Dr. David Allen: On Calvinism: Part II

       I hope you took the time to scan Dr. Allen's review of Calvinism:  A Southern Baptist Dialogue posted at Center for Theological Research at SWBTS.  It is worth your time, I assure.

I offer two particular quotes I found interesting, each of which is a part of Dr. Allen's query into Dr. Tom Nettle's paper entitled "A Historical View of the Doctrinal Importance of Calvinism Among Baptists" and Dr. David Dockery's paper entitled "Southern Baptists and Calvinism:  An Historical Look."

First, after offering a brief summary of Dr. Nettle's conclusion, Allen writes: 

"Nettles concludes his chapter on pages 68–69, and here he basically makes two affirmations. First, any policy, determination or resolution “that seeks the repression, or elimination, of Calvinism from the ranks of Southern Baptists would be a theological tragedy and historical suicide” (68). I could not agree more. However, given Nettles’ next statement that one could argue exactly the opposite should be the case, his lengthy quote of P.H. Mell’s “serious” question as to whether we should make the doctrines of grace “the basis of all our pulpit ministrations,” Nettles’ own high-profile participation in the Founders movement within the SBC and his comments in his other writings, it would have been helpful for him to state clearly that any agenda to “Calvinize” the SBC would be just as tragic."  (p. 8, emphasis mine)

Dr. Allen could not be more relevant to the concerns of ten of thousands of Southern Baptists who wonder exactly what it is that supporters of Founders Ministries desire.  I offer the following from Timmy Brister, now an Associate Pastor with Dr. Tom Ascol, Executive Director of Founders Ministries. 

In this particular post, Brister is critiquing Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and a fellow presenter with Dr. Allen at The John 3:16 Conference (J316C). 

Brister questions Dr. Lemke's alleged assertion that Founders Ministries focuses entirely too much on Calvinism.  He laments:  "Lemke argue [sic] that Founders Calvinists want “to make their Calvinism the focal point of their ministries.”  Note Brister's response in part to Dr. Lemke:

"On the “About Us” page of Founders website, the purpose statement is the following: 'The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church..." (emphasis mine).

Now, follow carefully Brister's conclusion about Dr. Lemke's concern which he raised about Founders Calvinists making their Calvinism the "focal point" of their ministries:

"Regardless of [criteria]...what you find is that the assertion Lemke makes that Founders Calvinists “make their Calvinism the focal point of their ministries” is simply not true.  The recovery of the gospel and the reformation of local churches are central and foremost in the purpose of Founders Ministries, and any indication either statistical or anecdotally speaking, the Southern Baptist Convention is needing both" (emphasis mine).

Brister's conclusion about Dr. Lemke's concern is absolutely incredible given the quotes Brister himself used.  The Founders purpose statement quoted clearly identifies precisely what Dr. Lemke addresses--namely that Founders Calvinists focus far too much on their Calvinism, making it the focal point of their ministries. And, it does so in the very first statement! 

Founders stated purpose is to "recover the gospel" which in the next sentence is more precisely described as intrinsically including "The Doctrines of Grace."  And, part of such "recovery," one can only assume, is the "reformation" of the local church. 

And, just what, may one ask, does the "reformation" entail?  Is it wrong to conclude that such a "reformation" at bare minimum includes the "recovery" of the gospel as it is expressed in the Doctrines of Grace, an obvious theological synonym for the Five Points of Calvinism?

It's questionable denials such as Brister seems to make about Southern Baptist Calvinism in general and Founders Ministries in particular, with such denials being so obviously against the facts at hand, that raise flags about their stated goals.  It also is decidedly unfair to charge Dr. Lemke with making an assertion that "is simply not true" when the facts seem so obvious to the contrary. 

The second quote from Dr. Allen's review engages Dr. Dockery: 

'Dockery affirms the Calvinistic influence in the early years of the Southern Baptist Convention, including the founding faculty of Southern Seminary. Here comes the second money quote: “The grass roots, however, then as now, had much more in common with Sandy Creek. Those two important concepts have to be held together. We cannot just look at who the leaders were to understand Southern Baptists. . . ."(35)...[Later Dr. Allen says why:]  At this juncture the proof of Dockery’s earlier assertion that one cannot look merely to the leaders to determine what Southern Baptists believe about Calvinism comes into play. He demonstrates that not all of the early leaders were strict five-point Calvinists, much less those in the twentieth century" (p. 5).

The point here seems obvious that Dr. Allen makes:  To only accept the views of writing theologians as determinative for what an entire community of Christians believe and practice is flawed from the beginning.  Granting for argument's sake that academia was virtually united in their embrace of full-blown Dortian Calvinism, it does not follow that Southern Baptists as a whole embraced such. 

One need look no further than the Conservative Resurgence beginning in 1979.  If one only considered the views of writing Southern Baptist theologians in that time period, one could never reasonably conclude that Southern Baptists embraced Inerrancy among grassroots members.  Indeed to deduce such would be historical reductionism.  Could it be Founders Ministries has embraced historical reductionism in their promotion of the "Founders" theology?

