Note: SBC Today will be posting the reflections of some Baptists on the SBC 2012 in New Orleans. These reflections are by Brad Whitt, Co-Pastor of Abilene Baptist Church in Martinez, GA
As I look through the window of my early morning flight out of New Orleans, I can see the Crescent City slowly pass out of sight. I have to admit it – I love New Orleans. I always have. Some of my fondest memories as a pastor have been times spent with other Southern Baptist pastors and laypeople in this town. My first convention as a pastor was here. The first convention that I was able to bring my wife to was New Orleans. I have made many friends and spent several late nights around tables listening to my “heroes” talk of the early days of the Conservative Resurgence, and what it was like after we won “the Battle for the Bible.”
However, as I leave New Orleans I can’t help but feel a bit conflicted. I have a sense of excitement mixed with what can best be described as a sense of foreboding. There is something in my spirit that tells me that in spite of the election of my friend, Dr. Fred Luter, all is increasingly not well in my beloved convention.
Don’t misunderstand, I am very encouraged by the election of Dr. Luter. I’ve known him since I was a preacher boy and have been blessed by his preaching and committed Christian leadership in the face of tremendous trials. I’ve been challenged by the consistent ministry he has to young men in his church and believe that he will be a strong, stable leader for our denomination.
I’m also encouraged that an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptist messengers approved Dr. Eric Hankin’s resolution encouraging and affirming the biblical use of “the Sinner’s Prayer.” However, I must admit that I never dreamed I would see a day in the Southern Baptist Convention when conference speakers would denigrate the way that the overwhelming majority of us were saved, and have led others to Christ. I never imagined that the time would come when we would have many messengers actually write against, and lift their ballots in opposition to what even the great Baptist preacher, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, called “the Sinner’s Prayer.” It never crossed my mind that some of our leaders would be parsing what the word “all” means, or publicly proclaiming that Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t for every little boy or girl. I never considered that there would come a day when an increasing number of Southern Baptist pastors would seem to see salvation as a process instead of a specific event at a definite point in time. I never foresaw a day when the primary influencers of a generation of Southern Baptists would be those who are not Southern Baptists. I never thought that the Southern Baptist Convention would vote (albeit by a very narrow margin) to give an alternate name for affiliated churches to use, thus likely further dividing our already fractured fellowship. I never saw this day coming – but, sadly, that day is here.
As I leave New Orleans I find myself a part of a convention of churches that are increasingly enamored and entranced with the young and “never have’s,” rather than respectful and attentive to the wise counsel and insight from those who courageously led us through the Conservative Resurgence. I see many who are promoting novel ideas in order to sell books and schedule conferences instead of simply sharing the simple Gospel truth that we learned in Children’s Church – “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world.”
That’s why I am so thankful, and hopeful, for the godly leadership of men like Steve Gaines and Eric Hankins. No doubt they have, and will be, vilified for daring to stand and speak for the Gospel that is actually good news for every person. I’m sure that some will attempt to marginalize them as being outside the mainstream of Southern Baptist beliefs. But, this is one life-long Southern Baptist boy who believes that the millions of members in our pews every Sunday believe the clear, simple gospel truth they boldly proclaim.
In fact, that is my hope for the future of my convention. If the SBC is to exist and expand it will not be through the personalities on the platform, but rather through the pastors and people that fund our many ministries, serve our local communities and share the Gospel of Jesus across the street and around this world. My hope comes from a committed belief that the true strength of the Southern Baptist Convention isn’t found on the stage, but the pew; it doesn’t emanate from our committees, but rather from our churches.
You see, it is our people, those with a powerful love for Jesus and a passionate heart for evangelism that made us the greatest soul-winning, church-planting, mission-sending force in the history of the world. So, even though there are “elephants in the room” to be dealt with, I believe that it will be our people who will be the ones that will continue to reach others for Jesus, committed to sharing the good news that Jesus died for everyone and can change the life of anyone. That is my hope and prayer as I leave the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention.
“I’m also encouraged that an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptist messengers approved Dr. Eric Hankin’s resolution encouraging and affirming the biblical use of “the Sinner’s Prayer.””
The resolution that was voted on was hardly the resolution Hankins submitted. It was heavily revised by the Resolutions Comm., and rightfully so.
Also, the opposition to the resolution was because many viewed the Hankins Resolution as a reaction based on a misunderstanding of Platt’s recent sermon. Since Platt had clarified his position on the SP the previous night at the Pastors’ Conference, many felt the resolution to be unnecessary as almost all Southern Baptists agree that prayer should accompany salvation.
Bob Hadley’s amendment to the Hankins Resolution was overwhelmingly defeated and the people spoke. They did not approve of the original resolution’s wording.
Very thankful for the Res. Comm.’s great work on all the resolutions submitted.
Brad,
It was nice to meet you at the convention, I’m sorry we didn’t have more time to talk.
Chris,
It was nice meeting you as well.
Oh my, my, my someone voicing dissent and pointing out how insulting some of the speakers were to many in the SBC.
Joshua,
Then ……thanks for voting for Dr. Hankins “Sinner’s Prayer” …I appreciate you being so positive about it.
What amendment to the sinners prayer resolution did Bob Hadley offer?
Hadley’s amendment basically would have added language that said it is possible for all people to respond to the gospel.
Yes, Bob’s amendment would have added that the wording means it is possible for “all people” to respond to the Gospel. However, it was voted down because the Chair of the Resolutions Committee told the convention that the Resolution already said “all people” were able to respond to the Gospel and that Bob’s amendment was redundant.
Thus, the wording that came out of the Resolutions Committee states it is possible for all people to respond to the Gospel.
“it is possible for all people to respond to the Gospel.”
To which I think most Calvinists would agree. And some will respond in repentance and faith after having been born again by God and others will walk away from the gospel, either to be saved later because the are elect or to never respond in faith because they are not elect.
The only exception I see are babies and severely mentally handicapped. There are some people who will never be able to respond to the gospel.
I truthfully do not know the specific desire of those in this comment thread who are making critical comments about Brad Whitt’s post and Eric Hankins’ resolution.
Yet, from the content of their comments it appears they are making an effort to: 1) attack Eric Hankins 2) place the Resolutions Committee in an adversarial position to Eric Hankins and the content of his original resolution 3) state that Eric Hankins sought less than the biblical use of the sinner’s prayer 4) ridicule Brad Whitt for presenting his observations of the 2012 convention.
First, Brad Whitt’s observations are just that. They are Brad Whitt’s observations and he has every right to them without ridicule for them. It is not wrong to present a different observation, but it is poor to attack his and it does appear that by doing so some of you are being far less than cooperative in the manner you constantly demand from those who hold differing opinions and convictions within orthodox allowances than those of your own.
Secondly, the constant attack on Eric Hankins for his resolution is nothing less than juvenile and silly.
Thirdly, The Resolutions Committee did not take an adversarial position with Eric Hankins’ resolution. The duty of the Resolutions Committee (in brief here) is to consider all resolutions presented, determine if they are within the mission, purpose, theological parameters, and general spirit of the SBC as a whole, refine those that are best reflecting the mission, purpose, theological parameters, and general spirit of the SBC , and present them to the body of messengers attending the convention for approval or disapproval.
Obviously, the Resolutions Committee approved of Eric Hankins’ resolution on the sinner’s prayer and dealt with it according to their assignment as a committee serving the 2012 SBC. They liked it, they refined it, they presented it, and the 2012 SBC adopted it.
Fourthly and lastly, to state here or anywhere that Eric Hankins’ resolution was unbiblical in its original form or that it is now in its present form is a grave error in my opinion.
I believe the sinner’s prayer is as biblical as is the fall of man as recorded in Genesis 3 that made the sinner’s prayer a necessity in response the Trinitarian cure for the curse of the fall of man.
There is nothing unbiblical about sinners crying out, “God have mercy on me for I am a man who is ruined. I am a man of unclean lips. I am of a people of unclean lips. I am wicked. I was born wicked to a wicked father and mother and I have sought to be wicked as were they wicked and even beyond their wickedness. Please forgive me and save my wretched soul. I realize my only hope is in Jesus and I receive Him as my Savior, Lord and King. A-Men.”
“publicly proclaiming that Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t for every little boy or girl.”
I challenge you to cite which leaders said this at the convention.
One of the real tragedies in the SBC, in my opinion, is the seeming absolute refusal to deal with .. to question .. to even acknowledge .. that our current methods have brought us a membership that, for the most part, doesn’t even bother to go to church. That absolutely screams to me that something is very, very wrong in how we’re going about either leading people to faith, taking them into the church, or training them after they’re there. But whatever the flaws may be, the refusal to acknowledge and deal with them is even more disturbing to me.
