I am flying out today to Boston for a little vacation/grandkid time, so I can only put this out for your discussion. Frank Page’s study group has issued its report, and it is well worth the read. While the results are hardly surprising, they do form the basis for a way forward for the SBC through the Calvinism quagmire that has bogged us down in recent years.
Here is a link to the full report.
The introductory paragraphs the discussion well.
Southern Baptists are Great Commission people. We are also a doctrinal people, and those doctrinal convictions undergird our Great Commission vision and passion. We are a confessional people, who stand together upon the doctrines most vital to us all, confessed together in The Baptist Faith and Message.
Within this common confession, we sometimes disagree over certain theological issues that should not threaten our Great Commission cooperation. We recognize that significant theological disagreement on such issues has occurred with respect to Calvinism. It is, therefore, our responsibility to come together with open hearts and minds in order to speak truthfully, honestly, and respectfully about these theological and doctrinal issues that concern us, threaten to divide us, and compel us into conversation. Such engagement is appropriate at every level of Southern Baptist life including local congregations, associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention.
The doctrinal differences that currently mark our interactions “should not threaten our Great Commission cooperation.” They are “significant” differences, but not such that our denomination should divide over them. We need to engage, not battle.
The Issues
I am proud that the committee was able to present this report in typical Baptist alliteration! Without that, it would not be official, would it. But they defined the issues well.
Four central issues have become clear to us as we have met together. We affirm together that Southern Baptists must stand without apology upon truth; that we do indeed have some challenging but not insurmountable points of tension; that we must work together with trust; and that we must encourage one another to testimony.
Truth – do all sides give assent to a body of TRUTH that is a basis for cooperative work? Can we work through the TENSION and build TRUST? (Seems to me that this is the big one.) Will that trust develop to the extent that we can give TESTIMONY to our particular beliefs and convictions without splintering?
Truth
To me, the key is the “Truth” section, which I copy here in full. It demonstrates, as Bart Barber’s fine article a couple of months did as well, that our shared truth is far greater than our differences, as Baptist Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Here it is.
The Bible
We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are the inerrant, infallible, and totally trustworthy Word of God and our supreme authority on all matters of truth. We affirm that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the great theme of all Scripture and that the Bible is sufficient to reveal all we need to know concerning God’s purpose to save sinners.We deny that any human system of thought or any theological tradition can assume supreme authority or be allowed to supplant dependence upon the Bible and all that it reveals. Neither Calvinism nor non-Calvinism ought to be equated exclusively with sound Southern Baptist doctrine nor be considered inconsistent with it.
The Lostness of Humanity
We affirm that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and that the universal condition of humanity is lostness, as every single human being, Jesus alone excepted, is a sinner whose only hope of salvation is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.We deny that any human being is without need of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, and we deny any teaching that minimizes the truth about sin and the need of all persons to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Power of the Gospel
We affirm that our Lord is mighty to save and that He saves to the uttermost. We affirm the power of the Gospel to redeem every single human being through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whom the Father has now declared to be both Lord and Christ, the Savior of the world.We deny that the Gospel is without power to save anyone who repents and believes in Jesus Christ. We also deny that the Gospel as revealed in Scripture lacks anything needful for
our salvation.The Offer of the Gospel
We affirm that the Gospel is to be made known freely to all in the good faith offer that if anyone confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord and believes in his heart that God has raised Christ from the dead, he will be saved.We deny that the Gospel lacks any power to save anyone who believes in Christ and receives Him as Savior and Lord. Anyone who understands the Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit may, in prayer and petition, trust Christ through repentance and faith, and we should plead with all sinners to do so.
The Exclusivity of the Gospel
We affirm that salvation is found in the name of Christ and in no other name. We affirm that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one can come to the Father but by Him. We affirm the exclusivity of the Gospel of Christ as the only message of salvation.We deny that salvation can come to any sinner by any other gospel, any other system of faith and practice, or by any name other than Jesus Christ.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ
We affirm that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was both penal and substitutionary and that the atonement He accomplished was sufficient for the sins of the entire world.We deny that there is anything lacking in the atonement of Christ to provide for the salvation of anyone.
The Reality of Heaven and Hell
We affirm that all who come to Christ by faith will be with Him forever in heaven, which He has prepared for the saints. We affirm that all who reject Christ and do not come to Him by faith will spend eternity in hell, a place of eternal punishment.We deny that there is any opportunity for salvation after the point of death, when all humanity will face the judgment of God.
The Necessity of Conversion
We affirm that salvation involves the conversion of the sinner, whereby the sinner consciously clings to Christ by faith, repents of sin, believes the promises of the Gospel, and publicly professes faith in Christ. We affirm the necessity of conversion and the truth that conversion involves the will of the believer as well as the will of God.We deny that salvation comes to anyone who has not experienced conversion. We also deny that salvation comes to any sinner who does not will to believe and receive Christ.
The Great Commission
We affirm the church’s duty to obey Christ by preaching the Gospel to all the nations and by making disciples who obey all that Christ has commanded. We affirm every believer’s responsibility to tell anyone and everyone about Jesus and the responsibility of every congregation to be a sending, going, and giving assembly of believers.We deny that missions and evangelism can be neglected without denying the power of the Gospel; that any church can be faithful without a missionary urgency; and that any believer can be obedient without telling others about Jesus. We deny that evangelism can exist apart from the call to make disciples. Every sinner should be implored to trust Christ by calling on Him through repentance and faith, and every convert should be discipled toward maturity, commitment to the church, and passion for the lost.
Yes, we have significant disagreements. But that on which we agree is a firm and sure basis for Great Commission cooperation and partnership.
Tensions
I won’t copy the entire Tensions section, but the reader can follow the link and read it. It well defines the issues that we face. I also appreciate the concluding paragraph of that section.
These differences should spur us to search the Scriptures more dutifully, to engage in lively interaction for mutual sharpening and collective Gospel effectiveness, and to give thanks that what we hold in common far surpasses that on which we disagree. But these particular differences do not constitute a sufficient basis for division and must not be allowed to hamper the truly crucial cooperative effort of taking the Gospel to a waiting world. Southern Baptists who stand on either side of these issues should celebrate the freedom to hold their views with passion while granting others the freedom to do the same.
Search the scriptures, engage and sharpen one another in respectful dialog.
Trust
Ron Hale, in a comment yesterday, put his finger precisely on the problem in the SBC right now. We do not trust one another. People don’t trust leaders. Calvinists don’t trust Traditionalists and vice versa. A spirit of distrust and hostility exists.
The way to build trust is well defined in this document. The reader should browse that section.
Testimony.
It is important that the committee is not trying to build peace by stifling debate or dissent. They honor the fact that we have different convictions and can hold them passionately. The key is to give a format of trust in which we can have the forceful debates that we need, not to prevent dissent and debate.
The Way Forward
The committee perhaps saved the best for last. The section entitled “The Way Forward” does just that – gives us a pattern for moving forward as a denomination. Here is a quote from this.
Where do we go from here? We must celebrate the unity we share together in our common Great Commission purpose, while acknowledging and celebrating variety among us. We must clarify the parameters of our cooperation where necessary but stand together without dispute.
We should be thankful that these are the issues Southern Baptists are now discussing, even as liberal denominations are debating the full abdication of biblical morality and allowing the denial of central doctrines. We are, seen in this light, blessed by the discussions that come to Southern Baptists who want to affirm the fullness of the faith, not its reduction.
We should call upon all Southern Baptists to promote the unity we share within The Baptist Faith and Message and, while recognizing that most Southern Baptists will believe and teach more than what that confession contains, we must never believe or teach less.
We should expect all leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention and all entities serving our denomination to affirm, to respect, and to represent all Southern Baptists of good faith and to serve the great unity of our Convention. No entity should be promoting Calvinism or non-Calvinism to the exclusion of the other. Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.
In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations.
We must do all within our power to avoid the development of partisan divisions among Southern Baptists.
We must not only acknowledge but celebrate the distinctive contributions made by the multiple streams of our Southern Baptist heritage. These streams include both Charleston and Sandy Creek, the Reformers and many of the advocates of the Radical Reformation, confessional evangelicalism and passionate revivalism. These streams and their tributaries nourish us still.
We must also remember that labels, though often necessary, are often misleading and unfair. They must be used with care and assigned with charity. The use of the words “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” can be both revealing and misleading, since individuals may hold to any number of variants on doctrinal points. Similarly non-Calvinists, who may resist even that designation, will cover an even larger landscape of positions. Labels like these often fail us.
We must stand together in rejecting any form of hyper-Calvinism that denies the mandate to present the offer of the Gospel to all sinners or that denies the necessity of a human response to the Gospel that involves the human will. Similarly, we must reject any form of Arminianism that elevates the human will above the divine will or that denies that those who come to faith in Christ are kept by the power of God. How do we know that these positions are to be excluded from our midst? Each includes beliefs that directly deny what The Baptist Faith and Message expressly affirms.
We must remember that the diversity we celebrate is already honored in the names we revere—theological statesmen such as James P. Boyce and B. H. Carroll, E. Y. Mullins and W. T. Conner; missionary heroes and martyrs such as Lottie Moon and Bill Wallace; scholars such as A. T. Robertson and Robert Baker, educators such as Lee Scarborough and John Sampey; evangelists and preachers like George W. Truett and W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee and Adrian Rogers; and pastor-theologians like Herschel Hobbs. Where would we be today if we attempted to divide these heroes and heroines of the faith by the issue of Calvinism? We would cut ourselves off from our own heritage.
We must also remember that a rising young generation of Southern Baptists is watching and listening, looking to see if this denomination is going to be a bold movement of churches on mission or merely a debating society.
Beyond them stands a world desperately in need of the Gospel. Will we distract ourselves in an unnecessary debate while the world is perishing in need of the Gospel?
If we stand together in truth, we can trust one another in truth, even as we experience tension. We can talk like brothers and sisters in Christ, and we can work urgently and eagerly together
.
I don’t have time to do much more than give you this synopsis. I will be out of touch for the next day or two, though I will try to check in. I’m sure more responses will be coming – here and at other sites.
May the vision of this study group become a reality in the Southern Baptist Convention!
This Committee, representing a broad spectrum of leadership within the SBC, has charted a clear course by which our Convention may sail through dangerous seas. If embraced by all, this document will enable the old Ship of Zion to carry the glorious Gospel of Lord Jesus to heretofore unreachable shores.
I rejoice with joy unspeakable at the continued mercy, grace, and guiding hand of our God upon our Convention.
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
The “old ship of Zion”?
Never heard that one Randall.
This self accolading statement (too lengthy and confusing for even the most interested SBC church member) is nothing more than a Title Deed to Joint Ownership with a promise that the “reformation” will continue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPVFPE6sNGw
Thanks for the Kingsmen link Randall. Enjoyed that.
As a Baptist I’m proud of what came from the committee’s work together. My initial and subsequent cynicism toward the process aside, I believe they did exactly what they needed to do in the affirmations and denials. Guess it just goes to show that these guys took their job seriously and came up with a tremendous statement on who we are as Southern Baptists.
Duckman Dale,
I have now read the document a couple of times. One thing I have noticed that does bring cause for me personally to affirm your comment about the committee taking their “job seriously.”
They were strenuously attentive to the wording of the document. In the past, some of the special committees were not so attentive to making their reports (documents) as understandable or directed toward whole body unity. My hopes are that their efforts will have a positive effect among us.
I still have uneasy feelings about the whole situation. Tossing a blanket of paper over the issues will not make them go away. All we can do is pray.
For the record, my disdain for Calvinism discussions (better described as foodfights) is fairly well known. But, in the interests of fostering the kind of debate that is advocated in the report, I am going to open the door here – to attempt the kind of respectful debate that we need.
Three “rules” apply (more like guidelines than actual rules):
1) Articles have to be respectful and productive. Unfortunately, there is no committee to decide that, just me. If I feel an article will produce more heat than light, or that it is excessively pointed or insulting, I will either turn it down or ask that it be rewritten.
2) This is NOT going to be one of those “all-we-talk-about-is-Calvinism” sites. That’s the thing I hate most about the discussions. There are a lot of great topics and great discussions to be had – that have NOTHING to do with this soteriological kerfuffle. Right now, with the release of the statement, we may be a little bit focused on that discussion, but I don’t want this to dominate our discussion completely. There are pro- and anti-Calvinist sites out there pretty much devoted to one side or the other. We can discuss it here, but we need not let this be ALL we discuss.
3) Commenters must be respectful and productive. If not, I will put your comments in moderation and require them to be approved before posted.
Dave, I hope you have a wonderful time with your grandchild, they are the best. I’m doing the wedding for my first grand child tomorrow.
The problem is, that I might cry during the wedding. If I can keep my mind on all the naughty things he has done growing up, I can get through it.
By the way, the report kinda took a shot as bloggers and other social media in this section:
Problem is, I agree with them.
I think blaming social media is like blaming party lines for the spread of gossip. The people who engage in the behavior are personally responsible for their actions. The technology is irrelevant.
But doesn’t the technology make the gossip much more accessible? That accessibility is really the issue. You’re right on the point of responsibility, of course.
Well, eliminating party lines certainly eliminated one form of access to gossip, yes. But so did ignoring the line when someone else’s ring pattern went off. The problem isn’t the technology. It’s the human using it.
I just hope that online Baptist newspapers are included in their affirmation.
I can see how the blogosphere would be a potential problem for any group attempting for any reason to build a theo-political consensus within a larger and less informed constituency.
Blogging is one Pandora’s Box, however, that our denominational leaders will not be able to nail the lid back on, regardless of how many statements they write or the kind of “charitable conversations” they hope to encourage.
They fear open equal access to the public marketplace of ideas almost as much as they fear individual convictions about the “soul competency” of the believer.
Or, perhaps they are not against blogging, and just want us to apply biblical principles to our online conversation?
This is another equally viable consideration.
I am not as negative as some. I do believe that this statement is helpful. It really is a re-affirmation of what most Southern Baptists have practiced for a long time. Those who stand on the fringe and label brothers as “preaching heresy” (as I recently heard) will be the only ones unhappy. One of the fringe folks recently stated he “had left the SBC.” Reminded me of Jimmy Carter’s declaration several years ago. The truth is that both of these men had left the SBC long ago. Praise God that their tribe is extremely small.
Steve in Montana
Steve:
I believe you’re correct about those who will be unhappy.
If you’re referring to the Reformation Montana guy, didn’t he just say he left the Montana SBC? Isn’t he still part of the SBC at large?
I agree with you, Steve.
The heresy label has been all too common.
I commented to my pastor a few years ago that he and I were a pretty good example of unity. I mentioned I’m Pentecostal and he’s not, I’m Calvinist and he’s not, and that he’s OK with my teaching Sunday School and leading Bible studies.
His comment?
“You know why that is? Because, when I look at you, I don’t see a Pentecostal or a Calvinist. I see a brother”.
Oh that such an attitude might overwhelm the Convention.
May that spirit grow.
If having a Pentecostal teach Sunday School in a Southern Baptist Church is the measure of a “spirit of unity,” I’m not hopeful there will be much unity.
Having been a Pentecostal, and now a SB pastor I can tell you that they are more like first cousins than brothers (understanding that “brother” used above is used in the spiritual sense).
I have “brothers and sisters” who are Seventh Day Adventists, but that does not make them well-suited to teach in a SB Sunday School.
I would be surprised if this approach to unity would get much support on a Baptist blog.
I have many Pentecostal friends and we love each other and support each other, but teaching in eachother’s church on a regular basis would likely lead to some problems that would create unnecessary tension.
God bless your pastor and his Kingdom mindedness. I pray that would be more abundant on both sides.
“In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations.”
This would solve the single biggest problem in the current debate. This is what has gotten so many people engaged in the fuss.
Contrary to what some Calvinists maintain, I’ve actually seen this phenomenon take place and I agree that going into a church with a hidden or unrevealed agenda, or more specifically, to hide one’s agenda is an integrity issue.
I don’t think it is a Calvinism issue alone. It happens in other areas too – changing a church’s musical style, culture, etc.
Honesty in agenda is fundamental.
Dave,
With Calvinism I think the issue you describe is more pronounced because some young ministers right out of seminary are more bent on impressing people than inspiring them.
Theological discussions seem much more easy to engage in than say, “gospel presentations to outsiders.” Theology can easily become a substitute for missions, rather than a support.
I agree and it’s also present in a lot of “cage stage” Calvinists where they have just learned about the TULIP and are determined that everyone else should as well.
It was that kind of Calvinist that made me stay FAR away from the Doctrines of Grace for years. It took someone with a much gentler spirit to get me to look at them again years later.
Good words.
I sincerely hope that everyone in the SBC will take this report to heart, AND put it into real, tangible, meaningful actions. I really do hope, hope, hope that we’ll see what this report declares become a reality in the SBC.
We’ll see.
David
One thing I am curious to see from both sides (so I may do something of this sort for Focus) – some sort of write-up explaining how this helps to address their concerns and telling how this might affect their actions going forward. As it is, I think the report is excellent, and follow-ups of the sort I mention would help to show why it is not just a good report but a good report which actually paints the path forward on our matters of central concern, both to help address our concerns and to help move us to better cooperate with those who disagree.
Thoughts? Helpful? Not? Why? Why not?
Chris,
I think that would be most helpful. The more quickly we can begin to practically apply the principles laid out in the document the more quickly we can begin recovering from the damage already inflicted.
Additionally, such practical application by the majority will expose the extreme voices on both sides of this issue–and will result in their marginalization.
Grace to you, brother.
Which is exactly what the SBC needs …more marginalization.
