Let me start by saying two things:
- I understand the arguments that have been made in favor of “traditionalist” as a designation for those who are Baptists but do not subscribe to the Calvinists’ so-called “Doctrines of Grace.” They have been called Arminian, but most bristle at that. They have been called anti-Calvinists and there are certainly a few of those around, but there are a lot of people who reject Calvinism but do not reject Calvinists. The most common term has been non-Calvinist. But people do not want to be known simply by what they do not believe.
- However, in spite of that, I do not like the name “traditionalist” and hope that this group will not try to establish that term as their descriptor. Both wings in this debate can claim a piece of Southern Baptist tradition. I lean to the Calvinist side, but I’m pretty traditional as well. I do not think that the name traditionalist is a good one and hope it will not gain traction.
Here are a few brief thoughts about the SBC and Nomenclature.
1) A group has the right to self-describe, if the self-description is reasonable.
Calvinists should not insist on pinning a name on the other soteriological side. Many call anyone who is not a Calvinist an Arminian or an anti-Calvinist. Those names carry pejorative meanings. There are Arminians and there are anti-Calvinists, but it not fair to call all non-Calvinists by those names.
If this group consistently uses the term traditionalist, we should probably respect that, even people like me don’t like it. My hope would be that they would come up with a different name to describe their position.
2) We ought to eschew combative nomenclature.
Too often, a name becomes a weapon with which to fight our battles. We designate ourselves not only as self-identity, but also as a subtle insult to those who hold other positions – whether intentional or not.
Several groups self-described as “majority” or “grassroots” group. By describing my group as the majority group I am essentially marginalizing those who disagree by casting them as outside the norm, as a minority opinion.
I had this problem with the tendency of some Calvinists to use the term “gospel” as a descriptor for those with Calvinistic views. If I call my view “gospel-centered” I am insinuating that those who do not hold my views are not focused on the gospel.
This is my chief quarrel with the name “traditional.” It tends to marginalize Calvinism as not really a part of the history and heritage of Southern Baptists. It is combative nomenclature and the name seems to me to carry an inherent if subtle dig at its opponents.
3) Our names should encapsulate our views accurately.
The Calvinist side has several names that describe their views. Calvinist, of course. Reformed. Sovereign Grace. Doctrines of Grace. (I have a problem with Doctrines of Grace – see point 2). They encapsulate and describe the viewpoint. The TULIP acronym is a helpful if imperfect way of summarizing views. If I say, “I’m a four-pointer” you have at least a broad outline of my views.
The desire of the signers of that document to have such a name is understandable, but I do not find the name practically accurate or theologically sound.
First of all, there are so many implications of the word “traditionalist” that I question the accuracy of the word in this case. There is a lot of baggage that attaches to the word.
Besides, we do not do theology on the basis of tradition or majority vote. We do theology on the basis of biblical interpretation.
For these reasons, I do not think that “traditionalist” is a helpful term that should gain wide acceptance in this context. Maybe its supporters can make it stick, but I doubt it and I hope not.
What Should the Term Be?
I don’t know and I guess its not for me to choose. It should encapsulate the views defined in the Hankins document without being combative or dismissive to other Baptists.
I understand the desire to get away from being described negatively as “non-Calvinists” but in my opinion, the current term “traditionalist” is not the answer.
This is the same problem with the phrasing of Yarnell, Lemke, et al. when they say we need to be “not Calvinists, not Arminians, but Baptists.” Well, we can be Calvinists and still be Baptists.
I agree Dave, using exclusive nomenclature is not helpful.
The “not Calvinists, not Arminians, but Baptists” slogan’s meaning (or intent) is “you can be Calvinists and still be Baptists but only if you keep silent about your Calvinism.” Translation: we get to promote our doctrines as much and often as possible, but if you promote yours, then you’re being “divisive.”
