There was a Facebook Live interview today, hosted by Pastor Brad Jurkovich at FBC, Bossier City, LA, which explored the candidacy of J.D. Greear. It is a great interview. Topics such as Greear’s agenda, Calvinism, politics and the ERLC, and many other things were covered.
The interview in it’s entirety can be found in both video and audio form on the SBC This Week site.
There have been some of the most bizarre, ridiculous, vicious, and frankly, dishonest criticisms leveled at Dr. Greear. No man is above critique and no one deserves a vote. But the more people watch and listen to JD the less they will impressed by some of the silly things that have been said about him.
An interview with Ken Hemphill will follow next month.
J. D. Greear is clearly a Centrist. What he says in the rest of the interview ought to be convicting to those of us who “get bogged down” by the issue.
Ken, JD Greear’s church is listed with Calvinist “Gospel Coalition”
http://churches.thegospelcoalition.org/app/church/9348
But still, I’d like to hear the interview to see what he has to say.
Brother Greear’s church is listed with the Calvinistic group but that does not mean that JD is a full fledged Calvinist.
In fact, and as noted on this blog in various postings, Calvinists and non-Calvinists not only get along and but also serve together., throughout the SBC convention, including at our universities and in our churches. That is because the Gospel, which is the top priority, is not affected by different viewpoints on how one becomes elect, or the extent of the atonement.
That some people want to cause division over these things is quite sad, and is detrimental to our service to our King and Lord.
I agree with Ken Hamrick that JD Greear sounds like a centrist and a Gospel proclaimer worthy of any of our votes whether we be Calvinists, Centrists, or Traditionalists.
If J.D. is Calvinist, he is barely inside the line. However, I would think the true believer 5 pointers probably wouldn’t think of him as truly one of them.
The Centrist category overlaps both Calvinism and Traditionalism, since it affirms the full, free will of men AND that God is the ultimate Determiner of the destinies.
Scott, I don’t know about “true believer five pointers”. But as a former Calvinist all the five point Calvinists I knew and know would accept him as a Calvinist.
Hmmm, Greear gives a walk forward invitation. Couldn’t possibly be an authentic Cal…
Greear said that he and Ken Hemphill had spoken at length and “one of the things he and I both agreed upon is if it is presented in this whole election that there are sides that are represented then no matter who wins everybody loses.”
Isn’t J. D. Greear also a part of Acts 29?
David R. Brumbelow
Yes. He is listed on the Acts 29 website.
No, he is not.
Unless it has changed very recently, ACTS 29 will accept as cooperating churches only those who espouse the Calvinistic doctrine. Now either JD is being disingenuous with that entity, or he is being disingenuous regarding his previous statement mentioned above. You can’t have it both ways.
Per the ACTS 29 website – In order to become a participating church ( Which Summit has been for many years), these are some of the requirements:
“Before becoming a member, the elders of your church will need to agree to enter into a covenant with Acts 29.—-Acts 29 is a family of church planting churches. It is therefore the church and not the individual that becomes the member. This is done by assessing the pastor who then acts as the main point of contact between Acts 29 and the church. —Acts 29 is theological driven as we believe church planting to be a theologically driven initiate. Therefore, we ask that you not only agree with the theological distinctives, but actively embrace, teach and uphold them across your eldership and leadership team.We enthusiastically embrace the sovereignty of God’s grace in saving sinners.”
You can’t say I believe the ACTS 29 understanding of soteriology and at the same time say that is in conjunction with the free will of man simultaneously. These are separate and distinct. As JD’s church has been a member of ACTS 29 greater than 10 years I believe, it is not hard to figure out where his soteriological understanding has been, at least until recently???
From the website: Acts29.com/about
[begin quote]
Acts 29 stands in the tradition of historic evangelical confessionalism. While we believe it is vital that the elders of each of our churches determine where they stand on doctrines of second importance, we do wish to make known our convictions on the following five theologically-driven core values:
Gospel centrality in all of life
The sovereignty of God in saving sinners
The work of the Holy Spirit for life and ministry
The equality of male and female and the principle of male servant leadership
The local church as God’s primary mission strategy
[end quote]
What part of those 5 requirements [if any] do Traditionalists or Centrists object to?
Kevin, I’m with Mike’s question. What part of the Acts 29 statement on their website would you disagree with?
You may not know that ACTS 29 is distinctly Calvinistic in their soteriological understanding. Although the subject heading of “The sovereignty of God in saving sinners” may not give you all the details, make no mistake that a more thorough examination of their beliefs reveals a distinct belief of monergism.
If Mike or Les would want to argue that ACTS 29 is not monergistic, then I can give further details for clarity….but I don’t really think that is a disputed point.
Oh yes of course Acts 29 is Calvinistic. And is monergism out of bounds or something?
I don’t see the conflict. You gotta do more than this to substantiate your claim that he is being disingenuous with anyone. That’s a serious charge. Show it. What you’ve done so far doesn’t show it.
Again, which of the listed theological requirements listed at the website do you disagree with?
This also lines up with the BF&M (which I’m teaching through in Sunday School); article 2 God, sentence 4: God is all powerful and all knowing, and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. The supposed Calvinist takeover ringleader Al Mohler was on the committee that drafted that; did he agree with it deceptively?
Greear can easily affirm: monergism, Acts 29, and the BF&M all at the same time and still be faithful & honest.
This is the new thing in American life that we as Christians must be very wary of; we cannot ascribe motive to others. We especially cannot ascribe motive that contradicts directly what a fellow brother is saying. Take him at his word, look at his track-record, and act accordingly. I know of nothing in Greear’s history that leads anyone to believe he is dishonest or underhanded.
Kevin, Greear’s church is no longer listed on acts 29. If you want to see a detailed explanation of what he agrees with, go to the gospel coalition website.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/
For example, in describing the work of the Holy Spirit it says The Holy Spirit “regenerates spiritually dead sinners, awakening them to repentance and faith.”
Les – Would you agree that one cannot hold to a viewpoint of synergism AND monergism simultaneously? Just asking for a friend 🙂
Where is the record of Greear saying he espouses both synergism and monergism?
The above quote merely reflects his accurate teaching of Scripture. I’m a monergist and there are times when things I teach sound softer on that topic than others. When I urge people to action or response in/to the Gospel that isn’t strictly monergistic in it’s thinking; but what I do trusting the Holy Spirit to work in the lives of His people.
The person who demands you fit into their category based on they define the terms, whether they be Calvinist or Traditionalist, is dangerous. Let people define their beliefs and teachings themselves first.
Greear has done that, unless you believe he is being dishonest in his statements; in which case present your evidence why you think that is so.
Ha ha. Tell your friend, that definitions are important. Here’s what I understand about the monergism/synergism issue.
Monergism in Calvinisti theology holds that the new birth (regeneration) is monergistic. That is, God alone brings about the new birth.
Synergism holds that man cooperates with God in the new birth. Man believes and then God regenerates. There is cooperation between man and God to bring about regeneration.
And actually, there is synergism in Reformed theology. Though in a true sense all of what we do in the Christian life is ultimately from God (hence we cannot take credit for any sanctification going on), nevertheless we do contribute. Man actually does repent and believe. Man does that, not God. So that is synergistic.
