# An Article from the Baptist Press



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2006)

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22970

What think ye?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 5, 2006)

Thanks for sharing the article, Ivan.

I will put my thoughts in a couple of "bullets"

1) The SBC "confession" (if BFM can be called such) is deliberately inclusive. Therefore, we can see that within a single church, as long as there is a reluctance to settle _doctrine_ (over against an admitted willingness to settle certain practical matters like abortion or homosx.) there will be a deep division between those who are as loose as a goose, and those who believe doctrine _must_ undergird all practice or agreement on practice will eventually be lost.

2) The author is too cautious, in taking a common criticism of "rigid calvinist" and applying it to the historic doctrine. He criticizes those who class themselves as "historic baptist" (rightly criticizes) if their intent is to "get a pulpit" and then preach biblical (calvinist!) election/predestination. Better to be transparent and not get in a pulpit than get there, and split a church right down the middle.

3) He lets the majority know that some of the greatest Baptists have been 5-pointers. That may make some folks madder than a wet hen, but they can't say they weren't informed about their hero Spurgeon. Their continued ignorance or denial is inexcusable.

4) If more people are encouraged to read their Bibles with an openness to what it actually says, then I think the cause of calvinism/grace will actually be advanced, minor historical inaccuracies in the presentation notwithstanding.


----------



## caddy (Apr 5, 2006)

"Better to be transparent and not get in a pulpit than get there, and split a church right down the middle." 



Which is pretty much where I find myself. I have discussed my views to a few people in our church, even my pastor, who doesn't like the "L" in TULIP. I have also discussed this with my good friend, and our Sunday School Teacher. If your not brought up and taught the doctrines early, like any thing else, they are NOT easy to digest. We want to be in control generally speaking. I'm just glad He's in control and not me. Sometimes I ponder why I was brought to believe these things well into my 40s. 








> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Thanks for sharing the article, Ivan.
> 
> I will put my thoughts in a couple of "bullets"
> ...



[Edited on 4-5-2006 by caddy]


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Thanks for sharing the article, Ivan.
> 
> I will put my thoughts in a couple of "bullets"
> ...



Your post is right now and it exactly my take on the article. You call the author cautious. Anyone who is a denominational leader of any sort in the SBC is going to be that way. Can't be helped, at least from their perpective. You don't get those kind of positions by rocking the boat, maybe make it waddle a bit but that's it. 

The BFM is...hmmm...an extremely weak document (I'll keep it clean). It certainly doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, most Southern Baptists like it that way. To be frank, I believe many Southern Baptist pastors and churches ignore it, as they do what is called a church covenant. In the recent past I privately pointed out to my pastor that a number of our members were in violation of the church covenant. He bascially told me that people have become members without any awareness of the church covenant. I asked him why we still had it. No answer. 

I've mentioned this recently in a sermon that I preached at this same church. I told them that there is a grave danger in playing church and not following the doctrines of the Bible. How can we call ourselves Christians if we are not following the teachings of the Bible, the way Christians are suppose to live. 

The biggest problem I see in the church I attend is that the members are going by their feelings rather than by the teaching of Scripture. Oh, they will give intellectual tip of the hat to doctrine, but don't want to delve too deeply into it nor live it as far as I can see.

I must say that they are a loving church. They do care for each other and help each other in times of crisis. I am even accepted there, even though I'm considered something of a relic from the past. Well, that's the price you pay I guess for wanting the church to follow the Bible.

You mention Spurgeon. It's interesting to see the diverse groups that accept him. We have a fellow out of Chicago that's on TV, as Arminian as you can get, an independent Baptist, who says Spurgeon wasn't Calvinisnt. Actually, it was Spurgeon, as far as the great preachers of the past are concerned, that started me down the road of Calvinism. 

And finally, yes, indeed, we need to promote the reading and study of the Bible. I hope to do just that at my church. I am working at it. Happily, our pastor does preach from the Bible, does take a verse, passage or chapter from the Word and exgetes. Funny thing though. I remember last year that he was going to preach from Ephesian One. My first thought was: how do you preach one sermon from that chapter?! When the Sunday came he avoided like the plague any mention of the doctrines of grace. Some trick...was one of his worst sermons ever and I told him so. 

Oh, well, I get to preach about once a month or every six weeks. I get my licks in! lol No, I don't take that attitude, but I do preach the Word and I won't do anything else when I stand behind the pulpit.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caddy_
> We want to be in control generally speaking. I'm just glad He's in control and not me. Sometimes I ponder why I was brought to believe these things well into my 40s.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bened (Apr 5, 2006)

Good thread, Ivan.

Akin is a good man as well as a popular, able prof (now president, obviously). His is one of the more cogent examples of a modified calvinist seeking to take both the middle and high ground simultaneously. It's a good attempt, even better than most, but falls short in some areas. To name a few:


> On one side you hear people saying that God hates the non-elect and damns babies to hell. They say that Jesus was a Calvinist and that Calvinism is the Gospel.



Who in the (reformed) world ever said THAT. Classic case of profiling from a non-classic Calvinist. See also the diatribe in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his finding a "balance" section. 



> Recognize that our Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a well-constructed canopy under which varying perspectives on this issue can peacefully and helpfully co-exist. Pelagians, Arminians, and Open Theists will not feel at home in our Southern Baptist family.



Arminians, (especially 4pt, i.e. holds to all at least to some extent except for one losing his/her salvation) are alive and well in the SBC. As long as one holds to "once saved always saved", as perseverance is often viewed, you'll get along fine in the sbc. Giving lip service to total depravity (aka being "lost") is good, too. 

Evidently, Akin's definition of "Arminian" and that of reformed sbc baptists differ greatly. One of the SBC's greatest strengths (the cooperative program) is likewise one of her greatest weaknesses. Namely, we are not a denomination built on defined, doctrinal, distinctives, but a "convention" of "cooperating" baptist churches centered around missions and evangelism (though w/o doctrinal distinctives, we'll never agree what either of these are or how to do them). Our "cooperation" is financial more than doctrinal.

Technically, a church need only to give to the cooperative program, baptize by immersion and be accepted by its local sbc association to be a sbc church. There's room for lots of theological and even social latitude under the sbc tent. 

The BFM 2000, btw, isn't a confession. Nor is it intended to be. It's an attempted conservative, one-size fits most document. The first was written in 1925, then revised in 1963 and most recently in 2000 (the first and last aren't bad as far as they go; but to deem them weak in-depth or percision is definitely justifiable). If the BFM was ever called a creed or confession, or if it were ever rewritten to be such, the vast majority of sbc folk would ignorantly scream in unison, "We have only one creed, the Bible!" All the while, they fail to realize that the confessional heritage of our baptist forefathers even exists. That denominational employees and missionaries are now required to sign the BFM has been no little source of controversy. I have been caught in a couple of those discussions.

And last, but not least, for my sbc brethren:


> John Broadus and B. H. Carroll would also have considered themselves Calvinists, though both would have affirmed only four of the five points. They did not advocate particular redemption.



That's debatable. One who'd say so is his former colleague at Southern, Tom Nettles. See "By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life", pg. 202 (re: Broadus) and 230-231 (re: Carroll). The former, he quotes Broadus' catechism: "The benefits of Christ's salvation for His people correspond to the effect of Adam's sin upon his descendants." Nettles then adds, "That if (this) relationship. . .is sustained than a definite, effectual atonement. . ." (See also Teaching Truth Training Hearts, pg 186-187). 

After noting that Carroll did not "dogmatize in regard to the atonement" (pg. 209), Nettles quotes Carroll's commentary on Is. 53:10-12 and Eph. 1:7 (pp. 230-231). He then summarizes Carroll's view: Theologically and exegetically, his convictions lay with the concepts of limited and effectual atonement. Pure verbal realities, however, led him to protect the mysteries of the atonement in which he saw universal benefits beyond the closures of our systems and even our present comprehension."

I'll definitely read more of these for myself. Nonetheless for Akin to say such about Carroll and Broadus w/o equivocation is wrong, or at least he should substantiate it.

This adds to the stew for Mohler and Patterson "discussion" in June in Greensboro.


[Edited on 4-6-2006 by bened]


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2006)

Yes, Ben, it does add to the stew for Mohler and Patterson. We will heard more and more about this in the next few months. It could get ugly. Not so much between Mohler and Patterson, but among pastors out in the trenches. 

Then again, how many pastors in the SBC can be called Calvinist? Personally I know only a few. Could get really lonely out there for those who are pretty isolated now.

Is that a fair assessment? I'm pretty isolated myself. I know of only one pastor in our association who is Calvinist. I only know one in Illinois. I'm sure there are more, but that's all I know.


----------



## bened (Apr 5, 2006)

I think you're spot on your assessments, Ivan. 

And in comparing how many reformed pastors we know in our state and associations,

. . .you've got me by one on both counts. 

(Though I'm sure there's more than a few founder's friendly-type pastors in the great state of the Palmetto, I've just not met them. Conversly, I'm just as sure there are no reformed pastors in my association - 38 churches strong. I have met all of them, minus the two or three newbies. I'll meet them at our assoc. mtg on the 17th.)

Btw, are you going to be in Greensboro in June? If so, we (and anyone else on the board who's going) need to hook up. Maybe the Mark Dever breakfast? Tickets available on founders.org.

It's at 6AM EDT. Rise and shine, Brutha!

[Edited on 4-6-2006 by bened]


----------



## Ivan (Apr 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bened_
> Btw, are you going to be in Greensboro in June? If so, we (and anyone else on the board who's going) need to hook up. Maybe the Mark Dever breakfast? Tickets available on founders.org.
> 
> It's at 6AM EDT. Rise and shine, Brutha!
> ...



Well, no, I won't be there. I'd like to be there, but I just don't have the time or cash. It would be nice, espeically going to the Founder's Breakfast. Maybe we could get Dever elected president! lol


----------

