This is to those of you who have responded critically or plan to–arguing that my objection to portions of the statement “Truth, Trust, and Testimony in a Time of Tension” as possibly disingenuous (please re-read my post for the main example) is wrong.
Please! Respond to my questions! (These were in my post and I was hoping for and expecting people who support the statement to respond.)
1) Do you think it would be fully ingenuous (candid, frank, simple, fully honest and revealing) for an Arminian to say to a group of people interested in knowing what he believes that he believes God elects some people to salvation and does not believe in free will to choose to be saved or not to be saved–without immediate further explanation or qualification?
Any informed, self-respecting Arminian can say those things. I can say them and will say them–but only with the proper qualifications immediately following. Without those qualifications, I would know that at least some, if not all, of my listeners or readers would be misled about what I believe.
I read it that way. I don’t know what other purpose it could have. Of course (!) both Calvinists and non-Calvinists are free to attempt to persuade fellow SBCers (and others) to adopt their view. That’s a given. The only purposes of the statement, so far as I can see, is to attempt to stop dishonest practices (such as misrepresenting the other view) and pressure tactics to enforce one view within the SBC.
In my opinion, we will only know if the statement is working if candidates for ministry positions become fully revealing about their Calvinism or non-Calvinism when interviewing and if Calvinists and non-Calvinists both stop misrepresenting the other view and using pressure tactics to marginalize or exclude its adherents.