For your consideration…
Think about all of the discussions of Calvinism you have been involved in (or observed) at this site and at others. There have been a LOT of them. I’ve written my share and most of our contributors have weighed in at one point or another. So, I would ask you to consider these questions:
- Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts?
- Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)?
- Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement in these discussions?
- Have the discussions advanced understanding, unity or knowledge in any way?
- In other words, have our discussions of Calvinism served ANY purpose of eternal significance?
If not, why keep going?
There is a group of commenters who have almost nothing to say concerning posts of any biblical topic, any discussion of practical ministry concern, any news or current event topic. They show no interest. But when Calvinism is the subject, they swarm and sink their teeth in and keep going no matter how pointless the discussion. There are some pitbull Calvinists and some pitbull Traditionalists who show little interest in anything other than fighting (I’m sorry, “debating”) over soteriology.
I think those soteriological pitbulls are a blight on the discussion threads here.
And I have a suggestion. Tell me what you think.
I’m toying with the idea of closing comments on all posts that have to do with Calvinism. If someone wants to write about an issue related to Calvinism (pro/con/whatever), they are free to do so. But we will close comments immediately. No discussions. Informative posts that people can read, but no divisive, angry, insulting discussions of Calvinism.
As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Calvinism discussions. I think the topic is worthwhile – there are issues that need to be examined. But as long as the Pitbull Brigade comes out of the woodwork to turn every discussion of Calvinism into a dogfight, I am not sure there is any value in having discussions on the topic at all.
So, tell me what you think.
- I would allow posts that develop an interesting thought about Calvinism – pro or con. Perhaps we could even have more of them.
- But there would be NO discussions. No comments. Read the post. Engage in twitter wars. But comments are closed.
What say you?
Wish you’d have done that long, long ago.
In answer to the original questions:
1. No. I have not learned anything significant in reading the long, trailing, often acrimonious and vitriolic, comment streams. At least about Calvinism/Traditionalism.
2. Nope. My position continues to be aligned with a view of God that is more corporate and less individualistic. Both sides focus on a view of soteriology that God is concerned about particular individuals. I tend to take an Esther 4 approach that God’s ultimate will is not thwarted by individual choices – He is just that sovereign. I once read a definition of Providence that has shaped my thinking on this issue for the past three decades and wish I knew who to attribute it to. “Providence is the ability of God to accomplish His purpose through the free acts of men and angels.” This has not changed for me in at least 30 years.
3. Built up and encouraged? Not that I can recall. Vilified and verbally assaulted? I think that’s the default mode for some people who respond to what I post. Hence my infrequency.
4. I cannot detect any move toward unity between the two sides. Uniting both sides against each other around the poles seems to be the preferred position. Those who seek a “live and let live” middle ground position seem to take hits from both sides.
5. Purpose of eternal significance? From my web sites “Statement of Opinion” page (http://www.ill-legalism.com/statementofopinion.htm) I would add this quote: “We believe that doctrinal debates over issues such as Calvinism/Arminianism are not a waste of time, but we assert they have wasted a lot of our time.”
Didn’t you shut down Calvinism discussions once or twice before?
Are you including tangential topics like the Sinner’s Prayer, the Gospel Project, the Acts 29 Network, or the soteriological commitments of the next major SBC appointee?
I believe this IS the hot topic in the SBC. It’s what SBC voices are talking about. Shut it down if you wish, Mr. Moderator. We can simply have this discussion, which is of great importance in the SBC, someplace else.
I agree with Rick on the tangential subjects. On Calvinistic doctrine, let all the Calvinists toss out their favorite showpiece words (pelagian, lapsarian, etc.) one or twice, let them sing the glories of dead 19th century Calvinist grandees, declare that we are all highly impressed, and then leave that behind forever.
The SBC will have to deal with the subjects Rick mentioned that involve Calvinists and Calvinism (I would include Calvinist pastor who come into an established church and blow it up and some other subjects as well). I am unaware of any place where public discussion are being made on such things.
William,
Most churches that are “blown up,” Cal or Non are blown up by personalities not by doctrine. More often than not, it is issues like the color or the carpet in the SS room that blow up churches.
Randy, thanks for your pronouncement, but you aren’t SBC, you aren’t even in the states, and all discussions of Calvinism and churches here deal with SBC churches.
William,
Sorry I didn’t see the prohibition against comments from those outside the U.S. If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them.
William,
But he’s still right.
Randy’s response is purely anecdotal and is to be dismissed as such.
Randy, you already hijacked one good topic and seem to have a bottomless reservoir of pronouncements on every subject. If it were possible to participate here and avoid your comments I would certainly do that.
What I’m thinking is different. PReviously, I have (semi-) outlawed posts on Calvinism and the general tone of discussion here improved dramatically. We had some productive discussions of some important topics, but not Calvinism.
I’m proposing something different here. I’m saying we have open season on POSTS about Calvinism topics. But just no comments.
I’ve seen a few helpful posts. I’ve seen almost no helpful discussions. IT’s an opinion.
And I’m not sure why the Gospel PRoject would be included here. IT’s not tied to Calvinism. We haven’t had a post on Acts 29 that I can remember. The sinner’s prayer is largely a Calvinist topic, so it would probably qualify.
Of course, the solution is for people to grow up and have productive discussions on Calvinism-related topics. But some on both sides have shown little desire to do that.
A substantial number of Southern Baptists, including yours truly, believes that the Gospel Project is an initiative driven by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic characteristic of Reformed theology.
One of the principal leaders is Matt Chandler, who also presides over the exclusively Reformed Acts 29 Network.
I really would hope by now that you would at least understand the existence of our position that these denominational matters are inextricably tied to Calvinism, even if you disagree with this notion. I would view such an understanding as imperative in the effort to be fair to both sides in the discussion.
The Sinner’s Prayer itself is not a Calvinistic issue at all. It was prominent in SBC life long before the current imbroglio. The “Attack on the Use of the Sinner’s Prayer” is indeed a tangential Calvinist issue, but then again, I would argue so are the others.
I think calling Matt one of the principal leaders is a bit of an overstatement. He did a promo video for it. He, along with many others, gave some input into the curriculum. To my knowledge he is not responsible for visioning, implementing, or anything else that you’d expect a “principal leader” to do.
But that’s not to say that I don’t love Matt Chandler…nor that we wouldn’t benefit from him being a principal leader in any of our curriculum.
So would “Poster Boy” be a better term for his involvement?
What do you mean by “Redemptive Historical?”
Hmmm….maybe poster boy with some input 🙂
Randy,
Laugh all you want at the link, folks, but Wikipedia can sometimes offer a brief, basically decent definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemptive-Historical_Preaching
Rick,
The fact that it took Reformed folk to point out the redemptive-historical method of preaching as more correct and biblical than moralistic (exemplary) preaching doesn’t make it the exclusive domain of Calvinists. At least not in my opinion.
“…more correct and biblical…”
I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder, huh? But then this discussion is about to go somewhere totally unrelated to the OP.
Dale,
Not trying to derail here. Yes it is in the eye of the beholder. As I said, just my opinion as I was replying to Rick Patrick. No offense meant by saying “more biblical.”
Les
Dave — Though I am not in the SBC, (which in Dale’s assessment makes me a ‘drive-by’ commenter [read irritating impertinent troll]), I favor Calvinist theology over any other by conviction and am quite fascinated by how much illiteracy the SBC has swallowed regarding Calvinist theology. I was wondering … instead of limiting the Calvinist threads in some other fashion (and taking away the joy so many SBC’ers have in incessantly arguing about this or that misrepresentation of Calvininsm by guys like Page) … why not limit the discussion to direct quotes by Calvin from either the Institutes or his commentaries? That way a lot of the arguing can be reduced, and the misrepresentations avoided while we are all learning and discussing what Calvin actually wrote? That means that someone would have to actually read Calvin (the novelty!), and quote their source — and just stick with what the man said?
“irritating impertinent troll”–And yet, somehow endearing…..I do have my love for the Ducks going for me. That won’t get me into heaven, but at least I’m cheering for the right side.
I’ve learned from this site both positions more clearly. Is it a debate? Not necessarily. Too much back and forth and tearing down. Let’s have the discussions and remember to edify toward love and good works which God has prepared beforehand for us to do. In this debate I think we’ve lost sight of other things as the day is drawing near.
We usually talk at not too each other. What is needed I do not think can happen on a blog. We need to be face to face open scripture and discuss scripture. Jhn 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” This is one of many that I would enjoy talking with a group of Chrisitians from all positions about and trying to learn from one another. I am no Bible scholar just a Chrisitan who loves Jesus and wants to grow in my faith and following of Him.
Ken, John 6:44 was one of the verses that convinced me of the Sovereign Grace position, because I was always asking in school, “Can I go get a drink of water, etc.” And the teacher was always saying, “Can means ability. What you are asking is permission, ‘May I go get a drink of water, etc.'” Having established that can refers to ability, it was not too difficult to figure out that Jesus said, “No one has the ability to come to me….” Then finding out draw was also used for drawing a sword and for dragging Paul and Silas through the streets, and seeing how Jesus opened Lydia’s heart and how He opened my heart, I came up with the though, really originally, I’m sure, that His drawing that was irresistible was that of love. And who really wants to resist that?
I would not be in favor of shutting down comments on any discussion by bona fide Southern Baptists. Non Southern Baptists? Now that’s another matter!!!
Ah! Baloney, Jim, we would not very likely be here, if it was not for George Whitefield and all of his Methodist Chickens that became Baptist Ducks.
Jim, just because we don’t have a dog in the SBC fight, doesn’t mean we don’t care about it. Some of my best friends are SBCs.
Dave,
I have an idea that might help. Why don’t you consider having a discussion of biblical passages that concern the issues of depravity, election, “free will” etc? If you are going to find unity, it will be by coming to agreement on these pivotal issues.