I end with a quote from an essay written by Dr. Z.T. Cody at the turn of the 19th Century entitled "Are Baptists Calvinists?"  Though not well known today, Dr. Cody (1858-1935) stands as no stranger to either Southern Baptists in general nor to Georgia Baptists particularly.  While Alabamian by birth, Cody attended Mercer University, was ordained to ministry by the Second Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA and later received a D.D. degree from Bowden College, GA.

Dr. Cody was a sophisticated “theologian of the first rank”— according to The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists.  He studied under famed Calvinist theologian, Professor James P. Boyce, receiving his Master of Theology degree in 1887 from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.  Hear well his words: 

"The so-called "five points of Calvinism" are the essential doctrines of the system.  Men have forgotten them now but they were once as familiar as the letters of the alphabet.  They are, particular predestination, limited atonement, natural inability, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints.  Now if this is the system that constitutes Calvinism it is again very certain that Baptists are not Calvinists. 

This system can be, it is true, found in some of the older confessions of faith and it was at that time held by some Baptist churches.  It is also true that there are now many of our churches which hold some of the doctrines of this system.  All Baptist churches, so far as we know, hold to the perseverance of the saints.  But it can be very confidently affirmed that there is now no Baptist church that holds or defends the five points of Calvinism.  Some of the doctrines are repugnant to our people.  Could there be found a minister in our communion who believes in the theory of a limited atonement?" (The entire essay by Cody can be found here)

As with Dr. Dockery's "money quote" as described by Professor Allen, a fist full of dollars can surely be found in Cody:  "But it can be very confidently affirmed that there is now no Baptist church that holds or defends the five points of Calvinism.  Some of the doctrines are repugnant to our people.  Could there be found a minister in our communion who believes in the theory of a limited atonement?" (emphasis mine).

With that, I am...

Peter

Part I

Part II

Comments

[Debbie Kaufman]

"Dr. Allan. "Brister." Peter I have no problem with you disagreeing, and maybe it's just the way I have always operated, but I would never think of calling Paige Patterson, who you know I disagree with, Patterson. I always addressed him in my writings as Dr. Patterson. Or any minister I disagreed with by their rightful title before their last name.

I say this because your disgust and disdain is showing, which is also fine, but to use a person's last name with nothing else in front of it is an attempt to demean someone and can be abusive. Some food for thought. We can disagree but I have never called you Lumpkins nor will I because you are a human being who I would never abuse despite my anger or disdain.

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

First, I definitively did not only call Dr. Allen, "Allen." I used his name 10 times in this post, 8 of which I referred to him as "Dr. Allen", 1 time as "Professor Allen" and 1 single time as "Allen." To remotely suggest, in light of such, that the one of ten times I failed to include "Dr." stands indicative of "disgust and disdain" and therefore, "an attempt to demean someone and can be abusive" is clearly absurd.

Nor did I use Dr. Allen's first name "David" by itself, as you cited your non-use of "Paige" in referring to Dr. Patterson. I am glad you do not do so; but what does that have to do with me when I did not use "David"?

Once again, I haven't a clue why you would bring such an irrelevant point up other than to drop off your darling little package for me: "I say this because your disgust and disdain is showing..."

Now as for "Brister," it is just the opposite of Dr. Allen: I mentioned his name 8 times, with only one in which I mentioned "Timmy Brister." You conclude: "to use a person's last name with nothing else in front of it is an attempt to demean someone and can be abusive."

First, Debbie, wherever you learned such, if you paid money, I'd demand a refund. I simply must defer that doing such is disrespectful in the least. If Brister held a doctoral degree, I very well would have used such. In light of its absence, had you rather I called him Brister (M.Div.)?

Nor is it any better to call him "Timmy" for some could get the impression I was patronizing someone because of his youth, consequently not taking him seriously.

Here are the facts:

a) Last names are commonly used when evaluating another's work. For example, if you took the time to read Professor Allen's book review, invariably, after mentioning the author's full name (minus the "Dr."), Allen then consistently says "Dockery says" "Nettles states" "Yarnell is." To even think that Dr. Allen is being "disrespectful" or revealing "disgust" is both irrational and morally absurd.
b) Not all academics desire to be called "Dr." or "Professor." Some almost demand a simple "Jim" or "Smith."
c) If you'd like to make a credible contribution to this post, be my guest. But please do not mention such absurd accusations again.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Ron P.]

Debbie,

You must write a lot of letters to the editor of your newspaper critiquing what is a common and legitimate form of writing style. How do you ever find the time?

However, I do not recall you publicly doing the same on SBC Outpost and other blogs. I think the bias and disdain, is quite clearly yours. As always, it seems only the "so called irenic" ones can use such prose.

This comes across as yet another example of a diversionary attack. You do not discuss the issues raised, but instead attack the person raising them, trying to make him the issue instead. I wonder why...

