SBC and Calvinism: Three events that widened the divide
Three events over the last few weeks have called fresh attention to one of the serious doctrinal issues currently brewing in the SBC. There are others, and they are not unimportant, but the one that looms large on the horizon is the debate over Calvinism or reformed theology. Terminology matters, so let me quickly assert that what I mean by "Calvinism" is exactly what the great Southern Baptist statesman, John Broadus, meant when he wrote,
The three events that have put the spotlight on this issue recently have come from those who are not merely non-Calvinists, but are more accurately described as anti-Calvinists. They profess to have no axe to grind against Calvinism but their tone and treatment are unhelpful to the kind of fraternal dialogue that Southern Baptists desperately need to be cultivating at this point in our history.
1. Steve Lemke's article
Entitled, "What is a Baptist? Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians," in The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 2008), the good points that Lemke makes are marred by his numerous mistakes and misrepresentations of Calvinism in general and Southern Baptist Calvinists and Calvinism in particular. I will cite only two examples.
First, Dr. Lemke makes the following tired charge about Founders:
Second, Dr. Lemke completely misunderstands Timothy George's ROSES acronym, displaying a failure to understand both Dr. George's theological views and the so-called five points of Calvinism (he was previously corrected on this, also). By the way, Dr. George has been on the advisory board of the Founders Journal for over 15 years. I will not take space here to provide the documentation of Lemke's unfortunate failure to grasp what George has written, but simply refer you to Justin Taylor's and Tim Brister's demonstrations of this point.
2. David Allen's review
Dr. Allen published on the Baptist Theology website a 34 page review of Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (B and H Academic, 2008), which is a collection of the papers presented at the Building Bridges Conference sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministries last year. Dr. Allen uses over 500 words in an attempt to debunk research conducted by the the North American Mission Board and LifeWay Research, both of which indicate that Calvinism is on the rise in the SBC.
Tellingly, he defend's Lemke's previously cited "study" of Founders churches. Allen writes, "The fact is, some brands of Calvinism (hyper-Calvinism and other extreme forms of five-point Calvinism) are in fact less than evangelistic." So are some brands of fundamentalism and Arminiansim, as is evidenced by the general state of churches across the SBC, most of which are not Calvinistic.
I find Dr. Allen's defense of Dr. Lemke's "study" interesting, in light of the fact that, as I have done with churches that Lemke has pastored, I have applied Lemke's methodology to churches that Dr. Allen has pastored, as well. Suffice it say that, if I had a mind to, I could publish those results and, with no less authority than that which Lemke and Allen claim, conclude that "Southwestern and New Orleans seminary administrators" are a threat to evangelism and healthy church life.
Allen repeatedly writes with a condescending tone (examples: "I have been a bit tough on young Finn;" he accuses Tom Nettles of writing with "characteristic brusqueness;") that demonstrates his bias and detracts from his evaluations. Furthermore, his treatment of Malcolm Yarnell's chapter borders on hagiography. While high praise for his colleague at SWBTS could be expected, the detailed criticisms that mark his treatment of other chapters are absent in his evaulations of Dr. Yarnell's contribution. I find it particularly odd that he did not even quibble with Dr. Yarnell's identifying a heretical anti-trinitarian as part of the Baptist family. Any vision of Baptist identity that consciously welcomes heresy into the DNA is dangerous and I would think that other Baptists, regardless of their views on the doctrines of grace, would as well.
Additionally, when Allen finds mistakes in Yarnell's article that he simply cannot ignore, he chalks them up to "technicalities" or "generalities." He completely misses Dr. Yarnell's misunderstanding of a cited article by Mark Dever. Yarnell accuses Dever of using the New Hampshire Confession for the membership of his church but the 1689 Confession for leadership, a position that Dr. Dever has publicly repudiated and which the article Dr. Yarnell read simply does not affirm.
Dr. Allen writes his review with admitted suspicions that there is an agenda afoot in the SBC by Calvinists that everyone should come to hold to a reformed understanding of salvation. He calls attention to a throw-away comment, intended to be humorous, in my chapter. After noting that I was not suggesting that "everyone must or should become a convinced Calvinist," I added, almost parenthetically, "though you would hear no complaints from me were that to happen!" When presented orally, that line got some laughs. Unfortunately, when Allen read it, it caused alarm bells to go off in his head confirming his already suspicious thoughts of the existence of a nefarious Calvinist plot to "Calvinize" the SBC.
Moving beyond the book under review, Allen raises deep concerns about an article published in the Founders Journal, written by Tom Nettles and entitled, "Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist." He writes:
Allen's concern about the "precedent" for Southern Baptist entities partnering with a "non-Southern Baptist entity" is eerily similar to the response I got from the pre-conservative-resurgence-faculty of Southern Seminary to the sesquicentennial issue of the Founders Journal. They professed shock and dismay that I would publish a picture of "their" library (Boyce) on the cover of the journal. Perhaps Dr. Allen needs to be reminded of Baptist polity in the same way that those liberal professors needed it.
The "entities" and those who serve in them are answerable to all Southern Baptists, including those of us whose theology they may despise. The suggestion that an entity is not "Southern Baptist" because it does not receive Cooperative Program dollars is terribly provincial and betrays a bureaucratic mindset that is no different from that which prevailed before conservatives came to control the SBC.
Furthermore, if this is a matter of conscientious concern for Dr. Allen, then I wonder why he has not raised his voice in protest over the partnering of his own seminary with "non-Southern Baptist entities, such as the Grace Evangelical Fellowship, a non-lordship salvation entity that denies the necessity of repentance for salvation (their "Affirmation of Belief" states, that "no sorrow for sin" or "turning from one's sin" is necessary)? According to the Southwestern website, the seminary is hosting this antinomian Fellowship on campus March 30-April 2, 2009.
The same question arises over the joint sponsorship of 3 of our Cooperative Program-supported-seminaries with Jerry Vines Ministries in the John 3:16 conference. Given the anti-Calvinistic propaganda spread by Dr. Vines, Allen's participation in this conference makes the stated substance of his protest about the sponsorship of Building Bridges ring hollow. One is left to wonder what is really behind his complaint, since his own participation in the John 3:16 Conference betrays his professed reasons for concern.
3. The John 3:16 Conference
The recent John 3:16 Conference was sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Rice Seminary and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. From what I can tell, this conference is the brainchild of Dr. Vines. Critiques from those who were there have been expressed on various blogs (see Lindsey, Mark and Burleson) and don't need to be rehashed here. Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.
The most devastating critique I have read has come from David Miller, who has long been welcomed among the "movement conservative" leaders within the SBC as a stalwart defender of the inerrancy of Scripture and of the need to see conservative theology restored to the convention. Anyone who knows him will testify to his godliness and deep love for God's Word. David is an effective evangelist and his pivotal role in the SBC battle for the Bible is unquestionable, as he was a leader among trustees at Southern Seminary when that institution was in the throes of being rescued from liberalism.
David attended the John 3:16 conference and recently told me of his experience there. He also shared with me some of his evaluations that he passed on to a couple of the sponsors of the conference. The conference, he said, almost inspired him to write a book, the title of which would be, How Many Inconsistencies and Contradictions Can One Hear in Only Five Sermons. "The brethren (presenters)," he said, "not only contradicted each other but themselves as well" while building "straw men" and "knock[ing] them down with Scripture verses taken out of context...with measured sarcasm and no small dose of arrogance."
What I am suggesting is that the approaches exhibited in these three events undermine true understanding and therefore any serious effort to maintain unity. By God's grace there is a growing number of Southern Baptists who genuinely want to bridge our doctrinal divides where we can and who want to live together in true unity and love with those with whom we disagree on some points. Such efforts hold great promise for the future, if they can avoid being sabatoged by those who seem threatened by such a movement.
