I will admit two things at the very start of this post.
- I am not neutral in the presidential race for the SBC. I hope JD Greear is the next president of the SBC.
- I have never met Dr. Hemphill. He came to SWBTS after I graduated and I’d not heard much from him until the recent announcement. I have a positive impression of him, believing him to be a good man and good Southern Baptist.
But there is a growing tendency in the advocacy of Dr. Hemphill – by his supporters, not by him – that is becoming increasingly troubling.
In the announcement in BP about Hemphill’s candidacy, Dr. Eric Hankins left little doubt about his hopes for the Hemphill nomination.
We need a leader with an absolute commitment to the Southern Baptist core conviction concerning the Gospel’s unlimited power and unlimited scope.
Events have seemed to put Dr. Eric Hankins and I on opposite sides of most fences, but I appreciate his forthrightness. There seem to be no hidden agendas or political maneuverings with him. He speaks his mind and you agree or disagree. I respect that. He is making it plain that he wants Dr. Hemphill to advance the “Traditionalist” agenda and stanch the rising Calvinistic tide he sees as pervasive in the modern SBC. His speech at Connect 316 last year was widely seen as a call to arms in that struggle.
He is well within his rights as a Southern Baptist to do such a thing – to set an agenda, promote it, and seek to convince others to support it. There is nothing untoward about saying that he wants non-Calvinist leadership to advance the non-Calvinist agenda. In the original announcement of Dr. Hemphill’s candidacy, the statements of support were well within the boundaries of propriety – stating support for a worthy Baptist statesman who has every qualification to be president of our convention.
That standard did not hold in subsequent articles and disturbing trends began to emerge. Of course, some of this was expected from sources that never fail to disappoint. They did as was expected and their tactics surprised no one. But other voices, voices generally respected within SBC circles, voices from whom we expected better, chimed in with statements that were problematic, bordering sometimes on the absurd and even at times on the slanderous. Southern Baptists have the right to advocate their positions but they must do so truthfully and honorably. Political discourse in inevitable in a political body, but it must be discourse held to the highest standards of integrity. Smear campaigns, character assassination, and statements that are false, demeaning, and misleading must not be the tools of our political efforts.
Dr. Richard Land is a man I’ve always respected, even in those times that I have not agreed with him. I’ve known him (though he did not know me) since I was a seminary student and he was a frequent speaker in my church in Dallas, during his time at Criswell. In his first statements, he praised Hemphill in appropriate ways, but a later article by Bill Bumpas quoted him making statements that we can only hope were misquotes. The first one evidenced a common but persistent misunderstanding among anti-Calvinists. Land was quoted as saying:
This is about the gospel and whether or not the gospel is for everyone, not just the elect.
No matter how often Calvinists explain that this is not true, the anti-Calvinist wing insists on this harsh interpretation. Every Calvinist I know would say that the gospel is for everyone. To say that Calvinists believe differently is false. Even those who hold to the doctrine of Limited Atonement would say the gospel must be proclaimed to all and is for everyone. Granted, they might apply that belief in a different way, but Dr. Land’s statement is inaccurate.
And, more simply, I have seen little evidence that Dr. Greear is a five-point Calvinist. I suspect from what I have read that he leans to the Calvinist side, but there is nothing that would lead me to think he is a Reformed firebrand. Dr. Land is saying that Ken Hemphill must be elected to protect the concept that the Gospel is for everyone (from JD Greear!). There have been few Southern Baptists who have done more to take the gospel to everyone than JD. Insinuating that he does not desire the gospel to be preached to every man, woman, boy and girl in every nation on earth is patently false.
JD Greear tweeted this
For the record, I believe Jesus died for all people, that every person can and should be called to repent and believe, and that you haven’t fully preached the gospel if you haven’t called for that response.
#GospelAboveAll
Dr. Land, you can do better!
As unfair as this one is, it is excusable on the grounds that this meme is so often repeated in Traditionalist/anti-Calvinist circles that some have come to believe it is true. Had Dr. Land stopped there, this article would not have been written. Land’s next comment is more egregious, bordering on slander against J.D. Greear.
This is not an anti-JD campaign. This is a pro-John 3:16 campaign.
