Traditional Statement now “errs” but not “heresy”? by Peter Lumpkins

Recently, Alabama pastor, Rick Patrick, wrote an interesting piece at SBC Voices entitled, "Of Unity and Heresy." He writes:

 The suggestion by Southern Baptist Calvinists that Traditionalists may believe in heresy is much more troubling. Traditionalists who affirm Total Depravity reject Total Inability. Traditionalists who affirm our sin nature in Adam nevertheless reject that we are guilty of Adam's sin, holding rather that we are each accountable only for our own sin. These may not be Calvinist views, but they are certainly not heretical, semi-Pelagian views. Real live Cooperative Program supporting Southern Baptists believe these doctrines. Lots of them. Seminary Presidents. Professors. Pastors. More than 800 signers as I write this article. Has a fifteen hundred year old heresy really crept into Baptist life without anyone noticing until now? Or have the Calvinists overreacted a bit?

Not surprisingly, first in line to log a protest to Patrick's piece was Florida pastor, Chris Roberts.¹ Roberts is one of the most vocal critics of the Traditional Statement (TS), doing more than perhaps any other single Calvinist to tar the statement as Semi-Pelagianism.² What is surprising, however, is Chris' opening line. Consider:

Those affirming the Statement are not heretics, yet Article II of the Statement is semi-Pelagian. Semi-Pelagianism is not Pelagianism, nor is it universalism, unitarianism, or a host of other heresies. It is an error, but it is not heresy... They were not heretics to be shunned, they were brothers who were wrong about the human will. (//link)

And just a few comments later:

The only people who have tossed out the heresy label are those who signed the Statement. I haven't seen anyone accuse the signers of being heretics, I haven't seen anyone say those who affirm Article II are guilty of heresy, and I certainly don't believe it myself, though I've been right alongside those who recognize that Article II is semi-Pelagian. (//link)

I fear Roberts--and perhaps others will follow--is now blowing smoke in TS supporters' faces. According to Roberts, while the TS document is fully Semi-Pelagian, being Semi-Pelagian is not heresy; it's just error. Additionaly, Roberts boldly proclaimed he's not called TS supporters heretics and appears to take offense that those who accuse him of doing so are just dead wrong.

The problem with Roberts' statement is, it appears grossly disingenuous when we consider his stated position. Not only does Roberts approvingly quote sources that consider Semi-Pelagianism heresy, he has unequivocally stated Semi-Pelagianism is heresy on his own blog. Let's examine a few quotes (embolden added):

"But if…you think unbelievers have it within themselves, in a completely natural, fallen state, to respond to the gospel, then that puts you in the camp of the Pelagian or semi-Pelagian heretics, a heresy recognized throughout church history, including by Arminians and their children. And sadly, semi-Pelagian thought is far too common today" (//link)

"Most people today really and truly are semi-Pelagian, following the old heresy. They have the idea that humanity fell with Adam and Eve but it was not a complete fall. Man's will was corrupted but not completely so. There still remains some capacity to perform good, including the capacity for the lost person to desire and seek after God" (//link)

"Semi-Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in 529" (//link)

From the quotes above, either Roberts has changed his mind about Semi-Pelagianism being heresy, or he's attempting to back-peddle on the TS document. Either way, it seems to me TS supporters would do well in holding their critics to their own stated views.

Nor should it surprise us that Roberts would hold Semi-Pelagianism to be heretical. Most Baptist Calvinists with whom I am aware do, especially Calvinists who are sympathetic with Founders Ministries. In fact, from the very beginning of Founders Ministries, Semi-Pelagianism was viewed as heresy right along with other infamously damnable doctrines. Ernest Reisinger, the "original" Founders Calvinist wrote:

The Westminster Confession of Faith and the First and Second London Baptist Confessions of Faith refute the heresies of Arianism, Socinianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Universalism, Arminianism and Antinomianism without even mentioning them by name. (//link)

We must not be fooled. Many Calvinists who are presently calling for peace with Traditional Baptists in the public sphere have a tract record elsewhere of pronouncing as heretics those same Traditional Baptists.

^{1I had a chance to speak a few moments with Chris at the recent Southern Baptist Convention in New Orleans. We had a good chat...}

²Chris, unfortunately, is doggedly dependent upon definitions from Reformed theologians whom, as Malcom Yarnell has shown, cannot be trusted to offer sober analysis since they also condemned Baptists as heretics!

Comments

[Chris Roberts]

"From the quotes above, either Roberts has changed his mind about Semi-Pelagianism being heresy, or he's attempting to back-peddle on the TS document."

The former. A bit more reading in Cassian, Augustine, and the history of the original debate has me content to side with Augustine with the quotes I noted on SBC Voices. I do think it is a serious error, but I do not think it is heresy. It is worth noting the timeframe of your three quotes: the first one was a year ago, the second was three years ago, the third was recent, and was not a claim as to whether or not SP is heresy, but rather an observation that it was condemned as such at the Council of Orange. Additional reading I've done since then would have me tone down even that claim - it was condemned, but I don't know that it was named heresy. Unfortunately, all I have available are summaries of the council.

As for your footnote 2, as I mentioned to you in New Orleans, I've done a bit of additional reading from John Cassian, the original semi-Pelagian, which has me all the more convinced that Article 2 is in line with semi-Pelagianism.

[Lydia]

I think they really believed the Traditionalist guys would change article 2 after the onslaught of "heretic abuse".

Now, I call it heresy abuse because we are seeing the twisting/parsing so familiar to this movement. Like this: Uh, we did not really call you heretics. We said you were learning toward SP which is really not the same as saying you are heretic.

Guys,the Reformed movement is not a good place for logical conclusion thinkers.

So far the sorta kinda saying we are heretics has not worked. So what to do as they need the heretic money to plant more Calvinist churches.

I mean when you believe you have real bonafide leaning toward heresy heretics you gotta do something with them, right? If you cannot shame them out of being heretics in a free society, what can you do when you need their money for a bit longer? You make it "error" instead of heresy.

[Mary]

Well people like Chris Roberts can never again get upset about what anyone is saying about Calvinists. Since he insists that he gets to call people whatever names he chooses and he doesn't care what those people think themselves and they just have to live with the names he chooses to call them then he won't mind the "who cares what you think about what we think about Calvinism." This is what WE KNOW so get over it. Of course Calvinist insist on living by different rules. I'm still waiting for Jared to PROVE that he knows a whole bunch of people who've been affected by Easy Believism. I want names, I want churches, I want dates and times PROVE IT! Maybe Matt Svoda could you know post another one of those smug posts at Pravda declaring that Easy Believism must be a myth because nobody is providing PROOF! But yeah let's all have a conversation where the Calvinists think they get to own all history, defintions and rules of engagement.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Well, if it is the former, I suggest you make that plain to TS supporters. Just denying you've called them heretics when you've plainly equated only recently Semi-Pelagianism with heresy remains inadequate. In addition, it seems to me you've not made it plain on your site in your recent posts about TS being Semi-Pelagianism to distinguish it from known heresy, nor have you made it plain that men you've approvingly quoted like Bavinck and Sproul almost certainly do consider Semi-Pelagianism heresy.

Moreover, Chris, you may have done some reading in John Cassian, but your summation hardly overturn Rebecca Hardin Weaver's scholarly conclusions concerning the nature of Semi-Pelagianism. As I mentioned in NOLA to you, your conclusions do not align with her intensive study, something people who consider your views on Semi-Peliagianism should keep in mind.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Roberts]

Peter,

It should be clear that what I have in view is the discussion related to the Statement. Where you quote me referring to SP as heresy, the discussion had nothing to do with the Statement, which at those times did not even exist yet. And while I am sure there are people out there who have called the signers heretics, I have never done so, nor have I seen anyone do so. I have called the Statement semi-Pelagian, and early on I said the question now is to determine what place semi-Pelagianism has in the life of the SBC. Like others, I had assumed the semi-Pelagianism of Article II was due to bad wording, but the defense of Article II has been so strong that it is clear that many of the signers do affirm it as it stands. Nonetheless, I still say that they are not heretics, though the strength of my disagreement with them is even greater than it was before.

As for Weaver, it might be worth noting that while you've read Weaver, I've read Cassian. One of these days I'll get around to finishing that paper I told you I was working on. I had tabled it because I didn't see it as something worth pursuing further, but I may take it up again to post online.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Begging pardon, Chris, what you have in view related to the Statement has jack squat to do with whether or not you equated Semi-Pelagianism with heresy in the three statements I provided. You conceded the point in the first comment. To attempt now to water down what the concession means only complicates matters, Chris, and makes you look like you're once again blowing smoke. Let it alone. It's much better just to say, "I've changed my mind" than to try to rationalize away the obvious.

As for you reading Cassian and me Weaver, I have to laugh. Be my guest. Read on...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Chris,

Perhaps you should spend less time reading the flawed human logic of Augustine and more time reading the original inspired Word. Man's mind is easily tricked into twisting God's word by simple suggestions (e.g. Genesis 3:3).

-- HMT

[Max]

"Man's mind is easily tricked into twisting God's word by simple suggestions."

Hobart, I don't know who you are, but I want to get in your face and tell you one thing ... you're right!! Jesus himself told us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men. "But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Math 15:9). Paul provided similar warning "Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense" (Col 2:8).

I love the Word! It breathes revealed Truth to me as I allow the Holy Spirit to teach, not men. And, brother, has He been teaching me some stuff in this current SBC debate as I go to the Word to test and try the conversation that is emerging. The Bible is great - Southern Baptists need to read it more! Thank you brother for your words.

[Mary]

Well, good news all in an attempt to completely distract and take control of the "conversation" Pravda is going to have a series of exegetical posts supposedly between Calvinists and Traditionlist. Thus ignoring all elephants int the room. (not that talking about the Bible isn't interesting, but the idea that doctrine is the problem in the SBC.)

The conversation needs to be about why Calvinists are allowed to take over institutions. Will the Seminaries be divyed up between Traditionalist and Calvinists? Will NAMB money be split according the current makeup of the SBC 30% money to Calvininsts 70% to Traditionalists? Will Lifeway be spending money on new SS materials written exclusively by Traditionalists. If we're not splitting the baby then what do we do to yank the institutions back to serving the needs of the entire SBC and not just a minority. Those are the conversations we should be having.

