Today
is the first day in over a week that I have actually had 'free' time to spend
browsing the internet, attempting to 'catch-up' (s0 t0 speak) on events and
topics that interest me. The following caught my eye:
An Introduction to “A Statement of the
Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”
The
post begins with the following:
The
following is a suggested statement of what Southern Baptists believe about the
doctrine of salvation. Compiled by a number of pastors, professors, and leaders
in response to the growing debate over Calvinism in Southern Baptist life, it
begins with a rationale for such a statement at this time, followed by ten
articles of affirmation and denial. The goal was to create a statement that
would accurately reflect the beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptists, who
are not Calvinists.
Given what I know about the recent 'war' that has been
taking place between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC) denomination (the largest Protestant denomination in the USA),
I KNEW that this newly published document would add gasoline to the flames that
were already burning. Like weeds after a fresh rainfall in the spring, charges
of "semi-Pelagianism" immediately began to appear on blogs/websites
in great numbers. The following Google search is representative:
Having
dealt with the issue of semi-Pelagianism at length here at AF (see
posts under THIS
LINK), I immediately recognized a serious, fundamental flaw that has
skewed the attempts to portray the SBC document as semi-Pelagian—a failure to
understand what semi-Pelagian actually meant in its original historical
context.
The
following is a re-posting of material from one of the threads linked to above:
SEMI-PELAGIANISM. The doctrines on human nature upheld
in the 4th and 5th cents. by a group of theologians who, while not denying the
necessity of *Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the
Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and Grace supervened
only later. (The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. 1974 - 1985 reprint, p.
1258.)
SEMI-PELAGIANISM. Doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation...
SEMI-PELAGIANISM. Doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation...
Cassian [one of the early leaders of semi-Pelagianism] taught that
though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin, human free will has not been
entirely obliterated. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but does not
necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness
of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God [apart from supernatural grace]. (Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, 1984, p. 1000.)
Notice
that divine grace IS NOT necessary in order for one to accept the Gospel—this
is THE distinguishing tenant of semi-Pelagianism—if one denies/rejects this
cardinal doctrine of semi-Pelagianism, then one is not a semi-Pelagian.
Now,
a careful reading of the SBC document will yield the fact that "THE distinguishing tenant of semi-Pelagianism" is
denied. IMO, one must ignore, and/or twist elements of the document to lend any
credence to the charge of semi-Pelagianism.
So,
in ending, for those so inclined to review the numerous attacks (and defenses)
of this newly published SBC document, I would like to urge you to keep in mind
what semi-Pelgianism actually taught in its original context...
Grace
and peace,
David,
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in this post:
http://is.gd/jahWcK
It goes over a more fundamental problem with Protestants throwing around the word semi-pelagian.
Also, you might be interested in another post:
http://is.gd/QZZLr7
This deals with the term Logizomai and documents massive ignorance and dishonesty within Protestant scholarship.
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for the links; heading over there now...
Grace and peace,
David
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on the Imputation Article?
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteYou asked: "Any thoughts on the Imputation Article?"
Very comprehensive, especially part IV.
A question: why no mention of N.T. Wright? (At least I did not see any in my reading.)
Grace and peace,
David
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteI did not quote NT Wright, but mostly because I did not want Protestants to accuse me of quoting "biased" sources. A lot of Protestants shut off when they see NTWrights name.
I have read his main work but don't recall him going over logizomai.
Hello again Nick,
ReplyDeleteIn your last response, your wrote:
==I did not quote NT Wright, but mostly because I did not want Protestants to accuse me of quoting "biased" sources. A lot of Protestants shut off when they see NTWrights name.==
Me: Understood—sad state of affairs, but true...
==I have read his main work but don't recall him going over logizomai.==
Me: Note the following from his 2009 tome, Justification - God's Plan & Paul's Vision:
>>...it is fascinating to see two essentially Reformed thinkers both insisting, against John Piper and others, that the "imputed righteousness" of Christ (or of God—we shall explore this confusion below) is on the one hand a legitimate thing to talk about from a systematic theological standpoint, but is on the other hand not actually found stated as such anywhere in Paul. Michael Bird is a younger scholar who might be discounted, when he insists on this, by the Reformed "old guard." But listen to this: "The phrase [the imputation of Christ's righteousness] is not in Paul but its meaning is." That is J. I. Packer, cautiously making the distinction between what Paul said and did not say and what Reformed theology, rightly in his view, can say in summarizing him. The question presses, however: if "imputed righteousness" is so utterly central, so nerve-janglingly vital, so standing-and-falling-church important as John Piper makes out, isn't strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?>> (Page 46)
As you know, impute, imputation, imputed, are English translation of the various forms of λογίζομαι.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteWright has spoken very negatively of imputation in general, such as his famous comment in What did Paul Really Say, where Wright says something to the effect "The Righteousness of God is not some gas that floats across the courtroom and covers over the defendant." Basically, the definition of "Righteousness of God" that Wright uses, imputation is all but ruled out.