See if you recognize any of these quotes or have read similar ones:
…a book that seeks to recover the Gospel heritage that has been vastly lost since the last century.
…look back at the first generation of Georgia Baptists, filtered through the biblical Gospel…
…our labors in this book have been to show the confessional faith of the first generation of Georgia Baptists as a whole.
…how our Baptist forbearers in Georgia came to these convictions biblically…
Many Baptists in the twenty-first century have lost their way.
…capitulated to…pragmatic notions and humanistic philosophies of Pelagius, Arminius, Amyrald, and Finney (not to mention…E. Y. Mullins)
We pray that what is called , “The Five Points of Calvinism,” would not appear as something alien, foreign, or cursed by Baptists – but only a nickname for what the Bible clearly teaches: “Salvation is of the Lord.”
These are quotes from the free book that has just been sent to all Georgia Baptist pastors. I noticed a copy on the desk of my successor who just arrived to pastor the church from which I retired. He was busy getting settled and loaned it to me.
The book is The Gospel Heritage of Georgia Baptists 1772-1830 by Brandon F. Smith and Kurt M. Smith, Introduction by Dr. Thomas J. Nettles and published by Solid Ground Christian Books located in Birmingham. I assume this is one of the Calvinist publishers. Apparently, some Calvinist churches donated the money to send the books to all GBMB churches.
I’ll not review the book (haven’t ploughed through all of it) but note that it is a Calvinist tract with emphasis on early figures like Daniel Marshal, Abraham Marshall, and Jesse Mercer. The classic five points of Calvinism each have a chapter.
The authors are pastors of Georgia churches, although I am unsure if these are GBMB churches, and there is an official Calvinist affinity group in my state, The Georgia Association of Confessional Baptists which lists seven member churches. I’ll let some historian assess the accuracy of the two authors’ (both lack graduate degrees) treatment of the historical figures in the book.
The authors have a “how I came to Calvinism testimony,” always an interesting read in my opinion.
A few observations:
- Just when I begin to think that we have Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC and that we can generally co-exist with only a modicum of rancor, we get a mass mailing whose stated purpose is to “recover Gospel heritage,” an undisguised way of asserting that all but perhaps seven GBMB churches have lost something that needs to be recovered.
- I appreciate a free book and am not unappreciative that these guys are unafraid of reaction in a state that, denominationally, is generally unfriendly to their type of Calvinists.
- It looks pretty simple to me that if a search committee finds a candidate who is a member of the GACB they should politely move to the next resume, unless they want a crusading Calvinist pastor.
- No, I don’t think Jesse Mercer will save 21st century Georgia Baptists.
I don’t hear near as many stories of Calvinists blowing up churches while recovering Gospel heritage as I did ten or twenty years ago but I guess there are still brethren who would do so if given a chance.
My suggestion is that the Alabama publisher of this book get up funds to send it to all Alabama Baptist churches and let one land on Rick Patrick’s desk…it would probably burn a hole through it clear to the ground.
I’m a little jaded when it comes to these type things but I’m OK with theological subgroups in the SBC…just let each one tell a church when interviewing where they stand and what they would try to do if called as pastor.
I’m generally sympathetic to any group, including Calvinists, advocating for their position, but this is just going to play into the anti-Calvinist hysteria that the Trads have been trying to stir up. I have no problem with people thinking Calvinism is biblical, but when you characterize it as the “biblical Gospel”, then you are accusing the vast majority of Southern Baptists of preaching a false Gospel (which, by the way, I’ve heard plenty of Trads accuse Calvinists of doing). Will Hall will have a field day with this.
Yea, most of the criticisms from the SBC-Today crowd are ridiculous, unfounded, and are based on mere assumptions….but things like this definitely do not help the Calvinist side.
Solid Ground is a Calvinistic publisher and book seller, similar to Banner Of Truth.
I am so weary of the crusading that takes place on both sides of this issue. We’d all do better to spend more time sharing the gospel with lost people than we do arguing about how many points one must affirm to truly believe the gospel.
Amen
William, I loved your line about the view of these Calvinist authors that “all but perhaps seven GBMB churches have lost something that needs to be recovered.” As condescending as that sounds to us, their insult is far worse, for they are not merely asserting we lost “something.” They are asserting that Christian ministers and fellow Southern Baptists have lost *the Gospel.* In fact, what many of us have discarded is not the Gospel, but Calvinism. There is a difference between losing something valuable and throwing something away because you deem it worthless. I am also astonished that 1845 has… Read more »
Let me say that I do not believe that non-Calvinists have lost the gospel, and I do not think most SBC Calvinists believe that. I think the book referenced in the article is ill-advised, and it is hard for me to fathom why anyone who wanted to buy a book for every Georgia Baptist pastor would choose that book.
Thank you, Adam. Your words here are very kind and embrace the type of unity I hope we can one day see achieved in SBC life. We have a long way to go. It gives me hope that perhaps one day we can sit down with convention leaders—both Calvinists and Traditionalists—and discuss the nuts and bolts of our concerns, addressing the difficult task of peacemaking by working through perhaps a dozen practical grievances. I believe solutions are possible, but only when we are willing to admit there is a true division in our convention, and we are willing to tackle… Read more »
Lest you think I’m being too kind, you often are a “petty and obstructionist troublemaker” in much the same way as the distributors of this book.
We certainly need to avoid the reputation of being too kind.
😉
Adam, Brother, your follow up sentence was unkind and uncalled for…the type of remark that does not lead to the unity I hope we can achieve through problem solving and conflict management. I can understand why in this venue you felt you had to say that, but it basically undercuts your previous sentiments. Without providing any specific details, you succeeded only in a bit of vague name calling. My conscience is totally clear. I am seeking to make matters better and not worse. I am part of the solution and not part of the problem. I am for greater awareness.… Read more »
Rick, would you consider the distributors of this book to be petty and obstructionist troublemakers? I would. Unfortunately, your writings show you to be on a level playing field with them. That’s really all I’m saying. The “lest you think I’m being too kind” thing was a joke. But I mean every word of the latter part. There’s a reason people tell you that you are being a petty and obstructionist troublemaker.
Adam Blosser,
I have to agree with Rick Patrick. Your “follow-up remark was uncalled for.”
Rick and I have some great differences between us. That’s a fact. However, it seems to me that Rick sincerely complemented you and offered his hand to you, “so to speak” and you spit in his face.
That was rude behavior on your part and I am somewhat surprised that Dave Miller has not called your hand on it.
Adam, Actually, this may surprise you, but while I think the distributors of the book are (a) wrong in their theology, and (b) it is a waste of their money and time to try to Calvinize the Georgia Baptist Convention, and (c) it is condescending to suggest that we have *lost* the gospel (“I just know it’s around here SOMEWHERE!”), I nevertheless defend their right to promote their views…just as I have every right to promote mine. To me, they are not being petty and obstructionist. They are simply promoting a false doctrine, and carrying out the same Calvinist Takeover… Read more »
Neither “traditionalists” or “Calvinists” are free of trouble-making divisionists. I think this is a stupid act by those who decided to blanket distribute this book attempting to “convert” or convey that those who aren’t Calvinists have “lost the gospel” . Its unhelpful and stupid to be a hyper Calvinist. I also think it to be a stupid act when a state convention (I think it was Tennessee, years ago) or 316/SBCToday more recently devise and distribute helps for search committees in rooting out among other absurdities “trained lying Calvinists”. Being an Anti-Calvinist is stupid and unhelpful. . Fact is –… Read more »
Now, come on, Rick Patrick.
You may have gotten just a little grandiose putting yourself among a group of troublemakers like Washington, Wilberforce, and the Lord. — Maybe just a little, ya think?
Maybe you should consider a new list of troublemakers to employ the next time you need to illustrate your value as a troublemaker in the governmental and religious affairs.
CB, No visions of grandeur here…just a weakness for hyperbole. I was intentionally exaggerating for effect, picking well known people who were simply advocates of change. If I had mentioned totally unknown people seeking change, like Bill Weinrich, Thomas Nuvell, Wilson Conrad and George Hallman (names I just invented, by the way) then no one would have been able to comprehend the “change agent is not a troublemaker” metaphor. I am certainly not putting myself in that category in terms of any accomplishment whatsoever. I am only trying to say, by means of an admittedly ridiculous exagerration, that “not everyone… Read more »
I have been out chasing bison with my grandkids today, but CB, you have said MUCH worse to Rick and to others and I let it go. Rick and his group declared war on Calvinists – a war I believe is divisive and destructive. If he wants to stop this war of division in the SBC, i will be thrilled. I was horrified at the actions Eric Hankins proposed – which would wreak havoc on our denomination. Rick cannot be the general in a war designed to tear down our convention and complain when people call him on it. And… Read more »
Rick, I am not sure there is room to negotiate when you want an equal balance in leadership set by the percentage you say is true of SB’s. 1 – You do not know the percentage. 2 – If you did, who negotiates the job loss of the fine men serving now who are Calvinists? 3 – the system in the SBC works… elections were held… Trustees were elected… Trustees sought God on the current leadership… Some excellent, soul winning, mission minded servants are doing a great job… 4 – Use the system, elect the Presidents… you know the drill.… Read more »
Tarheel wrote: I also think it to be a stupid act when a state convention (I think it was Tennessee, years ago) or 316/SBCToday more recently devise and distribute helps for search committees in rooting out among other absurdities “trained lying Calvinists”. Being an Anti-Calvinist is stupid and unhelpful. . Brother, I don’t know about “trained lying Calvinists” but I do know that there are a number of deceptive Calvinists out there. Many people have experienced this including myself. So if you don’t want people to distribute helps for search committees in spotting deceptive Calvinists stop the deception that’s going… Read more »
There are liars of all stripes and soteriologies….the problem is not the theology – the problem is the liar…. I do not doubt a single bit that some Cals have been dishonest to committees – but I am also absolutely certain that non and anti Cals have too….I have seen churches left in turmoil with cal pastors as well as with non cal ones. Also, the attempt to connect this grossly disqualifying act exclusively to a particular group of persons (complete with saying they are “trained to lie”) that hold to a certain theology is in fact in itself dishonest,… Read more »
Tarheel, you’re right there are deceptive people in all theological positions. And there are terrorists of all religious and political positions; but most of them are Muslims. We don’t want to be like the hard left that after every muslim terrorist attack first wants to point out that there are bad people in other religions. If you were unaware of the numerous complaints of Calvinist pastors being deceptive to search committees and others and splitting churches over this you need to get out of your bubble. Maybe you could contact Rick Patrick about this. For example, my former pastor mentioned… Read more »
I know all about Rick Patrick’s divisive , deceptive, troublemaking drivel… I have no need to contact him… And if you’re looking to him as being the definitive source for all things anti Calvinist… Then since I understand where you’re coming from there’s no need to continue this dialogue.
Comparing Calvinist to terrorist?? Really?? Like I said no need to continue… I hope that you soon find a more reliable source for your information.
Hey, let’s put the claws away. I believe the C316 war declared on Calvinists in the SBC was a bad idea, and yes, divisive. But I have complained to Rick about the derogation on his sites that I have been made aware of. I think he should take stands against it (and perhaps he has in recent months/year – I wouldn’t know). I think Rick’s anti -Calvinist crusade is fair game. But your comment crosses a line into name-calling. Challenge Rick and the C316 war on those who don’t agree with them, and I will amen you. Let us try… Read more »
I used no words and called no names in that post that have not been used by yourself and other people (including someone you defended just today) in relation to Rick’s antics… But OK you’re the Admin.
Tarheel wrote:And if you’re looking to him as being the definitive source for all things anti Calvinist… No, I gave you some of my sources and they weren’t Rick Patrick. Neither was the connection I pointed out between Calvinists view of God’s behavior and how it might relate to stealth Calvinism. But since you don’t know me or my former pastor I gave you the name of someone you might know. Tarheel wrote: Comparing Calvinist to terrorist?? Really?? Again no, in my analogy the liars of all theological positions were compared to the terrorists of all political/religious positions. Not to… Read more »
Paul. What is it that these Calvinist pastors are doing that cause the church to split? I am a Calvinist and I was pastoring a church when it split. It wasn’t because of Calvinism. It wasn’t because of being heavy handed or being a dictator. It was because we were growing too fast and baptizing too many. This was documented in an article in the Florida Baptist Paper the year it was happening. Sorry, I do not have a copy or a way to point you to it. I wrote the article and didn’t keep a copy. I do remember… Read more »
1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-4. The end.
I might add Jim,
Ephesians 6:10-20.
It is wrong to wrestle with flesh and blood.
Baptists have always distributed tracts, booklets and papers expressing their views. Perhaps in the internet age we have forgotten that fact. Since I’m a Georgia Baptist by birth, I was glad to hear of the availability of this book and ordered a copy this morning. I suspect that many old churches in my home state of Georgia are very similar to my church here in Missouri. Their original Articles of Faith were very Calvinistic but have since been modified to conform to the prevailing theological norm within their Association and State Convention. It will be interesting to see what Georgia… Read more »
William,
You wrote – “I’ll let some historian assess the accuracy of the two authors’ (both lack graduate degrees) treatment of the historical figures in the book.”
Please define graduate degree and explain what that has to do with accuracy!
I am saddened by the tone you use in your response. May our speech be seasoned with grace as we extend love to those with whom we disagree within the spectrum of historic orthodox Christianity. The vitriol found in some the responses does not communicate the love of Christ. Remember, Christ died for the ones you are ridiculing. May the outside world know that we are Christians by our love for one another.
I named RP in this because it is precisely relevant to the 316 group. Whatever is inappropriate there, take it up there, not here. Please
Let’s have a redo here. I could have written 6k words on this instead of 600 and covered more of the territory… 1. There’s nothing combative, petty, or obstructionist about the book that I can see. I don’t know the authors and presume they are fine pastors and good guys. Their stated hope is that Georgia Baptist pastors will “glean something” about early GB pastors, etc. Nothing wrong with that. 2. If people buy the book. I’m OK with that. I’d bet you could get a used one on Amazon cheap, since 3,500 or so free copies have gone out.… Read more »
William Thornton,
Have you read the book from 1988 that we all got in the mail?
It was “88 Reasons the Rapture Will Be In 1988.”
I have trouble getting rid of books, but that was one free book I didn’t keep!
I think the guy wrote a sequel in 1989. 😉
William: “The authors are pastors of Georgia churches, although I am unsure if these are GBMB churches…” Brandon F. Smith is pastor of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in Jackson Georgia. Their web site says they are members of The Georgia Association of Confessional Baptists and the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. They do not mention the GBC or SBC, neither do they turn up in church searches on those sites. Kurt M. Smith is the pastor of Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Remlap, Alabama (assuming he hasn’t moved). Providence Reformed Baptist Church is affiliated with the Association of… Read more »
Jim Shaver: “I suspect that many old churches in my home state of Georgia are very similar to my church here in Missouri. Their original Articles of Faith were very Calvinistic but have since been modified to conform to the prevailing theological norm within their Association and State Convention.” Jim, my ancestors’ roots were in White Plains BC, Greene County, Georgia, organized 1806. They had church roots that went back through Philips Mill, Kiokee, et al. The White Plains church had a clear and definite statement on (in belief of) the five points in the church covenant. My g-grandfather’s brother… Read more »
I believe Brandon Smith was a former contributor to SBCVoices.
I don’t see what all the hoopla is about. Books were sent out. They are free. Take it or leave it. It’s not much different than what Traditionalists did in Florida or other places, sending out anti-Calvinist literature to everyone. It’s no different than those who sent emails and mail to those Independent Baptists who were not even SBC, giving an anti-Calvinist message.
Debbie, there is/was a Brandon Smith who contributes/contributed to SBC Voices, but I don’t know if this is the same person. Some of the leadership should know.
https://sbcvoices.com/helping-a-friend-brandon-smith-is-looking-for-a-place-to-serve/
Given that “…the best conservative biblical, theological, and philosophical scholarship is actually obliterating the foundation upon which Calvinism sits”…one is left to wonder why the good Dr. Patrick’s knickers remain in a perpetual state of disarray.
With the foundation thus “obliterat(ed),” will not Calvinism soon collapse under its own weight?
Not soon enough.
I don’t wear knickers.
Thank you for calling me good.
Have a blessed weekend.
I am a layman so I come here and other sites to get different point of views. I have to say honestly that I did not know that there was a large section of the SBC that has grown in influence as the Calvinist movement. It appears that the Calvinist have grown in leadership and executive staff levels and have taken over Nashville. It seems many younger pastors future leaders are Calvinist. I just think based only on my life experience that no more than 20 percent at best in SBC churches would know much about Calvin and would not… Read more »
“Not soon enough.”
Ah, be patient, my brother.
Surely it must calm you that your “conservative biblical, theological, and philosophical scholarship” is “obliterating” the foundation of a theology that has existed for the better part of two millennia.
One would think that such a monumental accomplishment–achieved in only a few short years–would be quite exhilarating for Traditionalists such as yourself.
No?
😉
BTW, when might we expect part 2 of your “Leave it to Beaver” version of SBC membership policies?
Negotiate? What needs to be negotiated? Who gets to represent each side? What are the sides? Once again you are assuming a far greater degree of legitimacy than you have achieved.
Advocate for your position, change people’s minds if you can, and vote at the annual meeting.
To answer your question William… regarding the title….
Nope.
Neither will the SBC be rescued by 21st century Traditionalists.
I would elaborate but that’s not the reason for Williams post and such a position got me banned from the closed conversation on ‘the other site”
Jon Estes, I think that there is going to be a different reaction other than the course you mentioned of going though the SBC slow, complicated and difficult road for the majority to regain control of the SBC. I think that the the majority of traditional SBC members have no idea of how the SBC leadership works, the non transparency of finance, lack of accountability etc. The influence of followers of Calvin certainly dominate the rank of SBC executive leadership. Rick Patrick wrote a good commentary on the culture of a SBC church which was spot on. I am almost… Read more »
John, you made several references to progressive leaders in Nashville. Could you please name them? I can’t think of even one.
Me either, Adam.
It is hard to see a way forward at times when you know that this kind of brainwashing is going on and people are buying the Russell Moore is a progressive lie, the Conspiracy theories, all of that. It is disheartening.
Dave,
Take heart.
The Lord has a plan and He is bringing it to pass.
Your job is to listen to Him and obey. As is mine. As is any true believer’s.
So trust Him and believe.
By the way, God is working out everything for the good for those that love Him and are called according to His purpose.
So keep fighting the good fight, victory had been achieved!
Any movement dependent on brainwashing and conspiracy theories usually undermines its own cause by over-reaching.
The “Loyal Opposition” screed was a classic example of over-reach.
I am still convinced the extremes on both sides – C316 and the Calvinize everyone groups – do not represent the majority in the SBC. Calvinist or not, most of us don’t want THAT to dominate everything, divide everyone, and be at the core if denominational life.
Dave, you gave the name of “the extreme” on one side – C316. As you’re willing to name names, in fairness what are the names of the “Calvinize everyone groups”?
I agree, Dave. I think the extremes on both sides are over-reaching and thus marginalizing themselves. While I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, I am convinced that in the end the middle will hold. In the case of the good Dr. Patrick & Co., their proposal to trash the BF&M and Abstract of Principles and return to a 1950’s version of the SBC will not gain much traction outside of the handful of folks they have managed to brainwash. Patrick & Co. is a grievance industry, and grievance industries have a relatively short shelf-life. The… Read more »
John Barry – You say a lot but at the same time say very little. The Calvinists I know are strong evangelists? They do deal with social issues, as did Jesus. I stick with my position that the Traditionalists do not have the number or funds to turn the ship away from Calvinism. Many do not want the people in the pew to even hear from a Calvinist and see their heart to reach the nations. They want to control the discussion. If the Trads believe (and many do) that Calvinism is a heresy, then they have a mandate from… Read more »
I judge my friend Jon as being a bit out of touch on this. There’s a fragile peace in the SBC on it. This book giveaway isn’t an attempt at a takeover but an effort to troll (as in fishing) to see who might be hooked by The Eternal Truth of Calvin.
