Joe Biden and a note to Calvinists by Peter Lumpkins

Watching the vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan took about everything I had to last to the end. Biden's annoying, non-stop grin, smirky attitude, and disrespectful demeanor so consumed my attention that the actual content of what either candidate offered remains a complete blur to me now. Biden will undoubtedly go down in future text books on debate as a classic example of how not to effectively do it. Here's what a cross-section of pundits said:   >>>

 

Note to Calvinists: let Joe Biden's nauseating performance illustrate how Calvinists many times come across to average Southern Baptists. While many criticisms have been leveled against Baptist Calvinists through the years (some true, some false), one charge, at least in some ways, outranks them all--Calvinists are arrogant, know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons.

What some people saw in Joe Biden is precisely what some see in far too many Calvinists today.¹

¹nor is this a new demeanor displayed among Calvinists. Consider, for example, Albert Barnes' words in 1849 concerning Calvinism naturally identifying with the sober, the educated, and the cultivated in the community while other minds of lessor potential will never embrace Calvinism, and compare Barnes with the obvious presumptions of  this commenter

Comments

[Lydia]

No way could I watch the whole thing. I got about half way through. Would someone tell me what a moderator is for, anyway? Was she afraid to tell the VP to wait his turn? We are also talking about a simple matter of professionalism and basic civility. Sheesh! What a poor example.

Biden displayed the typical unprofessional narcissistic approach to debate: Insults, interruptions and believing that he who talks most, longest and loudest, wins.

The irony is that Biden was trying to make up for the "President" which should give any voter pause.

And I agree that Biden used what we see as the typical YRR tactics. It is exactly how they come off which is why I call the entire movement the bullification of Christianity.

[JD Hall]

I think to the contrary, that Biden seemed very Arminian/Semi-Pelagian/Synergistic last night:

1. Biden seemed to make emotional appeals rather than focusing on facts.

2. Biden seemed wholly uninterested in listening to Ryan's substantive arguments, decided instead just to scream over him (because if its loud, it must be right).

3. Biden seemed intent on determining truth based off of consensus, asserting that Romeny/Ryan are in the minority position (as though that makes them wrong).

[peter lumpkins]

What a hoot. No more proof exists that many average Southern Baptists are on to something when they perceive some Calvinists as know-it-all prigs than the comment above, a comment by the very one whom I linked in the footnote who prattled on about this.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Lydia]

JD, You might convince yourself but the trick will be convincing the vast amount of SBC laity to continue to pay long term for the arrogant bully attitudes coming out of our seminaries and infesting our churches. Good luck with that. You will need a lot of good little lemmings that perfer to follow man.

Hmm. Sounds to me what the NAMB church planting strategy is all about. Taking over the churches did not work as well as planned. So start new authoritarian top down church plants with young compliant members who are used to following man from years of socialistic education.

[Mike Chitwood]

Peter I am not taking sides here but I would argue that SBC Non-Calvinists are also just as at fault for being "arrogant know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons." My point is blogs like these really do not help bridge the divide we have in our convention. It is difficult to call one a "know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons" and not sound like one yourself!

Again, I'm not taking up for the Calvinists or taking up for the Traditional SBCer. I just want us to realize that we could be more productive working together in advancing the Gospel to ALL peoples and individuals than name calling.

[Clark]

"Calvinists are arrogant, know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons."

The only thing worse than a "know-it-all" Calvinist is a Christian who could make a blanket statement like the above and not feel bad for it.

Clark

[Tracy Irvin]

"Calvinists are arrogant, know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons."

Interesting. That sounds like something a grinning Joe Biden might say...

[Casey Smith]

Malarkey.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Mike,

So you think my mentioning that one sounds like a know-it-all prig, makes my mentioning it sound like a know-it-all-prig? But what about your mentioning my mentioning that one sounds like a know-it-all prig? Wouldn't that make your mentioning it sound like a know-it-all prig as well? Just tryin to follow your logic...

Clark,

Have you ever heard of the word "some" and "many"?

Tracy,

Well, no, not from what I gathered from the video it would not.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Wayne]

Peter

It seems like you're baiting people to respond to an unkind post and then jump on them for it. I don't always agree with your conclusions, but I do believe that you are genuine in your beliefs and generally fair. Not today! What a disappointment

[Clark]

"Clark,

Have you ever heard of the word "some" and "many"?"

Stay strong Peter! Defending a classless comment is far easier than self-reflection or growth.

Clark

[lydia]

Funny how so few have a problem with "Mr. Marginalize people" being on the "unity" committee. Of course, that is not arrogant at all and full of "class" for an entity employee.

I am constantly amazed at the lower standards for the YRR.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for your readership.

It's not about either "baiting" or being "unkind". Instead it's about a general observation that's been made hundreds of times concerning tendencies Calvinists in particular so often display. I footnoted both a contemporary and historical example going back to the 1850s! Now, you may see that as entirely unfair. So be it. But to suggest it's "baiting" simply makes very little sense.*

With that, I am...
Peter

*even Calvinists understand this common charge and perpetually deal with it. See chapter seven in Killing Calvinim by Greg Dutcher entitled "[We're killing Calvinism] By Being an Arrogant Know-it-all" where Dutcher (a strict Calvinist) says his own struggle with "Calvinistic pride" has "universal application" which, of course, led in part to the writing of his book.

[peter lumpkins]

Clark,

You've registered your complaint--twice in fact. Now unless you have a contribution beyond that, I'll bid you a good afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Adam G. in NC]

If is wasnt for Calvinism this guy wouldnt have anything to write/think/talk about.

[peter lumpkins]

Adam G.

Perhaps. But again perhaps neither would Calvinists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

Thanks for revealing what we already knew: you are obsessed with Calvinism. The fact that you watched the VP debate and in your mind bridged that with your more Calvinistic SBC brethren is sad. Between your man-crush on Mohler and your obsession with Calvinism, what else does your mind think of?

Let me encourage you with Philippians 4:8, "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." If Mohler and those dastardly Calvinists are so terrible, please get your mind on something good!

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Ben,

Thanks. I recall Mark Driscoll fans voicing my supposed "man-crush" for him as well as I logged my dissent from his views. So, I'm hardly surprised you'd make the same accusation concerning Dr. Mohler. What is surprising is why others have not yet tattooed you with the same ink you do me. After all, you criticize me about as much I do Mohler. Do you have a "man-crush" on me, Ben? (wink wink)

And, as long as the Calvinization of the SBC remains a reality, know I have no regrets about the amount of posts I've written on this vital issue Southern Baptists face nor have I any intention toward not thinking out loud about the issue publicly, for I think it is especially helpful to most Southern Baptists regardless of complaints coming from the Calvinist community to which you belong Ben.

Have a nice evening.

With that, I am...
Peter

[gary]

You see Ben, some times people like Peter are what we call down south as watch dogs for people that aren't aware for whatever reason. Although not all things are good or noble or even lovely, but what he (Peter)is attempting to do is enlighten those who otherwise would go on blindly following a blind shepard. I am by no means a scholar or even a very educated indvidual, but, no one can say that what another man is doing is not according to the Bible. Especially if their heart is in it. Since I've personally known him for over 20 plus years, just so you will understand, I don't beleave there is a more Godly man alive. Thanks anyway for your concern. But those are the concerns of a fellow Christian and to say his mind is on anything other than doing good is like unto another verse in the Bible. Mathew 7:3-5

[Dan Calkins]

Mr. Lumpkins,
Please humor this young liberally-minded minister: exactly what is wrong with having Calvinists in the SBC and SBC leadership? Many Calvinists seem to be quite intelligent, Biblically-minded, caring for the community in which they live, and proclaimers of the Gospel. I don't think percentages matter, except that the majority of SBC church members are not in church any given Sunday.

