Correction: Dr. Reynolds Clarifies His Position
This is a clarification to my post below: Dr. Reynolds Constructed a Straw Man.
Dr. Reynolds was kind enough to clarify his position. His comment with the pertinent clarification is highlighted for emphasis:
"My friend I am disappointed. You seemed so reasonable. I trust you just misread my statement. Let me say it again"this COULD pose SOME problems for 5 point Calvinists."I did not say "this DOES pose NUMEROUS problems for 5 point Calvinists."
Personally, I don't believe it poses problems for many 5 point Calvinists. Thus, they sign them. But as L Russ Bush points out there is a tension between it and the Abstract that could pose problems...In fact, that is one of the questions he normally asked of new professors (as I made clear).
Even CT Lillies admits, on Founders Blog, the two seem incompatible. I disagree, but SOME Calvinists think so, just as I said!" (emphasis mine)
Dr. Reynolds does not believe that there are problems for calvinists within the Baptist Faith and Message. I am glad and appreciate his considerate clarification.
However, I am unaware of any Calvinist within the SBC who would have a problem with the cited statements in the BFM. What I really desired to communicate through the post titled: "Dr. Reynolds Constructs a Straw Man" is that there is absolutely no problem with the statements cited by Dr. Reynolds in the BFM and someone who holds to a Calvinistic view of scripture. Anyone who states that there is a problem has constructed a "Straw Man". However, Dr. Reynolds has clarified that he has not done so here and I am grateful.
Dr. Reynolds was kind enough to clarify his position. His comment with the pertinent clarification is highlighted for emphasis:
"My friend I am disappointed. You seemed so reasonable. I trust you just misread my statement. Let me say it again"this COULD pose SOME problems for 5 point Calvinists."I did not say "this DOES pose NUMEROUS problems for 5 point Calvinists."
Personally, I don't believe it poses problems for many 5 point Calvinists. Thus, they sign them. But as L Russ Bush points out there is a tension between it and the Abstract that could pose problems...In fact, that is one of the questions he normally asked of new professors (as I made clear).
Even CT Lillies admits, on Founders Blog, the two seem incompatible. I disagree, but SOME Calvinists think so, just as I said!" (emphasis mine)
Dr. Reynolds does not believe that there are problems for calvinists within the Baptist Faith and Message. I am glad and appreciate his considerate clarification.
However, I am unaware of any Calvinist within the SBC who would have a problem with the cited statements in the BFM. What I really desired to communicate through the post titled: "Dr. Reynolds Constructs a Straw Man" is that there is absolutely no problem with the statements cited by Dr. Reynolds in the BFM and someone who holds to a Calvinistic view of scripture. Anyone who states that there is a problem has constructed a "Straw Man". However, Dr. Reynolds has clarified that he has not done so here and I am grateful.
posted by Christopher Redman at 6:38 PM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Redman
Please allow me to try this again. I've deleted my first comment after remembering a long standing rule of mine about first drafts.
Anyway, brothers, after reading both documents side by side I have a bit more to say than they are incompatible.
Much Grace
Josh
Josh,
Excellent work on both the Abstracts and the BFM2k. I am mostly in complete agreement with your analysis. I think that everyone knows that the original BFM1925 was watered down from our original calvinistic roots. I would like for the BFM2k to be more explicit but I can still ascribe to it without dissent.
Many reformed SBC churches have chosen the abstracts as their church confession. Other, non-reformed SBC churches use the BFM2k or BFM1963.
Either way, I think you can be true to scripture and serve a church who ascribes to the BFM2k or 1963.
Post a Comment
<< Home