Doctrines that Abuse

This post was inspired by a long and sometimes heated discussion over on Wade Burleson’s Blog titled "Do Southern Baptists Set Women Up for Abuse?"

I do not wish to discuss in this post the sad reality of the abuse of women in our society, regrettably even in the SBC… I think that topic has been more than covered on Wades Blog…

What I wish to discuss in this post is the cause and effect relationship of our doctrines and our actions, and how a single thread of bad doctrine can compromise the fabric of our collective theology.

“Individual doctrines are but single threads woven into the fabric of our collective theology…” Taken by themselves each thread can seem an insignificant thing… Yet each thread impacts the pattern of the weave so that the whole is changed by every single thread that is woven into the fabric.

There are many threads that make up the fabric of SBC theology (and traditions) that taken by themselves appear quite insignificant, yet when woven together they can completely compromise the fabric of our collective theology and thereby become a deadly snare to our faith and the downfall of many in our churches.

Case in point – Can there be any doubt that there is a strong relationship between the reluctance of some Southern Baptist Pastors to recommend divorce for any reason (including abuse) because a divorced man, regardless of the reason, is treated like a “Leper” in the SBC. Is this the reason why some Southern Baptist Pastors are reluctant to believe the woman in cases of abuse; for fear that if he is ever divorced, regardless of the reason, he will be disqualified from ministry in most churches and agencies in the SBC?

Interesting that the abuse of men by the SBC (disqualifying a man from service when God has not disqualified him is indeed abuse) might just be a significant contributing factor in the abuse of women in the SBC. You see how the enemy of the soul does not discriminate between men and women… he seeks to destroy the faith of all God’s children.

We must ask ourselves; “How many rotten threads have been woven into the fabric of our collective theology (and traditions) over the years that needs now to be carefully removed?” Can they be removed without the total unraveling of the cloth? I am hopeful that in time, with patience, and with God’s grace they can, but I am under no illusion as to the danger and difficulty of the task.

Grace Always,

johnMark on Christless Christianity

johnMark has put up a post on Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton

This is another article that should be required reading for all Pastors and Laymen alike in the SBC…

It takes great courage to speak truth in an age of self deception…

The “supposed” Christian man of today is altogether satisfied with himself… He has followed the prescribed rituals of the Church of his choosing, yet with little or no evidence of “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit”. And placing his trust in these man made religious rituals (Walking an isle, praying the sinners prayer, etc.) he comforts himself against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, closes his eyes, and refuses to hear the warnings of the faithful minister of God’s Word. Yes, the voice of God’s faithful Ministers falls on deft ears for; the “supposed” Christian man of today is altogether satisfied with himself…

Give us courage Lord to speak truth in an age of self deception…

Grace Always,

Michael Spencer on "Additional Doctrines," Baptist Style

Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk) has put up a great article called “Additional Doctrines,” Baptist Style that is most worthy of reading. Make sure you take the time to read all the comments as they are very enlightening.

Sola Scriptura… Need I say anything else?

Grace Always,

Pelagian Beliefs in the SBC

Recently I struck a “raw” nerve with Bart Barber, Tim Rogers, Wes Kenny, and Robin Foster over the issue of Pelagian beliefs in the SBC. I say that I struck a “raw” nerve with these guys because after posting a comment over on SBC Today saying that the “vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another…” Tim Rogers sent me an email to inform me that my comments were going to be “Censored” and Wes Kenny posted a comment on my Blog telling me that I was more than likely going to be banned from posting on SBC Today.

Now, I’m a big boy and I really don’t care if they ban me from posting on SBC Today or not, after all it is their blog and they can do as they please. However, I am a somewhat concerned by the extreme reaction of these Landmark guys over at SBC Today and I intend to post an article about that issue in the next few days. But really I am not all that concerned because neither of these guys are very influential in the SBC, nor is the Landmark movement they are a part of likely to gain many converts with these guys as the head of it’s PR department.

So, what is Pelagianism and is my comment that the “vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another…” true?

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation.

Pelagianism is overhwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380’s A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam’s sin merely “set a bad example” for his progeny and Jesus “set a good example” for mankind (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning.

Pelagius cleared himself of charges, primarily by hiding his real beliefs; however, at the Council of Carthage in 418 A.D., his teachings were branded as heresy. The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., again condemned Pelagian doctrine and it was banished in the Greek portion of the church. However, in the West, the teachings held on, primarily in Britain and Gaul.

Pelagian teaching was replaced with Semi-Pelagianism which sought a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, but it too was condemned at the Second Synod of Orange in 529 A.D. However, elements of Semi-Pelagianism continued in the Western (Roman) church. It emerged again after the Reformation in modified form in Arminianism which was rejected by the Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619

A.D. (source: Theopedia.com)

That the vast majority of Southern Baptists hold to Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another is without question. Regardless of how embarrassed and uncomfortable some of my Landmark friends might be over my stating this publicly, it is nevertheless absolutely the truth as the above definition of Pelagianism makes it all to plain to see.

Here are the major areas of agreement between what Pelagian taught and what most Southern Baptist believe today:

1st - Pelagianism views humanity as basically good.

