SBC statement on Calvinism and Arminianism

[SeventhValley]

This was interesting.

Baptist Press - Calvinism committee issues report, urges SBC to 'stand together' for Great Commission - News with a Christian Perspective

"We must stand together in rejecting any form of hyper-Calvinism that denies the mandate to present the offer of the Gospel to all sinners or that denies the necessity of a human response to the Gospel that involves the human will. Similarly, we must reject any form of Arminianism that elevates the human will above the divine will or that denies that those who come to faith in Christ are kept by the power of God. How do we know that these positions are to be excluded from our midst? Each includes beliefs that directly deny what The Baptist Faith and Message expressly affirms."

SBC leaders, entities, churches and even prospective ministers all have a role in ensuring that a debate over Calvinism does not divide the denomination, the report says.

"We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention," the report says. "No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.

 

[MrJim]

This was interesting.

Baptist Press - Calvinism committee issues report, urges SBC to 'stand together' for Great Commission - News with a Christian Perspective

"We must stand together in rejecting any form of hyper-Calvinism that denies the mandate to present the offer of the Gospel to all sinners or that denies the necessity of a human response to the Gospel that involves the human will. Similarly, we must reject any form of Arminianism that elevates the human will above the divine will or that denies that those who come to faith in Christ are kept by the power of God. How do we know that these positions are to be excluded from our midst? Each includes beliefs that directly deny what The Baptist Faith and Message expressly affirms."

SBC leaders, entities, churches and even prospective ministers all have a role in ensuring that a debate over Calvinism does not divide the denomination, the report says.

"We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention," the report says. "No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.

Well that's definitively wishy-washy...just everyone play nice

 

[98cwitr]

I don't see how you can stand, logically, in any sort of middle-ground/grey area on these two theologies....how can you accept one without rejecting the other?

"[W]e agree that God loves everyone and desires to save everyone" <---guess Im not Baptist!

"We deny that there is anything lacking in the atonement of Christ to provide for the salvation of anyone." <--Except the Will of God that dictates faith, without faith no one can be saved. So while the Atonement is sufficient for all, it is not provide all with salvation.

Seems to me it's all about semantics.

"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." <-- I wholeheartedly agree, as with the majority of the statements in general and in detail.

 

[ChaseWind]

The report states:

"We must stand together in rejecting any form of hyper-Calvinism that denies the mandate to present the offer of the Gospel to all sinners or that denies the necessity of a human response to the Gospel that involves the human will."

Uh oh, there go all the little babies to hell since they cannot make a human response to the gospel. I prefer to embrace salvation that is 100% of God's grace, the biblical salvation. But, I confess, I am not an SBC member, so only observing from outside.

 

[Hammster]

The bottom line was that both views fall within the pale of orthodoxy, and we are not to divide over the issue. The two authors are strong proponents of the two views.

 

[SeventhValley]

"We affirm that Southern Baptists stand together in a commitment to cooperate in Great Commission ministries," the report says. "We affirm that, from the very beginning of our denominational life, Calvinists and non-Calvinists have cooperated together. We affirm that these differences should not threaten our eager cooperation in Great Commission ministries...........


Southern Baptists, the report says, should "not only acknowledge but celebrate the distinctive contributions made by the multiple streams of our Southern Baptist heritage."

"These streams include both Charleston and Sandy Creek, the Reformers and many of the advocates of the Radical Reformation, confessional evangelicalism and passionate revivalism," it says. "These streams and their tributaries nourish us still."

Seems they want to keep the big tent approach. Particular and General/Missionary strains that merged to make the SBC.

 

[SeventhValley]

The bottom line was that both views fall within the pale of orthodoxy, and we are not to divide over the issue. The two authors are sting proponents of the two views.

Agreed.

 

[MrJim]

The bottom line was that both views fall within the pale of orthodoxy, and we are not to divide over the issue. The two authors are strong proponents of the two views.

How can you not divide? They are two utterly contradicting theologies?

The SBC committee is straining to hold the convention together hoping this is enough and it is enough. The SBC I attend is definitely not a Calvinist church and rejected all Calvinist pastoral resumes during the pastoral selection process a few years ago...that's how serious they are about it...and that my friend is a divide.

 

[busdriver72]

Even if the concept of election and predestination are fully accurate....as far as reaching people for Christ it doesn't matter. God has not dropped us a list from heaven....we aren't privy to it. If it exists it is a heavenly file stamped "None of Your Business" on the folder. There is also an instruction sheet stuck on the outside of the folder that is for us....it reads "preach the gospel to every living creature!"
The Southern Baptist Convention has mostly always been about reaching the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ...and there is scarcely a corner of this earth that they have not taken the good news of Jesus Christ to.
Whether the Baptists doing this have the label Calvinist or Arminianist is irrelevant ...they are fulfilling the mandate of the Savior.

 

[Hammster]

How can you not divide? They are two utterly contradicting theologies?

The SBC committee is straining to hold the convention together hoping this is enough and it is enough. The SBC I attend is definitely not a Calvinist church and rejected all Calvinist pastoral resumes during the pastoral selection process a few years ago...that's how serious they are about it...and that my friend is a divide.

And that's fine. My church is somewhat mixed. And there's a mix in our association. But we somehow manage just fine. What we agree on is far more than we disagree on.

 

[JM]

the report says. "No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other.

I agree with that. For years Calvinism was thought to be the bane of evangelicalism and was essential forbidden to be taught and discussed.

 

[JM]

How can you not divide? They are two utterly contradicting theologies?

The SBC committee is straining to hold the convention together hoping this is enough and it is enough. The SBC I attend is definitely not a Calvinist church and rejected all Calvinist pastoral resumes during the pastoral selection process a few years ago...that's how serious they are about it...and that my friend is a divide.

I agree with this as well. The Doctrines of Grace, Calvinism, Reformed theology or whatever you want to call it works out practically, not just doctrinally, in different ways.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Well it seems that the SBC wishes to keep a balance. They have done so somewhat successfully since their inception. I've known congregations composed of both. It takes a very talented and dedicated pastor though.

 

[Samuel_Rigby]

I believe scripture teaches a balance in much the same way scripture teaches a balance between God's sovereignty and man's free will. How can both exist together? I don't know, but they must because both are clearly taught in scripture.

 

[98cwitr]

I believe scripture teaches a balance in much the same way scripture teaches a balance between God's sovereignty and man's free will. How can both exist together? I don't know, but they must because both are clearly taught in scripture.

Where is free will supported in the Bible?

If our will is free, then we can freely choose not to sin...and obviously we literally cannot be sin-free without God's intervention. By that notion, our choices and will are simply perceived to be free, but in fact are not.

See Proverbs 16:9, 20:24, Romans 6 and Romans 9....all these verses/chapters, at least to me, refute the notion of free will. We see numerous example of God "altering" a persons beliefs and emotions to achieve a certain outcome, and this also is proof that free will is not free at all.

Seems like a rather fair assessment:

, God has the ability to design us and our circumstances so that our emotions, desires, intellect, and other immaterial aspects of the self will lead us to make specific choices throughout the entire course of our lives, and this is the only Biblical, as far as I can tell, explanation of the human will. God does not program our actions, but creates our hearts and minds, which in turn bring about choices in our wills according to God's sovereign wisdom in designing us.

http://christian-contemplate.blogspot.com/2012/06/quick-refutation-of-free-will.html

 

[busdriver72]

How can both exist together?