My fear, what drove me to say what I did from the floor, is that our calling ourselves “Great Commission Baptists” will smell, in God’s nostrils, a whole lot like Nebuchadnezzar standing on his palace rooftop and saying “Is this not Babylon the great, which I have built?”
Bob C,
Do you know the percentage of church attendance at reformed Presbyterian churches, Luthern, and other reformed groups? Have you noticed who some of these groups are ordaining? If you are suggesting that reformed demoninations are our model to the future, then I don’t think you understand that the SBC is the only group that has pushed backed on liberalism and got on a much more conservative track.
I suspect it doesn’t matter so much what’s happening in other churches as what is happening in our own. If I recall correctly, we have 16 million members and can only find 6 million of them. That’s a problem, no matter what is happening elsewhere.
Reformed churches are dying all across Europe and America. Only the SBC turned things around and it wasnt based on reformed theology.
Ron, Europe is really not a fair comparison. Europe is vastly dead. As to the US, I have not seen the stats. But I will say that denominations such as the PCUSA are not really Reformed but in name only.
I’m glad to hear SBC churches aren’t dying all across Europe and America…?
Again, whatever is happening in other churches, we have serious problems of our own. Bob’s point remains valid.
“Only the SBC turned things around”
Well yes in a way. But as Chris keeps point out, there are real problems. Decline is happening.
I happen to live in Europe, and it’s simply not true that “Reformed churches are dying all across Europe”. There are some solid reformed denominations/churches that have a passion for their people, reaching out in word and deed, and planting churches in various countries around Europe. I’m not talking 100′s of churches, but nonetheless your statement is not accurate.
I’m curious, have you been to “non-calvinist” churches all across Europe? Are you comfortable with their theology? I’d be surprised if you said yes(I assume you’re SBC).
Are you asserting that reformed doctrine needs to be pushed back against because it is liberal? I have always thought of it as the more conservative view. In fact, it doesn’t seem that calvinism was an issue during 60 or so years that the convention leaned left. Reformed theology is a move further right, and the traditionalists are not prepared to go that far right.
Chappy, As a bit of a history buff, I have noticed that Calvinism usually dies out or becomes liberal except for a few denominations that splinter off like what happened with the OPC. My guess is this happens because it is so fatalistic (determinism) and authoritarian.
I don’t think it is accurate to say that calvinism becomes liberal. Calvinism is what it is. It doesn’t become anything. It may die out in favor of more liberal views within a group or denomination. It died out in the SBC in favor of more liberal theology and probably wasn’t on the radar for many for years and years.
My guess as to why it has “died out” among other mainline groups is due to the influence of rationalistic humanism.
I’ll grant yout that calvinism is offensive to the human being, but I do not believe it is fatalist because man has agency and his choices are real and they matter.
Ron,
I can’t speak for all Presbyterian churches and one of the Lutheran churches. But in my experience in PCA churches, the ones I’m aware of are fairly diligent to find out where members are if they disappear. If they can’t or won’t be found, they are removed from membership. And in my experience, though I’m sure this is not true for all PCA churches, attendance is often way more than 100% of the membership. In other words, a high % of members attend plus another bunch who attend who have not joined yet.
Les,
Presbyterian USA…is now ordaining openly gay clergy – male and female. How has reformed theology stopped this?
Ron, Reformed theology can’t prevent apostasy. It is really a stretch to ty and pin the decline of the PCUSA on Calvinism. I would argue that had they not begun to abandon a robust Reformation faith they would not have apostatized.
“I would argue that had they not begun to abandon a robust Reformation faith they would not have apostatized”
True. During the Reformation who would have known they were apostate since they were compelled to attend church or get a visit by the magistrate. :o)
The Evangelical Luthern Church in America are now ordaining gays. All over the news. So many are saying that reformed theology is the only hope of Sothern Baptists. it is not. it has failed all over the world in holding the line on liberalism and secularism. Only the SBC was turned around.
C.H. Spurgeon ,when speaking of a sinners prayer ,was not speaking of the “sinners prayer”that runs rapid through the sbc and other denominations.See,all men when faced with the gospel of our Lord should cry out in prayer for mercy and grace from a holy God.The SBC pastors error when they have someone to recite a “sinners prayer”and after they have recited it the pastor pronounces salvation on there life.We are to preach the gospel to all men and urge all men to cry out for mercy and grace from our Lord Jesus who came to save sinners.If the SBC pastors are serious about the SBC and the history,and bringing the gospel to all people,then it would be wise to view the resolution that was revised and obey what the sbc has said about the gospel call,to do other wise would be sin .
“I never foresaw a day when the primary influencers of a generation of Southern Baptists would be those who are not Southern Baptists. ”
Bingo. And obviously do not like our polity. They want a more top> down organization.
Lydia,
When we dance with the devil, he calls the tune. When top down becomes the model, the only one hearing the message from God is the man at the top who shares the message [demands] with the people and they either dance to his tune or leave the dance hall.
Top down reminds me of the way it was when the high priest went inside the veil to give sacrifice for the people, and had a rope attached to his leg to pull him out in case he died. No one else was allowed entrance. Seems to me that when Jesus attoned for the sins of man and He completed the work necessary for man to come to the Father through the Son, that the veil was ripped from the top-down and the Lord God said, “whosoever will” may come. Let us dance and celebrate the resurrection of the King. Let us all be one in Christ. Let no one look down upon the other and see them as less than another. Let no one see themselves as better than another. We each have entrance to the holy of holies. We each get to come when the Savior calls. We each get to walk with the Spirit. We each get to abide in Him and He in us. The “people in the pew” get this. It’s the leaders who seek to place demands upon them like the Pharisees that do not “get” it. Rather than be servants to the least of these, they seek to be king of all. We have a King, we need no other.
For me it is simple. I follow the lead of my husband and He dances to the tune of the Savior’s call. I may step on his toes now and then, but He loves me as Christ did the church, so he forgives me and is a man full of tolerance, patience, gentleness and love.
The saddest part of the things going on in the convention, and the ire and disrespect that dominate the threads of blogs, is that so many want to call their own tune, rather than dance in harmony with the Savior’s call and yield to the Spirit’s lead. selahV
Mr. Whitt,
I’d be interested in cordially speaking with you by email or (preferably) over the phone or by Skype. Please let me know if you would be interested in doing so.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Vaughan
Member, Berea Baptist Church
Evans, GA
Michael,
I’d be more than glad to talk to you. I prefer to meet in person when possible and since we’re neighbors we don’t have to email, phone or skype – we can just meet for coffee or lunch. Feel free to call the church office and I’ll make every effort to meet with you as soon as possible. Thanks.
Brad Whitt
Unfortunately, I moved to Mississippi just two weeks ago, but as I was a member at Berea for four years (and still am, since we haven’t become members at a new church home in Mississippi yet), I thought I’d try building some bridges.
If you’d prefer a face-to-face, you might try calling up Bert Daniel and spelling out your concerns about Reformed churches. He’s a great guy, articulate and gentle/respectful in the way he speaks with others, and I’m sure he’d be glad to dialogue. He’s a bit of a Luddite, though–I doubt he knows that this blog even exists! I hope you’ll find that he or I or any of our members fit the YRR stereotype.
If you’ve got the time, my email is mhvaughan@hotmail.com (I will respond with a different one, though).
That should definitely have been “neither he nor I!”
I left a message on the office answering machine. I think our best bet at connecting would either be next Wednesday or Friday afternoon, though I would certainly understand if you would rather talk with someone that is still local, like Bert at Berea.
Thanks to Dr. Eric Hankin and The Committee on Resolutions this resolution was able to pass with grater than 80 % by show of ballots after revisions and discussions.
The revised resolution.
AN AFFIRMATION OF A “SINNER’S PRAYER” AS A BIBLICAL EXPRESSION OF REPENTANCE AND FAITH
WHEREAS, The Gospel of Jesus Christ offers full forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God to anyone who repents of sin and trusts in Christ; and
WHEREAS, This same Gospel commands all persons everywhere to believe this Gospel and receive Christ as Savior and Lord (Mark 1:15; John 1:12; 6:25–52; Acts 17:30); and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures give examples of persons from diverse backgrounds who cried out for mercy and were heard by God (Luke 18:13; Acts 16:29–30); and
WHEREAS, The Scriptures also give numerous examples of per- sons who verbally affirmed Gospel truths but who did not personally know Jesus in a saving relationship (Luke 22:47–48; John 2:23–25; 1 Corinthians 10:1–5); and
WHEREAS, Empty religion and formalism, of whatever kind, apart from personal relationship with Christ, cannot wash away sin or transform a heart (Matthew 7:21; 15:8; John 3:3); and
WHEREAS, The Bible speaks of salvation as including both a confession with the mouth that Jesus is Lord and a belief in the heart that God has raised Him from the dead (Matthew 16:16; Romans 10:9–10); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, June 19–20, 2012, reaffirm our Gospel conviction that repentance from sin and personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation (Acts 20:20–21); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we affirm that repentance and faith involve a crying out for mercy and a calling on the Lord (Romans 10:13), often identified as a “sinner’s prayer,” as a biblical expression of repentance and faith; and be it further
RESOLVED, That a “sinner’s prayer” is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel (Matthew 6:7; 15:7–9); and be it further
RESOLVED, That we promote any and all biblical means of urging sinners to call on the name of the Lord in a prayer of repentance and faith; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptists everywhere to continue to carry out the Great Commission in North America and around the world, so that sinners everywhere, of every tribe, tongue, and language, may cry out, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13).
What I have been reading in many posts here, and in others, is that many of the comments are based on emotions and feelings, and not from the Holy Scriptures. In fact, I’m afraid that many want to bring God to our level of thinking; or that He should do things as we would do them; and this is brought out by what many say how God should save sinners. Perhaps Psalm 50:21 is applicable here: “These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.”
God has revealed His way of salvation; and it is according to His sovereign will. No one has the right to tell Him how to do it; and to “twist” the Scriptures in order to prove their “way” is more Biblical. God’s way has been from eternity past and “being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:11), and not man’s will. Furthermore, it is “to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:10, 11).
Then, why don’t we submit to God’s will in that “salvation belongeth unto the LORD” (Psalm 3:8) and that “salvation is of the LORD (Jonah 2:9); and therefore, He has every right to do as He sees fit as He questions us: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (Matthew 20:15). Why should any one of us kick and complain that it is not fair that God saves as He wills as Paul questions those that don’t like God’s sovereignty in salvation in Romans 9:20-24: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
What were they questioning about God’s sovereignty: ” For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy….Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth” (vv. 15, 16 18). The danger that exists for one not to submit to God’s sovereignty with respect to salvation is what happened in John 6: The Lord Jesus: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” (vv. 44, 65). Note what happened AFTER He said that: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (v. 66). Why? Because they rejected God’s Sovereignty in their salvation, but preferred their own “sovereignty” to make their own “decision!”
You see, God IS NOT obligated to save any one of us; in fact, He would be just to cast ALL OF US into hell and absolutely there is no one that would have the right to complain. But praise God for His “Amazing Grace” that in spite of our unworthiness and depravity He was pleased to save many of lost mankind and “hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Timothy 1:9). May we be enable to say with the apostle Paul: “herefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10). All Glory Alone be to God in Christ Jesus. Amen.
“Why? Because they rejected God’s Sovereignty in their salvation, but preferred their own “sovereignty” to make their own “decision!””
Lasaro,
An exclamation point denotes emotion.
WHEREAS, God desires for every person to be saved and has made salvation available for any person who hears the Gospel (John 3:16; Romans 10:14-17; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2); andWHEREAS, A free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel is both possible and necessary in order for anyone to be born again (John 3:1-16; Acts 16:30-31; Romans 10:11-13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13); andWHEREAS, Prayer is God’s gracious means through which any person can communicate with Him and is everywhere in Scripture commanded and commended for every matter and every person (2 Chronicles 7:14; Matthew 7:7-11; Mark 11:17; Philippians 4:6); andWHEREAS, Praying to God to express repentance for sins, to acknowledge Christ as Lord, and to ask for forgiveness and salvation is modeled in the Bible (Acts 2:37-38; Romans 10:9-10); andWHEREAS, While there is no one uniform wording found in Scripture or in the churches for a “Sinner’s Prayer,” the prayer of repentance and faith, acknowledging salvation through Christ alone and expressing complete surrender to His Lordship, is the biblical means by which any person can turn from sin and self, place his faith in Christ, and find forgiveness and eternal life (Luke 18:9-14, 23:39-43); andWHEREAS, It is biblically appropriate to help a sinner in calling on the Lord for salvation and to speak of Christ’s response to such a prayer as “entering a sinner’s heart and life” (John 14:23; Acts 2:37-40; 16:29-30; Romans 10:11-17; Ephesians 3:17); andWHEREASRESOLVED, That A “Sinner’s Prayer” is not an incantation that results in salvation merely by its recitation and should never be manipulatively employed or utilized apart from a clear articulation of the Gospel (Matthew 6:7, 15:7-9; 28:18-20);now, therefore, be itRESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in New Orleans, LA, June 19-20, 2012, commend the use of a “Sinner’s Prayer” as a biblically sound and spiritually significant component of the evangelistic task of the church; and be it furtherRESOLVED, That we encourage all Christians to enthusiastically and intentionally proclaim the Gospel to sinners everywhere, being prepared to give them the reason for the hope we have in Christ (I Peter 3:15), and being prepared to lead them to confess faith in Christ (Romans 10:9), including praying to receive Him as Savior and Lord (John 1:12).It appeared that Hankins desired to establish the “Sinner’s Prayer” as a Southern Baptist Institution based on the wording of the resolution as submitted. I don’t think the Committee on Resolutions agreed.
Now I fully understand that things are not always worded the correct way and this word needs to be substituted for that word, etc. but the entire attitude of the Resolution was changed by the Resolution Committee. The only “Sinner’s Prayer” that they mentioned in the resolution that was submitted for approval was “God be merciful to me a sinner”.
Perhaps it would be better to say, “I’m also encouraged that an overwhelming majority of Southern Baptist messengers approved
Dr. Eric Hankin’sTHE resolution encouraging and affirming the biblical use of “the Sinner’s Prayer.”?It is sad to say but I believe it’s true…
This majority of Baptists that are giving our brother here such hope, over against men who have actually studied theology, church history, biblical languages, and the scriptures, is that the vast majority are a -theological, don’t even know what they believe, base their choice of a church on its musical style or preferred activities, and display evidence of a genuine conversion. If they are truly your hope, your faith is misplaced.
I’ll tell you what I see. God is at work in this resurgence. I don’t think He is working in this because “Calvinists” have everything right but because a balance has been lost and our gospel has become more about man’s decision than God’s working. There is a reason the Protestant Reformation dealt with these same issues. It’s because when religion drifts over time it naturally drifts away from a God -centered Gospel to one focused on man. And here we are again.
Darryl,
Do you mean like the Reformed Churches of Europe and the USA, who have turned liberal? If Reformed theology keeps a Church from drifting to liberalism, then why in a Georgia peanut did all of those Reformed Churches turn???????
David
Third, there needs to be recognition on both sides of the argument — that in England, Particular Baptists and General Baptists experienced a great divorce, which was healthy for neither. As Timothy George has pointed out, the General Baptists lost their doctrinal emphasis and tended to become Universalists, and even in some cases Unitarian, whereas the Particular Baptists had a strong tendency toward becoming anti-missionary and anti-evangelistic. They needed each other, and Southern Baptists so far have been able to understand that the two sides needed each other, and hence we have thus far not made the British Baptist mistake. May God help us to maintain that heading.–Paige Patterson
You mean like Methodist who are not Calvinist going liberal. Friends, it both sides of the aisle. Don’t try to blame Calvinism for liberalism it is wrong and it is a lie. We can point to non-calvinists who have gone liberal too.
I appreciate Brad’s POV. I agree with some of it, and some I don’t.
Jeff
Is this the new theme? Reformed theology leads to liberalism? Y’all are really reaching.
There is the historical record. Tyranny and determinism cannot succeed long term without force of some kind. That is why Calvinism, for the most part, has either died out or gone liberal in free societies. That is one reason it died out for the majority of the SBC long ago. Calvinism fit perfectly with a pro slavery mentality.
Lets see. Calvin lived when? Oh and Augustine when?
It’s 2012 and I’ll be darned. Calvinism has died out? Really? Heck it’s alive if nowhere else than in your head. 24/7.
As I said, history is always recycling itself with a new improved version “that is going to be done right this time by the right people”. (Ever notice how the liberals are always telling us the same thing)
Where are the “Calvin” versions of Calvinism today?
Nope, didnt say that Calvinism leads to liberalism. I think a lot of yall dont really read what’s written…but instead, you just see what you wanna see. But anyway, I was just saying that you cant blame liberalism on a Church or a denom. NOT being Reformed….which some in this comment thread were doing….BECAUSE, even Calvinist, Reformed Churches turned liberal, TOO!
DAvid
“But anyway, I was just saying that you cant blame liberalism on a Church or a denom. NOT being Reformed….which some in this comment thread were doing….BECAUSE, even Calvinist, Reformed Churches turned liberal, TOO! ”
Thanks for clarifying that, Volfano. (Sorry someone typed your name like that on another thread and I rather like it. Very Southern Euro)
Yes, that claim has been made several times that being Reformed keeps churches from going liberal. History simply does not back that up.
Just as history does not back up liberty in Christ as an on going practice with the Ana baptists who came here and became all legalistic.
Darryl,
Probably the best response I have heard on the divisiveness taking place in the SBC. Thank you for this comment! God is working in spite of our man centered religiosity, one day maybe we can have a Convention that is more focused on the Neighborhood and Nations around us, than ourselves.
It is despicable that these who release such statement use the convention to voice such hatred toward another brother.
“I’ll tell you what I see. God is at work in this resurgence. I don’t think He is working in this because “Calvinists” have everything right but because a balance has been lost and our gospel has become more about man’s decision than God’s working. There is a reason the Protestant Reformation dealt with these same issues. It’s because when religion drifts over time it naturally drifts away from a God -centered Gospel to one focused on man. And here we are again.”
If God is at work in this resurgence of a historical systemized “religion” then why isn’t it churning out young men who act more like Jesus than Calvin?
I think everyone needs to remember that the committee chairman said that they believed that the wording they came out with included the meaning of Bob Hadley’s amendment. The chairman said that they believed there was no need for the amendment, because he believed that the wording meant what Bob said.
The amendment was defeated due to people agreeing with what the chairman said. It was not a Calvinizing of the resolution.
As a matter of fact, there were many Calvinists, who still opposed it from the mics… including Jared Moore…and probably 30% raised their ballots to oppose the resolution…so, I guess they all didnt see it as being more Calvinized.
David
David all you need to do is look at the 2 resolutions side by side and should be clear. The contrast is stark. It was not nearly the “slap down” on Platt that was intended. Actually, what was approved here doesn’t even amount to the sinner’s prayer that we have all seen- which consists of a pastor having a group of people “with their heads bowed and their eyes closed” repeat a prayer verbatim and then declare them all saved. I cant imagine anything that is more irresponsible in our modern religious practices than that.
Here is a chart that lays the resolutions side by side for comparison.
http://thedailybleat.com/which-sinners-prayer-resolution-passed-comparison/
It does in fact, after looking at the text comparison that Hankin’s resolution was Calvinized. This is another example of the reality that there is in fact an example that Calvinists are taking more and more control of the SBC.
Then, why did all of those Calvinists oppose the resolution?
David
“Then, why did all of those Calvinists oppose the resolution? ”
Perhaps they did not get the memo that it had been Calvin approved?
Here’s a question for the sbc today site… why have we not seen a single article or commentary here that offers a different point of view? I’m just curious. Is there a policy in place that prevents that? I’m relatively new to this site, so maybe I missed it.
Hello Darryl,
If you’d like another view to the views shared at SBC Today, then you can go to Founders and SBC Voices et al and read all the other views you want. If those are not enough, then go to the hundreds of blogsites linked to them, and you will have all the Calvinist views you’d care to engage. The internet is full of them. Just saying.
Now, as to being able to voice “another (opposing) view”, this comment stream and hundreds of comments left for the writers of the views here at SBC Today, do not seem to be limited to what the authors of the posts here say. If you have another view. Give it. The comment stream is open.
Let’s dialogue. Point and Counterpoint is available as long as folks are nice and do not engage in pejoratives and meanness. Praying God blesses you and gives you grace to meet the needs of your heart.
selahV
Thanks for the input selahV- do you speak for sbc today or are you just giving your opinion? I’m guessing the latter.
I’m just wondering if I’m correct in surmising that SBC Today has decided it will support only one side here- the side against any kind of reformed view of soteriology. That’s fine with me, by the way, and it’s certainly their right, but I’m just curious.
I would love to see a site that offers the best thoughts and theologians of both sides of this debate so that an honest person can come to an informed conclusion.
“Here’s a question for the sbc today site… why have we not seen a single article or commentary here that offers a different point of view? I’m just curious. Is there a policy in place that prevents that? I’m relatively new to this site, so maybe I missed it.”
I would like to also add to Selah’s excellent response that many who comment here have blogs linked to their names who deal a lot with Reformed doctrine. Perhaps one of them would take on BOTH sides fairly?
From my perspective SBC Today has not been as deep into dealing with these differences over the last few years or so that other Reformed blogs have. This focus seems to be more recent. You might want to check the archives to get a feel for that
All you folks so worried about the Reformed faith, maybe this advice should be considered.
“38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;
39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”"
Come on Lydia.
Ok, Les, let’s look at history. Your hero’s of the faith are nothing but tyrants. And they did fail..what is the Lutheran church in Germany? The Nazi’s were using Luther quotes on Jews to bring the church on board. Shall we talk about his role in Phillip of Hesse’s bigamy? Or his writing they should put the peasants down like mad dogs?
The Calvinist church in Geneva? You would think a great legacy of truth would be vibrant today. But nobody wants to go back to rules on how many courses they can have at each meal regulated by a state church.
Your hero’s are petty tyrants. Yes, they stood up to the Catholics. And then acted just like them.
We see these sorts of retries all the time in history by reinventing legacies and rewriting the record . There are people who hate freedom of any kind for others and insist others believe like them or are heretics. That is not new.
Of course I understand you want to separate their doctrine from their behavior. That fits right in with the doctine!
And the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to protect slavery. Your point? Need I point to the “heros” of SBC life and the things they promoted, said, and did especially as it relates to relations with people of African decent? Be careful of throwing stones when you live in a glass house.
“And the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to protect slavery. Your point? Need I point to the “heros” of SBC life and the things they promoted, said, and did especially as it relates to relations with people of African decent? Be careful of throwing stones when you live in a glass house.”
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. I was talking about the SBC Founders being pro slavery and how that fit in perfectly with Calvinist doctrine which is determinist and tyrannical.
And just who were the SBC leaders in the 50\’s and 60′s who were opposing segregation? Not Calvinists. Calvinism barely existed in SBC life at that point.
But its funny. People who hate Calvinists normally deny that the SBC ever had any “Calvinist” leanings, that its founders were most certainly not a majority of Calvinists, yet when you need to condemn the racist roots of this denomination, you try to label the “Calvinists” as the ones to blame.
“And just who were the SBC leaders in the 50\’s and 60?s who were opposing segregation? Not Calvinists. Calvinism barely existed in SBC life at that point.”
You make a very good point. But one problem. Now that Criswell has been made a Calvinist by the NC’s, are you foretting his big fiery sermon in 1956 concerning integration and the hoopla around it?
Of course he tempered his position later and was elected SBC Pres in 1968 the same year the convention passed “A Statement on the Current Crisis” and was a positive step in race relations.
So, my point? Criswell was a Calvinist in 1956, too, right? And he was extremely opposed to integration for quite a while.
History is often a very nuanced and funny thing
Really, you’re drawing a line from Calvinism to the Nazi party? That is ridiculous and not helpful in what could be a very edifying discussion of different views.
My Calvinistic heroes would be men like Spurgeon and Criswell. Not because they were Calvinists but because they were godly, evangelistic, Bible-driven pastors. I do not believe they were tyrants.
\”Really, you’re drawing a line from Calvinism to the Nazi party? That is ridiculous and not helpful in what could be a very edifying discussion of different views
My Calvinistic heroes would be men like Spurgeon and Criswell. Not because they were Calvinists but because they were godly, evangelistic, Bible-driven pastors. I do not believe they were tyrants..\”
Jeremy, History is history. Yes, Martin Luther\’s writings about Jews were very convenient for the Nazi party aligning the Lutheran church to the party.
What can we learn from this and other very obvious problems in history concerning what passed for Christianity?
Our Hero should be Jesus.
Just a note on all the “Calvinism leads to liberalism” discussion that some here are trying to argue. May I point out that the United Methodist church, which is Wesleyan (in a recent lifeway poll 35% of SBC pastors said they lean Wesleyan) in its soteriology, is increasingly becoming liberal. Does this mean those 35% of SBC pastors who answered the survey are leading us to liberalism?
