Tim Guthrie is Senior Pastor at Arlington Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tenn.
(Ed.’s note. This is a post from Tim Guthrie’s blog [see timguthrie.org] and is re-posted here in a slightly edited form. Tim is a frequent commentor at sbctoday.com.)
I have debated writing this post for some time. The reality that anything written can be misconstrued is enough by itself to cause hesitation. The last thing I want to do is leave the wrong impression with anyone. I love Calvinists and I love Traditionalists. I work with both and even some in other groups. So I write the following to voice concerns that I am seeing and hearing. I write to add clarification as to why I signed the Traditional Statement. I write to reveal why this issue is a growing problem. And since I write best by making lists, I will compile a list of my concerns while making it clear that NO priority is given other than the first one on the list.
The list will include specific and generic issues tied to people and promotion. Again, these are my concerns and are questions that I have yet to get consistent answers from (new) Calvinists. The older SBC Calvinists that I have known and respected were totally different.
My Concerns:
1. Ask 10 different Calvinists what they believe must occur for a person to be saved, and you will get at least 5 different answers.
2. Do Calvinists really believe that John 3:16 shows that only the elect are the ones God loves.
3. Do Calvinists believe that some people are born with NO hope of salvation?
4. At what point do Calvinists believe salvation occurs?
5. How can Calvinists call Traditionalists divisive when it is the Calvinists who have web sites and blogs that specifically state their desire to change the SBC and beyond?
Here is an example from the Founders’ blog (knowing their website clearly states their desire to change the SBC): “It is indisputable that we are in the midst of a reformation and recovery of the doctrines of grace, or what has historically been called, ‘Calvinism.’ Both statistical and anecdotal evidence of this fact continues to mount. I believe that this is a movement of God and that it is even more widespread than recent studies indicate. As is true with any of work of God, the devil always keeps pace and seeks to steal, kill and destroy. If he cannot keep us from truth, then he will do what he can to cause us to hold the truth in imbalanced and ungodly ways.”
6. Young pastors and staff members are speaking and writing articles claiming it is dangerous to lead a child to pray to accept Christ? If this is true, what, then, should a child do and how should a child be lead by their parents and other influences?
7. Why is Lifeway sponsoring The Gospel Coalition conferences?
8. Why is Lifeway promoting more Calvinists and their material?
9. Why are Calvinists leaders NOT doing more to instill that pastors must be upfront with their soteriology? There are even manuals on how to transition a church from Traditional to Calvinist doctrine. If there is no move to change the SBC, why are there manuals by 9Marks and others?
10. Why the aggression from Calvinists because many in the SBC do NOT agree with them?
11. If the BF&M is enough, why do we have two seminaries requiring faculty to sign other statements that are Calvinist/Reformed documents?
12. Since when did Baptist and Reform go together? The day-to-day operations of the church do not even match!
13. If there is no takeover plan, why was there an SBC Professor giving the benefits of the takeover (even using a racial slur) at one of the meetings during the SBC?
14. Why did Lifeway do a survey that offered respondents no option other than saying they were, essentially, either Calvinists or Arminians?
15. With the exception of infant baptism, since when were Baptist and Presbyterians so much alike? Dr. James Kennedy was my kind of Presbyterian, but today’s new Calvinists are nothing close in belief and practice. Just think back to Evangelism Explosion materials (I was certified as a trainer in an SBC church). Today’s new Calvinists would reject Dr. Kennedy’s material. How and why?
These are the questions I have. They are simple and I think need to be answered. We are told that we need to cooperate. I am fine with that. I am concerned, though, that the answers to the above may highlight the difficult journey that cooperation will reveal. Some Traditionalists are even saying they will sit this discussion out. I wonder if they would maintain that position when the real truth of the answers are shown.
I find this issue extremely important simply by the answers to point number one. If we cannot agree on that one, then we have two different Gospels. Cooperation will not occur at that point.
And speaking of the Gospel, is it not odd that Calvinists/Reformed call their soteriology the true Gospel and thus label much of their work and conferences with the word Gospel in it?
These are my concerns.
Tim,
Very good questions.
David
To me (and I know that is not saying much) these are the real questions that need to be discussed and determined in this debate or “discussion”. I have never liked the egg tossing of blogging. I would like to know some simple answers to the above. It would help me out greatly in trying to grasp the cooperative level that can be obtained with this new version of Calvinism.
What manuals are you speaking of? I would like to find one so that I can evaluate it for myself.
Jonathan,
See 9Marks.
http://www.9marks.org/journal/roadmap-church-reform
There is nothing in that article about Calvinistic soteriology. For 9Marks, “church reform” has more to do with getting a church healthy than it has to do with Calvinism.
Scott,
Do Calvinists think a church can be healthy apart from Doctrines of Grace?
“these are my concerns and are questions that I have yet to get consistent answers from (new) Calvinists. The older SBC Calvinists that I have known and respected were totally different.”
How many people and/or who in each category (older vs younger) did you actually speak with about these issues? What was the setting? (intentional conversations about the issues, random phone calls, comments on blog posts, etc)
Chris,
I believe that Tim is asking for people to answer his questions. He’s asking.
David
David,
Note the quoted portion – Tim at least implies there have been some discussions between both older and younger Calvinists, thus he knows the “new” ones answer one way while the “old” ones hold more satisfactory positions. I’m curious how he knows there these groups stand and who they are (more specifically on that: how does he identify who belongs to which category).
My suspicion is that this is like much else raised against Calvinism: very little substance, a whole lot of rhetoric. Some of these items have already been clearly and repeatedly addressed in other sources.
Chris,
You wrote, “My suspicion is that this is like much else raised against Calvinism: very little substance, a whole lot of rhetoric. ”
Were you speaking about your own response?
><>”
Chris,
Allow me one more response to your statement. Often the idea that “this is rhetoric…” is floated. I find it odd that you would question the integrity of my statement without knowing me or having any idea of my ministry over the past 23 years. A little effort on your part would discover that I have preached all over the USA and in several countries. In this, I also lead a ministry that supports and strengthens Pastors of all types of churches.
Still, what are the answers to the questions of the post? It is these answers that will move the discussion along and show where work will be needed and where cooperation can be obtained.
Chris,
My mentor who is now 78 was Calvinistic. Many of the preachers and Evangelists that were brought in for Revivals during my younger years were also. if you will read my post, I was trained and certified as an EE trainer – Dr, D James Kennedy’s material from Coral Ridge. I have preached in numerous churches all over the country that were led by Calvinists Pastors. I have been in ministry for 23 years and know more than I can count. But their take on Soteriology was different than what I am being told and seeing today.
However, the questions above still remain to be answered by the Calvinists of today.
Tim,
So you have discussed these specific issues with those of both the older and younger variety?
Chris,
I do believe that is what I said.
What you said is you have observed certain things, not that you have had specific conversations.
Chris Roberts,
Please leave off the obstinate attitude today. Answer the questions if you will.
I know Tim G. It is possible that he has already had more conversations with people all overt his country bout these issues already than you will have in your entire life unless you soon become involved in the same type of ministry he has had thus far.
There are times to take some things and some people at face value. This is one of those times.
Hypocrytical, do you know Chris or what his ministry is? Patronizing. You sound like a calvinist ;-).
Chris:
You asked Tim G:”How many people and/or who in each category (older vs younger) did you actually speak with about these issues? What was the setting? (intentional conversations about the issues, random phone calls, comments on blog posts, etc)”
I would also be very interested in this aspect of his “research.”
Seems to me like to broad strokes of the brush in Tim’s concerns.
Tim, Thanks for sharing. I think this is a great way to interact and discover how we can cooperate as baptists. Can you tell me how their soteriology was different?
Thanks
Jeff
Jeff T,
Great to converse! The basics is in the actual “how” a person is saved and when this occurs. Today however, few Calvinists give the same answer to that question.
And “how” are their answers different? Most of your questions are very nebulous. No two people give the same answer to just about anything, even if they mean basically the same thing. What are substantive differences between Southern Baptist Calvinist views regarding salvation and in what ways do the different answers concern you?
Chris,
I have been told that Calvinists do not believe that one must accept Jesus – they must need to realize that Jesus has saved them and do so in faith. I have been told that the elect are in the process of being saved from birth. I have been told that repentance only comes after salvation.
Who told you these things? In what context? In response to what question? How common have these answers come up? I don’t know a single Calvinist who would ever say the first, I think I know what a person might mean with the second, though I would disagree, and again, I think I know what is meant by the third, though that is likely someone who needs some fine tuning to their theology. As Jared says below, every Calvinist I know would affirm that salvation comes when we repent and believe.
I can answer a few quickly:
#4- People are justified before God the moment that they have faith in Jesus.
#9- Show me the manual that 9 marks has produced about leading a church towards Calvinistic soteriology.
#11- In 1858, the Southern Baptist Convention approved Southern Seminary’s use of the Abstract of Principles.
#13- Dr. Nettles used a civil rights era illustration. Calling it a racial slur is cheap.
#15- I know plenty of Southern Baptist reformed guys who have used Evangelism Explosion.
Those answers struck me immediately as I read through. Some of the others, to quote our Commander in Chief, are above my paygrade.
I will respond in form to your response:
#4 – And how is that faith seen or played out?
#9 – I had a book from them several years ago that they promoted (manual)
#11 – So why the cry from Calvinists that the BF&M is enough when the Traditional Statement came out?
#15 – Why then are we seeing the attacks on the sinners prayer and leading children to “accept” Jesus?
#9, what is the book/manual? What is the name? Who wrote it? Etc.
As for your comments on #11 and #15, I really don’t know what to make of that except to say you must not have read much of what has been said regarding these. The problem with the Statement is not that it presents a distinct soteriological position but that it badly misrepresents Calvinism, both in its theology and in its presence in the SBC. No one challenges that people can affirm things beyond the BF&M. On #15, a host of reasons have been raised for the concern. Surely you have read some of them?
Chris,
The statement or the preamble?
Yes
Though I did leave out one additional criticism – that not only does the Statement misrepresents Calvinism, it presents Calvinism as an alien intrusion – you are either a true, traditional Southern Baptist, or you are a Calvinist. It does not simply clarify, “here is what I believe,” it seeks to intentionally push two camps apart, doing so in a way that identifies one as Southern Baptist and the other as, well, something else.
Chris
I don’t think the authors ever intended to represent Calvinism (nor misrepresent for that matter). I think the articles speak for themselves but if a Calvinist wants to say the denials of article one does not represent Calvinism’s affirmations then that’s great by me. I didn’t sign them thinking they did – I signed them as something I would deny.
Brad, the entire Statement makes it crystal clear that the Statement is written to distinguish “Traditional” views from Calvinist views. That being the case, it is at least implied (and I think more than implied) that when the Statement denies something, it is denying a Calvinist belief.
Chris,
I would kindly disagree. But that probably has more to do with the presuppositions we are both carrying into this conversation. I think you inferred something that was not implied.
As one who signed it and affirms it I did not see the denials as denying Calvinists beliefs (that is not to say that SOME Calvinists may believe what we denied). Usually it is wise to take the authors/signers of a document at their word as to their intentions.
Finally, the Preamble is not the Affirmations and Denials, that seems clear to me in the Preamble where it states at the end:
“Below is what we believe to be the essence of a “Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” We believe that most Southern Baptists, regardless of how they have described their personal understanding of the doctrine of salvation, will find the following statement consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.”
While you may find Calvinism in the Preamble you cannot find that term in the Affirmations and Denials.
Brad,
From the preamble:
“The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists.”
“It is no longer helpful to identify ourselves by how many points of convergence we have with Calvinism.”
So, if the precipitating issue for writing this statement is the rise of “new” Calvinism and it is not helpful to identify your beliefs by points of convergence with Calvinism, what could possibly be understood by the denials of this statement if not that they are points of disagreement with Calvinist?
God bless
With respect to the discussion of the denials , they are denials and while those denials may have relevance in the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate, they may or may not be written for that specific purpose but more specifically, written to clarify the position of the affirmation.
The statement itself was presented as a response to the views of the New Calvinist’s brought about by the revival of this group. However, neither the affirmations or denials were exclusively prepared for that sole purpose. The affirmations and denials are first and foremost a series of statements that were constructed that may have particular relevance in the discussion of the differences but other affirmations can certainly be made not necessarily exclusively relevant to the Calvinist difference.
><>”
Matt
The Preamble is very clear of Dr. Hankins’ concerns about what he feels precipitated the need for this. However, I would argue based on what one signer told me that one could sign the statement without agreeing with some of the Preamble.
Second I will repeat some of my comment to which you replied: our disagreement “probably has more to do with the presuppositions we are both carrying into this conversation. I think you inferred something that was not implied.”
And
“Usually it is wise to take the authors/signets of a document at their word as to their intentions.”
Hope that helps
Scott
Good responses. Thanks for hitting the ball. But even you would probably say that Dr. Nettles words “see how these Calvinists…seek to drink from the same water fountain as traditionalists” were minimally unwise and certainly does not reflect the spirit of the Unity resolution at the very same convention.
But I have a question for you. Would Calvinists state that saving faith is accompanied with repentance? If so, how does an infant repent?
Thanks for participating
Faith is absolutely accompanied by repentance. They are inseparable in Scripture. I don’t know what this has to do with infants.
If infants who die in the womb go to heaven then they must have faith and repentance. Hence the question how do infants repent in the womb?
I’ll happily answer these questions.
1. Ask the so-called majority of Southern Baptist “Traditionalists” and you’ll get different answers as well. You act like this is a concern only within Calvinism. Furthermore, why is this even a concern? So, we don’t agree on the logical order of salvation, so what? The point is that God saves sinners through the finished work of Christ.
2. Yes, 5-point Calvinists really believe John 3:16. Jesus speaks of a special love He and His Father have for the elect. That’s undeniable. God loves the world, but has a special love for the elect.
3. Every Christian who is not an open theist believes that some humans are born with no hope of salvation. God creates some humans knowing full well that they will never trust in Christ. These humans have no hope of salvation either.
4. Calvinists believe salvation occurs at the moment a sinner repents and believes. Same as you, I assume.
5. Traditionalists have websites and blogs about keeping the SBC Traditional. How is this any different? So, you’re allowed to propagate your views, since you claim to be the majority, but Calvinists cannot propagate their views?
6. A child should understand the gospel, period. If a child knows what it means to repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation from sins, due to Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, to bring him in right relationship with God, then he understands the gospel (As far as we can tell.). What Calvinists and non-Calvinists are coming against is the easy-believism that exists in evangelicalism. Children must understand and respond to the gospel.
7. Ask Lifeway.
8. Calvinists are Southern Baptists. Do you have a problem with Lifeway promoting Traditionalists and their material?
9. This question is loaded. You don’t view Calvinists as Southern Baptists. Also, do you really believe that no Traditionalists have written anything on teaching a church what Traditionalists believe?
10. What aggression? I’m fine with disagreement. What I have an issue with is the constant misrepresentation. Have Calvinists formed a soteriological confession and encouraged and solicited SBC officials and pastors to sign it? No. Look in the mirror friend about being “aggressive.”
11. The Abstract is a founding document. That’s why. It’s not like these documents were introduced recently. It’s the founding document of both SBTS and SEBTS. Signing this document is in the charter of both seminaries. Blame the Southern Baptists who founded these seminaries.
12. This question and statement are a blatant denial of church history.
13. Racial slur? That’s slander. You should apologize to Dr. Nettles for this statement. Furthermore, what “benefits of a takeover” did Nettles list?
14. Read church history. That’s the two streams since the Reformation. Once again, ask Lifeway.
15. Um? This statement is unfounded. You’re assuming the worst.
Jared:
Calvinists are now truly the “liberals” of the CR. They were marginalized, ministries ruined, etc. Now it is the Calvinists turn to be treated this way.
So many do not like me to keep pointing it out, but the CR set a horrible precedent as to how “others” are treated when they are on the wrong side of the majority.
Tom Parker,
This current little set-to is noting like what happened during the CR. The liberal element needed to put on the bus out of town before they burned the whole SBC house down and sold all the property to the social gospel hustlers and the sodomites.
Why do you continue to sing these blues? Go join the ELCA. They love your kind of music and you will once again be happy with life.
CB,
Gospel hustlers and sodomites!!! In the future could you provide a spew alert? My monitor can’t take much more. Too funny.
God Bless Dear Christian Brother.
Jared,
EXCELLENT Reply!!!
Grace for the Journey,
Hear, hear!
Amen!
Jared,
So if one does not accept your responses, how do you relate to them? Are they true Bible believers? Are they teaching correct theology? If someone disagrees on your version of John 3:16, how would you classify them?
Tim, I believe exactly what John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, He gave His only Son, that whoever believe in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life.”
Concerning God’s special love for the elect (church), see the rest of Scripture. The evidence is overwhelming.
John 14:21-23, for example, “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. “‘
God has a special love for the elect. Those who love Jesus (the elect) will be loved by His Father, and Jesus will love him and manifest Himself to him in a manner that is different from his love for the world.
You cannot apply these verses to all of humanity, for you’ll have to argue that God the Father and God the Son will make their home with all of humanity. That’s why I believe Christ has a special love for the elect.
Jared,
Thank you for your response. However, you missed my last question: How would you relate to one who did not accept that which you presented? Are they true Bible believers? Is their theology good enough if it falls short of your answer?
Tim, why wouldn’t their theology be good enough? My church has both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and we have wonderful fellowship!
I believe the BF&M 2K is enough.
As do I with many Calvinists. So, from your perspective, what happens when a person enters into a relationship with Christ from the human side/response?
And yet I will ask it this way: Are they teaching and preaching the same Gospel?
Tim, a sinner must repent and believe the good news of Christ in order to be saved. If they repent and believe in the beginning, they’ll continue repenting and believing till the end.
Do you have time to answer the questions I asked above in my original response to you?
Here is the gospel in a nutshell: Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners from their sins and the wrath upon them because of their sins. Receive him by faith, repent of your sins, give your life to him, follow him, and you will be saved. Reject him, and you will be punished forever.
That’s not all that can be said about biblical salvation, but anyone who proclaims that is preaching the gospel.
Tim, every Calvinist in the SBC I know, including Tom Ascol and Al Mohler, believe non-Calvinist Southern Baptists preach the gospel.
Now, these men do believe that Calvinism is the best framework for the gospel, and do the Traditionalists believe about their traditionalism.
Jared,
So what about Adams sin?
my last comment should have been directed to Chris.
Tim, what are you asking about Adam’s sin?
I’m with Jared – what about Adam’s sin?
The question is of course “can whosoever” believe?
“Receive him by faith, repent of your sins, give your life to him, follow him, and you will be saved. Reject him, and you will be punished forever.”
But can “whosoever” do that or must you somehow be “regenerated” to do that, prior to faith?
holdon,
You are asking two different questions.
To the first, yes, of course, ‘whosoever’ is quite welcome to respond. The invitation is given to all. And ‘whosoever will’ believe, will be saved.
Yes, 2 questions, but I got only 1 answered.
I don’t want to be unnecessarily contentious, but Jn 3:16 has never been a problem for Calvinists. The only thing though is that the “believing” part is believed to something that fundamentally you can’t do anything about: God must impart faith to you; God must regenerate you; God must choose you; etc.. Sorry to say, the “devil” (not really him) is in the detail. Do you agree?
I agree. Jn 3:16 is about God’s love for the world. (all people).
But there are other texts about Chris’t love for us (the redeemed, the church).
Different things by their nature.
Glad to see that all is not bad with our Calvinist brethren.
Are we guilty for Adams sin?
Tim,
That’s a different issue. Your question was, can Calvinists affirm that non-Calvinists believe and teach the gospel? Jared and I both answered that yes, we can easily, happily, and readily affirm that.
Chris Roberts says:
“That’s a different issue. Your question was, can Calvinists affirm that non-Calvinists believe and teach the gospel? Jared and I both answered that yes, we can easily, happily, and readily affirm that?”
This sort of answer always confuses me. It does not line up with what Mohler said in the GC video about New Calvinism being the only place for those who want to see the nations rejoice for Christ.
Do you all agree or disagree with Mohler’s statements on that video I know you have seen it many times.
Jared,
You said above, “Yes, 5-point Calvinists really believe John 3:16.”
But not all Calvinists believe God loves the world, or all humanity. Some believe this “world” of John 3:16 covers only the elect. I have personally read such comments on SBC blogs.
When it comes to Calvinists believing that God loves the world – some do and some don’t.
David R. Brumbelow
I couldn’t find a manual at 9 Marks for transitioning a church to a Calvinistic one. I googled 9marks.org manual transition calvinism.
Perhaps the answer to #7 on why LifeWay is one of the sponsors of the Gospel Coalition conferences should be considered in context of other conferences they sponsor. They sponsored Exponential this year too, a bigger conference I think, which is certainly not Reformed. As long as they are not sponsoring only conferences of one theological persuasion, I don’t think it’s problematic to have a presence, booth, etc. at lots of conferences.
Kyle,
Thank you for the info. I think the idea of sponsorship is tricky at best. How Lifeway walks the middle is NOT going to be easy.
Kyle,
I guess some may be wondering: if Lifeway is truly neutral on this (and currently I have no reason to believe they would not be) then should Dr. Hankins expect a phone call soon for them to sponsor a TS conference.
What Calvinist conferences are being sponsored by Lifeway? To what degree and in what way are they sponsoring? How did they become involved in those conferences?
But the first part is my main question: what Calvinist conferences are they sponsoring? Tim’s article is long on assertion yet short on facts. Lifeway may well be sponsoring these conferences, but I can’t find anything about it.
Chris,
“long on assertion…” Look it up and make the calls. Do I post it and do the work to satisfy your doubts? Come on man. You obviously do not know me. I don’t play games. Never have. If you doubt me – go prove it wrong!
Tim,
You wrote a post raising a number of issues with Calvinism yet you fail to substantiate a single issue. Yet you want me to do your homework for you?
Chris
I don’t know but I think Tim answered your question below. Sadly I confess I don’t know who or what Lifeway sponsors – hence my comments “some may be wondering” and “I have no reason to think they are not neutral.” One thing you and I can both agree on though is if they do sponsor a Gospel Coalition Conference they should sponsor a TS Conference as well, right?
Brad,
It depends on how they have sponsored it. Are they a “sponsor” in that they paid for the convention hall, or in that they purchased a booth where they will be selling Lifeway materials?
Chris
Once again I kindly disagree. I really don’t care how they sponsored it. They need to offer to do the same for the other group (be it a booth or renting a convention hall).
Tim G,
Hey! I’ll jump in–sorta…
Since you put primacy on Point #1, I’ll speak to that while incorporating Point #4. First, I raise the same questions others have raised: The answer you seek is not addressed by the statement. Place any group (Calvinists, Arminians, Biblicists…), adjust the numbers in any way (5:10, 7:18, 12:29), and the same point stands. Equally making the point that the new Calvinists of the Traditionalist Statement may exist (but we know not the numbers). Those in danger of Semi-Pelagian expression may exist (But we know not how many). It seems a distracted question/point.
For a personal response I would suggest: How would you, as a Calvinist, describe what is necessary for salvation? When does that take place? As for me, I would answer, that salvation takes place when someone comes to Christ by grace through faith, confessing and repenting of sin, placing their trust in Him, and committing themselves to follow Him. None of which is inconsistent with John 3:16 (or the entirety of Scripture) nor with a Calvinist soteriology.
SolaGratia!
Scott,
You and I have always agreed on this. Yet I keep hearing comments that go something like this: You guys think you needed to ask Jesus, while we just realized we were.
Big difference!
Tim,
I have never heard a comment like that. Ever.
Chris,
I heard it more than once in the convention hall. I have heard it from Pastors of late in several settings. One preached it from his pulpit a little over 2 months ago. I counseled two families as a result of their confusion.
Tim,
Can you post a link to that sermon?
Tim,
As a Calvinist who knows a lot of Calvinists and has read a lot of Calvinists, that is not something I have ever heard a Calvinist say. As Joshua says, I would be interested in seeing/hearing for myself.
Joshua,
I can not. Why does that matter? Is the real issue that you question my integrity? Is that what you are implying? I sure hope not!
Chris,
See my comment to Joshua!
Tim, asking for a link to the sermon is hardly questioning your integrity. My goodness. You’re not infallible, you could have misunderstood.
Tim,
I asked for a source. I’m not questioning your integrity.
Who was the pastor? I will try to track it down myself.
No way I could have misunderstood! Not on your life or mine!
I cannot reveal that specific one for ministry reasons. However, you can call Centerpoint in Knoxville and ask them about the Calvinist takeover that led to a split – it all happened in less than two years!
Tim,
If the pastor said such damning statements, why can’t you reveal his name? Seriously? This man is leading people to hell according to you. What is his name?
Joshua,
As a student of the Bible you should know better than to ask for someone to called out in a public arena when they are not active in the discussion. You are better than this.
Call the one I gave you!
Joshua,
Your request highlights a needed education and humility that will come either by you learning quick or taking the long road. I pray you get it quick. The long road is painful. Humility will lead you to assist and not make a spectacle. Calling someone out and taking it on yourself to do so will result in a hard lesson taught by God at an appointed time. Don’t go down that road!
Tim,
Once again, more unsubstantiated Calvinist bogeymen that are leading people to hell.
It never ends here at SBC Today.
Joshua,
I pray one day you will see with eyes of ministry and love instead of debate and argumentative spirit.
No bogeymen – just a love for Pastors and a commitment to help them not humiliate them. I pray your people when you Pastor, will have the same love and care for you as I do for Pastors everywhere.
Why all the accusations from traditionalists that suggest that calvinists have “misunderstood” the denials in the TS document? It seems perhaps misunderstanding “could/might” be a possibility? And how does it raise the question of one’s integrity to ask for a source? That’s a basic rule of any academia…
Jared,
I was considering a response, then saw that yours took many of the words right out of my mouth.
Tim,
Your questions seem to paint Calvinists with quite a broad brush, and to presume that those wishing to engage in a sincere discussion with you will assume many of your assumptions without distinctions. That is one of the problems with engaging such a topic in the blog world.
Also, I can’t help but notice a bit of bait-and-switch. You assert “These are the questions I have. They are simple and I think need to be answered.” But when Scott and Jared attempted to answer, we find that the questions aren’t exactly so simple. Phrases such as “So why,” “why then,” “Are they true,” “correct theology,” and “how would you classify” in your responses indicate points of argument, not understanding.
Rob,
I do believe asking and learning is included in discussion is it not? Fleshing it out helps clear the muddy water would you not agree.
Against my better judgment Tim, I’m going to attempt to answer your questions, but you should know, these are one man’s thoughts.
1. I don’t know about the 5 different answers regarding what must occur for a person to be saved. I suppose it would depend upon how deeply the person is answering the question. The short answer is repent and believe the Gospel. I think we all agree there. Ask 10 traditionalists the same question and you’ll likely get the same number of answers. I think your question is implying “Calvinism” must be the problem when in fact, you’re likely dealing with varying levels of maturity and understanding, which is something all believers deal with. If you asked me when I was 12, my answer would be different then than it is today. If you asked me 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, there would have been different nuances in my answer. It’s a slow growth and I also deal with misunderstandings and sin in my own life. I will confess that I do not understand the depths of Scripture and theology. I’m still learning. I could be wrong, in fact. If I am convinced of that, I have every intention of admitting and repenting of whatever sin led to that misunderstanding.
2. I think most Calvinists would agree that God loves every individual person. But it is also clear from Scripture, that when we’re dealing with salvation, God only loves some salvifically, His elect, His sheep.
3. Speaking for myself, all men are children of wrath. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I do not know who has hope and who does not. I always believe there is hope for every person. After all, God saved me, a wretch. It is not my business to sort people out and attempt to determine who God has chosen or who is not. I assume, if a person is responding to the Gospel, that they must be elect.
4. Salvation occurs when God justifies the sinner. I believe that God must quicken the person because they are dead in sin and that the person must respond respond in repentance and faith. If you want me to split that into nano-seconds, I can’t do it. God begins the process and finishes the process. His sheep hear His voice and He knows them, and they follow Him. He gives to them eternal life and no one can snatch them out of His hand. As for the moment of justification, I can’t know that it has happened until I see repentance and a demonstration or statement of faith.
5. That statement is argumentative from the get go. I haven’t called anyone anything. As for the Founders, I agree with the statement that this revival of reformed doctrine is a move of God. It shouldn’t surprise you that I believe that. I am a 1999 graduate of Southwestern and came out of that atheological for the most part. I didn’t see the need for it while doing youth ministry. A friend of mine graduated at the same time- he was very traditional as well. God changed both our hearts at nearly the same time about these things without our even communicating about it. I have also seen other believers having that same experience. I am not trying to reform my church. I know not everyone will agree and my goal is not to make them do so.
6. I do believe “the sinner’s prayer” can be dangerous, but I would strongly disagree that parents shouldn’t be leading their children to Christ- and I fear your phrasing here implies something that was likely not intended, but I could be wrong.
7. Because Lifeway serves the SBC and there are Calvinists who are also Southern Baptist.
8. Because more and more Baptists have come to agree with reformed teachings. They are simply serving the SBC and all of its members. In years past, you would have never seen this at all. You see this as a shakers and movers getting their way possibly- and maybe some of that is true, but I see it as Lifeway trying to be aware of its audience and offering them materials they want and will buy.
9. Until the Trad statement on soteriology came out, I didn’t even know this was an issue. I would like to see some kind of solid numbers on this. I am certain it has happened, but I do not know that it has happened with the frequency that some would have me to believe. There are pastors who are also empty headed and lead churches to become atheological and empty headed, not understanding what we believe or why and who turn a local church into a Six Flags Over Jesus. This is why some churches don’t recognize reformed teaching when they hear it. Pastors may well state, “I am reformed” but search committees may not know because they have sat under preaching that is empty of theological depth and has served as therapeutic for decades. But I will denounce intentional deception all day long. It has no place in any church.
10. I haven’t personally seen the aggression you’re speaking about. I suppose my answering your questions could be construed as “aggressive” but that is not my intent. By the way, just because something is a “majority” belief doesn’t mean it is right. Perhaps we could rewind history to the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s when the majority of Baptists were reformed in their beliefs regarding soteriology. I wonder, if we’re talking about a majority opinion, if we should listen to those who knew and were taught theology back then OR if we should listen to a majority of Baptists of today who are pretty much unconcerned about theology, glaze over when you speak about it, and have become children of their culture more than Scripture? Maybe those old Baptists knew something modern Baptists don’t.
