Today the New Orleans Baptist Association published an important article signed by 7 New Orleans area pastors and the Executive Director of the NOBA. The post calls for unity and an end to the divisiveness that’s been shown by Louisiana Baptist Convention (LBC) leadership and the state Baptist newspaper, the Baptist Message. I’m tremendously grateful for these eight leaders and their willingness to speak out publicly about their concern for Louisiana Baptists.
I’ve watched the Louisiana Baptist Convention from a distance for several years now, and with great concern for what I see as damage being done to cooperative SBC work and the reputation of Christ among Southern Baptists. The article lays out some specific concerns, and I won’t rehash them here, but they are concerns I’ve held for a long time and think they are valid and need to be addressed. Calling attention to the situation in Louisiana is the right thing to do.
Here is one of the key sections in the NOBA post:
Because unity is highly valued among our churches, we are troubled by the critical editorials in our state Baptist paper against SBC agency heads David Platt and Russell Moore. This combative tenor is not new in our state. Within the past few years, Louisiana College was often in the news with stories about professors who were ‘let go’ because they were Reformed-leaning.
A few in our state have developed a reputation for being inhospitable toward Reformed pastors, professors, and denominational leaders, with assertions that they are prepared to split our Convention over this issue.
Do we want our Convention split in two? Do we want to continue to read editorials in our state Baptist paper critical of SBC agency presidents? Do we want unity or division?
Leaders lead. What kind of qualities do we want our leaders to demonstrate?
Jack Hunter, NOBA Executive Director, Fred Luter, and David Crosby are (to me) the most well known names to sign the document. A former SBC President and someone who ran for SBC President this year, both of whom are highly regarded by virtually all corners of SBC life. The entire list is:
Jack Hunter, Executive Director, New Orleans Baptist Association
Fred Luter, Pastor, Franklin Avenue Baptist Church
David Crosby, Pastor, First Baptist Church of New Orleans
Mike Miller, Pastor, First Baptist Church of Kenner
Geovanny Gomez, Pastor, La Viña Spanish Baptist Church
Page Brooks, Pastor, Canal Street Church
Chad Gilbert, Pastor, Edgewater Baptist Church
Larry Johnson, Pastor, Crossroads Community Church
Indeed, leaders lead. And this is the kind of leadership that’s been long needed in Louisiana. It’s my belief and hope that these names represent many others who share the same concerns. May God bless these brothers and their efforts at seeing positive change in LBC life.
That was a powerful statement. I hope people will follow the link and read the full statement.
Yes, it is a really powerful statement indeed.
Well done by leaders in that state…seems to be sorely needed. Hope it puts a stop to some stuff.
I agree. Louisiana Baptists are being sorely misguided
As a former resident of New Orleans, I personally know most of the men on the list. The soteriological beliefs include both Traditionalist and Reformed leanings. Each of them exemplifies Godliness in their daily walks and church ministries. Thus, their call for unity should be interpreted as a humble plea for Gospel unification with hopes of Gospel reconciliation for those who have been injured/slandered by the state’s executive director and the editors of the Baptist Message. Even if the words of these men are not entertained by those in leadership in Alexandria, LA, today serves notice that some pastors in… Read more »
Most Southern Baptists struggle to find the time or interest to follow what goes on in their own home states. That fact that the situation in Louisiana has garnered attention even from people in other states should really alert us there’s a deep problem going on here.
You know, it shows a lot of maturity to see guys who are not Calvinists on this list defending Calvinists who are either being slandered or have been treated unjustly in the past by guys who, like them, are not Calvinists. That shows that they are not simple tribal. Mad respect for these guys. So glad for their example and I’m so glad that instead of contriving a conspiracy of some Calvinist takeover they seek to unite with those whom they disagree with theological. It would be an honor to sit under their leadership and preacher. Glad I got to… Read more »
This is a real bombshell against the long war by those trying to divide the Convention. These men just earned this peon’s respect.
“The long war by those trying to divide the Convention” … might I assume that you are referring to those who incessantly promote Calvinistic soteriology?
Brad, go over to SBCToday and Pulpit and Pen…It’s both sides.
I wish these pastors would stop sowing seeds of disunity and allow all Southern Baptists the freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and freedom of the press to say whatever in the world they feel led by God to say about the situations that concern them in Southern Bsptist life. This won’t work. You cannot muzzle this. We are divided and the more you act like we’re not, the worse things are going to get. The truth is that we need to ADMIT it and DEAL with it instead of trying to STIFLE it and AVOID it. The attitude of… Read more »
Nonsense Rick.
Brent, perhaps you can explain why it is “nonsense” to advocate dealing with real issues….
Brent, could you please explain what is “nonsense” about Rick’s post?
Briefly, yes. The problem with Hankins and Hall is not that they “disagree” or “advocate dealing with real issues…” It’s the toxic manner in which they’ve operated for years. So for Rick to act like they’re being called out for a theological viewpoint is nonsense.
Brent, “toxic” is a serious charge. It should be easy to show ONE definitive example of what you mean, so please share. Also, if you could explain better how that makes pretending there are no real issues less senseless than handling the real issues….that’d be great,
Strange, I feel united to most all of my Non-Calvinist brothers (some of whom are my close friends). In fact, we joke about our differences all the time. And our church is united to other Gospel preaching SBC churches in our area, Calvinist or not. I think Paige Patterson and Mohler feel united as well. And we dealt with this issue at the SBC Convention a couple years ago. It’s time to move on, united.
