By Dr. Jerry Vines, President of Jerry Vines Ministries,
Pastor Emeritus, First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, FL, member of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Committee, former President of the Southern Baptist Convention
I was interested to read Dr. Mohler’s response to “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” which statement I gladly signed. His response was thoughtful, kind and forthright. I consider Dr. Mohler a friend. It has been my privilege to fellowship with him on many occasions through the years. I had him preach often at the Pastors’ Conference in Jacksonville, and he used to have me speak at Southern. In the same spirit he has demonstrated, permit me to offer a response.
When I was sent the statement primarily authored by Dr. Eric Hankins, assisted by other notable Southern Baptist theologians, I was pleased with it. So much so, that I gladly added my name to it and emailed a number of my friends suggesting they might also like to be an original signatory. Indeed, many of them did sign. The growing list of signatories includes past SBC presidents, current SBC seminary presidents, denominational ministers, pastors and lay people. This is an impressive list and should not be taken lightly, as Dr. Mohler has not.
In that email I stated that I was in general agreement with the statement and would not attempt to nuance its content. As I view it, this statement is intended to start a much needed debate and, like the BF&M, is not intended to be the final word on all things soteriological. I strongly disagree with Dr. Mohler’s assertion that “some of the statements appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings.” I wonder if Dr. Mohler thinks some of us aren’t theologically astute enough to recognize semi-Pelagianism when we see it! My response is not intended to engage this, however. I understand that the primary authors of the statement will submit a response to Dr. Mohler’s blog. So, in a spirit of brotherhood and a humble search for truth, let the discussion begin.
I am concerned on another level. Through the years I have had wonderful fellowship with a number of men who are Calvinists. Many of them are my friends. I have had them preach for me: Dr. Mohler himself; Dr. John MacArthur; etc. And I have preached for them at Southern, The Shepherd’s Conference, etc. There has never been any problem. But, there is now a new kind of Calvinism among us. As I stated at Southern Seminary, in the presence of Dr. Mohler, faculty and students, there are some, not all, new Calvinists who are hostile, militant and aggressive. This kind of Calvinism is troubling our churches, hindering evangelism and missions, and disrupting the fellowship of our Convention. I would hope that men of good will, whether Calvinist or not Calvinist, would repudiate that kind of Calvinism.
I have no desire that any Calvinist be unwelcome in the SBC. I do desire that we can live together as brothers, openly and lovingly affirming our theological positions without trying to force them upon others who take another view. And I pray we will be willing to join hearts and hands with those who may view theological matters somewhat differently than we do, within the framework of our BF&M.
It is now clear that this is not an issue that is going to go away. I have no stomach for a battle. I have been in enough battles for two lifetimes. I have no desire for a battle with friends I love. But, the time has come to admit we have a problem, seek God-honoring solutions and move forward to do our part as Southern Baptists to fulfill the Great Commission.
It is no longer possible to deny the elephant is in the room. Let’s talk about it.
Prayerfully and hopefully,
Jerry Vines
This article is reposted from www.jerryvines.com by permission. The original article can be found here.
I understand “traditionalists” want to accomplish two things: (1) Form a statement of faith that describes their beliefs about salvation and (2) deal with a peculiar form of graceless “Calvinism” within the SBC. I get that. I think it’s important, with both Calvinistic and non-calvinistic roots of this convention, for adherents of each side of the spectrum to express their beliefs. Likewise, if ANYONE in the convention is militant and hurting mission then it must be addressed.
What I don’t understand is why both of these things were brought together under one statement. If there’s a problem with angry Calvinists, address that. If there’s a need to state more formally what many in the SBC believe in a distinctive way from Calvinism, do that. However, bringing these to rather unrelated things into one big blow doesn’t solve anything. I don’t think whoever drafted this statement was trying to be divisive, but I don’t think they did what promotes the most unity.
As at least a moderate Calvinist, almost nothing annoys me and hurts me more than an angry Calvinist. These Calvinists are real and the need to be addressed. However, the problem is the person or group of people, not what they believe. For every angry Calvinist I know of, I can name 5 or more joyful and graceful ones. The hurtful thing about this statement of faith by “traditionalists’ is that it ignores an important dichotomy between one’s theology and one’s practice of it. Calvinism or any form of Calvinism (other than the hyper form of course) isn’t the problem. Certain Calvinists are the problem. Address them specifically, formalize your own beliefs, but don’t lump all the humble, faithful, God and mission loving Calvinists into it.
