Tom Nettles and the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention (part II) by Peter Lumpkins

In part I, we rehearsed the historical relationship Dr. Tom Nettles, professor of historical theology, at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has had with Founders Ministries since its inception in 1982. Nettles still sits on the board of directors for Founders Ministries. Nor has Dr. Nettles been rhetorically shy about stating in forceful language precisely how he sees those Traditional Baptists who deviate from what Director of Founders Ministries, Tom Ascol, has called "historic Southern Baptist Orthodoxy." Nettles wrote: >>>

Southern Baptist beginnings were self-consciously and vigorously Calvinistic. This is reflected in the confessions, the associations, the preachers, and the theologians. The changes that have come could with clear justification be called "theological apostacy." Some feel the force of this historical reality and with both conscience and conviction desire to restore the spiritual dynamic of the living truth of the documents. Others would rather ignore the implications of this theological matrix. As the outworkings of this apostacy have established themselves, we should see that the changes have not contributed to our health but have spawned a climate of theological disunity, rampant absenteeism, a circus mentality in much evangelism, and a justified distress concerning the spirituality of professing Christians (//link; embolden added)

One may only wonder how Founders Calvinists generally and Nettles particularly see themselves as congenially cooperating with Southern Baptists whom, they strongly insisted, not only exist outside historic Southern Baptist Orthodoxy, but also as Traditional Southern Baptists who have allegedly committed theological apostasy. Is this the same Dr. Nettles who also satirically mocks non-Calvinists like Jerry Vines for expressing reservations about the so-called "New Calvinism" as a breed apart from more traditional Calvinism? Says Nettles:

One observer [Jerry Vines] has stated that there is a new kind of Calvinism among us. Some, not all, new Calvinists are hostile, militant, and aggressive. Oh, that's probably what I'm being right now; I'm sorry. This kind of Calvinism is troubling our churches, hindering evangelism and missions, and disrupting the fellowship of our convention. I would hope that men of good will, whether Calvinists or not Calvinists, would repudiate that kind of Calvinism. So, according to this objection, it is not Calvinism that is the problem, but it's this kind of Calvinism.

My first response is confusion concerning Dr. Nettles' point. Vines clearly made a legitimate (and logical), careful distinction between some Calvinists and all Calvinists, a habit most sober critics practice when offering sound discernment. Nevertheless, imagine how Nettles would have objected had Vines stated his assertion generally as in "Today's Calvinists are... or Today's Calvinism is..." In the twinkling of an eye, Nettles would have charged Vines with broad brushing and overextending his assertion about all Calvinists, etc. But since Vines carefully suggested he and others like him voice no opposition about all Calvinists or all Calvinism, there remains little left for Nettles to do but enter into satirical meltdown which, from my perspective, is basically what he did in the remainder of the transcribed remarks by Jared Moore.

So, while Bryant Wright and Frank Page are speaking "Peace, Peace" to convention attendees in New Orleans, Nettles seems to have been stirring division at the Founders breakfast.

Leaving the transcribed words behind, the editor of Associated Baptist Press, Bob Allen, reported some other words Dr. Nettles spoke at the Founders Breakfast. Writes Allen,

Nettles said recent criticism doesn't stop with Calvinist thought but "seems nonplussed that the Calvinist would want his church to have an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation."

One hardly knows how to respond to sensational rhetoric coming from a distinguished professor like Dr. Nettles. I'd be surprised if Nettles could offer a single, tangible example where an idea like this is being seriously considered much less pragmatically implemented. No non-Calvinist Southern Baptist I know or have ever read embraces the nonsense Nettles suggests that somehow we are perplexed that even the strongest Calvinist would want his congregation to follow his theological lead. The truth is, most non-Calvinists are not concerned with what the church down the road is doing so far as Calvinism is concerned. Nor do I concern myself with what Nettles' church is doing. They can believe as they wish so far as I am concerned.

On the other hand, Southern Baptists do have a stake in the cooperative mission projects they support together, and Nettles addresses this. He said:

"Apply majoritarian pressure that indicates that it is not appropriate for Calvinists to hold positions in which their salary comes from the Southern Baptist Convention, the property of the traditionalists," he continued. "No matter their competence, their orthodoxy in historic Christianity, their views of biblical authority, their thorough commitment to Baptist ecclesiology, their involvement in church planting, missions and evangelism in the local church, their contractual obligations to support a chartered confessional statement, the newly minted traditionalist says we do not want such a person in a position of influence."

First, why shouldn't "majoritarian pressure" be appropriated to ensure distinguished Baptist belief is taught at our seminaries from professors whose salaries come from the Southern Baptist Convention, the property of Southern Baptists? Was this not precisely how, beginning in 1979, Conservative Resurgence supporters argued their case against moderate and liberal professors who taught non-inerrancy of the biblical text? Was it not the "majoritarian pressure" which voted in a conservative president, elected conservative committees, and approved conservative trustees which made the Conservative Resurgence an historic success? Why Dr. Nettles now appears to question the "majoritarian pressure" which he so readily approved leading up to and finalizing a biblically conservative academic culture among our institutions--a culture which decidedly paved the way for him to be comfortable teaching at a Southern Baptist seminary--seems entirely out of place. If we Traditionalists are "nonplussed" it is because of Nettles' explicit lament about the presence of the "majoritarian pressure", a phenomenon he once adored and embraced.

Second, Dr. Nettles overstates the concern Traditionalists have normally and clearly expressed concerning the presence of Calvinism at the institutional level of convention life. We have been clear it is not the presence of Calvinists heading our institutions and agencies. Rather it is the number of Calvinists in powerful positions about which we have raised concerns. If Lifeway's numbers are conceivably close in gauging the number of strong Calvinists in our convention, then the number of Calvinists in positions of power and influence is completely out of line with the number of Traditionalists who fund those entities and agencies.

What is more, Dr. Nettles serves a seminary which is well-known to have marginalized a Traditional Baptist theological ideology. Indeed as one author put it, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is "Ground Zero" for the young, restless, and reformed" movement in evangelicalism. Few can easily deny this. In addition, the institution where Dr. Nettles freely teaches the students that non-Calvinist, Traditional Southern Baptists have committed "theological apostacy," and hence stand outside "historic Southern Baptist orthodoxy," has a president that is committed to the Abstract of Principles more than to the Baptist Faith and Message, and that even when he pleads for all Southern Baptists to cooperatively encircle themselves around the Baptist Faith and Message alone. After leaving New Orleans, Dr. Mohler wrote (italics added):

The most recent of these was 2000, when Southern Baptists adopted a revised statement of "The Baptist Faith & Message," our confession of faith... We will stand within the "Baptist Faith & Message" and we will learn how to talk in a way that will help each other to be more faithful and biblical, not more hardened and bitter."

Even so, Dr. Mohler has not employed "our confession of faith" which he identifies as the Baptist Faith and Message to return Southern Baptists to "historic Southern Baptist orthodoxy" or as he says, "the true substance of our theological heritage." Even the updated Baptist Faith and Message 2000 with its clear statements on biblical gender, homosexuality, open theism, and especially biblical inerrancy remained insufficient to guide the seminary through theologically murky waters ahead.

Instead Dr. Mohler employed the Abstract of Principles to thoroughly Calvinize Southern Baptists' oldest seminary even though not a scintilla of evidence exists that "Reforming" Southern seminary meant recreating the seminary into a bastion of Reformed theology. If Mohler was commissioned to do so, let him or the trustees of Southern produce the goods. Southern Baptists have a right to know if our trustees commissioned Al Mohler to transform the seminary into an exclusively, strongly Calvinist seminary rather than transforming the seminary into a conservative seminary the faculty of which embraced a robust view of biblical inerrancy.

Writing an article for Founders Journal in 1995 entitled, "James Petigru Boyce and Southern Baptist Theological Education," Dr. Mohler explained the personal significance the Abstract of Principles has for him and the vision he has for Southern Baptists' oldest seminary (embolden added):

The Abstract of Principles came primarily from the editorial pen of Basil Manly, Jr., who had been assigned the task of drafting the confession. Manly drew from the very finest and most faithful Baptist tradition by turning to the Charleston confession and its Reformed Baptist orthodoxy. The Abstract of Principles stands as a brilliant summary of Biblical and Baptist conviction. It is solidly based within the confessional tradition of the Baptists and was, as acknowledged by those who set it in place, a faithful repetition of the central truths found within the Westminster Confession.

Thus the great truths of the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace were incorporated within the heart of Southern Baptists' first theological institution. Here was to be found no lack of doctrinal clarity and no ambiguity on the great doctrines which had united Baptists to this date. Sincere and earnest Southern Baptist who wish to understand the true substance of our theological heritage need look no further than the Abstract of Principles for a clear outline of the doctrines once most certainly held among us. Let there be no doubt that in the years to come Southern Seminary will be unashamedly and unhesitantly committed to these same doctrinal convictions as set forth in this incomparable document.

As seems evident, Drs Nettles and Mohler are thoroughly and unambiguously committed to Calvinizing the Southern Baptist Convention, and they are doing so through our educational institutions. Albeit they routinely suggest we rally around our Baptist Faith and Message as the statement upon which all Southern Baptists agree, they continue to push and employ a document which Mohler not only describes as "incomparable," but also a document he historically traces back to Presbyterian origins found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Even so, Dr. Nettles wonders why Traditional Baptists are "nonplussed" about what's going on with Calvinism at the convention level while Dr. Mohler suggests any conversation about Calvinism will "marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized."

Let's face it. We've got a big problem here. Traditionalists are implicated in committing "theological apostacy" while the "true substance of our theological heritage" found exclusively in the "doctrines of grace" (i.e. 5 Point Calvinism) is being pumped out into Southern Baptist congregations via our educational institutions. What is more, record numbers of church plants are being started with church planters who are indoctrinated with the "true substance of our theological heritage" found exclusively in the "doctrines of grace" (i.e. 5 Point Calvinism) as taught by Nettles, Mohler, and Ascol. They may cry, "Peace, Peace" but there is no peace and will be no peace until Southern Baptists first face the not-so-lovable reality that we've got a serious problem.

I never thought I'd find myself advocating this position, but I think it's time: the Southern Baptist Convention needs to consider purging itself of all confessional statements to be used by our agencies and entities except the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. All not some. All. And, all means all. While we have absolutely no say-so over individual churches and the confessions they embrace, using proper organizational protocol, we still have control over all our agencies and entities, a control we could implement despite Dr. Nettles' objection toward "majoritarian pressure."

It's time for Southern Baptists to stop the institutionalization of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Perhaps weaning ourselves from leaning too strongly on confessional documents which advocates like Mohler suggest are inspired by historic Presbyterian theology would be a first step in returning our convention back to a "balanced" peaceful cooperation between Traditionalists and strong Calvinists.

Comments

[Louis]

I appreciate the forthright statement in this post.

I do not agree with it, but at least I have an answer to what I had been asking before the SBC meeting.

