by the Contributing Editors of SBC Today
This is a list of recent blog posts which we found interesting. That we found them interesting doesn’t mean we necessarily agree with or endorse the ideas presented in the posts, but that we found them to be intriguing and thought-provoking. (They are listed in no particular order of interest). Please post your comments to discuss any article that strikes your interest. If you have recent blog posts to nominate, please send the link to admin@sbctoday.com.
About Theology
- “The True Church and the True Bible,” by Bart Barber at the PraiseGod barebones blog, with reflections on the necessity of the Textus receptus used in the King James Version for the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.
- “Book Plunge: Is God a Moral Monster?” a book review of Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God, by Paul Copan, reviewed by Nick Peters on the Saved through Faith blog.
- “Middle Knowledge in Scripture,” and “Other Views on the Middle Knowledge Texts,” by God is my Judge in the Arminian Chronicles blog, listing Scriptures compatible with the middle knowledge perspective, and defending that interpretation.
- “What Is Essential Doctrine?” by Randy Everist in the Possible Worlds blog, differentiating “truth essentialism” from “practical essentialism.”
About the SBC, the Church, and Christian Ministry
- “The Southern Baptist Convention and Rebranding: What We Can Learn from Al-Quaeda’s Marketing Strategy,” by Peter Lumpkins in the SBC Tomorrow blog, with a video with ideas about how to improve the SBC image problems by learning from Al-Quaeda.
- “A Word about Salacious Sermonizing,” by Denny Burk on his blog, reflecting on some comments by Carl Trueman that the rash of middle-aged evangelical preachers who focus on sex in their sermons is (a) an intrusion of the world on the church and (b) an attempt by middle-aged preachers to try to prove that they are still relevant.
- “Making Men: Discipleship on Purpose,” by Ryan Johnston on the Helwys Society Forum, with a focus about how men can be better disciplers at home.
- “Plodder Goes to Church, Not His Own, Part 1” and “Plodder Goes to Church, Not His Own: Part II by William Thornton on the SBC Blogger blog, with his reaction to attending another church as a guest.
- “Your Podcast Is Not Your Pastor,” by Trevin Wax in the Kingdom People blog, reminding young ministers that may confuse their loyalties between their favorite podcast preacher and their own pastor.
- “Worship Is Not a ‘Program’,” by Ed Steele in the Worship HeartCries blog, expressing concern that worship can be reduced to a simple five step program rather than a meaningful process.
- “The Problem with Calvinism in the SBC,” by Bob Hadley in the Transformed Theology blog, expressing several concerns about the Calvinist impact on the SBC.
- “Feet to the Fire: Plodder’s 2011 Predictions,” by William Thornton, revisiting the predictions about the SBC that Thornton made a year ago.
About the Personal Devotional Life and Society
- “Fire Destroys Grundy, VA Church: Is God Still Good?” by Howell Scott, reflecting on whether God causes evil events.
- “Seekers,” by Bryant Wright at the Pray4SBC blog, inviting modern day seekers to come to Christ just as the Wise Men did years ago.
- “Courage,” by Trevin Wax in the Kingdom People blog, with the story of Youcef Nadarkhani, the imprisoned Iranian pastor.
- “A Conversation on Gluttony, Part I,” and “A Conversation on Gluttony, Part 2: If You’re Not a Glutton, Why Are You Fat?” by Mary England in the SBC Tomorrow blog, with reflections on the biblical teachings about gluttony.
- “Distractions,” by Bob Loyd on the Bob’s Worldview blog, reminding us of the danger of distractions that take our focus off of the Lord.
- “A Sinner Who’s Never Sinned,” by Charlie Ray on the Family of Faith blog, with reflections on the need for Christians to practice serious and consistent confession of sin drawn from two recent books by Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured for Christ and In God’s Underground.
- “The Race Card, Again,” by Chad Brand at the Brandishings blog, with reflections on the racially charged comments of Eric Holder on the ATF “Fast and Furious” gun selling debacle.
- “Unconservative Evangelicals,” by Jordan Hylden, with a review of From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism, by D. G. Hart, which argues that American evangelicals were actually never political conservatives in the first place, but were radical reformers.
Looking at the Lumpkins and Hadley links makes me wonder why Dr. Steve Lemke would want his name even remotely associated with such harmful and divisive drivel. The obligatory response of “we don’t necessarily agree with these posts” does not excuse the propagation of this type of poisonous blogging.
Joshua,
You sound like the angry one. This comment makes you sound like the one spreading harmful and divisive drivel.
Just because you dont agree with some people, doesnt mean they’re bad.
