The debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists (including Traditionalists) has been dominated in the SBC by the extremes on both sides. It is time for that to end.
There are some Calvinists who annoy me – they seem intent on labeling the other side with pejoratives, never admit fault on their side, and come across as condescending and arrogant. There are some non-Calvinists who annoy me – they seem intent on painting Calvinists with dark, conspiratorial motives and appear to be content with nothing less than pinning a scarlet C on every Calvinist and banning them from leadership in SBC life.
Both extremes are annoying, divisive, and from my experience, completely unwilling to a) see the problem or b) do anything to correct it.
I believe that the vast majority of us stand in the middle between these two warring parties and are sick of the conflict. We are Calvinists, modified Calvinists, antinomists, non-Calvinists, modified Arminians, and Traditionalists who see this as an important discussion within the Baptist family. We are Calvinists who do not see Traditionalists as heretics or enemies of the gospel. We are non-Calvinists who do not see Calvinists as purveyors of evil and darkness. We disagree, and we discuss, but we do not denigrate.
I think we are a majority and it is time that we assert ourselves. Cooperative Calvinists, it is time that we stand up and rebuke the arrogant, angry Calvinists who drive the discussion. Cooperative non-Calvinists, it is time that you stand and rebuke those angry, divisive folks on your side of the debate who often drive the discussion.
There may not be anything that we can do about the angry, divisive folks on both sides who view the other side as the enemy. But we can marginalize them (that sounds so awful). We can voice our dissent from their harsh rhetoric and divisive approach. For the sake of the future of the SBC, that we must do.
Here are some thoughts:
1) We need to intentionally affirm our unity on doctrinal issues – Bart Barber’s statement last week is a great example. A Calvinist and a Traditionalist Baptist have more in common than our differences would indicate.
2) We need to call the angry voices on the carpet – even those that agree with us. When people attach labels on others, we must identify that as unacceptable.
3) We must accept the Southern Baptist reality – we are a denomination of 5-point Calvinists, modified Arminians, and pretty much every soteriological point along the way. Thus it is. Thus it always has been. Hopefully, thus it will always be. We are blessed by both sides. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be part of an SBC that fell to either side completely.
4) We must continue to DISCUSS soteriological issues as a passionate, familial discussion. As many have said, this is a discussion we must have. It is a debate worth debating! But only in a context of affirmation. This is a brotherly argument. We are not the Romans and the barbarians here, folks.
5) We must give as much honor to the biblical passages on unity and kind treatment of one another as we do the theological passages!
If the passionate voices on both side are actually the majority, we are going to splinter as a convention. But I do not believe they are. They are the loudest voices, but I do not believe they are the majority of voices. I think most of us are tired of fighting about Calvinism and Traditionalism. We are tired of seeing our brothers treated as enemies. We want to unite around our shared gospel theology and mission.
This, we must do.
So, I lied. I said I was going away and then I didn’t! But now I really am. I’m headed out to clear most of a foot of snow off my driveway and then I’m headed to Des Moines.
Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes.
Dave,
I’m using my cell phone to type and also to peruse the blog. If your email is listed somewhere on the Web site, i could not find it, so i am writing here. I noticed that my comment, placed last night on a different thread, was removed. I wanted to place this comment on that thread but it appears the comments have been disabled. Could you please, if you so desire, give an explanation of what was so offensive in the since removed comment? I know you made mention that you didn’t want the comments to turn into personal bashing, but I don’t believe that’s what I was doing (at least it wasn’t my intent). Certain persons claimed unfounded innuendoes were being lobbed at the president of LC and I, along with others, wanted to demonstrate the fiasco that has enveloped Pineville, LA has nothing to do with the smoke screen of Calvinism, though I would argue that was a person’s (hopefully) failed attempted to placate certain persons in hopes of keeping his job. Instead, it is a justified removal of a failed leader. If those comments are seen as bashing, then maybe I have a different definition/application of the term. Thanks for any insight you can provide me regarding this matter (and if you wish to do this by email, that’s fine. I just couldn’t locate your email so I posted this publicly).
email him at davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com
That is a serious email that Dave uses to address those issues.
SBC Historian,
Assuming you are historian, can you tell me who wrote the first systematic theology? Did the patristic period produce a thoroughgoing systematic theology? Lastly, did the patristics debate what books should be included in the NT?
Thanks,
Still Confused
The polemic extremes correlate with the theological extremes. Generally speaking, the reason that there is a “cooperative middle” is because it is in the theological middle of that Southern Baptist spectrum. Of course, the spirit of cooperation extends to many people of both extremes, as well; but it is the middle that finds the most agreement with both ends.
When the SBC’s right arm of Calvinists and left arm of “Traditionalists” began fighting this controversy, we lost sight of the middle. If we allow the SBC to be defined as a polar body split down the middle, then we set ourselves up for a split. But such a definition is erroneous, since the majority of the SBC—the backbone in the middle—-is not polemic, but has been and continues to be the “cooperative middle.”
http://sbcopenforum.com/2013/02/19/the-forgotten-centrists-of-the-southern-baptist-convention/
As one who, I suspect, would be labelled an angry, uncooperative Calvinist, let me offer my thoughts.
1. I am sick of the debate. This should not be a debate. That it has to be a debate is sad and distracting. There are other things that should be drawing our attention, yet some are intent on forcing a showdown. To back down is not unifying, often it is cowardice. I keep thinking of the Reformers and the struggles they faced. I doubt they cared much for the conflict, I imagine many people were calling, “Why can’t we all just get along?” yet they knew the cost of inaction.
2. Regarding your point #1, I agree. I like the idea of having something – the BF&M should be sufficient, but other documents could also be helpful – that articulates clearly and intentionally that we have a strong, broad base of soteriological agreement. We know differences exist, but they do not have to divide us.
3. Regarding point #2, nonsense. A rose is a rose, a shoe that fits is a shoe that fits. Labels are helpful when they fit. Even if we don’t want to use a label, it is still fair to show historical connections and precedents. Just because a side does not like similarities from the past does not mean we should ignore them. Unity does not sacrifice basic truth. It is sickening and disturbing that people want to ignore labels like semi-Pelagian just because those who fit the label do not like it. This falls right in line with our modern ideas of toleration and it is sickening to see it advocated by people who otherwise do not like The New Tolerance.
4. Regarding your #4, “only in a context of affirmation” – it depends on what you mean. We are not a bunch of Joel Osteens who are only allowed to smile at one another lest we hurt someone’s feelings or make someone mad. Discussions of this sort are going to get passionate – there is no way around it. One would hope we are mature enough to have the passionate discussions and still walk away friends (while not trying to remove from the denomination those who disagree with us).
5. Regarding your #5, yes, but doing so the right way. Unity does not sacrifice truth – whether it be the truth of a particular theology or the truth of a historical precedent or any other truth. We can be unified while disagreeing, but unity does not minimize the nature of disagreement.
“I think most of us are tired of fighting about Calvinism and Traditionalism.”
Indeed. And once divisive voices in the convention stop calling for the removal, withdrawal, and exclusion of Calvinists, and once those voices stop warning churches about the evils and danger of Calvinism, I will be quite joyfully happy to stop fighting this fight. But so long as people want to reduce my presence or demonize my theology, the struggle continues.
Maybe strange coincidence, but when I read this post I was going to rush and post a comment saying that I found Chris Roberts to be part of the middle and not part of the “angry, extreme” Calvinists.
I’ve read a good number of his comments and I’ve always found them to be reasonable and on-point.
So to read his comment in anticipation of being labelled an extremist… before I even had a chance to defend him, his comments, and his conduct, … well, I guess I was too late!
I’d say the same thing, and I don’t always agree with Chris.
I think he always seems quite a gentleman. Wrong, oftentimes, but still a gentleman.
“. . . I found Chris Roberts to be part of the middle and not part of the “angry, extreme” Calvinists.”
Truth Unites… and Divides,
And I bet you think Alligators are just big, playful lizards.
I hear there are swamp people who think just that.
Well played;-)
“Truth Unites… and Divides,
And I bet you think Alligators are just big, playful lizards.”
Alligators start with the letter “A” and Arminians start with the letter “A” too.
Arminian alligators are just big, playful lizards, eh? Or is “Arminian Alligators” just being redundant? D’oh!
Florida Gators > Tennessee Vols and other SEC schools
Chris,
So how is your comment leading to unity? You attack in it. This is precisely part of the problem. It is a debate tactic that scores points and prevents discussion.
Ken, you even claim Trads to be on the left. Why is that?
Chris,
Your desire is for your interpretation of definitions to be accepted and thus labels attached based on such. Unity will not occur from this approach.
Tim,
Unity does not ignore existing problems. A problem does exist and it needs to be corrected. The problem is not Calvinism. It is not the various non-Calvinist positions. The problem is people seeking to exclude or minimize certain soteriological positions – in particular, Calvinism – in the SBC. The conflict was not started by Calvinism (per se – the growth of Calvinism led to reactionary moves) but by those wanting to control Calvinism in the SBC. We cannot be unified so long as one group wants to place constraints on another group, particularly when such action violates the very polity of our convention.
Again, Chris, could you articulate ANY fault or failing on the side of Calvinists?
Or is the problem 100% on the non-Calvinist side.
See my comment below.
And where have you promoted unity on your personal blog? You have multiple posts on how you don’t like Calvinism and think everyone’s reading Earnest Reisinger’s book. Please, we’re not fooled.
Who are you addressing, Matt?
Matt,
I have been clear and consistant when I have dealt with this issue. The aggressive nature and arm of Calvinist, I strongly reject and resist. The takeover of churches and changing them from trads to calvinist, I resist. I have watched this occur less than 2 miles from my me.
Matt, I preach in Calvinistic churches all the time and have NO problem. Never have!
Tim,
Though you might not have thought it at all, I want you to be sure you know that the Matt above is not me.
Tim,
There are only two arms to the illustration, so somebody had to be on the left. Beyond that, I suppose the cultural norm of labeling old/establishment as right and newer/anti-establishment as left probably moved me to that choice (but without putting much thought into the choice).
No problem, just curious. I have seen it used in a negative. Was curius as to your take.
Chris, here is the problem, as I see it. You seem to indicate that the problem is the voices who call for the removal of Calvinists. You do not indicate any fault or failing on the side of the Calvinists.
Others, just as passionate in their beliefs as you, think the problem is completely the Calvinists who are arrogant, angry and divisive. As you see the solution being the change in the non-Calvinists, they see the solution as being in the Calvinists.
Do you not think that there is fault among Calvinists? Is the problem completely on the non-Calvinist side and is the solution completely dependent on the non-Calvinists changing their attitudes and actions?
Dave,
When it comes to the struggle for unity, I do not see the Calvinists as the problem in the SBC today. That is not to say Calvinists are without fault in any dealings – ie, I would join with those who think it is wrong if a Calvinist (or anyone) deceives a church search committee as to his theological position – but that does not impact our overall unity as a convention.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists need to agree that there is room in the convention for both sides without placing constraints on either side. I have yet to see a Calvinist argue with this position. Non-Calvinists? Well, examples are not far to seek.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists need to find ways to voice disagreement without demonizing the other theology (and no, noting historical precedent is not demonizing). This problem occurs among both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but I have yet to see widespread campaigns from Calvinists to warn churches about the dangers of non-Calvinist theology, etc. Once again, examples are not far to seek.
Chris, you say, “I do not see the Calvinists as the problem in the SBC today.” Of course you wouldn’t! But really, you should listen to how others perceive you. It’s not good.
Matt,
“But really, you should listen to how others perceive you. It’s not good.”
Understood.
“Chris, you say, “I do not see the Calvinists as the problem in the SBC today.” Of course you wouldn’t! But really, you should listen to how others perceive you. It’s not good.”
