Featured Sign Up?

Not signing anything that states the Gospel is "a" way of salvation.

 

I could sign it.

 

Sounds OK to me, I could sign it.

 

This section means one of 2 things:

-Babies who die are saved because they are sinless, and have no need of the atonement of Christ.
-Babies who die cannot be saved.

 

Where did you see that?

Amazing what one can do when they do not quote things wholly and in context.

Using your approach I can quote the Bible: There is no God.

 

Or...

Babies who die are affected by sin, yet are not dead in their trespasses and sins, hence deemed "not guilty".

Unfortunately, Augustiniansim renders your #2 option as the only one.

 

I would sign it.

 

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.

 

LOL! Perhaps some don't know that "a" in the English language can mean "one," "single," etc. But here it's just introducing the subject that follows. Or do you really think that these people mean what you think they mean.

I'm reminded of the short Sicilian in The Princess Bride movie who keeps saying "Inconceivable!" whenever something he didn't anticipate occurs. Finally the Spaniard confronts him and says something to the effect of: "Why do you keep using that word? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

Too funny!

 

This is supposed to be a serious statement on beliefs, it is no place to be ambiguous with words. At the very least it is sloppy work for a statement that is supposed to be important.

But more importantly, the SBC does not need this statement. There is already a very clear statement of beliefs in the BF&M 2000.

 

Didn't you see all the Scripture references?

 

Naturally!

 

Yes. When I was reading through it, I was surprised that a rejection of the doctrine of original sin was considered a "traditional" Southern Baptist understanding.

While I don't like the doctrine of original sin in the way that it is usually formulated (guilt, not inclination), my like or dislike of the doctrine doesn't make it any more or less true.

I'm not actually sure what I think of the doctrine of original sin and have had some vigorous discussion on the doctrine in both a Texas Baptist university theology class and a Southern Baptist seminary. In both places, the doctrine of original sin (guilt, not just inclination) was alleged to be the "traditional" Baptist view. I tend to believe that our sin nature is an inclination toward sin, not guilt, but I am not dogmatic on that point.

Although I am not a five-point Calvinist, I have a number of other issues with the document, not the least of which is that the document doesn't define what "the Gospel" is exactly. The context tells me that the writers think that primary focus of the gospel is getting people to heaven, but that's not what my reading of the scripture tells me - it's about the Kingdom of God. Yes, those who enter the Kingdom of God will experience heaven (and a new earth with a physical resurrection of the body), but the focus of Jesus' teaching and the message of the early church is not about getting to heaven.

Furthermore, the language "God's Plan of Salvation" is completely extra-biblical and makes it sound like God is somehow setting out a series of tasks for us to complete so we can experience salvation. I can imagine that others will rightly insist that salvation is initiated, directed, and completed by God (in my understanding, with our assent and participation), so the "plan" is entirely on God's side. If so, I think the framers of this document should have chosen other words to more accurately reflect that truth.

Overall, I think this is yet another way certain leaders in the SBC are trying to provoke a fight over an important, but not essential, doctrinal issue. It seems to me that they might be trying to blame the Calvinists for the overall lack of vitality and growth of the SBC over the past few decades instead of realizing that most churches in the SBC (and every other denomination in the United States) have essentially ignored practical discipleship training. The people in the pews have been taught that the gospel is about getting to heaven and you do it by affirming certain theological statements, walking an aisle, getting baptized, and staying out of trouble until you die. Our churches tend to ignore the teachings of Jesus about entering into a transformed Kingdom life by doing the things he does. We also tend to read Paul with our biases that Paul is interested in just getting people into heaven, rebuking women who allegedly overstep their freedoms, and denouncing homosexual acts. Paul clearly identifies himself as a disciple/slave of Jesus and, if you read Paul in the context of Jesus' teachings, you'll see that Paul's focus is actually about how to put the words and teachings of Jesus into action on the mission field and in the church.

Even though I disagree with much of the theological position, I have enormous respect for five-point Calvinists. In my opinion, this document is an unwarranted broadside against them.

 

Very good points. It has never made sense to me that if all the studies show that Calvinists make up a small minority in the SBC how can they be the reason for the declining numbers. It seems they are just the convenient group to place blame. If the SBC wants to do something they should dig into the problems you have listed here instead of trying to place blame on a select group of brothers within the convention.

 

Their document doesn't say anything about being dead or affected by sin, it says (1) a person is NOT rendered guilty before he has individually sinned (2) Each person's sin brings the wrath of God...etc, (3) We deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the H.S. drawing....

This does not leave room for a "sinful" yet "not guilty" infant. It only leaves room for sinless infants who have no need to be saved, or sinful infants who because of their inability to respond to the gospel, will not be saved.

I don't know what Augustine believed about this issue.

 

James White pointed out how almost all the verses offered do not support what the statement says. Jonathan...give it a listen.