We've More In Common With Boyce Than Falwell
Yesterday I read Les Puryear and Tom Ascol on their thoughts about Dr. Jerry Falwell's statement during last Friday's chapel message at Liberty University. Falwell declared about his school's theology:
I appreciate the ministry of Dr. Falwell. I appreciate Liberty University and the pastors who have graduated from that school, many of whom are now serving within the Southern Baptist Convention. I am glad Dr. Falwell has chosen to unite with the Southern Baptist Convention and welcome him as part of our fold. However . . .
I have long been concerned that a group of independent, fundamental Baptists are attempting to remake the Southern Baptist Convention into the mold they perceive is best. One of the ways fundamentalists accomplish their goal is to label anything 'heresy' that is in disagreement with their views. This 'heresy' labeling is attached to even disagreements on secondary and tertiary doctrines, like that of 'the extent of the atonement.'
I believe that if and when the Southern Baptist Convention ever rolls over and acquiesces by agreeing with pronouncements of 'heresy' like that of Dr. Falwell regarding 'limited atonement,' we are finished as a cooperating convention.
When I was eighteen years old I was handed "The Abstract of Systematic Theology" by James Petigru Boyce as a graduation gift. I have now read the book at least five times from cover to cover and make it a personal policy to give a copy to graduates as well. We also have used it as a textbook and study guide for our men's Tuesday morning discipleship class.
James Petigru Boyce was the principle founder of Southern Seminary. He was born January 11, 1827 in Charleston, South Carolina to Mr. and Mrs. Ker Boyce. His father was considered the wealthiest man in South Carolina and Charleston was the most cultured American city in the early 19th Century. J.P. Boyce had the privilege of the finest education available at Charleston College, Brown University (R.I.) and Princeton Seminary (N.J.)
It was while a student at Charleston that Boyce was converted. Dr. Francis Wayland, President of Brown University discipled Boyce during his years at Brown, and the great theologians and teachers Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge mentored him at Princeton. After graduation in 1851, Boyce was ordained and accepted the call to First Baptist Church, Columbia, South Carolina. He served faithfully until 1855, when he was made professor of Systematic Theology at Furman College. It was at Furman, in 1856, that he gave his famous address 'Three Changes in Theological Institutions' which became the founding structure of Southern Seminary in 1859.
The address set forth three principles on which a seminary would meet the needs of the educated and uneducated man. John Broadus summarized the principles in his book "Memoirs of James P. Boyce" as these:
The Abstract of Principles, written by Boyce's friend Basil Manley (notice Boyce's two best friends are John Broadus and Basil Manly -- it's where we get the name Broadman Press), still serves as the doctrinal standard of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary today, preceding the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message by more than half a century.
The Abstract of Principles is Calvinistic. It declares regeneration precedes saving faith. It unequivocally declares the sovereign election of sinners for salvation by God's free grasce. It also emphasizes substitutionary atonement.
John Broadus, fellow founder of Southern Seminary, declared this about his friend James P. Boyce:
Boyce held to the view that the atonement was 'sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect.' I hold to the belief that the atonement is both sufficient and efficient for the elect alone, the same view held by Dr. John Gill and Southern Baptist systematic theologian John L. Dagg, but my appreciation for the writing and ministry of James Boyce is unequivocal.
My point in this post is simply this:
I would never dream of calling an opposing view of the extent of the atonement 'heresy' or cease from cooperating in missions and evangelism from those who don't see atonement the way I do.
It is incumbent upon us as a convention to avoid 'heresy' pronouncements if we are going to continue to grow in our cooperation and missions ministry. I am trusting that the majority of Southern Baptists will see our heritage as a convention in the vein of J.P. Boyce. We welcome Jerry Falwell and those who believe as he does, but we will not let them get by with heresy pronouncements unchallenged.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
"We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy."
I appreciate the ministry of Dr. Falwell. I appreciate Liberty University and the pastors who have graduated from that school, many of whom are now serving within the Southern Baptist Convention. I am glad Dr. Falwell has chosen to unite with the Southern Baptist Convention and welcome him as part of our fold. However . . .
I have long been concerned that a group of independent, fundamental Baptists are attempting to remake the Southern Baptist Convention into the mold they perceive is best. One of the ways fundamentalists accomplish their goal is to label anything 'heresy' that is in disagreement with their views. This 'heresy' labeling is attached to even disagreements on secondary and tertiary doctrines, like that of 'the extent of the atonement.'
I believe that if and when the Southern Baptist Convention ever rolls over and acquiesces by agreeing with pronouncements of 'heresy' like that of Dr. Falwell regarding 'limited atonement,' we are finished as a cooperating convention.
When I was eighteen years old I was handed "The Abstract of Systematic Theology" by James Petigru Boyce as a graduation gift. I have now read the book at least five times from cover to cover and make it a personal policy to give a copy to graduates as well. We also have used it as a textbook and study guide for our men's Tuesday morning discipleship class.