11. I believe the Abstract of Principles was the original signed document for profs at Southern Seminary. I don’t know about Southeastern, to be honest. I actually don’t know the answer to this question as to why the BF&M is not enough.
12. Since when? Are you seriously asking that question? Since the inception of Baptists, they have been reformed in their soteriology. Now, if you’re dealing with ecclesiology and paedobaptism, that’s a different matter. But Baptists agreed with the reformed view of soteriology from the beginning.
13. I don’t think Tom Nettles was discussing the benefits of a takeover. I think he was poking fun and bristling at the idea that Calvinists have overstepped their bounds and were accepted before so long as they knew their place. He went too far in his analogy, but his comments have been blown way out of proportion and he has been made to say things he never said, such as this accusation that it was about a “takeover plan.”
14. I believe there was a response of “I don’t know” available as well- or something similar. Perhaps you think the results of 30% Calvinist and 30% Arminian are not accurate. Perhaps if the phrase “traditional” would have been on the list, some of the 30% Arminian would have chosen that option. Trouble is, traditional is usually associated with historical, and Baptists are historically reformed.
15. My first thought is that infant baptism is a very significant difference, both from the standpoint of soteriology and ecclesiology. Other than that, there are historically very few other differences between those 2 denominations.
I’m sure my words will be picked apart, so feel free.
On much we agree. I do disagree that Baptist have been historically Reform. I do not believe that Baptist came out of the Catholic church. I see much evidence pre Reform for this statement.
Tim,
Are you a “trail of blood” believer?
Joshua,
I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ who saved a sinner that I am via His death on the cross for my sins offered by Grace that I accepted and repented of my sins and acknowledged Him as Lord and Savior of my life.
I do not believe that my history in my beliefs would come out of the catholic church.
I also reject the method of lumping people into certain camps. People can make history say what they want it to say – look at America these days. Nice try but been down that road years ago in a “discussion”. I don’t play that game!
So, Jared, you believe that Baptist came from the Reformation…solely? No other streams…like the Ana Baptist stream…you know, running down to make the river we call Southern Baptist?
David
Joshua asked Tim “Are you a “trail of blood” believer?”
I would not assume to answer for Tim, but I will say that the fold-out map in the back is awesome. I pasted a copy in the back of my Bible!
Darryl,
I disagree with much of what you said…but, 2 things: “Six Flags over Jesus” comment made me lol.
Secondly; do you really think there are very many Arminians in the SBC? I mean, maybe there’s 4 or 5….maybe 6? Most people in the SBC would agree with the Traditionalists Statement, and we are not Semi Pelagians, nor are we Arminian. 30% of the peole are Calvinists? I doubt it. I would guess more like 20%, if that much. But, it is growing….no doubt.
David
David, if most people in the SBC agree with the Traditionalist statement, why have less than .01% of active Southern Baptists signed the statement?
Jared
We have almost 1/5 the signatures of the GCR so using your equation:
Does it then follow that most Southern Baptists disagree with the GCR because less than .05% signed it?
Brad, I’ve never claimed that most of the SBC agreed with the GCR. I think you’re comparing apples to oranges.
My point is that, “Traditionalists represent what the majority of Southern Baptists believe,” is hanging in midair. Thousands upon thousands have viewed the document, and most of them have decided not to sign it. Quit saying you represent the majority until you have the majority of Southern Baptists agreeing to it; or, you at least have people vote on it at the convention.
Besides, why does it matter if the majority agrees with you or not? We’re all equally Southern Baptists right . . . if we agree with the BF&M 2K?
Jared,
Yes, I believe that a majority would agree with the Traditionalist Statement. I dont think that a lot of people will sign a statement for many reasons. ONE BIG reason is that a lot of people are not familiar with blogs….I know that’s hard for some to understand…they think the whole world are reading blogs. But, the truth is, not many in the SBC are even reading these blogs. Yet, I will say…from my experience, and from all the people that I know, and the churches that I know, that the majority do believe as we have stated. But, sign the statement….I doubt that most people have never heard of it.
But, you can believe whatever you want to believe. We will, too.
DAvid
Jared
to say
“.01% have signed that document and thus it does not represent the majority view”
is a very close apple to saying
“.05% have signed the document and thus it does not represent the majority view”
Further, I can truly say without tongue in cheek that I appreciate your optimism in how many people have viewed the TS. I probably wouldn’t have assumed it has engendered that much attention and viewership but if you are correct I am grateful.
But we do know the GCR has been viewed by thousands upon thousands and yet only .05% have affixed their names? Should NAMB, LIFEWAY, IMB, SBTS, etc stop saying it represents the majority view?
Now it is true they actually have a convention vote on that. But surely you are not insisting we have a convention vote, would that not be divisive? I for one would oppose such for unity sake.
And yet, we think we represent the majority views, what would cause us to assume such?
1. The plumline of the GCR
the TS has received almost 1/5 the signatures of the GCR in only 1/3 of the time even though it was not pushed from any seminary chapel, was not passed around seminary campuses, was not advertised by any of our entities websites, did not use the terms “Great Commission,” was not broad enough theologically to include all individuals in the SBC, was not pushed from the leadership of our convention (it truly was grassroots).
2. Lifeway’s study confirmed that Calvinism and Arminism are both definite minority views in the SBC – most Baptists find themselves somewhere between (which is where we find ourselves).
Hopefully that helps you understand why we would assume such.
But as you rightly observe it really doesn’t matter if it is a majority view or not (so it really shouldn’t bother you if we claim it is) since we are all SB. Only I would add we are equally SB even if we don’t affirm the BFM2K – Many still affirm the ’63 instead and they are just as SB as you and I.
Thanks for the interaction
Not a single professor from 3 of the 6 SB seminaries have signed this document. Almost every professor knows it exists. The document has been wildly unsuccessful. Of 180+ professors from these 3 institutions there isn’t even 1! That speaks volumes.
RobertSC
A minor point of clarification if you will. Are you saying that speaks volumes about what type of theology is promoted in these 3 seminaries?
\”why have less than .01% of active Southern Baptists signed the statement?\”
Most folks either aren’t aware of this, don’t care, or just really don’t want to poke that Calvinist hornets’ nest. The one’s that do care expect their leadership to act on their behalf, and I am glad they finally did. If you doubt that the majority of SBCers believe this way, do some simple surveys at churches. Show folks this statement and ask ‘em.
Of course, you already know the answer you’ll get. I think that you are just using this as a rhetorical device.
Hey David, that Six Flags Over Jesus comment is not mine- I’ve heard a guy named Paul Washer say that many times in his messages. But I agree that it is funny. I figured many would disagree with what I’ve said, but I was just trying my best to be honest.
Darryl
Wow – thanks brother. That helps as we discuss things. It honestly helps. I know that took a lot of time but I for one appreciate your honesty and humility.
However, you said you agree that reviving of reformed doctrine is a move of God. Let me ask you this, were I to say:
“the T.S. is a grassroots movement which includes very godly individuals and has received great popularity across the convention (the TS has received almost 1/5 the signatures of the GCR in only 1/3 of the time even though it was not pushed from any seminary chapel, was not passed around seminary campuses, was not advertised by any of our entities websites, did not use the terms “Great Commission,” was not broad enough theologically to include all individuals in the SBC, was not pushed from the leadership of our convention, but was truly Baptistic in its grassroots) and is thus a move of God”
would that not seem arrogant and perhaps dis-unifying? Our doctrinal beliefs are not Scripture, nor are the doctrines of grace. Moves of God usually have more to do with humility and repentance than the exaltation of man-made systems.
I can definitely see how that might come across as divisive or arrogant, but I’m sure you also know that I truly believe this. If I didn’t believe this recent return to reformed theology was a move of God, I’d be arguing the other side. It is not my intent to be divisive or arrogant and I apologize if that statement came across that way.
Darryl
Thanks brother. I see from whence you are coming. And can appreciate it.
While I do believe that the TS reflects Scripture accurately and I further believe that from all outward appearances God is blessing it, I would still want to avoid attributing it to God simply because I might be wrong. Scripture cannot err but I can.
Nevertheless, the wisdom of using that terminology in public (and I was referencing Dr. Ascol more than you) seems to go against the very unity resolution voted on at the convention.
Thanks again for your kind spirit
Darryl,
I also echo an appreciation for your kind spirit. May your tribe increase!
“Moves of God usually have more to do with humility and repentance than the exaltation of man-made systems.”
Amen– this is so true.
Brad,
I may be wrong but I don’t believe the GCR stated it was the majority view of SB? This document has had time for wide circulation, hard copies at the convention, I have seen hard copies passed around here where I live and most pastors are web savvy. Given all of that and the continued fact that many in the TB camp claim the majority hold to the document i ask, where is the proof? At the rate it is being signed you will have a majority of SB in about 1200 years. Now I understand what you are saying about the GCR but it doesn’t make the claim of majority opinion. If you make the claim that the document is supported by the majority of SB there needs to be evidence of that. However that does not make the TB document any less important one way or the other. The supporters could still be right without the majority.
Alan
So are you saying that Lifeway, NAMB, IMB, SEBTS, SBTS and others don’t assume the GCR is the majority view?
The point is: I think we both agree they are assuming such even though they have only 5 times more signatures than the TS.
Hence, they are a good plumline to use, as is the data from Lifeway about the minority views of Calvinism and Arminianism compared to those of us who fall in the middle (the majority).
Now the reason so few SB signed the GCR should not be speculated (ie – it would be wrong to assume so few signed it because they all disagree).
Again I hope that is helpful
Brad,
You have given me some info I had not heard or read about Namb etc. Thank you.
I read brifly the study by Ed Stezer if that is what you are talking about also. I would think that the majority would say (given the three responses) they were in the middle. You are correct I think on that.
My contention is that the TB document supporters (not all but most that are vocal) have contended the document represents the view of that middle portion. I say maybe and maybe not. I for one think they would have a bunch more signers if the premble wasn’t seemingly atognistic towards Calvinism and a couple of points had been worked out a little clearer, and the denials had been worded so as not to appear (to those who hold some DoG views) to frame the beliefs of the “other side” (though I don’t beieve it is the other side)
Once again I would state that the TB folks do not have to have a majority to be right nor to assert the document. They have every right. And I could say alot of the body of the document I agree with in the affirmations except a few points. The denials could be perceived to be an attack in some way at certain points. I view all these guys as brothers however and believe most SB pastors (assumption here) are preaching a Christ centered gospel.
Alan
Alan
Good Word
I am curious – what Gospel Coalition conferences have been sponsored by Lifeway, and to what degree?
They are scheduled to sponsor the 2013 according to a website page that was being developed and left open for public viewing several weeks ago. I saw it one night in New Orleans while researching some info for a discussion I was to have the next day with a Pastor.
Has Lifeway confirmed that they are sponsoring it? To what degree and in what way are they sponsoring it?
Chris,
Should they sponsor an equal amount of both? Call them and see.
Tim, I think the big question is why you’re offended if Lifeway sponsors a Calvinist conference, but you make no mention if they sponsor a non-Calvinist conference. Why the double-standard?
Jared,
That was not my question. I was looking for a willingness for equal etc..
Tim, do you really want Lifeway to equally support Calvinist and non-Calvinist materials and conferences? I’d vote for this!
Once again, red flags go off in your head if Lifeway promotes any Calvinist or Calvinist conference, but you don’t say a thing when a non-Calvinist is promoted or non-Calvinist conference is sponsored.
Jared,
I would say sponsor in proportion to the stats they put out.
Tim, why single out Calvinism and non-Calvinism? What about eschatology, complimentarianism, etc.? Just because Calvinism is an issue with you doesn’t mean that Lifeway has to reflect your beliefs. The BF&M2K should be enough, since it’s the voted upon confession of the SBC.
Tim,
That is the exact opposite of what the Lifeway study did.
They asked two questions, not one. Did you read their study or report?
You owe Lifeway an apology and some clarification.
Chris
Chris G,
There were only two possible positions in the survey. No apology needed – I read it and only two possible were given. I am neither of the two.
If God led Tim Guthrie to be a Christian and his soritology is Traditional::
and
If God led David Platt to be a Christian and his soritology is Calvinist:
Could it be that God is testing us to see if we get sidetracked over soritology rather than doing what he commanded us to do and go out and make disciples?
Is soritology the SBC’s new Great Commission due to making all the disciples God has commanded us to teach his word to?
I think it depends on what is being taught.
I think it depends on how God chooses to sanctify. Thanks for sharing your view Tim.
A final comment before I bow out.
Tim, your post raises a number of concerns touching on a number of issues. In the discussion you have made reference to various conversations and things you have heard. You expect us to trust your testimony despite our own experiences that are different from your own. Not even Scripture elevates any one individual’s testimony to this degree. We are not wrong to ask for specific instances. You have raised issues; substantiate those issues.
What book or manual did 9Marks release that tells how to bring about a Calvinist takeover in churches?
What Gospel Coalition conference has or will Lifeway sponsor? Can you point to anything more than a no longer existant website someone once showed you?
What Calvinists have said some of the terrible things you say they have said? Going again to the biblical standard for accusation, no testimony stands on the weight of one witness. I have never heard the things you claim to have heard. I do not doubt there are people out there claiming to be Calvinists yet saying ridiculous things, such people exist in every camp, but such positions are the minority – demonstrably so, if you cannot point to a single source and no one else can find a single source of such things being said in the SBC!
I do not doubt your commitment to the work of the gospel, but I very highly doubt your willingness to treat Calvinism fairly. This post presents, at best, a very misguided approach to discussions over Calvinism. At worst, several aspects amount to little more than nebulous slander.
With that, I am, annoyed and bowing out.
If Southern Baptist pastors are going to make allegations of Calvinist pastors teaching damnable doctrine, it needs to be sourced and substantiated. I’m honestly tired of the testimonies of “I heard” and “that one guy.” If you accuse someone of teaching false doctrine, then provide the source for others to discern. The furthering of fear and hysteria is only creating division.
Joshua,
Call the church I gave you. Once again, you deny what was given and stand by your arrogance. Precisely why this is a major issue. Learn some respect from guys who have been in the ministry for years. When cautioned to be careful, heed the warning. Casting false witness does not help your case.
Tim,
I’m gettting tired of being called a liar when I share things that I know first hand, and I know that you are tired of it, too. I find it unbelievable that you share things you’ve seen and heard from personal experience, and you are practically called a liar. I feel your pain, Tim. I’ve been there, too.
And, Joshua, no….I will not name names on a public blog. I will not call out people in a public blog. And, I cant believe you’d ask Tim, or anyone else to do this. I know that you are very young, so maybe this is something you dont yet understand. When I was a sophomore in college, I know I had a hard time understanding some things. But, you just dont do that.
David
Chris,
Call the church I gave you. Once again, you deny what was given and stand by your arrogance. Precisely why this is a major issue. Learn some respect from guys who have been in the ministry for years. When cautioned to be careful, heed the warning. Casting false witness does not help your case. I pray for the day you guys will discuss and cease your debating to win approach. Sad indeed.
Tim,
I appreciate your questions and I think most of my responses would be the same as Jared’s and others above.
I have always been impressed with your ability to remain largely above the fray in comment discussions. You generally post with a level head and without getting too personal in your discussions.
I think that’s why I’m surprised and disappointed by your reactions to questions you have received in this post about the validity of some of your examples of “Calvinists” run amok in the SBC. You’ve made some VERY strong accusations and not given any concrete evidence other than your own word. As people ask more questions, instead of being more forthcoming, you resort to calling for “respect” and being “offended.”
Well Tim, I’m not young, I’m middle aged and I’ve been in full time ministry for almost 19 years. I have my SBC bonafides in an undergrad degree from OBU and an MDiv from SWBTS (hardly a Calvinist stronghold). So, now that we’ve established that I’m not some disrespectful young inexperienced whipper snapper, let me ask the questions all these other guys are asking. Where are all these aggressive, takeover minded Calvinists? Who is leading the conspiracy at Lifeway? Where are the “master plan” documents for the revolution? And by the way are the Founders leading it or is it 9Marks or is it Mohler or someone else who has yet to be revealed?
You’re going to have to produce some real evidence to convince me that these things are happening on a broad scope, and yes that means naming names not just giving out random churches for people to call.
Right now your comments in this stream sound like one of Les Puryear’s conspiracy theories. (and that’s not a compliment) You are better than this and truthfully you have expected better than this from others in previous years.
I think the divisiveness comes primarily from those who call themselves Traditionalists who are frightened (and rightfully so) by the strawmen that they have been raised to believe Calvinists really are. When truthfully, Calvinists are nothing of the sort. I was hoping your questions could be a source of dialogue today on that subject, but I’ve been sorely disappointed. I hope one day someone asks these questions and is ready to hear and believe the answers that are honestly given. Alas, that must be another day…
Ryan,
Call the one I gave and you will learn much. Is one not enough? I do not fear easily. I do observe and I do see and listen to that which I observe.
I do believe if you read the entire stream of comments, you will find I have agreed with some. But I guess your pre-judgement rules these time lacking.
Sorry to disappoint.
Ryan,
I could give you illustration after illustration of Churches in the Mid South and the Heartland, which have had major troubles, strife, and even split…all due to Calvinism. I could tell you of Churches that have had a Calvinist Pastor come into a Church,which was not Reformed, and causing major, major troubles and problems in those churches. I know the Churches. I have friends and family, who were in some of these Churches. I know some people, who attended these churches. I even know some of the Calvinist Pastors.
But, I guess you’re gonna have to question my integrity, along with Tim’s, because I’m not gonna name the names of these Pastors or Churches. But, I do know them.
David
…sighhh…
and David I could give you example after example of Calvinists who are pastoring churches which are growing, reaching people, and more unified than they have ever been.
The problem is you and Tim and others keep identifying these heinous acts by “Calvinist” pastors but NEVER with any evidence to back it up. Where are the news articles about these instances- in either the religious or secular press? Where are the members of these aggrieved churches coming out in droves in support of this blog and others who claim all these evil things about Calvinist pastors with a takeover mindset? They simply are not there.
That’s why you now have people like me asking for PROOF not just vague stores void of names and dates.
Here’s the deal David, my email address is ryan@westmetro.org. If you don’t want to out this behavior in an open forum then email me the details. I WILL NOT post the info publicly but I will research the info you send me and if I’m wrong I will recant my statements above and join you and Tim in fighting the battle against these “takeover minded” Calvinists who should not be pastoring churches.
Fair enough? Ball’s in your court.
Ryan,
A hard reality – not many in the SBC are into blogging. Notice the comments on most blogs – same people, same story, same stuff. Many Pastors are not reading either position because they do not computer like some of us.
Tis true indeed. Blogging is NOT that big a deal when one looks at the whole of Pastors in the SBC.
Call the one I gave!
So, again, I guess you’re calling Tim and I a liar. I tell you that I could tell you of Churches in Shelby Co., Fayette Co., Madison Co., Weakley Co., and of other Churches in TN….where a Calvinist Pastor came into the Church….and tried to turn them into a Reformed Church. I could tell you of one, where it’s going on right now. Where the Pastor is doing one of those Acts 29 Church restarts, or whatever you call it. One of the first things he did was to get rid of the Deacon body, and is trying to get them to have an Elder Board. The Church lost many, many, many members, who left the Church due to this “transition.” In fact, they’ve lost so many members that I wonder how they’re still paying bills.
I am not, and will not, give you the names of the Pastors, or the Churches. I do not want to get in the middle of anything. I do not want to get anyone upset with me for getting in the middle of anything. So, I’ll just leave it at this….
David
PS. What if I looked at the comments that you and others are making about knowing of NO situations like this; and I called yall a liar. I told yall that you’re lying….that you most certainly do know of Churches where this is true, and you’re just lying to prove your point of view? How would that set with you?
I have never heard of one and I have been pastoring in SBC churches for 18 years. Now that is not to say there is not one. But I do not know of one that actually split because the pastor was calvinistic
Callmthe one I gave and you will hear more than you ever dreamed!
Gotta correct myself here. I have heard of one. The pastor went in and helped caused a split because he was a seemingly hyper Calvinist. I say helped split because a former member started circulating letters which had some truth and some falsehoods in it but it sttired up the people and some key leaders. The former pastor was calvinistic in his beliefs but worked with all and won many people to the Lord. The church loved him and grew. The new pastor came on with a dictator mentality (not unlike many non-calvinists) and they finally made the point of contention to be his hyper calvinistic beliefs and being dogmatic, though there was many others points that stirred the people against him.
It ALMOST split the church. several left. But thank God, they are back on track. So I have heard of one, I got corrected by a phonecall last evening for I had preached a Bible Conference there and someone called me on it! oops!
So I stand corrected
Alan
Alan said “I have never heard of one”
Click my name. Call that church and the association DOM and you won’t be able to say that tomorrow.
Chris,
I will make a deal with you – you cease your attacks of fabrication and I will cease correcting you!
I’ll do my best to answer your questions as if I were “today’s Calvinist” (which I guess I am, depending on who you ask), and as if you had asked me the questions in person:
1. A person must repent and believe the gospel to be saved.
2. No. Jesus told us to love our enemies. I believe that he is not a hypocrite, so he loves everyone.
3. This is a tough question in any orthodox theological system because there will always be people who never hear the gospel. If the primary concern in our theology is palatability, then we have to become either universalists or inclusivists. If the concern is biblical truth, then we have to take some unpopular stances on who will and will not be saved. My stance is probably less popular than yours, but I trust that both of us are more concerned with biblical truth than palitability or popularity.
4. Salvation occurs at the point when people put their faith in Christ.
5. Some Calvinists are divisive, and so are some Traditionalists. Some on both sides aren’t.
6. I can’t answer that question because I don’t agree with the people you are talking about.
7. I didn’t know they did that. Are they also sponsoring other non-SBC conferences? If so, are they all Calvinistic conferences?
8. I don’t know, but I suspect that it’s because our convention as a whole is moving away from the pragmatics that we celebrated in the 20th century and toward a more theological framework. In general right now, Calvinists seem to be more prolific in theological publication, so it might just be a default necessity in response to the demands of churches. If Traditionalists can begin to match this level of theological output, I suspect they will be just as sought after by Lifeway as Calvinists. Men like Malcolm Yarnell and David Allen come to mind, both of whose writings I love.
9. I’m not sure what more they could do. Every Calvinist leader I’ve heard speak to this subject has clearly emphasized that Calvinists should be up-front with churches about their beliefs. This is an issue that gets addressed so much that I have started to daydream whenever I hear a Calvinist leader talking about it. Any Calvinist in the SBC who hasn’t caught on to this yet has some serious problems.
10. I don’t know, but usually those who are angrier about any issue are the ones who are louder.
11. Southern Seminary has required professors to sign the Abstract of Principles from the day it opened in 1859, with full approval from the SBC, and I don’t see any reason why that should change. What’s troubling is that so many professors signed it in the 20th century who did not agree with its stances on the authority of the Bible. I’m not familiar with the other seminary you’re talking about.
12. I honestly don’t understand the question. Sorry about that.
13. I don’t know of the person or event you’re talking about, but I would like to find out. I also haven’t heard of a takeover plan, but I would certainly want to know if one existed.
14. If you’re talking about the survey from several years ago, I also wish that it had given some more nuanced options.
15. Like you, I am trained in EE and have used it often, so I am not sure why you would say that I reject it. Lay leaders at our church conduct EE training twice each year. I think it’s one of the best evangelism methods out there.
Dan,
Thank you for posting and thank you for your kind approach. You sound like the kind of Calvinist I am use to interacting with. I can cooperate you any day! You are welcome at my camp fire all the time!
Thanks Tim! I’ll bring the s’mores.
I will have the dogs and chili with NO beans! too much hot air in the world! :)
Joshua:
You said:”Tim,
Once again, more unsubstantiated Calvinist bogeymen that are leading people to hell.
It never ends here at SBC Today.”
Let’s see one post today about Deacons–2 comments another post on Calvinism-almost 100 posts.
It seems pretty clear to me the focus of SBC Today.
Everyone knows the focus of SBC Today. It is not a place of “Traditionalists” to merely state their beliefs and have honest doctrinal dialogue with the “other side.” This site exists to promote fear of Calvinism in the SBC, and malign good and faithful Southern Baptist Calvinists.
I’m done interacting with this type of discussion. It is always fruitless and never edifying. I will refrain from commenting here in the future.
“It is not a place of “Traditionalists” to merely state their beliefs and have honest doctrinal dialogue with the “other side.”
“Tim,
I asked for a source. I’m not questioning your integrity.”
It looks like you’re statements are in contradiction. Sad.
holdon,
I am not understanding your question. Are you attributing one of those statements to me? I did not type either one.
Oh no, Tim. Sorry about that.
This was addressed to Joshua. I just didn’t get the impression he reacted on good faith and I think he proved it.
Joshua,
Please don’t leave mad because I refused to play your game. Keep studying and keep asking God to give you a heart for people.
Based on what people had said about you, this comment was beneath my expectations.
Joshua knows the spirit it was stated. He tweets similiar.
Nothing mean spirited intended. I am not that type of guy. I do apologize for the impression.
Joshua,
I personally know those managing this blog. Do you? I can confirm from visiting with them that you are not only “out there” with your statement but it is blatantly false. Which I think gets to the point of holdon’s comment.
:-)
Here is my reply to this article…
http://gritsgrace.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-sbc-todays-anabaptist-concerns-me.html
Grace for the Journey,
I was wondering how long it would take someone to do just that. Nice touch! And if I may ask, do you agree with and promote the Founders idea of transforming the SBC?
Greg,
Will you state publicly if you agree or disagree with Founders and their goal of transforming the SBC? I would love to hear your honest position on that!
Tim, I will answer that question when you state for the record if you you want to purge all Calvinist from the SBC, or is it enough for if they are just made to ride in the back of the bus?
Greg,
I have never said nor implied such as you suggest. Nor do I now.
And you?
Tim,
I have never said nor implied such…
Furthermore, are you saying that the goals of the founders are different than those of the Anabaptist?
Greg,
I answered, will you or will you keep dancing? Simple question, do agree or disagree with Founders goals of transforming the SBC? Or maybe do you deny they have a goal?
As for as I know, Traditionalists have no goals that I am aware of.
Tim,
I am not dancing at all… As far as I know the founders is quite open about it’s Purpose… I just spent some time reviewing their web sight, and guess what? I did not see “transforming” or “taking over” the SBC anywhere stated as their purpose.
Are you saying that (1) there is no Anabaptist/Traditionalist group in the SBC, and (2) that there are no efforts being made by this group to advance their beliefs in the SBC?
“It is indisputable that we are in the midst of a reformation and recovery of the doctrines of grace, or what has historically been called, “Calvinism.” Both statistical and anecdotal evidence of this fact continues to mount. I believe that this is a movement of God and that it is even more widespread than recent studies indicate.”
Cited today from: “http://blog.founders.org/”
It’s not called a “takeover” but a “recovery of Calvinism” and it is more widespread than recent studies indicate.
Greg, you said “Tim, I will answer that question when you state for the record if you you want to purge all Calvinist from the SBC, or is it enough for if they are just made to ride in the back of the bus?”
I have! You have yet to answer. And yourbanswer is?
Greg,
I am wondering if you really meant what you stated you would do. Hmmmm?
Tim,
I support the founder purpose as “Clearly Defined on Their Web Site”.
Now will answer the following, or are you just going to keep dancing?
Are you saying that (1) there is no Anabaptist/Traditionalist group in the SBC, and (2) that there are no efforts being made by this group to advance their beliefs in the SBC?
Greg,
So by the definition you apply, you support Founders desires to transform the SBC and thus their churches?
Your answer was very carefully worded as usual. Please do define what the Founders goals mean?
Sorry Tim you are trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say….
I find it amusing that you askew the Founders desires to promote their understanding of what the Scriptures teach to the SBC and thus their churches… Yet, you cannot admit that you “New Anabaptist” are doing the exact same thing.
How ironic… How typical… How sad…
Now where is my seat on this Bus… Never mind, I see it, it’s waaaay in the back.
Greg,
First, there is NO organization – none – like the Founders or 9marks on the Traditional perspective. None! Period. Zero!
Second, I totally deplore the use of racial slurs such as “back of the bus” being used to discuss Theology. Blacks endured reprehensible treatment that did involve the “back of the bus” scenario. You have NO right to use that term in a debate that in NO way compares nor are the day to day experiences anything close to similar. You sir owe an apology and need to find a new way of describing your concocted ideas.
Tim,
Cheese burger, snickers, Mt.Dew…
No organization? So that Traditional Statement and all the effort to have key leaders sign it before it was released to the public was not organized by someone? Now how did that happen?
Tim, I think we have come to an impasse. If all you want to do is put on an act of being offended and call for an apology, instead of engaging in a discussion, then clearly you need a break.
No hard feelings I hope…
Grace for the Journey,
Greg,
No impass other than your denial that use of a racial term was not appropriate!
As for my response, there is NO organized group or groups. Why do find this difficult to accept. It was literally grassroots Baptist.
No organizations etc. None Zero. Are you running and hiding?
Greg,
One more thing before you run. Since you have fully agreed with the Founders desires to transform the Convention, thus churches, you are now stating that when people see signs of this they are correct and accurate and NOT made up out of fear? Correct?
Tim,
Whatever you say Dude… :-)
Greg,
Do I take that as a “yes that is correct” or a “no, I do not agree”, or maybe even a “no, I do not mean that”?
If you fully agree with Founders, and you fully agree with the goal of Founders then you are agreeing that transformation of churches and the SBC is real and that stories reporting on this are not made up out of fear by people who see it. You have finally agreed with that which has been seen, experienced, but denied.
Thank you! That is progress!
I read this somewhere today:
“We who claim to understand much of God’s grace ought then to be the most gracious of all people. A proud, belligerent, unloving, thoughtless Calvinist is a spiritual freak who denies by his actions and attitudes what he professes in his creed. None of us is immune to such sins, but by the grace of God we need not be satisfied to let them live, unmolested, in our lives.”
holdon,
Indeed those words are wise and needed! If only we lived them as we wrote them!