Once upon a time, I believe it was Dave who suggested some back-and-forth posts on Calvinism along this line. Not sure where that idea went.
No one wrote any.
I think it had been assumed (at least I assumed) that you (or someone) would be organizing these as a planned, intentional series.
David: If I write one, will you be willing to consider it?
It’s a fair suggestion. As you note, it is unlikely that any opinions have been changed, etc, so the discussions likely accomplish little more than giving me yet another means to waste enormous amounts of time that I could otherwise spend playing monopoly or freecell.
That said, as much as I hate to admit it, Rick Patrick has a point. This is a major issue in the SBC and as such is worth discussing. As it stands, Voices is a sort of Switzerland in this discussion, remaining neutral in this fight. I’d hate to see it become a France. It’s not likely the discussion will accomplish anything, but having it is better than the alternative.
“It’s not likely the discussion will accomplish anything, but having it is better than the alternative.”
Chris:
I’m firmly of the opinion that continued discussion in this manner, (i.e., cyclical, back-and-forth blogging flame wars), will likely accomplishment nothing. But I also believe that both the format and the content of this discussion are ultimately damaging to the SBC. I wholeheartedly agree that, for better or worse, this is a major issue within the denomination; however, I’ve unfortunately grown to believe that we are largely incapable of having this discussion civilly at this time. I don’t know what the answer is, but I can’t see how this is it.
I’d love to hear your opinion, though, on why you feel that having this discussion—even if unproductive—is better than not having the discussion. I’ll freely admit that I tend to me more skeptical and more cynical when it comes to these things, so for you to state that you believe it to be unproductive but still necessary intrigues me.
Zack,
There are a few reasons why I think the discussion should continue. The main one is fairly straightforward: as a major issue in SBC life, one of the major SBC discussion sites should be facilitating the conversation rather than closing it off, though that is already happening to some degree by blocking posts on the topic.
Normally when I participate in an online discussion, I’m not looking to convince the person I’m talking with. I don’t expect to ever hear Rick Patrick or Tim Rogers or C. B. Scott, etc, say, “Chris, you know what, you’re right. You’ve convinced me.” – and I’m pretty sure they don’t expect to ever hear those words from me. But there are more participants in a discussion than just those writing the comments and there is more taking place than an attempt to get people to change positions.
Even if debating these issues does nothing to change my position, it does help me refine my position. I know a whole lot more now than I did before these discussions. I’ve thought about things and read things I never would have if not prompted by some argument or discussion that needed further research and consideration. Without discussion, none of this happens.
More is accomplished in these discussions than simply trying to change someone’s mind.
Chris:
Thank you for a thorough and thoughtful response.
I certainly did not mean to imply that the goal of discussion should be agreement; so if I gave that impression I apologize for posing the question poorly.
My only point was that, (from what I see as someone who watches this site closely but only comments sporadically), these discussions in this context seem to produce more disunity than unity. Certainly there is benefit to discussion, and a discussion needs to occur. I guess, however, I’m just having a hard time seeing the any fruit at this time.
Zack, yep, the same discussions with the same vitriol was had back in the 1700s and noted by others, but then the same folks doing the discussing were getting us religious liberty, evangelizing in quality and quantity, coming out of the First Great Awakening and getting ready to have the Second Great Awakening. I remember a time, when Baptists did not have these discussions, did not dare have them, and that was when the Moderates ran things. Get tabbed with the discussions then and you were soon hurting for a place to serve…unless you went outside. Is that what you want, Zach?
With all due respect, James, I simply do not understand the parallel you’re trying to make nor how it is responsive to my question to Chris. Since you directly asked me a question, I don’t want to ignore it, but I’m just not sure what you’re asking.
Zack: You had said that the discussions would be non-productive, and I was pointing out that the same kind of discussions were going on in the past and yet had led to that Second Great Awakening, among other things. I also made reference to the silence of death in our midst in the days of the Moderates control, when one did not dare discuss anything too much or too vociferously unless one was getting ready to fight or do the splitsville routine. Once you were tabbed, you had problems with getting churches. Now we can discuss and even fuss (though I am not recommending fussin’) without fear of too much in the way of repercussions. the real aim now, however, is to get somewhere. From my perspective that somewhere is a Third Great Awakening, by getting all of the cats going in the same general direction, pleading the list of promises Edwards provided.
No we need more. Please please please invite James White and Peter Lumpkins to have a daily blog together so we could all join in the fun discussion thread. Iron could sharpen iron, boys could become men, we could get hair to grow on chests. Even the ladies.
Wow. A+
Brilliant observation, David, one of your best.
I refuse discuss anything with ladies with hair on their chest. But, of course, how are we gonna know?
Welll….
Dave,
Can we at least acknowledge that there are two very different discussions here: the larger and more vitriolic being the political discussion about the struggles of the two opposing groups; and the smaller and less vitriolic discussion about the substantive, Biblical and doctrinal issues?
Since comments can be at times as long as an initial post, then it seems to me that your proposal amounts only to a stricter filter of what is posted (comments, posts, etc.). I mean, what if after you shut down comments, then everyone who has something to say sends it to you as a submission for a post? Rather than post them all, you would apply a standard and choose only the best to post. What would really be the difference between that and moderating all comments?
I suggest you move to a zero-tolerance of nastiness (as well as criticism of the moderation), unapologetically defined and executed by you. When folks start getting their comments moderated, they will start complying or go elsewhere. I also suggest that these two discussions, the political and the theological, not be allowed to mix—delete comments that go off-topic.
If the prospect of stronger moderation would be too time-consuming for you, then please select some people whom you trust to take up the task.
“Can we at least acknowledge that there are two very different discussions here”
This is a good point. The bitter issue is the one about power politics in the SBC. The theological differences are real and can trigger some pretty heated discussion, but nothing like the political discussions. The irony is, with the embargo against posts dealing with Calvinism, we’ve been left with discussions about the nastier political side of things.
“I suggest you move to a zero-tolerance of nastiness (as well as criticism of the moderation), unapologetically defined and executed by you.”
I would rather not see the arbitrary and tyrannical moderation practices of SBC Today be taken on here.
As one who has had a “for the foreseeable future, it’s permanent” ban on himself, amen!
Chris,
Parents are arbitrary, but not necessarily in a bad way. Let’s face it: sometimes adults act like children and need some parental arbitrariness. I have faith that Dave would not abuse his authority to promote one side or the other, as we find on “other blogs.”
It’s like my man, Si, on Duck Dynasty says:
“Sometimes, you just gotta disagree to disagree.”
Dave,
Another serious comment I would make concerns the form of such a debate. One element lacking in much of this is careful definition. We need to have an agreed on definition of terms before we begin. Otherwise, people talk past each other.
One rule I have for my blog is that a person cannot comment on another’s person’s statement until he has restated that persons position to his satisfaction. Another is that you can’t tell me what I believe. I must tell you what I believe, then you can respond to what I think, not what you think I think.
The most sensible post in the whole thread right there. Enforce these as rules and I think you just might be able to have a productive comment stream.
Rick Patrick has a point. This is a hot topic for us in the SBC. My problem in this discussion is with those outside the fold coming in and highjacking threads. Of course, how will anyone know and how would you regulate that? We have open communion on here, so it would be rather difficult.
First, you as moderator have the right to do what you want with the comments posted. If you want to close comments on the Calvinism stuff, so be it.
Second, I think a different approach might be to close comments after a bit of back and forth. See where the discussion goes, look at who is posting comments, discern who is taking over the comments, and decide to shut it off after a some debate has taken place.
Third, when the discussion gets to be about something we’ve chewed on ad nauseum, close the comments.
Honestly, I don’t mind hearing from those who are fully vested in the SBC and our work. You or the writer of each post would have to determine if you think the discussion is fruitful and on target. When it isn’t, close it down.
I do have a problem with the guys who come in, take over the discussion, grace us with their wit and wisdom, impress us with their hyper-intelligence, and write dissertations as comments, but have as much interest in the future of the SBC as they do in who will be the next pope.
Heaven forbid we listen to anything a Christian has to say if he or she is not a Southern Baptist! If they ain’t SBC, they ain’t of the fold!
In this case, yes, Chris. Heaven forbid.
I’d like to hear what you have to say because I sincerely believe that you have an interest in where we are going as a Convention. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the clutter sometimes.
Dale, I guess I qualify on the dissertations bit, being long-winded and given to wordiness. However, I also like to allow every one to have his or her say, even non-SBC, because George Whitefield probably had more to do with all of us being here having this discussion than any can imagine. But we do want to have another Great Awakening, and to do that you have to have the theology that produced the First and Second and the Great Century of Missions and transformed Protestantism from persecuting into an outgoing, we will persuade you movement. The same theology also provided religious liberty that really worked, allow depraved sinners the utmost freedom by means of checks and balances.
Now, brother, don’t you want to have a Third Great Awakening? Or do you have something against the whole world of lost sinners gettin’ saved and continuing to do so for a thousand generations…or have you ever read Edwards Humble Attempt and Carey’s Thoughts on Missions?
Dr. J, you have forgotten more history than I will ever know, sir, and I would never attempt to limit your right to say what you do. You have your strong opinions, but are always gracious, in my estimation. I disagree with you at points, and, to be honest, sometimes your tendency to go rather long and make the same points over and over again causes me to lose interest. However, I never question your heart or desire to see Christ magnified.
My concern with the non-SBC issue is that many of the voices that we hear time and again in these comments have absolutely no interest in who we are or what we’re doing as a Convention. A few of us have raised the issue, so I don’t think I’m alone in my concern. That’s my opinion. I’m entitled to it. Take it or leave it. Either way you desire to approach it really doesn’t make much difference to me.
To answer the questions you directed to me:
Do I desire another Great Awakening? Certainly. (Even though I would point out that church historians say that the THIRD Great Awakening occurred during the last half of the 19th century, born from a postmillenial influence resulting in the Social Gospel movement, Holiness revivalism, the Nazarene movement, the Women’s Temperance Society, and, unfortunately, even Christian Scientism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Not really much Calvinism there, huh? Such men as Josiah Strong and D. L. Moody were it’s big dogs. Maybe you ignore it because you don’t like what came of it? But I digress….)
Do I think it depends on a return to Calvinism? Certainly not. Only a powerful move of the Holy Spirit across our nation and around the world will do it, just as it has done elsewhere in the world throughout history. Calvinism isn’t the issue. Will people, moved to conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit based on the preaching of God’s Word, repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved? That’s the issue. Where Calvinism preaches that message, I support it. Not because it is Calvinism, but because it proclaims Jesus as the crucified and risen Savior and Lord. I would argue that many non-Calvinists also preach that message. Let’s work together to see it happen.
Do I want to see people saved? I’m a little curious as to why you’d even question that as my desire, but, to answer the question directly and succinctly, yes, I do want people to be saved.
Have I ever read Edward’s “Humble Attempt” or Carey’s “Thoughts on Missions”? Excerpts. I don’t plan on reading them in full at any time in the future.
Dear Dale: Thank you for your kind response, and I heartily acknowledge your right to differ. My question about your desire for people to be saved is based on my lack of knowledge of who you are and were you are coming from. I haven’t tried to search it out. Nothing else was meant or implied by the question, since I do not think like that.
As to the Awakenings, I am fully aware that others have spoken of a 3rd, 4th, and even a 5th. However, I am more into a comparative study of the events identified as Awakenings, the theologies that nourished such visitations or provided justification for them. The First and Second Great Awakenings were apparently socially transforming, producing a more moral society, one with more freedoms, the awakening of social consciousness (like the Abolitionist movement with Wilberforce and Newton), lifting the political interests and savvy of the masses and their leaders (consider Washington turning down the offer to be King), and more, much more.
Dave,
I think it is great to ask these questions. I know I only comment randomly, but I still regularly read the posts on here, as well as the comments if I find the discussion to be helpful. I would say I normally feel built up, challenged, and stretched with the actual posts on this debate, but the comments inevitably make me discouraged and saddened.
It is almost always only a matter of time before someone to headstrong joins discussions like these and takes it down paths that people who actually wish to be educated never wanted it to go down. If my two cents matter any, I would say your idea of closing comments would be beneficial. The original posts are the only things in these discussions that seems worth reading anyway, and might I say I have been really built by some of the posts on both sides of this debate.
From those who are observing . ..
Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts?
I have learned that the depth of division within the Body of Christ over this nonessential doctrine is mind boggling. In a time when sharing Jesus and our hope in Him is so critical, I am sure that it pleases the powers and principalities and rulers of darkness with joyful expectation and unmerited glee in the break down of the Church. God is still sovereign and the Great Commission is still the mandate for those who carry the Father’s burden that none should perish and all who call upon the name of the Lord are still saved.
Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)?
Not a bit
Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement in these discussions?
They have left me feeling totally saddened but more aware of the deep need to pray for the Church and her brokenness before the Lord. May the God of all mercy pour out revival on us. Take us back to the foundations of our faith.
Have the discussions advanced understanding, unity or knowledge in any way?
Not a bit. They simply confirm man’s own need to be right and personal pride in their own knowledge, as opposed to wisdom which comes from God.
In other words, have our discussions of Calvinism served ANY purpose of eternal significance?
No, the lost are still headed for eternal hell while the shepherds(?) sit around and argue. Oh wait . . hell, sheol, hades, the lake of fire . . . those are also disputable issues or are they???? Guess it all depends upon on whether the Word of God is still inerrant or whether the interpretation is literal or not.
My observations lead me to believe the primary problem with the Western Church is that in their arrogance, they view everything through our own cultural lenses. We don’t study the Word entirety as one story building line on line from the perspective of Hebrew understanding. We also aren’t broken before the Lord. It’s become a club of sorts for good folks, worthy folks. We find the thought of Jesus coming back offensive. Don’t believe it, try talking about it . . .
Instead of arguing, we should be on your faces praying, seeking God. What a novel idea that is eh??? What is different in the church today from the world around us? Could that be why so many churches are failing while new age occultism is exploding? Why a lost civilization is looking to answers for something they sense happening in the world from Mayan calendars and ancient seers.
We have forgotten God. Our idols have filled our lives, our homes, and our churches. Pray for fresh anointing and clarity in the times we live in. Humble yourselves before the mighty hand of God. Lord, let it begin with me and extend throughout your body. Let discipleship and evangelism arise in the Church with fire and passion. In Jesus name, I pray. Amen.
Close it down, and you can forget about the Great Awakening. Consider the fact that you are simply saying you don’t like being bothered about truths that you don’t believe. Arguments are a sign of life, so long as they are kept from being vicious. In the 1700s the Baptists were doing the same kind of debating, and the Episcopalians commented on it. During that same time, the Baptists had just been effected by the First Great Awakening, were getting ready to experience the Second Great Awakening and to launch the modern missionary movement or the Great Century of Missions. They were uniting the Separates and the Regulars, persuading the General Baptists to become Particular or Regular Baptists, establishing our oldest educational institutions, utilizing educated and uneducated ministers together in a harmony never before or since achieved, evangelizing in quantity and quality, the most difficult thing to do. And while we are at it, why not promote these discussions and use them to turn the participants to praying for a visitation for a Great Awakening for the whole earth, making use of the promises Jonathan Edwards recorded in his Humble Attempt which inspired Carey, Fuller, Judson, and Rice? That would give a whole new purpose to the discussions, somewhere to go, namely, forward to a future like we had never thought possible in the days of the cold war. Unless everyone simply wants to see it all ended and that as soon as possible, when the truth is we will likely wind up in concentration camps and experience some of the difficulties like Solzhenitsyn encountered, not a very pretty picture. Persecution is not all it is cracked up to be either, though it produces now and then some wonderful instances. You should do as I did and take notes on all 2000 years of church history and on the persecutions and the prices paid. Or better yet use the controversies to lead us to do what Edwards said in Humble Attempt. Then you will bless the whole earth and bring glory to God like none of us would believe even when we see it with our eyes.
“Arguments are a sign of life, so long as they are kept from being vicious.” I like that, but I think that’s the problem we see. Things become vitriolic and the truths of the discussion get lost in the translation through emotion. Things can devolve rather quickly.
Also, I don’t see a Great Awakening being dependent on the comment stream at SBCVoices.
If the “Great Awakening” depends on us talking about Calvinism on blogs, it won’t be much of a Great Awakening.
David: I did not say it depended on the discussion. The idea is that the discussion is a symptom, indicative of life, of the Awakening that was about to occur back then (the discussions were circa 1770s and the Awakening was coming in 1801 as the high point, though it was even going at the time of the discussions, here and there across the colonies. Read Leland, Gano, Taylor, and the minutes of the Phila, Charleston, assns., the latter of which was recommending John Gill’s writings to its preachers. The theology of both Awakenings, the First and the Second (until 1820), was Sovereign Grace. O yes, and so it was the theology of the modern missionary movement. The folks outlined in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, pp.1028,1029 their theology of orthodoxy and the theology they opposed, determinism or calvinism, with the tenets of that view somewhat misrepresented. Why? Because they nearly lost control of the world and getting to have their great wars to get rid of the excess population. So they sent in infiltrators to push things to the extremes in both directions to get divisions going, a favored ruse of Satan and his hosts, making a truth that is meant to be attractive look really bad. Just look at how our Lord Jesus Christ offered Opposites to the folks of Nazareth and to the woman of Canaan. In their case, the prophets, Elijah and Elisha being sent to relieve Gentiles but no israelites, and in the woman’s case, Jesus claiming he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, limited atonement, and her response, and she was not a Jew, was to worship. Then He pushed it even more, by talking about depravity, disability, and reprobation, namely, the woman’s being a dog, and she agreed and acted like it was candy for a baby or a goodly crumb that fell from the masters’ table. He then acknowledged her GREAT FAITH. Has any of you folks ever hear of a THERAPEUTIC PARADOX or what is popularly known as reverse psychology? Here we are drawing nearer every day to the Third Great Awakening, the one that is going to sweep the whole earth and every soul on it into the Kingdom of God with as much freedom as any old free willer ever wanted and with as much irresistibility as any staunch Sovereign Grace believer in Roms. 5:20,21 could ever desire, and every one seems to be getting cold feet.
The hour is growing darker, like the darkest hour is just before the dawning. And the future that seems so dark is as bright with hope as the promises of God. David, why didn’t you say something about Edwards’ and his list of promises/prophecies in his Humble Attempt? That would be getting us focused on the real point of all the controversy, the having of another Great Awakening to solve the old problems and create new ones, like having the law giving directions on how to get to church meetings and how the police, etc., can form singing groups for the meetings, like they did in Wales. When you have thought about what I have said, after I have been in the grave, it will hit you like a ton of bricks. Then maybe the Awakening will really get rolling and continue for a 1000 generations as is indicated in I Chrons.16:15.
Regarding “This is a major issue in the SBC and as such is worth discussing” and “I believe this IS the hot topic in the SBC” …
It is a major issue for those who wish to take active steps to limit the numbers and influence of Calvinists in the SBC. For everyone else – including Calvinists themselves – not so much. And how many actually wish to take actions to limit the numbers and influence of Calvinists in the SBC? Not that many, especially when it comes to percentages. The only way to make it appear otherwise is to generate as much light and heat as they can on blogs.
Regarding … “As it stands, Voices is a sort of Switzerland in this discussion, remaining neutral in this fight.”
Many in the Traditionalist movement do not think so. Many Traditionalists view this site and its administrator as part of the attempt to Calvinize the SBC. The evidence for it abounds, including not a few accusations made against Dave Miller in the comments.
I honestly do not think that a productive discussion on Calvinism is possible, especially if one is going to try to be neutral and even-handed. And I certainly don’t think that giving the small percentage of people who want to direct the resources of the SBC against its own Calvinist members (seriously, driving the Calvinists out of the SBC would be preferable) based on such ideas that the Acts 29 Network (some 400 churches, the majority of which are not even SBC) pose some threat to the SBC more channels to publicize them than they already have. It was said that they will have this discussion someplace else, I say allow them.
I say shut the Calvinism talk down again. Even letting people talk about Calvinism and closing off the comments … why bother? Instead, just have people write about evangelism, theology, church life, church history, Christian living, etc. If the person is a Calvinist, then of course what he writes on evangelism will likely mention predestination. If the person is a traditionalist, then his pieces on church life and history will likely assert the contributions of the Anabaptists and have a negative view of elder-led congregations. And in the comments, let them go at it, within guidelines of course.
I say in lieu of talking about Calvinism and traditionalism, just let the Calvinists and the traditionalists write and submit pieces about the Bible, Christianity, Baptists and the SBC.
I like what Job has written here.
If you do not see any big problem aside from non-Cs blogging about problems in the SBC concerning Calvinism, you err. SBCers at every level recognize this. It cannot be eliminated by not discussing it.
Thornton, you sound like a man after my own heart, talking about the need to discuss it.
I’ve worked hard to keep my part in the conspiracy to Calvinize the SBC a secret and I do not appreciate your mentioning it here.
Your neck tattoo gives you away.
You’ve hidden it well, Bro. Moderator. This is the first I’ve read anything about it.
What conspiracy? I have been trying to join one ever since I heard about such a thing, like C.S. Lewis advised in his writings about conspiracies or did he advise not to? I forget.
Job: You sure you got that title right? Sounds more like one of the dear old sufferer’s friends. Cut off all discussion and debate, get rid of the theology, and, hence, no Third Great Awakening, and all the fun we can have in silly arguments on the way to it. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Don’t you folks know that the most positive army in WWII lost? I refer to the Germans. No one ever dared bring up the negatives. As a result the folks who allowed time for the negatives beat the snot out of them. I was just thinking last night of my Brother-in-law’s father whose name is on my ordination papers. He was in the first wave going ashore at Omaha Beach (if memory serves correctly).
Tell you a funny to lighten the load, one my brother-in-law told me about his Dad. He was a spotter, and he was directing the unit down a road (they were all in a truck barreling along, when they saw a truck coming toward them). The trucks passed with the men setting up right, neither group in the trucks looking at the other. The other was German. When they had passed, the Captain turned to Mr._____ and said, “_____, if you ever again do this to me, I swear I will shoot you myself.” We just roared with laughter, and I could almost hear my brother-in-law’s father in his soft voice telling that little bit of fun from the days of deadly dangers.
One thought: add a disclaimer to the end of every post, something like: “Warning: Comments may or may not be hazardous to your health. They are optional. You do not have to read them. If you do not find them helpful, proceed no further. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”
That’s the first good idea you have had in a LONG time.
I try to limit the publication of my good ideas. The world can’t handle that much awesomeness.
Dave,
I will write briefly…
I think there is more harm than good preceding from these extra comments. I do not see restoration and unity occurring after heated words are exchanged. I fear that these comments have become stumbling blocks.
I do believe the discussion is valid. But we need to emphasis that only mature debate is worth our time. This mature debate would not include name calling, would permit for clarification of definitions, would focus on textual arguments from the Scriptures, would incorporate points of unity and would end with both sides identifying the ways in which they have been sharpened by the debate.
To facilitate this type of debate I would recommend that comments before removed from all Calvinism posts. I would also recommend that those who seek to continue the debate would find themselves a “dance partner” and proceed to co-author a post that is finely focused on the matters at hand. Examples who be posts about a specific point of the five (Total Depravity/Original Sin), one or two specific Biblical texts pertinent to the debate (Romans 5 & 9) or discussion concerning some of the variance among even the two factions (4 Point Cs, Molinism, etc).
Psst…Dave…your willingness to host the discussion and let both sides–including hangers on–discuss it at length actually is pretty effective at demonstrating how unimportant the disagreement is. And that’s just talking about a temporal perspective.
If God chooses to let this fester and either side’s position is essentially heretical, then he is permitting it for a purpose. I personally am of the opinion that it’s like the blind philosophers and the elephant. We’re each catching an important perspective, but the perspective is based on the part of the elephant we’re coming in contact with: ear, trunk, foot, tail. Now I’ll note that an elephant CANNOT BE the wing of a huge bat, an anaconda with wrinkly skin, a tree trunk, and a flexible flyswatter. But those could be descriptions of those parts in that order if you were blind.
The question is whether we see or whether we’re blind on the subjects we’re debating. I see a lot of claims that suggest we believe we can see. But that use of the word “believe” doesn’t pass the smell test.
I was going to say something nice about Dave’s post. How I’m sympathetic with his frustrations. And this from a more reformed Baptist view. But now I’m all riled up and ready to pronounce the Anathema (and for my pronouncements I am SBC and in the states-like that matters) on those that say the Gospel Project is a Calvinistic plot to undermine the SBC. I got two words for ya, ED and STETZER! He’s not, oh how about Tom and Rainer. Two more good words that aren’t calvinistic. Sorry don’t know about Trevin Wax, but how about Danny and Akin, a couple more great words. Sure there are some ‘reformed types’ involved but plenty who aren’t. GUess what there are probably reformed types involved with the Explore the Bible curriculum, too.
Gee…………….. Why can’t we all just get a long?
OK, I feel better now. Thanks.
Trevin has told me directly that he is not a Calvinist.
Clark,
I brought up the GP, but did not say it was “a Calvinist plot to undermine the SBC.” Rather, I implied it was rooted in a hermeneutic associated with Reformed thought, and that most of its leaders are more Calvinistic (whether four pointers OR five pointers) than the rest of the SBC.
Just so you know, none of the names you mentioned made me feel any better about the theology of the Gospel Project. Names that would impress me are Vines, Patterson, Allen (David), Gaines, Hankins, Lemke, Whitt, Yarnell, Kelley, etc.
You may disagree with people like me and Ralph Green, but then again, please realize we also disagree with you.
Please refrain from using the term “anathema” which means “banished, denounced, and intensely loathed.” We do not loathe you. We honestly interpret the Gospel Project as having some Calvinistic overtones.
Our church did not outright ban the Gospel Project like Ralph Green’s. We have one class that uses it. The class is taught by a seminary graduate who is a Signer of the Traditionalist Statement. I trust him.
Just for fun, I got a copy of the winter curriculum. In the NOTES, Session Four quotes three authors: Tim Keller, Augustine and Spurgeon. Session Five quotes three authors: David Platt, Ambrose and Francis Schaeffer. We don’t get this kind of Reformed perspective in the other Lifeway curricula.
I don’t think you will ever disabuse those of us who agree with Green of the notion that this material contains, at the very least, a fair amount of subtle Reformed influence.
Rick,
You must have been having too much fun. Did you clean up after the Lord’s Supper?
In the same winter segment you cite, why did you omit these names from Session 4?
Dorian Coover-Cox, page 48
Robert Bergen, page 50
Paige Patterson, page 51
W.A. Criswell study materials recommended, page 54
Or Session 5?
Eugene Merrill, page 62
R. Dennis Cole, page 63
Paige Patterson sermon podcast recommended, page 66
J. Scott Duvall, page 66
J. Daniel Hays, page 66
(If I am not mistaken your fellow traditionalist document signer Hankins hoped these last two would be mentioned.)
What is the problem? You are clearly NOT being forthright in you accusations. Why?
Fred: Your reply to Rick is a masterpiece. It is a good reminder to do one’s homework. A RICK! This is quite an indictment of your practice of fairness. Why didn’t you report these, too?
Fred,
I disagree with the GP advisory team’s composition. I believe they are more Reformed than is our convention. At least one is not even a Southern Baptist. Not to replay the entire debate here, but consider Ralph Green’s concerns, and please know I could name a hundred other Southern Baptist Pastors who have the very same issues I do with the Gospel Project.
I agree with Pastor Green and applaud his courage in returning materials with which he is uncomfortable, even though it resulted in a firestorm of charges and accusations. Hey, we all have the right to choose our curricula and to advance our opinions about literature.
http://sbctoday.com/2012/08/21/lifeways-gospel-project-returnedinterview-with-ralph-green-senior-pastorcalvary-baptist-church-bel-air-md/
Rick,
Green’s concerns were shown to be a sham. He was concerned with the overt Calvinism present in the material despite the fact that no such Calvinism can be found. As was noted again and again, it spoke volumes that no examples were given of this alleged Calvinist indoctrination.
Granted, other chapters include various additional writers. My purpose was not a general survey of all notations, but simply to demonstrate that we have authors listed here that the other Lifeway curricula are not seeking to promote to the convention.
My concern is with the greater PRESENCE of reformed writers like Keller and Schaeffer and Platt, among others. Again, you just don’t see this in the other curricula.
Good grief, Rick, my pastor signed the Traditionalist statement and is gungho in the camp, so to speak, and he quotes Spurgeon and even Calvin and Augustine, the latter two, if memory serves correctly. He even used the term sovereign grace in one message several weeks ago, but I certainly would not take him out of the Traditionalist camp. Even John R. Rice and Adrian Rogers could quote Spurgeon, but no one would make the mistake of putting them in the Calvinistic camp. Just because you find quotes in Session Four and Five from some Calvinists, does that mean you are not going to allow such things in any of the literature? Are you trying to make everyone Traditionalists? Have you forgotten or did you know that the Calvinists were the ones who made room for the Traditionalists? Remember the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings which really made Baptists in America was not Traditionalist; it was Calvinist. Are you going to say that the folks who had the most to do with the founding of the SBC and its early institutions have no place in the Convention to state their views and ideas and etc.?
