Why still SBC

I was present for a number of Wade's sermons and was heavily involved in the discussions surrounding the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. The primary issue was the exclusion of the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ." That is a huge issue to me as well, since it is quite obviously a biblical view even though some misused it.

I don't think Wade was a liberal at all (not in the classical sense), but a moderate. He is not an inerrantist, but I don't consider that a mark of liberalism. I reject theories of inerrancy because I believe it is too LOW of a view of scripture and in thoroughly rooted in an faulty MODERNISTIC view of scripture instead of a more biblical view. Obviously, that's a controversial position, but it is not a position of liberalism, it is a rejection of a faulty and untenable theological position. I believe the Bible and my belief in the validity of scripture is not based on whether or not the UNAVAILABLE original autographs have errors.

Actually, there is no "President" of the BGCT at this time.

 

I will say this, if you do not believe the Bible is innerant, you cannot be a Christian. Jesus said that if you don't believe Moses and the Prophets you can't believe him. II Timothy related the Bible as God breathed, the very breathe of God. Warfield's work on innerancy showed that this means it is the very essence of God himself. To reject the Bible is to reject God. Since the Bible says the Word of God is without error, we must agree.

Thus, you can call him whatever you want to call him, but you cannot deny his views are modernistic and a result of the enlightenment, not Scripture.

If you notice in my posts in other parts, I give great credence to those who disagree with a literal 6 day creation due to exegetical laws. Yet, to outrightly deny innerancy, as Spurgeon showed, is a way of denying Christ himself and is entrenched in the downgrade (we call it liberalism today). With such men, we should depart.

Spurgeon not only condemned such views, he was censored for his views. Yet, years later few doubt he was right about his assessment. Wade is a part of the Downgrade, in fact he was a leader into the Downgrade.

 

Wow, that is completely wrong! Talk about getting your priorities wrong and misunderstanding the nature of salvation.

All these things have nothing to do with inerrancy. You don't find the doctrine of inerrancy formalized until the last 1800s. Are you really willing to say the billion or so Christians living before that time weren't actually saved?

Your hubris is stunning. It is this kind of unnecessary rhetoric that casts a bad light on Christianity. Inerrancy is an important doctrine but it isn't a foundational doctrine nor part of salvation.

Salvation is a free, and gracious, gift of God that is not bound in what I do or do not know theologically. To assume it is such blasphemes the nature of the Gospel and misidentifies what is central in salvation. It is, instead, pseudo-Gnosticism.

 

Independent Baptist? So am I:wavey:

Gallup reports that:

That is a much more drastic drop off than the numbers the Convention bosses put out.

 

That is a heretical statement which rejects the gospel for a new Gnosticism.

No one has said, including me, that I don’t believe Moses and the Prophets. I also believe the words of Jesus. You are confusing the belief in a view of scriptural authority with a belief in the validity of the scripture itself. The scripture does not get its authority from being inerrant (I write inerrant shopping lists all the time), but from its character as being the written word of God.

The Bible is not God, no matter if Warfield actually said/meant that. If he did say that, he was profoundly mistaken.

No one in this conversation (at least on my end) has rejected either the Bible or God.

Yet the popular view of inerrancy (please note the spelling), claims that only the original autographs are inerrant and today’s copies are not. So your view actually has a lower estimation of the extant scripture than mine. Frankly, I don’t think God is interested in humankind having exact, perfect copies of scripture laying about because people would start worshiping the Bible instead of interacting with it and having it lead them into life. Like the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the temple in Jerusalem, God has allowed these things to be destroyed/lost in order to keep the focus where it should be.

Yet, as you have displayed here, people still confuse the Bible with God/Jesus. To declare that the Bible is not God is not to denigrate the scripture, but to put it in its proper place. The Bible is not the Creator and Sustainer. The Bible did not become incarnate. The Bible did not die for the sins of humankind. The Bible was not resurrection and appear to believers. The Bible did not ascend into heaven. The Bible is not coming again to exercise righteous judgment and make all things new.

Charles Wade is really not the issue here. Furthermore, no matter what he views might be (I doubt they are like you suggest), they are irrelevant as a barometer the beliefs of the wildly diverse BGCT.