Matt,
I have a good perception of Chris Roberts.
God bless him and his family.
Matt and Chris,
My wife is the writer in our family who makes words flow with grace and peace. I am a technical writer-state info etc.. I understand the limits of blogging and that blogging just may be part of the problem. Perception often speaks louder than reality. And this we must overcome.
“I would join with those who think it is wrong if a Calvinist (or anyone) deceives a church search committee as to his theological position . . . ”
Chris Roberts,
You used the word “if” in your comment.
I have a question for you. Do you think that what you described in your statement above does not happen very often?
cb,
I didn’t use “if” as a subtle means of saying “if it happens (but it never does…)” but as your ordinary run-of-the-mill conditional.
As for whether or not I think it happens? Perhaps and probably. I have never seen it happen nor heard of it happening by churches and pastors that I know personally, so all I have is anecdotal evidence usually provided by those who oppose Calvinism.
As for how it might happen, I imagine sometimes a person might be asked, “Are you Calvinist?” and he knows what they mean but he still says no because for whatever reason he rejects the label even though he should probably say yes because they aren’t talking about the label so much as the theology (which, btw, also happens with the many people in the SBC who are Arminian yet for whatever reason choose to reject the label – and could be said of some other labels I suppose we’ll leave out of this discussion).
In the case of a church that simply does not ask, the candidate is under no obligation to tell. I think a lot of criticism comes against Calvinist pastors who do not take the initiative to disclose their theology – they are accused of worming their way into churches when it was the church that did not see it an issue worth asking about. While I think it might be wise for pastors to take the initiative to tell where they stand, they are under no obligation to do so.
Chris Roberts,
There is no “perhaps” about it. It has and does happen and quite too often has it happened and does continue to happen.
cb,
I am curious – are you personally aware of many times that it happens? Not once or twice, but many? Or are you relying on anecdotal evidence, stories told by others? Or – the best of the three – do you know of studies documenting this as a widespread (“quite often”) occurrence?
I am not willing to buy it as something that happens “quite often” on the basis of a few anecdotal one-sided stories. I have no doubt it has and does happen. Pastors of all sorts are willing to deceive search committees on a host of issues with various self-justifying excuses, but this has been reported as a widespread problem unique to young Calvinists who have the nefarious goal of subterfuge – covertly converting churches to Calvinism. I’m not buying it.
Chris Roberts,
Yes. Just recently. And no, I am not going to name the church and the pastor.
You have the right to believe me or not. That changes nothing. It happens. Obviously, you are not aware of it, but it does happen and it happens often.
As a matter of fact, one seminary president I know stated, in my hearing, that those who do such things are practicing “pastoral malpractice.”
He was right. It is and it does happen.
“I am not going to name the church and the pastor.”
I didn’t ask you to, but I also did not ask if you were aware of one church. I asked if you have actual reason to believe (other than rhetoric from the antis) that this problem occurs “quite often”. One recent example does not count.
And I will go ahead and admit that I am naturally suspicious of any such examples. The tendency to demonize Calvinism is too strong among some so that any examples of misbehaving Calvinists is suspect, particularly when singling out Calvinists to the exclusion of all the problems in churches caused by pastors for a variety of issues. Churches fight and split for many reasons. Many a problematic pastor has passed through many a pulpit. The only reason Calvinists are being singled out is the desire of some to demonize. This does not incline me to trust their examples.
Chris Roberts,
It has happened in the past and it continues to happen.
Chris, no offense, but I do have to wonder why it is that if you do not know about various situations happening, you tend to think it improbable as having actually happened.
Some of you guys constantly use the phrase “anecdotal evidence” to dismiss that which is in reality tangible proof even if you have no knowledge of occurrence.
Chris, all I can tell you is that some people get around more than you and deal with things you do not. And frankly Chris, I don’t care if you are “buying it” or not. It still happens and your not buying it changes nothing other than the personal justification you seem to get from saying you don’t buy it.
cb,
You said: “you tend to think it improbable as having actually happened.”
Earlier I said: “I have no doubt it has and does happen.”
One of these is not like the other…
I know it happens. What I question is whether it happens “quite often”. In short, it doesn’t. We do not face an epidemic (“quite often”) of Calvinist pastors deceiving search committees in order to get into their churches.
CB,
I just posted something a few minuted ago to Tim G on the same issue.
I don’t doubt that the things you say you have heard have actually happened. I am not doubting the veracity of your claims.
But I think we need to be honest about the difference between “proof” and “hearsay”. To say “I know a guy but I won’t name him or the church” makes it very hard for anyone to verify and respond fairly to this guy. Did he misspeak? Is he dead wrong? Did you mishear? Is he unable to communicate clearly? How can I ever know if I am not privy to his words (via sermon, book, article, etc).
So, when someone cites something like that, there is not much that can be done with it. It isn’t “proof” because to those of us on this end of it, it is just “hearsay”. I would love to respond to such comments, but it is hard to when I have zero context or verification of what was said. Such testimony would not even be admissible in court…because it isn’t proof, it is simply hearsay. Such testimony could not be included in an academic paper, because there is no citation of the source.
Now, I’ll say it again…I want to be clear…I have every reason to believe what you say is true and I will respond as such…but you have to understand that un-cited information is difficult for those on the other end of the story. That isn’t denying the evidence, it is simply asking for it to be clear and actual evidence.
And while I am at it Chris, I think I’ll just pop you on this one too.
I did not “demonize Calvinism” as you seem to suggest of me and others from time-to-time.
My reference was not to Calvinism. My reference was to the fact that there are some Calvinists who have no integrity and they are destructive to Southern Baptist churches.
It is also true that there are Baptist pastors who are not Calvinists yet have no integrity and are destructive to Southern Baptist churches. And there are many, many theological dwarves who have no idea what the word soteriology means who have no integrity and are destructive to southern Baptist churches.
Chris, I am talking about Calvinist pastors without integrity and you accuse of demonizing Calvinism. Don’t do that. That is not what I was doing and you full well know it. You keep bringing that mangy dog out of the truck and he is just too sick to hunt.
CB,
I want to add….I know those guys are out there and you are right, if they purposefully misled a search committee/church, they have no integrity. Period. No defense for that behavior at all.
cb,
I do not think you try to demonize Calvinism, but I am sad that you fail to realize the efforts of many who do. You inadvertently support their efforts. In this case, by defending their claim about Calvinists deceiving search committees “quite often”. If you see this as an issue caused by pastors of various stripes, why single out Calvinists? One would only do so if they see it as a problem that occurs among Calvinists at a higher (much higher – “quite often”) rate than non-Calvinists. This is the argument being made by those who see Calvinism as a threat to the SBC. They feel the need to warn search committees about these pastors trying to deceive their way into churches, when no such deceit is happening to any widespread degree.
Jason G. and Chris Roberts,
Read this comment very closely. Exegete it well. Drink deeply from its content. And don’t mess it up. Here it is. This is the money quote.
Chris and Jason, the only way either of you could be one of “those on the other end of the story” is if you are Calvinist pastors without integrity.
I tend to believe you are not, so quit trotting out your defenses every time someone makes a comment about a, some, or many Calvinist pastors who do not have integrity. Get over it. The woods are full of them.
BTW, some of them work at Louisiana College.
cb,
Please forgive me if I do not take your word for it.
Chris Roberts,
Sometimes I question your ability to read with comprehension.
I don’t care if you take my word for it or not. I have stated that more than once here. So there is no need of your apology, no matter how bogus it is.
It matters not if you believe it or if I believe it for that matter. It still happens and often. And it is still true that some of them who work at LC. Absence of integrity is equally distributed there among those who adhere to the various soteriological dogmas discussed so often on this blog.
I know CB quite well and if he said it (about ethically malnourished Calvinist pastors), then take it to the bank.
I am a Calvinist and I know CB better than you do. And Calvinism per se isn’t the problem with CB. I can guarantee that absolutely.
Chris Roberts: whether you take CB’s word or not has no bearing on the veracity of what he states.
C. B.,
You are right. There are many Calvinists who are dishonest and deceptive about their Calvinism in order to get a job.
And there are Calvinists who defend their doing so.
Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, and many others have spoken to this problem. More need to be honest about this problem.
And yes, I have personally seen this problem; it does exist.
David R. Brumbelow
Bob Cleveland,
Thank you for your vote of confidence. The value of your friendship humbles me, causing me to give thanks to the Lord for His arranging my having met you. I trust you and Peg are in well health. I think Karen spoke with her just recently, but I do not know the content of the dialogue.
David R. Brumbelow,
You are right about Dr. Patterson and Dr. Vines addressing this problem. Another brother, a president of a SBC seminary called such action “pastoral malpractice.” Dr. Danny Akin made that declaration at the Building Bridges Conference a few years ago at Ridgecrest.
Let me again state that not all Calvinists are or have been guilty of this. This is a problem that became noticeable in the last several years. Before a specific time in our history, Calvinistic pastors did not seem to fall into this particular snare. Or, at least, the ones I knew/know didn’t and there have always been Calvinists in the SBC. Always.
If cb was to tells me tomorrow is Christmas, I’ll hang my sock up tonight. He tells it like it is.
Jess Alford,
If I did tell you tomorrow is Christmas, I would probably be angling for you to give me your shotgun and not realize what I had done before New Year’s Eve;-)
Dave,
You bring up some interesting points.
I guess the real question is: what is the major problem int he SBC with regard to calvinism?
Is the real problem the existence if calvinism at all? Jerry Vines listed it with alcoholism, liberalism, and pentecostalism as the great dangers facing the SBC. I would assume as he has been vocal in getting the previous 3 out of the SBC that he feels the same about calvinism.
So, if the problem is the existence of calvinism? Then, I suppose the calvinists are at fault for being there in the first place.
Though I think very few of us think that is the main problem.
Now, if the problem at hand is the insistence on pushing the calvinists out or at least marginalize them by removing them from leadership (I believe there is ample evidence that there are some that desire this)…if that is the main issue, then those seeking to remove and/or marginalize the calvinists are the problem.
Now, it must be admitted that I don’t see any call for the non-calvinists to be pushed out of the SBC in any capacity, leadership or membership. I guess some would cite Reisinger’s book as a call to reform churches as a hint of that. But I don’t think that book or anyone in Founders is trying to get rid of non-calvinists.
I think the vast majority of us want cooperation…and if the main hurdle to cooperation is that there are some people who want others out, then it appears that the primary problem lies with those trying to marginalize/eliminate calvinism, calvinistic influence, and even calvinists from the SBC. Those would be the primary instigators.
That said…many calvinists have reacted to these actions, and the treatment they have received personally and the messages they have heard from the SBC pulpit and on blogs, and they have reacted poorly. They have been arrogant and condescending. For that…the calvinists are at fault. Yet, it must be said, that arrogance and condescension knows no theological boundary…and the non-calvinists are guilty as well. Both sides talk down to one another…in different ways, but they do it nonetheless.
So, what can we say then? The answer is that anyone who has been combative on this issue (in word or attitude) is at fault to some degree. Both sides need to think very carefully how we talk to and about one another. Both sides need to make efforts to not be condescending or arrogant. Anyone who is seeking to eliminate or marginalize the other view needs to stop.
Plenty of blame to go around.
“”"When it comes to the struggle for unity, I do not see the Calvinists as the problem in the SBC today.”"”
I do not agree.
Problem: From my past experience CB doesn’t know most of what he says he knows. Anecdotes are not proof. What you guys are charging is serious, and must be proven to be taken seriously. That has not happened in one story told. Not one.
Debbie,
Since you are a female, I shall simply state; You have no experience with me and leave it at that.
CB: Oh but I have and I think you know this.
From past experience CB, you love to fan an already burning fire with things you “know”, yet you really don’t know when the information is checked on. You are fanning a fire. That’s all you are doing.
