Not Sure Where I Fit In…(by Tom Bryant)

The CT quote was really a sad day in SBC Life; and so few really picked up on it. Too bad I’ve never really heard or read any stories of him actually “sharing” the gospel and leading someone to faith in Christ or maybe I’ve just missed those stories.

I’ve heard Dr. Patterson share many stories of witnessing and winning. I’ve heard about Dr. Geisler sharing and winning. And, Dr. Kelley is a great evangelist.

Ron, I’m surprised your post did not get more reaction. I think you swung a mighty bat on that one. So often our “scholars and theologians” are a mile wide on intellect and an inch deep in practice.

I can second the difference you expose in regard to someone like Paige Patterson. Just for the record, I found this to be true of Ken Hemphill before him.

Good insight. Bold post.

Hi Ron,

I want to say two things.

First, I am not a Calvinist and I did not think Dr. Mohler’s comment was the best one he could make. On that ground alone, I agree with you.

Second, and I mean no disrespect, but two wrongs do not make a right. I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally, but it seems to me from watching his work from afar, he is very concerned about the gospel and soul-winning. I don’t know if you meant your comments toward him to reflect his Calvinism or not. Hopefully not, because (although I am not a Calvinist) I personally know many Calvinists, Danny Akin at the top of the list, who are passionate about both soul winning and Calvinism.

Dr. Mohler’s comment was needlessly inflammatory. Don’t start a fire on your own. :0)

Jim G.

Jim G,
No disrepect taken and thank you for your challenging comment.

If you can point me to the stories or testimonies of sharing the gospel and winning someone to Christ, I will share my apology. I just have not heard or read them.

Let me try this again, not sure what happened to my reply several hours ago.

Jim G,
No disrepect taken. I hope there are stories or testimonies of him witnessing and winning the lost; I just have not heard them or read them. If you show them to me, I will make my apology.

I not trying to be mean-spirited about this. If someone sets themselves up as a great defender of the gospel … then questions must be asked.

Blessings!

Ron: Dr. Mohler’s accomplishments in this area are certainly not something he should brag about nor has he. The Bible says we can either seek the praise of men or do things in secret and please God. Why is it that it always ends up in this direction?

I too have been asked over and over my accomplishments as if this is going to affirm that someone else has accomplished more and therefore correct in the argument or theology. This will cause me to further refuse to go in that direction. What I do or don’t do is no one’s business but God’s and the person or persons I have or have not dealt with.

Debbie, you can’t assert superiority as Mohler clearly did and then say any proof of the claim is nobody’s business.

My argument is that intellectual prowess is not the test of Christian scholarship or devotion. Mohler’s statement is open to such a charge.

We should all hope that we pursue theology in the same order as the Lord- grace, then truth. Even someone as venerable as Mohler does not always get it right.

Frank: That is spoken without any facts. Reread Dr. Mohler’s statement again. And….it’s not going to happen anymore than you “hiding” your beliefs. With that comes the full enchilada. Charles Spurgeon didn’t hide his belief in Calvinism either. If we can’t put it out there, of what scripture is teaching, then preaching is something you are advocating not be done. This is a Christian Southern Baptist organization. It’s just not going to happen. Like it or not. Our job as Christians is to give what we see the scriptures teaching. That is all Dr. Mohler has done. I don’t think that is a bad thing. Jerry Vines and Paige Patterson also do this. I have no objection to them doing it.

“”That is spoken without any facts. Reread Dr. Mohler’s statement again.””

Debbie, your sense of superiority really astounds me. No facts? How about the prima facie fact of the statement which is the topic of this post? Maybe you do not agree with my view of the facts, but I didn’t make up his words.

Also, it is a bit condescending to suggest that only YOU could possibly read and understand what Dr. Mohler said. Here’s a fact: it is not the first time that Dr. Mohler has spoken in a manner that suggested Calvinism (Reformed Theology in general) as he interprets is the “superior” theological position.

I do not have any problem with him taking that position–which he does quite often–but, at least allow me to suggest that the inflammatory reaction he “often” receives may be do to his inflammatory rhetoric.

And, just for full disclosure, I consider myself more reformed in my theology than not, and more calvinistic (little “c”) than not, but don’t feel beholden to either group.

And, just for the record, I’ve never suggested (here or anywhere else) that Calvinism either emblazens or dimenshishes one’s passion for evangelism. You read more into what I wrote than I intended.

Frank: You must have a very low opinion of yourself to say that my statement is projecting superiority. That is one of the lamest arguments to date. Deal with what I am saying without interjecting what you think I am. You are wrong every time, but yet you continue. It’s getting stale. I disagree with you and I have told you why. Stick to that. I could make a post just on what I think of you, however not knowing you at all, never having met you, I refuse to do that, but believe me when I read attacks on myself I certainly want to. I choose to deal with the arguments given. Try it.

I’m also a woman with a brain. Deal with that too.

Debbie, here’s a common argument you make consistently: “I just dealt with the facts. You deal with it.”

Now, here’s an interesting fact: you never dealt with ANY fact you just said I had no facts.

You say you are a woman. I’ll take your word for it. YOu say you have a brain. I’ll take your word for that, too, though I don’t exactly know why you feel the need to tell everybody. Usually intelligence is its own best witness.

Now, deal with what Mohler said: “My theological position is the ONLY one sufficient to defend the gospel.” In my opinion, that is not factual. In my opinion, that could be viewed as arrogant and inflammatory.

So, deal with Mohler’s statement and show: 1) Reformed Theology (particularly as it was expressed at Princeton) is the “only” (be sure to read Mohler’s words) theology robust enough to defend the gospel; and 2) give the logical premise you use to say that any assessment that such a statement can be viewed as arrogant and inflammatory is beyond the realm of possibility.

You can use your brain if you wish to formulate something other than an ad hominem argument. Through in some womaness if it helps.

Now, where is the lack of fact.

Frank: I believe I have dealt with it extensively. You just don’t like the answers. Again. What are you afraid of? A Calvinist take over? That’s just not going to happen. Calvinism like salvation is a doctrine that either one sees or doesn’t. Calvinism cannot be forced on anyone anymore than your doctrine can. They co-exist and Dr. Mohler was being strong in his conviction of what he sees the Bible teaching. What I see the Bible teaching. Dr. Mohler has been a member of the SBC for many, many years. If he were going to stage a takeover or try to throw you out, he would have long ago. In fact I understand that he and Paige have been friends for many years. They debated at the Convention a few years back and it was very amicable. Good grief. It’s doctrine we believe is true and are going to teach and preach this truth. You want it hidden. That’s ridiculous.

Debbie, you are classic ( not classy). You talk about how you defend truth…blah, blah, blah. You put words into persons’ mouths, then belittle them for views they specifically state they don’t have.

What am I afraid of …. That your error might actually reach someone who is innocent and naive, and be forever lost to the gospel.

As always you never address the issue you just belittle and malign. Feel free to have the last word. I feel having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Hi Greg,

I know that your reply was directed at Ron, but I will disagree with both of your points.

First, I applaud the work that culminated in the nineteenth century Princeton theology. I take nothing away from them and their track record speaks for itself. But you are saying something Mohler is not saying. I agree the Princeton view on inerrancy is intellectually robust. But he did NOT say it was impossible to do so from an Arminian perspective. I don’t see the possibility of an Arminian saying the same thing Warfield and Hodge said on the subject being too far-fetched. I am not a Calvinist, but being so has no bearing on my view of inerrancy.

Now, your second point is just plainly not accurate. Calvinists and Arminians alike share blame for introducing error into the Western church. That comment, like Mohler’s, is needlessly inflammatory. Arminianism has only been around for 400 years, so the “vast majority of doctrinal errors that have plagued the church throughout history” (your words) go back way before Arminius was born (like Ebionism, Docetism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Monotheletism, Purgatory, Indulgences, Treasury of the Saints, Baptismal regeneration, Icons, Justification by works, Absorption into the divine, the veneration of Mary, the primacy of the pope, and on and on and on). The Calvinists have a pretty long dirty-laundry list too. Here are a few examples from history:

New England Unitarianism came out of largely Congregationalist (Calvinistic) churches.

Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses) was a Presbyterian.

Friedrich Schleiermacher (father of Protestant Liberalism) was German Reformed in the beginning.

The very Princetonian Calvinists of the 19th century were eaten from within by liberal Calvinists.

Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science) was a New England Congregationalist.

Alexander Campbell (Restorationist Movement) was a Presbyterian.

Now I know that you could supply a dirty-laundry list of Arminian-rooted errors. I acknowledge them. But if you are going to say Arminianism spawned those errors, you need to be willing to lay the above at the feet of Calvinism. Neither of us want to do that. But I think I have shown that your statement “The vast majority of the doctrinal errors that have plagued the church throughout history have had their roots in the errors of Arminian thought.” is just not true.

This is why the SBC has trouble with this issue. We are too quick to make these comments and it breeds mistrust on both sides. At its heart, the C/A disagreement is a disagreement over the character of God. Saying the other side is not intellectually capable is not building up the kingdom of God.

Jim G.

Great post, Jim. Civil, factual, well-thought out and concise. It is precisely the kind of answer I would have given if I were smarter 🙂

Greg’s reply does sort of miss the point of Ron’s post: defending the gospel without sharing the gospel may be deep intellectually, but shallow spiritually.

I think Mohler gets more credit for intellectual prowess than he deserves (though he is not slouch by any means). I’ve sat under real intellectual heavy weights who have proven themselves over decades of scholarship, here and abroad.

Beating the drum of Calvinism does seem to create more heat than light.

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the kind words, but I do want to make it clear I am by no means belittling Dr. Mohler. On the contrary, I think he has done and continues to do the SBC a great service with his tireless work. He is almost always a voice of reason and faith in our age, and for that we should all be grateful. On top of that, he is the leader of our flagship seminary. There are very few (maybe only him) who could do all he does with the quality and care he does it. He has my utmost respect and gratitude for it.

I just wish he were perfect…no, really, I just could do without the unnecessary rhetoric in his comment, that’s all. In his position, much like the President of the United States, he needs to speak for us all.

Jim G.

I

Jim, my sentiments exactly. I’m neither fan nor foe of Mohler-though I could become a fan much of the time.

I did not take it that you were belittling Mohler. My take is that we need to be a little less willing to make someone a hero and a spokesman in regard to theological matters.

Otherwise, there is the danger (in my personal opinion) of creating “buzzword theology” that tends to be inflammatory by its nature. I think the CT article is representative of this problem.

What do you want us as Calvinists to do Frank hide it? We believe strongly in what we believe the Bible is teaching and we of course are proclaiming and teaching it. Just as you teach and obviously believe strongly in what you believe. Good grief. As far as I am concerned Dr. Mohler did not say anything but the truth as I know it and as he knows it. We not only believe it but live it. And I am certainly not going to hide that just because it offends.

Debbie, to answer tour question, if hiding it (your Calvinism) or flaunting it (as some accuse Mohler), then hiding it is my answer.

Jim, I yield to all of your points… 🙂

Seriously, how can I pick a fight with Ron if you are going to post such a well thought out and factual comment.

Grace for the Journey,

Greg,
Forgive me for not following your lead with your defense of the CT comments.
In the first place the CT comments were rabble-rousing and uncalled for.
One only wonders how the gospel survived for fifteen hundred years without the capable help of John Calvin and a host of future reformers.
Also, before Southern Baptist modern history is totally re-written, I don’t think the CR was led by a ring of robust reformers – as our great convention turned from the grip and grasp of theological liberalism.
However, I’m sure some Baptist historians are currently working on the re-write of that and the cast and crew will (every single one) be reformed.
Let’s get ready for Sunday my Brother … I can’t write any more until Monday.
Blessings!

P.S. Jim G – Thanks for sharing; great stuff. I will seek to heed the plea of your last paragraph!

Ron,

In much of the World where the Church of Rome ruled the Gospel did not survive at all…. It was not until the arrival of the Reformers that the Gospel was once again preached in much of Europe… I wonder just how many souls went down into Hell trusting in the lies of Rome before the time of the Reformers.

Yes, I know there were those isolated groups that held on to the Gospel through the dark ages, but they were few indeed… and I think many of my Non-Calvinist friends need to acknowledge the contribution of the Reformers to the recovery and spreed of the Gospel.

Anyway, I to must be about preparing for Sunday as well…

Blessings my Brother,

I expect that some Christian people during the Dark Ages found much comfort in Lord Christ.
Here is a prayer of one of them:

“O Lord, make haste and illumine the night.
Say to my soul
that nothing happens without Your permitting it,
and that nothing of what You permit is without comfort.
O Jesus, Son of God,
You Who were silent in the presence of Your accusers,
restrain my tongue
until I find what should say and how to say it.
Show me the way and make me ready to follow it.
It is dangerous to delay, yet perilous to go forward.
Answer my petition and show me the way.
I come to You as the wounded go to a physician in search of aid.
Give peace, O Lord, to my heart.”

