(Editor: I often browse the blogs of people who comment here at SBC Voices. I browsed Tom’s blog – The View from Osprey – yesterday and came to one conclusion – he doesn’t write often enough. He has a brilliant post which I got permission to copy here. Thought you might enjoy it.)
Do you ever feel like you don’t fit in among any of the evangelical groups?
I’m not a Calvinist, but I am uncomfortable at my fellow non-Cals painting Calvinists as the evil spawn of a new fascism with a desire to take over the SBC.
I am not a Calvinist, but Al Mohler’s idea that Reformed theology protects the Gospel makes me wonder what have I been doing for the last 30 years and why won’t he give me any credit for it?
I am not a fundamentalist. I was trained in a wonderfully fundamentalist college (Tennessee Temple University, class of 1981), but I quit using the KJV, go to movies, have a contemporary service, like Rick Warren, pastor an SBC church, have even been known to go mixed swimming and I dance with my wife. But I do hold strongly to the fundamentals of the Bible and think that standards are not legalism and that staying far from sin is a good thing.
I don’t pastor a mega church but our church gives almost 20% to mission work mostly through the SBC, we actively seek to reach Osprey with the Gospel through as many means as we can think of, and go on mission trips to the US and the world, but I am not missional.
I am not cutting edge but I use a variety of media to get the message across and think first about the passage to determine what it means but go quickly to think about who I am preaching it to because if they don’t understand I haven’t preached.
I am not tied to the past but I do preach expositional messages.
I am pre-tribulational and pre-millenial but don’t study the headlines to see the imminent return of Jesus, I decided long ago that Jesus will return when He chooses to, but until then I am going to be do God’s work here on earth.
I don’t drink, but while I don’t see total abstinence as being Biblical, I think that believers who drink are setting a bad example and witness for others and believe that refusing to drink is the much wiser course. I also am embarrassed by the bulging bellies I see at Baptist meetings and think that over eating is the accepted Baptist alcoholism.
I have Baptist on the sign in front of the church, but don’t think that those who are Baptists but don’t have it on their sign are trying to hide anything from anyone.
I am a Baptist by conviction. I believe that the major distinctives of being a Baptist are Biblical. Like the old joke, if I wasn’t a Baptist, I’d be ….. ashamed. So I am going to teach Baptist distinctives. But I bet my Presbyterian friends think their way is Biblical too, so I am going to leave the denominational bashing to someone else.
I wear a suit and tie for our traditional service, but change out of it as soon as I can and if I visit a church member in the hospital while wearing a tie, they think I have been told they are going to die and I have come to bury them before their time.
I don’t wear jeans with my long sleeved shirt tail hanging out unless I’ve dropped some BBQ sauce on my pants and am trying to cover it up.
Now I admit I am being more than a little silly. But maybe you see what I am going through. I sometimes feel just like the Bob Dylan song, “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you. “
There are lots of other ways I think the world has gone crazy and you and I are the lone sane people.
Well worth the read, folks.
FYI: The two sane people he is speaking of in the last paragraph – that’s Tom and me. The rest of you, well…
I feel almost exacly the same! as a graduate of Bryan College – about 35min up the road from TN Temple – and just a few years ahead of Tom – we of course were much more liberal – we could use the NASB, hold hands with a girl on campus, actually go on dates etc.
I have for years been very conservative theologically and moderate (SBC wise only) politally. My pastor and many of my good church buddies are calvinist while I am at best a 3 pointer.
I deplore the politicism of the SBC – but have also been extremely critical of the BGCT, and would not fit into the CBF.
I am an old earth creationist in a time when it seems to be a true Christian one must be young earth – however old earth just seems to make sense to me.
I also dont drink, but dont see much wrong with it in moderation. I dont really even buy into the leading my brother to stumble argument -20 years ago perhaps, today, not so much.
I’m not in favor of women pastors, but think the comps go way to far. I often wonder how so many books can be written about women submitting, but few if any about men truly Loving thier wives. Yet cannot buy totally into the egals – they go to far the other way
Jim champion
I think he fits with 95% of people under 50 years old and would relate to 100% of those 30 and below. I would support him at whatever age I happen to be.
Thanks for the compliment… at 59, I am thankful to fit in with anyone under 50.
Sorry, I am a Calvinist, and believe that Al Mohler is 100% correct… (shocker to no one I know).
However, I will agree with you in that I often do not feel that i fit in very well with this bunch of misfits that are called “Southern Baptist”.
And seeing as Dave took the last seat in the middle, and seeing I am so conservative that I will make three right turns just to keep from having make one left turn, I guess I will have to sit with the rest of the “Jokers to the right”.
Grace for the Journey,
I don’t know why anyone would be “suing the KJV” in the first place. All those dudes are dead. 🙂
Good piece.
edit made
Good article. Just a small correction. Bob Dylan didn’t sing Stuck in the Middle with You, although vocally it sounds like him.
The source of all earthly wisdom – Wikipedia – says it was “Stealers Wheel”.
I was mistaken, I went to one source that said Dylan wrote it. I see now that he didn’t. Maybe I’ve moved out of the middle. 🙂
Us babdists do like the term “priesthood of the believer” but then get all hyper when someone exhibits it.
Methinks what’s described by Tom is an authentic relationship with a living Savior. Sounds pretty good to me.
🙂
Maybe not being dependent on all of those labels for one’s security and identity is being ‘free in Christ’ from the fear of all which diminishes;
as so many people now find themselves drawn into one side or another out of pride and out of the need for a ‘group’s protection and strength of numbers,
rather than being identified simply ‘in Christ’.
I agree with Bob Cleveland.
‘Shalom’ to Tom, and to Bob, and to those who possess that humility ‘in Christ’. God bless.
I am a Sovereign Grace believer (I prefer that term to Calvinist as there were Baptist-like people around preaching those truths before John Calvin was even born, let alone born again), more egalitarian than anything else due to 6 years of research into church history with a special focus on the nature of the ekklesia/church. All of the five points of the tulip acrostic along with predestination and reprobation are evangelistic truths. Each doctrine is an invitation to trust God in Christ for salvation. In fact, they are the most exciting, gripping, thrilling, attractive, electrifying, winsome, magnetic, interesting, stirring, irresistible teachings hot from the heart of the Lord and intended to enflame the sinful soul with an overwhelming sense of humility and awe at such a wonder. In short they are designed to seize the soul with a sense of miracle and wonder, absolutely mesmerizing to the needy sinner. Like the lady said some 45 years ago, “O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it!” That is what she said to an Arminian soul-winner who had just won her to Christ. That soul-winner was a Spurgeon who later changed his theology. Life with the Lord is hilariously funny at times. Baptists would rather fuss than eat. They were fussng back in the 1700s and early 1800s, when they enjoyed the First and Second Great Awakenings, secured religious liberty, united the Separate and Regular Baptists, converted a bunch of General Baptists into Particular Baptists, launched the Great Century of Missions, and made the South a Baptist kingdom. The fussing just indicates we are alive and God is doing something in our midst which we will be able to understand when the dust settles. And there is room for a lot of differences among us. You got to give people time to work their way through what the Bible says on the teachings of gracd. Not every one is going to be at the same level or stage, and God can strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. O yes, we are all crooked sticks in one respect or another, but God can still uses us to win sinners to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Are you trying to imply that if you dont hold to all five points that you are not yet deep enough in your study of Scripture?
Geez- a rational middle!? No no, we can’t have that. PICK A SIDE!! Now:) I would have to guess your posts reflects the views of the majority of baptist…but the divided minorities on either “side” produce the majority of the conflict…errrr dialog.
The thing that missing from this article, actually there’s nothing missing from this article 🙂 ,but something that could be considered as a result of this article is this: Tom mentions several things about which good Chritians can, and do, have differences of opinion about. That’s important because the fact of the matter is I don’t have it all figured out, you don’t have it all figured out, and Wiki-money Dave SURE doesn’t have it all figured out (haa). I mean, he brings up Calvinism, drinking, KJV, dress at church, eschatology, etc. There is nothing that he mentioned in the article that, in my most humble of opinions, should cause a person to completely separate from another. Maybe not work together to build a seminary or church plant on some of the issues, but they are all definitely “picket fence” as far as I can tell. However, there are some labels and sides that have a right or wrong, Christian or non-Christian, light and dark quality to them. For instance, on the question was Jesus born of a virgin–there is no middle ground. Christians believe it. If you don’t (i.e. you have been shown the evidence and reject it) you are not a Christian. On the question of who goes to heaven and how they get there, specifically can a muslim, mormon, or person of any other faith go to heaven apart from a personal, conscious faith in Christ, there is no middle. All Christians know that only those who consciously trust in Christ will go to heaven. Followers of other faiths, no matter how nice, sweet, helpful, and kind they are, will go to hell without even one second of mercy. If you don’t believe this (i.e. you believe that a muslim, for example, if they are good, nice, kind, and play pretty give evidence that they’re really saved by Christ but they just don’t realize it–“Huh. I thought all this time I was praying to Allah but it was Christ who saved me?? Didn’t see that one coming”) then you are not a Christian. Taking such definitive stances on core truths of the gospel does not possess that humility ‘in Christ’. or that they are drawn into one side or another out of pride and out of the need for a ‘group’s protection and strength of numbers,. It simply means that the Christian is remaining faithful to the… Read more »
Taking such definitive stances on core truths of the gospel does not mean they don’t possess that humility ‘in Christ’.
Edit for typo in comment above.
Tom Bryant:
Sounds to me like you have a lot to offer as a Pastor. If you feel like the Lord is pleased with what you are doing–keep doing it.
Greg,
Are you saying you totally agree with Dr. Mohler’s quote from the CT article [below]:
“Mohler believes that the only intellectually robust defense of biblical inerrancy lies in the Reformed scholasticism that emerged from the Synod of Dort (1618) and enjoyed its apogee at late-19th-century Princeton Theological Seminary, where James Boyce trained. 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.”
?
That is certainly what I read him to say.
Hi Ron,
I think that is exactly what Mohler was saying. As president of our flagship seminary, is it any wonder why we non-Calvinists in the SBC are keeping a wary eye on this issue? I would count myself as a non-Calvinist conservative, and I would say I am acutely aware of the basic structures of thought to protect the gospel, as if it needs protected. To disqualify me (as an example) from being able to do so surely can be seen as inflammatory. Mohler knows this. He knows what he is saying. Thus the controversy.
Jim G.
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.
Ron, Yes!!!
Are you sure you understand what Dr. Mohler said? Reading your comments here it appears that you do not.
#1) Dr. Mohler said: “the only intellectually robust defense of biblical inerrancy lies in the Reformed scholasticism that emerged from the Synod of Dort (1618) and enjoyed its apogee at late-19th-century Princeton Theological Seminary, where James Boyce trained.”
In other words, it appears to me that Dr. Mohler is saying that you cannot make a robust intellectually defense of biblical inerrancy based upon the doctrines of Arminianism. Clearly you disagree with this statement, so can you give us one? Or can you point us to one? I think not.
#2) Dr. Mohler said: ”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.”
In other words, it appears to me that Dr. Mohler is saying that Arminians, though they insist that the gospel be eagerly shared, are (for the most part) not very good at defending the Gospel. Now, this comment my anger you, but it is historically accurate. The vast majority of the doctrinal errors that have plagued the church throughout history have had their roots in the errors of Arminian thought. Do you disagree with this assessment?
Grace for the Journey,
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… Read more »
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.
