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 become, for my Calvinist brothers, the Golden Age, the Garden of Eden and the Millennium all rolled into one, as if no one in the mid-1800’s could possibly have been wrong about anything. Not Darwin. Not the slaveholders. And not the Calvinists.
In fact, Dwight McKissic and I agree completely on our rejection of three mid-nineteenth century ideas–Darwinism, Calvinism and Slavery.
Rest assured, no book like that would ever burn a hole in my desk. I have a metal receptacle in my study that our faithful custodian archives daily. Such a volume would quickly find its rightful place in this filing system.
The other astonishing fact, to me, is that Calvinists are outspending Traditionalists to an astronomical degree. For every $1 we spend, they spend on books and conferences, they spend about $100.
How much do you suppose it costs to publish and distribute a book to every single Georgia Pastor? What else might have been done with these resources?
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 the issues, rather than just telling everyone: “Hush up about this and move along—there’s nothing to see here. If you stop talking about it, this will all go away. This is called unity.”
No, it will not go away *until* we talk about it, and by that, I mean, a formal SBC committee that doesn’t just say, “Everybody be nice,” like the T5 Report, but actually negotiates a way forward that both sides agree is a fair and balanced approach for the SBC.
I envision this kind of unity one day—the kind that rolls up its sleeves and solves problems, rather than just telling those of us who have concerns that we are being petty and obstructionist troublemakers.
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. I am for greater transparency. I think we have issues and they should be addressed and not stifled.
Those who call people like me a “petty obstructionist troublemaker” are actually the ones standing in the way of an open and honest dialogue leading to the kind of transparent conflict resolution that will allow us to move forward together.
Over the course of a 28-year marriage, whenever my wife has a concern or a problem or an issue that she feels needs to be addressed, it has *never* been a good idea just to tell her to “hush up and simply follow my leadership in the interest of unity.” That’s just not the way to solve problems. And believe me, the SBC right now has more than a few problems. The people saying that we have problems are not the problems. The problems are the problems.
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 Agenda that the Founders Ministries has been carrying out for many years. We read about it in “The Quiet Revolution” by Ernest Reisinger. We hear firsthand testimonies of the existence of this goal from former Calvinists on our side now who were there in the very room with the Founders thirty years ago. I don’t consider this conflict to be *petty.* I consider it *grand.* I don’t consider this *obstructionist.* I consider it either *constructionist* according to Calvinists, or *destructionist* according to Traditionalists. In other words, they are not blocking something for no reason at all—which would be petty. Rather, they are on a mission to achieve something for a definite reason. So am I. We have two very different visions for the SBC. Having two such visions (DI + VISION) is the reason our convention is, honestly, divided. I remain unconvinced about this “petty, obstructionist troublemaker” charge. I think these issues are important, not petty. I am seeking to construct a better, more fair and balanced convention, a goal that does not obstruct progress but contributes to it. And if I am the face of a troublemaker—a faithful Southern Baptist who has not missed an Annual Convention in 18 years, whose sons are enrolled in two Baptist Universities, whose church contributes well over 10% of our total receipts through Southern Baptist mission causes—if I am the face of a troublemaker, then we have incorrectly defined “trouble.” Do I think it is time for a change, that the GCR has failed, that New Calvinism has promised more to the SBC than it has delivered, that we need to reexamine our policies and steer our Southern Baptist ship in a different direction? Yes, I do. But if that’s troublemaking, then MLK, William Wilberforce, George Washington, Paige Patterson, Peter, Paul and Jesus… 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 – stupid flies live in both houses and from time to time they bite someone.
Of all the books that one might carefully consider purchasing and blanket distributing to pastors …I am truly at a loss as to why anyone would do so with this book
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 who tries to change things is a troublemaker.” Believe me, that is the extent of the comparison.
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 after what you have said to him, you cannot complain either.
The difference here is we say these things TO Rick not talk about him on a discussion site he isn’t part of.
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.
It took 20 years to see the ship turned in the CR, do you have the will to make the journey? You might but I am not sure you have the message the grassroots will buy.
