A Statement from the Calvinism Advisory Committee

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Van, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    We deny that any human system of thought or any theological tradition can assume supreme authority or be allowed to supplant dependence upon the Bible and all that it reveals. Neither Calvinism nor non-Calvinism ought to be equated exclusively with sound Southern Baptist doctrine nor be considered inconsistent with it. [Does this mean the “TULI’ can be rejected, but the “P” accepted within the SBC?]

    We deny that any human being is without need of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and we deny any teaching that minimizes the truth about sin and the need of all persons to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. [Does this mean babies who died are not elected conditionally based on innocence?]

    We deny that the Gospel is without power to save anyone who repents and believes in Jesus Christ. We also deny that the Gospel as revealed in Scripture lacks anything needful for our salvation. [Does this mean the gospel is the power of God unto salvation and not irresistible grace?]

    We deny that the Gospel lacks any power to save anyone who believes in Christ and receives Him as Savior and Lord. Anyone who understands the Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit may, in prayer and petition, trust Christ through repentance and faith, and we should plead with all sinners to do so. [Does this mean the inability to believe if unregenerate is rejected?]

    We deny that salvation can come to any sinner by any other gospel, any other system of faith and practice, or by any name other than Jesus Christ. [Notice the clarity when dealing with no controversial issues.]

    We deny that there is anything lacking in the atonement of Christ to provide for the salvation of anyone. [Does this mean Christ died for all men, anyone, rather than only the elect?]

    We deny that there is any opportunity for salvation after the point of death, when all humanity will face the judgment of God. [Thus Universalism is outside the orthodox doctrine of the SBC]

    We deny that salvation comes to anyone who has not experienced conversion. We also deny that salvation comes to any sinner who does not will to believe and receive Christ. [Does this mean babies are not elected through innocence, since we were all made sinners?]

    We deny that missions and evangelism can be neglected without denying the power of the Gospel; that any church can be faithful without a missionary urgency; and that any believer can be obedient without telling others about Jesus. We deny that evangelism can exist apart from the call to make disciples. Every sinner should be implored to trust Christ by calling on Him through repentance and faith, and every convert should be discipled toward maturity, commitment to the church, and passion for the lost. [Again, when dealing with a non-controversial issue, clarity is presented.]

    Notice how difficult it is using the weasel words of the statement to deny either view. Thus the refuge of ambiguity is embraced, rather than coming to a common understanding of what the Bible teaches. Since Jesus taught us to be clear and unambiguous, with our yes meaning yes, and our no meaning no, this statement seems a sinful accommodation of mistaken doctrine.
     
  2. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Paul taught we should not make an accommodation with the flesh. Jesus taught our yes should mean yes and our no should mean no. So the use of weasel words, or statements that are calculated to be ambiguous are not in accord with the will of God.
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    We deny that sinners have the means within themselves to place faith in jesus to get saved, as the capability to freely choose Him was lost in the Fa;; of Adam, so God MUST enable us to chose for jesus first, in that His choice of us makes possible and certain us choosing him!
     
  4. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, Van, are you SBC?

    And you're right, the SBC is ambiguous on issues that are not clear in Scripture. For the vast majority of Southern Baptists, we believe that a case for both of these positions can be seen in Scripture.

    I'll take a convention made up of people who are willing to see anothers viewpoint as possible over the people who think they have all of soteriology figured out.
     
  5. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    1) No, but I have attended several and enjoyed the fellowship.

    2) Stating "issues not clear in scripture" without identifying them is ambiguous.

    3) I think you are missing the mark. We have Calvinist leaning SBC churches, and we have Arminian leaning SBC churches. And then we have the weasel word churches that claim both views are true, but it is a mystery we just must accept. What happened to a double minded man is unstable in all his ways?

    4) There is no virtue in talking out of both sides of our mouths.
     

Share This Page

Loading...