I was recently sent the following job description from a “faith community” that describes itself as “emergent.” I am interested in how SBF readers would respond to this job description. [Note: The following description is rather long.] (more…)

Today during the 1PM-2PM [EST] time-slot, SBF blogger Timmy Brister will be on the Calling for Truth radio program in connection with his 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge. You can listen to the program by going HERE and then clicking the “Listen Online!” icon in the upper right-hand corner during the time of the show. SBF readers are encouraged to call in with questions or comments during the program, which will focus on The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes. The toll-free number is 1-888-660-9535.

I don’t often check the blog of Dr. Ergun Caner, mainly due to the fact that he posts so rarely. So I was interested to see the news, posted December 18, 2007, that Dr. Caner is leading Liberty Theological Seminary to change its name back to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. (Read the entire article HERE.) Now, as a student of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I’m all for the word “Baptist” appearing in the name of a seminary in which Baptist distinctives are promoted- in my opinion this is a simple matter of ‘truth in advertising.’ But the more interesting part is the specific reasons Dr. Caner gives for revising the name of Liberty Theological Seminary. Caner states:

…much as changed, both here at Liberty University and in the Southern Baptist Convention. Too many schools have Baptist in their name but not in their doctrine. Some have drifted into liberalism and cultural relativism; still others remain orthodox, but have drifted toward non-Baptist reformed doctrine and cultural isolationism. For us, this was our line in the sand. We want to build bridges to a lost world without burning the bridges of our doctrinal heritage. We are putting Baptist back in our name, and taking back a term that has been misused.

Notice first that Dr. Caner links “reformed doctrine” with “liberalism” and “relativism,” creating a list that seeks to established guilt by [entirely undefined] association in the same manner Dr. Jerry Vines attempted with his “Baptist Battles” sermon series back in 2006.

Also note that Dr. Caner does not define what he means by “non-baptist reformed doctrine.” Does he mean the reformed doctrine defended by P.H. Mell, one of the original delegates  who helped found the Southern Baptist Convention and went on to be President of the Convention for a total of seventeen years? Does he mean the reformed theology explained by J.L. Dagg, the first writing Southern Baptist Theologian, who wrote, “All who will finally be saved, were chosen to salvation by God the Father, before the foundation of the world, and given to Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace” [J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (1857; reprint, Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1982), 305]? Does he mean the reformed theology taught by J.P. Boyce, the first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who wrote, “Election is an act of God, and not a result of the choice of the Elect… This choice is one of individuals and not classes… election is made through the mere good pleasure of God” [J.P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (1887; reprint, Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006), 348-350]? Does he mean the reformed theology celebrated by many of the pastors and teachers at the recent Building Bridges conference, to which his article alludes? A consideration of Mell, Dagg, and Boyce show that a reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty in salvation is far from “non-baptist.” Perhaps Dr. Caner means to indicate some other kind of “non-baptist reformed doctrine,” but if he really means to assert that there are Southern Baptist churches holding to a reformed doctrine of infant baptism, then he needs to give specific examples.

A week ago yesterday, The White Horse Inn broadcast a program titled, “Joel Osteen: A Case Study in American Religion,” examining the teachings of Joel Osteen. (You can listen to the broadcast HERE.) In a previous post on statements by Joel Osteen, one commenter noted: “The SBC though needs to take care of the motes in our own eyes before worrying about Joel’s Log.” While I think that this is a healthy reaction- and I think that each one of us should examine how we might tend to neglect biblical teachings on sin and the Cross of Christ (as does Osteen) in our own conversations- I also think that it is important that Christians be knowledgeable about Osteen’s teaching and a biblical response to his teaching, as he has such a wide influence through his best-selling books and as the pastor of the largest “church” in America.

In addition to discussion regarding Richard Sibbes, the interview of Mark Dever linked in the last post was interesting for comments made by Pastor Dever concerning Baptist ecclesiology and the Southern Baptist Convention. These comments, transcribed below, are important for every Southern Baptist to hear in recovering a right perspective of the usefulness and proper limitations of the SBC.

Just remember, the SBC’s not a church. I mean, [saying, ‘Leaving the SBC’ is] like saying, ‘Leaving Wycliffe Bible Translators.’ Y’know, it’s like, I’m a pastor, and we have $4000 a year that goes to support this person who works with Wycliffe, and if I stop sending that $4000, then I’m ‘leaving Wycliffe Bible Translators.’ So, it’s not a church issue for us in that way. The Southern Baptist Convention is one means by which- certainly our congregation of Christians at Capitol Hill Baptist Church- we cooperate with other Christians through the Southern Baptist Convention and are delighted to do it. But we feel no obligation to do that; we cooperate through other groups too. We give money to the Conservative Baptists, we’ve given money to groups even associated with other non-baptistic denominations, just to encourage them in gospel work, and we certainly have given to multi or interdenominational groups- like InterVarsity or Campus Crusade- that do work. So we identify ourselves as Christians, and we certainly believe in believers’ baptism, but we would not say that our fundamental identity is Southern Baptist. We’re Christians, and we think the Bible teaches believers’ baptism and we the Southern Baptist Convention is a really good way to cooperate for international missions and can be pretty helpful in the education of ministers…

I don’t think we have the freedom under God to organize our churches in such a way that we begin to think of ourselves as one visible church. So that, let’s say we have a case of church discipline here [at Capitol Hill Baptist Church] and our congregation deals with it, and then some pastor sitting some place- y’know- in Richmond can actually say, ‘No, I reverse it, you’ve gotta put Tom back in the membership of the church. I mean, even if we obey that- let’s say we’re an Episcopalian church, which would obey that- I think we’re in sin for obeying; we’re not following what Jesus said in Matthew 18. We’re taking an unbiblical structure (because a bishop claims some authority) and we are acknowledging it. Well, I think the Lord will still hold us accountable for what we in our congregation do in obeying the words of Christ…

There may be some other church out there that calls itself Southern Baptist that’s preaching wacko stuff; well, that’s not at all in the same sense [as in my local congregation] my responsibility. Now, you can lay out a specific situation with another congregation- we may have more or less responsibility for it, and even with the non-church entities- the parachurch entities, like the Southern Baptist Convention, which is- y’know- it’s like a Christian publishing company, a Christian network of colleges or something- it’s not the same thing as a Christian church. So, let’s say I go to the SBC and somebody has a resolution saying, ‘Hey, we should have only regenerate members in our churches!’ or that’s what we should strive for, well, I go, ‘Of course, that’s what it means to be a Baptist.’ And let’s say the thing gets voted down. That doesn’t cause me to despair. I mean, I understand pastors aren’t all confused. I don’t think the SBC as a Convention has any kind of authority- it doesn’t pretend to. I think all that says is, ‘Yeah, we gotta go back to the books, and we gotta keep talking to pastors, and we gotta do a better job raising up this next generation of pastors’…

If you get your real jollies from what’s going on in the denominational press and the Convention and not what’s happening- y’know- in Mrs. Jones’ life in your congregation or Bob coming to Christ or that Sunday school class you’re teaching or that sermon from last Sunday, then you’ve just got a spiritual problem…

Yesterday the Said at Southern Seminary blog posted the audio file for an interview of Mark Dever by SBF blogger Timmy Brister. (You can hear the interview HERE.) This interview focused on Dever’s doctoral dissertation, Richard Sibbes: Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and early Stuart England. This interview was conducted in conjunction with Timmy’s 2008 Puritan Reading Challenge.

This past Thursday, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, devoted an edition of his daily radio program to examining the teaching of Joel Osteen. [You can listen to the program HERE.] This is noteworthy in terms of Strange BaptistFire because the show brought together themes from two fairly recent posts: Merry Who-mas? which examined Joel Osteens affirmative answer to the question, “Is a Mormon a true Christian?” and FBC Dallas pastor to nominate Mohler for SBC president. In the first of these posts, one commenter asserted, “As it touches on Osteen, the SBC should likewise make clear and unequivocable statements that his teachings are false, if not down right heretical.” In the radio program linked above Dr. Mohler makes such statements, quoting Osteen and playing audio files from Osteen to prove the point. This is an example of the clear, reasoned, prophetic voice the SBC needs in leadership to help equip congregations to respond to our confused, postmodern culture.

[The following post is a transcript of a portion from “The Atonement: Design, Nature, and Extent,” presented by Dr. Sam Waldron at the Building Bridges conference.]

9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (Revelation 5:9-10 NASB)

In this context you note that it is the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders who are singing and praising the Lamb. The occasion is the enthronement of the Messiah. At the Lord’s ascension into Heaven, according to the New Testament, He was made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and sat down at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3). And this is the event that Revelation 5 is talking about. Now this time-frame (the enthronement of the Lamb after His ascension to Heaven) is important because in the context– in the text we’ve looked at– three aorists describe the basis of His ascension to God’s throne. Each describes, therefore, an event that precedes this ascension to God’s throne. And then a future tense follows, which further accentuates the significance of those aorist tenses. The aorists, therefore, describe events that occurred at (I mean, at the time of) and by means of the death of Christ. They occurred prior to the ascension of our Lord to Heaven and to His enthronement as the Lamb of God. The first aorist establishes this reference to the death of Christ; it is the phrase, “For You were slain.” The second aorist also refers to a transaction at Christ’s death, “You purchased for God with Your blood men.” Now this is real, penal substitution resulting in the real purchase of men. There is real substitution and real redemption at the Cross of Christ. The reference is not to conversion, but to a redemption that occurred at Christ’s death, by His blood, and on His Cross. And it is a particular redemption. It is not, “All men without exception.” It is men from every kindred, tribe, and nation; “men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” So here we have what I think we may call an explicit assertion of particular redemption in Revelation 5:9. The third aorist tells us of a blessing that this redemption bestows– [it] is the blessing that the redeemed are constituted “a kingdom and priests to our God.” They’re no longer slaves of sin, as a result of the Cross of Christ and the redemption that took place there, but they are a royal priesthood. And the song ends, then, with a future tense (I understand there’s a textual variant, but I think in this case it’s clear that the tense is future and must be future), “They will reign on the earth.” The redemption according to Revelation 5:9-10 is not only particular, it is also effectual; those for whom Christ was slain, those whom He purchased on His Cross, those whom He constituted a royal priesthood, these– and all of them– will reign in glory in the new heaven and new earth. In the new earth all those purchased by Christ’s death will reign with Him.

[The following was written by SBF blogger Timmy Brister, originally posted on his personal blog Provocations and Pantings, and reproduced here with his permission.]

Baptist Press recently reported on a conference of evangelists in the SBC who are lamenting the growth of Calvinism with the Southern Baptist Convention. Considering that Baptist Press found this worth covering, I figured that this was a significant conference with considerable attendance addressing serious and substantial issues. However, the first line of the article says thus:

A group of 15 evangelists meeting in Jackson, Tenn., Jan. 7-8 said they have concerns about the growth of Calvinism and the rise of a Willow Creek-style of non-confrontational evangelism within Southern Baptist churches.

Did you catch that? A group of 15 evangelists constituting a conference garnered enough political muscle to make this front-page Southern Baptist news. Anyone else find this peculiar?

Secondly, for these 15 evangelists from eight states to come together, there must be some serious matters which are causing such lamenting and concern. According to the BP article, here are the reasons for lamenting:

1. The LifeWay study which reported about 10 percent of Southern Baptist pastors identified themselves as Calvinists, while 29 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates espoused Calvinist doctrine.

2. A few summit participants said the movement toward Calvinism has come on secular university campuses through organizations such as Campus Crusade for Christ and InterVarsity.

So the growth of Calvinism among seminary graduates and the spread of Calvinism on secular campuses causing SBC evangelists to lament. Hmmm . . . But here’s where it gets interesting.

Hal Poe, Charles Colson Professor of Faith and Culture at Union University, said that the kind of Calvinism Piper espouses is not the historic Calvinism of Calvin or Spurgeon. Poe argues:

“He holds huge, stadium-type events that are rip-roaring. There’s nobody else doing anything like that so he becomes [Calvinism’s] expositor. But John Piper’s version of Calvinism is not something John Calvin would espouse, or even that Charles Spurgeon [British reformed Baptist preacher] would espouse.

Poe does not explain what he means by his assertion, but one is led to believe that Piper is advocating a version of Calvinism “more extreme” and less evangelical than that of Spurgeon. But then again, you have to explain that to all the missionaries whose lives have been changed and charged for the glory of God by Piper’s fiery heart for missions and reaching the lost for Christ.

Jerry Drace, who initiated the “conference,” argues that Calvinism is giving young pastors a reason to “laugh at evangelism” and offer “an excuse not to do evangelism.” Nothing new here. Same ole’ rhetoric from the likes of Nelson Price, Lonnie Wilkey, and Bobby Welch.

Now, let me offer a few thoughts regarding this article by Baptist Press and the conference of evangelists:

1. The SBC media machine, Baptist Press, has a way of making matters “newsworthy” that do not have the merits thereof. There are thousands of church staff who have “conference meetings” with higher attendance than this conference. Baptist Press is simply trying to shine the spotlight on something they think it is important to them.

2. Jerry Drace talks about the young people “laughing” and “finding excuse for not doing” evangelism but fails to factor in the LifeWay study which revealed that “Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers.” So if the Calvinists, who are laughing and finding excuses, are more personally evangelistic than the non-Calvinists, then what are we to make of the non-Calvinists?

3. Hal Poe’s assertion that Piper espoused a morphed (and distorted?) version of Calvinism is unqualified and unsupported. It would be nice that if a professor is going to make such claims that he would back them with substance.

4. The caricature that Calvinists are not evangelistic is an old and well-worn hat in the SBC. Consider these facts. According the 2006 Annual Church Profile (ACP), there are 44,223 churches in the Southern Baptist Convention.

10,449 churches baptized NO ONE
3,312 churches baptized ONE PERSON
13,760 churches baptized 1-5 PEOPLE

A total of 27,521 churches in the SBC baptized less than FIVE people for an entire year, which comes to 62% of all SBC churches.

Furthermore, at least three out of four churches are plateaued or declining.

So can it really be said that one of ten Southern Baptist ministers (who are Calvinists) be the real reason for lamenting in the SBC?
Should we not be lamenting over the nearly 10,500 churches who are practically dead?
Should we not be lamenting over the fact that over 75% of our churches are experiencing no conversion growth?
Should we not be lamenting over the evangelism (and its practices) of the past 50 years which has turned in the SBC into an unregenerate denomination with over half of our “church members” as unrecognizable?

And yet, in spite of all this, a conference of 15 evangelists come together and talk about how they do not like John Piper–a man who has done more to fuel missions and evangelism than any Southern Baptist alive today.

And this is Southern Baptist news.

Read the story HERE.

Update: On the day that the above link was published to Strange BaptistFire, Associated Baptist Press published an article titled, “SBC presidency showdown brewing after Mohler announces intention.”
My observations on this article:

1. The writer of this article way over-estimates Burleson’s influence.
2. Co-operative program giving may, indeed, be an issue in the presidential election. But from what I’ve heard, Highview Baptist, where Mohler is not a pastor in charge of the budget, but a Sunday school teacher, gives additional money (money that is not accounted for in the 3.3%) directly to the Co-operative program, bypassing the state convention, which keeps too high a percentage in the state. Many churches choose to do this, and Mohler’s nomination may bring this issue to the forefront.
3. Burleson criticizes Mohler for his words of caution about accepting the BF&M 2000 (a document Mohler helped to draft) as sufficient to guide all SBC agencies and institutions. Burleson caricatures Mohler as representing an oligarchy telling the common people “we know better than you.” The truth is that Mohler made an excellent case for why the BF&M 2000 is sometimes insufficient. The SBC does not need a “leader” who will blindly follow orders (or perceived orders) from a single emotionally-charged moment on the convention floor, but one who will actually lead- taking all of his convention-defined responsibilities into consideration and carefully reasoning through the implications of denominational decisions.