If words mean anything, the ACTS 29 website says that a pastor needs to affirm their theological position of monergism in regards to salvation, and that he also ” actively embrace, teach and uphold them across your eldership and leadership team.” Now if JD espouses this, which ACTS 29 requires for membership, then he could not embrace a synergistic soteriology whereby man chooses to respond to God’s conviction on his heart. These positions are mutually exclusive by definition.
Kevin,
“then he could not embrace a synergistic soteriology whereby man chooses to respond to God’s conviction on his heart. These positions are mutually exclusive by definition.”
No, no, no. I’m as reformed as anyone on here. I subscribed in my ordination to the WCF and the WCF agrees with “man chooses to respond to God’s conviction on his heart.” So do I. As I explained above, the Reformed position says that God acts first, monergistically, and man responds in a real choice to repent and believe. Again, we must define these things precisely when discussing, and especially when accusing a pastor like JD or anyone really of being disingenuous or dishonest.
Kevin,
Les is right on this.
Calvinism doesnt teach that man does nothing in salvation.
It plainly teaches that man does respond to the conviction of his heart.
What you are doing is projecting your understanding and possibly that of others onto Calvinism. So, if I may, let me try and point out the differences as I see them.
Synergism declares that God moves first on a person’s heart and enables them to choose to follow God or not.
Monergism declares that God moves first on a person’s heart and enlightens them with the truth and that person willingly desires God because of at least three things:
[1] The person knows and feels the love of God
[2] The person knows they are a sinner and the cost is eternal death.
[3] The person sees the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ as they grasp the truth and the power of the Gospel.
Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
2nd Cor. 4
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
The most important decision of a persons life with the greatest long range ramifications is made with reason and reasons.
WHY does one surrender themselves to Jesus as Lord?
and its corollary:
WHY does a person reject the Gospel?
Synergism says that people make one of these choices when they hear the Gospel preached.
The Bible agrees and goes on to say WHY one person chooses Jesus and the other chooses against Jesus.
I gave you some of the FOR verses above.
An ANTI choice verse would be 1st Cor. 1:
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
The verses from above [2nd Cor. 4:3-4] explains some of this thinking of the perishing:
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Monergism says that God moves on the heart and brings a person to salvation.
Now ACTS29 does not make [according to their website] a person be a strict monergist in order to participate with them in planting churches.
Again, here what they said:
“Acts 29 stands in the tradition of historic evangelical confessionalism. While we believe it is vital that the elders of each of our churches determine where they stand on doctrines of second importance, we do wish to make known our convictions on the following five theologically-driven core values:
Gospel centrality in all of life
The sovereignty of God in saving sinners
The work of the Holy Spirit for life and ministry
The equality of male and female and the principle of male servant leadership
The local church as God’s primary mission strategy”
Now that is in line with the Bf&M2000 is it not?
Do you deny God’s sovereignty in saving sinners?
Do you think everyone has to agree down to the last jot and tittle in order to work togther for the Gospel?
Do you think that you are being deceived by calvinists and/or JDGreear?
Kevin,
All that you quoted from ACTS 29 was the requirement to embrace “the sovereignty of God in salvation.” Can you find where it is required that members embrace monergism? Monergism and Synergism are the precise working out (in human reasoning) of how God is understood by Cal’s and Trad’s to work in saving sinners. Centrists find both the sovereignty of God in salvation and the free will decision of men to reject or believe in the Bible, and so we affirm both. If monergism or synergism requires one of these principles to be abandoned, then the human reasoning fails to meet the standard of revelation. My impression of J.D. Greear, from the interview above, is that he would not get bogged down in such arguments.
This in not an insult or accusation, but to state that God acts in a monergistic fashion so that man can respond in a synergistic fashion really requires a contortion of language, from my perspective. As you and I both know, from a reformed position, once God acts monergistically, man has no choice in the matter because he has already been reborn, regenerated, saved, and placed into God’s family by adoption. And man had no choice in any of it.
While I agree that God is always the initiator in the Father’s drawing and the Spirit’s conviction, I do believe that God has given man the capacity to either accept or reject…..and that is where the distinction is. Monergism and synergism are not compatible under these conditions.
I don’t fault anyone from disagreeing, but let’s not pretend that we are saying the same thing when we talk about such issues.
Kevin, I realize we are not saying the same thing when talking about the formal definitions of monergism and synergism. I’m just saying that monergism formally in theological discussions does not preclude man actually doing something. Anyway, the issue is you really need to demonstrate that JD is being disingenuous. I haven’t seen that yet.
I have to go for a bit to do some synergism on the treadmill. 🙂
🙂
My contention is that to become part of ACTS 29, you cannot hold with synergism proper unless you re-define it. If he holds to the requirements of this group, he is a monergist. If he diverges in his understanding of salvation compared to ACTS 29, then it would seem that he would part ways with such entity since their theological position requires affirmation by its members.
To sum it up, it would seem to me that either a) he agrees with the theological position of ACTS 29 and as such his church is a member, and has been for many years, or b) he is a member of ACTS 29 but does not agree with its theological, soteriological position and as such is not meeting the stated requirements for membership.
If a) is true, then JD is no centrist, in my opinion, because he is a monergist. If b) is true, then he may be a centrist, but he is being disingenuous with what ACTS 29 requires.
Now all of this is based on what I have read. I do not propose to know his heart or convictions, but printed words often mean exactly what they say as far as positions that one holds. As best as I can discern from the printed medium(ie internet), this is the conclusion that I have drawn. I am smart enough to know that i am not always right, and am open to correction if I have misunderstood what i have read.
Kevin,
Brother, you said:
“This in not an insult or accusation, but to state that God acts in a monergistic fashion so that man can respond in a synergistic fashion really requires a contortion of language, from my perspective”
Let me ask you then to explain this:
Phillipians 2
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
God is at work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure, YET, we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling as we obey Him.
Now the work we do [our obedience and what uis done with trembling -v.12] is that not work we do synergistically, that is, by the power f God, since we are told in another place by the Lord, “You can do nothing without me.”? BUT are you saying that the work God is doing in you is not wholly of Him? Of course not. Or simply put: God is at work in you so that you can live in obedience to Him.
Here is another example:
Galatians 2:
17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
God in you, living in you, and you living in Him through faith in Him.
Yet we still sin. And Christ is no minister of sin.
Thus brother there is a a separation between God in us and everything we do.
So simply, there is God in us and there is the synergistic work of Him and ourselves as we walk in faith.
And there is God in us and a time when we fail to walk in faith and in life and instead sin.
But the constant truth is whether we walk in faith or sin that God is in us.
People, facts matter.
I was contacted by someone who was.concerned about the inaccurate information being stated here.
Neither Summit nor JD are currently affiliated with Acts 29.
And could you guys take the Calvinism foodfight somewhere else? Don’t you get tired of it?
Then I stand corrected Dave. I just looked over and saw posts and videos of him on their current website. I suppose he WAS a member at one time. In any case, it’s a non issue. I was actually trying to defend him if he is a member against the charge that he would be disingenuous if he is. I’m happy to stand down on the Calvinism debate as you wish.
If I had a vote, I’d vote for the “fake news” posts to be deleted.
This ACTS29 stuff is old. The anti-Cals have taken the position that any church that shows up on the A29 site is unacceptably Calvinist. This saves them the trouble of actually examining a church’s doctrine and practices. It also ignores a church or pastor’s agreement with the BFM.
