In an ironic twist, there is a new name I can fully embrace this summer in New Orleans. As most readers at SBC Voices might assume, I have already signed A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation. It describes, in a manner completely consistent with The Baptist Faith and Message, the soteriological position I hold dear and boldly proclaim.
By drafting the statement, the authors have provided at least one service to Southern Baptists that I believe should not go unnoticed, and it is in the area of nomenclature. While this may not have been their intent at all, I can finally seize upon one word in their title and use it in a positive way to describe my soteriological view, without being forced to make reference to any other system that I categorically deny.
Before highlighting that contribution, let me simply say that while there will be plenty of commentary regarding the divisiveness of this document, it seems to me that whenever the Founders met for the first time, their gathering represented a formal division of the convention into parts that previously did not exist, at least in any organizational sense. For far too long, the Calvinists have had the only formally organized soteriological sub-groupings within the convention. I hope they will extend the same grace in allowing our existence that we have extended for years in allowing theirs. How in the world can it be appropriate for one group to unite around a specific soteriology of their choosing without it also being appropriate for another group to do the very same thing? If we are indeed creating disunity, then we are in second place, and our silver medal trails their gold by at least a few decades.
Regarding this new name that I can support, it is decidedly NOT any new name for the Southern Baptist Convention. Rather, it is a new name for my soteriological view. Frankly, it has been totally unsatisfactory for me to describe myself as a “Non-Anything,” or in this case, a “Non-Calvinist.” Such a description only defines me by what I am against, which almost requires a posture of negativity and antagonism. As of today, I am dropping that moniker like a bad habit.
Other terms are similarly inadequate. I do not wish to be called an Arminian either. It takes forever to disabuse people of the negative connotations associated with that term as well. I can hear some well-meaning individuals ask, “Why not simply call yourself a Southern Baptist?” While I certainly embrace our denominational name, in this particular case, I do not wish to imply that there are no other Southern Baptists whose view of salvation doctrine contradicts mine or to suggest that they do not belong in our beloved convention.
No, the word that jumps out at me from the statement’s title above is the word “traditional.” I realize the Founders will reject its use as inaccurate, since in their view the Calvinist position is the traditional one. Our differing historical interpretations notwithstanding, what I have really been looking for is a new word to describe my view that does not force me to simply negate someone else’s term or borrow another view that I reject and try to nuance the position it describes.
I am weary of talking about soteriology only with reference to the five petals of a TULIP. The counting of points ends today, for I have no more need of it. I now have ten statements of TRADITIONAL Southern Baptists as my point of theological reference for my soteriological view.
I am not an Arminian. I am not a Non-Calvinist. I am not a Non-Anything. With respect to salvation doctrine, I am a Traditionalist.
If there were Calvinists in the SBC at the same time that there were “traditionalists,” what makes one the “tradition” and the other one not the tradition?
This is confusing. The name doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Are those who think this way “traditionalists” because this is how they remember their grandparent’s churches believing? Are they traditionalists in their own minds? Or, does the position of the rest of the SBC historically matter as yet another group in the SBC gives themselves a nickname?
We are voting on being called Great Commission Baptists (a nickname) while another group calls themselves traditionalists (another nickname).
Lots of divisions. Some belong to Paul, some to Cephas, some to Apollos . . .
I’m just really comparing TWO terms: Non-Calvinist vs. Traditionalist. Traditionalist, for the win!
By the way, GCB is NOT merely a nickname. It is an optional replacement name which, if approved, churches could use INSTEAD of Southern Baptist Convention, with our blessing. That’s basically a name change everywhere that matters except for the filing cabinet with the paperwork.
My name is Christopher, I go by Chris. I fully approve of people calling me Chris instead of Christopher, yet my name is Christopher. There has been no name change, there is a nickname. As I understand it, that’s what the GCB moniker gives us.
Actually, Chris, if we adopt GCB, the church I pastor could tell people, if we so choose, that our church is affiliated with the “Great Commission Baptists.” Of course, we are autonomous and could do that right now anyway–as our own “nickname” for the convention, but it would not have the convention’s full blessing or stamp of approval.
For the first time in 167 years, if GCB is approved, we will have more than a nickname. We will have an “officially approved optional replacement name.” We will go from being a “single named denomination” to being a “double named denomination.”
It is MORE than a nickname. If approved, churches can use it, with the convention’s blessing, IN LIEU of the term “Southern Baptist Convention” and NOT MERELY as an added tagline.
…exactly like a nickname…
No, Chris, NOT exactly like a nickname.
A nickname is informal. People call you “Stick” or “Bubba” or whatever. No one votes. There are no official authorizations that come with it.
If indeed “Great Commission Baptists” was only a nickname, then people could use it right now. Shoot, they could even call us “A Bunch of Fried Chicken Eaters.” No vote. Nothing official. Just friends making up a nickname to call someone. Go ahead. Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from doing this right now.
But when you ask a body to give its blessing and official approval to a name which you plan to use to refer to that body instead of using the name it has gone by for 167 years, then you are, at the very least, adding a second name for the convention that had never previously been authorized. At most, you are in fact, replacing the other name, since churches who choose to do so will simply say that they belong to the Great Commission Baptists.
I don’t believe we should give our blessing to becoming a double named convention, since it will be divisive within and confusing without. Let people have their informal nicknames. They are free to call people and organizations whatever they want. But we do not have to give our blessing to a second name. We should preserve the simple dignity of a denomination unashamed of its identity.
Maybe if we started calling ourselves “Great Commission Baptists,” we would rid our churches of un-Biblical methods such as altar calls and the “sinner’s prayer.”
No mention of those in the “Great Commission.” 😉
I just hope the gob of folks meeting at NOLA don’t lose focus on that which matters, lest we become known by “GOB” in belief and practice … Great Omission Baptists.
Gold Star comment, Max.
We wouldn’t want anybody to be GOBsmacked, now would we?
😉
The word “traditional” is misleading at best and intentionally dishonest at worst.
The SBC was largely Calvinistic in her origins. Her first several presidents were Calvinists. Her first seminary was and is to this day, Calvinistic.
The MOST traditional view point of the SBC is Calvinism.
It is true that the SBC did, somewhere in the middle of the 20th century stray from the doctrines that the majority of her founders held to. But it is ALSO true that it was during these years that the SBC began to stray into theological liberalism which is why the conservative resurgence became necessary.
It is not only ignorant for a “non-cal” to call himself a TRADITIONAL southern baptist, it is insulting to those who still hold to the doctrines which most of her founders espoused.
And perhaps worst of all is the arrogance of it. It pretends that “non-cals” are real Southern Baptists and Calvinists are just step children who the real Southern Baptists graciously tolerate.
The SBC does not need this fight that this letter is going to start.
The word traditional is not misleading or dishonest. It simply refers, not to history or culture, but to the theological document defining a specific viewpoint.
In the same way, “America” is historically inaccurate, rooted in an Italian cartographer whose concern was frankly South America. But mention Americans anywhere in the world and people know what you are talking about. We do not have to call ourselves Non-French, Non-Russian, etc.
You will not talk me out of either “American” or “Traditionalist.”
The use of the word “Traditionalist” is not used in a dishonest manner here. The word was given an identity and definition by those who developed and signed the document. They sought an identity other than the despicable “non-Calvinist” identification. Throughout the history of language, words (and numbers for that matter) have taken on new meanings, especially in America.
The argument that the use of the word is dishonest is without merit. There is no insult attached to the word for Calvinistic Baptist if they are orientated to the meaning of the word in the context. Of course, if a person has a chip on his shoulder and is seeking to be insulted, it would matter little what the Traditionalists called themselves.
Alan: BINGO!
‘I am a Traditionalist’
me, too . . .
well, in a way we all are because, if it weren’t for TRADITION, our lives would be as shaky as . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw
One of my favorite musicals. But remember, Tevye was Jewish. When I use the term “traditionalist” I am not referring to culture or history, but to a document referencing ten specific statements about soteriology that includes the word “TRADITION” in the title.
Here’s the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry’s definition of semi-pelagianism. Read it and then read the section of this document on man. The reason many on this post deny that this document is semi-pelagian or at least leaning that way is that they don’t even see that what the have been taught all their lives (at least since 1925) has been a form of semi-pelagianism. I would bet many you could open this link below and return here and say you agree with semi-pelagianism. That’s fine, but let’s just call it what it is.
http://carm.org/semi-pelagianism
To Rick Patrick – Please provide an exegetical substantiation for your designation. No exegetical support = non-valid nomenclature. For history may I recommend Dr. Tom Nettles “By His Grace & For His Glory”. If anyone differs with the precision and accuracy that Dr. Nettles exhibited in the research and writing of this treatise it would be most beneficial if they would supply the contrary that is claimed to contradict his work. Thank You.
Very, very funny! From which passage do you exegete the name “Calvinist?”
And why in the world, now that I have been liberated from describing my soteriology only with reference to Calvinism, would I return to that prison by engaging Calvinist authors, books or ideas?
Don’t you see? I’m not a “Non” anymore. I don’t have to OPPOSE your label. I have one of my own, a positive term, not a negative one.
Rick, you’re a brave one. I am with Alan. There are at least the two “traditions.” Why not just say, assuming you all are correct that the vast majority of SB are not now Calvinists, I’m a “Current Majority Viewpoint” Baptist? But that could be problematic down the road if as the signers say, the New Calvinists are successful in their “the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.” Then another name change would be in order.
Les,
I’m not using “traditionalist” in the historic sense or even in some sort of nostalgic cultural sense. I’m using it in a theological sense to describe the ten statement system of soteriological thought summarized in “A Statement of the TRADITIONAL Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”
I no more have to prove my view as the solitary tradition than the Founders have to prove that all the early Southern Baptists were Calvinists. It’s just a name that ties me to a ten-point soteriology just like Calvinism ties people to a five-point soteriology.
Again, if my options are Non-Calvinist or Traditionalist, I’ll take the latter. “Current Majority Viewpoint” is awkward, wordy and doesn’t reference the ten-point doctrine.
Some of those statements mark a clear departure from where the majority of Southern Baptists have been – and hopefully still are. Others mark points that many have traditionally held, and many others have not traditionally held.
Granted, but the same is true for Calvinists, right? If someone can describe himself as a four-point Calvinist, why could someone else not describe himself as a nine-point traditionalist?
I Am A Traditionalist
by Rick Patrick
Okay. Just like the following is okay:
I Am A Christian
by Barack Obama
I have lived in Hawaii. I love basketball. My mother was white.
That is pretty much ALL I have in common with Barack Obama.
How long did you live in Hawaii?
BTW, you’re commonality with Barack Obama wasn’t the point.
It’s that people can call themselves anything they want. Whether it’s accurate or not is another question entirely.
I lived in Hawaii for three years, from 1967-1970.
I assume you are questioning Barack Obama’s Christianity and not my adherence to the Ten Points of Soteriological Traditionalism.
Rick,
You are smarter than this. Picking up this “Im a traditionalist” doesnt help anything.
It is confusing at best and historically naive at worst…. Well, there are probably worse things.
The most baffling part of this whole thing is how such scholars can willfully be this ignorant about the SBC’s history.
There is a reason no one has dealt adequately with Dr. Tom Nettles arguments about how calvinistic our history really is- he is right.
When guys like Patterson, Yarnell, etc sign their name to something like this all it does is show they care more about pushing an agenda than dealing honestly with our history.
Matt…
These men don’t deal adequately with the very position they’re addressing; I wouldn’t expect them to deal with history any better.
These men have been corrected several times and yet the CONTINUE to persist in spreading misrepresentation.
Repentance should be called for.
Matt,
You are smarter than to misjudge my smartness. One of us must be a little less smart than we think. Perhaps you are right and I AM smarter than this, but perhaps I am wrong, and you are not really that smart at all. Then again, if I’m wrong, then maybe you’re wrong about me being smart in the first place. 🙂
Anyway, I’ve really just been looking for a term, a label for my views other than Arminianism and Non-Calvinism. This one seems okay to me. In fact, it’s the best I’ve seen, although I’m open to new ideas.
By the way, you might give a little more thought to your third paragraph, in which you admit being “baffled” by the “ignorance” of “scholars.” I may not be as smart as you think I am, but that right there was a pretty impressive list of smart people. I AM smart enough to know that.
It is an impressive list… Which is why the misrepresentations are all the more pathetic.
“Anyway, I’ve really just been looking for a term, a label for my views other than Arminianism and Non-Calvinism. ”
Rick…you’re a synergist.
You believe you cooperated with God to bring about your salvation. You deny God’s freedom to save whom He will.
There. Now we have a framework from which to proceed.
Shane,
Thanks for the label, but I must reject it. You see, there are ten points of salvation doctrine in a statement claiming to represent the TRADITIONAL view of Southern Baptists, not the SYNERGISTIC view.
Guys, you need not waste your breath arguing with me over the appropriateness of the term “traditional.” Just answer the question: “Is it in the title of the theological statement or not?” If you say that it is in the title, you are correct. That is the basis for my use of the term.
By the way, just to indulge your synergism argument for a moment, the other day I was drowning at the beach, the undertow having taken me out to sea. The waves were crashing. I was weak and taking in salt water. No one was around. I cried out for help. There was nothing I could do to save myself. All of a sudden, a Lifeguard appeared out of nowhere. He threw me a line, with the lifesaving ring perfectly surrounding me. Just as I was about to plummet to my death, I heard His voice calling my name. In faith, I accepted His salvation and yes, I did, in fact, reach up my hand to hold on to the floatation device.
In reaching up my hand, I did not become the hero. I simply accepted the Hero’s help. He saved me. The glory is His alone. If you wish, you may call the stretching of my hand “cooperating” with Him, but I really think of it as merely “accepting” the salvation He offers me. Let’s put it this way–I’m not going to go around bragging about lifting that hand.
“Guys, you need not waste your breath arguing with me over the appropriateness of the term “traditional.” Just answer the question: “Is it in the title of the theological statement or not?” If you say that it is in the title, you are correct. That is the basis for my use of the term.”
Rick, Yes it is in the title, but if it should not be there is it appropriate to lay hold of and celebrate it? The use of the word ‘traditional’ in that document is misleading at best. Tradition carries with it an idea of the way things have always been and only someone completely ignorant of SBC history would argue that the things in that document represents a traditional view of SBC soteriology.
It is in the title of that document and i’m sure it was carefully selected which really makes me wonder… why would you choose to latch on to a title that is so misleading for yourself?
For you ignore God’s law and substitute your own tradition.” Mark 7:8.
I am not saying that you are doing this Rick, I am saying this is what God thinks about traditional anything.
Debbie, the problem was with empty, human tradition, not with tradition itself. That would be, in my mind, a remarkably unfair application of that principle.
Drew,
I think the view can be described as “traditional.” Perhaps not the ONLY “traditional” view, but it is still fair to call it that.
Also, people often quibble at defining academic terms ending in “ism.” I’ve heard the claim that Calvin would barely recognize some forms of Calvinism, but that his students reduced his views in ways that altered them, at least slightly. I’ve heard that Darwin rejected some of what passes today as Darwinism.
Also, all of the FOUNDERS of our convention were not Calvinists. So for the FOUNDERS to claim that title is every bit as presumptuous as the Traditionalists claiming this word for ourselves.
You are certainly free to disagree, but the same naming issues you have with this new name are present with many older and accepted ones.
But when certain “isms” have been already called heretical by the church it should cause us to take notice.
Dear Rick: Don’t you know your Southern Baptist History. Permit me to mention a few items. The first president of the SBC was Rev. William B. Johnson from South Carolina, a committed believer in Sovereign Grace who left several works which state his beliefs. I could continue, but let suggest that if you were to look all of the Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1845 until the 1960s, you would find that the vast majority of them, if not all, were committed Sovereign Grace believers or calvinists as some want to call them to their detriment. I have works in my library written by these men. P.H. Mell had a book on Predestination, and we have had folks teaching some aspect of the doctrines of grace in every generation since the first in 1845. But due to the Separates and Regulars uniting in 1787, we have had the freedom to differ and to change, if one felt the need and the leadership to alter his outlook on salvation. Consider how the first missionary of the SBC to China, the Rev. Matthew T. Yates, whose monument stands in front of his home church, the Mount Pisgah Baptist Church of Apex, NC, just down the road about a mile and a half from where I am typing these words. That church was organized in 1814. They had messengers at the Sandy Creek Assn. in 1816, when Rev. Luther Rice came and enlisted Sandy Creek churches in the Great Century of Missions. Mt. Pisgah’s Articles of Faith adopted at its founding in 1814 spoke of Christ dying for the church and said absolutely nothing about His dying for all, and it was with such beliefs that the Baptists set out to win the whole world to Christ. Rice chaired the Sandy Creek Committee which drew up the Sandy Creek Confession of 1816 which incorporated two articles that very clearly set forth Sovereign Grace as it involves man’s inability and God’s efficacious or irresistible call. Rick why draw up a divisive set of principles and desire the convention to adopt it? Are you seeking to arouse folks on all sides so there will be a set-to and then a separation? We can’t afford to disassemble this mission program, the last bright hope of mankind. I do not insist that you believe like I do. I am not sponsoring a crusade against you or what you preach, and I want the same freedom accorded you accorded to me, the freedom to think, to change my mind, to adopt, adept, adapt, and advance more biblically faithful views. I think those views should be more sovereign grace, and you think they should be otherwise. Rip things apart, and we will diminish both of us and our impact for Christ. Find a way to make the problem a transforming catalyst for the better, and you will enhance our Convention, our selves, and our cause for Christ. And it can be done. It must be done. By God’s grace it shall and will be done.
Thank you, Dr. Willingham. I always enjoy your posts. They are thorough, eloquent, provide plenty of historical data and never seem to bother with pesky things like paragraph breaks.
Of course, I’ve read Dr. McBeth’s 800-page giant blue monster–word for word, quiz by painstaking quiz. Sat in the front row. Earned an “A.” (This was before I was “Dumb and Dumber.”)
It is fair to say that both Particular Baptists and General Baptists were involved in the early days of our convention, and my education at Southwestern did not seem to emphasize so strongly any kind of exclusively Calvinistic heritage for ALL of our Founders. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, apparently, if one reads different authors, one arrives at a different history.
And no, contrary to the insinuations of some, my desire is certainly not to force some kind of separation or remove Calvinists from the convention.
That accusation appears commonly on these blogs, and I have always found it strange. The idea that anyone who disagrees with a theological position you hold must be trying to drive you from your denomination is just a non sequitur for me, but it actually raises my suspicion in the other direction. Calvinists disagree with my theology. Does this mean they are trying to drive me from my denomination? Does doctrinal disagreement spell “kicking someone out” of the SBC fold? I don’t think it means that, in either direction.
Dear Brother Rick: My citations of the materials are aimed at finding out who is responsible for what. What I focus on is the theology of the awakenings and the launching of the missionary movement. The fact that some have sought to push calvinists out is no new thing, nor is it limited to that issue. I know of other cases with the SBC where individuals and groups have sought to get rid of those with whom they disagreed, and they succeeded. Just the battle over the Bible provided materials revealing that not only the Moderates but also the Conservatives could act like the Devil himself. I have no agenda other than to try and get at the truth and how an equitable relationship can be established. Getting rid of the Arminians, if one wishes to use that term, is not one of my goals, not of interest to me. At the same time I don’t care to get buried by a juggernaut of hostility over theology which I have had occasion to witness in power today and in the historical records of Southern Baptists. I honor the General Baptists, in fact, I preached my first sermon in a General Baptist Church in August of 1958. I honor them for their faithful adherence to religious liberty and to other doctrines of the biblical faith such as the deity of Christ as well as His humanity, the inspiration of scripture, etc. I also admire and appreciate what the Separates and the Regulars did when they worked out the agreement that allowed for differences in the union of 1787. What they did could become the means for us to work our way out of these clashes and open the way for a visitation of God like the world has never seen. I pray every day for a Third Great Awakening, one beginning, hopefully, in this generation and reaching every soul on earth and continuing for a 1000 generations. My theology is founded in opposites. God comes at us with impossibilities. The doctrines of grace are actually invitations; they are also the means to humility and spiritual depth; they are the enemies of pride and arrogance when truly understood. I do not bash people over the head nor do I have the desire to do so. I pray for the people who respond to the blogs and for myself that I will speak words of truth in love. God gave me the grace to stumble over how the doctrines work to make believers balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic, the best advertisements for the Christian Faith one could want. I do not write to discourage any one, but to encourage all to take a look at the sources and the facts that I cite. I did find out that the persons with the insights that are truly beneficial might not be limited to the classroom and the textbook which surely includes me. I can never forget the wisest man I ever met, a body shop mechanic with a high school education, a vet from WWII, a man who had done ten years of research, mostly in church minutes and who wrote one pamphlet about his small group of Baptists which got him excommunicated from his church (he invited me to witness it). I later cited his pamphlet in my master’s thesis in American Social and Intellectual History, “The Baptists & Ministerial Qualifications:1750-1850.” That man asked me one question which seven years later destroyed my whole system of eschatology. Now that impresses me, especially when I think of the person who did it. If I give the impression of knowing it all, I want you to know that I don’t, that I don’t even thing that I know it all. I am just one who has stumbled over something and wants to share it with people. The real thing I aim for is the joy and happiness of another Awakening, the benefit of which is hardly to be believed, and it is worth the suffering of being misunderstood in order to advance that cause.
Dr. James Willingham,
I’ll try this again and see if the comment is posted after yours. The previous attempt was buried way above in the comments.
You said, “Don’t you know your Southern Baptist History…if you were to look all of the Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1845 until the 1960s, you would find that the vast majority of them, if not all, were committed Sovereign Grace believers or Calvinists…”
First, there were not many SBC presidents in the 1800s through the early 1900s, Back then, if you were elected SBC President it was virtually for life.
Second, I present Dr. R. G. Lee, president of the SBC from 1949 – 1951. Would a committed 5-point Calvinist say what he said?
“Wonderful inclusiveness here, in the outstretched and encircling arms of the Christian Gospel – ‘to everyone.’ Nobody excluded. Everybody included.” -R. G. Lee on Romans 1:16
“There is no ground for boasting. The beggar who puts forth his hand and takes the gift can claim no credit. Believing is not in itself a virtuous act, a meritorious effort by which the sinner earns the favour of God. No, all boasting is excluded by the very freeness and simplicity of salvation which at the same time excludes all excuse from those who refuse or neglect it.” -R. G. Lee (AD 1886-1978), pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis.
Third, I doubt many Strict Calvinists would want to claim L. R. Scarborough, SWBTS president and SBC President 1939-1940, as one of their own.
David R. Brumbelow
Oh well, I tried.
As of now, comment 197 was meant to be just under, and in response to comment 165.
Do you think Someone ordained this?
David R. Brumbelow
PROBABLY!
James,
I gave you my email address up in this thread as you requested.
Dear David: I replied to your previous comment, and will attempt to reply to this one too. First let me say about Dr. R.G. Lee. The pastor who baptized and licensed me to the minister had been Intermediate Youth Leader for Dr. Lee at Bellevue. My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell was Dr. Lee’s associate at Bellevue. Dr. Campbell was self-proclaimed supralapsarian hyper calvinist, and he is the only man Dr. Lee made sure would preach his funeral by putting it in his will. While Dr. Lee had about five preachers, the only one that was legal was the hyper-calvinist. And to answer your question, yes, what you quote from Dr. Lee can be quoted from many leading calvinists. have you ever read Spurgeon’s Evening by Evening Devotions for Aug. 6 and Dec.24 wherein he prays for the conversion of every soul on earth. How’s that for a five point calvinist? And Dr. Campbell pleaded with my unbelieving step-father until tears ran down my step-father’s face. By the way Dr. Lee ticked all five points of the tulip outline as to what he believed, and if you will check out his sermons you will find out that he preaches in accordance with those points. The prayers for a Third Great Awakening have been going on for longer than either you or I have been alive (and I am 71), and I have been praying for one for nearly 39 years (it will be this Fall). Now the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions and the launching of the SBC and our earliest institutions was Sovereign Grace which is spelled out in Confessions, circular letters, sermons, biographical and other works. Since we are praying for a like event, we must have the theology for it. While I have not prayed until recently about the theology, I regard it as a part of the answer in order to have the blessing.
You were drowning, Rick…but YOU took the initiative to cry out for help (the key word there is “inititiave”).
That’s why you’re a synergist.
The scenario you created (and it is your scenario…not based upon the totality of Scriptual teaching) is one in which you cooperate with the Lord to bring about your salvation.
Nobody is accusing you of “being the hero,” Rick. The stretching out of your hand–which is a VERY inadequate way to describe the regeneration, btw–STILL leaves you with room to boast.
After all…if YOU hadn’t first realized you were drowning…if YOU didn’t cry out for help…if YOU hadn’t held out your hand…
Rick, I know you know this…
But your drowning scenario fails to adequately fill out the picture. To be consistent with what Monergists believe, one is not drowning. One HAS drowned and has sunk to the bottom and rigor mortis has set in (not sure of the science of sinking or floating, etc.). But you get the idea.
This person is dead and can’t lift a hand or anything else to reach up to the rescuer. No, the rescuer must come to the corpse and breath life into him so the newly quickened person reaches up to embrace their rescuer.
That’s monergism in the new birth. Anything short of that is at best synergism.
Does a ” New Calvinist ” or “Traditional ” believe in snake handling such as killed a pastor with my same last name in Jolo W. VA. We don’t really know who we aren’t , much less who we are . To be different suffices. The scripture might be Mark 14: 16-18
Jack,
First of all, I think the Scripture chapter you mean to reference is Mark 16, the latter part of which even the greatest inerrantist of them all, W. A. Criswell, believed to be extra-biblical.
Although it is nowhere found in the Baptist Faith and Message, I believe the vast majority of New Calvinists, Old Calvinists, Traditionalists and even Heretics within the Southern Baptist Convention believe in handling snakes as little as possible in our daily lives, and never as an act of worship or a test of our faith or a proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
I hope this answers your question.
I more appreciate your willingness to answer this question in public as oppose to the answer which I had already reasoned . There is ” goofy stuff” in our world that requires the same answer no matter where asked so that “like” responses can be given by all regardless of the “Audience ” . Good reply.
I’m just waiting for Arminians to actually represent the Calvinist position with some level of accuracy.
If that “statement” is any indication, I’ll be waiting a loooooong time.
Those who put their name to a document that contains such glaring examples of misrepresentation need to repent.
That’s one of the great concerns with this collection of statements, a concern I’ve yet to see any of the document’s supporters address. When Calvinist after Calvinist after Calvinist states, “This document does not present a view of Calvinism as it exists within the SBC,” how can so many continue to enthusiastically support it? If it contains so much bad information, where is the value? If it attacks something that does not exist, how is it helpful? If it slanders a large number of Southern Baptists, how is it good?
Yes, the preamble mentions Calvinism. That puts the issue in context. That has ruffled many Calvinist feathers. But for me, that was the least exciting part of the Statement.
For me, the statement is not so much about what Calvinists believe or don’t believe. It’s about what Traditionalists believe and don’t believe.
The problem is the statement presents itself as a way of showing how “traditional” beliefs differ from the beliefs of Calvinists in the convention, implying that the things denied are things Calvinists affirm, and yet the denials, at best, present a gross misrepresentation of the beliefs of any Calvinist in the SBC.
You know guys, if the things denied in the statement are things you also can deny, then why not sign it yourself? They must not be talking about you.
Rick,
Because the statement claims to present and deny Calvinism present within the convention. When people read the statement, they will come away with a very wrong understanding of what Calvinists are saying about the Bible.
I think my biggest disappointment in this document is the fact that we have been dialoging for a year for this document. Instead of attempting to understand Calvinism as i thought the SBCToday guys were attempting to do, they were simply looking for ammunition it seems in order to write this document.
I am also disappointed in Paige Patterson because I did put my trust in him again despite his actions the past 6 and more years that I did write about. I saw him on the committee for a possible name change and I also read the debate he and Al Mohler engaged in a few Conventions back and thought that he was at least willing to cooperate and put down the sword despite past differences. I see his signature on that document and am truly sad and deeply disappointed.
Rick: Beside the fact that the Calvinism arguments on this document are just not true, one reason I could never sign is the article on original sin among many other reasons. No, I wouldn’t sign that document.
We’re not going to bridge this divide. “Traditionalists” hear Calvinists describe their theology, take it to its inescapable conclusions (from their and I admit my view), rephrase it in what to us are common-sense words and Calvinists cry foul. We say, “God will not force anyone to come to Him against their will.” You say, “We don’t believe that! You’re putting words in our mouths!” In between us is the fact that Calvinists believe the beauty of God’s grace is that he wonderfully, instantly grants us a “heart of flesh” (regeneration) and THEN causes us to freely come to him according to our (freshly changed) will that now freely wants to choose Him. Traditionalists say, “Word gymnastics! Bottom line is you’re saying God unilaterally changes the person’s will. Sounds like forcing to us.” Calvinists say, “None of us would come if he didn’t change us first. Don’t you know what ‘spiritually dead’ means? Dead men don’t raise themselves to life ya know!” Traditionalists say, “Have you never seen a metaphor? God also says he gathers us under his wings as chicks. Does that make God a chicken? Paul says we are dead to sin. Do you still sin? Is ‘dead’ not a metaphor there?” And we go in these circles and circles and circles.
Let’s face it — we (Traditionalists, non-Calvinists — pick your favorite label) get it — the Calvinist view that is. We just use our words to describe it in ways you wouldn’t. It doesn’t mean we don’t understand your view nor that we’re trying to distort it. It’s no different than your “Pelagianizing” us every time we turn around. We’re not going to come together on how we describe each other’s views, even if we properly understand those views. We describe them through our own prism. If I could get comfortable describing your view the way you do, I’d probably believe what you believe.
Let’s learn to live with the fact that we think the other side is wrong and move on. I’m not mad about it, but I won’t stop describing your views in my words as I see them. I couldn’t if I wanted to. Place the Pelagian anathema on me if you like, but I believe Scripture says what I believe Scripture says. I won’t begrudge you your description of me – that’s fair isn’t it?
When you choose to describe what I believe in ways that I do not believe, why should I believe that you know what I believe?
I restate – we’re not going to bridge this divide.
Chris,
This really isn’t about you and what you believe. It’s about me and what I believe. Yes, the Traditionalist perspective on Calvinism, or if you must, the Traditionalist caricature of Calvinism, may form the backdrop for the statement, but the statement itself should be allowed to stand on its own. It’s what I believe. Attack its theology all you want. You are free to be a Non-Traditionalist if you wish.
But let’s stop pretending that a Traditionalist only exists to describe inaccurately the beliefs of Calvinists. I think what the Traditionalist is trying to do with this document is to state positively his own beliefs, providing a framework other than Calvin’s to discuss salvation doctrine. In my view, that’s a contribution.
Rick,
What pretending? The statement makes it abundantly clear that it exists to distinguish the beliefs of non-Calvinists from the beliefs of (Calvinists?). The statement is not simply, “Here is what non-Calvinists believe,” but, “Here is how we differ from what we claim to be Calvinism.”
“Let’s face it — we (Traditionalists, non-Calvinists — pick your favorite label) get it — the Calvinist view that is. We just use our words to describe it in ways you wouldn’t.”
No…you don’t “get it,” as your response so adroitly displays. Consider this example…
““We don’t believe that! You’re putting words in our mouths!” In between us is the fact that Calvinists believe the beauty of God’s grace is that he wonderfully, instantly grants us a “heart of flesh” (regeneration) and THEN causes us to freely come to him according to our (freshly changed) will that now freely wants to choose Him. Traditionalists say, “Word gymnastics! Bottom line is you’re saying God unilaterally changes the person’s will. Sounds like forcing to us.” ”
I don’t believe that God caused me to freely choose Him. My Lord said that he who commits sin is a slave to sin. I was a slave. My Lord teaches me that I was also dead in my sins. We see “dead” as Scripture teaches spiritual death, i.e., we are completely unwilling to come to God in faith outside a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.
A very simple way to look at this is…
Mongerism vs. Synergism.
I’m a monergist. I believe God is free to exercise sovereignty over His creatures. I didn’t cooperate with God in my salvation; He chose me…He gave me faith to believe…He granted me true repentance. He gets all the glory, honor, and praise due Him.
You’re a synergist. You believe you acted in cooperation with God to bring about your salvation.
Some folks don’t like the labels of “Calvinism” and “Arminianism.” Fair enough. Ultimately, it’s really about monergism vs. synergism.
If you can provide sound exegesis to show synergism is a doctrine consistently and thoroughly taught within the pages of Holy Scripture, I’m willing to examine it.
Shane, You’ve missed my whole point. You focused on a tree and missed the forest. Let’s agree to disagree. Honestly, are you really interested in my exegesis, or are you interested in pulling out your (already clearly defined Reformed systematic) theology in attempt to show me the error of my ways? There’s nothing new to add to the debate. We will disagree on some interpretations of Scripture. I’m good with that.
Shane,
“Mongerism vs. Synergism”
I think you have nailed it. This whole debate on soteriology comes down to that difference.
I’m a monergist. These non-Calvinists are synergists. I think those could be really useful monikers.
My new term for me, monergist.
Les,
I’m thinking those monikers are most accurate. Just wondering how much definition will need to be done to make them stick. Most people would just say, “Huh?” when they hear those words.
You know, if you absolutely have to label me with synergism and claim I believe myself to be “cooperating” with God in my own salvation (a characterization you will please note I disavow) then at least accept the following: “If my acceptance of God’s salvation is indeed going to be classified as a “cooperating work” then please hear me say this–God is the One who enabled me to do the cooperating, and thus, He alone must receive all the glory anyway.”
God gave me the freedom to lift my hand and raise my voice. I could not have done it on my own, but only by His grace.
“God enabled you to cooperate?” So…God enabled you to make this choice, but–ultimately–at the end of the day–the choice was YOURS to make.
Again…we’re back to synergism. God either cannot or will not do ANYTHING without your express permission…according to your theological framework.
I’m not sure why you disavow synergism in one sentence and then affirm it in the next.
God will not save me against my will, or without my permission…but only because He in His sovereignty chose to set things up that way and grant me the free will to make that choice.
I’m not rejecting the concept of “free will” so much as I am rejecting the label of synergism, with its pejorative connotation that I can somehow take credit for part of my own salvation.
Feel free to call me a Traditionalist, since I believe the ten points and it is my preferred term. If you find synergism within that statement, then fine, but I would prefer the term Traditionalist since the statement both affirms and denies many soteriological ideas, without synergism’s baggage that “I did at least part of the saving of my own soul.”
Below is from Tom Ascol- and proves why Traditionalist doesnt work and is historically inaccurate.
The document demonstrates historical myopia in its use of the label “traditional.” Much like the desire to have the majority behind you, I can understand wanting to claim that yours is the “traditional” view on a subject. But doing so begs the question, “whose tradition?” This was one of the tactics that liberals used during the inerrancy controversy in their attempt to discredit the conservative resurgence during the 1980s. It is sad to see those who produced this document resort to the same strategy. The Preamble goes all the way back to 1925 to establish its framers’ historical credentials. The problem is that the SBC began in 1845. The document does admit that “Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days” and “some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism.” Nevertheless, it is the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 that is treated as the benchmark for determining what is “traditional” Southern Baptist theology. In his book, By His Grace and For His Glory, Tom Nettles has persuasively argued that Calvinism was the theological consensus for the first 70 years of the SBC. The convention’s first official confession of faith, which was written to provide doctrinal boundaries for our first seminary, reflects this consensus. So if we are going to take the complete history of the SBC into consideration, rather than an abridged version, this document would more accurately be called “A Statement of Modern Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” The understanding of salvation that was prevalent throughout the convention at its inception and for many decades afterward was nothing less than historic, evangelical Calvinism.
The fact that the document contains the term “Traditional” is all I need. I am not referencing history, culture or anything else. I am referencing the ten point statement.
I suppose I could have used the term “Hankinsist” but that does not sound quite right to the ear, and there were other influences who should also be included.
No, the question is: “Do I prefer to be called a ‘NON-CALVINIST’ and basically orient my soteriology against a French theologian’s view, or do I prefer to be called a ‘TRADITIONALIST’ and orient my soteriology around a ten point statement of Southern Baptist professors, pastors and scholars?”
Sorry, Matt and Tom. You no longer get to define us against a broad scale of Calvinistic viewpoints. We not only disagree with you, but we have a new framework we are using to define ourselves, rendering Calvinism’s five points far less relevant than Traditionalism’s ten.
Rick,
Thats the problem… Your view has nothing to do with “tradition.”
I will continue to define you, and everyone else, according to what they believe.
Rick Patrick,
If being called a “Traditionalist” will get folks away from calling a great number of Southern Baptists “non-Calvinists” (A term I despise) then call me a Traditionalist.
I think I shall change my name to Tevye (the main character in Fiddler On The Roof) and sing his solo entitled: TRADITION, during the Pastors’ Conference in NOLA.
