I have been breaking one of my rules lately. I have…gulp of shame…been reading far too many comment threads on blogs. Even worse these blog posts have been about…choking down the shame of broken resolve…Calvinism.
While indulging the part of my brain that lacks sound judgment, I have witnessed a common thread. This thread presents itself as a forceful suggestion that Calvinist’s should be upfront and honest about their Calvinism and intentions of “reforming the church” in the interview process.
I figure those that mention this have a couple of different scenarios in their mind. One scenario would have the search committee, unfortunately, not mention the C word. To this the young, restless, and reformed brother gets a wry smile, closes up his Bible, leaves the interview process, gets on Founders.org and begins to plot his path to world dominance.
The second scenario has the search committee actually asking the dreaded question of Calvinism. Here the Calvinistic pastor starts to sweat, shifts in his seat, and comes up with an rather evasive answer about only following Jesus or the Bible or something like that. Of course he still goes home and gets on Founders.org and begins to figure out how to reform this dastardly church setting and make everyone bow a knee to JC (that’s for John Calvin).
I wish that those two scenarios were as ridiculous as I have written them. But the truth is, caricatures are often present because of at least a seed of reality.
So, it seems that in response to these silly scenarios–rather real or imagined–Calvinists ought to lay their cards out on the table in the interview process. In this they should present to the search committee their five year plan for turning the church into something that would make that stale painting of Calvin actually sprout a smile.
I disagree.
Why I Wish Everyone Was a Calvinist
Not that I think Calvinists should be in any way disingenuous. If a church asked a very pointed question, “boy, you plan on makin’ us one of them Calvinist churches”, then you ought to be honest and sincere. But there is another side to this…
I wish that every follower of Jesus was also a Calvinist.
And I would hope that my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters would wish the same thing of their own theologies.
I am a Calvinist because I believe that is what the Bible teaches. And as such I believe that being a Calvinist leads to more joy, better evangelism, better practices, a deeper relationship with Jesus, more passion, better marriages, etc.
I could care less if you call yourself a Calvinist, a biblicist, or Big Papa. At the end of the day I hope that you follow Jesus. But I, and feel free to throw darts on this one, believe that Calvin (at least in his soteriology) was biblically faithful to Jesus and his gospel. I hope you’d say the same thing about your beliefs.
It would be supremely unloving for me to be indifferent on this matter. I believe embracing the doctrines of grace leads to greater joy in Jesus. I want you to have that joy. Not joy that comes from John Calvin but that comes from a better understanding of the gospel. And I hope you’d say the same thing to me about your “system”.
But…
I’m also a Newtonian Calvinist
Being a “Newtonian Calvinist” in this regard means two things. First, it means that like Newton I believe that people come to embrace the doctrines of grace not through someone “beating notions in their head” but through experience.
After a young and seemingly arrogant Ryland wrote in his book of poetry that he “aimed to displease the Arminians”, Newton responded thus:
You say, I aimed to displease the Arminians, I had rather you had aimed to be useful to them, than to displease them. There are many Arminians who are so only for [lack] of clearer light. They fear the Lord, and walk humbly before him. And as they go on, by an increasing acquaintance with their own hearts and the word of God, their objections and difficulties gradually subside. And in the Lord’s time (for he is the only effectual teacher) they receive the doctrines of grace which they were once afraid of.
The worst type of Calvinist are those that have “notions too hastily picked up, when not sanctified by grace, nor balanced by a proportional depth of spiritual experience”. Even if you did convince someone of the truth of Calvinism but they did not have a proportionate experience then you’ve probably just created that miserable and mostly unhelpful creature we call a caged-Calvinist.
The second thing, my job as a believer is to love my brothers and sisters in Christ and not to “beat notions in their head”. As Newton said in a letter to the Rev. Mr. Whitford:
I allow that every branch of gospel truth is precious, that errors are abounding, and that it is our duty to bear an honest testimony to what the Lord has enabled us to find comfort in, and to instruct with meekness such as are willing to be instructed; but I cannot set it my duty, nay, I believe it would be my sin, to attempt to beat notions into other people’s heads.
This means that while I heartily wish that you embrace the doctrines of grace I also know that it’s not my job or responsibility to bring that about. I want to preach the truth (in as much as a finite sinner like myself is able), rest in grace, and love you like Jesus; that is my job.
Conclusion
I will not shy away from preaching and teaching what I believe about Calvinism. Or as Newton said, “to bear an honest testimony to what the Lord has enabled us to find comfort in, and to instruct with meekness such as are willing to be instructed”. But at the end of the day I am not going to argue at length about Calvinism.
I want every person that God has “put under my charge” to embrace the doctrines of grace. But even if they do not I still hope to graciously and lovingly provide for them safe pasture. And that “safe pasture” is found in embracing Jesus not the doctrines of grace.
This is why if asked in an interview whether I want to “change the church into Calvinist” I’d struggle with how to answer. Not because I want to be deceptive, but because it’s partially true, but not because I want to serve Calvin. I would want them to embrace the doctrines of grace because I believe it will provide them more joy and God more glory.
Read more: http://www.mikeleake.net/
I thought being a Newtonian Calvinist meant you had gravity?
Or perhaps that Adam and Eve didn’t pick the apple, but that it fell on their heads first.
The very reasonable Mike Leake: “…I believe that being a Calvinist leads to more joy, better evangelism, better practices, a deeper relationship with Jesus, more passion, better marriages, etc.”
This is why it appears to me (and others, though I am perfectly willing to be isolated in this instance if I am the only one who gets this impression) that Calvinists, no doubt unintentially, express a second blessing soteriology, you get saved then you get baptized into Calvinism.
William,
I wouldn’t necessarily say “second blessing” in some sort of Keswick sense but I do think that what has happened for many “converts” to Calvinism that what is really happening is a deeper understanding of grace. (That’s not to say that non-Calvinists don’t understand grace). And in my opinion I believe it is a better understanding of the gospel. (I hope you would say the same of your own position). And thus the better understanding and grasp that I have on the gospel the better my joy, evangelism, practices, relationship, passion, marriage, etc. is going to be.
I’m flummoxed on this. Calvinists regularly complain of being criticized for arrogance (something you have never displayed, btw) yet persist in language that virtually guarrantees more of the same. Why use “convert” to Calvinism even if you use quotation marks as you did above?
I said “convert” because to convert simply means to change. May not be the best word. That’s why I put the quotation marks around it. I’d be happy to adopt any helpful suggestions that you have.
William are there no truths you have discovered about grace, about the whole process of salvation or about Christ or the Holy Spirit that brought you “more joy, better evangelism, better practices, a deeper relationship with Jesus, more passion, better marriages, etc” so that you want to teach and preach them and see the people in your church embrace them as well? If there are (and surely there are), would you say of yourself that you advocate a second blessing soteriology where “you get saved and then you get baptized into _______?”
Do you realize that your question is precisely what I would expect from one of the charismatics?
I would state that I have grown in grace. I would not state that I have discovered the joys of Calvinism.
If one were to give Mike’s article to a pulpit committee, what do you think they would make of it?
“There are many Arminians who are so only for [lack] of clearer light.”
Newton’s statement here is arrogant and unhelpful to the whole SBC Calvinism debate. He’s suggesting that people who aren’t Calvinists are so becaues they’re stupid and ignorant. 😉
Andrew: How would you explain someone who holds to infant baptism? Do you think they are right? Obviously not. Do you think that they are stupid and ignorant? I would hope not? So what then? Is it possible that God has not shown them the truth? (or however you want to define “lack of clearer light”). I think you are jumping to the worst possible reading of a man who is trying to be gracious to those he thinks are theologically wrong.
Mike,
You wrote, “This thread presents itself as a forceful suggestion that Calvinist’s should be upfront and honest about their Calvinism and intentions of “reforming the church” in the interview process…So, it seems that in response to these silly scenarios–rather real or imagined–Calvinists ought to lay their cards out on the table in the interview process. I disagree.”
I disagree.
I too have read and written on this issue. It is a FACT that there are a number of churches in the SBC that are not aware of the ramifications of this issue and I am sure you are thankful for that. What are the chances of a Reformed Church hiring a non-Reformed pastor? None. Why? They understand the ramifications.
I would have NO desire to attempt to pastor a Reformed Church. I wish that a Reformed pastor would not want to pastor a non-Reformed church. To fail to disclose one’s theological predisposition to a church KNOWING that their position was markedly different from their own is in my opinion very deceptive on the part of the party that KNOWS better. If a church misrepresented its financial status to a prospective pastor and that pastor moved his family to the church only to find out that in 3 months there would be no money to pay his salary, that would be inexcusable.
I would say that a prospective pastor who was “gay-friendly” in his theology would be misrepresenting himself if he did not disclose that fact to a potential church… but since he knows he would not get the position because the “church had the wrong ideas about his theological position” he keeps it to himself. The same thing could be said of a number of theological positions, which SHOULD include the precious Doctrines of Grace..
To refuse to make this clear on the front end, when it is absolutely clear in the prospect’s mind, ought to be absolutely unacceptable in anyone’s book… it is great to have convictions as long as you are willing to share those convictions BEFORE becoming a pastor or staff member of a church not so keen on those convictions.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
So Bob, should Reformed Churches (or at least those with a good chunk of their members being Reformed) not want to support the mostly non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist Convention cooperative fund?
Should potential IMB candidates who are Reformed not want to be hired by the IMB, a mostly non-Calvinistic organization to do overseas missions?
Should Calvinists who seek to plant Church not do so through NAMB?
Should we just throw out the BF&M as our central document of cooperation and instead re-write it to be closed to Calvinists?
Because these seem to be the implications of what you are saying.
Additionally, where does the Holy Spirit fit into your scenario? Can the Holy Spirit not call a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist church?
Finally, to try to compare “gay-friendly” pastors to Calvinistic ones is ridiculous, dishonoring to Christ, and disrespectful to your brothers in Christ (or have you forgotten that we are your brothers and sisters in Christ?).
Um, don’t be surprised if Bob says yes to most of your questions.
DR…
Your comment above the statement, “Because these seem to be the implications of what you are saying.” makes absolutely no sense. I NEVER made one single reference to ANY of the statements you just threw in for good measure. Sorry…
“Additionally, where does the Holy Spirit fit into your scenario? Can the Holy Spirit not call a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist church?” Honesty for one… up front.
“Finally, to try to compare “gay-friendly” pastors to Calvinistic ones is ridiculous, dishonoring to Christ, and disrespectful to your brothers in Christ (or have you forgotten that we are your brothers and sisters in Christ?).”
I did NOT compare “gay-friendly” pastors to Calvinist ones… nice try. My point was that when either interview not disclosing their SIGNIFICANT differences in theology, they are equally deceptive in their representation of their respective positions, which WAS the thrust of Mike’s article.
><>”
Sorry. The “gay-friendly” comment was out of line and needs to be apologized for.
All the other points that you raised were legitimate however.
Bob,
Terrific job of sidestepping the Holy Spirit question. You should be a politician. And I agree with Job – you should apologize for your comments linking gay-friendly pastors and Calvinists.
And Calvinists ARE NOT being deceptive simply because they don’t address their soteriology up front. If they try to hide it when asked, then yes. But if it doesn’t come up, that’s not deception.
@D.R. Randle:
There is a difference between convention level cooperation and a local church, especially in a convention built on the local church being autonomous and under the headship of Jesus Christ, and merely cooperating in a convention for the sake of missions and similar. So, it is entirely appropriate for autonomous congregation to act in a manner that is consistent with its theology and unity by having doctrinal standards.
On the other hand, if this church is going to be a member of a convention, it should support the convention. If a Particular Baptist church chooses to be a member of a mostly non-Particular Baptist Convention, then it should not boycott IMB, NAMB, BFM2000 etc. over Particular Baptist theology. It should not act as a schismatic, strife sowing, confusion generating agent. Is there some lack of Particular Baptist denominations/conventions? Or with existence as an independent Baptist church? Those would be much preferable to acting in the manner that you described.
There is a big difference between a local church refusing to hire aParticular Baptist pastor, and a Particular Baptist church refusing to cooperate with his General Baptist brethren in the SBC (as the Bible commands such cooperation) over Particular Baptist doctrine. Particular Baptists who believe Particular Baptist distinctives to be a primary issue should seek like fellowship. Those who believe that it is a secondary or tertiary issues should seek to be an equal partner and supporter with everyone in the SBC that they agree with on the primary issues.
A church searching for a new pastor should also be honest and upfront about their theological leaning to pastoral candidates before they reach the interview table. A young SBC Calvinist pastor in our area did a remarkable thing a few months ago … he painted “Reformed” on the bottom of his church sign! Now all new staff applicants, as well as prospective members, know exactly who they are and can exercise their free will accordingly. Perhaps this would be a relatively easy fix to prevent awkward moments during the interview card game. The 90+% SBC churches which would be considered non-Reformed would have no need to alter their signs.
Bob: You removed a crucial part of his quote, condensed it, and then disagreed with your edited version of his statement. That’s a bit of a foul in my opinion.
William, you are the one who used the phrase “baptized into” of the Calvinist and “grow in grace” for yourself. Why are they excluded from the same consideration. And your statement “that is what I would have …” is preposterous. I remember being in a Bible college library reading from Ephesians with Kenneth Wuest’s word study and finding out the meaning of “earnest of the Spirit.” I went to every table in the library telling people what I had found. Do you think I was trying to “convert” people into a particular view of the Holy Spirit? I will ask you this way, “Has your growth in grace not included the discovery of new truths about Christ, about grace, about salvation that changed you and caused you to want to see others embrace them as well?”
To your earlier comment to me I asked, “Do you realize that your question is precisely what I would expect from one of the charismatics?”
You didn’t answer but then I didn’t provide context. There was a time when charismatics (as in tongue speakers) were more common in SBC churches. Their approach to the non-glossalaliasts who were in church with them was along the lines of what you asked me…but never mind.
I admit to using provocative language. Have you not read voluntary testimonies from Calvinists that sounded like conversion? They are regular fare in these discussions. I don’t think they are helpful to Calvinists at all.
I use ‘growing in grace’ partly because that is the biblical language. ‘Embracing the doctrines of grace’ is not but rather the common, current euphemism for becoming a Calvinist. I don’t object to it but neither should my Calvinist brethren object when it is reacted to with raised eyebrows.
Most of us come to a fuller understanding of grace. That isn’t a concept exclusive to Calvinists.
You may have put your finger on it with your last sentence. Calvinists may certainly be evangelists for Calvinism, so much so that anything deficient on that is looked at with suspicion, even disdain. That’s too bad because I think folks like Dave Miller, Mike Leake (for the body of his comments on SBCV) , and D. R. (the only one here that I have actually met and had conversations) are very good folks and a credit to the SBC.
But, no, I doubt I have ever described growing in grace in terms that anyone would mistake for a conversion experience. I hope I never do.
William I really don’t get it here. I agree that there are people who speak of Calvinism as if it were a conversion. So are there people who discovered Bill Gothard years ago; People who discovered Experiencing God; People who discovered Bible study; People who discovered Beth Moore; … All of us who are helped in our walk with God have a desire that others be helped as well. Those who have found the sovereignty of God prominently placed in Scripture in ways that profoundly affect the way they look at God, sin, themselves, evangelism, grief, injustice, etc. naturally believe that others might be helped as well if they were given the chance. In the same way people who believe in apostasy might benefit from “conversion” to eternal security or those who are “name it and claim it” folk might benefit from a “conversion” to trusting in God’s wisdom. I, for one, don’t give a rip if people become Calvinists in any formal sense or with 5 points. But if they really get it about sin – Jesus said they would live Him more. If they comprehend the nature of God’s love it will profoundly affect them. If they understand His purpose for them they will find a richness in their trust in Him that they will not otherwise. If they understand the real nature of conversion they will not be deceived by view of saving faith which does not include the necessity of a radical change of mind, heart and life. I do want them to “embrace” what the Bible teaches and if they do that they will more fully honor its author and experience a more rich, joyous and fruitful Christian life as they make their way home. And I don’t mean embrace what the Bible teaches about “Calvinism.”
Mike, after reading the first part of your article, I was really hoping that you would address the problems with the caricatures you initially presented. I think that would be a worth discussion.
Unfortunately, in every scenario where Calvinism is discussed in relation to pulpit committees, it is assumed that they are trying to hide something and that something is sweeping change they will eventually bring to the congregation.
Let’s be honest – every pastor that comes to a new Church wants to bring some change and if we all laid our cards out on the table as to what changes we would implement, it would cause issues in the pulpit committee’s assessment.
Secondly, let’s talk about “what changes” most non-Calvinists worry about. Mostly, it revolves around the implementation of elders. But the reality is that many (if not most) Calvinists are not seeking to bring elders to the local congregation to which they are called. So do these Calvinists need to bring up their Calvinism if they do not want to bring elder-led polity to the Church?
In the end, conflict often arises between pastors and their new congregations regardless of soteriology. On a daily basis there are literally hundreds of Churches in the US who find themselves embroiled in controversy with their pastor. It’s going to happen.
