Founders Influence on the GCR: Are We Being Duped? by Peter Lumpkins

Founders Ministries spokesman, Timmy Brister, published his latest commentary on the Great Commission Resurgence (GCR) and what he dubs the "backstory" leading up to next week's annual Southern Baptist Convention.

Southern Baptists on-line owe Brister a wealth of gratitude for exposing a highly strategic conspiracy to sabotage what Timmy observes as a tidal wave of support for the GCR stemming from Indianapolis: "It seemed at this point everyone was behind the GCR, or at least willing to talk about it as they ride the tidal wave that came from Indy" (//link).

Collecting a “digital paper trail,” Timmy has put together a painful collage, demonstrating, at least to his satisfaction, two competing views for the SBC:  GCR (Great Commission Resurgence vision) and BI (Baptist Identity vision).

Let me say, just for the record, Timmy strangely left out another competing vision that’s been around since at least 1982—CI (Calvinist Identity vision). 

According to the official purpose statement of Founders Ministries, a ministry for which Timmy speaks and lobbies, the CI vision for Southern Baptists promotes “both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace” desiring and encouraging Southern Baptists to “return to [the] promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear” (//link).  In short, the vision Tom Ascol and Founders—including Timmy Brister as Ascol’s assistant--embrace for Southern Baptists is a full blown 5 Point confessional Calvinism.   

Of interest to me in Timmy’s digital mosaic are several posts of my own which he linked as part of his reconstructed conspiracy theory he's exposing, the purpose of which, he alleges, is to sabotage the Great Commission Resurgence.  My first question would be, did Timmy actually read the content of the posts I published or did he just surf my site for the appropriate titles to match his mosaic?  Quite honestly, I’d be interested in knowing the answer for I had absolutely no idea Timmy was so interested in my writings, as if what I had to say mattered significantly on anything in SBC life. 

This is where bloggers really need to take a long, deep breath and get a life.  For some reason, some bloggers—usually the ones with a larger piece of blog readership—have concluded their writings are widely disseminated among the Southern Baptist world, imagining themselves as movers and shakers among the masses. 

May I be honest?  What a Georgia hoot! 

Do you guys not get it?  Are you that self-deluded?  Do you think you’re that significant?  Is a fatal dose of dumb inevitable for bloggers who gain a few hundred readers? 

Note:  Timmy lists what he feels is a who’s who of support for the GCR; supporters who passionately lend their weight toward GCR success, including Alvin Reid, Don Dunavant, Michael Spencer, Marty Duren, Nathan Finn, Ryan Hutchinson, Nathan Akin, Jed Coppenger, Trevin Wax, John Cross. 

I’d bet a year’s worth of StarBucks the average messenger at the SBC in Louisville would not recognize the name of any man above, much less know what they’ve been saying about the GCR. 

Get this. 

According to Timmy, I’m one of the insiders, a part of the sabotage team to squelch the GCR and impose the BI but, scouts honor, a full 5 of 10 men above, I haven’t a clue who they are!

Oh, I could guess about one being Danny Akin’s son and perhaps the other being Mark Coppenger’s son.  Nevertheless, I’ve not read anything any of them has written to my recall.  Indeed out of the ten above, I’ve read only one with any regularity. (Imagine, then, the average "outsider's" recognition level!)

Hence, to suppose any influence I possibly have in SBC life going beyond a few hundred internet readers (and the few hundred includes those who’ve no respect whatsoever for what I write!) is, in my view, the juvenile imagining of naiveté.

Even worse, to suggest I “changed my narrative” after Indianapolis to cope for the “the loss of [Frank] Cox” since his loss for the presidency “dealt a severe blow to the BI vision” is so utterly outrageous I’m inclined to believe Timmy has plunged so deep into the rabbit hole, there is little hope he'll ever climb out! 

“Changed my narrative”?  What, under the blue sky, is that supposed to mean?  Of course, I no longer supported Frank Cox as president.  What was I supposed to do, continue advocating Frank Cox to be president when Johnny Hunt was now my president?

