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

[Allan]

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.

To 'that' I agree. However,...

Did you not state:

...They establish unequivocally that the SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic in her origins.

Synonyms for 'thoroughly are - completely, utterly, perfectly

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

This is silly as it displays the fact you didn't read or pay much attention to what I wrote. Please go back and note at the very least what I made bold in that post... and maybe the next paragraph.. and maybe some other places too

 

[Luke2427]

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:



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.

So what?

Does a single word of this post refute the well known fact that the SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic in her origins?

 

[Allan]

So what?

Does a single word of this post refute the well known fact that the SBC was thoroughly Calvinistic in her origins?

No.. but mine does and you already admitted that 'fact'.
If the VAST Majority was Calvinistic (not all were 5 pointers) in it's origins then it was not THOROUGHLY Calvinistic in it's origins.

 

[Luke2427]

Did you not state:

Synonyms for 'thoroughly are - completely, utterly, perfectly

I obviously did not mean without exception. There is no way you could have interpreted it that way in light of the multiple times I said, "the VAST majority of SBC were Calvinistic."

In fact this began with post 140 where I STARTED this conversation saying, "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."

That's clear as crystal. Your semantics are nothing more than a distraction from a CLEAR historical fact which you apparently would like to revise.

 

[Allan]

I obviously did not mean without exception. There is no way you could have interpreted it that way in light of the multiple times I said, "the VAST majority of SBC were Calvinistic."

That's clear as crystal. Your semantics are nothing more than a distraction from a CLEAR historical fact which you apparently would like to revise.

No revision necessary.. I'm setting the record straight from false or misleading information. The word has a meaning and if you know what it is, and it does not conform to what you 'wanted to say', then don't use it. Use a word that conveys what you want to say 'accurately' or at least mostly.

The SBC was largely Calvinistic.. I can agree with.
Or Mostly Calvinistic.. I can agree with... or even
Largely, overall, primarily or even particularly (that one is can have a dual meaning )
Thoroughly Calvinistic.. sorry.. that word does not convey what you wish to state.

 

[Jerome]

From a book by SBC Founder James B. Taylor (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board):

the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature

 

[Allan]

From a book by SBC Founder James B. Taylor (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board):

Yes.. as I said earlier in my post to Luke.. not all Cals were 5 pointers

 

[Luke2427]

No revision necessary.. I'm setting the record straight from false or misleading information. The word has a meaning and if you know what it is, and it does not conform to what you 'wanted to say', then don't use it. Use a word that conveys what you want to say 'accurately' or at least mostly.

The SBC was largely Calvinistic.. I can agree with.
Or Mostly Calvinistic.. I can agree with... or even
Largely, overall, primarily or even particularly (that one is can have a dual meaning )
Thoroughly Calvinistic.. sorry.. that word does not convey what you wish to state.

Here is how the conversation began in post 140- with me saying, "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."

I could not have been clearer.

I then used the word majority on multiple occasions following.

The VAST majority of Southern Baptists were Calvinists in the origin of the movement.

With the influx of liberalism came Arminianism.

With the return to orthodoxy there is a rise in Calvinism today- praise God!

 

[Jerome]

as I said earlier in my post to Luke.. not all Cals were 5 pointers

Parish the thought!

 

[glfredrick]

I merely drew an implication from what you wrote.

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.

You continue to make my case for a "God first" means to salvation. Thanks! :smilewinkgrin:

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

How about this:

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, 13 though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. 17 To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, lobe honor and glory forever and ever.4 Amen.

Or this:

12 “While thus occupied[ persecuting Christians], as I journeyed to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13 at midday, O king, along the road I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 So I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you. 17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now[a] send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’

19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance. 21 For these reasons the Jews seized me in the temple and tried to kill me . 22 Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come— 23 that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

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

Might I humbly suggest (in keeping with the scriptural answer I offered for your mistaken ideas about Paul) that you would be better off betting that Obama is the best president ever?

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.

