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 ...
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.
“I mean, it’s nice to say “the Bible and the divinity of Christ”, but, then does that mean a, say non-Trinitarian group can be SBC? “
No. When their position was made known, they would be forced out, as have several homosexual tolerant congregations.
The statements in the link below are not binding in the sense that not all congregations accept them. Many congregations reject any idea of a doctrinal statement. However, congregations rejecting the Trinity, or saying homosexuals can marry, would not last long in the SBC.
Conversely, any member congregation can leave at any time. The SBC exists to provide common support for missions and seminaries.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp
The Orthodox would maintain that if you innovate from Orthodoxy, your parish gets tossed out, but the Baptists don't have orthodoxy. So how? seriously
At the annual convention, a member would object to their staying in the SBC based on their public teaching. There would then be a vote on removing that congregation.
Remember, each congregation is autonomous. The SBC exists to pool resources for seminaries (which is why we have theological debates) and missions. A congregation can leave at any time. And if the SBC failed to remove a congregation that denied the Trinity, most of the congregations would leave and pool their resources elsewhere.
thank you for the explanation
No, the Gospel message as presented in the Bible must be understood and believed in order to be SBC. Non-Trinitarian would not qualify because it’s not Biblical. Preaching “another Gospel” would be heresy and the manner in which the
SBC must answer to the individual churches and the pressure they would bring to bear would oust this in a hurry. Ditto for any attempt to bring about “gay marriage” or “gay civil rights”.
The point here is that squabbling about “how” God goes about what He does is just that - squabbling. It’s not heresy. (Though I’m sure there are some dyed-in-the-wool 5 point TULIP Calvinists who would try to make a case otherwise, but in the end the essential nature of the Gospel is clearly presented in Scripture.)
“The article is more about one of the factions trying to impose it’s view on the other and the disagreements therein.”
Which is why I said the SBC has “been there and done that”. This has all happened before in the life of the organization. Nothing new here. It will work itself out, as did the other. It’s just a distraction.
I was responding in part to the idea that the SBC would go the way of these liberal organizations. I do not see that at all because there’s too much built-in accountability to the local churches. The SBC in and of itself is accountable to the local church congregations which affiliate. BTW, Fred Luter, by all accounts is as Biblical a preacher as one could want. Those who object to what he said about “supporting his president” need not read into that anything other than a patriotic support for the office and conviction to pray for the person in that office. He’s made it clear that he disagrees vehemently with Obama on the one key issue of gay marriage, though he likely wasn’t asked to enumerate all the areas in which he parts ways with the current Pres.
No. When their position was made known, they would be forced out, as have several homosexual tolerant congregations.
The statements in the link below are not binding in the sense that not all congregations accept them. Many congregations reject any idea of a doctrinal statement. However, congregations rejecting the Trinity, or saying homosexuals can marry, would not last long in the SBC.
Conversely, any member congregation can leave at any time. The SBC exists to provide common support for missions and seminaries.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp
EXACTLY. And you have asked “how”, Cronos. The SBC would not accept the funds that were sent to it by the church and would refuse to seat their messengers at the convention. They would, in effect, be ousted from the association.
“At the annual convention, a member would object to their staying in the SBC based on their public teaching. There would then be a vote on removing that congregation.
Remember, each congregation is autonomous. The SBC exists to pool resources for seminaries (which is why we have theological debates) and missions. A congregation can leave at any time. And if the SBC failed to remove a congregation that denied the Trinity, most of the congregations would leave and pool their resources elsewhere.”
This.
That's a scary point.
I know this is old but it warrants comment. It looks like the official Catechism of the Catholic Church is better on soteriology than this statement by so-called evangelical Southern Baptists.
Politically, I think we all understand that conservative pro-life evangelicals (whether Arminian, Calvinist, or something else) need to work together with Roman Catholics in the political realm. What I'm afraid we're going to find out as evangelicals is that we have more in common with a fair number of Roman Catholics than with a lot of ignorant evangelicals.
That is our own fault as evangelicals to teach the basics of salvation. Rome is wrong, but semi-Pelagianism is much worse.
Yes, we have valid reasons to stand in the line of the Reformation, but if we're going to do so, it means more than criticizing Catholics. Apparently, we have people in our own evangelical circles advocating worse doctrines than the official position of Rome.
That should not be. We need to clean up our own house as evangelicals.
conservatives of all stripes have a lot more in common than the liberals...
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.