SBC Abstract and Calvinism

[Inadequate in Myself]

The southern Baptist seminaries abide by this Abstract of Principles and those who are hired as faculty are required to sign the Abstract proving that they are in agreement with them.

I don't want to derail the discussion, I simply need to make one minor correction to the OP.

Only Southern and Southeastern have had to sign the Abstract of Principles, not all the Southern Baptist seminaries, the other four do not.

 

[Inadequate in Myself]

As to the question, I put I don't know because it all depends on how tightly one wants to link the term "Calvinist" to "TULIP".

 

[webdog]

Romans 3:10. as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11. THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12. ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13. "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14. "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15. "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16. DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17. AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18. "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

Where was it written initially (what part of the OT were these quotes from)? Who is this speaking of, that Paul is pulling as a reference to "none who seek God"?

 

[webdog]

Are there any who see my point? Particularly someone who may even disagree with me? I think you see I am not advocating any unbiblical approach, but questioning an approach that has become popular to take among reformed believers. I find it humorous that the one person who has disagreed with me has proven my point by suggesting that I don't have "solid theological knowledge" because I don't explain my views by the TULIP. I think that is a problem.

I see what you are saying. I don't agree with either calvinism or arminianism. Each have some truth, but as a whole are incorrect.

 

[dan e.]

I'm sure your theology books are much superior!

Why thank you...I appreciate your compliment on all my writings.

Just joking, here is an example of taking a quote out of context. reformedbeliever was in no way complimenting me, or suggesting that the books and writings I have are superior to anything. This was me taking a quote of his out of context to make it sound a way that makes him look bad. Just thought I'd share an example.....oh wait, he already showed an example by taking my quote out of context. Silly me.

 

[Jim1999]

Calvin did not write TULIP, but he did have the same 5 points as did Augustine before him.

Further, the Institutes may not be the best books to study Calvinism. They were written early on in his life and his views were modified in his commentary on Romans, written much later.

You might better read one of the systematic theologies written by the early theologians such as the Hodges or Berkoff, or even the more modern theologians of Westminister Seminary.

Theology is Bible study. It is the orderly garden of the wild gardens of scripture. Even Jesus took scripture at random, from here and there, when He quoted from the Old Testament.

I always get a chuckle when people make the silly claim that the Bible is enough. Alone it just isn't enough. We need to know some history, culture, language and local meanings to understand scripture properly.

Cheers,

Jim, "calvinist, lest I be ashamed of myself.

 

[dan e.]

I think that is a good word Jim. I understand and agree with your points about needing other sources to accurately understand the Bible. I think the danger comes when a source, or a system, must be held exactly the way it is in order to "be biblical", or to understand the Bible, or theology, "correctly". For me, I don't necessarily use the same terms, or same definitions as the TULIP. I did know that Calvin did not come up with the TULIP, that is actually makes it more humorous to me. Anyways, I think there is a danger in tying down my views in the system presented by Calvinism. I can read what Calvinism teaches, learn about its history and those who taught it, but think it is better to define things the way the Bible defines them. Not the way this particular system defines them. If that makes no sense....than I apologize, maybe it is because I haven't read enough theology books!! :laugh:

 

[Blammo]

dan e.,

You are making perfect sense to me. Sounds to me like you agree with some or most of the theology of Calvin, but you would rather use the Bible and its terminology to prove it. As you stated in your first post, you may agree with "Total Depravity" but you would rather teach it from the Bible; Using the phraseology of Scripture. I would probably be much less guarded discussing theology with someone using your approach.

 

[J.D.]

Calvin did not write TULIP, but he did have the same 5 points as did Augustine before him.

Further, the Institutes may not be the best books to study Calvinism. They were written early on in his life and his views were modified in his commentary on Romans, written much later.

You might better read one of the systematic theologies written by the early theologians such as the Hodges or Berkoff, or even the more modern theologians of Westminister Seminary.

Theology is Bible study. It is the orderly garden of the wild gardens of scripture. Even Jesus took scripture at random, from here and there, when He quoted from the Old Testament.

I always get a chuckle when people make the silly claim that the Bible is enough. Alone it just isn't enough. We need to know some history, culture, language and local meanings to understand scripture properly.

Cheers,

Jim, "calvinist, lest I be ashamed of myself.

Good point Jim. Since adopting the calvinist system as my own, I am convinced that scripture can only be understood clearly in "systematic", or, "thematic", terms. Honest adherents of the arminian/pelagian system readily admit that their system does not hold together and is full of contradictions (they would say "paradoxes"). They prefer a perpetual tension between sovereignty and free will to an explanation that desroys their system. They prefer a "mystery box" to drop all scripture into that contradicts their system.

