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… Read more »
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.”… Read more »
…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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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).… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read 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 more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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!… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.