When Calvinists and their Calvinism becomes destructive to local churches by Peter Lumpkins

I'm often intrigued when the question is raised concerning the destructive results untold churches have experienced when Calvinism is both introduced and imposed upon a local congregation--a congregation whose theological heritage is not Calvinism or Reformed  >>>

Inevitably, skeptics will log on and challenge the assertion suggesting that non-Calvinists destroy just as many churches as do Calvinists. Of course, in one sense that may be true. Controversial beliefs are no respecter of persons. We may all have controversial beliefs; that is, beliefs which may be entirely incompatible with a particular local congregation. For example, some churches do not practice nor will they ever accept a divorcee as either a pastor or deacon. Period. It doesn't matter that there exists sober, biblically-nuanced, and scholarly evidence that divorce does not necessarily rule out a person from being pastor or deacon.¹ Nor does it matter that high-profile names exist who do not think divorce necessarily prohibits a man from serving.²  Whatever the case. some churches are not going to budge in this area.

Now, if a pastor is being considered at a church which has a divorce policy differing with his, both decency and integrity demand that this issue is resolved prior to his taking the position at the church. In short, he has no business taking the church and keeping to himself a contrary position on a significant polity issue only to reveal it to the church later or worse still, to begin to teach and "correct" their "faulty" belief. If he could not live with their stated, forged difference, he had no business taking the church to begin with.

I think similar circumstances exist when many non-Calvinists point out the all too frequent destructive nature of aggressive Calvinists and their Calvinism. The truth is, Calvinists have no business taking a church with a decidedly non-Calvinist background without also revealing to the church their deep Calvinist convictions. In other words, just like above, both decency and integrity demand that the Calvinist issue is resolved prior to his taking the position at the church. He has no business taking a non-Calvinist church and keeping to himself a contrary position on a significant theological issue only to reveal it to the church later or worse still, to begin to teach and "correct" their "faulty" belief. If he could not live with their stated, forged difference, he had no business taking the church to begin with. This is the real issue here--integrity.

In addition, one must ask a simple question to those who presume to challenge the assertion that aggressive Calvinists and their Calvinism destroys churches by suggesting that non-Calvinists destroy just as many churches as do Calvinists: would you please inform us of examples where non-Calvinists have taken churches whose definitive heritage has been Calvinistic and Reformed only to transform or at least attempt to transform the churches into theological non-Calvinism?

For my part, I think this fairly well pulls the teeth from their criticism since there seems to be a complete lack of evidence that such a scenario exists much less that non-Calvinists quietly getting called to Calvinist churches only to commence reforming them is now becoming a visible problem in the SBC.³

With that, I am...

Peter

 

¹Robert Saucy, The Husband of One Wife, BSac 131:523 (Jul 74)

²for example both John Bisango and Charles Stanley argue divorce does not necessarily rule out serving as pastor or deacon

³just this week, I've received three lengthy letters from SBCers who're now going through or have just recently experienced a hostile takeover (or attempt to takeover) of a non-Calvinist church by aggressive Calvinists who took the church by surprise about a year into the ministry. There is no end to this. Now, it appears even church planting is being silently but thoroughly swallowed up with planting Calvinist churches via NAMB while Lifeway publishes SS curriculum written exclusively by Calvinists. The window to deal with this continually slides down toward being sealed shut for good...        

Comments

[Mary]

The other point which ends the argument is that, yes nonCalvinist churches have split over all matter of issues, but please point me to the organization that's stated purpose is to take over existing churches. There are no premil dispensationalists plotting and planning and sending leaders covertly into churches to change the church's doctrine. There are no organizations of divorcees sending in leaders covertly. Think of anything that churches split over that's not Calvinism and you WILL NOT find a whole infrastructure set up to go into churches with the purpose of changing the church. The Calvnists cannot legitimately deny that Founder's very purpose from the beginning was to "Quietly Reform" the SBC. They're doing a pretty good job.

If we don't start cleaning house with the trustees and then taking back seminaries and NAMB and Lifeway, they may succeed in the reformation of the SBC. I fear it may be too late.

It's very sad. I'm a first generation SBC, but on my husband's side his family goes five generations to the first immigrant family. I'm afraid we're going to be the last. I don't see a place for the generation of my children for nonCalvinists. We may be welcome in a Calvinist church, but we are not qualified for any type of service and in some cases wouldn't qualify for membership since we would not sign the Covenant affirming the Statement of Faith. It's very sad.

[Les]

Peter,

I agree that prospective pastors should clearly make their doctrinal views known before accepting a pastorate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with how conservatives took back the SBC from the moderate/liberal drift in the late 1970s forward, one thing everyone knew: where those such as Adrien Rogers stood. The strategy was no secret.

So now. We agree on something.

Mary, i really do feel your pain, so to speak. But as a Reformed Christian and an ordained SB pastor and one with many young nieces and nephews in SBC churches, the reformation of the SBC cannot happen fast enough for me. I look forward to the day when the vast majority of SBC churches are decidedly Reformed consistent so many of the early SBC founders (note the little "f").

This last part of what you wrote, "We may be welcome in a Calvinist church, but we are not qualified for any type of service and in some cases wouldn't qualify for membership since we would not sign the Covenant affirming the Statement of Faith" is troubling as I see it. Not that you wrote it, but that what you wrote may be truly happening. That is, if you as a non=Reformed are not allowed ANY type of service in a SBC Reformed church simply because you're not Reformed is wrong in my opinion. Further, and worse, is ANY evangelical church, Reformed or not, that would disallow you membership simply because you cannot sign off on their statement of faith. I am currently a member of a PCA church. Reformed. NO ONE has to agree with the PCA doctrinal standards to be a member. One needs only what the bible requires: a credible profession of faith.

God bless,

Les

[Mary]

My friend Sparky! Hope you're feeling better.

I just stumbled onto a blog The Wartburg Watch??? It has lot's of posts about Mark Driscoll who of course was a Founder of Acts 29. Mark Driscoll has heavily influenced the YRR in the SBC and I think we've got some information that Acts 29 is increasingly becoming involved with NAMB and church planting in the SBC. At this blog Wartburg Watch, they are sharing experiences of former members of Mars Hill and they get into the issue of membership agreements and church covenants.

