By David E. Crosby, Pastor,
First Baptist Church,
New Orleans, Louisiana
The lapel buttons worn by a church staff displayed “WWCS.” I asked what the letters meant and they said, “What would Calvin say?”
My response: “Who cares?” Ever since I saw those buttons I have wanted to ask those fellows why they put Calvin’s name where the name of Jesus should be.
John Calvin is my friend, of course, as historic believers may be who have influenced us in positive ways. I enjoyed reading portions of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and he has definitely influenced my thinking about God and salvation.
Calvin did continue to baptize infants (which I do not endorse), and at one time he ran Geneva like the city belonged to him, which seems to me to be a confusion between the city of God and the city of men. Most lamentably, he consented to the execution of Servetus in Geneva as a heretic. Executing anybody for their religious opinions should be off the agenda for followers of the executed heretic, Jesus of Nazareth.
Calvin was not perfect, we all would agree. He created an amazing systematic theology which is not perfect, either. The Bible is the infallible Word of God. The Institutes are not.
The way we interpret the Bible is of utmost importance. Trying to see how these 66 books speak in unity is not always easy. Some people think that having a systematic hermeneutic is the key.
I disagree for one obvious reason. The system—any system—is a fallible human creation. The Bible does not give us a list of TULIP principles or seven dispensations or a glossary for its vocabulary.
Therefore, no system is itself the Word of God. Anyone who sees all of Scripture through a manmade system is making a critical hermeneutical error. He is imposing a flawed system upon that which is God-breathed, and the flawed system will inevitably distort what is in perfect harmony in the heart of God.
No systematic hermeneutic exists that does not result in this distortion. That is why no such hermeneutic is recorded in the Bible. The only hermeneutic worthy of a God-breathed Word is a personal hermeneutic, God himself. Jesus as the climactic revelation of the Father is the prism through which we must read all of Scripture: the written word through the living Word. As God’s supreme revelation, Christ Jesus supersedes all human reason and logic. We blur the Word made flesh by forcing upon Him these systems which are neither of Him nor by Him. We must continually go back to simple Biblicism as our source for truth, not any man-made theological system.
Bring a TULIP system to the Word of God and the simple instruction of Jesus to love our enemies must be diced and blended. In the TULIP system God hates his enemies. Why would he instruct us to love them? Jesus taught that our love of our enemies is evidence that we are children of God because that is how God loves. The love of God for enemies, strangers, outcasts, and orphans is fundamental, yet preachers are actually declaring otherwise because they hold to an uninspired system of interpretation that seeks to give intellectual harmony to God’s inspired Word. All along God intended that we should live with the tensions and mysteries of his unfettered Word, a position that requires and inspires both humility and unity in the Body of Christ.
Every eschatological system has its own supporting proof texts, but struggles to harmonize these with other texts. For example, dispensationalism has strong support from some texts, but in its classical form it relegates the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount to a future millennial kingdom, not contemporary Christian life. Every system requires scissors and paste, new definitions for common words, and contorted interpretations of obvious texts that don’t fit the system.
I have written my own systematic primer, and I know they can be useful. We all must try to put all the biblical texts together and say what they mean. But none of these human systems perfectly expresses divine truth. Hopefully, no one will suggest that mine should become the template for understanding God’s perfect Word!
Forget Calvin. Forget the systems: dispensational, premillennial, Calvinistic, etc. Pick up your Bible. Study, meditate, and memorize. Soak yourself in the Word of God more so than what other broken people say about it. Bible study aids of all kinds can and do help us with our understanding, but they must remain secondary.
Go to the primary documents and read them for themselves. Do not force them into any preconceived structures. Come up with your own thoughts and outlines. Maybe it will blow your mind. Maybe it will liberate you from the intellectual and spiritual shackles that you think are the keys to true understanding. Shed your preconceptions and see what the Book says. Take two or three steps back and regain your child-like perspective on God and His way with us.
David,
Thank you for this article. I’ve actually been saying the same thing you said here for a while. All “isms” are just human frameworks and as such are fallible. And the problem is that when people are confronted with clear scriture that compromises some aspect of their framwork they generally maintain the framework and reinterpret the text. I’ve personally witnessed this in my own life. I think the answer is to let the word of God upset our little theological apple carts.
But don’t forget Calvin on prayer! It’s the longest section in the Institutes (it’s the first 70 pages of volume 2) and makes for edifying and convicting devotional reading.
Amen, Brother. A very good word, indeed. Thanks for sharing.
Also, this is the way to have true unity in the SBC.
David
“The system—any system—is a fallible human creation. ”
I agree, this includes the most pious biblicist’s “Biblicism.”
Just simply letting the Bible say what it says is not a man made system. For example; I can believe that God loves people, but at the same time, He will send them to Hell. Why? Or, how can I believe both? Because the Bible teaches both. And, I dont need to develop a system to try to explain all the intricate details. I just believe that both are true.
Now, I understand people having thier own, personal believes and thoughts about the details. And, that’s fine. As long as we all agree that those are your own thoughts and personal convictions, and not THE WORD OF GOD on the issue.
Another example; I believe that God chose to save people…He planned to save people….of course, that’s election and predestination. But, I also believe that man is free to make choices, and he is fully responsible for the choices that he makes…including salvation. Now, how do those things fit together? Well, theologians have been debating that for centuries; have they not? And, we’ve got all kinds of theological systems in place to try to solve this dilemma; correct? Well, why dont we just believe them? Why dont we just say that they’re all true, and I cant begin to fathom how God works all of these things out. But, both are true. Why do we feel the need to try to explain the details, which are not given to us in the Word of God?
David
David, I get what you’re trying to say. But as soon as any of us interprets scripture and puts that out in verbal or written form, we have systemized our beliefs. There’s no way around that.
Grudem for example says about systematic theology, “Systematic theology is any study that answers the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us today?” about any given topic. ”
Boyce said in Ch. 1 of the Abstract:
“The advantages of studying theology systematically are several.
1. We thus ascertain all that nature and the Scriptures teach on each point.
2. We compare all these teachings one with another and are enabled to define their mutual limitations.
3. We are brought face to face with the fact that our knowledge is bounded by God’s Revelation, and are led to acknowledge it as its source.
4. We are consequently warned not to omit any of the truth ascertained from any source, nor to add to it anything not properly embraced therein. A departure from this rule will lead into inevitable error.
5. The harmony, and consistency, which will be found in all God’s teachings, from whatever source we may draw them, will become conclusive proof of the divine origin of revelation. This will result, not only from a comparison of what Reason and Nature teach, with the revelations of God’s Word, but of each of the several books of the Bible with the others, and especially of the body of the Old Testament as one book, with that of the New Testament as another.
6. We are thus led to value each of the doctrines of the word or God. Each is true. Each has been revealed that it might be believed. We cannot therefore omit any one, because of its forbidding aspect, or its seeming unimportance, or its mysterious nature, or its demand for great personal sacrifice, or its humiliating assertions, or requirements, or the free terms upon which it assures of life and salvation.”
Good stuff. We just cannot escape some systemization.
Great points, Les. We all have a system. It’s vital that we both recognize it and allow that system to continue to stand in a dynamic relation with the individual biblical passages. We interpret verses in light of the system and support the system with the verses. That’s basic epistemology.
Wow, thanks for posting this Les. I’m sure you will see this list posted elsewhere very soon. :)
“Just simply letting the Bible say what it says is not a man made system.”
But you will create a system of thought by which you interpret the text. No one is exempt from this. Biblicism is not the source of truth, it is a system that describes people who stick to texts in an attempt to exegete them. If in that process people develop a reformed looking system, based on the text by which they interpret scripture, then there is nothing wrong with that. I agree if the two should just believe what it says, some have amore difficult time understanding so they use systems and other tools to help them. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
“agree, this includes the most pious biblicist’s “Biblicism.””
So, in your view, what mere human gets to decide what things in scripture mean for the other lesser intelligent humans? See, this is why this is a circular argument that will never bring unity.
For you, Calvin is the go to guy for understanding scritpure. For me, he was a very smart lawyer/ authoritarian thug who devised a system that has a lot of Platonic undertones. Um. Never mind this “brilliant theologian” baptized babies, went along with burning heretics and thought the sacraments were a means of grace. Right. Brilliant “theologian”. But nevermind all that, right?
And I have heard all the excuses for this such as “he was a man of his time”, etc. Actually, he went along with his “time” for power. Felix Mann was more a “man of his time”.
I think what astonishes me the most is this push to bring in a 16th century European authoritiarian state church focused religion. Sounds like the Nicolaitans are on the move, to me.
\”So,in your view,what mere human gets to decide what things in scripture mean for the other lesser intelligent humans?See,this is why this is a circular argument that will never bring unity.\”
Im calling a red herring. That is not the issue nor is it a viable conclusion from this discussion. Just because some has a systematical approach that leans to calvinism or
arminianism, does not mean it will be forced on \”lesser intelligent humans.\” BTW Calvin did not burn Servetus, a counsel did. Calvin pleaded for Servetus to be beheaded instead, since he was already sentenced to die. Beheading was a merciful act. And many of the sacrements were very helpful to early believers apart from our contemporary understanding of Catholicism. Kinda how we spend bookoos on the latest study bibles, outrageous church buildings, and the latest sound systems. Just because Calvin had a few issues, doesnt mean he was wrong. Kinda like how Spurgeon smoked cigars and enjoyed alcohol a littlw too much, but that didnt make him a bad pastor.