The anti-Cals have been using this system for years.
I expect JDG to be demonized in the next few months. This is one of the tools.
We can at least ask for honesty from the Anti-Cals.
Since The Summit is not listed on the Acts29 site, check it yourself, perhaps an apology is in order for going down this road.
I do see that Raleigh has “The Vintage” church that is A29. Perhaps this would be one Trads would like.
Vintage sounds too close to wine related topics, must be Calvinist. 🙂
Lol!!
If the Summit church has left ACTS 29, it must be a relatively new development. Many, many internet sites show their affiliation with said group in the recent past. Wonder why the departure???
You have a long string of A29 comments. Now you’re moving on to other criticisms? How about a correction first?
I have no affiliation with The Summit Church but there seems to be no dispute that they have had a long time affiliation (ie more than a decade) with Acts 29 network. It just seems very coincidental to me that at some point in the very recent past they have dis-affiliated themselves with this group. I was just curious as to when this happened and for what reason, given their past involvement with the group.
I had not seen a public announcement of this change, and as i have said earlier, I am open to correction. Dave said the Summit is ” not currently affiliated”. Any reason known for the break in fellowship? Just seems odd in the timing to me, but maybe I am just a conspiracist at heart. 🙂
Mr William – Is that correction sufficient?
Kevin, William is correct. I know I was wrong and say so. I saw his photo and some posts there on A29 and I assumed he is still affiliated. I was wrong.
But, even is he is still affiliated, what difference does that make? You said earlier that would preclude him from being a centrist? What does that mean? I think it means he must not be a Calvinist in your and certainly in some others’ views.
I mean, the other also well respected and godly candidate is presently affiliated with Connect 316 and is a signatory on the trad statement. Is that a “centrist” place to be? I mean that org is not just non Cal, they are anti Cal. But I’m sure most here would be just fine if he wins over JD.
Anyway, A29 or not, it should make no difference for the reasons others have said, particularly William just now. Great reasons that JD would be a very suitable SBC prez.
Is it safe to say, Kevin, that you eould rather continue ti spread falsity than admit the truth.
Summit is not Acts 28. Saying they are may or may not be an insult, depending on your perspective , but since you have been given the truth it is most certainly bearing false witness.
Speak truth.
I will probably vote for Greear, unless Trump enters the race!
But the Summit NOT being in Acts 29 now apparently after having been so for years makes me wonder why.
Why and when did they join, how long were they members, and why did they leave?
And what did they do with the money they were sending to Acts 29?
I hope someone who interviews Greear will ask that.
My understanding is that it is not that recent
I don’t think JD is going to spend the next months trying to correct disinformation and lies.
Dave, I was also surprised to learn that Greear’s church no longer affiliates with Acts 29. Louis asked fair questions that I would also be interested in knowing the answers to. I think it would be beneficial for all in the interest of transparency from a candidate for SBC President. Otherwise, maybe it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.
What is the problem if his church or JD is still affiliated with Acts 29? Dan B, I’m not saying you have an issue with it. I don’t know.
But can someone explain why that is a problem?
Les, I just think it’s odd that an SBC church would want to affiliate with Acts 29 due to the presumed differences in theology and approach.
Dan B,
“Les, I just think it’s odd that an SBC church would want to affiliate with Acts 29 due to the presumed differences in theology and approach.”
Well for some, the theology and approach is not different.
But happy to see that at least for you, you’re ok with a Calvinist being SBC president.
Thanks Dan for the discussion.
Louis, to the best of my recollection, there have been at least two interviews posted in various SBC sites, with JD, and from what I have read, or listened to, the people with the bully pulpit had no interest in asking any serious, probative questions that would/ could firm up what this Pastor believes as to soteriology.
The Calvinist view, to me anyway has other far reaching ramifications than just how a sinner is redeemed, in the life of a believer, and of churches..
Most of what I have read on this website, and over at SBC Today have been very akin to an “infomercial” for JD ‘s campaign. When you watch a debate between a Calvinist and Arminian, and it the opening statements, the Calvinist says ” This is NOT an in house debate, I am not brothers with them, they are heretics, that add works to salvation. And they didn’t claim to be hyper….
“Most of what I have read on this website, and over at SBC Today have been very akin to an “infomercial” for JD ‘s campaign.”
This statement shows that you are pretty much unfamiliar with at least one of these two blogs.
“When you watch a debate between a Calvinist and Arminian, and it the opening statements, the Calvinist says…”
What on earth are you referring to ?!?
Benny, this is one of the most fact-less comments I’ve seen in a very long time.
In the age of Trump, we call them “alternative facts”.
Kevin, you could check your own stuff. Since Dave and I did it for you, and it took maybe 60 seconds, maybe you could just say that you were in error.
This is one of the anti-Cal issues, always has been. I get that there is an anti-Cal sentiment afoot in some sectors. Seems like it would be sufficient to look at a guy’s record, his practices, his acceptance of the BFM, his support for SBC causes, his actual statements on doctrine, not to mention his evangelistic results and support for international missions, etc…but no one ever got any conspiracy out of solid facts.
It’s been asserted that rabid Trads will try and elect likeminded presidents “year-after-year-after-year.” Guess we are in for a lot of rancor from that sector.
Mr Thornton –
When a pastor tells his church that many may not know that their own church is affiliated with the SBC, then that, to me, would be a small problem for a pastor who is seeking to be the president of said organization. this fact does not have to be a problem for you, Mr Thornton. His long time affiliation with an organization that requires Calvinistic soteriological solidarity also is a small problem for me. We each get to decide our own criteria for what is important in electing a president. You think yours are good. I think mine are good..perhaps better:-)
Kevin, you said,
“His long time affiliation with an organization that requires Calvinistic soteriological solidarity also is a small problem for me.”
I assume you also have a problem with the only other candidate for his association with a “Traditionalist only” (non Calvinist only) org?
After watching the whole sermon by J.D. Greear, entitled, “Chosen,” accessed at
https://www.summitrdu.com/message/chosen/
no doubt remains as to the fact that his views are centrist. There’s so much worth quoting from this sermon that you’ll just have to view it for yourselves, if you’re interested. He is exactly the kind of man needed in an hour when the Calvinism debate has grown way out of proportion.
For those not inclined to view his whole sermon, here are some excerpts…
https://www.summitrdu.com/message/chosen/
(8:19) There are some things about God that you’re never gonna quite fully understand. The Bible tells us that in a verse that really helped me when I was struggling with a lot of questions that get raised in passages like this one. The verse was Deut. 29:29… “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Now, notice that there’s a distinction. The first thing that you gotta acknowledge is that there are some secret things. There’s secret things and there’s revealed things. There’s a distinction between them; and our responsibility… Moses who wrote Deuteronomy… tells us…our responsibility is to believe and obey what is revealed, not to try to figure out all that is hidden. And by the way, that there are some things that remain hidden really aggravates a lot of theologians who insist on having it all figured out. But I would just remind you that we’re talking about God. So it shouldn’t surprise you that there remains a realm that your mind can scarcely understand, much less explain. I mean, imagine trying to explain quantum physics to a four-year-old. Or imagine somebody trying to explain it to you. Okay? Jut because you can’t explain it fully, or comprehend it fully, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Right? And the question I often ask you is, which do you think is greater… the gap between a four-year-old’s understanding and yours, as an adult, or the gap between yours and God’s? […] Of course the gap is greater between [yours] and God’s than between ours and a four-year-old’s, so of course there’s things that we’re not really gonna be able to comprehend. So we approach this subject understanding that we are delving into realities that our minds can barely grasp.