Extremist lips sink ships… 🙂
Scott: Honest question. What could the report have said that would have satisfied you?
It would not have used the language of “continuing reformation” and would have done a better of job of speaking to where traditional baptists fall in the spectrum of “noncalvinists.”
This document basically declares joint ownership of the SBC by “Calvinist” and “Non-Calvinist”.
Scott,
Wouldn’t one understand the SBC to be “owned” by all Southern Baptists regardless of theological persuasion? Thus in a sense there really is joint ownership between Calvinists and non-Calvinists?
I agree, Chris. I believe that the important issues are to now focus our attention on those things upon which we agree and where cooperation is paramount. I think where we disagree has, by this time, become apparent.
Do you see any areas where the forward movement may actually be quantifiable and not just “lip service”? In other words, can we put some goals or steps of some sort out there? What would they be or where might they be of greatest importance?
In practical application, The SBC is owned by whoever steers its agencies (executive board) and entities along with its process of theo-politcal appointments.
The business of the convention is usually rubber-stamped by a handful of messengers annually. The yearly meeting forms the base of authority from which the beneficiaries of the convention (i.e. agencies, entities) codify their agendas.
So no Chris, my understanding would not be that the Southern Baptist Convention is owned by “all Baptists”.
I would also argue that it’s recent history (40 years) has tracked more toward the side of isolation and separation from other potentially cooperating Protestants.
The more creeds and “blue ribbon” statements written, the worse the divisions, isolation and separation become.
I can understand the dynamic which led to the SBC’s formation. I can’t see restoring that same mentality in the name of “reformation”.
Scott,
Owned by the members, operated by those appointed by the members.
Given the somewhat cynical tone of your comment, would I be able to assume you have a notion how to better structure the SBC to provide its owners greater day-to-day operational influence?
No, not as passionate or concerned about God’s ability to navigate Baptist history without the SBC as some others may be. So, no I do not have a better structure and I really have no problem with the current structure.
What I said about the operational mechanics of the SBC holds true but does not have to also mean that I have a problem with process. The process of the denomination is what it is.
Scott,
Now I may be more confused than ever. If you don’t have an objection to the structure and mechanics currently in place, to what do you object?
Chris:
The personal objection I have is the ever-escalating trend toward creedalism by the SBC (especially in last 10-15 years).
I don’t think, from an historical perspective at least, that the SBC has done itself a lot of favors in recent years either internally (i.e. membership, trust) or externally (public perception) by these efforts (revised BFMs, committee statements, theological purging etc.).
Would appear from history that a great strength of the Cooperative Program used to be the ability to bring a wide array of Baptists into shared efforts through the avoidance of detailed and ever-evolving creedal/confessional statements.
Not any more. As the complexity and frequency of these SBC treatises and papal bulls increase, the “rope of sand” dynamic conversely decreases.
Seems like there will have to be a catalyst other than mutual Christian service via theological tolerance among SBC Baptists for the denominational cooperative apparatus to remain significantly funded in the future.
The fact that theological concession and coexistence between “Calvinists” and “Non-Calvinists” is an issue at this point in the SBC serves to illustrate my point.
How much division, schism, and reformation can a Baptist “cooperative program” survive?
Thanks for sharing this. I think that trust is very important in this debate. To be honest, it is really hard to trust leaders who fire college faculty just because they are Calvinists. If we are all committed to truth, it seems like there should be an open exchange of ideas especially on college campuses when the ideas are under the broader umbrella of truth. Maybe SBC leaders should sign a commitment to not fire professors and other ‘leaders’ just because they come own on the other side on the Calvinism issue.
Why should there be any more exchange on college campuses about placement or firing of professors than there is at Southeastern or Southern Seminary?
Can you name one non-Cal prof at either of those seminaries who has been let go because they are not a Calvinist? This is the kind of baseless innuendo that has to stop. There is NO substance to the accusation.
Ryan,
I guess the opposite needs to be asked….how many nonCalvinists have been hired to teach in the theology dept. of Southern?
David
Vol, all that can sign the Abstract… like Paige Patterson.
Jared,
That wasnt the question. Also, in the spirit of the Report, maybe the Abstract of Principles should be thrown out the window…along with New Orleans Statement?
David
Jared,
When did Paige Patterson teach at Southern? Paige Patterson signed the Abstract when he was at Southeastern. His assessment of the Abstract was three points at most. Brad Reynolds also signed the Abstract as well as Emir Caner. All read the document to be three points at the most. The candidates at Southern sign the Abstract based on their President’s assessment of it containing five soteriological points.
Tim, Dr. Ware and Dr. Moore are both 4-pointers.
David and Tim, my bad on the “Southern” part. I saw Southeastern and Southern, but it was the above comment by Scott.
I also assume there are other 3-4 pointers at SBTS.
Engineer,
The three weren’t fired simply because they’re Calvinists. It’s more complex than that. They were fired because the President needed the Executive Director’s support on a host of other matters to avoid getting fired himself. Purging the college of Calvinist religion professors earned him that support for the time being. In fairness to the president, he doesn’t really have the theological acumen to recognize, understand, or define Calvinism without help, so his own actions were much less about the three profs’ theology and much more about saving his own job.
so his own actions were much less about the three profs’ theology and much more about saving his own job.
In fairness to the President’s job Ann? I wouldn’t say that, I would say that was even dirtier. Sacrificing other people to keep his job.
That is not a leader I would want. That is not a leader.
Wow! How about some facts. Did the President tell you this? Did the Executive Director tell you this? Or, is this what is commonly called in religious circles–gossip?
I don’t know what the truth is because I’m not directly involved.
To accuse someone of being too stupid to understand Calvinism without help — well, that is not a statement that engenders great confidence in the source.
Ann,
Be that as it may, it nonetheless says a lot about the climate against Calvinism in Louisiana that the ploy worked.
Debbie,
I was being a bit sarcastic.
Frank,
Would that it were as unbelievable as it sounds.
Chris,
The climate doesn’t look to be getting better any time soon.
Wow Ann:
You seem to have more inside information on the LC situation than all teams of lawyers involved.
Are you sure that “Calvinism” and “exchanges of favors” between the college president and executive director of Louisiana Baptists were the only reasons (spoken and unspoken) that these professors were not renewed?
Is there any possibility that they (the professors) took some damaging hits as well during legal fact finding?
We haven’t seen the books (signed AFEs) by them nor do we know what was included in the documentation that ultimately resulted in the exoneration of the LC president.
“Is there any possibility that they (the professors) took some damaging hits as well during legal fact finding?”
No. None.
Chris:
You’ve seen the documentation that the board of Trustees based their decision upon and reached a conclusion or is your estimation of “no evidence” a matter of personal bias?
Scott,
The board of trustees did not dismiss those men; Aguilard dismissed those men. The report to the board of trustees came later. Aguilard has just recently been quite outspoken that Calvinism was his motivation: http://hereiblog.com/louisiana-college-redux-joe-aguillard-says-calvinism-problem/
Chris,
Joe’s comments in the article notwithstanding, it’s pretty strange he never had a problem with Quarles or any of the professors Quarles hired until his own job was on the line for other reasons. Suddenly, Calvinism was a major issue…a conspiracy even…and he decided to non-renew the 3 young professors. Odd that he never had a problem with Quarles or Quarles’ hirelings when Chuck was siding with him or defending him against other (true) accusations.
Isn’t it a strange coincidence that he never voiced one comment about Calvinism on campus until his job was on the line over other things? Isn’t it a strange coincidence that after he fired the 3 professors, David became one of his most vocal supporters against all the other mounting accusations? Maybe Scott is right…I don’t know what I’m talking about….this is all just a very unfortunate succession of strange coincidences.
Ann, I can appreciate your perspective but in the particular case I am thinking of a church history professor was fired due to his Calvinistic theology and he wasn’t even teaching theology. His Calvinism was cited as a reason for his firing. He is a personal friend of mine so I know this is the case. In this case the president wasn’t trying to save his job. He came in as a new president and was cleaning house. It is a sad story regardless of which side of the Calvinism debate you are on. If there is agreement on the major points on Christian doctrine why can’t there be an honest exchange of ideas? Although I am a Calvinist myself, I believe that even students at SBTS need to be exposed to non-Calvinist professors so that they can wrestle with the issues as long as the profs’ theology falls under the broad umbrella of orthodox Baptist theology.
Chris,
I understand the chronology of when Aguillard fired the professors and when the whistleblower complaints were filed by Quarles and company. Pretty common knowledge how both the LC Board of Trustees as well as the executive board of the LBC received and processed their information.
That is all beside the point.
After all information (including the heretofore unseen Aguillard file) was reviewed, it makes no sense that a trustee board consisting entirely of calvinists and conservative “noncalvinists” vote to exonerate a guy who is embarrassing one side while persecuting the other side and mismanaging funds etc the whole time ….. unless there was something going on with the McCaskey Divinity School or the nature of the whistleblower complaints we don’t know about.
The LC trustees, LC Board, and Executive Director had and still have information we do not have Chris. So I ask again, have you seen this documentation and what did it contain that prompted a majority of the board to exonerate?
Is it not implied more than once and by many who blog in this environment that we should “trust our leaders?”
I’m just as skeptical of blind trust as the next guy so rather than my advising you to “trust” some Louisiana Baptists, I would say at least wait until all sides of the story are told.
Scott,
They have had more than ample time for “their side of the story” and all we’ve had is spin and more spin. Now I’m not sure why someone in the CBF cares what happens at an SBC school, but it matters to me that a president as corrupt as Aguilard has been allowed to continue and to proceed with using Calvinism as a smokescreen, something he clearly intends to continue doing.
Chris:
You are right on target about “spin”.
Without all the documentation published, the spin from the beginning was generated through calvinistically sympathetic web sites published by sycophants of the non-renewed. Some young YRRs even stooped to secret recordings of private conversations with the dean of chapel for distorted reuse in the “persecution” narrative.
This is not coming from a big fan of either Aguillard or Hankins. Check it out.
Lets talk about spin. Since your reply is addressed to me alone I assume your reference to CBF is to serve as a label for me. While I had dialogue with many CBFrs during CR War days much as “calvinists and fundamentalists”) had dialogue, I have never been a member or partner with CBF and have been more than puzzled by their “denominational aspirations” and social concessions for years. Got no use for em.
Nice distraction but no cookie. And we’re to believe you guys even know the meaning of the word “trust”?
It wouldn’t matter what stripe I am anyway CBF, UBF, BGCT, SBCT, YRR, …. Still gonna interact with people. And still doing it as I have been all my life in an SBC affiliated Baptist church, educated at SBC seminary and SBC affiliated college with a family of 4 wonderful SBC affiliated ladies.
None of which enjoy debating Calvinists as much as I do.
Scott,
If you really think the issues started with the non-renewals this Spring and the student blogs, then you’ve been out-of-state too long. Reformed blogs added light and heat, but the issues with Joe…as I suspect you know well…are about a whole lot more than Calvinism.
Ann:
Thank you for your response. Yes I have been out of the state for a while but I’m next door in Texas and still pretty well connected.
Believe me, I’m familiar with Joe Aguillard.
I was among the group the tried to warn Rory Lee about what was coming with Aguillard et al.
I understand his contract is up for renewal next year…..What do you think?
I may be getting cynical in my old age but I think the only thing that will end the present, contentious debate on Calvinism is a new debate on something else.
Can anybody point to a time of any length when Baptists weren’t fighting about something?
Not a bad observation, so I think we should use replies to your comment as a place to suggest alternate debates for the SBC.
Here’s one for the pastors out there: boxers vs briefs? I say boxers as a way to demonstrate the freedom we have in Christ. Those who argue for briefs are stuck in the rigid structures of the law.
If that one doesn’t take, we could always move on to something like Ford vs. Chevy.
There are those here at Voices who want to distract with debates about sports teams, but personally I don’t care if the Atlanta Braves beat the Green Bay Packers or vice versa, it’s just basketball so it doesn’t matter.
“There are those here at Voices who want to distract with debates about sports teams, but personally I don’t care if the Atlanta Braves beat the Green Bay Packers or vice versa, it’s just basketball so it doesn’t matter.”
Well then, why would you be interested in a post about boxers or briefs?
Touché
You know I am just raggin’ on you. I know that down in your heart you would love to have been so fortunate to be a member of the SANBANATION.
CB’s delusions know no bounds………..
Sanban? Is that like sandman?
I hate to be the party pooper here, but I do not expect this statement from the advisory committee to have any effect whatsoever on SBC life. Although I think those on the committee gave it a try, a non-binding document like this has no teeth, and if you will read the fine print closely, I think you will agree. Under the heading of “cooperation” is the sentence, “We affirm that these differences should not threaten our eager cooperation in Great Commission ministries.” I can affirm that is should not threaten cooperation, but I can surely affirm that it does and will continue to do so. There is nothing in this report that pledges the committee members abide by it. It will return to business as usual before the ink is dry. Consider the next 2 sentences: “We deny that the issues now discussed among us should in any way undermine or hamper our work together if we grant one another liberty and extend to one another charity in these differences. Neither those insisting that Calvinism should dominate Southern Baptist identity nor those who call for its elimination should set the course for our life together.” Notice again the word “should.” There is nothing about actually putting an end to the FACT that there is undermining of cooperation. The second sentence quoted above is disingenuous. As long as a well-connected SB organization exists with a mission statement reading “The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church particularly in the areas of worship and witness,” there remains a problem in “Zion.” Implied in the mission statement is that the gospel has been lost (and thus needs to be recovered) and that those who do not embrace the TULIP have lost said gospel (since to recover the gospel means to promote the D.O.G.). I find this mission statement personally offensive and insensitive. I have said it for years, and will continue to say it: until that mission statement is removed or repealed, unity is not possible, because trust is absent. Why, the author of the above mission statement was on the advisory council. Further down, we read “We affirm that Southern Baptists must avoid the development… Read more »
I must have read a different statement, Jim.
1. The statement is advice to the EC at the request of the President of the EC.
2. It deals in the first part with the strong inclination by the committee that the BF&M2K is broad enough to cover the soteriological issues that have been raised and also addresses ALL of them as human systems.
3. The affirm and deny sections essentially rule in and rule out perspectives on the issues that the Advisory Committee used as the framework for making its recommendations.
4. There is an effective conclusion that the BF&M2K requires no changes.
5. There is an effective adoption of Al Mohler’s triage system by noting there are differences in perspectives that not only have been historically present in the Convention but that are essentially differences in human-originated theological opinion (though always stated as convictional belief, of course.)
6. It provides an overall framework for unity very much re-iterating the strategic purpose of the Great Commission Resurgence effort: that we not be distracted as a peculiar people from our call to ministry of the Gospel to the entire world.
That is very precisely not a document designed to have “bite” as much as a strategy for the Convention to work through problems like this in the future without losing sight of the truly Big Picture: the introduction of the invisible Kingdom to the World.
None of the document downplays theology per se, but the entire document seeks to maintain perspective about our limitations as human beings in both interpreting the Bible and in systematizing what we find there. Pretty serious stuff in my opinion and worthy of the time spent on it, especially given that they’re counseling wisdom in how we use rhetoric and polemics with each other.
Hi Greg,
I feel like I’ve stepped into parallel-universe land or something. I understood the purpose (obviously mistakenly on my part) of this committee was to work on a way forward on the soteriological divide present in the current SBC. There must be another purpose in mind that I am not grasping, because the committee utterly failed to find any sort of way forward in my opinion. It looks to me, to borrow the phrase, to be full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
The BFM2K was written broadly enough to contain both camps in the beginning, so there is no reason to change it. Both Cals and non-Cals can affirm the BFM2K as long as they read it in a way that is consistent with each group’s existing theological formulations, so the issue is not with the confession.
I went back and reread the document looking for, as you put it, “a strategy for the convention to work through problems like this in the future.” I did not see any such strategy in the document. Any real strategy would outline specific, measurable objectives to truly solve the problem and hold those to whom the responsibility for executing it is delegated accountable for reaching those objectives. I search in vain for those. All I see is that we “should” be doing this and that, with no guarantee that the men who sat on this committee will even take their own advice, given that many of them have been pretty divisive over the past decade or so. I notice that as of this evening, Tom Ascol’s mission statement remains unchanged, for starters.
The argument to history is also unconvincing. Yes, there have been both positions in Baptist life since the earliest days, but the stakes are higher today. The denomination as a whole has never been up for grabs before as far as I know.
I’m not sure where my disappointment lies the most – in the document itself or in those who think it is something we can put any faith in.
Jim G.
I understand your disappointment. A strategy won’t have specific objectives. It will have overarching themes. Tactics determine how to work towards the achievement of the themes. Policies implement those themes.
The strategy of the CR was to use the political opportunities in the design of the Southern Baptist Convention to reassert control over the entities. The reasoning was that people in the pew had invested in the SBC and would not be pleased with what had become of the convention as it drifted away from the Bible and towards a theology that pretty much was an “anything goes” theology.
The strategy of this document is to emphasize that the doctrinal differences related to subjects like soteriology may in many cases be differing theological opinions and therefore to emphasize commonality on the broader perspective. The specifics this time are very detailed statements of what the common goals are and what KINDS of specifics are that groups can differ on while remaining consistent with the BF&M2K.
It is now up to the EC to provide recommendations to the Convention and to the Entities as to how to handle those differences. I would expect them to reassert the themes of the document for at least a couple of years and the people on the committee since they generally are–no offense (or pun) intended–heavyweights in the Convention.
The documents’ presentation suggests they all view this as a serious problem but very specifically do not want to aggravate it further. Yes: that is a very political document. But this is a political–not theological–situation. So it requires a political strategy.