I am truly glad that we have people like Dr. Vines who are balanced with their theology and practical pastoral ministry. Starting from about ten years ago, we the staff members at our church began to feel that this “hostile and militant Calvinism” is going to divide our beloved Southern Baptist Convention that has been known for bringing the gospel to the ends of the earth, and cause us to lose the focus and energy that we must have for the world evangelism. Now, I sense that we weren’t wrong when we were thinking that way ten years ago.
It’s been very discouraging and draining dealing with this kind of Reformed people because they often take away our energy from reaching out to the lost people. They tend to think and believe that if you have the “right” theology referring to their own theology, God will do the rest. But that hasn’t been the case in my pastoral ministry the past twenty years. I believe our problem is that we always try to divide and separate what God hasn’t intended. Just like light is both wave and particle, the truth often is found in both God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. It’s not either or but both and. If we can learn to embrace both and honestly admit that there are some things that we can’t fully explain in human words and just get busy with doing what God wants us to, of which the greatest task for church is the Great Commission, we don’t have to get into all this wasting our valuable time and energy and causing division and hostility in the body of Christ.
Dr. Vines and other elder statesmen of SBC, please continue to stand up and fight and defend biblical teachings on salvation against all kinds of “isms.”
I am in complete agreement with Eric Shin, and am very appreciative of our elder statesmen such as Dr. Vines. This has been a long time coming, and not a moment too soon. Rather than being accused and labeled, why not just be Baptist? A Baptist is a firm believer in the authority of Scripture, and one cannot help but see both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man BOTH clearly taught side by side. Why substitute the unadulterated Word of God for any man-made theological framework that, for the sake of human logic, sweeps aside simple and obvious truth? In fact, Scripture itself warns us against this very thing.
Brandon,
You wrote: “…one cannot help but see both the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man BOTH clearly taught side by side.”
I disagree with that statement. It carries the appearance of pre-loading the phrase, “the sovereignty of God,” with a Deterministic decree, and confidently asserts, “one cannot help but see.” I believe in the sovereignty of God, but without pre-loading it with the philosophy of Determinism. I fully understand that your statement was intended to unify, but it actually accomplishes the exact opposite, as it instead declares victory for Deterministic Calvinism. While I believe in the kind of sovereignty reflected at 1st Corinthians 10:13, I do not believe in the kind of sovereignty espoused by Determinists, which in the mind of many, renders God as the author of the same sins that He also condemns. This is a familiar charge. Irenaeus discussed the concept of the “author of sin” before Augustine was ever born! This is nothing new. Christians have been wrestling over these matters of two millenniums, so declaring victory for Determinism is not going to solve any puzzle or unify both camps.
Nonetheless, I think that is wonderful that men of God (like all of those discussing these matters on various blogs and so forth), are sharing in these discussions, because it shows that Scripture and theology are important. I also think that Dr. Vines’ statement is terrific. Dr. Mohler made the one mistake of throwing in the “Pelagianism” label. Hindsight is 20/20, but he probably should have shown greater care before throwing out that term.
“While I believe in the kind of sovereignty reflected at 1st Corinthians 10:13, I do not believe in the kind of sovereignty espoused by Determinists, which in the mind of many, renders God as the author of the same sins that He also condemns.”
Amen. Thank you.
What do you mean by the Author of sin? And what is Determinism? Have you ever heard of the doctrine of concurrence? Have you ever read a theology book? Have you ever made a choice without determining to do it? Please explain how.