James Petigru Boyce was the principle founder of Southern Seminary. He was born January 11, 1827 in Charleston, South Carolina to Mr. and Mrs. Ker Boyce. His father was considered the wealthiest man in South Carolina and Charleston was the most cultured American city in the early 19th Century. J.P. Boyce had the privilege of the finest education available at Charleston College, Brown University (R.I.) and Princeton Seminary (N.J.)
It was while a student at Charleston that Boyce was converted. Dr. Francis Wayland, President of Brown University discipled Boyce during his years at Brown, and the great theologians and teachers Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge mentored him at Princeton. After graduation in 1851, Boyce was ordained and accepted the call to First Baptist Church, Columbia, South Carolina. He served faithfully until 1855, when he was made professor of Systematic Theology at Furman College. It was at Furman, in 1856, that he gave his famous address 'Three Changes in Theological Institutions' which became the founding structure of Southern Seminary in 1859.
The address set forth three principles on which a seminary would meet the needs of the educated and uneducated man. John Broadus summarized the principles in his book "Memoirs of James P. Boyce" as these:
(1). A Baptist theological school ought not merely to receive college graduates, but men with a less general education, even men having only what is called common English education, offering to every man such opportunities of theological study as he is prepared for and desires.
(2). Besides covering, for those who are prepared, as wide a range of theological study as could be found elsewhere, such an institution ought to offer further and special courses so that the ablest and most aspiring students might make extra-ordinary attainments, preparing them for instruction and original authoriship, helping to make our country less dependent upon foreign scholarship.
(3). There should be prepared an "Abstract of Priciples", or careful statement of theological belief, which every professor in such an institution must sign when inaugurated, so as to guard against the rise of erroneous and injurious instruction in such a seat of sacred learning"
The Abstract of Principles, written by Boyce's friend Basil Manley (notice Boyce's two best friends are John Broadus and Basil Manly -- it's where we get the name Broadman Press), still serves as the doctrinal standard of Southern Seminary and Southeastern Seminary today, preceding the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message by more than half a century.
The Abstract of Principles is Calvinistic. It declares regeneration precedes saving faith. It unequivocally declares the sovereign election of sinners for salvation by God's free grasce. It also emphasizes substitutionary atonement.
John Broadus, fellow founder of Southern Seminary, declared this about his friend James P. Boyce:
"It was a great privilege to be directed by such a teacher in studying that exalted system of Pauline truth which is technically called Calvinism, which compels an earnest student to profound thinking, and when pursued with a combination of systematic thought and fervent experience, makes him at home among the most inspiring and enobling views of God and the universe He made."
Boyce held to the view that the atonement was 'sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect.' I hold to the belief that the atonement is both sufficient and efficient for the elect alone, the same view held by Dr. John Gill and Southern Baptist systematic theologian John L. Dagg, but my appreciation for the writing and ministry of James Boyce is unequivocal.
My point in this post is simply this:
I would never dream of calling an opposing view of the extent of the atonement 'heresy' or cease from cooperating in missions and evangelism from those who don't see atonement the way I do.
It is incumbent upon us as a convention to avoid 'heresy' pronouncements if we are going to continue to grow in our cooperation and missions ministry. I am trusting that the majority of Southern Baptists will see our heritage as a convention in the vein of J.P. Boyce. We welcome Jerry Falwell and those who believe as he does, but we will not let them get by with heresy pronouncements unchallenged.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson


125 Comments:
HOLY GROSS THEOLOGICAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION BATMAN!...with that statement Dr. Falwell just labeled a major segment of the evangelical church as heretics. I myself have not quite got my arms around particular redemption, I lean more to the stance of Boyce...which is I understand it somewhere between a modified view of PR and absolute PR, however, I certainly understand the premise and have no great difficulty with those who hold to it. In fact, if one does not at least grasp the concept of an atonement that is limited at least in its application, then the only recourse is universalism.
Bad Boy Jerry!!!!!
jrm
Thanks Wade. Falwell has done this before (the heretic label) and he apparently refuses to study the issue. Howeverm it will be difficult for him to grow in his theology now with Ergun yelling in his ear constantly. ("God didn't choose Esau because of what Esau did!!!" :) )
I agree about the labeling. Heretics!? Absurd! If I were into labeling so harshly, I could easily label those who view Christ's "attempted" atonement as a blind shot in the dark to save as many as those who would "will" to be saved as heretics...but I digress. All the while, this line of theology must admit, is that God is terribly disappointed as most will perish. It would be fair to say under this theology that Christ failed. He certainly has and will fail more than succeed. Simply put, this is unbelievable theology with my God.
Amazing Grace indeed!
SL1M
I served with a pastor several years ago who taught me the meaning behind what you are writing about today. I had a book by John MacArthur in my office, and he said, "John MacArthur? He's a HYPER Calvinist." I learned that day what a hypercalvinist is: anyone who is MORE Calvinist than someone else.
Since joining the UMC two years ago, I find that mostly I miss the doctrines of grace. Although I consider myself a "Calminian," because I can appreciate both sides of the issue, I tend to lean hard on the sovereignty of our eternal God, rather than the flimsy whims of men like me.
Dr. Falwell should be ashamed.
