Should Calvinism Be Kicked Out of the SBC?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- The Southern Baptist Convention was held in Indianapolis this year and several interesting things took place. But one which interested us the most was the call for Calvinism to be removed from the SBC. Is this consistent with the history of the convention? Not at all. And today, we are going to look at one of the earliest systematic theologies written by the first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary James Pedigru Boyce. He was certainly calvinistic, as we will see.
If you are interested in getting the smallest Bible available on the market, which can be used for all kinds of purposes, visit TinyBibles.com and if you buy, use the coupon code Keith for a discount.
Buy our shirts and hats: yourcalvinist....
Visit us at KeithFoskey.com
If you need a great website, check out fellowshipstudios.com
SPECIAL THANKS TO ALL OUR SHOW SUPPORTERS!!!
Support the Show: buymeacoffee.com/Yourcalvinist
Contributors:
Duane
Hankinator
Mary Williams
Luca Eickoff
@zedek73
David S Rockey
Jay
Ben J
Several “Someones”
Monthly Supporters:
Amber Sumner
Frank e herb
Phil
Deb Horton
Haven't been to church in 4 years.. was raised goin to SBC churches most my life yet couldnt say I was a believer but started reading scriptures a few years ago and the Lord opened my eyes to the truth in Christ Jesus started listening to sermons on YT and figured out ALL the pastors I felt spoke truth according to the scriptures are reformed/calvinist now lookin back and knowing what I know now I heard some of the most unbiblical man centered "preaching" in SBC churches but happy to say me and my wife will be tryin out a 1689 LBC church this Sunday
All Praise and Glory to God
Psalm or hymn singing?
PRAISE GOD!!!! May he be glorified and you both grow in spiritual wisdom and understanding, knowledge and grace!!!
ALL GLORY TO GOD Proclaim Christ the KING OF KINGS!!! Will be praying God brings you to worship his as a family in corporate worship
Yes. I consider myself non-denominational. All the people I follow on media are Reformed/ Calvinist.
Love that for ya, 1689 all the way!
Go to church every week, even if its not a perfect church. I love that you are returning, but brother... I have learned a lot through the humble Christian love of many who know nothing of theology!
Do not let the quest for 'perfect' theology starve you of fellowship with other believers.
I just went to an SBC summer camp, and they directly taught predestination straight from Ephesians 1. I’m baffled that they are considering this question but I hope this does not pass
There was a hushed giggle throughout the room when the guy made his motion. This is a settled issue in the SBC. Everything will be A-Ok.
Whenever difficult questions are raised and Calvinists avoid the questions, resort to ad hominem attacks, and employ defense mechanisms to escape the pressure of the situation... this appears to be cognitive dissonance, so investigation should take place in such cases as we are all suceptible to error and deceptions. I can't tell you how many pastors took 12 or 15 years of study before realizing that Calvinism can't be consistent if applied. The theology is appealing in many ways but can't seem to withstand tough scrutiny of total depravity. Augustine appears to have relied significantly on Gnostic teaching to formulate total depravity rather than Scripture. The idea that Jesus had to teach in parables so blind men wouldn't see is ridiculous. The idea that God exhaustively determines some infants to go to Hell does not fit the loving character of God taught in the Bible.
I was a Calvinist for 20 years until I honestly considered the questions being asked of Calvinists and when I saw Piper and MacArthur avoiding them.... that really got my attention and prompted more investigation because this surely must have just been some mistake. It's no mistake. They teach with authority but examination exposes the holes in the theology. You can't be a 3 point Calvinist and call yourself consistent. Your heart and mind may say anything, but being consistent within a theology like Calvinism offers very little wiggle room.
Seek the truth no matter how inconvenient it may be for you. Ask tough questions, and realize how easily we are deceived and misled. The Bible says to rebuke with gentleness lest we be caught up in the same sins... which were rooted in pride. Pride brings rudeness, unloving, and unkind rhetoric which I am tempted to employ every day... because I struggle with pride myself. Seek the truth and you will find it.
@@sonnyh9774 I’m sorry that you have that perception of Calvinists and I thank you for responding to my comment. I hate Ad Hominem so I will not use it. Could I please hear the questions you were referring to? The only objection I saw was on total depravity. I don’t need or want to use Gnostic texts to prove it so I won’t. Two passages I want you to look at is Romans 3:10-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. These two passages directly state that humankind are spiritually dead from birth and not able to do good, especially Romans 3:18 which says “there is no fear of God before their eyes.” How can we fear God and have a saving knowledge of God (which I assume you think is a righteous act) if we can’t fear Him or do good without Him? I would love to provide more scripture for any of the other points and again thank you for reaching out to me and challenging my theological viewpoint, I sincerely hope that after this conversation both of us come out strengthened in our faith and in our theological viewpoints!
@@tristinbihn9691 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Ad hominems do not usually bother me unless my wife uses them, so if you do use them .... I appreciate altruistic and abhorrent alliteration ... a lot.
Romans 3 should be interpreted in light of Psalms 14 and 53 as Paul most likely did... which is in the context of the rebellious musings of the fool and does not appear to imply that this applies to the inability of everyone as the common Calvinist applies it.... or appears to misapply it. These passages can clearly be interpreted differently and appears from a Calvinist perspective to be an eisegetical interpretation. So, I don't believe it means what you think it does.
The Bible encourages us to seek the Lord in all these passages and implies we have the ability to seek Him:
“And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,” - Acts 17:26-27
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” -Isaiah 55:6-7
“Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his just commands; seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the anger of the Lord.” -Zephaniah 2:3
“And he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.” -2 Chronicles 12:14
“Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O Lord.” -Psalms 83:16
“Then Jehoshaphat was afraid and set his face to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.” -2 Chronicles 20:3
“For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.” -Luke 12:30-31
“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” -Romans 2:6-8
“And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.” -Psalms 9:10
“And those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord, the God of their fathers.” -2 Chronicles 11:16
Pardon me while I go enjoy some organic grassfed beef... but there do not appear to be any clear Biblical passages teaching total inability. As a Calvinist for 20 years, I was mesmerized and enchanted by the grey passages... that appeared clear, but I ignored the other possible interpretations because it didn't fit my narrative or the narrative of my circle of friends.... my echo chamber. (I personally like echo chambers because I get a feeling of security, but now I try to do things I don't like .... like cold showers, intense exercise, keto and intermittant fasting.... because it's the right thing to do.) Jesus wept over Jerusalem because she didn't respond to His drawing. Why would Jesus be upset with God's perfect, sovereign will and plan? Why would Jesus be upset if He planned for it to happen? "Mystery, mystery" is the answer from Piper and MacArthur .... if you ask a Calvinist, but it is plausible and makes very good sense if God loves us enough to give us a limited free will choice... He does not force us to love Him or accept Him. We aren't robots, and God doesn't hate some of us before the world began and determine us to Hell. God does hate the nations that came from Edom/Esau in context of the Old Testament, and God does love the line of Christ that runs through Jacob. This life isn't a gross and perverse play written by a narcissistic and maniacal Zeus-like god. God doesn't send babies to Hell for His good pleasure. God knows all things, but I can't confidently explain how He might look into time while being outside of and within it. Food's ready.
@@sonnyh9774 thank you so much for taking time out of your day to respond to my post! I really appreciate how you use a lot of scripture to back up your opinions. So firstly I think that Paul is talking about the whole world. I grant you that Psalm 14 is talking about the fool who says there is no God, so atheists. But the verses before and after 3:10-18 clearly state that it applies to Jews, Greeks, and the entire world.
“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,”
Romans 3:9 ESV
“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
Romans 3:19-20 ESV
Also, of course we have free will!!! The only caveat is that I think we’re DEAD in our sins.
“For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ESV
We have free will to make decisions on things like what to have for dinner. This is because God is not the author of sin. If he made us sin, then we wouldn’t be guilty of it. Our wills are so depraved that we simply cannot decide to follow Christ by ourselves. However, God wants some of us to be saved so he must intervene and predestine some to be saved. This is not of our will but the will of our Heavenly Father.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,”
Ephesians 1:3-7 ESV
“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;”
Titus 1:1-3 ESV
“And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;”
Galatians 1:14-16 ESV
Which goes along with
““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.””