It does, but what do YOU mean by God comes first? Do you take the traditional Arminian stance, where God comes first to men whom He foreknew would choose Him, or do you take the traditional Calvinistic stance, where God chooses the elect before the foundations of the earth? Seeing as how you have argued against the Calvinistic position in almost every post, I have a difficult time reconciling your statement that God comes first with your other tenets. I'm sure that the difficulty is mine, but nevertheless, if you could help me (and others reading these posts) to understand the mechanism you follow in this instance, it would be very helpful.

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 know that this is the default position of those who see God's election as a corporate issue, but what stops this from being pure universalism? God makes it clear in Scripture that He elects persons as well as groups, and that we are "personally" entered into the Lamb's Book of Life, that God knows "every hair on our heads," etc., all of which point to a very personal salvation event.

I also know that Romans 1 stipulates that "all men" are without excuse, but we know that "all men" are not saved -- at least I believe that you are not, in fact, a universalist, so at what point do you reconcile God coming FIRST and at the same time all men not being saved, though (in your system) God has made provision for all men?

Is Christ not "potent" to do what He set out to do, i.e., accomplish salvation for the elect? Is man's will more powerful than God? I won't chide you, but I expect that you already know the answer to those questions.

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.

I do not wish to be quick to dismiss the OT, but how is a passage dealing with following God's Law helpful in discussing a New Covenant salvation? That may be your error -- failure to recognize that Christ obeyed and completed the Law of God, both passively and actively (He did not sin, and kept all of the Law, and also He was the once and for all time propitiation and atoning sacrifice) so that He could in turn "impute" to us His righteousness while taking upon Himself our complete sin. Christ fulfilled Deut 30, we cannot and likely will not, hence our great joy in His mercy (He did not give us what we deserve!) and His grace (He gives us what we can never earn!).

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.

I note the words, "at this time..." Well said! I find in a review of church history that EVERY time some new theology comes about that heads in the man-centered direction that current theology is heading, that both the church and ultimately God rise up and slap down that doctrine.

I readily agree that it IS possible to carry the doctrines derived from Scripture study TOO FAR. That is what happens when we begin elevating human reason above revelation and carry biblical doctrines to a point beyond where God takes us by direct revelation or implications based on direct revelation. Both hyper-Calvinism and the Pelagian (semi- and full) camp fall into this realm and both have also been declared heretical positions down through the history of the church. More so, the groups who have held these positions usually end up as a footnote to the overall history of the church! That they keep popping back up is (in my mind, at least) one of the primary evidences that the enemy is at work amongst God's church, for his best tool is his first tool -- asking, "Did God really say?" then offering a counterfeit that sounds good, logical, reasonable, and do-able, to mortals who, in their sin, seem always at the ready to step in and assume God's sovereignty for themselves at any given moment.

 

[glfredrick]

This is silly as it displays the fact you didn't read or pay much attention to what I wrote.

Allan, I'm going to pick on you just a bit here... It seems a very common theme that you respond often in your posts with a phrase like that above. That you have to use it as often as you do indicates a couple of possibilities:

1) That what you wrote is not easily deciphered and people are making mistakes because of your style, grammar, etc. (I have not found that to be the case, however).

2) That you may have "thought" something other than what you actually wrote. (We all do that on occasion, but we can only respond to the words that you key into a thread, not what you are thinking.)

3) That we actually DO understand just what you wrote, but merely disagree with your position. (I have found this to be the case most often.)

I expect that you believe that the power of your words and logic are such that once you write them, you believe that you have made THE definitive answer to the question at hand. As another forceful writer with some mastery of theology, languages, history, etc., I find myself in the same dilemma at times -- what I write is either ignored, taken out of context, or set aside for another position. Such is the Interweb... I recommend either writing more clearly, offering options, or even simply realizing that not everyone sees things as you do. :1_grouphug:

 

[glfredrick]

Parish the thought!

