On Wednesday July 15th, Executive Committee president Morris Chapman issued a “clarification of intent” for the controversial statements he made during the 2009 Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville, KY. I have read it through several times now, and honestly, all that has been clarified for me is that Morris Chapman still doesn’t get it.
The first thing that I think Chapman doesn’t get is the inappropriateness of his comments. The speech in question was delivered during the Executive Committee report on the Tuesday morning of the convention. This was time allotted for a report on EC business (which apparently there is plenty to talk about, e.g. Clark Logan, see later) and he used it instead as an opportunity to speak against Calvinism/the Great Commission Resurgence. Now, I’ll admit, I was a rookie at this meeting, but I do know that on Tuesday night, when Thom Rainer gave the LifeWay report he actually reported on things that had to do with LifeWay. In my opinion, choosing to deliver this speech in the first place was out of line and an abuse of the role which the convention has granted to Mr. Chapman, however that issue was never once addressed in the “clarification.”
The second thing I believe that Chapman doesn’t get is where the real problem with his comments lie. As Trevin Wax said about it, “ I think I agree with his exegesis, and wonder again who he’s fighting…” This clarification begins with Chapman’s most controversial phrase, a little bit of narrative, and then a more careful restatement of his words prefaced with the remark, “Had I spoken with greater technical precision in my report, my words may be expanded this way.” That’s all good, and like Wax I would agree with his restatement and following exegesis, but the fact remains that he still has no idea why people are upset.
Chapman says, “It has been said that no Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention would affirm the [original] idea as I stated it.” However, what he apparently misses is that pretty much every Calvinist in the SBC actually affirms the so-called clarification he is trying to make. Chapman seems to think that SBC Calvinists take issue with grace-by-faith salvation being the gift in Ephesians 2.8 (where both grace and faith are gifts). He also implies that they take issue with Spurgeon and his position in the conflict against Hyper-Calvinism. Neither of these, as far as I know, is actually the case.
By the way, why is it that non-Calvinists think that Spurgeon is always the exception to the rule among Calvinists? The presenters at the John 3:16 Conference said he was evangelistic “in spite of” his Calvinist convictions. Chapman said he held to the four listed principles from the article as a “departure [from the ministry of] the ‘older’ [i.e. Hyper-] Calvinists.” When will these men realize that the reason Spurgeon looks different than their view of Calvinists is not because Spurgeon is some exception but because their perception is built off of caricatures and not truth?
As well, the quotation of the interview from 2007 is of little help to him. Look at the next to last paragraph of the article. In it he says,
One danger is that pastors are tempted to accept church pastorates in churches that are not Calvinistic, and then strive to drive them into the Calvinistic camp, thereby destroying an otherwise strong and healthy church. Another danger is that the truly warm-hearted, ‘evangelical’ Calvinists often are misunderstood by second-generation successors, potentially resulting in a decline in evangelism and missions.
This befuddles me. Though I understand what he is getting at in the first sentence, what he says is a little out there. Pastors cannot just take any position they want in the SBC because we hold to congregationalism, so is he accusing SBC Calvinists of not being transparent about their convictions? And what is a “not Calvinistic” church? Have we picked teams already? Are some churches off limits to change in this doctrine? What about “Calvinistic” churches and non-Calvinist pastors? Then the second sentence gets into the realm of slippery slope fear mongering. Instead of finding any first generation Calvinists who are doing wrong, Chapman decides to hypothesize about radical descendants of otherwise decent Calvinists. That is just too much for words, and as I stated, clearly demonstrates that Chapman does not understand what the problem is.
Maybe I am indeed, the person who is misunderstanding Morris Chapman, rather than Chapman misunderstanding what people are upset about. It is possible. But as far as I can tell he seems to say “Calvinists” and then describe “hyper-Calvinism” leading to terrible misrepresentation. This is not good for either side of the debate. I have never seen someone quote Ephesians 2:8 in arguing against Calvinism… Nonetheless, Morris Chapman is free to believe what he wants to believe and say what he wants to say.
I merely ask that Morris Chapman understand what people are upset about, not terribly misrepresent those he disagrees with, and pick an appropriate venue to share the concerns he has.
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
Todd,
You did a good job!
.-= Mike Leake´s last blog ..This Week in Blogworld 7/17 =-.
His “clarification” was among the weakest I’ve read. He should be a speechwriter for politicians.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog .."So you think you can dance" goes to the dogs =-.
Todd,
I don’t think that Chapman, along with a few others inside the ivory towers of the SBC who have grown accustom the privilege and authority their positions bring them, understand that we have turned a page in the SBC… No longer will we just set idly by while our leaders go postal, or think they can dismiss someone because they refuse to cow-toe to their every beckon call.
In short… we demand better of our Leadership, and we are not afraid to hold them accountable for their actions. In fact we demand accountability in our Leadership.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
interesting… I did not take it that way, but you make some excellent points! He should read your post and then make a clarification.
.-= Joe Miller´s last blog ..One Year With Karl Barth: Revelation Spawns Religion =-.
Well said.
.-= Deek Dubberly´s last blog ..The Real Cause of Michael Jackson’s Death =-.