David
Joshua Breland,
On your personal blog (The Daily Bleat), you say that your purpose is to … glorify the Triune God by revealing His grace and truth through Scripture, media, and personal writings.
Did you glorify God by extending grace to the men you mentioned?
Ron and David,
I never made a personal comment about Lumpkins or Hadley but merely their linked blog posts. I’m not sure why you believe I said they were “bad” or “angry” men.
As for the posts in view:
1. Peter Lumpkins insinuating that the SBC is somehow akin to Al Qaeda because of the desire to change the denomination’s name is offensive and absurd and on its face. How any discerning Southern Baptist, or denominational leader, could watch the video clip he posted and not be upset is beyond me.
2. Bob Hadley’s blog post is also outside of reason on a number of points and openly promotes a divide in the convention. Here is one troubling section:
“These issues that Calvinism present are not going to go away. Calvinism can continue to make its way into every facet of Southern Baptist life and can eventually take control of the convention if something is not done to limit its influence…If the SBC does not make a move and soon, this convention will continue to move in the Calvinist direction and this convention will be left suffering with more than an identity crisis being examined by a name change committee.”
Taking control? Suffering? We must make a move? There has always been Calvinists and influential Calvinists in the SBC. Hadley’s blog post serves one purpose, to rally non-Calvinistic troops against some foreign theologically dangerous invader. We can live peacefully together in this convention but it won’t happen with the promotion and acceptance of such writing.
I am voicing a concern in hopes that this type of SBC blogging will be addressed, discouraged, and certainly not promoted in the SBC blogosphere. Many laypeople read this blog. To have Dr. Lemke’s name associated with its content is seen as a stamp of approval for undoubtedly many folks.
Lastly, extending grace does not always mean being quiet while others promote division in the body of Christ. I hope I have glorified God by loving truth and standing for unity in the body of Christ and in a denomination that has been so blessed by God.
Amen Joshua.
I believe he did Ron. It glorifies God to stand against wrong. I indeed believe Joshua glorified God and was right on target.
Joshua,
I find it just a tad bit ironic….maybe even hypocritical….that you would scold Dr. Lemke for associating his name with…egads….Peter Lumpkin and that radical, Bob Hadley; while going to your blog reveals that you proudly associate your name with James White and the Founders! lol
David
Listing of the link does not constitute even an implicit endorsement, as the link to the story of the Textus Receptus demonstrates. To imply that it does is both uncharitable and dishonest.
Joshua,
You wrote that I “openly promote a divide in the convention.” The only reason I am guilty of doing that is because my position differs from your position. As far as my promoting a divide is highly complimentary on your part. The point that I am making is that I think the level of influence that Calvinism holds TODAY is highly disproportional relative to the people in the pew that pay the bills in the SBC. I maintain AGAIN that the overwhelming majority of the people in the pew are NOT Calvinist. If I am wrong address it.
Are you suggesting that the continual growth of influence of Calvinism in the SBC is not going to have ANY impact on the convention and the theology of the future? If I am wrong in that assessment then address it.
Lets look at another comment… “There has always been Calvinists and influential Calvinists in the SBC. Hadley’s blog post serves one purpose, to rally non-Calvinistic troops against some foreign theologically dangerous invader.” Understand that the bold print is YOUR take on my position. This is not my statement. I acknowledge the influence of Calvinism in the history of the SBC. My point is again is that Calvinism is not a dominate position TODAY and I would prefer for it to stay that way.
Again you write, “We can live peacefully together in this convention but it won’t happen with the promotion and acceptance of such writing…. then you conclude, “Lastly, extending grace does not always mean being quiet while others promote division in the body of Christ. I hope I have glorified God by loving truth and standing for unity in the body of Christ and in a denomination that has been so blessed by God.”
What is the difference in your expressing your disapproval of me voicing my opinion as to the theological flavor of the future for the SBC and you voicing yours? I am sorry but I don’t see any difference in what you are doing here and what you are being so critical of?
Finally, let me simply say this… if my “blog post serves one purpose, to rally non-Calvinistic troops” against the continued influence of Calvinism then so be it. I don’t see you complaining on other prominent blogs that promote and tout Calvinism in the SBC.
I will continue to express my frustration with the growing influence as well as my disagreement with the theological suppositions that the Doctrines of Grace promote.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
Bob,
You have a whole post of what you see as Calvinist inconsistencies. In light of those assertions about Calvinism, I’d like to suggest that you to change something. Why don’t you be consistent with your own position and change your signature?
Change it from “Grateful to be in His Grip!” to something like “Grateful I allowed Him to put me in His Grip!”