Tyler,
Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!
In the real world Calvinists and Non – Calvinists (or leaners, or whatever) work together day after day within local associations, between local churches, within state conventions, and even **gasp** within the same local church.
Rick Patrick is right in stating that “we are divided.” Who in good conscience can deny that? William Thronton is right in stating that “we have always had sub-groups in the SBC.” Who among us who knows the history of the SBC even to a primary degree can deny that? Maybe if those on both sides (maybe all sides/ groups/ those of the various ecclesiological and soteriological positions, or whatever) would just begin to be honest when “our guys” are wrong/sinful and admit it and not cover or deny it. The problems at LBC were far beyond issues of Calvinists… Read more »
CB, back in the day we went at it hot and heavy about LC. There was another guy, Ranaldo, I believe who I gave grief. My point of contention was things were being said without substantiation. I have been consistent in this area on several different issues through the years. This is the first real opportunity to say you were 100% right and all your allegations were proved. I do not feel I owe you an apology for I believe I was correct in my conviction but I wanted to acknowledge you and Ranaldo were telling the truth.
Dean Stewart, I am going out on a limb here, but if I am going to be true to what I have stated, if the guy you are identifying as “Ranaldo” is who I believe him to be, he was in it up to his neck. Please notice the word “if.” BTW, I consider you to be an honest man with strong convictions. So, you owe me no apology for the that of the past as you have properly stated. We were both standing on what we believed at the time. However, I do appreciate the affirmation. That is a… Read more »
Boo hoo. Someone pointed out a couple of Calvinists who are in over their heads and now we’re gonna criticize them back and somehow be more holy? I for one am glad to see the LBC taking the bull by the horns and getting to the heart of the issue. The SBC isn’t going to move forward while blindfolded. The above article is an appeal to the naive and these pastors should be ashamed of themselves. When reality is too painful to confront… appeal to unity? “Unity” is an abused concept used to manipulate. How many times have we seen… Read more »
This might be one of the most misinformed comments I’ve ever read on SBCVoices. Johnny demonstrates not one inkling of the issues in the Louisiana Baptist Convention and projects his own experiences into the story. To call Fred Luter, just to name one of the signatories, naive is laughable, simply laughable.
Jason, Johnny said this was an “appeal TO THE NAIVE”. He did not say Dr. Luter WAS naive. Another interesting statement is this one, “Within the past few years, Louisiana College was often in the news with stories about professors who were ‘let go’ because they were Reformed-leaning.” Well… guess who was making all that fuss? It was NOT the Trads! If a college does not want calvinist leaning prof’s and students… what is it to do? What about Southern Seminary? Excellent statement. Calvinists and Non-Calvinist don’t even agree on who Jesus died for. (Limited Atonement) These two beliefs are… Read more »
The was just a terrible comment and shows everything wrong with this type of thinking. Also, I’m offended by the baseless concept that Calvinists are erasing missions. That’s insulting to my Calvinists brothers who are missionaries in countries that I’m not even allowed to name due to how dangerous the countries are. It’s insulting to the Calvinist our church is about to send off to a country in a few weeks where people are getting their heads blown off all the time. I’m thankful that this type of thinking seems to be being erased. The ignorance is this comment was… Read more »
Typically when Christians refer to missions we mean the sharing of the Gospel with others. Going to foreign or even dangerous countries to spread Calvinism is not missions. Its recruiting. Mormons are sincere good people who believe they are doing missions. Some Muslims do as well. They are not doing the Lord’s work. Your Calvinist friend is probably a great guy, but he can’t HONESTLY tell every stranger he meets “God loves you and sent his Son to die for your sins”. If he believes in limited atonement then he must believe that some people he will encounter are not… Read more »
Johnny B. “Going to foreign or even dangerous countries to spread Calvinism is not missions. Its recruiting.” And, “Are you willing to compromise the gospel for unity?” Johnny, statements like this are part of the problem. Missionaries who happen to be Calvinists are not there to spread Calvinism. They are there to spread the gospel. Are you aware of the history of missions, where so many Calvinists were involved directly in leading so very many to Christ? I am in the PCA, decidedly a Reformed church. We have missionaries all over the world, not spreading the Reformed faith, but rather… Read more »
Johnny B: That is more gossip in your statement than fact. The Gospel is the Gospel. Good grief.
Johnny B. “Your Calvinist friend is probably a great guy, but he can’t HONESTLY tell every stranger he meets “God loves you and sent his Son to die for your sins”. If he believes in limited atonement then he must believe that some people he will encounter are not loved by God and Jesus did not die for them. This is not something we should be laughing about with our Calvinist friends as one commentor said. This is a serious error we should be working out.” Johnny, this statement amounts to nothing more than ridiculousness compounded with a superfluity of… Read more »
Tarheel,
I’ve got to disagree with you here.
If Jesus did not die for you, then you have no chance, never had a chance, and never will have a chance to be saved.
If Jesus did not die for you, you have nothing to believe in.
If Jesus did not die for you then you are as sure for Hell as if you were there already. No matter what you do or believe.
I think 5-point Calvinists need to be a little more honest about that.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
Tar Heel said, “Christ came to die in the place of sinners and all who come to him will be saved.”
That is definitely an accurate statement and Reformed people like me can heartily affirm it.
Les,
Yes, and I can also see how you are skirting around an inconvenient truth.
David R. Brumbelow
David B. What am I skirting and what is inconvenient? I affirm that the atonement is particular. Not for all. But all or any who do come to Him He will save. Not all will come. We both agree on that don’t we?
no skirting here – I was born a man and identify as such!
Seriously….who is skirting around what?
These two beliefs are like water and oil. They do not mix and they certainly do not enhance one another. Well, they’ve been mixing since the inception of the SBC without problem for most. The good thing is: the majority of SBCers don’t see a problem and aren’t willing to shout conspiracy where there is no conspiracy. Are there some Calvinists who want to Calvinize everything? Sure, but they’re few in number. Just as there are some Traditionalists who want to rid the convention of anything they think smells a bit like Calvinism. But they’re also few in number. The… Read more »
Excellent and thoughtful post by Rick Patrick. ALL of us desire and pray for Biblical unity, but suppression of speech and thought should not be imposed in an attempt to install an artificial unity based on a controversial (or, at a bare minimum, highly debatable) theological construct. The demand that Traditionalists should “hush up and toe the line” is becoming reminiscent of the attitude of non-inerrantists during the 1980s-1990s. Let us never stifle sincere dialogue; let us welcome and embrace it.
Part of Rick’s tirade: “A whole bunch of us DO NOT believe everything is fine. So we are going to keep talking about it, as we feel led of God to do so, until the problems are addressed.” I noticed that you are unhappy but I hate to see God blamed for your actions in calling in questioning motives, encouraging bullying, disparaging anything by anyone who doesn’t fit your theological template, incessant speculation about conspiratorial behavior of your opponents, evaluating every elected or hired SBC leader on the basis of a new statement of beliefs that not one SBC entity,… Read more »
William, it is interesting that you would imply that Traditionalists are a “sub-group in SBC life.” I estimate at least 80% of Southern Baptists would affirm the Traditionalist view over the Calvinist view of salvation. Not bad for a “sub-group.” And I respectfully but vehemently reject your characterization of Traditionalists as presenting a “relentlessly negative message.” The message is relentlessly positive. I am tempted to say that it is the Calvinists who are “corrosive on SBC life,” but I resist following the rhetorical route you have chosen.
“I estimate at least 80%…”
You estimate….
enough said.
Tarheel my brother, my use of “I estimate” was to acknowledge the unofficial nature of the statistic. My experience suggests that it is ballpark-accurate. The vast majority of Southern Baptists I talk to are not Calvinists. I’d be interested in knowing your opinion; thanks in advance!
Brad, the activist Trad group, those seeking “parity” (or quotas, since the route to parity is a quota), those questioning motives, those evaluating every hiccup in SBC life with the trad/cal template, is a decided minority.
At the moment they are tire slashers. They could contribute positively but that would require some changes. The NO authors recognize this and are calling for it. God bless them.
We can all do better, I think.
I think most (all?) Southern Baptists believe that God (and his will) is sovereign over man (and his will). I think most (all) southern baptists believe that mankind is lost in the darkness of sin. I think most (all?) southern Baptists affirm that salvation by God’s gracious merciful act alone. I think most (all?) southern Baptists limit the atonement in some way (lest they be universalists) I think most (all?) southern Baptists affirm that when God calls people respond I think most (all?) southern Baptists affirm eternal security of salvation. Therefore to some degree I think most (all?) SBCers are… Read more »
I love this call for unity. I pray for my brothers and sisters in the SBC and in the LBC especially that the call of these godly men will be heeded, and that God will indeed grant peace and unity.
“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity!”
Amen.
Fred Luter and Crosby – and I assume at least some of the others I don’t know them – are not Calvinists…
One would think that when godly and respected people like Crosby and Luter who are on Hankins (Rick’s) “Soteriological side” call on them to cool their divisive jets – it would be heeded – or at least respectfully acknowledged – but as we have seen so many times before the “Connect” crowd choose to go on the attack and treat their brothers and sisters in Christ very badly – this is all too typical for them.
Tarheel, I know 4 of the 8 pastors very well and I know 2 others tangentially. Of those 6, only one of them could even moderately be considered/classified Reformed and that’s a stretch. When David Hankins orchestrates the firing of faculty because he disagrees with their soteirology, and when he sends his henchmen from Alexandria to crisscross the state threatening churches that if they don’t silence their dissent they will lose LBC dollars, then it’s about time someone spoke up.
I am not sure what you mean by the Connect crowd attacking and treating people “very badly” but just because people question things, see things differently and speak their opinion does not mean they are attacking anyone. I have never personally seen the Connect crowd treat anyone “very badly.” However, I have seen them invite people on all sides to have grown up conversations about the differences within the SBC. When people begin getting their feelings hurt and feel “attacked” just because someone sees things differently usually means that person or group of people are wearing their feelings on their… Read more »
Jason, can you share how LBC gives money to churches? State conventions only receive money from the churches I have pastored.
I don’t know but Louisiana, Dean – but I am familiar with state conventions who do assist established churches in church planting – and for church plants specifically there’s a whole lot of funding. There also specific initiatives whereby by the state convention assist churches in financing of summer internships, special events and the like
Tarheel, you know there are few church in Louisiana that receive money from the LBC. We just read an article calling for peace and Jason uses the term “henchmen” in describing the employees of the LBC. I have a few friends that work for LBC and I find his comment insulting. I am sure some dime store etymologist will give an innocent meaning to “henchmen” but I don’t like my friends being insulted.
