Which are you?

[Mikey]

I believe if faith is a condition we must meet before God saves us, the gospel becomes law instead of grace. And salvation is by works instead of grace. But if God saves us through regeneration, we will believe the gospel whenever we hear it and will also seek repentance from sin and live a holy life because of the nature of the new birth. That is to say, we believe because God saved us. He did not save us because we chose to believe.

so not to miss understand your position, it sounds like would you not hold to "Saved by Grace through Faith" ?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinistic Baptists tend to not use any Confessions, nor to adopt full on Covenant theology...

Really, what do they rely on, Doctrines of Grace?

 

[1689Dave]

so not to miss understand your position, it sounds like would you not hold to "Saved by Grace through Faith" ?

What about infants who die? Or those beyond the reach of the gospel? The gospel tells us about our salvation and saves us from Satan's lies. But salvation is in the new birth that we first need before we can understand the true gospel and follow the true Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I believe if faith is a condition we must meet before God saves us, the gospel becomes law instead of grace. And salvation is by works instead of grace. But if God saves us through regeneration, we will believe the gospel whenever we hear it and will also seek repentance from sin and live a holy life because of the nature of the new birth. That is to say, we believe because God saved us. He did not save us because we chose to believe.

I read that Martin Luther believed the same... totally sola grace.

 

[1689Dave]

I read that Martin Luther believed the same... totally sola grace.

Luther's Bondage of the Will is one of the greatest books ever penned. Depending on your version, page 100 says it isn't until we give up on our own will, effort or works, and look beyond ourselves to Christ, that we are in a position where God saves us. Loosely quoted.

 

[Mikey]

What about infants who die? Or those beyond the reach of the gospel? The gospel tells us about our salvation and saves us from Satan's lies. But salvation is in the new birth that we first need before we can understand the true gospel and follow the true Christ.

I believe that you are making a superficial separation between Grace and Faith. One can not have faith without Grace, neither can one be given Grace that does not turn to faith from repentance.

We all can rest easy knowing that the what happens to unborn children is in his loving and just hands, and that no one will end where they do not deserve.

 

[1689Dave]

I believe that you are making a superficial separation between Grace and Faith. One can not have faith without Grace, neither can one be given Grace that does not turn to faith from repentance.

We all can rest easy knowing that the what happens to unborn children is in his loving and just hands, and that no one will end where they do not deserve.

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. So the new birth is in part the means of faith. The gospel directs our faith.

 

[Reynolds]

I won't pretend to speak for Revmitchell, but I think the main point that distinguishes modern Southern Baptist Traditionalism from Classical Arminianism is the approach to the security of the believer. Traditionalism says, "We deny even the possibility of apostasy" while CA questions whether it might be possible if one forsakes Christ and returns to the world, and they think it "must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture" through further study.

On the other hand, Classical Arminianism has a much stronger allegiance to total depravity, which appears to me to be watered down in the Traditional Statement, and doesn't reflect how it was taught to me in "traditional Baptist churches."

vs.

I won't pretend to speak for Revmitchell, but I think the main point that distinguishes modern Southern Baptist Traditionalism from Classical Arminianism is the approach to the security of the believer. Traditionalism says, "We deny even the possibility of apostasy" while CA questions whether it might be possible if one forsakes Christ and returns to the world, and they think it "must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture" through further study.

On the other hand, Classical Arminianism has a much stronger allegiance to total depravity, which appears to me to be watered down in the Traditional Statement, and doesn't reflect how it was taught to me in "traditional Baptist churches."

vs.

From my observation, most "traditionalist" pastors don't seem to know what they believe. There are quite a few pastors around here who rail against Calvinism, yet they preach fire sermons on total depravity and preach them just as a CALVINIST OR Classical Arminian would preach them. All the "traditionalist" pastors around here are pretty much Classical Arminians +OSAS, yet they also rail against the Arminians. I don't get it. As I have always said, I am not Calvinist, but I respect Calvinistic doctrine due to its consistency. The "Traditionalist" position is very inconsistent and to an extent contradictory.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Luther's Bondage of the Will is one of the greatest books ever penned. Depending on your version, page 100 says it isn't until we give up on our own will, effort or works, and look beyond ourselves to Christ, that we are in a position where God saves us. Loosely quoted.

