Remain in SBC?

[carlgobelman]

I don't think the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic view necessitates a false gospel.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Anything other than this is a false gospel.

Monergism: "In theol., The doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to Christ or holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration." In this view, the new birth (or regeneration) precedes faith"

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)." From Monergism.com

If man cooperates and has a part in salvation then it is not a gift of God but is earned by man and is a work. It is as the Scriptures say "not of yourselves."

So now we're back to the "how can a false gospel save" dilemma. If the gospel being preached is false, then people cannot be saved through it. You can't have it both ways. If people are being saved in Arminian SBC churches, then they are not preaching a false gospel; it may not be a complete gospel, but it cannot be false.

The gospel that Paul was anxious to defend in Galatians can be summed up here:

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

I think if you were to poll Arminians and Calvinists, there would be general agreement on the classic interpretation of this verse. I defy you to show me an Arminian that teaches that we can be saved by "works of the law." I agree that the Synergistic view is logically and Scripturally inconsistent, but it is not equal to salvation by works of the law; which is rightly to be condemned.

 

[DMcFadden]

One of the more recent studies within that communion has shown that approximately 1/3 of the graduating seminarians claim to be "Calvinists." When you consider all of the years of Arminian seminary training, that is a long way from a majority.

All 1998-2004 Masters level seminary graduates from Golden Gate, New Orleans, Midwestern, Southeastern, Southwestern and the Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary were invited to complete the survey late 2006. A limited subset of Southern graduates was available for the study.

The total number of survey respondents was 2149, of those 2134 were usable.

By seminary: Golden Gate (N=270), New Orleans (N=287), Midwestern (N=148), Southeastern (N=403), Southwestern (N=978), Canadian Southern Baptist Seminary (N=11), Southern Seminary (N=52).

1,234 respondents serving as pastors or staff members at a Southern Baptist church. Within this group, 527 serve as senior or solo pastor of congregation.

There are several important items this report has found related to Calvinism among SBC church leadership.

First, Calvinist led churches are in the minority—though the number is increasing.

Second, Calvinism is on the rise among most recent seminary graduates. If present trends continue, Calvinism will continue to grow as an influence in our convention; however, these trends will take years to create a critical point of equality with non-Calvinist led congregations.

Third, Calvinist led churches, pastored by recent seminary graduates, are generally smaller in worship attendance and annual baptisms than non-Calvinist churches led by recent seminary graduates.

Fourth, church growth statistics in terms of annual baptism rates indicates that there is little difference between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches.

Findings from research conducted by the North American Mission Board – 2007 NAMB New Millennium Ministers Study –

Concern about Calvinism

LifeWay Research has previously reported a sharp rise in the number of self-identified five-point Calvinists among recent seminary graduates. In a related question, LifeWay Research asked Southern Baptist pastors if they were "concerned" about this increase, asking them to agree or disagree with the statement, "The rise of Calvinism among recent seminary graduates concerns me."

Among Southern Baptist pastors, 27 percent strongly agreed and another 36 percent somewhat agreed with the statement indicating that they were "concerned." Sixteen percent strongly disagreed with the statement and another 17 percent somewhat disagreed. The remaining 5 percent indicated they "don’t know."

 

[MarieP]

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?

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.

Do you believe Arminians can be saved? (And most in the SBC aren't even full-blown Arminians).

Is there a biblical example of "reforming" bad doctrine from within, or would the example be to split off from that which is unbiblical?

The church in Corinth. And DD2009 beat me to it, the churches in Revelation

 

[JML]

Do you believe Arminians can be saved? (And most in the SBC aren't even full-blown Arminians).

It would depend on what you consider to be an Arminian. That term is thrown around a lot and everyone has a different definition of what they would consider one. Those who believe they are saved by their works, no I don't believe they are saved. Those who may have a few things wrong here and there but believe they are saved by Christ and Christ alone, I do believe they can be saved.

 

[MarieP]

Do you believe Arminians can be saved? (And most in the SBC aren't even full-blown Arminians).

