Doctrines that Abuse

This post was inspired by a long and sometimes heated discussion over on Wade Burleson’s Blog titled "Do Southern Baptists Set Women Up for Abuse?"

I do not wish to discuss in this post the sad reality of the abuse of women in our society, regrettably even in the SBC… I think that topic has been more than covered on Wades Blog…

What I wish to discuss in this post is the cause and effect relationship of our doctrines and our actions, and how a single thread of bad doctrine can compromise the fabric of our collective theology.

“Individual doctrines are but single threads woven into the fabric of our collective theology…” Taken by themselves each thread can seem an insignificant thing… Yet each thread impacts the pattern of the weave so that the whole is changed by every single thread that is woven into the fabric.

There are many threads that make up the fabric of SBC theology (and traditions) that taken by themselves appear quite insignificant, yet when woven together they can completely compromise the fabric of our collective theology and thereby become a deadly snare to our faith and the downfall of many in our churches.

Case in point – Can there be any doubt that there is a strong relationship between the reluctance of some Southern Baptist Pastors to recommend divorce for any reason (including abuse) because a divorced man, regardless of the reason, is treated like a “Leper” in the SBC. Is this the reason why some Southern Baptist Pastors are reluctant to believe the woman in cases of abuse; for fear that if he is ever divorced, regardless of the reason, he will be disqualified from ministry in most churches and agencies in the SBC?

Interesting that the abuse of men by the SBC (disqualifying a man from service when God has not disqualified him is indeed abuse) might just be a significant contributing factor in the abuse of women in the SBC. You see how the enemy of the soul does not discriminate between men and women… he seeks to destroy the faith of all God’s children.

We must ask ourselves; “How many rotten threads have been woven into the fabric of our collective theology (and traditions) over the years that needs now to be carefully removed?” Can they be removed without the total unraveling of the cloth? I am hopeful that in time, with patience, and with God’s grace they can, but I am under no illusion as to the danger and difficulty of the task.

Grace Always,

johnMark on Christless Christianity

johnMark has put up a post on Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton

This is another article that should be required reading for all Pastors and Laymen alike in the SBC…

It takes great courage to speak truth in an age of self deception…

The “supposed” Christian man of today is altogether satisfied with himself… He has followed the prescribed rituals of the Church of his choosing, yet with little or no evidence of “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit”. And placing his trust in these man made religious rituals (Walking an isle, praying the sinners prayer, etc.) he comforts himself against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, closes his eyes, and refuses to hear the warnings of the faithful minister of God’s Word. Yes, the voice of God’s faithful Ministers falls on deft ears for; the “supposed” Christian man of today is altogether satisfied with himself…

Give us courage Lord to speak truth in an age of self deception…

Grace Always,

Michael Spencer on "Additional Doctrines," Baptist Style

Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk) has put up a great article called “Additional Doctrines,” Baptist Style that is most worthy of reading. Make sure you take the time to read all the comments as they are very enlightening.

Sola Scriptura… Need I say anything else?

Grace Always,

Pelagian Beliefs in the SBC

Recently I struck a “raw” nerve with Bart Barber, Tim Rogers, Wes Kenny, and Robin Foster over the issue of Pelagian beliefs in the SBC. I say that I struck a “raw” nerve with these guys because after posting a comment over on SBC Today saying that the “vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another…” Tim Rogers sent me an email to inform me that my comments were going to be “Censored” and Wes Kenny posted a comment on my Blog telling me that I was more than likely going to be banned from posting on SBC Today.

Now, I’m a big boy and I really don’t care if they ban me from posting on SBC Today or not, after all it is their blog and they can do as they please. However, I am a somewhat concerned by the extreme reaction of these Landmark guys over at SBC Today and I intend to post an article about that issue in the next few days. But really I am not all that concerned because neither of these guys are very influential in the SBC, nor is the Landmark movement they are a part of likely to gain many converts with these guys as the head of it’s PR department.

So, what is Pelagianism and is my comment that the “vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another…” true?

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation.

Pelagianism is overhwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380’s A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam’s sin merely “set a bad example” for his progeny and Jesus “set a good example” for mankind (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning.

Pelagius cleared himself of charges, primarily by hiding his real beliefs; however, at the Council of Carthage in 418 A.D., his teachings were branded as heresy. The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., again condemned Pelagian doctrine and it was banished in the Greek portion of the church. However, in the West, the teachings held on, primarily in Britain and Gaul.

Pelagian teaching was replaced with Semi-Pelagianism which sought a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, but it too was condemned at the Second Synod of Orange in 529 A.D. However, elements of Semi-Pelagianism continued in the Western (Roman) church. It emerged again after the Reformation in modified form in Arminianism which was rejected by the Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619

A.D. (source: Theopedia.com)

That the vast majority of Southern Baptists hold to Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another is without question. Regardless of how embarrassed and uncomfortable some of my Landmark friends might be over my stating this publicly, it is nevertheless absolutely the truth as the above definition of Pelagianism makes it all to plain to see.

Here are the major areas of agreement between what Pelagian taught and what most Southern Baptist believe today:

1st - Pelagianism views humanity as basically good.

Most Southern Baptist view humanity (human nature) as basically good - This can be seen in that the majority of Southern Baptist believe that the “Will” of man is absolutely free to choose what is good or what is evil. And while most would not deny that there are evil people in the world, most would attribute their being evil people in the world due to the evil choices they have made, and not because they are by nature corrupt.

2nd - Pelagianism denies the imputation of Adam’s sin.

Most Southern Baptist deny the imputation of Adam’s sin – This can be seen in that most Southern Baptist believe that children are born in a state of innocence, just as Pelagian taught, and only become guilty before God after they commit actual sin. Pelagianism is the ideology behind the so called “Age of Accountability” which most Southern Baptists have adopted in order to explain how children dying before they make a profession of faith can go to heaven.

I am sure that better theologians than I can give a far more complete list of shared beliefs between Pelagian and the majority of Southern Baptist today, however I believe I have effectively proven my point.

