Why Did Mark Dever Lose at the Southern Baptist Convention?
Find out the REAL reason Monday, June 19th, on The Calvinist Flyswatter!Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Monday, June 19, 2006 @ 5:55p.m.
Frank Page’s election as President of the Southern Baptist Convention wasn’t the only surprise last week in Greensboro. Mark Dever’s loss in the race for 1st Vice President provided insight into the strength of the Reformed Calvinist movement in the SBC.
WHY DEVER LOST
Mark Dever’s support in the Southern Baptist Convention’s Vice Presidential race came from a small number of Calvinist activists whose support was deep, but not very wide. The VP race signaled to the Convention that Calvinists will turn out for one of their own, but at the same time their numbers are so small as to barely make a difference in Convention politics.Dever is a promoter of extreme hybrid/hyper/neo Calvinist theology such as the belief that a person must be born again before he can place faith in Jesus Christ. His theology is foreign to Southern Baptist churches and SBC confessions. He also has some bizarre church practices such as his customary refusal to baptize children under the age of eighteen. That doesn’t set well with Southern Baptists who grew up hearing Jesus’ words to “suffer the little children ....” (Matt 19:14)
I believe the main reason that Dever was not elected was because of efforts made to educate Southern Baptists about his strange theology, practices, and associations. One notable effort was by Jerry Grace, a Mississippi Baptist who discovered that Mark Dever’s web site recommended Presbyterian churches over Southern Baptist churches. As Mr. Grace wrote in his blog, “We've got many outstanding SBC churches in a relatively small area of North Jackson. Instead what was recommended [on Mark Dever’s web site] were six Presbyterian churches and one Reformed independent congregation.”Dever responded on Mr. Grace’s blog stating that “the fact that the 9Marks church search website (see www.9marks.org) are churches which register themselves, simply stating that they, too, agree with and want to exemplify the 9 marks of a healthy church which I have written about.” Instead of an explanation, Dever’s remarks were more of an indictment. Isn’t it strange that Presbyterian churches, and not Southern Baptist churches, are more likely to “register” with 9marks.org? What does that reveal about Dever’s theology?
Mr. Grace went a step further. “In May I wrote hundreds of letters to churches and associations telling them about those continuing Presbyterian recommendations as well as informing them that Dr. Dever is the recognized spokesmen for the Calvinist element of our convention.”
(Mr. Grace also discovered that Dever’s church has a disproportion “influence in the SBC in terms of representation on the boards of commissions, institutions, and agencies and memberships on committees.” But that’s a story for another day.)
After the election, Mr. Grace wrote, “I’m certainly not claiming any personal victory here or elation at the defeat of a good and decent man. The vote was about differences and those were important enough to fight for.” Personally, I believe Mr. Grace is being modest. I believe his letters did make a difference in that they helped inform Southern Baptists who Mark Dever really is.
Jerry Grace, a member of the Southern Baptist “silent majority,” decided to get involved and defeat a candidate who is more Presbyterian than Southern Baptist. The effort to inform Southern Baptists about Mark Dever’s aberrant theology is the real reason he was defeated, and Jerry Grace was a big part of that effort.
ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTION
Let’s look at the numbers.
The election of the first vice president turned out to be an extremely close race with Jimmy Jackson, pastor of Whitesburg Baptist Church in Huntsville, Ala., narrowly beating out Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. in a runoff election.
Prior to the runoff between Jackson and Dever, the first VP race was a four-way between Jackson, Dever, Kelly J. Burris, pastor of Kempsville Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Va., and evangelist Keith Fordham from Fayetteville, Ga.
