Are you a Calvinist? Rethinking Theological Labels - Dr. Jason Allen

It's going to continue getting more and more difficult for churches to identify the theological sympathies of potential pastors and other staff members as positions like Dr. Allen's take hold.

"Are You a Calvinist? Rethinking Theological Labels" by Jason Allen

Comments

[JND]

“To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.”

Well, frankly, I don't believe that. No idea? None whatsoever? Baloney.

Can terms be better defined? No doubt, but that's a far cry from "no idea."

[David (NAS) Rogers]

I find it a little disturbing that a seminary president would think that his list of words would distinguish a Calvinist from a non-Calvinist or an Arminian.

"What exactly is meant by, “Are you a Calvinist?” A belief in depravity, sovereignty, providence, perseverance, election, and much more, all could prompt one to answer in the affirmative."

An Arminian can use all those words also. It is the content of each one of them that is important. I have found that some Calvinists think they have proprietary ownership of the words and thus think their definitions are the only ones to be assumed by the terms.

Could that be a hint that maybe he is a "Calvinist"?

[peter lumpkins]

Though it does not come thru so readily in Dr. Allen's piece, and I surely do not want to read into it a misplaced tone, the content is reminiscent of some Calvinists' regrettable notion that everybody is patently stupid about theological issues but them.

[Max]

Peter writes "the content is reminiscent of some Calvinists' regrettable notion that everybody is patently stupid about theological issues but them."

My sentiments exactly. Perhaps I read between the lines too much, but the new seminary president appears to have a desire to swim in the middle of the pond while SBC Calvinization progresses on other fronts ... intellectually treading water while he gets his bearings. I suspect he has to dodge that question a lot in Missouri and beyond these days.

P.S. regarding patent stupidity in SBC ranks: most of us ain't too smart, but flesh & blood have not revealed to us what we need to know ... the Father in heaven has.

[peter lumpkins]

Max

It's also interesting that the very first conference being promoted at MWBTS is one with Calvinists at the helm...

[Robert Vaughn]

I'm sure there are several issues involved here, one of which is particularly where Jason Allen stands on the issue of Calvinism -- and whether he is dodging the question. Not to be lost in that, though, is that it is worthwhile to understand that labels do need to be defined and explained rather than just used.

Allen mentions "Fundamentalist" in the latter part of his post. On an occasion awhile back when I was knocking on doors in the community where I pastored, after introducing myself I was quickly met with the question, "Are you a fundamentalist?" I answered that, yes, I believe in the fundamentals of the faith, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say a "fundamentalist". After talking a bit, I found that to her a fundamentalist was a Baptist pastor who was mad at the world and a dictator over his church. So I was able to explain to her what I meant by the fundamentals and that I was not that kind of fundamentalist.

[Paul Owen]

This discussion highlights an important weakness in Baptist church life. Given the model of a robust doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and congregational government, it is incumbent on Baptists especially to have a biblically literate and theologically grounded body of laity and deacons. That is increasingly not the case in our vacuous culture. Does this not leave Baptist churches at the mercy of pastoral candidates and theological committees who embed doctrinal positions which are outside the mainstream inside cleverly worded double-talk? Thereby slipping problematic theology under the radar of unsuspecting Baptist congregations? With soul-sufficiency comes the responsibility of keen discernment and familiarity with one's own theological heritage.

[Bill Mac]

To conceal one’s theological convictions is at once disingenuous and cowardly, and no self-respecting minister should be either. Rather, let’s be Bereans, studying the Scriptures and articulating our convictions in ways that are most biblical, most forthright, and most wise.

Good words.

[james jordan]

The resurgence of Calvinism on such a massive scales proves that Christianity is in its death-throes.

[Andrew Barker]

“I’ll be happy to discuss this as much as you’d like after the service, but know that I believe in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved.” Reassured, he smiled and said “that is all I wanted to hear.”

I think I might be having a 'most' moment here, but these little words do count and I find this statement somewhat less reassuring than I would like. Scripture says "will be saved". Is there any doubt about it? If not, why water it down?

