Former Calvinist speaks about his journey away from the "doctrines of grace" by Peter Lumpkins

   Ronnie Rogers is pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, Norman, OK. In Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist, Rogers speaks as no stranger to his subject. Indeed for years he embraced Calvinism but through systematic exposition of Scripture, he came to view the Reformed hermeneutical template a hindrance to understanding biblical revelation rather than a help   >>>

                                                                                                                            click the book icon to go to Amazon.com¹

Those of you who have followed me on this site for a while know I have a similar story.  Few will be able to suggest Rogers does not know Calvinism. From the first chapter, he demonstrates he's drank deeply from its theological well. Hence, his treatise promises to be helpful.

Presently, SBC Today is doing a 2-part interview with Dr. Rogers. In the first part, Rogers says:

My pilgrimage, which parallels many others, highlights the problem of defining our theological position based on how many steps up we are on the Calvinist ladder. Even in our seminaries, our theology books are Calvinistic, which profoundly highlights the need to develop non-Arminian, non-Calvinist systematic theology books. Also, we need to define ourselves by some other standard than Calvinism, which practice presently makes Calvinism the default standard of orthodoxy like it or not.

Read Part I in its entireity. Part II is scheduled for posting tomorrow.

¹for full disclosure, yes, were you to purchase the book, I would get a very small 'kick-back' from Amazon.com 

Comments

[Randall Cofield]

That Rogers was (admittedly) a "4 Point Calvinist" is evidence that he was/is deficient in his understanding of Calvinism.

[Belardd]

Isn't that Norman Geisler?

[Lydia]

"That Rogers was (admittedly) a "4 Point Calvinist" is evidence that he was/is deficient in his understanding of Calvinism"

Aren't you describing also Dr. Akin, Russ Moore and quite a few others who subscribe to less than 5pts?

[peter lumpkins]

Well, let's see...ummmmmmm...No.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

Oh heck, let's throw another couple of points into the mix! New Calvinism icon John Piper holds to 7-point Calvinism by including "double predestination" and "the best-of-all-possible worlds" into his point system. Brother, do we have a mess on our hands!

[Randall Cofield]

Aren't you describing also Dr. Akin, Russ Moore and quite a few others who subscribe to less than 5pts?

To a certain extent, yes. Although it could be observed that neither Dr. Akin nor Dr. Moore have abandoned the 5 points altogether. This would seem to indicate that they, at the very least, have an understanding of them that is contradictory to that of Bro. Rogers.

I think it should be noted that this issue will not be settled by either "side" trotting out "coverts" from the other side, though I think Calvinists would hold a distinct advantage there.

If this cannot be settled by the arbitration of sound scriptural exegesis it cannot be settled.

BF&M2K

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Soli Deo Gloria

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

Your words in bold:

"To a certain extent, yes. Although it could be observed that neither Dr. Akin nor Dr. Moore have abandoned the 5 points altogether." Care to demonstrate that unproven assertion?

"This would seem to indicate that they...have an understanding of them that is contradictory to that of Bro. Rogers." And how would you conclude that, Randall? Have you read Rogers' book? If not, did you make your conclusion based on the words in his interview? Which words? If so, what makes you think Rogers holds an understanding of the DoGs contradictory to Akin, Russell, et al?

"this issue will not be settled by either "side" trotting out "coverts" from the other side..." And who proposes contrariwise?

"If this cannot be settled by the arbitration of sound scriptural exegesis it cannot be settled." Well, that depends on what it is one is attempting to settle. If one is asking certain historical questions (i.e. Were all the SBC Founders 5 Point Calvinists?), Scripture would hardly fulfill the role of settling the issue. Hence, if we're attempting to demonstrate say, Limited Atonement is biblical, obviously Scripture settles it. Other wise, Scripture may not settle it.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

Your words in italics:

Care to demonstrate that unproven assertion? "Interview with Ronnie Rogers, a former Calvinist"

If so, what makes you think Rogers holds an understanding of the DoGs contradictory to Akin, Russell, et al? "Interview with Ronnie Rogers, a former Calvinist"

And who proposes contrariwise? So we are agreed that this interview is a sideshow?

Well, that depends on what it is one is attempting to settle. If one is asking certain historical questions (i.e. Were all the SBC Founders 5 Point Calvinists?), Scripture would hardly fulfill the role of settling the issue. Hence, if we're attempting to demonstrate say, Limited Atonement is biblical, obviously Scripture settles it. Other wise, Scripture may not settle it. All these are secondary to the real issue at hand: Does Traditionalism better stand the acid-test of Scripture, or does Calvinism. Agreed?

Soli Deo Gloria

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

"Interview with Ronnie Rogers, a former Calvinist." And where does Rogers words demonstrate Akin & Russell's view is "contradictory" to his own notions?

"Interview with Ronnie Rogers, a former Calvinist". Cute, Randall. Now either answer the question or drop your point. I have no interest in playing games.

So we are agreed that this interview is a sideshow? I'm afraid nothing I wrote suggests anything remotely concerning a "sideshow". My, oh my, how quickly you leave the deep conviction about “resolving” to "get along". Yes siree, I can see your point about "getting along" by calling an honest interview a "sideshow." Of course, Tom Ascol’s interview by Ligioner is anything but a "sideshow" now isn't it Randall?

All these are secondary to the real issue at hand: Does Traditionalism better stand the acid-test of Scripture, or does Calvinism. Agreed? Well, no "all these" are not "secondary" to the "real issue" at hand," Randall. Founders Ministries argues 5 Point Calvinism was all but universal among the Founders of the SBC, a primary historical question. Scripture cannot help us determine that issue I'm afraid.

Nor will I even attempt to answer an unanswerable question, namely, "Does Traditionalism better stand the acid-test of Scripture, or does Calvinism?" Being a biblicist myself, I'd say a) it depends on which "Calvinism" one embraces; b) but even then, no one "Calvinism" gets everything wrong anymore than your supposed "Traditionalism" gets everything right.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

And where does Rogers words demonstrate Akin & Russell's view is "contradictory" to his own notions? The fact that he claims to no longer be a Calvinist, and Drs. Akin and Moore are, seems to indicate Bro. Rogers view is contradictory to theirs, does it not?

Cute, Randall. Now either answer the question or drop your point. I have no interest in playing games. I'm not sure how to say it differently. If one denies Calvinism and the other two affirm it, their views seem self-evidently contradictory.

My, oh my, how quickly you leave the deep conviction about “resolving” to "get along". Not at all. There is only one source of unity within the SBC, at least according to the BF&M.

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

I think I made that clear in my initial post.

Yes siree, I can see your point about "getting along" by calling an honest interview a "sideshow." Of course, Tom Ascol’s interview by Ligioner is anything but a "sideshow" now isn't it Randall? If "sideshow" is offensive to you, would you allow me to drop that term and identify these as second or third-tier issues (both Rogers & Ascol)?

Well, no "all these" are not "secondary" to the "real issue" at hand," Randall. Founders Ministries argues 5 Point Calvinism was all but universal among the Founders of the SBC, a primary historical question. Scripture cannot help us determine that issue I'm afraid. And Traditionalist are arguing that Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders. I don't see this being of any consequence in determining where I land in this debate. If Traditionalists cannot convince me from Scripture that I should believe their Statement I will not believe it (see again BFM Article I). Surely you hold the same position concerning Calvinism?

Nor will I even attempt to answer an unanswerable question, namely, "Does Traditionalism better stand the acid-test of Scripture, or does Calvinism?" Brother, if this first-tier question is not answerable by Scripture, then it would seem 2 Pe. 1:3 is a failed declaration and the Word of God is not inerrant. Consequently, I strongly disagree with your assertion.

Soli Deo Gloria

[Lydia]

"Oh heck, let's throw another couple of points into the mix! New Calvinism icon John Piper holds to 7-point Calvinism by including "double predestination" and "the best-of-all-possible worlds" into his point system. Brother, do we have a mess on our hands!"

Not only that, Max, but Piper is promoting Doug Wilson who has bizarre views on slavery and somewhat of a theonomist! Piper is off deep end. Driscoll, Rick Warren and now Doug Phillips who only a few years back was considered the lunatic fringe of Christendom with his writing on Slavery.

[Mary]

"And Traditionalist are arguing that Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders..."

Randall, either you're just outright lying or you are completely ignorant of the actual debate in the SBC. Lies being promoted like this are exactly the reason there can be no real discussion in the SBC.

[Mary]

Lydia, Doug Wilson isn't just somewhat theonomist - he is full blown theonomist. It's crazy that the Calvinists in the SBC want to bring in another cult like Vision Forum and they treat Traditionalists in the SBC like the red headed step children.

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

Know I am not going to go back and forth with you over insubstantial chatter. You’ve proved your point which, from my stand-point, amounts to apparently your knowing how to embolden words and/or put them in italics like I do. Super!  The content of your responses, however, leaves something to be desired. If I may:

You ask, “The fact that he claims to no longer be a Calvinist, and Drs. Akin and Moore are, seems to indicate Bro. Rogers view is contradictory to theirs, does it not?” then follow up with, “If one denies Calvinism and the other two affirm it, their views seem self-evidently contradictory.” Uh?  What does Rogers’ claim about no longer being a Calvinist have to do with whether or not his view of the 5 Points of Calvinism “contradicts” Akin and Moore’s view of Calvinism? This makes absolutely no sense.

You also respond to my assertion that you’d so quickly left your “resolutions” about “getting along” by referring to SBC Today’s interview of Rogers as a “sideshow” with another nonsensical response: “Not at all. There is only one source of unity within the SBC, at least according to the BF&M.” What does the BF&M and unity have to do with your dubbing the SBC Today interview as a “sideshow” Randall? Nor is it about me being personally "offended" at the term, "sideshow". It's about whether "sideshow" represents well your aforementioned "resolutions" on "getting along." If you think it does, fine. I don't and can easily reason why (though as for your describing an honest interview of Ronnie Rogers as a "sideshow" making "sideshow" a positive factor in "getting along" I think you'd have some real challenges). And as for your confidence that you “made yourself clear”? Well...Hardly, I'm afraid.

Randall again says, “And Traditionalist are arguing that Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders.”  Yes, and who would that be, Randall? Name the “Traditionalists” who are arguing the historical absurdities you claim.

And, “If Traditionalists cannot convince me from Scripture that I should believe their Statement I will not believe it.” Good for you, Randall, good for you! On the other hand, I know of no “Traditionalist” who wants to convince you that you "should believe their Statement.” What a Georgia hoot!! But if you can find one, please let me know, Okay?? I'd love to write about it...:^)

Finally, Randall concludes: “Brother, if this first-tier question is not answerable by Scripture, then it would seem 2 Pe. 1:3 is a failed declaration and the Word of God is not inerrant. Consequently, I strongly disagree with your assertion.” Well, you may disagree all you wish.  But at least disagree with what I actually wrote, not what you curiously “hear” on your end. I rejected your initial question as unanswerable based upon two reasons, reasons you overlook only to respond with an irrelevant assertion on inerrancy. I plainly rejected your question because:

a) it depends on which "Calvinism" one embraces;

b) but even then, no one "Calvinism" gets everything wrong anymore than your supposed "Traditionalism" gets everything right.