It's hard to say whether Dr. Falwell says these things because he knows the majority of liberty-ites agree with him or if he says it because he fears he is losing students and feels the need to combat it.
At one time I revered Liberty and regretted I had been unable to go to school there. I'm now grateful I did not go there, as I'm one who grew up in SBC life but is now at a non-SBC reformed church due in part to the occasional hostility towards the doctrines of grace that I was increasingloy encountering from the pulpit of key SBC churches in my area.
But I am also am aware of many SBC ministry friends who are doing some kind of graduate work at Liberty after having completed seminary degrees at other SBC schools. Although I am a Calvinist who does not think all Arminians are ignorant or ungodly, given the unfortunate and ill-informed comments over the years from Dr. Caner and Dr. Falwell, I would sure be hesitant to go to Liberty for advanced degrees in theology. I have to wonder what kind of education these programs are providing.
There does seem to be a coalition between Liberty and some key SBC old school leadership.
"I have long been concerned that a group of independent, fundamental Baptists in the are attempting to remake the Southern Baptist Convention into the mold they perceive is best."
Hey Wade,
Is it not true that the above statement is very similar in content (except flipped around) when stated by Patterson and other SBC Ultra Conservatives when aimed at you, or Cole, or anyone else who doesn't see eye to eye with them? The only difference would be thus: instead of long being concerned that a group of 'independent, fundamentals' were threatening the SBC Identity, as you say, its a group of 'moderate, blogging under-currents' who are attempting to threaten SBC Identity, as they say, right?
So, if two groups are 'arguing,' for lack of a better term, the same stance, just opposite positions, both feeling they are convicted of God to stand this way, how then will anyone ever get anywhere?
Here at SWBTS, chapel speakers dog the 'blog-world' left and right and its obvious who their speaking of, I think. But in the 'blog-world,' their 'errors' are being discussed all the time...so, how do we as Christians, not Baptists, (I've still yet to figure out why people care so much about 'man-made' conventions: SBC, UMC, CoC, DOC, whatever) how do we as Christians handle the future of God's Church, while the rest of mankind looks in and only sees 'arguing'?
Bryan
Wade,
You are a far more gracious writer than I am…
With the “attitude” of Ergun Caner, and the open hostility and contempt for the Historic Doctrines of the Southern Baptist Convention expressed by Ergun in the past and now Falwell I “Strongly” question the wisdom of the SBC uniting with these Hyper-Fundamentalist…
Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3)
It is one thing to disagree with your brother… it is quite another to express “contempt” for what your brother believes and to actually go as far as to say he is a Heretic!
Personally I would have to a very hard time recommending Liberty graduates (who must set through this anti-Calvinism indoctrination at Liberty) to any Southern Baptist Church…
Grace to all,
Wade
I can appreciate your sediments. Personally, I don't fear being kicked out of the SBC. I am a four pointer not embracing limited atonement. We have a five pointer in the man of Albert Mohler. A godly Christian man who is also a statesman. For me to see men like you, Albert Mohler, or me kicked out because of our belief in the doctrines of grace is unthinkable. Men with our beliefs are rooted in the history of the SBC.
Might I add one more comment. The term heresy has been used by others who are sympathetic to your views. Without calling names, my view on dispensationalism has been called heresy. I am in the blessed position of having the reformed camp reject me for my dispensationalism and dispensationalists reject me for my calvinism minus limited atonement.
So, it is my hope that you will point to all that you find who misuse this term "heresy," from the mega personality of Jerry Falwell to the small church pastor who has a blog.
God Bless
First things first:
ATONEMENT:
1 : (obsolete) : RECONCILIATION
2 : the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ
3 : reparation for an offense or injury : SATISFACTION
4 (Christian Science) : the exemplifying of human oneness with God .
If you're not saved, you haven't been reconciled with God. Thus it sounds like salvation to me. Is, therefore, Rev. Falwell advocating Universalism?
Second, we only see the tip of the iceberg anyway. How can we pronounce what is not? All we can really do is to observe what God hasn't told us, and that in no way limits God.
As usual, there's a huge difference between what the Baptists say the Calvinists say, and what the Calvinists actually do say.
Wade....At the heart of the matter is Liberty..should Bro. Jerry be able to say what He feels at his school?
Liberty is not a SBC school you know. Yes, Bro. Jerry is in the SBC because of Thomas Road Baptist ... but is Liberty? When did LBU become the Holy site of wisdom for SBC LIFE??? Fact...long ago Liberty took out the name Baptist and went NON-Denom... But even if not.. doesn't Dr. Falwell still has the right to express his views at his own University? You have a blogg to share your thoughts...he has a newspaper, Radio show, TV ministry, website, podcast, "I'm sure i'm missing something?" Oh,a University!!! Charles H. Spurgeon wrote..on being Baptist "Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost
every sect, yet there has never existed a government holding Baptist principles in which persecuted others;I believe, any body of Baptist ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man."
How do you think Spurgeon would feel about some SBCer's today??? What about your BLOGG??? Let Jerry say what he wants...it up to the others to listen or not!
