I grew up in Tifton, GA in a church situated on the corner of W. 20th Street and N. Ridge Ave. Anyone who knows me well will also know that I esteem Northside Baptist in the highest regard possible. Men who have shaped my life and understanding of the Gospel walked alongside me while I was at Northside. The two obvious are Robert Winter and Fred Evers. However, lay men like Dwight Moore, Jack Thompson, David Moore, Richard Woods, Ron Goodwin (when he was on staff), Jack Gibbs, and others pointed me along the way. I do not know all of the history of Northside in its most intricate details, but I do know that the church planted in 1953 on that corner of 20th and Ridge using a circus tent for its gathering. For weeks and weeks (Fred, Robert, correct me if I really miss the details here), the church grew and the realization was made that the tent was not big enough. So, construction began on what we knew at (old) Northside as the Rainey building.
As Southern Baptists, or whatever it is that we will be called following this year's meeting in NOLA, we have held to a confession of faith that we all adopted in 1925, with its following revisions in 1963 and 2000. We know this statement as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (here on, BFM2000) and it has provided a canopy under which our convention churches rally together for the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This canopy has never intended to supersede God's Word in its authority or intent. However, it has been a guideline for what Baptists have understood to be the parameters of orthodox biblical teaching. In recent years, there has been discussion over certain elements of the BFM2000 and the extension of some of its parameters. Some of the discussion has been launched into the forefront of Baptist life with a recent statement affirming a traditional statement of Baptist beliefs as it pertains to God's plan of salvation. This is a statement to which I have willingly and prayerfully affixed my name as an endorser of its content. I will post the actual articles of the statement in a separate post momentarily. I will not post the entire preamble as I believe it overstates the case in many regards.
On facebook I have also posted several articles in recent days related to this statement on salvation and the defense or explanation of some of its points. I do want to be clear that my purpose in posting these particular articles has not been to ostracize those that disagree with the vantage point. Rather, the purpose has been to allow those that were part of the drafting of this statement extrapolate the meaning behind their wordings. What has ensued has been a discussion over the finer points of Calvinism or "reformed theology" or "the doctrines of grace". Let me be clear again: I do not reject adherents to these points of theology, nor do I dismiss their beliefs as rubbish or meaningless, ill contrived, theological pablum. Some of my more fruitful conversations in ministry have come from men who love God, but have a slightly different view on the extent, intent, and application of the blood of Christ than do I. The question may well come up, "Well, if it is this big of a disagreement, then who is right?" This is where we must defer to our greater canopy as Baptists in the BFM2000 and ultimately (please don't miss the highlight, underline, italics, and bold font used) the Scripture as authoritative.
With the division in our Convention of churches over what do we do with "Calvinism" we must seek a middle ground on which we can all agree as a biblical basis. I use " " with "Calvinism" because it has been right pointed out by David Allen ("Within the broad spectrum of the Reformation, none of the first generation reformers on the continent or in England affirmed limited atonement, including Calvin." see: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/08/recovering-the-gospel-why-belief-in-an-unlimited-atonement-matters/ ), Danny Akin ("Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught. This system would ultimately be codified through the now famous acrostic TULIP." see: http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2012/06/08/divine-sovereignty-and-human-responsibility-how-should-southern-baptists-respond-to-the-issue-of-calvinism/ ), and others, that much of what we know of today as "Calvinism" was a later development under Theodore Beza, a disciple of Calvin. It might be more rightly deemed "Bezanims" rather than Calvinism.
I fully affirm the statement made by Dr. Paige Patterson that "There’s plenty of room under the [Southern Baptist] umbrella for anyone who is anything from a one- to five-point Calvinist" (As quoted by Malcom Yarnell: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/11/the-tulip-of-calvinismin-light-of-history-and-the-baptist-faith-and-message/#more-8396). That umbrella is the BFM2000. I have encouraged our church people to read and to learn what the BFM2000 says. In our new member material, I supply any person desiring membership of our church with a copy of the BFM2000 so they will know the full doctrinal statement to which we adhere before they finalize their decision to join. In case any of you are unfamiliar with some of these terms, here is what the BFM2000 says concerning Salvation and Grace:
I fully understand that many in our churches have not thought through these issues and implications, much to the chagrin of pastors on either side of the line who want to see more and more depth in their people. Personally, I do not know any pastors who want their people to remain fruitless and flail in the winds of change without grasping the deeper truths of discipleship (though, I am aware of some who are out there, and some who are closer to our fellowships than we might think). I believe that we can all agree that the purpose of the church is to equip God's people as disciples of Christ. The operative here is "of Christ", so we must get them there first before discipleship can begin. I do think that Vines and others in the SBC are correct in their assessments that SBTS and SEBTS (from where I proudly hold a Masters of Divinity) are growing hotbeds of "Calvinist" doctrine. I do think there is legitimate concern over church pragmatics in these discussions. However, I do not think that SBTS (Al Mohler) or SEBTS (Danny Akin) are mutually exclusivists when it comes to some of these doctrines. While Mohler is a "5 point Calvinist" and Akin appeals to the "compatablist" view (I do think David Allen is correct in his assessment of the "compatablist view"), not everyone who comes from these institutions are hyper-calvinist junkies that affirm double predestination; jettisoning of the SBC, CP, and assocational missions; regard deacons as overly pious, biblically irrelevant, obtrusive, glorified table waiters; etc. I say that because I know it is the caricature often given in order to rouse irrational fear of what will happen if the "Calvinists" take over. However, I hold a degree from SEBTS under Danny Akin, as does my wife, and we are two of several who do not fit that bill. IN THE SAME WAY, not everyone at SWBTS, NOBTS, GGBTS, MWBTS are semi-pelagian idiots that don't know the difference between God's initiative and our responsibility, think we should only sing Gaither songs every Sunday, parade our deacons as God's gift to the church, mandate all men to wear coat and tie, read only the KJV, and force the women to sit in the backroom and never speak because "Paul said so".
As Jerry Vines notes (which is found at the beginning of the preamble to this statement on salvation), "This statement is intended to start a much needed debate and, like the BF&M, is not intended to be the final word on all things soteriological" (see: http://www.jerryvines.com/blog/it-is-time-to-discuss-the-elephant-in-the-room/). I think it is of utmost importance for you and me and all around us in this discussion to keep a sense of humility when it comes to important matters like salvation. Do I know how it works? No. But, I also defy anyone to prove that they have the upper hand on the matter. Jesus came and died for sinners. Period. Our world is full of sinners. Period. I am a sinner. Period. I need Jesus. Period. Yes, I believe that God offered me a wonderful gift of salvation and yes, I believe that I had to choose to accept it. He took the initiative, I took the gift. That is the same appeal that I make to all who enter my church: you have earned death, but God has offered you life (Romans 6.23). What are you going to do about it? All He asks is for you to reach out and take it.
I could go on, but I will draw it to a close here. Is our canopy big enough? I believe it is. I believe that my church has room for Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I believe the SBC does as well. However, I do not believe that our canopy is big enough to sustain the mudslinging and rhetoric on BOTH sides. I appreciate men like Dr. Frank Page who have said they will not affix their name to this statement, not because they disagree with what it says, but because the want to see a consensus statement made. I also appreciate men like Matt Chandler who is unapologetically reformed in his theology, but leads an organization bent on reaching lost souls and discipling them in Christ. I also appreciate men like Paige Patterson, who have fought long and hard for the Word of God, the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, and our convention, leading two of our institutions to a firm grasp of who we are and what the Bible says, while affirming the free choice we must make in response to God's Gospel. There is room under the canopy as long as we pursue the truth, but also pursue love. Exclusion of either will forsake our Gospel call in Christ.
As Southern Baptists, or whatever it is that we will be called following this year's meeting in NOLA, we have held to a confession of faith that we all adopted in 1925, with its following revisions in 1963 and 2000. We know this statement as the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (here on, BFM2000) and it has provided a canopy under which our convention churches rally together for the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This canopy has never intended to supersede God's Word in its authority or intent. However, it has been a guideline for what Baptists have understood to be the parameters of orthodox biblical teaching. In recent years, there has been discussion over certain elements of the BFM2000 and the extension of some of its parameters. Some of the discussion has been launched into the forefront of Baptist life with a recent statement affirming a traditional statement of Baptist beliefs as it pertains to God's plan of salvation. This is a statement to which I have willingly and prayerfully affixed my name as an endorser of its content. I will post the actual articles of the statement in a separate post momentarily. I will not post the entire preamble as I believe it overstates the case in many regards.
On facebook I have also posted several articles in recent days related to this statement on salvation and the defense or explanation of some of its points. I do want to be clear that my purpose in posting these particular articles has not been to ostracize those that disagree with the vantage point. Rather, the purpose has been to allow those that were part of the drafting of this statement extrapolate the meaning behind their wordings. What has ensued has been a discussion over the finer points of Calvinism or "reformed theology" or "the doctrines of grace". Let me be clear again: I do not reject adherents to these points of theology, nor do I dismiss their beliefs as rubbish or meaningless, ill contrived, theological pablum. Some of my more fruitful conversations in ministry have come from men who love God, but have a slightly different view on the extent, intent, and application of the blood of Christ than do I. The question may well come up, "Well, if it is this big of a disagreement, then who is right?" This is where we must defer to our greater canopy as Baptists in the BFM2000 and ultimately (please don't miss the highlight, underline, italics, and bold font used) the Scripture as authoritative.
With the division in our Convention of churches over what do we do with "Calvinism" we must seek a middle ground on which we can all agree as a biblical basis. I use " " with "Calvinism" because it has been right pointed out by David Allen ("Within the broad spectrum of the Reformation, none of the first generation reformers on the continent or in England affirmed limited atonement, including Calvin." see: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/08/recovering-the-gospel-why-belief-in-an-unlimited-atonement-matters/ ), Danny Akin ("Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught. This system would ultimately be codified through the now famous acrostic TULIP." see: http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2012/06/08/divine-sovereignty-and-human-responsibility-how-should-southern-baptists-respond-to-the-issue-of-calvinism/ ), and others, that much of what we know of today as "Calvinism" was a later development under Theodore Beza, a disciple of Calvin. It might be more rightly deemed "Bezanims" rather than Calvinism.
I fully affirm the statement made by Dr. Paige Patterson that "There’s plenty of room under the [Southern Baptist] umbrella for anyone who is anything from a one- to five-point Calvinist" (As quoted by Malcom Yarnell: http://sbctoday.com/2012/06/11/the-tulip-of-calvinismin-light-of-history-and-the-baptist-faith-and-message/#more-8396). That umbrella is the BFM2000. I have encouraged our church people to read and to learn what the BFM2000 says. In our new member material, I supply any person desiring membership of our church with a copy of the BFM2000 so they will know the full doctrinal statement to which we adhere before they finalize their decision to join. In case any of you are unfamiliar with some of these terms, here is what the BFM2000 says concerning Salvation and Grace:
IV. Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.
C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.
D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.
Genesis 3:15; Exodus 3:14-17; 6:2-8; Matthew 1:21; 4:17; 16:21-26; 27:22-28:6; Luke 1:68-69; 2:28-32; John 1:11-14,29; 3:3-21,36; 5:24; 10:9,28-29; 15:1-16; 17:17; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 15:11; 16:30-31; 17:30-31; 20:32; Romans 1:16-18; 2:4; 3:23-25; 4:3ff.; 5:8-10; 6:1-23; 8:1-18,29-39; 10:9-10,13; 13:11-14; 1 Corinthians 1:18,30; 6:19-20; 15:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; Galatians 2:20; 3:13; 5:22-25; 6:15; Ephesians 1:7; 2:8-22; 4:11-16; Philippians 2:12-13; Colossians 1:9-22; 3:1ff.; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 2 Timothy 1:12; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:1-3; 5:8-9; 9:24-28; 11:1-12:8,14; James 2:14-26; 1 Peter 1:2-23; 1 John 1:6-2:11; Revelation 3:20; 21:1-22:5.
Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.
All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
Genesis 12:1-3; Exodus 19:5-8; 1 Samuel 8:4-7,19-22; Isaiah 5:1-7; Jeremiah 31:31ff.; Matthew 16:18-19; 21:28-45; 24:22,31; 25:34; Luke 1:68-79; 2:29-32; 19:41-44; 24:44-48; John 1:12-14; 3:16; 5:24; 6:44-45,65; 10:27-29; 15:16; 17:6,12,17-18; Acts 20:32; Romans 5:9-10; 8:28-39; 10:12-15; 11:5-7,26-36; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; 15:24-28; Ephesians 1:4-23; 2:1-10; 3:1-11; Colossians 1:12-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; 2 Timothy 1:12; 2:10,19; Hebrews 11:39–12:2; James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:2-5,13; 2:4-10; 1 John 1:7-9; 2:19; 3:2.
The overwhelming reality of our condition before God is that we need a Savior who can fully cover the sin guilt we have before God. Danny Akin is exactly right in his statement that we, as the church, must not shy away from words like elect, predestined, foreknew, chosen, etc. (see article previously linked). The issue becomes when we elevate our understanding of these words as the authoritative word on their meaning without fully realizing the implications of what it is we are saying. The truth is that the canopy is big enough, but we must elevate candor over rhetoric. Am I reformed or "Calvinistic" in my thinking? No. Do I think that the "Calvinists" are wrecking the SBC and have no right to posit their beliefs? No. I see wisdom in the words of Jerry Vines on this point: "I gladly affirm the right of the New Calvinists to set forth their views, though I may not agree with them. Those who read Scripture differently should have the same right...Further, there must not be attacks, nor elitist and dismissive remarks toward those with whom we disagree" (see: http://www.jerryvines.com/blog/it-is-time-to-discuss-all-of-the-elephant-in-the-room/ ). This is why I will not post the full preamble to this statement of salvation because it is dismissive to those who have the right to search out God's Word. My caution to all (myself included) is that we not allow any "ism" to detriment our understanding of God's infallible, inerrant Word (see David Crosby, Pastor FBC New Orleans: http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/10/calvin-is-my-fallible-friend/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sbctoday%2FnPcS+%28SBC+Today%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher).
As Jerry Vines notes (which is found at the beginning of the preamble to this statement on salvation), "This statement is intended to start a much needed debate and, like the BF&M, is not intended to be the final word on all things soteriological" (see: http://www.jerryvines.com/blog/it-is-time-to-discuss-the-elephant-in-the-room/). I think it is of utmost importance for you and me and all around us in this discussion to keep a sense of humility when it comes to important matters like salvation. Do I know how it works? No. But, I also defy anyone to prove that they have the upper hand on the matter. Jesus came and died for sinners. Period. Our world is full of sinners. Period. I am a sinner. Period. I need Jesus. Period. Yes, I believe that God offered me a wonderful gift of salvation and yes, I believe that I had to choose to accept it. He took the initiative, I took the gift. That is the same appeal that I make to all who enter my church: you have earned death, but God has offered you life (Romans 6.23). What are you going to do about it? All He asks is for you to reach out and take it.
I could go on, but I will draw it to a close here. Is our canopy big enough? I believe it is. I believe that my church has room for Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike. I believe the SBC does as well. However, I do not believe that our canopy is big enough to sustain the mudslinging and rhetoric on BOTH sides. I appreciate men like Dr. Frank Page who have said they will not affix their name to this statement, not because they disagree with what it says, but because the want to see a consensus statement made. I also appreciate men like Matt Chandler who is unapologetically reformed in his theology, but leads an organization bent on reaching lost souls and discipling them in Christ. I also appreciate men like Paige Patterson, who have fought long and hard for the Word of God, the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, and our convention, leading two of our institutions to a firm grasp of who we are and what the Bible says, while affirming the free choice we must make in response to God's Gospel. There is room under the canopy as long as we pursue the truth, but also pursue love. Exclusion of either will forsake our Gospel call in Christ.
As a note, the articles I have posted on fb are not meant to be divisive (as some may perceive), but are rather explanations by the authors of the statement on salvation (otherwise posted) on the particulars of each point. It is for informational purposes only. :)
ReplyDelete