Birgitta of Sweden, circa 1300 A.D.

Ron: I would ask you the same question I asked Frank. It is ridiculous to call Al Mohlers statement rabble-rousing and uncalled for. Just because some would like Calvinism disappear doesn’t mean it is going to. We are a part of the SBC and it’s going to remain that way. Nothing you, Peter Lumpkins, or the John 3:16 group does or says is going to change that. There are many more Calvinists in the SB than you know. Many more.

The key is not for me to want to get rid of non-Calvinists or for non-Calvinists to want to get rid of Calvinists but to instead co-exist. The SBC was originally for missions and other similar projects, instead it has always been about fighting and get rid of certain people one doesn’t like. That needs to end.

Hi Debbie,

I don’t think Calvinists should hide what they believe. You and other Calvinists would be disingenuous if you did. Since you believe it, preach it and teach it. (As if you need it) you have my blessing.

What I (and Ron and Frank I see) do not appreciate is unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric coming from people with a lot of intellectual clout in the SBC. Dr. Mohler can be a Calvinist all day long and not say things like this:

”Non-Calvinist conservatives 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.”

Now there is a pretty big difference between being a committed Calvinist who respects the views of others and one who says that those who disagree on that particular doctrinal point are “unaware of the basic structures of thought…to protect the very gospel.” He is saying that I don’t have a clue just because I don’t subscribe to the five points. If you don’t see this as “rabble-rousing and uncalled for” then you probably should read it again.

Moreover, he is not some insignificant person in SBC life. He is the president of SBTS and arguably the SBC’s most visible public figure. Saying that a large portion of the SBC (and Evangelical Christians in general) are unaware of basic thought structures to protect the gospel is like the President of the United States saying (for example) all American men are too dumb to pour water out of a boot if the instructions were written on the sole. He is a highly visible figure and being in that role sets an example, so when he takes pot shots at non-Calvinists, others feel free to follow suit.

I don’t want to get rid of Calvinists. I want Calvinists (and non-Calvinists alike) to begin acting like Christians toward those who love Jesus as much as they do but disagree on a theological point. Saying things that belittle the other side does not uplift the Body of Christ.

Jim G.

L’s isn’t SB and she voices her opinion and peddles her unbiblcal beliefs while she denies the gospel. Funny that you don’t have a problem with that. Oh, and again, you don’t get to decide who comments and offers their opinion and who doesn’t Don’t you have a pillow that you need to be crying into?

Tom,

It’s simple. I brive him. Oh, and btw Dave, this month’s check is in the mail. 🙂

That’s “bribe” obviously.

Hi JACK WOLFORD,
You wrote this: “I think the combination of Joe Blackmon having “some” of his theology correct along with everybody feeling sorry for him knowing he can’t control himself and needs Christian understanding is what keeps him around” and I think you have it right, Jack. Good insight, I think.

In the Body of Christ, without Christian compassion, as Jean Vanier has said, some might be led to hurt the ‘weaker’ person,
‘as the powers of darkness are unleashed in each one of us and we discover our capacity to undermine others, to trample on them, to hurt and crush them, to break even further what is already broken.’
In the Body of Christ, ‘each person is important because all are necessary’.

Sometimes compassion and patience, for someone you know has great difficulties civilly communicating with others they disagree with,
means that we must not ‘crush’ them or ‘reject’ them.

There is a great difference between ‘the person’ and ‘the difficulties they exhibit in their behaviors’; and we must understand that difference;
because we, ourselves, with the help of Christ must honestly repent of our own weaknesses and failings with others.

Sometimes I feel like I have a parrot on my shoulder when I’m quoted but I’m embarrassed for newcomers who don’t know what’s going on. Like the Jews had to wear The Star of David ( capitalised it to be safe ) so maybe the moderator award some symbol monthly which would appear on their post and indicates a “live wire”. That could be re-evaluated every month or like Joe says he likes to do , he can just send in money and buy himself off the list. Conversely, others could send in money to keep him on it. Better than GCR.