Oh yes ... Robin: I think you meant "sentiments". Sediments are something that's settled, and limited atonement sure isn't That..
Mr. Anonymous,
You miss the point of my post. I affirm Dr. Falwell's right to voice his opinion -- I would encourage Dr. Falwell to refrain from labeling those with whom he disagrees on secondary and tertiary doctrinal matters 'heretics.' I disagree with him, but don't believe him to be a heretic.
My concern lies in the fact that future pastors and SB leaders are being taught this from Liberty and not just Liberty but other churches as well. I believe it was written several months ago that Calvinists would be the next ones to take a hit. What next I wonder?
I am not a fan of Falwell but I do understand why he would resist the idea of limited atonement. The idea of limited atonement leads to conclusions that I simply cannot accept.
It suggests that God has created some for whom there is no hope of salvation. Therefore, he has created some to spend eternity in torment (Hell). Therefore God delights in the suffering of humanity.
When I look into the eyes of my two year old granddaughter, I cannot accept the notion that maybe God has created her for eternal torment.
When I shared my ideas with a Calvinist friend he simply replied, "That is just the way it is".
If anyone has a better answer than that I would certainly be interested in hearing it.
If "that's just the way it is" then heresy is too kind a word.
anon: As far as I am aware Dr. Falwell is still part of the SBC. I have heard no different, therefore I believe he is accountable for his words. As for Wade's blog, I don't see where Spurgeon would have a problem with it. Have you read some of Charles Spurgeon's writings? He went up against those who opposed him or Calvinism rather strongly. He was kind while not mincing words.
Bob
I have no idea of what you are talking about in reference of your comment to me.
Anonymous,
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Period. Your characterization that He delights in sending sinners to hell is false.
Also, God is not responsible for mankind in general, and any man specifically, NOT obeying God. The judgment and condemnation of God toward sinners is just and holy.
Salvation from judgement is of God's free grace for the praise of the glory of God's mercy, but since salvation is undeserved and unmerited, there can be no claim upon it by sinful man. If God bestows salvation - it is according to His good pleasure and not our arrogant demands.
“…nearly all Baptist churches, when they are received into the fellowship of the denomination, adopt one of THE STANDARD BAPTIST CONFESSIONS (emphasis mine), as the Philadelphia Confession, the Charleston Confession, or the New Hampshire Confession…”
From: The Biblical Recorder
Title of Article: Creeds and Declarations in Baptist Churches
Date: August 11, 1886
Source: Central Baptist
It’s one thing for someone to call limited atonement heresy who is outside of our denomination. However, when someone calls it heresy within the denomination when two out of the three “standard” Baptist confessions in our denominational heritage contain an affirmation of the doctrine of limited atonement, then this seems disrespectful to me.
Am I missing something?
Benji Ramsaur
Really, I think you are overreacting. "Heresy" has evolved into a word that is a term of endearment. You know bad means good etc. "Heresy" is the new "Amen!" To call you a heretic is to proclaim that you are a great prophet speaking the absolute, yet difficult to stomach, truth.
Wade
You wrote:
"I would encourage Dr. Falwell to refrain from labeling those with whom he disagrees on secondary and tertiary doctrinal matters 'heretics."
You corrected me when I accused you of calling those who disagreed with you "spooky fundamentalists." Your response was that you were talking about "spooky fundamentalism" and rejecting that philosophy. Therefore, you did not call anyone a spooky fundamentalist.
From what I have read from Tom Aschol's blog, Falwell claimed that Limited Atonement was a heresy. He did not call the proponents of this doctrine heretics. At least that is not what Aschol reported.
If this is the case, and using your standard of reasoning, we should not claim that Falwell called those who embrace this doctrine heretics.
Wade,
You said, "Also, God is not responsible for mankind in general, and any man specifically, NOT obeying God. The judgment and condemnation of God toward sinners is just and holy."
May I interpret that to mean that you believe the decision for salvation rests with the individual? Can anyone be saved or are there some for whom there is no hope of salvation?
I am not trying to be argumentative. I simply want to better understand the Calvinist viewpoint.
Wade,
In our state, this is a critical time. Changes are occurring that will either bring the majority of churches in this state back to the SBC or could drive a wedge between the larger state convention and 70% of her churches. Rhetoric like Dr. Falwell's only heightens fears that fundamentalist look to control and require conformity rather than cooperate. As long as these fears exist, people will continue to do battle and the cause of Christ will suffer. Texas baptists and Southern baptist will be the losers. God will fulfill His purposes and glorify His name. I just hope we won't be too busy fighting to participate.
Grace,
Jeff Parsons
Anonymous,
Any man, who chooses to come to Christ in simple faith of what He has accomplished at Calvary as Savior, and has it within him to follow after Christ in a walk of faith and obedience, WILL be saved.
The question is simple: What sinner has that desire within him?
No one.
But, 'In the day of His power, His people shall be made willing.'
As the Abstract of Principles at Southern eloquently articulates in Article 8:
Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God's free and special grace alone.
