Yes, it is sometimes hard to hug a Calvinist. While I don’t mind them embracing a different theology, I often find it hard to get past two key issues: (1) a superior attitude, and (2) a takeover mentality. Lest I be accused of stereotyping, of lumping and dumping, let me say at the start that while every Calvinist does not fit this mold, so many do that it poisons the pot for everyone else. Let me briefly illustrate the two offenses before I run for cover.
1. Superior Attitude
The superior attitude suggests that no reasonably thinking Christian scholar, pastor or theologian who takes the time to study the Scriptures could ever possibly come to a different conviction about the nature of the gospel, the doctrines of grace and the proper way to order and organize church life. It just seems that the Calvinist system of thought is so neatly reasoned that once one embraces these doctrines, one often develops little to no respect for those with non-Calvinist convictions.
To illustrate this superior tone, consider Dr. Mohler’s words at a Gospel Coalition interview: “If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up being something like this New Calvinism or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing. There just are not options out there.” The quote starts at 6:25 in this link.
Mohler clearly claims that people who are (1) theologically minded, (2) deeply convictional, (3) committed to the gospel, (4) desire to see the nations rejoice in Christ, and (5) want to see gospel structured and committed churches HAVE NO OTHER OPTION than New Calvinism. Dr. Mohler, with all due respect and appreciation for your many achievements in Baptist life…balderdash! One can easily be all five of those things yet reject New Calvinist doctrines concerning salvation and the church! In fact, the majority of the Southern Baptist Convention fits into this allegedly non-existent category. The “if you’re smart and you really love Jesus you must think like me” approach is condescending.
2. Takeover Mentality
The takeover mentality has been illustrated time and again by stealth Calvinist candidates who are called by doctrinally naive and unsuspecting Southern Baptist Search Committees who believe that seminary graduates today possess the same basic theology that seminary graduates possessed twenty years ago. As we all know, that is no longer the case. Graduates from our mother seminary are disproportionately Calvinistic relative to the prevailing theology in our churches. Over time, these churches discover that their new pastor is trying to lead them in a new direction with which they are uncomfortable. Sometimes, the Calvinist pastor “wins” the takeover and reforms the church. Many non-Calvinists leave. Other times, the lay leadership of the church rises up to “defend” non-Calvinism and the pastor is removed from office. Either way, the fellowship is deeply wounded by the experience. You simply cannot put a square peg in a round hole!
Another example of this uncompromising takeover mentality concerns the ever controversial Acts 29 Network. This network overlaps with SBC churches, particularly new church plants, because it is in their self-interest to draw from our vast resources and use our money to help them plant churches that are CALVINIST ONLY. Meanwhile, our SBC church planting efforts are BOTH CALVINIST AND NON-CALVINIST. This partnership is inherently biased in favor of Calvinism and will continue to be so until there develops a NON-CALVINIST ONLY church planting network to bring balance to the force. Such a network has been slow to develop as it was unnecessary in previous years since nearly all SBC church plants were indeed non-Calvinistic. But that is no longer the case. SBC churches who desire to support Calvinistic plants can dually support the Acts 29 Network along with traditional SBC channels, but where are SBC churches who desire to support non-Calvinistic plants supposed to turn?
Channeling Rodney King
Yes, we can all just get along, but my Calvinist friends will have to understand two important considerations. First, non-Calvinist Southern Baptists will not patiently sit back and sing “Kumbayah” while our theological positions are being marginalized by a brilliant yet condescending Calvinist theologian. If you wish to call a truce, then you must stop firing such verbal shots and quit insinuating that our differing conclusions result from weaker minds or the absence of any legitimate alternative biblical positions to yours. Second, non-Calvinist Southern Baptists will not patiently sit back and sing “Kumbayah” while Acts 29 church plants attempt to use non-Calvinist dollars to plant CALVINIST ONLY churches. We consider that to be an unfair, unbalanced and aggressive posture disrespecting our right to be just as NON-CALVINIST ONLY in our church planting as the Acts 29 Network is CALVINIST ONLY in their church planting.
Let me conclude with one final preemptive consideration. For those of you who are about to write that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message should be enough to unite us, may I gently point out: (1) it is evidently not enough since we are not united, and (2) the Acts 29 Network was only founded in 2000. In other words, our current confessional statement was not written in such a manner as to take into consideration the present controversy. We were still dealing with the last controversy of inerrancy and its corresponding splinter group, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. While I do not presently support revising our confessional statement by narrowing our doctrinal parameters to exclude our current splinter group of Acts 29 Network churches, I believe non-Calvinists will only be driven increasingly to support such a measure the more that Calvinists display the afore-mentioned superior attitude and takeover mentality.
My wife does.
“To have and to hold.” She is legally and morally required to do so.
Anyone who think they are right on an issue, and acts like it, can be open to the charge of superiority. True?
If there was a position in the SBC that demonstrated superiority, wouldn’t you have to say it is the non-calvinists? There is a constant stream of baptist paper editorials and SBC pastors conference sermons (waning in recent years) and blog article railing against the calvinists for “not getting it” and being wrong. The “tone” of the sermons and article are not just superior, but condemning (even calling calvinists heretics and some refusing to call them believers (See Caner)). Heck, isn’t even this article about (in general) the moral superiority of NOT being a calvinist?
I think arguments like the one above tend to be one-sided and short-sighted. I understand where you are coming from, Rick, but I think whenever someone makes an argument about someone else feeling superior, they fail to see the same problem from their own side.
I think there has been plenty of offense on both sides. That is why I liked Mike’s article yesterday – a Calvinist holding Calvinists accountable. That’s the best way.
I’m not sure about the takeover accusation Rick levels here. But as a Calvinist who talks with other Calvinists, I think the superior attitude accusation has to be admitted by us to at least some degree.
I mean, Calvinists have used the term “gospel-centered” or “gospel-driven” as a synonym for Calvinist. What does that say to non-Calvinists? You don’t understand and properly apply the gospel.
I think that non-C folks have misrepresented, attacked, badgered and hounded Calvinists – often on false grounds. But I also think that Calvinists are guilty of displaying an arrogant and superior attitude in the debates.
Sure, calvinists are guilty of a superior attitude. No question at all. My point was not to deny that reality, but to point out the irony of leveling such a charge. In fact in the SBC, have we not seen enough of the non-calvinist superior attitude to at least call this a draw?
Jason, I see where you’re coming from. The charge of superiority can work both ways. For what it’s worth, I am NOT saying that Al Mohler’s Calvinism prevents him from being “theologically minded, deeply convictional, gospel structured, etc.” but He IS saying that my non-Calvinism cannot possibly afford me these things. So in this specific case it does not work both ways, but I admit there are superior tones on both sides.
In this case, I think Dr. Mohler’s posture is indeed superior, divisive and offensive to the majority position among Southern Baptists.
By the way, I don’t consider this article as generally asserting the moral superiority of non-Calvinism so much as expressing a bit of indignation over the assertions of superiority by Calvinists like Mohler. I’m just saying: “We’re not better than they are, but they’re not better than we are.”
I agree, that to a non-calvinist, the calvinists definitely can sound like they feel they are superior.
But to calvinists, the non-calvinists sound like they feel they are superior.
That was my point – there is a sense in which both sides have their moments with superiority.
It is hard, though, to level the charge because the minute you do, you are now guilty of it yourself. It’s like the moment you think you have gained humility, now you lost it. 😉
“For what it’s worth, I am NOT saying that Al Mohler’s Calvinism prevents him from being “theologically minded, deeply convictional, gospel structured, etc.” but He IS saying that my non-Calvinism cannot possibly afford me these things. So in this specific case it does not work both ways, but I admit there are superior tones on both sides.
