At the 2006 SBC Pastor’s Conference, Albert Mohler listed ways that all Southern Baptists are Calvinists:
- A belief in the inerrancy of Scripture – “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture. We really do believe that God can work in such a way that the human will wills to do what God wills that will to do. And that is exactly why we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. We do not believe that the Apostle Paul was irresistibly against his will drawn to write the Book of Romans.”
- A belief in the substitutionary atonement – “The logic of this doctrine fits only within the umbrella of a Calvinist scheme. The entire worldview in which substitution makes sense is a worldview in which the sovereignty of God and the righteousness of God and the saving purpose of God are vindicated in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
- Affirming the omniscience of God – “At the very least … God created this world knowing exactly who would come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us believe more than that, but certainly none of us here believes less than that. If that be so, then the precise identity of all the persons who would come to faith in Christ was known by the Father before the world was created.”
- A belief in the eternal security of the believer – “Once this work of salvation is accomplished in the life of a sinner, and that sinner is transformed by the grace and mercy of God, He can never fall away.”
Interesting thoughts from Dr. Mohler. As far back as we can see in Baptist history, there has been a rather strong divison between Arminian (General) and Calvinist (Particluar) Baptists. Calvinism is typically identified by the belief in unconditional election and those who oppose this doctrine lump all of Calvinism in with it.
The fact is, Baptists to a man (or woman) will affirm “once saved, always saved” without hesitation, yet blast Calvinists for their interpetation of predestination. We must be careful not to enter into a Calvinist/Arminian debate without truly realizing all parameters. Those who claim Arminianism must be clear on exactly what areas of Arminianism they confess. Agreeing with conditional security, for example, will certainly remove you from Baptist doctrine in and of itself. If you believe in eternal security, at some level you are a Calvinist.
That said, I pray that we would ultimately hold fast to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At times, we tend to go too far with our theologies and end up like the Particular Non-Evangelists or the General Universalists. A bit of sarcastic stereotyping, of course, but these early divisons gave Satan room to work and indeed he works through the same divisions today.
It seems like there are nuances that separate the different protestant denominations and yet we hold that you either are all calvinist or all Arminian. I find this to be laughable. Why do we try to pigeon hole people to fit in these stereotypes?
Why all Southern Baptist are Calvinist please
Jonathan,
It’s not really a stereotype if these are the foundational Southern Baptist interpretations of theology. If you don’t hold to Southern Baptist beliefs, how can you be a Southern Baptist?
Brandon, Interesting. Are you referencing the dialog between Drs. Patterson and Mohler? If so, were the four points above from Dr. Mohler’s closing statement? If not, I cannot imagine Dr. Patterson allowing Dr. Mohler to make unguarded assertions like the ones you listed above–unguarded, unless of course, the statements may reveal less vulnerability cast in their original framework. If I may but comment and question briefly: A) Are you suggesting the four theological beliefs above stem from Calvinism alone? Or, more properly, is that what you think Dr. Mohler was suggesting? If not, I am confused about your point. If… Read more »
Peter,
Yes, it was between he and Patterson.
Yes, both sides blast the other but this article is in the context of Arminians blasting Calvinists. My final paragraph, I thought, said BOTH should see the Gospel as highest priority.
Brandon,
Thanks. My being “lost on your point” concerning non-Calvinist Baptists “blasting” Calvinists for their interpretation of predestination is answered with “Yes, both sides blast the other but this article is in the context of Arminians blasting Calvinists”? O.K.
Well, what about the other, much more significant questions I asked: A) B), and D)?
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, Am I to understand that “no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture” means what it says on its face? That is, “no great Arminian testimonies” means exactly that: zero? If so, what ever happened to John Wesley, or is he neither considered “great” Peter, Peter, Peter… So glad you brought up the fact that your “great” Hero of the faith is not even a Baptist… but is indeed a “Methodist”… and not just any Methodist mind you, but the “Father of the Methodist Church”. I am shocked that a true “Conservative Baptist” like you (Peter I am)… Read more »
Greg, Once again, you misread, and your bias shines thru in your understanding of what was said. Peter was simply answering the statement of Brandon’s that “no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture” by saying that John Wesley did. Peter did not say that Wesley was his hero. Peter did not say that Wesley was a great example for SB’s to follow. And, Wesley was nothing like the liberal Methodist Church of today…so, where in the world did all that come from? lol. Your logic is so way out there, Greg, that it makes no sense whatsoever, Brother.… Read more »
David,
Excuse me, but these are Peter’s exact words:
what ever happened to John Wesley, or is he neither considered “great” nor “Arminian”?
Sounds like he admires John Wesley a lot to me… David, just because you don’t like my observations concerning Peter I Am’s Arminian Heroes is no reason to get all grumpy with me (you do this a lot I’ve noticed). Peter is the one who brought the issue up get grumpy with him… 🙂
Grace Always,
David,
Mohler made that statement about Arminians and inerrancy. I disagree with him.
Greg, If the post was about exclusive admiration for Baptists, my brother Greg, it completely shot by my right ear. Instead its proposition focused on four theological assertions which were “ways” all Southern Baptists were Calvinists. Now, Greg, if you can milk your cow about specific admiration for Baptists exclusively from Brandon’s herd, I invite you to do so. The irony you apparently overlooked in your quick-draw to gun me down, Greg, is that even if I were lifting up John Wesley as my great hero of faith who, as you put it, “is not even a Baptist… but is… Read more »
Peter,
A) No, I am well aware that Presbys and others believe in eternal security, but my point is that it’s a foundational doctrine of Calvin’s.
B) Mohler breached that line, not me. I disagree with him and am in agreement with you.
C) Six-principle Baptists were another group, I do believe.
D) Good questions, but I have no clue his intention.
Brandon, in at least a couple of places you have referred to “Southern Baptist beliefs” or “doctrines” or “theology.” Unless you take the perspective that the BF&M2K is indeed a binding creed, then the top-most authority for what is Southern Baptist belief, doctrine, or theology is the local church, and actually, then it is the belief, doctrine, or theology of the so-and-so Baptist Church rather than of Southern Baptists in general. What, in your view, defines Southern Baptist belief/doctrine/theology, and how can that apply unless the SBC is a hierachy in which the churches answer to their associations, the associations… Read more »
Greg, Your assertion was that Peter was saying that Wesley should be an example to all SB’s. That’s not what he said, at all, no where even close. Peter was answering the statement that there were “no Arminians that held to the inerrancy of the Bible.” Do you see the difference? You said that Peter was saying that Wesley was his “hero of the faith.” I never saw where Peter said that. He didnt mention Wesley as an Arminian that believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. BTW, Wesley is one of my hero’s. The man had a passion for… Read more »
David,
Ok, I see your point… 🙂
However, in the context of a discussion on inerrancy of the Bible Peter did call Wesley “great”. I, for one, am not convinced of Wesley’s greatness nor that he believed in the inerrancy of the Bible in any meaningful way.
Grace Always,
Greg, Brandon quoted Dr. Mohler as asserting, “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture” (emphasis mine). I responded after rehearsing Mohler’s assertion with a question: “If so [i.e. if Mohler is correct], what ever happened to John Wesley, or is he neither considered “great” nor “Arminian”?” I’m really confused why this requires explanation. As I understand historical theology, to deny Wesley a prominent role–even an exalted role–as an Arminian thinker and mover in historical Christian theology needs little if any defense. Even in your own reply to me, Greg, you… Read more »
I cannot get over this statement: “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.” This is embarrassing for Mohler. He has demonstrated that he has neither read Arminius, nor taken care to read Arminian ministers who followed him. Anyone who has read Arminius’s “On the Authority of Scripture” would never make the above comment: http://jacobusarminius.blogspot.com/2010/06/arminius-on-authority-of-scripture.html Mohler has equated exhaustive determinism with inerrancy. This is tantamount to Spurgeon’s error of equating Calvinism with the Gospel! Jesus is the Gospel, not Calvinism. God’s Word is inerrant, not the Calvinist’s interpretation of it. The… Read more »
William,
I agree… that was a cheap shot by Mohler. Though he does show respect to the Arminian side when referring to his respect for Paige Patterson who was there with him.
Good points, William. Sounds to me as though Dr. Mohler is making broad generalizations, almost straw-men arguments, then refuting them, whether or not they address specific instances. As for his inerrancy argument, of course there are no classic Arminian affirmations, as the word (as far as I know) was not invented until the late 19th Century. And I especially resonate with your statement about, “equat(ing) exhaustive determinism with inerrancy.” I too have tried to make that point about Calvinism.
Finally (shudder) I find myself prett well in agreement with what “I am, Peter” says.