Below were the allowed votes for the first ballot of the VP election.
| 1st VP (1st ballot) | |
| Jackson | 1,008 |
| Dever | 1,090 |
| Burris | 835 |
| Fordham | 726 |
| TOTAL | 3,659 |
As any political science major knows, candidates almost always increase their vote count during a runoff, since the votes of the dropped candidates are up for grabs. However, in the SBC VP race, Burris and Fordham supporters seem to have thrown their support for Jackson over Dever.
| 1st VP (runoff) | |
| Jackson | 1,107 |
| Dever | 1,030 |
| TOTAL | 2,137 |
As the numbers indicate, the total votes for the first ballot 1st VP election were 3,659. This compares to 8,961 total allowed votes cast for the SBC presidential election.
| President | |
| Frank Page | 4,546 |
| Ronnie Floyd | 2,247 |
| Jerry Sutton | 2,168 |
| TOTAL | 8,961 |
These numbers are significant. They reveal that Dever’s support was deep and strong, but not very widespread. Prior to Greensboro, Calvinist blogs were buzzing with information about Dever. For a time, there was even speculation that Dever would run for President, and his potential candidacy set the Reformed Calvinist blogs on fire, drawing enthusiastic support from SBC bloggers and even from non SBC bloggers such as Gene M. Bridges, and Steve Camp, a Christian music artist.
Strong Reformed Calvinist support, however, does not mean strong Southern Baptist support. In most cases, it probably means the opposite. Mark Dever refused overtures to run for SBC President, but, perhaps in an attempt to test the strength of SBC Calvinists, he did finally agree to run for the VP position.
DEVER’S LOSS EVEN WORSE THAN THE NUMBERS INDICATE
Dever’s poor showing in VP election was in spite of the following.
- He ran a “breakout session” at the Pastor’s conference just prior to the election. None of the other VP candidates had the same exposure, especially immediately prior to the election.
- Unlike the other candidates, he is an accomplished author. His book, 9 Marks, is read, studied, and followed by Reformed Baptists everywhere. "SBTS Student," a reader of The Calvinist Flyswatter, said to me in an email, “9 Marks has been recommended in every class I have had on church polity and doctrine. Mark Dever is the model pastor for many professors at Southern Seminary. John Piper is still popular but there has been some backing away from Piper since his recent rejection of believer’s baptism as a requirement for church membership. Dever is the new gold standard at Southern.”
- He was wildly supported on Calvinist blogs, even prompting a “Mark Dever for President” blog for a short time.
These factors lead me to believe that Reformed Calvinists were determined to "get out the vote" for Dever. Yet even with their backing, he still came up short.
WHAT’S NEXT FOR DEVER AND THE SBC?
Despite his fanatical support among Calvinists, Dever only gathered 1,107 votes on the first ballot, and even less in the runoff. Luckily for him, he chose not to run for President, had he done so his defeat would have been overwhelming. Unlike most Southern Baptists who left after the Presidential election, most Reformed Calvinists stayed for Dever’s VP election in an attempt to make their voices heard. Yet even with their strong support, Dever garnered only a mere 1,107 votes.
Tom Ascol, the ultimate blogger of Reformed Calvinist spin and propaganda, has attributed Dever’s defeat to “logistics,” by saying that not all the messengers were back for the runoff vote because it was unscheduled and they were eating instead. “In addition, it was raining,” he says. Ascol’s logic cuts both ways, however, as Jimmy Jackson would also have been hurt by an unscheduled vote, unless Ascol believes that God only feeds and sends rain on Calvinists.
While Ascol and some others are putting on a good face for their blog followers, Dever’s poor showing has left many Reformed Southern Baptists feeling downcast and dejected. Some of the bloggers are asking, “Is it worth it?”
I believe the Reformed Calvinists will be back. Their blogs will continue to give them a false sense of importance regarding their role in SBC life. They will continue to jabber about false membership numbers and predestination, drawing attention away from evangelism and missions. Their continued presence in the Southern Baptist Convention will be a distraction for years to come, and in response Southern Baptists will need to remain informed and involved in future elections.
In the meantime, Mark Dever is not the SBC VP, which is a very good thing for Southern Baptists.
posted by Charles @ 2:54 PM
41 Comments:
One factor, in addition to the one mentioned by Ascol is that Mark Dever could not have been more ambivolent about the position.
