Hold The Hearse, I Have An Idea!

May 9, 2011

Dr. Jerry Nash, Director of Missions, Harmony Baptist Association, Trenton, FL

If the current trend continues there will be another attempt to change the name of The Southern Baptist Convention within the next few years.  When the name changes I believe there will be thousands of SBC churches which will not make the transition.

You may remember the only word in our name which the name-change proponents agreed with is The.  They are anti-Southern, anti-Baptist, and anti-Convention.  I have a suggestion for those who wish to lead the SBC in a new direction.  Let us agree to let the anti-SBC, anti-CP, anti-Association, anti-State Convention and pro-Primitive Baptist doctrines be blessed to go out and become whatever it is they want to be.  I believe God would be honored if they left before destroying The Southern Baptist Convention.

For those of that perspective, they can take with them any seminaries that want to go.  For those who believe we need only one missionary sending agency, let them take the New NAMB with them.  Early indications are that the shift has already begun.  Why not make it official?  If we continue to support non-Baptist networks and fund non-Baptist new churches, it is only a matter of time before SBC churches will further reduce CP giving.

As more and more of our SBC churches discover the shift in direction and doctrine, there will be less and less loyal support.  As in 1 Corinthians 14:8, the trumpet is making an uncertain sound.  I believe there is a limit to unquestioned, lifetime loyalty to a denomination.  We see it in other denominations around us.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest evangelical denomination in America.   Our critics think we need to make major changes to become more relevant and effective.  The time has come for those who not truly Baptist in faith and practice to move along and form their own convention (or whatever they want to call it) instead of trying to fix what isn’t broken.

Jerry W. Nash

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Jared Moore

WOW. I find it ironic that Nash is the DOM for “Harmony” Baptist Association. It sounds like he wants the sbc to be HIS sbc, instead of everyone’s sbc… for, it is Southern Baptists that are seeking change. Why can’t we have honest conversations about the current way or the previous way ministries have been carried out in the sbc? They’re NOT working, or the CP wouldn’t be in constant decline. The CP has been in steady decline for almost 20 years… so exactly how is it NOT broke? We do need change and unity… and Nash’s response is definitely NOT what we need. Maybe Nash needs to change the name of his Baptist assocation to “My Way or the Highway” Baptist Association? Because, this is truly what he means. It’s ironic that he speaks about the cooperative program, and then reveals his UNWILLINGNESS to cooperate with men who agree with the BF&M 2000. Nash, if you agree with the BF&M 2000, and you’re serious about the gospel, I’m ready to cooperate with you. Are you willing to seek the nations with me?


To me it’s not so much of the antiSBCers leaving the convention but that they’re taking the Convention to a place where the churches are simply not going to follow.

Heads are going to explode over this post but so many people are so clueless as to how many churches are actually having the discusion of “why should we send money off to NAMB and Calvinist Seminaries when they want to create churches where we are not welcome?”


    So … the Calvinists are welcome at non-Calvinist churches and seminaries? (It sure doesn’t seem that way to me. I wonder how many Calvinists are in Nash’s “Harmony” Baptist Association? Hmmm …) Or is it that you could care less about how Calvinists have been treated in the SBC for the last 70 or so years? If so, why is that?


      On the contrary I think the Calvinist have been treated very well by the SBC – they have their own seminary. It’s the Calvinist who call anyone who suggestst that Calvinist have caused division and discord, splitting churches and families, – those people are called liars. People who don’t bow down and worship at the feet of Piper and Driscoll are called “ant-Calvinist” Calvinist have been welcomed until too many churches were hurt and disrupted by the rapid band of Calvinist who decide that a nonCalvinist church needs to be radically changed. The rapid Calvionist is the one who does not welcome anyone and like Obama and his vision for our country the Calvinist wants to radically transform the SBC. Many of us have experienced this rabid Calvinism and that’s what’s causing the division. That and the fact that Calvinist refuse to admit that for years there was a stealth mission to try to “quietly reform” unsuspecting SBC churches. Too many us experienced it first hand for all us to be lying. Reforming existing churches failed so now we see the tactic has changed to planting new churches – will the Calvinist hollar when the majority of all new NAMB plants turn out to be ACTS29esque churches. Calvinist do not want a seat at the table they want the whole table. The problem is that churches are going to stop surpporting the dinner when the people taking their money have shown nothing but disdain and disrespect and want the nonCalvinist money simply to eradicate these theologicaly inferior nonCalvinist.

        Joe Blackmon


        I’m so Calvinist that I won’t let my wife plant anything but TULIPS. I’m so Calvinist that all my outlines or lists have only 5 points. Now, I’m no longer in an SBC church (not because I disagree with the SBC or it’s doctrine–just happened that we had some friends going to a Bible church when we left our last church and we joined them–familiar faces and all) but if I was I sure as heck wouldn’t want any CP dollars going to Acts29 church plants. I personally see nothing good about going into a SBC church that has congregational polity and working to change it to elder-led polity. I’ve never seen a church split due to Calvinism, but I don’t get out much and I don’t doubt that it does, and has happened and it should not. But, I’ve seen churches split over what color to paint the sanctuary or whether to celebrate Homecoming on the 3rd Sunday in August or the 2nd Sunday in September.

        I guess my point is I don’t think the picture you paint of Calvinists is true for all or even a majority of Calvinists.


          Joe, anybody who’s been in an SBC church for any length of time could probably tell some tales. I’ve been in business meetings lasting hours over whether the church should plant a tree, what kind of tree, who’s gonna water the tree, which account does the money come from for purchasing and maintenance, and then the big blow up why can’t we just plant a rose bush instead? I can see why the Elder thing is attractive to some.

          I know some very fine Calvinist – they have their own churches and don’t try to tell our church how to do our business and wish us well as we wish them. We cooperate at times of disaster and sometimes in city wide events. I got no problem with Calvinist or Calvinism. But, I think in certain areas of the country there has been a huge Calvinism problem – is it all Calvinist? no. Is it a majority of Calvinist? I don’t know. But it is a very vocal, rabid faction of them who are attempting a coup. what I do know is that we’ve watched for years as there as been a concerted effort to “take over” associations by Calvinist – then those Calvinist associations will “plant” their guys in empty pulpits. There’s been concerted efforts to try to get more power state wide all under the guise of bringing in “young leaders.” And of course those “young leaders” bring in more of their “young leader” friends. Now we see the NAMB in the hands of not really a Calvinist except he really is because it’s the U not the L that counts, now we hear he wants to circumvent the States in planting churches. What kind of churches? How often have we been beaten over the head with how great Acts29 is?

          I don’t know Joe, I appreciate that you didn’t just outright call me a liar. I think there are some genuine Calvinist around these blogs who were in preschool when this Calvinist push really started so they don’t get how bad it really was a few years back.

