Voddie Baucham Reflects on Anti-Calvinism in the SBC
It was ten years ago in the Fall of 1998 as a sophomore in college that I first heard Voddie Baucham speak. As a college minister, I traveled up to The Church at Brookhills with some friends to a conference called Refuge put on by StudentLife. All I can remember about Voddie ten years ago was thinking, “Dude, that brother can bring it!” Little did I know that Voddie was quickly becoming the rising star in the SBC. A young, articulate, and intelligent African American with a passion for God unlike any I had seen, Voddie was quickly noticed by conference developers looking for a fresh face and a powerful message.
Ten years later, Voddie is all but hanging on as a Southern Baptist. No, he did not commit any immoral acts or disqualify himself from ministry. What happened is that he chose not to play the game of political correctness or prefer his career over biblical truth. Voddie is not one to have ever shied away from controversy, and it was evident that he was not going to allow political favors, denominational power, or the cult of personality to shape and direct his ministerial calling. Having said that, I would like to turn your attention to Voddie’s recent blog post entitled “SBC and Calvinism: A Personal Perspective.”
Voddie shares that there three areas that resulted in his falling out with the SBC mainstream, namely his position on education, the family/youth ministry, and Calvinism. Prior to these developments, Voddie revealed to what extent he was catered from everyone in the SBC including LifeWay (with three book offers), state conventions, and Pastor’s Conferences of the Annual Meetings of the SBC. While his leadership in the areas of education and the family caused several disagreements, it was being identified as a “Calvinist” that changed the gesture of the mainstream Southern Baptists from a heartfelt handshake to an unapologetic boot. Voddie, writing about his “coming out of the closet,” confessed,
No… I’m not gay. It’s far worse than that. I’m a Calvinist! That’s right, I’m a fire-breathing, TULIP believing, five-point Calvinist. That, my friends, is the unpardonable sin in contemporary Southern Baptist life (unless your name is Al Mohler and you’ve been President of the flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary since you were in your early thirties and happen to be the most intelligent, articulate, winsome public face the Convention has).
Ironically, it was at the second conference that I had attended with Voddie speaking, the 2006 Desiring God National Conference, that Southern Baptists were made aware that Voddie had all along been wearing the scarlet “C” on his chest. Then it was speaking at the 2007 Founders Breakfast at San Antonio with a message entitled “Southern Baptists at Sardis.” While some have deemed “vitriol” to be the reason for the change-of-heart among Southern Baptists (at which point he references the vitriol of Ergun Caner, Jerry Falwell, and Jerry Vines), the real reason was “being a part of a movement the SBC sees as a threat to evangelism, and our already declining baptismal numbers.”
Here is yet another leading voice of the past decade of the younger generation of Southern Baptists that has been marginalized by the anti-Calvinist agenda of the SBC. Perhaps someone should warn Matt Chandler who is scheduled next year to speak both at the 2009 FBC JAX Conference (Feb. 6-10) as well as the 2009 Desiring God Pastor’s Conference (Feb. 2-4). In any case, one should take note that the anti-Calvinist leadership of the SBC–from the Executive Committee to the John 3:16 Conference–is unplugging the microphones of the voices attracting younger Southern Baptists today.
I don’t aree with Voddie on everything as I am quite certain that I do not agree with most of my Calvinist friends on everything. But what I do appreciate about him is his willingness to continue to bring it over the past decade whether he has the backing of a denomination or the fronting of a denomination. While Voddie is “no longer considering a future of any significance in the Convention,” I believe there is a far greater significance to be had that cannot be counted be nickles and noses or conferences and celebrity; nah, it is a significance that will bear the marks of donkey-riding Savior, not a denominational-rising superstar.
Tags: Calvinism, Politics, SBC, Voddie Baucham
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
November 18, 2008 at 12:23 am
Dude, that was a fantastic post by bro. Voddie! So much so that I’m going out tomorrow and getting Family-Driven Faith! I had no idea someone else has had the same misgivings I’ve been having about sending my Grace to kiddie Sunday School, to the nursery, etc., much less that anyone had actually done something about it! This just made my vacation.
