Murder is certainly forbidden by God, so Calvin engaged in such activity will not lack the judgment of God.

Unfortunately, this does not dismiss the laziness of Pastors that populate the myriad of Churches across the United States. We would do well to understand Calvin’s passion for God’s Word.

The laziness of Pastor’s kill their own congregates week after week.

Blessings,
Chris

Severtus was a contemporary of Calvin’s and when the two could not agree, even though Calvin had the authority of Geneva behind him, he felt it was in the best interests of everyone for Severtus to be burned at the stake.

It will be easy to say Calvin was just a man of his times and we surely wouldn’t burn anyone today. Would we?

I completely agree with you. Over the weekend, I was thinking about the influence of Calvin on the Christian world.

It appears to me, if you make a fair assessment of the facts of history concerning evangelism, Calvin is an amazing study. He would tend to make any contemporary Baptist Pastor appear to be a lazy slug (including myself).

Calvin’s love for the Word of God and his evangelistic attitude toward teaching the Word is daunting. Most Pastor’s think they have done a good job by putting together one “long” sermon (30-55 minutes), and one other short study (30 minutes, if the worship leader does not tarry too long). Calvin on the other hand was evangelically tenacious. We could learn a great deal in his love for God’s Word!

John Calvin never wavered from expository preaching for almost 25 years in Geneva. And he even ignored Christmas and Easter and every other event and just kept doing his exposition. He didn’t give any special messages; he just stayed with his expositions. He preached for six years on the book of Acts. He gave 46 sermons on Thessalonians, 186 sermons on Corinthians, 86 sermons on 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, 43 sermons on Galatians, 48 sermons on Ephesians. In 1559 in the spring he started a study of the gospels, expositing the gospels in a harmony fashion, not getting those completed because he died. While alive though, in the middle of the week he preached 159 sermons on Job, 200 on Deuteronomy, 353 on Isaiah, and 123 on Genesis and so on and so on and so on and all that took preparation and study.

Calvin believed that God’s majesty was revealed in His Word and if you didn’t preach the Word then you didn’t give glory to God.

Calvin preached ten times in two weeks, lecturing three times in theology, having a Friday Bible study, visiting the sick, counseling people, reading and writing. He had a weak stomach. He had severe migraines and the only way he could control his migraines was by eating one meal a day.
He turned the world upside down because of the power of bringing the Word of God to bear. Now that’s evangelism. Some folks may have a problem with some of Calvin’s teachings, but there are very, very, very few Baptists, including any Sandy Creeker, come close to his fire for God’s Word and evangelism (including me). There have been some that try, though. :)

Blessings,
Chris

I really do apologize for posting a comment when your question was directed at another. I was in my thirties before I ever met someone else by the name of “Wes.” I still get confused sometimes.

I also get confused when people try to deny the clear historical record of our convention as Dr. Caner does. I don’t think anyone believes that every SB was a 5 pointer. We are simply stating that historically there has been a heavy influence of calvanistic teaching – even among the more rural pioneer preaching.

Have a blessed day
WesInTex

I like your assessment. Being from Texas, I may have stumbled upon some of that thinking as well. The Sandy Creeker’s may have well provided some ignition to an ongoing source of foundational theology.

Blessings,
Chris

I don’t know that I’m the one to ask really. I’m just an ol’ country preacher who, after twenty six years of preaching (7 in full time evangelism), is coming to learn that what he has heard all of his life (my dad was a SBC pastor for 40 years); and what he himself has preached from the holy, inerrant and infallible Word – is called Calvinism. As such it’s unwanted in the Convention he loves so much and fought so hard to reclaim from the liberals. Even though I have never read anything from Calvin other than short quotes.

I do believe that the Sandy Creekers were themselves sufficently calvinistic, however, for Dr. Mohler’s comments (about all SBC’ers being calvinistic to some degree) to be correct. The way I see it – we wouldn’t have an SBC without BOTH Charleston AND Sandy Creek. What Charleston brings in depth of theology – Sandy Creek brings in passion and fire. Why should we want one without the other?

Interestingly, I met Dr. Caner some years ago at a retreat for the Conference of Texas Baptist Evangelist while I was traveling as an evangelist. I found him very warm and engaging – when he talked about Islam. When he talks about reformed theology – I suddenly get this shrill noise in my head.

I am still on a learning curve in the blog world – and to this rising opposition to what I have always believed to be the gospel. Thanks for letting me put in my two-cents worth.

Wes

Would you say that the Sandy Creeker’s are the poster children for the SBC?

-Chris

Did this happen?
Who?
When?