And frankly, the whole theory of inerrancy developed as a result of enlightenment/modernistic thought. The fundamentalists of the day were confronting with unbelief that used enlightenment/modernistic thought as a framework to justify rejection of God. So they responded according to those philosophical framework. However, after some time they failed to recognize that they were now reframing the Christian faith in terms of modernism (although, without the unbelief) and began seeing their new theological constructions like “inerrancy” (which has significant theological assumptions and philosophical and practice problems) as the biblical standard instead of the simple reliability and preservation of scripture through the ages. They confused unbelief with “modernism” and then wholeheartedly embraced a “Christian” modernism with a whole host of theological and philosophical problems.

 

Actually, using historical definitions, the denial of the inerancy of the Scriptures is one of the primary defining characteristics of theological liberalism. That was the main battle between the conservatives and liberals at the turn of the 19th century. Denial of inerrancy is indeed the foundational characteristic of "liberalism."

As far as the BGCT, it is about as liberal as you can be and not be booted out of the SBC. The professors of its schools (especially Baylor) have in just the last 10 years, been caught, affirming evolution, endorsing homosexuality, denying penal substitutionary atonement, and a whole host of other issues. The BGCT has embraced the social gospel, modernism, and the emergent church movement. Again; bout as liberal as you can be, and not be booted out of the SBC.

 

Ah, now you are calling me a heretic. So, I assume you would call B.B. Warfield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, etc a heretic. Fine, from liberals I would gladly wear that title.

My purpose is to show you you are wrong that this is not a result of modernism. I will cite primary sources in history to show you are wrong. As well, some of the most adamant opposers of gnosticism supports my view. My friend, you are not only wrong, you have fallen for a lie of the liberals, a lie that this resulted from since the enlightenment. I will prove it is a lie and I expect then you to take back your words and to start to no longer trust the lies you were given. No scholar would make such a blatant lie unless they had an agenda.

First, the early church fully accepted the complete truthfulness of Scripture, even while battling gnosticism. Bruce Vawter summarized when he said:

"It would be pointless to call into question that Biblical innerrancy in a rather absolute form was a common persuasion from the beginning of Christian times, and from Jewish times before that. For both the Fathers and rabbis generally, the ascription of any error to the Bible was unthinkable... If the word was God's it must be true regardless of whether it made known a mystery of divine revelation or commented on a datum of natural science, whether it derived from human observation or chronicled an event in history (Bruce Vawter, Biblical Inspiration 1972, pg 132-133).

Most cite two biblical examples of this attitude, the psalmist David noted, "the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6) and John 17:17.

The early Christian fathers seemed aligned in this fact. Clement of Rome stated, "You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or coutnerfiet is written in them." Hippolytus said, "The Scripture of truth" and Irenaeus said, "the Scriptures are indeed perfect" and again, "The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit." The last using strong language in saying the perfection of Scripture without error.

Origen criticized those as being heretics who believed the Bible was not trustworthy.

Athanasius affirmed the total reliability and without error nature of Scripture.

Augustine strongly affirmed Scripture, "I have learned to yield this total respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that their authors were completely free from error."

Augustine strongly repudiated those who disagreed. He was so thoroughly convinced Scripture was free from any error, Augustined dared to imagine what the presence of even one mistake in the Bible would lead to:

"It seemed to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books; that is to say, that the men by whom the Scriptures have been given to us and committed to writing did put down in these books anything false... For one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true."

Strong words. I will post this one and move to more citations. As you can see, whoevever told you this is just since the enlightenment is lying to you. I can give you the primary sources if you like in a bibliography and you can check these out for yourself. Yet, to say it is since the 1800's is a complete fabrication.

 

One final note on Augustine, he said that we are bound as Christians to believe everything in Scripture.

Anselm said, "For I am sure that if I say anything which is undoubtedly contradictory to holy Scripture, it is wrong; and if I become aware of such a contradiction to holy Scripture, I do not wish to not wish to hold to that opinion."

Hervaeus said that Scripture came from God and must be completely true because, "it is certain that God cannot speak falsehood."

