Posted on 07/06/2012 6:25:11 AM PDT by Cronos
A statement by a non-Calvinist faction of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has launched infighting within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, and tensions are expected to escalate Tuesday as church leaders descend on New Orleans.
..The May 30 document, "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation," aims "to more carefully express what is generally believed by Southern Baptists about salvation." But both Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler and George W. Truett Theological Seminary professor Roger Olson, in separate blog posts, said that parts of the document sound like semi-Pelagianism, a traditionally heretical understanding of Christian salvation.
One sliver of the document's second article particularly drew their ire. It reads, "We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will."
..Olson, a classical Arminian and author of the book Against Calvinism, is unaffiliated with the SBC, but has long asserted that most evangelicals—not just Southern Baptists—adhere to a sort of semi-Pelagian "folk religion," whose origins can be traced to the Second Great Awakening and revivalists in the mold of Charles Finney.
..Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, denies the charge. "We are obviously not semi-Pelagians," Patterson said. "We do believe that the entire human race is badly affected by the fall of Adam. However, we don't follow the Reformed view that man is so crippled by the fall that he has no choice."
..A just-released survey conducted by LifeWay Research found that roughly equal numbers of SBC pastors identify their congregation as Calvinist/Reformed (30%) or Arminian/Wesleyan (30%). More than 60 percent are concerned about Calvinism's influence on the denomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
This is a distraction.
The real problem in the SBC is the so-called “Great Commission Resurgence”, which has proven to be a vehicle for injecting social liberalism/emergent church views into the convention.
This does connect with a kind of corrupt Arminianism found in much of the SBC leadership that focuses on numbers. Lifeway is a big part of the problem, but so is the influence of the children of some SBC leaders who are telling their daddies that they will “alienate” young people (media saturated, public school indoctrinated young people) if the SBC continues holding “icky” social views.
So now the SBC hierarchy has “embraced diversity”, “affirmative action”, amnesty, and some environmentalism, and is softening ever so subtlely its positions on sodomites and several other issues. Opposing amnesty and “diversity” will now get you called a “racist” by the national leadership.
The imbecile leadership thinks that it can combine “Inerrantism” and “moderate” social liberalism and that that will reverse its membership decline. All they think they need to do just loosen up to be “culturally relevant” and pander to what they think youth, black pastors, an dhispanic pastors want. They also want to lose the “SBC” name.
The rank and file needs to clean house if they want to save the SBC. Otherwise it will look a lot like the PCUSA in 5-10 years.
In essence, the SBC is becoming a larger version of the CBF - the conservative resurgence has failed - and Patterson wants to argue soteriology. What a travesty.
“More than 60 percent are concerned about Calvinism’s influence on the denomination.”
Wow. More worried about reformed theology than worldliness and the poisonous pop culture? Says it all.
According to that doctrine, the Bible should be a sufficiently clear guide when it comes down to foundational issues like salvation.
Yet it seems like one third of Southern Baptists believe one doctrine of salvation, one third believe the opposite doctrine of salvation, and one third cannot decide which doctrine of salvation to believe - and the deciding source of authority on which they are supposed to rely, the Bible, is the ground rather than the arbiter of the dispute.
“every sin from the first in the Garden to the last before Judgment, is designed, set into motion, and controlled in all particulars by God himself.”
Calvinism doesn’t teach that at all.
“every sin from the first in the Garden to the last before Judgment, is designed, set into motion, and controlled in all particulars by God himself.”
Calvinism doesn’t teach that at all and neither does the Bible.
The reality is 99% of people who fill Baptist pews wouldn’t know the difference between John Calvin and Calvin Klein. Calvinist that I know have a strong command of the scriptures and are not easily swayed like the sheeple who follow after OSteen, Warren etc.
Meanwhile...
Pope Defends His Top Aide Amid Vatican Infighting
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577506880615485076.html
Pope Benedict XVI defended his closest aide against a tide of “unjust criticism” in an unusual open letter that underscored the pontiff’s struggle to quell months of infighting within the Vatican’s corridors.
Do you have an opinion on the actual topic? Which faction of the SBC do you support?
"We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will". LOL ... have fun re-inventing the wheel, theologically speaking.