Tom Bryant:
I came to TTU in 1981 to finish my last 2 years of undergraduate work there. I came from Nashville with a group of guys – Robbi Fischer, Anthony Eubanks, Mike Eiras, David Harper. Do you remember them?
I was close to Mike Loftis and his family. I loved Dr. Roberson. Drove down for his funeral a couple of years ago.
One of the worries that I have for the SBC is the pressure for cultural conformity on secondary issues. It’s inevitable in any organization, but there is a level to which it can go that is unhealthy. I think that happened to the Independent Baptist movement.
This is a good post. My only comment is that most people I know agree with what you have written. If that is so, then we just have to remind one another that the minor things don’t matter.
Our love for the Lord and the mission He has given us, together with confessional doctrinal convictions (that is what sets us apart from the CBF and “moderate” Baptists), and love for one another are the glue that holds us together.
God bless.
Louis,
I graduated in ’81. Anthony lived in our dorm for a while so I knew him. The other names are familiar. I went there as a 30 yo, so I didn’t hang out much with the 18-20 year olds, especially when I was moving in, someone asked, ‘who’s dad is that?’ 🙂
I loved Dr. Roberson too. He was a man of principle and I never see a dark blue double breasted suit without thinking of him.
I agree about the problem facing the SBC. We have to keep the main thing, the main thing. A missionary in our church was telling how when I slam was marching across North Africa, the biggest debate among theologians was how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. We may be dividing over some stuff we can never really know for sure (not talking about the foundational truths) while the world goes to Hell.
If you two are going to hav a reunion, I will have to charge a fee!
Dave,
Did you ever hear Lee Roberson preach?
I don’t think so, I’ve heard the name. But if the school produced you and Tom, it must be a good one.
For a fundamentalist school, it was amazingly free of most of the junk the real IFB’s preach. For example, back then, there were alot of KJV only people. Dr. Roberson stood in chapel to say that the school would use only the KJV, but we were not going to argue about whether it was the only right translation.
He was a former SBC who was asked to leave the local ass’n in the 50’s (I think) because he stood for inerrancy. But he still used preachers from across denominational lines in mission and Bible conferences.
Sorry to go on about him, but when he came to your church to preach, he always asked for a microphone away from the pulpit because he said that was my pulpit, not his.
Recommended reading: The Theology on Thursday Blog of 2 Worlds in Collision, the blog of Dr. John Galyon, and the item on John Newton which sets forth a most charitable disposition in dealing with those who do not agree. I was rarely delighted with John Newtons’ letter which was presented in full. http://drjamesgalyon.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/theology-on-thursday-133/
Dave: Thanks. Highland Park Baptist/TTU produced or had life changing contact with a broad range of people, more people than we would ever know, including, including, Dallas Willard, Timothy George, Jerry Vines, Ted Demoss (Christian Businessmen’s Committee), Authur Demoss (insurance giant), and others. Dr. Roberson went to Highland Park in 1942 as its pastor. It’s services attracted under 300 people at that time. Within a couple of years, they were baptizing 1000 to 1200 people a year. They ended up owning 59 acres in Chattanooga, founding a college etc. (they passed on buying the building that became Covenant College on Lookout Mountain). Roberson was among those Baptists who left the SBC in the 1950s over issues relating to theological liberalism and what they saw as declining moral standards. The college had about 5,000 students in the late 70s (which was then the second largest private college in Tennessee at the time – behind Vanderbilt at 8,000 at that time). But the college was too vested in Dr. Roberson, personally, and made no plan for succession. It also succumbed, in my opinion, to too much of an effort to create a cocoon from the world. K-12; College, jobs etc. Separation from the world was really emphasized. If you do that, you had better win and keep your kids. The independent movement became very separate and did not keep their kids, and has declined, in my opinion. I fear that the SBC could go down that road. I guess that’s why cultural engagement for me is a big deal. The Gospel is already offensive enough. If we add lifestyle regulations on to the Gospel which are hard for people to swallow, we will become so separate that we could find ourselves on an island with no one to preach to. But Dr. Roberson, in his prime, rivaled Criswell, R.G. Lee etc. He had an unbelievable physical presence and was a direct and pure man. Tom: I sat in Dr. Roberson’s office in about 1982 and suggested that he invite Judge Paul Pressler to speak in chapel. He had heard of Judge Pressler and liked the idea. But he said to me that he did not think that the SBC would ever become conservative again. I never got to speak with him about it years later. Dr. Mohler invited Dr. Roberson to speak at Southern Seminary sometime before Dr. Roberson quit preaching. Dr.… Read more »
Btw, I did not grow up in a Baptist or fundamentalist home. When I decided to go to TTU, my parents thought I had lost my mind.