And to bring it a little closer to home…Just how many CBF churches are considered “reformed” in their soteriology? I would venture to guess that the number is very small. Does this mean that as they share similar soteriology positions as “most” SBC churches, that the SBC is doomed to return to liberalism? Clearly the congregational polity which is so highly exalted here (and considered far superior to the liberal creating Presbyterian polity) did not save the CBF churches indeed it did not save the SBC for nearly half its existence.
May I humbly suggest that the reason so many “reformed” folk feel attacked in the SBC is when insinuations like “Calvinism leads to liberalism” is expressed as it has been here. May I suggest that such rhetoric is not unifying, indeed is not very Christ like at all.
We are not comparing Calvinists to Methodists. We are looking at the historical record for Calvinism.
Then answer my charge regarding the CBF. If Calvinism leads to liberalism, why were all the liberals who left the SBC after the CR predominantly NOT Calvinist? You cant have it both ways. You cant use cases of “Calvinist” denominations going liberal as proof that Calvinism leads to liberalism, and then ignore the fact that the most recent case in our own denomination disproves your theory. In logic and rhetoric that is called the fallacy of hasty generalization or using what is true in one case to apply to all cases. You Lydia are guilty of it.
If you’re going to use that worthless poll at least be honest. 30% leaned Arminian slash Wesleyan. How many of those leaned Arminian and how many Wesleyan? we don’t know because the poll was just a waste of time as far as what it says about the SBC.. Why on earth were Arminian and Wesleyan put together like that?
and the poll is worthless as there was no category for those who are not Reformed/Calvinist or Arminian/Wesleyan. Where do those SBCers fit in that poll. We don’t know since there was not even an “other” choice given.
“Well yes in a way. But as Chris keeps point out, there are real problems. Decline is happening”
The TWW bloggers are mapping the decline to the rise of the YRR. :o)
“Interestingly, the SBC has been in decline for five years which seems to coincide with the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement that became well-known in 2006 (remember Collin Hansen’s Christianity Today article by the same name?) Hmmm….. We will have much more on this topic in upcoming posts. ”
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/21/contemplating-the-sbc-gcb-trajectory/
Again, do you all “hear” yourselves? The arguments you are presenting, as I said in my precious comment, are “emotional” and “feeling.” All churches from the beginning have had problems; and especially doctrinal problems. Read Galatians; and it was so serious that the apostle Paul told the churches there: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:6-12). We better be careful, beloved people of God, this warning is applicable to today’s “Christianity”. There is no church or denomination that can claim exemption from this danger. Do some of you think that Southern Baptists are so “doctrinally sound” that Paul wouldn’t say this to any of Southern Baptist churches? I think not. May God have mercy on His people for the pride that exudes from some of the comments for Christ Jesus’ sake. Amen.
Brad,
Thanks for the post. It really is a great way to express your feelings of the convention. Also, according to the comments I am see here against it, we certainly seem to have forgotten there was a Resolution #4. Yea, that “cooperation” resolution really wasn’t needed with the “spirit of unity” displayed by the very first comment and followed suit by the rest. Wow, even questioning the resolution that went in as not being the same that came out is certainly a great display of “unity”. There is no resolution that went in and came out the same way. As Dwight McKissic about that-He couldn’t get the Resolution Committee to even try and revise his to bring it out.
Tim,
There should be no “wow” about making note of the rewrite. From Christianity Today: “the version approved by the committee omitted language designed to refute the denomination’s increasingly Calvinist membership.”
– Todd
Todd,
The information in the quote is absolutely correct.
It is astonishing that as much as the committee changed the original resolution that they even brought it to the floor for a vote under the same name. I believe any fair reading of the two shows that the attitude and the intent of the original resolution was changed by the Committee.
To deny this is almost as ridiculous as asserting that Calvinism leads to Liberalism….smh.
abclay, wanna hear something wonderful?
On the last night of convention, a missionary from Brazil invited a couple of ladies walking by his tent to come in and pray for missionaries. The two ladies were accompanied by a couple of young adults. One lady shared that she always prays for missionaries and that she had one in particular in Brazil that she was praying for his leg. The missionary said, “That would be me!” She was very excited. And as they talked the two younger people walked away and the lady shared that they were lost and would he pray for them. The missionary asked to share Jesus with them. She agreed. He shared Jesus and they listened intently, prayed a sinner’s prayer and received Jesus right then and there. Isn’t that phenomenal? I just love the way God works in the lives of people who faithfully pray, don’t you?
Hi Todd,
I guess Christianity Today is the final word on what Southern Baptists do, and why they do what they do, and the motives behind everything, right?
“Third, there needs to be recognition on both sides of the argument — that in England, Particular Baptists and General Baptists experienced a great divorce, which was healthy for neither. As Timothy George has pointed out, the General Baptists lost their doctrinal emphasis and tended to become Universalists, and even in some cases Unitarian, whereas the Particular Baptists had a strong tendency toward becoming anti-missionary and anti-evangelistic. They needed each other, and Southern Baptists so far have been able to understand that the two sides needed each other, and hence we have thus far not made the British Baptist mistake. May God help us to maintain that heading.”–Paige Patterson
Brad,
After reading your article, I had a few questions I wondered if you would be so kind as to answer:
1. Do you use John MacArthur’s commentaries in your sermon preparation?
2. When you consult systematic commentaries for sermon and bible study prep, do you read Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, A. H. Strong, or Stan Grenz (to name only a few Baptists)?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Jason Sampler
Brad,
Thank you for your reflections on the meeting. I share many of these same concerns. This year’s convention I believe has laid the ground work for Houston to be a major moment in the life of the SBC (GCB?) concerning the Cal/non-Cal debate.
Dr. Whitt,
Thank you for your mixed reflections on SBC-New Orleans. As I scrolled my way through the input of others to locate the comment form, my heart was grieved by the time I got to the bottom of the page. The comments range from wisdom and burden to the misplaced passion of youth and philosophies of men. We have grieved the heart of God through our discourse in recent days – forgive me Lord for my wanderings in that direction.
Looking forward in the review mirror, what will we experience? As Moses, I cry, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here.”
Max
Thank you for your words. “The comments range from wisdom and burden to the misplaced passion of youth and philosophies of men. We have grieved the heart of God through our discourse in recent days”
I must say I have been guilty of less than God honoring discourse too. Try as I may not to be guilty of uncivil and less than God honoring discourse, I fall prey sometimes.
I don’t know if you are familiar with another SBC blog, SBC Tomorrow, but you can find it easily. These same comments you make here might be helpful there regarding the discourse between us all.
God bless.
Hi Les,
I am familiar with the blog cited, and confess that I’ve mixed truth with transgression there. I need to weave in repentance, while redeeming the time. The night cometh. May we all keep the Main thing the main thing in the days ahead.
Indeed brother!
Max,
I love the level-headed comments you offer and am encouraged by your humility. My heart grieves as yours. I do not think a Christian who is growing in faith could possibly read these threads without being pricked to the soul by the Spirit of God who comforts as He shows us the error of our ways and tongue. I have found that when I see a particularly “nasty” comment that God is calling me to take a moment and pray for that person that as they begin to engage in dialogue on the streams that the Spirit of God will interpret the heart and motives in others in the stream.
I pray God’s richest blessings upon them and beg His Spirit to intervene and heal the bitterness, and pull down the strongholds that float about in the realms of darkness surrounding conversations which wander astray from His goodness, kindness, and love. If I do not pray for them, I find myself feeling crushed and pained and despairing, weary, and worn. We do not battle against flesh and blood. We need to realize our differences are dividing us and creating fissures in which we give entrance to those powers of darkness may run amok. May God forgive us all. May Jesus keep us from the temptation to continue in sin of pride, arrogance, and air of superiority.
I love you, brother. I truly look forward to reading what you say, here and at other blogs. selahV
Good words, Hariette. These are difficult days and we certainly need to pray for and encourage one another, while also exercising tough love where needed. But, God forgive us if we exercise more tough than love. If we (Southern Baptists) don’t change our direction, we are going to end up where we are headed. When the “winner” is finally declared, what will we have lost?
There’s nothing good about me, but the Jesus who lives in me. I love you sister selahV. I’ll see you here, there, or in the air!