”
And we have to take into consideration that a president of one of our SBC seminaries said this purposefully on a video for the GC as a council member. Ironically many SBC non Calvinists help to pay his salary.
I wonder if he would make the exact same statements at the next SBC convention?
I think our overall Baptist message has been diluted by sensing that we must with hold our inner beliefs about biblical truths. The more we pressure others into not speaking a truth the weaker we Baptist will become. I have experienced divorce. Because some may feel that their divorce was justified and not wanting their pastor to speak about divorce, would that be appropriate? Wise? No! I must encourage pastors and others to speak against it in order to keep marriage pure as Jesus taught. If the Calvinist and non-Calvinist issue cannot be resolved in the spirit of Christ then we must consider doing what Paul did with John Mark for a while. Sometimes it takes a great amount of time to think through issues and a little more maturing.
Regardless, the tithe is the Lords and we never possessed it in the first place. We can only rob God of what is His. We pay no one’s salary.
The “takeover” mentality is because the theology of the previous generation of leadership has completely FAILED. We have inherited grossly underdiscipled or totally nondiscipled congregations with little or no doctrinal discernment or basic biblical literacy. Revivalist theology has won millions over to the church culture and religious identity of the South, but many (or even most) of these churchgoers can barely explain the gospel in its basic form. And it is these who tear apart churches over Calvinism, not the pastors from SBTS. I have been there. I have seen it all first hand and heard numerous accounts. Young Calvinists in the SBC are trying to save the SBC from the failing legacy of religious cultural identity and revivalist evangelism we have been left with.
So revivalist evangelism and older leaders have FAILED and the younger ones have inherited all their problems, right? Fortunately, Younger Calvinists are now here to “save the SBC from the failing legacy…”
Did I get all that right, John?
See, I’ve been looking for a few more examples a superior attitude. Do you mind if I borrow your exemplary comments?
Rick,
Illustrations of what you wrote about are just pouring in…. good grief! lol
David
David,
Here’s my all time favorite, courtesy of a new Peter Lumpkins article citing it:
Non-Calvinist conservatives, Mohler says, “are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared.” (Christianity Today, Oct. 2010)
David, I THINK I’m supposed to be insulted by this comment, but I’m not exactly sure, you know, what with my “basic structures of thought” being so completely absent from my brain. If anyone finds them lying around somewhere, please let me know. I was unaware they were missing.
David, you just don’t see the irony in what you post, do you?
You laugh at all the “superior calvinists”…not realizing that your mocking them is an attitude of superiority.
So, yes, i suppose the illustrations are pouring in…even inadvertently so…
Yes, you got it right. There is a huge leadership vacuum right now and the people stepping up to fill it are Reformed. If the generation of Arminian Revivalists was so effective, where are their successors?
I’m just saying I’ve seen it in church after church. People HATE Calvinists and they have no idea why. You direct them to examine the Scriptures and they are clueless. You try to have a theological conversation with them and you are accused of elitism before you can even get started. You ask them about the gospel and you usually get moralism mixed with a vague understanding of forgiveness, not faith and repentance, not substitutionary atonement, and certainly not imputation. Someone taught them this (or failed to teach them anything, save how to cook a nice caserole to bring to the potluck or how to railroad a business meeting when you don’t get your way).
Calling someone an elitist or as you have put it “having a superior attitude,” is the biggest cop out to having an actual conversation or debate. Making that accusation is nothing more than admitting you’re theologically and intellectually out gunned from the beginning. Try actually engaging the ideas you so vehemently oppose and let the open debate determine which ideas are better. But, you fear the outcome, which you should. You (or I) will never come close to Dr. Mohler’s knowledge of anything. Let’s try to learn from him rather than undermine him. We are all on the same side, if we truly believe the same gospel.
John, let me speak to you as one Calvinist to another. I think your attitude presented here does much to harm the work of the SBC. It denigrates those who disagree and is disrespectful to non-Calvinists.
I hope you will reconsider the way you speak on this issue.
Whoa! As a product of revivalist evangelism and Godly leadership, I resemble young Strickland’s remark! Unfortunately, young Calvinist pastors of this same rebellious bent and aggressive delivery recently split two churches in our local association. And who filled the void left by departing long-time faithful members? More young folks who challenge SBC identity, message, and mission … seemingly intent to destroy in order to “save”! This revolution has grown beyond young vs. old, stools vs. pulpits, jeans vs. suits … it’s getting downright ugly and mean-spirited in a few places.
BTW, I would disagree with the “takeover” mentality being specific to calvinists….as I see it being an issue for all pastors who seek to shape the church into teaching, believing, and doing what the Pastor sees as the vision for that local church. So, it may not be calvinism, it may be style of worship, or evangelism technique, or whatever…every pastor injects his beliefs and preferences into a congregation. Every single one. Of course a calvinist pastor would do that same thing. A century ago the dispensationalists did it. The charismatics did it. The neo-charismatics are doing it everywhere. The contemporary worship people have done it and are doing it everywhere. I’d imagine the baptists identity people are doing the same thing.
Just a thought.
Here’s my last thought….couldn’t you say that non-calvinists have an exclusionary mindset? That is a form of a “takeover mentality”. Exclude calvinists from participation…nah, that wouldn’t happen. 😉
Here is my view. If either side has the takeover mentality, we are in a lot of trouble. Some non-Calvinists have devoted themselves to the elimination of Calvinists and Calvinism from the SBC. Some Calvinists have exhibited signs of the desire for a takeover.
If Calvinists try to take over the entities of the SBC, the house will fall down. If non-Calvinists try to “purify” the ranks of the SBC from the influence of Calvinism, the house will fall down. If we work together, show respect, and labor together, we have a chance.
The vitriol you see on some blogs about Calvinism (pro and con) and in some comments here is what is, in my opinion, destroying us.
Dead on.
Rick,
You have said it well, on this fine day…very well, indeed. Thou hast hitteth the ole nail squarely on the ole headeth.
David
hmm, that sounded superior
Can’t be…only Calvinists are arrogant and have a superior attitude.
Actually Jason, I tried to be arrogant once, but I lacked the “basic structures of thought” to pull it off!
You know and I know that Mohler was not saying that non-calvinists were dumb. You can twist it if you like, but you know better than that.
Regardless of that…that is not at all what I am saying. You can look at David’s comments and see them dripping with irony as we parades his superior attitude on this comment stream. No “side” has the market cornered on arrogance.
Rick,
I don’t think it’s fair to say that churches who partner with the Acts 29 Network should be labeled “splinter groups.” One of the things I’ve most appreciated about SBC churches I grew up in was the emphasis on the autonomy of the local church and the freedom to associate with other entities that weren’t necessarily “Southern Baptist.”
If they were totally leaving the SBC, that’d be one thing, but freely choosing to partner both with Acts 29 and the SBC is hardly a splintering.
Andrew,
I probably did not phrase that properly. I did not mean to imply that dually aligned Acts 29/SBC churches are CURRENTLY a splinter group but that they could indeed eventually become one, in the same way that the CBF did. It’s essentially a group within a group, defined by its own unique doctrines and methods and conferences and so on. Such organizations have been known to branch off.
For what it’s worth, at the current time it’s fine for churches to dually align, even if it means giving most of their money to Acts 29 and just enough to the SBC to “qualify” in the denomination. Such churches are following a strategy that will replicate Calvinistic SBC churches, as is their right.
I am simply arguing that others should have the same option to replicate non-Calvinistic SBC churches. In order for that to happen, there would have to emerge a “Matthew 28 Network,” (for lack of a better term) committed to planting non-Calvinist Only SBC churches. Then those favoring such an approach could send their church planting dollars with the confidence that they would be promoting doctrines they fervently believe.