The John 3:16 conference, along with Allen's review and Lemke's article, do not represent a healthy way forward for Southern Baptists. In fact, if the mischaracterizations, inaccuracies and false accusations that permeate these three events are allowed to become the modus operandi of the non-Calvinists in the SBC, then I fear that those who have predicted the inevitability of a major battle over the doctrines of grace will be proven correct. In fact, some have suggested that this is precisely what certain anti-Calvinists want because they believe that a major fight that erupts soon is their best hope for running Calvinists out of the SBC.
Regardless of the purpose of these kinds of attacks, I pray that all Gospel loving Southern Baptists, whether Calvinists or not, will not be provoked into responding in kind. I learned long ago that another person's sin never justifies my responding sinfully.
Now is the time for Southern Baptists of all stripes to stand up and hold those who misrepresent brethren with whom they disagree accountable for their words and actions. Speak the truth in love and leave the consequences to God. The anti-Calvinists (as opposed to non-Calvinists) are becoming, as one seminary student put it recently, "increasingly irrelevant," especially to younger SBC leaders. While they are writing and preaching to themselves, more and more Gospel-centered Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike are showing a genuine willingness to link arms in order to move forward to make disciples of the Lord Jesus.
The future belongs to the bridge-builders, not party-builders.
The people who sneer at what is called Calvinism might as well sneer at Mont Blanc. We are not in the least bound to defend all of Calvin's opinions or actions, but I do not see how any one who really understands the Greek of the Apostle Paul or the Latin of Calvin and Turretin can fail to see that these latter did but interpret and formulate substantially what the former teaches.What we are talking about is the sovereignty of God in salvation including unconditional election, total depravity of sinful nature, definite atonement of particular sinners by the death of Christ, the monergistic work of the Spirit in regeneration and the preserving grace of God operating in the life of every believer. We are not talking about sprinkling babies.
The three events that have put the spotlight on this issue recently have come from those who are not merely non-Calvinists, but are more accurately described as anti-Calvinists. They profess to have no axe to grind against Calvinism but their tone and treatment are unhelpful to the kind of fraternal dialogue that Southern Baptists desperately need to be cultivating at this point in our history.
1. Steve Lemke's article
Entitled, "What is a Baptist? Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians," in The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 2008), the good points that Lemke makes are marred by his numerous mistakes and misrepresentations of Calvinism in general and Southern Baptist Calvinists and Calvinism in particular. I will cite only two examples.
First, Dr. Lemke makes the following tired charge about Founders:
Founder's [sic] Movement Calvinists tend to look backward nostalgically to Calvinists of prior generations, to make their Calvinism the focal point of their ministries, to be rather assertive and defensive about their Calvinism, and to be less evangelistic than the average Southern Baptist church.Dr. Lemke footnotes this by citing a "study" (which is actually his own methodologically flawed survey that has been clearly debunked since he published it) that leads him to his conclusion. Several months ago I applied Steve's methodology to churches that he himself pastored. The results are...well, let me just say that were I to publish them he would be hoisted with his own petard.
Second, Dr. Lemke completely misunderstands Timothy George's ROSES acronym, displaying a failure to understand both Dr. George's theological views and the so-called five points of Calvinism (he was previously corrected on this, also). By the way, Dr. George has been on the advisory board of the Founders Journal for over 15 years. I will not take space here to provide the documentation of Lemke's unfortunate failure to grasp what George has written, but simply refer you to Justin Taylor's and Tim Brister's demonstrations of this point.
2. David Allen's review
Dr. Allen published on the Baptist Theology website a 34 page review of Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (B and H Academic, 2008), which is a collection of the papers presented at the Building Bridges Conference sponsored by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Founders Ministries last year. Dr. Allen uses over 500 words in an attempt to debunk research conducted by the the North American Mission Board and LifeWay Research, both of which indicate that Calvinism is on the rise in the SBC.
Tellingly, he defend's Lemke's previously cited "study" of Founders churches. Allen writes, "The fact is, some brands of Calvinism (hyper-Calvinism and other extreme forms of five-point Calvinism) are in fact less than evangelistic." So are some brands of fundamentalism and Arminiansim, as is evidenced by the general state of churches across the SBC, most of which are not Calvinistic.
I find Dr. Allen's defense of Dr. Lemke's "study" interesting, in light of the fact that, as I have done with churches that Lemke has pastored, I have applied Lemke's methodology to churches that Dr. Allen has pastored, as well. Suffice it say that, if I had a mind to, I could publish those results and, with no less authority than that which Lemke and Allen claim, conclude that "Southwestern and New Orleans seminary administrators" are a threat to evangelism and healthy church life.
Allen repeatedly writes with a condescending tone (examples: "I have been a bit tough on young Finn;" he accuses Tom Nettles of writing with "characteristic brusqueness;") that demonstrates his bias and detracts from his evaluations. Furthermore, his treatment of Malcolm Yarnell's chapter borders on hagiography. While high praise for his colleague at SWBTS could be expected, the detailed criticisms that mark his treatment of other chapters are absent in his evaulations of Dr. Yarnell's contribution. I find it particularly odd that he did not even quibble with Dr. Yarnell's identifying a heretical anti-trinitarian as part of the Baptist family. Any vision of Baptist identity that consciously welcomes heresy into the DNA is dangerous and I would think that other Baptists, regardless of their views on the doctrines of grace, would as well.
Additionally, when Allen finds mistakes in Yarnell's article that he simply cannot ignore, he chalks them up to "technicalities" or "generalities." He completely misses Dr. Yarnell's misunderstanding of a cited article by Mark Dever. Yarnell accuses Dever of using the New Hampshire Confession for the membership of his church but the 1689 Confession for leadership, a position that Dr. Dever has publicly repudiated and which the article Dr. Yarnell read simply does not affirm.
Dr. Allen writes his review with admitted suspicions that there is an agenda afoot in the SBC by Calvinists that everyone should come to hold to a reformed understanding of salvation. He calls attention to a throw-away comment, intended to be humorous, in my chapter. After noting that I was not suggesting that "everyone must or should become a convinced Calvinist," I added, almost parenthetically, "though you would hear no complaints from me were that to happen!" When presented orally, that line got some laughs. Unfortunately, when Allen read it, it caused alarm bells to go off in his head confirming his already suspicious thoughts of the existence of a nefarious Calvinist plot to "Calvinize" the SBC.
Moving beyond the book under review, Allen raises deep concerns about an article published in the Founders Journal, written by Tom Nettles and entitled, "Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist." He writes:
I cannot imagine using such a title, much less arguing it in print. A church's next pastor should be the man God leads that church to call, be he Calvinist or no. Imagine the outcry if some group of non-Calvinists should publish an article entitled "Why Your Next Pastor Should not be a Calvinist." Please understand. Ascol is well within his rights to direct the Founders Ministries and to publish such an article in his journal. This is not in question. What is in question is whether such constitutes a problem for the SBC and for Ascol's involvement in a bipartisan conference such as "Building Bridges." Since one cannot distinguish between Ascol the Calvinist pastor and Ascol the director of the Founders Ministries, his presence on the program of the "Building Bridges Conference," given the stated goals of the Founders Ministries, is problematic in my view. Furthermore, what is the precedent for two Southern Baptist entities (LifeWay and Southeastern Seminary) partnering with a non-Southern Baptist entity (Founders Ministries) for this kind of conference? I have already stated I think the conference is a great idea. We need to have more. My concern is with the involvement of the Founders Ministries. For them to be a co-sponsor legitimizes their agenda within the convention, an agenda which is counter productive in my judgment. For SBC entities to partner with any non-SBC group that is polarizing and that represents a small fragment of the convention is problematic.I would like to know why Dr. Allen has never raised an outcry over the dozens if not hundreds of attempts by denominational employees and others to tell churches that "your next pastor should not be a Calvinist." It is ironic that Allen thinks my presence on the program of Building Bridges was problematic. I am the one who originally suggested the conference.
Allen's concern about the "precedent" for Southern Baptist entities partnering with a "non-Southern Baptist entity" is eerily similar to the response I got from the pre-conservative-resurgence-faculty of Southern Seminary to the sesquicentennial issue of the Founders Journal. They professed shock and dismay that I would publish a picture of "their" library (Boyce) on the cover of the journal. Perhaps Dr. Allen needs to be reminded of Baptist polity in the same way that those liberal professors needed it.
The "entities" and those who serve in them are answerable to all Southern Baptists, including those of us whose theology they may despise. The suggestion that an entity is not "Southern Baptist" because it does not receive Cooperative Program dollars is terribly provincial and betrays a bureaucratic mindset that is no different from that which prevailed before conservatives came to control the SBC.
Furthermore, if this is a matter of conscientious concern for Dr. Allen, then I wonder why he has not raised his voice in protest over the partnering of his own seminary with "non-Southern Baptist entities, such as the Grace Evangelical Fellowship, a non-lordship salvation entity that denies the necessity of repentance for salvation (their "Affirmation of Belief" states, that "no sorrow for sin" or "turning from one's sin" is necessary)? According to the Southwestern website, the seminary is hosting this antinomian Fellowship on campus March 30-April 2, 2009.
The same question arises over the joint sponsorship of 3 of our Cooperative Program-supported-seminaries with Jerry Vines Ministries in the John 3:16 conference. Given the anti-Calvinistic propaganda spread by Dr. Vines, Allen's participation in this conference makes the stated substance of his protest about the sponsorship of Building Bridges ring hollow. One is left to wonder what is really behind his complaint, since his own participation in the John 3:16 Conference betrays his professed reasons for concern.
3. The John 3:16 Conference
The recent John 3:16 Conference was sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Luther Rice Seminary and Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. From what I can tell, this conference is the brainchild of Dr. Vines. Critiques from those who were there have been expressed on various blogs (see Lindsey, Mark and Burleson) and don't need to be rehashed here. Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.
The most devastating critique I have read has come from David Miller, who has long been welcomed among the "movement conservative" leaders within the SBC as a stalwart defender of the inerrancy of Scripture and of the need to see conservative theology restored to the convention. Anyone who knows him will testify to his godliness and deep love for God's Word. David is an effective evangelist and his pivotal role in the SBC battle for the Bible is unquestionable, as he was a leader among trustees at Southern Seminary when that institution was in the throes of being rescued from liberalism.
David attended the John 3:16 conference and recently told me of his experience there. He also shared with me some of his evaluations that he passed on to a couple of the sponsors of the conference. The conference, he said, almost inspired him to write a book, the title of which would be, How Many Inconsistencies and Contradictions Can One Hear in Only Five Sermons. "The brethren (presenters)," he said, "not only contradicted each other but themselves as well" while building "straw men" and "knock[ing] them down with Scripture verses taken out of context...with measured sarcasm and no small dose of arrogance."
*****************
Do not misinterpret my critique of these events as suggesting that we should not be talking plainly about theological differences in the SBC. Pretending that we all agree, or suggesting that our differences are completely irrelevant would be no more helpful than the kind of dismissive misrepresentations of views that I have pointed out above. Nor am I suggesting that Drs. Lemke, Allen and Vines don't have the right to hold to and argue for their own views.What I am suggesting is that the approaches exhibited in these three events undermine true understanding and therefore any serious effort to maintain unity. By God's grace there is a growing number of Southern Baptists who genuinely want to bridge our doctrinal divides where we can and who want to live together in true unity and love with those with whom we disagree on some points. Such efforts hold great promise for the future, if they can avoid being sabatoged by those who seem threatened by such a movement.
The John 3:16 conference, along with Allen's review and Lemke's article, do not represent a healthy way forward for Southern Baptists. In fact, if the mischaracterizations, inaccuracies and false accusations that permeate these three events are allowed to become the modus operandi of the non-Calvinists in the SBC, then I fear that those who have predicted the inevitability of a major battle over the doctrines of grace will be proven correct. In fact, some have suggested that this is precisely what certain anti-Calvinists want because they believe that a major fight that erupts soon is their best hope for running Calvinists out of the SBC.
Regardless of the purpose of these kinds of attacks, I pray that all Gospel loving Southern Baptists, whether Calvinists or not, will not be provoked into responding in kind. I learned long ago that another person's sin never justifies my responding sinfully.
Now is the time for Southern Baptists of all stripes to stand up and hold those who misrepresent brethren with whom they disagree accountable for their words and actions. Speak the truth in love and leave the consequences to God. The anti-Calvinists (as opposed to non-Calvinists) are becoming, as one seminary student put it recently, "increasingly irrelevant," especially to younger SBC leaders. While they are writing and preaching to themselves, more and more Gospel-centered Calvinists and non-Calvinsts alike are showing a genuine willingness to link arms in order to move forward to make disciples of the Lord Jesus.
The future belongs to the bridge-builders, not party-builders.
Labels: David Allen, John 3:16 Conference, Southern Baptists and Calvinism, Steve Lawson
posted by Tom at 11/24/2008 10:42:00 PM
148 Comments:
Tom, I would list Mark Dever being invited to give the convention sermon at the North Carolina State Convention as a positive sign to go with the three negative signs you mention.
I think you're right that the future belongs to bridge-builders. I think most of the men you discuss here are quickly marginalizing themselves to all but those who share their anti-Calvinistic views. The scholarship leaves much to be desired, but their tone and actions toward fellow Christians is what more deeply disheartening.
I only expect the rhetoric to climb higher in years to come as some Southern Baptists who are also Reformed begin to take more prominent roles in the convention.
Tom,
Not being no theologian, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Those speaking against Calvinism seem to be upset that they think they can get their minds around everything .. can comprehend what's incomprehensible about God .. whereas I was trained in Calvinism from the starting line of man's inability to do that. Like, we can only comprehend what's revealed.
When we formed Covenant Presbyterian Church here, at the first meeting of the proposed Elders, one of the guys said he preferred reformed theology as it seemed, to him, to acknowledge the greatest sovereignty on the part of God. I liked that.
Still do.
I have no idea how anyone, Calvinist or Arminian (sp), could make belief in their particular theological view a prerequisit for salvation as I have heard people from both sides do. There are going to be people from both sides in heaven and in hell, for that matter. Those in heaven are going to realize that neither side understood everything about God perfectly. I'm a Calvinist and I believe that the doctrines of grace are all affirmed in scripture but there are some things that I'm not going to understand until I reach heaven. When we get there, we'll be so busy praising God that we won't have time to argue about who was right.
What a day that will be....
Tom, I'm tracking with the statement about the SBC leaders becoming "increasingly irrelevant". It's somewhat discouraging to read the things said at the John 3:16 (and in the mentioned articles) and see that those things are said by guys from my seminary (SWBTS).
As for the "evangelism" charge, give me the evangelism done at Mars Hill or The Village over "100 Days of Evangelism" any day.
Tom,
A compelling and disturbing piece, and I thank you for it.
After the Greensboro Convention (the Patterson/Mohler discussion) and Building Bridges, it seemed that the rift was being healed a bit. Not so much now.
Oh, and "hoisted with his own petard"? Man, I thought I knew a lot of arcane sayings, but I've never heard of that one! :-)
God bless you brother. You've obviously shared your concern in a very frank but honest way here, and I do appreciate it.
Wyman Richardson
www.walkingtogetherministries.com
Well, Tom, you will have to explain how I introduced a heretic into the Baptist family rather than just asserting such a bald-faced claim. By the way, please make sure that you cite me in context, for the point was not that Servetus is acceptable, which I explicitly deny, but that Calvin sought his death, which is inexcusable.
On the second issue for which you criticize me, a plain reading of the article by Mark Dever certainly does generate the response I gave. If he has elsewhere recanted this position, please provide me with that citation, for I would like to know that and congratulate Mark on that.
Finally, the tone of your blog and your staff member's blog, especially in their misrepresentations of Drs. Allen and Lemke as well as of such fine pastors as Jerry Vines and Johnny Hunt, are certainly not helping heal any "divide." The movement towards calling non-Calvinists "anti-Calvinists" is not only a gross mischaracterization but a casus belli that may, sadly, only exacerbate the "divide."
Dear Tom:
One way to "stop the mouths" of the gainsayers of historic Calvinism is to GET OUT AND WIN SOULS TO CHRIST.
If those who are Calvinists would become as boisterous in their addresses to the lost as they do to non Calvinists, then there would be less ammunition for the anti Calvinists to use.
Why don't the Calvinists in the SBC not spend some time and money, conference money for instance, on campaigns to reach the lost, as did Billy Graham and the great evangelists? Why mail out Calvinistic literature to Baptists in Florida? Would that money not been better spent in distributing gospel tracts to the lost and downtrodden in our ghettos?
We need Calvinists like Spurgeon. This would do more to "shut the mouths" of the gainsayers of historic Calvinism than anything else.
God bless,
Stephen
Maybe I'm 'way out of any loop, but I don't recall any calvinists throwing rocks at non-c's, claiming they were a danger to the Baptist faith. Seems to me it's the other way around.
I'll say it again, we've got some reformed folks in our church, me included, and it's absolutely no problem; solely because the "non'c's" haven't made it one.
I just don't understand.
Well, yes I do, I think.
These things are somewhat disturbing, but I am beginning to think that it is all political for those who would be players in the SBC hierarchy.
Two cases in point personally: 1. my pastor is not a Calvinist, yet he has me preach and teach and we have been evangelizing together and he joined me on a mission trip to Brazil. We work together without issue. 2. Our Director of Missions seeks to work with all associational churches- whether they are reformed, fundamental, evangelical, etc.- Calvinism is a side issue for him.
Finally, I go evangelizing with an Independent Baptist brother who is definitely not Reformed- it does not cause us any conflicts. I think Dr. Allen, Dr. Lemke, Ergun and Emir Caner, Dr. Vines, are hindering evangelism with their rhetoric. Maybe they should stop with their destructive comments and go share Christ with people in their cities (with or without a Calvinist).
Tom,
Excellent post about a disturbing trend in the SBC. I have two comments and one question for you:
1st Comment: The fact that this conference was held at the SBC President's church is extremely disturbing. For our President to allow his pulpit to be used to denigrate any part of the constituency which he represents is beneath the dignity of his office.
2nd Comment: I wonder whether this was more of a money maker for Dr. Vines than anything else. Take a controversial topic, add in some high profile speakers, charge $100 a head, pay four speakers $1000 a piece and one has a tidy profit of more than $90K for 1,000 attendees. Not to mention the sale of CDs and DVDs. No freebies from these guys.
Question: Do you think the attacks on Calvinists will escalate or settle down to a dull roar?
Les
I agree with Terrell. I had to look it up to find out what the heck a petard is.
Malcolm:
On page 77 of Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, you make a point ("admittedly") to note that Servetus is "a heretic" and then go on and call him a "Baptist." Nothing in the context changes the fact that you identify a heretic as a Baptist. Fortunately, this comment of your conference presentation was not edited out for the book, so anyone who wants to read what you wrote can find on p. 4 of the pdf file here.
Now, brother Malcolm, you are perfectly within your rights to develop any style of Baptist Identity that you wish and to argue for it. If your method of identifying Baptists allows for unitarian modalists, who have not been baptized by immersion, who reject the eternal Sonship of Christ and who deny original sin, with all due respect, you can have it. That is not the way that I read Baptist history nor is it how I recognize Baptist Identity. Perhaps your view will win the day. I hope not, but I certainly respect your right to advocate for it.
On Mark Dever's article, fortunately, it is available online so people can read it for themselves to see if you have accurately represented him or, if I have asserted, you have failed to do so. On at least two occasions that I know of Mark has stated publicly that he does not hold to the view that you ascribe to him. Once was at a gathering at Southern Seminary and another was in a conference in Lynchburg, VA. The article, however, stands on its own. Had you read it carefully you would not have made the accusation that you did.
Finally, I am glad that you have entered the dialogue here but please refrain from dragging other people or extraneous issues into the discussion. If I have misrepresented Drs. Lemke or Allen, I would be grateful to know how and where so that I can correct any mistakes I have made.
Pregador,
What a great testimony of your church and association! That is the kind of spirit we need to cultivate in the SBC. Those who want to undermine it will, I hope, not be allowed to carry out their agenda, so that we can continue to cooperate to advance the gospel.
Stephen Garret
You wrote:
Why mail out Calvinistic literature to Baptists in Florida? Would that money not been better spent in distributing gospel tracts to the lost and downtrodden in our ghettos?
Um, wouldn't the same question be applicable for the president of the Florida SBC who mailed out the anti-calvinist literature using convention money to do so?
I'm just sayin'...
Tom, Brent voiced my sentiments about the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina exactly. I was greatly encouraged, not only that Mark Dever delivered the convention sermon, but that we sang songs that were theologically rich and Christ-centered. Milton Hollifield, the Executive Director-Treasurer of the BSCNC articulated the gospel at least three times in his brief address, and the whole address was saturated with Scripture and the great themes of redemption.
Regarding Malcolm's reference to Servetus as a Baptist, I do think the statement "Calvin only weakly apologized regarding the condemned Baptist" (p. 77), is unfortunate. I am, however, confident that Malcolm would not embrace him as a true forerunner of Baptists. I don't know Malcolm well, but I did take a course he taught adjunctively at SEBTS several years ago on the Theology of the Reformers. I am Reformed, and I did not feel that he misrepresented or attacked the Reformers on that occasion. Actually, Malcolm is one of the professors that encouraged me to pursue Ph.D. studies, which I did, at Southern. So, Malcolm, if you're reading this, thanks for the encouragement!
Les:
Thanks for joining the conversation. Let me respond to your comments:
1. Dr. Hunt was not the pres of the SBC when this conference was planned. Dr. Vines is a member there and the conference was clearly his idea. I don't mind any local church doing what it thinks will please and honor God. Obviously, I am disappointed in some of what was said at the conference.
2. I don't believe that the reason behind the conference was financial and I encourage you not to make speculations like that. Plus, there are many more expenses that go into hosting a conference than what you mentioned.
Let's assume that the intentions and motives were nothing other than what they were stated to be. Where actions and comments seem to be at cross purposes with stated intentions, it is appropriate to raise questions and issue challenges.
Regarding your question: I don't have a strong opinion on that, other than to say that those who insist on continuing to make unjust attacks on the doctrines of grace will continue to marginalize themselves with Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike in the SBC. I hope that they will realize this and will begin to be more judicious in their criticisms.
Malcolm said, "The movement towards calling non-Calvinists "anti-Calvinists" is not only a gross mischaracterization but a casus belli that may, sadly, only exacerbate the "divide.""
I might have agreed with that statement a few weeks ago, but I have recently run across at least two graduates of Luther Rice Seminary (I myself have a BA in religion from LRS) who can be described as nothing but 'anti-calvinist'. I was shocked at the pure vitriol being flung about by these men. One even accused me of being a hyper-calvinist because I said that sin was a heart issue! We weren't even discussing a topic that had anything to do with the Doctrines of Grace!
Apparently, there are folks out there (Caner and the 3:16 conference come to mind) who are stirring up these guys to attack even on the suspicion of the 'C-word'. 'Anti-calvinist' is the only term that fits this new trend, and the recent conference is proof that the sentiment is at-large.
Joshua (and Brent):
I agree wholeheartedly that the NC convention is a good example of how brothers who disagree on these matters can do so as *brothers* and cooperate on making Christ known.
I also agree that Malcolm's calling Servetus a Baptist is unfortunate. I don't know if Malcolm thinks it was unfortunate but from his comment here, I would assume not. It would have been less fortunate if he had only called him a "forerunner" of Baptists, but he welcomed him fully into the family.
I have never had a class from Dr. Yarnell but your testimony is consistent with what I have heard from others who have. I have no reason to doubt that he is a wonderful professor.
Thanks for your comment!
Is there another issue that's more pressing than Calvinism in the SBC?
As I've mentioned before.
So what could be a major issue in our Convention made up of allegedly 16 million members, of which, only 6 - 7 million are present on any given Sunday? Maybe a perspective from a true Arminian will give us a path down which to look. Dr. Roger Olson in his book Arminian Theology on pages 30-31 discusses theology and American evangelical churches. He says that “most” of these churches are semi-Pelagian or Pelagian which are heretical positions.
Tom, thanks for this analysis.
Mark
Tom,
This has become very tiresome. No way, no how should this be the issue that it now is in the SBC. (What would Boyce and Broadus think?)
From my experience in the local church, I don't believe that it is much of an issue for most of the membership of the SBC. The majority of believers instinctively desire a God who is sovereign. When the D's of grace are taught from the Scriptures in a straighforward way the vast majority of the people I have been around are in solid agreement with them.
It is my opinion that we should continue to preach the Word and if some want to cast stones, let them. There will be a day when the war-horse generation will no longer lead the SBC. Then, Lord willing, the SBC can be about the Word of God preached and obeyed instead of power plays and convention politics.
Well, Tom, I entered a comment, but it seems you are filtering them. Perhaps you have misplaced my previous comments accidentally. Please post these.
First, I assumed I had removed the "Baptist" statement and used "antipaedobaptist" or "antipaedobaptism" instead, for I was not sure that Servetus had been baptized into a church, but had simply opposed infant baptism. Apparently, that did not happen in the entire paper, which just proves that although Scripture is inerrant, scholars are not. Moreover, and more importantly, the point of the passage was not to identify Baptists but to identify concerns about classical Calvinists, one of the tasks that both you and Dr. Akin asked me to address. If "Baptist" was used here, it was not an intention to make a statement about Baptist identity, as you now imply, but to declaim the errors of classical Calvinism, especially the demonstrated activity of one of its leaders’ inhumanity towards human beings. To jump from my original context of classical Calvinism to a supposed advocacy of Baptist identity is a huge leap. Moreover, please recognize that only a Baptist church can make a person a Baptist, or in your colorful language, make "part of the Baptist family" and bring "into the Baptist DNA." And with regard to Servetus’s heresy, please note that I directly and explicitly refute his anti-Trinitarianism in the subject passage, something I am not sure you were careful to note.
Second, as for the statements of Mark Dever, the context of his article is a consideration of both the New Hampshire Confession (NHC) and the Second London Confession (2LC). In the article, he expresses disappointment at the NHC, especially with regard to the doctrine of general atonement, which the NHC allows. He also praises the 2LC rather lavishly and talks about how he uses it. Later, in the context of discussing general atonement, he states that he will not allow that doctrine to be proclaimed in his pulpit or be made an issue by his elders, even though it is allowed by the NHC. This means that he holds to the NHC, except where it disagrees, at least in this one instance, with the 2LC. The context of the article is explicit that the 2LC is his preferred confession, especially for those that are more mature. Now, in my opinion, the problem is that our mutual friend holds to a different standard for the elders and the pulpit (let us call it, “NHC plus”). And the assumption is, with no other confession in sight, that the 2LC is what he has preferred for the pulpit and elders. Now, he may not use the 2LC for his elders and the pulpit as a standard, but neither does he hold to the NHC alone. There are two different standards: the NHC and the NHC plus, the latter which I assumed was the 2LC, since it was the only confession other than the NHC under discussion! If I assumed that the 2LC was in use for the elders and the pulpit, it was from the context of his article. Ultimately, that is not germane, however, for the difficulty that I had is not that the 2LC is used, so much as there seems to be two standards, one for members (NHC) and one for pulpit and elders (whether NHC plus, or the 2LC). That is the issue and an issue that I would love to hear that Mark has erased.
In Christ,
Malcolm
By the way, Tom, one thing that I have found disturbing is that those of us who are non-Calvinists, but are trying to hold a conversation with Calvinists, have been classified now as "anti-Calvinists" by you and have been rebuked by some who are truly anti-Calvinists for not trying to exclude Calvinists. Generally, divides come when people are not willing to hold conversation and maintain collegiality. I and others want to try to avoid such divides while discussing the issue fully. Being called "anti-Calvinist," a label simply untrue, is not helpful, if you truly wish to avoid a divide.
Sean Post - Amen!
But...I do very much appreciate Tom and others who've been willing to keep the gospel charge clear with grace.
Malcolm:
As I mentioned to you in response to your email, I have no evidence that you attempted to enter a second comment. I have double checked and still can't find a record of that anywhere on blogger.
I deeply regret that your assumption proved to be untrue, though I find your rationale to be less than comforting. You wrote, "First, I assumed I had removed the "Baptist" statement and used "antipaedobaptist" or "antipaedobaptism" instead, for I was not sure that Servetus had been baptized into a church, but had simply opposed infant baptism." So, if Servetus, with all of his heresies, had been baptized into a "church" then you would gladly own him as Baptist? This raises further questions in my mind about the differences we must have regarding ecclesiology. I would have serious doubts about any institution that would get a heretic like Servetus wet and call it baptism into a "church." The fact that they call it such doesn't necessarily make it so.
You further write, "If 'Baptist' was used here, it was not an intention to make a statement about Baptist identity, as you now imply, but to declaim the errors of classical Calvinism, especially the demonstrated activity of one of its leaders’ inhumanity towards human beings."
First, there is no need for "if." "Baptist" was used in both your presentation and in the manuscript you turned in for the book. If you used it without regard to what it means to actually be a Baptist, but only as a device to declaim "classical Calvinism," then I would suggest that you have misused that precious designation for which our legitimate forefathers were harassed and persecuted.
Second, if you regret calling Servetus a Baptist, I (and I am sure, others) would be glad to hear it. We all make mistakes--and not simply in the realm of editing.
As I mentioned earlier, fortunately Mark Dever's article is available online. No one has to take your word for it, nor my word for it. Everyone can read it for himself or herself. Those who do will, I suspect, realize that the intent of the article, as Mark states, is exactly the opposite of what you accuse him of advocating. Perhaps if you would read Dr. Nettles editorial introduction to the journal issue that contains Mark's article, you would have been helped to avoid your mistake. Dr. Nettles explains the context of Mark's article:
"'What confession most clearly, fully and accurately expresses the whole of this divine revelation?' We also are dealing with a subsidiary question of a more pragmatic nature: 'What confession serves the church in achieving the goals of spiritual unity and growth in the truth?'
"This discussion was prompted by an article by Shawn Wright on the 9Marks website in which he advocated the NHC and argued that the SLC did not serve these purposes as well. Mark Dever, along with Wright a firm believer in the SLC, defends the position that Wright has taken."
Not only have you misread Mark, you have accused him of something which he is arguing against! Please reread the article. It is a narrative, explaining how his mind changed from original disappointment to gratitude that Capitol Hill Baptist Church has the NHC rather than the 2LC.
Hence, Mark has no need to "erase" an issue. He simply needs to be read and understood accurately by those who try to represent his views.
Malcolm:
I am glad to see you admitting that there are "anti-Calvinists" in the SBC. I wish that you and others would distance yourselves from them in a decisive way, if you don't want to be indentified with them. I would much rather see you in the camp of the growing number of non-Calvinists who are unwilling to write off their fellow Southern Baptists who happen to be reformed in soteriology.
By the way, Tom, I never said my assumption, an assumption garnered from historians and not directly, about Servetus was untrue. I said I had not verified it on my own as yet. He still, indeed, might be classifiable as a Taufer (Baptist) if he were baptized into one of their churches. I can verify that he was an antipaedobaptist, which is to his credit, but the only way to verify if he was a member of a Taufer church is through some statement in that regard from the extant historical sources.
Like Calvary Chapel's George Bryson, the John3:16 gang rightly "get it" that Calvinism is antithetical to their "gospel." From the opposite end of the spectrum, they see that Spurgeon's abhorrence of their false gospel means a real rift between themselves and Founders folk. Do you see the writing on the wall, or will you continue to "dialogue," seek "a place at the table," and remain yolked with those who preach another Christ, another gospel, another way of salvation? Lastly, in the Amazing Grace dvd by Holmberg, Tom and Tom extol the Synod of Dort which rejected 300 or so Arminian ministers. Could the John3:16 gang be fearing such a move? Shouldn't they?!
First, is it not true that Calvinists want to advance Calvinism because they think it is the most God-glorifying position? So it would be expected that they want more Calvinist pastors in the SBC. But the same could be said about non-Calvinists (what do you want to be called?). They think some form of semi-Arminianism is the most God-glorifying position. So naturally they'd want to see that position spread and opposing positions die off. The problem isn't having convictions based upon Scripture. The problem is pretending that both sides want unity at the expense of those convictions. No one really wants a mushy unity. We want victory for the side we think most glorifies God. That's true on both sides.
Second, it seems to me the only way through this is to affirm that the gospel of Jesus Christ is big enough to save us from our pride and finite intellectual capacity. I wouldn't baptize an infant, but I wouldn't say the ones who do aren't Christian - that the gospel is too weak to save them - from sin, and error. I also wouldn't dare attribute salvation to anything other than the doctrines of grace, but I wouldn't say the semi-Arminian isn't a Christian - that the gospel is too weak to save him - from what I believe is more intellectual error than sin.
I would hope that the Presby's and semi-Armi's would grant the same grace with any error they would find with Calvinism. I don't hear many Calvinists crying out, "What do we about the Arminian problem in the SBC?" All they typically do is try to give their exposition of Scripture. Whenever Calvinism is addressed in the SBC, it's usually on the defensive. "What do we do with the Calvinists?" It's ironic that the ones who continually throw up Servetus in our faces are the ones continually trying to kill off the Calvinist voice in the SBC. Could it be that the Calvinist understanding of the gospel puts them in a better position to bear with others who disagree with them?
Firstly, I am a "non-Calvinist."
Secondly, I have been for most of the past two years in person and on various internet discussions been calling the type of rhetoric characteristic of the John 3:16 Conference "anti-Calvinism." I have also been calling such adherents to this rhetoric "anti-Calvinists."
Thirdly, I'm glad many are finally realizing what I've been saying all along and what Pastor Tom here acknowledges: that there are non-Calvinists who are unwilling to write off their fellow Southern Baptists who happen to be reformed in soteriology.
Fourthly, I'm getting real tired of constantly having to qualify my non-Calvinism due to the rhetoric of anti-Calvinists.
Finally, I'm sick that men I ought to be able to respect and admire continually put their feet in their mouths, obfuscate, and outright lie about Calvinism, Calvinists, and their own "anti-Calvinism."
For "non-Calvinists" like me, the future of the Southern Baptist Convention does not lay with these misguided and theologically miserable men, but in those who actually speak the truth in love and seek unity in Christ. The leadership of Calvinists such as Pastor Tom and non-Calvinists such as Danny Akin is much more desirable than the detestable rhetoric coming from the recognizable "old guard."
Please pray with me that our leaders will be driven more by love for the brothers according to 1 John instead of what we've witnessed thus far.
tom,
you said, "By God's grace there is a growing number of Southern Baptists who genuinely want to bridge our doctrinal divides where we can and who want to live together in true unity and love with those with whom we disagree on some points."
if this is how you feel, i support your position. i would just say that "bridging a divide" doesn't have to mean a compromise or "meeting in the middle." there ought to be a place for 5-pointers, softer calvinists (i'm a 3 or 4 pointer, but not 5), and even full-fledged arminians.
i think the seminaries will have to set the tone. it seems a couple are moving towards only having calvinist teachers, while a couple others don't seem to have any 5-point calvinists. in my opinion, seminaries need to have the full spectrum. this will set the tone for students to accept and work with other conservatives who have a different viewpoint on the order of salvation (which is NOT the gospel, amen?).
like i said, if you're for mutual acceptance, without some awkward "meeting in the middle" or something, i agree with your perspective on this & will pray for more unity in SBC life.
FROM MALCOLM YARNELL
Dr. Yarnell is having some difficulty getting his comments to post. I received this one from him via email and post it here at his request.
Tom,
You and I, as much as we despise heresy, cannot determine who should be classified as a Baptist. That really is a decision for the local church. Now, I have no doubt that your church and my church would never be guilty of such, for we would do our best to lead our churches to act responsibly. Moreover, I have no doubt that we would seek to disassociate our churches from a church that would admit a heretic. Nevertheless, there have been Baptist heretics. A quick example to come to mind is Matthew Caffyn, whose Arian tendencies prompted the writing of the Orthodox Creed by the General Baptists around Thomas Monck. Was Matthew Caffyn a heretic? History has judged him so? Was he a Baptist? The church of which he was a pastor let him remain so. Was his church disassociated? Unfortunately, no, and the General Baptists suffered much because of it in the long run. Was this a mistake? Absolutely.
Is Baptist a “precious designation” from our forefathers? Yes. Is it a perfect name? No. Is being Baptist the best thing we currently have with regard to reflecting biblical theology? Yes. Are we infallible? No. Is speaking the truth about our past wrong? No, it is right.
As for Mark’s use of the NHC, I am glad to see him using it. I am not convinced by Mark’s article, or Tom Nettle’s introduction, or your defense that he should receive a pass for requiring a different confessional standard than the NHC for his church leaders, which he explicitly admits, in the place cited.
As for whether Southern Baptists should have room for Calvinists, I have stated this in the same article you have misread. But, if it will help you, I will say it again, “We non-Calvinists treasure Calvinist Baptists. Like the Union Baptist Association, we believe it decorous to grant one another ‘the appellation of brother,’ and not only in the created sense, or ending with the redeemed sense, but also in the ecclesiastical sense.” That distances me quite willingly from “anti-Calvinists.”
Now, will you and like-minded Calvinist Baptists distance yourself from the infant baptizing Presbyterians? For instance, would you assure us that you would never allow a Presbyterian to participate in your church’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper?
In Christ,
Malcolm
Malcolm:
Thanks for bringing up the demise of the General Baptists. It is a great tragedy that they devolved into Arianism and Unitarianism. That historical fact demonstrates the danger of allowing damning heresy to be a part of one's understanding of Baptist identity, which is why I took such exception to your including Servetus in the Baptist family. Don't you think it strange that, with the detailed analysis that Dr. Allen gave to every other chapter that he would find such a designation acceptable?
You and I will simply have to disagree on the origins of modern Baptists. I do not think that we can include of the sectarians or evangelical anabaptists of the 16th century into the category of "Baptist."
Regarding Mark Dever: Here is what you wrote: "Indeed, one admitted that after discovering his church's confession was 'less than Calvinist,' he decided to use that standard for church membership, but dusted off a different standard, the Second London Confession, for the church's leadership."
You are simply wrong here. Anyone who knows the whole history behind that issue of the journal knows this. Anyone who reads Mark's article and then your assertion that he uses the 2LC for leadership can readily see this. I don't know why resist admitting your mistake. You have already admitted that scholars aren't inerrant (not that anyone outside the academy ever doubted that). This is simply another case where you are in error.
You accuse me of misreading your article. Which one? Where?
Further, why would you try to dictate the practice of my local church? Don't you believe in local church autonomy? Whether you do or not, I do, as does our church. And we are not at all impressed by one of our employees trying to play "gotcha" with us.
Malcolm:
So you think that all groups that were identified as Taufer in the 16th century were Baptists?
Tom,
We should use the definition of Baptist that the history of the churches has bequeathed us, not what we consider to be the ideal. History is messy but it is true and the historian should report it accurately. Too much Baptist history has been written by ideologues, both liberal and Calvinist, who have imported their ideals into the history of our churches.
My critique of Mark's article stands as it is. You can disagree with his clear words if you like, but he is the one who said he uses two different standards, one for leaders and one for the laity. The context is granted, but the meaning of the event of his twofold standard does not change.
In response to your question, I find a kinship of theology rather than history between the baptizing groups before and after 1609. This is no secret.
By the way, are you admitting that you hold communion with Presbyterians? That certainly is your church's autonomous decision, but it will also say something profound, if you affirm such.
Good night.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Tom,
You brought in two other people into this conversation, in spite of your previous wish not to include others. So, please let me address them:
(1) David Allen did not misinterpret my article as you have, so why should he critique what I said? Need I repeat again your taking me out of context?
(2) Don't worry. One of your church's employees is not telling me about your communion practices. So, please don't look for a ghost in the closet. However, if you indeed are offering Presbyterians communion, this is certainly not in line with the Baptist Faith and Message, and should be admitted publicly.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Malcom,
Your account here of Calvin's grossly oversimplifies a complicated situation.
Servetus' death was a civil matter. Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva. He warned that, if he did come to Geneva he would be arrested by the civil authorities.
Virtually European cities (and British) were functionally theocratic in the period. If memory serves, Servetus escaped from a jail in a Roman city, and certain death, before coming to Geneva.
Calvin did spot him in the congregation and he did report him. Advocating heresy against the Trinity was a civil crime in Geneva. I don't think it should have been but it was.
Servetus was tried by and punished by civil authorities. This fact is often inconveniently ignored by Socinian, Unitarian, and sadly, anti-Calvinist Baptist critics.
In saying this, I'm not exonerating Calvin. He was a theocrat. So was Luther. So was Bucer. So was Melanchthon. It was the sixteenth century. Religious tolerance was a long way off in the mid-16th century.
Surely you're not implying that all Calvinists are theocratic or that somehow Calvin's role in Servetus' death discredits the doctrines of grace?
Finally, it's not as if those holding to believer's baptism were immune from theocratic tendencies and even bloodshed in the period. You haven't forgotten Muenster have you?
R. Scott Clark
Westminster Seminary California
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com
Malcolm:
So are you admitting that you are a Landmarker? (If this sounds strange, I was merely taking my cue of your own method of deduction).
I still find your willingness to embrace 16th century heretics who happen to have been sprinkled into some communion as "Baptist" disturbing. As I said earlier, you can keep that vision of Baptist identity. I want nothing of it.
As I have repeatedly noted, Mark's article is online, so people can decide for themselves whether your accusation against him is justified, or if his own, Tom Nettle's, and my statement of his practice is correct. I don't get your unwillingness to admit your error here, but, you seem pretty well dug in on this. That is certainly your right.
Malcolm:
I don't have a clue what your last comment means. Maybe its the lateness of the hour.
Tom,
You obviously did not read my comments. I have clearly stated that I am willing to call Servetus a Baptist if he joined a Taufer church. The only mistake I made was repeating the Calvinist historians' assertion that he was a Taufer rather than an Antipaedobaptist, which is the only historical proof we have. Saying that the Taufern are Baptist is not Landmarkist, at least according to any acceptable scholarly definition.
As for Dever, how many times do I have to cite his exact words to you? If he denies it now, that is fine, and I accept it, but it would be helpful to see it in writing.
Now, if I were to take and analyze the rest of your arguments against Lemke, Allen, and Vines, I would no doubt be able to demonstrate that you have taken them out of context and misrepresented them, too. However, this whole exercise with you may have simply become unproductive.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Malcolm:
Trust me. I have read your comments--all 8 of them.
You write, "I have clearly stated that I am willing to call Servetus a Baptist if he joined a Taufer church."
This is why I do not share your vision of Baptist Identity and hope that your view does not prevail in Baptist life.
Another difference we have is that I do not equate anabaptists with Baptists. My understanding of Baptist identity has too high a view of orthodoxy as well as baptism to allow for that.
Here is what I think is the real issue, arguments about Servetus aside.
If you are a Calvinist in the SBC today you are in reality not welcome. Oh, no those "conservative leaders" who happen to not be calvinist wont be so bold as to say that but their actions are in fact sending that message.
I don't find the "calvinist camp" suggesting that non-calvinists are anti or non evangelistic (though I could point out that in my congregation very few evangelize - ours is a non-calvinist body), I dont' find calvinists suggesting that non-calvinists in the convention are a danger, or implying that the tepid growth or more precisely lack of growth is because they are non-calvinists (as Mr. Allen did in a publication false titled "Building Bridges").
No it boils down to the fact that we who are Calvinists, we who want to see Christ crucified preached from our pulpits, we who desire for repentance and faith to be proclaimed, for our youth to learn their theology from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul rather than from Toby Mac or Third Day; we who desire for our fellow believers to grow in the knowledge of Christ rather than to learn their "Purpose" over then next 40 days - we just are not wanted and soon I fear will not be tolerated in the SBC.
Maybe it is time that we leave, I don't want to but maybe it is just time while it can be done with charity and grace and done in a way that there is no public scandal/controversy which brings a reproach on our Savior.
Just some thoughts from a 12th Grade Sunday School teacher who wants to see his students know Christ, know his Word and walk in it (even though the convention literature is more likely to take us down the path of "Why not to have tatoos" for a lessons).
Thank you for your consideration
Terry:
Thanks for your comment. You represent a growing number of Southern Baptists who are getting very weary of the kind of antics described in the post. Not all of the denominational leaders are as you describe them, just some of the most vocal. There are others who are not of that spirit and see the problems that the anti-Calvinists are creating by their unjust, vitriolic castigations.
Hang in there. I believe better days are coming. Keep teaching those students the truth of God's Word. That is a vital ministry and no amount of unjust criticism from denominational employees should detract you from it.
Press on.