Ron P.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Peter:

Not only does the Founders purpose statement prove the Founders exist to advance Calvinism, but Mr. Brister himself recently said that ,the kind of church planting he promotes is of the Reformed kind:

"On Thursday after lunch, I will be hanging out in the rotunda of the Jacumin-Simpson building talking with students about church planting with the convictions of being distinctively Baptist, confessionally Reformed, and missionally driven and are looking to invest their lives in planting and multiplying churches North America."

What is "confessionally Reformed" if not Calvinistic? It is curious, then, why he objects to Dr. Lemke's assertion about the aim of the Founders to promote Calvinism. Remember, Grace Baptist Church, where Tom Ascol and Timmy Brister serve as pastors, is planning just such a church plant. The recovered gospel and reformation for churches does indeed entail Calvinism.

[peter lumpkins]

D. Elsasser

Thanks for the info. And, you are correct when you ask "What is "confessionally Reformed" if not Calvinistic?"

It remains difficult, I believe, to consistently read Founders materials and come away with any lessor message than that Five Point Calvinism remains "the faith once for all given to the saints." Indeed I think that presupposition is incipient in their stated vision of "recovering" the gospel.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

Peter,

You failed to notice that Debbie called you, "Peter." Not Brother Peter. Not Brother Lumpkins. But, she disdainly called you, "Peter." How ironic, and how hypocritical. While she's getting onto you, she's doing the same thing.

Also, Lumpkins, you can call me "David," or you can call me "Worley," or you can just call me when it's time for supper.

David

[Ron P.]

David,

You are close, but close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermal nuclear devices. Debbie, if she was consistent in what she demands of others, should have addressed the host of this blog as Dr. Lumpkins.

Blessings,

Ron P.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Ron: I have never done it. Ever. If I have you may feel free to point it out and it would then result in my apology for doing it.

Peter: It's simply a matter of respect or at least taking the time to be kind in your bantor. It may seem like a small thing, but it does make a difference.It's your blog however and you may demean as you wish.

[Dave Miller]

Debbie,

There is absolutely no insult in theological debate to using a person's last name as an identifier. It is a common practice and in no way implies disrespect.

Your statement "to use a person's last name with nothing else in front of it is an attempt to demean someone and can be abusive" is somewhat amazing.

I will be honest. Peter and I crossed swords and I said some harsh things to him and about him (may have received a couple, who knows?). However, I started reading his site after a few months and saw that he was dealing seriously with some topics like this. I didn't always agree with him, but I saw that he was writing good, thoughtful, biblical analysis.

(Sorry for the following, Peter...) He is prone to rhetorical excess (an opinion), but I grew to respect the fact that he is trying to deal seriously with scriptural issues and SBC issues.

His essays on this subject have been a thoughtful attempt to deal with an important subject. If I were a betting man, I would wager heavily that "Brister" would not have been offended in any way by this normal stylistic device - use of the last name to refer to someone whose full name has already been given.

Disagree with him. That's fair.
Challenge him if he makes a statement you think is false.
Ask him questions. Unique among bloggers, he usually answers my questions when I ask them.

But this criticism is silly.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Ron: Using someone's first name is not a sign of disrespect, at least to the average level headed person. Using someone's last name with nothing in front of it is nothing more than condescension. That is true in any type of writing. We are Christians I think we need to start reflecting that or what we have is no more different than our lives without Christ or the world. Christ either makes a difference in how we treat others or Christianity and the Bible is a lie or there are those who have never experienced God's grace in their lives and are Christians in name only for whatever reason.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Dave: Words make a big difference. I would disagree with you. You think many things are silly, small that are not. I'm not nitpicking here, I'm tired of the demeaning behavior.

[Dave Miller]

Debbie,

Where did you come up with this? I have read widely and never heard anyone claim that it is demeaning to use a person's last name without honorific if the person has been previously identified with appropriate honorific.

Do you have some kind of authoritative reference that would indicate where your rule comes from. I have never heard of it.

To read "demeaning behavior" into that is bizarre.

[Ron P.]

Debbie,

I do not think you understood what I was saying. I pointed out that I could never recall a time that you publicly rebuked SBC Outpost or any other SBC critical blog host who lobbed countless blatant personal attacks, yet Peter employs a perfectly acceptable and appropriate style of writing when referring to a person, and you attack him. Why were you silent against SBC Outpost and others all these years?

Again, why do you not call Peter "Dr. Lumpkins"? According to your charge against him, are you not guilty of the exact same accusation that you threw at him?

I also asked if you do the same to newspapers, as nearly all writers employ this same style. Please produce documentation from a recognized English writing style (Turabian etc.) that this is improper in any way. You have invented this out of thin air. Again, this is more evidence of your personal bias and disdain for someone with whom you do not agree and are incapable of debating the issue.

Finally, I congratulate you on getting us away from the issue of this post. You have done well.

Ron P.

[Dave Miller]

Actually, Debbie, until just recently, using a first name without permission was a sign of disrespect. It still is in some ethnic churches.

