tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post8081867151617674077..comments2023-10-29T02:58:10.500-05:00Comments on promise and pleasure: Can Particular Atonement Sympathizers Survive in the SBC?Aaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12659211054881634938noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post-33977342774742619662009-11-24T17:14:56.828-05:002009-11-24T17:14:56.828-05:00"It is NOT those who hear the law who are rig..."It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13<br />The only Way God will declare anyone righteous is by the faith of obedience of a command. Some have been elected by God not to obey this particular command since they have falsely assumed to have been made righteous only by God's election. <br />Theodore A. JonesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post-32273165578959707042007-04-18T09:09:00.000-05:002007-04-18T09:09:00.000-05:00Doctrines central to the Gospel, in my opinion, ar...Doctrines central to the Gospel, in my opinion, are those that affirm: (1) the deity of Jesus; (2) the sonship of Jesus; (3) the Trinity; (4) the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus; (5) the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus; (4) the depravity and spiritual deadness of man; (6) the reality that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone; (7) the incarnation of Jesus, the Son of God.<BR/><BR/>I hesitate to stop here for fear that I've missed something that I affirm as central and essential to the Gospel, but I think I've covered my bases, but I don't have much time to respond.<BR/><BR/>The criteria, as I see it, and as you can tell, all relate to our understanding and perspective of Jesus and the nature of His work and obedience to the Father. The reason for this is it is Jesus that separates Christianity from other world religions. What a person believes about Jesus determines whether or not they know the Father. Period. John 8:42 affirms this, as does multiple passages in John 5-8. <BR/><BR/>Now, as a caveat, I have to say that while I think these doctrines are the core elements of the Gospel, I do believe that how one views God's purposes and actions in the salvation and redemption of His people (election, foreknowledge, regeneration, etc) has a profound impact on our understanding of not only the Father, but the nature of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for all who would believe.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12659211054881634938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post-56074873438688955132007-04-17T18:49:00.000-05:002007-04-17T18:49:00.000-05:00Well said. So, how would you define the criteria f...Well said. So, how would you define the criteria for the essential-ness of a certain doctrine to the integrity of the gospel? I can't seem to get a good handle on this myself.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449240003384954577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post-90693873306692229572007-04-17T12:23:00.000-05:002007-04-17T12:23:00.000-05:00I'm not sure that the SBC intends or even needs to...I'm not sure that the SBC intends or even needs to strive for doctrinal unity on what have to be considered non-essential issues - with non-essential meaning those issue that are not central to the Gospel. Whether or not one believes that foreknowledge means "intimate knowledge and affection" which leads Him to set His affections on His elect according to His good pleasure or it is defined as God's ability and purpose to look into the future to see what His free moral agents will choose and then "elect" based on what He sees isn't essential to understanding, believing and living the Gospel that Jesus gave His life for sinners so that we, by faith, could become the righteousness of God. Now certainly serious theologians are going to recognize that how one defines and understands the issues of election, foreknowledge, the scope of the atonement, etc, is going to shape our soteriology, and rightfully so, but wherever we land in our understanding should impact the unity we share in the essential truths of the Gospel. <BR/><BR/>I think the latest revision of the BF&M reveals that SBC leaders are not concerned with an overall pure doctrine which could only come from unified theological statements or articles about important, but non-essential doctrines such as election, foreknowledge and the like. SBC leaders see room for cooperation, agreement and unity in the essential elements of the Gospel while disagreeing in interpretation over some non-essential issues. <BR/><BR/>However, what I think we are seeing is a deviation away from this spirit of cooperation. The recent rhetoric and concerns about Calvinism in the SBC are just one example. You could also point to the issues about private prayer languages as well as a sign that there are cracks in the broad theological foundation supported with ambigious theological and doctrinal statements upon which the SBC has been built. What we are seeing, to some degree,is a move towards doctrinal purity (as each camp sees it), and I'm not sure that this is a bad thing overall. However, the impact that it will have on the 16 million SBC'ers will be significant because it could lead not only to a split, but multiple divisions within the SBC.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12659211054881634938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post-44591257486957715422007-04-17T10:35:00.000-05:002007-04-17T10:35:00.000-05:00sorry, "its churches"sorry, "its churches"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449240003384954577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30060884.post-83183499112048811002007-04-17T10:34:00.000-05:002007-04-17T10:34:00.000-05:00Well, about the SBC and unity, I agree that Rev. F...Well, about the SBC and unity, I agree that Rev. Falwell's comment damaged the official or stated unity of the convention, but it's really just a symptom of the already serious lack of practical, docrinal unity in the convention, based only on the professed beliefs of the various leaders of the SBC. If it's that kind of doctrinal unity that we're going for, we're a long way away. How doctrinally unified can a convention be with such divergent views on major doctrinal issues as Falwell's and Dever's/Mohler's being taught it's churches? It doesn't seem like, as a convention, we care much about real doctrinal unity, except on the most absolutely basic of issues (diety of Christ) and the most trivial (alcohol), little in between. Yes, Falwell's comment highlighted the disunity of the SBC, but are we really even striving for meaningful unity in those areas anyway?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449240003384954577noreply@blogger.com