Ethos Statement on Salvation & Sanctification
Republished with permission (and unedited) from Central Baptist Theological Seminary. (The document posted at Central’s website in August of 2010.)
Salvation
The faculty of Central Baptist Theological Seminary affirms that salvation is found only in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by virtue of His unique personhood, sacrificial death, and subsequent resurrection is the only one who possesses authority to save. The salvation of any soul is an assertion of Christ’s authority or lordship over sin and death. Therefore, we hold that the acceptance of Jesus as Savior implies the acceptance of His authority as Lord. No person can turn to Jesus as Savior while denying Him as Lord. The rejection of Christ as either Lord or Savior is wholly incommensurate with saving faith.
At the same time, we recognize that implicit truth is not always explicitly recognized. Sinners who turn to Christ for salvation do vary in the extent to which they overtly and explicitly recognize His lordship. Certainly no believers immediately understand all the implications of their acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord. As believers advance in this understanding, the lordship of Christ must be increasingly worked out in their individual lives. We all believe that repentance is a necessary component of saving faith. The intellect, the will, and ordinate affections are integrally related to true repentance and saving faith. Therefore, we find intolerable those approaches to evangelism which minimize any of the three, for example: easy-believism, pragmatism, and revivalism. We also reject any understanding of repentance that makes salvation a reward for virtues that people might produce in their own character or conduct.
We affirm that salvation is the work of God wholly and completely. Humans contribute nothing to the process and can only believe as they receive the grace of God to do so. Apart from that grace, humans cannot believe because they are thoroughly sinful. People are naturally at enmity with God and resist Him at every turn. Therefore God, for reasons completely of His own determination, chooses and draws those whom He saves.
Since God commands all people everywhere to repent, we all believe that the offer of the gospel should be extended to all. Some of us believe that Christ has provided the benefits of salvation for all people, while others believe these benefits may have been secured only for those whom God intends to save. Also, some of us believe that God selected individuals for salvation without condition in eternity past, while others understand God’s choice as either corporate or conditioned on His eternal prescience. Each of these views admits a gracious working by God in those who ultimately respond to the gospel in faith. This gracious work is different in character than any work performed by God in the hearts of those who ultimately reject Christ.
We believe that regeneration establishes permanent membership in the family of God. Some of us believe that regeneration is also the work of God that makes human faith possible, while others of us (not denying that such a work must occur) affirm that regeneration is the result of saving faith. For the regenerate, ultimate denial of the faith is not possible. The regenerate, therefore, will maintain their profession of faith in Christ alone without exception and without end.
Sanctification
We all believe that new life is imparted to every believer at regeneration. Sharing in the life of Christ is intrinsic to the Christian experience. Every believer, therefore, will manifest outwardly this new life in Christ to some extent. The absence of any visible manifestation of new life indicates the absence of regeneration and, hence, the absence of saving faith.
We all affirm that God works over time to conform each believer to the image of His Son. We deny that this transformation will ever produce perfect conformity during the believer’s earthly life. We hold a variety of understandings about the immediacy of the visible manifestations of new life, the extent to which this life must be evidenced, and the degree to which lapses in visible growth might occur. We likewise hold various understandings as to whether post-conversion decisions of dedication or surrender are necessary mechanisms by which spiritual growth is initiated, advanced, or sustained.
We all affirm that believers can and do sin. Sinning believers need confession (which entails repentance), forgiveness, and a restoration of broken fellowship with God. We agree that a professing believer may be carnal, but we give different answers to the question of whether a believer can live in an extended state of carnality. We agree that God can and does discipline sinning believers up to, and sometimes including, physical death.
- 33 views
I appreciate this guys. I rejoice that you have emphasized the unity of orthodoxy with an acceptable variety within Biblical/Systematic//Evangelical/Fundamentalist theology. On my first read of this I’m very pleased. Straight Ahead!
jt
ps - For the record I believe that a local church can have the same kind of variety of belief demonstrated by the variety of views held by the teaching faculty at Central.
jt
ps - For the record I believe that a local church can have the same kind of variety of belief demonstrated by the variety of views held by the teaching faculty at Central.
