I’m going to ask our Calvinist readers to stay off this one.
This is a question for those who have self-designated as “traditionalists.” I will delete comments from Calvinists on this post. This is a non-Calvinist forum today! You may state your views without argumentation here. I may ask a question for clarity, but you have the floor today.
Here is the question I hope some of you will answer – honestly and graciously.
What is it you want from Calvinists in the SBC?
Obviously, there are three simple solutions.
- Calvinists could abandon their doctrines.
- Calvinists could leave the SBC.
- Calvinists could agree to keep their views quiet ad
I hope you will agree that none of these is likely at this point. Calvinists are not likely to leave en masse at this point, nor are they all likely to abandon the “Doctrines of Grace” suddenly. And since Calvinists are Calvinists by conviction, it is hardly likely that they will simply sit quietly.
So, let’s get into the realm of reality.
- Are you willing to walk in friendship and fellowship with Calvinists?
- If so, what would be the basis of that fellowship? What would Calvinists need to do to make that happen?
- What, from your “traditionalist” viewpoint, can Calvinists do to make it easier for us to have unity and full fellowship in the SBC?
What is it that traditionalists want from Calvinists in the SBC?
Be specific, please. And this is not a place to bash Calvinists. That’s not the point. Just tell me what Calvinists need to do so we can all walk in unity and peace, doing missions together.
(For those of you who are interested in my motives here, I am going to put up a similar post for Calvinists and try, with these posts, to figure out what we want and to see if there is a way through our disagreements to greater partnership in the gospel.)
This ought to be fun.
Dave,
I believe that I have said that I can get along with regular ole Calvinists all day long. Others have said this, too. In fact, we did co-exist peacefully for years. I loved to Criswell preach….he was a 4 pt. Calvinist. I love to Dr. Russell Moore preach…another 4 pt. Calvinist. I use Dr. John McArthur’s Study Bible when preparing sermons. Even now, I have many, many Calvinist friends, whom I love very much. It’s not so much about Calvinism.
It’s all about New Calvinism. It’s about the attitude that some of these fellas have….harsh, arrogant, disrepectful. It’s about the way they push Calvinism in a aggressive manner. It’s about the way they make Calvinism a matter of fellowship. It’s about the way they declare anyone who’s not Calvinisitic as preaching a false Gospel….semi Pelagian; Pelagian; heretic; etc.
Also, there’s the matters of ecclesiology with some Calvinists. Elder Ruled, baptism issues, etc. For example, we had a Founders friendly Church try to join the local Association where I live. They were rejected due to thier accepting people into their membership, who were just sprinkled on top of the head, instead of being baptized. I think it was to allow Presbyterians to join without having to be baptized.
Well, that’s a start.
But Dave, I can worship and serve alongside regular ole Calvinists of the Criswell and Moore variety with no problems. I can serve the Lord and worship the Lord with the Scott Gordon type Calvinists every day of every year. And, I believe that there’s a whole lot more like me, out there, who feel the same way.
David
PS. None of what I said above was said in an angry way. It was not an attack on anyone. It was spoken out of love and concern, just sharing the truth.
Here’s my question David.
What, specifically, is the difference between a regular ole’ Calvinist and a New Calvinist?
Dave,
I tried to explain that with my description of New Calvinists above.
David
Okay, so its more about attitude than beliefs? Thats what I’m getting from what you said. Two men can have the same beliefs, but the New Calvinist is the one who is trying to convert everyone and who views anyone who isn’t Calvinist with suspicion?
Am I on topic here?
Dave,
You are mostly correct.
David
And elder ecclesiology? Is that part of it for you?
Dave,
An Elder ruled ecclesiology…rather than a congregationally ruled ecclesiology….and, that’s with some of them. Also, some have a view of baptism, as I described above.
Do you have a problem with Elder-led polity?
Dave,
If you mean a church led by its Pastor/Elder, then no. Of course, Pastors should lead their churches, by recommending, suggesting, teaching, and by example.
Should the Pastor be the CEO of the Church? No. I dont think so.
Also, if a Church wants to have multiple Elders…then fine and dandy. They should have as many as they feel that they need.
But, to have a board of Elders ruling a Church is not what Baptist believe the Bible teaches about ecclesiology. Right?
David
Dave,
I know you said no comments from Calvinists, but I do want to commend David here for his association rejecting the Founders-friendly Church from membership based on their baptism practices. I wholeheartedly agree with their decision. As a Calvinist, I would have voted “no” on them as well.
My association in eastern Iowa did the same thing a few years ago. IT wasn’t a reformed church, just one that lacked convictions. They stated that they did not require immersion for membership and we refused to allow them into fellowship.
I was part of a church plant that fell apart because of this issue. Looking back I probably should have left instead of engaging in debate on the subject, but the big issue was that the pastoral leadership wanted to allow people to join the membership who weren’t biblically baptized. (Also, this was before I ever got into Calvinism).
This is easy for me. After 20+ years of searching, studying, seriously considering, teaching and interacting directly with many, many people on this topic, I’d only like to see one thing. I’d like to see the general, normal response of Calvinists to the “Traditionalist” view (or anything less than 5 poin) to be: “I still believe the stronger case is made for Calvinism, but I see how you can be consistent and Biblical and view it that way. Maybe you’re correct.” That’s all I want.
If that became the standard response, any issues I have are solved. If that can’t be said, then it’s hard to cooperate.
Further thoughts: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2827869747215800666#editor/target=post;postID=2902381674762509511
A lot less… hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, revellings, and such like.
And a lot more… love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
See Galatians 5:19-23
Am I hearing you say, Kevin, that Calvinists tend to operate in the flesh, not in the Spirit? Do you believe that is true more on one side than the other?
Or are you saying that both sides need to heed these verses?
Just wondering what point you are trying to make.
Dave, This very good question may result in relatively few comments, given the ground rules restricting Calvinists from chiming in. There are simply a fewer number of Traditionalists who engage SBC Voices. While I do not presume to speak for all the Traditionalists, I do write and comment here regularly, so I’ll give this a try and then run off to do some yard work, hopefully allowing my commentator number to fall on my 23rd Anniversary with Karen tomorrow and the week of VBS to follow. WHAT DO TRADITIONALISTS WANT FROM CALVINISTS? 1. We DO NOT want you to abandon your views, be kicked out of the convention, or sit quietly in the corner. You have the same right to express your views as we have to express ours. 2. We DO want you to respect our right to declare what we believe, to populate a list of people who believe it, and perhaps even to create a few organizations and events focused on the promotion of our own soteriology, just as you have a variety of events and organizations focused on the promotion of yours. 3. We DO want you to understand that, up until now, we have been far less organized than you have been, possessing no Traditionalist boot camps or missions agencies specifically tied to our own soteriology. We MAY begin to form such groups, and if so, we do not wish for you to perceive that as an ATTACK against YOUR soteriology, but rather as an ADVANCE of OUR OWN. 4. We DO want you to know that sometimes, even though we believe ours is the majority view, we have encountered on occasion a peculiar sense that the opposite is true. For example, if only 15% of the convention is Calvinist, we should not attend a Southern Baptist Pastor’s Conference in which 50% or more of the speakers are Calvinists, many of them not even Southern Baptists. This makes us feel like strangers in our own convention. We do not want our Pastor’s Conference to become T4G or TGC or to adopt their panel of speakers. 5. We DO want you to have a voice in convention matters (leadership positions, writing materials at Lifeway, publishing academic books and papers at our seminaries) but we DO NOT want to see that voice presented in a manner disproportionate to the composition of our denomination. Your voice should be… Read more »
Dave, For the sake of brevity, I am going to echo much of what Rick has written with a couple comments. With a brief refernce to the statement on soteriology recently released, I would personally prefer majority to traditional and I understand the unintended interpretations both terms carry but they were intentionally used to simply identify what we believe to be the more predominate position of SB’s in the pew today. These particular terms were not chosen to “officially represent or characterize or indentify or worse, exclude anyone in particular.” The conception of this statement itself is less than a month in its making. Now as to what I expect from Calvinists. I agree 100% with Rick’s comment above. Keep doing what you believe God would have you do and I believe with all my heart that this is the desire of everyone who has taken the time to participate in this process. I do not question one iota anyone’s desire to bring glory to God and clarity to the Scriptures i believe we all love and seek to both proclaim and explain. However, as Rick has already said, there is a Calvinist revival in the SBC. While I am not even a 1 point Calvinist, I do respect and support the right of Calvinists to plead their case and present it to all who chosose to ascribe to it. I believe in the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church and that being said, anyone may take the Scriptures and read them and apply what they read as they beleive the Holy Spirit is leading them to do. My sole contention is the level of influence that calvinism enjoys in the entities of the SBC today. These entites, with the exception of Lifeway, are supported solely with monies from SB churches. I believe these entities are or ought to be restricted to theological positions that are in line with those supporting them. This was the moving force behind the move away from liberalism in the seminaries and its reach into the other entities. It will be and is fast becoming the force behind the issues I believe are related to this revival of Calvinism with respect to the entities as well today. While as Rick said, Calvinists have every right to stand up and be counted, so does the vast majority of those who disagree… Read more »
Bob,
I am glad you were “brief” in your comments. 🙂
No smiley faces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
><>”
Bob,
If it is true that your ministry has “nothing to do with Calvinism,” why does your church’s website have in very large letters the phrase “Non-Reformed, Non-Calvinist?”
Scott,
I guess it is perfectly fine for churches to note that they are reformed on their web sites and me not… for the record I did it so that people who come to my web site know where we stand. I certainly do not want any confusion at that point on anyone’s part.
My question is, why is that even a concern to you in the first place?
><>”
Rick, That was extremely well worded. I agree completely.
Considering the current controversy with Dr. Hankins, I’d say that the real traditionalists would want the Calvinists to stop buying into the claim that these anti-Calvinists are in any way “traditional.” They are not. Traditionalists, as indicated by the BF&M, have willingly been inclusive of Calvinists without adopting any of their extremes. If Hankins’ group was actually representative of the majority, then the BF&M would have looked much like his statement, which is not inclusive of Calvinists.
I apologize for the digression.
I thought only Traditionalists would be allowed to post in this comment thread?
David
Just subscribing to comments.
I agree with almost everything in Rick Davis’a post. With the exception of the use of traditionalists. Can we not throw a flag here and say hey fellas you used an inappropriate word choice here, because from the history I have read of the SBC there is no traditional approach to soteriology?
Also, there are a couple of things I would add to things I personally would like to see from our Calvinistic entity heads.
1. More intentional involvement of less Calvinistic brethren. The fact that we should all be able to rally around the new gospel project curriculum, was soured by the lack of differing view points on soteriology just leaves a bad taste in many people’s mouths including some Calvinist pastor friends of mine. This oversight (which strains belief) should not have happened when the men who created it are so gifted and otherwise sensitive to current issues.
2. There seems to be a more top down style of leadership with some of the Calvinists leaders we have in SBC life. Whether this comes from mega church backgrounds or the elder led ecclesiology I do not know but it makes many people uncomfortable.
I do not seek much from Calvinists just fellowship in Christ and curriculum I can use in my non calvinist but not traditional baptist church.
Love the Idea you had for these posts. God bless the SBCVoices crew!
