My Southern Baptist friend conceedes Romans 9 but is still an Arminian

[Eoghan]

I was going another few rounds with my friend and yet again we were coming back to the central issue -me having started with Hebrews 6.

I read out Romans 9 and he waited patiently. He then said Yes, but that is to the Jews.What says I you wear a Calvinism hat for the Jews and an Arminian hat for the gentiles? Exactly was His reply!

Anyone else met this? How do you show Calvinism to the gentiles? (this is slightly more complex because he is mixed up with messianic Judaism)

 

[Scott1]

Romans 3:29

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Ephesians 2:14

14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Galatians 3:28

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture interprets Scripture. The whole of Scripture speaks one coherent message (the analogy of faith). God intends for His revealed Will (His Word) to be understood by His people (doctrine of perspicuity).

If your friend has no systematic biblical theology, you have him beat on seven sides.

This is a great advantage the reformed have by having a Confession of Faith, that summarizes doctrines from the whole of Scripture.

The Scripture proof texts from the Westminster Confession are a rich source of both the systematic theology of Scripture and of individual statements and/or propositions of doctrine.http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

 

[Marrow Man]

I would add (to Scott's excellent reply) that the London Baptist Confession of Faith might be a little better choice in pointing him to Reformed theology, since it shows what many in his tradition have believed for a long time. One of the things I've run across is that many modern Christians have no concept of church history and what those who have gone before them have believed. There are some Baptists who think that Calvinism is "something new" that is taking over Baptist circles instead of seeing that this is what Arminianism ultimately did in the U.S. This lack of church history is a problem for American evangelicals in general, however, not just Baptists.

 

[LawrenceU]

Both are excellent answers. Since your friend is a Southern Baptist show him the congruity between the LBC and the New Hampshire Confession. There is almost two hundred years of separation there, and an ocean.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

You know, I have never met a SBC member in my part of the world, growing up in that denom (outside of my father, who was a Presbyterian sitting in a baptist church) that knew that there were ever any "statements/confessions" of Baptists other than "The Baptist Faith and Message." Its kind of like they all vanished with Finnyism. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I discovered Spurgeon in college.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

He made an assertion regarding Romans 9 but he needs to establish his point exegetically. The problem that most people have with the Scriptures is that they treat it like a book full of aphorisms. Each verse hangs in the Scriptures detachable from its surrounding context in order to be used however the person desires to use it. Romans 1-8 are not separate from Romans 9. Paul has just finished speaking about an incredible truth regarding our assurance in Christ. He then answers a question that arises from Romans 8 that every Christian might ask. If one completely forgets the reason why Paul is even presenting the case of Jacob and Esau then he can come to a false conclusion. Force him to walk from Romans 8 to Romans 9 to sustain the flow of the argument as it develops.

 

[NB3K]

Well if he is "SBC" why not show him the SBC's founders Systematic Theology.

 

[Pilgrim]

I read out Romans 9 and he waited patiently. He then said Yes, but that is to the Jews.What says I you wear a Calvinism hat for the Jews and an Arminian hat for the gentiles? Exactly was His reply!

I've never met anyone holding his position who would state it this frankly, although I've characterized it that way many times. That's essentially what many dispensationalists believe. Many Arminians or Semi-Pelagians (Baptist or otherwise) have no problem with election as it pertains to the Jews as a people or nation but balk at it when it comes to individuals.

If he's caught up in Messianic Judaism he's likely not going to be interested in historic confessions, what historic Baptists taught, etc. He's probably only SBC incidentally.(But he may only dabble with Messianic Judaism if he's SBC. Most real Messianics want to be in a Messianic church. (And most of them are Gentiles!) But maybe there's not one in his area.

I think Eoghan is going about it the right way with comparing Scripture with Scripture, etc. A well-timed reference to some historic document may be advisable at some point to show him what others have believed.