Why not just stop discussion on it and make a list of primary and secondary sources (from reputable published and not self-published stuff or vendetta-driven blogs) for people to read?
What if this debate is not really about soteriology at all? Wouldn’t that explain how we could debate theology endlessly and never get anywhere?
Please read my article at SBC Today on Monday. My prayer is that God will use it in some small way to help shift the conversation in a more productive direction.
I hope you are going to make an argument based on facial hair. Because I think that you’ll be very close to help us discover the fault line…
I love that pic that is going around. Hilarious.
I think I just saw a Facebook profile photo of a young Dave Miller on Todd Littleton’s blog comment stream. He was sporting a……..moustache! (Honestly, it kind of made you look like a cop.)
Rick,
Except it always comes back to Calvinism, doesn’t it? I know you say the issue is not theological but rather involves having the SBC leadership representative of the SBC at large – but what do you mean? That their theology represents what you consider the dominant theology.
No, Rick. I think the root really is Calvinist doctrine. It is a significant debate.
I think the problem is that we have treated this discussion as us vs. them instead of a family discussion.
But I do think the root is a theological problem, exacerbated by pride, arrogance and unkindness on BOTH sides.
Dave Miller: “But I do think the root is a theological problem, exacerbated by pride, arrogance and unkindness on BOTH sides.”
Perhaps. But for what it’s worth (and in a general sense), I have seen pride, arrogance, and unkindness exhibited by folks who claim to be in the middle or in the cooperative middle, and who claim to be above it all in their middle-of-the-road position. That’s a theological, spiritual, and church problem too.
Richard Sibbes spoke well about the pride in a “middle-of-the-road position that is “above all that stuff”. Don’t have time to find the quote…but it’s good. As one heavily influenced by folks like John Newton it’s something that I have to fight myself. I think there is pride everywhere a human heart is found.
That is true.
Dave,
If the theological differences resulted only in theological debate, then we would all be on much better terms. The real problem here is that political tactics have been brought in, and now there is a struggle for the protection of each side’s [theology-oriented] political group. This is most evident in the lack of substantive theological debate between the two groups.
Even as a convention of independent congregations, are we not a Top-down organization? I mean, God is at the Top, after all—right? We ought not to be a political organization where our real leaders are mere elected officials. Even in the local church, the pastor is not to be a mere elected official, but one with a calling from God who is appointed by election but with divine providence even in that. We have God-given leaders because the majority is not to be trusted to lead themselves by mere vote. We hear the pastor preach on Sunday because we need to hear God’s truth and we can’t just vote on sermon points as a body and come up with what God intended as a sermon. Truth comes from the Top down, and not from the bottom up. It ought to be the same with the leaders and professors of our seminaries, and leaders of all our other institutions. The leaders are to seek the truth of God and His word to the best of their abilities, and are not to get their theology from polls of the majority. Otherwise, we exchange calling and revelation for politics and polls. If we let politics rule, then how long will it be before some SBC group forms that holds to evolution (or homosexual marriage), and starts a signature list to demand proportionate representation in the SBC leadership, conference speakers, and writers of Sunday school materials?
Rick, do you agree with the following statement?
We explicitly deny that humans inherit guilt from anyone. Instead, we maintain that we inherit a fallen nature. This it differs from the Calvinism position that each person actually inherits Adam’s guilt. Instead, we believe that none of Adam’s descendants are personally at fault for Adam’s but only the consequences of a sinful nature, weakened and inclined to evil, that’s always persist. In other words, human beings do not bear any ‘original guilt’ from Adam and Eve’s particular sin. No human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. We only maintain that we inherit a fallen nature and not the personal guilt associated with Adam’s sin. Adam is guilty of his willful action; his descendants bear the consequences, death being the most significant.
Matt,
This is my preferred wording of the inherited sinful nature without inherited Adamic guilt position:
Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. (BFM 2000, Article 3)
Rick, I’ll kindly ask again. Do you agree with the statement I wrote? It’s a simple question.
Matt,
I don’t blame Rick for not answering this question. It looks to me like a game of gotcha. Wouldn’t it be better (and perhaps in another thread) to simply say, “Your position on inherited guilt/sin seems very similar to that of the Roman Catholic teaching. Help me to see how it differs, if it does”?
I know that at times the Lord has his prophets (like Nathan) help sinners that are blind to their sin play “gotcha” to help them see. But I don’t think that’s what we are dealing with here. These are doctrinal positions and I don’t see how a game of “gotcha” is beneficial.
Matt,
I do not wish to allow you the privilege of selecting the verbiage without disclosing the reference. I am much more comfortable citing my own source to define my position.
Your second sentence begins “This it differs…” which I assume should be “Thus…” I have a similar grammatical issue with the ending of sentence three: “that’s always persist” seems wrong. The fifth sentence is a double negative.
While the gist of the paragraph seems at first glance congruent with the statement in the BFM Article 3, without the ability to read this statement in any kind of context, I am reticent to endorse it. \
I am simply much more comfortable endorsing the BFM.
Gotta go, now. If I do not respond, I’m not being rude. Like Elvis, I have left the building.
Matt,
It would appear that your desire to have Rick agree with your opinion is exactly what might be part of this issue. I won’t speak for Rick, but if he can cooperate under the BF&M with me, a Calvinist who can sign off on the BF&M, then I have no issue with him whatsoever. Calvinists and Non-Calvinists have been ministering together under the umbrella of the BF&M for decades.
I think it is sufficient and I don’t think we need additional documents at the denominational level. If individual congregations want individual statements, then by all means they should go forward with that. This is the beauty of autonomous Baptists. What I am opposed to, is one group or the other trying to impose their will over the entire denomination. Again, I believe the BF&M suffices for cooperation.
Exactly what year was it that Southern Baptists decided to stop believing folks are born under condemnation?
Guys,
Just please read the article on Monday with an open mind. I admit there is a theological disagreement, but then we’ve always had that, right? So there must be something else that is making our present discussion so tense and difficult right now.
That’s enough of a teaser. Please read the article on Monday.
Rick, could you please kindly answer my question from 3:14 pm?
Matt,
See my response at 3:28 pm. I’ve waited longer than fourteen minutes for fast food.
Will do.
“What if this debate is not really about soteriology at all?”
Would any “Traditionalist” be willing to affirm the following statement?
We explicitly deny that humans inherit guilt from anyone. Instead, we maintain that we inherit a fallen nature. This it differs from the Calvinism position that each person actually inherits Adam’s guilt. Instead, we believe that none of Adam’s descendants are personally at fault for Adam’s but only the consequences of a sinful nature, weakened and inclined to evil, that’s always persist. In other words, human beings do not bear any ‘original guilt’ from Adam and Eve’s particular sin. No human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. We only maintain that we inherit a fallen nature and not the personal guilt associated with Adam’s sin. Adam is guilty of his willful action; his descendants bear the consequences, death being the most significant.
It is the games of “gotcha” that make me wonder what in the world is going on. Everything is a debate, or game, or trap. Sad day!
I long for the day when we return to studying the Bible, applying it, preaching it, and leaving all others than Jesus out of the conversation. Who cares what Tim, Matt, Chris, or Calvin or anyone else says or believes?
Not me!
Tim, if you truly believed that it doesn’t matter what you say, you’d give up blogging about America and Calvinism. (You also wouldn’t censor the comments made on your blog when people press you to back up your claims with facts and references.) Now, as a lay person, I can read and be informed as much as I choose. I chose to read the Wikipedia article on original sin and noticed how similar the Roman Catholic position is to what Traditionalists believe in so far as rejecting Adam’s guilt being passed on to his descendants. Rick Patrick wisely chose not to respond on whether or not he agreed with what I wrote, which is a Roman Catholic description of original sin.
Matt,
My “censor” as you call it allows me to carry out the importantbstuff of minostry without being tied to the blog. You are free to insinuate all you desire, but that isnallmit is.
As for Rick, he can handle himself. Your conclusions are far from fact as to his non answer and yet actually validate what I wrote above. You want to score. Have fun! I do notbplay that game.
My comment stems from a friend who’s asked you questions to back up claims you make about Calvinism and his comments never get posted.
Matt,
Share with your friend-I do not play games and I do not participate in “debate” oriented discussions. Comments are posted when I have time and when I desire. I do not live for blogging!
Matt,
Your position on the Trinity, from what I know of it, sounds suspiciously to me like the Roman Catholic position. #GeneticFallacy
Hi Pastor BARBER,
how would you describe the Roman Catholic concept of the Holy Trinity?
Tim: Problem is as so many blog articles(of which Todd Littleton has a good one) have pointed out. It has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with politics.
Louisiana is a sample of the damage done when politics and not theology is the driving issue.
Debbie,
I differ with your take on LC. I do not politics has anything to do with it or the SBC. I do think it is strictly theological-unless Rick Patrick convinces me otherwise on Monday.
Tim: Politics is always at the root. I do believe you think it’s strictly theological, but it’s not sound theology that says fight, hit, strike out, call names, ruin reputations with lies and other things that have been used.
Debbie,
When the Aggressive Calvinist stop their fighting, I will cease to defend! Pretty Simple isn’t it .
You got me, Mike. Good catch. You’re right. There are theological tones that do not resonate with historical Protestant doctrine in the Traditionalist statement.
So, here it goes, Rick Patrick, “Your position on inherited guilt/sin seems very similar to that of the Roman Catholic teaching. Help me to see how it differs, if it does”?
Also, Rick, according to Roger Olson, “The problem with this Southern Baptist statement is its neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God (including acceptance of the gospel by faith). If the authors believe in that cardinal biblical truth, they need to spell it out more clearly. And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin. … For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.” Can you help me see how Roger Olson, a respected Arminian historian and theologian is wrong in his assessment of your “Traditionalist” statement?
So, Rick, in what way is this discussion not about soteriology?
Hi Matt,
Can you provide a link to Roger Olson’s comments about the Traditionalist Baptist Statement?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation-%E2%80%9D/
Truth Unites… and Divides, I’m not a theologian, so I have to trust that Roger Olson knows far more about history, theology, and his own Arminianism to make his statements responsibly. I think that’s respectable.
Hey Dave,
Good luck with the snow removal and getting any kind of middle together to deal with this issue. This is not the forum for any kind of mutual ground as can be seen by the very first comments about how the problem is the non-Cals calling for the exclusion of Cals. And then there will be the non-Cals responding.
It was a valiant try!
I’m not up for another contentious, decade long fight with anyone except the devil and commend my congenial and cooperative Iowa colleague and SBC VP in this blog article.
I’m not in favor of amending the BFM.
I’m not in favor of classifying SBC electoral candidates or nominees by any Calvinist or Traditionalist label.
I’m not in favor of any quota system for SBC entity leaders or faculty positions.
I’m not in favor of any system of designating around any of the seminaries for reason of their allegedly being too Calvinistic.
I am in favor of marginalizing those who seek to divide us.
I am in favor of dismissing forthwith any Calvinist who claims God is on his or her side alone. Same for Traditionalists although, clearly, this is more applicable to my Calvinistic friends.
I am in favor of acknowledging that the only hard data we have shows Calvinistic SBC pastors to baptize more than those who identify themselves as non-Calvinistic and because of that I favor dropping the familar saw about Calvinists not being evangelistic.
I am in favor of requiring every NAMB-funded church plant to support the CP and BFM, something already being done.
I am in favor of evaluating these church plants periodically in regard to their doctrine and cooperative practices.
I am in favor of churches examining candidates for their pastor or staff positions in regard to doctrine, especially Calvinism, along with the usual topics of leadership styles, etc.
I am in favor of prospective pastors and staff being fully forthright in their conversations with search committees.
I am in favor of open, transparent, forthright, and civil discussions among those who have doctrinal disagreements.