Jeremiah 1:5 ESV
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
Romans 9:14-18 ESV
Scripture also says that some world events are predetermined by him as well.
“for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”
Acts 4:27-28 ESV
We are not robots at all we are able to freely decide almost everything. Scripture only says that he predestines salvation and certain events. By what standard does he predestine or which events? I’m not sure but based on these passages we can easily assume that it does happen.
In 1845, all my paternal ancestors were Calvinistics who were part of the Southern Baptist Convention. They'd be rolling in their graves at what is going on.
Don't worry, they won't. Nothing can disturb the peace the saints enjoy in heaven.
God wants all men to be saved first Timothy 2:4, second peter 3:9!
God, predestines groups or plurals only, never individuals. Ephesians 1 -2 points: “ us and we” are pre-destined never “you and I“! And 11 times in 11 verses from 3-14 you have to remain “in Christ“ (in him, in whom) to be predestined!
Romans 9:1-3 Paul is talking about the nation of Israel, all the way to the end of chapter 11 ! So, “Jacob, I loved, Esau I hated“ is genesis 25:23 “there are two nations in your womb“! It’s talking about ‘Nations,’ not individuals in the whole context of those three chapters! Stop taking it out of context, along with Ephesians 1!
Of course, we have the story of Jacob and Esau and how Esau despised his birthright !
So God truly does love all people, he truly did make hell for the devil and his angels just as Matthew 25:41 says !
Even the 42 youths, mauled by the 2 bears, was because they mocked Elijah‘s rapture, a.k.a. the resurrection , they were saying “go on up Baldy “ ; and ALL their prophets just recently Were killed by Elijah and they should’ve known to stop worshiping Baal! Bethel was the headquarters of Baal worship, where this took place! 490 priests got killed by Elijah, There was no Priests around,; should’ve been a gigantic clue.
So God never arbitrarily and haphazardly deals with any human being ! His love cannot be measured says Romans 8!
But if you’re a Calvinist, it’s “his love cannot be measured , (Wink, wink)“!
Come out of the false belief system of Calvinism ! Now you have no excuse because you cannot out argue this, let’s hear you try!
Read Matthew 25 the parable of the Calvinists, a.k.a. talents ! Where the guy buried his talent calling God,- somebody who doesn’t judge rightly & he was thrown into hell as a result! He had the wrong view of God, & So Will a Calvinist, they’ll have a callous view of God & The love of Christs sacrificial death on the cross!
Jesus was crucified before the foundations of the world, but he only had to die one time Says hebrews, so don’t get it wrong like Moses; when did Jesus die ?
So this trumps predestination before the foundations of the world, because God chose to to write this to disprove & trump predestination!
Revelation 13:8
So Spurgeon is no longer welcome in the SBC, it seems. Nor John Gill. But it just proves what James White and Jeff Durbin would say, one's traditions can override Biblical truth.
Neither James White nor Jeff Durbin are Southern Baptists. Pretty sure they’d be kicked out if they were 🤪 They’re a little too hardcore for the SBC lol
"Total inability" is an eisegetical interpretation. Per Sproul and others.... Calvinism stands or falls on Augustinian "total depravity". There are no clear Biblical passages teaching total inability. Calvin and Augustine had major problems, and Calvinists have a difficult time being consistent with this "theology"... other than consistently being inconsistent. The Calvinist God that sends some infants to Hell and determines others to Hell.... is more akin to the demonic creation of "Zeus" rather than the loving God of the Bible. All roads of sugar coated determinism (compatibalism) .... lead to exhaustive determinism. Then Calvinists like John McArthur and Paul Washer get upset outside of their theological approach when God determines Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers to preach. Why would Calvinists get upset when God decrees others to do anything? To get upset with anything is to be unhappy with God's plan and decree and is a form of idolatry to elevate your opinion above God's..
Jesus has no justification to teach in parables so the blind won't see something. How can you make a blind man more blind? You can't. The Calvinist theology applied makes a mockery of logic and the character of God. I was a Calvinist for over 20 years because I wasn't a good Berean and just took the claims of men as true. I still do, but after we ask tough questions, we find Calvinist theology being an eisegetic exercise by men who claim to serve God but resist Him through their prideful justification of "doing church" the way they want to.
Changing definitions so your theology works can be problematic and we see it every day.
@@sonnyh9774 😄
@@toddstevens9667 I'm well aware. But the observation stands.
@sonnyh9774 John 6:44 is unequivocally teaching the inability of man to come to Jesus with the drawing of the Father. Romans 8 unequivocally teaches man's inability on his own to be good, to do good, and to choose good according to the economy of God. How you missed it is beyond me. There is no eisegesis involved in allowing the Scripture to speak and say what it says. That comes when one does as Leighton Flowers does and just add the words he needs to make his theology work when the words are not actually there in the text.
We moved to a new area and started attending a SBC church. I’m Calvinist except for baptism, which is why I’m Baptist and not Presbyterian. My church is split among Armenians, Calvinists and those who don’t know the difference (probably the majority). If SBC insists on excluding Calvinists then I’ll be looking for a new church.
That's silly if God determined for it to happen. You have no theological reason to be upset with any of God's plan within a Calvinistic framework. For you to be upset would mean you are elevating your opinion above God's and are telling God that you know better. Or, you can re evaluate Calvinistic total depravity and see that it all starts to unravel when you ask tough questions. Jesus doesn't need to teach in parables if the men are really born dead and blind.... does He? You can't tell people Jesus loves them if you think God may actually hate some of them and may have determined that they and/or their infants will go to Hell. You shouldn't have to change definitions and play semantic word games. Just seek the truth and be willing to accept it no matter how inconvenient it may be. I was a Calvinist for 20 years and many pastors take 10 or 20 years before realizing Calvinism cannot be consistently applied with a proper hermeneutic and agree with the Bible.
And there is a difference between Armenian and Arminian. Armenian is a nationality and an ancient church in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. Arminians are followers of Jacob Arminius, a pastor during the Reformation.
I go to a reformed Baptist church and baptism is for believers and we are also confessional and Calvinist. We hold to the 1689 London Baptist confession of faith. Used to attend SBC and was never taught church history and doctrine was what I learned reading my bible. I was anti Calvinist because I didn’t understand it. Most SBC are Arminian.
@sonnyh9774 That's not the major problem.
Total Depravity, Determinism, and the Sovereignty of God are contrary to 99% of the Bible. Study those and you can easily see instead of the few verses Calvinists push all the time.
Such a commission would be a great opportunity for Founders Min. to shine and educate messengers to the Calvin's roots of the SBC.
Brother the SBC did not arrive at this downgrade spot overnight. It’s been going this way along time. The Calvinists in the SBC have been asleep at the wheel in this regard for along time. Step it up guys
The SBC is an apostate organized with heretics as leaders
We need Calvinists in the SBC so that we are forced to think about doctrine.
I thought a lot about doctrine when my church was in the SBC and I thought all the Calvinists were in the Presbyterian church down the road. You'll need to explain your comment.
You need Heretics to think about Doctrine...what?😮
There is nothing about calvinism biblical! Why can't you guys just read your own bible and OBEY the Gospel before it's to late!
@@John-3-36and what, in your mind, is obeying the gospel?
@@John-3-36What do you mean?
Great video brother. 👍 As someone who grew up in the SBC and is now a PCA deacon, I could list the reasons I switched, but I don’t want to crash your forum. 😁.
You went to the PCA because you want to support LGBTQ nonsense and women in ministry.
This is a major problem in my local SBC association. Our Director of Missions goes to church search committees looking for a pastor and tells them not to hire a Calvinist and then gives his version of the doctrines to those search committees, most of which have never heard of Calvinism. The pastors here take a joint stand against anyone who holds to Calvinism. It’s funny because they won’t hand your resume to churches but they will help line up men who have been divorced 4 or 5 times to preach at churches. It’s really frustrating. The motion doesn’t surprise me at all because many think Calvinists are “taking over” the SBC because they don’t know our history well. I can’t decide if this is going to blow up or blow over haha.
