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 ...
If you doubt it, look at what they did to Richard Land to pacify race pimping, rent-seeking black pastors. And, “Diversity” was being “celebrated” as the underlying theme of the Annual Meeting. In Phoenix last year, the leaders trying to push through an amnesty resolution called anyone who opposed it “racist”.
Just wait.
Lee N.
Despite your whatever statement, I think it is clear that the Catholic Theological arugment is entirely consistent with orthodox Apostolic Tradition. Man’s free will has been wounded and badly affected due to original sin, and even after receiving God’s Grace [for Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, that is normatively given thru the sacrament of Baptism] humanity still struggles due to Concupiscence with sin.
So whatever you think, the Catholic position is clearly defined to reject the error of Pelagius and his doctrine that Man can without supernatural aide [i..e God’s Grace] come into communion with the Triune God [or Relationship to use a term more common amongst you Protestants]. Regardless of the terminology, the SBC position that man’s free will has not been incapacitated does hint at the error of Pelagius.
On this point, the Calvinist are correct. However, Calvins TULIP doctrine does suggest man is so totally depraved that he has absolutely “no Free will”. It is on this point where Catholic Doctrine and Calvinist-Reformed Doctrine parts ways.
So what the SBC is faced with is how to reconicle this opposing theological views. I contend, that the Catholic Church has properly maintained the sovereignity of God’s Grace and man’ maintaining Free will, albeit a very weakened and damaged free will that only God’s Grace can restore and transform.
So we Catholics here at FR are watching this debate closely because both the Calvinist and the Non-Calvinist of the SBC both adhere to 1) Sola Scriptura and 2) Sola Fide yet here we are with each side accusing each other of Doctrinal Heresy.
This is a distraction, nothing more nothing less. There have been many such “distractions” throughout the organization’s history. The individual churches which make up the SBC have members with both Calvinist and non-Calvinist beliefs, and despite what articles like this would have everyone else believe — we all get along just fine.
This is a distraction, nothing more nothing less. There have been many such “distractions” throughout the organization’s history. The individual churches which make up the SBC have members with both Calvinist and non-Calvinist beliefs, and despite what articles like this would have everyone else believe — we all get along just fine.
Whine much?
(1) In the beginning God made all things very good, created man after His own(2) image and likeness, filling him with all perfection of all natural excellency and uprightness, free from all sin.(3) But long he abode not in this honor, but by the (4) subtlety of the Serpent, which Satan used as his instrument, himself with his angels having sinned before and not(5) kept their first estate, but left their own habitation; first(6) Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of(7) death, and all other calamities due to sin in this world and for ever, being considered in the state of nature, without relation to Christ.
1) Gen. 1; Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3; Isa. 45:12
2) Gen. 1:26; 1 Cor. 15:45-46; Ecc. 7:31
3) Psa. 49:20
4) Gen. 3:1, 4, 5; 2 Cor. 11:3
5) 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; John 8:44
6) Gen. 3:1, 2, 6; 1 Tim. 2:14; Ecc. 7:31; Gal. 3:32
7) Rom. 5:12, 18, 19; 6:23; Eph. 2:3
V.
All mankind being thus fallen, and become altogether dead in sins and trespasses, and subject to the eternal wrath of the great God by transgression; yet the elect, which God has(1) loved with an everlasting love, are(2) redeemed, quickened, and saved, not by themselves, neither by their own works, lest any man should boast himself, but wholly and only by God of(3) His free grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, that as it is written he that rejoices, let him rejoice in the Lord.
1) Jer. 31:2
2) Gen 3:15; Eph. 1:3, 7; 2:4, 9; 1 Thes. 5:9; Acts 13:38
3) 1 Cor.5:21; Jer. 9:23, 24
XXIV.
That faith is ordinarily(1) begot by the preaching of the Gospel, or word of Christ, without respect to(2) any power or capacity in the creature, but it is wholly(3) passive, being dead in sins and trespasses, does believe, and is converted by no less power,(4) then that which raised Christ from the dead.
