An Interview with Emir Caner about Issues in the SBC

June 24, 2012

In this video, Dr. Emir Caner, President of Truett-McConnell College in Georgia, is interviewed by Joel Southerland of Talk SBC at the Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans. The interview addresses issues such as the election of Fred Luter as the President of the SBC, Caner’s perspective on “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” his perspective about how Baptists differ from classical Calvinists and Arminians, his support for the Sinner’s Prayer resolution adopted by a strong majority at the SBC, and his hope for traditional Baptists to have constructive dialogue with Calvinists within the SBC.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

volfan007

Great words from a great man of God. Thanks, Dr. Caner.

David

John

Great to see New Traditionalists defining New Calvinists. I Look forward to the healthy discussion of the bent of what the New Traditionalist is. It should be very interestingly when New Calvinists define New Traditionalist. I hope the New Traditionalist Anabaptists are able to have honest discussions, it just does not seem to be their history.

Sorry if I follow Christ and not someone else defining someone else. This just seems so against biblical teachings. On second thought maybe this is not against what is taught in the bible. The Pharisees and Sadducees united against Christ, and God knows those folks sure were religious.

    volfan007

    John,

    How old are you? For you to say that the Traditionalists are against Christ is so unbelievably ignorant that I’m just hoping that you’re a very, young man, who just doesnt know better, yet.

    David

      John

      David,
      I was using Dr. Emir Caner words and substituting calvinist for traditional. I’ll let you guess how old he is.

        volfan007

        John,

        I’ve listened to this conversation 3 times, and I’m sorry, but I cannot find where Dr. Caner said that “The Pharisees and Sadducees united against Christ, and God knows those folks sure were religious;” when talking about the New Calvinists.

        David

          John

          David,
          You found it perfectly fine without a problem. You found it so well you made my point about how one side is accusing the other side of being against Christ.

          It is amazing what one does not hear. Let those that have ears hear.

          This is the problem it is always someone else that is at issue. Just like the Pharisees and Sadducees said. Lets unite in Christ and stop this divisive soritological theology nonsense of defining the oppositions position.

          There are Traditionalist now, and Calvinist.
          Lets let Traditionalist define what Traditionalism is.
          Lets let Calvinist define what Calvinism is.

          Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Gloria, glory to God alone.

          Best to you David.

Ron Hale

Thank you Dr. Caner for your wisdom and positive attitude about Southern Baptists continuing this vital conversation!

Job

Sorry. No dialogue with people like this. He claims that Calvinist doctrines mean or imply that God doesn’t love everybody, knowing full well that Calvinists reject this self-serving interpretation of Calvinist doctrines by anti-Calvinists. He claims that Calvinist doctrines hinder evangelism, knowing full well that plenty of leading, groundbreaking missionaries were Calvinist, and that both the first and second Great Awakening evangelistic revivals were heavily Calvinist. He claims that the Calvinist-Arminian debate “is between two Presbyterians” and in the process completely ignoring that General and Particular Baptists have co-existed from the beginning, and also that until the 1800s there were more Particular Baptists than General Baptists. As far as the sinner’s prayer goes, while I certainly respect Charles Spurgeon – and it is interesting how these folks curiously tend to ignore the fact that Spurgeon and so many other historic Baptist luminaries were 5 Point Calvinists – if you want to convince me of the legitimacy of this evangelistic method, then show me a case of it being used or advocated in the Bible. (Before you protest, I say the same to Calvinists concerning infant baptism, and baptism by sprinkling. Show me a single instance of anything other than believer’s baptism by immersion in the Bible and then we’ll talk.) I That said, I do agree with the “we don’t know if people led to salvation using the sinner’s prayer are really saved” argument is a bad one, because the NT speaks of Simon Magus and other false converts. Now I am not against the sinner’s prayer, mind you, but rather those who make being for it such an issue need to go about with their proof-texts. And Caner professes mock outrage at Calvinists for objecting to a statement on soteriology that they personally disagree with when Emir (and Ergun) Caner are responsible for some of the most vicious, vehement attacks on Calvinism in the SBC community. And Caner compares this statement to the Together For The Gospel statement, knowing full well that where the Together for the Gospel was an effort to unite divergent denominations and traditions – to get Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopals/Anglicans, Lutherans, nondenominationals, etc. on the same page for the purposes of promoting more unity in order to aid evangelism – the traditionalist statement was one SBC group setting its own boundaries. Now while the traditionalists had every right to do so, claiming it to be akin to the Together for the Gospel statement is simply false. That isn’t apples versus oranges because at least both apples and oranges are both fruit. It is more like lettuce versus oranges, because both the context and the goals of the two statements were totally different.

The best (or worst) part is that he calls for “dialogue” while adhering to the position that the Calvinists are the ones causing the trouble to begin with. What kind of dialogue can be had with someone who views you as “a problem that needs to be dealt with”? To people such as this, the Calvinists should respond “change your attitude first and then we will talk.”

Thomas Shepard

@john: Oftentimes, pride speaks louder than words. Study your history, take a course on systematic theology and or biblical theology, review your Greek and Hebrew phraseology, then speak in context to scripture. Goodness gracious… How about a group hug?

    John

    Group hug is good at this time. Maybe it is time to gather around the camp fire and sing:

    Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah!
    Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah!
    Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah.
    O Lord, Kum ba yah

    Someone’s crying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    Someone’s crying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    Someone’s crying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    O Lord, Kum ba yah

    Someone’s singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    Someone’s singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    Someone’s singing, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    O Lord, Kum ba yah

    Someone’s praying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    Someone’s praying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    Someone’s praying, Lord, Kum ba yah!
    O Lord, Kum ba yah

Mark Payton

Great Job Emir honored to have been your pastor for a short time in Columbus.

Randall Cofield

WHEREAS:

After 3 weeks of following this SBC Today forum which exists, allegedly, to assist “dialogue about how to best fulfill God’s calling in our lives…”

WHEREAS:

There has been not one solitary lead article or interview written from the Calvinistic perspective of the Calvinism/Traditionalist divide….

RESOLVED:

The name of this forum should be changed from SBC Today….to….The MSNBC of the SBC Today.

If you favor this resolution, please go here–www.this-is-nuts.com–to add your esteemed name to the long and ever-growing list of distinguished signatories.

    Chris Roberts

    Randall,

    One might notice a similar bias with the Talk SBC folks.

      Randall Cofield

      Hi Chris,

      Am I missing something? Isn’t that a Talk SBC banner directly behind Dr. Caner in the above interview?

      Peace

        Chris Roberts

        Randall,

        Yes, but your resolution was directed at SBC Today, I was amending it to include a reference to Talk SBC.

          Randall Cofield

          Chris,

          Ah! A fellow traveler. I’ve grown so accustomed to Traditionalist pot-shots on these threads….

          Perhaps you could offer an amendment to my resolution from the floor? :-)

          After watching a few of SBC talk videos…I think this has officially become a feeding frenzy…

          Am glad I serve a Sovereign God.

          Peace

          volfan007

          If you want to hear the Calvinist side, just go to the Founders blog, or to Timmy Bristers blog, or to James White’s blog, or to SBC Voices. This blog is for people, who are attempting to carry us past the theology of 2 Presbyterians, who’ve been dead for 400 years.

          David

          Mary

          David, Chris Roberts could go to SBC Voices where he can write yet another blog article declaring Traditionalists semipelegian/heretics.

          Then he could explain that Calvinists like him will call Tradtionalists whatever names he likes all the while complaining that Traditionalists are misrepresenting Calvinists like him and they better stop it immediately.

          Then for kicks Chris Roberts and Randall can get into the real discussion that Chris Roberts says we all must have and that is “Is there room in the SBC for such semipelegian heretics.”

          All occuring on a blog titled SBC Voices administered by the new 2nd VP of the SBC the unity candidate!