Dave, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this influential site about such an important topic today for Southern Baptists. As a signer of Dr. Hankins’ statement, I meet the qualifications you have established. I’ll begin with what I DON’T want. I don’t want Calvinistic Baptists to abandon their doctrinal convictions, keep quiet, or leave the SBC. I don’t want to see anyone removed, fired, or replaced. And I don’t expect anyone to sign a doctrinal statement if they can’t affirm it in good conscience. Also, I don’t expect anyone to sign a doctrinal statement which favors either side of this discussion since they serve ALL Southern Baptists. And I don’t want to see any further division or disunity over this issue. I have already heard from dear brothers and sisters who have been hurt by my signing this statement. The convention-wide discussion which this statement has prompted has been, in my view, difficult but necessary. What do I desire from Calvinists in the SBC? Two things. 1. I want to continue serving the Lord together with these brothers as co-laborers in fulfilling the Great Commission. That’s my desire. Baptists have always been comprised of those who resist certain Reformed doctrines (of course, that’s me) and others who embrace them (that’s you). We have served the Lord together for 400 years. Back then, we were known as Particular Baptists and General Baptists. Later, we were Charleston Baptists and Sandy Creek Baptists. But because there is significant agreement on most doctrines, we have been able to serve the Lord together. 2. Please stop characterizing Calvinistic theology as the only view which is faithful to the Scriptures. When Calvinism is held up as the only viable option for serious and faithful Christians, then the implication is that if a person rejects certain tenants of Calvinism, then he is rejecting the clear teachings of God’s Word. Because this discussion centers on our understanding of the Gospel, it is critically important. I’m not concerned with the name of the view but with its doctrinal affirmations and denials. If the theological views in Hankins’ statement are unbiblical (which some people have claimed), then there is rampant heresy within the SBC. If, however, the views in the statement are biblical and orthodox, then churches within the SBC should be able to continue to cooperate. In my view, Hankins’ statement is an attempt to bring this… Read more »
In re-reading my post, I saw an error in paragraph 2. I apologize. I meant to say that I don’t expect anyone “who serves in a convention-wide denominational agency (such as the Executive Board or Lifeway)” to sign the statement. I left the portion in quotations out of my statement and it doesn’t make sense as it stands. I don’t mean that denominational employees should not sign it. I only mean that I can understand if they would hesitate to sign it since they serve all Baptists, both Traditional and Calvinistic.
My truly Reformed friends say that I am not Reformed because I don’t believe in all 5 points.
So, I guess that entitles me to comment here.
I think that Rick and the others have said some good things.
The points that deal with who speaks at the Convention or the Pastor’s Conference or who are trustees or whether the Convention and its agencies become more or less focused on Reformed theology are not really in the hands of the so-called Calvinists.
Those decisions are left in the hands of those who are elected to be trustees and executives of the agencies or leaders of the pastors’ conference.
Also, it seems reasonable to believe that various sides to an issue will press for their friends to be nominated to and elected to leadership. I don’t think that any group should have to give that up.
So I would not expect Reformed or Non-Reformed people to pull back on seeing the Convention and its agencies be what they would like for it to be. Everyone gets just 1 vote anyway.
But Rick’s other points are dead on and I agree with them fully.
One more thing, I want Calvinists to buy me a couple of dozen, Krispy Kreme donuts every month…and, I want them to buy me all the ice cream I can eat whenever we’re together for different events…like the SBC, the TBC, etc.
David 🙂
I can’t have doughnuts or ice cream, but I’ll take coffee.
If you like Moose Tracks and you’re willing to share… 😉
Moose Tracks is one of my favorites….really, anything with chocolate and nuts is my favorite.
ATTENTION ALL CALVINISTS: I will be expecting donuts and ice cream at the SBC!!! Beneigh’s, or however you spell it, will be acceptable in the place of donuts!
David
Vol,
You Tennessee bred, biscuit eatin’ infidel. Doughnuts are not Beignets and Beignets are not Doughnuts.
New York Cops eat Doughnuts……………as do low down Yankee fans.
New Orleans mobsters eat Beignets……..as do the Fathers of the CR and their stepchildren.
Last time I was in NOLA, I bought a box of Cafe du Monde Beignet mix. I just tried making them.
Not the same.
CB,
I just wanna know are you gonna buy a couple of them at New Orleans? I require coffee, as well.
David 🙂
Vol,
I will be more than glad to buy you a Beignet in NOLA, but if you try to use it to sop syrup and butter from a tin plate like you do a Cathead-Biscuit, I will claim I do not know you. I will make you sit with Tim Rogers, Bart Barber and Robin Foster if you don’t act properly cultured at Cafe du Monde.
CB,
I’ll try my best.
David 🙂
CB,
I’ll try my best, Bro. lol
David
Vol,
All you have to do is act more “Vandyish” and less “UTish” while you are there and that will be cultured enough to get by in the land of the LSU SWAMP-LIZARD NATION.
I say that because if you act too “UTish” you might intimidate the little sissy LSU folks at Cafe du Monde and they will serve us instant coffee and week old Beignets as an act of passive-aggressive payback.
As you know, “Vandy Dandies” don’t intimidate anybody so if you act like one of them, you will do just fine. BTW, Tim Rogers is a TAR HEEL so he is hopeless. Such a flaw cannot be hidden.