Dr. Clark:
Thanks for your comments. I hope that Dr. Yarnell will respond to you. You have, in my estimation, put your finger on one of the greatest problems with the view of Baptist origins and identity that he espouses: what about the Muensterites? I have never seen that question adequately answered by anyone with Dr. Yarnell's view. I look forward to his explanation.
I assure you there is no "divide" in the bride of Christ, the only divide is between the true and the false.
I don't have the eloquence and theological knowledge of the folks commenting on this blog but I thought I would comment anyway.
I was in an SBC church for 48 years and then God opened my eyes to the fact that He is actually the one that does the saving not me by anything I do or can do (like walking to the front).
I was so excited and felt such a burden lifted that I wanted to tell everyone in the world! Leadership at the church was not nearly that excited and after a while sort of encouraged me to find another church.
My wife and I are now involved in the membership process of a non denominational church (a lot of former SBC folks) that understands that God saves but is the most Christ saturated, Gospel proclaiming, evangelistic church I have ever been in.
We really understand the foundational truth that God saves and don't really even talk about it.
We mainly talk about Jesus, the hero of the Bible.
I check in on some blogs occasionally to see what's going on and I pray for the SBC.
thanks
I recently attended the Bapt. Gen. Con. of Oklahoma were the Arbuckle Association attempted to bring a recommendation that the Doctrines of Grace be declared outside of Baptist Polity. No debate on the merits of the Doctrines, just an up or down vote. The Resolutions Committee rejected the measure citing it did not reflect Baptist polity or history. They stated that the State convention would not interfere in an Associational matter and would not demand anything more narrow then the BFM outlined. They also warned of the dangers of Associations making this a Shibboleth.
I for one began attending MBTS, while it still retained many of its Reformed Profs. I was Reformed in my theology before Seminary so these Profs were icing on the cake. I now have one Prof who openly mocks Calvinist and then complains on my papers that I use ad hominem attacks in pointing out the similarities between JW tenets and SBC Armenian tendencies; the JW founder openly praised Arminius. So much for declaring the king has no clothes.
So do I have to consider Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Mormons, and whomever decides to dunk a person under water as a Baptist?
Scott,
Calvinists have been trying to whitewash Calvin’s involvement in the judicial murder of Servetus ever since Castellio put his finger on Calvin’s duplicity. One way to do it is to say it was a civil matter, but as you correctly note, this doesn’t wash either, for Calvin was a theocrat. None of the Magisterial Reformers should be exonerated for their religious intolerance, which was not confined to the mid-16th Century, but stretched well into the 17th Century and was not successfully suppressed until the triumph of the free churches in American political theory. You can also count the Synod of Dort among the intolerant, which should give pause to anybody endorsing their theology, for theology and ethics are intimately tied together.
Granted, those holding to believers’ baptism are not immune to theocratic tendencies, and Muenster is only one example. However, such tendencies are not central to the baptizing movement, while such tendencies are demonstrably central to the Reformed movement. Muenster came well after the beginning of the movement and was repented of subsequently, while the Reformed were theocratic from the beginning and it has been argued that they often retain an intolerant mindset.
Tom,
So, do you commune with Presbyterians or not? Be honest. Put the cards on the table for all to see. And if so, please post your reasons for disagreeing with the Baptist Faith and Message.
In Christ,
Malcolm
Dr. Yarnell,
I don't understand how a comment about Servetus has any bearing on concerns about "classical Calvinists" anyway, as Dr. Allen and others at the John 3:16 Conference proved that Calvin was not a "classical Calvinist."
If Calvin was a good guy (theologically) and the later "Calvinists" who distorted his teachings were the bad guys, then how does the fact that Calvin played some role in the execution of Servetus demonstrate any need for concern about the soteriology of Calvinism?
"You can also count the Synod of Dort among the intolerant, which should give pause to anybody endorsing their theology, for theology and ethics are intimately tied together." --Yarnell
That says a lot from someone who belongs to a denomination that endorsed slavery of an entire race of people
Tom,
Your point about those speakers at the John 3:16 Conference marginalizing themselves with Calvinists is dead on. When Dr. Vines recently preached on John 3:16 in SBTS chapel students were respectful and attended but were left shaking their heads on the way out? It's not just attacks on Calvinists that discourage us, but faulty exegesis that arrives from imposing one's own theological presuppositions on the text. Calvinists are accused of this all the time, but when "Whosoever!" is shouted from the pulpit as if it's the end all, be all answer to Calvinists, what are we to think? The same people who boldly fought for inerrancy in the SBC told us to read and study our Bibles. They just don't like what we found when we followed their advice.
Malcolm:
Perhaps you did not get the point of my previous response to you. Our local, autonomous church (GBC of Cape Coral, Florida) does not take well to one of our employees (Malcolm Yarnell) trying to play "gotcha" with us or trying to direct our doctrine or practice.
Since you seem intent on playing this little game, how about this: You answer my question, then I will answer yours;
You have positioned yourself as a champion of regenerate church membership. Does your church practice what you preach? Since you show no hesitancy on trying to influence what other churches do, what have you done to influence your own covenant community to apply regenerate church membership?
Those who pay your salary will be interested to know your answer.
Magnificent. Finally - A blunt, civil (read: No Caners involved) honest gloves-off discussion between Baptist Theology, Westminster, and the Aggie Floridian. Finally.
Well written article Tom. I stand with you.
As I wrote on Challies, so many white elephants in the room that went ignored in Jacksonville. John 6:44, Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2 for starters.
Let the divide occur. Nashville, Fort Worth, and large portions of the South have become Rome. They add to Justification by Faith Alone. And they never refer to themselves as Arminians or Pelagians, which they are.
Your point about those speakers at the John 3:16 Conference marginalizing themselves with Calvinists is dead on.
They are also marginalizing themselves with non-Calvinists, Matt. It's hard to give proper respect to people who won't listen, refuse to be corrected, misrepresent, obfuscate, and in some cases flat-out lie about their fellow believers.
Dr. Yarnell,
I am curious as to who your church communes with. Do you commune with all that have been immersed? Cambellites? Pentecostal? Free Will Baptists who believe that salvation can be lost? Those baptized into non-Lordship salvation congregations? I ask because there are those who take the BFM to be so narrow that it does not accept immersion by most of these groups to be valid baptism. Are you in that group? If so, I suppose that you do not allow them at your table.
God Bless,
Jeff
Why is there a call to drop the theology of Calvinism because of Calvin's involvement in the Geneva gov't? Especially, in light of David Allen's comment that Calvin wasn't a Calvinist as Andrew already pointed out. Was Calvin's actions a direct attribute of his theology or was it that he was upholding and obeying the law? Maybe Calvin was just acting as a man in the process of sanctification. His personal actions don't necessarily prove nor disprove his theology. If they disprove it then Ghandi was right and had reason not to be a Christian.
Besides, it is baptist Calvinists under the microscope here so why not focus on the SBC Founders, people like Spurgeon or the Calvinistic baptist confessions?
Also, is not some theological nuance allowed? And by what standard? Instead of using the Baptist Faith and Message the standard defaults to Calvin and Dordt.
There was a charge that it's hard to tell who is or who is not a paedo-baptist. This was because of some baptists did a conference(s) with Presbyterians. Yet, Dr. Land at the conference answered the position of individual election by referring to Harry Ironside to refute the Calvinist position.
Funny thing is, Ironside saw no problem communing with paedo-baptists.
Scripture never intimates that like views of baptism are required to fit saints for communion at the Lord's table...Membership in the body of Christ is the only church membership known in the New Testament. This is the basis of communion...but there is no Scriptural warrant for insisting that only those who see and practice the immersion of professed believers are to be received at the Lord's table. This would be to make a new communion of baptism..(Source)
So who gets to partner theologically with whom? And when?
Mark