          Randall Cofield

          David,

          Brother, I know where to go if I want to hear the Calvinist’s side of the arguments.

          I thought the whole point of Dr. Hankins’ T.S. was to start a dialogue. Typically, there is more than one voice in a dialogue.

          I guess I stand corrected.

          Peace

          Todd Benkert

          David,

          As a frequent commenter, you know full well that SBCvoices is not a Calvinist-only blog and publishes posts from varying perspectives about the issues concerning the SBC.

          — Todd

          Mary

          And Todd, please are you going to honestly claim that Trads get treated with anything remotely resembling respect at Voices. Blog Posts calling Trads semi pelegian heretics. Yeah. Everybody who knows anything about the SBC blogosphere knows that at SBC Vocies all voices are equal but some voices are way more equal than others.

          Mary

          Oh course Todd, this is going to be one of those instances where if a Calvinist declares something is so it must certainly be so and anyone dissenting is just lying. It doesn’t matter how many Trads will say they know they are not at all welcome at Voices. They’re all just haters no matter what reputation SBC Voices has amonst Trads.

          volfan007

          Randall and Todd,

          Everyone in here gets to voice their thoughts, as well. So, Randall, you’ve commented frequently in here…have you not?

          Todd, I know that not all blog posts at Voices are Calvinist, but would you not say that many of them are? Matt Svoboda…Jared Moore…. Dave Miller…Josh Breland…etc., etc, etc.

          David

          Randall Cofield

          Vol, Mary, et al,

          I think you may have lost sight of my original contention: NO dissenting voices allowed on the lead articles @ SBC Today.

          After all of this hysteria–and being directed by Mary and David to SBC Voices–that fact still remains uncontested.

          And SBC Voices allows dissenting voices….my, my, my.

          You guys may post your apologies and retractions below… :-)

          Peace

          volfan007

          Randall,

          No apologies coming. This is a private blog owned and operated by people, who do what they want to with it. They allow you, and others with a dissenting voice, to voice their opinions.

          I dont really see a problem with that…..and, I cant really see what problem you have with it.

          David

          Randall Cofield

          David,

          No apologies coming. This is a private blog owned and operated by people, who do what they want to with it. They allow you, and others with a dissenting voice, to voice their opinions.

          I dont really see a problem with that…..and, I cant really see what problem you have with it.

          David, Dr. Hankins’ T. S. was originally published on this very site. The T.S. plainly stated that they hoped to open a dialogue between Traditionalists and Calvinists.

          Three weeks and counting, and not one lead article from the Calvinistic perspective. I point this out with a tongue-in-cheek “resolution,” and the caterwauling begins.

          Mary, SelahV, and you tell me to “go elsewhere” if I don’t like the complete absence of dissenting voices on this forum, assuring me that you were directing me to Calvinist-only sites…except SBC Voices DOES allow dissenting voices in their lead articles!

          You tellin’ me you don’t see the irony of that?

          BTW: Can I expect to have you as a signatory on my resolution? Again, go to http://www.this-is-nuts.com right away, and you could have your name proudly displayed near the very top of this non-Pelagian, ahistoric resolution…. :-)

          Peace

          P.S. The “you may list your apologies and retractions below” was a joke. (Notice the emoticon)…. :-)

        Mary

        Randall, the evidence is available for anyone who cares to look at it over at Vocies as to exactly how welcome the very few token nonCalvinists Voices. SBC Voices is know in the blogosphere as the Calvinists blog whether you choose to accept the evidence or not.

        But please continue with your prattle it just keeps affirming everything that’s being said about how Calvinists treat those who dare don’t think like them.

          Randall Cofield

          Why, thank you, Mary. Your permission for me to prattle means a great deal to me. :-)

    John S.

    Randall, does it seem to you that maybe all this back and forth is going nowhere? There’s nothing really sacred about the SBC–what if we all just leave and associate informally? It seems like the only way to have peace. I’d be willing to do it…I’ve already taken step 1.

Mary

Randall, I can’t imagine why a YRR guy like isn’t making any friends. Boggles the mind.

    Randall Cofield

    Hi Mary,

    It seems that the default position of the Traditionalists on these SBC Today threads is that all Calvinists are YRR’s.

    I ain’t young. I ain’t restless. And I ain’t recently Reformed. Not even close.

    I’ve tried playing nice. You guys seem unable to reciprocate. Just having a little fun now.

    Should I expect your signature on my resolution? :-)

    Loosen up, Mary. We Calvinists aren’t nearly the devils we are being made out to be.

    Peace.

    P.S. You don’t find it a liiiiiiiittle strange that SBC Today has not offered anything at all from the Calvinist’s side of this issue? C’mon now. You can say it. :-)

      Mary

      Randall, it’s the maturity level displayed that makes everyone think the Calvinists are young. Yes we’ve all been witness to how nice you’ve been here.

      Having real life experiences with Calvinists out in the real world I’d say you’re fairly typical of the Calvinists I’ve met. No thanks. Of course this is where Calvinists all declare that I’ve never ever seen or experienced Calvinists behaving badly and I need to stop lying and also I’m just a stupid heretic who’s never read the Bible.

        Randall Cofield

        Hi Mary,

        Yes we’ve all been witness to how nice you’ve been here.

        Do you mean in a fashion like this “nice,” “mature” little jewel:

        If you’re going to use that worthless poll at least be honest.–Mary

        or this:

        Having real life experiences with Calvinists out in the real world I’d say you’re fairly typical of the Calvinists I’ve met. No thanks.

        Really? Fairly typical? May I borrow your crystal ball?

        C’mon Mary. I’ve not seen you have this kind of sensitivity with some of the putrid things being posted by Traditionalists on these threads.

        And again: You don’t find it just a liiiiiiiittle strange that SBC Today has not offered anything at all from the Calvinist’s side of this issue? :-)

        Perhaps you share their bias?

        Peace

          Mary

          Yeah pointing out that a Calvinist was deceptively using a worthless poll to make some point was really mean of me. How dare I!

          And oh how dare I suggest that I’ve had real experiences with Calvinists behaving badly. We all know that’s a lie because the Calvinists all declare it so!

          Randall Cofield

          Mary,

          “Dishonest,” “worthless,” “deceptive.” Wow.

          Calvinists behaving badly? Heck, I’ve seen that myself. If you’ll check my posts you will see that I have never denied that charge.

          Have you ever seen a Traditionalist behaving badly?

          Peace

          Mary

          Randall,

          Let’s just point out here for the fans in the cheap seats how you’ve cherry picked a few words to try to make me look bad.

          Yeah calling a poll worthless is really gonna hurt that polls wittle feelings. And then of course you would ignore the points made about the poll as to why it is totally useless for the SBC.

          Keep playing Randall, you just keep enforcing all the bad things be said about Calvinists.

          Randall Cofield

          Mary,

          So…I guess we can put you down as never having seen a Traditionalist behaving badly?

          :-)

          Peace

      Mary

      And no Randall it’s not strange that a website that was begun in response to all the Calvinists blogs doesn’t feel obligated to give more Calvinists voices. The Calvinists blogs out number the Traditionalists blogs by a great number, but you Calvinists can’t stand that there are even a few blogs not on your side.

        selahV-hariette

        Randall,
        here ya go: this ought to be a good appetizer for you:
        http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2009/02/20/an-open-letter-to-my-non-calvinist-friends-in-the-sbc/
        Of course on that particular post that is addressed to Non-Calvinist Friends in the SBC, the comments are closed. At least here at SBC Today, you are given the opportunity to voice your thoughts with some degree of civility. However, if you continue to write the kind of obnoxious, juvenile commentary and side-show locker-room towel-slapping sarcasm, I’d venture a guess that your voice will be placed on hold until you learn some manners.