I am a Calvinst and have been for thirty years. Discussions of Calvinism do benefit me since listening to the ‘opposition’ always helps sharpen my thoughts on the topic. Every once in a while I will hear (or read) an argument from a non-Calvinist that I’ve not heard before. That always makes me go into the Word and see if there is either a refutation and not.
As a Calvinist who has pastored the same church for 25 years, I’ve made no attempt to turn my congregation into a “Reformed” one. I just want them to be a solidly conservative Southern Baptist Church and that is what I’ve worked for.
As a Calvinist who has been active in my state convention, I have no ulterior motives in doing so. I just enjoying serving in a wider capacity outside the local church.
Frankly, I don’t fully understand all the fuss over Calvinism in the SBC. Have you ever met a Calvinist who was not an inerrantist and who took seriously the sufficiency of Scriptures? Why would we want to exclude the kind of pastors and theologians who were so helpful in winning back the SBC from the liberals?
Dave Miller: “As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Calvinism discussions.”
Yes, that’s true.
o I wonder if there were folks (moderator-leadership types) back in the day of English Parliament who said something similar like:
“As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward William Wilberforce slavery discussions.”
o I wonder if there were folks (moderator-leadership types) back in the day of Athanasius who said something similar like:
“As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Arianism discussions.”
o I wonder if there were folks (moderator-leadership types) back in the days of the 1st Century who said something similar like:
“As you can see, I have a very bitter, negative attitude toward Apostle Paul and the Judaizer discussions.”
In each of your scenarios, there is a clear right and a clear wrong – either a heresy being perpetrated or a gross injustice being performed. I will never stand down on the importance of inerrancy and the need to stand strong for fundamental doctrine.
But the Pitbull brigade that loves to bite and devour over the Calvinism issue – yes, I will continue to call them on their nonsense – yourself included, Mr “Truth.”
Bitterness and negativity which bites and devours its owner is not nonsense.
I think cynicism about the ability of people to be grown ups is sufficient reason to offer gentle restraints so they won’t hurt themselves. And that’s the offer I view Dave making: here, let me help you put on this nice, white jacket and tie the sleeves correctly to the back so you won’t hurt yourself.
Iowans are ALWAYS smarter than others.
No thanks to your offer of help of Greg.
Folks with cynical, bitter, negative attitudes who are helpfully alerted to the log in their eye will have have taken a big first step in not allowing their “very bitter and negative attitude” to bite and devour them.
Greg, I just spit all over my monitor! LOL!
What if those on the wrong side of this issue is seen in the future to be a clear right and wrong? I am sure no one called Arianism heresy until it was declared heresy and no one believed it.
As I recall, there was thing meeting called the Snyod of Dort. . .
Well, if one side of this debate is heretical, then a large portion of the SBC is heretical. That’s a pretty big problem.
I’m guessing that there are a pretty equal number of 5-pointers on one end with the Traditionalists on the other, and most of us making up the ground in between the two extremes.
But I do not think that any along that spectrum are gospel-denying heretics.
Dave,
Amen…and thanks for stating that. I also consider you a Gospel preaching Brother in Christ.
David
Seems like to me, that I have heard that this blog is owned by a Calvinist, Tony Kummer, and is managed by David Miller who is not a Calvinist. If that does not reflect what the Calvinists tried to establish in 1787-1800, then I am nonplussed. Am I right on my observations, David?
Dr. James,
Ran across this quote:
“Whitefield (Calvinist) and Wesley (Arminian) preached together and rejoiced in each others great work. This is the way it ever should be.”
Love it! Once people get past the shock that God uses folks who differ, one will find that they are not as far a part as they think.
Right on!
I would not say that your observations are correct.
I was depending on some statements that I thought I had seen on BC Voices and made by you. If my memory has failed. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that at least this was a blog of writers of several persuasion, calvinist and traditionalist. If the latter only is the reality, please let me know. Also let me know, if you intend to cut off all calvinism. While I am not gung ho for that term, I am for Sovereign Grace and for the doctrines of grace as the original founding faith. This I know for a fact from research, predecessors and ancestors all the way back to the 1700s and even beyond that. I do allow for the traditionalists though I think their expositions will not hold up under critical examination. I have never pushed all that hard on the matter as I do not care for a bust up. I prefer to leave things with freedom for men to make up their minds one way or the other. And we do have a big program of missions. It would be a grief to see it go down. Also it helps to have numbers in the coming tug with Rome which is going to start throwing her weight around in the days that lie ahead, if I don’t miss my guess. If my take on Rome’s records of the past are indicative, we are going to have some real difficulties. That is along with the sources I have mentioned concerning Tragedy and Hope, etc.
So first, folks on the Traditionalist end preach something dangerous that may lead to false conversions. Then, they’re like Arians only they don’t realize it yet.
Yep, that’s the way to bring unity to the SBC.
What “Truth Unites…” just said demonstrates how misunderstood Calvinism as an issue in SBC life is currently. The fact that that a despondency regarding discussion on Calvinism could be compared with Wilberforce’s movement to end slavery, Athanasius’ faithful articulation of the person of Christ in the face of Arianism, or Paul’s orthodox picture of the Gospel in the midst of the Galatian controversy…shows a lack of historical perspective that is frightening.
Regardless of how the discussion continues to take shape (conferences, blogs, lectures) it must continue to be an “in-house,” or family discussion. Non-SBC voices can help us navigate the choppy waters of fraternal debate, but they cannot be the voices of change.
To keep these discussions we are going to have to abandon some language and clarify much more of the language we are using. “Traditionalist” and “Reformed” are words that carry a ton of baggage and it has become clear that the quest for the Baptist historical high ground in the debate as devolved the discussion to interpretive discussions regarding what it means to be a Baptist.
In all transparency, I am a Reformed Baptist in line with Fuller and Spurgeon, but this discussion needs to be primarily about keeping Baptists as “people of the Book,” and secondarily about “a historic Baptist standard.”
In light of God’s word we can proceed to look at our historic Baptist confessions, creeds, and statements of faith and seek to glean from our faithful forbearers.
Grace and Peace
Kyle Worley
thestrife.com
Kyle Worley: “In light of God’s word we can proceed to look at our historic Baptist confessions, creeds, and statements of faith and seek to glean from our faithful forbearers.”
A little thought when considering the underpinnings of your last statement will help you to see the larger point of my remarks: Stifling and shutting down vigorous discussion would not have given birth to the “historic Baptist confessions, creeds, and statements of faith… from our faithful forbearers.”
Are you related to me?
David Worley
For his sake, I hope not 🙂
Well, there could be worse things in life, than to be related to yours truly. I mean, being in the hospital with severe constipation comes to mind….that’d be worse!
David 🙂
PS. I am related to Darryl Worley…the country singer….Kyle, are you related to him? Also, my family are from Wayne Co., TN.
Yes, there could be worse things…
The plague.
Global Thermonuclear War.
Any Tom Cruise movie.
Many things could be worse, Vol.
(Sorry).
Dave,
I think occasionally the problem begins with the initial post. I’d consider guarding the front door to posts on SBCVoices as well.
Having said that, I’m all for shutting down comments on Calvinism posts and even keeping a watchful eye on those which rub up against it. My initial reaction is to disagree and encourage you to keep comments. But after thinking through it I believe people would still respond to posts but would do it through more lengthy and hopefully better constructed posts of their own. And they could even submit them to Voices. And if you were guarding the front door you would have more control on whether vitriolic and helpful articles were posted.
Just my opinion…
I would agree that posts that are strident, that attempt to cast the other side in some sort of negative/threatening light are not helpful.
That is mostly what I am referring to.
Dave,
My only caution to eliminating comments on Calvinism articles is that this site allows some back and forth while other sites- on both sides of the spectrum- edit, ban, and generally bully commenters who are not in favor of their perspective. SBC Voices may resemble the Wild West occasionally but that to me is perferable to resembling Orwell’s 1984.
The truth is it is probably harder on you thank anyone because you have to read each comment no matter what and evaluate it. Like many readers I just skim comments from posters who say the same things over and over again and refuse to engage in meaningful dialogue. I have that luxury. You don’t. Do what’s best for your soul. Maybe it’s time for Tony to get another comment moderator so you can have a break?
Currently, my plan is to:
1) Continue the process of shutting down Calvinism discussions as soon as they get stupid – usually within 50 to 100 comments.
2) Put more of the Pitbull brigade on moderation. That means that your comments will only appear if I approve them. It makes people really mad at me, but I have yet to put a person on moderation and not feel that it generally improved the discussion around here.
3) I’m going to personally continue to ignore Calvinism discussions in general (with a few exceptions) and encourage most of you in the Cooperative Middle to do the same.
4) I may try a few test runs of the post-without-comments thing, just to see how it goes.
but I have yet to put a person on moderation and not feel that it generally improved the discussion around here.
D’oh!!!!!
* How do you determine if a discussion gets stupid? You and I have some pretty serious disagreements about these matters. Can I expect you will be cutting me off with much greater frequency? How is this not simply a matter of your own arbitrary (and wrong) preference in these debates?
* “I have yet to put a person on moderation and not feel that it generally improved the discussion around here.” That’s the way moderators always feel, and why moderators do what they do. But I have never seen it practiced in this way that it has not turned into something quite unpleasant and, again, arbitrary.
* “and encourage most of you in the Cooperative Middle to do the same.” You mean the third position of hard-headed folks who are convinced their way is the best?
Regarding that last, your cooperative middle post reminded me of an old joke I never had the chance to tell.