Does anyone besides ME feel that Mr. McCullars is out of line in linking with Chapman with a political speechwriter?
Also, do you guys EVER tire of beating a dead horse? I’m not referring to Chapman per se, I’m thinking of your readers.
How about a positive post about a successful mission trip?
Just a thought. Praise reports also count as fruitful journalistic reporting.
(Anonymous) James,
What exactly did you feel was out of line?
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Does Obama’s health care plan represent socialism? =-.
As I stated previously, linking Chapman with a political speechwriter is out of line. Maybe I’m wrong, but I feel as though we should have more respect for the SBC president than that.
And yes, it is my opinion. I expect you to disagree.
Nevertheless, I’ll go ahead and tell ya….these posts about Morris Chapman are just technological tools to stir a pot of dissension and I’m sick of it. Jesus would be ashamed. I understand that not all of you have malicious intentions with your posts, but many do. Trevin Wax’s philosophy of giving him the benefit of the doubt is most Christ-like response of grace I’ve seen on here.
Christians are quick to publicly acknowledge the grace of God with their words, but seldom on this website have I seen posts where grace is modeled with a Christ-like attitude of love, forgiveness, and temperance.
Sometimes when I read these critical posts it makes me sick to my stomach. No wonder ministers often die earlier in life than many other professions. Congregants give them enough grief, but look at the grief ministers can dish out on this blog! With “family” members of your kind, who needs friends and enemies?
James, How is linking Chapman with a political speechwriter is out of line?
Is there something inherently wrong with comparing someone to a speechwriter? He wrote an incredibly weak clarification which clarified nothing. It read like something I would expect to see from a politician’s press secretary. That’s all I was saying.
I asked, in all sincerity, for you to explain to me what it was that was out of line. It would have been nice had you done that rather than simply repeating your previous statement. Instead you responded with both guns blazing as it were.
- stir a pot of dissension
- I’m sick of it
- Jesus would be ashamed
- (many) of you have malicious intentions
- these critical posts it makes me sick to my stomach
- No wonder ministers often die earlier in life
- With “family” members of your kind
I don’t expect others, including you, to treat me perfectly as we’re all sinners. I would suggest, however, that you do NOT know the intentions of anyone writing here. Only God knows the intentions.
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. (1 Timothy 5:23 ESV)
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
Stan,
Did you just tell James to have a drink and chill? LOL…
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
If Paul thought it would work for Timothy I figured why not. He did mention being sick at his stomach.
I see you live in Ponce de Leon. I’m in Sanford. We’re practically neighbors!
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
Stan,
“ We’re practically neighbors!”
If that were the case I would buy you a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks… but as we both live in a state the size of Florida we “neighbors” are 7-8 hours apart. That’s a little far to drive for a cup of coffee, but the next time you are up this way let me know and I will spring for a cup of the good stuff.
Blessings,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
I was thinking Ponce Inlet.
Wow! That would be a drive. Maybe one day.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
Correction….I know Chapman is the CEO instead of the president. I’m aware he leads the EC. Forgive the oversight.
Oh, I get it….since only God knows your intentions, it’s okay to publicly accuse of Chapman of wrongdoing. You don’t like when I questions your intentions, but it’s okay for others to question Chapman’s intentions.
His clarification is something with which you disagree. Fine. But comparing him to a political speech writer insinuates blatant dishonesty. Political speechwriters are known for talking in circles and being dishonest. I don’t believe Mr. Chapman can be equated with political speechwriters because nobody knows his intentions – if anything, the intent to clarify his position (while seemingly weak to certain people) shows good intentions.
It grieves me to hear these criticisms of Jesus. I can’t help but think of the Pharisees, who criticized every little word and action that Jesus took. Chapman isn’t Jesus, obviously, but Pharisees sure like to kick people who are down (esp. those that disagree with them).
Unity among Christians is more important than differences in theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The only line we should draw is Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven. I’m not discouraging the study of Scripture or the development of opinions, interpretations, and beliefs. I AM discouraging disunity. Chapman’s clarification seemed to be intended to counter the contention that he had ill motives toward Calvinists. We can debate it all day, but perhaps its more important for our UNITY if we let this situation die down and move forward together.
Forgive if I came out with “guns blazing” and appeared to have ill motives. To the contrary, I desire that we all get along in unity.
It grieves me to hear these criticisms of Jesus.
Umm, I think the criticisms are of Chapman. I haven’t seen anyone here making criticisms of Jesus.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..II Peter 2:4-8 God the Righteous Judge Part III =-.
James, I’m not sure what your hang-up is. Let’s look at what I actually wrote: His “clarification” was among the weakest I’ve read. He should be a speechwriter for politicians.
In my opinion, his “clarification” clarified nothing. If you disagree that’s OK. There’s no need to be upset. When making the reference to a speechwriter for politicians all I meant by that was that it seemed to me there were a lot of words used in his (non)clarification. He said a lot but really said nothing as far as I was concerned. In what way did I question his intentions?
You said that by referring to a politician insinuates blatant dishonesty. Perhaps that’s how you read it. That’s not what I intended. All I meant was that it sounded like he was using politico-speak which I’ve seen define in the following ways:
1) putting together grammatically correct sentences with words chosen for their use in not conveying any substance whatsoever;
2) vague non-answers;
3) grandiose speech with little meaning that may cause more problems than it solves.