I know I’m not supposed to post in this thread…but can we have a SBCVoices get together in NOLA? I would love to share some coffee with you guys.
I wish I knew more about NOLA. I don’t think Cafe Du Monde is that far from the Convention Center, but I’m guessing that immediately after the session at night, it will be pretty full. I thought about a Monday night Cafe Du Monde trip, or possible just having everyone each together at the Convention ($8 hot dogs or whatever).
I’d like to get together.
Just signing up for the comments.
I would like Calvinists to communicate without using opaque words and phrases that actually have polyvalent meanings but are used by Calvinists with the Calvinist assumptions being unindicated in the discourse. For example:
sovereignty of God
doctrines of grace
Reformed
Many Calvinists exercise an attitude and a verbal practice that these phrases belong to their understanding only and thus they can be used only with Calvinist presuppositions. Neither the semantics of the phrases nor historical usage gives Calvinists exclusive “copyright” claim to them.
It would be better to adjectivally clarify the concepts.
the Calvinist understanding of God’s sovereignty
the Calvinist formulation of doctrines of grace
Calvinist Reformed groups, Calvinist Reformation
Amen, David(Not Adrian’s Son) Rogers…..and then, to be called liars, or mischaracterizing the Calvinist position, just because we disagree with their words, phrases, and ideas.
David
I think Rick and Adam have made some excellent points. Let me just add a few comments about three “pet peeves” of mine in this area: (a) “Traditional Baptist” — This is not perfect nomenclature, but it’s hard for those of us who sometimes identify with this nomenclature to think of a better nomenclature. I had this problem recently in chatting with Kentucky Baptist Convention leaders about how to describe my dialogue on Calvinism with Dr. York in August. His was pretty easy — he is going to be the Calvinist Baptist. But then, that’s not accurate either, because there are many tenets of Calvinism that he (and indeed no Baptist) accepts. That’s why it is impossible to be fully Baptist and fully Calvinist at the same time. Baptists don’t believe in infant baptism, elder rule, etc. I have suggested the term “Calvinistic” to distinguish these, but language is often not used very precisely in these discussions. So, how should I describe my position? My preferred term is “Baptist,” (and hence I am a signer of the “Not Calvinists or Arminians, But Baptists” statement). We would rather not have our theology defined by the framework of either Calvinism or Arminianism. And, I doubt if Dr. York would like it if I were listed as “Baptist,” as if his view weren’t Baptist. So, evidently, a modifier to “Baptist” must be added. “Traditional” is accurate only in the time frame of the last century — if you go back further in Baptist history, Baptists have swung like a pendulum between Calvinism and Arminianism, but usually somewhere in the middle and leaning to one side. It is “traditional,” however, for us who have lived a good while, and all our lives this has been the strong majority consensus. I have often used the term “majoritarian Baptists” because, indeed, LifeWay Research statistics indicate that approximately 90 percent of Souhern Baptists are not 5 point Calvinists. But that’s not a compelling term. “Mainstream Baptists” was already taken by CBF types. To claim “Baptist Identity” (which I do) suggests that Calvinistic Baptists aren’t really Baptists, which I would not want to say. So, “traditional Baptists” is a designator name that we’ll have to live with. (:-) (b) “Arrogance” — Arrogance is the word that I hear so often from pastors commenting on young Calvinistic pastors in their association, or bloggers who suggest that anyone who doesn’t… Read more »
Do you remember the movie “Independence Day” when the president is in the underground bunker at Area 51 and he ask the alien “What do you want us to do?” What was the aliens response? ____________
Sorry, just kidding! :o)
“ad hominem attack”?
“I’m not saying that, but when well-known Calvinistic Baptists claim that the gospel IS Calvinism,” ..”that does come across as very arrogant ”
Like Spurgeon for intance?
“Calvinism is the gospel” –Spurgeon
So, here’s where we are–not all Calvinists are lower-than-a-snake’s-belly meanies (though some might be) and not all non-Calvinists are backwoods biblically-illiterate bumpkins (though some might be)… and we all like ice cream and/or coffee. Now that that’s settled, can we PLEASE just get on with cooperating with each other for the furtherance of the Gospel?
