SBC President Moves to Quell Firestorm

[Yeshua1]

Where does Arminius say that the truly saved can apostatize? I thought he specifically said that those who hold to that position rely on Scripture passages where the interpretation they desire is not at all certain.

he did not say that they could not, just that he was not sure if they could!

Classic doublespeak methinks!

 

[12strings]

Yeah, that's not exactly completely accurate. There are other soteriogical options beyond this issue. The aspect of justification (which is what this link is about) is different than the whole of the conversation.

I don't disagree that God is singularly responsible for the mystery that occurs in the juridical act of justification. However that act can only occur when God's convictional call is yielded to by a person.

See that nuance, that is something which is not covered in the conversation in the link. That means there are still other options that Calvinist or Arminian.

I agree, but when phrased this way: WHAT ULTIMATELY DETERMINES whether a person will accept the gospel Message or not? There are only 2 answers:
-God's choice
-Man's Choice

That's what all the fighting is about. If there is a third, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[OldRegular]

It is the very attitude you display that brought about the statement and rightly so.

:laugh:

 

[jonathan.borland]

I agree, but when phrased this way: WHAT ULTIMATELY DETERMINES whether a person will accept the gospel Message or not? There are only 2 answers:
-God's choice
-Man's Choice

That's what all the fighting is about. If there is a third, I'd be interested to hear it.

So you're a determinist when it comes to everything or just salvation?

 

[jonathan.borland]

I agree, but when phrased this way: WHAT ULTIMATELY DETERMINES whether a person will accept the gospel Message or not? There are only 2 answers:
-God's choice
-Man's Choice

That's what all the fighting is about. If there is a third, I'd be interested to hear it.

Your post reminds me of a statement:

"If we had some ham we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs."

Is Jesus God or man?

Without God we could not be saved. Without us there would be no one for God to save.

Man responds to God's initiation of grace through the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Isn't both/and a proper response?

 

[12strings]

So you're a determinist when it comes to everything or just salvation?

I'm just saying that it is the issue of Election, choice, predestination; where they real divide is. It is true to say there are varying positions...but the dividing line is the issue of "Does God draw all people the same, and thier responses are their own un-effected choice? OR..."Would all naturally reject God unless he chooses and calls certain people and changes their will to choose him"?

This is where the real dividing line is. Both sides recognize this, and the other discussions we have are only periphery.

 

[12strings]

Your post reminds me of a statement:

"If we had some ham we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs."

Is Jesus God or man?

Without God we could not be saved. Without us there would be no one for God to save.

Man responds to God's initiation of grace through the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Isn't both/and a proper response?

I actually agree with you...I'm saying how you answer the question "Ultimately" determine's whose side you are in the debate.

The third option, which I may be close to is: "the bible says God chose me, It also says I must choose God. I believe both."

But...since I refuse to deny that God chose/predestined me to salvation before the foundation of the earth, and I will be called a calvinist; no matter what else I say.

 

[quantumfaith]

You are wrong on this just as you are wrong on some of your understanding of Scripture! I have used "wrong" in the sense of being "mistaken or incorrect" and there is nothing "wrong", in the sense of me being bad" with saying that! Of course since this is still a free country and you are free to disagree!

OR, might I suggest that a more "acceptable and gracious" manner to communicate such is to preface as ......" I believe you to be incorrect, or I am convinced that you are not correct here"

Just a suggestion, made with absolutely zero rancor.

 

[mandym]

OR, might I suggest that a more "acceptable and gracious" manner to communicate such is to preface as ......" I believe you to be incorrect, or I am convinced that you are not correct here"

Just a suggestion, made with absolutely zero rancor.

Or one could simply say "I disagree and here is why".

 

[saturneptune]

Why is it both sides keep quoting this theolgean or that theolgean, and what their opinion is? Isn't the Holy Spirit in each of us? Did not God give us all a brain to think? A Bible to read? Who cares what Mohler thinks, White thinks, or the clowns that wrote the document.

People employed by the upper levels of the SBC pretty much sit around in an office collecting money without making a difference. They have no governing authority, basically just fluff. Each local church is autonomous, and each local church treats the B F and M as they please or are lead. Some of you act like the Baptist faith is a hierarchy.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Why is it both sides keep quoting this theolgean or that theolgean, and what their opinion is? Isn't the Holy Spirit in each of us? Did not God give us all a brain to think? A Bible to read? Who cares what Mohler thinks, White thinks, or the clowns that wrote the document.

People employed by the upper levels of the SBC pretty much sit around in an office collecting money without making a difference. They have no governing authority, basically just fluff. Each local church is autonomous, and each local church treats the B F and M as they please or are lead. Some of you act like the Baptist faith is a hierarchy.

They act like it because they wish it was. These are people who like to control others. They think you can't be Baptist unless you agree with them. I say that people like this have no clue about Baptist history and principles.

 

[Yeshua1]

I actually agree with you...I'm saying how you answer the question "Ultimately" determine's whose side you are in the debate.

The third option, which I may be close to is: "the bible says God chose me, It also says I must choose God. I believe both."

But...since I refuse to deny that God chose/predestined me to salvation before the foundation of the earth, and I will be called a calvinist; no matter what else I say.

How about the oft quoted one of while entering thru the gateway to heaven, we read "whosoever wills may come", while upon entering and looking back, see posted" chosen in christ before the foundation of the World"...

think that you have hit the dividing line here...

Botom line is on WHAT basis are we saved?
By the Cross of Christ, and God election towards us by his will and grace and mercy alone

or by us accepting jesus by faith, and God basing our salvation on that he knew what we would choose "free willingly' to do!

 

[OldRegular]

OR, might I suggest that a more "acceptable and gracious" manner to communicate such is to preface as ......" I believe you to be incorrect, or I am convinced that you are not correct here"

Just a suggestion, made with absolutely zero rancor.

Thanks! I appreciate the comment. However, I have yet to see those I call "freewillers" use this gracious rhetoric you suggest when addressing those who believe the Doctrine of Grace!

That being said the remarks of some on this forum regarding my use of the word wrong are hypocritical in the extreme and they know who they are. The thread "Al Mohler's response to SBC Statement" was closed early, I assume because of the vitriol expressed by some of these people.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Botom line is on WHAT basis are we saved?
By the Cross of Christ, and God election towards us by his will and grace and mercy alone

or by us accepting jesus by faith, and God basing our salvation on that he knew what we would choose "free willingly' to do!

Yes to both, as I don't think they are inherently contradictory. Difficult to reconcile perhaps...but this might be a false dichotomy as all of the above are (taken at face value) Scriptural.