Moreover to implicate Frank Cox as somehow being a part of the BI vision cannot be taken seriously by anyone who knows Frank Cox.  I’d bet an additional year’s of StarBucks were one to ask Frank Cox what the “official” “Baptist Identity” was, he’d say, “I don’t know.  You tell me.” 

I was speaking recently to a former president of the SBC who himself has been identified by Timmy and his gang as “BI.”  You want to know what he asked me?  “What is ‘BI’ anyway?” 

Neither Cox nor the former president is either ignorant or uninformed men.  Rather their not knowing “BI” is indicative of their un-involvement with “digital paper trails.”  In other words, they’re not glued to the computer screen nor do they count what they read on the internet as authoritatively reflective of the SBC at large.  They're usually out doing ministry among God's people, not collecting digital paper trails for a microscopically small Internet audience.

What Brister has produced is little more than a highly subjective reconstruction of "history" based upon a carefully screened collection of digital publications, the chief criteria of which, was apparently the title of the publication.  In other words, the post’s contents were irrelevant. What mattered was, does the title of the post fit the theory?

Further indicative of his flawed method is Brister's peeping under every pebble for a “BI” demon to tie into the GCR sabotage.  He even found one with fellow Calvinist, Tony Kummer, who but confessed a simple, honest but straightforward, undecided stance toward GCR (//link).  But to Brister, being undecided is being "counter-GCR." 

Also, Timmy flogged two seasoned, respected SBC leaders  who, regardless of their reservations about some portions of the GCR, showed support by signing “with caveats.” Timmy rewards their honesty and support by also dubbing them “counter-GCR.”

Let me get this straight:  the GCR is supposed to be a document which glories in our unity despite our differences but when someone says, “I don’t agree 100%,” the response is a public flogging?  Yes sir,  indeedy.  Well, that’s just peachy, I’d say.

In the end, Timmy’s rabbit-hole reconstruction raises at least one red flag in my mind concerning the GCR. He goes to great lengths to tie his mentor and Founders Ministries Director, Tom Ascol, into the GCR vision, beginning with Ascol’s paper at the Building Bridges Conference.  A question must be raised, then, concerning the language of the GCR which laments the SBC “losing” the gospel (//link). 

Why raise a question?  Tom Ascol’s vision of the gospel, as we saw above, the gospel concerning which he has, since 1982, lamented being lost among Southern Baptists, is defined by the Doctrines of Grace.  In short, when Tom Ascol laments a lost gospel,  he’s lamenting the wane of 5 Point Calvinism among Southern Baptists. If this is the loss the GCR is lamenting, it needs to say so. 

In fact, it needs to say so regardless.

Additionally, if Founders Ministries has abandoned its vision to mold the SBC into a confessional, Dortian Calvinist denomination, it too needs to say so.  If Tom Ascol has not abandoned his vision to mold the SBC into a confessional, Dortian Calvinist denomination, Southern Baptists do well in raising the question concerning precisely how much influence Founders Ministries has in the GCR document. 

And, it needs to be pointed out repeatedly--contra what Timmy Brister supposes--given his premises, there are not two but at least three "competing visions" for Southern Baptists:  GCR, BI, and CI, led by Tom Ascol and, by association, Timmy Brister.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[volfan007]

Peter,

You are spot on with this post. Timmy's post would be tragic if it were not so laughable.

David

[peter]

David,

Thanks. I wondered precisely how long Founders could be silent before dropping the bomb.

If GCR and CI are partnering together in this "movement" Southern Baptists need to know this...

If the gospel to be "recovered" looks like Founders' obsession with Calvinism being the faith once for all delivered to the saints, Southern Baptists need to know this...

If Founders is carrying on their "quiet revolution" under stealth by aligning with the GCR, Southern Baptists need to know this...

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Peter,

True. Very true.

And, I find it quite remarkable that the Founders crowd would be "teaming up" with the very ones that they do not seem to agree with, nor seem to like. Before and after the J3:16 conference, to read the Founders types, you'd have thought that Johnny Hunt was the Devil's own helper... according to them. And, boy, did they jump on Ronnie Floyd's little, red, fire engine baptistry. And, I seem to remember them not being real happy with Dr. Akin calling them "aggressive Calvinists."