Calvin isnt my go to guy, my professors, commentaries, and trusted pastors are my go to guys when I need a wiser more educated mind.
Certainly Calvin didn’t have it all figured out – some of the most profound figures in Christian history have been very blunt about the ultimate inadequacy of their own systems (Augustine, Aquinas [!], Barth, etc.).
But I’m curious: is not “biblicism” just as much a human-made “ism” as any other? The Word of God is addressed to the church, not the individual believer. We need the church to help us read Scripture responsibly, no? Think of the great post-Reformation codifiers of Protestant orthodoxy who fought against biblicists by appealing not only to Scripture, but the way that Scripture has been handled throughout church history (like John Owen against the Socinians). Biblicism is just as dangerous as slavish devotion to any other “ism.”
I fully resonate with your concern here and I completely agree; theology can only be a witness to the truth found in Scripture. This was the main idea behind the Post-Reformation’s emphasis on archetypal theology (God’s knowledge of himself) and ectypal theology (what God has communicated to us about himself). The Word of God certainly corrects us, evades our comprehensive grasp, and is our source and authority in all matters theological, but we are not competent to interpret it by ourselves apart from the company of fellow believers who are likewise guided by the Spirit. I’m of the opinion that this company of believers extends to the departed. Surely sola scriptura does not mean solo scriptura. My concern here is merely with promoting biblicism, which I think can be easily misunderstood.
Calvinism and Classic Arminianism are full of Augustinian philosophy. In fact, from what I understand, in some seminaries that are very strongly Calvinists, the study of Augustinian philosophy is required. I believe that’s what I heard from a student at a seminary known for Calvinism.
So, maybe the Reformers of the past werent so much sola scriptura as you were led to believe. Maybe they were sola scriptura and Augustine!
Now, before any of you get red faced, and get all tied in a knot, I’m not saying that Calvinists and Arminians dont believe the Bible. And, I’m not saying that you dont base your beliefs on the Bible. I believe that you do. I count you as Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and I appreciate anyone who preaches the Gospel of Jesus. But, “ism’s” are man made, and they may be more man made than yall would like to admit.
David
David
David, what do you mean by philosophy, and specifically Augustinian philosophy?
Calvinism is full of Augustinian philosophy. A lot of what makes Calvinism the theological system that is comes from Augustinian philosophy.
David
Thanks David, but what I’m wondering is what you mean by “Augustinian philosophy.” Like examples of what you mean.
“We need the church to help us read Scripture responsibly, no?”
What does this mean, exactly? And how do you define “church”?
I appreciate the spirit behind the article, but it is hardly that easy. There are places that the bible says that baptism saves us. That doesn’t fit with the baptist “system”. So what do we do? We interpret that passage in light of what we believe the corporate teaching of the bible is on baptism. Are we wrong to do that? Of course we aren’t. There are verses that seem to say that salvation can be lost. Another hit against the baptist “system”. The bible was not written in verses. What is being suggested, if taken seriously, is doctrinal anarchy. Calvin was certainly fallible, as are we all. But it is disingenuous to think that Calvin developed his system first, and then reinterpreted the bible to fit it. We all have a “system.” Most of us just don’t get our names published with it. We’re doing the best we can.
These are my concerns as well, Bill Mac.
I appreciate what Pastor Crosby is aiming for, a return to the Bible. However, we cannot be so blind as to believe our own biblicism is something entirely different than what Calvin produced in regards to epistemology and hermeneutics.
I disagree with you. We should let the Bible interpret the Bible. We shouldnt let any system interpret the Bible for us. We should interpret hard passages of Scripture with what the rest of the BIBLE teaches….not with what Calvin teaches, and not with what the Baptist teach. If the Baptist are wrong, then let us repent and get right.
The only reason I am a Southern Baptist is because I beleive that they stick the most closely to what the Bible clearly teaches. If they ever depart from that, then I wont be Southern Baptist anymore.
David
David: You’re missing the point. You believe the bible teaches certain things. If you wrote them down, you would have David Worley’s theology. David Worley would say it is biblical theology. You got it from the bible, but it would be your own, based on your interpretation, and fallible. If a bunch of us agreed with you, we might eventually become Worley-ists. We wouldn’t be worshiping you, just agreeing with you. We wouldn’t consider you infallible, just on the right track. Isn’t this what happened with Calvin? No SBC Calvinists considers Calvin infallible, or we wouldn’t be Baptists. But we think he got some essential things right.
The point we are taking issue with is that you assume Calvin and Calvinists don’t do this:
“We should interpret hard passages of Scripture with what the rest of the BIBLE teaches”
And why? Because you think that if we did do it, we wouldn’t be Calvinists. We’d be Worley-ists. (that last sentence was a joke, but you get the idea)
By the way, the word biblicist is a useless term for these discussions (not that you brought it up). All Southern Baptists are biblicists, including Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
“The point we are taking issue with is that you assume Calvin and Calvinists don’t do this:
“We should interpret hard passages of Scripture with what the rest of the BIBLE teaches””
That is the WHOLE point! Calvin did not! Or else, he would not have been in a state church, burning heretics and believing sacraments are a means of grace. He does not have a lot of credibility if one is perfectly logical. You cannot ignore that unless you are determined to call what belongs to Christ as “Calvinism”. Which you guys do and it is idolatry and mocks God. Don’t worry, I know this falls on deaf ears. But you worship a “man made system”.
David, Bill Mac is right. For instance, how did you come to believe as a Baptist? Were you Baptist first? Or a Christian first? Surely you didn’t come to faith apart from some connection to an organized church (though I know that is possible). Whatever your church connection was, at some point you became convinced to be a Baptist. Somebody before you had set down common beliefs (based on scripture) of Baptists, you were exposed to them somehow and you agreed. Those common beliefs are a system of interpretation. A systematic theology if you will.
Baptism. Systematic theology looks throughout scripture and pulls together all the related teaching on that subject and baptism position is formulated…in your case credobaptism. An -ism has come about.
That’s all. As we all have said, and the author here has said, Calvin was not infallible. He got some things right and some things wrong. Every one of us is in that same boat.
Well, let’s see….my Mother grew up going half the time to a Methodist Church(old time, Gospel preaching variety), and the other half to the Pentecostal Church. They’d go to the Church that had a preacher…back then, there was a lot of part time Churches…preachers coming twice a month.
Then, I was raised in the Methodist Church. But, my Momma listened to Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Dr. Jerry Falwell, and Oliver B. Greene, and others on the radio. I listened to them with her. My brother and I didnt have much of a choice! lol
Then, when I was 12 or 13, we left the Methodist Church, because it was getting too liberal, and departing from the Bible. We went to a Church with a fairly new Pastor, Dr. Adrian Rogers.
So, I grew up with a vast array of theological teachings and influences. But, the more I studied the Bible, and saw what the Baptist believed, the more convinced I was that Southern Baptist doctrine was closer to the Bible than any others.
Thus, I’m a Baptist…a Southern Baptist…..a Baptist kind of Christian, who just believes the Bible.
David
First, this is a lovely, refreshing perspective. Let us return to listening to the still, small voice of God, “the written word through the living Word” (I love that phrase), the Holy Spirit continuing to reveal to us personally, which will never contradict but always explain Scripture. Let us be a called out people who have the same relationship with God as Adam before the fall, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc… Without anybody misunderstanding and trying to “write more Bible”, and it is high time people realized what this article articulates, that God is no respecter of persons and wants to tell us His Word directly, without theologian mediators. The only thing I would add is that I long for a time when people realize that denominational barriers must also be torn down before there will be full unity in the body of Christ to prepare for His return.
I am wondering about the supposed WWCD buttons you speak about. I have never heard of one or seen one. I asked many friends who hold as I do who have never heard of them either. Would you have a picture or tell us who was wearing them? I will be honest in that I think this was made up to prove a point? I could see it standing for what would Christ do, but why in the world would we ask what would Calvin do? I think a point might have been made by this, but I will be honest in I think they do not exist. I say this after many inquiries to places selling reformed items who have not heard of them either.
Debbie,
I thought you sold these over the internet? No?
David :)
No David, what I’m selling are WWVD buttonsJ(What would Volfan do). :) $2.50 is anyone wants order.
lol
Debbie, that’s highly uncharitable. You don’t have any evidence to back up your assertion of dishonesty, and hence no one should take you seriously.
Debbie, so are we to believe you that you have never seen these buttons since you said you have never seen them or that people you know who hold to what you do have not seen them? How can you make such a statement to someone who shared something that he had personally seen as if he was making it up to prove a point? Perhaps this link will help convince you of the probability of Dr. Crosby telling the truth rather than making up fiction to make a point.
http://www.cafepress.com/+what_would_calvin_do_trucker_hat,46787832
Oh my goodness Hariette, You are right. Look what I found!
Throw Pillow
Who are these people making these things????
“I am wondering about the supposed WWCD buttons you speak about. I have never heard of one or seen one. I asked many friends who hold as I do who have never heard of them either. ”
Well “logic” demands they cannot exist because Debbie and her Calvinist friends have never heard of them. So since that is the case, best to come here and accuse the post writer of deception.
Wow, Debbie.
I just did a quick search and couldn’t find any WWCD buttons, but I suppose it is possible. I can’t imagine any of the Calvinists I know being willing to wear such a thing.
There are lots of places you can buy generic make-your-own-button kits. Maybe that’s what this church did. Was this an SBC church?