The main point is that the theology of the SBC seems to be incoherent - that the theologically educated pastors of the conference are at odds with one another on basic principles.
"We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will".
With:
"When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." (CCC 1993)
And:
"Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals." (CCC 407)
We don't know that. No where is it stated what is the % of SBC who are worried about worldliness etc.
I doubt the SBC would ever sink that low...
I agree.
I think a schism is more likely than going down that path wholesale.
But that's irrelevant to the topic of this thread, just as your post is irrelvent.
I like to see how many of that 60% are the liberal types that got sent packing when Dr. Moehler became president of the largest SBC Seminary.
the thing is we don’t know. It could be all of them or none of them.
"We do believe that the entire human race is badly affected by the fall of Adam. However, we don't follow the Reformed view that man is so crippled by the fall that he has no choice."
Yeah, whatever.
If you doubt it, look at what they did to Richard Land to pacify race pimping, rent-seeking black pastors. And, “Diversity” was being “celebrated” as the underlying theme of the Annual Meeting. In Phoenix last year, the leaders trying to push through an amnesty resolution called anyone who opposed it “racist”.
Just wait.
Lee N.
Despite your whatever statement, I think it is clear that the Catholic Theological arugment is entirely consistent with orthodox Apostolic Tradition. Man’s free will has been wounded and badly affected due to original sin, and even after receiving God’s Grace [for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, that is normatively given thru the sacrament of Baptism] humanity still struggles due to Concupiscence with sin.
So whatever you think, the Catholic position is clearly defined to reject the error of Pelagius and his doctrine that Man can without supernatural aide [i..e God’s Grace] come into communion with the Triune God [or Relationship to use a term more common amongst you Protestants]. Regardless of the terminology, the SBC position that man’s free will has not been incapacitated does hint at the error of Pelagius.
On this point, the Calvinist are correct. However, Calvins TULIP doctrine does suggest man is so totally depraved that he has absolutely “no Free will”. It is on this point where Catholic Doctrine and Calvinist-Reformed Doctrine parts ways.
So what the SBC is faced with is how to reconicle this opposing theological views. I contend, that the Catholic Church has properly maintained the sovereignity of God’s Grace and man’ maintaining Free will, albeit a very weakened and damaged free will that only God’s Grace can restore and transform.
So we Catholics here at FR are watching this debate closely because both the Calvinist and the Non-Calvinist of the SBC both adhere to 1) Sola Scriptura and 2) Sola Fide yet here we are with each side accusing each other of Doctrinal Heresy.
This is a distraction, nothing more nothing less. There have been many such “distractions” throughout the organization’s history. The individual churches which make up the SBC have members with both Calvinist and non-Calvinist beliefs, and despite what articles like this would have everyone else believe — we all get along just fine.
This is a distraction, nothing more nothing less. There have been many such “distractions” throughout the organization’s history. The individual churches which make up the SBC have members with both Calvinist and non-Calvinist beliefs, and despite what articles like this would have everyone else believe — we all get along just fine.
Whine much?
(1) In the beginning God made all things very good, created man after His own(2) image and likeness, filling him with all perfection of all natural excellency and uprightness, free from all sin.(3) But long he abode not in this honor, but by the (4) subtlety of the Serpent, which Satan used as his instrument, himself with his angels having sinned before and not(5) kept their first estate, but left their own habitation; first(6) Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of(7) death, and all other calamities due to sin in this world and for ever, being considered in the state of nature, without relation to Christ.
1) Gen. 1; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; Isa. 45:12
2) Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor. 15:45-46; Ecc. 7:31
3) Psa. 49:20
4) Gen. 3:1, 4, 5; 2 Cor. 11:3
5) 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; John 8:44
6) Gen. 3:1, 2, 6; 1 Tim. 2:14; Ecc. 7:31; Gal. 3:32
7) Rom. 5:12, 18, 19; 6:23; Eph. 2:3
V.
All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether dead in sins and trespasses, and subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God has(1) loved with an everlasting love, are(2) redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of(3) His free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that as it is written he that rejoices, let him rejoice in the Lord.
1) Jer. 31:2
2) Gen 3:15; Eph. 1:3, 7; 2:4, 9; 1 Thes. 5:9; Acts 13:38
3) 1 Cor.5:21; Jer. 9:23, 24
XXIV.