I would like for Calvinists to vote against any federal, state or local legislation that would negate the Second Amendment and my right bear arms as a free citizen of the United States of America.
done!! now I would like all non-Calvinists to learn all the words to Rocky Top and never root for Alabama again…
If you read Matt’s answer above, you see the real issue that many of us who are non Calvinist face day in and day out. Claiming to know our intentions, hearts, and thoughts when in reality they are elevating themselves to be superior. Calling us insecure and then claiming that non C’s are the one causing division? The name calling is frequent and brutal. Admit it and turn from it.
Second, I would like an admission that Founders does desire to influence and bring about the increase of the Calvinist thought in SBC life. We are not making a strawman here – the Foounders website says just that. It is disingenuous to deny this when their website declares this.
Third, as others have said, be honest with churches when being considered for ministry roles. I know of two within a short distance of me that are experiencing great conflict because the candidate was not upfront about this issue. Even though the churches should have researched more, the candidates do have an ethical obligation to bring this issue to light.
After thinking through this and trying to discern exactly what this may mean, I have determined a few things I would like to see.
If you do not want Dortian Calvinism to be referred to as Hyper Calvinism, then identify the hyper-Calvinist. We are accused of arguing against hyper-Calvinists whenever we present an argument. But our arguments are coming from what people, who identify themselves as Calvinists, say they believe.
Also, stop hiding behind “the mystery of God” argument when we place an argument before you. Anytime a debate ensues your natural argument comes back to “mystery of God”.
Another item that causes me heartburn is the way you make people identify themselves. It comes across as the “points” one has to affirm to be considered “theologically adept”. Just because I believe that all Christians will persevere and all people were born with the innate proclivity to sin does not mean I am a two point Calvinist.
Commenters, remember that this is a non-Calvinist only comment stream. I’ve let a few Calvinist comments stand as long as they were not argumentative.
But I asked that Calvinists not argue on this post and that non-Calvinists not argue on the other.
Please abide by those rules.
I will reiterate. This post is for non-Calvinists to delineate their desires. No argumentation from Calvinists will be permitted here.
It’s inevitable that Christians will have their opinions about the Bible. But Baptists and Southern Baptists must settle for a unity based upon essentials alone. That means that people who think beyond that must not attempt to standardize their ideas. They are theirs and theirs alone. That goes for both sides. Baptists have never been monolithically Arminian or Calvinist. No one should take advantage of a resurgent trend to spread it. Non-essential beliefs should remain privately held. And I maintain that most non-essential matters will keep us going in circles anyway.
“There are parts of the Bible that you don’t believe.” “I hope that one day the Holy Spirit will enlighten you as He did me.” “You can not respond to Calvinism without being divisive.” “The Gospel is Calvinism and Calvinism is the Gospel.” “You really need to get your education from (not going to name) seminary. They really teach what the gospel is all about.” “When you get more education, you will see.”
These statements came from men, young and old, that are Calvinist. They are pastors, and two of them (both men have been in the ministry for 40+ years) I have and still do look up to. I love them, but I have been hurt (and angered) by these statements, and when I get on a blog thread or read some of the statements that are coming from the Neo-Calvinist Movement I hear the same attitude. Not sure how else I am supposed to feel about it. I love Jesus. I love His Word. I want as many people to know Him as possible. I read the Bible, I study the Bible, and I preach the Bible. I am tired of being told that I don’t measure up. You can say all you want to about how that doesn’t speak for all Calvinists, and it may not, but there sure are some loud ones that it speaks for.
