Pensees: Some Reasons Why Good Baptists Should Appreciate the Westminster Confession

Chapter One. Section VIII. It would have been good if Warfield had proceeded with caution and taken more into consideration “what was commanded in Scripture” and not what he had learned on his trip to Germany before he taught at Princeton.

Chapter Four. Sections I and II. Warfield: “I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution.”

Westminster Confession: VII., II.

“The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”

Chapter and verse for this? Even Charles Hodge affirms that there is no Scriptural support for it. Others of Reformed persuasion do the same. One modern writer in the book SEALED WITH AN OATH makes the bold affirmation that there is no basis for it in Scripture. A. H. Strong quotes a Baptist of his time as saying “That covenant was made in Holland!” And it was not invented until after Jean Cauvin’s (a.k.a. John Calvin’s) death.

What about the church consisting of all the elect from Adam forward, contra Ephesians 3 and Colossians 1?

What about infant baptism instead of believer’s baptism?

What about the Reformer’s persecuting and killing those who disagreed with them over issues of the church, believer’s baptism, and separation of church and state?

Pastor Kent and Dr. Moritz,

Am I missing something here? Did Bob imply that B.B. Warfield and the WC were perfect? or the only rule for faith and practice?

Unless, I am mistaken, Bob is simply pointing out that the WC is a great foundational document for our faith and we, even though we are Baptists, should not diminish that document. You seem to imply by your comments that Bob is somehow being inconsistent because he does not embrace evolution or infant baptism.

I have re-read Bob’s post about 6 times, trying to figure out what problem you might have with it. Are you trying to make the case that the WC is not perfect? In that case, you are correct, but I think you are in agreement with almost everyone else on that point - even a great many Reformed commentators as you pointed out Dr. Moritz.

Kent, you and I share our alma mater, Dr. Moritz, you now teach at the same school. One of the cornerstone classes at that school is Baptist Heritage (some students humorously refer to it as “baptist heresy”, anyway . . .) In that class, we as baptists, trace our heritage back to the first century. I am thankful for what I learned in that class and at one point we study many of the different groups that we consider as having been baptistic down through the years: Waldensians, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Novatians, Donatists - to name a few. None of these groups are exactly like independent baptists today. In facts some of them may have even held views that were close to being heretical and at least a few sects that appear in our “lineage” practiced infant baptism.

At the institution that we all hold dear, we were taught to embrace what was truth and reject what was false. How is that different from Pastor Bixby’s elucidating some reasons why the WC might be important to modern independent baptists?

Eph 3:14-15 “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” Seems to MAKE the point that all God’s people make up his body — the church.

How does Col 1 contradict the Westminster view?

Also, the Westminster Divines were a few years after the “reformers”.

Coach C,

Thanks for asking. I’m actually on nobody’s side on this. Bob is making a point. He says that it must be a good scriptural proof if it will overturn the historic doctrine of the WC. He’s really tough on Chuck Phelps about this because of the content of a recent promotional letter from MBBC he received (I got the same one). He quotes Warfield as being very supportive of the WC, and yet Warfield veers off of it because of rationalistic concerns (not scriptural). I’m helping spread criticism around.

It seems Dr. Moritz is challenging some of Bob’s assertions about the WC. They look legitimate to me. He is explaining why MBBC differs from the WC.

Regarding your criticism of the spiritual kinship view of church history, I believe it starts with scriptural presuppositions of church perpetuity. It is also an interpretation of history. We expect to find the history of true churches. There is debate about the history for sure. That is the nature of historical material. Sometimes the criticism of these groups targets the extremes. It would be like someone lumping you in with Christians of the 21st century and they studied Joel Osteen as an example. There is a lot more I could say here.

And last, I was actually doing something a little different than Dr. Moritz. I was looking at the WC positively in two points. He was looking at it negatively. My criticism was of Warfield. And yet, I like Warfield’s view of sanctification among other of his beliefs. I have the 10 volume set of Warfield’s Works.

Keith:

Both the Ephesians and Colossians passages describe the church as a mystery, not revealed until the New Testament time.

Coach C:

You are absolutely right about the early separatist groups. The Waldensians were a mixed group among themselves.

But one thing that seemed to unite many of those “proto-baptists” across the centuries was their emphasis on the holiness of the church, regenerate church membership, and their insistance on the separation of church and state because to unite the church with the state or to tie it to the state was to destroy its fundamental purity. The similarity at that point between the Donatists and the unregistered Russian Baptists under Communism is almost scary.

The magisterial reformers and their infant baptism and union of church and state destroyed regenerate church membership which the New Testament teaches. Thus those in the reformed tradition in the US had the big battle over who was a proper candidate for communion, the Stoddard party and the Edwards party, the halfway covenant and all that came with it. The root was the heresy of infant baptism and the denial of a regenerate membership.

I appreciate our Baptist forefathers whatever their origins were (and I think they came from several sources). I noted today that the London Confession of 1689 does not strictly follow Westminster on the covenants. Where Westminster affirms both a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, the London Baptists seem only to have affirmed a covenant of works. At least that is what I found in the copy I downloaded. Neither of those covenants is in Scripture.

We are better off to trace God’s redemptive work through the Noahic, Abrahamic, Siniatic, Davidic, and New Covenants. Those covenants are clearly in Scripture.

I still believe that Covenant Theology fails because it is built upon presuppositions which are not found in Scripture. We are far better off to build our theoology on what the Bible teaches.

That does not settle the issue of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. That has not been resolved since Erasmus and Luther. I am put off by the host’s snide slander of the president of Maranatha as a “quasi-Arminian.” I am quite sure he has never spent enough time with Dr. Phelps to know what he believes in that area. “Quasi-Arminian” he isn’t.

I mis-spoke in one detail above. The London Baptists affirmed the Covenant of Grace, not the Covenant of Works.

Coach C.,

Can you please explain how you make the family, the body, and the church the same? I understand that you are pointing to Ephesians on this, but I’d like to see your explanation of this understanding of yours.

Brother Moritz,

Great questions for any Baptist to consider and you are “spot-on” about the reference to Brother Phelps being “quasi-Arminian.”

I’ve known Brother Phelps for about thirteen years. He’s enjoyed dinner with us and we’ve enjoyed dinner in his home. I’ve been to Trinity many times and he’s preached at the church we started in NH when we were still there. I’m not saying all that to act like I’m somebody because I’ve spent time with him. He’s not one of the “big-shot” types anyway. I am just wanting to state that I have never detected any hint of Arminianism or anything similar to that.

Once, he asked me to counsel with a man that responded to an invitation for salvation at a meeting at Trinity. As I dealt with this man it became apparent that he was not truly convicted of his need of salvation. I instructed him from the Bible and encouraged him to attend more services in hopes that he would eventually be born again. Brother Phelps was not at all one of these men that would be upset that I didn’t lead this guy in the “sinners prayer” and squeeze out a decision.

Again, I’ve never detected that nonsense in Brother Phelps’ ministry. He and I are not on the same page on some things, but the accusation of “quasi-Arminian” is ridiculous.

Thanks, men. This has been instructive for me. I appreciate the interaction.

Bobby, we must have commented at the same time. I think your question should be directed at Keith.

Coach C.,

My apologies. Yes, the question concerning church/body/family was directed to Keith. Thanks for pointing this out.

Coach C and others,

I should say that there is nothing that I disagreed with that Dr. Moritz said. I know we differ on the nature of the church (I’ve read his Calvary journal article on “body,” although that didn’t come out in anything that he said, even as I believe it was still a mystery in the OT too. I would also say that I usually don’t get involved in the labeling (“quasi-Arminian”) stuff because people define it different ways and I didn’t happen to know Dr. Phelps soteriology. I did detect it, however, as a cheap shot by Bob.

Dr. Moritz,

I agree with so much of what you’ve said, particularly your emphasis on the covenants Scripture specifically unfolds and your recognition of the multiple streams that fed into the Baptist stream. I assume that one of those streams you recognize includes English Calvinists.

So on that note, I’m wondering if you would understand the London Confession of 1644 and the Baptist Confession of 1689 to reflect “Calvinistic, Reformed thought.” If they do (and I think their authors intended for them to do so within the parameters of Baptist theology), then are they the sort of things that make times “uniquely precarious”?

Ben:

I will say a couple of things here. First, Dr. Phelps is perfectly capable of speaking for himself to the “uniquely precarious” statement. He has addressed that with me in private correspondence and I agree with him.

Second, I also see some dangers. First, as I said in previous posts, Covenant Theology rests on the presupposition of covenants which cannot be found in nor substantiated from Scripture. Why should I affirm such a system? The fundamental tenet of Baptist faith is that the Bible is the Word of God and our only rule for faith and practice. Let us be “back to the Bible,” not “back to Westminster, Calvin, or Augustine” in our theology. The born again Covenant Theologian is my brother, and within certain parameters I can work with him and fellowship with him. There are some things I cannot do with him. I cannot have a pedo-baptist preach for me, and I would not preach for him. I would (and have done it) stand united with him in a forum like the World Congress of Fundamentalists for the fundamentals of the faith, and against ecumenism and New Evangelicalism. You can see my section early in my book CONTENDING FOR THE FAITH where I address this very issue. I am in the tradition of fundamental Baptist like Riley, Ketcham, and others in that regard.

Covenant Theologians have never been united on eschatalogical issues. Some have been pre-mil and others post-mil or a-mil. Today there is the added issue of so called “replacement theology” among some Covenant Theologians. That particular position not only de-emphasizes Israel, it can be almost anti-semitic. I would call that “uniquely precarious.”

There has always been a danger in Covenant Theology and a heavy Calvinism to deaden evangelism. It produced that in Gill, but not in Fuller and his descendants. Read Iain Murray’s book SPURGEON V. HYPER-CALVINISM. Isn’t it interesting that Spurgeon followed Gill but was of the Fullerite persuasion?

I have seen that deadening effect of a heavy Covenant Theology in my lifetime. I also know men who are quite Calvinistic and have, as did Spurgeon, a hot heart for the souls of men. Would you not say that the deadening of a biblical evangelistic zeal is “uniquely precarious”?

This discussion can go on and on. I noted that Bob put up a diatribe yesterday that he almost immediately took down. I have tried to answer questions reasonably, and I have tried to be dispassionate and kind. I will probably not respond to any more questions on this thread. Your question was appropriate.

Dr. Moritz,

Again, I agree with much of what you write. I didn’t hear an answer to either question I asked, but that’s fine. You’re not obligated.

I’m not sure what you mean by “heavy Calvinism.” I have about a dozen good friends under age 35 doing CP work overseas right now, with four more who will join them by summer. I can’t think of one who is less than a 4-point Calvinist. Some of them are Baptist CTs.

Of course, I don’t deny that there are CTs who have dead hearts to evangelism. But I also know of a lot of Dispensationalists who don’t really know any non-Christians and can’t remember the last time they shared the gospel with someone. I believe the residual effects of the flesh, even on the regenerate heart, have a deadening effect on evangelism. And you’re right the deadening tendency of the human heart does make each of our conditions precarious in some sense. I’m not sure that’s unique since it’s true of all of us.

Dr. Moritz, thanks for spending the time to participate in this discussion.

At the moment, blogosphere happens to be the place where mostly YF’s (for lack of a better term) interact.I have very little opportunity to discuss these issues in my daily life and reading and writing in venues helps me stay current and challenged in my thinking.

I know that you don’t plan to comment on this thread any further and I respect that decision, but I urge you consider finding a way to participate in online discussions on a regular basis. There are places where such discussions are carried out with respect, candor and accountability. This blog and paleoevangelical are just two examples.

Sometimes the OF’s (again, for lack of a better term) write off the blogosphere as not worth the time. I am not asserting that you are in this category. Let me take this a bit further, there is a perception that OF’s avoid the internet because they dislike the level of accountability for their words that exists on the internet and you could be someone who helps to continue to challenge the thinking of a younger group of believers who are bent toward ministry and leadership.

