The book Whosoever Will, the collection of essays from the infamous “Whosoever Will” conference, is officially on sale and the book is on back order.
Let’s be clear : It is absolutely fine with me that these men put on this conference and now are publishing their book. I’m a Southern Baptist, they are free to do what they will.
But, let’s just call a spade a spade. If Tom Ascol, James White, Al Mohler, Matt Chandler, and many other “leading SBC Calvinists” got together to do a conference to promote Calvinism within the SBC and to denounce non-calvinistic theology, they would be called every name in the book and it would be considered “divisive.”
I can hear it now- the very men who did this conference/book and its supports would be irate charging the calvinists with “dividing the SBC.” Yet, anyone who speaks against this conference/book is considered “an angry ‘dortian’ Calvinist.”
The “Whosoever Will” conference/book is considered a good thing for the SBC, but if it was the other way around it would be considered hateful and divisive. In my opinion, both would be great- they are mere expressions of our Baptist freedom. SBC Calvinists should be able to get together to promote Calvinistic theology within the SBC, just as non-calvinists have done.
Part of our Baptist identity is that we have the freedom to do these things. Sadly, we are so insecure and hateful towards one another that when a group exercises their Baptist freedom we act petty by calling each other names and pointing fingers.
All in all, I am glad the “Whosoever Will” conference and book exist… It would also be nice to see a “He Who Believes” conference and book. Oh, the day that both could exist within the SBC without hate and pettiness being involved!
Dave Miller (97)
Debbie Kaufman (54)
Rick Patrick (49)
dr. james willingham (32)
Christiane (31)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
Bob Hadley (30)
Chris Roberts (30)
Frank (30)
Amen.
I was thinking mabye we should write a “Whosoever Won’t” book or do a John 6:44 conference….hmmmm
Also remember the timing of all this. As I recall, the John 3:16 conference was announced not long before the Building Bridges conference took place. Calvinists (including Founders) & non-Calvinists got together at the Building Bridges conference to discuss the similarities and differences of Calvinist & non-Calvinist Baptists. Also discussed were ways for us to continue to cooperate and walk alongside one another.
This didn’t fly with some Baptists who evidently didn’t like the idea of Calvinists & non-Calvinists cooperating in Baptist life. Thus the John 3:16 conference was born and, from where I stand, appeared to be the die-hard non-Calvinist response to the Building Bridges conference, a call to Baptists that Baptists shouldn’t be Calvinists.
I would just urge caution on trying to read a response into a question that has not even been raised yet. “He Who Believes” has not yet been written, and no objections have been raised to it, either; so, we must be particularly careful. While “He Who Believes” hasn’t been written, one can hardly blame the contributors of “Whosever Will” for that! Also, (and I could be wrong), it seems the implication of paragraph 4 (and the beginning of 5) is that the contributors of “Whosoever Will” are someway or another inconsistent, and maybe even hypocritical. Please let me know if I misinterpreted.
Josh,
Im not saying the people who partook in the conference/book are hypocritical. What I am saying is that there is somewhat of a double standard in the SBC. When Calvinists speak in a pro-calvinism within the SBC way they are often times blamed as being “divisive” while conferences like “Whosoever Will” are not looked upon as “divisive.” I am saying let both sides have their conferences/books without pointing the “divisive” finger at one another and thus, making them hypocrites.
Checking the preview on Amazon I already see atleast one statement that disappoints. About John 3:16 Vines writes,
This doesn’t make sense since Calvinism teaches “whosoever believes.” This statement seems to assume that some how “whosoever believes” is opposed to “Christ dying only for the elect.” A Calvinist might say that “whosoever believes” is actually a support for their position since they say only the elect will believe.
To be fair, he also writes that John 3:16 responds to Arminianism which says that God only gives life conditionally. I’m curious what Vines objection to this conditional approach is.
Agreed. Double standard. I’ll tell you what else is a double standard. If this would’ve been a Calvinistically-leaning conference we’d have free access to the conference audio. Just sayin’. Anyone know where mp3′s of these addresses can be found? I only saw a CD set for $40 and a DVD set for $55.
Yep… I actually wish I could listen to the sermons, but Im to poor.
Matt,
I did not see the John 3:16 Conference as being “infamous.” I guess infamous can be in the eye of the beholder.
I believe in books and encourage both sides to have at it. But “Whosoever Will” by Allen and Lemke is a great defense and explanation of what non-Calvinists believe. Or, you could use the terms mild-Calvinist or non 5-point Calvinist.
I would encourage everyone to read “Whosoever Will” before they condemn it. Some of it they may find very surprising. For example, it is surprising to see the number of famous Calvinists who seem to have believed Jesus died for all humanity.
By the way, Frank Page also wrote a good, brief book on this subject, “Trouble With The Tulip.”
On the other hand, it seems to me that Baptist Press has been giving favorable coverage for years to founders meetings during the annual Southern Baptist Convention.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
To be clear- this post was in no way a condemnation of the book.
David,
Yes, there are Calvinists who affirm that Christ died for all. However, even this view is not monolithic. Some may say Christ died for all yet only atoned for the elect. Or that Christ died for all in some sense. Is there anyone who denies this? I’ve seen you around the blogs commenting about Calvinism so I surprised for you to make that statement as if it is something new.
