So here is the turnabout in the interests of fair play.
This is a Calvinist-only forum. My question to you is the opposite of what I asked to the “traditionalists” earlier.
What is it that you want from the “traditionalists?”
They are not going away and they are not going to adopt Calvinism. So, short of acquiescing to Reformed Dogma, what do you want from them?
If Calvinists and non-Calvinist, traditionalists are going to partner together in the SBC’s missions endeavors, what is it that you desire from them?
Speak the truth with grace.
Other than perhaps asking a question for clarity, no one is going to argue here. Just tell us all what you want.
The time for argument is not on this post. Comments by “traditionalists” will not be permitted on this post. Nor will non-Calvinist bashing. What is it that non-Calvinists need to do to make it easier to walk together in unity?
I would appreciate the grace to accept that there is room for disagreement without having to attack one another. Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still. Let’s just get over it and get on with the work of the gospel.
That’s also how I would answer the question above. Well said, Tom.
Well said, Tommy. Pretty much how I would’ve stated it.
I’ve been a DOG (Doctrines of Grace) way before this ever became an issue in SBC life and I’ll be one way after (if the Lord allows me to remain). I’ve never, ever been to a national or state SBC event; frankly, I don’t care who has the upperhand in SBC politics. I work 40 plus hours a week, I have four kids, I preach on Sundays…you guess where my time goes.
The only time I say this shoud be an issue is at the local church level. You visit us on a Sunday and you will hear doctrine that you call Calvinism. You’re free to leave, you’re free to stay “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
Great posts, Dave.
1. Pray and fellowship and minister and grow with us. We live in the darkest period of American history. We are in a nation filled with immorality, both in and out of the church. We have in our own convention churches steeped in honest-to-goodness heresy, churches which pursue a gospel of prosperity or self-gratification, churches which preach the gospel of moral therapeutic deism, churches which excuse sin and wickedness, etc, etc. Instead of addressing the real concerns of the world around us, we have brother fighting brother. Disagreement is fine. Promoting beliefs is fine. If ever we needed good, careful, biblical, theological thinking, it is today. Let’s keep wrestling with truth so that we might grow! But let’s stop looking at each other as the enemy, stop looking at each other with suspicion, stop opposing each other, and work together for the spread of the gospel and the growth of the kingdom. We live in dark days and the work is hard. Let’s stop being distracted.
2. Listen to and consider what Calvinists say. I get the impression in all the discussion over the Statement that some are simply refusing to consider any of the concerns being raised over both the theology and the divisiveness of the document. You certainly do not have to agree with us, but at least consider what we are saying.
3. Be careful to present our views correctly. There is a reason most Calvinists speak of non-Calvinist misrepresentations and caricatures. The misrepresentations in the Statement are manifold, and they represent frequently repeating false teachings about Calvinism. When we say these are not things that we believe, when we explain what we do believe, why do non-Calvinists continue to insist that the beliefs presented in that document are things that Calvinists actually believe?
4. Give more thought as to whether or not there actually is a problem with “new Calvinism” or if new Calvinism is nothing more than the growth of Calvinism within the convention. There is no new Calvinism, there is only Calvinism.
5. Recognize that problem people exist within any given category of people, whether it be problem deacons, problem youth, problem premillennials, problem Calvinists, problem non-Calvinists, etc. I do not believe there are more aggressive, rude, divisive, etc Calvinists than exist in any other group. What I think has changed is there are simply more people talking about Calvinism with passion and conviction. We don’t like people who are sure of beliefs that differ from our own. I think that is all that is behind most accusations of arrogance, etc.
6. Stop trying to run the SBC on a quota system. Too many Calvinists in leadership? Too many Calvinists preaching at various events? What quotas are being used to determine this? If these are brothers in Christ who affirm the Baptist Faith and Message, why are we complaining about their influence? If they are being faithful in their work for the church in service to God, why complain? If they are falling short in some way, then respond. Until then, pray for them and rejoice that we are working together.
Great points Chris!
I would especially emphasize 1,3 and 6.
I agree wholeheartedly with Tommy: “the grace to accept that there is room for disagreement without having to attack one another”.
Chris’s point #3 would be a great starting place. It seems that those who are non-Calvinist (NCs) don’t believe Calvinists when they explain what they believe. NCs seem to cling to the stereotypes even when Calvinists refute them. There seems to be a lack of trust or a questioning of motives. It almost seems that many NCs are saying that Calvinist have a hidden agenda, are trying to take over the SBC, and therefore can’t be trusted. Simply believing us when we say what we believe and that we sincerely want to cooperate without questioning our motives or distorting our beliefs would be a HUGE start.
Jeff,
That’s one I left off my list.
addendum: stop claiming the existence of individuals trying to force Calvinism on churches or associations and movements trying to impose Calvinism on the convention unless you have actual evidence such movements and individuals exist. I have no doubt there are people and organizations promoting their belief in Calvinism. Founder’s is one such organization. But teaching a view, promoting a belief, is not the same as trying to force change. What I suspect is many non-Calvinists will not be happy until Calvinists stop promoting Calvinism. Unless that happens, there will always be claims that Calvinists are trying to force change on the convention.
Jeff, what’s interesting is that Calvinists can only “take over” the SBC if they’re not fully Southern Baptists already. That’s a huge issue here. Southern Baptists cannot “take over” something they’re already an equal part of.
As already stated. Just to simply give it a rest and know that we are all on the same side, brothers in arms. I like to think of soldiers for example. When in the trenches of WWII, do you think for one second that a man was concerned about the type of gun the solider next him was using? Of course not. Just so long as it was loaded and that he was pointing it in the right direction. So by the strength and grace that God has given us, let’s focus on the Gospel, kill sin and make disciples.
