So, I’ve seen Calvinists stereotyped by some fellow Southern Baptists based on their observation of a few Southern Baptist pastors that claim to be Calvinists. Here are 2 examples:
1. Here’s a comment by a Southern Baptist named “Max”:
For your readers who may not be familiar with what the “New Calvinist” movement looks like, following are my observations of young, restless and reformed “pastors” in my area:
•Lack of passion for the lost to repent and receive Jesus as Lord and Savior; few or no altar calls; “Gospel-centered” ministry implies reformed belief & practice; to them, Calvinism is the gospel;
•“Born again”, “personal Savior”, “accepting Jesus” are not in their vocabulary;
•Lack of salvation sermons or evangelistic (revival) preaching … “circle A to learn about Jesus” is not preaching the Gospel!
•Too easy on sin, making light of rebellion … little or no call to repent … being “culturally relevant” pushes moral boundaries;
•The sacraments of communion and baptism take on a whole new meaning … “sign up for baptism on Facebook!”
•Use of the English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible (this is one of their marks to identify each other, kind of like the fish symbol) = Calvinist editors & commentary;
•More emphasis on teaching/preaching from the writings of Paul, than the Gospels (especially, selected passages in Ephesians and Romans, which if “stretched” support their theology);
•Lack of participation with other churches in evangelistic campaigns … they would never invite an evangelist from the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists (COSBE) to preach in their church (by the way, COSBE funds were cut by the “New” North American Mission Board);
•Very “missional” minded … however, their missions are intended to plant reformed theology churches which plant reformed theology churches, etc.;
•Membership covenants often refer to “historical biblical theology” as a core value (= Calvinism to them) … the revised Baptist Faith & Message (2000) gives them wiggle room to defend their theology;
•Moving their church to elder rule (a way to control the church’s message & mission in the hands of a few like-minded reformed elders);
•Focused on creating the “true” church (young reformers feel they are at the front of a revolution to return the church to its “real” roots – they are serious);
•Followers of the Resurgence movement (Mark Driscoll and his Acts 29 network to plant reformed theology churches) – there is a growing number of A29 churches in SBC … Note: look for the “New NAMB” to form a church planting network of this sort;
•Primary “influencers” are John Piper (Bethlehem Reformed Baptist Church, Minneapolis), Mark Driscoll (Acts 29 Network), Al Mohler (Southern Theological Seminary), Tim Keller (Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC) … reformed pastors monitor their blogs daily/weekly – always looking for the next “Piper Point”, etc.;
•Utilize social networks (FaceBook, Twitter, etc.) to link with other reformed folks;
•Actively recruit reformed believers in their communities to their ranks;
•Target young believers who have been disillusioned and/or discouraged by traditional works … mobilize them via small group ministry … stress “community”;
•Use/abuse contemporary Christian music to attract young worshipers (watch out for Calvinist lyrics from popular reformed musicians!);
•Always dropping a quote or recommended book to read by Calvinist authors (in their blogs, sermons, or coffee shop conversations) = indoctrination;
•Emboldened by their influencers, these young pastors feel they are at the front of a “revolution” (resurgence) to restore Southern Baptists back to their theological roots (which they believe is reformed theology);
•Matt Chandler & his Village Church (Texas) are their model … they borrow from his methodology and teachings in their works … they follow his ministry closely;
•They will call other Calvinists to join them on their church staff (to achieve like-minded elder control);
•They will methodically employ a strategy of “converting” members to the Doctrines of Grace (small group studies, recommended books, sermons slanted toward “systematic theology”);
•As the circle widens, the movement grows bolder within the fellowship (they come out of the closet!);
•Tendency towards a highly logical systematic theology where all the questions about life and God have answers and fit neatly and nicely into a theological box (4 or 5-Point Calvinism, TULIP, Doctrines of Grace);
•An appearance of being “elite”, “we have the Truth”, “we are the chosen ones”, lots of arrogance and pride in their ranks;
•They love to write and blog about their reformed theology and/or refer you to writings and blogs of leading reformed teachers;
•Tendency to use their pastoral authority against any member that questions their reformed theology or direction;
•Tendency to be elusive and evasive about their theology;
•Will cover their tracks if exposed (will present a salvation message or altar call every once in awhile if they feel challenged … a deception to appear mainstream while they transition their church to reformed theology belief and practice).
May God forgive the spiritual complacency within SBC churches which has allowed this mixture in our camp. Thanks again Brad for taking a stand! I am praying for you.
2. Here’s a document that was circulated in Western Tennessee where Non-Calvinist Southern Baptist churches tried to encourage other Southern Baptist churches NOT to call Calvinist Pastors (Tom Ascol has interacted with this document here.). I wonder if Max is part of this group as well since he mentions some of the same things?:
1. “Lack of passion in the public invitations for the lost to repent and receive Jesus as Lord and Savior or no gospel invitation is extended.”
2. “Lack of salvation sermons or evangelistic (revival) preaching.”
3. “Use of the ESV Study Bible.”
4. “Lack of participation with other churches in evangelistic campaigns in their city, county, or region.”
5. “Adding other belief statements or confessions to what their church believes, such as: 1st London Baptist Confession (1689), 2nd London Baptist Confession (1644), New Hampshire Confession, and the Abstract of Principles.”
6. “Moving the church to become under elder rule.”
7. “Focused on creating the “true” church.”
8. “Strict church discipline is sought to grow the church down to the “true” church.Most SBC congregations can use a dose of church discipline; however what is the true motive? Is it to help the straying Christian or to legalistically bring about the “true” church?”
9. “Member of the Founders Movement, and attends their annual meeting.”
10. “Look for the men they quote in their sermons; do they mainly quote Calvinists such as John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, Jonathan Edwards, and others?”
11. “They will call other Calvinists to join them on their church staff as they reform the church.”
12. “They will methodically employ a strategy of “converting” members to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace or Reformed Doctrine. As the circle enlarges, the movement grows bolder within the fellowship.”
13. “Tendency toward a highly logical Systematic Theology where all the questions about life and God have answers and fit neatly and nicely in a theological box.”
14. “They love to write and blog about their Reformed theology and can form a theological swarm on the Internet blogging against anyone who speaks or writes against their Reformed theology.”
15. “Tendency to use their pastoral authority against any member that questions their reformed theology or their direction.”
