These photos are of soon-to-be-former Texas A&M head football coach Dennis Franchione and Arbuckle Baptist Association (ABA) Director of Missions Terry Mott. I’ll let you figure out which is which. I first put this picture together several months ago, just for fun, but an opportunity has presented itself for me to make use of it here.
That opportunity stems from a motion recently adopted by the ABA in their annual meeting. This motion was a recommendation from the association’s executive board regarding Calvinism, and here is what it said:
“That the Executive Board of Arbuckle Baptist Association recommend that the messengers to the Arbuckle Baptist Association Annual Meeting in October 2007, vote to request the Executive Director of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Executive Committee of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, and the Board of Directors of the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, take a stand against the presentation of reformed theology – often called “Calvinism” – as a legitimate topic that we need to debate; and instead of recommending that we should debate reformed theology, take a public stand against reformed theology”
There was then a motion at the annual meeting that the letter be sent to Dr. Morris Chapman and all members of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee.
I spent four years on staff at a church in the ABA, and I know Terry Mott pretty well. He is a friend and one of my mentors in ministry. I learned a great deal sitting across the desk from him, and I have a particular appreciation for the difficult situation he is in as a result of these actions by the association. His signature on the letter (click here to see it) indicates nothing more than his compliance with the instructions given to him by the association of churches he serves. With that background, I want to share some observations on this controversy, observations based on what I know about those involved, as well as on conversations I had with Terry Mott over the last couple of days.
The pastor who was the driving force behind this move, Dr. Joe Elam of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, had until about eighteen months ago a Calvinist staff member who did much, both before and after he separated from the church, to undermine Dr. Elam’s leadership of that church. As Dr. Akin told us in our SBC Today interview, while there is unquestionably a place in SBC life for Calvinists, hyper-Calvinists and Calvinists who are hyper need to repent or move on. I think this is, at least in part, an overreaction to a person who fits the second category of folks Dr. Akin mentioned.
Also, as Terry Mott told me yesterday, this statement is not worded in a way that reflects the true intent of the motion. The arguments made in support of its adoption centered on a hypothetical pastor who would stand in the pulpit and declare that there are some people sitting before him who cannot be saved. While this is at best a mischaracterization of reformed theology, and while it is almost certainly a straw-man argument (who would actually do this?), I think all would agree that someone who did do it ought to be opposed. When you read that it was adopted without objection, understand that this is what folks thought they were supporting.
While he does not identify himself as a Calvinist, and certainly doesn’t subscribe to all five points, know that Terry Mott understands that, to some extent, all true Baptists are Calvinists. It is my hope that this unfortunate action will not reflect poorly on the character and reputation of this good man and this wonderfully loving and Christ-focused association of churches.
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Well stated and constructive.
I think the biggest problems Baptists have with Calvinists is what Baptists say about them, not what they, themselves, say. The ironic thing is that there are a lot more mis-impressions amongst us Baptists about them, than there are amongst them about us.
As a PCA Elder, I can assure you that the preacher who said there were some people sitting before him who could not be saved would be thrown out the door, so to speak. I’d have gotten up and done that myself.
Hey I was under 50, then.
Reply
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Bob,
I agree. (God is a God of miracles!)
YOU were under 50…pounds?…
Sola Gratia!
Reply
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
So Wes, are you saying Terry Mott isn’t a true Baptist (”he does not identify himself as a Calvinist…” and “all true Baptists are Calvinists.”)?
Just kidding. I have no doubt he’s an honorable man. But is he then saying that Joe Elam isn’t a true Baptist since he most definitely isn’t a Calvinist? Or are there some true Baptists who aren’t Calvinists and who would like to see Calvinists run off? Wouldn’t it be interesting if this same thing were to be passed in Cimarron Association? Or Pott-Lincoln?
Sorry. I just can’t stop funnin’ you guys.
[My security code is 5cb1. Maybe that means CB will show up and claim Joe Elam wears Max Factor. Hehe.]
Reply
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Paul,
Thanks for pointing out the way I’ve managed to contradict myself. I was asking for it…
As to what this says about Dr. Joe Elam, I really liked what Dr. Mohler told us when he responded to this in our interview with him. He said, “The SBC is not made up of Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but is made up of Calvinists of all different types. Some who know it, some who don’t. Some who count points, some who don’t know where to count points.” (Not an exact quote, but pretty close)
I suspect that Dr. Elam fits in the latter part of both those sentences.
Reply
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I might somewhat agree, Wes, but there is definitely something in Calvinism that Joe Elam neither likes nor identifies with and I doubt it is simply a matter of whether one is hyper or not. I suspect he has a problem with at least one of the points which would make him closer to an Amyrauldian.
I remember in a seminary Baptist Theology class a classmate writing a report on Herschel Hobbs. He concluded that Hobbs was no better than a one point Calvinist, but at that point isn’t it more accurate to say that he was a four point Arminian? If 20% of Southern Baptists self-identified as “charismatic” we wouldn’t call the SBC a charismatic denomination, would we?
Reply
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
“Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess.”
http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc10.html
Would someone please explain what this quote means if it does not mean that some in the room may not be saved?
Bennett Willis
Reply
on Nov 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
So Wes, does this thing not bother you, as a Baptist? Is there anything more “non” Baptist than an associational group attempting to tell all churches what they can and cannot do?
And Terry Mott looks nothing like Coach Fran, by the way :>)
Reply
on Nov 15th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Bennett,
The effectual calling is most certainly not the responsibility of the preacher to assert. I could and would never stand in the pulpit and say, “You, sir, cannot be saved. I believe you are not elect so don’t even try.” Any and every solid reformed Southern Baptist pastor I know preaches a whosoever will may come Gospel.
Too many want to assert the claims of Calvinism in the negation of what they don’t say. Since effectual calling means that the elect will definitely be drawn to God by grace to respond in faith, the negation of that must necessarily be being said also. In another arena…predestination must be ‘double’, etc. I, for one, do not believe this to be the case.
Maybe I take exception to your spin on the 1689 Confession. After reading it, I still see the emphasis on the positive call while noting the enemy’s counterfeit to true conversion. It speaks nothing but truth in the clearest of theological terms while speaking nothing to the issue of the presentation of the Gospel.
You are not comparing apples to apples here.
SOLA GRATIA!
Reply
on Nov 15th, 2007 at 12:34 am
We don’t get to know who the elect and non-elect are. Our Adamic nature wants to, but God won’t tell us. It is thus a monumental presumption to think we can even hint whether there’s someone in the room who can’t be saved.
We get so hardened to thinking we know it all that we don’t even recognize when we stumble across it.
Kind of reminds me of the well-known preacher who gave us a sermon once, entitled “Five Things God Doesn’t Know”. Such audacity.
We’re not in management. We’re just in sales.
Reply
on Nov 15th, 2007 at 9:14 am
This is why I would never make a good SBC committee member. If I were in Terry Mott’s position I would have never signed such a letter. And I do not say this as a Calvinist but as a Christian who is Southern Baptist. I would not have signed it even if I were not reformed in my faith. His is the only signature on there regardless of the fact that it was not his decision. A signature on a letter denotes responsibility regardless.
Reply
on Nov 15th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Jerry Grace at the SBCOUTHOUSE rocks. It beat the socks off what you folks are saying here and what BSC has stated in Part 2.
Troy
Reply
on Nov 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Scott and Bob,
I was not trying to “spin” the quote (direct from the 1689 confession) in any direction. I recognize that God does what He wishes and all our opinions matter not in the end, but…
How can you look someone in the eye and say that if you are elect that it does not matter than you reject the presentation of the gospel for some reason (mental issues?), you are taken care of. Maybe I’ve just answered my question–if you are mentally (in the incapacitated sense) unable to move to the call of God you will be cared for–adult or infant. Then there are those whose minds just won’t let them come to God–they can’t think that way due to early teaching or some experience…but of course they were obviously not among the elect or they would be drawn.
But I’m still left with the reverse. If I am not among the elect even if I “may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, [I] neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved.” I suppose that I could rationalize that by saying that I would be “just pretending” to produce “fruit of the spirit” (as we do for “back sliders”–they were not really saved to start with). This seems to put the “security of your salvation” (or at least your knowledge of it) up in the air. You could not know. Is this addressed somewhere else? This one still needs some work for me.
When I look at “my model” and “your model” and sort of shut my eyes–I eventually arrive at the same place no matter which route I took. Both “models” seem to deal with the same problems identically and with the same results. In my business (teaching the operation of chemical plants) this would mean that either model is equally useful in practice.
I still don’t like the different routes but I think that understand yours better than I did. I’m really attached to “free will” but I do understand how you could be similarly attached to your model–which is a significant change for me.
Bennett Willis
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Bennett,
Thanks for the explanation; you really didn’t have to do that. If we could sit and chat for an hour I can assure you it would come down to semantics.
One problem, and it’s a big one, is that folks have gotten used to saying (IMHO inane) things like “four-point Calvinist”. There’s no such animal, any more than there’s a two-point trinitarian. The Calvinistic model all falls apart if you disassemble any of it.
In the history of man, there’s never ever been someone who wanted to be saved (and was willing to do what the Bible requires, like acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus in his own life) who wasn’t. Never. That’s part of the position on election.
In the history of man, there’s never been someone who didn’t want to be saved who was drug in regardless, without coming to Jesus. Never. That’s irresistible grace.
There are people who admire the lifestyle of certain believers and opt for that lifestyle. They do religious things but never get saved. We had a 40+ man in our church all his life, literally from birth, who got saved about 3 years ago. If things are as they seem, he’s a good example of that last point. But he got saved. He was elect.
I don’t adhere to all the Westminster Confession, although the PCA website I visit has verses which substantiate every point they make therein. Just like the BF&M has scripture verses supporting every point made therein. Our position, then, comes largely from which verses we emphasize and which we downplay, or explain away.
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 8:23 am
And for a real Calvinist, I downplayed one point. Strictly speaking, the doctrine of total depravity stipulates that no one will ever even want to be saved unless he’s elect, and if he is, God’s irresistible grace will draw him in. I put more qualifications in it than most, I guess.
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Bennett: Are you a photographer? I have good reason to ask. If so, you may live in the same town as my old ex-pastor (PCA) who was the first pastor who also became a good friend.
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
bob and others,
i’m not a calvinist. i’m a biblicist. if it’s in the bible, i just believe it. now, what system of theology that puts me in is no matter to me. i just believe the bible. but, to say that i’m calvinistic in my theology would be an accurate statement. bob, i can see what you’re saying about the four point, three point stuff….and, if you dont believe in all five points then it all falls apart. i understand what you’re saying. i guess where i depart from some of the five point brethren is when they start calling anyone who’s not a five pointer an arminian. i’m not an arminian, either. thus, i’m just a biblicist. i dont fit into either one of the system camps.
now, getting back to the theme of this post. i cant understand anyone making that kind of statement about calvinism. now, i can understand them saying that about hyper calvinism, and i can see them making that kind of statement against extreme calvinism, which sounds like what the staff member who caused all the trouble at that guys church was. i’ve seen this played out over and over again at different churches. but, to say that about calvinism…naaaa.
also, paul, all true baptists are calvinistic in their theology. to believe in salvation by grace thru faith, and to believe in preservation of the saints makes one calvinistic in their theology, imho. and, all good baptists believe in salvation by faith and the eternal security of the believer. if they dont, are they really baptist?
david
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Volfann,
“Do not forbid the speaking in tongues” (I Cor. 14:39).
Volfann, it’s in the Bible and I’m glad to know you believe it. Thanks for standing for truth Volfann.
In His Grace,
Wade
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“A text without a context is a pretext”
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
wade,
what wes just said.
thanks, wes.
david:)
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Wes, David, thanks, I couldn’t'a said it better.
I also apply that to all the other verses dealing with the same occurrence.
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Good statement david “all good baptists believe in salvation by faith and the eternal security of the believer. if they dont, are they really baptist?”
And I agree… if they don’t they fit better with the Nazarene’s.
But here in Oz at our theological college, our Principal and lecturer in theology do not hold to the perserverance of the believer.
Most of our students now do not hold to this view. You could be saved and lost again by lunchtime in their view.
What I am saying is, that you SBC guys need to keep your theological parameters secure which were regained for you at the CR, or many other basic beliefs will slide out the window a’fore ye know it.
Steve
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
For what it is worth (roughly the electrons that it is recorded with) I was a cecessionist (but I still prayed and expected things to change and people to be healed and problems to get solved) until my pastor gave me a book that he thought was interesting. By the end of the book, I realized that I could find little scripture that said clearly that the gifts had ceased. So I don’t fit well into that camp any more.
I guess you could say that I am “cautiously open” to the gifts still being active. And I look for evidence of gifts being helpful/harmful in the Baptist environment. I don’t expect the gift of tongues and don’t seek it–despite Paul’s recomendation in that direction.
Nathan Finn is collecting Calvinist stereotypes. I guess if I were going to give one it would be the empty little “Primitive Baptist” church that we drove by regularly when I was a child. They had disappeared due to a lack of need to evangelize–or something. We have to be careful about taking things to their logical conclusion.
Bob, I’m in Lake Jackson, TX. 50 miles due south of Houston. And for those whose geography is shakey, we are not out in the Gulf of Mexico. Galveston is southeast of Houston (45 miles or so) and we are about 45 miles southwest of Galveston. Until I left the relatively flat lands of West Tennessee (350 feet elevation, about 10 miles from Volfan’s place) for the extremely flat (a uniform 1 foot/mile elevation change) Gulf Coast, I would have thought it would have been “wet feet” but it is not.
Bennett
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Bennett,
I was Googling about for an email address so I could continue yakking about calvinism but didn’t want to hijack Wes’ blog to do so. Email me if you want to carry on and add continuationism to it, as I’m one’o them, too (I signed it with caveats).
Reply
on Nov 16th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I have set back and watched all of this unfold, but I can no longer in good conscience remain silent.
First, I am offended by the comments made on this site and those attributed to Dr. Mohler stating that all Southern Baptists are Calvinists, some that know it and others that do not. This statement is at best inaccurate and at worst a veiled insult, implying that some of us are not intelligent enough to realize that we are actually Calvinists. I do not have a seminary degree but I know what I believe. I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I am first and foremost a Christian and secondly a Southern Baptist. I believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works, but I believe that God offers His grace freely to everyone. I believe in the sovereignty of God, but I also believe that God sovereignly decided to give man the ability to accept or reject the gospel. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for everyone. I do not believe that God predestined some to salvation and therefore predestined others to eternal damnation.
Secondly, I am astonished by the comments made on this and other sites implying that the members of the Arbuckle Baptist Association do not have the right to express their opinion or take a stand for their beliefs. To even make such a comment is pure hypocrisy. Is that not exactly what all of you are doing, standing up for what you believe in, expressing your opinions? Additionally, while I understand that the local church is autonomous, the SBC not only has the right but also the obligation to set its theological boundaries. Accordingly, to pretend that reformed theology is a secondary or tertiary issue is ludicrous.
Respectfully,
Aaron Elam
If you are wondering about the name, yes we are related. Dr. Joe Elam is my father.
Reply
on Nov 17th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Thanks Elam, but what you just said is not supported by Scripture. That does not mean that you are not born again.
I am dismayed that the clarification is not made in the call for resistence to and destruction of the founding doctrines of the SBC. When the historic SBC Faith is on the line, it is always curious that no names, no deatails are given of the supposed sinful actions of the Calvinist-divisionists. It is always, he, them, those, and never a real person or incident that can be examined in the hearing of two or more brothers. I have yet to see, the accusors (Arminians) bring forth the facts. This results in nothing more than hearsay, vain arguments, and gossip, and pride-filled self-exaltation. When are the Arminians (code named Bibicists, and Christians, going to put up or shut up. If they are going to label themselves or others, then present the accused’s doctrine and their own, and prove the sinful actions of the particular case under question, or the accusors are violating the commandments by bringing forth false accusations and claiming authority in the name of God wongly in a self justifying manner. Do what is right, or at least be counted as wise by refraining speaking.
Reply
on Nov 18th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Aaron Elam,
I happen to subscribe to the 5 points usually termed “calvinist”. I view the Arbuckle Association’s pronouncement as singularly stupid.
They are entitled to their views on such issues, but their pronouncement has called folks like me wrong, and that is out of line. And self-aggrandizing, representing that they know the true theology better than anybody else, other Southern Baptists included.
But what they say doesn’t bother me. It is irrelevant. They have the right to publish their own statements of beliefs, and I suppose this is one of them. That’s stipulated under the BF&M.
Reply
on Nov 18th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
thomas twitchell,
biblicist is not a code word for arminian. biblicist means someone who’s not into systems of theology like arminianism and calvinism. maybe you should get the FACTS before you go off on someone. btw, many of the statements that you make in your comment fit what the arbuckle bapt. assoc. was reacting against. it’s a shame to give them such ammunition.
david
Reply
on Nov 18th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
volfan (and Grosey),
Arminian Baptists are called Free Will Baptists, not Nazarenes, and the Free Will Baptists (historically known as General Baptists, among other names) are “true” Baptists. Surely you know this, right? Also, why is it that everything hangs on that one point? How in the world can you call a four-point Arminian a Calvinist? By the way, there are more than a few Southern Baptists who would only ascribe to one point.
Reply
on Nov 18th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Aaron Elam,
According to our Southern Baptist polity one group of Baptists cannot instruct another group of Baptists in anything. This is where your father’s recommendation hits the unbaptistic wall. Had Arbuckle simply said, “this is what we believe…” they would have been fine. Instead, they said, “This is what all Baptists should believe” which is not fine. I’ll tell you what…get your dad or go yourself to a national convention and bring that recommendation as a motion from the floor and see what happens to it. [Hint: it will be summarily ruled out of order for the very reasons I've stipulated above.]
Reply