Huh???
"The Bible does speak about the elect of God or God's elect. It is important to note that when the phrase is used it is not a mere statement of fact or even of purpose, but like the scriptural expression "first born", it is a title of dignity and that title is only applied to those who are believers. It is a descriptive term and is used to refer to rank and privilege, not deliverance from damnation or eternal torment." (emphasis added)
-Quote from the book Trouble With The TULIP, written by Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
-Quote from the book Trouble With The TULIP, written by Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
11 comments:
Yeah, I had the same response...He must have pulled that one out of his butt.
Huh is a great title for this post. I ran across a J.I. Packer quote I had never heard before that answers this:
"Pelagianism is the natural heresy of zealous Christians who are not interested in theology."- J.I. Packer, "Keswick' and the Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification."
I also just finished slogging through Packer & Johnston's translation of Luther's "Bondage of the Will" - highly recommended. How anyone can not understand the term 'elect' and the unscripturality of the idea of 'free will' after reading even part of that is beyond me.
I finished The Bondage of the Will a couple of months ago as well. I loved that quote from J.I. Packer. That is exactly my experience with most of my SBC friends and associates when I mention Theology. There approach is all by feel and emotion. They are spiritually blind and there is nothing we can do or say to break through that blindness. Only God can do that.
In Christ
Mike Ratliff
I too have read "Bondage of the Will", and it is a good read. I wonder if one approach with our Semi-Pelagian/Arminian brethren might be to ensure we distinctly define our terms. Depending on what we mean by "free will", "free will" is not incompatible with God's sovereignty (and, I am a committed Calvinist, so don't think I'm about to run off the deep end here).
If we define "free will" as something along the lines of "the ability to choose a course of action based on our desires" (or more simply, "to do what we want to do, absent external constraints, eg force") then it is clear that free will as such -does- exist. That is to say, I -do- choose to do what I want to do, and one way or another I -always- choose to do what I want to do (ie, even if I'm choosing to do something I don't really like, such as running 2 miles, I'm choosing it because of something I like more than my dislike, ie, I want to be physically fit).
This gets into the idea of nature versus will, or free agency versus free will (where I am here using free will -as- free agency).
So the question is not, can I choose to do what I want to do (I can), but -why- do I want to do that? Paul in Romans, quoting the OT, affirms that none seeks God, that all do evil and turn from God. They don't do this because they are forced or compelled to, they turn from God because they -want- to by nature (or rather, by nature, they abhor the things of God, and choose in accordance with that hatred).
Thus, man does freely choose--in accordance with his nature. Else, why choose anything? Merely random chance? But that wouldn't help the Arminian's position. Strength of intellect? That wouldn't help his position either.
So what is it? Of course... as we know... a supernatural regeneration of the old man, who hates God and is dead in his sins, into a new man, whose eyes see and whose ears hear, and who freely and willingly chooses to love God because he desires nothing else... the Truth is too clear to him to choose otherwise!
Amen!
-Scrape
I had to read this twice to make sure it said what I thought it said.
In the end, man's pride just has to have a say in his salvation.
Blessings,
DT
What it does say is that the vast majority of Baptists are not essentially Methodists
I meant NOW essentially Methodists.
I finished "Trouble With The Tulip" today. It ought to be called "Trouble with the Scriptures" because that is exactly what Dr. Page is having trouble with...
The book is more like comedy than theology. I laughed through most of it!!
I graduated High School with about 2.5 GPA and I have never been to college, yet, I can understand the Doctrines of Grace and study theology constantly! I just cannot see how men with "PhD" and "DD" behind their name can write stuff as this...
I hope that all of Southern Baptist truly committed to the scriptures and not mere tradition will stand up for the truth and not leave the convention simply because the Arminians are in charge now. Trouble with Tulip is a waste of ink, and it is surprising that Frank Page who calls himself a theologian in the book makes several contradicting statements and does not even look up greek words. How can you get a title of dignty out of the greek word 'eklektos' meaning chosen or or selected. I have no idea. Also in his book he somehow changes Matthew 22:14 "Many are called but few are chosen" to mean "All are chosen, but few respond properly." This book is filled with the most blatant dishonoring exegesis I have ever found published. May this be a calling to faithfully exegete the word of God. I recommened everyone to read another work just as bad, Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free, as well as a much better work in response Geisler's book, written by James WHite entitled "The Potter's Freedom" Geisler calls himself a moderate calvinist when he is a four point Arminian like Page, Price, Vines, Harell, Caner, and all of those guys. White's book is filled with the most rich exegesis I think I have ever seen
So, what Dr. Paige is saying is that 'Elect' doesn't actually mean 'elect'. And he has the cheek to berate us Particular Baptists for saying that 'all' doesn't mean 'all' (we don't, we just point out that 'all' has to mean all somethings. CONTEXT).
highland host,
How are you....Page's book is just another vain attempt of a four point Arminian to discuss the five point's of calvinism. When I read the book, Page has so many out of context verses that He ASSUMES the meaning of because they have the words all and whole world. No exegesis, just mere assumptions. This book contained the most eisegetical gymnastics I have ever seen. It was worse than Geisler's CHosen But Free.
Post a Comment