That’s it. I’m not calling him a liar. I’m not saying he has a twisted plan to cast away Calvinists. I’m simply saying his “clarification” failed to “clarify” anything with me.
If you’re going to be upset about that there is nothing I can do about it.
Regarding theology you wrote: Unity among Christians is more important than differences in theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The only line we should draw is Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven.
Who is Jesus Christ? How do you define his being? Are we saved by faith or by works or a combination of the two?
I think there are a number of lines that have been wisely drawn by the church through the years that are necessary.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
Unity among Christians is more important than differences in theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The only line we should draw is Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven.
Are you from Enid, Oklahoma?
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..II Peter 2:4-8 God the Righteous Judge Part III =-.
Joe,
Now you went and made me… laugh
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
You’re right…I meant to say Chapman. Sorry for the oversight once again.
Question. Why is Chapman allowed to have an opinion and even misrepresent others, whether intentional or not, while the rest of us can’t?
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Write Your Own Message Bible =-.
Are you saying that you can misrepresent someone else because someone else misrepresented someone else? Or, as they say, “do two wrongs make a right?” I don’t think so.
I see your perspective, Mark.
I will never advocate misrepresentation of anyone or anything. But remember, we are Christians who stand for grace and forgiveness. Even if we are misrepresented, we shouldn’t do the same to others.
I just think that if we each take the high road, we can live in greater harmony and unity. I’m not asking for the compromise of personal beliefs/convictions, but I am asking for mutual respect from all involved. That is truly the Christ-like way to live.
When our posts contain insinuations and blatant accusations, we attempt to define Chapman’s intentions. It is at this point that we move away from the avenue of being concerned about an issue to a place of being divisive. Healthy concern about Chapman and his role in the EC isn’t a problem for me – but when a blog becomes a place where bloggers make constant criticisms, it becomes unhealthy.
It is my hope that Southern Baptists who are concerned about Chapman and the EC can be gracious in their assessments, opinionsm and posts.
James,
I don’t necessarily disagree with your call for forgiveness and respect.
However, forgiveness is only granted after repentance… As far as I know Chapman has not repented/apologized for his disrespectful comments toward the Calvinist of the SBC.
If Chapman would have shown proper respect for all Southern Baptist in his report we would not be having this discussion… and if he simply came out and apologized for his offensive remarks toward Calvinist I am sure we would all put this behind us and move forward.
Anyway, I agree with you that we need to forgive and show respect for one another.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
James, When our posts contain insinuations and blatant accusations, we attempt to define Chapman’s intentions.
Looks like an unsubstantiated assertion.
Back to previous question. You stated: Unity among Christians is more important than differences in theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. The only line we should draw is Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven.
Who is Jesus Christ? How do you define his being? Are we saved by faith or by works or a combination of the two?
Are these not lines that should also be drawn?
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
So, since I adhere to synergism yet do not believe that exercising my faith (which came from God) unto salvation qualifies as a work, division must result? Or, as Wesley and Spurgeon, should we unite and carry the Gospel together in obedience to the Great Commissi0n?
While our ecclesiology and theology may differ, we agree on the essentials. That ought to be enough to unite for our common cause.
James, since I adhere to synergism yet do not believe that exercising my faith (which came from God) unto salvation qualifies as a work
Assuming you are saying that salvation is by faith and not works, you still have not addressed my other questions.
Who is Jesus Christ? How do you define his being?
Would you agree that your previous statement (The only line we should draw is Jesus Christ as the only way to Heaven.) is inadequate?
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
It is inadequate, but I will specify. I draw the line for fellowship/unity at this point: the individual must believe in salvation by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ alone. If a man believes that, I will stand with him in unity even among doctrinal disagreements. That is what I call the essential doctrine. It may not be a good idea to serve in the same church as a man who disagrees theologically or ecclesiologically, but even through the disagreement you can agree to disagree and remain unified in Christ as brothers.
The question is whether we agree soteriologically. If a man adheres to synergism, is he really saved? I contend that he is.
James, So the Trinity is no big deal for you?
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
Without getting into a debate which I have no patience to endure, I just wanted to suggest standing together for the Gospel. If a man believes in synergism, as Chapman does, is he not saved?
My point being this: since we are all brothers in Christ, can’t we find common ground on the essentials and get along?
It’s hard to define EXACTLY every single doctrine, but that’s why we hold to confessions of faith such as the Abstract of Principles, Westminister Confession, BF&M, etc. My point is that, as a brother in Christ, we should strive to walk in unity with Bro. Chapman as opposed to throwing stones.
Also, for the record, I consider the Trinity an essential doctrine.
May I suggest you guys call each other, have a conversation on the phone and work this thing out. This discussion makes clear that the internet is not a good forum for resolving deeply held disagreements. Try doing it while talking where you can hear the other person’s tone, rhetoric, and personality. It can do wonders.
.-= Joe Miller´s last blog ..One Year With Karl Barth: Revelation Spawns Religion =-.