Brad,
I was not at the convention, but I had the same feelings and perspectives that you have shared as I followed the convention abot 1000 miles away. If the convention is accurately represented by the majority of tweets that I read, then I am afraid the SBC has changed, and IMO, not for the better. But take heart…..God can still hit a straight lick with a crooked stick as my old prof Dr Galeotti used to say…..so God can even use the Calvinists!! :-)
There is no doubt in my mind that Calvinists/Reformed and Non-Calvinists/Traditionalists are brothers in Christ, but this divide over soteriology is not going away. May God guide each of us as we seek to reach the lost and disciple the saved……
I have a question of my Traditional Baptist colleagues. The approximately 46000 Southern Baptist churches existing today are probably lead by at least 35000 Traditional Baptist pastors who personally believe the 10 Statements on Soteriology which are the subject of these blogs. WHY DO WE NOT SEE 35000 SIGNATURES?
A famous contemporary of Calvin is reported to have said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” Surely these pastors recognize the two decade old Calvinist takeover attack on the SBC. What could be preventing them from at least publically acknowledging what they believe? Here are two possible explanations. I hope and pray both are terribly in error!
•Pastors lacking the courage of their convictions and no longer serving the One who called them but instead serving the ones who pay their salaries and control their careers. Each pastor who becomes an entertainment director, chief entertainer or master of ceremonies for some introverted, self-serving, country club and each pastor intent on steering his “cruise ship” through calm waters without any rough seas, anxious moments or requirement to reason or act beyond a fourth grade level will be judged by the One who called him/her to ministry.
•Pastors who are terrified by the thought that they may have to reveal and defend their own positions on contested Christian issues such as Calvinism, tongues, entire sanctification, the Holy Trinity, Biblical inspiration, the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth, sin, salvation, same sex unions and many others. Even though studies have linked the failure of evangelism to ignorance of apologetics, pastors fear their congregations might learn too much. Excessive knowledge invites division. An ignorant congregation is a manageable congregation. After all, isn’t the prime objective to keep the local church cruise ship moving along through calm waters with everyone well fed and entertained and the pastor employed?
Dr. Bruce,
Or perhaps those 35,000 pastors aren’t concerned about Calvinism because they see it as non-essential to our ability to work together and a tertiary issue, and see this document’s preamble as too divisivde to attach their names to it (I again reiterate that my qualm was never with the existence of the statement of faith itself, but its context within this heated exchange and its accusatory preamble). I thought Dr. Wright’s address was particularly good at the SBC annual meeting, and I think you should listen to it.
“So a word to these two groups: To our Calvinist friends, a bit of humility would be most welcome. Anytime there is spiritual pride or intellectual pride or theological pride — it is always a sin. And an attitude of superiority … is never going to build up the church of Jesus Christ. A little humility would be appreciated.
“To those who call themselves traditional Southern Baptists, the time for being judgmental is over, because judgmentalism quickly moves into slander. And to lump all those who have a strong biblically based theology that is a more Reformed theology into hyper-Calvinism is not only misguided, but it ends up causing you to break the ninth commandment on false witness.”
You continue to make wild accusations, now about your own non-Calvinist brothers. You slander men when you call them cowards and greedy for the things of this world simply because they disagree with you, and I tell you to obey your Father in heaven and stop at once.
Frank Page also had some excellent things to say:
[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/printerfriendly.asp?ID=38099]
“Calvinism is an issue amongst us,” he said. “You may or may not like that, but it is a real issue. I don’t want to shock anyone in this room, but I am not a Calvinist. I am not. I know that shocks you. But I want to tell you this: A lot of our people are.”
“Friends, I’m concerned because there seems to be some non-Calvinists who are more concerned about rooting out Calvinists than they are about winning the lost for Christ,” he said. “Did I tell you I’m not a Calvinist? But I am not among that number.”
Some Calvinists, Page said, “seem to think that if we do not believe the same thing about soteriology that they believe then somehow we are less intelligent or ignorant at best.”
“I simply say to you today that it’s time to realize that a Great Commission Advance needs everyone. A Great Commission Advance needs everyone,” he reiterated. “Calvinists and non-Calvinists have worked together for decade upon decade upon decade in this convention.”
Any SBC minister who believes the theology of salvation is a tertiary issue in the Christian faith should be flipping burgers as a profession and not leading a church.
Any SBC minister who believes the differences between Calvinism and Traditional Baptist beliefs are tertiary is ignorant almost beyond belief.
Calvinists and Traditional Baptists working together to evangelize the world is soap opera window dressing fluff for those unfamilar with the true beliefs of Calvinism. By the 1689 London Baptist Confession, for example, all persons were placed in mathematical sets of the “elect” and “non-elect” before the world was made. No evangelical effort can move a single person from one set to another.
“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of His glorious grace. Others are left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of His glorious justice.
Those angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and the number of them is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.”
Those who kneel in appeasement as they sacrifice truth — The Trouble with Tulip — at the alter of peace and unity will achieve neither peace nor unity but only the ignominy of Neville Chamberlain.
Dr. Bruce,
I’ve been working towards becoming an IMB missionary for the last ten years. I’ve worked my way through college and medical school for the sole purpose of gaining access to an unreached, unengaged, closed people group. I’m probably going to take my family–Lord-willing–into one of the few places that are still truly, truly dangerous for Christian workers. I’m going to suffer, and my family is going to suffer, and I pray to God that a fledging church will one day rise to suffer.
What’s more, my brother-in-law, also a Calvinist, experienced a war as an IMB journeyman for the sake of the gospel. He was bombed. He lived in fear for his life. An he did it for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
SO DON’T YOU DARE TELL ME HOW MY CALVINISM TRANSLATES INTO A MISSIONLESS THEOLOGY.
I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: stop slandering your brothers, on both sides of this aisle. You’re sinning, and I’m calling you out on it, and if you won’t stop then (aside from prayer) I’ll have no more to do with you. Stop talking about the motivations of others that you’ve never met and poorly understand. It’s one thing to state your beliefs. It’s quite another to carry on in the unseen ugly manner you insist on.
To the rest of the Trads here, I know that Dr. Bruce’s views aren’t representative of the rest of you, and for that I am glad.
Sincerely,
Dr. Michael Vaughan, M.D.
Southaven, MS
That should be “unseemly,” but “ugly” works equally well.
Michael, so very well said. I mean very very well said. It amazes me that I’ve seen really no one call out mr. McLaughin on what he’s saying, except those of us on the Reformed side of this issue. Stunning.
But praise God for your sacrifice already and the sacrifice you and your family will soon make for the furtherance of the gospel. God bless your mission efforts. May He give increase.
Les
Here is an estimate of the death rate of people now living in this world:
1.78/second
107/minute
6390/hour
153,000/day
Some souls go to Heaven and some go to Hell. Or, if you prefer, some are saved and some are not. The Calvinist believes, at the end of every day, there is not one new person in Hell who might have been in Heaven if only that person had been evangelized or otherwise given access to the gospel message. If worldwide evangelism efforts were increased by a factor of one billion, not one more person would be saved who would otherwise be lost. No matter how much you sacrifice, the God of Calvinism will not permit one person to be moved from the set of the “non-elect” to the set of the “elect.” This makes Calvinism a missionless theology. This issue is at the core of the conflict and is not changed by threats and intimidation.
BRUCE,
Your said, “Calvinism a missionless theology.”
How do you account for missionaries throughout history who were and are Calvinists? How did that happen?
No.
Until you repent of the slander that you have written (about your own camp, the non-Calvinists), calling men cowards and greedy for the things of this world because they disagree with you or simply don’t live in the blogosphere, and presuming to tell us Calvinists what we believe and how we are somehow missionless missionaries, I refuse to engage with you on these arguments (which have good answers, by the way).
You need to repent of your slander, and you need to do it publicly. Otherwise I would challenge every man here to ignore your “clanging symbol” and stop wasting their time. It will only make us angry to deal with you, and I wouldn’t want us to transfer that anger to other Trads when we do engage with them.
And to everyone else here: If you think that I am in any way out of line with my treatment of Dr. Bruce, or if you believe that I have sinned in my interactions on these threads with others, please point them out to me and I will repudiate my words. I have been emotional and quick to speak at times, and I shudder to think that I might have treated anyone here like Dr. Bruce has.
In the words of the Calvinist Dr. C.D. Cole: “Election does not determine the extent of missions but the results of it. We are to preach to every creature because God has commanded, and because it pleases Him to save sinners by the foolishness of preaching. We believe that God elected means of salvation as well as persons to salvation.”
Bruce,
Why won’t you respond to Michael Vaughn?
Ok Trads,
Dr. Mclaughlin has now thrown you all under the bus too.