And the answer isn’t more information in the hiring process – it’s more Spirit-led decisions on the part of both pulpit committees and new pastors. If we’d walk by the Spirit like we are called to do by Paul in Galatians, then we wouldn’t gratify the desires of the flesh, which he points our are in fact rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and factions. And if we are honest, we all know that’s the real source of conflict in the Church, not soteriology.
I totally agree. I think you add a very helpful facet to this article. Thanks for your addition to this discussion.
Oh… and theology concerning how a person actually comes to Christ is not a significant issue. Sorry, seems like that ought to be something to “disclose in advance.”
><>”
And that, Bob, is the bottom-line for mainstream Southern Baptists.
What is a “mainstream Southern Baptist?” Normally, when I see that term, the definition seems to be “people who agree with me.”
It is code for “non-Calvinists”.
From Dictionary.com, “mainstream”: belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.
The principal, dominant and widely accepted “style” of 90+% Southern Baptists would be adherence to non-Reformed/non-Calvinist theology, particularly in regard to how people come to Christ as Bob has pointed out.
Again, you are saying that mainstream Baptists are those who are like you, right?
Often the mainstream is wrong …
People come to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Then we need to throw out the BF&M and start over with the article on soteriology?
Because if it is that significant, then we shouldn’t be together for the sake of missions.
You wrote, “Because if it is that significant, then we shouldn’t be together for the sake of missions.”
So… do I hear you saying that “how a person comes to Christ” is not a significant issue? I don’t think you like my position on soteriology any more than I like yours. (That has absolutely NOTHING to do with our loving one another… )
But to go back to the point of Mike’s article, which I am trying to stick to in this thread, he said in his closing comment, “I would want them to embrace the doctrines of grace because I believe it will provide them more joy and God more glory.”
The purpose of my comments here are simple… just be upfront with a church BEFORE becoming their pastor with your position on the Doctrines of Grace. How difficult can that be??????
><>”
Again Bob, you are dodging questions like a politician. It’s very simply Bob:
In your opinion, should we change the BF&M to exclude Calvinists?
I can work together with non-Calvinists – I do it every day as a pastor, as a servant in my local association, and as a part of the GBC and SBC.
The question I’d like you to answer is:
Can you work together with Calvinists?
How a person comes to Christ is the same for Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Repent, believe, confess.
Look, I hope every one of us would defend our theology in the way Mike has. He is a Calvinist because he believes that is what the Bible teaches. If that is the truth, then believing it will be a greater blessing than not believing it.
I can’t get away from the idea that a lot of the non-Calvinists are saying, “You can be a Calvinist as long as you don’t really believe it and don’t promote it.”
If the “doctrines of grace” are true, it will be a great blessing to those who discover them. If they are not true, then Calvinists are under a form of deception.
But some in this thread and others seem to be offended that a Calvinist would say, “I was blessed by discovering the truth of Calvinism.”
But Mike’s point seems to be that while he believes that Calvinism is a better way (if he’s a Calvinist, he should believe that) he wants to work in cooperation with those who hold a different position.
That is the heart of doctrinal triage. We passionately believe what we believe, but we also walk in fellowship and partnership with people who hold different views.
I think those who deny the ultimate sovereignty of God in salvation are wrong. But I don’t need to harass them, or to drive them from the SBC.
But please, non-Calvinists, if the basis of fellowship is, “Keep your Calvinism to yourself” – that will never work. Of course those who embrace Calvinism do so because they believe that this truth is a blessing.
Dave,
I am in FULL agreement with you… “But please, non-Calvinists, if the basis of fellowship is, “Keep your Calvinism to yourself” – that will never work. Of course those who embrace Calvinism do so because they believe that this truth is a blessing.”
My point is QUIT keeping it to yourself WHEN it is in your best interest to do so.
I have no idea what “Mainstream Southern Baptist” means to anyone. Never used the term myself.
><>”
The question about “mainstream Baptists” was directed at Max, who commented just below you.
I think this all goes back to Dan’s post last night – all Calvinists are not created equal.
I’m a Calvinist in general, but a) don’t buy the whole system of theology and b) it has never been my purpose to turn a church I’ve served into a “Reformed” church. In fact, I have two staff pastors. One is more Calvinistic than I am. The other is convinced Calvinists are from Mordor. We don’t make Calvinism a focus of the ministry or a point of fellowship.
If for no other reason than to head off the charge that Particular Baptists are seeking to infiltrate/change/destroy the SBC is commonly known, what is the harm or error in simply stating “I am a Particular Baptist” in response to a direct question, or with finding an appropriate way to volunteer that information if it is unasked?
Another question: Shouldn’t all the non-Calvinists be thrilled about the Acts 29 network? If there are reformed Baptist churches being planted (even if they are dually aligned), won’t there be pulpits for young reformed pastors. Then, Calvinists won’t have to keep candidating for non-C churches.
If the purpose is peaceful coexistence (which I am convinced is NOT the purpose for a lot of folks) then either we have to let Calvinists start churches, or we have to let them candidate for jobs in existing pulpits.
General Baptists (and I prefer “General Baptist” and “Particular Baptist” as opposed to “Calvinist”, “Reformed”, “majority”, “mainstream”, “Biblicist”, “Arminian” etc.) would feel better were Acts 29:
A. A Baptist group committed to advancing Baptist (Particular but still Baptist) distinctives instead of general evangelical Reformed theology
B. traditional as opposed to contemporary
C. If Driscoll (and many of his fellow travelers/defenders) didn’t represent some of the very most negative aspects of the YRR movement.
In a similar fashion, a lot of General SBCers would have little problem with Founders if there goal was merely to plant and support Particular Baptist SBC churches, as opposed to “reforming” the SBC itself.
That said, I agree with you to a point. Some of the anti-Particular personalities wage this war on both fronts, by opposing both Particular Baptist pastors seeking work in existing General Baptist churches, and the church-planting efforts of General Baptists. Such present both as a plot, conspiracy or a threat to take over the SBC. It is fair to say that such people aren’t interested in coexistence, peaceful or otherwise.
But SBC Particular Baptists that are interested in peaceful coexistence should promote the idea of alternative sources of support and funds for Particular SBC plants than Acts 29, and also from Tim Keller’s organizations. Instead of relying on Acts 29, Keller and similar, why cannot SBC Particular Baptists create their own church planting effort? Of course, the folks who are simply opposed to Particular Baptists in the SBC at all would accuse the Particular Baptists of undermining the NAMB, the CP and similar, but of course it is impossible to please people that are determined not to be pleased. Instead, removing Acts 29, Keller etc. from the table is a way to separate those who oppose Particular SBC churches from being planted at all to those who are merely opposed to figures like Driscoll and Keller influencing the SBC.
“then either we have to let Calvinists start churches, or we have to let them candidate for jobs in existing pulpits.”
Me thinks there may be some other options there!
><>”
If you oppose both Particular Baptist church plants and having Particular Baptist pastors hired in existing churches, it is incumbent upon you to articulate what those other options might be. Otherwise, any real coexistence between Particular and General Baptists in the SBC is impractical.
Other options like Calvinists leaving the SBC, right?
Isn’t this what you have advocated in your blog, Bob – that Calvinists should leave the SBC?
Some honestly don’t want to take the position that Particular Baptists should leave the SBC on one hand, but desire things that would make it impractical for a Particular Baptist to exist in the SBC as a Particular Baptist on the other. It would be helpful were such people merely confronted with – and held accountable for – that contradiction. Pastor Hadley may well have changed his mind over the need for Particular Baptists to leave the SBC, as Leslie Puryear did. (Then again, if he has not, then he does need to state that belief plainly.)
DR…
I have made NO such comments on my blog nor in any other. My comment above was a little “tongue in cheek” but there are other options.
I try to be very careful to say what I mean and not make statements about others that are not relevant to the current conversation… so in that way I don’t put words in other people’s mouths so to speak. Wish others would do the same. I may write something a little slanted to get attention but that is my intentional limit. Anything else is unintentional.
><>”
I request of you to articulate those other options.
Bob,
What happened to all those posts at your blog that I commented on? They aren’t there anymore. And it was in those that you wrote a post that essentially said, “it’s time for the Calvinists to leave and go start their own denomination, and we ought to step up and push them out now.” If you will tell me where those old posts are, I will show you exactly where I got what I wrote above.
Bob,
You can see below where I prove my assertions from the words of your former blog.
Mike,
You wrote: “I wish that every follower of Jesus was also a Calvinist.
And I would hope that my non-Calvinist brothers and sisters would wish the same thing of their own theologies.”
Okay, wish granted. Suppose a Search Team composed of non-Calvinists wishes every follower of Jesus was also a non-Calvinist. That would clearly include their next Pastor, to say the least.
What I do not understand, then, is this statement: “This is why if asked in an interview whether I want to ‘change the church into Calvinist’ I’d struggle with how to answer.” Stop struggling! Tell them “yes” so they can tell you “no.”
By rejecting your candidacy, they are doing exactly what you want: wishing that every follower of Jesus (and especially those who unite with their fellowship including their next pastor) was united with them in espousing the truths they hold dear.
Rick,
In your scenario I would not be struggling. If they clearly understand Calvinism and are adamantly opposed to the doctrine and they pointedly asked me that question and what they meant by “change the church into Calvinist” was the same thing I mean as outlined in this article.
Where I would struggle with that question is if it is unclear what is meant by either Calvinism or “change the church”. Because if they mean “agenda” and not participate or beat notions in other people’s heads then I clearly don’t want to “change” the church.
Honestly if asked these questions I’d hopefully respond much the way I did in this article. Ask questions try to make sure we mean the same thing and then clearly outline my position.
Rick, you also wrongly assume that just because someone wants everyone to believe like them, necessarily means that they also only want to be led by people who believe like them. I’m a Calvinist who pastors largely a non-Calvinist church… and they knew it when they voted me in. Now, I don’t know they would have voted in a 5-point Calvinist. It seemed that limited atonement was the biggest issue. I think this is the biggest issue Southern Baptists have with Calvinism, IMO.
I believe one reason it would be a struggle talking to a church committee about Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace is because of the ridiculous rhetoric that has been disseminated by pastors and leaders in the SBC. I would bet that many of the folks in the pew don’t know anything about the actual doctrines, but they know the SBC “party line” about Calvinists, which includes:
1) they don’t believe in missions
2) they don’t believe in evangelism
3) they don’t believe in “whosoever will . . .”
I have had SBC folks describe the church I currently serve this way. Of course, they’ve never been to the church & don’t know anything about it, but they’re simply regurgitating the party line.
I think this would make it very difficult in talking to a search committee made up of people who know very little theology.
That’s a great point Cal, and one that no one who calls for Calvinists to be “honest” wants to discuss. If those who aggressively oppose Calvinism can poison the term, then certainly they would call for us to be “honest” because then they could be sure that no committee would want to call an unBiblical, non-evangelistic, hater of missions and people, who is hell-bent on changing the Church to elder rule and ending congregationalism. By the way, I wouldn’t call that kind of guy either and I am a 5 point Calvinist.
BOB HADLEY:
Direct question:
In your opinion, should a Calvinist pastor ever lead a non-Calvinist SBC Church?
Why or why not?
If a non-Calvinist church knowingly called a Calvinist pastor… sure. In his statement just above yours, Rick nailed my thoughts to the tee… “Okay, wish granted. Suppose a Search Team composed of non-Calvinists wishes every follower of Jesus was also a non-Calvinist. That would clearly include their next Pastor, to say the least.
What I do not understand, then, is this statement: “This is why if asked in an interview whether I want to ‘change the church into Calvinist’ I’d struggle with how to answer.” Stop struggling! Tell them “yes” so they can tell you “no.”
Why is it that NO ONE comments on a Reformed church calling a non-Reformed Pastor… it is because they KNOW better. You guys all KNOW that many non-Calvinist churches have NO IDEA what we are all discussing here… and the ramifications of it to their church. This notion that Reformed Theology is Christianity is fine for those who want to accept it… but not so fine for those who don’t and PLEASE stop acting as if you have no idea what I am talking about.
That is a little condescending. I KNOW you KNOW better.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>”
So Bob,
Would the whole Church have to knowingly call a Calvinist or just the search committee?
Would there have to be education sessions on Calvinism at the Church?
Seems like a lot for a pastor who is in full agreement with the BF&M.
And what would the ramifications be for a Church who called a Calvinistic pastor, Bob? Seems like you have some things in mind here.
And in your opinion is Reformed Theology not Christian, Bob? Is it heterodoxy Bob? Is it even beyond the purview of the BF&M?
And I’m not sure how you can keep comparing Reformed Churches who choose to call a Reformed pastor to non-Calvinistic Churches who have NO statement of determination in this regard. It’s one thing to have an exclusive Confession that requires a particular viewpoint. It’s quite another thing to have an inclusive confession (BF&M) and require a particular viewpoint that goes beyond that Confession. Those are apples and oranges Bob.
For instance, if a Church confession says that one must hold to Premillennial Dispensationalism, then they would need to call someone who held that view. But if they don’t make that congregational requirement, then excluding on that basis seems to indicate an unnecessary bias.
Finally, let’s skip the drama, shall we? Whatever condescension you might feel here is unwarranted in light of your comments above comparing gay-friendly pastors to Calvinists.
Still waiting on your take on the Holy Spirit, Bob. Does He play no role in the pastor search process? Or is it just that He matters less than soteriology?
Or it could simply be that if the >10% of Particular Baptist churches were to hire General Baptist pastors, in short order there will be no Particular Baptist churches.
We know this from the history of the SBC. Initially, the vast majority of SBC churches and seminaries were Particular Baptist. Those churches and seminaries hired General Baptist pastors and professors, and after awhile those Particular Baptist churches and seminaries became General Baptist churches and seminaries, including Southern Seminary, which became so despite its charter.
So, if the existence of Particular Baptist churches in the SBC is tenuous, reasonable steps have to be taken to protect that existence.
Now I am not saying that you are necessarily WRONG in your theory, only meeting your challenge by presenting a reasonable alternative one.
DR
I could not comment on the post above… to my knowlege we have not engaged in a converation on my blog. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
The thrust of my comments dealing with Calvinism on other blogs are more focused on the influence that Calvinism now has in a decidedly non-Calvinist denomination. That continued degree of influence is already having its effect in churches. I am unapologetically for a change there… but am not an advocate of “running anyone off.” My major position is that the majority needs to know what is taking place and let them do what they want to do about it.
><>”
Bob,
Finally found the old blog. When I get a chance I will find the statements I was mentioned above.
http://daytonawestside.blogspot.com/
By the way, sorry you don’t remember me, but a quick look on your old website will show a number of conversations we had.
Bob,
Here are a few key quotes from your former website that are alarming to me and back up what I said earlier about your desire not to cooperate with Calvinists and desire to get us out of the convention:
from the post “Calvinism in the SBC” you write,
…To the Calvinist, man has no say in his salvation unless it is given to him FIRST by God. Again, if that is what someone wants to believe, that is fine; just get out of SBC leadership and stop taking up funds given by people in the pew to throw this theological garbage back in their faces.
You continue:
…There are a lot of things I can agree to disagree on; how a person comes to Christ is not one of those things … If Calvinists gain control of the SBC you will not be accepted in that either. There really is not such thing as a 3-point Calvinist…
It is time to face the piper… and determine who we as Southern Baptists want determining the course of our future. If we do not address this issue, make no mistake about it there are those who are working to do it for us and they carry the banner of Reformed Theology and tout the Doctrines of Grace. Embrace them or get them out of positions of influence before they change the course of our convention!
Get them out of positions of influence? Really? Sure sounds like a heart of cooperation to me.
Later, in the comments section of that post you continue:
If an individual wants to be a Calvinist that is fine with me. If a church wants to hire a Calvinist pastor that is fine with me. I still do not want those guys teaching in our seminaries and serving in key leadership positions in our convention because I do not believe the rank and file of the convention is Calvinist. That is my issue. All of the statistical data supports this claim. Why can’t they just fund their own convention and do their own thing and leave the non-reformed SBC alone.
In another post entitled “A Question of Co-Existing” in the comments section you take it a step futher:
…I simply do not want Calvinism moving to the forefront of the SBC. I disagree with the salvific aspects that Calvinism proposes and am not willing to agree to disagree on that point where the denominational leadership and direction is concerned. In that manner, I personally do agree with the comparisons of the liberal movement prior to the CR. I believe it is time to take the same actions again.
So you want to take the same actions of the CR – ridding the SBC leadership of Calvinists. Perhaps changing the BF&M? Refusing to work with us denominationally?
Bob, it’s clear you want Calvinists out of the SBC. So often people want to describe some Calvinists as aggressive, but it looks like if anyone is aggressive, it’s non-Calvinists like you.
I ask this: If you printed out Mike Leake’s article above and handed it to a pastor search committee, what would be the response?
That’s a good question William. For one, I’m not really sure it would be the best article to hand to a pastor search committee, simply because it is not written with that intention.
But I imagine that the answer to your question would probably lie in what the particular pastor search committee looks like. I know my present church in the interview process asked pointedly, “what is your belief about Calvinism”? I asked them to define what they meant by Calvinism….I then explained as best and as succinctly as I could what I mean by the term and what I don’t mean by the term. And later in the interview process I asked if my beliefs on this doctrine would be perceived as a problem.
Wow…after looking at Bob Hadley’s old and current websites….I think it is pretty clear that he is WAY more aggressive in his view than anyone here. His entire website is devoted to calvinism.
This is why I find the whole “aggressive calvinist” attacks by David W. (volfan) and others so disingenuous. I don’t know any calvinists that only sit around and talk about calvinism. I’m sure they exist, but i don’t know any. I don’t know any that are upset and want to take over anything. They may exist, but I don’t know any.
But there are some who have made their hatred of calvinism and calvinists known. Those are the real aggressive types. I have seen no calvinist say “I hate aggressive non-calvinists” but David W. (volfan007) has said he is fighting against “aggressive calvinists”…not calvinism, but people.
That is a dangerous mentality, IMO. I am not against my brothers and sisters with whom I disagree on this subject. We simply disagree. I don’t view anyone who disagrees on this issue as an enemy.
But there are some that do…and those are the aggressive types that scare me. They are the ones so obsessed with it that they seek out any place to fire at the enemy that they can, and even start their own blogs and websites. They are against “their enemy”. They want them out of the SBC. They have made that clear. That is WAY over the line…and it also is incredibly short-sighted since all the attacks are on the “aggressive” enemy, meanwhile forgetting that they are being as aggressive if not more aggressive on their side.
The madness needs to stop.
Well, some how in his anti-Calvinist blog posts Bob still posted a video of himself singing Amazing Grace.
Hmm…
DR…
as I said earlier… my position is clear. My concern is with the influence that Calvinism holds in CP supported programs and Seminaries. I do not like it and have every right to voice my concern and will continue to do so. My hope is the 90% will wake up and see what is going on and do something about it.
As I said earlier, I did not say that the SBC needed to rid itself of Calvinist churches. Churches have every right to adopt the theology that they believe is Biblical. I don’t like the idea that 1 in 3 graduates of our seminaries are professing 5 point Calvinists when 90% of those in the pews are not.
Understand that was YOUR interpretation and not my statements… which by the way is exactly what I said BEFORE you quoted me and the quotes you cited verified my statement made earlier.
For the record, if I had said that I would like to see Calvinists leave the SBC, I would have acknowledged it here. I have not done so and that is why I said what I did earlier.
><>”
When you say you think the 90% should “do something about it”…what do you think they should do?
I am disturbed that you continually liken calvinism to: (a) something that needs to be awakened to as an intruder – as if there is no historical existence (or prominence) in the SBC, or (b) something akin to a marauder that needs an alarm sounded so that people can “do something”, or (c) as an interloper in certain positions of leadership and prominence in the SBC.
Regardless of which image you choose, each paints the picture of calvinists as an enemy. That is aggressive, mean-spirited, and unhelpful. How do you expect calvinists to respond when they are treated by you as an enemy?
Bob,
You are right that your position is clear. Calvinists can stay in the SBC as long as they don’t intermix with other Southern Baptists, don’t ever aspire to a leadership position and never influence anyone else. Yeah, Bob – your position is clear.
Calvinists were a huge part of the founding of the SBC and now they are going to be huge part of the future of the SBC. You can continue to write and behave as you want in regard to them, but in the end, if you aren’t willing to work with them, then it will only be your loss. It’s hard for me to believe that your crusade against Calvinism is really being led by the Holy Spirit.
Bob,
I’m confused by your comments in response to your anti-Calvinist comments on your blog. Do you just not want Calvinists in SBC leadership positions? Are there particular types of Calvinists that you don’t want in the SBC or do you want all of them gone?
Does it bother you that non-Calvinists have taken over the majority position from Calvinists in the SBC since its founding?
But we must not ignore this: calvinism is characterized by a definite temperament. All one has to do is to walk into a calvinist church to detect what I mean. There is a personality or a certain something for which I don’t have all the words. It represents a certain spirit, and the better part of me is no part of that.
Sal,
Exactly how many Churches have you been a part of that are Reformed in nature? Three? Six? A Dozen? More?
Seems like anyone making this sort of sweeping generalization must have extensive exposure to Reformed Churches.
Sal: That is just not true. This is the third or fourth off the wall statement you have made. We are Christians and truth telling his foremost. Not making untrue statements to try and prove a straw man point.
Bob H: Jason is right, this madness has to stop. His comment is worth reading. It’s spot on. Meanwhile, reading your blog, I would have to say that you are doing the very thing you accuse Calvinists of, not being up front and forth coming. Your blog seems to be saying more than you have written here.
This makes me think of an examination of conscience on this matter:
1) If you are a non-Calvinist on a search committee, would you hire a pastor who is a Calvinist given that he is otherwise quite solid theologically and ministerially?
2) If you are a Calvinist on a search committee, would you hire a pastor who is a non-Calvinist given that he is otherwise quite solid theologically and ministerially?
If you can’t, then you are fundamentally in favor of the SBC dividing along these lines.
If you can, then you must answer questions like the following:
1) Is passion for Biblical doctrine a good thing?
2) If yes, do you believe you soteriology to be Biblically informed?
3) What is the extent of your passion for Biblical doctrine?
If your answer to #1 is “no”, then the CR was for naught and we have no Biblical reason to be passionate about the gospel. You have no reason to answer #2 and #3 because the Bible doesn’t inform your ideas of God.
If your answer to #2 is “no”, then you need to change your soteriological beliefs to something that is Biblically informed. You also need to ask why you would want to believe something to be true that you know is not particularly Biblical. I’m thinking about Roger Olson who is taking heat over saying that if he were shown that the Bible clearly refuted his beliefs he will still cling to his beliefs. Unfortunately, I think we all do this too often without realizing it. However, as a Calvinist I have to say that I personally can’t conceive of Calvinism being experientially derived. Who can honestly say, “I just never thought about it. It has just always naturally seemed to me like my free will was limited.” But I could be wrong.
The answer to #3 is where we need personal clarification. This is where Dave’s thinking on theological Walls and Fences is important. Are we able to graciously exist as the Body of Christ with a pastor we think is Biblically wrong on something, but not on a matter important enough to break fellowship over? Which goes to the matter of the question: Where do we draw the line?
For me, the most helpful are the Biblical truths that most seems to matter here. There must be two things that we agree on. These are strongly taught in the Bible:
1) God’s absolute sovereignty. Even if someone makes make the juvenile supposition that God is self-limiting so that man can have full autonomous free will, it must be understood that it is God who sovereignly limits Himself. Beware Open Theology which denies God’s sovereignty.
2) Man’s culpability. Pelagianism is heresy. Semi-pelagianism is heresy. The Bible is clear that all of us are guilty of sinning against God and that guilt is punishable by eternal death in hell. That’s what we deserve. Period. Unfortunately, the lie that we have some basic good to us continues to infiltrate the Church from the popular philosophies of the world. But even if you believe that we choose to follow God by some means outside of His created order, you have to agree with the Bible that that choice is informed by the drawing of God, whether you believe that drawing to be general or particular. Outside of God’s influence we could never make that choice on our own.
That’s 2 out of 5. I’d welcome a pastor who got only these two right and I’m a 5-pointer. Could a non-Calvinist agree that these two are agreeable?
Jim,
You said, “as a Calvinist I have to say that I personally can’t conceive of Calvinism being experientially derived.”
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Jim.
I think your comments are very well written. The juvenile comment might be considered a “cheap shot” by some. Here are my thoughts on the questions as you presented them and then your concluding comment.
You began, “1) If you are a non-Calvinist on a search committee, would you hire a pastor who is a Calvinist given that he is otherwise quite solid theologically and ministerially?
2) If you are a Calvinist on a search committee, would you hire a pastor who is a non-Calvinist given that he is otherwise quite solid theologically and ministerially?
If you can’t, then you are fundamentally in favor of the SBC dividing along these lines.”
Remember, this is your conclusion. I would be completely shocked to discover that a Reformed church deliberately and knowingly called a non-Reformed pastor. I suppose that MIGHT happen but cannot even image that being a possibility. I am 98.936% set in the first, with a resounding “no.” Personally, the Calvinistic issues ARE a major part of his being “solid theologically”; that is certainly not the ONLY factor, but a major one for me.
Your next 3 questions are equally interesting and equally important.
“1) Is passion for Biblical doctrine a good thing?