Dr. Vines,
I talked to you on the phone a few years ago. I was ‘fired’ from an SBC church for ‘reformed theology.’ The motion read this way ‘Traditional Baptist Theology is not the same as reformed theology.’ The ones who brought the motion could not define ‘traditional’ or ‘reformed.’ The irony of this was that the church had as their doctrinal statement ‘The New Hampshire confession of 1833.’ I was fired for lining up with their own statement. I called you to let you know that it was a sermon that you preached that ‘widened the divide.’ In your sermon you presented ‘Hyper-calvinism’ as what all calvinists believe and you said ‘I won’t have anyone on my staff that believes this way.’ Since you made it a ‘litmus’ test for a staff member, the deacons of this church took it as justification to fire me for these beliefs. I was clear to the search committee when I came to the church that my beliefs were consistent with their doctrinal statement and they fired me for it two years later. I felt a responsibility to let you know the part that your sermon played in the conflict. (I’m sure that I have not been the only one). All of this was part of God’s plan to open my eyes to the state of the typical church and the Lord has had us on a wonderful journey ever since. I am saddened to see you continue to press for ‘division’ on these issues. I never have made the ‘doctrines of Grace’ a test of fellowship and never will. Over the years, it has been my experience to see those who don’t hold to the Doctrines of Grace that are the ones who cause division and separate over it. It saddens me to see those who don’t hold to these doctrines, push for division. Who is being militant, hostile and aggressive? Not the calvinists. The statement is semi-pelagian. For the glory of God and the good of the church please re-examine the statement and your actions or more pastors (with families I might add) will be fired.
Chris,
As one who has been through a similar situation, albeit for different reasons, I understand the hurt that comes to pastors and families. I do have a question. You stated that you told your previous church that you were in agreement with their statement of faith. Did you explain any further during the interview process? Were you open about your theological beliefs? Did you state them in such a way that laymen could understand you? Did you tell them that you were “Reformed” or “Calvinist” in your theology? If you were this open, and didn’t try to skirt the issue, then the fault is with the church. If you were not completely honest and forthright with your Calvinism, then one could hardly blame the church if they came to understand a difference in what you believe and what they do as a church. Not trying to start an argument, but I am curious about how this came about. Of course, God knows.
“Over the years, it has been my experience to see those who don’t hold to the Doctrines of Grace that are the ones who cause division and separate over it”
Chris, My experience has been the opposite. The non Calvinists were very accepting and willing to work together but kept being told they did not believe correct things. One of the worst examples is a pastor friend of mine who had two SBTS seminary student volunteers at his church tell his teenage children that their dad did not preach the true Gospel during a youth bible study in front of all the teens in the room.
Please note my letter to MR Vines to have a debate with James White. It won’t happen. They know they would not have a chance. Why not join the PCA in America. We need good pastors. You probably know by now that men hate Calvinism. Sinners demand a god who is impotent before their free will so they can be as God,the supreme determiner of their destiny. Just like Satan told Eve in the garden. Just remember that both Paul and Jesus suffered the same hostility and objections when they preached the same Doctrines of Grace. Paul in Romans nine and Jesus in John 6. Calvinists preach the same doctrines and receive the same objections. Clear evidence we are telling the truth. It has been said that every heresy-whether moral or theological-works itself-either first or last-into a frenzy against Calvinism. I’m really sorry-but not surprised what happened to you. You are a brave man to stand your ground. Rest assured that Arminian Baptists have nothing to compare with the Baptist Confession of 1689 or the great Westminster Confession of Faith. Not even close.
Dr. Vines,
You have been one of my heroes since I was saved and first heard of you back in the 1980′s. I always appreciated the way that you really taught and preached the Bible. You didnt just read a verse and leave it. Thanks, Brother, for your faithful service to the Lord.
God bless,
David
Dr. Vines,
Thanks for such a balanced, biblical and gracious response to so many who do not evidence the same sort of grace and truth. I echo many others when I say you have been a hero, and I count you now as a friend. Your ministry has been such an encouragement and example to me, especially when I have faced the fires and valleys of ministry. May you continue to lead us in these difficult days as you have for so many years. I look forward to having you preach again at Abilene Baptist Church again soon!
Brad,
I did tell the church. This was the response from one lady on the committee, ‘Oh that is big in the SBC right now, but it won’t be a problem for our church.’ She was one of the main instigators in the conflict. She stated that when she was saved, she didn’t repent of her sins. This was the crux of the conflict. The nature of repentance and saving faith. She was successful in making the conflict all about ‘calvinism’ with the help of Jerry Vines CD. I’m writing a book about the story. The Lord has blessed the church that I am currently blessed to be a Pastor in and I would never go back (too many blessings on this side). It was all part of God’s sovereign plan for my life. He opened my eyes to not just the fact that ‘regenerate church membership’ was neglected when this lady was allowed to join, but also the fact that ‘decisionism’ and easy believism’ has produced an majority unconverted membership. I was very open about their beliefs and they were very clear in their ultimate rejection of them (by my termination). I continue to pray for the repentance of those involved. I am praying for Revival and Reformation in the SBC but I know it will only come through Repentance.
