Today Baptist Press announced that Albert Mohler will nominate Pastor Ronnie Floyd for the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention this year in Baltimore. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate for me as a sitting officer of the SBC to make any sort of an endorsement in the upcoming elections. I suppose it is possible that I might even be moderating the meeting during the election itself, in which case my impartiality would be of some small measure of importance. So, let me make it clear that I am not endorsing Ronnie Floyd by this post. We don’t even know whether anyone else will run, and if someone does, we don’t even know who that would be, so even before considering my scruples regarding the impartiality of officers, it’s a bit early to make a choice anyway.
After all, if Chuck Norris should run, I’m backing him.
And yet, having said all of that, I don’t mind saying that I’m glad that Ronnie Floyd will be nominated. The following reasons make me happy about this nomination:
-
Ronnie Floyd has shown leadership in the SBC apart from holding any office in the convention. He gave leadership to the GCR program. He has given leadership this year to a series of prayer meetings for SBC pastors. You don’t have to have attended all of the prayer meeting and you don’t have to have agreed with every plank of the eventual GCR platform to recognize that Ronnie Floyd cares deeply about the SBC and wants to give leadership to our convention. Even if other people run and even if someone else is elected, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention ought to be someone who has already demonstrated some love for the SBC and some willingness to be active in convention work.
-
Ronnie Floyd understands the perspective from both sides of the convention experience. Ronnie Floyd has been on the platform. In Orlando during the GCR presentation, he was working hard to achieve the passage of that set of proposals. The events in Orlando involved the unconventional disposition of an amendment to the main GCR motion.
But in 2013 in Houston, Ronnie Floyd found himself on the other side of the great gulf fixed between the platform and the messenger microphones at the SBC Annual Meeting as he argued from the floor for Southern Baptists to reach out in some compassionate and helpful way toward those struggling with mental illness. He got a taste of the difficulty a messenger faces when trying to speak coherently into a microphone while a 5-second delay disconcertingly confounds you with your own greatly amplified words. He experienced firsthand the way that the labyrinth of SBC procedures and rules of order can make it difficult for anyone—even a well-respected and seasoned SBC pastor—to propose something new from the floor and see it through to a successful end.
I think every SBC President ought to be someone who has tried at least once to make a motion at the Annual Meeting. I think the memory of his 2013 experience will strengthen Ronnie Floyd’s determination to be respectful, compassionate, and evenhanded in his wielding of the Broadus Gavel, should he be elected.
-
Ronnie Floyd has given careful thought to the actual constitutional duties of the SBC Presidency. Namely, I am confident that he will make good appointments and I know that he will pay careful attention to the content of the Annual Meeting. After the 2013 Annual Meeting in Houston, Floyd offered a series of tweets considering how to make the Annual Meeting a more effective, more popular event. Some of the ideas that I offered in my own post “Belonging and Giving” over at SBC Voices—the ideas about how to cultivate a sense of belonging in the convention—are ideas that I had already discussed with Floyd in private conversation. That conversation took place because Ronnie Floyd reached out to me and asked me about my thoughts for improving the Annual Meeting.
Now, let me make this clear: I don’t know that Ronnie Floyd agrees with all of what I wrote. I don’t know that he agrees with ANY of what I wrote. Certainly my post is nothing that should be considered “campaign material” for Ronnie Floyd and I don’t have any reason to think that any of my ideas would have any influence upon the way that he would conduct himself if he were to be elected. I’m just saying that it is encouraging to me that Ronnie Floyd would want to have the conversation in the first place. This is someone who has been thinking about our Annual Meeting for a long time and has been asking other people to think about it and to give him input.
It would be a plus for any SBC president to be someone who has done just that.
-
Just the circumstances of his nomination are encouraging. Albert Mohler, the putative Calvinistic Don Corleone of the SBC, is nominating a pastor who is ostensibly a Traditionalist with regard to his soteriology. Floyd isn’t a Southern grad, either. The whole affair just oozes the kind of cooperative spirit that last year’s Calvinism report commended to us all and that our convention greatly needs. No matter who else runs, no matter what outcome the election brings forth, the mere fact of the nomination makes me happy.
So, hopeful that I have stayed within the bounds of decorum and optimistic about the future of our convention, I give you the official announcement and wait with you to see what will unfold in the ensuing months.
I am not sure why comments were closed. It was not my intent. They are now open
I have a commenter who gives RF church CP percentage as between 4 and 5 which is quite an increase from 8 years ago. I’m OK on that.
Looking at numbers I can find, looks like about 3-4.
Given that he’s being nominated by Dr. Mohler and already has Lifeway’s endorsement, I’d say it’s a moot point. He’ll win–probably be without any viable opposition in the election.
He seems to have taken the CP to heart. His lack of CP giving was at the root of why I didn’t vote for him in 2006. If the numbers I’ve seen are accurate he has corrected that. He is a good candidate.
I found this small group study guide on the church website. It seems to demonstrate that the church is committed to their identity as an SBC church.
http://crosschurch.com/am-site/media/september-missions-emphasis—small-groups.pdf
Albert Mohler, the putative Calvinistic Don Corleone of the SBC
You owe me a new monitor for the Diet Dr. Pepper I just shot out my nose. However, that spew did clear my sinuses out better than a Netti-pot, so…..there’s that.
Bart did say “this just oozes” as well. Maybe he was prophesying the clearing of your sinuses?
What does putative mean? It sounds bad.
David
Google can help.
“pu·ta·tive [pyoo-tuh-tiv] adjective
commonly regarded as such; reputed; supposed: the putative boss of the mob.”
Well, why didn’t Bart say that in they first place? 🙂
These days there’s no telling who will win an election at the SBC — but I agree with Bart that Ronnie Floyd’s nomination is a positive thing.
Boy, don’t I know that!
I don’t know Ronnie Floyd and have nothing against him as a person, but once more we’re locked into a mega-church mentality, and this time not just a mega-church, but a multi-site mega-church. Honestly I have a hard time thinking the early church had mega-churches in mind when they were spreading the Gospel.
I’m not a fan of multi site churches either.
I’m not sure how the fact that he pastors one (them) might affect my vote.
We shall see.
I’ve never had any reason to not like Ronnie Floyd and I woukdnt consider him a lightening rod or flame thrower…..so he’s passed those tests. Lol.
Oh, and plus Bart likes him.
Bill, let’s be honest. The next president of the SBC is going to be a megachurch pastor. History backs that thesis strongly. The general question at the SBC about megachurch pastors is not whether but which.
I have no real issue with “mega churches” but multi site is another animal, IMO. I just have not been sold on that idea.
I’m probably a little less sensitive to this issue than most, but the tradition of (faux) non campaigning both protects the smaller church pastors and prevents them from effectively communicating. If that were lifted, then a network of smaller churches could fund a campaign and significantly improve the change of electoral success.
Our fear of campaigning has always puzzled me…
I had Dr. Frank Page for a class about a month ago, and he made the point from experience that the budget for the president is quite low, and most of the traveling or hiring an assistant to take care of the mountains of scheduling has to be paid for out of pocket or by the person’s church.
Thus, if a small church person was elected into the present setup, it would be difficult for them to do much.
of course, Dr. Page wasn’t against small church guys being elected, but for changing the current structure.
Not for nothing, but isn’t Dr. Page is a great position to lead people toward something being done about that as the budget is being prepared for upcoming years?
If he knows that is an obstacle, and says he supports the idea of a small church pastor being President…then perhaps he should help remove the obstacles for such a thing to happen.
No?
CB
We got a problem.
Ronnie Floyd wears skinny jeans and had kinda a spiked hairdo at Houston.
Lol.
Careful…CB will spanx you very much.
LOL…notice I said “WE got a problem”…because both CB and I expressed consternation at such practices recently in another thread. Its an attempt to be jovial.
I don’t know R. Floyd but I noticed you mentioned little of what he actually believed. “Upon this rock I will build my. . . . . campus”. Sad
Tarheel,
I don’t think those were skinny britches he had on in Houston. He is kinda short. I think those were knickers. They were just a little long.
😉
Bart said; “After all, if Chuck Norris should run, I’m backing him.”
Aren’t you aware that Chuck Norris does not desire office – the office desires Chuck Norris.
He also does not do push ups…the ground comes up for him.
I thought Chuck Norris was the de facto head of the Southern Baptist Convention anyway?
He is….DUH.
(he disguises himself as a pastor from Louisiana and waves his handkerchief when he speaks in public to throw us all off)
All Jokes aside….
wow. I like this idea that Dr. Floyd’s church is doing.
http://www.crosschurchschool.com/
and their missions strategy is cool too!
http://crosschurch.com/ministries/missions/23/
It really seems to me that Dr. Floyd and Cross Church is highly engaged in unique and serious ministry.
Chuck Norris has a huge Grizzly bear rug in his house. It’s not dead….it’s alive, but scared to move.
Jack was nimble, Jack was quick, but Jack still couldn’t dodge Chuck Norris’ roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris has a diary. It’s called the Guinness Book of World Records.
I could go on all day with these….LOL.
Fear of spiders is arachnophobia; fear of close spaces is called claustrophobia; fear of Chuck Norris is called logic.
Chuck Norris doesn’t call the wrong number; you answer the wrong phone.
One more…chuck Norris is the reason that Waldo is hiding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCpz_8XmPi8
Sorry guys, but even Chuck is not invincible…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEBfHolirzc&feature=player_detailpage
Bruce Lee wears Chuck Norris pj’s….and, Chuck Norris wears CB Scott pj’s.
cb does not wear pjs. cb wears a Jed Clampett night shirt and wool socks to bed.
CB,
We need a picture.
David
It is just like the one you, Dave, Dwight, and Tim Rogers wear only mine has little pictures of guns and roses on it.
lol
I like the nomination. My oldest son, a recent college grad, has been a member of CrossChurch Fayetteville since its beginning. It is served by Nick Floyd, Ronnie’s son. I have been impressed by the services when I visited, and by the growth I see in my son. One of my summer missionaries is a student in the School of ministry. Big impact, very SBC.
I also know that they are doing good supportive work of new church starts, including in Montana. Several of the men in the church I serve just finished working through Dr Floyd’s book on Prayer and Fasting. Good stuff.
Steve in Montana
not really comfortable with the decision…seems like too much politickin’ here…floyd led the gcr which is what mohler wanted…now surprise, mohler is helping ronnie get something…floyd’s church didn’t give ‘adequately’ in sbc eyes but now their giving has increased in the last several years…coincidental or setting up a move for the run at the president’s position!? ronnie seems highly pragmatic…does he still go by the term ‘bible coach’ instead of pastor? …one final note: the term ‘traditionalist’ for non calvinist views is totally inaccurate historically…the traditional view of sbc is reformed…this really clouds the issue and is question begging at its highest…find another name for the semi arminian view of salvation in the sbc. …was hoping to see Dever be nominated this year…Dever is very conciliatory and gracious, sharp thinker, and strongly SBC in his roots and identity…
Channing,
Respectfully, I would like to challenge your statement, as you said,
“… one final note: the term ‘traditionalist’ for non calvinist views is totally inaccurate historically…the traditional view of sbc is reformed…this really clouds the issue and is question begging at its highest…find another name for the semi arminian view of salvation in the sbc.”
Could it be that you have accepted the misinformation that in 1845 (start of the SBC) all Southern Baptists were Calvinists?
Below … I share one of the articles of the Sandy Creek 1845 Articles which clearly show that their articles of faith clearly moved far from their original articles of faith that were much more Calvinistic, it reads:
VI. OF THE FREENESS OF SALVATION.
That the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel;* that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial and obedient faith,** and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth, except his own voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ;*** which refusal will subject him to an aggravated condemnation.****
Places in the Bible where taught.
* Rev. xxii. 17: Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Isaiah lv. 1. Luke xiv. 17.
** Rom. xvi. 26: The gospel, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith. Mark i. 15. Rom. i. 15, 17.
*** John v. 40: Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life. Matt, xxiii. 37. Rom. ix. 32. Prov. i. 24. Acts xiii. 46.
**** John iii. 19: And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Mat. xi. 20. Luke xix. 27. 2 Thess. i. 8.
Very few websites wish to show the 1845 Articles by the Sandy Creekers and continue to spread misinformation.
Also, many Southern Baptists had adopted the 1833 New Hampshire Confession by 1845 … which is a very clear move away from the more Calvinistic Philadelphia Baptist Confession.
We’ve always had the “general atonement” and “particular atonement” streams in SBC life, as they did in Europe.
Blessings!
Thanks for your cordial response! A few enumerated points: 1) I’d have to say that nothing in the doctrinal statement goes against traditional Calvinism. Historical Calvinism believes in the beginning, end, AND the means/call of the gospel. 2) The New Hampshire confession was still Calvinistic. 3) Research has shown the two streams of Sandy Creek and the Calvinist tradition are not true. Sandy Creek was reformed. Founders devoted an entire journal to some research on it. See here: http://www.founders.org/journal/fj66/contents.html Also I’d recommend looking at this book: http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Baptists-Doctrine-Election-Robert/dp/0873779487 No SBC president, founder, (till close to the 1920’s if I recall correctly) held to any view but traditional Calvinism in the Baptist stream. 4) The issue of calling non-calvinist views “traditional” is that it’s not true that it is in the original tradition of the SBC. It also biases the current discussion thru the use of that nomenclature. Give it 10 years and let the context of the ‘traditional’ word usage slip into the past of why it is used and you have some automatically biased against those ‘calvinists’ bec they are the outsiders…(bec they are not ‘traditionally’ part of the SBC!..so will go the story!) You will keep an unnecessary tension between the two current thoughts in the SBC. The word ‘traditionalist’ is very unhelpful in being conciliatory in the SBC. Just my hillbilly 2 cents. Much grace!
