by Dr. Eric Hankins
Pastor of First Baptist Church
Oxford, Mississippi
A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology SBC Today.pdf
(Right click on link to save a pdf version of this document).
The following is a suggested statement of what Southern Baptists believe about the doctrine of salvation. Compiled by a number of pastors, professors, and leaders in response to the growing debate over Calvinism in Southern Baptist life, it begins with a rationale for such a statement at this time, followed by ten articles of affirmation and denial. The goal was to create a statement that would accurately reflect the beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptists, who are not Calvinists. The concern of the developers of this statement was that the viewpoint of this majority was not well-represented by the term “non-Calvinist” and that an instrument was needed by which that majority might articulate positively what they believe vis-à-vis Calvinism. There is no thought that this document reflects what all Southern Baptists believe or that it should be imposed upon all Southern Baptists. We believe that it does reflect what most Southern Baptists believe for good, biblical reasons. Its purpose is to engender a much needed Convention-wide discussion about the place of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life. If this Statement is reflective of your understanding of the doctrine of salvation in the life of the Convention, we would love for you to add your endorsement. To do so, see the instructions at the end of the statement and list of signers.
A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of
God’s Plan of Salvation
Preamble
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
While Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days and have made very important contributions to our history and theology, the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Calvinism. Even the minority of Southern Baptists who have identified themselves as Calvinists generally modify its teachings in order to mitigate certain unacceptable conclusions (e.g., anti-missionism, hyper-Calvinism, double predestination, limited atonement, etc.). The very fact that there is a plurality of views on Calvinism designed to deal with these weaknesses (variously described as “3-point,” “4-point,” “moderate,” etc.) would seem to call for circumspection and humility with respect to the system and to those who disagree with it. For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but “non-essential” theological matters. The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.
We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message, “Article IV.” While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism. For almost a century, Southern Baptists have found that a sound, biblical soteriology can be taught, maintained, and defended without subscribing to Calvinism. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is grounded in the conviction that every person can and must be saved by a personal and free decision to respond to the Gospel by trusting in Christ Jesus alone as Savior and Lord. Without ascribing to Calvinism, Southern Baptists have reached around the world with the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Baptists have been well-served by a straightforward soteriology rooted in the fact that Christ is willing and able to save any and every sinner.
New Calvinism presents us with a duty and an opportunity to more carefully express what is generally believed by Southern Baptists about salvation. It is no longer helpful to identify ourselves by how many points of convergence we have with Calvinism. While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.
Below is what we believe to be the essence of a “Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” We believe that most Southern Baptists, regardless of how they have described their personal understanding of the doctrine of salvation, will find the following statement consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
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
We welcome the signatures of all Southern Baptists who would affirm this statement.
If you would like to add your name in affirmation of the statement, please email sbctoday@gmail.com, with the following:
Name, Position, Organization/Church, City, State
For example:
John Doe, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Anytown, LA
or
Jane Doe, member, First Baptist Church, Anytown, LA
or
Jamie Doe, Professor, Some Seminary, Anytown, LA
While you are investing untold hours in compiling this statement and fighting against the calvinists with whom you obviously feel at enmity, those calvinists are out telling people about Jesus and inviting them to repent and believe on him alone for the forgiveness of their sins. I pray that God would deliver us from your divisive efforts, so no more precious time is wasted. Your effort to “identify the place of calvinism in Southern Baptist life” simply serves to identify your misplaced priorities. I have seen nothing similar from calvinists trying to identify the place of arminianism in Southern Baptist Life. All the calvinist I know are too busy making disciples of ALL nations to bother with such trivial matters as how they are viewed among Southern Baptists.
Jeff,
Keep up the good work. Praying for you as you witness and offer the Gospel to all.
Amen!!
I couldn’t have said it better.
I’m glad you stated: “calvinists trying to identify the place of arminianism in Southern Baptist Life,” It gives those who want to research the topic something to go by. Jacob Armenius is to non-calvinists as Calvin is to calvinists. So why are the Calvinists labeled as following a man and the Armenians are seen as being opposed to following Calvin or any man? Is it so that Calvin can be opposed rather than the doctrines of grace and the verses used to support them? Holding to the sovereignty of God through the doctrines of grace is not Calvinism. In order to be a calvinist you would have to hold to all of his teachings which includes infant baptism among other things that have nothing to do with election. Luther was a Calvinist if it just means believing in sovereign grace.
I went to a fundamental baptist church when Jesus saved me. I would get a “Sword of the Lord” every Sunday because I particularly liked the C.H. Spurgeon sermons that were in it. I finally bought a whole book of his sermons. To my surprise I discovered that the Sword of the Lord had edited out the parts on election and sovereign grace. That is when I became a “Spurgeonite” or “Spurgenian.” See? It’s ridiculous. Before Armenius tried to reform the reformation around 1604 almost all theologians preached predestination. Calvin was already dead. And Arminianism didn’t take hold until John Wesley founded the Methodist movement in the late 1700′s. Arminianism itself has become one of the dominant theological systems in the United States, thanks in large part to the influence of John and Charles Wesley.
So is this what it comes down to if we are to label each other as anything but Christian: If I say “When I got saved,” I am an Arminian. If I say “When Jesus saved me,” I am a Calvinist.
Well said. Thank you for making this distinction. It’s important that we not say that some of us are of Paul and some are of Apollos.
What a difficult issue since so many Calvinist are in the SBC. “But when he the Spirit of truth shall come, he shall guide you into all truth.” God did this for me on this issue, pray that he reveals the truth! No lie is afraid of the truth! When I got saved, I learned God “so loved” the world, not the elect. I am grateful to the God I serve, a God whose grace is in all the earth for men to believe.
Jeff – I appreciate your words and I agree. My response – A Response to “A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” – The Religious Version of the Hatfields & McCoys: http://deliveredbygrace.com/?p=3010
excellent and grace-filled response!
Jeff during those untold hours you are referring please tell me how many people you pleaded with to repent. And why is it every time we disagree with you all we are at enmity
I plead for repentance from all those to whom I am privileged to proclaim the gospel, without exception. The authors of this document expressed the enmity, not me.
Jeff
I pray that God would deliver us from your divisive efforts.
Tom,
Jeff is not the one being divisive. The BF&M has already delineated what they believe. The author and signatories of this suggested statement are espousing what amounts to semi-pelagianism. Everything that the Southern Baptist Convention (regardless of where one stands on Calvinism) abhors. As Jeff has already stated, he’s not the one being divisive. This ‘suggested statement’ has already done that.
While I agree, to a point, with the untold hours of work put into these and other statements. They can be helpful. Also, it’s funny that you say “All the calvinist I know are too busy making disciples of ALL nations to bother with such trivial matters…” when my experience has been the opposite. On a side note Al Mohler’s response to this was killer..http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/06/southern-baptists-and-salvation-its-time-to-talk/
Apparently one of them wasn’t.
; ) And what would it matter anyway?
I affirm your thoughts and statements. Furthermore, I contend that the majority of Southern Baptists do not even contemplate this and other weightier doctrinal positions unless prevailed upon to do so after receiving some distorted view of Reformed Theology. Moreover, I do not believe that any statement produced in favor of or opposition to Calvinism or Arminianism will ever produce as much unity as it will division.
LET IT REST and let’s stay busy sharing the gospel!
Very well put thanks for adding this to the discussion.
Jeff, I’m surprised you took time away from making disciples so that you could ward off this divisiveness.
I just love irony.
Though I agree with the majority of your statement, I think we would be wise to avoid arguments based on experiences with people. I encourage all of us to look at the facts with grace.
Jeff, if it was a waste of time for this group to put together their statement, is it possible that it was a waste of time for you to respond? Personally, I don’t like seeing a lot of time and energy expended on these types of endeavors, but there are times when a precise theological response is necessary. I applaud the work of the group who put this statement together and plan to add my signature ASAP. Now let’s all get about kingdom business. It might surprise each of us to find how many folks God has elected unto salvation if we’ll actually get out and tell others about Jesus.
Even if you believe Acts 2 was the start of the body of Christ, the church, you must agree that the church had not even started yet. The *great commission* was NOT to the body of Christ, the Church, it was to Christ’s disciples during t…he Kingdom program for Israel.
Our commission is fund in 2 Cor. 20:19, 20:
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20. Now then **we are ambassadors for Christ,** as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Hi Jim, with respect, I would have to disagree with you here. Explicitly within the great commission is the command to teach *all things* that Christ has commanded:
” Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt 28:19-20)
*All things* will of course include the great commission itself – it is an example of, in the terminology of Douglas Hofstadter, a “strange loop”. The self-referential nature of its formulation means that it perpetuates itself as an unavoidable mandate for each and every christian disciple until our master returns in His glory.
Ephesians 1:5-6 “5 Having predestinated children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [born again] in the beloved.”
To deny that God had predistened those who would be saved is to deny Paul’s writing to the Ephesians. By stating ” We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.”, the framers of this Doctrinal Statement has denied the Holy Scriptures. Have these framers read the book of Romans about the potter and the clay? Can these framers interpret this Scripture?
Why are these writers so intiminated by “The New Calvinists?” I am in total agreement with Jeff Douglas. Haven’t Southern Baptists more to do than cause divisions between those in their own group. I am a Southern Baptist who used to be Arminian and am now Calvinist. This change has been fostered by a thorough study of the Scripture. SBC leaders – get with the real program — SPREADING THE GOSPEL !!!!!
There are two views on how “predestined” and “chosen” are used in these cases. Keep in mind that when “predestined” and
“chosen” are used, the focus subject is always a believer. Thusly the typical tulipean (5 point Calvinist) view
of how these words are used is given by this summation: God, a gagillion years ago, decided that John Doe born in 1904 would
become an adopted son, and would be conformed to the image of Christ. Sally Smith, born in 1948 would become…. etc, etc,
etc. The non-tulipean (typical Southern Baptist) view is this: God, a gagillion years ago, decided that all who repented and
believed in Jesus, would become adopted sons/daughters, and would be conformed to the image of Christ. For this viewpoint,
the “predestined” and “chosen” only applies to a person’s identity in Christ and not otherwise. The tulipean viewpoint of
predestination is in conflict with many verses given above in “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist…” The
non-tulipean viewpoint of predestination does not conflict with any bible verse. The typical Southern Baptist agrees with Paul below:
Acts 26 (New International Version)
28Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can *persuade* me to be a Christian?” 29Paul replied, “Short time or long-I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”
So what do Calvinists tell their children..I’m sorry but I do not know if you will be going to heaven or hell,but we will keep having babies!!!!!
(((((((A Summary of the New Testament)))))))
[>] God wants all to be saved:
2 Peter 3:9 (New International Version)
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
1 Timothy 2:1 (New International Version)
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving
be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (related see also Heb 12:14-17)
John 3:16 (New International Version)
16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
….So to make possible
[>] Christ died for all:
2 Corinthians 5:15 (New International Version)
15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
1 Peter 3:18 (New International Version)
18For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
1 John 2:2 (New International Version)
2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 Timothy 4:10 (New International Version)
10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
1 Timothy 1:15 (New International Version)
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
…thusly:
[>] God commands that the Gospel be spread to all:
Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Acts 13:47 (New International Version)
47For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
” ‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
Acts 1:8 (New International Version)
8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
……..Why spread the Gospel to all?
[>] The Gospel is the power of God for salvation..:
Romans 10:13 (New International Version)
13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are
the feet of those who bring good news!”
Romans 1:16 (New International Version)
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.
Acts 11 (New International Version)
13He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
[>] Warning to those who reject or disobey the Gospel:
2 Thessalonians 1:8 (New International Version)
8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
1 Peter 4:17 (New International Version)
17For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
Acts 13:46 (New International Version)
46Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
Romans 2:8 (New International Version)
8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
Acts 7:51 (New International Version)
51″You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
2 Thessalonians 2:10 (New International Version)
10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Jeff,
The only unfortunate thing is no one was willing to call out the Calvinists or “Reformed” preachers on the real problem until. This statement summed up the problem very diplomatically by saying that in the past the TULIP preachers were once content with being a part of SB life without imposing pushing for a takeover meant to exclude all others including Free Grace and Dispensational teachers. While I would love nothing more than to see SB Convention exclude and revoke the ordination of any a group like the irritating and annoying KJV Onlyists that are still a small minority in SB life, that’s simply not how Southern Baptist’s do things. Unfortunately, the TULIP preachers are clearly pushing for the exclusion of all others while pushing for seminaries to be places of “Reformed” indoctrination.
The relational problem is this. Many of the non SB “Reformed” pastors here in California and those that come from the midwest and south that come to serve in SB churches are abrasive and divisive. My opinion is that they generally look up to Mark Driscol and are trying to mimic his style and personality because it appeals to Driscol’s crowd. The problem is that Driscol has charm to go with it that I have not seen in any other pastor or teacher. So either acquire the charm Driscol uses or do what my close SB TULIP and “Reformed” friends do here in CA, have some humility.
Also, the “we’re out there saving souls and making disciples” argument is only used by Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, KJV Onlyists, JAck Hyles Fans, and cult followers like Mormans, JWs, and Apostolics. In short, it’s the argument made by ignorant fools.
How long would you guys have kept this under wraps if it had not been exposed by Tom Ascol? Unwrap it at the Convention?
Nice!
This is dirty politics plain and simple. I respected all of you till now.
Wow, Debbie. unbelievable.
David
No David, this document is unbelievable.
Agreed! Point two is simply unbiblical! It is just the opposite of what the bible teaches!
Half of their cited verses have nothing to do with sin and judgement. Those that do if taken without the context given by Paul would support their point BUT scripture, ALL relevant portions, interperates scripture. We must take the whole council. Article two denies what Paul teaches in Romans and it denies what Christ says in John 3:17,18, 19, AND 20. which is the context that Jesus gives to 3:16. That demonstrates the limitlessness of God’s grace and under scores what Paul says, for while we were yet SINNERS Christ died for the ungodly. Paul’s says we’re saved not from sin but the wrath of God due us, we are saved from the wages of our sin!
Debbie – it has been to long! Although I am still reading and digesting this article/affirmation and have not weighed in, and in no way am ready to affirm it in its entirety, I must correct you in two areas concerning your un – Christlike statement. #1) It is not dirty politics – it is a doctrinal affirmation and statement. #2) You never respected us.
I am glad you mentioned Tom Ascol – you would do well to learn from him concerning grace and disagreement with your brothers and sisters in Christ. He is a gentleman and a scholar. As for you, well you’re just mad.
Yes Jack I am angry. You are right on this. If you remember I did not want one person excluded over secondary and lower issues, I still don’t. But it seems when I think unity is within site, things like this during Convention time crop up. Let’s see 20 years and more now of infighting? Yes, I’m angry.
Debbie, I feel your angry is merited. Your anger is not mutually exclusive with respect. I felt you needed to hear that.
The SBC is losing members, and what better way is to bring in the old standby, free will as an entertainment issue. What a bunch of Show people.
Jack, we already have a “doctrinal affirmation and statement” it is called the Baptist Faith and Message.
“There is no thought that this document reflects what all Southern Baptists believe or that it should be imposed upon all Southern Baptists.” And, “While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family…” both of these statements are important and, I hope, adhered to, because this looks a lot like a creed. It seems to me the BF&M is quite sufficient to articulate what we believe without this statement.
The fact that the clarifications above have to be stated implies a desire for this to be accepted in some official capacity by the SBC.
What is really troublesome to me is the clear acceptance of decisional regeneration/salvation without any enabling from Christ. Of course that follows to a certain degree if you deny that the fall has affected man’s will. It seems these people might as well be Free-Will Baptists as Southern Baptists.
Knowing some of the people on this list to be people of good character (not implying that any aren’t I just don’t know them personally) I have every reason to believe that they do not intend to make this a creed. But, I don’t know about the primary authors. What is their motivation? Is it all spelled out in the document? Or is there more?
Clark,
What you see is what you get. This is the most transparent document that has come out in a long time.
Surely no one is surprised by this? I would encourage my Calvinist brethren to not spend time engaging this. It is futile.
Bill,
Yea, that is exactly what you and your Calvinist brethren need to do.
May God bless the future of the SBC. As some have well said, God does not need the SBC; the SBC needs God. America and the world need a healthy SBC. There are those who maintain the answer to a healthier SBC will be found in a Reformed future. I respectfully disagree.
Make no mistake about it, the soteriological position of Southern Baptists is vitally important. I do not believe anyone would disagree with this statement. There is serious disagreement on the essential elements of salvation that needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed today.
While we, the non-calvinist Baptist and the Calvinist Baptist may BOTH be wrong, it needs to be understood that we cannot both be right. Calvinists have brought this issue to the forefront in the entities of the SBC and because of the deliberate efforts of a few, this issue is now an issue for all concerned Southern Baptists. If we as non-calvinists sit back and let things take their natural course, the SBC of the future will be of a reformed brand. If that is fine with you, that is fine. If it is not, then now is the time to stand up and speak out and this document is a great place to make your position clearly known.
I have a full formal response to this document at my web site. May God bless the churches of the SBC; may God bless America and the world for His glory and our benefit. May God bless each of us so that we can be a blessing to those around us as well as to those around the world.
><>” Bob Hadley, Pastor, Westside Baptist Church, (SBC) Daytona Beach, FL
In my opinion you have stated the truth in this matter, very gracefully, I might add. Thank you so much for representing the majority of Southern Baptists. How can two walk together unless they be agreed? Of course they can not. As a contributing member of a local SBC church I don’t want my offering supporting any calvinism. Is it so wrong to feel that way, when our theology is so different? Not at all. I want to support ministries who agree with my understanding of the scriptures. New calvinism certainly doesn’t represent me as a Southern Baptist.
I must press you to read Article V and the BF&M concerning those things found in Article V. If you agree with this document as is, you must also disagree with the very document that you affirm as a Southern Baptist. I, for one, hold to the BF&M. It is the uniting umbrella of doctrine for all Southern Baptists. To deny part is to deny the whole. Please reconsider your statement in light of this. To the glory of God and unity of His people -James H
I would rather have division with truth than unity with error!
To deny part is NOT to deny the whole.
When we are talking about Statements of Faith and clear deviation from the stated position then to deny part is to throw out the whole thing. The statement becomes arbitrary. We have to be in consensus with the entire document and not hold contradictory positions. If we hold contradictory positions then we need to reject the entire document and propose a new one.
If God unconditionally elected everyone and no one went to hell,would you still be unhappy with Calvinism? Now you made the right decision for God with a fallen nature and Adam made the wrong choice with a holy nature. Have you ever considered how remarkable that is? Who controls the distribution of the gospel message? Since your free-will gained God’s favor and your redemption,how much of the glory are you due? Have you ever prayed for God to save someone who was not interested in Salvation? That is a no-no for your theology. Do you do it anyway?Do you tell God to His face that you praise yourself for responding to His grace. Why not? It’s what you claim.
Eric, thank you for your leadership, thoughtfulness and wisdom. This statement clearly expresses what I, and many other Southern Baptists, believe about the doctrine of salvation. Great job! I look fwd to seeing, and voting for you in NOLA.
God have mercy. Eric Hankins will serve to divide this convention as his father is serving to rid Louisiana of Calvinists. May God give us non Calvinist leaders NOT antiCalvinist leaders.
“May God give us non Calvinist leaders NOT antiCalvinist leaders.”
Well said Brad!
Amen
Is this to be presented at the convention meeting?
Also, I can see some churches adopting this statement as one of their statements of faith. Will the non-Calvinists denounce this practice as they have denounced SBC churches that affirm a Calvinist soteriology in their faith statements?
Andrew,
Hello, brother. As one signer of the document, I’ll be happy to contribute my two cents. I would oppose the idea of churches adopting this as a statement of faith. I would be surprised if anyone signing it has that intention. It’s far too narrow. It is only addressing one doctrine, soteriology (and some other doctrines tangentially).
And for what it’s worth: Please count me as a non-Calvinist brother who does not denounce any SBC church for its choice of doctrinal statements. Some churches adopt the BFM (various years) and others like to reach back into previous centuries for other historical doctrinal statements. Other SBC churches draft their own doctrinal statements. By participating in SBC polity, I agree to allow other churches to function as autonomous bodies under the Lordship of Christ. No church answers to me for their doctrinal statement. If those statements are unorthodox, then associations of churches may choose to disfellowship the church, but that is a different matter.
I hope my comment addresses your concern.
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
PS) I am not logged in to this page–and cannot figure out how to do so. Duh. If I don’t reply, then it’s because I didn’t know you wrote and didn’t see it in these 400+ comments. If interested, then you can reach me through Facebook.
Very good document. Not divisive. Truth spoken in love. Calvinists should welcome this statement of beliefs from brothers and sisters who differ from their views regarding “the doctrines of grace.” This document represents what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe, and it is a VERY welcome statement. I encourage people to share it in their churches and through every avenue possible. I believe Herschel Hobbs would be proud. 3 John 2, Steve Gaines
Two points in regards to your comments:
1) Not divisive? The whole document is “We affirm” and “We deny.” That naturally divides. Religious leaders (specifically we Protestants) have long been dividing ourselves based on various issues.
2) “Herschel Hobbs would be proud.” That’s not who I’m concerned about.
Chris,
So, if that is a fact it seems you believe this group is divisive as their statement is a “we believe”; “we do not believe” as seenhere
Acts 29 != SBC. Acts 29 is clear on their theological position and they are intentionally Reformed whereas the SBC is intentionally neutral.
No, we’re intentionally biblical.
And some of us think the bibical teachings are reflected in Calvinist theology, and some do not, and we have room for both.
With all due respect, Dr. Gaines, Herschel Hobbs was a consensus-builder. He worked to bring Baptists together.
I seriously doubt he would have put his name to a document with language so narrow it would exclude “traditionalists” like E.Y. Mullins, W.A. Criswell and R.G. Lee.
Kyle,
Good to meet you, brother. I agree with you on two points: Dr. Hobbs was a consensus-builder and Dr. Gaines is due respect.
I do question, though, the basis of your claim that Mullins and other Baptist statesmen would not have signed this statement. Take EY Mullins, for example. He rejected the doctrine of inherited guilt, which is precisely the claim of this document. Mullins argued that man is not guilty because of his nature (Mullins, Studies in Ephesians, 62-63). Also, according to Mullins, man is not guilty because he was represented by Adam in the Garden or because we were seminally present in Adam. Rather, man “is guilty when he does wrong” (Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, 294). For Mullins, Adam’s guilt is not imputed to humanity. Mullins explained, “Men are not condemned therefore for hereditary or original sin. They are condemned only for their own sins” (Mullins, The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, 302). I have cited for you reasons why I think that even including the most controversial point of this document, denial of imputed guilt, Mullins would affirm the document. I’m curious to know the basis for your claim that Mullins would not sign the document?
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
PS) If I do not reply immediately, it is because I am unable to figure out how to sign into this web page so that I receive notifications. Simple, right? Ha. I can’t do it.
Hi Adam,
You might be right on Mullins regarding original sin, but the BF&M 1925 which he helped draft implies (at the very least) inherited guilt.
Still, Mullins would not have been able to sign the Traditionalist document because of its affirmation of “corporate” as opposed to “individual” election.
For example:
Article 6: We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation…
Mullins in his systematic theology: “Does God choose men to salvation because of their good works or because he foresees they will believe when the gospel is preached to them? … The Scriptures answer this question in the negative. The gospel is efficacious with some and not efficacious with others because God’s grace is operative in the one case beyond the degree of its action in the other.”
Just my take!
Not only that but the man that Dr. Gaines (Adrian Rodgers) replaced was instrumental in writing the BF&M 2000 that included both the monergists and the synergists in the SBC umbrella.
Where in the Bible is strict Calvinism or strict Arminianism taught? I believe that most Baptist’s, whether Southern or otherwise believe the Bible teaches a mixture of both views and not a strict adherence to either view. I would guess that is what this Statement is actually saying.
Brother Jack,
You are spot on!
The truth must lie in the middle for both exsist in God’s word.
Your denial in Article Two says,
“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.”
Are you sure you want to put it that way? That strikes dangerously close to Finney’s perspective and paves the road to Pelagianism, in my opinion. I see your affirmations there, but Psalm 51:5 asserts: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”
I am not a Calvinist, but this statement does not speak for me. It should lean more heavily on God’s grace and initiative, it should clarify the language on our sinful state from conception, and it should place us more clearly at God’s mercy.
This is just an opinion from someone that you are trying to speak for. And, I have no problem with you trying to articulate a theological position on salvation that is clear. Calvinists have done this for years and are fine with it. Being a “non-Calvinist” is not a descriptor of a theological position. It just says what you are not. An atheist is technically a “non-Calvinist.” But, I think this document should move more towards the initiative of God in salvation and away from such a strong focus on human will and decision. Both are in play and there is mystery there.
Calvinists have added a lot to the SBC in just getting the focus off of us and getting it back on God. We are indebted to them, even if we do not fully ascribe to their perspective.
Alan,
Do you think that’s a good translation of Psalm 51:5? I think that’s a prime example of the worst feature of the NIV—their willingness to “smooth” and “simplify” a verse by rewording it in a way that eliminates alternate interpretations and locks in the one that they have favored (with little regard for the structure of the underlying Hebrew or Greek).
Looking at this in Hebrew, David does not explicitly say that the sin at his conception and birth was his own. He doesn’t say that he was sinful at either of those times. Rather, he says that his conception was “in sin” and his birth was “in iniquity.”
Perhaps he’s saying that his father and mother were sinners when they conceived and delivered him? That he’s lived in nothing but a sinful world since he was born? Clearly in the second clause “my mother” is the subject of the sentence, and the act of conception is that which took place “in sin.” That’s just the grammar of the phrase.
One can interpret that to be a statement about David’s own guilt from birth. I’m not trying to rule out that interpretation. Rather, I’m trying to show what I think is the clear plausibility of another interpretation of Psalm 51:5.
I think Alan’s concern is right on the money: there are some serious theological problems in this denial, not least in the obscuring of God’s grace. As a seminary student who has been observing this debate in the SBC for some time, I must say that much of what goes under the rubric of “non-Calvinism” (or whatever moniker one is comfortable with) seems to be little more than semi-Pelagianism. Even John Wesley–obviously no friend of Calvinism–believed that man’s freedom was lost in the fall of Adam, only to be restored through God’s universal prevenient grace. Such a perspective is perfectly orthodox–and does not entail in the least that one must go on to accept conditional perseverance–so why should Southern Baptists be so reticent to accept it?
As to Bart’s contention that Psalm 51:5 need not refer to original sin, I can do no better than refer to a point Wayne Grudem has made concerning this passage. To say that v. 5 refers to anything other than David’s sin is to ignore the psalm in its entirety. The whole chapter is about David’s sinfulness, not his mother’s and not the world’s. Alan’s reading of this text is thus far more contextually warranted than are Bart’s suggestions. With regard to Bart’s comments on the grammar of the verse–well, even he says that the original-sin interpretation is a possibility, grammar notwithstanding. When one takes context into account, it seems that this interpretation moves from simply possible to highly likely.
Bart,
Before I debate you on the interpretation of Psalm 51:5, am I to assume that the perspective of this document is that we are not totally depraved? That we are not imputed with guilt from Adam as our federal head of humanity or that we were not born with original sin? I just want to ask that first, because I was not under the impression that the varying camps were in disagreement on that point. I thought that the primary disagreements were in regard to Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace.
My perspective on Total Depravity is that we are born sinful and in bondage to sin and frustration and decay as part of the Creation that was affected by sin because of Adam’s sin and the resulting curse, and even moreso as image bearers of God who had lost relationship with Him. But, like I think this document is trying to get at here, the Total Depravity that we have encounter means that we were separated from God, cannot get back to Him, and have been affected by sin in all aspects. We should not take that too far, however, and take it to mean that no one can desire God, seek after Him, be aware of His working, or respond to Him without being regenerated first, despite how some read Romans 3:9-18 or Ephesians 2:1-3 as being total and complete. We would have to rewrite the entirety of the Old Testament to really get at that perspective, I think, and throw out Cornelius in Acts 10-11 as well. So, I think I see the thrust here, but when it seems to abandon the idea of original sin and locate sin/guilt in our first sinful actions, then I think it moves towards Pelagianism. I am not saying that the document intends that. I am saying that that is how it reads at that point and a clarification would be helpful if that is not intended.
Just asking that first before I dive into Psalm 51:5 and the other passages that seem to indicate that we are indeed sinful and under Adam’s curse from birth.
Alan,
Allow me to comment on something you wrote; I am sure Bart will share his thoughts to your questions. I wanted to highlight the following statement you made:
“But, like I think this document is trying to get at here, the Total Depravity that we have encounter means that we were separated from God, cannot get back to Him, and have been affected by sin in all aspects. We should not take that too far, however, and take it to mean that no one can desire God, seek after Him, be aware of His working, or respond to Him without being regenerated first, despite how some read Romans 3:9-18 or Ephesians 2:1-3 as being total and complete.”
I do not believe the Bible teaches Total Depravity and I can find NO direct references to anything even close to it in the OT. I agree with Bart’s rendering of Psalm 51. In saying this, it is not that man is not depraved that I believe anyone has a problem; it is the extent of that depravity that is cause for concern.
Your statement is indeed interesting where you caution against taking depravity “too far” but without the distinction of total inability, calvinism fails its own position and that is the problem. As for any road to “pelagianism” that is not the case because no one here is advocating a position where man has any possible potential in and of himself to please God; the problem is with respect to regeneration being the necessary element from God that enables the unregenerate to be able to respond positively to the gospel. This is the heart and soul of calvinism and is the primary point of contention for me.
><>”
In re-reading my statement, the following was not well written: As for any road to “pelagianism” that is not the case because no one here is advocating a position where man has any possible potential in and of himself to please God; God is the initiator of salvation and the giver of salvation and apart from the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and the revelatory work of the Word of God, salvation would not be possible at all.
The primary problem is with respect to regeneration being the necessary element from God (which is more than simple conviction of one’s lost position) that enables the unregenerate to be able to respond positively to the gospel for the counter position has to be true, that apart from the regenerating work of God Himself in an individual’s heart, no one will be saved. This is the heart and soul of calvinism and is the primary point of contention for me.
><>”
What about the holiness of almighty God??
Bob, you wrote, “I do not believe the Bible teaches Total Depravity…” I respect your straightforward and clear statement, though I disagree. My question, though, is do you believe your statement is in keeping with “the traditional Southern Baptist understanding of God’s plan of salvation?” Or put another way, haven’t “non-Calvinist” Southern Baptists traditionally or typically stated their belief in “Total Depravity”? Thanks.
Robert,
Thank you for your response. My theological perspective has nothing to do with the traditional view of anyone. Now, with respect to your question, my problem with total depravity has more to do with the meaning associated with the terminology than the terminology itself. So as I answer your question about what I believe the traditional or mainstream position of SB on total depravity, my answer would be as follows:
First of all, most SB’s probably have any idea what total depravity even means. With that being said, explain the term asking if men are depraved… or sinners in need of a Savior and incapable of saving themselves, 99% hands go up in affirmation.
Now.. explain total depravity in a total inability framework and 90%+ I believe vote “NO.”
><>”
Do you believe bones rejoice?
Do you believe hyssop purifies?
Is there a chance that David is being hyperbolic?
Do you believe sin is a “substance” in the womb that gets all over humans and (no doubt) needs to be washed off by dunking babies in water?
I do not claim to fully know what David intends to say about his mum, but I know what he isn’t saying…
Sin is breaking the law of God. It is not “icky-icky goo” or whatever.
I affirm federal headship of Adam, in the sense that he was humanity’s representative. But Ezek 18 makes sense to me on whether or not we are “imputed with Adam’s guilt”.
Rather, if there is an “imputation”, (to use that language) we are “imputed with Adam’s consequences”.
Not all theology must be done between Calvinism/Arminianism and Augustinian/Pelagian frameworks…This is part of what the statement is about. Moving away from useless categories.
Here is what I know on the subject. Augustine made up a lot of extra-Biblical conjecture regarding this (and other things no doubt).
Here is what the Bible teaches explicitly:
We inherit a death nature (1 Cor. 15:22) and that sin reigns in death (Rom. 5:21), causing all to sin and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 5:12).
As a consequence of the fall, all humans are born completely separated from the immediate presence of God (namely, the Holy Spirit, otherwise, I can not make ANYTHING out of what people mean by “spiritually dead”, unless they mean “without the (capital S) Spirit), and thus “totally depraved” with everyone needing God’s grace prior to faith, to use that sort of language.
God consigned all to disobedience because God’s judgment RESULTED in condemnation for everyone (Rom. 5:16, 11:32), BUT God did not create all disobedient (i.e. sinful) inherently. There is a difference.
As such, all are born in a state that constitutes them as sinners because of the death nature they inherit anthropologically (Rom. 5:15-19), and the fallen environment where sin and death reign.
The original death view covers all that needs to be affirmed (no “Pelagianism here…try again elsewhere), but without the speculative, extra-Biblical conjecture that leads to either impugning God directly or bringing in gnostic baggage.
The term “original death” is simply a term to distinguish the view from what is normally called “original sin”, which is a misnomer anyway, since Satan, not Adam, was the original sinner (1 John 3:8).
I believe that we all sin because we inherit a death nature (which thus “constitutes” us as sinners because we all sin, because sin reigns in death…Rom. 5:19). I don’t believe physical matter is sinful, nor do I believe the spirit God gives us is initially sinful either. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
Unless someone can convince me of Traducianism without me ripping the arguments for it to pieces as I usually do, and until someone can demonstrate that either physical matter is morally sinful (gnosticism) or that the spirit God gives us is inherently sinful (making God the author of our sin), I will continue to affirm the Biblical view of “original death” as taught in places like 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 5 and continue to reject “original sin” where it involves traducianism, seminal headship, exegetical problems with the Psalms and elsewhere, and ontological and metaphysical problems of what sin is and isn’t.
I can’t say I speak for everyone who signs the document on their understanding of original sin (or original death), but this is my view on the matter.
“Rather, if there is an “imputation”, (to use that language) we are “imputed with Adam’s consequences”.”
Exactly!
“The original death view covers all that needs to be affirmed (no “Pelagianism here…try again elsewhere), but without the speculative, extra-Biblical conjecture that leads to either impugning God directly or bringing in gnostic baggage.”
Yes!
Hi Jonathan,
I happen to agree that the original death view is a much better way to see this issue than Augustinian categories. I also think that seeing human nature as inherently sinful creates some real christological problems.
I think traducianism is a pretty good way to see the transmission of humanity, but I don’t think it MUST explain the transmission of sinfulness. I prefer a traducianism that does not include the transmission of sin.
Good thoughts.
Jim G.
Johnathan, I don’t want to side track the discussion by asking you to answer here. Have you already written elsewhere your arguments against Traducianism that can be found online? Thanks.
So when can we expect the debate on Psalm 51:5 to start up?
Can we throw in Psalm 58:3 in there as well and discuss how those wicked, evil, detestable, God-hating newborn infants somehow literally speak lies?
Maybe that is why we should baptize infants before happily dashing their heads against the rocks (Ps. 137:9) like the Spanish Catholics coming to the New World thought…
Or maybe we let sound hermeneutics, and sound interpretations have their day…I dunno. ;)
I know I am being facetious here, but we need to think about how we formulate doctrine in light of what Scripture says and doesn’t say, and what Scripture means in context (and literary genre, especially the Psalms), and what it doesn’t mean.
I hear a lot of talk about how babies exhibit “sinful behaviors”, but I am skeptical of this (since I think babies act on instinct rather than reason), and then must then ask what kind of baby was Jesus (did he ever cry wanting to be held even if not hungry? etc. etc.)…and how we can relate the behavior of babies to what James says in 1:14-15 and whether infant instincts and evil desires are synonymous.
This line of thinking opens up too many cans of worms that people apparently have not thought through.
Looking forward to this discussion.
We have documents that have been around for centuries, and people are still debating what was the intention and perspective of the document. This one has been around for a day. I didn’t write it. I haven’t signed it. So, it’s going to be very difficult for me to answer that question! ;-)
The Baptist Faith & Message says that man inherits a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. It is, according to the BF&M, when we become capable of moral action that we become transgressors. The BF&M states that we are condemned at that point. It does not state clearly that we were not condemned prior to that point, but it explicitly allows for the possibility that we were not condemned until then.
This wording was adopted in the 1963 revision of the BF&M. Prior to that time, the phrase “are under condemnation” appeared earlier in the sentence suggesting that guilt of sin (condemnation) preceded transgression.
And so, for about 50 years, one influential point of view in Southern Baptist life has held that human beings are tainted by sin from their very conception and birth but are not actually guilty and condemned before God until they commit an actual transgression for themselves (as soon as they become capable of moral action). It seems plausible to me that this statement is defending that point of view.
I do not think that Psalm 51:5 disproves that concept. Brian’s (and Grudem’s) argument is not very convincing. I’d take the contextual point a bit further: The Psalm is not just about David as a sinner; it is about David’s PARTICULAR sin regarding Bathsheba and Uriah. If we want to get serious about context, let’s really get serious about context. David’s conception and birth appear in the Psalm only as they are connected to David’s murder of Uriah in order to cover up adultery and steal Bathsheba. We all (Brian, Alan, Grudem, and Barber) believe that something that goes back all the way to David’s conception and birth was instrumental in making David the kind of guy who would do such a thing. What is that something? It is that David had a nature inclined toward sin and lived in an environment inclined toward sin. He had possessed such a nature since he was formed in the womb, and having been conceived in sin by his mother and born in sin, he certainly never lived in anything but an environment inclined toward sin. Accompanying that nature and environment may or may not have been actual guilt and condemnation for sins that he himself did not commit. But either way, with or without, Psalm 51:5 makes perfect sense.
Technically, Psalm 51:5 reads “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Anyway, Pelagianism’s main offense is believing that grace is not required for salvation prior to faith, it has little to do with how one understands the doctrine of “original sin” (or “original death”…however one understands the fallen-ness of man).
Anyone finding Pelagianism in that portion in particular, or in the statement as a whole, is someone on the hunt for something not there.
I am not on the hunt for Pelagianism, but I do believe that if we see humanity in a state that is less than completely corrupted, we begin to move down a road where we think that we can merit the merit of Christ or that we have something to add. Again, I am not accusing anyone here of that. I was asking for clarification of language. I am a non-Calvinist and you are claiming to speak for me. If you are going to make assertions that we are not totally depraved or subject to Original Sin, that is something that you will have to explain, because I am betting that the view articulated here is actually in the minority of Southern Baptist life and not the majority.
It is Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace where you will gain your consensus, not Total Depravity – at least without a good deal of explanation.
I pastor a church of about 45 people in Arkansas. I didn’t write the document, nor claim to speak for anyone.
I articulated my personal view on “original sin” above. I even used the words “total depravity”.
I am so non-Pelagian, that I don’t think that Adam could have boasted if he did not sin. If he stood, it would have been all of grace.
By the way, Thomas Schriener, a die hard Calvinist, articulates a view close to mine in his Romans Commentary from Baker (see his comments on 5:12-21).
If man were “totally” depraved there would be no cause or reason to redeem him. God sees something in man worth redeeming, therefore man is NOT “Totally” depraved. He is not capable of redeeming himself, therefore God has made a way for “ALL” men to be saved. Keeping it simple!
I think the issue here is that total depravity means total inability to respond to God, as espoused by the Calvinists; which is rejected in this document. Man is looked upon as still being born in a fallen, sinful condition….has a sin problem in thier heart….has a bent towards sin….will sin when old enough to know what he’s doing and can really choose….in no way will come to God on his own, nor can he….must have the calling and the convicting of the Holy Spirit to be saved….salvation cannot be earned, etc.
I believe this position, Alan, would say that man is not guilty of Adam’s sin….Adam is. But, all men have been badly affected by Adam’s sin, and are fallen due to Adam’s sin….and need to be redeemed….and will die due to Adam’s sin. But, man is not unable to respond to the calling and convicting of the Holy Spirit, as Calvinsts would say.
David
I see nothing in Scripture that even hints at the notion that “God sees something in man worth redeeming.” Actually, Scripture shows that God saw nothing in man worth redeeming and He did it anyway.
“God sees something in man worth redeeming, therefore man is NOT “Totally” depraved.”
I vehemently disagree. Grace means God redeems us not because we’re worth it, but even though we’re not worth it. The entire language of the Bible regarding our salvation is how amazing it is that God would take his enemies and turn us into his children. This is not because there is one iota in us that God sees as worth redeeming, but because God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loves us (so if there is anything he sees in us, it is his love, not our worthiness), made us alive together with Christ. We are unworthy, unworthy, unworthy. God is gracious, gracious, gracious. And thanks be to God for his grace.
Anyone who argues that there is one iota of worthiness in man, something in us that God sees as worth redeeming, has strayed from the glory of the gospel. It is not amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved someone with my worth; it is amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me.
One of the ways that Christianity today has fallen so far is we have bought into this notion of self-worth before God. We have none. Any value, any worth, any glory, any reason for salvation, is found in God himself, and thanks be to God for his grace.
Rant over. I get a little agitated whenever I see someone say that we have within us something that merits salvation, something that makes us worth saving. No, no, no. It is all God’s grace, nothing of our worth.
Andrew and Chris,
There IS something in us that makes it worth God’s while to save us…his investment of his image in us. I tried to word this carefully in order to satisfy your concerns that it is intrinsically something that is ours. It is the image of God we possess, as well as his own desire to bring about his end to his creation (not to mention his overpowering love) that motivates his saving work.
Jim G.
Rev Kev,
Seriously? God looked down from Heaven and saw something good in me – so he sent His Son to save me?
Romans 3:10-11 uses language such as “none righteous – no not one…none that seek after God” to describe us prior to our salvation.
Isaiah 64:6 describes our works as “filthy rags” or a “polluted garment” as it relates to our sinful state before salvation.
Romans 5:8-11 describes us as “sinners” and “enemies” of God. However, God still choose to save us.
I think it’s clear in Titus 3:5-7 – he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, [6] whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
God chose to save us – not because He saw something good in us, but because He saw sin in us – filth – and nothing good at all. It was based merely upon His choice of mercy and for His glory that He saved us – not according to our “free will” or anything in us (John 1:12-13).
This article is riddled with doctrinal errors that need to be exposed!
keeping it simple … man IS totally depraved, hence the term GRACE which means UNMERITED FAVOR.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Robin,
I also believe salvation is by the grace of God…unearned favor of God.
DAvid
There are issues being confused here between grace and value (worth).
That God saves by grace is to say that there is nothing from creation that compels God to act on its behalf.
That is a separate issue entirely as to what “reasons” God may have to extend grace.
That it is undeserved is a different thing altogether than the value God places on something to extend the grace in the first place.
So, while nothing is merited from man or creation to cause God to act, I think the Bible gives us the “value” (or worth) reasons why He would extend grace.
1. His glory.
2. Because He thought His creation was good, good, good, good, good, good, and very good and probably worth overall redeeming.
Also, just so no one misunderstands. I am not saying God thinks we are good by referencing Genesis. All I am saying is that God thought what He did was good, not what we did with it is good. And He probably estimated that what He had done was worth redeeming for His glory.
No. this IS Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that we do not become sinners in danger of God’s judgment and justice until we actually commit a sin.
This one article brings the SBC into straight up, unadulterated Pelagianism and therefore apostasy (in spite of the fact that one of the other “articles” states a person cannot apostatize).
What saddens me even more is that a beloved professor and friend, a colleague of mine, as well as a respected Pastor and Head of a Seminary, have both signed this.
I wonder if the early Reformers felt this way when the Council of Trent anathemized all those who held to justification by faith alone based upon God’s sovereign Election of some sinners because of HIs Free Will.
Nancy,
So, you believe that little babies go to Hell?
DAvid
That is not what the doctrine states, if you think about it God’s election extends to babies…Read Roman 9:10-13, Malachi 1:3.
Why do you resist God’s sovereign will to do what He wills over all His creation, including man?
Where does it say that God’s election extends to babies? I dont see it. And, to hold to Calvinism, then you’d have to say that its anybodies guess whether babies are elect, or not.
David
Why do Calvinists resist God’s sovereign will to save those who respond to His grace in salvation and conviction though the ministry of the Spirit those who repent and put their faith in Jesus?
No need to think about it, if you read Roman 9:10-13 and Malachi 1:3, you will notice that while election indeed has to do with babies (God elected a special nation in Jacob but not Esau…i.e. Israel and Edom…Malachi CLEARLY means Edom in those verses when using the corporate head Esau) neither text has anything whatsoever to do with salvation or damnation of babies, which is exactly what David asked you about.
If you think election and salvation are always synonymous terms, you just turned Paul’s argument in Romans 9 against unbelieving Jews on its head.
Sheesh…
I personally find the argument for Infant Salvation (elect infants) somewhat washed by the fact ANY mention of an infant being “elect” in Scripture later grew up unto faith. Never do you read an “elect” infant died in infancy. I think Romans 8:29-30 speaks indirectly to the fact that all “those” whom God has “predestined” to be conformed to Christ will be conformed, that is, they will be “called”, “justified”, and “glorified”. The doctrine that concerns the call unto salvation carries with it the word of Christ and life expressions of faith. I find this very intriguing actually.
David, do we really need to go there?
ONLY the elect are saved. Whether God chooses every infant or not is, as my husband says, “NUNYA” None ya bizness. It’s God’s business.
So, since those “infants” didn’t ahve a chance to hear the gospel and respond, they go heaven automatically? In THAT scenario, all those living who didn’t have a chance to hear the gospel and respond go to heaven automatically.
why would you proclaim the Gospel then to those who never heard it? You just condemned them to Hell automatically (oh wait, that’s where they are already headed from conception).
ridiculous. Face it the SBC has swum the Tiber.
The only election with Arminians is those that elect themselves. It is a no no for God to intend to save you and to cause you to believe and regenerate you without your permission. This would make him-according to Roger Olson- worse than the Devil. Others would call him a pagan idol,ect.. As Calvinists,we get used to this frenzy. In John Six,Jesus got a bad reception when He said the Father decides who will be saved. They just expressed their hostility by walking away,so He was spared the vile comments. Just say the words God,not man,determines who will be saved and watch mild-mannered reporters turn into wild beasts.
Babies are created in the womb with the sinful nature. Does not God have the right to elect a baby to hell??? Is not God, God. Please read Job chapters 38 to 42. I would not worry about babies destined for hell as I would be worried about me. Make sure your election is for certain, not to worry about someone else.
Nancy, by your own definition this is not Pelagianism. Because of the sin of Adam no one can have a relationship with God without the grace of God. I would refer you to Pritchard’s comments on the imputed death of man. The charge of Pelagianism has become cliche in these discussions. What is so striking is that too many commenting on this page and blogging elsewhere seem either unaware of what Pelagianism is or unwilling to thoroughly examine what is being said here. This becomes clear when one’s own definition does not represent what they are attempting to associate with that definition. Moreover, the lack of sober minded dialogue on some posts here is unwarranted. Can believers not clearly define and discuss what they believe without such slander? Think before posting folks. Think hard before charging others with apostasy.
Braxton, we understand who Pelagius was and we also see the clear connection of his doctrine to your Arminian doctrine that’s being published in this letter. It’s not so much the “new Calvinism” that’s to fear – it’s the “old Semi-Pelagianism” that we should fear in the SBC!
Total depravity simply means that the totality of the person (mind, emotions, and will) has been affected by original sin. No human has the possibility of living out the law of God in a “free” way as Adam enjoyed. We are born with a sinful nature (Psalm 51:5).
I find it humorous that you are reigning people back from judgmental ways when you are one who throws out the “h” bomb (heresy) for Calvinists.
You believe that had Adam not sinned, he could have boasted?
Wow…that is just terrible…
Again with Psalms 51:5 (rethink your hermeneutics, this has been thoroughly addressed above)
No one disputes that the human race has been affected by Adam’s sin (it wasn’t that original though…Satan sinned from the beginning per 1 John 3:8) and are totally separate from God, can not do anything but sin, and can not take a single step towards God outside of grace and the Holy Spirit.
ALL of those points are AFFIRMED in the statement presented above.
Calvinist terminology does NOT regulate proper interpretation of Scripture.
Not at all. Go somewhere else with that sort of nonsensical thinking.
No one here is interested in fighting over who has more correct non-Biblical vocabulary…
finally found your comment Braxton. Actually, i did a paper on Pelagius for School (I’m sure you can look that up or the published version on Amazon). Pelagius believed that we are born neutral, like Adam. This statement says that by saying we’re not really sinners until we actually sin. That, my friend, IS Pelagianism.
Well put! (from a sister who is a member of an Acts 29 church)
I am not a Calvinist by any stretch of the imagination, but when glancing over this document/statement, I had the same concern over that particular statement. I had to read it over and over, because it just didn’t sit well with me.
To me this flies in the face of the book of Romans (especially chapters 5-7). We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. We inherit the fallen nature of Adam (from the moment of conception as I believe Psalm 51:5 is saying), a nature opposed to God, a nature that enslaves us to sin, a nature that by its very nature engenders death (both spiritual and physical). Yes, God’s grace extends to children who die at an early age; but the nature we receive is already judged and condemned (Rom. 5:18). But the free gift of salvation is available to all men (same verse).
I believe the burden of proof is upon those who made the statement “We deny that Adam’s sin … rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”
I’ve met that burden in these comments…I am happy to discuss this civilly if you like.
I think the burden is on those who assert “The GUILT of Adam is imputed to all his progeny.”
Please show us where the Bible says this (not where you personally infer this)
Romans 5:18 says “THROUGH one trespass there is condemnation for everyone.”
AMEN! No one disagrees.
Problem though…
I see nothing about a nature being judged…sinners are judged, not natures.
No one here denies that Adam’s sin resulted in death and sin for every single human. So barking up that tree won’t avail you of anything, since we already affirm that.
Worse for you is that if you think “nature” is the problem, and not rebellious sinners, and the verse speaks of “everyone”, then the second half of the verse forces your “direct causation” interpretation, if you are consistent in applying it through the whole verse, to universal justification for everyone.
Are you a universalism then? That would not be good…
Maybe, you should rethink how you interpret the passage. Following your interpretation, your method of reading it causes verse 19 to contradict verse 18, because instead of “everyone”, it is just “many”, so did Adam’s sin affect “everyone” or just “many”?
See the problem with how you read these texts?
Since I know you don’t believe in those contradictions and universalism, I am encouraging you to simply think about how you interpret and apply those passages.
Alan,
I signed the document above, brother, and would be happy to engage you in thoughtful dialogue about its content. I will not attempt to defend only one line because the document is constructed as a set of affirmations and denials. If you consider only what is denied, then nothing has been affirmed. If you consider only what is affirmed, then there are still possibilities which remain (some orthodox but others heterodox). To answer your question, then, I affirm the entire set of affirmations and denials in article two, which can be found in the document above. That includes the sentence you quoted.
I addressed the possible charge of Pelagianism in another post on this page. I’ll be happy to e-mail it to you if you are unable to locate it among the 400+ comments. This is an accusation I take seriously and to which I am compelled to respond.
You raised a key verse when you mentioned Psalm 51:5. May I share some observations with you gleaned from my study of this passage? (Full disclosure: The paragraph below, although losing the original italics when copied and pasted, is directly from a revision of my published PhD dissertation on this topic.)
– -
Many scholars who comment on the meaning of Ps 51:5 refer to the sinfulness of humans from their origins but not their guilt. Franz Delitzsch, for example, writes that “the meaning is merely, that his parents were sinful human beings, and that this sinful state (habitus) has operated upon his birth and even his conception, and from this point has passed over to him” (Delitzsch, Psalms, 137). In his study of Psalm 51, Edward Dalglish observes that “the psalmist is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of life; he traces his development beyond birth (chuwl) to the genesis of his being in his mother’s womb–even to the very hour of conception (yacham)” (Dalglish, Psalm Fifty-One, 121). Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke writes that it “supports the notion that at the time of conception man is in a state of sin” (Waltke, “Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 [1976]: 12). In his commentary, Mitchell Dahood writes, “All mean have a congenial tendency toward evil” (Dahood, Psalms II: 51-100 in The Anchor Bible, vol 17, 4). In his detailed study of David’s prayers, Michael Goulder notes that “critics are almost unanimous in taking v. 5 to refer to the universality of human sin, transmitted from generation to generation” (Goulder, The Prayers of David, 53). In his commentary, Hans-Joachim Kraus writes, “Avon and chata have from the hour of birth been the determining forces under who signature life began. The petitioner wants to say that the primordial cause, the root cause of my existence, is interwoven with corruption” (Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 503). None of these Old Testament scholars glean from the text that humans are guilty of sin from birth. Instead, they affirm that sinfulness is present at the first moment of life.
– -
Although most of those men were not Southern Baptists (although Dalglish, in addition to chairing the committee that established the Evangelical Theological Society and serving on the translation committee of the NASB, also taught for a period of time at Baylor University), they have all published biblical studies and commentaries for a broader Christian audience which comment on the verse in question.
In summary, my claim is that David in Psalm 51:5 made a statement about the presence of sin (not guilt) in his life from the earliest possible time. This is significant for the discussion because if this is the case, then Psalm 51:5 does not require an affirmation of imputed guilt.
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
PS) If I do not reply immediately, then please send me a note on Facebook. I have been unable to figure out how to sign into this web page so that I can receive notifications. Perhaps I should ask my 12-year old son to help me. ;-)
This is so sad and divisive the heart of God must be grieved. I cannot believe so many are willing to continuously stir the pot of dissension to hurtful ends. As telling for the SBC will be the ones whose names will not appear on this list.
So a response to divisiveness is divisive?
God grieves when people articulate what they believe the Bible teaches?
How is speaking for the majority of Southern Baptists stirring the pot of dissension?
Is it not the YRR that stirs the pot and their rhetoric that keeps it stirred?
I am always amused when a group of people toss grenades all day long, and when a grenade gets tossed back, they cry, and moan, and whine, and act like they are the victims…Reminds me of Nazis defending their actions in war tribunals. (Don’t be sissies and get overblown by the analogy above…I am not actually calling Calvinists’ Nazis) :)
Finally, whoever does not add their name tells that they didn’t add their name. I.e. It tells nothing about them or the SBC other than that their names are not signed to the statement.
Finally! It’s about time traditional Southern Baptists made ourselves clear. Thank you for doing so with eloquence and a tone that is neither combative nor yielding. This is what we believe. It is such a joy to be able to affirm my salvation doctrine without any reference to a system I deny. Rather than being a “Non-Anything,” I am the kind of Southern Baptist who can in good conscience affirm this statement of our traditional understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation. I am a Traditionalist.
Rick Patrick, Senior Pastor
Pleasant Ridge Baptist Church
Hueytown, Alabama
Rick, do you really affirm the preamble of this document? If so, you and I are further apart than I realized.
Rick, I read your excellent piece on Voices. Thank you for your devotion to openess and transparency in the SBC priesthood.
Ummm, Rick, you really need to examine your tradition…because you are not following it (unless of course you’re a Methodist).
Robin,
The term “Traditionalist” as I am using it is drawn from the word “Tradition” in the title of the statement. The refreshing part is not having to define my salvation doctrine using the Frenchman’s five points, but rather using the ten points in this statement written by Southern Baptist scholars, professors and pastors.
(By the way, I am not a Methodist, just as I trust that you, my Southern Baptist friend, are not a Presbyterian.)
If that terrible statement is what the leaders of the SBC believe the PCA and the Westminster Confession are like a beacon of light in a dark sea. That document is evil and heretical.
Here we go again. Keep pushing this nonsense and you will see the decline of the SBC. Keep picking the same old tired fights and treating people as if they don’t belong and there will come a day when they won’t belong. If these second class “calvinist” Christian get tired of being picked on and leave or stop supporting the SBC with their CP dollars and man power then what kind of witness will that be? Keep it up, keep playing these silly games and the future of the SBC will look darker and darker and when the blame starts to go around, SBC Today needs to get in the front of the line!
Oh yeah, because all the Calvinists in the SBC (and their blogs) are just so soft and cuddly towards everyone who disagrees with them…
You think this came from a vacuum?
Jonathan,
Amen.
David
Michael,
I am sorry that you see things this way. I believe there has been a growing sentiment of disagreement and disappointment among many concerning ongoing statements of Calvinists dealing with the superiority of Reformed Theology. Thinking that the reformed way is the only viable option for young pastors or accusing me of using a superstitious prayer when I lead someone to Christ is not helping in creating unity. This document is a rebuttal of sorts that says there are other viable options other than the reformed view and that we don’t believe a “superstitious” prayer is in use when we lead someone to Christ. I for one want unity, but I would appreciate it if so called leaders in our convention would tone down their own rhetoric.
My initial reaction is to wonder why the BFM2000 is not enough. Why does it have to be narrowed. The signatories of this document consistently denigrate the TULIP as a man-made system which narrows the BFM. Now they have followed suit. It makes no sense.
Then there’s the question of “what purpose does this serve?” are we getting to the point where Calvinist brothers & sisters will have to wear lapel pins of the tulip to the convention? Is the goal to turn the SBC into a two-party system? Thats really working well in DC.
Finally, please explain why something that you admit is not a majority view is so important to decry in this manner. What’s the concern? Because at the root of the asset to that question is either jealousy or arrogance. It puzzles me that many of your churches will work and partner locally with our Presbyterian brothers at the same time you conduct a witch hunt in your own denomination against those who actually agree with your historic creed.
This is a very troubling stance from many men I still respect and hold in high regard. I pray this document does not usurp what might have been a mostly positive annual meeting next month. I guess we can’t have a meeting without a fight. That is a sad but true statement.
I like the clarity of this statement and the full disclosure of its motivation.
I do find it odd however to cast it as “Traditional” when it’s so narrow that even a traditional SBC pastor like W.A. Criswell wouldn’t have been able to sign it.
Who is this Criswell character? I bet he’s like that Spurgeon character. How dare we include them as part of our tradition? ;)
In reading these comments, I’m beginning to doubt my dictionary skills actually. I don’t think a traditionalist is someone who follows tradition, but rather picks and chooses.
God bless….this is such a disappointing but festering wound….we need LOTS of prayer (per another tradition E.M. Bounds)
“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.”
You are all aware that this is flat out and unashamed Pelegianism… right?
It is nowhere close to that. Do you even know what “Pelagianism” is?
If you think Pelagianism is any affirmation of free will and any denial of the imputed guilt of Adam, then you have no clue what you are talking about. Sorry mate.
A definition of “Pelagianism” from Wikipedia: “It is the belief that people are not born with original sin and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.”
Compare that to the SBC statement: “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.”
Denial of original sin + free will to choose good = Pelagianism. Any questions?
So Wikipedia is scholarship now? I have read the wiki article and found it wanting.
Any further questions?
In any case, you fail to make proper distinctions. Atheists can do “good” in the sense that they can choose to not to beat their kids and starve them to death. However, this good merits nothing and counts for nothing with God. It is often called “common grace”.
That is divine aid. Nothing stated in the second article denies this. So, it is not Pelagian.
Denying original sin is not even Pelagianism, but rather denying the need of grace for salvation and pleasing God.
I deny “original sin” as normally formulated from the Augustinian tradition, but I affirm “original death” and posted the view here in these comments. It affirms all that the Bible affirms about humanity’s fallen condition, but leaves out the un-Biblical, Augustinian gibberish.
I welcome any refutation of that alternative I posted that you can muster. Given that my formulation heavily quotes Biblical phrases, be careful not to reject the Bible. ;)
If a person’s will is not bound or incapacitated… they can exercise that will to resist the causal pressure of their nature. They are therefore able to resist the causal pressure of their sin nature, and could therefore conceivably not sin (This denial is at odds with the affirmation of the same article). If a person exercises their will (which is unbound) to resist the sin nature, and not sin… what need is there for them to have redemption or grace? This is EXACTLY the argument that Pelagius makes… the human will is unbound and guilt is not inherited, therefore a human does not sin of necessity… but by following bad examples.
Canon 1 of the Council of Orange:
If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:16); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19).
Can you tell me how what article 2 denies can possibly NOT be what this is?
Canon 2
If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).
Sin itself passes onto the descendants of Adam… not just a propensity to sin… sin itself. I’m not going to lie Mr. Pritchitt, before you start accusing people of not knowing what Pelagianism is… you should probably read up a little. This is clearly Pelagian.
Jonathan, might want to read my work on Pelagius Back in the American Pulpit.
this article # 2 states that we are not sinners till we actually sin.
If you’d actually read Pelagius you’d know that to be his and his disciple Coelestus’ teaching.
Now, if ya’ll really want to see “semi-pelagianism” maybe you should be reading the Remonstrants five point.
And for men who are “edumacated” ya’ll do know the Five Points didn’t come from Calvin, right but rather from the Council of Dordt in Holland…Calvin was not present.
Not even close to Pelagianism. Have you looked at the first 400 years of the church, or anything out of Eastern Orthodoxy in the last, oh, 1000 years?
Jim Gifford
Tony:
Clearly, Canon 1 has human anthropology totally inconsistent with that of the verse in Ezekiel that it quotes…LOL.
In any case, the affirmation in Article II clearly states “every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin.”
This by no means “but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption,”
What it does mean is as it explicitly says, that all will sin due to the nature and environment.
The denial says:
“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.”
Canon II contradicts what the Apostle says in Romans 5:12, but that is neither here nor there.
In any case, nothing in Canon II contradicts anything in Article II above. You are getting hung up on the authors’ intent by the word “incapacitated”. No one is saying that the only punishment of being born of Adam is simply physical death. The intent is to reject philosophical determinism, not to affirm that someone could conceivably go through life without sinning, SINCE THE ARTICLE ALREADY DENIES THAT.
Now, I am more than happy to offer some criticism of Orange (of which I am not bound as a believer…least we overturn the Reformation), and some of the errors in the above, but this is about the Statement’s article II and its consistency with Orange.
There is none. The Article does not teach for any particular view of original sin, but it does state a position (like the BFM, go read Article III of it) rejecting the notion of the imputed guilt of Adam. Rejecting the imputed guilt of Adam is not identical to rejecting the consequences of Adam’s sin to all his descendents.
As to the philosophical question (a separate issue), of whether or not anyone could, born of Adam, in some logically possible world, not sin…My answer is “I have no idea”…
But, A BIG NO in this actual world because God has consigned all to disobedience under the reign of sin and death (what Romans 5:12-21 and 11:32 actually teach).
Would you like to try again?
In the third to last paragraph, I meant to say “inconsistency with Orange” and there is none.
In the third from the top, I meant to say “This, by no means, means”
actually, the battle of original sin didn’t take place in the first 300 years of the Church b/c they were battling the Humanity and Deity of Jesus. However there are plenty of quotes from early church theologians and pastors which speak of their recognition of original sin and its effects on our ability to respond to God.
I am thankful the signers have clearly stated their beliefs on this important issue. I don’t share a number of their conclusions as I view them as based on either a misunderstanding of Scripture or a misrepresentation of the views of others. I don’t, however, question their motives and think that ultimately the release of the statement will work for good as it will draw us back to the Scriptures to make certain we have understood them correctly. May it also cause us to redouble our efforts to preach the gospel to all men everywhere.
Bro. King
I follow you on face book. I appreciate your a lot of what you say. I especially appreciate your sentiments here. You are exactly right. The people I know do not wish further division, but only a recognition that other beliefs have been and are in SBC life. Again, I believe your statement here is spot on for the majority of us.
Of course the part on misunderstanding scripture I would have to respectfully disagree with. :)
Which conclusions are misunderstandings of Scripture? Let us draw back to the Scriptures and discuss. :)
Interesting,, in view of what the bible really says about salvation. The bible is our only guide.. What does it say. Mark 16:15-16.He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved.. IPeter 3:21. Baptism doth also now save us”.. Paul was told to arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins. Acts 2:38. Peter told those present when they asked what they must do. “Repent AND be baptized for the REMISSION of your sins”I go to the bible for what to do to be saved,, not some Article,, written by man.
Dr. Hankins, thank you for this clear, precise and well written document that I believe truly describes the traditional view of Soteriology of the SBC in my lifetime. There are some beliefs that we can agree to disagree and other beliefs, when imposed upon the convention must be confronted. The continued surge of Calvinist beliefs in the SBC necessitates a loving, but firm defense of our traditional, but more importantly, our biblical view of salvation.
Michael.
I’m sorry you feel as if this document labels some as “second class.” I don’t believe that was the intent. Neither do I believe a statement on the understanding of God’s plan of salvation is nonsense. I am sure you do not either. I am not sure anyone is picking a fight. Was another leader picking a fight when he stated Calvinism was the only option if one is committed to the Gospel or if they want to connect? I don’t mind if you are Calvinist. I don’t mind if others within the SBC are Calvinist. But I don’t have to be. Understand, there are many, many, many in the SBC who are not Calvinist and who hold to a different understanding of God’s plan of salvation. That is what this statement is about.
Eddie,
The issue is not that people disagree, that’s fine. The issue is that this document intentionally seeks to drive a wedge between non-Calvinists and Calvinists in the SBC, and in the process it presents a kind of Calvinism that is held by, as far as I know, no one in the SBC, and claims the existence of movements that do not exist.
Chris,
Thanks for responding. You said something very interesting: “it presents a kind of Calvinism that is held by, as far as I know, no one in the SBC.” Can you explain the kind of Calvinism that is held by those in the SBC?
That would require more than a brief blog comment. :) I did, however, write (never quite finished) a series of blog posts about this a while back: http://www.seektheholy.com/2011/08/04/life-as-a-calvinist-in-the-sbc/
In the statement, the denials they make are things that, for the most part, Calvinists would also deny, and yet the document is presented in such a way that one is led to believe that what the statement denies is what Calvinists affirm. In most cases, the denials are misrepresentations of Calvinist beliefs, and in at least two of the points, the denials have nothing to do with Calvinism at all.
I will check that out. thanks.
Chris: You said: “The issue is that this document intentionally seeks to drive a wedge between non-Calvinists and Calvinists in the SBC, and in the process it presents a kind of Calvinism that is held by, as far as I know, no one in the SBC, and claims the existence of movements that do not exist.”
I could not agree with you more, and I have been a Calvinist in the SBC for 31+ years (after 11 years as a Presbyterian who actually studied what we believed). Your statement nails it.
But, inasmuch as most Baptists don’t know what Baptists believe, I don’t think they’re going to take the time to learn what Calvinists believe, which leaves them with the half-truths and inaccuracies that are being hurled about in innuendos such as this latest document.
Eddie,
Forgive my passion in my statement, but I am sick of all of this. We are debating things that only God knows. We are told to “go” and “tell” and both “camps” are doing that. I don’t disagree that this issue as well as all issues of truth need to be addressed, however, this issue has been beat to death and I see no fruit in keeping it going on and on. People disagree on this, ok, let’s move on. I am telling you that I believe this is going to be the death of my beloved SBC. We are in decline as it is and this doesn’t help. I see this as nothing more then someone trying to pick a fight at the next convention in N.O. Oh, how the press will love to write about that. We have thousands of churches that hold both positions, find one you agree with and get to work and stop trying to make a name for yourself by beating up the “other side” and yes, that goes for both sides.
Michael,
Perhaps this discussion (from both sides) of salvation will not lead to the death of the SBC, but maybe this will spark a renewed interest in evangelism and theology. Maybe even a revival among us.
By the way, i appreciate your passion, its apathy that will lead to our demise.
It’s not evangelism we’re short on. It’s discipleship.
Were short on both
Dr. Eric Hankins,
Thanks to you and the others who had a part in writing this statement.
I’ve added my name to the list of those who affirm it. After all, it is just a statement of what I’ve believed all along, and what my dad believed before me.
I predict the list of those who affirm this statement will be long.
David R. Brumbelow
Bravo!
Contrary to what an influential SBC “employee” said on a video, we DO want to see the nations rejoice for Christ.
Dr. Hankins,
This document is overdue, frankly. Its articles represent sober, sound thinking about what will become at least one viable, theologically nuanced and biblically informed way for plain-vanilla, unscholarly “non-Calvinist” pastors such as myself to succinctly state what I both “affirm” and “deny” in my admittedly awkward “non-Calvinist” branding. You are to be commended, brother, one and all.
In addition, to those who’ve pooh-poohed this confessional project the moment it goes public–not to mention some who apparently felt obliged to pooh-pooh it before it went public–surely must be forgetful of the historic record Baptists have consistently held toward the formulations of confessional faith and subsequent public expressions of those confessions. Indeed Southern Baptists have expressed the classic Baptist position on confessions in all three of her adopted confessions (1925, 1963, 2000), a position toward which you alluded in the opening line of the Preamble–”Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry.”
I do not know this for sure, but it surely seems that your foregoing statement was, at least in part, inspired by words contained in the Preamble to all three editions of The Baptist Faith & Message (1925, 1963, 2000). Number 3 under the Preamble reads:
By drawing up this confession, you were only doing what free church Baptists have always done–exercise their Baptist right–indeed Baptist conviction–to express themselves.
Hence, that anyone would log on pooh-poohing the confessional process the brothers went through to frame this statement and subsequently publish it either is unschooled in Baptist history, unmindful of Baptist history, or unappreciative of Baptist history–none of which, unfortunately, presents a positive contribution to the discussion.
Grace.
With that, I am…
Peter
Hear, hear!
When I first saw this document, the disclaimer at the top of this post did not exist. I am thankful for that clarification. I also wish to put it to the test. Would any of the signatories or commenters here be willing to vote for the resolution I have submitted to the SBC Resolutions Committee (as posted at SBC Voices here)?
Scott,
To inquire on this thread whether anyone would vote for your resolution is absurd–and that’s a nice way of saying it. It also comes across as narcissistic since you ignore the obvious intention of this post as a thoughtful presentation/introduction of a document these men have compiled and turn around and self-promote your own statement. How more hokey another request could be I cannot presently imagine–”Come on, everybody! Ya’ll come over to my place and read and consider signing my document.”
In addition, attempting to inject one’s own personal work into the introduction/presentation of another’s work at best is presumptuous and at worst smacks of blatant arrogance. Instead of encouraging them in their effort (apparently, at least in your estimation, similar in scope and quality to yours), you advertise your work on their nickel. What a West Georgia double-hoot!
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I think you miss Scott’s intent. If this document is not intended to cause division but rather to clarify the views of one camp, then it is helpful to know whether or not the signers of this document would also support a resolution affirming room in the SBC for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. It is a question about the kind of unity being sought by those who sign this statement. Scott is not trying to draw attention to himself, he is trying to find the intent of the signers when it comes to affirming room in the SBC for both themselves and Calvinists.
Scott,
I can work and worship alongside Calvinists all day long, as long as they dont look upon me and my kind as if we’d lost the real Gospel, or were semi Pelagians, or Pelagians, or intellectual buffoons. Of course, I know that I’m not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But, I dont like to be looked upon as a sub par Chrsitian, or as being “poor, little, ole David….poor thing, he’s so stupid, he just cant get Calvinism.”
But, I love Calvinists! I have many, many Calvinist friends. ANd, I can get along with them all day. But, the New Calvinists….not so much.
David
Scott,
I’ll sign it, e-mail me a link. I work alongside plenty of Calvinists in the SBC. I am having two SBC Calvinists (very dear friends of mine) come in and preach for me while I am doing my residency this summer at Biola for two weeks.
I work with those who are about the Gospel.
On the other hand, I don’t like working with jerks, and many SBC Calvinists have acted like jerks, plain and simple. They make reasonable dialog unattainable with their rhetoric.
Blah, blah, the other side has jerks too, yes. That is true. But seriously, a lot of Calvinists in the SBC have acted like jerks…this statement is the fruit of their jerky labor.
And many decent Calvinists, probably like yourself, can admit as much.
Brother,
Do you feel your response of calling people jerks could do exactly what you set out not to do? I would encourage more graceful talk and dialog. I feel your intentions are right, but we have to control our tongues (or typing fingers) carefully.
“I can work and worship alongside Calvinists all day long, as long as they dont look upon me and my kind as if we’d lost the real Gospel, or were semi Pelagians, or Pelagians, or intellectual buffoons”
While I have many Calvinist friends, even they are weary of the Driscoll and Mahaney (who is moving to Louisville to be near SBTS) clones in the SBC and trying to work with them. The sinning by questioning, blindly following celebrities, shepherding cult tactics and latching onto Acts 29 when Driscoll’s problems have been obvious for years. I am seeing a small crack with some Calvinists in the SBC no longer willing to follow our Calvinist leaders. There is a tiny backlash growing as more is known about these men and their problems.
Chris,
You have well stated my intent.
Peter,
You have missed my intent.
Scott,
Your intent is clear. You speak over at Tom Ascols blog about this being a divisive statement. You then allow for Ascol to post a private email and say nothing about the ethics of openly calling those within an email he had not business having as being divisive because we were signed onto a statement of confessional unity. Now you come over here and comment about how some opening statement calls clarity to this so you can agree with what we are doing. Let me see if I get what you are doing. ARe you now saying that Tom Ascol has released a false document? Or are you saying that Tom Ascol has intentionally mislead people with his post because he did not have the opening statement. Or are you just being hypocritical?
Tim,
You have missed my intent as well.
I have and will likely continue to be wary of the divisive nature of this statement. It having caused such rancor for being ‘outed’ gives me pause for concern. I have no problem with the affirm-deny approach. The denial is what is highly problematic. The descriptor of ‘New Calvinists’ is but a variation on an old theme—We’re against “those Calvinists.” Not you—forgive me for not wanting to go down that road again, because that last one was a slippery slope which has led to the emergence of crusadering anti-Calvinists (against all Calvinists) raising up in the midst of our convention.
Once the creators of this document sent it via mass e-mail, they could not expect that it would not be shared…unless told to keep it under wraps, etc., etc. (AND then I would wonder why that would be). Was this to be an “October surprise” at the convention…a highly unfortunate distraction from what will be a historic time in SBC life (now possibly for two reasons).
The opening statement to which I refer is the author’s disclaimer at the head of this post regarding the document…not the document itself. I do not believe Tom Ascol to be doing anything other than amicably responding with his disagreements and concerns to the statement. I had received it before he posted it and before it was posted here. All three versions are identical. The only difference being the opening clarification here at SBCToday.
My intent was and is to test that clarification. If this is merely a position statement defined by affirmation and negation, then I would like to know if the statement’s authors, signatories, as well as commenters here would be willing to affirm the resolution I have submitted regarding soteriology and cooperative ministry. Could the ‘New Traditionalists’ work with the ‘Old Founders’? Would the ‘Five-Pointers’ be willing to minister alongside the ‘Biblicists’? Rather than being engaged in beneficial discussion, I am being castigated for seeking clarification.
SolaGratia.
“We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology.” hmm so what most Methodist believe now can also be labeled “traditional Methodist teaching?” How can this be called the Traditional view when many Baptists have been Calvinists down through the centuries. I really do not understand why thre is so much fighting between Calvinists and non-cavinists in the SBC. Baptists have always been both. Why not keep that as a stregnth? Is it for power in the convention? This fighting is really troublesome. I could understand the fight against liberalism or moderatism in the convention. But these are two groups of conservative christians that have lived together in one denomination for a long time fighting. I can’t see how this fighting is helpful to the cause of spreading God’s kingdom and loving God and enjoying Him forever.
Carl,
I had the same thought. My biggest problem in this discussion is finding a term, or descriptor, which accurately and positively describes my friends who are not Calvinistic. It is not fair to simply label them in the negation (‘non-Calvinist’), but Arminian is not right…Traditional, especially in this case, seems to target only a specific segment of our history…Biblicist seems to cast aspersions toward Calvinists…most others are a string-of-modifiers-interlaced-with-hyphens that are too cumbersome to be functional. I am at a loss.
Okay. i can understand possibly wanting to define a good label for those who are not Calvinists. That is fine but this document seems to be going much further. By stating this is what Traditional Baptists believe it is making a case that this was and is what Baptist believe. I contend that it would be better to accept the diversity in the denomination as a atregnth and a weakness. But I contend that Baptist should keep the more traditional diversity in thought. The attempts that I have seen to produce a Baptist soteriology in opposition to Calvinism (and ARminianism) in the end have been Armininian when one unpacks what the author realy is saying. But oh well.
If Baptist have been around since the 1600s, yet the SBC did not begin to shift toward non-Calvinism until 1925 then how can this statement be deemed ‘traditional’?
My thoughts exactly, Jerry!
The oldest SBC seminary (SBTS) has founding documents that are clearly from a reformed perspective….many of the founding and early leaders of the SBC were reformed. Was this understanding of the sovereignty of God a majority view….I’, really not sure but, its nonsensical to pretend that a reformed view of salvation just popped on the SBC scene recently. This document is disingenuous, at least on that front. (The assertion that this document is the “traditional view”).
This is amazing to me. It mind boggling that many of you on this comment line are referring to those of a reformed perspective in ways that for years people in the SBC spoke of African Americans, Saying things like “I have lots of Calvinist friends”. This type of palpable disdain is saddening.
Then there’s the “we did not mean it to be divisive” and “we are just clarifying our position, not attacking others” pretences. Well, if that’s the case….then why did you make such obvious effort in your statement to marginalize those who hold to different views?
I am truly saddened and angered by this. However, and more sadly, I’m not surprised.
Maybe some friends and I should get together and do a list of affirmations and denials and speak to the ‘traditional” SBC stances regarding the health, wealth, and prosperity Gospel being preached by some of the signers of this document….if not that maybe regarding some of their Pelagian leaning views.
Maybe some friends and I should get together and do a list of affirmations and denials and speak to the ‘traditional” SBC stances regarding the health, wealth, and prosperity Gospel being preached by some of the signers of this document….if not that maybe regarding some of their Pelagian leaning views.”
Don’t forget the affirmation of slavery by the Calvinist “Founders”. :o)
Oh, great, throw in a bigoted dart that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You need to apologize, seriously. The traditions being discussed are theological, and timeless, and tying them to bigotry is reprehensible, unscholarly, and the typical hateful tripe that is spewed towards us who hold to a more reformed view.
Shame on you.
“Oh, great, throw in a bigoted dart that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.”
Robin, Are you suggesting that doctrine does not influence behavior? Have you read Broaddus’ bio of Boyce?
I remember from my Baptist history class at Southern with Dr. Nettles (the most notable living Baptist historian) that to be a Southern Baptist in the 1800s was to be a Calvinist. We read the earliest Baptist confessions and all of the pre-20th century confessions were clearly Calvinistic. I’m not saying this makes Calvinism right (the Bible does that !), but it does seem like a real stretch to argue that this new document somehow represents ‘traditional’ Baptist views on soteriology. It comes across as disengenious and misleading.
Jerry,
Dr. Nettles is a fine fella, but he is definitely very biased towards Calvinism. I also had him for Christian History, and we heard a lot…a lot…a lot….about Calvinism….seemed like every, single day.
David
I believe this document. It fits my theology very well. And, since I am not anti Calvinist, and I would be against trying to kick Calvinists out of the SBC; I appreciate the parts which read…
“There is no thought that this document reflects what all Southern Baptists believe or that it should be imposed upon all Southern Baptists.”
“While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.”
I love my Calvinists, Reformed Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I can work alongside of them, and worship with them, in the SBC. I do not want them to be kicked out, or left out of SBC life. But, I do agree with this document, and I think its a step in the right direction for SBC life. We need to move beyond Calvinsim and Arminianism…and embrace what Baptists believe about the Bible. We should be Christians, who are Baptists….and leave wiggle room for minor points of theological differences.
David
David,
I agree. My question previously stated in reference to my resolution reamains: Will any signatories to this position welcome any Calvinists (on the spectrum from five-pointers to Almyridians to modified to partial…) within positions of leadership within the convention and affirm them as co-laborers under our Great Commission to make disciples of all nations on the basis of the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Scott,
As far as I’m concerned, I would. Also, I believc history bears out the fact that Calvinists were appointed to places of leadership by Traditionalist SB’s….ie, Mohler at Southern; Akin at Southeastern; Ezell at NAMB; and all the missionaries of the past, who’ve been Calvinists appointed by a mostly Traditional Baptist IMB and NAMB and respective boards. Is that not true? Our history has been one of getting along.
But, the New Calvinists that I’ve run into…that I’ve had dealings with…dont look at it that way. And, I dont like the idea of SBC leaders taking us into a more Reformed position.
David
As a former pastor at a SBC church, I’m grateful for a place at a nondenominational church right now. We have pastors from all over the spectrum in regards to this topic, and we work alongside each other closely to accomplish what matters. And this, my friends, is not an area that matters. I’m thankful for the differing views I see every day. I adds perspective and wholeness to our ministry. Praying for the Convention.
I am not a Calvinist, but in fairness to Scripture (what should be predominant in any discussion on correct, if not traditional, Baptist beliefs) there is a whole lot of text in support of predestiation. Also, when you say that Article IV of the Baptist Faith and Message on Salvation doesn’t speak of Election you are correct. Article V is the section on Baptist’s belief IN Election.
I’m not a calvanist nor a arminist but a Baptist..Article 2 is borderline hersey…to imply that man comes into the world without sin is wrong…rom 5:12..rom 5:18-19 proverbs 20:9.Isa 64:6…after gen 3 gen 4 is nothing but death to all because of the sin of Adam not because they sinned personally but corporately were born in sin.Take two babies and put them togather and one bottle of milk and see how good they are????This is very divisive…Wonder how many souls could have been saved in the time it took to write this article..
I see nothing borderline heretical about it.
What do you think sin is? Ontologically speaking.
Is two babies competing for a bottle of milk non-rational infant instinct or sinful desire? (James 1:14-15) Did baby Jesus ever cry wanting to be held even if He didn’t need to be held? Would that be deceitful behavior? We need to be cautious here in what we say, since there is no way of knowing how baby Jesus behaved as an infant. It wasn’t as if He was doing long division in the cradle (Luke 2:52), nor not ever crying or whatever…come on…
Also, what part of the baby is inherently sinful? See Ecclesiastes 12:7. Is it the dirt (gnsoticism) or the spirit God gave him or her (effectively calling God the author of sin…but see James 1:13)?
Is. 64:6 says all have become unclean…not born unclean.
Not sure the reference to Pro. 20:9 since we all agree that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
As for Romans 5:12-21, please see my post above (which includes 1 Cor. 15:22 as well) for a Biblical explanation minus all the Augustinian nonsense or bad interpretations of Psalms regarding “sin juice” getting all over babies in the womb, that no doubt needs washing off by infant baptism…LOL
People really need to rethink their categories and doctrinal formulations in light of proper Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis.
The Bible predates Calvin and Arminius, and Augustine and Pelagius.
Part of the purpose of this statement is to MOVE AWAY from doing Biblical theology somewhere on the spectrum between Augustine and Pelagius or Calvin and Arminius.
Those are practically useless categories of thought for proper Biblical theology. Time to get away from scholasticism and reactive theology and more towards a 1st century Ancient Near East and ancient Hebrew understanding of theological categories.
Affirming free will and denying the imputation of Adam’s guilt is neither heresy nor Pelagianism.
“Time to get away from scholasticism and reactive theology and more towards a 1st century Ancient Near East and ancient Hebrew understanding of theological categories.”
Exactly! Thank you!
“Also, what part of the baby is inherently sinful?”
The part that does not seek God. (Rom 3:11)
In the context of the Psalms Paul quotes, the verse speaks of “evildoers” (14:4, 53:4)The babies are these evildoers?
Are we absolutely sure that Paul has zygotes, or even infants, in mind here?
Is Paul the gratuitous proof-texter the Calvinist is, or does the OT echo of broader context matter in interpretation?
Do you seek God? Regardless of your born again status, the answer is yes.
So, is Romans 3:11 therefore qualified, or was Paul himself not seeking God even though the Holy Spirit inspired him to quote David?
So, yes, it is already qualified.
Thus, is it hyperbolic? Yes.
Now, before you get too excited, I am not denying that anyone can seek God without being prompted by God Himself, but what I am saying is that Paul (nor David) did not have infants or zygotes in mind when it says “no one seeks God.”
That a baby will grow up, sin, and not seek God without God’s assistance and grace is neither here nor there to the issue under discussion here.
When my wife and I had our first child, I never once thought to myself, “God, why did our obeying your creation mandate result in this tiny, wretched, wicked, God-hating, God-ignoring, filthy enemy of yours I am holding in my arms.” And if you are a father, you never said that either.
Get real son…
No, but I bet that you prayed that your child would grow up and recognize his sinfulness and seek Christ to be justified, sanctified, and ultimately glorified? Is it all that different? If what you are saying is true, then we should kill all our children before they have a chance to bring their own guilt upon themselves.
Tony,
Not only is it a sin against God to murder, but it also goes against the natural love that a parent has for their child to murder thier baby.
Life belongs to God.
And, let me ask you….do you believe that babies go to Hell?
David
Wow, your argument is almost as compelling as the pastor I know is looking forward to hunting in heaven.
Of COURSE we know how Jesus acted as a baby, and infant and even an adolescent teen….HE WAS WITHOUT SIN! Unlike any other man…remember?
We all believe that Jesus was sinless…even as a baby. And?
David
Agree with David.
I think the point passed you right by…We all affirm that Jesus was without sin, and we all affirm Jesus was 100% human as well as 100% divine.
How do 100% human zygotes and babies act? Can you prove zygote Jesus and baby Jesus acted differently than other zygotes and babies (was Mary sinless on your view to prevent zygote Jesus from being formed in a “sin-infected womb” or whatever…)?
No one disagrees that Jesus did not sin. What we do disagree on is whether babies, in acting on instinct rather than thought and desire, actually sin when they cry, want to be held, etc.
If so, you have to prove babies and fetuses and zygotes are sinners even before they can reason, think, have knowledge, and have evil desires (which is the corrupting of the innate good desires).
There is more here than you are apparently willing to think about. I understand if you aren’t on that level…no harm, no foul. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
And, in response to what someone said above…woe to the jerk who would put one bottle between two hungry babies to fight over.
That says more about that person who would do that than it does about babies.
Sheesh…
If it is true that Baptists had made disciples of the 16 million people God has sent us, and;
If it is true that Baptist soteriology is true and differs from reformed soteriology, and;
If it is true that there were a movement afoot to “convert” Baptists to the reformed way of thinking, then:
I wouldn’t think anyone would have anything to worry about. Well-grounded disciples in the Baptist churches would not be tossed about by that wind of doctrine and would stay true to the things Baptists tout, and not fall for the reformed doctrines decried in this document. However, I, for one, don’t believe #1, above, as witnessed by the fact that I have yet to find an SBC member, teacher, deacon body or pastor who correctly answered my question as to why we have to be baptized to join an SBC church.
If we had been fulfilling the Great Commission .. if we had been making disciples .. we’d have no reason for the document. As it is, Baptists do have a lot to fear. And not from Calvinism or any other reformed theology.
Bob,
You said “I have yet to find an SBC member, teacher, deacon body or pastor who correctly answered my question as to why we have to be baptized to join an SBC church.”
One begins to wonder if this is because you have the wrong answer.
Consider this by Thomas White:
http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/WhatMakesBaptismValid.pdf
I have the right answer.
Pray tell…..
Drop me your answer at mightyfowl(at)gmail(dot)com, and I’ll email you mine. I don’t want to put it up here as it’s been fun just playing around with it……
At my age I need all the fun I can get.
“The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists.”
With all the chatter on various blogs today related to this, I think it’s important not to lose sight of this key consideration which led to the preparation of this document. Many of us who consider ourselves grassroots, mainstream, traditional (or whatever you prefer to call the 90+% SBC non-Calvinist majority) are becoming increasingly aware of (and some personally affected by) a new breed of young, restless and reformed pastors who are aggressive and militant about their Calvinist belief and practice. While the majority has co-existed with “Old Calvinism” in its ranks, this new thing is cause for concern. Thus, I agree that it is high time to address this issue with a clear articulation of “God’s Plan of Salvation” as the majority know and profess it to a lost world. The BFM2000 revision allowed too much theological wiggle room and expectedly led to this current controversy.
New Calvinist is an oxymoron.
Calvinist is a misnomer.
We hold to God’s inerrant word and believe in it’s absolute authority and His absolute sovereignty.
We do not follow Calvin.
We follow Christ.
It appears to me that the Old Guard is worried about losing it’s political power within the SBC to the younger generation coming up in the ranks. This has been coming to a head since the Pastor’s Conference in Orlando a couple years ago when many of the Pastor’s preaching at it are known Calvinist. I believe that it made a lot of folks uncomfortable, and they made up their minds that they needed to do something about stopping it.
As a believer in the “Doctrines of Grace” our commission by our Lord and Master is to share the Gospel with the lost and leave the results up to Him. Remember, it is not for our Glory, but His.
I don’t have a problem with a person or group of persons outlining their specific positions regarding the doctrine of salvation. I actually think such an exercise can be very fruitful for personal growth. My disappointment with this resolution effort is that a group of Southern Baptists that do not represent all Southern Baptists desires to more narrowly define the doctrinal position of the Southern Baptist Convention beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. When did the BF&M 2000 become an insufficient doctrinal guide? Why the need for a non-binding resolution?
It is striking to me that on the same day that an appeal’s court strikes down the DOMA, a group in the SBC release a statement which, intentional or not, can only deepen lines of division within the convention. The first is one reason why the second should never have happened – there are far more important things going on that need our focus, our prayer, and our ministry. At a time when there is such a great need for unity, why is there so much effort to cause division?
I suppose you are trying to say those who are causing the division are those here who disagree with those that agree with you?
Come on Chris! You are smarter than that.
><>”
Bob,
And you are smarter than that. You know that’s not what I meant.
So are you admitting that you and your side are part of the problem?
><>”
Bob,
Please note that your responses are neither clever nor helpful, particularly since I’m sure you know they also have nothing to do with the point I was making.
“At a time when there is such a great need for unity, why is there so much effort to cause division?”
Chris, You are ignoring the fact that an SBC employee said on a video that if one wants to see the nations rejoice for Christ, New Calvinism is the only place for them to go. THAT is divisive. Especially when a lot of people who do not consider themselves New Calvinists are paying part of his salary and his ability to promote T4G and GC which are both Calvinistic.
http://youtu.be/T6lRMMvNCn8
Why is it not divisive to you when a paid employee of a convention that is about 80% Non Calvinist says such things? I am genuinely curious how that computes with logic. That video is ONE example of what we have been hearing for years out of the New Calvinist camp.
Lydia,
How can you equate what an individual says of his own views in a non-SBC forum with what a group of individuals are trying to do across the SBC? Mohler stated his views of the Bible, but this statement does more than articulate personal views: it seeks to divide the SBC into camps of us-vs-them.
“How can you equate what an individual says of his own views in a non-SBC forum with what a group of individuals are trying to do across the SBC? Mohler stated his views of the Bible, but this statement does more than articulate personal views: it seeks to divide the SBC into camps of us-vs-them.”
Chris,
Let me get this straight….
So what he said in the Gospel Coalition video, a non SBC forum, means he does not believe these same words when he is at work in an SBC capacity? Seriously? It is not divisive because as an SBC entity president he said it at the Gospel Coalition?
How can I equate it? Should I not assume Mohler is the same person with the same beliefs no matter where he is? And no matter where he is he represents SBTS? Right? Or Wrong?
What I mean is Mohler was not attempting to shape the theology of the SBC when he said those words.
Chris,
Here you go again… “this statement does more than articulate personal views: it seeks to divide the SBC into camps of us-vs-them.”
Come on dude… we are ALREADY divided and the divide was created by those who have made calvinism a front row issue or we WOULD NOT BE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS!
Either you simply do not get it or you are in some serious denial! This document is a response to what is taking place around us in the SBC… so if in your eyes us calling attention to things that we do not like is divisive then I suggest you get used to it; it is going to get worse.
><>”
The only people who have made Calvinism a front-row issue are people like yourself, non-Calvinists who do not like the fact that a growing number of Southern Baptists have embraced the theology of Calvinism.
The only ones I see making Calvinism a “Front Row” issue are those offended by it. If they would keep their opinions to themselves and let God bless their ministries according to their faithfulness to His word then the rest of us could (and are) move along…the problem is that it irritates them…the question is WHY?
Robin,
I am sure you are kidding right… “If they would keep their opinions to themselves”
This is one of the poorest statements on this blog. If I disagree with the theology I will voice my disagreement, that is WHY this discussion is taking place.
><>”
It’s amazing to me that the originators of divisiveness. Calvinists, accuse traditional Southern Baptists of divisiveness. We have watched you challenge the beliefs of our convention, and when we rightly respond with clarification of traditional Southern Baptist beliefs, you cry foul. It sound like your definition of divisiveness is anything that doesn’t match your beliefs.
I will say that Calvinist has done one good thing. You have prompted us to more clearly define true Baptist soteriology. This is what traditional Baptists believe. Just because it is not what you believe does not make it divisive.
And I would say that the best thing about this statement is it allows us to drop the lie that Calvinism is dividing churches and the convention. Look at who in the convention is calling for unity, and look at who in the convention is trying to draw battle lines.
Chris,
As one who signed the document I can assure you that it is not my intent to draw a “battle line” as you imply. It is a fact that this is an expression of what every SBC church I have ever been involved with for over 43 years has believed. I find it difficult why this statement affirming that is being labeled as divisive.
I thought we aas SBC people were free to state what we believe? Why can some do so and others not?
Trying to understand the bearing false witness that is taking place.
Because (1) this document does not present an accurate picture of any form of Calvinism within the SBC, (2) this document claims the existence of movements that do not exist, (3) this document implicitly, if not explicitly, moves Calvinists in the convention to the sidelines, and (4) this document drives a wedge between Calvinist and non-Calvinist Southern Baptists – we disagreed before the existence of a document of this sort, but this document does not leave the matter at simple disagreement but breaks the SBC into camps of us-vs-them.
I have zero problem with people disagreeing with me, I have zero problem with people who disagree with me writing documents and statements and confessions that articulate their views, I do take issue with attempts to push Calvinists to the sidelines of the convention, and I’m surprised that people do not recognize how this document accomplishes nothing but division and marginalization.
I’ve only been a Baptist for a bit over 31 years, but I do have 11 years’ experience as a Presbyterian as well. It is so simply obvious who is divisive in all this, it has been since the whole “Calvinism is the problem” thing came up, and I assure you the handwriting is on the wall. There have been enough lies told about Calvinism to make me want to upchuck.
“Anti-Missional”? I have yet to see or hear of a Baptist church as committed to missions as the last PCA church we belonged to .. one in which we formed part of the founding membership.
Aggressive? I teach now, and did when I was a Presbyterian, what’s in the Bible. When the Bible speaks of election and predestination … which my pastor mentioned in his sermon this past Sunday by the way … that’s what I teach. When it speaks of Jesus’ dying not only for those to whom the book was addressed, but the sins of the entire world, that’s what I teach. That’s all I’ve ever heard, even in Presbyterian churches.
This is the straw man of all straw men, and I think it’s coming from people who may be realizing that the SBC churches have, as a whole, failed at making disciples, and have to have something to blame the ills of the SBC on. Well, it reminds me of the boss, who said to an underling:
“I didn’t say you were at fault .. I said I was blaming you”.
Amen.
again, you need to study your traditions better, you haven’t a clue, sorry. Unless of course you are a Methodist.
My concern is what’s going on in my lifetime.
And I was a Methodist before I was a Presbyterian.
This statement is NOT what “traditional” Southern Baptists believed. By “traditional,” I mean 19th century! The founders of the convention like John Dagg who was the first writing SBC theologian whose text, “A Manual of Theology” has been linked here by me represents the “traditional” SBC doctrine of salvation. John Dagg, James P. Boyce, John Broadus, Basil Manly Jr., P.H. Mell, W.B. Johnson and on and on I could go would not only NOT have signed this document, they would have vigorously opposed it, if for no other reason than that most of the things denied don’t even represent historical Calvinism! This document leaves me wondering who is even being targeted because it is so poorly written that it only further confuses and distorts what Calvinists actually believe and teach. This document lacks integrity and is, frankly, dishonest.
I have been spending my lunch reading these comments and I must say that there are quite a few of the “over-educated” here. I don’t know much about Calvinism. I have never heard of Pelagianism or any of the other -isms referred to by many. All I know is that I was a sinner, I believe that Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice for my sins and rose again on the 3rd day, and that because of that belief I am now a child of God and on my way to Heaven someday (Romans 10:9 says that all I have to do is believe). I was baptized, not for my salvation but because of it; to tell the world how I was changed. With all of that said, I 100% agree with that the document is Biblical and it is definitely what is taught at the church I attend.
Guys,
I do not, nor have not identified myself as a “Calvinist.” The divisiveness though that I have witnessed has not been from the side of those who are the “calvinists” but rather from those who aren’t. Why keep bringing up this mess? I realize things are changing in our SBC, but why are we against that? Things have not been good ACROSS our convention for a while. For years we have preached baptism numbers, but I have pastored churches that have all been filled with a majority of baptized folks, who if they were to die today would be in Hell because they have never responded to THE gospel. I am all for clarifying the gospel, but not at the cost of simply fighting against changes that are occurring, and from my perspective need to occur. Let’s not sing “Onward, Christian Soldiers” again, nor let our congregations do so, because these types of endeavors are unlike any army I’ve ever heard of. Let’s stop alienating ourselves from one another. Want to know why guys are thinking about leaving the convention? It’s because of this kind of stuff.
I have decided to reply with my thoughts and disagreements with the affirmations or denials. Make all the statements you want, I’m totally cool with that. The problem will arise when/if it goes to the convention. The BF&M is open enough to have both stances/positions (not sides, we are on the same side) included and unite for the spread of the glory of God to all nations. Here is how I understand it:
Gospel
I too deny “only a select few are capable of responding…” I don’t believe any are capable. Will is free, but apart from the work of God will only choose contrary.
Sinfulness of Man
I’m not sure I fully understand what is being communicated
Atonement
Free will that is bound to choose sin
Grace
Effectual calling cannot be resisted, General calling can be resisted
Regeneration
Hmmm. I agree that it happens in association with hearing and responding to the Gospel, but I would state that a response of faith will only come as a result of Regeneration.
Election
Predestined certain people for salvation…Yes, condemnation…No
Sovereignty
I’m not sure how would agree with what is denied
Free Will
Decision is the persons own choice, but enable by God.
Effectual Call Romans 9, different from General call
Great Commission
Agreed except where is discipleship…lost? The great commission is more than “bringing any person to salvation” it is making them a disciple through teaching and instruction of the Word of God.
I have eagerly anticipated such a statement. Thanks to all who contributed.
I am a 34 year old SBC pastor and I am not a Calvinist nor am I an Arminian. I hate it that we try to put parameters around things that God did not. I believe in total depravity. I was dead in my trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1). Something that is dead can do nothing. God had to do it. With that said, no one will be able to blame God that they were not saved. The Bible teaches us that “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
I read through all of the comments and I am thankful that I am already saved. If I was a lost person reading through this it would cause me to want to stay away from the Baptist churches. Baptists seem to be more concerned about debating one another than we are about engaging the lost with the Gospel. It is time we stop fighting one another and partner together to do together what none of us can do on our own. We are called to make disciples not win debates. Instead of trying to get people to look like us, focus on helping them to look like Jesus!
J.D. Arnold, Pastor
Emmanuel Baptist Church
Jane, Missouri
Dr. Hankins,
Wonderful, theologically sound document that all Southern Baptists can rally around. Thankful for your leadership and look forward to your service in the SBC.
Stuart Houston
“Wonderful, theologically sound document that all Southern Baptists can rally around.”
Except the Calvinist ones…
I think the Preamble itself presents a few too many issues before even approaching the meat of the articles.
I don’t read the BF & M (especially the most recent one) as a “clear trajectory away” from Calvinism. It has quite inclusive and vague language that a Non Calvinist and Calvinist could both affirm.
The preamble calls out and shuns a group of “New Calvinists”, yet there is no explanation of what such a label entails. Does that mean the group listens to too many Matt Chandler or John Piper Podcasts? I’d like to know some of the organized “aggressive” tactics SBC’s have experienced at the hands of this subversive movement. Specifically, what “radical alteration” is this NC group calling for in Southern Baptist life and mission?
To say the “Traditional” view is the one with young tender roots formed in 1925 is a stretch of semantics. With the clear reality that the most ancient Baptist confessions (1600s) were more Reformed, wouldn’t that make Calvinism “more traditional” than a non Calvinist view?
Others can tackle the theological implications of the articles better than me.
Just my initial thoughts as a layman who desires unity in mission.
One thought comes to mind reading “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”: no one, not a single solitary person, is saved “by repentance & faith” … referring to the action of the person in repentance & the expression by the person of faith.
Any who are saved are saved by the grace of God in expressing mercy to the damnable & in giving spiritual life to the spiritually dead. Salvation can be rightly said to be “by faith” in that Jesus Christ faithfully (by faith) was obedient to the Father & thereby accomplished the works necessary for the salvation of those the Father had given Him. Nothing less than this perfect faithfulness is sufficient for the salvation of any.
When God graciously sends the Holy Spirit to bring a person into spiritual life, at the proclamation of the Gospel there is that response in the person because of this spiritual life which is called “faith”. Faith, in this framework, is the spiritual response which results in belief then trust then repentance.
Thus said, it is NOT our faith which saves, but our faith which is evidence of our salvation. It is not our repentance which saves, but our repentance which is evidence of our faith which is evidence of our salvation.
Those spiritually dead cannot respond to the Gospel with faith anymore than a rock can respond to the kisses of a maiden. The dead can imitate spiritual life because we are still encumbered by sin in the flesh & are deceived and deceiving in that fleshly nature. Looking like the living & being alive, however, are two VERY different things.
This statement would be a good addition to the “What We Believe” section of traditional SBC church websites. It is a much clearer articulation of God’s Plan of Salvation than that presented in the salvation section of BFM2000.
Is anyone confused about why eager pastors and growing churches are leaving or inactive in SBC life?
I believe the BF&M2000′s statement on salvation is sufficient for all. Obviously this statement does not reflect all of Southern Baptist thought on the matter.
Dr. Hankins,
Thank you for making this available. Being raised in a SBC church and having served 5 SBC churches for over 22 years I can say without any hesitation that this is indeed what I and the people were I have served and was raised believe. I am thankful that the effort has been taken to put it in writing!
Well done!
Two of the greatest evangelist/preachers the world has ever known would not sign this statement: Jonathon Edwards and Charles Spurgeon. This is unnecessary and divisive. I personally agree with much of what is said, but I completely disagree with the reasoning behind such a document. If Calvinists did such a thing, there would be tremendous outrage. Baptists need to remember that Calvinism and non-Calvinism are not the Gospel…Jesus is the Gospel! How about an affirmation of the Gospel? We need, more than ever, to be about Jesus…proclaiming Him to the ends of the earth! The worst thing that could happen at the convention would be for this to be presented. Please, don’t make us a joke again to the watching world. Let’s make much of Jesus and rally around Him!
“Affirming free will and denying the imputation of Adam’s guilt is neither heresy nor Pelagianism.”
You’re right!
Its, both!
Do tell how, good sir?
I affirm free will. People who affirm free will are heretics and Pelagians?
I deny the imputation of Adam’s guilt (mind you: this is totally different than rejecting that humanity receives the consequences of Adam’s sin). People who deny the imputation of Adam’s guilt are heretics and Pelagian?
Tell me how this is either heretical or Pelagian.
You are saying all the signers of this are Pelagian and heretics?
This is why dialog with Calvinists is impossible…
No Johnathan, dialogue with Calvinist is not impossible. I have experienced the pleasure many times in my short life. What you meant to say was “dialogue with Calvinist is improbable.”
I am having two dear friends of mine, who are Calvinists, come preach in the pulpit while I am away doing my residency this summer.
What I think I should have said is “dialog with Internet Calvinists is impossible.”
Genesis 3:14-19 says nothing about Adam’s offspring being imputed with his guilt.
Romans 5:12-21 says nothing about Adam’s offspring being imputed with his guilt.
Psalms 51:5 and 58:3 certainly say nothing about Adam’s offspring being imputed with Adam’s guilt.
Seriously, while we all have 1,846,867,246,853 or so of our own sins to answer for, crying about being held guilty for Adam’s sin is superfluous, I grant that, but still, where does the Bible actually state this?
Oh…right…it doesn’t…
Where does the Bible say people don’t have “free will”…why does the Westminster Confession and the LBC 1689 have sections on free will. Those sections, by the way, contain nothing that the above Statement ACTUALLY conflicts with, mind you. Weird, I know… ;)
Even if man has free will, he’s only free to do that which is within his nature. Man isn’t free to float 3 feet off the ground like a hummingbird, or breathe water like a fish. That’s important to know, as the Bible states that the natural man cannot comprehend things of the Spirit, no one can say Jesus is Lord but by the Spirit, etc.
We’re free to do a lot of things, but getting saved isn’t one of them, unless God intervenes via the Holy Spirit.
Amen, and neither that statement, nor anyone here defending it say otherwise.
“We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.”
That seems to indicate that the Spirit need not intervene before salvation. Need not work in the person to enable comprehension of the Spiritual.
Bob, that is because the Holy Spirit operates in tandem with the presentation of the Gospel. (see John 15:26-27, John 1:8, the book of Acts, etc…
You think that regeneration is required in order to exercise faith. Fine, except the Bible nowhere teaches that this regeneration (new birth) happens prior to faith.
So, the work of the Holy Spirit includes more than just regeneration. It includes conviction. It includes the prevenient grace of enabling.
Sometime, people respond with repentance and faith (Acts 2), and sometimes they respond by stoning the preacher (Acts 7)…
Jonathan,
If you are still reading way up here, you said,
“So, the work of the Holy Spirit includes more than just regeneration. It includes conviction. It includes the prevenient grace of enabling.
Sometime, people respond with repentance and faith (Acts 2), and sometimes they respond by stoning the preacher (Acts 7)…”
This is not an attempt at a “gotcha” question. So what is the difference in the two responses? Why is one given this “enabling” and the other not given it?
Dave,
I think you have crossed the line in essentially referring to these men as heretics. If Michael Horton’s definition of heresy is correct, “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance,” then these views, while not orthodox in my view, do not qualify as heresy.
Les
“Its purpose is to engender a much needed Convention-wide discussion about the place of Calvinism in Southern Baptist life.”
This is good, a statement like this is good. The Barna Group conducted an exhaustive poll to determine that the majority of Southern Baptists are non-Calvinists, but God love ‘em we need to know where to put these folks. This statement allows the Calvinists to stay in the family as the red headed stepchild but warns guests at the front door that, “Our family is normal, really, but we can’t kick him out of the house just because he wears adult diapers and listens to his music too loud.”
I love it.
We aren’t the stepchildren. That’s so divisive.
lol
Michael,
To borrow from your metaphor: Your “daddy” is the president of the SBC flagship seminary and has been since he was 33.
It is my opinion that the writer of the article needs to apologize to those like me and stop this now. Please understand that we must stand for what we believe in. Most of us don’t want the discussions or proposals like yours because we believe it just simply divides.
Look, I know not all Southern Baptists agree with everything in Sovereign Grace, and that is perfectly fine. But, those that don’t aren’t making a proposal like your proposal. Look, that statement of yours is ok on a personal level, but should be kept that way. The BF&M provides the best middle ground for us as Southern Baptists. Your proposal, if adopted, would kill the SBC as we know it to be. Even those that do agree with you would leave because of the divisive language that is harsh against those that don’t agree with you.
So, I implore you to please write an article of apology and keep such matters to yourself.
Where are all the Southern Professors Signatures?
Their sound theology prevents them from signing such a straw-man filled, theologically incorrect, self-serving statement like this.
I meant to specifically say that a denial of the imputation of Adam’s sin is both Pelagian and heretical.
Which is it? The imputation of Adam’s sin, the consequences of Adam’s sin, or Adam’s guilt?
Romans 5: 12 we have one sin from one man, then more death because more sin (for all). Makes sense, Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 15:22.
Romans 5:17 death reigns…
Romans 5:21 sin reigns in death.
It all makes perfect sense.
Now the in between triumphantly highlights Christ’s amazing act that overpowers Adam’s amazing act.
The problem: if someone injects direct causation into the passage, consistently throughout the passage, the result is far worse than Augustine’s formulation of the doctrine of original sin (misreading verse 12 as “in whom all sin”). The result is universalism in verses 5:16-18, especially given how much more powerful and victorious Christ’s act is presented here.
FAIL…
Maybe, in light of Scripture, we need to rethink certain doctrinal formulations. Don Garlington was on to something with the “original death” view, and even Thomas Schreiner knows it, at least to some extent. See his Baker commentary on this passage.
It is also worth noting that the word imputed (not exactly the same word as Logizomai, but close enough) is used here in verse 13, and it is used in the sense of negation regarding the idea…and no where used in affirming the idea in this passage. So, how “not impute” means “impute”…well…
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
A bright spot. I comprehensive list of Arminianistic pastors/churches is fast developing for access by all. A Calvinistic person can maybe more easily know where they exist. That’s sort of a bright spot in my view.
You know what? I actually agree.
I think because the SBC (rightly so) is a big tent, it is unified around missions, but for people looking for a church body, it is helpful for people to know whether they are walking into a church they align theologically with or not. Since any given First Baptist Church can be Calvinist, non-Calvinist, Arminian, Dispensationalist, Covenant theology, semi or full blown charismatic, etc., having some sort of public identity for churches would be helpful.
I enjoy Reformed Baptist churches, I enjoy Reformed theologicans and their works, but I doubt I would join a Reformed Baptist church since my views would cause internal problems and I wouldn’t want to do that.
I don’t mind a Calvinist joining my church, (I am having two Calvinists preach in my church while I am doing my residency), but I think if they are going to cause more division than unity, I wold simply ask them if they are going to serve, or stir up disagreement.
I like discussion, but getting too divisive and argumentative in SS classes is not healthy for a church.
I like churches that put their views in public plainly. It is helpful. If I meet a Calvinist living in the community, I have no problem pointing them in the direction of some wonderful friends who pastor Reformed Baptist churches. I imagine they would rather be there than my church anyway.
This isn’t a problem.
Thank you, that is the most refreshing comment I’ve read in this whole mess. If only it were that easy. You see, people like those that wrote this statement are perturbed by our reformed beliefs without out cause and without purpose.
Thanks again…I pray for more brothers like you ;)
Les,
We are not Arminianistic. We are not Calvinistic. But, of course, when someone is totally committed to a certain philosophy, then they find it hard to believe that there can actually be something beyond Calvinism and Arminianism.
David
David, I’m not committed to a certain philosophy. I’m committed to what I see the scriptures teaching, as I’m sure you are.
I’m no longer going to use Arminianistic. Henceforth I’ll refer to non-Calvinists as Synergists. The reason is really that is the centerpiece difference. Calvinists such as I are monergists in reference to regeneration or the new birth. Non-Calvinists are Synergists. And that because of our differing views of the man’s natural state spiritually. Everything else in the Calvinist system falls apart if one is not a monergist on regeneration.
So, after reading through all of this and the responses (I skimmed, honestly), it seems that Article Two is a mess. I would recommend you address what seems to be a denial of original sin and total depravity, which would cause any majority that you have to fall apart, in my opinion. It could very well be that you did not intend to say it that way. I will give the benefit of the doubt. However, many have come on and have defended a view that we are not guilty before God until we commit our first sin and that we are capable of responding to God because we have some inherent worth. That is a view that seems to move in a Pelagian direction and I cannot believe that that is intended here. Our problem is not sins, as in acts committed, but SIN – a predisposition toward rebellion against God that is inherent within us and that is native to the human experience. When it expresses itself in individual acts, those are sinS, but SIN is our biggest problem. Jesus came to forgive us of our sinS and to deliver us from the power of SIN. That is how I have always read Scripture, anyway. Of course, I am willing to be corrected here if I have missed something.
I think that you can affirm Total Depravity and Original Sin while still maintaining that man is capable of responding to God before regeneration. The way that you do this is to fully recognize that God takes the initiative in salvation (as you state elsewhere) through the work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the proclamation of the Word and that the ability to respond is granted through the proclamation/demonstration of the gospel as a witness to Christ’s saving work (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God). When the gospel is displayed, the ability to respond or reject is also inherent within. It is God who enables all to hear and to respond – or to reject and have their hearts hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. Apart from God’s gracious initiative through the Good News of Jesus, we are all eternally damned. This is why we must preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. But, it is still God who draws – not us. We are just His servants.
At any rate, I am grateful for getting this out there so that we can discuss it. Unlike others in this thread, I don’t think that having a charitable theological discussion is a hindrance to gospel. Perhaps it will cause some of us to work together who would not have otherwise.
And, if I have read any of this wrong, I will happily be corrected.
“However, many have come on and have defended a view that we are not guilty before God until we commit our first sin and that we are capable of responding to God because we have some inherent worth.”
I affirm the first bit and defend it, but not the second bit.
I think the original death view is more Biblical and superior than the original sin view.
There is a difference in being born guilty before God and being born separate from God.
I agree that SIN is the problem. That is exactly how Paul and the original death view talk about sin. Sin is a reigning power in death (also a reigning power) which ultimatly leads everyone into sins.
It is not a “stuff” like the original sin view ultimately has it.
“a predisposition toward rebellion against God that is inherent within us and that is native to the human experience.”
What do you think is meant by “every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin.” in Article II?
It says the same thing…
My argument (not the framers of this document) says that “inclination and environment” has everything to do with being born separate from God (“totally depraved” in that sort of terminology), under the reign of sin and death, and nothing to do with the spirit God initially gives us (which would mean God causes our sinfulness) or the dirt we are made of (which is gnostic thinking).
And, of course, I am speaking in that terminology of “totally depraved” in its proper theological sense. I.e. no one can do anything to step towards God without grace, and not in the sense that everyone is a Hitler or eats their babies…you know what it is.
Alan,
The view teaches that men are sinful, and born that way….that men have a bent towards sin due to their sin nature…that sin has caused men to be separated from God….that sin has brought death to men…
The ONLY differences that I see is that men are not incapable of responding to the call of God for salvation; that the sin of Adam didnt make them unable to respond in repentance and faith. AND, the other thing is that men are not guilty of committing Adam’s sin….Adam is guilty of committing his sin. But, Adam’s sin still affected men…all men….in making us sinners, who will die. It doesnt make men dead like a corpse, who cant even respond to the calling of God, as the Calvinists teach.
I do not believe that men are capable of responding to God, due to some inherent goodness in the heart of man. Men are sinners, but they can still choose….
David
Alan,
It’s bordering on the ridiculous. In an effort to show that Calvinism is from the devil, the explanation of the sinful nature of man in article 2 has gone so far to the other side of the spectrum as to be heretical.
And on top of this, you have the scores of eager ANTI-Calvinists in the SBC who have signed their affirmation of this statement.
Now, how can they change it???? It can’t be changed! All that can be done is a futile defense of the heresy in light of biblical truth.
If it weren’t so sad, it would be laughable.
AB,
You’re not divisive; are you? lol
Wow.
David
PS. I dont believe I saw anywhere in this document where Calvinists were called “of the Devil.” Also, I believe its you, who is throwing around the heresy label.
ablay,
I think you have crossed the line in essentially referring to these men as heretics. If Michael Horton’s definition of heresy is correct, “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance,” then these views, while not orthodox in my view, do not qualify as heresy.
Les
- I am a member at Westport Road Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, and a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
I’m sad this has come out. I do not think this is helpful in any way – why can the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 not be the end of the discussion – the one statement on God’s plan of salvation with which all in the SBC can rally around? Why is this statement needed?
I’m afraid the release of this statement will simply “stir the pot” and raise controversy and for that reason, this deeply saddens me.
“why can the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 not be the end of the discussion – the one statement on God’s plan of salvation with which all in the SBC can rally around? Why is this statement needed? ”
Because, if you notice even in this thread and in the broader NC movement, well known terms are not defined the same way by the two camps.
are you sad when other leaders say Calvinism is the only legitimate option? Did that stir the pot? Did that raise controversy?
” … why can the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 not be the end of the discussion … ?
Brian, in order to get a better perspective on BFM2000 concerns as expressed my certain commenters, I refer you to an analysis of the BFM revision prepared by Russell Dilday … particularly the section on “Troubling Factors” http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html
Even if this “statement” was well-written…
Even if this “statement” came close to accurately portraying what “new calvinists” believe….
Even if this “statement” wasn’t misleading…
What does it accomplish?
Having looked over this comment thread, and following links to some other weblogs, I have just about lost all enthusiasm for going to New Orleans.
I guess I can look forward to electing Fred Luter.
sigh . . . .
Friends,
A while back Shorter College/University in GA was searching for a President. Dr. Nelson Price, I think the head of the search committee, indicated in his statement that the President could not subscribe to calvinistic theology. I was thunderstruck by that. Really? How many heros of SBC history would not be considered under that criteria? Most of the founders of the Convention could not meet the anti-calvinistic standard. Nor could Dr. Al Mohler (and many other godly SBC leaders and scholars) today. Amazing…Dr. Mohler, if he wanted to, is deemed unqualified to serve as President of Shorter. Your statement will have the opposite effect of unifying Southern Baptists I am afraid. It exlude thousands of Southern Baptists past and present.
“What I mean is Mohler was not attempting to shape the theology of the SBC when he said those words.”
Chris! This is incredible thinking. Of course he is attempting to shape the theology of the SBC. He is the president of our flashship seminary and young minds full of mush hang on his every word. What he says at GC has implications for the SBC young minds full of mush who follow him. (And they do follow him)
He does not have to articulate a statement like this one. Actually, it would be more honest if he did. Instead he has T4G, GC, Acts 29 partnerships from his guy Ezell, SGM coming to Louisville and sending indoctrinated YRR guys out of seminary to be pastors. I mean it is brilliant. He does not need a statement.
So, once again, we see the Calvinists 2 step. Because Mohler did not devise a statement like this one, his words at GC were not divisive. What it does is make him inconsistent according to his defenders and we should ignore what he says….anywhere because his beliefs change according to his audience. I don’t think you are helping him.
He said several astonishing things in the video one such as this, “New Calvinism is the only place to be if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ”. If he believes this at the GC, shouldn’t we assume he believes them as president of SBTS? How is that not divisive toward 80% of the people in the SBC who make his position with SBTS, T4G and GC possible with their offerings?
Mohler is going to advocate his beliefs, no one is saying that should not be permitted. But Mohler is not seeking to make Calvinism a wedge issue in the SBC, and that’s exactly what this statement is seeking to do.
“Mohler is going to advocate his beliefs, no one is saying that should not be permitted.”
Permitted? How about some basic wisdom and discernment? His comments on the GC video make it clear he does not think we (non Calvinists) are the “real thing”. Only New Calvinists want to see the nations rejoice for Christ. He thinks this about people who PAY HIS SALARY and make it possible for him to spend a lot of time on his Calvinist non SBC activities like T4G and GC and all the other conferences.
Chris, y0u are doing what all YRR guys do in parsing the obvious into something it is not. It is down right delusional. It is one reason why many of us do not think this divide can be repaired. Everything is fine if we never question. This is a typical Calvinist tactic that is getting old. It is straight out of the shepherding movement that Mohler has become so fond of. Now, it seems it is being taught to young minds full of mush in seminary. You guys try to make it some sort of sin to point out the obvious. Some of us are just not willing to ignore the elephant in the room and pretend he is not there. Remember Mohler also said we did not have the “mental structures or processes or whatever, to understand Calvinism”. I mean this stuff is right out of Orwell with a Kafka twist.
And he expects us to pay him to disrespect us. Incredible.
” But Mohler is not seeking to make Calvinism a wedge issue in the SBC, and that’s exactly what this statement is seeking to do”
He already has. You just choose not to see it. Or perhaps you can’t because “Calvin” is your life.
You called young Calvinists “mush” minds. You’re so clever and your words are a soothing balm over this fissure.
This is what the signers of this document call the “traditional” understanding of salvation by Southern Baptists? 20th century traditional maybe. Try hearing from 19th century Southern Baptists! Try John Dagg, the first writing SBC theologian and try quoting his “Manual of Theology” and then come talk to me about the “traditional” understanding.
http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c4.html#sec1
Bravo!
Or how about John Gill and Spurgeon?
One more thing… this declaration is all good and well, but you need to stop calling yourselves Baptists if you adopt it. From the First London Baptist Declaration (a document linked on this very site in fact).
Article III – God had decreed in Himself, before the world was, concerning all things, whether necessary, accidental or voluntary, with all the circumstances of them, to work, dispose, and bring about all things according to the counsel of His own will, to His glory: (Yet without being the [chargeable] author of sin, or having fellowship with any therein) in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, unchangeableness, power, and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree: And God hath before the foundation of the world, foreordained some men to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of His grace; [having foreordained and] leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His justice.
Two of the greatest evangelist/preachers the world has ever known would not sign this statement: Jonathon Edwards and Charles Spurgeon. This is unnecessary and divisive. I personally agree with much of what is said, but I completely disagree with the reasoning behind such a document. If Calvinists did such a thing, there would be tremendous outrage. Baptists need to remember that Calvinism and non-Calvinism are not the Gospel…Jesus is the Gospel! How about an affirmation of the Gospel? We need, more than ever, to be about Jesus…proclaiming Him to the ends of the earth! The worst thing that could happen at the convention would be for this to be presented. Please, don’t make us a joke again to the watching world. Let’s make much of Jesus and rally around Him!
I am trying to understand how stating what we believe to be the Gospel is divisive? It is a statement that does just that and no more or less. I was thankful for the work and opportunity to sign it. Why is this bad?
This is not the Gospel! The Gospel is 1 Cor. 15:3-4.
Galatians 1:6-9;
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
And don’t forget Rev. George Whitefield, who had to correct John Wesley on these same doctrines. What impresses me is the lack of understanding of what Calvinism really is. It seems that what fuels this argument in the statement are the doctrines that our carnal nature would reject anyway. Which is the natural response to the revealed word of God. Arminius’ refusal to publicly proclaim his personal beliefs when asked to give an account for them should encourage us to look into the historical debate of the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort 1609 and see the falseness of their claims.
this is just sad….
It’s sad…unhelpful…frustrating…divisive…and on and on! And the SBC wonders why so many young pastors are leaving our convention??? This kind of attitude is why!
How is stating what we believe and putting it in writing sad and bad? I must be missing something? Why can one group do such and yet other people cannot?
What other group has done something like this in the SBC?
Is this not the same as those who say we are Calvinists? Or we believe as the Abstract… states?
look at this page and see how much division this article has already caused! Arminianistic Views have always caused division! Which proves to me that Arminianism is wrong. Satan loves to distort Scripture and destroy the church; the release of this article is doing just that, destroying our unity as Southern Baptists.
Yeah..non-Calvinist views of soteriology are always wrong because they make Calvinists angry and thus it is the non-Calvnists who are the divisive ones…THAT makes them so wrong.
I could just as easily say I know Calvinism is wrong because Calvinists always sought to murder non-Calvinists as if they were Rome Part II, and those Calvinist Puritans always like to own slaves while hanging witches and committing genocide against almost the entire population of Native Americans…Satan loves to distort Scripture and cause Christians to murder other Christians and indigenous populations that don’t care to own and mistreat.
Nothing about any of that would strike anyone as wrong…
Get real friend.
It’s divisive because of the way it has been done. It points fingers at some unnamed Calvinists who are allegedly attempting to move that Calvinism be the official SBC doctrine and uses this to justify itself. Its tone is condescending. It also totally misrepresents Calvinism to begin with. The whole “this is the traditional SB view of Calvinism” is also rather insulting, and minimizes the many who have faithfully preached the gospel and Jesus Christ while holding to the doctrines of grace. I just don’t see the benefit to something like this. Dialogue is a good thing, putting a petition up on the web inviting Southern Baptists who hold to “traditional” baptist belief to sign it…not so good.
Well said Matt! Can you imagine the outcry if the tables were turned?
and yet Founders states: “Founders Ministries takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith that Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles. We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear.”
Hmmmm. “we desire to encourage the return…” and yet this statement says only this is what we believe.
Where is the division?
Matt,
See the comment I made below. The tables were already turned. This document forces nothing on anyone. it is simply a statement of what a vast many of of us believe.
What i’m saying is that there is no such need for a document like this. If a pastor wants to write something like this for his own church, that is fine…but for the SBC, its divisive. This is why our denomination has the Baptist Faith and Message! That document provides room for both camps. We already defined this and do not need to redefine it. All something like this does is stir the pot and polarize.
To those that feel this paper is divisive:
Would you consider the following quote as being equally divisive:
”…If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical; if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ; if you want to see gospel-built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being reformed; basically being something like this “New Calvinism”, or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing…”
If you don’t know who said this, it can easily be found. My guess is that this paper is a response in some part to comments and attitudes such as the above.
I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I am not a theologian. I am simply a follower of Christ that realizes that I don’t know, nor will I know most of the answers until I see Him face to face. One thing I DO know; that would be who enjoys all this divisiveness and in-fighting more than anyone;
Satan…
With statements and attitudes long coming from some reformed thinkers (not all, but some, and certainly not all Baptist) like the the one above, can you blame those that don’t subscribe to their same viewpoints for being upset and defending their beliefs when their conviction, commitment, intelligence, and desire to see the Nations won to Christ are called into question?
A Christian is called to defend their faith; unfortunately very often one has to defend against “friendly” fire. Old Scratch is laughing with delight…
Both sides of the debate should find common ground (there is plenty), and work together, writing the following scripture on their hearts. (Phil.2:2-4)
To those that feel this paper is divisive:
Would you consider the following quote as being equally divisive:
”…If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical; if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ; if you want to see gospel-built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being reformed; basically being something like this “New Calvinism”, or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing…”
Eye for an eye now? Didn’t realize that it was “Do unto others as you have perceived them doing unto you.”
The “vast majority” of Southern Baptists realize that the place for such a document, if needed or desired, is in the local church. The BF&M is a sufficient theological umbrella under which our local autonomous churches can cooperate.
Thank you Dr. Hankins your time and work on this document. Maybe this discussion is overdue in Baptist Life.
Dr. James P. Boyce published the Abstract of Systematic Theology in 1887, as the guiding document for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It’s been well noted that he was converted to Reformed Theology while he attended Princeton by the great Presbyterian professors: Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge. While there he was influenced greatly by the works of Francis Turretin. These men helped shape his theology as he helped found SBTS.
Some in our day have assumed that most Baptists were reformed in the late 1880’s; while it was true among the founders and funders of SBTS; it was not always true among “traditional” Baptists of that day.
In the book entitled Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, on page 36 (chapter written by Dr. David S. Dockery) … it states concerning Boyce’s time at SBTS, “It was often said that the young men were generally Arminians when they came to the seminary, but few went through Boyce’s course in theology without being converted to his strong Calvinistic views. Just as we see changes taking place among those who have been recently educated at our Southern Baptist seminaries, so apparently that also was the story of young men who came to Southern Seminary during the last decade of the nineteenth century.”
With the aggressive work of the Founders movement since 1982 and especially SBTS flying high the Reformed flag for some years … it is only natural and normal that an open discussion would be called for in SBC Life. Baptists will become much more informed on these issues.
Thanks Dr. Hankins for your work and for the many discussions that will ensue on and in … blogs, coffee shops, associational meetings, Bible Study classes, Pastor conferences and such over the next few years.
And for the record, I am all about open dialogue and discussion…just not in this way! There is better way to do such things.
The only thing S. Baptists need coming to the floor of the convention, is our faces…in brokenness and surrender to God! May God forgive us with being consumed with the trivial!
Jeremy, this is not a resolution for the SBC. Just a statement of belief by some like minded people who believe there is another option beyond Calvinism.
“We deny…any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”
This should cause us all to weep. It is an outright denial of Adam’s Federal Headship. Regardless of your denomination, theological slant, or person agenda this is a sad, sad day.
If by “Federal Headship”, you mean to say Adam was humanity’s representative, I can fully affirm that.
If you think Adam’s representation entails that not only the consequences of his sin (separation from immediate presence of God, born under the reign of sin and death), but his guilt, is passed to his posterity (how does that work? Do you believe there is guilt juice in the semen?) then you are mistaken as the Israelite people in Ezekiel 18 (Deut. 24:16)…
What is even more sad is our believing Scripture must take a back seat to believing Augustine these days. Uh, no thanks. I’ll keep rocking the Bible and sola scriptura, you all can keep the scholastic windbags.
“If you think Adam’s representation entails that not only the consequences of his sin (separation from immediate presence of God, born under the reign of sin and death), but his guilt, is passed to his posterity (how does that work? Do you believe there is guilt juice in the semen?) then you are mistaken as the Israelite people in Ezekiel 18 (Deut. 24:16)…”
This has been a problem for me concerning Mary. If she had this icky goo imputed sin/guilt in her, how could she carry a Holy God in the flesh in her womb? Was it removed for 9 mos and then put back in?
It is worth noting that the prevalent Augustinian view of formulating original sin perpetuated infant baptism (I think Tertullian, long before Augustine argued against it, though that shows it was being practiced in some circles), and gave rise things like sinlessness of Mary and so forth…
…just saying.
There is a lot to be desired by a lot of the church fathers, but Augustine was no exception to that. Among many other things, his interpretations of parables is as laughable as the Reformed historical revisionist attempts at salvaging Augustine from being the true blue pope-loving Catholic that he was.
Johnathan, did I make a claim about Augustine or the like? It was simply an observation. BTW, Happy belated birthday!
;) About two months belated, but thank you.
May we have your views on why this is a sad, sad day and how this rejects Adam as humanity’s federal (corporate) head?
I would like to know your view on the issue of what that entails and how it is fleshed out from Scripture.
Jonathan,
How did Levi/the Levites participate in the paying of tithes to Melchisedek when he/they had not yet been born?
David, I affirm corporate headship.
But, let us look closely at the verse in Hebrews.
Greek font does not show up on this site, but I’ll add a few translations to get the picture:
Hebrews 7:9-10 ESV -One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
HCSB – And in a sense Levi himself, who receives tenths, has paid tenths through Abraham, for he was still within his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
NASB – And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
“One might even say”; “And in a sense”; “And, so to speak.”
The point of the passage is that the one to whom the tithes were paid also paid a tithe.
In any case, the point of corporate solidarity is not rejected by anyone affirming that statement, since I know myself and many of the framers have corporate election views for crying out loud.
No one denies here that humanity shares in the judgment and consequences of Adam’s sin. But there is no Biblical evidence that his progeny shares in his guilt. There is a difference.
Hope that helps.
This is laughable and is one of the reasons the SBC is such a laughingstock, I could write better in my undergrad classes from 10 years ago, this will accomplish nothing. Oh but I see the accomplished theologian Dr. Gaines gave it the go ahead! What a joke….I will keep my tulip you can have your weeds.
alan,
Wow… your comment was oozing with humility! Thanks for leaving your mark.
It spoke volumes. Of all the comments, I believe YOURS takes the prize.
><>”
I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist. I am Baptist, more to the point, I am a Biblicist. That being said, to hear the Calvinists and the Acts 1:8 crowd crying foul play and saying this statement is divisive, need to pause and take a deep breath. They have been like the dog coming into our back yard and barking at anyone who dares to disagree with them. All I am saying is, go find another back yard and start your barking up again- just don’t do it in my backyard. I want to live in peace and quiet. However, I will not shy away from planting my flag and waving my colors.
There is a great amount of arrogance from the Calvinists who tell us they are the only ones preaching the Gospel, that we who dare to speak out against their strain of theology are being divisive.
Dr Hankins, thank you for this statement. I look forward to voting for you in New Orleans and supporting you in this noble cause.
Kyle,
Thank you for the following statement: “They have been like the dog coming into our back yard and barking at anyone who dares to disagree with them. All I am saying is, go find another back yard and start your barking up again- just don’t do it in my backyard. I want to live in peace and quiet. However, I will not shy away from planting my flag and waving my colors.
There is a great amount of arrogance from the Calvinists who tell us they are the only ones preaching the Gospel, that we who dare to speak out against their strain of theology are being divisive.”
I will use that. Appreciate your perspective. Very well done.
><>”
To any Christian proclaiming that this “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology is divisive, please remember and read what Jesus stated in Matthew 10:24-39 (NASB):
The Meaning of Discipleship:
(24) “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. (25) “It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!
(26) “Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. (27) “What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. (28) “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (29) “Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (30) “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. (31) “So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.
(32) “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. (33) “But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
(34) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (35) “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; (36 )and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
(37) “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. (38) “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. (39) “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”
God bless!
If you look at the “old guys” and “good-ole-boys” and their followers who are on the list which I am sure that one of the “old guys like Patterson will present this at the yearly meeting, then you really get an understanding of what is really going on. The BF&M 2000 is more than sufficient to unify both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists in the convention. This whole thing is over a fear that young reformed guys are going to overtake the convention and push it toward Calvinism. It’s a hyper-sensitivity and attack on a certain group of people that the “old guys” and their followers just don’t like. It is politics and it is divisive. If this is presented at the convention it will overshadow every good thing we are doing together for the gospel and tear the convention apart. I would think if we were truly “Great Commission Baptists” then that’s what we would focus on. We need new leadership across the board in the convention and the “old guys” need to break up their “good ole boy” club before it brings down the convention. What a ridiculous thing to do when people need the gospel and churches need planting and renewing. The ones who signed this document are either ignorant to the consequences or intentionally trying to divide. Shame, shame, shame. As a young pastor, if this document goes through, I will leave the convention and pull our church out as well. The BF&M 2000 is enough.
Ryan,
Do you consider a 40 year old pastor … an old guy — thus the writer of this document?
The conservatives, many of whom the Calvinists rallied behind during the inerrancy movement, have picked a fight with the grass-roots theologically minded real traditionalists of the SBC. Some of the folks that signed this document were considered heros during the conservative ressurgence. They have let us all down in the end. This statment is nothing compared to the rhetoric against calvinism heard at some SBC college chapel services and other stump speeches across the SBC. Calvinism is attacked with a viciousness that is not only unbecoming but undermines the witness of the SBC. Not only is Calvinism attacked it is grossly misrepresentative. The shallowness reflected in this document and the utter ignorance of SBC history by SBC leaders is troubling to the core. Why? Spurgeon, “I am not ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist” not welome in the SBC.
Ray, strong statement. I have noticed on several responses the assertion that Calvinist of the SBC are misrepresented. Could you explain how the Calvinist are misrepresented? Perhaps, there is a great misunderstanding here.
that should read Calvinists of the SBC
Greetings, friends. Some brothers have expressed concern on this blog that Hankins’ statement slips into or clearly expresses Pelagianism. The basis of this charge seems to be the document’s clear denial of imputed guilt. In the statement, Hankins rejects the idea that the guilt of Adam is imputed to all people. I take the charge of Pelagianism seriously. As a signer of the document in question and a professor of theology at a Baptist college, I am compelled to answer such a weighty charge. If I am a Pelagian, then I should be fired.
Please compare Article 2 of Hankins’ statement with Article 3 of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. There is a striking theological fidelity between the two articles. The BFM Article 3 is an excellent statement which declares that all people inherit Adam’s sinful nature. The BFM article does not mention imputed guilt. Does that match the new definition of Pelagianism?
In 2000, the SBC was agreeable to ignoring the imputation of Adam’s guilt by approving the latest BFM revision. What has changed? BFM committee members included Dr. Paige Patterson (whose signature is on the Hankins document) and Fred Luter (who is our presumptive next president) and Dr. Albert Mohler. If Hankins’ Article 2 is judged to be Pelagian and if it bears a striking resemblance to the BFM Article 3, then we have real trouble on our hands. Three seminary presidents (Dr. Chuck Kelley signed the Hankins document as well) and our next SBC president have all signed doctrinal statements which affirm an inherited sinful nature but neglect imputed guilt. Are all of those men Pelagians? If so, then boards of trustees should be immediately convened to find their replacements. If not, then why is Hankins’ document being labeled as Pelagian? Are these two articles making different theological claims? If so, please make the case. Or is the charge of Pelagianism being made without basis? If so, then please stop it.
I love and learn from Calvinistic Baptists. I don’t want to leave the SBC and I don’t want any of them to leave. I desire for us to continue to serve the Lord together, working as joint heirs and co-laborers in Christ as Baptists have done for 400 years. This document is not a call for disunity. Instead, it is a peaceable articulation of the General Baptist-Sandy Creek-Traditional view, which differs at points with the Particular Baptist-Charleston-Calvinist view. But neither group is teaching heretical views. Let’s continue to serve the Lord together, preaching the Gospel to all people until Christ returns.
Adam Harwood, PhD
Asst. Prof. of Christian Studies
Truett-McConnell College, Cleveland, Georgia
Professor Harwood, thank you for chiming in. I’m interested in how this problem is resolved for you. I have found it clearest in the form of a syllogism.
A) A person whose will is not bound (incapacitated in the language of article 2) is able to resist the causal pressure of their nature
B) A person sins because of the causal pressure of their sin nature (in the affirmation of Article 2)
C) Therefore a person whose will is not bound is able to resist the causal pressure of their sin nature
D) A person who is able to resist the causal pressure of their sin nature is able to not sin
E) Therefore a person is able to not sin
I really cannot see how Article 2 does not lead logically to a person being posse non-pecarre… and if they are posse non-pecarre then they could, however unlikley, never sin and never need redemption.
Tony,
Thanks for your note. I’m unsure how the syllogism you constructed relates to my observation regarding the theological similarity between the Hankins and BFM articles. For that reason, I would rather not engage your question. Please don’t take this as a slight, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Professor Harwood,
I’m not a Baptist, and I’m not familiar with the BFM. If Hankins and the BFM are using the same language, then I object to the language across the board.
Gee…I hope no one loses any sleep over it… ;)
You are alright Tony, but you could settle down a bit. It isn’t like we are all a bunch of yahoos who have never considered all the various theological systems and their implications before.
Come on, now. You should know better.
Tony,
You’ve read the WC; below in Chapter X on Effectual Calling, point one:
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”
Respectfully, using your syllogism, can you show me how lost sinners (those in sin) are saved?
Ron, I’m not smart enough to do those syllogisms. But you say, “show me how lost sinners (those in sin) are saved.”
Answer, by grace through the means of faith. :)
Les,
I’m not smart enough either …but…I do not like the words “and those only” in your WC.
Blessings!
I pray your work is going well in Haiti.
Ron,
Thanks for your prayers for Haiti. God is so good to bless there.
As to the WCF wording, leaving out “and those only” really doesn’t negate effectual calling. But leaving those words in there surely puts the issue to rest.
But I would ask you, who else would God effectually call anyway but those He has predestined unto eternal life? He cannot be expected to effectually call those whom He has not predestined unto life.
So for us Reformed folks, it makes perfect sense.
God bless.
God unbinds their will such that they turn to him “being made willing by his grace”
Tony and Les,
So, yall believe that God has predestined some people for Hell? That some people really have no choice in the matter, because, after all, God has not chosen to save them, and He has not planned to save them. But instead, He has predetermined that they are going to Hell?
David
David,
I also affirm this on effectual calling in the WCF.
With all due respect, how can there be sin without guilt?
The very idea that an unregenerate man, who is a bondservant to sin, can do ANY good, let alone “choose” salvation, is at the very least semi-Pelagian, by any definition.
How you deal with revelation sir is up to you, but it is what it is, regardless of your letters or position.
Thank you for this well thought out and needed statement.
Dr. Harwood,
Why then do we need the statement?
Your words: “I love and learn from Calvinistic Baptists. I don’t want to leave the SBC and I don’t want any of them to leave. I desire for us to continue to serve the Lord together, working as joint heirs and co-laborers in Christ as Baptists have done for 400 years. This document is not a call for disunity. Instead, it is a peaceable articulation of the General Baptist-Sandy Creek-Traditional view, which differs at points with the Particular Baptist-Charleston-Calvinist view. But neither group is teaching heretical views. Let’s continue to serve the Lord together, preaching the Gospel to all people until Christ returns.” Ok, if we need this document then I suppose the Calvinists need, as well, to produce a document, circulate it around the SBC for pastors to sign, try to bring it to the convention floor. The Particular Baptist view that you mention would certainly meet the criteria for traditional view. Your gracious response in fact argues against the need for such a document. I would enourage you to promote unity by removing your name and proclaiming ffrom the house top, “Lets continue to serve the Lord together.” This document will create (has created) division where there was no need.
Ray,
“Why do we need it?” That is a great question. I asked myself the same question as I prayed through and contemplated whether or not to attach my name to this document.
I agree with the majority of doctrinal views articulated by New Calvinists. We agree on doctrines such as the Trinity, inerrancy of Scripture, substitutionary atonement, Christology, doctrines of the church and the Holy Spirit–the list goes on. So, I am not a person who holds any animosity toward my brothers and sisters who affirm New Calvinism. So, why sign this document?
In previous generations, Calvinistic Baptists taught doctrines of grace and were content with their Baptist brothers to be wrong if they would not embrace Reformed theology. But New Calvinism is different. My experience (I am appealing to anecdotal evidence but please allow me to do this in order to explain my point) is that college students and 20-somethings who read the books and listen to sermons by New Calvinists, a rapidly growing movement within the SBC, regard the views of General-Sandy Creek-Traditional Baptists to be regarded as sub-biblical. We do not define sovereignty as divine determinism; most of us reject the imputation of guilt; many/most of us reject individual election to salvation. And we’ve co-existed, even cooperated, for 400 years. But within the last generation, things have changed. The message from New Calvinists seems to be that to reject Calvinism is to reject the Gospel. I signed this document as an attempt to stand up among friends in the SBC and say, “Hello. Are there any other Southern Baptists in the room who also wish to be faithful with the Gospel but do not affirm Calvinism? If so, please raise your hands.” So, I’m raising my hand.
I hope this answers your question. Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Adam,
With all do respect: “We do not define sovereignty as divine determinism”
Really? Really? You’re a PhD holding professor and you’re going to set this statement up as though Calvinists affirm divine determinism? Are you doing this as a rhetorical statement or do you genuinely not know that this is not what Calvinists’s affirm? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but the former makes you deceptive and divisive… and the later makes you ignorant of what you’re attempting to speak against… neither is flattering.
“But New Calvinism is different… [it] regards the views of General-Sandy Creek-Traditional Baptists to be regarded as sub-biblical.”
This is not new… “I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross” – CH Spurgeon
Tony,
If you believe in irresistible grace, then you have to believe in determinism. Because, if you believe in regeneration before salvation, then people dont really have a choice. And, of course, yall dont believe that a lost person can choose God. They’re incapable. They’re a dead corpse…laying on the ground….who are unable to choose God.
That does seem to me to be the logical conclusion of Calvinism.
Compatiblists are not determinists.
“If you believe in irresistible grace, then you have to believe in determinism.”
Straw man arguments are fun, let’s give it a go: If you don’t believe in effectual call, then you have to believe in a God who can fail.
My statement is no more true of resistible grace than yours is of effectual call (irresistible grace).
“Because, if you believe in regeneration before salvation, then people dont really have a choice. ”
The absolutely have a choice… they freely choose to rebel against God according to the sinful desires of their rebellious hearts.
“And, of course, yall dont believe that a lost person can choose God. They’re incapable.”
I’m incapable of flying… that doesn’t mean that it is a limitation on my freedom that I am unable to fly.
Tony,
I still believe that the logical conclusion of believing TULIP is determinism. I think you’re just not following out your philosophy to the end. There is no real choice for men. Some are picked out by God to be saved. They are IRRISTIBLY saved. There’s no choice there; not really. And, some men are not CHOSEN to be saved….in thier lostness they’re like a dead corpse and cannot respond to God in repentance and faith, unless God regenerates them first…thus, they have no choice, either.
That seems to me to be as deterministic as it gets, Brother.
David
Um, almost all Calvinists do affirm divine determinism (and even “compatiblists understand themselves to ultimately be determinists…read Paul Helm)
Are you not a determinist? You believe in libertarian free will then?
I have met, in my life, only two Calvinists that believe in libertarian free will, and their view makes no sense whatsoever.
Hi Tony,
If you want to expand to have the letters PhD after your name, you will need to do more reading within your own tradition. Of course Calvinists are divine determinists. Read John Feinberg’s “No One Like Him” or anything else he writes. Read the writings of Paul Helseth or Paul Helm or any older Reformed theologian (from Calvin through Beza, Turretin, the Hodges, Bavinck, Berkouwer, and on and on). Read D. A. Carson. Read Article 3 of the WCF or its corresponding article in 2London. Go to monergism.com. All freely admit to being determinists. Go check it out for yourself. Go to any informed discussion on free will, especially where the issue of compatibilism is raised. Why is the word “compatibilism” used? It is used to try to show that free will is compatible with – you guessed it – determinism.
Adam is exactly right – Calvinism presupposes divine determinism. He knows his business better than you do. You, my young friend, should not be throwing out demeaning insults, especially toward a man who is a recognized expert in his field. It is not the way to advance in academia or to carve out a reputation a world in which he has gone MUCH further down the road than you have. You are unfortunately only showing how much you yet have to learn.
Jim G.
Dr. Harwood,
I am going to ask this and I am really not attempting to sound snarky because I know it is entirely possible that I really could be reading my quasi-calvinism back into a document but when the principles of faith of the sandy creek association says..”That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.” did they not refer to an imputation of his guilt??
Hi Dave,
The section you quoted is original sin, not original guilt. Original guilt says we are liable for punishment directly because of Adam’s sin. Augustine’s formulation of original guilt leads to the necessity of some form of God’s grace to erase that liability for punishment that becomes active the minute we are born. Because of Augustine’s prior commitments that included a proto-infralapsarian view of humanity (the classical “massa perditionis”), he had to see infant baptism as the remedy for original guilt.
I think to hold to Augustine’s formulation of original guilt, I don’t see how infant baptism is avoidable. A doctrine of original guilt makes every newborn infant immediately and unavoidably liable for hell, because that infant is already guilty before God due to his real participation in the sin of Adam. I would think some visible sign of grace would be necessary to deal with OG. It seems to me that the document above is trying to eliminate the doctrine of original guilt, which I see as an Augustinian innovation.
Jim G.
Tony,
I appreciate that everyone has a right to comment on an open blog but you stated about yourself in a post above, “I’m not a Baptist, and I’m not familiar with the BFM.” For that reason, I will not engage your comment. This is an in-house discussion among Southern Baptists about doctrine in our convention. Thank you, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Wow, Tony… You are an angry little fellow aren’t you? “Ignorant! Really? Really? You’re a PhD holding professor…” Your tone is disrespectful and certainly not Christ like. Dr. Harwood respected your questions and responses, and offered common ground with those who differ in theological position. You and quite a few others I have read in these responses (on both sides of the fence) have leveled some serious indictments. This is not debate… I think perhaps this discussion is more for those who enjoy the “fight,” mixed with a little “I hate to lose a fight.” The theological differences in opinion should create healthy debate and discussion among Christians. However, many of these comments are personal, disrespectful, malicious attacks and are anti-Christian! Now, I know you will have something smart to come back with… and that’s fine… I won’t respond again. I most likely won’t even read your response. No one will stand before me and give an account for their actions and words, so your argument is not with me. All I ask is this: “…with humility of mind, regard one another as more important than yourselves… Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus…” (Phil. 2:3-5). So debate! Please, until your heart is content! But, please do so with “actual respect” rather than simply beginning your comments “with all due respect.”
You ask for a show of hands, while claiming to be the majority. As the majority, you have the strength in numbers already, why is this necessary? Why is a call for raised hands necessary, considering your camp is the majority, if not to bully the Calvinists into silence or leaving?
Your underlying reasoning seems to be, “This is necessary because New Calvinists are becoming too popular and too vocal.” By that reasoning, isn’t this simply a call to either shut them up, have them leave, or expel them?
If we are heretics, then lay your cards on the table and declare Calvinism heretical. If our position is dangerous, then let’s do away with the niceties. If we are not heretics, and there is indeed room within the BFM for a variety of theological understanding, then this document is simply a bully move by the majority to silence those who disagree for biblical reasons.
This seems like a document born of fear.
Let me give my congrats to all you Piper Calvinists. You have managed to do more damage to the SBC in the last 20 years than the liberals did in a generation. Yes, you have spread your message of limited atonement to the ends of the earth. Convincing the church not of the doctrines of grace, but of the doctrine of election and exclusion. Of couse, all of you are sure of your election, as I have never met a lost Calvinist. I am waiting to meet the person who follows the Calvinist gospel and will say, “I am going to hell and can do nothing about it.” Your message that Christ did not die for the sins of the world contradicts the Bible, but you continue to spew your heresy in the most arrogant of ways. You and you alone Calvinists will split the SBC. I for one would love to dismiss all you from our fellowship and tell you that it was predestined to happen. I preach the gospel that Jesus Christ will save any and all who come by faith in true repentance. And I surely do not need for John Piper to sign off on my preaching. The gospel is so strong that it can even endure the heresy of Calvinism. If our seminary would more time trying to win souls rather than trying to blame God for the lostness of men, they might see the error of their ways.
And there you have it. The heresy word trotted out. Who was talking about aggressive New Calvinists?
Christopher,
We have not met, so I hope it is not offensive for me to address your remarks directly. All the parties in this discussion are professing Christians, whether or not they are Calvinists. It is very likely that your tone is not helping the situation. I ask that you consider refraining from posting remarks that might enflame an already difficult conversation. Thank you, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Well said, Adam! Christopher’s ignorance and vitriol deserved to be called out.
Ben,
You are almost as vitriol as Chris.
Chris, Calvinists are our Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Our disagreements are over the finer points of theology. We just think that they’re in error, and they think that we’re in error. It’s kind of like disagreeing over Pre Trib. or Mid Trib or Post Trib. It does not make one a heretic to believe in Mid and Post. It just makes them wrong and in error!!! :)
David
David, there was no cruel and bitter criticism in my comment. Do you disagree that Christopher’s comments displayed ignorance of those whom he vitriolically blasted?
Ben,
You called him ignorant. That was a zinger towards him. And, did you not read the rest of my comment encouraging Chris to see that Calvinists are not heretics?
DAvid
David, calling someone “ignorant” is not cruel and bitter. Pity should actually rise in the face of ignorance. Perhaps I would have served him better if I had demonstrated his ignorance instead of simply stating it, but I thought it was easily demonstrated in his comment. Apparently you thought so too since you jumped in to correct him, which I did indeed read. Therefore, I’m assuming we agree on his ignorance. Thanks for trying to help him along. I agree with both you and Adam.
Ben,
You can correct misunderstandings and lack of understanding without calling someone ignorant.
David
What in the world is accomplished by this foolishness? As one of the “boogeymen” that the author must mean to point to, I fear that this rally-cry to unite around “tradition” is ultimately a tool of division.
That said, a few thoughts:
1. I wonder, if we could look at the budgets of the churches led by the gentlemen who chose to sign the above, would we find that missions represents a larger percentage of their budget than churches led by reformed pastors? I would wager a no.
2.Or how about the way their churches deal with explicit scriptural instructions (e.g., the role of the office of deacon, discipline within the church, ministries for the poor and sick, the promotion of adoption)? Does a reformed pastor tend to fail to lead in these areas more than those who are non-reformed? I seriously doubt it.
3.It strikes me as nauseously ironic that all these leaders within the SBC, both past and present, are quick to be vocal regarding a non-essential theological issue, which they know is divisive.
4.Could one of the thoughtful non-reformed readers of my questions state the name of one single reformed voice in the convention that believes that “salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”?
In the end, telling the world to repent and believe, showing Christ’s love to those in need, and holding the church to a New Testament standard are what we should be concentrating on. Not this rotten fruit. It’s no wonder that the SBC is haemorrhaging talented, passionate, Gospel-minded leaders.
Any Baptist or group thereof may freely compose doctrinal statements. I am concerned, though, that this statement–particularly the preamble–labels a group (“New Calvinists”) and calls them “aggressive,” but it appears that the anti-Calvinists are the ones on the offensive. Furthermore, the Preamble suggests that disagreement among Calvinists on finer points of soteriology makes the system itself suspect, as if to suggest further that the Arminian perspective is somehow fully settled. So, this isn’t really a simple statement of doctrinal ideas. It is a polemic against another group of Baptists.
And, as such, attaching one’s name to such a document can hardly be understood as anything but devisive. What’s the purpose of all this? Muscle-flexing? Saber-rattling?
Dr. Fuller,
Thanks for your note. We began to discuss this on Twitter and now I see this question you posted last night. If it’s okay, I’d like to repeat (in part) a reply I made in the pile of comments earlier:
Why attache my name to a potentially divisive document? I asked myself the same question as I prayed through and contemplated whether or not to attach my name to this document.
I agree with the majority of doctrinal views articulated by New Calvinists. We agree on doctrines such as the Trinity, inerrancy of Scripture, substitutionary atonement, Christology, doctrines of the church and the Holy Spirit–the list goes on. So, I am not a person who holds any animosity toward my brothers and sisters who affirm New Calvinism. So, why sign this document?
In previous generations, Calvinistic Baptists taught doctrines of grace and were content with their Baptist brothers to be wrong if they would not embrace Reformed theology. But New Calvinism is different. My experience (I am appealing to anecdotal evidence but please allow me; perhaps as a fellow college professor you have had similar experiences) is that college students and 20-somethings who read the books and listen to sermons by some New Calvinists, a rapidly growing movement within the SBC, regard the views of General-Sandy Creek-Traditional Baptists to be regarded as sub-biblical. We do not define sovereignty as divine determinism; most of us reject the imputation of guilt; many/most of us reject individual election to salvation. And we’ve co-existed, even cooperated, for 400 years. But within the last generation, things have changed. The message from New Calvinists seems to be that to reject Calvinism is to reject the Gospel. I signed this document as an attempt to stand up among friends in the SBC and say, “Hello. Are there any other Southern Baptists in the room who also wish to be faithful with the Gospel but do not affirm Calvinism? If so, please raise your hands.” So, I’m raising my hand.
I hope this answers your concern. Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
Thanks for the reply. I have three observations.
First, no side of the SBC soteriological conversation has a corner on vitriol and arrogance (as clearly seen in these very comments). I’m as flustered by angry young Calvinists as anyone, but if we’re basing arguments on anecdotal experiences, certainly the Calvinists have withstood the same sort of attacks from the non-Calvinists. Recently, in Owensboro, KY, a church was denied entrance into the local association because it was deemed too Calvinistic (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36423). The same church was highlighted by the IMB for its commitment to evangelism & missions (http://www.imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=10222). Has the reverse happened within memorable history? Which side is really being aggressive?
I do not refer to myself as a Calvinist and Calvinism was not an issue in either of the churches I pastored. Yet, I was often labeled–sometimes chastised–simply because I attended SBTS. “Heretic,” “unbiblical,” and “hates lost people” were terms used, even when my church led the association in baptisms! I haven’t encountered any of this in my teaching experience, and I think this because our Christian Studies faculty represent a variety of evangelical, Baptist soteriological approaches. We embrace the conversation in a respectful way, and it breeds the same among our students.
Perhaps most Calvinists read the preamble of this document and think, “For years we’ve simply wanted a place at the table. We finally have it, and now there is a movement to push us aside.” I realize this is not your intent, but I think that it’s hard for a Calvinistic Baptist to read the preamble and think otherwise.
Second, I don’t think it’s wise to sign a document–and encourage others to do the same–that openly castigates another Christian, Baptist persuasion that isn’t heretical. This document is much, much more than “are there any others like me in the room?” If it were, then the preamble (which sets the tone & trajectory) would only state “these are the convictions of traditional, non-Calvinist Southern Baptists,” without directly addressing another group.
This document is much different than T4G in that T4G only states a general concern but abstains from labels and attacks.
Again, reversing the situation, what would the reaction be if the Calvinists put forth a similar effort? What if they assembled a document that, in addition to outlining a detailed soteriology, bemoaned persistent aggressive non-Calvinism in its preamble?
Third (and finally), while Baptists are free to compose any doctrinal statement, I can’t help but wonder if the articles of the statement are a bit over the top. I’m skeptical of any attempt to specify an area of theology that is inherently mysterious. The gospel is simple, but soteriology is complex (and often tricky!). Christians have debated these issues for millennia. This statement attempts to settle that which isn’t settled–it tries to close a debate that isn’t closed. This is why the BF&M (and most historic confessions) leaves wiggle room on soteriology. A mentor once told me, “the moment you think you have this figured out, you can rest assured that you’re wrong.”
Grace and peace,
Chuck
I’m fairly certain that this is the most divisive and un-biblical statment i’ve ever read. Also the word “traditional” are misleading. In addition to that, the authors and signers of the this statment need to rethink their understanding of “Calvinism” or “New Calvinism” because I have never met a calvinist who is “committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation” In closing are there not better things to for the SBC to worry about than a movement of “New Calvinism”?
Let’s see…
The first Baptist church in America was founded by Roger Williams (a Calvinist)
The first Baptist church in the south was founded by William Screven (a Calvinist) in 1682.
William Bullein Johnson (a Calvinist) was a founder and first president of The SBC.
and the next two presidents after him were Calvinists also.
All teachers at Southern Baptists Thological Seminary, the first and only SB seminary in 1859, were required to affirm the very Calvinistic statement of faith the Abstract of Principles in order to teach there.
…So, how is it that this anti-calvinistic statement is supposed to be called the “Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”? I guess Eric interprets history and the word traditional the way he interprets Romans 9. I will never refer to the views reflected in this statement as “traditional”.
Matt,
Thank you for using historical fact.
Matt,
You are correct in noting that Particular Baptists make up a vital part of the Baptist tradition.
Also, you have raised an important question. What should the other view be called? In the past, we have been known as General Baptists or Sandy Creekers. I don’t see this document dismissing the rich tradition blazed by Calvinist Baptists. Instead, Dr. Hankins’ point in the preface is that for roughly the last century, this General Baptist-Sandy Creek view could simply be called “Traditional” because it has been the majority view among Southern Baptists.
If not “Traditional,” then what should it be called? Good options haven’t presented themselves. Historical references such as “General Baptist” or “Sandy Creek” would be lost on most people. (Names aren’t helpful if you have to explain them to every other person.)
“Biblical Baptist” would imply that the other side is unbiblical. I am unaware of anyone who is claiming that New Calvinists are not attempting to draw their theology from the Bible. If I heard such a claim, then I would object.
“Non-Calvinist” isn’t a helpful term because:
theology isn’t only about what you deny but also about what you affirm
such a term would include Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims (none of those are close to our view)
We can’t simply call it the “Baptist view” because Calvinistic Baptists are just as much Baptists as our camp.
So, “Traditional Baptist” seems like the best possible term. If you have a better idea for the term, then perhaps you should float it out here so that we might improve upon the term.
Blessings, brother, on your life and ministry.
In Him,
Adam
Whatever you call it… “traditional” is not the word. Traditional implies that the origins of and the dominant view throughout the history of a movement was a certain way.
The SBC was founded in 1859… it did not begin moving away from Calvinism until 1925… so for the first 65 years it was predominantly Calvinist. How can anyone properly call a view that was alien to the movement for the first 65 years “Traditional.”
Why not call it “Majority View”? Historical titles may be lost on people… but calling something “traditional” when it is not is deceptive and intellectually dishonest. This would be like calling Liberal Christianity in the 1950s the “Traditional Christian View” because it was the majority…
Adam,
I reject the term traditional for the same reason you give for rejecting the term Biblical, because it implies that the other view is not traditional. I don’t see any debate over the fact that the SBC was founded by Calvinists, but even if it was only partially founded by Calvinist, the term “traditional” would be misleading if used to refer to an anti-calvinist statement of faith.
Charles Spurgeon already claimed Biblical Christianity for Calvinism so you’re going to have to come up with something else (just kidding). You mentioned General Baptist, why not use that term? It’s already been around since the 1610′s. There are terms that are known as being distinctive from Calvinism on the doctrines of grace such as Arminianism, but Eric isn’t an arminian and seems to want a term that encompasses all Baptists that are not Calvinists. The problem with any such term is that it will necessarily depend on the definition of the word calvinism for it to have any meaning. I understand not wanting to be identified by a term that is really just saying, “we are not them”, but that will ultimately be the meaning behind any all encompassing non-calvinist term. It would really be much easier if you would all just become Calvinists. haha.
I really would have no problem using the term General Baptists or Sandy Creek Baptists. Too bad Free Will Baptists is already taken. Maybe Autonomous Will Baptist would work, just not something that is misleading like “traditional”. I also think that no matter what term is used to describe non-calvinists, this statement is unnecessarily decisive. Eric isn’t just making a possitive statement of what he believes and enviting people who agree with him to sign off on it. He’s making a very negative statement about how he rejects Calvinism. He doesn’t even represent Calvinism fairly in his rejection of it. Hyper-calvinists are not traditional Calvinists and are known as anti-calvinists. dubble predestination is a belief that goes along with hyper-calvinism and is unnecessary and even impossible if the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity is true. I have seen Eric be corrected through posts on this site in response to his four part anti-calvinism series he did a couple of months ago, yet he still makes the same misrepresentations of Calvinism today. There are parts of his rejections in this statement that I agree with except for the fact that he attributes them to Calvinism.
I don’t really mind what term non-calvinists want to go by as long as it is accurate. I will respectively use any good term that is chosen other than something like traditional. Can’t the term be decided on without the attack on Calvinism and dishonest misrepresentations though? Not that you are guilty of that Adam. God Bless!
Maybe we should call ourselves “The Real Founders?” :)
Or, maybe we should call ourselves “The Real Acts 29?”
David
I have only briefly looked over this document, but I plan on reading it much more carefully in the near future. I will blog on this more fully at a later time. Nonetheless, I have a couple of preliminary observations:
“. . .we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. . . We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.”
Though I generally agree that Calvinism as a baptistic nomenclature is less than helpful (for reasons of ecclesiology and missiology rather than soteriology), I am troubled when the writer asserts that the majority of Baptists are not Calvinists. He may be right about this (in a robust 5 point sense); yet, I find myself asking: how does the writer know? In other words, he did not publish his research.
Also, something else disturbing to me is that the doctrinal affirmations and denials lack nuance. For example, when speaking of election, double predestination is assumed, and there is a failure to acknowledge moderate Calvinism which opts for preterition as an alternative—something that is historically quite common among Calvinists (Andrew Fuller for instance). The result of this lack of nuance is that though I realize my theological views are often different from the writer of this document, I am nonetheless affirming and denying right along with the document (with some obvious exceptions of course). And, the writer, as a result, is in danger, at times, of making a caricature of this so called “new Calvinism.” If we can agree (and I’m preaching to both sides now) that many of our theological conclusions are the same, then, perhaps, we co-exist with a greater degree of unity.
For the record, I have a great respect for many of the persons who have signed this document.
achadwickmauldin
Chad,
Have you ever read the book: A Quiet Revolution – A Chronicle of Beginnings of Reformation in The Southern Baptist Convention by Ernest C. Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen by Founders Press?
No sir, I have not. Perhaps I should add it to my list of books to read…
Chad,
The book was published in the year 2000 and shows how a group of men have been working since 1982 to reform the SBC to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace. They have worked hard, brilliantly, and continue in their stated goals.
On page 12, they state: “Make no mistake about it. Southern Baptists are at a crossroads. We have a choice to make. The choice is between the deeprooted, God-centered theology of evangelisical Calvinism and the man-centered, unstable theology of the other perspectives present in the convention. As for us, we adhere to the doctrines of grace because we seek nothing more than to glorify God and enjoy him forever through true doctrine … Calvinism is a biblical faith which lives and breathes Scripture as God’s infallible, inspired, inerrant Word, living and active, powerful, and sufficient for all of life. It is a stable faith, firly entreanced within the historic orthodox tradition, flowing from Jesus and Paul through Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Bunyan, Edwards and Whitefield. It is a conserving faith, heartily resistant to the errors that plague other evangelical viewpoints.”
On page 38, they state …”In the first place, Calvinistic Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity. It follows, then, that the future of Christianity itslef is bound up in the fortunes of Calvinism.”
Dr. Mohler has made public statements of the same nature … even within the last year. On page 57 in the book he is listed as one of the early speakers at Founders meetings going back to the early 80′s.
Non-Calvinists have been been pretty patience over the last 20 something years. It’s now time for a full discussion.
BTW … Chapter three is all about reforming a local church through a strategy of stealth. Just go to Founders website and type in: Walking Without Slipping: Instructions for Local Church Reformation.
Blessings!
Ron: Did you read this from Founders Ministries post today? Tom says concerning wanting Calvinism as the dominant theology:
I do not know any Calvinist who has an agenda to make Calvinism \”the central Southern Baptist understanding of salvation.\” It certainly is not my agenda. Although I would love for everyone to read Scripture the way that I do, I am content to live within the SBC under the doctrinal umbrella of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 and to cooperate with my less-Calvinistic brothers and sisters who are willing to do the same.
http://blog.founders.org/2012/05/statement-of-traditional-southern.html
Debbie,
One question and I’ve got to leave for the day:
Does Founders Ministries still have the sermon or writing by Dr. Tom J. Nettles up on their website entitled: Why Your Next Pastor Should Be A Calvinist?
Mr. Hale,
I agree with you that this is a topic which could benefit from a healthy dialogue. It seems to me, however, that this document affirms and denies many things that most moderate Calvinists (which represent mainstream Calvinism today) would likewise affirm and deny. As a result, the document is engaging a bit of a straw man at times.
I will try and take a look at the book you have recommended. I know that this sort of thing regrettably goes on from time to time. I, like you, do not believe this to be a positive thing. We should rather serve together with a transparent and humble posture. I remember talking with Dr. Paige Patterson about whether he knowingly hired Calvinistic professors at SWBTS. He assured me that he did, but only if they were honest and up front about their doctrinal convictions. And so, I sat under a number of professors from both the Calvinistic and baptistic Arminian persuasions. This is how it should be. There should be allowable diversity on this issue, so long as extremities are avoided.
2 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned —
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
Just a quick thought on the imputation of Adam’s sin. If this denied, how do we account for infant mortality? These would seem to suffer the wages of sin (without having sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offends, Romans 5)
David,
Great question. The document does not deny the imputation of Adam’s sin. The document denies the imputation of Adam’s guilt. There is a significant difference between the two.
As to your question of the spiritual condition of infants, that was the topic of my PhD dissertation, which was revised for a broader audience and published last year. I won’t post a link and am not trying to promote the book but you can find it through a Google search.
In Him,
Adam
I should add this is Romans 5:12-17.
In light of recent pop culture, sadly the SBC reminds me a little of the Hatfields and McCoys, except with words as bullets. Anyone else?
Yep Ben, I would agree with you on that one.
Sorry… I’m one of the folks who has already left the SBC.
I had to find answers to the atheists, the agnostics and the muslims… and Lifeway just didn’t have them.
Found someone who did… Dr. Chuck Missler’s http://www.khouse.org.
I’m sorry… but if you folks would take the time to listen to maybe 1 lecture of his on the Nature of Time & Space… and what the Bible says about it… this Calvinism argument would be over and done with.
But most of you are more interested in who won the ballgame on Saturday… than you really are in learning the bible, or teaching it.
Personally… I’m reaching Youth, Young Adults, AND Homosexuals … and SOME Atheists (the ones that are Ex-Catholic seem to be reachable… the hard cases, not so much)… but I’m not welcome at a single Baptist church in my county because I don’t play clubhouse.
So while you folks argue about the Calvos… and if Steve Gaines won’t let homosexuals on his softball teams, but will let them on his staff… I got better things to do.
The document says,
“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.”
Synergism is what this is called. As I said elsewhere (Voices), maybe the better distinction than Calvinist and Non-Calvinist (or Arminiamistic or Traditionalist) is:
Monergist or Synergist. No one’s name is associated with is and no one’s tradition is left out. It accurately describes the chief difference between the two camps.
Yours truly,
Les the Monergist
Les,
I agree.
Adam
“We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. ”
- Seriously?
Seriously.
Wow? Are you denying that saving faith is a gift of God?
I’m not Dr. Harwood, but no one is saying that saving faith is not a gift from God. Of course, saving faith is a gift from God. Salvation is a gift of God, and its all the working of God.
But, this is denial that regeneration takes place before conversion…..that regeneration takes place before faith. They are, instead, simultaneous.
David
actually that is what it says… “We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God”… can not be much plainer.
For the record, I will say that I do not believe saving faith is a gift from God…
Salvation is the gift of God; faith is the exercise of our belief in the promises and provisions of God. This whole notion that God gives saving faith to some and they are irresistibly saved is simply wrong.
><>”
Actually, Bob, in my view, both you and Alan are right.
Faith is the decision of man, and it too is a gift from God in that it is the only condition God requires of man.
So in that sense, it is a gift in that most patrons in the 1st century culture, divine or otherwise, usually attach a whole bunch of conditions on their extended benefaction (grace/charis) of whatever they are extending (in the case of God, it is salvation. See Titus 2:11-14).
So, in Ephesians 2:8-9, when it says that we are saved by grace through faith, and this not of ourselves but the gift of God; it is saying that it is by God’s grace that we are saved through faith, as opposed to being through a whole lot of other things as well, and the fact that it works this way has nothing to do with you all, but the entirety of it working this way as opposed to other ways is itself a gift from God so no one can boast. Hence, no boasting, because if people had to meet other conditions other than faith, they could boast in their meeting all these conditions (which would be works, since faith and works are not even remotely the same per Rom. 4:5 and the very passage we are considering…”by faith…not of works…”).
You sir need to explain Ephesians 2:8-10 then.
Though used as a “proof verse” for this anathema, it says CLEARLY that FAITH is a GIFT OF GOD (I know ya didn’t forget that, right?)
You’ll also have to redefine find a term other than GRACE, because merited favor just doesn’t cut it.
Robin,
I will gladly answer you… Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Salvation is the gift… NOT Faith… to prove my point, I can remove “by faith” and the verse is still theologically correct: For by grace you have been saved and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
The gift is salvation… for I can do the same thing with the prepositional phrase, for by grace…
“You have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
Grace is indeed God’s unmerited favor’ mkae no mistake about it; I did not nor do I deserve God’s marvelous mercy and His forgiveness and my adoption into HIs forever family.
It is through faith; the dynamic exercise of my believing that He is everything He says He is (in His Word) and that He will do everything He says He will do (through the convicting work of the Holy Spirit) and I trust (faith) Him and am converted.
><>”
Grace = unmerited benefaction/favor.
Nothing in anyone can merit the extension of a benefaction from a patron (any patron).
This has NEVER meant that receiving the benefaction does not have conditions attached to it. When the benefactor attaches a condition, meeting the condition is not merit, it is agreeing to the terms of the patron/client agreement.
If you think it does mean that, then you are not talking about anything remotely familiar to Paul’s 1st century audience on the matter of charis in its sociological context.
That is why, though I agree it is a “gift” in one sense, most Christians that have ever lived affirm faith is a condition of salvation. One must believe in order to be saved.
This is Bible 101… Sheesh…
It makes no sense to say one can be saved by grace without faith. That is un-Biblical.
You, Robin, have a huge burden to meet if you think faith is merit. The Bible clearly opposes faith and works everywhere. (Rom. 3:28, 4:5, Eph. 2:8, etc.)
You also have a burden to meet if you do not think faith is a condition of salvation on the part of the client to the patron (Yahweh).
Regardless if you think faith is a static thing like a necktie given at Christmas by God to a person, rather than a dynamic loyalty and trust commitment of a person towards Christ, if you think it is not a condition, you need to prove it.
Ray,
Thanks for your question, which provides me an opportunity to clarify. The article reads as follows:
“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.”
That is what I signed. The first paragraph is a statement of affirmations. The second one, of course, is a statement of denials.
Thank you, brother.
In Him,
Adam
“We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. ”
Based on what? This in it’s form is a denial that saving faith is an act of God…so the only other option is they believe that saving faith is fully an act of man…God has nothing to do with it, except maybe “trying to lure” men in…where is the Sovereignty??
The sovereignty of God is seen in that He is sovereign. He gives salvation to whom He will. And, those He gives salvation to are those people, who humble themselves and repent and put their faith in the Lord. He is sovereign in that He does not give salvation to those people, who are like Cain, and who pridefully try to come to God in thier own way.
Believing that men can repent and put their faith in Jesus is not making God less sovereign in salvation, at all.
David
Oh good grief…
Whatever you mean by “saving faith” (man do I loathe theological qualifiers…), here you go:
Faith is a gift from God, who in His sovereignty, ordained that it and it alone is the single, conditional means of appropriation for human beings in response to God’s grace in the enabling witness and conviction of the Holy Spirit towards the grounding of salvation which is in Christ alone and His accomplishment at Calvary for the glory of God alone.
Formal enough for ya?
I really don’t want to get into this fiasco . . . but Sandy Creek keeps popping up. My question is “has anyone bothered to read the original doctrinal statement of the Sandy Creek Association”? It seems to agree more with the side being attacked in this document than with the document. Just Articles 3 & 4 should make the point.
III. That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.
IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.
Guess this would be too traditional for them. A man-centered, man controlled salvation will always look appealing to those who are man-centered.
And, once again, we have an example of New Calvinists in Alan Davis.
DAvid
People are still getting confused on the difference between the “sin” of Adam, and the “guilt” of Adam.
No one is denying that Adam’s sin had serious consequences for his progeny.
The very explanation in the Article above, which says, “that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.” is the clarification of what is meant by the imputation of Adam’s SIN.
Nothing in the above statement in the affirmations and denials disagrees with this whatsoever.
Article IV is more nuanced, so let us examine it.
“We believe in election from eternity,” – Yes, nothing in the statement above rejects this. All Christians believe in election from eternity, even Open Theists…This article says nothing of the nature of that election (individual, corporate, conditional, unconditional, etc.)
“effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God,”
Yes, amen. When a sinner repents and believes, the calling by the Holy Spirit was effectual. Yes, nothing in the statement above rejects this.
The problem is, many people assume that this language has to mean what Calvinists say it means.
Jonathan,
The terminology used by the Sandy Creekers in that document comes directly from the 1689 Baptist Confession – a clearly Calvinistic document. That is a historical fact. This Sandy Creek confession was indeed referring to “effectual calling” as defined by the 1689 Baptist Confession. Again, it is a fact that many Sandy Creek Churches were Reformed in their soteriology.
D.R.
You missed my point.
I was demonstrating that the statement above is not inconsistent with the Sandy Creek statement of faith.
But Jonathan, it is inconsistent with Sandy Creek – if it means anything less than what the 1689 meant by “effectual calling” or “election” or anything other word used in both documents. Those Sandy Creekers who adopted their statement of faith would absolutely not have been in agreement with this “traditional” statement.
Ironically, I serve in a so-called “traditional Baptist” association that was actually founded in the late 1800s on the Abstract of Principles, which states “Election is God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life — not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ — in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.” This statement just isn’t traditional enough!!!
If you don’t think this statement is divisive, read the comments.
If you want to lose hope for the SBC, read the comments.
If you want to see how Christians shouldn’t engage each other, read the comments.
If you want to waste 30 mins of your life, read the comments.
Looking from afar as I am not part of the SBC. This statement is just a denial of the effects of the fall, the sinfulness of man (Romans 1-3) and the denial of God’s sovereignty (meaning His right to rule and reign and to do whatever He pleases with His creatures, without our permission). Denying those two truths lead into the two doors into Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism. Some of the statements on this aren’t even Arminian, but fall into Pelagianism – which is heresy. Others are a misrepresentation of Calvinism. Others are just a plain rebellion to Scripture.
If this is the future, then the SBC is going the way of the Roman Catholic Church. Newsflash: The Catholic church teaches Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism as well.
Erasmus, the Catholic theologian wrote “The Freedom of the Will” to refute the doctrines of grace being taught by the Reformers. Martin Luther responded with his book, “The Bondage of the Will” in which Martin Luther commended Erasmus. Why did Luther commend Erasmus? Luther said that Erasmus, out of all the Catholics, was the only one to identify the central issue of the Reformation – the sovereign grace of God vs. the free will of man. The Catholic church took one side (free will). The Protestant Church, the other. The reason Arminianism was declared heresy by the Reformers was because it was a return to the works-based salvation system of the Catholic Church.
The reason many Christians believe Calvinism is true is because we believe the Bible teaches it and there is no other understanding of Scripture which removes all cause for man’s boasting while also giving all glory for salvation to God alone. In Calvinism, the reason someone is saved and someone else is not, is because of God’s sovereign purpose and grace, not because of man’s will. Otherwise, man would have a reason to boast because he chose while his unsaved neighbor did not. In the end, Calvinism teaches that you are to trust in the finished work of Jesus alone and not one iota in your own will, persistence, obedience, etc. Your salvation can only be credited to a sovereign, merciful, gracious God (Titus 3:5) and the finished work of Christ who changed your heart through His overwhelming love, through the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:16), and gave you the gift of faith to believe (Eph. 2:8-9, Rom 10:17). It was not due to your own intellect or morality or will that you chose (John 1:13, Rom. 9:16) but because God changed your heart and gave you the ability to believe (John 3:3, John 6:44, Eze. 36:26-27). So the object of our affection can only be Christ. The subject of our teaching can only be Christ (Luke 24:27). The exaltation of worship and the sermons is about Christ Himself (Rev. 5:12). In the end, it’s about trusting what Christ has done to save us AND keep us and God getting the glory He deserves for doing ALL of it (Heb. 12:2).
The real statement of free will theology is this: People who believe in free will really believe that more people will go to heaven through their own free will than God would save through His own mercy and choice. Well, that’s a blasphemous thought. That’s really saying that God’s mercy is less merciful and less powerful than the will of man. I cannot think of a more ridiculous statement.
Don’t stumble over the stumbling stone by trying to play God and worry about who’s elect and who’s not (see Charles Spurgeon). Rather, preach the Gospel to every creature and let God sort it out because He knows who are His. The end of the story is this: God will save a multitude that cannot be numbered who are there because of God’s mercy, His purpose and plan and His free choice as our sovereign King.
Matt,
Did you seriously say, “If this is the future, then the SBC is going the way of the Roman Catholic Church. Newsflash: The Catholic church teaches Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism as well?” Are you seriously comparing this document with Roman Catholic beliefs? Wow.
Dude, they believe in a works salvation….by being baptised…taking the sacraments…being good….working their way out of purgatory, etc.
This is the reason why its very, very difficult to have a conversation with the New Calvinists. It doesnt take very long for them to start calling people, who disagree with them “liars,” or “Pelagians,” or a host of other names and attacking the motives of anyone, who disagrees with them.
David
The Reformers thought it was a step in that direction, which is why Arminianism was rejected. I would never say that those who believe in Arminianism aren’t Christian. That’s for God to sort out. However, I would say that if you are trusting in your decision and your obedience to save you, rather than in the perfect obedience and atoning death and resurrection of Christ on your behalf, then that’s a problem. No one would ever accuse Arminians of actual Roman Catholicism…there’s obviously a complete difference. But sometimes the subtle differences are the most dangerous. As Spurgeon once said, “Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather, it is the difference between right and almost right.”
Just something to think about.
Also, I’m not trying to attack and name-call, but some of the statements are in fact, theologically near Pelagianism and misrepresent Calvinism. I didn’t make up those theological labels. Also, I didn’t call anyone a liar.
I agree with some of the statements of affirmation, but I think it would be more fruitful if they went to their Calvinist brothers and asked, “What is your position?” or “Where have we erred in representing your position?”
Sorry, if I wasn’t more clear.
Matt,
No one in here is saying that we are trusting in our decision and our obedience to save us. How in the world you got that from this document, or from the comments in here, I have no idea. We are trusting in the atoning death of Jesus on the cross….we’re trusting in Jesus, and in Jesus alone for our salvation.
David
“If this is the future, then the SBC is going the way of the Roman Catholic Church. Newsflash: The Catholic church teaches Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism ..”
This is one thing that is so frustrating about talking to Calvinists. For one thing, the word “Reformed” comes from wanting to “reform” the Catholic church. They kept the sacraments as a means of grace and instituted their own brand of human popish hierarchy with a state church. They drowned the rebaptizers and the magistrates came to your door if you did not attend church or baptize your baby. The list is long simply from the praxis of Calvinism. It keeps reinventing itself over time hoping to shed the truth of what all it entailed.
Can we ignore that Calvin’s doctrine drove behavior? I would think the SBC of the last 100 years would have more in common with guys like Mann or Hubmaier. We moved away from the Calvinistic thinking of the Founders of the SBC that slavery was a good thing.
For me it boils down to this: Calvinists do not believe that God is Sovereign over His own Sovereignty.
Hmm, don’t know if you realized what you did there, but you outlined the typical SWTS theology…yep, you did.
Only thing they don’t have is purgatory.
Many of their grads show up out here working for state or area conventions and think that they are overseers and are literally stifling and interfering with local church polity.
Seems more like the Catholic church every day.
Which is why my motto is Semper Reformanda.
Robin, I have no idea what your comment means. Perhaps it means you would baptize your infant instead of rebelling against Calvins state church?
However, there are plenty of historical archives to peruse on the praxis of Calvinism some not opened to researchers until after WW2.
Matt…thank you…this was very well said and you are exactly right regarding the heart of the reformation and Roman Catholicism…here is the statement from this article:
“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.
Here is the commentary Calvin made regarding the passage in John 1:12-13 and as you pointed out was at the center of the battle for the truth verses the lies that came out of the darkness of the man centered church. In the reformers case, Rome…sadly, to your point, it is not Rome alone anymore:
He gave them power. The word ??????? here appears to me to mean a right, or claim; and it would be better to translate it so, in order to refute the false opinions of the Papists; for they wickedly pervert this passage by understanding it to mean, that nothing more than a choice is allowed to us, if we think fit to avail ourselves of this privilege. In this way they extract free-will from this phrase; but as well might they extract fire from water.
Having been saved from the utter wickedness of the ultimate man centered church, I am thankful that the scripture, when held above man, will cause us to run away from the wisdom and the power of man and his will…thanks for the clarity.
This is a shame upon these men who would continue to cause division and strife in our convention. This statement is neither traditional nor Southern Baptist – any 1st year student of Southern Baptist history could tell you that. These men need to repent and stand upon the confessional foundation that we have already established, in 1925, 1963, and again in 2000. The Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 is a clear and solid confession in which Southern Baptists have already agreed upon and it should be enough. Just the thoughts from a 5 point calvinist who happens to be a Pastor in a growing Southern Baptist Church.
And, once again, we have a New Calvinists calling upon us to repent for not agreeing with the DOG. And, he has to throw in zingers, bragging that he’s the Pastor of “growing Southern Baptist Church;” and that this statement is not Southern Baptist.
Jeff, what are we then? Are we not welcome in the SBC according to you? Because, that’s what it sounds like to me.
David
Heretics are always NOT welcome in the SBC. The document above is clearly heretical, not because it disagrees with Calvinism, but because it denies an important fundamental tenet of the Christian faith; namely, that man, in his fallen state, cannot will or do any good thing leading to salvation apart from the internal, enabling work of God’s grace. Denial of this statement falls into either the heresy of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.
We wouldn’t have any problem with the document (however opposed to anti-Calvinism it may be) if it did not contain any heretical teachings. I don’t want to be rude here, but we all know how important doctrinal purity is.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists are allowed to stay under the umbrella of SBC, but with certain restrictions: Both cannot go beyond the bounds of orthodoxy, and I believe the document above is guilty of doing so.
So, Jeph, you just called Seminary Presidents and Professors “heretics.” You just called Pastors of many Baptist Churches “heretics.”
Shouldnt you call for all the “heretics” to be fired from these SB Seminaries? Shouldnt all the “heretics” be fired from serving on the mission field?
David
Jeph,
Are you calling for the firing of seminary presidents and profs? missionaries? Are you calling for the Churches in the SBC, who believe like this document to be banned from the SBC…since they are heretical?
Well, if you really believe that, then you should.
David
“man, in his fallen state, cannot will or do any good thing leading to salvation apart from the internal, enabling work of God’s grace.”
“While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort,”
“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.”
It doesn’t deny it at all…it affirms it. So, I believe that your belief about this statement is wrong.
Jeph,
I think you have crossed the line in essentially referring to these men as heretics. If Michael Horton’s definition of heresy is correct, “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance,” then these views, while not orthodox in my view, do not qualify as heresy.
Les
The term “Traditional Baptists” would be better if it were replaced with “General Baptists,” which is what the authors of this statement seem to be. For Particular Baptists, Calvinism is not new, but has been a well-reasoned soteriology from the reformation.
I am a layman. I came to be a Southern Baptist from a Methodist upbringing and so was taught the Arminian point of view regarding Soteriology. When I became SB (39 years ago) I noticed the primary difference in the teaching regarding salvation was: Methodists teach you can lose your salvation while Southern Baptists teach you cannot.
The Methodists teach that if you have “freewill” to choose Christ then (logically), to preserve that freewill, you must also have the freedom to walk away.
It seemed to me that the Methodist position (on the surface) was more coherent than the Baptist position — that all unregenerate persons had the freewill to choose Christ, but not the freewill to walk away.
Now Baptists address that by saying: once born-again/regenerated, and converted, the “new Creation,” with a new nature, will not WANT/desire to walk away.
And I would agree with that.
But to agree with that, and to be logically (and Biblically) consistent, I must also hold that: “the man without the Spirit/natural man [unregenerate] (1) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, (2) for they are foolishness to him, (3) and he cannot understand them, (4) because they are Spiritually discerned/appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14). That is an explicit statement, and It seems to me that Nicodemus would be the (unregenerate) poster-child illustration of the truth of it in John 3.
Now the way many Southern Baptists address this is to proffer a quasi Prevenient Grace view. But I find no explicit text to support that view in the Bible (in fact, I believe that 1 Corinthians 2:14 — as well as many other passages — destroys an argument for Prevenient Grace).
After many years of serious Scripture study, it seemed to me that that Regeneration must preceded Saving Faith. That view seemed to be the most consistent with the teachings of Christ, John, Peter and Paul (taught in many places). I was convinced by Scripture that Regeneration must precede Saving Faith.
But I have no animosity at all towards my non-Calvinist brothers.
My pastor and I attended the BUILDING BRIDGES Conference at Ridgecrest in 2007. There, we were presented with a LifeWay study that noted there were approximately 4,000 SBC pastors that were Calvinists or Calvinist-leaning. The study furthermore revealed that there was NO statistical difference in Baptisms between same-size SBC churches that were Calvinistic-leaning and those that were not (contra the “Calvinist are anti missional/anti evangelistic” myth). Those in my church who believe Regeneration must precede Saving Faith, are significantly more evangelistic than most who do not share our view.
The LifeWay study also noted that recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates who were Calvinist-leaning, were slightly *more* evangelistic than their non-Calvinist peers.
The same LifeWay study also revealed that (for 2006, the year of the study) there were approximately 9,404 non-Calvinist SBC pastors who baptized “not one;” there were approximately 2,981 non-Calvinist SBC pastors who baptized “just one,” and approximately 12,384 non-Calvinist SBC pastors who only baptized between “two and five.”
The indictment of this study is obvious with regard to [many] non-Calvinist pastors in the SBC — brothers, rather than continually berating your Calvinistic brethren, you need to get your own houses in order.
Can’t we just all get along? Are we not all seeking (commanded) to share Christ with a lost world?
You misunderstand 1 Cor. 14.
1. It is a letter to a church, and then addresses the mature (1 Cor. 2:6)
2. It speaks of the deeper things of God. (1 Cor. 2:10)
3. It talks about speaking of the things the Spirit is teaching spiritual things to spiritual people (hence, they are already born again).
4. From chapter one, verse 18 onward though the verse we are considering, it is contrasting worldly wisdom with Godly wisdom.
So context is important. This verse has nothing whatsoever to do with prevenient grace, and is useless to “destroy” it…
Do you know what prevenient grace is? Grace beforehand. Do Calvinists reject this? No, they just understand it differently.
If we were to take your interpretation, then whether or not grace is resistible or irresistible is besides the point, because the natural man would reject it because it does not “welcome what comes from God’s Spirit…”
If we follow your interpretation, so much for regeneration either before or after conversion…
Sheesh…
C
O
N
T
E
X
T
Anyway, I am typically not a fan of theological conclusions nowhere taught in Scripture…Regeneration preceding faith is nowhere taught in Scripture. It is a doctrine in hunt for a proof-text…
Why would you want to create such a divisive statement? Everyone already knows that Calvinism is the minority in the SBC. Though your group gives a statement of what you do or don’t believe, you still may be classified non-Calvinist since there is no systematic moniker to apply and Arminianism is also rejected by your group. Imagine if when Calvinism was the majority in the SBC such documents had been drawn up to push out those with views similar to yours. To call your position “traditional” is misleading, unless you desire it to be seen as merely a tradition. It is not the historical position, though it is currently the majority. There are misrepresentations of the Calvinist position in your statement also. It comes off like slander and seems to be a way to bully the Calvinist out of the SBC. It seems that the motive is to remove Calvinism out of Southern Baptist life.
As a Calvinist I’m glad to see this list of people who support this statement. At least now I can mark their churches and ministries off my list of places and people to follow.
In my mind it would be better if there were some clarification on some issues. 1)Calvinists, Arminians, Baptists(which include both), etc all believe there view is biblical. That means when someone comes along and says I don’t believe in any of those, I believe in the bible, or I’m a biblicist, they are making an argument out of ignorance. None of these people actually follow or worship the man whose name their belief system holds, it is simply the description of the systematic views of salvation these men affirmed from their view of the bible. Men in the SBC affirm the Baptist Faith and Message, however this does not mean that they are worshiping or following the one or ones who penned the BF&M. They are affirming that they agree with the man or men who wrote it and that it is biblical.
2) The argument isn’t Calvinism verses Non- Calvinism. It is monergism verses synergism. You either believe that God alone saved you or that you cooperated with God to bring about your salvation. This makes the debate clearer.
3)If you polled the majority of SBC church members they would not know what Calvinism is. The problem is when those people who disagree with Calvinism tell their congregations what they believe Calvinism to be, they grossly misrepresent it. As a result you have people who have no idea what Calvinism is, they just know that it’s bad and they should stay away from it. This is unfortunate.
4) As a result of of number 4 you have a big group that think that Calvinists are sneaking in to SBC churches to deceive and convert the unaware church members to Calvinism. This may be true in some cases? However, if the congregants don’t know what it is any way how is this possible? It seems to primarily be about fear of a Calvinistic takeover. This also is unfortunate.
5)Reformed is not always the best word for SBC Calvinists. Calvinistic Baptist is a better term. Why? Not all SBC Calvinists believe in covenental theology. Instead, they are Calvinistic in their view of salvation but dispensational in their view of Israel, the church, and the end times.
6) Acts 29 is not an SBC organization nor is it a denomination. Acts 29 works with all different denominations to promote church planting and churches who plant more churches. They do require in most cases that the churches that they plant, hold to a Calvinistic view of salvation.
1) And one suggestion. An in depth study of church history would go along way for the entire SBC.
Sadly, when we who are more reformed try to work toward that goal, we are subverted and demeaned. This caustic “Statement” is nothing more than an open manifestation of what we encounter every day.
I do not deride or judge those whose soteriological does not absolutely agree with mine, would that they would do the same.
It is this incessant and unmerited hatred which has led me to differentiate between those who are of a different mindset, and those who are bent on sharing a different gospel.
Anyone who can love us and abide with us and celebrate the work at hand with us is a brother. Anyone who spreads vitriol and acts against the unity of the efforts to share the gospel to the ends of the earth is not my brother. (Our Lord Jesus had even stronger words for such Pharisaical attitudes).
It should be a strong indication to anyone who wants to evaluate this in a disinterested manner that the pride of man is primary in this debate. Those who reject the traditional SBC/Baptist view of soteriology do so because they want man to take the central role. They are offended by the violation of an unscriptural precept, Free Will. I suggest they go back and read Martin Luther’s work on the “Bondage of the Will.”
Anyone who thinks that sinners have free will does not understand that they are bond-servants to sin and that will not, no…they CANNOT make any choice but to sin. To suggest anything else has ALWAYS been deemed heresy, either by the Synod of Dort, or the Synod of Lydda.
From: http://www.aplacefortruth.org/essays/pelagianism.pdf
“Semi-Pelagianism is a synergistic soteriological
system and states that man coop erates with the grace that God giv es before his conv ersion, and
he has the power to choose grace”
Wow, sounds just like what this “Statement” affirms.
There is no way that two can walk together if they be not agreed. When I hear someone say they are my brother in Christ, yet tell me that there are those who are born who have no hope of salvation, I cannot walk with that person. The message of the Calvinists is not a message of grace but of death. It is clear. Many of them will not openly tell the churches that call them what they truly believe because they know it is not what Baptist believe. I truly am astounded that a denomination who is supposed to be so evangelistic would tolerate such a theology for a second? I have dealt with the arrogance of this New Calvinistic wing of the SBC. I know how they feel about people who disagree with them. And now that I have used their tone against them, they do not like it. I stand by my comments. They need to move on and start their own Reformed Baptist Convention. I would have more respect for their position if they would just say who they are and move on. As it is now they are merely causing division. And for those who are upset at my tone, go to any Calvinist blog or Youtube Channel witness for yourself what they have said about men such as Rogers, Vines and others. The very men who brought the SBC back to inerrancy are now blasted for not believing in limited atonement or unconditional election. Shame on you.
” They need to move on and start their own Reformed Baptist Convention.\”
I think that day is coming. But first they need the SBC non Calvinist money to plant Acts 29ish and SGM- like churches for all the YRR guys coming out of seminary.
Pingback: Responding to Eric Hankins's Southern Baptist "Traditionalism" | SBC Voices
The New Testament clearly teaches that “Jesus saves his people.”
The New Testament clearly does NOT teach that “Jesus makes his people savable and it is up to them to finish his work.”
Particular redemption is the biblical gospel.
Regarding Article 2: Wow. Why don’t these guys just come right out and build an altar to their pagan goddess of free will?
And then, Tim gives us another example of a New Calvinist.
DAvid
You disagree with his comment (that I think is dumb), so you lump him with all Calvinists. You’ve cast a stereotype on all Calvinists by assuming we are all knot heads like Tim. Should I assume a stereotype for you by thinking you are an 80 year old (what are we supposed to call you guys, “traditionalists” according to this document?) with his pants pulled to his arm pits and a rebel flag hanging from his truck?
You see what I did there? Stereotypes suck.
Michael,
I didnt say “Calvinists.” I said “New Calvinists.” There’s a difference.
David
What is the difference?
Matt,
New Calvinists believe anyone who’s not Calvinistic is either an Arminan, or a semi Pelagian, ora full fledged Pelagian, or a preacher of a false Gospel…a heretic. They make Calvinism a point of fellowship. They’re actively seeking to convert the SBC to Calvinism one Church at a time; or to convert a Church to Calvinism; or to convert individuals. They also would make statements like “Calvinism is the Gospel.”
There’s more that could be said, and some may add to what I’ve said; but this is a start.
A regular ole Calvinist may believe whatever points of Calvinism, but he’s not out to convert anyone to Calvinism. He just preaches the Bible from his viewpoint, of course. He doesnt make his Calvinism a matter of fellowship, either.
David
In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.
Augustine
Wow! “affirm” “deny”… without saying it you all have put words in others mouths. I certainly have some issues with parts of this. To proclaim belief in the sovereignty of God and then to “redefine” or define the boundrys of that sovereignty is negating the sovereignty. I guess my dictionary needs to be updated on a few of the words that you guys have “redefined”. Two of them would be sovereignty and apostasy. And I guess we also need to do a lot of readjusting of scripture if we are to swallow this…but I for one will not be swallowing this. And several of the names on here have brought great disappointment to me. But hey, they have “numbers” to back them up and it is all about the numbers isn’t it (tongue in cheek here) Well at least we know where each one of these men stand…”just repeat the magical prayer and no matter the fruit your in”…seems Jesus had a lot to say about such stuff.
As a “non-Calvanist” and by that I am saying not holding to the 5 points of Calvinism. I wanted to respond to this statement. Many of these are not lined up with biblical thought. For example: Article two states we are not guilty of sin before we actually sin, or that we are not born sinners. I think Psalm 51 is a good place to look at with regard to this however I also think you could look at Gen… 3-the fall- Romans 3 “there are none that are righteous” romans 5 “through one man all were made sinners” Romans 7 , Paul is telling us that when the command comes the sin nature that is already their takes hold of that Holy command and produces in you , death. Article six – accept it or deny it – the reality is not changed. God does predestine us before the foundation of the world. We can argue on how that happens , however , we shouldn’t deny that it does. Romans 8 is a great blessing because we realize that in the mind of God , who predestined you in Christ has also justified and glorified you, thereby renduring you and your salvation finished. We see predestination in Ephesians and Romans 9. , 1 Peter. John 10, John 6. etc. Article eight: This seems to be a little to man centered for my taste. God is drawing men by His Spirit and without this draw, romans three clearly states we wouldn’t come. 1 Cor as well speaks of God speaking to us by His Spirit. John 16 also mentions the Holy Spirits role in this. Here is the reality. There is a nesseccary dialogue about this subject but if non-calvanist are unwilling to stay true to scripture. Satan wins. The house is divided. We must begin with the gospel of by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and maybe most important ” for His Glory alone” and talk from there.
As a life-long Southern Baptist and pastor of a Southern Baptist church, I wanted to state clearly that our missions efforts are the ONLY reason I am remaining a Souhern Baptist. This divisive “theological” pandering is offensive to me on a variety of levels. I honestly believe that I better understand what the Puritans felt as they sought to purify the Church of England…many stayed and worked in England in vain, others rode a ship to the New World.
“I honestly believe that I better understand what the Puritans felt as they sought to purify the Church of England…many stayed and worked in England in vain, others rode a ship to the New World.”
And ended up doing here, the same things the CofE did!
“I honestly believe that I better understand what the Puritans felt as they sought to purify the Church of England…many stayed and worked in England in vain, others rode a ship to the New World.”
And many abused slaves and dead Native Americans just loved what they did with the place when they got here…Puritans…um…not so pure…
Lydia and Jonathan,
However pure and faultless you two are, I’m quite confident neither of you (nor anyone else on this blog) could be an adequate water boy for the Puritans, even with their faults.
I am confident you are absolutely right.
God called me to ministry, not carrying water for genocidal slave-owning witch-hunters.
The “we’re all sinners” line goes only so far, but, the fact is, I’ve never owned a slave, defended the practice, or killed a population of native peoples. If those are the charges, then Lydia and myself are pure and faultless on both of those counts…
I’m confident you have not done those things as well, as neither did all or most Puritan preachers.
I take it you have not much use for the Puritans like Jonathan Edwards.
But again, none of us could hold a candle to those men like Edwards.
Les
“God called me to ministry, not carrying water for genocidal slave-owning witch-hunters.”
And by this comment you just revealed your complete ignorance of the Puritans and history in general. I don’t know if you’ve ever read the history of Salem, but it was only one town with only one Church of Puritans who did stupid things, which were eventually stopped by a neighboring town of (YES) Puritans. Oh, and by the way, few Puritans owned slaves, as the height of the slave trade came after the immigration of non-Puritan Englishmen (particularly in Virginia). Even then, most Puritans were poor and lived in community where they worked together to farm. There are certainly exceptions to that, but they are few.
Now please, Jonathan – go forth and read some history.
I like to read Edwards…I may not be as awesome like a Calvinist such as Rick Warren is, to read his complete works in a year, but it is good stuff. I don’t think he has the most brilliant mind America has produced like many people think, but he’s worth reading.
One need not agree with everything in order to enjoy or get great insight on some things.
My library would have your approval. I don’t limit my reading to my own theological leanings. Sadly, too many Reformed brothers and sisters limit theirs.
On the other hand, I don’t like the poor behavior from early American Puritans though, and you shouldn’t either.
I know plenty who can hold a candle to them…they are not mythical creatures from the magical place called Theologicaland or anything.
Jonathan,
I don’t think the Puritans are some sort of mythical creatures. I do, however, think that era and that group of godly preachers and theologians remains unparalleled in American history in a good way. Hyperbole I may have used, but there surely are few who would compare in theological and pastoral gifts.
But this statement, “genocidal slave-owning witch-hunters,” is just way out of line. I would countenance no one of any theological persuasion doing such. But I don’t think it true or fair to label the Puritans in that way. I think it betrays history.
D.R.
I have read history (and bogus revisionist attempts of it as well) regarding these matters.
My statements ring true. Sorry…
Did I paint with a large brush?
Yes.
Was every Puritan killing Native Americans?
No.
Was every Puritan burning witches?
No.
Was every Puritan beating slaves?
No.
So what?
Did the Puritans in America do these things?
Yes.
Luke paints with a large brush too.
Acts 17:21 “Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”
And the problem with this sort of rhetoric is…?
The problem with that rhetoric is that it is historically inaccurate to use generalizations to describe an entire group when perhaps only 1/20 of them could even come close to that description and it is unnecessarily divisive.
You are further perpetuating a myth yourself about the Puritans when the reality is that the vast majority of the folks who did what you described were not Puritans and those that were made up a very tiny population in the greater number of Puritans in America.
Furthermore, I know Luke, and you sir are no Luke. What he said was written in the power of the Holy Spirit, but what you wrote was just pure propaganda.
D.R.
Boo-hoo…
The biggest problem is who the 1 in 20 were. Furthermore, that is a low estimate. Of course, if we redefine Puritan to only include the folks that were soft and cuddly…
It’s not even remotely divisive…unless you are a Puritan with a guilty conscious. ;)
Try again.
Jonathan,
I think you’ve clearly shown here that you can’t have a logical discussion about history – you just make it up as you go.
So D.R., your claim is that no Puritan in history owned slaves, killed Native Americans, or burned witches?
Okay then.
Since we are agreed on that, we are both discussing history.
What you are doing is whining about hyperbole.
Well, get over it.
“Lydia and Jonathan,
However pure and faultless you two are, I’m quite confident neither of you (nor anyone else on this blog) could be an adequate water boy for the Puritans, even with their faults”
I would have been banished like Anne Hutchinson for holding a bible study in my home..
“I don’t limit my reading to my own theological leanings. Sadly, too many Reformed brothers and sisters limit theirs.”
Totally agree with this. And not just theological leanings but also reading around a historical subject and usually only reformed leaning history. The victors always write the official history which is why we must read around the subject.
And this is also why we see too many Reformed extolling the virtues of John Knox, who plotted murder then wrote a sermon defending it.
BTW: I own the complete set of the Valley of Vision. So I do have Puritans in my house. :o)
“The problem with that rhetoric is that it is historically inaccurate to use generalizations to describe an entire group when perhaps only 1/20 of them could even come close to that description and it is unnecessarily divisive.”
Yeah, It was only the Puritian “leaders” wh0 made such “Christian” decisions concerning witches and Indians. You cannot blame the followers. After all, It was a quasi “state church” (ironically much like the CofE they left) so they had no choice. The treatment of the Indians is one reason Rogers Williams left them.
In other words, the Puritans organized themselves like the people they fled! A theocratic state! Not exactly freedom of worship with those guys. You had to do it their way in detail. But they are the darlings of the Reformed crowd. Did they do good things? Yes. Should we want to be like them? No way.
So, what happened to the Puritan mindset? Why did they die out?
All of this is nonsense. The BF&M allows for both views to coexist. We happen to have seminaries that tend to lean one way or another, so no one is forced to learn one way or the other. If someone wants to write a book, let them write it. If someone wants to hold a conference, let them hold it. But crafting a statement like this and passing it around for others to sign? They are picking teams. Us versus them. This is a divisive black eye upon the SBC.
A very anthropocentric statement.
Who are you to reject or deny anything?
Your misinformed suppositions about reformed doctrine already disqualify you as objective mean in search of truth.
I want to know when the heresy of Dort became truth. Yes the thoughts that you espouse have been judged by those before us as heresy. Indeed, TULIP does not sum up the beliefs of reformed believers, it was merely a rebuttal to the Armenian heresy of ROSES.
What you espouse is heresy and it has a name, actually several.
It just depends on how GOOD you think man is.
The only real question is are you semi-Pelagian or totally Pelagian?
What you tout goes against the BF&M. It also goes against all of the other confessions and statements that comprise the foundation of our coming together as like minded believers.
More importantly, it goes against the WHOLE word of God
I find it particularly offensive that you use Eph. 2:8-10 as “supporting” Scripture. These verses speak explicitly of God’s grace toward His elect. You cannot steal God’s gift from Him no matter how well you sugar coat it.
If I were to believe this “statement” then I would believe that Esau needed only to accept God’s gift and He would have received this grace. And yet, Romans 9:10-13 speaks clearly to the fact of election and predestination and God’s prerogative to offer His grace to whom He chooses, which according to His word He did for each of us before we were ever created.
I have three fundamental questions:
1. What is it about beliefs that have been held as being correct since the great Reformation that so perturbs you to the point of this obvious need to attack it?
2. Where is the love that our Savior and the whole of God’s word speaks of especially toward those who follow Christ?
3. Where do you sweep the entire history of our denomination, including the Baptist Faith and Message in order to hide it’s obvious contradiction to your statements?
Fortunately, our denomination’s polity is church centered, and a cooperative. Your attempts to dictate anything other than the BF&M are fruitless, folly, and when this denomination decides to adopt this prattle, it will be as dead as all the other liberal churches who deny God’s sovereignty and seek to exalt men above the Creator.
I’m tired of this bile. Our church and other like minded churches are busy making disciples while you snipe at us, demean us and come up with this kind of self-righteous tripe. And I am tired of a denomination and denominational leadership that refuse to confront heresy, not on the part of those who hold to the whole counsel of God, but on the part of you who have drug the vile, prideful heresy Pelagius into our midst.
http://theresurgence.com/2010/03/15/pelagius-know-your-heretics
May God have mercy on you and show you the fallacy of assuming that you saved yourselves, that you are able to save anyone, or that any man seeks after God of His own volition. God’s hand is not so short that it cannot save, and He will not lose ANY of those whom He has chosen to save, before the foundation of the earth.
Robin, When I read Calvinist comments like this, I thank God that we live in America and burning supposed heretics is illegal. Thanks for linking to the resurgence. Gives me insight to where you you are coming from. Driscollism. The guy who teaches unnatural sexual relations and fires elders for disagreeing with him and his new bylaws going from 40 voting elders to 3 to have total power and control…… and the SBC has been funding some of his cloned Acts 29 churches.
And people wonder why some of us fear “Calvinists” in the SBC. I don’t want the SBC to start to resemble the cultish ways of Mars Hill or SGM!
ROBIN,
I think you have crossed the line in essentially referring to these men as heretics. If Michael Horton’s definition of heresy is correct, “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance,” then these views, while not orthodox in my view, do not qualify as heresy.
Les
Les, I owe you an apology. I accused you down thread of not rebuking your own for leveling the charge of heresy. I am very sorry!
Lydia, not a problem. I just had not seen it. Only saw Mr. Kent because it was at the bottom of comments last night.
Okay, I was going to leave it at just, “this is an anthropocentric statement,” but I can’t. It really is tragically ignorant and abusive of Scripture. I want just one … just one … of these guys to find for me a motif of salvation in the Bible different from the following:
1. Being born from above … don’t abuse the text by inserting the word “again.” “From above” is correct here and throughout John’s writings. This coincides with all of John’s uses (based on his prologue in John 1). Nicodemus takes it as “again,” which is why Jesus marvels that he doesn’t understand his words.
2. Being a dead man raised to life …
3. Being adopted as a son …
4. Being a slave set free …
In each of these instances, a SOVEREIGN does the paperwork, so to speak. The child born from above, the dead man raised to life, the child adopted and the slave set free can do NOTHING without the care, consideration, love and affection of the Sovereign. These same respond with God-given faith and faith produces repentance.
If anyone out there finds a voting booth in the Bible, where people go in and flip the switch after hearing a good campaign message, let me know.
This is precisely the point! Rejection of God is the natural state. God doesn’t have to predestine people to hell. They’re all already headed there because of the sin of Adam. The gospel is the POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION for ALL WHO BELIEVE, and “all who were appointed to eternal life believed.” “Were appointed” is passive.
God saves for himself a people. That may not be your view of things. But, according to Scripture, it is His.
Diddo!
Greg,
You said, “It really is tragically ignorant and abusive of Scripture.”
Another example of New Calvinists.
David
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya
No sir, I’m rather Pauline. You might even say Augustinian. But not “New Calvinist.”
Johannine, too.
After reading this statement, I have signed it because the beliefs set forth in this document more accurately reflect conviction which I have developed not for or against “Calvinism” or “Armenianism” but from scripture.
The latter seems to have a suspect view of the sovereignty of God (for starters), while the former has a suspect view of many issues (I.E. pedobaptism, re-generational baptism, mode of baptism, etc).
Candidly, I engage this discussion very little because it seems we are debating debatable things. For me, I constantly remind myself that the we ‘see in a glass darkly’ which means no one has all the answers. As a long-time Minister in the SBC, I weary of this debate – no it’s not a debate, it has developed into a war – Satan is singing, the Savior is sad, and the sinner is still lost.
The authentic believer in the church is unconcerned about this debate because what matters to them is that they FOUND THE LORD and want to help their lost friends and loved ones do the same.
Thanks for the statement of clarity. Grace.
Armenianism. Is that belief in people from Armenia?
Before anyone gets all uppity, I’m JUST joking.
Article IV BFM2000 on Regeneration…”Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ”
Alan,
Amen…how does this document differ from that? I dont see any contradiction, at all.
David
Bill makes a most excellent point when he says:
<blockquote cite="I really don’t want to get into this fiasco . . . but Sandy Creek keeps popping up. My question is “has anyone bothered to read the original doctrinal statement of the Sandy Creek Association”? It seems to agree more with the side being attacked in this document than with the document. Just Articles 3 & 4 should make the point:
III. That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.
IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.“>
You can read the entire Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/sandycreekconfession.htm.
To the chagrin of the “Traditionalists,” it looks like both the Charleston and Sandy Creek streams of the SBC are denied by this document. May I suggest that the framers of this statement amend their label from “Traditionalists” to “Modernists.” That would be way more honest!
Well said. Hebrews also is a phenomenal picture of God completing the salvation of His creation by His hand and His hand alone. Thank God for that, for if we are in it all, then it will not endure.
Ben,
Thanks for another zinger….”Modernists.” Really? Do you know what’s associated with that word?
Another example of the New Calvinists, and why this document was written.
David
The real rub is way deeper than the doctrines of grace…it is about who will control this man made entity called the SBC… It is all about control, a sinful issue. May those truly called to preach the gospel keep preaching and sheparding the local assembly… Rise or fall of the SBC isn’t going to do the work of the local assembly. I found out after 18 years pastoring that the tail (SBC) always tries to wag the dog (local church) no matter if it is a liberal bureaucrat or a conservative bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat. All they want is control.
David, I’m afraid that you are too easily offended since you see “zingers” at every turn. That polemic is getting old with you. Just have a conversation, brother.
Let me give you the opportunity to put forth a term that is the opposite of “traditional” since it’s clear that in all honesty this document is not as traditional Southern Baptist as it pretends to be. Would “contemporary,” “current,” or “progressive” suit you better? Compared to these options, “modern” certainly goes best with an “-ist.”
Now, let’s have a real discussion: do you agree that both the Charleston and Sandy Creek streams of the SBC are denied by this document?
Ben,
Modernists is another word for liberal. That’s the word that’s used by many to identify those people, who have gone off into heretical errors….and even false teachers. The CR was waged to rid the SBC of “Modernists.”
David
David, I wanted to have a real discussion with you: do you agree that both the Charleston and Sandy Creek streams of the SBC are denied by this document?
I’m not enough of an historian to discuss such things. Others are.
David
I’m no historian either, but undoubtedly, we can both read, and here is the Sandy Creek Confession: http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/sandycreekconfession.htm
Does this document on salvation contradict the Sandy Creek Confession?
BTW, this document is not causing division, but rather REVEALING it. It’s simply stating the division that already exists between the NEW Calvinists and the Traditionalists.
David
The only division that exists is the one you and your group have created David. There need not be division. There wasn’t when Calvinists fought side by side with you guys over the demise of Liberalism almost 30 years ago.
Look around you David, this document has caused division. Good grief.
When people say that they have to recapture a Gospel that’s been lost, then THEY are causing the division. When people say that the only viable option for young Pastors, if they want to be intellectual and true to the Bible, is Calvinism; then THEY are causing the division. When I’m called semi Pelagian, or Pelagian, or preaching a works salvation thus leading people to Hell, or called a 100 names that arent nice, as I and others have had to deal with in the past 30 years….and seems to be growing in the past 5 years…..then THEY are the ones causing division.
This document is just letting people know what Traditional Baptists believe, and why we arent false teachers preaching a false Gosepl….
Traditionalists?
Really?
I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
You have no understanding of the vital tradition of Baptists or the SBC. I gather by traditionalist you mean someone who holds to the tenants which have been syncretically introduced into this denomination over the last 70-100 years, as opposed to those that have been held since before the 1689 London Confession.
Your misuse of terms and your baiting are the exact attitudes of those who purposely attack the gospel and the work at hand.
Your comments are divisive and unbecoming of someone who espouses Jesus as their Lord.
I don’t care WHO you are, I can tell that you take great pleasure in pouring gas on this fire. Take you shallow, divisive, man-centered comments and go join a denomination that holds to those tenants, traditionally.
I have to wonder what the goal of this statement is, in that it was made at-large in the convention. From the comments, if the goal was to divide, it’s working. If the goal was to encourage non-Calvinists to rise up and put the Calvinists in their place, it’s working. If the goal was to put Calvinists off, it’s working.
I can’t see a result otherwise.
If the goal was to contribute positively to a healthy and robust dialog among Southern Baptists, it seems to be failing in that regard. There are better ways to go about it that would promote gracious interaction between people who disagree.
Oil and vinegar doesn’t mix! 3 Gods are presented under the title of Southern Baptist
1. Love over robots
2 Love with limits
3. Love that died to save whosoever willing to be saved
3. Has become the “unknown” God, the one I choose
As a life-long Southern Baptist and current pastor of a SBC church, it grieves me that this theological pandering exists. I remain a Southern Baptist ONLY because of our missions efforts, which is tragically hampered by the deep political undertones of today’s convention leadership. Huge salaries, extreme levels of spending that exist in the SBC would be better served in the mission field. I believe I have a better understanding of what the Puritans who sought to purify the Church of England felt on a regular basis. Some worked successfully; others worked in vain; others jumped on a ship and sailed for a new world. Maybe we need a new world experience in SBC life.
Anyone,
Can anyone put even a round number for how many of these “New Calvinists” there are out there causing all this supposed trouble? Just an educated estimate?
Names would be even better.
Les
666?
Just kidding :-)
I would not nor could not sign this unbiblical statement. If it was even CLOSE to the Baptist Faith and Message, I could contemplate it, but it is so far removed from that and evidently the result of the effects of modern evangelicalism and decisionistic regeneration that found it hard to continue until the end. God save us from such a watered down, man-centered gospel.
I will address the parts that are clear heresy, according to the bible and historical baptist belief on my own blog, facebook, etc.
Wow, since becoming a Southern Baptist, this is the most divisive attack against brethren supposedly serving alongside one another that I have seen. You that are supporting this statement should be ashamed of yourselves.
and yet, Bob, you are the one calling other SB’s “heretics.”
David
Bob,
I think you have crossed the line in essentially referring to these men as heretics. If Michael Horton’s definition of heresy is correct, “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance,” then these views, while not orthodox in my view, do not qualify as heresy.
Les. And see you Tuesday for coffee and we can discuss this. Look forward to meeting you.
What I find so amusing about all of this is how people act as if the difference between where Calvinists are and where Baptists as a whole are is slight. It is not slight and it is not unimportant. To say that what a person or a group believes about salvation is the same as what they believe the timing of the Rapture is plain silly. Many of you who say that you have no trouble worshipping with a Calvinist or a New Calvinist who believes in limited atonement, but you would never worship with someone who believes in baptism by anything other than immersion. Yet at the same time you will preach ferociously that baptizing does not save. What? We are supposed to have fellowship wth someone who believes that the gospel is not univeral, but we cannot worhip with those who sprinkle? Really? I am for scrpitural baptism and that is immersion, but I am even more for a scriptural gospel that says that Christ is not willing that any shoud perish, but all should come to repentance. We are fooling ourselves with we think a fox and chicken can live together and act as if nothing is strange.
Christopher,
Do both groups believe that the only way to be saved is to hear the gospel and believe it?
Do both groups believe in taking the gospel to every person in the world?
Do both groups believe that all who want to be saved will be saved?
Do both groups believe that election and faith are connected?
If you say “no” to any one of these questions, you don’t understand both groups.
Ben,
Do both groups believe that the only way to be saved is to hear the gospel and believe it?
One believes the GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation to ALL WHO BELIEVE and the other believes the GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation to all God regenerates so they CAN BELIEVE.
Do both groups believe in taking the gospel to every person in the world? AGREED.
Do both groups believe that all who want to be saved will be saved?
One believes God reveals Himself and is drawing men unto Himself in reconciliation and those who DO BELIEVE are saved while the other believes only those who are regenerated WILL BELIEVE and so it is God’s decretive will that determines who will and will not believe.
Do both groups believe that election and faith are connected?
One believes that “the elect” are saved by their faith while the other believes the elect receive their faith.
So… lets not let our words overload our keystrokes here.
><>”
Yes Bob. One hears the Gospel and believes it. Paul points this out quite clearly that this is God’s chosen mode for salvation in Romans 10:14.
“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”
Debbie PLEASE… your response to my statement barely deserves a response.
><>”
Don’t forget:
One group believes that in obedience to the Father, Jesus went to the cross to take away the sins of the world, especially for those who believe.
One group believes that in obedience to the Father, Jesus went to the cross without an ounce of compassion for most of the world, whom are left unable to believe.
Big difference.
uh….Bob, I’m a Calvinist and both of these are correct… Where’s the rub?
oh….did I put out your straw man fire? Sorry Brother Bob
I went to SBTS. I am surrounded by the Calvinist teaching. Believe me, I have heard it all. They are not the same and you know it as well as I do. Calvin himself said that presdestination is a “horrible decree” but it is true. I am in my office looking at my 4 year old daughter and asking myself, “Does she have no chance of heaven? Is she elect or not elect?” Well I know the anwer to that question. She does have a chance and she can be saved. The fact that many within our denomination have caused people to doubt if God is willing to save them is nothing short of tragic. The fact that I had a minister of education tell me once that he could not be sure if Christ died for my sin. He would only know that if I made it to heaven. Funny thing, the Apostle John did not see it that way in I John 2:2. A Calvinist may preach the component parts of the gosple correctly, but they are still different. See it is not the atonement that is limited for the Calvinist, it is the power of God to save that is limited. In their arrogance they have decided that they have figured out not only man’s side of the salvation equation, but they have figured out God’s side as well. Adrian Rogers when asked about election said these words, “God did not put me in charge of the election, he put me over nominations. I am nominating everyone for heaven.” That my friend is far better theology than Calvin’s horrible decree. Not all will be saved, but all can be saved upon hearing the Word. Finally, please don’t try to convince me that sprinkled among all of these “reasonable” Calvinist are just a few “hypers”. You know that is false as well. If the atonement is limited in your theology then you are hyper IMO. If you believe in the irresistable grace, then the conversation Jesus had with the rich young ruler was a sham and the young man did not make a choice, he simply had no chance. Again I ask, ” How can two walk together if they be not agreed?”
Christopher, I’m afraid you dodged my questions. That must mean you don’t like the answers they required.
The argument is not whether your daughter will be saved or not. The argument is whether she has good in her to seek salvation on her own. Her salvation is in no one’s hands save her Creator, Who never makes mistakes, and for Whose glory we have all been created.
Who can accuse God of being unfair?
We are His creation, created for His purposes, and our eternal disposition is in His hands. Or would you suggest that we can tell God what to do?
“If you believe in the irresistable grace, then the conversation Jesus had with the rich young ruler was a sham and the young man did not make a choice, he simply had no chance. ”
THANK YOU! It was this very thing that caused me to reject the “I” over time. Jesus looked at him and “loved” him and then consigned him to hell?
That is Calvinism in a nutshell.
Bob
I’m glad that we agree that both groups believe that hearing the gospel and believing it are the only way to be saved. Certainly one group wants to give God more credit in the process, but nevertheless, both agree that hearing the gospel and believing it are the only way to be saved.
I’m also glad that we agree that both groups believe in taking the gospel to every person in the world.
I’m glad that we agree that both groups believe that all who want to be saved will be saved. Certainly one group wants to give God more credit in the process, but nevertheless, both agree that all who want to be saved will be saved.
I’m glad we agree that election and faith are connected in that faith is the assurance of our election.
Bob, so let’s be clear. We agree on the actual human side of the mechanism of salvation. We must hear and believe the gospel. We must preach the gospel. Every person that wants to be saved will be saved, and faith is the assurance of election. While we disagree as to the extent God plays in the mechanism, both sides can certainly band together for the cooperative effort of the Great Commission and do man’s part.
Yes… let’s be clear…
The linguistic arguments of agreement are not what separate us. I can make the same statements with terrorists but that does not make us cooperative. Do not read more into that statement than is intended please.
We both know that the points of contention are significant and they are of significant theological importance to BOTH sides or they would not be the center of so much attention.
Let me also remind you, the non-calvinist or what I like to refer to as the mainstream Baptist today is not the one who has moved these differences to the forefront of Southern Baptist life, especially where the entities of the SBC are concerned.
So this whole argument as I see it is a necessary response from non-calvinists to the calvinist posturing of itself in the convention. For the record, there is absolutely NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING wrong with what has taken place but there is also nothing wrong with the response of those who are not in favor of this calvinist revival in the SBC that is frankly long overdue.
><>”
I completely disagree with the contents of this letter on the basis of divisiveness and doctrine. This letter aligns more closely with the National Association of Free Will Baptists rather than the SBC. See my full response here: http://deliveredbygrace.com/?p=3010
A Response to “A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” – The Religious Version of the Hatfields & McCoys
Is this buzz marketing? Kidding!
No sir (I get the joke). I’m simply trying to clarify that some people in the SBC actually believe that Calvinism is a heresy and that is why so much fuel is being added to this debate. You have many people caught in the middle. On one hand, behind the scenes, you have people with the sword of heresy raised. On the other hand – you have good Baptists who embrace the BF&M, engage people in evangelism and missions, give to support the mission offerings of the SBC, contribute to the CP, and are involved on the local church level of the SBC that are being ridiculed and harmed due to statements and “movements” like this.
This is extremely unfortunate. Not only is this article weak doctrinally, full of contradictions, and at odds with the BF&M – but it will create controversy that will lead to more division and less cooperation among SBC churches. You know who loses in the end? Besides those SBC employees who are trying to keep their jobs in a season of low CP dollars – the missionaries lose. Nobody wants that – right?
We need bridge builders…..this isn’t a bridge building project….it has the aroma of division rather than love.
Has anyone commented about how article five, “The Regeneration of the Sinner” disagrees with the Baptist Faith and Message? Article five above states, “We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.”
This article thus denies the regeneration precedes repentance and faith. Under point “A” of the “Salvation” section within the Baptist Faith and Message it reads, “It (regeneration) is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” I think the BFM is clear that faith and repentance is the response to regeneration and thus necessarily follows it. How can the “traditional” articles above disagree with the BFM? Is the BFM not traditional? If my reading of these articles are right, then those who whole-heartily align with the BFM are not traditional. This seems strange.
If I am reading article five wrong above, then I am sorry. I am not trying to. If I’m reading it wrong it should be rewritten for the sake of clarity
Brian,
You are misreading the BF&M 2000. I can see where you are coming from, and perhaps the BF&M could be clearer. I have asked members of the study committee and they never intended that reading. Whatever issues you have with this resolution, it cannot be due to conflict with the BF&M.
If such a statement were to be presented to the convention in the NOLA, does anyone have an idea what the format would be?
Pingback: Exclusive Claims on Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology? | SBC Voices
I would hope the SBC who has been long inclusive of Calvinism would not adopt such a decisive statement. I am a member of an SBC church, a graduate of an SBC seminary, and a repeating messenger at the annual SBC convention. That said, I find this article both disturbing and unfortunate. Disturbing because it seemingly large percentage of SBC member churches. Unfortunate because as the article states, this is a secondary issue and should not be relagated to the primary position they author and signers seem to want to take it. The author writes:
Because some New Calvinists are pushing an agenda, it’s okay to alienate the rest? And who are the New Calvinists? What exactly have they done to forward this agenda in the SBC? If there is to be a witch-hunt of our New Calvinist brothers then instead of drafting some statement that will damage relations with the rest of the Calvin-leaning churches in the convention, expose their misdeeds? Why does this article simply leave a statement like that without backing it up with evidence? This supposed threat surely would have evidence, would it not? I am not looking for what pastors seemingly preach Calvin-leaning views, because I have no issue with that. I looking for evidence that these leaders are trying to force a Calvin-leaning agenda on the SBC or its Faith & Message. In fact, most Calvinists in the SBC are more than happy to keep discussions of soteriology broad enough for all SBC churches.
I thought in fact, we were a convention of local autonomous churches that we cooperating for the sake of the spread of the gospel. This to me sounds like the author and signers would like the SBC to be something it is not, a denomination that usurps control over local churches. The author is quite okay if Calvinists are in the SBC as long as they remain quiet and out of power. I hope I am not reading too much into this article, but it certainly does give me pause. But this article only serves to divide the SBC on an issue that should be left to the local church, seminary discussions, etc.
That first paragraph of mine was a little confusing …
I would hope the SBC who has been long inclusive of Calvinism would not adopt such a decisive statement. I am a member of an SBC church, a graduate of an SBC seminary, and a repeating messenger at the annual SBC convention. That said, I find this article both disturbing and unfortunate. Disturbing because it seemingly alienates a large percentage of SBC member churches. Unfortunate because as the article states, this is a secondary issue, and it should not be relagated to the primary position the author and signers seem to want to take it to.
I posed a question earlier to David but would be glad to get other people’s input. It is typically said that the SBC is river fed by two streams: the Charleston stream and the Sandy Creek stream. Certainly, this statement on salvation contradicts the Charleston Confession, which is nothing more than the Philadelphia Confession, which is nothing more than the 2nd London Baptist Confession. You can read the Philadelphia Confession at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/pctoc.htm.
What’s intriguing is that Bill mentioned earlier that this statement on salvation seems to contradict the Sandy Creek stream as well, that is if the Sandy Creek Confession is indicative of the Sandy Creek stream. You can read the Sandy Creek Confession at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/sandycreekconfession.htm.
So, here’s my question, does this statement on salvation contradict both the Charleston and the Sandy Creek streams?
Ben,
My biggest concern is whether this statement/document goes along with what the Bible teaches, because I’m a Christian…which I believe it does.
My next concern would be that it goes along with the BFM 2K, because I’m a Baptist…which I believe it does.
David
David, since you’ve dodged the question twice, I won’t ask you any more. However, you’re insistence on dodging demonstrates that indeed this document is foreign to the streams that have fed the SBC. This document certainly contradicts not only the Charleston but also the Sandy Creek streams.
Ben,
I’ve already told you that I’m not a good enough historian to get into this discussion. But, I’d say that this document would go along with the Sandy Creek tradition MORE than it would the Charleston tradition.
Also, let me ask you a question….as a Calvinist, do you hold to everything that Calvin taught? everything that every Reformer believed? Do you believe everything that the Charleston tradition held to?
Besides, I look at the Traditional name as being more about where Baptists have stood for many, recent years, anyway.
David
David, I’m not a Calvinist. I’m a historic Baptist.
This is the Sandy Creek Confession of Faith:
Article 3
That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.
Article 4
We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.
If you believe that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to all believers, then you must also believe that Adam’s guilt has been imputed to the human race.
Does this mean that you all, by putting together this statement, don’t believe the Baptist Faith and Message is enough? It doesn’t sound like the Baptist Faith and Message to me.
It sounds like something far removed from the Baptist Faith and Message.
Copied from the Baptist Faith and Message from your own website:
IV. Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
V. God’s Purpose of Grace
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Genesis 12:1-3; Exodus 19:5-8; 1 Samuel 8:4-7,19-22; Isaiah 5:1-7; Jeremiah 31:31ff.; Matthew 16:18-19; 21:28-45; 24:22,31; 25:34; Luke 1:68-79; 2:29-32; 19:41-44; 24:44-48; John 1:12-14; 3:16; 5:24; 6:44-45,65; 10:27-29; 15:16; 17:6,12,17-18; Acts 20:32; Romans 5:9-10; 8:28-39; 10:12-15; 11:5-7,26-36; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 15:24-28; Ephesians 1:4-23; 2:1-10; 3:1-11; Colossians 1:12-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; 2 Timothy 1:12; 2:10,19; Hebrews 11:39-12:2; James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:2-5,13; 2:4-10; 1 John 1:7-9; 2:19; 3:2.
Greetings to all. Dr. Hankins, thank you for your leadership. If I may, I would like to offer my two cents on an issue that has gnawed at me, a tad. I hear the word “divisive” in regards to this soteriological statement.
Two observations are in order:
1. If standing up and stating one’s theological beliefs is divisive then we find ourselves in good company (most theologians do this, including Calvin and Augustine).
2. I find it interesting, to say the least, that this statement on general atonement is decried as divisive, but statements on particular atonement (like articles VIII and IX of Together for the Gospel, or articles 5 and 8 of the Gospel Coalition) are apparently not divisive (at least they are not decried as divisive). Granted these are not SBC groups, but Founders is (a group for whom Dr. Danny Akin has spoken). Moreover when Dr. Mohler affirmed the above articles he was not called divisive for his affirmation (personally, I do not think he was any more divisive in affirming those articles than I am in affirming these. We are just stating where we stand).
Furthermore, it appears to me, that the same SBC voices that use the term “divisive” now, seemed strangely silent when Dr. Al Mohler said “Where else are they going to go? I mean, what options are there? If you are a theologically minded, deeply convictional, if you are committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ…your theology is going to end up basically being Reformed.” (A Discussion about “What’s New about the New Calvinism” with Kevin DeYoung and Ligon Duncan on June 27, 2011. Available at http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/deyoung_duncan_mohler_whats_new_about_the_new_calvinism ).
It seems to me this statement by Dr. Mohler would be far more divisive in the SBC. The equivalent would be those who affirm general atonement stating “if you are theologically minded, deeply convictional, committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ your theology is going to end up basically being non-Reformed and general atonement.” And yes, such a statement would be divisive.
My point is not so much to quote Dr. Mohler (a man who has served our Savior faithfully) but to point out the duplicitous nature of calling those who sign this statement “divisive” without using the same term for those in the Reformed camp who do the same thing.
Thus, if one desires to call me divisive then so be it (I see it as simply standing up and stating what I believe) . But if one chooses to call me divisive I would request that you be intellectually honest enough to use the same term for those in the Reformed camp who stand up and state their beliefs publicly. In other words, if we both have size 9 feet, than the shoe fits both.
Brad,
I appreciate your position here… I would like your permission to reprint your statement on divisiveness at SBC Issues. You may reach me at bob@bobhadley.com
><>”
Bob
You have my full permission and I am honored. God bless you my brother
“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.”
You Actually Believe that????
Shocking heresy and 600 people have signed their names to it.
As a Southern Baptist pastor who is unapologetically Reformed, I find this statement, which I’m sure is motivated by both political and theological concerns, and which at some points boarders on Semi-Pelagianism, to be a sad indictment of the current spiritual condition of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Unfortunately, while the conservative resurrgence, which centered primarily around Bibliology, saw a reaffirmation of the authority, inerrancy, and inspiration of Scripture, it failed to go far enough and reaffirm the sufficiency of the Bible as well. As a result, the door has been left open ideaologically, to allow for the influence of humanistic psychology, man-made philosophy, and human wisdom to be integrated with God’s Word, by those who should know better. Consequently, it shouldn’t surprise us that this statement has such a strong emphasis on the supposed free-will and abilities of fallen man to synergistically help himself out of his sinful situation. Prideful sinners always love to think and talk about what they can do. The Doctrines of Grace, on the other hand, are the most pride crushing teachings known to man. They are, therefore, very incompatible with the self-esteem and self-love cultists of our day.
In the Preamble, the point was made by Dr. Hankins that “While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism.” In other words, the trend away from a Reformed Soteriology has only been in the last 87 years. The SBC started in 1845, so it’s now 167 years old. It’s very clear from the writings of the founders of the SBC, including it’s leaders, pastors, and professors during the first 80 years that they were overwhelming Baptistic and Calvinistic in their doctrine. For example, one must look no further than the “Abstract of Principles” at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisvile, KY.
This current resurrgence in Calvinism, which centers primarily around Soteriology, is the offspring of the earlier resurrgence in Bibliology. In other words, once the SBC seminaries began to teach ministers-in-training that the Bible is inerrant, the only proper response to an inerrant Scripture is to study it verse-by-verse, exegetically and expositionally, since every Word is God-breathed. And, the result of that has been a God-centered theology of salvation, which is consistent with Calvinism.
While I’m sincerely thankful for many of these men and their efforts during the first resurrgence dealing with Bibliololgy, nevertheless, this statement does show how misinformed many of them are regarding the Bible, theology, and history of The Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.
I would recommed the following book for those wishing to see what the early Church fathers actually believed regarding the Doctrines of Grace: Pillars of Grace: AD 100-1564, A Long Line of Godly Men: Volume #2, by Dr. Steven J. Lawson.
Jeff,
As a Southern Baptist pastor who is unapologetically non-Reformed, I find your statement, “which I’m sure is motivated by both political and theological concerns, and which at some points boarders on Semi-Pelagianism,” to be a sad indictment of the current spiritual condition of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
You and I BOTH know there is no Pelagian aspect to this statement, unless you are not familiar with what the Pelagian argument actually states. I remind you there is no difference in the Pelagian and Semi-pelagian argument where conversion is concerned. Your fear is completely unfounded so you can strike that concern off your list.
Your next statement is equally misguided… but well worded! “This current resurrgence in Calvinism, which centers primarily around Soteriology, is the offspring of the earlier resurrgence in Bibliology. In other words, once the SBC seminaries began to teach ministers-in-training that the Bible is inerrant, the only proper response to an inerrant Scripture is to study it verse-by-verse, exegetically and expositionally, since every Word is God-breathed. And, the result of that has been a God-centered theology of salvation, which is consistent with Calvinism.
I appreciate your articulating this statement because I can assure you that is the reason that this statement on soteriology was constructed. You see, there are a LOT of Southern Baptist’s in the pulpits and in the pew that simply do not agree with your simplistic assertion. You have every right to see soteriology as you see it presented in the Scriptures and so do we.
I want to also respond to your statement on “how misinformed many of them are regarding the Bible, theology, and history of The Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.” It seems to me tyour charge of being misinformed is in and of itself quite misinformed.
One final interesting comment: the charge that it is the innerancy of the Bible that has brought about a calvinist revival but you point to “the following book for those wishing to see what the early Church fathers actually believed regarding the Doctrines of Grace.”
I am not confused about what the DOG state and because I have the Bible as my guide, I am not subscribing to them. Thanks for your input though!
><>”
Jeff,
As I was reading your comment, I thought about how I’ve preached thru books of the Bible, verse by verse, for years and years and years…AND, mircaculously, I’m not a Calvinist.
I also think of far better preachers of the Word than me….men like Dr. Jerry Vines, and Dr. Adrian Rogers, and there are so many others….
You are way off base, Brother.
David
Sorry, but all that above is chicken-feed.
I grew up Calvinist, under the wonderful preaching of Dr. Steve Lawson no less, at the Bible Church of Little Rock.
I am a pastor now, who, like Dr. Lawson, preaches verse by verse, book by book. At 35, I am no longer a Calvinist because I do not find it taught in the Scriptures, though I do find it taught in a lot of theology books with poor, poor eisegetical proof-texting.
We here seek to be faithful to the Scriptures.
If the Sovereign God presents salvation to where He saves those who repent and believe by responding to His grace and conviction of the Holy Spirit, then who are you, o man, to answer back to God demanding a Calvinism that isn’t there?
Our view is no more man-centered than your is God-centered.
Our view is Christ-centered and your view is decree-centered.
Big difference. Talk about philosophical beliefs, Calvinism takes the cake on that one.
We can do this all day, but the bottom line is your question-begging assertions about your position and ours are patently absurd.
From one pastor to another, get over your pride. You are unapologetically Reformed, shall we count the psychological and philosophical eisegetical pish-posh involved in your hermeneutic?
Two can play this game, but your view is of the scholasticism and ivory tower school of white, uppity, Euro-arrogance…don’t be tossing the “philosophy” charge elsewhere brother. That dog don’t hunt.
The Calvinist system imposed on the Bible from without requires so much non-Biblical jargon, useless, speculative philosophical categories, and nonsensical theological pretzels made from the Bible’s passages that it is almost laughable that some of your assertions above could actually leave your lips in good conscience.
“God picked me and not him”…It don’t get more man-centered or me-centered than that.
Cheers!
Jonathan,
You said, “We here seek to be faithful to the Scriptures.”
Dangit! We Calvinists, or Monergists, didn’t know we were supposed to be doing that. You guys are seeking to be faithful to the scriptures and we’re not. I get it now.
We are gonna have to rethink everything now. And we can thank you Synergists. Thanks.
Les
Les,
No problem. :)
Oh, and thank you for responding to my post that was a response to Jeff’s post in the same spirit my response to Jeff’s post was given.
You cool Les. Find me on Facebook.
LOL, seriously, its a Proverbs 26:5 kind of day, not a Proverbs 26:4 one…
Youre welcome my friend.
And I did find you on FB. Maybe we can be friends since we have two mutual friends.
Seriously, it’s been a long day on these posts. I suppose I’ve let little things get under my skin. There has been a lot said indicting so many of my Calvinists friends, as you can no doubt say the same thing. Snark crept in. Please accept my apologies.
If I offended, I’m sorry too. Again, I love Calvinists. I wouldn’t have them preach in my pulpit if I didn’t.
Clashing rhetoric is healthy though. This is an internet blog. If everyone commenting here was in a big room drinking tea together and talking about these issues, the tone, I think, would be much different.
If I painted with a large brush, that should be the first sign I’m being facetious. ;)
P.S. I personally like “snark” from people, it keeps conversations lively and entertaining.
My accountability partner (one of the preachers coming in for me) is a Calvinist. I don’t hear him unless he yells at me to set me straight, and vice versa. We’re men, we treat each other like it.
Jonathan,
No worries. I like healthy debate, But I know that I have a tendency to overdo the rhetoric, especially on blogs.
I agree that if we were all in a room drinking beer (for me anyway) the tone would be much different.
BTW, Steve Lawson was just in St. Louis a few weeks back. I enjoyed his preaching. He is gifted. My long time friend, Lance Quinn, was here as well. Calvinists both. You may have known Lance when he was in Little Rock.
Bob Hadley, David (VolFan007), and Johnathan Pritchett:
Thanks for responding to the post I made back on June 1. I tried to respond back to each of you individually, but the system for some reason would not allow me to do so just now. Thus, the collective response here.
Please allow me to clarify a few things:
First, my criticism of those signing this statement was not intended to be taken as a personal assualt on any one particular person without exception, but rather, was a general assessment of this group promoting this statement as a whole. I would not in a post like this attack any one specific person or another Baptist brother for having a less-Calvinistic Soteriology than I do, since I don’t view it as a requirement for fellowship. Nor would I intentionally respond to a smart or hateful manner. Many of those who are signing this statement are men I do respect and am thankful for in other areas than their Soteriology.
Second, it’s not my intention here to come across as prideful or unloving, as the world has seen enough of this in churches, pastors, and theologians. It’s hard sometimes when reading a post or an email or a text, to correctly understand the tone in which it is given, since we can’t hear the person’s voice, voice inflexions, volume, or see their body language. When someone is very straightforward, sometimes it’s interpreted as being harsh, when in reality, it might actually be being said in gentleness.
Third, I never said the statement was Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian, but rather, that it “boarders” on such, since it seems to underplay the impact of the Fall on the will of man. At least that’s how I am understanding the statement for now.
Fourth, the reason SBC Calvinists have not drafted a similar statement defining our position is because this has not been necessary up to now, since the founding documents of the SBC, especially documents like the “Abstract of Principles” of Southern Seminary, along with the history of the convention for the first 80 years, clearly demonstrate simpathy with a Reformed Soteriology. I wonder if those signing this statement are willing to go on record as saying they think the founders of the SBC are wrong in part for what they believed and taught, since the postion of those signing this statement is so different in this theological area?
Fifth, the reason I suggestd Dr. Lawon’s book is because he does a masterful job of bringing together in one volume, the writings of the early church fathers, many of which are considered major theologians of the church, and demonstrating that these men when it omes to Soteriology, interpreted the Bible the same way Calvinists in the SBC are today. In no way was I suggesting that Lawson’s book is the authority for our beliefs, as only the Bible has that role. But, rather, I was simply saying his book offers good history on the development of the Doctrines of Grace in the life of the Church at large.
Sixth, regarding Jerry Vines and Adrian Rogers, both of whom have been a blessing to me. I consider both of these men to be godly brothers, and great preachers. But, it is possible for men to be godly and great preachers, and yet, not be theologians of the same caliber as Dr. Mohler, Dr. Schreiner, Dr. Nettles, Dr. Sproul, Dr. MacArthur, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefile, Dr. Charles Hodge, Dr. James P. Boice, etc., etc. At the same time, while I think Dr. Mohler is a genius theologian, he is not the pulpiteer that Adriane Rogers was. In my opinion, the greatest theologians, preachers, and pastors in Church history have all had in common what could be described as a Reformed Soteriolog.
Seventh, I do believe if we say that man alone decides his salvation, it makes salvation man-centered, rather than God-centered. Jesus is very clear in (John 8:30-32) that before we are saved, we are all slaves of sin and NOT free until He makes us free. A slave is not free, and our will, as well as our mind and emotions, are in bondage to sin (Rom. 6:6). Further, we are dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1-3). QUESTION: What can a dead man do? ANSWER: Nothing but stink! We have no ability to resurrect ourselves physically OR spiritually. That is something God alone must do for us.
Eighth, when I say I’m “unapologetically Reformed”, I am not meaning this in any kind of arrogant manner. I’m simply saying I am not sorry for being a Calvinist. It is not something anyone should be ashamed of. At 47 years of age, the more I study God’s Word and teach it expositionally each week, the more I’m convinced of the veracity, authority, inerrancy, sufficiency, and inspiration of Scripture; and further, the more I’m convinced of the Doctrines of Grace. I, along with another pastor, planted a church 9 years ago which is a growing, healthy, holy, unified, evangelistic congregation of Reformed Baptist believers. We have Elder-rule, practice church-discipline, and are constantly becoming more and more missions-minded all the time. We would never support Hyper-Calvinism. We always call people to repent and believe the Gospel of free-grace.
Nine, at the same time, while we are a very evangelistic congregation, we would never maintain that because God chooses to save some people, that somehow that makes God unfair to those He didn’t choose to save. And, yes, we believe election is both corporate AND individual. The bottom line is that the person God chooses, and the person God didn’t choose, are both people that don’t deserve to be chosen. This means God’s choice is pure grace. As Augustine pointed out, Adam had a free-will and forfeited that free-will in the Fall. He acted on our behalf, as our legal, covenental head. Since then, all men are born slaves to sin with a will in bondage to evil, which is never free until Jesus sets it free. Yes, we respond to Gospel (Acts 16:14), but the issue is how and why. It isn’t because we are able to on our own by ourselves, but rather, because God opens our hearts, just as He did Lydia’s, and produces the response in and through us, so that He alone gets all the glory. If anyone could produce by human effort or by choice of their will, saving faith and repentance, that by definition would be a human work and God would have to reject it as such, because we are not saved by ANY human work. For God to save us by Grace alone, all of salvation, including our response, must be His work (Jonah 2:9). It is no more unfair for God to give one person salvation and not another, than it is for God to give one sinner a million dollars (since Duet. 8 makes it clear that God is the one who gives us the ability to make wealth) and not give a million dollars to another.
Ten, when one considers the various groups that the members of the Trinity focus their individual office work toward, Arminism divides the work of the God-Head by focusing them each on different groups (i.e., the “whole world”, those who hear the Gospel, and those who choose to believe the Gospel they hear), wherease, Calvinism unifies the work of the Trinity by focusing them of the same group (i.e., the “elect”).
Feel free to write back if you wish, but I am not interested in debate. I’ve said my piece and will leave it there in God’s sovereign hands. I’ve tried to treat all of you in a godly, loving, respectful manner in word and attitude. It’s alright to agree to disagree, as long as it doesn’t become ungodly or disagreeable.
I do think this statement by the non-Calvinists in the SBC will be devisive and will force Calvinism to be a major issue, more than it already is. As a result, I think there will be losers and winners. I’ve even heard there is an attempt going on to get control of the Board of Trustees at Southern Seminary, in an attempt to control Dr. Mohler, because of concerns over Calvinism. Another SBC split is the last thing we need.
God bless you brothers!
Jeffery S. White
Men love to hear that God cannot save them without their permission. So I have always wondered about two questions:
If God unconditionally elected all men and no one went to hell,would the Arminians still be complaining and demanding the right to go to hell?
Who controls the distribution of the gospel?
I can appreciate this document for what it is. It contains both affirmations and denials. The NT also affirms and denies doctrinal truth. It is helpful to be able to think through these issues.
Traditional?? I’m far from a scholar but just finished a seminary paper on the theology of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention and Seminary. I wasn’t surprised by the founders understanding of Election as “God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life—not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ—in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.” However, I was surprised to read James P. Boyce’s arguments for Reprobation in Abstract of Systematic Theology and his statement, “God, in eternity, when he elected some, did likewise not elect others; that as resulting from this non-election, but not as efficiently caused by it, he passes by these in the bestowment of the special favours shown to the Elect, and, as in like manner yet further resulting, condemns men, because of sin to everlasting destruction, and while they are in the state of sin and condemnation, he effects or permits the hardening of their heart, so that his truth is not appreciated, but actually rejected.”
If we use the phrase “traditional,” let’s quote 19th century “traditional SBC theologians”
Jason,
So, I am understanding that you affirm a “double election” where God chose some to go to heaven and by his “not choosing” he chose others to go to hell?
Brother Tim, I am not affirming any position, I am just saying that I was surprised while doing my research to find that the SBC founders not only believed in Election as quoted but also Reprobation as quoted. I think a label other than “traditional” should be used by supporters.
Google “James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology” and read a “traditional” founder’s arguments for election and reprobation. The purpose of my paper wasn’t to argue any theological position. It was a History of Baptists class, not Systematic Theology. For the paper, I read a good number of documents from the presidents of the SBC and founders of Southern covering the first 30 years and nothing looks remotely like what this document is calling “traditional.”
Eric and all the others involved in this great opportunity to affirm the Truth of God’s Word, I want to say thanks for doing this. I am so grateful for everyones help and support of this Statement. I encourage everyone who signs this Statement to get the word out to others about this thru your facebook page or twitter and e-mail contacts. Again thank you so very much, praying for all of you.
In Christ
pam knight
bristow oklahoma
Pam,
What church are you connected with in Bristow. I had a connection there back in 2009 at FBC.
Those who call themselves Reformed can argue that this document is divisive, but it seems to me this document is long over due. I have personally seen churches divided by Reformed pastors who hid their views and beliefs in the hiring process in order to be hired by a non-reformed church. I have also counseled with churches whose pulpit committees simply did not know the right questions to ask and the pastor was not upfront in outlining his Calvinistic soteriological views. The idea of masking Reformed views so as to infiltrate a church has led to divided churches, confused Christians, and great harm to God’s Kingdom work. Yet those who respond negatively to this document claim we are the one’s causing division? I believe it is high time for everyone to “lay their cards on the table” so to speak. I applaud those who drafted this document for being willing to take an open and clear position.
The writers and endorsers of this document seem to be uninformed as to what us reformed folks believe, I was arminian for most of my life, so I understand the hostility of some, and calvinism was a 4 letter word in my baptist church, but perhaps try to learn what calvinism is from a calvinist. Im getting tired of being misrepresented.
For instance listen to James White’s radio free geneva programs on his show, or maybe read the London Baptist Confession of Faith 1677-89
I dont want to paint a broad brush and say this is the ignorance of them all, but many seem to be uninformed. This statement should have been written with more care.
Ian,
listening to a high Calvinists is not going to give us the true position of Calvinism, is it?
Hello Ian, You say “This document should have been written with more care.”
Do you have any idea how many hours or how many theologians were involved in writing this document, or how much prayer and researching God’s Word went into writing this? How would you have written it? I mean how would you have written a Statement defining those who do not embrace Calvinism? nor Arminianism? What would it say? How would it square with Scripture? selahV
If so much care was taken, why does it still contain a heretical statement, denying the imputation of Adam’s guilt to man and its affects on the human will? Much more care should have been taken because this statement, as written, puts each signer outside of Christian orthodoxy.
I think the part the blows my mind is how many are following a dead guy named Calvin. It is idolatry. And convenient to ignore Calvin’s crimes against God to have power over a people. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Woah…straw man alert. Lydia, no Calvinist is following a man named Calvin just like you aren’t following a man named Arminius. We follow Jesus Christ alone. Calvin didn’t invent Calvinism, the debate started 46 years after his death. It would be helpful to represent Calvinists honestly before you tear them down.
It’s easy to slander a man who’s been dead for 450 years, but who did more for the kingdom then probably everyone on this page combined. But…that being said…try reading Theodore Beza’s biography on Calvin which gives a glimpse into his life from someone who was actually there, not from someone who wants to re-write history.
“Lydia, no Calvinist is following a man named Calvin just like you aren’t following a man named Arminius.”
You are right. I am not following Arminius. I had no idea who he was until people started calling me a follower of his a few years back so I did some research on this person I was accused of following.
I do find a lot of cognitive dissonance in Calvinists. They claim they are not following a man and they have tried to use different terms to get away from that claim but it never works. It always comes back to Calvin. In fact, even on this thread, the Calvinists invoke the names of humans more than anything else. (Non C’s do it, too but not at the same extent at all perhaps because we do not have a brilliant Calvin to follow?) Whether it is to describe themselves or others (Pelagians) and to affirm their doctrine (Spurgeon, etc). I think that has become so normal that most cannot see how really bizarre it is for Calvin (and others) to get credit for what should belong to God.
I think Satan is delighted Calvin is the focus and defended more than Christ. That is just one aspect that makes Calvinism so man-centered. It is really about a man who interprets God for you! (And Calvin and Christ are not the same thing. Christianity did not begin in the 1500′s. wink)
Lydia: I think Satan is pleased you made this comment. It adds to the divisiveness.
I guess you think it is always wise to keep divisiveness silent? I know a lot of families that do that and it is not healthy. In fact, some Calvinist leaders like Mahaney have the disposition that speaking anything but positive about them is sin.
I agree with David that this is only revealing what has been there for a long while.
I am not an ordained minister nor have I attended a day of seminary nor have I read all 400+ posts in this thread. I have read the Holy Bible through a number of times and read extensively on a number of topics including Calvinism.
Of what I am convinced is that the doctrine of election is a mystery of the Faith that will not be settled on this side of Glory – nor need it be. Regardless of which road you travel in your quest for THE answer, you will inevitably come to an impassable ROCK blocking your way with the word \”FAITH\” chiseled in it by the hand of the Almighty.
Having said that, we again find ourselves as a Convention straining at a gnat while swallowing the proverbial camel. We have lost our way in the MOST fundamental doctrine – that of Salvation itself. With our Roman Road and CWT and all the rest, we have trained ourselves to TELL the unregenerate what the Bible says when they have no appreciation for the Bible since the Holy Spirit dwells not within them. Then the \’evangelist\’ leads them in a prayer and tells them if they really meant it, they will go to Heaven when they die. When did it become the role of the Evangelist to give a person the assurance of their salvation?? Calvin or no-Calvin!
Ray Comfort has a much better presentation in \”The Way of the Master\” to allow the Holy Spirit to do what ONLY the Holy Spirit is empowered to do – draw the unregenerate to a saving faith in the LORD Jesus Christ and give an authentic assurance of salvation. We have been picking the fruit \’too green\’ and it has been rotting in our churches for decades.
The other doctrinal error what is commonplace in SBC life is the urging of the unregenerate to \’accept Jesus as your Savior\’ with little mention of Lordship. Romans 10:13 says, \”Whosoever calls upon the name of the LORD – - – will be saved.\” Look at the life of our Lord – everything he did involved HIS Lordship \”Peter, James, John! Come Follow ME!\” \”Wind and Waves -CEASE!!\” \”Lazarus! Come Forth!!\” Jesus only saved by and through HIS Lordship. I am certain many will read into this that I am proposing a \”works-based salvation.\” Nothing would be more wrong.
It is the earnest calling upon the LORD by an unregenerate that has just recognized his eternal fate that produces the NEW BIRTH, not the rehearsed prayer asking to be saved so the unregenerate can continue to live an unregenerated life absent the Lordship of Christ.
I long to see an in-depth statement on what constitutes the New Birth. If we can all agree on that, this whole who\’s right on Calvinism \”will grow strangely dim, in the Light of HIS Glory and Grace!\”
Thank you and God bless you.
Brad Reynolds – just a thought. Since you went to Truett-McConnell you apparently “take sides” with Emir Caner. I understand your bias. But sincerely, could you not discern the straw men in the denials esp. and esp, committing a sin is the only way one becomes a sinner. My oh my oh my, where are we going with this theology?
Bob
I shall assume you are a brother in Christ and if so I will certainly enjoy eternity with you, however, your statement reveals you know very little about myself or Dr. Caner and his leadership. I think you may actually have some theological and/or biblical observations that could serve the discussion of Calvinism well, but if I might offer a gentle word of advice: when you preface theological statements with ad hominem statements it casts a shadow on the validity of the theological statement by influencing the reader to assume you have a bias which in reality you may not have.
Brad,
I’m not sure if I qualify for the “ad hominem statements. It was slightly tongue in cheek. You did go to Truett-McConnell correct? Am I wrong in my assessment concerning Caner? I actually don’t think brother that I made a “theological statement” per se. I was simply observing what appeared to me to be a bit disingenuous. I may be wrong. But Mohler shoes and Hankins are not the same at all. The straw man denials throughout the articles are horrible conclusions which portray assumptions of half-truths and a variety of outright falsehoods. I think Bro Ascol is addressing this adequately on the Founder site. but I do appreciate the spirit of what you wrote.
Bob
This is why I have hesitated getting back into the blogs. I have an inward compulsion to correspond with all who address me out of courtesy and because I want them to know I would never purposely ignore them. And yet, I have limited time. Thus, please know if I do not respond in the future it is not that I am ignoring you. Having said that let me express I few things you said. The tongue in cheek makes sense – it is hard to know one is speaking tongue in cheek when one reads words. Dr. Caner, is not one for group think, he surrounds himself with people he can trust but who think on their own.
You may not agree that your statement denying one becomes a sinner only by sinning, is a theological statement, but I think at face value it is. However, your thought about it appearing to be disingenuous (which actually attributes motives and while honest is perhaps unwise to state) clarifies as to why you may consider it not to be a theological statement.
Concerning the shoes – they were not Dr. Mohler’s and Dr. Hankins’. Both men are capable of standing on their own. But the shoes belonged to me and those in the Reformed camp who signed doctrinal statements concerning general or particular atonement. If I am divisive by signing this then they are also.
Finally, I don’t think the Founders blog has yet to address the actual articles. Moreover, stating something is a straw man does not necessarily make it one. Furthermore, even if something is a straw man (which these articles are not) I have found that those with whom I disagree are more apt to listen if I simply state my case from Scripture without using language (calling their affirmations straw men) that may close their hearts to what I have to say. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement is never wise.
I hope that helps.
I find it interesting that Ergun Caner signed it, given the following is pulled from his employer’s statement of faith:
We believe that in order to be saved, sinners must be born again; that the new birth is a new creation in Christ Jesus; that it is instantaneous and not a process; that in the new birth the dead in trespasses and in sins is made a partaker of the divine nature and receives eternal life, the free gift of God; that the new creation is brought about in a manner above our comprehension, not by culture, not by character, nor by the will of man, but wholly and solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in connection with divine truth, so as to secure our voluntary obedience to the gospel; that its proper evidence appears in the holy fruits of repentance and faith and newness of life.
http://arlingtonbaptistcollege.edu/content/statement-faith-0
Rodney Kent, Ordained Deacon, presently attending Bethany Baptist Church in McDonough, GA
Additional information: God ceded to Adam part of his sovereignty when he gave Adam the right to trust God by faith, or else suffer the separation from God by refusing to live by that faith. Adam had one command to which he was responsible for this faith in God’s Word (God’s Promise). His faith remained in his continued ability to believe God regarding the abstaining of eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When Adam trusted his own judgment (tempted by Satan), he placed his trust in his own ability to be his own god, and relinquished his faith in God regarding God’s promise regarding the forbidden tree.
This was sovereignty from God transferred to Adam. God willingly ceded that sovereignty to Adam and had no more control over Adam’s action regarding this break in trust (faith) ceded to Adam. Adam then caused sin to come into God’s perfect creation. Through Adam, sin came into the world. However, since Adam ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, he and every descendent of Adam inherited this God ceded right to know the difference of Good and Evil through Adam’s eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
This means that all of mankind would forever have to pay for the penalty of sin (separation from God) and be forever quarantined from God and the true life (light) from God unless a penalty was paid to give man a chance to regain union with God through his own personal faith in God. It is impossible for man to have a part in this atonement because he had no righteousness being apart from God. Jesus, the Son of God and second Adam, paid the price of this atonement. Jesus has now paid the price of the Adamic sin (loss of trust/faith) in God by mankind. The ball is now in the court of each man and woman. Mankind (individually) is responsible for his own decision of faith in God or faith in his own abilities.
If a man uses his knowledge of good and evil ceded to him by God through the forbidden fruit, he can receive this salvation provided by God and his Son, or he can use his faith to trust in his own abilities and remain separated from God for eternity. As Adam lost his union with God instantly when he removed his trust/faith in God, he can instantaneously be born again by the Holy Ghost of Christ by his God ceded sovereignty of placing his trust in God, rejecting his own life in lieu of Christ living through him.
If a man chooses the Good from the Evil, he is placing his life through faith in God to live by and believe in the promises of God rather than to rely his own abilities to attain immortal life in God. If a man choose the Evil, he is rejecting the Good Word and promises from God and is relying on his own abilities without God. Thus man uses his God ceded sovereignty to accept or reject by faith this salvation offered to him as a free gift from God of eternal life in Christ.
God cannot usurp his own authority. He has ceded to man the freewill choice to love or hate him. There is no way God can usurp his own Word. God wants a people who will love him. They must choose to love him through this freewill choice of good or evil through faith in his Word. Once this action by man of receiving God’s salvation through faith, he becomes a child of God and cannot be unborn to God. God can create angels all day long but they must do his bidding without freewill love of God. Only mankind can make the choice to love of dishonor God by the sovereign act of freewill give to each man. Thus God will have a people who truly love him and share his creation with him.
Once time is over and all is rolled over into eternity, this God ceded sovereignty to mankind of freewill to choose or reject him will be over. During “time” God cannot usurp his own authority and make any man accept or reject him as God of his life. Some will say this is not so, because God is, has, and will always be sovereign. However, God is no less sovereign because he ceded this freewill to mankind to make his choice by faith. It is God’s sovereignty which made this decision, so he is still sovereign. He is still in control over all his creation, other than that which he lets to accomplish his final plans, of which we can only see through a glass dimly.
Rodney Kent
Rodney,
Thank you for being a servant of your church.
If my understanding is correct, God gave man the ability to either be smart and choose good and go to heaven or be dumb and choose evil and spend eternity in hell.
Doesn’t this leave room for boasting for the “smart” man?
God ceded His a part of His sovereignty?
Really?
Your incredible adherence to a concept that is nowhere in the Scriptures amazes me.
God has ceded nothing.
God hardens and softens men’s heart at will.
His grace is irresistible.
I feel sorry that you do not understand this.
God bless you.
So you and God work together and jointly to get you saved. God can’t save you alone and you can’t save yourself alone. But you have the choice that settles the issue. Kind of like God votes to take you to heaven and the Devil votes to take you to hell and you decide the election. At least you believe in election-your election of yourself. So how much of the partnership glory do you claim? Sounds like at least 51 %. It will be interesting to see if God rewards your claim. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Article 10′s denial seems outside the pale of traditional SBC doctrine: “We deny that salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is stated without exception. No doubt this is framed in consideration of any Calvinistic doctrine in which regeneration precedes faith, and in light of article 2′s idea that every person who is not capable of moral action is not under condemnation. Nevertheless –semantics notwithstanding– traditional Southern Baptist understanding embraces the salvation of infants, small children and the mentally challenged “outside of a faith response to the Gospel.
Robert,
The document doesn’t address infants. I am sure if it did you would see something to the effect of God’s special grace, and an age of accountability.
I looked this phrase up in my concordance and couldn’t find it….though one can see how this would become necessary with this modern “Traditional” view of soteriology.
Doesn’t this age of accountability doctrine promote a salvation by works for “innocent” babies/children (up to, what it is now,…10 years old)? Please, someone explain this to me.
My very non-calvinist (of course, he’s not your modern “Traditional” subscriber) pastor was explaining how the sinful nature (and thus guilt; for the nature itself is unholy) was passed on to our posterity and he explained it beautifully. Not only are babies naturally born selfish (thinking that the most important thing in the world is their bottle), but they also are born with the tendency to murder; for if you were the only thing between them and their bottle and they were physically able, they would kill you to get it.
Doesn’t sound very “innocent” to me. Sounds just like all three of my children.
“My very non-calvinist (of course, he’s not your modern “Traditional” subscriber) pastor was explaining how the sinful nature (and thus guilt; for the nature itself is unholy) was passed on to our posterity and he explained it beautifully. Not only are babies naturally born selfish (thinking that the most important thing in the world is their bottle), but they also are born with the tendency to murder; for if you were the only thing between them and their bottle and they were physically able, they would kill you to get it. “
The disagreement is over “imputed guilt” not a sin nature.
1.Am I understanding you to say that a baby crying to be fed is selfish behavior?
2. I know a couple whose baby never cried to be fed and it is a horrifying thing. This child has a feeding tube. To keep the child alive they must feed her this way. This leads me to understand that crying to be fed by a helpless baby is a God given instinct. When it is never present, it spells danger. I can assure you they wish their baby WAS “selfish” about eating.
3.Your point about a baby murdering someone to get to a bottle is moot. They “cannot” murder someone. They are helpless creatures without us.
Robert,
They take care of that in the article on sinfulness.
I am afraid that this document will not be taken in a good spirit, and will be the start of an even more public feud between the two sides. I pray that I am wrong.
I am 76 years of age, have been brought up in Bible believing Baptist Churches since I was born to my parents. I have studied and researched this issue for many years and have debated this issue with Calvinists many times.
It is the absolute truth that the Calvanist doctrine is not part of the scriptures. Each issue I have debated always shows a verse or passage of scripture taken out of context by the Calvinist believer.
A group of five retired men from our Sunday School Class meets every Wednesday to debate verses and passages of scripture that appears to be subjective. However, after using all scripture concerning a given issue, it becomes clear that many have a view in their mind that cannot be supported by scripture on the given issue. When a verse or passage is read within its context, it becomes obvious that verses do not back up the beliefs of the one who has read a verse or passage out of its context.
In our group, we try to bring out a different issue in each Wednesday session. There is one person of the group that must always go back to the one issue of freewill versus Calvanism. Each person I have debated who has fallen for Satan’s lure of Calvinism finds it almost impossible to talk about any topic other than TULIP.
This thing of TULIP and its Calvanistic teaching has consumed their entire soul and that is the way Satan wants it to be. They spend all their time trying to convert all people they contact to this Satanic doctrine of Calvanism, while leaving all the poor lost souls to continue their march to hell.
Here is the payout for these preachers and teachers of Calvanism. Since unsaved mankind already understands they are lost and miserable souls, they have no righteous instinct which tells them they can become children of God. Since Calvanist preachers and teachers constantly harp on their Satanic doctrine that God cares only for certain people and will save only the ones he chooses, it leaves lost souls to think they have no hope, so they give up trying to reach God through the inate knowledge of Good versus Evil.
When the Gospel of Christ’s atonement and salvation are preached to them, they have been filled by their earthly father (a Calvanist preacher or teacher) with the information that they are worthless and God has chosen not to save them. When their child ends up in hell because of their teaching, the child is going to look at his father, who is also in hell, and tell him they hate him for teaching him a lie and allowing him to believe it was already planned for him to be there by God.
Calvanist preachers and teachers are sending lost people to hell every day and God will not forgive them for this. He wil tell them, depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you.
On the other side, the Gospel preachers and teachers who spread the love of God and his Word that says to them “God loves you” is willing to make you his child if you will only put your faith and trust in him. It is extremely plain in the Scriptures, God is not a respecter of persons, and is not willing that any should perish.
The ball is in your court for all lost people. Each person born of mankind must make his decision by faith to accept or reject the free gift of eternal life in Christ.
What if no person ever preached or taught Calvanism! It would not make any difference in this world. If the Gospel is taught, those who reject it will go to hell, and those who receive it will go to heaven. By Calvanism’s own admittance, their preaching and teaching will have no effect on those who they claim God has not selected for heaven.
Their whole theology is one Satanic Farce. I believe the Southern Baptist Convention should make it a rule of membership “that any Church should adopt into their bylaws that their Church believes in total freewill of all men to accept or reject the free gift of salvation.
If the Convention splits, so be it. God can always use a smaller group of his children to do his work than a great horde of non-believers who drag down and water down his Word from the scriptures. If anyone is watching the news and the condition of this earth, it should be obvious that Satan is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.
The Bible says that man is without excuse, that everyone knows God exists. Satan is wasting his time shouting ,”There is no God”! He is wise enough to create all kinds of cults with a little of the truth mixed in with it to fool many into rejection the salvation of God. Calvanism is only anothe cult to fool people into thinking God does not love them and does not want them in heaven. They offer no hope to the lost.
Rodney Kent
Hey volfan,
Where are you re Rodney Kent’s comments?
“Calvanist preachers and teachers are sending lost people to hell every day and God will not forgive them for this. He wil tell them, depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you.”
Vol, who are the mean spirited ones again?
Your guys have really stirred it up.
It is a very normal comment for people who do not understand God’s sovereignty in the matter. No soul goes to hell that God has deemed as part of His elect and no soul goes to Heaven that He has chosen before the foundation of the Earth. That does not mean that God does not use our works as part of His machinations but no one’s but God is sending people to Heaven or Hell.
The antithesis of this statement is – “if we don’t act now we’ll lose a generation for Christ.” Which just as bad of and desperately sad statement. I really don’t think they understand sovereignty, honestly.
There is nothing in the Bible that says a baby goes to heaven once he dies. In fact, the Bible is silent regarding this issue. Since God did not tell us the fate of a baby, then we must leave it up to him, as he already has this issue in his command.
There is only two conditions and two destinations shown in the Bible for mankind. Those who receive God enter heaven and those who reject God go to hell. There are no other conditions specified to mankind. The Bible says it is appointed unto “man” to die, and after death the judgment. Does the word man include babies, only God knows. Maybe “man means those who have had the longevity to test their knowledge of Good and Evil and make their decision by faith. Maybe this does not include babies.
There are only two verses in the Bible regarding small children and none regarding babies and eternity. The two passages are shown below (one is recorded 3 times in the Gospels). Neither has anything to do with babies going to heaven or hell. Most people take these verses out of context.
The first is nothing more than Jesus using the faith of little children (such) in their parents to make a similar statement of grown people and their faith in God (such). Little children have no worries, it on the parents shoulders for the responsibility of their care. Likewise children of the Kingdom have no worries, as the responsibility is on God for their care.
A Christian should have as much faith in God as the little children have in their parents.
The second passage is nothing more than David stating the obvious: the child is not coming back to him from death; the only option is if David can go to the child after his death; nothing more than a parent’s wish.
Neither passage has anything to do with babies automatically going to heaven. I don’t believe God sends babies automatically to hell. I also don’t believe he sends then automatically to heaven. This issue is in God’s hands, and I cannot say Biblically what happens to them; neither can anyone else. God is complete righteousness and will do the right thing by this issue. I have no responsibility in this matter, it is solely in God’s hand. Maybe, God has a third option in this matter. Can I limit him to my thoughts?
Will there be babies in an eternal heaven or an eternal hell. Frankly, I believe in heaven there will be no babies, old people, cripples, blacks, whites, slow minds, etal.
If heaven will last a billion years, will a baby remain a baby for a billion years? Personally, I think we will all be the same age, or no-age since time will be no more and we will be in eternity.
Rodney Kent
Luke 8:15-17 15And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter there-in.
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
So your argument is that despite Jesus making a clear statement that the Kingdom of God belongs to children in verse 16, that since in verse 17 he makes a further analogy from the statement in verse 16, the clear statement in verse 16 is therefore negated?
Your other argument is that 2 Samuel 12:23, rather than being inspired Holy Writ making a clear statement about something that will be the case (“I shall go”), it is nothing more than a scribe recording the incidental comment of a wishful thinking parent leaving readers confused on the matter if what David says is true or not?
Am I understanding your exegetical arguments correctly?
Brad,
Straw man # 1.
Article 1 – We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.
Since this article is clearly aimed at “Calvinists”, or “New Calvinists”, there should be some of those who would affirm what is denied. I know of none. Hey out there! Any of you Calvinists or New Calvinists affirm that “only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell”?
Didn’t think so. There is so much wrong with this statement, as there is with most of this document. The first thing is Brad, that no one believes this.
Here is what I believe.
1. No one is “capable” of responding to God at all in and of himself. Eph 2:1 says, “and you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins”. The doctrine of total depravity does not say that “only a few are capable of responding to the gospel”.
Do you see now how at the very start, not to mention the vitriol of the preamble, there are untruths being promoted, distortions of others opinions advanced, and straw men in the very structure of parts of the document. I could go on, but lets start with Article one.
The doctrine of “total depravity” says that all are dead in sin. None are righteous. none are good. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is nothing at all in man that would enable him to respond to God at all were it not for the quickening work of the Holy Spirit.
When God saved me, it was not that I went looking for God and that I just happened to be a little smarter than the fellow who didn’t. It wasn’t due to anything whatsoever in myself. It was God who found me. It was God who opened my eyes. It was God who quickened me, i.e., “made me alive”, while I was yet dead to God. As per the BF&M and the Abstract of Principles, because God “regenerated me”, I responded to Him in faith and repentance.
None whom God regenerates do not respond to him in faith and repentance. All that the Father gives to His Son will come to Him.
So, no, I would not affirm what Article one denies, nor would any other “Calvinist”, or “New Calvinist” type that I know.
The second part of the denial in the article seems to affirm that all of those addressed in the Preamble believe that “God predestines those who are not of the few capable of responding to the gospel to hell”. This of course is the doctrine of “double predestination”. This is another conclusion that the author of the document and those who signed it must have concerning “all of those addressed in the Preamble”. it is of course, another straw man. Certainly, anyone of an Arminian type of persuasion who has ever discussed these issues with someone who understands the doctrines of grace knows that most of us would not affirm double predestination. I know that the author and those who signed it would insist this is not true. Odd isn’t it. Determining what someone else believes.
Well, that’s just a little bit on Article one, and I like you have limited time.
Good day
Wow, this is kind of like the silent Islamists who won’t denounce the terrorists.
Will none who signed this document speak up against the poisonous speech of Rodney Kent?
Bob,
“Will none who signed this document speak up against the poisonous speech of Rodney Kent?”
Apparently not. Mr. Kent deems us Calvinists as heretics. Mr. Kent, did you sign the statement?
“Apparently not. Mr. Kent deems us Calvinists as heretics. Mr. Kent, did you sign the statement?”
Les, go back and count the comments that deem the article (or parts of it) as heresy. That would make the writers heretics, no? Or is there a Calvinist parsing for that, too?
I am always trying to figure out why it is not bad or even rebuked like you just did Mr. Kent when Calvinists do the same things such as throw out the heresy card. Is it because you guys remain totally depraved and it is expected?
I do not agree with Mr. Kent. But why not rebuke your own for the same so it does not look so hypocritical?
Lydia,
“Les, go back and count the comments that deem the article (or parts of it) as heresy.”
I have not had time to read each of the 500+ comments. But I will do a search and if a Calvinist has called non-Calvinists heretics I will call them out as well. I do not deem that evangelical non0Calvinists are heretics.
Thanks Les, I saw that you did and I owe you an apology.
Noone is “throwing out the heresy card.” It was played when men decided to embrace doctrines that were called heretical centuries ago.
But then you obviously don’t see your Protestant forefathers in a favorable light. Which makes sense actually because the whole works thing is exactly what Catholics embrace and which the reformers rejected.
Pick a side.
Reply To Jonathan Pritchett. Verse 16 does not say infants automatically go to heaven. It merely draws a comparison of a Christians simple faith in God to a child’s simple faith in his parents. As the child has total trust in his parents to take care of him, so the Christian has total trust in God to take care of him.
Your followers who believe that children automatically go to heaven will be thrilled that the abortionist people are the most fervent evangelicals God has on this earth. They have been sending aborted children to God for the past 20 years at a rate of 50 million per year on earth. This means that the abortionists have sent 1 billion people to heaven through abortion during this time.
It seems by your thought that our best bet to fill up heaven is by teaching mankind to abort their children and and kill their young babies and children. By the way, according to your doctrine, how do you know God was not going to select some of the babies for heaven while choosing to let the remainder go to hell?
Rodney Kent
Rodney Kent
Uh, Rodney, I think you are confused. Jonathan is not a Calvinist. He’s articulating a position that would be more in keeping with the non-Calvinist statement above.
Thanks Randall, I appreciate the correction. I apologize to Jonathan Pritchett for placing you in with the Calvanist heresy. However, to the Calvanist who take this verse out of context, I submit that the teaching of Jesus was regarding a person’s faith to God as the likeness of a child’s faith in his parents and other elder people (total trust and reliance).
There is no inkling that Jesus was teaching them that babies automatically go to heaven. Also in David’s plight, the teaching was that David prayed to God in angst while the child was alive, but got up and went about his business after the child was dead. There was nothing else he could do for the child, so why waste his time in mourning for him while he had a live population under him that needed his guidance.
Both hints by some that these were teachings of God that babies automatically go to heaven are only in a person’s mind while ignoring the main reason for the passages.
Rodney Kent
Apology accepted.
Now, can you please answer the questions I actually asked about those texts. That would be great.
Here is a few more.
What is the Kingdom of God in your view?
While I agree with your assessment of David’s general attitude, the Bible is God’s Word, and what did the Holy Spirit intend David mean when he clearly said “I shall go”? Why did the Spirit inspire that sentence in the writ? Does it actually mean “I won’t go to him?”, “I might go to him?”…
David doesn’t simply say, “I will die too”, and I don’t think you can make the argument that David would have to go to hell to go to him…so…
Is that your exegesis of the text? I am seriously asking.
Also, your total non-sequitur is somewhat offensive. That we have reason to believe aborted fetuses are taken under grace does not negate the complete wickedness of abortion. No one cheers abortions, least of all God, regardless of whatever redeeming good God can bring out of it.
Clear up your thinking on this.
Thanks.
Deacon Kent,
As a non-Calvinist myself, I would kindly ask that you not refer to our Calvinist Brothers as heritics. It does not promote the open dialogue that needs to take place over the next several years.
I’ve written many articles from a non-Calvinist perspective and it always stings when I am called certain names or certain things are implied.
May I encourage you to take a higher road and softer tone. This fuss has taken place for almost 500 years, and it will not get settled on this post.
Blessings my Brother!
Hey Rodney, check your facts. The Synod of Dort held that Calvin’s exegesis was the correct view, and not heresy, much to your chagrin.
That being said, people you call “Calvinists” or “New Calvinists” do not follow Calvin, we follow Jesus Christ. I find inevitably that is men who want to browbeat us and denigrate our understanding of Scripture are the ones who classify us as Calvinists.
God bless you.
Yup. Mr. Rodney Kent, declarer that Calvinists are heretics is indeed a signatory. Sweet. Building bridges.
If it helps, I don’t think Calvinists are heretics. I think they are incorrect…they think I am incorrect…so we get to talk about the Bible between folks who love Jesus…
Is that bad? Nah.
Do you think anyone here is a heretic Les? Be honest.
Johnathan,
Absolutely NOT. Mr. Kent above does regard me and other Calvinists as heretics and I was hoping that some one or more non-Calvinists here would have rebuked and disavowed him by now.
Yes, I will certainly both rebuke him and disavow him.
Kent, knock it off. We can disagree with people’s theology, but unless you can demonstrate how Calvinism is heresy, you need to knock it off.
You may think Calvinism is error, but that is miles away from heresy. Frankly, I am tired of the heresy charges.
I get heresy charges for interpreting passages similar the way Calvinists like Moo and Schreiner interpret them (FYI, see their commentaries on Romans 5:12-21 and see if the view expressed above is not far from their view in their commentaries), by Calvinists no less.
I don’t like it when they do it to me, and I don’t like it when others do it to them.
It is not a discussion starter, it is a discussion terminator. If you have no clear basis for you claim from Scripture that Calvinism is heresy, then knock it off.
I’ll also disavow what he says. Regardless of how one views the eternal state of infants who die or aborted, facetiously suggesting Christians should applaud abortion doctors is beyond the pale, and I am the guy who has no problems trashing Puritans saying this.