(19:20) [God said…] I choose you not because of something in you. I just choose you because I choose you. You say, “Well, doesn’t that violate my free will?” No, the Bible says His choice is never against our will but is always in concert with it. In some places, it says, “I chose you before the foundation of the world,” but in other places, Jesus would say, “Whosoever will may come.” Jesus explained how it works in John 6:44 when He says “Nobody comes to me unless the Father draws him.” Our choice and the Father’s drawing go hand-in-hand. The word for “draw” there in the Greek […] carries the idea of a desperately hungry man that is being drawn to food. That is what God does with us—He creates a hunger in us to know Jesus. And that hunger draws us to Jesus of our own free will, just like if you were starving you’re gonna be drawn to food. You see, our problem was not that we wanted to choose God and we couldn’t, our problem was that deep down none of us wanted to choose God. We preferred to rule ourselves and be the center of our own universe. Our “wanter” was all out of wack. That’s what it means to be spiritually dead. So what God does through the preaching of the gospel and in the power of the Spirit—what He does is He changes our hearts so that we begin to hunger after God. You say, “Well, why didn’t God choose everybody?” That’s a big question, but let me just say two things. First, keep in mind that God is not obligated to extend salvation to anybody. What’s fair is that we all perish. That any of us have a chance to receive forgiveness is a free gift of undeserved grace. But second—listen to this—this is the part of this discussion where a certain amount of mystery sets in—listen—because Scripture never presents—never—never presents the lack of God’s choosing as the reason why somebody didn’t come. Not once. It’s always back on that person; for example, Matt. 23:37, (Jesus talking) “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings,…”—and He didn’t say, “but, I just didn’t sovereignly choose that, so… you know… tough cookies.” No, He said, “but you weren’t willing!” I wanted to—you didn’t. 2 Pet. 3:9, “The Lord is not willing that any should perish”—He’s not willing that any should perish, but He wants all to come to repentance. […] The last section of our Bibles ends with this truth: [Rev. 22:17] “Whosoever will may come.” I’ve told you it’s entirely your choice. The last voice you’ll hear as you step off the earth in rejection of God into hell is His voice saying, “You don’t have to do that—you can choose!” Then I realize that there’s a mystery there but here is what we know is revealed: if you’re a Christian, it’s because God chose you; if you’re not, it’s because you’ve chosen to reject God, and the Lord is not willing that you should perish. He wants you to come to repentance. And He said, “If you will, just come.” Are you chosen? In one sense, you’re the one who has the power to decide that. If you choose to repent and believe in Jesus, then you’re chosen. The choice is entirely yours.
[Any typos or errors are mine]
Thank you Ken. That’s about as middle of the road as it can be. He’s not as Reformed soteriologically as I am, but I can minister with this man any day of the week. Solid.
But wait—there’s more excerpts you should read (from the same sermon: https://www.summitrdu.com/message/chosen/ )…
(26:50) First, if I had to pinpoint the primary corruption that sin has had in our thinking, it is our unquestioned assumption that we are the center of the universe, that the whole universe exists for us, and the most important thing is our wellbeing and our good. […] Even when we think about God, we think about it in terms of how He can complete us, how He can help us and how He can take us to heaven. You are not the center of the universe. Even your salvation was pursued in a way to bring glory to God.
Second, until you understand this, that God’s glory is the center of everything, nothing that God does is really gonna make sense to you. Your life is not gonna make sense; what God does will not make sense; and you’re never gonna find fulfillment until you live for His glory. I told you, God is like the sun in the middle of our solar system. Our world only thrives with the sun at the center. Our lives only thrive with God at the center.
Third, that means that there’s a lot more at stake here in your salvation than just you. God has bound up the glory of His name in your salvation.
(33:37) “You didn’t choose me”—(John 15:16)—“I chose you, and ordained you that you would go and bring forth fruit and that your fruit would remain.” You just gotta say, “Yes!” and let Me do it through you. He saved you to bring other people to Jesus through you… Let me go back here again real quick and make sure you understand. This is why the Scriptures teach us that we’re chosen. It’s not to unravel the mysteries of how God has worked in your past. It’s to give you confidence about what He wants to do in your future. You shouldn’t sit around pondering why God saved you instead of your nonbelieving friends. You should understand that He saved you for the sake of your nonbelieving friends. He chose you to bring forth fruit in Him […] He chose you to bless them. That’s why He said He did it.
(39:12) The idea that God chooses some to salvation doesn’t discourage sharing Christ. It empowers it. You say, “Well, why share, though, if they’re chosen?” That’s one of those things where we’re not really supposed to try and figure out the secret things. All that I know is that the more that I share Christ, the more that people seem to keep getting elected. That’s what I know.
(40:45) I share Christ with people like it’s all up to me, but I pray to God that they’ll receive Jesus, and do it with confidence like it’s all up to Him.
J.D. Greear’s views are undeniably centrist. (Polar-visioned pundits will now have to say, “They really do exist…” 🙂 ). Having reviewed his beliefs, I’m now puzzled at all the fuss from the Trad side. I confess I just don’t get it. Here’s an excellent man whose views are centrally located—no, his views transcend the debate by putting it back into proper perspective and showing how the gospel ought not to be weighed down with futile, divisive issues—and what more could we need?
This article came out after the annual meeting 2 years ago:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/calvinism-not-to-blame-for-southern-baptist-decline-jd-greear-165591/
Greear is characterized as a “strong Calvinist”. (Also interesting is that Mohler, Moore, Dever, and Platt are noted as “strict Calvinists” and Gaines as “more moderately Reformed”.) Since Greear was quoted in the article (and thus knew it was coming), did he ever dispute anything that was written? Surely if that was a bad mischaracterization from such a well-known publication, he would have wanted to clarify or correct.
Sometimes the criticism toward regular Calvinists is probably more applicable to hyper-Calvinists. I believe Greear is a “regular” Calvinist and prefers that centrist approach to try to avoid criticism. Otherwise, why not just simply reject the label for himself altogether?
Dan B,
“Greear is characterized as a “strong Calvinist”. ”
Or maybe centrist. In the end, what difference does it make anyway? Zero.
Les, my comment was in response to Ken saying that Greear is “undeniably centrist”. Obviously, I disagree.
I am less concerned with how many points of Calvinism that Greear agrees with, and more concerned about who and what he supports. Yes, he does a lot of good with his ministry, but I am concerned that he has downplayed his church’s affiliation with the SBC to his own membership. The links to TGC and (formerly) Acts 29 suggest at least tacit support for a more “Christian progressive” agenda in the convention led by the YRRs. The Calvinist soteriology of the folks in those groups probably make it difficult for him to reject the Calvinist label for himself if he truly isn’t a Calvinist. But I believe he is a Calvinist and so he won’t even make the attempt.
Dan B,
“Christian progressive” agenda.” What does that mean?
