I think that is the point of the Building Bridges Conference. It it is neither a debate or exercise in theological one-upmanship nor a glossing over the real, theological differences that exist in the SBC; rather, it is an attempt to treat each other with the intellectual honesty, Christian charity, and biblical clarity. When there are so many political agendas, reckless rhetoric, and uninformed dogmatism, progress or consensus is virtually impossible. I am hopeful that the conference and those participating will help create a new ethos in the SBC that will carry over into other parts of the SBC, including the blogosphere.

So, at what point do we part ways in peace? I think its ok to disagree. Maybe we should have a phone line – not a bridge.

Regarding the death of the SBC: If our bloated structures are wasting missions money and discouraging the progress of the Gospel, why not turn the page and start something new?

Building Bridges may help make peace for some. But the Calvinism issue is only one small part of fractured fellowship.

Timmy – Thanks for posting on this.

I totally agree with you that patience in teaching is crucial. The scriptures don’t just say “Speak the truth” but “Speak the truth in love”. I wasn’t always a 5-point Calvinist and I do believe that I was saved. However, I can’t ever remember a time (even when I was lost) that I did not agree with radical depravity. That is my greatest concern with Armenianism. As Paul Washer says, you only have to be a one-point Calvinist to be saved (that one of total depravity). Armenius seems to reject that point and anyone holding to his stance should be concerned as well.

James

I’ve been following posts this Bridge Building conference especially on Dr. Ascol’s blog and came across the post and comments here. Perhaps I’m still too naive, but by saying bridges can be built between the Arminian system and the Calvinistic system, are we basically saying that the gospel is independent of either system of theology? So total depravity and “despairing of one’s own efforts” as Martin Luther put it is not really necessary in order to have saving faith as this is something that follows from the Calvinistic system and not the Arminian one?

Hopefully the conference will help to dispel some myths surrounding what Calvinism really is. On the other hand, could it be that the gospel itself may be lost in the process? Sorry for the lengthy post but I came across the following quote from R.C. Sproul in his book “Willing to Believe”, pages 19-20 that seemed to have some application here:

“Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Theological Seminar in Escondido, California, recently suggested that I write a book about “the myth of influence.” I was startled by the suggestion because I did not know what he meant. He explained that this phrase refers to the modern evangelical penchant to “build bridges” to secular thought or to groups within the larger church that espouse defective theologies.

The mythical element is the naïve assumption that one can build bridges that move in one direction only. Bridges are usually built to allow traffic to move in two directions. What often happens when we relate to others is that we become the influencees rather than the influencers. In an effort to win people to Christ and be “winsome,” we may easily slip into the trap of emptying the gospel of its content, accommodating our hearers, and removing the offense inherent in the gospel. To be sure, our own insensitive behavior can add an offense to the gospel that is not properly part of it. We should labor hard to avoid such behavior. But to strip the gospel of those elements that unbelievers find repugnant is not an option.

Martin Luther once remarked that wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy. We live in an age that abhors controversy, and we are prone to avoid conflict. How dissimilar this atmosphere is from that which marked the labor of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. The prophets were immersed in conflict and controversy precisely because they would not accommodate the Word of God to the demands of the nation caught up in syncretism. The apostles were engaged in conflict continuously. As much as Paul sought to live peaceably with all men, he found rare moments of peace and little respite from controversy.

That we enjoy relative safety from violent attacks against us may indicate a maturing of modern civilization with respect to religious toleration. Or it may indicate that we have so compromised the gospel that we no longer provoke the conflict that true faith engenders.”

I, for one, am very encouraged by this conference and wish that I could attend. I believe that the more the truth of Scripture is patiently taught, the better off we will all be.

Can there be such thing as a biblical and therefore, “good” split? Possibly.

How so? What leads you to think thus?