Ron,
I’m called by some of you a “high” Calvinist and this…
“VI. OF THE FREENESS OF SALVATION.
That the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel;* that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial and obedient faith,** and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth, except his own voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ;*** which refusal will subject him to an aggravated condemnation.****”
I can easily affirm this.
Les, thanks for saying this. I am continually dismayed that some people regularly think and assert that people of reformed leanings – no matter how far they may lean – do not affirm a statement like that one.
Tarheel — are you saying that you do not hold to reprobation?
Are you saying that when some are “chosen out” — that some are not left “not chosen?”
Thanks
Les,
Using your “supra” position … can you break down what you mean by “freeness.”
Thanks!
Ron, no charge. Bring nothing.
You assume I’m a supra? Why?
Les — You told me a number of months back that you were supra.
Blessings!
Ron,
Did I say straight up supra? Or a modified supra? Maybe I was not as specific then as I should have been.
Les — let’s go then with modified supra –but, you are aware that the divines of Dort determined that the decrees of election and reprobation are based on God’s sovereign choice (verses) foreseen faith or unbelief — though Christ’s death was sufficient for all, it was efficient only for the elect. They determined that humanity was totally corrupted by the Fall and unable to choose salvation prior to regeneration. Since only the “elect” are regenerated in order to believe — then how can many Cals believe in the “freeness of salvation” the way the Sandy Creekers did in 1845 (as mentioned above)?
Thanks!
Ron,
I agree with Dort as it is written.
“Humanity [is] totally corrupted by the Fall and unable to choose salvation prior to regeneration.” That’s why man needs God to intervene and save him.
“Since only the “elect” are regenerated in order to believe — then how can many Cals believe in the “freeness of salvation” the way the Sandy Creekers did in 1845 (as mentioned above)?”
Because the bible says that God offers salvation freely to any and all through the preaching by ministers and others.
Maurice Roberts wrote: “It is the invitation given by God to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do so believe they will at once receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.”
He goes on to say,
“We would respond to this view as follows. The fact is that the Bible does speak of God as wanting and wishing all sinners to be saved. See the texts: Isa. 45:22; Ezek. 18:23, 30–32; Ezek. 33:11; Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; 1 Tim. 2:3–4; 2 Pet. 3:9. This is as certainly a matter of divine revelation as is his eternal election. Both are stated as revealed facts in scripture.
The way to interpret scripture is not to stress one truth to the detriment of another but to hold both truths at the same time. So we affirm both God’s eternal election and his well-meant offer to all sinners who hear the gospel. We are obliged to do this because this is how God himself reveals his will to us. Put simply, it is this: God has fixed the number of the elect from eternity past; yet God desires every sinner who hears his gospel to receive it and to be eternally blessed in Christ.”
He says well brother. There is a sense that God desires the salvation of all and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Yet, the number of the elect is fixed.
Ron,
Should have been this way:
“Maurice Roberts wrote **of the free offer of the gospel**: “It is the invitation given by God to all sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, with the promise added that if they do so believe they will at once receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life.” – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/why-im-glad-ronnie-floyd-will-be-nominated-for-sbc-president/#comment-229689
Les,
What does Mr. Roberts do with the eternal decree of God?
Ron, I’ll check, but I’m pretty sure he believes in it. Be back…
Ron,
We Reformed believe in the free offer of the gospel to all, elect and reprobate.
“WLC 68: “Are the elect only effectually called?”
“All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit, who for their wilful neglect and contempt of the grace **offered** to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.”
Rev. Roberts says:
“That he decrees the salvation of some, not all, sinners;
That he delights in the eternal death of no sinners;
That he desires the salvation of all sinners.
There are two things here which appear to be in conflict:
God’s will of decree, and
God’s will of desire. (The Greek words thelo and boulomai can properly be used of both God’s will and his wish, or desire.)”
and…
Others:
“”God desires nothing more earnestly than that those who were perishing and rushing to destruction should return into the way of safety. And for this reason not only is the gospel spread abroad in the world, but God wished to bear witness through all ages how inclined he is to pity.” John Calvin
“His will as revealed… is an undoubted indication of what He wished or desired that men should do… In some sense, God wishes, as he commands and enjoins, that all his rational creatures should ever walk in the ways of holiness; and that all men, doing so, should be for ever blessed.” William Cunningham
“God desires the salvation of all men. This means… that God is good; that he is merciful and gracious, and ready to forgive; that he is good to all and that his tender mercies are over all his works.” Charles Hodge
Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2, 3-4:
“It is quite certain that when we read that God will have all men to be saved it does not mean that he wills it with the force of a decree or a divine purpose, for, if he did, then all men would be saved. He willed to make the world, and the world was made: he does not so will the salvation of all men, for we know that all men will not be saved…
“What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I think not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. ‘All men’, say they, ‘that is, some men’: as if the Holy Ghost could not have said ‘some men’ if he had meant some men. ‘All men’, say they; ‘that is, some of all sorts of men’: as if the Lord could not have said ‘all sorts of men’ if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men’, and unquestionably he means all men.
“Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word ‘wish’ gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus – ‘whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth’. As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God’s wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.
Then comes the question, ‘But if he wishes it to be so, why does he not make it so?’ Beloved friend, have you never heard that a fool may ask a question which a wise man cannot answer, and, if that be so, I am sure a wise person, like yourself, can ask me a great many questions which, fool as I am, I am yet not foolish enough to try to answer. Your question is only one form of the great debate of all the ages – ‘If God be infinitely good and powerful, why does not his power carry out to the full all his beneficence?’ It is God’s wish that the oppressed should go free, yet there are many oppressed who are not free. It is God’s wish that the sick should not suffer. Do you doubt it? Is it not your own wish? And yet the Lord does not work a miracle to heal every sick person. It is God’s wish that his creatures should be happy. Do you deny that? He does not interpose by any miraculous agency to make us all happy, and yet it would be wicked to suppose that he does not wish the happiness of all the creatures that he has made.
He has an infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite benevolence which, nevertheless, is not in all points worked out by his infinite omnipotence; and if anybody asked me why it is not, I cannot tell. I have never set up to be an explainer of all difficulties, and I have no desire to do so… I cannot tell you why God permits moral evil, neither can the ablest philosopher on earth, nor the highest angel in heaven.”
Wes,
It seems the first quote spelled out one thing and the other quotes sought to spell out the more positive aspects of the divine decree that the D.o.G teaches. When your definite atonement (L.A) teaches that God had a specific object in His view — that is, the salvation of those whom the Father had given the Son (before the foundation of the world) and that Christ’s death is effective for saving those persons (the Elect) then this signifies that the death of the Savior has saving efficacy for the elect, and for them only. So — if Christ’s death atoned for the sins of the elect (only) but not for the sins of the non-elect — then why do you make the claim (above) that you believe in the “freeness of salvation” according to the 1845 Sandy Creek confession?
Ron,
You ask, “why do you make the claim (above) that you believe in the “freeness of salvation” according to the 1845 Sandy Creek confession?”
Because I agree with how Roberts stated it (as I quoted above):
“The way to interpret scripture is not to stress one truth to the detriment of another but to hold both truths at the same time. So we affirm both God’s eternal election and his well-meant offer to all sinners who hear the gospel. We are obliged to do this because this is how God himself reveals his will to us. Put simply, it is this: God has fixed the number of the elect from eternity past; yet God desires every sinner who hears his gospel to receive it and to be eternally blessed in Christ.”
I can affirm two seeming incongruent things. For instance, I can affirm that Paul wrote Romans, and 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and so on. Yet, I can also affirm that God wrote the scriptures and that the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture. Somehow, mysteriously, Paul wrote by his own hand and in his own style and yet God superintended and ensured that what Paul wrote was syllable by syllable exactly what God intended Paul to write. Quite amazing. Yet, how can that be? Did Paul write or did God write? Yes to both.
Blessings brother, Les
“I can affirm two seeming incongruent things. For instance, I can affirm that Paul wrote Romans, and 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and so on. Yet, I can also affirm that God wrote the scriptures and that the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture. Somehow, mysteriously, Paul wrote by his own hand and in his own style and yet God superintended and ensured that what Paul wrote was syllable by syllable exactly what God intended Paul to write. Quite amazing. Yet, how can that be? Did Paul write or did God write? Yes to both.”
What Les, said.
As I often say….it’s not an either/or – its a both/and.
😉
Nearly 24 hours has passed since Jared Moore first announced that he would be nominated for SBC president and not a peep on SBC Voices. What in the world is going on? Can we stop talking Calvinism for a bit and start talking SBC politics again?
He didn’t announce it here at SBC Voices. I doubt that anyone kows unless they follow his blog (I didn’t know becasue I don’t follow his blog). My prediction: While he may be nominated, he will not win. Of course, my NCAA March Madness bracket shows the serious deficiencies in my prognosticatory abilities.
It’s not the same thing? 😉