@treethatfalls
I attend a reformed baptist church and have now for the past 7 years. Besides my own studies on the topic I get a weekly dose of calvinism. I discuss the topic frequently with my pastor and as hard as I try, I have found that it is impossible to represent calvinism correctly.
It may be that this man is misrepresenting calvinism or it may be that he is just stating it plainly.
When I started studying soteriology I only listened to calvinists, men like Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, etc…It was their teaching that led me to believe that the calvinist understanding of God was bi-polar, narcissistic, willing that most of humanity should perish, etc…it was them that made me say, is that really what scripture is teaching?
I know that neither you nor does any calvinist believe that the calvinist system makes God into any of those things I mentioned. My point is this, if all you hear as a non calvinist from calvinist preachers is: you were born a”viper in a diaper”, or “you were chosen for salvation or reprobation before the foundation of the world”, or “you can’t put your trust in Christ unless he regenerates you first”, or “God has decreed all that comes to pass”, etc… it is really hard to see a God who is loving, just, or merciful. So can you really blame the guy for spreading his “version” of calvinism? I don’t mean for this to be contentious. Just wanted to try and give a possible reason for people pushing back and in some cases doing so vehemently.
God bless
Motion: I declare that any doctrine of Arminianism is to be considered heretical and should be removed from the theological framework and teaching of the Southern Baptist Convention.
OK, and since everyone knows that not all of Arminian doctrine is heretical.... but only a few... we know why you weren't allowed to make any motions. The Chosen, season 4 episode 4 is on.... I'm popping some popcorn now
Agreed, as long as calvinism goes with arminianism. Provisionism rules!
😂
@@4godisholy Biblical theology should rule instead, just a suggestion
Both Calvinists and Armenian theology is wrong please just read Bible rightly dividing and context in tact
Arminians are not driving the wedge. The Provisionists are the divisive ones.
"Age is no guarantee of wisdom"...
Shouldn’t the motion ask Does Calvinism line up with scripture ?
It’s testing it against truth,
not testing it against a organisation that man made and obviously changes when man doesn’t like something
Calvinism does not line up with scripture
Scripture tells us that baptism saves, infants/children have faith, Christ is truly present in the supper, and salvation can be lost.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 -- A papist has chimed in!
@@gregb6469 the Pope is the antichrist :)
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Your beliefs try to wrest sovereignty from God and place it in mans hands.
@@gumbyshrimp2606”All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” -John 6:37.
Scripture actually says otherwise from what you’re saying. If you are a part of the elect and are truly regenerated, God will never cast you out. He will never leave you nor forsake you (Deut. 31:8)
Thank you for this. I have been in a Southern Baptist church for several years after being saved by the Lord out of the JW religion. I see so many in my church that believe in decisional salvation like Finney and Arminius. I am more Calvinist in my beliefs. God saved me, I wasn’t even consciously seeking him. I just found the James P Boyce book online and ordered, thank you again Keith Foskey!
@grandmaryables
Just wanted to let you know what I believe as a non calvinist. I don’t believe that anyone is consciously seeking God. It’s the other way around. God is the one doing the seeking. He confronts us and it is after, that we must choose to accept or reject Him.
I often hear the strawman from calvinists who say things like: “you think you save yourself” or “you went seeking God all on your own”….
Just wanted to set the record straight.
@@4godisholy when God really confronts us it is to save us. Think of Paul - he was confronted by Jesus and Paul did not have any time to think about whether he would choose or reject.
Paul obviously had heard the Gospel as he was around Christians. But he did not choose to believe any of it - rather he persecuted the Christians.
But at the moment Jesus confronted Him and in that short space of time a regenerating work was done and Paul had to call Jesus LORD. God did it not Paul.
It is the same with everyone saved - not maybe as dramatically- but it is the same concept. K
@@mikekayanderson408
What text says that Paul didn’t have a choice? Acts 26:14-19 seems to imply otherwise. What text speaks of regeneration preceding faith?
@@4godisholy you can’t believe if not regenerated. Only a heart that is softened, only a spirit which has been renewed or brought to life, only a mind that is enlightened or renewed, only a soul convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit repents - which God grants or gives, only a soul that has repented has faith which is another gift from God - then comes justification which is a declaration of God - then starts sanctification which lasts for the rest of that persons life.
You must be born again or you cannot see the kingdom of heaven.
Immediately Paul fell off His horse and was confronted by Jesus - he submitted and called Him Lord. He immediately knew and understood who Jesus really was. He did not go away and think about it! Yes he lost his sight and had to be taken care of for a few days - but he knew and believed right away because he had been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Born again. Only if you have been given the Holy Spirit can you genuine call Jesus Lord. You only receive the Holy Spirit after you have been regenerated. K
I gave you scripture to argue my point. I asked you for scripture and all you gave me were reformed talking points. Please answer my questions.
Thanks
As a postmillennial Calvinist, I’m not going anywhere. Drag me out if you have to, but I’m not leaving.
You really should be dragged out.
What if you get drug out by the Rapture? 🤪
😂
@@toddstevens9667 the “rapture “. The catching up to the Lord will only take place at the return of the Lord Jesus Christ at His second coming! Not secret and not before His return! K
I was being funny. Post-Millennials don’t believe in a rapture.
I guess they can ban Romans 9 while they’re at it
They're going to have a hard time with Peter's testimony at Pentecost since he directly attributed the cruxifcion to the Predestination of events according to God's will, not man's. When you stand opposed to Peter and Paul, you're on sand.
@blchamblisscscp8476 You may want to read more widely. There have been a range of interpretations to Romans 9.
@@sorenpxThe vast majority of which are completely wrong. Just sayin …
@@sorenpx Yeah, you're right...a wide range of pretzel logic to make Romans 9 not say what it clearly does, and this is, salvation is a sovereign act of God.
@@gregmcray The Bible must be read in its entirety, not a handful of verses clipped to make a theology. The earliest Christians did not believe in Calvin's understanding of election and most don't today either. There's a reason for that: Calvin was wrong.
calvinism needs to be treated as the heresy it is.
Please provide any proof to support your point.
@@Martepiece
They proof I provide is the Bible .
YES!!! calvinism should be kicked out because its Total Depravity and Determinism contradict Jesus's teachings. In Matthew 13 and Mark 4, Jesus used parables to keep sinners from understanding. In Calvinism, sinners are born blind to the truth and remain blind to the truth forever as predetermined by the Calvinists' God who can decide to do bad if He so chooses. The Great Commision Commandment shows no support to Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Determinism.
There are more contradictions, such as Paul's writings being superior to Jesus's teachings and words.
When Calvinists such as MacArthur and White are asked about these contradictions, their answers of "it's a mystery above my paygrade" is not acceptable. While Calvinust justify their total reliance on Paul's writings as God breathe, that can not be superior to Jesus's words since Jesus IS God!
Someone should have made a motion to investigate the palagianism and semi-palagianism that is pervading the SBC...
Keith, as a Calvinistic Southern Baptist, I agree Calvinists and Nons can get along peaceably despite our soteriological differences if we only would, because there are so many other biblical topics both sides agree on.
Same
5-Point Calvinists and 1-Point Calvinists in the SBC get along only by ignoring the elephant in the room, that they preach different gospels.
@@gregb6469soteriology is not the gospel..
@@gregb6469That’s silly. And wrong.
Calvanism is just not bibical. It is equivalent to female pastors. It shouldn't be taught in church in the SBC.
This is my first time watching your channel and I just wanted to give you props for your cordial discussion of a topic (soteriology) which can often get quite heated.
As someone who isn't Reformed, I think that the gentleman who made the motion would be better off joining a denomination that explicitly favours Free Will Theology rather than trying to kick out Calvinist/Reformed types from the SBC which, as you point out, has a long history of their membership. I think sometimes the body of Christ can be more united by worshipping in different traditions that agree on the gospel and agree to disagree about the rest.