1) Rom. 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21
2) Rom. 9:16
3) Rom. 2:1, 2; Ezek. 16:6; Rom 3:12
4) Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:19; Col 2:12
XXV.
That the tenders of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners,(1) is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the Law, or preceding ministry of the Law, but only and alone the naked soul, as a(2) sinner and ungodly to receive Christ, as Christ, as crucified, dead, and buried, and risen again, being made(3) a Prince and a Savior for such sinners.
1) John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37
2) 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8
3) Acts 5:30-31; 2:36; 1 Cor. 1:22-24
As you said it's irrelavent to this thread but since you brought it up one might as well look at these:
The Catholic Register: Socially ethical investing taking off, Canadian study reports
I wouldn't knock the problems Presbyterians are having when the Vatican is having the same issues. Some of the more conservative Presbyterians have broken away from the PCUSA over their liberalism. The same can't be said for the Catholics.
Indeed. So many modern Baptists don’t know their own history and doctrine. It was things like this that drove me away from the SBC I grew up in and drove me into the EPC and later the PCA where I am today.
So, in other words, you don’t understand the question. That’s OK. I know you’re trying your hardest.
For example, the Synod on the Middle East issued an official report with 44 propositions. Not once does that document make the claim that the Jews are not the chosen people - which stands to reason, since the Church's official Catechism affirms in paragraph 60 that the Jews are indeed the chosen people.
The article on which this thread is based is an official publication of the SBC leadership and represents itself as the normative position of the SBC, hence the controversy.
Similarly, the official teaching of the PCUSA is one of antipathy to Israel and support of libertinism.
People do not separate from groups like the PCUSA because some individual members and congregations are liberal, but because the leadership's official teaching is liberal.
Most of the Baptists churches that I’ve attended usually have 6 or 7 very broad-based confessions (”We believe Jesus to be the Son of God.”, “We believe that He died for our sins.”, etc.) I didn’t even know there were confessions of the Protestant faith until researching this several years ago. Somehow, I’ve found myself in a PCA as well. :O)
“However, Calvins TULIP doctrine does suggest man is so totally depraved that he has absolutely “no Free will”.”
Being able to make choices does not equate to free will. The Reformed view is that total depravation extends to all aspects of humanity, including the will. One can make choices, but always within the framework of the underlying corrupt nature or will.
Can one make choices which appear to be good? Of course. But that takes you no further than the subjective atheistic “morality” of what “works”. In other words you do what suits society, or to drill it down further, what “works” for you.
Diapason:
That is where Catholic as well as Eastern Orthodox Theology and Calvinism part ways. To reject Free will makes it theologically impossible to say “we can Love the way Christ asks us to Love” for to Love in Christian theological context implys a total self giving of oneself to another. So in the case of St. Paul speaking of the three theological virtures, Faith, Hope and Love[charity] he clearly states we are to “walk in Love as Christ Loved us” [cf Ephes 5:1-2] and for Christians to “Love one another genuinely..and with mutual affection” [cf Romans 12: 9-13]. And St. Paul would clearly state that among the three theological virtures [Faith, Hope and Love], Love/Charity is superior to all them for he writes “If I .....have not Love, I am Nothing...Whatever my privelege, service or even virtue, if I have not charity, I gain nothing [1 Cor 13:1-4] so “faith, hope and charity abide, these three but the greatest is Love [cf 1 Cor 13:13].
So why does St. Paul speak of Love as the superior Theological virtue, not that it is in conflict with Faith, Hope and Love, for all necessary for a orthodox Christian. The answer clearly lies with the nature of God as Trinity for God is Love [cf. 1 John 4:8] thus God’s very nature is an Eternal act of Love. The 1st Epistle of John clearly speaks of God’s nature and his salvific will for humanity to send his Son for the reconciliation of humanity as and act of Love and for Christians to Love as Christ has loved us [too many passages to cite, the entire epistle is about this].
