Thursday, June 7, 2012

Traditionalist Clarification on Article 2

While I was posting to show the that article two of the traditional SBC view of God's Plan of Salvation is not Semi-Pelagain, Dr. Eric Hankins responds to Dr. Mohler on the charge of Semi-Pelagianism (link). He somewhat confirms my theory that what they had in mind was that we have libertarian freedom while responding to the Gospel, not that man is naturally free from sin. He says:

First, we will never concede the charge of Semi-Pelagianism; it is patently false. Semi-Pelagianism is the view that man initiates his own salvation and that grace attends subsequently. Even a cursory reading of the Statement reveals that such an understanding of salvation could not be further from our intention. The language of the affirmation in Article Two is drawn almost verbatim from the BF&M. Most of the criticism has been directed at the “denial,” which is often divorced from its connection to the affirmation and criticized without respect to the rest of the Statement. Here is what we mean and what we will be glad to debate: We are all ruined by Adam’s sin. We are born with a sin nature. We all persistently, perniciously, and at every opportunity want to be Lord of our own lives. We cannot save ourselves. The power of the Gospel through the initiative and drawing of the Holy Spirit is our only hope, and it alone is sufficient to pierce our spiritual darkness and rescue us. But our real response to the Gospel of Christ in the power of the Spirit matters to God.

...Do the authors and signers of the Statement think that people can save themselves? No! Do they think people can do anything to merit their salvation? No! Do they think anyone can trust Christ apart from the initiative of God and the drawing of the Holy Spirit? No! But they also don’t think that most people are predestined to an eternity in hell no matter what. And they do think that every person has the opportunity to respond to the Gospel under the leadership of the Spirit who is willing to move upon the heart of anyone. In this debate, the charge of Semi-Pelagianism is little more than a “bogeyman.” It’s a label that intimidates and confuses, and we emphatically reject it.

6 comments:

DonaldH said...

Dan,

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think it was semi-pelagianism. But I tuned into Moody Radio this afternoon, and that is what they were serving.

Godismyjudge said...

Can't say I have listened to Moody Radio. Is it good?

God be with you,
Dan

DonaldH said...

Hey Dan,

Some of the programs are okay at times. I sort of claim Chuck Swindoll and Tony Evans as 4 point arminians (OSAS), I sort of like Erwin Lutzer when he's not pushing calvinism, and the same with MacArthur. But overall there's a calvnisitic feel to the program.

The particular program I was listening to was Chris Fabry live. You can good to their website and hear yesterday's broadcast about calvinism and arminianism.

blessings!

Godismyjudge said...

Thanks Donald. Sounds interesting; I will try to check out the Fabry program.

God be with you,
Dan

DonaldH said...

Glad to help, Let me know what you think. I started to blog about the particular show myself.

No spoiler alerts, but I heard worse.

Godismyjudge said...

Donald,

I listened to the program and plan to blog on it in the next day or so.

God be with you,
Dan