Aquinas noted, "It is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Scripture." He affirmed Scripture was without error and he advanced the idea that humans depend on Scriptures to be without error for our entire salvation. He concluded that it was necessary for salvation that Scripture be without error.

Overwhelmingly, so far, the early church and the medieval church affirmed that the true belief was innerancy of Scripture.

In the Reformation, Luther noted that Scripture "never erred" and "it cannot err." He later said, "You must follow straight after Scripture, accept it and not speak even one syllable agaisnt it, because it is God's mouth... It is established by God's Word that God does not lie, nor does his Word lie."

Calvin is well known for his strong stand on Scripture calling it "the eternal and inviolable truth of God."

Other Protestants agreed. The Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession have a very strong statement that the Bible is without error calling it "infallible truth." The Westminster further clarifies, "a Christian believes to be true whatever is revealed in the Word because the authority of God himself speaks in it."

I may address Socinianism later, but this was the first major movement to deny the innerancy of Scripture, and was considered heretical.

Abraham Calov noted, "But if error, or even the intimation of error, is admitted in these matters, then not even that which pertains to true doctrine is above the suspicion of error, since both historical sections and parables contribute greatly to the truth of doctrine."

Turretin said, "The sacred writers were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (as to the things themselvess and as to the words) as to be kept free from all error and... their writings are truly authentic and divine... The prophets did not fall into mistakes in those things which they wrote as inspired men and as prophets, not even in the smallest particulars, otherwise faith in the whole of Scripture would be rendered doubtful."

One historian noted, "The early church, the church in the Middle Ages, and the divided church at the time of the Reformation were all united in their belief in the full truthfulness of Scripture (innerancy). This remarkable consensus, strongly held for over a millennium and a half, began to unravel at the beginning of the 17th Century."

Thus, for 1600 years there seemed to be a consensus in the church. This was did not occur since the 1800's, but is the testimony of the church. We can trace the beginnings of the non-innerantists from La Peyrere and onward, but that may come at another day. Yet, there were still defenders as I will note.

Yet, can we not say that Edwards was a defender of Scripture? Hodge? The Toy controversy in the SBC is evidence that the majority of academians in the SBC was adamant about their view of Scripture.

I could go on and on and on. However, it is clear that innerancy has been seen in history as an essential doctrine and was not developed in teh 1800's. Rather, the attacks on the Bible began in the 1600's but took the greatest force of attacks in the 1800's, requiring men as never before to defend the Bible.

Your sources are wrong and I invite a history from you of errantists going back to the early church fathers. You will find one or two, mostly in the medieval period during a less known controversy. Then again in the 1600's. However, to claim my view is a recent event or even gnostic, is a lie.

 

Nope. I said it was a heretical statement. The popular view of inerrancy does not mediate life in Christ.

No. I don’t think they made that claim. If they did, then they would be heretical.

Well I am not a liberal and I didn’t give you that title.

Please note that I affirm the infallibility and preservation of scripture. I believe the Bible, and that’s why I reject the argument that assent to a theory of “inerrancy” mediates life in Christ.

I suspect you are not actually reading what I write and are instead jumping to conclusion regarding what I actually believe and affirm based on a faulty paradigm (inerrancy=conservative=believes the bible vs. noninerrancy=liberal=unbelief).

Well no one “lied” to me about this. I reasoned it out for myself using my understanding of the arguments, history, the history of philosophical though and listening to the conversation regarding inerrancy through the years. I used to hold to the “original autographs” theory of inerrancy until I realized it was too low of a view of scripture.

See, here’s the evidence that you aren’t actually reading/comprehending what I am writing.

I affirm the complete truthfulness of scripture. Why are you arguing that I don’t?

So what does this have to do with only the “original autographs” being inerrant? This has much more to do with infallibility than inerrancy.

I affirm that our copies are infallible. Doctrine is certain, although there are textual variants. That’s a higher view than the popular inerrancy taught since the late 19th century.

Again, this says nothing about inerrancy. This is about the purity and infallibility of the words of the Lord.

Again, infallibility.

The perfection of scripture referred to here is not the “original autograph” inerrancy championed in conservative Baptist circles, which is modernistic in origin and presuppositions. This is a pragmatic infallibility, based in pre-Enlightenment thought.