I want to thank all who have posted here; great insight. And, I would like to thank SBC Voices for hosting this; it is a good place for dialogue. Most of all I want to thank my SBC Calvinists brothers or sisters who have taken the time to read this with open minds. Please know I and many others have read “Calvinists – What do you want from Traditionalists?” And I appreciate very much the comments there. I even appreciated the raw comments that came across as angry (most of us can relate to frustration at not being understood when we try to speak plainly). As to what I want from Calvinists – I think most has already been said and said well; but the comments to which I felt most akin were the comments by Rick Patrick, Adam Harwood and Steve Lemke (and the ice cream of course – thanks David). But I would like to add a little to Dr. Lemke’s response concerning “traditional.” 1. I hear the Calvinists voice of anger at the term “Traditional.” I would love to hear a less offensive, more accurate descriptor to our position. We didn’t use “Majority Baptist” “True Baptist” “Bible Baptist” or simply “Baptist” for those seem even more offensive; we can’t use “anti-Calvinist” or “Arminian” for those are not representative; the term “Anabaptist” would in and of itself need a further descriptor for many. The point is I think the authors tried to be accurate in the least offensive way. Yes, perhaps we could have consulted with a Calvinist for a better term but then again this is not a Calvinist document, and usually there is some misunderstandings about theological positions when Calvinists and those of our persuasion discuss theology. Further, I have not heard of a Calvinist consulting with us when using descriptors for his position (see #2). 2. Please hear our concern that we find it a tad bit hypocritical to get worked up that we would use the term “traditional” to define our position when some of you have used the terms “doctrines of grace” or “true gospel” or “sovereignty” to define your position. As if we do not affirm God’s full sovereignty, or the true gospel or the grace of God. Quite frankly, an objective theological mind would find the latter three descriptors far far more offensive than the former (because of the implications). So… Read more »
A member of the LONGHORN NATION has spoken. You boys feel kinda lonely down there now that the A&M NATION has been converted to the righteousness of the SEC don’t you Brad?
CB,
Two words: “Hook ‘Em” 🙂
P.S. – I think A&M may long to be back in the Big 12 soon. They didn’t enter the sweetest division in that conference.
One more item that I would request of Calvinists:
To understand that the affirmations and denials were not intended to be divisive! Using the term “divisive” is a little offensive (side note: using the positive term “unity” to oppose the signing doesn’t negate the offense) unless one showed intellectual honesty by using the same term for a SBC Calvinists group (say like Founders) or to describe those who would sign (say like Dr. Mohler) a Calvinistic document (say like T4G).
This is a theological document, by its very nature it divides; but that is not its intent (anymore than it was the intent of Dr, Mohler and those who worked on T4G), its intent is to express forthrightly and honestly our belief (just as Calvinists have done).
(Although frankly, Dr. Hankins’ document is even more forthright than most of the resent Calvinist’ documents I have read. I am not a Calvinist at all, but unless I knew the catchwords I could sign some of their new documents.
Compare the resent ones to the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). The latter is much more forthright. I am not trying to be meddlesome, but I am somewhat troubled as to why one would not simply state one’s belief. For example: “As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding…” (BCF (1689) chapter 5); or “Others not elected…neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…” (BCF 1689 chapter 10).)
As usual, I’m late in commenting. As someone who is definitely *not* Calvinist, I suppose I should be commenting on this post, but what comes to my mind is something I want from both sides: Take a week, and for your daily quiet time, meditate on I Cor 8:1-4. Particularly pay attention to verse 2. How does it affect your ability to be certain in your knowledge of theology (or anything else)? How do you take it seriously without it taking away your ability to preach the Gospel with certainty? Do you take it seriously?
I’ve got my own ideas about this section of scripture(some of which I have commented on before), but I leave it to you. I think a good understanding of what Paul’s getting to here goes a long way towards reducing the tendency towards arrogance (which to my perspective is not at *all* confined to a portion of the Calvinists – it hits some on all sides).
As long as we’re making media references, let’s just say that as an old Babylon-5 fan, I’m looking at Dave going to both the Traditionalists (or whatever you call them) and the Calvinists and asking “What do you want?”, and I’m having to resist picturing Dave as Mr Morden, minion of the Shadows.
Calvinists should not hide. Calvinists shouldn’t turn every text into a proof text. However, this is true of other theological viewpoints.
Guys, I am just sorry that it has come to this. I think this statement is simply going to cause harm. I am a church planter and pastor under 40. I know a lot of good Calvinists who will be hurt by this. … Not just 20somethings, but older guys I went to NOBTS with who have no agenda.
So, I guess the main thing I want from Calvinists is to stay in the SBC. Many of these guys have been kicked for their methodology and now they are being punched for a theology they have grounds for in the BFM2000.
I want Calvinists to respond with love and grace.