The John 3:16 Conference and its Critics: Founders & Justin Taylor: Part I

     The J316C is now history.  I cannot thank Jerry Vines Ministries and the co-sponsoring seminaries enough for hosting this much needed conference. 

I planned to offer my own thoughts pertaining to its success or non-success, but the clubbing the conference has already taken from the more "objective" websites has sparked me to offer a few corrections to the record first. 

By no surprise, Founders Ministries wasted no time in offering the predictable lament that "misrepresentation" was the order of the day.  Coming under fire especially of late is Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, who addressed "Irresistible Grace" at J316C.  Dr.Tom Ascol, Executive Director of Founders Ministries wrote: 

"Dr. Steve Lemke, Provost at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and featured speaker at this week's "John 3:16 Conference," recently published an article in The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 2008), entitled, "What Is a Baptist? Nine Marks that Separate Baptists from Presbyterians." I read the article shortly after it came out and was greatly disappointed...I resisted dealing with the new article for many reasons...Instead of writing about it, I emailed Dr. Lemke and asked if we could talk about what he has written. I am confident that Dr. Lemke has no desire to misrepresent anyone's theological position nor any historical record. But he has. Due to his busy schedule we have not been able to talk, yet, but I genuinely look forward to the opportunity..." (emphasis mine)

It sounds like Dr. Ascol is sincerely attempting to place his six-shooter on the table while he and Dr. Lemke have a nice friendly chat over a good cup of coffee.  He's confident Dr. Lemke is free of any desire whatsoever in intentionally misrepresenting anyone's position and genuinely looks forward to a day of authentic understanding.  At least, that's my impression.

Nonetheless, Dr. Lemke may do well to listen for the faint click of a sawed-off shotgun under the table aimed straight for his gut. On Justin Taylor's post entitled "John 3:16 Conference, Steve Lemke, and the Importance of Christian Scholarship Done Well"--a critique to which Dr. Ascol both linked to and recommended as "even-handed," "cool-headed," and "revealing"--Tom Ascol had this to say:

" Tom said...

Justin:

Sadly, your evaluation is spot on. Dr. Lemke represents what I hope is a dying breed of Southern Baptist antagonism to the doctrines of grace--those who think lightly of misrepresenting brothers with whom they disagree. If there is going to be meaningful dialogue on these issues in the SBC, it will have to take place without those who traffic in this kind of caricature.

11/07/2008 03:16:00 PM (emphasis mine)

From my reading of this comment, it is all but impossible to square a settled confidence that Dr. Lemke is, on the one hand, completely void of desires to misrepresent another's theological position, as Ascol clearly wrote on his blog, with the equally clear charge from Ascol on Taylor's blog that Dr. Lemke represents antagonism which not only thinks lightly of misrepresenting brothers, but also traffics in this kind of caricature.  In fact, I may have just heard the cock of that shotgun.

As for Justin Taylor's post critiquing Steve Lemke's scholarship, it seems he's following his friend and Founders' advocate, Timmy Brister's non-stop criticism of Steve Lemke.  Dr. Lemke has been a particular target of Founders since at least April, 2005 when he delivered the paper "The Future of Southern Baptists as Evangelicals" during the "Maintaining Baptist Distinctives Conference" at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis Tennessee.  In that paper, Lemke mentioned one of the challenges Southern Baptists faced in the future was the Calvinist Resurgence.  During that particular section, he revealed a study that he and a colleague had completed using Founders-friendly churches as its criteria.  He concluded: 

"The study produced startling results. Founder’s Fellowship churches had considerably fewer baptisms, smaller congregations, more declining membership than the average Southern Baptist Church. In 2004, not a single one of the 233 self-identified Founder’s Fellowship Southern Baptist Churches had 40 or more baptisms...Nearly a fourth of the Founder’s Fellowship churches had no baptisms at all in 2004, just over 60 percent had fewer than five baptisms, and over 80 percent of the Founder’s Fellowship churches had fewer than 10 baptisms in 2004" (p.16-17).

In light of the above, one can understandably accept why Dr. Lemke is particularly targeted by Founders.

Taylor's post to which Dr. Ascol refers is interesting.  Taylor is apparently a prolific editor, serving at Crossway as Bible Study director and associate publisher.  Also of significance is Taylor's staff work for several years at Desiring God, the ministry of John Piper.  Given such may explain Taylor's saucy remarks about the level of Steve Lemke's scholarship:  "...given that Lemke is one of the speakers at this conference, and given the level of scholarship and thinking on display in this article ["What is a Baptist: Nine Marks That Separate Baptists from Presbyterians"], I don't have high hopes that it will be a meaningful engagement with what Calvinists actually believe."

