AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?
I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?
Does it promote a squishy gospel? Emphatically, yes! Without even discussing rampant easy-believism, it is broadly Semi-Pelagian; the doctrines of grace are not well looked upon as a whole.
And please note I am painting in broad strokes. Of course there are many godly people who are firm on the gospel in the SBC, including several on the PB. However, it is for the very reason that I can accurately paint in these broad strokes that gives the basis for my initial questions.
I am honestly trying to get a grasp on this issue. Why would any Calvinistic church remain in the SBC? If as a whole the SBC is not firm on the true gospel, why stay within the camp?
What precisely do you mean by "not firm on the true gospel?" Does the SBC promote a squishy gospel?
Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?
Not familiar with what the SBC teaches. I thought with folks like Mohler in the fold, they would have been Calvinistic as a rule (allowing for the usual %-age of rogue congregations).
Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?
Not familiar with what the SBC teaches. I thought with folks like Mohler in the fold, they would have been Calvinistic as a rule (allowing for the usual %-age of rogue congregations).
There are many "big name" Calvinists in the SBC whom many of us love. However, there are many more non-Calvinists. If you want a few big names, they would include the men who put forth the John 3:16 Conference (i.e. anti-Calvinism conference) and Rick Warren.
If you want a few big names, they would include the men who put forth the John 3:16 Conference (i.e. anti-Calvinism conference)
Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.
Not a squishy one but a false one. They will deny it but it is salvation by works and not grace. They believe man must contribute to his salvation by saying a prayer or doing this or that. It really all comes down to one issue. We believe regeneration comes before faith because we could not believe unless God has given us a new heart to believe, they do not. We believe it is God that acts first, they believe it is man. Their idea is that God wants you to be saved but He can't do His part unless you do your part. False gospel.
I was under the impression that those who hold to a synergistic form of salvation, while not Reformed in any sense of the word, are still within the sphere of orthodoxy? Monergism vs. Synergism is an 'in-house' Christian debate, not an orthodoxy vs. heresy battle.
I was under the impression that those who hold to a synergistic form of salvation, while not Reformed in any sense of the word, are still within the sphere of orthodoxy? Monergism vs. Synergism is an 'in-house' Christian debate, not an orthodoxy vs. heresy battle.
Didn't the Synod of Dordt say otherwise? Anyone have documentation on that?
To me the belief that man contributes to salvation and that God can't do it without man's help is heresy and against the teachings of the Scripture (Ephesians 2). It is a false gospel according to Galatians 1.
Didn't the Synod of Dordt say otherwise? Anyone have documentation on that?
I believe they did, but that's neither here nor there. If a church is preaching a false gospel, how could people be saved? Yet, as much as people like Rick Warren disturb me with their weak preaching, if he is being lumped into the group of people preaching a false gospel, then there should be no true Christians in his church.
If you want to say it's a weak gospel or an incomplete gospel, I would be in agreement. I believe God can save through a weak or incomplete gospel (how many of us were saved in Arminian or Arminian-leaning churches?), but a false gospel is a different story.
So what you're saying, in effect, is that anybody who hears such a false gospel (in your words) is not saved. Because I don't believe a false gospel can save, do you? However, how do you respond to all the people who have heard an Arminian gospel and were saved (like me)? As I said previously, call it weak or call it incomplete, but I don't think it's false.
What I said was that if one believes that he can contribute to his salvation then he is trusting in his works. Can a man who hears preaching in an Arminian church be saved. I believe they can but only if they are not trusting in their works. For example, the churches I came out of taught that you had to walk the aisle and repeat a prayer. Can someone who does that be saved? If they are trusting in that prayer for their salvation, no. If they prayed the prayer out of ignorance but truly believe that it is only due to a work of God that they are saved, yes.
Now I'm confused. At first, you said the SBC preaches a false gospel. Now you're saying that if anyone believes a false gospel they won't be saved.
I don't think the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic view necessitates a false gospel. I think it is an insufficient gospel in so far as I believe that people can (and are) saved in Arminian-leaning churches. If you were to ask them on what basis they are saved, most would probably answer something along the lines of "I am trusting in Jesus as the payment of my sins." This indicates to me that they've heard enough of the gospel to know that the basis of their salvation is Christ alone. On the other hand, if someone says that the basis of their salvation is walking an aisle or praying a prayer, of course that won't save them and depicts the danger of this mode of 'revivalist' preaching (i.e., preaching for the 'effect'). A weak or incomplete gospel will probably sow more tares in the church than wheat, but still doesn't make it heresy.
I don't think the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic view necessitates a false gospel.
From the John 3:16 Conference:
David Allen, dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's School of Theology,
"Calvinism is not the Gospel," he said. "Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward five-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel."