« So long DISQUS, welcome back TYPEPAD by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Al Mohler, Semi-Pelagianism, and being "Traditional" Southern Baptists by Peter Lumpkins »



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


Peter, have you/will you sign it?


I clicked on Denny Burk's link earlier and of course the first comment was a snarky one against Jerry Vines. Burk has since deleted it. Gotta hide the evidence of those rabid Calvinists.

I'm hoping in all this discusion someone's going to explain how on earth the Founders movement which is to "reform" the SBC by "restoring the Gospel" is not divisive and causing disunity.

I'd also like to hear why it's acceptable to have Calvinists seminaries. Shouldn't the seminaries be serving all of the SBC? Are the Traditionalists going to be granted Traditionalists seminaries where Calvinists are not going to be allowed on staff? If not, why not?

Isn't the term "Founders" itself a divisive statement? Why do the Calvinists show such little regard for all the work of the Traditionalists of the last 100 years or so? do only the Founders count for anything. Do the Calvinists not realize how much of the growth in the SBC occurred while the Traditionalists have been the majority? Of course we know the Founder's Movement believes that growth is what lead to the liberals taking over back in the day and only by going back to the Founders can the SBC be purified. I'm not sure what Ascol wants to do with those of us who won't reform. I guess he just hopes for a Quiet Revolution. The Revolution doesn't seem to be so quiet anymore and it looks like the peasants are revolting against "reform."


" clicked on Denny Burk's link earlier and of course the first comment was a snarky one against Jerry Vines. Burk has since deleted it. Gotta hide the evidence of those rabid Calvinists.

SBCPravda has been doing the same thing. But here is the deal. I really don't care what Mohler says or even Vines...how much you wanna bet it will end in a handshake and all is ok at the top? But the problem continues?

. What I care is if the pew sitters in SBC churches are seeing the angry, arrogant responses over at SBCToday caling the signers heretics. they need to see what their tithe dollars have been paying for in the way of subsidizing education and planting such churches with such leaders. It is not the mega churches like Mohler's (Highview where Ezell used to pastor) who are giving the most to CP. It is the smaller church and unfortunatly for the YRR, older people who won't accept their attitude as appropriate for young pastors. The word is trickling down as evidenced by some older folks at my church hearing about the havoc brought on by YRR in area churchs, Assoc people who are blown away by the vitriol of them. I have given the older people links to the problems with Driscoll and Mahaney, people that MOhler supports through Acts 29 and Mahaney moving to Louisville. I have also given them links to SBC Today and Pravda so they can read the comments for themselves. One has to see them to believe them.

Forget the leaders. Take it to the people.


AGREED....take it to the people. We did in LOUISVILLE, ORLANDO and PHOENIX. Our leaders ignored or covered it up. They treated the Ga. Baptist paper editor even worse....suggesting he didn't know what he was talking about. Last year the "SBC CONSERVATIVES" met at the HYATT-PHOENIX and helped support "not selling the NIV thru LIFEWAY". Lifeway chose to ignore the messengers.
I predict NEW ORLEANS will be different. The "REAL CONSERVATIVES" are going to have their "TEA PARTY MOMENT" and "WISCONSIN RESULT". Plan on being there!!!


Casey, I happen to think that bringing the authoritarian cult sodomy pastors and protect the molesters (Mahaney) into the SBC is a lot worse than calling a sister a sister instead of a brother. :o)

I think this is typical of the SBC conservatives. They ignore the real problems and go after Disney and the NIV. I happen to trust Gordon Fee more than Al Mohler when it comes to translations.

BTW: It is interesting to see who Crossway also promotes besides the ESV. Birds of a feather.

This stuff is usually about money, anyway.

peter lumpkins

I have not signed it yet. And, as I stated elsewhere, I personally possess a spiritual kinship, right or wrong, with those Baptists in history who've a natural aversion to all creeds. This neither means I will not sign it in the future nor does it mean I do not now support it--at least the general thrust of it as Dr. Vines has stated. I hope that helps, brother.

With that, I am...


Somebody should copy this for future reference when Calvinists are screaming that there are no hateful Calvinists in the SBC. Poor dear doesn't get the Mohler was trying to send him a message to act this sort of way.



Here's another quote where the Calvinists are saying Traditionalist need to leave the SBC. What was that about no Calvinists wanting to take over the SBC and force their views on everyone?

"In a million different ways, I would much rather that the SBC actually have it out over the accusations made in this document, and over the shoddy formulations in this document, and settle the matter. If there is a split, let there be a split -- and let those who accept the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unsystematic claims of this document separate from those who would call them to the abstract of principles of SBTS, among other foundational and historical SBC statements."


Sorry, I forgot the link on that one



Thanks for posting this information.

I still don't really get what "the issue" is.

The Founders can exist and do their thing.

The Traditionalists can exist and do their thing.

Didn't Mohler and Paige Patterson have a big discussion about Calvinism at a convention a few years ago.

Neither side is going to go away. Both sides of the theological divide will have representatives in leadership.

I really don't see this as a big deal.

I am glad you are posting on it, but it really doesn't interest me.

If either side moved for official convention action to punish or exclude the other side, things would change. But for now, despite the theological disagreement, I think that 2 sides get along o.k.

There are crackpots on either side, and I would not think it would be good to define the discussion or the respective sides by their worst supporters.


Louis, Al Mohler is already excluding Traditionalists from serving on staff at Southern Seminary. Danny Akin is following in his footsteps. That's part of the problem this isn't just "extremes" that each side has. Al Mohler is already excluding.

And now you'll come back with Russ Moore's not a Calvinist! Russ Moore is a four point Calvinist as is Danny Akin. Traditionalists are not welcome at these Seminaries.

But, but, but..... the Abstract! So it's ok that the Calvinists exclude based on what dead dudes say all the while taking Traditionalist money.

And no Louis, both sides can't do their thing because people like Tom Ascol call them divisive and guilty of spreading disunity. And then of course all those cries of heresy. So no, both sides aren't allowed to do their own thing. One side gets to mock, belittle and insult while the other side is accused of "disunity."


Hi Louis,

Are you still on the SBTS Foundation Board? I was wondering how long those appointments are?

A while back on SBCPravda, I think I recall you encouraging the Traditionalists (non Calvinist back then) to make their case to the people. I think they took your advice and have begun. :o)


"And, as I stated elsewhere, I personally possess a spiritual kinship, right or wrong, with those Baptists in history who've a natural aversion to all creeds. "

Ditto. Not that my signing would be a big deal as a lowly gal (made in the "indirect" image of God according to Bruce Ware at SBTS) in the SBC but I, too, have an aversion to creeds.


Mary, Ignore Frank Turk and the Pyro guys. Turk is especially vitriolic and snarky. Here is how they treated SGMsurvivors when pretending to "hear their side": http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2012/05/29/mystery-solved/

Nevermind that McArthur is having CJ Mahaney (Apostle of the People of Destiny now SGM) into preach at their conference!

It is all business, dontcha know. Guess McArthur makes some allowances for certain Charismatics. (wink)


I'm trying really hard to be objective in this current flurry of debate for the sake of SBC unity, the Cooperative Program, our seminaries, SBC pastor retirement annuities, etc. But, I can't get one particular statement by Dr. Mohler out of my mind ... the one where he said reformed faith is the only viable option for thinking Christians ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8



I am not the least bit upset that the "Traditionalists" have drafted and signed a document and are promoting their cause. I think that is a good thing.

I just don't see this as any big issue. There have been Reformed and non-Reformed people in the SBC for years and always will be.

I remember when a blog a couple of years ago said that Paige Patterson was going to fire all of the Reformed people at Southwestern.

I suspected that was bogus at that time, just as I suspect that much of the rumor and inuendo surrounding Southern and Southeastern is silly.

Southnern Baptists have had this "conversation" for decades, and after we have this latest round, we'll have the conversation some more.

I don't mind it at all. The hype surrounding all of it just doesn't do that much for me.



You're denying that to be on staff at Southern and Southeastern that one has to sign and affirm the Abstract of Principles? It's not silly, nor rumor and innuendo.

But you do push the yes men line prettily. People claiming to have real life experiences with nasty Calvinists are "silly" and gossiping.

William Marshall

Bro. Peter,
Not sure if this is the place to ask this question and if it is not, then you can either ignore it or send me an email or something. But from what I have read (and that's not too much) it seems that many (including non-calvinist's like Roger Olson) have problems with the statements denial of man's inherited guilt from Adam (Article II's denial). To many this sounds very Pelagian. I do not think that the writers and signers are Pelagian (Dr. Vines denies such), but the statement's denial is confusing at best. How would they handle Romans 5:13-21, particularly v. 18? What are your thoughts on that? Thanks,


peter lumpkins


I appreciate your attempt to neutralize the present exchange but I have to tell you, we are on totally different channels. There is nothing--and I mean nothing--comparable to the spark this document has struck since I've been addressing the Calvinist divide in the SBC. And, I've been addressing it since 2006. Indeed the very creation of this blog was to deal with aggressive Calvinism. For Al Mohler to even respond should tell most that the group who initiated this statement got the Calvinists' attention.

Now you may believe all you wish this is just another ho-hum, run-of-the-mill expression of a preacher-fight that's been going on for decades. Be my guest. But I have no desire to pursue unicorns.

With that, I am...

peter lumpkins


Thanks. First, I'd insist you've wandered well off the reservation by speaking of Pelagianism while skipping Semi-Pelagianism. There is absolutely no relationship between the two positions.

Second, Olson was speaking of Semi-Pelagianism. But understand: Olson's position and Calvinism's position are at a 'dead-heat' if you will on human depravity. But I am not an Arminian. Neither are the signers of the document. They've tried to say this but few have listened.

Third, there is no confusion in asserting we inherit Adam's nature but we are not imputed Adam's guilt. We inherit A; we do not inherit B. What is confusing about a simple proposition like that?

Fourth, I'd read Adam Harwood's book "The Spiritual Condition of Infants" in which he effectively deals with the biblical distinction between our inheriting Adamic nature while Adamic guilt is not imputed to us.

Finally, I intend to write a full post on Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Augustinianism. Perhaps by tomorrow. Next post is a response to Dr. Mohler from four college VPs.

Peace, brother.
With that, I am...


Peter, I don't see Malcom Yarnell's blog on your blog roll.

Those reading here want to make certain to read Dr. Yarnell's response to the cries of heresy.

Also be sure to keep up with SBC Today. Especially of note is Dr. Hankins response to Dr. Mohler.

Lydia, last night you "voiced" your concern that this would fizzle and nothing would be changed. Correct me if I've gotten your comment wrong. My husband and I have been discouraged for some time wondering where oh where were the heavy weights in the Traditionalist camp and why were they allowing this Calvinization of the SBC without even a whimper. What I've read today gives me hope. I don't know what's going on behind the curtain, but it looks to me like we gots a ball game here. I know Peter has tried to hold Mohler responsible for his insults against those not in his tribe, but it seems like perhaps those "higher" than Peter have suited up and are coming out of the on deck circle.



I am aware that Southern has had the Abstract since its founding. I am not aware that Southeastern has the Abstract or requires a similar thing.

I do not think that Southern's adhearing to the Abstract is silly.

I think that much of the wrangling and the way it is conducted (including the charges against Patterson) are silly.

I just don't see if Al Mohler and Paige Patterson can discuss this issue, being in the SBC together, with such Grace why the rest of Southern Baptists cannot.

I know both Al Mohler and Malcolm Yarnell and others holding their respective views. I would go to church with either. Either is competent to serve.

I don't discount the significance of the theological discussion. I just don't get the necessity for all the heat generated.

People say things all the time that I disagree with. Just because some supposedly important person in SBC life says something that I disagree with, even inartfully, I am not likely to get that worked up about it - unless it goes to undermining the denomination's confessional document - the BFM. So, if someone proposed, for example, that we take a neoorthodox view of the Bible, I am all over that.

But if people disagree on the extent to which the Reformed tradition or doctrine holds sway, church governance issues, some particulars regarding baptism or the Lord's supper, or eschatology, etc., I am not that exercised about it.

I hope that I am communicating with you. You are a good writer and strong advocate.



I am not discounting the "spark" that the document may have caused or the response.

I guess what I have trouble seeing is where this gets anyone.

Again, I am glad for folks to express themselves. I have always been and am for robust debate, especially among theologians. Telling theologians to stop discussing is not only unproductive, it's not healthy.

What I am seeing in all this is one camp says this. The other camp responds. One camp puts out a statement. The other camp puts out a statement.

Since both perspectives are clearly within the parameters of the BFM, and both camps have had their representatives in SBC life and always will, I do not really see any end game or action.

I do not discount for a moment your passion or the passion or the adherents on both sides.

But since there is no outlet for this other than more discussion, and since we have been discussing this for decades, with the discussion waxing and waning at times, the issue fails to grab me.

And the proposition that this is an elephant in the room that we need to discuss and have been unwilling to discuss also seems wrong. We have been discussing it. Mohler and Patterson had a panel on it. Didn't LifeWay put on a big conference at Ridgecrest a couple of years ago.

Everyone can be as excited about this, or not, as they choose to be.

I am just trying to figure out why this is anything new (other than the volume is turned up), and it fails to grab me since it has no ultimate goal or end, other than for both sides to continue to promote what they think is best.

Thanks for understanding where I am coming from.

Maybe we'll meet at the convention this year.


Louis, answer these questions:

Why is it ok for Southern and Southeastern (yes they do require affirmation of the Abstract) to only allow 4 and 5 point Calvinists on staff, but it would be a problem if Paige Patterson decided that Southwestern would require affirmation of the Traditionalist statement? Would it be ok if people in the pews decided they didn't wish to support a Calvinist/Traditionalist only seminary?

Please spare me the "founding documents" defense. The Founders of the SBC named the SBC but somehow we don't care what the Founders thought of what our name should be. And those dead Founders aren't still writing the checks keeping the lights on are they? And there are other things in the Abstract that Mohler doesn't require his staff to adhere to. The Abstract is used to keep out Traditionalists. It's soteriological discrimination. For all the cries of BFM, BFM, BFM it's the Calvinsts that use documents beyond the BFM to keep out the Traditionalists.

You keep saying this isn't a big deal except it is a big deal because one side is insisting on their way or the highway. Maybe it's not a big deal to you because you haven't seen the damge done to people's lives. The heartbreak. Maybe it doesn't bother you. From my husband my children have an SBC heritage going back four or five generations. Until this recent push back against the Calvinization of the SBC I thought we would be the last generation of SBC. In Al Mohler's and Tom Ascol's SBC people like my family are only good for writing checks and bringing the crock pot to pot luck. We're not good enough to serve.

Many of us have experienced in real life, real time, what the Founders movement means when they push for the reform of the SBC. Churches have been split and destroyed because of this "reform." That's not silly and it's not a lie.

Either the SBC Entities are meant to serve the entire SBC or someone like Al Mohler can decide his Seminary is going to only serve a small portion all the while taking money from those not in his tribe and insulting their intelligence and biblical literacy.

Now Louis what you're communicating to me is A) you really have no clue what's going on in the SBC; B) you know, but you don't think it's a big deal that there is a movement to push out Traditionalists like me or, C) you think we're all just a bunch liars that are making stuff up.

But seriously, I'm not wasting my energy anymore on people who don't have a clue, want a clue, or think I'm just clueless. Spin the wheel, buy a vowel, join the game, or choose to turn off the tube, but please step out the way cause there's work that needs to be done. Serious work for the heart of the SBC.

William Marshall

Bro. Peter,
Sorry about confusing Pelagianism with semi-Pelagianism, that was poor language on my part (although claiming that there is "absolutely no relationship" between the two seems strong condidering their labels alone, ie 'semi' means at least 'partial Pelagian' or something close). I know you cannot speak for all of the signers, so I will just ask you: do you deny that Romans 5:18 teaches inherited guilt? If you do, what do you think Paul is teaching us there? Can you sum up Harwood's take on it? I really am just trying to understand what others believe about man's depravity (and how they handle certain passages). Thanks for your time,




You are right. I have no idea what you are talking about. But that is why I am interacting with you. I am trying to understand what you are saying.

Our experiences are quite different.

I know of no person who has been excluded from SBC life who agrees with the BFM on the basis of their views on these issues that are being discussed.

I know people who have been employed to serve in SBC life, at the agency level, who have different views on these issues.

Some have made the charge that Paige Patterson doesn't hire Reformed people at Southwestern and that he was going to fire all the Reformed people there. I have never seen evidence of that, but I recognize that Paige is not as Reformed as Al Mohler. I suspect that Southwestern is less on the Reformed side.

I am fine with that.

I know that Southern tries to adhere to the Abstract (and thank you for telling me about Southeastern) because the professors are required to sign that when they are appointed.

I believe it is the right thing for a seminary to adhere to documents that it says that it adheres to.

If the trustees of that organization want to change those documents, that is fine by me, too. That is the way to do things.

I just read Southern's (and Southeastern's) Abstracts. I guess I could not be a professor there because of the Lord's day article.

But I could be based on the rest.

If the idea is for people to propose that Southern and Southeastern change there founding documents, that would be up to the trustees.

I have no problem supporting the seminaries through the cooperative program, even though they each have a different emphasis and flavor, in a sense, and have since their respective foundings.

I suppose if the trustees at those institutions did not want to change the founding documents, then the convention would have to elect trustees who were intent on that, and when the requisite number of trustees were elected, then that would change.

But I have not heard anyone suggest that we should start electing trustees on the basis of whether they will change Southern's or Southeastern's governing documents. If that became the battle cry, so to speak, then I would understand things better, I suppose.

I have no trouble supporting NAMB. And if NAMB helps support new church starts, so long as those new churches believe within the confines of the BFM, I have no problem if they are Reformed or not Reformed. I would give my money to support both.

I guess some could propose changes to the BFM to change that and only plant one type of church, but I have not heard anyone propose that.

I do not mind that the SBC would change its name, and think that is a good idea (subject to the legal issues about the charter that have been raised). But that is up to the current generation of people in the SBC.

I agree with you that people nowadays don't have to be beholden to old documents. But the onus is on those people who want to change them to state what they want to change and why.

That is where I am seeing a disconnect in this discussion.

Are there people wanting to make some changes to the SBC? What are the changes being proposed.

As I see things now, I see one camp wanting churches to be more Reformed and another camp not caring for some of the Reformed tradition.

That plays out, I suspect, in local churches, as pastors and others in the churches attend events etc.

But I don't see that playing out in denominational life witout some sort of proposed doctrinal or programmatic change.

As I said, there are various quarters in SBC life that are more Reformed than others.

I don't get the sense that Golden Gate, Southwestern, Midwestern or New Orleans are all that Reformed. Southern is, and Southeastern, I suspect is less so.

I don't believe that Rainer is totally Reformed. I believe LifeWay still publishes and sells all types of material.

Richard Land is not Reformed.

I don't know that Tom Eliff is Reformed.

So, again, when I step back and look across the spectrum, I see people from different camps serving.

I will clearly agree with you that there has been a resurgence of interest in the particulars of Reformed theology over the last 25 years or so, not just in the SBC. And that trend has had an impact in lots of places, including the SBC.

I am sure that there are instances of unfair treatment and church splits that can be told from various perspectives.

But to me those appear to me isolated and discrete and not part of some grand scheme or plan.

Again, I hope this makes sense. It seems that I may have said something to anger you, and want you to know that certainly was not my intent or desire.



Forgot to answer some of your questions.

It would be fine for Paige Patterson to hire whomever he wants so long as it within the BFM and documents governing the seminary. Just as it would be fine for Southern and Southeastern.

I would given them and their trustees some leeway so long as they are in the BFM.

It would be fine for churches and individuals to support or not support whatever seminaries they wanted to support.

My own perspective is that I support all of the seminaries and encourage our church to give to the cooperative program.

I am sure that some of the seminaries may have professors or emphases that I might not select as my own.

I think it is fine for the NAMB to assist in the planting of Reformed churches and churches that are not Reformed.

I think it is fine for the IMB to appoint Reformed and non-Reformed missionaries.

And I would support all of these things.

As far as I know, that is how things are working now, and that is how they have been working.

Until someone really proposes some formal change, I am not necessarily worked up about all this, but I am trying to understand.

peter lumpkins


It's not about the "heat generated". Instead it's about not only the players involved but the intensity of the game. Name a single instance in SBC life over the past decade which drew this kind of vocal, public support from a group of Baptists--including high-profile Baptists-- dealing with the Calvinist/non-Calvinist exchange. I repeat: nothing compares. If it does, please correct me.
And, I'd love to meet you at the SBC.

With that, I am...


"And the proposition that this is an elephant in the room that we need to discuss and have been unwilling to discuss also seems wrong. We have been discussing it. Mohler and Patterson had a panel on it. Didn't LifeWay put on a big conference at Ridgecrest a couple of years ago."

The main problem as I see it is that Mohler is not consistent and dabbles in doublespeak. It depends on what audience he is speaking to yet everywhere he goes (T4G, GC, etc) he is president of SBTS and an SBC employee.

He agrees in SBC venues we can all rally around the BFM and work together. Then he says in the GC video the ONLY place go to is Reformed/New Calvinism if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ. He also made a statement that basically says we (non C's) do not have the mental processes or structure to understand New Calvinism.

Does he mean to offend those who pay his salary? If he believes what he said in the GC video then he is wrong to take a salary from heretics. Why doesn't he say this at the convention when he speaks? Why not show the GC clip and see how it goes over?

There are many who do not see this disconnect, choose to ignore it or parse it in very silly ways, i.e. Mohler thinks all SBC are Calvinists because of the BFM.

This sort of doublespeak is not acceptable by a man in Mohler's position. It is catching up to him. It is Orwellian to say the least but it also has ethical implications.


Whew, it's increasingly clear from the blog traffic this week that there is indeed an elephant in the room! The bummer for me as I reflect on that picture is knowing that you have to open the door widely to allow an elephant in and then pretend you don't see it. The elephant was bad enough, but along the way someone also let in an 800-pound gorilla to lead it. Shame on majority SBC leaders who waited this long to talk. We'll have a mess to shovel when the talking is over.


OK, Louis, you're making me tired. You say you don't know what's going on, but then claim that the experiences I've shared must be rare exceptions. You know that Southern at least is following it's founding documents even though they pick and choose what parts of it they follow such as the Sabbath clause. You think it's not a big deal that Southern and now Southeastern force a doctrinal purity test beyond the BFM. There's more there but here's the point to circle us all the way back to the beginning.

You say you don't know what the big deal is. Here's the deal. Only 4 and 5 Point Calvinists are allowed on staff at two SBC Seminaries. Evidence is mounting that the majority of church plants by the NAMB are Calvinist. Lifeway is producing new SS literature by a team of Calvinists (that's just pure accident. They claim to not know how the whole team turned out to be Calvinist) Calvinists have gone absolutely insane over this current Tradtionalist statement, calling former SBC Presidents, SBC Seminary Presidents and Professors, Pastors etc heretics and the talk is whether there is room in the SBC for such heretics.

So what's the point? Traditionalist are not going to take this Calvinization of the SBC. Calvinists and Traditinalist should be able to share the SBC. What happens when a Calvinist takes over a Seminary or the NAMB. Suddenly, everthing gets Calvinized. You're not going to find too many Traditionalists who want to get rid of all the Calvinists in the SBC, but what we're seeing is that when Al Mohler takes control - he's only allowing Calvinists into his kingdom. This has to stop. Calvinists aren't asking for a seat at the table - they want the whole table. Calvinists don't want to play nicely in the sandbox they want control of the whole playground. That's what all this evidence from the seminaries, to the NAMB, to Lifeway, to the Founder's Movement show us. People have experieced at the church level what Calvinists are doing at Associational, State and the National Level.

That's rambling, but I think you can get a few points in there. You can dismiss all that as not a big deal, silly, and hysteria, but all of sudden all of us silly, hysterical people making up lies are organizing. I don't think Calvinists are going to find it so easy to continue calling us liars now.


"Lydia, last night you "voiced" your concern that this would fizzle and nothing would be changed. Correct me if I've gotten your comment wrong. My husband and I have been discouraged for some time wondering where oh where were the heavy weights in the Traditionalist camp and why were they allowing this Calvinization of the SBC without even a whimper"

Mary, I am not a man follower but I have been greatly impressed with Reynolds, Harwood, Hankins, and even some commenters like Jim G and Johnathan Pritchett. These guys get it. They understand we are dealing with an Augustinian filter and is like an opaque glass they guys cannot see through. And that is a result of indoctrination. It is their foundation and they start with that premise. They cannot discuss it outside their premise. They are like little despots.

I am thrilled we have smart guys that are willing to take this on. And that is big because it is like living in North Korea in Christian circles in Louisville when it comes to the Augustinian view. People jump to conclusions if you dare suggest there is another way to interpret this that even Glorifies God more! I am not sure people realize to whaat extent Augustine has influenced all of this. My big thing is history and when I read history it really makes me question the assumptions of a lot of the theology of the old dead guys they so love. We simply must question it. We live in a time of so many resources at our disposal for study we have no excuses.

When you have guys preaching that babies are 'selfish" for crying for a bottle and that baby would murder you to get it (moot point) and that proves imputed guilt and their view of original sin, it has become ridiculous. Rational thinking has left the building...because we are too totally depraved to have rational thought? I have heard Paul Washer preach on this vein, too. Gee!!! A God given instinct to preserve life is now sin. (And I know a couple who has a baby that never cried to be fed. It is a horrible thing as that baby had to be put on a feeding tube. They WISH their baby would selfishly cry to be fed!!!)

I am thrilled beyond measure we have some sharp guys out there taking the whole Augustinian/Platonic/Calvinist filter on. For crying out loud, Calvin was drowning rebaptizers. Shall we discuss Augustine and politics? The Puritans and their theocracy? These guys want so bad to rewrite history to fit their agenda so they can rule, too. Why else would be so enamoured with so many historical despots?


Lydia, I know a little about a lot of things. I admit that a lot of this debate is wandering too deep in the weeds for me. I know what I believe and where I can go in the Bible to defend it, but I can't pull the names of church fathers off the top of my head.

I too appreciate folks like Jim G and Jonathan who are standing toe to toe with these guys.