And no one here, including me, has said the Bible was not trustworthy.

And I affirm the reliability of scripture.

But I doubt he was referring only to the original autographs.

I think this is a very strange position to take. My faith in Christ is not built like a house of cards.

If I find that the counts of men in our copies of the scripture do not seem to agree (for instance, 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4), my faith does not collapse because my faith is not built on the Bible being inerrant, but on the Person of Christ Whom I have come to know in my daily life. My faith is not an intellectual position or theological stance, but it is a living relationship of discipleship to the One Who created the heavens and the earth and has sought me and given me His life.

Then give me a biblical reference or a reference from the early Church Fathers that asserts inerrancy only exists in the original autographs.

 

I do not necessarily trust Gallup in these surveys but this may be an area I may agree with him as the SBC attendance has been dropping. However, what is also amazing is that the SBC is active in church planting (something I do think is a good thing they do). Their older churches are declining but their newer ones are growing. However, overall, they seem to be in decline.

Where I doubt Gallup is that most other major denominations are declining too. So, I cannot see how the overall numbers are not declining.

 

[personal attack removed] Havens Dad noted, and I believe rightly, that liberalism is first defined by their view and belief on Scripture or the allowance of such by Scripture.

Since you have now called others like Warfield, Spurgeon, and Edwards heretics, I just will let your words stand.

As for the original autographs, I could go into another series of quotations, but I will not at this time. There have been much discussion on this issue throughout history as well. Yet, you have provided no rebuttal. It is clear from the early church fathers, your view has been rejected by all major theologians throughout history. Even the allowance of error was condemned throughout history. You excuse it because you cite the original autographs, but that is not the argument. The argument is that if you believe the Bible is in error, your salvation is unsecure. If, as well, you allow for such, you are in the Downgrade.

 

You’re really beating up on that straw man!

Who is saying they don’t believe scripture?

I’m going to snip out all of the needless citations here because you are trying to ascribe a view to me that I don’t hold.

Show me a citation of “inerrancy” that affirms it in the original autographs prior to the 19th century, but not the copies and you will have made your point. Otherwise you are ranting against a straw man you have erected. It’s all very impressive to people who aren’t paying attention, but you’re not intersecting with the argument I have put forth.

No one is attacking the Bible here, but you are right about this. And my premise is that the 19th century defenders of scripture (whom I respect) imposed the presuppositions of modernism upon Christian theology in order to respond to unbelief, which was cloaked in the presuppositions of modernism. In answering the enemies of the gospel, they took on the presuppositions of modernism and then eventually codified the doctrine of “inerrancy” (which has many of the philosophical flaws and weaknesses of modernism) instead of sticking with infallibility. I’m all for infallibility. However, inerrancy is not historically, philosophically, or theologically teneable.

Again, you show your complete cluelessness here. I am have never claimed anything of the sort.

Simply put, show me a citation where inerrancy is claimed in only the original autographs prior to the 19th century and I’ll concede the point.

 

Wow.

You’ve now resorted to name-calling because I affirm that life in Christ is not mediated upon a belief in your version of “inerrancy.”

Furthermore, you have tried to claim that I deny/disbelieve scripture and thereby deny Christ.

I simply asked you to provide one citation prior to the 19th century of “inerrancy” that extends only to the original manuscripts and you have apparently realized that you can’t do that… which is the point I was making all along.

I affirm the infallibility and reliability of the scripture. I also believe that the doctrine of “inerrancy” that is popular in conservative Baptist circles is actually a lower view of scripture than what I profess and live by.

There is room for disagreement and discussion here, but making wild claims that salvation is dependent upon assent to a certain doctrine of inerrancy is absolutely heretical. Furthermore, name-calling and false accusations against others demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position (since it seems “liberal”, to you, means someone who denies the scripture and Christ).

Since I believe scripture is infallible and work hard to let it mold my life, I’m not a “liberal” by that definition.

Actually, I don’t think that at all. I don’t think you understand them nor understand the context in which they were writing. You were trying to claim your position (that belief in inerrancy is essential to faith in Christ) is theirs and use their reputation to bolster your position against me. If you were truly representing their position, I would have to call their teaching (in this respect) heretical because the Bible is of higher authority than Warfield, Spurgeon, and Edwards… and I think they would be the first to agree.

