Calvinists recruit W.A. Criswell to their cause by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Tom Ascol is Director of Founders Ministries, the largest network of Calvinists affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Founders Ministries maintains that since Southern Baptists have “lost the gospel”, it apparently will be up to like-minded Calvinists like themselves to assist us in finding the gospel*    >>>

*I remain very much aware I broke my own ususal standard in posting such a long piece. I only hope I have not presumed upon my readership for whom I am always thankful...

Of course, their understanding of the gospel is summed up as the “doctrines of grace” or more popularly, TULIP-type Calvinism. Expressed in their visionary statement, they write:

“Founders Ministries is a ministry of teaching and encouragement promoting both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace and their experiential application to the local church, particularly in the areas of worship and witness. Founders Ministries takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith that Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles. We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear” (//link, underlining added)

In addition to the statement above, they also state as their express purpose the “recovery of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ in the reformation of local churches.”  And, intrinsic to the lost gospel’s recovery is the “promotion of the Doctrines of Grace.” (i.e. Five Point Calvinism). One avenue of Founders' success in promoting the Doctrines of Grace and hence recovering the biblical gospel (i.e. strict Calvinism) has been through national and regional conferences.¹ 

Hence, it’s easily recognizable just what Founders Ministries is about in the Southern Baptist Convention. Simply put, they are about recovering the lost gospel which, for them, is Five Point Calvinism. Nonetheless, time and time again this publicly stated goal is either denied by many Calvinists--even including some Founders-friendly Calvinists!--or summarily dismissed by Calvinist critics.

Nor is this a new vision but one from the Founders inception in 1982. From the originator of Founders Ministries, the late Ernest Reisinger, we hear his clear concern echoing through Founders Ministries today:

“Calvinistic Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than biblical Christianity. It follows, then, that the future of Christianity itself is bound up in the fortunes of Calvinism” (link)

“...reforming a local church involves both the demolition of misguided theological notions and the laying of a biblical foundation anchored by the doctrines of grace” (link)^1a

With interest, we compare the first statement by Reisinger with one recently stated by Al Mohler to the annual meeting of Baptist state paper editors: “...Calvinism is the shape of the future, because the options otherwise don’t very much exist.” One may also compare the second Reisinger quotation to another Mohler statement reported in Christianity Today just over a year ago. Columnist Molly Worthen quotes Dr. Mohler:

Non-Calvinist conservatives, Mohler says, "are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared." He thinks that Reformed theology's appeal to young people proves its unique imperviousness to the corrosive forces of 21st-century life. "If you're a young Southern Baptist and you've been swimming against the tide of secularism … you're going to have to have a structure of thought that's more comprehensive than merely a deck of cards with all the right doctrines." In this regard, Mohler is just as elitist as the moderates of old Southern [seminary]: he is certain he has the truth, and those Baptists who protest simply are not initiated into the systematic splendor of Reformed thought.

Not only then do many Southern Baptist Calvinists claim for Reformed thinking an elite, theological perspective which both defines biblical Christianity on the one hand as thorough-going Calvinism, while on the other, dismisses non-Reformed perspectives like the Traditional Statement as fundamentally unaware of the basic structures of thought necessary to protect the biblical gospel—structures Mohler definitively describe as strongly Calvinistic--they also too often assign our rich Southern Baptist history to little more than an immersion footnote to the Canons of Dort. Indeed we are tempted to conclude that to the five well-known solas of the Reformation--saved by grace alone through faith alone because of Jesus Christ alone all for the glory of God alone as expressed in Scripture alone— many Baptist Calvinists, consciously or unconsciously, add an unstated but well documented sixth sola—as interpreted by Calvinists alone.

Such a tempting conclusion is obviously intended as hyperbole. However, at times, we know of few alternatives afforded us in interpreting some of the apparent attempts to recreate our Southern Baptist history into the Baptist Calvinist’s own image. Truth be told, Southern Baptist history cannot fit the monolithic historical trajectory indicative of the typical Founders Calvinist—including Al Mohler’s own apparent historical myopia.