But ya know good for Pravda for doing exactly what the elites want - distract and ignore all the elephants. Pretend like there are no problems except for those meanie antiCalivinists.

[John Basedow]

Our new 2nd VP: http://cl.ly/HhfB

[Jeremy Crowder]

I participated in that conversation at SBC Voices and felt that Chris Roberts was trying to find middle ground. What bothers me is the term Semi-Pelagianism which is a historic term related to a monk that an ancient Church Council said is a heretic. I suspect every Baptist and a good chunk of other Protestants would be heretics according to that ancient Church Council if we had a time machine to ask them. I believe people need to push back against the term Semi-Pelagianism not just in accuracy which SBC traditonalist aren't Semi-Pelagian but also out of fairness to history. This term used out of historical context and out of a scholarly setting is not benificial to Baptists or lay people in general who may be reading Baptist websites or blogs.

[Lydia]

John, I don't understand your link or what it is meant to communicate. Calvinist is spelled wrong or is that on purpose? Just color me confused. :o)

[selahV]

Hobart: You said what I said back in 2006 when I first discovered people were actually following a man and his theology as gospel. I use the Bible and I am still happier for it. Still love the red-letter editions best, too. selahV

[selahV]

Max, I agree that these conversations have me digging more and more into the Spirit breathed Word of God. He's teaching me all kinds of new things and I am getting more and more at peace with what I know...as well as what I've always believed as I've grown in Christ. selahV

[Jeremy Crowder]

I agree with Lydia on John's link.

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Semi-Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy at the Second Council of Orange in 529, but that was not an ecumenical council, and its canons seem to have been largely unknown during the Middle Ages. The Council of Trent (according to my interpretation, but there are some who disagree) condemned Semi-Pelagianism as well, but that too was not an ecumenical council.

The bottom line is that semi-Pelagianism has never been condemned in the same way that clear-cut heresies (e.g., Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.) have been condemned. For this reason, I do not speak of it as a "heresy," but it is certainly not a position I want to be affiliated with. I consider it a serious error.

The TS statement, in my view, leaves plenty of room for semi-Pelagianism and does nothing to deny it, even though it contains ten affirmations and denials.

[Max]

Aaron O'Kelley writes "... I do not speak of it as a "heresy," but it is certainly not a position I want to be affiliated with. I consider it a serious error."

That pretty well sums up what traditional Southern Baptists feel about New Calvinism.

[Lydia]

"Hobart: You said what I said back in 2006 when I first discovered people were actually following a man and his theology as gospel. I use the Bible and I am still happier for it. Still love the red-letter editions best, too. selahV"

Our advice for people coming out of spiritual abuse is to spend at least 3 years (this is several hours per day, every day) reading, praying over and studying the Gospels. We must KNOW Jesus so we can spot error and wolves. And we must KNOW Jesus so we can properly understand Paul.
Here is something important to consider from:

http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2012/01/considering-biblical-model-of-examining.html

"According to Paul Martin's analysis, the 210 verses found in the Bible that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees deal with the following:

99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (12%) concern Motives
21 verses (only 10%) concern Doctrine

Only 10% of those verses concern doctrine!

According to the Scriptures, we should be very concerned with both the behaviors and the fruit of spiritual leadership in the church and in parachurch organizations. This is not gossip or mean-spirited critical abuse but what Scripture actually teaches us to observe."

[Lydia]

Aaron O'Kelley writes "... I do not speak of it as a "heresy," but it is certainly not a position I want to be affiliated with. I consider it a serious error."

That pretty well sums up what traditional Southern Baptists feel about New Calvinism. "

Amen, Max.

[Jim G.]

Hi Aaron,

Orange also condemned predestination to reprobation, so if we treat Orange authoritatively, Calvin was a heretic.

Jim G.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Max and SelahV:

Thank you. I just take God at His Word:

Dt. 30:12 [what I command] ... is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

Max: Thank you for your reference to Matthew 15:9 and Colossians 2:8. Both are so applicable to the spiritual issues that define the Calvinistic controversy plaguing our Convention. I'm afraid too many Calvinists engaged in this discussion feel they are exempt from the instruction of Scripture.

Aaron: Calvinists' fascination with and dependence on church history is eerily parallel to the Catholic practice of elevating church tradition to equality with Scripture to "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God." In the end, Calvinism , Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Pentecostalism, etc. are all gnostic systems of thought. The reality is that any man who has a copy of the Holy Scripture, without any knowledge of what has been written since the last Word of revelation was recorded in the first century, would under the leading of the Holy Spirit come to a good, pleasing or perfect understanding of God's Will (Romans 12:2 tells us so).

-- HMT

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Jim,

That is perfectly in accord with what I am saying. I don't think we have a right to define semi-Pelagianism as a "heresy" just because the Second Council of Orange did. It was not an ecumenical council, and thus it does not define (in the same way that Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon do) the boundaries of orthodox Christian identity from a historical-theological perspective. It is an interesting piece of church history, no doubt, but not necessarily one that directs us about how to define our boundaries.

With that said, I still have a very strong reaction against semi-Pelagianism, not because of Orange, but because of Scripture.

[Jim G.]

Hi Aaron,

I'm with you in that we should hear the words of Orange but are not bound to follow them.

While I do not believe the words of the TS are semi-P, there is an interesting historical connection. Those who were the original semi-Ps (and I really hate that descriptor - these men reputed the teachings of Pelagius as well. They just saw Augustine's doctrine as leading to God being the author of sin. They are truly semi-Augustinians.) were trying to escape the deterministic consequences of Augustine on nature and grace.

That is exactly what our Trad brethren are trying to do too. They are trying to find a way to circumvent the inherent determinism of the high-Reformed revival now occurring in the SBC.

All we are doing is repeating the dispute that led to Orange in English rather than in Latin.

Jim G.

[Jim G.]

Hi HMT,

I think you might be overstepping things. I don't believe it is accurate to call Calvinism (or the rest of these systems) Gnostic. I respect your wariness toward established systems of theology, but I don't see any reason to go on the offensive. (I like church history too and I am not a Calvinist.) In my studies of ancient Gnosticism (which I learned through Irenaeus), we have very little in common with them in any way. They were trying to bend Platonism into Christian language. While I think there is some "unbaptized" philosophical influence in many of our theological systems, I'm not ready to pronounce them heretical (aka Gnostic).

Jim G.

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Hi Jim,

Fair point. But what earns the title "semi-Pelagians" rather than "semi-Augustinians" is the fact that they saw a residue of human ability left sufficient to enable man to take the initiative in response to God's external call without the aid of internal divine grace. The TS clearly leaves itself open to this view as well.

Arminians did a much better job on this question (as did, I would argue, the Council of Trent) without affirming determinism. Yet those who signed TS clearly do not want to affirm the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. I wonder why they are so resistant to that idea? It may be for lack of any clear biblical support (with which I would agree), and that puts them right back in danger of affirming semi-Pelagianism.

[Jim G.]

Hi Aaron,

We both know that the SPs were MUCH closer to Augustine than to Pelagius. There's cash value in pushing them closer to a known heretic, know what I mean?

I think the simplest way to explain a type of Baptist prevenient grace is to say that God comes to us really and truly in the proclaimed Word. Grace is present in the preached word (or read word, as the case may be) and it opens our hearts to conversion/regeneration. That is the gist of much of Romans 10, and I don't think you need much of a philosophical construct to buy into it.

Of course, in my love of Torrance, I see grace as the personal work of God in our lives, rather than the more mechanical and somewhat impersonal view of the Augustinian (ex opere operato, in his opinion) west.

Jim G.

[Aaron O'Kelley]

Jim,

Your view of prevenient grace, if combined with a Calvinistic anthropology, would be something very close to Arminianism. And I mean that in a good way. It would clearly avoid the charge of semi-Pelagianism. In fact, it sounds quite Lutheran in character.

Why then, don't you think, did the TS affirm what you have laid out here? Wouldn't it be an improvement of the TS to have some kind of revision affirming what you have stated?

BTW, I still think "semi-Pelagian" is a better name because there is an anthropological divide between any amount of remaining spiritual life vs. spiritual deadness.

For Pelagians, man is healthy and up on his feet.

For Semi-Pelagians, man is in a hospital bed, but he still has some power left, and that power will be the decisive factor in his recovery.

For Augustinians, man is dead.

In my opinion, people who are alive, no matter how sick or healthy, have more in common with each other than those who are dead. Spiritual death is a great divide that makes the Augustinian view a category unique from all forms of Pelagianism, semi- or otherwise.

[Jim G.]

Hi Aaron,

It would differ from Arminianism in that it would not be a universal prevenient grace (which is a more difficult argument in itself) but a kind of dynamic prevenient grace that is the presence of God in his own Word and Spirit that illuminates the heart of humans, bringing with it regeneration/conversion.

But I don't have a Calvinistic anthropology to go along with it. :0)It's not really Calvin's anthropology, it is Augustine's. Augustine is its real architect. His anthropology was simplistic and one-sided, in my opinion. To explain that would take a while.

As for the writers of TS, I cannot speak for them. I did not sign the TS, because I do not fully affirm its approach.

As for spiritual death, we define it differently based on the aforementioned anthropological difference, so I see the SP from another set of lenses than you do. And that's okay.

Jim G.

[Max]

Hobart M. Tucker writes "The reality is that any man who has a copy of the Holy Scripture, without any knowledge of what has been written since the last Word of revelation was recorded in the first century, would under the leading of the Holy Spirit come to a good, pleasing or perfect understanding of God's Will (Romans 12:2 tells us so)."