I am in favor of Frank Page insisting that his C/T team be willing to do the above, although I recognize that this has not been done and probably will not be done.
I am wary of SBC and state convention entities buying popular blogs to push a particular agenda and am in favor of informing those who do not eat and sleep this stuff of what is going on with such things.
I am in favor of blogs like SBCV which manifestly allow both sides to contribute, even if some extremists appear.
I am against elder rule in local churches.
I am against deacon rule in local churches.
I am for the Cooperative Program and for evaluating SBC candidates and nominees on the basis of their church record in support of the same.
I am for Baptist Press getting off the sidelines and taking a positive role in all this rather than de facto defaulting to the blogs.
Thanks William. Much I agree with.
Amen.
Classic William Thornton:
“I am against elder rule in local churches.
I am against deacon rule in local churches.”
This pairing got my attention, too. If it wasn’t for deacon rule, some of our brethren would never have considered elder rule. I agree with Brother Thornton on most items: 15/20 ain’t bad. Baptist Press has sure been a disappointment through all this … silence is not always golden.
You guys haven’t been paying close attention.
Elder rule as defined on a church’s governing documents is alive and well in the SBC, though not common.
I am unaware of a single example where deacons are formally given complete authority in a church’s governing documents.
We are all familiar with churches that are de facto ruled by the pastor, deacons, WMU, rich dude, or even teens. My reference was to that which causes a church not to be congregational.
Only Calvinists are making attempts here at elder rule. I paired them to keep Calvinists calm here.
William,
The only Baptist church I have personally known to be led by elders was not Calvinist – quite the opposite. I know elder-led churches are probably primarily Calvinist, but hardly the only ones.
Of course there is also the differentiation between Elder-rule and Elder-led.
I think most people here would like to view their churches as Pastor-led congregational churches. Elder-led congregational churches are the same thing, but with plural number of pastors.
BTW, we have 2 elder-led Baptist churches (SBC) in my town (that I know of)…neither of which are calvinistic.
Jason and Chris, I have yet to use the phrase “elder led” in this discussion.
Sounds good.
I’d love to see a spirit of charity in disagreements. What I find disheartening is that the “debate” between the Calvinist and Non-Calvinists so closely models the rancorous debate of our politicians. We are quick to assert that politicians are ignorant fools who are only in it for themselves, and then we show our worldliness in modeling our debate in like manner. Are we not brothers and sisters, united for the cause of Christ? Can we not keep that foremost in our minds as we seek to charitably debate our theological differences?
The notion of exclusion of those who do not perfectly align with the exact beliefs of a group seems counter to who we are. We’re a loose association of autonomous churches united around some common beliefs, and a common mission. There are things for which we withdraw fellowship, but those are widely held to be unbiblical practices or heterodox beliefs. There is much more that we extend the right hand of fellowship over.
The SBC needs to determine if the issues we want to argue over, are 1) which cooperating (IE BF&M) Baptist Brothers and Sisters we want to shoot and remove from fellowship, or 2) celebrate the unity we share in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ through His inerrant word and cooperate for the sake of fulfilling His Great Commission.
As a member of a church, SBC politics aren’t going to determine the future of my church. But, we must steward what God has given us in this large body of cooperating churches. Protect the unity we have in the truth of the Gospel and the Word of God, and change the world, by the grace of God.
William,
I am 99% with you on that comment.
There is not only a problem in the SBC powers that be, but also in a majority of SBC churches where Calvinism is rejected.
So goes the leadership so goes the people. If any unity is to be had it must start with the leadership and then trickle into the churches.
Of course we all know this, but the hard part is what we will do about it.
There has to be an across the board acceptance in the SBC of Calvinism
for unity to ocurr. I am saying if the shoe was on the other foot where the vast majority of the SBC were Calvinists and the Trads. wanted acceptance
there would have to be an across the board acceptance of trads.
Personally I dislike both terms. I think this is going to be a hard roll to hoe. Although I’m a traditionlist there are some things in T.U.L.I.P.
that jumps right out of the pages of the Bible at me that I cannot deny
because of the scriptures.
Tim G,
“Share with your friend-I do not play games and I do not participate in “debate” oriented discussions. Comments are posted when I have time and when I desire.” Exactly – when you desire. Your blog gets streamed here for people to view. He found it from here. He asked you questions of clarification, not to debate. You chose not to post them. Fair enough.
Matt,
Many blogs do not do wide open comments. I am just one with them. Have your friend email me if he has any questions.
I think there is one serious mistake that some involved in this issue fail to realize. There are some who do not want peace, they want to win. They want to win at all cost. There are some who rewrite history so it fits their side and in their mind helps them win. There are some who ignore history and what is obvious so in their minds they can win. There are some who clothe themselves in passive aggressiveness most of the time but if you look close you see they want to win. We are to mark people who cause divisions. Many I have read on this issue who have incredible theological minds but are not fit to hold the Christian flag in a VBS service because they simply want to win.
And we have an American and “Christian” flag at VBS because…
Greg, they probably can carry the American flag! I don’t want to go overboard.
Dean:
1.Can you show me in Scripture where it says we are to mark people who cause divisions in Conventions.
2.is not the purpose of identifying such divisive people in the local church to bring them back into the faith and if that is not possible then Scripture demands they be kicked out of the body. Not just marked.
Robert:
1) Can you show me where I said mark them in the convention?
2) Does Paul ever mention redemption of the dividers in Romans 16 or does he just say avoid those who cause division by placing obstacles in the way of sound doctrine?
3) Is it as annoying to you as it is me when people ask condescending questions when they disagree with you as opposed to just saying they disagree with you?
Matt,
Do you believe this?
“Jesus Christ is truly God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, the Eternal Word, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit always was, is, and always will be.”
David
Forgiveness is an absolute. When we are told that our own sins will not be forgiven if we do not exercise forgiveness ourselves we begin to focus on forgiveness and find ways to forgive or act upon it in obedience until God’s grace works in our heart. That should be the way we approach the Calvinist/Non-Calvinist issue, except we would use love. What a wonderful opportunity to exercise love among brethren so we are prepared to address the God haters out there. Having differences with one another has been there from the Garden. Using those differences to build our love toward one another is God-like. My goal is not to make anyone believe like me or like I think someone should believe what is in the Bible. My goal is to assist others in exercising their faith, even if I know it isn’t like mine. They will be able to discover on their own if their faith is accurate. Once that occurs, they are teachable and I have exercised my faith in love.
I have no problem with your average, everyday, regular ole Calvinist. I can worship and serve alongside them every day of the week…and I have, and I do.
The problem arises when the aggressive, New Calvinists, who have a take over and leave no prisoners enter the SBC arena, and they start gaining influence and positions of power…..
David
David,
You and I are on the same page with that comment. Hmmm, we think alike – now I’m scared!
Vol,
I agree. I keep stating that Calvinists have always been in the SBC and many, many, many helped take the SBC back from the infidels, devils, and liberals back during the CR.
However, I think the term “New Calvinist” may be unfair. There are some New Calvinists who are OK.
I think we should start calling them Nutcase Calvinists. The word “Nutcase” being the operative word.
We could lump that kind of Calvinists with Nutcase Traditionalists, Landmarkers, Reconstructionists, NCTs, Health and Wealth Peddlers, Liberation Theologians, and all Rushdoony Disciples.
The code word would be: Nutcase.
When you say: Nutcase Cals, Nutcase Trads. Landmarker, Reconstructionist NCTs, etc., all regular folks will know the kind of person you are referring to in your post or comment.
(You don’t have to use “Nutcase” when in reference to Landmarkers or Reconstructionists or Rushdoony Disciples. The whole well educated, theological world knows those folks are all in the Nutcase category.)
Yes. This is a way to peace in the SBC. We will just call everybody we do not agree with or like a “Nutcase.” Then the rest of us can all get along better.
cb scott,
Now I know where the five whiskered cal-fish got it’s name.
Keep eatin’ your Wheaties there, Jess. You will get up to full speed after while.
David (007),
You wrote: “The problem arises when the aggressive, New Calvinists, who have a take over and leave no prisoners enter the SBC arena, and they start gaining influence and positions of power…..”
Me too. I don’t like that either.
Now, do you care to name those who you believe are doing this? Those who have been “gaining influence and power” and are “seeking to take over and leave no prisoners”. Name them and let’s call them out. I will join you.
Accusations mean nothing when they are vague. Let’s get specific and start dealing with those people.
Agreed David. If it wasn’t for the aggressive method and message of New Calvinism, this thing would never have come to a head in the SBC.
Its all the Calvinists’ fault?
Dave,
It’s not the Calvinists fault. It’s the aggressive, New Calvinists fault.
David
Turn the clock back to when we were all getting along – reasonably unified around a common mission (old-Calvinists and non-Calvinists). What’s changed … what’s “new”?
The opposition to Calvinism is new…
There you go again, Chris; Not thinking before you comment.
There is no “new” opposition to Calvinism. What is new is the increase of Nutcase Calvinists and the opposition by both Non-Calvinists and Old-time Calvinists alike to them and their tactics.
That is what is new, Chris.
cb,
Certainly we disagree on what is new. The only change I see on the Calvinist side is the prominence of the theology. In reaction to the growth of Calvinism, a certain subset has greatly escalated opposition.
As an aside, from you consistently nasty and condescending tone, this will mercifully be my last response to you on this particular discussion thread.
“New” Calvinism is new … that’s why it was labeled as such. It’s a sub-species which is aggressive and militant. I’ve experienced it firsthand. If you don’t have it in your neck of the woods yet, count your blessings.
Max,
Afraid I have to differ once again. “New Calvinism” is nothing more than a label some have given to Calvinists who are not content to sit at the back of the bus.
Chris – I’m glad you brought up sitting on a bus. When I was a young man, my father imparted some wisdom to me. He said if I ever got on a bus and discovered it was going the wrong way, it would be best for me to get off at the first stop. I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately.
Personally, I don’t think I come down on either extreme, so I guess I’m pretty much in the middle. If I ever get to feeling like I need to play for one team or the other, I’ll exercise my free will. Should it become evident that I need to take myself elsewhere because I no longer fit in the SBC, then I’ll just accept such as being within God’s sovereignty in my life and move on.
David,
You and I are on the same page with that comment. Hmmm, we think alike – now I’m scared!
Nate @ 6:21 – what I stated was not my position. It was a rewording of what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy believes about original sin. I merely reworded (poorly, I might add) material from Wikipedia. I was pointing out how what Rick (and Dr Harwood) appear to affirm in denying Adam’s guilt is what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox also affirm. I don’t have a bone in rewording statement of faith. Regarding semi-pelagianism, if Roger Olson, a noted Arminian scholar who rejects semi-pelaginianism and pelaginism, has difficulty with the Traditionalist statement and considers it semi-pelaginian leaning, then that really speaks volumes. Regarding a Roman Catholic understanding of original sin, Rick ended up saying, “While the gist of the paragraph seems at first glance congruent with the statement in the BFM Article 3, without the ability to read this statement in any kind of context, I am reticent to endorse it. “
‘original sin’ is a Catholic concept, but it is interpreted much differently by Catholics
if you are wanting better than ‘wiki’ for info,
take a look here and scroll down to Roman Numeral III ‘Original Sin’:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
Chris Roberts: “The problem is people seeking to exclude or minimize certain soteriological positions – in particular, Calvinism – in the SBC. The conflict was not started by Calvinism (per se – the growth of Calvinism led to reactionary moves) but by those wanting to control Calvinism in the SBC. We cannot be unified so long as one group wants to place constraints on another group, particularly when such action violates the very polity of our convention.”
vs.
VolFan007: “The problem arises when the aggressive, New Calvinists, who have a take over and leave no prisoners enter the SBC arena, and they start gaining influence and positions of power….”
Anybody else think that these two quotes are getting at the heart of the problem within the SBC?
Indeed they are getting at the heart and actually are the heart of the issue. Claimed anecdotal examples are actual reality and often denied, excused or ignored.
I have never wanted or desired to exclude anyone. I do resist and will seek to stop someone aggressively seeking to change the SBC. Old/Normal Calvinist did not do this.
Tim G.,
I must admit there are some people I wanted to exclude from the SBC. Thus the CBF was born.
CB Scott: “I must admit there are some people I wanted to exclude from the SBC.”
Thanks for being candid. In honesty, you wouldn’t exclude Albert Mohler, Chris Roberts, and Jared Moore from the SBC, would you?
And if there were efforts by non-Calvinist SBC’ers to exclude them, you’d fight against those efforts, wouldn’t you?
Question (1). No
Question (2). Yes
Truth Unites …and Divides.
Ask him if it would exclude Robert I Masters
from the Southern Baptist Geneva.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CB,
I stand corrected! I was with you on that one and still am.
David: I just can’t see where that is helping the conversation or where it is hitting the points of this post. Why is it that every few years a fight like this ensues. I also do not see anything wrong with Calvinists pointing out from scripture where we have erred in our thinking the past few years. ie: asking Jesus into one’s heart over and over, going down the aisle over and over, baptizing over and over again. This has been a problem in the Baptist churches.
I also think non-Calvinists have very good points. Everyone keeps pointing to scripture which is a good thing, but I believe if we really read scripture and I mean all of scripture, none of the problems would be occurring and none of the fighting would be happening.
Debbie,
Calvinists are not exclusive in addressing the problems you make known in your comment. Those issues were being attacked long ago by folks who are not 5 Point Calvinists.
Debbie,
Do you have a list of people who read “all” of the Scripture and a list of people who do not read “all” of Scripture? And if you do, in which one am I, Vol, and Tim G., placed?
“”" I also do not see anything wrong with Calvinists pointing out from scripture where we have erred”"”
You then go on to erect a straw-man that can be knocked over easily by your hero, “C-Man.”
It’s a pretty pathetic argument actually. Turning Calvinists into saints and others into heretics seems to be at the heart of this new wave of Calvinism in some camps.
Tim G,
This gets brought up time and again, but I feel it needs to be addressed…yet again.
I have no doubt the anecdotal examples are reality. It is just hard for those of us who have no experience with the anecdotes to respond to things. It is not unreasonable to ask for a citation of something to which to respond. Think of it like footnoting in a paper. If I cited “some guy who lives near me” my doctoral adviser would send it back to me and ask me for an actual citation. In doing so, he isn’t denying the guy exists, or denying the guy said or did something, he just wants verification.
Asking for verification isn’t a denial.
Now, I can understand where you might not want to hurt someone’s feelings by citing them specifically. But if you are going to talk about them behind their back, I would assume you would do so to their face, so that should not be a concern.
So, to repeat…I don’t deny any of the anecdotes you (and others) have given. I am quite confident you guys are telling us the truth about what you have seen and heard. It’s just hard for me to respond on a website/blog to the comments of a person whose comments I can’t read or hear so as to get a feel for the context. Thus the difficulty of such anecdotes.
I hope that clarifies my perspective on that issue.
I haven’t known a Calvinist who deceived a search committee or church coming in, but I have known non-Calvinists who have. Maybe I can stereotype all Non-Calvinist Southern Baptist pastors as deceivers?
Deception is wrong regardless who is doing it. Stereotyping is wrong as well regardless who is doing it. Both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists have been liars, adulterers, etc. Neither side has a monopoly on splitting churches.
Aye and amen.
For the record, I can name 2 Calvinist pastors who have deceived a search committee. In fact, one of them was fired two weeks ago.
I can name more Churches than I have fingers and toes to count on, which had a Calvinist(aggressive, “make everyone else a Calvinist” type) come into a Church, and cause huge problems…even Church splits.
Jared, Jason, Chris, and anyone else who wants me to name the names of the fellas and the Churches are out of your minds if you think I’m gonna do such a thing in a public forum like this. I know them. I know the Churches. I had relatives in a few of them. I had friends in some of them. I have friends, who knew the situations well in others. It did happen, and there is such a bird….most of the Churches are near where I live.
Believe it, or not….that’s up to you. But, I am not giving names. I am not gonna get into the middle of anything with these men, or these churches. But, I know it happened. The people in the Churches know it happened. My relatives and friends know it happened. And, THE ONLY problem was these New Calvinists trying to convert everyone to Calvinism, and all the baggage that goes with their aggressive Calvinism.
David
PS. I love Calvinists! I am all for unity in the SBC.
David,
As I said to cb, please forgive me if I do not take your word for it.
Chris,
Only if you forgive Vol if he responds to you as I did when you said that to me.
Chris,
I say “AMEN!” to what CB said, or Rico Villa, as he’s known in some circles….
David
Vol,
Sometimes I think Ole Villa needs to come back and clean some of this mess up.
Villa rides again! Wooo hoooo….count me in CB….but, I’ll need a really big horse.
David
David,
Can you describe for me what you mean by the “make everyone else a Calvinist” type. That’s not loaded. I’m genuinely wanting to know what that looks like. I’ve seen it myself. But I just want to know what it looks like with the eyes of a non-Calvinist.
Feel free to email me if you want. I’m not looking for names or anything…just what it looks like from your perspective.
Mike,
A New Calvinist is a Calvinist Evangelist…he seems to be bent on converting everyone to Calvinism. They make Calvinism a matter of fellowship.
David
David,
“They make Calvinism a matter of fellowship.”
Do you know of anyone who holds this view?
And the Chris Roberts’ Merry-Go-Round goes round and round, round and round, all the live long day. Yes, it goes round and . . .
Chris,
Me making this comment means that I know people like this….I mean, me saying this means that I know of people, who are like this….you know, they’ll only invite Calvinists to speak at their conferences; to teach at their schools; recommend them to Churches to be Pastor; they accuse non Calvinists of being heretics; etc, etc, etc….
David
cb,
You object to my question or his answer? He made a rather clear and bold assertion, one in which I cannot think of a single actual example so I am honestly curious if he knows of any at all.
David,
Your first three are not examples of “test of fellowship”. The last, who has ever accused non-Calvinists of being heretics? I say that a little hesitatingly because I am sure there is the occasional nutter out there (ie, those who say Calvinism is the devil’s theology), but such a position obviously belongs to a deranged mind.
“He made a rather clear and bold assertion, one in which I cannot think of a single actual example so I am honestly curious if he knows of any at all.”
Chris,
I think the following comment will work again here.
“Chris, no offense, but I do have to wonder why it is that if you do not know about various situations happening, you tend to think it improbable as having actually happened.
Some of you guys constantly use the phrase “anecdotal evidence” to dismiss that which is in reality tangible proof even if you have no knowledge of occurrence.
Chris, all I can tell you is that some people get around more than you and deal with things you do not. And frankly Chris, I don’t care if you are “buying it” or not. It still happens and your not buying it changes nothing other than the personal justification you seem to get from saying you don’t buy it.
David,
Thanks for the answer. If I share the doctrines of grace (Calvinism, whatever you want to call it) with someone in my church with the hopes they’d adopt that position do you consider me a New Calvinist or an aggressive Calvinist? Or does it have more with the way I share that? And how I respond to those who disagree?
Mike,
Why share the doctrines of grace? Why not just preach the Bible? That’s exactly my point.
I know of Calvinists, whom you’d never know were Calvinists, by hearing them preach. Why? Because they just preach and teach the Bible. They’re not concerned with converting people to a system of belief. They are more concerned with preaching the Gospel and teaching the Bible.
David
Chris,
I was asked to tell what a New Calvinist is…I told you. And, with calling Non Calvinists heretics…well, think about that one for a little while…..I’m sure that you’ll think of someone, who’s famous for that one….
David
David,
Can you name a single time when I have ever done that?
David,
Of course we “just preach the Bible”. I’m probably very similar to those Calvinists you describe whom you’d probably never even know they were Calvinists. In my church I’d say only a decent number of people know that I’m a Calvinist. Some would say that’s deception and I’m trying to infiltrate it and make it Calvinist or something like that. Nah. I just try to preach the Bible. If I get to a text that is Calvinistic I preach it that way. If I get to a text that sounds Arminian then I preach it that way.
But as I preach through the Bible eventually election is going to come up. I believe that the position that Calvinist hold is closest to the Bible. And so I believe that is going to give the most comfort (which by the way is why I believe it’s even there in the first place). So, my question is…would you consider me as being an aggressive new Calvinist?
I’m just trying to figure out exactly what is going on when you say that Calvinsts split churches, etc. Again, I’m with you. I’ve seen it. I agree that there are Calvinists that make Calvinism a matter of fellowship…and those of whom Calvinism is THE major issue and about all they talk about. But I’m wondering if there is an added component to this that I’m missing. Or something that you’d call “a Calvinist splitting a church” that I wouldn’t label as such.
Thanks for the interaction.
Chris,
Are you serious? Really? wow….how many times have you called Traditionalists “Semi Pelagian”…which is heresy.
David
David,
Ahh, I see. Well let me offer you great comfort. Yes, the traditionalist statement is semi-Pelagian, but be comforted in the knowledge that SP is not heresy, nor have I called it such during the whole discussion over SP. In fact, I argued the opposite and offered historical reasons to see that it was not viewed as heresy by those central to the original debate.
Mike,
I dont know you….not really. But, if you are, as you describe, then “amen, Bro.” I’ll give you an example. I have a friend, who is a 5 pt. Calvinist. I love to hear him preach. He is a very good preacher. If I did not personally know that he was a 5 pt. Calvinist, I would never guess that he’s one…by hearing him preach. Why? because he just preaches the Bible, and he does it very well.
I also love to hear Dr. Russell Moore preach. I believe he’s a 4 pt. Calvinist.
David
What does your friend do if he’s preaching through Romans and gets to chapter 9?
For me personally, if it’s a sticky passage. I give a couple of interpretations. And then I say here is my position and here is why. Then I move on and don’t make it the main point of the sermon. Unless of course it IS the main point of the text. Then I have to deal with it.
Mike,
Sounds along the lines of my approach. Preach the text. If it deals with an issue of soteriology, address it.
“If I get to a text that is Calvinistic I preach it that way. If I get to a text that sounds Arminian then I preach it that way.”
Would any of you care to share with us what an “Arminian” text is and when was the last time you preached an “Arminian” sermon?
“Arminian text” or “Arminian sermon” probably isn’t the best way to phrase that. Sorry for the confusion. What I mean is a text that emphasizes something that is often more of an emphasis with non-Calvinists. Such as man’s responsibility, etc. Or even some of those places that often give us Calvinists a headache.
Yeah. I thought so.
After following this debate, I would like to recommend everyone abandon their systematic approach to soteriology. The New Testament and patristic churches didn’t practice this form of theology. Why should we?
Confused Baptist stated:
“The New Testament and patristic churches didn’t practice this form of theology. Why should we?” . . . . and all the Founders guys began to search for his identity and home address as they sharpened their axes, swords, and spears and gathered wood, rope, and matches.
Confused Baptist, can you say, “I must hide.”
cb,
Actually, I didn’t think such a confused statement needed any response.
There you go again. Lack of reading comprehension.
I apologize. I’ll try to do better next time. I keep thinking your words mean what they would mean when used by anyone else.
Don’t feel bad, Chris. Other folks have made that same mistake, so I don’t hold it against you.
How am I confused?
CB,
I do want to hide from this fight, but it keeps finding me. Truth be told, I am predestined not to get involved in this discussion, but my freewill compels me to comment.
