Calvinism, The Gospel, and Adrian Rogers

2000 was the last time as far as I know. Since then there has been an obvious withdrawal from the Founders Movement. I also know from those inside the SBTS circle that there are certain persons within the Founders movement that desire to teach at SBTS, but it will not happen b/c of the innate dangers of which I have already referred.

Of course I am not suggesting Mohler is becoming any less Reformed than he is. I am simply saying there is a danger in certain forms of Calvinism that creates isolationism and arrogance. Call it a political movement or an attempt to identify with those on both sides of the aisle, but Mohler's decision to pull away speaks volumes.

 

And that is my point -- there is an innate danger in Calvinism to overemphasize the divine calling aspect to the point the human responsibility aspect becomes void. When that happens, evangelism takes a back seat in the name of sovereignty. This problem does surface from the theological system called Calvinism.

Remember I am writing these things as someone who is more Reformed than not. I just do not limit God's working to a particular system.

I concur. Disobedience wears no theological system labels.

I agree the doctrines of grace SHOULD create humility. After grading over 1500 theology and NT papers, speaking with some of the leading evangelical pastors in Louisville regarding this issue as well as many seminary profs, hearing the horror stories of students who return to their home churches and challenge the senior pastor over these issues, and having students come to my church and ask me right away if I am a "5-pointer", I can tell you the problem definitely exists.

 

So why is it that the majority of SBC churches are plateaued or declining? You can't blame that on "Calvinism."

I don't disagree with you that there is an innate danger to overemphasize sovereignty when it comes to Calvinism. However, the converse is true with "Arminianism." There is an innate danger in overemphasizing human ability. You seem to pick on just one system. A "balanced" approach, I believe, tackles both problems (which "true Calvinism" / "Evangelical Calvinism" does).

Friend:
May the Lord use you to advance His glory and His kingdom! Hope your studies at SBTS go well.
This is the end of the line for me on this thread.

Rev. G

 

Hi SbcbyGrace,

You said,

Actually many believe the Churches of Smyrna and Philadephia were small churches. On the other hand a church should grow and excuses for not growing can be ignoring the fact they are not doing evangelism. Some Church Evangelism books seem to be designed for new churches. Take for instance a Church that has a bad reputation in the community or a Church in a dying rural community may face obstacles a Church in Dallas or Atlanta want.

You make a excellent point and I appreciate what you are saying.

Those numbers though do not necessarily come over night or with a year but may take years (I take a slight detour from the Calvinism debate now) For instance a pastor comes to a church that is running 18-20 which may have scarred it's name in the community. It May even have most of the community against it and the pastor may have to face or fight an internal battle before the Church can grow. Understand what I am saying is that I believe Churches will and should grow but the quickness of their growth must many times overcome the history of a Church (Especially many rural family type Churches)

Agreed yet we both believe it and I believe Calvinism though certaintly there is much mystery regarding Salvation (Such as Why Didn't God leave us in Sin, The Greatness of God's Love etc..) Oh No, we are actually agreeing.

I am sure many have come to Christ through the FOUR SPIRITUAL LAWS mainly because He blesses His Word in it but a more sounder theological method would be better in my opinion.

And neither do I.

Yes, hyper Calvinism is a dangerous theology that we should all oppose.

It is not Calvinism but the perversion of it by the hypers that is the problem. I consider it more dangerous than Arminianism.

Consider SBC stats overall and it is not hyper Calvinism that is the problem. I attended an association Soul Winning Rally last night. According to new Statistics brought out by the speaker, somewhere between 25-33% of SBC churches baptized no one last year. It is well known that 70-75% of SBC churches run a average attendance of less than a hundred. 99% of these Churches probably are not Calvinists and SBC numbers have leveled off in recent years. Only about 33% of Southern Baptists attend Church 3 times a week. We have a problem and it is not Calvinism or the perverted Hyper Calvinism.

I do appreciate you be fairminded and enjoyed hearing your perspective.

 

I can agree with what you are saying here. Obviously there may be instances where the gospel is being consistenly shared and people are being discipled and doing ministry, and yet the church does not quickly grow (numerically) because of other circumstances. But I would maintain that some level of growth will occur over a period of time (I like Warren's comparison to the physical body -- if it is healthy it will grow). Still there are some exceptions to every rule.

Actually I am pretty easy to get along with

I can respect your opinion. Perhaps I would emphasize some things differently as well. But in the end the tract teaches that humans are sinners in need of a Savior, and that is the bottom line. I would make similar arguments for the use of the Jesus film in foreign countries. Perhaps it is not the best theological treatise around, but God has used it to draw sinners to himself b/c the central message is what is the key.

You are right that Calvinism is not at fault, but neither is Calvinism the answer (which is what I hear promoted by some). In the end, obedience to the Great Commission (and recognizing our finite minds do not have all the answers) is the issue.

Likewise.