Louis,
Did you know Highland Park Baptist Church is now Southern Baptist?
David R. Brumbelow
I’m not really worthy to comment here, what with my “basic structures of thought” being all screwed up, but the most annoying Calvinist trait, hands down, is the disconnect between offering a truly scathing insult of my intelligence, and then closing with something like “Grace Always” or “Grace and Peace.”
Here’s how it comes across: “You’re a total idiot… a moron… you just don’t understand complicated theology…your underlying structures of thought provide no intellectual foundation… you don’t know anything at all. Grace and Love, Brother.”
Rick: I am not trying to be argumentative here, well, yes I am. Could you point specifically where this has happened, and if you can, this goes for both sides of the theology debate, not just Calvinists. Calvinists stress the Sovereignty of God while fighting accusations that we do not believe in evangelization which is not true, but believe me I have read plenty of comments from non-Calvinists that do that very thing. Do I think you are wrong for not embracing Calvinism? Of course I do. I won’t ever hide that. It is a matter of growth in scripture which I need and we all need. I am going to believe strongly I am right, but there is nothing worse than a non-Calvinist who discovers and embraces Calvinism. We have all been there. It is like the lost person, living deep in sin who discovers Christ. We are annoying like that for awhile. It’s such a wonderful doctrine that we want everyone to know it. It is shared as much as the Gospel. Moreso at times. It’s because when embraced it’s like a second awakening. I know I have just opened another can of worms here, but I am simply sharing what it is. Some can get very annoying like some new Christians can be annoying.
I might add, as we Calvinists mature and grow, most tend to be less in this area of dogmatic you are an idiot syndrome. It then becomes a matter of prayer. I am passionate in that we need to see Christ and God’s ability and majesty for what it is in scripture and our lack of ability and control for what it is in scripture, which I believe to be less. If that is seen as arrogance I do apologize, but I do not apologize for my passion in this.
To answer you question in your first sentence Debbie…um…scroll up.
And Mohler certainly isn’t a new Christian, or a recent convert to Calvinism. He is not unaware of what he is doing.
Jim G.
And I never said that he did Jim. You are confusing one comment I made to answer another with Calvinism as a whole. Mohler knew what he was saying, and I believe rightfully said it. As I said, those who embrace Calvinism believe scripture as you do, and believe it teaches as we believe. Thereby we are going to teach this view as you teach yours. Dr. Mohler should not hide what he believes to be the truth of scripture anymore than I think you should hide it.
Hi Debbie,
I’m all for teaching it if you believe it to be true. No argument there.
The pot shots at those who disagree, such as:
”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.”
need to stop. You (and Mohler) are certainly welcome to teach Calvinism all you want. But anyone who does should do it without unfairly bashing non-Calvinists. (And to be fair, non-Calvinists should teach without misrepresenting Calvinism as well.) Saying that I don’t have the basic thought structures to protect the gospel is, quite frankly, a cheap shot and is patently untrue. That kind of rhetoric needs to stop. That’s all I’m saying.
Jim G.