          But maybe someone can answer this question – of all the people screaming “why isn’t the BFM 2000 enough?” Why don’t they ever ask Al Mohler “Why isn’t the BFM 2000 enough?” Why is it ok to have two seminaries (I think SETBS now also makes everyone sign off on the Abstract of Principles) who would exclude the majority of the SBC from working at their Seminary? All this talk of Unity – let’s fix that little problem right there or stop the hypocrtical why do nonCalvinist want to exlude everybody. The Abstract is a pretty exclusionary document and please don’t come back with some idiotic response about it being in the original charter – why on earth are we bound by something other than the Bible except that certain people excluding others is always ok. A few years back some fool blogger in Okie alledgely “exposed” a plot of Patterson to fire all the Calvinist at Southwestern. Of course it didn’t happen thanks to the heroic efforts of said super de duper cool guy. But why is it ok to have a Calvinist seminary and not a nonCalvinist seminary? yeah yeah I know Southern has 4 pointers so that makes it ok – what a vast bridge has been spanned from teh 4 pointers to the 5 pointers. what about the rest us – where do we fit in to the new SBC?

          Joe Blackmon

          I appreciate that you didn’t just outright call me a liar.

          Hey, just because I haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. I have heard the same sorts of things from more than just you and I TOTALLY agree that someone going into a church with the idea “By ned, I’m going to make these people Calvinist even if it kills them” has nothing to do with the gospel. I think it’s possible for a church to change things about how it does business but that would be the church as a whole making and not just a vocal minority cramming things down everyone elses throat. So, in short, I don’t think you were lying or stretching the truth one little bit. I obviously need to get out more.

          please don’t come back with some idiotic response

          Whoa, there nelly. Where did that come from? I mean, seriously. I’ve never read the Abstract so I really don’t know much about it. Can I ask you something (and perhaps I should just Google it)? I thought the Abstract was used by all the SBC seminaries at one point–am I misremembering? Anyway, it’s just my most humble of opinions, but I would think the BFM 2000 would be what should be used for SBC seminaries and denominational positions rather than the Abstract. However, nobody has asked me.

          A few years back some fool blogger in Okie alledgely “exposed” a plot of Patterson to fire all the Calvinist at Southwestern. Of course it didn’t happen thanks to the heroic efforts of said super de duper cool guy. But why is it ok to have a Calvinist seminary and not a nonCalvinist seminary?

          I remember that. Funny, funny stuff. I told him and his little trained pet minion on several blog threads things like “Someone is going to roll your house with cheap toilet paper–the kind that’s hard to get off. Now, if it happens you heard it here first. If it doesn’t I’m a hero who exposed the plot.” Haa

          Anyway, I don’t think it would be right to fire someone for being Calvinist or non-Calvinist at any Seminary. I’m not sure how many faculty at Southern are 5 pointers as a percentage of faculty. I think having 5 pointers and non-5 pointers on staff is the best way to go for any seminary. Of course, no one has called me up and asked my opinion.

          Anyway, anytime you’re in the Middle TN area and want to go hand out some New Testaments or tracts or something, let me know. If when we’re witnessing to someone, they repent of their sins and trust Christ to save them, you can say “They made the deicision to trust Christ” and I’ll say “The gospel call is effectual for the elect”. Haa haa haa


          Joe, sorry for the idiotic crack. I didn\’t mean for it to be directly at you but at those who use the \”it\’s in the charter so we have to use it\” crowd. It\’s as if the Abstract is the Golden Tablet of Moroni given by God himself and how dare anyone question why it\’s ok for Al an Co to use it to exclude anyone who doesn\’t agree with him.

          I don\’t know the answer to your question about the Abstract having been used by all the seminaries previously. I know some people will do some semantically gymnastics to say they can affirm it and claim to be a nonCalvinist.

          I just think it\’s the height of hypocrisy where you see the Calvinist screaming \”why isn\’t the BFM 2000 enough\” when Al Mohler and Danny Akin have declared it to be not enough so they can be exclusionary.

          Thanks for the invite. Haven\’t been to Tennessee since I was a Youth way back. Beautiful country.

          Blessings to you and yours Joe

      peter lumpkins

      Presumably you are the same “Job” who pulled an historical rabbit out of the hat by citing a fictitious context for a G.Purefoy quote I cited here. I corrected the historical record but you failed to respond. I suppose one should keep this apparent incidence of misreading history in mind when one reads a statement questioning how Calvinists have been treated in the SBC for the last 70 or so years.

      Even so, you characterized Brad Whitt and fellow travellers’ (yes, Job explicitly wrote, “I am talking about you” i.e. Brad Whitt and fellow travellers)  position as “ahistorical arguments” and “utterly false claims” about being marginalized which you then explicitly connected to racism: “That sounds just like “the blacks are taking over!” that you would have heard in certain segregationist quarters in the 1950s…” 

      Not satisfied with merely smearing Brad Whitt & company with racist segregationism of the 50s, Job must make Brad Whitt & fellow travellers even more sinister: 

      Say what you want about the segregationists, they were explicit in what and why they wanted it, and where I most certainly disagree with them, I respect their honesty. It is the neo-segregationists [i.e. Brad Whitt and fellow travellers] with their “I support integration BUT …” code words and politics that are not worthy of respect” (all emphasis mine)

      To Dave Miller, the “editor” of SBC Voices, I queried how the comment could stand, for Dave initially responded to your
      “neo-segregationist” nonsense as a both “Insightful and balanced comment. Thank you, Job.” It was this response which solicited two challenges from Tim Rogers before Dave finally suggested Tim Rogers had “read some things into Job’s comments.” Indeed Dave Miller also ignored Aaron Weaver’s formidable challenge about Job’s making Whitt’s (and fellow travellers) perspective into “neo-segregation.”

      I then asked this question to Dave Miller who refused to post it the first time; I reposted it at his subsequent but curious insistence he will always answer “straight-forward” questions (it’s curious because the question could not be more straight-forward in my view but he failed to consider it—even post it): “Since you characterize Job’s analogy as both insightful and balanced, could you please explain how tying Brad Whitt and fellow travellers into racist segregation—even making them as “neo-segregationists” worse than the 1950s racial segregationists—is either insightful or balanced?”

      I do have a point here:  whatever provocation Dr. Nash has offered in his little opinion piece here does not remotely compare to the unmitigated racial nonsense perpetuated by “Job” and supported by SBC Voices—or at least by SBC Voices’ editor, Dave Miller.

      With that, I am…



        Yes, I am the same Job. And I see that you are still working hard to bring people together while accusing others of being divisive?

        And you know full well that I was making an analogy. In other words doing what you do on your own blog all the time. You are the sort who can dish it out but not take it. That is your problem, not mine.


      I am ashamed of the way our Harmony Association has only granted
      leadership to those who believe the way our Director believes. Our “Harmony” Director has gone to great
      lengths to actually kick churches out of the Association or not allow them in at all. Such powerful control!

hariette petersen (a.k.a. selahV today)

Dr. Nash, “The time has come for those who not truly Baptist in faith and practice to move along and form their own convention (or whatever they want to call it) instead of trying to fix what isn’t broken.”

Perhaps they already decided…isn’t it called Acts 29? selahV

Kirby Vardeman

Is it possible you are over reacting? I am not a Calvinist, but the increase in reformed thinkers has led to much better theology in the SBC. We were (and still are) in danger of becoming the conservative branch of the AoG, with our lapse into legalism and the doubts creeping in everywhere regarding the Security of the Believer and an increase in Landmarkism on top of that.