The signature is not inconsistent with Calvinism, nor is it inconsistent with the alternative signature. The alternative signature just has, at worst, more corollaries or information. You might as well demand that he include his parent’s birth, or their marriage, or any number of things. In short, it’s just pure rhetoric.
Randy,
Have you read Bob’s long post “The Problem With Calvinism in the SBC” where he makes all kinds of assertion of how Calvinists are inconsistent? Or his other post where, as I understand it, he asserts that sin has not effected natural man to the point where he is unable to come to faith? Or his position that faith and repentance are not gifts from God?
I did not say the signature was inconsistent with Calvinism. Bob is anti-Calvinism so why would I make such a statement? Besides, I merely “suggested” a new sign-off. Given Bob’s above theological positions I think the new sign-off makes perfect sense, especially, for one who attempts to call out Calvinists for their alleged inconsistency.
Therefore, I suggested Bob use, “Grateful I allowed Him to put me in His Grip!”
Odd that you chose to ignore the part where I said his current signature is not inconsistent with the alternative signature you suggest. Hence, my point stands unrefuted.
Randy,
Not every blog comment exchange is meant to be a debate. Though your “Odd that you chose to ignore…” and “Hence, my point stands unrefuted.” grandstanding is a bit humorous.
I will answer you though so you understand my reply. I hoped it wasn’t that difficult to grasp.
I did not choose to ignore part of your response. Rather, I choose to clarify my initial response since I did not think your claim of Bob’s words being consistent missed the reason for my suggestion.
Let’s look at your original reply to me.
My aim was never to claim consistency with Calvinism. Why would it be since Bob is anti-Calvinism? The consistency issue had to do with Bob’s own standards to which he inaccurately painted Calvinist practices as inconsistent with their theology in his post “The Problem With Calvinism in the SBC.”
I’m not sure what “it” is in the part of the sentence. It seems like “it” is pointing to the original signature, but I’m not sure what point is being made.
Again, Bob claimed Calvinist practice to be inconsistent with Calvinist beliefs in the post I listed above. I was only suggesting (not demanding) that Bob consider changing his signature to bring it in his own standards of consistency to what he believes.
Pure rhetoric like your responses?
I am grateful to be in His Grip… I am grateful that He took hold of me in spite of my sin as a 10 year old boy… and He has never turned me loose and will never do so! I trust that we all can say the same.
Merry Christmas to all!
><>”
Another thought with respect to my article on Calvinism in the SBC is this:
Calvinism in my lifetime has not been a forefront issue in the SBC. It has had it’s proponents just like the liberal factions did prior to the 70′s. The problem as I see things is not co-existing as much as it is moving from the center to the front. Once Calvinism moved from the center where co-existence was NOT an issue to the front of the line so to speak, THEN it automatically makes itself an issue because it is no longer simply a co-existing position.
That is really the point of contention that I have as far as Calvinism is concerned in the SBC. Do I think Calvinism is a valid Biblical System of Theology, NO. I understand that we could ALL be wrong but one thing is absolutely clear; we cannot both be right. That being said, do I think the SBC needs to say that churches and individuals cannot be Calvinist? Absolutely NOT. I believe in the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church to determine for itself what the Bible teaches them to be the truth. I do not think I nor anyone else should have the right to say what anyone else ought to believe.
Do I think the entities of the SBC need to be lead by Calvinists? NO. Do I think graduates of SBC seminaries need to be 1/3 self professing 5-point Calvinists? NO. Why? Because 13 out of 15 SB’s in the pew who are the ones CURRENTLY paying the bills the SBC has, are NOT Calvinist in their theology. When the liberals moved to the forefront of the SBC, something had to be done. Calvinists have done the same thing today and I maintain something needs to be done, once again.
May not be right to some, but from my perspective to NOT do anything is wrong for me.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
The “regeneration precedes faith” doctrine is Presbyterian. It is not Particular Baptist. I really would appreciate it were the discussion of Calvinistic doctrines be limited to what Particular Baptists actually believe, instead of muddying the waters by introducing out of context Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Sovereign Grace etc. doctrines. I will say that the willingness of certain contemporary Calvinist Baptists to seek out popular evangelical but non-Baptist Calvinistic teachers like D. James Kennedy, C.J. Mahaney, Driscoll, Tim Keller, R.C. Sproul etc. increases doctrinal confusion: indeed being more “Reformed” than “Baptist” is a problem.
But here is a link that demonstrates that Charles Spurgeon, 5 point Calvinist Baptist, opposed the regeneration precedes faith doctrine.
