SBC & Calvinism: Three Events That Widened The Divide: A Brief Response by Malcolm B. Yarnell III

As an interim between Part I and Part II of my response to Tom Ascol, Executive Director of Founders Ministries, who recently made an open attack on  Dr. David Allen and the John 3:16 Conference platform, implicating them as "Anti-Calvinists," Dr. Malcolm Yarnell III, offers this brief response to Dr. Ascol and Founders Ministries. 

      Dear Peter,

Thank you for letting me post my last response to Tom Ascol at your place. I have learned three things from this short interchange on the blog of Dr. Ascol, whom I am glad to see is returning to full health after his recent difficulties. The three things learned from Dr. Ascol are:

 1.  Dr. Ascol holds to a view of history that must conform to an ideology; in particular, Dr. Ascol apparently believes that Baptist history must conform to Dortian Calvinism as the form of "orthodoxy." Dr. Ascol may be unaware of it, but such an ideologically-driven history demonstrates the entire historiography of the Founders' movement is at a crisis point.

First, because of its primary leader's admitted bias toward an ideology, Founders historiography is simply not acceptable history in the scholarly realm. Second, because of its primary leader's admitted bias toward an ideology rooted in non-Baptist Christianity, Founders historiography is simply not acceptable history in the Baptist scholarly realm, for it recognizes as Baptist only what it defines according to Dortian "orthodoxy."

Dortian orthodoxy must not be confused with Baptist orthodoxy: there may be legitimate confluences between Dortian identity and Baptist identity for many Baptists, but not for all Baptists and certainly not for the majority. The historiography of the Founders movement must be judged as deficient on the basis of its ideological bias. 

2.  As a result of his repeated unwillingness to answer a specific question regarding his church's communion with a Presbyterian, many will be led to the unfortunate conclusion that Dr. Ascol is not willing to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message in its entirety. Let it be clearly noted that communion with Presbyterians is certainly within the prerogative of Dr. Ascol's local church as a free church.  However, communion with Presbyterians is outside Southern Baptist orthodoxy, at least according to the common confession of the Southern Baptist Convention. A reading of articles 6-7, especially the first paragraph of article 7, of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 will demonstrate how communion with Presbyterians is outside the confessional mainstream of Southern Baptist life.
 

3.  In his personal comments, Dr. Ascol has conflated being a servant of the churches with being an employee of his particular church. This indicates either a misinterpretation of his interlocutor's statements or an over-reach in his understanding of Southern Baptist polity. Personally, this minister of the Gospel has always affirmed that he is a servant of the churches in the SBC. That understanding is reflective of both the calling that God has placed on his life and the office with which he is entrusted within the convention.

However, this minister is definitely not an employee of Tom Ascol's church, although he is a servant to her and has engaged in conversation far above and beyond the call of duty with her pastor, in willing fulfillment of that role. Again, Dr. Ascol's church is one of among the over 40,000 churches in the SBC and possesses no less of a voice and, this is the critical point here, no more of a voice than any other Southern Baptist church. If this improper idea of authority is not evident to him, it may be advantageous for Dr. Ascol to consult one of the members of his board regarding Southern Baptist polity.

On the basis of these three issues--deficient historiography, unwillingness to affirm fully the churches' orthodoxy, and an overreaching view of authority--conservative Southern Baptists should be concerned that the Southern Baptist Convention may be facing a similar problem to that which it faced with Liberalism.

We should hope that this is not the case, and that Dr. Ascol's views are not held by other SBC Calvinists, but the recent conversation with Dr. Ascol points to an alien doctrinal system of which the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention may want to become more aware. The Building Bridges Conference and the John 3:16 Conference were both legitimate and timely efforts to increase that awareness and Southern Baptists may want to consult the records of both conferences.

Now, since my calling from God is to be a servant of the churches, especially within the Southern Baptist Convention--and particularly of my own church, which fully affirms and seeks to implement the theology outlined in the Baptist Faith and Message--I have spent enough time responding to Dr. Ascol's comments.

We have not even addressed the Founders soteriology, which the distinguished contributors to the John 3:16 conference did so well, and to which there is yet to be manifested a reasoned response. However, one is hopeful that others will take up that task on behalf of faithful Southern Baptist Calvinists, with whom this professor, a non-Calvinist but more importantly a Baptist and most importantly a biblicist Christian, sincerely desires fellowship and mutual understanding.

In Christ,
Malcolm B. Yarnell III

My sincere thanks to Dr. Yarnell for his reasoned response to a growing concern in our Southern Baptist Convention, as well as the open attack Dr. Ascol has chosen to make on the capable scholars at the John 3:16 Conference. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Bill]

If Dr. Ascol's post is an open attack on David Allen et al., does Dr. Yarnell's post here represent an open attack on Dr. Ascol? Especially since he has essentially taken a long comment from the founders blog comment stream, removed it from its context, dressed it up a bit, and reposted it here in a more prominent location?

[peter lumpkins]

Bill,

I find it more than amusing that so many times, dissenting commenters here frequently query the oddest points. This is Dr. Yarnell's response I posted. Instead of focusing on the content of it, you take issue with a word that he did not even use.

Even more, how does Dr. Yarnell's "essentially tak[ing] a long comment from the founders blog comment stream, removed it from its context, dressed it up a bit, and reposted it here in a more prominent location" go against anything of its content?

If you want to make a point, by all means do so. Please attempt to relate it to the post itself.

With that, I am...

Peter

[scott shaffer]

Peter/Malcolm,

Is it not true that member churches are not required to affirm the Baptist Faith & Message? Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

If this is true, what problem do you see with Founders churches, or for that matter, any church that opens communion to those who have not experience believer's baptism by immersion?

Scott

[scott shaffer]

That should read, "any SBC church that opens communion to those who have not experienced believer's baptism by immersion."

[Todd Burus]

"We have not even addressed the Founders soteriology, which the distinguished contributors to the John 3:16 conference did so well, and to which there is yet to be manifested a reasoned response."

Are you serious? If SBC Calvinists united to give some sort of "reasoned response" then Dr. Yarnell and his ilk would be all over it as the kind of Calvinist rallying that brought about J316C in the first place.

The problem is, as long as people like Dr. Yarnell continue to see J316C as a "reasonable" argument against Calvinism then they will fail to realize just how biased and misrepresentative their happy gathering was. As evidenced by his words above and by the presentations of most at J316C, the non-Calvinists (I won't say anti- since that seems to anger people) are not very interested in actually facing the biblical basis for Calvinism and instead want to argue against it by historiography and "bad experiences." That would be fine if narrative made normative, but it doesn't. The only thing which makes normative on issues of soteriology in our convention is the infallible word of God. When SBC non-Calvinists are ready to engage Calvinism at that level and not at the level of wild accusations and character assassination (cf. James White) then maybe something can get done. Sadly, I don't think this day is upon us yet.

