Mark Dever is (or was) a slobbering five point Calvinist

Though acknowledging about his church that he doesn't "for a moment care if they call themselves Calvinists" but instead cares whether they are Christ's disciples, Capital Hill Baptist Church pastor and founder of 9Marks, Mark Dever, reportedly said in a two-decade old Baptist Press article (7/30/96) he was a "slobbering five-point Calvinist."

I describe myself to my congregation, though not on Sunday mornings, as a slobbering five-point Calvinist...

 

Interesting indeed.

 

I wonder if Dr. Dever is as publicly embolden concerning being a self-described slobbering five point Calvinist today as he was 20 years ago.

 

What is more, could Dever's emboldenness about Calvinism then be causally related, at least in some measure, to the continued conflict over Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention now?

Comments

[Lydia]

Why not on Sunday mornings?

[eric]

What is the point of this. As a reformed Baptist i am 100% concerned about ones relationship with Christ over being reformed.

Being "reformed" or a "Calvinist" doesn't save a person. Dever doesn't think it does either, as he insinuated in the article

I ultimately don't care if a person calls themselves a Calvinist while at the same time can gush over reformed doctrine, just like i can gush over believers baptism, gathering with the saints, etc.

Eric

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

The "point" seems self-evident to me given the two questions I asked.

[eric]

10-4

[Scott Shaver]

Peter:

I guess if one can't be consistent, there's always the option of hiding behind "Jesus"?

[eric]

What did he say that's inconsistent.
Do you think its wrong to press Calvinism on Monday but not on Sunday from the pulpit?

Is that the inconsistency?

EO

[Lydia]

"What did he say that's inconsistent.
Do you think its wrong to press Calvinism on Monday but not on Sunday from the pulpit?

Is that the inconsistency?

EO"

Eric, I honestly do not understand the world that you come from. If he is not pressing Calvinism on Sunday but IS on Monday then what exactly is he pushing on Sunday --and is it different ? If it is not different, then why not on Sunday? As a public teacher who seeks publicity, I think it is a fair question.

There is a sort of cognitive dissonance that all Calvinist have to live within and I do realize that . But that certainly does not mean we don't have the right to point that out . :o)

When I first read this, I thought perhaps Dever was practicing the strategies out of Ernest Reisinger's, "Quiet Revolution" which teaches the art of deception for pastors.

[eric]

Lydia,

You can understand the world I come from when you understand that overtly pounding "Calvinism" from the pulpit just isn't necessary and in fact, isn't done at ANY of the Calvinist churches I've attended or now attend. Now of course the tone of the teaching,at times,will promote Calvinism.

We preach from genesis to revelation. I get the impression that you and others think that Calvinist are so narrowly focused on "Calvinism that we cant and or don't think about anything else.

One reason i may not "pound" Calvinism on Sunday is because it's not the focus of the sermon.

May be because the church is a mixed bag of Calvinist and non Calvinist.

May be because there are 50 other weeks that require the teaching of Gods word that doesn't address Calvinism.

Could be that some of you Non Calvinist are overly focused yourself.

I attended a Presbyterian church in college. I reject infant baptism. I would talk about why i don't accept it on Monday but didn't want to cause division by talking about It at Church on Sunday. Same reasoning can be used for not wanting to cause division over Calvinism at Church.

If Dever lied by saying he was not a Calvinist when in fact he was...thats wrong.

EO

EO

[Scott Shaver]

I strongly disagree with EO, as a soul competent baptist, about whether or not there's a need for "pounding Calvinism"....from the pulpit if necessary and relevant to health of congregation.

[Scott Shaver]

His best bet denominationally might be pardon and absolution from Moore and Mohler?

[Lydia]

"You can understand the world I come from when you understand that overtly pounding "Calvinism" from the pulpit just isn't necessary and in fact, isn't done at ANY of the Calvinist churches I've attended or now attend. Now of course the tone of the teaching,at times,will promote Calvinism."

I understand completely. Often it's presented very stealthly because the ignorant pew sitters might revolt if Calvin was mentioned.

There is a convo on another blog right now about 9 Marx changing its name from "Center for Church Reform" to 9 Marx because the ignorant pew sitters did not want to change....errr......reform their churches. It's a good thing those ignorant pew sitters pay their salaries, eh?

I get it. Deception in the name of God is so much better and actually approved by your determinist God.

I actually have a list I share with people who care on how to detect Stealth Calvinism. I would share it but it works too well. :o)

[Lydia]

"attended a Presbyterian church in college. I reject infant baptism. I would talk about why i don't accept it on Monday but didn't want to cause division by talking about It at Church on Sunday. Same reasoning can be used for not wanting to cause division over Calvinism at Church."