I really do think that a concerted push-back on the part of Calvinistic Baptists is necessary. The whole “can’t we all just get along” approach isn’t going to work because the “majority/traditional” types don’t want it. Maybe the solution is for the Calvinistic Baptists to actually start behaving the way that they are already being accused of anyway. “Going along to get along” isn’t going to work when the other side is absolutely, positively determined not to get along.
A counterpoint, or a Remonstrance I guess, to A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation, is definitely called for. As is nomenclature designed to oppose the majority/traditional positioning. Letting your opponent – and let’s face it, that is precisely what they are because it is how they have positioned themselves and are behaving, and perfunctory statements like “There is no thought that this document reflects what all Southern Baptists believe or that it should be imposed upon all Southern Baptists” doesn’t change it – set the terms of the debate will only lead to letting them win the debate.
Until now, there has been one side fighting a battle and another side trying to keep the peace. Time for that other side to see that attempts to keep the peace are futile because of the determination of the ones who want a battle to get one, and to make sure to be fully prepared, trained and equipped so that when the battle that is being so zealously sought does inevitably occur.
Trying to hope and wish it away simply isn’t going to work.
Job,
I have long been an advocate of cooperation between the Calvinists and NonCalvinists so I’m not saying this to be a jerk. Your side is very much in the minority and to do what you have suggested is to engage in a fight that your side cannot win. The truth is that most SBC people are decidedly not Calvinist and if your side were to get extremely aggressive it would culminate into a showdown that would ultimately see the removal of all prominent Calvinists from their positions in the SBC. Increasing aggression is a bad idea.
John Wylie:
“Increasing aggression is a bad idea.” I agree. And that is exactly why “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation” should never have been published, and why it never should have been consented to by “over 180 signees (including some key leaders from every level of Southern Baptist life).”
“What you have suggested is to engage in a fight that your side cannot win.” So your position is that the Calvinists can win without fighting? How and why?
“Your side is very much in the minority”
And what is the side that is very much in the majority doing to distance themselves from and oppose the actions of the so called “majority/traditional” activists? While you have long been an advocate of cooperation, there honestly needs to be a lot more like you, and they need to be a lot more active, organized and vocal in response and opposition to the aggressors.
If increased aggression may be a bad idea, but the current level of aggression by the traditional/majority agitators is enough for them to get what they want, which is precisely “a showdown that would ultimately see the removal of all prominent Calvinists from their positions in the SBC.” The battle is on, out in the open now and there can be no denying it. Calvinists have nothing to lose by joining it, and nothing to gain by forbearing.
And finally, I say that it is refusing to defend yourself because you fear that you will fail that is the bad idea. Calvinists should act the same way as 5% of the convention as they would if they were 95% of the convention. The argument could be made that failing to do so would actually be unprincipled.
Job,
First of all, thank you for your response brother.
“So your position is that the Calvinists can win without fighting? How and why? ” Yes I do believe that you can win without an all out fight in the Convention. The reason I believe this is because of the great inroads that Calvinists have made in the Convention without engaging in a major fight on a Convention wide scale. You have seminary presidents, board presidents, influentional church pastors all having a tremendous impact on the SBC. If you keep on this course your influence and power in the Convention will do nothing but expand. I see this doctrinal statement as a reaction to the influence that you guys have. And at the expense of getting in trouble with the other side, they (many not all) want to defeat you now while they can. There is a reason why we have not heard from Dr. Mohler on this and while I cannot read his mind he must have considered this point carefully. In the immortal words of Stephen Lang in his role as Stonewall Jackson in Gods and Generals,”it’s discipline that wins the day.”
“While you have long been an advocate of cooperation, there honestly needs to be a lot more like you, and they need to be a lot more active, organized and vocal in response and opposition to the aggressors. ” I agree. And just to take the opportunity to be outspoken on this issue now, the article on sinfulness is asinine in its proposition of denying that we are sinners from birth.
“And finally, I say that it is refusing to defend yourself because you fear that you will fail that is the bad idea. Calvinists should act the same way as 5% of the convention as they would if they were 95% of the convention. The argument could be made that failing to do so would actually be unprincipled.” My only response to this statement although I am sympathetic to it is simply this “Discretion is the greater part of valor.”
How many people have simply skimmed this long document and do not have see the piece that reads we are not born into sin, but are sinners(according to the document) only when we commit the act of sinning?
I think that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have been guilty of exclusivistic nomenclature – as referenced in my post. The use of “gospel” as synonymous with Calvinist was problematic.
Dave: On the other hand, since I have been vocal and have not ever hid that I am Calvinist, I am denied the use of the word Gospel, which definition is Good News, in any form. People do not take the word I am using as meaning the Gospel of Jesus Christ who came to save, but as my referring to Calvinism. That is just ridiculous. I will use words scripture uses, but folks in the SB are the ones putting twists and meanings on words that just are not there.
People read what they want to.
For the record, I wrote this last night and this morning, before Dr. Lemke posted his comment referring to this. He made a good argument for the name and recognized some of the difficulties I talked about here.
The term “traditionalist” has some merit — in the sense that I think the embracing of total depravity and perseverance/preservation while rejecting unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace describes what has been the majority/traditional opinion of Southern Baptists in my lifetime and somewhat before. (I think the “Traditional Statement” that is referenced in all this moves a little further away from Calvinism than the traditional Southern Baptists of my thinking; but that is just my opinion.)
The problem with this term is that it claims all the “high ground” — like the term biblicist — leaving little to none for the opposing side and putting them immediately on the defensive. Further it implies, but doesn’t say, that this position has always been the traditional view of Southern Baptists (which is not correct). It would have been a minority view in the early history of the SBC.
The majority “opinion of Southern Baptists in my lifetime and somewhat before” is not “tradition” when we are talking about an organization that has been around for nearly 170 years. At best, it is “recent tradition.” I will grant you that if you accept 1925 as the dividing line between Calvinist and non-Calvinist in the SBC, then it gives the non-Calvinists more history: 87 years as opposed to 80. But a good chunk of that 87 years of non-Calvinist majority includes the slide into liberalism, something that they do not wish to claim as part of the “tradition”!
They are using the term in a manner that is precisely the opposite of its actual meaning, and doing so only because it suits a polemical purpose. “The problem with this term is that it claims all the “high ground” — like the term biblicist — leaving little to none for the opposing side and putting them immediately on the defensive.” Well that is why the term is being used in the first place. Taking a more neutral – and more theologically/historically descriptive and accurate – name wouldn’t suit the agenda. For example, the very reason that “Biblicist” was chosen was to deny that Calvinism is based on the Bible. It wasn’t to deny being Arminian. Instead, it was so they could claim that both Calvinism and Arminianism are man-made while they alone are faithful to the Bible.
At some point, it has to be acknowledged that people who have an agenda, well, have an agenda. These aren’t “honest mistakes” and “unfortunate choices of words” but instead a meticulously crafted part of an organized campaign with a real agenda.
Job,
Historically the slide into liberalism started back in the 1870’s. You do remember people like Dr. Crawford Toy right? Although today I would concede as I have stated several times before that the Calvinists do help the convention stay conservative.
Job, you seem to respond as if we are in disagreement, but we’re really not much if any. The thing with traditional is that the average living Baptist thinks however it is and has been in his memory is kind of the way it has always been. You find this mentality in all kind of areas, not just religion. Because I have studied Baptist history I know a lot of what the average fellow thinks is the way it has always been just isn’t. But I don’t think we should be that hard on the average fellow and what he thinks is traditional. But the folks who drew up (and some who signed) this document aren’t average fellows and should know better. And I want to note again that the language, in my opinion, deliberately shifts the “traditional” view even a little farther away from Calvinism. Perhaps I’ve been asleep longer than Rip Van Winkle, but I really had not thought that much about how the new traditionalist view even seems to eschew the terminology “total depravity”. I can’t tell you how many “What Baptists Believe” type booklets I have in my library written by non-Calvinist “traditional” Baptists which say they believe in total depravity. Didn’t know that had become a “dirty word”.