        Now, that CB has admittedly tried to offend you to show you how not to behave, you obviously have not gotten the message. Through our conversations, I have been very hospitable to you. Now, I am asking that you take your charming resolutions back to your house and post them for the world to see and to enjoy and giggle over like the Chainsaw Massacre posts at SBC Voices which seek to create more of the kind of humor you think so appropriate for deepening dialogue and extending Christian love.

        I am not young, or restless or reformed, but I am old, weary and informed. I do pray God’s greatest blessings on you and yours as you seek to share your kind of gospel with the world and pray the Holy Spirit of God uses you in spite of how you feel toward others within the body of Christ. selahV

          Mary

          Hariette, I’m hoping real soon that Al Mohler is going to post his edict of which voices in the SBC are to be margelinized so these guys will know which sites are acceptable for them to read. I’m pretty sure this is gonna be one at the top of the list.

          Randall Cofield

          Hi SelahV,

          Now, that CB has admittedly tried to offend you to show you how not to behave, you obviously have not gotten the message.

          Yes, that was quite the show of “divinely inspired” sarcasm and Traditionalist maturity. I thought his response to my seeking his forgiveness (I thought I had offended him) was an especially nice touch–“just thank me for being offensive and all will be well.”

          Come to think of it, your latest post here is a pretty good exercise in maturity. Mind if I hang around and “learn some manners?” Perhaps I could even “learn to behave.”

          You guys are on the verge of unseating us wicked Calvinists for the title of “arrogant.”

          Peace

          selahV-hariette

          Randall, I pray you are blessed beyond measure and God continues to show you mercy and you do not face any situation in which you are humbled by His hand. I also pray that the Holy Spirit will show you what my words to you were meant to convey. God bless…good-night and good bye. selahV

          Randall Cofield

          SelahV,

          Thank you for your kind words. I am blessed beyond measure, and I pray that you are as well. At the end of the day I bear you no animosity, and I trust you bear none toward me.

          I’ll say good night, but not good-bye. Were probably going to spend eternity together…that is if God will forgive me of my Calvinism. :-)

          Grace and Peace.

          Stephen

          selahV,

          I wanted to quickly interject the reason the comments are closed on that blog post as SEBTS’ site is because it’s 3 years old; most blogs default to shutting down after some time has passed. There is however a post from Ed Stetzer currently on the front page about Calvinism in the SBC with over 20 comments.

        Randall Cofield

        Hi Mary,

        And no Randall it’s not strange that a website that was begun in response to all the Calvinists blogs doesn’t feel obligated to give more Calvinists voices.

        I certainly reserve the right to at least object when the site carries the moniker of the SBC in its very title. Last time time I checked I was a bonafide, certified, qualified, baptized Southern Baptist. Or do you, like so many of the Traditionalists I’ve encountered on these threads, wish to have me forcibly cast into the street and run over by a bus? Just askin’, sister.

        The Calvinists blogs out number the Traditionalists blogs by a great number, but you Calvinists can’t stand that there are even a few blogs not on your side.

        My my. The “nice,” “mature” zingers just keep on comin’, don’t they?

        Peace

          Mary

          yeah, Randall, some of us have been complaining that the blog calling itself SBC Voices should be SBC Calvinists Voices but what are ya gonna do. You should go hang out there – there’s a lot of real mature Calvinists like you who call everybody who disagrees with them heretics, liars and stupid.

          selahV-hariette

          Randall, you have voiced your opinion on the matter. At least four or five times. And since it has been duly noted, if we were on the floor your continual bantering about it would be ruled out of order. And as far as you being a bonafide SB, no one has yet to prohibit you from voicing your opinions here in the streams even though you have repeatedly been disrespectful to the authors, and the fellow brothers and sisters in this blog stream.

          In a Tom Ascol kind of reformed church, or a Mark Driscoll Acts 29 church, I’m sure you’d already be sternly disciplined. But we are Trads over here. Don’t know though, how much longer your insults will be posted. Tolerance reaches a limit while grace abounds. selahV

          volfan007

          Randall,

          Something that you may not understand about this blog….it is not owned by the SBC. It is a private blog, which is run by the owners, and they can do whatever they want with it.

          David

          Randall Cofield

          Mary,

          yeah, Randall, some of us have been complaining that the blog calling itself SBC Voices should be SBC Calvinists Voices but what are ya gonna do.

          I went to the SBC Voices site. Third item from the top was Dr. Caner’s interview! SBC Today? Not one, single dissenting voice.

          Peace

          Randall Cofield

          Vol, Mary, SelahV,

          Ok, ok, ok. I get it. No dissenting voices allowed on the SBC Today lead articles.

          Can I leave my resolution? I know you guys didn’t think very well of it, but I thought it was pretty funny.

          Please…… :-)

          Randall Cofield

          Mary,

          You should go hang out there – there’s a lot of real mature Calvinists like you who call everybody who disagrees with them heretics, liars and stupid.

          Mary, your hysteria may have just driven you to break the 9th commandment. I have never called anyone on these threads a heretic, a liar, or stupid.

          Peace

Scott

If I understood Dr. Caner correctly, he said that people voting against the Sinner’s Prayer resolution demonstrated why we need a spiritual renewal. So does that mean that the people who voted against the resolution were in sin or have a deficiency in their spiritual life?

    selahV-hariette

    Scott, I would say that Emir is saying because of the division in the voting all-round at the SBC this year would suggest that we need a 2 Chronicles 7:14 moment in each of our lives and a Pentacostal revival and awakening. I do believe that would include every one in the SBC. Hope that helps. selahV

    Randall Cofield

    Hi Scott,

    Perhaps we need a “Back-slider’s Prayer Resolution” for those of us who voted against it…. :-)

      Cb scott

      Randall Cofield,

      No “Back-slider’s Prayer Resolution” will be necessary. The Apostle John has already written one. 1 John 1:9. I think it will suffice for you just as it has so often for me.

        volfan007

        CB,

        Amen, and :)

        David

        Randall Cofield

        Good ‘un, CB. I think that’s probably pretty close to what Dr. Caner was saying. :-)

          Cb scott

          Randall Cofield,

          Thank you. Like I stated to you on another thread, I am always willing to be of help to you in any way possible. (within the parameters of orthodoxy of course)

          Randall Cofield

          CB Scott,

          You are a most gracious Traditionalist….

          Peace

JoeJ

Dr. Caner,
You mentioned that the original Calvinist-Arminian debate was between two covenantals and that you are non-covenantal. I’m not familiar with this distinction. Please elaborate.

Carl Peterson

What I find interesting in this debate is that the so called “traditionalist” side makes a statement that is clearly against Calvinism. They call this statement a traditional doctrine of soteriology thus making out that the calvinist Baptists are not traditional. Thus they downplay any role that Calvinism might of had traditionally in some Baptist’s life and theology. And then they say that all they want to do is to have a discussion with Calvinists and can’t understand why some are offended. This seems a little disingenuous to me. It seems pretty clear that the agenda is not to talk things out with Calvinistic Baptists as much as some of the reformed Baptist groups have not been about having a dialogue with non-Calvinists. From an ex-Baptist who has seen some interesting Baptist politics (at the church and seminary level) it seems pretty straight forward. It is just sad that it looks like one of the great strengths of Baptists (that reformed and non-reformed can worship in the same denomination) might someday be a thing of the past. Ahh politics. No one does it better than the SBC.

    Bob Hadley

    Carl,

    “Ahh politics. No one does it better than the SBC.”

    Unfortunately I agree with you 100%… and in the SBC no one has done a better job in that department than the leaders of the Reformed Group… my hat is off to them.

    My prayer is that this changes or the rapture takes place, soon and very soon…

    ><>”

selahV-hariette

Randall, Randall,
You wrote:

I went to the SBC Voices site. Third item from the top was Dr. Caner’s interview! SBC Today? Not one, single dissenting voice.