John
As an aside, while stating, “Agreeing with conditional security, for example, will certainly remove you from Baptist doctrine in and of itself,” how do you explain Dale Moody, formerly of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who rejected unconditional security, or inevitable perseverance of the saints? Or maybe I should ask what your opinion of him is, considering his rejection of perseverance and his being a Southern Baptist?
William,
I make of it that he denies a foundational Baptist doctrine. I’d say he was a Southern Baptist in name but not in doctrine.
Brandon, I find this post difficult to believe. From past times hearing or reading things by Mohler he seems to be a reasonable person who makes accurate comments. And yet if he says here what he is reputed to have said, Mohler is out of touch with the SBC. I say this because I know some SBC pastors and all of them affirm these four beliefs (inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, omniscience of God, and the eternal security of the believer) AND NONE OF THEM IS A CALVINIST. All deny unconditional election and see Calvinism as a false theology and divisive force… Read more »
Robert,
So believing in Eternal Security, most specifically, doesn’t make you a Calvinist at any level? I find that hard to believe, as well. As I said in the post, most people deny Calvinism due to its emphasis on partiular redemption but still agree with Calvin on eternal security.
Brandon, Robert’s point was not “believing in Eternal Security doesn’t make you a Calvinist at any level”. Rather, he makes the valid observation that A. Rogers in particular and the majority of SBs in general affirm *all four beliefs*: inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, omniscience of God, and the eternal security of the believer. Yet, they are definitively, clearly not Calvinists. As to your phrase “make you a Calvinist at any level” for what it’s worth, is very confusing. It’s like saying believing in Jesus at any level makes you a Christian. Or, believing in inspiration at any level makes you an… Read more »
Peter wrote: “Robert’s point was not “believing in Eternal Security doesn’t make you a Calvinist at any level”. Rather, he makes the valid observation that A. Rogers in particular and the majority of SBs in general affirm *all four beliefs*: inerrancy, substitutionary atonement, omniscience of God, and the eternal security of the believer. Yet, they are definitively, clearly not Calvinists.” Well at least Peter got my point right. Adrian Rodgers and the non-Calvinist SBC pastors and church leaders that I know, all affirm those four beliefs (inerrancy, substitionary atonement, omniscience of God and eternal security). And since they are not… Read more »
Robert:
I think that Mohler’s point is not that there are many people in the SBC who do not consider themselves “Calvinists.” We all know that.
I believe that he is saying that even those who say they are not Calvinists are, to some degree. And the doctrines he points to are eternal security, inerrancy et al.
I am not defending Mohler’s premise. But I believe that is what he was trying to say.
Mohler surely knows that there are many people in the SBC who disagree with Calvinism.
Well, I’ve read through this, but there is no rhyme or reason to Mohler’s argument. These three points are held by Armininism as well as Calvinism: A belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, A belief in the substitutionary atonement, Affirming the omniscience of God. Many other Baptists, Arminians, and other Christians believe in the eternal security of the believer. These are, indeed, points of overlap with Calvinism. But there are many other points of overlap with Calvinism. For example, Baptists also believe that God exists, that God sent His Son to die, that Christ rose from the dead, that heaven… Read more »
Al Mohler is being incrediably arrogant and condescending. “don’t you idiots understand? You’re really Calvinist. So hire my preacher boys and let them fix your church. Forget all this nonsense about the elders teaching the younger, a young punk Calvinist does not have pay dues are submit to anyone who’s not a Calvinist no mAtter his age.”. This is why young “leaders” think they should just get to start their own churches with all the non Calvinist money. No wonder all the punks coming out of southern are such jerks – look their leader. Carry on now with 500 posts… Read more »
You’re reading too much into it and being a little exaggerative about him wanting churches to “hire his preacher boys;” let’s be objective, not emotional. He actually shows a lot of respect to Arminianism in the talk, which I assume you haven’t heard.
I’m a 4.8 Calvinist and very happy with my position. Now I can move on to preaching the teaching the Word.
4.8? What’s the .2?
I describe myself as a 4.3 point Calvinist, Brandon. I see the logic of Limited Atonement within the Calvinist system, but there are too many scriptures that seem to indicate a more general focus of the redemption. So, I waffle a little on that one.
Some would say that makes me not a Calvinist at all.
When I was at Southern I had a joke I would use on my “All five points or your an Arminian!” friends… it involved Dr. Nettles…
He had a view on one of the points (I want to say Limited Atonement, though, darn it, I can’t remember!) that went beyond the description of the Synod of Dort… So I would say, “See, Dr. Nettles is only a 4-pointer,” and explain why based on that. Of course, the implication would then be: he’s an Arminian.
None of those friends appreciated the joke all that much…
🙂
Mike, I must have missed the punch line 🙂
Okay, more seriously: I’ll have to find the paper sometime ’cause I don’t remember who it’s by… Essentially he argues a limited/unlimited view… of course it has the classic undertones of sufficient for all/efficient only for the elect. But he goes on to argue that though Christ’s death is salvifically applied only to the elect, Christ truly died for all to purchase all so that in the end every knee will bow before him (either in joy or in judgment). If my very very short summary makes sense… It’s basically what I hold to, and I think is a good… Read more »
Mike and Dave,
Just playing devil’s advocate here, let me ask you:
1) Would Jesus’ blood be wasted unless every drop were for the elect? Why need any more for the ones it isn’t efficient for?
2) At the cross redemption was purchased, so He wouldn’t need to purchase anything for those not chosen, right? They’d simply bow to His evident power in the end.
As I said, Brandon, the logic you used is unassailable. And there are certainly some scriptures that support particularism. But there are other scriptures that would seem, in their most natural interpretation, to support the general position.
So, as I said, I cannot reject limited atonement because of the logic you mentioned. ON the other hand, I cannot completely buy into it either because of other scriptures.
Dave,
As I said, just playing devil’s advocate as means to discuss.
SSBN,
Hopefully it saves you the petty arguments!
Joe,
That’s an amazing song! One of my favorites.
Good questions… I’d say: 1) We’re talking about the sacrifice and power of a God who is infinite and holy. In that case, it wouldn’t matter if no one was saved or if everyone was saved the potential effect is the same. What limits it is the application. For a very poor analogy: think if someone came up with a perpetual energy generator that had the capability of supplying each and every household with plenty of energy for all its needs forever. The supply never changes, but it’s only available to those who are plugged in. God’s grace in the… Read more »
Dave Miller:
I am right there with you.
And, yes, I have been told that I am not truly reformed as a result. O.K. by me.
I love to tell people: “I’m a point-less Calvinist.”
It’s a position that is hard to argue and I can agree with just about anybody.
Or, I sometimes say: “I’m a schizo-Calvinist.” I can argue from both sides of the fence and at the end of the day find myself sitting alone enjoying my little circle of friends: me, myself, and I.
I couldn’t help but notice that you have not published my comments, but you have published others who posted hours after me. Also, at least two other Arminians have posted comments here, so I was informed, and those are missing as well.
This is very telling.
LOL… William, its not telling of anything.
What is does say is that you dont comment much here and therefore your comments had to be approved and I just got home. I had 10 comments to approve, some in favor of the post and some not in favor.
Dont jump to conclusions.
Billy,
Interesting reply to your query.
With that, I am…
Peter
I was a 4 pointer until about a year or so ago. I became convinced about Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption as I prefer to call it, but that would make TULIP into TUPIP and I’m like “What the heck’s a TUPIP”…anyway) after listening to a Christian Rap artist named Shai Linne. You should look tt up on YouTube. It’s called Mission Accomplished. Anyway, the verse that brought me over to the dark side of 5 point Calvinism was: So many think He only came to make it possible Let’s follow this solution to a conclusion that’s logical What about… Read more »
Joe,
You could make point 3 “Redemption: Particular” and then it would be TURIP, which is the Japanese pronunciation of TULIP. Ha!
—–
Tom
But still, when it comes to those in hell, they be sayin’ Lord knows he tried. That’s what they be sayin’. 🙂 Love Shai Linne.
Dude, when I copied and pasted that I was doin’ the White Man’s overbite, bobbing my head with one hand wavin’ in the air. Holla!!!!
Joe the Comedian… haha!
I’m glad you can get along with someone who disagrees with your rapology. If that crap, I mean “rap,” was what led you to accept 5-pt Calvinism, it doesn’t say much for Calvinism.
It takes more than a ryhme scheme to produce something true.
Well, I have precious little use for rap but I really dug that one. You ought to listen to it or at least google the lyrics and read it. Or not. C’est la vie.