Take for example the issue of why some people do not believe. I've asked that questions many times on this board and been told that I'm asking questions that have no answers. "It's a mystery", say they.

The arminian/pelagian system is not a system at all. It is but a disjointed gathering of truncated passages strung together to defend the all-mighty freewill of man. That's all.

 

[dan e.]

you've got it all figured out. :applause:

 

[El_Guero]

Martin

You are confusing me.

First you wrote: "Can a person, who is not a Calvinist, honestly sign that statement?"

Then you wrote

==This "is not" about John Calvin, it is about a theological position that has been espoused by many Baptists throughout history. The Abstract is Calvinistic because, when it was written, the Southern Baptist Convention was largely Calvinistic in its theology. This is very clearly seen by looking at the abstract (points IV, V, VIII, IX, X, XIII). Many other Baptists throughout American history have held to Calvinistic soteriology.

==That is a false choice.

No, Baptists have been largely BAPTISTS throughout history. Some of us have been calvinistic and others have not been. And few of the 'calvinistic' Baptist brethren have been believers that could have survived in Calvin's court(s). If ya' really think that Baptists had much chance in his courts let me know that you think that Calvin was a Baptist.

So, which is it? Calvinism or Baptism? And no that is not a false dichotomy, one needs to have precedence in your theology and it seems that you place importance more upon calvinism than Baptism . . . if that was backwards, please enlighten me. I personally would prefer that you place baptism ahead of calvinism.

 

[MB]

Hi Martin;
I voted no as well and this is why.

Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting

Particular election isn't something I could believe in. This isn't to say the whole world is saved certainly it isn't. Particular election does seem to imply favoritism. The question isn't "can't God save who He wants to?" but does He save only particular people? I've never seen particular election to Salvation in scripture. We would have to ask if Christ really died for the whole world. If true and He did, then there is the potential all men might be saved. John 3:17. Being chosen to, or for Salvation doesn't mean the man will submit. Many say they believe and have never submitted there lives to Christ.
James said;
Jam 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Jam 4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
Jam 4:9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
Jam 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
MB

 

[reformedbeliever]

Way to take a quote of mine out of context. I still do not see that phrase in there. You've missed my point. You also forgot to quote what I said after that, but it looks like your intent was to make me sound like I didn't agree with the Bible, so why would you quote that part of my post?

I did not take your quote out of context dan. Just because the term "total depravity" does not appear in the bible, does not mean that it does not exist as a principle taught in the bible. The term trinity does not appear either.... but I'll just bet you use it many times in your discussion of theology. I see how you understand that men are dead in their sins..... so what? You do not like the 5 points? No problem at all. Whether or not I like the 5 points really does not matter. I prefer particular redemption to limited attonement. Wait.... those terms are not in the bible either huh? You stated that total depravity is no where in the bible.... I simply pointed out that the principle is taught there.

 

[dan e.]

I said that the phrase "total depravity" was not in the Bible....but never said I didn't think the principle is taught in the Bible. You took my quote out of context by making it sound like I did not think of the sinfulness of humans was taught. I understand that there are a lot of other examples, such as the Trinity, etc. My point isn't to say that it is wrong to use the TULIP. What I meant to convey was that I think it has become dangerous because many hold so tightly to the Calvinist system and formula that there is no other way to explain it. You must accept the Calvinist explanation or you are not "biblical". I'm not here to bash anyone, certainly not you, you may find we actually agree on a lot of things. On this issue, however, I would rather keep my name from being associated with TULIP, Calvinism, and any other silly formula that claims to have it all figured out. It has caused more damage than it has educated people.

 

[dan e.]

Let me go ahead here and continue some thoughts of mine. I don't want my postings/responses to reformed believer to get too far off of my point. reformedbeliever, I totally understand your point about other terms not in the Bible. My struggle isn't with using words and phrases not found in the Bible. My issue is particularly with Calvinism. I find Calvinism, and its formation, to be a bit of a struggle to me. Again, this does not mean I disagree with the principles it is teaching. What I was trying to show through my quoting of Ephesians was that I definitely do believe the humans are so sinful that they are blinded, seeking only after their own desires, etc. Your quoting of Romans 3 is another chapter perfectly illustrating this as well. I'm not disagreeing with all that Calvinism teaches. I find it weird that Calvinism has taken the form that it has, but correct me if I'm wrong, were Calvinist's even the creator's of TULIP??? Yeah yeah, Augustine taught the same principles as John Calvin, and I've even heard people joke that the Apostle Paul was the first calvinist. haha. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure always creating things systematically is the best way to teach the Bible. The danger is that when you do that, and when it has been done so long, that system trumps anything. I see calvinists that hold to the system/formula of calvinism as if it is gospel. Calvinists insist to those who may be confused about these issues as they grow adhere to the calvinist formula. They further teach that if you don't adhere to its entirety, than there is something wrong with your theology. This is a problem. I'm not saying I have an answer. I'm saying I'd rather be disassociated with the entire debate. It's unhealthy, and definitely not profitable for teaching and training in righteousness.