Just saw this quote and that it was apropos to the discussion:
“I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God.” – Charles Spurgeon
Would love to know whether that WWCS story is real or not. :)
Hey Bill, there was a church in New Orleans before Katrina that had pens that said “WWCS: what would Calvin say” or something close. That could be what Dr. Crosby is alluding to. Not sure….
Tim:
That could be. People have come to believe that if it isn’t sold on the internet it doesn’t exist, which of course isn’t true. As I said, they could have made their own buttons, or had them special ordered. Certainly not a church I would want to attend.
Bill Mac,
Doesn’t it make a difference to your opinion of the Church though knowing that this was done as a joke one-time at a Seminary-sponsored event to introduce Churches to students and attract Calvinist seminarians who might be looking for a Reformed Baptist Church in the area? It certainly would have for me had I not known the details of the story, having been convinced to attend that Church through that very event Crosby describes (there were actually about 8 of us that ended up attending that year because of that event – and all of us have had our ministries deeply impacted by that Church and its pastor and elders).
I think Crosby ought to explained the context of the event, though as I said earlier it wouldn’t have functioned quite as well as an opening illustration had he done so. Leaving the reading with the impression that this Church was overly-serious about their theology, and that this was done in a random context with no purpose behind it besides announcing their beliefs to the world, wouldn’t have quite helped him make his point. But then again, isn’t that the problem with many of our illustrations? We communicate just enough truth to work them the way we want to in a sermon, but not enough truth to tell the whole story and risk complicating them beyond our usage of them. We should be careful how we tell stories so as not to allow our readers to conjure up an image that isn’t at all accurate.
DR: That would certainly make a difference. Even as a Calvinist, a church that would wear or use something like that, and not be in jest would be a scary place.
Oh, humor is not funny unless rooted in truth. And the truth is what Calvin has to say is of the utmost importance to you many of you. It is still a sad thing to wear to attract attendees and goes to my theory that it really is Calvin who is worshiped.
Very good article David, but personally I think you were much too easy on the John Calvin. From what I’ve been able to dig up John Calvin was fully responsible for Servetus’ death. I don’t have enough proof yet, just a gut feeling, but I’m working on getting more proof, that the battle between Calvinist and non-Calvinist was the cause of the rise of three of America’s most popular cults during the nineteenth century. The Mormon Church, the Watchtower Society and the Christian Science Church were all started in the nineteenth century when the battle between Calvinist and non-Calvinist was the most heated. The Second Great Awakening brought on a great surge in the non-Calvinist movement along with much confusion and controversy. This caused people to be drawn to the new cults to find better answers to their spiritual questions.
I wish I could write more on this, but I’ve got to run. I think I’d like to write a book on the subject.
So, now yall are calling this man a liar? Wow. This is really sad. This is even more sad than the WWCD buttons.
David
David,
No, I don’t think Pastor Crosby is a liar. I’m just curious as to if this is a sermon illustration or a real experience. The fact that you can’t find WWCS buttons for sale online makes the story seem like a hypothetical sermon illustration. I can’t imagine a church staff all wearing such a thing, unless it was tongue-in-cheek.
Joshua,
I was given a customized button as a joke gift for Christmas by a colleague. He had them made up at the mall while he waited. It had to do with an incident tht happened to him at the airport when a group of us were traveling on business. It simply said, “what happens at the airport stays at the airport”.
My daugher was given a customized button with the upward basketball team photo on it.
For a huge extended family reunion, I had customized buttons made with my grand parents picture so people could place us with the right family.
You might want to check all the customized button kiosks at every mall in his state and all the online sources for customized buttons. I mean, if you are going to do this, do it right. You might track down the source of the Calvin buttons.
I just read my comment and I certainly didn’t call him a liar. In fact I even suggested that they might have made their own buttons.
Debbie, Bill Mac, and Joshua,
Your words make me very angry. You may have not used the word “liar,” but each of you questioned Dr. Crosby’s integrity and besmirched his reputation. This goes beyond just being unkind. It is why we who don’t happen to share your Reformed views get so frustrated in trying to have a civil conversation with you. Instead of debating the issue (which is, let us recall, not idolizing Calvin or anyone else’s theology, but constantly reevaluating it by the Word of God), each of you without any real knowledge of the situation have dared to question the integrity and reputation of one of the most respected pastors in Louisiana — respected in no small part due to his unquestioned integrity! This is despicable.
By the way, anyone acquainted with logic would try to explain patiently to you that you are guilty of trying to make a weak inductive argument. The argument that Debbie (in particular) made was that she didn’t know about this, and the people she knew didn’t know about this, (and Joshua and Bill Mac added that you couldn’t find a major supplier who did this), ergo it doesn’t exist. This is not a convincing argument.
Perhaps Debbie, Bill Mac, and Joshua have never been to and don’t know anyone who has been to Hewitt, Texas — BUT IT DOESN’T MEAN THAT HEWITT DOESN’T EXIST! Come on, guys, you have to admit that this is clumsy and inconclusive reasoning, and definitely not sufficient to question someone’s integrity.
Yes, I can verify that there is a church in our area who wear “WWCD” buttons, and hand out pencils with “WWJD” or “WWJS” on them, and anyone who goes to associational-type meetings in this area knows what church it is. I won’t call it by name in this forum out of courtesy. It is a church which associates itself with the Founders Ministries group. I have friends who attend there. So, let it be affirmed that Dr. Crosby is justified as telling the truth, and you as a false witness.
We will welcome your apologies to Dr. Crosby, but you will not be permitted to post anything else that challenges his integrity unless you have hard proof. No endless self-serving arguments. No excuses. Just God’s people doing what God’s people do — apologizing when you have wrongfully accused a fellow believer.
Steve,
Apologies would be in order if I called Pastor Crosby a liar. My statements were clear and I did no such thing. However, I do apologize to Pastor Crosby if he believes I slighted him in any way. I certainly had no intent of doing that.
Any discerning person can read my comments and see I never called him a liar or questioned his integrity. The story is so wild I wondered if the story was not a hypothetical sermon illustration as I mentioned above.
Again, I apologize Pastor Crosby if my comments disparaged you in any way. Blessings to you Steve and Pastor Crosby.
Joshua,
Your statement: “Would love to know whether that WWCS story is real or not. :)”
You straight up questioned Dr. Crosby’s integrity. Any discerning person can see that.
Despite D.L.’s explanation below, Dr. Crosby’s point is apropos: Too much is being made of Calvinism. The humor of WWCB was not that the church’s Reformed theology was no big deal. It was that Christianity and Calvinism cannot be reduced to sloganeering. But the humor is predicated on the idea that Calvinism is a big deal at the church. It is poking fun at those stupid WWJD, Prayer of Jabez people and making the not so subtle case that the correct and smart theology is being taught at this church. Calvinism is apparently the lense through which the Bible is read at that church. While it certainly that church’s prerogative to approach the Bible that way, Dr. Crosby’s point is that such an approach is quite problematic because Calvin tends to be read in an uncritical and often syllogistic way: “Since Calvin understood this text this way, it must be right,” even when texts like 1 John 2:2 really don’t fit the system. But you guys never say, “Yep, 1 John 2:2 is a bit of head-scratcher for us, but hey, Calvin was just a man trying to do the very important but imperfect work of systematic theology.” Instead, you start stretching the text around your system and sometimes texts get damaged in the process.
Your Spurgeon quote well illustrates my point. Read some Calvin, find a scripture that appears to support it. Bingo: Calvin’s the man! Read some Calvin, find some Scriptures that question him, It’s a mystery, but Calvin is still right! Or, I don’t like Calvin’s view of double predestination so I’ll just take that out, but Calvin is still right! How? It’s a mystery!
Eric,
Why not include my qualifying comment right after my first?
“No, I don’t think Pastor Crosby is a liar. I’m just curious as to if this is a sermon illustration or a real experience. The fact that you can’t find WWCS buttons for sale online makes the story seem like a hypothetical sermon illustration. I can’t imagine a church staff all wearing such a thing, unless it was tongue-in-cheek.”
I’ve apologized to Pastor Crosby for any transgression and I sincerely hope he accepts said apology if I have disparaged him in any way. I never intended to.
I will refrain from engaging the rest of your assertions about how I and other read and study Scripture.
Eric,
Hey man, usually I don’t correct people when they ignorantly get my name wrong. But you’ve done it a few times and that makes me think either 1) you don’t pay attention very well – in which case you come across as looking really bad for a Ph.D., or 2) you are trying to passive-aggressively be annoying and juvenile, in which case you come across as rather immature for a pastor. Either way, it’s D.R., not D.L.
Now, as for you argument that Calvinists are the ones who try to fit Scripture into their theological system, if I remember correctly, you are the one who, in the comment stream where I kept posting Scripture, returned over and over again to your philosophical system in order to imply that those Scriptures can’t mean what they plainly say. It seems you are the one who has a problem with putting all the Scriptures into your man-made system. So be careful about accusing others of doing the exact thing you, yourself, practice. That’s called hypocrisy, my friend.
Finally, I don’t know what Calvinists you actually know, but most every one I know (and I can guarantee it’s about 10x the number you do) starts with Scripture and moves to theology in coming to Reformed Theology, with no Calvin at all to direct them there (that was certainly my experience and most of my friends’ at NOBTS while there). Calvin’s actual teachings come way, way down the line. Many Calvinists I know have read little to no Calvin. And why? Because just like Calvin, himself, the Scriptures are enough for us. And as Spurgeon said, we believe Calvin’s teachings not because Calvin said them, but because we too find those things in the Word of God.