But now, they seem to be laying aside their agenda of bringing the SBC back to it's "historic roots" and getting the SBC back to the "DOG" and the true Gospel, in order to join with some non-Calvinists and semi-Arminians for a GRC. What's going on here, my friend? Peter, can you shed some light on us? I tried to get Timmy to tell me, but he declined.

David

[peter]

David,

I'm as stumped as you are. I have a hunch or two but I better keep the hunches off the public thread until I dig a bit more.

Nor does it surprise that our Timmy goes silent about such.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Yea, I've noticed that he hasnt spoken very much since this issue was brought out, nor has he come over here to discuss what you've said, even after I invited him to come on over. But, maybe he has things to do and will be in here soon.

David

[Martin Pitcher]

Peter,
Thanks for the input. There is nothing like getting named and not really know the full agenda behind it all. I personally support the GCR, and you can find my name on the Founder's roster as well, although I am not a five-point Calvinist.
As a denomination that has such high-talk of missions, we have failed miserably. Especially within the confines of our own borders. If we were truly doing the work of the church, then why are others sending missionaries here?
I have no personal ax to grind with GCR, BI, or CI as long as we get off our high-horse and start doing the work of God instead of talking about sending someone else to do our part. Get up! Get going! and spread the Gospel starting at our own front doors.
While we bicker about the who and what; people enter hell and we are the reason why.
So here's to possibly meeting you in Louisville next week.
As always your servant,
Martin Pitcher

[Brooklyn]

Peter, every time I read about the consipiring BI guys I laugh my head off. It is so funny. It's like anyone who thinks anything similar to a BI guy (whoever they are), they are automatically suspect for each and every word they write as if it is promoting some undercover agenda to take over something or the other. How sad that some sit around all day reading posts with a suspicious eye and mind filled with evil wool-gathering. It really would be funny if it werent' so sad. selahV

[peter]

Martin,

Thanks. It really is interesting getting pegged in a way one does not peg one's self. Also, I'd love to see you in Louisville!

SelahV

So, you mean you have not yet learned you are the Queen of BI?

With that, I am...
Peter

[Brooklyn]

Peter! Queen? Oh my word...now that is hilarious. I need to tell my husband. He's gonna crack up. That is so funny I may not stop laughing till the newspaper is delivered tomorrow morning. Ha ha ha. Stop being so silly! oh my..that is so funny. selahV

[selahV]

Ha...I just realized my granddaughter's name was signed in as my name on your blog the last two times I commented. She used my email address to comment when folks commented on her little posts she wrote on Kid's Matters. Sorry for the confusion of Brooklyn with selahV. She's quite the writer herself--even if she is only 11 years old. Folks oughta go read her. She's a sweetie.

[Debbie Kaufman]

First Peter I would like to know exactly what a "Dortian Calvinist" is. It must have been a hard search to come up with this name. For the record, Calvnist is a Calvinist. Second, I think thou dost protest too much, because I read the same article by Timmy and found his history quite accurate. But then again denial is what you all do best. None of You are saying nothing different than you have for three years. It's just now the target has changed. If anyone is laughing it is me.

[Dave Miller]

Peter, I found Timmy's post to be a succinct and helpful retrospective. Certainly, he does not have the most positive view of BI, but he lays out the facts in an ordered way.

Why see the Founder's involvement in the GCR as something nefarious? The fact that they are supporting the GCR being promoted by Johnny Hunt seems to be a genuine move of God, not something deep, dark and scary.

[peter]

Debbie

First, if you are unfamiliar with "Dortian," I think you should do a bit of research on your own. Keep in mind that "Dortian" is not necessarily a label of reproach.

Second, you have every right to think I protest too much. Nor am I surprised you "found" Timmy to be accurate.

Third, if "none" of what I am saying is "different" from three years ago, what is your point?

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Dave,

Thanks.

What is so "helpful" to you about Timmy's post, Dave. Please give me something I can chew on.

In addition, since you believe Timmy "lays out the facts in an ordered way" give me some examples of the way you think he accomplishes this. I'd really like to know.