The only quote I read of him prior to the convention about the possibility of being 1st VP could be summed up as "whatever".
If anyone were to look at his preaching interary for the next year, you would be able to appreciate why he would not be jazzed about another responsibility.
I think that was a factor. But I will wait with baited breath to hear Charles' take on why he didn't win in a four man race.
"Why Did Mark Dever Lose at the Southern Baptist Convention?"
Bob to Charles:
I look forward, Charles, to your analysis.
I would hope that the Flyswatter's information about Dever contributed somewhat to his not being selected.
His identity with the Founders, with Mohler and the Pedos at the "Together for the Gospel" conference did not win him any votes from those who were made aware by the Flyswatter of the influence of Hybrid Calvnism heresy among these.
Hey when you guys become the minority in the SBC, you can speculate all you want about why non-Calvinists are not winning the Presidency.
"Burris and Fordham supporters seem to have thrown their support for Jackson over Dever."
Of the 1561 votes for Burris and Fordam in the first ballot, Jackson gained 99. Wow! They really threw their weight behind Jackson.
As for Dever's advantage for being a writer and a featured pastor's conference speaker... that wasn't and advantage but a disadvantage.
Dever speaks what he believes to be true and really could care less if he won a popularity contest. Anyone who listened to him speak on Church Discipline would pick that up quick.
What's next for Dever?
I don't think Dever will lose any sleep over not being 1st VP. At best he was ambiguous about the position.
For what Dever will be doing next, check out Dever's Schedule
D.R.
Maybe you are right that non-Calvinists shouldn't speculate about why Calvinists lost an election. But I encourage you to speculate all you want about our becoming a minority. Even Calvinists are entitled to happy thoughts and dreams.
DEVER AND PEDOS
Charles said . . .
Dever’s remarks were more of an indictment. Isn’t it strange that Presbyterian churches, and not Southern Baptist churches, are more likely to “register” with 9marks.org? What does that reveal about Dever’s theology?
It at least reveals that Dever evidently does not "offend" the pedo-regenerationists by any serious objection to their heresy of "baby regeneration." Also, Dever himself is evidently not concerned about the false doctrine of the pedos that babies get regenerated in infancy, otherwise why would he promote them?
I understand he is concerned about the age for baptism of professing young believers, but he does not seem concerned about the baptism of unbelievers in infancy.
Anonymous said...
Try this one for Dever's schedule.
I tried it and was amazed.
According to his own web site, yesterday, June 19, Dever was scheduled to speak to the "Westminster Confession Today Conference" sponsored by the "34th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America."
< http://www.pcaga.com >
July 17-19 he is scheduled to deliver the "Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando Lectures."
August 6 he will be "Preaching at Independent Presbyterian Church" in Savanah, Georgia.
Dever is right at home among the Presbyterians! Makes you wonder why he wanted to be a Southern Baptist Vice President.
Charles
The below comment from Anonymous was causing formatting problems and I had to delete it in order to reformat it. My apologies.
Charles
>>>>>>>>>>
At Monday, June 19, 2006 10:36:58 PM, Anonymous said...
Try this one for Dever's schedule. The 9 marks site is funny about links to it.
Jerry,
With three seminaries being steeped in Calvinistic thought and at least one more having some Calvinistic influence, it is only a matter of time before the convention is restored to its Reformed roots (heck I only knew of one non-Reformed Ph.D. student at NOBTS when I was there -- and that was out of about 15 -- with that kind of ratio, think what it will be like in 20 years). Christian colleges, universities, and their ministries are highly influenced by men like Piper, Giglio, and Redman. And with literally thousands of young, impressionable Christians seeking lay-theological training and finding it only in churches where Calvinists are on staff, there will no doubt be more Reformed influence in the convention in coming years.
It isn't a dream, it's reality waiting to occur. Now, don't tell me that doesn't bother you.