16. “Tendency to be evasive about their theology during the pastor search process. They will say things like: “I believe and preach the historic doctrines of Southern Baptists just like many of the great Baptist preachers of the past.” Many laymen will be satisfied in hearing the statement, “I believe and preach the Bible.” Without more intense questioning, the committee will not be fulfilling the sacred duty their church entrusted to them.”
So, here are my 20 reasons Why Your Church Should NOT Call a NON-Calvinist to be your pastor. Each of these reasons stem from real-life examples that non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastors have provided. So, like the above men that have stereotyped ALL Southern Baptist Calvinists based on observing a few, I have stereotyped ALL Southern Baptist non-Calvinists based on observing a few.
Your Church should NOT call a NON-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastor because…
1. They’re obese. They will not preach against the sin of over-eating; and they will joke about over-eating from the pulpit.
2. They attempt to sleep with the women and men in their churches. They will try to commit adultery with both your men and women.
3. They care more about numbers than the souls that are coming forward for salvation. They will be very concerned with how many people are being baptized, instead of the actual number of people who are growing in Christ, and are exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit.
4. They bribe people to pray the sinner’s prayer. They will tell little children that they will give them presents if they pray the sinner’s prayer so that they can report these numbers back to the sbc.
5. They believe the King James Version is the only Word of God for English speaking people. If the thee’s and thou’s are good enough for Jesus, they’re good enough for them.
6. They rule their churches, hiring and firing staff, without the church’s approval. They’ll even ask deacons to step down without the church’s approval; and then, once they’ve cleaned house, they will leave for another church bigger and better than your church.
7. They manipulate during the invitation in order to get people to come forward. They will use whatever manipulation tactics to get people to come forward and repeat the sinner’s prayer. They can’t wait to report these numbers back to the sbc. If no one comes forward during the invitation, they’ll throw their sports coats on the ground, and storm out of the sanctuary.
8. They lead their churches to build big buildings, and then leave when things get tough, forcing those left behind to clean up the mess. Your church as a result will be greatly hindered financially for 10 years or more after your non-Calvinist pastor leaves.
9. They believe smoking and drinking are wicked, but that God is cool with voluntary obesity.
10. They believe that biblical discipline is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. They believe that they are smarter than God; and thus, they redefine God’s love in the local church.
11. They use inappropriate language in the pulpit and in private in order to appear “relevant” to their hearers.
12. They call non-Southern Baptists to serve on church staff. Specifically, they call Church of God, Assembly of God, or Pentecostal believers to serve in ministry positions.
13. They don’t care about correct belief or Baptist distinctives. They only care about Jesus and the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.
14. They don’t support the cooperative program, the NAMB, or the IMB.
15. They lead their churches to diminish financial support to the local Baptist association in the name of other mission opportunities.
16. They believe God leads them and them alone in casting vision for their church(s). It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with them; it’s their way or the highway.
17. They preach topically or expositionally, but intentionally avoid difficult or controversial subjects. Thus, they only preach what is easy, shielding their churches from the full counsel of God’s Word.
18. They believe they can see demons, heal through touch, and speak personal prophecies into your life. They are always correct too. Who are you to say anything against what God is showing or telling them?
19. They steal personal illustrations from other pastors, claim them as their own, and then preach these illustrations as if they actually experienced them.
20. They tell sinners to ask Jesus into their hearts instead of telling them to repent, and to put their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation for the rest of their days in order to be declared righteous before God. They thus will lead your church to baptize many people that never understood the commitment they were making. Most of these people will eventually leave your church and live like devils, all the while thinking that their salvation is secure because they “asked Jesus into their hearts.”
After reading my observations, do you see how foolish it is to stereotype an entire theological group based on observations that have NOTHING to do with their theology? Stereotyping from both sides needs to stop! We instead should unite around the gospel while discussing these issues with grace and love toward one another.
BTW: I can name several non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastors that I would hire to be on my church staff. I’ve had non-Calvinist Southern Baptists preach at each Southern Baptist church that I’ve served; August 26-28, 2011 was the most recent time.
What are your thoughts?
Chris Roberts (75)
Dave Miller (63)
Bob Hadley (60)
Debbie Kaufman (49)
dr. james willingham (48)
Les (41)
Christiane (30)
cb scott (29)
Bill Mac (27)
Rick Patrick (27)
There was an article today by Ed Stetzer, an interview with Joe Thorn that took an irenic look at the angry attitudes so often displayed in this Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist fight that rages.
http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/09/joe-thorn-and-fake-calvinists.html
They admitted a problem with “angry Calvinists” but denied that this characterizes all Calvinists. Good read.
You certainly make your point although at the risk of offending everybody on the other side of this theological debate. I’m not sure it is have been worth the inevitable backlash you’ll receive. I’m just ready for us to move beyond this. We criticize Congress for playing partisan politics, then we play partisan theology. When such divisive debates occur I believe Satan throws a party. The disrespect, divisiveness, insults and un-Christlike behavior needs to stop on both sides, and I’m not sure your points do anything more than point the finger and say “Na-na na-na boo-boo we aren’t any worse than you.” I confess that I have certainly crossed the line in my debates and comments towards Calvinists, but just when I try to take a deep breath and be more reasonable, I see or hear something like this.
Randy
“take a deep breath and be more reasonable.” Novel concept. Maybe we should all try that sometime.
Thanks Randy for bringing us all back to our senses. Debating is not preaching the Gospel. I am coming to realize that more each day and ask for forgiveness where I have come across more contentious than contending for the faith. Raise your window … perhaps you will be able to hear me expel a deep breath in an effort to bring reason and proper focus to these things. Thank you for your post.
Max, are you saying that you would restate some of that? Am I reading into your comment? Frankly, I am always encouraged by the growing number of people who are tired of fighting about Calvinism.
Randy, if you understood the point of the article, why are you offended? The point of the article was that my 20 stereotypes are not true of all Non-Calvinist Southern Baptists; not only this, but also that these stereotypes have little to do with non-Calvinism. We cannot stereotype all based on observing a few. This of true of Southern Baptist Calvinists as well; however, the first two lists above stereotyped all SBC Calvinists based on observing a few.