And I don’t think there’s any doubt that he’s a Calvinist. I’ve seen that defined as 3-4 out of 5 points, so he probably is, right?
But ok. Is a Calvinist not supposed to be Prez?
Further, what is a “centrist” anyway? From some other commenters, a centrist is a non Cal. This whole thing is just so muddled.
Les, in a nutshell, becoming more leftward in social justice issues.
As for being Prez, again, I am less concerned with how many points he adheres to and more about who and what he supports and affiliates with.
Ken, thanks for taking the time to type out these quotes from his sermon. I checked on your website and it say centrists put faith prior to regeneration. But Greear is a member of the gospel coalition and their statement of faith says the Holy spirit “regenerates spiritually dead sinners, awakening them to repentance and faith.”
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/
So it looks like he is a four point Calvinist who considers some things as tensions not to be solved.
Ken, though I’m not what you would call a centrist I know good guys who are. While I disagree with some of their interpretations, I respect that they take the Bible for what it says as they understand it. They don’t try to systematize away parts. Also, they can be very evangelistic which is vital.
Paul,
You noted, “But Greear is a member of the gospel coalition and their statement of faith says the Holy spirit “regenerates spiritually dead sinners, awakening them to repentance and faith.””
I surely hope that you are not suggesting that as a red flag for him becoming president of the SBC. I believe that fits well with the BF&M, does it not? It’s just good ol’ theology well within orthodoxy.
And this, ” I respect that they take the Bible for what it says as they understand it. They don’t try to systematize away parts. Also, they can be very evangelistic which is vital.”
That sounds like…JD Greear. You pegged him well there.
Dan B,
You can view J.D. Greear’s sermon(s) for yourself. I quoted what he himself said, rather than what others say about him. Can you read those quotes—or, better yet, view that sermon—and still call him a “strong Calvinist?” Even Les Prouty had to admit,
It’s always best to hear what the candidate says himself. Don’t take my word for it, or anyone else’s—view his sermons for yourself:
https://www.summitrdu.com/preacher/jd-greear/
Les, if you read my comments in this thread you’ll see I’ve been saying one thing. When people question if Greear is a Calvinist or say he’s something else I’ve pointed out we can know he is at least a four point Calvinist.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my last comment. Ken’s definition of a centrist is someone who among other things believes faith is prior to regeneration. Greear is part of the gospel coalition and their statement of faith says the opposite. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe he is not a centrist but at least a four point Calvinist. (By the way, a centrist seems to be a form of three point Calvinism.)
From the doctrinal statement Greear has signed off on he affirms the TUIP at least of tulip. This is at least a four point Calvinist. He has some similarities to centrists as do other non-centrists but he is at least a four point Calvinist.
It was asked, “…what is a ‘centrist’ anyway?” As I’ve pointed out many times over the years here, the struggle between the Cal’s and Trad’s in the SBC tends to ignore—and even deny the existence of—the vast number of “middlers” on neither side. The if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us labeling scheme, no matter how customary, does disservice to the reality and the unity of our convention. Sure, you can dismiss those in the center and insist that “one is either a Calvinist who holds that God determines the destinies of men OR one is a ‘NonCalvinist’ who rejects that God determines destinies;” but you will leave out the truth.
It’s more accurate, and better describes the reality of our unique convention, to label according to what is denied rather than what is affirmed. Calvinists deny that men have the full, free will to decide for themselves whether or not to believe; Traditionalists deny that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men; and Centrists deny neither.
We deny neither because we find both affirmed in Scripture, and we hold that revelation cannot be trumped by any human reasoning that would require us to deny any revealed principle.
Anyone who insists on ignoring this, and casting everyone as either Calvinist or against Calvinism is unnecessarily divisive and unhelpful.
Paul,
You said,
Calvinism doesn’t leave any tensions unresolved, Paul. So to hold that some tensions are not to be resolved is to deny the rationalistic excesses of Calvinism, and take a centrist approach.
The point-counting method of labeling is inherently divisive, allowing only for two sides, and forcing those in the middle into one side or the other (with varying point counts). It is a divisive method that is inaccurate and should be discarded. The fact that even an Arminian can be labelled a 1-point Calvinist (total depravity) should have caused rethinking…
On the question of regeneration, “the Holy spirit ‘regenerates spiritually dead sinners, awakening them to repentance and faith,'” it is not something that would necessarily disqualify someone as a Centrist. For example, I consider Andrew Fuller a Centrist, and he held that no one is saved except those who are regenerated in order to bring them to faith. The Centrist difference was that he held that regeneration only caused someone to do what they should have and could have done on their own but refused. In other words, a regeneration that persuaded but not a regeneration that overcomes an absolute inability to believe. I do think it is slightly inconsistent for a Centrist to hold to regeneration prior to faith, but inconsistencies and variations are common. I don’t know exactly what J.D. Greear believes about regeneration. But from what I’ve heard him say in his sermon (“Chosen”), I find him to be a Centrist.
Ken, I think you’ve identified a real category. I’ve just always consider them “mystery Calvinists” as they’ve identified as and with Calvinists and Calvinists accepted them.
Have a couple more questions to clarify what you mean.
would you consider Spurgeon a centrist?
My love for consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God…In the same way there are some things in the Word of God which are undoubtedly true which must be swallowed at once by an effort of faith, and must not be chewed by perpetual questioning.
https://answersingenesis.org/education/spurgeon-sermons/1516-salvation-by-knowing-the-truth/
Also you wrote:Calvinism doesn’t leave any tensions unresolved, Paul. So to hold that some tensions are not to be resolved is to deny the rationalistic excesses of Calvinism, and take a centrist approach.
Would you consider the Calvinists Who say, “hyper Calvinists and Arminians have the same problem. They both try to be rational. We need to accept what God says” to be centrists?
Paul,
We’ve probably covered this about as much as we can. Upi said,
“Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my last comment. Ken’s definition of a centrist is someone who among other things believes faith is prior to regeneration. Greear is part of the gospel coalition and their statement of faith says the opposite. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe he is not a centrist but at least a four point Calvinist. (By the way, a centrist seems to be a form of three point Calvinism.)”
Well I really like William and he is one of the more thoughtful fellas around these parts. But while his definition of centrist has some merit, it is not THE definition of all definitions. No offense bro William.
If Greear agrees with TGC on regeneration prior to faith, that is no disqualification to the presidency. There is no doubt really that Greear is a Calvinist. 3, 4, or 5 I don’t know. Doesn’t really matter as to qualifications. You and others are surely free to vote for the non Cal candidate, but for their to be a campaign by some to garner opposition to Greear simply because he is Calvinistic, that is a sad occurrence. The man is qualified. And would to God that more and more pastors, deacons, members were as evangelistic as he apparently is.
God bless Paul.
Les,
Who’s William, and what’s his definition?
Hi Ken,
“Who’s William, and what’s his definition?”
I have no idea. My bad. It was late. I like William too. But I meant you Ken. Sorry about that. I was talking about your “centrist” definition.
God bless.
Thanks, Les. You said:
No offense taken. However, your criticism here amounts to no more than to say that you don’t like my definition. I didn’t set out this definition without providing good, substantive reasons for it. This is all that a good definition needs. It doesn’t need approval, licensing or a two-thirds vote. In fact, it is less a definition than an argument establishing the propriety of recognizing a third category in what is commonly seen as a two-category choice. To cast aspersion on the propriety of that recognition, you need to substantively engage the argument. Let’s hear your reasons for why there really is no middle category, or why I have wrongly defined it.