I did not see the Traditionalists' statement as a large matter in practical terms before the convention. I think it is fine for groups to propose statements and to discuss theology within the SBC. The statement was significant, but it's practical implications were limited. The direction of the SBC in these regards, if limited to discussion, persuasion, conferences etc., would be determined over the course of years, rather than through political action.

You would have Southern and Southeastern abandon the Abstract of Principles which were adopted at their founding.

You have not directly advocated the next step if those institutions don't do as you have advocated, but it's not that far of a step.

That is - if the trustees of those institutions refuse to abandon those confessions, do you advise a strategy of seeking to elect SBC Presidents who will explicitly work toward that end and use their appointment processes accordingly.

Or do you advise a course that the Founders and other Reformed groups have used - the "Quiet Revolution" of teaching, preaching etc., as opposed to the open revolution of chosing sides and campaigning on that basis?

I personally do not favor another political battle across the SBC landscape. I would understand if you did, but I can't tell from this post.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

[Mary]

"seems nonplussed that the Calvinist would want his church to have an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation

This statement to me seems to be saying why can't a Calvinist go into a Trad church and change it to Calvinism. Because of course no one cares what Nettles and Ascol are doing at their churches and no one has told them they need to change their churches.

Another falsehood that the Founders are pushing is that somehow the resurgence in Calvinism is just organic and happening without any influence from men. You can see how organic it is not when you look at the time line. As the Calvinists took over the educational institutions they started churning out more Calvinists. It's like the liberals in America - take over the schools and indoctrinate how you like and then you can build your base.

And yes the convention needs to get control of those institutions and start cleaning house with the Trustees who are not doing their jobs. When someone like Mohler can just time and again insult the majority of the SBC, when someone like Nettles can call the majority of the SBC apostate - and no one is holding them accountable? Then it is definately time to clean house.

The more you read their rhetoric the more you see that these men do not want unity - they want to get rid of all the "apostates."

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

Thanks. Not sure I have any strategy at all other than the "first step" you rightly perceived. Nor am I versed well enough in our conventional polity to gauge whether or not another "loophole" so to speak might be explored to avoid a long, grueling trickle-down trustee transformation process which, partly along with you, I don't know whether I possess either the stomach or even the time on this earth to see through.

What seems to me to be a very easy solution, so far as the confession itself is concerned, is all sides say they agree that the BF&M should be our central document. Granted. Nor did the TS author(s) or supporters remotely state they wanted to usurp the BF&M. Even so, Founders Calvinists like Mohler & Ascol appear to be duplicitous in their support. For example, they speak boldly of the BF&M being "our" confession while at the same time demanding "Founders-friendly" churches embrace at least one other confession other-than the BF&M, confessions which Founders deem as more explicitly "Reformed" than the BFM.

Moreover, Mohler was not commissioned to employ the AP as a hiring tool in place of the BFM. If he was, somebody needs to inform SBCers about this. Moreover, Mohler doesn't consistently employ the AP for he presumably doesn't demand strict adherence to Sabbath Day rest from "worldly" pursuits like Article XVII prohibits.

The truth is, the trustees wouldn't be the biggest obstacle in getting this done (i.e. employing the BFM alone). I think we know this. The heads of the institutions would be the bucking broncos.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

Peter, even if Mohler said fine we'll stop the using the Abstacts could he even be trusted to stop discriminating based on his conviction that Southern be the Calvinist Seminary.

We see in the Lifeway SS material where the Calvinist claimed that all the contributors to the Gospel Project adhered to the BFM and somehow we are to believe it was just a mere coincedence that they all happened to be Calvinist.

And it wouldn't be enough to stop using the Abstact for conformity but something would have to be done so that Southern and Southeastern are not just the indoctrination camps they are now. You have to undo the damage that has been done because of the Calvinization to bring them back to institutions that serve the entier SBC and not just a small minority.

[Lydia]

"The changes that have come could with clear justification be called "theological apostacy." Nettles.

We keep seeing affirmations of why young men are so arrogant and bold and why it is not going away any time soon. They have been taught at a seminary, man Apostates have funded, that they are dealing with Apostates! This is truely incredible.

I am simply amazed that Nettles can work in a place that is funded by a lot of Apostates. Is that not hypocritical? He takes their money in the form of a salary all these years and calls them Apostates? We pay them to insult us, call us heretics and Apostates. Looks like the Trustees agree with them. What will the trustees do as more and more people find this out and the money dries up?

Do these men have a Calvin complex?

[Lydia]

Mary, I am not sure they want to get rid of us. They need our money. What they want is to "rule" over the Apostates. That is why you see elder rule as their choice of church polity. Add to that lawyer vetted membership covenants and keys to the kingdom teaching, discipline and you are talking control over people. (Anyone who signs a membership covenant needs to have a lawyer look at it first because you are probably agreenig to be "disciplined" by the ruling elders and they get to decide what needs to be disciplined)

And all of this is another reason you see a seminary president who is not a pastor but an employee of an SBC entity totally comfortable to speak of marginalizing people and insulting his learned brothers publicly. If anyone understands raw power, Mohler does. And he has it.

[Lydia]

Louis, Do you support Nettles, a paid employee of an SBC entity, in calling us Apostates? You are on the SBC Foundation Board (or were) so I know you might have trouble answering.

Also, why was the donation by SGM and CJ Mahaney taken off the SBTS donor lists? TWW reported on this a few months back.

[Mary]

Lydia, you're right it's not so much get rid of the apostates at this time. The emphasis is on ruling them now, but I do think they see the future as gradually weeding out the apostates which is accomplished by the ruling now. You will either conform or..... Servetus.

But of course they need the apostates to continue funding their Calvinization. They have counted on the peasants staying asleep and apathetic. The TS is waking people up from sleep and apathy and that has to be quashed.

[Max]

Dots and more dots. We had a preacher once who often declared "There's a devil behind every bush!" I used to doubt that, until my Christian journey took me through various spiritual battles in and out of the church. Yep, there's a devil behind every bush! But what we need to remember folks, is that the flesh in front of us is not the warrior. This current SBC debate has taken on a spiritual dimension I'm not sure we really see at this point. Souls are at stake! Take up the armor of faith!

[Louis]

Lydia:

I do not agree with Dr. Nettles' statements about Apostacy. True, there has been lots of it in the SBC, but I don't count Jerry Vines and Paige Patterson or their friends in the that group. I am taking you guys word for it on that, but assuming that's what Nettles meant, he is wrong.

I don't know about the donations of other groups. I have never met Mahaney or seen him at any gathering at Southern, thought that may change with his move to Louisville.

Peter, I am with you. I was very active in the CR. I think that I am older than you. I am 51. I don't have another CR in me.

Actually, the Abstract has a sort of legal effect at Southern. Every full professor, I understand, has signed it, since its adoption, including the promise to teach in accordance with and not contrary to the Abstract.

You may know this, but Mohler's use of the Abstract as a check on the faculty was very useful re Molly Marshall Green and others. The Abstract was very helpful in that regard.

Mary makes a good point. Even if there were no Abstract, the emphasis of an administration eventually shows up in the institution.

I am not sure that this type of thing can or should be legislated. One of my friends goes to a mainline church who called a pastor that he did not care for. The Pastor there gives homilies that last 15 or so minutes. It is a liberal church. Committee run. Lots of big business people there. If I listed names, you would know them.

At any rate, my friend took the attitude that it was his church, too, and that while he might not have control and his perspective might be different (he is more liberal in some things, less than others), he was not going to leave. He was going to be a presence.

I am not in the position of advising anyone here, but if I were a Reformed person in a Trad world or a Trad person in a Reformed world, I would simply be who I am, exert the influence I could reasonably exert and keep showing up. I might not control things. I might have the minority perspective, depending on which meeting I was attending, but I would always show up and present my viewpoint as consistently and kindly as possible.

We have more influence than we realize most of the time.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary

Unfortunately, I think you are right. Just bleeding the air of their tire by dismissing the allegiance to the AP would not solve the issue entirely. The fact is, it's such a mess, I'm not sure what it would finally take. After all, we've got Founders Calvinists now rewriting our history suggesting our BFM (especially 1925) is a strong Calvinist document. Completely overlooking the the historical circumstances in the development of the BF&M, they happily claim it. Yet, both Nettles and Mohler blame E Y Mullins as the main cause for the demise of Calvinism in the SBC, while Mullins was the chief author of the 1925 BF&M. That this all makes no historical sense at all does not seem to bother them.

I guess in the end I'm thinking if we can bleed the air out of their tire, we at least slow the thing down so we can catch up.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

No sir, brother. I turn 59 in a few weeks :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

Louis, Seeker and liberal churches are notoriously hierarchical. They just present it differently. REmember, Mars Hill was ruled by committee, too, until the bylaws were rewritten for it to be ruled by 3 guys. They just called it something different than a comittee or committees.

It is part of the fleshly belief that somebody has to rule the adults instead of Jesus Christ and the guiding Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ ruling the body is much harder to actually live out as a corporate body.

Thanks for answering my questions but I did not ask if you had seen CJ around Southern as I doubt you are there that often since you are in Nashville. I asked about his donations to SBTS both as CJ and as SGM. So his donations would not be known by the Foundation?

[Mary]

Louis, I don't agree that we should throw up our hands and declare - well the Founders set it up so what can we do! This is exactly the argument that Founders Ministry makes which is that the only right SBC is the SBC that goes back to it's orginal Foundation.

And then there is the practical implication of what you are saying, which is the seminaries can be divvyed up between Trads and Cals. Firt off the Cals will not allow seminaries to use the TS as a litmus test in hiring, and yet Trads are told there is nothing that can be done but use the Abstract at Southern and Southwestern. But even if we could agree on how to divide the baby - what happens as people decide to start designating funds to only those institutions who are like them? Declaring that Calvinist own Southern and Southeastern because of what old dead dudes who don't pay the bills did is to just hasten that the destruction of the CP.

It amazing that everybody thought it was a great ideal to go through an official/unofficial name change - changing the name from what the old dead dudes declared the convention would be called, but trying to make sure the institutions are serving the SBC we have today is seen as an impossible task and one is guilty of blasphamy against the Founders for even thinking SBC Institutions should reflect the entire SBC. Those dead guys don't pay the light bill. Maybe it's time the people paying the bills are in charge of the instituions.

[Adam B. Embry]

Peter, I'm very hesitant to post, as I can only speak for myself and do not want to enter into this SBC debate. I've read through enough blog comments on SBCToday the past month to realize that the same people keep commenting, talking past each other, and probably have never met anyone from Louisville. With that said, I offer this:

I have been at Southern Seminary since 2002 (am still currently a student) and have never heard the term "theological apostasy" used by anyone, ascribed to anyone, or even heard the phrase at all. I had Dr Nettles for a masters level class and a doctoral colloquium. I don't read The Founders Journal, attend their meetings, or read their blog. I was never indoctrinated with theology at Southern, as I already had doctrinal convictions before I went. I read the comments in YRR on Southern and thought, "Wow. Some of these seminary experiences at Southern aren't normal. This isn't what it's like for most!"

Again, I don't want to "get into it" here on your blog. I read Dr Hankin's article on the sinner's prayer where he said, "I felt that the underlying criticism of the Sinner’s Prayer from New Calvinists is related to the fact that they do not believe that all people can pray that prayer because some people are hopelessly condemned,” and I wondered, "Where's he meeting these people? I don't know the people he's talking about. I've never heard anyone articulate that view. I've never even had a discussion on this before." So, please just accept my comment for what it is, just a simple comment from someone in Louisville, at "ground zero" as it's put.

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

I want to challenge something about which you alluded above and spoke more directly on Voices. Above you queried whether I might advocate 'the "Quiet Revolution" of teaching, preaching etc., as opposed to the open revolution of chosing sides and campaigning on that basis" and on Voices you wrote:

...the Founders’ use of the term “quiet revolution” is now being taken to mean something it is not...The insinuation of some Traditionalists is that the Founders have somehow used the political process or something akin to it to gain prominence in the SBC. They have not. They have only persuaded.

About whom do you speak here? I am one of the few who even mentions the "Quiet Revolution" conceived by E. Reisinger and promoted by Founders Ministries. Rick Patrick may have written on this some time back but very few ever mention the "Quiet Revolution." In fact, some Founders advocates swore they'd never even heard of Reisinger while some of the younger Calvinists claimed that a fringe figure like Reisinger could could make any difference (if I recall this is on the comment thread in the post Patrick wrote at Voices).

Know my point is not to get you to "name names." I'm only suggesting few even bring this up so it was surprising to read your suggestion that some are misusing this term. Frankly, I've not spoken of Founders doing much political posturing though I think it surely goes on behind the scenes (for the record, I offer no complaints about the political aspect). My point is, I do not see the "Quiet Revolution" as either political posturing on the one hand or simply persuasive rhetoric on the others. Rather a chief strategy you fail to mention in Reisinger's "Quiet Revolution"--and the strategy I've most often lamented--is the grand cover-up on speaking openly and honestly about Calvinism. In other words, Reisinger promoted Calvinists go into churches via stealth and form an underground support system before making known to the church that they would go through the "Reform." All of this is well documented in Reisinger's book.

And, it is a process that has unfortunately backfired on Founders because they got tagged as being not good strategists who would take the church through a slow process of change, which is how they perceive themselves. Rather they got tagged as deceptive annoyances who ultimately destroyed some churches while splinting others. This is a horrid dark blotch on Founders that no amount of denial is going to wash away. They created this horrible, vicious circle by not being straight-up about who they were in the beginning. In that sense, the "Quiet Revolution" is a colossal failure and one in which critics are right to point out.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Adam,

Thanks for your perspective. I do not doubt your experience. On the other hand, there are tangible evidences which seem to prop up the analysis I offer here, evidences such as Nettles' written words, his recent speech, and even bloggers like SBTS student, Jared Moore, who swore Calvinism was virtually ubiquitous at one time--that is until people started taking his words seriously ;'^)

Lord bless you in your work.

With that, I am...
Peter 

[Lydia]

"Peter, I'm very hesitant to post, as I can only speak for myself and do not want to enter into this SBC debate. I've read through enough blog comments on SBCToday the past month to realize that the same people keep commenting, talking past each other, and probably have never met anyone from Louisville."

Word on the street here is that students are being cautioned against commenting on non Reformed blogs in this debate. I think they are worried about more cage stage Calvinists out there affirming the real problem.

""Wow. Some of these seminary experiences at Southern aren't normal. This isn't what it's like for most!""

Adam I do not doubt your experience at all. I totally believe you. What might be the difference is what we would describe as normal or indoctinated. Some do not know when it is happening. Especially the young. I seriously doubt a prof is going to come right out and say we are Apostate in class since so much SBC money is from what they deem as Apostates. It simply is not done that way. First you are indoctrinated then it is easy to come to that conclusion. And we have seen this played out with the charge of "semi Pelagianism" which some have had to bring down to error as some of their learned Trad brothers pointed out other scholarship besides their indoctrination. That should be a warning sign about the education people are receiving.

This was brought home to me by quite a few 30-40 something friends who went back for grad work who are Calvinist leaning. They were appalled and could not wait to get out of there.

[Louis]

Peter,

You are exceedingly well preserved!

We have never met, but the only photo I have ever seen of you does not indicate that you are 59.

Congrats.

[Louis]

Lydia:

I don't know what CJ and his various groups contribute because I really don't keep up with that. That may be known to everyone who gets the seminary annual report of giving or the magazine. I guess its avaialable to all. I just don't read it.

And even though you did not ask, I have never seen CJ there.

When I go to Louisville, I usually have dinner, tour the campus, go to Chapel, take in a class or two. It is really enjoyable. I would enjoy meeting you there sometime, if you would be inclined.

None of these topics come up, though the Abstract did in earlier years as Mohler was getting his feet under him. I first started going up there not too long after he had been made President.

[Louis]

Mary:

I am not suggesting that you just throw you hands up.

I would be very pleased to be involved at any of the SBC seminaries as a visitor, supporter or whatever. I have friends who teach in a 4 of them. They all have different histories and emphases, so to speak. I cannot control them, nor would I try to do so.

I would encourage your continued involvement in whatever way you decided to be involved.

[Louis]

Peter:

I was referring to the comment streams that I have seen on Voices, this blog (not just you), and maybe others, though there are others that discuss Calvinism, but perhaps not in the context of the Founders.

From what I know about the Founders, they have not done anything nefarious. I have said that here, I believe.

I am probably not as knowledgeable of the Founders as you are. I don't know Reisinger and haven't read his works.

I have been to a couple of Founders breakfast meetings over the years, and have read some of their literature. I have never seen or heard of any stealth strategy. They appear to me to be very explicit in their beliefs and teaching.

My pastor started attending the Founders meetings about 20 years ago. He went for about 5 years in a row, and hasn't been back. He met Mark Dever there 20 years ago (or something like that) and likes him, as do I.

What I have read about the Founders was that they wanted to affect the SBC, not through overt tactics of the CR, but through what they considered to be solid teaching.

I am not discounting in any way what you have said about Reisinger, but have not read carefully all that you have wrote, and have certainly not read him.

I have said in other places why I believe the emphases of Reformed theology are having a rebound today. I believe there is a core of that teaching that is very important. There are particulars that I do not buy, but I don't worry about it.

Maybe because I am not a theologian or pastor, I only have so much time and pick up what I can. I am in a secular profession, so it always a joy to find anyone out who just believes the Bible. So I really do see common points more than differences in debates like this.

The common points in the SBC are so strong. I just do not get that worked up about the other stuff. I can easily appreciate Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Adrian Rogers and Paige Patterson all at the same time, and have a really hard time getting worked up about them.

Hope I am making some sense here.

Thanks.

[Adam B. Embry]

Lydia,

I have been a student since 2002 and an assistant pastor in Louisville since 2007. Having been here a decade, I believe I know the place fairly well. So, I don't mean this to be rude in any way, but I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean about in your comments about Southern and what you hear "on the street" about indoctrination. I'm simply at a loss for words every time I read that word typed on these blogs in this discussion. I'm not meaning Peter Lumpkins' blog, by the way, as this is the first time I've read his. And, by the way, I appreciate his kind manner in responding to me.

The reason I hesitated in commenting at all wasn't because any one from Southern told me not to comment. It was because I've read a good number of the blog comments on SBCToday the past month and realized no one who comments is from Louisville and really knows Southern. My hesitancy was an issue of prudence. To be honest, I won't be reading about this discussion in the SBC much anymore, as it's quite discouraging. Also, I've noticed you're a frequent commenter on SBCToday, and I just don't have the time or energy to go back and forth on Peter Lumpkins' blog.

I've learned a lot about loving God and loving people from my professors. I'm so thankful for them, their godliness, and their commitment to the Word. Having read Dr. Wills' book on the history of Southern, it's simply amazing that the school is conservative, now. I'm so proud to have gone to Southern and be taught by these men.

[Luke]

Adam Embry,

Have you been a student of Dr. Bill Cook? (Sorry for the wayward rabbit here Peter, but I ask for your indulgence.) I was a student of his at former(Florida Baptist Theological College,now Baptist College of Florida). Just wanting to know if he is still the fantastic man he was in Florida?

Thanks
Luke

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

I think I understand and, for the most, I would not get worked up either if all Founders wanted to do through the years is educate. However, it’s obvious they intend to not only educate about SBC origins from their perspective but implement practical “reform” into the structure of both the local church and the SBC.  I put together several of Reisinger’s quotes here, a selection which fairly shows a common denominator between him and Founders today, including Tom Nettles who presently sits on Founders Board.

Louis, you come across as both sober and perceptive. Do you not see some serious issues with the language of Founders suggesting “Traditional” Southern Baptists are outside historic Southern Baptist Orthodoxy and can thus be described as embracing “theological apostasy”? Not to mention Al Mohler’s clear and undeniable infatuation with the AP being the birth child not of Philadelphia’s confession like one would think he would claim. Rather he traces its inspiration to Westminster. What in the world was he thinking? Strong Calvinists so often accuse Traditionals of “making stuff up” like suggesting they are more interested in Presbyterianism than Baptist ecclesiology. Why Mohler cannot be legitimately cited as spawning the supposed “made up stuff” is not easily defended.   

And, this language has been non-stop from Founders up until a couple of years ago when, from all appearances, it looked like Calvinists had gained a significant, measurable advantage over traditionally-oriented people. In that sense, the TS document symbolized an unchallenged 10 point run down the court. Now both Ascol and Nettles are on the defense again.

Whatever the case, Founders philosophy and “take-over” strategy is anything but a conspiratorial motif. One may easily rummage through their writings and see the theo-philosophical footprint of Nettles and Mohler intertwined throughout

With that, I am…

Peter

[Adam B. Embry]

Luke,

I didn't have Dr Cook for any classes, and I don't know him personally. However, a good friend of mine did his PhD under him and has only good things to say about him. I know several people who go to his church, Ninth & O Baptist, and have benefited from his preaching and the fellowship there.

[Lydia]

"It was because I've read a good number of the blog comments on SBCToday the past month and realized no one who comments is from Louisville and really knows Southern."

There are few signers from Ky much less Louisville and there is a reason for that. For the non Calvinist pastors here it simply is not prudent for them and they know it.

I have been involved with SBTS since being a kid from about the 70's's as a ton of my family went there and we have been involved in many ways. We were very supportive of the CR and Mohler's hiring. But that changed. My concern for SBTS goes back to what was done to the very gentlemanly and senior Paul Debusman in Mohler's early days when he was about 34. And from there a ton more very mean things done to people to consolidate power. Adam as long as you don't rock the boat and go along with whatever, you will be fine. It is not a great place for independent thinkers.

[Lydia]

"Not to mention Al Mohler’s clear and undeniable infatuation with the AP being the birth child not of Philadelphia’s confession like one would think he would claim. Rather he traces its inspiration to Westminster. What in the world was he thinking? Strong Calvinists so often accuse Traditionals of “making stuff up” like suggesting they are more interested in Presbyterianism than Baptist ecclesiology. Why Mohler cannot be legitimately cited as spawning the supposed “made up stuff” is not easily defended. "

This is one I do not get. People are not thinking. Not taking a hard look or connecting dots. Perhaps they just don't want to?

This has not been a big secret here in nonCalvinist circles. The joke here for the last 10 years or so, has been for a long time, the real Presbyterian seminary is SBTS.

I think this is why Mohler sought out so many Calvinist alliances outside the SBC. He had to.

[D R Holmes]

Peter,
During my time at SEBTS, we had a number of great men who were able to sign the Abstract of Principles who were not Calvinist. These include Paige Patterson, Waylon Owens, Emir Caner, Keith Eitel, and Stephen Rummage: all of whom have signed the TS. The problem is not the Abstract.

There are also other Statements that are useful in clarifying beliefs. At SEBTS, we also adhered to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics and the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

I don't really see the problem with an institution having statements that go beyond the BF&M, as long as they do not conflict with the BF&M.

At our church plant, we adopted the Abstract because it was very friendly to our majority Reformed membership (part and parcel of being a family integrated church). It was also a document that I had reconciled with while at SEBTS, even though my personal convictions are much more in line with Dr. Caner and Dr. Patterson than any form of Calvinism.

If we do not wish to have institutions controlled by Calvinist, then we need to direct efforts at resolving that issue. Doing away with statements will not accomplish that any more than having the Abstract made SEBTS Calvinstic while Dr. Patterson was there. The issue seems to be the Seminary Presidents and the direction they are taking their institutions.

[Bobby Mullins]

I grew up a Southern Baptist and have never been anything but a Southern Baptist and know the date, time and place that I was saved at 10 years of age in a Southern Baptist church during a revival. I never even heard of Calvinism until I attended Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in the late 1980s when Dr. Tom Nettles was there and pushed Calvinism, which some of the students embraced and then arrogantly promoted as much as they could get away with. It was a good day for Mid-America when Nettles left. I am for Nettle, Mohler and the other Southern Calvinists forming the Southern Calvinist Convention and moving out of the SBC. But, they should not be given Southern Calvinist Seminary. It needs to get back to being Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

[Jeremy Crowder]

For those of us that don't know what exactly is the major difference in the Abstract used at Southern and Southeastern vs. the BFM. I've read that non-calvinists signed the abstract which sorta confuses me about it. I've never read that document though I will definitly be looking it up now.

[Sad Reader]

All I have to say is that this whole discussion has made me sad in how Traditionalists right now are the ones creating a big divide and causing things to head in direction where there will probable be some type of split.

[Tim G]

Sad Reader,
We Traditionalists only stated and defended that which we believe. Pleasevtell me how this is divisive? Keep hearing this but I am shockec each time. Please tell me?

[peter lumpkins]

D R

Thanks. A few things. When one uses a document the way Mohler has to systematically "weed out" Traditionalists from Calvinists, it's time to take the toy away. You mentioned that the AP didn't appear to keep non-Calvinists from signing it but then suggest your own church embraces it because the AP is "very friendly to our majority Reformed membership." If the AP is as neutral as you suggest, then why is it particularly appealing to a Reformed constituency?

Finally, we don't need the AP anymore. The truth is, we haven't needed it since 1925 and perhaps should have been dumped then. Nor is there a reason to keep either the Danvers or CSBI since we've addressed both issues in the BFM2K. Nor is there necessity for SWBTS to have the New Hampshire Confession or NOBTS to have the Articles of Faith they have. It's really out of control. If we all actually embrace the BF&M, then why not show we do by having it exclusively the statement of faith our agencies embrace?

Thanks again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Louis]

Peter:

Thanks for the compliment. I try to be reasonable.

I read the Reisinger quotes, and I appreciate your sending them to me.

I do not read those quotes as a strategy for a Reformed pastor going into a decidedly non-Reformed church by hiding what he believes and then convincing people over time to become Reformed.

They appear to me to be read as advice for someone who is Reformed who is going to a church that is probably not heavily theological in any direction on these lines and how to introduce the concepts in a way that communicates.

Any person who intentionally hides his convictions or lies about them is going to come to ruin. I would never counsel a person to do that, and I don't believe that should be done. I don't believe that is a successful strategy anyway.

I don't want to speak about all Baptist churches, but I have been around many in my years that really did not care about the theological particulars that are at issue here. I don't think that in any event an ardent non-Reformed person or and ardent Reformed person needs to make a big issue about that. Most churches I know are not looking for that. They are looking for a pastor that majors on big issues and loves people.

If a pastor does that, he will have a good ministry. If he doesn't, he will not. He can be Reformed or non-Reformed and introduce his perspective on that. If the church goes one way or the other, that does not concern me.

If would concern me if the person lied, however.

[Louis]

I have not read what Mohler said about theological confessions and where they came from.

But aren't most Baptist confessions in the U.S. the progeny of The London Confession in some way? And the London Confession was the progeny of the Westminster Confession.

It is true that at some point we may be several iterations away from the London Confession so that is makes little sense to speak of Westminister as being the basis etc. I don't think of the BFM in that way, but even that has some DNA of Westminster.

Certainly the Baptist confessions of the 18th and 19th Centuries are close enough to have some connection.

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

Unfortunately, many Founders Calvinists have read them precisely as I did, and the results were tragic.

As for the confessions, Louis, I'm afraid there is much, much more to our history than tracing our Baptist DNA back to London and exclusively through Particular Baptist confessions as if they were the only kids on the block. If we're going to trace origins, then Particulars lose hands down for the first Baptists were decidedly General Baptists and were on the scene an entire generation before the Particulars showed up in the 1640s.

Nor is it proper to say the least to trace our origins to the Presbyterians at Westminster as did Mohler. This remains almost humorous if it were not so darn tragic.

Finally, albeit Mohler & Nettles to the contrary, Southern Baptists first confession of faith was 1925, not 1859. And, the confession was neither built upon the AP, Charleston, Philadelphia, London, nor surely Westminster. Rather it was built upon a confession written right here on American soil by American Baptists who made a conscious shift away from High Calvinism in the NE. Of course, all the Founders Calvinists are aware of this but they continue to suggest theories to the contrary like "The BF&M teaches regeneration precedes faith" or "The BF&M teaches imputed guilt from Adam". This will never end, I'm afraid. Where is our old Training Union which taught us our Baptist history when you need it? :^)

Grace, Louis. I've enjoyed the chat. Perhaps we'll meet up sometime.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

" ... committed to Calvinizing the Southern Baptist Convention ... through our educational institutions."

If anyone doubts that strategy, they should take a journey back to the 1970s-80s and consider the "Boyce Project." That ambitious effort was to republish "Abstract of Systematic Theology" by James P. Boyce, and put it in the hands of every student graduating from the six Southern Baptist seminaries at that time. Led by Ernest Reisinger, the "Project" republished and distributed over 12,000 copies of Boyce's book to SBC seminarians ... planting the seeds of the "C" Resurgence.

Is this all about influencing young minds at our seminaries? You bet!

You can read all about the Boyce Project in Reisinger's book "A Quiet Revolution" at http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/quiet3.html

[Mary]

Max, what's amazing is that in Ascol's recent writings you see him try to push the view that the surge in Calvinism is just some sort of natural organic thing. If that were really true the TS would pose no threat to him at all. And you better believe the TS is a threat to the Founders Movement. As to the rise of Calvinism being organic, it's as organic as the rise in liberalism in this country. The Calvinists and the secular liberals are using plays out of the same play book - first indoctrinate the young, then build your base off of them to take over the institutions. And some young fools think it's great that there's a generation gap with Calvinists being the YRR. GEE, you think it's an accident that the Calvinists are mostly young. When the young fools point out the generation gap what they don't realize they're saying is they think the older generation was just too dumb and biblically illiterate to understand the glories of DOG like them. There is a reason why Calvinism is on the surge and it's because it's been taught thanks to the Founder's Movement. You better believe Founders does not want the Traditionalist side to be taught.

[Max]

Mary, it has been sad to watch the "old" Calvinists use the "new" Calvinists in this way. I am burdened over the generational shift I see occurring in SBC ranks. Founders-type folks are capitalizing on the new-found energy of the YRR movement. Under normal circumstances, the YRR would have nothing to do with the old guys and vice versa ... but they need each other at this point. This is not a "natural organic thing" in the works - it's increasingly clear that the "C" Resurgence has been carefully crafted and masterfully directed. How any thinking SBC "traditionalist" can't see that, is beyond me ... and why it has been allowed to fester and remain untreated by our leadership is disturbing, indeed. As this conversation expands, I sure hope the rank and file get properly educated in this regard. Once you see it, you can't un-see it.

[Casey]

My name is Casey and I am a Calvinist [this feels similar to the opening greetings at an AA meeting].

I grew up in a family that taught me the gospel. During my years in university I came to the conviction that the doctrines of grace were proper soteriology. And for a few years I was quite belligerant about it. I sniffed every song, sermon, and article like a drug dog searching for narcotics. It wasn't a very joyful period of my life, not because of the doctrine but because of my immaturity.

I knew I wanted to see the gospel advance to the Nations via church planting, so I enrolled in Southern Seminary.

Through the instruction I received at SBTS I now have a greater respect for those with whom I disagree [in terms of soteriology]. My convictions have not softened, in fact, I feel more certain about the doctrines of grace than I ever have. However, through the faithful instruction and proclaimation at SBTS I can now say that I'm a "recovering belligerant."

I'm down with those who want to bang the "Preach Christ, not Calvinism" drum. Calvinism can be taught and preached in a way that totally misses Christ. So can Traditionalist SBC dogma.

In my experience, most of the discussion on the blogs and forums in regards to the hoopla among SBC-ers right now has little to do with what is actually happening [especially as it regards SBTS and SEBTS].

I also resonate with Adam's comment/testimony above.

@Luke
And for the record, Dr. Bill Cook is still quite the gentleman and scholar! Not to mention a seasoned and respected pastor in the community.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Casey,

Thanks for logging on. I appreciate your perspective as I did the other SBTS students. The analysis I have focused on here has been inferred from the words your professors and president have stated. What they say in classroom lectures, etc. I have no way of knowing. But the public statements they've made, the reading public will judge.

Grace to you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

Casey,

Your comment was hilarious! Thanks for the grins because I have encountered the "university" you a hundred times in and out of church over the past 10 years or so.

I wish all YRR were like you.

[Casey]

@Peter - Thanks for the response. Maybe I read it wrong, but it seems as if you are implying the president and professors at these institutions are being duplicitous. I am not trying to prop up anyone or any institution; we are all responsible for what we say and write. However, I would like to know what words [specifically] you are referring to when you say: "The analysis I have focused on here has been inferred from the words your professors and president have stated."

I don't mean to beat a dead horse [pardon the metaphor, but it works in Kentucky!], but I would appreciate a few links so that I can become better acquainted with the words that are causing the rub in so many circles.