It will definitely NOT work as a standalone effort. These men need to stay committed to it to continue providing the leadership that helps it succeed. If they do not take their own advice, their own legacies will be impacted precisely for the reasons you state: some of them have been divisive and, worst yet, proud of it.
Hi Greg,
I appreciate your optimism. I really do, and I hope you are right and I am wrong. But I’m not nearly as optimistic. You write,
“These men need to stay committed to it to continue providing the leadership that helps it succeed. If they do not take their own advice, their own legacies will be impacted precisely for the reasons you state: some of them have been divisive and, worst yet, proud of it.”
You don’t really buy that do you? Here is a CONCRETE test case: it’s 10:04 PM, Saturday, June 1, 2013, in Charlotte, NC. The mission statement for Founders Ministries still reads, “The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church particularly in the areas of worship and witness.”
Wasn’t Tom Ascol part of this committee? He’s not willing to abide by the words of the document he helped draft, as the Founders mission statement still implies that I have lost the gospel because I do not embrace TULIP. He is still being divisive and promoting tribalism, but there is no tarnish settling on his legacy, is there? We don’t need the slow-turning wheels of the SBC political machine; for all intents and purposes, the men of this committee ARE the political machine. All we need is for all of them to stand up and DO what they propose. But, alas, no change as of yet in the mission of Founders. A change tomorrow is pretty unlikely, too, given it will be Sunday. Don’t you see the irony? The apostles of discord (and Ascol is not the only one of those who served on this committee, mind you) have now become the apostles of unity all the while their methods and message do not change one bit! Brilliant! And 95% of the responders on this blog think it is great.
Folks, the emperor is naked.
Jim G.
Jim G.,
The Traditional Statement still stands, overt in its anti-Calvinism throughout, and Dr. Hankins was on the Calvinism Committee, signed the report, and appended his enthusiastic support of the document.
Yet, you are not calling for a retraction of the TS by Dr. Hankins.
The CCR was explicit in positing that there is room for both positions both in the BF&M (the unifying statement of the SBC) and in the SBC at-large. This reality is both historic and evident.
The CCR denies the right of either side to exclude either the doctrinal position or participation of the other. Rather, it calls for mutual respect and an attitude of humble collaboration.
It is significant that some of the best minds on both sides of this issue formed this statement. I dare say that those present (from both sides) are, on the whole, more capable than most of us here in articulating and defending their respective positions. And I’m sure they are at least as passionate and entrenched as we are.
Yet they chose to respect one another, unify around our substantive areas of doctrinal agreement, and humbly work together for the Kingdom.
These leaders, representing both sides of the issues, have penned a statement of unity that the vast majority of the SBC will embrace.
And the extreme dissenting voices–from both sides–are going to find themselves pushed to the margins by their own doing. This is as it should be, viz;
I would rather everyone cooperate with mutual respect and humility.
How about you?
Grace to you, brother.
Randall,
“Yet, you are not calling for a retraction of the TS by Dr. Hankins.”
Yes I did. Read up the thread. Pitch all of the confessions (loosely or otherwise) aside from the BFM. No TS, no Abstract, All of them – gone, except for the BFM. There is no room for pet confessions that can be a source of division. Even Hezekiah had to destroy Moses’ serpent!
I know what has to be done for there to be peace. And I know 2 more things.
We have to do this willingly – it cannot be forced
Our leaders (those who helped draft this statement) have to lead. They have to be together on this too. Because the Founders mission statement is still intact, I don’t see the leaders leading. I see them telling us how to behave, but they are not doing it themselves.
I fully agree there is plenty of room in the SBC for two soteriological interpretations of the BFM and I am happy to cooperate with my Calvinist brothers in mission and worship. I say that sincerely. What cannot continue to occur is for one side to attempt to impose its will on the other, discretely or overtly. I’m fully on board with the language of the document. I am incredibly suspicious because I see no real action from those who actually drafted the document.
Jim G.
Now a question for you, Randall.
Will you join me in denouncing Founders Ministries’ mission statement as promoting tribalism and a serious hindrance to unity, since it implies that I have lost the gospel because I do not embrace TULIP? Will you call for Tom Ascol to disband his organization voluntarily, since it exists to “recover” the gospel in local churches that has been “lost” by those who do not embrace TULIP, and since he signed his name in pledge to the unity doc?
Jim G.
Have Mohler hire three consecutive professors who deny unconditional election, while Patterson and Kelly hire three Calvinists in a row.
I belive Bart Barber said that SWBTS has hired several Calvinists in recent years and he’s a trustee so he’d be in a position to know. I think the fact that someone who can affirm the BFM2000 but can’t affirm the AoP can’t be hired at SBTS is rather, how shall I say this, stupid.
Are you sure there have been no non-Calvinists hired at Southern? I couldn’t say one way or another, but I wonder of those who raise the accusation know for sure that it is true.
Chris,
I have asked people numerous times….has Southern hired any Non Calvinists to teach, especially in the area of theology….so far, no one can name anybody, who’s not at least a 4 pt. Calvinist. In fact, Dr. Adam Greenway was just hired to teach at Southern, here lately. From what I understand, he would fit into a 4 pt. Calvinist position…correct me if I’m wrong.
So, as far as I know…Southern(Mohler) has not hired any Non Calvinists to teach at Southern…especially in the area of theology.
David
David W.,
I’ve basically asked the same question, and also received no reply.
But it is a valid question.
David R. Brumbelow
David & David,
Whom have y’all asked about Southern hiring non-Calvinists? For clarity, where does the person need to land theology to be considered a non-Calvinist?
(Writing David & David made me think of that TV show I grew up with – Simon & Simon.)
Dave,
Seeing you have removed your strenuous oversight on the comments if this comment stands I will come back and complete it later.
C.B. Scott is a absolute pansy. He don’t know his head from a rock laying on the ground, as a matter of fact, I believe it is made of the same material.
Maybe that will be enough to get another controversy started. Is C.B.’s head hard as a marble stone? Of course the real knowledge on C.B. is that the “C” stands for Carlos as he hails from Villa Rica.
Why would I moderate a comment that speaks such bold truth?
Is is possible to sign off on the BFM, Abstract and Traditional statement?
Well, we can at least say that it has been done.
Definitely should ask Dr. Patterson that one.
I think the Traditionalist statement is designed to hone distinctions with Calvinism. But the AoP is an accommodation from the New Hampshire Baptist Confession that is pretty stark in places and clearly “loosens” some of the more strident Calvinistic expressions. The BF&M1925 takes that several steps further and the 1963 and 2000 essentially repeat the language from 1925 (in my opinion).
My sense is that you could sign all three unless your view of the point of the Traditionalist statement is specifically to sharpen distinctions in such a way that it provokes a fight. My view is that the document was written specifically for that purpose and for no other purpose, so I doubt any of the signees of that document would agree to sign the AoP.
Some of them have in fact offered arguments that the BF&M2K disallows Calvinism. The AC report suggests a broad rejection of the term Traditionalist as well as a broad rejection of the argument that the BF&M2K explicitly disallows Calvinism. I agree with that position.
So, Greg, what about those who have signed the BFM and Abstract who now signed the Traditional statement? David B. (I think) made a comment recently about trust. How do we trust leaders who sign the Traditional document, which clearly has the intent to distance itself from Calvinism, who have also signed the Abstract which several traditional folks see as too Calvinistic?
Is there an unspoken double-standard in play? How do we gain trust in this situation?
I believe that the real “debate” or the real “problem” is two fold: – MONEY- On the whole this is largely about money, which is shameful. Most people (more particularly those who call themselves “traditionalists”) are worried that the CP will be spent on the “wrong” believers; a.k.a. those who believe differently. That somehow, unless the money of the star-bellied sneeches is ONLY spent on other star-bellies, then it is wasteful, dishonest, and therefore, it is a betrayal. This I have garnered not scientifically, but from the comments of those self-professed TRADS who comment here. Those who claim to be called “calvinists” spend more time in a defensive/victim mode and that has led to antagonism, but not necessarily about money. But, it can be whiney. And, as we all know, SBs shouldn’t associate with, purchase, or consume whine or other intoxicating substances. – CULTURE – This is the REAL problem; a cultural difference between the Baby-Boomer generation (specifically trailing edge boomers (TREB)) and those that follow, mostly Gen-X. Boomers have a peculiar need to label and classify things; it is a wonder more of them did not go into zoological taxonomy. But, if you follow most Boomer statements and arguments far enough, there will be some sort of label or identifier associated with the belief; life is easier if there are little grid lines by which to classify everything so as to see how and if it will fit into their lives. GenXers on the other hand grew up in a more “grey” world: latch-key kids who assumed their boomer parents cynicism as normal and so began a neo-relativistic belief system: grey is the new black and white. Before any one says it, NO, GenXers do not necessarily have “grey” beliefs; they are black and white. But, by experience, we know the world isn’t black and white. We operate in grey much more comfortably and eschew labeling more than Boomers do. GenXers more easily operate in a theologically pluralistic environment (orthodox that is) than do Boomers; i.e. in a room, we will gravitate towards the conversation that is most interesting for the moment (cultural ADD) whereas Boomers will more often gravitate towards either the conversation with which they agree (for support) or disagree (to correct the aberration). A GenXer will not announce oneself as a Calvinist or traditionalist, not out of a nefarious motive, but because the label is largely… Read more »
sorry, pressed SUBMIT
sorry, pressed SUBMIT by accident….