So, Rick, the next time you see me, just call me “Tevye.”
Hi, Tevye. How’s life in Alabama?
David 🙂
Hello Vol,
Since my new name is Tevye and you ask me how life is in Alabama, I think I should answer you as would my name sake. Here goes:
“…If I were a rich man,
Yubby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dibby dum.
All day long I’d biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn’t have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Idle-diddle-daidle-daidle man.
I’d build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.
I’d fill my yard with chicks and turkeys and geese and ducks
For the town to see and hear.
Squawking just as noisily as they can.
With each loud “cheep” “swaqwk” “honk” “quack”
Would land like a trumpet on the ear,
As if to say “Here lives a wealthy man.”
Wow, CB, I didnt know you could sing so good!
David
Vol,
It is a family “tradition.”
CB, send me an email. jimwillingham@att.net. Want to communicate with you.
CB,
Thanks for that image of you playing the lead in “Fiddler.” That made my day. 🙂
CB, I expected better things of you. We who are the original traditionalists, seriously, we preach and teach what our predecessors and our ancestors taught and preached, must be recognized as the true traditionalists. And you want to claim our title for yourself? I am incredulous. 🙂
James,
I just want to play the fiddle up on the roof.
“God will not save me against my will, or without my permission…but only because He in His sovereignty chose to set things up that way and grant me the free will to make that choice.”
“Against your will?” You mean the unregenerate will that is at enmity with God (James 4:4)? The unregenerate will that is enslaved to sin (John 8:34)?
The unregenerate will that is outright HOSTILE to God (Eph 2:14-16)?
You mean THAT will?
God had to change your will in the first place, Rick.
“He chose to…grant me the free will to make that choice.”
And what about God, Rick? Does He have a choice to save whom He will? Why is it you find the idea of a God who saves some but not others distasteful, but the idea of HUMANS who choose to be saved and not others not distasteful?
You adhere to a man-centered concept of salvation, Rick.
Well,Rick, Shane has made his fast draw, and you are going to have to answer about how to deal with not only being an enemy but enmity itself. How does one reconcile that? CB, you all are being found wanting in faithfulness to the records, They do not say what we want them to say. They clearly enunciate where they stand. They even call it be the term calvinism.
Shane,
Yes, my sin was filthy rags in God’s sight. I was lost and an enemy of God. He loved me first before I ever loved Him.
And yet, in my view, there is still room for my response to His offer of salvation, for me to say “Yes” or “no,” which is simply to say that I do not believe grace is irresistible, an assertion that cannot possibly surprise anyone by this point.
Blessings,
Rick
** I do not believe grace is irresistible…**
Grace is irresistible not because of coercion on the part of God, but is irresistible to the New Creation born by a regenerate heart.
It is like a bird freed from its cage will naturally desire to fly to the heavens. It is like being given the “choice” between a flawless diamond or a lump of coal.
Once I was blind [unregenerate] to the things of God, but now I see* (regenerated).
“Truly, truly I tell you, unless one of born again, he cannot see* the Kingdom of God” (Jesus, John 3:3).
*The word translated “see” in John 3:3 is Greek: eidon — to see with the eyes and perceive with the mind; to understand (Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament).
I believe the reason many have trouble with the idea of irresistible Grace is, they put Regeneration on the wrong side of Conversion.
Admittedly, the order of salvation drives our respective viewpoints. IF I believed that regeneration preceded faith, as you do, then I suppose I would also agree with you on Irresistible Grace. Clearly a regenerate man would not resist God.
So every man has it within them the ability to respond with faith to the universal call of the Gospel?
Now Rick we are truly getting to the heart of the issue. Beyond the monickers, nicknames, political moves…the doctrine is the issue. You said “IF I believed…” meaning that you surely do not believe that regeneration precedes faith. Well then my question is simply this. How does your belief accord with the BFM. Here is section on regeneration:
“Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.”
This document, which is supported by much Scripture, clearly states that the sinner responds to the change of heart with repentance and faith. Your belief doesn’t square with this. I posed the same questions to someone else and they would not give me an adequate response. They just said, “well that’s what I believe.” I ask you humbly to please let me know your thoughts on this. This is so important because here lies one of the main issues underlying the whole debate.
In my estimation, the calvinist ordo solutis lines up perfectly with the BFM. Which would make calvinist therefore more in line with the “tradition” that Southern Baptist have ascribed to in our doctrinal standards and creeds. I cannot find one Baptist creed going all the way back to 1689 London Confession that puts the order of salvation in any other order. Help me out. I mean that.
I left a reply for you but my comment somehow was placed high above in some kind of weird order. You’ll have to hunt for it. It will not irresistibly find its way to you.
No worries, it found me. It’s called email, I did nothing on my own to search for it. So please give me no glory for finding it. Thanks.
Well, what say you? How do you read the BFM? We live in the postmodern era where people make words say what they want them to say. I do not see any way to read the BFM outside of regeneration taking place first. So, going back hundreds of years (BFM’s, Abstracts, Confessions, etc…) we now will change because 1/3 of our seminary professors say so? Are we Catholic? Do we have an infallible Magisterium? Not that the BFM is infallible, it is not, but it is well grounded in the Word of God and backed up by years and years of godly men (who are surely as godly as the 1/3 sem. presidents). But again, we do not appeal to men. So let us appeal to Scripture…
Eph. 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
This verse locates the time of our being made alive. “when we were dead.” So what is dead? Is your understanding of dead incapacitation but able to move at least a limb. My understanding is lifeless, no pulse, no breath. I know one other person on SBC Today posted that the “dead” issue was dealt with at the John 3:16 but I didn’t go. So please help me.
Now, one last thought… if you have just acknowledged that perhaps the BFM needs to change and concede that previous confessions of faith treat regeneration in a different way that the document you signed…then who is the traditionalist? You or me? I believe that “traditionalist” are trying to take the denomination to where it has never been before.
At least Arminians (and I know you don’t want to be called one) have prevenient grace to explain how dead people can choose God. Pelagians (and I know you don’t want to be called one) simply deny spiritual death and therefore do not need any sort of gracious work of God. That’s why the Pelagianism (or semi version of it) has been thrown around here. Help me understand how dead people can have faith. How spiritually blind people can repent.
John 1:12 is simply the next steps in the ordo solutis…we are regenerated, we believe and repent and then are ADOPTED. Adoption is not the same as regeneration thus there is no issue with John 1:12. Being made alive in Christ is not the same as being made a co-heir with Christ. They are vitally and necessarily tied together. What is most helpful however is verse 13…which does speak of re-birth. Let’s look at the whole text together: John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (now he will speak of new birth, those who believe and thus were adopted and he speaks in a tense that places the following actions in vs. 13 prior to the belief of vs. 12)…13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
How were they born? Not physically. Nor by the will of man! But how? By God! So the context of John 1:12 brings maximum glory to God and strips us of any boasting. Every time I read it I almost burst into praise. Yes!!! God alone. O Lord, do not let us rob you of your glory!!!
Now how about John 6. Again let us consider the context. Jesus later in John 6 explains why it is that so many are not believing (as he called for in vs. 47). Here’s the reason: 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Again, Jesus destroys the idea that the flesh has any say in the matter. What should such words cause the unbeliever to do. Say “oh well, Jesus is just some cold determinist…I’m outta here.” No. Instead, the one who has ears to hear will fall on his face and say “Lord I do not want to be such a person, save me.” And that person will be saved. All who call are saved. But that person can take no credit. The Word of Christ (just like at Creation) did an ex nihlo work in a stony heart and brought forth life…life that led to repentance and faith.
Frank, I appreciate that you brought us back to the Scriptures in the discussion. And I content that the Scriptures, the BFM, and the vast majority of Baptist theologians, thinkers and pastors who went before us clearly proclaim a theology of regeneration that most magnifies God and least magnifies us. May He increase and may we decreast.
It seems my comments today are buried above the comment to which I am responding. Maybe this will appear at the right place?
Steve,
In referring to being “dead in sins” you said, “This verse [Ephesians 2:4] locates the time of our being made alive. “when we were dead.” So what is dead? Is your understanding of dead incapacitation but able to move at least a limb. My understanding is lifeless, no pulse, no breath.”
I’ll be glad to add my understanding.
Calvinists take “dead” and go to the extreme with it.
Biblically “death” means separation.
Physical death means separation from the body (James 2:26).
Spiritual death means separation from God.
Spiritual death does not mean we can do nothing.
A spiritually dead person can walk, talk, sin. A spiritually dead person can hear the voice of God and respond either in a positive or negative way.
After Adam sinned, he could still hear the voice of God.
“Dead” is just one of several ways to refer to the condition of an unbeliever.
Jesus referred to unbelievers as sick (Matthew 9:12), rather than dead.
And a sick person is not, “lifeless, no pulse, no breath.”
David R. Brumbelow
I never understand how these threaded comments work. Sometimes, they just get a mind of their own and appear willy-nilly wherever they choose.
I love and hate threaded/nested comments. They make it easier to follow a discussion, but I have a very hard time keeping up with what’s new, what I’ve read before. (I suppose I could subscribe to comments, but I don’t want that much email.) But it seems that on here once a comment thread gets long enough, 150-200 comments, the nesting goes haywire.
Chris,
You can subscribe to the comments via RSS and easily keep up with the newest comments. https://sbcvoices.com/comments/feed/
I know, I’m being lazy and old fashioned. I use my reader for posts, prefer to watch the posts themselves for comments.
But Rick, what makes you think Calvinist SBs are NOT Traditionalist? Don’t you have any idea that our convention was born of Calvinistic roots? Don’t you know that most our founding fathers (and I believe they are more tradionalist anyone of us are) are outspoken Calvinists? Do you know anything about SB history?
See my comment on calvinists, sovereign grace preachers and believers being the true traditionalists elsewhere. After all, if my ancestors believed and preached the doctrines of grace and I believe them and preach them (the doctrines of grace), then I must be a traditionalist, doing what my predecessors and ancestors, too, did.
They call that Calvinism, pure and simple.
But if God enabled him, then we are back to calvinism. That is what the whole issue is about. Come back, Shane. Come back!” Ever watch the movie? That and True Grit (John Wayne’s version) are the best western movies ever make. The greatest, Riders of the Purple Sage, has never really been made.. Just some poor efforts at it. Rick would feel a lot better, if he could get a glimpse of the Great Awakenings and their impact upon mankind, especially the Third which takes the whole earth and every soul upon it and upon a multitude of planets for a thousand generations and perhaps 100,000 years.
And if God enabled you to response and He gets all the glory, then you area calvinist or a sovereign grace believer.
Well, Dr. Mohler said ALL Southern Baptists are, but once again, I don’t think everybody wants that label. I don’t.
If I wasn’t interested in your exegesis, I would not have asked for it.
Unlike the authors of that ridiculous “statement,” I am always willing to analyze the claims of those with whom I disagree.
You’re a synergist. Tell us why.
Silly argument and even sillier refusal to defend it. Silly controversy. Head Paul’s words to Timothy.
It describes, in a manner completely consistent with The Baptist Faith and Message, the soteriological position I hold dear and boldly proclaim.
Could you clarify for me–do you mean that anyone who holds to a Calvinist view of soteriology holds a view that is at odds with the BFM2K? Thanks in advance.
I don’t think that’s being implied. He most likely means it the same way I mean it when I say Calvinism is consistent with the BF&M – a soteriological position that agrees with everything in the BF&M even though it goes farther than the BF&M. I am inclined to agree – cautiously – that the theology presented in that document is consistent with the BF&M, though I do think a few of the points strain even the general language in the BF&M.
I didn’t think it was being implied, but I wasn’t sure so I thought I’d ask Rick rather than guess.
Chris and Joe,
You are both correct. I believe there is room within the Baptist Faith and Message and therefore within the Southern Baptist Convention for the soteriological positions held by both Calvinists and Traditionalists.
I’m glad to hear that. I’m still snickering at your Traditionalist moniker, however. LOL 🙂 And there’s a smiley face for Huggy Bear.
“How in the world can it be appropriate for one group to unite around a specific soteriology of their choosing without it also being appropriate for another group to do the very same thing?”
If that were the issue, there would be no problem, but that is not the issue. I am just as bothered by the refusal of non-Calvinists to even attempt to understand the concerns of Calvinists as I am by the statement itself. This reflects an already existing deep division and lack of brotherly concern even before the document does its damage.
Maybe they did not think it was necessary to attempt to understand your concerns since their primary concern might have been to articulate their own soteriology without any reference to a certain French theologian.
You have the right to your beliefs, even if I find them objectionable. But I also have the right to my beliefs, even if you find them objectionable.
Traditionalism may partly be a reaction against Calvinism, but it’s mostly just about describing what I believe about God’s Plan of Salvation.
The problem isnt that you and the men who signed the document disagree with our beliefs. The problem is that you all are either dumb or you willfully, consistently misrepresent those you disagree with.
I dont think you or the men who wrote/signed the document are dumb so why cant we have some brotherly love and at least try to represent each other accurately?
Let’s see, my choices are “Dumb and Dumber” or “Liar, Liar.” Either way, that puts me in a Jim Carrey screwball comedy.
Isn’t it possible you just misrepresented…you know…MY views?
Rick,
I didnt even address your “views.”
Im commenting on the fact that you all refuse to represent those you disagree with fairly.
Matt,
Philosophically, is this not simply the nature of disagreement itself? I certainly believe my views have been misrepresented by those who disagree with me, including many Calvinists. That’s just how it works when we don’t see eye to eye.
No. People ought to be able to disagree and still represent each others’ views fairly.
You can disagree with someone without misrepresenting them.
Right on. Brother, right on!
Right on Brother was meant for Matt. S., but it probably fits Patrick’s comment above, too!
Rick,
You do recognize, though, that the purpose of the document is to show how these beliefs differ from Calvinism? The statement exists because of Calvinism. It is not partly a reaction against Calvinism, it is entirely a reaction against an imagined Calvinism that does not exist within the convention.
If this kind of Calvinism does NOT exist, then why should you be offended by their attack of it? Why don’t you wait until they attack the kind of Calvinism that DOES exist? Then you can react to their position.
Because no one likes being misrepresented. Any high school debate student will tell you that it is improper to frame an opponent’s argument in a manner in which the opponent would not recognize or agree to. If I set up straw men arguments and claim they are yours then you would be upset.
You arrogance is surprising. Angry Arminians is the new title you guys have earned. I believe that I am more of a traditionalist as I harken back to 1689 for my doctrinal stances. And since when does tradition trump Scripture? Do we need to fight for Sola Scriptura again?
PLEASE NOTIFY ME OF FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS
There is an option below the submit button for you to sign up for these.
As the THUNDER are actually playing well in game 3 of the NBS WC Finals, I’m reticent to re-enter the fray here. BUT, Rick I am more than happy for you to enjoy the moniker of Traditionalist. May we, that is those of us of a Calvinistic soteriological persuasion, now reclaim the moniker of Biblicist? o:-)
I’ll trade you “Biblicist” if you will give us back EITHER “grace” or “sovereign” plus “covenant” thrown in.
All cuteness aside, How is God “sovereign” to save whosoever He wills if He is constantly wringing His hands hoping that some will be smart enough to believe?
“Grace” to you brother Rick….
Amen, Brother, Amen!
Anthony,
Never cast aside cuteness. A Sovereign King possesses the right to rule, but does not negate the freedom of his subjects, for example, to fight a Civil War.
In His Sovereignty, He has ruled that whoever accepts His offer may enter His Kingdom. He wills for all to be saved, but the condition He requires is their acceptance of His gracious offer.
He loses none of His Sovereignty in granting His subjects the freedom to choose or reject citizenship in His Kingdom.
I am sure those in the PCA laugh a little when Baptists claim Calvinism and Reformed theology. Summarizing Reformed Theology as Calvinism strains the very history to which some appeal.
I noted in the previous post on the subject that surely will be glossed again, Baptist Theology tends to be about how we practice our theology more than how we articulate it. As such, the tent is wide under the BF&M. In fact, I suspect there is room beyond the preferred polarities of Calvinist/Non-Calvinist (or Rick’s new preferred Traditionalist.)
The root of division in the SBC is not theology. But, if the powers can lock we plebes in combat over nomenclature, then they can quietly hold on to the power that really feeds this whole charade.
Todd: Actually the Presbyterians seem fine with it and we have been able to work well together with them, knowing that we differ in some things such as infant Baptism and in viewing the sacraments. It’s fine with both or it has been so far for many, many years.
Tullian Tchivichian for example has spoken at some SB colleges and functions and vice versa, we have spoken at some of their events.
James White has worked with some of us on certain projects, and has been a friend and co-worker with Tom Ascol for quite a few years.
Debbie,
I know many Presbyterians – PCUSA, PCA, etc. They are fine people. My comment was to an appeal to history not that they are averse to work with Southern Baptists. And, noting highly popular, celebrity folks also brought Jim Cymbala to the SBC.
I’ve been watching this grow and get progressively uglier. “Traditions” now is a code word for an absolutely passive aggressive temper tantrum. Shameful.
Unbelievers read this blog. What must they think?
“absolutely passive aggressive temper tantrum…shameful.”
Wow. I truly did not read any words like that in the statement. I do not feel that way about Calvinists, although some, like Katie, may feel that way about Traditionalists like me.
Rick,
Not at all. I used to be on your side of the fence. I can worship with people who have a difference of soteriology. As long as the gospel message is proclaimed, I’m good to go. We are saved by grace alone.
But since I have been where you are, I know full well that the description of ‘Traditional baptists’ as it has been laid out, simply is not true. You don’t speak for me.
You can certainly try to determine what other people traditionally believe, but you would be wrong. I don’t believe that you are a heretic. I’m fairly certain you are sincere. The difference between you and I besides the obvious, is that I have no problem worshipping with you, but you on the other hand, seem determined to rid the SBC of every last association with the Doctrines of Grace even if it means misrepresenting what other people believe.
Given the success of Acts 29 in planting new churches, you should be careful because you may get your wish and won’t like the outcome.
From Alpha and Omega Ministries:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5094
I’m not trying to rid the convention of anybody–just trying to clarify what I believe, because it IS profoundly different from what many others believe who are within our Southern Baptist family.
I really wish “defining what I believe” would not be interpreted so much as “attacking what you believe.”
I really do have to question whether “shameful temper tantrums” accurately describes the position of those with whom you disagree.
Then Rick, the document shouldn’t have been written the way it was. It starts off with the express intent of combating “new Calvinism.” Defining what you believe didn’t have to be done that way. Right?
This document has already done damage. The fruit is the evidence of it’s worth.
