For an interesting discussion on sovereignty/predestination, click on the Blog link "Ministry and Music..." (Particularly the post with the most comments)
I thought that predestination really only existed today behind the pulpits of Presbyterian churches. Guess I was wrong.
Actually, the SBC is having a HUGE division among its members and seminaries over this issue. Last I heard (a couple of years ago) from a long time SBC pastor, the convention was over half way taken with TULIP.
ReplyDeleteAdrian and Bro. Charles, you guys did a fine job on answering the point in the afore mentioned discussions. The problem with a lot of Baptist today is that they do not know who they are and where they came from. Many themselves will tell you that we (Baptists)are protestants. That is totally incorrect and a lot of their beliefs stem from protestant religions and an lack of understanding of who and what we are. Predestination is simple. God predestined all who will believe and accept Jesus by the Biblical prescribed plan will inherit everlasting life. Ya see, the plan was predestined not the individual.
ReplyDeleteOne comment stood out in my mind after reading the blogs; God is sovereign and can save man any way He sees fit. In essence, God has no limitations. Some may agree with that at first clance, but I beg to disagree. God is only limited by Himself. When He decrees a matter, He cannot go against His own decree. It would make Him a liar and the Scripture teaches that He cannot lie. Why did God manifest Himself in the flesh and live and die a horrible death on the cross of Calvary?
Answer: Because He had already decreed that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Why didn't God just say, "Well, I changed my mind about that shedding of blood part and the death of an innocent part, so we'll come up with a different way"?
I also do not believe that God causes men to sin such as in the case of Pharoah during the bondage error. Scripture says that God "hardened" Pharoah's heart. Not so in the way that we would interpret that. God does not tempt any man. God knew before the foundation of the world that Pharoah would harden his own heart to rebel against the command to let His people go and all the more a servant Pharoah became to the greater glory of God by providing God opportunity to show the heathen the power and glory of an Almighty God.
Anyway, thanks guys. Keep "the faith"!
Davy R. Hobson
Bro. James, I think the SBC Pastor might be hearing footsteps that seem louder than they are. From all I've read and heard, 50% would seem to be a very high estimate. But the presence of Calvinism in the SBC is very real. The president of the Southern Seminary is a committed Calvinist, as is much of the staff. Then again, that is the theology of the Abstract of Principles on which the seminary was founded. Southeastern seems to lean that way to, and IIRC, was founded on the same Abstract of Principles. Southwestern and its president is decidedly non-Calvinistic (perhaps even anti) and New Orleans seems to lean that way as well. I don't know about the others. But among pastors and the rank & file in general, I wouldn't think that Calvinism is any where near half. But it is growing.
ReplyDeleteBro. Hobson, a few thoughts for your perusal.
You write, "...the plan was predestined not the individual." Where do we find that? What is predestinated in Romans 8:29-30? It is not a what (plan, thing) but a whom (person, people). A plan is not called, justified, and glorified. It is a people.
I have no desire to be overly "quibblish" about terms. You say that "God is only limited by Himself. When He decrees a matter, He cannot go against His own decree." I have no qualms agreeing with that, so if you think that I disagree either I did not write clearly or you did not understand. The point of sovereignty is not to say that God can go against His decrees. Why would He want to? He decrees whatever He wills and He does not change -- either what He wills or what He decrees.
You write, "The problem with a lot of Baptist today is that they do not know who they are and where they came from." To that I say a hearty amen! One problem is not that they think are Protestants (which some do), but that they don't know what Baptists they came from. Now if you descended from Baptists who were wrong, you can surely change and get right. BUT a problem for Landmark Baptists is that the majority of English and American Regular Baptists were Calvinistic, and we are descended from them. What does that make us? Heretics? To know who you are and where you came from, I urge you to look at where your church and its baptism came from and where that church came from, etc., etc. I challenge you to go back to Christ without going through or having contact with the Calvinistic Baptists of early America and England. If they were heretics, so are we, and in need of rebaptism. If not, why not?