Man, I am so tired of this debate and what it is doing to us as a denomination. I’m not a fan of sarcasm and I sense alot of that in his post. It’s not humor to me. It’s hearbreaking. I didn’t say I was offended – I said you risk offending alot of folks. My point is this: you did a great job of pointing out the fallacy of broad generalizations in regards to Calvinist pastors at the cost of insulting a large group of non-Calvinist pastors. When we take our arguments to this level, my question has to be, “Is it really worth it?”
Good question, Randy.
I was reading this and thinking of the award that the Mike and Mike radio/tv show on ESPN used to give out: The “Just Shut Up!” award. In this case awarded to all of us.
Randy, is “what” worth it? If Calvinists are being stereotyped based on a few, then shouldn’t we come against this stereotyping?
I mean, you felt the need to comment on this post for probably a reason similar to why I wrote the original article to begin with.
Is the battle worth it? That’s the big question. The question has taken this form for me and some of my friends and family, “Do I want to die on this hill?” You see, one of my issues from the old me, especially that old angry atheist me, is a desire to debate and argue. I got pretty good at it. Despite all of the arguments, despite all of the debates, despite all of my cleverly devised presentations disproving God, I never won one single convert from Christianity to atheism. I believe the same holds true for Calvinism. What I’m saying is simply this:
Your point was vividly made. Wonderfully worded. However, it’s not likely to win any converts to Calvinism or deter those that are opposed to it. It is likely to incite more divisiveness.
I would say you have won this battle. You have routed the “enemy” with your well framed article. However, was winning the battle worth the cost? Is it a hill you want to die on?
Anger is such an issue for me, and I still struggle with it. One of the ways I have begun to see it is that anger is like a gun. Let’s say it’s a .44 magnum for today. As we get angry about issues, let’s say Calvinists vs. Non-Calvinists in this case, we load those six, fat magnum rounds into the cylinder. That’s our anger and our frustration. You have two choices at that point:
(1) You can cock the hammer, take aim and open fire.
(2) You can pop the cylinder back open, remove each of those six bullets and holster your weapon.
Sometimes we need to do battle. Sometimes we need to load, open fire, reload, and continue firing to take down the enemy. But is this the battlefield we need to be doing it on? Who is the enemy?
If you are in a war and a friendly force opens fire on you, thinking you are the enemy, what do you do? Do you shoot back and take them out? Or do you take a different action? Do you hold your fire?
Again, the construction of your article is excellent. I believe you have fired a devestating volley against the enemy. But who is the enemy? And was the cost of it, was the damage inflicted on the enemy worth it? You have won, but what have you really won?
I love you as my brother in Christ. I just think it’s time for a truce on this issue.
Randy
Randy,
I am with you on this. I spent my young Christian life on the other side of the debates you are talking about. Some hills are not worth dying on and some are. Knowing which is which takes wisdom and I seem to remember God promising that He would give us that wisdom if we will ask Him for it.
Sarcasm does not translate into print. Any blogger should have learned this. It does not work any better in a long posting as in a short comment.
I love a bit of sarcasm and appreciate the thought that went into this post. But the problem for calvinists is that a considerable segment of folks in SBC life take the warnings about calvinist pastors seriously. Some with good reason.
No one will take this post seriously.
If you tell people the sky is falling long and loud enough, eventually some will listen.
I did. It sounded so familiar.
Your second list is even more idiotic than the first list.
There’s three lists, Rick. Which two are you referring to?
Um, isn’t this about a year old?
BTW, I’m a Calvinist and I’m fat. We were going to a Calvinist church (pastor is a grad of MacArthur’s Seminary, and is a big buddy of his) and I was told that I wasn’t fit to serve anywhere because I was fat (loose paraphrase). What is it with Calvinists and fat people?
I think we were predestined to overeat, Joe.
Before the foundation of the world, even….
uh…yeah.
Joe Thorn said this on his post “Angry Calvinists.”
The debate rages.
One wonders what exactly has transpired to call for a rerun of this particular title, a title run last April on Jared’s blog.
Anyways, that aside, I find it even more interesting Professor Tom Nettles may pen an essay in Founders Journal entitled, “WHY YOUR NEXT PASTOR SHOULD BE A CALVINIST” without an iota of protest from the obviously unbiased author of this piece, not to mention Ascol’s description of Nettles when he profiles “WHY YOUR NEXT PASTOR SHOULD BE A CALVINIST”. Ascol writes of Nettles, “His teaching and writing ministries have been blessed of God to call many back to our biblical and historical roots as Southern Baptists” (embolden added).
Why, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear Ascol implies Southern Baptist roots–both biblical and historical–are found in Calvinism, not non-Calvinism, which, in the puff piece, he laments we’d drifted toward.
Alas, but implicating any strategic effort to push the SBC toward and not away from “Reformed” yearnings is but a cheap conspiracy theory concocted by ignorant people who know little, if any, about Calvinism and nothing more.
With that, I am…
Peter
FYI, what I write here in mostly original, though I do pull something out of mothballs from sbcIMPACT or my personal blog (long ago abandoned). But most of our bloggers here repost things they have written at their personal blog and then link back.
That’s just how we work here. I think that most of Jared’s posts are reprints from his personal blog, as I understand it.
I think that what transpired was an email I sent to my contributors a couple of days ago saying that the queue was getting empty and asking for articles to post. I try to post three articles every weekday (sometimes 2, sometimes 4) on a variety of topics and themes.
Hello Peter,
I’m not sure what Tom Ascol has to do with this post.
Are you aware of any Southern Baptist leader from the past that may be of the opinion that the SBC was united around the Calvinistic Philadelphia Confession of Faith? (Hint: Victor Irvine Masters) Since that time the SBC has clearly drifted toward non-Calvinism.
Peter, First, very few people read my blog.
Second, Dave doesn’t tell me what to post. I choose the articles, and bring them over.
Third, I would love to see you or some other non-Calvinist deal with the stereotyping. Do you think what Max and the “Reformed Red Flags” list say are true concerning Southern Baptist Calvinists?
Two things I think we all need to watch out for:
1. Falling into the “O God I thank thee that I am not like ____________” attitude.
(this goes way beyond merely Calvinist/noncalvinist distinctions)
2. Stoking fires that have simmered down.
(I suspect sometimes fires might simmer down because God is doing a work of grace in the hearts of people who have some theological disagreements between them)
Personally, I think Jim G. (of whom I have some disagreements with) is a model of someone who engages in substantive theological discussion without causing any unnecessary offence.