A man was visiting a well populated island one day and was amazed that for all the people there were only three churches. He turned to the islander showing him around and said, “You only have three churches, and you tell me all your people go to church? How have you managed that? Most of us have churches on every street corner because people can’t get along.”
The islander turned to him and said, “Well, we used to only have two churches, but then some of the people from the two churches got interested in unity and came together, so now we have three churches.”
It is not as if the “cooperative middle” presents something new and different. We are all looking for unity and cooperation, but with different expectations of what that looks like. For those in the middle, it appears to mean quieting theological dissent. For those on the traditionalist side, it means expelling theological dissent. For folks like me, it means being open about our disagreements yet grown up enough to work together anyway. And of course, as we all know, my way is best.
Maybe if we just put you in charge, Chris. You have it all figured out, after all!
Yes, as moderator, the decision on stupid is mine.
No, I am not completely fair or unbiased.
I take into account history and “body of work.”
A few more comments like this, and your chances of joining the moderation brigade will increase exponentially!
“A few more comments like this, and your chances of joining the moderation brigade will increase exponentially!”
And so it begins. Dare not to disagree or speak against The Cooperative Middle, or face the moderation queue.
Given that many of the commenters here are pastors, and some of them engage in the bitter bash of Calvinism comments, I’m all for it if only to preserve the dignity of Baptist pastoral ministry. Lord knows I wish I were shut up some in the past, and I’m not even a pastor.
Dave,
All these discussions have been helpful to me. I enjoy every minute of them. I actually have learned alot about Calvinism and Traditionalism.
I understand things that I never understood before. I hate to see discussions about unity and differences go away. I think Calvinists are a great blessing to the SBC. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters.
@William Thornton:
Well, I simply have to err then. Or should I say that while I am willing to concede that there may be problems with Calvinists in the SBC, the proposed solutions are much much worse than the problems. Again, go back to the Acts 29 thing. React to the maybe 100 SBC church plants that are members of the Acts 29 Network by preventing Cooperative Program/NAMB church planting money donated by traditionalist churches from going to Calvinist church plants whether those plants are Acts 29 Network members or not. It would be better to simply expel the Calvinists from the SBC than resort to things like that, and it is the people who believe that talking about structurally imposing second class citizenship on Calvinists – a Jim Crow type setup for Calvinists as a condition and requirement for being permitted to remain in the SBC if you will – is a good or helpful thing for anybody but a few traditionalist activists who err. All available evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of SBCers are adamantly opposed to things like that, and whenever confronted with this evidence, the traditionalist activists respond to the effects of “well that is just because the rank and file members of the pews aren’t aware of or properly educated about the issues and what is going on, and once they are they’ll join us for sure.” That is the irony. These same traditionalist activists get offended and outraged when Calvinists accuse them of not understanding Calvinist doctrine, but they are perfectly willing to accuse the non-Calvinists who have consistently refused to join them in their fight of being slumberers.
And I did not say eliminate it by not discussing it. I say that there are better places to discuss it than here, and I stated the reasons for it.
1. It is impossible to have the discussion in a fair, even-handed manner. It is best to let each “side” (presuming that the Calvinists have an identifiable side to begin with … the traditionalists saying that they do does not make it so) advocate in their own arenas, Fox News vs MSNBC style. To his credit, Dave Miller is unwilling to play Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann to the Bill O’Reillys and Sean Hannitys on the traditionalist side.
2. Even if it were possible to be a “fair neutral host” of this debate, Dave Miller IS NOT seen as a neutral, fair arbiter by a lot of the traditionalists. You have seen some of the ugly comments made against him on this site, and you recall a lot of the mean, snarky comments (on this site and others) in response to Dave Miller being elected 2nd VP of the SBC.
Now it may seem that I am going after the traditionalists here. That is not true, and I apologize for not doing a better job of articulating myself in a manner where I do not come off as attacking, accusatory and harsh. I feel that a lot of the traditionalist issues are legitimate. I just feel like the proposed response by some traditionalist activists … “we traditionalists are the majority and we need to take institutional measures to make sure that we stay that way” are much much worse than the issues.
Job,
Glad you recognize there is a problem. I for one do not favor a solution of expulsion and know very few who do.
1 &2. There are few venues where ordinary SBC mortals are discussing this stuff in public. This is one of those places. I am a regular non-Calvinistic SBCer and I think Dave is fair and that this place is neutral.
Those who discuss Calvinism may be compared with the money supply and the old axiom “bad money drives out good money.” Bad commenters here drive out good ones. I don’t know a solution to that. Dave does well in trying to manage things fairly.
You still can’t borrow money.
I’m not sure you can borrow commenters, either.
Sometimes, considering the misconceptions and preconceptions on all sides, it may take 50-100 comments before some headway is made. Too many people bring their favorite phrases or put the same scars on display as the last discussion; a clear case for moderation I think.
But considering the recent post by Dan that you shut down… I think Vol & I were just beginning to make headway on not talking past each other and simple understanding. First we had to agree on what each was saying or not saying… takes time to type and go point by point. Unless you want disertations for each post and a response that is twice as long to answer each point. Can make for a lengthy blog, but certainly fewer posts.
Sorry, I wasn’t seeing much in the way of progress.
Hey Dave,
This is comment #122….this thread needs to be closed down. Just thought I’d remind you…lol.
🙂
David
I’ve been thinking about it.
Nerd.
lol
I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a post about comments to posts about Calvinism blows up with comments like no other posts. Well, no other posts unless those other posts can be seen as involving Calvinism too.
To the questions
?Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts? — Nothing significant but I have picked up a few minor points here and there
?Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)? — No
?Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement in these discussions? — These discussions always blow up fast so considering I have a lot of work to do and limited time to comment to blogs or message boards during the day, and considering my lack of formal theological training, it generally seems pointless for me to be involved in these topics except as a lurker. I decided to make an exception tonight. 🙂
?Have the discussions advanced understanding, unity or knowledge in any way? — I thought this one did https://sbcvoices.com/an-important-post-from-bart-barber/ ….. but normally no.
?In other words, have our discussions of Calvinism served ANY purpose of eternal significance? — I will defer on this one.
I’d say shut it down when the comment threading goes whack. Maybe the Interweb is trying to speak to us.
Am I the only one stunned that the Apostolic method of redemptive-historical preaching seems to be held in derision by this comment??
Randall,
I think it has its place occasionally, but join many others who view it as weak in practical application, limited in scope to narrative pericopes, and prone to read Christological interpretations back into some texts where such a meaning ignores authorial intent.
Do not be stunned that some find this preaching method more useful and appropriate than others.
Rick,
Well, given that the Apostles derived their oft-used and highly applicable redemptive-historical hermeneutic from none other than Christ Himself….
…I must ask that you bear with my being stunned.
That you see the redemptive-historical hermeneutic as “weak in practical application” and “limited in scope to narrative pericopes” and guilty of “ignoring authorial intent” may indicate unfamiliarity with the hermeneutic.
The redemptive-historical hermeneutic’s Christotelic (Christ as the telos of all scripture) presupposition informs every Apostolic use of the OT in the NT, and every recorded sermon of the NT is rife with redemptive-historical exposition.
Perhaps you are rejecting this thoroughly scriptural method—exemplified by our Lord Himself—for no other reason than that it is often used by those of a Calvinistic persuasion?
Randall, please excuse an interloper here, I have noticed that your defense of the Gospel Project is that the Apostles and Jesus used the OT for redemptive – historical exposition. To many of us, myself included, that is a weakness of the Gospel Project. Good hermeneutics will teach one to look to the New Testament for foreshadowing of Christ from the Old Testament. We rely on the NT writers to help us discern if an OT passage is a foreshadowing. Jesus, Peter, Paul, the author of Hebrews, are more suited to identify such foreshadowing than any of us.
Dean,
Have you read the Winter ’12 quarterly on the OT?
I think that is a legitimate and interesting hermeneutical discussion, Dean.
I think some of the anti-Gospel Project rhetoric has been extreme to the point of losing credibility (Pastor Green comes to mind) but I still have questions about the modern gospel-centered hermeneutical approach as it relates to the OT.
I think that is a discussion we need to have, and it is not specifically a Cal/Trad type thing.
For me, all sound interp starts with authorial intent. There is often some divine intent beyond the authorial, but you cannot ignore authorial intent in the process.
How we balance authorial intent with the message of Christ in all scripture is a great discussion.
Dave,
I just finished a rather lengthy paper on the Apostolic hermeneutic. If I spent some time condensing it and submitted it to you, would you consider posting it?
Randall, I have not read the quarterly ’12 winter. However, I will reiterate my position. The NT is the best place to find the foreshadowing of Christ from the OT. When a NT writer declares something from the OT to be a messianic foreshadowing then we know we are sound to teach the OT passage in that manner. This concept is what was taught me in Bible college and two of our SBC seminaries.
Dave, this absolutely is not a Cal/trad thing at all with me. It is a principle of interpretation that is part of my core. My argument is not with GP. My argument is if you leave an OT author’s intent without a Biblical foundation from the NT to do so then you can carry the newspaper to the pulpit and teach about Jesus. I am not picking a fight but we can make one subway station earth and the second one heaven and the subway Jesus and honestly do the same preaching. Expository preaching and Bible teaching have to be done with author’s intent in mind.
Dean,
You said:
Then, in response to my question, you state:
Doesn’t it stand to reason that if you are going to be critical of the GP interpretation of the OT you should at least have read the GP interpretation of the OT?
Randall, Brother, you got to lay off the Matlock or other old attorney shows. You keep looking or the gotcha moments. Randall, as an SBC pastor I was mailed numerous pieces to preview. I watched videos with talking points about GP. It is promoted as a material that by design is not committed to adhering to the author’s intent. This is an issue that is not part of our Cal/trad debate. There is value in all Gospel preaching. However I prefer expository sermons from the pulpit and Biblical teaching for classes. When something is advertised that is contrary to your core principals of interpretation you do not have to read the material to say its not for me. To me, if does not adhere to author’s intent it is not the strongest way to interpret a passage and it never will be. On this issue I cannot be persuaded.