What you were looking at was the aggregator listing, son. SBC VOICES is a directory of SBC Blogs. And it was set up that way to build traffic to its site….and its blog-postings. The Voices blog is the part with the BACON Soteriology post. The “third item from the top that you saw listed of Caner’s interview” is this very page you are reading, and if you click on the link there, it will bring you back here. And as you can see, you have dissented most generously. Hope that helps you understand the workings of the blogs over there. selahV

    Randall Cofield

    SelahV,

    You are correct.

    Would you like to go double-or-nothing by insisting that no dissenting voices are allowed on lead articles at SBC Voices? You know, just like there are none on SBC Today?

    And….”son”? That is either condescension or you are quite an aged lady.

    :-)

    Peace

      selahV-hariette

      Randall, “son” is not meant to be condescending. I apologize if your are offended by my usage of a word I consider very loving. I am sixty-four. I lost my only son 7 years ago on Mother’s Day. So for me to use the word denotes concern and endearment. I read, I thought, you’d been working with youth for 15 years. I felt you to be in your thirties or so. He died when he was 33. Again…I apologize for using a word you consider condescension. Please forgive me.

      As to “double or nothing” on the dissenting voices being allowed on Voices, I can assure you, that Dave Miller would have already deleted a good bit of the conversation we have here. :)

      As well, if my words here are offensive to you, I apologize for them. I have no desire to be offensive. I looked at your comment and figured since you were new to the blogs that you just didn’t know. I should not have assumed you did not know the blog-system over there at SBC Voices. It was very naive of me. Since it seems, there is nothing I can say to you or discuss with you that does not offend you, you may carry on here or anywhere with the full freedom of discussion without anymore input from me. God bless you again and bring grace to your journey. selahV

        Randall Cofield

        SelahV,

        While I had expressed similar sentiments further up the thread, I’ll respond again here.

        I am deeply sorry for your loss, and pray that the God of all comfort will presence Himself with you so that you ever feel beneath you the everlasting arms of His love.

        I say sincerely that you have not offended me. The blogosphere is a rough-and-tumble world, and I engaged on these threads with full knowledge of that.

        These exchanges, by nature, lack the warmth, sincerity, and even humor that is so easily communicated when engaging face to face over a cup of coffee. At the end of the day you are my sister in Christ, even though we disagree on some issues.

        In the Spirit of our matchless Lord, I implore you to forgive me for every comment of mine, without exception, that was offensive to you.

        The upshot of it all, I believe, is this: When we are gathered to our Bridegroom and sit at His feet with glorified minds, I am convinced that all our positions on these issues are going to absolutely pale in comparison to the majestic revealed reality of Almighty God’s redemptive work in Christ Jesus our Lord.

        By His grace alone, I will see you there, my Sister.

        Soli Deo Gloria

      Les Prouty

      Harriete,

      I wasn’t caught up in your exchange with Randy. But seeing this last post/apology made me think. Now that’s the way to respond if you think there has been an offense. Thank you for modeling for us.

      And so very sorry to hear of your loss. My heart goes out to you.

      Les

Mike Davis

Though it is not mentioned by name, Dr Caner appears to refer to the findings of a recent LifeWay survey indicating about 60% of Southern Baptists have a concern about Calvinism. Yet, this same survey shows about 60% of SBC pastors classify their churches as either Calvinist/Reformed or Arminian/Wesleyan (about equal numbers in each category). So while he may prefer that most Baptists were off the Calvinist/Arminian grid and that the Traditional (Anabaptist?) Statement “represents a majority of Southern Baptists historically and presently…” this does not appear to be the case. He also states most Southern Baptists disagree with irresistible grace. But according to the survey 50% of SBC pastors concur at least to some degree with a view of irresistible grace.

Also, Dr Caner says that Article Two of the Traditional Statement was taken “almost point-by-point, word-for-word” from the BFM 2000. However, a comparison of the TS Article Two and BFM 2000 shows that only the first sentence of the affirmation in Article Two contains similar (though not identical) wording to the BFM 2000. Neither the second sentence of the affirmation nor any of the denial in Article Two are found in the BFM 2000. Article Two is one of the problematic sections of the TS and it is not supported by the BFM 2000.

    Shane Dodson

    “Though it is not mentioned by name, Dr Caner appears to refer to the findings of a recent LifeWay survey indicating about 60% of Southern Baptists have a concern about Calvinism. ”

    Ummm…Over 60% of Southern Baptists don’t even show up for Sunday worship.

    Is the statistic you cited supposed to actually mean something significant?

      volfan007

      I’m pretty sure that this 60% are the ones, who do show up for church.

      David

        Mike Davis

        Yes, since it was a survey of SBC pastors, I think it is pretty likely they are showing up for church. ;^)

Norm Miller

The LifeWay survey cited is suspect in that its framers gave respondents only two choices — as if those were the only two extant. Therefore, any extrapolations from the survey’s percentages are equally suspect.

    Mike Davis

    I realize that the Traditionalist view was not offered as a choice on the survey, and while that may limit the information available, I don’t think it makes the survey or its results “suspect”. Presumably Traditionalists are included in the roughly 40% of Calminians, Undecideds, Don’t knows, and None-of-the-above “off-the-grid” views. I agree it would be nice to know the exact percentage of Traditionalists, but whatever that number is, it looks like no one is in the majority.

    Besides, a survey indicating a 60% concern about Calvinism can hardly be accused of being biased in favor of Calvinism. Since Dr Caner appears to rely on the survey to cite the “concern about Calvinism” statistic, I’m only pointing out the same survey indicates neither Calvinists, Arminians, nor those claiming to be “off-the-grid” are in the majority. Dr Caner had said the Traditionalist Statement “represents a majority of Southern Baptists historically and presently…” The TS itself makes a similar claim.

    Also, the survey did specifically address the issue of 50% of SBC pastors agreeing with some view of irresistible grace, yet Dr Caner said most in the SBC disagree with irresistible grace.

    I also don’t think being in the majority necessarily makes someone right (after all, in 1520 most no doubt believed in Purgatory). I’m just pointing out none of the groups appear to be in the majority even though those supporting the Traditionalist view seem to want to presuppose they are in the majority. ;^)

      Cb scott

      “after all, in 1520 most no doubt believed in Purgatory”

      Mike Davis,

      Surely, you realize the above statement has no relevance to any issue in the SBC, right? You certainly do not think that a belief in purgatory, during any time in history, has any bearing on the Christian perception of doctrine in general and soteriology in particular do you?

      If you do think that a 1520 majority view on the significance of purgatory is of importance to this discussion, why don’t you just go ahead and poll the demons of hell for their opinions also?

Tom Fillinger

The issue IS NOT ANY “ISM”. The issue is “What does the text say?” This is determined not by some poll. It is not determined by polemics. It is a matter of EXEGESIS. That being said, the Statement is clearly semi-pelagian and heretical. Roger Olson said as much in his response to this document.

I appeal to all to engage an exegetical approach to theology that is rooted in the precise, compassionate, irenic and accurate treatment of the text. In doing so, “The Statement” will be found wanting.

One final observation. I am saddened by the use of the term ‘fighting’ to describe any attempt at genuine Christian dialog. Paul COMMANDED Titus to: (1) “give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it, Titus 1:9 and (2) teach what accords with sound doctrine, Titus 2:1. This is accomplished by precise exegesis and a comprehensive systematic integration of the entirety of God’s revelation to man, not by polemics and any appeal to history or personalities ancient or contemporary. God’s word does not say one thing in one place and something else in another. We claim to believe in the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture but deny this great principle in the fragmented and schizophrenic manner in which we apply our conclusions.

Bill Mac

Calvinists: I think we need to take a breath here. Dr. Caner is well known for his opposition to Calvinism, but he isn’t his brother. I listened to the interview and it wasn’t that bad. Let’s not make too much of it. Yes, I wish he hadn’t said the “spiritual renewal” thing, implying that those opposed to the resolution were somehow spiritually deficient, but we don’t really know how he meant it so unless someone wants to contact him for a clarification, let it pass.