Maybe we should just be what we claim to be, a convention of Baptists who cooperate together for the extension of the Kingdom instead of fighting over open hand issues…

Andy Price

As a young pastor I often feel like I’m being pulled in two directions. I understand where the author is coming from but I wonder why he was allowed this platform. It’s just a couple paragraphs with open ended questions. What if, why don’t, opinion, restated. I’ve recently been on a “back to my roots” trek. I even put the ESV on the shelf and pulled out my old KJV. Therefore I can appreciate his premise but all this will do is cause laughter. Honest dialog is what is needed. We don’t need to lose churches over the doctrines of Grace……again. (something most don’t even understand) Funny how history repeats itself.


“SBC Today exists to restore unity in the convention around biblical discipleship and our historic Baptist distinctives.”

I am not sure how this post will foster the restoration of unity in the convention. Perhaps we should spend more time actually discussing what it means to be a Southern Baptist historically than telling people to get lost. Here’s a question to consider historically, “What did our SBC forefathers consider a cooperating Southern Baptist Church?”

Why isn’t the BFM 2000 enough to unite us?

Joe Blackmon

pro-Primitive Baptist

I don’t know much about Primitive Baptists, so I’m asking just to clarify. Is that intended to mean “those who hold to Calvinism (i.e. TULIP or the Doctrines of Grace)”??

Thanks in advance for clarification.

    Jerry Nash



    You mean stop talking in euphemisms and code words and start getting to the root of the whole matter? Stop saying “anti-Baptist” and “their seminaries” and start specifically saying “Calvinists”, “Southern Seminary” and what have you? Wow, that would be helpful, wouldn’t it?

James R Hume

If they do not want to be Southern Baptists, then leave the Southern Baptist Convention. I do not see the Roman Catholics clamoring to change their name, nor the Assemblies of God for that matter. We may have our faults, but Southern Baptists were know as people of the Book and people who loved lost souls. This culminated in our giving to the Cooperative Program and in our supporting our seminaries to train Southern Baptist pastors. Those seminaries that choose to train “reformed” theologians and to embrace “emerging” trends should be defunded and relegated to none SBC entities. As for Namb, it has become more of a mess since it ceased to be the Home Mission board. So much for name changes.

Chief Katie

Wow! Yet another example of foolish controversies. “But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, , after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” Titus 3:9-11

I’d love to hear Mr. Nash’s view on just what it means to be a Southern Baptist. Is there a check-off list of what behaviors and customs a Southern Baptist must adhere to beyond the BF&M?

Seriously, if the SBC is to survive, the kind of rhetoric put forth by Mr. Nash will do nothing to ensure it.

Bob Cleveland

Just which of those splinter groups is it that led the Southern Baptist Convention to become a group of churches which has 16+ million members, but cannot find more than 4.5-5 million of them in church? Did Calvinists do that? Is it the seminaries’ responsibility? The Primitive Baptists?


Last I read, the Great Commission was to make disciples .. and that was done more effectively in the PCA than I’ve ever seen it in the SBC.

It’s hard to disciple 10 million who won’t come….

Dr. Jim Roebuck

Amen & Amen! If you don’t believe what Southern Baptists believe, or even what Baptists believe, why remain? Oh yeah, I know why. Whoever controls the SBC controls the M-O-N-E-Y. Anyone not realizing this is naive, in my estimation.

Jeremy Parks

Let me see if I can understand the section about the name change (paragraph 2).

There are those who desire a name change. That makes them, inherently, anti-Southern, anti-Baptist, and anti-Convention. Is this an attempt to display dramatically their distaste for every aspect of the current name, or is this an attempt to show that the name-changers are against being Southern, against being Baptist, and against being a Convention?

The dramatic literary effect I can understand. Drawing a conclusion that these people are against the south, Baptists, and the convention format seems to be unsubstantiated; I mean, they simply have a desire to change the name of our group to something that these folks believe is more relevant. How is that a terrible thing?

Stan McCullars

Is this intended to be funny?

Steve Lemke

If I understand correctly what Dr. Nash is suggesting, he is not against unity. He is against a particular kind of unity. I think that what he’s proposing is something like the first of my two proposed solutions for the problems in the SBC (part C) — unity through division, in which the two sides stop being in constant battle with each other and separate into two more peaceful and like-minded groups. There is more than one way to achieve unity.

What I understand him to say he is against is peace at any price — fundamentally, such as what British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did by sacrificing Sudetenland to Germany in the Munich Agreement to achieve what he called “peace in our time.” Of course, in that case, it didn’t work.

What I understand you saying is that you prefer my Option B (part D) of unity in the Spirit. That’s the ideal, of course. The question is whether we can achieve that level of unity in the real world, the real SBC. I don’t know the answer to that, but I believe it would take a work of God to make it possible.


My question is not about Nash’s statements. They are clear, though not arguments in an of themselves. My question is, how does this blog post in any way serve to unite rather than divide? There is no discussion of what it currently means to be Southern Baptist, no discussion of what it used to mean to be a Southern Baptist, and no discussion of how certain individuals and churches need to change to fit within Nash’s vision for the Southern Baptist Convention. It is merely a list of caricatures followed by the imperative to get lost. “anti-SBC, anti-CP, anti-Association, anti-State Convention and pro-Primitive Baptist” – really?

According to Nash, if you don’t like “Southern” in the name of our convention, you are “anti-baptist” and “anti-convention” – you aren’t one of us. That does not promote unity through biblical discipleship and it certainly is not a “Baptist Distinctive.” It is nothing short of vitriol. It is contrary to the stated purpose of this blog. I am surprised you allowed the rant to be posted.

I fail to see how this approach will ever promote unity through biblical discipleship or baptist distinctives because it mentions neither. These types of attacks are no worse than the theologically naive Calvinist who believes that all Arminians are Pelagian heretics and goes on blog after blog to try to save the body of Christ from a “false gospel.”

I have studied more than my fair share of baptist history generally and Southern Baptist history specifically. “Southern” culture, baptist associations (state and local), and the extent of the atonment have never been considered baptist distinctives. If the SBC wants to change what they consider to be a Southern Baptist, then let us dialogue about the issue. This article is a non-starter. It does not foster dialogue; it discourages dialogue between cooperating brothers and sisters in Christ. As a result, I find it difficult to believe it is consistent with the leading of the Spirit of Christ.



    Please excuse my typographical errors :)

Dr. James Willingham

Dear Bro. Nash: It seems like you are one of those who would welcome a split, even if that meant trashing the successors and descendants of the founders….especially if their theology happens to be Sovereign Grace or Calvinism as some call it. Consider my case. One of my ancestors is mentioned in the History of Alabama Baptists by H. Holcombe in 1840, Elder Holland Middleton. If the information I found on the Internet is to be believed, he was one of two men appointed by the court to execute the will of Elder Daniel Marshall in Georgia which puts him right at the beginning of Baptists in Georgia and later in Alabama (he died in Texas, so I undertand). My maternal grandmother was a Craig. One of my personal friends was Dr. Donald Lee Craig, a direct descendant of Elder Elijah Craig who went to jail for preaching the Gospel in Va. in the 1700s. He is also the Craig that led the committee to meet with the colonial legislators and agree that in exchange for their freedom to practice their faith, the Baptist ministers would encourage their young men in their communities to enlist in the patriots’ cause (like join a Civil War against a duly constituted government). There were many Craigs who were preachers. My son who was named by my Grandmother that raised me bears the name Craig and has been a pastor of a church for 12 years. He is a graduate of SEBTS as I am.

