A Commentary
by Dr. Adam Harwood on Article 2 of
“A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist
Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”
Dr. Olson,
Thank you for considering “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” Your comments in your June 4 post [1] have alerted Christians outside of the Southern Baptist Convention to this important discussion on soteriology that is emerging within the SBC.
I have read, and hold a deep appreciation for, two of your books surrounding this topic, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Against Calvinism. They are careful, thorough works. Thank you for your contribution to this field of study.
Your post attempts to link the Statement in question with both Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. In this reply, I will address the significant challenge facing your post, which is your faulty assumption concerning the group of Baptist signatories.
Before proceeding, I request a clarification. If you are linking this Statement with Semi-Pelagianism (a heterodox view) and if the Statement reflects the views of the majority of Southern Baptists (which is the claim of the signers), then several questions emerge: Are you claiming that the document does not reflect the majority of Southern Baptists? If so, what is your evidence for such a claim? Are you claiming that the signers of this Statement (hundreds of Baptist pastors, professors, and denominational leaders) have attached their names to a heretical document? If so, then please be clear in your remarks because that would be an astounding claim. Perhaps you have in mind another possibility. Please clarify.
The faulty assumption which undergirds your post is that this group is unknowingly committed to Arminian theology. In your view, the group that affirmed this Statement is comprised of (to borrow a phrase from Karl Rahner) Anonymous Arminians.
In recent years, several Southern Baptist theologians have attempted (apparently with little success) to explain that a rejection of Calvinism does not necessarily entail a commitment to Arminianism. (Consider as an example the book you cited, Whosoever Will.) This newly-released Statement is yet another attempt by a segment within the SBC to declare that they are neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists. [2]
Happily, your incorrect assumption serves to make our case. Thank you.
What is my evidence for such a claim?
First, after quoting Article 2 (“The Sinfulness of Man”), you write, “A classical Arminian would never deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will.”
Precisely! We assert a biblical-theological claim which would not have been made by classical Arminians. The reason is simple. We’re not classical Arminians. We’re “Traditional” Southern Baptists.
Second, you explain that for us to defend against the charge of semi-Pelagianism, we must affirm the “cardinal biblical truth” of “the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace.”
Our reply is simple: No, we don’t. What obligates us to borrow a view (prevenient grace) from another group (Arminians) to defend against a philosophical-theological framework which we don’t accept? We reject the precondition that all doctrinal formulations must be placed into a philosophical-theological framework comprised of only these three categories: Calvinism, Arminianism, or Heresy. We consciously reject that framework. [3] And we refuse to place over our eyes the hermeneutical spectacles which demand that we read the Bible in that way.
We’re unconcerned by the absence of any explanation of prevenient grace in the Statement. Why? Because the Statement wasn’t written to answer various objections raised by the Calvinistic-Arminian dialogue. The statement was written to explain what we understand to be the clear teaching of Scripture related to sin and salvation.
In my view, the greatest challenge facing your post is the faulty assumption concerning the group in question. Is it possible that your dedicated study and intense focus in recent years on these two theological systems has resulted in your failure to appreciate that certain Christian traditions reject particular commitments of both Arminians and Calvinists?
Much more can be said to advocate for this Statement and to defend it against various charges. But I respectfully submit this initial reply in order to reject the label of Semi-Pelagianism and to thank you (tongue in cheek, of course) for clarifying for a broader audience that classical Arminians would never make certain claims found in this Statement. The reason, once again, is that we are not Arminians. We refuse to accept the premise that we must evaluate doctrinal statements through the lens of a borrowed and unnecessary Calvinistic-Arminian philosophical-theological framework.
I signed the Statement because I believe that a sufficient biblical defense can be made for the paired affirmations and denials comprising each of the ten articles, including the focus of your post, Article 2.
Thank you, Dr. Olson, for your teaching ministry and for your thoughtful engagement on this new Statement. I’ll close with a sentence from the Statement’s preamble: “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.”
In Him,
Adam Harwood, PhD
Asst. Prof. of Christian Studies
Truett-McConnell College, Cleveland, Georgia
For more details, see Dr. Harwood’s excellent recent book, The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal.
For a chapel presentation by Dr. Harwood in which he explains the Baptist Faith and Message 2000′s affirmation of inheriting a sinful nature but rejection of imputed guilt, see http://www.truett.edu/chapel/fall-2011-chapel/fall-2011-chapel-video-player.html
[1] http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-“a-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation-”/#comments, accessed 5 June 2012.
[2] I borrowed this line from the title of a paper on this topic. See Malcolm Yarnell, “Neither Calvinists Nor Arminians but Baptists,” at http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/NeitherCalvinistsNorArminiansButBaptists.pdf, accessed 5 June 2012.
[3] For a sophisticated rejection of the Arminian and Calvinistic framework, see Eric Hankins, “Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: Toward a Baptist Soteriology,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 8.1 (Spring 2011): 87-11. Available online at http://www.baptistcenter.com/Documents/Journals/JBTM%208.1%20Spring11.pdf accessed 5 June 2012.
“But I respectfully submit this initial reply in order to reject the label of Semi-Pelagianism”
That is all well and good, but can you explain why Article 2 does not match semi-Pelagian theology? How is Article 2 not consistent with what a semi-Pelagian might say?
Chris,
Really?!?!? Read the entire article and not just pieces that you want to read in order to support your semi-Pelagian claim. There is a neat little phrase compacted in the denial that you and every other person seeking to push the claim of semi-Pelagian conveniently overlook–
Tim,
That’s hardly a response to my question. Enough people have raised the concern that it deserves a serious response.
Chris,
Thanks for your question on this issue of critical importance at this moment in the life of our convention. I do not want to dodge or in any way avoid the issue. Rather, I am open to engaging with you on this topic.
Is it possible to request that we begin from the beginning? If so, then may I suggest a structure which may help our conversation?
If you will:
1. submit a definition of semi-Pelagianism, using only an academic, peer-reviewed resource (no offense to the online resources, but they are often inaccurate)…
2. and cite the particular theological assertion of the specific article in the statement which you assert corresponds to that definition of semi-Pelagianism…
3. then we will be able to dialogue on this issue.
If you have another structure for our discussion in mind, please advise. Thank you,
In Him,
Adam
“We reject the precondition that all doctrinal formulations must be placed into a philosophical-theological framework comprised of only these three categories: Calvinism, Arminianism, or Heresy. We consciously reject that framework. [3] And we refuse to place over our eyes the hermeneutical spectacles which demand that we read the Bible in that way.”
Thank You!
Excellent response, btw. I do not know about anyone else, but I weary of old dead guys’ ST defining the scripture for us. One would think basic Christianity could not be understood by anyone until the 1500′s.
Hi Adam,
Just to clarify, are you saying that the unredeemed human will is so free that it requires no initiating grace from the Spirit working directly on the human heart to prepare it for response to the gospel? When you refer to the Spirit’s drawing through the gospel what exactly do you mean? That the preacher was empowered by the Spirit, or that an understanding of the message by the hearer was enabled by the Spirit, or in addition to these factors, do you also recognize the Spirit must also initiate work on the heart of the hearer before they can believe? It seems to me you (and the Statement) would not affirm the Spirit must initiate work on the heart but I want to be sure I understand your view. I think most Baptists and most evangelicals, whether Calvinist or not, believe the Spirit must initiate preparation of a sinner’s heart before they can respond to the Gospel message.
Blessings.
Pastor Mike,
Thanks for your note. Does this affirmation from Article 4 address your question?
“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.”
Thanks for the reply Adam. I’m actually not a pastor, just a Sunday School teacher with an affinity for theology. But I have stayed at Holiday Inn in the past. The quote from Article Four does not really help, because it can be taken either way. Consider this portion of the Article:
…by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit,…
Do you confine the Spirit’s role to empowering the Gospel preacher and protecting the Gospel message, or do you also acknowledge that there must be a pre-emptive work by the Spirit on the human heart before the sinner will respond to the Gospel offer? Or put another way, do you see the fall of Adam as affecting human will in any way whatsoever, whether morally, naturally, or both, such that there must be a preliminary initiating work by the Spirit on the heart (whether you see that as dragging, drawing, or softening) before the sinner will respond in faith? I think most Baptists, and even most signers of the Statement, would say yes. What do those who put forth the Statement say?
Blessings.
Mike,
I appreciate you humility about being “only” a Sunday School teacher. But I’m convinced that the best way that a believer can grow in his knowledge of and love for God’s Word is to teach a class. We best learn God’s Word when we study to teach it.
You have asked good questions. At this point, please allow me to respond with a general remark. More detailed explanations of the Statement are forthcoming.
Isolating a phrase from the Statement will lead to all kinds of misunderstandings. Because it was written as a pairing of affirmations and denials, the parameters of each article can be understood rightly only by reading the entire article. Even reading an entire affirmation is inadequate because many ideas still need to be ruled out; hence the corresponding denials.
Also, you may be looking for a particular idea in one article which is addressed in another article.
Does this help?
In Him,
Adam
Sorry to interfere, Adam, but you didn’t answer Mike’s question. Again,
Do you confine the Spirit’s role to empowering the Gospel preacher and protecting the Gospel message, or do you also acknowledge that there must be a pre-emptive work by the Spirit on the human heart before the sinner will respond to the Gospel offer? Or put another way, do you see the fall of Adam as affecting human will in any way whatsoever, whether morally, naturally, or both, such that there must be a preliminary initiating work by the Spirit on the heart (whether you see that as dragging, drawing, or softening) before the sinner will respond in faith? I think most Baptists, and even most signers of the Statement, would say yes. What do those who put forth the Statement say?
-Jeph
“Are you claiming that the document does not reflect the majority of Southern Baptists? If so, what is your evidence for such a claim? Are you claiming that the signers of this Statement (hundreds of Baptist pastors, professors, and denominational leaders) have attached their names to a heretical document? If so, then please be clear in your remarks because that would be an astounding claim. Perhaps you have in mind another possibility.”
I believe what Dr. Olson was saying was the document was less clear than it should have been on the topic of semi-Pelagianism. Dr. Harwood’s post does little to clear this up.
God be with you,
Dan
You ask Dr. Olson, “Are you claiming that the document does not reflect the majority of Southern Baptists? If so, what is your evidence for such a claim?”
I’d genuinely like to know what is your evidence for such a claim that it does reflect the majority of Southern Baptists? Has their been a poll? Can you provide a citation or link?
Also, you compare this to the Together for the Gospel Affirmations and Denials but having reviewed that document I find only two Southern Baptist leaders that have signed it and no where does it claim to represent anyone’s views but their own. Your document seems to speak for others by title and by the claim of majority view.
Can you explain? Thank you brother.
Jeremy,
Thanks for your note, brother.
Although nearly six years old, Lifeway Research (the publishing arm of the SBC) released a survey which found that only 10% of the respondents in this particular survey self-identified as 5-point Calvinists. I am confident that percentage is higher but seriously doubt the percentage could have moved past 15-20% in such a large denomination over such a brief period of time.
You can read the article here: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23993
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
The use of this link is very misleading. As you have stated in your article, there are more positions to which Southern Baptists may hold than just Calvinist or Arminian. The same must be said about your insinuation that, since less than 20% of Southern Baptists consider themselves 5-point Calvinists, the rest (or at least the majority) must hold to the views expressed in your statement. Most Southern Baptists with whom I’ve had contact, even many I’ve met at the Southern Baptist institution I attend, don’t even know what soteriology is, much less what the historic arguments have been. On multiple occasions, before I ever held to a particular view, I have seen the issue brought up in the local church context simply to be quickly dismissed as a divisive issue.
By-and-large, I would say the majority view in the SBC is willful ignorance. The only poll or survey that should be given any clout in this regard is one that surveys Southern Baptists to determine how many are accurately informed about the arguments historically made by each camp and then seeks to determine where the informed stand. I will say that many whom I’ve read find it wholly arrogant to claim a majority within a document before it has even been reviewed by the majority.
Likewise, the use of the term Traditional is quite misleading and does not lend credence to the academic acumen of the document’s framers. It is misleading for two reasons: (1) the original signatories, in their many articles since the release of the document have argued that the document is meant to establish a break from what they consider to be “postbiblical” traditions, and (2) the term traditional brings with it a sense of foundational, and there is no evidence that the founders or anyone else in the first 75 years of the SBC would have affirmed this statement. Rather, there is much on record that would suggest otherwise. In that sense, the document is more “progressive” than it is “traditional.”
Sincerely,
Billy
Jeremy,
Regarding your statement about T4G, I made no such claim, brother. This statement is fashioned as paired affirmations and denials. This format was established with The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in mind, which (as you know) pre-dates T4G.
Thanks for your question.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Harwood,
Thank you for your kind response. In my comment about the comparison to the T4G document I mistakenly attributed statements to you that were made here-
http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/03/today%e2%80%99s-discussion-topicarticle-two-of-%e2%80%9ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%e2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%e2%80%9d/
Regarding the majority issue, thank you for the citation. While I’d certainly agree that Calvinism is a view probably held by fewer than 20% of self-professed SBCers I would be suspicious that a majority would be able to articulate similar views to the affirmations and denials in the statement at issue. Though my soteriological views are very different from that of Roger Olson I would agree with him that sadly most self-professing SBCers would articulate a view closer to semi-pelagianism. I don’t have polls to support this, only my experience at SBC churches which I’ve served on staff or pastored for 15 years.
May God use Calvinists, Arminians, and everyone in between to recover a Biblical and salvific understanding of the Gospel!
Dr. Adam Harwood,
Thanks. You have explained things well.
Especially how so many want to force us into Calvinism, Arminianism, or heresy. Thanks for revealing there are other choices.
Can’t wait for a book to come out from the Traditional side on “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”
David R. Brumbelow
David (“Gulf Coast Pastor”),
Thanks for your kind remarks.
I am unaware of any plans for a book but interest in this subject has strained the capacity of certain web sites.
Blessings, brother.
Adam
Brother Harwood, I find this post intriguing for several reasons. As someone who greatly emphasizes the sovereignty of God I am often considered a Calvinist. I don’t so consider myself and don’t see the need for a logically systemized soteriology, since the Lord didn’t give us one. I disagree with the tired idea that one has to be either a Calvinist or an Arminian. That said, I see this statement as different from my understanding of “traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology (traditional to me being what I know from experience). To me the “traditional” soteriology does not shy away from the words “total depravity” nor simply see a world inclined toward sin — but one which is emphasized that none do good and there is none righteous. As such it does not succumb to “decisionism” or the “Hyles-Rice” brand of evangelism that believes one merely has to decide he or she wants to be saved. I wouldn’t say the signers of the document necessarily believe that (and some might). But I do not think that all who speak of the Holy Spirit’s drawing necessarily means the same thing to all of us, and to some it may mean no particular work of the Spirit but simply responding in free will to the preached gospel
Robert,
Thanks for your note.
I agree with you that many Southern Baptists have freely used the phrase “total depravity.” The problem is there are several ways to define that phrase. Some Calvinistic SB’s affirm a Dortian definition. Others, such as myself, reject all five points as defined at Dort. But I can pick up books today by some Southern Baptist New Calvinists and hardly bristle at their use of the phrase. The reason is that there are different ways the term is used. This is not some slippery, postmodernist use of language. It’s simply the way things are.
You write:
“To me the ‘traditional’ soteriology does not shy away from the words ‘total depravity’ nor simply see a world inclined toward sin — but one which is emphasized that none do good and there is none righteous.”
The phrase “inclined toward sin” only refers to what is inherited from Adam. Further, any objection with that phrase in the statement is actually an objection to Article 3 of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, because that is the source of the phrase.
Further, the statement in no way denies Rom 3:10. I’m curious to know exactly what in the statement led you to such a view?
Thanks, brother.
In Him,
Adam
As I stated in another post on another day, as a Calvinist, I would not describe this statement as “semi-Pelagian” or “Pelagian”, but I would say it “BOARDERS” on being “semi-Pelagian” because of its repeated emphasis on the free will, capabilities and capacity, of man in and of himself to respond to the Gospel, which seems to deminish the full impact of the Fall on us as sinners.
Jeff,
I appreciate your effort to get us off the hook but it’s actually no help at all.
Would you fail to defend against a charge by another person that you affirmed a doctrinal statement if they qualified that it only “borders” on semi-Pelagianism?
Some Christian traditions reject the Dortian definition known as Total Depravity. Apparently, that is currently resonating with many people in the SBC. Such a rejection does not have to “border” on heresy.
I’m not sure what else to say unless you return with a quotation from the statement which supports your claim.
Thanks for checking in. Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
I think Dr. Harwood’s response either misses Dr. Olson’s point or skirts the issue. Olson isn’t attempting to make any claims at all about the supposed “majority” of Southern Baptists or the implications for the signers. He is simply posing some theological difficulties in the document itself.
Olson asserts that semi-Pelagianism is generally marked by a “denial or neglect of the divine initiative in salvation.” The new “Traditional” Southern Baptist statement appears to take up a similar position. It seems that the onus, then, is on the framers/signers of the “traditional” document. Even if they desire freedom from the Calvinist-Arminian-Semi-Pelagian frameworks, they need to answer this one question definitively: do they or do they not deny the divine initiative in salvation? If they do not, then the “traditional” statement needs to be edited. If they do, then they have much, much explaining to do.
I am sympathetic to the effort to escape historical theological systems and frameworks. But, history can’t (and shouldn’t) be erased, and we often must explain and defend ourselves in light of historical thought. The signers of the “traditional” document are seeking to start a conversation concerning soteriology, but Dr. Harwood appears to suggest that we also allow them to set all parameters without reference to those that already exist. There are, after all, reasons these frameworks developed.
Dr. Fuller,
Thank you for taking the time to engage with my reply to Dr. Olson, who took the time to reply to our new statement.
You write: “Olson isn’t attempting to make any claims at all about the supposed ‘majority’ of Southern Baptists or the implications for the signers.”
Actually he is. In his article, Dr. Olsen writes, “It doesn’t matter what ‘most Baptists’ believe or what is the ‘traditional Southern Baptist understanding.’” This is his response to a primary claim found within the statement, which is that the statement reflects the view of most Southern Baptists regarding the doctrine of salvation. That portion of my reply was simply asking Olsen which he doubted, the validity of the statement’s claim or the truthfulness of its signers?
In an earlier draft of my reply to Olsen, I began to engage the apparent objection you cited regarding “divine initiative.” But after re-reading Olsen’s post several times, I realized he never made that particular claim against the statement, so I removed that portion from my reply. Olsen refers to Limborch and Finney then notes, “What made them semi-Pelagian was their denial or neglect of divine initiative in salvation…” Olsen’s next sentence begins, “The problem with this Southern Baptist Statement…” If Olsen had completed that sentence with something like this: “… is their similar denial or neglect of the divine initiative in salvation,” then it would be clear that this was Olsen’s objection. But he didn’t finish his sentence that way. Instead, Olsen identified the supposed problem with the Statement as “neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God.”
If I had addressed his comment regarding “divine initiative in salvation,” then I would not have addressed Olsen’s objection. Also, there seemed to be little need to defend against a (I am arguing it was an unstated) claim which is clearly refuted in the affirmation of Article 4, which reads as follows: “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.”
In what way would Article 4’s affirmation of God’s decision to take “all of the initiative in providing atonement” be a denial of “divine initiative in salvation”?
It is becoming increasingly clear that some critics of this Statement are not taking the time to read carefully the document in its entirety before leveling charges which can be easily refuted by citing direct quotations from the statement itself.
Regarding your final paragraph: On the charge of attempting to erase history I plead innocent (in part because I’m uncertain how I could do such a thing). But on the charge of rejecting a theological framework I plead guilty as charged.
If you ever find yourself driving though the mountains of north Georgia, please give me a shout. I read your bio on Anderson’s page. We both carry the title of Assistant Professor of Christian Studies and served the same number of years in local churches. I suspect that we have several other things in common as well.
Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Sorry about the repeated misspellings of Olson’s name. I have the hardest time getting my fingers to type his name that way. But reading through the comments on this blog, I take comfort in knowing I’m not the only person facing this challenge.
;-)
Dang, chuck fuller nailed it.
I dont think Chuck nailed it…lol. We have repeatedly said that man does not initiate the salvation experience….God does. Man just responds to the working of the Holy Spirit. We just believe that man really, truly has to respond….choose. We reject regeneration before faith, and irresistible grace.
But, no, we do not believe that man just chooses to straighten up his own life, and come to God.
David
David, I think your claim–and that of the “traditional” statement in general–is that God initiates the plan of salvation, but his initiative does not extend to the will of the individual.
“We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person.”
This denial give me great pause, because it necessitates the further denial of a whole mountain of historic and evangelical theology, and the exegetical data upon which it is built.
If this, indeed, is your claim, then your position–essentially–sounds like this: “I know what two millennia of Christian thinkers claim, but they’re all wrong and I’m right.” I urge caution to anyone who quickly denies that which 2,000 years of theological work has affirmed.
Chuck,
Did all of those Christians agree on every doctrine in those 2,000 years? Did they agree on all the finer points of theology in those 2,000 years?
Of course, the answer is no.
The only time that we’ll have complete agreement on every jot and tittle will be when the KING returns, and wipes the dirt off the window completely, and the light of His truth comes shining thru in a glorious fashion. Then, we’ll know.
Until then, there will be disagreement on the finer points of theology…..what’s truly important is that we agree on the essentials…the clear things…the black and white teachings of the Scriptures…
May God give you boat loads of grace today, Brother.
David
David,
I appreciate the reply. Strangely, you’ve sort of made my next point. Soteriological debates have raged for centuries, but this “traditional” statement attempts to over-specify an inherently mysterious realm of theology. It seems to make “black and white” where there isn’t black and white. The gospel is simple. Soteriology is tricky.
If we agree on essentials (and I believe we do, as affirmed in the BF&M), why then do we need this “traditional” document–especially when its very specific affirmations & denials desire to erase 2,000 years of tensions?
I need the boatloads of grace, brother! I pray the same for you. -Chuck
Chuck,
Why do Calvinist Churches…and Traditional Churches…adopt other confessions besides the BFM2K? Why do Southern and Southeastern Seminaries have the abstracts?
This statement just reflects what we believe, and what we believe that most SB’s believe, and we want it to be known to the SBC at large. It’s the direction that we think the SBC should go. Its the statement of where we want our leaders to lead us.
David
dang, chuck fuller nailed it again
volfan007: a swing and a miss
Brennen,
I’m glad that you’re not the ump.
David :)
Brennen,
Also, I’m not trying to “win” anything, anyway. I’m just conversing with a Brother in Christ.
David
The “traditional” statement is very, very different than the Abstract. The Abstract is a broad, brief statement that covers a wide swath evangelical theology. The “traditional” statement is narrow, dealing with a single aspect, and I would argue that it is too narrow to be a directional guide as to “where the SBC should go.” If that is the intent of this statement, then who is it, really, that wants their soteriology to be the central tenet in the SBC? Who is it, really, that’s being “aggressive” here?
volfan007: time to phone a friend. Dont poll the audience. They’ve moved on.
I certainly hope there will be a “real” answer on the question that Mike Davis raised. When I read the “Traditional” document, I was shocked at the claim that such a position (Article 2) was in any way traditional SB.
Careful Brad you will be branded an ignorant trouble maker who doesn’t know theology and you should listen to the important people. TOUNGE IN CHEEK so dont you guys get your pantys all wadded up.