 

[Jim1999]

Quote:

Particular election isn't something I could believe in. This isn't to say the whole world is saved certainly it isn't. Particular election does seem to imply favoritism.
-----------------------------------------------

God was very particular in the Old Testament. Of all the nations of the world, He chose Israel to carry forth the way of redemption. In the New Testament, He carried on with the church, the new Israel of God, as the burden bearer of the gospel of grace. He called us out to be a peculiar people unto Him. No doubt God is partial, and as a sovereign God, He as that right.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. It was the council of Dort that penned TULIP, and it was, as a state church, in direct response to the five points of Arminianism.

Certainly as Baptists we differ with Calvinism on many points. We are speaking strictly of the theology of scripture': the study of God. It does not include the sacrements, ordinances or even ecclessiology.

 

[El_Guero]

Augustine DID NOT teach calvinism.

Augustine taught free will and he taught predestination. Augustine taught predestination at the end of his life after his responce to pelagius and his heresies.

Calvin was an Catholic priest as was Luther. They both studied Augustine and wanted to return the Church to earlier times. They wanted to reform the Church and make it look like the old Church in the time of Augustine.

The followers of Arminius formed the 5 remonstrances . . . and then the council of Dort formed what came to be known as TULIP. If I remember correctly.

But, whether I do or do not remember correctly - that both Paul and Augustine held to theology similar to 'calvinism' can be argued strongly. However, attributing calvinism to either Paul or Augustine is a weak and dangerous anachronistic argument because neither of them addressed that particular theology.

The real root of the problem with interpretation (IMHO) is that Calvin was the LAST of the GREAT theologians. Since there is nothing written since he lived that is even close to what he wrote, it is common for people to desire his kind of powerful writing (theology).

Calvin was a great theologian and a great logician. What he wrote - he wrote well. Personally, while I do not agree with all of his theology, I think his Institutes should be read by all pastors.

 

[Martin]

No, Baptists have been largely BAPTISTS throughout history. Some of us have been calvinistic and others have not been.

==Been listening to Ergun Caner have we? :laugh:

Baptists have been both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic. There is no "one" definition of a Baptist when it comes to this issue. So I don't know how to take the assertion that "Baptists have been...Baptists".

And few of the 'calvinistic' Baptist brethren have been believers that could have survived in Calvin's court(s). If ya' really think that Baptists had much chance in his courts let me know that you think that Calvin was a Baptist.

==Again this is not about John Calvin, this is about a system of theology that has (rightly or wrongly) been labeled with his name (ie...Calvinism). This system of theology was around before John Calvin and it would be here if Calvin had never been born. This is about the Baptist Church and that system of theology that is labeled with Calvin's name (Calvinism).

So, which is it? Calvinism or Baptism?

==I am not talking about baptism, church government, or church/state issues. I am talking about the points of Calvinism that have been agreed upon by many who were/are Baptists (see the abstracts).

And no that is not a false dichotomy, one needs to have precedence in your theology and it seems that you place importance more upon calvinism than Baptism . . . if that was backwards, please enlighten me. I personally would prefer that you place baptism ahead of calvinism.

==The "five points" of "Calvinism" are Biblically based. That is one reason why they were around before Calvin, why they would be around if Calvin had not been born, and that is why many Baptists have adopted those theological positions.

 

[Martin]

I said that the phrase "total depravity" was not in the Bible....but never said I didn't think the principle is taught in the Bible.

==Glad you clearified that. I was going to point out that even Arminius held to total depravity.

 

[El_Guero]

You keep going around in circles.

You said:

"This is about the Baptist Church and that system of theology that is labeled with Calvin's name (Calvinism)."

The next sentance you said:

"I am not talking about baptism, church government, or church/state issues. I am talking about the points of Calvinism?"

Let's switch to any other language that you don't give me a headache in.

I think you said that some baptists have been calvinists and some have not . . . Or were my eyes crossed when I read that?