I ultimately based the pursuit of salvific truth on biblicism, not on systematic theology which is what Calvinism and Arminianism is mainly about. Overlooking that key notion I asserted, you nonetheless commenced to lecture me on inerrancy. Go figure...

Now, unless, you have something substantial to add, Randall, please don’t respond. So far as I am concerned, this exchange is over.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

You are correct. It's misrepresentation like Randall has done--at times sincerely mistaken (perhaps as in Randall's case) but nonetheless perpetuated--that makes communication all but impossible.

Another botched assertion Randall makes without the least hesitancy: "If Traditionalists cannot convince me from Scripture that I should believe their Statement I will not believe it." Whatever gives the notion to Randall that the authors of TS want to convince Calvinists like himself that they should believe their Statement I have not a clue. Their statement was written to distinguish themselves from Calvinists not for conversion of Calvinists. Yet, that appears to pass by Randall's left forehead about a quarter of an inch.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Randall Cofield]

Lydia,

Interesting post. A few observations and then 3 questions.

Piper: My wife and I had the opportunity to be exposed to Piper's church and ministry several years ago for the space of about 6 weeks while our daughter was critically ill as a patient at the University of Minnesota Medical center. I can honestly say that we have never encountered a more warm-hearted, evangelical-minded church in all our years of ministry. I genuinely believe that if you visited Bethlehem Baptist Church most of your bias would be quickly overcome.

Driscoll & Warren: I have serious reservations about their ministries. Many Calvinists do. I'm still not ready to "throw them under the bus," though I disagree strongly with them on certain issues.

Wilson: Several years ago, while while witnessing to some atheist friends, I was confronted with a vitriolic attack upon the bible's position on slavery as they pointed to a number of verses that, on the surface, seemed to affirm slavery. They even threw it in my teeth that the SBC was founded by many who were pro-slavery. I was left with no choice but to deal exegetically with the biblical passages offered by my atheist friends. What I discovered was that the bible DOES NOT CONDONE forced slavery, but it equally DOES NOT CONDEMN indentured servitude. I was able to legitimately and successfully defend the bibical position on slavery with my atheist friends. And then I later discovered that Wilson had come to many of the same conclusions I had on this issue. Do I agree with him on every position he holds? No. Shall we throw him under the bus? I will not. In fact, with the rise of atheism and their vitriolic attack upon God and the Bible, I would venture to say that many would do well to educate themselves on this matter--and Doug's writings would serve as an excellent aid to that end.

All that being said, here are my questions:

1) There are those whom many would consider to be on the "lunatic fringe" who would subscribe to the Traditionalist view. Does that make the TS any more or less true?

2) If you compiled a list that reached unto the heavens of those you view as the "lunatic fringe" who subscribe to Calvinism, would that make Calvinism any more or less true?

3) If your answers to 1 & 2 are "no," how does your above post contribute anything of consequence to the debate?

Soli Deo Gloria

[Randall Cofield]

Mary,

Randall, either you're just outright lying or you are completely ignorant of the actual debate in the SBC. Lies being promoted like this are exactly the reason there can be no real discussion in the SBC.

I'm either lying or I am completely ignorant....

Tell me again why, exactly, you think no real discussion can be had in the SBC?

Did you read the rest of my post, or only the one statement you isolated?

Soli Deo Gloria

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

Mary was not unreasonable to question your absurd assertion about Traditionalists arguing "Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders.” Nor does it matter whether Mary "isolated" your statement. It was a full statement she quoted (as did I afterward) without ignoring context.

Hence, you wrote, "And Traditionalist are arguing that Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders.” I ask again, and "who would that be, Randall? Name the 'Traditionalists' who are arguing the historical absurdities you claim."

If you can name them, do so. If you can't then fess up that the assertion has no evidence about which you are aware outside of your personal affirmation of it. If you will do neither, then drop the failed point. Pretty simple.

With that, I am...
Peter

[selahV]

Mary and Peter,

perhaps that is the real issue here with the arguments Traditionalists have faced since Eric Hankins published the TS.  Multiple Calvinists have argued how they cannot accept the trads views on God's plan of salvation.  No one that I know of the traditionalist persuasion has expected Calvinists or Arminians to accept traditionalist views.  They already have their views "calvinism" or "armininianism". AND according to T.R. who quoted Spurgeon in SBC Today's comment stream,  “Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else.”.

Trads simply beg to differ with that assertion. And I dare say the Arminians would beg to differ also that "Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else".

However, the fact that Calvinists like T.R. would assert such is the precise reason the Trad statement was necessary.  It seems they [some calvinists] do not accept any other Baptist's view on salvation. Unless God has given you "enough grace" to embrace calvinism, how in the world can you have enough grace to be saved?  or coherently share the gospel?  If we do not understand the "gospel according to calvinism", then how dare we share the gospel according to Scripture as an ambassador for Christ?

Having read the litany of comments regarding how obtuse I am regarding the real gospel, I suppose I should repent of my sinful inaccurate testimony and misrepresentation of salvation by faith as I understand the Gospels and the Apostles wrote.  Since I have not received enough grace to embrace calvinism, how can I write about Jesus, talk about Jesus, or be an ambassador for Jesus?  selahV

 

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

Uh? What does Rogers’ claim about no longer being a Calvinist have to do with whether or not his view of the 5 Points of Calvinism “contradicts” Akin and Moore’s view of Calvinism? This makes absolutely no sense.

a. Rogers is no longer a Calvinist.

b. Akin and Moore remain Calvinists.

c. Therefore, their respective views of Calvinism are contradictory.

How is this nonsensical?

What does the BF&M and unity have to do with your dubbing the SBC Today interview as a “sideshow” Randall?