Just two days ago I listened to an mp3, over an hour long, of Dever preaching at his church against paedobaptism. He was very strong against infant baptism.
from CHBC website, "Baptism is an ordinance of Christ, whereby upon someone’s profession of faith in Christ he or she is immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism is to be performed once in a believer’s life, upon profession of faith. We understand this to exclude infant baptism."
Charles said,
Isn’t it strange that Presbyterian churches, and not Southern Baptist churches, are more likely to “register” with 9marks.org?
Check your facts. I don't think you can assume that presbyterian churches are more likely to register than baptist churches.
I did a church search in Kentucky at 9marks and found the overwhelming number of churches were baptist compared to presbyterian.
http://churchsearch.9marks.org/geolocator/searchZipRadius.do?zip=40214&radius=150&categorization=church&x=66&y=40
The fact is why does it matter about denomination. It is a group of Christians who happen to be edifying the Body of Christ with the work they do. I am thankful both Baptist and Presbyterians have such a resource to go to. To bad that some don't see it as such and desire to divide the Body.
DIVIDING THE BODY?
Anonymous said...
To bad that some don't see it as such and desire to divide the Body.
Yes, one wonders why the pedos and the "Reformed" are so opposed to those Christians whom they brand "Arminians," when so many of the "Reformed" among Baptists say they were saved under "Arminian" ministries, and evem pedos (allegedly "regenerated" as babies) were also brought to Christ by those called "Arminians"?
Also, why would Founders such as Scott Morgan want to "fire" Paige Patterson, since Paige helped bring on the "conservative resurgence" and was instrumental in getting Al Mohler a job at SBTS?
Broken Record Bob
D.R.
Which three seminaries do you think are steeped in Calvinist thought?
THE RECORD
Anonymous said...
Broken Record Bob
No, the "record" stands -- if Jim Eliff were to do a survey I believe he would find that most of the "Sovereign gracers" and "Reformed" brethren professed faith in Christ under what they now allege to be "Arminian" ministries.
I will give Jim $5 for every one he finds that was converted under "pre-faith regeneration" ministries -- such as the Founders, James White, Scott Morgan, etc. -- if Jim will give me 50 cents for every one he finds that was converted under ministries which are regarded as "Arminian" by the Hybrid Calvinists.
If the Hybrids really believe in the Providence and Sovereignty of God, why do they not show more appreciation for those used by the Lord to bring them to Christ?
flounder, Hello!
You said, I did a church search in Kentucky at 9marks and found the overwhelming number of churches were baptist compared to presbyterian.
No doubt once the word got out about Brother Jerry Grace's findings, Dever's Baptist followers at Southern Seminary and elsewhere signed up with a vengeance to save him from embarrassment.
Charles
Obviously Southern Seminary, but also MidWestern, where the President is a professed Calvinist and Southeastern, where the same is true plus the added factor of the faculty having to sign the Abstract of Principles, the first SBC confession of faith, which is thoroughly Calvinistic (I don't know how Paige Patterson ever legitimately signed it).
Still, what Paige suppressed at Southeastern is now welcomed by Akin and so Calvinism is sure to grow there. And there are plenty of Calvinist students and some faculty at Southwestern now, as well a few out at Golden Gate. As for colleges, Union University leads the way, but also we find Calvinists at the University of Mobile, Louisiana College, Cederville, OBU, North Greenville, Judson, Cal Baptist, Criswell, and even Samford. And many more in non-SBC colleges and seminaries like Wheaton, Trinity Evangelical, and Bethel.
Calvinism is now steeped in academia. You know what doctrinal position isn't and will likely die out in the next 15 years? Premillenial Dispensationalism.
Thanks, d.r., for answering this question. Hopefully, Southwestern will hold the line against the Calvinist advance. It seems to be currently the SBC's last hope against the Calvinist onslaught. Calvinist Flyswatter is, by the way, an excellent resource.
Bob they made a rule on gambling, oh, no, it was drinking - sorry!