Dean,
What on earth are you talking about??
Randall,
Rejecting is probably too strong a word for my view. Please note I do allow for its occasional use. I do not think it is broadly applicable as a general Sunday School literature philosophy.
My concerns were more clearly stated in my own words and, for that matter, in Dean’s remarks, than in your inaccurate insinuations.
Rick,
May I ask why not?
Randall,
I believe an appropriate Sunday School philosophy should be broadly applicable, whereas the specific approach in question does not handle didactic passages and wisdom literature very well. It is even limited among narrative passages to those with specific Christological implications.
Thus, it is not always a WRONG approach, but is sometimes simply too NARROW of an approach, in my opinion.
Rick, I have my questions about the whole redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
I would not want all LifeWay curricula to follow it.
But isn’t there enough legitimacy to the approach to have ONE curriculum that is built on it?
I am no expert on the curriculum, but from what I have read, there is little Calvinistic bent to it (except for the fact that the hermeneutical approach is common among Calvinists – hence the quotes). But why should there not be a redemptive-historical option among the LifeWay offerings.
Rick,
Your contention that the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is restrictive and limited in dealing with OT narrative and didactic passages is…well…stunning.
May I ask how you arrived at this conclusion? Was it something (or someone) you read? Have you had personal difficulty applying the hermeneutic?
Have you read Beale, Enns, Moo, Marshall, Carson, etc. on the Apostolic hermeneutic?
More importantly to you your critique of the Gospel Project, have you read the Winter ’12 quarterly on the OT?
Excellent comment, David. Since our Lord took the approach of such interpretation, and I do allow for authorial intent, it would still seem to be out of order to disallow a view just because some group likes to use it. Good soldiers learn even from their enemies, and ministers can do the same. Rick, just consider what Wesley learned from Whitefield, when he realized that it was his task from Whitefield himself to preach Whitefield’s funeral. I have read (it has been about 40 years ago), what Wesley had to say about one with whom he had had sharp disagreements over the very issues we dispute in these columns, The more interesting anecdote, however, is that apparently both thought that the other would be so close to the throne that one would not be able to see him. Rick you will likely be so close, and I will be so far from the throne that I won’t be able to see you. God grant that you shall. How do you like that prayer from a calvinist/sovereign grace believer who is not only a successor to the founders but a desendant as well? With all good wishes for God’s best for you in particular.
Dave,
I think it is narrow enough that a very short-term, discipleship small group study featuring it might be appropriate. My view of Sunday School is that it should really focus more on a broader survey of Bible books and themes.
Randall,
My concerns with the redemptive-historical method are rooted in my own viewpoint that while much of scripture does indeed weave together the overarching meta-narrative of our redemption through Christ, there is an enormous amount of biblical truth that lies outside — not in contradiction — to the “big story.”
Many examples could be cited, but the first time my antenna went up was frankly Chandler’s interpretation of David and Goliath in which he seemingly disallows any approach other than seeing Christ as David, Goliath as Satan and the Israelites frightened in the corner representing believers.
In contrast to his approach, I think it’s fine to challenge our people to show the same faith in God that David did and to “slay the giant” obstacles in our lives by trusting in His Power to win the battle.
Rick your reference to the David and Goliath issue is a case in point for the fact that folks can push an interpretative method to the extreme, even a truly sound like the Apostolic approach and that of our Lord. What we have to guard against in our reactions to such abuses is the tendency to go to the other extreme wherein a sound method becomes an object of suspicion, especially when it is associated with, and used by, a group for which we have an animus due to having been abused by them at some point.
Randall,
It is really hard to fault that method of interpretation when one witnesses it in the words of Christ and the writings of the apostles. One problem is there are nut cases on the web who don’t have the intelligence to understand it. Others simply parrot what they are saying.
Randy,
I guess that’s why I’m so incredulous.
It is more than passingly interesting that both Rick and Dean completely ignored that point in their attempts to marginalize the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
Randy,
We agree on doctrine but gosh golly gee whiz, why do you have to be insulting?
Patience with those who disagree is a command. Patience with weaker brothers is a command. Gentleness is a fruit of the Spirit.
You do the truth wrongly when you speak improperly.
Its not Christ-like.
grace write randy,
Feel free to show me some grace here. If the two of you will review the comment stream carefully, I did not so much “fault” the method of interpretation, or “reject” its use as I sought to place it in the more limited parameters I’ve described. I think there’s a difference between saying, “This is wrong” and “This has its place, but we don’t want to overdo it.”
I’m not sure how to interpret your “nut cases” comment about those with no intelligence.
Randall,
You will be relieved to know that I do not disagree with the approach of Jesus on the Road to Emmaus, and I feel reasonably sure that Dean feels the same way.
Here’s another link that takes a crack at this discussion. I assure you that the people mentioned here, including Dr. Eric Hankins, Dr. Jason Allen, Dr. Walter Kaiser and others, could not possibly be characterized as the “nut cases” lacking intelligence that Randy mentioned.
http://sbctoday.com/2012/10/18/jason-allen-and-the-gospel-project/
Rick,
I’ve read Jason Allen (and he’s not making the case SBC Today portrays him making), and I’ve read virtually everything Kaiser has written. Kaiser does not completely disagree with with Christotelic and redemptive-historical presuppositions…especially if you read some of his more recent articles.
Again, have you read Enns, Beale, Moo, Marshall, or Carson on this issue?
And, to be clear, I did not call anyone a “nut-case” or question anyone’s intelligence, so it is unnecessary to associate me with those pejoratives.
Randall and Randy, I do not want this to become a debate that is heated but you claim I ignored a comment that I plainly addressed. You are the ones who are ignoring comments. Jesus did use this means, the author of Hebrews used it more than any NT writer. MY POINT IS THAT I HOLD OT FORESHADOWING TO THIS STANDARD- DID A NT WRITER IDENTIFY IT AS SUCH. I have not rejected what Jesus did but I do not care to listen to you or Chandler or anyone else use typology that is not mentioned as such in the NT. If we want to list hermeunitic books that use this standard I will walk to my study and list several. Off the top of my head Duvall and Hayes, Stewart and Fee are proponents of such.
Dean,
If you had bothered to actually read the quarter on the OT you would know that the GP writers in no way violated this principle.
As a pastor who has both read and taught every GP lesson to date, I can tell you that you are falsely accusing your brothers in Christ.
You’ve obviously made up your mind, so I’ll leave you to it.
Randall, you have obviously have made up your mind. You asked a question as if I am from Mars. I will answer your question with a question – answer with integrity- is GP committed to author intent? From my reading they are not. The well known David and Goliath lesson is committed to author intent? The stated goal of GP means author’s intent is not an issue. To me it is a matter of core principles of interpretation. On this issue I am a one string banjo it’s the only note I can play.
Dean,
I answered that above. I’m not sure how I can answer your question with any more clarity, but I do recognize what is insinuated by the way you framed the question the second time…
I’ve both read and taught every single lesson. You, on the other hand, have not even bothered to read the OT quarter.
Your contention that the “stated goal of the GP means authorial intent is not an issue” is simply not accurate.
I see no point in continuing this conversation unless and until you bother to inform yourself.
Remember that authorial intention includes not only the intention of the original writer but also the intention of the Holy Spirit who inspired them to write. In my view, it is a greater error to miss Christ in the texts where he is than to find him where he is not.
I am stunned.
Perhaps it should be noted here that the redemptive-historical presupposition is part of the larger Apostolic hermeneutic, not necessarily a hermenutical approach unto itself.
But one cannot read the NT without recognizing that both Jesus and the Apostles viewed all of the OT as redemptive history.
Perhaps Rick and Dean are making a categorical error here.
Or perhaps someone else just doesn’t realize that good, Christ honoring people have a slightly different way of looking at this hermeneutic.
Rick,
Let’s not make this personal.
Why not just deal with my arguments?
Rick,
What do you personally find lacking in the RH method that is found in the Order of Salvation approach?
Randall, it would be interesting to see what Rick’s read other than what video he’s watched. I’ve not watched Matt Chandler. Graeme Goldsworthy’s According to Plan is about all I can drudge through as a layman. It sure did help me understand my Bible better. I imagine the kickback is due in large part to classic dispensationalism, though he’d have to say that himself. All I know is I never heard about covenants growing up SBC. The Old Testament was preached to give moral examples or, strangely enough, pulled out for July 4th sermons (which didn’t make sense due to having a dispensationalist pastor).
Dave,
I’m part of the problem, as I really only post when someone writes something that makes me angry. Usually I simply lurk.
I do think that strong moderation would be a good idea on any post where you expect the sort of exchanges you are describing. Also, you might contact the repeat offenders with examples of the sort of things you wish to avoid.
I do know that I have gotten into exchanges with certain folks where I simply couldn’t give them the last word, because of the confrontational nature of that “last word”. In those cases closing the comments is a blessing.
You do have folks who tend to cast offensive generalities as rhetorical devices (e.g. not lovers of truth) and this sort of thing should be avoided and moderated.
Self-control would be needed on your part to make sure you moderate opposing positions fairly.
If you stop comments on the issues that gather the most comments, you will lose readership and therefore lose some of the “voice” your blog currently enjoys. I’m not saying that pragmatism should be your guide.
Little good and much harm has probably been done in these discussions. It does seem that hearts are harder as a result…
Donald
Legitimate points, Donald, and I have been warned often that moderating comments will lower our readership. And there is certainly a little bit of that.
But, the fall off is not really that great. What happens, I believe, is that serious people who want to have serious discussions about ministry topics are driven away by the Pitbull Brigade who only wish to fight the Calvinism wars.