I'm also troubled by the language against a possible youth movement. Do you all really want young ministers in the SBC, even if they don't fully agree with you theologically?

I'm 34, a second-genration SBC minister, and don't really want to leave the convention. I may be naive, but I believe Calvinists, Arminians, and those in between can effectively coexist in the SBC, generously support CP missions, and preach faith in Jesus and repentance of sin throughout the world.

Blessings, brother.

Dan Calkins

[lydia]

Ben, Could not your comment mean you are obsessed with Peter's views on Calvinism?. Lots of obsessing(and other well meaning insults, right?) being tossed around by the YRR these days. They seem to be obessesed with being arrogant and the only ones who know the true Gospel. More and more I see the political tactics of the liberal playbook on view in their comments. Gotta throw a "marginalizing" zinger in there and then quote scripture for your bonafides. Seems to cancel each other out but then the YRR have not been known to be critical thinkers, just that they themselves always right even when not making great sense. They have been taught WHAT to think. Not how to think.

Unlike the YRR, Peter seems to have an obsessively thick skin. :o)

[peter lumpkins]

Hey Dan,

Well nothing is necessarily wrong in having Calvinists either in the SBC or in some--emphasis on some --leadership positions in the SBC. I frankly only know a very select few who are "anti" Calvinist meaning they do not want Calvinism at all in the SBC. Rather our point is and remains contra the institutionalization of Calvinism in the SBC, an institutionalization indicative of which one may observe, for example, an excessively out-of-balance number of leadership positions given to Calvinists who make up a decided minority among SBC churches.

As for "getting along" we have "gotten along" quite well in fact for most of our history so far as Calvinism is concerned. However, beginning in 1982, a push toward embracing Calvinism as our default theology has been taking place, a push now led by Al Mohler, Mark Dever, among others with Mohler, for example, suggesting that Reformed theology is the only legitimate option for us.

So, all things being equal, one wouldn't hear much of a peep out of me about Calvinism. But when they attempt to impose Calvinism from the top down, I, along with other Free Church loving Baptists, will not sit idly by while Jerusalem burns.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve Loeffler]

Be careful not to let a few prigs spoil your belief in a sovereign Christ who will raise up all whom the Father has given to Him as a gift (John 6). Believe the Scriptures no matter who mishandles the text or mischaracterizes the text through the veil of a noisy gong. May the love of Christ conquer all of the hearts of His lost sheep and may the love of Christ conquer the bad attitudes of those who oppose those who love their sovereign Savior who will not fail to get anyone of His sheep scattered throughout the world. May the Lord be please to make us holy according to the election of grace.

By the way, to the scorner the calvinist will always sound snooty and snobbish. Of course, let us also be aware of the snobbishness of some arminians.

Finally, the rightness or wrongness of a doctrine in not based upon the silliness of any person. Let us grow to be discerning of Scriptural truth regardless of the disposition of the person - not to excuse foolish behavior, however.

The Lord grant this lover of a sovereign Christ who died to save all of His beloved sheep with the absolute guarentee that all of them will in fact be saved and will all go to Heaven a more gracious spirit when teaching the Scriptures with firmness.

Thanks.

[Steve Loeffler]

Let us hear a gracious, humble servant of the Lord, J.B. Gambrell, SBC president (1917-20), one-time editor of the Bapt. Standard, professor of SBTS, editor of the Bapt. Record in MS. Gambrell wrote an article 'Obligations of Baptists to Teach Their Principles' in a book called, Baptist Principles Reset, in which he stated the following:

"Dry preachers have turned the very bread of heaven into stones, and not a few have found no better use for the stones after they are made than to cast at their theological adversaries. Much of the doctrinal preaching is not only distastefully dry, but distressingly gritty. We can scarcely wonder that hungry souls turn away from a ministry which preaches predestination without pathos, election without grace, baptism without its sublime spiritual meaning, communion without sensibility, and all duty without beauty....We may invigorate our faith and renew our courage by reflecting that divine power has always attended the preaching of doctrine, when done in the true spirit of preaching. Great revivals have accompanied the heroic preaching of the doctrines of grace, predestination; election, and that whole lofty mountain range of doctrines upon which Jehovah sits enthroned, sovereign in grace as in all things else. God honors the preaching that honors him. There is entirely too much milk-sop preaching nowadays, trying to cajole sinners to enter upon a trace with their Maker, quit sinning, and join the church. The situation does not call for a truce, but for a surrender. Let us bring out the heavy artillery of heaven, and thunder away at this stuck-up age as Whitfield, Edwards, Spurgeon, and Paul did, and there will be many slain of the Lord raised up to walk in newness of life.

People, after all, want to hear preaching with substance in it. The truth was made for human hearts as certainly as bread was made for human mouths. A ministry strong and tender, true to the Word of God, will never be a slighted ministry. I am deeply convinced that there should be a return to doctrinal preaching, taking care to keep clear of the faults of the professional religious pugilist. This is true with respect to doctrine in general; it is specially true of doctrines which Baptists are peculiarly bound to hold aloft before the world."

Dale Crawford reminds us that the original doctrinal standards and positions were calvinistic and most of the leaders were calvinists in the reformed tradition of the London Baptists:

"The first president of the Convention, W.B. Johnson, was a Calvinist. Basil Manly, Patrick H. Mell (who held the office of SBC president longer than any other man), John Broadus, William Williams, etc. etc. -- all Calvinists. James Petigrue Boyce, SBC president and founder and first president of Southern Seminary drafted the Abstract of Systematic Theology, a solidly Calvinistic statement." (http://trinitybaptistreformed.blogspot.com/2012/06/sbc-statement-against-calvinism.html)

Election is the gracious purpose of God,according to which He regenerates, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners...
Baptist Faith and Message, Article V

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Steve,

First, thanks for the exhortation to not lose site of God's sovereignty. I assure you I have not. My own view is biblically rich and stands happily within the Baptist tradition.

Second, your quote from Gambrell could be matched by innumerable quotes of other historical worthies far less Calvinistic than the quote you offered. In fact, my site is loaded with them. Hence, I'm not sure what you were attempting to show by citing it. I can tell you what I get from it--the same as I get from others who are wed to Founders-type Calvinism; namely, a reductionistic approach to Baptist history whereby an attempt to prove our roots are decidedly Calvinist and nothing more. My site will continue to question that supposition, however.

Lord bless...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Craig]

Peter,
BRAVO!! I was watching this horrifying display the other night after doing my radio show. It took all of about ONE minute to make a connection that made me throw up in my mouth a little. I watched Biden and I thought "This guy is too familiar...where have I seen this sort of buffoonery before..JAMES WHITE!" I harkened back the the episodes of two summers ago and shuddered. Hopefully there is a bright spot in this revelation and Biden will be sent to a basement of anonymity come this November much the way White was returned to "And you are...?" status not long after his protracted 15 minutes of fame expired.

[lydia]

Steve, Your entire comment is the statement of a narcissist who has been brainwashed. Are you sure you want to stick with it? Much of what I hear out of the YRR/NC movement sounds very narcissistic. Your entire comment is self serving using Christ, it boggles the mind how in deep you are. I don't expect you to understand that. Perhaps when the money dries up you will start to ask yourself hard questions.

Your comment does, however,help me to understand Reformation history and why people went along with persecution instead of standing up to it as unbiblical. T can see that many saw the persecution of people who dared to disagree as actually honoring Christ. It is a blindness. Amazing how many revere Calvin as being their representative of Christ.

