Earl Blackburn at 1845 Conference--'I can work with a flaming Arminian'

According to Louisiana Southern Baptist pastor, Earl Blackburn, Arminianism is not rampant in the Southern Baptist Convention. Rather Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is and has crept into Southern Baptist churches and institutions. 

After rehearsing a brief historical sketch of the Pelagian controversy in the fifth century A.D. in which Pelagius's teaching on human depravity was condemned as being "outside the bounds" of orthodoxy, Blackburn laments in his sermon "A Historic Southern Baptist View of the Fall of Man" (beginning at the 54:50 mark):

What is sad today...What is sad as I look over the Southern Baptist scene, it's not Arminianism. I can work with a flaming Arminian. Because they believe in prevenient grace; they believe that the Spirit of God must come upon people; must draw people; must woo people; and that there is a real thing called conversion. It's known as the new birth and salvation and etc. It's not Pelagianism [correction]...it's not Arminianism but it's Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism that's crept into our convention and into some of our institutions. An unaffected, untainted, unfettered, unmolested free will is so exalted that salvation, like Pelagius believed, is little more than a mental decision and not a divine work of grace and regeneration at all. To deny the transference of Adam's guilt and sin to his progeny is to fly into the face of Paul's entire argument of Romans 5:12-21. Especially the under-girding truth of the imputation and as an insidious ploy, I believe, to dismantle the gospel. Though I believe that some who hold this do love Christ; I'm not unchurching them. But when you study it, it dismantles the Gospel.

Plainly stated, a denial of this biblical teaching, especially the imputation of the first sin and guilt of Adam, is outside the bounds of orthodoxy. God bluntly asserts in His Word that He has...His just sentence of condemnation was imposed and imputed upon every person because of the specific sin and transgression of the one man Adam even though a person had not committed Adam's particular sin.

We're glad to know where Founders Calvinists like Earl Blackburn stand. Apparently, they are much more comfortable cooperating with Arminian Baptists--perhaps the National Association of Free Will Baptists--than they are cooperating with Southern Baptists like me for I don't buy for a Georgia minute Blackburn's polemical assertions on Romans 5:12-21. He speaks as if there exists no viably alternative reading of Romans 5:12-21 contra his standard Calvinistic talking points. For instance, rather than exegete Romans 5:12 as "all sinned" Blackburn pulls Augustine's eisegetical rabbit out of the hat by adding to God's Word--"all sinned in Adam." Of course, to hear Blackburn and other Calvinists defend such an unpardonable interpretative sin, they're only doing good theology. In short, according to them, they're but offering a theological interpretation of the biblical text. 

Nor are there just a few Southern Baptists in history who've failed to buy into the Calvinist's interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 including E.C. Dargan, E.Y. Mullins, W.T. Conner, Herschel Hobbs, and  J.W. MacGorman. Even so, Blackburn implies the theological doctrine of human depravity to which these eminent theologians held to be "out of bounds" of historic Christian orthodoxy. Indeed to take Blackburn at his word, we are expected to believe Dargan, Mullins, Conner, Hobbs,  and MacGorman (only to name a few) were apparently involved in an insidious ploy to dismantle the gospel.  Consequently, I, along with millions of other Southern Baptists--including thousands of Southern Baptist pastors--am also "out of bounds" of historic Christian orthodoxy and apparently am part of an insidious ploy to dismantle the gospel. Why not just say it? Like Pelagius, I'm a heretic according to Blackburn. Perhaps that's why he can easily work with 'flaming' Arminians but apparently not with Southern Baptists like me.

If anyone wants to know why there is a Calvinist controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention, look no further than the polemical theological bigotry coming out of the 1845 Conference, the same bigoted theological rhetoric that has come from Founders Ministries since 1982. Non-Calvinists did not start this theological division Southern Baptists are experiencing today.  Rather Calvinists like Blackburn did with their polemically-charged theological war propaganda that makes millions of Southern Baptists like myself into unorthodox Christians--if Christians at all--who hold to unadulterated humanistic salvation completely void of the Spirit of God (i.e. "[salvation is] little more than a mental decision and not a divine work of grace and regeneration"). 

Comments

[Rick Patrick]

With regard to prevenient grace, Blackburn must not be talking about Traditionalists or Savabilists, because unlike Pelagians and Semipelagians, we CLEARLY ASSERT that the Holy Spirit initiates the process and draws us to the Lord through the power of the gospel.