I really do wish that people would stop saying “I never thought I’d see the day we’d be discussing…….” type statements when something controversial comes up, as if discussing issues is a bad thing.

Dr. Caner is a non-Calvinist. This is a blog run by non-Calvinists. No one should be surprised that they aren’t running articles favorable to Calvinism. There are some good things here, profitable to everyone. Look for them.

    volfan007

    Thank you, Bill Mac, my respect for you grows with every comment you make. God bless you, Brother.

    David

    Debbie Kaufman

    Calvinists: I think we need to take a breath here. Dr. Caner is well known for his opposition to Calvinism, but he isn’t his brother.

    :)

Miguel

Can someone show me in the book of Acts where the key to evangelism is walking around saying “Jesus loves you?” And for those who got all excited about his statement of not letting two Presbyterians define our theology, this is just ignorance of church history. You can label the discussion however you’d like, monergism vs synergism, Augustinian vs Palegian, or Calvinism vs Arminianism. These all revolve around the same issues. I heard a lot in this video about having “discussions” between the two sides, but I’ve not seen actual attempts at this by Emir.

Norm Miller

Mike D: I think you miss the point. There is no way to know how many of the 60 percent who identified with Calvinism did so because they reject the ‘insecurity’ of the believer. That is but one of many ways the survey was skewed from the outset. Frankly, I daresay the survey’s framers were ignorant of the problems that asking only two questions would bring. If they were, then they had no business taking the survey.

    Mike Davis

    I think I may have worded my comment in a confusing way. When I said, about 60% of SBC pastors classify their churches as either Calvinist/Reformed or Arminian/Wesleyan (about equal numbers in each category I meant 30% in the Calvinist category and 30% in the Arminian category. Sorry if the sentence was confusing. Believe me, I’m under no illusions about the fact that a majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists. But it looks like none of the three main groups–Calvinists, Arminians, and Traditionalists–holds a majority. The poll did ask more than two questions and actually did some probing on Calvinist-related issues with some interesting results. Since it was a poll of SBC pastors, I think those responding are less apt to be confused about categories, for example, as in the eternal security question you mentiond. In fact, 94% believed in eternal security, which means some Arminians must have broken ranks on that issue.

Randall Cofield

Well, it seems that SBC Today has closed and deleted the comments on the “800 Signatories” post. Apparently they had inadvertently allowed comments.

Shucks. I had quite a ruckus going on over there with my questioning of the significance of 800 signatures when there are 16,000,000 church members in the SBC (.00005%, if one does the math).

Is it possible that the T.S. doesn’t represent the “majority view” in the SBC??!!

Soli Deo Gloria

Rick

A fascinating discussion I’m sure. I’ve found that my concern on the doctrinal issues are almost all related to what the SBC denies in response to what it acknowledges. The denials seem to contradict the affirmations, particularly with the particular Scriptural references cited. Many of those cited as proof texts seems really odd to me.

Article Three: The Atonement of Christ denies: We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved. Clearly the issue is the supposed ineffectiveness of the atonement. Calvinists teach that the atonement actually saved those who believe. It didn\’t make salvation possible as this position indicates.

Article Six: The Election to Salvation denies: We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation. Not sure how the SBC can hold to this position in light of Romans 9 and Psalm 5:5-6, etc.

m. b. woodside

Randall,

I look at the 800 or so signatures much as I look at many things SBC related. Yes, given the number of SBC members, 800 does not appear to be that many. From my experience as a pastor in the SBC, the churches I pastored, for better or for worse, just did not have Convention matters on their mind. I think there is a disconnect from what goes on in the annual meetings to what is really on the mind of the churches. Part of this is because churches have other matters to tend to other than Convention stuff. The church I am currently attending with membership around 1000 members gives to all the CP offerings, NAMB, IMB, etc but I would guess that 99 percent of members know nothing about the debates on these blogs and the resolutions put forth at the convention. Terms like Traditionalists and New Calvinists, don’t mean anything to them. And sadly, a large portion don’t even know that history was made with the election of Fred Luter

While I think some of this ignorance is unfortunate (esp the election of Luter) , part of me sees it as bliss and just not having to worry about things that ulimately are frustrating. Bottom line, if a pastor is not keyed in on Convention business or makes it a priority for the congregation then most likely the members won’t be clued in on it.

Grace and peace,

M. B. Woodside

    Mary

    So Rev Woodside, let’s imagine that those men like you are pastors of churches and they are educating their members and they are going to start leading their members one way or another. Would it make sense to think that 800 names could be more influential than just 800 people. How many pastors lead churches and their churches will folllow their lead. How many Associational Leaders and the Associations will be influenced by those signing. How many State Convention leaders. Those names represent way more than 800. The SBC is filled with followers. If you had a list of 800 lay people? Meh, maybe not something to think about. But think of the influence Pastors, local, and state leaders have over those who will follow.

    Or one could just sit back and think this is nothing and will die out and mock it and belittle it all the while giving proof to some of the reasons given for the need of the Statement.

Shane Dodson

“Can you with certainty go out to someone and say “Jesus loves you?”

I’m sorry…but where are we told by the Apostles that we are to go out and make that statement to people?

Dr. Caner assumes the validity of the statement and then chides Calvinists for their inability to make it.

I would respond with…”…And where are we taught that Christians are to evangelize by telling people that Jesus loves them?”

*crickets chirping*

    Cb scott

    OK Shane Dodson,

    Do we walk up to a group of 10 people and say, “God hates the greater majority of you”

    BTW, did you folks name you after the lead character in the 1953 movie, SHANE, played by Alan Ladd and co-starring Van Heflin?

      Les Prouty

      Cb,

      “Do we walk up to a group of 10 people and say, “God hates the greater majority of you””

      Do we walk up to a group of 10 people and say, “God loves all of you and has paid for your sins, hurled them into the depths of the sea and remembers them no more and has removed your sins as far as the east is from the west?

      I wouldn’t.

        Cb scott

        Look Les,

        Here is the deal. Prior to the SBC in New Orleans, you made some comments that reveal you are not, in any way a Southern Baptist in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong.

        Let me ask you:

        1). Do you affirm infant baptism as a valid, New Testament Christian baptism?

        2). Do you affirm that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper have sacramental value and effectiveness?

          Les Prouty

          Cb,

          “you made some comments that reveal you are not, in any way a Southern Baptist in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong.”

          I’m not sure what those statements were. Several times here and at SBC Voices I have stated that I was ordained as a pastor in a Southern Baptist church back in the 1980s. I have pastored in several SB churches through the years, though not now nor have I in 20 years.

          1). Do you affirm infant baptism as a valid, New Testament Christian baptism?

          2). Do you affirm that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper have sacramental value and effectiveness?

          I’m not sure what my affiliation or these two questions have to do with this post or the subject of the question I you posed to me right after these questions, but I’m happy to answer.

          1). Do you affirm infant baptism as a valid, New Testament Christian baptism?
          Yes.

          2). Do you affirm that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper have sacramental value and effectiveness?

          I’ll be a little careful here, not knowing what YOU mean by “sacramental value and effectiveness.” I do not want to answer with my understanding of those two words if you have a different understanding of them.

          Suffice it to say that I call water baptism and the Lord’s Supper sacraments and ordinances. I also see them as means of grace. Though the LBC does not say anything about baptism as a means of grace, I like how they talk of the Lord’s Supper as what I see as a means of grace,

          “Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

          Not sure what you mean by effectiveness.

          You’ll likely have a thing or two in response in the way of comments and/or questions.

          Cb scott

          Les,

          I trust you will receive this in the manner of which I extend it to you.

          I like you and I believe you are a brother in Christ. I could work with you in many various endeavors in the advancement of the Kingdom.