Most Southern Baptist view humanity (human nature) as basically good - This can be seen in that the majority of Southern Baptist believe that the “Will” of man is absolutely free to choose what is good or what is evil. And while most would not deny that there are evil people in the world, most would attribute their being evil people in the world due to the evil choices they have made, and not because they are by nature corrupt.

2nd - Pelagianism denies the imputation of Adam’s sin.

Most Southern Baptist deny the imputation of Adam’s sin – This can be seen in that most Southern Baptist believe that children are born in a state of innocence, just as Pelagian taught, and only become guilty before God after they commit actual sin. Pelagianism is the ideology behind the so called “Age of Accountability” which most Southern Baptists have adopted in order to explain how children dying before they make a profession of faith can go to heaven.

I am sure that better theologians than I can give a far more complete list of shared beliefs between Pelagian and the majority of Southern Baptist today, however I believe I have effectively proven my point.

Now, the question is; “why are my Landmark friends so embarrassed by me stating this truth in public?” I think I understand why, but what do you think is the reason for their obvious embarrassment?

Grace Always,

Calvinist Blasphemers

Recently I ran across a comment by one of those “Angry Anti-Calvinist”, who is ashamed to give his real name, while reading an article on Timmy Brister’s Blog that exemplified for me the impact, and danger to the SBC, of having prominent SBC Leader host and participate in such events as the recent John 3:16 Conference.

rey Says: December 11, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Cooperate with Calvinists and you make converts to ATHEISM, not Christianity. Going around telling people “Our god held a lottery and you lost–go burn now for his glory” can’t make Christians, only Atheists and Calvinist blasphemers.

I then followed the link to this “Angry Anti-Calvinist’s” Blog where I was treated to the following comment by rey/beowulf2k8:

A Hyper-Calvinist is a Calvinist who admits to believing what all Calvinists believe. A regular Calvinist is a Hyper-Calvinist trying to convince non-Calvinists by lies that he doesn’t believe what all Calvinists believe. All Calvinists believe that their god is the author of evil and that this god causes each and every sin that is committed then punishes the puppet for doing what he made it do, but that he also arbitrarily elected some puppets to escape punishment for what he made them do.

Posted by beowulf2k8 at 7:07 PM

How in the world can any Calvinist cooperate with this kind of an attitude? For cooperation to exist and flourish in the SBC there must be at the very minimum some decorum of civility, and acceptance of the views of the other side. What I see coming from the Anti-Calvinist is no desire for acceptance and cooperation with Calvinist, but instead only Anger, Rejection, and a strong desire to Exclude Calvinist whenever possible.

If this is the kind of attitudes that Jerry Vines Ministries is producing in the SBC then we are indeed headed for some very troubling days ahead.

Grace Always

SBC Today "Censors" My Comments!

My comments have just been censored over on SBC Today… (Laughing Out Loud) Now, was I censored for using offensive language? Nope! Was I censored for personal criticism, or name calling? Nope! Was I censored for displaying a hostile spirit? Nope! So what was my crime over on SBC Today? Apparently I am being censored for “calling the majority of SB heretics”.


Tim Rogers sends me the following email:

Brother Greg,

After discussing your last comment with Robin and Wes, we have decided to moderate your last comment. If you would like to re-submit without calling the majority of SB heretics, then be our guest.

Blessings,
Tim

Now I want to be upfront with everyone that I did not once use the word “Heretics” in any of my comments. And even if I did, I do not feel that would rise to the level of offensiveness that it needs to be Censored by the Baptist Idenity “Thought Police” over on SBC Today.

So I will post my exchange with Bart Barber that got my hand spanked by my Brother in Christ Tim Rogers and let you be the judge.

(I have removed the comments in the original post that were not related to this discussion)

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Greg Alford,

I, for one, am really confused. You recently indicated at your blog:

“And when you take any one of the 5-points away you diminish the Gospel and in truth you have no Gospel at all… what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism, both of which have been condemned as preversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (heresy).” (See here)

So, you have explicitly anathematized as heretics all four-pointers, three-pointers, and so forth. Two questions come first to mind:

1. Why on earth would you take such interest in the actions of a convention full of heretics bound for perdition? Why such grave concern over Wes’s viewpoint, CB’s viewpoint, or any other such person?

2. Although the Landmark Baptists called all other denominations as false churches, they acknowledged the true believers in their midst as fellow Christians bound for heaven. Yet you, who condemn all who do not cross every T, dot every I, and affirm every L in the same way as you to be heretics and condemned, dare to call them arrogant and closed-minded?

???

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

You know, come to think of it, you must be calling OURS false churches as well, unless you believe in true churches entirely led by and populated with heretics.

Greg Alford Says: December 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Bart Barber,

1st of all my esteemed brother I sate a fact of History when I say that Semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism have both been condemned as Heresy. This is a fact that I am sure you are aware of brother Bart, so are you saying that you agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine? And that they should not be considered Heretical?