It is nice that he says he is not “anti-JD”, but when in the next clause he says that Hemphill’s candidacy is a “pro-John 3:16” candidacy, he is leveling the most severe charge you can level against a Baptist preacher. What would you call the insinuation that the pastor of Summit church is NOT pro-John 3:16? My friend, there are only two choices. You are either pro-John 3:16 or you are an anti-gospel heretic. If JD is not pro-John 3:16 he should not only not be elected president, he should be confronted as heterodox. The Traditionalist wing of the SBC cannot both lay claim to exclusive ownership of John 3:16 and then also say, “But we want to work together with Calvinists.” Anyone who is anti-John 3:16 is a rank, anti-gospel heretic. You cannot have it both ways.
Does anyone believe that Dr. Land thinks JD Greear is a heretic? I do not. There are a few in Traditionalist circles who might make that accusation, but I would wager my spleen Dr. Land would not. He simply used inflated rhetoric in politicking for his candidate. And that is my point. We can do better than that. We must. To deceitfully paint the other candidate as a heretic, even insincerely, is a serious thing. It is just not right.
- Dr. Ken Hemphill and Dr. J.D. Greear are both gospel men.
- Dr. Ken Hemphill and Dr. J.D. Greear both believe in John 3:16.
- Dr. Ken Hemphill and Dr. J.D. Greear both believe the gospel should be preached to every tribe and nation on earth, and to every person in those tribes and nations.
- Dr. Ken Hemphill and Dr. J.D. Greear both believe that every person in those tribes and nations should be called to repent and believe in Jesus.
We are used to deceit in the pursuit of political gain in the partisan battles of Washington, but in our fellowship, it has no place.
Apologist Alex McFarland from North Greenville University takes things a bit further, going beyond simple deceit into the realm of the absurd. He is quoted as saying:
We’re not commissioned to talk theology over lattes. We’re commissioned to go and preach the gospel to every creature – win the world for Christ – and we need a president that will inspire us.
We need Dr. Hemphill to save us from latte sipping theologians such as JD Greear who will abandon the Great Commission to debate TULIP and the Ordo Salutis? Can he not see how absurd the accusation is? The Summit Church has found a way, in between their between their sips of latte, to lead the NC convention in Cooperative Program giving, make strides toward planting 1000 churches, and to send more missionaries onto the field through the IMB than any other church in the SBC (I saw the number 252). No real man sips lattes, I’m convinced, but if that’s what is going on with JD Greear and the Summit Church then bring on the Baptist baristas!
No, our commission is not to sip lattes, but neither is it to smear churches such as Summit and men such as JD Greear with false and absurd accusations.
There have been several articles written about Dr. Greear or about Dr. Hemphill using passive-aggressive smear tactics, praising him in a way that insults JD. The Bumpas article is only an example. Other articles use classic “guilt by association” techniques to convict Dr. Greear of Calvinism or paint him with suspicion because his motto is “The Gospel above All.” (Shocking and shameful, to be sure!) Some have insinuated he is not a “real” Southern Baptist or genuinely committed to the Cooperative Program. Such accusations say more about the integrity of accuser than they do about JD.
May I say, to be clear, that Dr. Ken Hemphill has, to my knowledge, engaged in none of this.
Plotting a Course for Dallas
There are more than four months left in this campaign, and there are two paths open to us.
- We can continue the path that has been set by far too many of deceitful attacks, nonsensical accusations, or passive-aggressive attacks.
- Or, we can elevate our discussion to a more noble and Christ-honoring level. We can forego false accusation and absurdity. We can speak truth and honor one another.
I would make several suggestions.
- No one should be criticized for promoting their candidate as forcefully and enthusiastically as they wish. By nature, we are a political entity and supporting candidates is part of that. Make your case as to why the SBC should vote for your man. I intend to!
- We ought to recognize that both of these candidates are honorable Southern Baptists, contributors to the Cooperative Program, invested in our convention. To intimate otherwise is unfair and dishonest. Both of these are good Baptist men who seem utterly qualified to be president of the SBC.
- We need to abandon false accusation. Both Drs. Hemphill and Greear love Jesus, love the gospel, preach it, and want it to go to all the world. Both of them believe in John 3:16. This “we have to save the gospel from…” silliness must end.