I believe the only thing standing in the way of real persecution from the YRR/NC movement toward those who dare disagree is our Constitution.They try everything else including insults, marginalization, harsh church discipline, membership covenants, group think shaming, censorship, etc. If they had real state power, I shudder to think how they would lord it over. It only makes me truly admire and appreciate the men who do not seek power in the Name of Christ (lording it over) but a Holy Priesthood as servants to others.

Steve, I do appreciate your comment in one way, though. I have been directing pew sitters, who are confused about what is going on and how come so many young men in and out of seminary are so arrogant and cruel, to certain blogs to read comments.Yes, they are appalled at what they are reading. A free exchange without you all controlling it, is the worse thing that can happen to your man centered movement.

[steve]

Kerfoot, cooresponding Secretary of the Home Mission Board and successore of Boyce as professor of Theology at Southern, stated: "And, in common with a large body of evangelical Christians, nearly all Baptists believe what are usually termed the 'doctrines of grace.'" This quote was in 1904 when there was no significant dissenting voice opposed to the doctrines of grace.

Thanks Peter for your kindness to engage this calvinist though Lydia still has a bug crawling around her head.

[steve]

Lydia,

Help me understand what you are angry about?

Otherwise, please answer a basic question: who opened Lydia's heart to hear the good news of Paul and then to respond (Acts 16:14-15)? Was this not promised by the prophet Ezekeil in 36:

Ezekiel 36:26-28 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Who is the one causing, giving, transforming, removing, willing? The Lord God Almighty is the One who is delighting Himself to save a people by taking out their heart of stone and making them His believing, obedient people.

The Lord bless you.

[steve]

Peter,

The historic position of the SBC resided with and still remains with calvinism or the doctrines of grace as seen in the doctrinal standards of the SBC, i.e., LBC, the New Hampshire Confession, the Abstracts of Principles and the BF&M (all versions - limited atonement, admitedly, being hardly seen).

Bless you.

Steve

[steve]

BTW, Peter and Lydia, I would not want to be too associated with the young, restless crowd who theologically aspouse themselves to calvinism but practically are culturally pragmatic and seeker-sensative in their methodologies which seem to contradict their theology.

I find the movement a distortion of the holy God of Scriptures.

I would rather be identified with Spurgeon and the historic SBs who most likely would not like to be identified with the YRR either.

Thanks.

[Craig]

Steve,
A misappropriation of an old testament prophecy specifically intended for Israel at a specific time in history and using it as evidence of the viability of Calvinist doctrine is about the same as finding scriptural backing for said Calvinism in the first place.
That said, your statement concerning the YRR is spot on and is the real reason there is such dissension. Abiding Reformed Theology is not the problem. It's the arrogance that these folks possess regarding those who disagree and their insistence on reshaping the Convention into something made COMPLETELY in their image that has brought strife

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

Thanks for the exchange. Allow me if I may.

You write, “The historic position of the SBC resided with and still remains with calvinism or the doctrines of grace as seen in the doctrinal standards of the SBC...” Begging pardon. You seem to be confusing your own position of our SBC heritage with the historic position of the SBC, the very question on the table I’m afraid. Rather than begging the question, then, the onus is upon you to show how your assertion is so, an assertion proposed by Founders-type Calvinists since the early 80s but an assertion nonetheless which hasn’t, to date, been demonstrated. For example, you cited Gambrell positively as promoting the “doctrines of grace” among Southern Baptists with my retort following: “your quote from Gambrell could be matched by innumerable quotes of other historical worthies far less Calvinistic than the citation you offered.”

To illustrate, Z.T. Cody was a contemporary with J.B. Gambrell (and Kerfoot whom you later quote). Cody wrote at the turn of the century these very clear words in a piece entitled “Are Baptists Calvinists?”, a piece published in both South Carolina’s state paper (The Courier, where he served as editor a number of years) as well as a little volume published by the Sunday School board. Note Cody’s unequivocal answer to the question he posed (emphasis added):

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

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

My how history has a way of correcting our reductionist proposals! (by the way, Cody sat on the committee that produced and subsequently adopted Southern Baptists’ very first convention-wide confession in 1925).

Second, Steve, you appear to be completely skewing the roles of confessions in Baptist history—including Southern Baptist history particularly—when you assign confessions to be doctrinal standards of the SBC. Begging pardon again. Baptists—especially Southern Baptists--have no “doctrinal standards” but the Bible. We have doctrinal expressions. We have doctrinal guides. We have doctrinal confessions. But unlike Presbyterians and the Westminster Confessional tradition, neither Baptists generally nor Southern Baptists particularly have historically understood confessions to be doctrinal standards. The preamble to all three BF&M versions make this abundantly clear.

In fact, if you are correct about confessions being our "doctrinal standards", it seems hard to square with Southern Baptist history since we possessed no doctrinal standards for virtually the entire first half of our existence (i.e. 1845-1925). Consider: upon the establishment of the SBC in 1845, the first president of our convention, W.B. Johnson, a stanch Calvinist himself, said: ““We have constructed for our basis no new creed; acting in this matter upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible” (H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1987, 686). If our "doctrinal standards" are indicated by our confessions of faith as you suggest, what are we to make of the founding basis of our existence as a convention being predicated upon, according to Johnson, the absolute absence of and aversion to all confessions but the Bible?

What is more, you mentioned the London Confession, the New Hampshire Confession, the Abstracts of Principles and the BF&M all being indicative both of “calvinism or the doctrines of grace” and the “doctrinal standards of the SBC.” So far as the latter is concerned, I just showed how it makes no historical sense to argue Southern Baptists possess “doctrinal standards” when we were founded upon the principle indicated in Johnson’s first address about the existence of the newly formed convention: i.e., the SBC having “constructed for our basis no new creed; acting in this matter upon a Baptist aversion for all creeds but the Bible.”

As for mentioning London, NH, AP, and the BFM could you please tell us where we can find the historical evidence suggesting Southern Baptists adopted any of the first three of four confessions you name as our conventional confession of faith much less adopted them as our doctrinal standard? The historical record is clear: Southern Baptists’ first adopted convention-wide confession was what was first known as “The Memphis Articles” (presumably because the SBC met in Memphis in 1925) but later came to be called “The Baptist Faith and Message” (McBeth, p. 677).* Nor was the 1925 version chiefly a Calvinistic expression of the classic doctrines of grace, Steve. E.Y. Mullins, hardly a robust Calvinist, and for his rejection of strict Calvinism, a whipping post so many Founders-type Calvinists routinely enjoy lashing, was undoubtedly the chief literary architect of the document, along with Z.T. Cody (mentioned above) and E.C. Dargan among others, others not so theologically cozy with strict Calvinism (Dargan apparently denied the Calvinistic understanding of total depravity, for example, and probably would be considered by many strict Calvinists today as Semi-Pelagian). If anything, Southern Baptists’ first convention-wide confession of faith constituted an openly clear and definitive step away from the High Calvinism of London, Philadelphia, and Charleston. Besides, since you obviously observe that Limited Atonement is conspicuously absent from at least three of the four confessions you cite, at best your present citations only indicate some of the doctrines of grace have been widely embraced amongst Southern Baptists, an inference I happily concede.

Finally, I (and presumably Lydia as well) are glad you perceive some of the same difficulties with the YRR as do I (and Lydia). Granted. Hence, we may honorably serve as cobelligerents in pointing out those weaknesses we both see. Note, nonetheless, that our criticisms (at least from my perspective; Lydia may differ at this point) toward the YRR are not just about the Y and the first R but the Y and both R’s. In other words, I hold reservations concerning the “Reformed” theology of not only the YRR but also the more traditional Founders-type Calvinists as well (presumably including you, Steve)  But even that reservation must be qualified. It is not the Calvinistic theology per se. Only one who refuses to read the clear testimony of history will deny Baptists—including Southern  Baptists particularly—possess a rich history which includes a robust Calvinism. Rather it’s both the uninformed supposition that only Calvinism remains the proper interpretational filter for biblical revelation as well as the easily refuted idea that Southern Baptists’ real history is only found in her Calvinistic roots, a supposition debunked by the historical record. In short, it’s the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention I vigorously oppose and will continue to oppose until my dying breath.

With that, I am…

Peter

*actually there were two former doctrinal statements composed (one circa 1914 and another circa 1919) which mainly dealt with both the unionization movement and global missions. Neither statement, however, remotely displayed a theological flavor suitable to the robust Calvinism strict Calvinists demand. Nor was either statement considered the SBC’s first convention-wide articles of faith in the same way as the 1925 message of Baptist faith.

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

You're very welcome. Thanks for the exchange, brother. I think it remains possible for significant exchange to happen in SBC life concerning the DoG, though admittedly the window of probability appears to be closing quickly.

I will offer a note of encouragement to extend to Lydia the same courtesy you've offered to me. I saw no good reason to change the subject from what Lydia wrote to what's in Lydia's heart (i.e. understanding why she is so "angry"). Care to offer one? And, to make it worse, you suggest she has a bug crawling around in her head. How either of these two remarks add to the goal of genuine exchange over the DoG I have not a clue. But I'm open to sound reasoning on the matter.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[steve loeffer]

Craig,

Thanks for your interaction. Again the SBC was founded to be a reformed baptist convention based upon calvinistic confessions. The present BM&F is still reformed having come from the New Hampshire confession - WAS IT NOT? You can find the 1925 version with a preamble that cearly states this fact here: http://www.fbcglenpool.com/Downloads/The%201925%20Baptist%20Faith%20and%20Message%20Statement.pdf

Yes, arminians have been part of the convention but as exceptions to the theological norms.

May the Lord bring us back to these norms with men who are gracious and not obnoxious. There are a growing number thankfully.

May you consider seriously the writings of Dagg and Boyce with an open Bible and prayerfully.

Bless you - from a former staunch Arminian who saw Calvinists as practical heretics.

[steve loeffer]

Grace to you, Peter and to you, Lydia. May we not have an angry spirit nor a angst spirit.

Do we know that Jesus is God; that He is the only way of salvation; that faith in Christ while running from my sin and sinfulness is the only way of salvation from my sin and hell; that God does all things for the good of His saints including the confusing events; that man is finite and God is infinite even in His knowledge and that eternity is both for those who reject Christ and for those who are loving Christ by faith alone because of grace alone according to the Scriptures alone due to Christ's substitutionary atonement alone all for the glory of God alone? Then I believe we can run together while talking theology.

Bless you.

More to you Peter in response to your note above.

Thanks.

[peter]

Steve,

You may be sure I have no angry spirit. And, please note also the exhortation I gave to you above considering Lydia. There was no call to change the subject from her words to her supposed inner anger you subjectively judged. I hope that was at least an unspoken part of your plea for us not to be angry.

More significantly, in light of what you wrote to Craig, I'll be happy to see your response to my piece to you above. Of interest to me are things to Craig you spoke about:

a) the SBC being founded to be a reformed baptist convention based upon calvinistic confessions when we not only had no confession at our founding but did not embrace one from 1845-1925

b) the NHC being particularly Calvinistic when in fact most historians describe it as a watered-down Calvinism at best. Whatever the case, it most certainly was a step away from the High Calvinism of London & Philadelphia

c) the writers of the 1925 BF&M being anything but strong Calvinists, especially its chief influencer, E.Y. Mullins

d) the present BF&M still being "reformed" even when it along with the other two versions were produced in an era when SBs were mostly non-Calvinistic in their theological outlook

e) that arminians have been part of the convention but as exceptions to the theological norms.

f) you hope for a turnaround and the Lord to "bring us back to these norms" which seems to directly conflict with what you mentioned immediately above

With that, I am...
Peter