For both Calvinists and “Traditionalists” to stop the power game. Both have been guilty of this and it needs to stop. Power leads to corruption and sin. We need to quit coveting the kingdom of the SBC and covet the Kingdom of Christ. Keeping our eyes on Christ, not on who holds the keys to the kingdom of the SBC which will be gone in the end.
To relax and know that I am going to teach the five points of Grace as I do believe them to be Biblical. That I long to give the message of Christ to people as I do not want more in hell than in heaven. That I am Baptist in most things as I do believe in immersion, I do believe Christ is the only answer and not politics, and that I love church, the Church universal, and being a Christian. It doesn’t matter to me who gives the Gospel or how it is given, as long as it is given in love and not love disguised as hate, and that it is given with gentleness, grace, the fruit of the Holy Spirit and not driven into the person naggingly and like a dagger. Bullying “gospel” techniques is not the Gospel. It’s a weapon of control.
The thing I see most is that it is important to the “Traditionalists” to be in the majority, that needs to end in my opinion as that is the wrong mindset and something I do not see the Bible teaching or promoting. If you read the New Testament and Christ’s ministry, he was not concerned that he was not in the majority, his ministry was not political in nature or concerned with the same things the “Traditionalists” are concerned with. He was in the minority, he went to those who were outcasts in both the church standards and the world’s standards and he treated them with love, giving them the message of himself.
We are not going anywhere, we are SBC and have always been. Partner with us, don’t align yourself against us, and together working side by side let’s roll up our sleeves in our love for people no matter what their sin is and our desire for them to know the One who loves us beyond measure, Jesus Christ.
1) Stop fighting against straw men and caricatures and actually engage specific beliefs of Calvinists, which are in print and accessible for all.
2) Stop saying things like, “Calvinists are killing Churches” and using phrases like “crept in unawares”. The reality is that there are a number of factors involved in problems with pastors and Churches. A few years back in Memphis there were many Churches who wouldn’t hire MABTS students and grads because several did go and cause division in Churches. It would have been totally unfair for people to say the same things about all MABTS grads and students based on the behavior of a few. The same is true for Calvinists.
3) Stop saying that Calvinists are trying to take over the SBC based on things like The Gospel Project and the fact that there are many Calvinists who want to Church plant. The reality is that Calvinism is a growing movement and it will be more influential in the denomination, just as Dispensationalism was 50 years ago. The pendulum is swinging – that’s all. Everything isn’t a conspiracy, just because you are losing power.
4) Start admitting that some of this is about power and not doctrine. Calvinists have always been in the SBC (and Founders has been around for 3 decades), but this only got ugly when Calvinists started taking leadership positions in the SBC. The same exact thing happened with the Conservative Resurgence. Few noticed in the 1960s that our seminaries were getting doctrinally lax. It was only when moderates and liberals showed up on the national stage that things began to get ugly. The difference now, of course, is that Calvinism isn’t a denial of the Bible, but an Orthodox, historic belief that was the majority view of Baptists at the time of the founding of the SBC. However, it seems many want to use the same tactics of the CR to rid the SBC of this historic group.
5) Stop using the term “traditionalist” – it’s arrogant and historically inaccurate. You can use the term “Majority” or even as Les has suggested “Synergist” – those are at least accurate, but “Tradition” has an accepted connotation that points back to origin. The Calvinists in the SBC were pretty dominant until at least 1925 – that’s 80 years. Since then, the non-Calvinists have been fairly dominant – that’s 87 years. Based on those numbers, neither of us could really claim the term “traditional”.
6) Start recognizing that you need us as much as we need you. Calvinists bring a hard-core doctrinal fidelity to Evangelicalism that is sorely needed in our day and age. Look at what Calvinists are currently writing on – postmodernism, Trinity, complementarianism, homosexuality, inerrancy, New Perspective on Paul, universalism, the doctrine of Hell, etc., etc. etc. I could go on and on. When any scholar at any major seminary considers a textbook for each of these, almost always a Calvinist author comes to mind, especially in the last 20 years.
****Excursus – Stop taking Al Mohler’s words about Calvinism being the only viable option out of context. What I wrote above is exactly why he said it – Calvinists are writing the books that are helping a new generation answer the hard questions. I found this to be true in Seminary and it is holding true now 10 years later, which leads me to the next point…
7) Start engaging 21st century issues and actually present a Christian worldview that is worth adopting for guys my age and younger. I see no non-Calvinist equivalent to David Platt, or D.A. Carson, or Francis Schaeffer, or Tim Keller, or especially John Piper. As much as you might not like their doctrine, these men, by the power of the Holy Spirit, are inspiring a generation of guys like myself and others. When we look at the older and “Traditionalist” guys though, we often hear the equivalent of “Get off my lawn!” and the same old morality preaching that has failed to produce disciples, but has filled our Churches with unregenerate members.
8) Finally, start encouraging or even mentoring the young Calvinists around you. You might disagree with their soteriological doctrine, but yelling at them about it across the fence does nothing. Actually engaging with those who are Reformed and helping them see the benefits of the CP, the State Conventions, and the SBC as a whole would ensure a much better transition for the next generation. I think non-Calvinists fail to see that we are indeed the future of the SBC and if you want to be a part of that future, you need to be a part of the lives of those who will make it up. As Bonhoeffer wrote, “The righteous man is the one who lives for the next generation.”
I don’t know how that sunglassed-smiley face became point #8, but it wasn’t intentional – I promise. I don’t do smiley faces (or any other faces for that matter) – “I’m a man! I’m 40!” (ur…ok, 35, but you get my point).
The combination of 8 and ) produces a smiley face – which I consider to be a scheme of the enemy to destroy righteousness. I don’t know how to turn that evil thing off.
So, whenever I have point 8, I put in a period. 8.)
No smiley faces for me!
First, I want them to quit calling themselves “Traditionalists” since it’s a blatant denial of SBC history, it argues that Calvinists are “less” of a part of SBC history than they really are, and it argues that all Calvinists are somehow less Southern Baptist than “traditionalists.”
Second, I want you to quit assuming the worst about Calvinists. Al Mohler is not a “New Calvinist,” (Based on Hankins’s confession) neither is Tom Ascol, or the many other Calvinists you stereotype. You hear their words in the worst possible way while ignoring their lives and the times they’ve blatantly said they’re willing to work with others under the umbrella of the BF&M 2K. The truth is that there are so few “New Calvinists,” they’re an anomaly within Calvinism (I don’t know of any). They’re no different than the extreme charismatics in your camp. Why not a statement against those extreme charismatics in your own camp?
Third, It doesn’t bother me that you express what you believe. I actually welcome this. What bothers me is that in the process of expressing your beliefs, you mischaracterize what I believe.
Fourth, if you really think Calvinists should have a voice in the SBC, quit suggesting that we somehow need a “quota” of Calvinists vs. non-Calvinists in SBC leadership that corresponds with the percentage of Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the pew. You’re singling out Calvinism because it’s your hobby horse (you want a more narrow confession than the BF&M 2K). If Calvinists are as much an equal part of the SBC as non-Calvinists, then whether there’s a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist in leadership, if he or she affirms the BF&M 2K, then he or she is a Southern Baptist. Quit telling me you respect my right to be heard as you simultaneously say that you’re not being represented. If you believe Calvinists are true Southern Baptists, you’re being represented by them when they serve in SBC leadership as well.
Finally, I want to seek the nations with you. In order to do this though, I can’t be some “less than” Southern Baptist “other” that you tolerate. If I’m your brother in Christ and fellow Southern Baptist, let’s treat one another like equals, and seek the nations in unity. The BF&M 2K is enough to unite us in cooperation.
I’ll tell you one thing I want from Calvinists. Stop using the term “Doctrines of Grace”. As if Baptists don’t teach we’re saved by grace. As if folks who don’t hold the same soteriology don’t teach any doctrines about grace. To me, it’s offensive to use that term to differentiate themselves from those of another viewpoint.
From traditionalists? Stop attacking Calvinists. I do not recall Calvinists ever attacking Baptists for flaws in their faith. It just seems to me that if Baptists in general had done an effective job of making disciples, then within my own personal (37 years’ in Birmingham, 31 as a Southern Baptist..) experience:
A) A Southern Baptist Churchmember might have witnessed to me (none has, but several Presbyterians have…), and
B) At least one Baptist might have know why you have to be Baptized to join a Southern Baptist Church. And that ain’t happened yet.
Bob,
I understand your argument about using the term “Doctrines of Grace”, but it is a historic term that we didn’t come up with and since it is at least 300 years old (at least traceable to Cotton Mather’s The Old Paths Restored – and likely further than that – some of you historians probably know better), I don’t think we ought to dump it.
I agree with DR. There are certain things I can’t compromise on and that is one of them. I will explain it thoroughly, but just because a phrase or term such as Doctrines of Grace offends doesn’t mean I’ll stop using it as I believe it best describes what I am teaching. The Gospel offends the lost, I won’t dump that either.
Maybe you should call yourself a DOG traditionalist?
🙂
Never tell that you hate smiley faces. 🙂
I was a Presbyterian, who studied what we believed, before I was a Baptist. We didn’t use “doctrines of grace” then, and I wouldn’t have liked it if they had.
We baptists have gladly stopped using terms that were offensive to others. I stand by what I said.
As do I Bob. And I say that respectfully.
Nice coincidence – I’m also a former Presbyterian (grew up PCA) and didn’t hear the term until entering Southern Baptist circles. And I’m in agreement Bob, I’d prefer we stay away from such terms.
Chris: The term is there and has been used by Southern Baptists and Presbyterians, others alike. It best describes these doctrines which is the reason I won’t stop using the term. I know of no better term to describe them. They are all about God’s Grace to us.
I like David(Not Adrian Roger’s son) suggestion. It’s very doable for me and a terrific idea. That’s as close as I can go to changing. I’m flexible, just not on this point. Pretty soon we will let others change the entire doctrine and there is a reason I am a Calvinist at least in soteriology. There is also a reason I am Southern Baptist. I believe it and see it in scripture.
It is a shame that so many of the leaders that fought against the liberals for biblical inerrancy do not realize that they seem to be using the same tactics the liberals used against them. Don’t hid behind a “traditionalist” label. Theology has long been the queen of sciences, and like all science there is a language to the science and the study of God. There is nothing new under the sun or in these articles. Declare proudly the theology you are espousing. Don’t hid behind a label that is not historically accurate.
traditional – (1) of or pertaining to tradition. (2) handed down by tradition. (3) in accordance with tradition.
tradition – (1) the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice. (2) something that is handed down. (3) a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting.
The founders of the SBC are by any of these definitions the source of SBC traditions.
I’m far from a scholar but just finished a seminary paper on the theology of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention and Seminary. I wasn’t surprised by the founders understanding of Election as “God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life—not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ—in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.” However, I was surprised to read James P. Boyce’s arguments for Reprobation in Abstract of Systematic Theology and his statement, “God, in eternity, when he elected some, did likewise not elect others; that as resulting from this non-election, but not as efficiently caused by it, he passes by these in the bestowment of the special favours shown to the Elect, and, as in like manner yet further resulting, condemns men, because of sin to everlasting destruction, and while they are in the state of sin and condemnation, he effects or permits the hardening of their heart, so that his truth is not appreciated, but actually rejected.”
Subscribing to comments.
David(not Adrian Rogers’ Son) had a request that I could easily comply with and I think it a reasonable request. I actually think it a good idea.
Thanks. The request is on the equivalent Traditionalist page. I find myself (a non-Calvinist) having to regularly clarify for my congregation what Calvinists actually believe and practice from the caricatures (e.g. “non-evangelistic”). I also note the very helpful Calvinist Reformed scholarship in varied areas . I have been frustrated with both sides using language sloppily that brings confusion to less historically and theologically educated laypersons and pastors (I pastor in an association with many pastors being non-seminary trained.)
I’m not currently in a SB church, though I have ministry partnerships with several SB churches for my ministry in Haiti.
Here’s what I want: I want almost anyone who signed the Hankins statement to accompany me on any of my trips to Haiti to see and do orphan care first hand. I’m not self promoting here. And I’m not suggesting that the Traditionalists are not concerned with and doing mission work.
What I am quite confident of is that I would not hesitate to have almost any of these men (maybe except the fella calling us Calvinists heretics) stand up and preach in the church we partner with in Haiti (and I am a full 5 point Calvinist). I know that at the point of preaching the gospel those men are going to declare the riches of Christ and call sinners to repentance and faith. Not one of them is going to preach evangelistically anything I wouldn’t preach.
I think that if any of them was with me in Haiti (or with you folks door to door or on a mission trip) these blog arguments would dry up faster than we could blink our eyes.
Les Prouty
1. I want “traditionalists” to name names when they criticize Calvinists. Do they mean divisive Calvinists, Founders Calvinists, A29 Calvinists, or something else? When you put out a statement railing against “new Calvinism” it is hurtful and offensive with such a vague label.
2. I want ALL Southern Baptists to stop forming camps around peripheral issues. I don’t want Calvinists or “traditionalists” to sit around and formulate their own statements of faith like the recent one on salvation. We have a statement of faith – the BF&M. If you don’t like it or it isn’t enough for you, make a movement for a change. Don’t get together on your own. It’s divisive, hurtful, and a little cult-like. This goes for BOTH sides of the issue – “traditionalists” and Calvinists.
3. Try to be a little more loving in your creation of labels if you insist on making them. You have to realize that claiming “traditionalist” is offensive to Calvinists who believe we’ve had a presence in the SBC since the founding of our convention. You can come up with a better name. Of course given my second point above, neither side should even be in a position to form such camps.
4. There are over 7 billion people in the world now. Most of them are on the edge of stepping into hell. A disturbing number have never even heard the name of Jesus and no one is trying to get to them. Hell is hot, heaven is sweet, and division over non-essentials is unacceptable. Unbelievers should know us for our love and fearless pursuit of sinners, but we’re best known for our bickering. Let’s stop it. Again, this goes for BOTH sides of the issue.
Let me add one more thing (and Adam Harwood, if you are reading this, it is directed precisely at you):
9) Stop claiming that the Sandy Creek tradition somehow stands in opposition to the Charleston tradition in regard to Calvinistic soteriology. Paige Patterson, himself, claimed that this is not the case and the 1st Sandy Creek confession testifies to this, given that it is taken directly from The Philadelphia Baptist Confession.
I have no clue why any conservative or fundamentalist would want to borrow this false idea of Sandy Creek being non-Calvinistic given that it was first asserted by a liberal (Walter Shurden) and a moderate (Fisher Humphries). And while you are at it, it might also be helpful to repudiate the whole Anabaptist origins myth – that comes directly from the liberals as well.
Is that really an issue?
I’d really rather not fight the fight in these posts. Let’s focus more on the big picture issues than specific gripes like this.
Other than referencing the particular person, that IS a big picture point of discussion. Don’t you think?
Dave,
If you go back to the Caner / Ascol threads over at the Founder’s blog a few years back, you will see this issue come up over and over again. And I actually engaged Emir in a couple of emails right after that. He continually referred to Sandy Creek as having been in opposition to Charleston. And based on some other historical inaccuracies, some have even began claiming the Sandy Creekers were more influenced by Anabaptists, thus leading to an attempt to resurrect the Anabaptist origins theory (perpetuated by liberals), which has long since been debunked. So it’s not just a minor, picky point, but it’s a purposeful mischaracterization.
Pastor Randle,
Sorry for my delay in replying to you. Because you are a Georgia Baptist pastor and I am a Baptist professor in Georgia, I am accountable to you. I will be happy to visit with you to explain my biblical and theological justification for signing this statement. I will be in your city this Friday to speak along with our state Attorney General at the Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally. Please contact me through Facebook or e-mail (through Truett-McConnell’s website) if you are interested in scheduling a time this Friday to visit over coffee. Blessings, brother.
In Him,
Adam
Adam,
I appreciate the invitation and your desire to get together. I gave you a lot of grief over the Sandy Creek stuff, but this does say a lot about your true desires in signing the document. I hope that others who have signed will approach it with dialogue in mind as you have.
As to actually getting together Friday, I would love to, but I can’t be sure this early in the week, given my schedule over the next few days. If I can work it out, I certainly will. I will try to contact you by Tuesday – I should know by then. Thanks again,
D.R.
Just had to add, as Georgia Baptist member and SS teacher I’m glad to see this call for face to face accountability between leaders. Feel like GA (particular rural GA) needs more leaders that take theology seriously.
Stop equating 5-point dortian Calvinism w/ “hyper calvinism.” That trick seemed to have been popularized by Norm Giesler in “Chosen but Free.” 5-Point Calvinism is not hyper calvinism.
Amen to that!
Double amen. That is a pet peeve, big time. And it also plays into making Calvinists think most non-calvinists really dont understand what most calvinists believe.
Triple amen!
And to clarify, as one of our non-C brothers requested, hyper-Calvinism as I understand it is when someone denies the responsibility of man in favor of the sovereignty of God. Such is altogether different than 5-point Calvinism.
I have a post in the queue, I don’t know when Dave will decide to post it, that seeks to define a classical calvinistic soteriology by looking at the Canons of Dort.
I think it helps separate Calvinism from Hyper-Calvinism. Those of the “traditionalists” still wouldn’t agree with it (nor would I expect them to), especially on the ideas of the timing of regeneration, the effectual call, etc.
But I think it also shows when we talk about “perseverance” we’re not talking about a foreign-to-baptist life, and works-of-man-centered idea; and when we speak of limited atonement, we’re not saying the sacrifice of Jesus is in anyway limited in its ability to save anyone and everyone, etc.
And to see hyper Calvinism in practice they can Google Westboro Baptist in Kansas, I think. Known for picketting solider’s funerals.
Cole, those guys are uber-independent fundamentalists that have crossed over into self-righteous non-Christianity. They are not even close to being hyper-calvinists.
Yeah their definitely all of those things. However, their confession of faith line up includes several reformed confessions, including the Westminster. They also parade a sign saying “God loves the elect” along with all their hate signs. So obviously they think themselves to be Calvinistic but obviously very abusive with their so called “theology”. I guess I’ve never heard of any other kind of hypercalvinism. Always seen it as an abusive and unbiblcal “reformish” form of theology. My error. So it is basically Calvinism minus evangelism?
Well, I don’t know how much they actually hold to any true reformed teaching. I would imagine they pick and choose anything they can find that can justify their ridiculous hatred. Their beliefs are not derived from scripture or even any biblical system at all. Their beliefs are a warped form of dispensationalism and fundamentalism (non-calvinistic) and ascribing (not sure how) to some calvinistic confessions. They are just warped. I wouldn’t lump them in with any Christian group whatsoever.
I personally have never met a true hyper-calvinist (someone who believes that evangelism is not necessary at all). Not one. I have met people of all theological stripes that do not evangelize, but none that are convinced theologically that it is unnecessary. There is definitely not a stream of that within SBC life. Only scare tactics than imply such (and vague references to back it up).
Well thanks for clearly that up for me. Guess I would owe one an apology if I knew one personally.
Jason G.: “I have met people of all theological stripes that do not evangelize, but none that are convinced theologically that it is unnecessary. There is definitely not a stream of that within SBC life.”
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I would also add that those I have encountered who express misgivings about evangelization don’t seem to be theologically astute enough to identify their own soteriological position. Most opponents I have had question whether I should involve my kids in evangelization. I suspect the majority of church members who oppose evangelism are simply nominal Christians. So I don’t see Christians who oppose Calvinism opposing evangelism and I don’t see Calvinists opposing evangelism. But I do think all of us should be more active in direct evangelization. We should certainly be at least as passionate about it as we are about defending our respective soteriologies.
Know that I am still troubled by the document on SBCToday and still think it divisive. Please do not write another document like this one when wanting to state your beliefs. Simply state your beliefs. You can even write what you disagree with us on, but write what we really believe. You can find it on any Calvinist website if you want to get it correct. I am happy to discuss when you disagree with what I truly believe as a Calvinist. Not writings that are inaccurate to simply further your argument.
I would like to see an end of the misrepresentations of calvinist belief and action. That is the sad thing about this document, everyone who signs it is complicit in spreading lies and misrepresentation about their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I think we should be better than that – I expect us to be better than that.
The fact that these misrepresentations have been answered over and over and over again makes the error that much more egregious.
I would also like the accusations of attempts to “takeover” to end. Those comments are absurd. The idea that there is a conspiracy at foot to get rid of anyone who disagrees with calvinists is absolutely crazy. The idea that there is an organized movement within the SBC of calvinists to take over agencies is equally as crazy. To claim that T4G and TGC are SBC sponsored and paid for by the CP is ludicrous and a flat out lie…yet it gets repeated without proof often. There is no conspiracy or organized takeover effort. Let that sink in for a moment…then repeat it to yourself. LOL
I would like to see an end to looking at everything calvinists say or do with suspicion and allusion back to the supposed conspiracy.
Related, I would like to see an end to this being THE dividing line for some people. So, when incidents come up like the Ergun Caner situation, I think we need to be able to say he is wrong without it coming back to THIS issue. His view on this issue is of no consequence for that situation….to defend his error and deny that it was wrong because he is on “my team” is not helpful. (That was just the first example that comes to mind.)
My biggest issue comes back to misrepresentation about belief. To say (repeatedly) or even imply that calvinists do not believe that faith and repentance are necessary for salvation is a flat out lie or to say/imply that calvinists do not believe that it is necessary for man to respond to the free offer of the Gospel is also a lie. It is time for that nonsense to end – not just because it is mean, but because it is sin. Purposefully misrepresenting someone else is lying….period.
Making up new monikers and assigning beliefs to those monikers and then lumping people into that group against their will and against what they actually say and believe is unhelpful. To pit “new calvinism” (an amorphous meaningless phrase) against “old calvinism” is dumb and unhelpful. To assign people into YOUR created categories is dumb and unhelpful. To then write people off based on YOUR evaluation of what they believe, despite their objections, is not helpful.
I’d also like to see the designation of “aggressive” stop being thrown around carelessly. It is not helpful because it has no concrete meaning. It is also often used quite ironically, since it is used by people who are signing documents and spreading rumors about the other side…nothing more “aggressive” than that. If you have a blog and you write about how bad these other people are, you might have to recognize that you are equally as “aggressive”. That language is simply not helpful and could be ascribed to anyone who signed that document. Is that what we want?