You could only read disrespect in this essay if you came to the table with a predilection to find offense. In other words, you assumed Peter would be disrespectful and read it here.

It would be fair for you to say you disagree with Peter on this. But to call it demeaning is just not a tenable position.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Debbie:

Using a last name is an acceptable form of address in writing. See The Christian Century, for example.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

See also Grace and Truth to You for an example in a blog article.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

A better example from a blog is this article:

"When anyone - whether it be Gothard, Patterson, Stanley, Mohler, Elliff, or any other Southern Baptist (Gothard is a member of a Southern Baptist Church in Oklahoma City) - promotes submission because there is an inherent hierarchy of authority in relationships, then we have a warped view of both authority and submission."

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

Know an admirable quality of any person is the empowerment to state and defend a view when the view is the decidedly minority view and courageously doing such in a sphere where one stands virtually alone. At least, that's my personal view anyway.

In light of that, there is also a phony look-a-like to the above that invokes neither admiration nor acceptance nor approval: it is the stating and defending of not only a minority view but a ridiculously absurd view when no reasonable, sober case can be made for the position argued, the position of which no reasonable, sober person would embrace.

A ready illustration comes to mind I recall raised years ago in a moral philosophy class--arguing for the moral acceptance of torturing young puppies. How you managed to stumble across this phony look-a-like must baffle even the on-longing angels themselves.

And, as others have pointed out consistently--which you continued to ignore--your own practice of the principle you preach is hardly stellar. May I go ahead and concede such as an ad hominem statement. However, this is not ad hominem by any stretch:

As Ian specifically pointed out, by condemning my practice as "disdain" and "demeaning" and possibly "abusive" among other moral inadequacies, you condemned your own pastor's practice as well. If I am guilty, then I fear your pastor needs a dish of your 'food for thought' served on his plate at suppertime.

Moreover, as Dave rightly observed, using one's first name without specific permission is only of recent acceptance in social etiquette, especially of someone older than one's self or of someone who invokes a socially expected respect. When I first started commenting on Bart Barber's blog, without fail, I was mindful to address him as Dr. Barber. It was not until a phone conversation I had with him and subsequent communication that I addressed him as "Bart." Why? It was his wish.

By the way, since you explicitly assert that you always address "any minister [you] disagreed with by their rightful title before their last name," do you practice such with Dr. Barber? Even more, as others mentioned, what pastor on this thread do you address as either "Brother" so and so or "Rev." so and so? Oops, that's a bit of ad hominem at play again.

Here is my final advice, Debbie (Or should I address you as Mrs. Kaufmann from now on?): please do not bring this ridiculous charge up again unless there is explicit evidence that someone is being demeaned.

If you ignore such advice and continue to do so, I fear you will forge the perception within virtually every reader of this thread that you are an incorrigible, irrational person.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Katie]

Debbie,

Are you, by chance, a Jane Austen fan? She is my absolute favorite author and in her novel "Emma," published in 1816, one of the characters refers to another by his last name only. Here's an excerpt:

Mrs. Elton, a new acquaintance, is visiting Emma and starts with:

'And who do you think came in while we were there?'

Emma was quite at a loss. The tone implied some old acquaintance – and how could she possibly guess?

‘Knightley!’ continued Mrs. Elton; - ‘Knightley himself!’ – Was it not lucky? – for, not being within when he called the other day, I had never seen him before…

(after more of this conversation, Mr. & Mrs. Elton leave)

Happily it was now time to be gone. The were off; and Emma could breathe.

‘Insufferable woman!’ was her immediate exclamation. ‘Worse than I had supposed!’… ‘Knightley! - I could not have believed it… and discover that he is a gentleman! A little upstart, vulgar being… I doubt whether he will return the compliment, and discover her to be a lady.’

Emma’s offense at Mrs. Elton is that she refers to Mr. Knightley as simply “Knightley” rather than the more proper “Mr. Knightley.”

Debbie, I didn’t know you were such a Victorian! Somehow I hadn’t noticed it in your other comments!

(Just a little light-hearted teasing! Not meant to offend!)

[Mary]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/11/06/billy.graham.turns.90/index.html

CNN repeatedly refers to Dr. Billy Graham as simply Graham in this article.

[Mary]

..or maybe an example from and Enid newspaper will help.

http://www.enidnews.com/localnews/local_story_310010220.html

But getting back to the original point of the blog article - it has always astounded me that Ascol and Brister vehemently deny that the purpose of the Founders is to reform SBC churches when it states so clearly in the Founders purpose statment that that's exactly the purpose of Founders. They had this discusion recently over at Founders on one of their comment streams. But I guess nothing should amaze me at this point.

[volfan007]

Lumpkins,

I'm guessing that you're at this conference. Any good restaurants?

Worley

[Debbie Kaufman]

All and Peter: You are right, I was wrong. The examples you have given me, and the checking of other resources have proved this. I am sorry. I probably was looking for the wrong. I was wrong to do this.