- Here at this blog, we will make a covenant to publish no personal attacks on either candidate, unless specific information of serious moral, spiritual, or theological lapses is raised – and I doubt it will be. The case for JD or for Ken is about their appointments and philosophies, not their doctrine or their character. We will keep it at that. Personal attacks will not be published and comments to that effect will be deleted. We did this last year – I personally deleted several anti-Steve Gaines comments. We will continue that policy.
Baptists, it is wholly right to campaign, but it is not right to deceive. The tactics of secular politics have no place among us and we must reject them. Can we not aim higher? Can we not take our cues from Scripture instead?
Yes, we can do better. We must.
May I address an issue about terminology here?
Until better terminology presents, I use my references fairly precisely.
I use the term non-Calvinist to refer to those who reject the Calvinist label. I was in a discussion this morning about what makes a person a Calvinist, and we couldn’t identify it that precisely, but in general, those who say, “I am not Calvinist” are non-Calvinists!
Traditionalists are those who have signed the Traditionalist document or have at least officially affirmed that doctrine. Some Traditionalists have tried to apply the term for ALL non-Calvinists but the fact is that many, I suspect MOST non-Calvinists disagree with tenets of the Traditionalist Document. I use Traditionalist for that sub-class of non-Calvinists that publicly identifies with the document.
I use ANTI-Calvinist in a specific light as well. Most non-Calvinists are NOT anti-Calvinists – thank God. But there are those among Traditionalist elements who see the entire SBC as a binary battle between Cals and non-Cals and are devoted to the limiting of Cal influence. They will SAY they are not anti-Cal but every word and action belies that.
As both men are qualified, what are the reasons that you have chosen one candidate over the other?
I’d rather save that for a future post. It seems counter-productive to begin the advocacy here. My purpose today is not to advocate for Greear but to plead for a nobler dialogue.
When the side that is anti gets to define those they are against, it never looks good.
I am convinced that if you could get all SB’s in a room and let each side define clearly themselves – the SBC just might have more Calvinists in it than the Trads think.
The term “Traditionalist” was a good term to choose as it fits the mindset of the SBC and says to them anyone not Traditionalist is not SBC. That term is not a fair representation of what Traditionalist SB is.
Calvinists are being painted unfairly and we seem to be remaining quiet.
Calvinists are not the only ones who have been painted unfairly – that has gone both ways at times.
In this situation, I have only seen one side engaging in this kind of rhetoric.
Well said, Dave. Thanks.
There is a nother striking similarity between the two:
I believe Dr. Hemphill’s present position is in some way directly related to church planting and JD Greear leads a church that plants many churches.
You may be thinking of his last position with NAMB.
He is now with North Greenville University, which may explain the intemperate statements by man from there.
If Limited Atonement is true, the gospel is not for everyone.
If Jesus did not die for you, the gospel is not for you and you have nothing to believe in.
I understand the Calvinist concept of preaching the gospel to everyone because we do not know who is elect and who is not.
But the fact remains that if Jesus did not die for you, all the preaching in the world will do you no good.
David R. Brumbelow
Clearly, you know more than the people who hold that doctrine, but the fact is that JD Greear has made it clear that he does NOT believe that.
Is it right that people blame him for a doctrine he does not believe?
“For the record, I believe Jesus died for all people, that every person can and should be called to repent and believe, and that you haven’t fully preached the gospel if you haven’t called for that response. #GospelAboveAll”
This is a tweet from JD Greear
That’s the key.
Dave – in JD’s tweet that you quoted, would he say “all people without exception” or “all people without distinction?” Both soteriological sides are well aware of this finer point.
Really?
As they say on MNF…C’mon, man.
Dave,
There in lies the problem I have with Calvinism.
1 – I will more than likely vote for JD, not because of his doctrine but because of the humility I witnessed from him in St. Louis.
2 – I am not sure I would categorize myself as anti or Traditionalist. All I knew when God saved me is that I was told Jesus died for me, I needed to repent, and Jesus would forgive and save me. That puts God at the beginning and the end of salvation and me in the middle. Even Jesus went around preaching to everyone they needed to repent. I think there is something to be seen in that that many blow on past. I would have to say that much, not all but much of the mis-characterization are self-induced, maybe not by the Calvinist people themselves but by the contradictory words.