As an outsider, I'm surprised that anyone in the SBC would oppose having Calvinism within the ranks. I've always just assumed that the majority of SBC congregations are Calvinist. It is wild to me that they would want to kick Calvinists out.
It's the Leightonists. They are a divisive and hateful bunch.
Tom Ascol who is a Calvinist and ran for SBC President a couple conventions ago would disagree strongly to being disfellowshiped. 🤦♀️ That poor man is showing the ignorance so many are displaying, not understanding the biblical basis of the “hated” reformed theology. Great video Keith👍✝️
Keith, I appreciated the video & your irenic spirit. As an SBTS grad, I also loved that you brought Boyce in! He is a theological treasure…my favorite non-Puritan theologian. Founders reprinted his Abstract of Systematic Theology, the same edition you have there. It’s very well done. My copy has lasted me over 17 years of frequent use.
Particular Baptist Heritage Books is a newer publisher, but they’re releasing his Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine late summer/early fall of this year in a beautiful clothbound hardcover edition; it’ll also include a brief biographical sketch of Boyce. Thought you’d like to know!
Hope you’re doing well, brother.
This is why the Roman Catholics and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox have a point about discarding tradition. It can be dangerous.
Do the people who want Spurgeon out want Beth Moore, Joyce Meyers, and Ken Copeland in?
Or do they want to go with the rainbow Messodist, I mean, Methodist route?
That's complete BS. The Roman Catholics are the epitome of holding mans traditions (way) above God's Word.
The ecumenical theological diversity argument that Keith is using for Calvinism, is the argument the UMC used for queer acceptance. I am a trustee at a UMC church in the deep south and we are allowed to stay the course on our policies on this topic. Both our current minister and the trustees have decided to maintain the status quo (biblical) position on marriage within our church. The general UMC policy is that the trustees control the use of the church building and the minister sets his own policy on whom he will perform marriages for. The decision, while problematic theologically, still gives individual ministers and congregations choice on their own policies. I read a lot of shade cast at the UMC (somewhat rightfully) but I have not seen any one from the UMC clarify the UMC's position/policy on the topic in these media spaces.
My question is when did ministers and trustees have authority over scripture.
@@miguelramos1855 ministers are the pastor equivalent, so they are ordained. The Trustees set the church building use policy, and are partially equivalent to elders in Presbyterian churches.
Do Calvinists look both ways before crossing the street?
Daniel Scheiderer, who holds to Second London, has written an exposition of the BFM2K that is compatible with Particular Baptist Theology.
Because there are so many scriptures that refute major tenets and tulips of Calvinism, why are the eyes of Calvinists blinded to these conflicts?
The real question is WHO blinded them?
This could be a good thing. They may study it and have a renewal of mind. Would be epic to see!
J.L. Dagg wrote a book titled, The Manual of Theology and Church Order. He was an early Southern Baptist. He taught TULIP.
SBC is comprised of like believing evangelical congregations and hyper Calvin's do not subscribe to such radical beliefs. Like Presbyterians, they omit "who so ever will" thus we would have to agree Calvin's are really not of like congregations.
Baptists teach POINSETTIA, not TULIP.
POINSETTIA.
- Pursuit Unconditional: God desires all to be saved and has made a way of salvation in Christ for any person.
- Own Guilt: Fallen man inherits a sinful nature but is condemned only because of his own sin.
- Inclusive Atonement: The substitutionary atonement of Christ is effective and available for every person.
- Natural Responsibility: God’s grace takes all the initiative in saving souls. Man’s free response is not a work.
- Spontaneous Regeneration: Any who repent and believe are regenerated at that point, not before or apart from it.
- Election Available: In election, God saves people without predetermining their souls for heaven or hell.
- Temperate Foreknowledge: God’s sovereign omniscience does not mean he causes human decisions about Jesus.
- True Freedom: God gives to each person actual free will to accept or reject his call to salvation.
- Indestructible Security: When one is saved, God promises to complete the process, sealing their eternal fate.
- Almighty Gospel: As we share God’s love, the gospel is the means of bringing any person to Christ.
Reformed theology really invokes an emotional response from people. But of the ones who get upset, I’ve never seen one who actually represented the doctrines correctly. It’s always we have no free will! Nothing matters since election is arbitrary! This will make you unfruitful! Total depravity really offends our humanist, most people are good culture but the first time I read it I was like..dang, that is correct. I really like Dr. Leighton Flowers but even he, who has way more study and knowledge than me, doesn’t present it the way I understood it from RC Sproul and others.
I’m not sure if it’s intentional or not, but Dr Flowers conflates the decrees of God.
When my husband and I first came to faith and were trying to learn, we providential stumbled on the teaching of RC. Nothing helped clarify who God is as his teaching. I don't think we should undermine God's Sovereignty by rejecting reformed theology
People get emotional about Calvinism because it's heresy taught as truth. That is something to get emotional about. It's nonsense and it dishonors God.
Yeah, it’s always been really crazy to me that the only ones who can accurately represent Calvinism are those who support it. You are a Calvinist? Congratulations you now have the super power of being able to represent Calvinism. Oh, you don’t support Calvinism? Unfortunately you will never be able to understand these “deep” truths… unless you start agreeing with us!
@@sorenpx how does it dishonor God? And why would you say that it is not taught in scripture?
I find the motion to evaluate "Calvinism" and its compatibility with the SBC to be rather disingenuous... What PART of Calvinism is this person objecting to? What is his specific issue?
The specific issue is that God formed a human being for the purpose of tormenting that person forever for His glory, without any possibility of escaping this fate. That's a major issue because it turns God into a monster and insults his character.
@@sorenpx I believe that you're mistaking Calvinism for hyper-Calvinism... Plus, God owes NONE of us salvation; the fact that he rescues any of us is an amazing and glorious demonstration of His grace and mercy.
Nevertheless, you dodged my question: why did this man not give his specific objection? An unfocused objection rarely brings a properly focused solution.
@@KatWilton No, that is not a hyper-calvinist belief. That is just a calvinistic and biblical one. Romans 9 clearly teaches that God creates some people to be vessels of wrath while others are created to be recipients of mercy. While that might seem unfair, do you know what Paul's response was? "... [W]ho are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”" (Rom. 9:20 ESV)
@@sorenpxCalvinists don’t believe that. Don’t be silly
@@toddstevens9667 James White says so!
I'm SBC adjacent, but I'm not surprised. If the SBC is going to accept woman pastors, then why not promote Arminianism? Both are unbiblical.
The SBC does not accept women pastors. They just kicked a church out of the SBC a couple days ago for accepting women pastors in their church constitution.
I was in the room when he came to the mic. There was a hardy second, a bunch of them. Almost as many as the one just previous to it about relaxing the alcohol ban in entity covenants 😄. Fascinating.
Also, if they got this to pass, we would have one seminary remaining, not six. And the convention would be severely impoverished theologically and spiritually.
I got to get that shirt.
Love the readings.
Thanks for quotes from Boyce.
Calvinism isn't going anywhere in the SBC. (I'm a member of an SBC Church.) Many young folks are Calvinistic in nature. It was funny that a guy brought it up, lol.
I grew up going to a southern Baptist school. Most of the people I’ve met who don’t like Calvinism can’t name the five points of tulip. One Deacon actually said that Calvinism just means predestination, and he didn’t like it. 😂
If you don’t like Calvinism, that’s fine. But at least understand what it is about before you decide that you don’t think it’s commensurate with the Bible
Most Calvinists don't know the 5 points. Most have heard MacArthur and Piper sermons and agree with a couple of points. The problem is that all 5 points have to be fully applied to be consistent as Lorraine Boettner writes
"As will be shown, the Bible contains an abundance of material for the development of each of these doctrines. Furthermore, these are not isolated and independent doctrines but are so inter-related that they form a simple, harmonious, self-consistent system; and the way in which they fit together as component parts of a well-ordered whole has won the admiration of thinking men of all creeds. Prove any one of them true and all the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned. They are found to dovetail perfectly one into the other. They are so many links in the great chain of causes, and not one of them can be taken away without marring and subverting the whole Gospel plan of salvation through Christ. We cannot conceive of this agreement arising merely by accident, nor even being possible, unless these doctrines are true."
