The Gospel According to Dr. David Allen and Al Mohler: Is the Official Southern Baptist Gospel Biblical?
“So, what is it exactly that both camps agree with? What is this Calvinism that is fundamentally orthodox according to Dr. David Allen?”
Well, yesterday was full of learning. I think the most important thing I learned is that Southern Baptist leaders are like wrestlers in the World Wrestling Federation. They fight in the ring, and go out together for beer afterwards. Another thing I learned is that both parties (Calvinists/Arminians) have a vested financial interest in keeping the SBC undivided. Truth is not the issue here, at issue is the salvation of the SBC financial machine monetized by the sheep they deem as still totally depraved. And sadly, like WWF fans, the sheep think these guys are really fighting.
Some of my wisest mentors have been totally depraved. Not in regard to ethics, but in regard to reality. As a young, and naive new restaurant assistant manager, the elderly general manager sat me down and stated, “Paul, this is how it works; if you prefer, rape the waitresses, steal the food, and put stuff in the customer’s meals, but don’t mess with the money.” I fear the SBC is little different.
Calvinism versus Arminianism in the SBC? “The Watershed issue in the SBC for the next 5-10 years”? How many SBC parishioners watch WWF? Bless their hearts, in the same way that WWF fans love their favorite wrestlers, many SBC congregants love the “T” word: truth. That’s a problem. At this year’s John 3:16 Conference, a couple of young restaurant managers asked the Southwestern Seminary elites what they were going to do about the Calvinist problem in the SBC. Dr. David Allen, the wise general manager, set them straight. Those Calvinists are our brothers, and Calvinism is not outside of “Christian orthodoxy.” And it goes without saying that Al Mohler over at Southern, “ground zero for the Neo-Calvinist movement,” would agree with Allen wholeheartedly. As one leader stated during the same conference, the big match is “a family matter.” Yes Sally May, bring us another round.
Both parties even have mutual foes that disrupt family harmony. Dr. James White points to those pesky hyper Arminians while Dr. Allen points to those pesky hyper Calvinists. As a pastor you learn one thing in a hurry: if you want a two party beat down, get in the middle of a family dispute and take sides.
So, both sides agree: there are merely residual disagreements in regard to Calvinism, but fundamentally, it is “orthodox.” So why the conference? That answer becomes as easy as A,B,C: the fans shouldn’t expect the wrestlers to really kill each other, that wouldn’t be Christian-like. The conference wasn’t a stand for the truth, it was wise counsel from the general managers to the fans. They said as much:
This strand of Baptist life, Caner said, ran concurrent with the stronger Calvinistic one from the Philadelphia Baptist Association and both have existed within Southern Baptist life since the founding of the convention.
Caner asserted that much of the theological disunity could be resolved if there was more evangelistic methodological unity, particularly using an altar call.
Southern Baptist history, Caner said, demonstrates that revival and the methods of evangelism associated with historic “revival meetings” will be what halts “discussion over doctrinal differences” and stops “theological infighting.”
So, what is it exactly that both camps agree with? What is this Calvinism that is fundamentally orthodox according to Dr. David Allen? Well, in the Calvin Institutes, Calvin teaches that the “washing”; i.e., salvation, is “perpetual,” and the atoning work of Christ on the cross is also perpetual (3.14.11). I kid you not.
In 4.1.21,22, and elsewhere, Calvin states that sins committed in the Christian life separate us from grace, and we must therefore receive daily salvific forgiveness of sins, and this forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church and under the authority of pastors. This should give relevant meaning to the “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” jingle that is popular among SBC leaders.
I could go on and on and on with examples, but you get the point.
The SBC fans are paying good money to have their gospel picked for them while the SBC elite laugh about it at the local pub over a few cold ones. It’s time for that gig to be over.
Trust me, the fans have God’s permission to choose their own gospel. You do not have to go to a conference to get permission from elitist charlatans. Take me for instance, I am a licensed Southern Baptist pastor, and I confess that Dr. David Allen can take his false gospel and stuff it in a place of his choosing. No pun intended.
paul
It’s Official: The World Knows More About Justice Than Calvinists
As the New Calvinist world either remains silent or defends leaders who covered-up the rape of children, consider that the world will not tolerate a “culture of rape and cover-ups.”
http://www.wtrf.com/story/24121937/steubenville
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joanne-bamberger/steubenville-indictments_b_4351034.html
http://linkis.com/thinkprogress.org/he/qgVX
NT Wright Has Two Things Right, Plus One
“Now, in what time I was able to invest in this, I find two challenges by NT Wright against the traditional Reformed narrative absolutely exquisite and dead-on.”
I haven’t jumped into the whole fray between the minions of Plato’s Protestant Reformation and NT Wright. At the behest of some PPT friends I have perused some of NT Wright’s stuff and find him a little more philosophical than I prefer. Furthermore, he seems to be coming from the European mindset that discusses systematic theology from the viewpoint of a linear gospel or the “golden chain” construct.
Once again, his name came up to me in regard to Al Mohler et al having their panties in a bundle over this guy. I was sent a couple of videos and one in particular incited me to dig a little deeper. The second video, seething with pompous Platonist arrogance, made me wonder what exactly it was about NT gramps that worries these guys so much, so I downloaded the book that irritates them the most on my Kindle and read the chapters on justification.
Let me pause here to remind you of something. These guys that are on the Southern video know how to present themselves in a way that makes everyone listening to them feel small. But be sure of this: when they stand before the Lord to give an account of their false doctrine we will be reminded in no uncertain terms that they sit down on the toilet and take a dump in the exact same way we do. Moreover, if you listen carefully, much of what they espouse is not even worthy of toilet paper. Mohler, in the video, is incredulous that NT has the “audacity” to question an anti-Semitic murdering mystic despot; namely, Martin Luther. Mohler then describes Plato’s Protestant Reformation as “the gospel.” At the end of this post, I have embedded a video that speaks to this aptly in my opinion.
Here, I will focus on what seems to irritate these guys the most about NT gramps. Doctrinally that is, their displeasure that NT takes away from the number of people they can control notwithstanding. When I watch the Southern video, I just see nicely dressed and well-spoken wolves whining about the mutton that they are being deprived of. Then there is a cub that they always have tagging along for training in the form of Denny Burk.
Now, in what time I was able to invest in this, I find two challenges by NT Wright against the traditional Reformed narrative absolutely exquisite and dead-on.
First, the idea of Christ’s righteousness being perpetually/progressively imputed to the believer for justification. NT is not dogmatic about this, but the wolf pack cannot even tolerate any semblance of this idea because it is the core of their false progressive justification gospel. They find a challenge here by a scholarly heavyweight most threatening.
Secondly, one of the elements of NT’s New Perspective on Paul; ie., the Reformers read Paul wrong in regard to the Pharisees; specifically, their idea (supposedly from Paul) that the Pharisees were “legalists.” Oh my. If not for the width of the Atlantic and my precious Susan, I would kiss this guy right on his bearded face. In the video, Mohler, shifting around in his throne-like chair because his panties are in a bundle (probably pink), reiterated the Reformed idea that the Pharisees were the legalistic personification of mankind’s fetish for “justifying themselves.”
This is not true at all. First of all, “legalism” is a word that does not appear anywhere in the Bible. It’s not a biblical concept. I have eradicated the concept from my mind because it is not a biblical concern. The Bible is primarily concerned with the traditions of men and antinomianism. That’s God’s truth replaced with the traditions of men in an anti-truth endeavor. And that’s exactly what the Pharisees were. They weren’t professionals at attempting to obey the truth of God’s word for justification as posited by the Reformers, they were rank antinomians inside and out who replaced God’s truth with their traditions.
The Reformers, past and present, have replaced that fact with their own narrative because they are the Pharisees on steroids. Luther was constantly accused of being an antinomian by medieval theologians, and the likes of John Piper (among others) have stated that the accusation of antinomianism is an indication that you are preaching the true Reformation gospel. The Reformation coined the term “orthodoxy” which is Reformed creeds, confessions, and councils that have replaced the truth of God’s word. The Reformed crowd is the epitome of the Pharisees and NT Wright is dead-on in his assertion that the Reformers misrepresent the Pharisees (see chapter 2 of “The Truth About New Calvinism” available on Amazon and this ministry).
NT is right about one more thing in my book. Though I wonder about his concept of “final justification” and what seems to be the “golden chain” approach to justification, I work hard at this ministry and deserve a few sinful pleasures accordingly. Therefore, I like him because he annoys the wolves and causes them to howl irrationally. The video and the screaming thereof like alley cats in the night was music to my ears. When justification is a chain with sanctification links in the middle, the wrangling over what is works and not works are inevitable. NT’s approach to that seems to be novel and not Catholic or Reformed.
Beats me, I choose to like him for now because of the reasons stated. And though I am on a diet, I am eating pizza tonight, and at least one slice will be in NT’s honor.
paul
Pedestrian Christian Weighs In on More New Calvinist Vomit
In the following article, Alex Guggenheim documents the shameless pandering to liberal race politics by the New Calvinists and why they do it. Also telling is his documentation of Al Mohler’s continuing struggle with speaking truth.
But let me throw in my two-cents worth before you read Alex’s astute observations: New Calvinism is Socialism dressed up in Bible verses. The historical process is always the same: religions founded on The Republic playbook always support totalitarian parties, and then once they help them obtain control, they bid for their piece of the pie; ie., “We can offer you control over this much of the population on a silver platter—we just need a little help with enforcing “truth.’” And if it happens, they might even let Julie Anne Smith pick out the color of her guillotine. I presume pink would be her preference.
This is how it always happens, and is behind the huge ecumenical movement of New Calvinism. People express surprise that a lot of these guys vote for liberal politics. It doesn’t surprise me in the least, but without further comment, here is Alex’s post:
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
17 comments