Taylor offers several examples of Dr. Lemke's alleged less than stellar scholarship on display.  Let's look at just four of several on Taylor's list in the first section of his post.  Examples of Lemke's alleged mistakes are listed, followed by an explanation we can offer:

• "Lemke claims Together for the Gospel 2006 was held at the campus of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (it was actually held at the Galt House, a hotel in Louisville)"  Taylor is technically correct.  It was not held at the SBTS campus but my understanding is that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary did host the conference even if it was not on campus.  That Lemke did not make this virtually meaningless distinction hardly addresses his point in the paper

• "Lemke claims that "popular Presbyterian author" R.C. Sproul wrote a 1996 article in World Magazine about children and salvation (it was actually Sproul's son, R.C. Sproul Jr.)"  Granted, Dr. Lemke did not write "Jr" or "Sr" and perhaps should have. But since both Sprouls are popular authors, it hardly is worth mentioning that Dr. Lemke got it wrong.  Nonetheless, since Taylor is so determined to get really picky, he actually misquoted Dr. Lemke's citation.  Taylor wrongly referred to a "1996 article" that Sproul wrote when it is Dr. Lemke who cited the correct date as "May 6, 1995" (p. 28, footnote 68).  In my younger years when attempting to play gotcha, I subconsciously allowed my guard against careless errors to trickle into my mind.  Perhaps when Taylor gets a few more wrinkles on his face, along with a few more embarrassing bungles as did I, he will not be so quick to play the gotcha game

• "Lemke claims that Richard Muller teaches at Calvin College (he has never taught at the college; he actually teaches at Calvin Theological Seminary)"  Well, I'll be.  This is such a stirring revelation, no one could possibly believe that Dr. Lemke has an intelligent cell in his brain!  Consequently, all nine marks separating Baptists from Presbyterians--none of which appear to be the subject of Taylor's criticism--must be wrong as well!  More seriously, if someone said to me "Professor so and so teaches at Southern" but I come to find out that Professor so and so teaches at Boyce instead (or vice versa), I do not think it hardly worth raising as a point of contention that it was a false claim made about Professor so and so

• "Lemke claims the Westminster Confession of Faith was written in 1664 (it was actually written in 1646)."  This alleged error is absolutely incredible and Taylor should know better than to cite as a false claim something like this.  The fact is, written in the body of the paper, Lemke correctly identified the date as 1646.  He wrote:  "The primary methodology of this study, however, was a careful comparison of the Second London Confession of 1689 and the virtually identical Philadelphia Confession of 1742 (both of which were authored by Calvinistic Particular Baptists) with the Westminster Confession of 1646, the doctrinal confession adopted by most American Presbyterians" (p.5, emphasis mine).  What Taylor seemed to do was to completely ignore Dr. Lemke's text in which he correctly stated the date of 1646, and instead focus on a footnote that apparently had mistakenly transposed the "4" and the "6" in the citation and the result was 1664 (p.6, footnote 2).  This makes me immediately suspect that Taylor produced an agenda-driven document, decidedly not the "even-handed," "cool-headed," and "revealing" expose Dr. Ascol so enthusiastically recommended.  Such obvious oversight is hard to square with Justin Taylor's prestigious work overseeing the ESV Study Bible, not to mention his editorial work elsewhere.  

I could list more, but enough has been offered to judge Taylor's assessment careless at best and agenda-driven at worst.  Even so, why Founders continues to milk a cozy relationship with those who deny our distinctives as Baptists is hard to tell.  For sure, it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep this issue off the table.  For years, Justin Taylor served with John Piper, who remains a public, vocal advocate of accepting members in the church even though they have not been baptized as believers by immersion only, thus making baptism a secondary issue along with say, glossolalia.  

The question is, if **Taylor (following John Piper) presumably thinks Baptism is secondary, does that mean he believes the Lord’s commands are secondary? Is Dr. Ascol and/or Founders agreeing with Taylor that the Lord’s commands are secondary matters? Do we want to have fellowship with Presbyterian-baptists like Taylor or Piper?  These questions inevitably present themselves.

A certain SBC leader (not Lemke) tells me he believes that attitudes like that of Taylor and Piper smack of something “sub-Christian.” Why's that?  He retorts "because such attitudes question the reality of Jesus Christ as Lord of the church. They surrender the Lordship of Christ in favor of fellowship based on the least common denominator."  I never quite thought of it that way.  Surely such is worthy to ponder. 

With that, I am...

Peter

**Since this posting, Justin Taylor has clarified in the comment thread he does not agree with John Piper's view of accepting into the local church members who have not been baptized as believers by immersion only

Comments

[Stephen M. Garrett]

I agree with you. I am a five point Calvinist but I reject the Hyperism of many of these "reformed" or neo reformed, or "founders" kind of Calvnists. They can get downright nasty when they want to do so! I think they were totally uncharitable to Dr. Lemke!

God bless,

Stephen

[William Marshall]

Bro. Pete,
I agree with you that some of what Justin Taylor wrote was unnecessary (ie, the dating issue and the location of T4G). Yet, one point that really bothered me and seemingly deserves a response from those who consider themselves 'Founders-friendly' was Dr. Lemke's conclusion about Founders and evangelism. He writes "Founder's Movement Calvinists tend to...be less evangelistic than the average Southern Baptist Church" (p.11). For proof of such an assertion he footnotes the statistics about baptisms and Church size that you included. Is Dr. Lemke saying that fewer baptisms and smaller Churches means less evangelism? It seems from this that he is. It is this type of misrepresentation that is frustrating to Calvinists in the SBC. It is more than just getting a date or location wrong. Granted, we all should be more faithful in evangelism (for which I am constantly convicted), but surely we don't want to teach that if you don't see visible results (ie, baptisms and numerical Church growth), then you are not doing evangelism.