This is something that we have seen in the reformed churches in our area. Members will have their memberships revoked because they refuse to sign the covenant. This is of course after a YRR type has come in and changed everything in the church including the churches statement of faith. People are heartbroken that all of a sudden they no longer qualify for membership at churches to which they've dedicated their time and money for years.

Now Sparky, I don't have any problem with a "reformed" denomination per se. Calvinists are not heretics or evil. there is a lot of good work being done by Calvinists and Acts 29 has some very good people, I'm sure. The problem is the stealth which everything is being done. If the majority of the people knew and truly understood what was happening, than more power to 'em. That is not what's happening in the SBC - people are being decieved intentionally. It's just not right.

God doesn't need anyone to do anything for Him in a stealthy manner.

[Les]

Peter, another thought. And I don't think it changes that I agree that men should tell the churches their doctrinal positions.

But when I stood for ordination in the PCA as a teaching elder, I underwent very rigorous examination in a committee meeting for about four hours, submitted exegetical papers, theological papers and took a battery of written tests covering just about everything it seemed. Then, I was examined at presbytery for about an hour and peppered on a wide range of doctrinal, historical, etc. with questions. They then voted approve me for ordination. Not looking accolades or sympathy.

My point is this: It is up to the examiners to cover all the bases. If I say I am in agreement with the WCF they are supposed to uncover any discrepancies. I didn't have to offer any "up fronts," unless I differed with the doctrinal standards.

So, would it similarly be up to the calling church to uncover what they seek to uncover? If a man says he agrees with the BF&M, is that not enough? Just asking for a better understanding. Why is the onus on the man and not the calling church?

Thanks, Les

[Ron Phillips, Sr.]

Peter,

If an aggressive type Calvinist believes he is being called of God to reform a church and "recover the Gospel", would he necessarily believe that he is morally obligated to be truthful and forthright with the church regarding his views?

Blessings,

Ron P.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

First, installing ministers in PCA and typical Baptist churches are so fundamentally different, there remains little similarities outside the basic interview. Second, if you didn't offer offer any "up fronts" what was the content of all those exegetical and theological papers you provided? Did you disagree that much with their doctrinal standards? Just asking.

Third, no it is not simply up to the calling church to uncover what they seek to uncover. If the pastor is a teaching elder--and is desiring to called as their teaching elder--he should be much more aware of theological-philosophical-political incompatibilities than any single person on the committee. He has their history, their, covenant, their entire heritage before he meets with them (at least any serious meeting). And, he will most definitely know whether there will be a Reformed presence in the history. Hence, to argue it's enough if the committee doesn't ask is, for my part, irresponsible.

Fourth, no the BF&M is not enough--not anymore. Any church calling a pastor today is downright foolish to accept a pastor on the simple claim that he agrees in substance with the BF&M. Questions like, "In your view, does regeneration precede faith, in the order of salvation?" are necessary. A list of others could be added to make sure the candidate is not blowing smoke in a committee's face. It's commonly known that many SBC Calvinists do everything in their power to avoid the term "Calvinist" by suggesting

"I don't get into labels. I'd like to think I'm an historic Baptist and agree substantially with conservative Baptist theology going all the way back to 1845 at the formation of the SBC"

Yes, that's true so far as it goes. But the candidate who speaks this way knows darn good and well that isn't what the question is, and therefore it's disingenuous to respond like that hoping the committee will just drop it. Games like this are becoming more and more prominent...

Finally, Les, you've mentioned more than once now since you've been commenting on this site that you are both SBC and PCA which, in my view is precisely one of the problems we have in the SBC presently. Too many guys are relying on polities outside the Baptist heritage. These two ecclesial traditions are undeniably incompatible with one another.

And, to be quite honest, not only would you not qualify for a pastoral role in any church with which I would have any say so, you wouldn't even qualify to be a member. You're a paedobaptist for crying out loud! Sorry, Les, but the "early SBC founders" of the SBC you so praised to Mary would have kicked you out on your ears.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jesse Lott]

Peter,

Seeing what is taking place in the Southern Baptist Conventions is opening painful wounds from my past. I know the pain of following a militant, aggressive Calvinist whose mission was to reform a non-Calvinist church into an aggressive Calvinist church. He deeply and seriously wounded the church. He not only split the church, he literally split families in the church. It was the most difficult and discouraging three years of my life as a pastor. I am neither an Arminian nor a Calvinist. I'm a Baptist. Scripture alone defines what I believe and preach. I preach the same Gospel Peter and Paul preached. It took eighteen months before I saw one soul come to Christ. I shall never forget what the young man told me. He told me it took him eighteen months to really believe that God loved him because for over two years he had been told that God hated him.

I pray I am wrong. But I fear we are headed for a difficult season in Southern Baptist life. There is a leadership vacuum in the Southern Baptist Convention. There is no leader like Adrian Roger who is willing to stand in the gap. The Young and the Reformed are stepping into places of leadership in the convention and their mission is to reform the theology of the churches in the convention.

I love my Young and Reformed pastor friends. But I disagree with their mission. Personally, I think they're missing it. What our churches need is not a reformed theology. What our churches need is revival. We don't need pastors in the pulpits of our churches crying out, "Return to Calvinism." We need pastors in the pulpits of our churches crying out, "Repent and return to Christ. Return to your First Love."

Returning to Calvinism will not bring what we desperately need in our churches. The only thing that will bring what we need in our churches is revival. What we need most, what we need that will be the answer to all of our differences, is a fresh blowing of the Wind of the Spirit. And only when our churches repent and return to Jesus will their be a fresh blowing of the Wind of the Spirit.

I invite my Young And Reformed pastor friends to join me in crying out to God to do a new thing among Southern Baptists. Brethren, if we don't experience a fresh blowing of the Wind of the Spirit, God may just write Ichabod over all of our churches, reformed and non-reformed, and He just may move on to other churches that are crying out to Him. God is sovereign. He can bless whomever He chooses. God is not obligated to bless Southern Baptists if we do not repent and return to Him.

Praying for God to do a new work in me, my church and the Southern Baptist Convention,

Jesse

[Mary]

Les, I'm not Peter, but let me give you an answer. There have been two problems. It used to be enough for a church to know that if a Pastor affirmed the BFM that, that was probably good enough. Churches were pretty homogenous and the committees were on the look out for "liberals" or concerned with whether a pastor would throw out the hymnals. Calvinists have always been in the SBC, but it never mattered because it didn't become this complete system whereby everything is judged until the Founder's Movement. A church here and there may have been more concerned with divorcee type questions - things that are mentioned as "nonCalvinist" church splitting problems, but doctrine was thought to be ivory tower stuff. If he went to a Baptist Seminary that was good.

Now unfortunately, the people in the pew are just not as doctrinally literate as they need to be. So that's definately a problem

The Founder's knew that the people weren't prepared to "test" pastoral candidates in anything close to a way that you describe. So they've taken advantage of a weakness that they knew about, and claimed it was ok in some cases to intentionally mislead search committees with vague answers and willfully withholding information that they knew might affect the churches decisions.

This isn't something I'm making up. Read "A Queit Reformation" by Resinger(sp) over at the Founder's website. Go back in the blog archives and read some of the comment streams where some of commentors will boldly proclaim that when they were asked by a search committe if they were a Calvinist, they responded No because they knew the person asking the question didn't understand Calvinism.

Read the stuff Peter's been writing here for years and you see the same stories by people from all over.

so I think the onus is on the man because he knows that this church is not in line with him doctrinally, he knows that he plans to go into this church and change everything -he finds Calvinists in the church if there are any or imports families if none are existing in the church. Every leadership position in the church will be taken over by Calvinists. He knows his plans, there used to be floating around the web a five year plan to reform a church by Mark Dever at 9 Marks.

These people go into these churches knowing what they want to do, what their vision, what their plan and they only disclose in some lofy, flighty generic way - "My plan if you call me is to make sure this church is biblically sound and that everyone in leadership is biblically sound - what I mean by that is that believe the bible is the Word of God, they believe the true Gospel and they believe in the Sovereignty of God" Who doesn't believe that? Sounds good. But now we know it's too generic. The candidate knew exactly what he meant, but he intetionally withholds the information knowing that if he were to really tell the church his plans, he wouldn't get hired.

And churches have been greatly damaged and split and the Calvinists claim it's all for our own good. Add to the fact that Founder's worked to get Calvinists as trustees of all the institutions and took over the seminaries and are teaching only Calvinism as the truth and caricutures of what nonCalvinism and here we are.

It may work and the SBC may become the Reformed Baptists of America, but I don't see how God prospers it when the whole thing has been built on a foundation of deception. God doesn't need anybody to hide his theology to win people and grow churches. God doesn't deceive people.

[Bob Hadley]

Ron,

Let me toss my answer to your question... "If an aggressive type Calvinist believes he is being called of God to reform a church and "recover the Gospel", would he necessarily believe that he is morally obligated to be truthful and forthright with the church regarding his views?"

Absolutely without any question. Peter's post really answers that question. It is not a question of the prospective pastor's "believing he is called"; that is fine. Inform the church BEFORE he accepts the call.

If God is in it, He will do what He does best.. accomplish His purpose in the calling. It just might be slightly possible, the prospective pastor MIGHT be hearing God through a lot of static and be misunderstanding God's plans.

><>"

[William Thornton]

You are on target here. While I know many calvinist pastors who aren't of the agressive strain, I've seen not a few churches severely harmed by agressive Calvinists.

What's wrong with saying, "This is who I am. This is what I believe. This is what I will attempt to do if I am your pastor."? The church can take him or leave him.

[Jody Thomas]

Another big problem is that, in my experience, the average person in most every SBC church I've been a part of couldn't tell you the basic difference between Reform/Calvinistic theology or the opposite. Years ago, one pastor seemed very enthusiastic in telling me how he cut a conversation short with a young man interested in a youth ministry position at his church by simply telling him that any Calvinist was not welcome to serve in a staff position at his church. "I told him we didn't have anything to talk about, because Calvinism doesn't go over in these parts." While I'm not sure how geography has anything to do with whether or not a particular theological position is true, he certainly had a right to take the stand he did and in accordance with what he thought best for his church. My first thought, however, was that unless he was intentionally teaching his flock these things, I'd say there's a fair chance he overestimated how savvy his congregation was theologically. To put it another way, they probably didn't know what should or should not "go over in these parts" or why. Basic theological understanding is a huge issue for a lot of churches.

[Adam Davis]

All the posts seem to revolve around pastoral candidates that are Calvinists going to a non-Calvinist church. Let me pose this question. What is a pastor to do if he "becomes" a Calvinist while serving at his church? Is he to resign? If the answer is yes, the why?

[Les]

Peter,

You said,

First, installing ministers in PCA and typical Baptist churches are so fundamentally different, there remains little similarities outside the basic interview.

You got that right. Way different. Then you ask,

Second, if you didn't offer offer any "up fronts" what was the content of all those exegetical and theological papers you provided? Did you disagree that much with their doctrinal standards? Just asking.

What I mean by "up fronts" is other than noting any differences with the confessional standards, we are not required to say, "Hey, remember I believe in predestination," or something like that. We had already stated in paperwork our agreement with the standards. As to the papers, we were jus assigned passages to exegete or doctrines to explain, etc.

Your other remarks help me understand better the landscape these days.

Your last section, I would like to reply in all caps within your comments.

"Finally, Les, you've mentioned more than once now since you've been commenting on this site that you are both SBC and PCA which, in my view is precisely one of the problems we have in the SBC presently. Too many guys are relying on polities outside the Baptist heritage. These two ecclesial traditions are undeniably incompatible with one another. INCOMPATIBLE IN WHAT WAY(S)? I KNOW MANY PCA AND SBC CHURCHES COOPERATING IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. ARE SOME PECULIAR DOCTRINES TOO MUCH FOR SBC TO STOMACH? I'M REALLY CURIOUS WHAT YOU MAN HERE.

And, to be quite honest, not only would you not qualify for a pastoral role in any church with which I would have any say so [AND I UNDERSTAND THAT EACH CHURCH WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN OPINION ON THAT], you wouldn't even qualify to be a member [THIS I DO NOT UNDERSTAD. WHY WOULD I NOT QUALIFY TO BE A MEMBER?]. You're a paedobaptist for crying out loud! WHAT'S WRONG WITH HOLDING EITHER VIEW AS VALID? I CAST NO ASPERSIONS (PUN?) ON CREDO. IN FACT, I WILL BE PERFORMING SOME SOON. Sorry, Les, but the "early SBC founders" of the SBC you so praised to Mary would have kicked you out on your ears. THAT'S OK. I HAVE BEEN TOLD I HAVE LARGE EARS. WOULD HELP CUSHION THE FALL. I STILL HOLD THEM IN HIGH REGARD IN SPITE OF EVEN THEM BEING WRONG AT TIMES.

[peter lumpkins]

Adam,

So far as I am concerned, the pastor would not necessarily be obligated to resign. Even so, would he have an obligation to preach the Word as he now believes according to his post-conversion experience of embracing Calvinism? He most certainly would but not without first a) working through his theo-paradigm shift with church leadership b) working through his shift with his congregation. Under no circumstances should a pastor impose a seismic shift in a church's theological heritage via stealth.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

First, if you do not know the differences between presbyterianism and congregationalism, then I suspect you need a few systematic theologies to rummage through. It doesn't matter whether Calvinist or non-Calvinist, Reformed or not. All of them will list for you the fundamental differences between the respective church polities. But I don't think you need to do that Les. You wouldn't have been ordained into a PCA if you didn't know the fundamental differences between Baptist and Presbyterian polities. I think you are really just wanting to argue. That's all.

Second, Les, if you really are that oblivious to the seriousness of baptizing babies, and the historic fundamental belief Baptists have always had pertaining to what they called "regenerate church membership" then that in itself should bar you being a pastor in a Baptist church. And, if you had actually practiced paedobaptism (which you obviously have), without both coming to a proper New Testament understanding of baptism, including an actual confession that you were in serious error about sprinkling babies rather than immersing credibly professing believers and that you were no longer going to practice unbiblical baptisms, but would follow the NT understanding of baptism as believer's baptism by immersion only, you wouldn't or shouldn't be allowed to step foot in a baptist church--so far as membership is concerned.

Third, it's becoming fairy clear, Les, that you are not here on this site to exchange. You are here to argue as a combatant. Even the CAPS above give the impression of such. So let me be clear: keep the conversation a conversation. We need no yelling matches on these threads. It goes against the grain of all blog etiquette to place large blocks of words in CAPS. Please don't do this again.

With that, I am...
Peter

[William Thornton]

Adam Davis asked, "What is a pastor to do if he "becomes" a Calvinist while serving at his church? Is he to resign? If the answer is yes, the why?"

In the case I am familiar with, precisely the one you query above, the pastor stayed, began to "correct heresy" in the church and split it right down the middle. Many left and he eventually resigned leaving the church in a shambles. The last communication I had with the pastor included his demand that the church repent.

In his case, he should have resigned at the start because it was a matter of integrity for him to attempt to act on his newfound beliefs and practices. It should also have been a matter of integrity to disclose to his church what he now believed and what he intended to do as a result.

[Les]

My goodness, Peter, My reply above was so very far from arguing. My first quote of you was an acknowledgement that you were right. The second was to answer a question you had asked. You had even said, "just asking?" I even then acknowledged that your other remarks had helped me understand better the the :landscape these days."

So I sincerely apologize that you took me as being argumentative. I really don't know how that happened.

As to the all caps, I was simply trying to easily distinguish my remarks from your words, as I even indicated before I typed them. Again, I apologize. I in no way was using all caps to "yell"

On paedobaptism, I'm not trying to argue the merits of that, or argue at all. My very sincere question is about membership.

Is it really your view that if someone approves of paedobaptism as acceptable, and in my case has baptized infants, that is a disqualification for membership in a SBC church? Is this a fairly common position on membership? I really am not seeking to be argumentative. Just very curious about that.

Thanks,

Les

[lmalone]

"Second, Les, if you really are that oblivious to the seriousness of baptizing babies, and the historic fundamental belief Baptists have always had pertaining to what they called "regenerate church membership" then that in itself should bar you being a pastor in a Baptist church."

I am simply amazed that anyone would be comfortable in a Baptist church who thinks infant baptism is biblical. But I must tell you the joke in my neck of the woods is that SBTS is the real Presbyterian seminary in town even though there is one across the street from SBTS.

[lmalone]

Mary, You might be interested to know the Wartburg Watch ladies are in the process of writing a book with Wade Burleson.

But they have done a great job of detailing the shenanigans of CJ Mahaney, Mark Driscoll and many others. While they are not against Calvinism per se, they have a term for what we are seeing today: Calvinistas.

[Mary]

lmalone, I spent an extended amount of time over there last night. I had to laugh out loud when I saw a comment where they stated Debbie Kaufman had a "heart" for victims. If anybody fits their defintion of Calvinista than Debbie fits that definition. She's called me a liar and implied I was "unChristlike" and worse through the years for saying the same things and for telling the same stories about Calvinists here at Peter's blog that they print on their blog. Debbie, has "victimized" more than a few people over the years who had the audacity to tell the truth about Calvinist or just disagree with her superior intelligence and wisdom.

So yeah they had some good stuff about Driscoll, Mahaney et al, but there sycophancy of Burleson and Kaufman I think shows that they don't actually have a good handle on the SBC.

Burleson has shown by his silence that he's perfectly fine with the Calvinist's agenda to take over the SBC. Didn't he mock people at the convention for putting forth an antiActs 29 resolution?

I've stated recently that if Paige Patterson were propping up Mahaney and Driscoll the way Mohler, Dever, and Akin do, than he'd have a rant a day about it.

He's still whining about the IMB policy that goes beyond the BFM, what about the seminaris going beyond the BFM to insure only Calvinist qualify for employment - he raged about Patterson alledgely going to fire the Calvinists at Southwestern - why is it ok that nonCalvinists are not accepatable at Southern and increasingly Southeastern.

Does Burleson really think it's a good idea to plant Acts 29 knockoffs in the SBC, now that we are learning about their cultic practices from Mars Hill?

Can you imagine if Paige Patterson had written an endorsement for Mark Driscoll's new book. Why the silence on Danny Akin?

You could go day, with the evidence that Burleson selectively chooses those whom he wishes to attack based on their soteirolgy.

Now I've gone off topic, but not completely since we're talking about Calvinist behaving badly.

[lmalone]

Mary, I agree with Burleson a lot on some issues. He has a post now I think is very good on authoritarianism being one of the biggest problems in the church. I am an equal opportunity critic as I see wolves and hirlings on both sides of the Calvin/Non Calvin divide that need to be analyzed not just for problems on secondary doctrines but behavior. I am just as wary of Patterson as I am of Driscoll. It just seems Patterson, Caner, et al, have faded to the background these days with all the doings of famous Calvinistas like Mahaney and Driscoll and their many supporters in the SBC. I have very serious concerns about Acts 29 and SBC support.

[Tim Rogers]

Brothers Adam Davis and William Thornton,

I wanted to follow-up with what William has replied. He has given you, Brother Davis, a congregational polity answer.

I would like to give you a real story of a pastor friend of mine. He was a pastor in NC and part of the SBC in a church affiliated with the local association, NCSBC, and SBC. He went to a conference at the Cove and heard some speaker there and ended up accepting the speakers theology that one could lose their salvation. He was apart of a church that held the BF&M2k as their doctrinal standards. After the conference the pastor came to the church deacons and expressed to them his change in his doctrinal position. The deacons told him that he could not stay on as pastor with his new doctrine. The pastor resigned and is now in a Free Will church.

While my heart breaks for his change in position, I hold him in the highest honor. He did what was needed in order to preserve the unity of the church. He was at this church for a number of years and he also served with the IMB. However, when he came to the point of his doctrinal shift he had the integrity to understand that the church, who adheres to a congregational polity believes in the priesthood of believers and as such define their doctrine, not the pastor.

Blessings,
Tim

[Les]

Imalone,

"I am simply amazed that anyone would be comfortable in a Baptist church who thinks infant baptism is biblical."

Well some of us out here in the midwest amaze regularly. I and SBC folks cooperate regularly. I know many Baptistic people who have joined PCA churches and vice versa. I know a very well known Baptist who has taught SS at a PCA church. And as I've already said, I amd scheduled to immerse several Haitians in April upon their POF. The mode and timing of the administration of the sacrament is not salvific. But we all know that anyway.

This insistence on "confessing" credobatism (and presumably renouncing paedobaptism) seems very sectarian, though some would argue that's a good thing. I would not.

The WCF does not mandate any mode of baptism nor the timing. But I suppose this is why we'll aways have Baptists and Presbyterians...until glory.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

You write, “My reply above was so very far from arguing. My first quote…was an acknowledgement…The second was to answer..” Then, I was obviously not referencing that portion, Les.

Second, there are perfectly acceptable ways of distinguishing quotes. You used the blockquote tags twice in the very comment in which you blew us out with the CAPS. You may also use the *asterisk* to emphasize a single word or phrase. CAPS are almost universally viewed in cyber-space as not cool. And if CAPS are ever used, the rule is, sparingly.

Third, Les, my point about being argumentative concerns asking questions about which the answer is obviously known but nonetheless asked anyway. My assumption was and remains—at least for the Presbyterians whom I have known and with whom I’ve conversed—that they understood the profound implications toward ecclesial boundaries baptism possesses for Baptists and Presbyterians. For you to ask a question like you did, being an ordained teaching elder like you are, smacks of either “playing dumb” and quizzing me to see if I happen to know, or just wanting to argue.

Now, Les, you may not see it that way or understand it so, but I assure you it comes across that way. The truth is, I did not believe you to be so unstudied as to not actually see the profound questions raised when you suggested you were a Baptist, then you became a Presbyterian, but wanted to hold on to your Baptist “credentials” in case you decided to move back into a Baptist church.

Finally, you query again,

“Is it really your view that if someone approves of paedobaptism as acceptable, and in my case has baptized infants, that is a disqualification for membership in a SBC church? Is this a fairly common position on membership?”

Yes it is precisely what I said earlier:

And, to be quite honest, not only would you not qualify for a pastoral role in any church with which I would have any say so, you wouldn't even qualify to be a member… . if you really are that oblivious to…the historic fundamental belief Baptists have always had pertaining to what they called "regenerate church membership"… And, if you had actually practiced paedobaptism (which you obviously have), without both coming to a proper New Testament understanding of baptism, including an actual confession that you were in serious error about sprinkling babies rather than immersing credibly professing believers and that you were no longer going to practice unbiblical baptisms, but would follow the NT understanding of baptism as believer's baptism by immersion only, you wouldn't or shouldn't be allowed to step foot in a Baptist church--so far as membership is concerned.

If you have no firm conviction on believer’s baptism by immersion only but believe either baptism may be administered by proxy or sprinkling may be substituted for baptism—even believer’s baptism—then you really have no business joining a Baptist church. Why do you think anabaptists and Baptists were persecuted and even put to death, Les? Do you think it was because they accepted believer’s baptism by immersion right along side covenantal baptism by sprinkling? Or, was it because they absolutely insisted the NT teaching was that baptism was to be administered to those who gave a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ? In addition, while the very first anabaptists may have employed believer’s baptism by affusion, they quickly saw, from their reading of the NT, baptism had to be believer’s baptism by immersion only.