And beginning 20 years ago I heard Cals refer to common, traditional SBC churches as being deep into heresy because they weren’t Calvinists.
Jon, you say little and explain less, so we complement each other. My strong belief is that the majority of SBC members are traditional in belief and practice. They are not Calvinist and while Calvinist are not a major issue with them as they do not know about the influence Calvinist are gaining as I stated previously. I stand by my comment that if the majority of SBC members knew more about the inner workings and direction of the SBC they would vote with their feet if indeed it would take 20 years to change the course of the SBC… Read more »
John Barry… I wanted to respond earlier but the time difference can hold me up. That can create a lag between responses.Example, As I type this it is 2 AM in Nashville and 11 AM here. YOU – “My strong belief is that the majority of SBC members are traditional in belief and practice. They are not Calvinist and while Calvinist are not a major issue with them as they do not know about the influence Calvinist are gaining as I stated previously.” JLE – I would say your belief is incorrect. I do not think most of the people… Read more »
“If Connect 3.16 wrote a (statement?) conveying their point of view to every SBC member 80 percent would agree with them, that is my guess.”
They did, several years ago. Your guess if off. Slightly.
So far, only .00000867% of SBC members have agreed with them.
Yep.
Randall Cofield, My poorly made point is exactly what your .00000867 percent exposes , I believe that is the percent of SBC who are even aware of the events unfolding. I was one of them until about two years ago when I became aware of SBC leadership via secular news. Again I only use my personal frame of reference about how deeply the average SBC member follows events outside their local church. I will state again that if a blanket information campaign was launched most SBC members would support traditional belief. Most SBC members understand and have no problem with… Read more »
John,
Do you think all or most SBC cals reject an altar call?
Further, Do you think those who do prefer another mode of response are rejecting calling people to respond to salvation and repentance?
Do you know that the altar call – as it’s known today – was not standard in worship services until relatively recently in the annals Christian tradition (since around the 1830’s)?
“john barry”,
eric c,
steve s,
and all the other names you’ve posted under. I’ve wanted you before about posting using fake names. This comment was so similar to the comments I used to hear from “eric c” that I did some investigating. No more comments will be posted unless and until you start using your real name. That’s a policy we request for commenters site wide. Posting under 5 or more different names is an abuse of the comments system and won’t be tolerated.
Brent, I think the policy of using your real name is a good one. Most folks will use greater care in what they say if they are held accountable for their words. But the policy is a bit confusing, in that there are several regular posters who use a handle or pseudonym.
Jesse Mercer (AD 1760-1841) “himself shifted from his original commitment to limited atonement to the unlimited position.”
-David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, B&H; 2016.
Another point about Mercer and Texas:
Of Jesse Mercer, L. R. Scarborough, Georgia and Texas
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/08/of-jesse-mercer-l-r-scarborough-georgia.html
David R. Brumbelow
David, from what source is he quoting that shows Mercer shifted his view on the atonement?
It is interesting that several of the preachers in the area of Penfield caught Mercer’s fire for Texas — leaving Georgia behind and coming to Texas as ministers and missionaries. At the moment I can’t remember but a few of them, including Noah Hill and Joseph I. Loudermilk, who pastored my relatives in White Plains (one of them even stuck a child with the middle name Loudermilk). In 1856 he was instrumental in organizing the first Baptist Church in Jackson County, Texas.
Robert Vaughn,
David L. Allen’s sources for saying Jesse Mercer changed from Limited Atonement to believing in Unlimited Atonement are:
Mallary, Memoir of Elder Jesse Mercer, 290, 297-303.
Richards, Winds of Doctrines, 58.
A. Chute, A Piety Above the Common Standard, 71-72.
By the way, Allen says Furman did the same thing.
David L. Allens’s “The Extent of the Atonement” is a classic. Every preacher should have it.
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks. I appreciate the information on the sources. Since Wiley Richards and Andrew Chute are secondary sources, I assume they are referring back to something Mercer wrote, such as what is recorded in his Memoirs. I would first all of exclude the reference on page 290 as proof that Mercer had changed his views. It is, in fact, the only place (as far as I can tell) that uses the phrase “limited atonement” in the Memoirs. It may seem to argue against limited atonement, but I believe that Dr. Allen misunderstands. This is from Mercer’s letter answering Cyrus White, and… Read more »
“It seems to be taken for granted that all those venerable fathers, who founded the Baptist Denomination in this state (Georgia), were as stern Calvinistic preachers as are the opposers of the new plans. But this is altogether a mistake. Abraham Marshall [son of Daniel] was never considered a predestinarian preacher. Some of them were so – seemed to be set for the defense of the gospel. Of these, Silas Mercer and Jeptha Vining were the chief. Abraham Marshall was never considered a predestinarian preacher. To use his own figure; he used to say, ‘he was short legged and could… Read more »
I’m excited to get a copy of Allen’s book. May take me several years though to read the thing. I recently saw a copy on the shelf at LifeWay at NOBTS and didn’t realize until then that it’s so big.