In the same manner, there is not just one position of what “non-Calvinists believe.” So I’m not sure what you mean about what Allen and Lemke present concerning what non-Calvinists believe.
I wonder how much interaction is in the book of what today’s baptist Calvinists believe. I saw some references to Anabaptists in the book too. I’m curious what is said about them.
FYI, baptist pastor Jeff Riddle reviewed Dr. Page’s book.
Let’s talk double standards.
BFM 2000 clearly teaches Arminian theology. That means that we shouldn’t have Calvinists as missionaries and we should disfellowship churches who promote Calvinism. But we wouldn’t dream of actually implementing that.
But when it comes to the roles of women…
Baptist freedom? In the SBC? Ha. You are only free if it’s a few issues. Everything else you had better goose-step along with everyone else. Please stop demanding freedom for yourself while denying it to others. That is the double standard.
Chris,
With third tier issues we are free. Of course we dont allow freedom on first and second tier issues.
Calvinism is a third tier issues and their should be freedom. Justification by faith alone is a first issue and their shouldn’t be freedom. Women pastors is a second tier issue and their shouldn’t be freedom- same as Baptist. First tier issues are what make us Chrsitians, second tier issues are what make us conservative Baptists, and third tier issues are are free game for everyone.
Your point about the BFM2000- are you kidding?
Chris,
In case you weren’t kidding… Which I hope you are because if you’re not is shows you either don’t know what Calvinists really believe or you haven’t read the BFM2000.
The BFM200 is purposely written so that calvinistic and arminian people can affirm every word. BFM2000 does not address third tier issues. Its a good statement of faith because it deals well with first and second tier issues, while wording things in such a way that it doesn’t not exclude people who disagree on third tier issues.
There is no double standard in the BFM2000- not even close.
Matt,
I can’t affirm the BFM 2000, nor the 63, their perspective is clearly the opposite of the 25.
Have you ever compared them?
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp
I have to agree with Chris. Compare them. Not only do the later two destroy the doctrines of the fall but in regeneration, regeneration is the result, not the requisite of repentance.
I know this is a disputed area. But I cannot, especially knowing the authors of the 63 and of the 2000 (Mohler I think compromised his own position for the sake of peace) find the commonality.
We?? Who is “We”, CBF boy? You go where to seminnary? Not to a bible believing seminary like Southern or Southwestern. And what was that you said to CB about there being no reason to believe Adam and Eve were the first humans created? And didn’t you say as long as a church’s constitution didn’t forbid you from doing so you would allow practicing homosexuals to be members? You’ve even more left of center than Don Quixote in OK. If you’re trying to sell that you’re a real Southern Baptist, I don’t think anyone who has read what you’ve written (especially over at Don Quixote’s blog) is gonna buy it.
nicely said Chris!!!
Somebody posted about Calvinists & non-Calvinists et. al. getting along. Try this: Jerry Fawell, Jr. is one of the first to sue the Feds over O’Bama’s Healthcare. Jerry Fawell Jr. is the main speaker for the prayer breakfast for the NRA’s annual meeting in May in Charlotte, NC. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the NRA spent today with Senator Harry Reid in Nevada and without whose assistance O’Bama’s Healthcare would not have passed. Does anybody feel like their support is being mis-used? A little bit? By Somebody? Don’t be duped or mis-lead. Ask the hard questions and then explain it to someone!
Mark,
“Whosoever Will” by Allen & Lemke does present different Calvinist views of Limited Atonement. Again, I think both sides (many, perhaps not all) will find very interesting their quotes of well-known Calvinists about Jesus dying for all. I think some will also feel that way about their quotes concerning regeneration before faith.
David R. Brumbelow
Lemke has repeatedly demonstrated his inability to be fair in his representations of calvinism. His white paper on calvinism is just poor scholarship.
Interesting how people can twist facts to suit their own agenda.
I am continually amazed that people think Calvinists don’t believe John 3:16 or “whosoever will”, as if we believe God turns people away who wish to follow Him. Good grief. Thankfully the anti-Calvinist wing of the SBC, though shrill and persistent, is not large.
I don’t think the kick against Calvinists in the SBC is that they are divisive, but rather that they have an insidious plot to take over the SBC. Tom Ascol is one of the most gracious and gifted men in the SBC, yet to hear what some blogs say about him you would expect to see him with horns and a pitchfork.
Calvinists do seek to convince people that their view is correct: JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!!! And yet we don’t hear accusations against non-Calvinists that they are trying to take over the SBC.
Good point, but blogs rip folks of every possible position.