In the other thread I mentioned as a joke that Calvinists should be granted the term “original traditionalists” in recognition of the history of the convention.
But aside from that, I do think it’s worth noting that those who want to claim the term “traditionalists” are making the same mistake as those who want to monopolize the term “doctrines of grace”. It is not helpful or gracious to identify your beliefs with a term that could equally apply to others since the use of the term carries the implication that those who disagree could not fit within the name. Calvinism is a traditional Southern Baptist belief. By the same token, non-Calvinists affirm the doctrines of grace.
I recognize the dilemma of trying to find a term that identifies a particular soteriological position. Many in the SBC are not Calvinists and though their theology is in most areas very close to historical Arminianism, they also reject that label. What other label can be used? Non-Calvinism doesn’t exactly work since it doesn’t identify what a person believes, only what they do not believe. And yet therein lies another problem: the diversity of belief that exists among non-Calvinist Southern Baptists. One can speak of diversity within Calvinism, and it certainly exists, but on the whole Calvinists are pretty uniform in their soteriology and any finer distinction can usually be made with reference to the five points.
On the other hand, I couldn’t imagine placing the theology of a non-Calvinist like Bob Hadley in the same category as non-Calvinist Dave Miller, etc. Any blanket term that is adopted, whether Traditionalist or something else, is essentially the same as saying, “Any Baptist who is not a Calvinist, even if their theologies do not resemble each other all that much” so it’s no better than simply saying non-Calvinist. So I’ll continue to refer to those Baptists who affirm Calvinism, and those who do not. Simple, clear, helpful, it works.
I certainly favor Conversionism to Calvinism and Transformed Theology to Reformed Theology… I doubt you even know much about that.
I know Dave appreciates your separating our respective positions! 8|
><>”
Traditionalist, Non-Calvinist, New Calvinist, Calvinist, Anti-Calvinist and so on have many views from many different directions, assuming they are not heretic. Like a diamond we are all on a journey through life seeing different views of the kingdom life as we grow and mature. Some stop along the way and set their landmark without exploring more. They have arrived, so to speak. You will notice their lives gradually setting like cement over the years. Scripture speaks of God’s manifold mercies, manifold works, manifold wisdom and manifold grace. Many colors are to be explored and I think the short list of groups I have mentioned above have only covered the primary colors of how God works in salvation and sanctification. When God is described as “incomprehensible” we cannot simply place Him in a box and say, “There you go!” We are finite up against the infinite. There is no comparison between those two? I do not like Traditionalist, or for that matter, any of the other names we want to describe ourselves. Maybe Peter had it right in how we should function among all who have the same faith yet a different view; “minister our gift to one another”. Could that be how we grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?
“As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” 1 Peter 4:10
BRUCE H.
I really liked what you wrote here because I can see you have been deeply moved by the words of St. Peter:
“When God is described as “incomprehensible” we cannot simply place Him in a box and say, “There you go!”
We are finite up against the infinite. There is no comparison between those two?
I do not like Traditionalist, or for that matter, any of the other names we want to describe ourselves.
Maybe Peter had it right in how we should function among all who have the same faith yet a different view; “minister our gift to one another”.
Could that be how we grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ?
“As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” (1 Peter 4:10)
DAVID has provided a place for everyone to come to talk about their respective points of view . . . and YOU have stated something meaningful and all I can think about is that the both of you understand being ‘sojourners’ through this strange land, but only for a time.
“And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace. ”
Sometimes when Christian people struggle among themselves with great difficulty, and become mired in their trouble,
other merciful Christian people will come along and try to help them get moving on the journey once again.
Author Annie Dillard described searching for a special kindness
when she wrote, in child-like metaphor, of the simple struggle
of finding someone ‘who is as merciful as a man who flicks a beetle over on its feet.’
The ‘fruits’ of the Spirit are never employed without goodness coming forth in the process.
Christiane,
Amen! And thank you for your kind words.
A poll that indicates that most Southern Baptists are not 5-point Calvinists does not justify the assumption that most would agree with the very Arminianistic extremes of Hankins’ statement. Maybe it’s time for another poll. I think that the majority do hold to unconditional election and also hold to the free will decision of the sinner, either without seeing any contradiction or accepting the mystery involved. That point alone would make the difference in 4 of Hankins’ 8 articles.
So many people reference that poll to say that there are very few Calvinists in the SBC, then point to a bunch of 4-pointers and call them Calvinists. That doesn’t make sense. Also, the poll was about whether or not a person would describe himself as a five-point Calvinist. My pastor is one and he would never describe himself as a five-point Calvinist, so even though I think we are a minority position in the SBC, I think there’s a lot more than 10% here with a Calvinistic worldview.
My suggestion to Stetzer was to ask Southern Baptists… Do you believe God regenerates the lost individual so that he can or will then repent and exercise saving faith to be saved.
I believe the overwhelming answer among Southern Baptists would be a RESOUNDING NO. All these other nuanced questions do not really mean much.
><>”
But does being in the majority necessarily mean they are right? Blacks being separated and treated differently was the majority view at one time, in the Mormon community for example, a majority believe that Satan is Christ’s brother. A majority of anything does not mean they are correct, so I believe using the Bible to defend your view and not to keep saying you are in the majority which may or may not be true. We don’t know. 200 signatures on a document when there are at least 8 million Southern Baptists doesn’t show that you are in the majority. 200 next to 8 million is a long haul from majority.
Bob Hadley: “Do you believe God regenerates the lost individual so that he can or will then repent and exercise saving faith to be saved.
I believe the overwhelming answer among Southern Baptists would be a RESOUNDING NO.”
Given this, how about this suggestion:
Monergists vs. Synergists
Monergistic Baptists vs. Synergistic Baptists
P.S. I believe an earlier commenter by the name of Les on a prior thread made this suggestion.
TUAD,
Yes I made that suggestion. I still think its a good way to distinguish. It seems to me to be THE issue which settles the rest.
Mr. Hadley,
There is a website titled monergism.com which contains a wealth of information on monergism. It’s very helpful in understanding monergism and how it’s more Biblically faithful and truer to God and His Word than synergism.
That is an interesting question for sure… my guess is if that was a survey question, most would scratch their heads…
Here is an interesting question on my end… how does monergism apply to the sinner and his decisions… apart from conversion?
What about the monergism/synergism issue when it comes to sanctification?
><>”
Bob,
“how does monergism apply to the sinner and his decisions… apart from conversion?”
Monergism makes conversion possible. Without the action by the Holy Spirit to make the dead sinner alive spiritually, the sinner cannot respond by faith and repentance. The preacher’s call falls on deaf ears since the unregenerate sinner cannot spiritually discern the things of God.
To be sure, God does not exercise the faith and repent for the sinner. The sinner exercises his faith and the sinner repents. Conversion is not monergistic.
As for sanctification, that lifelong process is not monergistic. The believer is involved in the process as he grows in grace. You know the relevant scriptures since we have all covered this ground before.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, monergism involves 2 choices in every Christian’s life: 1… God chooses who will and will not be saved and then for the ones He regenerates, 2… they choose to repent and they are saved.
Somehow that just does not quite cut it. I am sure it is the sovereignty of God that has brought about this whole concept of monergism right… so does that also mean that God is only sovereign over 2 choices, His choice as to WHO He saves and their choice to be saved…
HE is NOT responsible for sin and He (according to you) is not responsible for sanctification.. so that only leaves the conversion aspect.
><>”
Michael Horton is one of the best explanations I have heard on this subject. He says:
“God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a pattern of evangelism or revival in which individuals respond to the gospel by simply being zappedby the Spirit. They are always responding to the preached Word. It may be one-on-one, or in an assembly, but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead. Furthermore, even after they are converted, believers do not grow in their walk, deepen in their Christian experience, or learn new truths by the direct activity of the Spirit apart from God’s ordained means… God has determined to bring that Good News through specific means, and to involve us in this drama… Paul picks up on this language in Romans 10, making the preached Word essential for the Spirit’s work of regeneration: “How, then, can they call on the one in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!(Rom. 10:14-15).”
