might add, Dr. Craig is a well known proponent of Molinism, again something I find interesting, but as of yet I dont have my head around all the details.

 

[webdog]

Heh, heh, heh.

So, if it's contrary to tulip, could you agree with ROSES? Where would you part company with it?

The "o" needs further clarification, and I don't like the "s".

 

[quantumfaith]

It is not the position of the vast majority of the SBC. Read "Young Restless and Reformed" by Collin Hansen and you will learn that 44% of SBC pastors are Calvinistic.

Southern Seminary, the SBC flagship Seminary, and often times the largest seminary in the world is thoroughly Calvinistic.

I am Southern Baptist and I am thoroughly reformed.

Luke, again I disagree with you that Southern is the flagship seminary. On what basis or criteria do you make that point? For me, NOBTS or Southwestern is the flagship seminary(ies). I have been Southern Baptist for 47 years, and I am thoroughly not Calvinistic. Just saying.

 

[Luke2427]

At this time Luke, respectfully, I will not admit such. Although I may not be as biblically aware and eloquent as yourself, at this time I will not admit such. I do remain convinced that the "will" of man is involved in the equation of salvation. So, again, I say, you have planted your foundation in the soil of reformed theology, however, the only "reformed" label that I will accept for myself is that I worship as a protestant rather than a catholic.

I am also fully convinced that the will of man is involved in the equation. So are most Calvinists.

But the Bible teaches that the will of man is opposed to God until that will is changed by the grace of God.

God never forces anyone to get saved nor does he lock heaven's door to any man.

Men do what they want to do.

God changes the "want to" of those who get saved. He makes them willing by his grace.

Thanks for responding to me, BTW.

God bless!

 

[quantumfaith]

I am also fully convinced that the will of man is involved in the equation. So are most Calvinists.

But the Bible teaches that the will of man is opposed to God until that will is changed by the grace of God.

God never forces anyone to get saved nor does he lock heaven's door to any man.

Men do what they want to do.

God changes the "want to" of those who get saved. He makes them willing by his grace.

Thanks for responding to me, BTW.

God bless!

Hallelujah, brother we agree. Mercy, peace and love in abundance.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, again I disagree with you that Southern is the flagship seminary. On what basis or criteria do you make that point? For me, NOBTS or Southwestern is the flagship seminary(ies). I have been Southern Baptist for 47 years, and I am thoroughly not Calvinistic. Just saying.

flag·ship
   /ˈflægˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled[flag-ship] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a ship carrying the flag officer or the commander of a fleet, squadron, or the like, and displaying the officer's flag.
2.
the main vessel of a shipping line.
3.
any of the best or largest ships or airplanes operated by a passenger line.
4.
the best or most important one of a group or system: This store is the flagship of our retail chain.

Southern Seminary is often the largest seminary on planet earth. She is currently graduating more SBC missionaries (which REALLY undermines the idea that Calvinists are not missions minded) and pastors than any other SBC seminary.

If this does not qualify as flagship for seminaries- well, I don't know what does.

 

[Luke2427]

Hallelujah, brother we agree. Mercy, peace and love in abundance.

I'm sure we agree about most things, really. I just wish I could get you to see that Calvinism is biblical and God glorifying. I was a Free Will Baptist for better than a decade, educated in a Free Will Baptist college and thought that Calvinism impugned the character of God and was a man made system just like you think. But I learned not too long ago that I REALLY didn't understand Calvinism. When I understood it- I realized it was true.

But if I never convince you, I'm sure we both believe the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus is the sinless son of God who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died upon the cross for our sins, rose victoriously the third day and is coming again in power and great glory.

This ought to be enough to hold us together!:jesus:

 

[Luke2427]

Actually it is stated on here quite often by the reformed that man is no longer made in God's image but are now in Adam's image.

Some Calvinists may believe this but it is not biblical. I don't know any Calvinists who believe that man today is not made in the image of God. The Scripture is plain that he is. But the problem is that this shows how utterly depraved he is.

To bear the image of Holy God and drag it through the dregs of sin is unspeakable wickedness.

The definition you give of "total" depravity does not fit the term.
This is a first for defining the "I". I have always heard it described as once one is regenerated prior to faith they WILL come to Christ, not "allow".

This is interesting because once again, that is not my position. I believe regeneration can take place and that person never come to Christ and be still born rather than born again. This person is the apostate who for the rest of his life CANNOT come to Christ. He is without hope. These are often false teachers who are "twice dead and plucked up by the roots".

I agree here...the linear understanding of election is quite lacking.
To say that one will persevere if they are "elect" goes against the grain of Scripture in many places, like 1 and 2 Peter. A new believer is a baby, and some babies die as babies. It doesn't mean they were never a baby since they died in that state (the "P" of TULIP). Eternal security is biblical truth.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'm sure we agree about most things, really. I just wish I could get you to see that Calvinism is biblical and God glorifying. I was a Free Will Baptist for better than a decade, educated in a Free Will Baptist college and thought that Calvinism impugned the character of God and was a man made system just like you think. But I learned not too long ago that I REALLY didn't understand Calvinism. When I understood it- I realized it was true.

But if I never convince you, I'm sure we both believe the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus is the sinless son of God who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died upon the cross for our sins, rose victoriously the third day and is coming again in power and great glory.

This ought to be enough to hold us together!:jesus:

God Bless you brother, I hope I have never indicated that I think "calvinism" or those who hold to that is "unbiblical" or "non-glorifying" of God. I simply see things "differently". Perhaps, you are correct, we see more "eye to eye" than we think we do.

1. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of all creation
2. Man is sinful and corrupt
3. God desires to redeem man unto himself
4. There is one mediator, Jesus the Christ.
5. He was born of a virgin
6. He was crucified and died and rose again
7. He will come again
8. The redeemed of the Lord will one day be in His presence for all eternity.

 

[Luke2427]

God Bless you brother, I hope I have never indicated that I think "calvinism" or those who hold to that is "unbiblical" or "non-glorifying" of God. I simply see things "differently". Perhaps, you are correct, we see more "eye to eye" than we think we do.

1. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of all creation
2. Man is sinful and corrupt
3. God desires to redeem man unto himself
4. There is one mediator, Jesus the Christ.
5. He was born of a virgin
6. He was crucified and died and rose again
7. He will come again
8. The redeemed of the Lord will one day be in His presence for all eternity.

Absolutely! I agree one hundred percent. That ought to be enough to bind us together.