Thanks Jim and may God continue to use you as an example.
Good word, Benji.
I didn’t think anyone would disagree with me, Benji. I’m shocked!
:0)
Thanks for the compliment. I have strong feelings on this issue, but I try not to let them get in the way of remembering I am talking to brethren and sistren. I think you are also an irenic voice.
That being said, the “to be or not to be Calvinist” issue is not going away in SBC life. It is going to be a long, drawn-out struggle with a lot of casualties on both sides. I honestly would not be surprised if it were the Protestant Evangelical equivalent of Nicea-Constantinople. I wish I were wrong, but I don’t think I am. There is too much at stake and the plum is too big not to be picked.
Jim G.
It always intrigues me when my Calvinist friends and colleagues react to the plain reality in SBC life that a growing number of folks are wary of Calvinists. The thrust of the reactions seem to fall into two categories with some covering the board by choosing both: (1) Non-calvinists are bad pastors too, and more plentiful to boot, and (2) bad Calvinist pastors aren’t true Calvinists anyway, neither (or both) of which do anything to change the reality on the ground.
Were I a calvinist SBCer, I’m not sure how I would handle the arms-length treatment from others. If I got to a conversation with a search committee who asked, I’d be forthcoming and would point to my church record.
I suppose it is unfair that merely being identified as a calvinist is a deal killer with some churches.
I would add a third reaction is to deny there is any substance behind the reservations about calvinists in the SBC and the problem is because of folks just talking about it “long and loud enough.”
William,
You’re spot on with your comments here.
Also, Spurgeon was fat. I guess he wasnt a good Calvinist, nor was in he in the will of God, nor was he fit to be a Pastor. Good grief.
David
I have a bobblehead of Spurgeon and his head is much larger than his body, if that has anything to do with this conversation.
I would love a bobblehead of Spurgeon. Could you point me in a direction?
I got my Spurgeon bobblehead (and Mohler) from Lifeway @ SBTS. Just called them up, gave my credit card # and they shipped it to me.
LOL
I’m just mad cause no one told me there was a weight limit before I joined the club. I mean, throw a guy a bone here, y’all.
William, Do you agree with the stereotypes presented above by Max and the “Reformed Red Flags” sheet?
Do I agree with what you call “stereotypes” posted by anonymous commenter somewhere who wrote about calvinst pastors in his area?
I don’t know that I am required to agree with your characterization of his characterization of young reformed brethren in his area.
Some of them fit with what I have seen.
William, if they’re not stereotypes, then what are they? What do you call labeling an entire theological group, thousands of people, based on observing a few?
Which points mentioned by Max or the Reformed Red Flags sheet are True?
BTW: If all of them aren’t true, doesn’t this prove that they are stereotypes, and not universally true statements?
Slow down, Jared. The mysterious Max made observations about the calvinist brethren in his area. Take them or leave them. Some I would call overly broad generalizations.
Question for you: Why would you give this guy a wider audience by reposting what is repugnant to you on SBCV?
You continue to miss, of course, the broader point about calvinism and the SBC reaction to it and to calvinists. There is substance to it that will not dissipate by your merely poking sarcasm at it.
William, as long as there are guys like you out there telling Southern Baptists to be Wary of Calvinists, there will be some Southern Baptists that are wary of Calvinists. Quit telling Southern Baptists to be wary of Calvinists, and they may actually stop being wary of them.
I’m not sure its fair to blame William for the problem. I think he is saying that a wariness exists and simply decrying it won’t solve it.
Dave, if Southern Baptist pastors are telling people to be wary of Calvinists, then Southern Baptists that respect these pastors will probably be wary of Calvinists.
I don’t think William is “THE” problem, but he’s part of the problem because he tells Southern Baptists to be wary of Calvinists. If he and others like him started telling Southern Baptists that they shouldn’t be wary of Calvinists, it would help.
Whenever I was a non-Calvinist, I was wary of Calvinists because Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines said I should be. I didn’t actually know a real-life Calvinist.
Again, I don’t think you are taking William’s point (though he can speak for himself). I believe he is saying that Calvinists have behaved in such a way as to make some people wary.
If we want to stop people from being wary of Calvinists, then (if I read him right) sarcasm and degrading comments may not be the way to do that.
Perhaps it would be our graciousness, our kindly response to criticism, our openness and complete rejection of any hidden agenda – perhaps some of these attitudes would work better to change attitudes than combativeness.
For the record, I AM a Calvinist and I get frustrated and put off by the behavior and attitudes of some Calvinists regularly.
Jared, listen to yourself. You say that there will be folks wary of calvinist as long as people like me are telling folks to be wary of calvinists. How about going behind my statement to see why? Then you can either accept it, reject it, or ignore it.
Dave, my favorite calvinist, gets it. You don’t.
William and Dave,
No one has disputed that some Calvinists have “behaved badly.” I agree that some Calvinists indeed have handled themselves sinfully. What I don’t get is why churches thus stereotype all other Southern Baptist Calvinists as a result. I’ve witnessed non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastors that have “behaved badly.” Should I stereotype as well?
-The main reason why some Southern Baptists stereotype Calvinists is because they’re not Calvinists. When a Calvinist behaves badly, they know that he believes something different than they do, and they thus, stereotype all Calvinists. However, when they see a Non-Calvinist behave badly, they have enough brain sense to know that this person is doing something different than they’re doing; so, it cannot be necessarily true of all non-Calvinists. I agree with Dan in the comment below, that those who stereotype are in sin.
William, why don’t you see that the main problem is “Southern Baptists shouldn’t stereotype” instead of “Why I’m Wary of Calvinists”? If both sides have some that have behaved badly, then the answer would be to take each individual based on his or her own obedience, life, and example. Statements like Max’s comment and the “Reformed Red Flags” document do the opposite of that. I think your article “Why I’m Wary of Calvinists” does the opposite of that.
I’m willing to reach the nations with you and other non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. Are you willing to reach them with me and other Calvinists?
I am so willing, and have made that clear repeatedly.
I’m thinking, Jared, that your approach is a loser to this matter. You don’t get to change the reality on the ground which is, manifestly, that many SBCers are reflexively wary of calvinists.
Dave Miller here has found a way to adjust to that reality.
It’s almost as if no one read or cared what Max stated about Calvinists.