“If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners.” [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm
I honestly believe that a rapprochement can be reached between Particular and General Baptists in the SBC if the debate is framed properly. But framing the debate properly requires making the rapprochement between the two parties a bigger priority than “my side winning.”
Job,
I’ve not read that particular sermon of Spurgeon’s, but the snippet you quote doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with regeneration preceding faith; it sounds more like Spurgeon is arguing against those who say we should only preach the gospel to those who show themselves to be elect – in other words, those who show that they are already regenerate. The formula “regeneration precedes faith” would not typically mean “a person is regenerated then there is some intervening period in which he needs to hear the gospel in order to be saved.” Someone teaching “regeneration precedes faith” would not say “look for the regenerate and preach the gospel to them.”
Job,
There are people in the SBC, who believe in “regeneration before faith.” And, while you might be correct that that is a Presbyterian doctrine, there’s still a crowd that believes and preaches this in the SBC. You make a good point.
Chris, I think you miss the whole point that Job and Spurgeon were making. Spurgeon did not believe in regeneration before faith, and it is a Presbyterian doctrine.
David
I don’t know whether or not Spurgeon believed in regeneration preceding faith, but I know the quote from Spurgeon has nothing to do with it yet Job was trying to use that quote to show that Spurgeon rejected the view.
Chris, you are right on…as I and others are pointing out to David over at SBCToday.
Les,
This *is* SBC Today. :)
Bob Ross is probably THE EXPERT on Spurgeon. No one on this planet has studied Spurgeon more than Bob Ross. He will tell you in a New York minute that Spurgeon did not believe in regeneration before faith.
David
I’m more interested in what Spurgeon said, not what Ross said. I’ve just been scanning an article by Ross on Spurgeon’s view and so far it’s been an amusing read.
Oops. Brain cramp. The other blog where this subject is being discussed.
Job,
I am not sure what BRAND of Calvinism you subscribe too BUT Calvinism as I see it with all of its nuances and whatever you want to call them is in its most simplest form, requires some kind of “regeneration” prior to repentance and saving faith. Now… you can try to argue they are all simultaneous if you want, but the truth is, given TD and man’s utter inability to not sin etc… God’s efficacious call has to be extended to wake the dead person up so he can respond to God. That is regeneration.
If an individual does not believe in this in some form or fashion, then he is not a Calvinist, as I understand it. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
><>”
Bob,
I think you’re right and Job is incorrect. He totally quoted Spurgeon out of context. The regeneration precedes conversion is not just Presbyterian. He should read the London Baptist Confession.
Les
Chris,
I’m more interested in what the Bible says, rather than what Spurgeon said. But, I also like Spurgeon…dont agree with him 100%…after all, he was not infallible. I do like to read Spurgeon. And, I would say that Bob Ross knows more about Spurgeon than you do, and I’ve read Spurgeon a lot. I like what I see; and I’m not a 5 point Calvinist. And, I’ll guarantee you that I dont see Spurgeon like the aggressive Calvinists of today. I mean, Criswell called himself a Calvinist. BUT, I will absolutely guarantee you that he was not like the aggressive Calvinist of today.
In fact, IMHO, I believe that Spurgeon and Criswell would shudder at what the young, restless, reformed(YRR) and the Founders types are doing today.
David
“I’m more interested in what the Bible says, rather than what Spurgeon said.”
Nice way to distort what I meant. When I want to know what Spurgeon himself believed, I don’t read Ross or you or Job or anyone else – I read Spurgeon. We were not at that moment talking about what the Bible says, we were talking about what Spurgeon says. As it happens, I believe what Spugeon says matches pretty close with what the Bible says.
Job and David, what do you understand Spurgeon to mean when he preached the following?
We must now pass on to show that WHEREVER IT EXISTS IT IS THE PROOF OF REGENERATION. There never was a grain of such faith as this in the world, except in a regenerate soul, and there never will be while the world standeth. It is so according to the text, and if we had no other testimony this one passage would be quite enough to prove it. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.”[Charles Spurgeon. Faith and Regeneration. 1871.
To believe in Jesus is a better indicator of regeneration than anything else, and in no case did it ever mislead. Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man.[Charles Spurgeon. Ibid.]
Mark,
I think you have just put the final nail in the coffin of the erroneous notion that Spurgeon did not believe and teach regeneration precedes faith. I’m sure this was not really too hard to find.
Les
And yet I bet the same people continue to claim that Spurgeon opposed the notion.
And, of course there will likely be no retraction. It matters not what Spurgeon ACTUALLY said. That Mr. Ross fellow, the one whose site is pure venom, HE knows better what CHS believed.