While doing research for another post I came across an article about some documents that the “Traditional Southern Baptists” had put out on how to “smoke out Calvinists”
That article is worth reading, whether you have any ties to the Southern Baptist Convention or not. I am Confessional Presbyterian, though in the past I was an SBC member.
What is more tragic than these “Traditional Baptists” hatred for Calvinists, is the theology they promote. If they were Arminian, or the Baptist form of Arminianism that somehow believes in Perserverance of the Saints, I wouldn’t be so bothered by it. However, it seems that at least some of the more vocal leaders of this movement are at best semi-Pelagian, if not fully Pelagian, believing that man on his own volition can offer up a prayer at any time to be saved, and that God’s regenerating works is not necessary. This belief was condemned by the Church as a whole in 529 A.D.
The above image comes from the article linked at the beginning of my post. While some of what they said in these papers misrepresented Calvinists, this part is accurate as to what Calvinists believe. Why they chose to call Calvinistic Baptists “Extreme Calvinists” I don’t know.
“Traditional Baptists believe while we were dead in our sins, we are still able to hear, understand, and respond to the Gospel…”
Have you ever tried to talk to a corpse? Most likely you wouldn’t, because a corpse cannot hear, understand, or respond to what you are saying. A corpse cannot respond because it is dead.
It is by the work of the Holy Spirit that the man who is dead in sin is regenerated, given the gifts of repentance and faith, which he then uses to repent and believe. Without this miraculous work of God none would ever be saved.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:1-10, ESV
With that said, I leave you with an illustration of what exactly it means to be dead, and the actual traditional beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention from their Abstract of Principles.
You would think that they also think that there are huge gaps in between regeneration and belief. It’s not you regenerated today and believe a week later.
I have heard the argument that there is. A caller to Wretched Radio this week said he was told not to evangelize someone because on their search they may be at a level 3 out of 10 on their way to being saved, and it is better to not take a chance of lowering their spiritual progress. Even Pelagius wasn't that absurd.
As to if there can really be a gap, I think there can, but it is a matter of minutes, at least as we perceive it, not hours or even days.
My recent post Traditional Southern Baptist Dead Parrots
Regeneration or becoming a son of God in John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
Its very clear first they believe then they are given power to become sons of God. Regeneration comes after belief. It takes a lot of gymnastics to reverse the process the way Calvinism has done.
Way to try to prove your theology by using one verse. Thank you, try again.
You are arguing for the theology of Pelagius, a heresy condemned 1500 years ago. The free will believing Arminian believes in at least "prevenient grace" that comes before repentance and faith.
My recent post On the handling of Michael Servetus by John Calvin
Well when you are dealing with a subject only found in one verse, what to do? You (and I literally mean you, not the diplomatic you that means I) certainly aren't going to find even one verse that say regeneration takes place before faith. This verse is all there is and it places faith first.
"The free will believing Arminian believes in at least "prevenient grace" that comes before repentance and faith."
I think so does Pelagius. What is prevenient grace but a common grace shared by all? The only difference between the Arminian and Pelagius himself on this point would be that the Arminian thinks God applies this grace to everyone in their own lifetime (even to those who make no use of it and never believe, at some point the Arminian has them zapped with prevenient grace) whereas Pelagius has this prevenient grace simply put into creation at the beginning and never lost. They both have a prevenient grace, just its giving at different times.
"My recent post On the handling of Michael Servetus by John Calvin"
Yes, I'm well aware Calvin had him burned at the stake for not being a Trinitarian. And I'm also aware of the book Calvin wrote later in defense of having heretics killed, in which he says that Servetus "billowed like a god" crying for mercy in Spanish "misericordia! misericordia!" Quite contrary to the trite Calvinist fiction that Calvin had nothing to do with it and the city council actually did it against his will(! oh my!) Calvin admits to it in that book and says he'd do it again. But of course its never been translated into English because Arminian scholars are cowards and Calvinists don't want the truth to get out.
You are sorely mistaken regarding faith preceding regeneration except in one verse.. Rather than debate this with you though, I am just going to say this, and reply to your other comments.
You misrepresent history, and slander the name of John Calvin with your misrepresentation. Calvin would work to have him executed again, not that he desired him to be burnt. But, just like in your comments on the other post, it seems you want to twist things to slander the man. If you can't reply without misrepresenting the facts, you are welcome to not reply.
My recent post On the handling of Michael Servetus by John Calvin