Well, definitely, David, do some moderating, when someone get out of hand, out of order, and becomes mean and hateful. Most of us realize that we do do that sometime. Both sides of the coin has its pitbulls. John Wesley’s sermon rejecting calvinism is a pitbull example from the Arminian side, but his letter in his journal attempting to respond honestly to Whitefield’s effort at placating without compromising is also one of the remarkable examples of trying to do what is right. What our ancestors and predecessors did in opening up the lists to differences and variations without conceding the crucial principles of the faith is to provide for an opportunity to grow and develop, to change and adapt. In fact, such allowances are built into the Christian Faith. As one whose life has been devoted to the study of ideas and how they affect and effect human behavior, I conclude from vast readings and researches and reflections that the ideas or the Christan and biblical revelation are so constructed as to encourage believers to think, to reason, even to argue with God in rational discourse and dialogue.
I, for example, believe there is an intellectual interpretation to Holy Scripture, one that is suprational, allowing for a digital, two-sidedness and apparently contradictory structure to doctrines which will enable and empower the individual believer to grow and develop, to think and to change, to become the mature person and servant of God that is God’s best advertisement for the Christian Faith. There are depths to the biblical revelation which have been grasped in times past by believers, one of whom was the Pilgrim pastor, John Robinson, a participant by the way in the Synod of Dordt, who asked a thought provoking question: “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word?”
His question or statement (I forget which way it was actually put) is provocative of awareness that there are depths to the Book that we have yet to sound, depths and/ or heights that we will come to appreciate only as we garner more knowledge and perspectives with and from which to view what the Book is saying, Behind such statements lies those six years of research in church history and two years on the Greek text of I Cors.13, a background which stood me in good stead when I tried to wrestle with the reality of the calvinists/traditionalists (as the group that would allow the latter to arise) of the Separatist Baptists having eldresses in a day when they would not question the word of God written. I have to laugh at the thought that the Lord has often confirmed to me the reality of many things that I have done by proof after the fact.
For example, to find out that the mother of a friend from my youth went on to found a church which she gave to Southern Baptists and the local association told her that it would never be acknowledge that she had founded it. I have seen an interior of the structure, apparently designed for Bible study during preaching, for that congregation, I think. David, this will get me in trouble with the Calvinist Reformed folks, so you should appreciate it, but that woman preached the truths of Sovereign Grace which she learned in studying Arthur Pink’s Sovereignty of God. I lost a lot of friends, when I gave an address as chairman of the Historical Committee of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina on the subject, “The Genius of Orthodoxy: Eldresses.” I gave that address in 1985. I never knew the facts about my friend’s mother until 2009-10-11.
Everyone is scared to death of theology, especially the biblically based kind. However, the Book has built in correctives, means by which the Ultimate Author corrects the reader and brings him or her to maturity, to balance.
How about we add a “I commit that I have prayed for God’s blessings on each commenter above me” box to the comment box? As in, you either take the time to pray for each name on that list before you comment or you don’t comment?
And still planning on shutting the stream off at 125 comments or 5 days, whichever comes first, for every post. If it gets to 125 and is still productive and edifying (from your subjective view, but it’s generally pretty obvious) then it can get an indulgence for an extension. But then it’s done: extend it 25 more or so, then cut if off. If there’s more to be said, then that commenter can submit to you a post expressing themselves clearly and ask that it be posted.
That is a remarkably good idea, Doug.
Dear Doug: I make it a point in my morning prayer and devotional time to mention the names of many who write on this blog, including, for instance, yours, David’s, Tony, Rick Patrick, CB Scott, Bob Hadley, and others, many others. I am praying also that every one will get a burden and a desire to pray and will pray that we might have another visitation of God such as we had in the First and Second Great Awakenings and at other times in our history and however we title them.
It is a little short of amazing to read that some are apparently really seriously bent on getting rid of the Calvinists/Sovereign Grace believers in the SBC, when they were the original authors of the mission movement and the early institutions and the organization of the state conventions and the SBC itself. In fact, one cannot find a Traditionalist as President until the 20th century. As one who has studied our history and whose roots go all the way back to the beginning in the 1700s, if that Holland Middleton who was appointed to execute the will of Daniel Marshall is one of my ancestors, on one side, and Craigs on the other side, not to mention Willinghams, Bankstons, Kemps, etc., I was somewhat depressed. Made me feel that there was more to the rumor that the Traditionalists are getting ready to put on the full court press and kick the successors and descendants of the original founders out. So I went to bed, slept soundly and awakened with the thought: They cannot succeed except God allows it. If He does it will be for a good reason, and in the end Truth will still win, a Third Great Awakening that continues for a 1000 generations and every last soul on earth and millions of planets as the elect of God to fulfill the great cause for laughter in Rev.7:9 (No one can number).
I could have reason for bitterness, when I think of the deprivations of my whole life, the loss of both parents in childhood, the move from the farm to the city (which as any farm boy would say, “I hated.”), the disenchantments of life due to Atheism, then came Jesus and knocked at my door, and though there would be and have been and will be many more disappointing and even grievous problems, the confidence that God’s gift in the end will make the sufferings of this present age not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed.
I am sorry for David and his bitterness and negativity. In fact, I grieve for him, such being the case, and I pray for God to turn matters around for his soul’s sake for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I haven’t been following this blog very long, but here are my thoughts.
Have you learned anything significant from the discussion threads for those posts?
No
Have you changed your position in any way because of the discussions (or known of someone else who changed theirs)?
No
Have you been built up and encouraged by your involvement in these discussions?
No
Have the discussions advanced understanding, unity or knowledge in any way?
No
In other words, have our discussions of Calvinism served ANY purpose of eternal significance?
I highly doubt it.
If not, why keep going?
Exactly.
I think we began going downhill when the writing of books to defend different doctrinal stances became a way to gain popularity and prominence. And the blogosphere is no different, except that it allow anyone to attempt to become an expert overnight. I think the POSTS might still be a useful way to pursue the discussion, but the comments seem pretty useless.
Perhaps you should consider letting readers send their comments to the author of the post though. That way if he desired to read them, he could at least glean something from the critiques of his post, but people could not engage in endless haggling.
That’s my 2 cents anyway.
Worth at least a nickel. Maybe a dime! Thanks, Bob.
I still think having in-depth discussions of pertinent texts in their contexts would be helpful. It is amazing how uniting that can be. There would need to be discussion of definition of terms and hermeneutic principles before we get to actual texts, but there are serious issues that need to be considered exegetically.
Rick,
You state:
That is a particularly ungracious representation of Chandler’s video, and it has been refuted rather effectively several times, as I’m sure you are aware.
So Rick, I ask you again: Have you read the Winter ’12 quarterly of the GP on the OT?
If you are going to publicly and specifically fault the GP for being in error, doesn’t Christian integrity require that you be able to cite specific instances of their error?
As an aside, as I noted below, the redemptive-historical presupposition is part of the larger Apostolic hermeneutic. You may be making a categorical error in identifying it as the redemptive-historical hermeneutic if you do not recognize that there are additional presuppositions governing the overall Apostolic hermeneutic.
And again, does it not give you pause that both Christ and the Apostles clearly viewed the OT as redemptive history–even to the extent that it weighed heavily in their preaching?
Randall and Rick,
I didn’t call any of those people “nut-cases.” Actually, “nut-case” is the kindest description of the people I am describing. It is not pejorative at all. I am not suggesting that everyone who approaches the Scriptures differently is a nut case. What I am suggesting is that some who are merely parroting what they read, rather than studying the issues themselves, need to wait until they have studied the issue thoroughly before weighing in on it.
“…some who are merely parroting what they read, rather than studying the issues themselves, need to wait until they have studied the issue thoroughly before weighing in on it.”
That’s a nugget of exceptionally good sense.
Randy,
Under the assumption that you meant others not posting here, why even bother to run these others down? What purpose does it serve? And do you not see how in a disagreement such remarks could be taken personally by those you are disagreeing with?
There are nut jobs in all matters but why even mention them?
Have some empathy for the brothers you are disputing with by not giving them any cause to make a theological discussion a fleshly one. If they think you are throwing stones, they might lob some your way.
Thanks.
Parson,
I mentioned them because they are there. I think people need to be warned against listening to those who clearly don’t even clearly understand what they are opposing.
Parson,
I am used to dodging stones. I am not throwing stones at anyone.
Rick,
I agree the method can be and has abused. I am probably referring to anyone you know when I refer to “nut-cases.” I am not intending to be pejorative in the use of this term. One person in particular I am thinking about is clearly on the lunatic fringe.
For decades, the typological approach to the OT fell into a state of disrepute because people had abused it. Within the last thirty years or so, its validity has begun to be recognized again. Perhaps, it has begun to be abused again. I have some good friends I believe have taken it too far. Still, I think it would be a mistake to go to the other extreme again.
Please forgive me if I gave the impression by my “nut case” comment that I was including those involved in serious scholarship.
Randy,
No problema. Is that how they say it in Costa Rica?
No hay problema. You were really close. Do you speak Spanish?
Muy poquito. A week from Sunday I’ll be preaching in Mexico…and praying that my translator is a better preacher than I am.
Rick,
Where are you going in MX? It is always nice to have a translator who can fix up your sermon for you.
Aguascalientes. We’re looking forward to it.
Rick,
I have never stopped there, but have driven past several times. I wish you well. Be careful. I am sure you know Mexico is not the safest place on earth now. The Mexican people, as are most Latins are very loving people. I will pray for your ministry there.
Dean,
As you know, the method of typological interpretation you describe was proposed by Herbert Marsh. In an Appendix to a book I wrote on Hebrews several years ago, I suggested a different approach to the issue. I would be interested in your responses to it. If you are interested in reading it, send me your email address and I will send it to you. rseiver1@hotmail.com