Speaking about the foreknowledge of God, do you think God ordained LC’s stance against Calvinism? Do you think God ordained the uninviting of chapel speakers by the administration? Even in these bad decisions, I think we can all agree that God is sovereign.
While on the sovereignty of God, did you know that Calvinists have a higher view of God’s sovereignty than everyone else? Since they do, maybe they should find solace in knowing that everything that happened at LC was part God’s sovereign will. Of course this last statement was tongue-in-cheek. I do not revel in anyone losing their job, but shouldn’t their theology remain consistent even when bad things happen? I mean, how can they miss the irony in their argument on this blog (particularly since they hold the Bible higher than everyone else)? The latter point, however, we will dispute–I think–because we both have bad eyes. Thus, we are forced to hold our Bibles just below our chins in an effort to see the words on the page. I must run and hide now, or at least wait for Blue Bloods to air in an hour–it is predestined to air because my DirectTV kiosk says so.
With that I am . . .
still Confused and half-blind
Blue Bloods?
If you will notice, Danny, the son of the Commissioner, carries a Khar .45. Nice weapon.
If this Calvinism/Semi-Pelagian argument gets any nastier, I will have to get my carrying license.
Mr. Baptist,
I do believe you just defined the SBC “middle” that Dave eludes to in the title of this blog. The majority of card-carrying Southern Baptists don’t really give a big whoop about systems of men – they build their hope on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
Probably the “least confused” statement I have ever seen in these threads…
Though I might add a little to this discussion. I was talking with a DOM recently who did a survey of calvinists and non-calvinists in his area. He is not a calvinist. He found that there were folks in both groups who were not evangelistic, that the calvinist were in the majority when it came to being evangelistic, and that a goodly percentage, some 35%-45% of the non-calvinists were not evangelistic. He also said he found tear hairs in both groups (his word was idiots). Hr also found that there were those who control freaks in both groups, and those who were not.
Just got to my hotel and read these comments. Heart breaking. Obviously, most of the comments here are evident of the more extreme and combative Calvinist and non-Calvinist variety.
The discussion here is disgusting. Sorry. That’s how I feel. Little grace or humility. Lots of blame and condemnation.
I just hope the attitudes displayed on this comment stream are NOT indicative of the general spirit of Southern Baptists or we have problems much bigger than Calvinism.
In the famous words, “Have you no shame?”
“At best we are but clay, animated dust; but viewed as sinners, we are monsters indeed. Let it be published in heaven as a miracle that the Lord Jesus should set His heart’s love upon people like us.”
? Alistair Begg
I know I can’t be the only person who read that quote with Alistair Begg’s amazing accent.
Indeed!
Dave,
What you are seeing is New Cal and Trad. Part of the problem is when people try to deny both exist. When we accept those two without any other monikers or names applied, we will have a beginning point in this discussion.
Dont be sad. This stuff helps define the real issues and offers visible reality of the depth of the divide or lack thereof.
Tim: The problem with that is what definition do we assign to New Calvinists? The term has clearly evolved to a pejorative. Even Mark Driscoll, whom everyone loves to hate, seldom talks about Calvinism. Is he a new Calvinist? Is Mohler? I don’t have a problem with Volfan’s definition. The people he describes should be opposed. I also don’t doubt they really exist. But are the New Calvinists that Hankins is talking about in his latest SBC Today article really the same people that Volfan is talking about? I honestly don’t think they are. Some on that thread rather gleefully told me that Mohler himself uses the term, so clearly Mohler isn’t operating with the same definition that Volfan is using. I think Hankins is using a way broader definition than Volfan is using.
Bill Mac,
And thus you have hit on the one of the biggest issues in this discussion: who defines whom and what?
It is like a Merry Go Round!
Dave Miller,
Two things:
1) Great post.
2) You should require people to use first and last names… I dont want anyone thinking that other “Matt” is me!
Too early for flapjacks?
The problem is people seeking to exclude or minimize certain soteriological positions – in particular, Calvinism – in the SBC. The conflict was not started by Calvinism (per se – the growth of Calvinism led to reactionary moves) but by those wanting to control Calvinism in the SBC.
Ah, yes “It’s all their fault”. That’s reasonable, loving, cooperative, and oh so very accurate.
You know, I’m a five pointer and I have to guffaw when I read stuff like this. Wow. What all this nonsense over Calvinism has taught me is that I want to be the kind of Calvinist that volfan007 describes–the kind that preaches that gospel and to hear him preach, you’d never know he was a Calvinist. Not because I’m ashamed of what I believe or that I think I’m wrong, bu because I don’t care one rip about getting someone to believe any one of he 5 points. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t talk about them when they come up in a text, but that I’m willing to just a little bit of humlility and acknowledge that not everyone agrees with those points.
I’m with Dave–most of use are in the middle.
Joe,
That’s what I’m talking about! That’s the way it use to be! May those days return!
When I think of the cooperative middle, for some reason, I think of this verse which i believe applies to the midsection as well as the ends:
“I searched for a man among them who would repair the wall and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land so that I might not destroy it, but I found no one.”
The problem with the Calvinist debate is that Non-Calvinist refuse to consider the words elect, chosen and predestination among other words and attributes of God. Those words are repeated in scripture more times than free will. Is there a different meaning than what is obvious? I thought the most common person could read scripture and remove its meaning as stated. I was never influenced by Calvinist and saw it. It was not me, it was the Holy Spirit that revealed it to me over several months. It burned within me. That is why I am so secure in my belief.
@with that I am… confused Baptist,
and all,
The church grows in understanding. It should grow seeing how it is being conformed to the image of Christ. Individuals in the church grow as well, or should be. ‘Divines’ of the past had less accumulated knowledge and resources than many have today. So to desire to go back to the past is a bad idea. They didn’t have church buildings in Acts. So lets get rid of our buildings. They sold all they had and gave to each other, so lets do that.
They didn’t use blogs or the internet. They baptized children.
Selective and biased is what drives the cry to go back.
with that you remain…. a confused baptist
I am a 5 point C.
I see no Scriptural evidence to believe in inherited guilt. NONE!
I see no evidence that people sin every time they can.
I see evidence that sin is a choice.
I see condemnation as just because people choose to sin.
[And that they choose to sin knowing it is wrong.]
Therefore i see the unborn, the young, and the mentally challenged as without condemnation until and if ever they reach a mental state where they are morally accountable for their deeds/choices.
And I see each and everyone of them, upon reaching that place, choosing to sin, and earning their condemnation.
And once condemned and accounted as a sinner, I see them as unable to freely choose God and true repentance unless God, in grace and mercy, draws them to Himself and saves their rebellious souls, even as He did me.
The will is free to sin. And it so chooses to. And is justly condemned.
The will is not free to grasp God. And you Christian sinners out there ought to know that seeing how you, along with me, choose sin and its destructive and detrimental ways even as we are indwelt with the Spirit of God.
Mike: I’m with you. I suspect the reformed magisterium will soon revoke our secret decoder rings.
Against my normal practice for this particular subject, I actually just sat down and read through every single comment in this stream, (currently 192 comments). It’s absolutely dizzying.
Two thoughts occurred:
1) The loudest voices are simply repeating the exact same things, over, and over, and over, and over again. Seriously. That’s not a hyperbolic statement. Y’all have thoroughly convinced me that Ecclesiastes 1:9 was, in fact, a prophetic statement regarding the modern SBC.
2) I honestly don’t understand the point of the constant back-and-forth bickering. Those entrenched on either side of the debate are never going to concede a single point to the opposition. So what are we trying to accomplish? The angry calvinists are never going to say “Gee. We’re sorry. You’re right. We’re in the business of splitting churches, taking over the SBC, and destroying the denomination of your halcyon youth.” And the angry non-calvinists are never going to say “Gee. You’re right. We’re sorry. We’ve maligned your motives, purposefully mischaracterized your beliefs, and fabricated wild and paranoid stories of your dastardly deeds.” It’s not going to happen.
This makes me wonder: For those of y’all who have expended such a great deal of energy in this debate, why do you continue to participate in these internet flame wars? I honestly don’t get it. The way this debate is playing out, there no end game where either side will be content or satisfied.
Well…for what it’s worth (FWIW in long-established interwebz-lingo)…the phenomenon of flame wars is precisely as enduring as general public access to the Internet. Or the two-party political system in the US for that matter. Given it’s an apparently both systemic AND endemic, I suppose we either ascribe it to sin or ask the evolutionary witch doctors to hypothesize why this behavior–and tribalism in general–has emerged as a biological categorical imperative.
Zack – you’ve hit on some truth here. As I look across the Baptist blogosphere, I see the same 100 names or so on each side of this debate popping in and out with piercing missiles of human intellect, gut-wrenching words of rebuke, arrogant opinions of mere men, condescending knock-outs of those who love Christ, and my occasional wisdom ;^). Only a couple hundred folks out of 16 million Southern Baptists (OK, 6-8 million actually) continue to stir the pot while the middle multitude go about their business. If the SBC leadership could come up with an effective way to shun these marginal voices, perhaps we could put an end to this nonsense. And, yes, you are right in the Scripture you quote … there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to soteriological debate. Debating is not preaching the Gospel – that is where we are missing the mark with our voluminous cyber attacks on each other.
Max,
you don’t need the leadership… just stop reading blogs.
But, what would you’all do without my wisdom?!
Choices choices.
And Max it’s y’all.
Suspicious minds, as Elvis would say, on both sides.
I would have considered the word “superstitious” as a thoughtful replacement–though both scandalous and borderline slander–for suspicious. Though in this case the two words would be synonyms. Which is the ONLY use I can think of that makes those two words mean roughly the same thing. Go figure…
Greg,
Ha ha. Maybe superstitious too. BTW, I could have cited Waylon and Jesse for this one.
But the words might apply a little:
“We’re caught in a trap
I can’t walk out [of the SBC and don't want to]
Because I love you too much baby [well...]
Why can’t you see
What you’re doing to me
When you don’t believe a word I say?
We can’t go on together
With suspicious minds (suspicious minds)
And we can’t build our dreams
On suspicious minds”
Les,
That was Elvis, you American Music Dwarf-Minded Monkey.
cb,
I’ve been called a lot of things, many of which are unfit to post here, but never an “American Music Dwarf-Minded Monkey.” There seem to always be “firsts” right?
But I assume you’ve seen Waylon and Jessi do this, have you not? I first heard them back in the 1980s on “The Outlaws” cd. It’s a great cd cb if you don’t have it.
Give a look and listen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y12hUoa98rE
Les,
I am impressed that you remember the Outlaws: Waylon, Willie, Jerry Jeff, Tom Paul, and of course Jessi. Therefore, I shall retract the Dwarf and just leave the Monkey since you are an admitted Auburn Fan.
BTW, Jessi loved Ole Waylon ’til the very end, still believing; “You Hung The Moon, Didn’t You Waylon?”
cb, I know you’re going by memory here but I do have to correct you. It was Waylon, Willie, Jessi and Tompall. I’ve listened to it scores of times.
You’re forgiven for the faux pau since you Tide fans have defective memories lately…forgetting the DuBose-Franchione-Shula era and the dismal records. It’s like they never happened according to some Tiders.
BTW, one cannot say nothing good ever comes from being on The Plains. That is where I was when I discovered The Outlaws.
Also BTW, playing Tompall singing “Put Another Log on the Fire” is always a good way to offend the politically correct women you may encounter.
Les,
Your mention of that song brings back the memory of my wife, after my singing it only once in her presence, banned it for life from our home, property, and automobile trips, with the consequences being, if she heard it; My Happy Man status would be severely limited with only a slight possibility of repentance.
cb,
“Your mention of that song brings back the memory of my wife…”
Well, even worse here brother. My wife absolutely hates country music. This even after I treated her to 3 hours of Conway Twitty bliss in Montgomery back when we were dating and Hank Jr. (also in Montgomery) after we were married. I don’t understand!