BTW, if Dr. Yarnell would like to see my reasoned response to all the proceedings of J316C it can be found at http://toddongod.com/category/john-316-conference/

[downshoredrift]

Peter,

Thank you for posting this. I have not been following this debate and wonder if you could catch me up on what "communion with a Presbyterian" means in this context. Does that mean that Dr. Ascol's church allowed a Presbyterian to take communion with them, or does it mean that they allowed a Presbyterian to join their church? Or, does it mean something different?

Thanks in advance.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Scott,

what problem do you see with Founders churches, or for that matter, any church that opens communion to those who have not experienced believer's baptism by immersion?

Acts 2:42! What was the Apostles Doctrine? Acts 2:41 gives the answer. The Apostles Doctrine was nothing more than what Jesus instructed them. Matthew 28:19 gives us that command.

Would you not agree?

Blessings,
Tim

[josh]

You should add "the creation of this blog" as the 4th event.

[downshoredrift]

Peter,

I went over to Dr. Ascol's blog and read the comment stream. From Dr. Yarnell's words, I now understand what he meant by "communion with a Presbyterian." I wonder if Dr. Yarnell would consider a Presbyterian Church to be a True Church?

I debated his "True Church" comment over at SBCToday and gave him the benefit of the doubt when it came to what appeared to be an emerging neo-Landmarkism. There appears to a be some confusion going on in regard to what some Baptist Identity people think are true churches.

If possible, I would love for Dr. Yarnell to clearly answer the following questions regarding this topic:

1. What constitutes a "True Church?"

2. Do you consider Presbyterian Churches to be "True Churches?"

3. If people are not in "True Churches," can they be considered to be Christians?

4. Will heaven be populated with people who were not members of True Churches?

5. Since many of our Baptist churches are full of baptized people who are non-regenerate, why does the act of baptism and the subsequent act of partaking of communion put these people in better standing than a Presbyterian who is clearly regenerate but has a differing view of baptism?

By the way, I am in full favor of Believer's Baptism by immersion. I am also a non-Calvinist. I am just trying to better understand the views of Dr. Yarnell and the BI crowd on this issue. Bart Barber says that Presbyterians are "unrepentant sinners." I am still trying to figure out the implications of all of this for local church ministry.

Grace and Peace,

Alan Cross

[Bill]

Peter: I generally consider everything in a post to be "content" which includes both Dr. Yarnell's reposted comment and your commentary on it. Since the words "open attack" appeared very early in the post, and repeated at the end, written by you, that prompted my question to you. If Dr. Ascol's post regarding the J3:16 conference represents an open attack I wondered if this post falls into the same category. If only Dr. Yarnell's words are to be engaged, then I would encourage everyone to read them in context at the Founders blog to get a better idea of the conversation that prompted them.

[Robin Foster]

Alan

I too have read Dr. Yarnell's comments and I wonder why are you asking those questions? Could you define "neo-Landmarkism."

Thanks

Robin

[scott shaffer]

Tim,

I'm not defending paedobaptism, and by the way, either is Ascol.

Dr. Yarnell questions if Ascol affirms the BF&M. My question is basically, "Why is this a big deal in the SBC if we don't require SBC churches to affirm the BF&M?" I genuinely want to know what he sees as the consequences of this.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Scott,

This is a very good question, and thank you for asking it. You are correct that individual churches are not required to affirm the Baptist Faith and Message, as implied in my statement regarding communion. The Baptist Faith and Message is, rather, a statement of the churches common beliefs as to what is essential.

The use of the common confession as a measure becomes "a big deal," however, when one interest group claims to represent orthodoxy in the convention. If the Founders and its leader did not claim to represent orthodoxy and then proceed to criticize others for not holding to its unique understanding of orthodoxy, it would not have been an important enough problem for me personally to address.

In Christ,
Malcolm

[Todd Burus]

Dr. Yarnell,
Because you are using the BFM in this way (as the standard of orthodoxy), I was wondering, why is it that yourself and other non-Calvinists in the SBC have such an issue with SBC Calvinists, seeing as how the BFM makes no commitment to one side or the other on this issue?

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

This whole "mess" is illustrative of the concern many Southern Baptists have with the rabidness of some Calvinists. First the attacks on the J316 conference, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Vines, and the other participants. The attacks then ensue, because Dr. Allen used the verboten word: "hyper-Calvinist". Now, Dr. Yarnell is the subject of the attacks.

I would agree that there are "anti-Calvinists" in the SBC. I believe the majority of those speaking at J316 would acknowledge such and speak out against it. Specifically, I have read and/or heard Drs. Allen, Patterson, and Yarnell all state such. The difference is that Calvinists in the SBC rarely speak out against the virulent forms of Calvinism that seek to turn the SBC into a "High" Calvinist convention. Where are their voices of dissent?

Dr. Yarnell here brings up three valid points, yet does not seek to be anti-Calvinist. But he is attacked for daring to question the dogma of those who state that their purpose is to turn the SBC.

1. He is correct that many of the Founders group, do seem to have an ideologically based history. History must be as Joe Friday use to say: "Just the facts ma'am". Scripture itself does not scrub the truth of history in either testament. The Dortian Calvinist's would do well to do the same.

2. Dr. Yarnell's question regarding the practice of fellowship, is valid. He states it to Scott quite correctly that if you want to be a leader of a group within the SBC, seeking to lead the change of the SBC's historical view on orthodoxy, then the practices of your local church is a valid question. It is telling that Dr. Ascol refuses to answer it.

3. Dr. Yarnell is indeed a humble servant of all our SBC churches. However, that does not make him an employee of each church. This argument is akin to you telling a Police Officer not to give you a ticket because you pay his salary. Dr. Yarnell, and any other seminary professor, must be allowed to engage in debate of theological issues. Dr. Ascol's claim regarding the similarities of the liberal professors claim of the 80's and 90's is laughable because the liberal professors were not orthodox. That is unless Dr. Ascol is arguing that one is not an orthodox Christian unless one is a full fledged, five point Dortian Calvinist.

I think it is clear, that it is the fury of "high" Calvinists within the SBC, seeking to turn the Convention into a Calvinist convention that has the most contempt for those who do not hold to their dogma. My only question, is how soon will they also start going after other "Low" or "Mid" Calvinists who do not hold to the entire Dortian dogma.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Alan,

Thank you for your questions. I will answer them for you in short, though not necessarily in your order. First, please recognize that a sinner cannot be clearly repentant if he refuses to obey the Lord's command regarding a Christian's first public witness, the act of baptism.

As for your other questions concerning what the proper definition of the church is, please consider reviewing the Baptist Faith and Message, a statement whose preamble refers to its doctrines as "essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice."

Now, perhaps you could also take up with Robin what you mean by your terminology?

Todd,

I would not call the Baptist Faith and Message neutral on the issues of soteriology. It is quite evidently not a Calvinist statement. This does not mean that Calvinists are out of order in our entities, whose employees generally must affirm that confession, but it does mean that the use of Calvinism as a standard of orthodoxy is out of order. By the way, I did as you suggested and looked at your response to John 3:16.

In Christ,
Malcolm

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Scott,

I see that Dr. Yarnell has answered your question, so I will not add to it. However, I would like to elaborate on what I have already seen as a result of "open" communion. Once "open" communion comes into existence in a church the next doctrine to go will be Baptism by immersion.