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 on by Calvinists. Don’t blame the people who are trying to stop the innocent from being victimized.
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, scurrilous and scandalous.
So yeah, y’all should stop doing that.
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 that in his previous Church over a two-year period he was aware of about five churches that were split by pastoral candidates from Southern seminary when “search committees weren’t careful enough”. I’ve heard of numerous cases of churches being split by Calvinist pastors being initially deceptive over Calvinism; can you point me to all the cases of churches being split by deceptive traditionalists over traditionalism? I’d be interested. Thank you.
Oh, and you think theology the teaches God has a revealed and hidden will to his glory might lead it’s followers to have a revealed and hidden will to God’s glory too, that is be deceptive?
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 to walk that line where we don’t make it personal…a line we’ve all crossed.
(Though this comment immediately addresses Dave C, it goes to all of us. Rick’s views are fair game – as are anyone else’s. Let’s keep focused on that. I couldn’t disagree more with Rick, but I actually believe he does the things he does out of a misguided sense of righteousness. Let us be respectful.)
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 say that there was a moral equivalence between these acts but to make the following point; a general warning ( I said “we” not “you”) about imitating the left-wing media that never addresses the problem but always says, “Yes, but all groups have this problem.” while ignoring the disproportionate representation from one group. This is a convenient way of avoiding the problem with one’s group or a group that one doesn’t want to criticize.
If you don’t understand Paul the mega lesser on his comments might you consider maybe you don’t understand the apostle Paul on some of his writings which even the apostle Peter called “hard to understand”?
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 it was titled something like, churches still have growing pains and shared the oversight of my story and the way God was using FAITH Sunday School Evangelism Strategy where I was serving.
Yeah, that terrible soteriological position I held and the lives being led to Jesus should have been stopped. I had the letter they angry members of the church wrote to me to resign up until about 6 months ago when I finally shredded it. Didn’t see any need to keep it any longer. Some of God’s finest held my hand and walked with me through this time and I have no idea if they were Calvinists or not. I do know they were soul winners.
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 Baptists who actually read the book think about the prevailing view among Baptists in those early days before 1830.
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.
3. Really? I’m asked how I define a “graduate degree”? As best I can see, both authors have undergrad degrees. And if a monkey wrote accurately, I’d acknowledge that but assessing historical figures involves a bit more than fact checking. Maybe some knowledgeable GBMB historian would assess the book.
4. No, I haven’t “actually” read the book, so I stated, as well as that the short article drawing attention to it isn’t a book review. If I decide to do that, I’ll read it all rather than the cover letter and selected portions.
5. I don’t know many GBMB pastors who are True and Intense Calvinist Believers as are the Smiths, either or both of whom are welcome to buy my lunch any day as payback for giving them publicity. I’m always nice while eating.
6. I wouldn’t want one of this type Calvinist as my pastor. Several of the contributors here on SBCV are Cals and I’d be fine with them. As long as pastor candidates are as clear as the guys were in the book, I don’t see a problem. Churches should be informed enough to recognize these things without resorting to Calvinist ‘smoke out guides.’
7. I recognize that the long knives come out here in a discussion of Cals in the SBC but this landed on my (friend’s) desk.
8. I’m OK with advocacy in the SBC. The Trads have their online TS. Others promote their theology in other ways. This one cost someone some money but it’s their money.
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 Reformed Baptist Churches in America and the Georgia Association of Confessional Baptists (according to their web site, though they do not appear on GACB’s list). They do not turn up in a church searches on SBC.net, and it looks like ALSBOM may have to be searched by association.
William: “My suggestion is that the Alabama publisher of this book get up funds to send it to all Alabama Baptist churches…” Please suggest that they also send them to Texas. I love to get free books!!
William: “I’ll let some historian assess the accuracy of the two authors’ (both lack graduate degrees) treatment of the historical figures in the book.” I won’t claim to be a historian and have not read the book. But I can affirm the accuracy of Jesse Mercer being a five point Calvinist. Jesse Mercer’s Ten Letters Addressed to the Rev. Cyrus White demonstrate well his allegiance to the doctrines of predestination, unconditional election, and the limited atonement. What is true of Mercer is likely true of Silas Mercer, Daniel and Abraham Marshall, et al.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100647698
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 was named for Vincent Redmon Thornton, who pastored in the area and was a staunch “Gillite” Baptist. Somewhere along the way the church changed, as did my ancestors who came to Texas (it was shifted out between 1850 and probably 1900).
Jim: “Please define graduate degree and explain what that has to do with accuracy!” Training in this area should result in better accuracy though I am not sure it always does. I assume the 4 volume Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists had oversight (at least) by trained historians, but I sat in my living room and wrote letters (before the www) and used the telephone and found lots of information that was wrong about associations in various state listings in those books. (Most of the time they got the SBC-affiliated local associations right and most of the unaffiliated ones wrong. F. Wilbur Helmbold’s Alabama research was a breath of freshly-correct air unlike many of the rest.)
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 be supportive of Calvinist beliefs. Simple honest question for my unlearned mind , would the old hymn “Jesus is Tenderly Calling Today” and the lyrics include the phrase “won’t you let him come in” to your heart. Would this be okay with a Calvinist preacher? I was surprised that some Pastor’s would be called to a church and not make the church aware of their Calvinist beliefs. So I guess I am a traditionalist which is the majority of the SBC. Final point if two people are sitting side by side and accept Christ as their savior , one follows Calvin doctrine, how does he know he is elect , one like me is just letting Jesus enter their heart and repent does it matter about the elect issue, how do you know you are elect. Forgive my displayed lack of basic understanding .
“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 there my in moving out of the SBC into a fundamental Baptist Church and just not be a part of the discussion that goes on endless about Calvinist, race relations and all of the issues that are addressed over and over that sap the energy of what the SBC is all about and that is missions, spreading the Gospel. The SBC will never transcend its racist origin to many including many of its progressive leaders in Nashville. I personally think that many in leadership in Nashville and other leadership have a low opinion of the average SBC member. It seems they agree with many minority leaders who will never be content with any actions the SBC does. As the “aging” white middle class inherently racist conservative voter who has supported the SBC for years where is my representation at the table? Is the average SBC member so vile they deserve no input on the executive level? The annual convention is a social event with a predestined outcome. The next SBC President will be a Calvinist and the insidious takeover continues. Who stands up for me when SBC leadership questions my Christian values or I am identified as a racist because I go to a church that is 90 percent white but would welcome any believer in Christ , gladly and sincerely. Then many here on this board are rightfully offended as they are label racist due to their SBC membership, no matter what they do, write or say. I think that the “Trads” leaders as they are called often are restrained in their actions. No the SBC will not be rescued by the 21 century because they do not really know what is going on as they trust their leadership which is part of their “traditional” view point. My eyes… 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 rabid Calvinize-everyone contingency is not nearly as prolific as Patrick & Co. would have everyone believe, but they too are losing traction.
Cooler heads will prevail.
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 God to rid the SBC of any and all Calvinists. To leave even one would be apostasy.
I am convinced that many, if not most, in the pew really do not know what Calvinism is. They have been fed the lie that Calvinists want to split the church… never evangelize… reject missions… Brainwash those the Traditionalists label traditionalists. A cool word being used to connect with those in the pew who are local church traditionalists, not theological or SBC traditionalists.
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 ship. If Connect 3.16 wrote a conveying their point of view to every SBC member 80 percent would agree with them, that is my guess. No lies to the general membership are being fed to local church members because most SBC members know nothing about the issue , that is my point where you seem to contend that the average SBC member is fully involved, knowledgeable and engaged in the issue and what is happening within the SBC leadership. Example, most SBC members have no idea the IMB went financially bust even though it was reported and not hidden. Most members did not know of the anti Trump agenda of the ERLC during the election and I only use that as an example of how much attention is paid to SBC entity workings and actions. SBC members trust their Pastors and leaders completely and do no deep checking of issues.
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 in the pew know enough about Calvinism to make an intelligent decision on it. I have pastored enough long time SB’s who told me of their total disagreement with Calvinism that they could never support it. When I asked if they have ever talked with a Calvinist and discussed the things they disagree about, none ever had. The key element they disagree with is that Calvinists are not soul winners. There are other issues but this is the main one I have faced from my church members. After a Tuesday night visit to a family in our community and my partner and I saw a family come to know Jesus, I asked him if he thought a Calvinist would ever be involved in such a thing. He said no. I then asked what is he to do with his pastor, who is a Calvinist and who just presented FAITH (a evangelistic strategy) to this family and God saved them. He had no answer but said… You are a Calvinist? My point is, the people in the pew have been told about Calvinism from those who despise Calvinism. YOU – “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 ship.” JLE – I am not sure the Traditionalists want the people in the pew to hear out the heart and position of the Calvinists in the convention. I do not know if the Traditionalist want to be fair and engage the Calvinists on the subject. I would love to see Rick Patrick hold a round table discussion, publicly, with someone like Dr. Akin. YOU – “If Connect… 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 an altar call and would feel out of place in a church where there was no call . Would this be a fair statement or not, just an example. I was completely unaware of Connect 316 until about 18 months ago and had no idea who the entity heads are or how much their salary and benefits are as I do now. You know I am joking about the last part.
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 his objecting to White’s definition and explanation of limited atonement. These letters were written (I think) in 1829 and published in 1830, and then Mercer wrote in favor of limited atonement. For example, “If the doctrine of eternal, person, and unconditional election be a truth, that of a special design of the death of Christ must necessarily follow…The above passages must be allowed to speak only of a part of mankind. This part of mankind must be styled the chosen of God, given of the Father &c. either because of their actually being believers, or because it was foreseen that they would believe, or as we suppose, because God eternally proposed in himself that they should believe and be saved. It cannot be on account of the first; seeing they were chosen before the foundation of the world, and given to Christ prior to their believing in him. It cannot be on account of the second; because, then, what he had done for us must have been according to some good in us, and not according to his own purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began. It would also be contrary to all those scriptures recited above, which represent our being chosen and given of the Father, as the cause of faith and holiness…The above are some of the reasons which induce me to think there was a certain, absolute, and, consequently, limited design to the death in the death of Christ, securing the salvation of all those, and only those, who are finally saved.” (pp. 15-16; I reduced the quote for sake of space, but the entire context and letters can be found at the link I give in a post above.) The reference in Memoirs on pages 297-303 is from a discourse titled… 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 not wade in such deep water.’ He, with several others, was considered sound in the faith, though low Calvinists. Peter Smith and some others were thought rather Arminian; some quite so…
And here it may not be amiss to add, that the Baptists in the upper parts of South Carolina, in those days, comprehended mostly, it is believed, in the Bethel Association, were general provisionists. I think most of their ministers preached what is now called General Atonement.”
-Jesse Mercer (AD 1760-1841); quoted by David L. Allen in “The Extent of the Atonement,” B&H.
David R. Brumbelow
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 York: John Gray, 1844, pp. 200-201 — can be found on Google Books)
“The faith adopted by the Georgia Association” includes “4th. 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 was a covenant of grace or redemption made between the Father and the Son, before the world began, in which their salvation is secure, and that they in particular are redeemed.” (History of the Georgia Baptist Association, Jesse Mercer, Washington, GA: 1838, p. 30 — not available on Google Books, so far as I could find)
According to Mallary, the above mention letter in which Jesse claims to have not changed his views was published in the Christian Index in 1836. If so, and considering Mercer died in 1841, any changes to his view of the atonement must have occurred in the last five years of his life.
