SBC President Moves to Quell Firestorm

[OldRegular]

[/b] (emphasis mine)

Wow man that's pretty polarizing.

As an observation, there have been more polarizing and hyper-critical statements from the Calvinists around here lately than from the other groups. Whether it is calling the rest of apostates or saying we're dead wrong about these issues...I'm seeing more caustic language from the Calvinists than others.

Maybe its time for some restraint.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You are entitled to read my comments and interpret them as you choose. Isn't it wonderful to live in a free country?

That being said it is nonsense to say that the words "you are wrong" are polarizing. This Board would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. I believe the Doctrine of Grace correctly explain God's Grace in Salvation. The "freewillers" think otherwise, I believe they are wrong, and I am not embarrassed to say so. As far as restraint I suggest you look at some of the remarks by "freewillers"!

 

[Winman]

Yes it does. Repeatedly.

Here is a classic Calvinist argument. Luke insists the scriptures repeatedly show regeneration precedes faith, but does not show a single example from scripture. That is because he can't, there is not a single verse in all of scripture that says regeneration precedes faith. It is a false and purely man-made doctrine.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

If this were the only verse in scripture that says faith precedes regeneration (which it isn't, there are at least a dozen) it would still be more scripture than Calvinsim can show to support their view that regeneration precedes faith. They don't have a single verse to support their false doctrine.

Luke even admitted this verse appears to say faith precedes regeneration a few weeks ago, then he did mental gymnastics to try to prove this verse says the opposite of what it clearly says.

The Calvinist view is error and has no scripture to support it. They know it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Humans are born into Adam, as we are ALL sinners who by nature and choice confirm that soon after our birth...

Spiritually dead people cannot produce fruit such as faith, right?

 

[mandym]

Yes it does. Repeatedly.

Not in one single place.

 

[agedman]

...
Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Winman,

What does the word "might" mean?

Does it fit with your Arminian scheme that one is never absolutely sure?

Isn't this what the verse you posted support?

Does it not clearly state that there is at best a flip of a coin on whether a person MIGHT believe to begin with; if they do believe, then they just MIGHT have eternal life?

Is this the best the Arminian side has to offer - a might believe, might attain eternal life?

Why do you not pick absolute certainty over hope it all works out if I can be earnest enough, if I can generate enough faith, if I can say the right words, if I can do the right things, if I can preserve myself, if I can just get God's attention...

It really seems to me that one would consider a scheme in which all authority over the whole matter is in the hands of God far more superior and God glorifying in comparison to a scheme in which any part small as it may be is dependent upon the frailty and historical failures of humankind.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

What does the word "might" mean?

Does it fit with your Arminian scheme that one is never absolutely sure?

Isn't this what the verse you posted support?

Does it not clearly state that there is at best a flip of a coin on whether a person MIGHT believe to begin with; if they do believe, then they just MIGHT have eternal life?

Is this the best the Arminian side has to offer - a might believe, might attain eternal life?

Why do you not pick absolute certainty over hope it all works out if I can be earnest enough, if I can generate enough faith, if I can say the right words, if I can do the right things, if I can preserve myself, if I can just get God's attention...

It really seems to me that one would consider a scheme in which all authority over the whole matter is in the hands of God far more superior and God glorifying in comparison to a scheme in which any part small as it may be is dependent upon the frailty and historical failures of humankind.

The word "might" does not mean what you say at all. All a person has to do is look in a concordance. The words "might have" are one word in the Greek, echō which is defined as;

1) to have, i.e. to hold
a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as
2) to have i.e. own, possess
a) external things such as pertain to property or riches or furniture or utensils or goods or food etc.
b) used of those joined to any one by the bonds of natural blood or marriage or friendship or duty or law etc, of attendance or companionship
3) to hold one's self or find one's self so and so, to be in such or such a condition
4) to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
a) to be closely joined to a person or a thing

There is not one word expressing doubt here as you suggest.

Nice try though.

 

[agedman]

The word "might" does not mean what you say at all. All a person has to do is look in a concordance...

There is not one word expressing doubt here as you suggest.

Nice try though.

Thank you for proving that the verse shows no doubt.

Yet, throughout the very core of the Arminian scheme is that very problem - the problem of doubt.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really offer eternal security except they join to the Calvinistic view of the perseverance of the believers. This they call "once saved, always saved."

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of limited atonement other than by the degree of the limit atonement is applied.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of grace being irresistible. Rather, they would divide the unmerited favor of God into pieces and labels, but it is still the grace of God that brings the unregenerate to being regenerate.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of election. As John R. Rice (who attempted to refute extreme Calvinistic thinking) would state, the gate of salvation has on one side "whosoever will" and on the other side "chosen in Him before the foundations of the world."

The SBC Arminian does NOT agree with the Calvinistic view of the unregenerate being totally unregenerate, and does consider that each person can "take a step toward God" as I heard Dr. Criswell's announcer often say of some decisions.

What seems to have taken place generally in the SBC in previous decades is, in an attempt to remove some of the "sting" of the Calvinistic view, the typical Billy Graham types have endorsed a moderated Calvinistic view and labeled it Arminian when it was never truly Arminian at the core.

Now there is somewhat of a moving of the goal posts and certain folks don't like the way the game is being called. So, they want the home field advantage not realizing they don't have any greater authority over the title and land rights than who they oppose.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Thank you for proving that the verse shows no doubt.

Yet, throughout the very core of the Arminian scheme is that very problem - the problem of doubt.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really offer eternal security except they join to the Calvinistic view of the perseverance of the believers. This they call "once saved, always saved."