Jared’s defense steps:
1. Did you even read what I wrote? Surely if you were of my intellect you would agree with me
2. I don’t think you understand what I was writing about. If you will just read the correct authors –provided by me of course – you will come to your senses.
3. I didn’t say that. It may look like I said it, and everyone may understand that I said it, but that’s not what I said.
4. You’re not even dealing with my post. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Perhaps if I were to speak in a simpler way – nah, you just need to become reformed.
Daniel, that’s helpful and gracious. I assume your a non-Calvinist?
Typical. Right?
Mark,
You usually provide great depth to a discussion but how in the world could you ask that question consider the original post: A Calvinist posting outrageous statements concerning non-Calvinists.
Daniel, thanks, but I was and am tired. Tired of studying Greek and tired of completing the Greek homework that’s due tonight. More so, I’m tired of comments that ridicule Jared’s post by not addressing it according to it’s context. I’m tired of people who will not be reasonable when it comes to Calvinists when they admittedly and purposely comment in a way to get a rise out of Calvinists. I’m tired of people practically denying any Calvinist history of the SBC. (I even posted this week evidence of the opposite.) I’m tired of people the positive contributions of past Calvinists’ contributions to Baptist missions, theological growth, etc.
But for some reason I’m not tired of commenting.
If some of our non- and anti-Calvinist Christian brothers would simply point today’s Calvinists back to past Calvinists like Fuller, Carey, Spurgeon, etc. as a corrective and model for things like ministry and behavior, maybe Calvinists may understand that true concern is coming from the other side of the theological fence.
Not to tired to comment. Well said, well said. You won’t find me arguing the historical part of the SBC, my dad has recited it to me more times than I’ll ever read it on a thousand blogs. In regards to Jared’s post I’ll use a southern example for you.
When I was a teenager I used to take my truck and go “muddin.” When I was finished the truck would be covered with mud and I would ride around in it proudly for several days. Eventually I would tire of the mud on the windshield and would spend several hours washing and polishing my truck. As stupid as this sounds it was a lot of fun and I certainly wasn’t alone in this behavior. In about a week the whole process would begin to be repeated. The reality is that I enjoyed both parts, the mud and the shine.
For this reason I continuously repeated this process until I was married and for some reason the whole “muddin” didn’t really appeal to me anymore.
Sarcasm can be an effective method of communication but a few of his points were absolutely disgusting and overboard. Those may not be the most inflammatory things to be posted on this board (in an original post – comments are another story) but I compared them to Allen Pearce’s post which received a great deal of condemnation for such sarcasm and I felt Jared’s wasn’t even in the same league. I know, I know, he attempted to clarify things at the end but I wasn’t buying what he was selling because of the mud on the windshield.
Peace to you, brother, and may visions of New Testament Greek bring a beginning and end to your dreams.
Daniel, wow… I suppose you don’t like me very much do you?
Not to worry Jared. I like you and I really enjoy your steadfast love for the Savior.
Chief Katie, Thank you!
“Liking you” has nothing at all to do with this. I have read most of your posts on sbcvoices and over the last month you have displayed an air of superiority that I find disgraceful. This post is the icing on the cake. If I remember correctly, when Dr. Pearce posted a reply to Brad Whitt the great number of comments centered around the fact that his (Dr. Pearce’s) was ungracious and thus added nothing to the argument. The two posts – yours and Dr. Pearce’s – aren’t even in the same realm.
Points 3,4, 7, and 20 are points that can be argued against non-Calvinists. About half of the remaining points could be pointed towards abusive and controlling pastors in general. The rest of the points belong in the garbage heap.
Point number 2, really!!???!! If I am a non-Calvinist (Mark supposes so, and I’ve been accused of being both and neither) do you really think this is the way to communicate?
Daniel, did you read the final point of the above article that these are NOT REAL POINTS? Did you read this paragraph after my 20 point list…
“After reading my observations, do you see how foolish it is to stereotype an entire theological group based on observations that have NOTHING to do with their theology? Stereotyping from both sides needs to stop! We instead should unite around the gospel while discussing these issues with grace and love toward one another.”
Let me say it again, The 20 point list above is NOT a “real” list!
BTW: What article(s) of mine from the past month reveal an “air of superiority”?
Instead of pointing to past articles which would require more time than I am willing to devote I would just point you up. Look at your replies to Randy above. He responded to your post graciously and you responded with my point number 1. You insulted what was a gracious reply after your perfunctory, “what do you think” at the end of your article. When Randy replied, once again very generously, you again insulted him and stated that since he replied then he must hold to some of the very things you were supposedly speaking against.
You have a wealth of knowledge, that much is evident from your posts. You also have a desire to share that with others, which is commendable. However, if you want to be heard and understood you need to bring some grace to your writing, most notably your responses.
There is stereotyping on all sides of the aisles on this issue of Calvinism. If your serious about this issue deal with points that have some merit, but don’t be so easily offended when guys like William deal with the points of merit from the other side.
Daniel,
“insulted?” Don’t you think you’re reading into my words? What did I say that was insulting? Quote my comments and prove “arrogance.”
Why do you assume that Randy has a smile on his face when typing his above comments, but I have an arrogant look on my face as I type my comments? You’re reading into my words your own bias and presupposed negative opinion of me. If Randy and I write the same sentence, you’ll receive his with joy and mine with malice.
Jared,
Arrogance isn’t proven, it is observed.
DAniel,
You’re exactly right.
David
Shame on you David.
shame on me? why?
David
shame on me? what? because I agree with what Daniel was saying? I didnt agree with you, Jared?
Daniel, I especially like the comments about mud ridiing….
David
David, I’m fine if you don’t agree with me. My problem is that you applauded an insult toward me. You’ve complimented some of my other articles on Voices. Do you really think that I’m an arrogant snob like Daniel portrays above?
Randy,
Just yesterday, I unsubscribed to a blog that has gained a reputation for posting article after article of negativity towards one Pastor or another. It doesn’t matter how minor the issue is, it’s put up for all God-fearin’ folks to pile on and criticize. There is a place for healthy criticism, but that’s not what I’m seeing. It’s just mean-spirited. Everyone is, at the very least a heretic, and if you really make the author mad about eschatology, then you are a full blown apostate and the fires are readied. It’s discouraging, disheartening and frustrating to see people who have in common the gift of salvation, to behave in such ugly ways towards each other. What bothers me even more, is that I know unbelievers watch the way we interact with each other. What message are we sending them?