Chris,
You were fired for other reasons. As Baptists are notorious for, the issues presented aren’t usually the “real” issues. Doctrine was just the packaging used to accomplish what someone truly wanted to do.
I’m sorry for your experience, Chris, but I hope you come to the point where you can truly forgive those whom you perceive that have wrong you, because unless you love and forgive those who you believe that have wrong you, God will not forgive you for the far worse that you have done to Him throughout your lifetime. You are apparently holding a grudge, and that’s a really bad sign, and potentially disastrous for a congregation led by such a spirit.
Chris,
I found the same problem in the seeker movement with cheap grace and ‘just sign this membership card’. But in the NC/Reformed movement I found a different twist. People remain totally depraved or believe they are even after salvation. Sadly I have heard both Dever and Chandler say they preach to “totally depraved” congregations.
In fact, I heard the excuse, ‘sinners sin’ or ‘we are all just sinners’ even more in Calvinist circles. No big deal. We are totally depraved, after all. I heard it just the other day on a thread here from a Calvinist concerning the Puritans wiping out Native Americans. We are all just sinners, right? Yikes!
I kept thinking…where can we go where growing in Holiness, and the truth that we CAN obey God with conviction from the Holy Spirit is understood and taught? Sadly, it is not the Reformed movement. Ironically, one of my favorite authors on this subject of Holiness is JC Ryle. Go figure. But he spells out sanctification so well. Even though he baptized babies!
If you think about it, how did Calvin deal with the issue of regenerate church members since membership and attendance was mandatory in Geneva?
Thank you Dr. Vines for being who and what you are. It is quite refreshing to see and hear a Southern Baptist pastor stand on conviction versus what is socio-politically expedient.
The upper echelon elite in the Southern Baptist hierarchy are essentially conducting a great twenty first century experiment to make Calvinism and Traditional Baptist beliefs co-exist in a single denomination. History does not bode well for success but failure portends denominational split. SBC Seminaries and Bible Colleges are riddled with Calvinist faculty sending a steady stream of Calvinist pastors into predominately Traditional congregations. If the Calvinist pastor has the courage of his convictions and tells the truth about his beliefs, he will either fail to find employment or split a church. A new strategy has evolved based on stealth, subterfuge, deceit, guile and duplicity employed, of course, with God’s approval for the “greater good.” This strategy is to suppress the issue of Calvinism in all local churches. If the topic surfaces in a church in spite of the pastor’s best efforts to suppress it, he may try to convince the congregation that each individual’s choice is simply a matter of personal preference, like whether to wear brown shoes or black shoes to church; no one must be allowed to express the possibility that Calvinism is blasphemy at its core. Because some local churches may see through this subterfuge, other strategies have been introduced with the hope of “tap dancing” around the core conflicts. These strategies include: (1) undermine all discussion and teaching on this issue and thereby maintain a level of ignorance within congregations and particularly within pastor search committees, (2) subordinate the importance of this issue to church growth, music, other entertainment and family ministries, (3) argue that the seriousness of the conflict is contrived in the sense that a Traditional pastor is really no different than an evangelical Calvinist pastor who believes in unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace, (4) utilize Seminaries and Bible Colleges to convert Christians to Calvinists, (5) avoid Articles of Faith that clarify the denominational position, (6) assert the simultaneous validity of both Calvinism and Traditional Baptist beliefs using a type of logic popular among intellectual elite called “positive tolerance,” (7) claim to be above the fray by just “believing in the Bible” and (8) assert the sovereignty of God and the free will of man are like two parallel lines that meet at infinity. The true battle lines have been drawn, however, and do not meet at infinity. The Calvinist believes, “God did will all happenings.” The Arminian believes, “God did not will all happenings.” One is true, the other is false.
Wow, 450 Signatures out of 16 million members. I would say that Dr. Hankins and his Arminian Resurgence are definitely speaking for the majority in this instance. The mere fact that there is a list of signatures attached to a document with the open intent of repudiating Calvinism, shows that the authors are trying to intimidate those who hold to reformed doctrines into silence.
I am a Southern Baptist, have always been a Southern Baptist and will always be a Southern Baptist! I share a TRADITIONAL reformed understanding of Soteriology with those mighty men who have gone before us, such as Spurgeon, Carey, Boyce, etc. You may not want us here but we believe we have a seat at this table. I am all for a healthy discussion, however, I have seen first-hand that documents such as this usually end with a witch hunt instead of a handshake.
At its current pace, this will in no way end well. I don’t think the authors realize just what is happening at the local church level when they put out documents such as the one Dr. Hankins authored. I am not talking about the Bellevue’s and Woodstock’s I am talking about the 50-300 member churches scattered all across the country. Uninformed and often unregenerate church members will read these articles and then proceed to light their torches and pull their pitch forks from the shed. The end result is an attempt to purge either leader or lay from their church. Their reasoning for this is that they read online somewhere that Calvinism is bad and has no place in Southern Baptist life. We have all read the Reformed Red Flags article, I have seen them used! In my opinion, this discussion will lead to nothing more than innocent men and women trying to faithfully answer the call the Lord has placed on their lives being vilified and persecuted.
“Uninformed and often unregenerate church members will read these articles and then proceed to light their torches and pull their pitch forks from the shed. The end result is an attempt to purge either leader or lay from their church. Their reasoning for this is that they read online somewhere that Calvinism is bad and has no place in Southern Baptist life.”
No Jared,
Torches are what Calvin used to burn heretics. Witchhunts come from Puritans.
And you managed to blanket insult church members as unregenerate and ignorant.
And people wonder why……we are concerned.
Please tell me you are NOT a pastor!
No Lydia. I did not generalize all church members as uninformed and unregenerate. What I meant was the people who will react in that way are usually uninformed at best and unregenerate at worst. Obviously the vast majority of people do not fall into either one of those camps. That is evidenced by these civil discussions that ate taking place right in front of us. I am not defending the actions of either Calvin or the puritans. They were wrong and everyone knows it. We are talking about today. I have been on the receiving end of a “purge” and for the most part, the people that were leading the charge fell in either one or both of those catagories.
Dr. Vines,
Thank you for your gracious statement. In principle, I affirm most of what you have written. However, I wonder if Traditional Baptists and Calvinists truly can cooperate and co-exist in the SBC.
The differences between Traditional Baptist soteriology and Calvinist soteriology are stark. I don’t think I need to discuss those differences in this thread as there are many blog posts that outline said differences.
Our doctrine of salvation will determine how we do missions at home and abroad. Our doctrine of salvation will also determine what kind of churches we will plant with funds provided by faithful baptists in the pew. In essence, our doctrine of salvation is the soul of our convention and has a huge impact on how we serve our Lord.
Foundational doctrinal differences will not allow us to fund Methodist or Presbyterian church plants, so how can we resolve to fund churches which teach doctrine with which the majority of Southern Baptists do not agree?
I understand that tertiary doctrinal issues should be allowed for differences of opinion, however, in my humble opinion, our doctrine of salvation is not a tertiary issue; it is a foundational, principle doctrine of Southern Baptists.
Therefore, I would like to hear your thoughts on how you think we can ever resolve this issue of our differences on the doctrine of salvation. Personally, I do not see any path of resolution because Traditional Baptists will not compromise their position on soteriology nor will Calvinists. What do you think?
Leslie,
I am going to humbly ask you to expound on a couple of statements, because these statements have serious implications.
“Our doctrine of salvation will determine how we do missions at home and abroad. Our doctrine of salvation will also determine what kind of churches we will plant with funds provided by faithful baptists in the pew. In essence, our doctrine of salvation is the soul of our convention and has a huge impact on how we serve our Lord.
Foundational doctrinal differences will not allow us to fund Methodist or Presbyterian church plants, so how can we resolve to fund churches which teach doctrine with which the majority of Southern Baptists do not agree?”
Are you claiming that people who hold to a reformed doctrine, do not participate in or agree with how the SBC does missions?
Are you claiming that people who hold to a reformed doctrine, do not or will not plant biblically sound, gospel proclaiming, Christ centered churches?
Are you claiming that these church plants, who may or may not have reformed leadership, should be associated with either Methodists or Presbyterians instead the SBC?