Steve,
Some of us really love the document, since it describes our view.
I realize it has upset the Calvinist side, but frankly, they have misrepresented my views on more than one occasion. We already knew of our disagreement. This idea of misrepresenting others is nothing new and, moreover, it is a two-way street.
You have your TULIP and your five points. Now we have our TRADITIONAL statement with its ten points. Why can’t we just pick up our own points and go on about our merry way?
Rick, it’s really simple. Don’t misrepresent your opponent. Because it was done to me isn’t a justification, it’s childishness. The BFM2K has a nice broad soteriological statement that Baptist have been able to co-exist under. This document mis-represents a large number of Baptist, creates fear in those who don’t understand the issues, and creates a fight that no one was trying to create. Show me one….just one…SBC pro-Calvinist document like the one that you signed on to. I’m not talking the rantings of an angry blogger, but a document signed by SBC leaders, pastors, seminary pres., that labels the other side like this while “defining” it’s position. I know of none, but I’ll happily be proven wrong.
The document could have been written in such a way as to not attack straw men the way this document does. Do you agree? It wasn’t a carefully crafted piece. It was not unifying at all, and has clearly (in two days) done damage to the unity of the SBC and will undoubtedly harm the Coop. Program.
“new calvinists” is a boogeyman. If you guys keep talking about how we have these 10 points and you have TULIP then why are you calling us “new?” There is no “new-calvinist” as described in this document. You will find him to be a man made of straw designed to cause people to fear those who genuinely do embrace the Doctrines of Grace and a Reformed soteriology. This is NOT just a clarification of one group’s beliefs, it is an document designed to denigrate another group’s views in a political manner, just as we will see over and over again this election season. One political will intentionally (on unintentionally) misrepresent the other to get the public to fear his opponent. All the while he will say, “we’re not being negative we are just stating what we believe and our policies differ greatly from our opponents.” Oh how sweet. No ill-intent at all.
Steve,
I think you hit on a good point. I see nothing “new” in Mohler’s theological position, unless “new” means younger than the last generation of SBC leaders.
Certainly, theologically, I have heard nothing “new” in regard to the Calvinist position.
Rick,
I don’t believe you. Of course you want us gone. We’ve been hearing about it in one way or another for the last three articles you have produced for Voices.
The article itself said it was about “combating Calvinism”. I’m supposed to believe that this particular language is just you folks defining what you believe when you use words like ‘combating’?
Do you honestly think that I would hold anything that Emir Caner said to be truthful? I heard him give a sermon on the evils of Calvinism. It demonstrated that he is simply clueless about the Doctrines of Grace.
Protestants have been pointing out to Catholics that their ‘traditions’ have nothing to do with the saving grace of Jesus Christ and has even less to do with the Holy Scriptures. Yet, here you good folks are misrepresenting what Calvinists believe. So yes Rick, I find it shameful and yes, passive aggressive.
My husband and I have been having serious discussions about moving on to a Reformed Baptist congregation. From what I’ve been reading here, some other reformed believers are considering the same type of move.
Yep, you may actually get your wish and the consequences that go with it.
Chief Katie and Husband: Don’t you dare. Not after I have been praying for nearly 39 years for another Great Awakening. It is almost here. Hang on! The most persevering people in history, according to the Intellectual Historians, are the folks who believe in Predestination, the most inviting of doctrines, the most evangelistic, missionary, and winsome, satisfying the soul with meaning and purpose. Just think. A 1000 generaions, a 100,000 years, and millions of planets and so many redeemed in Heaven even God doesn’t want to think of counting them (Rev.7:9)
Dr. Willingham,
You give me hope for some measure of unity. My husband and I try not to miss any of your comments. We have both learned a good deal from you and you are held in the highest respect.
The truth is we live less than 35 miles away from Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church where James White is an elder. We consider him to be a distinguished scholar and wonder if we aren’t being a bit foolish for not taking advantage of his knowledge since we live so close. Still, I’ve been a Baptist all my life and I’m loathe to turn my back on it. It’s a combination of things that we find not just doctrinally difficult, but at times, downright immoral actions of some of the leadership. The cover-up of the Darrel Gilyard case, Ed Young, The Caners et al, ad nauseum.
Your support and belief counters much of the bad and we hold your ideas regarding the gospel precious. We think of you as a statesman among us. We are praying about where God would lead us.
Because He lives……
Chief Katie,
I have to challenge you. Ed Young?? Caner(s)??? Cover-up of Darrel Gilyard??
Chief Petty Officer. There is more than one Ed Young. Not all Caners can be accused of wrong doing. Not every person in SBC “leadership” covered up for Gilyard, if any did at all.
You have not only painted here with a broad brush. You used “name brand paints” to do it.
CB,
Dont confuse them with the facts, Bro. They seem to be content and satisfied with their views. lol
David
“Dont confuse them with the facts, Bro. They seem to be content and satisfied with their views. lol”
If only there were facts passed along to us. LOL
Questions have been asked, but you and cb (and others) just won’t answer any questions. You avoid answers and point us to names and say “they aren’t heretics, so this is ok”. That is simply not enough for me, it should not be enough for anyone.
Walk us through how we misunderstand the issue. Show us how this statement differs from S-P. Don’t just assert it, prove it. That is a basic theological rule…prove, don’t just assert. If you are going to claim something is not true, you need to be able to prove it. I am willing to hear the explanation. I want to believe you. So, help me out here.
Jason G.,
I don’t really care what is “not enough” for you. Nonetheless, I will engage you to a degree in an effort to help you avoid calling me out as dishonest. That would be an error, so pay close attention to me.
In all honesty, I cannot sign the document. If you will notice, I did affirm Mike Bergman’s document he posted earlier this evening. I cannot sign the document because of Article Two. I have shared this with some folks who called me and wanted to know why I have not signed the document.
Nonetheless, as I have stated over and over, the men I personally know who signed this document are not heretics. They are not Arminians. They are not Pelagians, Semi or otherwise. The dog just won’t hunt and you guys need to put him back in the truck and sale him the first chance you get, ’cause like Elvis said, “He won’t run a rabbit and he ain’t no friend of mine.”
Debbie and fellows, that is the best and most honest answer I can give you. That is not trying to avoid anything. I am just simply trying to state that what I know is what I know and nothing more.
CB: Let’s look at the facts here. This document was published May 30. This was a week ago. They have gone article by article in the discussion of this document. They are currently on Article 2, they have published it separately for discussion. The wording is not changed and they have not mentioned that the wording will change. It seems it is going to stay as is and was intentionally worded as it is now.
If the wording were ever going to change why has this not been mentioned by anyone having to do with this document? Instead if you read the comments on SBCToday it is being defended with scripture I see being taken out of context if you will read the rest of the passages in full.
cb,
So my friend and brother in Christ, did I say that everyone covered up for Darrel Gilyard? I don’t think I did. But it seems some pretty heavy hitters did and they have yet to take any responsibility for it and a good many people suffered almost irrepairable harm because of it.
I’m not going to rehash the whole Caner episode. Dave will bounce me off of the blog for hijacking, and rightfully so. Just be assured that I personally find wrong doing on both parts and… I’ve heard Emir Caner address Calvinism in a sermon and it was a complete misrepresentation of the doctrine. I can send you a link so you may hear it for yourself if you’d like.
Do you honestly think that anyone was confused about my Ed Young comments? But just to avoid any misunderstanding if I have to speak of it again, I’ll make sure to use the name associated with his church and/ or the latest stunt he has pulled. Will that make you happy?
You know full well that any large organization has to be concerned with the company they keep and the leadership they produce.
I could have made my comments more palatable by not naming names, but somehow that seems cowardly. If I had only eluded to the problem, someone would have accused me of lying. When it comes to sexual assault, I’m not at all inclined to mince words as I was a victim of it at the age of 6. It turned out everyone in my family knew I was in danger, but no one did a thing because they didn’t want to ruffle any feathers.
You are someone I hold in the highest of esteem. But cb, I’m not going tip-toe through the places where we need to clean up our act. Doing nothing but whispering about issues behind closed doors only keeps sin running full steam ahead.
I don’t believe in spreading gossip. It’s no doubt sinful. I call ’em like I see ’em. Not even for someone I admire as much as you, will I become blind to the truth.
Chief Katie,
Take note here as to my concerns and know I desire you no ill. You referenced Ed Young. The guy who did the crazy stuff was Ed Young Jr. The Gilyard “cover-up” relating to certain individuals in the SBC was accusation and not proven. Actually, it can’t be proven because it did not really happen as presented on Baptist blogs.
Lastly, Emir Caner presented his position on Calvinism. He has been doing so for years. In doing so, he did nothing wrong. Emir Caner is a true follower of Jesus, an honorable man, a loyal husband and father, a well-educated church historian, and finally, he is doing a good job as the president of a Georgia Baptist college. And yes, I do consider him a friend. Therefore, I will defend him if I feel he has been carelessly accused of wrong doing of which I know he is not guilty.
I would defend you also, Chief Petty Officer Katie, because after all, you did stand in harm’s way and on watch to protect a people as they slept warmly in their beds, having no idea from what great enemies they actually have that folks like you have long protected them.
BTW, if you had been in my family, church or town when you were 6 and I had been made aware of your situation, I would have, with prejudice, intervened. My personal history and many witnesses will declare that to be true, so I sincerely wish I had of been there for you.
I put an Amen to CB’s wish that he could have stood in the way for you…But alas! as a counselor I know all too often, especially, as what happened to you was years ago in a time and circumstance when people were not sensitized to the reality of abuse and what needed to be done about it. I also think how the loosening of the rules on pornography has contributed to the increase in the number of cases, much to the detriment and harm to our children with effects lasting into adulthood. I compliment you on have achieved so much.
Well, Chief Katie, you made me laugh. I feel like saying to the other readers, what do you expect from a navy salt? But I have to tell you, they all make mistakes on such issues…and the “they” has to include us. Some of it has to do with inexperience, some from ignorance, some from evil desires to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And in the Bible we find some of the most outrageous examples of grace, e.g., David a murderer and an adulterer, and yet he is identified in the NT as a Patriarch and a Prophet (Acts 2). Wow! God bless, you and Mr. O yes, I do recognize the need to take a stand and speak up as malaise will ruin our testimony eventually, if we let it.
Dear Chief Katie: Thank you for your helpful comment. I have been praying for many on this blog by name, both those who are Sovereign Grace believers and those who are not. As to change, that is something you have to make your own decisions on as you have to live with it. I will say this, going out of Southern Baptists is no answer in and of itself. Wait until you find out that Sovereign Grace Reformed Baptists can be just as obnoxious as any Arminian any day of the week. I have friends in and our of the convention. Friends in out of Reformed Baptists that are not affiliated with the SBC and Reformed Baptists who are. Not all Arminians are obnoxious, this I say, lest any take my forgoing statement as a blanket condemnation. Neither are all of any persuasion marked by true godliness or true ungodliness. God cares for His people, and He has His reasons for their wanderings here and there. When He wants them to get it together, He will. What is really hard is to be faithful under the most trying of conditions. Send me a email to jimwillingham@att.net.
Dr. Willingham,
You made me chuckle just a bit here. I agree wholeheartedly that there are some folks out there associated with Sovereign Grace that often make my blood boil. Mean spirited, hard-headed, and exceedingly negative. I often have to sit and do some self-reflection because I wonder about folks who seem to be looking for sin under every rock of all creation. I assume it’s there, but know that as a Christian, if my life has no joy, then I missed the whole idea of the good news.
I don’t hold that Arminians are obnoxious. There are many here that I enjoy, respect and would feel comfortable sitting under their leadership. For goodness sakes I WAS ONE for most of my life and I’m pushing 60. I’m ignoring the fact that Arminian is not really the best description of protestants that don’t hold to Calvinism. I have fallen into the trap category errors here! Labels, labels, labels.
My husband is fully the leader of our home. He has not been a Christian as long as I have, but I acquiesce to his wisdom as God has placed him as the head of our household.
The infighting and division simply has gone too far. It wears me out and it seems to be the hallmark of southern Baptists.
There are treasures among the SBC. People such as yourself, Dave Miller, and so many more.
The Holy Spirit will lead us wherever we are meant to be.
Dear Chief Katie: Regards to you and your husband. Yes, Southern Baptists do fall into contentious wrangles that wears people out. However, that is only an indication that they are alive and free. When you hear of no disagreements, then you have cause to be suspicious. I know of one independent Sovereign Grace church where the folks never even got to vote on their new pastor, and even their pastor of many years would leave, too, when his preselected candidate turned out to be heretical on a point of importance. I had a friend who I would call an Arminian Southern Baptist. He had a Th.D. from New Orleans and a doctorate in Chiropractic, a brilliant, warm-hearted, and loving ministers. He also had boldness and courage. If you ever see the docudrama on Sin City, Phenix, Ala. *it was on Direct TV channel 256 a couple of weeks ago), you will hear the bad guy of the city make reference to a message preached in a church. Well, Dr. L.G. Meadows preached at a church in that city and he baptized the mob leaders wife and daughter and one of his henchmen who said he would be killed and he was. Dr. Meadows’ deacons had to carry guns to guard him. We cannot simply leave such people who are as devout as any Sovereign Grace believers; we are salt and light. We are mean to go it alone in many instances, in order to reach more.
I rejoice to see folks like you and your husband, and I pray that you will hang in there and be people of unity and leadership and inspiration until the others become inclined to something better, deeper, and more soul satisfying. God bless, you and your family.
Q: Should Monergists and Synergists live, fellowship, do ministry together, etc… in the same church/denomination?
If yes, then live into the tension.
If no, then isn’t that an argument for an amicable parting?
Suppose you’re a synergist under a monergist pastor. Will you promise not to undermine his preaching and teaching which have monergistic elements?
Suppose you’re a monergist under a synergist pastor. Will you promise not to undermine his preaching and teaching which have synergistic elements?
Suppose you’re a monergist pastor. Will you have synergists flourish and spread synergism throughout your church?
Suppose you’re a synergist pastor. Will you have monergists flourish and spreach monergism throughout your church?
Are you willing to have diversity in unity with regards to monergism and synergism being exercised in the local churches in the SBC?
There is the claim that this misrepresents the beliefs of Calvinists. OK, I may be able to concede this, but:
1) labeling all non-Calvinists as Arminians is just as disengenuous.
2) please, point by point elaborate on the misrepresentations. what exactly is misrepresented?
I’m not asking for this in a mean spirit, but I really want to know. I’ve been seeing this claim pop-up but no Calvinist in the blogs I’ve been following has taken the time, within the comments to list, one-by-one, the misrepresentations. Without this, for me, it’s like saying “you’re wrong” without giving any details as to why I wrong. Just please, list and respond, that’s all I ask.
Oh, and another item. I take it that some of you see belief/faith as a work. Those you are calling synergists might not agree with this view. For myself, I do not see this as any kind of deed of righteousness or goodness, but, as Rick illustrated earlier, as an acceptance of a work that is entirely God’s. He calls; He saves; the Spirit moves; I merely respond with acceptance. I think one the big issues in this whole debate is our use of the same terminology (in some cases) but we each have a different meaning for the same word.
In light of that, a question. In regard to sovereignty, what does this word mean to you. For me it simply means that no one can tell someone who is sovereign what to do. The United States is a sovereign country. No other country can force us to do what we do not want to do (theoretically then), yet we can willing respond to a request. In the same way, the US is sovereign over its citizenry, yet does not control every aspect of every citizen’s life. A king is sovereign in his kingdom, but that does not mean that there cannot be civil war and rebellion, though he is a legitimate king and it is his dominion. So what does soveriegnty mean to you?
Sorry, didn’t mean to take so long, but these questions have been brewing throughout the day.
May God’s grace and peace be with you all.
Rick, I would agree that you fit into a traditionalist category, the tradition of Elder Ruebin Ross. I took notes on his biography over forty years ago. He was won to Christ by calvinists, baptized and ordained by such Sovereign Grace believers, spent most of his ministry among those very people, and when he died his funeral was preached by a Sovereign Grace Minsiter, Dr. J.M. Pendleton. Most of his preaching was like yours appears to be, what you call traditional preaching. Unfortunately, a lot of folks were half converted by such traditional approaches (they can be half converted by almost any approach (cf The parable of the sower and the soils on which he sowed. But we are in earnest and it is serious. Our prayers have been for a Third Great Awakening for 39 years (others have prayed way longer than I have…and some of them are already gone to glory), and the time for the answer to such pleas draws nigh, One thing is sure: We know the theology which produced the First and Second Great Awakenings and launched the Great Century of Missions. Of that there can be no doubt, and the fact that the same theology launched Southern Baptists into missions. As that time draws nigh, we can expect more of this theology to become popular and to be preached and believed until the very power of Heaven begins to fall in blessing upon the truth it represents and the multitudes began to awaken. What a glorious time that shall be.
Well, I certainly join you in praying for a Third Great Awakening.
While I don’t know anything about Elder Reuben Ross except what you’ve told me, I do know that, unlike Ross, I was not saved under Calvinist evangelism, baptism and ordination.
If indeed my preaching is like his, I only hope I am not making too many half converts. I’m not even sure what to do with one of those. Should I only baptize them half way?
Rick: What it winds up being is freedom for ministers to do their own deciding. People change their minds. Consider how Finney was minsiter to by a Calvinist, Rev. Gale, who later chnaged over the Finney’s views. Finney later won a boy and his father. The boy became a noted theologian who was much more calvinistic than Finney. I refer to A.H.Strong, whose systematic theology I outlined along with three works before I was ordained (Finney, Thiessen, and Bledsoe’s Theodicy were the other works). Dr. Page, I note,. has wisely chosen not to sign the statement even though theologically, I suppose, he is somewhat of the same view point, having written a work against TULIP while pastoring. He wants all parties to a situation to have a hand in creating a consensus, because he realizes as I think you will upon reflection, that we must have a consensus agreement where all parties have a stake in the outcome, a reason for being, raison d’etre. We have too big a mission program to put it in jeopardy due to every one insisting on having his own way. We must have those items in common that keep us bound, with an allowance for differences that can be preached, and the freedom for the individual to change from one view to another, after further examination. The Life and Times of Elder Reuben Ross by, I think it was, a convert of his, Dr. J.M. Pendleton, whose theology was more in line with the leaders of the SBC. Dr. Boyce had students in his classes that disagreed with him. I know of one instance. Freedom to think, explore, examine, investigate is a priceless jewel, and we must do all we can to keep it…even though we might differ vigorously with others on some issues. The Moderates would probably still be in power, as far as I am concerned, if they had not decided it was all or nothing. That was their undoing, because to challenge a Baptist on his belief in the Bible is a losing proposition. I remember telling the Dean and a Professor who had been Harry Truman’s pastor, “If you fellows had some verbal inspirationists on this faculty (SEBTS), you would not have so much fussing.”(It was just fussing in the early to mid-seventies.). They responded, “O we can’t have them.” And I thought, “That means you couldn’t have me.” It lead me to vote the conservative side, even though I did not always care for all that conservatives did either. After all, we all are sinners. But it was really hard to find out how bad the Bible believing folks could be, too. Although not all were so bad, there was enough of them to make life very uncomfortable. There was the calvinism issue (and I still prefer the term Sovereign Grace due to its more biblical connotations), a second marriage (my wife and I have been married it will be 43 three years this coming Sept.5., and our son has been a Southern Baptist pastor for 13 years in one church. He said to us, “If you had not been faithful, I would not be where I am today” (he was then a student in his third year at SEBTS)), and now age. We love souls and want to win them to Christ, but we are also aware of the fact that it is the Lord who must do the saving. Most people are not aware of the deep and soul satisfying meanings of the Sovereign Grace message and ministry; it enhances life with meaning and purpose.