2) If yes, do you believe you soteriology to be Biblically informed?
3) What is the extent of your passion for Biblical doctrine?”
You make some comments about each… which as I read them basically say that “how we answer these things does matter.” I agree.
You make the following questions, “Are we able to graciously exist as the Body of Christ with a pastor we think is Biblically wrong on something, but not on a matter important enough to break fellowship over? Which goes to the matter of the question: Where do we draw the line?” I agree.
The two things that you conclude that we “must all agree on”, being God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s culpability are kind of like the BF&M… broad enough for BOTH camps to argue acceptance.
The problem that I have is the question of “becoming a child of God” is so fundamental to what we all do, it cannot be a secondary issue. As I have said on a number of occasions, we may both be wrong… but it is crystal clear that we cannot BOTH be right… regeneration is either the result of repentance and saving faith or it is the source of repentance and saving faith…
Your final statement, “That’s 2 out of 5. I’d welcome a pastor who got only these two right and I’m a 5-pointer. Could a non-Calvinist agree that these two are agreeable?”
So, you are telling me that Irresistible Grace and Limited Atonement are areas that you can compromise on… or a version of man’s depravity that was less than the Reformed position? Or… would that pastor’s position on these determine for you his REAL position on the 2 you mentioned in your conclusion?
Grateful to be in His Grip
><>”
Bob,
“the question of “becoming a child of God” is so fundamental to what we all do” and “it cannot be a secondary issue”. Perhaps, I am wrong here but I think at the end of the day you’d probably be in agreement with most Calvinists.
Orthodox Calvinist’s believe that we “become a child of God” by grace through faith. Orthodox non-Calvinist’s that I’m aware of would agree. Where does “faith come from” is perhaps the better question but I’m not sure why that should be a dividing issue. I say that b/c missionally we should be about the same. And because the SBC is fundamentally a missions sending agency and not a doctrine policing agency I would think that the “where does faith come from” question would be secondary.
At the end of the day an orthodox Calvinist will be calling upon a sinner to repent and place their faith in the Lord Jesus. And so would an orthodox non-Calvinist. It’s just that after this person comes to Christ we’ll argue about how it happened. LOL. Both will say it’s the Lord’s work…but when did he do it and why? Was it because of his election based on God’s foreknowledge (foreseen faith)? Was it based on God’s sovereign decree of election? Yep. Significant differences but missionally (and that is what the SBC is about) we aren’t preaching a different gospel and we aren’t calling for something different as far as response; repent and believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.
Forgive my punctuation in that one. Towards the end it should read “Yep, significant differences…” The yep is with the differences not with the election question. (Though as you are aware I’d say yep to that one…that wasn’t my point).
Hey Mike…
“Where does “faith come from” is perhaps the better question but I’m not sure why that should be a dividing issue. I say that b/c missionally we should be about the same. And because the SBC is fundamentally a missions sending agency and not a doctrine policing agency I would think that the “where does faith come from” question would be secondary.”
I think I can agree with what you are saying and especially in the agency aspect. The SBC is not a docrtine policing agency… by in large and for the most part… I can agree with that. The issue is NOT in the agency but in the degree of influence that is being exerted.
Really… that is where my concern lies. I am not saying that Calvinists don’t have a right to be there… really I am not… it is I believe that IF the convention in its present position were aware of what is taking place, there would be some changes in the direction that the convention is headed.
While it is true that I want that influence to be curbed, I understand that there are others who do not. I do not have a problem with Calvinists voicing their convictions. If I did, I would not be here. I guess my point is, yes there is room for us all to co-exist and work together… I do not think as I have heard it said, that Calvinists are not evangelistic… I KNOW that is not true.
In my lifetime, the whole concept of the Doctrines of Grace and the TULIP… from MY perspective are making waves that I did not notice 25 years ago. People that are staunch Calvinists today were not so back then…
I do not like the degree of influence that Calvinism has in the convention TODAY… that has nothing to do with what may or may not have happened in the 1800. I was not there so I have no real idea what all was going on back then. And… today things are so dramatically different than they were then or even 30 years ago for that matter.
I am part of the 85%+ in the SBC today who is not Calvinist… I am not even a 1-point Calvinist… according to the TULIP. I respect your position and will guard your right and the right of any church to follow the dictates of their conviction based on the Word of God as they see it. I just am not inclined to sit back and not express my opinion on the direction that I see the convention headed in. That is really my single point of contention. It is not a despising one… and I am really kind of disappointed that there are so many that seem appalled at my position…. as if they cannot believe that I could have such a position. I know better.
Oh well… I am banking on the rapture settling this whole dispute anyway… and glad most of us here will be part of it! I am working on being much more gracious!
><>”
I will make one final comment on this issue of DR’s statement, “Isn’t this what you have advocated in your blog, Bob – that Calvinists should leave the SBC?”
I do not like the influence of Calvinism in the SBC supported seminaries and Boards. I don’t. I do not like seeing 1 out of 3 graduates coming out of our seminaries as 5-point Calvinists. There is a decided difference in the theological process of “regeneration, repentance and saving faith” and “repentance, saving faith and regeneration.” If you do not like my position, that is fine.
Individuals and Churches have the responsibility of searching the Scriptures to determine for themselves which is the Biblical perspective. I believe we also have some responsibility to lead in our associations, and conventions according to those convictions. This is why blogs and discussions CAN be valuable. Sometimes, statements can be both made and interpreted in attempting to answer questions and in response to comments that others make that may or may not reflect the “true picture” of what someone says or intends. This is a common problem in a LOT of circumstances.
For example, I was reading on the Joe Paterno issue and a comment thread defending him and people who were supporting him attacked those who made negative comments about his handling of the whole series of events. It made me realize personally that it is important to attempt to “stick with the issues” and not to have a derogatory attitude aimed at those who do not agree with me.
Sometimes, that is not an easy task. I am sorry that I have not been more “gracious” in comments that I have made in the past and will work harder in the future to do so. There are always two sides to every discussion and how comments are “perceived” is just as important as how they are “intended.” I am not sure this is a balance that can ever be fully rectified in this kind of arena.
I am grateful for the discussion (and the opportunity to participate), even when it is vastly different from my own personal perspective. May God continue to bless the SBC and ALL of its churches for His glory and the benefit of the world WE ALL SEEK TO SERVE!
Grateful to be in His GRIP!
><>”
Thank you, Bob. That kind of humility and self-reflection is needed and appreciated. None of us has to give up our convictions, but we should lay down our arms!
Mr. Hadley seems blissfully unaware of the history of Southern Baptists and that we are not limited to the present day folks who take some of their energy from outside efforts. After all, Sovereign Grace was at the founding and in the first 80 years, and it was the advocates, our predecessors and, in some cases, our ancestors, of Sovereign Grace who opened up Southern Baptists to be more friendly to those not yet persuaded. No need to change now. We are getting ready to have a Third Great Awakening. I have been praying for one for 38 years, and I know of others who have been praying for as much as 60 years. Since the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions was and is Sovereign Grace, and since that is the only theology that produce such visitations (called the truth), and since we want another awakening, it follows that the theology must come back. The truth is needed to produce the right results, a society transformed collectively and individually. The problem is every one has forgotten how to preach and practice these teachings…even our President of our flagship seminary still needs to learn how to do it. One thing that would help, I believe, is to realize that Jesus preached all five points of the tulip acrostic along with predestination and reprobation as invitations to salvation, as paradoxical interventions, therapeutic paradoxes of a Divine nature. These truths produce the most reliable and dependable and hang in there kind of people…who learn to become gracious and winsome. The truths are so constructed as to make the believers balanced, flexible, creative, magnetic, and constant. The Bible being inspired by Omniscience reflects that depth of profundity and wisdom commensurate with that fact. Wait until we get back to the intellectual aspect of the Christian faith. We will be flabbergasted to realize that the answers to a lot of our problems and issues were right there before our eyes. The old higher critical sleaze of skeptical origins is getting a pounding by the postmodernist folks, and soon the latter will run into the reality of the intellectualism hidden in the crystal clear depths of the plain teachings of the Bible. Then we will, God willing and His ministers wake up to the invitational nature of the truths involved, even if one just holds them up before jaded, dead eyes, they become so compellingly winsome and attractive until one would not dream of resisting them. And, yes, it was the calvinists of the Regular and Separate Baptists who opened this thing up in 1787’s union of the two groups. Think of limited atonement/particular redemption as the most winsome teaching of all, the one that will win more souls than ever general atonement could. God is great or what? Baloney! He has no compeer.