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 Marshall, according to what Mercer said A. Marshall believed. I do, nevertheless, not believe it is applicable to Jesse Mercer at the time he wrote that in 1836. It is clear from his 1830 letters to Cyrus White that he did not then believe in an unlimited atonement (though I’m not sure what you mean by the term) and in 1836 he said he had not changed. So in my mind we must look after 1836 for such a change. That is why I say above we must exclude David Allen’s reference to p. 290 as proof of any change in Mercer’s views on the atonement, but that the 1839 reference might yield such information.
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 both agree, God is not a man and never lies.
And he knew man would sin and He knew that only by the death of His Son paying the price for sinners could any person become a part of His eternal family. BUT He knew that ONLY those he had foreseen would be saved by the Cross.
Therefore the purposes of the Cross are not at odds with the knowledge of God but perfectly align with it. Jesus was sent to die to save those God knew could be saved and not sent to save those God knew would not be saved. Thus the Atoning Sacrifice of our Lord was to die in the place of and for every sinner that would in all the ages put their trust in God and His Word. And God knew exactly who, by name, that would be.
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. Therefore i urge all of us to quit debating over whether the Atonement is limited or unlimited. It is sufficient to cover all who believe.
Yes, in that sense it is limited. But just agreeing to that doesn’t mean you are saying God chose who to limit the Gospel to. There are other aspects to the Atonement as well that one doesn’t have to agree to though one calls it Limited. So maybe the counter term to Limited Atonement should be Sufficient Atonement and one could declare that the Atonement is sufficient to cover any and all that believe.
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 what Jesse Mercer believed.
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 sinners to be reconciled to God.
Its your (and many others) tradition and valid opinion that the public altar call is most effective – and that is OK. But, it’s not a biblical mandate and shouldn’t be treated as such.
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, in which their salvation is secure, and that they in particular are redeemed.”
Dr. Allen concludes,
“This statement is significant in that Burch differentiates between the act of atonement and the specific application of the atonement to the elect according to eternal election. His point is that the confessional statement of Georgia Baptists does not affirm a strictly limited atonement to the exclusion of an unlimited atonement.”
-David L. Allen, “The Extent of the Atonement,” B&H.
David R. Brumbelow
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 the conclusion Dr. Allen reaches [assuming of course it is based only on the quoted paragraph from Burch] is a poor way of examining and commenting on another’s writings.
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 of the 6th articles (6th. “We believe that all those who were chosen in Christ will be effectually
called, regenerated, converted, sanctified, and supported by the Spirit and
power of God, so that they shall presevere in grace, and not one of them be
finally lost”). (Burch, p. 111)
Not sure if it was Dr. Allen who bracketed [Georgia Baptist Convention] after the Georgia Association, but that is not in Burch and is not accurate. The Georgia Association and the Georgia Baptist Convention are separate entities. The Georgia Baptist Association is a local association that was organized in 1784 by 5 churches (in sort of the mid and eastern part of GA), while the Georgia Baptist Convention is a state organization constituted in 1822 (though not called the GBC at the first). I have not seen the original articles of the GBC (if any), but I think they adopted the GBA articles in 1836.
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 between the 4-point Calvinist and the Universal Salvationist. And while the 4-point Calvinist and the Traditionalist/Extensivist may fit together under the “unlimited atonement” umbrella, there is more than a little difference in their positions — so much so that many will not fellowship with each other.
I guess I also find it curious to celebrate the “unlimited” and “limited” differences of 4-point and 5-point Calvinists, while someone like Jesse Mercer could say there is only a “mere shade” of difference that “is only speculative.” In practical terms what difference does it make to say that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons when all of those persons will not be called and quickened to salvation, and in fact God never intended to do so? To me, much of this from all sides is useless theological speculation.
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 are not included in the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
I agree with:
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.
We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.
Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/06/traditional-southern-baptist.html
David R. Brumbelow
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 well, and Jesus paid for their sins as well. If you die never believing the Gospel, your sins were never paid for, and you have to pay for them yourself. If you believe moments before you die, God already knew that would happen, and Jesus suffered and died for your sins. In other words, no one is included [in this nonC view] in the Atonement unless they believe. If they never believe then they are never included. Likewise those that never hear the Gospel, can not believe in it and die in their sins. Simply. since God and thus His knowledge transcends human history, the only sins paid for at Calvary were those who both [a] believed in God and trusted His Word, and [b] who do not pay for their own sins. And likewise, the sins of those who never believe are paid for by the individual unbeliever, and not by the Son of God. You: “We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.” That way is the WAY of faith. If one rejects that WAY they reject Jesus. And God who already knows who will reject Jesus does not have wrath against His Son for those sins, but reserves His wrath so that he will release it on the unbelieving reject-er of Jesus. If one dies rejecting Jesus, they pay for their own sins and experience the wrath they have earned. God knew before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would not. Unless one is an Open Theist one believes that God knows the future of all… 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 sin of the world! -John 1:29
Christ died for the ungodly. -Romans 5:6.
Who are the ungodly? Both the elect and those who are not elect.
Who gave Himself a ransom for all. -1 Timothy 2:6
Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. -1 Timothy 4:10.
[That Jesus] might taste death for everyone. -Hebrews 2:9.
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. -1 John 2:2.
Also, thanks Don Johnson, for your comment.
David R. Brumbelow
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?
So product all you want brother but I prefer to dig deeper into the Word and seek to understand our God and His ways as much as He allows.
Blessings
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 tries to make God seem like a man and think like a man and reason like a mortal instead of remembering that God is transcendent over time and space and is omniscient.
And man seeks to lower God to the status of a man so as to lift up himself (the man): That is called pride. Lack of humility. And man ends up boasting on himself.
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, then God has failed. Where does the Bible say that? It doesn’t.
That would be like saying every time someone says no to God, that God has failed. He hasn’t.
The Bible never says if Jesus died for someone and that person refuses to believe, then God has failed. If it does, please show me chapter and verse?
The Bible never says if God wants all to be saved and yet they are not, then God has failed. It is just you saying that.
What does the Bible say?
Who takes away the sin of the world! -John 1:29
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. -1 Timothy 2:4.
Who gave Himself a ransom for all. -1 Timothy 2:6
Not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. -2 Peter 3:9.
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. -1 John 2:2.
But I’m sure you can tell us why those Bible verses do not say, what they clearly say.
David R. Brumbelow
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 His sacrificial death and resurrection. But much else in included in pointing people to Jesus.
To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. -1 Corinthians 9:22
Paul was willing to become all things that he might “save some.” Paul was willing to sacrifice to “save” others.
Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you. -1 Timothy 4:16
In one sense, you can “save” yourself and others by taking heed to God’s Word.
Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins. -James 5:20
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? -1 Corinthians 7:16
But others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. -Jude 1:23
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2016/09/can-christian-save-others-yes.html
In other words, God is not near as picky as some of us, about the language of salvation.
David R. Brumbelow
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 terms that may trigger scrutiny.
I’ve seen some of these in action, as has David Worley and others here. The problem cannot be denied.
No search committee should be unaware of the issue. Not all Calvinists cause these problems and there are a number of Cals here whose churches I would be perfectly comfortable.
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 behaviors in pastors who aren’t. Others do the same.
For example… Don’t you remember his dogged and long passed the defensible defense of one Ergun Caner – Who certainly was not Calvinist… But since he was one of them …. it was OK that he exuded most if not all of your little statements above as to how “Calvinists are dividing”.
You’re better than this, William.
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 to all of a committees questions.
I think it is fair to say many churches need a cattle prod jolt to wake up. An excited new Pastor wants to live a life pressing on, not strolling along. Wants to storm the gates of hell, not roast marshmallows while sitting around the flames, ignoring the danger.
Many churches don’t think of the list anymore. They want a Pastor to take care of them, the way the past 40 Pastors did or should have. Maybe the Pastor who is getting blamed simply does not see leaving an option, they were called first by God, then the church.
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 want to be part of an SBC church any longer.
Unfortunately there are real consequences for real people and real churches as a result of the hysteria Rick is spreading. It’s sad, really.