That church in Kentucky that was denied membership in the local association is dually aligned with the SBC. Their interest in joining an association would seem to indicate a desire to participate in and be a part of SBC life. If they were to leave the SBC entirely as a result of their being rejected by the association, I wonder if the would be described as “splintering from the SBC”.
I dearly hope these dually-aligned church plants aren’t in it only for the SBC support, but I also hope they aren’t pushed out and then criticized for taking SBC resources under false pretenses.
“[Insert well-known SBCer here] clearly claims that people who are (1) theologically minded, (2) deeply convictional, (3) committed to the gospel, (4) desire to see the nations rejoice in Christ, and (5) want to see gospel structured and committed churches HAVE NO OTHER OPTION than Baptist faith.”
We need to remember that any and all of us can be accused of making these kinds of arguments. We also need to remember that there’s a difference between conviction and arrogance. If I believe that Calvinism is based on a correct understanding of Scripture, wouldn’t it make sense for me to say something like what Mohler is quoted as saying in the post, at least to a group of like-minded believers?
Thank you for adequately saying what I have been attempting to say. It may be helpful for me to footnote all my comments on these threads and point them to this one.
Paul did say, “I am not ashamed of the gospel…..” That is conviction and could be construed arrogant by two different people at the same time.
Andrew,
I actually have a problem with the statement even if the word
“Baptist” is placed there. Surely there are other Christian groups who believe these things. I think we’re biblical, but I think there are others who are also biblical. In other words, people DO have other options.
You wrote: “If I believe that Calvinism is based on a correct understanding of Scripture, wouldn’t it make sense for me to say something like what Mohler is quoted as saying in the post, at least to a group of like-minded believers?”
No, no, no! It wouldn’t at all make sense! You can believe that Calvinism is based on a correct understanding of Scripture without implying that those who disagree with you are not “theologically minded, deeply convictional, etc.”
But isn’t it a logical fallacy to say that if A is true, then A’s opposite must be untrue?
I haven’t seen the Mohler comment in context, but I’m not sure he’s saying non-Calvinists are liars or careless scholars.
To be clear, there is room for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, Baptists and non-Baptists in my definition of a “theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical… committed to the gospel [who wants] to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ…[and] to see gospel built and structured and committed churches.”
Perhaps the word I am looking for is not so much “superior” as it is “exclusive.”
I never got into a theological discussion about Calvinism until God’s grace began to draw me to grace. I still cannot wrap my mind around “unmerited favor” and see it mean that throughout the NT. I think the resistance of the biblical facts or truths on both sides create the mentality you mention about Calvinist. You should be one Calvinist among a group of Arminians. When you are the minority the feeling does shift. I think it is appropriate to exercise humility in front of those who seem to show arrogance in order for them to know how to act when God steps into their life to help them understand humility. We may not have to be there to see the change and that would be the wrong attitude, too.
It sounds like you are saying that SBC churches should only plant churches that do not define their theology are more specifically than the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
You seem to be opposed to SBC dollars funding any the church affirms both the Baptist Faith and Message and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, the Acts 29 Covenant, or other statement that is compatible with, but more specific than, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
It is true, when this happens, both Calvinists and non-Calvinists will fund cooperatively Calvinistic work. But, why exactly is this a problem?
First, consider that if the founders of the SBC had the same attitude, the SBC would be entirely Calvinist only. Rather, the Calvinistic churches that founded the SBC saw fit to fund church plants that would be teaching a different soteriology. This happened to the degree that non-Calvinistic soteriology became so prevalent that we are having this discussion now. Nobody is accusing non-Calvinists of “taking over” because Calvinists willingly funded church plants of many flavors.
Second, your position seems to eliminate SBC funding for all Calvinists unless they agree not to teach Calvinism. However, you have no problem using cooperative fund dollars contributed by Calvinists to fund non-Calvinistic churches. Of course, the Calvinistic churches who gave the money just want to see the gospel furthered and are willing to see that money go to churches that teach either soteriological position.
The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message does unite us. We are not in a unique position today. Acts29 is not the first non-SBC entity to help fund SBC churches. Just as SBC churches have since the beginning, individual SBC churches can agree on the basic doctrine, but keep confessional statements that are more specific than those core doctrines that unite us.
I am not opposed to SBC dollars funding both kinds of churches. Presently, the Calvinists have an advantage in directing their church starting dollars specifically to Calvinist plants. I would not mind it if non-Calvinist churches had the same option.
There exists today a mechanism for a church that wants to start CALVINIST ONLY churches to do so–give a token to SBC and a bunch to Acts 29 and be dually aligned.
Suppose a church wants to start NON-CALVINIST ONLY churches. We do agree they have the same autonomy to do so, right? But what practical option do they have? Should a “Matthew 28 Network” form, they could similarly give a token to the SBC and a bunch to Matthew 28 and be dually aligned and fully able to plant churches whose doctrines they would like to propagate.
Getting Acts29 funding is no trivial thing. You make it sound like Calvinist church plants are shelf ready and waiting for any willing planter. Acts29 funding requires vetting, training, and fundraising.
We should count it as a blessing that a non-SBC group wishes to fund SBC works. The typical situation would be for an equal split in the church plant’s giving. 5% to SBC work and 5% to Acts 29 work. Surely that is more than a token.
Compare that 5% to the cooperative program giving of some non-Calvinistic SBC mega churches. These churches act as their own church planting networks, planting non-Calvinistic churches outside of the cooperative program so they can be sure to get the control and theological flavor they prefer in their church plants.
Would you like to argue against “great commission giving” unless it is funneled through the cooperative program? That would prevent both situations and would surely de-fund more non-Calvinistic works than Calvinistic works.
For what it’s worth, I’m not all that happy with the megachurch CP giving record, either, but I suppose that’s another post.
And yes, while I did not favor Great Commission Giving as an official statistic, I do realize that churches are funneling their dollars as they see fit.
My primary point is that Calvinists have their own intra-SBC church planting organization known as the Acts 29 Network, while non-Calvinists do not have such a network. Perhaps I would prefer not to have either one, but since we ARE going to have Acts 29, I wonder why we would NOT have Matthew 28 in order to give churches a choice?
Rick,
So… you want SBC churches to have the option to fund non-Calvinist church plants, but you don’t like it when churches funnel their dollars where they see fit.
I’m sure there are non-Calvinist groups out there planting churches. An no one has said non-Calvinists couldn’t start a group called Matthew 28 (though it should better be called the Whosoever Will Network). I’m not sure what the basis of the complaint is.
Acts29 is not part of the SBC and a vast majority of Acts29 churches have nothing to do with the SBC. It is amiss to call them intra-SBC.
It seems that the default SBC church plant is non-Calvinist, so I really fail to see the need to a non (or anti) Calvinist church planting network for SBC churches. I’m sure you can find someone to co-align yourself with if you really wanted, maybe The National Association of Free Will Baptists would help plant an anti-Calvinistic SBC church.
I’d also argue that countless local SBC associations do just what you say, act as a church planting network for non-Calvinistic churches.
I know of one church that tried to plant with the SBC, was turned down by their local association for being Calvinistic. They ended up planting with Acts29. They are not SBC, but still give to Southern Baptist causes for their missions offerings. Somehow, the poor treatment they got from the local SBC did not shake their faith in the co-operative program.
These types of stories seem common, but I do not think you will find any the other way around. There is a need for a Calvinistic network for those shunned by their local SBC associations. But I’ve never heard of the situation the other way around.
Rick, I’m extremely disappointed in this article. You’re better than this. You, Lumpkins, and others like you need to find a mirror quickly.
First, I find it ironic that you condemn aggressive Calvinism (your words, not mine) with aggressive non-Calvinism.
Second, Mohler just spoke about his convictions. Where does he say “only” in his statements? He doesn’t say it; yet, you and Lumpkins argue he does. How do you not know that Mohler considers you and Lumpkins in the “Reformed of another name” stream of Baptist life? How do you not know that he doesn’t include what you believe concerning the T.U.L.I.P. in his “reformed” definition? How do you not know that he considers the BF&M 2000, a document you affirm, a “reformed” document? I ask this because why is Al Mohler so cooperative with other Southern Baptists that believe like you, if he thinks they’re not serious about the gospel… as you and Lumpkins argue? You and Lumpkins seem to know Mohler better than he knows himself, because he sure doesn’t live out what you guys suggest he’s arguing in the video. So, who should I and others believe, the words and implications you put in Mohler’s mouth; or, the actual theology and life espoused by Mohler on a consistent basis? The answer is obvious to anyone who isn’t looking for smoke where there’s no fire.
Third, you use exclusive statements to condemn Mohler’s exclusive statements (your words, not mine). Truly, if Mohler’s exclusivity is arrogant, then your exclusive statements against him are arrogant as well.
Fourth, no one has denied that some sbc Calvinists have behaved badly. But, if your stats are correct that the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists are non-Calvinists, then this means that most of the church splits in the sbc are caused by non-Calvinists. But, of course, you leave this fact out of your discussion. Here’s just one example of an sbc church splitting, not due to Calvinism or Calvinists, but because of divisive non-Calvinists…http://www.salisburypost.com/News/092511-court-Blackwelder-Park-Baptist-civil-lawsuit-pastor-Keith-Kannenberg-qcd and http://www.salisburypost.com/News/102811-court-Keith-Kannenberg-Blackwelder-Park-Baptist-Church-Jamie-Welch-qcd. Make sure you read the comments in the above two links!
The reality is that I know that I cannot stereotype all non-Calvinists based on the several instances I’ve seen where non-Calvinist Southern Baptists have split churches. You, Lumpkins, and others however refuse to apply the same stereotypes you apply to Calvinists, to those within your own theological system. Why the biased? The answer is simply that ya’ll are terribly inconsistent. You’ll keep pointing to the few instances to stereotype the many who you disagree with, while those who agree with your theological system rip churches apart left and right . . . as you sit silent. Shouldn’t you warn people about the arrogant aggressive non-Calvinists in the sbc as well?
Fifth, you inconsistently condemn Acts 29 church plants because they plant only Calvinist churches, while wishing there was a non-Calvinist sbc church planting group you could support that would plant only non-Calvinist sbc churches. If Calvinists and non-Calvinists still affirm the BF&M 2000, why would you be against these churches? If sbc affiliation with Acts 29 is wrong because it only plants Calvinist churches then any other affiliation with a church planting organization in the sbc that only plants non-Calvinists sbc churches is wrong as well.
And, for the record, there are no “NON-Calvinist SBC dollars.” There’s only Southern Baptist dollars… at least this is what I thought based on the BF&M 2000, our confession of faith. It blows my mind that you’re upset that cooperative dollars are being spent to plant churches that totally affirm the BF&M 2000.
Sixth, the majority of those in leadership in the Convention are still non-Calvinists. You act like you’re being marginalized, but most of the seminary Presidents, professors, state convention leaders, state Baptist papers, etc. believe like you. The truth is that if any group is marginalized in the sbc concerning denominational leadership and influence, its Calvinists. They’ve been marginalized for years, and you, and others like you, want to keep them marginalized. Otherwise, why do you feel marginalized when the majority of leadership positions in the sbc represent your position? What do you want?… you already have the majority.
Seventh, I want you to look at Mike’s article that has a similar title as this article, and notice the extreme difference. Now, who is truly aggressive? Your group continually attacks Calvinists while we’re screaming cooperation. Mohler is willing to cooperate with you to reach the nations. He has proven this time and time again. He and Patterson even pleaded with Southern Baptists to cooperate together concerning Calvinism at the sbc in 2006. Non-Calvinists still preach at SBTS. When’s the last time a Calvinist preached in your church? Who’s truly the aggressor? Lumpkins continually says that Mohler is an aggressive Calvinist, but those who know him and see him, and witness his life, know that this is just not the case. It’s blatantly inaccurate to label Mohler an “aggressive” Calvinist.
Finally, you and Lumpkins and others like you love to attack what so-and-so didn’t say. I find often that you interact with what wasn’t said… but what you deem was “implied.” In other words, you are great at finding smoke where there’s no fire. You add the smoke and create the fire. And then, all of you applaud each other. This is what you’ve done in this article.
I’m beginning to wonder if cooperation is possible. I hope neither extreme Calvinists nor extreme non-Calvinists in the sbc win the day, for as Dave said above, if either of these two groups win, down goes the sbc. I’ll however continue to fellowship and cooperate with my non-Calvinist Baptist brethren.
FYI, I accidently published the article you reference here under my name, but it was Mike Leake’s article and that has been corrected. Mike deserves the credit for that fine article.
You and Mike both encourage me to be a better Calvinist. I thought Mike’s article was indeed excellent.
Jared,
Thanks for the encouragement.
Jared,
I certainly have no qualms if both Rick and I think alike on some things. But to continue blathering on and on about me on a post not dealing with my specific thoughts is ridiculous. If you’ve got an issue about a particular I write, spit it out. But please do so in a context that can give justice to what I’ve actually written.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter, I’d comment on your blog if I knew it’d be published. I’m just not going to waste my time writing if you’re just going to delete it.
I’d be thrilled (and somewhat surprised) if we could all remain focused on the issues and not the people discussing the issues.
Jared, One question. Do you think Mohler would make the EXACT same statements using EXACT words he made on the GC video to the SBC Convention next year?
Lydia, I do think so because I think Mohler would argue that the BF&M 2000 is a Reformed document. I think in the video Pactrick mentions above, Mohler is coming against liberalism, pluralism, etc. Furthermore, he was speaking to the gospel coalition, not to the sbc. His language might change some if speaking to the sbc, but his meaning would remain the same. Do you really think Mohler is saying that Paige Patterson doesn’t care about the gospel?
“, he was speaking to the gospel coalition, not to the sbc. His language might change some if speaking to the sbc, but his meaning would remain the same.”
Come on, Jared. Don’t you see what you are doing here? Why would he need to change his language for the SBC if he meant it with the GC? Why not be the same person with both audiences? Isn’t that the problem?
” Do you really think Mohler is saying that Paige Patterson doesn’t care about the gospel?
”
Yes. I think he was planting that seed with his Reformed audience. And those not as sleek as Mohler take it and run with it.
Lydia, my language changes depending on what audience I’m speaking with. Every pastor’s language changes depending on his audience, but the meaning is still there. I think if speaking to the sbc Mohler would have spent more time explaining what he meant. With the Gospel Coalition, he obviously didn’t feel the need to… the other 2 guys were nodding their heads in agreement.
Also, if you believe Mohler thinks that Paige Patterson doesn’t care about the gospel, then you willfully ignore all the other facts about Mohler. In other words, you pick and choose what you want to believe concerning him. I don’t think you’re being fair, painting him with a broad brush over a handful of comments he’s made. Would you be fine if someone did the same thing to you? What if someone pretended to know your motives, based on only a few selective comments you’ve made?
Jared,
Thanks for showing me the error of my ways. In your introduction, you said that I am better than this. I must humbly admit that I am not. I am inferior. I am depraved. Totally.