This is all very interesting and good, but it needs to be informed by the fact that Calvinists can be more evangelistic and pressing for souls than the most Arminian soul-winner. Our problem is that the knowledge of how Sovereign Grace Evangelism works has been forgotten, and, since it is no longer taught by hardly any institution or even Sovereign Grace leaders, few have any idea how to practice it. You all might start with Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Pressing into the Kingdom.” Years ago, I heard a calvinist preach on the subject, “Ten Things a Sinner can do.” My own ordaining pastor preached on the subjects, “Why Sit Ye Here Till Ye Die” and “The Great Supper.” I have a tract somewhere in my collection that was printed in the US aroun 1810 titled, “The Dairyman’s Daughter;” it was a soul winning tract from the Sovereign Grace Perspective. I also have Thomas Boston’s Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. That work was instrumental in the conversion of J.L. Dagg, the first Southern Baptist to publish a work on theology. O yes, stop fussing about being accused of trying to take over the SBC. With a president of a seminary holding to Sovereign Grace along with a number of professors in severa institutions, things are going about as we want, namely, that we are seeking to win back Southern Baptists to their roots without any disruption. Remember Sovereign Grace leaders were the people who led in the founding of this Convention, and, while it has drifted from its moorings to some degree, we are giving it some gentle nudges, trusting in the Lord’s gracious kindness to persuade our fellow Southern Baptists that the theology that produced the First and Second Great Awakenings, the launching of the Great Century of Missions, the winning of religious liberty, the liberal idea of educated and uneducated (but spiritually gifted) ministers working together, of the founding of our educational instutions, of eldresses, of calling other Protestants our pedo-baptists brethren, of uncompromising commitment to our principles without being mean spirited, of a wondrous winsomeness that involves being balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, charming, etc., is the way we are going to proceed, with the aim of seeking to win the whole world for at least a 1000 generations. I could perhaps say more, but it seems evident that the Lord Might be getting us ready for that Third Great Awakening which shall, indeed, win the whole world to Christ and that upon the freest of engagements, the most compassionate presentations and implementations of the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Dr. Willingham makes an interesting point concerning Evangelism. Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 3:6 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth.
I give the gospel, read words of scripture, I may water or someone else may come along and water by giving more gospel, more scripture, but we don’t have to nag, threaten, follow them around, keep coming back because it’s not us that gives the growth. It’s God. We can’t help but want to share the good news. It’s who we are. It’s no different than when we first fall in love, we can’t help but tell others. But we can rest and pray because God is the one who finishes the work. He is the one who changes the heart. So in that sense it may seem to non-Calvinists that we don’t believe in evangelism. We have smiles are on our faces and are just too darned relaxed in the process.
Bill,
I don’t have a problem with the so called “non-Calvinist” of the SBC. However, that is really a very bad way to identify oneself. Just tell me what you are and not what you are not. Saying you are a non-Calvinist does not tell me much of anything… I mean, Catholics and Mormons are also “non-Calvinist”, so just saying I am a non-Calvinist is really very insufficient.
If you have not heard a Calvinist say so before, let me be the first to say it… The: “Pugnacious Pelagianist”, the “Angry Arminian”, and the “Fighting Mad Free Will Baptist” are indeed attempting to take over the SBC by purging the SBC of all Calvinist, and they have been at this for several years now. Just listen to the Question and Answer session of the John 3:16 Conference and this will be clearly evident.
Grace Always,
Greg Alford
Hey, I knew you guys would want to know the following. The Southern Baptist Texan has a couple of articles online about the book, “Whosoever Will” by Allen & Lemke.
I’ll leave the Links to someone else, but you can find the articles at
texanonline.net
The articles are:
New essay book critiques Calvinism by David Roach
An effective response to Reformed theology by Editor Gary Ledbetter
There is an additional article on this general subject by Tammi Reed Ledbetter, Author offers biblical case for Molinism as middle way between Calvinism, Arminianism.
And for those who complain that the John 3:16 Conference materials were not distributed without charge – the articles at the Southern Baptist Texan website are free. Hope you’ll check them out.
David R. Brumbelow
Chris Ryan stated, “Let’s talk double standards. BFM 2000 clearly teaches Arminian theology. That means that we shouldn’t have Calvinists as missionaries and we should disfellowship churches who promote Calvinism. But we wouldn’t dream of actually implementing that.” Ever read Art. V?
“Whosoever Will” is an example of why I left the SBC for the Presb. Chruch in America. It follows the prescribed method: set up a straw man of Calvinism, knock down the straw man, declare victory, point out just how bad Calvinsits are since they enbrace the afore-mentioned straw-man perspective.
i wish many others would follow you example… Good Job!!!
this is just food for thought: is it possible that a post like this one is, ironically, but also unintentionally, promoting some divisiveness?
it seems the basic idea is this: i’m fine with the whosoever will conference, but calvinists wouldn’t get away with it!
is that, i don’t know, not a bit divisive? like i said, just food for thought. but it seems maybe the least divisive thing to do is for one to say, “hey, i’m a calvinist, but i’m totally okay with this conference.” then leave it at that. now that would speak volumes.
mike,
It is funny that you mention that… If you read my more recent post- “It is time to take off the mask” I actually came out and said that I changed my mind about this post and disagree with what I wrote! lol- God bless the blogosphere.
In my newer post I wrote that these conferences themselves were divisive… Rather what we need are conferences that Southern Baptists see people like Jerry Vines and Tom Ascol on the same stage.
in the words of a great american, “d’oh!” i should check it in more often and keep up on the down-low (?).
Comments on this entry are closed.