That is because, in large part, the entire concept of there being "only" or "exclusively" 5 points is rather alien to the entire world of orthodox Christianity. The 5 points are well overblown in both importance and in the big picture, they being mostly (initially) a response to the 5 points of the Arminian Remonstrance. They were not then, nor should be ever, the sum total of what makes up a Reformed view of soteriology or of biblical theology in total.

 

[Luke2427]

Allan, I'm going to pick on you just a bit here... It seems a very common theme that you respond often in your posts with a phrase like that above. That you have to use it as often as you do indicates a couple of possibilities:

1) That what you wrote is not easily deciphered and people are making mistakes because of your style, grammar, etc. (I have not found that to be the case, however).

2) That you may have "thought" something other than what you actually wrote. (We all do that on occasion, but we can only respond to the words that you key into a thread, not what you are thinking.)

3) That we actually DO understand just what you wrote, but merely disagree with your position. (I have found this to be the case most often.)

I expect that you believe that the power of your words and logic are such that once you write them, you believe that you have made THE definitive answer to the question at hand. As another forceful writer with some mastery of theology, languages, history, etc., I find myself in the same dilemma at times -- what I write is either ignored, taken out of context, or set aside for another position. Such is the Interweb... I recommend either writing more clearly, offering options, or even simply realizing that not everyone sees things as you do. :1_grouphug:

In the spirit of QF:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

That is because, in large part, the entire concept of there being "only" or "exclusively" 5 points is rather alien to the entire world of orthodox Christianity. The 5 points are well overblown in both importance and in the big picture, they being mostly (initially) a response to the 5 points of the Arminian Remonstrance. They were not then, nor should be ever, the sum total of what makes up a Reformed view of soteriology or of biblical theology in total.

is that why there are at least 2 distinctive "camps" within calvanism in baptist circles...
There are reformed baptists who would hold to strict reformed theology regarding soteriology, "5 pointers"

many Baptists like myself def NOT Arminian, nor strictly "reformed" in sense strict 5 pointers, but 4 pointers?

perhaps baptists on a while hybrids of Calvinism and Amyraldism then?

With a smaller number of "classical" Arminianists?

 

[glfredrick]

is that why there are at least 2 distinctive "camps" within calvanism in baptist circles...
There are reformed baptists who would hold to strict reformed theology regarding soteriology, "5 pointers"

many Baptists like myself def NOT Arminian, nor strictly "reformed" in sense strict 5 pointers, but 4 pointers?

perhaps baptists on a while hybrids of Calvinism and Amyraldism then?

With a smaller number of "classical" Arminianists?

While my comment above dealt with the issue of 5 points, I didn't get into motives, nor shall I. Them are (generally) fightin' words around here and I'm not up for one more knock down drag out. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[gloopey1]

is that why there are at least 2 distinctive "camps" within calvanism in baptist circles...
There are reformed baptists who would hold to strict reformed theology regarding soteriology, "5 pointers"

many Baptists like myself def NOT Arminian, nor strictly "reformed" in sense strict 5 pointers, but 4 pointers?

perhaps baptists on a while hybrids of Calvinism and Amyraldism then?

With a smaller number of "classical" Arminianists?

Which four points of Calvinism do you agree with?

 

[Iconoclast]

is that why there are at least 2 distinctive "camps" within calvanism in baptist circles...
There are reformed baptists who would hold to strict reformed theology regarding soteriology, "5 pointers"

many Baptists like myself def NOT Arminian, nor strictly "reformed" in sense strict 5 pointers, but 4 pointers?

perhaps baptists on a while hybrids of Calvinism and Amyraldism then?

With a smaller number of "classical" Arminianists?

A four pointer is someone who is usually lacking some understanding of the L.

Studying the work of our Great High Priest usually cures it.

 

[Rippon]

Parish the thought!

The correct word is perish.

 

[gloopey1]

A four pointer is someone who is usually lacking some understanding of the L.

Studying the work of our Great High Priest usually cures it.

Just out of curiosity, I have a question; do you believe that it is possible for you to wake up one day and discover that your own conversion was merely an illusion?

 

[gloopey1]

The correct word is perish.

Unless this was a play on words.