You might be interested to know that it was the Sovereign Grace folks who developed the view of allowing for differences, a I Cors.13 sort of thing, if you get my drift.
Note: Reuben Ross correction
I believe what this document stating the beliefs of Traditional SB’s. It fits my theology very well. And, since I am not anti Calvinist, and I would definitely be against trying to kick Calvinists out of the SBC; I appreciate the parts which read…
“There is no thought that this document reflects what all Southern Baptists believe or that it should be imposed upon all Southern Baptists.”
“While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.”
I appreciate the above quotes from the document. And, I love my Calvinists, Reformed Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I can work alongside of them, and worship with them, in the SBC. I do not want them to be kicked out, or left out of SBC life. But, I do agree with this document, and I think its a step in the right direction for SBC life. We need to move beyond Calvinsim and Arminianism…and embrace what Baptists believe about the Bible. We should be Christians, who are Baptists….and leave wiggle room for minor points of theological differences.
David
David: Do you agree with what the document says about Calvinists, and what it says they believe?
This has been a pretty lively, but reasoned discussion, but it shows signs of descending into a place I’m not comfortable letting it go.
Be respectful, even in disagreement.
“it shows signs of descending into a place I’m not comfortable letting it go.”
You mean New Jersey?
New Jersey is a myth, like Calvinists who don’t believe personal faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.
Where is SBC Outpost when you need a good showdown? 😉
I am a layman. I came to be a Southern Baptist from a Methodist upbringing and so was taught the Arminian point of view regarding Soteriology. When I became SB (39 years ago) I noticed the primary difference in the teaching regarding salvation was: Methodists teach you can lose your salvation while Southern Baptists teach you cannot.
The Methodists teach that if you have “freewill” to choose Christ then (logically), to preserve that freewill, you must also have the freedom to walk away.
It seemed to me that the Methodist position (on the surface) was more coherent than the Baptist position — that all unregenerate persons had the freewill to choose Christ, but not the freewill to walk away.
Now Baptists would address that by saying: once born-again/regenerated, and converted, the “new Creation,” with a new nature, will not WANT/desire to walk away.
And I would agree with that.
But to agree with that, and to be logically (and Biblically) consistent, I must also hold that: “the man without the Spirit/natural man [unregenerate] (1) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, (2) for they are foolishness to him, (3) and he cannot understand them, (4) because they are Spiritually discerned/appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14). That is an explicit statement, and It seems to me that Nicodemus would be the (unregenerate) poster-child illustration of the truth of it in John 3.
Now the way many Southern Baptists side-step this is to proffer a quasi Prevenient Grace view. But I find no explicit text to support that view in the Bible (in fact, I believe that 1 Corinthians 2:14 — as well as many other passages — destroys an argument for Prevenient Grace).
After many years of detailed Scripture study, it seemed to me that that Regeneration must preceded Saving Faith. That view seemed to be the most consistent with the teachings of Christ, John, Peter and Paul (taught in many places). I was convinced by Scripture that Regeneration must precede Saving Faith.
But I have no animosity at all towards my Arminian (or non-Calvinist) brothers — or by whatever idiom they prefer to be called.
My pastor and I attended the BUILDING BRIDGES Conference at Ridgecrest in 2007. There, we were presented with a LifeWay study that noted there were approximately 4,000 SBC pastors/churches that were Calvinist or Calvinist-leaning. The study furthermore revealed that there was NO statistical difference in Baptisms between same-size SBC churches that were Calvinistic-leaning and those that were not (exploding the myth that Calvinists are less evangelistic). Those in my church who believe Regeneration must precede Saving Faith, are significantly more evangelistic than most who do not share our view.
The LifeWay study also noted that recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates who were Calvinist-leaning, were slightly *more* evangelistic than their non-Calvinist peers.
The same LifeWay study also revealed that (for 2006, the year of the study) there were approximately 9,404 non-Calvinist SBC pastors who baptized “not one;” there were approximately 2,981 non-Calvinist SBC pastors who baptized “just one,” and approximately 12,384 non-Calvinist SBC pastors who only baptized between “two and five.”
The indictment of this study is obvious with regard to [some] non-Calvinist pastors in the SBC — brothers, rather than continually berating your Calvinistic brethren, you need to get your own houses in order.
Can’t we just all get along? Are we not all seeking (commanded) to share Christ with a lost world?
Congratulations to the layman are in order. He proves the point I hold and believe. Lay people think, too. They study and reflect and reach some remarkably good conclusions. At time they outdo their pastors. They justify the view that the government of the church under the Lord rests with the body, His body. Each one has a say, a right to participate as equals, to present cases for causes and positions that they hold….And this rigamarole over calvinism and traditionalism is a tempest in a teapot. We are, so to speak, joined at the hip. The calvinists thought this idea up of allowing for some differences, e.g., that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to the communion (principles of Union for the Separate and Regular Baptists in Va.1787). What really got them was the fact that both parties got ugly toward one another after they had both suffered for the Gospel for years in the days of persecution and had called one another brothers at such times. After they had done a temporary split (it was temporary in view of the Union produced after the fact), they were so ashamed of themselves that they wept when they got back together. During the period of 1740-1820 which encompassed the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions and the founding of the US Government, Protestantism which had been a Gospel recovery effort, contentious, combative, and conflicted, was transformed into a an outgoing, we will win you with persuasion, appealing, attractive,caring movement of considerable allure. Southern Baptists, except for the big problem of slavery and racism, was in the forefront of that incredible transformation which even now is reaching into old Rome. and beginning, I hope, to change it and its ways. The fuse has about reached the explosive power of the Gospel to alter, change, renew, and bless the whole earth in the Third Great Awakening for a 1000 generations
Dr. Willingham,
Thank you for the kind words. Following is my understanding of “the will.” Would you please critique it?
The unregenerate human will is certainly free in one sense, but it is not free in an autonomous sense (even the regenerate person cannot exercise “freewill” to choose never to sin again); there are ALWAYS limitations upon “the will.” The will (regenerate or unregenerate) is free to choose from among any alternatives that are consistent with its nature. But, at the same time, that will is constrained to choose from *only* those alternatives that are consistent with its nature (called “free agency” in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000).
Spiritual choices are therefore unavailable to the unregenerate man because Scripture tells us he: is a slave to sin, dead in his trespasses and sins, loves the darkness rather than the light, does not come to the Light, does not seek for God, does not understand the things of the Spirit, does not accept the things of the Spirit, they are foolishness to him, for they are Spiritually discerned.
For those who believe that the *deciding factor* in salvation is unregenerate man’s freewill decision, consider the following conundrums:
(1.) Does this not turn the Scriptures upside down and make fallen man the potter and God the clay? (Romans 9:20-21). Instead of praying as did Jesus, “Thy will be done,” it becomes “My will be done.” And Jesus would have no power to accomplish His God-given mission to “seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10), and “save his people from their sins” (Luke 23:35), but would be relegated (at best) to extending merely a heart-felt invitation to the unregenerate sinner. And “all the Father gives Me will come to Me,” (John 6:37) would be reversed to: all who give themselves to the Father will come to Me. And “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed,” (Acts 13:48) would have to read: as many as freely chose to appoint themselves believed. The God of all creation would not be Sovereign over His own creation, but His creation would be sovereign over Him (with respect to salvation).
(2.) If God has no power to “actually save” anyone, but can only extend an invitation, a helping hand that all men may reject, then why pray to God for the salvation of anyone? To be logically consistent, you must pray only that God would extend the hand of salvation to the person of your concern – but His hand would be stopped at half the distance (by man’s “freewill”) in hope that the unregenerate person —
spiritually “dead in his transgressions and sins” (Ephesians 2:1), “loving the darkness rather than the light” (John 3:19), thinking: “the message of the Cross is foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:18), “not seeking for God” (Romans 3:10-12), and “not understanding or accepting the things of the Spirit of God; thinking they are foolishness” (1 Cor. 2:14)
— might somehow reach up and take hold of it. The “arm of the Lord” would indeed be too short to save (Isaiah 59:1) The message of the Cross would indeed make sense to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18), the Camel could now pass through the eye of the needle (because what Christ says “is impossible with man,” (Matt. 19:26) would become possible with man), the bad tree could bear good fruit. The God of all creation would Himself be powerless to restore His own fallen creation, but the fallen creation would have the power to hold itself up for restoration.
But Jesus said: “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes” (John 5:21), and the context is eternal life, not biological. Scripture sounds very much as if the deciding factor rests with the Godhead.
I have heard anti-Calvinists argue: “Predestination [in the Calvinistic sense] damages the character of God.” But I ask: How is it any “less damaging” to the character of God to (go ahead and) create persons who He “foresees” will exercise their “freewill,” reject His Son, and spend eternity in Hell? Would it not have been more merciful and loving to have left those poor souls uncreated?
How is it damaging to the character of God to save some out of an entire group that deserves condemnation? Finally, God made no provision for salvation for the angels who sinned?but He did for human beings. God treated one group in His creation differently than another group in His creation. So how is *that* not damaging to the character of God?
But it is not !
I have heard some posit: “God, in His Sovereignty grants unregenerate man freewill; therefore, God is Sovereign and unregenerate man has freewill” (sounds elegant initially).
It seems to me, however, that with God, Sovereignty is an all or nothing proposition. “Partial Sovereignty,” is an oxymoron with respect to God. If God were to grant away even one molecule of His Sovereignty then you would be forced to concede that some event could take place that would be completely out of His control. God’s will could be thwarted in some way. And were that the case, the possibility would exist that at least some of His promises could not be counted upon. So I reject that proposition.
“It seems to me, however, that with God, Sovereignty is an all or nothing proposition”
God is not ‘in competition’ with His Creation or His Creatures.
He doesn’t ‘need’ us, therefore He doesn’t have to manipulate us. We were willed into existence by God out of love and all His Creation shows forth His Glory. If He were not sovereign, He would not be able to gift us with consciences and with choice.
Sovereignty and free will were never ‘in competition’ . . . because He IS God, and He competes with no one.
OK,
I read through all 85 posts to date and I am left with one nagging question: “Could someone tell me which side I’m on?”
Frank,
In His Sovereignty, God has chosen to give you the free will to choose which side you are on.
We are all on the same side, generally, the side of Jesus. But like the family in which half the members prefer pizza while the other half prefer barbecue, you are free to weigh in according to the position of your own choosing.
You are on God’s side, dipstick. (hope you appreciate a little humor)
Rick: Just curious, are you in full agreement with the document? Do you agree with what the document says about Calvinists and what they believe?
Also, do you think this document is going anywhere beyond the blogosphere? Do you think there will be an attempt to introduce this in some official way at the next or some future SBC?
Thanks
Bill Mac,
Yes, I’m in agreement with the document, although I did not get hung up in the preamble. Frankly, I did not view it from a Calvinist perspective at all, but just from a soteriological perspective. Look at Article One, for example. While clearly disavowing the concept of a double predestinarian view, it says nothing directly about Calvinists at all. It does not call them names. It is not ugly. It just makes a statement I believe:
Article One: The Gospel
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved. We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.
As for how the document will be used, perhaps it will indeed be introduced for some formal vote on the convention floor, although that may be rather unnecessary. The list of signees is growing rapidly. Through electronic communication, people can “vote” for it simply by e-signing the statement. Why go to the convention floor when you can just gather the names electronically?
http://carm.org/semi-pelagianism
Here’s the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry’s definition of semi-pelagianism. Read it and then read the section of this document on man. The reason many on this post deny that this document is semi-pelagian or at least leaning that way is that they don’t even see that what the have been taught all their lives (at least since 1925) has been a form of semi-pelagianism. I would bet many you could open this link below and return here and say you agree with semi-pelagianism. That’s fine, but let’s just call it what it is.
Well, Steve, I would rather not be stuck with that “semi-pelagianism” label now that I’ve finally embraced the term “Traditionalism.” (I did not title my post “I Am A Semi-Pelagianist!”
It is fair to say that Traditionalism emphasizes the “free will” response that God, in His sovereignty, has chosen to enable men to make. As I have shared earlier, I do not really view man’s acceptance of God’s salvation as some form of “cooperation” or “work.”
Thus, I would have to deny your label and suggest, in what you may perceive as irony, that you are, in fact, misrepresenting my views–the very thing most people on this board insist the statement has done with regard to their Calvinistic views.
Rick,
I want to commend you for the gracious way you’ve dealt with all the anger and negative statements made towards you in this comment stream. My view of you just keeps going up, when seeing the way you handle the harsh statements made towards you for simply stating what you believe. God bless you, Brother.
David
Thank you, David. Your words are very kind–and appreciated.
Rick Patrick,
I want to second Vol’s commendation toward you. I usually read every comment of a thread in which I am engaged and I am constantly amazed at the way you handle the “hits” you take. You are a true class act with true grit. As Louis L’Amour wrote in many of his greater theological works, “You are a man I could ride the river with any day.”
Likewise, CB. You are a true friend. Thanks for the kind word.
How do you unsubscribe from this feed? This is far too distracting for me. I have ADD.
Sorry excuse. I have Hyper Active Attention Deficit Disorder, a real canard for a polymath who had to endure the long rows of cotton chopping in the spring and summer and picking in the fall.
Rick,
Also, it does not matter what you want to be labeled. When you have semi-pelagian views you are a semi-pelagian. That is how it works.
I have calvinistic views, therefore, I am a calvinist.
I have Traditionalist views. Please call me by the term referencing the statement I have signed. You may call me other, meaner, names, but I am asking you not to do that.
Great, I’m a traditionalist too! Our Baptist traditions just differ a bit. Mine goes back to 1689, not just 1925…but we’re both traditionalist. Common ground finally! It’s good to know that simple semantics can bury a 500 year-old debate. Now I’ll get back to sermon prep since the Word should trump both our traditions.
While I will do that Rick, call you by the term Traditionalist, folks are still going to know that your definitions of traditionalism are practically for all intents and purposes the same as those for semi-pelagianism. You know the old saying a rose by any other name is still a rose. Me, I want to be called a Sovereign Grace believer, because the predecessors of Baptists, the Lollards in this case and the Waldensians in others, were getting burned for these TULIP truths before John Calvin was ever born, let alone born again. And Rick, these doctrines are all invitations to be saved; they are therapeutic paradoxes to help the helpless over come their helpless conditions.
For the record, I want to be called “Batman,” “Ninja,” “Chuck Norris,” or “Jack Bauer” from now on. If you don’t call me by one of these names, you’re not talking about my theological system.
“For the record, I want to be called “Batman,” “Ninja,” “Chuck Norris,” or “Jack Bauer” from now on. If you don’t call me by one of these names, you’re not talking about my theological system.”
Wait a minute. Does your theological system have the words “Batman,” “Ninja,” “Chuck Norris,” or “Jack Bauer” in the title?
If not, then you can’t claim the name. Sorry.
Both Ninja and Batman have eastern religious ties. I’m pretty sure Jack is unsaved, although totally awesome at his job. So I’ll go with the Christian, Chuck Norris.
Actually, Chuck, while I don’t mind calling you this, it would match my request for the Traditionalist label better if you had some kind of doctrinal statement referencing Chuck Norris in the title.
Look, folks, there is no way we can have a discussion like this without it being a little confrontational.
But if your only purpose is to comment to enumerate the character failings of another person, your comment is not desired and will be deleted.
Talk about the subject, but leave out personal attacks – from either side.
Note: I know I divided the foregoing up, separating the materials in to two paragraphs. When I hit the send button and saw the finished product, it was all one long paragraph.!!!!!
IS IT
“But as many as have BEEN REGENERATED, to them gave He the power to believe on His Name, even to those who have become the children of God.”
(John 1:12)
OR
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)
IS IT
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hath everlasting life believeth on me.”
OR
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” (John 6:47)
I respect your right to contend, based upon the Scriptures, that God changed you and then you trusted Him. I simply believe, based on the Scriptures, that I trusted Him and He changed me.
IF, and perhaps everyone will not come to the same conclusion, but IF the Baptist Faith and Message, as you claim, requires the Calvinist ordo salutis then Dr. Page’s committee will have to address that issue and suggest wording more acceptable to 1/3 of our Seminary Presidents, six of our former Convention Presidents, dozens of Professors, and well over a hundred Pastors, who apparently do not see things that way.
Sorry for so many typos.
Again, let us remember who we are. If our “tradition” has led us away from Scripture then it is dangerous. If our past confessions have been based on Scripture and they were sufficient but now we have a “traditional” understand that differs…shouldn’t that scare us. Didn’t we already fight in the late 70’s for God’s Word above man’s opinion, above tradition. We are not Catholic! Tradition holds no water. I believe that a Reformed resurgence IS THE RESULT of the Conservative Resurgence and return to the Bible. I think we are just getting back to the Bible, back to the roots of the faith. Tradition? Who cares. So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God? (Those are not my words BTW).
In the early days of the Church, before the formation of the Canon, the Church had spread out from Jerusalem to Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, etc.
And in these early centers of Christianity, it was the practice of the faithful to read certain sacred Scriptures in community prior to the ‘thanksgiving’ (Lord’s Supper).
When it came time to form the Canon of the New Testament, the Church met in council and, verifying the ‘tradition’ of which sacred Scriptures had been read FROM THE BEGINNING, in all the early centers of the Church, CONSISTENTLY OVER TIME,
the Church was able to determine which ‘books’ to include in the Canon of the New Testament.