What are your thougths about the content and logic in the lyrics? There is an argument in the lyrics. I would be just as mistaken to dismiss the content/message because of the format it was presented in (a rap song) as it would be to accept it because of the format it was presented in. Both are different sides of the genetic fallacy coin. I learned my multiplication tables through a teacher’s creative use of a song, but I don’t think anyone would honestly suggest that I should toss the multiplication tables because it was presented to me in such… Read more »
Gotta be the first discussion of rap lyrics I have seen on a Baptist blog.
I’m a 4.8 because I don’t believe in irresistible grace. On Mondays and Tuesdays though I am a 4.65.
I believe it was irresistible grace when George Truett accepted Jesus as his Saviour in Hayesville, North Carolina in 1870 something and the next day the old fellows on the Loafers Bench were asking if anything had happened at the Baptist Church the day before and one of em said: “Nothin much, just a boy got saved.” I also think it was irresistible grace when notorious Serial Killer Billy Sunday Birt was taken off death row in the mid 90’s and driven to Winder, Ga where he was baptized by his son, Dakota, who had beomce a Pentecostalist preacher. And… Read more »
Great historical references!
Great thoughts, Fox!
Great stories but what’s the connection to “irresistable grace?”
Dont get me wrong, I agree with several of the reformed views and where I do disagree, I can still respect them. I also agree that there are those within our convention that are way too hostile towards Calvinism. However, to argue that sharing commonalities in viewpoints necessitates I accept the entire paradigm lacks common sense. I have some of the same organs my wife does. Should I assume then that I am a female? Additionally, why does it matter that much whether I call myself a Calvinist? Calvinists themselves turn me off with arguments like this. And then when… Read more »
Matt,
Totally agreed.
Did I give the impression that belief in eternal security necessitated full Calvinism acceptanc? I hope I didn’t… definitely don’t believe that!
I apologize for comment #21. I saw other posts that were appearing here before mine (and some other Arminians) and thought that our voices were being silenced. Thankfully, I was wrong. Again, I apologize. God bless.
No problem man… One thing you will learn at SBC Voices, I DO let everyones voice be heard, as long as it is done respectfully!
No problem. Again, I feel bad for jumping to conclusions. God bless.
For 37 years I have been praying for a Third Great Awakening, and this blog today gives more indication that such a thing is about to come to pass than anything else I have seen. The truth is these teachings are in Holy Scripture, but it takes a work of God’s grace to open the eyes to discern them though they be taught there in plain language. Just consider how the word ‘CAN’ means ability, and Jesus said, Jn.6:44,65, “No one can come to me, except the Father draw him, except it were given unto him of my father.” Oe… Read more »
Here Dr. Mohler simply redefines Calvinism in such a way that all Southern Baptists could easily fit within his redefinition. Is there anyone, ANYONE, who really agrees that those four points are the defining characteristics that make a person a Calvinist?
That’s like me saying, “All Southern Baptists are Dallas Cowboys fans since (a) the sky is blue, (b) fried chicken tastes good, and (c) sometimes it rains at night.” We may agree on all the supporting details only to find that those details do not add up to the original premise.
Perhaps what he is saying is that we are all more Calvinist than we are Arminians. Even those in the SBC who do not call themselves Calvinists are closer to Calvinism in theology than they are to true Arminianism.
Dave is right.
I think ultimately those who agree with Calvin on some doctrines should own those agreements instead of finding a way to commit to Arminianism due to the perceived negative connotations of particular redemption. Even John Wesley said he was “a hair away from a Calvinst.”
Fair enough. I am more than willing to own my agreements with Calvinists on certain doctrines, especially if it means they will stop calling me an Arminian. I am a two-point Calvinist. One of those two points, of course, is the same point as Dr. Mohler’s fourth point above.
While I agree with all four of the points he listed, I do not agree that my agreement makes me a Calvinist. If one is only forty percent of something, it means one is mostly something else.
Dave:
You are right on here. In fact, I don’t know anyone in the SBC who would say they are Arminians through and through.
The SBC was born out of Calvinism (English Separatists), though many in the SBC reject particular atonement, irresistible Grace.
Louis,
When it comes to the salvation of their children you can bet everyone in the SBC (Arminians included) prays “Irresistible Grace” for their lost children! So whether they admit it or not, everyone prays like a Calvinist, and no one prays for God to leave their children to the guidance of their own “Free Will”.
Grace Always,
I really think that SB’s came from a mixture of the AnaBaptists and the English Separatists. And, Greg, I really dont agree with irresistable grace, nor the limited atonement.
Besides, Greg, if I believed as do some 5 point Calvinists, then I would never know whether God chose to save my children, or not.
David
If it came down to a choice between the Cartoon Version of Baptist Origins and Buddy Shurden, I think I will go with Buddy Shurden:
http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/style/turningpoints.htm
David, Lay aside the whole Calvinism issue for just one second… Exactly what are you asking God to do when you pray for Him to save your Child? Are you not asking, even begging, God to “Intervene” in their life? If they currently have no heart or desire for God and He does even the smallest of things to get their attention, if he plants the smallest of seeds, if he changes the course of their life in the slightest of directions… then God has “Intervened” in their life. And because of his intervention their life is “Irresistibly Changed”… and… Read more »
Excellent point, Greg.
As we comment, let’s remember:
“…these early divisons gave Satan room to work and indeed he works through the same divisions today.”
The combination of God’s determinative and guiding Hand:
and of man’s freedom of choice and responsibility
is an option for many Christian people.
Until Al Mohler satisfies my suspicions he is inadequate to engage Marilynne Robinson on Calvin and inerrancy; until he proves me wrong and has the integrity to dialogue with Robinson and her collection of essays the Death of Adam I hold reservations about his stature in this discussion.
I think Buddy Shurden and Bruce Gourley could learn a good deal from Marilynne Robinson as well.
Fox,
He lacks integrity for not talking with Robinson? Has he been invited to?
That may have been the new gold standard of arrogant comments. I’m sure Mohler will be surprised to learn that he is required to satisfy Stephen Fox’s suspicions to demonstrate his adequacy.
Words fail at the hubris of that comment.
Evidently, when we abandon the authority of the Word of God, we set up opinions like those of Marilynne Robinson as the standard of truth. Inexplicable.
Mohler is responsible to Christ and His perfect Word, not to an essayist and novelist from the University of Iowa.
I think Barry Hankins, Jack Harwell, Molly Marshall, Carey Newman and David Gushee would beg to differ with you on that Miller, but I don’t speak for them. I take it you know about as much about Marilynne Robinson as you know about the Unfettered Word and the Fundamentalist Takeover of the SBC which has been demonstrated on this board and elsewhere as not a Hades of a Whole Lot. My understanding of Mark Noll andRandall Balmer is they weigh Mohler in the balance and find him wanting. Mohler is responsible to his Trustees and the annual votes of a… Read more »
Dave Miller: I agree with you again. For someone who lived through the CR, as you and I apparently did, I, too, am not particluarly interested in reading, much less adopting, the perspectives and arguments of a bunch of people who disagreed with the CR or may have other personal disagreements with certain personalities. I am pleased with the direction of Southern and the SBC. I am not drawn to the mission and vision of the CBF, Alliance of Baptists or other rump programs. I understand why those programs exist, and I would encourage those who are in agreement with… Read more »
Yes, Louis, I think we have great cause for optimism in the SBC.
Dude, there are some people here in Iowa who will say that essayists from the University of Iowa WROTE the bible. 🙂
Stephen
Can a person go to heaven without repenting of their sins and placing their faith in Jesus Christ alone?
That question requires an answer of “yes” or “no”.
Depends on the person, JOE And therein lies the problem in your own limited thinking. Example: the ‘holy innocents’, people who are severely mentally-challenged and who do not have the gifts of understanding, or even of speech. They can’t live up to your demands for their salvation, Joe. Where do THEY fall in your forced dichotomy, Joe? heaven or hell? One or the other? Is there no allowance in your mind for the holy purposes of their existence in our lives to enable us to become more humane, and for the Mercy of God Who has not given them those… Read more »
No it doesn’t depend on the person, L’s. And EVERYONE else knew for a fact that I was not talking about people with mental disablilities who are unable to understand the gospel. Now, do I know exactly how God is going to deal with them. No. I don’t believe they’re going to be in hell. The same would apply to babies or children who are too young to understand and exercise saving faith. You know for a fact that wasn’t what I was talking about. Instead of trying to deflect for Stephen, I’d be more worried about going to a… Read more »
“And EVERYONE else knew for a fact that I was not talking about people with mental disablilities who are unable to understand the gospel. ” no ‘everyone’ didn’t know, Joe, And what you are preaching may often be misinterpreted by many because I don’t think YOU realize how you come across to people. Joe, I’m trying to help you here. You do not know how you come across to others. You DON’T REALIZE that you are sending out a message that you may not have worded in a way, so that people CAN understand it the way you meant it.… Read more »
Mohler’s Calvinism and his Inerrancy is suspect until he passes the Robinson test as set forth in her collection of essays the Death of Adam may be a better way of saying it. As for Mohler’s integrity, David Keys of the CBF of Georgia can better address that than I can. I do think Barry Hankins makes a strong case Mohler has something of a cloud of the influence of DJ Kennedy in his pilgrimage if you want to establish a Baptist test of Mohler; and Carey Newman and David Gushee are a matter of record. Outside of that I… Read more »
Truett’s and Bush’s salvation had nothing to do with irresistible grace. They were saved by saving grace. If there were such a thing as irresistible grace then I believe everyone would be saved because God told us He is not willing that any should perish.
“What we have here is a failure to communicate!–said by the Warden to Cool Hand Luke Most of this stuff of late is designed to anger and torment more than to educate. Al Mohler is a master at re-writing Southern Baptist History so he appears to be bringing us back to our beginnings—HARDLY SO!!! I don’t care to engage in this discussion at this time because I think it is totally irrelevent to trying to be a better SBC. Most people could care less about Calvin’s tortured theology. At its core is Predestination = you are foreordained to Heaven of… Read more »
Thanks for a couple of answers. However, the hardness of heart in them brings me to tears—literally!!!
Matt Svoboda,
“One thing you will learn at SBC Voices, I DO let everyones voice be heard, as long as it is done respectfully!”
It seems as though every comment stream of SBC Voices has been infected with one of those popup viruses that keeps interrupting what you’re trying to accomplish with alien agendas. Do you have to maintain this position so rigidly? 🙂
I was gonna take a break but Gene makes some excellent points I would like to accentuate, incarnated in a great friend of both of us, Randall Lolley; though Lolley deserves much better company (LOL). Lolley rode with Gene from NC to Richmond for the Memorial service a month ago for Cecil Sherman. In 93 Sherman told me his good Friend Bill Friday, the former Chancellor of the UNC system, and long time favored son who has a weekly statewide program on UNCTV PBS. Friday told Sherman the most signficant event in the state of NC the decade of the… Read more »
Dr. Friday actually interviewed Patterson on his coming to SEBTS and I saw it. With all due cordiality, Friday asked some important philosophical questions and let Dr. Patterson go—-straight up a tall tree with monkey tail showing!!!!!
It was embarsssing to be called “Baptist” alongside this bafoon showing his lack of PhD knowledge with fake 25-cent words to cover the basic ignorance.
With all due patience, Dr. Friday just let him climb so listeners could make up their own minds—obviously, I did!!
Not only the CNP, but also the John Birch Society, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminate, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Masons.
All of these groups are responsible for the CR.
One good thing to remember is Dr. Patterson and Dr. Mohler have great respect and appreciation for each other. They can disagree and not be disagreeable to each other.
We all can learn a great deal for how we see them respond to and yet respect and genuinely love each other.
Chris,
Absolutely true. It’s evident when they talk together on stage during the 2006 conference.
I would have to agree that most SB’s are Calvinistic in their doctrine. We are Reformed-like. But, not all of us are Calvinists, nor are we Reformed. In fact, the vast majority are not Calvinists, nor Reformed.
But, anyone that believes in the BFM2K would have to be Calvinistic, or Reformed, in their theology. But, that certainly does not make everyone in the SBC a Calvinist.
David
I think that is the only point Mohler was trying to make, Vol. He was not saying that all SBC’s are Calvinists or that only Calvinists are true Baptists. He was just saying that even the Non-Calvinist Baptists are much closer to Calvinist belief than they are to classic Arminianism.
That statement can hardly be assailed.
I think it was meant to be more unifying than dividing – we have more in common than we have in contention.
Dave, you are right, when Al’s statements are allowed to fit in the broad context of the discussion without parsing for personal agendas, it is clear that your anaylysis is spot on.
In my first philosophy class in college the professor said we would all be required to practice “charity” when addressing another student. He had a specific meaning for “charity.” It meant that we should always put the statement of another in the best light possible and allow for the statement to be clarified by further discussion.
Of course, Al cannot defend himself against all attackers on every blog.
I’m curious if anyone has considered that Mohler’s words, rather than an attempt to offend non-Calvinist brethren, actually showed our Calvinist brethren within the SBC that we have more common ground than we often give credit. I’m not convinced that Mohler was trying to be divisive, as some on this thread seem to assert.
Darby,
In the context of the conference, he and Patterson were giving their opinions on particular redemption. You could see clearly, though, that Mohler wasn’t trying to be divisive because he mentioned his ultimate love for the Gospel and Patterson.
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
QUOTE I don’t care to engage in this discussion END QUOTE
So, does this mean you will be going away now 🙂
PS–Pretty long discussion for someone who doesn’t want to discuss it.
We can hope. 😛
Gene keeps asking, “Has the destruction of Bold Mission Thrust and Baptist TelNet consigned souls to Hell since they have not had the golden opportunity to hear the Gospel via satellite technology beamed around this world on which we live????” Southern Baptist conservatives have made, and continue to make, incredible efforts to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. We’ve given millions of dollars to missions. We’ve sent thousands of missionaries. Published, bought, distributed thousands if not millions of Bibles and tracts. Our seminaries have trained and sent thousands of preachers, evangelists, missionaries. Look at the Crossover emphasis… Read more »
Perhaps my answer should have been more concise. The answer is no.
David R. Brumbelow
Christiane,
Why dont you answer Joe’s simple question? I’ll ask it for you in a different way.
Do you believe that grown adults with no mental disabilities go to Hell forever when they die, if they die without putting their faith in Jesus, and in Jesus alone, for their salvation?
Yes, or no?
David
Greg,
This is Grumpy, again. You dont see the Wesley’s as great? You dont believe that they believed in the inerrancy of Scripture?
Greg, your 5 point glasses are fogged over again. Even Whitefield respected the Wesley’s. John and Charles wrote hymns that glorified God. John was a tireless preacher of the Gospel. Many, many people came into the kingdom of God thru the preaching of John Wesley. I just wish that Methodists today were like Wesley.
David
David,
I absolutely agree. Theologically I don’t agree much at all with John Wesley and I don’t think he was terribly great exegetically, but his teaching on holiness is probably unmatched by prominent Calvinists of his time or now. You have to respect the remarlable work he did for the Kingdom.
As an unashamed 5 point looking for a sixth point Christian Hedonist Calvinist, I can honestly say that I consider John Wesley to be one of the preeminent men of God in the history of the church. I can only think of a handful of men whom I would rather emulate. I have no problem holding him up as an example for Southern Baptists.
Wow! I can’t even say out loud that I do not consider John Wesley as a “great” figure in church history; nor that I do not consider him someone I think Southern Baptist should be following, without getting you all up in arms in his defense. Perhaps you should study the Wesley’s a little more and you would learn that Whitefield was no fan of John Wesley’s doctrine, and their exchanges leave little room for doubt concerning this. Sorry if it offends all… but, Wesley’s doctrine of “Perfectionism” has in my opinion left a dark mark on his legacy and… Read more »
Guys, I think this may be a case of you magnifying your differences a little bit.
I can say that I respect Wesley as an important figure in church history whom God used greatly, while I also say (with Greg) that I thought his theology was woeful.
One can maintain both respect for the work God did through him and disagreement with his doctrine.
I, too, have a profound respect for Wesley.
Greg, There you go again assuming that just because someone disagrees with you, it must be because he hasn’t studied. Don’t you see how that assumption could offend someone less thick-skinned and well-studied as me? 🙂 I never said perfectionism was one of the preeminent doctrines in the history of the church. I agree with you completely about it’s harsh, soul-stifling effects. I know his doctrine, in theory and practice, and it has high points and low points. Like all men’s. Perfectionism is certainly among his most tragic legacies. However, I said Wesley, the man, the struggler, the missionary, the… Read more »
I was reading these “Wesley/No Wesley” comments and it struck me how we constantly seem to have a need to read what others say about the Bible. I have two degrees in theology and I read Wesley, Whitefield and a host of others. But, I hardly ever approach a text by asking what some other “man” thought about it. I think there is a great danger in teaching “theolology.” Any theology is incomplete and contains errors. I’m glad to be a part of a “denomination” (used loosely) that were and are “people of the book,” not patrons of the library.… Read more »
I may perhaps be misremembeing, and if I am I hope someone will correct my ignorance, but didn’t Whitfield and Wesley have a good deal of respect for one another? I suspect there are a good number of things I would disagree with either of the Wesley’s about but I believe they knew and taught that repentance from sin and faith in Christ alone was the only way a person could get to heaven. I’m pretty sure I could fellowship wit and work with someone who believed that for the most part.
Salvation is of Christ. Absolutely. To Whom else would we go? He has the words of eternal life. But Christ was a law-giver as well as our Savior. And His Words have been set aside by many, many people. And some of His Apostles’ teachings in the Bible have been ignored. So there is confusion. Martin Luther thought that the book of James should be thrown out of the Bible. Here’s why: James 2:24 “24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Joe, what would you have said to St. James the Apostle… Read more »
I’d have said “Amen”. The verse is not saying that we earn salvation by our works but rather, as is consistent with the rest of scripture, our works demonstrate that our faith is genuine.
As far as whether the book of James is inspired, I affirm the 27 books of the New Testament canon. Luther wasn’t perfect and no one person decided the canon so his protestations beside the New Testament is recognized as having 27 books.
Joe, why do you affirm the NT canon? Do you believe that the people who put the canon together were inspired by the Holy Spirit? And how did they agree on the books to be chosen among so very many extant choices at that time? What criteria did they use when they chose which books were to be considered inspired Scripture? Who were these men that formed the canon? Did they come from ‘autonomous’ Churches? How did they then communicate and come together to form the canon? Good questions. Have fun. Give it try. Love you dearly, and stop being… Read more »
David Volfan has alraedy pointed this out, but while I personally don’t agree with a fair amount of the Wesley’s theology they did write some pretty majestic hymns. Not a defense, just an observation.
QUOTE James 2:24
“24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” END QUOTE
Of course, you only quote one verse out James entire treatise because it supports the Roman heresy. If you read the entire book it becomes abundantly clear that “works” are what happen once a person has faith, not a means to that faith.
Plus: Martin Luther is not the final arbiter of truth. The Bible is its own interpreter and proof-texting proves nothing.
What would YOU say to St. James about his Chapter 2? As to that quote, it is kind of famous because of it’s tie to Church history, and I AM going to try to get Joe to learn to ‘dialogue’ with people, rather than grouch so much. Just jump in there with your comments, as you like. And join us. And ‘heresy’? I speak of ‘confusion’, Certainly Luther had problems with the book of St. James, and, if you know something of Church history, with other books in the New Testament also. And there are so very many divisions over… Read more »
I don’t use the word, “heresy,” lightly but to believe in a doctrine of works for salvation is exactly that: heresy. There is no way to get around it. I’ve already given you the interpretation of James that all true believers hold in regard to James. As to Martin Luther having a problem with this book, I’ve answered that also. Keep in mind that he also had a problem with his wife — but that didn’t change the status of his marriage. He was still married, he just didn’t enjoy it as much. Unfortunately, as much as I would like… Read more »
You remind me of PAULA who used to blog on Wade’s site.
“if you believe in eternal security, at some level you are a Calvinist.”
I suppose it could also be stated that if you believe in eternal security, you are at some level a general baptist as well. For that matter you might be an Arminian as many Arminians affirm eternal security in Christ through faith.
A.M. Mallett
“For that matter you might be an Arminian as many Arminians affirm eternal security in Christ through faith.”
An Arminian who affirms eternal security is just a “Closet Calvinist” 🙂 That or seriously conflicted.
Grace Always,
Greg,
If my memory serves me right, Arminius believed in the eternal security of the Believer. It’s the modern day Arminians, who have departed from this doctrine.
David
Was Calvin a calvinist or Arminius and Arminian? Labels, labels, labels. My how we preachers like labels.
I say scrap the labels and address the Scriptures. Or, at least accept that labels will always be incomplete, if not downright wrong.
David,
If my memory serves me right, (and it does not always do so) It is true that when confronted with his false teaching that Arminius recanted and affirmed the doctrine of eternal security in order to keep from being put out of the Dutch Reformed Church. Yet he soon returned to his teaching of errant doctrine and thereby planted the seeds of the Arminian Controversy that led to the Synod of Dordt which produced the Canons of Dordt ultimately in answer to Arminius and his followers.
Grace Always,
David,
Arminius disagreed with eternal security. He even went as far as saying that once you lose your salvation, you cannot regain it. Wesley differed, believing you could be “re-saved.”
Brandon, That is not an accurate statement. Arminius stated the following regarding perseverance from his Declaration of Sentiments. … Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced… Read more »
A.M.,
Arminius, as seen here, waffled much of his theological career, though he did state that he believed a believer could apostasize and even differentiated on a “true” believer, also seen here. You could (and I’ve read many who have) write volumes on Arminius’ evolution as a theologian.
From Theopedia.com Wesleyan perfectionism, sometimes called entire sanctification, is a view held by John Wesley that taught that Christians could to some degree attain perfection in this life. Wesley described it as, “…that habitual disposition of the soul which, in the sacred writings, is termed holiness; and which directly implies being cleansed from sin, ‘from all filthiness both of flesh and spirit’; and, by consequence, being endued with those virtues which were in Christ Jesus; being so ‘renewed in the image of our mind,’ as to be ‘perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect’ (A Plain Account of Christian… Read more »
In light of the 100+ times that Gene & Fox have been asked about their view of salvation, etc., I find it interesting that folks here are showing so much love to John Wesley.
Wesley was, after all, an inclusivist. Heck, Billy Graham is an inclusivist.
As Tony Cartledge has written Graham “insinuated” himself into the SBC Struggle at the worst possible moments; I thinkwith the sideways endorsement of Charles STanley, but you can correct me on that one if I’m wrong. Graham continues to intrigue, with Marshall Frady and here recently Steven Miller gettin close to definition. Still Graham was grand when he spoke at the National Cathedral after 9/11 about Hope. In some ways Graham was the chrysallis (is that the right word) of the mediocrity of the Southern Baptist mind at the same time he was the glue that in aggregate made it… Read more »
Stephen: Do you know whether or not Graham or his immediate family has been involved with the CNP? I am serious about this. The truth might surprise you. I remember when the telegram or note arrived in Dallas in 1985 from Mr. Wilson saying that Dr. Graham would vote for Charles Stanley if he were in Dallas. Also, I remember Graham’s appearance at Southern to embrace Al Mohler on his election as President. Further, after Mohler had been there a while, Graham endorsed Southern further by allowing the school to use his name when it started the Billy Graham School… Read more »
I take you at your word that you are serious. That said, contact Steven Miller at UPenn; and do please let us know what you find out. Have you read his book yet? I have not, though I have read several reviews. I was in line to borrow the copy from Samford University, but I did not get my hands on it. If you are serious and have the means, I think you would want to put an order in for Miller’s book on Nixon, RAce and the Rise of the Southern GOP tomorrow. On a different note and as… Read more »
Louis: Third or fourth paragraph in get to the heart of the matter http://hnn.us/articles/25521.html I would not be surprised if Frank Graham has flirted with CNP but I would be shocked and quite flumoxxed if that were so of Anne Graham Lotz. Would not surprise me in the least if Graham’s grandson Stephen Tchvidjian had fallen into those circles as I once had a stout exchange with Stephen when I visitted Samford one day in early 90’s when Stephen was law student there. I think Stephen’s brother who took DJ Kennedy’s place at Coral Ridge may have more discretion on… Read more »
I have never seen “deep thinking” from Billy Graham, BUT his sharing of the Gospel is without compare! The only thing that troubled me was the fact the counselors move forward at the invitation as if masses are coming—then masses do come–some just to say, “I was saved at a Graham Crusade.” The best thing he does is to work with local churches trying to make sure those who come down have follow-up. That is essential for me: growing in the faith after an initial commitment. No matter what, God uses us in different ways and different places to bring… Read more »
Stephen: Thanks for the great article. I think that a distinction for Graham is that he has always worked hard to have a broad tent approach, and not to do things that would reduce that. That’s what drove him from Bob Jones to Wheaton. That’s what moved him away from political issues. He is an evangelist. If you are going to have big, open stadium type events with (hopefully) lots of non-Christians coming, you don’t want to be seen as politically partisan. I think that Graham was striving for that. It is interesting that you have that thought about Anne… Read more »
Of course you know her bro in law is former leader of the Baptist WorldAlliance, so that would suggest little distance from the SBC.
So where you comin from, Louis.
Not whether you are playin cagey or honest inquiry.
I do hope you get your hands on the Steven Miller book on Billy Graham.
You young generation SBC, a modified dissident, or a true believer in Inerrancy of the Mohler brand.
Anne Graham Lotz doesn’t ‘run with’ people.
She preaches Christ in hopes that people will listen and come to accept Him.
Here we are fighting about whether Wesley went too far in what he set as a standard for holiness (and I agree he did), but is that really a big problem today:
people desire to be “too sanctified?” Seems just the opposite is true: people don’t even intend to be a “little sanctified.”
I really wonder what it is going to be like when a person carries their sorry ministerial record to heaven and begins to criticize Wesley. What a show that is going to be.
” Seems just the opposite is true: people don’t even intend to be a “little sanctified.”
And because of that many of them will be saturated and “deep fried.” 🙂
SSBN, I know that is not very humorous, but I just couldn’t resist.
Lately there has been much in the news about the images that some Christian leaders seek to project. Paul Burleson has written a post about how some leaders feel that they need to present a certain image to their flock and be ‘up on a pedestal’ in order to be respected. I’m thinking that there is no perfection or sanctification in us outside of Lord Christ. Only in Him and through Him will we be justified, sanctified, and restored to Our Father. On Paul’s blog I put it this way: An old song from the sixties goes “. . and… Read more »
L’s–
That is the most insightful thing I have read here in days!!!!
Thanks for your always-loving input!
Hello Gene,
Hope things are better for your daughter. I have prayed for her and the boys. God bless them and protect them always.
L’s–they are & thanks for asking— Right now they are 12 / 7 / 2-5’s and full of angst. We had a great week together after July 4. Each has his issues!!! In many ways it reminded me of the blog: (1) Everyone wants his ways despite there being others (2) A fight at least 3 times a day over nothing (3) After the fight something else come up to fight over (4) Only at night do the look and behave like angels (5) The only thing disturbing good sleep is night terrors Maybe this is our problem. A lot… Read more »
Christianne:
How about this Jesus, “luminous and demanding” who when crossing the Threshold causes the “younger brother to sharpen his knife”
http://members.cox.net/mppowers1/maybe.html
Very powerful poem, Stephen.
I’ve not read Mary Oliver’s poetry yet,
but I will.
Thanks for the gift.
Let’s see . . . Wade has a very prominent blog and has been seated on a very high pedestal. Is that who you are referring to.
By the way, I do sit on a high stool when I lead prayer meeting on Wednesday nights. Are you referring to me?
Or, are you just using a back-handed slap at all the men God called into ministy, but you don’t like? I need some clarification.
You sound just like Paula Fether.
Same way of talking to people. Amazing.
Paula caught on to you very quickly didn’t she L’s? As did Lydia and cb.
Are you talking about my view of politics,
or about how Paula ticks?
Joe, why do you affirm the NT canon? Do you believe that the people who put the canon together were inspired by the Holy Spirit? And how did they agree on the books to be chosen among so very many extant choices at that time? What criteria did they use when they chose which books were to be considered inspired Scripture? Who were these men that formed the canon? Did they come from ‘autonomous’ Churches? How did they then communicate and come together to form the canon? There are volumes written discussing this subject so there’s no way I can… Read more »
What books would you like to add. We can discuss the merits. What books would you like to subtract. Perhaps you can show us how that improves the Canon. Since no major doctrine is dependent upon any single book (and never should be), it really does not affect the Canon if you take away a book. However, when you add certain books (as with the Apocrypha), you do in fact introduce new doctrines not substantiated by the whole of the Canon. So, be specific. What Books do you object to and what particular doctrines do you object to, or would… Read more »
I’m sorry. I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying there are any books that need to be added or subtracted. I was just acknowledging that at various points there were books that were considered canonical by some and not by others but that most of the New Testament was undisputed.
question remains: if canon was not ‘inspired’ writing,
on what authority was the canon drawn up and accepted?
if ‘consensus’
consensus of what group?
and did they have the authority to decide the ‘canon’ of what was and what was not holy scripture from among the hundreds of extant writings of that day?
And where did that authority come from?
Kind of fun to see where this takes you.
Great questions , Christiane!!:
I assume they are rhetorical, but if they are not, I will be glad to discuss it privately at Babyboomlearner.com
SSBN—-
That was well-said and well-reasoned.
It admits man’s hand in an “inerrant” Bible. Can you admit Job almost didn’t make it because it violated the simpleton formula: serve God = God blesses / bad things happen = you must not be serving God?????
It also appears that your “doctrines” are thought to be more perfect than the scripture on which they are based–please comment.
Since all churches and church groups don’t affirm the same doctrines, can doctrine be perfect—or just one more thing for people to argue over?????
“ercognized”—-what the heck is that Joe?????
Did Erkle and his high pants plus high irritating voice do it????
Eventually Erkle grew up and isn’t funny anymore in that role!! Fame is fickle, isn’t it.
Attention all Liberals: in case you dont know who I’m talking about, well, yall know who I’m talking about. God told the Israelites, under the leadership of Joshua, to totally wipe out the Canaanites in the Promised Land. God told them to do this, and He actuallly disciplined them when they didnt totally wipe out certain cities along the way. So, your god of love, who is all inclusive, who doesnt send anyone to Hell(except maybe Adrian Rogers, Page Patterson, and Pressler); told His people to kill everyone in the Promised Land…to take it over! Also, when Jesus comes back,… Read more »
“10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. ”
Gospel of St. John
A good verse, Christiane
David:
God —— OR —– Man speaking for God?????
It’s anthropomorphism, man = man attributes his thoughts to God so that they must be followed by man.
Great trick of early leaders and kings to make people obey—and great trick of CR to make all the little autonomous children behave!!!
Oh David, you don’t have to wait for the Second Coming to know this from the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 16: “I have overcome the world.” I think that the weapons of Christ are more powerful than those that kill. Much more powerful. In Christ, the source of all that is good, good overcomes evil. That is a hard thing for us to understand, I know. And it does not speak of ‘weakness’, but of a force stronger than anything we can imagine. When Christ said ‘I have overcome the world’, he was giving them encouragement. You have a… Read more »
Christiane,
Forget the eschatology, how do you try to get away from the fact that God told His people, the children of Israel, to completely wipe the Canaanite people off the face of the Earth?
David
I guess cause at the time, He thought you might be in there somewhere among em
🙂 🙂
See (165) brother David!!!
Google “anthropomorphism.”
L’s,
There is not a Book in all of Scripture known as the “Book of Revelations.”
I notice that L’s..Christiane…dodged my question entirely. I also notice that Fox and Gene and John F. have not even responded at all to my question.
Chickens!
DAvid
We’ve noticed a few things about you as well.
Independent Baptist, Right?
Nope. Not independent Baptist. Not a KJV only guy. Not a legalist, at all.
Wrong again, Foxy. BTW, I noticed that you dodged the question again. Figures.
David
Hey VolFan I’ll be dodgin your ignorant fundy Balaam’s ride rest of my life cause your full of horse poohpooh. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, we can continue to love each other as Brother’s in Christ Jesus. I do want to thank you for the Daddyrap vid last week. I liked it so much I sent it on to my Brother so he could facebook it. He loves Jesus just like you andrides a Harley; does mission work, mows and what not. Was gonna send this to CB, but you get in touch for me cause… Read more »
I’m sorry Brother Volfan Double Ought Seven;
I forgot the Spiritfilled Link:
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/movies/11winter.html?8dpc
Now Stephen—
Let’s give him a little kindness. We know he ain’t quite rite in his hyad. Evry inbread famly has one of them there a-flik-ted yun–guns!!!
Now yew be nice a u kin with him!!!!
Your questions have something in common to the ones Hitler asked the Jews; or Nathan Bedford Forrest asked people of color.
David—
We’re getting there, buddy. Lots of us went to church yesterday and spent the afternoon with a loving family rather than “pounding the ‘puter.”
Hi C.B.
I think it was originally called the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine, but some call it ‘Revelation’ now.
Thanks for the info about the (s) on the end.
The word translated Apocalypse means Revelation. They are the same: an unveiling. The original title was in Greek so both Apocalypse and Revelation are acceptable translations. My point was that we must understand the importance of the key theme in order to interpret the parts correctly. It is one unified whole, not a bunch of individual parts. Hence, the “s” at the end changes the perspective we get. That is why my Greek professor was adamant that we leave off the “s.” Sometimes, little things mean a lot: like sending flowers to your sweetheart for no reason at all. I… Read more »
What a nice thought!
L’s,
How can you believe “originally” called the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine, unless you believe it was named long after John wrote it?
QUOTE the Book of Revelations END QUOTE
There is only ONE Revelation. It is the revelation of Jesus Christ.
I had a Greek professor that would flunk any student he heard refer to the last book in the plural. Sadly, it is often taught as a “bunch of revelations” about specific events, but that misses the point entirely.
It is about Jesus Christ who alone is worthy to save apart from any works we might put forth on our behalf.
“Off we go—-into the wild blue yonder—flying high—-into the sky!!!!!
We have enough good stuff to consider here without this wild monkey chase!! In my opinion.