Very good question that cannot be answered...except with God all things are possible. In fact, when Jesus said that He was answering the question "Who can be saved?" Apart from a miraculous move of God it will not happen. How can you explain the deity (divinity) of Christ...and the full humanity of Christ...He cannot be both...but Scripture declares He is.
How can God be on His throne, in your heart, and also fill the heavens with His presence...all at the same time? Logic would say He can't...but He does.
There is, of course, a freedom in the human spirit, but there is no such thing as complete, total, full "free" will for people. None of us are able to fully do as we "will," nor is the human will free of external influence. There are examples within Scripture where God does indeed influence human will. For issues like this we need to do a full, balanced study of Scripture and not draw our theology from Bruce Almighty. In fact, I am convinced that apart from a holy influence on the human will no human would or could be born again. I believe that when Scripture says we were "dead" in our sins...it means it. A "dead" person cannot "will" themselves back to life (staying in context with the metaphor)...it takes an outside influence. Now folks may debate as to whether or not this outside influence from God is election or predestination or whatever...and that's fine. But this is also where the two camps join and fellowship...apart from the act and influence of the Lord it will not happen.
It doesn't happen in a vacuum either...faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (or Christ.) Through the gospel the Lord's Spirit moves and works upon the human heart and will...and the human will respond to it. Both Calvinist and non-Calvinist can relate with that. But then again...you are saved by grace through faith...and that not of yourselves...its is the gift of God...not the result of works in the event someone might find a reason for boasting. If that faith is completely a human work, then there would be a reason for boasting...but there isn't.
I agree with Charles Spurgeon in that the whole issue of election should not be a point of division nor should it have any effect upon reaching others in the name of Christ. Those who DO use it as a point of division are doing it for the purpose of division.

 

[Der Alte]

Where is free will supported in the Bible?

If our will is free, then we can freely choose not to sin...and obviously we literally cannot be sin-free without God's intervention. By that notion, our choices and will are simply perceived to be free, but in fact are not.

See Proverbs 16:9, 20:24, Romans 6 and Romans 9....all these verses/chapters, at least to me, refute the notion of free will. We see numerous example of God "altering" a persons beliefs and emotions to achieve a certain outcome, and this also is proof that free will is not free at all.

Seems like a rather fair assessment:

A Quick Refutation of Free Will ~ Christian Contemplations

I graduated from a SBC seminary about 3 decades ago. If memory serves that seminary was, if not wholly, predominantly Calvinistic. I am not hyper-Calvinistic. I recall some very animated discussions. While looking up one of the often quoted verses about a Leopard not being able to change his spots I stumbled upon this passage which convinced me that while in specific instances, as listed above, God influences a person's beliefs/emotions to achieve his purpose, however man, in general, does have free will.

Note this passage from Jeremiah. God said “I have caused to cleave” That word is [size=+1] &#1492;&#1491;&#1489;&#1511;&#1514;&#1497;/ha’dabaq’thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God’s will, expressly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, not just an elect, predestined, chosen, few, was for all of Israel and all of Judah to cling to God as a belt clings to a man’s waist. It was done, finished, completed, in God’s sight, and, according to some arguments, nothing man can do will cause God’s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God’s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.

This passage very much speaks to God’s sovereign will, and man’s free will and agency. God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, “for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.”

Jer 13:8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave [[size=+1]&#1492;&#1491;&#1489;&#1511;&#1514;&#1497;[/size]/ha’dabaq’thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
[size=+1]• • •[/size]
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said He will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.

H1692 [size=+1]&#1491;&#1489;&#1511;[/size] dabaq daw-bak'
A primitive root; properly to impinge, that is, cling or adhere; figuratively to catch by pursuit: - abide, fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard, after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.

H8816 Perfect
The Perfect expresses a completed action.
1) In reference to time, such an action may be:
1a) one just completed from the standpoint of the present
- "I have come" to tell you the news
1b) one completed in the more or less distant past in the beginning God "created"
- "I was (once) young" and "I have (now) grown old" but
- "I have not seen" a righteous man forsaken
1c) one already completed from the point of view of another past act
- God saw everything that "he had made"
1d) one completed from the point of view of another action yet future
- I will draw for thy camels also until "they have done" drinking
2) The perfect is often used where the present is employed in English.
2a) in the case of general truths or actions of frequent occurrence--truths or actions which have been often experienced or observed
- the grass "withereth"
- the sparrow "findeth" a house
2b) an action or attitude of the past may be continued into the present
"I stretch out" my hands to thee
"thou never forsakest" those who seek thee
2c) the perfect of intransitive verbs is used where English uses the present; The perfect in Hebrew in such a case emphasizes a condition which has come into "complete existence" and realization
- "I know" thou wilt be king
- "I hate" all workers of iniquity
2d) Sometimes in Hebrew, future events are conceived so vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as Having virtually taken place and are described by the perfect.
2d1) in promises, threats and language of contracts
- the field "give I" thee
- and if not, "I will take it"
2d2) prophetic language
- my people "is gone into captivity" (i.e. shall assuredly go).​

[/SIZE]

 

[98cwitr]

I graduated from a SBC seminary about 3 decades ago. If memory serves that seminary was, if not wholly, predominantly Calvinistic. I am not hyper-Calvinistic. I recall some very animated discussions. While looking up one of the often quoted verses about a Leopard not being able to change his spots I stumbled upon this passage which convinced me that while in specific instances, as listed above, God influences a person's beliefs/emotions to achieve his purpose, however man, in general, does have free will.