It would depend on what you consider to be an Arminian. That term is thrown around a lot and everyone has a different definition of what they would consider one. Those who believe they are saved by their works, no I don't believe they are saved. Those who may have a few things wrong here and there but believe they are saved by Christ and Christ alone, I do believe they can be saved.

You are right that the term is thrown around a lot and has different definitions. We could say the same with "Calvinist" and "Reformed" too. I agree that a person who says they are saved by their works is not saved. That would be the official teaching of Rome, as well as the Church of Christ denomination (they'd shoot me if I called them that...)

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves. They would say that it is God's grace that saves us, not our works. They would deny that we earn our salvation in any way. It's because of their inconsistency that makes them within the pale of orthodoxy and not full-blown Pelagians.

 

[Ivan]

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?

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 can tell you without question that I don't know a single SBC pastor who believes what you say they believe. You are simply wrong.

 

[JML]

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

 

[MarieP]

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Right! Like I said, they are inconsistent.

"And can it be" and "Arise, my soul, arise" are some of the richest and accurate hymns soteriologically that I know of, and yet the man who penned them was no Calvinist...

And "Jesus, Lover of my soul", also by Wesley

 

[Ivan]

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Here's the problem: you are lumping everyone in this catergory. Again, you are wrong. In the SBC, you must take every individual pastor and each individual church into account.

From your statement you are saying that I am a synergist. I am not.

 

[JML]

But most in the SBC, while being synergistic, would say that it is Christ alone who saves.

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Here's the problem: you are lumping everyone in this catergory. Again, you are wrong. In the SBC, you must take every individual pastor and each individual church into account.

From your statement you are saying that I am a synergist. I am not.

Ivan,

I apologize if I gave that impression. In one of my earlier posts I said:

"I couldn't with a good conscience remain as a pastor in the SBC. Others have made other decisions. Those are my thoughts. No offense to the Founders men on this board."

I apologize if I have lumped those who do not believe these things in with those who do. I did not intend to offend you in any way. I should have possibly chosen my words in other posts more carefully.

 

[Ivan]

Herein lies the problem because if we look at the definition of synergism

Synergism: "In theol., the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in [that are necessary as precursors for] regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate." In this view, faith precedes new birth (or regeneration)."

If one claims Christ alone can save they are by definition not a synergist.

Here's the problem: you are lumping everyone in this catergory. Again, you are wrong. In the SBC, you must take every individual pastor and each individual church into account.

From your statement you are saying that I am a synergist. I am not.

Ivan,

I apologize if I gave that impression. In one of my earlier posts I said:

"I couldn't with a good conscience remain as a pastor in the SBC. Others have made other decisions. Those are my thoughts. No offense to the Founders men on this board."

I apologize if I have lumped those who do not believe these things in with those who do. I did not intend to offend you in any way. I should have possibly chosen my words in other posts more carefully.

Thank you. Apology accepted.

 

[AThornquist]

Ivan, what is your perspective on my questions? You were one of the people in particular that I wanted to hear from.

 

[SolaSaint]

Fellow PBer's,

Is there anyway to agree that the prophet Isaiah's words will bring this argument under a little more biblical light as he stated "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. " Isa 55:8-9?

I was saved while attending a SBC church and have served as deacon in the SBC for 15 plus years, and I never saw the likes of the Arminainism spoken of here. Yes over the years the SBC has fallen into the seeker sensitive gospel lite, and this is one reason why I have left the SBC, but I still believe the SBC proclaims salvation in Christ alone and not by works. This argument has been around for almost 500 years now and no one has proven to me the correct answer except God Almighty through Isaiah. His ways are not ours. We should denounce salvation by works boldly but also be careful not to lump those in who may not evangelize in the same way we prefer. We must be careful to point a finger at a brother in Christ and claim heresy when God tells us we won't always understand all His ways.

 

[busdriver72]

Well, throw rocks at SBC if you wish, but before I was saved the ONLY ones who ever shared the gospel with me were Southern Baptist. I've never had anyone from the reformed persuasion knock on my door or even at act like they were interested in knowing if I knew Christ. I know there are those that do, but SBCers reach people with the gospel, which IS the power of God unto salvation (hmmmm, that's in the Bible I think). They don't to try make people Calvinist or any other "ist." Calvinism is not the the power of God unto salvation.
When I was saved, I didn't know election/Calvinism from a hole in the ground, yet I was a follower of Christ. I learned of my election later, yet I was still just as saved.

