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)).… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“[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… Read more »
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!… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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?… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.