On an unrelated note, it surprised me that you disagreed with Dr. Mohler on baptism being a second-tier issue. I don't want to minimize baptism, but I am not sure if I am ready to conclude that my Presbyterian friends are not Christians because of their erroneous views of baptism. Thus, it seems right to take baptism as a second-tier issue. Of course, I may have misread you, so feel free to correct or explain. Thanks,

wm

[grosey]

I enjoyed Dr. Lemke's article. It was very well written and very helpful and useful. And I enjoyed some of the responses to the article in the Journal of Baptist theology and mission.
Just one comment:
Funny enough, here in New South Wales Australia, it is the calvinistic Baptist churches that are experiencing membership and baptism growth through evangelism.
When I think of our growing churches, over the last 30 years, many have had Calvinistic pastors at the helm during the times of exponential growth for those churches. But those calvinistic guys have always had a real heart for evangelism.. they weren't out "to clone little calvinists", they were out to lead people to a real faith in Christ and a real relationship with God.
I guess sometimes the portrait of non evangelising calvinists may be more reflective of the extremes in calvinistic baptist life.
Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Stephen,

I appreciate your logging on, my brother. And I agree with you about the nastiness of the situation. Insulting our professors is not an avenue which leads into a better working relationship...

William,

Peace, brother. Always happy to have your input. And, I am glad you agreed with me, at least in part, about Taylor's poor treatment of Dr. Lemke. The worst part is, I did not even list it all!

As for Dr. Lemke's concern first raised in the 2005 paper, I think it is too much to say the numbers prove such to be the case, since statistical correlation is never meant to be fixed. But numbers may be indicative of a lot, especially if one whole group is compared to another whole group. In the end, however, of course Dr. Lemke would not suggest real evangelism is observable through sheer statistical means.

Concerning my disagreement with Dr. Mohler, why would you be surprised I would disagree with him? His so-called "triage" or something like that he himself has lamented people have abused beyond recognition.

You write:

"I don't want to minimize baptism, but I am not sure if I am ready to conclude that my Presbyterian friends are not Christians because of their erroneous views of baptism."

I actually agree. Neither I nor the SBC leader I mentioned suggested that Presbyterians are not brothers in Christ. If they bow to the Lord Jesus Christ as their only Saving Lord, how could I not accept them?

However, because we are brothers does not mean I covenant with them in ecclesial relationship for the simple reason that such covenant possesses, as a first tier belief, baptism by immersion for believers only.

Again, since Christians have no right to downgrade the Lord's commands or to replace the Lord's commands with human inventions like paedo-baptism or sprinkling, I do not see how one can come away from the NT thinking that Baptism--including its nature and mode--is anything below first order ecclesiastical doctrine. Our history as Baptists surely demonstrate this.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Justin Taylor]

Mr. Lumpkins,

Thanks for your thoughts on my post.

As I said in the post, a number of the mistakes are quite minor, we all make mistakes (as you point out about me re: 1995/1996--thanks!), and that these mistakes are really the least of my concern. I just think that the sheer number of them is telling.

For those who might be joining the discussion late, it may be helpful to know that Dr. Lemke is apparently making some changes to the online PDF in response to the numerous errors that have been pointed out. So "Jr" is now added in the second citation of Sproul Jr. And it looks like "popular" has been dropped before Presbyterian--which I think is right.

I note that you assume that because I worked for John Piper I agree with his position on baptism and polity. This is actually an area of disagreement between Dr. Piper and me. Given that you just assumed instead of asking (or researching), I wonder if you'll retract your statement about "agreeing with Taylor that the Lord’s commands are secondary matters" and asked if "we want to have fellowship with Presbyterian-baptists like Taylor..." Despite charging me with something I don't hold, do you really want to exclude from "fellowship" someone who holds to John Bunyan's position?

Thanks for citing the study of Founders' churches to supposedly demonstrate that they are less evangelistic. In an earlier draft of my post I had included this as an example of a serious fallacy in Dr. Lemke's piece but cut it out to save space!

I do have a questions if you don't mind (I'm genuinely curious): (a) Would you mind reconstructing Dr. Lemke's logic against the article on "theological triage" in such a way that it is fair to Dr. Mohler's original intentions and is coherent? (b) What were you thoughts on Dr. Lemke's complete reversal of Timothy George's views on election? Did you find this a bit troubling?

Blessings,
Justin Taylor

[cb scott]

Peter,

I really believe there is room in the SBC for TULIPs and non-TULIPs or "not so TULIPs" without fear of one or the other group being rejected.

I think the problem arises when some take such polarized positions as you have exposed here.

Also, a problem arises when fear-mongers stir up division based upon such statements as:

"I came to hear what Southern Baptist leaders were saying about this subject, but more importantly, to ensure that there was not an attempt to denigrate or exclude Southern Baptists who might hold to what some call the doctrines of grace."

Did anyone at the conference make an "attempt to denigrate or exclude Southern Baptists who might hold to what some call the doctrines of grace?