Oh—and I really like you, too, Les!
Good morning Ken.
“However, your criticism here amounts to no more than to say that you don’t like my definition.”
No, I like your definition. I don’t necessarily agree with all aspects or ramifications of it or all the reasons as to how you came up with it. but that’s not a criticism of it or doesn’t mean I don’t like it. I don’t think I cast aspersions on it. Was not my intent.
This is not the place or time for me to dissect your definition, centrist. That wasn’t my point. My point to Paul was just to point out that your definition is not the end all and be all of definitions in this debate. Paul had said this:
“Ken’s definition of a centrist is someone who among other things believes faith is prior to regeneration. Greear is part of the gospel coalition and their statement of faith says the opposite. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe he is not a centrist but at least a four point Calvinist. (By the way, a centrist seems to be a form of three point Calvinism.)”
That’s nice, but it’s not a “mic drop” statement.
So no. No interest today to “substantively engage the argument” of the ins and outs of your definition. That was not and is not my interest. That’s another day and time, if ever.
God bless.
Les,
In your quote of Paul, he did not yet understand my definition, which is simply this: Centrists affirm that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men AND that men have the full free will to believe or reject God. Calvinists deny the latter, while Traditionalists deny the former. If such a group does exist, then it is obviously in the middle between the two. Not much room for dispute except to maybe contend that no such group exists.
No offense taken or intended. Be blessed!
Ken, A couple questions just to clarify.
By “full, free will” do you mean what is commonly called libertarian free will?
Would you consider a perseverance Molinist a centrist?
Thanks.
Paul,
The problem is that Libertarians (Traditionalists & Arminians) want to define freedom in such a way that no matter how freely a decision is made, it is still not free if the man is not the master of his own destiny while making the decision. It is to insist that man be on an equal level with God—“either God decides or I decide—it cannot be both.” But God is not on man’s level, and He is the only Master of destinies. I do deny the full freedom of men to decide whether to reject or believe—but I do deny that free will can be rightly defined in any way that equates man with God. God is immanent within his creation, and can allow all men to act in full freedom and still have every decision be in line with His perfect plan.
As an illustration:
God puts a man at a fork in a rural road. He gives the man a note and tells him to open it after he has decided. He tells the man he wants him to decide which way to go. The man, wanting to assert his freedom, decides he will thwart God’s will. So instead of taking either of the paths at the fork, he leaves the road and runs off into the woods. Then, jubilant in his Libertarian freedom, he opens the note, which reads, “My plan was for you to run off into the woods.”
Was the man’s decision freely made? Can he claim he was forced into a decision he really didn’t want to make? You may claim that freedom can only be accurately defined if it includes the power to determine destiny, but I say that GOD can only be accurately defined if HE has the power to determine destiny.
On the other hand, Calvinists claim that man is free, but they define it is only the freedom to act according to his nature. It is freedom, but only in one direction. They deny that man has the freedom to act against his nature. Of course, they cannot explain how Adam & Eve acted against their nature (but that’s a topic for a different day). Centrists disagree with Calvinists, and hold that the sinner has it in the power of his hand to act in either direction. The fact that he will only act in accord with his nature is not because he wants to do otherwise and can’t, or because he couldn’t even if he did want to, but only because he does NOT WANT TO. Nevertheless, he has the power and freedom to act against his nature if he so chooses.
I don’t know what a “perseverance Molinist” is, but Molinists in general seem to me to be rather deterministic. Do they not see God, at the beginning, choosing from various possible worlds (“off the rack,” so to speak), which are naturally determined to result in particular outcomes, and God chose the one that would result in the outcomes He wanted? My question would be, where is God in His immanent and Providential working within the world to accomplish His plan? If He is there active in the world, then there only can be ONE world, with God working in it to bring about certain outcomes. And if that is not the case, then the whole scheme is not Biblical.
CORRECTION: Change “I do deny the full freedom of men to decide whether to reject or believe—but I do deny that free will can be rightly defined in any way that equates man with God. ” to read, “I don’t deny the full freedom of men to decide whether to reject or believe—but I do deny that free will can be rightly defined in any way that equates man with God. “
Ken, as this is starting to get off topic I’ll contact you on your blog if I have anymore questions if that’s ok. I find your research interesting as I think it’s a real category. I’ll just ask one more question here. On your blog do you have a list of people you would identify as a centrists?
Ken,
“Of course, they cannot explain how Adam & Eve acted against their nature (but that’s a topic for a different day). ”
That’s an easy one. Pre-fall vs post-fall nature of man. But you’re right. Topic for another day.
Blessings brother.
Paul,
No, I don’t have a list of Centrists.
From what I have read and seen of Greear, his views are centrist.
If the Summit was previously an Acts 29 Church (and no one seems to deny that) it would not be addressing a “lie” to explain why the church was and why it is not now.
His answer might be that after a while, they saw that Acts 29 was not strong, there were theological issues, there were management issues etc., or they just came to see that the SBC way of doing things was better.
I can’t see how any discussion along those lines would be harmful.
The idea that God chooses some to salvation doesn’t discourage sharing Christ. It empowers it. You say, “Well, why share, though, if they’re chosen?” That’s one of those things where we’re not really supposed to try and figure out the secret things. All that I know is that the more that I share Christ, the more that people seem to keep getting elected. That’s what I know.
I have no problem with JD Greer, but no one should kid themselves in thinking that someone strong opposed to Calvinism would disagree with his comments here. His last line is straight from Spurgeon, (Mr. “Calvinism is the Gospel.”), and he does agree that “God chooses some for salvation.”.
He is clearly on the Calvinistic side of things, which is fine, I would argue nearly as Calvinistic as Spurgeon.
He is simply one whose understanding of election is not a primary point of emphasis.
I just watched a video of Al Moher speaking at last years shepherds conference ( at least I think it was last years). Dr. Mohler was speaking on apologetics, and he made this comment, I don’t know, and I can’t tell you why some people respond to the gospel and some hear it and don’t respond….
Beam me up Scotty, my life is complete….
Look, if people like Hemphill better than Greear, why not just say so and vote for him? Why is it necessary to suggest that Greear is the “stealth Calvinist” candidate? You see the rabid anticals at the “other” blog aren’t writings posts about the virtues of their candidate, they are denigrating Greear.
Not sure I’ve defined what you guys are discussing…
…but I’ll define this stealth business as self-serving, willfully ignorant nonsense.
J. D. Greear probably has more stuff available for review than hardly any other SBC pastor. The guy is practically ubiquitous. It is the height of absurdity to ignore easily accessed links of his sermons and interviews, or Ken Hamrick’s lengthy transcriptions of portions of some of JDG’s stuff, and appeal to a secondhand, undefined source for non-specific information.
If you like the other guy…vote for him. I you don’t like JDG’s megachurch, the fact that his church has more folks on the fields with IMB than any other SBC church, baptizes hundreds, gives millions to missions…vote for the other guy. No need to go through this clown act that parrots the anti-Cal anti-JDG talking points.
Well said, William. You really are “one of the more thoughtful fellas around these parts!”