New Les
Perhaps dialogue might be possible if (1) Calvinists would stop parsing sentences, using their own secret word definitions, to insure that the true nature of a discussion item remains obscured from view and (2) Calvinists would publically answer, in their churches every Sunday, one simple question: “Is there one person in Hell TODAY that could have been in Heaven?”
Dr. McLaughlin,
Your point #1 is according to your definition. I think Calvinists are very clear. But man just does not like to hear that God is in absolute control of everything.
Point #2, several of us have answered a big no to that. And that question and answer could be a fantastic preaching point to call sinners in the preacher’s hearing to repent and trust in Jesus. How many opportunities did those people have and they would not believe. But you, dear friends, don’t have to spend eternity in hell. Flee to Christ today. Today is the day of salvation!
Thank you. You’ve just given me a great great general call to repent and believe illustration of sorts.
Calvin did not need missionaries. He had magistrates. :o)
Bruce, I’m saddened that apparently many of the so called traditionalists agree with the things you’re saying. For shame.
Here is my last entry responding to the attack blogs of Michael and Les. First, I have not slandered 35000 non-Calvinists SBC pastors by asking: “What could be preventing them from at least publically acknowledging what they believe? Here are two possible explanations. I hope and pray both are terribly in error!” I simply ask why so many Traditional Baptists pastors have declined to put their names on the signature list. I still don’t know the answer.
Second, I concur with John Wesley that the logical implications of Calvinism are blasphemous but Calvinists are unable to see their error. Wesley labored to illuminate their heresy without calling individual Calvinists un-Christian. I concur with the sermon excerpt found at (http://evangelicalarminians.org/Predestination-John-Wesley-Charges-that-Calvinism-Makes-God-Out-to-Be-Worse-than-the-Devil ). As Wesley also wrote in “Serious Considerations on Absolute Predestination:”
“This doctrine is novel. In the first four hundred years after Christ, no mention is made of it by any writer, great or small, in any part of the Christian Church. The foundations of it were laid in the later writings of Augustine, when unguardedly writing against Pelagius. It was afterward taught by Dominicus, a popish friar, and the monks of his order, and at last, it was unhappily taken up by John Calvin.”
Wesley goes on to say:
•This doctrine is injurious to God because it makes Him the author of all sin and represents Him as delighting in the death of sinners, expressly contrary to His own declaration (Ezek. 33:11; I Tim. 2:4)
•This doctrine makes the preaching of the Gospel mere mockery and delusion since many of those to whom it is preached are, by an irrevocable decree, shut out from being benefited by it.
•This doctrine makes the coming of Christ and His sacrifice upon the cross, instead of being a fruit of God’s love to the world, to be one of the severest acts of God’s indignation against mankind. God only ordained a very few for salvation while hardening and increasing the damnation of the far greater number of mankind, namely all those who do not believe. The cause of this unbelief is the counsel and decree of God.
In contrast to Calvinism, Wesley affirmed that God has willed all to be saved and sacrificed his unique Son on the cross so that the great gift of salvation would be available to all mankind. There is hardly any other article of the Christian faith so frequently, plainly and positively asserted. It is that which makes the preaching of the gospel ‘Glad tidings to all.’ Had this offer of salvation been confined to a few, it would be ‘Sad tidings of great sorrow’ to most people.
Third, John Calvin was a diabolically cruel dictator incapable of Christian kindness, mercy or love. Is it logical to believe God plucked a pitiless, ruthless, merciless and brutal man from the dust bin of history to resurrect and extrapolate a theology dormant for eleven centuries, a theology not found in the Christian Church for the first 400 years after Christ?
Fourth, Calvinism is a Missionless Theology by the following argument. Here is an estimate of the death rate of people now living in this world:
1.78/second
107/minute
6390/hour
153,000/day
Some souls go to Heaven and some go to Hell. Or, if you prefer, some are saved and some are not. The Calvinist believes, at the end of every day, there is not one new person in Hell who might have been in Heaven if only that person had been evangelized or otherwise given access to the gospel message. If worldwide evangelism efforts were increased by a factor of one billion, not one more person would be saved who would otherwise be lost. No matter how much you sacrifice, the God of Calvinism will not permit one person to be moved from the set of the “non-elect” to the set of the “elect.” This makes Calvinism a missionless theology. This issue is at the core of the conflict and is not changed by threats and intimidation.
Finally, This SBC conflict is not just a cosmetic divide. It is about diametrically opposed divine personalities. It is about the very essence of God. Since these blogs were posted, the “on-call” Calvinist hit squad of a dozen or so bloggers have decended on the Traditional Baptists like a pride of lions on a gazelle calf. They have used (1) ridicule, (2) intellectual, theological and spiritual condescension, (3) disguised word meanings and secret Calvinist symbolism, and a host of other tactics and strategies to make the Traditional Baptist feel stupid and inadequate. I urge all readers to not be intimidated or threatened by either side. Read the content, digest it and decide for yourself.
Bruce,
I think you have actually done a service to these discussions. You have made crystal clear the views of the traditionalists. Thank you for that.
You know what? On re-reading your initial post I admit that I was injudicious in saying you were slandering 35,000 pastors. I read it as “I can think of ONLY two possibilities” instead of your original wording.
I still think your two possibilities are rather mean-spirited and wrong, but I see that you parsed your words better than I thought. I think neither of those possibilities is the truth.
I still maintain that you slander all of your Calvinist brothers, but I withdraw my claim that you slandered all of your non-Calvinist brothers.
In continuing to think about it, I admitted that you did not necessarily slander your brothers.
However, your statement isn’t dissimilar to the following (and I’m going to use weird examples for the sake of not making any implications.)
Here goes:
I can think of three reasons why Dr. Bruce is not a Calvinist. I pray none of them is correct!
1) He is an egalitarian. How horrible!
2) He does not believe in inerrancy. And those who don’t believe in inerrancy are just “barely” christians, since they hate the Bible.
3) He is from mars, and we all know how Martians think! They’re greedy, money-loving swindlers!
Again, the examples are purposefully tangential because I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding. I am NOT suggesting any of the above about my brother in Christ.
But my point is, when you phrase it like the above, you are–intentionally or not–making a statement about your opponents. We should avoid such language in our interactions with one another. Particularly when other, more charitable, options are available.
(I don’t know why I continue to pursue this. I think I’m going to call it quits on these boards; they’re bad for my soul. Again, I apologize for my earlier comments, but I continue to maintain that Dr. Bruce is slandering his brothers, using language that is mean-spirited and incautious, and should publicly repent for his public statements. I would ask any Trads that agree with me to stand up to him, so that he can hear it from his own camp, so that we can reasonably discuss these issues).
It looks like the Traditionalists are not, in fact, in the majority according to a newly-released LifeWay Survey which indicates 50% of SBC pastors concur with some form of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. It also shows well over half (60% actually) classify their churches as Calvinistic/Reformed or Wesleyan/Arminian, with 30% in the Calvinist category. So whether you’re a Calvinist, an Arminian, or an “off-the grid-traditionalist” it looks like noone holds the majority and we all need to cooperate.
I’m concerned with this straw-man idea that those Calvinistic in their view of soteriology are against a sinner crying out for the mercy of God. Let’s be honest- that is not the objection or concern towards the use of the “sinner’s prayer”. The objection/ concern is the use of such a rote prayer to manipulate decisions. I’m certain Eric Hankins, Brad Whitt, and Steve Gaines would be against such a use of the “sinner’s prayer” and I believe this abusive use was what David Platt (among others) was referring to.
I have seen firsthand countless times at large “crusade” events and in the local church preachers mislead (whether intentional or not, only the Lord knows the heart) people to think if they say “just pray the prayer” God is obligated to save them. In my opinion, the abuse of the “sinner’s prayer” method is the reason MOST of the 16 million Southern Baptists are absent from the local church and demonstrate no fruit of genuine faith.
I’m happy with a resolution that affirms man’s responsibility to repent and believe (as evidenced by a crying out to God or a “sinner’s prayer”) but Calvinists, Arminians, and everyone in between ought to lock arms and stand for the Biblical gospel by standing against manipulating what should be a genuine, prayerful response to the gospel of grace into a sales-technique to inflate “decision numbers”.
-Jeremy Bradshaw
I am greatly encouraged by people like Eric Hankins and Brad Whitt. It makes me happy to see that people are saying things I’ve felt and have said for years about Calvinism and how it doesn’t match the traditions in the SBC I am familiar. I was saved at a Church service repeating the “Sinners Prayer” and have seen many people say that prayer who are very commited Christians today. It hurts me that I feel that certain people are saying my salvation is somehow less and that of many others.