On the other hand, we do not embrace a definition of depravity that destroys our free will. While we admit that we inherit from Adam a sinful nature, we believe (along with the Baptist Faith and Message 2000) that we are condemned and judged guilty for our own sin and not that of Adam.

Concerning those who do NOT buy into the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 5, we can safely add to your list of five outstanding Southern Baptist scholars the following list of 846 Southern Baptists: http://www.connect316.net/Signers

If anyone else wishes to add their own name to the list, feel free to sign here: http://www.connect316.net/sign

[Joe]

If anyone wants to know why there is a controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention, look no further than a Peter Lumpkins blog. Let's call an Ace of Spade. If a bunch of guys have a John 3:16 conference then everything fine. But it if a bunch of Calvinists have a conference talking about the opposite then it's considered a bad thing. If the John 3:16 conference can be allowed than so can this. And you shouldn't complain about it.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Joe,

I'll give you a shiny new nickel for every time *any* speaker at *any* John 3:16 Conference made reference to Calvinists as heretics. Deal?

[Chris]

So the 1845 Conference is why there is a controversy in the SBC? Come now Peter, you don't really believe that? You've been attacking and maligning Calvinistic Baptists for years. Let us not forget your unflinching campaign to see Dr. Al Mohler removed from his post at SBTS or your most recent attacks on Dr. Jason Allen. Peter, please don't play the victim here. You don't have enough respect and love for Calvinistic "brethren" to represent them properly as anyone can see in your most recent anti-calvinistic propaganda piece on your own "free" press. You make the erroneous claim that Calvinists started this "controversy" yet conveniently excuse the years of attack and misrepresentation that you have contributed to this long standing conflict. If it weren't so sad It would be hilarious. You see Peter, the day that people like you and your buddies over at Truett-McConnell stop fanning the flames of prejudice and bigotry is the day conferences like the 1845 conference will cease to be necessary. The day you stop attacking and maligning (like your John 3:16 buddies) is the day Calvinists will not need to have conferences to clear up all the misconceptions and misrepresentations you have sewn. You have just as much responsibility to take as anyone else for the troubles the SBC has experienced and the day you own up to it and repent will be the day the SBC's future will become so much brighter.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Earl Blackburn uses the same eisegesis Calvinists use to misinterpret John 3:16 (or for that matter, 1 John 2:20). Find a single "proof" text and then add or subtract to it to fit their manmade religious philosophy.

If there is any doubt what Romans 5:12 means, such doubt can be removed by reading it in context of related passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."

We will not be judged by Adam's sin but by our own sins.

We inherited a sin nature from Adam and not his guilt.

Too bad that Calvinists (or for that matter any advocate of a systematic theology) can't seem to understand Christ's admonition through Paul to learn "not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other" (1 Cor. 4:6). [for the hardcore YRR, it's as easily understood in the English Standard Version as well).

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through vain philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

AND IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT that systematic theologies are sin, there is ...

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

When anyone can point me to a passage where Christ referred to the coming words of John Calvin, John Wesley or John Darby (or John Piper or "John" Mark Driscoll) I'll listen. Until then I will remain convicted that in each instance Christ referred back to Scripture to inform and instruct men and that is the proper way to read His Word.

Lastly, I would offer the following two passages for guidance on this matter:

1 Corinthians 2:1212 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

... and ...

1 John 2:26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

In my first paragraph above, the parenthetical reference should be "1 John 2:2."

[Hobart M. Tucker]

By the way, the controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention is not a matter of Calvinists versus Arminians, but Calvinists versus non-Calvinists (or in plain English, those who hold solely to a biblical theology and not a systematic theology).

[Hobart M. Tucker]

An "1845 Conference"?

You know, I'm convinced more every day that Calvinists hold up church history almost to the same level as Roman Catholics (equal to Scripture).

Ironically, despite their mantra of "sola scriptura," Calvinism is a cult belief system built on the words of men and not the Word of Christ alone.

[Chris]

"Blackburn pulls Augustine's eisegetical rabbit out of the hat by adding to God's Word--'all sinned in Adam.'"

The fact that you would say this Peter demonstrates that you weren't really listening to this message. Earl makes specific appeal to the original Greek text and the tenses and syntax. His appeal is not that we sinned "in Adam" in an Augustino-seminal way but as those who are in corporate solidarity with Adam. Adam as our representative fell and we fell with/in him. Thus, as he is guilty for disobeying God's clear command so we are guilty with/in him in a representative stance. Almost any good commentary worth its salt agrees with this exegesis (cf. Moo, Murray, Morris, etc.). I would love to see you exegete this passage in the original Peter, rather than depend on the faulty and novel interpretations represented by men such as Adam Harwood. I would love for you to vindicate the justice of God in having infants killed and dashed against rocks in the OT era if they were innocent. I would love to hear you explain how both Achan and his entire family were stoned and burned for Achan's lone transgression? I invite anyone on this blog to defend those actions of God if federal theology is wrong.

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Chris,

Like Joe, you seem to be oblivious to fair and valid argument for Joe also popped off about my supposed complaint toward SBC Calvinists sponsoring and conducting conferences promoting their understanding of the DoG when, in reality, I did no such thing. Rather I specifically noted the particular "theological rhetoric" which I judged as offensively "bigoted" because it pronounced "unorthodox" just "like Pelagius" my views on human depravity and salvation, and by implication, the views of many eminent Southern Baptist theologians, not to mention millions of Southern Baptist church members and thousands of Southern Baptist pastors, theological rhetoric coming from the 1845 conference. And if you cannot see the difference between my complaining about particular rhetoric coming from a conference and your allegation I questioned the right of SBC Calvinists to promote their understanding of theology on their own nickel not CP funding, know I possess no desire to explain it to you, Chris. You have my express permission to go right on believing any ill-informed hullabaloo you wish. Just don't expect it to go unchallenged here.

In addition, either put up or shut up about my alleged "campaign" to get Dr. Mohler removed from SBTS, and even more about your ridiculous assertion I've recently "attacked" Jason Allen. For far too many Calvinists like yourself, apparently raising *any* question concerning *any* decision about *any* Calvinist constitutes "unflinching attack" against the Calvinist himself. Now, either produce the goods or drop the point. Period. The fact is, I stand very confident you won't find personal attacks coming from my posts on this blog. Period.

Nor will you ever hear me attack Calvinists implicating them as either a) unorthodox or b) heretical. Others might. Others have. But I have not; I do not. Google it to your heart's desire.

Now again, either put up or shut up, Chris. I know that's blunt. But I've sadly learned the most effective way to deal with knee-jerk commenters like you appear to me to be is bluntness. You emotionally pop off about me or my writings when you obviously cannot produce a single piece to prove your point--long on accusations but less than short on evidence.

[Bill Mac]

I don't own a systematic theology but this is the first time I've ever heard them referred to as sin.

[peter lumpkins]

Rick,

My apologies. I'm not sure why your comment I always find in the spam bucket. I posted it but it's way up the line in the thread. Typepad's filter is extremely sensitive. Sometimes even when I'm signed in on typepad, it still dumps my comment into spam. So, know it's not personal brother...

[Chris]

Wow! So why even question the appointment of someone like Jason Allen? If you're not attacking why paint it in such a negative light? How poorly misunderstood you must be. Yet what I don't understand is how out of one side of your mouth you say you don't attack Calvinists and out of the other side of your mouth you paint them as a threat or "danger" to the SBC. If their not a danger in your mind Peter, then why question them? Why criticize and be so suspicious of the appointment of Jason Allen if Calvinists are your brothers and you have no reason to be concerned? You want evidence? All anyone has to do is search your blog for Jason Allen or the topic of Calvinism and they will see that you have never, not once, painted Calvinists (whom you claim to be your brothers) in a positive light. Now its your turn to "put up or shut up". If Calvinism is not dangerous or heretical in your world then why be so concerned? Why make all the fuss? If Calvinism is dangerous then why? And if it so dangerous that you commit countless hours to attacking and smearing it how is it not a heresy in your mind? Please Peter enlighten us. Give me another Georgia hoot!

[peter lumpkins]

Bill Mac,

Are you referring to my phrase "unpardonable interpretative sin"? I can't tell...

[peter lumpkins]

Rick

By the way, your alluding to the BF&M is instructive. While Blackburn quoted from the 1689 Confession (more than once I recall), he never mentioned the BF&M on human depravity, an enlightening oversight...