I point out that we all read through lenses; some are appalled with one comment and ignore a clear insult labeled at brothers.
…threatening churches that if they don’t silence their dissent they will lose LBC dollars…
Churches don’t receive money from State Conventions.
Lee: Do you call the baseless attacks made on Greear, Moore, and even now Gaines by the Connect crowd inviting adult conversation? I call it gossip based on nothing. If you care to I can direct you to those articles. But I think you already know where they are located.
Dean, I agree, friend. The use of the word henchmen was inappropriate, unfortunate and over the top. As to whether threats were made regarding funding or anything else to reformed leaning brethren in Louisiana by the execs of the state convention – I will freely say I do not know now that to be a fact – which is why I did not respond to that part of the comment. I was only responding to your comment about state conventions not offering finances to churches – I stand by what I said in that regard – that is not exactly… Read more »
Lee, If freedom of objection toward our SBC leaders is what the Connect crowd is after and encourage and defend – then one would think that the director of Connect would be on here applauding the value and importance of the objections voiced by Dr. Luter, Dr. Crosby and the others who have done exactly what it is you say that you value. Alas, though that is not what we saw with the tirade he posted above. ….Or is it that Connect only values the freedom and importance of objection when it is aimed at people with whom you disagree… Read more »
Dean (and, by extension, Tarheel), You may not like my use of the word henchmen, but I’m at a loss for an appropriate replacement. When David Hankins gets angry because of public criticism, trolls social media, and tasks his direct reports to load up in a car that uses CP $ to pay for gas to drive to another part of the state for the sole purpose of threatening pastors that if their congregants don’t stop criticizing him then the LBC will immediately cut off already promised funding, that is abuse of power and, quite frankly, ungodly and immoral leadership.… Read more »
In general, we probably fare better in our debates when we avoid such words. Emotions run strong, but we ought to walk the high road.
Joe Blackmon,
You wrote: “Churches don’t receive money from State Conventions.”
Actually, some do.
Jason,
If you choose to use that word you will have to be the one to defend it (and it seems you are ready and willing to do that). As I said I do not know enough about the facts of the situations in Louisiana to use that label.
Actually, some do.
Not to the point that you’re describing…where they would have to cower in fear of having the money cut off. You know, like the way Ezell threatened to cut off funding to the Maryland state convention if they didn’t fire that guy?
I have reliable and authoritative information that what you just said simply is not true – Ezell did not do that.
Unfortunately, truth is often a casualty of war.
But what you said is not true Joe.
Joe Blackmon,
At first you claim no churches receive money from the LBC. Now you appear to know how many (or at least the general number) do. How you so quickly go from no knowledge to particular knowledge of this topic is fascinating.
“You know, like the way Ezell threatened to cut off funding to the Maryland state convention if they didn’t fire that guy?”
And there’s another flame thrown at an SBC entity head by those unity seeking “connectors”.
As much as I hate agreeing with a Big10 guy who is predisposed to wear a green suit and root for the hated Yankees, I also have specific (and trusted) information (from a different source) about that situation that leads me to agree with Dave. This was difficult for me because I knew Will McRaney when he was at NOBTS and I was predisposed to give him the benefit of the doubt. It appears his story is not as valid as it first appeared.
Dave, Your “authoritative information” notwithstanding, I can name two Maryland Pastors who will testify that they were clearly told NAMB threatened to cut funding as long as Will McRaney was Executive Director. Why would these two pastors lie about something like this? Also, there is this letter, signed by Ezell, which indicates that the state cooperation agreement would no longer be in effect, and citing only the Executive Director’s role in it. In other words, the whole state would be punished with loss of funding because of a conflict between NAMB and the Executive Director. That’s pressure to remove. http://willmcraney.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Ezell-NAMB-Letter-Canceling-Agreement.pdf… Read more »
All your information roots in one source, who had an ax to grind. His accusations have not been substantiated.
I’d just as soon you keep that kind of thing on your blog.
What is clear in this is that Rick will foist the anti-Ezell narrative on every occasion. Trustees, many non-Cs, investigated. Mcr did a document dump once off the payroll and has a few allies.
Time to move along and recognize that whenever this comes up its part of the anti-cal toolbox.
This southern baptist fully expects NAMB to control their own budget. If Rick’s group wants to start funding church plants, I’ll be the first to commend them.
And Ezell ain’t even a cal. He just gets witch hunted as one b/c he pastored Mohler’s church.
I agree with Rick Patrick’s statement. It’s not wrong to address real concerns. If you have real concerns but wont voice them for the sake of unity then you might be part of the problem. The Rodney King philosophy doesn’t work when there is a real problem. To call out a newspaper for reporting real concerns and try to muzzle it is a serious infringement on freedom. When is a search for truth wrong?
Brad: I think many saw the truth in the election between Gaines and Greear and the appointment and leadership of David Platt. The concerns are more looking for a fight than legitimate concerns.