That faith is ordinarily(1) begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to(2) any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly(3) passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power,(4) then that which raised Christ from the dead.
1) Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
2) Rom. 9:16
3) Rom. 2:1, 2; Ezek. 16:6; Rom 3:12
4) Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:19; Col 2:12
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,(1) is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a(2) sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made(3) a Prince and a Savior for such sinners.
1) John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37
2) 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8
3) Acts 5:30-31; 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:22-24
As you said it's irrelavent to this thread but since you brought it up one might as well look at these:
The Catholic Register: Socially ethical investing taking off, Canadian study reports
I wouldn't knock the problems Presbyterians are having when the Vatican is having the same issues. Some of the more conservative Presbyterians have broken away from the PCUSA over their liberalism. The same can't be said for the Catholics.
Indeed. So many modern Baptists don’t know their own history and doctrine. It was things like this that drove me away from the SBC I grew up in and drove me into the EPC and later the PCA where I am today.
So, in other words, you don’t understand the question. That’s OK. I know you’re trying your hardest.
For example, the Synod on the Middle East issued an official report with 44 propositions. Not once does that document make the claim that the Jews are not the chosen people - which stands to reason, since the Church's official Catechism affirms in paragraph 60 that the Jews are indeed the chosen people.
The article on which this thread is based is an official publication of the SBC leadership and represents itself as the normative position of the SBC, hence the controversy.
Similarly, the official teaching of the PCUSA is one of antipathy to Israel and support of libertinism.
People do not separate from groups like the PCUSA because some individual members and congregations are liberal, but because the leadership's official teaching is liberal.
Most of the Baptists churches that I’ve attended usually have 6 or 7 very broad-based confessions (”We believe Jesus to be the Son of God.”, “We believe that He died for our sins.”, etc.) I didn’t even know there were confessions of the Protestant faith until researching this several years ago. Somehow, I’ve found myself in a PCA as well. :O)
“However, Calvins TULIP doctrine does suggest man is so totally depraved that he has absolutely “no Free will”.”
Being able to make choices does not equate to free will. The Reformed view is that total depravation extends to all aspects of humanity, including the will. One can make choices, but always within the framework of the underlying corrupt nature or will.
Can one make choices which appear to be good? Of course. But that takes you no further than the subjective atheistic “morality” of what “works”. In other words you do what suits society, or to drill it down further, what “works” for you.
Diapason:
That is where Catholic as well as Eastern Orthodox Theology and Calvinism part ways. To reject Free will makes it theologically impossible to say “we can Love the way Christ asks us to Love” for to Love in Christian theological context implys a total self giving of oneself to another. So in the case of St. Paul speaking of the three theological virtures, Faith, Hope and Love[charity] he clearly states we are to “walk in Love as Christ Loved us” [cf Ephes 5:1-2] and for Christians to “Love one another genuinely..and with mutual affection” [cf Romans 12: 9-13]. And St. Paul would clearly state that among the three theological virtures [Faith, Hope and Love], Love/Charity is superior to all them for he writes “If I .....have not Love, I am Nothing...Whatever my privelege, service or even virtue, if I have not charity, I gain nothing [1 Cor 13:1-4] so “faith, hope and charity abide, these three but the greatest is Love [cf 1 Cor 13:13].
So why does St. Paul speak of Love as the superior Theological virtue, not that it is in conflict with Faith, Hope and Love, for all necessary for a orthodox Christian. The answer clearly lies with the nature of God as Trinity for God is Love [cf. 1 John 4:8] thus God’s very nature is an Eternal act of Love. The 1st Epistle of John clearly speaks of God’s nature and his salvific will for humanity to send his Son for the reconciliation of humanity as and act of Love and for Christians to Love as Christ has loved us [too many passages to cite, the entire epistle is about this].
The fact that the epistles [St. Paul’s writings and St. John] as well as the Letters of James and 1 Peter speak of “Love” so much because that was so clearly stated by Christ as I think in the Gospels [Love and Truth] are the 2 words that are most stated by Christ. Christ makes Love the new commandment...and by loving his flock to the end [cf. John 13:34; 13:1] he clearly tells his Apostles as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love and commands them to love one another as I have loved you [cf. John 15: 9-12]. In St. Matthew’s Gospel we here Christ state “You should Love the Lord your God with all your heart with your soul and all your mind...This is the 1st and greatest commandment....The second is like it...You shall love your neigher as yourself..
