true or false: god CANNOT save Anyone Unless You Permit Him Too!

[glfredrick]

Both sides believe God causes the desire to come to him. Both sides believe that God enables man to believe, although we might differ as to how this is done, but you cannot say man must "respond" to God to be saved and then say man does not cooperate with God in salvation, that is a contradiction.

Do you believe man MUST respond to God to be saved? When Jesus said, "Come unto me" is it necessary that we come?

Note the order of the call... JESUS said, "Come unto me..." What you and a lot of others are saying is that MAN says, "Jesus, come unto me..." BIG difference.

 

[glfredrick]

I don't know why so many Calvinists are blind to this plain truth taught in the Word of God. This willingness to follow a system over the teachings of Scripture is one very alarming thing about Calvinism that is troubling.

We are not "blind" to the statement. We are, in fact, not "blind" at all. What we are is biblically informed. GOD is the imitator of salvation, not man. In your stated system, MAN decides, then God rearranges history (before history happens, in fact) based on what MAN does. That places ALL the actual power for salvation in the hands of a MAN and that concept is alien to the Scriptures no matter how you "proof text" the concept by grabbing this or that verse out of context.

Are you familiar with the First Commandment? Perhaps you can post it just so that the rest of us know that you know what it says. I can't count on you reading it just because someone else posts it. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

First of all, if you guys are going to chide me for being rude don't be hypocrites- when you sigh at me or throw up laughy faces you are fair game when I unload on you. You want to be treated with respect by me- speak to me respectfully.

Secondly, you still don't get what we are trying to point out to you.

THEY WERE NOT SEEKING GOD.

They were seeking some idol of some false religion- in their case it was the false god of misinterpreted Judaism.

Paul said EXTRAORDINARILY clearly that he had to forsake that seeking if he wanted to do what? WIN CHRIST.

Who is Christ?? GOD.

So OBVIOUSLY Paul was not seeking GOD if he had to count his previous pursuit as DUNG.

The Bible could not be clearer- No one seeketh after God (Romans 3)



What?

All of this is true- but what are you trying to say?? What are addressing?




Sure it does. Few things are any clearer in Scripture than this.



So then you think you more closely align with the general baptists in the 17th century than with the particular baptists?



You said the baptist predated the Reformation, did you not?

The only ones that did were the anabaptists to my knowledge.

Real baptists began with John Smyth and his general baptists and then more sound baptists came along a couple decades later with the particular baptists.





Then you feel you more closely align to the general baptists of the 17th century, right?




At least you recognize this much.

A good read for you to show you how VAST the majority of reformed baptist were in the origins of the SBC is "By His Grace and For His Glory" by Dr. Tom Nettles.



Her flagship seminary was THOROUGHLY Calvinist.
Most of her associations ascribed to thoroughly Calvinistic statements of faith- (yes, including the Sandy Creek).

So how did it turn into the .....nevermind, Heaven forbid I get another demerit for saying what we are all thinking.

 

[preacher4truth]

We are not "blind" to the statement. We are, in fact, not "blind" at all. What we are is biblically informed. GOD is the imitator of salvation, not man. In your stated system, MAN decides, then God rearranges history (before history happens, in fact) based on what MAN does. That places ALL the actual power for salvation in the hands of a MAN and that concept is alien to the Scriptures no matter how you "proof text" the concept by grabbing this or that verse out of context.

Are you familiar with the First Commandment? Perhaps you can post it just so that the rest of us know that you know what it says. I can't count on you reading it just because someone else posts it. I believe it is pertinent to this discussion.

I think you meant "initiator" of salvation.

And correct, we are not blind at all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Note the order of the call... JESUS said, "Come unto me..." What you and a lot of others are saying is that MAN says, "Jesus, come unto me..." BIG difference.

Excellent :thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

Please show where I stated Paul was ALREADY SAVED. Are you even reading what I am writing?