2nd Salvation is not found in mastering correct theology, there are many who incorrectly or imperfectly understand the great gift of god’s grace in salvation (4-3-2-1 pointers) that are nonetheless saved. I never once said that those who are not 5-point Calvinist are bound for perdition. Brother I say enough stupid things for myself
I don’t need your help in adding to the list.

3rd Brother, should not I be just as concerned about my convention as you? Or are you hinting that I should just give up and get out?

4th Bart you really are confused! Just where did I ever say that those churches who are not 5-point Calvinist are not true churches? No brother, do not paint me with your own detestable Landmark brush, that is something I most certainly do not agree with! And to prove it I will be glad to show up at your church and take communion with you… now the question is, am I welcome?

Grace Always,

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Greg Alford,

Please pardon my dimwittedness. Foolishly I drew the strange and unwarranted conclusions that:

“when you take any one of the 5-points away” = anyone holding any less than 5 points (i.e. 4, 3, 2, 1)

“in truth you have no Gospel at all” = not just an imperfect understanding of the gospel, but a complete lack of it (i.e. “no Gospel at all”)

“what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism” = anyone holding any less than 5 points are really Semi-Pelagians or Pelagians.

“both of which have been condemned as . . . (heresy)” = these folks are condemned as heretics. So, forgive me for concluding that you meant what you wrote, rather than something else.

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Now, after thinking it through for a while, I think I have it.

We are not heretics, we are just people who believe a heresy. Our churches are not false churches; they are true Pelagian churches where you would gladly share communion with us as a memorial to the gospel that we have not at all.

Greg Alford Says: December 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Bart,

As your brother in Christ how could I not Pardon your dimwittedness.

Now, go forth and dimwit no more…

Grace Always,

Greg Alford Says: December 9th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Brother Bart,

I have already confessed to saying “Stupid” things, so it is little wonder that you misunderstood my meaning.

I have explained my comments here, but if you will not take my word for what I actually believe then there is little else I can say that will change your mind.

By the way, you have not answered any of my questions. Which leaves me to only assume the worse?

Grace
Always,

Bart Barber Says: December 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Greg,

Which questions?

Greg Alford Says: December 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Bart,

(From comment #47)

Are you saying that you agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine? And that they should not be considered Heretical?

Are you hinting that I should just give up and get out (of the SBC)?

Am I welcome (to partake communion with you)?

Grace Always,

Bart Barber Says: December 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Greg,

I do not agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine. My disagreement with your comments (gosh, MOST people’s disagreement with your comment) is that I do not believe that, for example, Russell Moore at Southern Seminary is a Pelagian or a Semi-Pelagian.

If you are recanting from your statement that all who are not 5-point Calvinists are heretics, then I think it would be fine for you to remain in the SBC. But if you were indeed to believe that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are Pelagians of some stripe, then yes…leave…leave now.

Are you welcome to participate in the Lord’s Supper at our church? I can’t really answer that entirely. I know of no reason why you could not, but participation in the Lord’s Supper should only come after careful self-examination for any areas of stubborn rebellion in sin. I cannot confidently say that Bart Barber should participate in the Lord’s Supper when next we celebrate it. But the topic that has been before us is whether a person who has refused believer’s immersion should partake. I believe that such a one should not, but I presume that you do not belong in this category.

Greg Alford Says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.) December 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Bart,

I agree with you that most people disagree with my statement… gosh, most people think that they are saved by saying the magic words and clicking their heels together three times.

“recanting”… I should rather suffer the flames of the Protestant Martyrs than recant from the Gospel of my Fathers.

As I have stated above “Salvation is not found in mastering correct theology, there are many who incorrectly or imperfectly understand the great gift of god’s grace in salvation (4-3-2-1 pointers) that are nonetheless saved.

Bart, I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are Pelagians of some stripe… And you have only reinforced this conviction.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation

Pelagianism is overhwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380’s A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam’s sin merely “set a bad example” for his progeny and Jesus “set a good example” for mankind (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning.

Pelagius cleared himself of charges, primarily by hiding his real beliefs; however, at the Council of Carthage in 418 A.D., his teachings were branded as heresy. The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., again condemned Pelagian doctrine and it was banished in the Greek portion of the church. However, in the West, the teachings held on, primarily in Britain and Gaul.

Pelagian teaching was replaced with Semi-Pelagianism which sought a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, but it too was condemned at the Second Synod of Orange in 529 A.D. However, elements of Semi-Pelagianism continued in the Western (Roman) church. It emerged again after the Reformation in modified form in Arminianism which was rejected by the Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 A.D.

(source: Theopedia.com)

Yes Bart, the vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another… You may not like to admit this, but can you prove me wrong? You may not claim Pelagian as a Brother, but clearly Pelagian would claim the majority of Southern Baptist as Brothers.

Bart you say to me “Yes…leave…leave now.” (Smiling)

Grace Always,

**************************************************

At this point I received the email from Brother Tim Rogers informing me that the above comment was going to be Censored.

To which I respond Wow!

Our “Baptist Identity” Brothers must be really feeling the heat if they censored that comment.

Well, what do you think? Was I out of bounds?

Grace Always,