The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum On SBC report on Calvinism

I could be wrong of course, but I don't think the Baptist pastor that I am talking about has that kind of attitude. At least I hope not.

Tom

I'm not sure what kind of "attitude" you might have surmised from what the man I was referring to had stated. But, regardless of attitude, the person you communicated with invariably believed the same thing; everyone else failed to understand the Scriptures correctly on the matter of regeneration and he somehow found the truth, as did anyone who agrees with his view. The onus is ALWAYS upon such individuals who reject the historical, confessional view of the Church to show where the Church went wrong. Martin Luther certainly took the bull (pun intended) by the horns and did just that by opening the Bible and proving his view(s) to be correct.

Yes I would agree with you, but I don't think he intentionally did that. I think all of us have our blind spots.

As for your example of Martin Luther, although I agree with your assessments concerning him taking the bull by the horns, he never the less had some blind spots as well.
For example, his stating that the book of James was a book of straw.

Tom

Well, that isn't exactly true that Luther considered the epistle of James a "book of straw". He made that comment once and then retracted it and never repeated it again during his remaining years. See Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw".

Thanks for that information.
I wish I had known about it before. That information about Luther is being used by theologians of all stripes; even Lutherans.
My point still stands about blind spots though, Luther did have a flawed understanding of the Lord's Supper. Though I can certainly understand where he was coming from, a wooden literal understanding of the text does seem to support his view.

I think there is perhaps an important difference between Luther and this pastor. In the case of Luther, it was a matter of not leaving enough of the RCC heresy of the Eucharist behind. In the case of this pastor, it doesn't appear he has failed to leave behind something that he was taught for decades and which was a confessional doctrine, but rather he has 'discovered' this error on his own or read the writing(s) of some fringe/rogue individual(s). Luther had some but little previous literature to go on vs. this pastor who has the voluminous amount of literature, confessions, catechisms, etc. at his disposal.

Bottom line, I don't think this is a "blind spot" but rather a conscious decision to stand opposed to an official doctrine of the Reformed churches which has been thoroughly defined, developed and defended for centuries.

Pilgrim
I hear you and agree. But here is the rub, from talking to him he appears to have a high view of Scripture. I also know his relatives who attend the Church I go to. They are what I would call an exemplary family. The dad, David is an amazing man who is an elder in the Church. David credits that pastor with leading them through a very trying time in their marriage. I can say without reservation that that family is a biblical model of what I believe God meant for a family.
In talking to David, I found out that his knowledge of History and Reformed doctrine is limited. However, what he lacks in that area, he makes up for it in Scripture knowledge. On almost any subject he is able to go to Scripture passages to show you what it says.
He found out that he was Reformed in his beliefs, through talking with other Reformed believers such as myself.
All this to say that although what you said about this pastor seems true. But given everything I have been able to discern about him; at this point unless I find more information, I think it is a blind spot.
By the way, David and I on occasion meet over coffee from time to time.
I plan on asking him what he believes concerning passages such as John 3:3 and regeneration. I would be surprised if he didn't agree with the Reformed understanding. Especially given the fact that our pastor is very clear that he believes this passage concerns regeneration. He just preached through the book of John and when it came to that particular passage, he was very clear about it. If I remember correctly he even quoted Henriksen's Commentary.
Tom

I know I'm getting senile, but hopefully this is not where I saw it.

I have a problem already with this statement and I hope I am not wrong. The Apostels preached the Gospel in public ("to all sinners"), eg. in

Acts 13.


and Acts 18:


I simply don't understand why so many people believe or have the perception that Calvinists are not really working to obey or to be enthusiastic about the great commission and all others are. Is the Calvinist view on evangelization not exactly as in the above two qoutes from Scripture, ie. the Gospel should be preached to all , which is the outward call, but it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates and with the inward call, calls the elect to faith and repentance.

Reading further here makes me think that the issue is nothing else than Calvinism vs Arminianism. Can one really have both in one denomination and have a confession of faith that includes both? Our fathers at Dordt clearly didn't think so.


Or am I missing the point?

Tom, reading the five points of the Remonstrants will show that it also "sounds very Reformed"

I don't think you missed the point at all, but rather there is a concerted effort to minimize the chasm which exists between the Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The main emphasis is without question, "Why can't we just all get along together?" The article insists that both sides should "work together in evangelism... etc." But my question is, "How is that even possible when the two sides worship a different God, love and believe in a different Jesus, preach and teach two different gospels, etc., etc., etc...?" Those involved in the writing of this document are deliberately ignoring Church history no less than the RCC who is actively trying to accomplish the same goal with non-Catholics.