Are you saying that the SBC needs to a move away from local church autonomy to plant churches who affirm the BF&M whenever and wherever they desire? Should the SBC have to approve the design and doctrine of the church plant before that plant can be approved?
Are you claiming to speak for the majority of the 16 million SBC members or the 450 people who signed the document above?
Jared,
I’m at work until 9pm so I will have to respond to you later, but respond I will. :)
The Original Les
Jared,
I am pleased to respond to your questions. With many years of experience with extreme Calvinists, I know that no matter what I write, you will not be satsfied. We have been talking about these topics at least since 2006. I don’t recall you being involved in these conversations until a year or so ago. These conversations never seem to persuade either side and many of us have stopped trying to persuade Calvinists about anything. However, I will take some time to respond to your questions.
It appears that you are trying to trap me into saying things that I am not saying. I have played the blogger game for too many years to allow such transparent tactics to work on me.
I will say that Traditional Baptist soteriology and Calvinism results in vastly different ideas of doing missions and evangelism. One such difference is in the giving of an altar call. Traditional Baptists give an altar call during every worship service. We believe it is important to give every non-believer the opportunity to “call on the name of the Lord” (Rom. 10:13) while the Holy Spirit is at work in his/her heart. When the gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit is at work. Thus, we know there is a great possibility that someone who has just heard the gospel will commit their lives to Christ and, yes, invite Christ into their heart. We believe it is important to help lead a lost person to make a decision for Christ. A personal decision, initiated by a personal Holy Spirit for a personal Savior. Calvinists do not generally give altar calls. It is clear from remarks from David Platt and J. R. Greear that Calvinists do not think it is good to ask someone to accept Jesus into their heart. As a Traditional Baptist who used to be a Calvinist, these remarks from the two young men are close to blasphemy to me. As a Traditional Baptist I believe it is my Great Commission calling to help lead people to Christ. How can one be led to Christ if they are not invited to come to Christ?
I wonder if you have personally had the privilege of leading someone to give their heart and life to Christ. I truly hope you have had the privilege of watching God work in a rebellious heart to soften it so the person will turn away from sin and turn to Christ. I don’t know how you could lead someone to Christ if you don’t ask them to come to Christ, but perhaps you can enlighten me on this point.
Yes, Jared, Traditional Baptists and Calvinists view evangelism and missions through very different perspectives. I fear the damage that a Calvinist SBC would do to IMB. I fear that a Calvinist SBC would not invite the lost to come to Christ and to do it now. I fear the eternal damnation of people who are not invited to come to Christ through a Calvinist SBC.
Finally, Calvinists are sneaking into Traditional Baptist churches and trying to reform them to something the people do not believe is biblical or of God. When I use the word “sneaking” I do so on purpose, because I have seen too many churches damaged by Calvinist pastors who were not forthcoming during the search process about their theology or their intentions to reform the local church. It’s obvious to me and many other pastors that Calvinist pastoral candidates are not forthcoming about their theology because they know that if they were they would not be hired by most Southern Baptist churches. This type of skullduggery is immoral, unethical, and sinful. Why not be honest about your beliefs and seek a SBC church that is Calvinist and a better fit instead of destroying Traditional Baptist churches with feeble attempts to reform? I sure would like an answer to that question.
As I said, I know my remarks will not persuade your Calvinist shell and I guess that is okay. I don’t know the answer to this theological dilemma. To ignore it is to hide one’s head in the sand, hoping it will go away. It won’t go away. I don’t know what to do. That’s why I posed the question to Dr. Vines.
I am very afraid that war coming in the SBC over this issue. I hope and pray it doesn’t come to that, but I don’t see any way to avoid it. I pray that we can avoid it and come to a consensus of soteriological belief.
Thanks les! I appreciate your response. I too believe that every non-believer should have the opportunity to call on the name of the lord and be saved. I too have had the pleasure of presenting the gospel to non-believers both home and abroad and allowing the holy spirit to lead them to faith and repentance. That rebellious heart you speak of was my own. I saw first hand the lord doing a marvelous work in the life of a wretched sinner.
I personally have two close and dear reformed friends who are currently laboring day after day for the cause of Christ in some very dark places around true world with the IMB. I think that their blood sweat and tears that have been shed for those who have never heard the name of Christ would take offense to your generalizations.