By the way, Anonymous, I don't believe you are a heretic if you don't believe in the doctrines of grace. My fellowship with brothers and sisters in the Lord is around the person of Christ -- not fine points of doctrine, and I don't care if nobody else in the world ever believes in particular atonement -- as long as they believe in Christ.
Robin: Your prior comment to Wade said:
"I can appreciate your sediments. Personally, I don't fear being kicked out of the SBC."
I just thought the word was funny, in that Baptist seldom agree with what they think the Calvinists say about limited atonement.
If you meant "sediments", then it's I who don't get it.
God bless.
Bro. Robin,
If something is heresy, and one believes in it, is the believer not, by definition, a heretic?
Bro. Robin,
"Spooky fundamentalism" = Heresy
Therefore:
“Spooky fundamentalist” = Heretic
My logic seams pretty clear to me… am I missing something in this argument?
Grace to all,
G. Alford,
As you know, I have intentionally refrained from identifying spooky fundamentalism as heresy.
I don't believe it is.
The philosophy of spooky fundamentalism (adding to the Word of God) scares me, but those who adhere to it are brothers, and I would adamantly resist calling them heretics.
Wade: If you look up the words in the dictionary, the definitions correlate nicely. So an heretic is, indeed, one who holds a view on particular dogma which differs from the majority view (which is heresy).
Wade,
"Spooky fundamentalism" = Heresy
Therefore:
“Spooky fundamentalist” = Heretic
Was my attempt at “hyperbole” for Robin… My apology to all my “Spooky fundamentalist” Brothers out there :-)
Grace to all,
Wade
I did not say that you equated spooky fundamentalism with heresy. In your previous comments to me you said that you were talking about spooky fundamentalism as a philosophy and you were not calling anyone a spooky fundamentalist.
Falwell may as well think those who hold to l/a are heretics. But his statement as reported is that he called that particular belief a heresy.
If someone says or acts in accordance to spooky fundamentalism (according to how you define it), is the person not, by definition, a spooky fundamentalist?
Using your logic, if you or anyone can claim that Falwell is calling anyone a heretic, then I should be able to say that you are calling people spooky fundamentalists who act in accordance with your understanding of Spooky Fundamentalism.
Bob
Thanks for the correction. I was pressed for time to get to a meeting and had people in my office when I typed that. Please excuse my Arkansas education. :-D
If someone says or acts in accordance to spooky fundamentalism (according to how you define it), is the person not, by definition, a spooky fundamentalist?
Absolutely.
I don't purport to know who holds to spooky fundamentalism, but if one held to the philosophy I outlined as spooky fundamentalism, and is unashamed to admit it, then I would call them a spooky fundamentalist.
:)
Anonymous, you said: "I am not a fan of Falwell but I do understand why he would resist the idea of limited atonement..."
While I would love to have an exchange with you about this subject, you really make Wade's point in the attitude of your statement. Falsewell is not just "resisting the idea". In fact, it is acceptable to me for him to say that he doesn't understand the issue...or he doesn't have the same interpretation of scripture as Mohler, Piper, Spurgeon, me :), and Burleson :).
What's not acceptable is for him to label those of us who have the correct interpretation...er, uh, I mean different interpretation than him as a heretic. Can you see the problem? In this case, it's not about the difference...it's what he thinks about the other persons and their view.
SL1M
My point to you was simply that I was not identifying particular people or specific persons in my post on spooky fundamentalism.
And of course, neither is Dr. Falwell, but I freely admit that I hold to limited atonement, along with Spurgeon, Boyce, Dagg, Gill, and a host of other Baptists.
Does that make me a heretic?
:)
To the anonymous poster who said
"There does seem to be a coalition between Liberty and some key old school leadership."
I have always wondered why Liberty University, a non-SBC seminary, receives a a Cooperative-Program funded "National Church Planting Missionary." According to the news release shown at this link, (copy and paste into your broweser)
http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=13208&NewsID=145
the North American Mission Board is funding a church planting missionary. This is confirmed on the NAMB website, listing this position in among the six seminary Nehemiah Directors.
Why?
Wade,
No, you are not a heretic.
You wrote:
"if one held to the philosophy I outlined as spooky fundamentalism, and is unashamed to admit it, then I would call them a spooky fundamentalist. "
From what I have read and seen, I can't find anyone who admits to being or believing the things you describe as a SF. Therefore, logic would conclude that there are no spooky fundamentalists or people who practice or believe they are what you defined as Spooky Fundamentalism.
I am sorry. I was a little fuzzy in that last comment.
If someone has to believe in the SF philosophy you pointed out, then I don't see anyone being a SF and therefore the philosophical point you are making is non-existent in the SBC
Friends,
As a Liberty grad, and now student at an SBC seminary, perhaps I can provide some insights into this situation. First, as almost all of us are aware, this is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that Dr. Falwell has made controversial, confrontational, and polarizing statements. With that being said, I disagree with him, and I believe you’ll find that many, if not most of the theology students at his university and seminary also disagree with assigning the “heretical” label to doctrines of limited atonement and particular love. Having been at Liberty, I can confidently say that there are a great many five-point Calvinists there, and a number of Calvinistic professors.
Secondly, it is distressing to see commentors writing off anyone from Liberty because of Dr. Falwell. I would hope that we would be given the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to speak for ourselves as to our individual beliefs.
g. alford and others, I hope that you will be willing to judge those that you may or may not recommend based on the content of their character and their beliefs without prejudging them based upon any dislike for Dr. Falwell or Dr. Caner.
I, like many others who have and do attend Liberty, recognize that Baptist doctrine is inherently Calvinistic and accept that fact. We must all at some point try to reconcile the dual realities of God’s sovereignty and man’s will. I believe that Dr. Falwell has clearly staked out his personal position there. For him, limited atonement is tantamount to saying that “Christ died for some.” He finds this unacceptable, and on that point I agree with him.
He was wrong in the statement as quoted – he should not have said that these doctrines were heresy. I have known him to say things that were even more controversial however. He will have to give an account for saying those things one day, and we will have to give account for what we say (or blog). Let this be a lesson to us, to choose our words, lest we should have to eat them.
Wade
Thanks for the discussion, I was taking a break for my preparation next week and thought I would have a little fun with this. Whether my logic adds up I will leave it to the Lord.
I appreciate your challenging yet kind spirit you have shown to me.
See you next week.
Matt
Thanks for your comments. Right now I am eating "sediments." :-D
Matt,
I appreciate your comments as a graduate of Liberty University. As a pastor, when I look for staff, I do not reject or accept anyone based on which school he or she attended. I am searching for someone who loves Jesus with all their heart and has a desire to see sinners saved and Christians mature.
Unfortunately, as the "face" of Liberty University, both Jerry Falwell and Ergun Caner are not very good advertisements for the university with their extremist views. I still see Falwell as an independent Baptist in philosophy and theology.
As a result of his statements, right or wrong, Liberty University is going to be seen as a closer cousin to Bob Jones University than any SBC university or seminary.
Personally, I would not recommend Liberty University as a viable choice for any of my members.
Regards,
Les
Dear SL1M,
Yes, I do see your point. We have degraded from discussing theology to name calling. It is sort of like 25 years ago when some SBC Pastors began calling some of us "liberals".
Then, as now, I find comfort in the words of my Mother. "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names cannot hurt me."
Your "Freudian slips" are duly noted. Ultimately, none of us understand God perfectly. Thus even our best theology is flawed. That's why being forgiven is so much more important than being right.
I pray that God has a sense of humor.
vIf we realized how much more God desires relationship than rightness, we'd all be so much more all right. :)
I wonder if we would all "discuss" theological issues so much if we, before commenting, did a study of Romans 14 (leading to verse 19), Ephesians 4 (verse 3, 29, and a host of others), Hebrews 12 (verse 1, 2, 3, 11-14) and 2 Peter 3 (verse 14) before beginning. Sigh. Let's make every effort!
I agree with Matt. You can't write off an entire University. Every Liberty grad I have met has been top notch.
I also believe Jerry Falwell has been used by God to make a difference in the world. But it is time for Jerry and Pat Robertson to retire. They are losing touch with reality.
I'm not a 5 pointer because of the Limited Atonement issue but I don't call someone who does a heretic. My father is a 5 pointer as is most of the staff of Campus Crusade which he is on staff. They are some of the most evangelistic people in the world. In fact my father led 23 people to Christ last week.
Anonymous, once again...
You said..."We have degraded from discussing theology to name calling. It is sort of like 25 years ago when some SBC Pastors began calling some of us 'liberals'."
I'm not calling you a liberal or any other name, (Falsewell notwithstanding, as I think Jerry's history and Matt's comments above proves that this is one shoe that fits...albeit snuggly :)). Anyway, I am simply pointing out that what you said is not an accurate reflection of what Jerry said. I surely wish he would have said what you said...that he "resisted the idea". I don't think we would have this post or this discussion. He didn't say that. He said much worse, and I think you know he did.
And then you said this..."Then, as now, I find comfort in the words of my Mother. 'Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names cannot hurt me.'"
I don't want to insult you here, but my attempts at levity are no match for this childish remark. Good grief Charlie Brown!
And you said this..."Your 'Freudian slips' are duly noted. Ultimately, none of us understand God perfectly. Thus even our best theology is flawed. That's why being forgiven is so much more important than being right."
I couldn't agree more.
And finally you said..."I pray that God has a sense of humor."
You clearly haven't heard me preach.
Anon, my offer to discuss the issue with you still stands...just not here. Perhaps email? I love to sharpen and be sharpened.
Below are a few verses from Romans 9 (one of the chapters that many pastors skip over) to get you started, if desired.
No harm intended in any of my comments to you. Take care and God bless.
SL1M
18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
Talk about "Freudian slips"!!! Well, that's not accurate, but it sounds good. I meant "I couldn't DISAGREE more" about this comment you made..."That's why being forgiven is so much more important than being right."
I'll spare you the long answer for now. Let's discuss further if you want to know why. Although, I must say, it doesn't have to be an either / or. I think some (or all) here will know what I mean.
Take care.
SL1M
I'm a three-pointer, affirming TUP and denying LI. Edgar Young Mullins affirmed the same three points as does Paige Patterson. I believe, however, that a belief in limited atonement is not heretical. Some of my best friends are five-point Calvinists, and I believe that they are grounded very well in the faith. We should be careful how we use the word "heresy." It's been directed at me a few times, and it really stings (unnecessarily).
If anything will get the "heresy" barb tossed about, it will be Calvinism, I suppose! I dunno 'nuf 'bout it to say, of course....
Steve Austin
SL1M,
You said: [Falsewell is not just "resisting the idea". In fact, it is acceptable to me for him to say that he doesn't understand the issue...]
Now that “Freudian slip” cracked me up!
Matt Knight,
Sorry for being so honest… but the reality is that those student who choose to attend Liberty and set under the instruction of Caner and Falwell do so for a reason, and will have an extra burden of proof that they are not of the same ilk as Caner and Falwell as far as I am concerned.
I wonder...
Have any of you who are making negative remarks about the quality of education at LBU/LBTS ever been on the Campus? Have anyone of you ever talked with seminary professors there...how about students?
I have(I have sat under several) and I can assure you that you cannot pigeon hole students or professors in any theological category..other that believers in Christ who believe in an inerrant Bible.
Sure Falwell and Caner may be the face of the institution..but they are not the spirit of the institution.
Case in point
The emergent church.
In a recent "Falwell confidental" email he spoke of the theological dangers of the movement.
Yet several individuals in my doctoral classes at LBTS were on the cutting edge of the emergent movement
Elmers Towns Book..."Perimeters of Light" was one of our textbooks in that course.
We discussed and even participated in a Emerging church style worship service before class one day...imagine that!
Falwell will always be a polarizing figure...especially when he is wrong and even when he is right.
His theology is imprecise and flawed as some points. Then again so in mine...and so is each of yours.
Falwell's is not a theologian. He is an organizational and networking genius.
I remember the my first doctoral class I took at LBTS (My decision to go there was based on finances and proximity). I was afraid of indoctrination and cookie cutter theology...I was wrong. The class was amazing. My OT professor had a great appreciation for various perspectives(Such as Covenant Theology). Many Presbyterians(some who are Korean) get their degrees from LBU.
When public figures make public comments they open themselves up to criticism...that is OK. So debate and criticize to your hearts content
But to say the institution Dr. Falwell has founded is sub- standard...based his theological positions...is unfair
Though woman do not teach theology...they teach men in all other subjects
Falwell or his wife have never said that birth control is akin to abortion and not in God's will for a couple.
I will not pass judgement on the health of a seminary based on who is president... however
I would send my children to LBU before I would send them to the colleges at SWBTS or SEBTS.
Rodney Sprayberry
I would also recomend the seminary to anyone with half a brain... (I have used LBS/LBTS interchangeably)
You can be brainwashed anywhere..
But if you don't mind thinking and don't mind controversy..you'll do just fine a LBTS
Rodney Sprayberry
Perhaps Dr Falwell will get into some heavy-duty evangelistic/apologetic discussions w/ Eastern O-dox or Roman Catholics who will (almost robotically and certainly methodically) play the Protestants-aren't-unified card over and over and over again. Perhaps then he'll taste again how delicious the love of the brethren, *all* the brethren, can be. As I have, thank you, Jesus.
Rodney,
I'll take your word for it that LBU/LBTS are not places of indoctrination or necessarily reflect the beliefs of Jerry Falwell. However, just as G. Alford has said, graduates of these institutions will carry an extra burden of proof due to comments that Falwell and Caner are prone to make. I was saved in an independent/fundamentalist baptist church in the midst of the conservative resurgence. I know all too well how Falwell was seen as almost the pope of these churches. It wasn't until Thomas Road sought inclusion into the SBC that several like minded congregations followed suit. Dr. Falwell has a great deal of influence among these congregations. I was present at a service at a large church here when Dr. Falwell called the National Organization of Women the "National Organization of Witches". I don't agree with NOW's agenda anymore than he does, but I think we all agree this type of rhetoric shouldn't resound from our pulpits.
While comments disparaging LBU are unfortunate, until Dr. Falwell more carefully considers the words he speaks, they will continue -- and we will waste more time defending places like LBU rather than reaching the lost.
Jeff Parsons
Amarillo, TX
rhology
Are RC and O-dox included in your notion of "*all*" brothers, or is this a Protestant only club?
DP
Wade,
I was wondering how far we should extend an allowance for diverse beliefs. What about churches/pastors who believe in ordaining women as pastors? Would you also be glad that those churches/pastors are serving with the SBC and welcome them into our fold? Should we show appreciation for the schools that teach that it is permissible to ordain women as pastors?
It seems to me that if we can extend some room on the nature of atonement, we could extend some room on ordaining women as pastors. Shouldn't we be looking to cooperate in missions with those churches/pastors?
Some may respond that these issues are different because the issue of women pastors is clearly settled in Scripture. Of course, Dr. Falwell beleives the issue of un/limited atonement is clearly settled in Scripture.
I don't think we should call people heretics based on their beliefs relative to "Calvinism." My church isn't about to ordain women as deacons or pastors. But, I don't want to call people heretics if they do ordain women. I also don't want to miss the opportunity of taking the gospel to the nations with these followers of Jesus even if they disagree with me on secondary issues.
Edh,
To call people who ordain women 'heretics' is just as silly as calling people who believe in limited atonment 'heretics.'
You may not agree with them, but the word heretic should not label people who disagree on issues that are not fundamental to the faith.
Bro. Wade: you wrote to anon: "If God bestows salvation - it is according to His good pleasure and not our arrogant demands."
I didn't think she was being arrogant, did you? I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I was waiting for your answer to her and I have my own grandchildren which I am looking at and wondering does God create children such as my little darlings and "purpose" things such as what happened to Joseph upon them and to Judas? Judas had no choice in being what he was, correct? Joseph's brothers weren't evil because God purposed them to do what they did, right? So even though our grandchildren appear to be little angels today, the Calvinist (as I am trying to understand their position) holds that some of them will indeed be purposed to destruction because they are not elect, no?
I see the entire world as condemned but we all have the opportunity to ask Jesus into our hearts, don't we? And God knows who we are going to be that respond, no?
Do I misunderstand election, too?
thank you...selahV
Wade: you wrote: "But, 'In the day of His power, His people shall be made willing.'"
Is that a scripture reference? selahV
Jeff,
Point taken. But, I served in Virginia from 1999-2006 in a Southern Baptist church.I was at the SBCV meeting where Falwell requested to be affliated with the conservative Baptist convention. He may have influence in independent circles and he may have influence with the older SBC conservatives in VA who fought such a hard battle over theology in that state. But not with the under 40 crowd and not nearly as much as he used to have.
In the state of VA, Liberty has a sterling reputation...in nursing, teaching, law, counseling, business, and ministry...somehow people there have separated Falwell from the school. Why can't others do the same?
Besides Liberty has done what few schools have been able to do... train young men and women in many professions who are passionate about their faith, concerned about the lost, and living those out conviction not only in the church...but in the market place.
Rodney,
Your comments reflect exactly why Dr. Falwell has to dial back the rhetoric. He doesn't have near the influence he once did and his words only cause problems for those who graduated and/or are attending LBU/LTBS. Any time he or Dr. Caner make inflammatory statements it will reflect negatively on the institutions they represent. That may not be fair, but as the great philosopher Bill Parcels likes to say, "It is what it is." As far as separating perceptions of LBU from Falwell, as long as he's the primary face of the university, that's just not going to happen. Which, again, is unfair to LBU.
Jeff Parsons
Amarillo, TX
Dear Wade,
You guys are a hoot. Dr. Falwell makes a passing comment, then, abracadabra. Instant controversy! :^)
I first read about this at Dr. Ascol's site and then Les Puryear's. If you don't mind, I'll leave the footprint here I left there:
"Speaking for myself alone, I have not defended the use of "heresy" for anyone and have openly stated that the term is, for the most part, a dead term in my vocabulary. I assure you I've used it here more than several years' worth elsewhere.
I was defending various nuances of the term--stronger to weaker--from denying the Trinity to "heresy" in methods. For example, John Leith writes: "The message is in a real sense the medium, and the worst heresy in preaching is for the medium to become the message." (Quoted by Timothy George, FJ, Winter, 1997).
Thus, to argue that "heresy" flat out must mean "danmable teachings" is, from my view, simply wrong. It seems we may be looking for a fight.
What's funny is, while Dr. Ascol was the first to criticize Dr. Falwell for this horrid accusation, take careful note of what Mr. Ernest Reisinger, the Father of Founders Ministries, wrote concerning the Dispensational theological system of Liberty School:
"Let me say at the outset that this dispensational system of theology is diametrically opposed to covenant theology. It opposes all historic Reformed Theology, such as that which is taught in the Westminster Confession, the Old Baptist Confession of 1689, and the Heidelberg Catechism.
Dispensationalism would have been declared heresy by the Synod of Dort as was her husband, Arminianism. Arminianism, Dispensationalism and Antinomianism all live in the same theological house (and it is not a Reformed house!). I say, without fear of contradiction, Dispensationalism is nothing less than a frontal attack on Covenant and Reformed Theology."
It seems that if apologies are in order, let's begin with Founders :^)
I trust you possess a good night's sleep. With that, I am...
Peter"
A video for Dr Falwell and the Caner Brothers,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5XCbupnHA
For David Mills at Two Rivers Baptist too!
"the stench of Calvinism"
SDG
Robert I Masters
Let's see Peter this is the third blog I have read almost the same comments on as you have made here. I thought Les and Tom Ascol did a good job of answering you. Do you expect any different answer here? :)
Dear Debbie,
Why, Debbie, I did not think you read my comments. Beside, when one has a winning hand, why ask for cards?, I always say.
With that, I am...
Peter
I read your comments only because I care P