I could go on and on but I think you see the foundation of what I am building. To say that we have “no free will” can’t be reconciled with the theological virture of Love. Love is a mutual total self giving of oneself to another. Christ gave himself totally for the salvation of humanity, an act of Love [no one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friend; cf. John 15:13]. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to love my parents or my wife, is that love???? or is that duress? Clearly, in my view is ain’t love!!!.
So going back to the original point of the thread, the statement by some of the SBC’s that “mans free will has not been incapacitated by original sin” does sound like the error of Pelagius. On that point, I think Cronos clearly pointed out that the Catholic theological position clearly rejects that notion as man’s free will has been damaged and wounded such that man’s natural powers have been wounded so that he is subject to ignorance, suffering, aand the dominion of death and inclination to sin. However, man’s natural has not been totally corrupted [CCC 405].
So on this point I think the Calvinist Baptist criticism of the non-Calvinist position regarding “man not being incapacitated by original sin” is correct [so how about that]. Let’s be honest, if Catholics here were making such statements, you Reformed-Calvinist guys would be screaming that we Catholics are “Pelagians” and teaching a purely works notion of salvation that man could obtain communion with God apart from God’s Grace. Your criticism would be correct! Of course, the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. So on the point above, Catholic and Reformed Theology are in general agreement.
However, to say that Man has “No Free Will” is problematic because to truly Love God and Love my parents, my Wife and my neighbor [the hardest to do no doubt] still requires man’s freedom to be intact. How do we Love as Christ commanded us, that can only occur thru God’s Grace but nevertheless, man is still has his Freedom.
Now, how does God’s Grace and the theological virtures of Faith, Hope and Love and man’s free will get totally reconciled, I think that is one of the Divine Mysteries that we may never be able to totally reconcile this side of heaven. Still, rejecting one if them leads to theological problems.
Now if you are one of the non-strict Hyper Calvinist who understands man’s free will as corrupt but not “totally corrupt” then whether you realize it or not, you are actually articulating a theological position consistent with the Catholic Church as I noted in my reference to CCC #405.
More likely the congregations/churches will chastise the leadership of the SBC and get them in line if they stray too far — or individuals will change churches to those which don’t affiliate. As far as I am aware the SBC is the only denomination where the power rests with the congregation. Thus, any “official SBC position” which is often breathtakingly quoted by the media as if it is somehow binding on individual churches is laughed off by those in the know as being worth not much more than what’s written on paper since power rests with the individual church congregations. It would take serious heresy being presented by the SBC leadership for churches to leave the organization and unaffiliate. (Disgruntled churches in the past have taken their Cooperative Program funds and sent them to a separate program rather than through the SBC, but they still consider themselves members.)
Indeed. The first time I read the Westminster Confession of Faith it was like the sun rose and the clouds went away. I got a little tired of the mindset that between the moment the last verse of the last book of Revelation was written to the immediate present, there was no history just “the Bible and me.” Now, I fully support sola scriptura, but folks were basically saying classical Arminian theology without ever having heard of Arminius.
In fairness, many Calvinists don’t use the term Total Depravity, but something that seems akin to a wounded nature.
The article is more about one of the factions trying to impose it’s view on the other and the disagreements therein.
Good point. Not many and there are divergent ideas on this. The strangest one is the Gnostic which is that the serpent was actually GOOD and was showing Adam that the real universe lay beyond the “maya” created by the sub-sub-sub-god. It’s quite an interesting interpretation
Not really. The two do not have a direct relationship.
Without the basis of the Nicene Creed, there is no common ground.
Correct. The Bible is inerrant, but it is read by fallible people (you and me). It also contains a lot of information that if read in bits and pieces can contradict (note: if read in bits and piece).
The WCF of course I disagree with in parts, but it puts a common teaching that prevents people jumping to conclusions and the errors of unitarianism etc.
