Nathan Finn on Calvinism and Cooperation
Over recent years, there have been a number of attempts at labeling Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. I have referred to Calvinists and those who are Calvinistic (not five-point Calvinists), and on the other side to non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists. My last post revealed some of the results from continued anti-Calvinism, and in the article prior to that I made the case that their latest agenda includes a redefinition of terms along with false labeling.
In light of this, I am happy to see that Nathan Finn has resurrected and slightly adapted an article he wrote earlier this year entitled “Some Thoughts on Calvinism and Cooperation.” In his article, Finn accurately notes four kinds of Baptists (with excerpts):
1. Non-cooperative non-Calvinists
“Non-cooperative non-Calvinists tend to misrepresent the convictions of Calvinists (Calvinists aren’t evangelistic) and use incorrect labels when discussing Calvinism (”hyper-Calvinism,” “militant Calvinism”). Though there are some well-known Southern Baptists that probably fit into this category, I suspect it is a minority position among well-read non-Calvinists. Non-cooperative non-Calvinism is an extreme position and is a threat to the future of the SBC itself, not just Calvinism within the Convention.”
2. Cooperative non-Calvinists
“Calvinism is not a threat to the convention, but plays a prophetic role in speaking out against much of the silliness and shallowness in the SBC, even if Calvinism does not always provide the best solution for those problems. . . . This is a reasonable position that will aid the Convention in building upon the foundation of the Conservative Resurgence as we move toward a Great Commission Resurgence.”
3. Cooperative Calvinists
“These folks are consistent Calvinists, meaning they affirm all five points of Calvinism (though there may be intra-Calvinist debates about the best way to articulate some of the points, particularly limited atonement). Cooperative Calvinists want to see the influence of Calvinism grow within the SBC. They are excited by both the renewed interest in the soteriological convictions of many of our Southern Baptist forefathers and the creative interaction between contemporary Calvinistic Southern Baptists and other Calvinistic evangelicals. Cooperative Calvinists think that Calvinism offers some good solutions for some of the problems in the SBC, but they are willing to work together with cooperative non-Calvinists within the Convention’s framework.”
4. Non-cooperative Calvinists
Like the above category, these folks are consistent Calvinists. Unlike the above category, non-cooperative Calvinists are unwilling to join hands with those who do not share all or most of their theological convictions. For these folks, Calvinism is the gospel, and it is as simple as that. Furthermore, the SBC is an almost hopelessly Pelagian denomination that needs to be rescued from the coming wrath of God. Calvinism is the magic pill that will solve all the SBC’s ailments.
Finn’s categories reveal the best attempt to explain what is going on the SBC. What he does not do, however, is reveal who specifically fit into each category. For the sake of clarity, I want to lay out some of these specifics.
Category 1 (non-cooperating non-Calvinists) would include those whom I have aforementioned as anti-Calvinists, including Jerry Vines, Steve Lemke, David Allen, Malcolm Yarnell, Ergun Caner, Elmer Towns, Bill Harrell, Nelson Price, Jack Graham, Bobby Welch, Paige Patterson, Fisher Humphreys, Norman Jameson, Lonnie Wilkey, John Connell, and Peter Lumpkins (among others).
Category 2 (cooperating non-Calvinists) would include Danny Akin, David Dockery, Johnny Hunt, Thom Rainer, Ed Stetzer, J.D. Greear, majority of SEBTS faculty, and Frank Page (among others).
Category 3 (cooperating Calvinists) would include Tom Ascol (Founders), Al Mohler, Mark Dever (IX Marks), Tom Nettles, Greg Welty, Darrin Patrick, Nathan Finn, majority of SBTS faculty, and myself (among others).
Category 4 (non-cooperating Calvinists) would include (1) those who equate Calvinism with the gospel, (2) argue for Calvinists to leave the SBC (and hold those who don’t as compromisers), and (3) think that non-Calvinists in the SBC who don’t hold to the doctrines of grace are unbelievers and need to be converted.
Let me make a few notes about these categories:
1. Over the past decade, those in the first category have dominated the discussion and forwarded the overwhelming majority of controversy regarding Calvinism. The presence and growing influence of Calvinism is a cause for lament and a catalyst to fight even harder.
2. There are those who have broke away from this camp to become more cooperative in recent years, not the least of which include Johnny Hunt and Frank Page. One can only hope that more of this happens.
3. I readily admit that there may be some overlap between the first and second category. For instance, Allen, Yarnell, and Patterson may not want to rid the SBC of Calvinism, I would still categorize them non-cooperating non-Calvinists by virtue of their record.
4. Those in the first category want to call those in the third category, especially Tom Ascol and Founders, as non-cooperating (aggressive, militant, extreme, etc.) Calvinists. Informed and experienced Baptists know this not to be the case (ask those in category 2).
5. Those in the fourth category are discouraging to me as a Calvinist and dangerous to the cause of Baptist cooperation. For some time, when they commented on my blog, I have passively allowed them to share their thoughts. However, I have chosen to take a more intolerant approach to the non-cooperating Calvinists as I do not want my blog to be a comfortable or accepted place for their agenda to spread on the internet.
6. I realize that some may not like where I have categorized them, and I may be wrong in my assessment. I would love to be convinced that there are far more cooperating non-Calvinists than non-cooperating non-Calvinists, and I would be happy to consider the merits of their position.
The Great Commission Resurgence and renewed focus on gospel-driven consensus is the primary goal of those in the second and third category, and the cooperation and shared commitment of these Southern Baptists are where we will find hope for the future of the SBC. I am not in the least bit interested in associating with those in category 4 even if we align soteriologically on the doctrines of grace. Frankly, as long I blog on these issues, I do not want either anti-Calvinists or anti non-Calvinists to throw up on my front yard.
There’s a fine line between exposing the factious agendas of those in the first and fourth camps while not giving them an opportunity to continue to influence the discussion. That is the challenge that lies ahead for those in the second and third category. May God give courage and conviction to those cooperating Southern Baptists, both Calvinist and non-Calvinist, in forging ahead in spite of all the carnage of the past. It is time for a new day where the mission of God governs our lives, the gospel of God shapes our conduct, and the glory of God propels our churches to serve together, give together, and go together for the sake of His name.
Tags: Calvinism, Cooperation, SBC
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
December 9, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Patterson seems to me like he could fit in Category two at times. I honestly can’t think of anyone in the fourth category by name. I know they exist, I just pay so little attention when I hear that kind of argumentation that the names fail to stick with me. They sound too much like Charlie Brown’s teacher.
BTW, I think some people are not going to be happy with your list, Timmy!
December 9, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Brent,
I think you are right about Patterson, but I still consider him more of a non-cooperating than cooperating non-Calvinist. I also realize that some will not like my list, but perhaps this will serve as a good time for those non-cooperating Baptists to change their position (both Calvinist as well as non-Calvinist).
December 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm
In support of Brent’s assertion, may I point to the article Dr. Patterson wrote for us at SBC Today, to which we recently re-linked, and ask if he might not be qualified for category two, on the basis of that essay, as well as on the well-received “debate” with Dr. Mohler from 2006?
December 9, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Thanks Wes. I will take a look at that article. Was this previously available online?
December 9, 2008 at 11:01 pm
He wrote it for us last year, right after the Building Bridges conference. That’s when we first posted it, then we linked to it again last week. The link has been on our “resources” page.
Have a good evening.
December 9, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Thanks Wes. May you have a good evening as well. Grace and peace.
December 10, 2008 at 12:16 am
Not sure why Fisher Humphreys made your list.
I doubt he’s been to the annual meeting of the SBC in nearly two decades. I do see Humphreys at most moderate Baptist events that I’ve attended, specifically the yearly General Assembly of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. He’s not a Southern Baptist.
Even if he were – Humphreys plays nice with his boss, Timothy George at Beeson. They’ve been cooperating together at Beeson for years now. Despite his criticisms of Calvinism, Humphreys can’t honestly be considered a non-cooperative non-Calvinist.
December 10, 2008 at 1:11 am
Can I sign up for category #3?
-Andrew
December 10, 2008 at 2:06 am
While I would probably differ with the details of the categories, I must say it is refreshing to read an article that did not use the pejorative terms. It seems that in the last few years, both sides (myself included) automatically knee-jerk to the worst terms possible. Being called a Pelagian and an Arminian is wearisome, especially since I espouse neither view. However, I must confess that my first response in those cases was to throw the “hyper” prefix. Dr. Finn and Pastor Brister have taken some of the venom out of the discussion, and for that you are to be commended. I hope to follow the example and not respond with such broad strokes.
By the way, Brent, I saw where I am on the list, and I am not upset. It is a mere fact, so I cannot be upset! I am unsure of the others in category #1, but I believe it is fair to put me there. Of course I would hasten to add a former colleague of Dr. Finn, my brother. There are days where he makes me look like a diplomat.
My only caveat would be the categories themselves, but that cannot be helped. If I could make a general comparison, it would be like someone from my side of the fence referring to theologians as “Non-cooperating non-Dispensationalists,” etc. At LU, we are pre-trib and premill, but I cringe when we use that category. I am uncomfortable using Darby as a marker. I do understand the need, for the sake of clarity, but I always felt theology seemed quite comprehensive before J.N.
Again, thank you for the article and blog, and the reminder that this discussion can exist without caricature. I needed it.
December 10, 2008 at 8:01 am
Dr. Caner, Thank you for that calm, well-thought out response. I have only come across a small number of you comments online, but this is by far the most gracious I’ve seen. I hope those in the future will take the same path and I’m sure it will help the rhetoric on both sides be a little calmer.
I’m a little confused when you say you are not upset and your placement on the list is a ‘fact.’ Does this mean you admit openly that you don’t want to cooperate with Calvinists? Or were you just referring to what you mentioned earlier that you had used ‘hyper-’ and some other reactions (in response to those from others) that you shouldn’t have used?
Basically, I’m asking if you’re fine with staying in category #1 or do you think in the future you’d like to be seen as better falling in the #2 category?
December 10, 2008 at 8:36 am
Ergun,
Like Brent, I appreciate the manner in which you have taken to dialogue here. We both agree (and I think others would amen this) that the past is a bad record of unnecessary rhetoric, mean-spiritedness, and bombastic commentary.
Mentioning names in the categories came with no ill-will but the hope of forwarding the discussion so that we can determine those who want to cooperate and those who don’t. You said that you are fine being in the first category. Does that mean you are unwilling to cooperate with Calvinists in the SBC who would be willing to cooperate with you? If not, could you explain why?
Again, thanks for commenting and doing so in such a cordial way.
December 10, 2008 at 9:29 am
Timmy,
Great post done in a tone that has been missing from much of this discussion. I have one question: why are there no specific names listed in the category of non-cooroperating Calvinists. Since the other three categoriest were given specific representatives, I think it is only fair to name some of the clearest representatives of this camp as well. Thanks for your work brother!
December 10, 2008 at 10:02 am
Timmy,
You appear, at least to me, to place entirely too much confidence in your categorizing scheme. To query Dr. Caner because he is “fine being in the first category” with “Does that mean you are unwilling to cooperate with Calvinists in the SBC who would be willing to cooperate with you?” is absurd. It is Founders such as yourself that has, without fail, consistently assigned him a seat there! I mean, please. You’re actually querying if Dr. Caner desires to exercise his free will and move to the second category?
As for your “hope of forwarding the discussion” by “Mentioning names” in order to “determine those who want to cooperate and those who don’t” I suggest, Timmy, is so blatantly lop-sided, that I have not seen much to compete coming from this side. Of course, Founders perhaps see such lop-sidedness as objective. Even so, Timmy, I imagine the opposite of your hope will surface; that is, there’ll probably be some heels digging down deeper still.
With that, I am…
Peter
P.S. It would be telling if Dr. Finn weighed in on your category assignments. I’d be interested in his appraisal…
December 10, 2008 at 10:11 am
John,
There are no names in category 4 because I don’t know of any influential guys in the SBC who hold to this position. I know some who have commented on blogs or who have blogs, but just about every Southern Baptist I know would not know who they were. Instead, I have attempted to show their agenda which I disagree with as much as those in the first category. If you know of some noteworthy or prominent non-cooperating Calvinists in the SBC, feel free to let us know.
December 10, 2008 at 10:14 am
Peter,
Thanks for attempting to derail a cordial dialogue with Ergun. I hope that those who are seeking to argue with you will do so on your blog. I have talked to Finn, and he is not interested in your interest of my commentary.
December 10, 2008 at 10:35 am
Perhaps the most helpful thing would be to invite people to categorize themselves. You might email each of the gentlemen mentioned above and inquire as to how they perceive their own categorization.
But I’ll bury the lead and save what I believe to be my most salient suggestion for last. The most helpful analysis might be to conduct some sort of a study of WHAT MOVES people from one category to another. I feel like a very cooperative non-Calvinist right now. I’ve read some things in the past that have pushed me temporarily closer to what Tom has termed “anti-Calvinism.” I’ve never actually occupied that space, but my position within the “cooperative non-Calvinist” continuum has meandered occasionally.
I don’t want to facilitate people in abandoning responsibility for their own actions and attitudes, but I can tell you that, as a non-Calvinist, I do want to try to avoid being responsible for the creation of any more non-cooperative Calvinists.
December 10, 2008 at 10:55 am
Bart,
I wouldn’t mind that. I would also like to know, furthermore, what can and would be done for the sake of cooperation should those I put in the non-cooperating categories consider themselves as such. In other words, I think it is healthy for non-Calvinists to have good discussion on points where they may disagree with Calvinists, but the record is full of caricature, misrepresentation, and unhelpful commentary. In other words, is there any reason to believe that the future will be any different than the past? I think both sides would want that to be the case, but the way Calvinism is being addressed will have to change.
In the same way, I do not want to be responsible for non-cooperative non Calvinists. I hope that the movement from one category to another is more to the center and not to the extremes.
Thanks for your comment, and I will make the quick edit and delete your correction.
December 10, 2008 at 11:00 am
Cooperation implies mutual interest in working together toward a common goal. What is the cooperation test for Calvinists in the SBC? What does it mean to me that I am considered by Calvinists to be a “non-cooperating” non-Calvinist? Nothing. That is not intended as insult. It is simply a statement that says I have no idea what “cooperating” with Calvinists in the SBC would look like to Calvinists in the SBC. No one wears a scarlet C on their sweater so unless a person mounts a soapbox who is going to argue with them about being a Calvinist? There is no identity that keeps a Calvinist from swinging a hammer in disaster relief, or joining a mission team or serving in a soup line, or help;ing the new neighbor carry his boxes into the house. So, like Ergun, I’m unaffected by placement in any slot and anyone’s list. You want cooperation? Feel free to join me in the next Operation Inasmuch or digging a well in Bihar, India.
December 10, 2008 at 11:01 am
Timmy,
I am with you, I can think of nobody on the national scene who would fall into category #4.
It is my prayer that all of those who are in category #1 would move into category #2, and that all of us who are in category #3 would make cooperation more than just a by-word, and would actually embrace our Baptist brethren in true Christian love and fellowship.
I was especially pleased to see Brother Caner’s kind words above, and pray that they would be a model for discussion emulated by all parties.
December 10, 2008 at 11:37 am
I did enjoy the post, Timmy. I wish Peter would be as gracious as Dr. Caner was, but hey
I’ve noticed several folks commenting that “cooperation” seems to be a vague term, or at least undefined in this context (although that may be unjustified, and I may be missing the applicable context elsewhere). How, and to what extent, would the “cooperation” being spoken of here be defined? As I’ve heard a favorite of author of mine note – “definition is 65% of the battle”. I’d appreciate that clarification 
December 10, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I agree. To me, Dr Yarnell’s willingness to at least engage in discussion and participate in a conference like building bridges puts him in category 2 – but perhaps you are looking for a bit more in terms of attitude, approach, or something along those lines. Paige Patterson as well.
Dr Caner, I likewise am very interested in your response to the question which has been posed here. If it is your desire to engage in more edifying and profitable discussion and leave behind the rhetoric of the past that would certainly be wonderful news.
December 10, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I have an observation about placement in category 1. I consider myself a category 3 cooperative calvinist (don’t we all), but I think there is a tendency amongst calvinists to confuse doctrinal confrontation with personal attack. In other words, if someone states their biblical case as to why they are not calvinist, or why they oppose certain calvinist doctrines, that is sometimes viewed as anti-calvinism.
If we want the sovereignty of God in salvation to have a fair hearing among Southern Baptists, we have to be willing to receive rebuttal to our beliefs.
This is not a blanket thing or an accusation against all calvinists. It is just an observation from reading blogs and some of the back and forth in the recent debates. We are sometimes to quick to throw the flag against those who oppose calvinism. Some are certainly uncooperative.