3 – That is the issue I have. I have a lot of respect for JD, David Platt and the likes, but no one seems to see the contradictions in their own statements. I think that was the intention of this comment. I don’t doubt JD is pro-John 3:16 or pro-gospel for everyone, but if you believe in election as far as God chose certain ones to be saved and thus chose others for damnation then how can u say the gospel is for everyone? If the gospel cannot be preached to everyone then it shouldn’t be preached to anyone, and honestly that gospel cannot be preached to everyone because as the comment says if Jesus died for person A and not person B or person B is not “chosen” then person B cannot repent no matter how much you ask him to. The doctrine is just contradictory to how those who believe it have to preach. That’s just plain and simple and undeniable even though folks do. No Calvinist can explain that away.
4 – I would also say that maybe the latte thing is a bit overexaggerated but also a bit true. Every Calvinist I have encountered is so very eager to tell me why I am wrong and they are the “enlightened” ones (almost makes me think they are borderline agnostic and we know what Paul said to them). They are eager to tell me how the secret things of God are secret, yet they come across as ones who have the secret figured out. I will say however I have seen most of them way more evangelistic than many who I knew said they would never attend a church where one of them pastors. Hence the testimony of Summit and JD speak for itself. My issue is not with the people just the contradictions obvious with the doctrine vs preaching the gospel
5 – I vote for the person and how they carry themselves, and JD has been exemplary. If I see JD trying to lead SBC in an unbalanced way then I will regret my vote and speak out. I don’t believe, however, the need will ever arise.
So in a sense I agree with you, but would add, both sides can do better.
There are plenty of so-called “Traditionalist” Baptist preachers and churches that rarely lead anyone to Jesus. There are plenty of Calvinist Baptists like Greear who lead lots of people to Jesus. Both the above statements can be flipped around. Shouldn’t people be evaluated on the fruit of their labor and not the labels attached to them?
If the SBC doesn’t keep the main thing the main thing (the preaching of the gospel and the making of disciples per the Great Commission) the Conservative Resurgence will have been for nothing. Both sides need to keep the cause of Christ front and center. Anything less than this will end up destroying the SBC. Isn’t this what Paul warned about? “But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another” (Galatians 5:15). I would hate to see that happen.
You get at the heart of the problem, I believe.
If JD Greear were a signatory of a certain document, he would be touted as a model of all that an SBC pastor should be.
Leads a large state convention in CP giving. Planting churches faster than Usain Bolt sprints. Hundreds on the field with the IMB.
But Greear is held up to scorn because he is SUSPECTED of POSSIBLY holding views (which he denies) that do not align with their views.
I think the issues involved in the Hemphill candidacy are part generational, part methodological, and part theological. I get the sense that the older generation of Southern Baptists views many in the younger generation as leaning towards methods and beliefs that, while not heretical, are not traditionally indicative of SBC life and–more importantly–will be less effective in winning lost souls to Jesus.
When I read Richard Land’s statement that he is not against J.D. but is in favor of John 3:16, I don’t think he means to imply that Greear doesn’t believe John 3:16. Instead, he means to imply that Hemphill will do a better job of leading Southern Baptists to carry the John 3:16 message. I disagree with Land and plan to vote for J.D. However, I’m not sure that Land intends to throw vitriol on Greear’s commitment to the gospel. There may be some of Hemphill’s supporters who do, and I fully agree with your main point, Dave. We need to be careful not to incite divisions among brothers who are actually united in their desire to advance the Kingdom of God.
Appropriating John 3:16 as their verse in the battle against Calvinism has been the stock in trade for some of these groups.
To this article Dave, I say Amen! Perfectly said.
Funny thing is that when Dr. Hemphill left Southwestern the whispers were that he was soft on moderates and theologically soft on the issue of women pastors. I like Dr. Hemphiill and I can’t verify that either are true but that was the whisper among card carrying conservatives 20 years ago. Those rumors are most likely the reason that he wasn’t nominated many years ago. Now he is put forth by the same to save the denomination from calvinists.
