The five points of Calvinism and Eternal Security.

[Reformed]

I have by far the most problems with "traditionalism" aka the mutt theory held by most Southern Baptists.

The only Southern Baptists I know are in Founders Movement churches, so they probably do not fit your view of "traditionalism". When I was searching for a church after moving to Central Florida, I did a lot of online research (reading doctrinal statements, vision statements, and listening to online sermons) and also visited quite a few churches. You find out a lot of good information by observing and asking questions.

Although my father's ancestry traces its bloodline back to the Scottish Reformer John Knox, I was raised by my mother's side of the family which was Italian Roman Catholic. I never entered a Baptist church until I was 23. That church was affiliated with the C.B.A. I moved to Maryland after getting married and was a member of an A.B.A. church for 10 years before becoming part of a church plant. That church plant eventually became a Reformed Baptist Church. Nowhere along the line did an S.B.C. church come into the picture. I had this caricature in my mind of an S.B.C. church in which they identified as a Southern Baptist first and a Baptist second. I have had Southern Baptists tell me that caricature was spot on. I can only take their word for it because I have never found out for myself.

I like to deconstruct things down to the lowest common denominator. So, when discussing the different views of predestination/election and the will of man, I conclude that there really are two governing theological models, and all views fall into one or the other (but not both). The first model is Monergism and the second view is Synergism. Some posters on this board reject both models because they view them as pejoratives; an attempt by the one using them to criticize the view they disagree with. There may be some truth to that on an individual basis but that does not negate the truth of the theological models. So, if someone rejects the Calvinist label but believes in Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited (Definite) Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints then they hold to the Monergistic model. Conversely, if someone refuses to be labeled an Arminian but holds to Conditional Election, Resistible Grace, General Atonement, and the ability to lose one's salvation they are a Synergist. Those terms are not pejoratives unless that spin is placed on them.

 

[Reynolds]

The only Southern Baptists I know are in Founders Movement churches, so they probably do not fit your view of "traditionalism". When I was searching for a church after moving to Central Florida, I did a lot of online research (reading doctrinal statements, vision statements, and listening to online sermons) and also visited quite a few churches. You find out a lot of good information by observing and asking questions.

Although my father's ancestry traces its bloodline back to the Scottish Reformer John Knox, I was raised by my mother's side of the family which was Italian Roman Catholic. I never entered a Baptist church until I was 23. That church was affiliated with the C.B.A. I moved to Maryland after getting married and was a member of an A.B.A. church for 10 years before becoming part of a church plant. That church plant eventually became a Reformed Baptist Church. Nowhere along the line did an S.B.C. church come into the picture. I had this caricature in my mind of an S.B.C. church in which they identified as a Southern Baptist first and a Baptist second. I have had Southern Baptists tell me that caricature was spot on. I can only take their word for it because I have never found out for myself.

I like to deconstruct things down to the lowest common denominator. So, when discussing the different views of predestination/election and the will of man, I conclude that there really are two governing theological models, and all views fall into one or the other (but not both). The first model is Monergism and the second view is Synergism. Some posters on this board reject both models because they view them as pejoratives; an attempt by the one using them to criticize the view they disagree with. There may be some truth to that on an individual basis but that does not negate the truth of the theological models. So, if someone rejects the Calvinist label but believes in Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited (Definite) Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints then they hold to the Monergistic model. Conversely, if someone refuses to be labeled an Arminian but holds to Conditional Election, Resistible Grace, General Atonement, and the ability to lose one's salvation they are a Synergist. Those terms are not pejoratives unless that spin is placed on them.

This is where I first heard the majority SBC view called "traditionalism."

 

[Reynolds]

Most SBC churches fall outside both Calvinism and Arminianism. This does not mean they hold a blend of the two soteriligical positions but that the laity often dismisses both "camps" as philosophical rubbish. There is still a "healthy" distrust for seminaries and formal theologies within many SBC churches (especially older ones who became leery during the liberal movement through the denomination).

The assumption that people are Calvinists, Arminian, or an amalgamation of the two is an error I have seen more with Calvinists than among Classical Arminianism, but it may be that it is a numbers issue.

In my experience most of the SBC churches have at least a laity that affirms corporate election. While I believe this implies individual election, my view is not a majority view in my experience and the doctrine of eternal assurance becomes based on re-creation (or the experience of being "born again"). Once something has been evidenced as true, that belief cannot be undone.

That is why I say Calvinism/ Arminianism is "milk" (perhaps with a bit of spoilage). People can get accustomed to it so they never move onto to maturity (unfortunately the explanation becomes, for some, the gospel itself).

I have seen four types of Baptists.
1. Classical Arminiam (tiny minority)
2. Calvinists (minority but fast growing)
3. Blended, AKA non-cals
4. Don't study the word enough to have a clue what they are. (Vast majority)

 

[JonC]

I have seen four types of Baptists.
1. Classical Arminiam (tiny minority)
2. Calvinists (minority but fast growing)
3. Blended, AKA non-cals
4. Don't study the word enough to have a clue what they are. (Vast majority)

The problem is the assumption non-Calvinists/ non-Arminians are somehow a blend of the two positions.