‘I have overcome the world’.
A done deal.
Yes, Christ is the fullness of revelation.
And His Words are to be honored.
“And His Words are to be honored.”
And His Word is to be “obeyed” is a more complete understanding of the call to take up the cross and follow Him
Well said, cb.
Honoring includes obedience.
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
John 14:15
trick is to obey God, not Criswell and Mohler and BFM 2000 which the history of the world has proven is not the same thing.
Steve,
Truer words have not been spoken on this thread or any other.
“trick is to obey God, not Criswell and Mohler and the BF&M 2000….” Let’s add a couple more if you don’t mind. Patterson, Sherman, Leonard (Elmore or Bill 🙂 ) and none of the editions of the BF&M, etc, etc. You are right Steve, the trick is to obey God.
Fox,
In your opinion, of course.
Regarding “history proving yada yada.”
I DO agree that we should stand on God’s Word. Though, I think those guys nailed it. 🙂
I really look forward to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDQijZ0OpaU
loved it 🙂
Here’s a video for you VolFan from Peace Committee Member Jim Henry, his Daughter
Singing LookAway
About when the Mansion was burned down:
Is this a metaphor for Ronnie Floyd’s SBC? an allegory, I don’t know.
Is the mansion Inerrancy that burned down, or something else.
http://www.nme.com/video/id/Sv_ISSp-tDU/search/Kate%20Campbell/offset/20
I have a strong feeling that calvinists do believe in salvation by faith & works. I have been reading Jonathan Edwards’ and John Piper and both of them affirm the view that simply says: No works = no salvation in the first place.
Here comes perseverance to make sure salvation in the end, which affirms its beginning. So, if there is not perseverance, then no salvation to begin with. Hence the continuum: salvation by faith alone; but faith that saved is not alone = faith-works.
lubabi, Have you ever read the book of James…. Its in your bible you know…. James 2:14-26…its a good read! “…faith without works IS DEAD.” !!!!! You see here are TWO major problems with your logic. 1) NO Calvinist will say that you are saved by works. What they will say, is that if you are not glorifying God in your life/ministry/walk then you most likely were never saved. If there is not GOOD FRUIT in your life, then there is no true salvation. You are saved by your faith in Christ Jesus, but your faith is proven by the… Read more »
Smuschany, That is a standard wrong reading of Dead faith in James 2. James was not talking of salvation from hell; James is talking of dead faith = useless/ineffective faith [faith without works is dead]. Dead does NOT always means spiritual dead = going to hell. Out Lord uses the same work in Luke15:24 regarding the prodigal SON who was dead [nekros] and now alive. He was a useless son–but a son nevertheless. If you read carefully how James uses the work faith, dead, saved, and works you will find how rich a book it is. It is NOT a… Read more »
“Mere talk no action type of believers” Are likely not believers at all. When the Holy Spirit enters someone, that person has a IRRESISTIBLE call on their life to fulfill God’s call in their life. No it will not always (if ever) happen over night. But there will ALWAYS be SOME evidence that a person has true believing faith in Christ Jesus, as it is the Spirit leading them to fulfill God’s will in their lives. If they are not moving, if there is no fruit, that is evidence that the Spirit of God is NOT in their lives, that… Read more »
Schmuschany
Can you give some concrete list of quantity and or quality of evidence/works? Maybe baptism, tithing, attending church . . . Can you be more specific re.: the evidence?
It would hardly do any good. You are so polluted against anything that possibly is contrary to your preconceived notions that you refuse to consider anything anyone else says. It is not myself or Calvinists who believe that if you go to church, you are saved. Rather that seems very close to what you are arguing. If Holy Spirit empowered, faith originated works are useless, if they have absolutely no bearing on a Christian’s walk with our Lord and Savior, then it is YOU who equates going to church with being saved. After all, if they “claim” to confess Christ… Read more »
Again, let us thank God that Gene cuts trees for a living. Gene, the differences that we all have with you and Fox and a few others commenting in here are not minor points of theology. They are major…MAJOR…points of theology.
David
Brandon didn’t do that, I did. It was because you, Gene, and a few others refused to maintain Christian dialogue.
Hi Bob, If you read carefully what John Piper’s sermons, he teaches salvation by works. “Paul foresees the possibility that some professing believers – in the judgment of charity he calls them brothers, may go to hell… Your works confirm that you are saved.”[Piper, “We Will All Stand Before the Judgment of God (Rom 14:10-13)]”; October 30, 2005. “Getting to heaven in the New Testament involves the use of means… Your perseverance in faith is a means of attaining heaven; it is necessary… Mutual exhortation is a means by which we…help each other persevere to heaven. It is not automatic…”[Piper,… Read more »
You guys really like to follow some sermonizer—why don’t you try following the one about whom the sermon is given?????
Theologicans tickle the mind—Jesus touches both mind and heart to bring about his sharing of Good News to people who want God over some dancing preacher/theologian entertaining their small minds with 25-cent emptiness!!!!
Gene, at the risk of being excommunicated, I agree with that “Jesus touches both mind and heart.”
Theologians are always at risk of “straining gnats and swallowing camels.” We must always proceed with caution in all discussions — and love.
On this, we can agree (I hope).
TOTALLY AGREED!!!!!!!!
And—I bet we have more in common than we differ!!!!!!
Personally, I love the Lord / I love myself / I am at peace / I have a joy in my salvation / I get pissed when people put burdens and judgements on innocent people’s backs so thay can pretend to feel superior!!!!!!
Gene, I don’t like people who put burdens on the backs of others either. But, I don’t see anyone doing that. I do see a strong difference in which personalities people like, but that is a far cry from the malice you attribute to others.
And, I do suspect we have much in common in regard to faith, but I also suspect we differ a great deal also.
SSBN
We be “Bayabtists” and that’s supposed to make disagreement OK!!!
I’ll gladly walk beside you so we could discover more points of agreement than disagreement over the nit-picking stuff!!!!
David— The decision as to what is major and what is minor is personal!! It guides one’s thinking through life. If you want to major on nit-picking, that is up to you. The Pharisees / Scribes / Saducees spent the whole day with such—not borthering to realize those who fished and did the other things Jesus sought people from—–could care less!!! Their world was one of making a living by feeding people and helping them get through another day without starving. Also they charged fair prices for a full and honest pound of fish. Admittedly, they cussed and fussed, but… Read more »
Gene,
When someone denies the fundamentals of the faith…the major doctrines of Christianity; then it’s not a matter of personal opinion.
David
David–
And just who decides what those fundamentalists are—-fun-dam-mentalists or what??????
It never was the fundamentals of the faith that were the deciding point as Winfred Moore and Richard Jackson and Carey Newman and David Gushee and Robert Marsh will tell you. It was What The Firm decided who would be elevated in Baptist life and who would get aspersions cast on them so the ideology of Helms, Pressler and the Council for National Policy could prevail. Look at things in historical context as the SBC boogeymans evolved to fit Pressler’s designs. If you kiss Mohler and Pressler and Patterson’s ideological hiney, then you get a place on the SBC Executive… Read more »
Fox, you get sorrier with each post. The Bible is very clear, “If you have a problem with Patterson — or anybody else — you are obligated to go to them and reconcile your difference. If you do not do that, your gift (life) is not welcome at the altar. This is God’s clear teaching. I’m pretty certain if you call Dr. Patterson and make an appointment to air your grievances with him, he’d receive you very graciously. Of course, if you take this route, you have to stop spewing your venom. I doubt that reconciliation is what you really… Read more »
You’ve got it wrong.
If a person has SINNED against God and harmed someone else, he must go to that person and make it right before coming to communion.
Christiane,
Thank you for pointing out my mistake, though I fail to see what it is. Since I was quoting Scripture, I can see why you would not agree.
I was not quoting from some “canon.” The word is clear on the matter of who must make the first move when there is an offense taken.
Plus, you can sin against God without sinning against man but you cannot sin against man without sinning also against God. Even in the former case it inevitably (often) leads to the latter.
L’s—
You are precisely right according to Scripture. How I wish more on this blog read the Bible with you understanding—-and, even more, you grace and love for fellow believers!!!!!
Steve,
I served on a SBC board more than once. I was asked to do several things during the CR. I was asked to do those things, not due to kissing anyone, but because of my personal convictions before being asked.
Of course, it did not hurt that I beat the faculty of the University of Richmond with a tire iron and mailed the video to Houston, Memphis, Atlanta and Dallas to the CR leaders who lived there. I was elected as a trustee to the BSSB the next day. 🙂 🙂
See comment 206 that I intended to be a response to the Video Announcement
So cb: beat the faculty of the Univrsity of Richmond with a tire iron & mailed video . .