And why is that? You’ve expended all kinds of energy making accusations and beating up on a straw man argument that you’ve tried to pin on me. But now you suddenly don’t want to give even one reference which will utterly destroy my position?

When you start actually dealing with my position instead of beating the straw man, I can engage with you. Why would I try to defend a position I don’t believe (the “liberal” position)?

That’s not clear at all because you have not been addressing my argument.

Actually that is the argument I am making: The 19th century theological position of inerrancy that holds that “the ‘original autographs’ were inerrant, although the copies we have now have textual variants which is popular in conservative Baptist circles is too low of a view of scripture and has its origins in modernism.”

You have been fighting a pitched battle against something else entirely and trying to claim it is my view.

See, I don’t believe “the Bible is in error” (whatever that happens to mean) and I don’t think salvation is necessarily dependent upon the Bible anyway. For example, Abraham was secure in his faith long before any scripture was written.

And I know you’re obsessed by the Downgrade Controversy, but that’s not terribly relevant here since no one is denying doctrine or claiming the Bible is full of errors.

 

I was going to post a reply to some of the stuff around here but the outright slander in post #31 is too much for me.

I've seen liberalism, I've written against liberalism, I've met with liberals, I've debated with liberals...Baptist Believers (and many others on this board) aren't liberals.

Please, please reconsider your position Ruiz and repent of your pride. It is so sad to see this happen between Christians.

 

It’s not the only one though. Furthermore, liberals would not affirm the infallibility or reliability of scripture.

So accusing people of being “liberals” just because they do not affirm the popular doctrine of inerrancy is not legitimate unless that person holds to other viewpoints which characterize theological “liberalism.” That would be the decent, honest and Christ-honoring thing to do.

The issues between “conservatives” and “liberals” in the late 19th century were about belief and unbelief, argued in termed of modernism. You can hold to a modernist worldview (a rather poor worldview in my opinion) and be a believer or an unbeliever, but the real issue among them was whether the Bible was reliable. Because of the reality of textual variants and the acceptance of a modernist presupposition (that one had to be able to ascribe certainty and a “scientific” chain of evidence in order to establish truth claims), the argument for the reliability of scripture retreated into an “inerrancy in the original autographs” position instead of a truth claim based on the reliability of scripture established by implementation in the lives of believers in discipleship to Christ. The “conservatives” were in a tough position because they did need to answer the unbelief of the “liberals” using modernist categories, because they had already been accepted by the broader culture, but their theological descendants eventually erred by given up a more biblical worldview for the modernist constructions.

I think, overall, the “conservatives” did an admirable job defending the faith, but their descendants didn’t understand what was going on philosophically or in the cultural paradigm and then mistook those arguments and theological positions as the gospel itself, distorting the gospel message taught in more conservative churches.

The BGCT is not, nor has ever been, part of the SBC. However it has voluntarily cooperating with the SBC since 1848.

Whether or not the SBC will continue to accept money from the BGCT because of alleged “liberalism” is the SBC’s call.

The BGCT has almost no influence and certainly no control over Baylor since Baylor changed its charter a number of years ago. The BGCT also provides very little support for Baylor, so comparing what may be happening in the religion department at Baylor has nothing to do with the BGCT.

I graduated with a theology degree from a Texas Baptist school supported by the BGCT and did not encounter any professor endorsing any of the things you described.

I believe you are grossly mischaracterizing the BGCT, but I’m hardly an advocate for them, the SBC, the CBF or any other denominational organization.

However, I think we need to speak honestly about those with whom we disagree so I have tried to directly address the false charges that have enough specificity to challenge. General allegations with no evidence offered are hard to refute. Of course, they shouldn’t be given any consideration either. :saint:

 

No, it is not name calling, it is a theological label. I am a Calvinist, it is not a name calling to call me calvinist. Liberalism is theologically defined. Havens Dad theologically defined it and I supported the definition. I also am careful to cite Spurgeon, and he viewed this as a part of the Downgrade and should be removed from all true churches, even belief that non-innerant views are to be tolerated. This is not name calling, it is using a well defined term to call what you believe what it is, liberalism. I laugh that liberals do not like being called liberals, but it is well defined as accepting or holding to views contrary to innerancy. You called me a heretic, and I gladly hold that from your vantage point.