The BF&M plainly states that Scripture is "the true center of Christian union." All else is a distraction when it comes to seeking doctrinal consensus. Are the SBC Today and the framers and signers of the TS seeking doctrinal consensus? I am operating with the assumption that they are. I simply do not wish to believe that they are seeking to divide the SBC (as you seem to insinuate), though I certainly could be wrong. If you know their objective, would you share it with me?

Nor is it about me being personally "offended" at the term, "sideshow". It's about whether "sideshow" represents well your aforementioned "resolutions" on "getting along."

Again, may I retract "sideshow" and term the interviews as second or third-tier issues?

Yes, and who would that be, Randall? Name the “Traditionalists” who are arguing the historical absurdities you claim.

Given that this statement was completely inconsequential to my thesis, will you allow me to retract it? I acknowledge that it was an overstatement.

Good for you, Randall, good for you! On the other hand, I know of no “Traditionalist” who wants to convince you that you "should believe their Statement.” What a Georgia hoot!! But if you can find one, please let me know, Okay?? I'd love to write about it...:^)

Your incredulity seems a bit of a stretch, but I'll bite. Do you think Dr. Hankins, et al, prefer that I, a member of the SBC, remain a Calvinist, or do you think they prefer I agree with and sign their statement? If you do not wish to speak for them, I ask you: Do you prefer that I remain a Calvinist, or do you hold your convictions deeply enough to prefer that I believe as you believe?

Well, you may disagree all you wish. But at least disagree with what I actually wrote, not what you curiously “hear” on your end. I rejected your initial question as unanswerable based upon two reasons, reasons you overlook only to respond with an irrelevant assertion on inerrancy. I plainly rejected your question because:

a) it depends on which "Calvinism" one embraces;

b) but even then, no one "Calvinism" gets everything wrong anymore than your supposed "Traditionalism" gets everything right.

a) As you well know, robust five-point Calvinism lies at the very heart of this debate. Lesser forms of Calvinism tend to varying shades of agreement with your position and that of the TS. I don't think anyone is confused about what is being debated here.

b) Given your stated views on these matters, you do not seem to view the two positions equitably. If that is in fact the case, it renders your second postulate a non sequitur. And my question remains not only valid but the only question of real consequence: Which position better stands the acid-test of Scripture?

At the end of the day--if we actually believe that Scripture is the center of our union in the SBC--all the non-Scriptural rhetoric being offered (by both sides) is at best second and third-tier distractions. We should be examining everything we believe in the light of the inerrant Word of God, which declares that we have been given all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Wouldn't you agree?

Soli Deo Gloria

[Randall Cofield]

Mary,

I think if you look at the statement by Spurgeon "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else" it is clear that he is saying that Calvinism is nothing other than the Gospel. He is not excluding all else from being the Gospel. He is speaking of his deep personal conviction that Calvinism is the purest form of the Gospel.

For example, you would, no doubt, view your Gospel understanding as a purer form of the Gospel than say Pentecostalism or Seventh Day Adventism.

Any Calvinist who would say that the TS is void of the Gospel is over-reaching. And I don't think that is what most of the Calvinists are doing on these threads.

Soli Deo Gloria

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

Mary was not unreasonable to question your absurd assertion about Traditionalists arguing "Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders.”

Noting that I have asked to be allowed to retract that statement...and noting that you took exception to my use of the term "sideshow" (which I also asked [twice] to be allowed to retract)...and noting that you have expressed frustration that discussion cannot be had because of pejorative language on the part of Calvinists....I have two questions.

Do you have any reservations about Mary stating that I was either "outright lying" or am "completely ignorant"?

If not, how is this any different than that of which you complain?

Soli Deo Gloria

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

Final time on this exchange. And, no. You may not follow up. This is the last word.

First, you ask how it is “nonsensical” to assert that Rogers’ and Akin/Moore’s views of Calvinism are contradictory since Rogers is no longer a Calvinist but Akin and Moore are. My heavens. I cannot believe you asserted yet once again a conclusion which has not a semblance of following from a premise. Why does it follow that because Rogers is no longer a Calvinist his views of Calvinism necessarily contradict Akin-Moore’s view of Calvinism? Supposing I used to be a Presbyterian and my friend George still is a Presbyterian, why would my view of Presbyterianism necessarily contradict his view?  Indeed we undoubtedly have the same view of Presbyterianism which is why I am now a Baptist but he remains a Presbyterian! Now, if you can’t understand that, Randall, I’m sorry. I have no more time to convince you or teach  what seems to me basic English.

Second, I am aware of what the BF&M says, Randall. What you continue to ignore is, what the BF&M has to do with your citing the Rogers interview as a “sideshow,” and answering my original point by referring to the BF&M which had nothing whatsoever to do with my point about your citing the interview as a “sideshow”. Great heavens! A man could go nuts trying to keep you on the original point…

Third, you ask, “Are the SBC Today and the framers and signers of the TS seeking doctrinal consensus?” No, and you can’t point to a slither of information which says otherwise. This is your fabricated purpose, Randall. They confessed what they believed. Nor has anyone suggested the TS would be our “consensus statement”. If you’ve got proof, log. If not, don’t bring that back up.

Fourth, you assert “I simply do not wish to believe that they are seeking to divide the SBC (as you seem to insinuate).” Uh?  I insinuated the TS authors are seeking to “divide the SBC”?  Or did you mean to imply I insinuated “you believe” the authors of TS are seeking to divide the SBC?  Either way, I haven’t a clue what you’re referencing.

Fifth, sure you can “retract” the term “sideshow” but only after you acknowledge it was a cheap shot at SBC Today and Ronnie Rogers.

Sixth, to your statement that Traditionalists argue that Calvinism was almost non-existent among the Founders in the middle of the 19th C being  “completely inconsequential” to your comment, of course you can retract it. But not because it was completely inconsequential but because it was completely fabricated out of thin air. You had not a scintilla of evidence to make such a statement but went right ahead and jolly-well produced it nonetheless. So yes, please do retract it; but retract it honestly as a completely false, emotively-driven statement with no proof whatsoever rather than a “completely inconsequential” statement.