I just can't believe that Calvinists believe they can continue to whine about being misrepresented and caricutred when they are declaring that they can label us with whatever label they choose and even declare that we're heretics. This Traditionalist document has proved to be divisive - because Calvinists will not or cannot respond with grace to those who disagree with them. They really do believe they own the whole ballpark and we all have to play by their rules and regs.



Thanks for the response and your thoughts.

This may be a small consolation to you, but I am strongly in favor of all Southern Baptists having a seat at the table. I have many dear friends in both camps, and would hate to see any of them excluded.



I will look for you.



Your observations about Dr. Mohler's speaking to one group and then to another do seem to be part of the problem.

I have not followed his statements closely, but some of the statements I have seen are the type that would draw ire. They could have been modified slightly to fit within both the SBC disucssion and the wider discussion, and I think he, and we, would have been better served.

The one example I can think of is the statement that having a Reformed view is the only one that is intectually defensible or something along that line.

Some may not be bothered by statements like that as they understand statements like that being made by academics, economists, politicians etc. They are made for force and conviction, not to question or belittle, even though they sound belittling. Others may take those statements to mean that everyone who doesn't agree with me is a buffoon.

Any statements made like that should be made with the knowledge that they get out of the room in which they are made.


"OK, Louis, you're making me tired. You say you don't know what's going on, but then claim that the experiences I've shared must be rare exceptions."

LOL! Mary, Louis is really a nice guy but you gotta watch him. He is an elder in a Reformed church, on an SBTS Foundation Board and knows exactly what is going on. He is being a lawyer and trying to play down the obvious. a few years back he said over at FBCJaxwatchblog he had never served with any SBC entity in any capacity. A few months later another blogger who knew him sent links to his second time around appointment to the SBTS Foundation Board. So, you gotta watch him. He does not consider the SBC Foundation Board part of the SBC or any entity, I suppose. LOL!

I still like him.


"Some may not be bothered by statements like that as they understand statements like that being made by academics, economists, politicians etc. They are made for force and conviction, not to question or belittle, even though they sound belittling. Others may take those statements to mean that everyone who doesn't agree with me is a buffoon."

Seriously, Louis, this sounds awfully close to situational ethics. We are not to be like the world, remember? We cannot expect the chief theologian of SBTS to mean what he says and say what he means in any venue?

You are discounting that Mohler is president of STBS and an SBC employee where ever he goes. It is the offerings of many non Calvinists that made it possible for him to spend so much time with GC and T4G and he insults them because he is convictional? Really Louis, you don't have anything better and less worldly to reason with? I really do not think Mohler is that dumb. I think he knows exactly what he is doing.And I think he thinks his position is safe no matter what he does or says. He is very slick.

"Any statements made like that should be made with the knowledge that they get out of the room in which they are made."

Sweetie, Some of the biggie insults were FILMED and distributed for promotional reasons to the YRR. Surely he knew he was being filmed? Sheesh!!!!


Lydia writes "Some of the biggie insults were FILMED and distributed for promotional reasons to the YRR."

For example ... implying that reformed faith is the only viable option for thinking Christians http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8


Max, it's ok now. He was clearly speaking in some foreign tongues and he has intepreters telling us what we thought was plain English really means now. It sounded like English, but it was actually some secret unknown language that has now been interpreted for us poor people without understanding.


Mary - I'm comforted by the eternal truth that folks who like to hear themselves talk eventually talk themselves into a hole.


Max, you'll appreciate these words from the most arrogant condescending, nasty, vitriolic Calvinist in a long time. This is part a long post to Lydia at SBC Voices. He was mad because she called him "arrogant" He's called people heretics, liars, implied they were stupid, made statements of their lacking in education, questioned the integrity and intelligence of Malcolm Yarnell, but he accused Lydia of name-calling when she called him "arrogant" and this is part of his response:

"Perhaps if you humbly and teachably listened to them, you would find that what you mistook for arrogance was their being right."

See if only we poor dumb fools would listen he could learn us good in Calvinism.

The comments to this entry are closed.