« Denny Burk on Objectivity: A Subjectivist Substitute? by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Southern Baptists Handling the Truth by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.10.26

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Don

Peter,

Maybe I am just too dense, but I do not understand what you are trying to get at with these posts warning of a leadership with too many Calvinists.

You here in this OP compare Albert Mohler, Danny Akin, Russell Moore to the Moderates(errantists).

Other is positions of leadership have been working with them with no problems. Examples, Johnny Hunt, Frank Page, Bryant White, Ronnie Floyd etc. These guys are not Calvinists, yet they don't have a problem working with people who are.

Frank Page, not a Calvinist, just elected Executive Committee Chairman.

Kevin Ezell, pretty sure he would not consider himself a 5 point Calvinist, just elected to President of NAMB.

You yourself posit that Johnny Hunt could be the next President of IMB.

What is the danger? Johnny Hunt doesn't see it, Frank Page doesn't see it, Ronnie Floyd (Chairman of GCRTF) doesn't see it.

I invite you to look at the lineup for the FBC Jacksonville Pastor's Conference. A healthy mixture of pastors from across the spectrum of SBC life. Some Calvinist, some decidedly not.

What insight do you have that these almost universally respected leaders do not?

Have they been co-opted, are they closet Calvinists in sheeps clothing, are they ignorant or foolish, or some other reason that implies they are blind to the danger?

All of these leaders agree with Mohler, et. al We need to focus on impacting the world with the Gospel. 4+ billion people are outside of Christ.
And, these leaders we have now are hyper focused finding and implementing on the most effective, focused, and financially responsible means of spreading the Gospel.

We must be about the Great Commission, frankly, if we cannot rally around the GC, what are we to rally around?

I really don't understand this seeming obsession (I really don't know if it is an obsession, I am sure you have many things more important in your life than blogging about the Calvinistic takeover), I use the word seeming, because you at least give the appearance of obsession.

I have only been reading your blog for about 6-7 months, but you yourself have remarked elsewhere, that you have been concerned about this infiltration since 2006.

I don't have the time to go back and read everything you have written since 2006.

What am I missing?

peter lumpkins

Don,

Of course, I do not expect you to dig back thru 600 posts. If you were that interested in the issue, I suspect you'd dig not necessarily here but elsewhere. A for the "obsession" I suppose some will view my handling of this issue that way. I think they have every right to do so....

Thanks for the contribution.
With that, I am...
Peter

Don

Peter,

Could you in a short response summarize what the danger is?

What have Johnny Hunt, Frank Page, Bryant Wright, the leadership at FBC Jacksonville missed about this infiltration?

Matt Svoboda

Don,

Notice that Peter didnt deal with any of the substance in your post. There is nothing dangerous as Peter thinks... As you pointed out, many noncalvinists are working with the calvinists openly and easily. Dr. Ezell is not a calvinist along with the many other that you listed. Peter doesnt live in reality.

Peter,

Southern is exclusively Calvinist? Dr. Bruce Carlton and Randy Smith are openly non-calvinists. They would at most say they are "3-point Calvinists," but sitting in class with them they openly say they are not Calvinists. So, you are wrong, Southern is not exclusively Calvinist. You should remove that from your post.

Dr. James Galyon

The original charter of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, adopted in 1858, contains the following statement which continues as a part of the “fundamental laws” of the seminary:

"Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular Baptist church; and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees..."

It seems Dr. Mohler is simply being faithful to the charter, and therefore to the SBC (unlike the Moderates/Liberals of the last century who taught at SBTS).

Steve Lemke

I don't think Frank Page has missed it. Read his book Problems with the TULIP.

peter lumpkins

Matt,

Why of course.

Dr. Galyon,

As I mentioned to another commenter, to suppose Dr. Mohler is just being "faithful to the charter" remains completely unconvincing. Do you think if the "charter" were explicitly non-Calvinist, Dr. Mohler would appeal to it as the basis for reforming SBTS? Or do you think "reforming" SBTS would have been illegitimate? or even improbable?

Even more, if Dr. Mohler is being "faithful" to the AP, what does that imply about Dr. Akin at SEBTS, since SEBTS also has the AP? Besides, now--contra Jared Moore--we have Matt saying there are non-Calvinists at SBTS. So does that make Mohler "unfaithful" to the charter, if Matt is correct? In addition, if Matt is correct, then we have an unnecessary reformation at SBTS led by Al Mohler, a reformation apparently imposed upon it by "Reformed" Baptists.

How confusing we can be at times...

With that, I am...
Peter

Tim Rogers

Dr. Gaylon,

Do you think the SBC would affirm the Abstract of Principles as a guide for our doctrinal parameters? Also, in what areas do the Abstract and the BF&M2k disagree?

Brother Matt,

You probably need to revisit Brother Jared Moore's reasons why Calvinism is not a threat to the SBC. He specifically states that an arminian would be uncomfortable at SBTS. Also, Dr. Akin stated at the Building Bridges conference he was a 4-point Calvinist. He went on to state that if you pushed Dr. Patterson that he would affirm 4 of the points in the TULIP. Problem is, Dr. Patterson would never call himself a Calvinist, while Dr. Akin has no problem referencing himself as one. Which brings up a question for me I would like for you to answer. Just because one affirms some of the positions articulated as part of the TULIP, does that make him/her a Calvinist? IOW, what makes one a Calvinist?

Blessings,
Tim

Don

Steve,

Thanks for giving credence to my question.

Bro. Page is not a Calvinist. Kevin Ezell is not a Calvinist. If as Peter has supposed, Johnny Hunt may go to the IMB, that would make the big 3, XCOM, NAMB, and IMB headed by non-calvinists.

All three of these men have cordial, even collegial relationships with Dr. Mohler, Dr. Akin, and the other members of the "vast calvinist-wing conspiracy."

I ask again. What insight does Peter have that these acknowledged leaders do not?

peter

Don,

First, I'm not sure I implied I had any insight anyone else does not--and certainly cannot--possess.

Nor have I mentioned a "vast calvinist-wing conspiracy" as you call it though I have shown that stealth remains incipient in Founders' guide on "reforming" the SBC one-church-at-a-time.

Nor does it follow that because one does not hold to limited atonement, one is not a Calvinist. If I am correct, what you mention about many of the leaders also does not follow. Moreover, even Johnny Hunt is purported to be a Calvinist now--at least by Founders' advocate, Timmy Brister.**

Moreover, I have nowhere implied the impossibility of Calvinism and non-Calvinism partnering together. In fact, the SBC proved just the opposite from 1925 until 1982. During that period, Calvinism was not an issue. Calvinists made Calvinism an issue with the creation of a special interest group dedicated to "reforming" the SBC one-church-at-a-time. While such a scenario does not preclude the possibility of still partnering together, it surely raises the stakes and makes it highly improbable non-Calvinists will partner well with aggressive Calvinists.

Finally, Don, I possess no hope in convincing you there is something amiss about the current situation with Calvinism saturating the SBC. I've had friends say virtually the same as do you on the blog, coming just a pint short of calling me an number #1 nut. Those same friends now sing a new song.

So, my brother, believe as you wish about the "vast calvinist-wing conspiracy." I shall continue to write...I am resolved to write what I believe to be the case...

With that, I am...
Peter

**it should be noted, Brister did not say Hunt was a Calvinist but indicated Hunt was "close" to Danny Akin, an "Amyraldian." And, while Founders seems to suggest one may be Calvinistic if one believes less than limited atonement, nevertheless one is not a genuine Calvinist unless one embraces limited atonement, most scholars do not make the full "TULIP" a theological litmus test for Calvinism. Hence, if "Amyraldianism" is Calvinism, then, according to Brister, Hunt qualifies, or at minimum, is "close" to qualifying...

Dr. James Galyon

Tim,

First, the charter/fundamental laws of SBTS makes the Abstract of Principles the binding doctrinal confession of the institution.

Second, I do not believe the messengers to the SBC would adopt the Abstract as a doctrinal parameter because the (2000) BF&M is the current doctrinal parameter, and because many would likely fear the "inherent Calvinism" (despite the similarities between the two). I don't believe there is disagreement between the two confessions.

Peter,
If SBTS' charter were explicitly non-Calvinistic in nature, then one might bemoan the Calvinstic influence found there. As it stands, however, that is not the case. As for the non-Calvinist profs Matt mentions, I would ask whether or not they teach in accordance with the Abstract. If they do (which I trust is the case), then there is no issue.

Tim Rogers

Dr. Gaylon,

So, the Profs at SBTS teach that Baptism by immersion is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper?

Blessings,
Tim

The comments to this entry are closed.