Thanks.

@Lydia - I'm glad you enjoyed a good chuckle at the "university me." Hopefully it didn't bring up too many frightful memories of YRR-types of ages past, of which there are apparently hundreds. To be honest, I've never referred to myself as YRR or even been labelled the term until now! I'm not entirely sure that I the Young & Restless part, but if the shoe fits then I'll gladly add it to my growing list of SBC-isms to remember: IMB, NAMB, CP, GCR, WMU, BF&M, AP, BP, LCR, ERLC, and B21, not to mention all the seminaries, colleges, and state conventions.

Oops, I forgot to mention TULIP.

;)

[Lydia]

Casey, I wish they were "ages" past. Most of them have come out of SBTS.

BTW: Peter provides plenty of links on this site to the questions you ask just takes time to do some reading. Do you think we (royal we) are Apostate as Nettles claims?

I had to laugh at your comment about sniffing out doctrinally unsound sermons. I once heard a YRR lecture over Wed night dinner at church how "Jesus is Tenderly Calling You Home" is not doctrinally sound. (It seems Ms. Crosby's doctrinal crime was to be a Methodist)

[Casey]

@Lydia - SBTS is a big ship, so there are bound to be some loose nuts and bolts here and there. A proper question might be: Would you rather meet a 1980 SBTS grad in the pulpit or a 2012 grad?

Also, Wednesday night dinners can be dangerous places for YRR-types and those in their line-of-sight. Spike a Calvinist with enough coffee and free spaghetti and there's no telling what could happen. Throw in a Fanny Crosby hymn and its like chummin' the water for Jaws. But hey, at least you had somebody show up to your church on a Wednesday night!

No Calvinist I know would deride all Methodist hymn-writers. In fact, most Calvinists I know would say the best hymn writer to ever live went by the name of Charles Wesley! Though I wonder what his brother thought about some of his Calvinistic tendencies...Do you think they ever had a squabble over spaghetti? If they did, I would have paid to see it.

[Lydia]

Casey, One of the most amusing things about Calvinists is their ability to make any historical figure "Calvinistic".

Ummm, I am thinking about the 1980 question as I grew up around SBTS. Let's just say they (as in grads and even faculty) tended to be much nicer and not as elitist as I remember from lots of interactions. So not sure the CR accomplished what it wanted in the first place. Arrogance, revised history and psuedo intellectualism combined with a Determinist God is just as much as a barrier as liberal doctrine can be. Sorry, just my opinion.

[Casey]

@Lydia - I wasn't trying to kidnap poor Wesley into the Calvinist camp. Though it wouldn't have been a long trip if I had, since he and his brother claimed to be only a hairsbreadth away from Calvinism as it was. O horrible decree! I think the nature of this disagreement lends itself to some sensualizing of the differences. The fact that we can all sing the same songs in full-fledged agreement should cause us to pause and consider what it is we are arguing about.

Did you personally know many grads and facutly in the 1980s? Do you know any current grads or faculty members on a personal basis?

Calvinists don't have a corner on arrogance. Have you ever met a New England Patriots fan?

As for revised history, have you read John Calvin? I'm sure that we can both agree that he's been revised beyond imagination.

I'm not sure what pseudo intellectualism is, but it sounds expensive and something for which I would need a prescription.

If a Calvinist determinist ever says to you that God is the big cog in a universe full of little teeny cogs, and that you should just learn to deal with it, then you just need to inform him that he is about as Calvinistic as John Wesley's hatband. Then you could proceed along these lines: "A mechanical Muslim determinism is not Calvinism. Fatalism is not Calvinism. By the way, have you read Calvin's Institutes? If you've got the time to let me show you in chapter 1 where..."

I'm opining as well.

[Mary]

I can't find my old hymnal - wasn't Pass Me not O Gentle Savior Fanny Crosby? We had a music minister once who would have all the music in the service be Fanny Crosby. I miss the old hymns with the organ. The electric organ/pianos just don't do justice. I remember being young and watching the fabric coverings move where the pipes were and wondering if those coverings would fall.

[Mary]

Casey, that's a funny question. Do we want a liberal from pre CR or a Calvinist? How bout we want the Traditionalist like what we grew up with.

[peter lumpkins]

Casey,

I do not understand what you desire. I gave links to the quotes I employed above for anyone to check out for themselves whether I inferred correctly or incorrectly from the words cited.

As for being duplicitous, I'm afraid that's a result not of what I inferred but because some students testified they neither saw nor heard in class and experience what I inferred from the written statements from both Mohler & Nettles.

Hope that helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

"Did you personally know many grads and facutly in the 1980s? Do you know any current grads or faculty members on a personal basis? "

He he. Yep an ton from the 70's-80's. None are liberals. Most are extended family and I have a nose for a liberal, let me tell ya. It really was not as bad as it was propagandized although there were problems. But a nuclear device was used when a pistol would have sufficed to clean it up. But that does not make stellar careers. A lot of good people were thrown under buses who did not deserve it during the CR and in the later days of it, too.

As far as today, I cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a YRR student or grad from SBTS. (And faculty as our paths cross a lot with kid stuff)

"Calvinists don't have a corner on arrogance. Have you ever met a New England Patriots fan?"

Oh yes, I used to travel to Boston a lot.

"As for revised history, have you read John Calvin? I'm sure that we can both agree that he's been revised beyond imagination."

Yes, I have read Calvin when I could stay awake. I am always confused why his doctrine did not drive his behavior. But, I guess it was a bit hard to practice his systemized Augustinian doctrines as a state church considering EVERYONE was elect or face the magistrate. :o)

"If a Calvinist determinist ever says to you that God is the big cog in a universe full of little teeny cogs, and that you should just learn to deal with it, then you just need to inform him that he is about as Calvinistic as John Wesley's hatband. Then you could proceed along these lines: "A mechanical Muslim determinism is not Calvinism. Fatalism is not Calvinism. By the way, have you read Calvin's Institutes? If you've got the time to let me show you in chapter 1 where..."

When my niece and her husband came home one summer for a visit during (After Wheaton) their stint studying with Piper, we all got to hear ad nauseum how we did not know the true Gospel and they preceeded to explain in detail. And this was after being chided for celebrating the 4th of July with a family cook out. As this wore on and on for a few days my brother turned to me and said: Calvin was not a Calvinist. :o)

[Casey]

@Lydia - I've enjoyed our chat. Thank you for being forthright and honest. You have a great deal more at stake than I do in this conversation than I do. I am not an SBC-lifer, nor do I have any family in the SBC sphere of influence. I have enjoyed my time in the SBC, even given its extremely steep learning curve. You clearly have a history in the SBC, family in the SBC, and strong convictions about where the SBC should be headed. Hopefully you can use your charm [as expressed in this binary conversation] to win some of the YRR crowd to a more mature understanding of the gospel.

@Peter - The links you provided were sufficient, though I figured you had more. I suppose your post, from this side of the fence, just came across as alarmist. Like I said to Lydia, I'm somewhat of an outsider to the SBC. I'm thankful for people who are passionate about what they believe and are willing to come across as "alarmist" to their perceived opposition if they feel it is necessry. I'm a fan of denominations, including the SBC! Warts and all. :)

[Max]

Mary said "I can't find my old hymnal - wasn't Pass Me not O Gentle Savior Fanny Crosby?"

I hope you find your old Baptist hymnal because "Pass Me Not O Gentle Savior" didn't make the cut in LifeWay's 2008 revision!

It appears that Calvinism gained ground in the new hymnal. "O Zion, Haste", with "he who made the nations is not willing one soul should perish" isn't in the new hymnal. Songs that suggested that Christ's death atoned for everyone and not just the elect - like "Whosoever Will" and "Whosoever Meaneth Me" have disappeared from the table of contents. "Oh What a Wonder It Is", with its "all who would believe in Him, He'd save them every one" and "Holy Bible, Book of Love", which proclaims that Christ "died for everyone" have vanished, as well.

Hmmmm ... another dot perhaps? If your church still has the 1991 (or earlier) version, encourage them to keep it!

[Carrie]

"I am always confused why his [John Calvin's] doctrine did not drive his behavior." Seriously? Have you read biographies on him? HAVE YOU EVER READ THE INSTITUTES? Election doesn't even come until the end of book 3 out of 4.

"It really was not as bad as it was propagandized [at Southern] although there were problems." A feminist as the head of the theology department? A faculty that didn't believe in innerrancy? THE ENTIRE FACULTY SAVE A FEW WERE RAVING LIBERALS. Who cares about Calvinism at that point?

The ignorance at the lay level in the SBC is absolutely astounding.

I read through the comments and yesterday she said Southern was a Presbyterian seminary: "the real Presbyterian seminary is SBTS." DOES SOUTHERN TEACH INFANT BAPTISM?

I pity you. I really do.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T RESPOND TO ME LIKE YOU RESPOND TO EVERY OTHER PERSON ON HERE AND THE OTHER ANTI-CALVINIST BLOGS, LYDIA, GET A LIFE AND GET OFF YOUR COMPUTER.

[Lydia]

"The ignorance at the lay level in the SBC is absolutely astounding.

I read through the comments and yesterday she said Southern was a Presbyterian seminary: "the real Presbyterian seminary is SBTS." DOES SOUTHERN TEACH INFANT BAPTISM?

I pity you. I really do.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T RESPOND TO ME LIKE YOU RESPOND TO EVERY OTHER PERSON ON HERE AND THE OTHER ANTI-CALVINIST BLOGS, LYDIA, GET A LIFE AND GET OFF YOUR COMPUTER."

Hi Carrie, Thanks for the YRR exhibition. You guys sure know how to provide plenty of examples of the problem. Me thinks I have hit some nerves. :o)

If you see me around, after you have been spiritually hurt by this man centered determinist movement, let me know sister, because my arms are open wide. I was where you are once-- totally immersed in a movement of man and thinking I was so right, smart and important but others, not so enlightened, were ignorant hicks.

Blessings to you even though it is obvious you don't like me much. :o)

[Lydia]

"It appears that Calvinism gained ground in the new hymnal"

You are catching on, Max. It has permeated more areas than we think.

I love my old hymnal collection. Some are almost 100 years old~! We sing from them all the time at home. I love the old stuff.

[Carrie]

Lydia, you just can not stop yourself from commenting. You have no restraint and that is a problem. you did not address any of my comments. Conservatives did not go to Southern in the 1970s and 1980s they went to Gordon Conwell far away from the liberal Southern seminary. It had a feminist for its chair of theology. A feminist using your cooperative tax dollars. Now that school has men who believe the bible is true.

I am not hurt by calvinists. I am not young. I am not restless but I am put off by the constant ignorance of people who have to keep getting the last word and who don't read.

You simply can not contain yourself. Do you literally sit around commenting all day on these Arminian blogs?

And I am not an ignorant hick. I can not believe you went racial. You can apology just by not commenting. Let's see if you can do it once. Oh I know it hurts so bad wanting to comment back, to let go and let out sin, but refrain sister.