One example is those who reject individual election. They fall into neither camp yet are not a blend of the two (and are a large group within the SBC).

Scripture tells us what God did in redemption - not the "how" upon which some choose to hang their hats. The issue is often not a lack of study but what is studied. Those who define their faith along soteriological views have simply never moved on to the meat of Scripture. I think perhaps the "how" demands nothing of man while the "what" demands everything.

 

[1689Dave]

Here's how it works. Jesus paid for all of my sins, past, present, and future. And just as in America you cannot be punished twice for the same crime, as a Christian, I cannot be punished for any sin no matter how serious. But, in view of that, God gave me a brand new nature that loves him and hates sin. So even if free to sin, It repulses me and I love the fullness of the Spirit that comes from holiness more than anything else.

 

[Reynolds]

The problem is the assumption non-Calvinists/ non-Arminians are somehow a blend of the two positions.

One example is those who reject individual election. They fall into neither camp yet are not a blend of the two (and are a large group within the SBC).

Scripture tells us what God did in redemption - not the "how" upon which some choose to hang their hats. The issue is often not a lack of study but what is studied. Those who define their faith along soteriological views have simply never moved on to the meat of Scripture. I think perhaps the "how" demands nothing of man while the "what" demands everything.

Please explain to me what these people believe. Please elaborate on how scripturally one could reject at least some form of individual election.

 

[Iconoclast]

In my openning op post#1 I reject unconditional election, limited aronement and irresisable grace. A two point Calvinist?

Everyone holds to parts of the 5 pts of necessity.
As they grow to maturity they hold all 5 points.
Some never get there, but they serve God with whatever understanding they hold.
God judges what they did with what they had.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is where I first heard the majority SBC view called "traditionalism."

You can see how this watered down compromise document is held on to ,in the name of "unity".
Hankins holds on to his vague double speak, Dr Mohler while trying to take the high road trusting God will over rule the weak doctrinal stance as truth is preached and taught.

 

[37818]

Can you reword that with more complete thoughts. I do not understand

In order for one to believe anything in one's heart which one has not believed, one has to change one's mind. Those who resist the sanctifing work of the Holy Spirit are not going to change their mind.

 

[37818]

Everyone holds to parts of the 5 pts of necessity.
As they grow to maturity they hold all 5 points.
Some never get there, but they serve God with whatever understanding they hold.
God judges what they did with what they had.

Ok. We do not agree. The word of God does not teach 3 of the five points, as I noted in my post #1.

 

[Revmitchell]

A changed mind in order to have a changed heart. Those who resist God's Spirit, it is not going to happen.

Sure it is

 

[1689Dave]

In order for one to believe anything in one's heart which one has not believed, one has to change one's mind. Those who resist the sanctifing work of the Holy Spirit are not going to change their mind.

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19–21)

Who can change this?

 

[Reynolds]

You can see how this watered down compromise document is held on to ,in the name of "unity".
Hankins holds on to his vague double speak, Dr Mohler while trying to take the high road trusting God will over rule the weak doctrinal stance as truth is preached and taught.

If I were a "non-cal" I would be embarrassed by Hankins. In All honesty, what can he say? The only two positions you can logically defend are Calvinism and Classical Arminianism. If youyou move any degree toward the middle, your doctrine crumbles.

 

[Revmitchell]

If I were a "non-cal" I would be embarrassed by Hankins. In All honesty, what can he say? The only two positions you can logically defend are Calvinism and Classical Arminianism. If youyou move any degree toward the middle, your doctrine crumbles.

Break it down for us in detail. How is this so?

 

[Reformed1689]

Calvinism (and Arminianism) has always belonged to the "milk" of the Word and never the "meat". There are much more important things to consider - things that come with maturity.

I would disagree on the milk vs meat. What you believe about God, Grace, and Salvation, determines what you believe on just about everything else. It is the core.

 

[Reynolds]

Break it down for us in detail. How is this so?

I think your responses in the past Calvinism threads have sufficiently demonstrated my point.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think your responses in the past Calvinism threads have sufficiently demonstrated my point.

I get it you can't. Big talk for someone who doesn't really know doctrine.

 

[Reformed1689]

I get it you can't. Big talk for someone who doesn't really know doctrine.

 

[Reynolds]

I get it you can't. Big talk for someone who doesn't really know doctrine.

I know doctrine. I simply refuse to get into a braying match with you. You have no desire to engage in meaningful dialogue. You simply want to spew meaningless one liners.

 

[Reformed1689]

I know doctrine. I simply refuse to get into a braying match with you. You have no desire to engage in meaningful dialogue. You simply want to spew meaningless one liners.

Constantly