So ‘tradition’ among the early Christian people pre-dating the formation of the formal Canon, was extremely important to the Church in this way.
It is interesting also to note that, if people of faith wish to understand the early Church and what it taught pre-dating the Canon,
it is good to examine the shared beliefs of those first centers of Christianity;
because what was shared among them, likely came out from the Apostles in Jerusalem.
Christiane: You ought to read Dr. John Gill’s Cause of God and Truth which provides quotes from the early church writings which indicate that they believed and preached the Sovereign Grace views of the TULIP doctrines which is what the Traditionalists are trying to stomp out of existence…even falling into the folly of semi-pelagianism as Roger Olson, our leading Arminian theologian indicates.
I’m not an Arminian. I’m not a Pelagian. And I don’t want to rob God of any glory. He loved me first. I placed my faith in Him. He saved me.
IF The Baptist Faith and Message does not allow for the above without charges of heresy, which I have heard stated and implied here and elsewhere, than this Statement so many Calvinists claim to be totally uncalled for has in fact clarified a vitally important issue for Southern Baptists to address. I have confidence that Dr. Page’s committee will address it in a manner that will NOT brand as HERETICS the majority of the Southern Baptist Convention, including me.
I, for one, do not wish to suffer the fate of Servetus.
Servetus? Really? Calvin was a sinner just like the rest of us. That sad and sinful incident has nothing to do with this debate.
I did not brand you a heretic. I simply believe that this document can lead to it. It was poorly crafted. No heretic wants to be called a heretic. Mormons are heretics. But they don’t think so. Simply saying that “I am not one…” doesn’t mean one isn’t. NOW LET ME BE CLEAR…I am not saying you are. Nor am I saying you are tying to rob God of glory. But I do want eyes to be open to the slippery slope. No one openly embraced heresy intentionally, it creeps in. That’s how Paul speaks of it…creeping in unnoticed. If, out of civility and false unity we avoid seeing potential heresy then we are fools and not the Bereans as we are called to be.
So, with that, I ask you…my brother in Christ, to interact with the Scriptures I posted. And by the way, I do not believe you are the majority. The majority (60%) are sitting at home as lost as can be. I certainly don’t want them writing our confession of faith or telling me what it means to be a traditional Baptist.
“I don’t want to rob God of any glory. He loved me first. I placed my faith in Him. He saved me.” Again, I am not saying you are one…but an Arminian and Pelagian could say the exact same thing…as could many heretical groups (I do not believe Arminians are heretical BTW – matter of fact I think they can logically argue their soteriology better than what I’m seeing in the “traditional” camp). Let’s make sure we are interacting with the wording of the BFM and the Scriptures.
And still no one has answered this for me. Why is the BFM not enough? It was a good and broad umbrella that we could peacefully co-exist under. No calvinist I know of felt the need to craft a more narrow document to try to get a few hundred people to sign and then claim majority opinion. The vast majority of practicing (forget the 60%) of Baptist can gladly sign on to the BFM, but I’m not sure about the 300 who signed the traditionalist revision because it openly contradicts it in various places.
Also, in my church I have had folks of a Reformed persuasion try to get us to adopt a more Reformed confession of faith. I have told them very clearly “no.” The BFM is sufficient and at our church we do not fly the flag of Reformed theology. We have a church with a lot of homeschoolers, several who want us to be more “family-integrated” (another debate), many Reformed and many who are not. I have said clearly to our church and I say it to our denomination…we will not fly the flag of family-integrated church, we will not fly the flag of homeschooling, we will not fly the flag of Reformed theology…we will fly the flag of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ALONE. I beg the signers of this document to do the same. The BFM allows us all to do that.
I would like to see the signers of this document begin to revoke their names from it and embrace the unity that we have under the BFM. There has never been any calvinistic attempt to hijack the denomination…nor will there ever be. Nor should there be a “traditionalist” attempt.
“Why is the BFM not enough?…No calvinist I know of felt the need to craft a more narrow document to try to get a few hundred people to sign…”
Here is a Calvinist document more narrow than the Baptist Faith and Message that some Southern Baptists are REQUIRED to sign in order to be employed at a Southern Baptist Seminary supported by Cooperative Program dollars.
http://www.founders.org/abstract.html
If Calvinists can sign more narrow confessions than the Baptist Faith and Message, why should anyone else be denied this opportunity?
I don’t believe that document is much more narrow than the BFM, I think it lines up very well…but I’ll grant your argument. So, if the SWBTS wanted to adopt the “traditional” document as operating document for the seminary then great! Go right ahead, I will not agree with and won’t go there…just like can reject the Abstract and thus decide not to go to Southern. But that’s not what is happening here.
Steve: If SWBTS adopted the statement under consideration, they would surely do so in disregard to the Founder of SWBTS and many of its faculty across the years. Consider how B.H. Carroll came down rather forceful on the idea of one believing due to having been ordained to eternal life in Acts.13:48. Consider his remarks on Ephs.1 and Roms.8 and 9. And then there were those like Curtis Vaughan who invited my brother-in-law along with his fellow students to try and change him (Dr. Vaughan) on the doctrines of grace as they began their study of Ephs.1. If memory serves correctly, my brother-in-law ways they spent six weeks trying to change Dr. Vaughan. However, like he warned them, “Better men than you have tried and have failed,” my brother-in-law and his classmates failed.
While we are on the founding of SWBTS, it should be noted that SWBTS which was once our largest seminary was founded by a man who was divorced and remarried. Yes, Dr. B.H. Carroll was divorced and remarried. His grounds for the divorce was adultery (his first wife took up with another man while he was away in the Civil War). In any case, it tells us of how God can use anyone with such a problem in His service.
Steve,
I rather think that IS what is happening here. SWBTS faculty and leaders along with NOBTS faculty and leaders, seem to be very much at odds with SBTS and SEBTS. Right?
If they are at odds, then clarify the doctrinal statement that must be adhered to in order to teach at their seminaries. No one has taken the Abstract of Principles, created a preamble for it that intentionally generates a boogeyman and straw man out of those who differ from it, and then claimed it to be the majority view of the denomination. However, in order to teach at SBTS you have to sign it. Nothing else. So this is NOT what is happening with the “traditionalist” document. Not at all. I know it is not being forced on anyone, but it is causing serious and unnecessary division and confusion.
My desire is to see men openly debate these issues with the Scriptures. Openly, carefully, and charitably. As, Mohler and Patterson did at the convention a few years ago.
Rick,
Certainly you realize that document is part of the founding of those schools and pre-dates the BFM, right?
To equate the Abstract of Principles with this document is more than a little intellectually dishonest.
Naw, it ain’t dishonesty: It is ignorance.
Dear Rick: The Abstract of Principles which you reference so unthinkingly was the basis on which Southern Seminary was formed. It was written by Basil Manly, Jr., with the help of A.M. Poindexter (and perhaps a few others). The Abstract has some some interesting points of connection with the Sandy Creek Baptist Confession of 1816, mainly with reference to man’s spiritual inability and God’s efficacious call to salvation. I will leave them for you to research; it will do you good to look at what the fathers of our oldest seminary had to say. These will include Basil Manly, Sr., and James Petigru Boyce. Manly, Sr., served on the committee that drew up the Sandy Creek Confession of 1816 which committee was chaired by Rev. Luther Rice, the father of missions among Southern Baptists, even among practically all Baptists. Senior was clerk of Sandy Creek Assn., having been converted a little over a year previously and having been called to the ministry of the word. A precocious young man who was invited to move to South Carolina by a former pastor from Sandy Creek, Elder W.T. Brantley, who was also an educator. Manly, attended South Carolina College (now the Univ. of South Carolina). Then he helped to establish a small church which many years later, Dr. R.G. Lee would pastor. Then he received a call to the First Baptist Church of Charleston in 1825, where he served until about 1836. It was about 1835 when he wrote an article that was published in Baptist papers at the South, calling for the establishment of a Seminary for the training of Southern Baptist ministers. He then proceed to serve as President of the Univ. of Alabama. Eventually, he returned to South Carolina, and pastored churches there. In 1857,1858, and 1859, he served as President of three educational conventions of Southern Baptists which provided the framework and methods for the formation of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He quite literally was the Father of our oldest institution. He also suggested during that period the need for a seminary at New Orleans. He could well be said to be the father and grandfather of all our seminaries. Manly served as the first President of the Board of Trustees of Southern Serminary, and a preacher boy from his pastorate at the First Baptist Church of Charleston (he actually laid his hand on Boyce’s head, when the latter was a lad of about 10 years of age and said, “he will be a preacher,” or something to that effect, Boyce served as the first President of Southern Seminary as well as its first Professor of Systematic Theology. In addition, after the War, Boyce carried the seminary on his own shoulders financially as the SBC had not the means to do it (Boyce’s father had been a cotton factor and owned factories and even had investments outside of the South. My Professor of Baptist History at Southeastern, Dr.Ed. Pruden, as he told my class, encouraged Dr. Boyce’s daughters who were members of the FBC of Washington, DC, to give their family silver tea service to Southern Seminary). Now, Rick, Dr. Boyce sets forth the theology of the First Baptist Church of Charleston and the Charleston Baptist Association, the same theology as that advocated by Dr. John Gill (the first Baptist Theologian of note outside of Baptist circles -awarded a D.D. degree by the Univ. of Glasgow), the theology of the Regular Baptists and of the Separate Baptists as FBC of Charleston had had Separate Baptist pastors for about a total of 50-60 years (Dr. Richard Furman and Dr. Basil Manly, Sr.). Their theology is calvinistic, but it is not mean spirited. The men are gentle in their dealings with those who differ with them. One student from Dr. Boyce’s class twitted him for his calvinism, and Dr. Boyce spoke with a great sense of practically tearful concern that he wished he could have reached him with the doctrines of grace. Rick there are people who have been praying for a Great Awakening longer than you have been alive. They did not pray for a revival of calvinism per se. Even I shudder at the thought of cold dead doctrine controlling people, but this I know: The theology of the Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions and the launching of the SBC and its first institutions was the theology of Sovereign Grace. Knowing that, I am not surprised that the theology is coming back. In order to have an Awakening, you have to have the theology that produces it. Taken rightly, calvinism is the most productive of zeal and passion for Christ’s sake; it is the most productive of freedom. Behold! Religious liberty comes from two calvinists, Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, when it comes to being put into law and effect. And note the freedom allowed by the Separate and Regular Baptists.
Very good, Steve, very good!
Why exactly do I care if the Abstract of Principles was published in the 1800’s and the Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation was published last week?
They BOTH conform to the Baptist Faith and Message while narrowing their own soteriological commitments within it. This is something we permit as Southern Baptists. We are allowed to actually say what we believe and sign statements if we like.
Yes, the TIMING is different and the SIGNERS are different. One is REQUIRED at a seminary, while the other is OPTIONAL among the entire denomination. No one has required any of the 300+ signers to do it in order to be employed.
Bottom line: There is a precedent for a Southern Baptist confessional statement OTHER THAN the Baptist Faith and Message. It is not only currently being USED. It is currently being REQUIRED in certain situations. I would argue that this stipulation alone makes it even more of a threat to our unified confessional statement than last week’s statement of ten articles, which are totally voluntary for pastors, denominational workers and laymen.
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Stevie Boy! Stop that pony before he runs off the cliff of theological arrogance and just down-right rude behavior. Let’s walk that pony some and cool him out a little.
You stated that you did not “brand” Rick Patrick, and obviously many, many other faithful men of God as heretics. Yet, you make the following statement:
“I simply believe that this document can lead to it. It was poorly crafted. No heretic wants to be called a heretic. Mormons are heretics. But they don’t think so. Simply saying that “I am not one…” doesn’t mean one isn’t.”
Some people might say, “Steve did not make himself very clear.” Some might even say, “Steve does not have a very good grasp upon the Scripture or Christian theology and history, especially Baptist history.” Some may say, “Steve, is just talking out both sides of his mouth.”
So tell us, Steve. What are you really trying to communicate here when you make such a statement that might seem in the minds of some that you equate Southern Baptists who wrote this document and those who affirmed it with their signatures with Mormon heretics?
I sincerely apologize if I didn’t communicate well. I am as fired up about this as anyone and if I communicated that the men who signed this document are equated to Mormon heretics I apologize. My point is simple…no heresy starts off with the intention of being a heresy. We are not there yet. I do however believe that this document (unless further clarified) leans toward Pelagianism and sounds at the very least semi-pelagian. Both have been condemned as heresies. Is it not the loving thing to do warn brothers when we see such a thing. If you feel my theology is not in line with Scripture or my history is off base then please let us dialogue. Show me the Scriptures that make my theology bad. Let us openly debate. Show me the historical documents that line up with this traditionalist document. I am asking sincerely, not out of arrogance. I am a wretched sinner like us all, and much of my theology is bad as I am sure God will reveal on that Day…but for now, seeing in this mirror dimly, I need you my brothers to help me out here.
Steve,
I do not know every man or woman who signed the document. Yet, I do know many of them. Many of them were faithful through trying times in recent years to make sure that whatever Southern Baptist seminary you attended was free of liberalism and a great number of others things, all of them bad.
Many of them have preached the biblical gospel and led in the growing of strong New Testament churches. Some currently teach, and serve in the administrations of our seminaries and colleges.
Steve, not one of the people I personally know among those who have signed the document can be honestly called an Arminian, Pelagian, or Semi-Pelagian. Not one. None of them are heretics. In all probably, none will become heretics in their lifetimes.
There is no “slippery slope” that will lead to a bottomless pit of heresy in the document. Rethink this thing a little. Don’t be so “fired up.” No one has set your house on fire or stole you truck or kicked your dog. (Well, maybe they are kicking your DoG just a little, but that “particular” dog is pretty tough and will still be around for a while, don’t you think?)
CB, it does seem as if Roger Olson, our leading Arminian, does not quite agree with your perspective. He seems to think they have wondered into the arid wastelands of semi-pelagianism.
James,
That is amazing. Some Calvinists on this blog seem to think that if a person is an Arminian and states the sun rises in the morning, he is lying and is a heretic. Now, when a confessed Arminian makes a statement that puts this in a perspective they “want, desire, and hunger for, they are ready to promote him to theological giant status. As I stated; That is amazing. James, you are old enough to know better than this.
cb,
I do not like much of what Olson writes, and not just because he’s usually wrong. But I believe he is right when he says the Statement is semi-Pelagian. The reason it is worth making a big deal about Olson’s statement is because here is someone clearly not in the Calvinist camp, someone at least as vehement against Calvinism as anyone in the SBC (if not more so – I haven’t heard any on the SBC call for a Protestant purgatory for Calvinists), and yet he still recognizes when a document put together to oppose Calvinism crosses into a more serious error than simple disagreement.
Chris Roberts,
Have you ever thought that maybe the guy “needs” it to be as he says? Maybe he is politically astute. Do you not remember when some of the pro-gay folks thanked Al Mohler? Yet, no one in his right mind would really believe that Al Mohler would affirm a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle.
cb,
Not really, no.
Chris Roberts,
“Not really, no.” Well, OK. What about: Possibly nearly, yes?
cb,
That is clever avoidance.
Deal with the issue raised. Is Olson right or wrong?
For the record, I don’t know anyone that has said those things about Arminians (many think they are wrong, but would not say what you said)…but even if they had, it doesn’t get you out of answering the question. It was a clever red herring, but not clever enough.
The issue is: is the position of the paper to which several people here have affixed their signature teaching a semi-pelagian view of man’s sinfulness and ability? If it is not, how so? Don’t just claim it isn’t. Prove it isn’t.
It’s a pretty straightforward issue. It’s been brought up several times and several proponents of the statement have danced around and not really answered the question. You have to say more than the theological equivalent of “nuh uh”.
The point of bringing Olson’s words into this is to prove that it isn;t just Calvinists seeing this in the statement. That doesn’t mean Olson or the Calvinists are right, it simply means it is something that deserves an answer.
Jason,
This is absolutely not a semi Pelagian document. Are you seriously calling all of these past SBC Presidents, SBC seminary Presidents, SB Pastors, and 80 to 90% of SB’s “semi Pelagians?” Which is calling us kissin’ cousins to heretics? Seriously????
And, we’re gonna have unity????
David
David,
Can you tell me what semi-Pelagianism is? Can you tell me how Article 2 of the Statement is not semi-Pelagian? Insisting that it isn’t is not good enough; tell me why it isn’t. I believe that like it or not, Article 2 cannot avoid the semi-Pelagian label. Further clarification of Article 2 *might* help, though between the affirmation and the denial, I don’t think anything but a rewrite would keep it from semi-Pelagianism.
Interact with the definitions of pelagianism…that’s all we ask volfan. Show us the difference. We’re waiting!
David,
Why are you guys so averse to answering the questions?
Show how it is not semi-pelagian. I am willing to believe you. But you need to show me how I (and others) are reading it wrong. This is a serious issue and the answer to it demands a serious response. Just saying “trust us, we aren’t heretics” is not enough.
I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt…that is why I have ASKED questions and not made any accusations. The question is: will you answer the questions raised?
If they signed this document. Yes. By signing they are saying they agree with it. By signing did you not say you agree with the document including Article 2?
80-90% David? I think you had better look again 300 signature, 600 signature do not make 90% of the SB when there are how many million. Million David. The signatures are not 80 or 90%. Let’s be realistic here.
Debbie,
I’ll bet you that the vast majority of SB’s will agree with this document, even if they never sign it…..
People have all kinds of reasons for not signing something…..all kinds…..
David
David: You talk unity now, but that document is not a basis for unity. You know this. Don’t turn this around to us. We didn’t write this document.
I for one think it is pretty easy to see it is not semi-Pelagian. As I’ve posted (seemingly ad nauseam) in other locations over the past couple of days, the “traditionalist” statement says this:
“While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.”
Semi-Pelagianism holds that we make the first step toward salvation on our own apart from grace. I think that the above two sentences remove the possibility of the human taking the first step (unaided by grace) toward salvation. It is the Spirit who draws. I don’t see how we could possibly not call the drawing of the Spirit a form of the grace of God acting on the human heart.
Remember, SP says man takes the first step unaided. The traditionalist document requires divine drawing and work in both of the above sentences. That may not be enough to convince everyone, but I do not see any remote possibility of SP if the above two sentences are present.
Jim G.
Is anyone reading what Jim G. said above? That’s about as clear as it gets.
David
Jason G.,
I was not trying to avoid anything. Are you sure you addressed the right comment? Nonetheless, I will answer you. I do not know Roger Olson. Yet, if he adheres to what you guys state here that he does, then I am no where near his camp. Not even close.
