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.

Discussion

Bob,

How is that different from the militant anti-Calvinistic schools like Ambassador that requires their students to sign affirmations denouncing the Doctrines of Grace before they are permitted to attend. With all of this noise over Central’s ethos statements, I assume you fully reject a school like DBTS that narrows the field even farther for their scope of training.

(Note: I have other fish to fry with Ambassador, but their anti-Calvinism is one of the issues they pose.)

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[Chip Van Emmerik] How is that different from the militant anti-Calvinistic schools like Ambassador that requires their students to sign affirmations denouncing the Doctrines of Grace before they are permitted to attend.
Chip, is this in some secondary document that Ambassador applicants must sign, other than their application form? Their application form has this requirement:
THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED

I am in agreement with the doctrinal statement of Ambassador Baptist College and agree to abide by all rules of conduct as established by the College.
And their doctrinal statement has this reference to Calvinism (and Arminianism):
that the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism are both unbiblical.
Is there something more than that, or is that what you are referring to? If that is all there is, I wouldn’t find that requirement all that unusual or “militant anti-Calvinist”. I do realize that Ron Comfort has made some pretty pointed remarks about Calvinism, but as far as I can tell from their website, their requirements for entrance are not exactly as you described. Maybe there is something else, perhaps you have other documentation?

Personally, I wouldn’t recommend a student to go to Ambassador over their versions issues, but I am just wondering where you see this requirement to sign a form denouncing the “Doctrines of Grace”?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

that the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism are both unbiblical
While I know that these words are not found in the Bible, I don’t know if they are helping anything by banning them without definition. It would be interesting to gauge the views of the faculty (and Ron Comfort) on the Arminian-Calvinism scale. I would guess that they would have some 4 pointers and/or almost-Arminians but who call themselves “biblicists.” I much prefer Central’s more complete and nuanced statement.

MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10

[Jay C.]

This is helpful. Short of reading the works of Jacob Arminius, are there any other books that would be recommended for a Arminian view from Central? I’d say that 90-95% of the books I read for Systematic (granted, I couldn’t / didn’t read all of the books that were recommended on the subject) leaned heavily Calvinistic…so much so that I went to the teacher to ask. He sympathized with me, and said that the Calvinists were far better at writing books than Arminians.

BTW, please call me Jay. Thanks! :)
Jay,

Pinnock’s book on “The Grace of God and the Will of Man” (Zondervan, 1989) has several fair articles by responsible scholars.

Also, Roger Olson’s book “Arminian Theology” is probably a respectable read (he is an extremely honest scholar - even though I disagree with most of what he claims - I haven’t read this book by him).

[MShep2]
that the extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism are both unbiblical
I much prefer Central’s more complete and nuanced statement.
This quote is from a doctrinal statement, not an ethos paper. In any case, my point isn’t to compare statements but ask Chip if there is some other document where Ambassador applicants are required to affirm as he claims.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Sorry about the delay. I was looking for the document you requested. Unfortunately I cannot find it now. I think it would be best to modify my statement. At one point in the summer of 1997 Ambassador reached the point where it required all its students to denounce major tenants of Calvinism in order to return to school. Here is a link to Comfort referencing the document in a sermon.

http://www.ambassadors.edu/resources/Fruits_of_Calvinism.pdf

You will find the reference on page 8, paragraph 2. Perhaps the document is no longer required now that the Calvinistic influences referenced in the sermon have been cleaned out of the college.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[Chip Van Emmerik] Sorry about the delay. I was looking for the document you requested. Unfortunately I cannot find it now. I think it would be best to modify my statement. At one point in the summer of 1997 Ambassador reached the point where it required all its students to denounce major tenants of Calvinism in order to return to school. Here is a link to Comfort referencing the document in a sermon.

http://www.ambassadors.edu/resources/Fruits_of_Calvinism.pdf

You will find the reference on page 8, paragraph 2. Perhaps the document is no longer required now that the Calvinistic influences referenced in the sermon have been cleaned out of the college.
Hi Chip, Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your search. I just wanted to be sure about the statement, because your comment prompted me to go searching myself and I couldn’t find anything exactly like what you described.

I would have to say that the situation Comfort describes has more to do with a specific situation rather than militant anti-Calvinism. I don’t think it quite parallels what Bob was referring to above, but maybe others would differ.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

I’m not sure how much more militantly anti-Calvinistic someone can be without packing heat :bigsmile:

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Well, I know that Comfort is quite outspoken, so I would accept the designation for him, but the situation he described in the sermon you reference had more to do with a rebel clique within the institution. I think that mitigates the situation.

Of course, I am not a Calvinist, so I probably look at this more mildly than a Calvinist would.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3



… the militant anti-Calvinistic schools like Ambassador that requires their students to sign affirmations denouncing the Doctrines of Grace before they are permitted to attend.

Actually FYI, Ambassador doesn’t require students to sign the doctrinal statement (its not like its a “special paper”) until they are a returning student (sophmores, juniors, and seniors).

John Uit de Flesch

If you will note my post above (#47) the following quote comes from the currently available application form at the ABC site:
THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED

I am in agreement with the doctrinal statement of Ambassador Baptist College and agree to abide by all rules of conduct as established by the College.
Not that this matters… we are now in thread drift!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3