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[SharperIron] Also, some of us believe that God selected individuals for salvation without condition in eternity past, while others understand God’s choice as either corporate or conditioned on His eternal prescience.According to the theory of prescience, in time past God looked ahead into human history and “saw” those who would trust Him during the course of human history. In response, God “elected” these individuals to salvation. In other words, some teaching at the school believe God elects those who He saw would first choose Him. However, this position is a denial of the first sentence of the seminary’s position:
[SharperIron] Humans contribute nothing to the process and can only believe as they receive the grace of God to do so. Apart from that grace, humans cannot believe because they are thoroughly sinful.You can’t have both. If God elects based on prescience (foreseen faith), then humans most certainly do contribute to the process of salvation. This simply agrees with the classic Roman Catholic position on salvation.
In Romans 9, Paul teaches that God does not choose based on prescience, which means this: that God does not look ahead in history to see who will respond to Him. If that were the case, then salvation becomes a reward for foreseen goodness. In this scheme God sees something better in one man than another, and thus chooses him for salvation. This is a salvation in which God justifies the godly. But Romans 4:5.
In the gospel of Jesus Christ, God sees no difference among men. All are guilty, and all have their mouths shut up in sin, judgment, and disobedience (Romans 3:20, Romans 11:32). But in mercy, God elects and saves some based only on His mercy alone, and never elects and saves based on what the creature will do in the future. The Apostle Paul teaches on this explicitly. He uses Jacob and Esau, who “had not done anything good or bad so that God’s purpose would stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls…” Romans 9:11).
Having some in a seminary teach that salvation includes the foresight of human choice is an error of the first order.
Very good explanation.
I especially appreciate the balance in the following statement:
I especially appreciate the balance in the following statement:
Therefore, we hold that the acceptance of Jesus as Savior implies the acceptance of His authority as Lord. No person can turn to Jesus as Savior while denying Him as Lord. The rejection of Christ as either Lord or Savior is wholly incommensurate with saving faith.This avoids the excesses of both Lordship salvation and easy believism.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[Ted Bigelow]I have a problem with the whole idea of prescience when it is defined as God “looking ahead.” This lowers God to the level of his creatures by making Him subject to time, which He is not since He created time. As some have tried to explain, I believe God lives in an eternal “now” and does not have to “look ahead” or “look back” to see the events of history. God is the “I AM” and his decree does not depend on “future” events or the choices of humans.[SharperIron] Also, some of us believe that God selected individuals for salvation without condition in eternity past, while others understand God’s choice as either corporate or conditioned on His eternal prescience.According to the theory of prescience, in time past God looked ahead into human history and “saw” those who would trust Him during the course of human history. In response, God “elected” these individuals to salvation. In other words, some teaching at the school believe God elects those who He saw would first choose Him. However, this position is a denial of the first sentence of the seminary’s position:[SharperIron] Humans contribute nothing to the process and can only believe as they receive the grace of God to do so. Apart from that grace, humans cannot believe because they are thoroughly sinful.You can’t have both. If God elects based on prescience (foreseen faith), then humans most certainly do contribute to the process of salvation. This simply agrees with the classic Roman Catholic position on salvation.
In Romans 9, Paul teaches that God does not choose based on prescience, which means this: that God does not look ahead in history to see who will respond to Him. If that were the case, then salvation becomes a reward for foreseen goodness. In this scheme God sees something better in one man than another, and thus chooses him for salvation. This is a salvation in which God justifies the godly. But Romans 4:5.
In the gospel of Jesus Christ, God sees no difference among men. All are guilty, and all have their mouths shut up in sin, judgment, and disobedience (Romans 3:20, Romans 11:32). But in mercy, God elects and saves some based only on His mercy alone, and never elects and saves based on what the creature will do in the future. The Apostle Paul teaches on this explicitly. He uses Jacob and Esau, who “had not done anything good or bad so that God’s purpose would stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls…” Romans 9:11).
Having some in a seminary teach that salvation includes the foresight of human choice is an error of the first order.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[MShep2] I have a problem with the whole idea of prescience when it is defined as God “looking ahead.”Quite right - you should :Sp. But that’s the only way it can be defined in line with the history of theology.