I do not believe that the removal of Dr. Hemphill from SWBTS was one of our convention’s proud moments.
I was not aware Dr. Hemphill was “removed” from SWBTS. Is this a mis-type?
He wasn’t “removed”. Rumors circulated to that effect, but Dr. Hemphill said they were false.
That goes against EVERYTHING that people who know what happened say.
Forced? Maybe not.
He was certainly pushed out.
If you want to revise history, I cannot help you.
Dr. Hemphill himself said the rumor was false. Are you calling him a liar?
Ken, go fight with someone else.
The story is widely told. I suspect that Hemphill is speaking technically – He was NOT fired. But he WAS forced out.
You are not a prosecutor and I am not on trial. I spoke a truth that pretty much everyone knows.
Move on.
If a guy is put in a canoe and not given a paddle, he usually winds up down river.
I was at SWBTS at that time and can agree those rumors were circulating. And I know that many who were circulating them favored replacing Dr. Hemphill with a certain big game hunter who had been promised the presidency of the “crown jewel” of SBC seminaries for his role in the CR.
I like Dr. Hemphill. He’s a good man. I think the best future for the SBC is with Greear. And that’s what ultimately matters.
Dave, if the two “sides” can think and speak like you have in this post, our Convention will be ok. If not, we’re doomed. Thank you sir. Thank God for such level-headedness.
I rarely comment here for various reasons, however, you mentioned in the article that you haven’t seen evidence of JD Greear being a 5 point Calvinist. This is from his own blog and lays out his philosophy well and shows his priorities are gospel proclamation…..to everyone.
https://jdgreear.com/blog/pastor-j-d-are-you-a-calvinist/
Excellent
Yes, this is helpful!
Thank you, Dave. And I really appreciate your definitions of the various categories of Non Calvinists, I especially like your distinction between Non Cals and Trads. For the record, I am very much a Non-Cal, but I am also not a Trad for doctrinal reasons.
In all fairness, I’ve also seen some rather ugly comments about Dr. Hemphill from J.D. Greear’s supporters (Not from Greear himself, mind you. I don’t believe he would stoop to that). Most of the criticism about Dr. Hemphill stems around the fact that he’s too old. It seems to me that in our zeal to reach young people, we’re seeing a growing disrespect – perhaps even contempt – for the elderly. I’m all for reaching young people, but promoting disrespect for the elderly is neither wise nor scriptural.
Can you provide a link? I haven’t seen that at all, not even once.
Mr. Brumbelow,
I am sure that most “traditional” Calvinists (of which I am one) would argue that your understanding of Limited/Particular Atonement is not accurate. The doctrine of Particular Atonement does NOT teach that Jesus only died for some. The substance of the doctrine is centered not on the death itself, but on the purposes of the atonement accomplished by that death. It simply states that the atonement accomplished by Christ was ‘sufficient’ for all but only ‘efficacious’ for the elect. If his death, and thereby the atonement, was efficacious for ALL…then ALL would be saved. Otherwise you are saying that the atonement was intended for all, but insufficient since obviously not everyone will be saved. For the honest Calvinist that is an untenable conclusion. It is the same reason the vast majority of Baptists and Presbyterians reject the idea that physical healing is promised in the atonement. If God is God, and he included physical healing in the atonement, then there would be no sickness for the believer. That, of course, is ludicrous.
You can disagree with this particular exegesis, but it is important that the non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists know what they are disagreeing with.
that’s just the tired old defense: you just don’t understand Calvinism .
I am guessing that Calvinists are as tired if attempting to correct these often willful misunderstandings as you are in having them corrected.
The solution would be a good-faith effort to understand and to stop twisting other’s views.
He is right, Dave. It is a tired old excuse. To say that David R.Brumbelow does not understand Calvinism is an accusation that will not stand scrutiny. He does understand it. He just does not embrace it as correct.
You are as wrong here as I have seen you.
No I am not wrong. David R. Brumbelow understands Calvinism.
He understands it from an anti-Calvinist viewpoint.
But there’s a reason that when these anti-Calvinists present their views, Calvinists say, “That’s not what we believe.” It is because they are not hearing their views accurately presented.