Charles your suggesting that many signed up with 9marks like this is a game, well, what a childish statement. I don't think anyone but your group who do such things.
Charles said "No doubt once the word got out about Brother Jerry Grace's findings, Dever's Baptist followers at Southern Seminary and elsewhere signed up with a vengeance to save him from embarrassment."
Whatever helps you sleep at night...
Why not just say, "the commentary about presbyterian registration was overstated" and save yourself the embarrasment of a dumb conspiracy theory.
Try Florida and figure the percentage of presbyterian churches, if you think KY was rigged.
http://churchsearch2.9marks.org/viewState.php?code=FL
flounder, hello!
You said, Why not just say, "the commentary about presbyterian registration was overstated"
Sorry, flounder. The neo/hybrid Calvinists are a tight bunch. Unless you have the data from Dever as to when each church signed up I'll stick with what I have said.
Regardless of when the Baptist churches signed up, the fact remains that the Presbyterians like Dever and his theology. I believe he's a Presbyterian in Southern Baptist clothing.
Charles
TO WHOEVER:
If anyone has baptism statistics for Mark Dever's church for the past five years or so please post it.
TO MARK DEVER: Brother Dever, I have heard that you regularly troll the blogs. If you're reading this, why not pony up and provide us with some numbers?
Charles
ANOTHER "FORTHTELLER"?
D.R. said...
You know what doctrinal position isn't and will likely die out in the next 15 years? Premillenial Dispensationalism.
But what if the Lord comes first and raptures His people? Would that "qualify" as a fulfillment of your prediction?
Yeah, let me know how that works out for you in 2021. I am sure your website will be obsolete by then.
pony up to a dry trough - no time for that
Yes, we need dever's statistics so that we can judge him and the work Christ is doing at CHBC.
By the way, for those who are intersted check out www.twowaystolive.com
That is the resource they use to train their members in personal evangelism. It is an intensive six week course in evangelism.
Two Ways to Live
They also have a six week study from the gospel of Mark which they use to teach non-Christians who are curious about Christianity in a relational way.
Anyway...keep on judging, If its not one thing, it's another. I guess Dever must have stollen your rattle as a baby.
i'm sure dever isn't losing any sleep over Charles the Evangelists critiques.
ONE WAY to live!
chucksoulwinner said...
Yes, we need dever's statistics so that we can judge him and the work Christ is doing at CHBC.
By the way, for those who are intersted check out www.twowaystolive.com
That is the resource they use to train their members in personal evangelism. It is an intensive six week course in evangelism.
"Judgment" is one of the reaons why we have a mind, as well the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are to "try" the spirts and to "judge righteous judgment."
I'm sorry, but if the Gospel for the unsaved sinner is on that website, I am afraid I missed it. The Gospel I find in the Bible is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
I sincerely hope that a lost sinner can somehow wade thru the message on that website and finally come to believe on Christ for salvation, but the message is more of a labyrinth of religious advice than it is the Gospel with which I am acquainted.
In examining the conversions recorded in the Bible, I just don't fint a whole lot of "steps" involved.
Lead a person to accept (believe on) Christ, and these other subsequent matters can be dealt with afterwards.
CONTRAST ON "SALVATION"
chucksoulwinner said...
Yes, we need dever's statistics so that we can judge him and the work Christ is doing at CHBC.
By the way, for those who are intersted check out www.twowaystolive.com
That is the resource they use to train their members in personal evangelism. It is an intensive six week course in evangelism.
Charles, on the "Mohler" thread I referred to the article by Tom Ascol on "Regeneration" which is quite a contrast to what Jesus taught Nicodemus in John 1:1-18 on being born again.
Now, if you will read the link provided by "chuchsoulwinner," you will see a contrast between Mark Dever on salvation and what Jesus taught in John 1:1-18.
I am convinced these "Reformed" fellows have -- as Tom Ascol himself has said -- "lost the Gospel."