          Nonetheless, I am most happy you no longer serve a Southern Baptist church as a pastor. You are not a Southern Baptist. Frankly, you are not a Baptist of any kind.

          You state you were ordained as a Southern Baptist pastor. Obviously, someone was asleep at the wheel if you held to the ideas about baptism and the Lord’s Supper you do at the present. I would have never ordained you as a Southern Baptist pastor. Les, you are simply not a Southern Baptist.

          I have very little that I can say negative about conservative Presbyterians. I just spent a year working closely with the leadership of the two largest PCA churches in the world. Many of them have become dear friends. Yet, they, like you are not Southern Baptists. They even asked me to consider teaching Church Admin. in their seminary. I was honored by the invitation but I cannot do that because I am a Southern Baptist. I see the differences in being a Southern Baptist and being a Presbyterian as real. I genuinely believe the Scripture does give Baptist theology far more credibility than Presbyterian theology. Otherwise, I would be part of the PCA.

          Les, I hope you never take a position in another Southern Baptist church. I believe it would be unethical on your part to do so in light of your confession as to your beliefs relating to baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

          Les Prouty

          Cb,

          Thanks for your reply.

          “Nonetheless, I am most happy you no longer serve a Southern Baptist church as a pastor. You are not a Southern Baptist. Frankly, you are not a Baptist of any kind.”

          I fully understand. No offense taken.

          “You state you were ordained as a Southern Baptist pastor. Obviously, someone was asleep at the wheel if you held to the ideas about baptism and the Lord’s Supper you do at the present. I would have never ordained you as a Southern Baptist pastor. Les, you are simply not a Southern Baptist.”

          I understand that as well. But, my views were fully and only credobaptist and more Zwinglian back in 1987. I don’t think you would have had any issues ordaining me back then. Obviously my views have changed since then. I later graduated fromCovenant Theological Seminary and became ordained as a teaching elder in the PCA, and have served on the presbytery candidates and credentials committee where men come for examination as they seek ordination.

          Frankly, I was for many years a sometimes harsh critic of my former views I had held as a Baptist and somewhat pridefully attacked any and every willing opponent on the issue of Baptist ecclesiology vs. Presbyterian ecclesiology.

          I’ve repented of my extreme sectarian views. In fact I’ve come to the place where I can with all sincerely affirm aspects of Baptist views as well as Presbyterian views, much to the chagrin and consternation of both camps. I frustrate Baptists AND Presbyterians.

          I realize that there is not a SB church out there that would have me. That’s fine. I’m not seeking one. If i did, i would be extremely open about my theology. But as i said, im not seeking a SB pastorate and have no intention to do so. I do, however, have great love for my SB brethren and have close family members heavily involved in SB churches. I visit SB churches often and have several wonderful SB church partners in the Haiti orphan ministry I run.

          And, since I have so many friends and family and partners who are SB, I have a keen and personal interest in the state of the SBC. Hence, my involvement on these SBC blogs.

          Have a great day.

        Cb scott

        Also Les,

        The question was; Do we walk up to a group of 10 people and say, “God hates the greater majority of you?”

        That question was in response to this question; “Can you with certainty go out to someone and say “Jesus loves you?”

        As a response to me, you throw a curve ball. Well, the curve was high and outside and I did not swing.

        If you want to answer the question I asked Shane Dodson, feel free to do so. We can then continue.

          Les Prouty

          Cb,

          “The question was; Do we walk up to a group of 10 people and say, “God hates the greater majority of you?””

          No.

          Cb scott

          Les,

          Thank you for your answer. Last evening, although probably not in the same manner as it would have been had the dialogue been with you, I addressed this issue with Shane Dodson. If you desire to read that dialogue and then take up the same subject, I will be glad to engage. Although, it might be later in the evening as I have a long day ahead with ministry projects.

          Les Prouty

          Cb, I did read that dialogue. I think you guys are doing fine on that. My earlier response was short and hopefully captured my understanding on that issue. I wasn’t intending to be sharp or harsh with you. I hope you didn’t take it that way.

          As I have said other places, I can affirm an aspec of God’s love for all men. But I don’t think it is the same as His love for the elect, His people.

          But also as I’ve said, at the end of the day, I would have those who affirm His love for all and those who affirm an unlimited atonement (and we all know no one here is a universalist), I would have any of you all preach with me on any trip to Haiti. You’ll be preaching Christ and Him crucified and you’ll all call people to repent and believe in Him.

          God bless,

          Les

      Shane Dodson

      We neither walk up to people and tell them “Jesus loves all of you” nor do we walk up to people and say “God hates the greater majority of you.”

      Neither one has Biblical precedent.

      We preach Christ crucified and call all men to repent.

      We evangelize as the Apostles did.

      The apostles never evangelized by telling people “Jesus loves all of you!”

      To answer your last question…Yes.

Bob Hadley

Gentlemen,

This is all very, very simple. “I believe without hesitation or equivocation that God loves all people in the world (John 3:16) and He desires all people’s salvation (2 Peter 3:9). As followers of Jesus saved by His matchless grace (Ephesians 2:1-10), we are compelled to go with urgency to all people to tell them compassionately of God’s love for them (2 Corinthians 4:5) and to call them clearly to repent and believe in Christ (Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38). As we do this, I believe we simply need to be as biblical as possible (2 Timothy 2:15). Do I believe it is “wrong” for someone to pray a “prayer of salvation”? Certainly not. Calling out to God in prayer with repentant faith is fundamental to being saved (Romans 10:9-10).”

How is that for an answer to this question?

><>”

    Les Prouty

    Bob,

    I would make a few wording changes and substantially agree with you.

    I believe without hesitation or equivocation that God loves all people in the world (John 3:16), though not all people in the same saving way, and He desires people from every tribe and nation and social status salvation to be saved (2 Peter 3:9). As followers of Jesus saved by His matchless grace (Ephesians 2:1-10), we are compelled to go with urgency to all people to tell them compassionately of God’s love for sinners (2 Corinthians 4:5) and to call them to repent and believe in Christ (Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38). As we do this, I believe we simply need to be as biblical as possible (2 Timothy 2:15). Do I believe it is “wrong” for someone to pray a “prayer of salvation”? Certainly not. Calling out to God in prayer with repentant faith is ordinarily fundamental to being saved (Romans 10:9-10).”

    And as I have said before, I would have you preach with me in Haiti on any trip.

    Shane Dodson

    John 3:16 says that that “God so loved the world.”

    The text does not read “God loves every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world in exactly the same way.”

    In John 12:19, the Pharisees said that “the world has gone after Him (Jesus).”

    Did they mean “every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world?”

      Cb scott

      Shane Dodson,

      Exegete Matthew 23:37.

        Shane Dodson

        I’m getting whiplash, Cb.

        One topic at a time, please.

        Does John 12:19 mean “every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world?”

          Bob Hadley

          Shane,

          Nope.

          But when Jesus said, “God so loved the world,” I believe He indeed meant “every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world.”

          And Jesus indeed gave His life for ANYONE and EVERYONE that would believe in Him and they would not perish but have everlasting life!

          Praise God that is some Good News that will indeed preach!

          ><>”

          Cb scott

          Shane Dodson,

          If you are going to hang your, “God loves some and hates others hat” on John 12:19, you need to find a better place to hang your hat.

          That dog just won’t hunt and any biblically and theologically sound Calvinist who has hand any training in hermeneutic, if he is honest to the text will tell you that.

Bob Hadley

Les,

What do you mean, God does not love all people in the same way? If God is no respector of persons and He loves us unconditionally, how is it that you can say, God does not love all people the same way? Where in the Bible does God say He loves people differently?

><>”

    Shane Dodson

    Very simple, Bob.

    Do you love your wife and your neighbor’s wife in exactly the same way?