Peter, you were there so I ask, did you hear any one make such an attempt?

I do think the statement I quote here is fear-mongering of the highest order. It is this kind of intentional divisiveness that continues to "stir the pot" of contention among us.

It is not a conference that seeks to state a theological position for rational examination by those who take theology seriously that causes contentious division.

It seems that it is those who have an agenda of something other than seeking truth that always cause division.

Why would anyone think it necessary to "ensure that there was not an attempt to denigrate or exclude Southern Baptists who might hold to what some call the doctrines of grace" among those of you who attended the conference?

That certainly seems to be a very condescending attitude when one really begins to think about it. At least that is my opinion.

Peter, were you among brothers who were so inflamed with hostility toward each other that they would need a self-appointed watch dog to keep the peace and save the convention from itself?

Or, was that possibility just the vanity of only one person?

cb

cb

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

Thanks for commenting. First, while you rightly confess "we all make mistakes...I just think that the sheer number of them is telling" I'm wondering how many mistakes one has to make before the flag is raised that "the sheer number of them is telling" and consequently calls into question their scholarship. I mentioned four in the first part of your post (I could have mentioned more) only one of which you conceded. Just for the record, does four qualify for "the sheer number is telling" category?

Unfortunately, you did not so much as mention the most serious one--overlooking Dr. Lemke's correct date of the Westminster of 1646. Why you chose to incorrectly assert he claimed it was written in 1664--obviously deducing such from a footnote which was clearly a typo since the body of the text was correct--remains unexplained. If you saw the discrepancy, why not list the discrepancy itself as demonstrative of sloppy citation? If you did not see the discrepancy, you have made a major blunder in falsely asserting Dr. Lemke claimed a bogus date for Westminster.

Finally, you write: "Given that you just assumed instead of asking (or researching), I wonder if you'll retract your statement about "agreeing with Taylor that the Lord’s commands are secondary matters" and asked if "we want to have fellowship with Presbyterian-baptists like Taylor..." Despite charging me with something I don't hold, do you really want to exclude from "fellowship" someone who holds to John Bunyan's position?"

First, Justin, I'd be interested to know if you contacted Dr. Lemke about your incorrect assertions pertaining to his paper. Understand: if you didn't does not at all give me a get-out-of-jail-free card toward your alleged assertion that I neither asked nor researched the matter. It does, though, reveal whether or not the question originates from one who possesses moral punch in practicing what one preaches. So, Justin, did you happen to contact Dr. Lemke about any of the questions you raised about his paper?

As for my statement, the full version follows:

"The question is, if Taylor (following John Piper) presumably thinks Baptism is secondary, does that mean he believes the Lord’s commands are secondary? Is Dr. Ascol and/or Founders agreeing with Taylor that the Lord’s commands are secondary matters? Do we want to have fellowship with Presbyterian-baptists like Taylor or Piper? These questions inevitably present themselves (emphasis added)

As one can easily see, I was raising questions not drawing conclusions. And, yes, your working relationship with Dr. Piper does lend itself to one thinking you would agree with him concerning the baptismal matter. However, I conceded such as an open presumption ("if Taylor (following John Piper) presumably thinks Baptism is secondary...) not a stated fact. That you clarified your disagreement with such presumption is sufficient, Justin. Thank you.

In light of the distance you've expressed from Dr. Piper's public advocacy of setting aside baptism by immersion for believers only, the final question you ask is puzzling: "do you really want to exclude from "fellowship" someone who holds to John Bunyan's position?" Perhaps it me, but I thought you just called on me to retract my open presumption that you agreed with Piper. Why then you would query if I "really want[ed] to exclude from "fellowship" someone who holds to John Bunyan's position" I do not fully grasp.

I must admit I am not fully informed on John Bunyan's baptismal position. Nonetheless, if John Bunyan or others insist on accepting into the local church of God members who have not been baptized as believers by immersion only, then yes; I really want to exclude from ecclesial fellowship "someone who holds to John Bunyan's position."

I trust this helps. As for restating Dr. Lemke's position on other matters outside what I've here written, I defer to another time perhaps.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Justin,

For the record, Justin, while I see no reason to retract an openly stated presumption that led to a series of questions I raised, in fairness, I placed a footnote on the original post indicative of the clarity you presented in this comment thread.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

CB,

Thanks for the question, my brother. You rightly ask: "Did anyone at the conference make an "attempt to denigrate or exclude Southern Baptists who might hold to what some call the doctrines of grace?" I have to be honest and say yes, they did. At least on two occasions such took place as I recall.

But, here is the thing: on both occasions such a view was squashed by the men on the platform! At one point, one young, zealous "former Calvinist" who had a phenomenal testimony about his "conversion from" the Calvinist view, made an open charge that Southern Baptists have to do something about Calvinism in the convention--that is, Calvinists need to go.

Upon this, Dr. David Allen spoke in no uncertain terms that, given our Baptist ecclesiology, Calvinists had every right to be Southern Baptists as any NonCalvinist and to pastor any church in the SBC who called them to be pastor (with integrity that both church and pastor knew each other's view). Indeed, anytime I recall it brought up about whether Calvinists were welcome or not, the answer was a resounding YES; they most certainly are welcome.