Actually this was rather meant for our Calvinist brethren (but good for us as well) and came from this link today: http://blog.founders.org/
John,
If you can prove my post is indeed what you claim it, I will admit it. But since I know you cannot, I will await your gracious apology. Sure is strange that some say they want dialogue and cooperation and yet all we see is this type of preschool argument stuff. Sad!
I’ll have a go.
1. I suspect this is true for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
2. Perhaps some do. I don’t.
3. From a human perspective, no. We have no idea who will be saved and who will not. Give the gospel to all.
4. Repent, believe, confess. Not saved until then.
5. Everyone who writes about problems in the SBC wants to change the SBC by correcting the problems that they identify. This is not unique to Calvinists.
6. Children are subjects of evangelism, just like everyone else. I have concerns about some types of sinner’s prayers, but not with the practice in general.
7. Dunno.
8. Dunno. More than what? More than they have before? More than non-Calvinists?
9. We don’t know what Calvinist leaders are doing or not doing about this problem.
10. I don’t know what to do with this question. I have seen plenty of aggressive non-Calvinists. It is a natural (yet sinful) human response for some to become aggressive when opposed.
11. Dunno.
12. I don’t understand this question. Reformed Baptist usually means Baptists who are also Calvinists.
13. I don’t know that absolutely no Calvinists want to takeover the SBC. I only know that I don’t, and I don’t want them to. He did not use a racial slur.
14. Don’t know.
15. I don’t know what to do with this. Alike in what way? I wouldn’t worry too much about Calvinists not using EE until I saw how many non-Calvinists are using EE. Is it really a problem if groups of people approach evangelism differently?
On much we can agree. Thank you for your kind answers.
Bill Mac:
I still believe our BBQ conversation is the answer. Alas, it seems none will heed the call……sigh.
Do tell more-I’m in!!!!
Bill Mac’s idea. Mine was dueling pistols at 20 paces. His is a BBQ cookoff.
Each of us had our preferences–his influenced by his Northern roots, mine by my Texas roots. But we discovered that each of us was actually flexible on the specifics. And the end result is everyone has a great meal!
My only observation is that, instead of bullets being the terminal decision maker, gluttony and cholesterol would do the trick.
I’m good. What meat!
Tim G.,
I agree with Vol. You have asked some good questions. They are questions of great importance, especially in the SBC in this present time. Yet, as I read these questions, it might be possible to write a book in response to each question.
Nonetheless, I would like to take up some of your time (and that of others) with question #8:
“8. Why is Lifeway promoting more Calvinists and their material?”
Tim G., my degrees, with the exception of one theology degree, are in Christian Education. I have read tons of SS and Discipleship Training material published by the BSSB, now LifeWay. I have read more “Convention Press Study Course books” than can be hauled in a tractor-trailer and taught about that same number also.
I know that Calvinists have always written material for LifeWay.
(I also know that liberals and nuts have written for LifeWay in the past also. We fought them hip and thigh to get them out during the CR. It was a hard fight, but that is another story.)
Tim G., I don’t believe that Calvinists (5 pt. Calvinists) are taking over LifeWay’s writing of material in any area, including SS. Frankly, I do not believe the Gospel Project is exclusively a 5 pt. Calvinist project.
Also, I know the Discipleship Training material for adults in 2010-2012 was not written or edited by a 5 pt. Calvinist toward a 5 pt Calvinist position. The Summer 2012 edition of Baptist Adults is not in any way a Calvinist work. Actually, some folks might argue that the Summer 2012 Baptist Adults is of Arminian origin. I don’t actually believe that but a Baylorite might try to make that argument.
Tim G., I for one, welcome the Gospel Project as something that has been a long time coming. I stood up in a trustee meeting in 1987 and challenged the administration of the BSSB-LifeWay as to the pitiful and innocuous content of SS material in every age division and publication. Our SS material back before the CR smelled like an “old dead skunk in the middle of the road stinkin’ to high heaven” to borrow an illustration from a 60′s theologian.
My heart’s desire is to see the Gospel Project fill a void that has been a harsh and stark reality for far too many years. If I am proven wrong, I will just be a sad man I reckon. But I pray I am right. I pray the Gospel Project brings out the gospel message from Genesis to the Revelation in bright fashion.
Tim G., I just don’t believe the writers for and editors of our material at LifeWay are dominated by 5 pt. Calvinists. Nor do I believe the plan is to make such a reality.
Again, if I am wrong, then so be it and I will admit my failure in judgment of the men I know there. But, I just do not believe Lifeway is “promoting more Calvinists and their material” at this time.
I appreciate this CB. I don’t have any inside info on Lifeway, so I like what you’ve said. Of course, I wouldn’t mind seeing a more reformed lean to the material, but I’m not holding my breath on that.
But I do like what I’ve seen of the Gospel project. In my opinion, it has more a feel of a ministry from out in Idaho called Real Life Ministries that it does any Calvinistic point of view, but I do like it because it ties everything in Scripture back to the Gospel, which I believe is the entire point.
I also appreciate the fact that you just offered a view in this blog that wasn’t in opposition to the comment of a Reformed person. But that is neither here nor there. :-)
CB,
I agree with you on some of it. My point was to start a discussion of whether Calvinists would accept Lifeway sponsoring traditional conference. There are some issues developing and only time will tell, but I am curious is this is an acceptable idea.
I am not as supportive of the Gospel Project as you are. I have seen some things and even my staff have voiced concerns as to where it is leading. Again, time will tell.
Tim, On your comments about ‘leading children to Christ’ A really helpful book for me was ‘Your child’s profession of faith’ by Dennis Gundersen. A child is not to ‘do’ anything, but repent and trust Christ. Our job is not to lead a child to pray but to share the Gospel to children. The Holy Spirit can (and does) handle conversion all by himself. We don’t have to help God out (when it comes to conversion). We are to preach the Gospel (in all of it’s glory- the person and work of Christ, define repentance and saving faith) and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. When we start saying ‘Would you like to pray now, I’ll lead you” We have crossed over juristictional lines. This is the heart of the conflict going on right now in the SBC. This is what David Platt was getting at in his comments and in his helpful sermon on John 3 at the SBC Pastor’s conference. I had to repent of “leading people to Christ” and leave that to the Holy Spirit. I can joyfully say that it has been wonderful to watch Him work, baptize the ones that He has saved and disciple those sheep (John 10) who have had a genuine heart change. I have learned the hard way that you cannot lead goats anywhere but sheep of the Great Shepherd are easy to disciple. Wonderful discussion (I think Kentucky Baptists and their upcoming conference is what we need more of).
I will return, must go teach the last chapter of Daniel! Be back soon!
Let me be clear, the TB document folks have every right to draw up any document. This blog has every right to espouse what they want. So I guess I am speaking as an interloper since I certainly would fall somewhere in a “Spurgeonist”/Calvinist camp and not in the TB camp. Many of the signers that are well known I have respect for, others I do not know.
the author of this article has many questions concerning “Calvinism”. The only problem is he can get many differing answers in that camp since there are many different positions taken there. the problem I want to address in the article is with the continued premise that those who hold any DoG view that is positive is suspect at best and bears watching. I love the way many say, “I have friends who are Calvinists”. Like they have stepped out of their comfort zone and are doing a favor of those Calvinist by befriending them or something. The tone of many articles on this blog is just that and I know some here will be asking who and which one…well actually the majority. You can probably name almost any of them. And to the folks who are going to say, “yea well you Calvinsits do the same”; because someone does something wrong never excuses us when also doing something wrong.
Once again another post about how BAAAAAAD these Calvinist pastors are and how they are dangerous….of course it is always the Calvinists pastors, never any other kind. Lets just be honest, to many in the so-called traditionalist camp anyone with any positive few of the doctrines of grace are lumped together as “Calvinists” and then those lumping them proceed to tell how dangerous all of them are.
The truth is some in the TB want anyone with any view that is positive on the DoG to take a back seat and shut-up or just leave the convention. These same folks would have anyone with any Calvinistic bent to carry a label much like a pack of smokes “warning CALVINIST and he could be dangerous to your church” and put a bell on each one of us so all the good people will see us coming. Once again this is not all in the TB camp but some who are vocal.
The question ‘were you honest with the search committee and tell them you are a Calvinists” question is as such. My question to some in the TB crowd is, were you honest with your search committee and tell them you are a Free Will Baptist? Here in the mountains of WNC that would shut the door real quick. However I wouldn’t expect you to do that and think it would be equally absurd for someone who may have Calvinistic views (as the endurance of the saints view is Calvinistic). Now to be plain and upfront on basic views of basic doctrine such as salvation and also to affirm the BFM would be good practice and should be done. Believe this or not some of us who hold to election and the sovereignty of God in all things actually did not get their doctrine from Calvin but the Bible.
And once again to proclaim the TB document as accepted by the majority is proclaim a falsehood with just 800 signers after over 60,000 people have been directly exposed to it. Like I have said before if the TB document continues to attract signers at the rate since inception you will have a majority of SB signed up in 1200 years or so.
Alan
You started out great my friend and much that you state (with the exceptions of the implications you make of the author of this article) I would affirm!!! until the fourth paragraph wherein you began doing exactly what you were decrying only with less evidence (namely drawing conclusions with little or in your case no evidence (Tim at least gave some real life examples)). If you can point me in the direction of someone in our camp who wants Calvinists “to take a back seat and shut-up or just leave the convention” that participates on this blog I will gladly privately voice my concern to that person.
Further, having pastored three churches I was very upfront when they hired me concerning my beliefs that might differ from either the leadership or the majority of the church members. It turned out they didn’t differ but even the ones I thought might (women deacons, divorced deacons, non-calvinist, and many many more) I voiced both for integrity purposes and my desire for the unity of the Bride of Christ
Finally, WOW – we have had that many viewers. This really has caught the attention of the convention. That is awesome. But as I told Jared above just because we only have 1/5 of the numbers of signers as the GCR in 1/3 of the amount of time does not make this a minority view anymore than the GCR is a minority (which had far far and away more viewers than we have had and had the entire resources of the SBC thrown its way).
Alan,
You comment hit on what frustrates me more and more each day. I gave honest history of a lifetime. No stepping out as you say. It was and is my life history. Why accuse me?
I aksed the questions to help the dialogue. Not much dialogue. A few want to argue with their drive by approach and debate tactics. The Calvinists I know are nothing like some on here in attitude and practice. Thus – New Calvinists!
“The Calvinists I know are nothing like some on here in attitude and practice.”
And that is the problem.
Tim G.,
I know Calvinists who now do not want to admit it publicly anymore due to this new breed.
I will not say that all “New Calvinists” are the Elephant in the Room, but there are some who are “hard cats to clean after.”
And there are many Calvinists who would not be part of the Founders Ministries if you held a gun to their heads.
CB,
There you go bringing up the UN and gun stuff! Do you have to tie these two discussions together? :)
Actually Brad I got the numbers of viewers off of this site and adding the numbers at the convention. And as to “some of the TB folks” who want anyone with any positive view of Dog to take a back seat i can post some of their quotes an if it isn’t a back seat mentality then i don’t know what is.
I can start off real quick by just referring you to Peter Lumpkins who wrote a whole article giving a bad critique of the gospel project just because the contributors are Calvinistic. Even though he hasn’t read the material (not most of it) and he also took exception with me saying he ‘did not remotely deal with the material of the gospel project in the article” Which that is exactly what he did for about half of the article and called it into question and even called it devastating to individual churches because the contributors were Calvinstic. Mind you he did this without ever giving any real critique of the material but because the contributors were Calvinistic. seems he wants anyone with a Calvinistic bent to take a back seat or at least be suspect in people eyes.
Now there are more out there and some blog right here. For some to call for limiting influence of individual persons purely on the basis they hold to the DoG in some way is wanting us to take a back seat. there have been plenty here and I am sure they will return again and again.
Alan
Alan
I have known Peter for over six years now and in all that time I haven’t known him to get his facts wrong. Further, his Calvinist journey may shock you. But if you believe he wants Calvinists to take a back seat or get out of the convention then just ask him. If he says he wants Calvinist out of the convention etc then I will disagree with him (but I don’t think you will get that answer).
Concerning your accusations of those who posts here I have watched this site pretty closely and have never seen anyone say they want the Calvinist to take a back seat in the convention nor they want them all to leave the convention. I know both sides can say things they regret in the heat of the moment.
I think the limited influence to which you reference is not a desire to quench the influence of Calvinist unfairly but it is a desire to increase the influence of those who do not hold Calvinistic views proportionately to the numbers in the convention (use Lifeways latest data).
Dr. Reynolds,
My apologies for the long comment. I will not make it a habit, I assure. I felt it necessary since Alan jumped from Tim’s blog after being corrected for very similar mistakes about my piece to here suggesting virtually the same.
Grace brother.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter
No need to apologize. I was glad to read both Dr. Mohler’s and Dr. Vines’s blogs welcoming the discussion of Calvinism and Traditionalism. But if we are truly going to have that discussion (and I hope this blog is one place it can happen) then we need to lay all the facts on the table. Thanks for doing so.
Alan,
Maybe you dont know, but Peter Lumpkins used to be a Calvinist.
Also, I want Calvinists and Traditionalists to be able to worship and serve the Lord together….like it’s been for years. A lot of us feel that New Calvinists are pushing the envelope, and trying to make the SBC become Reformed.
David
Peter Lumpkins is a good man……for a long-haired Hippie.
Actually David, I did know that but thanks for telling me. I want that too and do that here. I would not really even call myself reformed but hold a spurgeonist view.
Alan
Alan,
I corrected your misreading of my piece on Tim Rogers’ blog post only to come here to find you at it again. It’s one thing to speak out of mistaken notions and quite another to deliberately perpetuate the same mistaken notions after correction to the wrongly conceived notions has been delivered. However, since you insist on bringing my name back up and yet once again butchering my piece, I’ll gladly offer the same correction here.
First, Dr. Reynolds queried you above, “If you can point me in the direction of someone in our camp who wants Calvinists “to take a back seat and shut-up or just leave the convention” that participates on this blog I will gladly privately voice my concern to that person.” To his challenge, you wrote: “I can start off real quick by just referring you to Peter Lumpkins.” So because I wrote a piece critical of Lifeway’s decision to develop a curriculum the contributors of which are almost all Reformed people, I quickly qualify for wanting all Calvinists to shut up or leave? Could you please explain to us all how the conclusion follows from the premise, Alan? We’re all ears. Truth be told, it sounds more like you want someone like me to sit down and shut up if I happen to question why approximately 21 contributors were assigned to The Gospel Project and approximately 21 of them were Reformed. Yes, I can see how you might have a point there, alright…
Second, Alan, you assert I “wrote a whole article giving a bad critique of the gospel project just because the contributors are Calvinistic.” I’m not sure what you mean by “bad critique,” Alan. Would it have been a “good critique” had I said, “Way to go, Lifeway!”? I don’t know what you mean. Perhaps it’s a “bad critique” because you don’t like the conclusion. Or, is it a “bad critique” because I got my facts all messed up? If I got my facts messed up, care to share which ones? You’ll have to tease this whole “bad review” out for us.
Third, you complain, “Even though he hasn’t read the material (not most of it) and he also took exception with me saying he ‘did not remotely deal with the material of the gospel project in the article” Which that is exactly what he did for about half of the article…” First, I never once hinted, implied nor indicated I’d read anything—(though I had read the sample lesson downloadable from The Gospel Project website. And, I even gave a link to the material!). So what this ““Even though he hasn’t read the material (not most of it)” means I haven’t a clue. Why would I need to read the material when the material was not the subject of my post, Alan? The subject of my post was the team of contributors and their respective theological perspectives (here’s a link to the post for those who may want it).
Fourth, you go on to say I “called it [presumably the material] into question and even called it devastating to individual churches because the contributors were Calvinstic [sic]” Nope. You are not reading the words on the page, Alan. You’re imposing your meaning on my words, the same thing you did at Tim’s blog. First, I said while some Calvinistic churches may welcome this material, the clear majority of Southern Baptist churches which are thoroughly non-Calvinistic may be thoroughly disappointed to know their adults and even children may be indoctrinated with the doctrines of grace and not even know it. Second, you simply fabricated me calling The Gospel Project “devastating to individual churches.” I’m sorry but that’s just about the only way to describe the way you’ve botched my words. I definitively did not suggest The Gospel Project would be “devastating to individual churches”. What I actually wrote that might be “devastating” had to do with a possible scenario of an unscrupulous staffer ordering the material without being upfront about it. There’s simply no excuse, Alan, for this type of misreading. Even more twisted, you suggest I implied it would be “devastating” for the sole reason it was Calvinistic. This is just plain, sheer poppycock. Either produce the words which state such or drop the point. If you want to critique my writings, then please do. But do not put words in my mouth that are neither implied nor stated. It’s this kind of skewed “critique” that gives all bloggers a bad name.
Fifth, you repeat again your self-imposed purpose of my piece as if you’ve not been informed with a single, corrective syllable: “Mind you he [Peter Lumpkins] did this without ever giving any real critique of the material but because the contributors were Calvinistic.” I find it interesting that you earlier correctly quoted me as informing you that I “‘did not remotely deal with the material of the gospel project in the article” to which you to which you retorted: “Which that is exactly what he did for about half of the article.” Now, however, you claim that I never gave “any real critique of the material .” Are you dizzy yet? I am. Did I or did I not critique the Gospel Project material for “about half of the article”? Well, I can answer that in one word—no. And, I’ll give you a shiny new nickel for every line in the article where you can demonstrate I critiqued the material.
Let me say this once again and say it clearly: my piece was not about The Gospel Project material. I had only read a couple of samples. There was not and still is not enough material to make any type of reasonable critique of the material. What I did in that post was threefold:
Oh, sure you or another can say “what difference is it going to make?” However, so far as I am concerned, such thinking is little more than surface slush. We all know that when Romans 5, and Romans 8, and Romans 9-11, and Ephesians 1, and Ephesians 2, and any number of other texts are involved, a curriculum written entirely by strong, convictional Calvinists is going to possess a theological perspective far different from a team of authors slated exclusively from the administrators of this blog or the supporters of the Traditional Statement. You know this; I know this; Lifeway knows this. In fact, from recent days, a curriculum written by a slate of advocates from this sector would readily be labeled “heresy” by some of our Calvinist brothers who appear obsessed in making TS advocates out to be “Semi-Pelagians.” Well, wouldn’t that supposed “Semi-Pelagianism” come out in Romans 5 if authors here wrote the Bible study lesson for Romans 5?
And, to those who deny such an inherent theological perspective would inevitably be branded on the material, I simply ask, “What the heck is all the fuss about then?” Why are we arguing if theological perspective makes not a gnat’s behind worth of difference? If our theological perspective of the gospel doesn’t matter? But if it doesn’t matter, why do Dr. Mohler and Dr. Nettles among others act and make decisions (like hire only “Reformed” people, for example) which presupposes it does matter?
The fact is, Lifeway made a stupid, asinine decision to stack the Gospel Project exclusively with Reformed people when they could have just as easily balanced it out so that theological perspective could have been more even, the stronger versions on both ends being toned down by the softer versions along the continuum (so yes, we would not be talking about this today if Lifeway had a reasonable bone in its body so far as this decision is concerned). Nor does it remotely help when they “play dumb” suggesting buffoonish type responses like, “I never asked anyone about his or her Calvinism”. What a West Georgia Double Hoot!
Nor does it help, Alan, when commenters like yourself completely botch another man’s work and even after being informed about the mistakes, continue nonetheless to repeat the same mistakes as if correction had not taken place. There’s no excuse for your posting your misleading interpretation here after we engaged at Tim’s. And, it’s shenanigans like these which further breaks down communication between the two sides.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter Lumpkins said: “Let me say this one final time: the piece I wrote did not remotely deal with the Gospel Project material. If you think it did, I challenge you to post the assertions here if you can find them.”
Ok Brother Peter here goes;
1. “From a quick look at the names Lifeway publicized who are associated with the curriculum, one may be sure that the theological trajectory behind The Gospel Project, published by Lifeway and described as a new theologically driven study exploring the profound truths of Scripture, will be nothing short of a strong, robust Calvinism.”
Here you are commenting on the content of the material of the Gospel project.
2. “Think also of a staff member who would have few scruples in ordering the material for particular groups but not informing the church of the theological underpinnings of Calvinism the materials possess. A scenario like this could be devastating for individual churches”
Here once again you are commenting on the material of the Gospel project and that it would be devastating to individual churches. Also you said I completly fabricated this statement. This stement above was taken directly from your article.
3. “Perhaps a solution would be for Lifeway’s public relations department to revise Trevin Wax and Ed Stetzer’s misleading profile for The Gospel Project as simply a new theologically driven study exploring the profound truths of Scripture by adding “from a decidedly Calvinist perspective.”
Again, you commented on the content of the Gospel Project by renaming it on what you perceive/read of it.
4. “Perhaps Lifeway’s emboldened promotion of Calvinism through Sunday school curriculum for Southern Baptist churches may very well wake up the sleeping giant among us who will say, “Enough already with Calvinizing the Southern Baptist Convention!”
Here you comment again on the material and that it is an emboldened promotion of Calvinism.
If these examples are not dealing with the gospel project material what are these comments referencing when you speak of material or curriculam? You have written that due to the theological perspective of the contribitors, the gospel project will be robust Calvinism, devastating to individual churches, needs renamimg, and an embolden promotion of Calvinism. Sounds like you more than remotly dealt with the material.
I think due to your complaint of the contribitors an answer to the question I posed would be good. Do you think the work on the Gospel Project is suspect because the contributors are Calvinistic?
Alan
We had a Lifeway representative come to our church and talk to us about the coming new curriculum options for our church and the Gospel Project was one of the things he emphasized to me as we were talking.
If my understanding, the idea behind the Gospel project is to use a story-telling method, covering Scripture from beginning to end, and relating all of it back to Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
This is what I would suggest for those offering a critique based on the writers and contributors being “reformed” in their views. I would suggest that we actually wait and see what the material is before we begin offering such harsh warnings as unsuspecting churches might be indoctrinated to Calvinism without even realizing it, or whatever the quote was.
In my opinion, it’s a dangerous, suspicious, and unduly harsh criticism. The entire Scripture does not address these issues. I can tell you now that if I set out to write a curriculum of this nature, I could definitely write it without an intent of “indoctrinating” anyone. Do we not agree on the vast majority of things? Yes, I would say we do. Can we tell the story of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, the tower of Babel, and so on without trying to insert fine points of doctrine that we do not agree about into the mix?
This is just my opinion friends, but I think having that suspicion and making that accusation without actually having seen anything more than a few samples of the material, is not fostering a spirit of cooperation in the convention. Why not assume that these people have integrity and that they are not trying to turn everyone into Calvinists?
By the way, our church has been using Lifeway curriculum for years and most often it has been written by people you might call “traditionalists.” The regular curriculum is still available for anyone who wants to use it. This new curriculum costs more, by the way, but let me just say from what I’ve seen, the quality of it is much higher than anything I’ve ever seen from Lifeway, and that is just based on the sample lessons I’ve viewed. It looks really good. Forget Calvinism, Arminianism, or the like, this curriculum gets people to think about what they believe and why they believe it.
Peter,
Has it ever occurred to you that the people chosen for the Gospel Project team were chosen not for their Calvinist leanings but for their theological perspective of the Gospel being intertwined throughout the entirety of Scripture. That these people may have been chosen because their teaching/preaching/focus is on the exact continuum that the Gospel Project was intended to be?
Alan,
I’ll be glad to respond when I can get back to my office…
With that, I am…
Peter
Hi Ryan,
Interesting. So, the only ones who could have that type of theological perspective Lifeway presumed is Reformed? Well, thanks for making my point even stronger, Ryan!
If The Gospel Project chose only those people who possessed a theological perspective which matched The Gospel Project theological perspective and the theological perspective of the ones chosen was decidedly Reformed would it not follow that the theological perspective of The Gospel Project was decidedly Reformed? Seems like it would to me.
With that, I am…
Peter
Alan:
I do not expect there to be even 1 positive post about Calvinism here at SBCtoday.
Time will tell.
But I’ve seen this movie before.
I think if these pastors here were honest they would be up front with the future of the Calvinist in the SBC and it does not appear to be a positive one.
Tom Parker,
As your oldest and dearest friend in the Baptist Blog World, I am telling you no one wants to remove Calvinistic Baptist from the SBC. That is a fact.
It is also a fact that we did want liberals to get out of all of our boards, agencies, and institutions. Obviously you are still confused about some things.
Liberals and Calvinists are rarely living in the same skins.
Liberals never make good Southern Baptists. They do better at being other things.
Calvinists can be and have been very good Southern Baptists.
Let me explain it like Papa George Bush would:
Liberals —Baaad.
Calvinists—-Goood.
I hope that helps. BTW, have you given any thought to that idea of maybe joining up with the ELCA we discussed earlier? I just know you will be happy there.
Tom,
I have been nothing but honest. But I have never been asked about the future of Calvinists in the SBC. If someone were to ask me I would have to say
“I really don’t know. Jesus may return tomorrow. But should He choose to tarry I pray the Hand of God will remain on the SBC and the Traditionalist and Calvinist could visit to encourage their unity in the SBC despite their diversity on soteriological concepts. Further, I hope if there is a Traditionalist that desires to remove the Calvinists from the convention (be it a contributor here or anyone else) that the Traditionalists would address that individual. And further if there is a Calvinist who desires the Calvinists to take over the convention and her institutions (be it Founders or anyone else) that the Calvinists would address that individual.”
Would you agree with me on this? If so maybe we have some unity moving forward
Tim,
But that is not what you originally said in your post.
You wrote, “14. Why did Lifeway do a survey that offered respondents no option other than saying they were, essentially, either Calvinists or Arminians?”
Clearly, on the survey you could say you were “neither,” not only “either” (your original term).
In the news story that is the point Stetzer made. He said, “Historically, many Baptists have considered themselves neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but holding a unique theological approach not framed well by either category.”
You are saying the exact opposite of what the survey and Stetzer said. Most said they were neither– and that is the point he made. I am not usually a fan of such research– these kinds of polls don’t help because you have to ask short questions– but I thought this one actually made some sense in the way it was worded.
You may not like the question, but at least present your objection to what it actually said, not the opposite. It was not a scale where you score from one end to the other as you implied.
Chris
Chris,
You quote Stetzer as saying “In the news story that is the point Stetzer made. He said, “Historically, many Baptists have considered themselves neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but holding a unique theological approach not framed well by either category.”
It is the “not framed well…” statement that highlights my point. Thank you for catching it, even if you did so without realizing it. :)
The preschool stuff started with your line of questions. Don’t play innocent school yard bully victim. This is not my first encounter with bullies and as your interaction with comments has shown clearly you did not want an honest discussion of Calvinism.
You do not want clarification of main stream Calvinism. I know for a fact I will answer to God for my comment. I also know for a fact you will also be answering to God. We will both be responsible today and tomorrow for what we do in edifying God. Did you even attempt to win converts over to Traditional soritology. Why did you Snark back at Calvinist that attempted a dialogue. No Tim you had an agenda from the start and it was in no way to advance a soritology dialogue of sharing views. It certainly did not develop and edifying conversation of God.
Yes your first reaction will be to blame it on the Calvinist. You took the roll as teacher when you penned the article and you continued in the roll as teacher as you interacted as cheerleader to Traditionalist and Snark commenter to Calvinist. As you say it is “Sad” especially when people in your position edify God in the way that you have today. It is sad when a faith based soritologist goes after other faith based soritologist within the same organization. Some appear they want Tier 3 issues to divide the SBC pie so everyone ends up with a smaller pie, yes you are right that is sad. And on judgement day if God tells me to apologize to you I will on my knees. Until then I expect You and I will both be enrolled in Corrective Theology 101 at our first moment of arrival in his Glorious Kingdom. And as we are in class the Lord will be able to pull up this article and comments and demonstrate to both of us just how wrong we are. Look forward to seeing you in class Tim my brother.
John,
I won’t have time for class – I will be busy at the Throne worshiping!
Tim,
Nice to know you skip judgement. You are the first Traditionalist I know to admit they are already Glorified.
John,
OK, so you miss my humor. I did not realize you were wanting a sequential process at the return of Christ to identified. Geez, I should have known that. Come on man, are you serious to think that I think, I will skip judgement. I am praying I get enough crowns worthy to worship God with!
Almost every SBC pastor I spend significant amounts of time with at Calvinist. Of the 11 Pastors I’m referring too, all of them have growing thriving churches that are planting churches, sponsoring missionaries, teaching their people how to evangelize and baptizing way above the average number of converts compared to the average SBC chruch. This includes my own church in California.
Do I live in a bubble because I’ve yet to meet anyone of these proselytizing Calvinist with an agenda? I’ve met some arrogant college students who are the typical Calvinist/Arminian know it alls but they are not a representative sample.
I’ll will answer 12 and 14.
12: you apparently do not have an understanding of what reformed means to those who claim to be so or you wouldn’t have asked this question. While I’m sure you could go back further tp around the 1630′s,I believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession would be a good place start getting a proper history and understanding of Reformed Baptist. It’s also based on this history and SBC history that this anti Calvinist group hijacked the term traditionalist and try and act as if the last 50 years is the entirety of SBC theology.
14. The Lifeway poll was accurate in my opinion, though they could have used better terminology. Theologically there are only two camps; Calvinism i.e. Monergism or Arminian i.e Synergism. Those that try and say they are neither of theses are just confused at best. Any brief study of the history of this discussion would reveal that this is not a new conversation. One is either Monergistic, Synergistic or a Universalist. Personally I wish the “traditionalist” document would have been Arminian because it would have at least been orthodox.
Scott,
I think we have a disagreement that you will not concede nor will I. I do not believe there are only two camps and I think it is disingenuous to insist that there are only two.
Tim G.,
You are being gracious with Scott Hall. The idea that to say there are just “two camps” in the SBC is not just “disingenuous.” it actually reveals a shallowness in thinking.
CB,
At least you noticed! I do experience some grace in writing every once in a while.
CB Scott, if there are theologically other camps then please named for me another camp other than Monergism or Synergism?
.
Scott,
“Calvinists are heretics.”
Not nice to hear is it? Thus, I would never say it for that reason AND because I have no evidence they are. It is as untrue as your implication that the TS is unorthodox.
Thus, we don’t make such unChristlike statements. We would appreciate the same courtesy from you.