Historically, Southern Baptists resemble more a theological motley crew providentially glued together by an unapologetic commitment to free church ecclesiology, a commitment perhaps more significant than any other single cooperative component. That remains, at least in significant portion, for example, why Southern Baptists held tightly together for over three-quarters of a century without a convention-wide confession of faith. According to W.B. Johnson, the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention (and presiding when the convention was formed in 1845), “We have constructed for our basis no new creed, acting in this manner upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible."² Ironically, Al Mohler's muscular confessionalism would have been thoroughly rejected by many, if not most, early Southern Baptists.^2a

In a more recent example of recreating Southern Baptist history in the image of strict Calvinism, we find the Founders Ministries director recruiting the support of the famed and late pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, W.A. Criswell, as a potential champion of historic Baptist Calvinism. Quoting Dr. Criswell, a man whom Ascol rightly pointed out was a “godly, influential Southern Baptist giant” Ascol queries: “I could not help but wonder if he [Criswell] would attach his name to the recent statement that Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, David Hankins, Emir Caner and others have issued and signed.” Ascol then quotes Criswell proclaiming in a message he preached in 1955:

That’s our God! Now that’s what you call foreordination. That’s what you call predestination! That’s Calvinism! And I am a Calvinist. That’s good old Bible doctrine, and I believe the Bible! These things are in God’s hands, and ultimately and finally, He purposed it and executeth all of it!

Ascol goes on and quotes a more recent sermon preached in 1983 when the Conservative Resurgence had gained some fairly important victories, Dr. Criswell, at least in some important ways, leading the charge for biblical inerrancy. The sermon Criswell preached Ascol describes as a “masterful piece of homiletical work.” Of the general and effectual call, Criswell said:

There is a general call, but there is also an effective call. In the great general call, most of them did not respond… but always some came, some heard, some were saved—the effectual calling of God… . There is an effectual call. There are those who listen. God opens their hearts. God speaks to them, and they hear their name called, and they respond; the effectual calling of the elective choosing Spirit of the Lord.

Fair enough. Let’s grant Criswell was a Calvinist precisely as he himself said. The question we have raised time and again on this blog for over six years, however, is not:

• a) whether or not Calvinism is a significant part of our history as Southern Baptists. Indeed non-Calvinists know it is and those who study Baptist history on any level without reservation affirm it is;
• b) whether or not good, godly men and women have been Calvinists. Indeed non-Calvinists know them and those who read Baptist history without reservation affirm them as such;
• c) whether or not many Calvinists have been at the historical forefront in missions. In fact, to our embarrassment as non-Calvinists, we must at times concede that we experience a comparable amount of lapses in evangelistic fervor as do our more Calvinistic brothers and sisters. And, given our reservations about what we judge are unavoidable implications of their soteriology, we confess our theological presuppositions sometime inhibit us from fully understanding the evangelistic dynamic of strict Calvinism. Nonetheless, visible evidence exists indicating many Calvinists have as much or more evangelistic conscience than many non-Calvinists;
• d) whether or not Calvinism is welcome in the Southern Baptist Convention. If Calvinism has been a significant part of our rich, diverse history as Southern Baptists, then it makes entirely zero sense to suggest that Calvinists per se should have no present home among Southern Baptists. While precisely how that guiding principle teases out in everyday convention-life remains the most challenging part, we possess no alternative, if we remain Free Church believers, but to diligently attempt to work that principle out. To formally exorcise Calvinism from convention-life is, for my part, to forfeit Baptist ecclesiology. If we do so, my membership as a Southern Baptist believer will swiftly come to an end.

Rather, what I have consistently opined on this site, around the net, and in personal one-to-one dialogs for six long years is a definitive maneuver by high-profile Calvinists to institutionalize Reformed theology into the Southern Baptist Convention. We could continue rehearsing the “quiet revolution” of Founders Ministries to “recover the gospel” we apparently lost when Five Point Calvinism gradually faded off the theological map in Southern Baptist life during the last quarter of the 19th century, and faded so much so, that Dr. Z..T. Cody could, at the turn of the century, proclaim without fear of dispute:

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

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

We could also mention (and have documented numerous times) the complete institutionalization of strict Calvinism at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary by its president, Al Mohler, an institutionalization hardly unnoticed by the young, restless, and reformed community itself. Colin Hansen, an insider in the New Calvinism, identified Southern seminary as “Ground Zero” for the young, restless, and reformed suggesting, “due mostly to this foundation”—that is, a reinforcement of the abstract of principles, derived via the Second London Confession from that landmark Reformed document, the Westminster Confession—“Mohler saw that the seminary had a ‘heritage to be reclaimed, and I [Mohler] felt a deep personal commitment to that heritage'”³ We could add to the institutionalization of Calvinism at Southern a similar but less pronounced attempt to Calvinize Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.   

Given just these two historic pieces of evidence⁴ cataloging the institutionalization of Calvinism as the primary theological trajectory for the Southern Baptist Convention--an institutionalization cooperatively funded, in large part, by Southern Baptists who are not of the Reformed persuasion--pardon us in love if we do not respond well to the almost universal denial from our Calvinistic brothers and sisters that any such institutionalization is taking place now or has been in the past. As frustrating as the denial and/or dismissal has been to many of us, we persevered by grace alone.