I merely drew an implication from what you wrote. You did not explicitly say that Paul was "already saved." What you DID say was that Paul was already serving God, so the Damascus Road incident was not God coming to Paul out of the blue, and against Paul's will. It ends up being the same difference... Either Paul was ALREADY part of God's salvific plan or he was a lost sinner to whom God broke in, saved, and elected to the work of an apostle. Paul indicated the latter. So, are you right or is Paul right?

I said he was serving God according to what he understood in the Jewish view (the law) without yet understanding who Jesus was BUT still seeking to serve and follow the God of his fathers. Much like in Acts 2 which speaks of those who were devout (to God) 'according to the law' but not yet saved in the sense of Christ Jesus being revealed.. and we find that 3k get saved. Acts 10 speaks of Cornelius being a devout a man of God, again according to the law.. but not yet saved in the sense of knowing Christ... and he to became saved. However just because they are devout does not necessitate they 'will' become believers and be saved. Or one like Lydia who worshiped God but was not saved either. All of the above 'served' God but were not saved through Christ yet.. God had to reveal Christ and who is He is to them, who served him apart from this knowledge.

See above...

Again, RE-READ what I wrote. I never made the declaration man must come to God FIRST.. in fact I stated the very opposite.. as does most EVERYONE who is not Reformed.

I KNOW that you are not making the declaration that God comes to man first, yet that is exactly what the Scriptures say over and over again. So, which is it? Does God come first or does man. Your entire Christian theology hangs on the answer, for the continuum of belief from nyper-Calvinism through classical Arminianism says that GOD comes first. Any position other than that enters the realm of Pelagianism.

(I've snipped part of the conversation because it is just re-hashing what is covered above.)

So it is your contention then that we are saved prior to believing?
I find scripture at odds with your statement in that it states - Believe and be saved, not - be saved and believe.

I agree with you, with one caveat. GOD gives us the ability TO believe, and that while WE are not able.

Second to that is an issue of timing. While there is a LOGICAL ORDER (ordo salutis) to salvation, the actual events in the salvific encounter may all roll into one, virtually instantaneous, event in human reckoning (or not, as we may perceive that the actual process took "time" when in fact, it may not have from God's perspective).

However, let us remember that Baptists were not reformed at their inception, that came later.

And, what exactly happened to that very small band of first Baptists? Did they ACTUALLY found the Baptist group that went on to become one of the dominant forces in the world's religions?

We can argue the history of the Baptists until we are blue in the face, but the plain fact is, historically speaking, ANY sect or group who pushed forward a man-first theology or doctrine were declared heretical and dismissed by the orthodox mainstream Church -- in EVERY era except our own, where human rebellion runs amiss, both in and out of God's church -- just as the Scriptures promised it would.

 

[Jerome]

how VAST the majority of reformed baptist were in the origins of the SBC

The founders of the SBC would have been appalled at being called Reformed Baptist.

 

[Allan]

I merely drew an implication from what you wrote.[/qutoe]
Then you did so incorrectly.

You did not explicitly say that Paul was "already saved." What you DID say was that Paul was already serving God, so the Damascus Road incident was not God coming to Paul out of the blue, and against Paul's will. It ends up being the same difference...

Then again, you have a wrong understanding if that is how you think.
God did come to Paul out of the blue on the Damascus Road, however that does not necessitate that God was not already dealing him prior to that event. You view is how you 'presume' the event when in fact, it is formed out of the silence of scripture.

Either Paul was ALREADY part of God's salvific plan or he was a lost sinner to whom God broke in, saved, and elected to the work of an apostle. Paul indicated the latter. So, are you right or is Paul right?

Where is the scripture that Paul states God 'broke in' upon him.. can't find it.. help a brother out.

Yet, I'm betting the above is mostly due to your theological construct and thus how you perceive Paul's statements at times.

I KNOW that you are not making the declaration that God comes to man first, yet that is exactly what the Scriptures say over and over again.

You STILL aren't getting it.. I have NEVER stated man comes to God FIRST.. I contend and hold to the fact that God comes to man FIRST... Hope that helps straighten things out.