Thanks
Tim,
It is the problem Traditionalist have when they treat Calvinist with Snark replies. Many have missed Traditionalist humor. Many have come hear to find out more about Traditionalist only to be meet with Snark replies. You talk about hallway conversations you should here the jokes about the Traditionalist walking the hallways of are churches thinking they have the brightest white robes man has ever seen. But the congregation sees a naked person 40 years old. It is not a pretty joke. Many have missed Traditionalist humor and seen it as self serving pride. The Glorified walking the halls of SBC Today. You can say the same about Calvinist and group us up as new Calvinist if we don’t worship at Traditionalist feet. And you know Calvinist will admit their are some prideful Calvinist but not in a serious number that Traditionalist have to be concerned with. A book is coming out soon rebuking prideful Calvinist written by a Calvinist called. Killing Calvinism by Greg Dutcher. When is the book coming out Killing Traditionalist written by Tim Guthrie.
Yea Tim I missed your humor both in you article and in your replies. But I did hear some humor in scripture “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Now that guy can tell a joke.
I look forward to hearing some more of his jokes, with you Tim.
John,
Your response reveals much. Thank you. Praying God grows and uses you greatly!
Tim,
Your replies reveal much. Thank you. Praying God grows and uses you greatly also.
John,
Laughter is great medicine! Try it!
Tim,
I thought we left things off on a positive note of love and laughter, guess they are right when they say blogs embrace oppositional conversationalist . Ok hear goes an extra special prayer for Tim.
“May the members of Tim’s congregation be as free with their money as they are with their advice, and may their minds be open as their mouths and keyboards”. Amen
John,
Now that is some kind of prayer. Never heard one like that. Wonder how they would respond if Inprayed that Sunday at offering time? Hmmmm :)
You might want to ask your elders for input before you throw that prayer out to the congregation. But with your style of preaching and with the right delivery you may just have the congregation rolling in the isles. Best to you my brother in Christ.
Very well said.
14. Why did Lifeway do a survey that offered respondents no option other than saying they were, essentially, either Calvinists or Arminians?
Obviously I can’t speak for LifeWay but with the TS being posted 5/30/2012 and the survey results published 6/19/2012 it does not appear that the survey would have been conducted at a time when people responding could be expected to recognize the designation of “Traditionalist”. Some seem to be suggesting that the survey demonstrates Traditionalists are in the majority, but I’m not sure how this could be unless Arminians and Traditionalists consider themselves in the same camp. My own view (though I can’t support this; it is just speculation) is that there are probably about four or five major categories: Traditionalists, Calvinists, Arminians, Calminians, and Don’t -knows/don’t-want-to -be-labeled. I don’t think any group holds the majority. I do think a majority of Southern Baptists believe in Total Depravity/Total Inability and also hold to some form of drawing grace (either irresistible or prevenient) to overcome it. I don’t think most would agree with Article Two of the TS.
It is painful to read some of the responses to these legitmate questions. One of those questions deals with not leading a young child to Christ. I’m the parent of a six year old and please any of you that think you can reach him go for it I want him saved and God will sort out the proper method and proper age. It’s just unbelieveable it’s a fact that people are highly critical and in the worst most academicaly scornful way about how ministry is done across the body of Christ. I don’t get why Calvinists don’t understand that many of us have found great value in “Sinners prayer”, “Altar Calls’, Deacons making Church decisions, and a whole host of things we are being called unBiblical and actually heretics for supporting though sophisticated terms like “serious error or Semi-Peligian are used.” Instead of acknowleding the serious pain many of us feel about these issues we are told it’s without substance and imagined. Hello!!!
Jeremy,
I feel your pain… As a Calvinist I have felt the sting of sharp criticism from the New Anabaptist/New Traditionalist camp for; having Elders, not having business meetings, preaching on Election (even though I used the BFM2K for an outline), not singing from the Baptist Hymnal… And the list just goes on, and on, and on…
I even had one pastor in my local association tell me that I was “not a Baptist at all”… Why? Because I lead my congregation to end some long standing traditions in “my” church… I guess local church autonomy is no longer a “Cherished Baptist/Anabaptist Principle”?
Anyway, I think we would see a “much improved” relationship between all Southern Baptist if we would learn to trust the leadership that God has called to oversee the work of our local churches (Pastors, Elders, and Deacons) and stop trying to impose our own convictions upon other congregations that God has not called us to lead!
Grace for the Journey,
I agree Greg and I do think Tradionalists and Arminians in the SBC should be careful about how we talk about Calvinists. I’ve been guilty as has many of not appreciating the fact that Baptists have differences which shouldn’t divide. I have never belonged to a Baptist Church that didn’t have business meetings even though some didn’t go my way. I’ve seen business meetings get way out of hand. So I can see why someone would not have them. The worship wars is really to me close to legalism as to hymms etc. I appreciate you brining up these examples because we that aren’t Calvinist likely don’t give them much thought I know I haven’t.
Tim G.
As one who formerly leaned towards a soteriological Calvinism when I was younger, I think you ask valid questions of today’s “New Calvinists”. I would like to take a stab at a few of these from what I have observed.
1. Agree. I think there clearly is a divide within the various Calvinist camps on this.
2. Again, it appears to me that Calvinists are divided here. I know some who accept that a well meant offer is to all (not just the elect) and do not define world as only the elect. But I also know some who deny the well meant offer of Salvation and deny God loves the “non-elect” world.
5/10. The real bogeyman is the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the absolutely false assertion that there is ANY effort to exclude Calvinists from the SBC. From my perspective, the divisiveness and desire to exclude (i.e. recover the Gospel, Reform the SBC, etc.) is not coming from what Lifeway research clearly shows to be the majority of Southern Baptists. I think New Calvinists are a minority within Baptist Calvinists, but are very vocal and very organized.
Preemptive note : For whoever is going to ask, I want no Calvinist purged from the SBC or made to feel unwelcome. I’ll call out and rebuke anyone who does. Please do the same for us.
12/15. Reformed Baptist is an oxymoron just like a conservative liberal. There “ain’t no such animal”. But one has been created. There are obvious soteriological areas of agreement between Reformed doctrine and Calvinistic Baptists that have resulted in them wanting to take the Reformed name and adopt “SOME” Reformed practices. Nothing wrong with that. But as I understand it, High Calvinists don’t believe Baptist Calvinists are really Reformed nor Calvinists because they do not accept the whole of Reformed/Calvinist doctrine (Paedo Baptism, ecclesiology, etc.). It boils down on who gets to define the terms. I can actually sympathize with them trying to find a name that fits as I still want a different name than Traditional.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Ron P:
You said:”Preemptive note : For whoever is going to ask, I want no Calvinist purged from the SBC or made to feel unwelcome. I’ll call out and rebuke anyone who does. Please do the same for us.”
Who would even consider removing the non-calvinist–they are the majority?
I am very afraid you will get the opportunity to rebuke those folks that wil try and purge the SBC or make the Calvinist feel unwelcome as I am sure many of them feel very unwelcome at the moment.
I am a believer in Sovereign Grace, as were my ancestors who also happen to be predecessors among Southern Baptists. Research clearly establishes that the Baptists in Virginia, for example, were composed of two groups. One was a few General Baptists, and the other were Regular and Separate Baptists. The two latter groups were calvinists/sovereign grace from the gitgo. Only, circa 1770s-80s did some of the Separate Baptists develop a very small group that came to believe that Christ “tasted death for every man.”(Heb.2:9). A few of these were involved in the sufferings that were imposed by the State Church (Anglican), and they suffered along with the larger group of Particular Baptists (both Separate and Regulars). When a controversy arose and the matter of union came up, the agreement was that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man should be no bar to communion in the union of separate and regular baptists in 1787. One of the reasons was heart break over anger with folks who had once been called brethren. The aim is still to maintain the idea that the power is in the blood – not in the will of man, for the theology of the First and, later, the Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions is that of Sovereign Grace or calvinism as some mistakenly call it (they called it Augustinianism before Calvin). The theology is coming back, because it is the theology which will awaken the whole earth for a 1000 generations (that’s anywhere from 20,000-100,000 years) as well as, perhaps, millions of planets (thanks to the thinking of one accused of starting the doctrine of limited atonement??? Dr. John Owen in his Death of Death in the Death of Christ.). This is not universalism. There are souls already in Hell….and more going every day. In any case, the most invitational, inviting, alluring, appealing, attractive, compelling, winsome, magnetic, drawing, interesting, marvelous, wonderful teachings are the doctrines of grace, Predestination, Total Depravity/Inability, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints, and Reprobation. Jesus certainly made it clear that these truths were invitations or so many interpreted them in his day, like the woman of Canaan..Mt.15:21-28. The Articles of Faith of Mt. Pisgah, the church that sent out the first SBC missionary to China, Matthew T. Yates, stated that Christ died for the church – no mention of the world. Mt. Pisgah was organized in 1814, was present at the adoption of the Sandy Creek Confession in 1816, and were enlisted along with the other churches of the Assn. in the launching of the Great Century of Missions by Luther Rice who chaired the committee to draw up the association’s Confession and who in his memoirs said these doctrines of grace are in the scripture and preachers had better preach them…. Amazing! Folks don’t realize that some folks wanted that theology of the Awakenings blunted, sidetracked, and defeated….so they sent in some folks on both sides of the coin to polarize and split…Baptists…It took them the better part of a century to get it done…and still it is not done….And now the theology is coming back, because prayer is being made for A THIRD GREAT AWAKENING, and, in order to have an awakening, one must have the theology that God blesses to produce it….And history leaves no doubt about the fact that Sovereign Grace did it…
Tim I think you could find the answers to most of these questions from the mouth of prominent Calvinists in the SBC and those outside. Consider James White, John Piper, RC Sproul, etc. All SBC outsiders who have answered many of these questions. I’ll answer the questions I can.
“1. Ask 10 different Calvinists what they believe must occur for a person to be saved, and you will get at least 5 different answers.”
-This could be because the people you ask are not 5 point Calvinists. Many hold to 2, 3, or even 4 points, however, Calvinists affirm all 5 points. The 5 points stand together and cannot be picked and chosen from without rendering them inconsistent. Also, just as non-calvinists have many different views so do calvinists. It is for the same reason. Most try to exegete the scriptures correctly but we fall short due to our creaturely minds. Simply put, we don’t have the mind of God.
“2. Do Calvinists really believe that John 3:16 shows that only the elect are the ones God loves.”
The most consistent interpretation of this passage I have found is the one that harmonizes this passage with Revelation 5:9. “And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” In salvific passages in the scripture when the word world or all are used we see it as men from every tribe tongue and people. In other words not just Jews but every other tribe, tongue, people, and nation also. Although John 3:16 doesn’t say anything about the elect, the idea is that their are plenty of passages in the bible that do and this is how we harmonize the scriptures. We all believe that only the elect will be saved. We just disagree on how people are elect. One says God saw our response to his gospel in eternity past and then chose us knowing what our response would be. The other says their was nothing God would see in eternity past except our deadness in sin and so from eternity past He elected some to eternal life to be trophies of grace and He left some in their sin to be pots for dishonorable use.
“3. Do Calvinists believe that some people are born with NO hope of salvation?”
This is answered in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith. “Although God knows everything which may or can come to pass under all imaginable conditions, yet He has not decreed anything because He foresaw it in the future, or because it would come to pass under certain conditions.
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.” This is where we would disagree. By signing the traditional statement you have said that you agree people are born not guilty with a bent towards sin. Calvinists believe that every person is born guilty. We believe that God would be just if he killed every human the minute they inhaled their first breath due to their guilt. However, we also believe that God does not do this because He is long suffering and merciful. He has common grace towards all and He has salvific grace towards His children. Also, it is not as if people are crying out to God for Him to save them and He is turning them away because they aren’t His. Instead, those who are not His will never call out in true repentance and faith. They hate Him and do not want to have anything to do with the one true God.
“4. At what point do Calvinists believe salvation occurs?”
We believe that regeneration precedes faith and that faith and repentance are gifts from God just like regeneration is. As a result of God making us alive(regeneration), we respond gladly and willingly with repentance and faith(both gifts God gives us). This is why we say salvation from beginning to end is a gift from God and we have nothing to contribute. We do excercise our own faith and repentance, it is not God doing it for us. In other words we choose to follow God, but He has chosen us first. This belief come from passages like John 1:12-13, John 3:3-8, and 1 John 4:7.
“5. How can Calvinists call Traditionalists divisive when it is the Calvinists who have web sites and blogs that specifically state their desire to change the SBC and beyond?”
Only divisive if the traditionalists would want to change the Baptist Faith and Message to reflect the views of the traditional southern baptist statement. If this happened Calvinists would be forced to break off or leave the SBC. Most Calvinists I have heard are fine with the BF&M as it stands now. If there are calvinists who desire to change the BF&M to reflect something like the 1689 Londond Baptist Confession then they would be the divisive ones forcing a split. As for the statement from the founders blog they of course want people to embrace their view of a salvation just like anyone would. However, they are not talking about a forced takeover. They are leaving the changing of hearts up to God through their teachings.
“6. Young pastors and staff members are speaking and writing articles claiming it is dangerous to lead a child to pray to accept Christ? If this is true, what, then, should a child do and how should a child be lead by their parents and other influences?”
Specifically I think they are addressing the sinners prayer. Telling someone to repeat after you or say something like this is easily confused as the way you are saved and abused in its usage. I had a pastor tell me one time that if you prayed the sinners prayer that your salvation was sealed. If that is the case then why are the majority of these people either leaving the church or not active in it? Like the bible says we should plead with people to repent and believe to be saved. However, that does not mean that Christians need to remember the day the hour etc. of when they repented and believed. Some can’t remember. The way you know if someone is in Christ is not by a single event in their life that they can look back to. Instead it is the demonstration of repentance in faith in their life every day since they first repented and believed. Also, it has not been practiced in churches for very long. It is a very new practice in the 2000 plus year old Christian church.
“7. Why is Lifeway sponsoring The Gospel Coalition conferences?”
Ask Lifeway.
“8. Why is Lifeway promoting more Calvinists and their material?”
I imagine you are talking about the gospel project curriculum? What about this curriculum offends you other than that it is put together by calvisinsts? In my experience the men who put it together do a great job of preaching the gospel in every sermon they preach, not just at the time of decision at the end of their sermons. Their messages give hope to both Christians and those that God is drawing to Himself.
“9. Why are Calvinists leaders NOT doing more to instill that pastors must be upfront with their soteriology? There are even manuals on how to transition a church from Traditional to Calvinist doctrine. If there is no move to change the SBC, why are there manuals by 9Marks and others?”
First off your question assumes that most SBC churches know the difference between traditional and calvinistic doctrine. This is simply not the case. Most are ignorant of doctrine altogether. That would be like someone getting up and saying I want you to know that I agree with the traditional understanding of SBC soteriology, creation, and end times. The majority of the congregation wouldn’t have a clue what you were talking about. However, if the question arrises the pastor should be up front with the congregation. I have not seen these manuals. I searched online for them.
“10. Why the aggression from Calvinists because many in the SBC do NOT agree with them?”
If by agression you mean meaningful debate then there is nothing wrong with that. If they are angry and spitting out hatred then they are not living according to their beliefs. Calvinists doctrince is known for its extreme but I argue biblical view of God’s grace and mercy. Then it should follow that they would be humble towards their brothers who don’t see eye to eye with them since God has extended them grace that was so undeserved.
Tim, all Christians believe that lost people must repent and believe in order to be saved. That is the very heart of the gospel. Turn from your sin and embrace Christ and what he has done for you through His life, death and ressurection. We all agree on that. We Disagree on the specifics behind it. Both sides believe the same gospel. We argue over the correct way to proclaim it and share it. That is how important this doctrine is.
Johnny
I have posted oft and thus will not respond much except to say 1) thank you for taking the time to engage and honestly answer the questions from your perspective and thank you for the way in which you responded and
2) to point out I think you the comment on the sinners prayer and the history of the church (2000 years) may need some documenting; and your assumption about churches not knowing theology has not been my experience. In fact, most pastors who have preceded us probably knew and taught a lot about theology and the Bible as well.
Hey Brad, I would likely agree that many pastors who have worked in SBC churches in the last 50+ years knew theology- and likely knew it well. But to say that they’ve taught theology from their pulpits is true for some I’m sure, but not most. That’s my opinion. I’ve served on staff at 8 different SBC churches in Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, and Illinois and many preachers gave up on doctrinal sermons long ago because the people seemed to have no stomach for it. They seem to prefer therapeutic sermons, sermons on God’s unconditional love- how God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life, sermons regarding social issues, sermons that tickle their ears, and etc. I think the most popular verse quoted among Baptists in the last 20 years is Jeremiah 29:11 because anyone can fit anything into that verse and say that it’s God’s plan for them. In my experience, most (not all, mind you) SBC church members glaze over when you begin to talk doctrine and theology. If I stood up Sunday and said, “Today I want to address the attributes of God” by the end many would be snoozing. It’s because many think “what does this have to do with MY LIFE and ME?” Our culture has trained them this way and our churches have aided and abetted the culture by acquiescing and giving the people what they want.
“I’ve served on staff at 8 different SBC churches in Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, and Illinois and many preachers gave up on doctrinal sermons long ago because the people seemed to have no stomach for it. They seem to prefer therapeutic sermons, sermons on God’s unconditional love- how God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life, sermons regarding social issues, sermons that tickle their ears, and etc.”
Would it be fair to ask you to name those churches and pastors who preach shallow sermons? Or would you prefer we take your word for it?
Lydia, I’m not sure it would be fair. I wouldn’t name any of these men. They have all meant well. Some simply lacked the training or understanding to preach the depths of theology and doctrine. Some lacked the inclination. All of them did the best with what they had as far as I could tell. Some, regardless of theological leanings, may have been in ministry for the wrong reasons altogether from what I could tell. Some have split churches, others have saved churches from splits, and some have left the ministry altogether.
I should add this, in those 8 churches I have been on staff during pastors leaving, interim pastors coming in, and then another pastor coming on board. So, I’ve actually worked directly with 14 different pastors in my time in ministry, since around 1990.
After 22 years working with Southern Baptists, I’d say that my description of most of them (and I love them very much, by the way) really aren’t concerned with theology or doctrine. Most are unsure what they believe. We’ve had people leave our church, go to the Catholic church in town, leave there and go to a Oneness Pentecostal church, and then over a different Baptist church in the area. They’re more interested in kids programs than sound doctrine. Bottom line: the majority of Baptists glaze over or zone out when you begin to teach the depths of doctrine and the Gospel, and I’m not talking about Calvinism, I’m talking about things like the atonement, the Lord’s Supper, baptism, the Trinity, God’s holiness, and etc.
My experience is that they want about a 20 minute message regarding something therapeutic, like how to be a good parent, how to manage your finances, how to deal with conflict, how to be a success in life, the dangers of drugs and alcohol, social issues, political issues, family issues, and etc. Many of these things have their place, by the way, but I’m just telling you my experience. I think the true root issue is that many are either not believers or they are so caught up in the things of the world that their minds are on earthly things.
I should hasten to add, there are many in my church today who are interested in the deep things of God. They are strongly interested in sound doctrine and theology. They either know what they believe or they are in the process of learning it. I see God doing a work in the lives of many to revive an interest in these things and I am very happy to see it.
Fair enough, Darryl. There is a lot I agree with as I come from the seeker movement which is based on “felt needs” with lots of programs and shallow teaching. That is one reason I was a bit shocked to see Piper team up with Warren to teach Reformed pastors at DG.
In fact, one of the things that really shocked me was how many similar methods the up and coming Reformed wing of Christendom was using that were actually seeker type methods recycled to fit that audience.
But I agree with you about not naming names. There are people who have moved on and don’t want to stir up the pot. There are also people involved who should not be targeted online when they are NOT public figures and did not seek to be public figures. Public teachers/figures are a whole other category. These seek publicity.
I was surprised regarding Piper and Rick Warren working together as well- it doesn’t upset me in any way- just surprised me. I agree about the difference between public figures and pastors of local churches. I love the guys I’m thinking of- even the ones I didn’t get along with so well. :-) I wouldn’t want to cause any of them any embarrassment.
And I’ve had some really good pastors along the way. I believe several of them would have loved to teach more and with greater depth but I think they were afraid the people just wouldn’t embrace it. Honestly, I think this is a struggle every pastor has along the way.
Re: #12. Calvinistic baptists have been calling themselves “reformed” for a long time. Why does anyone care? In one of the last comment threads on this site, people asserted that we can’t call ourselves Calvinists either (or that if we are Calvinists, we can’t be Baptists). Why does anyone care? We don’t baptize infants, and have congregational polity. We affirm the BFM. What’s the problem?
The Calvinist/Traditionalist issue affords Southern Baptists, and especially our pastors, the opportunity to engage our congregations in the study of the Scriptures. While SBs are known to study their Bibles, more and more SB pastors are concerned about the Biblical illiteracy of their congregations. Here is a hot button issue for which much confusion exists and pastors have been afforded a rare opportunity to preach/teach on this issue.
I have found that non-Calvinists exhibit certain characteristics that would be worthy of discussion. They are:
1. God’s omniscience. Non-Calvinists simply don’t know how to deal with this. They cannot take omniscience and work it through their thinking on salvation because doing so always produces Calvinist conclusions. So, they seem to ignore it altogether.
2. Total Depravity. Charnock’s “On Natural Atheism,” in his attributes of God book gives a good exposition on this but never uses the term, Total Depravity (at least, not that I remember). The non-Calvinists need to support their side as effectively.
3. Problem of Evil. I don’t know why SBs and Christians in general have fallen for this. The “Problem” was created by atheists to confound Christians and it has been effective. Non-Calvinists seem more ripe for this deception than Calvinists. People need to start sorting out this issue and SB pastors have another great opportunity. Suffice it to say that God is not evil and does not do evil and this argument hardly proves otherwise.
4. SBs have a particular problem with children and mentally challenged people. For some reason, they simply can’t trust God to take care of these people and do what is right. More emotion here than anything else.
rhutchin
Thank you and I mean that. You have wonderfully demonstrated why the conversation between Calvinist and Traditionalist needs to occur – I assume you many Traditionalist misunderstand Calvinism about as much as you misunderstand Traditionalism with our first statement. You also seem to misunderstand some of the logical conclusions of Calvinism (problem of evil). Now I am fine with avoiding the logical conclusions via claims of mysterious or suprarational etc, but if God determines all things then he has determined the murderer to murder and the rapist to rape (two of my very close Calvinist friends affirm this – and I will hasten to say they are godly Christian men who live exemplary lives – and are logical to their belief system). And finally, we have no problem with children and handicap – we do have a problem with the idea that God’s nature causes Him to condemn them to hell (I think most Calvinist have this problem as well which is why they want to hold on to all infants being in heaven and yet they cannot answer how an infant that dies in the womb can repent and believe in the womb).
Thanks for helping us see more clearly why this discussion is necessary.
Brad,
Is it helpful to put determinism in the same arena as the Trinity and Christ’s humanity and Divinity? I cannot explain how Christ is fully God and fully human but I do not see it as a contradiction.
Being supralapsarian I do not see a contradiction between God’s Sovereignty and man’s free will.
Did God know Adam would fall? Yes.
Did Adam have free will? Yes.
Could Adam, occupying Creation as deemed by the Creator, have done anything other that what God ordained? No.
Did God author sin? No.
Was Adam punished(held responsible) for his disobedience? Yes.
Similarly I think, when Luke tells how the Cross was God’s definite plan. A plan which involved deceit, perjury, betrayal, and punishment of the innocent. God ordained Jesus’ suffering but the ones who committed the acts were in no way relieved of guilt.
Hope that was of some help of understanding our view of God’s Sovereignty and the existence of sin/evil.
-Darryl
“Did God know Adam would fall? Yes.
Did Adam have free will? Yes.
Could Adam, occupying Creation as deemed by the Creator, have done anything other that what God ordained? No.
Did God author sin? No.
Was Adam punished(held responsible) for his disobedience? Yes.”
How do you know what God ordained? Or that He ordained that Adam would fall?
Fair question. And I think it can help understand how we think.
Eph 1 tells that we were predestined for adoption is Christ before the foundation of the world. This adoption is equated with our righteousness. Paul is saying that God knew we would need a Redeemer before the world existed.
How could something happen that God did not ordain and He still be Sovereign? [And ordain does not mean 'caused'.]
“How could something happen that God did not ordain and He still be Sovereign? [And ordain does not mean 'caused'.]”
I think a lot of things happen that the Sovereign God did not ordain.
By the way: please explain “ordain”, if it doesn’t mean “cause” and yet you link it to “could something happen”.
As far as Eph 1 goes: the predestination has nothing to do with the problem of sin and evil. Thus “before the foundation of the world” God wanted us to be His sons.
Darryl and Darryl
I think Holdon has a point concerning God’s will and ordaining. We know God’s desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) but apparently in your understanding of will He hasn’t willed it.
Why would God desire something He doesn’t will unless something else is happening and perhaps the comment about Adam’s free will cracks the door a bit to see what else is happening.
If God gave Adam “free will” then by definition of free God would have to “ordain” things in accord to how Adam freely acted (Adam’s choices). Awe – perhaps here is a nugget. God knowing all things, knew it was good to create a free man. In so doing the rest of what God would do in relation to man would be in concert to mans freedom to choose and act and God ordained such freedom to man, because He is God.
Brad,
We do both believe that God wills all men to be saved but we know that all men are not saved. Therefore, something superceeds that will. You are arguing that it is man’s will. I will argue that it is God’s Sovereignty.
We are in agreement that Adam had free will but I would say he did not have the liberty to go outside the bounds of God. You are arguing from the viewpoint of a man-centered world view, which is consistent with your position. However, it requires an elevated or sacred view of man’s will which I do not believe the Bible supports. The hardening Pharaoh’s heart; death of Eli’s sons; the 10 kings in Revelation. Are just a few of the times God overrode man’s will for his Sovereign Plan. So God willed things to happen that involved violating his decrees(will) of behavior for men. As you might expect I am going to argue that there are two wills with God, secret will and decreed will.
If we agree that man is born with a desire to sin then we also agree that ‘free will’ in the absolute sense cannot be applied to man Post Fall. We did not ask for a desire to sin but Scripture teaches we are still responsible for those choices. We are also born without the ability to discern Spiritual things(1 Cor 2:14). Man’s desire to sin must be replaced by a desire to please God. This brings us back to Traditionalist’s black box. I say we have examples of God replacing our desire to sin with a desire to please Him Ezekiel 36, Paul’s Damascus Road experience, and the opening of Lydia’s heart.
Adam was unable to make the correct choice but if we say man is self-determining in salvation then the argument is that God somehow removes the effects of sin(the black box) and then believers make the correct choice, of their own free will, where Adam failed we now, free from outside influence,succeed. If it is free will like Adam then Grace is not impacting the decision; if Grace is influencing the decision then it is not free will in the sense that Adam.
I do agree with you that this is a very limited way to communicate. Forum based comments, please :->
Darryl W,
You mentioned 1 Cor. 2:14. Could you tell me how this verse supports Calvinism?
Darryl W
You say “you are arguing it is man’s freewill, I will argue it is God’s Sovereignty”
As if God’s Sovereignty was so limited. You claim I have a man-centered view but it is the Calvinist who put the Sovereignty of God in a box small enough to comprehend. I say His Sovereignty is So GREAT it can and does contain man’s free will – what an amazing God – sounds like Isa. 55 when he contemplated Gods universal invitation and realized Gods ways were higher.
Concerning Pharaoh – in the 10 plague narrative God hardened Pharaohs heart in 4 plagues – Pharaoh hardened his own heart in 3 plagues and in three we are told simply it was hardened – sounds much closer to my view of Gods Sovereignty containing man’s truly free will tether than Gods determining man’s free will which removes all freedom.
I have had this conversation more often than I desire to recall but at the end of the day the logic breaks down for the Calvinist. Either God directs men to rape and murder or He does not. You cannot say God directed Pharaoh to do evil by keeping the children in Egypt but He doesn’t direct rapists to rape and murder little children.
I know this is a horrible medium but hopefully I have helped others understand my position
holdon,
I’m going to be a bit limited on time today and I hope you are asking these things in order to understand how a Calvinists thinks.
I cannot reconcile your interpretation of Eph 1 to the text.
We believe that anything that happens, good or evil, is ordained by God(Lamentations 3:37 and many other places). God repeatedly states that He is running the show. We are not saying that God does evil but He does allow evil to be done(Job) for His purposes.
Ordained means it is in the control of God and He willed it to happen in order to fulfill His glorious plan. That is how we interpret Romans 8:28. We do not see God as reactive but proactive. Scripture testifies that God causes some disasters and He also allows other to come about. All things work to His glory.
-Darryl
That is an excellent explanation Darryl, from your other brother. :-)
Before I began studying the Doctrines of Grace, I had no answer for why evil existed other than “people do what they want and God lets them- people are evil, not God.” The trouble is, that leaves me with a world in which my faith in God is shaken. If God is good and He knows men are doing evil and will continue to do evil AND He has the power to stop it, why does it exist?
The same dilemma exists regarding the cross. Was that outside the control of God? Or does not Isaiah say that it was God’s will to crush His own Son? The question I would have to wonder is “what if these people who were acting completely freely had not crucified Jesus? what hope would we have?” That leaves me asking, “Did He simply ‘foresee’ what would occur and then adjust His plan accordingly? Was the cross an afterthought or a means of God reacting to man’s choices?” And for that matter, what of the atonement? If Christ’s death simply ‘makes possible’ the salvation of men but leaves the actual salvation to their choice, how can God even guarantee a Bride for His Son? If sinful people are left to their own devices, can ANYONE promise a Bride to Christ?
I know there are likely much better answers offered to these questions than I have pondered previously, but the answers given that consider a completely sovereign God in the mix are much better and ring truer. And, incidentally, they also give me a much greater sense of security, knowing that all things are under His control. This does not mean that evil things will not happen to me, but I know they will be made to result in my good and God’s glory.
Darryl Hill,
Similar story on my pursuit of the Doctrines of Grace. My question was how could I have chosen Christ with an unregenerate heart and it not be meritorious. But this is not the place we should affirm our mutual beliefs.
I do hope that those who do not believe as we do find our participation here helpful. We are not enemies of Christ but Children of God who are searching the Scriptures for answers.
-Other Brother Darryl
Thanks Darryl, I don’t have a whole lot of time either.