As for the claim of sneaking in and reforming. That is no longer possible if it ever took place in the first place. If a church does not know where the potential pastor stands in this day and age. That is on both the pastor and church. To much info is to easily available now a days.
You have to admit that alter calls so often have become begging calls that result in false conversions and false assurance. This is easily measured by how many of the 75% of young people that were raised in church leave and never come back once they hit college. How many of those young people prayed a prayer and rest the assurance of their salvation in that 5 minutes at the end of a Sunday service?
We prefer a gospel centered discipleship model that doesn’t end with a prayer and a slap on the back. There is nothing wrong with an alter call, but they are not necessary all the time.
It is not a calvinist shell. I don’t view the world through the eyes of Calvin. I do try to view it through the lense of scripture. I don’t see a need for a war. You are a brother in Christ and I would welcome the opportunity to worship the Lord here on earth with you and look forward to doing that very thing in eternity.
In 1993 a survey was made of 350,000 people in Southern Baptist Churches. The survey concerned those baptized that year. The mission board reported that more than half could not be located by the churches that reported the Baptisms. Only nine per cent reported that they joined the churches for spiritual reasons. So much for the great commission. The emperor has no clothes. Calvinists would have to try to do worse.
Tim,
You are right. The conflict was the Gospel itself. I’m thinking this is what is happening in this case. There is more at work here than doctrine (this conflict is spiritual in nature, which is sad when you see these kinds of actions).
Years of experience with the Calvinist SBC takeover assault, both in churches and as an Associate Professor in an SBC college, have taught me that no “Consensus Accord” is possible except one like Neville Chamberlain reached at Munich. Takeover has been the orchestrated objective of Calvinists since the “conservative revolution” two decades ago. When a Calvinist pastor takes charge of a Traditional church and splits it in half, this outcome is not viewed as disruptive or destructive; Calvinists view it as “purification.” This is not just a cosmetic divide. It is about diametrically opposed divine personalities. It is about the very essence of God. The Calvinist sees the face of a God who condemned the greater part of mankind to eternal damnation before the universe was formed. The Traditional Baptist sees a God who desires all to receive the great gift of salvation.
You got it wrong. Calvinist believe in a God who has decided to save a vast number of God hating rebelling hostile sinners who deserve judgment and hell-just like the fallen angels- and you believe in a God who desires to save all men,but who lacks either the power or the will to pull it off.
To all you hyper-anti calvinist I think you guys need to find another denomination to spread your divisive spirit. Most of the founders of the SBC were thorough going calvinist. Likewise calvinism has always been a part of our convention. What hasn’t been a part of our convention is your hyper-anti calvinism. Go find another denomination to start a fight in. Your division hurts our brotherly love as well as our missionary unity. You don’t have enough intellectual courage to have real exegetical descussions over sacred scripture so you stoop to bully tactics. Why else are you going around trying to garner up a bunch of signitures? You dont see calvinist doing that! You know it and we know it. Your a bunch of political bullies becuase you cant handle a.) agreeing to disagree and b.) the intellectual heat. By the way, most of the hyper-anti calvinist preaching is semi-pelagian but so many of you guys are not even intellectually honest to admit that.
Bless you Stephan …do you feel better now?
Dr. Jerry Vines,
As I describe in my post found here: http://deliveredbygrace.com/?p=3033 – I consider you one of my heroes. However, I disagree with your signature and support of this statement based on poor theology found in the statement itself and a divisive agenda / tone by the entire group.
Furthermore, as a longtime statesman of the SBC, I appreciate your faithful dedication to help salvage our SBC from liberals years ago. But, when you make statements such as: “Should the SBC move toward five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the gospel” – you create major controversy and harm people in the process.
If we move the width of a hair away from the gospel – we are a full-blown heretic. As I read your statement – I see it say, “Calvinism believes a different gospel.” That divides – and it would be good if you could simply clarify your comments. Why do we need clarity on this issue? Because if Calvinism is heresy, we should condemn Lottie Moon, W.A. Criswell, A.T. Robertson, John Broadus, James P. Boyce, Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Carey, John Newton and many others. Is that what you and others are willing to do?
God bless – your brother in Christ!