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/05/the_necessity_of_means_in_mone.php
Debbie,
For the record I could have said everything Horton said. He wrote, “They are always responding to the preached Word… but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead.
The point of contention is HOW they come to life… which is at the heart of my question about monergism, which you have NOT even come close to responding too, if that was the point of your post. If not, it was a nice post.
><>”
Bob,
Monergism as is commonly used in theology has to do with the new birth, as I said. Monergists believe that God and God alone brings to life the spiritually dead sinner…that the spiritually dead sinner has absolutely no part in the new birth. He cannot lift one cell of any kind physically nor can he muster any aspect of his depraved heart to cooperate with God in his spiritually awakening. Once his spiritual blinders are off, he willingly and eagerly positively responds to the call of the gospel in repentance and faith. Im probably not smart enough to make that any plainer.
Of course God chooses who will be saved. That’s called election. He does not choose everyone. That would not be a choice and would fly in the face of scripture.
And yes, man chooses Christ after his spiritual eyes are opened, as I have said above. This is where Synergists like you often don’t quote us properly. Often it is said that we Monergists see God dragging and forcing unwilling sinners into the kingdom. That is NOT what we believe.
You: ” so does that also mean that God is only sovereign over 2 choices, His choice as to WHO He saves and their choice to be saved…”
That is not what I have said. Read it again. In fact, God is sovereign over all.
You:”HE is NOT responsible for sin and He (according to you) is not responsible for sanctification.. so that only leaves the conversion aspect.”
Correct that He is not responsible for sin.
Incorrect in you attributing to me that I hold that He is not responsible for sanctification. I have not said that. He who began a good work in you will complete it…
Bob said: “For the record I could have said everything Horton said. He wrote, “They are always responding to the preached Word… but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead.”
Bob: Which of course is my point. 🙂
Bob,
If you could say everything Horton said such as,” God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching,” then you are affirming monergism.
God alone is the cause of the new birth. That’s monergism.
Welcome to the club!
Les: Which of course again, was my point. 🙂
Debbie, I should have acknowledged that. We are tracking the same. At least maybe some or most Synergists will at least represent our position properly and not accuse us of denying man’s will in conversion.
Les: You did acknowledge that and beautifully I might add. 🙂
Debbie and Les,
Before one of you two sprain an ankle jumping up and down in celebration here… I said I could repeat what Horton is credited in saying IN THE STATEMENT Debbie printed… but I hate to differ with you both; as I read this statement I see no connection in this statement and monergism. Maybe that is just me. I can see how one MIGHT use some of his statements to support monergism and he may infact be supporting it… but what I read does not seem to suggest it if no one knew anything about it.
That is why I said I could repeat what he said. I see no one has responded to the issue of monergism dealing with TWO count em… 2 choices in the life of an individual… and that is it. That is the thrust of my comment to Debbie that this comment she made had nothing to do with my objection.
><>”
Bob: Michael Horton is most definitely a five point Calvinist.
Bob,
Darn it. I will have to stop jumping I guess. 🙂
But in case it’s not showing up on your computer, here is what I said which tied you to monergism:
“Les June 3, 2012 at 11:24 am
Bob,
If you could say everything Horton said such as,” God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching,” then you are affirming monergism.
God alone is the cause of the new birth. That’s monergism.”
Do you stil agree with Horton? Ask any Calvinist and he/she will tell you that what Horton said in that quote is monergism.
Second, you say no one has “has responded to the issue of monergism dealing with TWO count em… 2 choices in the life of an individual… and that is it.”
I think I dealt with that at “June 3, 2012 at 10:06 am.”
If not, then I guess I didn’t understand your question.
Les
Bob: I think it has been dealt with, you may not like the answers but we have been dealing with it with you for over a year now.
I will happily do it again, although I don’t know exactly what you want. I can tell you why I am a believer in monergism and not synergism.
John 1:12-13, 3: 3-8, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:13, Ezekiel 36: 26-27, 1 John 3:9, 1 Peter, 1:3, Ephesians 3:3 and 2:4 and 5 plus 4:24, 2 Corinthians 5:17, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23 and 25, John 6: 63-65, 1 John 5:1, Colossians 2:13
Framing the terms?
‘monergism’
‘synergism’
I’ve read the ‘theopedia’ definitions;
but is there anyone out there who cares to unpack these two terms for them what is ignorant?
compare/contrast/use in some sort of biblical context/etc?
As I understand it, in the beginning of Baptist history, there were two “traditional” groups: General Baptists and Particular Baptists. As I understand the position advocated by the Hankins statement, it is somewhere in between the General and Particular Baptist views, with roots that don’t go back as far in Baptist history as either one of them.
What I don’t like is the unspoken pressure to identify with one group or the other. I guess my own view is closest to Dan Barnes’ Woven category, though we might even haggle about a few of the details.
And, I don’t like the implication that all those who don’t agree 100% with the Hankins statement are necessarily “non-traditional” or “anti-traditional.” For what it’s worth, I’m not a big fan of the two-party system in American politics either.
As is so often the case, I agree.
I hope and believe that a strong number of us fit into this large in-between area.
?”I am not a Calvinist by choice, but because I cannot help it.” Charles Spurgeon
We make up “history” as we would like to quote it explaining what is not in the Bible – i.e. Calvinism ; and explaining away what is – serpent handling and drinking poison which was answered in part on this Blog by a Moderator as something not to do in a church “service” . Our positions need to be well thought out and adaptable by Truth to ALL audiences otherwise people will continue to leave us in droves as we argue , ” he said , she said ” about Hurtful, Hateful , Racial & Eugenic subjects our entire Country has experienced before . Deleteing a whole Blog solves nothing and pays for nothing as we become a laughing stock of partisan politics .
It seems to me Christ concentrated intentionally or otherwise , on the middle class not the Pharasees . We might do well to taylor our messages to the masses that ALL can relate to – instead of – you know – multitudes of disagreements .
Jack,
Are you kin to Mack Wolford who recently died after handling snakes and being bit in a church service? http://www.ktvq.com/news/death-of-snake-handling-preacher-shines-light-on-lethal-appalachian-tradition/
Very interesting point. The N.T. mentions many things in passing, some of which we no longer practice and some of which would be impossible to execute. As Tom Wright has said, we pick up where the apostles left off: we improvise as we carry on the bussiness of the Church. A gap will always exist between what happened in the early churcch two thousand years ago and what takes place now. We must adhere to the guidelines erected in Scripture. But we mustn’t confuse the present with the past.
Here’s my comment on the divisive, heretical TSBUGP-document,
http://righteousbutnotyet.blogspot.com/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional.html
I have to throw the flag on that one. You can disagree with that statement if you so desire. And I have my quarrels with it.
But heretical? Divisive is strong language, but to call it heretical is, in my view, an unwarranted insult.
How can you complain about them articulating their views against Calvinism when you are calling them heretics?
Wrong in every way.
Debbie and Les, I’m going to take your comments down, because I took down the exchange between Jim and Jeph to which it refers. If I allow your responses, I will have to let the discussion go on.
Dave, no problem at all. I understand. I saw Jeph’s link still up and assumed the full exchange was still up. I was reading the whole thing in my email inbox. Sorry about that.
Les
Dave,
What did I say that caused the deletion?
Jim G.
I assume it was me, since Jeph’s original comment is still up. It is my reply thread that was deleted. Email me if you want.
Jim G.
Jim, I already challenged Jeph’s assertion and when you responded as strongly as he did, he then responded, and then you would respond. Others then began to join in.
It would not have been a productive discussion, so I took it down.
Okay. I think I was writing mine when you posted yours. I type slower.