Come clean. Don't be another fearful and deceptive coward in the pulpit. Be honest and encourage independent study. Open up the windows and let some light in for a change.

[Lydia]

Eric, at the very least don't take money from people you are not honest with.

[eric]

Lydia,
Somehow we are "talking past each other"
In no way am i saying or suggesting that it is OK to be deceptive in the pulpit. In no way do i think it's OK to take money from people without being honest.

I didn't hear Dever say that he is.

I am saying that it is OK not to "press" an issue that you may believe from the pulpit. I said "press" an issue.

For instance, one time we had a teaching elder that believed the "Gifts" continue today. Most of the church didn't. He happened to be a gifted teacher who encouraged and challenged and would lead others in having a deeper relationship with Christ.

He didn't want to cause any conflict in the church by teaching, "pressing" continuation of the gifts, so he didn't press the issue from the pulpit or Sunday school class. I'm sure you can see the wisdom in that.

At the same time, everyone who knew him...knew he was "charismatic". he didn't hide it.He was a gushing Charismatic during the week, but not on Sunday for the reasons stated above.

He wasn't deceiving the flock. In the same way, it is possible to hold to the 5 points and yet not openly "press" it from the pulpit or Sunday school class. No deception intended.

That said, if a pastor is specifically asked, he should be fully open and honest in stating where he stands on any issue. A pastor should not hide (be deceptive about) his "Calvinism" from a pulpit committee or church body.

If this doesn't help, we can "agree to disagree" and pray that God would clear our minds to the truth.

The church is full of folks who are both Calvinist and non Calvinist that work together and love one another without conflict.

EO

[Scott Shaver]

Eric:

Let me submit that Baptist churches are also full of folks who REJECT outright the tenets of hyper-calvinism and would prefer not to fellowship or "do church" with them for obvious reasons.

Absolutely nothing wrong or unbiblical about going separate ways with no hard feelings.

I don't see much evidence, apart from empty rhetoric at annual meetings and the pipe-dream appeals of SBC "trads" that today's version of "reformed Calvinism" will bring anything to the SBC table but further decline and dissolution.

IMO...it's a stretch to compare ones isolated views on spiritual gifts to the "silent" viability of Calvinism as a theological template for soul competent baptists.

It's like comparing mosquitos to A-10 Warthog tank busters.

That's why ONE CHURCH over here is filled with Non-Calvinists while another church over yonder is filled with "Reformers".

Probably, for baptists, the way it should remain.

[Scott Shaver]

Eric: If Dever wasn't "deceiving the flock", would "lying to" be an appropriate term?

[Lydia]

Eric, you are simply arguing semantics. It is rationalization. Frankly, it is such an ingrained Part of Your World and that movement that I doubt anything that I say will make any difference at all.

You are trying to convince me that a Calvinist does not preach Calvinism. Oh no, 'we preach the gospel', right?. And I am supposed to believe it's exactly the same thing when in fact I know it happens to be a bait-and-switch. Do you tell people they had to have been chosen before the foundation of the world first? Or does that come later?

You don't have to "press" anything. You can simply use the same terminology with different meanings or you can use the word "choose" a lot when it comes to God. Grace is one example. When you use the word in the Pulpit do you explain it is only for the chosen who just happened to be chosen before the foundation of the world? Probably not.

The only way you would hear Dever say he was deceiving the church is if he actually said "I am deceiving the church". That is simply how it works in that world.

When I converse with you guys I never assume that I am talking to an independent thinking person who questions what they are taught. This is Based on my vast experience with that movement. And watching their gurus. It is amazing the thought reform tactics that are simply the new normal.

Church Reform was not selling. So he changed it to 9 Marks. He slobbers Calvinism on Monday as it sells lots of books and brings lots of speaking gigs to pastors like you. I doubt very seriously if he needs to tone it down these days at Capitol Hill. From what I understand they have all signed membership covenants to his Hotel California church, so they have to obey him. Besides, he has the keys to declare whether they were chose n or not.

[Scott Shaver]

Interesting point Lydia.

Some years back a book was written on ministerial ethics by Joe Trull and Jame Carter. Right about the time the televangelist sex scandals were capturing headlines.

In the introduction/explanation for the writing of the book they discussed at length the "unhesitant" trust of of church members for their ministers and clergy catastrophes involving romantic affairs, pedophilia, etc.

They pointed out also (p.15) "Equally immoral, though often overlooked, are certain ministerial habits that may be considered part of the job description. Pulpit exaggeration is accepted as a normal trait of preachers. More serious is the unethical conduct of an autocratic leader who misuses power, manipulates people, and practices deception and dishonesty. Pascal warned that people never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious convictions."