Hey, don’t forget I agree with you guys on one and five, okay?
By the way, my failings, apparently, spring from the absence of certain “basic structures of thought” I hope to one day recover.
I do wish to clarify one thing. By suggesting the need for a Whosoever Will Network (I like that name better), I am not making the case that two wrongs make a right. I am essentially giving in, yielding to the reality that Acts 29 is here to stay. If you can’t beat them, join them. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Those who wish to sponsor non-Calvinist church plants do indeed have that right, no? And while FORMERLY it was true that non-Calvinism was the default SBC position, that is not so much the case anymore, no? Isn’t it logical to assume that the rise of New Calvinism would be accompanied by a rise in New Non-Calvinism?
We agree that many Calvinist SBC churches receive support from both Acts 29 and the SBC Cooperative Program. What I hear you saying is that the non-Calvinist SBC churches should only receive support from the SBC Cooperative Program, since it is mostly non-Calvinistic, but this dilutes the SBC church planting funds that previously supported almost entirely non-Calvinistic plants.
I realize you see the need for a Calvinist Network but no need for a Non-Calvinist Network since you view the SBC as essentially fitting in that second category. However, I would suggest that the more accurate view is to see the SBC as planting both kinds of churches, Acts 29 as planting Calvinist ones and no one currently providing the kind of Non-Calvinist Network that would balance the equation.
You are only inferior, Rick, insofar as you disagree with me.
Rick, the fact that you affirm two Reformed doctrines could indeed make you “Reformed.” You may call it something else, but you’re Reformed in a sense. So, yes, Mohler could have been talking about you in the video you mention. You’re one of the “reformed of another name.”
Concerning Acts 29, as long as the sbc is planting churches that affirm the BF&M 2000, I don’t care who they’re affiliated with. I’m old school in many ways, and I don’t like the “cool pastor” mentality, but if they affirm the BF&M 2000, I’m fine with them receiving cooperative dollars. There’s a lot of things I don’t like, as I’ve indicated numerous times, but I would partner with anyone who is serious about the gospel. And yes, I’ll even give and send money to groups that I disagree with, so long as they’re serious about the gospel as well. BTW: I’m a cessationist even, and I’m fine with our cooperative dollars going to non-cessationists who are serious about the gospel. The list can go on and on.
Jared,
If I am truly “reformed” as you say, then according to my own argument, I must find it difficult to hug myself. (Seriously, try it. The arms can’t make it around back.)
Now, if I could only find someone to look down on and something to take over.
There may indeed be some truth to your claim that Mohler considers me “reformed” although I do not self-identify that way. I seem to recall some statement of his to the effect that all Southern Baptists were Calvinists of a sort. Please.
That’s really a strange yet clever way of winning an argument–just redefine your opponent and declare you are both the same. I have long suspected that all those Redskin fans in Washington are secretly rooting for the Cowboys!
I appreciate Dave’s attempts to bring civility to these dialogues on Calvinism. But I think we’re beginning to see some frustration on the part of Calvinists for what they feel is a constant haranguing. True, some Calvinists can be arrogant, but that isn’t the mark of a Calvinist. Besides, does non-Calvinism mean non-arrogance? I think we need only look at some of the most vocal critics of Calvinism in the SBC and we can show this isn’t a one-sided issue.
Calvinists are a growing minority, and this is somewhat alarming to the majority. This produces some pretty passionate debate. When Calvinists feel all they get is criticism from their non-Calvinist “brothers,” it’s not surprising they retreat to huddles of like-minded individuals who will encourage them and affirm them. Partnering with the Acts 29 Network is due largely in part because there’s more support and unity in a somewhat theologically diverse group than they get from other BF&M Baptists who focus on the differences.
I’m not defending arrogance or rudeness on the part of Calvinists, but we have to remember who’s the majority here and who’s the minority. It’s always been easier to the majority to excuse their faults and magnify the sins of the minority. Just look at American history.
Agreed, Andrew. Frankly, I think both sides give plenty of offense. The solution is for us Calvinists to stop doing that which we do to offend non-Calvinists and for the non-Calvinists to stop doing what they do that offends the Calvinists.
We justify our own actions because of what the other side does. “They started it.” Playground type stuff.
My point is simple. If we don’t find a way to fellowship and love one another, but just continue to lob bombs at one other from behind our bunkers, the SBC is headed for some really bad days.
Instead of seeing this issue as one of “arrogance or rudeness on the part of Calvinists, but we have to remember who’s the majority here and who’s the minority. It’s always been easier to the majority to excuse their faults and magnify the sins of the minority.”
Your comment is WELL noted… the problem is a majority of the majority have no idea what the minority is doing and those who do are simply sounding their voices… and your comment, “just look at American history” is even MORE compelling; the majority does not want history repeating itself in our convention because we sit back and SAY NOTHING.
Rick’s article seemed to me to be a resonable effort to simply “voice his opinions” which are more commonly held than some would like.
Grateful to be in His Grip,
><:>”
Please elaborate on “the majority does not want history repeating itself in our convention”.
I’m very curious what you meant by that comment, Bob.
This is an interesting post.
I have never seen a truly Calvinist pastor hide his beliefs. In fact, the charge that Calvinists are arrogant is based on the fact that they are parading their beliefs around and talking down to others.
So, it makes me wonder about scenarios where a person who is proud and arrogant about his beliefs ends up as a pastor of a church and the church did not know what he believed.
Those 2 points made at the same time don’t fit.
So, on point 2, I am lost.
I do see situations where due to a lack of biblical training and understanding a pulpit committee or a church might fail to do due diligence. But, frankly, I have never known a Baptist Calvinist to hide his convictions. They are quite proud of them.
I understand point 1. You have a point. Have seen that before.
Point 2, in my opinion, really reflects the poor level of theology of most churches. I am sure that there may be cases of semi-deception, but they are rare.
Historically, deception was more artfully practiced by neoorthodox seminarians who got into churches and stayed 30 plus years and eventually produced neoorthodox congregations.
The Rodney King paragraph also seems strange to me.
I get the general impression from Rick, and I am not meaning to pick on him, but I get the general impression from him that he and people like him are really mad and that they are going to do something – like “I am gonna put a stop to this if you guys don’t…”
The things that I have read from Rick and others who agree with him typically involve hanging on to secondary or cultural issues – like a doctrine of abstention from alcohol, the name of the SBC, and perhaps a certain cultural feel to the presentation of the Gospel and how that is to be done in church polity.
In fairness to Rick, he and others like him are not arguing for tribal identity without doctrinal unity. That was the moderates problem. They believed in common Baptist world, but did not believe in a common theology to support it. Hence, they still will not adopt a common doctrinal confession.
But from Rick and others like him, I clearly get the sense that there is a belief in strong theology – plus something else. It’s the BFM (which is easily consistent with the Reformed tradition from which Southern Baptists came) plus the cultural traditions of the SBC. The name, no drinking, church done a certain way – which is all extra to the BFM, but which is so central to their experience, that it may as well be in the BFM.
I get the feeling that Rick and others who agree with him are broad enough to give some latitude to others who disagree on these questions, so long as they don’t become a majority. I do not get the sense that Rick would sit still for becoming the minority viewpoint on some of these non-BFM markers. He is gracious, and is willing for others to disagree to be part of the SBC.
But I get the sense if the other side of these arguments began to win the majority of hearts and minds in the SBC, not to the point where Rick or others were actually excluded, but just to the point where they were in the minority that there would be some sort of war.
I guess I sense a lot of anger in Rick’s writing. As if someone is getting ready to take something away from him. It’s not in the BFM and it’s not anything that has ever been agreed upon as a point of fellowship, but it is so central to his experience that it may as well have been.
I am getting this right?
Louis wrote:
“I have never seen a truly Calvinist pastor hide his beliefs. In fact, the charge that Calvinists are arrogant is based on the fact that they are parading their beliefs around and talking down to others.
So, it makes me wonder about scenarios where a person who is proud and arrogant about his beliefs ends up as a pastor of a church and the church did not know what he believed.
Those 2 points made at the same time don’t fit.”
GREAT POINT!
Here is the one of the things that so irks me about the issue of Calvinism in the SBC. Your comment makes it “seem” as if there is some convoluted effort to discredit Calvinists by falsely accusing them of taking positions in churches that do not KNOW that they are Calvinist. (AKA your comment, “So, it makes me wonder about scenarios where a person who is proud and arrogant about his beliefs ends up as a pastor of a church and the church did not know what he believed.”)
Everyone KNOWS that this takes place and everyone KNOWS the reason that this happens is there are a LOT of churches in the SBC who do not know the difference between a rose and a tulip. But for some reason, YOU act as if this caricature is somehow unfair and ridiculous. At least be honest and accepting and GRATEFUL of the fact that there is a TON of ignorance out there and quit parading around like a peacock proving your own.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
That quote was by Louis…but I will respond since I agree with his point.
I believe he was pointing out how aggressive anti-calvinists like yourself love to play both sides of the fence on this one. You accuse these “aggressive and proud calvinists” of strutting their theological beliefs and announcing them anywhere ad everywhere and talking about nothing but calvinism…but then you also turn around and blame “aggressive and proud calvinists” for not speaking up about their beliefs so they can get jobs.
Which is it? If they are proud and only talk about calvinism, then how are they able to hide their beliefs? it’s all they talk about.
He was pointing out a contradiction in your argument…I agree that it is a funny contradiction on behalf of the aggressive anti-calvinists.
I was not commenting at all on those who are dishonest to search committees. Those people are reprehensible. You must be up front about your beliefs. No question. So, you will not get much disagreement from me on that issue. I’m not sure about it happening “a lot”, but it definitely happens.
Again, his point was about attacking these supposed pastors from both angles, when both can’t be true at the same time. He was pointing out the contradiction. I’ll take it from your response that you don’t see what he is talking about.
“Everyone KNOWS that this takes place ”
Name ten.
“I guess I sense a lot of anger in Rick’s writing”
Planting those seeds again, Louis? In fact, I have read Rick’s post and comments as very irenic and humorous about a very touchy subject. If you think he, in particular, is angry then that only shows how far apart people really are. Or perhaps it is just a seed planted that any disagreement is “anger”?
There is only one logical conclusion to come to concerning Mohler’s comments on the GC video concerning the “New Calvinism”. I cannot believe how many people are ignoring it.
BTW: Rarely does a prospective pastor come right out and say, “I am a Calvinist”. It is usually more subtle than that such as “I believe in the Sovereignty of God”, etc. Well, what believer doesn’t? And there we have the disconnect.
Note: comment written with sad but sincere smile
What I get from Louis is the sense that he is an armchair psychologist who would like to ask me about my mother. Just kidding, but that really was a lot of psychoanalysis, brother.
No, I’m not really angry. And yes, I can tolerate a measure of both theological and methodological diversity. I do feel a sense of loss in terms of our Southern Baptist culture in recent years.
I don’t like having my non-Calvinist convictions ridiculed as less gospel worthy than anyone else’s. I do resent the implication that non-Calvinists are not the brightest bulbs in the light shop.
Believe it or not, I do believe it is possible for both sides to get along.
The so-called Young RESTLESS and Reformed are by definition aggressive. (That’s the restless part.) Will this RESTLESSNESS lead to a superior sense of entitlement that feels compelled to reform the so-called FAILED churches of yesterday and ultimately take over the entire denomination?
Yes, I do wonder about that. Will the SBC change so much over the next 20 years that I will feel like a complete stranger in my own denomination?
If my words have been too sharp today, please forgive me. I am just as free with my opinions as the next guy. I have nothing but love for Jesus and every brother and sister on this comment stream.
Hold up…in what world does “restless” mean “aggressive” and moreover, just because ONE BOOK tried to use a clever title to describe a movement, how on earth does that become definitive as being the most accurate? Come on, now. I don’t think “restless” means anything “aggressive” at all.
The whole “sense of entitlement” thing strikes me as pretty funny as well. That is a whole can of worms, isn’t it? Of course the BI movement has no sense of entitlement, right? No aggressive element?
And…we can’t have it both ways on the “so-called FAILED churches”, can we? Do we have failed churches? Or just “so-called failed churches”?
I also think the whole “woe is me…Mohler called me dumb” shtick is tired. That is not what he said. To represent his words in such a way shows the same integrity as the whole….well, misrepresenting his words about homosexuality thing. Weird how it is always the same people.
I love you guys. I hate having to fight over this issue. But as long as there are bad arguments and misrepresentation and the existence of irony in need of being pointed out, I will get sucked into it. I want a SBC where we can all get along. I am not restless or aggressive. I feel no sense of entitlement nor do I crave power on any level of denominational service. I don’t want to take over anything. But I do wish the exclusionary tactics of some would end. This fight needs to end…we are brothers and sisters, not demon-worshippers. Time to act like it.
Jason, the New Calvinism is a shocking and exaggerated version of Christianity. But it does not exploit: I find that it’s sold to an audience that is predisposed to accept it. A definite temperament characterizes this movement.
“shocking and exaggerated”?
Please elaborate!
Rick,
I really don’t think that you are a bad guy or that you need to be psychoanalyzed – or especially that I would be qualified to do that!
I am glad to read that you think that there is room for so-called “Calvinists” and so-called “Non-Calvinists” to be in the convention.
I can’t stand those terms, but agree to use them for dialogue.
The question is not whether you or those like you think there is room for both types of people/churches, but whether you and those like you are willing to see yourself become the minority position in the Convention with a sweet spirit, should the trend continue in that direction.
I disagree with the idea that the BFM was not written at a time when the Calvinism issue was the debate. (But agree that Acts 29 was not around then).
Reformed theology has always been at the heart of the founding of the SBC, at least since the founding of Southern in 1859.
Reformed theology at Southern was attacked, not be evangelical “Non-Calvinists” such as yourself, but by modernist and liberal theologians who held an entirley different view of what scripture was.
At any rate, I don’t get the sense that as things stand now that you would take any action.
But I suspect the resurgence of Reformed Theology in the SBC is going to continue for another 15 years or so, and that we are probably in for an increase in its influence.
It is my hope that the “Non-Calvinists” will just ride that out and present the merits of their own theology rather than be concerned about some sort of “takeover” of the convention. If there is a “takeover”, it will be just by the sheer ascendancy of the appeal of Reformed Theology at this time, not because there is some concerted effort to run other folks out.
I am concerned that those who disagree with “Calvinism” will attempt to use the denominational machinery to stop some sort of perceived takeover and to preserve a certain cultural expression of the faith. That’s the part of your post (at the end) to which I was reacting.
I think that the BFM is fine. It’s not perfect, but it’s fine. It does not require change.
What will continue to change, I believe, is the cultural feel of the convention due to the resurgence of Reformed Theology. I think that will happen naturally. Most of the seminaries are led by people who are more Reformed. LifeWay is led by a guy who is more Reformed. The seminary grads are more Reformed than even 10 years ago. I don’t see these trends abating. And I am not a so-called 5 point Calvinist.
Any action to try and prevent that, I believe, will be counterproductive and may look foolish, too.