Hobart, I suppose that is the most unsettling aspect for me regarding the current debate in SBC ranks. This division has been created by differing theological grids through which Scripture is viewed. Long before theological systems of men hit the street, Christians operated on knowledge of God, rather than the intellect of man. Knowledge of man, unless it is Spirit-led, exalts itself against the knowledge of God. That, Hobart, is much of what is going on in this conversation. Opinions of men are running ahead of Holy Spirit leading. It's amazing to me that we have a lot of intelligent folks engaged in this dialogue (including seminary presidents and professors), but a great gulf of understanding separates them. I would rather hang out with born-again, Bible-reading, praying Christians who have a better handle on Truth than most of this educated bunch. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with education (I even have some) ... but education does not produce one ounce of revelation! Holy Spirit leading makes all the difference and debate/disunity will strip that from folks quicker than anything.

(P.S. I have to know Hobart ... are you the same Hobart M. Tucker who was the reverend at All Souls Church, Mayberry?)

[Lydia]

I am not so sure the charge of heresy whether it is semi or sorta kind, leaning or whatever is going to play well in the pews as it trickles down. Even if it comes from a seminary president to back it up. That sort of thing only plays well in the Reformed NC bubble. Mrs. Mildred, casserole baker, tither and servant of the Body is not going to be impressed but will certainly be offended.

Now, the 20 something Justin will be more likely to grab a banner and march with the heresy hunters. But he does not tithe, either. A broke army is expensive to maintain.

[Max]

Lydia writes "Now, the 20 something Justin will be more likely to grab a banner and march with the heresy hunters. But he does not tithe, either. A broke army is expensive to maintain."

Lydia, you nailed it on the head! Our local SBC association has two examples of that very thing. One is a YRR church plant running about 750 members in the 20s-30s crowd (mostly college students). Another is pastored by a young Calvinist who deceived his way through the pastor search committee to secure the pulpit of an established "traditional" church, and then quickly split it like a bull in a china shop. Older members were replaced by a younger crowd. Piper, Keller and Driscoll books are flying off the shelf at the local bookstore. While large in number, both of the churches cited are running short on revenue and cutting back on expenses. When those "old guys" left, they took tithes with them.

We need multi-generations in place to maintain our churches, but that ain't happening in the YRR ranks on this end. I'm thrilled to see young folks going to church again, but we need the energy of youth coupled with the wisdom of age ... young folks to speed things up a bit, with a mature generation to provide necessary balance. A broken army is not only expensive to maintain, it doesn't have enough spiritual power to blow the dust off a peanut.

[Mary]

Another problem you're going to see on the YRR church plants is that a lot of these churches are not growing because of converts but because of Calvinists leaving other churches to go to the newest YRR thing. There's a point where there aren't going to be enough Calvinists to spread around to support all the church plants they want to do. So alot of the plants will have to consolidated are will just fail.

Planting churches is really hard and I think the SBC is going to regret putting so much money into young men who have no life experiences to help them in what is not an easy thing to do and really is better suited for people with a few years behind them.

Think of the IMB and the process missionarys have to go through to be put in the field. Yet the NAMB is just going to throw money at people with zero experience who's only qualification is they have the correct soteriolgy that the NAMB is pushing in new church plants.

[Lydia]

Max,

We love old people at our house as we know we are fast becoming old. :o) The best thing I ever did for my kids is to get out of the young focused seeker world where you never spot a grey head. My daughter is totally into seniors and the idea of fun for her is to attend their luncheons when school is out in order to serve them. What does she get in return? Gentle love and teaching that she might ignore from her parents. The wisdom of a life lived and a model of a Christian life lived out for others. And casseroles.

Last Wed night I sat next to an older couple at our church business meeting. (Praise God we still have those! The peasants who pay for everything have a voice!) They were new so I got to talking with them. They left their church of 30 years because a young guy came in and since he was smarter than everyone else, elder ruled (they hired him) there was no longer a place where they could serve...because they believe the body is about serving one another, too. There is simply no respect at all for people and a feeling of entitlement by many of these young guys. So as he said, we took our money and left and we have been welcomed here as participating in the Body and are thrilled to have a voice in how the Body will operate and where we can actually serve.

These stories are playing out all over. The interesting feature of this exodus is not just the tithes but the 'estate planning' that leaves with the tithes. And let's face it, our economy is not exactly a positive force for such things in the future.

But here is what I do not understand. When one is Born Again, does one really focus on age differences that much? Do we not love all brothers and sisters and seek to understand and be understood, putting away such shallow silly things?

When our youth put on some event that includes rock Christian music or anything youth oriented, the seniors pack the place out. And visa versa. This idea that youth are not attracted to anything that might have the whiff of age to it, is sadly a negation of being truly Born Again because it also includes a love for one another.

[Max]

Lydia said "This idea that youth are not attracted to anything that might have the whiff of age to it, is sadly a negation of being truly Born Again because it also includes a love for one another."

Jesus said "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35)

I truly believe that one of the greatest mission fields on the planet can be found in YRR churches, where theological system and process is elevated above a personal encounter with Jesus. They, therefore, cannot love as they ought.

[Jeremy Crowder]

What I would like to know is solutions. Max, Lydia, mary etc. How does the Southern Baptist Convention find a way to work with YRR so these passionate young men don't leave? I'm 30 and can't even find away to get the YRR to understand what I'm saying it's as if we are speaking different languages. Older calvinists understand but those my age and younger seem to just get upset and start an argument. So I get what many people are saying but not hearing solutions. Do we take people to the Altar or prayer closet and just pray this out? So we can get some mutual understanding.