Ya know what? Forget about this whole argument. Chapman is obviously not interested in getting along with anyone except people who agree with him. He makes unity impossible, and is without a doubt one of the great heretics of our generation.
I move that we have a “million-minister march” at SBC Headquarters in Nashville and demand that Chapman repent publicly. I also move that we demand 5-point Calvinism to be viewed as THE ONLY GOSPEL TRUTH and all other theological systems to be labeled as heresy. And finally, I move that we must do everything within our power to keep from compromising THE TRUTH; this means we must powerfully denounce anyone who is not specifically dedicated to Christ in action, behavior, confession, determination, ecclesiology, faith, Gospel-centeredness, heart, intention, joy, love, ministry, neo-Calvinism, obedience, purpose, quality of service, repentance, salvation, thanksgiving, unity (although this is a relative term), vigilance, worship, and zeal.
Keep the “faith,” brothers!
Chill.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Latest bailout estimates in terms that should make you puke =-.
Brothers,
No one that I know of is calling for Chapman to apologize for not being a Calvinist…
In fact, if the Holy Spirit does not lead him (or any man) to affirm the doctrines that are commonly called Calvinism, then I would be very disappointed in him if he does. Religious Liberty once meant something to Southern Baptist… it meant that as Baptist we were free to worship God and believe according to our convictions, without the fear of persecution.
I do not claim to speak for all the Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention but, to my knowledge, that is all we are asking for from the Leaders in the SBC like Chapman. The vast majority of Calvinist I know (young and old alike) are more than willing to work alongside our Non-Calvinist Brother toward the fulfilling of the Great Commission.
So Non-Calvinists are not an issue with us… those who beat us over the head with the club of “Calvinism kills evangelism and missions” is the issue we have with (thankfully) an ever shrinking number of leaders in the Convention.
Personally I have always liked Chapman… however, he is on the wrong side of this issue and needs to be the man and apologize for any offence (intended or unintended) his comments may have caused… then let us all move forward in mutual respect and greater unity than before.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg,
I agree. We should all work together. That is my main point. Glad we agree!
All,
I just want to “clarify”: do you think what I have said is accusatory of Chapman? My intention in all of this was to point out that despite his excellent Calvinistic understanding of Ephesians 2.8 among other things, Chapman still seems to be confused about what it is that honest to goodness SBC Calvinists actually believe. If he thinks we disagree with what he has written, which apparently he does, then he still stands in need of further education/correction as to the beliefs of his brothers. Like was mentioned above, all we want is an equal seat at the table. If you don’t understand Calvinism that’s fine, but please ask a Calvinist what they believe before casting your own (usually negative) conclusions upon them.
As for the interview comments, I do believe those were out of line and wished to mention that for the consideration others here, both to show that this is an issue and to demonstrate that Chapman’s misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Calvinism is nothing new.
Everyone, please step back and breath for a minute and see what is actually being argued here before commenting any further. Thanks.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Pre-, Post-, A-? – Two Great Pastors Weigh in on the Millennium =-.
Todd,
An equal seat at the table is reasonable and I desire open discussion among Calvinists and Arminians and all in between. Unity and fellowship are possible even when theological disagreements exist.
Perhaps, since so many Calvinists are misunderstood, a clarifying blog post could serve to better educate those who are ignorant of Calvinistic theology. Although likely very lengthy, it would be an ambitious project and could be a blessing to many people.
My only problem with Calvinism is that it limits the scope of atonement. While I do believe that the application of the atonement is limited (as I’m def. not a universalist), I believe Christ’s atonement for sin is AVAILABLE to everyone. It’s just that not everyone receives the gift.
Now that the pot has been stirred, everyone jump in! The water feels fantastic.
Perhaps, since so many Calvinists are misunderstood, a clarifying blog post could serve to better educate those who are ignorant of Calvinistic theology.
I’ll take the tone here to be sarcastic and offer two pieces of advice. First, if you really are interested in clarification of Calvinism from a blog, feel free to come to mine and see what I have written, which includes discussion of election, the atonement, and total depravity, as well as a comprehensive look and argument against all five main speakers from the John 3:16 Conference. Second, maybe non-Calvinists should be more interested in seeking dialogue with Calvinists instead of assuming they know what it is that we believe.
I appreciate that your only problem w/ Calvinism is the L (which, of course, you are not alone, cf. Russ Moore, Danny Akin, and Bruce Ware), but where I think most SBC non-Calvinists really miss the boat and misrepresent their brothers is in T and U. This is where the serious work needs to be done.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Pre-, Post-, A-? – Two Great Pastors Weigh in on the Millennium =-.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. When I hear men discuss total inability to even recognize their need for God, I disagree. When I hear men discuss U in a deterministic fashion that characterizes God as a spiritual savage who does not give every person a chance for salvation, I also disagree. Then, when I hear arguments/discussion against God being deterministic and sending men to hell without even a chance for salvation, non-Calvinists get accused of misrepresenting Calvinism.
Perhaps you may feel that I am doing injustice to Calvinism with my post. That is certainly not my intention. However, not being sarcastic, but clarification can easily come through uniform arguments and a definitive belief on the character/nature of God. Calvinists read the Scriptures with the presuppositional bias that God’s chief characteristic is sovereignty; I, however, read Scriptures with the bias that His chief trait is holiness.