Jim G.
This exchange is over. Jeph, someday you will look back at the way you conversed here and be embarrassed a little. In the meantime, a little humility and brotherly love would be a wonderful thing.
But this exhange is over nonetheless.
Debbie,
Although you and I often have to agree to disagree, on this we are in agreement. Your question “How many people have simply skimmed this long document and do not have see the piece that reads we are not born into sin, but are sinners(according to the document) only when we commit the act of sinning?” is completely on target. Anyone who only skimmed the article probably would not have noticed just how far off base that statement is. Even before my turn to the ‘dark side’, I was always taught that we are born sinners and scripture absolutely supports it.
Yet… here we are with some big name SBC leadership having attached their names to that statement. Scary.
I have gotten the idea that this document was hastily prepared without adequate 3rd party evaluation. Some of the things written are glaring errors and others are a deliberate misrepresentation of what Monergists believe.
Nothing good can come from this unless the Lord intervenes. I mean that for both sides. Prayer, prayer, prayer……….
Someone help clear something up for me about the document and the BFM. The statement says,
The BFM says,
Now I think that article is error. But as I read BFM, I see virtually the same thing. Condemnation in the BFM comes after actual transgression.
Am I misreading something?
Les
Les,
It would be interesting to look over the history of this section and see how it has changed and what, if anything, it was modeled after. I think it’s helpful to remember that the current BF&M wasn’t written solely from a Reformed perspective, so there’s going to be some overlap and distiction in word choice and meaning. Just think about how the various camps understand what “foreknowledge” means.
In this case, the main concern comes from this sentence: “Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.”
In its most basic sense, this means that when we become capable of sinning, we sin, and we have actively transgressed and thus come under God’s condemnation for our actions. I think any and all Calvinists can agree with that. The BF&M says nothing for or against the idea of inherited guilt or man’s inability to choose God. The theological issue we have with the Statement (on SBCToday) is that it clearly denies inherited guilt and has thus further defined the adopted wording from the BF&M more narrowly than what the BF&M actually says.
Honestly, it’s a good idea to co-opt the language of the BF&M into our theological formulations because it shows that we are consistent with that document, but it has the added negative in that it can give the impression that we are further clarifying what the BF&M actually says and thus alienating other positions that ascribe to the BF&M but not to our theological formulations.
Andrew. Thanks. I can see your explanation. But I still think the wording in the BF&M may allow for their reading, “or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.” (in the denial)
Now I have said several times and places that article 2 is bad. I argue for original guilt, as anyone reading over at Today can see. My comments are there in the previous post on article one.
But at the same time, the uproar over article 2 may be a moot point if in fact BF&M allows for it.
I don’t know. Seems muddled at best to me.
Yeah, I had to think long and hard before drafting that last response. At best I can say that they made allowance for it, but didn’t endorse it.
I have a hunch about this document which I have not seen articulated yet, though it may already have been elsewhere: this is more than just an attempt to draw a line in the sand. This is a shrewd political power play. What these folks have done is to create a list of trustee candidates from across the convention who are reliable on this issue in order to stem what they see as a growing tide and influence among SBC Calvinists. It has been timed to put it at the disposal of the next president (whom I’m guessing is sympathetic to their concerns) and his Committee on Committees. I suppose only time will tell, but any assessment that paints this document as some sort of desperate defensive maneuver has underestimated it.
Would ‘Conventional’ fit better than ‘Traditional’? Not being a ‘conventional’ Southern Baptist probably doesn’t have the sting of not being a ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist (I can see Calvinist Southern Baptists possibly agreeing, in a sense, that they’re not conventional Southern Baptists). The time-frame of ‘Conventional’ seems to me to be more contemporary than ‘Traditional’, which takes care of how far back does the current attitudes go.
Of course, in general terms, what’s conventional isn’t always what’s right, so I can see the non-Calvinists resisting that. OTOH, if you’re asking the Calvinists to show some humility, it might not hurt to have the label for your side show that you can show humility, too.