David is right only if you assume that he knows Calvinism better than Calvinists know Calvinism. I suppose that is an assumption non-Calvinists might make.
But it is an unfair start to a conversation. We need to begin by seeking to understand what the other side ACTUALLY believes, not just the boxes we want to push them into.
People should define their own beliefs and not have to defend what those who oppose their beliefs say they believe.
Dave,
A guy does not have to be a Calvinist to understand Calvinism. Your argument is like saying a guy has to be a CPA in order to pass a math test. It’s really not that hard if you study for the test.
CB: Then if David B understands Calvinism he is intentionally misrepresenting it. And I don’t want to think that of a Christian.
What David B said is something no calvinist would affirm. So, one of 2 things is true:
1. He doesn’t understand calvinism and is simply in error
2. He understands and intentionally misrepresents it
I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt and say it is option 1. Option 2 is sinful.
Regardless, what he says simply isn’t representative of what calvinists believe. The first rule of polemics and debate is to represent the “other” position in a way that they would affirm is accurate and fair. When you commonly have people telling you that you are not accurate or fair, you have failed and need to go back to the drawing board.
Dave,
It’s not that we misunderstand and misrepresent. Believe me, that is not the case. I have studied it enough and heard it enough that I fully understand it. This issue I have, as stated above is with the seeming contradiction between belief of doctrine and preaching of the gospel, ie: repent and believe and you will be saved (a Calvinist should add “only if God has chosen for you to and so moved you too.) That gospel wouldn’t preach would it.
If Calvinist would just preach the same way they teach the doctrine I wouldn’t have an issue with the doctrine because at least then it wouldn’t seem so disingenuous.
Dave Miller said,
“May I say, to be clear, that Dr. Ken Hemphill has, to my knowledge, engaged in none of this.”
No and he won’t. . . and to be fair, nor will JD.
Dave Miller,
Well said post. It is certainly timely to remind us all of who were are and what we should be. Thanks for this.
John
As I read through these comments it seems to me that too many people are putting way too much stock in who the SBC president is. Who really cares? Both of these men are godly men and God has used hem greatly. Just go and vote and leave it at that. It’s sad that so many blog articles are going to written on this with people taking “sanctified” swipes at one another and every conversation devolving into an argument about Calvinism. In the grand scheme of things who wins a SBC presidency election is a small thing.
The Conservative Resurgence could not have happened without conservative orthodox Baptist presidents. Saying who’s SBC president doesn’t matter is a gross misunderstanding of what the SBC president does and represents. They are important for setting the tone of the convention, helping right the theological direction of the convention by appointing theologically sound people to the proper committees, and by leading out in all evangelism and missions initiatives of the SBC. Their power resides in their ability to inspire missionally and lead while promoting theological unity and respect.
SBC president matters, if he uses his appointment powers.
Right. SBC presidents matter and they do have power.
“But the fact remains that if Jesus did not die for you, all the preaching in the world will do you no good.”—David R. Brumbelow
If Jesus made full atonement for all men without exception, all the unbelief in the world could not damn a single soul.
Bro. Cofield,
The problem is in thinking that the death of the sacrifice makes atonement in the absence of the faith of the sinner. Atonement is really an OT word, and all the OT sacrifices pointed to the cross of Christ. But where in the OT can you find any atonement being made in the absence of the faith of the sinner? No where. Without the faith of the sinner, no atonement would be made—even if the sacrificial victim was slain. The sacrifice provides the shed blood; but atonement is when that blood is applied to believing sinner’s sins. Jesus’ death provided the sacrifice for sins; but until the sinner looks to Christ in faith, the blood of the cross is not yet applied to his sin and so his sins have not yet been atoned for.
Brother Ken,
It depends on how one defines ‘atonement’.
If it is defined as reconciliation, then you are right: there is no atonement until the rebel sinner repents.
But if one defines atonement as the ‘making up for offense’, then it can be rightly said that the credited is the sacrifice of atonement since Jesus took the wrath and paid for the sins for all those who would (or had) come by faith. This idea sees Jesus as the mediator between God and man. Jesus stands in for man at the cross before God and then stands in for God (since He is) as an emissary of God’s love for reconciling wayward man to Holy God.
As we read from Romans 5:
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Note that the idea of reconciliation is a two fold process. First there is a reconciliation through the cross, then later one we receive.
Again the cross removed the wrath of God due the wayward lost children -it was poured out on Jesus. Then the rebellious sinner needed reconciled and delivered from the reason of darkness through faith in the Son.
Mike,
This topic desperately needs clarifying. To do justice to it would require an article of its own. Let’s hope that Dave Miller will post one soon.
Dave Miller has said for years that the Cal/anti Cal debates on this page are unprofitable… I have come to the point where I absolutely unequivocally agree with him!
I’ve decided to not engage the cal/anti cal debate on this public blog. There’s just too much heat and almost no light. It’s divisive. There’s no value in it. It places secondary issues at the fore and exacerbates what I think is one of the most unhealthy reoccurring characteristics of the southern baptist convention… Being known for what our pastors and leaders are against instead of what we are and should be for.
Instead, I’m going to continue real relationships, friendships and conversations with gospel loving Christians hold to various soteriological stripes, leanings and beliefs whom I know and love in real life. These people are made up of my family, my church members, fellow local pastors, associational colleagues, friends and pastors I’ve been blessed to have who live over the place, and so on…we will continue to converse (and disagree) about various matters, but most importantly cooperate and partner together in the advancement of the gospel.
I’ve also developed and will seek to continue friendships and conversations with a few people I have met through this blog, also from various Soteriological stripes and leanings.
But arguing about soteriology with people on this blog – many of whom insist on, simply put in today’s vernacular, being haters and promlegating factionalism is unprofitable for the glory of God, the gospel, the SBC, and me personally – honestly this mess is not good for blood pressure and such…
Y’all enjoy yourselves / if that’s what you’re doing.
The most sensible thing I’ve read on this blog in a long time. Maybe ever.
Boy, Heel, you have matured a lot since you became a REAL PASTOR.
For the record – Dean is a jerk. But we are still friends….
See y’all – it can be done! 🙂
Dave Miller, you are suppose to moderate people who contribute mean spirited comments. Tarheel Dave says we are friends. How much more malicious can you get than that?
You make a good point.
Do better, Cline
Ok, Miller – I’m sorry for leaving you out…
Miller and I are friends too…and look at how he treats me. 😉
#AgainShowingItCanBeDone
That’s just insulting.
Randall Cofield said,
“If Jesus made full atonement for all men without exception, all the unbelief in the world could not damn a single soul.”
No. Jesus died for the world, but only those who believe in Him are saved.
1 Timothy 4:10
For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
“Even denying the Lord who bought them.” Jesus died for them, yet because they deny Him, they are not saved.
John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
And, C. B. Scott,
I appreciate your words.
David R. Brumbelow
Boy has this thread gotten off track from the main discussion
During the tenures of our last four SBC presidents we’ve had several high profile positions filled by trustees/boards: David Platt, Russell Moore, Kevin Ezell all spring to mind. It seems that current boards/ trustees already have a willingness to include a younger demographic, diverse theological views, and different methods of CP/missions support. I keep hearing that there is a need for a new direction, yet it seems that a new direction is already in place. At this point, Hemphill seems to be more of an outsider than Greear. Most Baptists are in single-site , non-mega churches led by pastors who aren’t four or five point Calvinists and who contribute to missions mainly through the Cooperative Program. Now if we were to elect an SBC president who was part of that kind of church that would truly be a new direction! By the way, I am a Greear fan. His grace and humility are refreshing, and I think that his ideas about college students and missions are important and inspiring. However, in many ways, his election solidifies our current direction or at least the direction we’ve been heading for the last eight or so years.
Yes I agree we should have a SBC President elected similar to how Dave Miller was elected for the pastor’s conference and how the preachers were selected. This type SBC President would better reflect the makeup of the SBC churches.
I’m going to nominate Dave Miller for SBC president in 2 years.
Your check is in the mail. Hope I got the address right.
Is that payment to make the speech better, or make sure it doesn’t get made?
No comment
There’s double money from his wife to NOT make the speech.