So holler back when you are ready to say more than “I am not a robot” when confronted with the great truths of Scripture like Amos 3:10, Psalm 33:10, Psalm 115:3, Isaiah 45:7, and Job 5:12-16 in light of your flawed man-made philosophical system.
Thanks, DL. We will keep it in mind.
DL, or DR,
Most of the Calvinists I know got that way, because some other Calvinist showed them the way! They did not get that way just from reading the Bible. It had to be taught to them. Just like the fellas, who tried to convert me, were trying to “show” me the way.
David
David this is the statement I was responding to:
Since Calvin understood this text this way, it must be right,” even when texts like 1 John 2:2 really don’t fit the system. But you guys never say, “Yep, 1 John 2:2 is a bit of head-scratcher for us, but hey, Calvin was just a man trying to do the very important but imperfect work of systematic theology.”
Your comments are a red herring. But since you brought it up, I would say that I heard of Calvinism as a tenable belief just like the vast majority of the folks in the SBC came to their Dispensational views as well as their understanding of the Trinity, justification by faith alone, and most every other significant doctrinal belief – through the teaching of those who came before us – it is ignorant and naive to think that any of us do theology on an island. We simply cannot discount the witness of the Church itself and the principle of “faith once handed down to the saints”; but as I said, that’s not what this discussion is about – it’s about Calvin’s particular views, which weren’t original to him either.
Fully aware of the proverb, “Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears,” I feel I must come to some defense here of those accused of calling Dr. Crosby a liar. As an observer, I did not see any of these at all questioning his integrity. It is very common for preachers to use illustrations that are made up. I wondered that as well in this case and if it had been made up I would think no less of Dr. Crosby. It wasn’t, but I don’t see any of the accused as calling him a liar. It would be serious to do so and it is equally serious to accuse someone of calling another a liar.
In any case, Joshua has apologized for any unintended offense so it would seem that the matter at least with respect to Joshua should be dropped. I see no reason why Eric felt the need to chime in and add to Dr. Lemke’s rebuke when Joshua had already hours ago posted his apology. Maybe it was just to try to score some points on Calvinists’ interpretive methods. IDK. Prior to this WWCS dust up the conversation had been quite civil, it seems to me.
Thx, Steve, for holding folks accountable.
I thoroughly enjoyed Pastor Crosby’s missive. My heart resonates w/his. Neither he nor I would jettison systematic theology. But I agree that the system isn’t sacrosanct, and sometimes requires hermeneutical gymnastics. As an ethicist yourself, e.g., Steve, you know that there are a number of ethical systems, some of which require one to hold certain apparent contradictions in tension. Such is true for certain theological issues as well, like sovereignty and responsibility. After hearing one of my professor’s explanations in this regard, he said it is better to hold to a biblical theology. May sound simplistic, but I think that provides the best systematized model, which, by definition, mitigates for biblicism. To denigrate that term is to denigrate Holy Writ itself. Yet another prof said of certain biblical tensions: “Gentlemen, we must admit that we are trying to understand the infinite, omniscient, eternal wisdom of holy God with pea-sized, fallen, finite brains.” He made that comment after explaining the five points of Calvinism — an “-ism” to which he staunchly adhered.
Guys,
I went to one Church in New Orleans where we had cups and pens that said “WWCB” (“What Would Calvin Believe”) – not WWCD. This is probably the source of Crosby’s opening illustration. I don’t know if it is the same Church that Steve describes above, but even if not, they are likely a copycat of ours in regard to the slogan. But what Crosby thought was serious, our Church thought of as a joke – a subtle jab at a cultural, shallow Christianity that puts WWJD on their clothing and on their cars, while at the same time having little to no clue what Jesus actually said, much less what He would have done (or more importantly what He would have us to do). It was also a way for us to point out that we were a Reformed Baptist Church, an appealing thing to many students at NOBTS, which at the time were being newly exposed to men like John Piper and movements like Passion.
Again, however, it was meant to be a joke. When Crosby says, “Ever since I saw those buttons I have wanted to ask those fellows why they put Calvin’s name where the name of Jesus should be”, I have to wonder why Crosby didn’t simply ask before posting this article (and of course if he thinks that WWJD is somehow Biblical and thus sacred itself). Then he wouldn’t have had to speculate that these guys were taking their theology too seriously and then build an entire post off of such a misunderstanding.
The reality that WWCB buttons, pens, and coffee mugs meant to portray is that we actually shouldn’t have such a shallow spiritual life where cliches and overused slogans and gimmicks turned into opportunities for materialistic slogans (Prayer of Jabez, Purpose-Driven Life, etc.) define how we live as Christians. Rather, WWCB is a hopeful throwback to the days when men did read and study their Bibles for hours a days, carefully systematizing their beliefs, not to (as Crosby says) “force them into any preconceived structures”, but to understand the harmonizing truths of God’s Word so that we might “Do [our] best to present [ourselves] to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.”
Unfortunately, in Crosby’s haste to make his point, he missed an opportunity to join with his WWCB brothers and sisters to say something even more significant than what he tried to say here.
D.R.
This “tongue-in-cheek” idea that I mentioned earlier was the only way I could fathom an SBC church doing such a thing. However, the article presented the story as these people were staunch Calvinites who were seriously seeing everything through a WWCS lens.
It all makes sense now as the WWCS buttons were a joke.
Thanks for clearing this misunderstanding up.
Yall were calling David Crosby a liar. David Crosby said that he saw the bracelets. He said that he asked and said. He told this story using “I” saw….”I” said. So, for you to question whether it was true, or not; and for Debbie to say, “I will be honest in that I think this was made up to prove a point?” And, Joshua, for you to question this story as being real, or not….with him saying that he saw it, and he said; well, there’s no other way to call it, than to say that you and Debbie were calling the man a liar.
I’m glad that you, Joshua, have apologized. Thanks. Where’s Debbie?
But, I’ve seen this tactic used over and over, again, in blogs…especially by New Calvinists. They call people liars all the time…even if its just people, who are disagreeing with them. I saw a New Calvinist stand up in a room full of Pastors and others, at a conference, and many of them were older Pastors, BTW, and tell the whole room that they were liars, if they didnt see Calvinism like he saw it…I believe he was talking about “misrespresenting” Cavlinism. But, the arrogance and the gall of this younger man to say that anyone in the room was a liar, if they were, in his mind, misrespresenting Calvinism. I mean, if they didnt see it exactly like he did, then they werent just wrong; they were liars. And, the other New Calvinists in the room smiled a bit, and after the meeting were seen patting him on the back. And, he did this during a question and answer time. He wasnt a speaker at this conference. But, to show such little respect for others, especially older Pastors, seems to be par for the course in this crowd.
If someone doesnt see Calvinism like they do, then they must be liars. If someone says that they saw a crowd wearing WWCD bracelets, and asked about them, must be a liar.
THis is so indicative of the problem in the SBC right now.
David
David,
There are some things in Crosby’s account that I would actually challenge him on in regard to exact accuracy. After hearing from a friend who attended the Church I spoke of above (which again is likely the impetus for Crosby’s illustration – but I could be wrong), we don’t remember buttons – I certainly never had one and I don’t remember anyone else having them (and definitely they were not bracelets) – but again I could be wrong about that and just the elders had them on. Secondly, to our knowledge and in confirmation with the pastor there, those cups and pens were made for a one time event – a NOBTS Church fair, where different Churches set up booths in the student center with info about their congregations to give out to college and seminary students (and by the way that was 10 years ago). Crosby’s illustration implies that this was somewhat of a current event and without context it almost sounds like these guys wear them to Church. It would have been nice for him to have clarified where he saw this acronym, though it wouldn’t have functioned as well as a jumping off point had he done so.
Also, I would challenge Steve’s take on the Church when defending Crosby. The Church I am referring to doesn’t wear (present tense) these buttons (even if they ever did for one night), nor hand out pencils with WWCD or WWCS on them anymore. They did that one time, not on an ongoing basis as implied. Secondly, they are not active in the association, and likely most of the association has little to no clue about that one-time event (so I highly doubt that “anyone who goes to associational-type meetings in this area knows what church it is”). In fact, that Church is probably more likely known for being underwater during Katrina than for anything Reformed (http://bit.ly/KMFwpM). Finally, while they are listed on the Founder’s website, that’s pretty much the extent of their involvement with them for the past 10 years. Now, again it may be that there is another Church in New Orleans who decided to copy ours in regard to marketing, but it’s not likely. Perhaps Steve could clear that up.
Oh, and one last thing – if you are a student at NOBTS and are reading this, I highly encourage you to look up that Church and check it out – I guarantee the pastor and elders there would love to have you and put you to work in ministry. I can tell you that without the influence of those Godly men in my life I would not be in ministry today and I would have no clue how to handle conflict, do Church leadership as a team, and exercise Church discipline lovingly with an eye toward repentance and restoration (which I saw modeled clearly there). Those men invested their lives into me and I can assure you that they would love to do the same with you.
Randy: Thank you for making me smile this morning. :)
Fools make a mockery of sin; all I’m sayin’.
Debbie,
I think you are out of bounds to accuse him of lying. That’s a serious charge and requires a lot more info than you have. At best you might wonder if it was an illustration made up, but saying its a lie is too far.