So, which is it? Does God come first or does man. Your entire Christian theology hangs on the answer, for the continuum of belief from nyper-Calvinism through classical Arminianism says that GOD comes first. Any position other than that enters the realm of Pelagianism.

See above.

I agree with you, with one caveat. GOD gives us the ability TO believe, and that while WE are not able

Yes, I know, and agree that God does enable us, yet He does so to all men. Without God, no man would ever come to know any spiritual truths, much less understand them, nor believe unless God does this and thus enables us to believe.

Second to that is an issue of timing. While there is a LOGICAL ORDER (ordo salutis) to salvation, the actual events in the salvific encounter may all roll into one, virtually instantaneous, event in human reckoning (or not, as we may perceive that the actual process took "time" when in fact, it may not have from God's perspective).

I believe there 'is' an order to salvation and it is set forth in scripture as one studies just what regeneration does ( which most all agree on) but more specifically 'How' it does this.. thus 'when' it does it. I think Deu 30 gives a view of this process quite well.

And, what exactly happened to that very small band of first Baptists? Did they ACTUALLY found the Baptist group that went on to become one of the dominant forces in the world's religions?

Well since most historians agree, what do you think?

We can argue the history of the Baptists until we are blue in the face, but the plain fact is, historically speaking, ANY sect or group who pushed forward a man-first theology or doctrine were declared heretical and dismissed by the orthodox mainstream Church -- in EVERY era except our own, where human rebellion runs amiss, both in and out of God's church -- just as the Scriptures promised it would.

Agreed, we could as I love church history, and the very fact which I bolded, is why the non-Cal view is the predominant orthodox view at this time.. and when it goes to far to one side.. God will bring back the Reformed to help right itself.. and when the Reformed goes to far.. God brings back the Non-Cal (Arminian for you) view to right it again. God is the one who causes His word to grow and is the very reason why Reformed theology can not maintain as the mainstream view but neither will the non-Cal view.

 

[Rippon]

The founders of the SBC would have been appalled at being called Reformed Baptist.

Yeah,they would have been puzzled at that term being applied to them. I think that most of em' would have been content to have been called Calvinists even without the word Baptist attached.

 

[Allan]

Yeah,they would have been puzzled at that term being applied to them. I think that most of em' would have been content to have been called Calvinists even without the word Baptist attached.

On that.. most likely
hehe.. sorry.. I thought it was both true and funny

 

[Luke2427]

The founders of the SBC would have been appalled at being called Reformed Baptist.

Well... with a powerful case like that- who could argue?

Prove it or yours is just another drive-by post.

 

[JesusFan]

I merely drew an implication from what you wrote.[/qutoe]
Then you did so incorrectly.


Then again, you have a wrong understanding if that is how you think.
God did come to Paul out of the blue on the Damascus Road, however that does not necessitate that God was not already dealing him prior to that event. You view is how you 'presume' the event when in fact, it is formed out of the silence of scripture.



Where is the scripture that Paul states God 'broke in' upon him.. can't find it.. help a brother out.

Yet, I'm betting the above is mostly due to your theological construct and thus how you perceive Paul's statements at times.


You STILL aren't getting it.. I have NEVER stated man comes to God FIRST.. I contend and hold to the fact that God comes to man FIRST... Hope that helps straighten things out.


See above.


Yes, I know, and agree that God does enable us, yet He does so to all men. Without God, no man would ever come to know any spiritual truths, much less understand them, nor believe unless God does this and thus enables us to believe.


I believe there 'is' an order to salvation and it is set forth in scripture as one studies just what regeneration does ( which most all agree on) but more specifically 'How' it does this.. thus 'when' it does it. I think Deu 30 gives a view of this process quite well.


Well since most historians agree, what do you think?