[Bill Mac]

Peter: No, one of Hobart's comments. Frankly, I'm not keen on the cult-reference either.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Whether Blackburn was speaking of seminal human union in Adam as in Augustine or federal human union as in mainstream Calvinism is quite beside the point I made. I carefully put my point in both quotation marks and italics--"all sinned in Adam" (italics original). It’s the addition of “in Adam” itself I dubbed a rabbit out of a hat, not what the addition itself supposedly meant by either Augustinians or federalists as you wrongly presume. 

In addition, I find it interesting that the Romans commentaries you cite--Moo, Murray, Morris--are clearly non-Baptist Calvinists, but even doubly interesting you exclude any commentary on Romans as unworthy of consideration if it not just does not agree with the Augustinian-Calvinistic tradition of Romans 5:12, but that the Romans commentary opts for seminal union rather than federal union. What a Georgia hoot! I suppose J.W. MacGorman’s commentary on Romans is not worth its salt since he did not agree with either Augustine or Calvinists on Romans 5:12.

If I may Chris, since you make such sweeping judgments about commentaries of Romans, what credentials do you have for doing so?  Readers would surely benefit if you could lend some credence to opinion about exactly what commentaries on Romans are worth their salt. Care to share?

And, as for "men such as Adam Hardwood," whom you alleged produces "faulty and novel" interpretations presumably on Romans 5:12, I ask again, produce the goods. MacGorman taught theology and New Testament at Southwestern seminary a whopping 56 years, perhaps the longest tenure of any Southern Baptist professor. And, Harwood and MacGorman maintain virtually the same view on Romans 5:12. So, is MacGorman’s view of Romans 5:12 "faulty and novel" too? Or, are you just not aware of our rich Southern Baptist history? Or, perhaps you’re only read up on Romans when the commentaries happen to be Presbyterians and Anglicans. Not sure.

But going back to Harwood, his doctoral dissertation included an extensive scholarly investigation into Romans 5:12. Tell us, Chris, why should we believe your assessment of Harwood’s exegesis as being "faulty and novel" when you’re apparently not even historically aware many Southern Baptist theologians and scholars have denied either seminal or federal union or both? We’d like to know. 

[peter lumpkins]

Bill Mac,

Thanks. Actually I'm not keen on using "cult" to describe Calvinism either and have posted my own objections to it. However, even my reasons for not alluding to some forms of Calvinism as a "cult" stands objectionable itself to most of my friends. I actually would deny calling Calvinism a "cult" for the same reason I would deny calling Mormonism a "cult." My objection is decidedly in what "cult" has popularly and overwhelmingly come to mean to most people--"Jim Jones," etc.

To the defense of those who have dubbed some forms of Calvinism a "cult" on this site, I think for the most part they are particularly referencing a sociological understanding of "cult" rather than a theological one, but I stand to be corrected on that.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Bill Mac:

Below are some of Christ's statements about the matter.

A systematic theology is a human construct -- also known as a religious philosophy. There is a difference between a systematic theology and a biblical theology.

-- HMT

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge-- 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, ...

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through vain philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

One has to wonder if it is even worth pointing out the inconsistent exegesis in order to satisfy one's theological bend. After reading those who want to attack and hide behind anonymous names in order to make a point it is useless to even argue with these boobs. Give me an unregenerate person to attack me any day than those who claim brotherhood in Christ but then attack someone who calls attention to the mistreatment of the text. Then they want to feign righteous indignation at a conference where they call, not only fellow brothers and sisters, but also fellow Southern Baptists heretics. What a southern North Carolina squeal. You would call it a west Georgia hoot!

[Bill Mac]

I have no doubt that there are Calvinist churches that are cult-like. I've often felt that KJVOnlyists and certain Independent Baptists bordered on the cult-like. My objection is to Hobart's assertion that Calvinism is a cult-belief.

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Once again, your assertions are toothless and lack any real bite I can comprehend. First, unless you can show how I personally maligned Dr. Allen's character, drop the insidious nonsense that because I personally thought Allen not to be a suitable candidate for president of a seminary our church sponsors through the CP, I therefore personally attacked him. Obviously, the trustees did not agree with my view. But to make out like I personally attacked him because I questioned his nomination reduces to ecclesial absurdity for any disagreement with a decision made by committees or trustees constitutes personal attack. That's just about as nutty a idea that I can now entertain. It's also about as close to top-down authoritative control mechanism as one could get. No thanks, Chris. Neither Catholic nor Presbyterian I'm Free church Baptist.

And, no unless you can produce where I've specifically stated Calvinism itself to be a "threat" or "danger" to the SBC, drop the accusation, Chris. You won't get away with it here. The problem with knee-jerk comments like yours is emotionally-driven, baseless rhetoric employed.

For my part, I've been as clear as I know how that Calvinism per se stands as neither a threat nor danger to Southern Baptists. Calvinism, including strict Calvinism, has been held--and held strongly not to mention at times apparently predominately--since the beginning of the SBC. I've also stated quite frankly that not only would it be a tragic mistake to attempt to expunge Calvinism from the SBC, it would be tragic for me since I would probably be first in line to leave the convention myself if this were to take place. My free church conviction comes through nicely at this juncture.

Rather from the beginning of my blog in 2006 until now I've unequivocally honored a clear distinction between Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention on one hand and Calvinizing the Southern Baptist Convention on the other. Any "threat" or "danger" coming from this blog concerning Calvinism has not, was not, and is not about Calvinism itself; instead the "danger" and "threat" concerns a visible, demonstrable attempt to institutionalize Calvinism as the default theology of Southern Baptists. Thus the theological criticisms I post toward Calvinistic theology (e.g. Limited Atonement, Determinism, etc) are just that--criticisms I hold toward Calvinism itself not to be confused with my aggressive reservations toward the visionary decisions and actions of Mohler, et al--nor leaving out passive trustees who won't place checks and balances on what I perceive to be out-of-control entity heads--who seem to be imposing Calvinism from the top-down as our exclusive, default theology as Southern Baptists. In short, the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Now, here's the deal, Chris. I can't control what you believe or the ignorance you spread elsewhere about what I'm doing here. Nonetheless, you won't get by with making up accusations about what I do and write on this blog without challenge when you come here. Either produce the goods, or step down. Don't raise this issue again unless you're willing to be specific.

[peter lumpkins]

Tim,

I hear you brother. Notice neither Joe nor Chris want to cite from J316C speakers the calling of Calvinists heretics or embracing a subtle ploy to destroy the gospel. The reason is they cannot. In fact, A. Harwood cited both Calvinist and non-Calvinist renderings of Romans 5:12 as within the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy, and even specifically noted Calvinists within the convention who hold to a "sinned in Adam" interpretation were perfectly free to do so and doing so did not jeopardize their theological status as either orthodox or Southern Baptist. Compare Harwood's words with Blackburn, Joe, and Chris' rationale. In fact, Blackburn, Joe, and Chris represent nicely from whence the heat arises in Southern Baptist life over Calvinism...

[Bill Mac]

Hobart: And let me guess, what you subscribe to is biblical theology?

[Joe]

Peter, my comment said nothing about the John 3:16 speakers accusing Calvinists as heretics

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Peter and Bill Mac:

I was not parsing between the constructs of "sociological cult" and "theological cult." My point is that Calvinists as well as Dispensationalists, Mormons and Arminians, etc. are the same on this one point -- they are bound together specifically by their attachment to a principle or person who represents their respective religious philosophy.

I know times have changed, but at one point Webster defined a cult as, "A system of religious worship or ritual, devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc."

What I've observed in SBC life is that, particularly with Calvinism, adherents claim Jesus as the central focus of their faith BUT ONLY as they see Him through the prism of a system of thought that bears the name of a man. Christ had no need for a Mishna or Gemara whether of the Jewish Talmuds or one of the Calvinists' making.

When I call systematic theologies "sin" it is the perspective that Christ teaches (with the following as a sampling):

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge-- 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, ...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through vain philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Hobart. I stand corrected at least in part. If I might add, if we use Webster's older linguistic model of a defining a "cult" as a "system of religious worship or ritual, devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.", then we all stand guilty as charged.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Bill Mac:

Given that I neither read nor adhere to a systematic theology and that I study the Word inductively ... yes, mine is a biblical theology.

More to the point, do the Scriptures I referenced above apply or not?

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

Nor is your correction any more relevant to the point I made than your initial opening remark. I neither opined Calvinists' right to have a conference promoting their views nor contrarily approved J316C advocates in having their conference. Rather my complaint concerned the polemically-motivated, theologically-bigoted rhetoric coming from a sermon at the 1845 Conference, rhetoric which implicated me and those Southern Baptists similar to me as embracing "like Pelagius" unorthodox views on human depravity and salvation. Deal with that, Joe, or remain in the background until you can understand the actual complaint I logged.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Actually, you're correct, Peter, in a way.

Essentially, that is the point of 1 Corinthians 1:12 ... BUT it is explained further in 1 Corinthians 4:6 so as to not leave us thinking there is no objective measure.

FYI, although the word cult is not used in the biblical translations I typically use, it is employed in the Latin Vulgate (I was just informed) which uses "cult" to describe all forms of worship in Acts 17 (of the One True God as well as false gods).

The Word says “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

We treat a lot of ideas as "revealed" in systematic theologies when in fact God still maintains many of those things as secrets.

[Patrick]

"Given that I neither read nor adhere to a systematic theology and that I study the Word inductively ... yes, mine is a biblical theology. "

While you may not read systematic theologies...in all liklihood, you adhere to a specific theology, which somewhere along the way has been recorded in a systematic theology by a, wait for it....man (gasp!). You're likely just too ignorant to be aware of it.

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Hobart. My personal reservations about employing "cult" as a descriptor stem not from biblical usage--albeit just in the Latin Vulgate. Rather my reservations are rooted in miscommunicating what one intends to say or imply. I got into a snikerdoodle situation with my own circle back last election year when I objected to dubbing Mormons cultists. I realize I stand almost alone in this but have maintained it for quite some years now. My reservation is linguistic on one hand and being a loving theological neighbor on the other. I objected to the term "cult" applied to Mormons because popularly understood, and driven especially by media portrayals, cult = followers of Charles Manson, David Koresh, and Jim Jones, not even a hint of which resembled Mormons; indeed of whom Mormons themselves would publicly and privately despise as much as we. Hence, since it would be unfair to categorize them the same as Manson, Koresh, and Jones, I judge it theologically neighbor-love to avoid the term when referencing Mormons. Some--correction--most, even almost all--my theological buddies dissented from my understanding. Some even thought I was a theological Liberal after all! I just smile and keep on doing what I do. Can't please everybody...;^)

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Thanks, Peter. I understand and will refrain from using "cult" in the future.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Patrick,

No, I'm not too ignorant. I am well-educated both in the secular sense and in the Word, too.

A "man" might have recorded a biblical truth within a systematic theology, but that does not put me in agreement with that school of thought -- even on that point -- because of how that point is integrated into the whole system of thought.

But you are correct on this point: I do adhere to a theology -- a biblical theology. The difference is point of origin akin to the differences between inductive and deductive study. I gather that many of those who are engaged in the current debate obtained a systematic/ historical/ dogmatic/ contemporary theology before they had formed a biblical theology (some, I suspect, before they learned the books of the Bible).

But even more important than your flippant comment meant as a distraction from the discussion, please answer this: Do the following passages of Scripture apply to Calvinism or not?

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge-- 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, ...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through vain philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

[Mary]

These reformed people always have a problem with the definition of gossip.

[Bill Mac]

Jennifer: This is hardly appropriate for this or any other blog.

[Bill Mac]

Hobart: No

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Bill Mac:

Let me rephrase. Please explain how these don't apply to Calvinism.

[Andrew Barker]

Mrs. Warren, perhaps you could please enlighten us all as to when exactly a person's abilities at playing touch football became relevant in this discussion?

[Scott Shaver]

Hobart, Peter, Bill Mac:

When it comes to the statements of Blackburn, Malone, Hicks and the rest of the "Founders" with their neo-calvinist preferences for ever-evolving systematic theologies...

I have no problem whatsoever using "cult-like" to describe their tactics, claims and operations.

It is what it is....whether or not anybody's feelings get hurt.

Blackburn and his ilk can't work or cooperate with Southern Baptists ... that's been obvious for years. They couldn't work with moderates during the CR. They can't work with Fundamentalists now.

It's an inbred organization with no tolerance for dissenting views. Therefore, some of us have no tolerance for them.

[Scott Shaver]

Also Bill Mac:

I think the comments and perspective of "Jennifer" as posted are highly representative of what's being taught by Founders and other neo-calvinistic aberrations in the SBC.

She's got to be hearing this kind of stuff from somebody and chances are she's not hearing it from moderate and traditional baptists. This kind of rhetoric is what feeds "reform protestants".

I refuse to call some of them Baptists anymore.

[Bill Mac]

Hobart: No, I don't think so. Not sure how I can prove a negative. Let me sum it up by saying this, which should be obvious: Calvinists believe their beliefs are consistent with what the bible teaches. If they didn't, they wouldn't believe it, just like everyone else. I have never read a systematic theology or anything written by John Calvin, but yes, my beliefs are informed by what men and women have written, preached and taught, just like everyone else.

It is easy to take the perceived high road and say to those who disagree with you theologically, "I've got the bible and you've got .........", but that is seldom accurate. We both have the bible. We just have different understanding of some of its contents.

[Bill Mac]

Scott: I think you will find that I have not defended Blackburn in anything I have written. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard of him.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Bill Mac:

Please give my question more thought instead of replying with a "just like everyone else" cop out, or, using the strawman that its positioned you to have to "prove a negative." Really, neither answer applies.

Honestly, I'm not trying to claim the high ground on this.

My question is earnest and more elemental than examining the individual dogma of a belief system. I am trying to look before that and ask "Does a manmade system of thought explain God's wisdom or displace it?"

The Scriptures I referenced are addressing some kind of problem. What is it? Do those passages apply today?
Is there a lesson for us about the dogmatic theologies we have created (Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, Wesleyanism, etc.)?

It may be a fair statement to say in terms of equality, "I have as much right to my system of beliefs as others have to theirs." But it is also fair to say that all manmade dogma are equally wrong.

[Bill Mac]

"Does a manmade system of thought"

Hobart: This statement poisons the well. Anytime anyone articulates what they believe the bible teaches, it could be characterized as a manmade system of thought. How did Southern Baptists escape the charge of creating mandmade systems of thought and Wesleyans didn't? Isn't the BFM a manmade system of thought? Why have confessions or creeds at all? Why have devotionals, or study guides, or commentaries? They are all manmade, and fallible. I'm not sure what you want me to conclude from those verses. Do I think they refute Calvinism? Obviously I do not. What then?

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter,
For the record, without listening to the entire sermon, it seems that Blackburn made the same mistake that folks on both side of this debate make, namely overstatement, which in my opinion is not really that helpful for going forward. We should all fight against doing that.

Anyway, I wanted to ask a different (but related) question that I have asked before, I think. What do you (and others who deny inherited guilt from Adam) do with Romans 5:18-19? In what way does Adam's sin lead to our condemnation but not our guilt? Perhaps you could say that Adam's sin leads us to be sinners and then we are condemned for our own sinful actions, which makes sense. Yet, how does that parallel Christ's act on our behalf that leads to our justification? It seems that Paul's argument is that the acts of these two men have had a profound impact upon humanity. The act of Adam leads to condemnation (guilt). But the act of Christ leads to justification (praise God!). In my study of Romans 5, these verses are more convincing concerning inherited guilt than verse 12.

Again, this gets away from the OP, but its what I think about when I see these discussions about Romans 5:12. Thanks,

wm

[Patrick]

"Please give my question more thought instead of replying with a "just like everyone else" cop out, or, using the strawman that its positioned you to have to "prove a negative." Really, neither answer applies.

Honestly, I'm not trying to claim the high ground on this."

I'm in agreement with Bill Mac, that it's incredibly difficult to have a conversation with someone who has the attitude of, "I don't believe any theology...I just believe the bible." No, you just like everyeone else ascribes to a theological system of thought and 99.999999999999% of the time, someone else has already articulated the theological system that you believe. Does that make it man-made? Not necessarily. It just means someone else has put it down in writing because they believe it to be the most biblically accurate system of thought. Using your definitions, you believe in a man-made system, just like everyone else...the only difference is they're wise enough to recognize it.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Bill Mac:

What I would conclude is that you don't want to answer the question.

Teaching a Bible lesson does not necessitate teaching a "system of thought." It's just silly for you to throw around that statement. This is not that hard to understand.

You know the Bible instructs us to teach others what was given to us. But you are avoiding that it specifically condemns manmade religious philosophies.

John 3:16 is spoken by God.

Calvinism, Arminianism, etc. are gnostic contrivances.

But I get it. Your position is fixed.

[Scott Shaver]

IMO:

When John 3:16 comes to mean God so loved "the elect" only ...we clearly have a man-made system of thought.

The idea exists apart from both the grammatical construct and import of the text.

It's an ERROR.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Well, Patrick, how about if we steer the discussion from generalizations to specific points.

The Scriptures pasted below are addressing some kind of problem. What is it? Do those passages apply today? If so, where and how?

--------------------------------

1 Corinthians 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

Matthew 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge-- 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, ...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through vain philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.