From Minutes of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Bethel Baptist Association (Ga.), Est. 1833:
Article 7. We believe the doctrine of election; that it is that gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, sanctifies and saves sinners.
Randall, I think it is probably this Bethel Association in South Carolina to which Mercer refers:
https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/947733
Anyone with a Villanova log-in (not me) should be able to look at the minutes 1791-1800.
In the letter of Mercer which Dr. Allen quotes, not far prior to what he quotes, Jesse Mercer wrote, “But for the sake of those who may not have given themselves the trouble to read heretofore; or who may not have noticed it, I repeat that I have undergone no fundamental change in faith from my forefathers. I believe now, and always preach in perfect accordance with the faith adopted by the Georgia Association, and from her (so far as I am informed) the other associations in the state.” (Memoirs of Elder Jesse Mercer, edited by Charles Dutton Mallary, New… Read more »
Robert Vaughn,
Many would say a person can believe in what you just quoted, and still believe in Unlimited Atonement.
David R. Brumbelow
I believe you must be correct, though I have never seen or known anyone who believed that Christ died for all men who could affirm such a statement. Our preachers where I grew up would have gotten in the face of anyone who approached such terms. Once in a sermon I said that Christ died for all men, but that he only intended to save those who believe, and my pastor told me I’d better be careful or someone would think I was teaching Calvinism! But your observation nevertheless must have been correct of some Georgia Baptists such as Abraham… Read more »
David and Robert, When God created, nary, before God created. he knew exactly by name who would be saved and who by name, whom He would judge and send to the Lake of Fire. And knowing this God created anyway. Note. i am talking here about if or not whether or not He chose some or didn’t but only that He KNEW. Since he knew exactly the results of creation, His purpose in creating was to achieve those results. He wouldn’t lie to Himself and think maybe it would be better than I know. of course not for as you… Read more »
Hi, Mike. Thanks for your comments. Your thought that I quote next pretty well sums up what I believe. “God knows and we don’t. So we proclaim the Gospel to all people so that those who believe might be saved by God through it…It is sufficient to cover all who believe.” I agree. No need to be obsessed with it, but do what Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15 says. But I want to further note that I am not debating over the biblical question of whether the atonement is limited or unlimited, but discussing what is the historical record of… Read more »
Tarheel,
I know the altar call is used by many Calvinists.
But on the other hand, it seems the only ones speaking against the altar call are Calvinists.
Three great books on the Public Invitation:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2017/03/proper-use-of-public-invitation.html
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks, David B.,
That wasn’t my question…
I’ll repeat one for you though….
Do you think those who do prefer another mode of response are rejecting calling people to respond to salvation and repentance?
Tarheel,
You asked, “Do you think all or most SBC cals reject an altar call?”
And, I gave my answer to your question.
As to your second question –
I believe those who do not use the public invitation are rejecting a very effective method of bringing people to Jesus.
I was saved as a result of the public invitation.
David R. Brumbelow
“I was saved as a result of the public invitation.”
Really??!!
Randall Cofield,
Yes.
David R. Brumbelow
To be clear, you are attributing causal power to the public invitation?
David B., “I believe those who do not use the public invitation are rejecting a very effective method…” Ok. That’s fine. That’s is very different thing than suggesting those who prefer other methods (believing and seeing those methods be very effective as well) are rejecting the calling of people to repentence and belief. The public invitation is ONE way (I agree it’s a good way and I use it) but it’s not the only way. No one should be disparaged for choosing to use another mode of calling sinners to repentance and belief. The fundamental here is the calling of… Read more »
The problem with the altar call (which is not the same as an invitation) is not that it is effective or not, or that it can be abused, or not, but that it is now being touted as a mark of a “true” Southern Baptist church.
Bingo, BillMac.
Bill MAC, “altar call (which is not the same as an invitation)”
Yes!! They are no the same. Many, many people invite sinners to repent and believe in their preaching all the time without ever employing the altar call.
