Coming your way this November, via FBC Woodstock, is "A Biblical and Theological Assessment of and Response to 5-Point Calvinism."
http://www.jerryvines.com/Page.bok?template=john316speakers
Here's the line-up (some pretty heavy hitters)
Jerry Vines: John 3:16
Paige Patterson: Total Depravity
Richard Land: Unconditional Election
David Allen (SW Theo. Sem): Limited Atonement
Steve Lenke (NOBTS): Irresistible Grace
Ken Keathley (SEBTS): Perseverance of the Saints
Charles Stanley: John 3:16 to the Entire World
It seems the new SBC President is stepping into our discussion of Calvinism. While I know where I stand (and can assume these guys agree), I'd love to see a good, old-fasioned debate. Regardless, they have recognized the debate among us and many Baptists.
7 comments:
Whew, sounds pretty balanced. :)
I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous absence of Al Mohler, perhaps the singular most visible and scholarly Baptist of our day. Nor is there any representation from THE Southern Baptist Seminary, despite the list being heavy with seminarians.
Ought to be interesting and I hate to pre-determine (sic) my opinion but I can't think of "A Biblical and Theological Assessment of and Response to 5-Point Calvinism." that has ever lived up to its name. Usually, you get this unfortunate devolution into sound-bytes and easy applause-getters. As in, "Friend, I don't know who your God is but the only election my God is concerned with is making sure Nobama don't get elected this November." I came up with that one on my own.
Maybe this one will be diff.
I wouldn't bet on it with what I know of J. Hunt......after all...he wouldn't allow Christ Himself to serve in the SBC because he made and drank wine.
While one of the neatest classes offered while I was at New Orleans was a class taught by 2 profs. advocating the 2 sides of this issue the purpose of this conference is not debate.
We would be hard-pressed to find a conference led by "reformed" Pastors debating Calvinism. Rather, their teachings would espouse their 5 point position through and through. These speakers seem to want to make clear their theology to many who might be seeking clarity.
What I would find interesting would be where both sides would be in full agreement and where the divisions lie. Dr. Stanley's book on Eternal Security (Perseverance of the Saints) is one that is most requested and the one which he is most criticized for by Pentecostals and Church of God folks (just Google his name). This is common ground.
Of the 5 points, reformers and SBC stalwarts would often agree on at least 3 and agree half-way on the other 2 points.
In my honest opinion I think the ultimate concern is Missions and Evangelism. From my non-Calvinist view, a five-point world-view lends toward obedience solely for obedience's sake in these areas. It's all settled, so why go out of my way or leave it all behind when the outcome is not in question for the lost: for these SBC leaders, a genuine concern.
Mohler is a great theologian, and personally, I'd love to hear him debate on a scholarly level, and a conference might be the best place to hear both sides. However, on a Sunday AM, I want my Pastor to share passionately those things that he has settled as truth in His time in the Word and before the Lord.
Right, I understand it isn't for debate and I see where my comment looks like that's what I was saying. I understand on a seminar like this, I know they are presenting a position, not debating opposing positions, so clearly Mohler wouldn't be there. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek.
Some of the more problematic roadblocks come at the very beginning, if I am refuting, for example, Limited Atonement. Often what I see, the guy refuting Limited Atonement first says, "The Calvinists believe x, y, and z and now I'll tell you why those things are not true."
If he gets the belief wrong, he then goes to a lot of trouble refuting a non-beliief, thus simply confusing everyone on the issue.
And I can't tell if I've stated this correctly. For example, if I am refuting abortion and I begin by saying, "Those who advocate abortion want to come to your house and take your kids away from you." Well, that isn't true but if your audience doesn't know any better, you've got some people up in arms now.
Agreed. My hope is that ultimately this is about the Great Commission and the Church being the Church, not beating up on other parts of the Church.
Heresy must be confronted and dismissed as untrue, but I don't for a second believe Calvinism is heresy. Truth and Unity within the Body is to be treasured.
I agree with you both....Toom, great example and you hit on my concern of confusion. Because most people are not going to look into these issues on their own....they would more likely just adopt the point of view of their pastor or leader...and that really goes for both sides of this issue. Where my issue is...well, really more of a question I guess, is that you now have the President of the SBC that has put this together and I know that at least the three of us know that the Calvinist debate within the SBC has been growing....so rather than find a way to discuss the issues we have the leader of the denomination in essence handing down an edict....intended or not....it just seems that this type of event could further splinter the convention...that's not to say it will, just that it could....and if I remember right this event is actually in response to an event put on by the Founders....so both sides might be missing it a little....
Well, and there is really my issue of balance, though I was really having some fun with it, if the SBC umbrella includes differing views on theology such as these, is it really wise to present what appears to be a sanctioned position in favor of one over the other?
I will say this. I do believe there is room for differing views under the SBC umbrella. And this represents a departure for me. I was mad and thought the two couldn't co-exist for long. While I think many would like for one side or the other to disengage, the healthy choice, and I think the prevailing choice, will be to continue the dialogue, regardless of how set in our ways we think we are.
Post a Comment