Not that they don't know it, but they evidently simply do not believe that a lost sinner is really saved when he "believes on the Son."
They remind me of the Campbellites, who allege that they believe on the Son, BUT . . . -- then they start in with all the "additives." By the time they are through with their "buttings," they have virtually destroyed the truth that he who believes on the Son is not condemned (John 3:18).
I remember several years ago reading a book by John MacArthur, the title of which would lead you to believe you would find the "Gospel according to Jesus." For the life of me, I never could find the simple Gospel which Jesus presented to Nicodemus in John 3:14-18. The Gospel was confused with those things which ideally, in actual experience, are the result of and which follow salvation.
I hate to say it, Charles, but these fellows just don't seem to have any confidence in, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
So you don't believe in Lordship salvation? Are you a free gracer? You and Zane Hodges are buddies huh?
The gospel according to Jesus, page 53.
From the concluding paragraph of the chapter on John 3.
"Thus our Lord introduced his gospel. Note how exclusive it is; Jesus is the only source of salvation. Those who do not believe in his name are condemned, excluded from eternal life. No matter how sincere, how religious, how immersed in good works, everyone must be born again. There is no promise of life - only a guarantee of condemnation - for those who will not indentify with the sinful, dying Israelites (Num. 21) and turn from sin in obedient faith to the One who was lifted up so that they would not have to perish." MacArthur
"LORDSHIP SALVATION"?
D.R. said...
So you don't believe in Lordship salvation? Are you a free gracer? You and Zane Hodges are buddies huh?
The only LORDSHIP SALVATION I know that is worth believing is the salvation taught by the Lord in John 3:14-18.
I know Zane Hodges, and have written some articles against some of his views in the past, such as on water baptism, works, and maybe another item or two.
I have also written against some of the views of John MacArthur. When JM wrote his book, at that time he held to an erroneous view on justification by "infused righteousness," but he later changed to the "imputed righteousness" view. I was told he intended to revise the "Gospel According to Jesus," but I don't know if he did.
QUOTE FROM MACARTHUR
Big Mac said...
The gospel according to Jesus, page 53.
That must be a revised edition, for I find that quote on page 47.
In my edition (1988), MacArhtur says that "accepting Christ as Saviour" is a "diluted gospel" (page 21). From there on, he palabbers like a good Campbellite and tries to prove that a sinner is not really saved at the point of faith in Christ. He confuses the "obedience of faith" in Christ for salvation with post-faith good works and the fruits of faith in Chirst.
At that time, he held to "infused righteousness" as the ground of justification. I wrote some critical articles about his view on justification -- for which I took a few "hits" from John's disciples.
I don't know that my articles had anything to do with MacArthur's change, but he later renounced the "infused righteousness" view in his book on "Faith Works, The Gospel According to the Apostles."
FOUNDERS "REGENERATE"?
Bob to Charles:
Concerning the Dever matter at the SBC, why would Dever and the Founders have wanted him to be an officer of an "Unregenerate Denomination"? Would his election have made it less "unregenerate"?
Also, since the Founders and Dever consistenly promote the Pedo-regenerationalists (who teach that infants gets "regenerated" either before they are born or shortly thereafter), does this indicate that the Founders and Dever regard the "Reformed" Presbyterians as "Regenerate"?
Are the Pedos "regenerate" while the SBC is "unregenerate," and yet Dever runs for vice-president of the "unregenerates"?
Has Founders affiliate Jim Eliff done a survey on the Pedos to demonstrate that church attendance by the baptized in infancy is such that they can be called a "regenerate denomination"?
in your opinion do you believe that presbys teach that ALL CHRISTIANS are regenerated as infants? that seems to be your assumption.
isn't there a distinction between believing that baptism can occur as an infant (as a type of circumcision), and teaching that regeneration has taken place as an infant?
PEDO REGENERATION AND BAPTISM
Pedo said...
in your opinion do you believe that presbys teach that ALL CHRISTIANS are regenerated as infants? that seems to be your assumption.
isn't there a distinction between believing that baptism can occur as an infant (as a type of circumcision), and teaching that regeneration has taken place as an infant?
