• 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!

SBC Faith and Message supports Calvinistic thinking

agedman

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AnnieL said:
Yes, I have. My question is basically, about accept Christ does not always mean the same thing to all people and denominations, that is without explaining what it means each time you use the phrase, it does not necessarily mean the same as your explanation to someone not familiar with your belief's. You can't just look it up in the scriptures, at least I have not found accept Christ in the Bible. After talking to many people it seems the testimony is "I have accepted Christ,but they really don't know what that means, nor can they tell you what that is to accept Christ. I don't think anyone agrees with me so maybe I am in error?
Click to expand...
Actually, the “mechanics” are found in the Calvin/Armin forum. Often the heat revolves around the thinking of either acceptance is the result of or it is the catalyst to salvation

But either way, accept is basically the same as receiving that which is implanted. Be very careful to not assume human effort is involved other then in the manner of response. Romans 10 states the word is already in the heart and in the mouth and of that gift of God the result is then in belief and confession “unto” (about) salvation.

For example: Matthew parable of the four “soils” shows that only that soil prepared for the seed is “received, accepted” in which harvest is gathered. One shallow soil may demonstrate intellectual “acceptance” but no life sustaining ability.

The soils are not the determination of other then to be present. Though the other three soils have the seed delivered, they have nothing to sustain that life (no presence and nurturing of the Holy Spirit).
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
rsr said:
The B&FM is a mildly Calvinistic statement. The 1963/2000 version is less Calvinistic than the 1925 version, which in turn is less calvinistic than the 1833 New Hampshire Confession on which the 1925 edition is based. And the New Hampshire is less high Calvinist than Second London/Philadelphia confession on which it was based. You will not find imputed righteousness. There is election, but it is not specifically unconditional election. Total inability, in fact, is smudged in the 1963/2000 versions compared to even the 1925 version.

The NH/B&FM also incorporates Fullerism's "duty faith" as opposed to the principles of the London/Philadelphia confessions.

In fact, it probably would be more accurate to say that the BF&M is in the Reformed tradition, accommodating Calvinistic and Arminian views (except on perseverance, perhaps) without espousing specifically classical Calvinism details.
Click to expand...
At its foundation it assumes a Calvinistic structure (Arminianism, for example, assumes Calvinism until it doesn't). What I mean by this is that, as Albert Mohler pointed out in his discussion with Eric Hankins regarding Calvinism and the "traditional view", contemporary Baptist theology revolves around Calvinism (a statement to which Hankins agreed). If you look beyond the five points I think you'll find that we take for granted ideas, or at least lean towards emphases and expressions, that did not exist prior to Calvinism.
 
thatbrian

thatbrian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
At its foundation it assumes a Calvinistic structure (Arminianism, for example, assumes Calvinism until it doesn't). What I mean by this is that, as Albert Mohler pointed out in his discussion with Eric Hankins regarding Calvinism and the "traditional view", contemporary Baptist theology revolves around Calvinism (a statement to which Hankins agreed). If you look beyond the five points I think you'll find that we take for granted ideas, or at least lean towards emphases and expressions, that did not exist prior to Calvinism.
Click to expand...

Insightful, and I agree, which I why I have often said, the average evangelical, from congregant to pastor, is not an Arminian, but a Pelagian, in his default views. No one would tick that box on a test, but his instincts, reactions, speech, all reflect Pelagius.

Good read (Sproul): The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, by R.C. Sproul
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
thatbrian said:
Insightful, and I agree, which I why I have often said, the average evangelical, from congregant to pastor, is not an Arminian, but a Pelagian, in his default views. No one would tick that box on a test, but his instincts, reactions, speech, all reflect Pelagius.

Good read (Sproul): The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, by R.C. Sproul
Click to expand...
Dr Sproul spoke the truth for sure in that article!
Though dead, he still speaks to us!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top