“We believe that anything that happens, good or evil, is ordained by God(Lamentations 3:37 and many other places).”
Ok. So, according to you God ordains evil.
Also, I don’t see that Lam 3:37 says that all is “ordained” by God. To me it says that God does requite for evil deeds. See also verse 33 of the same chapter, that goes against your point:
“for he doth not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.”
“Ordained means it is in the control of God and He willed it to happen in order to fulfill His glorious plan.”
So, the most heinous sins (rape, etc.) are “His glorious plan”? Please confirm that.
“Scripture testifies that God causes some disasters and He also allows other to come about. All things work to His glory.”
Here you seem to use the word “cause” again as equivalent to “ordain” you used just before. So, which is it? Is Rom 8:28 not God “causing” all things work together for good?
How does Rom 8:28 expand to all things for all people? (because it speaks about “those who love God”?
Too bad that you can’t see my point in Eph 1. Even if Adam had not sinned, he still wouldn’t have had the “adoption” of which Eph 1 speaks or be conformed to the image of the Son of which Rom 8 speaks.
Holdon,
I do apologize for the slow response but I knew it would be a busy day for me. Thank you for your patience.
I understand what you are saying about Ephesians 1 but I have never heard anyone argue that Paul was not talking about the eternal plan for God to redeem mankind. I sat in a classroom at SWBTS as a Traditionalist, in a room full of Traditionalists, and no one argued against the presented interpretation. Verses 3-14 are one sentence in the Greek. It is difficult to reconcile a separation of redemption from the idea of God’s omnipotent plan. If there are scholars who do this then I must confess my ignorance.
I do believe Scripture shows God decreeing bad things. It is stated in Lamentations 3:37, with verse 32 showing that God does cause bad things to happen, there is also Amos 3:7, Isaiah 41:23- God saying if the false gods are real let them do good or bad, Isaiah 45:7. There are also many times it is described as King David knew intimately(2 Sam 24). God sent a pestilence that killed the 70000 men for David’s sin. That is a lot of widows and fatherless children that paid for the sin of the king. God takes the life of David’s son (2 Sam 12:15). It is certainly not God’s desire to see us suffer but sometimes it is God’s will for us to suffer 1 Peter 3:17. Which goes back to Brad’s question that I responded with the two wills of God.
Sorry about the wonky blockquote. I may have put in bad html. It’s late!
Spoken like a true supra. If there was an eternal plan to redeem then there was an eternal plan to plunge creation in evil and sin. So, in short the Planner is to blame for that.
Well, that’s probably because your thinking is supra. So, in your conception of the “Omnipotent Plan”, God wanted sin in this world knowing that all would be lost and He could save only some.
I don’t see predestination to salvation at all. When I see “predestination” it is to a certain purpose useful to God (not so much our condition). The predestination clauses are always followed with a “that” clause that gives the reason and salvation is not among the reasons given. Yes, Paul wrote long sentences, but I sure don’t know what you want to infer from that.
Look, God bringing about bad things, of course these verses speak to that. (apart from the last one where evil-doers do evil to the believers.) But what we were discussing is not God punishing for sins, but whether evil is “His glorious Plan”. That the actual situation is so bad, does not mean that God willed it to be bad in the first place. And He is still working to bring it to a good end: a very good end. We know God hates evil, so how can it be “His glorious Plan”? And: isn’t it possible to explain these things differently, while keeping all the facts straight: that God is Sovereign; that He absolutely hates evil; that He is absolutely Good; that the world is absolutely bad; that Man was created perfectly good; that Man is now absolutely lost and in need of salvation? I think there is a better way than Calvinism (Augustinianism), that cannot do other than make God the (ultimate) cause of evil.
But “God allowing” it is obvious: otherwise it wouldn’t happen. But the question is whether things can happen without God causing them. And whether the current state (if God “allowing” means He wants it be so) is His will already? Why then pray: “your will be done” if it is done already?
But coming back to the issue of God’s Sovereignty: He sovereignly created Man in His image and likeness and gave him dominion (sovereignty) over the earth with the built-in freedom to exercise his will: choose before or against God for instance. It was His Sovereign will to continue with fallen Man, while questioning his state and motives, holding him responsible. And to announce the judgment of Satan through another Man, Jesus Christ, in order to clear this mess up and salvage those who will come on a non-coerced basis according to His own loving heart: whosoever will, come! “he that will, let him take the water of life freely.”
This is a better way than to say “God has 2 wills”. It is all His benevolent will from beginning to end.
Brad,
You say, “You also seem to misunderstand some of the logical conclusions of Calvinism (problem of evil).” You have been sucked into this illusion (created by atheists which should be a red flag) of a problem of evil. There is no problem of evil and it is not a logical problem for Calvinism. You accept the atheist’s definition of evil and from that point, you are dead meat for the atheist feast.
There are two things the Calvinist affirms – omniscience and omnipotence. This means that God knows all future events and God’s decides whether to intervene to change any event or to allow natural forces to play out unhindered by Him. Thus, God decides every event that happens – He ordains them but He does not have to cause them. The only way to avoid the Calvinist conclusion is to deny either omnipotence or omniscience. This is what the Open Theists figured out so they have chosen to deny God’s omniscience.
rhutchin
“There are two things the Calvinist affirms – omniscience and omnipotence. This means that God knows all future events and God’s decides whether to intervene to change any event or to allow natural forces to play out unhindered by Him.”
WOW – are you sure you are a Calvinist? Does God know all who will accept Him and thus decides to intervene or not? Sounds like foreknowledge plays a primary role in salvation.
PS – who is in control of the “natural forces” that play out?
PSS – Why would God choose to change an event he predestined to happen according to His Will? Can He even do such?
The Determinists make God’s knowing of all things the instrument by which (somehow: call it “ordain” to have a nice vague term) all things do happen. According to the Determinist omniscience means that the fact must be known; must be knowable; so the fact is determined before the knowledge really. In that scheme despite saying that “man has his own responsibility”, man does not really have a choice: he must do what God (fore)knows; the fact is “actualized”. Thus fundamentally, all morality is gone: whatever happens is God’s will. It’s not different than the “inshallah” of the muslim. Man can say: it must have been God’s will. Some will say: “the woman you gave me….” Gen 3:12
The Open theists will actually have a similar reasoning. If (fore)knowledge determines what man does, then he is not free and morally responsible. But we know that man is a moral being and free, thus, (fore)knowledge does not exist for all man’s actions (only for some actions; prophecies and such). God only knows when the action is “actualized”: the future is “open”.
The truth is that God knows all things all the time, but is not necessarily doing the “ordaining” of all things. Foreseeing is not foredoing. Of course sometimes He does “ordain” certain things. Even then, humans have a choice. He does not make the sinner sin (James 1:13). Jesus wept willing to gather the people of Jerusalem who were not willing. He was not “ordaining” them to not will, as is clear from this text, but they had rejected Him.
holden,
Excellent reply above. This paragraph will preach:
“The truth is that God knows all things all the time, but is not necessarily doing the “ordaining” of all things. Foreseeing is not foredoing. Of course sometimes He does “ordain” certain things. Even then, humans have a choice. He does not make the sinner sin (James 1:13). Jesus wept willing to gather the people of Jerusalem who were not willing. He was not “ordaining” them to not will, as is clear from this text, but they had rejected Him.”
rhutchins,
I believe in the omnipotence of God. I also believe in the omniscience of God. I’m not a Calvinist.
David
rhutchin: You’re killing me. The “if you thought this through clearly you’d be a Calvinist” rhetoric is not only demonstrably false (and I say this as a Calvinist) but absolutely counterproductive to cooperation between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. Your comment is insulting.
The problem here is understanding Calvinism and I am not convinced that you do. The foundation on which Calvinism is built consists of the attributes of God and the depravity of man. That is why Calvin and guys like Charles Hodge spend so much time talking about God and then man before even trying to get into ULIP. As a general rule, those who oppose Calvinism must (make that MUST) deny that God is omniscient and/or that man is totally depraved.
If you are a Calvinist, then you know that Calvinism is firmly planted in the nature of God and the nature of man and that people who deny Calvinist must either deny God’s superiority and/or man’s inferiority. I do not understand why you think this is false thinking or why it might be counterproductive to force discussions of these issues.
rhutchin,
Respectively, people like you are one of the reasons why the Traditional Statement came to be.
David
That should’ve been “respectfully.”
Many in this thread asked Rev. Guthrie for proof of a manual by 9 Marks on how to move a church from wherever it may be theologically to a more Reformed position. Though the posted link below doesn’t lead to a manual, it is at least digital verification of Guthrie’s claim. Here is that proof, posted here w/permission from 9 Marks.
http://www.9marks.org/journal/roadmap-church-reform
There are also two other articles on the linked page including the Reformation of a church in Durham, N.C., and an article on what makes church Reformation possible.
The first point of advice in the linked article is “Preach the Word.” The primacy of preaching is something we all applaud.
But perhaps the first step in the church Reformation process is that the pastor ought to tell the church leaders of his intent to move the church from its current theological stance to a Calvinistic one.
I agree a Pastor should be up front and make changes only as a congregation is ready.
As a Calvinist in SBC churches all my life I have never understood Congregationalism. It seems to be the source many conflicts. I think this is relevant because I often feel like Western Philosophy colors a good bit of SBC polity.
-Darryl
“As a Calvinist in SBC churches all my life I have never understood Congregationalism. It seems to be the source many conflicts. I think this is relevant because I often feel like Western Philosophy colors a good bit of SBC polity.”
I hear this a lot from the Calvinist wing. But as someone who has worked with many an elder led church, I can tell you the difference is this: Conflict is hidden in elder led because they lead lemmings. Conflict is NOT hidden in congregationalism because they have to deal with it and like watching congress on C-Span it can be messy. So one could very well be fake unity simply because the pew sitter is not interested and turns everthing over to a few to decide. That is not really “Baptistic” at all. The Casserole ladies have always been interested and voted.
When I came back to the SBC years ago, the most joyous occassion was the Wed night business meeting. I was in rapture. After all the intrique and backroom plotting I had seen from a few elders running things, it was pure bliss to listen to Bob, once again, make a plea for new sound equipment and the discussion by everyone that followed.
And I would love to hear you flesh out what you mean by “Western Philosophy” as to this subject of congregational rule. Jesus said ‘do not lord it over as the Gentiles do’ and I believe he was referring to the Greek chain of being type hierarchy (or Roman military) which is what many churches actually practice with elder rule or topdown hierarchy. We can talk a good game about elder led not being that sort of hierarchy but because of the flesh, it almost always ends up that way. Best to think of ourselves always as servants first. Perhaps “leader” never as some cannot handle it.
Brother,
I think you might be a little confused. Nowhere in this article is reformed theology mentioned. I think the phrase ‘church reform’ is throwing you off. However, with this phrase 9 Marks is referring to what some entitle ‘church revitalization,’ not reformed theology.
Regarding the Andy Davis’s article, remember that his main issues were complementarian gender roles and liberalism, not reformed theology. While he mentions reformed theology, it isn’t the main thrust of his article by any means.
Thx for your comment John. One question: When a Calvinist uses the word “reform,” would it be unreasonable to conclude he/she used it as a noun (reformed) and not a verb? It is at least a fair assumption to make on a Calvinistic web site from a Calvinistic author.
Thanks. I would say it is best to not assume anything about anyone. One must look at the content of the article, not just one word in the title. Consider the content of the article you posted, it deals exclusively with ecclesiology (church membership, etc.) and never once mentions soteriology.
Norm,
I read the articles you linked to. The reform in question appears to be all about church polity, not Reformed theology. Case in point – the “reform” of the church in Durham was away from liberalism (women ordained, etc.) toward an elder-led polity. Fascinating story, by the way.
I think we need to be careful in conflating these two issues. I know churches that are far from being Calvinist who have recently moved to plurality of elders. And I know lots of Reformed churches that have the typical Baptist polity (pastor, staff, deacons).
But I do agree with you – if your intention is to eventually change things in a church, whether it’s about structure or whatever, you ought to be up front about the future vision you have for the church. Changes in polity shouldn’t be sprung on church members as a surprise.
Thx for the clarity, Kyle. I appreciate it. Though I am not familiar with the Durham church’s history, I’d be curious to know if in that reformation the church landed at a Reformed, or Calvinistic theology.
Thank you for the link. I had previously known it but had deleted the link. I for one like the advice, no matter if it is reforming in the sense of becoming Calvinistic or just bringing a stalled church back to running like a NT church.
Alan
Norm,
Your link is very informative on many levels. This is what needs to be done by folks that blog in the Christian world. Source the facts with links. It would be helpful for all that write articles to attend Blog World and sign up for the basic courses of proper blogging techniques.
I know blogger conventions are more boring than the SBC in NOLA but it sure would advance the conversations greatly if the Christian Bloggers learned the basics of sourced structured articles and implemented them.
Regarding the idea of “reforming a church” I would just like to say a couple things.
#1 It would be foolish to attempt to force a church to believe something the people do not believe.
#2 If by preaching the Word and teaching what a pastor believes from Scripture, the people within a church begin to consider these things and gradually have their views change, should anyone have a problem with that?
#3 Any pastor whose attitude becomes “believe like me or get out!” regarding these finer points of theology is committing sin and should be reprimanded.
I have a friend who I mentioned in a post earlier in this very thread who found himself pastoring a very traditional (according to the recent statement) Southern Baptist Church but also simultaneously having his own views regarding soteriology change in mid-stream. He struggled with it. He considered resigning and finding another church that was perhaps reformed. Instead, he was honest about his realizations with the congregation and everyone stayed put. He was simply preaching through the Gospel of John. He just kept preaching through the Gospel of John. When he came to a text that taught something related to these doctrines, he preached them. When he came to a text that taught something else, he didn’t try to work in reformation theology. He just preached the Word. In the process of this, the church has remained intact. Some have left. Many have stayed. It’s been difficult. But he has not once said, “Agree with me or leave.” That is one of the most mission-minded churches in our area, by the way. They are active in both their own community and throughout the world and their people understand theology and know what they believe. Even those who have left understand theology and know what they believe- and they can recognize when someone is telling them differently. That’s much more than I can say for most Southern Baptists in the area.
That is my opinion of how something like that should happen. If a church is resistant, who is going to force its cooperation? Not me. How can you force someone to believe something? I don’t think you can. You can persuade, for sure, but you can’t make them change their minds. The pastor should leave if he finds himself at odds with a congregation. I can tell you this because I’ve been at my church for 12 1/2 years as a staff member- if my staying meant a split or harm would come to this church, I would leave. I think that should be the attitude of every loving pastor no matter what camp he is from. I’m not saying he shouldn’t stand his ground on non-negotiables, but this is not a matter of breaking fellowship in my mind.
Thx so much, Darryl.
Norm,
“But perhaps the first step in the church Reformation process is that the pastor ought to tell the church leaders of his intent to move the church from its current theological stance to a Calvinistic one.”
I will agree with you here if you will modify your statement to include all pastors (Calvinist, Arminian, New Anabaptist) out to tell the church leaders of their intent to move the church from it’s current theological stance to one more closely aligned with there beliefs.
After all according to the new LifeWay survey 30% of our churches now openly identify themselves as Reformed or Calvinistic, and if we are truly concerned about pastors disrupting the peace of our local churches we must address the danger that an Arminian, or New Anabaptist, Pastor poses to a Reformed or Calvinistic church as well.
Grace for the Journey,
Mr. Guthrie:
One thing that would help me with all of your many concerns would be to– define simply –New Calvinist.
My thanks in advance for clearing up my confusion.
Tom Parker,
I read in the Greensboro paper, just this morning, that due to the lack of rain in the mountains there in NC, the Black Bears are coming down into the lowlands where you live. The article stated the bears are very “thirsty” and “hungry.” I also know that Black Bears are very fund of Blackberries and there is an abundance of Blackberries where you live.
I am going to visit NC in a week or two and I really like Blackberry pie. Might I impose upon you to go out today to a Blackberry thicket and pick me some Blackberries? Also, make sure you take a couple of gallons of water with you.
CB,
LOL
David
I had very smart person tell me that we have undone the reformation by accepting the text and language of the RCC bible. We need a restoration. Tell the people the truth that the church RCC changed the NT to fit the politics of the day. Remember they killed people if you disagreed with the pope. Restoration of a few words shoulc be a good start. Restore the names of ISAIAH and JEREMIAH since you will see the truth of what the RCC did to our beloved word. ISAIAH = YashaYAHUW, JEREMIAH = YermeYAHUW. Can you not see the NAME. That is what we should restore not reform. 1 John (YAHUWchanon) tells us what is important in this debate. The prophets names mean ISAIAH (The Savior is YAHUW) and JEREMIAH (The resurrection of YAHUW). LORD = YHWH restore YHWH. We must focus on the fact that we are on a journey stop giving people a lie. Look what it is doing.
Another key point is restore the translation of the 3rd commandment that the NAME never should be treated as unimportant. We do that with LORD, JESUS, GOD. I always ask what God do you believe in my friend.
Keith YAHUW Winfree graduate of SBTS
Keith,
Thanks for the very insightful comment…
Grace for the Journey,
New Calvinists are Calvinists, who make thier Calvinism a matter of fellowship. They’re aggressive and militant in their Calvinistic views….they want the SBC to become Reformed. They are the types, who would be for converting people and churches to Reformed theology….it’s like a mission to them.
I know of regular ole Calvinists, who are not like the above paragraph. I can worship and serve the Lord all day long, and I believe they’d have no problem worshipping and serving the Lord with me. But, I find it very difficult to “get along” with the New Calvinists, who might call me a Semi Pelagian; or a heretic; or who say that I am someone who needs to really preach the Gospel; or, who wont hire anyone but Reformed people to teach in their Seminary/Baptist College; or, who only put 5 pt. Calvinists on their advisory board for a new SS curriculum; or, who sneak into a Church, which is not Reformed, and try to make it Reformed; or, who black ball someone wanting to be a DOM, but he’s not a Calvinist, so “NOPE!” Now, I can, and do, get along very well with regular Calvinists; even though I dont agree with them on some non essential doctrines. But, I do have a hard time with the New Calvinists. And, I do see the New Calvinists as the Elephant in the Room….and, I do not appreciate the division they stir up in the SBC. I also see them as the reason why the Traditional Statement even came to be….why we even see a need to have this said.
Well, anyway, there it is. Chew on that for a while.
David
In my opinion not only do we have an elephant in the room, but also a snake in the grass! As one of the pastors at our local SBC church stated in reference to the “Gospel Project” controversy, “What is happening isn’t even Christian!”
Cristian,
So as not to read into what you typed, could you elaborate some on that comment?
I rarely comment on this blog. My Reformed friends say that I am not truly reformed because I don’t believe all of the 5 points. I suppose my non-reformed friends would call me something short of a 5 point Calvinist, which my Reformed friends say doesn’t exist.
Tim, I will take a stab at answer your questions. Here goes:
1. Ask 10 different Calvinists what they believe must occur for a person to be saved, and you will get at least 5 different answers.
ANSWER: This is not a question. I guess it is a concern. This has not been my experience. I believe that Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Tom Ascol, Danny Akin, David Platt, Timothy George, Ed Stetzer etc. all say the same thing about salvation.
I believe that they agree with the solas of the Reformation. Salvation is by Grace through Faith.
2. Do Calvinists really believe that John 3:16 shows that only the elect are the ones God loves.
ANSWER: No. God loves the entire world and all of his creatures. I guess the question could be asked that if God loved the entire world, why would He allow some to reject the Gospel? Why not just transform everyone and open their eyes with so much love and power that rejection would be an impossibility. Why create a world where it would be possible for people to be deceived and reject God in the first place?
3. Do Calvinists believe that some people are born with NO hope of salvation?
ANSWER: I have never heard it put that way. That is the thing about theological debates. One person can have a proposition. One who disagrees can couch the proposition in such language that it truly sounds repulsive. For example, we believe that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, died on the cross for our sins, and made our forgiveness possible. Our detractors say, “Are you saying God kills his own son, employs divine child abuse, to accomplish forgiveness? Why can’t God forgive in some other way? Is He not great enough to forgive without killing his Son. Why could God not have set it up otherwise?” Of course we don’t believe that. It’s the way things are said that makes a difference. People are born with hope, but for some reason that is unknown to us the truth of Romans 9 still applies.
4. At what point do Calvinists believe salvation occurs?
ANSWER: There is some mystery here obviously. The precise millisecond is not knowable to us. When the person believes in Christ, they are saved by God’s grace.
5. How can Calvinists call Traditionalists divisive when it is the Calvinists who have web sites and blogs that specifically state their desire to change the SBC and beyond?
ANSWER: Much has been made of the Founders’ desire to impact the SBC. This desire is completely legitimate, and should not be characterized using the old Moderate Baptist lingo “takeover plan.” The Founders wanted to emphasize Reformed theology and see that spread across the convention, just as any group may have its own emphasis and seek to promote it.
I believe all of the talk about who is divisive and who is not is silly.
Until some group launches an overt political campaign to elect SBC leadership that will only promote their preferred nominees etc., everything is fine. Anything short of that is normal denominational life.
6. Young pastors and staff members are speaking and writing articles claiming it is dangerous to lead a child to pray to accept Christ? If this is true, what, then, should a child do and how should a child be lead by their parents and other influences?
ANSWER: It can be dangerous to lead a child in a way that is manipulative. This should be written about in my opinion, but also balanced with Jesus’s call to let the children come to him.
7. Why is Lifeway sponsoring The Gospel Coalition conferences?
ANSWER: Lifeway is free, I believe, to sponsor these conferences. Lifeway is free to sponsor other conferences, too. I suppose that many Southern Baptists attend these conferences, and Lifeway wants to be a part of conferences that promote the Gospel and have large Southern Baptist participation.
8. Why is Lifeway promoting more Calvinists and their material?
ANSWER: I do not know that Lifeway chooses what to promote based on whether the writers are Calvinist or not. I believe that there are many good writers who sell well today who are Calvinist. I suppose that there are non-Calvinist writers that fit the same description. It is true that Reformed theology has become more prominent in recent years, and this has raised an entire new crop of writers who are good writers. The Founders, Dr. Mohler and Southern and 9 Marks did not become prominent because of Lifeway. But their activities over the last 25 years put a whole new crop of good Reformed writers into the Christian market. Lifeway should sell their material, I suppose. Are there some writers who are being promoted who should not be?
Also, Dr. Rainer is not a five point Calvinist.
9. Why are Calvinists leaders NOT doing more to instill that pastors must be upfront with their soteriology? There are even manuals on how to transition a church from Traditional to Calvinist doctrine. If there is no move to change the SBC, why are there manuals by 9Marks and others?
ANSWER: I have not seen any material that tells young pastors not to be up front with their soteriology. I have seen advice to young pastors about how to present their soteriology in an appealing and understandable way.
Opponents are not free to dictate to people how they get to present what they believe.
Sometimes I get the impression that some non-Reformed people feel like they get to insist that every young Reformed pastor must march into a church and declare “I am a Calvinist” as the first words out of his mouth.
Those people don’t get to dictate that, however.
People who believe in a certain theology have the freedom to present it in the most appealing way.
It would be like universalists saying, “Why to Evangelicals hide their theology by talking so much about God’s love of all people. If they were honest, they should come out and say openly as a first matter that God does not love infidels if they do not accept the Evangelical precepts.”
10. Why the aggression from Calvinists because many in the SBC do NOT agree with them?
ANSWER: Aggression exists in the world of ideas because humans are involved. The debate here is not between “Old Calvinists” and “New Calvinists”, but between “Good Calvinists” and “Bad Calvinists.” Any group has its bad representatives. That is true of Non-Calvinists, too, isn’t it?
11. If the BF&M is enough, why do we have two seminaries requiring faculty to sign other statements that are Calvinist/Reformed documents?
ANSWER: Southern Seminary existed before the BF&M was created in 1925 and Southern already had the Abstract and required professors to sign that. In fact, the main drafter of the original BF&M, E.Y. Mullins, was the President of the Southern. So, there was no conflict in the minds of earlier SBC generations between Southern having and maintaining the Abstract and the SBC churches adopting the BF&M.
That way of thinking apparently continued when Southeastern was founded.
Paige Patterson, not a Calvinist, was President of Southeastern, and as far as I know never expressed concern about the Abstract there. I think that Dr. Patterson’s example in that regard is a good course for us all to follow.
For all I know, the other seminaries may have confessions or mottos etc. that do not conform to the BF&M. That’s o.k. by me.
Your question really needs to be directed to those generations of Southern Baptists who preceded us and people like Dr. Patterson.
I believe that any movement to take action to force Southern and Southeastern to abandon the Abstract, assuming those institutions did not want to do that, against so much Southern Baptist History, would be a divisive step. See my points about divisiveness above.
12. Since when did Baptist and Reform go together? The day-to-day operations of the church do not even match!
ANSWER: I am not sure that I understand this, given its wording. Just let me say, for example, that James P. Boyce and John Broadus, 2 of the 4 founding faculty members at Southern were both Reformed and were well integrated as churchmen in the SBC. There appeared to be no conflict about that. The same could be said of the other 2 founding faculty, William Williams, and Basil Manly, Jr. (who authored the Abstract, and whose father, Basil Manly, Sr. was a pastor and President of the Unviersity of Alabama). Both of these men were active in SBC church life.
13. If there is no takeover plan, why was there an SBC Professor giving the benefits of the takeover (even using a racial slur) at one of the meetings during the SBC?
ANSWER: Again, with respect, you are using Moderate Baptist langugage used to describe the CR, which was overt political activity and advertised as such (which was necessary) to change the Trustees at SBC institutions. The Founders and other Reformed groups, to my knowledge, have never proposed or taken any overt political program to push their agenda. The have used speaking, publishing, and conferences, to persuade and educate. It has been successful in many ways.
These avenues are open to all in SBC life. Hence, the John 3:16 conference etc.
Again, if either side launches political activity to try and push their plan and exclude others, I will be opposed to that.
14. Why did Lifeway do a survey that offered respondents no option other than saying they were, essentially, either Calvinists or Arminians?
ANSWER: I cannot answer this. I did not see the survey. But the use of “essentially” causes me some concern. But again, I cannot answer that. Some surveys are better than others.
15. With the exception of infant baptism, since when were Baptist and Presbyterians so much alike? Dr. James Kennedy was my kind of Presbyterian, but today’s new Calvinists are nothing close in belief and practice. Just think back to Evangelism Explosion materials (I was certified as a trainer in an SBC church). Today’s new Calvinists would reject Dr. Kennedy’s material. How and why?
ANSWER: I heard Dr. Kennedy speak at the SBC years ago. I like many things about the Evangelism Explosion material. I would not use it because it’s not my style. But the theology is great. I have not heard any so-called “New Calvinists” criticize the EE material’s theology. But I would not put any program on a pedastal such that it would be shielded from correction or criticism. I found some of the old evangelism material that I used years ago. Man is it bad. But it was good then.
I do not believe that any Baptists are going to start doing infant baptism or using Presbyteries or Ecclesiastical courts. These are significant differences.
Of course, Baptist churches have had elders over the years. It was more common in the 1800s than today, but it is seeing a comeback. I go to a church that has elders. It is very helpful. But I note that even Mark Dever writes strongly against what he calls “Elder Rule.”
Given these differences, I don’t think that Baptists are in any danger of becoming Presbyterians.
So, there you go. Those are my takes on these issues. Just one man’s opinion.
Louis
Thx for your input, Louis. Come back more often.
Im not a worthy spokesman by ny stretch of the imagination….but here goes. Lol
1. Ask 10 different Calvinists what they believe must occur for a person to be saved, and you will get at least 5 different answers.
This is not a question….but I’ll respond as if it were. Every fellow Calvinist I know says that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. All who believe by genuine repentant faith will be saved. For more detail…. I’d recommend “What is the Gospel”, by Greg Gilbert.
2. Do Calvinists really believe that John 3:16 shows that only the elect are the ones God loves.
Of course, John 3 deals with salvation and I believe, as it states….that anyone who believes by genuine repentant faith will be saved, by the means of God’s graceful gift of the penal substitutionary death of His Son apart from any merit or works of man. Period.
3. Do Calvinists believe that some people are born with NO hope of salvation?
Despite the phrasing of the question (have you quit beating your wife?) ….. I’ll bite. Yes. Don’t you? Or are you a universalist? Fact is not everyone is saved. Not everyone hears….or do you believe in salvation granted in a different way that through personal faith in Christ? If salvation is by means of human choice….then if no one ever chooses….then Christ would have died in vain, right? Wouldn’t it be possible for no one to believe at all? Of course God loves all men in a Creative sense….but only to those who believe does he granted right to be sons of God, and thereby receive his familial love.
4. At what point do Calvinists believe salvation occurs?
Like the bible says “we were chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world”
5. How can Calvinists call Traditionalists divisive when it is the Calvinists who have web sites and blogs that specifically state their desire to change the SBC and beyond?
Because writing (with numerous past SBC presidents) a document regarding salvation stating that those who disagree are not real southern baptists is in fact, by common sense, denominationally divisive. If the intent was not go marginalize and put us in our place…please explain what you really meant…because that’s how it came across.
If your contention is “the founders do it, so we will too”….that seems particularly, not only juvenile, but an incredibly weak and shallow reason fr doing something. Also, if your saying it’s wrong nd divisive for the founders…how can you then justify doing it?
6. Young pastors and staff members are speaking and writing articles claiming it is dangerous to lead a child to pray to accept Christ? If this is true, what, then, should a child do and how should a child be lead by their parents and other influences?
Caution is a really good thing! For the life of me I can’t see what the rub is here. I would not use the word dangerous. Children are incredibly impressionable and adult approval seeking. I encourage our children and teen workers to avoid manipulation….however inadvertent. I give the same cautions regarding adults BTW.
Easy believism and manipulative shenanigans should never, ever define our evangelistic practices. We want to call people to salvation, but we don’t want to create “false converts” at any age!
7. Why is Lifeway sponsoring The Gospel Coalition conferences?
$$$$$. Lifeway is a business. They also sell and feature health wealth and prosperity materials, oneness theology authors, and the liberal leaning national youth workers convention. If you’re wanting to place them under the total funding and control of the messengers…then make that motion. …. Otherwise they’re going to operate as a business.