Consequently, to even suggest that ecclesial boundaries—i.e. what constitutes local church membership, baptism as the “door” so to speak to becoming a member of a local church—do not exist between those who practice believer’s baptism by immersion only and other views of baptism displays a fundamental lack of biblical, theological, and historical awareness.

Does the presence of ecclesial boundaries pose obstacles to how Baptists and other Christian bodies relate and minister together? You bet it does. For example, we cannot plant churches together. And, if one cannot understand why, I’d suggest going back and reading the above very carefully. On the other hand, there are some ministry projects we can do together which would not compromise our ecclesial boundaries. For example, you apparently lead an Orphan Project in Haiti. This could be a possibility in becoming partners if you were not also catechizing the children in presbyterianism. If you were, Southern Baptists would—or at least should—look long and hard before committing support.

We could go on and on about what we could do together without compromising ecclesial integrity. For example, Billy Graham for over a half century was successful in promoting large, evangelist crusades around the world, and worked with almost every conceivable denomination in doing it. But what the BGEA did not attempt to do, so far as I know, was to plant churches. Had he tried to do that, making church planting the centerpiece of his ministry, he would never have gotten such support from so many denominations. It’s just not going to work like that.

Finally, I’d like to say, yes, my particular view is the only view, at least in its broad contours, among Baptists these days. Unfortunately, our ecclesial distinctions have been sliding down a dangerous slope from which we may not recover. There are many today—and much of the YRR and neo-Calvinists within the Calvinist Resurgence are among the many —blurring the distinctives of the Baptist faith, not the least of which is Al Mohler who, in a recent book, argues for what he calls “confessional evangelicalism.” So, I’m afraid to say “my view” is universal. I can say, almost without exception, that the view I entertain may fairly well be summed us as the mainstream view within the Baptist movement from the beginning in 1609.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Les]

Peter,

Thank you for your reply. Again, I apologize for even appearing to be argumentative. Yes, I'm pretty familiar with church history and have pretty goo theological and ecclesial perspective.

The reason I asked is not based on older history, but on more recent history and practice. I have been involved in leadership in a number of SBC churches over the last almost 30 years. We have had new members from varying backgrounds, including Presbyterian and Lutheran. In those situations when people from those paedobaptist background presented themselves for membership n the SBC churches, if they had never been immersed upon their POF we immersed them.

However, it is not uncommon in Missouri to have Presbys and Lutherans come from those churches who had previously been immersed in a Baptist church after a POF and later left the Baptist for a time and joined the Presby or Lutheran church and showed up back at a SBC church. Whew!

If the person had a credible POF and it was determined they had been immersed previously, they joined. We didn't ask if they believed in credobaptism only. In some cases they aid they could see and affirm both views.

So this is the reason for my questions. I know many SBC churches, no not in Acts 29 or such, who operate the same way. All that is required for membership is a credible POF and be or have been baptized by immersion after their POF (which I have BTW). People are not required to affirm their adherence to any other Baptist doctrine.

BTW, the churches we partner with in Haiti are all Baptistic evangelical churches. Anyway, thanks for the interaction. I'm sure you agree we've gone on enough on this.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Yes, I agree. It's time to end this exchange. The dilution of the Baptist distinctive of 'regenerate church membership' in flip-flopping back and forth between ecclesial bodies with polities so contrary becomes a lamentable but inevitable result. In large part, it is not wrong to say, the Baptist movement was and has been more about ecclesiology than theology proper. And, with weakened allegiances to strong ecclesiology, the contemporary generation of Baptists reaps the sad result.

With that, I am...
Peter

[dr. james willingham]

My, I was raised in a Southern Baptist Church as a child where the pastor preached Sovereign Grace and he had been born in the 1800s. My ancestor in Alabama, and other ancestors elsewhere believed it (Willinghams and Craigs). My ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell, Assoc. to R.G. Lee believed and preached the doctrines of grace. I could mention many others. I have never been a member of the Founders group. In fact, I have never attended a single oneof their meetings. I had planned to do so some years ago, but a sickness in my church prevented me. Since my roots go back tothe very beginnings (that Ancestor in Alabama was, likely, one of the two men appointed by a court in Georgia to execute the will of Daniel Marshall, who founded the oldest continuing church in Ga. (Kiokee) and who was with Shubal Stearns in the founding of Sandy Creek Assn. I don't think any Sovereign Grace believer and preacher owes it to any congregation to explain anything. After all, some of these truths are written in our confessions and abstracts and articles of faith. Just consider how Mt. Pisgah Church, organized in 1814 and joined Sandy Creek a year or so later, had articles of faith which strssed Christ dying for the church and said not a word of His dying for the world. And they produced our first missionary to China, Matthew T. Yates. And Sandy Creek produced the calvinist who would lead in establishing the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Basil Manly, Sr., who was born about a 20 minute drive from where I am setting right now in 1798. He even had a work on the Sovereignty of God in salvation published. Since the calvinists started the change to allowing differences, they hardly seem likely to owe any one any explanation. The folks who don't believe are the ones who owe the explanation as to why they differ from the founding faith. You folks need to study history a little more closely, and as far as techniques go, a calvinist I really prefer the term Sovereign Grace preacher can be just as diplomatic and sauve as any one in introducing views that have been forgotten. You all should look at R.G. Lee. He ticked all five points of the TULIP outline, then ticked you may not use my name. We who follow the founding folks, not necessarily the Founders, don't owe any one an explanation. Come on Peter, you surely know more history than what you seem to imply. O yes, did I mention that my B-i-l studied Ephesians under Curtis Vaughan at SWBTS who invited the class to a debate on Ephs. 1:4-14, inviting them to try and change his mind on the doctrines of grace and warning that better men than them had tried and had not succeeded. My B-i-l said it was really an enjoyable experience, though he did not change his own mind...he was willing to concede that if God wanted to do it that way, it was okay with him.

And I have a friend named Spurgeon, and, yep, he's kin to C.H., who took 40 years to come to the conviction that grace is indeed irresistible. He won a lady to Christ who told him she responded, because it was so wonderful she could not resist it. So he though about it for 40 years and came to the conclusion that what I had said and what she had said was the right view. I always want love to win, don't you Peter?