[Mary]

Jeremy, they're not going to leave. There is no place for them to go. The SBC is the only game in town for these guys.

And there is no solution when one side won't admit that there is a problem ie that Calvinists have pushed forward an agenda to take over SBC institutions. Until and unless we can have a real conversation, not the discussion that goes on ad nausuem on these blogs about why Romans 9 doesn't really mean the same things to Trads as it does to Cals, there isn't going to be any type of movement toward unity. Calvinists don't want unity they want to continue their takeover of the institutions. Notice all the people screeching unity refuse to tackle the real issues. When Calvinists are put in charge of anything they start discriminating against the Trads - the evidence is at the seminaries, NAMB, and Lifeway at associations, and conventions and certainly countless stories of local churches destroyed by Calvinists taking over.

But don't be fooled by the temper tantrums of the YRR. They've been pulling the "if you don't shut up we're going to take our toys and leave" threats for years and they haven't left and they're not going to leave because no one else can give them jobs and most of them couldn't get jobs in the real world.

[Lydia]

Hi Jeremy,

You say "passionate" young men. Passionate for what? That is key to this. They will tell you they are passionate for lost people to know truth (their truth). But their actions betray them. Their actions show a "passion" for power and influence over people. They show a "passion" for being viewed as the smart guys who have to bully everyone who does not believe as they do. They hold bible studies and teach Piper. They show a "passion" for Piper, Driscoll, Dever, Mahaney, Mohler, etc, etc. They are followers of man thinking that is the same as following Christ.

Is doctrine important? Yes. The basics. Other than that, every single doctrinal point that is not about the very crux of our faith is not more important than people. Believing in Regeneration before faith is not more important than actual people. There are people who believe in baptismal regeneration that might be saved! I would disagree with them but I would also eat with them. They are not the enemy. We talk a lot about evangelizing people but what about living like Jesus dwells in us NOW?

This is a spiritual abuse tactic referred to as "Doctrine over people". They don't even know they are going that route. And this is because of "thought reform". Think about it...many think their bullying behavior is Christian. They really cannot see it. They can yell, prove we are mean and name names and not see that as bullying behavior. The cognative dissonance in the YRR movement is astounding. That is thought reform.

Every movement that wants to succeed needs a rallying enemy. For the YRR it is non Calvinism. They don't even know that. But it is. And it takes a lot of forms. They are saving us from "easy believism" because so many people are not saved. (Here is a hint: Saved people BEAR good fruit, guys. They don't bully). They want more church discipline because they are the right people to do that. (Yikes, who disciplines them for all the verbal bullying?)

They really believe they have a greater truth and the ignorant peasants would not know enough to ask the right questions so not being forthcoming to admit they are New Calvinist in a job interview for a position at a church is ok. That is thought reform. Their position is that the committee did not ask and that means it is their fault for being ignorant. (This has actually been said by a few YRR on SBC Voices thinking it was perfectly normal and Christian to think that way. Scary stuff)

It never occurs to them that people have automatically given them their trust because of who they are and where they came from and because of our free church traditions. But those days are coming to an end because too many have been taken advantage of by their sneering arrogance.

This thinking is from the "thought reform" of the Reformed bubble. It is not Christian. It is how they view the people in the pews. As ignorant. Ironically, we see the exact same thinking in liberal political circles.

I have been doing a lot of reading on early Christians. They were not concerned about election, predestination, etc. They were persecuted and living out the sermon on the mount. They wanted to live as Christ. The horrors in Christianity started when the smart guys began arguing about specific doctrinal points. That is when state church, torturing, imprisoning and killing other believers who believed differently started. Then you had the lording it over problems of what passed for the body of Christ. (We are seeing a revival of that thinking in the SBC). And they all thought they were doing God's work.

Here is the sad news. There is no solution. How does one reconcile with bullys unless they recognize their bullying behavior and repent? The YRR can clean up their act and try to be nicer (which I think a memo went out about this) but have their hearts changed? And how can that happen when their leader, the man they revere is insulting his peers and talking of marginalizing people's voices/.....in the SBC!!!!? That is their leadership! And it is fast becoming normal because other leaders are ignoring the incredible arrogance displayed. The YRR see this behavior modeled for them as being Christlike. They do not know any different. Thought Reform. The SBC is being repackaged to accept these behaviors in our free church tradition. It is enough to make me weep.

I think we have already split except for who gets the silver and that will take more time. For me, I am content to be in a free church system with Ms Mildred and her casseroles and the young people who adore her. I will stay with the ignorant peasants who love Jesus but have no clue what Semi Pelagianism is or who Pelagius was. You see, I trust the ignorant peasants because they just want to be like Jesus, are not trying to be lords over the Gentiles and they certainly are not trying to believe like Calvin. They would know that when we bully another believer, we are bullying Christ.

In the meantime, our dilemma is: How do we deal with "Christian" bullies? How did Jesus deal with them?

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Jim G.,

Please know my position about systematic theologies is informed by Scripture alone.

Christ condemned sectarian behavior as sin -- whether speaking through Isaiah (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:9), Matthew (Matthew 23:8-9) or Paul (1 Corinthians 1:12; 4:6). There is little difference in how Calvinists, Arminians, Dispensationalists, etc., pursue esoteric manmade knowledge and how the Epicurians and Stoics behaved in Athens (Acts 17).

I am not making a judgment call, it is condemned in the Word.

If I am reading these passages incorrectly, please share with me my error by pointing to Scripture. Either something is God-breathed or not.

Christ referred to nothing but Scripture to convince others of who He was (e.g. Luke 24:27). Peter (Acts 2:14-47), Stephen (Acts 7:1-53), Philip (Acts 8:35) Paul (Acts 13:13-41), and Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) did likewise. None mentioned the need to wait for Augustine, Irenaeus, or, John Calvin, John Darby or John Wesley (or John Piper or "John" Mark Driscoll for that matter) to understand His Word. In John 14, 15, 16, Christ told us He was sending the Holy Spirit and that He would teach us all things.

There is confusion just within Calvin's camp about what is and is not orthodox (infant baptism versus adult immersion, 4 points versus 5 points -- which is a disagreement about the very nature of SALVATION, double predestination, etc.) much less a chasm between Calvinism and Arminianism and Arminianism and ... ; and God says that He is NOT the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). Given the chaos created by manmade religious philosophy (systematic theology) it cannot be of Him.

He does not need a Mishna and Gemara to explain what He meant and He doesn't need an evangelical corollary, either.

-- HMT

P.S. Max, I have some North Carolina ties. :-)

[Jeremy Crowder]

This is the problem I have I can't get Calvinists and the Yong Reformed in particular to understand that I'm not anti-calvinist. I don't hate calvinism or the doctrines of Grace. My issue is they speak about me and the traditions I grew up with in the Southern Baptist Convention as if they are less Christian or are heretical. Why don't they simply just say they prefer other methods instead of using words like "Easy Believeism" or "Semi-Pelgianism". They say people are lying basicaly when people say they aren't sharing the gospel but I can't get them to tell me one instance where they shared the gospel either at home or in the mission field. I'm not accusing them I just want to know why the subject keeps coming up if no truth exists to support it. All of these things is like a Merry-go-round we never get anywhere.

[Max]

Jeremy, your inquiry "What I would like to know are solutions" is tough to address indeed. While I don't agree with reformed theology (particularly the strain we call young, restless and reformed), I am sympathetic to the plight of the YRR pastor in SBC life. They are exiting SBTS and SEBTS in great numbers, having been sold theological furnishings which don't fit well in the SBC house. They trusted their seminary presidents and professors to prepare them for a pulpit and now face a tremendous challenge to begin their ministries. If they are not rescued by NAMB's church planting initiative, they have a tough row to hoe on the SBC landscape. Of course, some choose to deceive their way into traditional churches, but God never blesses such activity.

Don't mistake "passionate" as Spirit-led, Jeremy. In the case of the YRR, it is misplaced passion to pursue an end ... to be on the front end of a revolution in SBC ranks. The sad thing for me to behold is the use of our youth by older Calvinist leaders to "recover what was lost" ... to "take us back to our roots" ... to "preach the real Gospel" ... and other such charges to energize and mobilize your generation.

"So we can get some mutual understanding." How can two walk together unless they be agreed? Jeremy, Scripture doesn't call for unity by agreeing to disagree or getting along just to get along ... but being agreed in common belief and practice around the work of the Cross of Calvary. That is our dilemma ... we are not agreed on the essentials of our faith.

The solution? You can find it in 2 Chronicles 7:14. But good luck rounding up the right folks who will humble themselves, pray, repent, and seek God's face. When teachings and traditions of men rule the roost, human agenda trumps the will of God.

[Jeremy Crowder]

Max, You say we are not agreed on the essentials of our faith. I've always heard that Traditonalists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Calvinists disagree on non-essentials.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Jeremy,

The people (like Stetzer, Akin, etc.) who say we only disagree on the non-essentials are blowing smoke to mask the "sin in the camp" of people like Driscoll, Mahaney, Piper ...

-- HMT

[Max]

Jeremy writes "I've always heard that Traditonalists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Calvinists disagree on non-essentials."

Jeremy, as the "Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” clearly implies in its affirmations and denials, majority Southern Baptists would not consider differences in soteriology as a non-essential disagreement. To reduce this issue to a dispute over the "finer" points of God's plan of salvation is not fine with the rank and file.

[Mary]

Jeremy in the SBC it is the Calvinists who are pushing purity on on the "nonessential" for participation at the instituional level. As Calvinists have been put into positions of authority they have pushed out the Trads and only brought in other Calvinists. That's one of the big reasons for the TS now - to try to bring awareness to the SBC at large that the Calvinists have an agenda of forcing out those who are not Calvinist from the SBC institutions. Calvinists do this under the guise of wanting a seat at the table - they don't want a seat, they want the whole table. Calvinists have not been forced to the back of the bus, Calvinists are trying to take over the bus and kick everyone not like them off the bus. So despite screams for unity, unless we acknowledge there's a problem with the Calvinist forcing instituions through purity tests than there will be no discssions, conversations, or unity. Calvinists want to take over and there are those who think we should all be allowed in the SBC. You will be an antiCalviist as long as you think that Calvinist should not be allowed to kick everybody else out.