“Burch’s comment is illuminating: One should note that the confessions modeled after the Georgia Association [Georgia Baptist Convention] did not address the issue of limited atonement. Article four addressed only particular redemption. Therefore, those Baptists who accepted Andrew Fuller’s view of the atonement could still be considered orthodox. The fourth article states, ‘We believe in the everlasting love of God to His people, and the eternal election of a definite number of the human race, to grace and glory: And that there is a covenant of grace or redemption made between the Father and the Son before the world began,… Read more »
David, With all respect to both you and Dr. Allen, the above comment by Burch does not differentiate between the act of atonement and the specific application of it. It only leaves a very narrow window opening that allows such a conclusion. Allowing such a conclusion [either on purpose or because one is not even addressing it] does not mean that one is differentiating between two things, of which one is not even directly mentioned. And the one not directly mentioned [unlimited atonement] may or may not have even been in view. Thus to parse the statement to arrive at… Read more »
Burch’s comment is found in a footnote in his book Adiel Sherwood: Baptist Antebellum Pioneer in Georgia. His conclusion that “those Baptists who accepted Andrew Fuller’s view of the atonement could still be considered orthodox” is accurate, at least in the thinking of many of these Georgia Baptists. Jesse Mercer seems to see little difference in his writings when referring to Fuller and Gill. But the statement did exclude those who held general provision or general atonement, which is shown on the same page in Burch’s book. The general provisionists could not agree to part of the 4th and part… Read more »
I still think a person could affirm article six and believe in Unlimited Atonement. After all, there are a number of four point Calvinists.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
You are right that there are 4 point C’s who believe in Unlimited Atonement.
But that doesn’t mean they could affirm article 6 or endorse the whole statement. for:
“But the statement did exclude those who held general provision or general atonement, which is shown on the same page in Burch’s book. “
Brother Brumbelow, would you define how you are using “unlimited atonement,” explain whether unlimited atonement represents your view and whether you could affirm articles 4 and 6 of the Georgia Baptist Association?
Thanks.
Robert,
I believe Jesus died for the sins of the entire world and that anyone can be saved.
I am not a 4 point Calvinist. I’m not saying I believe this, just saying I can see how some can.
Also, if Mercer changed from believing in Limited Atonement, to believing in Unlimited Atonement – I can certainly see how he could do this and not consider himself to have denied the faith.
I believe there are conservative, Bible believing Baptists on both sides of this issue.
But Unlimited Atonement is the right side!
David R. Brumbelow
David, thanks for your clarification. I appreciate it. Ron Rhodes, who says he is a 4-point Calvinist and believes in Unlimited Atonement, defines it this way: “The doctrine that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons.” On the one hand I understand it, but on the other hand a category that embraces all the way from the 4-point Calvinist to the Universal Salvationist seems strange and not particularly useful to me. Despite technical difficulties about “limited atonement” there is little more than a dime’s worth of difference between the 4-point and 5-point Calvinists, while there is a million dollars difference… Read more »
Parsonsmike, Well, I disagree. I believe Unlimited Atonement is important. Multiple times Scripture says Jesus died for all (1 John 2:2; etc.). If Jesus did not die for all, then those for whom He did not die, do not, and will never, have the opportunity to be saved. Calvinists say they can believe. No, they have nothing to believe in if Jesus did not die for them. If Jesus did not die for you, you do not have a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever being saved. Limited Atonement is saying to the majority of the world’s population, “Sorry, you… Read more »
David, I didn’t write to convert you to Calvinism. You said: “If Jesus did not die for all, then those for whom He did not die, do not, and will never, have the opportunity to be saved.” This is a misunderstanding on your part. Let me walk you through it from a non-Calvinist point of view:. The Gospel is preached. Any and/or all who hear it can believe it or not. God knows who will believe it. Jesus paid for the sins of all who believe it. If those who rejected it once, later believe it, God knows that as… Read more »
Parsonsmike,
No, it is not a misunderstanding on my part. I understand clearly what I’m speaking of.
I meant exactly what I said.
If Jesus did not die for you, you will never have the opportunity to believe or be saved. Period.
And, I still believe Jesus died for the sins of the entire world. Period.
David R. Brumbelow
David,
But you only selectively answered what I asked of you.
Why is that?
David,
You are correct, Christ died for the sins of the entire world. Which Scripture makes clear time and again. If Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world, one could not rightly preach the Gospel (good news) to every creature.
I believe in Unlimited Atonement because the Bible makes that so plain. But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. -2 Peter 2:1 Even the false prophets were bought by Jesus. Christ is the Savior of all men, even false prophets. He has purchased their salvation. But only those who believe will be saved. http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/10/unlimited-atonement-jesus-died-for-all.html Of course, there are other verses: “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the… Read more »
David, Simply throwing verses at others doesn’t make a case, for then they can throw other verses back. So instead I asked you questions about God but it seems you refuse to answer. God is love. Love never fails. And yet it seems that God’s love has failed to rescue those He loves and has forced Him to condemned many of those He loves to eternal punishment. Not only that, if we define love as putting ones beloved before ones self then went did God create knowing that He would have to send millions of His beloved to eternal pain?… Read more »
Mike,
When we sin are we fulfilling God’s desires? I assume from your questioning your answer would be yes. Am I correct?
Don, when we sin we are fulfilling our desires or trying to. When God created He knew there would be sin and He created anyway. Don’t confuse His desires for Himself with His desires for man. He knows men are sinners and He has a remedy for those He loves: the Cross of Christ. But God is not like men who desire for themselves what they know they can’t have. God is not conflicted like a man, but is pure and perfect and noncontradicted in His Being. But man seeks to form God after the image of man. Thus man… Read more »
Mike,
“Don’t confuse His desires for Himself with His desires for man.”
I say His desires for man are His desires.
Parsonsmike, You have a game of setting someone up with your philosophical arguments to try to pressure them to agree to your viewpoint. I don’t accept your philosophy and list of requirements. I find it telling that you dismiss the Scripture I gave above that say Jesus died for all. No explanation on your part, you just use your philosophical arguments to cancel them out. I’ll take those plain Bible verses against your philosophical arguments any day. Some Calvinists love to force someone into a false dilemma. Something like, if Jesus died for someone and that person goes to Hell,… Read more »
Randall Cofield,
Again, my answer is yes.
I stand by every word of my previous statement, “I was saved as a result of the public invitation.”
And, I have biblical reason for doing so.
David R. Brumbelow
Brother, bear with me, but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the public invitation caused your salvation.
Would you have not been saved had there been no public invitation?
To what Scripture would you appeal to support your idea that the public invitation caused your salvation?
Randall Cofield, The Public Invitation / Altar Call caused my salvation; at least it was one of the causes. My pastor / dad caused my salvation. My godly mother caused my salvation. Doverside Baptist Church in Houston, Texas caused my salvation. Sunday School caused my salvation. The Sinner’s Prayer caused my salvation. And, I actually called on the name of the Lord during that Altar Call. What is my Scriptural warrant for all this? According to the Bible, Paul saved people, the Bible saves people, soul-winners save people, wives save husbands, husbands save wives. Of course Jesus saves us by… Read more »
Brother, perhaps you should have simply posited that it is your opinion that the altar call caused your salvation?
Obviously, there exists no biblical warrant for such a statement.
Thanks for the exchange.
Tarheel said,
“Ok. That’s fine. That’s is very different thing than suggesting those who prefer other methods (believing and seeing those methods be very effective as well) are rejecting the calling of people to repentence and belief.”
“No one should be disparaged for choosing to use another mode of calling sinners to repentance and belief.”
In case anyone misunderstands, I did not say that in my previous comments here.
David R. Brumbelow
Jon asked, “What is it that these Calvinist pastors are doing that cause the church to split?” Some or all of these, partial list: Fail to declare their theology and then when installed begin to ‘correct heresy’ and offer a steady diet of Calvinistic teaching, etc. Attempt to eliminate or marginialize deacons and church leaders and install handpicked elders. Attempt to change the church governing docs to give control to himself and a few cronies. Bring in and grow a Calvinistic faction to control the church. Offer a steady diet of fav Calvinistic authors and speakers. Cleverly and deceptively avoid… Read more »
With regard to the *Local Church Calvinist Takeover* issue, William “gets” it.
Some of us in the SBC have concerns, not so much with Calvinism per se, but with the existence of *Calvinist Takeovers,* whether these occur at the local church level or at the national convention level. Technically, it’s not really about theology. It’s about fairness, balance and organizational structure.
Of course, we disagree with the theology too. But our perceived *wrong* that we are seeking to make *right* is in this area of a fair and balanced convention.
Every one of those “examples” of deception (actually just accusations) Could be and is done by pastors who who aren’t Cals. That cannot be denied. I have seen many, many, many pastors seek to aggrandize unto themselves power by changing the bylaws and surrounding themselves with yes men… Some were Calvinist and a whole lot were not. Come on, dude. Rick Patrick… Is not likely to ascribe these deceptive and power hungry behaviors to a person with whom he agrees theologically. Since he is fully embarked in Calvinist hunts he loves to pull out anecdotes against Calvinists… But ignore same… Read more »
Sorry, Dave. I’ve been around too much of it for the past couple of decades. No need to go back through it here. The cal study group recognized the problem.
Can’t be denied although I see less than in previous years.
The trad group may do a lot of unhelpful things but I don’t see them taking their stuff into churches and blowing them up.
William, Maybe the split is due to a Cal agenda. If it happens on his watch, it must be. I mean, there couldn’t have been a problem buried deep prior. Of course, this is an accusation in that those who point the fingers to say who is at fault. Is it possible, the pastor is doing his best to follow what he believes God is calling him to do? I know… God forbid that God might want a Pastor to not be of the Traditionalist tribe. Maybe there was no set agenda. Maybe there was nothing hidden but honest answers… Read more »
As I said, many a young/different preaching style/cal/non cal/etc…. pastor has been accused of blowing up a church and sometimes they in fact have – other times they have been a convenient scapegoat for issues that may have predated them.
I really don’t doubt that there are Calvinist pastors guilty of blowing up churches over Calvinism. I’ve only heard anecdotal stories of such, but I’m sure it happens. When it happens, it’s wrong. But I am concerned that Rick’s tactics are equally divisive. In fact, I read a comment about a lay person who left his church over this and other issues. Not because his pastor or his church were Calvinist but because of the hysteria stirred up by Rick regarding our awful SBC leaders. After reading Rick’s writings and buying it all hook, line and sinker, the man didn’t… Read more »