But your bigger problem than how prescience relates to time should be how it denies the gospel of God’s grace, and makes the gospel “synergistic.” What this means is that in salvation, God does His part, and we do our part. In this case, we exert faith, and God sees our faith, and saves us with the merits of Jesus Christ. It is semi-pelagianism.
This is why the seminary writes “some of us believe that God selected individuals for salvation… conditioned on eternal prescience.” For such professors, salvation is conditional on man. If man fulfills the condition, he gets saved. And these folks are teaching future preachers of the gospel? What gospel will they preach? The gospel of eternal prescience, or grace?
This position is a clear denial of the gospel of God’s grace in which God does all the saving and the very best man ever contributes to his salvation is his sin. In the true gospel, man’s faith and good works account for nothing since they are riddled through with sin, and in no way grant him favor before a holy God. In the true gospel, God gets all the credit for saving a sinner.
Mr. Bigelow,
Your response typifies precisely the sort of careless Calvinism to which we at Central Seminary object. To be sure, we also object to the careless anti-Calvinism that too often characterizes some of the self-proclaimed “biblicists” of Fundamentalism. Carelessness on either side, however, is damaging to the pursuit of truth.
What is the difference between the one who receives Christ and the one who rejects Him?
The Pelagian sees the difference strictly in the power of the human will, unassailable and unassisted. Pelagianism has no room for original sin and constitutes a complete denial of divine grace. Pelagianism is in effect a system of self-perfection.
The semi-Pelagian acknowledges human moral imperfection, but insists that the first movement toward God must come from the sinner in his own strength. If that effort is sincere, God will assist with cooperating grace. This is a genuine synergism. It is an abridgment of grace. This position does seem to be articulated by some Fundamentalists.
Traditional Arminians, however, fit neither of the above descriptions. They believe that the human will is completely disabled and that humans are dead in trespasses and sins. No human is capable of spontaneously originating any positive choice toward God. To such persons, God, as part of prevenient grace, provides sufficient ability to make an initial moral response to Him. Those who do make this response find that God responds with complete saving grace.
Traditional Lutherans take a slightly different approach. For them, no humans are capable of cooperating with the common grace of God before they are regenerated, but they are capable of resisting it. Those who do not resist are the ones who will believe.
All of these are non-Calvinistic positions. The first two are abridgments or denials of the gospel itself. Even if the latter two are erroneous, however, it is unfair to categorize them as either semi-Pelagian or as synergistic. In traditional Arminianism, traditional Lutheranism, and traditional Calvinism, salvation comes wholly from God. No saints in any of these traditions would claim any credit for their own salvation.
Archibald Alexander Hodge was no weenie Calvinist. He was the bridge that connected his father, Charles Hodge, to his successor, B. B. Warfield (neither of whom were weenie Calvinists, either). Thinking about this very issue (i.e., the importance of a Calvinistic understanding of election and predestination), however, he wrote,
Now I am perfectly free to confess that however true this view of the general principle of predestination is, and however much it is logically implicated in the essentials of the Christian doctrines of grace, nevertheless this transcendental way of conceiving the matter is more speculative than practical. Although I heartily accord with the view in my own mind, I feel no disposition to insist upon the assent of any Christian brother as a matter of loyalty to the Christian faith. No element of the Creed [i.e., Westminster Confession] is essential unless it practically determines the attitude of the soul in its relations to God through Christ. And only those aspects and modes of conceiving Christian truth should be insisted upon and imposed upon others as obligatory which do directly determine this Godward attitude of our souls, or, in other words, which directly enter into and give form to our religious experience.
Hodge refused to make the doctrine of unconditional election a test of Christianity. He emphatically rejected the notion that it was part of the gospel. He was more than happy to extend Christian recognition and fellowship to people who believed that election was condition by God’s prescience.
We at Central Seminary think that Hodge was perfectly correct. To classify Arminians with Romanists, or to suggest conditional election entails a denial of the gospel, is simply a violation of the ninth commandment. At Central Seminary we do not fault someone for being firmly committed to Calvinism, but we do expect him to be firmly committed to truth.