My My My…. so much for voicing one’s opinion and theological position. It seems to me that there are those who cry “foul” at the non-Calvinists who do not want to see the Calvinist position becoming the majority position but when I read these kind of comments, why would that not just make me that much more determined to stand my ground! One of my points has always been Calvinists do not like my theological stance any more than I like theirs. Dr. Willingham seems to reinforce that argument. (Not trying to stereotype… I know not everyone has their own way of seeing things) … No compeer… God is indeed GREAT.
Mark, No…. and Dave’s question is a good one. No one would argue against the Calvinist influence in the convention not back then and not today but there are those who point out that the influence has never been a “majority position…” or a dominant theological position in the convention.
I personally maintain that Reformed Theology is enjoying perhaps it finest hour in the SBC today… which ought to be a great thing… and since communication is what it is, the ramifications and the nuances are better recognized so there is a broader understanding of the key issues than ever before.
><>”
Bob,
You begin your reply with “My, my, my…,” but do you dispute what Dr. Willingham said?
It is ironic that you are the one calling for Calvinist to essentially have no influence in SBC life or leave, but you start off your reply as if you’re some kind of victim.
The early Southern Baptists united around Calvinistic confessions of faith. Whether Calvinists where the majority or not there should be no question of their early influence. So, if Calvinists were an early influence in establishing the SBC and this convention was/is a good thing, why would you seek to diminish potential Calvinist influence today? Is it that Calvinists were good enough to start the convention, but that’s it?
You are presenting a double-standard. On the one hand, you remain part of a convention started by Calvinist (or at the very least their influence). On the other hand, you do not want Calvinist influence on the same convention today. Yet, you see no problem squashing Calvinist influence as much as you can while at one point their influence was taken over by non-Calvinists. It seems you are happy as long as your group gets to take over and stay in control so to speak.
Thank you for your opinion.
“It seems you are happy as long as your group gets to take over and stay in control so to speak.” I am in favor of non-Calvinists keeping control of the direction of the SBC, which it now has.
We disagree on the degree of influence that ought to direct the future of the convention, which belongs to us both. I do not know what else to say.
><>”
Bob Hadley,
Does it bother you that non-Calvinists have taken over the majority position from Calvinists in the SBC since its founding?
While Calvinists were a strong presence at the Founding of the SBC, are we sure that they were a majority?
Dave,
I’m not 100% positive they were the majority, but it seems the statements of faith around which early SB’s united were Calvinistic. Also, have you read A 1915 Perspective on Southern Baptist Doctrinal Conditions where Masters seems to imply that it was Calvinistic doctrine that united folks?
I’m not sure that this is really about non-Calvinists taking over. Due to the influence of revivalism and democratic ideals with its emphasis on freedom, the “Calvinism” of Southern Baptists began to change, became less-strict. Some historians have used the term “arminianizing” to describe what began to happen. Suffice it to say, the theology of Southern Baptists in their first 50 years as a denomination was, by and large, different from that of New England Baptists in the second-half of the 18th century (with regard to Calvinism).
Words often take on different meanings in different contexts and at different points in history.
I also wonder how many grassroots Southern Baptist pastors had read (or could even read) these confessional statements. The SBC during its first fifty years served a largely agrarian, uneducated society – very much a denomination of the “working poor.”
That Calvinist influence is growing, I think there is no doubt. We have Calvinists in prominent positions in the SBC. I have no idea if the 1 in 3 statistic is even remotely accurate, but there’s no doubt that more seminarians are calvinistic. Theological thought evolves. Pendulums swing. Perhaps God has a reason for bringing about a resurgence of Calvinism (even if the theological system isn’t completely correct). Perhaps Calvinism is a corrective to an SBC that has become bloated and complacent? I’m just thinking out loud. Ignoring the rabid anti-Calvinists raising their hands, what do Calvinists bring to the table that the SBC needs? Seriously. We are in a rut. 2/3 of our members are imaginary. Giving is down. We need something. Perhaps we are here to bring balance to an SBC that is listing to one side.
I ask these questions as a Calvinist, but without suggesting that Calvinists are here to recover the Gospel or other such hubristic nonsense. But here we are. Praying and hoping that we remain an insignificant minority doesn’t seem to be working. Spreading fear of Calvinists actually has been a pretty effective tactic, but how long with it continue to work? The other anti-C blogs talk about agendas and seizing power, but has anyone really seized anything? Has there been a coup? Have policies and procedures been circumvented? Trustees kidnapped and held for ransom?
Perhaps kicking against the goads will prove to be counterproductive. I say perhaps, because I’m just thinking out loud. But (being a good Calvinist) I think God has His hand over all things, including the rising influence of Calvinism in the SBC. Who is to say that it is not for a purpose? Perhaps Calvinism in the SBC is like a newborn babe. Babies are loud and messy and often badly behaved. But they get better as they grow (hopefully). Children, if raised properly, bring new and wonderful things to the family. They don’t kill their parents and hide the bodies.
To All Calvinists That Frequent SBC Voices: About two years ago for my own reasons I was looking to educate myself about the Thoughts & Concerns not only in the SBC but mostly among its Members. I stumbled on SBC Voices accidently and listened for the longest time not only to get a feel of the conversations but to get the nerve to take a my new computer into another realm. I had computers years ago but never used them in this way. While I don’t remember the conversations exactly I believed I was among “churchy” people and conducted myself accordingly – but was re-buffed on every move. It then became a contest on my part to see if anything I said would be well received. Not only was it not , but the replies were harsh and eventually insulting – to the point it got my dander up and I was resolved to not being pushed around or run away. You all know by now I have extensive associations in & among Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Riders, Racing,Skydivers, airplane activities that resulted in my being a Captain on a major airline, and a host of other endeavors that would not allow me to acquiese to an insulting J.B. . I use theinitials so as not to give Dave a reason to wipe this blog. After a while the then current Editor whose name I have forgotten, after one of my postings announced ” That’s it. We’ve been outed. The secret is out fellas” and on and on. I didn’t know what hw was talking about but he went on to describe it in detail. Stupid really because I had no idea what he was talking about. You guys were on this blog alone and wanted me out and away but that was not to be. You all are a fight waiting to happen no matter who or what the subject, a premise I have not seen in about seventy years of being a SBC member. It was verbal abuse no matter how you cut it. You all seem to be experts in many fields you have no training in. I’m at the end of my life and most people know that except you here. Until now I would not share anythinf of a personal nature because I don’t want any input about anything from a bunch of people that can’t get along with themselves. My next time in the hospital and I might not come out, but don’t think I’m embarrassed to write or show up. You people have made me sorry that my son is part of this “fraternity” , but that is his choice and I’m sure he will make the best of what God has in mind for him. I could go on but will spare you, but I never knew what a Calvinist was and now I will oppose it and you wit every breath I have left and without fibbing one bit. You guys can’t stand the truth – In My Humble opinion.
Jack,
I pray that as you are at the end of your life that the Lord will be ever present with you as you go into eternity. May He comfort you and pour out an abundance of grace upon You. May He cause the light of the knowledge of the glory of Christ to shine in your heart in an ever increasing measure. I pray too that His good and merciful presence may comfort your family.
Of course I pray that the Lord may prolong your life as He sees fit.
Also please accept my apology for those of us Calvinists that “can’t get along with ourselves”. We often argue more about grace than we live it. This is to our shame. But, such is the state of those who live outside of Eden. May Christ be more precious than our petty squabbles that will all be resolved in glory.
Mike – Your too anxious to say that the majority will have to wait for squabbles to be resolved in ” glory ” .
Mike – Your comment reminds me of the man that was on his deathbed but smelled his favorite cookies wafting up the stairwell to his bedroom. Mustering all the strength he had left he scooted across the floor to the top of the stairs – hung on to the stair rail as tightly as he could and started down . Upon reaching the kitchen he reached out for a hot fresh Toll House cookie when his hand got slapped by a spatula. His wife said, ” Stay away from those , they are for the funeral ” Your thoughts are nice as are your intentions but the response is for the family of the deceased – churcgy – not for a living person who is capable of accepting whatever God has in store.
Jack, We are all just names here that do not carry one another’s burdens as we should regardless of our position in the Body or gender. I have taken some swipes at you and I don’t even know you, do I? In fact, it makes it easier to deliver the jabs. But, I have no idea of the burdens you carry. Please forgive me for being so quick to judge your comments without knowing the man behind them. And I thank you very much for sharing your heart with us. I needed to hear it. I am praying that God lifts any burdens you carry and please count on it… this woman is praying for you and your family.
Jack Wolford,
Don’t let this stuff get to you. For the most part, it is just a pass time like playing Monopoly. A set-to might become a real fight, but usually, very little blood spills. And when it does, it normally heals up quickly.