Lastly, be willing to work together with calvinists and be less concerned with trying to “smoke them out” or assign blame to them for something you may have seen or heard from somewhere else. I don’t care if a bad pastor destroyed a church and he happened to be calvinist…that says NOTHING about calvinists in general. It only says something about that guy. There have been way more churches in the SBC destroyed by non-calvinists, so for calvinists to point to that as proof that calvinism is right would be equally as wrong. Stop it. Just stop using that tactic…it is intellectually dishonest, which again is simply sinful.
We can all work together…I think the calvinists want that. There have been no calvinist documents spread through the SBC to demonize those who disagree. There has been no attempt to unify around any document or rallying cry except the one we all agreed to: the BFM2K. Narrowing the parameters of cooperation is unhelpful…and well, NON-traditional SBC. Let’s join together to spread the Gospel…not start witch hunts in local associations or get State EDs to overstep their bounds or try and minimize the influence of others….let’s just work together and share the Gospel.
I want to add….some may not like the choice of word calvinists use to describe their positions. But they have the freedom to do so…just like people have the right to call themselves “traditionalists”…it works both ways.
I would hope non-calvinists could see the difference between disagreement over doctrine and the accusation that we believe something we do not actually believe. To say it is merely semantics is to miss the whole point. You have to respond to what people actually believe and say, not what you want them to say or think they say. That is how you fairly deal with anyone with whom you disagree. To not do so and to assign value to their words that they do not want is lying…even if some people don’t like the use of the term “lying”, it is what it is.
“…lumping people into that group against their will…”
Oh, the irony… 8) (sunglasses intended)
I would like for Traditionalists to vote against any federal, state or local legislation that would negate the Second Amendment and my right to bear arms as a free citizen of the United States of America.
Heh
I suppose that Calvinist Baptists need to come up with their own statement. Just as important, they should also come up with their own name. The little trick of non-Calvinists insisting on being only referred to as \”majority\” or \”traditional\” Baptist while continuing to refer to their counterparts as Calvinists is an excellent way to go about marginalizing them, especially when the \”majority/traditional\” Baptists use the \”neither Calvinist or Arminian but Baptist\” rallying cry while still referring to them as Calvinists. Unfortunately, for them to use the traditional, historic moniker \”Particular\” (and thereby use \”General\” for their counterparts, even if a lot of the \”majority/traditional\” propagandists feign offense and squawk at that name because it affirms their counterparts on other side rather than marginalizes them, which is the goal … the point is to get their counterparts to \”know their place\” in the convention structure rather than doctrine or history) is impractical because most of them deny particular atonement. But a name must be chosen in order to combat the marginalization campaign. I would propose \”Founders Baptists\”, but that name is taken, and most non-General Baptists in the SBC do not adhere to the agenda of the Founders. So, how about \”Historic Baptists\”? That is a good one. Of course, while General Baptists are part and parcel of Baptist history, giving 3, 4 and 5 point Calvinist Baptists that title is no different than using \”traditional Southern Baptist\”, thereby excluding people like Moon and Fuller from Southern Baptist tradition.
So then, it is settled. The group advocating this doctrinal statement are the \”traditional Southern Baptists.\” Their counterparts are the \”historic Southern Baptists.\” There. That should put both groups on equal footing, with neither having the benefit of a title that marginalizes the other side. So … carry on then …
I do find the “I am a Baptist” reply to this soteriological issue as rather funny…a category error of sorts. The fact that those in academic leadership within the SBC insist on such terminology is baffling to me. Those who are constantly using theological shorthand to describe positions are then guilty of swapping in jargon from different realms to give a non-answer to the question. So, the new hijacked terminology has to be further explained and thus it invites more confusion into the discussion. I’m perplexed by that practice.
Job,
Here is a start. BB Warfield put forth a statement of his Reformed faith. I truly think many Baptists could agree with the statement. I have it posted as my statement of faith. There is more there than soteriology, but soteriology is there in an untechnical way.
http://faithandlife.posterous.com/statement-of-faith
No charge.
Les
Don’t know I need anything. Would suggest that the confessions show unbroken room for Calvinistic soteriology but that God is the only one that can see a person’s heart and the only one that knows exactly how it “works”.
God “neglected” to be a “gentleman” to Pharaoh and Jonah. Good luck with demanding he protect your right to “choose”.
I would like a side by side comparison in how the “Traditionalist” and the “Calvinist” understand the function of grace in salvation and sanctification?
As a possible compromise with “traditionalists” – if we grant the use of the term, can we then go by the label “original traditionalists”?
You make the mistake of presuming that the “traditionalists” want compromise in the first place. They do not. The “traditionalists” might CALL it compromise, but it would actually represent victory for them and surrender for all else.
Job, I hope your combative spirit on this issue is not indicative of Calvinists. If it is, we’ve got a big job in bringing peace. I think most folks don’t want to fight, insult and accuse the other side, but find a way to work together.
I hope that may, at some time, become your goal as well.
Dave,
I know you do not feel that combative spirit is indicative of either side, inherently. But do you think the production of this document in the first place is “combative”?
I can see where you could say Job is combative. He views the other side with suspicion and is not seeking to unite with them around accepted consensus statements (compromise, as he calls it). I can see that as combative. But by those same criteria, wouldn’t that document be considered combative, or rather the decision to make it and spread it? Isn’t its intent to not seek compromise/consensus? Do not the words of the document view the other side with suspicion?
Just wanted to get your take.
Briefly, I think there are aspects of the document that are combative.
Those folks have every right to define their beliefs in comparison to other beliefs.
But I thought that the name tends toward the combative (“we are real Baptists more than you are”) and there are aspects where I felt they misrepresented Calvinism.
Ultimately, this document builds walls when I think we need to be building bridges. I think Calvinists have built some walls with words and attitudes, as well.
At this point, though, I think that we need to be looking at ways to emphasize our gospel commonality, not our differences.
Amen, Dave. Amen.
Dave:
I don’t want a fight either. I am merely acknowledging that some people do want a fight, and that it only takes a small number of people who want a fight to start one. You can’t bring peace by denying that there are people who don’t want peace. You bring peace by dealing with the people who don’t want it. The folks who are responsible for “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation” do not want peace. How is it that I am being combative by A) pointing that out and B) saying that their actions merit a response?
Dave, had “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation” never existed, then my comments on this matter never would have either. So, you already had a big job in bringing peace, because those people existed and were organized and active before I ever commented on their existence, organization and activity. Now please understand, I am not indulging in a mere exercise in “they started it!” but rather to clearly state in a manner that cannot be denied that the job of bringing about peace would still exist whether I existed – or were merely willing to be silent – or not. Whether you acknowledge this fact or reject it, it remains a fact, and claiming that people willing to talk about the facts are insulting and accusing the other side doesn’t change the facts.
And in conclusion I will restate this: most people don’t want a fight, but it only takes a small number of people who want a fight to start one. Dave, this is something that you already know to be true.
Yes, there are Calvinists who want a fight and anti-Calvinists who want a fight. I believe and hope both the combative and angry Calvinists and the combative and angry anti-Calvinists are a minority in both camps.
David:
“Yes, there are Calvinists who want a fight and anti-Calvinists who want a fight.”
And I said that I fit into neither category. I opened my comment with “I don’t want a fight either.” You seem to have the position that the aggressors and those who are merely defending themselves from aggression are cut from the same cloth. I respectfully disagree.
Here’s my problem with the scenario you mention. I’ve seen it over and over again.
What changes is who is blaming who. The non-Calvinists say almost exactly the same thing about the Calvinists – we are only defending ourselves from their attack.
Jason G.:
Suspicion: an instance of suspecting something or someone.
Suspect: to believe to be guilty, false, counterfeit, undesirable, defective, bad, etc., with little or no proof.
The problem with claiming that I am acting in suspicion is the “with little or no proof.” In what way am I lacking proof? “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation” is my proof! Why should I pretend as if this proof does not exist, or fail to respond to this proof? Is there a term in the dictionary for that?
Job, I was making another point when I made that comment…think big picture, brother.
Jason G.:
I know that you were making another point, and I thank you for it. But I am thinking big picture too. Along those lines, I ask you: why did they unveil “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation”, do so less than 3 weeks before the New Orleans annual meeting? (And when you answer, please do not dislocate this development from the context of all the other things that have been going on.)
A second question: why cannot one advocate making a proportionate – though suitable – response (i.e. one that affirms rather than denies actual Southern Baptist history) to that provocation without being accused of being angry and combative?
Just subscribing.
Back to the idea of traditionalist or even “original traditionalist” – personally I don’t want the term. I think these guys are actually shooting themselves in the foot with that terminology (though, I still oppose their use of it because it’s inaccurate and I believe politically charged). Postmoderns don’t like tradition. They like ancient. They like vintage. They even like historic. But they don’t like tradition. It’s not an attractive term for almost anyone under 40.
This entire “movement” from the document to its response has been quite a flop.
No SBC college profs other than the self-professed Anabaptist Caner college Truett-McConnell is represented in the signatories.
The lack of signatories, both leaders and laypeople, will prove to bury this sad “movement”.
I want them to start dealing with the Scriptures as a whole and deal with them honestly. Stop using philosophic or logical deductive arguments and just go to texts of Scripture that present, what Calvinists believe, are compelling reasons for their beliefs and explain why those Scriptures should not be taken so. When there is disagreement enter into a discussion of texts – and not ideas. Clinging to a few texts which they believe “refute” all Calvinist belief (John 3:16 comes to mind) is not helpful when they do not seem to give attention to many others.
Could someone deal with scriptures honestly, without philosophical or logical deductive arguments and NOT be a Calvinist?
It seems like you are saying that the only solution is for them to stop fighting, recognize what the Bible says, and join the Calvinist side.
Is your last name Borg?
Resistance is futile!
Am I misunderstanding your statement?
But Dave! They should. God chose Jacob over Esau explicitly not on their future works and hardened Pharaoh’s heart. He gives only extraordinary sinners over to depravity while in the very same book claiming we all sinned when Adam sinned? Yes: they should acknowledge Calvinistic interpretation of those passages requires the least contortionism. Then believe what they want. No skin off my nose because God–and only God–apparently really knows what the real meaning is. We all end up being contortionists with some passages, after all.
“It seems like you are saying that the only solution is for them to stop fighting, recognize what the Bible says, and join the Calvinist side.”
Just be patient. Non-Calvinists will join the Calvinist side when things are explained to them in Heaven. The term “Doctrines of Grace” will take on an entirely new meaning for Non-Calvinists when they realize how much Grace was extended to them for butchering God’s Word and yet God still sovereignly elected them.
Heavenly Calvinists will not need to say “I told you so” for they will rejoice that the scales of obstinate unintelligence has fallen from the eyes of Non-Calvinists.
Smiley Face.
