I see what you’re getting at, though I don’t think I can answer your question. I think most in the SBC would agree that in order to be united we must be in agreement on the essentials of the gospel. The thing that I don’t think is very well defined or agreed upon at all within the SBC is what those essentials are. To say something like the essentials are the 5 points isn’t that helpful to me because there are so many different views of what that means. It’s also true (and perhaps very common) that a person can adamantly believe the 5 points of Calvinism and yet have nothing more than an intellectual religion and not be a true disciple of Christ.

So from my perspective, in order to even be able to answer that question, we need to start having discussions / conversations / debates / whatever is needed aimed toward getting at the underlying issues. I suppose blogs could be a somewhat useful tool toward that end but might not get too far on a convention level. To be honest, (I might take some heat on this point though it’s not intended as a personal attack against anyone) I was fairly disappointed in the building bridges conference last year. The main focus seemed to be everyone trying to prove how evangelistic they are and how greatly opposed to hyper-calvinism they are. After listening to the talks posted on-line I came away with the impression that most of the people didn’t think the issues disagreed upon were really essential to the gospel. If that’s the case, then the 5 points really don’t matter that much and we should just stop making a big deal about them.

My contention is that it’s the issues surrounding or underlying the 5 points that define what is essential to the Gospel and not necessarily the 5 points themselves. That’s what we need to talk about. We need to talk about moral inability, what it means to be dead in sin and what the implications are for the Gospel. We need to talk about what it means for grace to be 100% the work of God and not even 0.00001% the work or will of man. We need to discuss just what it is that souls are being saved from and for. We need to look at what true conviction (compunction as they used to call it) and true brokenness of heart really is. We need to agree on the nature of conversion and that it is not simply intellectual assent to scriptural truths, and that it is not just some “decision” made for Christ long ago in a moment of conviction while music was stirring up the passions. These are some of the things I would consider essential to the gospel. I have a feeling there is substantial disagreement within the SBC even on the things listed above, though I would not know without talking to a person individually. Probably most everyone in the SBC agrees on the facts of the historical gospel “message” but to me that doesn’t really help much because the devil agrees with these same facts and doesn’t mind if they are taught so long as people are not converted.

I did not mean to insinuate that I minded you giving your opinion related to my comment. No problem at all. I am indeed interested in what you have to say. I understand from Timmy’s most recent post that he intends to come back here and answer some of the comments soon. I would be interested to hear his response to all of this, as well.

I am not so interested personally in discussing the nuances of reformed vs. Arminian soteriology here. What I am interested in knowing is whether or not the different approaches to these questions currently present in the SBC are able to live and work together under the same roof.

I hear concern from many “reformed” folks that they are being squeezed out in the SBC. I understand that there has been some strong rhetoric voiced on these questions that might lead some to reach that conclusion. However, I hear other comments (though, admittedly, not so frequently) that seem to communicate that any view that is less than totally “reformed” (5-point) is not legitimate in the SBC. I understand you are not technically saying this. But, to tell you the truth, it comes across as something awfully close from my point of view.

I have an idea that Timmy is not saying this either. But I wanted to give him the chance to explain for himself as well.

I know your original comment was addressed to Timmy and I wasn’t meaning to answer for him by any means. Sorry for sort of stepping in un-invited. I guess my comments were more in response to your question: “I still ask how many Southern Baptists out there would really disagree with the explanation of the gospel given in Two Ways to Live?” I know some and would include myself though I’m not saying I disagree with everything in the tract.

“You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that a “gospel” of unlimited atonement is no gospel at all.”

Well, my main concerns with the tract are actually mostly with how it ends and points the reader to actions he or she can do in their own strength rather than pointing to their moral inability to do a single thing pleasing to God. The limited/unlimited atonement issue is tied in with that, though. I would say that for sure unlimited atonement taken to its logical end or extreme, basically, universalism, is definitely not the Gospel. However, I don’t believe that just because somebody says they hold to an “unlimited atonement” that they are really denying the Gospel. I think it really comes down to what they are meaning by it and what is driving their belief in it. If someone tells me they are a 4 point Calvinist (or 3 point or whatever), I don’t automatically assume they don’t believe in the Gospel. But I also don’t automatically assume they DO believe the Gospel. What matters is the underlying beliefs and what is driving them to those conclusions (and sometimes whether they really understand the position they claim to hold). I should say what matters most is whether or not they have the life of Christ in them, but looking to motives can be helpful in seeing this.

“But, once again, I am not sure this is not just a caricature of what is actually being taught.”

I don’t think it’s a caricature. I did read the whole tract and am trying not to be overly critical. But when I compare that tract and many others I’ve read to Scripture teaching that a person must be born again and that the new birth is entirely the work of God, it does not match up. Basically, if a person can intellectually agree with the statements of truth made in that tract and has even a small degree of guilt, then the tract gives them something to do and by the end of reading it, so long as they followed the instructions, they are supposedly saved and need to start living a Christian life. Then I read people like Martin Luther who said: “But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvation.”

Do you think it’s important to get across that sinners are completely unable to be converted apart from God’s work of grace in the soul (the new birth)? Some have told me that if a person gets through a tract like that and agrees with it / feels guilty / prays to “receive Jesus” then God must be working. But I couldn’t disagree more. True, God MAY be working, but so far all that has been demonstrated is conviction that could easily be from selfish principles and an intellectual belief that’s within a person’s own natural ability.

-Aaron

I realize you are not Timmy, and I did not address my original comment to you. But your reply here does kind of illustrate the point behind my comment. You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that a “gospel” of unlimited atonement is no gospel at all. If that is the criterion we are using when we think of pressing issues facing the SBC, I suggest it would be better that those who agree with your view (or at least the absolute necessity of limited atonement) form their own denomination.

Please understand, I am not arguing for one view or another of atonement here. What I am arguing for is a SBC that makes room for both views.

By the way, I totally agree that if we are teaching that just “praying a prayer” in and of itself is sufficient for salvation, we have serious problems. But, once again, I am not sure this is not just a caricature of what is actually being taught.