Within Fundamentalism, Calvinism should be one of those things that we talk about, but it should never be one of the things that we fight over. Both the shrill anti-Calvinists and the snooty Calvinists would serve us better if they would simply turn down the temperature, study the Scriptures and the history of the debate, and try to understand the issues before plunging us into unnecessary ecclesiastical conflict. Both should be careful to use their terms properly and not to impute to their opponents the extremes to which they think their opponents views should (but rarely or never do) lead.
Your response typifies precisely the sort of careless Calvinism to which we at Central Seminary object. To be sure, we also object to the careless anti-Calvinism that too often characterizes some of the self-proclaimed “biblicists” of Fundamentalism. Carelessness on either side, however, is damaging to the pursuit of truth.
What is the difference between the one who receives Christ and the one who rejects Him?
The Pelagian sees the difference strictly in the power of the human will, unassailable and unassisted. Pelagianism has no room for original sin and constitutes a complete denial of divine grace. Pelagianism is in effect a system of self-perfection.
The semi-Pelagian acknowledges human moral imperfection, but insists that the first movement toward God must come from the sinner in his own strength. If that effort is sincere, God will assist with cooperating grace. This is a genuine synergism. It is an abridgment of grace. This position does seem to be articulated by some Fundamentalists.
Traditional Arminians, however, fit neither of the above descriptions. They believe that the human will is completely disabled and that humans are dead in trespasses and sins. No human is capable of spontaneously originating any positive choice toward God. To such persons, God, as part of prevenient grace, provides sufficient ability to make an initial moral response to Him. Those who do make this response find that God responds with complete saving grace.
Traditional Lutherans take a slightly different approach. For them, no humans are capable of cooperating with the common grace of God before they are regenerated, but they are capable of resisting it. Those who do not resist are the ones who will believe.
All of these are non-Calvinistic positions. The first two are abridgments or denials of the gospel itself. Even if the latter two are erroneous, however, it is unfair to categorize them as either semi-Pelagian or as synergistic. In traditional Arminianism, traditional Lutheranism, and traditional Calvinism, salvation comes wholly from God. No saints in any of these traditions would claim any credit for their own salvation.
Archibald Alexander Hodge was no weenie Calvinist. He was the bridge that connected his father, Charles Hodge, to his successor, B. B. Warfield (neither of whom were weenie Calvinists, either). Thinking about this very issue (i.e., the importance of a Calvinistic understanding of election and predestination), however, he wrote,
Now I am perfectly free to confess that however true this view of the general principle of predestination is, and however much it is logically implicated in the essentials of the Christian doctrines of grace, nevertheless this transcendental way of conceiving the matter is more speculative than practical. Although I heartily accord with the view in my own mind, I feel no disposition to insist upon the assent of any Christian brother as a matter of loyalty to the Christian faith. No element of the Creed [i.e., Westminster Confession] is essential unless it practically determines the attitude of the soul in its relations to God through Christ. And only those aspects and modes of conceiving Christian truth should be insisted upon and imposed upon others as obligatory which do directly determine this Godward attitude of our souls, or, in other words, which directly enter into and give form to our religious experience.
Hodge refused to make the doctrine of unconditional election a test of Christianity. He emphatically rejected the notion that it was part of the gospel. He was more than happy to extend Christian recognition and fellowship to people who believed that election was condition by God’s prescience.
We at Central Seminary think that Hodge was perfectly correct. To classify Arminians with Romanists, or to suggest conditional election entails a denial of the gospel, is simply a violation of the ninth commandment. At Central Seminary we do not fault someone for being firmly committed to Calvinism, but we do expect him to be firmly committed to truth.
Within Fundamentalism, Calvinism should be one of those things that we talk about, but it should never be one of the things that we fight over. Both the shrill anti-Calvinists and the snooty Calvinists would serve us better if they would simply turn down the temperature, study the Scriptures and the history of the debate, and try to understand the issues before plunging us into unnecessary ecclesiastical conflict. Both should be careful to use their terms properly and not to impute to their opponents the extremes to which they think their opponents views should (but rarely or never do) lead.
I’m really not sure this is worthy of any discussion but to say that a belief in God’s eternal prescience (as stated by Central Seminary) is a denial of the gospel can only be described as ignorant at best and schismatic at worst. Those who believe that God’s selection of individuals for salvation is conditioned on eternal prescience do not believe that man in any way contributes to his salvation. They believe that God in his grace has afforded all people the possibility of making an initial positive response to salvation with God then pursuing them with saving grace. They praise God for his gracious choice in giving all people both the ability to make an initial response toward salvation and for his saving power that pursues them.