Also, many of the people who frequent this blog and other Baptist blogs actually know each other personally or through other acquaintances have knowledge of one another.
Now, as to this end of your life thing you mentioned; Jack, guys like don’t die if they are gut shot and dragged behind truck for seven miles on a dirt road.
Jack, you will probably eat the goat that nibbles the grass off of the graves of most of the guys who comment here, be they Calvinists or Arminians, Republicans or Democrats, Red, Yellow, Black, or White.
cb scott – Whether true or not I eat your words up. I remember telling about sitting at a hotel table in Wiesbaden, Germany with my uncle a west point grad who was a decorated P-51 pilot and the guy he was talking to was already a WW2 ACE – and I asked if I could be excused. They said yes and I went to the hotel check-in and bought some cigarettes. Two “stupids ” in the same hour. When we all had returned to the states the same three were together in the Ace’s house who had become a double ACE by his particpating in the Korean War. The comments were unbelievable. I was a name dropper. Everyone has experiences. Think about two men each in an airplane , cockpit to cockpit and vertical. One is going to run out of steam eventually and stall and fall back to earth. The other will intentionally roll over and follow him down and burn his butt. These were FIGHTING MEN who fought to the finish. I admire everything about them but couldn’t make the grade. I did get out of high school. These thoughts are for Veterans Day and for all who are repeating these stunts in the air and on the ground every single day. You know CB that every single person can do something better than someone else and for that reason alone deserves a little respect. I’m not closing my door . It’s being closed for me with my having helped but I really do own that S&W .500 with Hornady ammo that is zero at 50 yards and 2″ low at 100 yards; and I know you own that colt .45 mod. 1911 and I’m sure you know how to take care of yourself, your family and all those fortunate to be around you. You can only go so far with BS. Things have been stepping down and I only want to know so much. No one here got to me – I got to myself and I am aware of some traps. Thanks for your thoughts but don’t change your attitude towards me as I will not towards you. Later.
“Perhaps Calvinism is a corrective to an SBC that has become bloated and complacent? I’m just thinking out loud. Ignoring the rabid anti-Calvinists raising their hands, what do Calvinists bring to the table that the SBC needs? Seriously. We are in a rut. 2/3 of our members are imaginary. Giving is down. We need something. Perhaps we are here to bring balance to an SBC that is listing to one side.”
Exhibit A for this thinking would be Geneva today?
Lydia, I have always enjoyed a “banter” and was always capable of being rude ; but, I have never resented any comment that wasn’t intently made to be insulting. I’ve heard those here but not from you , ever or I would have let you know. I hope you all have enough money & where with all to go out on your own and continue to do what you and others here seem to do best – that is argue and beat people up verbally while being protected by the airwaves. That to me is the wimpy way. Plus you and I are seated in the peanut gallery – these guys are supposed to be the professionals who are able to find acceptable solutions in this lifetime. Dave by being employed here has an incentive to keep an argument going but I think there can be better ways . Thanks for your thoughts and I intend to post without sympathy or rejoicing as long as I can get to the keyboard. I’ve never had a bad day that I didn’t see a resolution to until I found this “blog”.
JACK,
Your words help us to realize that when our blogging turns destructive, we cannot control the pain it inflicts on some people.
Thank you for sharing with us about your feelings and your illness. You call us to think about our words and to repent of our mean-spirited ways towards one another. I think you should know that I take your words to heart.
May God bless you and keep you close to Him always, and as for the rest of us, may God forgive us our foolish ways.
Christiane
“Exhibit A for this thinking would be Geneva today?”
I guess I’m not clever enough to know what this means.
I will be 71 next month, and Sovereign Grace was preached in the small country village church that I attended with my Grandfather and sister in Arkansas. The pastor had been preaching for years (He died in his 80s in the 60s I think), so he was possibly in his 60s when I heard him preach. Then in the 60s I heard my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell and I began 6 years of research in Baptist History. For the information of all concerned, you will find the leaders of the SBC from the get go were primarily Sovereign Grace. In fact, I would venture to say that there was no a single person at the first SBC who did not believe in virtually all of the doctrines of grace. One thing is sure: There is no doubting the fact that they elected Sovereign Grace Presidents of the Convention, some of whom wrote about the doctrines. Take P.H. Mell and his book on Predestination or W.B.C. Howell and his sermon in the work Baptist Doctrines or James Petigru Boyce’s Abstract of Systematic Theology.There are the writings of others who were leaders but not presidents, e.g., Dagg, Dargan, Manly, Frost, Broadus, Williams, Poindexter, and a whole host of others. Did you all know, for example, that the founder of the FBC of Ashville, NC was a graduate of Spurgeon’s College and was noted for his calvinism.
Now we were talking about having another Great Awakening, and Brother Hadley did not show the slightest bit of interest, regardless of the theology. Even John Wesley would have disagreed with him. After all, he got together with Whitefield and they were praying one night and for three hours neither they nor their preacher boys could rise off of the floor due to the presence of God in that place. Brother Hadley, don’t you want to see another awakening? Do you pray for such a thing? I do…and have been at it for 38 years. I know of one fellow who has been praying for nigh on to 60+ years. One of these days….!
Keep your theological position brother until God persuades you to change your mind. Argue for it all you want, but why try to boot out the followers of the founders of the theology…and let me tell you I ain’t so trusting of the Reformed influences from the outside as much as I would trust a Sovereign Grace believer who has roots back to the early days, that is, the average John Doe Southern Baptist who gets busy and starts studing. One of my friends was a descendant of the fellow who worked with the colonial legislators to get freedom for Baptists, one who went to jail for preaching the Gospel, I refer to Elijah Craig. Read the histories of the state conventions. Best of all, go back and read the minutes of associations and churches and see the articles of faith they adopted, the circular letters they published, and the sermons that sometimes were printed. One of my ancestors might have well been one of the two men appointed by the court to execute the Last Will and Testament of Daniel Marshall. Do you know who Marshall was? I did not beat you over the head brother Hadley. On the contrary, I do not approve of such attitudes. I don’t mind teasing and banter and even sarcasm at time, but I do care about getting at the meaning and usage of words in the NT and how my Baptist Forbearers interpreted them. I can tell you< I became a sovereign grace believer, when I face the reality of the meaning of Can and May. I learned when I was a boy that can means ability and may means permission. When I asked my first few teachers, "Can I go get a drink?", they always corrected me, saying, "Can means ability. What you are asking is for permission to get a drink. May I go get a drink? is the proper question." Jesus said, Jn.6:44,65, "No man can." That means that no man has the ability. Sandy Creek in its Confession of 1816 states that man is utterly impotent of his own free will or ability to save himself. Impotent is another word for inability, another way of saying no one can come to Christ…unless the Father draws him. What do you say, Brother Hadley to the meaning that no one can, no one has the ability to come to Christ except it is given to them from above? You might think I want to make a calvinist out of you. If I can, it would be a worthless effort. Anything I make can be unmade. But if God makes something, it is forever. Besides I don't really care for the party name; I prefer to identify the doctrines as Sovereign Grace. And do you know anything about paradoxes, dear brother, that is, how they work?
If God does… I will. If He does not, I will NOT. But thanks for caring enough to ask.
><>”
Calvinism tries to exhaust all mystery. But if we know in part and prophecy in part, that ought to tell us that knowledge is tentative, provisional.
I came to believe in Sovereign Grace, when I was confronted by the word,”can,” as in Jn.6:44,65, “No man can,” no man has the power to come to Christ except God gives it to him, except God draws him. That means, to say the least, a sovereign irresistible force must work to enable and empower the helpless person. That is what John Newton is setting forth in his hymn, Amazing Grace. The inability of the fallen sinner and the grace of God to work effectually and efficaciously and effectively and irresistibly in the best sense of the word, as in, so wonderful one can’t resist, these are the foundational truths of Sandy Creek Baptist Church and Assn., of Charleston FBC and Assn., Philadelphia Assn., Elkhorn and many others. At the same time one responds as freely as any could desire.
As to the mystery of the Gospel and of Providence, the idea that God decrees either deliberately or permissively what ever comes first provides hope in that He is in control and can make things to turn out for the best…even from that which is surely the worst…That is certainly the lesson of the cross, the worst evil that ever occurred turned out to be the greatest blessing there ever could be. From a childhood of parental deprivation, of a horrendous tragedy of murder and suicide, and numerous other disappointments and defeats, I take refuge in the Sovereignty of God as my only hope. That same sovereignty gives me cause to hope and pray for a Third Great Awakening that, hopefully, might begin in this generation, winning every soul on earth, and continuing for a 1000 generations.