I must applaud the Statement and hope that it will be a touchstone by all before, during, and after such discussions of varying theological points of view. We should strive for truth, but not force our view on other or disdain them for being different. Jesus came and told the truth to many, especially the sinners (prostitues, drunkards, tax-collectors, etc) but did not force his message on any of them. We should do likewise but remember, that the SB brother who affirms differently is not a tax-collector… unless they work for the IRS 🙂
In perusing the various reactions to the committee report, I think the most unfortunate are those that are essentially labeling the non-Calvinists on the committee as clueless patsies of their reformed overlords. These men deserve more respect than that.
Or….If the shoe fits?
Dave,
The birth of my son kept me from replying earlier! 😉
I enjoyed your commentary on the report. I enjoyed the report. I’ll still be missing the convention to teach a hermeneutics class. This report can only help to bring those together who are dedicated to the edification of the bride.
Congrats on the new addition! Have fun being a dad! I love it!
Do we really need another report other than the word of God? What does the word of God say on the issue is what we should adhere to instead of a committee? Am I missing something here?
What you’re missing, Margaret, is that the Word of God is understood through various interpretational frameworks. For instance, you are Church of Christ. What do you believe the Word of God says about baptism? It is probably different from what we as Baptists say about the issue of baptism.
What do you believe the Word of God says about us Baptists? There are some of the old guard in our little Church of Christ here about 90 miles northwest of you who believe that I am damned for hell. I’m Baptist, after all. Since I’m not Church of Christ I preach and teach a false Gospel. Is that what you think the Word of God says about us Baptists, Margaret? Granted, the local Church of Christ minister here and I are very good friends, and he certainly doesn’t believe that I’m going to hell, so that tells me that even within the Church of Christ there are different understandings of God’s Word on the issue of who is saved and who isn’t saved.
In the case of the Calvinism issue, you should recognize that you, being Church of Christ, follow a strain of thought that is specifically Arminian. We, as Baptists, have never embraced a wholly Arminian slant. We hold to the doctrine of “Perseverance of the Saints,” a doctrine that you would reject based on how you interpret the Word of God. We believe that God’s Word teaches that the truly saved person will persevere in their faith in Christ and can never lose their salvation. That perseverance is based in God’s grace, not in man’s works. So I don’t HOPE I’m saved, my hope is that I AM saved. There’s a huge difference.
If we were all robots who are programmed to be the same, look the same, and believe the same thing then we would not need this report. We are, however, a people of God’s Word who have the freedom to study and interpret it in a variety of ways, yet cooperate together in the advancement of God’s kingdom.
So yes, Margaret, we do need this report. It isn’t only about God’s Word (which we as Baptists hold in the highest regard and use as the basis of all we do and believe), it is about cooperation, evangelism, and missions.
What about Ananias and Sapphira? They were saved and then lost their salvation. Their example shows us that once saved is not always saved. We must continually work on our salvation.
As to us all believing the same thing, Jesus’ last prayer as recorded in John 17 was that all believers believe the same thing. He prayed that we all be one as he and God the Father are one. If he asked for oneness, who are we to determine differently?
As to interpretation, Peter said in II Peter 1:20 that no prophecy of Scripture comes from private interpretation but the gentlemen who wrote what we all read, wrote as the Holy Spirit directed them. So we really don’t have the right to interpret the Lord’s written directions in variety of ways but we are to study to see what the Lord is trying to tell us specifically to do on various subjects including baptism.
Can a Methodist preacher come into your fellowship and teach Methodist ideology? If he has interpreted his teachings as truth but it differs from your teachings, is he right or is he wrong? Would he be welcome back the next Sunday to teach similar teachings? I think not.
Lastly, the Bible is Lord’s guide for us. It is his textbook for us. As in any profession, we must follow the textbook that is given to us by the instructor. In other words, if we’re not going to follow the Bible, why even have it?
Your interpretation of the perseverance of the saints using Ananias and Sapphira is greatly flawed.
At the risk of going astray from the original post, I will respond to you, Margaret. I appreciate your reply. My responses will be simple and straightforward, as I don’t have time nor do I wish to waste too much space here by arguing with you. Recognize, though, that I don’t desire to turn this into a real conversation between us, as it has nothing to do with the content of the original post. As Baptists we are settled on the supremacy of Christ as revealed in the scriptures, we believe that God’s Word is inerrant, and we know that His grace alone saves. You might want to consider how far you wish to go in trying to persuade us of how wrong we are to not believe what you believe. “Ananias and Sapphira……lost their salvation.” Really? Where do you see that? How do you know they were actually saved to begin with? How do you know they weren’t truly saved, rebelled against God, lied to Him, suffered the consequence of their sinful action, and went to heaven when they died? What biblical support do you have for your contention? As Frank says, your interpretation is “greatly flawed.” “We must continually work on our salvation.” Wrong. “If he asked for oneness, who are we to determine differently?” Unity and blind acceptance are two very different things. Nowhere in John 17 does it say, “Father, I pray that they will all believe the same things.” Nowhere. What Jesus emphasizes is unity. I believe that when you look at the totality of Jesus’ teachings He anticipated diversity within the church. Unity within diversity is a much different thing than me simply saying, “You’re right, Margaret. Golly, I think I need you to tell me what to believe so I can live in unity with you and believe just like you do about all these things.” I think you’ll find that principle to be true within the Church of Christ as well. “So we really don’t have the right to interpret the Lord’s written directions in variety of ways but we are to study to see what the Lord is trying to tell us specifically to do on various subjects including baptism.” Your use of 2 Peter to squelch various interpretations is a misunderstanding of what Peter says. He says that scripture itself came as God revealed it, not as men made it… Read more »
garet, your politics is in the right place, but you’re voting on the wrong ticket.
Margaret:
Welcome the Neo SBC.
Be sure when you attend to bring your duly authorized translation of Scripture, BFM2000 revision and at least a half dozen of our most recent Blue Ribbon Committee Reports.
Might be a good idea to pick up a copy of Calvin’s “Institutes” along the way. You’ll need to be familiar with that one. If you have any E.Y. Mullins on your bookshelf … get rid of it.
We accept check, VISA, American Express and all major credit cards.
A potluck chicken dinner will be held in Fellowship hall following the morning worship service … all “calvinists” and “non-calvinists”are invited to attend.
She won’t be showing up, Scott. She’s Church of Christ.
Based on the several diplomatic responses in which the lady was set straight and scorned publicly about the “serious flaws” in her interpretation, I don’t think her Church of Christ background would the only thing preventing her from showing up, Dale.
She can come if she wants. I hope she brings peach cobbler.
Scott: Seriously, what is it you want?
Don’t “want” anything Bill. Exercising the freedom to exchange thoughts, ideas and opinions with other Southern Baptists on the “Calvinism Committee” report.
What is it that you “want”?
” What does the word of God say on the issue is what we should adhere to instead of a committee? Am I missing something here?”
Margaret, you are obviously right. The problem is that we can’t agree as to what the Word of God says because we look at Scripture differently. This is call hermeneutics, and there are unresolvable differences as long as we do not read and understand the text of scripture in the same way.
BTW, everyone will say that they just read the Bible, but that is being a bit less than honest. We all have axioms and preconceived ideas. Axioms (things accepted without proof) need to be identified and defended. For example the nature of the Bible itself. Once example is that I accept the Bible as without error and inspired by God without the need of any proof outside of the Bible itself and the work of the Holy Spirit in my life. I believe that preconceived ideas can be put aside and the text studied on a very technical level. Others believe that there are overarching themes in the Bible that must be applied to the text in order to properly understand it. This is inductive vs deductive reasoning.
Outside of the power of God himself intervening and changing hearts and minds, it is very difficult for humans to accept new ideas once another idea was previously accepted.
The document is more about working and existing together with those whom we disagree, but still believe to be lovers of God and of truth…even when Those People are obviously wrong on some important and fundamental things.
The cooperation being called for is a mutually respectful working shoulder-to-shoulder in every aspect of SBC life.
If we all accept one another as Southern Baptists, our core objectives are quite clear.
I think if Founders would retract their goal of returning the SBC back to the true Gospel, and would state very clearly that they are no longer trying to convert the SBC to Calvinism one Church at a time…..and, if Southern, Southeastern, and New Orleans would do away with their statements of faith, and just let the BFM2K be their guide….and, if we’d actually see Non Calvinists hired at Southern and Southeastern to teach theology….and see someone that’s not connected to Southern elected to the next entity head position…..then, then, maybe we’d see that there was actually some teeth to the CCR.
David
I understand your concern with Founders. Since they aren’t an official SBC entity I’m not sure what can be done about the issue you raise. It’s not like they’ve set-up a table at the Convention trying to get everyone to sign off on a Founder’s Statement in an attempt to convert all churches.
Now, if Southern, Southeastern, and New Orleans would do away with their statements of faith should the Traditional Statement also be done away with? I have no problems with sticking solely to the BFM2K for all entities. Ironic that you mention SE and NO, but we seem to only hear about Southern in the blogosphere.
I don’t recall anyone proving that non-Calvinists are not, or have never been, hired at Southern and Southeastern to teach theology. An unproven charge like this seems an ungodly speculation. More importantly, it maybe better to find out what is actually being taught.
Side note: I had a five point Calvinist for church history Reformation to Modern for class at NOBTS. I may have been the only one who knew he was a Calvinist; only because I was friends with some of his classmates at Southern. Not once did he push Calvinism nor give a hint of his own theology. He was also an excellent teacher.
Mark,
Founders is very involved in SBC life….and, I’m asking for a voluntary stand down…I’m not asking anyone to make anyone else do anything…..it should be done voluntarily….in order for this CCR to have any impact on the situation at hand.
ABout the hiring…as I said in my comment….I have asked numerous times….it seems that no one can actually answer it, except that they only know of Calvinists being hired at Southern to teach Seminary.
Also, I’m sure your Prof. at New Orleans was good Prof. That’s great. I’m not sure what that has to do with what I was saying, though, except that it shows that New Orleans does hire Calvinists.
David
Sonic Burger David,
Are you asking for a like voluntary stand-down by Dr. Hankins in relation to the overtly anti-Calvinist TS?
Why not grant liberty on the tertiary points of disagreement and work together with mutual respect and humility–as we have done historically and as the CCR recomends?
Grace to you, brother.
Randall,
That’s what I am asking for….
David
BTW, I’m a 5 point Calvinist and I object to the idea of trying to convert all churches to 5 point Calvinism. In fact, I wouldn’t darken the door of a reformed church ever again. I’ve read some things Ascoll and his friends have written and appreciate some things they have to say, but I oppose making all SBC church Calvinist.
You know, what the SBC really needs is what we hear in this video from some old time preachers….and, oh how I wish that we’d hear preaching like this, again, in our pulpits all over the SBC….
http://youtu.be/eB-JEzzOoTE
David
Wow! That is some serious preaching right there. I’d never heard that before. Kind of reminds me of the movie about Peter Marshall’s life. That guy could preach, too. (Plus the fact that hearing those guys makes me envy the Scottish accent.)
Whew! When Paul told Timothy to “Preach the Word”, I believe he meant preach it like this, with a passion, or get out of the way!
We could also use a dose of this in pulpit and pew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMG_PVaJoI
http://www.sebts.edu/academics/faculty/default.aspx
Dr. keathley…not a Calvinist. High ranking administrator and theology prof. at southeastern.
He preached recently at Vines john3:16 conference.
Yes, Tarheel, thank you…now, what about Southern?
David
One at a time, please. Lol.
Y’all seemed pretty confident that SEBTS had no non Calvinists in theology dept. much less in high levels of administration and I personally knew of one so I posted it (dean of faculty in this case) …
I’m sure Southern has some too…but I need to know how you define a non Calvinist…..since they, like those who hold/lean toward other frameworks, vary in “degree”.
Southeastern: Danny Akin not a Calvinist.
If anyone doubts that Danny Akin is not a Calvinist, here is a link to a debate on Calvinism between Dr. Danny Akin and Dr. Mark Coppenger.
http://www.danielakin.com/?p=640
Oh another non Calvinist at SEBTS….Dr. Reid.
David,
How is your suggestion in keeping with the long standing SBC policy to allow (and encourage) entity and seminary trustees to develop and maintain their own hiring and administrative structure under the structure that allows the messengers to vote to sit the trustees?
Founders is not an entity and therefore In no way under messenger control and just like other ministries of churches or individual Baptists are autonomous.
What about SBC churches that operate k-12 schools under thier ministry that use exclusively either Calvinist or non Calvinist material therein? Got a suggestion for them too?
It’s no secret that SBTS and to a much lesser extent embrace and teach Calvinst leaning theology . It’s also not secret that the others, and especially New Orleans and Southwestern, embrace non Calvinist leaning theology.
I have an idea, let’s let people choose. There’s choices for both, and even, at least to some degree, for those who want “both”.
If people wanna go to T4G and founders conferences they can (and do) or if they’d rather they can (and do) attend John 3:16 or bailey Smith conferences.
If people wana attend Southern or southwestern they can and they know what they’re getting.
Let’s let people have and continue to make choices.
Hi Tarheel,
You are missing David’s point. The leader of Founders was on this committee. If he is serious about ending tribalism and promoting unity, he should do the right thing and voluntarily disband his own organization. He doesn’t need the approval of the convention. He only has to act with integrity, given he signed the statement. Will he?
I find it ironic that this apostle of division in the SBC has now been mainstreamed into this “unity” committee, and yet his mission statement remains. If he dissolves his organization, it would go a long way toward unity. Sadly, I’m not holding my breath. They are still having their shindig in Houston.
If unity has to be mandated, it will fail. It has to be done willingly and voluntarily. If the men who served on the committee would fully adhere to their own language, the fight would largely disappear and unity would be realized. The document will be a success if its authors abide by it.
Jim G.
Hankins and Lemke are authors too…are they and Vines gonna stop the assault on Calvinists? How about other authors who have made some quite incendiary remarks about Calvinists are you calling for them to stand down as well?
Are you calling out thier integrity? If they don’t retract thier Traditional Statement and stop the 3:16 conferences – aren’t they too lacking in integrity by your standard?
Do you read up the thread, Tarheel? Or is this just the pat answer to my question? Read up the thread for my answer. I’m getting tired of answering the same question over and over.
Jim G.
Sorry….I’m new. Lol
Jim,
The report says nothing about prohibiting members of the SBC from promoting their views, so why would Ascol need to disband Founders in order to uphold the report? The denomination has room for Cal and non-Cal, and it has room for members to promote their views on the subject without there being necessary division.
Agreed.
It appears some demand that Calvinists “retreat”, stop teching thier views – all in order to validate thier being signatories on this statement and for the sake of denominational unity.
That’s just strange to me.
Chris,
If this interpretation of the document wins the day, then unity is dead at the starting gate.
Are you in agreement with Ascol that because I do not embrace TULIP then I have lost the gospel? If he is correct, then I am less than a brother in Christ.
Put yourself in my shoes for 30 seconds. If you were me, would you view the Founders mission statement as a source of division? I’m happy to call on Trads to stand down if both sides agree to do so.
Jim G.
Yes. I see from whence you are coming from. I do have a question though…
With respect…why do you care what Ascol and Founders say and do? You and they disagree….but how does it affect you, really? Because you feel targeted?
Calvinists are targets of conferences, sermons, tweets, etc. on a regular basis – yet I’ve yet to hear calls for voluntary disbanding of these influential conferences….I’ve noticed that Calvinists have addressed the TS but have noticed none call for the authors to stand down in order to bring unity.
Indeed the “blame” for all the disunity cannot be placed solely on Ascol – and for one to imply that it can demonstrates, IMO, a simplistic one sided approach to unity.
I think this document, if ALL its signatories endeavor to carry out its vision and temperament with sincerity, has more potential to stoke a unity flame than other attempts in the past.
Jim,
I suspect if you were to sit down with Ascol and ask him, “Have I, as a non-Calvinist, lost the gospel?” his answer would be, “No.”
Saying “Calvinism is the gospel” is not the most helpful way of expressing what the phrase intends, nor is calling the promotion of Calvinism a recovery of the gospel, but that doesn’t mean the mission or the organization need to be demolished in order to have unity or to affirm the report.
One requirement of unity is for both sides to act like adults and not take their ball and go home any time someone else says something they don’t like. That’s how it comes across to me when I see people on here insisting that Founders change or demolish if Ascol really wants unity. Unity does not mean making people avoid saying things I don’t like.
Chris,
Let’s suppose he would say no. If he would say no to my face, why does he say yes in his mission statement? You tell me; which answer should I trust? There’s that word that figured so prominently in the committee document – trust. If he really does not believe I have lost the gospel, why does his mission statement say so? If he does not believe I have lost the gospel, why not amend the mission statement?
Do you believe I have lost the gospel?
Jim G.
Tarheel,
Again, go back and reread what I wrote. At least have that much courtesy. I do call on all the signers to abide by their word. I just gave one plain, verifiable example of one signer who in my opinion has not done so since the release of the document.
