I woke up and found myself about 150 posts behind...so I hope you will forgive a group answer. These are all related, I think.
Cronos: “The Baptism not being a sacrament to the Baptists is a bit strange to me as I had thought that the “timing” of the Baptism is one of the critical differentiators of the Baptist community.”
If I understand it right, a sacrament imparts grace apart from the faith of the person receiving it. If so, no Baptist I’ve met or read believes that. However, we do believe timing is important. All the examples in scripture are of believers being baptized, and multiple passages only make sense if the person is a convert. Baptizing infants...well, I suppose someone can, but why?
We are born with hearts of stone. We need to encounter God and believe to be born again, with a new heart of flesh, per Ezekial’s illustration. Why would I baptize a heart of stone?
Dr. E: “I take as my Baptist authorities Spurgeon, John Piper and blue-duncan.”
I thought I noted that the SBC comes from a reformed history. There are Baptists who do preach about TULIP - I just have never met one anywhere during my 30+ years listening to Baptist preachers.
And since I have never heard a sermon by a Baptist preacher about TULIP, and since most baptists I’ve met think TULIP is a flower, I conclude that very few baptists are, in fact, calvinists. Yesterday was the first time in my life that I heard someone in a Baptist church mention TULIP, apart from flowers!
boatbums: “I once thought I could never know, but only hope I would be in heaven one day. Because of God’s word, I can say I know I have eternal life and that I will NEVER perish, will never be cast out and will never be lost again.”
So very true, and so very sad that anyone would think ‘Good News” meant, work hard and see if God approves of you at the end! The Jews of the time would have called that “Bad News”, not Good!
Forest Keeper: “The SBC is not “Reformed Baptist” in that it does not teach Reformed theology at its core, as you went on to indicate. Rather, it seems to purposely and ambiguously teach a mixture of Arminianism and Calvinism. IOW, the SBC doesn’t take a stand, but it DOES tolerate Reformers in their churches even though the majority is Arminian.”
Agreed. A weakness of the SBC is its lack of interest in doctrine. However, it is also a strength. The SBC exists largely to support missionaries. It once broke with Northern Baptists over the issue of missionaries owning slaves...I don’t think they want a repeat.
I believe most Calvinists grant that us free will types can still be Christians, and I grant that someone can be a Calvinist - Calvin remains one of my favorite commentators - and Christian. So lets support missionaries and save the disputes for elsewhere.
At least, I THINK that is why the SBC waffles the way it does. But in terms of what folks in the pews believe, I’d guess it is strongly free-will, regardless of its heritage.
Dr E: “You said you haven’t had much contact with TULIP.”
Not in church, from preaching or teaching. I have read quite a bit on my own. One of my favorite websites is here:
http://64.13.227.128/directory/
A web site called “Monergism” isn’t going to have much free will stuff on it! And John Piper has hundred of sermons linked there, I’d guess.
I was sliding toward the dark side & calvinism when I read more on that site...and decided I couldn’t reconcile the L & I in TULIP with scripture.
Cronos: “For example, I’m right now travelling through India and I’ve met a large number of very devout Baptists in the N-E of India (incidently, did you know that 3 of the 28 Indian states are 100% or nearly 100% Baptist?) and their theology is purely Arminian.”
Good to hear, although I’m not Arminian. I don’t think I am, at least. I think a lot of the FW / PD debate engages in a false dilemma between the two.
??? “For example, Arminians believe in Sola Fide and total depravity. However, Arminians also believe that true faith can be lost and hold the synergistic view that salvation is partly due to man’s choice to believe. IOW, Arminians believe they are elected from their faith and Calvinists believe they gain faith because they were elected.”
Then I’m NOT Arminian! I don’t believe that someone who has been born again will be unborn. I also don’t feel very synergistic. That has connotations of believing we do something to approach God, and gain his favor, which I reject. No one seeks God, but God seeks us. And if I accept someone else’s payment on my behalf, I sure haven’t done anything to merit having the debt paid.
Forest Keeper: “So, what I am saying is that in my experience of attending an SBC church for about 20 years, the differences such as the above are not talked about. Some sermons talk about us making the free choice for Christ, while others highlight that God chose us before we chose Him. These technically conflicting views are spread out enough so that no one notices, except perhaps Reformers. :)”
True.
FK (can I call you that for now?): “So, when my Pastor does the invitation at the end of the sermon under the premise that God wants all to be saved I do bite my tongue a little.”
“The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” - 2 Peter 3
“”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” - John 3
John MacArthur was asked what he preached when he encountered a passage about predestination. He said predestination. What about when you encounter a passage supporting free will, he was asked. I preach free will, he replied.
So how do you reconcile them, he was asked. And he replied, I don’t. God’s Word teaches some things I don’t fully understand, so I just preach what I find.
That seems good advice.
Dr. J Vernon McGee said, “There are certain things which I believe that to me are not contradictory, but they certainly are paradoxical. Election and free will happen to be one of those...There is a theological argument that rages today on election or free will. There are some people who put all their eggs in the basket of election. There are others who put all their eggs in the basket of free will. I’m not proposing to reconcile the two because I have discovered that I cannot. If you had met me the year that I entered seminary, or the year I graduated, I could have reconciled them for you. I never have been as smart as I was my first year and my last year in seminary. I knew it all then. I could reconcile election and free will, and it was a marvelous explanation. Now I’ve even forgotten what it was. It was pretty silly, if you want to know the truth...You can argue about divine election and free will all you want to, but it works. You cannot make it work out by arguing, but it sure works out in life, friend...”
He also wrote, “I don’t know how to reconcile them, but they are both true. The Father gives men to Christ, but men have to come. And the ones that come are the ones, apparently, whom the Father gives to Him. You and I are down here, and we don’t see into the machinery of heaven. I don’t know how God runs that computer of election, but I know that He has given to you and to me a free will and we have to exercise it. Because Spurgeon preached a “whosoever will” gospel, someone said to him, “If I believed like you do about election, I wouldn’t preach like you do.” Spurgeon’s answer was something like this, “If the Lord had put a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, I’d go up and down the street lifting up shirttails, finding out who had the yellow stripe, and then I’d give them the gospel. But God didn’t do it that way. He told me to preach the gospel to every creature that ‘whosoever will may come.’” Jesus says, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” So, my friend, you can argue about election all you want to, but you can come. And if you come, He’ll not cast you out. Someone may ask, “You mean that if I’m not the elect I can still come?” My friend, if you come, you will be the elect. How tremendous this is!”...Does election shut out certain people? No. Life eternal is to know the only true God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent. Do you have a desire to know the true God and Jesus Christ? Then you are not shut out. You must be one of the elect. He gives eternal life to those who have heard the call and have responded down in their hearts. They have come to Christ of their own free will...We cannot avoid the doctrine of election, nor can we reconcile God’s sovereign election with man’s free will. Both are true. Let’s keep in mind that this is His universe.”
“And since I have never heard a sermon by a Baptist preacher about TULIP, and since most baptists I’ve met think TULIP is a flower, I conclude that very few baptists are, in fact, calvinists. Yesterday was the first time in my life that I heard someone in a Baptist church mention TULIP, apart from flowers!”
That is odd. Every Baptist church that I have attended has had a Calvinist Pastor. My father was a Dispensational, Calvinist, Baptist Pastor for over 70 years; never gave an altar call, just trusted the preaching and teaching of the Word and the Holy Spirit to bring people to a realization of their election.
The majority of the professors at the Seminary I attended were Calvinist Baptist. None were Reformed Baptist because of differences in eschatology and covenant theology.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
IIRC I sent you the brilliant work by Calvinist Baptist preacher, Arthur Pink, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. You should read it sometime, especially chapter five.
As for Calvinist Baptists, I'd estimate there are more Calvinist Baptists in these discussions on FR than Presbyterians.
As for free will and predestination both being true, I find that an enormous and silly cop-out. Men are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, according to the will of God.
All of life is determined by God, not men. We either have been named by God as one of His family from before the foundation of the world, or we haven't. If we have, one day, at a time of God's choosing, we will know of our redemption by God's grace through Jesus Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, and we will believe by the free gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit who gives us new eyes and new ears and a heart of flesh and a renewed mind in order to "know the things of God."
If we haven't been named as one of His own, we won't care in the slightest. We will enjoy ourselves as natural men and women and die ignorant of our condemnation.
And each of our lives plays out according to God's plan. That is the greatest comfort for the Christian. Romans 8:28 is true. Thank God. It's all about mercy and not debt. Gratitude is the only proper perspective.
Agreed. A weakness of the SBC is its lack of interest in doctrine. However, it is also a strength. The SBC exists largely to support missionaries. It once broke with Northern Baptists over the issue of missionaries owning slaves...I don’t think they want a repeat.
A long time ago I went to the official SBC website to see if it mentioned the issue and could not find anything. But just now I tried again and BEHOLD, :), I found this at SBC FAQs:
I fully agree. And, I understand what you're saying about this lack of a stance being an asset with regard to missionary work. It sort of goes with the old saying "preach like an Arminian but pray like a Calvinist". I am very pleased and thankful to God for the missionary work of the SBC. It really does not bother me that the first hearing among unreached people groups is often Arminian Baptist. That leaves so much wonderful room for growth! :)
At least, I THINK that is why the SBC waffles the way it does [greater missions outreach]. But in terms of what folks in the pews believe, I’d guess it is strongly free-will, regardless of its heritage.
Yes, I don't know for sure either, but it does make perfect sense to me.
FK: “For example, Arminians believe in Sola Fide and total depravity. However, Arminians also believe that true faith can be lost and hold the synergistic view that salvation is partly due to man’s choice to believe. IOW, Arminians believe they are elected from their faith and Calvinists believe they gain faith because they were elected.”
Then I’m NOT Arminian! I don’t believe that someone who has been born again will be unborn.
Good, you support the "P" here in TULIP.
I also don’t feel very synergistic. That has connotations of believing we do something to approach God, and gain his favor, which I reject. No one seeks God, but God seeks us. And if I accept someone else’s payment on my behalf, I sure haven’t done anything to merit having the debt paid.
Well, I see this as relating in part to the "I" in TULIP, which you said earlier you disagree with. Here is an excerpt from a decent article, Monergism vs. Synergism by John Hendryx, a monergist:
So, does this describe you? :) Here is where all of us have to be pretty exact about what we mean when we talk about free will. When I was first going through these ideas I considered that if I bought the "T" (total depravity) then it only made logical sense that grace was irresistible, since we didn't have the individual capacity to agree to any good offer from God. Therefore, synergism can't be right, etc.
FK (can I call you that for now?):
Oh sure, everyone does. Beats the heck out of other things I've been called on these boards. LOL!
FK: “So, when my Pastor does the invitation at the end of the sermon under the premise that God wants all to be saved I do bite my tongue a little.”
You answered with quotes from 2 Pet. 3 and John 3, purporting that God wishes all to be saved. The standard Reformed response is that words and phrases like "all" and "the world" when used in these passages cannot mean literally all humans because THAT would mean that God is not omnipotent. I.e., if God was omnipotent and God really wanted all men saved, THEN all men would be saved. Therefore, we can be sure that all men being saved is not a primary desire of God since He is unwilling to take the necessary (easy for Him) steps to make it so.
Similarly, we could posit the question: "Did God want to watch His Son die on the cross?" Well, the reflex answer is of course "No", but since He had every power and right to stop it, but didn't, we must reconsider how we look at it. I think that frequently we can better discern what God really wants by looking to His actions (or nature) and then interpreting His words in that context.
John MacArthur was asked what he preached when he encountered a passage about predestination. He said predestination. What about when you encounter a passage supporting free will, he was asked. I preach free will, he replied. So how do you reconcile them, he was asked. And he replied, I don’t. God’s Word teaches some things I don’t fully understand, so I just preach what I find. That seems good advice.
I happen to like John MacArthur, but this sort of has him sounding like he thinks it's OK to preach what he doesn't understand. I hope he didn't mean that. :) I would want to know in what way he would preach free will. For example, it could be just fine if it was from an experiential viewpoint rather than from God's viewpoint. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Dr. J Vernon McGee said: ......... There is a theological argument that rages today on election or free will. There are some people who put all their eggs in the basket of election. There are others who put all their eggs in the basket of free will. I’m not proposing to reconcile the two because I have discovered that I cannot. If you had met me the year that I entered seminary, or the year I graduated, I could have reconciled them for you. I never have been as smart as I was my first year and my last year in seminary. I knew it all then. I could reconcile election and free will, and it was a marvelous explanation. ......
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I am glad I don't know anyone like that. :)