James,
“When I hear men discuss U in a deterministic fashion that characterizes God as a spiritual savage who does not give every person a chance for salvation, I also disagree.”
Seriously? Calvinist portray “God as a spiritual savage”?
The issue you raise is not even a Calvinist vs. Non-Calvinist issue…
This is an Evangelical vs. Non-Evangelical issue. As Evangelicals we believe that no one is saved, nor do they have any chance of salvation, without the hearing of the Gospel message. (This why we are a missionary people) Yet, countless millions of people have lived and died upon this earth without ever having a chance to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ even one time… The Scriptures clearly teach us that without the hearing of the Gospel no man can believe, how then do they have any chance of salvation?
They did not choose for themselves to live in a time and place where the Gospel was totally unknown… God choose those things in a most “deterministic fashion”. Are you accusing the God of Glory of being unfair toward man? Will not the God of Glory do what is right?
As graciously as I can say this; you have some very serious issues concerning, not your doctrine of salvation, but your doctrine of God that need to be thought out.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
James,
I’m sorry, I just thought the tone implied in talking about people being “ignorant” was sarcastic.
First, T is not total inability to recognize a need for God. T is total depravity (or as some recapitulate, Radical Depravity). This means that man is total incapable of doing anything that is pleasing to God. Every desire of his heart is for himself and to follow after the ways of the world. They likely know there is a God, and maybe even understand that they should follow him, but by nature they choose not to. Key passages here: Romans 1.18-32, 3.9-20, Ephesians 2.1-10, Hebrews 11.6.
Second, most Calvinists do not hold to a hard deterministic view of election that “characterizes God as a spiritual savage who does not give every person a chance for salvation.” This is where a lot of non-Calvinists misunderstand. The question is about the order of the decrees, namely was election decreed before the decree of the fall or after. If before this is called supralapsarian. If after it is infralapsarian. Most Calvinists, particularly SBC Calvinists, are infralapsarian. This means that they believe the fall was decreed prior to election and so man had need of a savior before God chose them for salvation. Why this is important is because it means that man did have a choice, and because of the fall (and its prime result, namely Total Depravity) all men choose to sin (cf. Romans 3.23, Ephesians 2.1-3). Therefore, Calvinists don’t look at it as a whole bunch of neutral souls where God sorts some into hell and some into heaven (which appears to be your assumption of us), but instead we see a whole bunch of neutral souls who freely choose hell, and then God in his mercy chooses to take some from hell and give them heaven.
My question for you would be, if man isn’t totally depraved then why do all men sin? If by nature we are able to chose not to, how come no one does?
I hope this helps.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Salesmen for Jesus? – Questions Arising from 2 Corinthians 2.17 =-.
Todd, that does help tremendously. Thank you for your clarification.
In actuality, I affirm the doctrine of total depravity – it’s just that I don’t hold to the view of total inability. Now, I hope you can understand my perspective here – some Calvinists DO interpret the doctrine of total depravity as meaning personal inability to recognize a need for God or to desire an interaction with God. Others do not. It’s in the interpretation of this foundational doctrine of grace that confusion seems to occur.
I wholeheartedly agree that man CAN’T choose to avoid sin – by nature all men can and DO sin. We def. agree on that.
Follow me on the way I perceive one major theological difference: most Calvinists will say all of mankind freely chose hell by way of sin, and God chose to mercifully save some. Non-Calvinists will say all of mankind was destined to hell because of a sin nature that can’t always be resisted by human will, but God gave all of mankind the choice to accept His gift of salvation through Christ.
I understand that this is a broad and general interpretation, but for the most part I’ve seen both sides adhering to these theological reasonings. The question, as it appears to me, is this: is your faith determined by your election, or is your election determined by your faith?
James,
Ok… just keep ignoring my questions, your making great progress… toward what I am not sure, but you are making great progress.
“… or is your election determined by your faith?”
Good grief young man! … with that I’m out.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
James to Greg: You’re an a**hole…You should be shot.
And with that James has been exposed as the troll he is.
That’s why I hate responding at all to people who remain anonymous.
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Sub-Prime Health Care =-.
As I was saying…
.-= Stan McCullars´s last blog ..Sub-Prime Health Care =-.
btw…I’m just beggin to get kicked off this website, so go ahead and hit me with your best shot. I’m primed to destroy 5-pointers by sticking five-pointed pitchforks through some skulls.
You got your wish… You are lucky I have been busy and haven’t paid closer attention to the comments or you would of been gone awhile ago.
What is funny is you act as if you are some “blog martyr” by getting kicked off a Christian blog. I hope you dont tell yourself you were Christlike in your time here. Indeed, you were a cowardice man that had very little content to add. Maybe you should try having a little courage and let people know who you are. But I guess, if I behaved as a child I would want to be anonymous as well.
Ya know the sad thing? The more Calvinism I’ve studied, the less love I have felt in my heart. I am probably not even saved cuz I’m not chosen or elect. Too bad for me, huh?
Btw….this is not sarcastic. I’m being serious here.