[Andrew Barker]

Dr. Owen. While I can see your point about the need for Baptists to have a good grounding in faith and theology, I'm not so sure this is necessarily any more apposite for Baptists than any other denomination. In deed, rather than slipping doctrine under the radar, some of the established churches teach doctrines quite openly which lack Biblical authority. Infant Baptism and transubstantiation spring to mind.

I can't see that holding to the priesthood of all believers makes a congregation more at risk from cleverly worded false doctrine coming in the back door.

[Scott]

Peter,
Hasn't the cry for the last several years been that we should stop using labels that we inherited from two 16th century Presbyterians? Also, didn't Dr. Allen say "to conceal one’s theological convictions is at once disingenuous and cowardly, and no self-respecting minister should be either. Rather, let’s be Bereans, studying the Scriptures and articulating our convictions in ways that are most biblical, most forthright, and most wise"? If one were to take his advice from this article, a person would be upfront and honest about their convictions while avoiding labels that could be confusing?

[Max]

Paul Owen hits the nail on the head when he says "Given the model of a robust doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and congregational government, it is incumbent on Baptists especially to have a biblically literate and theologically grounded body of laity and deacons."

From my observation of SBC life for 50+ years, discipleship has not been the priority it should have been, with folks in the pew essentially biblically illiterate in most churches. Deacons are chosen largely by popularity vote, rather than spiritual qualification and doctrinal knowledge. Teachers raise their hands to volunteer, but many are not gifted to teach. Very few Southern Baptists actually read their Bibles through the week; mid-week prayer meetings have been canceled by many churches due to a lack of interest. Except for a minority of Southern Baptists who are digging their own wells through personal Bible study and prayer, the majority know only the basics at best. The resultant congregations are easy picking for aberrant theology. Leaders in SBC's New Calvinist movement recognize this weakness and are able to push forward unhindered.

It should also be noted that the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message diminished long-held Baptist doctrines of soul competency and priesthood of individual believers - a result of the influence of reformed committee members.

[Paul Owen]

Andrew, I may not have been clear. My point was simply that given the Baptist understanding of the way the church "works," it is all the more incumbent that they have a well-discipled, theologically grounded body of laity. In other forms of church government, that responsibility rests more or less on representative bodies (the Presbytery, or the Episcopate). Sometimes, I think the Baptist emphasis on winning people to Christ can have an adverse effect on their spiritual and doctrinal health. Not meant to be a criticism; just an observation.

[Andrew Barker]

Well Paul, I think we're all dancing around the same point of agreement here, although we have slightly differing takes on it :-)

[Nate]

Max wrote, "From my observation of SBC life for 50+ years, discipleship has not been the priority it should have been, with folks in the pew essentially biblically illiterate in most churches."

Max, your entire second paragraph (save the last sentence) is accurate and recognizable in most SBC churches today. There are a multitude of reasons for this, but I would contend that the major reason is the divorce culture and lack of husbands/fathers who personally disciple their own families.

However, to contend that it is only Calvinists who are exploiting this condition in the church today is rather limited in its view. There are a huge number of non-Calvinistic led SBC churches who are Pastor led and/or Deacon led. What I mean by that is the congregation doesn't take to heart their responsibility as members in a Congregationally led church and rubber-stamp anything the pastor and/or a few "respected" deacons desire. This is not loving toward the leadership or their fellow members.

I think this is a huge problem in the 21st century church and both Calvinists and non-Calvinist pastors/elders/deacons can utilize this to their advantage. Having said that I believe there are many pastors (both non-Calvinists and Calvinists) who firmly believe in congregationlism and seek to have a mature discipled congregation.

I do however think the overwhelming issue of the day is fathers in SBC households that aren't leading their families to a thorough understanding of the Scripture and a proper attitude concerning responsibilities of lay people in the church.

[Max]

Nate - You have certainly flagged a critical issue in our culture - both in and out of the church ... fathers have checked out! Biblical illiteracy and associated lack of spiritual discernment does indeed open churches up to a variety of theological aberration. Praise God for church leadership who recognize this and are attempting to disciple their congregations in the Way, the Truth & the Life ... which is Jesus!

[Scott Shaver]

Paul:

Sincerely appreciate your well constructed thoughts on the issue.

This escalating doctrinal "marsh" within the SBC is the primary reason I was unwilling a few years back to concede "priesthood of the believer" for the "priesthood of ALL believers" mantra.

Still refer to "priesthood of THE believer" as my own personal line in the sand.

Ain't goin where neo-reformers want to take us.

[Max]

Scott - Regarding "priesthood of THE believer" vs. "priesthood of ALL beleivers", you might be interested in taking a look at Russell Dilday's analysis of the BFM2000 revision dealing with this "troubling factor". Dilday was concerned that the revised BFM essentially "rejects the historical Baptist emphasis of the priesthood of each individual believer (singular), replacing it with a more Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of believers (plural)." He was particularly concerned about Dr. Mohler's role on the revision committee to reinterpret and rephrase this long-held Baptist doctrine of individual responsibility and privilege before God. A "red line" in the sand for me, too.

See http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html

[Andrew Barker]

I appreciate the comments regarding the phrasing of the term the 'priesthood of all believers'. Generally I would have thought this is taken as saying that as Christians we make up a kingdom of priests and hence each individual Christian is a priest.

Perhaps somebody could clue me in as to just how the Reformed lobby try to hijack this phrase and make it mean something other than what I believe the plain English says it does?

[Kyle B. Gulledge]

Peter, You are absolutely correct in the growing difficulty for churches to know if they are calling a guy as pastor who is a Calvinist or not. Simply because they aren't honest with their views/beliefs on this issue. If Dr. Jason Allen's opening illustration is true and about him, even he doesn't acknowledge who or what he is. He sidesteps it with a question of his own to the gentleman. (I admit, I don't think right before the service is the place for somebody to come up and ask someone such a question.)
This reminds me of the old carnival game where they put a ball under one of three cups. Then, the carnival barker shuffles those cups around all the while you are trying to keep your eye on the cup that has the ball placed under it, in hopes of picking correctly when it is all over with. That is where we are in our SBC today. Churches that have been categorized as "Traditional" as it relates to soteriology, call a man as pastor and hope when it is all over with that they have "picked" the right man. Because, the "calvinists" are not being honest with who they are and are trying to distract you and confuse with other issues (a la the cup game). To get it wrong can be and has been devastating to churches- leading in many instances to a split.

[Ron F. Hale]

People avoid questions for many reasons; here are some of the main tactics:

1. Attack the person asking the question – “Do you really know what you are asking me? Are you really smart enough to discuss the scope of Calvinism?”

2. Attack the question – “I get asked that silly question all the time; do you think that question is relevant?

3. Divert the question – “Your question reminds me that we have a problem in SBC life; I want to assure you that I’m not part of the problem but I’m trying to be part of the solution. Do you want to be part of the solution?

4. Decline to answer the question –“I don’t know the answer to your question, but I will study it and get back with you.”

I’m sure there are many other tactics …

I’m of the opinion that lay people are searching for simple, honest answers from potential pastors or even guest speakers. It is responsibility of the speaker/preacher to be clear and concise about their theological colors and fly them boldly or do not fly them at all.

[Max]

Andrew Barker asks: "Perhaps somebody could clue me in as to just how the Reformed lobby try to hijack this phrase and make it mean something other than what I believe the plain English says it does?" (re: priesthood of the believer)

Andrew - the following article has some background in this regard: "Some question whether words put back in BF&M mean the same thing" http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

[Paul Owen]

If the elderly genleman was familiar with typical Particular Baptist double-talk, Allen's answer should have sounded an alarm bell. Rather than simply assert with the language of the Bible that God wants everyone to be saved and any person can be saved, on the condition of repentance and faith, he replied that he believes in preaching to everyone (since we don't know who the elect are), and that anyone who repents and believes (which is code for the elect) can be saved. Unfortunately the kind gentleman probably assumed that Allen would not play games with words and take advantage of his gullibility.

[Louis]

Of course, there are people such as I who when asked, "Are you a Calvinist?" simply say "No."

[Lydia]

"Of course, there are people such as I who when asked, "Are you a Calvinist?" simply say "No.""

Why not say no, but I fully support the Calvinist takeover of the SBC. :o)

Lots of game playing out there with points and loyalties, etc.

[Andrew Barker]

Max, thanks for the comments. I have read through and I believe there is a difference of opinion based around the grammar being used. I'm going to have a more detailed look and may post later.

