- Napkin Thelogy: If you can communicate it better with a quick drawing, why not?
- Just like universities agree to honor some of each others credit courses, four Reformed denominations and the Roman Catholic Church have agreed to honor each others infant baptisms. (For some this confirms that the CRC denomination is not evangelical.)
- Here’s how some churches look at the issue of copyrights involving music or materials. This example is not a good example, though.
- Church planters sometimes are often guilty of reacting to existing trends or conversely, copying existing trends. There are three other factors that can motivate planters, and certain risks and dangers in all five types.
- When you release a dove ceremonially, it’s not supposed to be attacked by seagulls.
- Should communion (Eucharist, Lord’s Supper) be done with a common cup or several cups? Actually, that’s not the issue; the real reason I posted this is because it’s a great example of taking Bible study notes.
- Or this question: Should Churches shift weekend service times to accommodate the Super Bowl game? Perry Noble’s church did.
- Last week Rachel Held Evans linked to a trio of articles with the common theme, Do Christians idolize virginity? One of the recommended articles is being recommended here as well; the story of a girl who believed that, in her words, I am Damaged Goods.
- For my local readers who enjoy Robin Mark’s annual visits here each summer, here’s the best version of the John Wesley song I can find. (YouTube audio.) Watched it three times on Saturday.
- Michael Belote has a very lengthy, heartfelt article on dieting that he then uses as springboard for looking at our spiritual diet. There are some great principles here including this question: Am I using the right fuel in the right amounts? This is a five-star blog post!
- We’re a bit late arriving at this one, but this February list transcends time. Here are 28 ways to show gratitude that are good anytime.
- Wanna start a church in Orange County, California? You’d be in good company, and there are currently 17 churches for sale.
- A New Jersey pilot credits her faith in God for her and her passenger surviving a crash in the Hudson River.
- When Michael Hyatt spoke to real estate professionals about social media, he discovered they didn’t know what to post to Twitter or Facebook. Here are his ten suggestions.
- Canadian hockey player Mike Fisher, now with the Nashville Predators, made Brad Lomenick‘s young influencers list for January. Here’s his testimony and a link to his Zondervan-published biography.
- The Calvinists gotta hate this song; but probably the Arminians are glad they have enough free will to turn off bad church music. Click for The Free Will Song.
- For something more contemporary… I’ve never been to the blimeycow YouTube channel before, but this take on five-minute instant worship songs, is far too cynical.
- …Click the images for sourcing from Clark Bunch’s blog (top) and Close to Home (below)…Feel free to add your favorite recent Christian blog links this week in the comments…
February 6, 2013
June 2, 2012
Apparently, this blogger isn’t the only one concerned with the way New Calvinist media — especially books and blogs — are dominating mainstream Evangelicalism. On Thursday,
“A group of current and former Southern Baptist leaders has signed a statement affirming what they call the “traditional Southern Baptist” understanding of the doctrine of salvation, with the goal of drawing a distinction with the beliefs of “New Calvinism.”
“The statement was posted May 31 at SBCToday.com and includes a preamble and 10 articles…”
The suggestion is that New Calvinism — or what I’ve referred to on this blog as militant Calvinism — is aggressively infiltrating Baptist thought in order to become the default doctrine. On a personal level, I’ve seen it happen here in Canada where Baptist bloggers have so strongly identified with the writings of YRR (Young, Restless and Reformed) authors that it defies understanding why they haven’t left their Baptist denomination in favor of the Christian Reformed Church.
The document further asserts that the “vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life.”
“We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology,” the statement reads. Soteriology is the study of the doctrine of salvation.
Each of the 10 articles includes a statement of what the signers affirm and what they deny. For instance, on the article about the Grace of God, the document says:
“We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.”
The statement then adds:
“We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.”
To read this statement in full, along with a reprint of the original ten-point statement, click here.
For the most part, the Reformed-dominated blogosphere has been somewhat silent on this, with most responses coming from within the Baptist movement where the SBC Today web page is more closely monitored.
Tom Ascol at Founder’s Ministries Blog disagrees with the document and has published three blog posts (so far, more to follow) to respond. Before expressing concerns in part three however, he does provide a charitable, concise summary:
In essence, I believe that those who have published it are concerned by the rise of Calvinism among Southern Baptists at all levels of convention life, from local churches all the way down to various institutions and agencies. They think that Calvinism represents the views of only a small minority while their own views represent the vast majority of Southern Baptists. They are concerned to be identified positively by what they do believe rather than negatively by what they do not believe (“non-Calvinist”). They have offered this document as a testimony to their beliefs and invite other Southern Baptists to sign it to show just how many agree with their views. By doing so, they do not want to intimidate or exclude Southern Baptist Calvinists, but rather are interested in asserting what they are convinced that most Southern Baptists believe on the doctrine of salvation.
At Pulpit and Pen, Jordan Hall writes:
…For example, consider the irony of articulating the “historic, traditional beliefs of Southern Baptists” by creating a new document. The premise itself is laughable. Could it just be our historic confessions and creeds do not suffice because they are, inherently, Calvinistic?
At the site BaptistTwentyOne, Jon Akin writes,
The statement is divisive for three reasons:
- It inaccurately and unfairly describes the theology of the “New Calvinists.”
- It implies that “New Calvinists” are having a detrimental impact on “contemporary mission and ministry” in the SBC without a shred of proof to back that up. It claims that the SBC has reached around the world with the Gospel “without ascribing to Calvinism,” and therefore fails to properly recognize that many godly Calvinists have contributed to the spread of the gospel through SBC cooperation in our history.
- It is trying to unite a segment of Southern Baptist around a new theological statement, when the BFM2000 is enough to unite us in theology and mission.
- I could be wrong, and would be happy to admit it, but I don’t know any Calvinist who is arguing in print or sermon to make “Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation, “ or “the standard view in Southern Baptist life.”
- The statement consistently responds to double predestination, therefore implying that this is the standard position of “New Calvinists,” when in reality it is a minority position, almost certainly an extreme minority. The statement only argues against double predestination and never really addresses what the biblical word “predestination” actually means in the text. The authors make it sound like the “New Calvinism” is fighting for double predestination, and that is simply not accurate.
Josh Buice at Delivered by Grace writes:
… As we move forward, do we want to be considered the “Fightin’ Baptists” or the “Religious version of the Hatifelds and McCoys?”…
…Furthermore, when SBC pastors, leaders, and professors sign this letter, it’s almost as if a line is being drawn in the sand and a request is being made for action. What should the action be? …
… Have we forgotten our history as Southern Baptists where we had Calvinists such as Lottie Moon, James P. Boyce, John L. Dagg, A.T. Robertson, John A. Broadus, and many others who served in our convention along with those who were less Calvinistic (Reformed) in their doctrine? They didn’t fight over it, throw mud, and pull out the heresy sword to use on one another. In recent history we have had Albert Mohler serving together with Adrian Rogers. Why are we headed down the broken road of schism over Calvinism today?…
There is more available online, and there will be even more as you’re reading this. William F. Leonhart III, provides some historical context; apparently this isn’t the first time.
We’ll give Jordan Hall the last word on this:
Perhaps most offensive is [David] Hankins’ appeal to consensus. He says multiple times that “the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Calvinism.” He may be right. Statistics show that the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Christianity, let alone Calvinism. The majority of Southern Baptists can’t be found on Sunday morning. The majority of Southern Baptists are on Synergist church-rolls and are either dead or apostate because of the watered-down and anemic, shallow theology of Finney-style revivalism and easy-believism, decision-regeration that has eaten away at the SBC like a cancer. But Hankins is right; the majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists.
But c’mon Jordan, tell us what you really think.
December 17, 2011
October 14, 2011
March 31, 2010
February 28, 2010
Thinking Out Loud is in repeats this weekend. This one, from March of last year really straightens out the whole doctrinal thing once and for all. A lot of denominational conflict could be cleared up if people just came to this blog to start with.
A former republic of the Soviet Union, Armenia is a unitary, multiparty, democratic nation-state with an ancient and historic cultural heritage. The Kingdom of Armenia was the first state to adopt Christianity in the early years of the 4th century (the traditional date is 301). The modern Republic of Armenia recognizes the exclusive historical mission of the Armenian Apostolic Church as a national church, although the modern Republic of Armenia has separation of church and state as its religion
Calvin Richard Klein (born November 19, 1942) is an Hungarian-American fashion designer. In 1968, he launched the company that would later become Calvin Klein Inc. In addition to clothing, Calvin Klein also gave his name to a range of perfumes, including CK One and CK Be (fragrances for both sexes), now owned by Coty Inc. Swatch Group manufactures watches and jewelry under the Calvin Klein and Calvin Klein Jeans brands.
September 14, 2008
There’s much debate today over the concept of OPEN THEISM. Oversimplified, this is the view that suggests to some that God leaves us to our choices and, again oversimplified, is utterly surprised by what we come up with. “Wow;” you can hear God allegedly saying, “Didn’t see that one coming.”
For the last six months, we’ve become addicted to sermon audio by Greg Boyd, pastor of Woodland Hills Church in Minneapolis; Greg is taking about a decade to preach through the book of Luke; and we truly appreciate the way Greg has a natural gift for sorting out doctrinal controversies. At least, he’s sorting them out for us anyway! Here’s the beginning of an article on Greg’s blog:
Sometimes little mistakes have big consequences. I think I may have uncovered one such mistake that took place two and a half millennia ago that continues to adversely affect people’s thinking about foreknowledge.
First a little background. As I’m sure most of my bloggers know, open theism (which I embrace) holds that, because agents are free, the future includes possibilities (what agents may and may not choose to do). Since God’s knowledge is perfect, open theists hold that God knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities. This view contrasts with classical theism that has usually held that God knows the future exclusively as a domain of settled facts. There are no “maybes” for God.
The debate is not about the scope and perfection of Gods’ knowledge, for both open theists and classical theists affirm God’s omniscience. God always knows everything. The debate, rather, is about the content of the reality God perfectly knows. It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real.
To continue reading this article — and I hope you will — click here.
Related article: We reviewed Greg’s book in this blog on March 28th; click here to read that item.