Why do you turn this personal, Tarheel? You are new and anonymous. Is it not enough that I care about the future of the SBC and I’m at least intelligent enough to understand that if business as usual continues, the SBC is doomed? Business as usual got us to this point and it did not produce unity, did it?
Jim G.
Jim,
Then it would be work asking him, “So what do you mean in the mission statement? What churches have lost the gospel? How are you helping them recover it?”
One observation I make that this question points to: many churches, including many in the SBC, really *have* lost the gospel, and it has nothing to do with Calvinism.
Jim G.,
Do you recall why you believe the Ascol holds the position that you have lost the gospel if you are not a Calvinist?
Men,
I’ll bow out of this conversation now. It has become tit-for-tat, and honestly we are above that. Know that I love you in Christ (though I don’t think I have ever met you face to face) and know that I respect your soteriological views, though I disagree with them. All folks like me are asking for is the same courtesy. I believe it is very possible to work together, arm-in-arm without trying to “Reform” or “de-Calvinize” the other.
But in order to do that, you must be able to hear the concerns of the non-Cals. The Trad doc, which most of you despise, was written as an attempt to voice the concerns that kept falling on deaf ears. The Founders mission statement is perceived by us to be thoroughly divisive. If you, or more importantly, the Reformed-leaning leaders of the SBC, fail to hear these concerns, then unity will not be possible. If groups continue to exist (and are afforded official status by invitation to work on unity committees) that see the lack of adherence to TULIP making people at best defective Christians, then unity will not be possible. The great divorce will come, and that will be tragic for all of us.
Jim G.
*to a much lesser extent Southeastern…*
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that I had turned personal??
The only comment I’ve made where perhaps you found offense was when I referenced what I considered to be a simplistic and one sided aproach to unity. I stand by that. Sorry if it offends you, sir.
Should I be offended too, as you’ve appeared to intimate that I’m not as intelligent as you, and don’t care about unity – apparently because I stated that compelling one side to “prove it or shut up” is unfair and simplistic.
I went back and read and although you made a couple statements regarding the TS, you’ve not directly questioned the sincerity nd integrity of Hankins or Lemke. You’ve not stated that they too have culpability in the disunity. You’ve indeed essentially blamed all the disunity on one side and more specifically on essentially one person.
It trully seems that your contention is that should Ascol disband Founders or at the very least let you rewrite his mission statment – that profound unity would immediatly ensue? If I’m understanding you correctly, to me that is in fact a one sided and simplistic approach…that’s not a personal attack, it’s my understanding of your position based on your words in thread.
As for anonymity. Please. Putting your first name and last initial does not a non anonymous blog commenter make. 🙂
Jim G.,
Reread you last post and try and understand why I’ve said your approach andcall for unity is one sided…
You lauded the TS as pure and wonderful ignoring any disunity it may stoke and again placed all the blame for disunity on one group/individual.
Your imply that Ascol is insincere and therefore shouldn’t be included in unity discussions unless should prove it by voluntarily backing down in advancing his soteriological position while not calling for that in Hankins or Lemke who likewise have penned words in official that many Calvinists find “wholly divisive”…. deafness to that plays a part in this too, sir. They too, after all were given a place at the table.
Again, I think this statement, should ALL it’s signatories, abide by and lead in the vision and spirit it casts can be a good step toward unity….all that remains to be seen. But, in my view the statement is a good one and has the potential to put us on a good path.
Reread your post and you will see why I bow out. Where did I laud the TS?
Jim G.
The fact that strong convictional Calvinists and strong convictional non Calvinists have worked together, penned, and unilaterally support a document such as this – in my view shows this can be done….all is not lost.
Jim G.,
Please don’t go just yet. All I ask is that you tell why you believe Ascol holds the position that you have lost the gospel if you are not a Calvinist?
The article I know of that Ascol wrote about losing the gospel does not say that if you are not a Calvinist you have lost the gospel.
I’m asking because you have made charges and it is helpful to see proof and understand where they come from.
Mark,
In carefully-worded organizational mission statements, every word counts. The money word is “intrinsic.” Now I bow out.
Jim G.
Jim, I suppose you mean the Founder’s mission statement? I don’t cruise around their site so I’m not familiar with all that’s written on it so I feel as though I missing something.
BTW, I know you’re bowing out, but I do not find your point on the Traditional document that it “was written as an attempt to voice the concerns that kept falling on deaf ears” to pass the sniff test.
…like I said. One sided and simplistic is his approach.
I can’t help but think the Founders issue is much ado about nothing. They’ve been in existence for decades without a lot of hue and cry in opposition. They don’t seem to be “stepping-up” their activities, and there are what, a few hundred founders-friendly churches at most, out of about 44000? And not all of those few hundred are even SBC. I understand the objection to their mission statement, but I can’t help feeling they are an easy, but inappropriate target.
Bill:
If I’m not mistaken, similar estimations were offered up with regard to the Trojan Horse … also to the innate of ability of icebergs for sinking ships in the Northern Atlantic.
Scott,
Do you think Founders is going to bring down the SBC? If so, how so? And why would the majority allow it?
You see I think the virulent anti-Calvinists in the SBC are really most afraid of Al Mohler, but Founders is an easier target. And now we have some of the most outspoken and influential non-Calvinists in the SBC collaborating with Mohler and other Calvinists on a cooperative document of shared mission for the SBC. And it is making a lot of people very unhappy, because the people they saw as champions for their cause seem to have gone in a different direction than they wanted.
Forgive me if you answered this question earlier: What is it that you want?
Bill Mac:
I already returned the “what do you want” ball back to your side of court, see #106.
I don’t know if Founders has the capacity for “bringing down” the SBC as much as it (or a similar movement) has opportunity to control the SBC.
Patterson, Pressler needed an Al Mohler during the Conservative Resurgence. SGM and hyper-calvinists were foot soldiers and organizers during those days. At least that’s what I saw working in Louisiana where both of the Ascol brothers at the time were on the ground working for the CR cause.
As for “the majority” allowing an agenda of hyper-Calvinistic dominance to prevail within the SBC …. why not? The CR with Calvinist allies managed to get the SBC to where it is now through the efforts of a judge and a preacher less organized in the beginning than Founders.
You don’t have to convince all Southern Baptists of the value of your agenda, just a little more than half of 5 or 6000 “messenger” once a year during the annual SBC meeting.
In the end, the difference between the “Founders” element and other “conservatives” during the CR wars was stated purpose. The stated purpose of the conservatives was to dominate the agencies and boards of the SBC in order to “correct the ship” theologically.
The stated purpose of the Founders was (still is) to dominate local churches and instill the “doctrines of Grace”.
This SBC Calvinism report can be seen historically as an articulate dividing of spoils in the wake of the Conservative Resurgence.
The next denominational struggle within the SBC looks as if it will be “Conservative Vs Calvinist” as opposed to Moderate vs Fundamentalist.
Hyper-Calvinists? Really? Are you using the term as most of us understand it?
Regarding what you want: Expressing opinions is fine. But much of what I see from you seems to be dissatisfaction with the SBC. So my question is really: What would satisfy you?
What I want, primarily, is to understand the reason for the level of animosity directed towards Calvinists in the SBC.
Bill:
I’m afraid that what you sense from me is a general attitude of indifference about what happens politically and to a large extent theologically within the SBC.
I’m sorry if that frustrates or confuses.
Maybe what you sense as animosity toward Calvinists might also be described as a healthy degree of skepticism forged in the crucible of my own experience, ministry and study across the last 35 years.
I’ve been an active Southern Baptist all my life but learned to divorce myself from concerns about the convention’s survival, future and agendas not long after the wars of the 80 and 90’s.
I will continue to remain a Southern Baptist as long as the galloping creedalism, rancor over theological uniformity, and the gnosis of extreme calvinism doesn’t trickle down to my local church from the national level.
Good news, that ain’t gonna happen.
The local church, in my opinion, is the brightest spot left on the SBC landscape. At the local church level, Baptist Christians still don’t have to worry much about the amount of digital ink spilled over these endless SBC theological debates. They don’t have to concern themselves with the pontifications and platitudes of the professor/preachers and denominational opportunists who write them.
If we don’t like Lifeway educational materials, we either don’t buy them or use what we’ve purchased by accident to line bird cages.
Most local baptist churches around this part of Texas still hold to the concept of the individual soul’s responsibility and competency under the Lordship of Christ. Most of them are still blessed with shepherds as opposed to theological demagogues. And that’s regardless of whether or not these fellowships have given lip service to the BFM2000 on their church websites.
Most of us are still autonomous out here and we still reserve the right to send SBC or any other seminary trained ministers and their sycophants packing should they come looking to remake or reconstitute our local fellowships in their own images.
Local churches tend to give Morgan Freeman’s advice to the young parole board member in “Shawshank Redemption” new meaning:
“Go ahead Sonny … stamp your forms and sign your papers but quit wasting my time.”
Baptist Press features SBC President Fred Luter giving his thoughts on the Calvinism debate.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=39873