Finally, Dave, I asked what I thought to be a relevant question based upon Timmy's insistence of Founders' role in the GCR. Given a proper question, why would you characterize this as "deep, dark and scary"?

I gave the link to Founders' vision. Did you read the link? Did I misunderstand their vision? If so, how? If not, I again fail to understand why raising the question I did is creating a "deep, dark and scary" scenario.

With that, I am...
Peter

[jthomas]

Peter, Are you saying that the Founders have an agenda and are conspiring, but the BI guys don't?

Are you doing the very thing that you accuse Tim of doing?

[Byroniac]

Peter,

That's an interesting label, "Calvinist Identity." I think I'd actually want to lay claim to that. Christianity is a lot larger than that, I realize.

But what's wrong with Founders (and Calvinists in general, and let's say me specifically) wishing and trying to persuade all Christians (including Baptists) to become Calvinists? I see nothing wrong with it, other than I suspect most people will never be convinced to that position. As long as people on both sides (including Founders) realize that, I think it's acceptable.

It's like one time I was commenting on SermonAudio and made the statement that Jesus and the Apostles were five-point Calvinists (not a wise move on my part, though I do personally believe it), and I was immediately rebuked for it by certain people who demanded I retract the statement. I refused, and experienced the joyous left foot of fellowship by people who completely missed the point that if I truly believe something is true and is part of my religion, then it is also logical for me to believe that the founders of my religion which includes that truth would also hold to it (not that I can prove that the doctrine is itself true). So to this day I'm sorry for being disfellowshipped by these people (I think, less so as time goes on), but I'm not sorry for refusing to retract the statement at all. And that's basically the idea I take away from the Founders.

[peter]

jthomas,

I haven't said anything to my recall about Founders having an agenda but not "BI." Stick to what I posted, Jeff, and we can have a civil dispute.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Byron,

From my view, there is nothing wrong whatsoever in having influence in our convention. Not at all. Nor is Founders excluded from having influence.

I raised a question pertaining to a) Founders' vision for a Five Point confessional denomination, b) Tom Ascol's lament in "losing the gospel"--which for him, translates to a waning of 5 point Calvinism--and c) the language of the GCR document, since Brister so capably wed Ascol to the formation of the document.

Now, whether or not this appears relevant to others, I do not know. It does strike me as highly relevant. Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Byroniac]

Well, having influence is one thing. Actively persuading any and all to your point of view is something else? I'm not sure I understand, because I completely agree with "a" and, with caveats, could approve of "b" as well (I thought Dr. Greg Welty's perspective on this was very interesting, but I am not sure I entirely agree with him on it, but I'd have to give it a lot more thought). But truthfully I haven't the foggiest idea about "c" because I've never kept up with Baptist politics (on the surface it sounds like a really good idea put in document form, but even if so, it does not affect me or anyone I know so I steer clear of commenting much on it).

Back to point "b" for a second. You and I have discussed this in detail, and I know we do not entirely agree. To me, it seems pretty simple: either salvation is of God or it is not, and I have a hard time seeing a mixture of the two ideas as seems so prevalent in SBC theology that I have interacted with. But I could be wrong, and we're free to disagree. I would lean towards Dr. Welty's view and say that the Gospel does not require Calvinism (thank God because I knew nothing about the critter when I was saved), but it should not preclude it either in any sense (I say that only now, as a believer in the system of Calvinism). However, I would have to say (in my personal opinion) that the Gospel knows nothing about making Christ Savior before making Him Lord (actually, I think the Gospel knows nothing about either one, because I believe both are unbiblical).

[Byroniac]

Actually, Peter, please ignore my previous comment. I'll have to study the issue some more, because I even though I don't entirely agree with you, or Dr. Welty, I think the two of you and others have had a lot of good things to say about this issue. I just wanted throw in my $0.02 on it and Founders.

[peter]

Well, the GCR makes much of "gospel-centeredness" as well as lamenting "losing" the Gospel. I raised a simple question: is Founders influential in the lament about "losing" the gospel? Whether they are may very well make a great difference in what we mean by "recovering" the gospel.

With that, I am...
Peter

[selahV]

"recovering"...ah, now I see what you mean...hey, if those BI guys are planning something behind the scenes, they sure have forgotten all about telling the "Queen". Is there a coup afoot? hah ha ha.