That must be an interesting story worthy of telling!!!
Can you share???
Gene,
Are you not familiar with “The Fundamentals: A Testimony of Truth”?
Heck, no and—-I could care less!!!!! Pompous statements made by monkeys climbing trees to show their tails have little or no interest for me. I’m age 64 and quickly recognize time wasters vs. important matter of faith and trust leading us to really share the Gospel!!! Of late, this blog is sounding like the wind is blowing and monkeys are hanging on for dear life. Why don’t we discuss something real and important like—-the failed economy / the continuing hatred in the SBC / why Frank Page was treated badly as he became head of the Executive Committee / how… Read more »
Well, considering the gospel (or rather non-gospel) those of your theological persuasion present, I am quite happy to have seen the bold mission thrust ended. I certainly wouldn’t want someone to hear you preach a gospel that Jesus is just one of many ways to salvation.
Real Christians, on the other hand, proclaim salvation exclusively through repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ alone.
Joe,—
You are so off base here as to be in the Men’s Room rather than the ball field!!!
Why don’t you just say, “The Gospel is worthless unless it comes only from me and my buddies.”
Gene,
You could move along from the blog if you hate the content and do not respect those who oppose you here. What’s the point of wasting your time on a blog like this?
Gene, I’ll take you up on this one: QUOTE why Frank Page was treated badly as he became head of the Executive Committee END QUOTE I for one thought the whole process was handled poorly. It looked like the “Good Ole Boys” club giving a job to a favored son. In my opinion it has less to do with the man chosen than with the fact that it looked like an “inside job.” I say, “Let’s have some transparency” and get rid of the “Good Ole Boys’ Club” regardless of what theological label it may be wearing at the time.… Read more »
SSBN— You are telling me now the “Good Ole Boys’ Club” needs to go—I can’t believe it! That Club got what they wanted / completely excluded anyone not a card carrying member / gave themselves 3-figure salaries + expense accounts with mission money / those who live by the sword, die by the sword—of their followers, it seems. Hate begets hate as Jesus pointed out with advice to “turn the other cheek.” However, when you keep turning it and the opponent keeps hitting without any show of compassion—-it’s time for a chipping machine accident!!! Jesus took a whip on the… Read more »
Well, Gene, you make your position clear: when it comes to following what the Word says and what your gut feels, “your belly is your god.”
In this case, your words are a self-fulfilling prophecy: “hate will beget hate.”
And I agree, when moderates did the things you stated in your post when they were running the “Good Ole Boys’ Club,” it was wrong.
SSBN— Moderates have not had much say in the SBC since 1979. That’s 40 years where you and your friends have run it!!!!! This comment is, indeed, the kettle calling the pot black—in spades!!! I find you in a dilemma: admitting Frank Page was too much a member of the “Good ole Boys Club”–yet seeing part of CR was to eliminate a GOBC. Why is it the victors end up recreating what they banished—only in spades / hearts / queens / kings!!! You now have a monster to contend with and you can’t blame it on “liberals” because we haven’t… Read more »
SSBN,
I rather like Frank Page. His unfortunate mistreatment had more to do the appearance of a GCRTF power grab than with his own personal qualifications. The Task Force was elected to make a report, not to become the Central Committee of the Convention. The report is now finished and the Task Force disbanded, but if members of that Task Force are elected to all of the major vacancies in Baptist life, I don’t believe the convention will be satisfied waiting fifteen years to listen to those recordings.
Rick—
Does anyone have a clue what the “hidden discusssion” is all about???
It is unprecedented in mostly open discussion—except when the CR boys were killing editors of paprs. The Mafia is quite direct should the wrong editorial appear which calls them “crooks” rather than “strong handed professionals.”
It’s all in the words—and when they are hidden we can’t help but wonder: Why???????
Gene,
About the editors?….It was not personal….just business…….very necessary business.
Actually the stench of monkey poop is getting offensive to the point it needs some attention.
One would think that with proven failure of the SBC, some of the monkeys would realize they are caught because they won’t let go of the bananna they are clutching in the jar.
Let go the bananna—-AND YOU ARE FREE!!!
Wow! You have a thing with monkeys 🙂
SSBN— I see we are starting to understand one another. I feel sorry for you putting up with the “Good Ole Boys Club” which is becoming a “Controlling Old Men’s Club.” Control is control and it never changes! As for me and my kind, we believe in a faith controlled only by God and the Holy Spirit. We don’t pick up a shief of paper every time we do something to find a proof text for it. We know God and trust his Holy Spirit to guide us AND correct us. No human will ever completely and “without error” know… Read more »
SSBN—
If it looks like a monkey / smells like a monkey / acts like a monkey———it just might be a monkey!!!!!!!
Monkeys do naughty things and then hide their eyes pretending they didn’t do it when the watchers at the zoo know exactly what they do!!! Kinda rhymes–oh my!
Actually, “Who do you say that I am?” was a question He asked. Therefore, believing in whatever tickles your fancy is NOT sufficient.
Gene,
What the Lord revealed in Acts 16:31? Is it salvation first, then believing afterward?
They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your family.” That is clear that “believing in the Lord Jesus” is the first step to salvation. It doesn’t say anything about Calvin’s interpretation of faith or anyone else! The interesting feature is that of corporate belief–i.e., if the father believes his children and wife (wives) are saved as well. Personally, I don’t buy it for salvation requires each one to believe. This is a clear example of how culture of that day directs the concept of salvation as corporate rather than individual! The worst thing that… Read more »
lubabi, I am not sure where you got your faulty understanding of Calvinism from, but you definitely got it from somewhere other than the what Calvinists actually believe. You condemn a version of Calvinism no actual Calvinist believes in. Instead of proclaiming that Calvinists believe in something they do not, why not listen to actual Calvinists and allow them to explain what they believe in? Calvinism does not condition salvation on works. Calvinists which hold strongly to James hold just as strongly onto Paul. Having right faith about God and Jesus Christ brings about right actions (i.e., works) which are… Read more »
. I hate italics.
Sorry, trying again to turn italics off. But I don’t know WordPress.
Gene messed up his html in a comment above, and it left italics on for everyone’s comment. I corrected his italics and I think that they are off now.
Thanks Dave:
I can assure you it wasn’t on purpose. When you take up ‘puter stuff in your 50’s and depend on Windows buttons normally, you can make a mess—-or was it I just forgot to put an end command–actually I forget what the heck I did = distracted by my lovely wife in her bikini getting some sun on Sunday afternoon!!!
She’s going on 61 this week and doesn’t look a day over 40!!!! Lucky me!
Byroniac,
It is not how strong you hold to James 2. It is what James 2 really saying. If someone weakly holding to true meaning of James 2 it is a l lot better than strong holding to a wrong reading of James 2.
What I am saying is the P of TULIP is really teaching salvation by performance.
My quoting John Piper is just an illustration of the salvation by performance of the P of calvinism.
Lu,
No, the P teaches that Christ saves us forever. Works are an outpouring proof of salvation. I don’t think even 5-point Arminians disagree with works = proof of salvation.
Byroniac, How about this. The text of Jn 3:16 put the CONDITION followed by the CONSEQUENCE : “whosoever believeth [condition], shall be saved [consequence]. “Paul said, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ [condition] and shall be saved [consequence] . . . ”(Acts 16:31). See how Calvinist reverse the order in the text: The Westminster Confession of faith states: “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and… Read more »
Folks—
Do you have any idea how rediculous all this sounds????
It is a tempest in a teapot and much ado about NOTHING!!!!
SBC Voices Administrator,
Nothing personal against the author of comment 194, but any reasonable Christian standard of language has been broken. If this remains in the comment stream, I will no longer visit the site. (Cue the music, “Don’t Cry For Me, Argentina.”) Again, no hard feelings everybody. Dave, maybe we’ll run into you in Phoenix. It’s been fun, guys.
Rick,
I deleted the comment… I hadnt seen it so thank you for pointing it out to me.
Matt
Now you have my curiosity up!!!!
It had to be Joe “blow” Blackmon—right??
No, Gene. The comment erased was one of your profane comments.
David R. Brumbelow
David—
Pray tell the nature of such. I’m trying to be nice in monkey-tree-climbing-land.
Perhaps I was using too mluch Kion Greek which was the language of the common people in a manner easily understood.
Matt, you’re a very good ref. You let ’em play, but if it gets out of hand, you’re not afraid to call the technical. And for my part, I will improve the blog by abstaining from any more “Evita” references.
lol… Yes, no more “Evita.”
Thank you for the compliment as well. I do try to let the conversation go, when it gets out of hand I am happy to get rid of some comments. I just cant keep track of every single one so I need guys like you to make me aware when some cross the line! Thanks again!