Over the past several decades a fierce controversy has been raging within the Southern Baptist Convention regarding Calvinism. Calvinism is a type of theology which emphasizes the sovereignty and power of God, and is especially known for its controversial tenet of predestination. Calvinism has made a resurgence in Baptist circles in recent years, and some traditionalists within the SBC think that they are witnessing the end of civilization as they know it.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. with 16.1 million reported adherents. Founded in 1845, its primary purpose is to promote missions, and it has always had a strong evangelistic thrust.
 |
| James P. Boyce |
The language of the Statement is often vague and confusing. It often speaks of the sovereignty, grace and power of God in salvation, but its principle aim is to limit those very things. Specifically the Statement rejects "TULIP," the so-called "Five points of Calvinism." (TULIP is an acronym that stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints.). The Statement marshals a large amount of proof texts to support its major contention of the free offer of the gospel, but largely ignores those texts which deal with God's sovereignty and power, the spiritual condition of the lost sinner, and the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. In this regard we think that the Statement is fatally weak.
What we propose to do in the following series of blog posts is to examine each one of the articles contained in the Statement in the light of Scripture. Our aim is not to engender more controversy, but to promote mutual understanding and to clear away misconceptions. Specifically we hope to demonstrate that "Calvinism," (if we must call the theology of the Bible by that name), if properly understood, does not pose a threat to missionary or evangelistic activity, but rather is an aid to true revival, which we desperately need. Ultimately our hope is that the series will promote the peace and unity of the church. The readers' comments, as always, are welcome.
...marshals a large amount of proof texts to support its major contention of the free offer of the gospel, but largely ignores those texts which...
ReplyDeleteYour holy book is very handy that way. It just keeps on happening.
What we propose to do in the following series of blog posts is to examine each one of the articles contained in the Statement in the light of Scripture.
That should clear things right up. Funny how the other guys didn't think to do that themselves. Don't they have copies of their holy book like you do?
Hmm.
Specifically we hope to demonstrate that "Calvinism," (if we must call the theology of the Bible by that name), if properly understood....
Exactly. "Properly understood". Once you "properly understand", everything becomes so much better.
Bob, you "properly understand", right?
Oh good! That's a relief.
Imagine how embarrassing it would be if it was the other guy that properly understood and you...well...not so much.
Specifically the Statement rejects "TULIP," the so-called "Five points of Calvinism." (TULIP is an acronym that stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints.)
Bob, don't do this.
I just googled TULIP.
Don't go there.
A certain church gleefully supports it to the hilt.
You don't want to be associated with them.
Don't do this.
Your friend Mr. Phelps is a good example of a "Hypercalvinist." We will get to him in due course.
ReplyDeleteCedric, it's not just Bob's holy book, or this other group's holy book. It is the HOLY BIBLE, the very word of the Living God. This is an intramural debate among Christians, many of whom believe that iron sharpens iron, who all have the advancement of the gospel foremost in their intentions. Those like yourself are on the outside looking in on these debates. If you do not understand the importance of the Word of God as the last word, then Calvinist or not, you are eternally lost. Mr. Phelps and his gang are so far out of the picture that only a handful of those who call themselves Christian approve of his antics. I would urge you to quietly and carefully weigh the issues Bob raises in his coming posts. Take his arguments seriously and dare to ask God to give you ears to hear and eyes to see. Neither Bob nor I profess to have perfect understanding, but we know we are on a serious journey. Come join us. All are welcome.
ReplyDeleteIt is the HOLY BIBLE, the very word of the Living God.
ReplyDeleteOf course.
It is the HOLY KORAN, the very word of the Living ALLAH.
It is the HOLY BOOK OF THE DEAD, the very word of the Living OSIRIS.
It is the HOLY thingy , the very word of the Living watchamacallit.
(shrug)
Mr. Phelps and his gang are so far out of the picture that only a handful of those who call themselves Christian approve of his antics.
Mr Phelps is not a "true Christian" then? Ah. Hmm.
"...only a handful of those who call themselves Christian..."
So they are not "true Christians" either?
Ah. Hmm.
Those like yourself are on the outside looking in on these debates.
Then you will be aware how those debates look to outsiders.
"If you do not understand the importance of the Word of Allah/Baal/The Force as the last word, then Sunni/Katrathki/A Jedi or not, you are eternally lost. Mr. Habiibi/Kaithith/ Darth Maul and his gang are so far out of the picture that only a handful of those who call themselves Muslim/Baalist/Jedi approve of his antics. I would urge you to quietly and carefully weigh the issues Bob raises in his coming posts. Take his arguments seriously and dare to ask Allah/Baal/The Force to give you ears to hear and eyes to see. Neither Bob nor I profess to have perfect understanding, but we know we are on a serious journey."
It's not your intended destination that worries me. I'm sure you personally feel you are trying to do the right thing. It's your methodology. You can consult your holy book and that's fine but...the other guy gets to do that too.
It would be nice if your magical god made a pesonal appearance to act as a tie-breaker but that's not happening today. All you have to work with is your book. Quote it to your heart's content. By all means. Ponder, muse, plumb it's mysterious depths etc,etc, etc and then conclude that you are right and the other guy is wrong.
Only you have to be doing something that the other guy cannot claim too.
What prompted me to take up the subject of TULIP is a discussion on another blog called "SBC Issues," hosted by Bob Hadley, a Southern Baptist pastor in Florida, and, if I am not mistaken, one of the signatories of the "Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding." The a priori premise on both sides is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that the issues under discussion will have to be decided by exegesis.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist, of course, will not accept the premise. But what alternative does he have? He says he goes by reason alone -- but what can his reason tell him? Science can describe a small part of what exists, but cannot assign a reason why, much less state what ought to be. It is completely helpless when it comes to values, rights, and morals. (The American Psychiatric Association is chronically unable even to define what is "normal"). In the end the atheist is groping in the dark blindly, searching for answers (we hope!) but not finding any. Secular philosophy has always led to a dead end.
And so Dr. Hadley and I will continue our debate, based on the shared premise that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and see where it leads.
An atheist, of course, will not accept the premise.
ReplyDeleteNot just atheists.
Religious people will also not accept the premise.
Take the Jews as an example.
It's not their Bible.
(shrug)
He says he goes by reason alone -- but what can his reason tell him? Science can...
Do you see what you have done?
Now you are suddenly talking about science for some strange reason. Your own argument is MIA. Yet it is your own argument that must stand or fall on it's own merits. Nothing to do with atheism or science or "secular phiosophy" or whatever else you would randomly throw into the mix in a fit of hapless handwaving.
"And so Dr. Hadley and I will continue our debate, based on the shared premise that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and see where it leads."
And the happy conclusion that you were right all along and the other guy is wrong is fortold.
Lucky you.
Just like the other guy will say.
Round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round again.
Cedric, I am curious as to why you follow this blog? Do you find satisfaction in openly deriding the beliefs of others, or are you genuinely interested in the Biblical perspective put forth by Bob? It would seem that if you believed what you declare, then you would have no interest in reading, much less commenting on, this blog.
DeleteWe believe that there is the existence of Truth and that Truth has been revealed in Jesus Christ who has become that tie-breaker of which you speak. He rose from the dead, something that no other religious leader has ever done. There is a reason many of His followers gave up their lives for their faith. They were witnesses to the ultimate power of God. The power over life and death. History itself is at the very core of our faith, not some mystical made up beliefs. The other Holy Books are wrapped in mysticism (as well as errors and contradictions), whereas the Holy Bible is as real as today's newspaper, but without error.
As to Mr. Phelps, I said nothing about whether or not he was a "true" Christian, or whether or not those who approved of him were "true" Christians. Only God knows the heart of Mr. Phelps or any of the rest of us. I may be able to inspect what someone says or does in the light of God's Word, and then draw some conclusions about whether or not their words or deeds are in line with the Word of God. But no one has the power to see into the depths of anyone's heart to make judgments that only God can make.
Do you find satisfaction in openly deriding the beliefs of others...
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in reality.
It's not his beliefs but how he acquires them and justifies them.
Bob's methodology. I don't care about his conclusions.
...or are you genuinely interested in the Biblical perspective put forth by Bob?
I'm interested in the why and the how of the perspective he subscribes to. Again, the methodology.
We believe that there is the existence of Truth and that Truth has been revealed in Jesus Christ who....
Yes, yes, yes. I get all that.
He rose from the dead, something that... happens all the time. Even in your own bible, plenty of people became zombies. It's a common theme in myths from all over the world.
Yet there's not actual evidence.
There is a reason many of His followers gave up their lives for their faith.
People from all sorts of different religons have died for their faith. It's a common event. It tells us nothing about the truth of their religious claims.
History itself is at the very core of our faith, not some mystical made up beliefs.
But of course it is. Sure.
It's just that the other guy is saying exactly the same thing about his religion too.
The other Holy Books are wrapped in mysticism (as well as errors and contradictions), whereas the Holy Bible is as real as today's newspaper, but without error.
No doubt. No doubt at all. Which is why people born in Hindu households usually convert to Christianity. Happens all the time.
Not.
As to Mr. Phelps, I said nothing about...
I know what you said. I quoted you. Let's do it again.
Phelps and his gang are so far out of the picture that only a handful of those who call themselves Christian approve of his antics...
The language is quite clear.
Phelps is part of a gang. Out of the picture. Only a handful of people. Those who call themselves Christian etc. Antics.
You couldn't load down your description with more pejoratives if you tried.
Only God knows the heart of Mr. Phelps...
Well, that's what you say know but it's not what you said before.
Let's clear the air.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Is Phelps a Christian?
Yes or no?
His gang.
Christians? Yes or no?
Those people who call themselves Christians?
Christians? Yes or no?
Only God knows....
Sure. I get it. Then surely it's for your god to decide who's the gang and who are those that are performing antics and who are those that are merely calling themselves Christians?
Or not.
You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind which it is.
I may be able to inspect what someone says or does in the light of God's Word, and then draw some conclusions about whether or not their words or deeds are in line with the Word of God.
Then do so.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
Is Phelps a Christian?
Yes or no?
His gang.
Christians? Yes or no?
Those people who call themselves Christians?
Christians? Yes or no?
You don't have to answer. You can ignore my questions. You can go of in some other direction. You can launch into a whole "I think the real question is blah, blah, blah..."
You can do that...........If that's what you really have to do.
But no one has the power to see into the depths of anyone's heart to make judgments that only God can make.
Does that also apply when you...want...to call someone a Christian?
Christianity is geography-based. Ask yourself why you or Bon really reach for your holy book and the other guy reaches for his.
Cedric and I first encountered each other about a year and a half ago when I first began blogging. Our first exchanges were on a couple of atheist blogs -- I called one a "dark den" -- the blogger wasn't amused! Since then we have spent a great deal of time discussion apologetics, science & religion, and atheism & morality.
ReplyDeleteHere's my challenge to you, Cedric. Probably on Thursday or Friday I will post a blog on "Total Depravity" in response to Article Two of the Traditional Southern Baptist Statement. When we consider what the Bible has to say about the moral condition of the human race, see if you can find anything remotely like it in the Koran. Cite chapter and verse if you can -- I have a Koran of my own (actually I have two). Then we'll know if the difference between Christianity and Islam is merely one of tweedle-dee v. tweedle-dum.
When we consider what the Bible has to say about the moral condition of the human race, see if you can find anything remotely like it in the Koran.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Think about why you would even ask this.
You are reaching for your holy book.
The other guy is reaching for his holy book.
Same methodology.
Your holy book is geographically based.
The other guy's book is geographically based.
Same methodology.
"When we consider what the Koran has to say about the moral condition of the human race, see if you can find anything remotely like it in the bible."
(shrug)
It's not just Islam. There are countless religions out there with holy books and advice and whatnot both living and dead.
That's just it. I did reach for the other guy's holy book -- and quite frankly it did not address man's deepest need. Read it for yourself and see what I mean.
ReplyDelete"I did reach for the other guy's holy book -- and quite frankly it did not address man's deepest need. Read it for yourself and see what I mean."
ReplyDeleteThe other guy says the same thing.
You are not getting this whole "walking a mile in the other guy's shoes" thing at all.
Besides, plenty of Christians read your own book and will be prepared to disagree with you on all sorts of issues.
Over the past several decades a fierce controversy has been raging within the Southern Baptist Convention...
See? Are you going to suggest that they have not read your holy book? Or are you going to suggest that they aren't real Christians?
But what about you? Have you read either one (the Bible or the Koran)? Which one do YOU think addresses the human condition?
ReplyDeleteAs for the "traditional" Southern Baptists, as well as Fred Phelps, stay tuned.
I should mention one other fact here. One of the problems that I think that Bob Hadley and his fellow "traditional" Southern Baptists is going to run into is that Calvin was a superb exegete -- he wrote commentaries on most of the books of the Bible. This is not to say that his theology was perfect -- I think that most of the problems stem from the fact that he was working within a state church. But on the issue upon which people love to revile him -- predestination -- he was frankly reading what the Bible actually says.
ReplyDeleteBut what about you?
ReplyDeleteWhat about me?
(shrug)
Have you read either one (the Bible or the Koran)?
Does it matter? Why only those two anyway? There's lots and lots more out there. Devil's Advocate, remember?
Which one do YOU think addresses the human condition?
What does that even mean and how did that suddenly become the topic of conversation?
But on the issue upon which people love to revile him -- predestination -- he was frankly reading what the Bible actually says.
So if you are reading what the bible actually says then...the other guy is not, right?
Ok.
Only won't he get to say the same thing about you?
It's not your conclusions; it's your methodology.
My methodology is the traditional Protestant interpretation of the Bible -- the technical name is "Grammatico-Historical Exegesis." It simply means that the Bible means what its original authors thought it meant, and we determine that by looking at the grammatical structure of the passage and its historical context. What's wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteI have had the privilege of studying both Greek and Hebrew, and so am conscious of the fact that words have meaning and sentences have structure. In most cases it is not all that difficult to discern the meaning of a given passage. And that is pretty much what Calvin and the other Protestant Reformers did.
My methodology is the traditional Protestant interpretation of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteYes, you reach for your holy book. You interpret it.
Unfortunately, that's what the other guy does to.
That's how you end up with "Christians" yelling at other "Christians".
You cannot clean up your own house.
Life would be so much simpler if it was just you versus "the unbeliever".
It simply means that the Bible means what its original authors thought it meant..., according to your interpretation.
...and we determine that by looking at the grammatical structure of the passage and its historical context....subject to your interpretation.
What's wrong with that?
It's a flawed methodology from start to finish. It's effortlessly easy for the other guy that hates your guts (for example) to hi-jack it wholesale.
A Christian that hates your guts could claim exactly the same thing.
Someone from a different religion entirely could claim the same thing about their holy book.
It's all entirely self-referencial.
Under such a system, you can never be wrong. It's always going to work out just fine for you. Your holy book will miraculously confirm just what you always believed.
Round and around and around and around and around it goes.
You never question why you are reaching for your particular holy book in the first place as opposed to some other holy book.
It's geography. Just like the other guy.
The a priori premise on both sides is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that the issues under discussion will have to be decided by exegesis.
Bingo!