Both type of people and churches can exist in the convention, can serve, and be good representatives of what the SBC is.
Changes come with the spirit of the times. So long as those changes fit within the BFM, fine.
Trying to change the BFM to stop the cultural change will be like trying to stop the tide.
I am not predicting for certain that Reformed Theology will dominate the SBC landscape, but it appears that it has great appeal now and is growing.
The better course for those who oppose it, in my opinion, is not to be reactive – make rules, change the BFM, charge that people are not interested in evangelism etc.
It is to put the best face, best spokesmen and best argument forward for something other than Reformed Theology, or various parts of it.
I just saw this and it seems to fit.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: “Stop. Don’t do it.”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he asked.
“Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“Like what?”
“Are you religious?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?”
“Christian.”
“Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
“Baptist.””
Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too. Are you original Baptist Ch
urch of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”
He said: “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915.”
I said: “Die, hereticscum!” and pushed him off.
LOL…Ive actually tried this joke in a sermon. Went over like a lead balloon. Which may say more about my joke telling skills than anything else.
Yep, I’ve heard that one too. Perhaps a bit too real to be funny?
That reminds me of an old joke of a different tenor. There was a poor man who was despondent, broken and a complete mess. One day he’d fallen down drunk and couldn’t get back up. A Baptist came along, helped him to his feet, brushed the dirt off him, and brought him to church where he learned about Jesus and His love. Then a Methodist came along and taught him how to read and write. After this, a Presbyterian befriended him and helped him up the economic ladder. The man grew to love his prosperity and joined the Episcopalians. Then he took to drinking heavily and playing cards and gambling, and he enjoyed an epicurean existence. His life fell apart once more, and he fell down drunk, lying there in the dirt. Then the Baptist came by, picked him up, brushed the dirt off him, and reintroduced him to Jesus.
Oh, and let me add that I don’t really get too worked up about all the Calvinism debate in the SBC. Reformed theology has been part of the SBC since its founding. It has been here, and will always be here.
I believe that doctrinal emphases come and go in cycles, often depending on the pressures on or interests in the church at a given time.
It is no suprise in a country like the US with a continual slide toward a post Christian society that some of the emphases of Reformed theology have great appeal and are effective.
For example, who on this blog would argue that the suppositional arguments of Van Til in the area of apologetics are not more popular nowadays than the evidentialist approach of Geisler and others that were very popular 30 years ago?
So, I tend to think that Christian doctrines wax and wane in how they are emphasized.
In the SBC family we are already so close together in theology, in my opinion. I do not see these differences splitting us apart.
But sometimes “feel” or cultural issues are much more powerful than we may want to acknowledge.
Lydia:
I don’t get worked up about what Mohler said (even though I do not agree with it) because of other things he has said.
I mean if Paige Patterson and Mohler can debate this subject civilly, and if Mohler can have Adrian Rogers preach at SBTS chapel?
I give academics like Mohler, Yarnell and others in the SBC family room to make statements like this. Maybe I shouldn’t. But I just do. Both of these men are friends, and they disagree strongly on this subject. Academics need to be able to argue with one anothere.
Neither have made threats such as “if you do this or that I will not sit by etc.”
Louis, If I recall correctly, A Rogers once said Calvinism was the “doctrine of demons”. Correct me if I am wrong. However, I am not aware of him using that line with non SBC groups he was aligning himself with nationally. Again, correct me if I am wrong on that.
But you are reminiscing. The CR is won. When that happens movements turn inward and we are seeing that now. You are seeing an uneasy alliance for the sake of appearances. What Mohler said on the GC video basically insults non Calvinists as non thinkers. But he also said it to a “Reformed audience”. I live in YRR land and can tell you Mohler is one of the greatest strategists around. That is his brilliance. Some people think that is a good thing.
I heard that whole sermon on the radio from A Rogers. It was all good but that part. I never felt it was a sink or swim issue. Just something to be proved. Once I did I found peace and never had an argument with him about it.
So, if Rick and others are going to misrepresent Mohler’s comment about “structures of thought” and make it into him saying they were dumb (which is clearly NOT what he was doing) and start making faux self-deprecating remarks….can I then claim that the non-calvinists are painting all calvinists as “demon-worshipping heathens who are not saved but rather have their minds enslaved to demons”?
BTW, Adrian Rogers’ remarks are a prime example of how the hyperbole, over-statement, and mean-spirited comments are not limited to one side…and even pulls godly men into the fray to say things I would hope they wish they could take back.
“So, if Rick and others are going to misrepresent Mohler’s comment about “structures of thought” and make it into him saying they were dumb (which is clearly NOT what he was doing) ”
Jason, what exactly did Mohler mean?
I believe Mohler’s statement was saying that in holding their beliefs they are dependent upon the sub-structure of reformed theology that supports their views. Therefore, in denying reformed theology they are inadvertently undermining their very own views. He was pointing out a logical inconsistency in argumentation and belief.
He was not speaking AT ALL about intellectual ability.
Except for the intellectual inability to recognize that one is “inadvertently undermining one’s very own views.”
That’s at least kinda like being dumb, isn’t it?
Jason, I think what Rogers said was horrible, btw. I think Mohler was using a more puesdo- intellectual argument that non Calvinists are not as sharp/smart as Calvinists.
Jason G, Bruce H, Lydia,
I still think it would be good to document the quote you say is from Adrian Rogers.
There could be a lot of variables to what you contend Adrian said. His remarks are not a “prime example” if he never said them.
David R. Brumbelow
Oh, we need proof? I thought all we had to do was make an assertion like “PVCC is not cooperative and lack Christian qualities” and it was accepted as fact. Hmm, I guess it only works from one side.
Actually, that was my point before, wasn’t it? Hyperbole and over-statement is not limited to one side or the other, both are guilty. I think some on here actually believe that the other side are the enemy and that those defending the other side are the only extremists or aggressive people out there.
Jason G,
So are you saying it really doesn’t matter whether Adrian Rogers said what several of you are claiming he said?
David R. Brumbelow
I was being sarcastic…of course it is important.
I suspect that Adrian may have said such a thing. That statement is arguably worse than Mohler’s. But I really don’t care. They both believe the Gospel and the Bible.
Maybe I am just too squishy.
I enjoy listening to Mohler and Adrian (funny how I use different names for them?). It’s probably because Adrian tells so many funny stories starting with someone saying something to him – “Adrian….”
Non-thinkers abound. The piece in the state paper about Calvisim in my state was almost unintelligible. And I run into Reformed people from time to time who are not that bright.
But now if you start telling me that the SBC is going soft on alcohol, them is fightin’ words!
Would it be accurate to say that the most mean spirited non-Calvinist would have the gift of evangelism?
First, a caveat to Dave Miller: It is my honest and sincere intention that this comment foster amicable discussion on this topic. If, in your judgment, you feel like it is too far away from the thrust of this thread, or that it will hinder effective and loving communication on the issue, then I will take absolutely no offense if you delete.
//
To Mr. Patrick and those who would not self identify as Calvinists: I would greatly appreciate it if you could name a few SBC pastors (big names, small country church pastors, whatever) who adhere to a Calvinist soteriology AND whom you feel should be role models for other SBC Calvinists. I think this thread has successfully identified those SBC Calvinist characteristics with which you disagree. I now think it would be helpful if you could identify those whom you feel are getting it right, so to speak.
I could name two. One is an excellent pastor and friend. We’ve gone on a short term mission trip together. He has a gracious spirit and does not come across as condescending. Another is an associate pastor of a nearby church about whom the same things could be said. We have enjoyed each other’s fellowship and even prayerfully considered colaboring in ministry.