When did we stop showing we were Christians by our love?
Good thoughts from you……….
Jared,
I’m just thinking out loud here so take it for what its worth (maybe not much). I agree with you that all three lists are pretty ludicrous. I also am reading the comment thread and notice that you are asking some of these people if they agree with the list–I assume asking if these false stereotypes are being promoted.
Here is my question…at what point should we just not bother answering these. Serious objections and concerns from someone that is truly and humbly seeking to understand a position….absolutely. I consider those that don’t really care to be gracious, consider facts, build strawmen, etc. as doing nothing more than stirring up division. Perhaps from Titus 3:10 you could argue for “warning them once or twice” but it seems that Scripture often speaks of simply ignoring those that are contentious.
I once had a guy that thought I was a non-Calvinist start bashing Calvinists and giving a good number of the stereotypes. I then told him that I was a Calvinist. He was floored b/c my lifestyle didn’t match up with the stereotypes. I wonder if this may not be the better way to dispel these strawmen.
Just thinking out loud…which is always dangerous especially given my mind. (Cue the Coolio music….)
Mike, I’m not sure; you may be correct. I have a hard time not writing or replying when I see something I believe or am associated with being misrepresented.
Interesting….but stereotypes have nothing to do with the actual differences that exist, and which significantly impact churches. We don’t avoid calling a Calvinist or non-Calvinist because of stereotypes (I hope). We call certain people over others because we believe they better represent Christianity as it should be taught and practiced.
I have had plenty of negative experience with SBC pastors over the last 30 years. I do not know personally any Calvinist SBC pastors, therefore all of my negative experiences have been with non-Calvinists. I have seen deception, obsession, arrogance, cruelty, church splits, etc, all from non-Calvinist pastors.
What does that prove? To make the assertion, based on my anecdotal experience, that we should be “wary” of non-Calvinists is asinine. (even if I prefaced my warning with the usual disclaimers that some of my best friends are non-Calvinists)
Bill Mac, you’re exactly right; but, there’s a double-standard currently in the sbc. It’s only asinine to stereotype non-Calvinists; but, stereotyping Calvinists, that’s fair game.
I am nor familiar with the first comments but I am familiar with the second in West Tennessee. The intent of the W TN piece was simple. It was written to inform non-Calvinist churches that have NO CLUE what a TULIP even is that there are those out there who hold to theological positions that are decidedly different from those that their church holds. It is a VALID piece. It has a VALID place in the SBC.
Now if you want to be critical, my suggestion is to talk about a prospective Calvinist pastor even considering pastoring a non-Calvinist church in the first place without letting the church KNOW that his theological positions are not the same as the church. If that was reality, then the survey would not even be necessary in the first place. A Reformed church is NOT going to make the mistake of hiring a non-Calvinist because they KNOW what to look for and are aware of the ramifications. Many non-Calvinist churches do not have a clue about what is going on.
I have asked several Calvinist pastors about this issue and the answers I have received go something like this… “I do not reveal that I am Calvinist because I am not what THEY think I am. They have an incorrect view of Calvinism so instead of getting involved with that, I simply let them know that I am not a Calvinist.” I learned a great Greek word for that… BOLOGNA.
If a prospective pastor is Charismatic he ought to let the search committee know that his views are different. Calvinist… let them know. It may be considered admirable to lead a church to the “true gospel” BUT… it is only fair to let the church know upfront what ones true intentions are.
The ONE who knows what is going on has an obligation to let the other party know in advance. And… not telling the church everything you know is not acceptable either. I had another guy say… I answer all the questions I am asked truthfully… if they don’t ask, I am not obligated to tell.
That is one of the reasons the W Tn survey was written. It was available to churches that WANTED it. There was no conspiracy to “smoke out Calvinist pastors” as I saw commented when it first came out.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
That WTN piece is not a survey. It is a list of “red flags”. The last one is “a tendency to be evasive about their theology”. What is this but an indictment of Calvinist pastors as being deceptive?
The final document is essentially a contract that will force the minister out of the church if they ever become a Calvinist.
Pulpit committees should be thorough in their vetting of prospective pastors. Likewise pastoral candidates should be upfront about ALL their theology. But these papers are just outside the pale. It is paranoia.
What Bob is saying is true….that’s exactly why the Calvininst list was written…to help churches to avoid getting one of this 5 pointers, who was sneaking into churches, then trying to lead the church into 5 pointism. It has resulted in a lot of strife and division…even a few church splits…in the W. TN area. That’s why the fella wrote this list…so that churches that have no clue what’s going on in the SBC with the resurgence of 5 pointism…will be able to know what the prospective Pastor is all about….and not being “surprised” a few months later.
BTW, I just heard of a church, which used this list, that just had 2 prospective fellas “found out,” because they did not tell that they were 5 pointers. I mean, they went thru the whole interview process, and they did not reveal that they were 5 pointers. Then, one of the people on the search committee pulled this list out, and said, “Okay, we have a few questions for you.” Those 2 fellas are no longer prospective Pastors.
David
David,
I’m amazed that you view this as a “good thing.” What if one of those pastors is the next William Carey?
I am happy about it. This Churh avoided a very bad situation, which could’ve led to a lot of strife and division. So, why would I not be happy about it?
David
David, you don’t know the future. The very fact that you have to inform these churches, and that you’re informing them based on a charicature of what most Southern Baptists Calvinists don’t even believe, should shame you.
You don’t know if those 5-point Southern Baptist Calvinists would have led this church into the healthiest ministry it’s ever experienced.
Since 5-Point Calvinism is not condemned in the BF&M 2000, you’re trying to make an issue out of something the Convention has not. Not only this, but these documents encourage churches that previously had no problem with Calvinism to now see a problem. It’s not like these documents are neutral. They are extremely biased, and they paint Calvinism and Calvinists in a bad light.
I think these documents encourage strife. Yet, you think it’s a victory when a Calvinist doesn’t pastor a non-Calvinist Southern Baptist Church. What if these documents just encouraged a church to reject the next William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, etc.?
It’s sad that you don’t see it.
How about one question: Are you a 5 pt. Calvinist? If the guy will lie about this, he will lie about the other questions. On the other hand, this list is just stupid. Excuse me Mr. Candidate, are you weak on evangelism? Are you going to recruit reformed church members from the outside so you can take over our church? If a pulpit committee asked me those questions, you can bet your life I would be outta there, Calvinist or no.