On your paragraph #1 -- Presbys teach that the offspring of one or more believing parents inherit regeneration based on their doctrine of the Abrahamic covenant. It is assumed that such regeneration supposedly takes place either before, at, or shortly after birth.
Their teaching on any others who become Christians is that they are "born again before faith," and somewhere, sometime, under some circumstance, they openly profess faith.
On paragraph #2, Presbys teach that the baptism of infants is a "sign and seal" of the regeneration which infants supposedly inherit, and it occurs either before birth or shortly afterwards. However, they do not teach that baptism itself regenerates. The supposed "regeneration" may take place before, at, or shortly after baptism.
"It is assumed that such regeneration supposedly takes place either before, at, or shortly after birth."
Do you have a quote from a presby on that? Cause I hadn't heard that.
PEDO "REGENERATION"
pedo said...
"It is assumed that such regeneration supposedly takes place either before, at, or shortly after birth."
Do you have a quote from a presby on that? Cause I hadn't heard that.
W. G. T. SHEDD:
"Infant baptism does not confer the regenerating Spirit, but is a sign that he either HAS BEEN, or WILL BE conferred, in accordance with the divine COVENANT OF GRACE. The actual conferring of the Holy Spirit may be PRIOR to baptism, or IN THE ACT itself, or SUBSEQUENT TO IT. . . . the regenerating grace of the Spirit, signified and sealed by the rite, may be imparted WHEN the infant is baptized, or PREVIOUSLY, or at a FUTURE TIME." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, page 575.
http://writingsofbobross.
tripod.com/0061.htm
I'm looking at Robert Reymond's Systematic THeology, he's a presby.
I haven't opened the book till now.
I don't read anything in the section on regeneration about it taking place soon after birth.
Is there another presby that you know of that teaches that regeneration happens as a baby?
MORE?
Presby said...
Is there another presby that you know of that teaches that regeneration happens as a baby?
On this blogsite, there have been quotes from John Frame and R. C. Sproul.
I have these quotes from Charles and A. A. Hodge in the article which I linked in the previous comment.
A. A. HODGE:
"As regeneration is a change wrought by creative power in the inherent moral condition of the soul, infants may plainly be the subject of it in precisely the same sense as adults; in both cases the operation is miraculous, and therefore inscrutable. The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of innate depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and baptism" (Outlines of Theology, page 464).
CHARLES HODGE:
"It does not follow from this that the benefits of redemption may not be conferred on infants at the time of their baptism. That is in the hands of God. What is to hinder the imputation to them of the righteousness of Christ, or their receiving the renewing of the Holy Ghost [i. e. regeneration], so that their whole nature may be developed in a state of reconciliation with God? Doubtless this often occurs" (Systematic Theology, Volume 3, page 590).
I quoted first from Shedd of Princeton fame in my earlier comment, for he is elaborate in his contention that the children of believers are regenerated in infancy.
If you will consult the thread about John Frame, you will see that he holds that the elect may be born again even before they are born. He says this is the "Reformed" view.
Frame: "I hold the Reformed view that children in infancy, even before birth, can be regenerated and saved, presumably before they have any conscious doctrinal beliefs."
http://calvinistflyswatter.
blogspot.com/2006/05/
southern-seminary-welcomed
-john-frame.html
"If the Hybrids really believe in the Providence and Sovereignty of God, why do they not show more appreciation for those used by the Lord to bring them to Christ?"
Funny, I saw this comment as an example when I looked up "Straw Man" in an encyclopedia. Its hard to graciously debate the mentally challenged. But, I am thankful for EVERY preacher who preaches the gospel that Jesus saves. If they don't believe the ordus salutis as I do, thats fine, just keep preaching the true gospel! To repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. WhoEver calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Even you flyswatter.
Post a Comment
<< Home