I am happy for a post Roger Olson wrote yesterday (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation-%E2%80%9D/), expressing his concern about semi-Pelagianism in a recent statement about salvation, formulated by non-Calvinist Southern Baptists.
Article 2 of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” states:
“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.
Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6; Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15”
Roger Olson writes:
“The problem with this Southern Baptist statement is its neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God (including acceptance of the gospel by faith). If the authors believe in that cardinal biblical truth, they need to spell it out more clearly. And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin.
Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists.
It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.”
I think that Roger has done us Calvinists a service with his persistent distinction between classic Arminianism and the semi-Pelagianism that so many non-Calvinist evangelicals believe. I understand his distress about Calvinist portrayals of Arminianism as semi-Pelagian, and I welcome his alliance in opposing genuine semi-Pelagianism.
For some years, I have been stating my own concern about instances of the doctrine of sin which is enunciated in the statement quoted above. In my view, it is problematic, especially when allied with the common Baptist doctrine of the “age of accountability,” because of the way in which it portrays the final population of heaven as largely made up of people who are there without having needed Christ’s death to get there. Having never been sinners, they need no salvation.
9 replies on “On semi-Pelagianism in many Baptist churches”
The councils of pedophile priests are not binding on Protestants. When will self-appointed self-important pastors figure that one out? Sure semi-Pelagian was condemned by pedophile Catholic priests in AD 529….and?
“For some years, I have been stating my own concern about instances of the doctrine of sin which is enunciated in the statement quoted above. In my view, it is problematic, especially when allied with the common Baptist doctrine of the ‘age of accountability,’ because of the way in which it portrays the final population of heaven as largely made up of people who are there without having needed Christ’s death to get there. Having never been sinners, they need no salvation.”
They’re babies so unless you believe babies go to hell, what’s your beef? You believe all babies are saved too. If its a quibble over “Safe” versus “Saved” I’m sure they can add a point saying “Although babies have never sinned and therefore don’t TECHNICALLY need to be saved, we have asked Jesus to ‘save’ them anyway to shut up nitpickers and he has agreed he will save those who are already safe.” Amen.
Rey: You wrote:
“They’re babies so unless you believe babies go to hell, what’s your beef? You believe all babies are saved too.”
Actually, I don’t make that claim. I don’t think that Scripture gives grounds for such a claim, though I think we can be hopeful for God’s mercy. I spelled out my understanding in chapter 10 (“Can Infants Be Saved”) of _Who Can Be Saved?_, in case you are interested.
“Actually, I don’t make that claim.”
Fine, so you believe babies go to hell; then you’re a dirty filthy Calvinist devil-worshiper who will burn in hell for all eternity. Case closed. Amen.
Thank you for this post. I appreciate the distinction being made between semi-Pelagian and classic Arminian understandings of the will, as so many seem to lump these groups together.
I really appreciate your blog, Dr. Tiessen, and while I sometimes find myself disagreeing with your conclusions, I think you do a great job of clarifying these important issues, making real discussions possible. Please keep up the good work!
Jesus forever laid the demolition statement to “free will” in John 6: Twice: “No man CAN come to me” (1) unless the Father “draw (drag) him”, and (2) “except it were given unto him of my Father”. If that wasn’t enough, Paul blew away “free will” in I Cor 2:14. Southern Baptists who promote “free will” are evil black-hearted Scripture deniers who will answer for their lies at the final judgment. NEVER trust them. NEVER listen to them.
Quote: “Southern Baptists who promote “free will” are evil black-hearted Scripture deniers who will answer for their lies at the final judgment. NEVER trust them. NEVER listen to them.”
Don’t hold back, Richard…just go ahead & say what you think!
(Is this thread still alive? Is the OP still alive?)
Arn sharp’nin’ arn. I love it…
I urge anyone who feels SO confident in their own understanding of GOD’s knowledge that they feel so self empowered to condemn anyone else for their beliefs, to look deeply into the false righteousness they are harboring and ask God to cleanse you of the sin.
I stumbled upon this website during my studies. I was looking into semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism. To suggest either position is tenable within the church is amazing. The call to battler regarding these teachings was answered centuries back with Pelagius being excommunicated and his teaching being declared heresy. Biblically, this is easily seen.
My concern is that the Southern Baptist have taken up the banner of Semi-Pelagianism and raised it high for all to see. They do not want to offend any man. If mankind’s fall was not complete, rendering him unable to pull himself of his sin, it would stand to reason that the sacrifice of Christ was excessive and unnecessary. Rather than crucifying man with Christ, God could have repaired the damanged portions of man’s nature. Instead, cricifixion destroyed the old man, his authority and rule. In Christ, I died…now I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
This view must include the “age of accountability”, which is not found in Scripture at any point. It follows the teaching of Pelagianism, though.
Is man born in sin or not? It is a simple question with an equally simple answer.
Reading Luther’s work concerning the bondage of the will is an eye-opener. Reading Edward’s work on the freedom of the will is even better!
I cannot go and sit in the Office of the President any time I please. Only a personal invitation with an escort can get me into that office. The same applies to the King of All Kings. He must bid me to come and then provide me with the ability to come.
Salvation is of God…