I do know many of the men who signed the document. I “know” them. I have not just heard of them of just been in the same building with them. I know them. None of them are Arminians, or Pelagians of any stripe. You guys are just wrong to even suggest such.
Then cb interact with the definition of pelagianism and show how it is different than article two. We are waiting!
Steve,
You are the one who stated the document could be on the slippery slope to heresy. You make your case for such a statement.
My argument has been that those of whom I know personally who signed the document are not Arminians, Pelagians of any stripe or heretics.
cb,
I am not calling anyone pelagian or semi-pelagian. Be careful what you accuse.
All I have asked is that you deal with the questions raised about how the document relates to semi-pelagianism. If it is clearly not semi-pelagian, it should be very easy to demonstrate that.
I have made no accusations…I (and others) have asked you (and others) to deal witht he questions asked. Yet the response is run around.
So, I ask again….you say it is not semi-pelagian…great, I believe you…now show me.
CB: No one among the Calvinist camp is promoting him to greatness. You should know better than that. We are saying that it is interesting that he sees what we and others see. Alan Cross is someone who I would consider theologically sound who I don’t always agree with. He has stated several times his objection to this Article on the same grounds.
I see the Article as elevating human beings higher than they actually are.
Debbie,
Alan has not called any of the writers or the signers of this document heretics either. (BTW, I actually know him also as I do the guys who signed the document) Nor has he called them Arminians or Pelagians.
Debbie, to disagree with part/parts of the document is not the same as calling the men who wrote it and signed it Arminians, Pelagians, or heretics.
Alan did not do that, nor would I and I think it is absurd for any of you folks to do so.
No, he didn’t. He did use the word semi-pleagian in the wording of the Article. He said he is sure that the author did not mean this and to possibly change the wording. That was not addressed nor did it happen. In fact, it was defended as it is being defended now. As I said CB let’s be realistic here.
No, he didn’t. He did use the word semi-pleagian in the wording of the Article. He said he is sure that the author did not mean this and to possibly change the wording. That was not addressed nor did it happen. In fact, it was defended as it is being defended now. As I said CB let’s be realistic here. You can read his comment on SBCToday the first day the document was posted.
Thanks cb. My father was one of those men that battled through the conservative resurgence. He endured the liberalism at SBTS during the early to mid ’70’s. I do have a “pony” in this race. I do have deep SBC roots.
I have not accused any of those men of Pelagianism, heresy, or anything else. But the alarm bells are being sounded by many, even by some evangelical brothers outside the SBC, that this document is dangerously close to pelagianism.
So what am I to do? I’m not fired up about the DoG. I’m fired up about the Scripture bro! I get fired up each day I am in the pulpit and each moment I have to share my faith in day to day activity. What if there is a fire? Do we sit back like the frog in the kettle and assume we are OK?
My point is still the same, heresy creeps in unnoticed. What if this is pelagianism? Do we just ignore it because some say it’s not. Interact with me if you will with these two articles. And please feel free to site other sources on Pelagianism. Interact with me and help me see how this document is not slipping toward that at the very least.
http://carm.org/pelagianism
http://carm.org/semi-pelagianism
I have scanned back over some of my comments over the past few days and I do need to repent of my tone and attitude represented in some of my comments. Please forgive me brothers.
And I do assume that if my comments cross over into rude and inappropriate that the moderators will not allow them.
I sincerely desire for all of us to do as Paul told Timothy, that is to correct our opponents with gentleness. Some of my comments have not demonstrated the fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. For that I apologize and ask that you forgive me.
I just want to engage the Word.
Steve,
Far be it from me to judge you. I don’t. I would be the greatest of hypocrites if I did. There is no one in Baptist blog history who has been deleted more than me. Dave Miller became famous for deleting me. Hang in there.
“The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make His face to shine on you, and give you peace.”
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone (nor traditional SBC’ers, nor seminary presidents, nor SBC friends who fought for the conservative resurgence), as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” – Martin Luther (except my little part in parenthesis).
CB: I have to agree with Steve to a degree in this matter about the document under consideration. It seems like some one is trying their best to drive a wedge between the advocates for the theology of the founders and those who want to shift over completely to a more Arminian type of understanding, thus destroying the willingness to allow for differences which began with the agreement of the Separate and Regular Baptists in the Union of 1787. Besides, I rather suspect that Steve has been subject to threats and intimidation across the years as I have. One DOM even told one of my deacons that they ought to fire me. Consider the Shorter University matter. They are looking for faculty in view of the en masse resignations there, and they specify that one must supply a statement on calvinism which suggests that they are going to be like the Caners and shut out those who believe in Sovereign Grace. Not that is troublesome. It really bothers me as my ancestor, Elder Holland Middleton who is listed in Henry Holcombe’s History of Alabama Baptists in 1840 is listed on the internet as one of the two officials appointed by the court to execute the will of Daniel Marshall who founded the Kiokee Baptist Church and whose beliefs in Sovereign Grace should be well known. Send me an email CB. jimwillingham@att.net
James,
I don’t believe of the guys I know who developed the document or who signed the document is trying to drive a wedge in the SBC.
I think some of them have taken notice of some problems and have responded to those problems. Especially do I believe this to be true in the case of David Hankins.
BTW, I agree with David R. Brumbelow. I think you will be hard pressed to make R.G. Lee a 5-Point Calvinist. And please do not state to me again that I will someday understand the “theology of the founders,” as you did, although it took you 15 years. I understand the TULIP as well as you do and it did not take me 15 years to do so.
In addition, I know there has always been 5-Point Calvinists in the SBC. There have always been folks in the SBC who hold less than 5 point also. Calvinistic folks have always been in the SBC. There are also various theories about the origin of Baptists and those theories can be well argued by many.
Lastly, Emir Caner is a friend of mine and I would ride the river with him any day.
My email is: cbscott5512@gmail.com. I look forward to “hearing” from you.
CB: Well, I hope your are right, but I have to admit that as I have watched the discussion develop over the past week or so it worries me some. If there is not developing a right, why does Caner cut out Sovereign Grace folks from the school he heads? And why does he and his brother deny what you have admitted that five pointers have been a part of this convention from the Get Go. In fact the Calvinists are the originators of the SBC and the Missionary movement. Just read Edwards Humble Attempt. Have you looked at Roger Olson’s remarks regarding the traditionalists actually erring into semi pelagianism. the fact that an Arminian should say that ought to put some caution into those folks.
James,
I need to rewrite the first sentence of my comment to you. As it is presently constructed, it appears as if a drunk monkey wrote it. Sorry if it causes you any confusion.
The sentence should be as follows:
I don’t believe so many as one (not a single one) of the guys I know who developed the document or who signed the document is trying to drive a wedge in the SBC.
BTW, if you send me a private email, I will treat it as such and will not publish it. I consider that to be unethical. I trust you believe the same. It appears there is at least one member of the Founders who considers the publishing of private emails as proper conduct as long as he is not doing it for “political” reasons.
CB: My computer says I don’t have a valid email address of you, when I try to sent you an email. Send one to me at jimwillingham@att.net
Will do. But let me tell you, I don’t publish private emails. I expect you to be of the same nature. In my opinion, I think that to be as ethically low as a snake’s belly.
James,
I just sent you my email address.
If that was meant for me, rest assured, I do not care for snakes in the grass who pull stunts like that.
Then we are in agreement. BTW, I thought you would be in full agreement. I have always considered you an honorable man.
Good observations, Steve. And the dear brother to whom you reply should need to consider how Baptists (of all persuasions in the South) treated African American Christians who were their slaves. I have read of one instance where a Baptist preacher slugged an African American woman for objecting to her child being sold. I have also read where a Methodist preacher did the same. Depravity still infects every person on earth, regardless of his or her theology, and it requires a regenerate, converted, and mature believer to do battle with the old nature.
It bothers me that you seem not to care whether the so-called minority, the calvinists (really Sovereign Grace believers), might be branded heretics in the very Convention that they founded. You also seem to ignore the fact that it was the calvinists of va. who came up with the idea of allowing for variations. What say you to this, Rick?
I never called a Calvinist a heretic, but they called me a semi-Pelagian. So I say, “We’re not the ones causing disunity. We’re not mad. We’re not angry. You are. Leave us alone to embrace our Traditional Soteriology and we will leave you alone to embrace your Calvinist Soteriology. Everything will be fine. But don’t call us names.”
Rick,
Do you understand what the semi-Pelagian position claims? In what way is the Statement, particularly Article 2, not semi-Pelagian?
http://www.seektheholy.com/2012/06/04/is-the-statement-semi-pelagian/
Perhaps our position can be better understood in the words of Dr. David Hankins:
“The debate is over the effects of the Fall, which has a long history in the church. Our article acknowledges the severe damage done to human nature and the cosmos in the Fall, specifically that we inherit a sin nature, will certainly sin personally, cannot achieve holiness on our own, are bound for hell, and cannot find our way to God without the gospel. We have not denied original sin, if you mean by that all of the above.
What we are denying is that sinful human beings are not capable of responding to the convicting power of the Spirit and the preaching of the gospel without some pre-gospel act on God’s part like prevenient grace or regeneration that is logically prior to and in addition to the work of the gospel. If you believe sinners are incapable of responding to the gospel, like Olson does, you have to find a fix like prevenient grace to solve the problem, or unconditional election like Calvinism does.”
I don’t believe that Adam’s sin made it impossible for me to exercise the free will God gave me and respond to His grace by believing in Him for salvation without some pre-gospel act. Perhaps it will help to realize that I view regeneration, faith, repentance and justification as “inseparable experiences of grace,” without necessarily reducing them to your preferred order.
I realize it may not fit your scheme, but who likes to be pigeon-holed? The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states: “Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.” See, I don’t believe that.
Guys, please read the headline. I am not a Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. And I am not a semi-Pelagianist. I am a Traditionalist.
“What we are denying is that sinful human beings are not capable of responding to the convicting power of the Spirit and the preaching of the gospel without some pre-gospel act on God’s part like prevenient grace or regeneration that is logically prior to and in addition to the work of the gospel.”
Then you are semi-Pelagian. If that is not semi-Pelagian, I don’t know what is. The argument should change, then, not to whether or not the statement is semi-Pelagian, it clearly is, but whether or not the early church was right to label it a heresy.
“The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states: “Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half – growing in faith – is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.” See, I don’t believe that.”
How do you not believe that? It’s what you just said. By saying grace supervenes only later they do not deny that God’s grace is active early on, but that God’s grace does not bring any actual change to the individual until after salvation.
“Guys, please read the headline. I am not a Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. And I am not a semi-Pelagianist. I am a Traditionalist.”
Sometimes a label fits whether we like it or not.
Rick,
That is cut and dry semi-pelagianism and has historically been viewed as unbiblical and heretical by the church.
This is not an act of “divisiveness” but calling a brother to repent.
Rick,
Ok, I hear what you are saying. I just want to be clear. You deny prevenient grace, so man has an innate ability, untouched by the Fall, to respond positively to the preaching of the Gospel. Is that correct?
It might also be helpful if you could explain to us how you believe your position is different from semi-pelagianism’s view of man’s ability to respond to God. I think the problem many have is that they don’t see the difference, regardless of the name you assign to it. If you could make clear HOW it is different that would make discussion a lot easier, IMO.
Man I picked a bad year not to go to the convention. It should be fun. “Sinner’s prayer” resolution and all. I’ll pray for you from afar.
Some other thoughts from our evangelical brothers on the statement:
http://dbts.edu/blog/?p=3225
Dr. James Willingham,
You said, “Don’t you know your Southern Baptist History…if you were to look all of the Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention from 1845 until the 1960s, you would find that the vast majority of them, if not all, were committed Sovereign Grace believers or Calvinists…”
First, there were not many SBC presidents in the 1800s through the early 1900s, Back then, if you were elected SBC President is was virtually for life.
Second, I present Dr. R. G. Lee, president of the SBC from 1949 – 1951. Would a committed 5-point Calvinist say what he said?
“Wonderful inclusiveness here, in the outstretched and encircling arms of the Christian Gospel – ‘to everyone.’ Nobody excluded. Everybody included.” -R. G. Lee on Romans 1:16
“There is no ground for boasting. The beggar who puts forth his hand and takes the gift can claim no credit. Believing is not in itself a virtuous act, a meritorious effort by which the sinner earns the favour of God. No, all boasting is excluded by the very freeness and simplicity of salvation which at the same time excludes all excuse from those who refuse or neglect it.” -R. G. Lee (AD 1886-1978), pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church, Memphis.
Third, I doubt many Strict Calvinists would want to claim L. R. Scarborough, SWBTS president and SBC President 1939-1940, as one of their own.
David R. Brumbelow
Well, we can all keep citing Baptist history to support our view…and that IS helpful especially since our history is filled with calvinist and non-calvinists. Helpful too is Church history since almost all issues and heresies seem to surface over and over again (Satan is so non-creative). So let us look at all our history…but mostly let us look to the Word. Agreed?
Dear Brother Brumbelow: The answer is, yes, a five point calvinist and even a seven point calvinist, would, could, and should say as much. Dr. Lee filled out a form in which he ticked that he believed all five points of the Tulip outline, and if you read carefully his sermons you fill find that what he says is consistent with those truths. Next, Dr. Lee specified in his will that a self-identified supralapsarian hyper calvinist as the person to preach his funeral. That person was my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell. While Dr. Lee had at least five preachers for his funeral, he made it legal that the person who preched his funeral as far he was concerned was Dr. Campbell. I happen to know the regard he had for Dr. Campbell, and, contrary to the many opinions expressed in these blogs, I can tell that there are no warmer, zealous, compassionate soul winners than a Sovereign Grace believer hot on the trail of a lost soul., Dr. Campbell use to plead with my step-father to look to Christ until tears ran down my step-father’s face. If you cared enough to really study and pursue the truth, you would find that a calvinist like Spurgeon urged us to carry the most indifferent and unconcerned souls on our hearts to the Lord, pleading for their salvation with tears…just like Paul who ceased not to warn sinners night and day with tears for two years….! For 39 years I,who came to believe in these biblical teachings on the basis of a close study of the Greek and English meaning of the words in the NT, have pleaded for a Third Great Awakening for the whole earth and every soul on it. If you check Spurgeon’s Evening by Evening Devotions for Aug.6th and Dec.24th, you will find him praying for the conversion of every soul on earth, too. Also, if you will take care to read the work by Jonathan Edwards, Humble Attempt (Vol.II of Banner of Truth’s Edition of his Works), you would find that his work was the means by which Andrew Fuller and William Carey were moved to begin praying for the spread of the Gospel in distant lands and peoples and then to make the effort to carry it too them. The same work was an inspiration to Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice and many others. In short, it was the instrument which helped to launch the Great Century of Missions.
You are really very good at ignoring the fact that B.H. Carroll clearly explained his confidence and faith in the fact that God ordained souls to eternal life and that was why they came to believe (cf. his exposition of Acts in his Interpretation of the English Bible). Dr. Carroll had a grand heart like Spurgeon, like Whitefield, like Edwards, like Gano, and a multitude of other calvinists (so called, because there were people dying for the doctrines of grace long before Calvin was ever born, let alone born again), and that is why he approved of Scarborough and others who did not agree with him. We are not fooled this day. There are those who are determined to destroy us, regardless of the price that must be paid for such evil. I remember a deacon telling me once of a DOM, “Preacher that DOM told me we ought to fire you. I asked:’Why? He’s doing his job.'” There are those who really hate such doctrines, just as I once hated all the Christian Faith in my days as an Atheist…and like the New Atheists express their hatred today and pour contempt upon the biblical teachings. Then, Jesus came and knocked at my heart’s door, and when I ran He followed and opened my heart’s door for me. When I die, I want two verses inscribed on my tombstone, Rev.3:20 and Acts 16:14. Jesus knocked at my heart’s door, and then He opened it. That is Sovereign Grace. I do not care much for the term calvinist, as I join with Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, Elijah Craig, John Gano, Richard Furman, John Leland, and a host of others, including an ancestor named Holland Middleton in holding to religious liberty.
Dr. James Willingham,
You claim R. G. Lee was a 5-point Calvinist? I fail to believe that when he said such things as:
“Just as there is universal guilt among men, so there is the universal offer of salvation from God…Repeatedly God declares that sin is universal, that no one escapes. Repeatedly, too, God declares the atonement to be universal. That does not mean that salvation is universal, for many will not be saved…God has done His part for man’s salvation, but man fails or refuses to do his part. That is the sum and substance of all excuses and objections. Man’s free and wicked will is the only barrier in the way of his salvation.” -R. G. Lee.
“Jesus died for all (2 Corinthians 5:15), gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9), and would have all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3,4). God put the iniquity of all on Jesus (Isaiah 53:6), wishes all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), does not wish any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). God’s grace that bringeth salvation has appeared to all men (Titus 2:11). God teaches that whosoever believeth shall not perish (John 3:16).” -R. G. Lee
If that is what a 5-point Calvinist believes, then I guess I am one.
I think some Calvinists are a little too enthusiastic in who they include in their camp.
David R. Brumbelow
Dear David: Shows how little you know of calvinism or Sovereign Grace. I hold what Dr. Lee said, too. So did my ordaining pastor, Rev. C.H. Spurgeon, and my childhood pastor, Rev. George Washington Gray. And you should read B.H.Carroll’s sermons and expositions in his Interpretation of the English Bible. He even had a sermon on prayer, proving that God does answer the prayers of sinners (e.g., King Ahab). Then read his exposition of Acts.13:48.
More thoughts from an outsider… interesting as this man is an Arminian: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/06/thoughts-about-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-gods-plan-of-salvation-%E2%80%9D/
Have any of the authors of the document or any of the commentators here on this site dealt seriously with Olson’s statements?
I would love to read some responses…because he is pointing out a major error in the document, and from a non-calvinist perspective.
Brother Rick,
You are not alone. There are many who believe from a Scriptural understanding that God in His omnipotence and sovereignty has given mankind an opportunity to respond to His offer of adoption into His family through faith in His Son Jesus. When I say opportunity, I mean that God has demonstrated His love toward us while we are yet sinners, that the Holy Spirit convicts us of this sin, and that the Father draws us to Himself and His Son, and then we choose to receive this gift of salvation. My kids seem to understand that they have not earned a birthday present or Christmas gift. They know that is merely a gift…like salvation. They can take the gift, or they can refuse the gift. Call me “heretic” if you wish, but I believe that when God so loved the world, He really meant the whole world, so that all may experience the grace and forgiveness He offers, if they will. Color Calvinism any shade you wish, but that theological system does not truly allow each person to potentially receive that gift that God offers….only those whom have been pre-selected in the Divine roulette wheel. I do not deny God’s authority to act in that way if He so chose, but my understanding is that He chose a different way than the Calvinistic system represents. ” Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”, ……not ” whoever shall be regenerated shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Kevin,
Beautifully put. Just absolutely, beautifully put.
