Since Baptistfire disappeared a few months ago, and our posting here has slowed down a bit, I thought I’d just post a reminder for everybody, myself included, about why this website exists.
By Andrew Lindsey
The following section of an article from Agape Press was previously posted on the old anti-Calvinist BaptistFire.com website, which has been out of commission for some time now, but the article may still be read by following the link at the end of the quote:
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr. Albert Mohler embraces traditional reformed theology, and believes that all Christians at some point must believe in limited atonement unless they are universalists.
“The question comes down to whether the atonement is limited by God’s electing purpose or whether it’s limited by human beings and their free decisions,” Mohler explains. “I think the Scripture is very clear that God is sovereign in the process of salvation, such that God’s saving work will be completed in Christ.”
Instead of “limited atonement,” Mohler affirms what he calls “particular redemption” — which, he says, is based on the fact that “scripture speaks of an unconditional election of the saints in Christ, the fact that God’s electing purpose is the ground of our salvation, and the fact that we are told that those who are saved are those whom God has chosen.
“Some persons would categorize that as limited atonement,” he says, “but if you’re going to talk about God’s sovereignty and His omniscience and human responsibility, you can look at it either way.”
But Dr. Elmer Towns, Liberty University co-founder and dean of the School of Religion, says Mohler does not understand the true nature of the cross. “Jesus died for all. No man goes to hell for his sin — people go to hell for unbelief … they have not believed in Jesus Christ,” Towns says. “Therefore, the atonement covers the sin of every person — but that’s not universalism. We must give them the message, they must believe.” [from Jim Brown, “Theologians Differ on the ‘All’ for Whom Christ Died” , Agape Press, Jan. 13, 2003. Emphasis added .]
It is my intention in this post to carefully examine the above quote from Dr. Towns and to show why his statements are in error. At the outset, I would like to note that I fully believe that Dr. Towns’ statements tend to give credibility to Universalism (the belief that every individual person who ever has or will live will also go to Heaven), but that even if everyone who follows Dr. Towns’ philosophy of the atonement is as careful as he is to avoid Universalism, the direct effect of his statements on this issue is the muddling of Christians’ thinking on matters of the Law, the Gospel, and how to present the Gospel to non-Christians.
Jeff Riddle, pastor of the good Jefferson Park Baptist Church in Charlottesville, VA, has been very kind to allow us to print his book review of the new SBC President’s book. Let me preface this by saying that this is in no way an attack on Frank Page. I think he will make a very fine SBC President. However, I did see that his book has been put back into print now (for obvious reasons), and many copies were on display at the Lifeway exhibition @ the Convention last week. Since we’re probably going to be hearing more about this book, consider this a preemptive review. I’m sure that, if our friends at Baptist Fire were still with us, they would be promoting this book anyway.
Frank S. Page’s Trouble With The TULIP: An Extended Review and Response
Frank S. Page. Trouble With The TULIP: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism. Canton, Ga.: Riverstone Publishing Group, 2000: 80 pp.
Frank Page wrote this booklet while serving as Pastor of Warren Baptist Church in Augusta, Georgia. He now serves as Pastor of Taylors First Baptist Church in Taylors, South Carolina and will stand as a candidate for President of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006. Page holds a doctor of Philosophy degree in Christian Ethics from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The aim of this booklet is to express opposition to the theological system known as five point Calvinism, often referred to by the acronym TULIP (Total Depravity - Unconditional Election - Limited Atonement - Irresistible Grace - Perseverance of the Saints). Though Page’s tone is more irenic than some who have opposed the doctrines of grace in recent years, it is still plagued by many of the same maladies that seem to inflict those who decide they are “against” Calvinism. We will first present a summary of the booklet’s content and then offer a chapter by chapter response.
Tom Ascol has graciously permitted us to repeat his most recent post @ the Founders blog here. Before going further, let me say that I understand a JCalvinRIP decided to drop by the thread over there and had to be censored for his ungracious comments. I missed the show; others saw it. He must have shown out quite a bit to have posts removed by the administrator. I’ll be candid. JCalvinRIP you are invited here to discuss this article and your views. This is our personal invitation to you. However, there is one and only one stipulation: You abide by our rules on posting. You can find them to the right under Rules of Engagement. If you cannot abide by those rules, you will be asked to leave. If you feel you have a biblical argument and can offer it with the right spirit, please do. Surliness will not be tolerated.
Also, for those who have disagreed with us in the threads here thus far, with the exception of one whom we had to ban because s/he would not abide by the rules, we would like to thank you all for your comportment. Predestination and election are biblical words and categories. We need to discusss them candidly like ladies and gentlemen not ruffians.
—–
Does anyone else find it troubling to hear what sounds like a growing chorus of criticism directed toward Calvinistic pastors who run into difficulties when trying to shepherd their congregations toward greater spiritual health? Mixed in with the criticism is a charge that such men have been dishonest in the way they have gone into their churches because they did not make an issue of Calvinism from the very outset. Perhaps this can be legitimately said for a few, but they would be the exceptions and not the norm. Why, then, all the criticism?
By Nathan White
Well, at this point it appears as if Baptistfire.com has ridden off into the sunset. Or better yet, it appears as if they packed their things and skipped town during the middle of the night. Consistent with their reputation, there has been no attempt at dialogue. There has been no attempt to clear the air regarding their vile attacks on any and everything reformed. We have not received any feedback from them, any concern over our critiques of their material, any desire to respond to us, etc. This silence is somewhat disappointing, but it does not come as a surprise. As the Proverb says: “the wicked run when no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.” There might be a slight pursuit here, but the cowardliness is as clear as day.
However, I do find this turn of events intriguing as I consider what BF have written in the past. Now, as you know, I cannot link to the article, but I do have many complete and unedited BF articles saved on my computer –which I am considering posting here in the future (and if anyone has any saved cache of Baptistfire articles or discussions, please email them to us). But consider this quote from Baptistfire:
“Thank God for the Caners! As more SBC leaders come out strongly against Calvinism, the spread of Calvinism will slow. Hopefully, Calvinism will wane significantly in the SBC over the next several years.”
Baptistfire folks who are reading, why have you chosen to run and hide if the spread of Calvinism will slow with some ‘coming out strongly’? It appears as though, according to your position, that being bold as a lion would not only be an act of integrity, but it would slow the spread of a ‘dangerous’ theology in the SBC. In light of this, can you please explain why the ‘run and hide’ approach has been taken? Maybe I am speaking to soon, but it appears as if BF is gone for good (praise God!).
Perhaps their position is hinged on this type of logic from their site:
“The Aftermath — A Debate Challenge:
The Caners’ remarks hit a nerve. A debate challenge was issued by the Calvinists (who are the only group to our knowledge to surpass Campbellites, commonly known as the “Church of Christ,” with their love for debating).”
Now I can certainly understand the perception that many Calvinists actively seek interaction on these topics. In fact, in the comment section of a recent post here, Steve Grose said: “We sometimes exhibit a fervour for the debate, rather than a fervour for the Lord Jesus Christ Himself”, which rightly hits on the popular perception that Calvinists are debaters. But the fact that Calvinists seek interaction is not a point that many would deny, and I am thankful for Steve’s concern here. There is a desire to debate these issues, particularly when certain high-profile leaders openly and vigorously attack the reformed position. But for the most part, I believe that using the phrase ‘love for debating’ is a little strong, and that ‘dialogue’ and ‘interaction’ are probably more accurate terms to describe our desire to seek and proclaim the truth.
Here are a few reasons why I believe Calvinists are so outspoken on what they believe, and why a desire for a discussion is very prominent among us:
By Evan May
We are continuing our series of responses to the “Crept in Unawares…” article from BaptistFire (the first three posts can be read here: 1, 2, and 3). We now move on to the second paragraph:
Southern Baptist Calvinists Are Well Organized
They have an organization called Founders Ministries. They have a web site and hold regular meetings. They claim that since some of the original founders of the Southern Baptist Convention were Calvinists that the SBC should hold to these doctrines.
First and foremost, the Founders Ministry desires to bring the Southern Baptist Convention back to its historical roots of the Doctrines of Grace because they are biblical doctrines. The fact that this is the historical position is just the icing on the cake.
In any case, I’m curious what purpose this paragraph serves. Should I not just note: “Southern Baptist Arminians are well organized. They have an organization called ‘BaptistFire.’ They have a web site and hold regular meetings. Oh… and they’re anonymous”?
by Evan May
We are continuing our series of responses to this article from BaptistFire. The first two posts can be read here and here. Hopefully today we’ll be able to cover more ground than a sentence (woohoo!). Again, I’ll provide the immediate context:
“Crept in Unawares …“
Calvinists want to take over your Southern Baptist church a BaptistFire special report (Updated: Sept. 26, 2005)What Calvinists Believe
Calvinists do not believe that God loves everyone (contrary to John 3:16). They do not believe that God wants to save everyone (contrary to 1 Tim. 2:4). Most do not believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. (contrary to 1 John 2:2). Not only are these doctrines contrary to the Bible they are contrary to what the vast majority of Southern Baptists believe.
I noted in my first response that the entire purpose of this section of the article is to cast Calvinism in the negative light. Each one of these statements is made in the negative (”Calvinists do not believe…”). This anonymous contributor doesn’t want to tell us what Calvinists do believe. All he (or she) wants to tell us is what they supposedly don’t believe and then contrast that with a favorite prooftext. We’ve already looked at the first two assertions coupled with the Scripture citations of 1 Tim 2:4 and John 3:16. Today we’ll look at the next point:
Note: Before I get started, I want to thank all of you who have expressed so much support for SBF and the work we are wanting to do here. For those of you who disagree, you are welcome as well. No one here hides in the dark, and all of us want to be held accountable to the Scripture and Christ-like character. May the Lord use this website to bring many “to a knowledge of the truth.” Now to my post…
One of the greatest critiques made against Calvinists is the claim that they are not passionate about evangelism. Recent attempts have been made both from the scholastic (see Steve Lemke’s white paper) and popular level (see Bobby Welch’s newsletter, this sermon, and of course BaptistFire’s recent article). Of course, such a critique cuts both ways as Tom Ascol has shown that numerical growth in churches does not necessarily mean that a church is a healthy, New Testament church (here and here). So the question must be asked: Are Calvinists really passionate about evangelism?
By Evan May
We are continuing our series of responses to this article from BaptistFire. The first post can be read here. You might be wondering why I am spending so much time and space on what might seem to you as little details. The reason is three-fold:
1. Often, the BaptistFire articles are permeated with out-of-context Scripture citations used to support an assumed point. The misuse of God’s Word is no light matter, and therefore I seek to address extensively the Scripture citations utilized by these anonymous contributors. Obviously, not everything needs a long answer. But some things do.
2. The main purpose of this blog (Strange BaptistFire) is to serve those who might be “fence-sitters” when it comes to these issues. We do not want them to be deceived by the works put out on BaptistFire. We want them to be convinced of the truth of, among other things, the Doctrines of Grace. But we don’t want them to accept it blindly. We want them to be convinced on the basis of Biblical convictions.
3. I don’t want any of the unfortunately-anonymous-authors of BaptistFire to make the accusation that I have not handled their works with care. We at Strange BaptistFire do not view highly the material that is produced at the BaptistFire website. We believe it to be sub-scholarship. It is also divisive, accusatory, and unfair (if you do not think this is already evident, just continue to “stay tuned”). But we as Christians want to handle things honestly and fairly. We wish to treat them how they have not treated us.
Most of you have probably read the recent article by James White regarding BaptistFire.com and anonymity. But for the sake of discussion (and with his approval), I’m going to post it here as well.
White certainly hits on the real issue with the anonymous writers at BF.com: “there is only one reason for anonymity when writing upon theological subjects: refusal to be held accountable for what one says.”
I’d love to hear some additional thoughts on this matter of accountability and anonymity.
You are currently browsing the archives for the BaptistFire - Direct Responses category.