Amen William. Well said. My other comment a few minutes ago explains what I mistakenly said about you and “your definition.” Sorry about that.
Ken,
Not to argue or debate but you said C’s don’t believe that man has free will to accept or reject.
That’s not true. We believe that many men freely reject the Gospel while many others freely accept the Gospel.
And in fact, don’t you believe that only the elect will accept the Gospel and that the nonelect will never accept the Gospel?
The great thing is that the C and the T and all those in between preach the same Gospel. For the extent of the Gospel and how one becomes elect are secondary issues to the truth of the Gospel. That is why we are brothers in Christ and why dividing over these secondary issues is unfruitful.
Mike,
That’s the good thing about acknowledging things as they are, and recognizing that it’s not an us-or-them division of only two sides, but it is a we’re-all-in-this-together spectrum of beliefs from full Calvinism to moderate Calvinism to Centrism to moderate Traditionalism to full Traditionalism—with lots of overlap and variance. It is to acknowledge that Southern Baptists in the main are not involved in the battle between the two ends of the spectrum. Recognizing that there is indeed a middle does not add another division—rather, it is a unifying factor. And what could be more unifying than having a president who can join with both sides in affirming their most insistent principle? When J.D. Greear preaches that every sinner has the power to choose Christ, every Traditionalist ought to say, “Amen!” And when he preaches that God in His mysterious wisdom and sovereignty chose whom He will save before the foundation of the world, every Calvinist ought to say, “Amen!” And that fact is that most Southern Baptists will have no problem, and will be blessed by such a leader.
I was highly encouraged by the interview. I especially appreciated the fact that JD and Ken spoke together at length and neither wants this election to be about “sides.” Regardless of which men you’re voting for, it is encouraging to see this type of cordiality before the election. I will not be at the Convention this summer, but if I were, I would vote for JD–not because he’s a Calvinist, and I am one. The issue for me is visionary leadership and the future of our convention and also engaging the younger generation. I think JD will do a great job at this. Ken Hemphill will probably do a great job as well as president, but I think JD is the man for such a time as this in the life of our convention. I just pray that the issue of Calvinism does not become the tail that wags the dog in this election.
OK guys… I have to do something here as a matter of integrity… Something has been brought to my attention.
It’s clear that many, but not all, of us who post on this site are planning to vote for JD in June… and we’ve been pretty consistent in calling out the lies and deception and such from the 316 crowd… therefore I do think that we should ourselves make great strides to be forthright ourselves – lest we fall into the same trap of candidate favoring deception that Rick and others engage in.
In this thread many have asserted that JD, the summit church and their church planting network have nothing to do with acts 29.
While, I do not think it matters whether they do or not as they are an autonomous Southern Baptist church and can partner with whomever they wish – it does appear to be true that they are affiliated/partnered with Acts29.
http://thesummitnetwork.com/about/
William Thornton
You have a long string of A29 comments. Now you’re moving on to other criticisms? How about a correction first?—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————Dave Miller
Is it safe to say, Kevin, that you eould rather continue ti spread falsity than admit the truth.
Summit is not Acts 28. Saying they are may or may not be an insult, depending on your perspective , but since you have been given the truth it is most certainly bearing false witness.
Speak truth.—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
The above from previous comments in this thread directed to me….
So, William & Dave – Is there any response to this current website since each of you have either asked me to publicize a correction, or you make the accusation that I bore false witness?
You may say that it is no big deal to you about the ACTS 29 affiliation, but it most certainly seems validated.
Kevin, can you point me to where I said such about you? I’m away but will address a29 later.
March 1, 2:46pm in comments above…You also said “Kevin, you could check your own stuff. Since Dave and I did it for you, and it took maybe 60 seconds, maybe you could just say that you were in error.”
Both were direct copy and pastes from comments by you and Dave…..
.As they say, it is “no skin off my nose” but maybe you and Dave should not be so quick to assume the other person is in error. For Dave to blatantly have accused me of lying was…well…very wrong of him.
A29 didn’t list summit. You could have checked. I’m not sure where Summit network fits in, but note that the state convention and NAMB are listed there as well. Those who declare A29 as if it is a magic Cal hex against JDG are just lazy. No presidential candidate in SBC history has had his theology vetted as much as JDG.
William, I agree with you. My point was not personal toward you or Dave.
I just wanted to point out that while it’s not in any way disqualifying, as some would certainly like to make it. It is true that the Summit is partnered with Acts29.
The summit network is the church planting arm for the summit church. Separating the two seems a steep mountain to climb. An associate pastor of the summit is the director of the network – further it operates out of the same offices and lists the same mailing address as the church on its website. Honestly, contending that the Summit church/Summit Network and Acts29 are not partnered simply does not comport with what the Summit says about themselves.
I, like you and Dave Miller, think it’s ridiculously bogus to say that because the summit partners with Acts 29 that JD is somehow disqualified or pronounced anathema. Being partnered (whatever that means and However that works out) with Acts29 (or any other group) is the legit perogative of any autonomous SBC church and it does not in any way diminish that church’s cooperation within the SBC.
There are lots of lies and deception coming from the SBC today/connect 316 gang (as has become common for them) that need to be set straight… I appreciate efforts by those on this blog to do so. I also think Dr. Akin’s article did a wonderful job in that regard. But, imo, denying the summits partnership with Acts 29 does not help our efforts. (And it certainly does not help us to say that those who assert that there is a partnership are lying.)
Thank you for the transparency, Tarheel. I think your analysis regarding the specifics of the organization do seem to show that Summit is partnered with ACTS 29. If the move to disassociate with ACTS 29 has come about for political reasons, that would be unfortunate. If you believe in something, own it, even if if it may carry with it some baggage, in a sense. Thanks for your analysis and candor, Tarheel.
Yeah.
Let me be clear though – and ask for some honesty and transparency from you and others who have ridden this horse as a means of pejorative…. the summit network partnering with church planters who are Acts29 does not mean that JDG or the Summit Church is a Calvinist stronghold/Trojan horse as deceitfully defined and argued by connect316 and SBCToday.
Instead – It means that they, in their church planting strategy, do not disqualify Acts29 calvinists who desire to plant churches in partnership with the Summit Network.
I do think it is important that we take JDG at his word and not make leaps and assumptions based on a “guilt by association” strategy. (JDG unequivocally and without reservation tweeted early February his stance regarding the call of God to salvation being extended to all people) that statement should be enough for all reasonable people to stop asserting and/or inferring and/or intimating that he’s an hyper -Calvinist or an enemy of of the gospel.
Tarheel,
It seems like we are using two different words: affilliate and partner.
These could be regarded as synonyms for sure, but they don’t have to be.
Could it be that to PARTNER with Acts29 requires less than to affiliate with them?
As William pointed out, NAMB and the state convention are also listed. Do they meet the qualifications that Acts29 requires to affiliate as Calvinistic? I think not.
That Summit through their network works with Acts29 is a seemingly indisputable fact. But so it seems that NAMB and the state convention alos work with Acts29.
Working with another group to further the Gospel does not mean that each group agrees on all issues of soteriology. IMO, this whole discussion is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dirt diggers seldom care about the actual truth of a situation, but rather seek to spin things to their liking.
Bottomline, so it seems:
Summit partners with different groups [including Acts29] to promote church plants and further the Gospel but is not signed on as an affiliate with Acts29..