I agree, also Dispensational theology is going by the wayside just like other bad theology from times past, such as Barth's mythology, Rauschenbusch's social gospel, etc. Arriving late in the history of the church, largely pressed forward by one man who thought he figured a lot of stuff out, and promulgated by a set of study notes that some took as "scripture" and tent revivals led by evangelists that did not have the scrutiny of theologians), the theology of dispensationalism is rather a dead issue these days.

For the record, covenantal theology also has its problems. There is no "covenant of works" proclaimed to Adam, nor is there a covenant of grace proclaimed after the fall. These are theological constructs as is dispensationalism (which utterly fails to deal with Israel and the church) that seek to provide some sort of understandable grid work overlaying the Scriptures with which to understand God's salvific actions.

New theologies are now emerging that do a better job of actually detailing what God has revealed in the Scriptures. One is modified covenantal, another is a new theology of election that is perhaps the most sound theology I've seen to date. It at least deals with all of Scripture instead of cherry-picking out this or that part to make a foundational grid.

 

[McCree79]

[QUOTE="Reynolds, post: 2438003, member: All the "traditionalist" pastors around here are pretty much Classical Arminians +OSAS, URL [/QUOTE]

I find the classical, 1610 Arminian rare. Most in my area are of the Wesleyan line. This is probably due to a significant presence of the emmaus community in SBC churches. Most "most traditionalist" in my area are worried about a calvinist take over, yet the Wesleyans are the ones actually taking over. Many claiming to be "traditionalist" dont know what it means (as you suggest) and they bring their own ideas into it. It seems to be in my area, very dispensational and Wesleyan.

I agree with you. Your 1610(classical) position is much more consistent than that of the Wesleyan position.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

I find the classical, 1610 Arminian rare. Most in my area are of the Wesleyan line. This is probably due to a significant presence of the emmaus community in SBC churches. Most "most traditionalist" in my area are worried about a calvinist take over, yet the Wesleyans are the ones actually taking over. Many claiming to be "traditionalist" dont know what it means (as you suggest) and they bring their own ideas into it. It seems to be in my area, very dispensational and Wesleyan.

I agree with you. Your 1610(classical) position is much more consistent than that of the Wesleyan position.



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

They don't call themselves Classical Arminians. They will strongly say they are not. Their beliefs say they are.

 

[McCree79]

They don't call themselves Classical Arminians. They will strongly say they are not. Their beliefs say they are.

Just curious, what area are you in? I dont think I have ever meet more than 5-6 "1610 Arminians" Most in my area would object to article 3 and some to article 1(some have started denying God elects even on foreknowledge). A small number of church members would deny article 5. This is mostly due to Methodist influence from the Owensboro area.

* we also have a small number of "traditionalist" ( in name only) who are heavily influenced by William Lane Craig.

You would be a rare type in Wky and S.IL

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

They don't call themselves Classical Arminians. They will strongly say they are not. Their beliefs say they are.

You may be on to something in the larger scope of SBC pastors

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

Just curious, what area are you in? I dont think I have ever meet more than 5-6 "1610 Arminians" Most in my area would object to article 3 and some to article 1(some have started denying God elects even on foreknowledge). A small number of church members would deny article 5. This is mostly due to Methodist influence from the Owensboro area.

* we also have a small number of "traditionalist" ( in name only) who are heavily influenced by William Lane Craig.

You would be a rare type in Wky and S.IL

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

North Georgia mountains.

 

[Reynolds]

Just curious, what area are you in? I dont think I have ever meet more than 5-6 "1610 Arminians" Most in my area would object to article 3 and some to article 1(some have started denying God elects even on foreknowledge). A small number of church members would deny article 5. This is mostly due to Methodist influence from the Owensboro area.

* we also have a small number of "traditionalist" ( in name only) who are heavily influenced by William Lane Craig.

You would be a rare type in Wky and S.IL

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

No problems with article 3 around here. Depravity is preached like it were coming from the mouth of a high Calvinist.

 

[Yeshua1]

Really, what do they rely on, Doctrines of Grace?

The scriptures....

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The scriptures....

And other groups don't, only your group.....therefore you feel justified in marginalizing others. They don't live up to your standards.