Rick, It seems to me your movement wants a place at the table without having to go through the hard work to get there. You say to the Calvinists who you think are in charge, “please relinquish your power and give it to us“. Is this how conservatives took back the SBC? Your group even seems to be willing to throw some on your own side under the bus (speculating that the Greear / Gaines gesture was not grace but quid pro quo; spreading rumors that Merritt’s floor speech was ghostwritten by someone on the platform) to poison the relationship… Read more »
Rick, my old online friend who is a good pastor and mostly sensible guy, has called for many things, many changes but he has not made one motion in his association, state convention, or SBC annual meeting. He has not shared the answer to one question he has directed to any of those whom he criticizes, preferring to speculate wildly and maintain the claim that he wouldn’t get his questions answered even if he asked them. Maybe it would be time for the Trad group leader to exercise some of the power he claims to have on the basis of… Read more »
There is much that needs to be said, but first and foremost is a defense of Rick Patrick’s actions. To categorize what Dr. Patrick (or Traditionalists broadly) is trying to accomplish as “tire slashing” is no more helpful than the mischaracterization of his actions would be if they were true. Traditionalists are attempting to present a positive affirmation of our understanding of soteriology. We are attempting to offer it up as an alternative to one that we unapologetically believe is unbiblical. Furthermore, we have defended it as we believe the defense of a proper understanding of the sacred text is… Read more »
Braxton, it is not the theological debate that causes any problem. I rather appreciate the articles that focus on the various areas of the theology. The problems are the speculations, the presumptions, the cheap shot pieces directed to the same few individuals and entities, and the failure to do simple diligence prior to wild conjectures. This is the tire slashing. Add to those the absurdity of expecting a home-made theological statement not adopted by any body to be used even in a semi-official manner. If outstanding people like Luter and Crosby see a problem, maybe the least that could be… Read more »
1. “The fact is millions of SBCers, cal and non-cal are quite happily working together and don’t know they are supposed to be at war.” This is it right here. Unfortunately, I’d have to say It’s a positive thing for my church that most of them don’t read this blog, especially the comments. I don’t think it would be, on the whole, a positive thing for their encouragement and Christian walk. 2. “I estimate at least 80% of Southern Baptists would affirm the Traditionalist view over the Calvinist view of salvation.” “The vast majority of Southern Baptists I talk to… Read more »
Personally, I grew up in a rough and tumble working class neighborhood where drugs, street fights, and other carnal stuff was daily fare. Straight out of high school I did four years in the military, and became a believer as a young adult. My world view was not rose-colored by any stretch of the imagination. Then when I later answered the call to the ministry, I found myself surrounded by naïve preacher-boys who grew up in sterile environments. Hold that thought – Entering seminary in 1982, I came of age as a Southern Baptist pastor in the mid-1980’s, and recall… Read more »
There are some things in this world worth being divided over. We don’t always have to get along. But we should be civil towards one another.
What I am seeing in the convention is not “unity”, but rather “conformity or else”. This is dangerous. Why isn’t anyone standing up and saying, “this is not Baptistic”? This violates our Distinctives of Soul Liberty and Priesthood of the Believer.
I want harmony, not unity. And there is a huge difference between the two. But I will not stand by for “conformity or else”.
I wonder if many of you pastors allow a free and open discussion of different visions in your own church. Do you “suppress or muzzle” your own church leadership who have a different vision?
No, I do not “muzzle” members in church whether they share my vision or not. Muzzles are very expensive and misc. funds are not what they used to be, so muzzling the members is now cost prohibitive.
CB I got two words for you…Duct Tape. Not only does it effectively muzzle a person when applied, but the process of removing serves as a pain re-enforcement so hopefully the subject avoids such actions in the future. It is fairly inexpensive too and has many other uses so it’s costs are easily justified.
I think it is rather naive for anyone to expect that a person who has genuine convictions on foundational theological issues to overlook said issues for the cause of a superficial unity. I say superficial because if the theological issues are truly ones held by conviction, then he is held captive by heart and conscience far more than a “can’t we all get along” plea by others. I believe that Jesus dies for the sins of the world…a general atonement, I can never fully bring myself to endorsing someone who believes that Jesus died for only some. It is a… Read more »
Kevin: I hold to limited atonement, some of my best friends in life and fellow pastors in my association do not. We love each other, pray for each other, share the gospel together, preach in each others’ churches, etc. Despite our deeply held divergent convictions, we have real unity. And there’s one main reason… Yes, I believe that Jesus only paid for the sins of his people who respond to him in faith. They believe that Jesus paid for all sins of all people. But, we all believe that the only way anyone is saved is hearing the gospel and… Read more »
Hi Mike — And that is the catch..not necessarily with you but with those who hold to the TULIP…not sure where you would classify yourself. The Calvinist believes that only some are able to respond to the Gospel while the non-Calvinist believes anyone can respond. It certainly makes a difference if you know in your heart that a person can be saved, if he will versus only some can be saved and that is by God’s choice alone……..those are not similar positions by any stretch. I am glad that you have good friends around you, but the theological positions described… Read more »
Kevin here is where you, and others expressing your views simply do not get it. I freely admit I lean strongly on the double-predestination side, I admit I am a bit of a fatalist…BUT I am not omniscient! I have no clue WHO God has chosen to save and who He has not. His command to me (and all other Christians) is to go out and share the Gospel. Period. End of statement. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. In hearing the Gospel the elect will respond, and everyone else will not. I cannot control that, and I… Read more »