This quote alone was enough to turn me totally off:

Facebook and other social media is mentioned where some less than friendly remarks are found between the two 'sides'. Yet, from what I have read from quotes sent to me via e-mail because I don't use any of the social media sources, there is a strong disagreement by some who profess to be Calvinists on just this matter of "God loves all men and desires ALL to be saved."

Blurring the line or making it infinitesimally small only serves to destroy the truth of what divides Calvinism from all other religions of the world. Arminianism and the overwhelming majority of non-Calvinists who actually hold to semi-Pelagianism are NOT just another flavor of Christianity. They are damnable heresies which the Church has consistently rejected and condemned throughout history. However, the contemporary "Reformed" church has a penchant for disregarding these great biblical truths and adopting a more "friendly, tolerant and inclusive" theology which is at variance with the Protestant Confessions of the Church.

Spurgeon had it right when he counseled in so many words, You desire unity? Well, the ONLY way to accomplish unity is to preach/teach the TRUTH, and all those who love the truth will come together. I have constantly insisted for over 30+ years, that any attempt to create a "lowest-common-denominator theology" must be resisted and rejected absolutely if the truth is to be preserved.

Yes, I agree with you on that quote!! If we really do it as they say, ie. each one should simply hold to his or her view and celebrate it then one can just as well merge the Protestant churches with the RCC! Ha Ha, the Pope will like that!

Hello All,
It has been awhile since I've been able to visit but there have been times when I have thought about you and prayed that God would uphold this ministry.
This morning I signed on and saw this thread and being a Southern Baptist I have to add my thoughts.After my conversion in 1977 I became a SB and as many others who come to faith in a certain denomination carry on without question.Through personal study,encouragement from my pastor and this site the Lord opened my eyes some few years ago to the truth of the scriptures concerning the doctrines of grace.I was fortunate to have a pastor who is also a Calvinist,which is an uncommon event in the SBC.He has recently resigned due to health concerns which leaves me at a crossroads in my spiritual life.
The "Traditionalists" as they like to be called in the SBC only consider seventy-five years of history in their view of the SBC.They fail to go all the way back to the original founders who were all five point Calvinists.
The drift from Calvinism started between 1900-1920 when EY Mullins was president of Southern Seminary.He introduced the theology of Northern Baptists in his work in the seminary,especially his book on systematic theology.By the 1930's most of older colleges accepted this drift, hence the leaving of the Independent Baptists.Southern Seminary went back to it's roots when Al Mohler became President in 1992.Only Midwestern and Southeastern have followed suite.
I personally cannot accept the findings of the Committee On Calvinism because among other things the statement that says,"God loves all men and desires all to be saved."Futhermore Frank Page's offer to "grant one another liberty" seems to me to be an offer to compromise, to which I have to say," no thanks."
Also, Dr. Eric Hankins who served on the COC was the author of "The Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology."

I'm not sure what happened here but I'll be brief in finishing my thoughts.
Dr.Eric Hankins who authored the statement mentioned above misrepresented Calvinist beliefs and had more than one half-truth in his paper. The statement encouraged all who believed as described therein to endorse said statement,thereby drawing a line in the sand between Traditional SB's and Calvinist's. This was a devisive act if ever I saw one and now to jump onboard with Mr. Hankins a few months later is not something I want to do.
My wife and I will begin our search for a likeminded church this coming Sunday.

Roger,

FYI, on the matter of you being "cut off" or whatever happened on your first post, you have 6 hours open to you to edit, append, etc., any post/reply here. So, you could have simply opened your post and clicked on the "Edit" button and added what you weren't able to originally.

But most importantly, WELCOME BACK, brother. We have often wondered what had become of you and prayed that you were fine in body and spirit and perhaps you would join us once again. Our prayers have obviously been answered.

May the LORD grant you wisdom and much success in locating a new church home. Your experience, unfortunately, is not unusual as many are becoming 'enlightened' and grounded in the faith once delivered unto the saints and must therefore leave their current congregations and search for one which is faithful to the Word of God. Though a remnant is all that consists of the true Church, remember that there are "7000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal", relatively speaking.