The Calvinist believes that regeneration precedes faith because God “elected” only certain specific persons for salvation. These persons alone are unconditionally and irresistibly regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit and subsequently demonstrate repentance, faith and obedience. The rest of mankind is condemned to everlasting punishment. Given that premise, would one “elected” person, anywhere on earth, be sent to eternal damnation upon death if all SBC domestic evangelism and foreign mission work stopped today? What if all Christian domestic evangelism and foreign mission work ceased? Would one single soul be lost as a result? Remember, the God of Calvinism has already chosen the “elect” for salvation no matter what.
(www.christianapologetic.org)
Bruce,
What you are describing is fatalism and that is not what biblically reformed Christians believe. Yes we believe that God decreed before the foundation of the world who would be saved. We also believe that God simultaneously decreed how those people would come to faith and repentance. (He ordained not only the Ends but the Means as well). The means by which a person comes to faith and repentance is the preaching of the Gospel. God will not save a single person on this earth outside of the proclamation of the Gospel. It is no coincidence that Romans 10 comes after Romans 9.
Your example is flawed whether you believe in election or not. If you believe that Romans 10 is true, then if all Christian evangelism and missions cease then no one will be saved no matter what your theological stance.
My question to you is, has everyone that has ever lived had the opportunity to accept or reject Christ. Obviously, the answer is NO! There have been untold billions of people who have never had the opportunity to hear the name of Christ, let alone reject him. How can a just and loving God send someone to Hell knowing full well that they never even had the opportunity to hear the name of His Son?
•The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all persons (Titus 2:11):
•(a) the requirements of the law are written by God on every heart (Rom. 2:15),
•(b) Jesus Christ knocks at the door of every heart (Rev. 3:20),
•(c) the Holy Spirit calls and convicts each person (John 16:8) and
•(d) God’s eternal power and divine nature are evident in the world around us (Rom 1:20).
•Nevertheless, many resist the grace of God ((Mat 25:46; 2 Thes 1:8-9).
Romans 1:18-32 says men deserve judgement even if they never hear the gospel message.
P.S.
We do not believe that Regeneration preceeds the hearing of the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the initiating agent of Regeneration in a persons life.
But we’ve been told by our reformed friends that a dead man can’t hear …
And you believe that they can?
Looks like with the way it takes 100 SBC members to win 5 people to Christ that the traditionalist view of salvation hasn’t helped the “majority” fair so well in evangelism huh? The signers say that the majority hold their view and have for some time…thats what they say. Well if their view is right and it promotes proper evangelism and a heart for it, why haven’t they been doing it? The proof is in the pudding guys, don’t look like the traditionalist view has excited to many of the majority to actually DO evangelism. So looks like the strawman argument that Calvinism weakens evangelism is just that a strawman. If our evangelism got much weaker it would be non-existant! I don’t think the evangelism results of the “traditionalist majority” is really to hot.
Dear Mr. Vines:In the interest of truth it would be nice to have a monitored debate between James White of the Phoenix Reformed Church and the best of the supporters of the views of the Traditional Baptist Understanding Document you support. To even the playing field the debate can take place at your option and you can have as many debaters as you please. White will take them all on alone. But the debate must be according to proper rules and must allow for cross examination on each side. You can even stack the audience with your most enthusiastic supporters-primarily students. Choose the time and let it begin. What do you say MR. Vines? Bet you won’t do it.
Here is the real Elephant in the Room: If our all-powerful God desires the salvation of all men in the way that “Traditionalists” say He does, then why are all men not saved? Some of you will no doubt reply, “Because many men choose not to accept His free gift of salvation.” You are effectively saying that our sovereign God will have unmet desires because His will is limited by men’s will. Or to put it in your wording, God is still sovereign, but He voluntarily limits His own will so as not to force Himself on His free moral creatures. This begs a critical question:
How is God more “loving” in this scheme? He truly desires that all men be saved and He has the power to accomplish all He desires (Psa 115:3). He knows that many men will reject the gospel which will result in their eternal torment. He has the sovereign ability to override their choices and save them from eternal torment, but He does not do so out of deference to their free will. How is God more “loving” if he wants to save all His children, is able to save all His children, and yet lets men die in their sins out of deference to their choice?
If I had the power to save my child from death and yet deferred to what my child chose in the moment, even though it would result in their death, I would rightly lose my parental rights and be imprisoned.