[peter lumpkins]

Carrie,

First, why not calm down a bit? Your needless shouting (CAPS) is not necessary. You mock Lydia then stalk and dare her to respond to show how your mocking to be true. Is this supposed to be helpful?

Second, even if Lydia has never read The Institutes, does such a lack leave her without a viable opinion of Calvin's behavior? As for biographies of Calvin, have you ever read Jerome Bolsec's biography of Calvin? If so, perhaps you may not have as comfortable a view of Calvin's life as you may now possess--or at least a more tempered view.

Third, while I am uninterested in a lengthy exchange over Calvin the man at this time, or his theology per se, citing the literary point that "Election doesn't even come until the end of book 3 out of 4" proves exactly what? Calvin's apologists routinely make that statement to demonstrate Calvin was apparently not as obsessed with election and predestination as his critics claim. Is this what you mean to propose by suggesting the subject of election is not foremost in Calvin's thinking?

Granting your proposal for argument's sake, even if he did not deal extensively with election and/or predestination until chronologically later as you suppose, most critics of Calvin do not have a problem with his focus on election per se. After all, election is a biblical doctrine. What critics point out is, while election and predestination may be biblical notions, philosophical determinism is definitively not. Yet consider this passage in Book 1, 16:9:

"Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye of God, but had been fixed by his decree"

Rather than critics being consumed with Calvin's election, they are rightfully cautious of Calvin's rigid determinism, a determinism undeniably interwoven throughout Calvin's theological paradigm.

And, no; the entire faculty at SBTS was not "RAVING LIBERALS" excepting a few when Mohler got there in the early 90s. What was true is, very few would have subscribed to biblical inerrancy, the idea for which we fought the CR. The truth is, a lot of good people got swept away in the CR flood. That's a fact we all must face, and for my part, a fact about which I yet grieve. Was the CR necessary? Absolutely. Was the CR clean and tidy? Absolutely not. It was a messy time for Southern Baptists.

Even so, yes; Mohler was charged and supported by our trustees to "clean up Dodge City" so to speak. What he was not charged with, however, was to Calvinize the seminary. If he was, then either he or our trustees need to produce the commission, for Calvinism was not on our radar at that time. In fact, I've posted on this blog letters from CR leaders which demonstrate Calvinism was dead in the water so far as the CR leaders were concerned. Hence, Carrie, your idea happens to be skewed as to what was going on at SBTS at the time.

Finally, as for SBTS being a "Presbyterian seminary" I'm afraid Al Mohler asks for these descriptions--inaccurate as they may be--when he insists on absurd historical propositions like, the ultimate inspiration behind Southern's AP was the WCF.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. By the way, Carrie, this is *not* an Arminian blog.

[Carrie]

Oh, yes, John Calvin, the homosexual. Seriously, people?

Alister McGrath on Bolsec: "Jerome Bolsec, with whom Calvin crossed swords in 1551...published his Vie de Calvin at Lyons in June 1577. Calvin, according to Bolsec, was irredeemably tedious and malicious, bloodthirsty and frustrated. He treated his own words as if they were the word of God, and allowed himself to be worshipped as God. In addition to frequently falling victim to his homosexual tendencies, he had a habit of indulging himself sexually with any female within walking distance. According to Bolsec, Calvin resigned his benefices at Noyon on account of the public exposure of his homosexual activities. Bolsec's biography makes much more interesting reading than those of Theodore Beza and Nicolas Colladon; nevertheless, his work rests largely upon unsubstantiated anonymous oral reports deriving from 'trustworthy individuals,'which modern scholarship has found of questionable merit."

Very well done, Peter, very well done.

You just don't like Calvinism, don't like Southern today, and want to rid that seminary of its president and faculty. And yes, 17th Presbyterian documents stand behind the 1689 London Confesson. Basil Manly Jr said so, or at least that's what I read in a little devotional book on him by Dr Michael Haykin and others. It is one thing to ignore historical truth and quite another to just not like it.

I am so thank Lydia quit trolling me.

I'm done reading your blog. I have better things to do with my time.

[Mary]

Max, I miss the old hymns. It's sad how the YRR mock and belittle the blue haired old ladies singing Just As I Am.

Back at the end of Feb I spent the most frightening night I think in my life when my son was very sick and had to have a blood transfusion. I held his hand and remembered when he and his sibs were babies rocking them to sleep singing all the invitation hymns. That night as I watched blood being pumped into him to stabelize his condition I tried to calm us all down while singin' the blood songs. It became a challenge as I'd finish one song he'd ask if I knew another. He fell asleep finally near 3 am, but I was still hummin' into the early morning as his vitals finally got into the safe zone and then I could take a breath. I'm glad I had those songs in my memory - I think that was a night of groanings that the Spirit understood.

So much of our heritage is being tossed aside as not good enough and yet so many in the SBC met God at just those places the YRR would have us believe are not the "right way" to go about things. The sinner's prayer is another example of the hubris of the YRR. So many men proud of their humilty telling us all those years of meeting God, experiencing God, worshipping God - we didn't know what we were doing.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Carrie,

First, I didn't ask you if you'd read McGrath on Bolsec; rather I asked if you'd read Bolsec on Calvin. Nor did I imply Bolsec was necessarily a fully reliable witness on Calvin, but he is an important witness on Calvin since he was a contemporary of Calvin. Dismiss Bolsec all you wish, and depend on secondary sources to your heart's desire.

Second, frankly you haven't the least clue my feelings toward Calvin, Carrie. Not one thin clue. You assume since I have problems with Calvin's determinism I'm supposed to "not like Calvin". Well, I don't think that follows, Carrie.

Third, nor does it follow that because I have reservations concerning SBTS' recent direction, I don't "like" SBTS. That doesn't follow either. Nor does it follow that I want to "get rid of its president and its faculty". Those are your freshly created assumptions you've imagined on the basis of what I cannot tell.

Fourth, so SBTS's AP was inspired by Westminster based upon what you read "in a little devotional book on him by Dr Michael Haykin and others"? This is supposed to be historical analysis, Carrie? Really?

Fifth, as for Lydia "trolling you" I have absolutely no knowledge. Nor do I encourage you to read here if you've better things to do. I encourage you to do thse better things.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

The writers of the Second London Confession used the Westminster Confession as their basis for the document I quote from William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, Judson Press, Valley Forge, 1969, page 236:

"The Particular Baptists of London and vicinity determined, therefore, to show their agreement with Presbyterians and Congregationalists by making the Westminster Confession the basis of a new confession of their own. . . . it appears that Elder William Collins of the Petty France Church in London had worked over the Westminster document, altering it as he saw fit."

Here's the direction quotation about the Abstract of Principles creation with footnotes from Soldiers of Christ: Selections from the Writings of Basil Manly Sr., and Basil Manly Jr. by Michael AG Haykin, Roger Duke and A. James Fuller, pages 36-38:

"The Abstract of Principles, the seminary's statement of faith, was drawn up by Manly in the months of March and April 1858[fn 38] and was based on the classical Calvinistic Baptist confession of the seventeenth century - the Second London Confession of Faith (1777/1689).[fn 39] When Manly originally began work on what became the Abstract of Principles, he told his younger brother Charles Manly (1837-1924) that he hoped to use both this seventeenth-century confession and the first Calvinistic Baptist statement, the First London Confession of Faith (1644; 2nd ed., 1646), as its basis.[fn 40] As it turned out, though, Manly produced an abridgement of only the 1689 Confession, which had been very familiar to him from his youth.[fn 41] As noted above, the younger Manly had spent his earliest years immersed in what some later historians have referred to as the "Charleston Tradition."[fn 42] . . . Sixteen years later this [Charleston] Association took virtually all of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith 917420 - essentially a reproduction of the Second London Confession . . . for its statement of doctrinal convictions. The 1767 Charleston confession was reprinted in 1813, 1831, and 1850, clear indication that it was a vital document for the churches of this association and that the younger Manly would have definitely been acquainted with it. . . There is little doubt that the Abstract of Principles contains a robust expression of the Calvinistic soteriology of the Calvinist tradition in which Manly had been raised and which he had come to embrace whole heartedly.[fn 44]"

fn 38 - On April 20, 1858, Manly wrote to his brother Charles Manly, "I finished my Confession of Faith last night, and sent it off to Boyce" (Basil Manly Ppers, 1842-1893 [ms. 486-z], Southern HIstorical Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, henceforth abbreviated as BMSHC). Cited in Manly, "Southern Baptist Mind in Transition, 163 n. 18. See also the discussion by Cox, "life and Work of Basil Manly Jr, Jr.," 145-151.

fn 39 - Wills, "Manly, Basil, Jr.," 418.

fn 40 - Basil Manly , Jr., to Charles Manly, March 1, 1858 (BMSHC). Greg Wills points out that this letter was written to Manly's brother, and not Boyce, as Cox had argued 9"Life and Work of Basil Manly, Jr.," 146). See Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, chapter 1).

fn 41 - Manly, "Southern Baptist Mind in Transition," 160. Timothy George mistakenly includes the First London Confession along with the 1689 Confession as a basis for the abstract of Principles (introduction to Bible Doctrine of Inspiration, 4).

fn 42 - Manly, "Southern Baptist Mind in Transition," 16.

fn 43 - James Leo Garrett, Jr., Baptist Church Discipline (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1962), 16; William L. Lumpkin, Bapitst Confessions of Faith, rev. ed. (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 1969), 352.

fn 44 - Abstract of Principles V-XIII. For this statement of faith, see below, pages 145-150.

Dr Gregory Wills book The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by Oxford Press on the Abstract of Principles and the Westminster Confession, pages 32-33:

"Manly wrote that he had relied primarily on the two earliest confessions of the English Calvinistic Baptists. "My notion is to make a brand new one but with a historical basis, drawing it up as far as is possible in the language of our oldest - which dates from 1643 [1644], and where this will not do, in that of 1689, which is mainly copied from the Westminster, but abridging both, and getting down to an essence." [fn 98] The 1689 confession was the more popular of the two in America. Calvinist Baptists in London developed the confession by adapting it from the Westminster Confession of Faith to Baptist views. In the decades after the Great Awakening, Baptists in America grew rapidly, and the vast majority were Calvinistic and evangelical. The Second London Confession expressed well their views. The first two Baptist associations in America adopted it, the Philadelphia Baptist Association no later than 1746 and the Charleston Baptist Association in 1752. Most Baptist associations, and the churches composing them,adopted it or a shorter abstract of it."

fn 98 - Basil Manly Jr. to [Charles Manly], 1 Mar. 1858, Basil Manly Papers, Southern Historical Collection, no. 486, Manuscripts Dept., Library of the University of North Carolina, Chapel HIll, microfilm. Jsoeph P. Cox incorrectly identified the letter as addressed to James P. Boyce ("A Study in the Life and Work of Basil Manly Jr.," Th.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1954, 146). See also Manly's preamble to the Abstract of Principles, "Report of the Committee on the Plan of Organization," convention draft, 8, SBTS.

As far as reading McGrath instead of primary sources, McGrath is a world class theologian who does read primary sources. What Protestant historian, Arminian or Calvinist or whatever, do you have that believes Calvin was a homosexual? Even the Catholics know this bitter man can not be relied on for accurate reporting of history: "Shortly after this, [Bolsac] recanted his errors, was reconciled with the Catholic Church, and published biographies of the two Genevan reformers, Calvin and Beza (1519-1605). These works are violent in tone, and find little favour with protestant writers. Their historical statements cannot always be relied on." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02643a.htm

Hey conspiracy theorists! If there is such a great calvinist conspiracy in the new baptist hymnal (which most of the songs were not written by baptists like Anne Steele, anyway), then why does the new hymnal not have the song, "My Lord, I Did Not Choose You," like the 1991 hymnal has? Looks like the new hymnal does not have the most calvinistic song of all in there.

On Southern being LIBERAL you should read this by Wills book on Southern page 434: "In 1976 Noel Wesley Hollyfield Jr. completed a Th.M. thesis at Southern Seminary analyzing the persistence of traditional orthodoxy among the seminary's students. His survey of Southern students revealed that barely half of M.Div. students believed in the historical accuracy of the biblical miracles, including the virgin birth of Jesus and the account of Jesus walking on water. Barely one-third of PH.D. students believed in them. Between 20 and 30 percent of M.Div. students were uncertain of the deity of Christ and the existence of God. Nearly 40 percent of Ph.D. students has the same doubts. [fn 79] The seminary could not quite evade the troubling implications of the thesis. It was the work not of an outsider but of a student, and was approved as creditworthy by the three professors who made up his theology committee. Conservatives repeatedly cited the statistics of Hollyfield's thesis as prima facie evidence of the spread of liberalism in the Southern Baptist Convention."

fn 79 - "Noel Wesley Hollyfield Jr., "A Sociological Analysis of the Degrees of 'Christian Orthodoxy' among Selected Students in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary," Th.M. Thesis, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1976; Lindsell, Bible in the Balance, 172-174.

You really should read Wills book as it references from personal letters of pastors and former students who validate that the seminary professors denied the inspiration of the bible and other orthodox matters.

And with that,
I am,
exhausted of dealing with this.

[Lydia]

Hi Carrie,

I hope you are not spittin nails because I did not "obey" you! I just cannot stand a double dog dare! :o) So, I am baaaaack. (I notice you came back, too. :o)

I like it here. Peter is not anti Calvinist he is a researcher. People are not monolithic in thinking and it is not the reformed bubble in thinking and since some of your comrades in the NC movement have labeled Peter as the "anti Christ", few come here. Wasn't that sweet and Christlike of them to call him that? Of course, it was just a joke as they are saying now...long after the fact. I also like it that history is delved into here to show how nuanced it really is instead of the indoctrination from the Reformed bubble. Indoctrination keeps us ignorant and following man.

You were probably not around when I was big time disagreeing with Peter over Patterson or Caner stuff. And yet, he allows me to comment here. Imagine that. He is grown up enough to allow dissenting views on issues. That is not something one sees a lot of in the YRR unless it is carefully moderated. NC loves censorship.

" Conservatives did not go to Southern in the 1970s and 1980s they went to Gordon Conwell far away from the liberal Southern seminary."

Well, that is a pretty declarative statement and one I know not to be factually true since I knew a lot of conservatives who happened to be friends of the family and family. You have bought into the propaganda. Peter was there in 1980 and my guess is he was not a flaming liberal who did not believe in inerrancy. He was part of the CR.

Peter is right that it was about inerrancy and rightly so. But now that the place has been nuked of "liberals" (funny how that definition changed over time to mean they disagreed with Mohler) we can all settle down and take stock and realize that while we dealt with the main issue a lot of decent people were hurt needlessly. What was done to the elder almost retired Paul Debusman still grieves me today. It was so very unfair and cruel. And he was such a gentleman about having his life's work ruined with financial punishment and reputation assassination.

"It had a feminist for its chair of theology. A feminist using your cooperative tax dollars. Now that school has men who believe the bible is true."

I am well aware of that, Carrie. You know, how we treat people we disagree with on doctrine is as important as correct doctrine, at least according to Jesus. That is what I mean by a nuclear device. While I totally disagree with Molly Marshall on a ton of things, if I were sick and dying I would trust her over Mohler for help. If you are wise, that should tell you something. Because, in the Body, that is what it comes down to.

"You simply can not contain yourself. Do you literally sit around commenting all day on these Arminian blogs? "

CArrie, How do you know if I am sick or housebound? And I am wondering why you are so quick to rebuke what people do with their time. Why do you think you have that right? Rebuke me over issues or my own words but you don't even know me to make such personal declarations. Think about it where that comes from. It comes from being in the New Calvinist bubble where that is completely accepted as a way to deal with people--get personal and demanding when you don't even know them.

All you have done is given people a perfect example of the real fruit of this movement. And this is what it is like in non Calvinist churches when the YRR come in and view everyone as ignorant rubes who don't know truth.

Quite frankly the petty insults are what makes the NC movement so obvious. It is a way of trying to control people. It is all you guys have when people refuse to go along and disagree with you. This is what is dividing churches and why we are finally seeing some push back. You guys are acting like the tinpot dictator, Calvin! :o)

"And I am not an ignorant hick. I can not believe you went racial. You can apology just by not commenting. Let's see if you can do it once. Oh I know it hurts so bad wanting to comment back, to let go and let out sin, but refrain sister."

Actually Carrie, I was not calling you an ignorant hick. I was referring to how many New Calvinist think of those who do not agree with them. And I am not sure how I went "racial" so I have no idea how to respond. I have not gone knowingly "racial" in my life. Maybe like so many other things, the definition has changed in the NC movement?

Carrie, The bitterness and hate that brings personal insults to someone you do not know are too obvious. You have bought into a movement of men and it seems to have consumed you according to your first comment here as that is all I have to go on. I am just glad that reformed punishment is illegal in America or I would be swimming in the Ohio with a rock strapped to my back!

Yes, I do stand up to the NC bullies. And that is what they are. I have seen way too many good kind loving simple people in churches used and hurt by arrogant young men who are on a mission for Calvin. Many are the male version of your behavior here. There are some very mean people being churned out of our seminaries. Mini- me Driscolls is what they are. I seriously doubt anyone who buys into the movement can see it. It is amazing what can become the norm when you are immersed in it.

Yes, I have done a ton of reading on Reformed history, Calvin's own words, etc. The difference is that I read around the subject and not just the official Reformed approved literature. The best information is what is documented in archives opened after WW2.

Even Doug Wilson, Piper's new BFF, who loves Calvin said on his blog he would not have wanted to live in Geneva during those days. And Wilson is a Theonomist who has created his own little Geneva in the "Kirk" in Moscow!

This is why movements like NC are so dangerous. They capture the hearts and minds of people and they cannot think outside the indoctrination box. And it is a crisis one day when you wake up and realize what you have given your life to and how many wounded are in your wake. If that day ever comes. Let us pray it does. Carrying the banner for Calvin is not the same as carrying it for Jesus Christ no matter what they tell you.

And just because I comment here does not mean Peter agrees with me on all things, nor I him.

[peter lumpkins]

Hey Carrie,

I see you do(!!) like reading my blog. ;^) That's good. Perhaps we'll learn from one another. I have to attend to a couple of pastoral duties presently. But I'd like a chance to engage the quotes you offered. Later...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

Peter neither you nor I have time to carry this on anymore. Though you can do want you want as its author. I did read your blog but I do not like reading it. I have responded to your comments and have nothing left to offer. It is up to you to see if Mcgrath, Wills, Lumpkins, and others are correct in they're historical assessments. You can engage them directly. Perhaps you can do a post on them instead of responding to me personally. Also, I do not consider myself a new calvinist or one of the young restless, and reformed crowd. Who walks around calling themselves that? Its a silly book title. And how can i be "new" when i believe what has been around since the 1600s in baptist life like it or leave it? Was Timothy George a "new calvinist" while he was at Southern years ago? No, he was just a calvinist baptist. I respect that you do not want to be considered arminian or semi-pelagian and i expect that you would show the same respect for others by not classifying them with a term used by a journalist publishing a book for Crossway 5 years ago. Some of us are just lay people who know our stuff because we read and think, not because we are spoonfed or indoctrinated.

[peter lumpkins]

Carrie,

Thanks. If you do not wish to engage, that’s fine with me. However, do not expect to come here and log long comments, especially citing sources to your advantage, and then sorta slip away again. If you do not desire to engage, so be it. Nonetheless, I do desire to answer your lengthy comment.

First, you claim the “writers of the Second London Confession used the Westminster Confession as their basis for the document” and quote Lumpkin as proof. What you do not cite is Lumpkin’s explanation as to why Westminster was employed. He explains how the times were enormously stressful for all dissenting groups, including Baptists and Congregationalists. On the very same page you cite and in the paragraph immediately above your citation, Lumpkin writes:

“The renewal of persecution brought dissenting groups nearer to one another and especially brought Baptists and Congregationalists nearer to Presbyterians. Defiance of the Conventicle Act by the large Presbyterian party, which had been the dominant ecclesiastical group under the Commonwealth, made enforcement of that Act all but impossible. Observing the success of the Presbyterians, other Dissenters were emboldened. Moreover, it was important that Dissenters form a united front, which might be demonstrated by a show of doctrinal agreement among themselves. The very document which would be best proof of this agreement on essential matters was at hand, the Westminster Confession” (embolden added)

What you simplistically make out to be a theological alliance, Lumpkin explains as a tactical alliance. It wasn’t just the theological respect about which London Particular Baptists displayed in utilizing the WCF; indeed, according to Lumpkin, it was as much bare ecclesial survival as any thing else.

Moreover, James Garrett in his magnum opus, Baptist Theology: A Four Century Study, makes it clear that the authors of the 2nd London Confession not only employed Westminster as a model, they also used other significant confessions as source materials like the Congregationalists’ Declaration of Savoy. He writes,

“The 1677 confession’s new article on the gospel was taken verbatim from the Savoy Declaration, and its statement on kingdom continuity rather than church continuity through history followed Savoy rather than the Westminster” (p.73, embolden added).

Therefore, to suggest Westminster was the sole model as you do is quite historically inaccurate, Carrie. But if Westminster was neither the sole model nor single source for composing the 2nd London Confession, why would we allow folk like you to go around suggesting it was without challenging your assertion? (The same could be asked concerning Al Mohler's insistence on tracing the AP back to Westminster). Hence, I would not celebrate too quickly about "knowing our stuff" were I you.

Second, after giving a long comment allegedly from the Manlys (with footnotes and all), I expected to have a worthwhile challenge. However, just a very quick scan and I found not a single syllable in it which stated that Manly used the Westminster Confession of Faith. Did I overlook a statement?  If I didn’t, then why would this long quote be helpful, Carrie?