You know, if Jeph and Steve and all the others are right and I am indeed a HERETICAL PELAGIAN, then so are you, my friend, and so is Paige Patterson, and Jimmy Draper, and Morris Chapman, and, well, just about the whole Southern Baptist Convention.
Funny, they think “Traditionalist” doesn’t fit us but that “Pelagian” does.
And they think WE are the ones who are being divisive when in fact THEY are the ones branding US as heretics!
Rick,
Your statements are a little funny to me. You laud Kevin’s statements as “beautifu;” though he misrepresents calvinists positions stating things as calvinism that no calvinist would affirm and ascribing his own definition of it (“roulette wheel”? really?). Yet in the same post you blast calvinists for misrepresenting you and saying you affirm things you don’t believe.
I have higher hopes for the conversation than constant back and forths with misrepresentations.
With that in mind…can you explain to me the viewpoint the document holds with regard to Adam’s sin and man’s guilt, so that there is no confusion and I (and others) can represent you fairly. If you have already done so, and I missed the post (easy to do in this format), could you point me to that explanation?
Thanks.
When a person denies man’s natural inability, when a person argues that we retain some natural ability to desire good and God, when a person believes that it is possible to seek God without God first doing a work in the human heart, enabling that heart to seek him, then such a person has at least crossed over into semi-Pelagian thinking. Whether or not semi-Pelagianism is something you would consider a heresy may be a discussion for another time, but at the core of semi-Pelagianism is the idea that though man is desperately sick and in need of God for salvation, that none of us can work for our salvation, that none of us are born “good”, we nonetheless retain the capacity for good, including the good of seeking and desiring and clinging to God, apart from him first doing a work in our hearts.
Here’s the question I would use to distinguish the semi-Pelagian from the non-semi-Pelagian: do you believe that human beings are born with the ability to do some good, no matter how small it might be? Do you believe that human beings can seek God and desire God apart from God first doing a work in the human heart? If so, then I would say your theology is neither Calvinist nor Arminian but is in line with semi-Pelagianism.
If you go a step farther and assert that not only are humans born with the capacity for goodness, humans are born morally neutral or morally good and retain the possibility of living perfect lives which never need salvation, then you are full Pelagian.
I don’t hear anyone arguing the Pelagian position, though some get close, but I do hear the semi-Pelagian position quite often in SBC circles today, including in the recent Statement. Whether or not those signing the statement like the term “semi-Pelagian”, it seems to fit…
Well, Rick, the Arminian Theologian, Roger Olson has stated that it seems that Patterson and those with him have, indeed, gone over into semi-pelagianism.
Kevin, as Jason points out below, no Calvinist believes that God’s free election is arbitrary, as you suggest with the term “Divine roulette wheel”, but rather “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” and in coordination with the “council of His will”.
Furthermore we believe that God “has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.”
And He wills all things for the purpose of His glory being proclaimed for all eternity.
There is no chance, no arbitrary action in God. All things He does are deliberate and according to His will, council, mercy, glory, and grace.
D.R. or Mr Randle(I was raised in the south and if you are much older than me, you get the requisite Mr…..even if you are theologically misguided :-))
I agree that God’s ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts than our thoughts as the prophet Isaiah records. From a HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, salvation viewed through the Calvinistic lens is arbitrary in that God has divinely selected some, not based on their merit, works, pedigree, education, faith, financial where-with-all, ethnicity, or marital status. His selection from a human perspective is arbitrary(roulette, if you will) in that we do not have any choice in the matter. We are either regenerated by the Spirit in order to exercise faith, or we fall in the camp of the eternal have-nots -who- could- never- have -had, because God had not chosen us. While this system of Calvinism could be true, I do not think it is, as it is not consistent with the revelation that God has given of Himself through the person of Jesus and the Scriptures.
“From a HUMAN PERSPECTIVE, salvation viewed through the Calvinistic lens is arbitrary”
No, from a human perspective, salvation is a matter of God’s sovereign purposes and will which he has not disclosed to us. We know God had his reasons, we do not know what those reasons are. The human perspective is to trust God even when there is an absence of further information.
“The human perspective is to trust God even when there is an absence of further information.”
Do you mean like when Acts 3:19 says ” Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord…”and it does not fit into the reformed model of regeneration preceding repentance, that we should take the order of events just as it is?
Do ALL Calvinists affirm this?:
‘Salvation’ from CALVIN’S perspective:
“God preordained, for his own glory
and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice,
a part of the human race, without any merit of their own,
to eternal salvation,
and another part, in just punishment of their sin,
to eternal damnation.
(John Calvin)
I suppose this is the core teaching of what is known as ‘pre-destination’?
Correct me, if I got this wrong, please.
Kevin,
I’m not sure how Acts 3:19 doesn’t fit Reformed theology? Nor am I sure what it has to do with my point?
Kevin, ever read where Jesus said, “No man can come to me, except it were given him of my Father, except the Father draw him (Jn.6:44,65). That word “CAN” refers to ability. So our Lord is saying that no one is able to come to Him without the help of God. Sandy Creek’s Confession of 1816 spells out the issue, saying man is utterly impotent by his own free will or ability to save himself. Now what part of that calvinistic statement do you not understand?
Very good answer, D.R. God ordains whatever comes to pass, and He does it according to the Good Pleasure of His will. There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is free to us, free for us, as there is no reason in ourselves why He should chose to have mercy upon us, considering our unspeakable and despicable depravity and sinfulness.
Kevin, People have been praying for a Third Great Awakening longer than you have been alive…even longer than I have been alive (and I am 71). The one thing we do know from history is that the First and Second Great Awakenings, the launching of the Great Century of Missions, the producing of religious liberty, and the launching of the Southern Baptist Convention, its mission programs, and its earliest institutions were all the result of Sovereign Grace theology, boldly affirmed in the London Confession of 1689 (FBC Charleston), the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742, the Articles of Faith of the Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church (1814 – which church sent out the first missionary of Southern Baptists to China, Rev. Matthew T. Yates), the Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. Confession of Faith of 1816, and the Abstract of Principles of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1859). Now the prayers for the Third Great Awakening did not address the issue of theology. Certainly, none of mine ever did until recently. But if you are going to have such a visitation, then you must have the theology that produces such event. And there can be no doubt as to the theology: It is plainly spelled out in many sources and documents besides those listed above.
Steve,
In regard to being “dead in sins” you said,
“This verse [Ephesians 2:4] locates the time of our being made alive. “when we were dead.” So what is dead? Is your understanding of dead incapacitation but able to move at least a limb. My understanding is lifeless, no pulse, no breath.”
I’ll be glad to add my understanding.
Calvinists take “dead” and go to the extreme with it.
Biblically “death” means separation.
Physical death means separation from the body (James 2:26).
Spiritual death means separation from God.
Spiritual death does not mean we can do nothing.
A spiritually dead person can walk, talk, sin. A spiritually dead person can hear the voice of God and respond either in a positive or negative way.
After Adam sinned, he could still hear the voice of God.
“Dead” is just one of several ways to refer to the condition of an unbeliever.
Jesus referred to unbelievers as sick (Matthew 9:12), rather than dead.
And a sick person is not, “lifeless, no pulse, no breath.”
David R. Brumbelow
First, let me say that no calvinist believes that spiritual death means man can’t still make choices. Of course he can choose to sin, walk, talk etc. (I wish you guys would learn to represent what calvinist actually believe) The will of man is absolutely free. But prior to rebirth it is only free to choose evil because it is bondage. It can’t chose God. It exercises its choices and even the “good” choices are filthy rages. It is not free to choose God, instead it is enslaved (not my extreme words, but Paul’s and Jesus’). When new birth occurs his will is freed from the bondage and now he can freely choose Christ.
I would say calvinist only go where the Scriptures lead with the word death. Jesus even uses the word “death”, and both He and Paul refer to us being enslaved to sin. Even Jesus’ reference to sickness refers clearly to a sickness that cannot be overcome without a physician. The overall testimony of Scripture is one of extremes. We are unable to do any good on our own. Even what we consider to be good Isaiah calls filthy rags. Historically Christendom has understood our spiritual condition as extreme…unable to come to Christ. So too, extreme words are used to describe us coming out of that dead situation…words like “raised,” “made new,” “born again,” and “new creation.” Even Arminians think that our situation is extreme and that we are dead. Arminians need prevenient grace to deal with it. If the ideas you are espousing are really what you believe then they are not traditional, but novel and dangerously like Pelagianism. Don’t accuse me now of name-calling. Go and look at the many links in this blog discussion about Pelagianism and tell us how it differs. Now, to the only authority, the Word. Here are just a few verses to chew on that describe our “extreme” situation:
Ezekiel 36:26-27 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
John 5:24-25 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (notice Jesus says that the spiritual condition of the one who believes is that he HAS moved from death to life. He has been reborn, recreated and thus he believes).
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.
Rom. 3:9-12 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
Rom. 6:17-18 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Romans 8:6-9 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Eph. 2:1-6 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
1Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Wow. I go away to take care of some ministry this afternoon and wow, tons of comments. Sorry I haven’t interacted more quickly…matter of fact this will be my last interaction with this blog and I will unsubscribe after this lengthy comment. I just want to say a few things…
1) I did not label anyone a heretic despite it being said that I did. I have hesitated to do so because no one on the others side of this will interact with the issue of pelagianism in a serious way. So I really don’t know what they thinking. They simply say that I am mean for using the P-word but they don’t help me (and I really do need help as I am not nearly as smart as most posting on this site) to see the difference. I did say that in my mind that this document seems to me to lean toward Pelagianism, at least semi-pelagianism. The definitions I have seen and what I remember from Church History class cause me to come to that conclusion. Even Roger Olson agrees and none of you on the other side of this issue have tried to interact with his article that I posted. None have even interacted or commented on the various links provided that describe Pelagianism and semi-pelagianism. For the sake of those still interacting with this blog, please show how the “traditionalist” document differs from classic understandings of Pelagianism and it’s semi variety. That will help stop name calling. And no I have never said Arminians are heretics. I think they are just bad interpreters of Scripture.
2) I have to also say that my heart is greatly broken over this. One of the things that has so excited over the past decade in SBC life has been the increased unity and focus on cooperation within and outside of our denomination. This document has done much damage. I still know of no calvinist attempts to take over the denomination or to bring disunity. It’s a false herring. Instead it is the “traditionalist” now who have decided to craft a document that blatantly contradicts the BFM in a variety of places and in doing so label their detractors as divisive.
3) It does seem to me that the crux of this issue is the issue of man’s depravity. The denial of man’s depravity doesn’t even happen in Arminian circles, so this understanding of man’s deadness simply being “separated” is novel and dangerous. I have already posted on that, but this is THE issue in this debate. This is why the “P-word” keeps coming up.
4) The BFM definition of regeneration is very clear and clearly states that faith and repentance are gifts that result from it. The “traditionalist” document says otherwise. Please show us how this is NOT a contradiction?
5) Is the Baptist Faith and Message sufficient? It is for calvinist. Why is it not for traditionalist? That question has never been answered for me.
6) This debate will not end soon. But truly I’d prefer it be a debate between Arminians and Calvinists. That debate is one where we can agree to disagree. I’m afraid much more is at stake here. This whole thing has helped me see that “traditional” SBC’ers are not actually the Arminians I thought they were. I prefer that they were!
7) This issue is important. Issues of soteriology are vital. That’s why false soteriological constructs have been labeled as heresy in the past. The gospel is at stake.
8) I am a calvinist, so I’m grieved but not too worried. God is sovereign over this so my anxiety level is pretty low.
9) I’m not sure blogs are the way to go about this. Something about writing electronically dehumanizes our “opponent.” This is one of the reasons I am disengaging from this blog. I’d prefer to put a face and voice with those with whom I disagree. I’d rather interact with my brother who is made in God’s image one on one. My flesh is too weak, and I know that Satan wants to bait me into thinking less of my opponent by dehumanizing them as some name in the Baptist blogosphere…cb, volfan, frank, whoever simply become names on a screen instead of brothers in Christ. So I hope we can take a different approach. I hope that the signers of this document will be willing to sit down one on one with those who disagree with them and work through some of this in the Scriptures. I would be happy to talk to anyone further directly. You can email me at lsdjr72@gmail.com or call me 770-597-9808. I’d love to sit down if any of you live in the Atlanta area, have a cup of coffee (calvinist love coffee), and open our Bibles to prayerfully work through these issues. I have an open invitation to Dr. White of the GBC to discuss these things. Unfortunately I will not be able to be in NOLA this year for the convention.
I am a calvinist. I am a five-point calvinist. I am not a hyper-calvinist. I am a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I preached this Sunday that whosever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved and I believe that. I pleaded for people to come to the Lord. I preach the gospel each Sunday, this Sunday it was from the Magnificat of all places. We preach and teach difficult doctrines, we embrace deep mysteries, and we surrender to exactly what the Word of God says even when there seems to be antinomies that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend. I did not comment on this blog this afternoon because I was standing beside a dying man’s bed. For five straight weeks I have gone to his bedside and each time he has rejected the gospel as I shared it with him…but in the last few days something happened. It was something supernatural. All of the sudden a heart of stone was changed. He is now far to ill to utter words, thus he could not repeat a prayer but of course he did not need to…all he could do was nod when I asked him yet again if he would put all his hope in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of his sins. This time he nodded. This time he nodded! And cried! This time his heart gave way. And today as I stood by this man who is literally in the last hours of his life he grabbed my hand as we gathered to pray, put it against his face and wept as I read Romans 8 and as we prayed together. I have no doubt that this man is saved. And I have no doubt that God did that. All of it. Absolutely all of it. I never had hope in this man. I never had hope that he would come around. He had rejected the gospel for 51 years. My hope was always in God. I prayed that God would make this man’s heart come alive. As I ministered to him and relentlessly shared the gospel with him my hope was in only one place. A God who does effectually call men to Himself. A God who makes dead men alive. A God who takes hearts of stone and makes them hearts of flesh. A God who puts his Spirit in men to cause them to obey his statutes. A God who gives a birth that is not of the will of men but from Himself. God transformed this man’s heart, made him a new creature, and thus he believed and is now counted as a child of God. That’s how I spent my afternoon. I plan to head to the hospital tomorrow to minister to a family whose small child is having surgery. I would love to continue this debate but my time on this blog is done. The gospel must keep going forth producing fruit. Grace and peace.
Semi-Pelagianism’s basic claims are: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.
This definition comes from the Catholics. When you read this, along with what Jim G. wrote above, I reckon you get a pretty good idea about what Semi Pelagianism is.
Traditional SB are no where near this….not even close…
So, why do yall keep saying that we’re Semi Pelagian?
DAvid
Semi-Pelagianism’s basic claims are: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.
This definition comes from the Catholics. When you read this, along with what Jim G. wrote above, I reckon you get a pretty good idea about what Semi Pelagianism is.
Traditional SB are no where near this….not even close…
So, why do yall keep saying that we’re Semi Pelagian? Why do some of yall consistently continue to say that we are???
DAvid
Well, I’m not sure why, but my comment…which is supposed to be here….ends up going way up in the comment thread…strange….
but, I’ll try it, again…
Semi-Pelagianism’s basic claims are: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.
This definition comes from the Catholics. When you read this, along with what Jim G. wrote above, I reckon you get a pretty good idea about what Semi Pelagianism is.
Traditional SB are no where near this….not even close…
So, why do yall keep saying that we’re Semi Pelagian?
DAvid
David,
The part both you and Jim have skipped over is about man’s natural standing toward sin, his basic nature, as well as exactly what makes up the grace given by God resulting in salvation.
In short, there is more to it than what you have stated.
(BTW, the comment stream is SOOOO messed up, it is hard to find the posts.)
CB-
I have not intended to call you dishonest. If I did so, it was unintentional, and I apologize.
None of this is about what is good enough for me. This is about what is intellectually fair and expected from pastors/theologians taking part in theological discussion. In theological discussion pointing to the adherents of a view as proof that it is right or acceptable is not enough. It is not a REAL answer. That was my problem with your view.
If you have reservations about article 2, great…I do too. But a reasonable defense of article 2 is to PROVE it. If that’s not your fight, say so, and step out of the way…to just say “I know these guys” does not constitute a rational argument.
I am with you. I know many of these guys, I am friends with some of them. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But the expectation is to show me how I (and others) misunderstand the article…not to just point to the big names on their side as proof. Politics is not evidence.
Jason G.,
It is obvious we have never crossed paths. If we had, you would know that I do not care about “big names.” Some of those “big names” as you referenced them could not serve a year (some not even 6 months) as a local church pastor if their lives depended on it.
My argument has been, from the beginning, that those on these thread who have suggested that the men who wrote or signed the document (among those I know) are not heretics, Arminians, or Pelagians.
I do think Article 2 could have been better worded, and maybe it would have had not a private email been published by someone who stated he is not trying to be “political, to which I say: Yeah, right!
Jason G.,
I found it. As I stated, I do not think the signers of the document are heretics, but I am beginning to think Dave Miller and associates practice VooDoo.
CB,
I don’t think these guys are heretics either. So, we are together on this.
But I do think lack of precision on this point is dangerous. I think you might agree with that as well. If the point of the document is theological clarity, then let’s be clear. I just want to see some good arguments proving the point. There may be some who agree with that point, but considering what is at stake I don’t think it is unfair to call those presenting a document for the SBC and calling it the traditionalist perspective to defend their document to questions.
I don’t think anyone needs to jump to conclusions and make charges of heresy/heretics of that group. I do think, however, that those signing their names to a document should be able to answer questions about it. Fair enough.
(BTW, cb, I would love to get together with you at the SBC so we can get to know each other.)
Jason G.,
I read the document several times. Then I called some guys. I asked about Article 2. I was told that the document had not been completely “tweaked” before it was published due to certain events that took place causing it to be “outed” early.
One person told me that some things would be better clarified shortly. That is all I know.
Now, if you have been in the SBC for any amount of time, you know full well that what I stated above may be completely wrong. The SBC is often like D.C. or Military Intelligence. Scuttlebutt flows free and is often tainted.
Oh yeah, I hope to meet up with you in NOLA. Ask around. Like Bruce Springsteen said; “I am easily found, in the darkness at the edge of town.”
Seriously, I hope to get to meet you.
Jason G.,
I think part of our dialogue got deleted. Anyway, I can’t find it.