Seventh, I don’t know what Dr. Hankins et al prefers about you being a Calvinist. What I do know is not a single line has been written by either the authors of TS or any defenders of TS with whom I am aware which suggests the document was produced as either a “consensus statement” for all to embrace or as an apologetic tool to convert Calvinists to their point of view. Rather the TS stood in the line of all Baptist confessions that any group of Baptists—small or large—may get together and publicly express what they believe to be so. And, like all Baptist confessions, it describes what they actually believe. It does not prescribe what we must believe.  In fact, if the TS had even hinted it was prescribing what all Southern Baptists should believe and/or must believe, I would have been the first one to publicly dissent.

Eighth, Randall, I don’t much care if you are a Calvinist or not. Now, that was easy, now wasn’t it?  We are all priests before God through our Great High Priest, and therefore must all give an account of himself or herself to God. As for me holding my convictions “deeply enough” to prefer you to believe as I believe I have no comment for it is a loaded question. The fact remains, I’m perfectly content leaving it up to the Lord in how He will forge another’s convictions.

Finally, well, no, it doesn’t render my “second postulate a non sequitur.” I am a biblicist, Randall. I gave up systematic theological templates imposed upon God’s Word a long time ago. So, it’s not surprising that Calvinism gets many things right (and wrong) and non-Calvinists get many things right (and wrong). Now, if you don’t agree, you have my express permission to disagree.  Fair enough?

In addition, no it is not just a matter of biblical interpretation despite your continued dissent to the contrary. There are historical questions to pursue--questions I will continue to pursue, questions which must be pursued--concerning which the Bible gives us little direction (e.g. “Were virtually all the SBC Founders 5 Pt Calvinists?”--an historical thesis continually proposed by the larger network of SBC Calvinists).

So, Randall, if all you want to do is argue whether say, Limited Atonement is biblical, or whether the 5 Points stand or fall together, I’m afraid you’ll be sorely disappointed here. While I do deal with those questions, a large portion of my blog posts concern matters of Baptist history. And, know I hold no intention of defending the posting of historical questions from commenters like yourself every time I pursue historical subjects just because you think it happens to be a “second” or “third” tier issue.

Have a good afternoon.

With that, I am…

Peter 

[Randall Cofield]

Peter,

Gotcha. Sorry to have bothered you.

R. Cofield

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

You have an answer to your "retracting" the statement on Traditionalists arguing Calvinists were virtually non-existent in its founding in the long comment above. Read it carefully because I find it insufficient to "retract" it based upon being “completely inconsequential” rather than  “completely fabricated” (whether mistaken or emotively-driven or whatever the reason--sincerely or insincerely--one cannot tell or has no way to tell).

As for Mary's either/or-- "outright lying" or "completely ignorant" I have little to say. While it was posed sternly to be sure, it nonetheless, bore quantum leaps beyond so many in the blogging world who, if wrong info is logged, immediately chooses to slur the person as a liar and deceiver. Mary did not do that. She did give it as either/or. Frankly, you should thank her not question her.

Hence, while there are negative moral repercussions on asserting someone intentionally deceived, there remains nothing morally amiss about suggesting someone is ignorant. After all, an ignorant person can still be an honest person and thus a moral person. But a deceiver may be intellectually brilliant but can not be viewed an honest person nor a moral person. I’ve wrote on this at length since I first began blogging in 2006. (here, here, among many other places).

Hope that helps…

With that, I am…

Peter

[volfan007]

Randall,

I have to agree with Peter and Mary....either you're just out and out lying when you said, "And Traditionalist are arguing that Calvinism was all but non-existent among the Founders;" or else you're ignorant of what we've been saying since the very beginning.

Which is it, Randall?

David

[Lydia]

Randall,

I am going to respond but don't have time for a big convo on all this.

"Piper: My wife and I had the opportunity to be exposed to Piper's church and ministry several years ago for the space of about 6 weeks while our daughter was critically ill as a patient at the University of Minnesota Medical center. I can honestly say that we have never encountered a more warm-hearted, evangelical-minded church in all our years of ministry. I genuinely believe that if you visited Bethlehem Baptist Church most of your bias would be quickly overcome."

Randall, First of all so sorry you had to go through all that and I am glad you found a warm hearted place while there.

But I must say, I rarely take such recommendations into consideration anymore. That comes from lots of experience 'on the other side' of it. We have become a people of instant judgements and are easily influenced. All those years I spent around seeker mega's I was constantly amazed at what people would believe. They actually thought they KNEW the pastor who was really a talking head and very nice and approachable. What I knew was how the whole thing was set up. What was intended to be projected when people came. I do not know if love bombing is used at Bethleham but it would not surprise me in the least.

I have family that went to study with Piper after Wheaton for several years. Trust me, I know what comes out of that place. And yes, I have been there and met Piper several times. That tells me nothing.

"Driscoll & Warren: I have serious reservations about their ministries. Many Calvinists do. I'm still not ready to "throw them under the bus," though I disagree strongly with them on certain issues."

That is nice. Driscoll is big on throwing people under the bus. You are kinder to him than he is to people. I am only sorry more YRR have not called him out over the years. They liked his in your face approach and ignored huge red flags. Driscoll is a sex obessesed bully.

Don't get me started on Warren. We don't have the space.

"Wilson: Several years ago, while while witnessing to some atheist friends, I was confronted with a vitriolic attack upon the bible's position on slavery as they pointed to a number of verses that, on the surface, seemed to affirm slavery. They even threw it in my teeth that the SBC was founded by many who were pro-slavery. I was left with no choice but to deal exegetically with the biblical passages offered by my atheist friends. What I discovered was that the bible DOES NOT CONDONE forced slavery, but it equally DOES NOT CONDEMN indentured servitude. I was able to legitimately and successfully defend the bibical position on slavery with my atheist friends. And then I later discovered that Wilson had come to many of the same conclusions I had on this issue. Do I agree with him on every position he holds? No. Shall we throw him under the bus? I will not. In fact, with the rise of atheism and their vitriolic attack upon God and the Bible, I would venture to say that many would do well to educate themselves on this matter--and Doug's writings would serve as an excellent aid to that end."

Kool aid alert. Randall, you have lost all credibility with me at all with this. I was reading Blog and Mablog long ago. Wilson is a wacko nutcase who USED to be on the fringe and most thought so. He is being mainstreamed and it only serves to show how far the Reformed movement is off the tracks and desperate.

"1) There are those whom many would consider to be on the "lunatic fringe" who would subscribe to the Traditionalist view. Does that make the TS any more or less true?"

The difference is many of us call them out. Perhaps if you got out of your Reformed bubble you would know that.

"2) If you compiled a list that reached unto the heavens of those you view as the "lunatic fringe" who subscribe to Calvinism, would that make Calvinism any more or less true?"

The question is why Calvinists are PROMOTING the lunatic fringe as normal. That is your real problem, Randall.

"3) If your answers to 1 & 2 are "no," how does your above post contribute anything of consequence to the debate?"

No Randall, I don't allow you guys to frame the debate and use rabbit trails. You must learn this in seminary or something. ONe does not need to answer silly questions.

[Max]

Lydia writes "I was reading Blog and Mablog ..."

Lydia, I was wading my way through some serious stuff on various "Mablogs" today when I ran across your line ... it came at just the right time ... releasing laughter instead of tears! You of course are putting a current spin to names of characters/nations in Scripture referred to as "Gog" and "Magog". I suspect that some of their descendents are writing and commenting in this SBC war of words! I really believe that this battle has taken on a spiritual level that we don't fully appreciate. Thank you for the insight you bring to these comment streams.

[Randall Cofield]

Peter, Mary, David, Lydia,

Peter, you said:

You have an answer to your "retracting" the statement on Traditionalists arguing Calvinists were virtually non-existent in its founding in the long comment above. Read it carefully because I find it insufficient to "retract" it based upon being “completely inconsequential” rather than “completely fabricated” (whether mistaken or emotively-driven or whatever the reason--sincerely or insincerely--one cannot tell or has no way to tell).

Sorry guys. My statement was neither "absurd" nor "completely fabricated" nor "mistaken" nor "emotively driven" nor "insincere." Neither am I "outright lying" nor am I "completely ignorant" nor am I a "kool-aid" drinker. But thanks for the litany of not-so-creative pejoratives anyway.

Early on in the TS threads on SBC Today, several Traditionalists were arguing that the Calvinists among the Founders were the exception and not the rule. Some even argued that the "non-Calvinistic" Sandy Creek Baptists were just as responsible (if not more) for the founding of the SBC. This is revisionist history, and the detractors finally backed away from their contentions, though they never retracted their erroneous postulates.

It was on this ground that I made the statement. Again, I will point out that it was inconsequential to my thesis and was offered as evidence that such arguments (from either camp) carry no weight with me as I want to know what Scripture has to say on the subject.

I tried (twice) to retract the statement, and even offered that it was an over-reach on my part. I offered this retraction because I did not qualify the statement, and I simply did not want to continue the silly game when Scripture is to be the source of our unity. Anyone reading my posts without blinders on can easily see the verity of what I am saying.

It appears that nothing short of confessing to being a "liar" or "ignorant" or "insincere" or "a fabricator" etc. will satisfy you. Sorry, but I am in no way obligated to bow my knees to you or your errant judgments.

It is clear that none of you are remotely interested in having a Scriptural discussion about these matters, so I'll leave you to your embrace of bitterness and castigation. Such "biting and devouring" will eventually completely undermine and destroy your anti-Calvinism crusade, and we will still be here when the dust of your frenzy has long- settled.

Soli Deo Gloria

[peter lumpkins]

Randall,

Well, no I don't think so.

Nor is your emotionally-driven rant above effective other than to perhaps demonstrate quite nicely I think that some Calvinists (yourself included) remain visibly unwilling to dialog peaceably and amicably concerning a particular subject. Instead they barter on, among other things, changing the subject when their views get questioned. You've been quite a master at that, Randall. One wonders if you're more upset with us not allowing you to get by with blowing smoke in our face than anything else.

And, I will say for the umpteenth time I remain unconcerned that you think historical queries apparently are of little use. Be my guest. But do not come here complaining when I allow you to set the agenda neither for this blog nor the threads emanating from the posts. You will not--I repeat--will not set the agenda here.

I hope I've been both clear and fair with your words even if I have been blunt. The fact is, sometimes it's necessary to be blunt in the blogging world.

I'm perfectly content to allow the readership to make up its own mind about that...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Lydia]

Max, my dear friend, you give me too much credit! I am not that clever. Doug Wilson's blog is here. Check out the name:

http://www.dougwils.com/

[Lydia]

"Early on in the TS threads on SBC Today, several Traditionalists were arguing that the Calvinists among the Founders were the exception and not the rule. Some even argued that the "non-Calvinistic" Sandy Creek Baptists were just as responsible (if not more) for the founding of the SBC. This is revisionist history, and the detractors finally backed away from their contentions, though they never retracted their erroneous postulates."

Randall, why are you bringing this here, though? If anyone has delved into the history of this issue it is Peter. It is one reason I like it here. History is always more nuanced than "All were Calvinists" or "Only a few were Calvinists".

You are bringing a statement from another blog over here and declaring it in a way to make it look as if we all agree. You might want to spend some time reading the archives here concerning SBC history.

[Mary]

Lydia, I'm getting my Doug's mixed up. I read a lot about the Vision Forum cult years ago and it seems like that's where I came across Doug Wilson's name for the first time. Looking on the net it looks like the Doug's (Phillips and Wilson) had a falling out.

Sorry for the OT Peter. As to the original post - I think we see pretty much the standard reaction by Calvinists. Only Calvinists understand Calvinism, anyone who truly understands Calvinism is a Calvinist, which means Rogers never really understood Calvinism.

[Lydia]

Doug Wilson is in Moscow Idaho and runs a cult he calls the "Kirk" with Christ Church. It is full of the typical patriarchy of quivering daughters, legalistic courtship, having children is salvic for women, obeying elders and pro slavery musings. He is one of those who says many "right" things along with a huge doses of arsenic. The same thing that kept many a YRR excusing Driscoll's millions of red flags.

One of the most egregious things (concerning courtship) is the young girls feel like old maids at 23. He and another elder arranged the marriage of a young woman who felt she was on the shelf at 23 to a convicted pedophile in his church. Now remember we are talking "courtship" which is a whole other animal.

All this was basically talked about in fringe presbyterian circles on blogs until recently when Piper promoted him. So is Denny Burke at SBTS. I read about Wilson long ago when I was researching the Reformed movement in America.

Wilson is also the one who welcomed Sproul Jr to CREC after his defrocking by another presbyterian group for tax fraud and wrongly excommunicating people.

TWW has a couple of posts about him now because of Piper's having him in to teach for DG twice now:

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/13/doug-wilson-fashionable-calvinista-has-disturbing-views-on-slavery/

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/16/why-doug-wilson-on-slavery-should-be-like-jimmy-the-greek/#comment-52967

Wilson and Wiley Drake have something in common. Wilson, years ago on his blog, was the first pastor I read who recommended imprecatory prayers toward our enemies.

So if you do your homework, you might understand why I am freaking out over Piper and others having anything to do with him. I said the same about Driscoll for years and was blown off. Now the SBC Reformed wing is trying to pretend Driscoll, Acts 29, etc never happened or had NO influence on our guys. I beg to differ. I read "hear" Driscoll in many of their comments.

[Timotheos Patterson]

Peter,

One of your long-time "readership" persons here. I have read your blog with regularity since the early years and posted extensively in previous years as well. It seems to me that your blog has significantly devolved from its former (better) state. You yourself sometimes seem of late to be more interested in clever petulance than in irenic discussion and speech seasoned with salt. I know that the blogosphere is a war zone, and that you have established a hard-won but solid position in defense of your theological outlook. I have benefited from some of the discussions and changed some of my thinking as a result of interactions here.

But it seems a bit ironic that the coterie of your regular commentators, to whom you so often give an inexplicable "pass" on the increasingly common vitriol they post, are turning into a reflection of the very same allegedly myopic, provincial and unkind people they so uncharitably lambast. It is truly unseemly, and I am puzzled that you will not hesitate to chastise any and all (inappropriate?) posts of dissenters, but nary a word is written addressing the amazing things that flow from the keyboards of your fanbase. The ground from which they sling so much mud is quickly being depleted. As it is, they hardly have any ground left upon which to stand, and that ain't helping your cause, which I have, on occasion, thought was pretty good.

[peter lumpkins]

Timotheos,

It's been awhile. Thanks for logging on. It's good to know readers continue to 'hang out' here, so to speak, who rarely comment. And, know I appreciate your contributions here in the past. In fact, some of my more memorable exchanges--not to mention meaningful exchanges--have occurred between us, my brother.

As for your input and feedback on the devolution of my site, I am especially appreciative if for no other reason than you've been around for so long. If memory serves me correctly, you were the very first commenter who ever logged a comment on one of my posts. That was, to be exact, 18,383 comments ago! I shall not forget I assure.

Nor shall I dismiss your reasonable criticism as I might one of the pesky "drive-bys", brother. While their criticism undoubtedly runs, at least in part, on knee-jerk reaction to something they stumbled across, yours is logged, I sincerely feel, from a more sober, reflective mindset.

With that in mind, it would be less than straight-forward (and honest) if I did not concede, if not fully then partially and substantially, that I do 'play favorites' from time-to-time with commenters on this site. "Strangers"--if perceived as belligerent and tit-tatty--may not enjoy the same "liberties" as commoners who've been around awhile. O.K. So, it's true. I concede. If not fully then partially and substantially, I concede--it's true.

But once I concede such, Timotheos, I'm not sure how handing out a few "free passes" to regular customers is supposed to contribute to an overall devolution of this blog anymore than Chick-fil-A handing out free sandwich coupons contributes to the devolution of their feathered empire. Personally, I don't feel cheated or unfairly treated while standing in line with cash-in-hand to pay for my chicken delicacy while Mom, Dad and their two toddlers step proudly up to the register and hand the teenager behind the counter a fist full of coupons.

And, something else relevant needs expression here. The ones who get hit the hardest with the "unfair" demands you reference are unfortunately the ones with whom I personally exchange. I know how that sounds on the surface as I wrote it. It sounds as if I'm projecting a needless but prideful how-dare-you-question-me-since-I'm-the-great-with that, I am...Peter-type of-arrogant-attitude, but I assure you, it only sounds like I'm pridefully harder on those who question me because it is me. The truth be told, it's really, really hard to get me riled or ruffled after 6 years of blogging. I've heard just about everything (and been called just slightly under everything). Questions rarely affect me negatively. Blogging, by nature, provokes questions. Questions are its core.

Rather while it may sound much too simplistic, it nonetheless is true, I think, that the major reason I'm harder on those with whom I exchange, offering them fewer options on commenting, if you will, is primarily because they have my attention. That is, when they write, "Peter" I inevitably read their comment. Always. I want to know if I need to respond or not.

As for other comments which are addressed to "Jack", "David", "Mary", etc., I not only don't always read them, but the majority of the time I do not read them. Now, no disrespect is intended in play here. It's not that others' contributions to others hold no value or worth to me. I've learned much from just reading comment streams. Instead it boils down to mathematics--namely, there just are not enough hours in the day to read everybody else's mail.

Hence, I don't know what the others are saying amongst themselves--at least in any in depth way--much of the time. I'm trusting they're not cussin each other out (actually I have swear words 'blocked' in my filter). I wish typepad had a commenter filter which could "flag" a comment as inappropriate. That way I could know to check it out. Alas it does not. DISQUS does; but I ain't going back to Egypt regardless of its stashes of garlic and onions.

Hence, a large portion of those "free passes" are not directly given to the recipients. Instead, they kinda inadvertently get dispersed unevenly like the McDonald's coupons we give away at VBS. No real intention of foul play or unevenness at hand; it just happens.

Now, one may call that a slacking of my duty as the blog host. So be it. I accept the charge. This blog is my responsibility. Consequently, if even one, single person gets slighted or unfairly treated, I own the responsibility whether or not I directly participated in the actual act. So be it. I repent in sackcloth and ashes (no, that is not intended as a facetious remark).

My only recourse is, for now and the future, I do and will do what I can do. I have claimed neither fairness for everyone on this site nor catapulted myself as the righteous model for all other blogs to follow. I don't preach at or about other bloghosts for not playing fairly (though I have occasionally perhaps but I do not make it a habit) for I know how extremely difficult it is to be "fair" to everyone. Nor will I hesitate to mention that I clearly state in the blogging comment section that I make no pretense to:

“…make sure all has a "say-so" on the issue. In other words, if readers want to claim a breach in "free speech" or accuse SBC Tomorrow of "censorship" they have come to the wrong site. While I will attempt to post all of the best comments from opposing positions, I make no promises to anyone holding any position his or her comment will always be posted. I hope this remains clear.”

In the end, perhaps this blog is devolving. If it is, there is nothing I see I would change now to stop the inevitable process. I shall continue to post as I have been and be involved in the comment thread at about the same level of participation as I have been in the past with a slightly less role of commenting (I know, I know. More and more “free passes” to my “favorites”). I have about three books I want to write over the next few years. Hence, I cannot keep the level of blogging going and focus on those books.

Grace, brother. Hoping one day to meet in person. Perhaps a good cup of coffee and some personal chat could do us both a world of good.

With that, I am…

Peter

[selahV]

Timotheos, My, my, it's been a while since days gone by. I will always appreciate the way in which you engaged in the blogworld. Funny, as I look back on that time. As people on this blog argued their points, I remember asking, once, why they must argue so much. And you said something like "men must contend", kinda like it was innate. I had to concede that made perfect sense in the world of ladies vs. gentlemen. In the contentious environment that has evolved, or devolved, in the blog world in general, and this blog in particular, I find some of the contenders now are those which are weary and worn from trying to reason while under continual attacks. Thereby, they just decided to fight fire with fire, rather than fire with Gatorade. It's sad that many find it perfectly permissible to use the weapons of their choice in battle, while their opponents must defend their ground with hands pecking out pleasantries. As some men contend, one would think only they are allowed the grenade launchers while others must use straws and spit-wads.

As another of the long-time readers of this blog (and very biased supporter of the blog host), I, also, have noticed a rise in rancor and less "irenic" articulation in debate tactics. I do believe this is not so much Peter's problem (or fault), as is the general atmosphere of the war of words that comes from the battles first fought on the field of said topics here. Much has happened in the SBC since 2006. Much is happening in the SBC. It's like the discussions have stepped out of the cigar-smoke-filled parlors onto the front-lines drawn in the sand. We see more generals commissioning privates and sergeants to do their bidding. We see a few renegade officers who've seen the battle-plans up close and personal. And those renegades are running about warning the troops. And some of those renegades are women who've been nurses on the front lines and see the damage that has been done in the trenches to troops. They've been dealing with the collateral damage and they have taken up a few muskets.

This is my take on it all. But then again, I'm just a woman, neither nurse nor enlisted personnel. An observer, more than anything else. Now, the thing I'd really like to know from you, is what "changes" in your thinking have been made via the verbosity of us all? Blessings, selahV

[Lydia]

Timotheos,

If I have said anything that has offended you, please do not credit it to Peter's account but to mine alone. I do think there is a clear conumdrum right now in dealing with "Christian" bullies. They run roughshod over "love" as I have witnessed personally many times in churches. I have seen too many people left wounded and bleeding after them.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia

I think both you and SelahV are essentially correct. The atmosphere has also changed over the last couple of years with perhaps an increase in "bullies" as you call them. And, we might even see a spike here when I put the next post up on JW.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Timotheos Patterson]

Peter:
A thoughtful and gracious response, with much food for thought. Don't take my comment with too sharp an edge - it's always difficult to satisfactorily nuance what one says in this medium. But I appreciate the response and will continue to think about it.

SelahV:
Yes, it has been a while, hasn't it? How are you? Well, I hope. The question you ask is a good one, though it would be next to impossible for me to venture an answer with anything like the semblance of brevity, much less clarity!

Lydia,
I love that name. And yes, I certainly will hold Peter accountable for your offenses :^) Such a notion sounds almost, oh, I don't know...biblical or something. And I sympathize completely with the rest of your comment. I wish it was not so.