Third, you still didn’t answer the original question I asked about Bolsec. Neither did the question nor my response raise doubts about whether McGrath is a competent scholar. Granted he is. You simply jumped to your own conclusions about what you think I might be getting at rather than answer a simple question about whether or not you’d read Bolsec. Nor did I mention Calvin being homosexual for heaven's sake. I asked a question—a very simple one at that. That’s all. Now, if you don’t want to answer, I accept that. But do not falsely jump to conclusions about what you think the question meant.

Fourth, I haven’t a clue about your rambling on about a hymn. I didn’t mention anything similar to what you’re responding.

Fifth, I don’t need to read Hollyfield on Liberalism at SBTS. Been there, done that, Carrie. I was there, remember? Even so, you didn’t even come close to getting the point I made. Not even close. So, there’s no point in mentioning it again. I suggest you go back and look at what I wrote rather than jump to your own conclusions again.

Sixth, Carrie, I have to confess, I don’t do good at all with anons, especially anons who, like yourself, routinely make key blunders when exchanging. You’ve butchered Lumpkin’s words in his history while at the same time logging long, irrelevant comments which raise objections against something I didn’t suggest, all the while getting to remain anonymous and thereby comfortably forfeiting credit for the literary blunders you make.

Now, if you'd like to continue commenting, either post your real name or shoot me an email explaining why you cannot. I'm fairly understanding when some legitimate folk find it necessary, at least for them, to remain incognito. But if one just wants to remain anonymous because he or she can log strongly and many times unnecessarily rude comments, claiming he or she "knows his or her stuff" all the while butchering quotations or posting irrelevant links, I have no patience with those type of anons. When I am shown to be wrong or have been mistaken in a reading of material, I have to 'fess up' to the whole watching world of readers. And, if I have anything to say about it, so will folk like you. Hope this helps...

a Good night to you…

With that, I am…

Peter

[Les Prouty]

BTW, there here is a side by side by side tabular presentation of the WCF, Savoy and LBC with differences highlighted. http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_sdfo_lbcf.html Very helpful.

Also, FYI, "the gospel was taken verbatim from the Savoy Declaration" may be because WCF has no such section. Similarly on the "kingdom continuity rather than church continuity."

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Thanks. It looks like a helpful resource and demonstrates nicely Professor Garrett's point above.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

Like I said, take it up with Mohler, Wills, Lumpkins, Haykins, etc., if they are shoddy scholars. For real, why do you not do that if they have no clue what they are talking about? I thought you could infer that Manley used westminster because he used the second London statement. Again, if these men can't do history and only you can, and since you want to hold them accountable, contact their publishers, and start putting blogs out on how the cant do history. I"m just a lay person who pulls books off her husband's shelf. Westminster was obviously the earliest of all the confessions Manley used. Can you not see that?

No, I haven't read Bolsec. Have all your Arminian friends? Post some articles on Calvin's homosexuality. You never answered my question: what secondary sources do you have that Calvin was a homosexual and actually believe Bolsec?

As far the hymns go look at the other comments made about the baptist hymnal on this blog string and you will see people freaking out that Pass Me Not oh Gentle Savior is no longer in the hymnal. I merely pointed out that a hymn about God choosing us is no longer in the new hymnal as well. My comment did not come out of thin air.

If you were one of the few conservatives at Southern in the 80s then great! There are no moderates or liberals there now yet you let your other commenters go without challenge when the reputation of these men who believe the bible is true is challenged. You let people say Southern is presbyterian when they believe what Reformed Baptists and the founders of the convention believed. That's hypocrisy.

You will not be content until Mohler is gone and Southern is shut down. Let me tell you, that school stays open because of the professors. Run them off and Southeastern will get them. Then you'll do it to them. All the while witch hunts will continue by Directors of Missions and biblically illiterate lay people.

Its vile just like those who drove my husband off just for his beliefs. OH MY GOD YOU ARE A CALVINIST, YOU MUST HATE PEOPLE. And we are run off by people who can not define justification by faith, have never had a pastor preach through books of the Bible (no wonder they have never read Romans 9), and the first pastor who ever raised missions giving at the church. So no, you will not get my name. You people take names and destroy families.

[peter lumpkins]

Hey “Carrie”

Your words are in bold; my response follows.

Like I said, take it up with Mohler, Wills, Lumpkins, Haykins, etc., if they are shoddy scholars. For real, why do you not do that if they have no clue what they are talking about? Take what up with Mohler, Nettles, et al?  You mean challenging some of their historical analysis like I have done on this post? Do you realize how incredibly confusing your statement is? My whole point of this blog is a direct challenge to Nettles and Mohler’s inaccurate depiction of Baptist history as being unilaterally strongly Calvinistic. My questioning of Nettles and Mohler is precisely your complaint, Carrie. Yet you suggest I “put blogs out on how they can’t do history”. Fantastic. Nor have I once mentioned these men were “shoddy scholars” or “can’t do history.” Those are your emotive projections upon my words again.

I thought you could infer that Manley used westminster because he used the second London statement…Westminster was obviously the earliest of all the confessions Manley used. Can you not see that? Why would I infer something like that from the quotes you offered? The WCF was not once mentioned in the quotes. Even so, I can understand why you would “obviously” see the need for me to infer exactly as you do; but frankly I remain entirely more cautious of reading into documents what “obviously” ought to be there. When you can point me to a Manly quote where he definitively states he employed the WCF as the “earliest of all confessions” to write the AP, then I will take your words a bit more seriously. Until then, I’ll withhold judgment if you don’t mind.

Nor does your point, even if true, make any real sense, Carrie. Just because particular document P was influential in establishing A does obligate B to claim allegiance to P. For example, I attempt to build my theology as faithfully as I can upon the writings of the apostles. But the Apostles often quoted Greek poets, and at times took statements from Greek authors (Aratus, Meander, Cleanthes, Aristophanes, Pindar, etc) that applied to Greek gods and mythology and re-applied those statements to Christian faith (e.g Paul applies a verbatim statement about Zeus to the Judaeo-Christian God of the Bible in Acts 17:28). Am I, therefore, obligated to say I’m dependent upon Greek mythology for my theology?  According to your logic, yes, I am.   

Nor did you take into consideration that even if Manly did use the WCF, he did not use it exclusively. Instead, as Garrett pointed out, the authors of the 2nd London confession employed as “models” other established confessions of faith like the Savoy Declaration upon which they were at times dependent verbatim.

Nor is there the least acknowledgement at all that some of the evangelical Anabaptists played a role in the composition of the London confession. Indeed you won’t even seem to grant the the 1st London Confession played a role in developing the 2nd confession. No, for you, it appears to be Westminster and that’s it.    

No, I haven't read Bolsec. Have all your Arminian friends? Post some articles on Calvin's homosexuality. You never answered my question: what secondary sources do you have that Calvin was a homosexual and actually believe Bolsec? Thank you for finally answering my question. And, I yes I did answer yours—I said bringing up Calvin’s alleged homosexuality was your idea, not mine. I said jack squat about any specific things in Bolsec’s biography. It was your projected imagination which took you there I’m afraid.

As far the hymns go look at the other comments made about the baptist hymnal on this blog string… My comment did not come out of thin air. Well, so far as our exchange is concerned it came “out of thin air.” You addressed your comment to me. So addressing me about what other commenters may assert and holding me accountable for their assertions makes sense to you?

There are no moderates or liberals there now yet you let your other commenters go without challenge when the reputation of these men who believe the bible is true is challenged. You let people say Southern is presbyterian when they believe what Reformed Baptists and the founders of the convention believed. That's hypocrisy. First, no one has challenged the reputation of these men. You’re confusing challenging the visionary direction for the school or challenging their interpretation of Baptist history and ideology with challenging their reputation—a horrible confusion.

Second, no one has challenged their view of Scripture so far as I know. Third, Mohler is the one who has stated over and over, “we need to have this conversation” and “I’m glad we can argue over the things we do” in the SBC. Do you disagree with Mohler?  If not, why are you so obviously upset when we engage the conversation? Or, is it you just don’t like our message? Our position?

Fourth, I’m afraid it’s you, Mohler, and others who remain the source of the “presbyterian” descriptor. You know, when you insist against historical witness that Manly "obviously" depended solely on Westminster for the AP. Frankly, I suggest you stop blaming those who use “presbyterian” for something you and others inspire.

You will not be content until Mohler is gone and Southern is shut down. Let me tell you, that school stays open because of the professors. Run them off and Southeastern will get them. Then you'll do it to them. All the while witch hunts will continue by Directors of Missions and biblically illiterate lay people. No, I’ll be content when SBC leaders like AL Mohler and Tom Nettles via a Founders-type Calvinism stop trying to “reform” the SBC into a Calvinist Baptist Convention. My blog wouldn’t even exist were it not for the Calvinization of the SBC. And, of course, from your perspective, those are “biblically illiterate lay people” who do not buy your overt Calvinism and Westminster influence upon the SBC.

Its vile just like those who drove my husband off just for his beliefs. OH MY GOD YOU ARE A CALVINIST, YOU MUST HATE PEOPLE. And we are run off by people who can not define justification by faith, have never had a pastor preach through books of the Bible (no wonder they have never read Romans 9), and the first pastor who ever raised missions giving at the church. So no, you will not get my name. You people take names and destroy families. So, now we get the real Carrie. You and “Joe” are a wounded couple (did you think I was that technically stupid not to suspect via your identical IP address with "Joe" that you and “Joe” were either the same person,  or live/room together, or use the same computer, or some scenario like that?). So, “Joe” is a graduate of SBTS. That explains his total disdain for any other SBC seminary as virtually a degree mill while SBTS has all the authentic scholarly published authors. And, it sound like you went to a non-Calvinist church and began to “reform” the congregation. When they bucked, it got ugly.

Carrie, I honestly feel for you. I do. Your family has undoubtedly suffered. However, to blame the congregation for rejecting your Calvinism is simply wrong. Maybe they didn’t express that disagreement in the right way. But rejection itself was not wrong. Nettles, Founders, and “reforming” non-Calvinist churches is always going to end in disaster like this, especially if there are surprises about Calvinism that Founders inspires by encouraging the silence about Calvinism and instead talk about being “historic Baptists” etc. My family and I were seriously hurt at a church once. I almost left the ministry for it. Thanks God I didn’t (nor was it over Calvinism). I moved on. I forgave. It took me a few years. But, with God’s grace I forgave.

I hope for you and “Joe” God’s sweet grace for the future. And, since you might be better not revealing your actual name due to your circumstance, I could allow you to continue commenting in the future if you like. However, since your comments obviously reveal fresh wounds with which you’re dealing, it’s best now you not comment. If you’d like to in the future, drop me a line. My email is posted above.

Lord be gracious to us all.

With that, I am…

Peter 

[Mary]

"And we are run off by people who can not define justification by faith, have never had a pastor preach through books of the Bible (no wonder they have never read Romans 9)"

And there's the attitude that will get you run out of a church every time.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

Yes. Unfortunately yes.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

Carrie, The wounds are very fresh, obviously. I ask your forgiveness for responding so strongly to you.