Agreed, we could as I love church history, and the very fact which I bolded, is why the non-Cal view is the predominant orthodox view at this time.. and when it goes to far to one side.. God will bring back the Reformed to help right itself.. and when the Reformed goes to far.. God brings back the Non-Cal (Arminian for you) view to right it again. God is the one who causes His word to grow and is the very reason why Reformed theology can not maintain as the mainstream view but neither will the non-Cal view.

Paul is a good example of one that was able to be "religious" person, but that was the very BEST condition/state someone just relying on themselves and natural revelation of God can attain too...

No doubt God was dealing with him in life and death of Stephen, but notice that Paul gave full approval to him being stoned and killed...

Paul was "knocked down" by God in order to have His will and plan for paul to start. and Paul was brought to Christ by divine act of God...

Note that he did not excersise his faith in risen Christ formally, but did "just accept" it when granted the revelation by God about Christ!

pretty much same way all of us who are saved go thru, just his was more "dramatic"...

And what verses support the notion that the Lord enables ALL people same way to become saved? that he does have a "level playing field" and that all are given same means and ways to respond to the message of Gospel of Christ?

 

[Luke2427]

So how did it turn into the .....nevermind, Heaven forbid I get another demerit for saying what we are all thinking.

Liberalism.

It seems that wherever Arminianism goes liberalism is soon to follow or wherever liberalism goes Arminianism is soon to follow.

Many Presbyterians are liberal for example but they are also Arminian.

And where the Anglican are most liberal they are most Arminian.

 

[Rippon]

Well... with a powerful case like that- who could argue?

Prove it or yours is just another drive-by post.

Well,that wouldn't have been appalled,just puzzled. They would certainly have agreed that they were Calvinistic and yet Baptist without seeing any contradiction.

 

[Luke2427]

Well,that wouldn't have been appalled,just puzzled. They would certainly have agreed that they were Calvinistic and yet Baptist without seeing any cotradiction.

Yea, I am holding in my hand "By His Grace and For his Glory" which is a history of Baptist theology by a well respected Church Historian.

I am also holding here a book by Timothy George called "Baptist Confessions, Covenants and Catechisms"

Also here on my desk is a book by William Lumpkin called "Baptist Confessions of Faith"

Another book here that I just got this week and have skimmed is "Don't Call it a Comeback" edited by Kevin DeYoung.

All of these books have at least one common denominator. They establish unequivocally that the SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic in her origins.

 

[Allan]

Yea, I am holding in my hand "By His Grace and For his Glory" which is a history of Baptist theology by a well respected Church Historian.

I am also holding here a book by Timothy George called "Baptist Confessions, Covenants and Catechisms"

Also here on my desk is a book by William Lumpkin called "Baptist Confessions of Faith"

Another book here that I just got this week and have skimmed is "Don't Call it a Comeback" edited by Kevin DeYoung.

All of these books have at least one common denominator. They establish unequivocally that the SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic in her origins.

That is funny.. and I'll give you the same challenge I gave another who tried this last time on the BB, and through helping him understand better SBC history.. He now agrees the SBC never held nor declared, as a convention, to Reformed Theology.

Now to put this to rest quite easily please give me one, JUST ONE statement, document, book, letter, ect.. from the SBC (not revisionists stating an inferred connection it) that state the Abstract Principle of Southern Seminary were considered (at that time and prior to 1925) the SBC's declared Confession, Creed, BF&M.

Name one SBC document, letter, meeting, ANYTHING whereby the SBC (prior to 1925 and the revised NH Confession) stated or implied the Abstract Principles of Southern Seminary were also considered their BF&M. confession, creed, whatever

One thing you seem to miss in your one sided reading (reformed only) is what Ascol and Nettles don't specifically say (though they do speak briefly and allude to it here and there) but they also do not deny either those who were not reformed that were a part of the SBC at its inception. Neither of them deny there were non-Cal baptists in the original formation of the SBC, they just don't talk it much but stay focused on the majority (which I agree was reformed).. in fact it is one of the issues sometimes asked by Calvinistic baptists when looking back at the formation of the SBC. Why didn't they make it for the Reformed baptists only? If the Abstract WAS the considered BF&M then how 1. How where there churches that did not hold agree with it in the convention and 2) why did it leave it's standard of Reformed doctrine so quickly in approx less than 50 years or so, to a Non-Cal view whereby the next Seminary built was NOT Reformed, nor the next build just 10 or so years later - nor the one after that. Are we to deduce the teaching at Southern were that pathetic. Oh no, not even I would make that accusation. Or maybe the preaching of the reformed pastors just not good enough. Again, I would not make such an accusation either. So what happened?