As for the arguments against, I think Timmy did a terrific job of writing. I couldn't add anything to what he has already posted on his blog.

Again, my apologies. Being respectful to those who I disagree with when I write is a biggie with me. Using someone's last name only in conversation or writing has always struck me as disrespectful and demeaning. In my college writing classes this was taught. To use either the first name or both names or whatever title they have such as Dr., Pastor, Mr. Mrs. etc. as a sign of human respect. It's the way I have always done. I guess that makes me legalistic in writing. Expecting others to do as I do. :)

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mary: I would take Tom Ascol's word for it. They are not trying to reform anyone, just attempting to get people to understand what Reformed doctrine believes instead of false arguments and then arguing against that. Just as there have been false arguments against what non-Calvinists believe. I believe that is the right thing to do. Spreading rumors that aren't true however is wrong. That is what has been done in the Southern Baptist for a very long time.

[volfan007]

Debbie,

Nearly every experience I've had with Founder's type, Dortian Calvinists have been them trying to convert me and the Churches that they were in. I've been around a lot of them, and I love them in the Lord, and I appreciate their walk with Christ; but nearly every experience I've had has been one where they were trying to convert Christians to the five points.

David

[Ian D. Elsasser]

The Founders exist for the purpose of promoting Reformed and Calvinistic Theology, not just correct misconceptions or misunderstanding.

First, from the Founders' website:

 "Founders Ministries is a ministry of teaching and encouragement promoting both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace and their experiential application to the local church, particularly in the areas of worship and witness.

Founders Ministries takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith that Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles. We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear.

Our Purpose

The purpose of Founders Ministries is the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches. We believe intrinsic to this recovery is the promotion of the Doctrines of Grace in their experiential application to the local church particularly in the areas of worship and witness. This is to be accomplished through a variety of means focusing on conferences and including publication, education, pastoral training and other opportunities consistent with the purpose. Each of the ministries will be developed with special attention to achieve a healthy integration of doctrine and devotion."

This clearly advocated the promotion of the doctrines of Grace in Southern Baptist churches. This is the gospel they are recovering and the reformation in churches they are advocating.

Second, Ernest Reisinger, the Founder of the Founders, made this statement in the "Introduction" of his book, A Quiet Revolution: A Chronicle Of Beginnings
Of Reformation in The Southern Baptist Convention, co-written with D. Matthew Allen:

"In these days God has raised up many Southern Baptists who have become convinced of these essential truths. Many Southern Baptists are also discovering (some to delight, others to shock) that our Baptist forefathers come from hearty Calvinistic stock. Our forebears held these doctrines of grace to be extremely precious. They zealously promulgated them. They earnestly defended them. The current rediscovery of these men and their doctrines is to our great benefit.

"As more and more pastors and lay leaders in the Southern Baptist denomination are laying hold of the doctrines of grace, a fire of reformation is spreading throughout our Southern Baptist ranks, a burning zeal for Gods great glory, a heart cry for a return to our biblical, doctrinal roots, and a substantial interest in what one of our founders, John Broadus, called, "that exalted system of Pauline Theology, which is technically called Calvinism."

It has been a tremendous joy for the authors of this book to come to love and embrace these truths (one of us almost fifty years ago; the other less than ten years ago). We rejoice that the Southern Baptist Convention began its existence as a Calvinistic, reformed denomination. Even more so, we yearn to see the day when our vision for reformation is shared by our contemporaries and the generations to follow."

Finally, "confessionally Reformed" is http://timmybrister.com/2008/10/28/headed-to-southeastern-seminary>one of the three marks of the kinds of church plants Mr. Brister was promoting at Southwester Baptist Theological Seminary. Is he not, therefore, promoting Reformed and Calvinistic churches within the Southern Baptist Convention? Of course he is.

Mr. Brister's objection to Dr. Lemke on this issue is, therefore, without foundation.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

I must add that the reformation they promote includes more than Calvinism, but it does not include less.

[Debbie Kaufman]

David and Ian: Get a grip. If you do not want to believe in Calvinism, Founders would have no problem with that. Of course they are going to teach what they believe the Bible teaches. So do you. You are speaking against Calvinism aren't you? I teach what I believe the Bible teaches and we have a church that consists of both Calvinist and non-Calvinist who have cohabited together for many years together. Calvinism is not a threat nor a heresy. So get a grip and just make sure you stick to the facts and the issues.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Debbie:

I am a Calvinist.

[volfan007]

Debbie,

I never said that Calvinism was heresy; did I? No.

I also, didnt ask if you were a Calvinist, nor did I ask if Calvinists and non-Calvinists existed in your church.

I simply said that the Founder's type, Dortian Calvinists do seem to be on a mission to convert the SBC to the five points. That's been my experience...and, I've had a lot of experience with them.

David

[Mary]

Debbie, I do not need to take Tom Ascol at his word. I have first hand experience with "Founder's Friendly" churches. I've seen friends heartbroken because their membership in their churches have been revoked because they refused to sign Calvinist Confessions of Faith to maintain their membership status. This after being assured by Pastoral candidates that if the church hired them they would be a Pastor of both Calvinist and nonCalvinist. I've seen churches split because a Pastor who was not completely forthright with doctrinally weak pulpit committees did not volunteer his doctrine and how he would lead the church because of it. DOG aside Founder's Friendly churches are not exactly what one would call "Women Friendy" even for a complementarian like myself. Many of them are big proponents of Family Integrated Ministry - doing away with Sunday School, Youth Ministry, and Women's Ministry. A Calvinist Pastor we know explained that Women's Ministry was a sign of weak men - men not being the head of the home and the head of his wife's spiritual life. So no Debbie I really don't need to take Ascol's word for anything as we've seen exactly how Founder's churches operate and how Founder's Friendly Minister "Reform" churches. Been watching it for several years now. I do appreciate your concilatory tone though.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mary: Are we talking Southern Baptist churches here?

David: Both can co-exist. Both have co-existed. I have not seen Tom Ascol as trying to convert the Southern Baptist churches as much as it is simply happening as people realize that the Reformed faith is simply the Sovereignty of God. If people turn to reformed faith people think it's a take over. I believe the reformed faith to be the truth of scripture. I would love for others to see it too. It's very freeing. But,in this I take people where they are. But I do teach it. I do believe it. It does permeate every area of my life in and out of the church. This is where the rubber meets the road. I think there is paranoia happening that just isn't justified.

[peter]

Debbie,

I appreciate the apology and receive it warmly. I also appreciate the latter comments, the comments of which deal with the subject matter here.

A quick point that is rarely appreciated and mostly ignored. It is not just Non-Calvinists such as my self and others here who observe an overly aggressive approach Founders Ministries exudes. Rather many Calvinists join us in our lament that Founders appears, from the evidence on many fronts, to desire the 'Calvinizing' of the SBC.

On this very thread, Ian, who is committed to the Doctrines of Grace, and is not at all shy about the self-designation "I am a Calvinist" raises the same questions as do we. Steve Grossey is a committed Calvinist and can argue his position extremely well--albeit he does so gracefully and respectfully without the highly insulting implication that those of us who are not Calvinists somehow need to "recover the gospel"--yet he raises many questions about Founders as do we.

No one is more committed to the Doctrines of Grace than Mr. Bob Ross--with whom, by the way, only one so stupid as not to know better or one so overly self-confident that he really does need his fanny whipped to squelch his bloated pride, would step into a debate ring with him--nonetheless, there remains no one, single person who has raised more pertinent questions about the aggressive nature of Founders than he.

Thus, it is not just two theologies competing here. Rather it is two spirits. One is determined to "promote" and "recover" and "reform" church by church to their theology. The other is committed to placing a check on such an effort to do so.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim Champion]

Volfie

I happen to be a fairly staunch non calvinist who happens to attend a church pastored by a a pastor who is pretty much on board with the founders movement. He is a fantastic pastor, who does not preach calvinism from the pulpit but when asked will answer honestly. He is also one of the smartest and most doctinally intelligent people I know - so debating him is alot of fun!

My message to you is, dont lump all dortian calvinists together - you may have had a bad experience or two along the way, but your experience is not representative of all.

JIm

[volfan007]

Jim,

I'm not talking about one or two experiences. I'm talking in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 experiences, maybe more.

I do agree that some of the Founder's types are fine fellas. I appreciate all of them. I love all of them in the Lord. But, I have to tell it like I see it. And, I've seen it many, many, many times. I have personally dealt with this more times than I can count on two hands, and I've seen many, many churches in my part of the world either split, or major strife and division caused by a Dortian Calvinist, Founder's friendly man charging in to convert the Church.

I'm glad that your Pastor is not that way.

David

[Bill]

I read the Founders blog occasionally but beyond that I can't speak to any first hand experience with Founders ministries or churches. It may well be that when they say they wish to recover the Gospel they mean they wish to convert the SBC to Calvinism. If true I would say that they are wrong to do so, even though I am a Calvinist.

I do think that a recovery of the biblical Gospel is something that many churches need and I think a Calvinistic perspective has something to offer, and that is a rediscovery of the sovereignty of God in salvation. Now, the sovereignty of God in salvation is something that all SBC churches, Calvinistic or not, would certainly affirm. But I think the prevalence of Finney-esque methodology in many SBC churches are at variance with a stated strong belief in God's sovereignty. If the Calvinistic movement acts as a corrective in that sense I say terrific. I have sat through some sermons which are very un-friendly to my Calvinism and in my opinion, biblically insupportable. On the other hand, we had a pastoral candidate wannabe come preach straight up Calvinism (both in Sunday School and the sermon). While I am sympathetic to his doctrinal stand, I wouldn't want him in the pulpit every Sunday.

[Mary]

Debbie, if the reformed faith were "simply the Sovereinty of God" then life would be much simpler. I completely affirm the Sovereignty of God while denying all five points of TULIP. Please don't insult me by assuming that I don't believe in the Sovereignty of God or imply I'm just some lesser form of Christian because I haven't attained your understanding of Sovereignty.