And for Randy to question your salvation for what I see as a serious mistake on your part was also way out of line.
1 John makes it plain: those who lack love for the brethren lack eternal life; all I’m sayin.
Uh Randy, could you give us all here an analysis of that passage as to degree? Because as you are putting it out there on Debbie, you nail everyone including yourself. Have you EVER at any time demonstrated a lack of love for a brother? Pause….That’s what I thought.
You need to hit the books a bit more, a lot more, on that. Do some more study and you won’t make such a misapplication again, hopefully.
Les,
I think you can do MUCH BETTER than this…
“You need to hit the books a bit more, a lot more, on that. Do some more study and you won’t make such a misapplication again, hopefully.”
><>”
Bob,
The mistake in interpretation he made (and misapplication) was either from naivety or a Roman Catholic understanding. No one can honestly read 1 John and see someone else sin once or more than once , from a distance such as the Internet, and question their salvation. As I said, if Randy’s apparent view is right, none of us is saved including Randy. One thing I’m sure of is this: everyone of us has been unloving more than once to a brother.
Capiche?
Les, I suppose you do not remember her calling Jim G a liar over at Voices when he did give her references she claimed did not exist. CB nailed her on it and would not let go for about a whole thread until she finally relented but not easily because she really was starting to look very bad.
There are other examples but that big one sticks out in my mind because it was so ridiculous. There seems to be a pattern when it comes to Calvinism with Debbie. She does not do her homework before she claims sometheing is an outright lie.
Lydia,
I seem to remember seeing some of that. Are you too questioning her salvation?
This ended up above somehow. It was meant to be at the end.
“And by the way, some here thought that the post author’s integrity was called into question and he was called a liar.
And then the calls for apologies!,
But Randy questions Debvie’s salvation! and who has called him out on it but me? No one I’ve seen yet. Telling it is.
“But Randy questions Debvie’s salvation! and who has called him out on it but me? No one I’ve seen yet. Telling it is.”
Where did he question her salvation? I missed that even though I went back and read. Did he tell her she is not saved? Or did he quote scripture and you mapped it to Debbie. Maybe it is you who inferred it! (wink)
Les, you have a way of taking everything to the pedantic like most YRR guys.
Lydia, the comments seem to be getting jumbled up. I’m trying to reply directly to you, though I have no idea where this will end up.
“Randy Everist says:
May 11, 2012 at 3:32 pm
1 John makes it plain: those who lack love for the brethren lack eternal life; all I’m sayin.”
“pedantic.” questioning someone’s salvation because she called someone a liar and used 1 John as his scripture proof is me being pedantic? Really?
Well maybe Dr. Lemke was being pedantic about those folks wondering about the buttons. Come on Lydia. You know better.
BTW, I am Reformed to be sure. But I’m neither young nor restless. But I know many YRRs and they are fine people who love Jesus and labor for the kingdom and don’t spend their time arguing about Calvin.
Now I could be mistaken, but I think I remember Randy saying something like “Debbie I’m wondering if you are really saved.”
I can’t find it now. Did it get removed?
The 1John quote above came later and says the same thing though.
Lydia,
I think it was removed w/o explanation which makes my comments look foolish. I wish the blog master had made a comment that Randy’s comment had been removed. Here is what Randy said, thanks to Google Feed:
“Comment on Calvin Is My Fallible Friend by Randy Everist
Debbie, I seriously question your salvation in light of passages in 1 John.
from Comments for SBC Today – May 11, 2012 (yesterday)”
Yes, it was removed, Les. I thought we were haggling over someone quoting a verse and you inferring it upon someone. Thanks for clearing that up.
Unless Randy is a 9 Marks Elder/Pastor he has no right to say that. Only those that follow the 9 Marks plan and has a christian titled position can decide who is saved or not. They hold the “keys to the kingdom”. (wink)
Lydia,
You just can’t help yourself can you. That was sort of a very, very slight rebuke of Randy’s very unloving comment and only then with an even longer dig at 9Marks, oh…but with a (wink). I’d love to understand what you think Reformed people believe about the”keys of the kingdom.”
You really are consumed by us Reformed folks.
‘You really are consumed by us Reformed folks”
Les, that sounds like Jr High.
I am not getting into a keys to the kingdom debate with you because the bottom line is that 9 Marks is all about elder “rule” and signing membership covenants (which I bet has been vetted by a lawyer). The deck is stacked for deciding who is ‘saved’ or not using their brand of church discipline.
So saying one takes it to the “church” really means a small group of ruling elders who decide. But we can play semantic games all day. I simply interview those coming out of CHBC for my info. You can believe the guru’s. Maybe you are trying to become a guru yourself?
Lydia: Your concerns about 9 Marks, Al Mohler and some of his writings, John Piper etc. are my concerns. Moreso as a reformed believer. You make many good points as do others on concerns of church discipline which is more about control and abuse. This however is not just in the reformed community but in the Fundamentalist community as well. Both concern me. Moreso than the doctrine because one has nothing to do with the other.
You make many good points as do others on concerns of church discipline which is more about control and abuse. This however is not just in the reformed community but in the Fundamentalist community as well. Both concern me. Moreso than the doctrine because one has nothing to do with the other.”
Calvin was certainly not into “control” with all those magistrates who came to your door to force infant baptism and arrest you. I guess that is part of his systematic theology you guys choose to ignore.
Lydia: I would ask for references that show this. As I said, I have been a reader of Calvin for years, and still have not read everything he has written it is so extensive. What I have read, you are again giving much more power to Calvin than he actually had.
Debbie, I have no doubt you are not familiar with such resources. And it is not about reading “Calivin”. I thought you would get that. Oh well.
And I have made the point that one must read around historical subjects as the victors try to write the official history. The most interesting aspect of some of this is that many church/state archives and documents were not open to researchers until after WW2. So a whole new crop of documents became available in the 1950′s when American researchers went to Europe.
And once again, you claim that if you have not seen something or read it, it does not exist unless one proves it to you. I simply do not understand that sort of thinking. My resource list is quite long and I have forgotten half of it over the years. YOu might try your local library. Do a search on Calvin, Geneva Reformation, etc, etc. There is a ton of info. There is even something on the laws for divorce and remarriage in Calvin’s Geneva. Reading around the subject is where I saw the laws for limiting the number of courses Genevans could have at each meal during Calvin’s reign. Calvin and his co-harts were big on micromanaging people in the church/state. This mm style is making a comeback with the YRR.
The Calvinists argument has always been that Calvin did not have that much power. But he did the second time in Geneva. They would just rather not talk about it. They try to seperate church/state but that only goes so far in Geneva of that time. The lines were very fuzzy and influence counted for a lot and Calvin had truck loads of it. And you seem to simply parrot what you have been told.
I doubt any of it is required reading in seminary when they are indoctrinating for Calvinism.
“Lydia: Your concerns about 9 Marks, Al Mohler and some of his writings, John Piper etc. are my concerns. Moreso as a reformed believer. You make many good points as do others on concerns of church discipline which is more about control and abuse”
Aren’t they just men of their time and circumstance?
This is actually a good question, and again Fundamentalists and Conservatives believe about women what Piper, etc. does. I dare say the men writers of this blog would be in agreement. I think yes and no is the answer. Piper, and those adovcating complementarianism and control over members are a product of their time which I believe taints their interpretation of scripture greatly. They were born in the 40′s and 50′s in which the patriarchal view was prominently taught in churches as well as segregation, using scripture to defend their views more than reading scripture and forming their view from scripture.
In the Protestant world, I swear we are going the way of insanity however. I read E-Wartburg and FBCJax, and swear insanity is ruling. Members are reading and studying scripture for themselves, churches can no longer control them or sell them certain doctrines, and so they resort to suing the members for crazy amounts or try to make them look crazy or worse. This concerns me and grieves me a lot more than any doctrine wars. Yet it is the one thing not being addressed except by you and a few others. Many doing this are reformed churches not Presbyterians but Baptists. The latest craziness is written today on FBC Jax. Wow.
Sorry, my last comment was in response to Lydia’s question concerning Piper etc. being a product of the times. I think the abuses that are happening in churches today ought to be the topic of discussion. That I agree with you on. But, it is not because they believe in reformed theology, but grace and the New Covenant teaching have gone out the door. That is also doctrine I believe. That I think is the part of the Bible that is being ignored in favor of patriarchal doctrine which evidently they believe is not just for husband and wives but the whole church membership who they believe are dumber than rocks when it comes to theology. So they must control them at any cost. It’s warped in my opinion.
Debbie, You are not connecting the dots. You claimed earlier that Calvin was a man of his time and circumstances and that explained the bad stuff you don’t agree with. I simply made the same argument for the leaders you have a problem with now and how they live out their doctrine. Your trajectory is inconsistent starting with Calvin. Forget TULIP for a moment and just focus on the man, Calvin. But I do not think you can seperate it to get an objective look at the inconsistency of your claim.
You mean I am not connecting the straw man.
Lydia, Jr. High. Nice.
You continue to make my point. And I understand why you don’t want to get into a serious discussion on the keys of the kingdom, membership and church discipline (I’ll add those since you went to discipline with Debbie).
Guru
(I’ll add those since you went to discipline with Debbie).
That was quick! A new application of “discipline” from a Calvinist. That is one of the neat things about being a Calvinist, you can change definitions depending on the situation. I had no idea I had the power to excommunicate Debbie. So, now a correction or disagreement is “discipline”. Thanks for the heads up, Les!