I know this wasn’t the main point of your post or his post, but the weariness we’re all experiencing on this issue makes something important like family worship a very, very welcome “distraction,” so to speak.
The only thing I found wrong with his post was that (as it so proudly announced at the bottom of the page) it was made on a Mac.
Of course with my iPhone working its charm on me, that could change in a few years.
November 18, 2008 at 1:33 am
So glad to see that Pastor Baucham doesn’t sugar coat it even within the ranks of his “denom”
Pastor Baucham is one of the most thought provoking people I have ever read or listened to, he challenges me to really be certain that I am looking at the world through the Scriptures and not my own opinions. Thanks for the post from both you and Pastor Ascol (his Twitter was how I came to read Pastor Baucham’s post because I hadn’t checked my blog roll yet for the day.)
PS to Stephen don’t fight the Mac join it - I fought having a Mac for years and now can barely stand using my PC. I get so frustrated out how much harder PC makes things then they need to be… Mac rocks!!
November 18, 2008 at 6:55 am
[...] Posted on November 18, 2008 by bkingr who knew? he seemed so normal. So passionate about the gospel. wow. Just can’t ever tell about some [...]
November 18, 2008 at 9:16 am
Well I am only a layperson, but…wow. Even though I don’t agree with Calvinists on certain points, this is just one more example of (I am ashamed to say) the bigotry and fear among leaders of the SBC. If I didn’t love the church I attend and if it weren’t so diverse, I would have abandoned the denomination years ago. I hope that the SBC can get past theological banter and focus on the true heart of the gospel.
November 18, 2008 at 9:55 am
Melody, theological banter helps us understand what someone believes the gospel says. We have two sides: Does man save himself through a decision of his will or does God save him by giving him a new heart and spirit (born again) and changing his will.
November 18, 2008 at 10:07 am
It was 10 or more years ago that Brother Voddie spoke at the BCNM Evangelism Conference. I went up to him afterward and told him that I appreciated his solid stand for the doctrines of Grace. He seemed a bit surprised that I had picked up on his Calvinism, especially since he was relatively unknown at that time (I had never heard of him prior to that conference) and had not made it a practice to wear his Calvinism on his sleeve.
November 18, 2008 at 10:20 am
For the record, I typed this blogpost on a Mac, but I do my photography work on a PC - well I used to (long story). I sometimes wondered if the real conspiracy or correlation regarding the antagonism is real anti-Mac, not anti-Calvinism. But I guess LifeWay will have to do another study to figure that one out.
Melody,
It’s great to hear how you love the church. That’s where our hearts need to stay–with the people and far from the politics. The theological issues are important to consider especially when historically orthodox teaching is no longer allowed or at least demonized. I agree that we need to focus on the true heart of the gospel, and that is where I hope the Calvinist and non-Calvinist will major on.
Ken,
The question you asked speaks to the nature of the differences of synergism and monergism in regards to salvation. I think if we can for a moment boil it down to one point instead of five, I would see this to be the heart of the matter. Is salvation the work of God (monergism) or the work of man and God (synergism)? In other words, is the new covenant promise you mentioned effectual by the regenerating work of the Spirit, or as Finney described, we are to make for ourselves a new heart?
November 18, 2008 at 10:42 am
Voddie is a dear friend of the work here at Grace Life Church. He will be speaking at the 2009 True Church Conference, too. We wondered how long he could go before “coming out of the closet”.
It will be interesting to see to what extent he will be “black-listed” by the yuckity-yucks in the SBC. Voddie has gotten to speak in the biggest venue of the SBC in the past. Those days are probably over. So much for building bridges….