Praise God for those churches that have not surrendered the doctrine of Baptism by immersion. However, it will be only a generation before Baptism by immersion will go out the door.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

All,

Thanks for a good conversation and my deepest apologies for not being available. Especially, I thank Dr. Yarnell for his availability to exchange with queries pertaining to his perceptive response to Founders.

With that, I am...

Peter

[scott shaffer]

Tim,

A couple of comments/questions:

1. Slippery slope arguments are weak. In my opinion, you are better served by arguing based on sound biblical exegesis for closed communion.

2. Where have you seen baptism by immersion go out the window in the SBC?

Grace,

Scott

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

I think Dr. Yarnell is serious. The short rejoinder to Founders--but more particularly to Tom Ascol's revealing comments on polity at Founders blog--did not deal with Calvinistic soteriology per se. I am unsure how you seem to think it was supposed to, Todd.

Also, the snipe at "people like Dr. Yarnell" whatever that's supposed to mean, is as unhelpful as your accusations without content of the "biased and misrepresentati[on]" that allegedly dominated the J316C.

When I make an assertion, Todd, that a view is botched, unusually biased, or totally misrepresented, I attempt to offer at least one good illustration of such, showing how, in my thinking at least, how my conclusion follows.

The empty rhetoric you've just employed about "misrepresentation" and "bias" just doesn't feed my chickens, Todd. Sorry.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Alan,

In answer to your concern about Dr. Yarnell's use of the "true" church language, I do not really see your concern with such a statement.

Dr. Nathan Finn http://betweenthetimes.com/2008/08/16/baptism-the-lords-supper-and-the-need-for-gospel-consistency/>here says:

Baptism marks the public beginning of the Christian’s life in the community of the gospel, the church. Communion marks the Christian’s ongoing identification with that gospel community and the Lord who formed her. For this reason, I prefer to call the view that baptism is biblically prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper consistent communion, because it is only in this practice that the ordinances are truly consistent with the gospel they portray.

Also, our Brother speaks very specifically concerning our ability as a convention and association of churches to determine our majority beliefs based on Scripture. Not only are we to determine them but we have a right to maintain such beliefs. Notice his article http://betweenthetimes.com/2008/09/20/the-freedom-of-the-gospel-community-local-church-autonomy/>here and his statement below:

While churches are not to be controlled by a spiritual hierarchy, they can and should open themselves up to receive advice from other churches and groups of churches like associations and conventions. Aberrant churches can and should be disfellowshipped by sister churches because of differences of opinion concerning faith and practice. To exclude a church from cooperation does not infringe upon that church’s autonomy; an association or convention cannot force a church to do anything it does not want to do.

I believe Brother Nathan involves the use of "irregular" churches instead of "true" churches. These terms are different verbiage but the same meaning.

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

Thanks, Brother. You've summarized Professor Yarnell well. As for the 'anti-Calvinist' phenomenon, no one disputes such, least of all the J316 platform. Hence, you are spot on again.

On two occasions during the Q/A, two very aggressive men stood and lashed out at Calvinists in the SBC, one of whom aggressively called for the SBC to boot the Calvinists out!

The one that has most come under fire from Calvinists--Dr. David Allen--in no uncertain terms, using no equivocal language whatsoever, rebuked such an approach and/or action toward Calvinists in the SBC. This is on record for anyone to check.

Thus, the charge of 'anti-Calvinist' is absurd. No such thing took place at J316C.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

Thanks my brother. I think we all can agree that there are pockets of anti-calvinism within our Convention. Where I would disagree with my Calvinist brethren, is that the antagonism and contentiousness is mostly coming from Calvinists, especially those of the Dortian dogma. I would argue that to disagree theologically on Calvinism is not an attempt to silence or remove Calvinists. I have concluded that there are many Calvinists (bloggers in particular) in our Convention who believe that disagreement constitutes derision and equate such disagreement with a desire to dis-fellowship, where no such desire has been articulated.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[johnMark]

Malcom,

The preamble also says the following.

Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.

The BF&M states.

Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

While I do believe fencing the table is the best practice it seems the BFM urges us to cooperate with other denominations. Whether still in practice today or not FBC Woodstock did not practice closed communion for a period of atleast 10 years as I was told by a former member.

Just where does he soteriology of the BFM fall on the theological radar?

Bro. Tim,

You said, "Once "open" communion comes into existence in a church the next doctrine to go will be Baptism by immersion."

Is this a big problem in the SBC? How can I learn more about this problem?

Thanks,

Mark

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
To begin, my comment of "are you serious" was directed at the idea that there has not been a reasoned response to J316C to which (1) I believe numerous people have worked reasoned responses to it through the online community (myself among them, hopefully), and (2) as I said, if SBC Calvinists were to organize the way the non-Calvinists did for J316C we would never hear the end of it.

As for my reference to "people like Dr. Yarnell," I think it is clear that I mean the various non-Calvinist snipers who have been running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life. If you want a list, I think a good start would be Dr. Vines, Dr. Allen, the Caners, Dr. Chuck Kelley, and Dr. Lemke, as well as most of the sympathetic crowd at the J316C.

If you are looking for examples of the misrepresentation at J316C to which I speak, how about we take Chuck Kelley's assertion that Calvinism is responsible for our current evangelism crisis (contrary to Lifeway research), Dr. Lemke's continuing insistence that John Piper allows paedobaptists as members of his church (though Dr. Lemke has acknowledged knowing otherwise, see http://timmybrister.com/2008/10/16/lemkes-remarks-and-my-response-regarding-bethlehem-baptist-church/), and the numerous J316C presenters who claimed that 5-point Calvinists do not believe faith is a necessary response on the part of a believer.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Thanks for the link, Todd. I read your first post (the others I gleaned at your request you made on another thread).

As for the first one, it is not even about the conference per se, Todd. You lifted a quote from BP (unless I read it incorrectly) allegedly Dr. Vines made about the purpose of the conference.

His words were about "balance" which you disputed, and then you wrote this: "I’m sure Dr. Vines would defend his statement by saying that it is balance against the (evil) Calvinist conferences such as Together for the Gospel, Ligonier, and Desiring God. However, this is blantantly false...."

Afterwards, you dispute balance once again for J316C by substituting your own candidate for balance--BBC was the "pinnacle of balance."

So, this is your exercise in reason? The only substance I can tell you offered in rebuttal of Dr. Vines other than asserting "you're-wrong-I'm-right" is assuming what Dr. Vines did not state: "I’m sure Dr. Vines would defend his statement by saying...However, this is blantantly false." How do you know what Dr. Vines would state or how he would defend his statement? Nothing follows from your implication but sheer guess-work.

Again, this is an exercise in reason? Perhaps if we possess entirely differing definitions of what constitutes a reasonable response, Todd. Sorry, brother.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

With all respect, I am unsure Dr. Yarnell had in his mind any & every Calvinist blogger on the block. Please give him the benefit of a doubt as an accomplished theologian.

Secondly, your point that "if SBC Calvinists were to organize the way the non-Calvinists did for J316C we would never hear the end of it" is not at all well taken. I speak for myself, but I haven't the least concern how SBC Calvinists construct their gatherings whatsoever. Period.

I have never, ever criticized, to my recall, a Founders gathering or the way it's structured (I did put up a funny about Ed Stetzer at the last meeting).

The reason is not that fault could not be found; rather, the reason is, I don't care, Todd. It's their nickel; they can do as they wish.

Pertaining to your clarification about "people like," you write: 'my reference to "people like Dr. Yarnell," I think it is clear that I mean the various non-Calvinist snipers who have been running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life...' (emphasis mine).

For the record, Todd, Dr. Yarnell, a distinguished theologian at one of our institutions, is not in the habit of "running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life." That's both absurd and patently false. Unless you can demonstrate it, drop it.

Moreover, which SBC Calvinists has Dr. Allen attacked? He stated without the least stutter that Tom Ascol represented more the classical understanding of Calvinism. It was J. White--a non-SBC Calvinist--that was defined as embracing hyperism.

In addition, specifically which SBC Calvinists "who have gained a voice in SBC life" has either Dr. Vines, the Caners, Dr. Chuck Kelley, or Dr. Lemke gone around attacking? Could you give me a list? I'd like to have it for future reference. If you cannot be specific, please refrain from making sweeping accusations.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Josh,

I appreciate the kudos, my brother!

With that, I am...

Peter

[Jeff (Jeffro)]

Dr. Yarnell,

I ask again, as I did, on the Founders Blog. Will you allow to the table those who have been baptized by the Campbellites, or the free will Baptists who believe that salvation can be lost, or Pentecostals, or those who do not believe in Lordship salvation? Further, do you allow to the table those who have been baptized by a BFM church, are members of said church, yet are not faitfhul attenders of that church? Also, on another note, but one in the same chord....How often should we partake of the Lord's supper? Once a quarter, once a month? Ever?

God Bless,
Jeff

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Jeff[ro],

I am truly sorry for not reading your question on the Founders' blog. Please understand that I was bombarded with so many questions, many of them inflammatory, that I chose not to respond or read them after a certain point, thus corresponding only with Dr. Ascol and with the professor from Westminster Seminary at Dr. Ascol's request. Your questions are certainly good ones and I appreciate them very much. Thank you for repeating them here.

First, I believe a reading of the BF&M will answer your particular questions about who may come to the Lord's table. It is not only the Presbyterians that are excluded by their false doctrines and practices from the Lord's table in a Baptist church that is in accord with the common confession.

Second, as to your question about communion amongst the Baptists, that has been answered differently by different churches. Some are closed or restricted to members of the particular Baptist church, while others are open to other Baptists who are in good fellowship with their church and under temporary watchcare in the sister church celebrating communion. A third concept, the idea of a promiscuous communion in the name of ecumenical, evangelical, or Reformed relationships is a recent innovation. Promiscuous communion does not have a New Testament basis, a point which the BF&M in all three of its forms (1925, 1963, and 2000), as well as the older New Hampshire Confession upon which the BF&M is built (1833), concur.

Finally, as for your other question regarding the regularity of communion, that is a local church prerogative. The Lord seems to have commanded only that it be done "until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:26) in anticipation of His second coming (Matt. 26:29 and parallels). The exact regularity does not seem to be made explicit in Scripture, which is why biblicist Southern Baptists have not made explicit an exact regularity.

In Christ,
Malcolm

[downshoredrift]

Malcolm,

I really do not have an axe to grind here. I am just trying to figure out what you believe about these things and am wondering why you will not clearly state your position.

From your reference to the BFM and your statements elsewhere, I guess that you are saying that since Presbyterians are not baptized, then there are no Presbyterians churches that are "true churches."

Robin,

I am not even trying to argue with Dr. Yarnell. I am just trying to understand where he is coming from. Regarding my neo-landmarkism statement, I was saying that I gave Dr. Yarnell the benefit of the doubt that he was not embracing that, even though it might appear to some from his statements that he is leaning that way.

Tim,

Thank you for posting Nathan's statement there. I think of great deal of "young Finn." I still wonder at the implications of considering Presbyterians not "true churches" or irregular churches. Clearly, that is another group that we will not cooperate with. Add them to Assemblies of God (tongues), Methodists (security of believer), and any other group that does not exactly match our theology and we are quite alone.

That is fine if that is what Baptists proclaim. I am just trying to fully understand the implications of our beliefs. I was raised up as a Baptist in affirming my own beliefs and the beliefs of my church, but the part about calling others "unrepentant sinners" and not cooperating with others was left out. I then foolishly applied all of the passages about Christian unity (John 17, etc.) to those issues of differences and realized that the gospel was bigger than one denomination and grace could cover our differences.

[Malcolm Yarnell]

Alan,

I have answered these questions for you, before, so I am not sure why I should do so again. However, again, I will repeat myself: I am not a Landmarkist. I do believe that these other churches are Christian, but do not match New Testament standards.

In Christ,
Malcolm

[Todd Burus]

Dr. Yarnell,
Thank you for your reply and for checking out my site.

I agree with you that the BFM is not a Calvinist statement (and with your stance against communion with Christians who have not undergone Believer's Baptism). I also agree with you that it would be wrong for an SBC church to use Calvinism as a standard of orthodoxy. What is curious to me though is why so many people in the SBC, particularly highly influential men such as Jerry Vines and Chuck Kelley, are so deadset against Calvinism's growing influence in autonomous SBC churches and the general SBC communion? If our common affirmation as written doesn't preclude it, why then is it made to seem like this prohibition should just be implicit? I get the theological differences here, but what's going on seems a lot deeper than that. I guess it just seems to me like the stance taken by Danny Akin (@ Building Bridges notably) should be the proper SBC position on this issue. What's your take?

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Let me first say, chronologically the BP quote from Jerry Vines was the last post I made on J316C (you may have known that, but I wanted to make sure for clarity sake). It was just a final comment following several (like 15) prior discussions on the actual conference itself and what was said there.

As for what he said and I responded to, I would like to know in what respect you think J316C brought balance to the discussion? By providing equal time to both sides in a non-biased setting? By making sure to accurately represent both sides of the argument with proper Christian charity? By working towards unity and against a spirit of division that is unnecessary at this time in our convention? I think it is clear why I felt this claim was a little awry.

Then, because I felt like this (above) interpretation of balance was so clearly mistaken, I tried to give Dr. Vines the benefit of the doubt by offering that maybe he was meaning balance in the sense that this balanced the Reformed-friendly T4G, DG, and Ligonier conferences, which is an argument I have seen used sporadically around the web. It was this interpretation of balance which I felt would be unacceptable since these conferences aren't just Calvinist pep rallys (like J316C turned out to be for the non-C side) and because there is no shortage of non-Calvinist friendly conferences in the SBC.

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
To note, first, I do not mean to represent Founder's in my posts; I only wish to speak for myself as an SBC Calvinist.

That said, I'm glad that you are not opposed to SBC Calvinists gathering together (for the Gospel, per se), but I'm not sure this is a shared sentiment among all SBC non-Calvinists (Steve Lemke is one who comes to mind, following comments he made at J316C).

As for attacks on Calvinists, the most offensive attack I have seen, which has been launched by Dr. Vines, Dr. Allen, and Dr. Lemke (as well as others), is the repetition of the common refrain that 5-point Calvinists that are evangelistic are so IN SPITE OF their Calvinism. That right there says that any Calvinist who claims to be an evangelical (such as any SBC Calvinist would) is simply unaware of what they believe, that their convictions and actions are in contradiction due to some ignorance and/or error on their part.

By the way, I'm curious if you agree with the misrepresentations at J316C I listed earlier or not?

[Bill]

Whatever one thinks of the accuracy, fairness, logic, etc. of Dr. Ascol's post, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that the divide between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC is wider than it was a few months ago.

I also think it is pretty clear that while the J3:16 speakers may not be properly labeled "anti-Calvinists" the conference was certainly anti-Calvinism. This is fine but let's call it what it was. When a group of dedicated non-Calvinists line up to speak about Calvinism, does anyone really think Calvinism is going to fare well?

[downshoredrift]

Dr. Yarnell,

Thank you for that concise answer. Perhaps I am just dense, but your statement that you believe that these other groups are Christians that do not meet New Testament standards is understandable to me. When we bring in language like "true churches" and "unrepentent sinners" (not you, but others), it clouds things for me. I am sure that if we knew each other better and had a relationship that went beyond printed words on blogs, I would not have the questions that I have. I apologize if I have frustrated you in any way.

As for the Landmarkist claims, I do take your word on the matter and do not consider you a Landmarkist. I fully believe that you know what one is and if you say that you are not one, that is good enough for me. When you use language like "true churches" it causes me to have questions about what you mean, so I ask them. Being a professor, I hope that you understand when questions are asked over issues that become murky. I assure you, my questions arise when I read your own words, not before.

[peter lumpkins]

Bill,

You were relentlessly saying approximately 3 mos before the conference that it was an 'anti-Calvinism' event. I think we understand that you have no intention of going back on what your were saying then, thank you very much.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

You responded "As for the attacks on Calvinists..." but you completely skirted my questions pertaining to what you explicitly wrote in comment #25. I will state my specific questions again. Please respond to that, not something else:

For the record, Todd, Dr. Yarnell, a distinguished theologian at one of our institutions, is not in the habit of "running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life." That's both absurd and patently false. Unless you can demonstrate it, drop it. [Are you able to demonstrate it, Todd?]

Moreover, which SBC Calvinists has Dr. Allen attacked? He stated without the least stutter that Tom Ascol represented more the classical understanding of Calvinism. It was J. White--a non-SBC Calvinist--that was defined as embracing hyperism.

In addition, specifically which SBC Calvinists "who have gained a voice in SBC life" has either Dr. Vines, the Caners, Dr. Chuck Kelley, or Dr. Lemke gone around attacking? Could you give me a list? I'd like to have it for future reference. If you cannot be specific, please refrain from making sweeping accusations."

Thanks. With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
To begin, my comments weren't directed at any particular person being attacked but were in reference to the overall squelching of Calvinist influence in the SBC that is being attempted by these men. If you cannot see how my comment on the "In spite of" remarks demonstrates this sort of attack then I don't know what to tell you.

But to take it further, I can note more instances, maybe some a little more personal for your liking. At J316C Dr. Lemke referenced T4G and called into question the judgment of Southern Baptists (i.e. Al Mohler and Mark Dever) who would be joining forces with Presbyterians.

Also at J316C, Dr. Allen consistently painted SBC Calvinists as young and uneducated, referring time and again to his expansive knowledge and his collection of books (the largest Puritan collection at SWBTS, including the complete works of John Owen) as an indicator that he is right, whereas the immature uninformed Calvinists are only following the misleading popular Calvinists of today (one would assume that being John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Tim Keller, etc. who, yes I know, are not all Southern Baptists, but who do hold considerable sway among Southern Baptists). To my understanding Dr. Allen also referred to these young Calvinists as being "angry" in a message he gave at SWBTS chapel.

Then there was Ken Keathley saying that what SBTS Professor and SBC Calvinist Thom Schreiner describes as assurance of salvation in his book is "not close to [the Council of] Trent, [it] is Trent." Yes, Dr. Keathley did talk highly of Schreiner, but when you accuse someone of being a Catholic, of believing in works righteousness, that is a problem.

As for Dr. Vines, his silence on the issue speaks volumes (though he is not always silent himself). Allowing his name to be attached to such blatant misrepresentations of Calvinists and their beliefs is the most horrendous attack. I think in particular of his failure, as well as the rest of the Q&A panel, when a conference attender asked a question (which was more of a statement) implying that Calvinists believe Hitler could not have been among the elect. By not correcting this speaker and defending the Calvinist position against such a blatant misrepresentation, the panelists were in themselves misrepresenting Calvinism and therefore propagating the same dangerous ignorance against SBC Calvinists.

Please join with me in calling for accountability among our SBC leadership instead of continuing to hide and side-step the divisiveness that is displayed by these men.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

Your long answer did absolutely nothing to answer my questions. You completely ignored your own words in comment #25 and my questioning of your words (twice) in comment numbers 27 & 39.

Your response began with "To begin, my comments weren't directed at any particular person being attacked but were in reference to the overall squelching of Calvinist influence in the SBC..." (emphasis mine).

To the contrary, Todd, albeit you did not identify the names of the Calvinists, you were very clear that a trail of debris has been left by the list of "snipers" you named as being "people like Dr. Yarnell."

Here are your words I questioned in comment #27:

"As for my reference to "people like Dr. Yarnell," I think it is clear that I mean the various non-Calvinist snipers who have been running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life. If you want a list, I think a good start would be Dr. Vines, Dr. Allen, the Caners, Dr. Chuck Kelley, and Dr. Lemke, as well as most of the sympathetic crowd at the J316C" (emphasis mine)

Those are the words you have twice ignored, Todd. Now, for the third time, let me ask you again to address two simple questions:

1) Since you assert that it's "people like Dr. Yarnell" who have been "running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life," I'd like to know specifically who these Calvinists are toward whom you allege Dr. Yarnell has been running around sniping. Please be specific.

2) Since you made a list of the alleged snipers, I want to know specifically which Calvinists constitute your "every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life." In other words, you named the snipers; but I want to know those being sniped.

At this point, I'm uninterested in what the non-Calvinists supposedly said, Todd; all I'm interested in is "every Calvinist" whom you allege make up the ones who are "gain[ing] a voice in SBC life" that Dr Yarnell and "people like Dr. Yarnell" are sniping.

That's all I'm asking.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
It appears we have reached an impasse where you have no interest in hearing what I have to say or answering any of the questions/concerns that I raise. I guess that is your prerogative since this is your blog. If Dr. Yarnell returns after the weekend and continues his gracious correspondence I would be glad to keep speaking with him. Beyond that, it looks like this "engagement" has turned out to be fruitless.

With that, I am. . .

Out

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

I cannot agree with you on it being fruitless, Todd. I learned quite a bit, actually.

I especially learned that you're willing to assert bold but indemonstrable accusations about "people like Dr. Yarnell" who are, according to you, "running around attacking every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life."

I further learned that many times some refuse to acknowledge an over-reach in his/her accusations which inevitably adds to conflict.

In addition, I think I've learned that we reach an impasse when the accuser of the accused--"people like Dr. Yarnell"--will not offer specifics to substantiate what is asserted against the brethren; namely the simple identity of "every SBC Calvinist who gains a voice in SBC life" toward whom they allegedly snipe.

So, Todd. it has been anything but fruitless to me.

Now, here is my conclusion: you may dialog with Dr. Yarnell (if he chooses to return) or anyone else at SBCTomorrow. But the next time you offer a blanket, unsubstantiated indictment against "people like Dr. Yarnell," you will be deleted. Do it twice and you will be flagged.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Bill]

Peter: That's true. The question is, am I wrong? I don't have the gift of prophecy, but it doesn't take Nostradamus to divine the purpose of a conference about Calvinism hosted by and taught by non-Calvinists. The purpose of the conference was to serve as a refutation of Calvinism. That's fine as far as it goes. If there was some other purpose other than refuting Calvinism I'd be interested in hearing it.

[peter lumpkins]

Bill,

We've been over much of this in the August post. I have no interest in milking that cow again.

You did ask, however, "am I wrong?" In my view you are dead wrong. "Refute" carries with it the idea of "proving false." To my knowledge, that was never stated by the conference leaders themselves.

Rather J316C was consistently PRed as a theo-biblical assessment of and response to 5P Calvinism.

Does such an "assessment" and "response" demonstrably show 5P Calvinism to be false. It does not.

Hopefully, it does raise questions about consistent 5P Calvinism--especially strict particularism--and demonstrates that non-Calvinists stand on exegetically-driven biblical truth, sound theological reasoning and generally acceptable historical succession, concerning which all three have their rightful place.

Now, Bill, for the last time on my end--such a focused gathering is not necessarily anti-oriented. If you think otherwise, my brother, you have my deepest commendation.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Keith]

It is my understanding that a church does not have to affirm the BFM to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention. One must only be a cooperating church with the convention by supporting the Cooperative Program. Seems to me that Dr. Yarnell is crossing the line a little.

Keith

[Bill]

Very well Peter. Wisdom is justified by her children. On both sides no doubt.

[Robin Foster]

Keith

As far as I know, you are correct, a church does not need to affirm the BF&M to be a cooperating church. But I have wondered, why would a church want to be a part of the SBC, if it did not hold to the same doctrines that other churches have agreed to cooperate under? For instance, I could not be a part of church or missionary sending organization that baptized infants. To me, it is a matter of integrity.

If we have in our statement of faith that Baptism is an ordinance of the church, to be performed upon believers only by immersion, and that it is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, then I would find it odd if a pastor or church was never questioned if their practice contradicted the statement that guides our convention entities, missionaries and employees. Why would they be part of a convention if their practices and beliefs contradicted the confessional statement of said convention?

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

The vehement responses to the J316 conference across blogtown the past few weeks continue to cement the belief that the "Crusading Calvinists" believe that any theological discussion that does not fully and unequivocally affirm Dortian Calvinism, is an affront to Baptist orthodoxy. It is interesting to read the Crusaders comments across various blogs that actually affirm Dr. Yarnell's first point: that their history is ideologically driven rather than factual. Also, as I wondered above, I have seen some of the Crusading Calvinists attack fellow Calvinists over the J316 conference and the ensuing discussions.

The wailing and lamenting that Calvinists within the SBC are widely under attack by many within the SBC, her leaders and institutions is patently false. But the cries of such false claims are only getting louder. I guess that repeating this incessantly will get people to believe it is factual. However, I would like to state that what they call attacks, are legitimate doctrinal disagreement and discussion that does not constitute a personal attack on SBC Calvinists, much less Calvinism itself. And just a reminder, James White is not a Southern Baptist, and though there are a few anti-calvinists within the SBC, they are a small minority and clearly were not supported by the speakers at the J316 conference.

Though I know non-Calvinists and non-five-point Calvinists welcome all on either side of this issue in the SBC, it is clear to me that our Crusading Calvinists would have no problem at all ridding the SBC of anyone who is not a full fledged Dortian Calvinist and changing our BFM to reflect said doctrine. At least that is the impression that I have been left with the past few weeks.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Byroniac]

Ron P., you said:

"Though I know non-Calvinists and non-five-point Calvinists welcome all on either side of this issue in the SBC, it is clear to me that our Crusading Calvinists would have no problem at all ridding the SBC of anyone who is not a full fledged Dortian Calvinist and changing our BFM to reflect said doctrine."

Are all five-pointers Crusading Calvinists? If only some are, which ones?

I have to admit, that if Dr. Allen is right, then James White and people like me who agree with him are hyper-Calvinists. I don't deny that conclusion if that proves to be the case (obviously, I continue to disagree here). I would like to point out, though, that just because James White is not a Southern Baptist, his defense against this accusation and interaction with the theology behind it is no less important. Let's say we take someone from another denomination who turns to atheism; not being Southern Baptist would not be nearly as important as addressing the rejection of Christianity and the adoption of the falsehood of atheism (of course, this is a first-tier issue, but even so, I believe soteriology is more important than denominational affiliation personally).

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Byroniac,

No, I have many friends (and relatives) who are five pointers. I would define a "Crusading Calvinist" as one who seeks to move the SBC towards doctrinal conformity to Dortian Calvinism as the only orthodox Baptist position. I would add those that are leveling unsubstantiated claims of systemic SBC anti-Calvinism. It seems to me, that many hard line Calvinists can not distinguish the difference between legitimate theological discussion and dissent without believing that it is a "movement" within the SBC to rid her of Calvinists. I do not believe that I am personally being attacked just because I am not a five pointer when discussing this issue. But the same does not always hold true for some of my Calvinist friends. They see it as a personal affront to them.

I suppose that it is OK for hard line Calvinists to incessantly accuse non-Calvinists and non-five-pointers of unorthodoxy, angry Arminianism, or Pelagianism. But it is not OK, for someone to question any point of Calvinism (or anything Calvin did - even when wrong). Nor is it OK to write papers, preach sermons, hold conferences and such. For any of the above is an attack on SBC Calvinists. That is the message that I keep hearing.

My point about Dr. White, is only that he is not in the SBC. The repeated allegations of systemic SBC attacks on SBC Calvinists are used with regards to J316 and Dr. Allen's reference to Dr. White. How could that be an attack on SBC Calvinists, since he is not one?

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Todd Burus]

Ron P.,
Who are these people you say are "seek[ing] to move the SBC towards doctrinal conformity to Dortian Calvinism as the only orthodox Baptist position"?

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

Thanks, my brother. A couple of things:

First, that Calvinists are pit against Calvinists on this issue is interesting. Tony Byrne is unapologetically a classic Calvinist. He holds and defends the T-U-_I-P just as strongly as Founders Calvinists--albeit with perhaps a different attitude. Yet, he is not treated so well by some prominent Founders advocates. One need only read Brister's comment thread to glean such.