Yes, Debbie, I was speaking of SBC churches as it's SBC churches which Founders wish to reform. I too know of churches where Calvinist and nonCalvinist coexist peacefully. I also know some fine "reformed" Calvinist churches who are perfectly happy to coexist within associations with nonCalvinists. Then there are the Calvinist who are simply not going to be happy until all churches in the SBC are reformed. These Calvinist believe that SBC churches are "weak" and not "gospel centered" unless they follow DOG. These are churches listed at the Founders websight as "Founders Friendly" - not all Founders friendly churches are so militant but many are. These are not isoloted incidents of churches splitting and dividing over "reformed" doctrine. There is a pattern. Fortunately, in our area SBC leaders have awakened and are helping churches avoid these problems. It's not that we want to do away with Calvinism - we just think Calvinists should be completely forthright with their doctrine and their intentions for the churches with which they wish to associate. We also believe that if Calvnists are given positions within local associations that they should not use those positions to promote their "agenda." Of course Ascol and Brister will deny that Founder's wishes to "reform" the SBC - but that's like saying Obama's not gonna raise your taxes.

[Bill]

Mary: Are you SBC? I'm just curious because I'm pretty sure few SBCers reject all 5 points of Calvinism. We're traditionally pretty strong on Perseverance for example and probably most are on board with Total Depravity.

I take your point about Calvinists being forthright about their doctrine. I agree. Do you think the same is true for non-Calvinists? Should they be forthright and up front about their doctrine? Should non-Calvinists in positions of power be careful not to advance their "agenda"? Or are Calvinists the only one with agendas?

[Mary]

Bill, yes I am SBC for over 30 years. I believe in PREservation of the Saints because God saved me and once God saves you I believe you stayed saved - I don't stay saved because of anything I do or don't do - not because I perservere. I believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity - we are absolutely born dead in sin and if left to our sin we would not seek God - What can dead men do? They can hear and respond to God, a dead man won't hear me, but you better believe the dead are capable of hearing God. I do not believe that Total Depravity = Total Inability.

Absolutely nonCalvinists need to be forthright with their doctrine and intentions for churches. Certainly there are churches which run into trouble because a nonCalvnist Pastor has come in and tried to make changes that no one could have seen coming. The difference here is that there doesn't seem to be a movement of nonCalvinists trying to go into churches which are reformed and moving them a way from their Calvinism. Thus the subject of Peter's post.

As far as nonCalvinists with "agendas" It would be nice if we could all play in the sandbox together. Unfortunately, there are those on both sides who have an us or them mentality. I don't mind Southern Seminary being the "Calvinist" Seminary - I do not want to see all of the SBC Seminaries go Calvinist - but that seems to be where the Founders and their ilk would like to take us - if that's the case then I'm afraid we're all going to be forced to choose sides.

[cb scott]

Mary,

Debbie and I fight a lot and I do mean a lot and she may decide to fight me just because it is me saying this, but...

Are you sure you meant to say; " I completely affirm the Sovereignty of God while denying all five points of TULIP."

Mary, If that is the case and you have been under a person's ministry for thirty years in a Southern Baptist church you may have a great need (as do many) to find another Southern baptist church, for somebody is missing something in sermon prep. And I mean big time.

cb

[cb scott]

Peter,

I have again become redundant. Will you please delete me on one of my comments. It is something I have had much experience with before at other places. I think it will be a first in your place, But I am up to it, Dr. Lumpkins:-) so go ahead and perform the extraction.

cb

[Debbie Kaufman]

Mary: If you can point out in my comment anywhere that I said you did not believe in the Sovereignty of God please show me. That is not at all what I said. I did tell you that this is what Calvinists stress. I will repeat again, we have both Calvinists and non-Calvinists in our church. I do not expect those who do not believe in Calvinism to do so. I can heartily agree to disagree. But, I also will teach what I see the Bible to teach. We view it differently fine, but don't read into my comments what I have not nor would not say.

Both are Christians. Both belong in the SBC. Both belong in leadership. Missionaries etc. Neither needs to be excluded. I don't know how much clearer I can be. In this area iron sharpens iron.

CB: I feel if Mary is so unhappy in her church, she should find where she would be happy. No debate there.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Brother Bob Ross has demonstrated that Founders Ministries does not represent "Dortian Calvinism" but a post-seventeenth century development beyond Dort. See his article Founders vs. Dort? Is It a Misnomer to Call the Founders "Dortian"?.

It is unfortunate that Reformed Theology has adandoned the Scriptural view of regeneration which is found in the works of Calvin and the Puritans for a view -- regeneration prededes faith -- that weakens the word as the instrument which the Spirit uses to effect the new birth.

[peter]

Ian

Thanks. I appreciate Brother Bob's precision in the current post which I have read. One reason I mention Founders as particularly identified with Dort is Tom Ascol's own defense of Dortian Calvinism. Couple that with few, if any, other ID markers that are acceptable to Founders advocates and one is stuck in the proverbial catch-22.