I would prefer not mentioning them by name, since I have not asked their permission, and to save them from any guilt by
association that my name and this article might bring.
Dave Miller
D. R. Randle
I would like to see documentation on the quote some are saying is from Adrian Rogers.
Adrian Rogers does have a sermon on, “Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not!”
Excerpts from that sermon can be found at:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/08/adrian-rogers-on-predestination.html
David R. Brumbelow
All I know is that I actually heard him say it on the radio. He had already passed and they are continuing to play his sermons. I just do not recall the sermon title. Not gifted that way.
Bruce H,
What exactly did he say? Did he say Calvinism? Did he single out a particular viewpoint within Calvinism? Did he single out an extreme viewpoint only a few Calvinists hold?
The only thing I saw in quotes was “doctrine of demons.”
David R. Brumbelow
David,
As I recall, he indicated that the Calvinist mindset couldn’t be a saved mindset (not exact words) but that was not his subject, it was just a passing comment. Even saying “doctrine of demons” would be referring to “dead faith”. For clarity, I was not offended at all and my comments here are not to deminish his work or message in the least. When I have heard men speak this strongly, the one thing that stands out about them is that they seem to have the Gift of Evangelism. Believe it or not, I have placed myself under a pastor like this in order to have a continuous presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a push for soul winning. I don’t see that in churches that preach and teach what I believe here in the area I live and I need that kind of preaching to balance me. My dad has the gift of evangelism and he is a layman. I just don’t have that inner drive to evangelize, but I do have it for discipleship and teaching.
I would just like to say that I…like Rick….am not angry, and I’m not anti Calvinists. I am anti aggressive Calvinists. There’s a difference.
I have many, many friends, who are more Calvinistic in their theology than I. I have many friends,who are 5 point Calvinists. I do not appreciate aggressive, obsessed Calvinists.
Just wanted to make that clear after reading a lot of the comments concerning me in these past few posts. Wow….I never knew so much about myself as I’ve been told in SBC Voices comments….lol.
David
Why do you have to be anti-people at all? That’s part of the problem, IMO, with any discussion on this issue.
I am against aggressive anti-calvinISM. It makes me sad that people exhibit such a strong one-sided hatred for anything calvinistic at all.
On this blog (or anywhere) I have NEVER made an argument for calvinism. I am quite confident that every post I have ever made has been in response to aggressive anti-calvinist rhetoric. It has all been responsive.
Why?
Because I am not interested in getting anyone else to agree with me on this issue. But I am interested in people accepting the fact that there is room for the two sides to cooperate together to fulfill what god has called us to do. Therefore, I will argue against (what I consider) bad arguments against calvinism. That is not aggressive, but it is a defensive posture. That defensive posture is taken so that the exclusionary tone of many will not prevail.
It is time for people to realize the “other side” is NOT the enemy. If you are looking for the definition of aggressive calvinism or aggressive non-calvinism it is that….not that they are excited about their position or that they will defend it vehemently, I would hope both sides would be described by that quality. The aggressive person is one who sees the “other side” as someONE or some persons to be against. That is not healthy.
I’m still curious how you can consider being “anti-aggressive calvinists” as not being aggressive yourself, or why being against people (as if people are the enemies) is acceptable at all.
Still waiting on a response to this.
Given your comment on the “Epilogue” post…it makes your defense of your own statements rather telling.
When will we wake up to the reality that Sovereign Grace is only truly represented by the attitude in the hymn by John Newton, Amazing Grace that saved a wretch like me.” Why adopt a superior attitude, when it does not comport with the theology, indeed, is a contradiction of it? I call for the proper attitude, the only one that truly reflects Sovereign Grace, namely, humility. God grant you all the grace to see that humility is the only way to go. One must strive at all costs to avoid anything that smacks of superior/inferior attitude, for the Lord will soon show His disdain of such rebellion.
Dr. Willingham, thank you for remarking on Dr. Toynbee’s insight. I consider that what he said came to pass in some form here in America. As for Mr. Mohler, I remain totally uninterested in what he has to say. When I recall all of the Christian thinkers who’ve wrestled with the deep issues of our faith, he never comes to mind. Anyone can parrot a system and voice their predjudices. But when I consider a C. S. Lewis or a Blaise Pascal, their wisdom shines forth like that of Solomon in all his breadth and grandeur! It is to such writers as these that I repair when in doubt or perplexity.
Well, Rick, as a Calvinist who is just trying to raise my kids right; teach them to love the Lord, understand the Bible, fulfill the GC; and myself take the gospel to people locally and abroad – all the while loving the non-Calvinists I go to church with and enjoying laboring alongside them…
…your words really make me feel defeated.
Thanks.
Now what am I supposed to do with what you said?
Hey Jim,
My purpose was certainly not for you to feel defeated.
As for what you might do with what I said, just think about it and know that some non-Calvinists are rubbed the wrong way by comments like Mohler’s. I was very much encouraged to read Dave Miller’s excellent article concerning Mohler’s comments. That gives me hope that the superior tone might die down.
Regarding the takeover mentality, simply challenge pastoral candidates to be upfront about their reformed theology, to initiate clearly what they believe and to accept the consequences if the church is no longer interested.
I’ll try to embrace these changes with more patience and grace. I only meant to challenge certain attitudes, not to defeat anyone or crush anyone’s spirit. May God bless you and your ministry.
Rick,
I am in complete agreement with you in your closing remarks here. My area of disagreement is not with INDIVIDUALS but with theological principles and actions of individuals. I have been guilty of being “less that gracious at times” because of questions and attitudes hurled at me by others… but I am bigger than that and will work to be more gracious no matter what others say.
This is an emotional topic and it seems to me that it would be GREAT if everyone would understand that there are actually intelligent, compassionate, God-fearing and EVANGELISTIC people on both sides of this issue. I KNOW that this is true.
I am with you and will work on the graciousness on my part to be salt and light to the world… even in blogs!
Again, may God bless the SBC and ALL of its churches and people as well as the world we are called to influence!
><<“
Rick,
I get the sense from your words that if someone is a Calvinist they inherently have a takeover mentality. Am I correct?
I’m not sure why someone can’t admit they are a Calvinist and admit they do not desire to have Calvinism take over the church?
Mark,
No, I’m really not saying that if someone is a Calvinist they inherently have a takeover mentality. That was the purpose of my initial disclaimer: “…let me say at the start that while every Calvinist does not fit this mold, so many do that it poisons the pot for everyone else.” Thus, I would describe it as more of a “tendency among many” Calvinists to have this takeover mentality.
When you think about it, given their understanding of the need for “reform” it really does make sense that they would want to take an organization over. I believe they are well-intentioned, but it often causes problems since many churches are simply not on the same theological and methodological page as the new Calvinist pastor.
I do, however, like your second observation. If someone admits they are a Calvinist, but has no desire for Calvinism to take over the church, then the congregation knows up front the minister’s theology and can hold him accountable to his commitment not to divide the fellowship over issues like salvation doctrine, elder rule and so forth.
Some churches may feel comfortable with that arrangement. Others may prefer a pastor who truly lines up with their theology more closely. My appeal is largely for full disclosure up front, and a willingness to accept the reality that most churches in Southern Baptist life are non-Calvinist.
Mark – Both you and I have asked pertinent questions about Calvinism in a polite way so that We and others better understand. I’m on Dave’s Veteran’s Day blog with a similiar issue. Somethings is up it seems and I know they are not apprehensive about replying. Only other easy answer is that we have hit on a touchy area. How can they be Full and Complete Leaders in the SBC and not allow us all to understand as best I can anyway, the “in’s” & “out’s” of Calvinism.