Note this passage from Jeremiah. God said &#8220;I have caused to cleave&#8221; That word is [size=+1] &#1492;&#1491;&#1489;&#1511;&#1514;&#1497;/ha&#8217;dabaq&#8217;thi. It is in the perfect or completed sense. God&#8217;s will, expressly stated, for the whole house of Israel and Judah, not just an elect, predestined, chosen, few, was for all of Israel and all of Judah to cling to God as a belt clings to a man&#8217;s waist. It was done, finished, completed, in God&#8217;s sight, and, according to some arguments, nothing man can do will cause God&#8217;s will to not be done. But they, Israel and Judah, would not hear and obey, their will, vs. God&#8217;s will, So God destroyed them, vs. 14.

This passage very much speaks to God&#8217;s sovereign will, and man&#8217;s free will and agency. God stated very clearly what His will was, in terms that cannot be misunderstood. But, because the Israelites would not hear, and obey, God destroyed them, instead of them being unto God, &#8220;for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, vs. 10.&#8221;

Jer 13:8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
9 Thus saith the LORD, After this manner will I mar the pride of Judah, and the great pride of Jerusalem.
10 This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave [[size=+1]&#1492;&#1491;&#1489;&#1511;&#1514;&#1497;[/size]/ha&#8217;dabaq&#8217;thi] unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
[size=+1]&#8226; &#8226; &#8226;[/size]
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.​

Note, verse 14, God said He will NOT have pity, will NOT spare, and will NOT have mercy but destroy them.

H1692 [size=+1]&#1491;&#1489;&#1511;[/size] dabaq daw-bak'
A primitive root; properly to impinge, that is, cling or adhere; figuratively to catch by pursuit: - abide, fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard, after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.

H8816 Perfect
The Perfect expresses a completed action.
1) In reference to time, such an action may be:
1a) one just completed from the standpoint of the present
- "I have come" to tell you the news
1b) one completed in the more or less distant past in the beginning God "created"
- "I was (once) young" and "I have (now) grown old" but
- "I have not seen" a righteous man forsaken
1c) one already completed from the point of view of another past act
- God saw everything that "he had made"
1d) one completed from the point of view of another action yet future
- I will draw for thy camels also until "they have done" drinking
2) The perfect is often used where the present is employed in English.
2a) in the case of general truths or actions of frequent occurrence--truths or actions which have been often experienced or observed
- the grass "withereth"
- the sparrow "findeth" a house
2b) an action or attitude of the past may be continued into the present
"I stretch out" my hands to thee
"thou never forsakest" those who seek thee
2c) the perfect of intransitive verbs is used where English uses the present; The perfect in Hebrew in such a case emphasizes a condition which has come into "complete existence" and realization
- "I know" thou wilt be king
- "I hate" all workers of iniquity
2d) Sometimes in Hebrew, future events are conceived so vividly and so realistically that they are regarded as Having virtually taken place and are described by the perfect.
2d1) in promises, threats and language of contracts
- the field "give I" thee
- and if not, "I will take it"
2d2) prophetic language
- my people "is gone into captivity" (i.e. shall assuredly go).​

[/SIZE]

Answer me this then: Why does God create those who He foreknows will never believe, never come to faith, and without fail reside in hell? This cannot be on the foreknowledge of said "choices" (ie: future choices), simply because He could have simply chosen not to create them...but He did choose to do so, so where is there choice for the human subject?

The answer is: there is no choice. Same holds true for the reciprocal; the elect.

 

[SeventhValley]

If God chooses everything then rape,murder,adultery,worship of other gods is all part of God's will. You would have to rejoice every time someone was raped.

 

[SeventhValley]

Also if we do not have free will then we are not made in God's image.