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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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”… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »