I am sorry to hear about your pastor friend. Yes, it is widespread and very disheartening, but God is faithful and will work out all things for the good of His people.

Newton’s Laws have been shown to be inaccurate at high velocity, high gravity, and subatomic levels, so, no, I’m not a Newtonist, but I have studied Newtonian physics.

Timmy, I think complaining that some in the SBC are mean to Calvinists (gross oversimplification for space and time) is counterproductive and could end up only making things worse. Looking at your latest post, if the non-cooperative non-Calvinists over power the others, they could conceivably come to the conclusion that the only way to fix this division is to clean house at SBTS. That won’t help anyone.

The theory that glorifies God most is the one that is correct. If Calvinist doctrines tell a nice story that isn’t true, God isn’t glorified. You may be right, you may be wrong, but simply painting a bigger picture of God’s sovreignty does not make you correct.

Timmy,
I don’t know if this is what you are looking for, but I found it interesting the way in which Jerry Vines described how saving faith works at J316C. He says, “It seems to me that God has given to every man a measure of faith . . . We use that faculty of faith every day. . . . Could it be that saving faith is a faith that is lifted to a higher level?”

Similarly Paige Patterson articulated what could only be termed as prevenient grace in describing a situation with a blind, disoriented pilot that was drowning out to sea after a crash who still had senses enough left to simply reach out and hold onto the rescuers that had come to save him.

This is, as far as I can tell, basic Wesleyan theology and a step short of pure synergism (in my opinion it is just masked synergism), which means it is for all intents and purposes semi-Pelagianism (right?). If this is the case, I think the question of which one is more glorifying to the God of all grace is a no brainer. (I am open to revision of this claim if people want to disgaree, but working on my own it seems like the most natural conclusion).

One of the things that plagues the SBC is a fundametalist ethic that is anti-intellectual, the fear that competing knowledge will not be able to be defended against. Consequently, the deeper doctrines tend to be left behind and the children remain children, weak and vulnerable.

There is an academic level, inquiry that is that is elite. That is, God has gifted the body with men (women too) who have highly motivated intellect. The level of discourse in that is “ivory tower” by necessity of the fact that the world is. God has not left us without witness nor those who are equipped to defend the faith at those levels. We cannot, as was the attitude of the Fundies, separate and not persue academia.

The problem is really, how then is what is given by God in those circles of academia, translated into “blue-collar” theology. We cannot simply dumb down, not expecting that the pewster will not comprehend. Instead what we want, what we are commanded, is to encourage maturity. The technical knowledge or the intellectual acuity does not need to be ubiquitous. Yet, we must teach with the goal being that all come into the unity of the faith, no longer being children, to the stature of the fulnss of the knowledge of the Son of God. There is no putting on the armor with it. It is, in fact, the mark of true salvation that the disciple matures in the knowledge of the Son. Both Hebrews, the end of 5 and the beginning of 6, and Ephesians, instructs us as to this matter. The lesser doctrines (not dispensable), are to be learned. But, there is more. That is where many have failed.

For instance, what is grace? What is meant by predestination, election, monergism, synergism, what is theology proper, soteriology, etc, and how do we then defend the reality of these theologies from Scripture. There is elite knowledge in each category, but it is not inaccessable to the blue-collar believer. The only thing that is necessary is for the gifted to translate to the disciples what the meaning is in terms that can be comprehended.

Why is there controversy? Is it not because the information that should have been part of the SBC missiology of education has been withheld from the very people which were meant to be served by it. In other words, the questions about the DoG, or Calvinism versus Arminian tendency, should not come as a surprise. Proper education would have prevented much of the disruption. It is as if something new or foreign has been introduced into the SBC. When in fact, as was mentioned, Calvinisim isn’t new, it is the foundation of the SBC. The real crime is that the man in the pew has had that information delivered to him, and meaning has been withheld.

The issues aside for a second of whether one system is true the other false or whatever critical analysis is made, the more basic issue, and one that is being played out by the expulsion of individuals for beliefs actually allowed in the BFM but which differ from the Arminian faction, is why the laity has be cheated out of a full growth ministry. I mean by that, this controversy should not be so divisive, and wouldn’t have been, had the leaders of the SBC done their job of education. Ignorance more than anything is destroying the flock, as it is written, “My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge.”

Our mission purpose has in this effect been largely abandoned. The reactionary stance of the common man in the pew is then to be expected. And, not only has the vital information been withheld, but as we are seeing, the truth is being supplanted by misinformation campaigns, whether intended or not. From reading the transcripts and listening to the tapes, one wonders if those who are paid to be faithful to educate have been educated themselves. That aside, the real answer, the only answer, to the division and disruption is open examination of the facts. If we could get past the defensive posturing (mostly from the majoritarians) and reengage what distinguished the Reformation from the Roman system, getting the truth to the people in their common language and understanding, and really explore the meaning of soul competency and of liberty, we could then move mountains or build bridges over them.