Everyone,
Sorry I have been busy and let nonsense like that go on. I promise if I would of caught it earlier I would of stopped it earlier. Someone send me an e-mail next time a guy like James gets on here. Cursing at people and telling them they should be shot isn’t tolerated here.
Jack – be careful calling yourself a Christian on this blog if you’re not a Calvinist. I tried to take the middle road and have dialogue and you can see how it turned out. The “middle way… called Baptist” isn’t an accepted position here. You, Jack, being in the middle, probably believe that your faith determines your election. Be careful about admitting that – or you’ll get a “good grief” from a certain neo-Calvinist with a lack of patience.
James,
You are terribly uninformed. At least half of the contributors here are non-Calvinists.
So, back to the topic at hand–
I’d like to think that Morris Chapman and his comments about Calvinists represent the minority opinion of most non-Calvinists. Does it seem to most of you that would be the case?
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Here Come the Thought Police!! =-.
I have no problem with Calvinism as a theology. I can agree to disagree with anyone willing to be unified. Most often, my problem isn’t with Calvinism, but Calvinists. The attitudes of the Pharisees in the gospels are eerily similar to the Calvinist attitudes of today. The letter of the law exceeds the heart of the Law.
Not all Calvinists are this way – I find most Calvinists are easy to befriend. Still, many Calvinists have highly critical attitudes, and non-Calvinists aren’t doing people any favors by remaining ignorant on the subject.
I find that, in light of Ephesians 4:1-6, unity is the ultimate mark of a believer. It’s a shame that today’s Christians can’t find common ground in disagreements like Wesley and Whitefield did in their era.
All,
Unfortunately, James appears to have let his flesh get the best of him (something we have all done, and something we all struggle with daily). In all fairness I was being a little ungracious with him… so I am not faultless in provoking his sin. For that I ask both James and your forgiveness. As my father once told me; “Son, it’s no longer just poking fun when the other person begins to cry”.
James,
My comments were made without malice, clearly you perceived otherwise and for that I offer my apology. My motive was not to stir your anger but to stir you to think about things you might never have given much thought before. Clearly, I did not succeed.
I am not at all offended by your comments… for I know you meant none of it… and yes, I would love to meet you, have a cup of coffee and pray with you.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Have Southern Baptist invaded the UK? =-.
Joe,
I believe that Chapman’s views are among a dying minority in the SBC leadership. However, what concerns me is that from my experience, his views represent at minimum a sizable minority, if not an outright majority, among those in the local SBC churches.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..Salesmen for Jesus? – Questions Arising from 2 Corinthians 2.17 =-.
Joe,
It is very hard for SBC leaders to maintain Chapman’s position in the full light of the Renaissance of Passionate Missionary Calvinism that is taking place at Southern Seminary and elsewhere in the SBC. You just can’t keep something like that a secrete forever… and the more that Southern Baptist realize that the most passionate people in the convention for evangelism, church planting, and missions are actually Calvinist the more those like Chapman loose credibility.
Young Calvinist, the best way to win this argument is to “Start Something New!”
Someone has once said “The Best Revenge is Success”.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Have Southern Baptist invaded the UK? =-.
For what its worth, I don’t know what all the calvinists are mad about. I’ve heard lots of stuff… read lots of blog posts… mostly they seem like rants by two years alternating from one problem to another and saying “he’s not playing nice.” I don’t say that to cause a stir that rouses peoples anger. I say it to try and explain it from a non-calvinist point of view. I here constantly how “stupid” I am and just don’t “really understand” the Bible but I don’t throw a tantrum about it and try and get them fired from their positions of authority.
In 2005 Johnny Hunt gave a sermon at the Pastors Conference prior to the SBC Annual Meeting that set bloggers to fussing about his attacks of calvinism and “his concerning statements”. He has stood the test of time and became a trusted leader in the SBC. I pray that bloggers will give Morris Chapman a bit of understanding as well, considering all the good he has done over the years.
In Christ,
Sallie
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Doum–tek– ka– slap… oh my!! =-.
“has Morris Chapman clarified anything?”
For me, the answer is yes. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..ONE GOOD WORD… =-.
I agree that Morris Chapman has reasonably answered questions about his Executive Committee Report.
The last “Southern Baptist Texan” (July 28, 2009) reported that Chapman followed proper procedure in the resignation of the VP. Chapman refuses to publicly discuss personnel matters. I doubt if most pastors would want to discuss every personnel matter for all the world to see.
Rather than a vast conspiracy, sometimes the working relationship of two good, godly people just doesn’t work out. Maybe we should leave it at that and move on.
I will forever be grateful to Morris Chapman for his leadership in the Conservative Resurgence, and his ministry in our convention.
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Evidence for the Two Wine Theory =-.
Sally: Can you link to a post or an article where a Calvinist has specifically called you stupid. I have read many posts by Calvinists and I have not read this anywhere, but I could be missing something.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Don’t Talk To Me About Christ And… =-.
Sally,
This is Debbie’s debate method to win the arguement. It doesnt matter if it’s true, or not…it’s just about winning the debate.
Sally, I, too, have experienced the Five point, Tulip theory, Calvinists are smarter than you thing….many, many, many times.