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of limited atonement other than by the degree of the limit atonement is applied.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of grace being irresistible. Rather, they would divide the unmerited favor of God into pieces and labels, but it is still the grace of God that brings the unregenerate to being regenerate.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of election. As John R. Rice (who attempted to refute extreme Calvinistic thinking) would state, the gate of salvation has on one side "whosoever will" and on the other side "chosen in Him before the foundations of the world."

The SBC Arminian does NOT agree with the Calvinistic view of the unregenerate being totally unregenerate, and does consider that each person can "take a step toward God" as I heard Dr. Criswell's announcer often say of some decisions.

What seems to have taken place generally in the SBC in previous decades is, in an attempt to remove some of the "sting" of the Calvinistic view, the typical Billy Graham types have endorsed a moderated Calvinistic view and labeled it Arminian when it was never truly Arminian at the core.

Now there is somewhat of a moving of the goal posts and certain folks don't like the way the game is being called. So, they want the home field advantage not realizing they don't have any greater authority over the title and land rights than who they oppose.

Can you support your surmises with quotations from the recent statement on salvation?

 

[Winman]

Thank you for proving that the verse shows no doubt.

Yet, throughout the very core of the Arminian scheme is that very problem - the problem of doubt.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really offer eternal security except they join to the Calvinistic view of the perseverance of the believers. This they call "once saved, always saved."

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of limited atonement other than by the degree of the limit atonement is applied.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of grace being irresistible. Rather, they would divide the unmerited favor of God into pieces and labels, but it is still the grace of God that brings the unregenerate to being regenerate.

The SBC Arminian doesn't really differ from the Calvinistic view of election. As John R. Rice (who attempted to refute extreme Calvinistic thinking) would state, the gate of salvation has on one side "whosoever will" and on the other side "chosen in Him before the foundations of the world."

The SBC Arminian does NOT agree with the Calvinistic view of the unregenerate being totally unregenerate, and does consider that each person can "take a step toward God" as I heard Dr. Criswell's announcer often say of some decisions.

What seems to have taken place generally in the SBC in previous decades is, in an attempt to remove some of the "sting" of the Calvinistic view, the typical Billy Graham types have endorsed a moderated Calvinistic view and labeled it Arminian when it was never truly Arminian at the core.

Now there is somewhat of a moving of the goal posts and certain folks don't like the way the game is being called. So, they want the home field advantage not realizing they don't have any greater authority over the title and land rights than who they oppose.

Well, first of all, I am not SBC, so I am not that concerned about this document. I base what I believe on what I believe the scriptures say, not on what others might interpret the scriptures to say.

That said, I read that document and found no great disagreement with what I believe. By and large it was acceptable to me.

But you are wrong on security, this document absolutely says that once a person is saved they are always saved;

Article Nine: The Security of the Believer

We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.

We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.

John 10:28-29; 14:1-4; 16:12-14; Philippians 1:6; Romans 3:21-26; 8:29,30; 35-39; 12:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:19; 3:2; 5:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:5; James 1:12; Jude 24-25

I would call this "Preservation of the Saints" and is what I hold to. I do not hold to perseverance. Perseverance by definition means we "persevere" which I would equate to being works salvation. I do not believe anyone is saved because they are faithful to Jesus, no Christian is 100% faithful to Jesus. No, I believe we are saved because Jesus is faithful to keep all his promises he made to those who come to him in repentance and faith.

Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

I know I am saved, not because I am faithful to Jesus, but because I know I sincerely came in my heart to Jesus and asked him to forgive my sins and save me. I am depending on Jesus to keep his promise that he will in no wise cast me out. And I know Jesus will keep his word! I am not saved because I am faithful to Jesus, I am saved because Jesus will always be faithful to me! This is why I am not Arminian whatsoever.

This is much different than perseverance which is simply a form of works salvation. I would argue that I have FAR more assurance than anyone who is depending on their own perseverance. I am depending on Jesus, not myself.

 

[jonathan.borland]

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.

 

[mandym]

That being said it is nonsense to say that the words "you are wrong" are polarizing.

One can disagree without those particular words which are, beyond doubt, polarizing words. If you cannot then you need to expand your vocabulary.

 

[Winman]

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.

Well, I am not an expert on Arminius or Arminianism, but I believe they concluded that they were not positively certain of whether a believer can fall away in apostasy or not. They left this unanswered.

 

[OldRegular]

One can disagree without those particular words which are, beyond doubt, polarizing words. If you cannot then you need to expand your vocabulary.

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!

 

[preachinjesus]

There are more theological options than Calvinist or Arminian.

 

[SolaSaint]

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/twoviews.html

 

[mandym]

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!

When your vocabulary is small then I suppose this is all you have to resort to.

 

[preachinjesus]

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/twoviews.html

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.

 

[OldRegular]

When your vocabulary is small then I suppose this is all you have to resort to.

 

[mandym]

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!

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

 

[HeirofSalvation]

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/twoviews.html

This article is absolutely laughable: as most of Hendrix's articles are IMO. It is so clearly propogandistic and NOT educational at all. Below is only one example of a downright lie. Hendrix is notorious for this.

"Restoration of spiritual faculties comes after the man without the Spirit exercizes faith with his natural (innate) capacities. Has the ability to see spiritual truth even before healed. (see 1 Cor 2:14). Has spiritual capacity/desire to receive the truth, prior God's granting any spiritual ability."

The bolded portion is literally the precise opposite, the absolute contradiction to what Classical Arms believe. Charmingly, he includes a fragment here as well :laugh: