Posted on 07/06/2012 6:25:11 AM PDT by Cronos
A statement by a non-Calvinist faction of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has launched infighting within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, and tensions are expected to escalate Tuesday as church leaders descend on New Orleans.
..The May 30 document, "A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation," aims "to more carefully express what is generally believed by Southern Baptists about salvation." But both Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler and George W. Truett Theological Seminary professor Roger Olson, in separate blog posts, said that parts of the document sound like semi-Pelagianism, a traditionally heretical understanding of Christian salvation.
One sliver of the document's second article particularly drew their ire. It reads, "We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will."
..Olson, a classical Arminian and author of the book Against Calvinism, is unaffiliated with the SBC, but has long asserted that most evangelicals—not just Southern Baptists—adhere to a sort of semi-Pelagian "folk religion," whose origins can be traced to the Second Great Awakening and revivalists in the mold of Charles Finney.
..Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, denies the charge. "We are obviously not semi-Pelagians," Patterson said. "We do believe that the entire human race is badly affected by the fall of Adam. However, we don't follow the Reformed view that man is so crippled by the fall that he has no choice."
..A just-released survey conducted by LifeWay Research found that roughly equal numbers of SBC pastors identify their congregation as Calvinist/Reformed (30%) or Arminian/Wesleyan (30%). More than 60 percent are concerned about Calvinism's influence on the denomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
This is a distraction.
The real problem in the SBC is the so-called “Great Commission Resurgence”, which has proven to be a vehicle for injecting social liberalism/emergent church views into the convention.
This does connect with a kind of corrupt Arminianism found in much of the SBC leadership that focuses on numbers. Lifeway is a big part of the problem, but so is the influence of the children of some SBC leaders who are telling their daddies that they will “alienate” young people (media saturated, public school indoctrinated young people) if the SBC continues holding “icky” social views.
So now the SBC hierarchy has “embraced diversity”, “affirmative action”, amnesty, and some environmentalism, and is softening ever so subtlely its positions on sodomites and several other issues. Opposing amnesty and “diversity” will now get you called a “racist” by the national leadership.
The imbecile leadership thinks that it can combine “Inerrantism” and “moderate” social liberalism and that that will reverse its membership decline. All they think they need to do just loosen up to be “culturally relevant” and pander to what they think youth, black pastors, an dhispanic pastors want. They also want to lose the “SBC” name.
The rank and file needs to clean house if they want to save the SBC. Otherwise it will look a lot like the PCUSA in 5-10 years.
In essence, the SBC is becoming a larger version of the CBF - the conservative resurgence has failed - and Patterson wants to argue soteriology. What a travesty.
“More than 60 percent are concerned about Calvinism’s influence on the denomination.”
Wow. More worried about reformed theology than worldliness and the poisonous pop culture? Says it all.
According to that doctrine, the Bible should be a sufficiently clear guide when it comes down to foundational issues like salvation.
Yet it seems like one third of Southern Baptists believe one doctrine of salvation, one third believe the opposite doctrine of salvation, and one third cannot decide which doctrine of salvation to believe - and the deciding source of authority on which they are supposed to rely, the Bible, is the ground rather than the arbiter of the dispute.
“every sin from the first in the Garden to the last before Judgment, is designed, set into motion, and controlled in all particulars by God himself.”
Calvinism doesn’t teach that at all.
“every sin from the first in the Garden to the last before Judgment, is designed, set into motion, and controlled in all particulars by God himself.”
Calvinism doesn’t teach that at all and neither does the Bible.
The reality is 99% of people who fill Baptist pews wouldn’t know the difference between John Calvin and Calvin Klein. Calvinist that I know have a strong command of the scriptures and are not easily swayed like the sheeple who follow after OSteen, Warren etc.
Meanwhile...
Pope Defends His Top Aide Amid Vatican Infighting
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303684004577506880615485076.html
Pope Benedict XVI defended his closest aide against a tide of “unjust criticism” in an unusual open letter that underscored the pontiff’s struggle to quell months of infighting within the Vatican’s corridors.
Do you have an opinion on the actual topic? Which faction of the SBC do you support?
"We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will". LOL ... have fun re-inventing the wheel, theologically speaking.
The main point is that the theology of the SBC seems to be incoherent - that the theologically educated pastors of the conference are at odds with one another on basic principles.
"We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will".
With:
"When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." (CCC 1993)
And:
"Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals." (CCC 407)
We don't know that. No where is it stated what is the % of SBC who are worried about worldliness etc.
I doubt the SBC would ever sink that low...
I agree.
I think a schism is more likely than going down that path wholesale.
But that's irrelevant to the topic of this thread, just as your post is irrelvent.
I like to see how many of that 60% are the liberal types that got sent packing when Dr. Moehler became president of the largest SBC Seminary.
the thing is we don’t know. It could be all of them or none of them.
"We do believe that the entire human race is badly affected by the fall of Adam. However, we don't follow the Reformed view that man is so crippled by the fall that he has no choice."
Yeah, whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.