Also, I have experienced the fewest complaints from anyone in employing the term in such a way. All of this together lends itself to my probable continued use of it, even if it is not a perfect fit.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

In what way has Founders delved away from what Calvin has said about regeneration. For that matter what the Bible says about regeneration. In your opinion what does Founders say about regeneration? Could you give links or examples from the Founders site or blog?

[Debbie Kaufman]

I believe in regeneration before faith. Faith being the result of regeneration not the cause. I see Calvin as believing this as well as Martin Luther. Spurgeon taught and believed it. I could give scripture if asked, but you may know the passages already and I would hate to repeat what is already known.

[Mary]

Alright, Debbie let's look at your words and in paranthesis we'll take them to the logical conclusion.

David: Both can co-exist. Both have co-existed. I have not seen Tom Ascol as trying to convert the Southern Baptist churches as much as it is simply happening as people realize that the Reformed faith is simply the Sovereignty of God

(IF the Reformed faith is "simply the Sovereignty of God" then those who reject the Reformed Faith don't accept the Sovereignty of God).

If people turn to reformed faith people think it's a take over

(No it's a take over when those of "reformed faith" come into a church and fail to make clear their intentions and doctrine and people who don't agree with them have to leave - the people who get left mostly don't care about some "Ivory Tower Doctrine" issue).

I believe the reformed faith to be the truth of scripture

(again since it's the truth of scripture those denying it must not be believing the truth of scripture, but this isn't quite as offensive since you used the words "I believe")

I would love for others to see it too. It's very freeing. But,in this I take people where they are

(you take people where there are could be meant as "they have not reached the heights that I have in my Christianity poor little dears).

But I do teach it. I do believe it. It does permeate every area of my life in and out of the church. This is where the rubber meets the road. I think there is paranoia happening that just isn't justified

(and since you have declared it to be paranoia everyone who disagrees with you must be mentally unstable or just outright lying. Couldn't possibly be that there are things going that you have no clue about).

Words matter.

And no I'm not at all unhappy in my church so I don't need to leave - I often wonder why anyone chooses to stay in the SBC when all they have to say about it is bad. I agree with you Debbie I think those who are so miserable with the SBC should just leave rather than stay and cause division, strife and discord.

[Byron]

Mary:

I think this is an area where we must learn to tolerate disagreement, even to the point of accepting (or allowing) others to believe the superiority of their own view and that their own Christianity is better for it. I am secure enough in my own position, that I try not to allow opposing views (even with an air of superiority) bother me too much. Truth be told, every single one of the "logical conclusions" you point out could be fitted in reverse on Non-Calvinist viewpoints, and in my own personal experience, have been.

Of course I believe the same way Debbie Kaufman believes, no surprise there. But the bottom line is people are going to have opinions on this issue, they are going to believe their position (whichever) is the Scriptural one, and that it is superior to the opposing view. Right or wrong, that is just the way it is and will continue to be. But there need not be a breaking of fellowship between Christians over it (and both sides have been guilty of this, I admit).

For me personally, your view puts people like us in a very difficult position. You permit disagreement on the issue, but only as long as we do not hold to superiority or even equality of our own view (for example, you fault us for not believing that your own view of the Sovereignty of God is adequate, for believing that our position is taught as truth in the Scriptures, and even having the audacity to assume that coming to belief in this view was a process of Scriptural and spiritual enlightenment in our lives). We believe what we believe because (again, we believe) God has shown us this in the Scriptures and given us good reason to believe it, which we will continue to do so until proven wrong. Instead of complaining about our position and our confidence in that position, why not simply accept that (in your view) we are wrong and gently work with us to try to help us see our error?

[Byron]

Mary:

I am going to have to admit I am no longer open-minded concerning this issue, so I will not claim to be. My question given in the previous comment is not meant to be answered necessarily. It is intended to point out that reasoning, dialogue, and fellowship is still possible.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Debbie:

William Shedd, Louis Berkhof and J. I. Packer all acknowledge that the modern view of regeneration differs from Calvin, Luther, the Puritans, the Canons of Dort, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession. Whereas the older view did not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, viewing them as synonyms, post-seventeenth century Reformed Theology felt the need to use regeneration in a more restricted sense in the development of their ordo salutis. Therefore, the born again before faith view is a post-seventeenth century development.

Scripture does not teach that regeneration precedes faith, whether chronologically or logically. Rather, they are simultaneous or coexistent, occurring together at the same time. I mentioned this on Steve Camp's blog in his discussion of this subject.

I appreciate Dr. Malcom Yarnell's word on the issue, saying that regeneration and conversion are "concomitant actions" and that neither precedes the other.

This is a point on which both Calvinists and non-Calvinists could agree, bringing to end the pointless debate over precidence.

Contrary to what many Reformed persons may say, Calvinism does not rest on or demand that regeneration precede faith.