But if we are going to call ourselves cooperative, we have to be willing to listen to let those who disagree forcefully argue against what we believe.
December 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Dave Miller,
I think that you have made a great point. I think that fact that category #1 has been fully populated in this post, while category #4 remains entirely vacant serves as evidence in favor of your observation.
December 10, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I very highly doubt the problem here is forceful argument against Calvinism. The problem here is those who, quite frankly, take such “doctrinal confrontation” and use it as a personal attack. If all the folks in category 1 were doing was “forcefully arguing against Calvinism,” no one would really have a problem at all. In fact, I think we’d be thriving because we’d all be seeking to understand what the Scriptures teach.
Instead, it seems as if many in group 1 are using their “forcefulness” to try and start an “Inquisition,” so to speak, which seems to want Calvinists run out of the convention and its churches. This “Inquisition” has no qualms with using caricature, misrepresentation, personal attacks, and in some cases outright lying about Calvinism and Calvinists in pressing their “forceful arguments.”
The question is whether this group will calm down and realize the greatest potential for the advancement of the Gospel lies in the reason for the existence for the SBC: cooperation. Are these people going to keep the main thing the main thing, or are they going to continue to go off on tangents? Here’s the interesting thing I’m noticing: many of these guys are convinced they are defending the Gospel in their anti-Calvinism. Sadly, all they’re really doing is putting stumbling blocks in front of the Gospel.
Everything I’ve said here can be equally applied to “anti-non-Calvinists,” of course; it ought to go without saying.
I’m reminded of something Dr. Chad Brand said in one of his systematic theology classes I was in, when he was asked by a student if he was a Calvinist:
“Yes, but I’m potty-trained.”
The amount of wisdom contained in those few words are, to me, legion. We all need to be in big-boy underwear on this issue. It’s unseemly to still be in diapers.
December 10, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Dave and Bart,
Anti-Calvinism, as I have argued, is furthering the agenda of making Calvinists unwelcome in the SBC or furthermore making it harder (sometimes impossible) to participate in Southern Baptist life. The influence of all these men in one way or the other have contributed to the antagonism that has spread throughout the SBC.
For instance, in the most recent statement where David Allen says that five-point Calvinism is a move away from the gospel, do you not see how that can be (and is) used against Calvinists? The bogus study of Steve Lemke with Founders churches, the “evangelical Calvinism is an oxymoron” of Nelson Price, the unfounded attribution of “militant, aggressive, extreme, hostile, etc.” charges by Vines and others, the misuse and misapplication of hyper-Calvinism by Yarnell and Lemke, and so on–do you not see how the continued antagonism has created a culture of anti-Calvinism in the SBC such that, for instance, DOM’s are filtering out resumes of Baptists Calvinists and preventing them from opportunity to serve in associational churches? What about the Arbuckle Baptist Association in OK? What about the propaganda against Calvinism sent to the every pastor in Missouri, Texas, and Florida? What about the repeated motions at annual meetings to challenge Calvinism? The Baptist Press articles of Baptists lamenting Calvinism? The popularizing idea that Calvinists don’t believe in missions or evangelism?
These are not merely “doctrinal confrontations.” They are creating a culture intolerant and unwelcome to Calvinists in the SBC. The reason the four category is blank is because Calvinists have spent almost all their efforts trying to appeal for an accurate presentation of their position which time and again gets caricatured. Where are the Calvinists who have written “white papers,” op ed pieces in state papers, used sharp and divisive rhetoric at convention speeches or conferences? Should you provide the names and sources of such a man or woman, I will fill in the vacancy (assuming they carry some influence in the SBC).
Personally speaking, I have a three year record of writing about the controversy of Calvinism in the SBC. I encourage anyone to look into the archives and see if I have ever argued for an intolerant and militant approach towards non-Calvinists. At times where there was disagreement, it was always around “doctrinal confrontation” but never with an agenda to be non-cooperative with non-Calvinists. The issue from the beginning has been to expose the writings, speeches of Baptists which have contributed to the anti-Calvinism in the SBC where ministers are unnecessarily fired and seminarians are intentionally marginalized.
Calvinists are not wanting to see a divide in the SBC. They are wanting to be able to cooperate without having to defend themselves on a monthly basis from charges that are not true by denominational employees who are paid by the same cooperative program dollar. If Calvinists had such a long and continued history of attacks, then I would say that there is an anti-Arminianism in the SBC, but it just isn’t there.
December 10, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I would be curious to see whether there is anyone who would fit the criterion listed for #4 in the post in any sort of leadership role or vocal position in today’s SBC. I can think of a few outside, but nto even there can i think of many. Especially saying that those who are not calvinists are “heretics”. Calvinists call those folks, who are usually new to the doctrines, “Cage Stagers” – ie: they should be locked in a cage until they get over it, and are useful for service
In all seriousness, most of the folks i can think of in #4 would be true hyprs, or cage stagers. They are either doctrinalyl whacked, or far too new to be in any sort of leadership role.
December 10, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Yes, indeed, those Calvinist who aren’t yet potty trained.
December 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm
In the hopes of finding areas of agreement and cooperation, I would offer the following suggestions for starters:
1. Agree to disagree on matters of substance and do so with a firm commitment to the gospel and sincere love for one another.
2. Not all doctrinal issues are worthy of controversy or divide. I don’t believe Baptist’s have to believe in limited atonement, but we would all have to believe in substitutionary atonement, no?
3. Both sides express to one another the concerns they see that are dangerous to the health, vitality, and progress of Southern Baptists. If anything, seek to understand each others concerns and try to work for a change that seeks the interests of Southern Baptists, all Baptists.
4. Denominational leaders on both sides take a strong stand against non cooperating Baptists on both sides, and with a unified voice speak to the events that are contrary and counter-productive to the gospel-centered consensus and great commission resurgence we are collaborating together around.
5. Provide opportunity for there to be productive discussion with more light than heat, and more love than light. We don’t need to avoid the doctrinal issues. We just need to learn to address them in a more mature and measured way.
6. In the areas of SBC life whether in academia or denominational bureaucracy or grass roots level where there is pockets of antagonism and non-cooperation, we will inform one another about these areas and seek to address them in a spirit of humility and grace.
That’s just some ideas off the top of my head. Anyone has any other suggestions, please pass them along.
December 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I don’t know who should or shouldn’t be in category one, but I think a good rule of thumb is someone who says “I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters, but”. What comes after the “but” is really what is useful in determining where people are. If they say “but I’m not a Calvinist myself” then there’s no more to be said. But if they come out with something lame like a warning against a lack of evangelism, then they’ve gone off the rails.
I think a lot of non-Calvinists are fine with Calvinists in the SBC as long as they stay a small minority.
December 10, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Mr. Brister (Rev? Dr? – I dont’ know) I was not directing my comment above at you. Honestly, this hasn’t been one of the sites I have frequented, so I don’t know enough of your writing to characterize it.
I am a Calvinist who tends, sometimes, to be more critical of calvinists than of our theological opponents. I am more likely to criticize Republicans, because I am one. I am more sensitive to the behavior of calvinists because I am one.
December 10, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Dave,
You can call me Tim.
Thanks for the clarification and for visiting the blog. I appreciate your desire to hold those with whom you align yourself to a higher standard than those with whom you disagree. That is an honorable approach to take, and I am glad you mentioned it.
December 10, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Timmy,
I would like to share a brief comment about myself as a calvinist and Dr. James Merritt a noncalvinist. Tonight he and I went to visit a friend of mine who’s wife was a former Jehovah Witness for 20 yrs. I asked Dr. Merritt to join me as we shared the gospel with her and showed her the errors of the Jehovah Witnesses.
We both took turns talking with her with an open Bible. We have set up a dinner with Dr. Merritt and Teresa, my wife and I, and the couple who is my friend . They agreed to visit CrossPointe where Dr. Merritt pastors. We set up further mtgs with the couple so we continue to share the gospel.
I was blown away tonight how God has blessed James Merritt with a Biblical mind and ability to use the Greek. It was scary but in a good way. I would hate to debate him on anything. What was precious was the prayer time he and I shared before the visit and how we worked as a team in sharing the Gospel and the prayer time afterwords. I submit that cooperating noncalvinist and calvinist can work together. Sadly, my friend does not embrace the deity and divinity of Christ however, they have run from the Jehovah Witnesses. Praise God !! She came forward during an invitation and was asked to prayer a prayer but she said no one talked to her one on one. She got a call the next day to be baptized and she realized she is not saved. It broke Dr. Merritt’s heart and mine as well. I appreciate my cooperating noncalvinist friend(James Merritt) in setting up future mtgs with this couple . We can work together.
December 11, 2008 at 8:58 am
Enjoy the blog.
Unfortunately, I think Caner DID NOT reply because he meant what he said. He is a non-coop, anti calvinist. I did appreciate his tone however.
Unfortunately, I think Lumpkins DID reply because he is, in fact, a non-coop, anti calvinist. I did anticipate his tone however.
SL1M
December 11, 2008 at 11:31 am
And I had suspected Scott Morgan of being category #4!
Only to find out that he went out witnessing with James Merritt! No wonder you can’t find any names for that category!
-Andrew
December 11, 2008 at 11:56 am
Andrew,
For a while I was so frustrated with the noncooperating noncalvinist that I was actually becoming point #2 under noncooperating calvinist however, I took a deep breath(Just let the Scriptures minister to me) and I realized that these guys are my brothers whether they aggravate me or I aggravate them. In all seriousness let it be known that I love brother Ergun, Emir, Dr. Vines, and etc… . You know it’s not fun walking around angry at fellow brothers all the time.
Sadly, I remember a wrestler on TV(Wrestling is real) I still believe it(Kidding) named Brother Love and he was funny to watch. I now have become Brother Love of the SBC. So, for the record lets find areas where we agree and work together to promote the Gospel and disciple the newly converted and already existing members of of churches. Brother Love….. I like that !
December 11, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The question or comment I have is about the classification of 2 and 3(Cooperative). I would classify myself a cooperative bible believing Baptist(I choose not to say calvinist or not because I don’t think it should matter quite frankly). The problem I have found is that class 3 calvinist what everyone to believe in the 5 points(4 point without limited atonement or substitutionary atonement) and they feel that if they could JUST make the better arguement everyone would agree and we would all be calvinist. I have a FIRM understanding of the 5 points and don’t agree with all of them. But I can and do choose and desire to work with calvinist without all the time feeling like they are trying to “convert me”. So now we have both perspectives because many of you have said the SBC wants you out and I am here to say that might be true but many of you want the non-calvinist out of the SBC by trying to convert them to Calvinism.
December 11, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Bart,
If it makes you feel better you can put my name in #4
Like Dr. Caner I am not upset or embarrassed to be in that category… although as Timmy correctly says almost no one in the SBC knows who I am, except perhaps you, Wes, Tim, and Robin.
Grace Always,
December 11, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Timmy, I can cooperate with non calvinists, but not those who openly oppose The
Doctrines of Grace.
No man can grasp these Doctrines unless The Holy Spirit reveals them to his heart and mind.
Everything I know, came by Revelation, on my knees, with an open Bible, asking the Holy Spirit to teach me the Word.
December 11, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Cooperate with Calvinists and you make converts to ATHEISM, not Christianity. Going around telling people “Our god held a lottery and you lost–go burn now for his glory” can’t make Christians, only Atheists and Calvinist blasphemers.
December 12, 2008 at 2:35 am
This whole theology, bible studying thing must be new to rey.
rey, here is some homework for you. First, find out the greek word for “lottery”? Second, keep studying scripture until you find it used at least once.
Thanks.
SL1M
December 12, 2008 at 9:25 am
rey, let me get this straight. You think salvation and the entrance into God’s kingdom is better left up to man. Man who when placed in a perfect environment choose to disobey God instead of submitting to His will. rey, if you had been Adam what choice would you have made? Let me answer for you, the same one Adam did and I would have too. Or should it be left to a perfect God is righteousness and just in all that He does. He created the universe and sustains the universe. He asked His Son to leave the splender and glory of heaven to come suffer, live a perfect life tempted in all ways as we are yet without sin. He gave Himself for me to satisfy the wrath of God and placed upon me His righteousness so that I might be adopted into His family and become a part of His kingdom. So rey does the Bible teach that this is left to man or to God? Do you depend upon what you have done or what He has done? Just some question for you to think, pray and look to scripture to answer.
December 12, 2008 at 9:25 am
I would just like to make a revision to one person in your categories… while I am a cooperating Calvinist, I went to the Building Bridges Conference, T4G, and am quite saddened with the John 3:16 Conference… a person in category 2 who should be in category 1 is Frank Page… while at the Conference an older gentleman was in the back row crying and I came to find out later that Frank Page had fired him several years prior from his position as Music Minister/Worship Pastor for his views on Calvinism… Frank Page made a political move showing up at the conference to save face, but the proof is in the pudding… I also want to say that Dr. Finn is my favorite professor of all time I have taken him for 4 different classes and am taking his 5th this next semester… he is an encouragement to me as a Calvinist in the SBC who loves being Baptist and wishes to press on for the Gospel.
In Christ,
Chris
December 12, 2008 at 11:53 am
This “rey” is one of the Category 4 people mentioned here. He’s not the droid we’re looking for. Move along. Move along.
December 12, 2008 at 11:53 am
Scuse me, Category 1.
December 12, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Timmy,
I see what you meant about taking some heat over blog post…
It was good to chat with you!
Yogi
December 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm
You don’t do missions before long when you realize that missionaries are far from perfect. In spite of this, my experience with doing missions with a mix of cooperative Calvinists and cooperative non-Calvinists is that when the gloves come off and are clasped in prayer only to be extended with the gospel of Christ do the theological differences become academic. I’ve never met a theologically conservative cooperative non-Calvinist or Calvinist who didn’t believe in both God’s absolute sovereignty and man’s responsibility in sin and trust in the power of His Holy Spirit to accomplish the work. The fact that God uses His people in the fulfillment of the Great Commission is, I believe, a huge theological equalizer and sanctifies the missionary as much as it evangelizes the lost. For whether we know all truth, we are nothing without love.
December 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Thanks, Timmy. Great article.
I did want to ask this: I sometimes don’t know what to do when my choices are only “Calvinist” and “Non-Calvinist.” I know we have to have “markers,” but what exactly is a “Calvinist?” I certainly consider myself more of a Calvinist than a Calvinist. I have problems with the way some “Calvinists” formulate and express the 5 points, and problems with the places where some people draw the mystery line. I have some actual substantial agreement with some versions of limited atonement.
But, on the whole, I tend to find much more agreement with the “doctrines of grace” than I do disagreement. Does that make me a “non-Calvinist”?
The essence of Calvin’s soteriology (per the Institutes), imo, is 1) the priority of God’s work in salvation; 2) the pre-eminence of God’s glory in salvation; 3) the sovereignty of God in the spread of the Gospel; and 4) that God owes no man salvation.
I enthusiastically embrace all of those at the core of my soteriology. That’s why I wonder if ‘non-Calvinist’ is a helpful label for guys like Danny Akin, me, and Ed Stetzer?
A Pastor in Search of his theological identity
,
J.D. Greear
December 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm
note: 3rd line, 2nd paragraph should read “I certainly consider myself more of a Calvinist than a NON-Calvinist.”
Evidently even less careful grammatically than I am theologically,
J.D. Greear
December 30, 2008 at 11:20 am
J.D.,
Great to hear from you. I think that asking the question, “What Is a Calvinist?” is a great place to start. There is so much misunderstanding that there are five versions of Calvinism among three Baptists who then attach words like Dortian, Five-Point, extreme, aggressive, moderate, etc. From what I hear, you might be a Christmas Calvinist (no-L).
But seriously, I am inclined to think of you, Ed, and Dr. Akin as Calvinists, although historically Calvinists consider limited atonement a necessary tenet. Perhaps there could be a distinction between Calvinistic and Calvinist – I don’t know. In any case, what we need is both clarity on our theological positions and charity when dialoging with those we may disagree.
BTW, I want to talk to you, if you have time, about the church planter center you guys have put together. NAF, Doug Baker, Bruce Ashford, and others have been keeping me informed on what is going on, and I would love to hear more about it.
Thanks for commenting.
Tim Brister
December 30, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Thanks, Tim. Will look forward to connecting with you.
December 30, 2008 at 1:05 pm
P.S. No -L is great, I’ve never heard that. Would it make you feel better that we sing mostly Calvinistic songs during our invitations, like “You have Decided I’ll Follow Jesus”?
December 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well, I got the “Christmas Calvinist” terminology from Nathan and Doug. I figured you would have heard that before from those jokers.
Your invitation variation sounds quite nice, I must admit. Make sure there is a key change on the third stanza.
Take care man, and I too look forward to connecting.