David
Now, I’m an unashamed 5-point Calvinist myself and I have to admit I have heard other Calvinists talk to or about folks that disagree with them as if they are immature spiritually or just airheads. I’ve heard Calvinists make straw-man arguements that if one doesn’t believe in Limited Atonement that they MUST believe in Universalism.
Now, that’s not MOST Calvinists that I know. It’s the few, the proud, the “Truly Reformed”. I have heard it, though. Sorry I can’t post a blog link, Debbie.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..A Mathematical Arguement for God’s Existance =-.
David: I don’t try nor want to “win” anything, I never have. I do believe in giving links to such accusations however. It’s the only honest thing to do. And I do stress honesty. If you have a problem with that, I question why.
Joe: Sally made a direct accusation concerning herself. I asked for proof of that accusation. To not give it makes me wonder if it is true in all honesty.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Doctrines Of Grace =-.
“I asked for proof of that accusation. To not give it makes me wonder if it is true in all honesty.”
Do you wonder if its true every time Burleson makes an accusation and doesnt show proof? If not, you are a hypocrite. I am pretty sure you defended Burleson with his article about SWBTS firing calvinists and he never showed proof… No proof, therefore, false? Half of everything Burleson has said in 3 years is now in question…
I am pretty sure you defended Burleson with his article about SWBTS firing calvinists and he never showed proof… No proof, therefore, false?
As they say in the hood “Oh, snap! You just got served.”
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..A Mathematical Arguement for God’s Existance =-.
Matt: Wade has always had proof. There has not been a time when he hasn’t. And….he has access where you and I do not.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Doctrines Of Grace =-.
Wrong. He has always CLAIMED he had proof. He was directly asked to prove his statements and would not offer ANY proof and I’ll defy you to post a link where he did in that instance of SWBTS and Calvinists. His “proof” was that no Calvinists were fired. He essentially said “If it doesn’t happen, that proves I was right because they changed their plans because I, The Wade, exposed their evil schemes”. Give me a stinkin’ break and take the e-gal mainsteamer blinders off.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..A Mathematical Arguement for God’s Existance =-.
Debbie, did Wade ever show you his “proof?”
Wade may or may not have had proof of his accusations. But saying, “I have proof” is different than demonstrating proof. The proof was not shown. The Calvinists were not fired.
Proof is, by definition, more than someone’s word. That’s all that was offered to prove this thing.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
Dave: Yes. Loud and clear. Good grief! Are you really so blind??
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Doctrines Of Grace =-.
Great!
What was the proof? Can you share it with us?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
Because I assume you would not want any of us to believe charges this serious unless you provided clear proof, right?
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
Dave et al: I could answer your questions er accusations very easily. I could give you the proof, the proof is in every post written. The proof should be obvious if you would get beyond your own prejudices and blindness concerning Wade.
But I want you to listen and listen good because this is the last time I will point this out. None of this CR stuff would be happening if it weren’t for Wade bringing a lot of things to light. None of you were blogging three or four or five years ago when Wade was the only one with the insight and knowledge to bring a lot of the problems we are dealing with to light. I also did a lot of research and pointed out many things that we are now finally dealing with through the CR today. I say all of this in order to point out that you have no clue what you are talking about when you want to trash Wade Burleson because none of you were there at the beginning. I was. Art Rogers was. Ben Cole was. David Rogers was. Alan Cross was. And none of this would be happening now if that were not the case of us all fighting side by side. This stuff now is mild compared to what we fought through.
I corresponded privately with higher level leaders, some whose names you would know, but out of respect for their requests I have never written about it nor divulged any conversations. Nothing secret, only discussing what I wrote about on my other blog and some of what Wade has written about. So if you want to dish on anyone Wade isn’t the one. He was the only one brave enough to say hey there is an elephant in the room. An elephant no one could deny.
Now I am sure we are getting off topic.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Doctrines Of Grace =-.
Dave et al: I could answer your questions er accusations very easily. I could give you the proof, the proof is in every post written.
That is a bald faced LIE. Not ONCE did Wade ever identify his source or offer any REAL proof. His “proof” was that no Calvinists were fired. Well, that’s like me saying Barack Hussein Obama is going to deliver a press conference today in a clown suit. Now if he changes his mind and doesn’t do it, that proves I was right.
Face it, Debs. You accused someone of lying because they wouldn’t offer proof of something that was said to them. Then when someone pointed out Wade does the EXACT SAME THING you backpedal because you know you can’t defend it. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize to Sally.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Preaching in the Old Testament =-.
I also want to point out one other thing. I never called in favors of any kind for any information and Wade never gave me any. He is an honest honorable man, and I am honest in my dealing with information. I can’t say that for any of you here. I could have written a lot more that out of a request from certain ones not to say anything, I didn’t. I sat on it. I let it pass. My own blog could have been much more scathing than it was. There was more going on than you know. But I do. I know and I have the proof to back it up. But I told no one. I just prayed. Now here we are today. History was made at the Convention and I just hope that it doesn’t come down to power and control because my passions are in line with many of the young leaders who want to get rid of the politics and focus on Christ. Because that is where the SBC veered off and we almost paid a heavy price. I don’t want history to repeat itself in the other direction of just changing power.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..Doctrines Of Grace =-.