🙂
Sorry for being late – away yesterday. I don’t really know how I communicated what you thought I said, but it was not my intention at all. Too many times discussions focus on perceived beliefs, necessary implications, previous encounters, etc. What I mean is to deal with texts of Scripture in an exegetical way. For example, instead of talking about election as an abstract idea deal with the texts which deal with election. I haven’t always been a Calvinist and texts like Eph 1, Acts 13:48, Romans 9 and many others changed the way I thought. Rather than just deal with them by pointing to other texts (as if they contradict them) talk about them – explain why they should not be understood to teach unconditional election when they seem to. It prevents the creation of “straw men” and it deals with what is most important to us all. I realize that we may not agree, but it seems to me to focus attention on dealing with Scripture and not just with each other. I hope that clarifies what I meant and doesn’t get me in deeper hot water here.
The ‘What Traditionalist SBCers Want From Calvinists’ Meme http://cheezburger.com/6293487360 inspired by comments at https://sbcvoices.com/traditionalists-what-do-you-want-from-calvinists/
Since I don’t believe I fall into either camp, I will still make suggestions.
1. So-called Traditionalists should continue to contend for their theological views and want to see that perspective continue. But they should recognize that those of the Reformed perspective should do the same, and that their doing so is not illegitimate or nefarious.
2. That the Founders have done nothing wrong in seeking to promote a Reformed perspective.
3. Use the term “Reformed” vs. “Calvinist”. Reformed people should use “Non-Reformed or Traditionalist”, not Arminian.
4. Be less defensive and more confident. Promote what they are believing rather than fixating on what someone else is promoting.
5. Help churches that don’t want Reformed people to become pastors to ask intelligent questions so that they understand the theology of those becoming their pastors and are not shocked later to find they hired someone who was reformed but did not know it. (Still do not know how that happens, really).
6. Separate cultural distinctions in some churches from theological tenets and try to fight those battles separately.
7. Start some conferences similar to TG4 and TGC, but with a non-reformed emphasis.
8. Become more evangelistic through the planting of churches.
9. Rejoice in the planting of any SBC church that wants to be affiliated with the SBC and agrees with the BFM 2000, regardless of whether that church is Reformed on not.
Louis, I think I agree with you.
And, the more I think about the title and content, I’d suggest two things.
1. A gracious response to the statement drafted by a cross section of Reformed brothers in the SBC.
2. Begin immediately, someone (group of someones) approach those responsible for the Traditional statement and try to craft a joint statement of commonality on doctrine and cooperative practices.
$0.02
Les
It’s helpful to put this debate in its historical perspective. Every so often the same (or a very similar) debate arises where perspectives like this clash. I wonder, does the very fact that this argument is a replay cause anyone to consider it’s irresolvable and perhaps not worthwhile?
Interact with us on the basis of who we are, what we care about and how we contribute, not just on our doctrinal position. Recognize that we have more in common than not. Remember that for the vast majority we are fully committed to immersion and a baptist polity. We are Baptist by conviction, not convienience. We get that you disagree with some of our doctrinal positions but as you disagree, don’t mischaracterize what we believe.
So many good points have been made here. Just a few things I’ll add:
If Calvinism is broadly defined, I would pray that non-Calvinists would recognize the same thing is true for them.
Calvinists are confident in our position because we have done the exegesis. I know this because it’s readily available and it’s very thorough. I would pray to see the same from the non-Calvinists. Perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough, but I can’t find where the same level of scholarship has been done on the issue by the non-C’s.
Regarding the last comment, I pray that non-C’s would take the time to learn why most C’s say what they say about soteriology instead of merely asserting that we must mean something else because what we say doesn’t make sense to you. I get this all the time: I’m quietly sitting there in a group conversation when suddenly someone pipes up with, “See! That’s why I can’t believe Calvinism! I can’t believe that God would cause that to happen! Calvinists are morally repugnant! The Calvinist’s God is hateful! You (talking to me) must believe that God really doesn’t care what we do!” -or something along those lines.
Continuing with this thought, I pray that non-C’s would stop saying they understand Calvinism when everything they say about it indicates that they don’t. That’s why C’s say you don’t. Calvinism and non-Calvinism seem to have different sets of philosophical categories for apprehending what the Bible says. The Calvinistic set seems to be a little more sophisticated. In other words, Calvinism seems to make distinctions where non-Calvinism doesn’t. For example, God’s will is in a different category than man’s will. God’s will is creative. Man’s will is reactive. But non-C’s seem to take both God’s will and man’s will as being both creative and reactive. It frustrates the discussion to take a conclusion based on one set of categories and analyze it as though some other set of categories was the only system.
I pray that non-C’s would stop conflating confidence with arrogance. I also pray that non-C’s would recognize that they are guilty of no less. As such, I pray that C’s and non-C’s alike would not think too highly of themselves. I see many non-C’s (and even some C’s) accusing the other side of being hateful, arrogant, mean, etc. These are assigning motives for observed behaviors. But the non-C’s do the same behaviors and claim that they don’t have the same motives.
I pray that more non-C’s would join me on the mission field and recognize that C’s are largely mission-minded. The same scriptures that we derive Calvinism from are the same ones that instruct us to proclaim the gospel everywhere from our back yards to every other place on earth and we are compelled to obey. The organizing endeavors of Calvinists is not a drive to obtain power and control, it comes from a desire to be faithful to fulfill the Great Commission. That means that we want to mobilize effectively and it takes organization to do so.
I pray that the dialog would elevate graciously for everyone’s edification rather than simply being dumbed down. Not wrestling with theology is worse than disagreeing passionately over it.
Honestly, I would be content with simply being left alone to serve the local church without having someone looking over my shoulder all the time to figure out whether I fit their mold of what a Baptist should be.
If you are a reformed brother who is using your theological postions pridefully or without love….repent, be above reproach and love these brothers through your service, pure lives, and good names. Be above reproach, do not give in to the temptation to engage in backbiting. Love those who persecute you. Jesus sees and knows what is happening. Do not return anger for anger. These men have no power accept what is given them by God. Pray for them, ernestly!