Secondly, I have found it amazing that, given Dr. Allen's clear line of thinking, offering a precise definition of hyper-Calvinism, that his view would be treated with just as much disdain as the sloppiest critic of Calvinism. Dr. Allen labeled not one single, Southern Baptist--NOT ONE*--a hyper-Calvinist. Founders should be glad. Why they are livid is simply amazing to me. However, it shows, as you said, Dr. Yarnell's point to possess some teeth. When a view is ideologically-driven, little, if any, criticism is acceptable.

Grace, Ron. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

The *NOT ONE in #53 could have an exception--George Ella, whom no one seems to know but Wade Burleson.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Todd Burus]

Ron P.,
If you are interested in Dr. Allen's comments and why people are upset at his "precise definition of hyper-Calvinism" I think a good place to start would be with the person who came up with the definition in the first place, Phil Johnson. He blogged on it last week: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/11/you-may-be-hyper-calvinist-if.html

[Byroniac]

Because it seems to me that some SBC Calvinists agree with Dr. White's theology (such as myself, though I am not important). That is what makes this issue so important to me. A "Universal Saving Desire" almost precludes predestined election, unless loaded with so much anthropomorphic language as to become unrecognizable and fuzzily indistinct. Dr. White's theology may be out of the SBC mainstream, but it is not outside of SBC Calvinist orthodoxy, which is a point many other bloggers are making.

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Todd and Byroniac,

I think Dr. Allen in the new article that Peter just posted fully answers your questions to me, much better than I could.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks again for your continued participation. You write that, 'A "Universal Saving Desire" almost precludes predestined election...' Then you conclude that "Dr. White's theology may be out of the SBC mainstream, but it is not outside of SBC Calvinist orthodoxy..."

I assume you mean to suggest that Dr. White's view accurately reflects what your aforementioned statement asserted--namely, that "Universal Saving Desire" almost precludes predestined election..."

If my assumption is correct, my question is this: Would you name, beginning anywhere in SBC history and moving right on until today, say 3 SBC theologians who embraced/embraces the view that Universal Saving Desire almost precludes predestined election?

Or, another way to frame the question is this: What Southern Baptist Calvinist theologian denied/denies God's universal saving desire for all people?

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter:

OK, I spoke too hastily when I mentioned "SBC Calvinist orthodoxy" if I must meet your requirement. From reading other SBC blogs, I'm not the only SBCer who thinks this way, whether or not we constitute an "orthodoxy" in any official opinion. I don't know if Ron P is implying that no one in the SBC agrees with James White, and that is why his non-SBC status is important, or simply that no one in the SBC should agree with James White, due to this absolute requirement of a "universal saving desire" in atonement, which I see as unnecessary if one is a strict five-point Calvinist, or something else.

I suppose my main difficulty lies in the expectation, even requirement, that I assert God's frustration in His own sovereign plan of election to prove the validity of the theological construct known as Limited Atonement. If one grants God's sovereignty in salvation and election to redemption, then one must qualify the word "desire" in some fashion because it cannot exist in any absolute sense that I can see (because election is according to predestined purpose). If someone argues for common grace, that God is kind to both elect and non-elect, and in general seeks their welfare, then I have no real problem with that, and I do not think James White does either, since he has explicitly affirmed common grace. If someone insists that "universal saving desire" means that God would rather one be brought to salvation instead of perish, then someone will have to explain that to me within the context of Calvinism, because that idea is very difficult to square with the idea of election and predestination, which may be the real issue here: God alone determines the elect and reserves the right and responsibility to do so.

I've read others who take Ezekiel 33:11 as a general statement that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, even though the context and audience specifically addresses Israel, and not her pagan neighbors or anyone else on Earth, and I think that is possible. But there is no mention here of any universal saving desire, especially not in the face of unrepentant rebellion.

And not only that, it must be harmonized with the Apostle's understanding in Romans 9. Romans 9:15 states God's absolute freedom in showing or withholding mercy. Romans 9:16 denies human ability in regards to the working of that mercy of God. Romans 9:17 shows God specifically raised Pharaoh up for wrath and to show His power and glory, with no mention of any desire for his salvation in the entire chapter (only one negative is needed to counter a universal assertion). Romans 9:18 states God shows mercy on some and hardens others, not according to their will, but His. Romans 9:19-21 raises the "fairness" objection and answers it with an appeal to God's pure sovereignty (whose right is it to question God or His authority?), and states God can create vessels of honor and dishonor. So at last Romans 9:22 comes into view (though it does not end here) where God's will to show His wrath and make known His power is shown, along with his lengthy and unmerited patience towards the "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." One could argue a universal saving desire for all of Israel in the first few verses of the chapter, especially with the apostle's reference to the Holy Ghost, but the Scriptures launch into a discussion on election of specific individuals as individuals before nations ever were produced from their offspring. I think this is why proponents of God's supposed universal saving desire turn to passages such as 1 Tim 2:4, which should not determine a doctrine alone because it is not a completely clear or undisputed text, and because according to Strong's, the verb used here for save (G4982) does not require a strict soteriological context, as it can simply mean "deliver or protect" in the literal or figurative sense. There are different views here admittedly, though. "Universal saving desire" to the best of my knowledge does not require an eternally redemptive desire on God's part, which would produce some inconsistency with predestination and election unless you can somehow introduce and resolve the frustration of God theologically (not something I would want to tackle, if I held those views).

[downshoredrift]

I wonder what the percentage of SBC churches is that DO NOT make baptism by immersion as a prerequisite to partaking of the Lord's Supper for visitors and non-member regular attenders? I know that nearly all, if not all, SBC churches make baptism by immersion a prerequisite for membership, but how many enforce this among guests, visitors, and long time attenders who choose not to join on the basis of a different understanding of baptism? I think that a Lifeway poll is in order.

According to Dr. Yarnell's view, the churches that do that are outside of SBC orthodoxy and do not affirm the BF&M in it's entirety. Should there be a resolution about this at the next convention, ala the Regenerate Church membership resolution? If there is a great number of churches that does not practice this view of "Baptist Orthodoxy," then it seems that those churches are in disobedience to our confession and would not be considered fully cooperating churches theologically.

This raises an interesting problem. Baptism AND the Lord's Supper are the two church ordinances. We should not make an issue over one and not the other, I would think. The view on communion that Dr. Yarnell is pointing to in the BF&M seems like it is a big deal. So, are we prepared to say that if a church does not practice this view of the Lord's Supper then:

1. They are not a fully cooperating SBC church?
2. They should not have missionaries appointed from their churches?
3. They should not have people from their churches serve on SBC committees and in leadership positions in our entities?
4. Their cooperative program dollars are no longer welcome?