The fact that the epistles [St. Paul’s writings and St. John] as well as the Letters of James and 1 Peter speak of “Love” so much because that was so clearly stated by Christ as I think in the Gospels [Love and Truth] are the 2 words that are most stated by Christ. Christ makes Love the new commandment...and by loving his flock to the end [cf. John 13:34; 13:1] he clearly tells his Apostles as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love and commands them to love one another as I have loved you [cf. John 15: 9-12]. In St. Matthew’s Gospel we here Christ state “You should Love the Lord your God with all your heart with your soul and all your mind...This is the 1st and greatest commandment....The second is like it...You shall love your neigher as yourself..
I could go on and on but I think you see the foundation of what I am building. To say that we have “no free will” can’t be reconciled with the theological virture of Love. Love is a mutual total self giving of oneself to another. Christ gave himself totally for the salvation of humanity, an act of Love [no one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friend; cf. John 15:13]. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to love my parents or my wife, is that love???? or is that duress? Clearly, in my view is ain’t love!!!.
So going back to the original point of the thread, the statement by some of the SBC’s that “mans free will has not been incapacitated by original sin” does sound like the error of Pelagius. On that point, I think Cronos clearly pointed out that the Catholic theological position clearly rejects that notion as man’s free will has been damaged and wounded such that man’s natural powers have been wounded so that he is subject to ignorance, suffering, aand the dominion of death and inclination to sin. However, man’s natural has not been totally corrupted [CCC 405].
So on this point I think the Calvinist Baptist criticism of the non-Calvinist position regarding “man not being incapacitated by original sin” is correct [so how about that]. Let’s be honest, if Catholics here were making such statements, you Reformed-Calvinist guys would be screaming that we Catholics are “Pelagians” and teaching a purely works notion of salvation that man could obtain communion with God apart from God’s Grace. Your criticism would be correct! Of course, the Catholic Church teaches no such thing. So on the point above, Catholic and Reformed Theology are in general agreement.
However, to say that Man has “No Free Will” is problematic because to truly Love God and Love my parents, my Wife and my neighbor [the hardest to do no doubt] still requires man’s freedom to be intact. How do we Love as Christ commanded us, that can only occur thru God’s Grace but nevertheless, man is still has his Freedom.
Now, how does God’s Grace and the theological virtures of Faith, Hope and Love and man’s free will get totally reconciled, I think that is one of the Divine Mysteries that we may never be able to totally reconcile this side of heaven. Still, rejecting one if them leads to theological problems.
Now if you are one of the non-strict Hyper Calvinist who understands man’s free will as corrupt but not “totally corrupt” then whether you realize it or not, you are actually articulating a theological position consistent with the Catholic Church as I noted in my reference to CCC #405.
More likely the congregations/churches will chastise the leadership of the SBC and get them in line if they stray too far — or individuals will change churches to those which don’t affiliate. As far as I am aware the SBC is the only denomination where the power rests with the congregation. Thus, any “official SBC position” which is often breathtakingly quoted by the media as if it is somehow binding on individual churches is laughed off by those in the know as being worth not much more than what’s written on paper since power rests with the individual church congregations. It would take serious heresy being presented by the SBC leadership for churches to leave the organization and unaffiliate. (Disgruntled churches in the past have taken their Cooperative Program funds and sent them to a separate program rather than through the SBC, but they still consider themselves members.)
Indeed. The first time I read the Westminster Confession of Faith it was like the sun rose and the clouds went away. I got a little tired of the mindset that between the moment the last verse of the last book of Revelation was written to the immediate present, there was no history just “the Bible and me.” Now, I fully support sola scriptura, but folks were basically saying classical Arminian theology without ever having heard of Arminius.
In fairness, many Calvinists don’t use the term Total Depravity, but something that seems akin to a wounded nature.
The article is more about one of the factions trying to impose it’s view on the other and the disagreements therein.
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.