As to the Sovereign Grace truths, they were the doctrines that produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and launched the Great Century of Missions. It was also those truths that helped to establish the greatest nation on earth, the one with the most freedoms, including Freedom of Religion which we are losing today (if anyone has noticed). Look at who instituted Freedom of Religion, Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke. Williams was only a Baptist for about 3 months, but he held to Baptist views all his life as indicated in his works by a letter to Dr. Clarke. Both Clarke and Williams are noted for their beliefs in Sovereign Grace. So likewise can it be said of John Gano, Isaac Bachus, Richard Furman, Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, Basil Manly, Sr., and, Jr., Jesse and Silar Mercer, J.P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, William Williams, W.B. Johnson, first president of the SBC, R.B.C. Howell, Richard Fuller, Lottie Moon, P.H. Mell, etc. In fact, no other theology view is represented among the presidents of the SBC until the 1900s. Even then there were Sovereign Grace believers such as B.H. Carroll, George W. Truett, R.G. Lee, Ernest R. Campbell, as well as others.

The open nature of the Southern Baptists was begun by the Particular Baptists (that is the Limited Atonement Baptists) of the Regular and Separate Baptists, when they united in 1787. At that time they agreed that the “preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion,” which clearly indicates that the original position is that He died for the elect. Indeed, the first church that sent out the first missionary to China, the Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church and the missionary was Matthew T. Yates, did not know anything of Christ dying for every one. They had it in their Articles of Faith in 1814 that He died for the Church. I should also point out that a good summary of Luther Rice’s position (the Father of SBC Missions) on the doctrines of grace was that it is in the Bible and you had better preach it. Brother Nash, one young man recently found in the Biblical Recorder where a minister preached against Predestination in 1888, and the editor suggested he needed to go to Southern in order to get a better understanding of the truth he was attacking.

One reason for the reviving of these teachings is simply that prayer has been and is being made for another Great Awakening, the Third Great Awakening, the one which wins the whole earth and every soul in it by gentle persuasion and which continues for a thousand generations in order to fulfill the pomises to Abraham of a seed as innumerable as the stars of Heaven, the sand of the sea, and the dust of the earth. While I do not know whether my prayers are heard to such a degree, I do testify that in the Spring of 1973 I began praying for a Third Great Awakening. Prayer has been in my heart for such a visitation, for the earth to be filled with His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea. In the Spring of 1973 I spoke to the Pastors’ prayer meeting of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association onthe subject, A Great Awakening. Later, I delivered the 5th and 10th anniversary sermons to that group on the subject, The Third Great Awakening. For 38 years prayers have been made for such an awakening. Others of whom I aware have been praying even longer. One fellow has been praying for revival since the 1950s. I am sure there are others. God has called for people to note His covenant and His faithfulness to it for a 1000 generations (I Chron.16:15). He has never been known to waste His words or His breath that utters such words. Allowing just 20 years per generation means we are dealing with the reality of 20,000 years and, adding to it the comments of the old Limited Atonement man, Dr. John Owen, we have the likelihood of reaching out to a 1000 worlds and the multitudes on them as the Atonement’s value is of infinite value even if specific in application. Think of it a bunch of Calvinists (not my preferred term due to John Calvin’s failure on Servetus) who think we are going to win such a vast multitude of souls that they could not be counted though one spent eternity trying it. That means we expect more conversions and commitments to Christ than the Arminians.

Last, I would note that Dr. George W. Truett in his centenary address on the Birth of C.H. Spurgeon in London in 1934 (where he was introduced by no less than the Prime Minister of Great Britain) stated that Calvinism presses down on the head of man the matter of responsibility. He went on to acknowledge that Spurgeon was calvinistic in his doctrine, and that his doctrine was Christ centered. By the way in my readings in American Intellectual History, I found that some historians apparently regard the holders of such teachings as the most responsible people in the world…that from the history of the Puritans. I once won a Spurgeon to the view that Sovereign Grace is irresistible. He won a woman to Christ responded so readily, he asked her why. She replied, “O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” He thought about the matter for about 40 years and finally came tto the conclusion that the woman was right. He would find out from a genealogist that he was kin to C.H.

I think a time of great joy is coming to us though we might go through some dark times before it arrives. Even so, God has promised that His Son will be king over all the earth, and that will be joy for us…especially, if it comes by peaceable sweet winsome Gospel ministry.

    Jim Shaver

    Thank you Dr. James Willingham for releasing some historical truth into the midst of this emotional and frenetic confab.

    BTW is there any proof that Rev. Elijah Craig made Bourbon Whiskey in Kentucky?

    Our Church had an Elder Toliver Craig present when the church constituted on Aug 5, 1826.


Mary – You make too much sense; we have been on a similar journey.

SelahV – You are correct; another convention (network/denomination) does already exist for those trying to fix what isn’t broken within SBC majority belief and practice. In fact, some SBC churches have dual affiliation with Acts 29.

Dr. Lemke – Thank you for your effort to effect unity. God commands the blessing to be where there is unity. May the SBC experience blessing after the dust settles.

Chris – You ask “Why isn’t the BFM 2000 enough to unite us?”. Those of us that were raised under the BFM 1963 remain concerned about some of the changes pointed out by Russell Dilday in his analysis of the BFM 2000 ( In that document, he cites the following “Troubling Factors in the 2000 Revision”:

Negative concerns about BFM2000 seem to cluster around twelve issues:

1. The deletion of the Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture.
2. The diminishing of the doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer.
3. The trend toward creedalism.
4. The diminishing of the doctrine of autonomy and freedom of the local church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
5. The trend toward Calvinism and mistrust of personal Christian experience.
6. The trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church tradition to a reformed evangelical identity.
7. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in marriage.
8. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in the church.
9. The “Pandora’s box” concern – a fear of repeated future revisions to include favorite opinions.
10. The trend toward including a catalogue of specific sins.
11. The false accusation of neo-orthodoxy.
12. Inconsistency

The document goes on to expand on each of the above points. These areas have not been sufficiently addressed by SBC leadership since the 2000 revision to the satisfaction of the conservative, non-reformed Southern Baptist majority. Thus, the continued debate in this regard. The bottom-line is an identity problem – and that must be settled soon.


    hariette petersen (a.k.a. selahV today)

    MAX, and the fact that I am correct about Acts29 being an arm in the SBC offering plate and Cooperative Program giving is exactly why I am troubled by my own correctness. I don’t like it. Period. It seems very misleading of any leadership within the convention to continue accepting the dimes, nickles and dollars from Southern Baptists (who believe their money is going to further our faith with Jesus Christ as the Center of our faith, and Missions as the method of reaching the lost world through our cooperative giving), and using those funds to plant churches under another’s umbrella of doctrinal views, theology, ordinances–etc. I don’t understand how in the world this could be going on.

    To me it would be like our church taking our tithes and offerings and, instead of paying our pastor, they take the money and divie it up to support the dude down the street without any accountability at all. It’s bothersome to me. What can be done? selahV

Baptist Thinker

Doesn’t this blog post kind of go against the rules for commenting on this website?
“We ask that you link to evidence of claims you make. We will not allow this forum to be used to spread gossip. If you make a specific claim that cannot be validated, your comment is likely to be removed.”

    Tim Rogers

    Baptist Thinker,

    You are going to log on anonymously and call attention to comments people have signed their names to? Are you serious? Come out from behind your anonymous shell you coward. If you want to call for facts to be validated, then you tell us who you are.

    Your anonymous way of doing this certainly calls into question your intent of your statement. You could care less if there is a link to the facts you just want to perform a drive-by.

    Dr. Lemke,

    Feel free to remove this comment if you like. It may be over the top for the New SBC Today. But I have no patience for unsigned letters.



      I am just curious as to this..

      “Anonymous comments are welcome, though a valid email address is required. We don’t share your email address with anyone (in most cases, we don’t even look at them ourselves), but if we attempt to contact you by email and do not receive a response, your comment will likely be deleted. Please understand that if you comment anonymously, you will be held to a higher standard regarding the content of your comment. If there is anything deemed inappropriate by our resource managers your comment will probably be removed”

      Just curious. Don’t know the whole story but I found it interesting. I agree with BT on this one.



        Tim Rogers


        If you will notice the comment is not unwelcome but the charge of falsehood is the unwelcome part. Baptist Thinker has logged on anonymously and called for validation of the content of one who has placed his name on something. For us to acknowledge the anonymous comment call for proof on a post that one can interact with the person would be validating the anonymous charge. It is the charge that Dr. Nash has no proof thus he is presenting false information that anonymous is being held to the higher standard.



          If one is not going to present proof during their argument, than it is perfectly fine to ask them to present proof. I fail to see how it is problematic to ask someone to present proof of their accusations.

          Jason Gray


          Is that a fancy way of saying that because you agree with the original post you do not see the need for him to prove his point with actual substantive fact or any sort of references whatsoever?

          If it is all because someone posted under “anonymous”, then perhaps you should remove the ability to do so or change your own posting guidelines for this site.

          How about this: I have clearly identified myself. I would like to see some proof of the accusations that the original post made. Is that unreasonable or unfair? I think if anyone makes the sort of assertions he did, he should be able and willing to back them up with facts. That is simply an integrity issue. I would hope we would hold people that agree with our positions to the same standard we hold people who disagree.


      Bro Tim Rogers, I was unaware that using my blog handle was “being anonymous”. It is not at all cowardice to to use one’s blog handle, rather than their real name, in order to post on a blog. Many people, on the internet, quite simply use internet handles that they may have had for years. ReformedFundy and Baptist Thinker are the two primary handles I use on forums and blog sites. Quite frankly sir, that is an internet form of signing one’s name to a statement. Many people don’t use their real names online, because they may be attacked in some form by people. I quit using my real name a couple of years ago on a website, and stopped using a blog that I had started up and invested some money in that was associated with my account on that site, because another member of that website began sending me items of a nature that I shall not describe in an open forum, and sent me several threats to my physical safety, and to the safety of other family members in my area. I was unaware that I was not signed in under my WordPress account, which contains my real name, when I posted last night. It isn’t as though I was simply attempting to be an “anonymous coward”. Now, on to the issue at hand, if you read the above blog post, it’s quite simply a hit-and-run piece, with no evidence of the claims made, and simply containing derogatory terms. It also erects several strawmen, and proceeds to knock them down, without giving an even-handed treatment to the subject matter. Thus, the basis for my comment here. Sir, I’ll kindly ask you not to flame me, for simply stating my opinion.
      Will Rogers

        Tim Rogers

        Will, or Whoever you are,

        Once again you are trying to be coy. Your link in your blog handle is to a fake blog. Thus, your name is now suspect.

        I will not interact with unsigned letters.


Trevin Wax

For what it’s worth… I agree with Dr. Nash that anyone in our Convention that fits this description – “anti-SBC, anti-CP, anti-Association, anti-State Convention and pro-Primitive Baptist” – should indeed go elsewhere. When you find that person, let me know. ;)

    Tim Rogers

    Brother Trevin,

    Should one who holds an Arminian soteriology feel uncomfortable and seem to not be at home in the SBC?


      Joe Blackmon


      Would you say most non-Calvinists in the SBC are Arminians? See, I wouldn’t figure they would be on that team because I’ve never met a Baptist who didn’t believe in “Once Saved Always Saved”. Wouldn’t a for real Arminian reject that doctrine?

        Tim Rogers

        Brother Joe,

        We have agreed on so many different topics I hesitate to cross this sword with you. However, you called my number so I will dance. :)

        Calvinist theology does not adhere to a “once saved; always saved” doctrine a bit more than than James Arminius. As a matter of historical fact, if one will read James Arminius one would find that he, like Calvin, held to the doctrine of the security of the believer.


        Joe Blackmon

        Oh, I don’t consider this crossing swords. I was asking a question. I didn’t know that but I’ve never really looked into what he believed much I suppose. In any case, I’d heard at least a few Baptists who were not Calvinists who had said that Baptists were not Arminians either. Perhaps it’s a matter of you say “po-tay-to” and I say “po-tah-to”.

        In any case, to answer the question you posed, even though you didn’t pose it to me, if I were still in the SBC I wouldn’t want any Christian who affirmed inerrancy, the virgin birth, the exclusivity of Christ (someone must consciously trust Him to save them), and baptism of believers by immersion to feel unwelcome in the SBC. Even though you and I would disagree about Calvinism I’d go out witnessing with you any time I had opportunity.

      Jason Gray


      That was a clever avoidance of the issue, though you do bring up a very interesting discussion.

      I want to echo Trevin’s point: who are these people that do the things Dr. Nash is accusing? I would like to see them.

      (I would also like to see more straight-forward language – “pro-Primitive Baptist”? LOL Just say what you want to say. call them Calvinists or whatever.)

        Tim Rogers

        Brother Jason,

        You need to ask Dr. Nash that question, not me. I do not carry someone else’s water. He made the statements you ask him to respond. I do not believe I have either defended are encouraged his statements. What I have done is expressed that someone logging on anonymous requiring proof was not acceptable. Baptist Thinker has identified who he is and is now owed answers to his question by Dr. Nash.


The SBC & a Collapsing Big Tent Philosophy | From Law to Grace

[…] or fashion — is inevitable.  We are already witnessing this on the State Convention and local association level.  And, contra Dave, I do not think that “walking in love” will prevent further […]


You know everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is well and good. Paul and Barnabas had a similar division in their work. They split ways and yet as the book of Acts continues the Gospel continues to spread through out the region. What we do not hear in the book of Acts is a bitter feud about what to call the groups churches that were started. They were simply churches in certain regions. Bodies of believers worshiping the risen Son Jesus. Why can’t we as true BELIEVERS (don’t take me out of context because there are some in the universal church that are not) get that simple fact through our heads.

We may label ourselves, SB, but what it comes down to in the end is weather or not we are acting like believers and if I need to point out how we are to act it would take up an entire book… wait it has already been written and goes by many names…Lets go with the “Bible”. These types of negative, “kick our so and so”, “they disagree with me and are therefore wrong”, discussions do no good what so ever for the advancement of the Gospel. Are they fun? In the flesh most definitely. Nothing better than a good argument… am i right?! But we are not talking about what is good for our flesh but rather what is good for the advancement of the Gospel. I Sat in a small dinner today in the capital city of a M country discussing just this. The question was “What is right and wrong to desire in the Flesh”. Paul spends a lot of time on this subject to I will neither add nor subtract from his thoughts. But we both agree that if our desires turn into action and those fleshly actions hinder the Gospel, then we are in Sin. Paul might agree. He was the Chief of sinners after all. Aren’t we all.