      Cb scott

      Shane Dodson,

      That is truly a pathetic question. It has no merit in this discussion. Obviously, your understanding of the doctrine of God is extremely lacking.

        Shane Dodson

        Why is the question “pathetic,” Cb?

        Bob was asking how can God love in different ways.

        The question specifically addresses that concept.

        It directly pertains to the discussion at hand.

        Do you love everybody in exactly the same way? Is there any reason why you won’t allow the God of the universe the same freedom?

          Cb scott

          Shane Dodson,

          No, I do not love everyone the same. To be honest, there are some people who in all honesty, I do not love.

          Yet, I am not God, nor are you. Consider Isaiah 55: 8ff.

          But I do know this. God loved me even prior to my loving Him or anyone else, except maybe three of four people, and He hung His Son on a cross for me.

          That is a love far beyond what I am capable. It is far beyond what you are capable. I would not sacrifice any of my children for a bunch of wretches as were/are we.

          BTW, I have told all of my children that God loves them. And yes, they were all wretches and aliens to God before He gloriously saved each and every one of them.

          Bob Hadley

          Shane,

          You might take a hint from CB…

          The Bible says that God, not Bob, is NO respecter of persons… so how can He love people differently?

          The Bible says that God, again not me, loves us all unconditionally… the interesting thing about this statement is that it simply says, God loves me with no regard to my love for Him… in otherwords, if I were perfect (which I am not), He could not love me any more than He already does.

          I find that simply incredible.

          ><>”

Shane Dodson

And God does not love everybody the same way, Cb.

New Testament evangelism does not involve telling people that “Jesus loves them.”

If you have found such an example, please share the text and expound on it.

    Bob Hadley

    John 3:16 is a very simple start.

    ><>”

      Shane Dodson

      Again, Bob…you’re attributing a meaning to the word “world” that doesn’t comport with other uses of the word…even by the same author in the same Gospel.

      You’re reading a meaning into the word that comports with your soteriology…but that is eisegesis. If you’re willing to look beyond your biases and traditions…a treasure trove of truth awaits you.

    Cb scott

    Shane Dodson,

    New Testament evangelism is telling people the Good Story of Jesus Christ.

    Telling people that God loves them is simply telling people God loves them because He does.

    It is far beyond my understanding as to why He loves people, but He does. I for one, am extremely glad.

      Shane Dodson

      Dr. Caner was speaking in the broader context of evangelism and missions when he made his argument that Calvinists cannot walk up to random people and tell them “Jesus loves you.”

      Again, it is NOT the experience of the New Testament apostles that evangelism/missions connotes–in any way, shape, or form–the action of telling random people that “Jesus loves them.”

      That is 100% tradition.

      UnBiblical tradition at that.

Shane Dodson

“But when Jesus said, “God so loved the world,” I believe He indeed meant “every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world.”

You believe this based upon what? Your presuppositions?

“And Jesus indeed gave His life for ANYONE and EVERYONE that would believe in Him and they would not perish but have everlasting life!”

I wholeheartedly agree that Jesus gave up His life for His sheep (John 10:11, 15).

He died for His sheep…not the goats (Matthew 25:32-33).

Shane Dodson

“The Bible says that God, not Bob, is NO respecter of persons… so how can He love people differently?”

Please pay careful attention to the text, Bob.

“So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.””
(Act 10:34-35)

God elects people out of every tribe and nation unto salvation (Rev 5:9). THAT is the context of what Peter is speaking.

Obviously, God doesn’t “respect” the one who does NOT fear Him nor does what is right and acceptable to Him.” Peter is making a conditional statement.

God saves people out of every nation and circumstance (financial, cultural, intellectual). He will save Jews AND Gentiles alike, which is what Peter was specifically speaking about.

That does not mean that God loves all people in EXACTLY the same way. Again, you’re bringing your own biases into the reading of the text.

    Bob Hadley

    Pay particular attention to the text… that is indeed some very good advice.

    Then Peter opened his mouth and said:”In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. Acts 10:34-36

    I hate to say this at the risk of indicating that I think you are having a difficult time understanding black ink on white paper… but verse 35 does not qualify verse 34.

    The use of “but” clarifies that well enough. God loves all in that He shows no partiality… BUT… in every nation, WHOEVER fears Him and works righteousness is accepted BY HIM.

    Interestingly enough… the text does not say that God chooses those who choose Him but rather accepts those who choose Him.

    ><>”

      Shane Dodson

      ” God loves all in that He shows no partiality… BUT… in every nation, WHOEVER fears Him and works righteousness is accepted BY HIM.”

      Bob…the text doesn’t not read “God loves all in that He shows no partiality.”

      Peter is stating that God shows no partiality in His election. The context is not about some sort of unconditional love of God.

      The fact that you’re adding your own biases into what Peter is saying should be plain to all. Is God’s saving love extended to those who don’t fear Him and obey Him? If it is not, then it is conditional.

    Bob Hadley

    PS…

    You said… “Peter is making a conditional statement.”

    Peter’s statement “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,” is everything BUT a conditional statement.

    You said, “Obviously, God doesn’t “respect” the one who does NOT fear Him nor does what is right and acceptable to Him.” Peter is making a conditional statement.”

    Well… call me illiterate… but it is not so obvious to me… especially since the text CLEARLY says… “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,”

    Goodness… you are arguing against the text itself and you are telling ME to pay particular attention to the text! Simply amazing.

    I am reminded of the passage where Jesus warns about picking the speck out of someone’s eye when there is a plank in your own!

    ><>”

Shane Dodson

“If you are going to hang your, “God loves some and hates others hat” on John 12:19, you need to find a better place to hang your hat.”

I’m not hanging any “God loves some and hates others hat” on ANYTHING, Cb. I don’t even own such a hat.

I believe that God loves people differently.

As do you. Is is a sin to love people differently?

    Cb scott

    “Is is a sin to love people differently?”

    Shane Dodson,

    My honest answer to that question does haunt me at times and I must state; In my case and due to my motives, yes, there are times when my loving people differently is sinful.

    Shane Dodson, I think maybe your problem here is with the word “kosmos.”

    Consider 1 John 2:2 ….. and might I add, as you have instructed Bob Hadley, do so without presuppositions.

      Shane Dodson

      So are there times when loving people differently is NOT sinful?

      Is is sinful to love my wife and my neighbor’s wife differently?

      Of course not.

      1 John 2:2?

      He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
      (1Jn 2:2)

      “World” cannot mean the sins of every person who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world. Propitiation carries the meaning of “turning away wrath.” If God’s wrath has been been turned away from everybody who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world…then everybody will be saved and enter into God’s presence because God’s wrath has been turned away from them.

      Are you a universalist?

        Cb scott

        Shane Dodson,

        You are right. The word “kosmos” as used in 1 John 2:2 does not mean “sin.” I am pretty sure that kosmos does not mean sin anywhere in the N.T. I think you were simply unable to make an honest effort to exegete 1 John 2:2 without superimposing your desired conclusions.

        Also, 1 John 2:2 does not give an added meaning to the word “propitiation” as your comment seems to suggest that I am promoting.

        In no way did I state, nor do I believe, “God’s wrath has been turned away from everybody who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world…”

        Where, in this comment thread did I make that statement? I did not. In addition, I am pretty sure Bob Hadley did not make such a statement either.

        Shane Dodson, the continuous problem you seem to be having in this comment thread is that you cannot approach a theological dialogue without maintaining a fierce adherence to a specific soteriological dogma.

        Also, you, as is evidenced in you comments to both Bob Hadley and to me, are demanding that we adhere to specific concepts of soteriology in order for you to neatly make your argument.

        Nonetheless, I will answer your question as to me being a “universalist.” The answer is no, if you are defining the term as is generally define among those who adhere to an orthodox Christian theology.
        In addition, I have made no comment or statement in this thread that would give the possibility of coming to such a conclusion of what I have stated here by any individual who is theologically astute.