The consistent Calvinist is an exhaustive determinist like Piper which doesn't allow any free will; makes us fancy robots; and makes God the author of sin. Of course, this is repulsive to the sensibilities of most, so we have compatabilism which is a sugar coated version of determinism and basically the same thing... but we feel better about the that uneasy feeling in our soul.
The consistent Calvinist cannot rightfully be upset about anything... since everything is part of God's perfect plan. How can you be upset with God's plan? This means MacArthur can't rightfully get upset at Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers anymore or risk being accused of elevating his opinion above God's in an idolatrous way.
To be a consistent Calvinist is a very strange thing... indeed.
Baptists can't really be reformed. They can be Calvinistic when it comes to predestination (they explain it wrong though), but not reformed.
How about this?
Calvinism should be kicked out because its Total Depravity and Determinism contradict Jesus's teachings. In Matthew 13 and Mark 4, Jesus used parables to keep sinners from understanding. In Calvinism, sinners are born blind to the truth and remain blind to the truth forever as predetermined by the Calvinists' God who can decide to do bad if He so chooses. The Great Commision Commandment shows no support to Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Determinism.
There are more contradictions, such as Paul's writings being superior to Jesus's teachings and words.
When Calvinists such as MacArthur and White are asked about these contradictions, their answers of "it's a mystery above my paygrade" is not acceptable. While Calvinust justify their total reliance on Paul's writings as God breathe, that can not be superior to Jesus's words since Jesus IS God!
In the SBC during the motion time anyone can come make a motion. It is then voted on the next day and if it passes, It is then referred to a committee and may never be heard from again. Many people in the SBC have never heard of Calvinist theology and when they are presented with it then they are usually presented with Limited Atonement as being the distinctive. Most don’t agree with limited atonement and so they don’t understand that they themselves are probably 2 or 3 point Calvinists. This man probably just learned of it and decided it was something new and trying to take over and wanted to make a motion against it out of ignorance but it is an ignorance I understand because I was once there myself.
there is no such a thing as a two or three point Calvinist, the five points stand or fall together.
@@e.t.h.559 "Four point Calvinists? We call those Arminians!" -R.C. Sproul.
Five points or bust!
You can't be consistent without being a 5 pointer. It all falls or stands with Total depravity with was formulated more from an Eisegetical approach using Gnostic teaching than Scripture (by Augustine). If you are truly dead and blind, then why did Jesus teach in parables so they wouldn't understand and believe???? It just doesn't hold up under tough questions.
Well, despite your denial there are many people who would consider themselves to agree with some and not all of the points of “Calvinism”. You may think those people are inconsistent in their views but it doesn’t change what I posted in the least. I’ve known people to say you aren’t really a Calvinist unless you believe in double predestination. I’ve known people who have said they believe in it so much there is no way a person can truly know if they are one of the elect or not. I disagree. But they thought they were right just like you all think you are right. Most people in the southern Baptist convention will agree with 2-3 points if calvinism and not the others.
@@sonnyh9774 "It all falls or stands with Total depravity which was formulated more from an...approach using Gnostic teaching than Scripture."
This is an outright falsehood. Total depravity comes directly from Scripture's clear teaching that mankind is comprehensively fallen and rebellious after Adam's sin (Genesis 6:5, Gen 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18 Rom 8 7-8, etc). Calling it "Gnostic" is a slanderous misrepresentation.
"If you are truly dead and blind, then why did Jesus teach in parables so they wouldn't understand?"
This objection misses the point of judicial hardening.
Christ's parables weren't just hard truths, but instruments of divine judgment on the hard-hearted rejecting Him. This involved two aspects:
God withdrawing heart-softening grace from these truth-suppressors, leaving them to the natural consequences of their self-imposed hardness (spiritual darkness).
An impartial application of external punishments meant to harden hearts as a harsh judgment - in this case, the increasingly obscure parables of Christ, which served to further blind those who rejected Him.
This matches Pharaoh's case - his rejection of God's signs provoked removal of grace while unleashing plagues to further harden him. The parables functioned similarly for unrepentant Jewish rejecters of Christ.
"It just doesn't hold up under tough questions.”
Not at all - judicial hardening aligns with total depravity. The unregenerate remain culpable for their depravity while righteously subjected to compounded blindness orchestrated by the offended Divine Judge. Their suppression of truth makes them deserving of having incomprehensibility and obscurity increase upon them as judgment for their inveterate condition.
Enjoyed the video. After having read many of the comments, I was shocked at all the viewers who attacked Calvinism with scurrilous lies. Disagreeing with a position is very different than attacking that position with un-truths and dishonesty. Calvinists believe the same Gospel as the non-Calvinists and the Arminians. Calvinists believe that justification is by Grace through faith, without works. Calvinism is NOT another Gospel in any way. It’s a disagreement over the doctrine of election, not justification. Al Mohler, an SBC Calvinist, preaches the exact same Gospel as Robert Jeffress, an SBC non-Calvinist. There are important questions and issues in the debate, but neither side is heretical. There are verses on both sides of this debate. And I think both sides would do well to approach these issues with a little bit more humility and lot more honesty about the opposing position.
As Calvinism is more of a philosophical system, with heavy reliance on Augustinean influences, it should not be promoted at the expense of Biblical exegesis.
I’m a closet Calvinist in our SBC. I’ve heard men say such horrible things about Calvinism/reformed.
Well... blessed are you when men say all kinds of stupid things against the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ. 😅
It doesn't have to be that way. I belong to an SBC-affiliated reformed Baptist church outside Nashville, and we don't remotely shrink from reformed theology. Crazy as it is, we're approaching mega-church size (over 2,000 per Sunday) while practicing expository preaching and weekly call-and-response confessions. Most amazing church I've ever been a part of.
@@gregmcray may I ask where outside of Nashville? I’m in Wilson County
@@justinthyme2666 The Journey Church in Lebanon, Leeville Pike. 8:30, 10:00, and 11:30.
@@gregmcray yes, I’ve visited there a few times and really liked it. I don’t think our youngest could handle the volume of the music, unfortunately, and my wife isn’t fully on board with reformed (yet, at least).
Some people must have forgotten that the UMC conference was last month in Charlotte.
Look up Patrick Hues Mell and his book 'A southern Baptist looks at the doctrine of predestination '. From mid-late 1800s. He was president of sbc for 17 years total. Most all baptists in English speaking countries were calvinst when doctrine was serious stuff and mattered.
The SBC passed dispensationalism as a resolution so they have little regard for their own history, with little difference than that old man.
Every Christian is a dispensationalist. What are you talking about?
@@keithwilson6060😂😂😂😂😂
@@keithwilson6060 Really? So there were no Christians before Johan Nelson Darby's dispensationalism in the 1800s? Considering that dispensationalism is heavily changed to actually be scriptural, I wonder which version of dispensationalism is correct...
@@thomasc9036 I think it was meant to be a joke.
@@hilohilo9539 Hard to tell considering too many foolish American Christians adopted this heresy. Only reason the modern form of dispensationalism escaped being a heresy is due to abandoning about 80% of its original thoughts.
I can fix this whole problem. It's time to bring in the female Calvinist pastors. Lol😊
Stealth Calvinism should be addressed as I know several churches where this is happening.
That is true … but then we shouldn’t be hiring pastors that we don’t know.