I think that Lifeway should do a poll on how many churches practice the form of communion that Dr. Yarnell is setting before us in regard to non-members who are in attendance. Based on those numbers, we should see where we stand. Then, a resolution at the next convention calling upon SBC churches to bring their communion practices in line with the BF&M2000 is the next logical step. If churches refuse to do this, the Boards of Trustees of our entities (especially the IMB and NAMB) should make sure that they do not appoint missionaries or employees from churches that do not practice this view of what the BF&M2000 says.

Do the Baptist Identity folks have this type of remedy in mind over communion? If not, why not? What makes communion less of an issue than say, ppl (which is not even mentioned in the BF&M)?

I really am eager to see an answer to this question. Anyone?

[downshoredrift]

Peter,

Did you remove my last comment about communion? It was here and now it is gone.

[downshoredrift]

Sorry. Now I see it. Strange. I came back here from two different sources and didn't see it. It must have been a "refresh" issue in my computer. Sorry.

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks. I understand. I too have spoken hastily at times. No problem. I would ask, though, that you habitually search the mainstream Baptist theologians moreso than "others on other blogs" (yes I am aware that I am just another on another blog:^).

Phil Johnson gave some good advice a few year ago about getting one's theological understanding from Internet sites--he specifically referenced Calvinist Internet sites interestingly enough. Rather, he counselled, get your theology from mainstream Calvinist theologians. Personally, I think that is as wise advice as one can give.

Allow me to press you again, Byron. You write: "I suppose my main difficulty lies in the expectation, even requirement, that I assert God's frustration in His own sovereign plan of election to prove the validity of the theological construct known as Limited Atonement. If one grants God's sovereignty in salvation and election to redemption, then one must qualify the word "desire" in some fashion because it cannot exist in any absolute sense that I can see..." (all emphasis mine)

My query is, Byron, where did you get this reasoning? Honestly, it sounds like a sound-bite lifted verbatim from James White. Understand: I am not suggesting you c/p. Rather, only that you appear to be miming his particular view on this issue, down to the very words.

Note, also the highlighted words from the quote. They all have one thing is common--they are highly philosophically oriented. I find this totally unlike you, Byron, from our past dialogs.

Historically, during our exchanges, you have been relentlessly Scripture-minded, which is one reason I have had pleasure and edification from our time. Yet now, there is a reading back into Sovereign Deity that what happens in our emotions--say, frustration when we don't get what we desire--is logically necessary of God as well.

I do not despise logic but neither will I bow to my mere logical constructs that come from my flawed mind.

Couple such with explicit assertions of Scripture like "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come unto repentance" and I don't give two Georgia hoots who speaks to the contrary, there seems to be, at bare minimum, some sense in which this assertion corresponds to reality in God.

With that, I am...

Peter

[johnMark]

Bro. Robin,

What would you say if the SBC President's church did not practice closed communion?

Mark

[Byroniac]

Point taken concerning reading mainstream Calvinist theologians.

I also admit to using the words of James White. But his reasoning immediately made sense to me. It put to words some of my own thinking on the matter as this issue has surfaced. The whole phrase, "universal saving desire" immediately struck me as inconsistent.

I will have to step back and think about being too philosophical. Stepping back from my words, I can see that. Perhaps I am trying to fill in the holes of my understanding where I do not know Scripture (I am guilty of taking the Scripture I do know and using philosophy to make it all fit together, and fill all the holes).

In the back of mind, I wanted to go to the Scriptures, and this is what I attempted to do in my previous comment. I do not have the knowledge to reference Calvinist and other theologians, and doing that is not my main reference anyway. I guess I will have to read other opinions on "universal saving desire" in Scripture, and for that, all I really have are blogging resources, due to my limited theological library and time to read.

[Dr. James Willingham]

DR. Yarnell's views demand some clarification. Consider how both Sandy Creek Assn and Philadelphia Assns. were Sovereign Grace from the get go, and remained so down in to the 1800s. Consider how the founders of the great Missionary movement and our educational institutions in the 19th century were such strongly committed calvinists. And say was not the abstract of principles designed to make sure the teachers of Southern would be Sovereign Grace Believers. And Did not B.H. Carroll rather plainly spell out his views on predestination in his commentary on Acts 13:48, while Luther Rice declared: "Predestination is in the Bible and you had better preach it." Also he chaired the committee of the Sandy Creek Assn. which drew up the 1816 confession which is directly linked to the Abstract of Principles. The last member of the committe was identified by his office, Clerk of Sandy Creek Assn., Basil Manley (later a Senior). He will suggest the founding of Southern and will serve as president of the Board of Trustees of Southern for seven (?) years and when he died Dr. J.P. Boyce will preach his funeral and will use the term calvinist several times to identify Dr. Manley's theology. And the son of Dr. Manley, Basil, Jr., will draw up the Abstract of Principles (along with the assistance of Dr. A. M. Poindexter, a noted believer in calvinism). As to the Landmark views, it is no secret that J.R. Graves views became predominant in the SBC for years. But go back past him, and things began to change. For example, John Gano preached from the same platform with George Whitefield and observed communion with him. Admittedly, close communion is the most easily defended position as it is evident from the discipline of the local church. However, perhaps Mr. Graves should have come under discipline, if, as some think, he served as the model for the sorry preacher in Mark Twain's Huck Finn?
The original doctrine of Baptists as is the case with the Bible allows for a two fold doctrine of the Church, a local visible church (one of Graves' really great contributions to ecclesiology was to distinguish between oklos and ekklesia in Acts 19 and rendering K. Schmidt's article on ekklesia seriously lacking) and siritual, invisible, universal body, I Cors.13:12 which demolishes the Landmark idea of ONLY a local church. any case, tulip, predestination, and even reprobation are invitations of the most wonderfully irresistible kind. Just consider dogs in Mt.15:21-28. Dr. Eusedin's Intro. to his translation of William Ames' Marrow of Divinity opens these subjects for us and we find as Pilgrim Pastor John Robinson said, "Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God's word." Truth that has been there all alone, but man was unable to see it. By the way Dr. Eusedin declared, "Predestination is an invitation to begin one's spiritual pilgrimage." Take every point of issue in the Sovereign Grace/Calvinist controversy an look at each one of them in the light of Jesus using them as invitations and offers of hope to helpless sinners. O yes, I did research in church history for 6 years (3000 5x8 notecards covering more than 250 sources), and I had hoped to do a doctor of theology disseration on the Theology of the Great Awakenings for the U. of S. Africa (alas, no mon, no fun). In any case the theology of the Great Awakenings and the Great Century of Missions was and is and always will be Sovereign Grace. Strange is it not that the Pilgrims and the Baptists of R.I.were the people most liberal in advancing the Gospel and in securing religious freedom? While I am not of Dr. Ascol's approach, believing truth will make its way humbly and lovingly, I do believe the theology he presents will win the day, when he discovers how much love and liberty there is in it and how Whitefield could work with Wesley and even went out of his way to do so, and how Edwards could rebuke Whitefield over his attacks on Harvard and the unconverted ministry and how Whitefield would become one of the big benefactors of Harvard and how Edwdards could call attention to the fact that Jesus chose Judas as an Apostle and how none of the others ever attacked him in spite ofhis great evil. They did not excoriate him; they did identify his sin and that was all.