This is not a denial of the gospel. It is an error and in my opinion a serious one that could limit fellowship among brothers and sisters in some contexts. But a first order denial of the gospel? No, that belongs to things like open theism, new perspective on Paul, denial of the deity of Christ, ect…
***Edit. My apologies for posting after Kevin’s much more eloquent and complete response.
This is not a denial of the gospel. It is an error and in my opinion a serious one that could limit fellowship among brothers and sisters in some contexts. But a first order denial of the gospel? No, that belongs to things like open theism, new perspective on Paul, denial of the deity of Christ, ect…
***Edit. My apologies for posting after Kevin’s much more eloquent and complete response.
[Kevin T. Bauder] Mr. Bigelow,Kevin,
Your response typifies precisely the sort of careless Calvinism to which we at Central Seminary object. To be sure, we also object to the careless anti-Calvinism that too often characterizes some of the self-proclaimed “biblicists” of Fundamentalism. Carelessness on either side, however, is damaging to the pursuit of truth……..
Thanks for interacting with us in this forum. While the ethos statement is good, words are many times defined differently by people, esp. if they are theologians trying to prove a point ;-) Your (long) post clarifies what is really meant by the words of the ethos statement.
Of course, we also will have to blame you for ruining a good discussion about what the Central professors really mean. I am sure we could have continued this discussion for many pages producing a lot of smoke without shedding any real light. 8-)
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Traditional Arminians, however, fit neither of the above descriptions. They believe that the human will is completely disabled and that humans are dead in trespasses and sins. No human is capable of spontaneously originating any positive choice toward God. To such persons, God, as part of prevenient grace, provides sufficient ability to make an initial moral response to Him. Those who do make this response find that God responds with complete saving grace.Maybe it’s the stuff I had to read in Grad School, but it seems like this is all stuff that wasn’t true of the Arminian position as described in the books that I read.
Of course, I’ve always said that I leaned more Arminian than Calvinist in my theology anyway.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Dear Dr. Bauder,
Although I have never met you, I have a keen admiration for your grasp of the contemporary religious scene and you ability to express yourself clearly and forcibly. If I were even half as sharp as you, I could only hope the Lord would use me half as much as He is pleased to use you. May He be glorified in your ministry as you seek to please Him in everything.
However, we have a contention between us. It seems to me that foremost is your accusation that I have broken the 9th commandment – bearing false witness. This is a serious accusation. I will gladly own it if you will show me whom I have borne false witness against, and/or what my false witness is. To the best of my memory, I was attacking a doctrinal position and never mentioned anyone.
Perhaps I miss-stated the doctrinal position? That is certainly possible, though you have not claimed it in your post. Since a theological position does not a man make, I trust you will either clarify whom I have borne witness against, or retract the charge.
I do, along with others, classify the theology of Arminianism with Catholicism since both teach, with slight differences, that man is saved by the action of his own free will in cooperation with God. God saves those who cooperate with His grace, whether that grace is labeled cooperative, or prevenient. My linking the two together is hardly a unique position!, although judging by your words, it bears the marks of sin. If that is the case, many have sinned before me.
To misunderstand grace is a deeply serious matter, Dr. Bauder, and one which should not be trampled on lightly. Warfield writes about this matter in his book “The Plan of Salvation.” As you well know, both the Arminian and Catholic position is that God gives grace to all men indiscriminately, or in Warfield’s words, “universally.” Everybody who is born, according to those teachings, receives some measure of God’s grace that, if they will respond properly to it, He will grant them more grace. Warfield writes:
“The upshot of the whole matter is that the attempt to construe the gracious operations of God looking to salvation universally, inevitably leads by one path or another to the wreck of… the supernaturalist principle, on the basis of which all Christians churches professedly unite. Whether this universalism takes a sacerdotal form [i.e., Catholicism] or a form which frees itself from the entanglements with earthly transactions [i.e., Protestant Arminianism] , it ends always and everywhere by transferring the really decisive factor in salvation from God to man.”
And that being the case, we have a truly serious doctrinal matter here.