Jeremy Bradshaw,
The initial “strawman” was the one constructed against Eric Hankins’ resolution from the beginning by those who stated it gave affirmation to ” a rote prayer to manipulate decisions.”
That was not the intent of the resolution, nor was it evidenced in the content of the resolution to any degree to warrant the attack it received along with the personal attacks the author received.
The resolution as presented to the messengers was simply a refinement of Hankins’ resolution and an excellent refinement it was and I for one am glad the convention so powerfully adopted it, crossing the various thresholds of soteriological dogma represented in the hall during the vote.
I considered it a high moment of biblical adherence and theological clarity among those Southern Baptists present at the time.
As I have read the blogs for the past month or so on this website and SBC Voices I have become so distraught over the attitudes I read. Where is the fruit of the Spirit in these comments? The blogosphere may have had an influence at this year’s convention, but was it a positive one.
Galatians 5:22-23 HCSB
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,[a] 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law
Honestly brothers and sisters in Christ I question your attitudes and motives that you write on here. Can we not agree to disagree and still show love to one another?
25 Since we live by the Spirit, we must also follow the Spirit. 26 We must not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Yes, my dear brother David, you are so right! We are to love one another just as Christ loves us; and so that anytime we say anything, we ought to “speak the truth in love” according to Ephesians 4:15. But we need to also “love in the truth” (2 John 1). True Christian love is always based in the truth; i.e. the truth of God and His Word.
But, beloved brother, there are times that a believer has to say things that to some might seem to be unloving and harsh. There are times that the apostle Paul seem to be “rough” with saints, esp. because of doctrinal error. Besides, we are told that “open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27:5, 6). I would hope that a brother in Christ would do so at any time I was wrong about anything in my life as a believer. That would show me that he truly loves me in Christ. Besides, what does the Bible tell us: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Amen.
The “sinner’s prayer” did nothing but confuse and disillusion me for the first 22 years of my life – thank God for regenerating me through repentance and faith at home one night through the work of His Holy Spirit and my Bible. I also served as a music minister for years leading the altar call only to see so many who “prayed the prayer” fall away from the faith. Now I do Christian counseling and have a steady stream of confused church goers who profess to be Christian due to “saying the prayer” and “walking the aisle” yet show no fruit of repentance leading to salvation – I am greatly concerned for the future of the SBC
Earlier I had put my comment with respect to the “sinners’ prayer” and noted that it wasn’t so much prayer that was the problem, but somebody didn’t like it and deleted it. Anyway, I said that salvation is obtained through the means of the convicted sinner praying after hearing the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. The publican prayed: “God, have mercy on me a sinner.” Also, Paul” “Lord, what will You have me to do?” So, the issue is not the sinner praying to get saved.
I believe the issue is the “invitational system” that is utilized in order to get people to come to the front to “make a decision for Christ” as popularly practiced today in most Southern Baptist churches. But you would be hard pressed to find the apostles using it to get people saved in the book of Acts. Even the doctrinal epistles do not even give the slightest indication that we are to use the method to call sinners to the front to make decisions for Christ.
The way God saves sinners is through the preaching of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit convicting sinners of their sins; and that the only way is by repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ. You will note that when the apostles preached, they didn’t invite anybody to come to the front, or to take their hands and pray the “sinners’ prayer.’ No, they didn’t have to; for as they preached in demonstration of power and the Holy Spirit, the people wanted to know how to be saved. They are the ones who asked how to be saved and would come to the apostles asking them what they had to do. The Philippian jailor: “What must I do to be saved?” The answer from Paul was simply this: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” That’s it! No lifting up of the hand; no coming to the front; no repeating of prayer with Paul.
But it is very different today: It seems now the preacher has to convince sinners to be saved and use the “invitational system” (which I believe was started either by Moody or Finney), to bring them to the front to repeat a “sinner’s prayer;” and if they do come and repeat it (sometimes assisted by the preacher), they’ll pronounce them saved. That is very wrong and can be very deceiving; for only the Holy Spirit can confirm their salvation through the Word of God.
Another thing about it is that we should never try to confirm our salvation because I made a profession of faith in a particular day. I have seen and talked to many that have come to the front for salvation more than once because they did not have assurance of salvation. You see, one might not be saved even if they made a profession before and the preacher told them they were saved. Oh, how we that are in the ministry need to know and trust God to do the saving and wait on Him to do it whenever He pleases; for “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47) because “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (13:48). Amen.
P.S. I hope my comment will not be deleted for truth’s sake in Christ Jesus. Amen.
The “10 Statements on Soteriology” provide an excellent opportunity for each Traditional Southern Baptist church to resolve this issue individually without waiting for some SBC super-committee to come up with a “consensus accord” that will magically merge Traditional Baptist beliefs with zero to 7 point Calvinism. Just ask the deacons of your church to add their names to the signature list along with the name of your church. This would mean your church is Traditional Baptist. It would no longer be a target on the hit list of the New Calvinists.
Furthermore, each time you examine candidates to fill a staff position (senior pastor, worship leader, youth pastor, etc.) you can look for the candidate’s name on the signature list or simply hold up the 10 statements and say, “Do you agree with these?” You can also ask Sunday School teachers and members of the personnel search committee if they approve the 10 statements. A search committee would no longer have to become expert in recognizing secret Calvinist word meanings and contorted answers to questions to recognize Calvinism. Just hold up the 10 statements and say, “Do you agree with these?” This is a moral and ethical option which relies on the “soul competency and priesthood of believers” and confirms the autonomy of the local church.
Currently, neither Christian nor “seeker” can confidently determine the position of a particular Southern Baptist church on this issue without conducting an extensive investigation. For example, a church may have a non-Calvinist pastor but several Calvinist Sunday school teachers. Or a church may have a Calvinist pastor because his true theology was concealed from a non-Calvinist search committee. In particularly insidious cases, Calvinist “power players” bide their time until their non-Calvinist pastor departs and then quietly sneak a Calvinist pastor through the side door. In each of these examples, is the church Calvinist or non-Calvinist? Would the congregation know? Unfortunately, most Southern Baptist congregations are far too uninformed to recognize deceitful and duplicitous conduct by a few members of their own leadership. Using the 10 Statements on Soteriology as a screening device would eventually solve the problem.
To Dr. McLaughlin: Sir, your comment reveals so much of your “feelings” that it reminds me of those disciples that ask the Lord Jesus: “Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them (i.e. the Samaritans that did not receive the Lord), even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of” (Luke 9:54, 55). Of course, I’m referring to the kind of attitude that these disciples had.
By your comment you are telling the churches what to do in order to get rid of the Calvinists. I wonder what the Lord Jesus Christ would say about that?
First, you seem to have forgotten the autonomy of each individual church. Doesn’t every church have the right to call the pastor whom they want?
Secondly, what happened to the 2000 BFM of the SBC? Isn’t that the doctrinal statement by which Southern Baptists are to be tested, and not the 10 Statement on Soteriology, which is not the official doctrinal statement of the SBC?
Thirdly, your words in saying that “in particularly insidious cases,” truly reveals your heart, sir. By saying that Calvinists are “insidious,” you are accusing them of being “devilish” in their intentions. I wonder what you are suggesting that Southern Baptist churches do would be considered in the eyes of the Lord Jesus?
Fourthly, every individual believer has the personal responsibility to search the Scriptures in order to know the glorious doctrines of the Gospel; and every pastor are to teach the people the wonderful truths from God’s Word. Therefore, they are to examine the 10 Statements on Soteriology by the Hoy Scriptures; and if deficient of it, they are to be rejected by God’s people. They do not have to believe anybody, even if the they have some degree or certificate of theology.
And lastly, after reading the Statement (referred by you), I cannot in good conscience accept it to be in accordance with the Holy Scriptures. Not only does it contradict God’s Way of salvation, but also it would cause much confusion and rob my soul of God’s peace; for then I would be looking at man’s way of salvation instead of God’s Free and Sovereign Grace in Christ Jesus, “which grace was given to me before the world began” (2 Timothy 1:9). Amen.
Sir, I know that God is the only One who can bring us to have the same mind of the things of God; but He has a purpose in that there are Calvinists and Arminians (and even Pelagians) in the SBC. Perhaps the principle involved here is the same as what Paul wrote to the Corinthians believers: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19); and that will seen in the Return of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. “He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20). Amen.
If local church leadership wants to embrace Calvinism, then they look for pastors, worship leaders, SS teachers, search committee members, etc. who will reject the 10 Statements on Soteriology. You ask the candidate, “Do you agree with these statements?” but you are looking for a no answer. It works either way.