Yet, here is the problem. I have shown your belief goes against church history, the Christians from all ages and yet you still will not see that you are wrong. It has been shown by Jesus and Scripture that the word of God is true. You resort to using an argument for innerancy to attack innerancy, not really scholarly.

While you did announce the original autographs and I can provide that information, that is not the debate. The debate is innerancy itself as the key. Yet, let me note that the people cited assumed we had an accurate version of the texts that were delivered to them and Augustine does state that he believed that his version as well as the manuscripts were innerant, the manuscripts are both the original and what has been brought down. The original autographs are meaningless if you believe what we have today was passed down accurately. That is why your point is moot. I did not go into that because if what we have now is accurate and inspired, we do not need the original autographs.

Thus, when Augustine states,

This is in the Letter 82 to Jerome. Thus, in here he acknowledged if there was an error, the manuscript maybe in error. This is in affirmation of the orignal. However, Augustine did believed as did most other founding fathers, that what he had was accurate. That is also clear in the text. In fact, other quotes have Augustine stating he believed the manuscripts were trustworthy and reliable, that God preserved the Word of God.

I could go more into the Medieval period and to Luther and Calvin who had much to say on these. However, I do not wish to for time sake. First, I am away from home and only have access to what I can remember off the top of my head, my Kindle, and the Internet.

Yet, I could go into detail but the point is moot. If I believe, and I do, that the manuscripts are preserved, I trust them as being reliable as the originals.

 

Wow! I am pretty conservative. I do hold to the inerrancy of scripture. An I believe Wade to be a liberal. But this is way over the line and most likely based on a faulty view of inerrancy. You cannot equate inerrancy with believing or not believing Moses and the prophets. You are conflating two separate issues.

 

Mandy,

This is not my viewpoint, this is something that has been discussed throughout history beginning from the early church fathers. Their view is sorta similar to when Jesus said that if you don't believe Moses and the Prophets, you will not believe if someone rose from the dead. In other words, a basis in belief begins with the Scriptures (or, as I will discuss later, Special Revelation). In essence, the thought is that if this is the Word of God, your reliance upon the Word of God is necessary for belief just like it was when Jesus referred to Moses and the Prophets and needing to believe them. If preaching the Word in II Timothy 4:2 was necessary, then preaching the word in the context of II Timothy 3:16-17 is also necessary.

Philosophically, it gets even tougher. I am currently reading a historic theology on apologists, reading mostly through primary sources. Their view was just as harsh. In essence, General Revelation is accepted that it cannot save. Special Revelation is needed and required in order to bring someone to Christ. The difference between special and general revelation is reliability, perspicuity, inspiration, and that it comes from God himself. If the Bible is with error, it cannot be special revelation and it cannot save. There is no secure foundation by which to believe in your salvation. Special Revelation is demanded, and that Special Revelation is needed to be given from God himself, His Holy Word. If we do not have reliance on His Word, we do not have reliance on our Salvation (note the number of people in history who made similar statements in my quotes).

Finally, is denying innerancy something that should mandate church discipline? I would contend it is something that a church should excommunicate someone over. Why? it is denying the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. Most in Church history agreed, if you did not adhere to the Word of God, you were not to be a part of the church. Thus, church discipline is an authoritative statement that you are not saved. If the Bible is "God Breathed", making less of this Word is a tragic error that breaches upon God himself.

Thus, my view is rather simple, if you do not believe in the Word of God you probably are not saved. Could there be an exception? Yes! However, that is the exception and not the rule.

 

Ha ha! There ought to be an "abreviation alert" for this...

Oh, wouldnt is be great if I knew what all these abrevations meant! :laugh:

 

Preaching in Jesus:

While agree with your rebuttal of the "non-Innerancy = not saved". This statement is not accurate.

To be saved, I must know (theologically) that I am a sinner and that Jesus has died and risen for my sins and that I can by faith recieve God's "free and gracious gift."