Ask the guy if he is a Calvinist: Sure
Ask the guy about his methods of evangelism: Absolutely fair game.
Ask the guy about church polity. Not a problem.
A church that doesn’t want a Calvinist pastor should not get one. And their pulpit committee should take that seriously. But this ridiculous list of red flags isn’t the way to go about it. It is paranoia, and many of the things on that list simply aren’t true. I can’t imagine a Calvinist church wanting a pastor who fit the items on that list.
Jared,
I really cant believe that you’re even trying to argue what you’re saying….and no, I dont know the future, and neither do you. And, yes, I think it was a good thing…you dont. Okay.
But, to act like its some evil thing that this church, or other Churches, are doing in using a list…because they do not want a 5 point Calvinist Pastor…is ridiculous. To act like its really, really bad and some base thing that I would rejoice over them finding out that these guys were 5 pointers and this church turning them away is also ridiculous. I would also rejoice if a good, sound, healthy church found out that a prospective Pastor was a tongue speaker, and turned him away for it. I just think its the best thing.
Now, if he turns out to be the next William Carey, then hallelujah..let him be the next William Carey. But, 5 point churches would not want a John Wesley, and non 5 point churches would not want a Jonathan Edwards. And, there’s nothing evil or sinister about that.
David
David, I’m fine if churches don’t want a 5-point Calvinist pastor. What I’m against is you handing them a document that stereotypes 5-point Calvinist pastors and portrays them as being something that most of them are not.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Discussion is futile at this point.
How about reason #21….Non-Calvinists do not have a sense of humor, and take everything way too seriously.
That problem may go both ways.
I’m recalling the old saw that “all generalizations are false, including this one”.
This post may strike at another problem within the evangelical church .. Baptists included .. the proclivity to “classify” which leads to applying generalizations to individuals who need to hear the gospel. People without saving faith need to be known and ministered to as people, not a class.
I spent about 50 years in the insurance industry. I learned that you cannot apply such generalizations to individuals. I couldn’t tell a father that his son was a bad driver just because younger folks were more prone to accidents, etc etc.
Once again, this is not about generalizations or stereotypes. It’s about different beliefs held.
Calvinst have been, are, and will be in the SBC but their numbers have been, are, and will continue to be small compared to the non-Calvinst in the SBC. They make good conversation and ministry partners and have an important role to play, assuming some of its leaders resist their fundamentalist urges. But alas, some Calvinst and some non-Calvinist will, sadly, keep tensions high, thereby attentuating levels of cooperation.
Reformed theology played an important role in the 20th century. I recall Barth, Brunner, Tillich, the Niebuhr brothers, Pannenberg, and Moltmann, and I am grateful for their insights.
Baptists, with their mix of values, are well situated to speak in a time when people are looking for new and creative expressions of theological reflection. A Mullins, Moody, McClendon conversation with a touch of Moltmann, Macquarrie, Kaufman, and Griffith would be fascinating. And that just gets us at best to the 1990s. There is much growth to be had with an interesting mix of reformed, pietistic, biblical, philosopical, etc. theological conversation partners, and I hope such will continue taking place in more and more baptist churches.
It amounts to far more than that. The aim of Calvinism is to achieve reformation in the church and society according to their understanding. An elite knows what’s best and must impose this upon everyone else for the sake of God’s kingdom.
Sal,
You are right and this whole argument of stereotyping anyone is not even close to the issue. I have NOT said anything about stereotyping anyone. I did talk about some real issues of guys not being upfront with their theological positions that they KNOW are decidedly different from a church they are seeking to lead. I agree with you that the “aim of Calvinism is to achieve reformation in the church and society according to their understanding.”
I also maintain, if Calvinists held a majority position in the SBC we would not even be having this conversation because non-Calvinists would not likely even have a place at the table. These guys do not like my position any more than I like theirs but they have no choice but tolerate my position or get out… until they can turn the tables… and I will say, they are doing a very good job at doing that.
When we are talking about HOW a person comes to Christ, it is imperative that we get it right. To say that a person is born spiritually the same way he is born physically… it is God that chooses who is born and who is not born-again is either true of it is not. Both of us may be wrong but we cannot both be right.
Soteriology is synergistic as well as sanctification. All I am saying is, if a church believes that and a prospective pastor does not, then that prospective pastor ought not ask the church to hire them without FIRST at least discussing this issue.
Bill Mac’s statement, “Pulpit committees should be thorough in their vetting of prospective pastors. Likewise pastoral candidates should be upfront about ALL their theology” is exactly what I am saying. The problem is churches do NOT have a clue what is going on and prospective pastors who do are keeping their mouths shut and Calvinists KNOW this is the case and want it to remain that way.
><>’
Bob: Name ten. Name ten situations that you know of personally where a Calvinistic pastor has infiltrated (or attempted to) a non-Calvinist friendly congregation by stealth with the aim of transforming that church into a Calvinistic church.
I did not say that it was the “unique to Calvinists” and I maintain that they have every right to move with their convictions.. BUT I have every right to work to keep things as they are.
><>’
There’s nothing quite like the status quo.
AMEN… we can agree! (saying with a smile.)
><>’
The key to your question is “by stealth” so I am inclined to just past. Your own comment below answers your own question. “Isn’t it the aim of everyone who believes they know the truth to persuade people of that truth?”
><>’
Bob said:
Is this what Baptist and Southern Baptist history teaches us?
Since even Arminians claim that salvation is monergistic, I wonder what you mean by stating that it is synergistic.
Please. Isn’t this the aim of everyone? Wasn’t it the aim of the reformation? Wasn’t it the aim of the anabaptists, and later the baptists, reforming churches away from paedobaptism?
Isn’t it the aim of everyone who believes they know the truth to persuade people of that truth? Wasn’t that the express aim of the CR? Isn’t this the aim of the SBC with their emphasis on politics and the culture war? That some Calvinists are out to reform the SBC I have no doubt. But please don’t act like this is unique to Calvinists.
Dave (as Editor),
In the ebb and flow of civility in the Southern Baptist Convention, this article has to be the low water mark and the ring around the tub will be there for a long time.
Is this why you won’t be my friend on facebook?
“Avoid terms such as Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption, etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about. Many that do will become inflamed against you.”