There were a couple of times, coming from the platform, where certain emphasis from Calvinists were strongly challenged, emphasis which I will later address. For example, one SBC professor recently said--if I recall properly--"the evangelistic invitation is sinful" or something similar. That was denounced in no uncertain terms. I plan to follow up on that so please take the quote above as only proximate, not factual. I need to follow up further before I go on record with details.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Grosey,

Leave it for one downunder to offer the money quote of the day: "Funny enough, here in New South Wales Australia, it is the calvinistic Baptist churches that are experiencing membership and baptism growth through evangelism." Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!

I think you are further correct, Steve, in one thing you mention about "clon[ing] little calvinists." In my view, my experience leads me to view Founders' vision as embracing the "Calvinizing of the SBC." I think enough is written to substantiate such an opinion.

Grace. When you're in Atlanta, we'll fellowship together! With that, I am...

Peter

[cb scott]

Peter,

Thank you. That is a very refreshing revelation. It also cements, for me at least, the truth that no self-appointed watchdog was needed for the organizers and speakers policed their own parameters.

cb

[Drew]

I am not a pastor of a founders church. I have never been a member of a "founders church" but I do find your citation of that study troubling.

Could it be that some founders churches are on decline because they are taking regenerate church membership seriously? How do you know these churches are not fervently preaching the gospel? How do you know that churches that are growing right now being truly faithful to the gospel? I am not saying that churches that are growing right now are not being faithful to the gospel because I am not there day in and day out and I don't know. The fact of the matter is though, that some of these churches with tons of baptisms also don't know where half their membership is.

Anyway, just for the record, I know tons of SBC pastors who are reformed on some level and are desperately calling their people to evangelize the lost in their cities and to the ends of the earth.

Baptisms are not always the best evidence as to whether a church is being faithful. It took Adoniram Judson years before he saw his first convert in Burma.

Let's encourage each other to preach the Word, preach the Gospel, and be faithful in the work of ministry.

Blessings

[selahV]

So, Peter, then this is not the bashin'-smashin'-trashin'-thrashin' of Calvinism that some who were so outspokenenly prophesying it would be, after all. Somehow, that does not surprise me in the least. selahV

[Byron]

Steven Grosey's comment about Calvinists being evangelistic and not wanting to clone little Calvinists, stuck in my mind and to be honest, convicts me. I was too proud of my own "system" when conversing with Mary, and for that I apologize to you, Mary. When it comes down to it, we should all be three pointers: death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

[peter lumpkins]

Drew,

Thanks. I am puzzled why a quote from a paper troubles you, Drew. I neither affirmed nor denied its truth. It served as illustrative as reason, at least in part, why Founders have quite systematically gone after Dr. Lemke. You are welcome to explore his paper further and challenge his methodology if you like.

SelahV,

That the J316C was not a Calvinist-bashing event is simple to demonstrate--all one has to do is listen to the conference. That Founders apologists will allow it to be so is a proposition no one believes. It is already ridiculed and denounced around the block.

Some NonCalvinists (me included) attempted to engage some of the Building Bridges Conference papers. To my knowledge, not one single dark remark was made about the conference itself by NonCalvinists, though it was hosted, in part, by Founders Ministries. The distinction is striking.

Byron,

grosey's words have a way of pinching one's conscience through the back door. I understand you perfectly.

Grace, all. With that, I am...

Peter

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Drew:

Should we not expect those who have declared their purpose to be "the recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches" to be leaders in the number of conversions to Christ since they have already recovered the gospel and are seeking to promote the same in SBC churches?

For years I have heard fellow Calvinists say that "numbers do not matter" and even distrust conversions in churches that are growing rapidly, such as Saddleback. While numbers are not the be all and end all, surely the advance of the gospel will demonstrate itself in additions to the churches through conversions to Christ as evidenced in the NT (Ac 2.41, 47; 4.4; 5.14; 6.7; 8.12; 9.31, 42; 11.21, 24; 12.24; 13.43-49; 14.1; 16.5; 17.4, 12; 18.8; 19.1-10, 20) and the ministry of Charles Spurgeon, that Calvinists and ardent evangelist, who announced conversions and baptisms in "The Sword and Trowel."

As I survey the landscape, I do not see this evidenced in many Calvinistic churches. To be fair, I also see this missing in non-Calvinistic churches. However, we are discussing Calvinists.

[Tim]

I may be getting in over my head here, but this whole "doctrines of grace" nomenclature drives me nuts.

To claim to have a market on the doctrine of grace is deeply offensive. It reminds me of another segment of the church that claims to be "full gospel" leaving everyone else as partial gospel at best.

[Bill]

Ian: By your reasoning, the fastest growing megachurches are most clearly articulating the true Gospel. Do you believe this to be true?

Peter: Your blog is your own, but perhaps you might consider a post for discussion about "What is the Gospel"? and invite Calvinists and non-Calvinists to weigh in.

I say this because I don't think either side has dibs on the true Gospel, and I think the Gospel can be articulated (and should be) without reference to any Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic theology.

From my Calvinistic perspective, a "recovery of the Gospel" mainly refers to a movement away from the high pressure methodologies being employed by many SBC churches and away from such imprecise and non-biblical languages such as "ask Jesus into your heart" or "ask Jesus to be your personal Savior".

But that's just me.

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

Thanks for logging on. I do not think you are in over your head. The DoGs, you rightly assert, belong to no one theological brand. Personally, I think the phrase doctrines of grace is beautifully biblical and would love for it to remain untainted. Alas, but it cannot be now. Calvinists regularly employ such synonymously with Five Point Calvinism. I could be wrong, but I do not think there is redemption for it...

Bill,

"Recovery of the Gospel" may mean "to you" specifically 'a movement away from the high pressure methodologies...[and] such imprecise and non-biblical languages such as "ask Jesus into your heart" or "ask Jesus to be your personal Savior"' but for Founders, it apparently means much more than that. Their focus inevitably zeros in on Five point Calvinism--nothing less.

As for your curious allusion to "non-biblical languages" I will leave that for another time.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Drew]

Peter,

You are right, you neither accepted or denied the claims of that article--I spoke too soon, assuming that you were promoting its claims.

Ian,

I did not say that numbers are not important, in fact I said I am very concerned about the fact that over half the people in our churches are missing. I think that conversions are very important.

I did not say that I don't trust megachurch conversions. I can't say that because I am not there day in and day out.

I just wanted to make the point that we shouldn't assume that just because a particular church is seeing less baptisms that means they are less faithful or too calvinistic. Maybe they are in a dark part of the country, maybe they are just as evangelistic or more so than anyone else but the Lord simply hasn't brought revival.

Larger churches, simply by the fact that they are larger are going to see more baptisms because they have more children.

I desperately want to see my church grow--I am praying daily that the Lord would use my congregation to preach the gospel to the lost in my community and that God would bring many here to saving faith in Jesus Christ but put up my "numbers" against some of the larger churches in the SBC and yeah they would look pathetic, but I am not measuring my numbers against other churches--that is not healthy nor is it biblical to have a competitive spirit in ministry.

I will continue to preach the gospel, disciple men in my church, and equip them to take the gospel to our community and I just hope that we can all consider each other allies and friends in that endeavor.

[Bill]

Peter: I meant language instead of languages, but let me clarify. "Ask Jesus into your heart" is not the Gospel, nor is it a response to the Gospel. That's my beef. If someone asks, like the Phillipian jailer, "what must I do to be saved", my personal opinion is that "ask Jesus into your heart" shouldn't be what we tell them. It made sense (at least to me) in the context of my last comment but it would no doubt derail the main conversation.

[selahV]

Peter, I thought the "gospel" was Jesus and Him crucified. How can I be saved? Trust in Jesus. Open the "door" and He will come in. Where does He come in to but into our hearts? That inner sanctum that no one can clean and make righteous, but God? selahV

[Bill]

SelahV: Are you responding to Peter, or to me?

[Bob Cleveland]

Peter .. a couple points ... provided it's ok for me to come to the party late.

:)

One is, I was what folks would call a calvinist before I was a baptist. I've never had any form of problem being such, in as "First Baptist" a baptist church as there is. I cannot account for why the lack of problem other than I simply state my views and let others have theirs. I happen to think none of us has it quite right, anyway.

Second, I agree with CB's assessment of tulips & the like. I'd hate to think he might chase me out one day... and maybe the fact is that I'm not in a group anyway, other than the local and universal churches.

[peter lumpkins]

Bob,

Thanks. I agree 100%! I have never, to my knowledge, had a Calvinist, leave a church I pastored (and I know there have been Calvinists as members). This has decidedly not been a major issue until the last decade or so.

The difficulty is presently, whether or not our Founders brothers either admit or realize the problem, their aggressive vision to "reform the church" with the "doctrines of grace" is the fuel behind this controversy's engine.

I am personally familiar with two great churches in Georgia--one which I myself seriously considered as Pastor several years back--who are now in horrible, unredeemable turmoil. The single issue in both: The "Doctrines of Grace" and the "reform" of the current church.

When the dust settled on one of them, the leadership was gutted, and now a hull remains at the church site. Of course, just down the street is the "reform" church just strolling right along. Jeff Noblitt may call that "good church splits." I call it, pardon the expression, rape.

This is a problem with very deep pockets. With that, I am...

Peter

[cb scott]

Bob,

I have no problem with any kind of TULIP. Never have. I like TULIPs.

Did you notice Wade deleted me again?

All I did was ask him a couple of questions.

In his answer to Peter relating to the purpose of his post about Dr. Allen he said:

"I can assure you that I am working to do my best to compliment people, show respect to my brothers, and simply point out disagreements"

In an earlier post he said:

"I came to hear what Southern Baptist leaders were saying about this subject, but more importantly, to ensure that there was not an attempt to denigrate or exclude Southern Baptists who might hold to what some call the doctrines of grace."

I just asked him which statement revealed his true motivation.

Was he just "working to do my best to compliment people and show respect to my brothers."

Or was he still working as a self-appointed Watchdog to the SBC, and especially to SWBTS to which he harbors such a detestable passion against most anything spoken from its representatives?

When I question him he deletes my comments. That must have really hurt him to have to do that since he is so very irenic and desires to be the prince of far play and openness.

Then, of course, there is always the hint of hypocrisy in the air over at T&G that just causes one to wonder about things.

cb

[cb scott]

Bob,

One other thing I wonder about is:

If Dr. Allen was not employed by SWBTS would Wade's post on him have ever seen the light of day?

One just has to wonder about that.

cb

[Debbie Kaufman]

SelahV: The context of passages such as Matthew 7:7, along with the passage in Luke etc. are written to the church. It is not the message of salvation.

[selahV]

Bill, I was talkin' to Peter. Just wanted his take on my thoughts. But you are free to respond if ya want. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

SelahV

You are precisely correct about the gospel, which, according to Paul, is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). Also, though I am not really interested in pursuing the conversation on this thread, some of the critics of "altar calls" have spun the goo that we're not supposed to "ask Jesus into our hearts" because it's "unbiblical" to do so.

In my view, the reasons I've heard offered contra are so shallow, a south Georgia gnat couldn't drown.

With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter: Thanks. I rather thought so. And "the church" is those who are saved and have received the "gospel" into their hearts, correct? selahV

[David R. Brumbelow]

Peter,
I’ve enjoyed and appreciated your informative comments on Calvinism and the John 3:16 Conference.

As for asking Jesus into your heart - I agree completely with you and SelahV. Ephesians 3:17 and Colossians 1:27 quickly come to mind. As you well know, there are many others.

As for some exact phraseology not being found in the Bible - there is a long list of words and phrases most everyone uses that are not found in those exact forms in the Bible. Missional, Calvinism, missionary, sufficiency of Scripture, Trinity, Rapture, etc. The question is, are they true to the teachings of the Bible? Asking Jesus into your heart certainly is.
David R. Brumbelow

[Drew]

Rape is a harsh word for what is happening in those churches--I don't know what churches you speak of so I won't comment further.

But I will say that for every 1 pastor I have heard of starting up controversy in his church over calvinism, I know 10 reformedish (I say reformedish because there are varying levels as we all know and few are comfortable with every label that comes with the term "calvinist") pastors/seminarians who are commited first and formost to the spread of the gospel and are not concerned that their churches reform to the point that everyone is a five-point Calvinist. Most of the reformed pastors I know are honest and upfront about their theological positions, they are not sneaky calvinist sneaking into relatively non-calvinist churches to surprise people with the doctrines of grace.

The sad reality of SBC churches today is that you can walk into most of them and tell them you are 5 point Calvinist and that you believe in unconditional election and limited atonement and most people will have no idea what you are talking about nor would they know where to turn in their Bibles to prove you otherwise. What concerns me most about SBC church life is not Calvinism or non-Calvinism but the fact that many churches seem to know little of theology and little of the Scriptures. Hopefully we can consider both calvinistic and non-calvinistic pastors in the SBC who are committed to the preaching of the Bible as allies in that endeavor.

Also can Founders not be committed to both the doctrines of grace and to the gospel? Are those things contradictory? How do you know that the doctrines of grace are more important than the gospel to them? Is there not room in the convention for a group committed to the doctrines of grace and the gospel? Apparently there is room for a conference dedicated to setting the record straight about the doctrines of grace (which is fine with me by the way).

Again, I am not promoting Founders or Calvinism or Non-Calvinism. I am attempting to promote balance and unity. I could share the stories of churches who unlovingly ran out both members and pastors who were honest about what they believe from the very beginning, but I don't want to continue the endless cycle of bantering about who is worse the calvinists or the non-calvinists--both have done foolish things and both are a bane to the proclaimation of the gospel when the world sees us bickering rather than loving one another as brothers.

I can agree to disagree on points of theology and rejoice to know that non-calvinists and calvinists alike are preaching the gospel to the lost, equipping church members to take the gospel to the nations, and uniting around the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Bob Cleveland]

cb,

I noted those things, but I can't know Wade's mind, and what he would or wouldn't have done. You might have more insight than I, in that respect.

peter,

I have a real problem with the term "Doctrines of Grace". Names are names, but that term itself indicates (in my feeble mind) that folks who claim them indicate that those who disagree, don't have doctrines of grace, or their doctrines are somehow flawed.

That term smacks of arrogance, to me, and I reject it, and will never use it (other than "designationally" (if that's even a word). That might betray divisive characteristics that could well bring down any local gathering.

I had a friend who told me of a church that split .. he was a member .. when a Deacon was miraculously healed of cancer following a special prayer meeting one afternoon, where they laid hands on him and prayed for healing. Some folks were so certain that didn't happen now, that the rather large church eventually went away completely.

I never even heard the DoG term when I was a Presbyterian, and I can tell you I was a LOT more reformed, then, than any of the SBC's DoGer's are, today.

[Drew]

Most people who use the term "DoG" are just using it for purposes of designation. They aren't trying to say no one else has the doctrines of grace.

Or perhaps they are expressing affection for the doctrine that they believe. We have got to stop being surprized when people have affection for things they believe to be true--we should expect it. That is not an excuse for arrogance, but it seems anything and everything reformed people do is labeled as arrogant today.