(Does it work as “discipline” when a Calvinist does the same thing to a non Calvinist?)
“That was quick! A new application of “discipline” from a Calvinist. That is one of the neat things about being a Calvinist, you can change definitions depending on the situation. I had no idea I had the power to excommunicate Debbie. So, now a correction or disagreement is “discipline”.”
What in the world are you talking about? Did you think I meant that you did some kind of discipline on Debbie? That is not at all what I meant.
When I said, “I’ll add those since you went to discipline with Debbie” is was referring to the fact that you and I were discussing the keys of the kingdom. Then when you and Debbie got after 9Marks a little more, church discipline also came up.
And since the keys and church discipline are connected, hence my comment. Does that make sense?
Lydia, this is probably not the place, but I’ve been involved with ruling elder churches, yes “elder ruled” churches for 20 years. I’ve seen discipline enacted, unfortunately. It is a grievous circumstance and is painful. It’s not perfect. But the men who have been charged to exercise care and discipline almost always have done so in a godly, gracious and redeeming manner.
I’m sure you have first hand knowledge (first hand, right?) of situations where the discipline process didn’t go right. But anecdotal exceptions do not make the rules. Scripture does and discipline is scriptural and sometimes necessary as men lead the church.
Have a great mother’s day.
You simply add a step in Matthew 18 that is not there. Jay Adams even taught this at a conference a few years back at Noblitt’s church. He ADDED the step of taking it to elders before taking it to the whole church. It is not in there…friend. You have simply set up a magisterium. I would never trust Reformed YRR type “elders”. I have seen how they operate on blogs and in person and their arrogance is astounding…even from the 20 somethings.
See, you guys are taught ‘keys to the kingdom’ and ‘taking it to the church’ but what you don’t say is that the “church” consists of a few guys “with authority” over the people who must “obey” you. And the poor schmucks have signed a “covenant” giving up all their rights that accuses them of “disobediance” to the “authority”. It is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. It is cultic. It is not how the kingdom of God operates. You guys love power too much but you cloak it in Christianese.
Most of the church discipline cases I have interviewed were due to “disagreeing” with the “authority”. (sinning by asking questions, ala Driscoll style)
Remember, Dever of 9 Marks protected and opened CHBC arms wide (He made that decision for his church?) to Mahaney when he ran away from SGM. He does not exactly have a ton of credibility with some of the thinkers out there. SGM is a shepherding cult.
Lydia,
You said, “See, you guys are taught…”
How do you know what I have been taught? Who are the “you guys” you are lumping me in with?
Hey Lydia, do you believe the church should practice church discipline? If so, how do you believe it should be handled. I would really like to know.
And one more thing in light of Debbie’s comments, are you complementarian regarding men and women roles in the church?
Answer to these too Lydia when you have time. Thanks.
Lydia, comments are getting placed in odd places. These are what I would like to see your answers for:
“You said, “See, you guys are taught…”
How do you know what I have been taught? Who are the “you guys” you are lumping me in with?
Hey Lydia, do you believe the church should practice church discipline? If so, how do you believe it should be handled. I would really like to know.
And one more thing in light of Debbie’s comments, are you complementarian regarding men and women roles in the church?
Thanks.
Lydia,
“Most of the church discipline cases I have interviewed were due to “disagreeing” with the “authority”. (sinning by asking questions, ala Driscoll style)”
You do interviews? Are you a reporter? How many people have you interviewed who had a negative experience with these over authoritarian churches?
How many of the church leaders have you interviewed for each of those cases to get their version of the story? Just curious if you would reveal all your resources on these interviews.
Thanks,
Les
“Just curious if you would reveal all your resources on these interviews.”
That depends on a lot of factors, Les, and none of them have to do with you. All the sources in world would not convince you that your idols are not worthy of praise. And you have no idea how thankful I am I am not living in 16th Century Geneva. I would have been burned at the stake! Or perhaps drowned with a tombstone strapped to my back.
Lydia,
I hesitate to ask multiple questions yet again of you, since you seem to have a hard time answering them. But alas.
Who exactly are my idols you refer to above and how do you know that?
And how about these other questions I asked in addition to the sources question:
“You do interviews? Are you a reporter? How many people have you interviewed who had a negative experience with these over authoritarian churches?
How many of the church leaders have you interviewed for each of those cases to get their version of the story?”
Thanks Lydia.
A THIRD TIME:
“Oh, and if Randy’s comment warranted removal, I presume for being too personal, and he was/is thus protected from his unloving comments being continually viewed (oh but I love Google Reader. When comments are removed, I still have them. It’s like they are locked away in ft Knox (wink).
But Debbie’s comments? They remain. Kind of makes me think of Huffington Post and their selective reporting.”
Les,
In one of my comments that were deleted I said that Randy calling Debbie’s salvation into question was inappropriate. I mean how can any of us truly assess another’s salvation particularly when the person we’re talking about we’ve only interacted with on the net.
John W., I think I remember that. Some are making their way back to try to clean up this mess. But Randy is still missing.
And also troubling is the deletion of comments, some of them, w/o explanation publicly. The context is lost for the related comments and makes this look foolish.
Thanks brother.
Now there is a leap. That is above my pay grade.
Lydia: I apologized to Jim G which of course you missed. I can’t ever figure out why proofs are never given at the beginning of a conversation. Any writer of any salt knows that is a must. Yet, the proofs Jim G gave were also quotes taken out of context on the subject we were discussing. I chose not to quibble about it and he was right in some of his assertions. I apologized.
When I ask for proofs and days go by with none. The post or comment begins with none, that is time to begin questioning for me. I was honest in saying that I thought Jim G. was lying, just as I asserted here. I was thinking it the whole time and I am too honest for my own good in saying what thoughts I am thinking. Funny thing is when I begin to assert that someone is lying, then and only then do the proofs appear. :)
It never bothers me when anyone questions my salvation. I think most people are thinking what I am not saying it in order not to have their salvation questioned. Me, I know who I am in Christ and what human beings say doesn’t mean much to me. I question a lot of salvation I probably shouldn’t of others too.
“Lydia: I apologized to Jim G which of course you missed. I can’t ever figure out why proofs are never given at the beginning of a conversation. Any writer of any salt knows that is a must. Yet, the proofs Jim G gave were also quotes taken out of context on the subject we were discussing. I chose not to quibble about it and he was right in some of his assertions. I apologized. ”
I did not miss it. It was after days and days of CB hounding you. And Jim gave the resource within a day at least. I remember because I was incredulous. Jim is a professor and would think twice about posting something of that nature he could not back up. Also, he is not a frequent commenter there which changed the dynamics. But his comments are always worth contemplating and checking out. The guy is smart. The problem is you want everyone to do your homework for you.
Lydia: You ought to know me better by now. CB’s hounding had nothing to do with it. Work and having a life, and frankly having a hard time apologizing because I still had my doubts not having been able to find most of what he wrote delayed it. I don’t just give out apologies and I certainly don’t believe in peace at any price. But you should know that. In fact hounding will more than likely receive nothing from me.
John, give me time. I’m driving to KC and doing this on iPhone. I was making a comment to Debbie apparently while you made yours. It’s a little hard to do this very fast while mobile.
I think that it’s interesting that the NonCalvinists to a man believe that Brother Crosby’s honesty was called into question and the Calvinists all say that it wasn’t. All I can say is that I do believe that when one questions the veracity of a person’s personal account, whether intentional or not, they are at least saying the man’s honesty is questionable. Debbie flat out accused him of making it up. Although I do think Bill Mac left room for the possibility that this was an individual church thing.
Another interesting point is that when we begin to talk about the errors that are present in human frameworks the only ones who seem to objest are Calvinists. Surely you guys cannot believe that Calvinism is flawless can you?
John: Thanks. I thought I made it clear that although such things don’t seem to be readily available on the internet, it isn’t hard to either make them yourself or have them specially made. I should have been more clear, but thanks for picking it up.
As for thinking Calvinism is flawless, certainly not me (or Calvin, or Calvinists for that matter). I’m not even arguing the doctrine of Calvinism. What I’m arguing is the idea that you can’t get what we call Calvinism from the bible. I’m also arguing anyone who closely studies the bible will end up with some type of theological framework, not just Calvin. The idea that Calvinism is a man made system and what non-Calvinist Baptists believe is not is a self-defeating argument. People can say “I just believe the bible” until they are blue in the face. So do I. So do you. But I’m a Calvinist and you’re not. David’s a dispensationalist (I think) and I’m not. Many here are cessationists and some, including me, are not. Les is a paedobaptist, I’m not.
The question isn’t whether Calvinism is fallible, it is who else thinks their doctrine isn’t?
Bill Mac, I agree with everything you just said. Just to clarify, I hold to both paedo and credo baptism. I see both as credible interpretations.
BTW, I attended NOBTS for a year in 1984-85. I don’t remember any Reformed Baptist churches in the area. Had there been one I am sure I would have attended there, tongue in cheek buttons or not.
ooops..Les cant remember any Reformed Church in New Orleans….so, DL must be a liar!!! :)
David
David,
It was 1984 and you owe him an apology. :)
Bill Mac,
Thanks for your response. I agree totally that we all have a theological frame work, and all of those systems, including mine, is flawed. But I did want to tell you that I really appreciate the grace you showed in your comment about the possibly of this being an individual church situation. What it did was interject the possibility of it being an isolated occurence without calling Brother Crosby’s integrity into question. I’ve always thought that your comments were thoughtful even when you’ve disagreed with people.