We can't "lose" the Gospel if we've found it....or is that if it finds us. I'm so confused. selahV

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: If you and selahv can't agree that we as a Convention have lost the gospel, and instead placed it on the American flag, George Bush, alchol, women shouldn't be in ministry, and a whole host of other doctrines that have caused us to lose our focus on Christ, then I have to keep opposing you. When you realize we(and that includes the BI group) have lost the focus that the Founders is calling for(and that is not for all to be a Calvinist) then I have to continue to disagree with you and hope that the GCR gains influence and not you or the BI(which I think you have).

I'm not being factitious just honest and too the point.

You can keep your views and even teach them. That isn't the problem. It's when you want all in the Convention, and all the future who come to Christ to believe them too in order to be a part of the Convention that I have a problem with.

[Debbie Kaufman]

By the way, I find the word Dortian to simply be a word thrown around to try and insult. Just say the word Calvinist, that's enough to set most people's teeth on edge. A Calvinist is basically a Calvinist. The five points of Grace that I believe are simply the five points of grace or TULIP. It's pretty simple.

[selahV]

Deb...where do you come up with such bizarre stuff about what I believe or don't believe and want the convention to believe? you are very very strange.

HEY Peter...did you know today was my birthday? :) happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me, happy birthday, God bless me, happy birthday to me. selahV

[cb scott]

Happy Birthday, SelahV.

Debbie,

"Dortian" is a reference to the Council of Dort its historic results in the history of our faith.

Peter's use of the word is not in any way an insult. By its use he is only being very specific as to the subject to which he speaks.

cb

[Byroniac]

Happy Birthday, SelahV!

I personally think the SBC has lost its focus on the gospel, otherwise we would not have so many unregenerate people in the churches who have been granted membership. The problem is, I read rebuttals from people like Volfan007 who say they are doing nothing to hinder or subtract from the Gospel, and I believe them, so I am not sure exactly what the problem is in the SBC. I know we cannot take credit for anyone's salvation, but I also realize that unregenerate church membership is a problem in dire need of being addressed (something I am hoping the GCR is doing). Not that I belong to the SBC in any meaningful sense, and not to be overly critical, Peter, but I honestly think the unregenerate church membership problem is worse than any problem the SBC may otherwise have with failing to abstain from alcohol and failing to discourage its use in any pleasurable form. Even if the alcohol abstinence view is right (which I do not believe it is of course), it seems to me like the proper focus on Christ should be restored and become primary, just like the Apostle writes when he said no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (something like that).

And I understand that the use of the word "Dortian" is an attempt to be more precise theologically rather than insult, so that is fine by me. Unfortunately, I have not studied exactly what that means and the Synod of Dort itself. I'm pretty sure though that for me it's one of those "if the shoe fits, wear it" type things.

[peter]

Debbie,

I am content with your opposition. Also, I suggest you take CB's advice pertaining to "Dortian."

Now, unless you have something specific about this post, I believe you've made your point well enough.

Have a good weekend.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bill]

I do get the sense that the term "Dortian" is being used to signify a form of Calvinism most to be feared by the SBC. I'm still not sure what distinction there is between Dortian Calvinism and plain old 5 point Calvinism, or just Calvinism.

Not an accusation, just an impression.

[Donald Hightower]

Peter,

You are on point with you post. That's why I love this place. You are doing a good work my brother.

But I have blow off a little steam, and preface it like this:

This might not be a popular opinion but this is mine.

I believe the so-called Founders were to weak and impotent to start their on movement so they saw an opportunity as some radio stations began to air some of these calvinist (Sproul, and MacArthur)and their popularity increased during the late 90's.

They researched found some old baptist that were like minded, and dubbed their movement founders hiving off the SBC. During the 80's or the early 90's for that matter, these guys wouldn't have received much of a hearing (my opinion)let alone a following.

I personally believe that this is a season that we are enduring and it may very well pass. A time will come in pastors lives that they see the futility in that system of theology.

If they are so adamant about being presbyterian baptist, I think they leave the SBC, take the handful of theologs that they love (dead or alive) and stop hiving off the SBC. Or if they insist on keeping the name SBC name go be a subdivision unto themselves, just stop trying to make us paedobaptist and covenant theologians!

Stop the madness of recruiting under the guise of reforming.

Now thats just me and my take on the so-called founders.

[Bill]

Donald: Can you provide any support for your assertion that the Founders members have abandoned credobaptism? That is indeed a serious charge.

[Byroniac]

Donald Hightower, I second Bill's question to you. Either you do not know what you are talking about, or you need to provide evidence of what you assert. But you're right about one thing: that's definitely your personal take on the so-called Founders. I believe the truth when investigated protests differently.

[peter]

Bill,

Dort birthed a scholastic Calvinism, rigid and uncompromising in its insistence on the "tulip," if you will. For Dort, there is no such animal as less than 5P Calvinism. Thus, the description "plain Calvinism" offers too little specificity. There are many "Calvinisms."

Know when I employ the term "Dortian" it is neither to "sound" a certain way or as Debbie seems to think, "flinging" the term around. Nor is it meant in derogatory fashion. Why you pull "fear" into the use of the term, I haven't a clue.

If you have something more substantial to contribute, please let me know.

With that, I am...
Peter

[cb scott]

"Dort birthed a scholastic Calvinism...."

I am not trying to be mean or hateful in any way, but the above statement gives simple evidence that the guy who phrased the statement above has spent some time in more than one book dedicated to theology.

It should be obvious to others who have also spent late hours reading theology rather than watching Saturday Night Live or I Love Lucy reruns that Peter was making an exacting effort to be specific in what he was saying rather than making an effort to belittle anyone personally or their theological persuasion.

cb

[Debbie Kaufman]

selah: I believe I am very very on target, unless you don't believe anything that you write or say in your comments. And for the record, I think you are strange too. :) Happy Birthday.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Byroniac,

It was in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort>Synod of Dort that Calvinism was argued from the 5 points. Calvinism was reduced to 5 specific areas by a theological following called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Remonstrance_of_1610>Remonstrants. It was in the Synod of Dort that those 5 points were taken up and explained. Thus the outcome of this synod was a producing of what we now know as 5-point Calvinism.

Peter's use of the term "Dortian Calvinism" is a direct understanding that a Calvinist that does not believe in 5 points is not a Calvinist according to the Synod of Dort.

Blessings,
Tim

[Bill]

Peter: I was merely informing you of the impression that you and some others gave when you use the term "Dortian" Calvinism. Perhaps I'm not alone in receiving that impression. Sometimes, when writing, the impression you give is not the one you intend and I, for one, appreciate feedback of that type when necessary. If that is not necessary then I certainly will not repeat it.

I do understand the activities of the Synod of Dort. I just wanted to clarify what you meant when you used the term. While not exactly unused, the term has increased in popularity, especially in Baptist circles in the very recent past and I suspect that not everyone means the same thing when they employ the term.

[Byroniac]

Tim Rogers, thanks. I'm definitely a Dortian Calvinist, then, because I wish that the word "Calvinism" only meant the five-point kind and no other, honestly. I don't know a lot about history, so I appreciate the information.

[peter]

Bill,

I responded to your statement: "the term "Dortian" is being used to signify a form of Calvinism most to be feared by the SBC. I'm still not sure what distinction there is..." You clearly implied a sort of "fear" usage of the term on my part. If not on my part, why post it here?

Then, you come back retorting "I was merely informing you...I just wanted to clarify what you meant when you used the term."

Bill, if you suspect I'm using a term wrongly, then state your reasons for it. If you want me to "clarify" how I'm using a term, then ask. But please do not imply I'm using a term to solicit "fear" and then when I clarify, deny your clear implication.

These type of fruitless exchanges on blogs are beginning to wear me thin, I have to say.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

It's conversations like this that hinder the gospel. Instead of this, which doesn't matter. Instead of throwing blame and fear concerning Founders, which is not only unsubstantiated but should have been proven wrong when Tom Ascol worked with both Bart and Malcolm on the unregenerate resolution, why not talk about cooperating to get the gospel out. I think it's because you have no intention of cooperating until certain things are met which I believe go beyond what scripture says.

[peter]

Debbie,

If conservations like these "hinder the gospel," please, for heaven's sake, stop participating in hindering the gospel!

I hope your weekend well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

That's probably one of the best statements and only statement you have given that I agree with Peter.

[cb scott]

Debbie,

There were about 30 of us who worked on the Regenerate Church Membership resolution.

No one worked on the "unregenerate resolution" that I know of other than the Devil. And he has been working on that resolution since the Fall. The "Fall" of man that is; Not the Fall of 2007.

Debbie, I hope a little humor relieves some of the stress our "Dort" dialogue has obviously caused you.

If you are in Louisville; You and your husband look me up and I will buy you a cup of coffee.

cb

[Byroniac]

I need to get something off my chest (not sure anyone cares but here goes). It's true that I don't consider myself really a part of the SBC any more, but I really cannot blame the SBC. It's more a localized phenomenon based on widespread theology in my immediate area, and I am not sure what future I have, if any, in the SBC, and it finally does not really matter to me. I do want to say, however, the SBC has some of the finest people I've ever known in it, bar none, and even those I've disagreed with have shown true gentlemanly conduct and integrity. So I wish everyone the best in Louisville (I won't be going, but I wish I could out of curiosity). God bless!

[Donald Hightower]

Byroniac and Bill,

I might have been over the top with the so-called founders/paedobaptist thing. Perhaps a bit of indignation on my part. So my apologies on that issue.

But I do know that calvinistic reformed theology is an all or nothing(5 points, covenant theology, paedobaptism) though the current movement is to tone some of it down.

I don't see the calvinist outside the pale of christian orthodoxy. I'm not an anti-calvinist.
I know some good brethren that are calvinist. There are some that are very extreme. And there are arminians, evangelicals, and fundamentalist that are extreme too.

But I certainly stand by everything else I stated about the so-called founders.

And I agree with Peter's post, point by point.

Peter rock on my brother. Can't wait to read your book. I love this blog.

[Byroniac]

Donald Hightower, though I would agree with you that Calvinism probably means 5 points, Calvinism does not require Paedobaptism or Covenant Theology in order to exist (just ask Reformed Baptists, if you can still find any as we seem to be pretty rare birds at least where I live, because they will beg to disagree with your assertion that Calvinistic reformed theology must include that). I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but if I understand you correctly, your assertion is not accurate.

You also mention that "there are arminians, evangelicals, and fundamentalist[s] that are extreme too." I just want to point out, it's possible to be a member of more than one of those groups at the same time (or even all three at once), whether you are "very extreme" or not (and frankly, I would have to get you to define "very extreme" for me, as the definitions I've heard, including my own, tend to be more subjective than objective). I've met some Calvinist people who believe using any other translation than the "KJV" is extreme, on a good day, and I (perhaps subjectively) believe their view to be the one that is actually extreme. For myself, I'm sort of KJV Mostly (I use the KJV mostly at church because it's expected for me to do so and mostly not otherwise, so I'm not even the good version of KJV-Mostly, of actually using the KJV mostly). Am I extreme? Some might think so.

Anyways, I just find it interesting that you seem to think that Calvinistic reformed theology holds to paedobaptism and Covenant Theology, because Tom Ascol (the author of the Founder's blog) is certainly not Presbyterian or paedobaptist in his ecclesiology while remaining a rather committed and dedicated five-point Calvinist. It's true that there are Calvinists who are both paedobaptist and hold to Covenant Theology, and they might even be in the majority when viewing all of Christianity nowadays (I honestly do not know), but they are not the only Calvinists. And some Calvinist credobaptists such as Dr. Greg Welty (whom I really like) have quite a bit to say in opposition to paedobaptism on Scriptural grounds.

Peter, I'm sorry for posting a link here, but I do it to prove a point:

http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

[K (aka Common Sense Christian)]

Looking in from London, England, it bothers me that this is being painted as "them wascawee Calvinists" mounting a trojan horse attack. Maybe - just maybe - they realise that there is a bigger concern at stake than 5 points: evangelisation.