 

[Ivan]

Andrew, I've been a Southern Baptist since I was almost 16 years old. I attended a Sunday School of the same Southern Baptist Church prior to that. I've broaden my perspective considerably since than. I've been in contact with many Christians from many different denominations, not all that I agree with. Still, I look for ways to interact with them.

Almost the same could be said within the SBC. There are some SBC churches that are very much like the ones that have been portrayed in a negative light here. There are some who are more Calvinistic than many Presbyterian churches.

I'm not interested in finding out how different I am than other Christians. I want to find out what I have in common. With that I see if I can cooperate and have a relationship with others.

If we want to finely define very jot and tittle and every nook and cranny of every single doctrine to make positively sure that we are in line with every possible subject we will soon find ourselves "enjoying" the company of no one and will be very, very alone.

I choose to find how I can work with others rather than how I can avoid others.

 

[AThornquist]

I like your perspective, Ivan. Thank you. The questions in my original post were questions that a local pastor asked me. I suggested something very similar to what you said in defense of a local SBC pastor. However, the pastor responded by saying that as a whole the SBC is weak on the gospel because as a whole there is so much semi-Pelagianism. He said there is no good reason to stay connected since that would be like supporting their weak-gospel cause. Thus, it would be best to leave the camp. I didn't have much of an answer. What are your thoughts on that concern?

 

[Damon Rambo]

Despite what some individual churches might believe, the SBC's statement of faith, is at the very least a mildly Calvinist document. Notice, that among other things, that they have regeneration preceding rather than resulting from, repentance and faith...

"A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

It also tends towards Covenant theology, rather than dispensationalism.

The fact is, that their doctrine is spot on the money (though rather vague on some points; rightly so, I believe). It is actually impossible to be a full fledged Arminian (or even predominantly) and agree with the BF& M. And you do not kick people out of fellowship because of mild doctrinal disagreements.

Just my

 

[Ivan]

I like your perspective, Ivan. Thank you. The questions in my original post were questions that a local pastor asked me. I suggested something very similar to what you said in defense of a local SBC pastor. However, the pastor responded by saying that as a whole the SBC is weak on the gospel because as a whole there is so much semi-Pelagianism. He said there is no good reason to stay connected since that would be like supporting their weak-gospel cause. Thus, it would be best to leave the camp. I didn't have much of an answer. What are your thoughts on that concern?

Damon's reply covers it well. I'd say, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath wash".

 

[SolaSaint]

Well, throw rocks at SBC if you wish, but before I was saved the ONLY ones who ever shared the gospel with me were Southern Baptist. I've never had anyone from the reformed persuasion knock on my door or even at act like they were interested in knowing if I knew Christ. I know there are those that do, but SBCers reach people with the gospel, which IS the power of God unto salvation (hmmmm, that's in the Bible I think). They don't to try make people Calvinist or any other "ist." Calvinism is not the the power of God unto salvation.
When I was saved, I didn't know election/Calvinism from a hole in the ground, yet I was a follower of Christ. I learned of my election later, yet I was still just as saved.

Very well said Ralph.

 

[Brian Withnell]

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 no longer a Southern Baptist ... used to be a long time ago. While I can see someone leaving, I think leaving a church (or a denomination) is a serious matter that ought to be carefully considered. If a church is part of an association, there is little to nothing that the "denomination" can push on the local congregation from above (almost nothing from what I remember) and so the local church is almost completely autonomous in practice. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was one of the key points of congregationalism.)

So then it comes down to what good/harm does it do to stay and what good/harm does it do to leave. I don't see much harm being done no matter what. The denomination seems a toothless lion that has no real bite (again, correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a long time since I was in a SBC church). What good does it do to remain? Might have an overall effect at being salt and light in a dark place. What harm does it do to leave? It removes more of those that know the truth.