You write:
If I have written wrongly, please show me my error. But this you have not done. Instead, you launched your post with an ad hominem (“careless Calvinist”) but never showed me the common dignity where my carelessness apparently lies. It’s actually OK with me that you implicate me as a weenie Calvinist and snooty Calvinist. Perhaps that scores points with a constituency of yours. Whatever.
But I did share Scripture as a defense of my theological position (Romans 9:11). I will stand by that as Paul’s inspired and stinging corrective to doctrines like election by eternal prescience.
Dr. Ted Bigelow
Although I have never met you, I have a keen admiration for your grasp of the contemporary religious scene and you ability to express yourself clearly and forcibly. If I were even half as sharp as you, I could only hope the Lord would use me half as much as He is pleased to use you. May He be glorified in your ministry as you seek to please Him in everything.
However, we have a contention between us. It seems to me that foremost is your accusation that I have broken the 9th commandment – bearing false witness. This is a serious accusation. I will gladly own it if you will show me whom I have borne false witness against, and/or what my false witness is. To the best of my memory, I was attacking a doctrinal position and never mentioned anyone.
Perhaps I miss-stated the doctrinal position? That is certainly possible, though you have not claimed it in your post. Since a theological position does not a man make, I trust you will either clarify whom I have borne witness against, or retract the charge.
I do, along with others, classify the theology of Arminianism with Catholicism since both teach, with slight differences, that man is saved by the action of his own free will in cooperation with God. God saves those who cooperate with His grace, whether that grace is labeled cooperative, or prevenient. My linking the two together is hardly a unique position!, although judging by your words, it bears the marks of sin. If that is the case, many have sinned before me.
To misunderstand grace is a deeply serious matter, Dr. Bauder, and one which should not be trampled on lightly. Warfield writes about this matter in his book “The Plan of Salvation.” As you well know, both the Arminian and Catholic position is that God gives grace to all men indiscriminately, or in Warfield’s words, “universally.” Everybody who is born, according to those teachings, receives some measure of God’s grace that, if they will respond properly to it, He will grant them more grace. Warfield writes:
“The upshot of the whole matter is that the attempt to construe the gracious operations of God looking to salvation universally, inevitably leads by one path or another to the wreck of… the supernaturalist principle, on the basis of which all Christians churches professedly unite. Whether this universalism takes a sacerdotal form [i.e., Catholicism] or a form which frees itself from the entanglements with earthly transactions [i.e., Protestant Arminianism] , it ends always and everywhere by transferring the really decisive factor in salvation from God to man.”
And that being the case, we have a truly serious doctrinal matter here.
You write:
Hodge refused to make the doctrine of unconditional election a test of Christianity. but He emphatically rejected the notion that it was part of the gospel. He was more than happy to extend Christian recognition and fellowship to people who believed that election was condition by God’s prescience.We agree. The doctrine of election is not a test of Christianity, as, say, the Trinity is. Nor did I ever claim it was. That is your contribution alone. But just as much as Hodge would never hold the manner of election as a test of genuine Christianity, nor would he defend its presence in his seminary. My remarks above were confined to this matter alone.
At Central Seminary we do not fault someone for being firmly committed to Calvinism, but we do expect him to be firmly committed to truth.Then I ask you, which is gospel truth: election by eternal prescience, or unconditional election?
If I have written wrongly, please show me my error. But this you have not done. Instead, you launched your post with an ad hominem (“careless Calvinist”) but never showed me the common dignity where my carelessness apparently lies. It’s actually OK with me that you implicate me as a weenie Calvinist and snooty Calvinist. Perhaps that scores points with a constituency of yours. Whatever.
But I did share Scripture as a defense of my theological position (Romans 9:11). I will stand by that as Paul’s inspired and stinging corrective to doctrines like election by eternal prescience.
Dr. Ted Bigelow
[Ted Bigelow]Hey Ted, I appreciate your vigorous defense of Augustinianism here on the board. I’m a confessional Presbyterian, so three cheers… err… five cheers for Dordt! On the other hand, I do think that some of your statements have gone a bit far. There was a sentence or two in your fist post that really did seem like you were equating a denial of unconditional election with a denial of the gospel. You’ve clarified yourself a bit since, and I do indeed agree with you that it seems odd that such latitude would exist in a seminary.