One option might be to actually educate congregations about this issue and let local churches decide for themselves. This is a moral and ethical option which relies on the “soul competency and priesthood of believers” and confirms the autonomy of the local church. A local church could decide, for example, to designate itself as “non-Calvinist” meaning, in that church, Calvinism is rejected by the leadership. Another church could designate itself as “Calvinist” meaning church leaders embrace Calvinism. Currently, neither Christian nor “seeker” can confidently determine the position of a particular Southern Baptist church on this issue without conducting an extensive investigation. For example, a church may have a non-Calvinist pastor but several Calvinist Sunday school teachers. Or a church may have a Calvinist pastor because his true theology was concealed from a non-Calvinist search committee. In particularly insidious cases, Calvinist “power players” bide their time until their non-Calvinist pastor departs and then quietly sneak a Calvinist pastor through the side door. In each of these examples, is the church Calvinist or non-Calvinist? Would the congregation know? Unfortunately, most Southern Baptist congregations are far too uninformed to recognize deceitful and duplicitous conduct by a few members of their own leadership. In any case, the proponents of Calvinism, hiding in and behind Seminaries and Bible Colleges, cannot allow local churches to openly discuss and debate this issue because these proponents fear the outcome. Similarly, most opponents of Calvinism, both pastors and laypersons, simply lack the courage to raise this issue in their local churches.
ZZZzzzzz…
lol…really….it is incedious when calvinistic church members bring in a clavinist pastor but just normal when free willers bring in a free willer…We have a free will denomination just because of this. Dr. Bruce, please I am not your enemy (though I wouldn’t have branded myself as a calvinist, I just believe what God says) and i doubt most others are your enemy. I consider you my brother in Christ who has every right to disagree and so do I dear brother. But you do make some points and thanks for that.
Ultimately this allows the Baptists to dismiss the Calvinists out of hand instead of having to argue with them. With the positions so far apart, the Baptists no longer have to worry about full-blown Calvinism arising from their semi-Calvinist position, because they’ve assumed a position that is not semi-Calvinist. Amen.
“and if the Statement reflects the views of the majority of Southern Baptists (which is the claim of the signers)”
Hmmmmm….now I dont think numbers make one right or wrong especially in theology, however, how many million SBC members are there? And you have 500 huh? Not being difficult just pointing out that if the defenders of this statement are using the idea that this is the way the majority of SB view salvation (therefore that vindicates the statement), they are several million short of actually proving it. however that can not take away from the fact the majority isn’t always wrong nor right. I actually think neither side should be claiming numbers but debating theology. God is not impressed with majority view.
My problem with Article Two is this. It affirms that “every person inherits a nature inclined toward sin.” But the article denies good and necessary consequences of this affirmation. Let me elaborate.
Sin is anything not in conformance with the will of God. Thus sin can attach not only to what man does but to what man is. In particular, God wills that man possess a nature inclined toward Him rather than a nature inclined toward sin. So a nature inclined toward sin is not in conformity to the will of God. Therefore the possession of such a nature is, in itself, sin. And sin always and inevitably entails guilt otherwise God Himself is seen to compromise His holiness by winking at sin.
So to deny the inheritance of Adam’s guilt is to mistake the nature of sin, to deny the inheritance of Adam’s sin, or both. And, to deny the inheritance of Adam’s sin is to deny the federal headship of Adam, the basis whereby believers inherit Christ’s righteousness. Thus, Article Two compromises the very core of Christian belief.
I fear that, owing to anti-Calvinist zeal, some within the SBC are being led to deny crucial biblical truths affirmed not only by Calvinists but by Methodists and others. More importantly, they are being led to deny biblical truth. I pray that the Spirit of God would help us all to examine not only what we believe but the consequences, logical and practical, of what we believe, with a view to more closely conforming us all to the mind of Christ.
Furthermore the justice and goodness, of God is as stake as well as his holiness. Rom 5:16 states that one trespass brought “condemnation”. If man is condemned but not guilty then God is neither just nor good. And if condemnation is not imputed by the one man Adam apart from any works then we have no hope that the righteousness of Christ is imputed apart from works. If we must work to gain condemnation we must work to gain Christ righteousness according to Paul’s illustration.
Dr. Harwood,
Honest question here: Dr. Patterson has historically alluded to what is known as prevenient grace, even referring to it as recently as his address on Total Depravity from the John 3:16 Conference (where he calls it pre regenerating grace). To your knowledge has his view changed? If not, then how are we to read his chapter in light of the statement?
Andrew Dyer