Mike,
It appears we were commenting at the same time…
Tarheel,
Yep.
Great minds think alike, and sometimes we do as well (-:
Mike,
Agreed that no one can expect total agreement in soteriology in order to partner or affiliate. But with that said, I find it odd that a non-Calvinist would want to partner or affiliate with TGC or Acts 29 based on what I’ve seen and read from those groups. Thus I wouldn’t want my own church to partner with either of those groups. That doesn’t mean there’s ill-will toward them though.
The same people labeling Greear as a Calvinist now are the same ones who did it 2 years ago and, incredibly, it wasn’t as big of a deal then. So that part isn’t new though it’s being made as though it is. What has changed though is having a candidate who isn’t a megapastor and who has a focused and energized base. I think some folks are simply afraid of seeing what happens if the “other” guy wins.
There are a few of the churches from the Summit Network that choose to affiliate with Acts 29. Summit is not one of them.
Affiliated and partnered are two different things. That Summit partners with A29 doesn’t make them affiliated. NAMB partners with A29, many of our state conventions and seminaries partner with A29, etc.
Todd,
Agreed. I’m just saying that those who argue “Summit is Acts29” aren’t necessarily lying – they may be conflating partnership and affiliation (many do) but I’d not call them liars.
Clearly, there is a connection between Summit and Acts29. To deny that a connection exists is itself disingenuous.
There’s plenty enough abject lies being told (like the one below by Jack) that we ought not chase after things like this, imo.
Yes, they are lying. Summit is not Acts29. To say they are is untrue. Baptists partner with outside groups all the time, it’s not a new thing that is easily confused (for goodness sake, it’s even in the BFM2000). It is true to say that Summit partners with Acts29; it is a lie to say that Summit is an Acts29 church. To claim the latter is either inexcusable ignorance or outright deceit. Given everything else being said about Greear…
I guess I’m differentiating between obvious mean spirited lies that have no basis in truth with only the intent to impugn and comments based in misunderstanding or ignorance. Conflation of partnership and affiliation I tend to place in the latter category.
I understand and completely affirm your “given everything else” comment.
I also understand that many of these people are using the Acts29 motif as a pejorative in and of itself – a notion that, as I said earlier, I find exceedingly bogus.
I’m only saying there’s clearly a connection and there’s bigger fish to fry.
I just read through, though quickly, comments going back a month or so if I read the date markings correctly. The issue of this thread seems to be the theological position of J.D. Greear in regard to Calvinism. It amazes me somewhat how this “one issue” comes up again and again and again on blog discussions. I just spent four days preparing to address the doctrine of election this Sunday. Just one-fifth of the flower. I read or scanned hundreds of pages, listened to podcasts, etc. I could only come to one conclusion: “I’ve concluded that any conclusion I could come to would be less than conclusive, so I’m thankful God is in charge and His love reigns.”
Having said that, I am curious as to why, if theology is so important (beyond just Calvinism or anti-Calvinism), nobody has considered J.D. Greear’s position in regard to Allah and the God of the Bible. Greear believes that the Allah in the Quran is the same God as Yahweh in the Bible–that is, Muslims have the right “god,” but just approach Him in the wrong way.
And, the Calvinist theologian, Dr. Mohler, tweeted in agreement with that position.
Given the current events of the day, it appears to me if we are going to argue over theology, that would find some place in the discussion. Whether one is on one side of this issue or the other, it is definitely a question real people are asking in the real world.
My summary of this matter is that there may be far greater differences between Dr. Hemphill and Dr. Greear than what flowers are in the vase on their theological tables.
What?!? Do you have a source?
Would you care to provide an actual source for your accusation?
This article is a helpful explanation of JD’s specific position. I’ve heard today some others making this same claim. It’s an uncharitable view that doesn’t attempt to accept the nuance that JD’s position offers. JD explains it in detail here. https://jdgreear.com/blog/three-christian-misconceptions-about-muslims/
Thanks Micah for providing that reference.
So once again we have a group of people trying to disparage one of the SBC Presidential candidates by using words out of context, creating fear, and practicing deceit.
Tell me again, why is this happening?
Oh yes, to “save the SBC” from those horrible Calvinists.
SMH
What Ryan has said I agree with. And once again as in the past, it will be Southern Baptists downfall. Thankfully those who are lying are the minority, but in this age of social media being spread around the world in seconds and people not bothering to research whether something is true or not, read things like Jack has posted and believe it. Slander and gossip with no proof or proof to the opposite is sin. I have not read slander from Calvinists against Hemphill but I could have missed something.
Baptists generally don’t know what nuance is
Truer words have never been spoken.
Many Westerners forget that the word “God/god” is a generic, non-specific term in English that can refer to any deity and not just the God of the Bible. Even when we use the term to refer to the One True God revealed in three persons, we are not invoking the name of God but invoking a non-specific term to refer to a specific deity. In the same way, in Arabic, “Allah” is a generic/non-specific term. Now, when Muslims use it they are using it to refer to a specific deity whom they believe is the one true god, but Allah is still a generic term and not one of the NAMES of the Islamic deity. Let me repeat for clarity: Allah is not a name of the Islamic deity. Arabic Christians (including modern Coptics and evangelicals) have always used “allah” to refer to the one true God, even before Islam existed. Allah is the only word in Arabic for the word “god” — there is no other word to use to refer to God or a god. So when a Christian says “Allah is not God”, while they MEAN that the Muslim god is not the Christian God, what they are actually saying is nonsensical. Like saying to a Spanish speaking person that agua is not water.
My understanding is that there is a fraternal debate among missionaries serving in Arabic-speaking countries about how to refer to God when speaking to Muslims in Arabic. There are both theological and practical nuances to either strategy. I believe you’re being uncharitable.
The English word “God” comes from the word “Godan” which was the medieval German word for the Norse deity Odin. So by the same uncharitable hermenuetic, Jack believes that Yahweh of the Bible is the same as Odin of Norse mythology.
I read the article and do not see Greear saying the God of the Koran is the same God as the God of the Bible. He is saying the word used for God is the same but the God of the Koran is a false God and not the God of the Bible. What term should you use in Arabic for God?
I have not worked with Muslims and I do not speak Arabic. I have presented the Gospel to the Chinese and I do speak Mandarin. The word used of God in all translations of the Bible I know of is either Shen or Shang Di. These are the words Chinese have used for gods or spirits for thousands of years. These words were the used by Lottie Moon and thousands of Southern Baptist missionaries for over 150 years to share the good news of Jesus Christ. We often use the term Jen Shen or True God to explain the difference. It seem this is the same situation Greear is talking about. I wonder why there has not been as big a fuss about the use of the Chinese term for god as the Arabic. I notice those who make the biggest fuss have usually never had to share the Gospel in a foreign language.
Neo-Lie # 6543754 : “JDG believes that Allah of the Quran is the same as Yahweh of the Bible.”
Oh my!
I think the guys on this forum calling this statement “uncharitable” are being WAAAYYY too charitable.
This accusation is a bold face lie! The one telling it here is behaving in an ungodly and unchristian manner.
In fact, unrepentant perpetrators of mean spirited lies like this one are acting more like the father of all lies – rather than the Father of light, life, grace and truth.