I do, along with others, classify the theology of Arminianism with Catholicism since both teach, with slight differences, that man is saved by the action of his own free will in cooperation with God. God saves those who cooperate with His grace, whether that grace is labeled cooperative, or prevenient. My linking the two together is hardly a unique position!, although judging by your words, it bears the marks of sin. If that is the case, many have sinned before me.
……
To misunderstand grace is a deeply serious matter, Dr. Bauder, and one which should not be trampled on lightly. Warfield writes about this matter in his book “The Plan of Salvation.” As you well know, both the Arminian and Catholic position is that God gives grace to all men indiscriminately, or in Warfield’s words, “universally.” Everybody who is born, according to those teachings, receives some measure of God’s grace that, if they will respond properly to it, He will grant them more grace. Warfield writes:
On the other hand, I would encourage you to be careful equating Arminianism with Romanism. Warfield, for example, does not do so. He does indeed declare that in respect to the capacity of man to respond to prevenient grace they share the same view, but that does not make them the same in other respects. Note please that in Warfield’s classification system, he places (Wesleyan) Arminianism within the evangelical fold, and his definition of evangelical is virtually synonymous with Protestant. There are features of Arminianism that make it a distinctly Protestant doctrine. I would be comfortable even saying that Wesleyans are inconsistent Protestants, but they surely share more in common with Lutheran and Reformed doctrine than with Roman on dozens of points.
However, many contemporary “Arminians,” “biblicists,” and even so-called “moderate Calvinists” are not nearly so careful in their formulations and are indeed semi-Pelagian. Norman Geisler comes to mind. When he contributed to the volume Four Views of Eternal Security, the two Arminian contributors both remarked that he was not a moderate Calvinist, nor even an Arminian, but a semi-Pelagian!
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Mr. C.:
As a reference point, here are the third and fourth Arminian Articles (kindly excuse typos). These are the statements that define traditional Arminianism.
Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.
I’m not sure which books you may have read in grad school, but in these words you have Arminianism straight from the horse’s mouth.
As a reference point, here are the third and fourth Arminian Articles (kindly excuse typos). These are the statements that define traditional Arminianism.
Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.
I’m not sure which books you may have read in grad school, but in these words you have Arminianism straight from the horse’s mouth.
Dr. Bigelow,
We have two questions. One whether conditional, unconditional, or corporate election is the true and biblical doctrine. You and I will answer that question in exactly the same way.
The other question is whether the gospel is at stake in this distinction. In fact, you force this question when you ask, “[W] hich is gospel truth: election by eternal prescience, or unconditional election?” The only correct answer to this question is: Neither. One is true and one is false, but in neither case is the gospel at stake.
Please don’t be like those people to whom C. S. Lewis somewhere refers—you know, the ones who scratch like cats but bleed at a touch. What I have said, and what I shall now repeat, is that “to classify Arminians with Romanists, or to suggest conditional election entails a denial of the gospel, is simply a violation of the ninth commandment.” If you have not suggested those things, then you have nothing to worry about.
I invite you and others to go back and to read your first two posts, and to ask yourself whether you have not in fact classified conditional election as an apostasy. Synergism? Semi-pelagianism? An error of the first order? Agrees with the classic Roman Catholic position on salvation? REALLY?
We must not engaged in doublespeak here. A person who affirms apostasy is an apostate, and a person who affirms heresy is a heretic. We are not allowed to distinguish what we say about the position from what we say about the people who hold it.
I shall not ask that you abandon your commitment to the doctrines of grace. I do ask, however, that you reconsider your rhetoric, lower the temperature of your condemnations, and open yourself to the possibility that being together for the gospel just might include non-Calvinists.
If you can’t do that, then I am quite willing to apply the assessment that yours is a careless and snooty Calvinism. It is, after all, a Calvinism that out-Calvinists even the Princetonians! That’s really up to you. (Incidentally, saying that the Princetonians were not weenie Calvinists is a statement about them, not about you.)
We have two questions. One whether conditional, unconditional, or corporate election is the true and biblical doctrine. You and I will answer that question in exactly the same way.