I see your point Jim and think you are right. Maybe the best approach would be to just preach what we see the scriptures saying and leave it at that. It could be that the Holy Spirit is quenched when such a statement is made. When the Holy Spirit is quenched, no amount of false accusations is going to do anything but create the objections you and Rick have.
Debbie,
To clear up the confusion, my primary concern was not with the condescending “I’m right, you’re wrong” attitude present among both sides in most theological debates. I expect people to hold their beliefs strongly and defend them vigorously. That’s fine.
My concern is with the juxtaposition of insulting remarks followed by a closing of “Grace…” When someone like Al Mohler declares that all Southern Baptists are Calvinistic or that non-Calvinists lack the “basic structures of thought” to defend Christianity, I would rather they simply close their comments with the more accurate, “Condescendingly Yours.” To invoke the term “grace” immediately after insulting someone just seems a little graceless to me.
Rick: This is the exact quote from Dr. Mohler, the rest is simply CT’s commentary on what he said. I do not believe CT is accurate in their commentary.
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.” He thinks that Reformed theology’s appeal to young people proves its unique imperviousness to the corrosive forces of 21st-century life. “If you’re a young Southern Baptist and you’ve been swimming against the tide of secularism … you’re going to have to have a structure of thought that’s more comprehensive than merely a deck of cards with all the right doctrines.”
Rick, I’m a Calvinist and I’ve got to say…you’re right on. Well, maybe not exactly but there are definitely Calvinists, new ones, old ones, in-between ones, who come across as “If you don’t believe all 5 points, you are at best a theological goober and at worst aren’t saved at all”. I have heard it preched from the pulpit, for example, that those who don’t believe in limited atonement believe in universalism. Well, I know a ton of people who don’t believe in limited atonement who most certainly do NOT believe that all men and women are going to heaven.
Further, Al’s statement would probably have offended me if I wasn’t a Calvinist. I think I understand what he meant and I don’t think he was trying to offend anyone. Of course, I’m not in his head and don’t know his heart so that’s just a guess. Anyway, I’d be less worried about a non-Calvinist’s ability to conceptualize and defend the gospel than I would about someone’s ability to understand the gospel who thinks The Shack is a God honoring novel and would listen to the author “prech”.
Joe: It just never ends with you does it. Give it up. And to put yourself in the same camp as a Calvinist insults Calvinists.
And why should anything matter to you Joe, you are not SB so none of this affects you at all, not even Al Mohler’s statement now should it.
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?
Sorry, Debs, but the very last time I checked (and admittedly it has been a while, Calvinism was not like a country club where you get to decide who is in and who is out.
Debbie:
As hard as I try, and I do try hard, I just do not see what Joe Blackmon adds to any SBC Blog discussion. He either agrees with you and falls all over himself to let you know how great it is to be in agreement or the name calling and put downs begin.
But there is always hope for him.
Dave M:
I know you feel differently about Joe but I just do not see why he is allowed to be this ever present negative force that always shows up at SBC Voices.
Tom,
It’s simple. I brive him. Oh, and btw Dave, this month’s check is in the mail. 🙂
That’s “bribe” obviously.
Joe B:
Whatever–your approach to those you disagree with leaves a lot to be desired from a Christian stand point.
If your looking for dialogue your going about it the wrong way, but personally I do not think your are looking for dialogue with those who view things differently than you do.
Tom Parker, 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. I’ve said about what you’ve said a long time ago on this blog.
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.
Really glad that a post that wanted to walk the middle road between the 2 has been the cause of so many wonderfully crafted remarks. 😉
I am still thankful to be in the middle with friends on both sides of the soteriological disagreements and I wish we would just quit sniping at people who are in the same army.
It’s my fault, Tom.
There is an inevitable pattern that develops if I don’t continually post new stuff – people find SOMETHING to start arguing about and it gets pettier and pettier.
Then, I yell at everyone, they get mad at me, I post some new stuff and we have a good discussion until I don’t post anything for a couple of days then the discussion descends again.