[Steve Evans]

Les, I agree wholeheartedly with Peter and hence the reason for my question on the previous thread. Baptists hold strongly to baptism by immersion only as the scriptural mode. Praise God for those who take a strong stand for Baptist distinctives. Thank you, Peter, for this stand.

[dr. james willingham]

O by the way, Peter, today is the birthday of Basil Manly, Sr., who was born Jan.29, 1798. I did not know that when I brought the message in the chapel service of Southeastern Baptist theological Seminary on Jan. 29, 1975, but I thoughtit was a remarkable providence that the Lord should have a minister in the pulpit who believed like Basil did in Sovereign Grace and who was serving a church in Sandy Creek Assn. where Basil was the Associational Clerk in 1816 and served on the Committee chaired by Luther Rice to draw up the Confession of 1816 and the founding pastor of the church I was serving in 1975 was also on that committee. YOURS FOR THE THEOLOGY THAT LAUNCHED THE GREAT CENTURY OF MISSIONS AND THE FIRST AND SECOND GREAT AWAKENINGS AND WILL ALSO LAUNCH THE THIRD GREAT AWAKENING IN GOD'S OWN GOOD TIME. AFTER ALL, MANY HAVE BEEN PRAYING FOR SUCH A VISITATION FOR MANY YEARS...FOLLOWING JONATHAN EDWARDS' HUMBLE ATTEMPT AT WILLIAM CAREY AND ANDREW FULLERE DID BEFORE LAUNCHING THE MISSIONARY EFFORT.

[peter lumpkins]

Mr. Willingham

First, the long list of names you employ counts exactly zero toward answering anything or any point we’ve ever made at SBC Tomorrow. That Manly, Boyce, Mell, Johnson and many others in the 19th century were strong Calvinists no one I know denies. I certainly have never denied such here. In addition that Curtis Vaughn was a strict Calvinist in this modern era only proves the needless rise of Founders in 1982 to set the record straight and decry how Calvinism has been expunged from convention life. If Vaughn was a Calvinist teaching as a full professor, then I’m unsure how the case can be made that Calvinism had been expunged from our communion.

Second, what you failed to do, Mr. Willingham, along with most Founders-advocates like yourself—at least those with whom I’ve conversed--is go beyond the widely acknowledged (and acknowledged fairly well by all non-Calvinists) presence of Calvinism present in SBC’s heritage. You rarely, if ever, deal with the evidences available which suggest the pawing and scratching strong Calvinists had to do to maintain their influence in the south, an influence they decidedly lost during the last quarter of the 19th century. I’ve detailed a portion of the evidence on this site, a portion about which a seminary professor of many years recently emailed me congratulating me for assembling what he judged to be an impressive collection of historical evidences which challenge Founders’ truncated historical model—the model you just rehearsed in your long, name-dropping comment.

Third, you seem to curiously imply that no explanation is necessary for Calvinists today who come into churches in disguised garbs to “reform” the church toward Calvinism because, as you assert, “The folks who don't believe are the ones who owe the explanation as to why they differ from the founding faith…We who follow the founding folks, not necessarily the Founders, don't owe any one an explanation.” Sorry, Dr. Willingham. That is pure nonsense. You of all people are very much aware of the role confessions have played in the SBC. Stated as clearly as can be, the preamble to the 1925 confession, the oldest confession—original convention-wide confession—of Southern Baptists makes clear that:

That they [i.e. confessions] constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small… That we do not regard them [i.e. confessions] as complete statements of our faith… As in the past so in the future Baptist should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time… . That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so (//link, all emphasis added)

Hence, the philosophy of confessional consensus we have observed from the beginning is that confessions speak only for the assembled group at the time of its confessional expression. In short, Baptists are not a static but a dynamic group of believers. And, admittedly that very dynamism can be a blessing or a curse.

Even so, Dr. Willingham, your appeal to the 19th century “founders’ remains at best curious and at worst misguided. Every single, broadly-accepted confessional step Baptists of the south took from the beginning of the 19th century seems to have been a step away from strong Calvinism. From the New Hampshire Confession in 1843 onward to the 1925 confession most scholars maintain was mainly penned by E.Y. Mullins, the undeniable theological nemesis of Founders-type Calvinists, Baptists definitively moved away from hardline Calvinism. The exception is the Abstract of Principles (AP) perhaps the chief contribution of today’s birthday boy, Basil Manly. But even so, Manly would not make explicit the TULIP in his abstract for Southern Seminary. The AP is, at most, a four-point Calvinist confession.

And, not without serious interest do we note that when Mullins and the first BF&M committee wanted a model confessional document upon which to reflect and write a suitable confession for Southern Baptists, they by-passed The Philadelphia Confession, The Charleston Confession, both London Confessions, and even Mullins’ own seminary’s Abstract of Principles where he served as president, a confession of which he and all his faculty were required to sign—confessions which Founders-type Calvinists continue to adore and embrace. All the high Calvinistic confessions were flat-out ignored. Rather Mullins and co. settled on New Hampshire, a definitive, well-known, well-acknowledged abandonment of high Calvinism. Indeed the 1925 BF&M itself stands as a witness against high Calvinism. Southern Baptists had, for the first time in their history drawn up a convention-wide confession, and the first convention-wide confession of Southern Baptists is a remarkable, definitive step away from the strict Calvinism about which you boast you owe no explanation to churches when you preach and teach a theology their particular heritage knows not of. I think you need to more deeply reflect on what you've cavilerly asserted--and much too confidently asserted in my view--about the rich heritage of Southern Baptists.

Personally, I think there's room for Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. What I do not think there is enough room for is a truncated history of Southern Baptists which attempts to remake the Southern Baptist Convention into a completely Reformed Baptist Convention by reconstructing our mosaic heritage to reflect an exclusively Calvinistic origin when no fair reading of our history substantiates such a reductionist historiography.

In addition, Mr. Willingham, you’re very much aware and, if you’re like so many other Founders-advocates, often lament the poor knowledge Baptists have concerning their history, their confessions, and the theology upon which their church was founded. Granted. But what makes you think Baptists at large—i.e. Baptists of the past and outside the writing theologians—were as sure-cocked committed to High Calvinism as the impressive list of popular names you log? I mean if Baptists today pay little attention to their confessional documents of their respective churches, how are you so sure Baptists of yesterday paid any more heed to their confessional documents? Hence, this routine habit Founders-type Calvinists like yourself possess of touting on and on about local church confessions does not carry the persuasive weight you appear to think. At best, it is an unproven assumption about Baptists of the past you accept and expect others to accept without the least argumentation. I don't think I'll let you get by with that today. It's Manly's birthday! (wink, wink)

And, if I am not mistaken, it was James P. Boyce who whined in print that most every student who enrolled at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was a “rank Arminian” when he came. In other words, Boyce's Southern seminary apparently had to theologically train its students to be Calvinists. If Boyce was correct about most seminary enrollees being “rank Arminians,” that seems to fit well with Baptist churches at large not having the same forged, ubiquitous commitment to high Calvinism Founders-type Calvinists commonly maintain. I also find a bit of proleptic humor in Boyce’s lament since Southern seminary today is now having to theologically train our young men and women to be Calvinists. Apparently, biblical revelation remained then and now insufficient.

Finally, for every 1816 high Calvinist confession you quote, I’ll see you and raise you a similar confession which shows the dilution of high Calvinism among Baptists in the south. For example, in 1801, Kentucky's Regular Baptists (Elkhorn Association) and Separate Baptists (South Kentucky Association) were reconciled together as one body of Baptists in both correspondence and communion. The “Terms of Union” as it was called is clearly a concession to the “Arminian” leaning Separate Baptists. The brief statement or “Terms of Union” and fellowship is fairly well scrubbed of most any trace of high Calvinism, including a denial that Limited Atonement would be a test of fellowship. Article 9 says succinctly and pointedly: “And that the preaching Christ tasted death for every man, shall be no bar to communion.” Out goes the “L” in TULIP.

In addition, Article 3 safely says of Total Depravity—“That by nature we are fallen and depraved creatures.” There’s no Calvinistic dead-in-trespasses-and-sin-means-total-inability-calling-for-regeneration-preceding-faith type of understanding. Hence, out goes the T in TULIP. Now we're left with UIP. How that is pronounced is hard to tell (wink, wink!).

By the way, without the necessary "T", explained the way strict Calvinists explain total depravity, it would be only a matter of time before the "I" would fall since there would exist no rationale whatsoever that God must irresistibly work on a person's heart. And because no biblical revelation existed which demanded an interpretation of irresistible grace, it stands as no surprise that it soon fell way as well. Now the TULIP has devolved to UP which unfortunately really meant down so far as strict Calvinism was concerned.

What is more, the highly respected Ordo salutis prized so highly by strict Calvinists like yourself and other Founders-type advocates is thrown to the winds. Article 4 states, “That salvation, regeneration, sanctification, and justification, are by the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.” Not only is there much theological vagary in that brief statement of salvation, which, for the most part, goes against the confessional tide of high Calvinists who lean toward detail mimicking the Reformed's Westminster Confession, but also little, if any, "order" to the salvation process was insisted upon in the Terms of Union since justification trails as the experiential caboose.

Now this is the beginning of the 19th Century. And, as W.Wiley Richards catalogued in his book, Winds of Doctrine: The Origin and Development of Southern Baptist Theology, it bore horrors for strict Calvinism. By mid-19th century, Calvinism had peaked in influence and was already on the defensive, and by century’s end was in a decided retreat. Calvinism lost the hearts of the masses of Southern Baptists assuming strict Calvinism ever had their hearts at all. Two of the TULIP petals (total depravity and limited atonement) were so fundamentally transformed in Baptist life, Calvinism could no longer rightly identify Southern Baptists. At best, it would be a seriously modified Calvinism which, to high Calvinists, is, in the end, no Calvinism at all. No one summed it up better than high Calvinist though non-Baptist, Lorraine Boettner: “Mild Calvinism” is synonymous with sickly Calvinism, and sickness, if not cured, is the beginning of the end” (The Reformed doctrine of predestination p.105).

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S. FYI, Dr. Willingham, if you please, avoid the long passages typed out in CAPS. Not only are the words much harder on the eyes to read, in the cyber-world, extended usage of CAPS is almost always considered equivalent to “yelling”. Hence, most consider it rude and unnecessary. I realize you were not meaning to “yell” but only to distinguish or make certain passages standout. No problem. Just use the commonly accepted *asterisk*. Your point loses nothing on those who read it not to mention they’ll appreciate the ease in reading what you have to say without the annoying CAPS. Thanks.

[David R. Brumbelow]

Peter,
Excellent points in your reply to James Willingham.

More needs to be said about the non-Calvinist (or Moderate Calvinist) roots of Baptists in general and of the SBC.
David R. Brumbelow

[peter lumpkins]

David,

Thanks brother. I appreciate it. Sadly, we are just not going to hear much these days from our Southern Baptist historians about the modified Calvinism which Southern Baptists finally embraced. They seem to me to be much too star-gazed toward The Reformation proper and the High Calvinism of English Particular Baptists to worry themselves much with the low Calvinism the south came to embrace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David R. Brumbelow]

Peter,
Perhaps you have been ordained to do so.
David R. Brumbelow

[Max]

Many of the comments in this thread are all too common reports of aggressive Calvinists (particularly, neo-Calvinists) to disrupt and reform mainline SBC churches. Stealth, deception, and manipulation are some of the descriptors being tossed about as certain YRR pastors maneuver their way into non-Calvinist churches.

In this regard, I often hear it argued that we should heed Gamaliel's counsel in Acts 5:38-39 "Leave these men alone ... For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

"... if it is from God ..." being the key to the above Scripture. Stealth, deception, and manipulation are not Spiritual gifts, nor characteristics of God's work in a church.