Now, the question is; “why are my Landmark friends so embarrassed by me stating this truth in public?” I think I understand why, but what do you think is the reason for their obvious embarrassment?

Grace Always,

Calvinist Blasphemers

Recently I ran across a comment by one of those “Angry Anti-Calvinist”, who is ashamed to give his real name, while reading an article on Timmy Brister’s Blog that exemplified for me the impact, and danger to the SBC, of having prominent SBC Leader host and participate in such events as the recent John 3:16 Conference.

rey Says: 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.

I then followed the link to this “Angry Anti-Calvinist’s” Blog where I was treated to the following comment by rey/beowulf2k8:

A Hyper-Calvinist is a Calvinist who admits to believing what all Calvinists believe. A regular Calvinist is a Hyper-Calvinist trying to convince non-Calvinists by lies that he doesn’t believe what all Calvinists believe. All Calvinists believe that their god is the author of evil and that this god causes each and every sin that is committed then punishes the puppet for doing what he made it do, but that he also arbitrarily elected some puppets to escape punishment for what he made them do.

Posted by beowulf2k8 at 7:07 PM

How in the world can any Calvinist cooperate with this kind of an attitude? For cooperation to exist and flourish in the SBC there must be at the very minimum some decorum of civility, and acceptance of the views of the other side. What I see coming from the Anti-Calvinist is no desire for acceptance and cooperation with Calvinist, but instead only Anger, Rejection, and a strong desire to Exclude Calvinist whenever possible.

If this is the kind of attitudes that Jerry Vines Ministries is producing in the SBC then we are indeed headed for some very troubling days ahead.

Grace Always

SBC Today "Censors" My Comments!

My comments have just been censored over on SBC Today… (Laughing Out Loud) Now, was I censored for using offensive language? Nope! Was I censored for personal criticism, or name calling? Nope! Was I censored for displaying a hostile spirit? Nope! So what was my crime over on SBC Today? Apparently I am being censored for “calling the majority of SB heretics”.


Tim Rogers sends me the following email:

Brother Greg,

After discussing your last comment with Robin and Wes, we have decided to moderate your last comment. If you would like to re-submit without calling the majority of SB heretics, then be our guest.

Blessings,
Tim

Now I want to be upfront with everyone that I did not once use the word “Heretics” in any of my comments. And even if I did, I do not feel that would rise to the level of offensiveness that it needs to be Censored by the Baptist Idenity “Thought Police” over on SBC Today.

So I will post my exchange with Bart Barber that got my hand spanked by my Brother in Christ Tim Rogers and let you be the judge.

(I have removed the comments in the original post that were not related to this discussion)

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Greg Alford,

I, for one, am really confused. You recently indicated at your blog:

“And when you take any one of the 5-points away you diminish the Gospel and in truth you have no Gospel at all… what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism, both of which have been condemned as preversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (heresy).” (See here)

So, you have explicitly anathematized as heretics all four-pointers, three-pointers, and so forth. Two questions come first to mind:

1. Why on earth would you take such interest in the actions of a convention full of heretics bound for perdition? Why such grave concern over Wes’s viewpoint, CB’s viewpoint, or any other such person?

2. Although the Landmark Baptists called all other denominations as false churches, they acknowledged the true believers in their midst as fellow Christians bound for heaven. Yet you, who condemn all who do not cross every T, dot every I, and affirm every L in the same way as you to be heretics and condemned, dare to call them arrogant and closed-minded?

???

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm

You know, come to think of it, you must be calling OURS false churches as well, unless you believe in true churches entirely led by and populated with heretics.

Greg Alford Says: December 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Bart Barber,

1st of all my esteemed brother I sate a fact of History when I say that Semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism have both been condemned as Heresy. This is a fact that I am sure you are aware of brother Bart, so are you saying that you agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine? And that they should not be considered Heretical?

2nd Salvation is not found in mastering correct theology, there are many who incorrectly or imperfectly understand the great gift of god’s grace in salvation (4-3-2-1 pointers) that are nonetheless saved. I never once said that those who are not 5-point Calvinist are bound for perdition. Brother I say enough stupid things for myself
I don’t need your help in adding to the list.

3rd Brother, should not I be just as concerned about my convention as you? Or are you hinting that I should just give up and get out?

4th Bart you really are confused! Just where did I ever say that those churches who are not 5-point Calvinist are not true churches? No brother, do not paint me with your own detestable Landmark brush, that is something I most certainly do not agree with! And to prove it I will be glad to show up at your church and take communion with you… now the question is, am I welcome?

Grace Always,

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Greg Alford,

Please pardon my dimwittedness. Foolishly I drew the strange and unwarranted conclusions that:

“when you take any one of the 5-points away” = anyone holding any less than 5 points (i.e. 4, 3, 2, 1)

“in truth you have no Gospel at all” = not just an imperfect understanding of the gospel, but a complete lack of it (i.e. “no Gospel at all”)

“what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism” = anyone holding any less than 5 points are really Semi-Pelagians or Pelagians.

“both of which have been condemned as . . . (heresy)” = these folks are condemned as heretics. So, forgive me for concluding that you meant what you wrote, rather than something else.

Bart Barber Says: December 9th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Now, after thinking it through for a while, I think I have it.

We are not heretics, we are just people who believe a heresy. Our churches are not false churches; they are true Pelagian churches where you would gladly share communion with us as a memorial to the gospel that we have not at all.

Greg Alford Says: December 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Bart,

As your brother in Christ how could I not Pardon your dimwittedness.

Now, go forth and dimwit no more…

Grace Always,

Greg Alford Says: December 9th, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Brother Bart,

I have already confessed to saying “Stupid” things, so it is little wonder that you misunderstood my meaning.

I have explained my comments here, but if you will not take my word for what I actually believe then there is little else I can say that will change your mind.

By the way, you have not answered any of my questions. Which leaves me to only assume the worse?

Grace
Always,

Bart Barber Says: December 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Greg,

Which questions?

Greg Alford Says: December 10th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Bart,

(From comment #47)

Are you saying that you agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine? And that they should not be considered Heretical?

Are you hinting that I should just give up and get out (of the SBC)?

Am I welcome (to partake communion with you)?

Grace Always,

Bart Barber Says: December 10th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Greg,

I do not agree with Semi-Pelagian or Pelagian doctrine. My disagreement with your comments (gosh, MOST people’s disagreement with your comment) is that I do not believe that, for example, Russell Moore at Southern Seminary is a Pelagian or a Semi-Pelagian.

If you are recanting from your statement that all who are not 5-point Calvinists are heretics, then I think it would be fine for you to remain in the SBC. But if you were indeed to believe that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are Pelagians of some stripe, then yes…leave…leave now.

Are you welcome to participate in the Lord’s Supper at our church? I can’t really answer that entirely. I know of no reason why you could not, but participation in the Lord’s Supper should only come after careful self-examination for any areas of stubborn rebellion in sin. I cannot confidently say that Bart Barber should participate in the Lord’s Supper when next we celebrate it. But the topic that has been before us is whether a person who has refused believer’s immersion should partake. I believe that such a one should not, but I presume that you do not belong in this category.

Greg Alford Says: (Your comment is awaiting moderation.) December 10th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Bart,

I agree with you that most people disagree with my statement… gosh, most people think that they are saved by saying the magic words and clicking their heels together three times.

“recanting”… I should rather suffer the flames of the Protestant Martyrs than recant from the Gospel of my Fathers.

As I have stated above “Salvation is not found in mastering correct theology, there are many who incorrectly or imperfectly understand the great gift of god’s grace in salvation (4-3-2-1 pointers) that are nonetheless saved.

Bart, I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are Pelagians of some stripe… And you have only reinforced this conviction.

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation

Pelagianism is overhwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

Pelagius was a monk from Britain, whose reputation and theology came into prominence after he went to Rome sometime in the 380’s A.D. The historic Pelagian theological controversy involved the nature of man and the doctrine of original sin.

Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on (or transferred) to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam’s sin merely “set a bad example” for his progeny and Jesus “set a good example” for mankind (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.

The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the effects original sin were passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that mankind’s nature was thereby corrupted. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were influenced by his sinful nature and he was unable to refrain from sinning.

Pelagius cleared himself of charges, primarily by hiding his real beliefs; however, at the Council of Carthage in 418 A.D., his teachings were branded as heresy. The Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., again condemned Pelagian doctrine and it was banished in the Greek portion of the church. However, in the West, the teachings held on, primarily in Britain and Gaul.

Pelagian teaching was replaced with Semi-Pelagianism which sought a middle ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, but it too was condemned at the Second Synod of Orange in 529 A.D. However, elements of Semi-Pelagianism continued in the Western (Roman) church. It emerged again after the Reformation in modified form in Arminianism which was rejected by the Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619 A.D.

(source: Theopedia.com)

Yes Bart, the vast majority of Southern Baptist hold Pelagian beliefs of some sort or another… You may not like to admit this, but can you prove me wrong? You may not claim Pelagian as a Brother, but clearly Pelagian would claim the majority of Southern Baptist as Brothers.

Bart you say to me “Yes…leave…leave now.” (Smiling)

Grace Always,

**************************************************

At this point I received the email from Brother Tim Rogers informing me that the above comment was going to be Censored.

To which I respond Wow!

Our “Baptist Identity” Brothers must be really feeling the heat if they censored that comment.

Well, what do you think? Was I out of bounds?

Grace Always,

More on the Anti-Calvinism in the SBC

Follow this link to read:

More on the Anti-Calvinism in the SBC

Just a reminder to Jerry Vines, Johnny Hunt, SWBTS, NOBTS, and all Southern Baptist… Our Non-Baptist Evangelical Christian Brothers are watching and listening to what our Seminary Professors and Denomination Leaders are saying.

Are you embarrassed yet? I Am!

Someone needs to tell these guys to STOP this war on Calvinism before serious and lasting damage is done to the SBC and the Evangelical Community as a whole.

Grace Always,

Old, Angry, and Arminian!

“Old, Angry, and Arminian” accurately describes how many Calvinist in the SBC view those who gathered at the now infamous John 3:16 Conference, sponsored by Jerry Vines Ministries and hosted by the President of the SBC, at First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia. “Old, Angry, and Arminian” may seem like a provocative title, however seeing that the John 3:16 conference was itself provocative toward the Calvinist of the SBC, I am of the opinion that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Yes, yes, I know these men do not claim to be Arminian; however “Old, Angry, and Pelagian” just does not have the same ring to it as “Old, Angry, and Arminian”. :-)

Dr. Allen, speaking at this conference is quoted as saying “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.” This statement was received, by the ‘cool-aid-drinkers’ who paid good money to hear this kind of diatribe, with a standing ovation. A standing ovation… let that sink in. These guys are; passionate, aggressive, and yes hyper anti-Calvinist. The new generation of Calvinist in the SBC has been described as “Young, Restless, and Reformed”. Those gathered at this conference came off as “Old, Angry, and Arminian (Anti-Reformed), and I’m of the opinion that their ongoing war against Calvinism will not end well for the SBC.

Let me be very clear in saying that Dr. Allen is “Dead Wrong” in his analysis of what a return to 5-point Calvinism would mean for the SBC. In truth, should the Southern Baptist Convention move away from 5-point Calvinism, as Dr. Allen suggest, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the Gospel at all. Actually the SBC moved away from 5-point Calvinism at the turn of the 19th century and embraced a; Semi-Pelagian, Decisional Regeneration, False Gospel. And today in the SBC we have children being baptized in fire trucks with all the lights flashing and the bells ringing, and children at VBS putting their pictures in the basket marked “Heaven” instead of the burning barrel marked “Hell” and then told they are now saved. No, Dr. Allen we have seen what a move away for 5-point Calvinism produces and we want nothing to do with it.

I am in full allegiance with Spurgeon when he says“Calvinism is the Gospel!” And when you take any one of the 5-points away you diminish the Gospel and in truth you have no Gospel at all… what you have is Semi-Pelagianism or full blown Pelagianism, both of which have been condemned as preversions of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (heresy).

More than a few bloggers have posted reviews of this conference; for their views see: (Andrew Lindsey, John Mark, Timmy Brister, and Justin Taylor).


Grace Alwasys,

Warning - They are Out There!

On the “SBC Voices” blog last night I ran across (or got ran over by) one of the most angry, aggressive, and belligerent, Anti-Calvinist I have come across in a long time. I post this not because this person said anything new, (I have heard all this before) but I post this because of my growing concern that such “hate” is being fostered in the SBC by those who hold conferences in order to “Address Calvinism in the SBC”.

This person posted under the name of Jeannie and left no means of contact (note, Jeannie is probably not this persons real name). This person came in late on the discussion (comments #44, #47) but wasted no time in making his/her belligerent views toward Calvinism known.


Comment #44

Jeannie 11.18.08 at 9:45 pm

The best thing a church can do is preach the Gospel of God, not the gospel
of John Calvin. Since they’re the opposite, the choice should be easy to the one who ‘believes’ the Word (God) is Sovereign (the truth).

It hard to believe that God was Sovereign to Mr. Calvin when in his opinion (judgment) of the Word at John 6:29, he says, “First, it is plain enough that Christ does not speak with strict accuracy, when he calls faith a work, just as Paul makes a comparison between the law of faith and the law of works,” (See Calvin’s opinion of the inspired Word of truth by Paul at Romans 3:27.)

Unlike Pilate, Mr. Calvin saw fault in the Word (Christ), and reformed (corrected) it/him to fit a faith of his own (that faith ‘is not’ a work to be accounted as merited by a man and rewarded). (See Abraham at Gal 3:6/James 2:23 and Heb 11:6)

Anyway, Calvinism isn’t called the “reformed” faith for
nothing. I for one refuse to have my faith (the Word of God) reformed
(corrected) by any man.

… (remainder omitted)

Comment #47

Jeannie 11.19.08 at 12:32 am

Do you believe Calvin practiced doctrines of Grace? If so, you haven’t studied his life. As the sovereign of Geneva, his grace was cruel. Whereas Christ died for the ungodly, Calvin burned them instead.

No Calvinist should complain that he’s not well received in other churches, be they Southern Baptist or whatever. WHAT are they doing in our churches anyway? We don’t want their doctrines and they don’t want ours. As far as our churches go, Calvinists need to mind their own business, like the other Christian cults do.

2 Pet 2:1-3 explains Calvinists in our churches….

Comments Anyone?

Voddie Baucham on The SBC and Calvinism

Voddie Baucham has posted an article titled “The SBC and Calvinism: A Personal Perspective”.

Voddie writes of his fall from grace with the powers that be within the SBC “I was still part of the gang. That is, until I came out of the closet. 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…”

If you still believe that there is not a war being waged by the powers that be in the SBC against the Calvinist of the convention then don’t take my word for it… go read Voddie’s article for yourself.

Grace Always,

Calvinism in the SBC- An Open Letter to Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines

Todd Burus has written an Open Letter to Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines concerning the wisdom of the John 3:16 Conference...

This letter was written on October 6, 2008 and what has Todd heard from the President of the SBC and Jerry Vines... "Crickets"

That in itself is very telling about these two men...

You can read Todd's letter here: Calvinism in the SBC- An Open Letter to Johnny Hunt and Jerry Vines

Also we have learned that both the Founders Ministries and Rc Sproul's Legonier Ministries requested booth space at this conference and were turned down. What does the President of the SBC have to say about this extremely un-courteous if not openly hostile behavior by either the staff of First Baptist Church Woodstock Georgia or the staff of Jerry Vines Ministries? Whichever staff was handling this event Johnny Hunt is responsible as it was held at his Church under his authority.

The more we learn about this John 3:16 Conference the more one must question the wisdom of all those Calvinist who voted for Dr. Hunt to become President of the SBC?

Grace Always

A Seminary Student’s Thoughts on the John 3:16 Conference

JohnMark has put up a short yet excellent summary of what the John 3:16 Conference held at Johnny Hunts Church in Woodstock Ga. was really all about…

I was going to write a post on this Conference, but for some reason I never got around to it… probably because I am soooooooo tired of all this “Hatred” of Calvinism coming from these Anti-Calvinist... Particularly Jerry Vines!

A quote form James White:

“If you can evangelize, call men to Christ, believe in common grace, etc., and still end up smeared by the "hyper" name, then clearly the debate has devolved down to a level beneath what is proper for believers.”

As I have commented on other blogs, I am pretty much through with these guys and I do not intend to ever again attend an event or conference where a single one of them are speaking, nor will I ever recommend SWBTS or NOBTS as a good choice for a young man or woman to attend seminary. And I plan to be around for a least another 40 or more years, so I hope to be advising the next generation of where to attend Seminary for many years after the above mentioned Anti-Calvinist are long gone home to be with the Lord.

Anyway, here is the link to the excellent summary of the John 3:16 Conference… you really should go read it.

A Seminary Student’s Thoughts on the John 3:16 Conference

Florida Baptist Giving in Freefall

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/9163.article

As bad as the 2.5 Million (or 7.8%) decline in total giving for the first six months of 2008 is; many fear that the financial outlook for the Florida Baptist Convention is going to get much worse in the months ahead. Knowing that the economic downturn has gotten much worse than it was during the first six months of 2008, I think one can safely assume that the Florida Baptist Convention is in for some very hard times ahead.

If giving stays at the current level the Florida Baptist Convention could see its total giving shrink by an astonishing 5-Million by the end of the year. However, considering the shape of the economy I think everyone is expecting the finial shortfall to be well over the 5-Million mark.

But is all the blame for this dramatic downturn in the churches support for the Florida Baptist Convention solely due to a poor economy? I think not!

Under the Fundamentalist leadership of John Sullivan the Florida Baptist Convention has offended and alienated scores of Baptist Churches in Florida who, while some have cut giving through the Florida Baptist Convention out altogether, many are now deciding that during hard times the Florida Baptist Convention is not a top priority for them.

When the chips are down you find out who your friends are and the Florida Baptist Convention and John Sullivan are finding out that they do not have as many friends in Florida as they believed, or even as they once had in years past.

While not solely responsible for this historic downturn in lack of support for the Florida Baptist Convention, the continued sport of “Calvinist Bashing” by high level executives of the Florida Baptist Convention and the personal hobby of “Narrowing the Parameters of Cooperation” by John Sullivan have, in my opinion, played a significant role.

Grace Always

So which 501(c)3 do you attend?

Bill Lollar, Missionary to the people of Wales, recently posted an article on his blog that got me to thinking about what the nature of a Biblical Church should be, and what activities a Biblical Church should be involved in. I think this article is worthy of your taking the time to read.

So which 501(c)3 do you attend?

Lords of the SBC

This post is an attempt to name the twenty (20) most influential people in the SBC. This is not a “mud slinging post”, and I am not saying that these individuals are bad people… I am just looking to name those in the SBC today, like John A. Broadus of the past, who wield the most influence in the Convention.

I will start the list with the obvious names of Dr. Paige Patterson and Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Who do you believe should be on the list?

1. Dr. Paige Patterson, President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary


2. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary


3. ___________________________________________________


4. ___________________________________________________


5. ___________________________________________________


6. ___________________________________________________


7. ___________________________________________________


8. ___________________________________________________


9. ___________________________________________________


10. ___________________________________________________


11. ___________________________________________________


12. ___________________________________________________


13. ___________________________________________________


14. ___________________________________________________


15. ___________________________________________________


16. ___________________________________________________


17. ___________________________________________________


18. ___________________________________________________


19. ___________________________________________________


20. ___________________________________________________
    
    

Prayer and the Doctrine of "Free Will".

(This post is taken from a conversation being held over on Wade Burleson's Blog)

-------------------

Prayer is simply incompatible with the doctrine of “free will”.

Someone (I cannot remember who) once said; “We are all Calvinist on our knees.” If I am praying for God to save my child, I am asking God to violate his “free will”. It cannot be otherwise.

If I truly believe in the doctrine of “free will” then what exactly am I asking God to do for my child? Anything God does that will influence my child in the slightest way will be a violation of his “free will”. Anything God does that will influence the will of my child that he does not do for all children (no matter how small the influence) is an act of “Election”.

However, if I start with the understanding that the will is not free, but that the will of my unregenerate child is in bondage (a slave to sin) then that changes everything. Then my prayer to God for my child is that God will “free” the will of my child; so that my child may indeed, of his now “freed” will, choose to embrace the grace of God.

The best treatment of this subject is not Luther in ‘The bondage of the will’ but instead John Calvin’s ‘The Bondage and Liberation of the Will’, subtitled “A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius” published by Baker Academic. Notice that subtitle! Calvin is defending the doctrine of “Human Choice”.

If you do not have this book and you are an honest seeker of truth then I highly recommend you purchase it and read it with Bible and pen in hand. You can pruchase it from monergismbooks.com at the following link.

http://www.monergismbooks.com/Bondage-and-Liberation-of-the-Will-p-16201.html

Grace Always,

Greg

Alcohol and the Authority of the Word

I recently received an email from a very articulate young Baptist Pastor who has a BA from Boyce College, an MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently working on a Phd in OT at Southern. (I am withholding his name because this post is not about this young man; this post is about the honest questions he asked.)

Here is the email that I received:

Greg,

I want you to know that I greatly appreciate your interest and interaction with our ________ blog. However, there is something that concerns me and I wanted to point it out to you.

All of your replies to my recollection involve one common theme, alcohol. Even posts that seem to have nothing to do with alcohol elicit responses from you about alcohol. I am curious as to why you are so concerned about this one issue that it consumes all of your posts? This almost seems to be a first tier issue for you.

I want to be clear that I don't believe the Bible supports a position that says that every drink of alcohol in every setting at any time is a sin. We might disagree on the wisdom of alcohol consumption in some cultures or settings but certainly the Bible doesn't condemn every sip of alcohol that one might take. With that said I'm still curious why this so big for you? Why are you so concerned to change the convention's view of alcohol? Why are you more concerned with that
than cooperation around missions, church planting and ecclesiology, training of ministers, etc?

Please help me to understand.

In Christ,

Xxx Xxxx


Greg Alford Replies:

Xxx,

Thanks for the email... I have enjoyed reading your articles on xxxxxxxxx blog lately.

What motivates the words and actions of others is indeed sometimes very hard to understand, so I will try and answer your question with as much honestly and clarity as I can…

I do not bring up the issue of alcohol in many of my comments because I often partake of alcoholic drinks. Quite the opposite is true… On rare occasions I will have a glass of wine with an evening meal, at the Christmas gathering with my family, or at a wedding.

Brother Xxx, with humility of spirit and abiding love for all things Southern Baptist… I often bring up this issue in the Southern Baptist Convention and the Florida Baptist Convention because I am greatly burdened to speak out.

God alone is qualified to give unto man the standard by which he should live and be judged. He has done this by means of his Holy Word, which alone is Sufficient for such a great task as this.

“The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” – (Article I. BFM2000)

Now, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Florida Baptist Convention have set themselves up as the givers of the Law, and have condemned both God and Christ for their conduct…

Just a few points concerning wine:

• It was commanded of God to be given as an offering in the O.T.
• It is said in the O.T. to make glad both the heart of man and God.
• Jesus turned water into wine, (not Welch’s).
• Jesus and every single one of his disciples drank wine at the Last Supper.
• It is one of the two elements of communion (Is it proper to make substitutes for the Biblical pattern of any ordinance? Remember we Baptist will accept no substitutes for the Biblical patter of the ordinance of Baptism.)
• Jesus told his disciples that he would partake of wine with them in Heaven.

Xxx, I hope you can see my heart and great concern for my Southern Baptist Convention in this matter… If the Word of God is not “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” then what is or “who” is? This is not a matter of opinion; it is nothing less than a matter of setting ourselves up as the supreme standard by which all human (and God’s) conduct should be tried… And that my friend is a very grievous sin indeed.

Blessings,
Greg Alford


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,

I still am perplexed by your response. You spent most of your email defending a position that I already conceded was biblically defensible. My question is why is this such a huge issue for you. You think that someone who takes a teetotaler position is being anti-biblical or not trusting in the sufficiency of Scripture? Is this your concern? There are a lot of other issues that you could raise that bring into doubt our convention’s practical stance on the sufficiency of scripture, why this one and why so fervent? I never meant to imply with my email that you love alcohol or drink it a lot personally. It was just a question as to why you talk about it so often. I understand that the Bible doesn’t condemn all drinks of alcohol and has some good things to say about alcohol. Again, I stated that in the last email. I understand that your concern is that someone or something (i.e. SBC) is bypassing the Bible as the supreme standard with the various resolutions on alcohol. However, I do want to state that the issue might not be black and white. The Bible does have some clear warnings that it gives concerning alcohol and not just warnings about drunkenness (Proverbs for example). Are raising principles of being concerned for not seeing weaker brothers stumble from 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 completely inadmissible here in your opinion? Again, I don’t want to get into an argument over alcohol, b/c as I said I don’t think a teetotaler position is mandated by the Scripture. I guess my question is why are you so “burdened” by this particular issue when there are others that could be brought up? What do you think it is about this particular issue that so burdens you?

Again, I appreciate you responding to my email. I am simply curious.

Xxx Xxxx


Greg Alford Replies:

Xxx,

Let me try again,

I do not think that someone who makes the personal decision to be a teetotaler is being anti-biblical or not trusting in the sufficiency of Scriptures at all. That is a personal choice and can be made for many valid reasons.

However, let me clearly say that I do think that it greatly questions the authority of Scriptures for anyone to insists (as John Sullivan has done in the Florida Baptist Convention) that all those who do not hold to the teetotaler position are unfit for service. To me the actions of John Sullivan and the Florida Baptist Convention are just as great an attack upon the Scriptures as any liberal has dared make in my lifetime.

One’s position on alcohol has become in some state conventions an extra-biblical litmus test used to exclude otherwise solid conservative Baptist from cooperation and service. And there is an ongoing effort to make this a policy throughout the SBC so that no one who does not hold a teetotaler position on alcohol can serve in any position in the convention at all………… That is why this is such a huge issue for me.

It really comes down to one simple question…

“Is the Bible our final authority or not?”

Grace Always,


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,


I will think thru your response and I do sense this is a big issue for you because you think convention leaders are adding to the Bible.


However, Greg it is a gross overstatement to equate John Sullivan's policy or any state/national convention's policy on alcohol with liberals who have denied the resurrection, condoned homosexuality, etc. That is going way too far!


Xxx


Greg Alford Replies:


Xxx,

Are you sure you are qualified to make the decision of just what is an acceptable denial of Biblical teaching and what is not?

For that matter, who among us "mortal men" is qualified to say one departure form what the Bible teaches is far worse than another? Who decides Xxx? Me? You? Who then?

No... there are no small departures from what the Bible teaches...

Blessings,


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:



Greg,

Yet you are making the decision to view all 'departures' the same. Who gave you that office? Honestly, I find it unfathomable that you would equate a position of not being in leadership because you think it is ok to drink alcohol with a denial of the resurrection. One of those departures is FAR worse. Denial of resurrection means a person is not a believer at all!

I appreciate you taking time to respond to each of my questions but at this point I will not continue the conversation further.

Xxx


Greg Alford Replies:


Xxx,

Communicating by way of email is sometimes very difficult... It was not my intent to offend you in any way during this discussion... My questions in the last email were designed to stir you to think seriously about the issue of the authority of God's Word in the Southern Baptist Convention. If I have indeed offended you I do apologize and hope that we end our discussion as Brothers.


Blessings,


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,

You did not offend me and certainly we will always conclude discussions ad brothers. All I meant by my final email was that we are absolutely called to make decisions about which departures of scripture are most heinous because some rise to the level of heresy and others only misinterpretation, misapplication, etc. Theological triage is important for all kinds of reasons having to do with levels of cooperation and so forth. I think Paul's words in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 imply that there might be issues of application we disagree on like alcohol and others that shouldn't matter as much, and yet 1 Corinthians 15 there are other issues like the resurrection that are life and death. I was not offended. I simply and vehemently disagree with you on comparing a stance on alcohol with a stance on the resurrection.

Also, we have had some kind exchanges but the truth is we are not getting anywhere with them. You believe one thing and I believe the other. I simply started the email exchange because I wanted to try and understand why this was hill to die on for you. I think I understand why and we will simply have to disagree that one's stance on alcohol reveals their confidence in scripture's sufficiency.

In terms of how to deal with the alcohol issue itself my dad is releasing a blog that I would encourage you to read. His view will be close to mine. At this point I just don't want to talk about alcohol anymore.

I do pray God's blessing on you, your family and your ministry. Thank you for taking the time to interact with me. I'm sure you're busy.

In Christ,

Xxx Xxxx


Greg Alford Replies:


Xxx,

I would agree that some departures from Scripture are more heinous than others, however I would add that no departure from Scripture is acceptable...

You have made the comment several times now that I have made a big deal out of the alcohol issue... indeed I have commented on it several times, and will likely continue to do so, but I must strongly disagree with this statement. It is not I but John Sullivan and the Florida Baptist Convention that has made a big deal out of alcohol by making it of first tier importance... and it is they who have decided to dis-fellwoship anyone who does not agree with them concerning alcohol. Actually I can cooperate with those who believe it is always wrong to drink alcohol and those who do not see it as a sin.

You said you started this conversation in order to try and understand my opinion in this matter... now I would like to understand yours. Do you agree with the actions of John Sullivan and the Florida Baptist Convention in making alcohol a first tier issue?

Grace Always


Next Reply from Pastor Xxx:


Greg,

This will probably sound like a cop out but honestly I don't know the situation well enough to have an opinion either way. Sorry.

I have supported resolutions on alcohol passed on the convention floor but I cannot speak to this specific issue.

Xxx


The conversation ended with the last reply from this young pastor who has a BA from Boyce College, an MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and is currently working on a Phd in OT at Southern.

I really would like to know how others view this topic (Alcohol and the Authority of the Word). Anyone have any thoughts on this exchange?

Grace Always,
Greg

Strong Coffee - No Longer Welcome in the SBC?

Ken Coffee has written a short, yet powerful, article that askd the question:

“DOES THE SBC STILL WANT ME?”

I do not know Ken Strong, but nevertheless, you should read this article… below is my response that I posted to Kens site.

-----------------------------------------

Brother Ken,

These are some pretty hard words coming from a professed Conservative Southern Baptist:

There is a lot of discussion on other blogs about whether or not the conservative resurgence was worth it in the Southern Baptist Convention. Put me on the side of those who think it was not.

Many of us feel that we in the SBC are morphing into a group of intolerant religious bigots… We are becoming more “Cambellite” than Baptist.

This resurgence everyone in SBC leadership is so proud of has become a huge, bigoted conglomeration that shows no tolerance of anyone who has a different point of view.

My conservative credentials will match up with anyone out there, but these credentials stop at drinking the Kool-Aid and giving up my right to think for myself.

I would love to continue to call myself a Southern Baptist… The big question in my mind is, do Southern Baptist still want me? Frankly, I am not sure I am welcome in the SBC any more.

As I said above, these are some pretty hard words brother and I hope you are quite prepared to defend them… But not to me, I agree with “almost” everything you have said (being a non Kool-Aid drinker I reserve the right to not fully agree with anyone except our Lord) :-)

I have been warning my fellow Conservative Southern Baptist for years of the dangerous influence of the leaven of the “Landmark” (Cambellite) fringe of the SBC. The Cambellites (in small numbers) have always been there among the ranks of the Conservative Resurgence… Smiling… Drinking the Kool-Aid… and Waiting. However when the Conservative Resurgence (eager to boost their numbers) embraced Liberty (Cambellite) University… their time had come.

O, they do not call themselves “Cambellites” anymore… that would not be wise in a Convention that was once split by the Cambellites… No they march under the banner of “The Baptist Identity Movement” today, and they set on almost every Trustee Board in the SBC. The Cambellite TAKEOVER of the IMB should be a wakeup call to all Southern Baptist… CR no longer stands for the Conservative Resurgence, but instead CR stands for the Cambellite Resurgence.

The Takeover of the IMB is only the first trophy of the Cambellite Resurgence… more will follow! The influence of Liberty University is growing throughout the SBC. (What a horribly deceptive name is “Liberty” for a Cambellite University) I now receive a free copy of their monthly magazine, and I could not help but notice that the Leadership of Liberty University is being pushed forward as guest speakers at small Baptist Colleges and State Conferences throughout the SBC. I must assume this is a planned strategy to increase their exposure to all Southern Baptist pastors.

Brother Ken, this is far more than I intended to say… thanks for letting me speak out. If more Conservative Southern Baptist do not stand up and speak out, and soon, more and more of us will find that we are no longer welcome in the SBC.

Grace Always

The Anti-Calvinist!

Pastor John Sneed of Davenport, Iowa, writes on the clear and present danger of the Anti-Calvinist in our midst...

You really should read this article!

http://semperdeogloria.blogspot.com/2008/06/anti-calvinists-it-is-humbling-and.html

Grace Always,
Greg Alford

SBC "One Size Fits All"

“One Size Fits All”: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone!

The last 25 years of commercial DBMS development can be summed up in a single phrase: “One size fits all”. This phrase refers to the fact that the traditional DBMS architecture (originally designed and optimized for business data processing) has been used to support many data-centric applications with widely varying characteristics and requirements.

In this paper, we argue that this concept is no longer applicable to the database market, and that the commercial world will fracture into a collection of independent database engines, some of which may be unified by a common front-end parser. We use examples from the stream-processing market and the datawarehouse market to bolster our claims. We also briefly discuss other markets for which the traditional architecture is a poor fit and argue for a critical rethinking of the current factoring of systems services into products.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you are a Database Manager and a Software Application Developer like me (Yea... I'm a Computer Nerd in my other life) then the above paragraphs probably mean absolutely nothing to you.

But as I read this paper by Michael Stonebraker it occurred to me that much of what Michael was saying about the database market is also true about the SBC... “One Size Fits All” is an Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone!

Like it or not Southern Baptist are a diverse group of believers... and as someone recently said concerning the diverse group gathered at the 2008 Annual Convention in Indianapolis, Indiana “We are all Conservatives”. Being a Southern Baptist Conservative does not mean that we all agree on everything but as Dr Danny Akin recently commented at this Convention “there will be no retreat from or compromise of the great theological truths and Baptist distinctives that unite us.”

A call for diversity and unity within the SBC is not a call for the inclusion of Liberals who reject the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scriptures (that battle has long been won)... it is however a call for the full inclusion of other Conservatives who differ (sometimes passionately) on third tier issues like alcohol, baptism, and church polity.

A “One Size Fits All” ideology is nothing less than an attempt by some in the SBC to Lord-it over their fellow Southern Baptist Believers. A “One Size Fits All” ideology says I am in charge and I am going to impose my will and my convictions upon all Southern Baptist. A “One Size Fits All” ideology is a dangerously delusion that leads to the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation. And history shows us that a “One Size Fits All” ideology has destroyed many denominations in the past.

If the Spirit of Cooperation among Conservative Southern Baptist is not regained, and the “One Size Fits All” attitude of the Fundamentalist that has been quietly gaining ground in the SBC is allowed to spread and prevail in our institutions (IMB, Florida Baptist Convention) then history will look back on the SBC and wag their tongs... the SBC will become a byword for arrogance and what might have been... but now is lost.

For the SBC “One Size Fits All”: is an Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone!

Grace Always,
Greg

Anti-Great-Commission Policy?

A Conversation with Dr. Paul Foltz:

Dr. Paul Foltz recently commented on my blog “it's time for all Calvinist to band together and form a new convention.”

Which lead to the following responce that I am now posting...

Dr. Folts, I think you express the “Unspoken” desire of many, many, Calvinist in the State of Florida... I actually think that having only one Baptist Convention in any state is a bad idea... it would be like saying that we can only have one Baptist Church in any City/Town/Community.

How do you think all those who are apposed to the idea of a new convention in the state of Florida would feel if they were suddenly told, Ok we are only going to recognize The First Baptist Church of each City and all you other churches are going to have join First Baptist Church in order to remain in the SBC.

The current business model of allowing, for the most part, only one convention per state is just as restrictive to future growth as allowing only one Baptist Church per city... and of course the only reason for such a policy is control.

Which brings me to my next point... is it not this desire for control that is actually restricting the growth of the convention and according to the latest statistics actually shrinking the convention? And in this case is this not actually an Anti-Great-Commission Policy?

A few years ago the Alabama Baptist Convention had a slogan; “Start Something New!”... It was intended to encourage growth by encouraging individuals and congregations to start new churches. Why would the Alabama Baptist Convention wish to start new churches? Because everyone knows that new churches grow much faster than existing churches. Therefore “Start Something New!” is a Great Commission slogan... and those who oppose the starting of new state conventions are actually guilty of hindering the Great Commission in order to maintain control over their own turf.

So by now it should be clear to everyone that I firmly believe the starting of new state conventions would greatly impact the SBC in it's efforts to fulfill the Great Commission... and restore a measure of ballance to the SBC as no one group would be in absolute control over any state. It would give Baptist a choice... which in my opinion is a good thing for growth.

I would love to see this happen in every state, but in Florida very soon! But where to start? How does one actually go about starting a new State Convention? I am ready... but I am probably not the one who can rally the troops for such a great undertaking as this... Will God raise up men in the State of Florida and throughout the SBC to meet this challenge?

I honestly do not know... “nevertheless Father thy will be done”.

Greg

Anti-Calvinist Elected SBC President!

One of the most vocal Anti-Calvinist the SBC has to offer has been elected President with 52% of the vote on the first ballot…

Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, Fla., who nominated Johnny Hunt, says “Hunt will unite the convention and forge a hopeful future”… What world has Ted Traylor been living in?

If by “uniting the convention” Traylor means that the election of a full blown Anti-Calvinist and further alienating the Young Reformed Generation that is abandoning the SBC in droves those who are left will be more united, then he is probably right.

I will hold off commenting more on this until I have time to digest fully what this will mean for the Reformed movement in the SBC… But this I know “It is a very dark day in the SBC for the Reformed Movement!”… as I seriously doubt a single Calvinist will be nominated to serve on any BOT by Johnny Hunt over the next two years.

Grace Always,

It's Time to Change

Southern Baptist Committed to Reversing the Recent IMB Guideline Changes.

Please read and consider signing here

Grace Always,
Greg Alford

Enemy of the State

(I made the following as a comment on my Blog but have decided it needed to be a full post concerning the dangerous direction of the Florida Baptist Convention – Greg Alford)

When John Sullivan had the audacity to tell the Florida Baptist Convention that he was going to impose a ban on anyone serving in the convention who did not hold to a total abstinence from alcohol conviction and that he “was not taking a poll” on the issue... a new day had dawned in the Florida Baptist Convention.

The Neo-Fundamentalist of Jacksonville (especially John Sullivan), like the Church of Roman in times past, have shown themselves the enemy of our Historic Baptist Principles of Church Autonomy, Cooperation, and Religious Liberty as expressed in articles VI, XIV, and XVII of our Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

VI. The Church
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel...

XIV. Cooperation
Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner...

XVII. Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it...

If the Pope had issued this decree concerning the Catholic Church I might not find it so utterly absurd... But it was not issued by the Pope of Rome, it was issued by a Baptist who, by the Florida Churches submission to his decree, has been given the unfettered authority of a Baptist Bishop... When it comes down to it there is not much difference in a Catholic Pope and a Baptist Bishop.

I for one will not kiss the ring of either...

Grace Always,
Greg Alford

Why Were Our Reformers Burned?

Taken From "Light from Old Times" by J.C. Ryle

There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world's favorite theories and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either cut dead as vulgar intruders, or passed by as tiresome bores. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships in a distant horizon, or are left behind like a luggage train in a siding. Of such facts the subject of this paper is a vivid example: “The Burning of our English Reformers; and the Reason why they were Burned.”

It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions. It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history and to paint everything with a rose-colored hue. A very popular history of our English Queens hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary's days! Yet Mary was not called “Bloody Mary” without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign. Last but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome.

Yet it is as certain that the Romish church burned our English Reformers as it is that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I wish to unfold in this paper. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask my readers to give me a patient and indulgent hearing. After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of Englishmen's minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, “Why were our Reformers burned?”

Let me say up front that no one to my knowledge is calling for the burning of our Baptist Reformers in the SBC today... and the persecution that many in the Reformed movement have faced over the last 20 years in the SBC pales in comparison to that faced by our forefathers. And yet there are similarities between the two that cannot be denied.

When Ryle says “There are certain facts in history which the world tires hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world's favorite theories and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them.” he could just have easily been describing all those anti-Calvinist in the SBC today who try hard to forget and ignore the fact that the SBC was founded by “Convinced and Committed Calvinist”.

When Ryle says “It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions." he is summing up the convictions of the modern day Reformed movement in the SBC that are certain they have found out truth and are content to suffer the loss of prestige and position in the convention for those convictions.

When Ryle says “It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history and to paint everything with a rose-colored hue... (and) it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome.” he is accurately describing the attitude of many in the SBC today (like the leadership of the Florida Baptist Convention, and the BOT of the IMB) that think any and all criticism must be silenced and all opposition to their personal convictions and will for the convention must be squashed.

Those who will not learn from history are destine to repeat it... be it Fundamentalist in the SBC or the Bloody Marys of the Church of Rome; blatant disrespect for the religious opinions and convictions of others has always been the fuel that burns the fires of persecution and the narrowing of the parameters of cooperation. (more soon)

Grace Always,
Greg Alford