Not your fault, at all.
I have a man in our church who was a missionary in North Africa for almost 40 years. He said that when the Muslims were taking over north Africa, the church’s debate was about the number of angels who could fit on the head of the pin. Now we are caught in the intellectual arguments that keep us from being about the Father’s business. I fear that we’re going to continue to lose ground because we make debates over issues that no one is going to change their mind about.
It’s not your fault, David. The enemy is us.
The beginnings of a more open approach lie with the Sovereign Grace/Calvinistic Baptists of the 1700s. In 1787 in the union of Separate and Regular Baptists they ruled that the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man would be no bar to communion. This simply meant that the original position was that of particular redemption or limited atonement. Every one seems to forget that the General Baptists were around then, and they held a full atonement, a general atonement. But the great awakenings and the great century of missions did not begin with them; it began with the sovereign grace ministers. For the first 70-80 years of the SBC not a single Arminian was elected President. In fact a number of those early Presidents wrote works on Predestination (I refer to P.H. Mell’s work on Predestination) and/or Sovereign Grace or so-called Reformed Theology (I refer to Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology). The keynote speaker at the Spurgeon Centenary in London in the 1930s was Dr. George W. Truett (he by the way was introduced by the Prime Minister of Great Britain) who made the point that calvinism pressed down the crown of responsibility on the brow of man. As to Sovereign Grace and its being preached in Southern Baptist Churches, it has been so from the beginning. My ancestors and predecessors were noted for their sovereign grace views. One of my ancestors, Elder Holland Middleton was mentioned in Henry Holcombe’s History of Alabama Baptists. He might have also been one of the officers of the court that executed the Will of Elder Daniel Marshall, who established the first continuing Baptist church in Georgia and who was the brother-in-law of Elder Shubal Stearns. The Sovereign Grace view is noted in the Articles of Faith of the Georgia Baptist Association which Marshall had a hand in establishing. And in Sandy Creek Association, the Mt. Pisgah Baptist church was established in 1814 and its Articles of Faith refers only to Christ dying for the church; they know nothing about Him dying for everyone without exception. What is important about that church is that our first missionary to China came out of that church. He served as moderator in a business meeting as early as 1820. And out of Rock springs Baptist Church came the man who would suggest the founding of our first seminary and who would lead Southern Baptists in founding… Read more »
Dr. Willingham,
If you’ve got a few minutes to spare, would you email me at dheagle93 (little “at” symbol thing-y) gmail.com ? I want to ask your advice on something. It’s not a major life change or anything, so you won’t be accountable for steering me wrongly. It’s just way off topic.
Doug Hibbard
David:
I do know that Highland Park is SBC now. I think that is a great thing. Lots of independent Baptists should join the SBC in my opinion. The SBC missions model is really the way to go in my opinion.
I don’t sense this from the current pastor of Highland Park, but my only cautionary feeling about independent Baptist churches returning to the SBC is that any strains of legalism and doctrinal emphases that are not central to the Gospel should not come with those churches. I suspect that the ones joining the SBC are not heavily into that, or they would not come back. But one can never tell.
I don’t want future SBC meetings taken up with debates about what women must wear, men’s hairstyles, social activities and such. We have enough of that already.
We need more of a presence in the broader culture, not less.
Louis,
I figured you’d know about that.
I don’t worry about the different debates. If someone wants to bring up whatever issue, let’s hear them out and vote for or against. I don’t think we are in much danger, however, of passing a rule outlawing women wearing pants, or in favor of KJV Only.
The beauty of the SBC is that you can be a part of any number of subgroups and still be an active part of the SBC. At least to a point.
David R. Brumbelow
Dear Bro. Hibbard: I must be getting your email address wrong or my computer is not wanting to work.
Dr. Willingham,
I’ll type it in and let the spam come: dheagle93@gmail.com and let’s see if that works.
Thanks,
Doug Hibbard