          Shane Dodson

          “Also, 1 John 2:2 does not give an added meaning to the word “propitiation” as your comment seems to suggest that I am promoting. ”

          So what is being propitiated, Cb? What is being appeased by Christ’s sacrifice?

          I’m not adding a meaning. A propitiatory sacrifice is one that appeases wrath.

          “In no way did I state, nor do I believe, “God’s wrath has been turned away from everybody who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world…”

          If you are saying that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Christ is the propitiation for everybody who has ever lived and who will ever live in the entire world, then that is exactly what you are saying…unless you are trying to argue that the text isn’t saying what it plainly says.

          IF you believe that Christ is the propitiation for everybody who has ever lived and will ever live in the entire world, then you are a universalist.

          If you deny universalism, then are you being inconsistent with your statements.

          Cb scott

          Shane Dodson,

          Actually, I am not a universalist and I am not being inconsistent with my statement.

          Let me briefly present to you my position and then, although I enjoy this engagement, (probably too much) I must go and be about other things today.

          I do adhere to a universal provision with a limited application pertaining to Christ’s atonement for sin.

          I believe that I am not being inconsistent in my position.

          In addition, I believe the Abstract of Principles in Article IV will sustain my position. Naturally, it should go without stating that, as an inerrantist, I would have confidence that the Scripture will sustain my position, else I would not hold such a conviction.

Jacob Hall

Irony: Emir Caner using Spurgeon as an example of the Sinners Prayer being used (which is vastly different than that used by baptists today) and goes on to say that its arrogance among Calvinists to say/believe that Calvinism is the Gospel, which is a direct quote of Spurgeon.

Also, I don’t know how many times people will keep buying this “Baptists came from Anabaptists” nonsense. Any decent student of history knows that isn’t true.

    volfan007

    Jacob,

    Baptists came from many streams…streams that all have been running down into the Gulf of what Baptist are today. We didnt just begin 400 yrs ago by 2 Presbyterians, who held to Augustine philosophy. And, any student of history should know that….unless they’ve been drinking the kool aid.

    And, here’s what Spurgeon said about a sinners prayer, which lines up really, really good with what Traditional Baptists say about a sinners prayer….

    Charles Spurgeon “A Free Grace Promise” 1888

    “Oh, that the unconverted among you may be moved to pray. Before you leave this place, breathe an earnest prayer to God, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner. Lord, I need to be saved. Save me. I call upon thy name.” Join with me in prayer at this moment, I entreat you. Join with me while I put words into your mouths, and speak them on your behalf—”Lord, I am guilty. I deserve thy wrath. Lord I cannot save myself. Lord, I would have a new heart and a right spirit, but what can I do? Lord, I can do nothing, come and work in me to will and to do of thy good pleasure.”

    David

    Donald R. Holmes

    Jacob,
    You do realize that Dr. Emir Caner was Professor of Church History and Anabaptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It seems that he is considered a “decent student of history” and holds both standing and credibility in this subject. What are your quals?

Shane Dodson

So Cb…what does Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice appease?

    Patrick

    “So Cb…what does Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice appease?”

    The typical, making people “savable,” rather than actually appeasing anything.

    The episode of Seifeld comes to mind,

    Propitiation! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

    volfan007

    Propitiation for our sins….the blood of Jesus appeases the wrath of God against our sins…when we look to the cross in humble, repentant faith. When someone rejects the blood of Jesus, which was shed for thier sins, then God’s wrath continues upon them, and will be seen in a visible way at the Great White Throne Judgment.

    David

      Patrick

      “the blood of Jesus appeases the wrath of God against our sins…when we look to the cross in humble, repentant faith. ”

      Not a big shocker, but just as Shane suggested, and I figured all along…Christ’s work on the cross didn’t actually do anything. No one was saved because of it. Christ just made us savable. The determining factor is us. Yay us!

        volfan007

        Patrick,

        That’s not what I said, and I believe you know it.

        The death of Jesus didnt just make us savable, and there is no “yay us.” No one has said anything close to this, except you, as you seek to ridicule what we believe that the Scripture truly teaches. Your ridicule will not make your arguement any stronger; it only makes you look weaker.

        The only reason any of us are truly saved, is because Jesus died on the cross….shedding His blood for our sins. And, anyone can truly have it shed upon thier hearts by faith, and have God’s wrath appeased, which was against them. Because, we, too, were under the wrath of God, until we got saved; just like the rest of the sinners in this world. Ephesians 2:3 says, “among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”

        David
        David

          volfan007

          My name is actually just David…not “David David.”

          David

          Patrick

          “That’s not what I said, and I believe you know it. ”

          How is that not what you said. The only difference between the person who got saved and the one who didn’t is what the person actually did. Christ’s propitiation wasn’t any different between the two of them. So the deciding factor in things is the person. Christ didn’t actually save anyone then….he merely gave them the opportunity to be saved, and let people have the ability to over-ride his work apparently. That’s some pretty weak work on the cross there if you ask me. I’ll stick with a Christ who actually saved who he intended to save on the cross.

      Shane Dodson

      “Propitiation for our sins….the blood of Jesus appeases the wrath of God against our sins…when we look to the cross in humble, repentant faith. ”

      And when somebody DOESN’T look to the cross in humble, repentant faith?

      Does the blood of Jesus appease the wrath of God against that person?

        volfan007

        Shane,

        When someone rejects the blood of Jesus, then they are even more guilty, and will experience the full wrath of God. When people reject God’s salvation, which He offers to them, then they will answer for it in the judgment….experience the wrath of God.

        But, we, who used to be under God’s wrath, are no longer under the wrath of God; because we got saved. But, we were under the wrath of God, just like the other lost people. What got us out of this mess? The blood of Jesus.

        David

          Shane Dodson

          “When someone rejects the blood of Jesus, then they are even more guilty, and will experience the full wrath of God.”

          Are you saying, then, that the blood of Jesus never propitiated God’s wrath for that person’s sins?

          After all, if someone rejects the blood of Jesus, surely God isn’t going to punish them TWICE for the same sins….?

          volfan007

          Shane,

          The death of Jesus is sufficient to appease the wrath of God on everyone, who has been born, who are born right now, and for whoever will be born in the future. The blood of Christ is sufficient to cover the sins on anyone, who repents and believes.

          David

          Les Prouty

          DAVID,

          “The death of Jesus is sufficient to appease the wrath of God on everyone, who has been born, who are born right now, and for whoever will be born in the future. The blood of Christ is sufficient to cover the sins on anyone, who repents and believes.”

          No Calvinist disagrees wit that statement.

Jay

God decides who will be saved. Man decides who will be saves. No brainer on which side sinful men will choose.

    volfan007

    Just like in a marriage proposal. A man chooses a woman. Asks the woman to marry him. She chooses to marry him. The man chose her. The woman chose him. The man chose her, and asked her. The woman chose him, and responded to his proposal.

    God chose us. We had to respond. Hummmmmmm….didnt the Lord compare His Church to a Bride?

    David

    Donald R. Holmes

    Jay,
    Sinful men have chosen both sides.

Michael Harbuck

My name is Michael Harbuck, Senior Pastor, Northside Baptist Church, Centerville, GA, and I AM HONORED TO SIGN THIS LIST. Today I am weeping (but with joy!), because I have longed deeply for such a clearly articulated representation of my own thoughts and heart regarding the doctrines of grace. I have never been quite able to communicate effectively my own feeling on the issue, so reading this resolution was like a break of fresh air – an EXACT representation of my heart and, quite honestly, God’s Word!
The Calvinists have long had their own statements of faith regarding this specific issue, yet the majority of Southern Baptists have not – UNTIL NOW.
Thank you again, and may the Lord bless the author of this resolution!

Michael Harbuck,
Senior Pastor,
Northside Baptist Church, Centerville, GA

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available