-Ernest C. Reisinger & D. Matthe Allen, A Quiet Revolution, Founders Press; 2000.
A book telling Calvinist pastors how to go into a non-Calvinist church and reform it to 5-point Calvinist views.
Some in the SBC are concerned with such statements and action. Some Calvinists don’t worry me a bit, some do.
Anyone interested in information from the non-Calvinist position may be interested in:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/09/books-on-calvinism-predestination.html
David R. Brumbelow
Don’t forget “Walking Without Slipping: Instructions for Local Church Reformation” at http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/quiet4.html
In the “quiet” file… sssshhhhhuuuusssss
><>’
I would encourage everyone to read the document at the link Bob just posted above, and read his experience with “reforming” a church. It has some Calvinistic elements to be sure, since it was written by a Calvinist. But it most certainly does not, as Bob is implying, contain instructions for converting a church to Calvinism and especially does not, as Bob is implying, contain instructions or even suggestions that Calvinist pastors infiltrate churches incognito with a stealth mission to turn the church into a Calvinist church.
The fact is that the Calvinists are here and they are increasing in number. Almost every young seminarian that I know personally is of this persuasion. I’ve expressed my views many times on this and I will here as well, I’m a noncalvinist (not an anticalvinist) and I believe we need these calvinists. They have a high view of scripture and a high view of God, they are conservative and they help the convention stay conservative.
Quite frankly, how anyone could have misinterpreted Jared’s intention in this article is uncanny. What he demonstrated is that no one likes being stereotyped and castigated as a group. He showed us how it feels to have that done to us, as we noncalvinists have done to calvinists. He said all these things plainly in his article.
Jared, message received with much appreciation. Keep up the good work.
John, thank you. I’m glad at least a few people that disagree with me understood the argument and got the point. Keep on keeping on.
To quote Morgan Freeman as he portrayed God “I’m not much for blaspheming, but that one made me laugh”.
I have been involved in this “debate” or “discussion” long enough, and I am have come to believe, like Jared, that if you pigeon hole or stereotype based on a label of a system, you are in sin. If you say I don’t believe in Evangelism because I read the ESV, it’s clear you don’t know me, and don’t care to get to know me. Seems pretty anti love. I appreciate Jared with his humor. Maybe our #1 problem is we all need to lighten up.
If I can just give my honest opinion after reading the piece and every one of the comments. You all sound like a bunch of five year-olds. Seriously, is this what theological dialogue in our convention has come to? This thread has been nothing but a bunch of supposedly grown men yelling, “you were the ones who started it.” Both sides need to repent, talk less, listen more, and love more.
I think there is some real wisdom in your statement, Scott.
goo gooo gaa gaaa
Here’s the problem: Calvinists believe in IMPOSING their views. It fits with their ideas about salvation and eschatology. They have a vision of an outcome and they believe that Christians are supposed to reign and rule now to achieve it, politically, culturally, etc. They believe they should use “the law” to accomplish this.
Sal, evidently you believe in caricaturing those with whom you disagree. We all try to convince others, but to impose our views is a pretty serious accusation.
That kind of attitude causes problems and does not solve them. Honestly, man, that is just ridiculous to paint with such a broad and unkind brush.
You are confusing Calvinists with Theonomists.
Dave, the calvinist system involves a program for the church and society. It always had. That has not changed. That people borrow pieces here and there is of course true. But Calvinism as a system involves a total reformation of the church and society after that fashion. I’m simply pointing this out because people often don’t realize it. Calvinism is of a coercive nature. This opposes the Baptist sense of liberty.
Bill, the Calvinist system takes you in the direction of theonomy.
That’s just silly. It does no such thing. There are both Calvinists and non-Calvinists who are theonomists. Opponents of Calvinism can’t have it both ways. In one breath they call us antinomians and in the other they call us theonomists.
Sal, are you gunning for the title of blogging caricaturist of the year? Honestly, you need to stop. You lump everyone into categories and make pronouncements based on the most egregious generalities. If someone did that to you, you would crow!
It is unfair and unproductive. I ask you to stop it.
Dave,
I for one would be interested in a discussion of this thesis!
Does Reformed theology logically lead to a theonomic position?
I think Sal is onto something here because it seems you only hold to a soteriological calvinistic position.
Maybe my memory is wrong but I thought you said you dont hold to the L in tulip which would make you an amyrldian not a calvinist!
I’m not sure exactly what I am.
I see the logic of Limited atonement within the system, but I have some reservations based on scriptures.
yes . . .
the Incarnation
I’m certain there are some people out on the web running a constant search for words like “Calvinism” or “Arminianism” and being notified by a blinking computer screen when someone writes something about those topics somewhere…
otherwise how do we keep having the same comment thread repeated every 2 weeks?
One thing you do not see often is a good, thorough discussion of the doctrines themselves. You see conspiracy theories and reactions.
I have never heard that Arminians affirm monergism. This claims absolutely blows my mind. If Arminians are monergists then what is everyone fighting about?!?!
Dave, I’m not referring to peopel who dabble in the doctrines of grace or who accept Calvinist doctrines that were already in Scirptrue. I’m referring to people who hold to the Calvinist system. I thought I clarified that already.
Dave, you’ve just proven what I’m getting at with your attitude toward blogging. You know what’s best and you mean to protect it because your side is correct. Therefore, silencing opinions that differ from yours is perfectly acceptable. I’m sorry Dave, but you’ve totally proven the attitude I’ve seen again and again and again.
Scripture seems to be clear about God’s position on being God. “I AM.” Isaiah was a Calvinist according to Isaiah 6. Every Christian who sits in the pew should have a understanding of the kind of pastor/teacher they should have to be their shepherd. We as pastors should be able to bring to the table any discussion any topic with clarity, with kindness, with an attitude that we want to learn God’s truth.
Sal, cant u see Dave’s desire to get along? Listen, he’s only asking u to avoid untrue straw-men descriptions of theological positions. He merely asked u to be accurate in the spirit of fairness. Dave has never tried to silence people to my knowledge.
Sounds fine. Very fine. Hope that’s what he means. I for one was trying to explain that Calvinism is a system. I’m not speaking against what people borrow when they wish to renew our emphasis upon grace and sovereignty. It is the system that scares me. People really believe the calvinist system and wish to impose it. They think it’s good for everyone.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }