« Name-"change" | Main | Andrew Broaddus on Limited Atonement by Peter Lumpkins »



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


I'm a 'prophet' in my time!!!!


Another nail.


Someone at the convention, please tell the majority SBC messengers who didn't vote that they need to eat breakfast earlier when such important sessions are on the AM docket.


Dave Miller begins his unity campaign. Next Week at Pravda more "you idiots who aren't Calvinists should just shut up and let us make the decisions from now on."


Max, I refer to my 'comment' on Eric Hankins for second VP!

In years past, (Cons/Libs in SBC), we Cons. KNEW to be in our places, even as the doors were open!!!

I don't know what's gone here; maybe this bunch didn't KNOW how the 'game' is played???
I'm sad to say that, but, anyone who knows anything about, 'SBC politics', it's true!

aaron arledge

Congrats to Dave.


Alright you negative Nelsons, relax. The election of Dave Miller is not the end of the SBC.



Why the venom? Perhaps we should pray for him as he leads the convention as the new 2VP.


A. Price - the fact of the matter is that majority Southern Baptists are simply not informed, while the reformed are effectively networked on social media ... in this case to Twitter their way to rally the vote ...while the majority were touring New Orleans or drinking chicory coffee during important sessions. I'm sure "oh shucky darn" rang through the convention center when the majority finally showed up.

Bill Pfister

Dave Miller is as good and fair a man as we could have elected. He has a good vision for unity and going forward as a denomination. I'm happy for the denomination.



Oh well ... at least us sinners now have permission to pray.


We're all Presbyterians now.

Jim G.

This is definitely a historic convention. If I were a traditionalist, I'd be more than a little worried - way more.

The Hankins-Miller election is of monumental importance. Dave Miller won by a roughly 3-2 margin, but his victory is not as deep as Hankins' loss. Even though 2VP is not a very high office, the moral victory/loss here is immense, and the message it sends shows us the future of the convention.

In many ways, Hankins' election would have ratified the TradDoc he principally authored as a viable option at the SBC theological table. Now that he has been defeated (albeit by a reluctant, late candidate in the process), the TradDoc now will likely be relegated to a dark corner of the room and its message will be severely hampered. I predict discussion about it will fizzle to almost nothing in the coming weeks.

The Hankins loss also tells us that the SBC will continue to be moving further toward the Reformed line. I also think it reveals the "Traditionalist majority" concept to be a myth. How can we say there is a traditionalist majority when the spokesman for a "traditional" theological stance loses 2-3, especially to a last-minute candidate?

Now, Calvinists in the SBC might be a numerical minority, but I think among the SBC members who are active and passionate about the future of the SBC, and how it will look in 10, 20, or 30 years, I would guess that the Calvinists outnumber the traditionalists by about a 3-2 margin. The remaining SBs (and I fear this might be the REAL majority) are either ignorant or apathetic as to what is happening. They are asleep at the switch.

I guess my question to traditionalists is how important is this to you? If it is important, you had better bust your tails over the next 12 months rallying these slumbering brethren and take another stab at it. But you seriously overestimated your influence. The TradDoc now looks like a colossal political failure. Maybe that is why some of our Reformed brethren have been so vocal over the last year or so - they knew they had enough votes to win the day when the day came.

If there is a "traditional majority" out there, you have 12 months to find it. You won't get another shot.

Jim G.


Jim G., some of your points I think are spot on. The SBC is slumbering. I'm not sure how many ouside the net actually knew about the controversy of the Trad document.

I wonder though if perhaps there was more politics behind the timing than you think. Perhaps the Trads knew this was not the convention for them this year - with the election of Fred Luter, it would have looked very bad to have pushed a Trad "agenda" this convention. I don't think anyone wanted to mess up the historic moment and distract from that. The politico move was on the side of the SBC Elite who annointed Luter last year. There was no way anyone could come out against Luter claiming they didn't like the direction the convention was going by those who pushed Luter to the forefront. If any dissention had occurred it would have been smacked down as racism. I think it's wonderful the SBC has it's first black president - the way it happened was nothing but pure crass politics.

So having said all that I think the Trads knew very well this wasn't the year. Will they be able to awake the slumbering giant? I suspect we're going to see more churches, associations and possibley state convention directing money away from the Calvinists instituions. That's going to start getting some attention as being divisive. Of course Calvinists like Kevin Ezell have been designating funds for years without any accountability.

I think we're also going to start seeing SBC schools proclaiming themselves as Trads - the Calvinists will scream yet defend their right to keep Southern and Southeastern Calvinist.

So this was either a bad year for Trads are perhaps the beginning of a two year plan.

As far as Dave Miller, I've seen the kind of unity he pushes at Pravda. The activity there is exactly the kind of actitivity that should be denounced. Now that he's 2nVP he will only come under more scrutiny and they'll just be more fuel for the Trads to say "this is what we're dealing with. Arrogant young Calvinists who think they are the first generation to have discovered the Gospel and they are better than anyone in the history of Christendom so we should just get out the way because we're all a bunch of stupid heretical liars."

In the end the Calvinists aren't going to take over the SBC as we see it today. They may destroy it, but not take it over. They don't want a seat at the table as they claim, they want the whole table as we've seen happen when they take over the institutions. But the Cooperative Program is doomed if th Calvinists insist they can have Calvinist seminaries and use NAMB to plant Calvinists churches. Churches will just stop giving at some point.


Well, SBC leadership has their "yes man". The man who deletes with impunity the nicest woman in the world..... was elected. Not to mention Howell and others. The wine and dine by Setzer and he is their man. He is one of them...he likes to censor and he is the aribter of fairness??? as the YRR over there are as nasty, whiny and arrogant as ever but they cannot see it? That sums it all up. I don't find that a "unifying" position at all.

My position all along is that MOhler felt "comfortable" saying his learned colleauges did not know what they were signing and are leaning toward heresy. For an employee of the SBC to say such a thing publicly should be a red flag to all that MOhler has more power than most might realize. I think other less Reformed leaders go along with a lot because they see that he has the potential to bring in numbers from Acts 29, SGM, etc.

If that is what the future of the SBC is going to look like I say no way will a lot of people support such cultish type of churches. Or as more and more gets out about the YRR brand of 20 somethings craving power to discipline and rule people will many trads pay for it. But, they need Trad money to bring more churches in to have authority over. And that is what this is all about.

The SBC is dead. The Calvinists won. Time to stop sending them money so they can "lord it over others". That is only enabling sin.


As a "traditionalist", I reluctantly agree with most of what Jim G. has written. There is indeed a "traditional majority" out here, but she is apathetic and complacent. If you stick your head in the sand long enough, someone will step on it. Local pastors have avoided this theological controversy like the plague - their congregations are uninformed and unengaged. State convention papers have failed to cover the issues sufficiently. But, it may simply be a matter of the majority choosing to be willingly ignorant. They better wake up and start exercising free will soon!

On the other hand, it is increasingly clear that the reformed movement in SBC ranks is effectively networked, mobilized, and growing. They successfully use social media to their advantage, while the SBC majority has little idea what a "tweet" is or follow blog traffic. They are effectively forging a new Baptist majority. Given the number of SBC-NOLA messengers registered vs. ballots cast, the majority must have been out and about instead of focused on their responsibility to effectively represent the churches that sent them.

While Hankins' defeat as 2nd VP was disappointing, his articulation of "God's Plan of Salvation" and the "Sinner's Prayer" will always be remembered by those of us who sat up and took note. I'm sure he was pleased to have highlighted the importance of a sinner's prayer, rather than be elected to an SBC office.

The majority better figure out how to get the word into the pews in the months ahead, for the minority is running full speed ahead. Another shot? I'm not sure. New Orleans may prove to have been the last volley ... but God!


Mary, I agree with you on 'most' of what you said. However, I do think the 'turning-point' for a 'lost SBC' came in NO. with all their 'victories'!
The only thing we can hope/pray for is, THEY too will fall prey to 'falling asleep', in the future, and , eventually start to lose postions!
A question to you though, is, don't you think the 'Calvinist will start to 'creep' into the other seminaries, with the exception of NO, the same way they did Southern, and Southeastern? After all, that's been part of their 'agenda' since the beginning.


A. Price asks "... don't you think the Calvinist will start to 'creep' into the other seminaries, with the exception of NO ... ?"

Midwestern is next in line - they are currently searching for a new president.


How do the Reformed love authority and how they view it? Check out this example comment from Pravda:

"Greg Harvey June 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm

Dave: you’re probably going to have to moderate my comment…

Nate: you’ve been opposed to this since the beginning. You made your point. DO you not accept the leadership of our president and the acceptance by the convention by a majority to allow churches and entities to “tag” themselves as Great Commission Baptists? Because it sounds like you’re having issues accepting the authority God has placed over you simply because a vote didn’t go your way."

They really do view "authority" this way and it is scary. Say goodbye to the Priesthood, folks. They have redefined it for us.


A. Price, I wouldn't underestimate the sinner's prayer victory. That was a hard one to swallow for the YRR as evidenced by all their nasty tweets.

The Calvinists are not going to fall asleep. People have been asleep but we've seen hints I think that some are starting to wake up and see that the Calvinists aren't going to be happy playing in the sand box. They want the whole sand box. More people are talking about the Calvinization of the Seminaries. People don't buy Lifeway's "we didn't know all the Gospel Project's contributors were Calvinists -honest!" The NAMB church plants are going to be coming under a lot of scrutiny. The fact that there were some very public rebukes of Al Mohler and his insults to the Trad signers, I think was significant. So I'm not sure the Calvinists are going to find it as easy to "creep" as they have in the past. I saw one Calvinist somewhere claim that Paige Patterson was getting rid of the Calvinists at Southwestern. Which of course Calvinists cannot complain about if they claim it's ok for there to be Calvinists seminaries. It will be interesting to see who gets appointed to Midwestern and when the time comes who replaces Paige Patterson when he retires. If those men are Calvinists like Russ Moore, than I'd say the SBC is lost and the only thing left for the Trads to do is stop funding it. And the Calvinists can't claim to want "unity" if they go along with the Calvinization of more Seminaries.

Now another thing I think will be interesting over these two years is what will Luter's agenda look like? Is he all about bringing diversity in his appointments over the Calvinization or will it be diverse Calvinists? One things for sure - the Pope in Louisville didn't approve of Luter without thinking Luter would follow the Calvinists agenda. Does Luter know? Is he on board with the Calvinization?

We'll see. It could be that this was the year to get the Trads fired up. I don't think telling the Trads to shut up because they're a bunch of stupid heretical liars is necessarily the smartest thing the YRR has ever done. And remember - those losses this year were not by a great margin. And then there's the fact that a few thousand in NO does not equal want the millions in the pews think and believe. The question is if there's a movement to start getting the info into the pews where the money is. The money controls everything.



So sorry. My period here has not allowed much "live-blogging" per se. I did have a longer post with considerable commentary. However, due to technical difficulties, the post failed several times to post this AM. No problem. Even so, it turned out OK since some of the commentary would be dated now that some key announcements been made. I may revise it and post later...

With that, I am...


Lydia, that comment shows an extreme cluelessness as to how the SBC is structured.

Of course the YRR think we should have a top down structure. All these people who aren't really saved because of the sinner's prayer need to have someone in authority over them so they don't mess up the plans of the YRR.

Did you see Jared Moore today? I was wondering if someone was going to challenge him "you claim everyone in your area prayed the sinner's pray and now they don't show signs of repentance. PROVE IT! Give me their names or SHUT UP! I don't believe YOU! Give me the names of their churches, their last 20 addresses and their mother's maiden name or stop bearing false witness!"


I really dont think that the election of Miller was a huge statement for the Calvinists. I think a lot of people, who didnt know Dave or Eric Hankins, voted for Dave, because he was introduced as a small, Church pastor from a pioneer state, who is for unity. Unity was a word used often by Alan Cross in introducing Dave Miller. You'd be surprised how many will vote for the "unity" candidate.

Also, the organized twitter barrage helped Dave immensely. Out of 7,800 people registered, only 1,600 even voted in this election.

Congrats Dave, on the win.




Sorry I just don't fully agree with your analysis. It is true many of us are disappointed with some of the convention outcome--admittedly including some "key" votes. Once that's conceded, nothing follows from what I consider to be your dismal obituary of the so-called "traditional majority." An approximate 1,600 voters out of an almost 8,000 registered messengers may indicate both the so-called "traditional majority" and the supposed "New Calvinist" resurgence were apathetic toward the significance of the 2nd VP position and therefore failed to show up for the voting (in addition, it may also indicate the "new Calvinists" were not as apathetic as the so-called "traditional majority"). However, it is premature to suggest the vote demonstrated the "myth" of what some of us continue to believe to be the "traditional majority."

You are definitively right to predict, however, that some type of tangible evidence must soon surface that those of us who connect the dots with "traditional" SBC belief and practice exists. By tangible evidence, I mean voting messengers. So far as I am concerned the "traditional majority" has yet to be affected. For that to be demonstrated an army of foot soldiers must soon engage the work. No longer will internet connections do the job.The "Traditional majority" will remain out-flanked, out-manned (and womaned), and sorely out-done. And, as you indicate it must happen relatively soon or, playing upon Luke's words in Acts, "all hope that we should be saved" is lost.

I've got a second wind in NOLA. I seriously contemplated giving up only recently. I no longer have that haunting notion. I shall remain until the ship sinks. If I go down with it, so be it. My time on earth is quickly entering its last lap. I shall do with all my doing everything I can to be faithful in representing the "mythical" majority until I am become convinced the "mythical" majority either never or no longer exists.

Thanks always Jim. Your contributions are important to me.

With that, I am...


"Also, the organized twitter barrage helped Dave immensely. Out of 7,800 people registered, only 1,600 even voted in this election."

I did not know that.

And I do wonder how one can speak of unity when there has been so much censorship on Pravda of positions or people he disagrees with. Seems hollow and phony to speak of unity when one simply deletes other positions.

Frank Gantz

Some of the name calling in these comments doesn't seem very godly. Agree or disagree, but Christian civility should be more apparent.



Implying one's learned colleagues are ignorant and leaning toward heresy is not "Christian civility". So why not say so publicly? That is the model of our influential employee that so many are following;. So sorry if your "rebuke" seems a bit hypocritical.


"One things for sure - the Pope in Louisville didn't approve of Luter without thinking Luter would follow the Calvinists agenda. Does Luter know? Is he on board with the Calvinization?"

Did you not see the tweet from Timmy Brister (Founders) with a link to a 6 min clip of a sermon Luter preached on election. The clip made it sound like Luter was a Calvinist. So I am assuming he is being positioned whether he likes it or not. That is how it usually works and why their point system comes in so handy. They can claim Calvinism with a few points but then say they are not really Calvinist when it is convenient. This has been used here locally with both Russ Moore and Ezell when the question comes up although both follow Mohler blindly.

Orwell would be jealous of the point system tactic.

Jim G.

Thanks Peter. I hope you are right. It's only my view from the really, really "cheap seats."

The SBC has a WAY bigger problem if just over 20% of those registered voted. In that case, the possibility is large that 15% or less of those registered can make policy. That fact is far more disturbing. Travel safely back.

Jim G.



As you all might know, I am no fan of the Caner's. But Emir hits it out of the ballpark here. He makes a point that I have tried to communicate over at SBCToday. the NC comes from a statechurch/authoritiarian mentality (He calls it convenantial) and we come from a Free Church perspective. The difference is so huge I do wonder. We have been more inclined to be tolerant of the NC because we are Free Church and that is one reason why so many have been asleep.

The NC has to take over churches and lord it over people because they are right on all things. They cannot tolerate even a sinners prayer.

Emir nailed it when he said the NC is more about ATTITUDE than our doctrinal differences. They cannot tolerate us.

Michael Vaughan

I'm sorry, but Frank is right.

Certain individuals have made claims about ignorance or heresy. Others are making broad claims about conspiracies of takeover. It is not proper to then respond to the entire movement with sweeping generalizations. I don't care what side you're on--don't "bear false witness" about all Calvinists OR all Trads. If you want to accuse Mohler of this, then accuse him individually and be sure to talk to him. If you disagree with Hankins, accuse Hankins individually and talk to Hankins. But don't generalize your accusations to the rest of us.

You're speaking about brothers and sisters in Christ. Type things that you would say to their faces, and repay discourtesy with courtesy. You're better than that, and Christ is better than that. And I'll say that to both camps, repeatedly and firmly. Don't dehumanize people just because you're typing on a keyboard and facing a computer screen.

Hobart M. Tucker

My two cents.

I don't understand the tactical thinking in running Eirc for 2VP in the first place. Really, does anyone think Dave Miller has anything to brag about in being crowned "Miss Canned Yams of Union County"? So he and Wiley are now "2VP brothers." Nothing gained.

Unfortunately, I think too little thought was given to the risk in the final analysis.

Eric already has strong bona fides from being pastor of a healthy and growing church, and founder of the One8 church planting network. His leadership in developing the Traditional Statement has him rising. He didn't need to be tagged with the title of "SBC 2VP."

This was not a battle that needed to be won. Having said that, Israel was routed by Ai the first time. The bottom line is that we don't need politics to win the issue of staying true to a biblical theology.

Take time to pray and reflect on the Word and let the Holy Spirit work among the SBC.


Micheal, I live at ground zero. I can't swing a dead cat without hitting an angry arrogant YRR guy. I have lived with it for a long time and was amazed at how many non Reformed sweet people tolerated it for sake of unity. But it has become wearying to many and they are starting to wake up a bit. We are churning out little Calvins/Pharisees at an alarming rate. We are NOT churning out young men who are Christlike in any way shape or form. That is a huge problem when we send them out to churches.

Now, on the other hand, I do know some older people (late 30's/40's who have gone to SBTS, are Calvinist and are appalled at what they see in the attitude and bearing of the YRR. A few of these were hired by my non Reformed church and are wonderful. But they had some real life experience in the real world before seminary and were resistant to such brainwashing as "only we are right". And they don't worship Mohler, Driscoll, Mahaney, etc. They know better. And yes the youngen's do worship these guys and would follow them off cliffs. And they also want to be followed and obeyed when they have a church position. It is what they have been taught. Authoritarianism. In fact, they really believe the SBC has been wrong for a 100 years. And they believe most of us are not really saved.

I will take a beating from an unbeliever for the sake of Christ but not an arrogant YRR. That is a Pharisee to me and fair game and I tell them so to their face, friend. Many times.


I agree with Michael Vaughan.


"I agree with Michael Vaughan."


I am shocked!




If you are going to hold Dave Miller's deleting comments against him, then allow me to point out that Peter Lumpkins has deleted plenty of my comments. So, how about a little consistency? And incidentally, Dave Miller has deleted a few of my comments also.

"I will take a beating from an unbeliever for the sake of Christ but not an arrogant YRR. That is a Pharisee to me ..."
The New Testament tells us to bear each other's faults with patience and grace in Galatians 6:1-2, the Sermon on the Mount, and various other places.


"If you are going to hold Dave Miller's deleting comments against him, then allow me to point out that Peter Lumpkins has deleted plenty of my comments. So, how about a little consistency? And incidentally, Dave Miller has deleted a few of my comments also. "

Did Peter "delete" you or "moderate" you? Big huge difference. No one knows if you were "moderated". Many know when you are "deleted". And that makes it authoritarian on a "voices" blog. (Just not all voices even if irenic)

"I will take a beating from an unbeliever for the sake of Christ but not an arrogant YRR. That is a Pharisee to me ..."
The New Testament tells us to bear each other's faults with patience and grace in Galatians 6:1-2, the Sermon on the Mount, and various other places. "

White washed tombs is more what I was thinking as in little Pharisees.

The strangest thing about the YRR is they think their continued arrogance and insults are normal behavior and not mean at all. It is bizarre. It is like mass narcissism.

How does one communicate with "Christian" bullies? It is quite the conumdrum.


Isn't this Job character one of the meanest nastiest commentors from Pravda? And he's over here thinking to correct a woman.

I love all these "I'll call out the bad behavior on both sides" and yet you never see them calling out the bad behavior of the YRR on a blog like Pravda. And how many of those who are doing all this rebuking only rebuke women? Hmmm. Internet bullys trying to intimidate the lil women to get back into the kitchen and stop talking about things they can't possibly understand.


Well Lydia, I am going to agree to disagree with your "there is a difference between deleted and moderated" stance, and instead state that Dave Miller has deleted comments of mine that he felt were injurious to the traditionalist majority non-Calvinists also.

"The strangest thing about the YRR is they think their continued arrogance and insults are normal behavior and not mean at all. It is bizarre. It is like mass narcissism."

So, you don't believe that your continued insults against Calvinism and Calvinists are normal behavior and not mean at all? I will tell you what is confounding. On this Calvinist-traditionalist debate, the traditionalists have this conviction that they can make any accusation or insult against Calvinism and Calvinists and it is perfectly fine, yet anything said by a Calvinist against a traditionalist is hateful, angry, arrogant, divisive etc. and this even includes comments made by Calvinists defending themselves from very vicious and personal attacks! A lot of the "regulars" on this very blog play the "I can say anything I want about Calvinists but if they say anything negative about me even in response to what I initially said, then that makes them mean and hateful and by extension proves Calvinism and Calvinists to be mean and hateful."

I see a ton of "we're right, you're wrong so you're just going to have to take it" from the traditionalists. And yes, more than a few of the comments on SBC Voices that Dave Miller has "moderated" were Calvinists responding to extremely vicious insults from non-Calvinists. I know this for a fact, because my responses have been among those deleted.


"So, you don't believe that your continued insults against Calvinism and Calvinists are normal behavior and not mean at all?"

This is the conumdrum. I am not a pastor or asking people to support me as one. But, for years many have been trying to interact with the YRR in a civilized manner only to be bullied and insulted and hear nothing but ad homenim arguments. or "Prove it"! which is so childish one can hardly believe these are pastors. So trying to interact in an adult manner has not worked. Why? they are bullies. We need to admit this and call it what it is. That is what they are and they are being sent out to bully people in churches. I am against spiritual abuse. Some of our leaders have supported and promoted spiritual abusers like DRiscoll and Mahaney. You might not think they are but that is because you probably agree with their tactics. Our leaders have agreed with their methods for a long time. That is where we are headed. I will not stop warning people. Because bullies see "nice" as a weakness and run roughshod over it.


This tweet says it all:

"RT @timmybrister: Did anyone notice that there more people at T4G (majority who were Baptist) than messengers at #sbc12?"

And to think, TG4 followers think Mahaney, the blackmailer who is Apostle of a shepherding cult, is godly! This is so scary I can hardly believe it is happening before our eyes. Nicolaitans?


Wow, my reply to Mary got hammered because of a temporary Internet outage. Oh well. Life goes on. I will just plead guilty to the "mean and nasty" charge from Mary - with the context that my meanness and nastiness was merely replying to vicious attacks against my theology and the people who adhere to it - and label her other charges to be false. And if Mary was claiming that I should be restrained from confronting women with what the Bible says, well I would like for Mary to provide Bible verses to justify that doctrine.


"But, for years many have been trying to interact with the YRR in a civilized manner ..."

That is precisely my point. What you believe to be civilized may be perceived as bullying by the people that you are interacting with. Example: "You might not think they are but that is because you probably agree with their tactics." Now how was I supposed to interpret that except as an accusation? And how am I supposed to respond to a (very serious!) accusation other than to A) defend myself and B) make another accusation in turn?

Now of course, I am not saying that it is all your fault. Or even that it is even half your fault. I have not walked a mile in your shoes, so for all I know you may well under siege on every side by mean, nasty hateful Calvinist Southern Baptists. If that is the case, then by all means treat them the same way that Jesus Christ and His apostles did to the wayward in the New Testament: with rebuke. Paul's upbraids of arrogant, mean, prideful, hypocritical Christians in places like Corinthians, Ephesians and Galatians were precisely that. If they're acting the way that you claim, then it needs to be done, and you may well be the person called by God to do it.

I am only stating that based on what I have seen on a lot of Christian blogs (and not just SBC ones by the way), non-Calvinists do often tend to believe that they should be allowed to say whatever they feel about the theology and the people who adhere to it only to be shocked, wounded and hurt by the responses to their own words. I don't necessarily mind the mixing it up, and I myself indulge in such pastimes oft. It is the "dish it out but can't take it" thing that is not only frustrating, but incomprehensible, especially since it is so pervasive. Is it because of honestly not knowing that Calvinists find searing attacks against their beliefs - and themselves personally - to be offensive? Or is it because nonCalvinists find Calvinism so inherently offensive to begin with? "Why are you complain about my words offending you when your beliefs offend me so much more!" Is that it? I really do wonder often if it is.

Now again, I am not saying this in response to your life and what you have to deal with. Maybe you are indeed oft set upon by scoundrels who adhere to my theology. Instead, I was only speaking in the context of what I have encountered in the Christian blogosphere. And in books. And in sermons. Etc. etc. etc.

Michael Vaughan

For the record, I'm probably classified as YRR. I'm 26 years old. I came to the church later in life and over the last four years I've evolved into a five-point Calvinist. Could I be wrong on the doctrine of election? Sure. I admit that. Do I think I'm right? Obviously, or else I wouldn't be a Calvinist. I'm happy to go to a reformed church, given the option, but I'll choose an SBC church over a non-SBC reformed church any day. My loyalties don't lie with TGC, and especially SGM or Acts 29. I was president of the BSU at my university. I want to work for the IMB as a career missionary. I love listening to both Piper and Platt. I hate listening to Driscoll and Mahaney, and I don't care for their doctrine or their practices. I have only lately realized there even was a controversy, and since th Trads doc I've started telling Calvinists and non-Calvinists to simmer down. We've got work to do to take the gospel to the nations, and we need to remember the deference between inter- and intra-varsity conflict.

All that to say: we're not homogenous. We're not one big group that you can lump ino the same category. We're not all angry. Are some? Absolutely. On both sides of the issue. I'm not here to convert you to Calvinism. Would I love to see a movement towards Calvinism happen in the SBC? Sure. I think it's right. But I'm not going to exclude anyone from our big tent, and if it happens, it needs to happen openly and with the full support of the churches that call these reformed pastors to preach.

That's what I take issue with. When you make sweeping generalizations, you're including me in those statements, and it hurts. I'm not trying to make excuses for my brothers, but I am asking for you to remember that we've been purchased together with the blood of Christ.


Michael Vaughan:

You are only classified as YRR if you self-identify as such. I am young enough to be classified as YRR myself, but I reject it in favor of aligning myself with historic Particular Baptist tradition ... Spurgeon, Bunyan, Carey etc. If you were to read the books and sermons by the original Particular Baptists and even guys who came around over 200 years after the movement begun, you'd be amazed at how different they were from the modern guys.

Case in point: Piper, as well as the leading theologian of the YRR movement Wayne Grudem. Sorry. If I wanted to be a continuationist, I would have never left Pentecostalism behind to be Baptist in the first place. As for "I'm happy to go to a reformed church, given the option, but I'll choose an SBC church over a non-SBC reformed church any day" ... well I myself attend a non-Reformed SBC church because my pastor is a Godly man of excellent temperament who has produced much great fruit for the kingdom of heaven, so I have no reason or justification to leave merely because of differences over tertiary issues.

By the way, no need to go through the exercise of trying to prove your SBC bona fides merely because you are a Particular Baptist. It is totally unnecessary despite what many choose to claim.


Job, Did you think Mohler's blog statement, "It's Time to Talk" was gracious in totality? Did you see any problems with it?

Dave Cline

To those who are expressing chagrin at the comments of Dr. Mohler, and saying that as your "convention employee" he's outta line....need to realize he's not a convention employee.

Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Danny Aiken are seminary presidents, and are not your employees. They are accountable to the board of trustees at the seminaries they've been appointed to lead.

In fact, does the convention actually really even have employees? Doesn't everyone (except those directly elected as officers by the members at the annual meeting) work, serve and sit under the authority (and autonomy) at the pleasure of the board of trustees of that entity?

I'm saddened by the whole "the SBC is dead" head wagging going on. I disagree, profoundly.

Sure there are YRR individuals who sinfully, brashly, arrogantly, and obnoxiously give other reformed people a bad name....but the problem there is not the doctrine they hold, but the spiritual immaturity the posses and demonstrate. (as evidenced by some comments on these blogs, twitter, Facebook, etc...)

Just as there are (as evidenced in some of these comments, twitter, Facebook, etc...) brash, arrogant, sinful, and obnoxious "traditionalists" giving others a bad name....and likewise the problem is not with thier theology....but with the spiritual immaturity they posses and demonstrate.

My point is we ALL need to grow up. Practice Romans 12 and let our love be genuine, outdoing one another in showing honor.

Right now there's too much of the "outdoing one another" going on, and not enough of the showing honor and genuine love.

God bless you all.



The semi-Pelagian thing was something that never should have been said even if you were thinking it. (I posted a comment to that effect on SBC Voices.) But other than that, look we have different soteriology. We ought to be able to say "we believe that we are right and you are wrong on this matter" without claims of being hated, victimized, persecuted and abused by the other side. And again, that is the lack of the two way street that I am speaking of. The traditionalists have the stance that any statement that they make against Calvinists and Calvinism is legitimate while taking the stance that anything said by Calvinists against non-Calvinists that rises above mealy-mouthed milquetoast is an attack. How is a dialogue going to take place with those ground rules? A better question: why should it take place?

Again, I would not use the term "semi-Pelagian" because that has a specific theological meaning and historical context, not to mention the fact that Christendom officially regards it to be heresy. Internal usage of the term by Calvinists have given it a meaning for us that is quite distinct from everybody else. Also, Mohler should have been more sensitive to the fact that the statements that seemed semi-Pelagian were instead reactionary. I use that in the original meaning of the term "reactionary", not the more modern perjorative one, in that the traditionalist statement seemed semi-Pelagian when and because they were reacting to - or defining themselves against or in light of - the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity. In my opinion, the statement needs to be refined in order to be less self-consciously "against." For example, instead of feeling the need to respond to Calvinist distinctives, just state what you believe and let it stand in its own context. The reason for this would not have been to avoid debate and conflict with Calvinists - especially since more than a few Calvinists are looking for a fight anyway - but for theological clarity.

But even the inappropriate Semi-Pelagian charge ... I will see that and match it with the claim that Calvinism is a man-made system, raise you with the claim that 5 point Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, and then stack it with claims that Calvinism is anti-missionary and incompatible with the Baptist free church tradition. All of those claims range from highly suspect to demonstrably false according to the facts of history, yet they are freely frequently made.


Michael Vaughn writes "I'm happy to go to a reformed church, given the option ..."

Michael brings up a good point. One of the issues we have in SBC ranks is that prospective church members do not know what theological direction leadership at a particular church may lean. Likewise, messengers this week while voting on SBC officers weren't introduced to a particular candidate's theology in platform nominations (if they were not on certain Twitter distribution lists). As Michael points out, he would be happy to select a reformed church if given that option. Indeed, messengers should have been afforded that option as well. Nominations indicating that a candidate is a "small church pastor" or "unifier" doesn't complete the resume. One will say "But we all Southern Baptists - theology shouldn't matter!" It's increasingly obvious that it does matter to a lot of folks!

A young SBC Calvinist pastor in my area just did a remarkable thing. He painted "Reformed" on the bottom of his church sign and updated the church website's "What We Believe" page to explain what this means. All current and prospective members now understand the theology underlying this pastor's ministry. As a non-Calvinist, I don't agree with this young man's theological leaning, but I sure appreciate his integrity! Put "Reformed" or "Non-Reformed" on your church sign, on your website, and in your nomination of SBC candidates. Give us the option!


'To those who are expressing chagrin at the comments of Dr. Mohler, and saying that as your "convention employee" he's outta line....need to realize he's not a convention employee.'

I agree David, He is an employee of SBTS which is operated through and for the SBC including funded by the SBC. And whose Trustees are chosen by elected officials in the SBC in a process developed for such accountability.

No matter how it is parsed. He is an employee of Southern Baptists and should be held accountable for his behavior and who he chooses to associate the seminary with.


"The semi-Pelagian thing was something that never should have been said even if you were thinking it."

Actually Job, while that charge was most likely meant to affirm and rally his troops it really hurt him more in the long run because it has been thoroughly refuted by many. In fact, it showed that the Reformed guys are not as smart as they think they are or purposely deceptive when they trotted out edited quotes? Is this what they are taught at seminary and we pay for? (SBTS profs did the same thing quoting Anathanasus for ESS...deceptive)

No, the real zinger was when he said his learned colleagues, brothers he knows well did not believe what they signed.

That was the cutting insult from a man who was given power too young and has had it for too long. It is our fault he is so arrogant. He has no respect for his colleagues and said so publicly. He should be censored by the trustees but will not be. And therefore he will eventually get worse. He has been known as a tyrant here to work for. He even had to apologize when it was made public back in 2006.

Mohler needs to be reigned in. His affirmation of the cult leader Mahaney moving to Louisville to plant a church "near the seminary" is quite telling.

The comments to this entry are closed.