Kevin, no they don’t mesh seamlessly, but that doesn’t mean they cannot coexist as we share the gospel together. I’m a full fledged 5-pointer, and I believe: No one will be saved without expressing personal faith in Jesus after hearing the gospel. If they do, then they are clearly among the elect. If they die without doing that, they are clearly not. If I’m sharing the gospel with someone, I can look them in the eyes and say, “You are a sinner, Jesus is the solution, and if you believe then you will be saved and forgiven.” There is nothing… Read more »
” Thus, in the end, what we disagree on is the logical order and mechanical function of the process, NOT the end result.” —- it is far more than that svmuschany—-In my viewpoint, the very character of God is compromised by a Calvinistic Gospel…for God did not love the world, only a few…whosoever believeth in Him is not possible until a God-caused regeneration takes place, and no one can call on the name of the Lord until after God has already saved him! And while I believe that my Calvinistic friends are my brothers in Christ, I absolutely do not… Read more »
And so here we have Kevin admitting what many suspect most “extreme” traditionalists actually view. For all their talk about “quotas” and fair representation, it really is about getting rid of the Calvinists because “our” theological position is incompatible with theirs, and the two sides cannot work together in the Gospel mission. At least Kevin has the integrity to openly say this in a (fairly) respectable tone. This is exactly the issue with what is going on in Louisiana. A small few, are using the bully pulpit, for force those with different soteriological positions out. They don’t want them around… Read more »
Kevin, You said, “The Calvinist believes that only some are able to respond to the Gospel while the non-Calvinist believes anyone can respond. It certainly makes a difference if you know in your heart that a person can be saved, if he will versus only some can be saved and that is by God’s choice alone” Can you explain how exactly what you or I “think” or “believe” at the time we are telling people about Jesus and calling on them to repent and believe and to trust in Jesus for eternal life…how what you or I “think” or “believe”… Read more »
@ Les – “how what you or I “think” or “believe” at that time matters as to whether God will or will not save that person?”- What I mean is this , “Can we HONESTLY tell any person that salvation is available to him if he would only repent and believe?” The Calvinist says that salvation is only possible to the elect, and so must, if being honest, qualify salvation as to only those whom God has pre-selected. Conversely, the non-Calvinist may, without verbal semantics and contortions, declare that God’s love and forgiveness is available to all if they will… Read more »
Kevin, With all due respect this is nonsense. “qualify salvation as to only those whom God has pre-selected.” I am Reformed. I believe in limited atonement. But, I am not God and thus do not know who the elect are. So, I present the gospel to any and all. God does the saving. If we agree that God does the saving, no matter the exact words we each use and no matter what we each believe about the mechanics of HOW God saves and who He saves, He will and does still do the saving. I really do not understand… Read more »
Can anyone honestly disagree with this gospel presentation and state or intimate that it is defective? “God Is Sovereign Creator Contemporary thinking says man is the product of evolution. But the Bible says we were created by a personal God to love, serve, and enjoy endless fellowship with Him. The New Testament reveals it was Jesus Himself who created everything (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Therefore, He also owns and rules everything (Psalm 103:19). That means He has authority over our lives and we owe Him absolute allegiance, obedience, and worship. God Is Holy God is absolutely and perfectly holy (Isaiah… Read more »
@ Les – I think that I understand your position, and I understand that you are not omniscient in knowing who or who will not be saved. Our difference of opinion lies in at least these areas: 1) You do not believe it is possible for any person to be saved, whereas I do. 2)You cannot honestly say, as you have mentioned, that Jesus shed His blood for that person. I can. 3) You do not believe it is the person’s free will choice to accept Christ as Savior, but I do. 4) When you explain faith, I assume you… Read more »
Kevin, “1) You do not believe it is possible for any person to be saved, whereas I do.” Actually I do. But we will quibble over what that means. BUT, even if I agree with your point, what difference does WHAT I BELIEVE make when I present something like I wrote or a few minutes ago copied and pasted? What difference, if we both agree that God saves a person, not what I am thinking? 2)You cannot honestly say, as you have mentioned, that Jesus shed His blood for that person. I can.”What difference does WHAT I BELIEVE make when… Read more »
Kevin, this comment is by no means intended as a taunt. But I asked, “Now please, tell me/us what difference our “thinking” or “belief” makes since we both know only God saves? You have not answered yet” Let me save you some time as you ponder the quandary. You can’t. You cannot “tell me/us what difference our “thinking” or “belief” makes since we both know only God saves.” You can say that we don’t say this or that and you can say we are disingenuous and such. But the fact is, since God saves, even with both our camps’ imperfect… Read more »
@ Les – Sometimes work gets in the way of more important things like this 🙂 You and I agree on this – Man is sinful, Jesus came to die for those sins and rose from the grave, and is coming again one day. What we disagree on: 1) Whom He died for (general vs limited)2) How he is saved (monergism vs synergism)3) Who can be saved (elect versus anyone) Now you may not go into what you consider the deeper points of Calvinism when you present the Gospel but should a person ask if anyone can be saved?, you… Read more »
Some here should not be too smug and self-righteous about this statement and Louisiana’s leadership. In the not too distant past a number of people at SBC Voices have been very critical of SBC agency leaders, presidents, and agencies. I have not been too involved in criticizing SBC leaders, though I have been accused of such. But I do believe they are accountable to Southern Baptists. As far as the Louisiana Baptist Message and our state Baptist papers, I prefer to see a little diversity in their reporting and commentary. It bothers me when they all speak with one accord… Read more »
David R. Brumbelow,
The following state is a fact:
“We can go too far either way. We need to be for the SBC, but open for improvement. The trick is to find the right balance.”
However, I hope and pray you are not in reference to me about being “too smug and self-righteous” in my comments here.
cb,
“too smug and self-righteous.”
