Posts

Showing posts from June, 2012

More Evidence for Sola Scriptura

Steve Ray errors in his description of Sola Scriptura ( link ) thereby providing more evidence that only scripture is infallible.  Steve says: The doctrine of Sola Scriptura states that we should believe only what we find clearly taught in the Bible; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is found nowhere clearly taught in the Bible; so…??? Sola Scriptura does not say we should only believe what we find clearly taught I the Bible. We learn many things in many different ways, but Scripture is the only Word of God that we have today.  The Bible is perfect, Popes, Councils and Steve Ray make mistakes.  For good reasons to believe the bible see ( here ).  For good reasons to believe Popes error see ( here ). Thus we can conclude that the bible is the last man standing.

Dr. Eric Hankins on the Traditional Statement

Here's a helpful interview of Dr. Eric Hankins discussing the Traditionalist Statement, New Calvinism and the sinner's prayer. His main focus is the objection to the the idea that some people cannot be saved and on the unique identity and history baptists have. I appreciated that Dr. Hankins notes that Calvinists and Traditionalists define terms differently, making dialog difficult. However, Dr. Hankins is seeking open and honest dialog about Calvinism and then letting Baptists process what is said.

New LifeWay Study Confirms that Calvinism is Growing in the SBC

Image
Understanding statistics and Calvinism are two good but painful things to do in Baptist life.  There have been a bunch of recent studies among pastors on Calvinism and here are some key data points.   Among SBC pastors, 5-Point Calvinism has grown 10% per year from 2006 to 2012. ( 2006 LifeWay Study ) ( 2012 LifeWay Study ) This is in stark contrast to the 2010 BARNA study which shows Calvinism is not growing amoung Protestants.   In other words, while Calvinism is not growing in other Protestant churches, it is growing in the SBC.  The reason Calvinism is growing in the SBC is shown by the 2007 NAMB study - SBC seminaries are cranking out 5-Point Calvinists at a growing rate.    Additionally, SBC Pastors are more likely to hold to double-predestination and limited atonement compared to protestant churches generally.  ( 2011 LifeWay General Protestant Study )  ( 2012 SBC Specific LifeWay Study ) As a minor note, the 2012 LifeWay stud

Traditionalist Clarification on Article 2

While I was posting to show the that article two of the traditional SBC view of God's Plan of Salvation is not Semi-Pelagain, Dr. Eric Hankins responds to Dr. Mohler on the charge of Semi-Pelagianism ( link ). He somewhat confirms my theory that what they had in mind was that we have libertarian freedom while responding to the Gospel, not that man is naturally free from sin. He says: First, we will never concede the charge of Semi-Pelagianism; it is patently false. Semi-Pelagianism is the view that man initiates his own salvation and that grace attends subsequently. Even a cursory reading of the Statement reveals that such an understanding of salvation could not be further from our intention. The language of the affirmation in Article Two is drawn almost verbatim from the BF&M. Most of the criticism has been directed at the “denial,” which is often divorced from its connection to the affirmation and criticized without respect to the rest of the Statement. Here is what we mean

Article 2 is unclear, but not Semi-Pelagian

Article two of the traditional understanding of the SBC view of God's plan of salvation ( link ) has been called Semi-Pelagian   here ,  here ,  here  and here . Here's the article: Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel. The most criticised phrase is the denial of incapacitation of anyone's free will

In Between Traditionalist SBC and Calvinist

A large group of Southern Baptists recently signed a statement that defines their beliefs and opposes Calvinism. ( link ) It takes the name “Traditionalist” which ruffles feathers with Calvinists in the SBC, but at least provides a helpful title other than non-Calvinist. Overall, this may help slow the spread of Calvinism within the SBC by putting names and faces to the opposition to Calvinism and providing an alternative. So overall I think the move is helpful and a good thing. However, I find my own understanding of scripture somewhere in between this traditionalist statement and Calvinism. For example, Article 2’s statement says: “ We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned .” I do hold that we were condemned in Adam. The denial of “incapacitation” was carelessly worded but based certain statements about the need for grace through the rest of the document; I will give the trad

Book Review: Abasciano on Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10-18

This book follows " Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis " as Dr. Abasciano dives deeper into Romans 9 by examining 9:10-18.  ( link to Amazon ) The work is organized, in-depth and supported by careful examination of the original languages as well as a broad reading of historic and current scholarship. Its main appeal is to those who enjoy detailed exegetical works and those seeking answers on Romans 9. A big picture view is in order before digging into the details. Dr. Abasciano holds that Romans 9 teaches corporate election, so his interpretation is not Calvinistic, nor is it like the church fathers who held Romans 9 teaches election based on foreknowledge, nor is it like the dispensationalists who hold Romans 9 describes the election of Israel to non-saving blessings, nor is it like the many classic Arminians who said the passage teaches how God will save (i.e. by faith) rather than who God will save (though Dr. Ab