[Scott Shaver]

Max:

I am familiar with Dilday's reservations about the 2000 BFM. Even more troubling than the change of wording which gave "priesthood of the believer" a collective rather than individual meaning was the committees decision to leave Jesus Christ out completely as the criterion by which scripture is to be interpreted.

Baptism by immersion will be next in their sights.

[Ben Simpson]

Since nobody has quoted in one block the entire conversation between Dr Allen and this gentlman, please allow me to do so:

The organ was playing. The choir was in the loft. Church members were seated and still. My Bible was in hand and I was prepared to take the platform. In moments the worship service would begin. It was at this instant an elderly gentleman introduced himself to me by stating, “I am so glad you are here to preach for us today. I have looked forward to meeting you. Before you preach, though, I have one question for you. Are you a Calvinist?”

That question is not an uncommon one, but it’s a question that might be more difficult to answer than first thought. To this gentleman, I reflexively replied, “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” He smiled and responded, “I have no have idea what I meant by the question either.”

We both chuckled, then I retorted, “I’ll be happy to discuss this as much as you’d like after the service, but know that I believe in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved.” Reassured, he smiled and said “that is all I wanted to hear.”

Much has been said about Allen's response, but am I the only one that's captivated by the gentleman who approached him? First, what poor timing to ask such a loaded question. For you all who are giving Dr Allen down the road, what was he supposed to do? Was he really supposed to give the thorough, biblical/theological response the question actually requires just moments before the service started? Some of you will shoot back, "All it takes is a yes or no answer. How much time does he need?" It's true, the gentleman asked a yes or no question, but a yes or no answer should not have been given.

In fact, it would have been foolish for Dr Allen, if he is a Calvinist, to have simply said "Yes, I am a Calvinist." First off, the gentleman had no idea what a Calvinist is. He, I'm sure with an awkward smile, told Dr Allen that even he didn't know what he meant by the question. My guess is that the gentleman didn't really know what a Calvinist is but had heard somewhere along the way those Calvinists are bad (which is none too hard to pick up around the SBC these days). So, for Dr Allen to have simply said yes or no, he would have placed himself at the mercy of that man's definition and connotation of a Calvinist, which as I'll demonstrate in a moment was wrong. That would have been very foolish.

What's more, as we see in the conversation, the man did indeed have in his mind the wrong definition of Calvinist. If Dr Allen placated him by simply telling him that he believes in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved, the man clearly had in his mind that a Calvinist believed something other than that. That's often the case that I run into. Lay people have all sorts of ideas in their head about what a Calvinist is, and much, if not most, of the time, they are wrong. That man probably went away thinking, "Dr Allen is not a Calvinist" even though he very well might be an actual Calvinist. The problem was that the gentleman had the wrong definition in mind.

So, contrary to the stream of opinion here, I think Dr Allen answered the man perfectly. I even loved that he offered to talk with the gentleman after the service for as long as he wanted about the question. You guys are acting like he dodged the question. That's not the case. What he dodged was a label loaded with who knows what type of meaning.

Wisely played, Dr Allen!

[Andrew Barker]

Ben, I think most of us just read the link Peter provided!
Mind you, although you've taken the trouble and copied/pasted it above, it doesn't appeared to have helped your thought processes!

At one point you say "First off, the gentleman had no idea what a Calvinist is."

Then "the gentleman didn't really know what a Calvinist is but had heard somewhere along the way those Calvinists are bad"

Then "as we see in the conversation, the man did indeed have in his mind the wrong definition of Calvinist."

Then "That man probably went away thinking, "Dr Allen is not a Calvinist"

Then "The problem was that the gentleman had the wrong definition in mind."

Lastly, "I think Dr Allen answered the man perfectly."

According to your above account, the man went away with the wrong definition in mind and Dr. Allen answered him perfectly!

Oh dear!

[peter lumpkins]

Andrew,

LOL, brother. I appreciate your sense of humor...

[Ben Simpson]

I challenge everyone of you who is giving Dr Allen a hard time to answer this question: what would you have said if just a moment before a service that you are about preach or testify (for you ladies) in, a gentleman came up to you and said, "Are you an Arminian?"

Would any of you give him simply a yes or no answer? Keep in mind you have no idea what he thinks an Arminian is.

[Ben Simpson]

Andrew,

It was no trouble to copy and paste. I'm glad to have saved you the trouble of having to flip back and forth between two browser tabs.

As for the gentleman, he certainly had an idea in his head what a Calvinist is, but it was shaky at best ("I have no have idea what I meant by the question either") and wrong (based upon Allen's answer placating him, he obviously thought that a Calvinist is somebody who believes that the gospel should not be indiscriminately preached and that God will turn away some who want to be saved because they are not elect).

Given the situation, Dr Allen did answer him perfectly and offered to give a much fuller answer at an appropriate time.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Ben,

Though Andrew's comment tickled my funny bone quite a bit, he nonetheless captured fairly well the effect of your contribution.

But first let me agree with you. Yes. The man's question's was both ill-timed and lacked common courtesy. Why any question--especially one needing explanation--would be asked a visiting preacher sitting on the platform just moments before the guest stood to preach is beyond me. There are certain exceptions to this. Perhaps a question like "Did you know your fly is down?" or "Are you aware of the price tag still hanging on the tail of your new jacket?" might be very helpful. Other than similar questions, it's hard for me to imagine an acceptable theological question to ask the guest speaker just before he stands.

If I (and you) am (are) correct, this makes the illustration Dr. Allen used completely nonsensical toward effectively making his point about theological labels.

Second, no you don't know the man's definition of Calvinism to be insufficient based upon the brief dialog between him and Dr. Allen no matter how many times you say it. You can only presume you know. And, of course, this nicely illustrates one of the consuming problems between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. Inevitably the default assumption so many SBC Calvinists project is, non-Calvinists are theologically stupid when it comes to Calvinism. They never know what they're talking about. This is precisely what you've judged to be the case with this man who never once tipped his hand about what he believed Calvinism to be.

In your comment you confidently asserted the "man's definition and connotation" of a Calvinist "was wrong," a wrongness you promised to "demonstrate in a moment." And what is your evidence the man had a "wrong" understanding of Calvinism? According to you, the man clearly had in his mind that a Calvinist believed something "other than":

a) preaching the gospel to all people;

b) anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved.

Hence, because Dr. Allen believed both (along with most any Calvinist one might query), then you deduce the man's definition of Calvinism to be patently false.

If I may respond, Ben.

First, why assume the man believed Calvinists embraced something other than the two propositions above, Ben? Perhaps it was not that he believed Calvinists believed other than the two propositions but more than the two propositions. I know of few, if any, informed non-Calvinists who dispute either one of the propositions being embraced by even strict Calvinists. I don't. Yet, I do believe and can show that while Calvinists may not believe other than the two propositions Dr. Allen mentioned, they most certainly do believe more than the two propositions, and it's the more than where the heart of the contention lies.

To hear you and other Calvinists complain, it's like there's not a gnat's breath of difference between Calvinism and non-Calvinism on evangelism or salvation. "We believe what you believe!" Yes, but you believe more. For example, while you believe any person who repents and believes the gospel can be saved, you believe more. You believe that the only person who can repent and believe the gospel is a born again person. And, the only born again person is predestined from all eternity to be reborn while others are predestined from all eternity to be reprobated (i.e. never born again) to hell. Nor can this reborn person reject the gospel but necessarily must embrace the gospel while the reprobated person (i.e. never born again) cannot in a thousand lifetimes embrace the gospel. That's the more than that non-Calvinists like myself have a difficult time embracing, Ben. Perhaps it was this man's difficulty as well. But you shut him up to the other than rather than the more than.

You complain along with Dr. Allen about church members who are ignorant about theological notions like Calvinism. The truth is, I have very few complaints about church members. If they're ignorant, perhaps we need to stop blaming them and put the blame where it rightly belongs--us. God's people too often support lazy pastors who won't teach the people to whom they are charged. We WILL face judgment for this serious breach in our responsibility (James 3:1).

No I actually have few complaints to log about ignorant church members. I've got plenty to post about shady ministers, however, who play on the gullibility of men and women in the church...attempting to pacify their honest questions concerning the more than of a theological notion with dismissal, ridicule, indictment, and most of all, perpetuating ignorance and gullibility by not coming clean about the more than of their theological framework.

[peter lumpkins]

"what would you have said if just a moment before a service that you are about preach or testify (for you ladies) in, a gentleman came up to you and said, "Are you an Arminian?"

I would have said, "No. I'm a Tennessean by birth but I've made Georgia my home for several years now."

[David (NAS) Rogers]

Here's an answer:

That's a good question that deserves a well-explained answer, but unfortunately I seem to be under a pressing time crunch. I'd be glad to talk with you after the service, but let me assure you of this: "I believe in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved."

The response of “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” seems to me to be a smokescreen. If a president of a seminary can't imagine any idea of what might be meant by the question then I'm concerned about his naivete as an academic. I think he could anticipate the possible range of concerns the man had but caught off guard he reacted with a smokescreen that didn't clearly answer the question.

The question could be phrased differently. If given your soteriological view, would Calvinists or Arminians or some other group be comfortable with the details of your view?

[Paul Owen]

The only honest answer Allen could have given was, "Well, yes, I am a Calvinist, in the historic sense of that term. Maybe afterwards we could sit down and discuss what exactly that means, and how it affects my approach to preaching, evangelism and the life of the church." Instead, he gave an answer that made the elderly gentleman think that he believes God genuinely desires and offers salvation to the elect and the non-elect, and that God has made it possible for any human being who hears the gospel to be saved. TULIP Baptists don't believe either of those things, and they should not mislead gullible laypeople into thinking that they do. I think that is the heart of the issue here.

[Max]

"Your yes should be a plain yes, and your no a plain no, and then you cannot go wrong in the matter." (James 5:12 Phillips)

Some Southern Baptists are really struggling with this "plain" thing. These are days of mumbo-jumbo theology. Just tell me who you are ... you will always know who I am!

[Lydia]

"what would you have said if just a moment before a service that you are about preach or testify (for you ladies) in, a gentleman came up to you and said, "Are you an Arminian?"

I would have said, "No. I'm a Tennessean by birth but I've made Georgia my home for several years now.""

LOL! I would have to say (If I were allowed to preach) "no" I am not an Arminian and ask why the dichotomy is always "Calvin or Arminian"? I don't get that. I doubt Arminius ever thought his name would be so bandied about as the opposite of Calvin. :o)

[Lydia]

The old gentleman might have been asking precisely because he is read up on it and was trying to decide if he wanted to stay for the sermon or not. (GASP)

[Lydia]

"The response of “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” seems to me to be a smokescreen. If a president of a seminary can't imagine any idea of what might be meant by the question then I'm concerned about his naivete as an academic"

I agree it was most certainly a smokescreen and disingenuous. And the timing was horrible for such a question but I cannot help but empathize with the older man as I know some older folks who just want to know so they can decide to stay or leave as they are so sick of the games. That is how sick of it many are becoming and they are not ignorant just because they do not understand secret or revealed wills of God. They don't think of God in those ways

Perhaps he thought he might just get a quick honest answer so he could make plans?

I don't think Allen is naive at all. I think he is as clever as they come ---those who have been trained in this movement a la Quiet Revolutionist type of answers.

After all the blogs and threads discussing and debating the finer points of Calvinism why on earth is anyone surprised that the Calvinist themselves may not know what Calvinism is or they are trying hard to not allow it to "sound" like it really is. :o)

I am seriously putting it out there that many of them who graduated with this ingrained in them may not have been prepared for the serious debate and pushback adn that explains the bullying and ad homenim we often see instead. Perhaps more indoctrination instead of independent critical thinking is what is coming of our tithe dollars sent to seminaries?

[Max]

It's not clear Peter from your answer whether you are really a Tennessean or a Georgian in your heart ... although you refer much to hoots from Georgia in your writing.

OK - I will finally tell you who I am. I am NOT an Arminian or a Calvinist. I am a born-again Christian! Let this be our stand!

[Ben Simpson]

Max, if Dr Allen would have said, "Well, sir, I am a born-again Christian," would that have satisfied you? I suspect not.

[Ben Simpson]

Peter,

The gentleman most certainly did tip his hand as to at least some of his definition of Calvinism. If Dr Allen's response placated him, which seems to have been the case, it's clear that he thought a Calvinist to be the opposite of Dr. Allen's affirmation.

Now, you went on in your comment to say some very profound things. You are absolutely right that there is agreement between both camps as to the necessity of sharing the Gospel and God's turning away of no one who wants to be saved. You are also right that it's the more than where the camps disagree. While I would quibble with you over characterization of reprobation and the inability to reject or receive the gospel, you have well-stated where the hang up is.

However, while you very well might be concerned with the more than, the gentleman was not. After Dr Allen gave his response, what did the man say? He said, "That is all I wanted to hear." So, it was indeed the other than that the man was concerned about in that conversation. If it was the more than that concerned him, the gentleman would have said, "But what about...?" He didn't. His concern had been answered, and he went away satisfied.

[peter lumpkins]

Ben,

Thanks for the getback. But we're not sure at all Allen satisfied him. It is really a confusing dialog which hardly produces what your attempting to draw from it. It's not clear what he thought a Calvinist is because he nowhere says what he thought a Calvinist is. You can't draw reasonable inferences from what you think the man felt (i.e. "placated").

For all we know the man instantly realized he really didn't need to be asking Allen that question--especially at the time he reportedly did--and was just trying to back out as gracefully as he knew how. In fact, I kinda get that from his response to Allen's answer that Allen had no idea what he meant by the question that he had no idea what he meant by the question either. I just wouldn't try to make more of this than is there.

Thus to conclude as you do that the man "went away satisfied" just hardly follows. He went away but what he actually felt or even concluded we have absolutely no way of knowing from the brief description Allen gave. And it certainly lends to us no justification whatsoever to conclude what the man knew or knew not about Calvinism since he uttered not a single word concerning it.

[Mary]

The problem with the way Allen and other Calvinists answer these types of questions is they don't define what they mean when they just dismiss the original question with "well I just believe in the Sovereignty of God" type of answer. We all believe in the Sovereignty of God but we all don't agree on Unconditional Election. Allen, Akin and others KNOW where the issues with Calvinism lie - Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement. Since they KNOW the issues people have with Calvinism but choose to cover it up with phases such as "I just want to share the Gospel with everyone!" what they are doing is intentionally being misleading and taking advantage of those who don't know how to ask the questions to get to the answers they really want. So this exchange of Allen's to me shows that he is intentionally being unclear and distracting the questioner with "buzzwords" that we all actually agree on but would require further discussions to show that we all don't actually agree. They are by their very intentional deception pretending we're all in agreement.

[Max]

Ben writes "... would that have satisfied you?"

Ben - I just wish that Southern Baptists wouldn't be so inclined to refer to themselves by 16th century dead guys, rather than the name of the living Christ. But that's what religion is all about I suppose - labels and laws. I was young and now am old, but hope to live long enough to see religion's funeral preached. Debating teachings and traditions of men have done much to deter us from the Great Commission, for which we will be measured. The real question is not whether I am satisfied, but whether Christ is satisfied with us in our current state.

[Lydia]

"Max, if Dr Allen would have said, "Well, sir, I am a born-again Christian," would that have satisfied you? I suspect not."

It would be more honest for him to say, "I am a pre chosen Christian". Hence the word game playing needs to stop. Just say what you are....if you know :o)

[Lydia]

"The gentleman most certainly did tip his hand as to at least some of his definition of Calvinism. If Dr Allen's response placated him, which seems to have been the case, it's clear that he thought a Calvinist to be the opposite of Dr. Allen's affirmation."

I would like to hear from the old gentleman, please, before we go down this road. Perhaps the old gentleman was a gentleman and decided not to take it further at that time. Of course, I realize some think it a sin to even ask the question in the first place. And if they ask it are obviously ignorant and don't know what it is.

So, you think Allen will share the ignorant gentleman's name with us? :o)

[Lydia]

"God genuinely desires and offers salvation to the elect and the non-elect, and that God has made it possible for any human being who hears the gospel to be saved. TULIP Baptists don't believe either of those things, and they should not mislead gullible laypeople into thinking that they do. I think that is the heart of the issue here."

They won't be that honest because to do so the majority of SBC will refuse to continue to fund such beliefs.