• 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!

The SBC and Calvinism

Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
Earth said:
Calvinists in SBC .....Oh My, what a big supprise. Thought we eradicated them al l in '79..... peskey devils aren't they. :laugh:
Click to expand...

1879? :laugh::laugh:

The only time when "they" or the other side for that matter is "pesky" is when one is "disingenuous" about who or what you are.
 
E

Ed B

Member
Michael Wrenn said:
That is one of the worst untruths that I have ever read on this forum. You have not one shred of evidence for that; indeed, all the writings from the early church and later are absolute proof of the opposite: that the so-called and misnamed "Doctrines of Grace" were not taught then and were almost unknown until Calvin.
Click to expand...


Edit: I see that Augustine of Hippo was already mentioned
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

DaChaser1

New Member
glfredrick said:
Indeed... What is currently called "Calvinism" as a derogatory term has been the mainstream of orthodox Christianity for most of the church age. It was breached by Pelagius who attempted to found a different track based on human effort and libertarian free will. Pelagius' attempts were revivied by others, both in and out of the Roman Catholic tradition, culminating in Trent, which was in turn picked up (along with Pelagius) by Arminius and pressed back into the world of the church. Later, Wesley drew on Arminius and modified his stance to what is close to a semi-Pelagian view, i.e., there is a distinct syncretistic endeavor in the salvific process.

Certainly, if there is an "infiltration" it is not the Doctrines of Grace (called "Calvinism"), but the man-centered doctrines that pollute and pervert the view of God's sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Think the "calinism" that is creeping into the baptist branches would be mainly DoG as reagrds to sotierology, NOT full blown of the reformed, as most baptists I know still dispy/pre mil in their view points!
 
J

jonathan.borland

Active Member
I still think a 3-point Calvinist is quite a contradiction.

VI. The Freeness of Salvation

The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Saviour, and Lord.

If all Calvinists affirm this then they could have fooled me. How about the only thing that prevents a sinner from accepting Jesus is the fact that he was never chosen before he even had a voluntary chance to receive him in the first place. Not a little duplicitous. God elects us who believe based on perfect foreknowledge of the free will response of his creatures to his suasory working of grace in their lives.
 
D

DaChaser1

New Member
jonathan.borland said:
I still think a 3-point Calvinist is quite a contradiction.

VI. The Freeness of Salvation

The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Saviour, and Lord.

If all Calvinists affirm this then they could have fooled me. How about the only thing that prevents a sinner from accepting Jesus is the fact that he was never chosen before he even had a voluntary chance to receive him in the first place. Not a little duplicitous. God elects us who believe based on perfect foreknowledge of the free will response of his creatures to his suasory working of grace in their lives.
Click to expand...

i was thinking more 4 to 5 pointer, as we both affirm same things, its just I would see Jesus death provoding for salvation of all, bUT only tjose elected by god could actually receive him to get saved!
 
M

Michael Wrenn

New Member
I apologize for suddenly leaving the discussion; I had an emergency to attend to.

I ask for prayers for my 90-year-old mom tomorrow as she gets tested for two lumps her doctor found in her breast. She's had a rough year, as about this time last year she fell and broke two pelvic bones.

Now about Calvinism: For those who believe this, I really don't care if you do. Carry on, and I wish you peace.
 
M

Michael Wrenn

New Member
jonathan.borland said:
I appreciate the 1925 BF&M:

VI. The Freeness of Salvation

The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Saviour, and Lord.
Click to expand...

I wanted to respond further to this.

I had not read the 1925 BF&M in quite some time. I went back and read it tonight, and I can say this is a confession that I could affirm -- not every word, but almost all of it.

The chairman of the committee was E.Y. Mullins, a great champion of soul liberty. If he were alive today, though, he would likely have been a victim of the so-called conservative resurgence. Dr. Herschel Hobbs would have been, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

Luke2427

Active Member
Michael Wrenn said:
I wanted to respond further to this.

I had not read the 1925 BF&M in quite some time. I went back and read it tonight, and I can say this is a confession that I could affirm -- not every word, but almost all of it.

The chairman of the committee was E.Y. Mullins, a great champion of soul liberty. If he were alive today, though, he would likely have been a victim of the so-called conservative resurgence. Dr. Herschel Hobbs would have been, too.
Click to expand...

Brother Michael, would you be terribly upset if the DoG took back over the SBC and the SBC returned to its largely reformed roots?

And why or why not?
 
M

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Luke2427 said:
Brother Michael, would you be terribly upset if the DoG took back over the SBC and the SBC returned to its largely reformed roots?

And why or why not?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would be terribly upset.

I don't want to offend you, and I have addressed the issue in many places here, so let me just say that I am passionately anti-Calvinist.

However, one of the two people in my life who mean the most to me believes in OSAS -- and just as strongly and passionately as I disbelieve it. This has made for some good and heated discussions. :)
 
L

Luke2427

Active Member
Michael Wrenn said:
Yes, I would be terribly upset.

I don't want to offend you, and I have addressed the issue in many places here, so let me just say that I am passionately anti-Calvinist.

However, one of the two people in my life who mean the most to me believes in OSAS -- and just as strongly and passionately as I disbelieve it. This has made for some good and heated discussions. :)
Click to expand...

I appreciate your honesty.

What would upset you about that taking place?

And what denomination are you affiliated with right now? I ask this because, if I understood you correctly, you do not believe in eternal security and the vast majority of Southern Baptists do.

God bless!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top