Consequently, it seems not too much to suggest that the Traditional Statement marks perhaps the first public acknowledgment that a sizable group of theologically-minded, biblically-informed pastors, denominational leaders, seminary presidents, retired entity heads, past presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, seminary scholars, and college and university professors and administrators definitively perceive some form of institutionalization of Reformed theology being systematically imposed upon Southern Baptists. At least, they perceive the imposition of New Calvinism on Southern Baptist sub-culture strong enough to raise a flag, collect a gathering, and initiate a push back. This, my brothers and sisters, right or wrong, is historic.

Before closing, I want to get back to Ascol’s recruitment of Criswell around the Calvinistic campfire. Our reply, in short: perhaps Criswell was a Calvinist. Granted. But he surely was not the kind of Calvinist the Traditional Statement had in mind with its carefully nuanced catalog of affirmations and denials. Nor did Criswell represent the kind of Calvinism I've publicly opined for six years. One example from a few of Criswell’s sermons will suffice to establish my point.

In 1978, the great expositor Dr. Criswell, preached a sermon entitled “What must I do to be saved?” In it he said:

“Number two: how can God face the question of free moral agency.  How can God save me and not violate my personality?  For I am free.  If God coerces me, I’m not free.  If God forces me, and makes me, I’m not free.  How can God save me, and at the same time leave me morally free, and not violate, destroy my own personality, my freedom of heart and choice? 

This is the way God did it: God left it to me to make the choice in a free moral act.  The Lord lays before me the whole story of the self-revelation of His heart. He loved me and gave His Son to die for me.  His Spirit woos and makes appeal, and the gospel message tugs at the strings of my heart.  And God, having opened wide the door, leaves the choice to me.

I can say “No” to God.  I can.  Even though I’m made of the dust of the ground, I can say “No” to God.  I can double my fist, and shake it in the face of God.  I can curse God.  I can trample under my feet the blood of the covenant that sanctified Jesus.  I can reject His every overture of love and mercy.  I remain free.

Well, well. That hardly sounds robustly Calvinistic to me. Let’s try another from 1978 entitled “The Doctrine of Election.” In it, Criswell says,

“Now, the other fact plainly revealed to us on the sacred page is no less dynamically pertinent and true.  This also is a fact in life and in the Holy Scriptures: God made us free.  We are human agents, able to choose for ourselves.  God did that, too.  We are absolutely free, we are morally responsible.  We can choose for ourselves, and we do.  In the beginning, the apostle Paul says in I Timothy, 2, Paul says that Adam was not deceived.  Eve was deceived; the subtle serpent led her astray, but not Adam.  Adam chose to eat the forbidden fruit; he chose to die with his wife rather than live without her.  He had the power of choice in the beginning, Adam was not deceived.  He made the decision that has followed through all generations since and comes down to us.  Choice is a fact of human experience and human life”

Risking presumption upon a weary reader, allow me just one more lengthy quote from a sermon preached in 1984 entitled, “Decision for Damnation”:

“I want to make my appeal.  Why doesn’t God take the unrepentant sinner, the unchanged, unsaved sinner, why doesn’t God take him and make him repent and make him change and make him believe?  Why doesn’t God do that?  Why doesn’t God say to him, “See this Tree of Life?  You’re going to eat of it whether you like it or not.”…  Well, we can ask Him for an ultimate answer when we see Him.  All I know is from the beginning, He made us free, absolutely free, morally free and I can decide one way or the other, for or against.  I am absolutely uncoerced, I am free.

God did that with our first parents.  The whole garden is before you….  Just obey this one appeal… Don’t eat of the forbidden tree.  If you do, you die… The unrepentant, unforgiven sinner, God lets us choose.  We’re free; positively, absolutely wholly and completely free.

And I make the choice.  All God does, ever, is to appeal to my soul, that’s all.  He never goes beyond it.  He never coerces.  He never forces.  He just makes appeal.  And what He does now, is what He does forever.  What He has done, what He continues to do, He makes appeal.  That’s all.

Now, may I ask Tom Ascol and those Calvinists⁵ who desire to recruit W.A. Criswell to sit around the theological campfires in Reformed rags and pick out a perky tune on strict Calvinism this one question: in light of the statements above, why wouldn’t Criswell sign the Traditional Statement since the Traditional Statement seems to possess an identical libertarian understanding of free will as did Criswell?

One might object by suggesting, “Well, Criswell was being inconsistent!” Granted.

But one thing is for sure: Founders Calvinists like Tom Ascol under no uncertain terms could affirm Criswell’s obvious libertarian free will theology no matter how much he embraced  Criswell’s “masterful piece of homiletical work” on effectual call.  Nor would Ascol and other Founders-friendly Calvinists budge if we discovered Criswell screamed from the pulpit every, single Sunday, “That’s Calvinism! And I am a Calvinist. That’s good old Bible doctrine, and I believe the Bible!”

Indeed, given his rather full-bodied free will affirmations above, Criswell may very well qualify as the first Semi-Pelagian Baptist Calvinist discovered in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.⁶

 

¹many of today's high-profile Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention have been frequent speakers at Founders Ministries Conferences (some more than others) including Al Mohler, Tom Nettles, Mark Dever, Ed Stetzer, Russ Moore, Don Whitney, Joe Thorn, Michael Haykin, Jim Eliff, Phil Roberts, Timothy George, Mark Coppenger, David Miller, David Dockery, and Voddie Baucham (no particular order for speaker list considered)  

^1ain addition, see the piece here for Reisinger’s “quiet revolution” to take over Southern Baptist churches. By the way, compare Al Mohler’s statements about the theological exclusivity of New Calvinism being the only viable option with Reisinger’s statements above--here, and here

²nor am I suggesting we do away with all confessions including the BF&M2K

^2aperhaps a tighter statement would be, Mohler's penchant for confessional Christianity not entirely unlike we find in more robust Reformed groups which were and are creedally connected to The Westminster Confession would hardly have survived at the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. While local churches held a healthy understanding of confessions in governing its local body, a universal confession for all Baptists was barely conceivable at that time as Johnson's statement indicates. Again, a strong free church ecclesiology still lorded it over Baptist thinking     

³Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists. Colin Hansen, Crossway 2008, p.73

⁴and, I assure you, I have six years worth of varying types of evidence on this site that the new breed of Calvinism (some perhaps rightly suggesting, Calvinists rather than Calvinism, placing the focus not upon principled theology but on personal temperament) is becoming ever more ubiquitous not only in churches (which, in all fairness, is not our ecclesial business) but also in top-tier positions in the denomination. Again, it’s not that Calvinists cannot or should not serve our convention. Rather, when Calvinists become entirely more effervescent than their actual numbers reasonably warrant, it should not surprise anyone that red flags will begin to legitimately arise

⁵one college student, Joshua Breland, followed Ascol’s unscholarly attempt to baptize Criswell into the Founders Calvinists’ Hall of Fame. But while we may rightly offer intellectual mercy to Breland for his immature, sophomoric and errant conclusions concerning Southern Baptist history, no such mercy should be allowed to Ascol who ought not only to know better, given his PhD in church history from Southwestern, but also for leading naïve college students astray with sloppy, unwarranted historical analysis

⁶yes, there is an answer to Criswell’s conundrum. It may not be the only answer. But it seems to me to fit well into his perspective. From what I gather, Criswell, was, for lack of a better term, a "paradoxicalist" when it came to God’s Sovereignty and human free will. While we are taught in our philosophy of religion 101 classes to not accept what appears to be a contradiction in theological principles (i.e. If God is fully sovereign, how can humans be fully free?), for a biblicist like Criswell, he finds no contradiction in Scripture. Hence, he can say with the utmost sincerity:

“For example, there is no man that has ever lived that could make fit together these two truths, though you can talk about them one at a time: the sovereignty of God and the free moral agency of the man.  You can look at one at a time, one side at a time, but you can't see them both together.  You can't even see all the truth if you were in an airplane and had an air view of it…”

And again:

“What we sense, and what we see in our own lives, we see in all history.  There is freedom of will, and there is the sovereignty of God.  Charles Haddon Spurgeon said, “I cannot make them come together; but you cannot make them cross”… . Edgar Young Mullins, our greatest philosopher theologian said, “They have been struggling with the problem of free moral agency and the sovereignty of God from the beginning of time.  And no philosopher yet has ever arisen who can reconcile the two doctrines”… .

Finally:

“There are two sets of nomenclature used in the Bible, constantly used.  One set of words refers and are used by the Lord God up there in the heaven of eternity where He has His throne.  And those words are “predestination,” “election,” “foreknowledge,” “constancy,” “sovereignty,” “omnipotence,” “omniscience,” “omnipresence.”  Those are the words used in heaven…

Down here in this world where I live, in the dust of death, there is another set of words.  We use the words “moral freedom,” “advantage,” “contingency,” “possibility,” “the exercise of my volition.”  These are the words down here: freedom of spirit, freedom of choice, freedom of election, all the possibilities that are daily set before me…

And no man will ever get the right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.  These two facts:  divine sovereignty and human freedom are parallel lines.  I cannot make them meet, neither can anyone make them cross.

Hence, for Criswell, he possessed little desire to reconcile what he believed to be firmly impossible. And, this paradoxical approach seemed to play in his favor as to precisely why he could get along with strict Calvinists on the one hand and support those who embrace, as did he, a robust understanding of free choice on the other. 