I write all this simply to say that our earthy arguments are not going to mean anything when we are removed from this planet. What is really going to matter is whether or not we fulfilled the Great commission as Believers in Christ. As for our convention. I love that they support my wife and I fully. Could we do the work without them? Of course (though it would be more difficult). Do we want their support? Of course. Is the Gospel going to spread if the SB were to fall apart? Of course (see bible in whole for more details). Do we desire to see this happen? Of course not. We are servants of the Most high God no matter what country we live in. Maybe we should all start putting on the mind of Christ. And in case you are ready to put the “holier than thou” sticker on my back please make sure it is printed in orange and maroon there my favorite ;)



Why is changing the name a big deal? Why not call it the North America Baptist Convention? If anyone thinks that calvinism is the reason for the decline in SBC then you drinking the kool aid. Biblical illiteracy, poor discipleship, and unqualified leadership would be better explanations.

Debbie Kaufman

Tim: Calvinists do believe in a once saved always saved theology. It’s called Perseverance of the Saints. One cannot lose their salvation. If they are not save now, they were never saved to begin with.

You are certainly not disenfranchised nor have you ever been made to feel the SBC is not your home. The same cannot be said for Calvinists however, which Dr. Nash’s article is pretty clear he wants to push out as do others. We are not leaving however, and if we did, SBC would lose a significant number of 6,000 or more easily. But we are not leaving so the problem is going to be how to have both doctrines in the same house. It has been done for a few centuries now, it can be done again, simply by putting down the sword, quit trying to push out and discredit Calvinists, which is hard to discredit except to use non-true arguments as to what Calvinists believe, but that has also been done without success.

Howell Scott

Does Bro. Jerry use strong language in this post? Yes. And, while I may have said some things differently, I can understand the frustration that his brief article seems to convey. Why is it that only those who are “traditionalists” or cooperating Southern Baptists have to apologize for their rhetoric? Who gets to determine what is appropriate language and what is out-of-bounds? As I have said (and written before), I do not mind strong, passionate language. If Jerry stepped over the line, then leaders who have implied that State Convention executives are bad stewards who hang on to “bloated budgets” or are villains because they don’t go along with the GCR and the radical redefinition of the SBC have also stepped over the line.

I do not consider myself a BI guy, but I do believe that Southern Baptists have a culture. Every business, organization, and church has a culture. That culture may change over time — for the better or for the worse. Our entire Southern Baptist culture is changing before our very eyes. Does some of our culture need to change? No question. But what has fascinated me about this whole GCR process and the culture of change is the radical nature of the changes. (Before you go throwing stones, I believe we need to be radicals for Jesus, but this argument simply will not fly with regard to the complete overhaul of some parts of the Covention.) In every other area of life, most Southern Baptists would consider themselves conservative. That doesn’t mean that they are not open to change, but it does mean that they are not open to radical change. Perhaps this resistance to a radical change that he sees destroying the Convention that he loves has caused Bro. Jerry to write as he did. I assume that language used during the President’s message at last year’s Convention in Orlando, which compared opponents of the GCR to the ten rebellious spies who dropped dead in the desert, can be chalked up to advocacy for change, but I digress.

Those of us who opposed the GCR did so because of fundamental disagreements with the philosophy of the Task Force and those in power. Just because the GCR was passed in Orlando does not mean that those fundamental disagreements have gone away. In fact, due in large part to how the entire GCR process has been handled before Orlando, at Orlando, and after Orlando, we have seen more division, not unity.

When you’re in the majority (as in the majority of folks who voted to implement the GCR, not necessarily a true majority of all Southern Baptists), it’s easy to castigate Bro. Nash and even the folks at SBCToday for posting this “rant.” I can assure you that his broad sentiments — however “offended” some might be at the way he expressed them — speak for a lot more folks than just those associated with SBCToday. Thanks and God bless,



I can’t tell if this is a legit opinion piece or if it is simply bait to attract hits on the site.

If it’s an opinion piece, then I guess the old adage about opinions applies. There was a lot of accusation, but I would think that we would want to see those accusations supported by some proof that those things are actually happening. I have no doubt that the author believes those things to be true, but believing something to be true does not make it so. I also know what I am going to get at this site, so this piece is a representation of the views of this site (on the whole)…and the tone of this site as well. It is what it is.

I guess the issue I have would be that we need to be very careful to not misrepresent those with whom we disagree, and I feel that this piece did exactly that. It’s intent was to rile up the choir, not to honestly engage the issues. If it was, then some references and citations would have been used, and some of the cheap shots would have been avoided.

I understand that people disagree on these issues, and that is fine. My dad always taught me “you have the right to disagree, but you don’t have the right to be disagreeable”. That is what I see here. Bad tone. Bad spirit. Cheap shots. Unfair comments. We should be above those things. Even if you feel others are in the wrong, it doesn’t justify misrepresenting them and attacking them in return. I would think a DOM would be even more sensitive to these issues, considering his job is to support churches and help minister to ministers, not to incite division and stir up problems. Then again, nothing is a shock anymore with some of these fights.


    BTW, my name is Jason Gray. I meant to attach that to my post, but forgot before I hit “send”.

Dr. James Willingham

Wow! Talk about ignoring origins and facts. it seems a lot of folks want what they want in the way they want without any regard for the evidence. I take it one can quote the sources until they are blue in the face, but it will mean less than nothing to those who have their minds made up on the subjects. And yet I would call your attention to the reality that the most Bible believing group in Israel, the Pharisees, were foremost among the groups bent on crucifying our Lord and Savior. When you shatter this group of Baptists into a thousand pieces, there are others standing on the sidelines waiting to take up the slack and take command of the people. An those on the sideline have totally different ideas in mind for all Bible believing Christians. Even so, I maintain that the Third Great Awakening will come one day, and it will become a wonder to behold. The earth will be filled with His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea. Perhaps a bit of touching humor might help. A dear elderly lady who had been poor all her life and who had never had enough of anything was taken to see the ocean by her friends, somthing she had never seen. When she saw it, she just stared in awe. Then she said, “I do declare this is the first time I ever saw anything where there was more than enough of.” The Bible says where sin did abound, Grace does superabound. Amazing grace will flood this earth one day, and we shall find people working through their differences with a sweet, sweet spirit. For a 1000 generations there will be a spiritual awakening for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is all that matters. All who have lived in Hell as I did in myh childhood will welcome the great wonder and sweetness of Christ and his salvation that is so wonderful the wretched can not resist it.


I am among the group that has been very mistreated by our Harmony Association and Mr. Nash. I wonder who he thinks he is? It has been his mission to push aside those who do not believe scripture the exact way that he believes scripture. Why is this even a discussion? Who here is playing God? We all must love one another and pray for one another. We all love the Lord and have our own task’s set before us; task’s set by our Heavenly Father.

Please try to obey the commandment to love one another. This is a horrible way to spend one’s time when there are those out there who are lost and need to be told about Jesus.

Shame on you. Repent of your deeds. Are your hands doing good things? What your hands do proves what is in your heart. What a messed up bunch of children; God’s children? Stop it! Enough!

Pam Knight

Dr. Nash, I understand what you are saying. I too am beginning to think of ways to raise up a new” grass roots” Southern Baptist Convention. Although I believe it would be better for all non-Calvinist to pull themselves and their money out of the current Southern Baptist Convention and let all the Christians who are of the Calvinist, or Doctrines of Grace, or Reformed Theology, or Sovereign Grace Doctrines of belief, have lock, stock, and barrel, of what is now called the Southern Baptist Convention. The buildings, the Seminaries, everything. Then all the non-Calvinist Christians could start a new fellowship of born-again Baptist believers , who are not of Reformed Theology, but is built built on the Biblical Doctrines that we have held to for so many years. We don’t need all the material stuff that we have helped build and pay for over all these years. All we need is Christ Jesus The Lord. In Christ Alone !
In Christ
Pam Knight

Debbie Kaufman

Pam: I am a reformed Baptist who finds your comment a reason there is so much schism in the SBC and why it seems to be a fight for power and not working toward the Great Commission. You also end your post with Christ alone. That is the Reformed Doctrine in a nutshell, so we do agree on some things. Sola Christa. Christ alone.

    Pam Knight

    Debbie, I don’t believe my comments or anyone elses comments on this subject is the cause of schism in the SBC. Christians of Reformed Theology ,no matter what name they call themselves, have a view of scripture and of God that is just simply different than that of non-Calvinist Christians . Steve Lemke has the best answer in his comment. The SBC will function alot better by having two seperate divisions, (1) The Reformed Baptist- and all of it’s step children, (2) The Southern Baptist. Then local churches can know and have a choice as to who and what their money is supporting. And we would know who is writing our litature. And I could go on with alot of things that need to have a clear label as to who and what they are. I don’t think anyone wants to hurt or demean the other but practically there is simply no way two can work so close together with such different views and priorities towards God and the scriptures. We simply look at and handle things differently. And no one should be forced to compromise their convictions on scripture just for the sake of unity.
    In Christ

      Joe Blackmon


      Christians of Reformed Theology ,no matter what name they call themselves, have a view of scripture and of God that is just simply different than that of non-Calvinist Christians .

      Well, I believe in verbally and plenary inspiration of scripture and the inerrancy of scripture. I believe God is soverign but that fact does not disposses man of the responsibility to repent and trust Christ to save them. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess you do too?

      The Reformed Baptist- and all of it’s step children

      (snicker) Are they red-hdeaded? Seriously, if you were saying that about moderate or moderate friendly people I could understand that.

      I don’t think anyone wants to hurt or demean the other but practically there is simply no way two can work so close together with such different views and priorities towards God and the scriptures. We simply look at and handle things differently.

      Well, how about you put down the water balloons of doom that you lobbing there and come on out and we’ll go witnessing up at the Kroger or something. I mean, you couldn’t go witness with someone who would say to anyone they met “If you trust in Christ’s death on the cross as sufficient to save you and you repent of your sins, God will save you.”??

        Pam Knight

        Joe, I know that there are some things that all Christians agree on. I also believe that when witnessing to someone, especially about salvation, it is important that the ones doing the witnessing should agree on what salvation is and how God works that out in a persons life. When you are in those witnessing situations no one ever knows what questions will be asked or what subjects will be brought up and we all know that there are alot of different views on that subject between Christians of Reformed Theology , or Calvinistic doctrine, and those of non-Calvinistic or Reformed Doctrine. I used my remark about”step children” because of the list of names that Christians who are Reformed or Calvinistic call themselves. That is all I meant by that. And I’m not filling up ballons of doom, I just sometimes get to feeling like Paul felt in Romans 9:1-2. But then I am reminded of Philippians 4:4-9 and I get a better perspective on whatever is on my heart and mind.
        In Christ

          Joe Blackmon


          I don’t, and didn’t, have the slightest doubt that you don’t believe in witnessing. But seriously, you couldn’t go witness with someone who would say to anyone they met “If you trust God to save you on account of Christ’s death on the cross and you repent of your sins, God will save you. He won’t turn you away if you do that. Please, repent and trust in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to save you.”? That’s not orthodox enough? Wow. Because, I’m pretty sure you would agree with that statement and I’d gladly go witness with you even if you’re not a Calvinist. Further, I would never think it’s a good time to bring up what I believe the Bible teaches about election/predestination/the responsiblity of man to repent and believe and all those issues that good Christian men and women can (and obviously do) disagree on. I’m not an evangelist for 5 point Calvinism. I would have no problem cooperating with you in ministry.

          Joe Blackmon


          I don’t, and didn’t, have the slightest doubt that you do believe in witnessing

          Correcting HUGE typo there. Sorry.

      Debbie Kaufman

      And I disagree Pam. We could work together. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, I believe immersion is the only baptism taught in scripture, and as Joe says, you can’t work with someone who believes that one has to believe in Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins, and that one must believe and repent of their sins to obtain salvation? You can’t just kick someone out because you want to. And we aren’t leaving. I could very easily work with you.

        Pam Knight

        Debbie, I believe there is a growing number of churches that are beginning to realize the changes that are being made in the leadership and in the way we look at missions and evangelism in the convention. And a growing number is also not wanting to go in that direction and is not wanting to give their money to support it. So I don’t see us working together very good even now much less as time goes on. And if you re-read my earlier comment you will see that I didn’t say anything about” kicking anyone out” of the convention. In fact I said I think non-Calvinist and non-Reformed Theology churches ought to pull out and start a new one of their own. Christians of Reformed Theology or Calvinistic Doctrines believe they started the SBC, others say it was both them and non-Calvinist , and others say it is non-Calvinist Doctrines that started it. I just think that more and more Churches are wanting some clarity in who and what we are as a convention. We don’t want to become like the Mormon Church who have a different meaning behind almost everything they claim to believe the same way we do on. And to try to claim that Christians of Reformed Theology or Calvinistic Doctrines and those of us who are not, believe the same way about salvation is just not reality. If one person believes that you have to be regenerated first before you are capable of believing and repenting and accepting Christ Jesus the Lord and the other person does not believe that but believes that repenting, recieving,believing and regeneration are all compeletly totally seperate things but they all take place at the same time, then those two people can’t work together in sharing the good news of the gospel with someone . I believe all the articles, blogs and comments that are being written on this very subject is evidence enough that these two beliefs would function better seperately. What Steve Lemke suggest is a great salution.
        In Christ


I for one like specifics. Nash has only responded to one post and it was the word yes. I would like to read what his actually theological differences are with the Reformers. One at a time, would be fine. Lets start with salvation. Explain the process.

What are non-Reformers afraid of from the Reformers?
What do Reformers fear from the non-Reformers?
What is exactly the fellowship issue?

    Joe Blackmon

    See, I know he responded with “Yes” which I found very offensive (All Calvinists, get out? Seriously??) but I wonder if that was really him or just an anon trying to stir the pot.


Many of you are just mean and not being Christ-like. This is why our Convention is suffering; not because of Calvinism or Arminianism. Why in the world would lost people be attracted to a Convention full of bullies? They enter our churches only to be beat up. How sad.

Pam Knight

Joe, In your response to me on the 17th you said this….”But seriously, you couldn’t go witness with someone who would say to anyone they met “If you trust God to save you on account of Christ’s death on the cross and you repent of your sins, God will save you. He won’t turn you away if you do that. Please, repent and trust in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to save you.”? That’s not orthodox enough? Wow. Because, I’m pretty sure you would agree with that statement and I’d gladly go witness with you even if you’re not a Calvinist.”… When a Calvinist makes that statement they make it based on their belief that only the elect are capable of trusting and repenting. Where as if I made that statement it would be based on my belief that God’s purpose in redemption was to fulfill His plan in creating man to begin with. Getting God out of heaven and into man. God created man’s body in such a way that the indwelling presence of God in man’s human spirit is indispensable for man to function as God created man to function. Where by an invisible God is now able to reveal who and what He is in and thru a physical and visible body. And even before the foundation of the world God’s provision for that plan and purpose was accomplished In Christ as found in John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world. Providing reconciliation even before man was created. And in Isaiah 53:6 and the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. And 1 John 2:2 and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. God’s plan, purpose, and provision has all been accomplished and God in His Grace, Love , and Mercy has wraped it all up in the beautiful Gift of His one and only Son Christ Jesus the Lord, John 3:16-17. By God revealing to us His purpose in creating man in Genesis 1:26-27 I believe God has made it perfectly clear that God Himself made every single person capable of believing and recieving the precious Gift He has offered of reconciliation as in 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, and of salvation, we can’t forget all those precious “whosoevers” as in Romans 10:13. God wants as many vessels as possible to live in as stated in Genesis 1:28. God’s own decision on how this would be practically worked out in the man He created is thru faith Ephesians 2:8. God desires a relationship with His creation as evidenced by all the family, and friend referrences used by God to explain His relations with mankind. Like God the Father, God the Son, the church as the bride of Christ ,and many others. God created man to be able to hear facts and then make a choice of what facts man will place his trust in. Calvinist believe no man is capable of believing, repenting and recieving the Gospel unless God regenerates them first and Calvinist believe that God has chosen not to regenerate some people, and that decision had nothing to do with that persons depraved nature or actions ,wheather good or bad, but God did not choose to regenerate some for His own private reason. I just believe people will look at salvation in a different light when people understand why God created man to begin with, and then understand how God made man’s body to function, which is different from plants which only have a body, or animals who have a body and a soul (mind,emotion,will) but animals behavior was made to function by a built in instinct, where as man has a body, soul(mind,emotion,will) and a human spirit, a place for God to dwell. Man was created to be indwelt by someone, so that that person could then have access to mans soul, his mind, emotions, and will. In a love relationship, thru faith, God wants to be that indwelling presence in man, so He can teach our mind, influence our emotions, direct our will, and thereby govern our behavior, so that in doing so He as God is the origin and sourse of everything man says and does. God the orgin and source of God’s own activity in and thru man, revealing God’s character in and thru man to the world so that an invisible God is now physically and visibly seen. Listen to Jesus own words in John 14:7-10, Jesus, as man, lived as God created man to live, in a loving relationship of availability and obedience to the Father, so that everything that Jesus said or did while on earth was not his doing but was God the Father’s activity in and thru Jesus. What a Life ! And God has made that Life available to everyone thru the Life , death , and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ.
In Christ

William J. Curtis, Ph.D.

I wrote and published an article in SBC Life five years ago. It is entitled, “Working Together for the Sake of the Gospel.” I wrote it when I served as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at NAMB in reference to the very issues being addressed here today. Perhaps it is time to revisit it’s message:

Bill Curtis, Ph.D.
Twitter: billcurtissc

Dr. James Willingham

Suggest you folks so hot to split might examine the relations between George Whitefield and John Wesley and then examine the union of the Separate and Regular Baptists in Va. in 1787. You all might find it interesting also to check how in the world the Baptists of the 1700s, both Separate and Regulars, could work with such political leaders as Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry, James Madison, et. al. Perhaps you will likewise find the winsomeness of the Sovereign Grace Baptists the led 255 Congregatiional Churches to become Baptists..according to C.C. Goen’s work on the Great Awakening. Did you all know that the way the biblical doctrines are structure, they can make a believer, any and all believers, churches, DOMS, too (not to forget who wrote what started this line of responses), to become balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic, able to deal with frustrating differences until the day that unity comes with humble steps to seize the affections of the hearts of all. Like the dear lady who had been tortured by the Japanese during World War II for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, for two months and 28 days. At that point they tossed her seemingly lifeless body out on a pile of corpses for burial. A filipino (I suppose – this being in Manila) notice an involuntary movement, indicating that she was still alive. He got the lady to a hospital where she was hid in the nuns’ part of the hospital and had a baby that night. After the war, she and her husband were running an International House in Washington, D.C. which ministered to the staff and personnel of the foreign embassies, when the man who had supervised her torture turned up at her place. Her first impulse was to plunge the garden trowel with which she was digging among the roses in front of the building, but God caused her to drop it. That niight the man recognized her and turned white. He stayed at the International House for three days, and the lady won him to Christ. Later, that same lady won Margaret Mitchell, the author of Gone With The Wind, to Christ. The lady was Mamerta de los Reyes Block, the wife of Rev. Dr. Isaac Block, who was a my fellow student at SEBTS from ’72-76. Her story is told in The Price of Freedom published in 2005. God’s great love enabled that dear lady to win her tormentor and torturer to Christ, and shall He not enable and empower us to stick together and work out our differences. After all, we have I Cors.13, the description of agape love which is based upon the very person of our Lord Jesus Christ who gave Himself for us. Since He loves us, He empowers us to love others – even the worst of our enemies.

We have ever reason to stick it out, to pray, to labor until we see the Lord shake once more, not the earth only, but Heaven also (Hebs.12:26) in order to win the whole earth and every soul on it beginning with this generation and continuing for a total of a thousand generations. Allowing for about 20 years per generation that means we could have 20,000 years. During that time mankind could go to the stars and settle thousands of worlds., and the old limited atonement man, Dr. John Owen, might help us to see how the atoning blood of Christ is of such an infinite value as to be preached to the inhabitants of a 1000 worlds or ever 1000s of worlds. Then we might see God’s humorous remark in Rev.7:9 of a number of redeemed in Heaven that no one can number fulfilled. A Third Great Awakening is just the ticket, and the Baptists have enjoyed two, the First and the Second. They also took part in the launching the Great Century of Missions…..along with helping to establish the greatest nation in history with the most freedoms, especially, religious liberty. Then they launched the great schools which were based solidly on Sovereign Grace or calvinism. O did you know Dr. George Bancroft called the United States “a calvinistic republic”? And Luther Rice, the father of Southern Baptists’ Missionary effort said the doctrines of grace were in the Bible and we had better preach it.

Talk about invitations! Predestination, total depravity/inability, unconditional election, limited atonement/particular redemption, irresistible grace, perseverance/preservation of the saints, and reprobation are all intensely inviting truths, the most winsome, helpful, attractive, compellling, wonderfully magnetic doctrines ever devised by the mind of God/ And all are centered in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Why He even used the term dog to win a woman to Christ (Mt.15:21-28). Imagine that!

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available