John: Thanks
And just to make things interesting:
http://www.cafepress.com/+what_would_calvin_do_trucker_hat,46787832
Bill Mac
Woooo hoooo! lol….now, you’ve done it. You’ve blown Debbie’s insistence that there’s no such bird as a WWCD!!!! lol
David
PS. That’s really funny, too.
BTW: To say that Calvin is responsible for Servetus death, or that he ran Geneva is to give him much more power than he actually had. This charge is made by those who do not know the time period or the circumstances. By today’s standards it was barbaric which is why I believe the times are getting better not worse, but this charge is made each time someone wants to go against Calvinism. But what is pushing one group who you disagree with out of the Convention? What is smearing someone’s good name with untruths as has been done in the past in our Convention. What is destroying someone for no other reason than wanting them out or to not have a seat in leadership at the Convention? It’s the same thing just not as barbaric. No difference.
I believe strongly in the five points and believe them as I go through scripture with a fine tooth comb to be pretty flawless. I do not believe in infant baptism etc. or I would not be Southern Baptist. Hey, I wouldn’t even be Baptist. What I do not believe in is one system being in charge of the SBC, we need to work together. There are many things non-Calvinists believe that I hold to and that is the New Covenant is now in affect, not the Old Covenant. I am a New Covenant Christian.
Debbie,
Not only did Johnny Calvin have Servetus killed, but he had a lot of people put into jail, if they didnt come to Church.
So, WWCD if someone disagrees with CAlvinism? I bet he would have them thrown in the jail…in the least.
David
“This charge is made by those who do not know the time period or the circumstances”
Which you obviously don’t. Read “around” the subject and not just mongerism historical narratives written by the victors and oppressors. Read history intently with a purpose for overall understanding. Read a bio of Servetus and all the events that took place BEFORE he stepped foot into Geneva. Read about the Step children of the Reformation. Read Calvins letters to his friends. Read the Geneva codes of the Petit council of Calvins. Read Martrys Mirror. Bet you have never even heard of Anne LeFert. Oh, the list is long. Or, you can choose to continue rebuking people in total ignorance.
Debbie, you spend alot of time parroting what you have been told but never offer up anything of substance except your opinion which you declare as a universal truth.
If “circumstances and time period” are the excuse for Calvin. Then why not for Driscoll, too? See, we must use logic.
No Lydia, it is you who don’t really know what you are talking about – just compiling a list of a bunch of resources and telling others they should read them doesn’t prove that “Calvin had Servetus killed” – he didn’t. Tons of scholars (even non-Christian ones) have read those original sources and come to the conclusion that one cannot reasonably say that Calvin was ultimately responsible in such a way. There were many factors that led to Servetus’ death – including his conviction by the Roman Catholic authorities in France prior to arriving in Geneva, as well as the opinion of the government Churches of Zurich, Berne, Basle, and Schaffhausen, who backed the conviction and sentence of Servetus. Calvin, contrary to popular belief, wasn’t in charge of Servetus’ trial and wasn’t even in attendance. At the time, he was at odds with the city government over the level of separation of Church and State that was needed (Calvin wanted more separation) and thus his power was limited. When he did ask for a more lenient sentence, he was ignored and the criticized. After the sentence and before his execution Calvin visited Servetus several times in prison and prayed with him, pleading with him to repent and “be saved” (Servetus rejected the Trinity and the Deity of Christ).
Those are the facts. Calvin did ultimately agree with the decision to execute Servetus but wanted it done more humanely. But what he didn’t do was “have Servetus killed.” It was the law of the land at the time and while it is a sad and unfortunate blot on the life of a man who many of his contemporaries described as a kind. compassionate, and incredibly insightful scholar, it nonetheless isn’t any more disturbing than the truth that our Southern Baptist forefathers were complicit in slavery in the 1800′s and in segregation and lynch mobs in the 1900′s.
For all of you following this thread, please secure your tickets now for the “Clash at the Convention”. That’s right, these verbal assaults that seem to always be by the same people will meet, finally, in the squared circle. This will be a no-holds barred, winner takes NOTHING, free-for-all cage match! The best part is their computers will be taken up at the door of the cage, unless they promise to bash them to pieces on each other. Call 1-800-GET-A-LIFE for more info.
For the “doubting Thomases” among us . . . here is how you can get your own WWCD trucker cap (as noted earlier by Bill Mac) . . . http://www.cafepress.com/+what_would_calvin_do_trucker_hat,46787832
Apologies by those who questioned the existence of such seem to be in short supply . . .
By the way, whether WWCD, (WWCB, or WWCS) are intended humorously or not is irrelevant to the point Dr. Crosby was making (though it is clear that most people who see something like that hat will take it at face value, rather than as a joke). Now that we’ve established that he wasn’t lying, let’s get back to the main point of his article — his point was that the focus should be on Jesus, not on any human theological system. I think that is good advice for any church (including idolizing their pastor).
I don’t know whether we’re talking about the same church or not, D. R, or whether that was the same source from which Dr. Crosby saw these materials. The church to which I was referring has some good people in it, including some people I count as friends, and some NOBTS people have been involved there at times. I think it’s a faithful church, and their recovery from Katrina (like many churches in New Orleans) has been remarkable.
But what church it was is not the point. The point Dr. Crosby was making was that we should keep “looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith” rather than fixing our eyes on a human theologian or preacher. Surely we can all agree on that?
“…here is how you can get your own WWCD trucker cap (as noted earlier by Bill Mac) . . . “So here’s my question. If Pastor Crosby’s post and the subsequent links to the trucker hats resulted in a spike in sales numbers for said trucker hats, would that be an example of a) predestination, b) free will, or c) predestination working through secondary causes? All hypothetical, of course. ;^)
Steve,
You say, “By the way, whether WWCD, (WWCB, or WWCS) are intended humorously or not is irrelevant to the point Dr. Crosby was making (though it is clear that most people who see something like that hat will take it at face value, rather than as a joke).”
Actually, it’s not irrelevant – it’s very relevant exactly because of the point he was trying to make. His illustration left the impression that the “buttons” that were worn were symbolic of a greater problem (people taking their theological system more seriously than the Bible) and that the problem needed to be addressed. But the illustration was faulty because he assumed the Church was trying to be serious about their buttons and that they were “put[ting] Calvin’s name where the name of Jesus should be.” And whether or not most assumed one thing or another, Crosby has a responsibility to get his facts straight before he uses an illustration as a major part of a point he is trying to make.
The entire illustration suggests that raising one’s theological system up over the Bible is a big problem that needs to be dealt with, especially among Calvinists. That once again on this blog it is the Calvinists that are the goat here just seems to further the growing misconception that Calvinists don’t want to cooperate and that they care more about their system than they do the Bible, which, because of the illustration, is exactly what the main point of this post looks to be. Little attention is ever given to the reality that it is actually a number of non-Calvinists who are seeking to ouster others with hints of resolutions and motions to change the BF&M to narrow its definition of election.
For all the calls to apologize to Crosby, it’s been ignored that Crosby, himself, sensationalized this story. He left the readers with the impression of this Church staff that didn’t conform to reality. And feeling the sensationalism of the story, he was questioned about it. Now, while I don’t agree with the way in which he was questioned, it is perfectly acceptable to ask for further clarification about something that seems too incredible to believe. And it turns out that it was. So then where is Crosby’s apology for writing in such a way as to allow readers to misunderstand the intent of the Church staff and the entire context of the “buttons”? Doesn’t Crosby bear some responsibility for not getting his facts straight and at least inadvertently maligning these “good people” in this “faithful Church” as Steve, himself, has said? And as I pointed out earlier, shouldn’t this serve as a warning for how we illustrate our own points, being careful not to sensationalize them for effect?
Additionally, Steve, unless you want to offer a name of another Church, my sources tell me that no other Church other than ours – Pontchartrain Baptist Church – in New Orleans has produced such products, which happened one time at a Seminary event 10 years ago and haven’t been reproduced since then. And if that was the one that Crosby was talking about, then indeed he took way too much creative license here in assuming the purpose behind the “buttons” and then launching into a diatribe that doesn’t reflect the heart behind the whole thing. I just wish Crosby would have thought better of his illustration and made his point without it. As it is, the illustration became a distraction and he must bear some responsibility for that.
Finally, while I am happy to see articles like Christ Bonts’ a few days ago, it would be nice to see SBC Today give the whole Calvinism/non-Calvinism thing a rest for a little while. Crosby’s point would have been much easier to see had it not been for so much soteriological baggage already cluttering up the place.
DR
You said, “Finally, while I am happy to see articles like Christ Bonts’ a few days ago, it would be nice to see SBC Today give the whole Calvinism/non-Calvinism thing a rest for a little while.”
Are you suggesting the same thing at SBC Voices?
As to the whole issue of PBC and their buttons… here is your comment as to the purpose of the WWCB buttons… “a subtle jab at a cultural, shallow Christianity that puts WWJD on their clothing and on their cars, while at the same time having little to no clue what Jesus actually said, much less what He would have done (or more importantly what He would have us to do).”
My comment is in reference to the haughty arrogant statement regarding the “theological ignorance” of those who wore WWJD initials. Don’t you think that oversimplification is just as pitiful as the charge you level against Dr. Crosby’s criticism?