Let’s take the unfortunate situation with Dr. Phelps’ letter. The first paragraph contained sentiments that many godly, orthodox believers might find offensive. The ensuing internet “ruckus” caused many of us to think long and hard about different aspects of theology and where we stand. Also, we were able to get an explanation and more specific language from Dr. Phelps as a result of the accountability posed by the internet.

This accountability does not always exist on a college campus or even in many churches because of the relationships that exist in those venues - professor/student, boss/employee, even pastor/layperson does not always provide the environment for frank doctrinal discussion.

As a child, I often heard diatribes against the doctrine of election and did not have the training or level of critical thinking that was necessary to interact with what I heard. As a young man, on several occasions, I was told to stop talking about or even studying this aspect of doctrine. One preacher told me that Calvinism a “wicked, wicked thought”. The internet has allowed me personally to continue to flesh out my soteriology and other aspects of theology in a way that was only previously available to me in graduate school.

You are in WI, Ben is in DC, I am in CO, Bob is in IL, but we were all able to provide input on this issue. Confrontation is not always fun or comfortable, sometimes it is downright frustrating, but handled with humility and intellectual honesty, we (at least me) sharpen our thinking.

I know that often the internet can be used for gossip and other negative purposes, but so can every other venue. Here are some good things that might have come from this discussion:

Dr. Phelps will choose his words more carefully in the next alumni letter. :)

I was able to read educated fundamentalists discuss an issue. I don’t get much of that where I currently work.

I spent more time in study than I have in a while .. . I even read the entire WC for the first time and several other confessions. . .

I had to think about what I thought was really “uniquely precarious” in our current day.

Many who might have been following this discussion were able to refine their theology.

There are more, but you get the point. Once again, I appreciate your involvement and hope you enter more discussions.

Ben:

I posted a response last night and it did not get up on this site. I imagine I did something wrong.

I do recognize the English Baptists (both General and Particular) as one of the streams of our Baptist heritage. That doesn’t answer all our Baptist history, however. The Russian Baptists trace their origins to the German Baptists (my historical roots). From what I know of Zurich, South Germany, and Holland, I imagine most of the German Baptist roots grow out of that heritage. Certainly the British Baptists came to the US, but that does not account for Daniel Marshall, Shubal Stearns, (founders of the Separate Baptists) and their coming to Baptist Convictions.

I don’t view 1644 and 1689 as “uniquely precarious.” But the replacement theology that comes from Covenant thought sure is.

Coach C, thanks for your encouragement. When our transition is complete I may participate a little more. Right now I am transitioning out of a 28 year ministry at Baptist World Mission, helping three or four new administrators transition in, getting ready for a move in two directions, and traveling to preach. I will have the privilege to preach in Chapel at Northland in 2 1/2 hours.

To quote a TV “journalist” or whatever he is: “I am out.”

Josh,

I’m not taking the second-hand report of Phelps’ clarification in the comments of this blog as an explanation and more specific language. As someone pointed out in the comments on this blog, that retraction and clarification needs to be as wide as the original error. You can’t say something false in a broadcast e-mail and think that a private e-mail clears things up.

Ben, privately I pretty much agree with you, but publicly I will wait for another time. :)

Josh, I think you are quite mistaken regarding accountability and what this ‘ruckus’ demonstrates.

Accountability means that you must answer to someone. Personally, I am answerable directly to Dr. M, and ultimately to our board. Accountability doesn’t work the other way around. Dr. M isn’t accountable to me, nor is Dr. Phelps accountable the the clamoring voices on the internet.

I will agree that the development of blogs has provided many fora where individuals can toss ideas around in public. I will agree that some of this discussion can be profitable. And I will even agree that critical reactions in the blog world can put pressure on public figures to modify their behaviour in various ways.

However, your assumption that the blogs make leaders accountable is probably the reason why so many are dismissive of them. What standing, really, do bloggers have in serious discussion? Some of the critics are purely anonymous, others represent a tiny proportion of the constituency of any institution, and others are cranks out in left field taking shots at everybody. Who says any particular blog or blogger has the right to demand accountability of anyone? Why should they answer to bloggers, especially when it is often unclear exactly who the blogger is?

Furthermore, simply because one set of bloggers have one set of opinions, there is another set who have a different set of opinions. Who should one answer to?

In this particular controversy, such as it is, I applaud Dr. Phelps and his comments. I suspect there are not a few others who do the same. Perhaps they are not as vocal as the critics, but they exist nonetheless.

It might do all of us who are regular bloggers to exercise a little more humility about our own opinions and be willing to subject all our thinking to the Bible and nothing else.

FWIW

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don, I was only addressing one particular aspect of blogosphere interaction. I did not intend for my comments to be the end-all of theological discussion. Let me give you a few reactions:

In my limited experience (a 34 year old life in fundamentalism) many statements about Scripture are made from the pulpit or in classes that are sometimes false, sometimes poorly worded, adhominem, not theologically consistent, not biblically based, etc. And there is no one with the guts or knowledge who is willing to challenge some of these statements. The internet, to a certain extent, has given some a greater ability to do so.

It is not my intent here to belabor the statements from Dr. Phelp’s letter. He is a busy man with a huge number of events, problems and people to occupy his time and his mind. He may not have even written this letter originally. Often in these situations there is some kind of ghost writer involved - men in these positions often don’t have the time to personally word every piece of correspondence. However, the statements to which he signed his name could lead some to believe that calvinism (non-hyper) is the enemy. This is not healthy and I am happy that the statement was clarified. I attended and graduated from the MBBC MABS program within the last 10 years and we used many “reformed” and at least “calvinist” sources extensively throughout my studies. I was taught to evaluate study materials based on their biblical merits, but these sources did not deserve a label along the lines of “uniquely precarious”. Those who pay attention to those things, pointed have pointed out the error and an adjustment in wording was made. The internet was a factor here.

Your statement about blogging and humility is also interesting. I would say that blogging might increase humility and biblical thinking. As I type on my keyboard, I have to think long and hard about my responses because lots of people from lots of different backgrounds are going to be evaluating my words. There have been many times when I have verbally said unwise things and never been called to account. When I write dumb stuff on a blog or message board, the response to correct me is typically swift and deserved. When an itinerant evangelist told me that “calvinism is a wicked, wicked thought” over ice cream at McDonalds, I was not in a position or place to challenge his statement and maybe offer an argument or two that might cause him to temper his words. If he were to post those statements on a blog somewhere, his thoughts would be subject to a refining process.

Humility and subjection to Scripture are both possible on the internet, just as they should be a part of our daily walk. There are many pulpits across our country where a speaker could proclaim that “calvinism presents a threat to fundamentalism” and get “amens” out of it. Does that scenario engender more humility than the “ruckus” over the past few days?

Opinions - yes, we all have opinions and some opinions are worth more than other. Obviously, Dr. Moritz’ thoughts carry far more weight than mine, but through the interaction, everyone who is paying attention can learn something. The internet is the free market of ideas. Ideas that a false or fluffy or poorly worded or of little substance will be rejected and thoughts that withstand the scrutiny of a thousand eyes will endure. The accountability comes from the mass of people and that mass of people will certainly included a peer or someone who can help all of our thinking on a particular issue. It is even possible that God might work through the internet . . . shocking, I know, but I think sovereignty extends to blogging. I’m speaking facetiously, but I think my point is made.

I understand that not everyone is comfortable in this medium for a multitude of reasons and that is fine, but myself and thousands of others enjoy, appreciate and look forward to online discussion. Yes, I could study Scripture and read and come to conclusions on my own and think I have it all figured out. But when I put my thoughts on a message board or a comment thread I am sticking my neck out - and when my head gets cut off, I try to learn from it.

Boy! There’s a lot of provocative stuff here! I’ll stick to one thing for now….

Don,

I disagree. Brothers Moritz, Phelps, and you are accountable to all the other brothers for what you say in the sense that we are supposed to speak the truth. Obviously, we are not under one another’s authority, but brothers do have a right to demand a clarification from brothers. There is no special class of untouchables.

Josh is exactly right that there has been too little accountability for too long coming from the places of power within Fundamentalist circles and men get by with saying things that, in some cases, are patently false without the least amount of push-back. I have the courage to say something on my blog and allow everyone in my church watch me get verbally spanked yet I’m considered proud and arrogant by men who can’t tolerate the slightest amount of feedback from the blogosphere about what they publicly say.

It has gotten so bad within our circles that a push-back on something that is glaringly obvious like Chuck’s overstatement about Calvinism (which, apparently, even he has acknowledged privately is more applicable to Hypers) is treated as if the ones speaking are rabble-rousing.

It’s a dream to think that fundamentalists leaders are ignoring the blogs. They’re not leaders if they are. They know for a fact that formerly unknown pastors are getting heard this way. And the importance of the big-wigs in fundamentalism is something that is entirely imagined. God determines influence. Paul even said about James and Cephas that they “seemed influential” (ESV) and “what they were makes no difference to me.”

The fact of the matter is the para-church establishment in fundamentalism has become acutely aware of their waning influence. If they are dismissing it it is because of their arrogance, not because of their privileged right to publicly declare things through public venues without having to deal with public responses. In their vain imaginings their influence is going down the tube. Fast.

One day the para-church leaders will wake up and see reality. They’ll realize that it is they who need local churches and not vice-versa. They’ll see it’s a fact; not merely something to talk about as a marketing gimmick.

Now, finally (thanks to technology), a college president who publicly states something can be responded to publicly. I have no problem with Chuck Phelps having the position he has (even if I disagree). I have a problem with the ethic that says one thing publicly which he knew (or should have known to be inflammatory and partially imprecise) and qualifies it privately, but nonetheless gets his agenda across.

Even here on my blog, on this thread, I’ve been accused of diatribe, cheap-shot, and whatever else even though my basic point was flatly ignored. But at least I’m intellectually honest enough to let my statement stand the test of push-back. The obvious ignoring of my point that most of our Baptist heroes would not sympathize one bit with Chuck Phelps’ paranoia is loud proof of my point. My readers get it.

So, I let brothers impugn my character.

Fine.

At least I have the character to state something publicly and the manliness to let any brother who wants to push-back. In the end, Average Baptist Joe knows who the real leaders are. Leadership is influence and para-church leaders are losing influence so fast they can hardly compute it.

I would invite Brothers Phelps and Mortiz to visit the churches in our areas and see which ones are dead and cold and then come to our church. Excluding the Hyles church, most churches are struggling, dying, cold, and shrinking. I invite them to come see with their very eyes life, growth, brokenness, revival, and steady evangelism. This Calvinistic church is growing in a city that is shrinking and where the economy has hit harder than most places in the nation. With no money and small facilities and conservative music. Go figure. Every week I am in good conversation with unbelieving people, some of whom are coming to my church on a weekly basis, in their search for God. Missions is our passion.

It’s the grace of God. It’s not their pastor/teacher; I’m disorganized and ungifted. It’s Gospel-power. I believe with all my heart the Gospel of Jesus Christ, preach it with all my might, plead with sinners to come to Jesus with all my emotions, and do not give a hoot about what other fundamentalists think of me, especially the “Leaders” as they only “seem to have influence.” It’s strong local church, Baptist conviction. It’s autonomy. And it’s the way Baptists have been when Baptists were most dynamic. And it’s local church pastors that have got to stand up and start leading Baptist fundamentalism out of the mess it’s in without the help of the para-church organizations unless those para-church organizations humble themselves back to the place where they’re supposed to be.

In matters of the Church of Jesus Christ, the local churches will triumph in the end. I pity the churches around here who suckle at the teats of the bible colleges. They’re all dying.

Thanks, Coach C, for the excellent and encouraging comments. Well put, and much needed! Another concern I have along these lines is the short shrift we give to those of a Reform leaning theology, but the wide latitude we allow for those in Fundamentalism who engage in questionable evangelistic and sanctification practices? To be sure, these men were looked at in some fundamentalist circles as “red headed step children.” In college we used to joke about their promotional antics, but seldom do I ever remember a college president or leader publicly warning that we are living in precarious times, and that these practices are a threat to students. Every foible of New Evangelicalism was paraded before us in the name of separation, but questionable issues in our own camps were overlooked because we needed all the allies we could get.

We sound the alarm against MacArthur, Mohler, Piper et al. because even though they have written much good, there are many subtle, hidden dangers. We are warned that their solid and refreshing soteriology is merely a candied apple to draw us into New Evangelicalism. Yet, there are many in our own ranks who practice a shallow soteriology and man-centered sanctification, and we give them a free pass because they are “Fundamental Baptists.”

I cannot speak for others, but I have found the writings of Piper, MacArthur, and others to not only be refreshing, but reviving! Goodness! I considered MacArthur a heretic until five years into my ministry. This was directly due to my fundamentalist upbringing and the influence of my elders. Yes, even my alma mater which I love dearly bears some of the blame. Perhaps, I am most to blame because I accepted what was said without being a “Berean.”

I agree that there should be a balanced response, but I also believe that before we trumpet too loudly the dangerous extremes of our Reformed leaning brothers, we need to take a long, hard look at the dangerous Arminian leaning tendencies in our own ranks.

I join with Coach C and say thanks to all for participating in this important conversation. Thanks, Bob, for having the temerity to broach this subject on your blog site.

Priceless, Bob!

I agree with Bob that if Chuck Phelps is privately apologizing for miscommunication, that the public letter deserves a public apology. And that is only if, because I haven’t seen the private one. I also agree that we shouldn’t associate ourselves closely with Spurgeon and not admit that he was a Calvinist. I don’t know if MBBC attempts to make that association, but we should all recognize Spurgeon was a Calvinist.

I didn’t think people were that rough on you, Bob. I think it’s just a discussion. I don’t think you got spanked; maybe a verbal time-out. I’ve read enough to believe that you were taking a shot with “quasi-Arminian.” I don’t think Phelps would call himself an Arminian. He would say “biblicist” and to nearly every Calvinist that is unacceptable. Does Phelps call himself an Arminian? or quasi-Arminian?

You write an interesting blog, Bob, and mainly because you’re less political than most. You do stick your neck out. That is refreshing. However, I was a little disappointed about your mentioning you were courageous. I guess fundamentalist pressure is risky in some fashion. If you are truly independent, then it means nothing to you. I think you’ll be OK. And I’m happy that you evangelize (preach the gospel) and are seeing some results.

hi guys,

I was away all day, so couldn’t respond.

Listen, I am not against holding public statements up to public scrutiny. That should be obvious, see my blog.

The point I am trying to make, however badly, is essentially two-fold. First, I think the term “accountability” is misused. Every public statement is open to scrutiny, critique, etc. But that doesn’t make someone who is not a member of your church accountable to you.

Second, there is an attitude that unless you march in lockstep agreement with the theology du jour, you are not allowed to make your position public or in any way hint at denigrating that theology. At the same time, your own beliefs are quite readily mocked, as Kent points out above. This is where there is a need for a little humility.

These theological issues haven’t been settled for hundreds of years, yet the neo-Calvinists of our day sneer at those who don’t agree. Amazing. Truth will no doubt die with you.

Having said that, I’ll bow out. It is too easy to get into a shouting match and do the very things you complain that others do!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

This is a classic thread. There is a lot of good stuff here.

Don, I sincerely hope that you don’t believe that there is sneering going on here and in other places where mostly younger men discuss aspects of the doctrines of grace.

I struggled with a great many aspects of my Christian walk until quite late in my undergraduate schooling. A better understanding of progressive sanctification, the sovereignty of God, the sufficiency of Scripture (in practice, not just in theory) and yes even a partial grasp of the doctrine of election have all helped me to deepen my walk with God and also greatly aided my ministry to others. These are not intellectual exercises. My Christianity was changed by these ideas.

This change never happened while I was under the constant influence of Keswick, revivalism, KJV only, high standards, man centered ministries, and topical sermons the latter ideas only served to confuse and frustrate me. I can remember being at a baptist, fundamental bible camp where on my knees and with tears I begged God to send me an experience that would allow me to live in Christian victory. The speaker that evening was sure that something like that had happened to him and wanted the rest of us to come forward and experience the same thing.

I don’t believe that Bob, Ben, Eric, and others are “sneering calvinists”. We (at least me) are passionate about preventing the next generation, as well as believers around us, from struggling through a works based, shallow religion. I want to help my children to find freedom in Christ without the hindrance of poor theology. I believe that freedom is most easily accessed as we come to more fully understand the sovereignty of God, the sure sanctification of the believer and by staying as close to the text of Scripture as possible.

Hopefully we can avoid shouting. I think this thread has successfully avoided shouting for the most part.

Coach C,

This list you wrote: “Keswick, revivalism, KJV only, high standards, man centered ministries, and topical sermons.”

They don’t come all in one package. For instance, I’m not Keswick, revivalism, man-centered, or topical sermons, yet I believe high standards and KJV only. I feel for your predicament of looking for the pure spiritual air to breath—-it is a horrible view of sanctification that was thrust upon you. And I mean that.

At the moment of my justification, I became a partaker of the Divine nature, and that gave me a high standard, but it is Him that works in me both to will and do of His good pleasure.

We are talking the same language then - high standards are fine. I happen to have a few myself. . . but they don’t necessarily demonstrate or represent greater spiritual growth.

It is not just that theological positions themselves that were/are the problem. It is also the lack of freedom to discuss and explore what God has for us and a spirit that seeks to discourage autonomous local churches from operating as they believe God would have them behave.

We need pastors who stand unapologetically for the truth of Scripture, but also do not take offense if they are questioned respectfully or should I say “easy to be intreated”?

In determining our Baptist lineage, McGoldrick’s book (http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-James-Edward-McGoldrick/dp/0810836815)is useful in revealing more of the true nature and beliefs of some of the “baptists” which are claimed. Whether someone sees them in a Landmarkian lineage, or spiritual kinship lineage, or some such, McGoldrick’s work is illuminating. Based on the views of MBBC grads I have known, they might want to think twice about claiming some of these groups as “Baptist” or “spiritual kin”.

Often, I see “spiritual kinship” promoters deride Calvin, Zwingli etc., and based on their crimes against other believers, they do not think that there is anything of value to find from these men—often rounding it up to “there’s nothing of value among the “reformed” in general.”

Is there a lack of consistency in deriding the reformers, but holding up schismatic Roman Catholics as “kin?” Some intellectual and historical honesty might be called for?

Eric,

I couldn’t agree with your post more! Say that too loudly though and GFA might just send you packing… :-) I grew up in Trinity and I know how certain roots in fundamentalism run!

Kent,

I sat under the ministry fo Phelps from 1989/1990 (when he came to Trinity) - 2002. I was in the “preacher boys” class he taugh while attending school there at Trinity. Anyone who knows him and has heard him preach knows of the deep respect he has for Spurgeon… and that is what puzzles me most. Spurgeon was a Calvinist to the core… how Phelps can reconcile the two escapes me! I can’t help but wonder if he’s under some kind of pressure from somewhere…

Eric,

I couldn’t agree with your post more! Say that too loudly though and GFA might just send you packing… :-) I grew up in Trinity and I know how certain roots in fundamentalism run!

Kent,

I sat under the ministry of Phelps from 1989/1990 (when he came to Trinity) - 2002. I was in the “preacher boys” class he taught while attending school there at Trinity. Anyone who knows him and has heard him preach knows of the deep respect he has for Spurgeon… and that is what puzzles me most. Spurgeon was a Calvinist to the core… how Phelps can reconcile the two escapes me! I can’t help but wonder if he’s under some kind of pressure from somewhere…