Yes, it's happening in Covington Georgia with a 10 plus year plan to implement a slow church split where people get discouraged and leave one by one without causing too much of a stink. The devil is in the details. I've confronted him and he kicked me out. He allowed my wife to leave me without Biblical reasons and won't say one thing in reproof to her. She and my kids still attend while I watch online. No man, woman or child is safe from this closet egalitarian and exhaustive determinist. He asks the elderly to include the church in their wills to build a new building. He has prevented me from joining the church for years, but he let my wife and kids join. I was a Calvinist for 20 years until I noticed some tough questions being asked and Calvinist apologists avoiding the questions.... which led to more questions and a humbling realization that I had been deceived.
Okay, where did you get that cool Calvinist drink cup?
A ‘heart of stone’ cannot exercise the faith necessary to ‘believe’…one must first receive a ‘heart of flesh’ (be regenerated) in order to receive faith from the author and giver of faith Heb 12:2
A necessary debate in American Protestantism is between those who are "Confessional Protestants" and "Modern American Evangelicalism", which by example is unable to confirm the Nicene Creed as a doctrine of the Church. Modern American Evangelicalism is firmly placing itself outside of historic Christianity.
Keith how do I look up the Zionist pray you mentioned early in your video? Also great job handling this issue
Love the videos
Thanks Josh. Miss you bro!
The Church survived well enough without the doctrinal formulations of Calvin for the first fifteen hundred years. If Calvin was simply restating long accepted truths of the Faith in his doctrinal formulations, why were these doctrines not immediately accepted by all true Christians? My question is this - even if a Reformation was necessary, was an entirely new doctrinal formulation, a complete novelty in the history of the Church, necessary to achieve the reformation of the Church?
That race car on display was actually an Indycar.
I was out of bounds at an SBC church, and did my PhD at Midwestern tho I have always been a Presbyterian. Could we have a citation of the actual motion and what became of it?
Referred to a committee or entity where it'll probably go nowhere.
do yall have the tshirt we don't care what the pope says? thanks
And don't forget John Leadley Dagg!
God is Sovereign and those who do not like it are rebelling agains God! God chooses, elects, Regenerates, gives the GIFT of Repentance and the GIFT of faith - it’s written in the Bible! We can’t argue with it! Or we are being disobedient, K
God sovereignly chose to give us the ability to accept or reject the gift and work of Jesus. It is God's will that all men be saved so either Calvinists serve a really weak and small God who can't do what he says or Calvinists are missing something. Calvinists can try to explain it away by changing definitions of words to make the esisegesis of Augustine appear consistent, but when put under scrutiny, it just doesn't hold water. Jesus wouldn't have to speak in parables if men were dead and blind... unless this is all a cruel joke and the most perverse play ever written. But, I don't believe that. I did for 20 years, but not any more.
@@sonnyh9774 you seem to forget that Jesus Himself said that no man can go to Him unless the Father call that person!
Jesus also said that all those that the Father gave Him would come to Jesus. In both these statements Jesus says that God calls and gives! God is the one who takes the initiative! There are many other Scriptures like this.
Also Paul’s says that those God elected , God calls, and God justifies them and God glorifies them in the end. Again it is all of God and not of man.
Why is it everyone is happy to accept that God chose Israel to be His people in the Old Testament - that He created Israel basically as they were not a nation before Abraham was called - notice God chose or called Abraham - to be the nation He would reveal Himself to and give His Word to ……. But in the New Testament everyone gets on their high horses about the fact that God is still continuing to choose a people for Himself?
God did not save all of Israel - He chose to save some Israelites as a people for Himself out of that nation. By His grace He also saved some from outside Israel.
In the New Testament the same is true - Jesus is building His church by saving the elect of God! Which included all the first believers in Jesus which were Jews.
One Scripture mentions that when Paul was preaching only those who were elect believed. When Paul approached the women having a bible study it says God opened Lydia’s mind to under and believe the Gospel. So she was brought to faith by God’s grace and action.
Pride is the problem! Man likes to think he is in control- making his own choices to be saved. That’s why everyone gets angry! They do not want to bow the knee to God!
When I first became a Christian I knew nothing of election. Others around did not talk about it. I was in an Anglican Church.
But as I studied and read my Bible I could see the references to election for myself! You can’t miss them! I knew nothing about Calvin.
So I asked questions and I studied and it all fell nicely into place! I can’t say I liked the doctrine at first! But the more convinced I became of its validity in the pages of Scripture - the more I bowed the knee to God and actually it was a most wonderful experience as I realised that I - a wretched sinner who deserved hell - had actually been known by God before the creation of the world!! That He had set His love upon me in Christ.
We all deserve to go to hell! God does not have to save anyone! He owes us nothing but punishment! Yet in His mercy and grace He saves some!
How thankful we should be! I was dead in my sin - rebelling against God and would have done so to my dying day if He had not intervened and saved me. K
@@sonnyh9774 NO! Our default position is to reject the Gospel. To reject God. To reject Jesus. God has to take the initiative and give us a new heart and a new mind. Regeneration! He gives repentance. He gives faith. It is all by Grace. It is all a gift. K
@@sonnyh9774 you also seem to forget that unbelievers - all mankind in his natural state are the children of Satan! Bound by sin! Blinded by Satan! Deceived by Satan ! How can anyone in that position have free will to believe in Jesus? Believe the Gospel?
Their minds are darkened!
Hence God has to intervene!
He doesn’t do this for everyone - or everyone would be saved!
He does it for the elect alone.
None of the elect will be lost. K
@@mikekayanderson408 Thank you for your kind and heartfelt reply. I was a Calvinist for 20 years and persuaded many to become Calvinist. I can relate to much of your comment. So much of it fits very nicely into place. However, there are some things that do not fit nicely that Piper and MacArthur will chalk up to mystery rather than address the dilemma. One dilemma that John MacArthur just admits he doesn't have an answer for is , "Why did Jesus preach in parables so the people wouldn't believe when, in theory, they were dead and blind and couldn't see unless God opened their eyes?" MacArthur said that was a very good question.... that he didn't know... that it was a mystery. This contradicts the theory of Calvin and Augustine of total depravity.
Another question is why did Jesus weep over Jerusalem rejecting Jesus when , in theory, God had sovereignly planned it from the beginning? Why would Jesus be upset with God's plan? Jesus has no good reason to be upset with anything God has determined. Piper is consistent enough to admit that God is the author of every sin... every child molestation and child sacrifice. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't match the character of God in the Bible. Consider these three verses where God says the thing never came into His mind:
And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart.
(Jer 7:31)
(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),
(Jer 19:5)
And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’
(Jer 32:35)
These verses are problematic for Calvinistic theology which says that God determines everything and planned it from the beginning of time.
I don't believe God elects and sends some babies to Hell because I don't believe those babies are born with the guilt of the sin of Adam or any of their fathers. See Ezekiel 18:20 where the father's guilt shall not bear upon the child. The Bible teaches that we are responsible for our own deeds and our own sins. We are born with a sin nature but not the sin of Adam, so it is more loving and consistent with God's character to take babies to Heaven unless they reach the "age of accountability".
A consistent Calvinist is one who believes God determines and authors evil. All roads of compatable theories that try to sugar coat it by saying God determines our desires and we are accountable for our decisions.... this is folly and basically the same as determinism.
Your trouble accepting this theology was your heart struggling with this contradiction. John Calvin struggled with the same thing.... wrestling with how God can be the author of evil.
God loves us enough to give us a limited free will choice to accept or reject Him as our Lord and Savior. No one goes to Hell unless they choose to reject God. Love requires a free will choice. God doesn't force us to love Him. He would be a very small and insecure God to make us all glorified robots with just the illusion of free will.
A consistent Calvinist can't tell a crowd that Jesus loves them because, in theory, God hates some of them, so it would be dishonest to say God loves you when we don't know ... as a Calvinist.
The Calvinist theology is the most unloving approach I can think of. God wants us to love as He does, so are we to hate people like He does? No, we are to love... even our enemies and forgive others as God forgives us.
From the outside looking in, there is an underlying idea that always being willing to reform is inherent to Baptist theology. It seems they believe that man is continually coming to new, better, understandings of God. Thus, if they have now concluded that Calvinism is wrong, it should be eschewed. And, the opposite would apply. And, considering that there is no authority aside from one’s interpretation of scripture, this only makes sense. If I’ve misunderstood them in this regard, please feel free to correct me.