8. Why is Lifeway promoting more Calvinists and their material?
See above. They’re not theological gatekeepers….haven’t been for a long time.
9. Why are Calvinists leaders NOT doing more to instill that pastors must be upfront with their soteriology? There are even manuals on how to transition a church from Traditional to Calvinist doctrine. If there is no move to change the SBC, why are there manuals by 9Marks and others?
9 marks does not teach how to change to Calvinist doctrine….but how to change to biblical doctrine and practice. Which of the 9 marks themselves are you against?
BTW …. There are also manuals (published and distributed by state conventions) on how to spot a calvinist.
10. Why the aggression from Calvinists because many in the SBC do NOT agree with them?
I personally know of no aggressive calvinist ….but personally know of LOTS of aggressive traditionalists. (please try and stop lumping us all by our most obnoxious bloggers, and we’ll try and stop lumping all traditionalists by some of your most obnoxious bloggers)
11. If the BF&M is enough, why do we have two seminaries requiring faculty to sign other statements that are Calvinist/Reformed documents?
Because they’re academic institutions and continuity is important. Also, these documents to which you refer date back to the seminaries founding.
12. Since when did Baptist and Reform go together? The day-to-day operations of the church do not even match!
I do not think I understand this question.
13. If there is no takeover plan, why was there an SBC Professor giving the benefits of the takeover (even using a racial slur) at one of the meetings during the SBC?
Don’t know what you’re talking about.
14. Why did Lifeway do a survey that offered respondents no option other than saying they were, essentially, either Calvinists or Arminians?
Ask them.
15. With the exception of infant baptism, since when were Baptist and Presbyterians so much alike? Dr. James Kennedy was my kind of Presbyterian, but today’s new Calvinists are nothing close in belief and practice. Just think back to Evangelism Explosion materials (I was certified as a trainer in an SBC church). Today’s new Calvinists would reject Dr. Kennedy’s material. How and why?
D James Kennedy was a five pointer.
Back to the lumping idea….that’s a broad stroke! I, nor any of my Calvinist, brothers would reject Kennedy.
The YRR crowd that so often is called “new Calvinists” are young and fired up so to speak. Give them a break…. I was there at one time too and bet you were too (maybe you weren’t a Calvinist, but you were fired up about your new found and newly minted theology….most if not all students and new graduates are obviously, in their own minds, “smarter” than their professors, parents, and everyone else. Lol
I haven’t lost my passion for sound theology, but I have learned with experience how to temper the fire so as not burn the joint down…lol.
I hope this helped.
As a guy who is a 5 pointer, let me say that your answer to #4 is troubling. We are chosen before the foundation of the world, but our salvation is not realized until we repent and believe in Christ in response to the preaching of the Gospel. What you have said is very close to what was called “eternal justification.”
Scott,
Earlier in this thread Tim G. was hit pretty hard for making the following comment:
“You and I have always agreed on this. Yet I keep hearing comments that go something like this: You guys think you needed to ask Jesus, while we just realized we were.
Big difference!”
In a recent comment, Dave answered Q #4: At what point do Calvinists believe salvation occurs?
Dave’s Answer:
Like the bible says “we were chosen in Him, before the foundation of the world”
You challenged him in your comment thusly:
“What you have said is very close to what was called “eternal justification.”
Scott, does your challenge to Dave, not resemble the conclusion that Tim G. has come to concerning the position that some Calvinists hold relating to Q #4?
A review of Calvinism and the quagmire it has caused within the SBC are summarized at http://www.christianapologetic.org/thology.htm#2 .
Pastors, appointed SBC bureaucrats and elected SBC political hacks are terrified to reveal and defend their own beliefs on this issue. They blubber magnanimous statements about peace and unity while hoping church congregations remain ignorant. SBC institutions and leadership show, on this issue, the character, trustworthiness and truthfulness of of used car salesmen, ambulance chasing lawyers and career government politicians.
The simple solution to this problem is for each of the 46,000 Southern Baptist churches to identify themselves as either Calvinist or Traditional Baptist. Each church can then decide which seminaries they wish to support and which pastors they wish to hire. 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.
“The simple solution to this problem is for each of the 46,000 Southern Baptist churches to identify themselves as either Calvinist or Traditional Baptist”
Do you really think that this is a good idea? Have you considered how many SBC churches have internal disagreements on this matter and yet practice unity among their members? Have you considered the damage and the splits that would happen if every church had to pick a side?
Setting a broken bone or dislocated shoulder only hurts once.
You are talking about potentially breaking 46,000 bones, many of which are perfectly healthy. Fortunately, this kind of top-down mandate to local churches could never be a reality in the SBC, so we need not worry that it could become a reality.
Dan, as you have noted, that suggestion really is divisive.
I have no problem whatsoever supporting all of our seminaries by giving to the CP.
I believe that all of our seminary Presidents would support that approach.
And yet, here is a suggestion that we do just that.
I cannot imagine a more divisive proposal. It’s intent and effect are to divide.
“The simple solution to this problem is for each of the 46,000 Southern Baptist churches to identify themselves as either Calvinist or Traditional Baptist.”
A young SBC pastor in my area just did a remarkable thing! He painted “Reformed” on the bottom of his church sign and updated the church website to explain what reformed theology means. Current and prospective members now know exactly where church elders stand in belief and practice. While I don’t agree with his theology, I certainly appreciate this young man’s integrity. I suspect this opened up an internal church discussion among his members, perhaps with some weeping and gnashing of teeth similar to blog debates, but a “family discussion” of this sort at the local church level across the SBC landscape would be a healthy exercise. As Dr. McLaughlin notes, dislocated body parts need to be tended to for healing to occur. Local pastors need to get more engaged in this conversation with their congregations.
Dr. B. : Your suggestion assumes that Southern Baptists will only affiliate with those two categories. But “traditionalist” as a movement is only in its infancy, and already there are a number of non-Calvinists who have decided not to sign the TS.
True of the GCR as well
All,
As I watch this thing unfold here, here are a few observations as someone who is SB but serving in the broader evangelical community.
1. I think it it very ambitious to try an create a third established category of soteriology. The three proposed categories of soteriology Arminian, Calvinist or Baptist are problematic. I guess you could call the third one that is being proposed Traditional Southern Baptist. But to call it Baptist won’t work because that eliminates Freewill Baptists, General Baptists who are Arminian, but nonetheless Baptist. It also eliminates Particular Baptists, Independent Baptists, and Missionary Baptists and every other stripe of Baptist that holds to some degree of Arminian or Calvinist doctrine. Mohler pointed out well in his response to the TS that these labels of Arminian and Calvinist have stuck for some reason. Currently at White Horse Inn, Michael Horton and Roger Olsen are debating theological matters using these terms. This how the larger evangelical world speaks of soteriology. Thus the three categories would only seem to have any benefit within the intra SBC debate . . .and even then they are problematic. I also don’t think you can say Anabaptist because Anabaptists like Mennonites don’t really align with that soteriological positon either. Either way, the label will be tough and that has been well documented.
2. In response to why do SBC churches look more like Presbyterian churches? I suppose that has to do with elders and elder rule. Outside the biblical evidence for elder rule, I think a leaning toward this is found not just in the SBC but in churches in general beacuse of the abuses of congregationalism. By this I mean basically a democracy where the majority rule on matters of church decisions. My challenge to SBC churches who hold stongly to congregationalism is, do congregationalism better.
3. I have seen the the Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel metioned here as well. Once again let me give my perspective on the broader Reformed movement out side of SBC life and then how it impacts within. Colin Hansen has articulated this much better than I can, but consider a few things.
In an increasingly secular and atheist society, a Calvinist, Doug Wilson is leading the way in confronting the godless views of Hitchens and Dawkins. In a time where young professionals are leaving the church, it’s Tim Keller in NYC who is doing the hard work of minstering to them at Redeemer Presbyterian. A fellow Baptist, John Piper’s preaching for the glory of God to nations has opened the eyes of whole new generation to missions all over the world. Piper has also been influential in reintroducing Jonathon Edwards and C.S. Lewis (a non-Calvinist) to the hearts and minds of the church. Josh Harris, through his writings and conferences helped a generation understand dating and marriage in Christ-centered way. Even groups like Reformed Univeristy Fellowship through Indelible Grace music have opened the eyes of worshippers to the old hymns of Anne Steele, John Rippon and Issac Watts. And J.I. Packer’s “Knowing God,” Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Mahaney’s focus on Spurgeon, all these things have provided robust helps to a growing generation of believers. And add to that Mohler and Dever’s contributions.
And Calvinists have answered the oft criticism that they are not mission-minded or evangelistic.
My point is that the issue is only in a small part about the TULIP. I believe the reason younger people are flocking to Reformed thinkers, is because these preachers, writers. etc are speaking with a view to the glory of God, and an indentity with suffering for Christ, they are answering the call to “do the hard the things.”
I am not saying that no one on the Traditionalists side is speaking to these things. I am saying that I think Reformed thinkers are currently doing it better.
My challenge to the Traditionalists is this. I don’t think you will influence Calvinists and those who sympathize with these Reformed movements by arguing ordo salutis, or by arguing matters that are theological tensions that will never be resolved. I think you influence the YRR crowd and the generations to come by speaking biblical truth to the issues of the day. I think you influence the YRR crowd by doing congregationalism well, by continuing to and even more so send missionaries where Christ is not known. By raising up pastors and speakers who are committed to being “radical”. That you write excellent material for Bible study that not only is fitting for SBC life, but goes outside the convention and impacts evangelicalism as a whole.
The church needs revival, reform, restoration, repentance, revitalization, and whatever other “r” word you want to attach. I don’t care whether it comes from Calvinsits, Traditionalists, or, and wouldn’t it be great if it came from our Arminian Weslyean brothers. Any way, my two cents from one who is from you in the SBC but works among the larger evangelical community.
m.b.
Amen!
M.B.
A good word from a great perspective.
A couple of disagreements though since we are SB.
1. SB official document of belief would nullify elder rule (BFM2K article VI). Let me further add I want all Baptist Calvinists who are part of the Southern Baptist Convention to remain, but honestly if any are more Presbyterian in their ecclesiology why would they want to stay? Unless, they wanted to make such accepted by those of us who believe in a free church (and when we say free we mean FREE – not top down rule, but democracy) – what’s at stake here is the foundational Baptist doctrines of soul-competency and the priesthood of believers.
2. While having a third category may prove difficult, it has existed since the reformation – the Anabaptist movement in her inception and her primary theologian (Hubmaier) would definitely not fit into the theology of the Presbyterians traced to John Calvin, nor the Methodists traced to Jacob Arminius and certainly not in either one of the eccleslogical understandings. Many of us may sadly, but for conscience sake, be like our forefathers and reject the heeds to conform to one of these two camps.
3. Agreed with much of the other ideas you have. Especially influencing those outside SB which is what Truett-McConnell College is seeking to do:) through her curriculum, her World Missions Center, her Creation Research Center, etc
Brad: Your #1 response is a little confusing and a little frustrating to me. I’m not sure where MB mentioned elder rule. That’s the confusing part.
The frustrating part is that we Calvinists have to continually point out that elder-led is not the same as elder-ruled. ALL SBC churches are elder-led and congregationally governed, ( or perhaps there is an insignificant minority that are not.) Elder=pastor. ALL pastors are expected to lead.
Just because we call them elders instead of pastors does not change our ecclesiology. Just because we have a plurality of elders does not change our polity. If anyone can name 20 SBC churches that have true presbyterian elder-rule, I’d be astonished.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet (if baptists were allowed to gamble) that a close examination of SBC churches would reveal that the most top-down, undemocratic, authoritarian governed churches in the SBC are non-Calvinist megachurches.
“In fact, I’d be willing to bet (if baptists were allowed to gamble) that a close examination of SBC churches would reveal that the most top-down, undemocratic, authoritarian governed churches in the SBC are non-Calvinist megachurches”
Very true. It is a necessity that arises out of the system itself and funtions more like a board of directors with the CEO on the board. And it is a big problem. The more distance between the pastor and the pew sitter the worse the problem.
I think it is a big stretch to say all SBC churches are basically elder led. This is another problem with our definitions being so different. What you describe is not the SBC I grew up in that I personally prefer and believe more biblical. The pastor and other staff ministers were also priests in the priesthood but paid. They viewed themselves more as servants than “leaders”. They did not “cast visions” for us or make any decisions that would affect the entire body without the body discussing it first. If they did they would not have lasted long. But most did not think that way to begin with so that was a blessing.
Things most definitely have changed. And I do not think it is for the better.
Lydia,
I see your point, but what I was driving at was, regardless of leadership style, all SBC churches have elders (pastors) and they are, in one way or another, leaders. Some no doubt are barely leaders, while some envision themselves as a Christian version of William Wallace.
Our church has plural elders. We teach, preach, visit the sick, baptize, marry, and so on. And we are also constitutionally barred from presiding over congregational business meetings. All trustee business, maintenance, and all other administrative functions are handled by the deacons or other elected officers, with congregational oversight.
That is awesome, Bill. I come from a world where the term “elder led” is used but the reality is elder ruled. Jesus described himself, while here, as a servant. It might help behavior if we used that terminology because our view of “leadership” is usually more the worldly chain of being style: Sombody has to be in charge of the adults…… instead of Jesus.
Bill Mac
Please go back and read MB – Specifically point number 2 – in part “Outside the Biblical evidence for elder rule…”
It may shock to know I affirm elder led. Elder is pastor in NT – which is why we believe in 2 offices not 3. Hence my point above about the BFM. but I also affirm all elders are worthy of their labor (not just some) and they should all be paid (1 Tim 5:18) and all be apt to teach.
PS – I try not to ever post a comment engaging what someone said unless I am sure of what he said.
Thanks
Brad: Thanks. Your point #1 was in part responding to MB’s point number two, which is what confused me.
I’m still not quite catching your take on Elder-led vs Elder-ruled. In what way are SBC Calvinist churches like presbyterians? Which ones are elder-ruled?
Bill Mac
I didn’t say any were “elder rule” – I said “if any are…”
Thanks Scott. I should have been more clear.
I pad typing while the tv is on children’s shows is difficult…lol.
I actually believe as Calvin and Turretin did….
“God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.” – John Calvin
“The decree of justification is one thing; justification itself another — as the will to save and sanctify is one thing; salvation and sanctification itself another. The will or decree to justify certain persons is indeed eternal and precedes faith itself, but actual justification takes place in time and follows faith.” Francis Turretin
Brad,
Thanks for your cordial response. Given that all of the camps view that their view is founded on Scripture (Calvinists, Arminian and the Traditional view), do you get the impression from SBC Traditionalists that they would be okay with referring to it as a Hubmaierian view, since the Hubmaier view acknowledges the Baptist history stream that goes back to the Anabaptists and builds a case pre-Calvinist and pre-Arminian?
Thanks,
m. b.
MB
Sadly I thnk many Baptists may ask “who is Hubmaier”
Brad, say what you will but that document explicitly denies original sin. All the spin blogging in the world is not going to fix that. Now I do not believe that most of the men that signed the document deny original sin, however they signed a document that clearly does. That statement is outside of basic orthodoxy. Therfore the document tis unorthodox.
Scott,
You are wrong.
DAvid
Scott
So most of the men who actually affixed their names to something don’t know what it meant (although PhD in theology, Bible, History, etc were part of this group) but you do, even though you are unable to pull a sentence that says “We deny original sin…”
Humm let me try and play that game with you
Scott
John Calvin explicitly denies limited atonement. All the spin blogging in the world is not going to fix that. Now I do not believe that most Calvinist deny limited atonement
Kind of sounds absurd doesn’t it?
You have soul-competency to call us heretics just don’t get mad when we rightly affirm it is unChristlike –
One of the reasons I am on this comment stream is to engage others to think and to grow myself but I am certainly not opposed to letting people see the genesis of the disunity. There are strong words from both sides on blogs. But one side keeps calling the other heretics and that is a very very strong word. They like to say “I didn’t use that word” but the church did use it and so Semi-Pelagian is definitely seen as heretical by the Christian Evangelical world.
Scott,
You are totally wrong!
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how “…rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned” doesn’t deny the doctrine of imputed guilt. This statement isn’t even in line with the past traditional view among SBC much less other Baptist historical documents on the subject. It denies imputed guilt therefore assaulting the doctrine of imputed righteousness.
Saying to me “you are wrong” as if that will somehow shut me down isn’t helpful to genuine discussion and something I don’t even allow my children to do each other. I see now that “tradition” again rules the day right or wrong.
I thought this was a discussion of questions about theology. I see that it’s not, so I’ll move on and go pass out bibles in my neighborhood with our teenagers even though Calvinist aren’t supposed to do that.
Scott
Two things.
Imputed guilt is not the same as “and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-”
Also, speaking of traditional Baptist statements lets look to THE Southern Baptist statement concerning this:
“Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity INHERIT A NATURE AND AN ENVIRONMENT INCLINED TOWARD SIN. Therefore, AS SOON AS THEY ARE CAPABLE OF MORAL ACTION, THEY BECOME TRANSGRESSORS and are under CONDEMNATION” (BFM2000).
and now
“every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin” (T.S.)
Sound familiar?
Now we do carry these to the logical conclusion that man is not rendered guilty until he has personally sinned. But please, tell me how you interpret the BFM2000 otherwise? Are you saying at the moment of conception infants are capable of moral action?
I hope that is helpful
PS – Thank you for your faithfulness to spread the Word of God. I pray God blesses you and the teenagers and that many will come to faith. Such a commitment should be an inspiration to all of us to share the gospel today. Thank you again.
Scott,
Do you not see that this statement goes along perfectly with the BFM2K? So, do you also believe that the SBC is Semi Pelagian and flirting with heresy?
David
Scott is correct although I will give the benefit of the doubt to the writers that they likely did not intend to deny original sin. Here is a link to an observation of Article 2 by Roger Olson http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-“a-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation-”/ His work, especially “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities”, has helped me see that Arminianians are not semi-Pelagians as I had begun to believe. This does not change the fact that most American Christians, including Baptists, are semi-Pelagians as Olson also contends. I am not trying to cast accusations against anyone on this blog but simply pointing out that Calvinists are not the only ones who believe the statement falls outside of traditional (ironic isn’t it “traditional”) orthodox Christianity.
Rob,
Olsen is wrong. The statement is right in line with orthodox Christianity.
But Olson is absolutely not wrong. He wrote, “Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists.”
That’s exactly what happened, if I’m not mistaken… The Calvinists have taken this statement and used it as ammunition. And the reason they’ve been able to do that is because it can be interpreted as semi-Pelagian. Again, I am not trying to say that this was the intent of the authors but it immediately threw up a huge red flag to me when I first read the statement.
And aside from all this, I think it’s a bit deceptive, and I do believe this was intentional, to present this as the traditional view Southern Baptists have held. We have to completely deconstruct and re-write history to make that assertion. Welcome to postmodernity and the demise of absolute truth.
Rob,
So, are you saying that all the SBC are wrong about this? That the entire SBC is in error? Because, as Dr. Brad Reynolds showed you above, it goes along with the BFM2K perfectly!!!!!!
David
I do not think that the statement as a whole is semi-pelagian but I don’t think there is a doubt that the denial in article 2, when considered alone, could easily be construed as semi-pelagian. I do not believe that was the intent of the writers or signers, though DR Hankins gives me pause with some of his views and writing.
Having said all this, I think Olson could be onto something when he makes the case that a likely majority of evangelicals are functionally semi-pelagian.
“Having said all this, I think Olson could be onto something when he makes the case that a likely majority of evangelicals are functionally semi-pelagian.”
Sadly, I believe you and Olson
are correct.
Darryl
The denial in article two was not intended to be considered alone anymore than “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” was intended to be considered alone.
Also, Olson may be on to something – I know many “Christians” who follow Joel Osteen.
Rob and Everyone else…
Rob wrote, “I do not think that the statement as a whole is semi-pelagian,/b> but I don’t think there is a doubt that the denial in article 2, when considered alone, could easily be construed as semi-pelagian.”
I can take ANY theologically based statement and make this application… including the Bible itself.
We can read ANYTHING we want to taken by itself… and construe it any way we want too.
><>”
Bob,
I did not make that statement. Thanks for your input.
Rob
Sorry… cut and pasted from Darryl’s statement…
><>”
Hey guys. I know that denial from article 2 is not intended to be taken alone and that is why I said I don’t think the entire statement is semi-pelagian. But here’s a thought (which I admit may be unacceptable to some but it’s just a thought): why not clear up any confusion and avoid even the appearance of evil and simply rephrase that article? Actually, if I understood Dr Hankins correctly in the interview posted here, he even offered that perhaps portions of the statement could be revised for the sake of clarity. I could be wrong there but I believe I heard him correctly. If that were done, the semi-pelagian charge would be all but dead in the water.
And hey, you wanna talk about an olive branch or a good faith gesture? That would be quite a statement and an undeniable sign that the traditionalists are seeking unity and continued cooperation. Just a thought.
Darryl,
Do you realize that SB’s Seminary Presidents and Professors signed this? Do you not realize that Baptist College Presidents and Profs signed this? That Pastors with Dr.’s degrees and Masters degrees signed this? I mean, they actually read it….thought about it….mulled over it….and then, they actually signed it….that it was what they believed?
Do you think they’re stupid? Do you think they’re so ignorant that they wouldn’t have thought about all of this stuff that you and others bring up? Do you think that they didint carefully think about whether this part of the statement went beyond the bounds of good theology, or not? And, that they didnt carefully check it out with the BFM2K?
Seriously….think about this….
David
David, it is not my intention to insult their intelligence. Sometimes things get by us. It happens. If I am looking at something from a certain angle, I might miss a detail that didn’t seem critical to my intent. I’m just suggesting that if the trads want to help move this whole discussion forward that my idea could be huge in that regard.
Darryl,
Do you think it got past 800+ people, including all of the theologians, who signed it? 800+???
David
It’s just a suggestion David. I don’t think it will happen, but I’m imagining how the reformed community would respond to the humility that would be involved in doing such a thing. I’m thinking those who are guilty of what the statement alleges would probably respond with “it’s not enough- it’s still wrong” but those who truly desire peace and yet have been taken aback by the statement would be immediately disarmed and would respond with grace.
I think of it this way- when I’m in the midst of a debate with a brother or sister in Christ, I can take one of two avenues. I can go for the jugular and set out to prove them wrong, or I can use gentler language and seek an accord of some kind, even if there is not complete agreement.
Actually, I could point to my own posts on this web-site as an example. When I first read the statement I was indignant, even frustrated. My initial posts here were defensive and aggressive. I’m sure I upset several folks. But the Lord showed me (through the posts of some seeking true unity) that my approach was wrong and not accomplishing what I truly want. The truth is, I want the Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done more than to win an argument or attempt in a futile way to change the minds of people.
So, by God’s grace, I changed my approach, I’ve had positive exchanges with most everyone. I guess that’s point. Offer an olive branch and disarm everyone. I would gladly say the same thing to reformed brothers as well. That olive branch just hasn’t come to mind as yet. Perhaps you might suggest one.
Darryl,
I do love the heart and spirit of your discussion. May we all follow that path!
Thank you!
Darryl,
If unity is to come then those on both sides will need to reflect the spirit you reflect.
I’m not much on the revision idea for two reasons: 1) It isn’t Semi-Pelagian; and 2) It reflects our understandings of Scripture. But I appreciate your thoughts toward unity.
I am much on trying to find ways to promote unity.
Goes to show that all the education in the world does not make one wise.
Rob
I have read the TS numerous times I still can’t find where we denied original sin. Do you kind pointing me to the quote? I think you may have a hard time finding it yourself. I understand why Dr Olson wants us to be Arminian but we are not. But you seem to continue doing what so many do – reading into the statement from your theological perspective. Please don’t read your theology into the statement we signed and we will try in return not to tell you what you believe about salvation.
Thanks and I hope at is helpful
BR
Also, Rob, can you point to where it goes against what the BFM2K states?
And, deceptive? What do you mean by that? Intentionally deceptive? Can you explain what you mean about that?
Boy, it should’ve just been called the Biblical Statement, and we could call ourselves “Biblicists.” I think it’s just this side of silly that so many people have such a problem with the name “Traditional.” Wow.
David
“Boy, it should’ve just been called the Biblical Statement, and we could call ourselves “Biblicists.” ”
They tried that a few years ago during the Ergun Caner/James White deal and couldn’t get it to stick. Somewhere in a sermon back then Jerry Vines actually said he wasn’t neither a Calvinist or Arminia but a Biblicist.
yea… it seems like calvinists don’t like any terms but their own.
><>”
I really do not believe that Dr. Jerry Vines put the words “wasn’t” and “neither” together in a sermon relating to being a Biblicist.
Although, I know for a fact that he is one and one with impeccable integrity and the highest of biblical standards in his ministry and lifestyle.
May we all seek to follow Jesus as he has through the years.
Cb,
It was Ergun Caner who said it on one of his History of Baptist lectures for a LBTS online class. He stated he was neither a Calvinist or Arminian but a biblicist. I don’t know about Jerry Vines. Rob
Rob, I believe CB was talking about Dr. Vines not using the words “wasn’t and neither” in the same sentence; not that Dr. Vine’s didnt call himself a “Biblicist.” It was about the bad grammar. Dr. Vines and me, and many others, have used the word “Biblicist” to describe where we stand, theologically; because we are not Calvinist,or Arminian, or Semi Pelagian, or any other “ism.” But, Calvinists got mad about us using that term, too.
David
Volfan007,
There are over 16 million southern baptists. Judging by church roles vs. attendance over 7 million of them have likely not been in a church since they were teenagers but they were all baptized as infants when they had the hell scared out of them at a VBS gospel presentation. They don’t know what they believe about salvation except that they’re on a church role. Take another 6 million who come to church because they know that’s what they’re supposed to do on a Sunday morning. They don’t know what they believe about salvation except that the U.S. needs to help Israel. Then you’ve got another 1.8 million who also come on Sunday night and Wednesday and serve on all the church committees. Sadly, they also couldn’t articulate what they believe about salvation because all they want to study is the end times from a fiction series. That leaves you with about 1.2 million who actually study their Bible to hear what God says instead of trying to force the bible into their preconceived theological boxes. My point in all that is that if the 14.8 million who know nothing about biblical theology and the doctrine of salvation hear a title “Traditional” they will automatically believe it is as infallible as their Scofield study bible notes, their baptist hymnal, John Hagee, or the Left Behind series- without even reading the statement.
The reason I said it is deceptive is based on history. The statement is not what American, or even English Baptists, have traditionally believed. But if by traditional, you are referring to the medieval Roman Catholic church then I will cede that you are likely correct in that it is the traditional view of salvation but I doubt anyone would want to present it that way.
“…over 7 million of them have likely not been in a church since they were teenagers but they were all baptized as infants when they had the hell scared out of them at a VBS gospel presentation.”
This is simply an assumptive statement made based upon a newly formed ignorance among so many when speaking of the history of the SBC.
7,000,000 “infants” did not have the hell scared out of them in VBS during a gospel presentation. That is absurd. Many children who went to the average VBS in the past did not even have the gospel presented to them.
Liberal Ed. Ministers and liberal Sr. Pastors and mindless, theological dwarf, Children’s Ministers who were influenced by Cos Davis and crew did not want to “scare the children with the gospel.” They sought only to present the concept to children that God loved them, making them ready for the gospel at a later time.
I am constantly amazed that so many guys make comments on blogs who were never really involved in the working structure of a local Southern Baptist church.
Many of you were in some dip-stick, youth ministry led by a guy with a “Big Brother” mentality of student ministry and you were never in the true ministry of the church of which you attended. You were just there for the fun and games. Then when you got out of high school, went to college or work and started chasing women in a serious fashion, you ceased to attend church all together.
Now that God has given you saving grace, you look back on your pseudo- “church” experience and condemn all others for theirs.
The truth is that a great multitude of biblical pastors, Ed. Minister, Children’s Ministers and even some true Youth Ministers were building NT churches, making true disciples and running godless liberals out of the SBC. Also, for a great many, it was more difficult to respond to the gospel in VBS than in any other thing we did because we did not want to make false disciples out of children.
Rob, you simply do not know that of which you speak.
Cb Scott,
You don’t even know me to make all those assumptions about me. You assume I’m a young Calvinist who has never been involved in any form of ministry in a SBC church. Please scroll back and find anywhere in my comments that I professed to be a Calvinist. Also, just for your future knowledge, I am a doctoral candidate with 2 masters degrees, I have served as a Sunday school teacher, Awana leader, youth pastor, pastor and now I am planting a church. True, I did not grow up a southern baptist. The reason I became one is because I studied what they claimed to historically believe and it was most in line with what I believed. I hope you are not as arrogant and proud to those you do know as you are to those on this blog that you don’t know. God bless you
Rob,
I did not state you are young. I did not state you area Calvinist. I did state you are ignorant as to much of what you state relating to Southern Baptists and you are.
Cb,
What you are stating is that just because you have not experienced something in your life means that it has never happened anywhere. Think about it, I’m ignorant as to what I’m stating because you’ve never experienced it. Consider the possibility that you may be ignorant as to some of the things that happen in other southern baptist churches that you are not present in. Is that a possibility? Yes, in hindsight I can see that it was wrong of me to paint such a broad brushstroke over the entire denomination based solely on my personal experiences in southern baptist churches and dialogues with other southern baptist pastors. But that doesn’t change the fact that what I described does happen in some southern baptist churches.
“What you are stating is that just because you have not experienced something in your life means that it has never happened anywhere.”
On the contrary Rob, that is actually what you “stated” in your comment about the 7,000,000. You made a false assumption based upon something you do not actually know. That equates to “you” not having “experienced something in your life” so you made a false assumption.
I simply pointed out your ignorance in doing so.
Wow, Rob, sounds like a whole lot of straw men and anger in your statement. Why the anger?
David
David,
My apologies if I came across sounding angry. That was not my intention at all. Guess I just hit a nerve, huh?