I am not sure where the term Doctrines of Grace came from are you? I suspect whoever came up with it was simply expressing affection for the God who would choose to save a wretch like him, just a thought.

[peter lumpkins]

Drew,

Indeed it is a harsh word. And, know I thought it through before posting it. When a church's history, heritage and theological paradigm are abruptly shifted, there is nothing less than a an atmosphere of corporate violation that settles down on the people.

And, such cannot be washed down the sink with other situations. The circumstances about which I speak are completely avoidable. Indeed the plan is systematically executed. The goal is to break the church.

As for your assertion that "Most people who use the term "DoG" are just using it for purposes of designation. They aren't trying to say no one else has the doctrines of grace." I must record my profound disagreement. Our Brother Bob is onto something when he mentions employing it seems to imply others do not so hold them.

Even so, Founders does not at all use the term "DoG" for "purposes of designation." Instead they clearly use the term synonymously with Five Point Calvinism.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

I have no problem using the term Doctrines of Grace. It is simply doctrine that teaches the working of God in his grace in bringing a lost person to Christ.

There are more George Ellas in Calvinism than not. I hear so much of supposed splits and fights, yet they have never been documented, never been shown proof that this ever happened. I have never heard of it happening, and as I say, we have both in our church and have not had any splits or fights at anytime. Not in the entire 16 years I've been there. And we are a congregation of over 2,0000.

[cb scott]

Now, Debbie,

When was the last time you saw all 2000 of those irenic, completely happy members, who are all in total harmony, sitting in the church building all together?

cb

[Byron]

Debbie:

Splits and fights over Calvinism can and do happen. It happened to a church in a different city where I used to go (about 200 miles away), but it happened and was resolved before I ever became a member. Granted, I only heard one side of the story, and I am not sure exactly what happened. From what I understand, the church is explicitly Calvinistic, though the membership is not all necessarily Calvinistic, but the problem came from church members who were militantly against Calvinism. This is sad, but it can happen.

I personally dislike the term "Doctrines of Grace" because in the KJV, any time the English word in the plural is used, it is always in a negative context involving human or demonic doctrines. "Doctrine" in the singular is always positive, if I remember correctly. I will still use the term; I just do not prefer it.

[Byron]

Well, I was mistaken. "Doctrine" in the singular occurs in a negative context in Revelation 2. Oh well.

[Debbie Kaufman]

True CB. We have two different services and a refuge service for those who like a more contemporary service. We have several Sunday Schools, Bible studies and missions on Sunday and Weds. nites. But what we don't have is a separate service for Calvinists and a separate one for Non-Calvinists. We don't have a separate service for Dispensationalists and a separate one for non-Dispensationalists. They are mixed all together listening to one sermon. The are mixed in Sunday School classes. And we don't expect the one who teaches to do anything other than to teach what they have learned from scripture.

We are encouraged to study for ourselves to see if what we are hearing is so, and we are able to agree to disagree. I have never heard any fights at business meetings or before or after a service. There is no unkind things said about anybody. It may sound to good to be true, and it is.

[Debbie Kaufman]

True CB. We have two different services and a refuge service for those who like a more contemporary service. We have several Sunday Schools, Bible studies and missions on Sunday and Weds. nites. But what we don't have is a separate service for Calvinists and a separate one for Non-Calvinists. We don't have a separate service for Dispensationalists and a separate one for non-Dispensationalists. They are mixed all together listening to one sermon. The are mixed in Sunday School classes. And we don't expect the one who teaches to do anything other than to teach what they have learned from scripture.

We are encouraged to study for ourselves to see if what we are hearing is so, and we are able to agree to disagree. I have never heard any fights at business meetings or before or after a service.

[cb scott]

That's good Debbie.

I am really glad to hear that.

I am even glad you believe it.

cb

[Debbie Kaufman]

You are always welcome to come and see for yourself. Or you can catch Sundays on video and see the reactions for yourself.

[Ian D. Elsasser]

Bill said:

Ian: By your reasoning, the fastest growing megachurches are most clearly articulating the true Gospel. Do you believe this to be true?

Bill:

Your conclusion aside, the Founders who have existed to recover the gospel and reform churches are not known for their evangelistic efforts but they are widely known for propogating reformed theology and the doctrines of grace. At Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, they were pushing confessionally Reformed" as one of three marks.

Drew:

If my words do not describe you I am delighted and encourage you in your labours to witness and teach your church to do likewise. May the Lord bless your endeavours. Unfortunately, some tend to focus on Reforming churches and winning others to Calvinism.

Peter:

I am familiar with a situation in which a Reformed man became a pastor and within about 5 months began a study in the doctrines of grace. This is the last thing that this church needed. Alas, many Reformed men have this desire to become pastors and begin "Reforming" churches. This troubles me as a Christian and a Calvinist. I have been a member of my church for about seven years, served as an Elder for five years -- three of which as Chairman of the Elders Board -- and I have never run into any encounters over Calvinism because I do not make it an issue, nor is it something that this church needs. I would encourage other Calvinists to focus on the true needs of their churches and the society in which the churches live so that the gospel may advance, turning many to the Lord Jesus Christ.