The other question is whether the gospel is at stake in this distinction. In fact, you force this question when you ask, “[W] hich is gospel truth: election by eternal prescience, or unconditional election?” The only correct answer to this question is: Neither. One is true and one is false, but in neither case is the gospel at stake.
Please don’t be like those people to whom C. S. Lewis somewhere refers—you know, the ones who scratch like cats but bleed at a touch. What I have said, and what I shall now repeat, is that “to classify Arminians with Romanists, or to suggest conditional election entails a denial of the gospel, is simply a violation of the ninth commandment.” If you have not suggested those things, then you have nothing to worry about.
I invite you and others to go back and to read your first two posts, and to ask yourself whether you have not in fact classified conditional election as an apostasy. Synergism? Semi-pelagianism? An error of the first order? Agrees with the classic Roman Catholic position on salvation? REALLY?
We must not engaged in doublespeak here. A person who affirms apostasy is an apostate, and a person who affirms heresy is a heretic. We are not allowed to distinguish what we say about the position from what we say about the people who hold it.
I shall not ask that you abandon your commitment to the doctrines of grace. I do ask, however, that you reconsider your rhetoric, lower the temperature of your condemnations, and open yourself to the possibility that being together for the gospel just might include non-Calvinists.
If you can’t do that, then I am quite willing to apply the assessment that yours is a careless and snooty Calvinism. It is, after all, a Calvinism that out-Calvinists even the Princetonians! That’s really up to you. (Incidentally, saying that the Princetonians were not weenie Calvinists is a statement about them, not about you.)
An outstanding dimension of the Ethos statement in this portion is that while it is expectantly favorable toward Calvinism/Augustinianism it, unlike many in the body Calvin, understands and accepts the existence of valid orthodox/fundamental positions that are non-Calvinistic which do not exclude such brothers from high degrees of fellowship . Central has identified the necessity of gospel and ecclesiastical health in demarcating between genuine essentials of the gospel and more distant concerns.
As well I appreciate the distinction between non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. I am a former Calvinist myself and now a non-Calvinist (as opposed to an Arminian) and while I reject the tenets of the TULIP I do not hold a hostile position Calvinism seeing that John Calvin and Augustine had many other contributions, some from which I and many others have profited, as well as the fact that the views of the TULIP themselves do not undermine the gospel.
As well I appreciate the distinction between non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. I am a former Calvinist myself and now a non-Calvinist (as opposed to an Arminian) and while I reject the tenets of the TULIP I do not hold a hostile position Calvinism seeing that John Calvin and Augustine had many other contributions, some from which I and many others have profited, as well as the fact that the views of the TULIP themselves do not undermine the gospel.
Thanks, gentlemen of the Seminary, for this most excellently crafted statement.
Ted, while I have heard people state what you are stating before, I would point out that many fine and devoted Calvinists of history would disagree with you.
In the 1730’s, Whitefield and Wesley were working together. One was Calvinist, the other very much not Calvinist (Duh. Wesleyan.). Whitefield, writing to John Wesley, in 1739: “I hear, honoured sir, you are about to print a sermon on predestination. It shocks me to think of it; what will be the consequences but controversy? If people ask me my opinion, what shall I do? I have a critical part to act, God enable me to behave aright! Silence on both sides will be best. It is noised abroad already, that there is a division between you and me. Oh, my heart within me is grieved”
Spurgeon, who said “Calvinism IS the gospel”, had this to say bout John Wesley:
“Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.
“The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.”
Ted, while I have heard people state what you are stating before, I would point out that many fine and devoted Calvinists of history would disagree with you.
In the 1730’s, Whitefield and Wesley were working together. One was Calvinist, the other very much not Calvinist (Duh. Wesleyan.). Whitefield, writing to John Wesley, in 1739: “I hear, honoured sir, you are about to print a sermon on predestination. It shocks me to think of it; what will be the consequences but controversy? If people ask me my opinion, what shall I do? I have a critical part to act, God enable me to behave aright! Silence on both sides will be best. It is noised abroad already, that there is a division between you and me. Oh, my heart within me is grieved”
Spurgeon, who said “Calvinism IS the gospel”, had this to say bout John Wesley:
“Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.
“The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’ I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.”
Discussion