Again, the problem is that history does not agree with your statement. The best arguments given for the SBC being 'thoroughly Calvinistic in it's origins is basically Ascol and Nettles citing that since the majority of the early leadership of the SBC was Reformed, and the Seminary was such as also, that 'must' mean the SBC was reformed in it's theological stance. Again, there is NO historical evidence to make any such assertion or connection. While it might have had leanings toward a reformed view due to a majority being reformed, the SBC neither gave nor declared ANY specific theological stance as a Convention and THAT is your problem! It NEVER declared, nor alleged any specific theological stance, and STILL hasn't to this day.

It is the same for today. Though our Leadership is non-Cal, and the majority of our Seminaries are non-Cal, that does not in itself state the SBC has declared a specific theological stance regarding the Convention. You can't have it one way for the early Convention and say it isn't so now. It never 'was' so and isn't so now.

Another point is that not all the Cals of that time were in fact 5 pointers either, like the Calvinists of present day. Some were even of Amyraldism (4 point Calvinism). And many varied in their ideas of evangelism and mission.. to do it or not!

One thing that will help you understand better why there IS NOT any such declaration of or from the SBC, is when you grasp why the SBC was formed in the first place.

Remember, the SBC was open to all baptists of every flavor, AS LONG AS they held to the essentials of our faith, and reformed doctrine was not that standard.

You, like Ascol and Nettles and others, are confusing the facts. Just because the majority of the Convention holds to a specific theological view (individual churches) does not necessitate nor dictate said view is the declared position and view of the Convention as a whole.

 

[glfredrick]

I think you meant "initiator" of salvation.

And correct, we are not blind at all.

I did... My spell checker substituted and I didn't notice the swap.

 

[glfredrick]

The founders of the SBC would have been appalled at being called Reformed Baptist.

Correct. While they held Reformed doctrine (ever read the First and Second London Confessions?) they were Baptists, not Reformed anything. They had NO NEED to be "reformed." They were right, right from the start.

 

[Luke2427]

That is funny.. and I'll give you the same challenge I gave another who tried this last time on the BB, and through helping him understand better SBC history.. He now agrees the SBC never held nor declared, as a convention, to Reformed Theology.

Who said it was the OFFICIAL position?

I said the vast majority of the SBC was Calvinist.

It was.

Canada is not officially a white nation (they have no official documents stating such a thing)- but the vast majority of it's inhabitant are white.

The SBC might not have OFFICIALLY stated it as a denomination but the VAST majority of SBC people were Calvinists.

All of her first several presidents were Calvinists.

Her flagship seminary was thoroughly Calvinist.

Now, you show me one glaring document that attests to her Arminianism in her first 50 years.

 

[Jerome]

Historically, sects have adopted the name "Reformed Baptist" temporarily, before eventually abandoning the Baptist church/name altogether. In the era of the founding of the SBC, "Reformed Baptist" commonly referred to Campbellite/Restorationist churches that had recently caused much havoc among Baptists.

Encylopedia of Louisville, s. v. Baptists:

appreciation for Restorationism led to a schism. . .the Restorationists retained possession of the church property and records. The 1832 Louisville directory listed the "Old Baptist church" and the "Reformed Baptist Church," the latter the Restorationist congregation

Louisville's Reformed Baptist Church today: First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Do any research on the origins of the Mormonism (same era as the SBC's founding), and you will find the term "Reformed Baptist" used in connection with one of the founders of the LDS church, Sidney Rigdon.