Many contemporary Calvinists, however, are hardly the committed biblicist Criswell was (recall, “Why I Preach the Bible is Literally True”). Instead they appear utterly sold out to a rigid systematic Calvinism which brings with it as theological baggage not only an entirely new theological language, but a hermeneutical methodology which insists on making everything “fit” into a neat, tidy closed system. Few strict Calvinists today allow a loose theological end to dangle in their system. Hence, rather than settle for a paradoxical approach as did Criswell, they insist, for example, on redefining what Criswell called “free choice” into a “compatible” version implementing philosophical categories to do so. Consequently, but only potentially, is delivered "logical compatibility" between God’s Sovereignty and human “free choice,” a compatibility for which Criswell wouldn’t have a paid a plug nickel. He didn’t care what theologians thought about his supposed antimony.  He just wanted to preach the Bible as he saw it.  For him, biblical text trumped systematic theology. Many truly biblcial preachers sound like a Calvinist one sermon and a rank Arminian the next! Our task as biblical expositors is not to make the Bible into a consistent system. Rather our task is to be faithful to the inspired text we preach and leave the philosophy of religion conundrums in the classroom or coffee shop. For my part, I think an unhealthy focus on systematic theology, together with a tragic, concurrent demise of simple biblicism (i.e. not to be confused with simplistic biblicism) could go far in explaining why contemporary Calvinists and non-Calvinists experience abnormal difficulties getting along with one another.

Comments

[Max]

Calvinists recruit W.A. Criswell to their cause?!

When you start with a fistful of straws, you eventually reach the last one. This is a good sign.

[Steve Martin]

Wow! Lot's here.

I do not agree with Calvinists on very much. They turn the believer back into themselves for any assurance. (not good)

I do believe that most Christians start off with an improper anthropology when it comes to their doctrine of "free-will".

I do the Bible has other, moe realistic things to say about it:

http://theoldadam.com/2012/06/09/free-will-or-bound-will-2/

I think that is worth a listen. It's important.

Thank you

[mlynn]

LOLOL Peter -- I loved your last sentence: The first semi pelagian calvinist in Southern Baptist Hitory!!!!

Peter, one comment. Your last article mentioned hyper calvinism. I believe that those who say that the gospel can only be found in the TULIP are hyper calvinists as well. Why? The Gospel is so very simple and is plainly defined in scripture. The TULIP ADDS to that smple Gospel message imho.

Thanks, Peter -- good post!!

[Scott]

Peter,

I have read a number of perspectives responding and counter-responding to the Traditional Statement. In my estimation, the some of the greatest damage in the debate(s) has been done by failures to accurately present the opponent's side of the debate before critique. Those participating in the conversation feel like their ideas have been caricatured then skewered.

As a Calvinist, what I have appreciated from this post is the sense that my views were fairly represented. The critique against institutionalizing Calvinism was rightly aimed at personalities not as a necessary consequence of the theology. I'd say the institutionalizing ambition comes more from democracy than theology. After all who doesn't like the people who share his/her perspective in the place of influence?

I don't think that gaining positions of power or influence is really all that worthwhile. If God's strength is made perfect in our weakness, perhaps being marginalized is really the better place to be. I'd like to think that way, but I doubt that I do so all that often.

On one last note, I couldn't sign the Traditional Statement, but I could gladly sign Dr. Criswell's description of human free will quoted in your post. It is exactly what the "more robust Reformed groups" (see footnote 2a) confess when they say that God "ordained whatsoever comes to pass" without ever violating "the will of the creatures" (Westminster Confession 3-1). Criticizing a version of Calvinism that does not include this biblicist (in the best sense of the word) and robust version of free will is critiquing a version of Calvinism that is among the minority of Calvinists and one that has a relatively small place in the history of the Protestant Church.

[Adam]

Peter,
This is very interesting. Thanks for introducing me to Z.T. Cody. I wonder, however, what you mean when you say that Z.T. Cody spoke "without fear of dispute". Do you mean to say that his emphatic tone suggests fearlessness of dispute (i.e. there was dispute but he didn’t fear it) or are you saying there was literally no dispute about whether or not Baptists were Calvinists, which is why he was fearless.

Thanks for the clarification.
Adam

[peter lumpkins]

Adam,

Thanks. I first read Cody's piece in The Courier (S.C. Baptist paper) archives a few years back. I had heard of the piece and seen it quoted but I couldn't get hold of it. So, I finally got a free day and drove to SC and spent several hours sifting through the old records. Hence, when I found the piece, I sifted through several months of letters to the editors after the piece was published. What I found was stone-cold silence. No one challenged Cody's piece. Not a single, negative letter was penned--excuse me, printed--that I found in my query. I think there may have been one or at most two positive mentions.

Hence, my point (subjective, of course) would reflect a confidence in Cody that what he was writing at the time he believed to be empirically true at least to his experience.

I gave you perhaps way more than you wanted.

Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Leslie Puryear]

Peter,

So what I hear Ascol saying is that they want to reform the entire SBC to Calvinism. Is that a fair statement? If it is, then how is this not an intentional takeover?

Thanks.

The Original Les

[Lydia]

Peter, that Cody article is such a treasure for today!

I would love to hear from some of our Church history scholars why Calvinism historically either dies out or goes liberal then has a resurgence of sorts. Is it because of it's theocratic nature?

[Lydia]

Sheesh! I see over at Pravda the Council of People's Commissar's are demanding the Prolitariat name names.

They do love "discipline". I wonder if there will be party discipline? But how does one discipline the Chairman of the Pilitburo?

Right, that is going to happen. We are going to put people's names on the internet. That would be grounds for a much deserved lawsuit. Can these guys please grow up? FAST!

[Lydia]

Oops, I misspelled the name of the People's Congress: The Politburo.

[Mary]

Lydia, it's not for the purpose of discipline that they want the names and churches. It's so they can call those Calvinists and get their side of the story - which of course would be that everybody was just an anti-Calvinist, blah, blah, blah.

How ridi - no I think the word is actually stupid for anyone to DEMAND the names so he can confirm for himself that we are all a bunch of liars. So he can call his Calvinists brethren, they can lament together how mean these antiCalvinists really are, than he can come back and boldly proclaim that he investigated the situation and of course everybody who claims Calvinists have ever done anything wrong are a bunch a liars. So then what - we say here, how bout a couple more witnesses. Does this stupid fool not understand the amount of discord and division he's trying to stir up. But he is oh so proud thinking that's he's sure got all those liars where he wants them.

Seriously, is there no one at Pravda with a lick of sense anymore. Does this fool not get that he just demonstrated exactly the kind of attitude of this rabid Calvinists by declaring everybody liars because he demands a list of names and churches so he can stir up division and discord. But these are our young "leaders."

[Lydia]

The problem is the YRR guys cannot see themselves or how they come off to others outside their NC bubble. In their NC bubble, this is the norm. This behavior is a natural result of being indoctrinated that you are right and the others wrong. And that age cannot discern well but are bold and will follow a leader they believe in which is why we have always sent 18-26 year olds into battle besides physical ability. The 40 year olds ask too many questions. :o) Some very interesting research out there on brain development and age.

Many who comment and post over at Pravda exhibit exactly what many are talking about going on in churches. 24 year olds making demands and insisting they ahve correct doctrine. They honestly do not see it which means it is a much bigger psychological problem since we are putting these types in Acts 29 and other church plants with power and position. What a recipe for disaster or a shepherding cult. It is not always pastors. In my neck of the woods it is often SBTS student volunteers with the youth or college age members.

Which by the way, am I understanding that their version of evangelism mainly consists of planting churches? Planting Calvinist churches.

[Mary]

What's amusing is to know that, Al Mohler, who is not stupid sees stupid posts such as "I DEMAND you tell me who this so-called aggressive Calvinist are or otherwise you Tradtionalists are all a bunch a liars. Every single one of you are LIARS!" - Mohler can see the action of the YRR at SBC Pravda and understand that those words are being sent through emails and passed along as proof that everything being said about Calvinists is absolutely true.

For all Pravda's wanting to be patted on the head by the Political elites in the SBC, they've done a very poor job at protecting the party line.

These guys just don't have enough sense that all the screams of heresy, stupidy and lies is only proving that there is a problem with young arrogant Calvinists in the SBC.

[Lydia]

So, let's play this out. They demand names publicly which means the "investigation" needs to be public to make sure it is fair. Who investigates?

Then we want Suzy and Bobby to testify that a YRR student volunteer told the entire youth group their dad, the pastor, did not preach the true Gospel which meant they did not know the true Gospel. And this all has to be public, mind you. Not to mention old Mrs Vivian who was rebuked for speaking in a mixed bible study by a YRR student because women are not to teach men. Right, she is going to be investigated even though the YRR guy is now gone. Will they face each other in an "ecclessiastical" court? Who will preside? OR, will this be done in said church or para church organization where the incident took place?

Look, most churches who have dealt with this are so glad it is gone they just want to forget it like a bad nightmare. Their tolerance for differences in such things was taken advantage of by the bullies who view that as a weakness and green light to plow ahead.

Do these guys realize how much they sound like Mark Driscoll? Mind you, most of them think this is a good thing.

Sorry Peter. Back to Criswell who we now know was a secret Calvinist who believed in Libertarian Free Will. Okaay.

[Liz]

Lydia,
I'm not trying to stir up a fight here (honest!), but I am curious about your hatred of Driscoll. I get that you disagree with him on several doctrinal points, but I hope that would not lead you to hate someone. Is your animosity based on his sex book with his wife because they said married couples can do whatever acts they both want? If you disagree or think they were inappropriately detailed and personal then that is one thing, but I have noticed you refer to him with great disdain and even anger many times in different posts even though he is not SBC (and the topic of the blog posts was the SBC). I have to admit to curiosity about such apparent, personal hatred being directed at a pastor who is not part of this blog discussion.

[Lydia]

Liz,

Hatred? Telling the truth is hatred now? Did you know that characterizing such things is one of the tenents of spiritual abuse? I can tell you I do not hate Driscoll. I think he is a very sick man. I do "hate" the things he does and teaches.

The list is very long of the false teaching and spiritual abuse coming from him and Mars Hill. Here are a few:

1. Porno visions. If you are not familiar then let me know I will find the sampling of his divinatations for you

2. Spiritual abuse of "church discipline". Examples are boundless. But the problem is they could not spiritually abuse in some cases if the member had not trusted them with confession. And in at least one case, they made the information public to the whole church electronically of details.

3. Firing Paul Petry because Petry, a lawyer, disagree with Driscoll going from 40 voting elders when they had a church of 3,000 to changing the bylaws so when a church of 12,000 he would only have 3 handpicked voting elders. It was basically a coup to take over. And if you piece together the history of Mars Hill, many close "brothers in Christ' have been thrown to the curb when they disagreed with Mark.

4. Did you know there is a group of former Mars Hill attendees who have a support group for spiritual abuse? And no, I am not at liberty to name the group or where they meet.

5. I won't go into why he is really a false teacher and fits the book of Jude perfectly because most Driscoll followers cannot see it......yet. It would be a waste of time.

6. I do think that Sodomy in marriage is a huge health problem. When teaching at a marriage retreat Mark's teaching on this was that when wives are not up to the real thing then they should offer up their backsides. (He said it much more crude. One woman I know said it was the last straw for her and she left the church and her husband soon followed her out)

My guess is that people have become so desensitized to sin and false teaching they do not recognize it anymore. Which is one reason Driscoll has gone on for so long. But he got so bad (which is what happens) that Piper and many others are now distancing themselves quickly. Piper removed his "I love Mark Driscoll's theology" video promotion. All of a sudden Driscoll is stepping down from Acts 29 (He had just gone back as pres to get it on track as he said but when Petry's documents came out they had Acts 29 all over them as Scott Thomas was the go between for Petry's firing and "trial" which Petry was not allowed to attend. So Acts 29 was implicated and Scott Thomas all of a sudden steps down and decides to pursue other ministry opportunities)

So you can call it hate, Liz, if you want. But I really care about people who have been used and abused to build an little earthly kingdom for a charlatan. I also care about those who do not know better but to follow one. My hope is that as they know Jesus they will see such a disconnect between Jesus Christ and Mark Driscoll's teaching they will not be able to stand one more minute. But for too long, he has been the filter for many young minds when it comes to know Christ. It is a very wrong picture and there will be years of reprogramming for them to move away from it.

Mark will always land on his feet no matter what. This is what he does. He is a performer and seeks audiences. These cultic leaders calling disagreement with them hate has workd well on the sheeple who cannot think for themselves. It is what they do so well. They attempt to be the Holy Spirit for believers. My prayer is for people to come out of these cultic movements and really know Christ and be led by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not give porn divinations and lead teachers to mock Christ and abuse His sheep, my friend.

[Max]

Liz writes "even though he is not SBC (and the topic of the blog posts was the SBC)"

While this may be off-topic a bit, you really can't go too far into a discussion on "C" without bringing up "D" at some point. Driscoll's DNA is all over the New Calvinism movement spreading through SBC ranks. There are numerous Acts 29 churches which are also SBC members. The new president of Acts 29 is an SBC pastor, with tremendous YRR influence. Certain of our seminary presidents and professors have endorsed him. LifeWay, the SBC publishing house, promotes his books. SBC's North American Mission Board considers his church planting method as a model to follow. YRR seminary graduates who adore him are standing in line for SBC church plants. Essentially, Driscoll "is SBC" in some corners of our denomination.

[Lydia]

Liz, I wrote a long comment concerning the SBC and Driscoll DNA but my mifi went dead. Now that I am in a hotspot, I have little time.

Max is right.

Driscoll DNA is all over the NC movement in the SBC. Driscoll is quite the icon and his DNA is all over NAMB, SBTS, SEBTS and the YRR within the SBC. Many of the NC leadership are trying to act like this is not true but it is. In fact, Sojourn, an Acts 29 church plant in my city, issued a statement that they were leaving Acts 29 and doing their own church planting thing.....right after the whole Sodomy teaching and Paul Petry's "Joyful Exiles" website came online. EVen Piper took his "I love Mark Driscoll's theologoy" promo off the internet.

[Lydia]

Liz,

http://joyfulexiles.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVyFyauE4ig&feature=player_embedded (his porn divinations)

There are transcripts of this online. You might want to read it. He gives all these "visions" of adultery in counseling and then has the nerve to say "he might be wrong".

This man is a false teacher and very sick. (I wish I had time to go into the last 10 years of his preaching, his wife, 5 kids and the whole situation. He has been preaching to her about sex the whole time. Mark exhibits the behavior of the classic bully narcissist)

[volfan007]

Peter,

Thanks for the great quotes from Criswell.

David

[Rick Patrick]

God bless you for your usual clarity in identifying the issue--not so much the people or the theology of Calvinism but the "institutionalizing" of it in Southern Baptist life, against the will of the majority of Southern Baptists who do not share this view.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks all. I appreciate the encouragement...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ron]

Has the SBC been under a coordinated effort by New Calvinists to reform the SBC?

Yes, read a part of an article written by Tom Ascol in 2002:

“It is at just this point where the genius of Baptist polity shines brightly. Our polity makes reformation always a prospect because we do not have a "top-down" structure of government. Every church is independent. This is why from our beginning in 1982 Founders Ministries has focused on local churches and pastors. A local church can be reformed according to the Word. In fact, every church worth the name should be always striving for that--never thinking that they have arrived at some level that puts them beyond the need of further conformity to Scripture. Our efforts have been focused on helping churches see this and strive for it. For the same reason we have particularly aimed our efforts at pastors, convinced that if we help a pastor then we have helped a church.” (Why Work For Reformation Within The Southern Baptist Convention? Founders Journal, Spring 2002, pp.1-4).

[Liz]

Lydia,
I want to be clear that I was asking my question based only on what you wrote and the way your tone came across. I have never been to one of Driscoll's churches and do not know anyone who is a member of one (I'm not from the right part of the country for that), nor have I been influenced by him theologically. Others responded that Driscoll's influence in seen in "New Calvinism" in the SBC. While I'm sure there are people influenced by him, there are many Calvinists who are not. I, for example, was raised staunchly Arminian, but Driscoll had nothing to do with me coming to believe in a more Calvinist interpretation of scripture. I did not hear of him until well after I started questioning certain doctrines and studying scripture on certain points, and among the many Calvinists in the SBC I know, none name him as an influence. They name Piper and Spurgeon and many others. Calvinism in the Baptist church is hardly new. Some Calvinists in the SBC come from the influence of Driscoll, but a large number do not. I guess part of what I picked up on in your posts that prompted my original question was that you seemed to bring him up a lot when the posts were not originally talking about him.

[Lydia]

Liz,

It could be because I am at ground zero where Driscoll has much influence. And it could be you are not familiar with some of the SBC funded Acts 29 churches? Driscoll has a national and even international presence. There were actually UK Christians outside warning about him when he spoke at the Royal Albert Hall! He did finally take his SoS sermon he gave in Scotland offline it was so crude and vulgar.

His DNA would be recognized by the in your face arrogance of many YRR. And the 'sinning by questioning' stance of his elder rule, patriarchy and sex as part of the Gospel. Young NC men with power and position who are not yet wise enough to handle it. Pretty much what happened to Driscoll.

I am well aware there is a fast and furious attempt to write Driscoll out of our recent past. That was seen in the quick change of Chandler for Acts 29 (Driscoll is still on the board and Driscoll most likely will not go quietly)

The other interesting thing about Driscoll is up until a few months ago, if you linked to many YRR churches from blogs, there were Driscoll resources promoted. Those are quietly going away.

My concern is how much damage has already been done to the young minds that revered him and are now pastoring churches or even teaching youth in the SBC. A real concern for all of us.

Also, I cannot think of any "Arminians" in the SBC (although I guess there are some somewhere) and had not heard the term from anyone in all the SBC churches from my childhood until just the last few years when the NC started calling many people (Non Calvinists) by that term all over the blogs. I found that label curious and of course, had to do some research so I would know what I am according to the NC. (wink)

I guess I am a bit confused about "tone". Is there a nicer way to say teaching sodomy is wrong? Forming coups and firing elders to have consolidated power is wrong? In any event considering tone.... The interesting thing about NC YRR is that they tell you that you are ignorant and do not know the bible. That has been their tone. So, how does one deal with "Christian" bullies who see your tolerance for their tone as a weakness?

Perhaps I can apply some flowery adjectives and adverbs like Piper. :o)