Boyce's ABSTRACT is an excellent book, and should be the primary theology textbook in all SBC seminaries, along with Dagg's MANUAL OF THEOLOGY.
If people do not want to acknowledge God’s authority to determine all things, they are not Christians in the first place and have no place determining doctrine any more than Satan.
For those that were not in attendance, you need to know that this motion failed miserably. Although I and most other SBC ministers do not hold to a high Calvinist belief, a motion like that is likely not to pass for the same reason that the nicene creed won’t be adopted: the SBC is not credal, but rather operates on a statement of faith. This motion was dead the moment that it was proposed.
In Church History class I leaned that the first Baptists were Arminian. They were called the general Baptists for their believes in a Universal Atonement. Look it up. The Baptist denomination was not Calvinistic from the start.
I am not Calvinist, but my friend ( Southern Baptist) is. It should absolutely be an integral part, though optional, of the denomination.
It is, people just don't realize it. All Baptist pastors I've seen preach all say we are born into sin, saved by God's grace, we can't resist God's will, and believers must have faith til the end. They all teach that. And that's 4 point calvinism, not all are 5 point calvinists. It's integral to almost every Baptists beliefs, they just don't know. Most Baptists don't read their Bibles, much less understand Theology or church history.
Very helpful, thank you Sir.
More Truths to kick out of the SBC:
1. God killed babies (of the Canaanites, Egyptians, and even of Israel (Ezekiel 9))
2. God killed 70,000 innocent (from an earthly perspective) people because David's sin.
3. It was God who incited David to sin in the first place (2 Samuel 24:1)
4. God forbid Israel Intermarrying with Canaanites (Deut 7:3, Exodus 34:15-16, 1 Kings 11:2)
Yet when Sampson told his parents he wanted a wife from the Philistines "It was OF THE LORD" (Judges 14:4)
5. It is GOD who raises up evil men to do HIS will (Isaiah 46:10-11)
6. It was God who raised up Pharaoh to oppress His people Israel (Exodus 9:16)
7. It was God who "turned their hearts (Egyptians) to hate His own people" (Psalm 105:25)
8. It was God who turned their hearts to have Pity on His people (Psalm 106: 46)
9. It was God who called the King of Assyria "An ax in MY hand" and "the club of MY wrath" in Isaiah 10, "trampling them (Judah) down like mud in ste streets." and then punishing the King for doing what He did even though He fulfilled God's sovereign purpose.
10. It is God who turns King's hearts "like a watercourse wherever HE wills" (Proverbs 21:1)
11. NOBODY was saved by Free Will in the Old Testament/Old Covenant. ALL "turned their own way" (Isaiah 53:6)
NOBODY should have been saved, ALL of t hem should have perished (Ezekiel 6)
GOD left a remnant by HIS mercy ALONE (Isaiah 1:9, Romans 9:29)
12. In the NEW Covenant, God made a covenant "NOT LIKE the old one" where in
(1) They did not remain faithful (they turned away)
so
(2) I turned away from t hem.
"Free Will" was the very PROBLEM in the Old Covenant because "THE PEOPLE" do nothing but turn away (Hebrews 8)
12. NOBODY is saved by Free Will in the NEW covenant either.
GOD does a work INSIDE of His elect so that
(1) They will never turn away
(2) I will never turn away from them (see Jeremiah 32:40 and Hebrews 8)
It's unbelievable to me that no matter how much God shows us the wretchedness of man's condition and his inability to even seek God, let alone "choose" God, men still fight with all of their might to prove they are not that wretched and most certainly can "choose" Christ!
But then again, it is the wretchedness of man that ignores God's Holiness and Magnifies his own ability !
Many don't get this. But the perceived injustice of God by men standard is greater justice than any of men good standards. Our deeds are like filthy rags. That is why salvation is by faith alone and literalllyyy no one can boastt
Truth! Decisionists are, at their root, unintentional deniers that man is truly dead in his trespasses. The very idea "prevenient" grace that they cling to, even if they don't know that word, doesn't exist in scripture anywhere, OT or NT. God has mercy on whom He will. What offends the decisionist makes me humbly grateful in a way I cannot even describe.
If you were consistent within your theology, you wouldn't be upset at any of God's plan, but you are which is a form of idolatry if your theology is correct. Whenever you elevate your opinion above God's... you step in it... or God determined it, so you didn't really step in it. God stepped in it for you and holds you accountable for what God made you do. Just like something Zeus would do....
@@sonnyh9774 Sounds like someone doesn't know how to hold parallel truths in tension without their brains breaking.
@@sonnyh9774
sonny,
First off, I'm not "upset" about anything.
Second, if I was upset about anything, it's not "idolatry." Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Third, None of what I wrote is my opinion, it's all scripture!
Can you tell me what I wrote above is not in scripture?
Honestly your entire comment makes no sense.
Calvin - is he the one that had people burned at the stake for disagreeing with him?
No, that was Polycarp who God made immune from the fire while tief to the stake, so the Romans speared and killed him.
BEWARE of any teachings named after a human because, as you know, all glory is to be given to God. Typically, anything named after a human becomes a cult.
I can understand why this is upsetting, no point in it except to cause division. I was raised in a Baptist denomination that had a reformed Arminian tradition. I personally believe that terms like Calvinism, Arminianism, Reformed Arminian, Pentecostal etc are all terms coined by someone not named Jesus. Doctrinal belief's are fine as long as they do not define us. Only Jesus Christ should define us and we should be making much of Jesus together and become stronger when embracing each others doctrinal differences.
Does anyone have a link to the woman giving the prayer mentioned at the beginning?
Never mind the fact that the SBC was started as a Calvinist confessing entity by calvinists.
Boyce's Ambstract of Systemic Theology and catechism are available on the Founder's App as well
The SBC need to repent of their pride. They are works righteousness on every level. Reformed theology gave me a better understanding of Christ. The SBC is a dying denominations and it isn't due to apostacy, folks are fed up with the hypocrisy
Calvinism's Total Depravity and Determinism contradict Jesus's teachings. In Matthew 13 and Mark 4, Jesus used parables to keep sinners from understanding. In Calvinism, sinners are born blind to the truth and remain blind to the truth forever as predetermined by the Calvinists' God who can decide to do bad if He so chooses. Contrast the Calvinism god to the true nature of God as seen in Jesus.
The Great Commision Commandment shows no support to Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Determinism.
There are more contradictions, such as Paul's writings being superior to Jesus's teachings and words.
When Calvinists such as MacArthur and White are asked about these contradictions, their answers of "it's a mystery above my paygrade" is not acceptable.
While Calvinist justify their total reliance on Paul's writings as being God breathe, that can not be superior to Jesus's words since Jesus IS God!
If Total Depravity was true, Jesus wouldnot have said this:
And Jesus answered and said, “O you unbelieving and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.”
- Matthew 17:17
awhere are these in error or are your eyes opened to God’s truth?
@@jqmachgunner2577 I dont follow JM or JW. I am reformed. You dont have an understanding.
@kimmcdaniel8933 in your ignorance, you think so.
But be advised. Calvinists claims you.
th-cam.com/video/cxCPakuLN_s/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rSKsh0VS8dn56_VA
The shure sm57 with the wind screen. Very presidential Keith. Nice. The video is great too!
I was SBC from 13 until 53, so 40 years of my life. Then I started reading the early Church fathers, which lead me to the Catholic Church. I'm getting my Masters in Theology, so I've had to read a lot of the patristic works. What I find so ironic in this video is the appeal to history and tradition; to go back 200+ years and see where the SBC was founded, which I would agree is more Calvinism than Baptist. That appeal to tradition, to go back to how the Church was founded, sound familiar? Catholics have been saying this for the past 500 years. The SBC has been a sinking ship since 2006. You will find most of your large-to mega SBC churches have all stripped the name "Southern Baptist" from the name and replaced it with cutesy names like "Crossroads", "Crosspoint", "Grace Fellowship", "Saddleback", ... you get the point. They're all fleeing to non-denominational churches with watered-down, or non-existent statements of faith. When you get tired of church shopping, come and find the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by Christ through Peter in 33AD. Yeah, that's the real "Old Time Religion."
Could this be the revival we've been praying for for the last 30 years? Only the SBC doesnt recognize it?
I am so thankful to be FREE from the Arminian SBC of my upbringing.
What part are you thankful to be free of?
@@4godisholyArminianism, but also the belief that only the 10 Commandments and the New Testament are important, and the only part of the NT we must adhere to is what JESUS said...Of course, JESUS taught that we were to obey the law and that He had fulfilled the law and the prophets. We are to be like Him. They say all the Bible is true, but they drastically reduce its portions that are "relevant to us today."
I know all Baptist churches are not this way, but the ones I grew up in are.
@@LucianaPelota
I’m sorry, that is terrible. I grew up in a fundamental baptist church that for the most part had good preaching and teaching but definitely tended towards legalism.
I am sorry for you, too! Thank GOD for His Word, the whole Bible, nothing more, nothing less!
Amen!
Could you please also talk about the SBC not affirming the Law Amendment and not affirming the Nicene Creed? Both of those things are crazy to me. I would think that being in favor of both would be obvious!
I became a Christian in 1974, and started attending a Presbyterian church. I attended a Presbyterian seminary for two years,and have been a defender of Reformed Theology. For that past two years I decided copy the bible by my own hand writing, no chapters and no verses. Now I no longer subscribe to Calvinism. I don’t think the SBC shouldn’t ban Calvinist theologians. However, Calvinist and others should be honest and fully disclose their theological positions.
We have brothers and sisters on both sides of this debate. No one who understands the number of people who would be excluded would bring forth such a resolution. This would be devastating to our convention and would exclude many of our best and brightest.
I'm not a 5 pointer, but have godly friends who love Jesus and people, who are 5 point Calvinist. You find out we don't believe that differently when you actually talk to people instead of about them.
Calvinist and Arminian Baptists have been trying to excommunicate each other since the earliest days of American Baptistry. This debate is not going away anytime soon. In the mid 1800s this issue split congregations even in rural backwater Virginia.
When I was raised in the Southern Baptist church we were taught that Baptists were Arminian and that's what made us different from other denominations. You'd think the Baptist stance on baptism would be the defining feature...😅
Great video! Very informative! Thanks brother!
It’s so hated. That’s very, very troubling.
The nonsense in the Southern Baptist Convention is the same reason I left a little over a year ago. I now am a full time member of a Landmark Bible believing congregation that teaches the Doctrines of Grace not to be mistaken with 'Reformed Baptist'.
Love your shirt. I want one, though not in a coveting way...but it is not on your store!!
Thanks for the video.
Now it's time to say imprecatory Psalms for a few people.
Charles Simeon’s (Calvinist) conversation with John Wesley (Arminian)
It is instructive in this connection to ponder Charles Simeon’s account of his conversation with John Wesley on December 10, 1784 (the date is given in Wesley’s journal):
Charles Simeon: “Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.… Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?”
John Wesley: “Yes,” says the veteran, “I do indeed.”
Charles Simeon: “And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?”
John Wesley: “Yes, solely through Christ.”
Charles Simeon: “But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?”
John Wesley: “No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.”
Charles Simeon: “Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?”
John Wesley: “No.”
Charles Simeon: “What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?”
John Wesley: “Yes, altogether.”
Charles Simeon: “And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto his heavenly kingdom?”
John Wesley: “Yes, I have no hope but in him.”
Charles Simeon: “Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.
As a person who did not come to be a Christian by way of any Church experience, but rather as a result of respectfully asking a God I didn't believe existed, to "please alleviate my ignorance if that is your will", which to my utter amazement He did, I cannot possibly ascribe to the "Doctrines of Grace", as they are so radically contrary to what I read of God in the Book, as well as what I personally experienced after making my request, that they appear to me to be more appropriately named; The Doctrines of Satan.
I myself, think that the SBC should split in two, Calvinism and non Calvinism are in opposition to one another. And I also think that Calvinist pastors should NOT be going into non Calvinist churches and trying to turn them without the church knowing, kind of like John MacArthur did to his church.
Ahh. making another cult. satan would be proud of you.
Gen 1:3…that’s a DECREE! Specifically a decretive decree…there are also permissive decrees…
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and not the Southern Baptist Seminary. The SBC has six seminaries: 1) Southern, 2) Southeastern, 3) Southwestern, 4) New Orleans, 5) Midwestern and 6) Gateway (formerly Golden Gate).
While you can go to any of the seminaries as a basic evangelical, Southern and Southeastern requires professors to subscribe to the Abstract of Principles (whereas the other seminaries just require the Baptist Faith and Message for their professors).
Not long ago we attended a Bertaler (Mennonite) (spelling) Church and felt loved like in no other Church since the 1980's. We found the trying very hard to hang onto their "Free Moral Agency" and embrace Calvinism. That will NOT WORK. Those are contrary to one another.
Please pardon my harsh tone…I’m a little grumpy today…
I am not a Calvinist, but I would be apposed to that motion. There is too many SBC churches that fall different places.
Dr. Joyce's book on systematic theology is available on Amazon for e-readers for only $0.99
Yes!!! Thanks for saying this. I’ve been using my Kindle a ton recently.
That would be preferable to Hodge or Grudem in many ways.
Downloaded it from ccel
@@sonnyh9774 I'm familiar with Grudem's but have not read it. I'm assuming you consider it a little dangerous because he's a continuationist? Boyce definitely was not and neither am I.
@@SimpleManGuitars1973 My beef with Grudem is his stance on marriage which was used by my wife for "no fault divorce" and my calvinist pastor didn't say one negative thing to her about it. So, I'm ill with Grudem's compromise on marriage and it makes me leary of anything the man says... right or wrong. I have also been asked not to attend church by the same calvinist pastor without Biblical justification. I have asked for my sin with no reply. The "good ol boy" SBC Calvinist is alive and well and it's got me asking questions and wanting some answers as to what has caused these men to act this way? The more I dig, the more problems I find with Calvinism because I'm looking rather than "justifying". I was an inconsistent calvinist for 20 years, and I'm waking up from the cognitive dissonance. To be consistent, all 5 points must exist. Piper tries to be consistent with his exhausive determinism, but exhaustive determinism consistently applied is more demonic than christian. Many sense this and try to sugar coat things with compatible ism but it's the same thing... just sugar coated.
I don't think Calvinists understand people's views on Calvinism. Personally, I haven't met a Calvinist who could explain Calvinism to a lay Christian. Once, I was directed to a video series by R.C. Sproul. He sure talked about it TULIP, but he talked about how he was obligated to teach the Bible and, in my opinion, didn't go into depth where he should have.
Citing the Bible says you are right is the best method to explain. I think it was John McCarther that I have seen defend Calvinism (YT), I thought his defense was horrible, but I thought the Christians asking questions didn't understand Calvinism.
Calvinism was never in the SBC or any Baptist church for that matter.
'He's not like most Calvinists, he's nice!', made me laugh. xD
'You were wrong in the past and now you want to correct the mistake? Don't you care about your history?!'
I was pentacostal and as I started studying and finding reformed people on media and read the 1689 Baptist confession, i found that I have always agreed with it. I never considered myself a baptist at all or attended a Baptist Church before that, I would just read the bible, but now I see that I don't agree with all baptist, only reformed baptists. Went to the baptist church down the street and their preaching was heavily Armenian. Did not make sense with scripture to me. So i found out all baptists are not the same. They just share the name basically. I sure will never attend a non reformed baptist Church.
To borrow a line from Norman Maclean, Calvinist Baptists are Baptists who can read.
I don’t know if the, as I call it, “proof-is-in-the-pudding” theology of soteriology would be considered Calvinistic, or even compatible with OSAS theology, but it’s the one I hold as Biblical.