That refers to everyone here except me. 🙂
David R. Brumbelow
@ Mike Bergman — Not sure where this comment will appear on the thread, but you said “Me and all my Calvinist friend want to try to get the gospel to everyone who will listen because they cannot be saved without it”….Is it not true that the Calvinist position maintains that regeneration/salvation precedes faith and repentance so that they are saved before they repent or place faith in Jesus? Is it not true that the Calvinist system maintains that God has ordained the elect from eternity past through no choice of their own and that they are sealed, and there… Read more »
They’re elect before they hear, their hearts are opened by the Spirit to positively respond, but they aren’t saved, or moved from child of wrath to child of God, until they hear and respond. But as the elect, they will hear and respond. When it comes to hope: There is hope that all who hear and believe are eternally saved. Jesus will not say, “Sorry, you’re just out of luck,” to any who desire to follow him and put their faith in him. That’s good news for all who believe. Been good chatting with you, Kevin, but I’m off to… Read more »
@Mike—-…It is not really true to say though that “Jesus will not say, “Sorry, you’re just out of luck,” to any who desire to follow him and put their faith in him. ” because the Calvinistic system says that man has no capacity to respond to the Gospel(ie spiritually dead) until he has been regenerated by the Spirit through no choice of his own! UNless one is elected by God, there is no hope according to Calvinism. I believe in a differing interpretation of the Scriptures that makes salvation possible to ALL.
Thanks for the dialogue.
I am grateful for this piece by those in the LBC. I think it’s a really good show of unity within the SBC. While I do believe we can all struggle with pseudo-unity (sweeping real issues under the rug) I also think we’ve really grown in our ability to be truly united. As I read the Scriptures I see biblical unity as being diverse people united to a glorious God. We ARE united to one another. Christ has already purchased our unity but we are called to maintain that unity. What does that look like in practice? I like to… Read more »
This should be its own post.
Sometimes people wonder about the continued value of local associations in today’s world. It’s worth pointing out that the NOBA seems to be the context where this group of concerned pastors met and discussed these issues — which I think is a strong statement for the potential value of local associations.
I agree with this statement by Brent Hobbs (a) advocating for the value of the local association in Southern Baptist life, and (b) encouraging concerned pastors to meet and discuss the issues of our convention. I appreciate that Jack, Fred, David, Mike, Geovanny, Page, Chad and Larry have met to discuss one of their concerns, namely, that we display greater unity in spite of our differences. I, too, am meeting with godly men regularly who possess a similar desire for unity in our convention, but who believe this can only truly take place if we are willing to embrace a… Read more »
I appreciate all the comments that have been shared. Our intention in writing this letter was not to create more division, but rather appeal for unity. There is no doubt that everyone should have the chance to express their opinions in the SBC. As has been noted, even among the pastors who signed this letter, there is great diversity of opinion. I will tell you that in New Orleans, however, we are so focused on mission that we have little time to debate some of the finer theological viewpoints in the SBC. We all work quite happily together in the… Read more »
Thank you for this very powerful stand.
Rick: I don’t think it looks like “conflict avoidance” at all. It looks like it simply doesn’t matter. Kind of like all are welcome no matter your walk of life or residence of state doesn’t matter.
I would make a couple of observations about this, then go back into my “trying to catch up with life” hibernation. 1. The NOLA folks were absolutely right to call us to a higher and more noble conversation. Despite protestations, this thing has been ugly and is getting uglier. Voices like this calling us to reach for a Christlike and godly response to this situation are needed. 2. There are extremes on both sides of this – Calvinists who care more about spreading Calvinism than preaching Christ. Don’t deny it, Calvinists. You know them and I know them. And there… Read more »
Dave says, “For clarity – I do not identify as a Calvinist anymore.” The angels rejoice every time one comes out of the darkness.
“The angels rejoice every time one comes out of the darkness.”
This isn’t helpful.
Nerd.
Bill, relax. That was totally a friendly jab.
That’s one of the dangers of blogs. This is totally normal back and forth between Dean and I and our group of “Merry Men.” We engage in insult like this regularly. The problem is that when others look on, it can appear to be harsh.
Bill M, I’m sorry you missed my whit. Those of us who live in SEC states are generally jovial people. It comes from dominating the rest of the country.
There’s not a whit of wit in comments about the SEC.
Now, I’ll have to find a new cal friend. I always said that DM was my kind of cal.
Some of the antical tire slashing is just inexplicable and has gone a long way towards that segment of the movement marginalizing itself. The aftermath of the recent convention showed that quite clearly. Perhaps reaction to the NO letter signals a new day. We will see.
The LBC folks can handle their own stuff but it doesn’t look like a very pleasant atmosphere down there.
I’ve not really changed my theology as much as how I label myself. In my college days I was a bit of a Calvinist firebrand, I guess, but I left that behind long ago. I’ve long realized that the Bible often teaches paradoxes (more accurately, antinomies) that are beyond human comprehension and explanation. I think that the problem here is that each side (becoming binary again) is looking at one side of the coin and demanding it be accepted as the entire coin. I think the Bible teaches God’s sovereign choice before time. But I also think it teaches a… Read more »
Dave Miller,
Antinomist….
I think you may be on to something. I was intrigued by your post a while back on that topic. I am intriqued by it today.
you said:
“I think, perhaps, I’m not enough of a monergist to be a true Calvinist, perhaps. On the divine side of the coin, I’m all for sovereign choice. But I think there’s another side of the coin.”