[Jeremy Crowder]

Hobart- I'm not a fan of Driscoll or piper and have been critical of them publicaly several times. I don't believe either though have ever pastored a Church in the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe the Churches they've lead and I may be wrong aren't SBC. However I do agree they have a great deal of influence among Calvinist and Reformed Baptists and even non-calvinists in the SBC. I mean it seems people are always talking about Piper and Driscoll.
Max-Well I don't know if the majority would consider it non-essential or essential if it was explained the differences in those terms. I do think they are important and have divided Baptists as well as Anglicans and Methodists etc. for centuries. Ironicaly Founders Ministry and other groups claim that non-calvinist Southern Baptists are partly calvinist a lesser light calvinist going back to Whitfield at least I read that argument somewhere related to the Sandy Creek Traditon.
Mary-I'm not calvinist and am ragularly called anti-calvinist no other than Dave Miller has called me anti-calvinist. All I want is to be able to worship in the denomination that I went to from one years of age (SBC) , acceped Christ at the Altar(SBC) , and was Baptised (SBC) to have the things I recall in a postive fashion treated with respect. I know that many say Southern and Southeastern Seminaries are taken over by Calvinists something that I feel is wrong if non-calvinists can't thrive in those places. In reverse I don't want New Orleans or Southwestern to be unaccepting of calvinists. I'd like for everyone to have respect. However I don't feel any respect from leading calvinists they seem to ignore, deny, and treat with contempt the very real concerns people have about these issues. They don't understand or refuse to understand that we value Altar Calls, the Sinners prayer, and even sunday school as some of these folks want strictly Family Intergrated worship. I honestly feel like this is similar to the Black Rock Address issues that Primitive Baptists had long ago that we are finding with some of the Reformed and/or Calvinists today.

[Mary]

Jeremy, I'm sorry but the SBC you grew up in is exactly what the Calvinists want to destroy. They believe that that SBC is no good and needs to be reformed. If any us are really saved it's only by some freak accident since we have no clue about anything to do with the Bible.

As far as Dave Miller goes, there's a reason why we call SBC Voices Pravda - Dave Miller will push the elite Calvinists agenda no matter who he has to insult to do it. You made the mistake of thinking you could talk to these Calvinists, tell them your experiences, and point to how they are being condescending and insulting. Any nonCavlinists or Trad who doesn't just claim Calvinism is the greatest and also has the nerve to point out Calvinists behaving badly will be declared as antiCalvinist. Calvinists DO NOT WANT UNITY they want everyone to shut up and get out of their way. You simply are not allowed to have an opinion other than the accepted party line thus PRAVDA.

[Dave]

Mary, if you can possibly ever do so.....objectively.

Replace the focus perjoratives and insults you levy toward Calvinists and see if these ( motives, agendas, silencing of thise who disagree,condescending remarks, ect.)...might also fit some "Traditionalists" or "non Calvinists" you might know quite well.

[Lydia]

Dave the reason your point does not work is that we are free church people. We allow dissent and even disagreement on finer points of doctrine. We have had some leaders in the past who were silly and did not allow some finer points of doctrine like a private prayer language but they had little real power and were not indoctrinating thousands of young men to go heretic hunting for private prayer language.

Nothing like the YRR movmement that has bred thousands of angry superior young men who think they have earned power and positive because of a little indoctrination. When they are questioned they always throw out the Tu quoque response.

Perhaps, DAvid, the Trads are responding in like because that is how one deals with bullies. It is the only language they understand. And we need to protect and warn people in the pews about them.

[Mary]

yeah, Dave, playing the "both sides do it" is so mature. Especially when we're talking about denominational politics where both sides are NOT doing it. The ones doing the marginalizing at the institutional level are the Calvinists so your point goes no where.

And since "both sides" do it, I'll be looking for your comment to Jared Moore for his idiotic offensive potty humor. Posted on the Blog edited by the 2nd VP of the SBC. But poor Dave Miller he has no power, he is FORCED to publish offensive insulting posts. But that Dave Miller really does want unity!

[Mary]

Lydia, look at tis gem of a comment from Pravda:

"Must a prospective pastor lay out all the meat that he’s gleaned in seminary to a bunch of “Corinthian” baby Christians who, like Hebrews 5:11-14 describes, should be teachers but are still on a milk diet? A pastor who goes to an interview and says “I believe the whole Bible” is not misrepresenting what he believes if he ends up teaching Calvinism. That is not “stealth Calvinism.”

But gee we don't know where anyone gets the idea that Calvinists are intentionally deceiving pulput commitees. Now all the Calvinnists at Pravda should be jumping on this guy and pointing out that this is exactly the attitude that Trads point to over and over and it's wrong. They'll ignore it of course because they agree with it. Poor dumb pulpit committees don't know what's good for them so you can't confuse them with your superior intellect and superior spirituality.