And, the Hank Jr. concert also included Merle Kilgore! What more can a guy do for a woman?
Les,
I think you are on to something there. Back then, it seems that educated women liked their music to be from those sissy boys like Englebert Humperdink (sp), Tom Jones, Barry Manilow, and that goofy John Denver and the like.
And another thing; Puttin’ mange medicine on a ‘Coon dog in the kitchen didn’t go over too well either. Women’s funny about some things.
cb,
Confession time. I actually went to see Barry Manilow in 1976. I know. But…in college. A girl wanted to go see Barry. So I went.
I understand Les.
I had to endure John Denver, but I drew the line at Lionel Ritchie and Tony Orlando. Back then, if I had seen a “Yellow Ribbon” tied to the Oak tree in our yard, I would have just turned around gone on back to Central America.
Raise your hand if you are surprised that in the effort to exclude those who didn’t accept Scripture as authoritative that we precipitated a war (albeit a relatively minor one involving merely words–over what those authoritative words mean…
Zack,
Well not all C’s are angry and splitting churches.
Not all Trads are trying to attack C’s.
But when painting with a broad brush, when you don’t have to, shows that what you state is not your true motive [or you are simply being incompetent]. [Not you personally but i am speaking generally].
So there are some who are causing division.
Now certainly there are aggressive ‘C’ pastors who are wreaking havoc on the sheep they are called to shepherd. These men are causing divisions at the local level. This problem is one that should be addressed by each independent church where that problem is. It is not a problem that can be addressed by this blog or by the convention as a whole.
But there is also those causing division at the convention level. This is what can and should be addressed by the convention and by committees and by blogs.
And it seems to me that those who are causing the division at the convention level are using problems at the church level to confuse the issue and cause confusion in the debate.
Theologically, on some points, we all disagree with everyone else. But some sets-of-points are in sharp contrast with other sets-of-points and those people causing division seemingly wish a battle to take place, not on the theological level, but on a political level, which is why they are using inappropriate means [local congregations with certain problems] to further their agenda.
Satisfaction and contention may not be the end goal we should be seeking if satisfaction and contention means we all agree theologically.
But the question is, [or should be] Can we work together to further the Gospel despite our disagreements, some sharp, some not?
But I do not think those causing division have that goal in mind.
Was the Septuagint inspired and inerrant?
I was predestined.
HOW THE COOPERATIVE MIDDLE MAY ASSERT ITSELF
Dave Miller states:
R. Albert Mohler stated the following at the SBC in NOLA:
Both men are positing the same solution. The extremists are driving this debate, and, unless marginalized, they will split the SBC. In my humble estimation, our leadership needs to step to the plate and do the following:
A) Identify the Extremists
Extreme non-Calvinists (namely those who are now dogmatically identifying themselves as “Traditionalists”) may be identified by the following:
1. Calling for the expulsion of Calvinists from leadership positions within the SBC
2. Accusing all Calvinists of teaching contra the BF&M
3. Calling for the withholding of CP funds to supposed “Calvinistic” entities
4. Calling for “denominational proportionality” in relation to Calvinism
5. Calling for a revision of the BF&M
Here’s the good news: Once identified, these non-Calvinist (Traditionalist) extremists are so few in number they can all be place in a thimble and room will remain for inserting one’s thumb.
Extreme Calvinists may be identified by the following:
1. Preaching Calvinism rather than the Word of God
2. Intentionally misleading pastor-search committees
3. Intentionally splitting SB churches over the issue of Calvinism
4. Refusing to work with non-Calvinist Southern Baptists
5. Denying the necessity of the Great Commission
Here’s the good news: Once identified, these Calvinistic extremists are so few in number they can all be place in a thimble and room will remain for inserting one’s thumb.
B) Marginalize the Extremists
This may be accomplished by doing the following:
1. Those who are spiritual among us should go to the extremists on both sides and reprove them privately with the intention of restoring them from the clutches of extremism.
2. In the event the extremists remain unrepentant, identify the extremists on both sides by name. Stop dancing, stop using innuendo, stop claiming personal knowledge without supplying factual data, including names, dates, offences, etc. NAME THE EXTREMISTS.
3. Appeal to the entire Convention to pursue these named extremists by calling them to repentance and cooperation.
4. In the event the extremists still remain unrepentant, warn all of the churches of the Convention, in writing, of the divisiveness of these brothers, recommending that they not be given pastoral or entity positions.
5. Trust the churches of the Convention to make wise and biblically-informed decisions concerning these extremists.
To the leaders within the SBC I say this: Do this now, and God may well use you to avert a massive split in the SBC. Refuse to do this, and the Convention will split within the next five years.
Randall, careful. You’re making some sense here brother.
Well, thanks Les. But I think you can see how little traction an actual solution gets when it calls for more than mere rhetoric.
On my way to work a few mornings ago, for a reason that God knows, I didn’t turn off my radio. I generally listen to Bible CDs in the morning and Hannity on my way home. The local host was sharing some statistics on death and what the chances were of dying in specific situations. As he went through his litany of how many people die from dog bites, bee stings, lightening strikes, asteroid landings, etc. etc, I just kept thinking about the stats about how many people in our city are dying without Jesus. Think about it. Eighty percent of Siouxland is unchurched. Of the twenty percent who are churched, how many really know Jesus and have relationship with Him? What would those statistics really look like?
I have a real tendency to be tough on the church today and I pray that the Lord keep me from a critical spirit, even while I pray I have the courage to share what the Lord shows me. I judge the church against the Word of God with a grieving heart because of all our foolishness. We have forgotten the holiness and righteousness of God.
We have wind bags sitting around trying hard to volley their knowledge and micro manage the work that belongs to Holy Spirit. We all know them. They are the ones who think they should be running the church and are quick to give counsel to God and most certainly to us. They like the visibility of leadership but aren’t so anxious to serve.
Then we have those time wasting and destructive arguments about Calvinism and Armenianism that split and divide the church. How dumb is that? Can’t we simply say, “Yes God does know who will receive Him and who won’t, but we don’t know . . .therefore we have been given the Great Commission.” Let’s take care of it!
We have (followers of Jesus?) who nurse grudges and unforgiveness and take every opportunity to blast another believer who has ruffled their feathers in some way. At the sake of judging myself, we judge each other harshly but rarely come alongside those with whom we have issue to “parent’ or “mentor” or isn’t that what it means to “disciple”? Isn’t discipleship about modeling and teaching all of the Messiah’s ways?
The vast majority of people in the church find the thought of Christ returning offensive while the world they are living in is quickly swirling toward the abyss. Our seminaries are teaching a symbolic platform for the Bible verses an inerrant and literal Word of God and instead of literal interpretation as God wrote the scriptures, in man’s wisdom, he tries to rewrite that lesser man can understand his own interpretation. Stadium churches filled with thousands teach a corrupted gospel that strives to avoid offending man but worries not about offending God . . .
Come Holy Spirit we need you. Come Holy Spirit we pray. Come in Your strength and Your power. Come in Your own special way. Come like a spring in the desert. Come to the weary of soul. Lord, let Your sweet healing power, touch us and make us whole.
This week on the news, there was a Hindu woman on Fox telling about her wonderful life after death experience and how we were all created primarily to find “ourselves”. I believe the Spirit of the Lord said clearly that this was one more deception to add to the list. Soon we will be seeing many things that appear to be “signs and wonders” that will deceive many in the church. Many in the pulpits.
Could that be because so many are seeking an “experience” rather than seeking God? Or could that be because in the name of tolerance, the Church has blurred the lines and holds to a form of religion but denies the power of Christ. Why some even invite false gods into the sanctuaries in the name of reaching out to others and embracing the commonalities between religions.
I praise God every day for sincere servants of Yeshua HaMashiach (Does that offend you?) Whether you call Him Yeshua or whether you call Him Jesus doesn’t matter unless you have secret bias against His people. But what does matter is that you call Him Lord. Is he Lord or have our lives become so filled with idols that we resemble Rome at the time of Constantine? Was Constantine ever converted or did he just dump Jesus in with the rest of the gods of Rome?
The message of the prophets of ancient days is the same message that the real prophets of today are preaching. It is a message of repentance and returning to Jesus. And our marching orders haven’t changed either. They are “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” I want to share the following devotion with you. I pray that the Church will begin to pray that Holy Spirit have His way in our lives and in our churches today. That’s where the real power is. I was strolling through Acts 8 and the story of Simon. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we’d get our focus back on Jesus as well as our dependency and that so many would be saved and baptized that even the deceivers would believe and be saved!!
Just a sista commenting on the walls!
But one who sincerely believes Jesus is coming soon, and like the original Jews . ..the Church is risking missing Him because we are fast asleep. Holy Spirit fall upon Your people. Make us hungry again, really hungry. Pierce the veil of our blindness. Remind us that every day we wake up, we have opportunity to speak life to someone who is dying without Jesus. Help us focus on the issues that aren’t disputable – the essential doctrines of our faith – so that we might once again be worthy to be called Disciples. in Jesus name, I pray. Amen.
Thanks for allowing me to share!
Dave,
On your second point, “Call angry voices to the carpet.” I couldnt agree more. As it was about a year ago that I challenged noncalvinists to “Start Naming Names” of all the angry calvinists they keep talking about. A year later, I am still waiting.
Chris Roberts is an angry Calvinist, Matt Svoboda.
No, he is not an angry Calvinist. . . or an angry anything else.
He is a Christian man whose convictions are deep and he has a fierce passion about his convictions. However, because so few Christian men have his kind of conviction about their faith in this culture, his passion is often perceived as anger by those in whom the fires of their convictions has grown cold.
May his tribe increase.
There is a distinction between “passionate” and “angry.” I’ve only run into a few “angry Calvinists” on blog boards, and they either get banned, go into moderation, or don’t stick around long enough to make a cogent statement of any kind (some of them seem to be into “drive by’s”).
Chris Roberts is not, in my estimation, in any of those categories. He is reasonable, articulate, logical, and scriptural in his approach. While I disagree with some of his concepts and conclusions, and I sometimes cringe at how he comes across (just as I’ve read my own comments and cringed at times), I’ve found him to be anything but angry in his approach. Though he is thoroughly convinced of what he believes and is willing to call it like he sees it (he and I once went round and round over the SP thing), he is a man to be respected for his convictions.
I am not a Calvinist. I disagree with him on some things. But I’ve never considered him to be angry about his Calvinism.
That’s the way we should speak about our brothers and sisters, even if we disagree with them. Well done, C.B.
Zeal sometimes comes across as anger. It would do us all good to pause occasionally to examine ourselves … to see if our passion has perhaps been misplaced. Contending for the faith without being contentious is a tough balance to hit, particularly when contention is fueled by the flames of debate. We all think we have a corner on the truth until the Truth corners us.
The debates will continue. There will be those on both sides of the aisle. But in the meantime, let us be diligent to approach His throne of grace and lead others to that throne – whether we are C’s or A’s or middle-of-the-roads.
Dave, I appreciate your blog and all of these brethren (and “sisteren”) who comment.
I am not sure if anyone is still perusing this particular post but I have a couple of observations.
1. The charge has been made that some Calvinists are dishonest about their doctrine in order to get a job. I have been interviewed for pastoral positions in which I was asked if I was a “Calvinist.” My answer was, what do you mean by that? When the told me what they meant, my answer was that if that was what they meant by “Calvinist,” the answer was “No.” Was I being dishonest? I don’t think so. According to their faulty definition, I am not a Calvinist at all. That leads me to my second observation.
2. I have noticed very little definition of terms in these discussions. I think it would be a good idea to make a concerted effort to define what we mean by the terms we use. We might find we have greater agreement than we may have thought.