November 18, 2008 at 11:03 am
Thomas,
Well, I am pretty sure that Voddie being a Calvinist was not something he intentionally kept in the closet. Rather, it was other people coming to the realization of it. I think many people, for instance, buy and read MacArthur’s commentaries not knowing that he is a Calvinist. In other words, people agree with the biblical truths expressed in Calvinism, but when you mention the “C” word, a whole lot of bad things come to their minds (most if not all of which are not true). Because the anti-Calvinist run the SBC machine, they control the PR battle by coming up with names, titles, and labels and then redefining them. The slash and burn tactics coming from the other side does not, however, mean that bridges cannot be built for gospel consensus. I am finding that there are many non-Calvinists quite upset with the tactics being used and are more than willing to work with Calvinist in cooperation for church planting and gospel-centered ministry. I hope that greater partnerships can be forged for the sake of the kingdom and not the building of our own.
November 18, 2008 at 11:35 am
I noticed that Dr. Bauchman said this in the article:
Bauchman has the mistaken impression that James White was called a hyper-Calvinist at the Conference because it’s assumed that White is against evangelism. Dr. David Allen did not call James White a hyper-Calvinist by that criteria AT ALL. Rather, here’s what actually happened at the John 3:16 Conference:
____________________________
THE CLAIM
1) Dr. Allen quoted Tom Ascol as saying:
2) James White denies that God in any sense wills, wishes or desires the salvation of all men, in contrast to Ascol’s own viewpoint.
3) Phil Johnson’s Primer on Hyper-Calvinism implies that one is a hyper-Calvinist if they deny God’s universal saving will.
4) Therefore, by this criteria, White is a hyper-Calvinist.
That was the argument.
November 18, 2008 at 11:43 am
Tony,
For the record, since this charge by Allen has become so broadly noticed and since you are the researcher who prepared the paper and the argumentation, will you tell me (and my readers) whether the charge of White as a hyper-Calvinist was fostered by you or did Allen come up with that on his own?
November 18, 2008 at 11:59 am
“I think many people, for instance, buy and read MacArthur’s commentaries not knowing that he is a Calvinist.”
I know some of those… I also know some who didn’t know that their parents were. That’s how bad is can get, when you’re afraid that if you teach your children at home the DoG they might go to SS and share it with others, or to be afraid to inform your wife so that only post-mortem is she apprised, fearing rejection of inlaws for the sake of family peace, or not to tell the rest of the deaconate out of fear of disunity or defrocking. I have known some of those…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgmJ1miBzek
November 18, 2008 at 12:41 pm
This is from Phil’s Primer. Which is James White guilty of?
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
November 18, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Tony,
Did you miss the part where Phil Johnson himself denied that James White fit his criteria for Hyper-Calvinists? Your silence here is glaring.
November 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Steven N.,
Don’t you know that it doesn’t matter what some ones says or writes, it is what you say they said and wrote. Dr. White has numerous writen and posted recordings denying the very things alledged, but hey, some gotta keep the axe sharp.
November 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Timmy Brister said:
With all due respect, the accusation of hyper-Calvinism has been broadly noticed, but the criteria for the charge has not been noticed or discussed. Aren’t you disturbed at all that Allen’s actual argument has been misrepresented by Dr. Bauchman (and others)? Don’t you find it disturbing, even slightly, that James White totally denies that God wills to save all men? Have you looked into this yet? Haven’t you noticed that he didn’t even deny that theological point of the accusation on his blog, but rather changed the subject to evangelism?
Timmy said:
This is false. I did not prepare the paper and the argumentation. I did help Dr. Allen with some of the research/sources and helped to refine some of his own argumentation, as I told you elsewhere. He’s read piles of primary source material himself.
Timmy said:
In our conversations, we did talk about the varieties of hyper-Calvinism and it’s relationship to the issue of God’s saving will. Those things are involved in the very chart I created for him to use at the conference (see section #2 in the chart). Since he had read Dr. Curt Daniel’s The History and Theology of Calvinism in addition to his doctoral dissertation on Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill, he already knew about these things. We also discussed the contents of Phil’s Primer. I also told him about White’s denial of God’s universal saving will and how he differs with Dr. Ascol on that point. It was Dr. Allen’s own decision based on his historical research to say that “James White is a hyper-Calvinist.” If you have doubts or concerns about the facts, you can contact Dr. Allen yourself.
Shouldn’t it be your concern here that the doctrine itself be discussed? Do you even believe that God desires the salvation of all men yourself? Is that a Reformed doctrine or not a Reformed doctrine?
November 18, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Tony,
No need to get so defensive my friend. I asked you a simple question: were you or were you not behind the naming of James White as a hyper-Calvinist? That’s all I asked. You developed the handy chart passed out at the John 3:16 conference, made the issue of limited atonement your hobby horse on the blogosphere, and recently informed us on your researching and input on Allen’s white paper and later presentation. Ergo, I was interested in knowing, for the sake of disclosure, whether you led Allen to that conclusion or whether that was something Allen determined on his own. I have no need to contact Allen as I believe what you say to be true (that’s why I asked in the first place).
November 18, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Do any of you wish to answer this question?
Do you believe that God desires the salvation of all men? Is that a Reformed doctrine or not a Reformed doctrine?
Timmy?
November 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm
James Clardy,
Observe carefully that Phil Johnson’s Primer 1) quotes Ezek. 33:11 in the very title. That addresses the will of God issue. 2) He refers readers to John Piper’s work on the Two Wills of God for a correct understanding of the Reformed view of God’s will. Piper, like Ascol, clearly affirms that God wants to save all men in that article. Phil also says in the Primer that:
Notice the stress on the 3) sincerity of the Gospel offer, which means that it must be well-meant. As Dr. Curt Daniel says,
The well-meant nature of the offer 4) necessarily presupposes a willingness on God’s part to grant what is offered. To that effect, Phil refers his readers to John Murray’s article on The Free Offer of the Gospel. In this article, John Murray rightly says that, “the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation of all men.” Dr. Samuel Waldron, in his Modern Exposition of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, says that “the crux” of the free offer “is God’s indiscriminate desire for the salvation of sinners,” and he uses John 5:34 to strongly affirm such a desire in God for the salvation of some of those in the context that finally perish. John MacArthur himself addresses the free offer question on his book on The Love of God. He said:
Notice that MacArthur associates a “sincere offer of mercy” with a “real desire on God’s part to see the wicked turn from their sins.” We assumed (wrongly?) that Phil Johnson agrees with John Murray, Sam Waldron, Curt Daniel and John MacArthur on the crux of the free offer question, i.e. that it presupposes God’s willingness to save all those that hear the external gospel call. To deny God’s willingness to save all men is to deny the well-meant nature of the free offer.
Further, we assumed (wrongly?) that Phil Johnson would agree with the following experts in the field. Iain Murray said that “the most serious difference of all between evangelical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism” is their views on the love of God and the will of God. He describes hyper-Calvinists as arguing:
Curt Daniel lists four “main Hyper-Calvinist arguments” against “free offers” along with the historic Calvinist reply. The fourth in the list says:
Which is more reasonable to suppose? That Phil Johnson disagrees with John Murray, Sam Waldron and John MacArthur on the crux of the free offer? Or that he agrees with these authorities on the point?
Again, which is more reasonable to suppose? That he agrees with Iain Murray and Curt Daniel that one of the “main hyper-Calvinistic arguments” is that God does not desire the salvation of all men? Or that he disagrees with these authorities?
November 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Tony,
Yes.
You’re welcome.
November 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Stephen Newell asked:
Stephen,
Of course I didn’t miss Phil Johnson’s post on that. However, what I noticed in that post is that he wrongly thinks James White is merely quibbling over optative expressions (such as “desire”) being applied to God. On the contrary, James White totally denies that God in any sense wills, wishes, wants or desires the salvation of any who are non-elect. I also noticed Phil Johnson’s admission that he doesn’t even know (yet) what James White believes about these things. It hasn’t come up in their conversations, apparently.
What we have yet to see is if Phil Johnson will come out and agree with Iain Murray and Curt Daniel. The latter two clearly think that a denial of God’s universal saving will is a main component of hyper-Calvinism. Will he or will he not side with these men? That’s the question.
Actually, James White’s silence is glaring, not mine. White could easily dispell this accusation by affirming on his blog (or otherwise), along with Ascol and John Murray that God does will all men to be saved by will revealed. Discussing his evangelistic activity is a red herring. Discussiong his willingness to preach to all for the sake of the elect is a red herring. Discussing his affirmation of common grace is a red herring.
The issue is this: Does he or does he not affirm the biblical concept that God desires the salvation of all men?
November 18, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I asked Timmy:
Timmy replied:
Thanks! See how easy that question is to answer for one who actually agrees with the John Murray position? Dr. Ascol answered it with the same ease and nearly the same brevity
Good luck trying to get such an easy and explicit answer from James White in writing!
November 18, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Does God desire to save all men? If he desires it to be so would he not do it? I don’t consider it hyper-Calvinism to understand that God doesn’t save all nor does he desire to save all. Regardless of the theology we hold whether it is man-centered or God-centered regarding salvation we know that people do die and spend eternity in Hell based on original sin and its consequence on each of our lives so…. I don’t see what is so hard of course I probably will now be called hyper!
November 18, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Karen,
Your second question is an important one. Arminians, many of whom are now Open Theists, have pitted God’s desire/love for the world (all without exception) against God’s sovereignty and omnipotence. At no point in the Bible, especially in the atoning death of Jesus, does God reveal Himself as anything less than absolutely sovereign and totally in control over the events of history.
However, Open Theists have made God’s love the fundamental attribute, surrendering God’s sovereignty and omnipotence and replacing it with omnicompotence (God is able to cope with whatever situations he is dealt with, not knowing beforehand what would happen). God suffers with us, the cross is left to chance, and God cooperates with sinful man to make the best of all possible worlds.
The Arminians, on the one hand, would argue that God desires for all to be saved but do not factor in the fact that God has determined who will be saved and effectually draws them. It is interesting to note that most systematic theologians have classified God’s universal love not in redemptive categories but under God’s universal goodness (benevolence) and common grace (theology proper, not soteriology). Arminians fail to make the distinction between God’s covenantal, electing love and God’s universal benevolent love (IOW, general love only for a general atonement).
Jesus said that he “loved those who were his own” in the world and that he “loved them to the end” (John 13:1). My guess is that John 13:1 did not make it into the John 3:16 conference.
November 18, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Tony,
A simple search of White’s website will answer your question fairly quickly. I’m surprised you haven’t already done this legwork. That’s sloppy.
November 18, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Timmy, if you dont mind a follow up to the question,
1) Is God’s desire to save all a matter of things indifferent? Is it something that is a negotiable within biblical calvinism?
2) Does a denial of the biblical offer negatively impact the gospel [i.e. what we preach, how we preach]?
3) What about our concept of God? Are those who deny the true nature of the biblical offer on the same level as those who affirm it?
For example, consider the severity of Berkhof’s comment:
November 18, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Tony,
1. No. But neither is God’s effectual calling and unconditional election.
2. Not sure what you mean. I preach the gospel indiscriminately. Jesus came to save sinners, and fortunately for me, everyone fits into that category. I don’t know who the elect are, but I am convinced that God has them and will bring them to Himself. I am not concerned about judging the lostness or savability of sinners; Jesus has all authority, and therefore I preach, calling sinners to repentance and faith.
3. Again, I am not sure what you are getting at, but if a person says that God is not good to all and the gospel offer is for everyone, I would have a problem with that. On the other hand, if a person said that God is not sovereign in salvation and has before the foundation of the world known and loved particular people, then I would also have a problem with that as well.
There are two other factors I would be interested in hearing:
A. How you reconcile God’s desire to save sinners and reprobation
B. God’s universal salvific will (coined by Pinnock) and His omnipotence
FWIW, Pinnock makes the USW a fundamental argument in his inclusivism–something which most Baptists Arminians and Calvinists would strongly disagree.
November 18, 2008 at 11:46 pm
[...] Timmy Brister, who has some good thoughts on this as [...]
November 19, 2008 at 2:27 am
[...] November 19, 2008 by thomastwitchell This is in response to a really irritating gnat that keeps showing up on varioius blogs denouncing J… [...]
November 19, 2008 at 3:19 am
I said:
Stephen Newell said:
1) If it’s that “simple,” then you could easily show me the link and quote his website. Where on his website does he address the above question?
2) Also, if you’re familiar with his theology and the contents of his website, then how do you interpret White on this? Do you think he affirms or denies that God desires the salvation of any of the non-elect?
3) Have you bothered to listen to this Dividing Line phone call yet? He clearly denies God’s universal saving desire in the call. Would you agree?
November 19, 2008 at 9:30 am
Timmy,
Sorry I’m so long in replying. I was out of town all day yesterday and away from my computer.
What I mean to say by stating “so much for building bridges” is that the anti-Calvinist establishment of the SBC will be quick to break any ties with Baucham now that he has admitted to his theological beliefs. It should convict us on this side of the issue to not be so quick to wash our hands of someone who may not agree with us. I know many Arminians who are more biblical in their application, love, and humility than most Calvinists. Does that mean that the doctrines of grace are wrong? Of course not! As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another (Prov. 27:17).
However, much could be learned by those who will no longer associate with Baucham from Baucham if they would continue to let him in their circles. It’s their loss. And their expected behavior just proves that they are just as hard-lined and close-minded as they blame us for being. I hope I’m wrong about what will happen. Maybe they will continue to let Baucham preach at the SBC Pastor’s Conference and other places. I will be surprised if they do, though.
November 19, 2008 at 10:04 am
Tony,
I really don’t want to clog up Timmy’s comment thread with this, but I have a problem with your approach on this issue with James White.
first, you should know that I am not a five point calvinist (yet). I have real difficulty accepting Limited atonement and Irresistible grace. I have listened to the Calvinist arguments for these positions and I am leaning towards accepting them. However, I would very much like to read or hear a reasoned scriptural defense for the Unlimited atonement and Resistible grace positions before going all the way in.
Instead, I hear that David Allen says that a move toward 5 point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel. And then I hear him engage in name calling by calling James White a hypercalvinist. And then I read your stuff defending Allen and perpetuating semantic arguments about whether or not James White is Hyper Calvinist or not.
I am left to conclude that there must not be a reasoned scriptural defense of unlimited atonement.
If you have a problem with what James said in that phone call, then take it up with James. Arguing with other people about what some third party meant or didn’t mean is non productive.
I read the transcript and I listened to the call. I think you are taking a few words out of context and blowing them out of proportion to have a cause celebre. The fact is that James is demonstrably not a hyper calvinist by his actions. He is out there on the front lines for the Gospel. He is actively calling all men everywhere to repentance. The hyper calvinists didn’t do such things. End of discussion.
Now, if Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross was efficacious to save all men everywhere then why aren’t all men saved? If God truly wills that all men know Him then why aren’t all men saved? Does God perhaps have a more intense desire that glory be brought to His name?
Do you trust God to make those decisions? Why or why not? How does the Arminian position not devolve into open theism and/or a version of pelagianism? Do you believe that God has a perfect will as well as a permissive will? if so, do you have a scriptural basis for such a belief? What is it?
Keith
November 19, 2008 at 10:27 am
Tony,
1. For someone who supposedly helped prepare Allen’s message without even doing this basic fact-checking, you’re doing a really good job of being lazy here. You should have done this without needing to be prompted. I’m not gonna do your work for you. None of us should have to do Allen’s homework for him. If you persist in being ignorant on this, I’m content to let you remain so.
2. White definitely affirms that “God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” But in your narrow interpretation of this verse, and your ignorance of White’s (and others’) theology surrounding this verse, I have a sneaking suspicion you would find a way to twist this affirmation to anti-Calvinistic ends.
3. No, I haven’t listened to it. I’m deaf. BTW, I’m not “familiar” with his website for this reason. Much of it is un-captioned video, and therefore inaccessible to me. I’d love to see the transcript Keith above has. Yet much of what is accessible, including his commentary on many of the videos, directly contradict your (and Allen’s) assertion of hyper-Calvinism. If you’d bothered to do the legwork on White you’d know this without having to be told. Then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a Calvinist, either. However, I do know, have read, and have interacted with many Calvinists, as well as spent two years intensely studying Calvinism. I think it is not a stretch for me to say that your arguments, Allen’s, the entire John 3:16 panel, and the majority (if not all) of anti-Calvinists are nothing less than theological bull. The problem is that most of these anti-Calvinists have stopped up their noses and can’t smell their stench.
It is my firm conviction, developed over the last three years, that the worst thing to happen to non-Calvinists like me are anti-Calvinists.
November 19, 2008 at 1:46 pm
It is somewhat maddening that the same folks who bandy about the label “Hyper Calvinist” would be the first to complain if one was to attempt to attach the label of “Semi-Pelagian” even upon a full blown Pelagian.
November 20, 2008 at 3:05 am
I have seen the questions and issues that some of you raise in the above comments. I have been busy, but I will reply asap.
Tony
November 20, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Thomas,
Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
Tony,
You are welcome to respond to the questions and comments presented here. However, I am going to tighten the discussion in the future and moderate the direction of the meta to open it up for more people.
November 20, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Calvinism hits below the philosophical presuppositional belt. That’s why it’s such a hot item. Ironically, we get passionate when the heart of our thinking is challenged.
What I don’t understand is the objections to Dr. Baucham’s issues with Youth Ministry. I think it should be a welcome notion that Christian parents, fathers especially, should be the spiritual leaders in the home and the primary point of discipleship for their children. We encourage this in my church although we have a good youth program. We are also building discipleship in the church where adults who have been discipled by other adults are taking older youth one-on-one to disciple them to reinforce parental discipleship and help bolster them for the ideological challenges they will face after high school. This goes beyond mere churchy programming to building a way of being a faithful church in today’s world.
As for James White, I was in London a few months ago doing a similar ministry on the street. Many of us over there were 5-pointers. Several were not. We ENJOYED theological debates among ourselves during down time, and when we went to the street we were unified in message and purpose. I can’t see being put out over Calvinism, or anti-Calvinism for that matter, if you’re spending good time in the trenches.
Can God bring His own to Himself without using His flawed people? Sure. But I wonder if one reason He sends us out is because the practice of fulfilling the Great Commission plays a significant role in our sanctification. I know He teaches me new things about Him, and breaks me ever further with every evangelistic contact I make. I can’t get enough of Him and watching Him work in the lives of people who don’t even know Him yet. What a joy to see them come to life in Him. I also can’t get enough of what He does in me.
Instead of picking James White apart, why don’t they join or compliment his efforts?
November 21, 2008 at 12:46 am
Jim,
Regarding youth ministry, I was a youth minister for four years prior to going to seminary. I have seen the good and the bad. For the most part, I think Voddie is right, but I would not go as far as he does in the integration model. Minor issue, but I thought I’d chime in on that.
Regarding James White, you are exactly right. I am not a White apologist, but the dude is living out John 3:16 while his critics are holding a conference about it and call him names. Pick your fruit.
The role of evangelism and missional living in sanctification is indeed significant, more than I think most people realize. One of the reasons I love sharing the gospel with others is because I love hearing it myself. The joy we have in Jesus is not fulfilled, as Piper explains it, until that joy is extended into the lives of others through the fulfillment of the mission of making Christ known. May God grant that the satisfaction we have in him make us discontent with our failure until others are satisfied in Him as well.
November 26, 2008 at 9:01 am
[...] Ascol Responds to the Anti-Calvinism in the SBC Last week, I directed you to read the words of Voddie Baucham on the anti-Calvinism in the SBC. This week I want to turn your [...]