Featured Sign Up?

...and? It is not alluding to there being numerous ways of salvation as you are implying. You are dismissing it merely due to semantics.

 

Disagreed. It coincides with Scripture...it goes against your theology

 

Words have meaning and in what is supposed to be an important serious statement of beliefs there should be no unclear use of words.

And as I have stated before, the biggest point here is the SBC already has a statement of beliefs to work with. There is no need for this statement, but especially with such a sloppy worded one.

 

What would you say is the cause of the decline of practical discipleship?

 

One...calvinism is not the "foundations of the doctrines of grace". Two, one does not come to Christ as a calvinist. Three, one needs to read an awful lot into Scripture to arrive at calvinism. Four, my point stand.

 

You are merely begging the question. There was nothing "sloppy" about the wording...you just didn't like it. Did God make a way of salvation, or did He make many ways of salvation?

 

He did not make "a" way of salvation, He made THE way of salvation.
It is a very important distinction.

 

Oops. R.C. Sproul didn't get the memo:laugh:

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/great-quotes-when-worlds-collide/

"But thanks be to God that He has given us a way of salvation by which we can escape His fury." —R.C. Sproul, When Worlds Collide

 

Mark Dever too? Say it ain't so!:laugh:

"There you have the good news! God has made a way of salvation for all of us alike—alike in our sin—through Jesus Christ." —Mark Dever, The Message of the New Testament

 

Neither of those statements were made in the context of a statement of beliefs for a denomination.

 

If it is such a "very important distinction" why is it inapplicable outside the context of a denominational statement of beliefs? Bizarre.

 

It appears you are being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Your point is certainly not reasonable.

 

Could sign it and did sign it. :thumbs:

 

Actually it is a distinction without a difference as THE context dictates "a" is used in like manner. Me thinks thou art being obtuseth.

 

I could not sign for several reasons but one is that because it presents only one side of the biblical truth. I believe in election and I also believe in free will equally as both are taught in the bible. I do not suggest I can explain them but I do accept the teachings of both equally.

 

THIS IS GREAT! Because both Calvinists and Arminians also believe in both election AND free will; so you are in good company! What are we arguing about?

 

No argument just a statement of fact. By the way I never met a Calvinist who believed in free will.
So what is your argument?

 

I don't think there is a single cause. Like most things in the human experience, there are multiple forces at work.

In the mainstream denominations that are not particularly evangelistic, I would attribute much of the decline to disbelief in the reality and efficacy of the resurrected Christ.

In non-charismatic circles (both evangelistic and non-evangelistic), I think there was a reaction against the immanent reality of the Person of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit as a reaction against the excesses of the movements that emphasized speaking in tongues, divine healing for every disease and ache, and the rise of the anti-Christian prosperity movement that infiltrated the church through people like Kenneth Hagin and Oral Roberts. If, in the well-intentioned effort to protect the people in the pews from these excesses, we essentially tell people that God is not going to act directly in their lives and that the only true experiences they will have will be mediated through bible study and preaching, then they will get the idea that mental assent (not intentional transformational disciplines worked out in ones life) is the key to Christian living.

In denominations and movements that emphasize evangelism (which I fully support), there has been a tendency to turn evangelism into a 1940s-50s style door-to-door sales technique that hammers a few basic theological propositions (e.g. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" and tries to close the sale). While the intent is good and much of the time, the theological propositions may be sound, it has the effect of reducing the gospel to a couple of theological points instead of the broader call of Jesus - a call of transformation and discipleship. Even this theological missive that started this discussion does not seem to acknowledge that there is anything more to the gospel than the eternal destination of individuals, to either heaven or hell. While there is enormous value in being succinct in an evangelistic presentation, there has been an astonishing lack of theological depth in the training of both the people in the pulpit and in the pew regarding the way Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the church as recorded in the Book of Acts evangelized their culture and the other cultures they encountered. Furthermore, evangelism was not isolated from other aspects of the Christian life. The lifestyles of the evangelists themselves authenticated the messages that they delivered to their hearers. BECAUSE their lives were extraordinary, the gospel message that they presented captured the attention of their hearers. Because their lives were being transformed through active practices of discipleship, they were very sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit and had practical faith to trust the Spirit's power and leadership as they faced each situation. That kind of faith is gained and grown through discipleship.

In Southern Baptist circles, I think the decline of "Training Union" in the 1960s-70s also contributed to the decline. In the church where I grew up, by the late 1970s, Training Union amounted to a Sunday night session of an ill-informed teacher telling us how bad Roman Catholics were and how they were going straight to hell. Having some Roman Catholics in my extended family (and my mother being a former Roman Catholic), I knew that a lot of what I was being told was a misunderstanding at best, or outright lies at worst. While I have no love or appreciation for the Roman Catholic church, it undermined the credibility of the entire Training Union program when it descended to the point of simply bashing Roman Catholics since the teachers didn't really know much about the Bible.

I'm sure there are most elements and movements involved in the decline, but these are just the first few that come to mind.

 

I don't think that was meant to infer that God's plan of salvation is just one of the possible ways. There was no way for mankind to be cleansed and made perfect for heaven, and God provided a way--the ONLY way.

I agree with it completely. I don't usually read such a long post, but I had to read it to know if I agree with it. I would have no problem signing it. I say that all the time--God provided a way. I'm not saying that His way is just one of several ways, but that His way is the ONLY way--just as Jesus is THE Way THE Truth, and THE Life. There is NO other way, truth, or life outside of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, the only begotten Son of God, the ONLY Mediator between God and man, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the ONLY Door to eternal life, the Prince of Peace (for there is no peace without Him), the Living Bread, the Living Water, the Living Word, and the ONLY hope for mankind.