There is this idea that the SBC is so blessed to have the YRR finally making a mark because it is miracle we even exist today without them.
><>”
Bob, you continually amaze me at how you can twist others’ words so that you can criticize them. None of what you have concluded reflects my views and none are reasonable implications of what I penned above. Like others on here, you arrive late to agitate a situation and push an anti-Calvinist agenda.
You have my deepest apologies. Evidently such crass material does exist. I hope no Calvinist buys it not even in jest.
Randy: For the record intimidation(which is what you are doing) does not work with me. Our salvation is not based on performance and I know who I am in Christ, you should pick up your Bible and find out who Christians are in Christ. It might keep you from making wrong statements you have made.
It is not unloving to question someone on something they said, a story told etc. First and foremost Christians need to be honest in their story telling and in everything. The world is watching, but first and foremost it is who we are. So I question. I even accuse. The accusing I should be a little more cautious on. But I don’t simply apologize or stop questioning because it’s unloving. It’s not loving people to condone what I think is not true. A hat is not a button, I still don’t know the church, but evidently such wording does exist. It’s wrong and I was wrong to say it doesn’t exist.
I was gone for the day yesterday and did not have time to respond until now.
Debbie, good words here today. Now maybe Randy will allow you in the kingdom and be named among the believers.
Many blessings to you.
Les
“It’s not loving people to condone what I think is not true”
Huh? How does that apply what you originally said here:
“I will be honest in that I think this was made up to prove a point? I could see it standing for what would Christ do, but why in the world would we ask what would Calvin do? I think a point might have been made by this, but I will be honest in I think they do not exist. I say this after many inquiries to places selling reformed items who have not heard of them either.”
How would you be “condoning” anything about what he said concerning buttons even if you thought it was not true? I simply do not understand your logic or illogic.
“Forget Calvin. Forget the systems: dispensational, premillennial, Calvinistic, etc. Pick up your Bible. Study, meditate, and memorize. Soak yourself in the Word of God more so than what other broken people say about it. Bible study aids of all kinds can and do help us with our understanding, but they must remain secondary.”
Excellent.
And then, when you have done all that (which is a very good thing), what you have is a set of interdependent theological beliefs. In other words, a system. What happens when you pour your heart and mind into study eschatology and at the end, your beliefs are pretty much dispensationalism, or amillenialism? Do you then discard your beliefs because some fallible humans wrote it all down first?
It sounds very pious to “just believe the bible”, as if few Christians are doing that, but as I pointed out above, there are loads of folks who “just believe the bible” and differ greatly on just about every major doctrine there is.
I’d rather learn mathematics, english, and history from people who have gone before me, and studied it extensively, even though I acknowledge their fallibility. I may not agree with them on every point, I may even improve on something they’ve taught me. But I don’t discard my teachers because they might not be right about everything. The bible certainly never suggests such a method of learning, even doctrine.
Seems that we Calvinists live in some people’s heads. Love it.
And by the way, some here thought that the post author’s integrity was called into question and he was called a liar.
And then the calls for apologies!,
But Randy questions Debvie’s salvation! and who has called him out on it but me? No one I’ve seen yet. Telling it is.
Randy,
You really shouldnt question Debbie’s salvation just because she is falsely accusing someone of lying. Brother, you can most certainly call her wrong, and that she should repent of false accusations, or making accusations without any evidence, at all. But really, we shouldnt question her salvation.
David
Somehow my reply to Les went to the bottom.
“I seem to remember seeing some of that. Are you too questioning her salvation?”
Now there is a leap. That is above my pay grade since I am not a 9 Marks Elder. (wink)
Les,
I’ve been out of pocket for a couple of days and didn’t have a chance to say how much I appreciate the stance you took concerning Dr. Crosby’s integrity. I just wanted to let you know when we agree or when we do not, you have my respect.
Thanks John. I feel the same way. You have my respect as well.
Oh, and if Randy’s comment warranted removal, I presume for being too personal, and he was/is thus protected from his unloving comments being continually viewed (oh but I love Google Reader. When comments are removed, I still have them. It’s like they are locked away in ft Knox (wink).
But Debbie’s comments? They remain. Kind of makes me think of Huffington Post and their selective reporting.
“But Debbie’s comments? They remain.”
Well, they’ve apparently been removed also. Good move.
Got bumped upward again…
“Oh, and if Randy’s comment warranted removal, I presume for being too personal, and he was/is thus protected from his unloving comments being continually viewed (oh but I love Google Reader. When comments are removed, I still have them. It’s like they are locked away in ft Knox (wink).
But Debbie’s comments? They remain. Kind of makes me think of Huffington Post and their selective reporting.”
Les, You seem to be “consumed” with looking foolish and the missing comments. (wink) But no worry, it was predestined to happen.
Now you know how Harriet felt over her treatment at Voices.
Lydia,
“Les, You seem to be “consumed” with looking foolish and the missing comments. (wink) But no worry, it was predestined to happen.”
No worries. I’ve looked foolish many times before. And since my version of them are gone again, well ole Randy is off the hook again I guess. Nice “comment protection” program they have going on over here. Circle the wagons.
“Now you know how Harriet felt over her treatment at Voices.” well not really. I haven’t had my comments removed for commenting without reading the post or whatever it was. Mine are removed for exposing Randy’s misinterpretation and misapplication of scripture, which he did in an I loving way. But I understand the circling of the wagons for him.
“You said, “See, you guys are taught…”
How do you know what I have been taught? Who are the “you guys” you are lumping me in with?”
Just going by reading your comments here and at voices over the past year or so. You come off as one of the “in your face” arrogant YRR types that cannot wait to lord it over others.
“Hey Lydia, do you believe the church should practice church discipline? If so, how do you believe it should be handled. I would really like to know. ”
1 Corin 5 is a good starting place. (Matthew 18 is more for personal offenses to be first worked out between believers–going before the church as last step). In 1 Corin 5 the sin was blatent and the admonition was to the entire church. Not just a few guys to handle it behind closed doors. Of course that does not work well in megas. (wink) But the point is for them to be saved. Discipline or excommunication for disagreeing with the big cheese is not at all what scritpure teachers. The old sign a covenant and don’t dare voice different opinion than the “authority” over you. So, how Driscoll and Mahaney handled it is very wrong. We are not far behind with Mohler, Dever and and they young wannabe followers. And guess what! Mahaney is moving to Louisville to be near his pal Mohler and start a church after running away from the scandal in Maryland. (Funds are drying up anyway as more and more sgm churches are not paying the fee) What a man! A shepherding cult shepherd who has been protected by our employee, Mohler, is coming to SBTS!
BtW Les, who were the elders in the church at Corinth? I am sure, since they are so important to the Body functioning properly, they would be mentioned in every letter.
“And one more thing in light of Debbie’s comments, are you complementarian regarding men and women roles in the church?”
I am not a very good actress so I don’t play “roles”. I subscribe to Eph 5:21 and the 58 “one anothers” throughout the NT. I also believe that those who want to lead are the biggest servants. It is not really the glam leadership celebrity focus so many have made it out to be and are seeking to have authority over people. I prefer calloused knees over cult of personality.
I am a mutualist. I think women are free to function in the Body if everyone agrees. If they don’t then move on. Sort of like FBCDAllas where Mrs. Criswell taught a mixed class…no one had a problem with it, so it worked ok. However, I do not think pulpits are sacred furniture. I once heard one REformed guy say it was ok for women to witness to men but once they are saved, women cannot teach them anything. Sort of like cold calling for prospects, I guess. They just cannot service the account. (wink)
Lydia, I mean answers to these when you get a chance. Thanks.
“You said, “See, you guys are taught…”
How do you know what I have been taught? Who are the “you guys” you are lumping me in with?
Hey Lydia, do you believe the church should practice church discipline? If so, how do you believe it should be handled. I would really like to know.
And one more thing in light of Debbie’s comments, are you complementarian regarding men and women roles in the church?”
From above. You may have missed them.
“I hesitate to ask multiple questions yet again of you, since you seem to have a hard time answering them. But alas.”
Les, I have answered two comments….the one about church discipline and one concerning comp/pat doctrine and cannot find either now on this thread. Not sure if it is my end or what. However, I do not feel obligated to answer any of your questions if I so desire. We simply have different “normals” when it comes to Kingdom living.
I will say that I am constantly amazed that a dark 16th Century systemized religion developed by a tryant with magistrates is now so popular with the young in the Land of Liberty. I am also amazed at how many young people are willing to sign their souls over to other humans with a “membership covenant” to follow and obey them. But then, Islam and Mormonism are growing, too.
Lydia,
I’m attempting to reply at the bottom of the thread.
I asked, “How do you know what I have been taught? Who are the “you guys” you are lumping me in with?”
You said,
“Just going by reading your comments here and at voices over the past year or so. You come off as one of the “in your face” arrogant YRR types that cannot wait to lord it over others.”
You know, you presume to know a lot about people on these blogs. So pray tell, what exactly have I been taught?
And you say I seem arrogant? Funny.
As to the rest of your comments on discipline, as I suspected.
You later wrote, after again not answering many of my questions about who you’ve interviewed and how many and if the other side of the diputes, etc., “However, I do not feel obligated to answer any of your questions if I so desire.”
Certainly your prerogative. And I see why now you don’t answer the questions.
I’m not going to presume to know your feelings or what you’ve been taught, but are you a bitter and angry person? Has church leadership hurt you in the past? If so, I do hope you find some relief.
Les