Do me a favor please. Cb Scott thinks I’m ignorant and don’t know what I’m talking about. Funny thing is, he doesn’t even know me nor do I know him. Go to your pastor and ask him how many people are officially on your church role. Then compare it with the number of people who were there last Sunday and next Sunday. My guess, and I could be wrong, is that only 20-25% will be in attendance. But please do that for me and let me know what you find. The church I previously pastored at had 372 members on role and averaged 70 on Sunday morning. And yes, I was shot down when I approached the church to clean up the roles because I didn’t think it was right that we continue to falsify documents to the SBC. The response, “All these people made decisions at some point in their life and were baptized. Who are you to say who goes to heaven?” The level of biblical ignorance in churches is mind-boggling… That is if the pastor is willing to actually take the time to visits with and talk to people to see what they really believe. But hey, that has never seemed as important as being able to report high role numbers and baptisms. What you mistook for anger is likely cynicism which I recognize is a sin I need to continually repent and ask forgiveness for. God bless.
Rob,
I agree with you that there’s much to improve on, in many SBC Churches. We aint perfect. And, there’s been some pretty weak preaching in some churches in the past, and there are some people in our churches, who probably dont know the Lord. That is true.
I reach out to the absentee members on my roll. I try to help them see that there’s a spiritual problem in their lives.
But, did not the Lord say that it would be that way? You know, the parable of the sower and the soils.
David
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the discussion. Article Two denies original sin. Specifically, “Every person who is capable of moral action will sin.” Putting a qualifier on who will sin denies that all will sin. Granted, you want a nice, neat explainable out for mentally handicapped and unborn children. I appreciate that but I think we all need to agree the Bible doesn’t clearly say that. Of course we can take verses out of context and make it say whatever we want but that shouldn’t be our goal.
Second, the statement “We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.” That denial denies the very first sentence of article two- That every person inherits a sin nature. That is the very definition of a sin nature- a will bent to sin freely instead of a will free to worship God. I personally don’t know of any Calvinist’s who deny free will. They just believe that the will is free only within the confines of the master it serves be it a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Maybe you could clarify how it is possible for a person to inherit a sin nature that doesn’t incapacitate a person’s will?
Rob
Thanks for your comment.
We would not conflate sin nature with the guilt of Adam and we would definitely reject someone telling us we had to – by the same token I expect you would reject someone telling you how you had to believe.
Second compare article two to the BFM2000
“Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity INHERIT A NATURE AND AN ENVIRONMENT INCLINED TOWARD SIN. Therefore, AS SOON AS THEY ARE CAPABLE OF MORAL ACTION, THEY BECOME TRANSGRESSORS and are under CONDEMNATION” (BFM2000).
and now
“every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin” (T.S.)
Sound familiar?
Now we do carry these to the logical conclusion that man is not rendered guilty until he has personally sinned. But please, tell me how you interpret the BFM2000 otherwise? Are you saying at the moment of conception infants are capable of moral action?
Thanks again for interacting
Brad,
I think I see where we might be talking past each other. But first, I’ll answer your questions about the BFM2000 & infants at conception….
1) I can see your point now about the BFM2000 and article 2. Up until this point, I had always interpreted the BFM2000 to state that all people will eventually sin and therefore everyone on this blog would agree that ALL people are guilty as sinners before God. Article 2 seems to leave the door open that some people may never be capable of moral action therefore they would never sin therefore they would never be considered guilty as a sinner before God. I can see now how the BFM2000 can still leave a door open for people to never be capable of moral action.
2) This is where I think we’re talking past one another. Do I believe infants are capable of moral action at the moment of conception? Honestly, I don’t know. Probably not, but I’m just speculating because the Bible doesn’t speak to this and most secular scientists do not even believe that a baby is human at that time so they don’t help us either. But here’s the key. I don’t believe people are innocent until they are capable of moral action. I believe that we are all guilty in Adam. This is where we are speaking different languages which leads to my 3rd point.
3) I don’t want you think I’m trying to say what you believe or tell you what to believe but it seems to me that you believe we are sinners because we sin. In other words, a person is not guilty as a sinner before God until they actually sin and ratify their sin nature. I believe that we sin because we are sinners. Guilty before God is who we are and because this is who we are we sin against God.
May I ask you a question I’ve always wondered about? A lot of people who hold to a free-will response are very opposed to the thought of our will being bound and not really free. But, everyone who believes in eternal security believes that the will is bound and no longer free. If a person is eternally secure then it is impossible for them to choose to be unsaved. How is this logically consistent with a free-will world view? Thanks for your time, Rob
Rob,
First of all, I believe that all people are born sinners, too. We sin, because we’re sinners; and we’re born that way. That’s why people sin. But, I believe that God does not hold someone responsible for thier sins, until they are actually old enough to know what they are doing…thus, the mentally handicapped would never reach that condition. We just do not believe in people being held accountable for the sins that Adam did. We believe that God will judge people according to the sins, which they, themselves, did, in thier own bodies, on this Earth. The Bible teaches in many places that God will judge men according to thier works…not for what Adam did.
Secondly, people are slaves to their sinful natures, yes. People are dead in their sins, yes. People are dominated by darkness, yes. That’s why we must all be set free by the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s why we must be brought to life by God’s Spirit. That’s why we must be brought into the Light. And, once we get saved, then we become a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But, we dont believe that a lost man is unable to respond to the calling and convicting of the Spirit. We believe that all people can choose to be saved, or not….in response to the calling and convicting of the Spirit. And, after we get saved, we’ve been changed. We become a new creation in Christ. There is no going back. Once we’ve been changed, we’re changed. There’s no going back.
Now, as a slave of the Lord Jesus, sometimes, we’re not such good slaves. Correct? As a slave, we sometimes dont obey the Master.
David
Rob
Your comment here I love. Because it just simply engages in propositional conversation. Thank You.
I fear I may not have been clear here. By “not rendered guilty” I do not mean innocent in the sense of not sinful or without sin but rather they have not yet transgessed and thus are not guilty as transgressors. I am able to say this because I do not think they are guilty of Adam’s transgression. Although I do believe Adam’s transgression made all sinful and sinners. Hence, we agree we sin because we are sinners.
To your question. I think most who believe in free-will might argue that at the moment of salvation we are born again. And as such there is a fundamental change. Namely, we have freely chosen by the grace of God to trust Jesus as our Lord. Hence, we give control of our life to Him. At that moment He forever takes control of my spirit via the Holy Spirit. That is not to say that my spirit and will will not struggle (Romans 7) but it is to say I have been changed, radically different – a new creation as it were. Hence, it is no more possible for me to choose to be unsaved while here on earth than it is to choose to be unsaved when I get to heaven. The decision I made was not made as I entered heaven ensuring I would not leave, but when I got saved ensuring I would not LEAVE.
Finally, thank you for honesty about infants. Most Calvinists are not quite as honest as you. Personally, if I truly believed in inherited guilt I would have to believe that all (including infants who die) who do not consciously repent go to hell.
As it is, this conflicts with my understanding of the nature of God and thus their not inheriting such conforms much better to God’s nature. Now, in all fairness you are honest by saying you don’t know. But contemplate the implications if they can repent at the moment of conception: 1) Before they have physiological or psychological or intellectual abilities they use them (surely even Calcijist would say we have to exercise the faith they think God gives us); or 2) God supernaturally causes them to repent without any capacity to do so in which case (beyond the questions this would beg) you would be saying people can repent without knowing they repented and be saved without knowing they are saved which is the exact argument many Universalists use.
Finally, I think the concept we repent for others sin is unbiblical but if I am truly guilty of Adam’s sin would it not follow I should repent of such? I Ned to repent of ALL the sins I am guilty of, including Adam’s. Stingily, I have never heard at any Calvinist Gospel conference that when we speak to the lost we need to instruct them to repent of both their sins and Adam’s (Paul certainly didn’t say that in ACTS). It seems that Calvinist say we are guilty of Adam’s sin but in practice they don’t think we should repent at least of one sin we have committed (Adam’s).
When I consider that we are not told anywhere in Scripture we are GUILTY for Adam’s sin. And further consider the rest of the corpus of Scripture concerning concerning Gods nature and man’s responsibility for his own sin I feel my position conforms better with Scripture. Hope that helps you understand my position.
PS – pardon the crazy word corrections (incorrections) from my IPAD in my last comment
“As a slave, we sometimes dont obey the Master.”
And such disobedience produces sorrow and anguish in the hearts of true children and will ultimately result in brokenness, godly sorrow, and true repentance before the throne of God.
And, in some cases, like the Hebrew, Jacob, although forgiven due to relationship as children and restored in sweet fellowship to Father and family, they walk the rest of their days with a “limp”……….or maybe two…….or…….
Brad and David,
Thank you both for taking the time to explain what you believe. I feel like I understand you both a little better. And I do admit that my beliefs create some problems that are very difficult to explain and I won’t patronize you by appealing to God’s secret will that we cannot know about. I’m sure you’ve heard all that before and I’m also pretty sure that neither of you would ever claim to know everything about God and how He thinks or acts. So I will leave it, for now, that I trust that God is merciful, just, and loving and that mercy, justice, and love may not be exactly how I humanly define it.
But here are my next questions. Brad, I don’t know how much of David’s response you agree with specifically the part about God not holding someone accountable until they are old enough to know what they are doing, ie the mentally handicapped never reach that point. So,vhere goes…
1) Are there Bible verses that I’ve missed which support this? Or is this understanding something inferred based on what you know about God’s attributes?
2) Are these persons guilty before God?
3) If not, how does this reconcile with what we know about all having sinned, and none being righteous, and the whole world standing condemned? As I assume if they’re not guilty, they don’t need a savior? Or do they? If so, why? Does God save some outside of repentance and confession? (Brad, here we have to admit that we could easily head down the same universalist scenario you presented)
4) If they are guilty before God even though they don’t know what they’re doing, how do they repent and confess? Because surely they wouldn’t understand that, would they?
It seems that we both run into similar conundrums if we take out positions to the logical extreme. Maybe this is why there has always been these discussions? God bless.
Rob,
You said, “1) Are there Bible verses that I’ve missed which support this? Or is this understanding something inferred based on what you know about God’s attributes?” Rob, the verses dealing with the ones, who dont know thier right from their left; King David and Bathsheeba and thier baby; and the passages about God judging people for thier own works. These passages and others all make me believe what I’m saying…..although not clearly spelling it out, as much as I’d like….and along with the gracious, merciful nature of God….all make me think the way I do.
Then, you said, “Are these persons guilty before God?” No, is the answer we’re giving. Until they reach the age where they are knowingly, willfully choosing to sin, then no, God does not hold them accountable. Now, I’m not saying that babies and the mentally handicapped are innocent…nor am I saying that they dont have a sin nature….they most certainly do. But, we are saying that they are not guilty of Adam’s sin. We are responsible for our own sin. But, we most certainly believe that everyone inherits a sin nature from Adam….we’re all born sinners with a bent towards sin.
I believe the only reason that any of us get to Heaven is by the grace of God, and because of the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross.
Rob, do you believe that babies and the mentally handicapped go to Heaven? I mean, they are not able to repent and have faith. No where does the Bible say that they are the elect. So, if you believe that everyone is born GUILTY of Adam’s sin, then it seems to me that they would have to repent and put thier faith in Jesus, in order to be saved….to go to Heaven. Otherwise, you’re saying that GUILTY people are going to Heaven, unsaved.
David
This is pasted from another blog, but I’m slow at typing, and thought that the content was well applicable to the question of how mercy is/isn’t applied to the “innocent” among our numbers.
“In a theological sense, total depravity means the total inability to choose righteous behavior over sinful behavior. Common grace allows us, even little infants, to operate in a societally acceptable way, while we are yet dead in our transgressions. Total depravity is not synonymous with *utter* depravity, as is the depravity of the actionable sense. To be totally depraved is to be unable to choose to serve God. To be utterly depraved is to take action in our sinful state, and carry out the worse and most heinous wiles of our heart’s depraved condition. This is certainly not the case with most sinners, not even of the reprobate. Common grace protects our society from most such behavior. However, the totally depraved stands guilty just as much as the utterly depraved, in the sense that both are creatures fallen from God’s grace, and both need salvific grace in order to become righteous.
I think most folks find fault with original sin because they despise the idea that an infant is wicked and vile. But nobody I know thinks that infants are wicked and vile in terms of utter depravity, but rather that, being human, they already bear the taint of Adam as a burden, and stand guilty before God merely by imputed guilt, the actionable guilt on their part to follow later.
I am not trying here to convince anyone who disagrees with me as to the validity of the theology of original sin, but rather to explain why it makes sense to me. The conviction of its truth must be your own. But I would ask you this – for those who consider themselves Christians, and believe that Christ died for their sins, tell me, how did Christ’s death change your standing before God? Did He pay the penalty for your sin? Did He *cover* your sin, as in paying the debt you owe? When God looks at you, does He see you as a sinner, or does He view you as sinless? In our sinful, depraved state it was not enough to pay the debt of a blood sacrifice, because that only deals with the restitutional aspect of our broken fellowship with God. No, our guilt was not satisfied until God looked upon us, and saw, not us, but Christ in all His righteousness. Our guilt was imputed onto Him at the Cross, and His righteousness was imputed upon us. Now again, I pose to you a question. If we can agree that our guilt can be imputed onto Christ, and that His righteousness was imputed upon us, why is it so difficult to see that Adam’s guilt could be imputed upon all mankind? We tend to easily adopt the notion that Christ’s righteouness could be imputed on us for the purpose of redemption, but we balk at the notion that God would impute Adam’s sin upon us. That’s not fair is it, for God to hold us guilty for sin we didn’t actionably commit? That doesn’t compute at all! But we have no qualms with accepting that He would assign our own guilt (actionable here for argument’s sake) upon Christ through imputation, and hold Him thus guilty.
While I personally believe wholeheartedly in the doctrine of original sin, I do not believe that it translates into a state of utter depravity in the heart of a young baby. For utter depravity, as I said above, is actionable guilt. I see that God treats them as those who are under guilt, the same as He treats those who are under definite actionable guilt of their own making. But before the cry goes out that God would transgress His own nature in condemning the little children to eternal torment for sins they did not willfully commit, remember that God chooses always to act in accordance with His own will and for His good pleasure. If He chose to save you, why would He not just as easily save the infant? Does He leave them to perish? They have neither rejected nor accepted His call, yet where in Scripture do we see that God does not call and choose all the little children who die apart from an age of reason? The notion that God might reject an infant is what typically causes us to cringe in regards to the concept of imputed original sin. But who is say what God has ordained for the least among us? All the proponents of original sin are suggesting is that imputed sin is enough to make us guilty, and in need of salvation. Nobody that I am aware of is saying that God sends people to Hell based on original sin alone. However, we WOULD say that He would still be just if He chose to do so.”
David,
Yea. Babies and mentally handicapped are a difficult issue that I’m ok with admitting I don’t have all the answers. Before you think I’m being callous understand that I had an older and younger sister born dead and I have a mentally handicapped son. The effects of the fall are very real and present in my everyday life. I still have to help an 11-1/2 yr old bathe, get dressed, and use the rest room in public places. He sins even though he’s not aware of what he’s doing. And he tells people he loves Jesus even though I don’t know exactly how much of that he really understands. Point is, living with him and looking for these answers has challenged my theological boxes and caused me to move from being a free-will baptist to where I am today. I believe salvation is from God, not man, and He can save people however He wants. I think His preferred method of choice is through us proclaiming the gospel to the lost and calling on them to repent and believe because that’s what the Bible tells us. But I’m not willing to limit God by the limited knowledge I have of His ways. I believe the Bible tells us everything we need to know but not everything we want to know. I also believe that the mental limitations present in babies and mentally handicap serve to constantly remind us of our own spiritual limitations in that a person could never respond to God freely without God’s grace.
Also, I really don’t understand how a person can be as you said, not guilty before God but also not innocent. This is the distinction I fail to see. It seems contradictory, no it is contradictory. How can someone be not guilty and not innocent at the same time? The words are antonyms. Are they saved outside of Jesus’ cross? Or do they just not need a savior? Seems better to not tell people about Jesus if they get a free pass for not knowing any better?
Joel,
Well put. Thank you. Rob
Rob
Does the bible anywhere explicitly state a person is not guilty of transgressions until he/she is capable of moral action? No; but it does in numerous instances provide ample evidence that we are held in guilt for our own transgressions not those of any other (Ezek. 18:20, Rev. 20:12, etc).
As to the innocence (so to speak) of infants who die in the womb, we are not saying they are innocent of their sinfulness but of the guilt of Adam, thus they still need a savior to cleanse them of their sinfulness but just as they have not consciously decided to ratify Adam’s sin (via there own sin) so they do not need to consciously ratify Christ righteousness (it is applied in the same way Adam’s sin was – in the womb without a conscious decision).
That is they are saved by the work and righteousness of Christ from their wretchedness but not by a conscious decision on their part for they were not held guilty for actually transgressing by a conscious decision. This avoids Universalism because all those who are capable of moral action are held guilty.
This is where both the BFM2000 and the TS avoid the conundrum Calvinists find themselves in regarding infants. We can easily avoid the Universal issue – a Calvinist cannot unless he states all infants who die go to hell.
Now, there is no question you and I are both venturing beyond Scripture in our conclusions regarding infants, however, I think my position does not put me in the conundrum of either infants repenting at conception or unrepentant guilty sinners in heaven and thus the possibility of faith without knowing one has faith (universalism).
Finally, with regard to Romans 5 my position seems to perfectly fit into the exact parallel that Paul is making about Adam and Christ. One is made righteous in the same way one is held guilty. If one is made righteous via a conscious decision then one is held guilty via a conscious decision. The Calvinist seems to say we are made righteous via a conscious decision but are guilty via no conscious decision which nullifies the very parallel Paul seems to be making and indicates infants go to hell (and thus by application questions the goodness of the nature of God) unless one appeals to the mysterious which begs the questions of Universalism.
Hope that is helpful as we seek to understand God and each other’s position more fully.
Brad,
Thank you for clarifying. So if I understand correctly, all unborn children and babies who die go to heaven automatically? Based on this view, one could argue that when the Chinese government, when it killed girl babies to control the population, did a wonderful service to those children who would have otherwise been forced to grow up in a communist government, likely never hear the gospel and therefore end up in hell. One could also argue that this makes abortion a great evangelistic tool because it assures an eternity with God over a few years on this messed up earth with a good possibility that the person will make a wrong decision about the gospel. I don’t know. I just feel like this position is driven more by emotional response than biblical exegesis. What about poor Esau? What did he ever do to get passed over?
By the way, Calvinists avoid universalism by the doctrine of election in that God saves people not on the basis of any works that person does but on the basis of His good pleasure. This would include infants and mentally handicapped people. Also I believe that we are made righteous by God’s declaration not by our conscious decision so it doesn’t the create the conundrum of being declared unrighteousness without a conscious decision.
Joel
There is a difference in my guilt imputed to my substitute and Adam’s guilt imputed to his descendant’s.
Rob
Calvinists who believe all infants go to heaven have the same issue with China.
Joel and Rob
We are saved by the grace of God via Faith and Repentance. Something we all agree to. Now and again the idea that Christ’s righteousness is imputed via a conscious decision but Adam’s “guilt” is not seems to deny the very similarities Paul is making. Moreover, please for the third time, I ask how an infant can enter into eternity without repenting of his guilty sin? I understand the hesitancy of not answering or pointing to mystery. But honestly, it is no mystery that ALL guilty sinners only get to heaven via repentance – so please help us understand how they do so in your view.
Thanks again for engaging
Brad,
It really is difficult to answer your question to your satisfaction because their is a veiled assumption that salvation is dependent upon a person’s works instead of God’s grace. Ie. How can someone get into heaven without “doing” something, that is repenting of sin. I don’t believe salvation is by works and I would suspect Joel does not either. I will have to appeal to the secret providence of God on this one- or the same reason he selected Jacob over Esau. Therefore, it pleases God to save some children and mentally handicapped people. Do I believe he saves them all? No. There is nothing in the Bible that leads me to think that would be the case and quite a bit to the contrary.
Brad,
I also just wanted to note that I do not see God’s grace in salvation as the result of my faith and repentance. I see my faith and repentance as the result of God’s grace. In other words, I would not have faith or be able to repent apart from God’s grace. I am no more able to repent of my sin and turn to God than any unborn infant is able to do so. This is, in my studies, the parameter that has defined orthodox Christian soteriology throughout history.
Rob,
If I may jump in here a second. You just said something that really has come clear in my not understanding the Calvinists position. You said “How can someone get into heaven without “doing” something, that is repenting of sin. I don’t believe salvation is by works and I would suspect Joel does not either.”
I realize that works of man do not save a person. What I do not understand from the Calvinists position is what and when exactly occurs when a person is saved? If they must repent, how do they do that and when? It seems to me that even on the Calvinists stance, the person being saved must act – repent. Can you elaborate on this?
Hi Tim,
I think the difference in understanding is whether or not God’s calling can be resisted. We would both agree, working backwards, that a person is saved when they believe and repent after hearing the gospel preached. However, if you asked me when I was saved, I would likely answer along the same lines as Michael Horton that I was saved 2,000 years ago when Jesus died on the cross (in The Gospel Commission [BakerBooks, 2011], sorry I don’t have the page handy). I am saved by Christ’s work, not mine.
Here is likely where we diverge. I suspect you believe that God makes the call for salvation available to everyone whereby some can resist this call. You might interpret Ephesians 1:3-14 and Romans 8:28-30 that God’s predestining is based upon Him already knowing who is going to accept this call. I, on the other hand, believe He has already determined who will be saved and extends the call to salvation to those people He has determined to save. I see Romans 8:28-30 as a logical progression in that God only calls those whom He has handed to Jesus.
I realize this brings up the issue of God’s love and John 3:16. But John 3:16 needs to be interpreted in the context of John 3:1-15 and 3:17-21. It is showing us the nature of God’s love “For God loved the world in this manner” not the extent “so much.” All those who believe in the Son will have life and those who don’t will be condemned. Who are those who will believe? Those whom God has foreknew and predestined and called. The rest already stand condemned. I don’t see the problem. As to God’s love… does He love Satan? Does he love the demons? Does he love animals? Does he love the rest of his creation?
Further, all of the verses stating that God “desires all people to be saved” are in the context of other nations, i.e., God desires people from all nations, groups, ethnes, whatever, to be saved. Not God desires to save everyone in the entire world. Don’t know if this answered your question or not.
Rob,
Tim has something here. Am I to understand that you believe that repentance is works when it comes to salvation? No one denies that it is God’s grace that enables faith and repentance, but repentance is works?
If you believe repentance is works which Paul says plays no part in our salvation than yes I see where you land where you land (of course that begs the question of: if repentance is a work then how could Paul say we needed to repent and yet claim this is not a works salvation, unless of course repentance is not necessary which seems totally contrary to Acts and Romans but very consistent with Calvinism).
So are you saying with regard to infants (and others for that matter) repentance is not necessary for salvation?
Tim,
I missed a part of your question. The short version, regeneration precedes repentance according to Jesus (John 3:3).
Blessings, Rob
Rob,
you said “I would likely answer along the same lines as Michael Horton that I was saved 2,000 years ago when Jesus died on the cross”
So how does repentance fit in to that statement? And if it does, how is repentance exercised by the individual and when?
Rob,
I would kindly disagree about God’s desire being for people from all nations. I think that is reading into the text of 1 Tim 2:1. It is not that God desires we pray for some people from all nations but for all people. I would assume that if God intended to say that He would have said that.
Brad,
I believe repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit through regeneration. Not a work of us. I do not believe an unregenerate person can repent. I believe they must be born again by the Spirit in order to do this.
Can the Holy Spirit convict unborn infants? Do they have a conscience? Are they aware of God? Does Romans 1:18-23 apply to them? I don’t know. In fact, I would even say it’s a rabbit trail in soteriological discussions. If our entire soteriology was to be built on the fate of unborn infants, I trust that God would have given us more information about that.
Brad,
I have a difficult time believing that God wants us to pray for over 6-7 billion people by name (1Tim. 2:1). I think it is intended generally, not specifically. Just my understanding though. I’m definitely not infallible.
Rob,
I think the following statement of yours to Brad highlights what is not making sense to me:
“I believe repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit through regeneration.”
Are you thus denying that a person must decide to act on the conviction of the Holy Spirit – and even after salvation occurs?
I realize that we are convicted of our need to repent by the Holy Spirit, and that God gives us the ability to do so. What I do not get is that man has NO action. Man has to accept or reject does he not? Man has to act or choose not to react to move of the Holy Spirit does He not?
By the way, this one of the most beneficial discussions I have had online in some time! Thank you!
Tim,
I’ll try to put some order to my thoughts. We are saved by Christ’s death 2,000 years ago. God has already determined who will be saved in the same manner he selected Abraham, chose Jacob over Esau, selected Israel over every other nation, etc. The gospel is preached, those whom God has determined to save are called by the Holy Spirit through this preaching, that is they are regenerated, or born again if you prefer, this enables them to respond to God by faith through repentance. I just don’t believe they have the ability to respond no. Those are the people who stand condemned already, in my understanding. Is that any clearer?
Rob,
In that progression then, how does man repent? Is Salvation present before repentance?
Tim,
I have benefited a lot by this discussion with you guys as well and I really appreciate the opportunity to be heard and not put down for my beliefs.
I don’t really believe that people whom God intends to save have the option of saying no. I know it seems to go against our better reason, but I think that is why Paul often referred to God’s selection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation Israel, to point out that God didn’t give a bunch of people the choice to be selected. He just chose whom He willed. Thanks, Rob
So are you saying that salvation is present and thus the cause and path of repentance?
Tim,
I would say justification is at the moment a person is born again which is also the moment he/she repents. I don’t think there’s a big time delay in the whole process. Kind of like they all happen at once but it is initiated by the Holy Spirit’s regeneration and sealing. Also, for what it’s worth, I consider salvation to be an umbrella term which includes justification, sanctification, and glorification. That seems to be how Paul uses the Greek terms for salvation in different contexts.
Tim,
Yes about salvation being the cause of repentance. Two reasons: 1) biblically, the fact that Paul speaks about our glorification in Romans 8:30 as completed seems to at least imply that the whole process is a done deal before it is practically completed in our lives, and 2) experientially, we know that regenerate people are convicted of their sin against God while unregenerate people could care less.
This is were my confusion kicks in big time. In that progression, repentance being the result of salvation, one does not repent to be saved, which leaves us with a person is being saved apart from repentance, and thus is being saved pre-birth.
That progression opens up many issues from my perspective beginning with the idea that it conflicts with guilt of Adams sin thus the need for repentance. If salvation is already in the works, repentance then follows after, thus is not part of the work of salvation.
Am I understanding you right on this?
Brad, jump in here. I think I jumped into your conversation to begin with :).
Tim,
I don’t believe there is any perfect analogy but sometimes I use the example of a light switch as an imperfect example. Most lights come one immediately when you flip the switch. Some are delayed a bit (fluorescents), they make a worse example. The flip of the switch is the cause of the light coming on although the time between the two is, for the most part, imperceptible. You flip the switch and the light comes on as a result. Unless one was to severely overanalyze this process it is, for all intents and purposes, one and the same event. This is how I see salvation: The Holy Spirit flips the switch with the new birth/regeneration and we repent as a result of that. I see salvation and repentance as one and the same event unless we really get into minute details and overanalyze it. I don’t see salvation outside repentance any more than you would say that you see repentance being man’s work to initiate salvation. Don’t know if that makes sense or not.
Tim and Brad,
Also, I just wanted to note that its probably not fair to group everyone into the same category as my answers. Some of my other friends who call themselves Calvinists have observed that I tend to be more monergistic than they are. Tim, I think the main reason for your concern in your very first question on this blog post (varying answers by Calvinists) is that a lot of people consider themselves “Calvinists” even if they only hold to a few points of his theological system. It seems to be the latest trendy thing for one to call oneself. But, Calvin wasn’t anymore infallible than we are and ultimately the Bible needs to form our theological framework. In my opinion, though, I believe if we are going to formulate a theological system from the Bible we need to be consistent in our views even if it does leave us with some problems that are very difficult for us to understand or explain.
Rob
Forgive the tag-team if you will but I think I speak for both of us when we say “Thank You,” you are presenting very consistent Calvinist views. Not many Baptist Calvinists I have met will be consistent and state repentance is a work of the Holy Spirit, most will agree with the BFM2ooo that repentance is man’s response to the convicting work of the Holy Spirit.
But I must ask if repentance is a work of God then the argument you made earlier about it being a work of man fails. Allow me to quote “there is a veiled assumption that salvation is dependent upon a person’s works instead of God’s grace. Ie. How can someone get into heaven without “doing” something, that is repenting of sin. I don’t believe salvation is by works…”
Hence we are back to where we began…if repentance is God’s work than He certainly can do that in infants which means infants repent without knowing they repented (again opening the door to Universalism or at the very least someone repenting without conscious awareness).
Further, our plea that 1 Timothy 2 is not referring to all 6-7 billion people denies the “all.” Your rationale behind it fails as well in that is all means elect then you have the same problem surely God is not calling us to pray for all 500 million elect by name. While neither of us is arguing we should pray for all by name. I am arguing to redefine “all” to mean the elect seems more a theological system being used to interpret Scripture than allowing Scripture to speak for itself.
Now to tie both concepts together. “All” and “Repentance” are mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:30 where he says “God is now declaring that ALL men everywhere should Repent.
I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate your honesty and consistency. Most Baptist Calvinists (including Dr.s Piper and Mohler) would not argue that some infants who die in the womb go to hell. But even as you argue this, unless you are taking the covenant line that those of Christians parents go to heaven you still have either unrepentant people in heaven or those who do not have any conscious awareness of repentance in heaven and again begs the question.
That should read “your plea” not “our plea”
Rob
I won’t be able to interact again until tomorrow. I was hoping you would reply before now so I could follow up but allow me to anyway.
I did want to thank you. I think many Calvinist if they are honest their would be where you are and further. You are being very consistent with your belief system…something I have found only twice in my discussions with Calvinists. But I would argue you are not there yet. True consistency would be all infants are in hell because those in the womb are guilty and cannot repent (in fairness your definition of repentance, while contrary to the BFM is consistent to your system and allows for infants to be gifted by God. But it redefines the Biblical concept of repentance as something man by God’s grace is capable of doing (infants are incapable)).
But whether it is a few infants or all infants part of the problem many of us would have is that would imply clearly that God created the infant for hell (something many of us would struggle with concerning God’s nature) and it would seems to contradict Romans 1 and Romans 2 where all are without excuse because they have suppressed the truth God made known in creation (infants at conception cannot suppress the truth).
Thus, you see both my appreciation for your position (you are consistent in Calvinism to the guilt of infants in the womb and thus their destination of hell without repentance) but I struggle Biblically with such (Romans 1 and 2 and the character of God in creating infants for hell). I hope that helps you know where I was going with my questions.
Brad,
As to repentance- if it is from God it is a work of God. If it is from man it is a work of man. At least that’s how I understand it.
As to infants in the womb- all of our speculation is extra-biblical. The most popular argument for th going to heaven is David with his baby. Based on a proper historical-cultural exegesis of that passage, though, the very best we can say is that David at least expected to see him again in Sheol- were Old Testament people believed everyone went. We need to be careful to read future revelation- NT- into the OT worldview. Many, many errors have come from this practice. Also, based on your argument, Jacob and Esau must have both done something in the uterus (contrary to the testimony of the rest of Scripture) in order for God to have chosen one and rejected the other. Otherwise your arguments for universalism or all children necessarily being sent to hell are flawed. But if we read the Bible as one cohesive book from God then it’s pretty obvious that God does whatever He wants and people have always cried foul about the potter acting in that manner. Apologies I was not able to respond sooner. Hope you have a blessed Lord’s Day. Rob
Brad and Tim,
At the risk of sounding a bit crazy I would like to throw out 3 more thoughts from the Bible just to try to strengthen my point that we don’t know everything there is to know about God, only what He has chosen to reveal to us.
1) Psalm 36:6- “Your righteousness is like the mountains of God, your judgments like the deep ocean. You save people and animals, O Lord.” My question: Are animals saved? Will they be with the redeemed in eternity? If so, how do they repent? I’ve always heard that the traditional teaching is “No. Only people can be saved because only people can repent and only people were made in God’s image.” Or something like that. Yet God saved them in Genesis 6-9 along with people.
2) Why is God going to create a new earth? Are we going to live on it? The traditional teaching I’ve always heard says that people are going to spend eternity in Heaven with God. Could it be that Heaven was always only intended as God’s throne room and for spirit beings and earth was always intended for us?
3) Why does Paul say, in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”? Can God use angels to preach the gospel to people? If so, that answers a lot of questions. I would never argue this because it’s already just this side of impossible to mobilize people for missions and if they thought God was capable of using other means to reach people then I expect they’d only say, “If God desires for the heathen to be saved he can do it without you or I.”
My point is just that I think there is a lot of things that we don’t understand about God or how he works or how everything is going to work out. A lot of our discussions are based on speculations, in my opinion. We have what we need to know in the Bible but I’m not sure that God ever intended us to believe that this was all there was to know about Him and His ways. However, I do think we find ourselves on very dangerous ground once we begin to speculate about what else He might be able to do… or not do. Blessings, Rob
“Also, based on your argument, Jacob and Esau must have both done something in the uterus (contrary to the testimony of the rest of Scripture) in order for God to have chosen one and rejected the other. Otherwise your arguments for universalism or all children necessarily being sent to hell are flawed. ”
God choosing between Jacob and Esau in the uterus has nothing to do with them “having good or bad” and has nothing to do with salvation. God’s choice was the elder should serve the younger; NOT that the elder should be lost and the younger saved. None of that. It has nothing to do with “being sent to hell” at all.
holdon,
The example of Jacob and Esau has everything to do with salvation and election in the context that the apostle Paul used it in Romans 9. He used them to support God’s election of some but not others because he was building his case for why some are saved while others are not.
Thanks for your input, Rob
“because he was building his case for why some are saved while others are not.”
No. That is not in the text at all.
Paul is explaining (as he had previously argued that there was no difference between Gentile and Jew as to their lost condition) how this “new” doctrine of no difference, was to be reconciled with the previous special dealings of God with respect to the Jews. Paul had argued that the Jews had failed under the law and proved their guilt as much as the Gentiles. That was one thing, but was God then no longer faithful as to the promises, (which had come even before the law)? That could not be.
So, what Paul is building here is the case of God’s sovereignty which had served the Jews so well: elect people via Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; then the mercy and hardening as He willed; then the freedom of the Potter to made different things from the same clay is stressed. What this meant was that the pretensions of the Jew were shattered: of the initial promises to Abraham, various branches were not elect and the branch that subsisted was exclusively so by a God who had had mercy on them (no rights), (golden calf episode). The Jew could not find fault with such a God acting in sovereign grace and mercy of which the Jew had been the object for so long. So, God will make good on the promises, Jews an d Gentiles being on the same footing: mercy. And in that context, if it is only on the basis of mercy, then it is for everybody who believes: not election is the basis of salvation, but God’s mercy towards ALL who believe. That is how God’s righteousness is manifested:
“glad tidings; for it is God’s power to salvation, to every one that believes, both to Jew first and to Greek: for righteousness of God is revealed therein, on the principle of faith, to faith: according as it is written, But the just shall live by faith.”
“righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe: for there is no difference”
“For God hath shut up together all in unbelief, in order that he might shew mercy to all.”
Holton,
Thanks for your commentary. I will admit that it is a completely new explanation to me and I could not follow your line of reasoning through Romans 9. The commentary seemed to bring too many presuppositions into the text and completely avoided all of the difficult verses that don’t jive with the desired interpretation. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your interpretation. T also think its fair to admit that neither of us is going to be able to convince the other to see things as we do. Our best hope is to just try to understand each other better. God bless, Rob
“I could not follow your line of reasoning through Romans 9. The commentary seemed to bring too many presuppositions into the text and completely avoided all of the difficult verses that don’t jive with the desired interpretation.
I think its fair to admit that neither of us is going to be able to convince the other to see things as we do.”
Sorry, I couldn’t convince you Rob. But if you don’t tell me which “presuppositions” and which “difficult verses that don’t jive” I avoided, I guess I cannot help you.
All I can say ask is to read and re-read the texts again. It has probably been too long that you read this with a Calvinist presupposition.
God bless you too.
Holdon,
In all fairness, I used to hold the same views that you held. I grew up hearing them taught. I was even once a member of the Free Will Baptist denomination for about 6 years. Naturally, I disagree with them now but I will say that I do greatly appreciate their consistency in their free-will soteriology. They believe people can lose their salvation and that is the natural consequence of a free-will theological framework.
About 2-1/2 years ago I decided that I was going to read the Bible through every 6-8 months and allow that to completely form my theological framework as much as is humanly possible. I came away from that experience changed. I do not consider myself close-minded. I am no longer a dispensationalist, I no longer believe in a pre-trib rapture, and I have had other presuppositions challenged in the past 2-1/2 years as well. I am willing to change what I believe if the Bible is the cause of that change. People generally don’t convince me or change my mind. I take everything they say seriously and go to the Bible and study it myself. If my eyes are open to the fact that I was wrong, I change. If I am not convinced, I hold my convictions. Put simply, I have had a lot of my beliefs changed over the past 2-1/2+ years of intense Bible reading and study. In fairness, how many of your beliefs have you changed? Or how many have even been challenged?
One presupposition that you seem to have is: God could never elect some people to salvation and pass over others. Mine is: God can do whatever He wants including elect some people to salvation and pass over others. Therefore, if you encounter a passage that seems to teach God has elected someone to salvation, you are not even open to consider that might really be what is happening in the passage and instead find another way to explain the passage whether it fits the context or not.
Here is an exercise to try: Romans 9:13 “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Did God really hate Esau? Is it possible that God really did hate Esau? Does God really love everyone He created? So I assume this includes Satan and all the demons too? (I am appealing to your presupposition that God’s attribute- love- is one of His key defining features in how you interpret Scripture.) Naturally, it seems almost inconceivable to you that God could either hate Esau or love Satan.
Rob,
“In all fairness, I used to hold the same views that you held.”
Earlier yesterday you wrote this:
“I will admit that it is a completely new explanation to me and I could not follow your line of reasoning through Romans 9. “
These two statements seem contradictory to me. So, I don’t know which is which.
“In fairness, how many of your beliefs have you changed?” Not so much. My moniker is “holdon” for a reason. With respect to the term “Traditionalist” I would like (ideally) that all would take the meaning as in 2 Thess. 2:15 that believers hold to the tradition what is taught in Scripture.
“Naturally, it seems almost inconceivable to you that God could either hate Esau or love Satan.”
Well (and this is not my presupposition as you allege, because it’s clearly taught in Scripture), God is love. And God hates evil.
If you think that God is the source of evil, then I think you’re no longer on theist ground at all. If God is both good and evil, then you’re a dualist at best. (Interestingly that’s something that Augustine held for a while.)
But where does it say that God always hated Satan, or always hated Esau for that matter? Nowhere. Actually, Paul cites from Malachi, a long time after Esau lived and had proved to be hateful. God hates sin and evil. The question is how sin and evil come/came about. If you say God is the origin of it, then you make God evil basically.
It seems to be your assumption that Satan and the demons were always bad. We don’t see that in Scripture. Although not much is said about the origin of Satan and his demons, we know that God when He created in Gen. it was all good (I’m not saying that Satan and the demons were created then, but only to infer from there that what God does is intrinsically good). Also, Scripture teaches us that there are angels that didn’t keep their original state (Jude 6). So, that means they abandoned what was better before. It would be surprising that a Christian would hold that Satan was always bad, created as such, but I guess there are all kinds of strange doctrines around. I hope you don’t hold such a doctrine. For Satan and his fallen angels there is no remedy: they were not created in God’s image and likeness. Although we believe they once had a choice (because “they didn’t keep their original state”), I don’t think they can revert from that. Hence the love of God of which you speak is not for them: it is for the world that still can be saved: “may not perish, but have life eternal”.
For the rest I can be clear and short: Yes God really hated Esau. Not in the womb: there is not a word of that. But later in Malachi, God looking back, hated Esau.
If you can show me from the Scriptures that God elects some to salvation, then be my guest.
Unconditional election is nonsense. You cannot elect out of a 100 perfectly equal balls. You could pick, but not choose. Choosing always is based on differences; on “conditions”. Esau was older than Jacob. God chose that the elder would serve the younger. Not based on what they were or what they had done (Scripture is explicit on that). It’s not about “salvation” but about “servitude”.
Rob
You say what happens to an infant is speculation. But that is true if you assume your presuppositions.
If one begins with inherited guilt then you are correct it is inconsistent speculation to say some or all go to heaven.
1) Please note what is not speculation. Namely, Those guilty of sin must repent of their sins to be saved.
If infants who die in the womb are guilty of sin they must repent to be saved. Thus, the Calvinists is left to speculate how guilty infants can repent even though they have no capacity to do so. At the end of the day they have no answer and leave it as a mystery for apparently two reasons: 1) the position most consistent with reality and their presupposition is all infants go to hell; 2) David at least leaves out hope that God made a way to heaven without repentance for Adam’s sin (but this is not something any Calvinists wants to say and so they move back to mystery).
Now, in fairness, you speculate that God gifts “some” with his gift of repentance. But this denies the BFM2000 definition of repentance and begs the question of: can a person receive such without cognitively knowing it? (Universalism)
Now to address a couple of other items:
2) Neither Jacob or Esau died in the womb. So we are speaking of two different issues. Surely, even a Calvinists would not separate God’s foreknowledge from his predestination. While they define them differently – they would not say God does not have a knowledge of all a person chooses to do when he “elects” some (although they would say it is not dependent on such) – thus, infants dieing in the womb and Esau = totally different.
Second if Romans 9-11 is speaking of the nation of Israel we certainly have a difference. Moreover, since the entire book of Romans is an explanation of Paul’s thesis in chapters 1 and 2 we can draw some inferences. And one inference is man is “guilty” because ALL know God via his revelation of Himself in creation but are guilty because they suppress the truth. How does an infant know God via God’s revelation and in what way has an infant at conception suppressed the truth of God?
3) Finally, concerning your question of God not loving his enemy Esau. Would God ever tell his children to do something He does not do? Namely, love our enemies?
Rob,
When you wrote,
“There are over 16 million southern baptists. Judging by church roles vs. attendance over 7 million of them have likely not been in a church since they were teenagers but they were all baptized as infants when they had the hell scared out of them at a VBS gospel presentation. They don’t know what they believe about salvation except that they’re on a church role. Take another 6 million who come to church because they know that’s what they’re supposed to do on a Sunday morning. They don’t know what they believe about salvation except that the U.S. needs to help Israel. Then you’ve got another 1.8 million who also come on Sunday night and Wednesday and serve on all the church committees. Sadly, they also couldn’t articulate what they believe about salvation because all they want to study is the end times from a fiction series. That leaves you with about 1.2 million who actually study their Bible to hear what God says instead of trying to force the bible into their preconceived theological boxes. My point in all that is that if the 14.8 million who know nothing about biblical theology and the doctrine of salvation hear a title “Traditional” they will automatically believe it is as infallible as their Scofield study bible notes, their baptist hymnal, John Hagee, or the Left Behind series- without even reading the statement. ”
I laughed hard at this. This is true and sad and unfortunately an epidemic across denominations. I have these same discsussions with my evangelical Lutheran brothers, PCA friends and the like.
Blessings,
m.b.
Romans 5:8
uh… seems that was Moses’ primary problem as well.
No where in the Bible do I see God blessing the sheeple because of their faithfulness; it is almost always the faithfulness of a few that brought God’s blessings on the whole community. Now, that is NOT God’s intention or plan but it is reality.
Here is an interesting question… of all that whittlin away at the numbers in the post above… I wonder what percentage of that group that is left standing is clergy/staff/SS Teachers? Reformed? Want to take a stab at that while you are at it?
><>”
Bob Hadley,
The truth is that m.b. woodside, who is not a Southern Baptist, is in all probability more ignorant as to what Southern Baptists believe and practice than is Rob.
Hi Bob,
Good to hear from you. Would you do me a favor to help with the numbers please? Ask your pastor how many people are on your church role- active and inactive. Then compare that number with the number who were actually there last Sunday and next Sunday. My guess, and I know I could be wrong, is that you will find out that 20-25% of your church’s role actually attends. The last church I pastored was 372 on the role with an average of 70 in attendance each week. That percentage was standard across the entire local denomination. That is where I began my estimations. God bless you.
Ours is roughly 60% in attendance with another 8% homebound due to age and illness.
Tim,
Thanks. I suspect yours is extremely high compared to the average. At least in my personal experience that is. And yes, I realize I’m not omnipresent ;)
I think they are close the norm these days. Churches have cleaned up rolls and seem to be fairly aggressive in taking membership and involvement serious. SBC emphasis on this for past few years has been good. Most pastors I meet are serious about it!
We have 410 members, and about 175 come to Church…we probably average 150 on a typical Sunday morning. And, like Tim said, that doesnt include the members, who are homebound.
We just adopted a New Members class, which everyone wanting to join our Church, must attend and complete, before they are added to our Church roll. We’re trying to take care of some things on the front end.
David
Tim,
Last thing then I’ll drop it.
1) I realized an error in my estimation of 20-25% and wanted to admit that. That percentage will likely only apply to small country churches with cemeteries and a by-law that states a person must be a member to be buried there. Yes, that insanity exists. Churches without graveyards or that rule will have a much higher ratio of attenders:role because the democracy will allow for role maintenance.
2) It is kind of ironic, to me, that if your percentage is pretty standard across the SBC then that means 40% of southern baptists do not attend church- or 6.4 million. My initial estimate, for which I was called ignorant, was 7 million. Kind of funny, I think.
Thanks for your candor and willingness to write the article that sparked all this discussion. Keep plowing the fields. God bless.
Rob,
Your estimation could be accurate. But others for years have said worse. I dont understand the big deal-as if you are revealing something new? SBC has been workin on this, which os more than other denominations etc are doing, if they even track membership. Are you thinking this info should be shocking? I’m confused!
Tim,
Sorry, I don’t have the ability to respond under each of your posts any longer for some reason. But, no, I don’t think the info is shocking. What I find shocking is the number of people who believe that those non-attenders are actually Christians. I know this just opens the door to “Don’t judge… Who are we to know someone’s heart…” etc, etc. And it all comes back to- “But they said a prayer… They walked an aisle… They joined a church…” etc, etc. It just frustrates me. That’s all
Did not know that people were shocked. Been in SBC church for going on 44 yrs. have always heard they needed Jesus. Never have thought otherwise. Maybe some do, but most know, at least in my experience.
Tim,
That’s awesome. You are in the ideal church- stay there. I am an idealist so I think I would fit in well there. I think we both might be jaded by our own personal experiences because the world I live in is nothing like the one you describe. It’s interesting to see how our experiences shape our beliefs about the bigger picture and I’ve also enjoyed learning from you. I do pray that the majority of churches are more like the ones you describe than the ones I’ve experienced :) Take care my friend.
Rob,
Thank you. And to clarify, my experience involves 5 different churches and many others where I have preached over the years. But I do agree, our experience does shape us and may blind us at times.
God bless!
“What I find shocking is the number of people who believe that those non-attenders are actually Christians”
Rob, I realize this is a horrible place to say this in front of pastors but the truth is a growing segment of believers are leaving the institutional church for a more informal ekklesia that puts money directly to needs instead of buildings, etc . So please be careful judging.
Lydia,
Thanks for your input. You make a good point and it resonates with me. I would just like to point out though that not everyone who makes an observation about the reality of how things really are is judging others.
I left an established church as their pastor to become a missionary and take the gospel to an area where it is not already present. I am planting a network of house churches/missional communities/whatever-term-you-prefer-to-use because I do not believe money and other valuable resources should be used on inanimate objects when people are dying and going to hell- and I’m a Calvinist lol. My point is simply this, don’t worry, these informal gatherings still report their numbers and the people not attending a “formal ekklesia” are also not present at the “informal ones.” Blessings to you, Rob
Also, for some reason I feel the need to point out that I am not receiving any CP dollars, no financial support from NAMB, nor the State or local SBC associations. So please don’t be upset with NAMB or CP for giving all their money to another “Calvinist church planter.” For what it’s worth, I don’t receive any pay from the church plant, I work full-time and my wife works part-time to support our family of 5 in order to be able to share the gospel with this area and use the church’s money for missions. God bless, Rob
mb,
Can you give me the names of the Pastors and the Churches, who’ve done what you and Rob are claiming? Can you give us proof?
DAvid
Amazing to me that those (TSers) who shout the loudest and write blogs decrying efforts to marginalize them…..sur have no proble, marginalizing those with whom they disagree.
Ie….rob joins discussion and is promptly called ignorant and told to shut up.
Oh, the irony. It burns. LOL
Dave,
When a dawg comes runnin’ into a feller’s yard barking, growling, and showin’ his teeth, then it shouldn’t surprise that dawg, when all the dawgs in the yard start barking and growling back!
Now, if you wanna come to the front porch, to sit a spell, and sip on some sweet tea, and talk a fer a while…then, maybe you’d find folks a little more cordial?
David
Lol. Good stuff. So this is your yard, huh? Using your analogy then: I was lured intuh yer yard wit da falts believes that we was gonna be discussin sum stuff. Instead I finds out that errybody wat disagrees with youz is ignert, ornery, and tryin to be startin fites wit erryone so deys jussuh bringin it on deys selfs.
My friend, all you’ve done the whole entire time is call everyone who doesn’t see things your way names and blame them for divisevness. Get a mirror, you’re not infallible any more than the rest of us and it’s time someone confronted you with that truth. Go ahead. Get mad. Call me more names. Trust me, I don’t want to be on this blog. It’s like a freaking train wreck. I try to read something wholesome and edifying- 9marks, SEBTS, resurgence- but I keep getting drawn back to this quagmire of foolishness. I don’t know why. If I could stay away, trust me, I would. I guess I just like to see what the minority fringe is up too. I don’t know. Peace out.
“I try to read something wholesome and edifying- 9marks, SEBTS, resurgence”
Resurgence is wholesome? Oh my.
Rob,
What I was tryin’ to get across to Dave, was that when some people come into this blog, which is run by Traditionalists, and start accusing Traditionalists of being Semi Pelagian, or of just scaring children in VBS, or of telling people to support Israel if you wanna be saved, or saying that we dont really preach and teach the Bible, or a host of other things, which has been said by Calvinists….then, dont be surprised when some Traditionalists bite back.
If I was to go into a Calvinist blog, and call all Calvinists a bunch of Hyper Calvinists, who dont really care about evangelism; then I’d bet’cha there’s be some biting back…dont you? I bet there’d be some people, who’d have some hard things to say to the people, who’d come into a Calvinist controlled blog, saying things like that.
But, if someone wants to come into the blog, and discuss doctrine and issues…without verbal assaults and name calling and false accusations….then, I’d bet that people would be more than glad to DISCUSS.
David
David
David,
Didn’t mean to cause a stink. My original intention was only to point out that Calvinists aren’t the only ones who have a problem with the wording of the Traditional Statement but people always automatically assume that anyone who disagrees is a Calvinist.
Also, I have not come across any history that supports this as being how Baptists have traditionally believed and when I say that I am thinking of American baptists in the founding of our country, not recent history. So we may have been talking past one another. I don’t believe in Landmarkism nor do I believe that we trace our origins to the Anabaptists. This may cause some of the confusion if you hold to one of those views.
Rob,
I agree with some of the things that you say. I believe that there has been some easy believism in some Churches, which have caused us to have some lost people on our church rolls. I also know that you can counsel with someone to the best of your ability, and really share the Gospel, and someone will make a profession and get baptised, who you really thought was saved. And then, 5 months later, they drop out of Church….even though you did your dead level best to lead them to true salvation. So, lost church members can happen at any church. And, Jesus, Himself, told us this would happen in the parable of the Sower and the Soils.
Secondly, no, I’m not a Landmarker. And, I do believe that Southern Baptists have a history of many streams running together to make the river we have today called Baptists. I believe AnaBaptists are part of that stream. Also, English Separatists are part of that stream. Sandy Creek and Charleston are some of those streams. BUT, I absolutely do not believe that Baptists JUST came out of the Reformation.
Now, Ron, you’ve said a lot about VBS and children. Ron, I know that some churches havent handled children very well. I’d imagine that some Churches have been more interested in “How many kids got saved,” rather than taking the time to deal with children, to make sure that they are making a real, salvation experience. So, I can tell you that I am very careful in dealing with children; and I think every Pastor and Church should be very careful with children. But Ron, there’s a lot of churches, out there, who are dealing with children in a wise and loving way. Not all “Traditional” Churches and Pastors are out there “scaring” children into making a decision.
You know, it sounds like you’ve listened to Paul Washer, a lot to me . Have you?
David
Rob,
Vol is a good man with a compassionate heart. Read well what he has stated in the comment above.
BTW, I like Paul David Washer. I don’t have to buy everything he says, but I like to hear the guy preach.
Thanks David. I appreciate you taking your time to explain and I’m glad to hear you are careful with children. Not all are. And at the risk of sounding ignorant I’ve never even heard of Paul Washer. I was just explaining what I’ve seen happen- on one night of vbs the churches have someone give the whole group a “gospel” presentation. They expound on the horrors of hell and then ask a leading question, “You don’t want to go there, do you? Well if you don’t want to then you don’t have to. Just come forward to ask Jesus into your heart and you’ll be saved.” And of course just about every kid goes forward. Then they growth up with a false sense of security about their eternal future and absolutely no fruit in their life.
And I do believe that we hold some similar views with the Anabaptists but I don’t think that necessarily denotes origin. But, in fairness, it is extremely difficult to trace baptist history. Also, I’ve always understood baptist formation in light of differing ecclesiology not soteriology. Ie free-church, believers baptism etc.
I’m going to go ahead and say that I was introduced to this blog the day after the TS was published by it. I was told this was a fairly balanced site, one that promoted a diversity of viewpoints, and one which was fairly indicative of SB life as a whole. As I have persued the archives, and read every article published (along with the comments) since the TS was published, I can say with relative certainty that I was mislead. I’m not here to badmouth the Traditionalists/Modernists, but simply to say that for anyone else who is wondering, I would never catagorize this site as a balanced view of the SBC. It is decidedly a TS site, lead by, run by, and dominated by those of the T/M persuasion. It is quite fair to have a site that does that, but you will have to look elsewhere to find folks who are reaching out to bridge the gap to the SBC membership as a whole. I’m not saying that those on this site are vengeful towards Calvinists, or have any rancor towards them as a group, just clarifying that this site is not (by design) a fair and balanced one.
“It is decidedly a TS site, lead by, run by, and dominated by those of the T/M persuasion.”
What is a T/M?
Traditionalist/Modernist
Look at this…
Primitive Baptist Articles of Faith [Depravity & The Fall, article III.]
We believe in the total depravity of man. That Adam, in his first transgression, fell under the just and full condemnation of God’s holy law; that each and all of his posterity were then represented by him as their earthly head, and consequently in their descent from him have inherited his very same fallen nature and condition of guilt and depravity; so by nature they are (of earthly birth) corrupted and defiled (in body, soul, intellect, will, and affections), and justly condemned under the great penalty of Adamic-sin …..”
So, the Hyper Calvinist view is “guilt of Adam passed down to all people.”
Interesting.
David
Yea. Primitive baptists take it to the absolute extreme. I knew one once and he said they couldn’t even know for sure if they themselves were actually saved
So, Ron, would it be fair, and right, for me to call every Calvinist a Hyper Calvinist, because they agree with the Primitive Baptist view on this issue? What if I went around calling every Calvinist a Hyper Calvinist?
David
David, That’s exactly what happens… on both sides of the fence. Many people who attack Calvinism set up a straw man Hyper Calvinist argument and attack that. Likewise, those who attack Arminianism or one of the other synergistic views set up a straw man Pelagius or semi-Pelagius argument and attack that. Both sides end up talking right past one another.
Personally, I believe Beza took Calvin’s theology to an extreme as a reaction against the 5 points the Arminians developed. And it’s true that a lot of Calvinists follow Beza’s form of “Calvinism” not Calvin’s. Also, I believe that Wesley and Finney took Arminius’ teaching to the opposite extreme and many synergists (including many American Christians) follow Wesley’s semi-Pelagianism or Finney’s Pelagianism. That’s why it’s so difficult for people to discuss the issue without just lumping whole groups together unfairly.
Alan,
First, thanks for the apology you left at Tim’s blog. Fully accepted, brother. Know I was not angry only frustrated. When others get one’s words wrong and are sincerely corrected but nonetheless continue to perpetuate the error as if nothing was challenged or corrected, it usually either provokes a stern response or shuts down any communication at all. Even so, thank you. Now, allow me to respond to your last comment.
You draw four quotes from my piece and conclude about each that I’m commenting on the content of the material. Yet not a single quote from the gospel material is mentioned because not a single quote from the gospel material was reviewed. Alan, I don’t know quite what to say. If you will not recognize a valid distinction between the content of the Gospel Project and the theological perspective of the contributors to the Gospel Project, there’s no further reason to exchange with you. I quit, because it would be a waste of my time to attempt to dialog with anyone who refuses to acknowledge legitimate distinctions. If I said The Explicit Gospel is a new book about to be released (already released actually) written by Matt Chandler. He is a convictional Calvinist. Therefore, we may reasonably expect his book to bear a definitive Calvinistic perspective about it. Consequently, few, if any, would try to make me out as suggesting the book is therefore “biblically suspect” and “faulty”, etc , etc because of the material I criticize in the book. No, they would understand I was not deducing my assertion from knowledge I have about the material in the book, but about knowledge I have about the author of the book, Matt Chandler. Yet you are doing what is fundamentally unreasonable to do: making me out as if I was “reviewing” material I neither read nor pretended I had read. This is quite absurd frankly.
Nor did you even stop to reread the section you quoted with the line “devastating for individual churches.” You even quoted the context yourself but then denied you botched the statement! I can’t help but laugh at a time like this. Hence, so far as I am concerned, I’ll let others judge whether or not you are respecting the context of my statement.
Nor am I interested, Alan, in answering any more questions you have unless you actually deal with the distinction I’ve made (I think three times now without any real response from you). I clearly showed you in the comment about how I deduced my conclusions about The Gospel Project. My conclusions were based on the contributors of the curriculum not the content in the curriculum.
With that, I am…
Peter
I could argue that as Tim Guthrie wrote this article, green puss was spewing from his mouth as his head spun in circles like the possessed girl in the Exorcist movie. But if I did so that would be just as unsubstantied and just as insulting as Tim Guthrie’s accusation of Calvinists having a different Gospel.
T.R.
I have never heard that illustration used but the the very thought of that occurring is actually funny.
Now for the serious side:
If someone says that repentance comes only as a result of salvation and not leading to, one might find this scenario easy to allude to as a different Gospel. No insult intended or implied. Just pure simple questioning of the specifics that are still bouncing around from one Calvinists to the next.
But since I am tough skinned and not easily shaken (no green puss), I will ask you if you also believe that repentance is a by product of salvation instead of preceding it?
And no my head does not spin around, I get dizzy!
Tim: I believe that both faith and repentance are gifts from God. I believe they are our response when our blind eyes are truly opened to who Christ is. When we see him for who He is, we run to him willingly in repentance and faith. I don’t believe repentance and faith are possible without God regenerating the person first. Blind, deaf and spiritually dead people need to be changed first. So my conviction is that regeneration proceeds faith. That is not to insist a length of time. It could be simultaneous. The point is that God is the one bringing to life and bringing to faith the person. It takes much more than wooing for the person to come to faith (as a word study on the word translated “draw” in John 6:44 brings to light). It takes resurrection from the dead. Calvin’s words are instructive on this point:
“…we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it. We deny that choice is free, because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced. We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined.”
John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, ed. A. N. S. Lane, trans. G. I. Davies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996). 69-70.
I meant to write “regeneration ‘precedes’ faith”.
Tim,
If someone where to believe that repentance is a result of salvation they would be in same group as Spurgeon, as well. “‘Repentance unto life,’ I say, brings with it spiritual life, or rather, is the first consequent thereof.” From sermon 44 Repentance Unto Life at http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0044.htm
However, if one were to say that salvation is the result of repentance then depending on where one said repentance originates- from God or man- would determine if they saw salvation as ultimately in God’s power or man’s. I don’t think any of the biblical authors, especially the Holy Spirit, would agree with a gospel that promotes the latter.
Blessings, Rob
Have you read the London Baptist Confession of 1689? Read it!
Charles Spurgeon believed in every part of the Westminster Confession except the doctrine of infant baptism.
Baptists should be JUST like Presbyterians except for paedobaptism.