I agree. We need to define terms clearly for our churches as so much of the debates are skewed beyond recognition by those who “hear” these things but do know what these things “mean.”
So I suppose it’s kind of like Bill Clinton’s testimony at his impeachment: “It depends on what your definition of is is.”
With the difference being that in this case, a term which should have a clear definition (Calvinism) unfortunately does not since so many have mudled the term. Take, for instance, the executive director in Mississippi, Jim Futral, who delivered a missive against Calvinism shortly before the national Convention. His words were a bold distortion, presenting something that is not Calvinism, along the lines of what happens over and over at SBC Today. If that is what people hear and understand Calvinism to be, there is no wonder the folks in the SBC are confused about it and similarly no wonder some people are skittish about using the label.
There was once a time when “gay” was understood to mean a happy person, yet we do not expect many happy people to embrace the label “gay” these days due to other meanings that have become attached to the term. The label Calvinism means something specific, yet too often its specific meaning is not what comes to mind when people hear of it.
Chris,
“along the lines of what happens over and over at SBC Today. If that is what people hear and understand Calvinism to be, there is no wonder the folks in the SBC are confused about it…”
This is so right. Just in recent days someone commented over there that the moderator there has said that he really has not studied much on the doctrines of grace. So no wonder there is a lack of clarity.
Sorry, Chris, but I find “deception by definition” to be a poor excuse for simply giving a deceptive answer. I recognize the point you’re making.
My issue is with those who would say, “Well if that’s what you mean by Calvinist then I’m not one.” Be honest. Own up to it. State what you believe when asked the question. Correct the misconception, but never, and I mean NEVER, should a man who is interviewing for a pastoral position intentionally avoid the question or answer it the way he thinks the people want him to just because he has a different definition than those with whom he is interviewing. That is wrong, and I would hope that there would be more honesty, integrity, and transparency to his life and ministry than that. If not, then he doesn’t deserve that church’s consideration because he will lie about other things as well.
When asked, “Are you a Calvinist?”, tell them that you are and then define what you mean by the term. If they like what they hear it won’t be a problem.
Dale,
Understood and somewhat agreed – one should always be clear about his theology. While a man is not obligated to go out of his way to disclose things not asked by a search committee, if the committee asks specifically about Calvinism, the man would be wise to explain what he believes, perhaps taking a moment to tell why that differs from the common notions about Calvinism.
In my own experience, my first church interview after seminary was a small Mississippi church that did not ask the Calvinism question, I took the initiative to disclose it and you could have heard a pin drop, the room got so quiet. What had been a wonderful interview process quickly turned cold. I never heard from them again, not even a “thanks but no thanks” call. A friend was their interim at the time (actually, the man who baptized me into the SBC and later ordained me) and was very frustrated that they would not even ask me what I meant and what I believed. The label was enough – they did not care what I meant by it.
Thank you for your integrity. I doubt that’s where you needed to be if that was the response.
Praying for you as you open God’s Word before people today.
Chris said “While a man is not obligated to go out of his way to disclose things not asked by a search committee…”
Wrong! A potential Pastor must be completely transparent, even if he has some pragmatic reservations about the result of that transparency. Rather, especially if he has some pragmatic reservations about the result of that transparency. Anything less is deception…
Donald,
We need to discuss the difference between “complete transparency” (which even that isn’t true, by the way) and “taking the initiative to self-disclose”. If asked about theology, I think a pastor should be completely honest in his answers. If not asked, he is not obligated to take the initiative to bring things up.
Wrong, Chris. He should ask them their about their theology and explain his as best he can in the short amount of time involved in the interview process. That’s the right thing to do.
I’ll let that be my last comment on this thread as this has gone on long enough. I’m sure we’ll pick it up elsewhere.
Dale,
He should ask about theology where it is most relevant. No interview process can cover every aspect of theology – nor should it. As it happens, I came into my current church knowing I hold some beliefs that some in the church would find disturbing (even beyond Calvinism) yet I said nothing about it. These are not central areas of my focus, nor are they central areas of the church’s focus, so I didn’t see them as worth bringing up. Conversely, though I suspect I might be a bit strongly opinionated about my Calvinism, my interest is not so much whether or not the church is Calvinistic as whether or not they will accept Calvinists.
“I came into my current church knowing I hold some beliefs that some in the church would find disturbing (even beyond Calvinism) yet I said nothing about it.” – Chris Roberts
At least you got the job…
“At least you got the job…”
Indeed. And a little over four years later, things are still going great.
“Indeed. And a little over four years later, things are still going great.”
I can see why you dodged a bit when the subject of Pastors not being open about their theology came up earlier. Pragmatism is a huge temptation.
Could you please provide us with a Biblical defense of this philosophy? It sure would make it a lot easier for tons of potential pastors to hide inconvenient theological positions.
Donald,
?
Has any pastor _ever_ agreed with his church members about everything? For myself, if any of the disagreements were strong enough to be serious, I would not have come to the church. For them, if they saw these as serious enough issues, they would have asked. Neither of us saw these as significant enough issues (even Calvinism wasn’t significant to them since they did not ask, though I brought it up). It seems we were right – we’ve yet to have a theological fight in the church. Friendly disagreements, yes, but unity is intact.
Exactly, Duckman Dale.
An honest answer would have been to explain his position in answer to the question. However, he played word games. The man’s answer was dishonest. He acted without integrity. There is really no sustainable argument that he was anything otherwise no matter one’s soteriological position.
Those of us who are called of God to shepherd the flocks of God are to do so as honorable men, using our gifts to prove ourselves to be examples to the flock. Therefore, we are not to willfully deceive them. To not answer a question as to one’s soteriological position, especially in the highly charged climate in which we find ourselves, is a revelation of a deceitful heart and ministerial malpractice.
Well, let me posit this scenario and ask what you think?
Because some people do in fact misrepresent Calvinists, I’ve thought if I were ever asked that question that I would answer it like this–”I’m not sure what you mean when you say Calvinist. Why don’t I tell you exactly what I believe (and then do just that) and you tell me if I’m a Calvinist according to your definition”. And then go about explaining exactly what I believe.
Would something like that work, do you think, cb?
Joe,
I believe your concept is an honorable way to deal with such questions. Actually, it may be entirely the only way to deal with such issues. I recently went through a very similar thing myself with a local church.
JOE, you’re starting to sound like me
Chris Roberts said “Afraid I have to differ once again. “New Calvinism” is nothing more than a label some have given to Calvinists who are not content to sit at the back of the bus.”
Chris,
Such charged language from “Mr. Unity” is why you are perceived as part of the problem. Your history is of one being on the attack. Think back to your adamant instance that those who signed the Trad statement were semi-Pelagian…despite being disproven by the definition of the term. Remember your false accusations against Peter L., for which you refuse to repent. On this post, notice how you wish to simply dismiss the testimony of CB Scott, despite his lifetime of credibility. And in the post that I quoted you have chosen the language of Racism to use against those who oppose your agenda. I have sent you names of churches in my area either split or damaged by Calvinist pastors who hid their agenda from the church, as well as the contact info for the DOM. Do you really care about the truth in this matter, or are you simply in pursuit of an agenda?
Moderator, if I have crossed the line please delete my post. Thanks.
Donald,
“Such charged language from ‘Mr. Unity’ is why you are perceived as part of the problem.”
An amusing nickname, and I am sorry some perceive the pursuit of truth and true unity as part of the problem. I don’t want any side to back down from their argument of what the Bible teaches and I believe there is a way to be adamant in our claims while united in our work, but I will not tolerate the slander of the sort leveled time again from the likes of Calvinism’s aggressive opponents in the SBC.
“Think back to your adamant instance that those who signed the Trad statement were semi-Pelagian…despite being disproven by the definition of the term.”
Except I was never proven wrong – the Statement is semi-Pelagian as I demonstrated time and time again.
“Remember your false accusations against Peter L., for which you refuse to repent.”
? Which false accusations would that be?
“On this post, notice how you wish to simply dismiss the testimony of CB Scott, despite his lifetime of credibility.”
You mean when I ask for actual evidence? Am I to be faulted for wanting proof? I gather you would have Calvinists simply accept the word of others while sheepishly hanging our heads in submission?
“Do you really care about the truth in this matter, or are you simply in pursuit of an agenda?”
Aren’t you the one who told me not to worry about digging for truth and simply accept what others say?
Well, there you go…
Chris Roberts said – “Except I was never proven wrong – the Statement is semi-Pelagian as I demonstrated time and time again.”
“The crucial point for semi-Pelagians is that human beings retain the ability to desire God, to seek God, to pursue salvation through an act of the free will without God first operating on the human heart.” – also said by Chris Roberts
“We deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel” – The Traditional Statement
Compare “free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing” vs “through an act of free will without God first operating on the human heart”. The Traditional Statement echoes the belief of its authors and signers — we all believe that no one achieves salvation without a pre-salvific work of the Holy Spirit. He must draw for us to respond. This is NOT an act of free will, this is NOT initiation by man but by God. A free response is NOT the same thing as an initiating act of free will. The Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel is NOT the same as a free will response to hearing the Gospel (as this would leave out the pre-salvific work of the Holy Spirit and thus would be in error).
Donald,
The Spirit’s drawing does not contradict what I said about semi-Pelagianism. It fits quite well within a semi-Pelagian system, as I showed time and again beyond the single sentence you quoted from me.
The drawing of the Holy Spirit is not the same as a free-will initiation of salvation by man. Despite your construct of soft commonalities, your charge does not stand.
I understand that you have gone to a lot of work to redefine semi-pelagian outside of its “crucial point”, but less that defining characteristic you have a useless definition, or in your case — useful against anyone who denies original guilt.
Donald,
Many computer bytes have already been spilt over this, including more by you and I via email, I really am not interested in rehashing it all again, so I’ll say my last with this nutshell:
The Traditionalist Statement speaks of the Spirit’s drawing but never defines what is meant by the drawing of the Spirit. The best I can gather from other things that have been said by the folks of SBC Today, the drawing of the Spirit is a kind of wooing, beckoning, attracting, etc – it is God’s inviting people to himself while trying to show the seriousness of sin and the beauty of the gospel. This is not in the least incompatible with semi-Pelagianism. The key is this: in the Statement, the Spirit’s drawing does not involve changing a person so that he is able to respond to the gospel. Natural man is able to see God as good, salvation as desirable, himself as a sinner, etc, without God first having to change his heart. That is semi-Pelagianism.
It is illustrated well with the old preacher’s illustration: “Come now and be saved. Come to Christ. See how he calls for you. See how he invites you to come. Hear him knocking at the door of your heart. He is waiting for you to come. You do not have to do much. He will save you. Just reach out your hand, and he will take hold of you and secure you.”
That kind of language is what I take the Statement to mean by the Spirit’s drawing, and that kind of language is fully compatible with semi-Pelagianism. God invites you, God woos you, God calls you, but God does nothing to change you _until after_ you make a decision, you choose him, you pursue him, etc. Salvation begins with God in the sense that he makes the first offer – but at the same time, salvation is seen as beginning with us because we must move toward God before he does anything to actually apply salvation to our lives. Wooing is not salvation. Beckoning is not salvation. Jesus’ universal death for all people may be necessary for salvation, but it actually applies salvation to no one – it saves no one, it just makes salvation possible. No one is saved until that person chooses Christ – which means the person makes the first move to initiate his own salvation. That is semi-Pelagian and that is affirmed by the Statement.
And that’s all I’ll say about that.
Chris,
This is the best summary of the problems with the statement. You really get to the heart of the problem that no one of the supporters have really adequately responded to. The statement leaves a little bit of spiritual life in each person contra to what the bible teaches.
Haven’t we beaten this to death long enough?
Comments on this entry are closed.