Oh, give me a break with your constant belly-aching about the evils of the Conservative Resurrgence. While there are people from the CR that have done things that I don’t agree with, Christians recognize that the CR reversed the heavy leftward shift the SBC was undergoing. If it had not been for that great move of God the SBC would probably look little different than the PCUSA–women preachers, acceptance of homosexuality, and support of a progressive, social gospel. In other words, it would be a convention that mainstreamers would not have left and the mainstreamers that have hung on would not be belly aching about.
I am afraid that you’re right about your “young leaders” comment, however. I’m worried that there are some folks who don’t have the backbone to stand up for what the Bible says and continue to stand against homosexuality and abortion publically. I hope I’m wrong on that.
.-= Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Preaching in the Old Testament =-.
I will make one more stab at this Debbie. You say the proof is in the blogs. could you at least highlight that proof. I read the blogs. The only proof I saw offered is Wade’s word, which I’m sure is proof enough for you. It does not convince all of us.
I think I read every word of Wade’s post of “CalvinPattersongate” and he stated he had a source at SWBTS. A SWBTS prof (a 5-pointer) told him there was no such movement and called on Wade to repent.
I think, Debbie, that there is a big difference. To you, Wade’s word is proof. To many of us, Wade’s word is not enough proof. We need evidence to substantiate the charges – evidence Wade refused to give.
My theory is that Wade was fed false information – intentionally or not – and published that. Similar to what happened to Bart with the BGCT thing. Difference is, Bart admitted it and apologized for publishing false information.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
And, Debbie, just to clarify. I got into blogging to support Wade in his battle with the leadership of the IMB. Look at the old blogs. I’m not part of the original cadre, but I came to the dance pretty early.
I have not changed my beliefs about what the IMB did or their policies. I consider them heinous.
I did find my view of Wade’s causes changing over time.
Had Wade provided proof of the conspiracy to fire Calvinists, there would have been many of us who would have jumped on that cause, including, I’m sure, most of the contributors to this site.
He gave us his opinions, without proof. And we are left there.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
I would of… Most of you dont know this, but I wrote a blog linking to his on the issue of SWBTS firing its Calvinists, but I deleted when I realized there was no “proof” and that in the comment section he refused to give proof.
After I deleted it he commented on my blog and asked why I had taken it down. He then asked if someone had “contacted me.”
While Dave and I disagree on the IMB policies, I am with Dave in that I would of stood by Wade if proof would of been given… The fact that I blogged about it, linking to him, should “prove” that.
.-= Matt Svoboda´s last blog ..Stop Giving the People What They Want =-.
Matt, now that I know this….I will be careful with what you say!
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..How To Meditate On Scripture =-.
Total Depravity involves Total inability. Jesus said, “NO MAN CAN COME TO ME,” Jn.6;44, 65. Sandy Creek’s 1816 Confession was sue that mean man was unable by his own free will or ability to recover himself from the state into which he had fallen and that a sovereign work of God was required to bring him out of that falle state. In fact, total inability is an invitation to be saved; it is an evangelistic truth, one that a person can plead (one of ten things a lost person can do as I heard one Sovereign Grace preacher preach about 40 yrs. ago). If you look at the man with the demon possessed son, you will find him pleading that very reality, “Lord, Help my unbelief (help me overcome it).” Jesus is very plain, He is ASKING MAN TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE (cf, the rich young ruler).
That impossibility is an invitation to cry for mercy, or grace, for help. HERE IS THE SECRET OF THE THIRD GREAT AWAKENING. Also you all ought to leave poor brother Chapman alone. God will open his eyes, if and when He so desires…since He has seen to it that he can read the truth as well as hear it. Let us just take Bro. Chapman to the throne and ask God to help him over come his inability to believe God is sovereign in salvation. THE TSUNAMI WAVE OF THE THIRD AWAKENING MIGHT WELL BE ARCHING OVER US, READY TO COME UPON US WITH A JOY UNIMAGINABLE. AFTER ALL, SPURGEON DID DEFINE HIS LIMITED ATONEMENT VIEW OF THE NUMBER FOR WHICH CHRIST DIED AS “A NUMBER WHICH NO MAN CAN NUMBER.” That ought to be enough to satisfy every body. Personally I pray for one whole generation of every last soul on earth to be savingly converted and then for a 1000 more generationafter that in order to fulfill the promises to Abraham of a spiritual progeny that like the stars of heaven and the sand by the seashore cannot be numbered. In fact, I believe there will be more saved in Heaven than lost in Hell. Sadly, I read in research where one brother was burnt at the stake for believing that could be possible. Study the First nd Second Great Awakenings and the origins of Missions for te grounds for such praying, esp. Edwards Humble Attempt which inspired Carey, et al and etc.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
How sad — probably even illegal. I’d certainly never suggest a face to face meeting with you. I’m not a big “Calvinist-non-Calvinist” debator (or is it –er?). I take the middle way — it is called “Baptist.” These type of “either/or” arguments have not borne much fruit over the years; and, as you can see, the conversation can become downright ugly. Again, for those reading, I would never suggest a face-to-face meeting with anyone you know only from the Internet — not safe; not healthy; not wise.