Bro. Vaughn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding.
Brother, can you not see that "the people" that you refer to in Romans 8:29-30, are individuals or "people" that come or are called, justified, and glorified according to the plan?
Before the foundation of the world, Jesus was that innocent, blood sacrifice that propitiates for the sins of mankind.
Before the foundation of the world, it was so in the mind of God that the shedding of the blood of an innocent must take place for remission of sin, if not it would not be recorded that Jesus was as "a lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
And so with that in mind, God purposed Jesus to be born of flesh, live, die, and be resurrected to offer a way for ALL mankind to be saved and, again, before the foundation of the world.
And He predestinated a plan by which redemption may be had by whosoever will come by the plan. That, of course, is by grace through faith in Jesus and His completed work.
Is it a people or individuals that are called, justified, and glorified? Of course! But only those who were drawn by the Father or "called" (upon "hearing" of Him and convicted), who by their faith in Jesus are "justified" by His works to be saved, and "glorified" as sons of God by faith.
It is predestined or afore time determined that "whosoever" believeth shall be an inheritor of everlasting life.
All who come by the plan are destined to life and life more abundantly. All who don't remain condemned.
The plan chooses "the people", in essence, not God pointing to this one or that one. If it were not so, then why did not God create us without free will?
As to the your response to church history, there has always been a true church and there will always be a true church fore Jesus said, "Upon this rock, I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." There has been error down thru the ages and I consider my church to follow the apostolic leadership as put forth in the Scripture. They didn't believe in "predestination" as you put it nor do I!
Can your church come from a church in error on salvation and still be a true church?
ReplyDelete"Wrong on salvation" is a broad term Brother. If they believe in placing faith in Jesus as Saviour, they are "right on salvation" even if they are wrong about aspects of it, it's beginning, the hows and whys. If they are in "error on salvation", they believe in salvation by adding works, or without faith. This cannot be a true church, since their members do not meet the qualification of church membership (baptized believers covenented... )
ReplyDeleteThanks for that admission. So you are saying a Baptist Church can believe in all five points of Calvinism and still be a true church?
ReplyDeleteTrying to take bloggers down another road, Bro. Robert? :)
ReplyDeleteI do not step into the bounds of saying which particular qualities make a church "true" or not. All I know is that if a church does not meet the clear biblical qualifications, we can deem them a church that is not of God. Those absolute necessary qualifications are salvation "by grace THROUGH faith", members who are baptized by a true church whatever that may entail, and members covenanted together to do Jesus' work.
ReplyDeleteOutside of these clear Bible precepts, I won't step my bounds and call churches non-true or non-churches.
I'm not sure what your answer means in practical terms. How do you determine whether to accept baptisms and letters from particular churches? Let me give a couple of concrete examples.
ReplyDeletePilgrim Predestinarian Baptist Church of Elkhart, Texas was established in Illinois in 1833 and they migrated to Texas in 1834. Would you accept their baptisms? Why or why not? [Name witheld] Baptist Church of the Shelby County, MBA of TX and ABA was started by people who came out of the old Pilgrim Church. Would you accept their baptisms? Why or why not? White Plains Baptist Church of Georgia was established in 1806 on the principles of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. Would you accept their baptisms? Why or why not? [Name witheld] Baptist Church of the Mt. Zion, MBA of TX and ABA was started by people who came out of the White Plains Church. Would you accept their baptisms? Why or why not?
I think these questions are important in light of the "problem with a lot of Baptist today is that they do not know who they are and where they came from."
Bro. Vaughn, another church does not make a church the Lord's church or not. Too much emphasis is placed on the "sponsoring church" or the "yeast from another church" or the "arm" from another church as to whether it is the Lord's church or not. If you want to know if something is geniune, go back to the original and see if it matches up with the first one. If it looks like the church that Jesus established while on earth. If it holds and teaches the same as the first taught. If it system of beliefs are the same, then it is probably of the same. As to whether I or anyone else would accept these that came out of a hard-shell church such as the church in Elkhart, I would not knowing that they were hard-shell and I would not accept anyone who perverted the foundational truths delivered unto us in God's Word by the mouths of the founding apostles and by inspiration of God, above all. I think what you are trying to get at is and maybe you have already asked, "Can a New Testament Church of Jesus' have error and still exist?" My answer to this, yes, to a certain point and Jesus will be the judge to what point that is. Case in point Rev. Chapter 2 with the several of the churches of Asia. He say there good works and also their bad. He commended for the good and rebuked for the bad and told them "Repent, or I will come unto quickly and remove my candlestick out of the church." Brother, I think you will agree, when God removes His candlestick, it is no longer one of the Lord's churches. The candlestick is symbolic of the presence of Christ in the church, the Light. When He' gone it is gone! Again, to a certain point. That is why we exmine or question candidates prior to putting them before the church or laying hands on them in ordination.
ReplyDeletePardon me, but I would like to add in reference to what I said in the first sentence. I firmly believe that it is God that lights the candlestick in a church, not the "arm" of another or the "yeast" of another. It may be expedient to organize this way, but not necessary.
ReplyDeleteI know who I am, but I don't care who Baptists came from. I am a Bible believer, and the church which I attend believes the Bible also.
ReplyDeleteTo qualify the first statement: We CAN NOT possibly (truthfully) trace our lineage back past 1,000 years to a church. We, therefore, don't know if our church comes from a true church originally. What I do know is that today, our church is right concerning salvation and baptism, and since we don't have the records, I assume our church comes from one of like fashion.
First, accepting a letter of recommendation is only that. You accept (receive, obtain) a letter of recommending. In other words, you, as a church, vote yes to say "We did receive a letter saying the previous group to which this person associated with, church or not, said he is a good person." Does it matter what that group said? It depends. Are they a boy scout group? Then no. You can vote showing your church acknowledges that the boy scout group considers this person in good standing with their group. While it doesn't matter to that person becoming a church member, you can still receive such a letter and acknowledge you did receive it by vote. The same applies to a false church, false religion, secular group, true church, etc.
Now, hopefully, you don't receive a member by letter anyone, since this isn't Biblical at all. You receive someone based upon their profession of faith, baptism, current lifestyle and their desire to join. If not, I believe you receive someone unscripturally. If so, then the letter is merely a modern formality by which we tell another church that so-and-so is a bad person. It is just a way to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing. It doesn't change ANYTHING if the person is in good standing with the previous church. We would have accepted them by profession of faith, valid baptism, and current lifestyle (by statement) anyway. SO why does the letter matter? It doesn't.
As to accepting a church's baptism, I don't have a cover-all answer. I know for a fact if a church believes in pouring or sprinkling, the baptism isn't valid. I know for a fact if the church doesn't believe in salvation, their baptism isn't valid, b/c a church consists of baptized believers covenanted...
SO the line in the sand where I can point a finger at someone and say "You aren't a church" with Scriptures loaded in my gun-belt is salvation and baptism. After this, I don't know whether or not the LORD removed His candlestick. I've known churches under different names that believe in salvation and baptism EXACTLY as we do. I've known them under the name non-denominational who practiced and preached salvation, baptism, church membership, local church, etc the same way we do. At what point does God remove his candlestick? I don't know. I think we should be careful either way, to receive or not receive a candidate's baptism for this reason. If we receive their baptism and it isn't valid, we've accidentally allowed them to make a mistake that can have eternal consequences. If we reject a baptism, and God hasn't removed that candlestick yet, we have basically told God to his face, "The church You call a church isn't good enough a church for us." It is arrogant, and also could harm someone's eternity. We could perhaps make sure the church is right concerning salvation, baptism, reason for assembling, the individual's lifestyle, and if it all checks out but we still aren't sure, explain them that we aren't sure, and if they want to make the decision to be baptized again just to be safe, that will be up to them.