I think the apostle John may agree with you… (John 3)
Is there some material out there someplace where a brutha can read up on this?
This is where I am also. I don’t consider myself a Calvinist any longer, and I never really made up my mind about the L. If I had to choose a label, it would be Molinist, not because I’ve switched teams, but because as I learned more about it, it was closest to what I already believed. I have never been troubled by the dichotomy between sovereignty and free will, and sometimes amused and sometimes annoyed by non-Calvinists telling me what I had to believe. But this “if you can’t look someone in the eye and tell them,…yada yada” nonsense… Read more »
We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read and consider this post, regardless of his or her response to it. We hope and pray that this article, as well as the discussion surrounding it, is useful for the building up of the body of Christ. –Alex Brian, Business and Communications Director, Neighborhood Ministry Coordinator, New Orleans Baptist Association
NOLA association looks like a great bunch of Baptists.
Excellent, thanks for checking in, Alex.
Les & Tarheel, I see those who believe in Limited Atonement, on a regular basis, try to make it sound as though anyone can be saved. When someone calls them on it they act as though that person just does not understand Calvinism. No, the problem is they do understand it. If Jesus did not die for you, you will never have a chance to be saved. End of story. If you believe in Limited Atonement, it is disingenuous to leave people thinking you believe anyone can be saved. I’m not for disfellowshipping those who believe in Limited Atonement and… Read more »
David B, I appreciate your tone. Let me try to be clearer what Reformed faith affirms. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. But not everyone will. Stated another way, God will save anyone who will now to His Lordship in repentance and faith. But not everyone is willing to do that. Now if you want me to state that not everyone CAN repent and believe, I’ll stipulate that. In fact ill stipulate that NO ONE can repent and believe…without God quickening them first. As a side note, non Reformed also recognize that not everyone… Read more »
David, I wrote a post here a few years back giving the biblical basis for why I don’t believe all people have the same ability to respond to the gospel–the elect will be, the non-elect won’t be. I centered that on John 10 and Matthew 13. So it’s not like we’re hiding this so-called “inconvenient truth.” But really, I see that more as an unconditional election thing and not a limited atonement thing. One of these days I want to write a post on this, but just haven’t made the time (it’s lower on my priority list than other things)…… Read more »
Les,
Those for whom Jesus did not die,
do they have any chance or opportunity to be saved?
David R. Brumbelow
Yes they do if they hear the gospel and will confess Jesus as Lord.
Of course they won’t. But before you ask, no one knows who the non elect are. Thus I don’t know who they are. Thus I tell people indiscriminately about Jesus knowing that God will save His elect and not save the non elect. Neither category deserves heaven. Both categories deserve hell. Grace is the difference.
“I fear I am not a very good Calvinist because I pray that the Lord will save all of the elect and then elect some more.”–C. H. Spurgeon
I’m not a very good Calvinist either.
David B: Calvinists have already been grilled over and over again on these questions at SBCToday. They have answered honestly. Please can we catch a break and not start it again?
Even though Calvinists attempted to answer honestly, they were still misrepresented. What is the saying of once burned shame on you, twice burned? No thanks.
“It is time to marginalize the extremes….Stop listening to them. Stop reading their blogs and articles. Stop paying attention to them….”
In a twist of Divine irony, it seems they have marginalized themselves.
I have long suspected God has a sense of humor.
Great comments here in an article about calvinism. Wouldnt expect anything less. Just missing one thing…The obligatory Dr. James Willingham comment. Havent seen him on here in a while so here is a good sample from a calvinism post from a couple of years ago. “Arguments are a sign of life, so long as they are kept from being vicious. In the 1700s the Baptists were doing the same kind of debating, and the Episcopalians commented on it. During that same time, the Baptists had just been effected by the First Great Awakening, were getting ready to experience the Second… Read more »
The last correspondence I saw from Dr. Willingham indicated that he is failing health.
I guarantee if he is of sound mind he is praying for a 3rd Great Awakening.
If anyone is in contact with him, give him my best.
In all of this discussion about Calvinism/Traditionalism and the actions of Kevin Ezell, one aspect of the original post about the call for unity by 7 New Orleans area pastors has been overlooked. Why are all of these pastors from the Big Easy? The issues regarding the LBC affect the whole state – why wasn’t there a group of pastors from the Shreveport area or numerous other areas of the state who are just as affected by these issues of the state convention. My opinion is this goes back to the uniqueness of New Orleans in that Southern Baptists and… Read more »
Well, I guess that’s just as good a way as any other to attemp to marginalize and silence the dissent of these pastors.
Tarheel, you misunderstood my point completely. I was contrasting these pastors in New Orleans position as a small minority in an overwhelmingly Catholic and many would say hedonistic city (Look at Mardi Gras) as compared to the rest of Louisiana where Baptists are not so few in number. Notice those in Shreveport and the northern parishes didn’t take the lead in making a call for unity in the Louisiana Baptist Convention. The whole point of my post was that the humility from being a small minority leads to a greater effort at unity. These 7 pastors in NOLA are tired… Read more »
I appreciate the stand these men took for unity.
I do not want SBC Voices to be used as a site to propagate the conspiracy theories and wild accusations that some sites specialize in. It seems we are circling the drain at this point and we would do better to turn our attention elsewhere.
So, I’m closing comments on this one.