The Baptist concept, from what I understand, is similar to congregationalism, wherein each church can have diverging theologies. I think that is not a complete understanding of what the Baptists stand for
It’s only off topic because it’s not pro-Catholic.
Cronos:
Well if that is true, and I kind of thought that Lee N. Field’s post suggested a “more wounded human nature” as opposed to Calvin’s strict theological position of “Total Depravity” was actually consistent, or at least, not inconisistent with the Catholic Church’s theology on the consequences of original sin on mans nature.
Nope, because you need to read the article, which is talking about Baptists who are debating Calvinism and Arminianism...
“I like to see how many of that 60% are the liberal types that got sent packing when Dr. Moehler became president of the largest SBC Seminary.”
Seems y’all are tossing numbers and suspicions around without knowing what you are talking about.
The 60% who are concerned about Calvinism include me, but that doesn’t mean that I’m liberal, or that I consider it the greatest threat facing us today.
I have never met a person who converted to Christ under the teaching of Calvin. Every Calvinist I’ve met became one years AFTER conversion, which probably says a lot about the Calvinist message.
Here is the text:
Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Article One: The Gospel
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.
We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.
Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9
Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.
We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.
Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6; Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15
Article Three: The Atonement of Christ
We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ is the only available and effective sacrifice for the sins of every person.
We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person’s free response of repentance and faith. We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will. We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved.
Psalm 22:1-31; Isaiah 53:1-12; John 12:32, 14:6; Acts 10:39-43; Acts 16:30-32; Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:10-14; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-20; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:12-15, 24-28; 10:1-18; I John 1:7; 2:2
Article Four: The Grace of God
We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.
We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.
Ezra 9:8; Proverbs 3:34; Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 19:16-30, 23:37; Luke 10:1-12; Acts 15:11; 20:24; Romans 3:24, 27-28; 5:6, 8, 15-21; Galatians 1:6; 2:21; 5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:2-9; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 4:16; 9:28; 1 John 4:19
Article Five: The Regeneration of the Sinner
We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.
Luke 15:24; John 3:3; 7:37-39; 10:10; 16:7-14; Acts 2:37-39; Romans 6:4-11; 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; 6:15; Colossians 2:13; 1 Peter 3:18
Article Six: The Election to Salvation
We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.
We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.
Genesis 1:26-28; 12:1-3; Exodus 19:6; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 24:31; 25:34; John 6:70; 15:16; Romans 8:29-30, 33;9:6-8; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2:11-22; 3:1-11; 4:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 7:9-10
Article Seven: The Sovereignty of God
We affirm God’s eternal knowledge of and sovereignty over every person’s salvation or condemnation.
We deny that God’s sovereignty and knowledge require Him to cause a person’s acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.
Genesis 1:1; 6:5-8; 18:16-33; 22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; 1 Chronicles 29:10-20; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Joel 2:32; Psalm 23; 51:4; 139:1-6; Proverbs 15:3; John 6:44; Romans 11:3; Titus 3:3-7; James 1:13-15; Hebrews 11:6, 12:28; 1 Peter 1:17
Article Eight: The Free Will of Man
We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.
We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.
Genesis 1:26-28; Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; Esther 3:12-14; Matthew 7:13-14; 11:20-24; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23-24; 13:34; 15:17-20; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:12; Revelation 22:17
Article Nine: The Security of the Believer
We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.
We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.
John 10:28-29; 14:1-4; 16:12-14; Philippians 1:6; Romans 3:21-26; 8:29,30; 35-39; 12:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:19; 3:2; 5:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:5; James 1:12; Jude 24-25
Article Ten: The Great Commission
We affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His church to preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth. We affirm that the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation.
We deny that salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Psalm 51:13; Proverbs 11:30; Isaiah 52:7; Matthew 28:19-20; John 14:6; Acts 1:8; 4:12; 10:42-43; Romans 1:16, 10:13-15; 1 Corinthians 1:17-21; Ephesians 3:7-9; 6:19-20; Philippians 1:12-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:1-5
I agree with most of it. Like any Christian, I need to study the word of God, rather than pretend I have everything down pat. I think systematic theology errs in trying to put words into God’s mouth that God didn’t speak, and to make everything a matter of intellectual assent when God is concerned with changing how we live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.