Puzzling Ideas and Views of ANTI-Traditionalists

I have tried to refrain from commenting on the blogs since the SBC 2012 Convention.  I've even refrained from reading several blogs I use to frequent.  I've all but stopped writing on this blog and others that I maintain.  It seems my spirit wars with my flesh and often my flesh wins the battle.  Which is proof-positive that even after we are saved, and the Lord regenerates us, our will still seeks it's own way as the Apostle Paul so aptly described in Romans 7:15.  An unyielded will grieves the Spirit as we choose our way instead of God's.

Indeed, just the other day as I read the tag-team sparring match between two Anti-Traditionalists disputing Traditionalist, Dr. Braxton Hunter's,* views on a Christian's life and response to the gospel, as "a can of worms", I found myself jumping into the comment stream and posting this:

"These tag-team questions remind me of when the pharisees kept asking Jesus, but, but, but….if a man had 5 wives on earth who are they married to in heaven? geesh. Sometime I think it’s not a can of worms being opened, it’s your brains falling out of your heads. A person has the free will to open the door receive Jesus, and ask Him to come in, and they decide they really want what God is offering–total cleansing from their filth and disobedience and rebellion. So God not only forgives them, He comes inside them and creates an entirely new creature. Then Paul tells them that we battle the flesh and the spirit within the rest of our days until the day of completion. What is so complicated?" selahV

Naughty, naughty me--not a shining moment.  I got so rattled with the persistent goading questions which could never be answered satisfactorily by a Traditonalist, no matter what is written in reply.  So, in my reckless abandon to my own will, I succumbed to the flesh of my past and posted the unseemly "brains" analogy, albeit descriptive, of the thinking patterns of the Anti-Traditionalists in said conversation.  When a Presbyterian reposted my comment and added his admonishment: "Nice. Not.", I first wickedly chuckled.  Then I saw the error of my choice of verbiage and once again, recomitted myself to reading more than writing.

Unfortunately, some of the Anti-Traditionalists have left me wondering if there is anything I could ever say that might pass muster and scrutiny for value, worth, or theological correctness.  While some of the articles in the Traditional Statement and the authors of posts at SBC Today have found agreement with some non-Traditionalists, even those points of agreement are short-lived in the comment streams as Anti-traditionalists begin voicing their disdain upon SBC pastors, SBC theologians, and Seminary professors.

One Anti-Traditionalist posted on his blog that pastors who had signed the Traditional Statement were "forced" or "pressured" to do so.  "Forced."  I know some of those pastors and they were not forced, nor coerced.** When Dr. Tom Ascol is confronted with his assertion and asked for links, he replied:

"I don't know of any links that are available about the pressure that has been applied to some to sign the statement. I was not told this in confidence. I hope those who experienced it will be willing at some point to speak for themselves. If the issue can be depoliticized that is much more likely to happen."  Tom Ascol

Along with Dr. Ascol's alleged assertion, a few statements that have me scratching my head are as follows:

One Anti-traditionalist responds to a question made by a Traditionalist regarding John Calvin's practices "Where was the life changing Gospel, friend?":

(Anti-Traditionalist):  "And that will forever be your problem. The gospel isn’t about “life change,” it’s about Christ dying as a sacrifice for our sins."

To that teensey exchange, I must query the Anti-Trad, "WHAT?  "The gospel isn't about "life change, ["?????] it's about Christ dying as a sacrifice for our sins."

While I agree to the latter portion of that statement, I'm sorry friends, but what in the world is the gospel message if not Christ also dying to save us from our sins, forgive us of our sins, and create a new heart within us, seal us, abide in us, edify us, correct us, convict us, gift us, and indeed, change us from enemies of Christ to ambassadors of Christ, righteous and holy acceptable in His sight?

Is the gospel inanimate? without life or power?  For what purpose is the need for God's only Son to die an excruciating and humiliating death if not to save us and "change" us, so our sins of scarlet will be as white as snow?  If that is not a life change, what is it?

How can dead be made alive without a life-change? If there is no light, no salt where is the gospel in the reborn?  Why must the only sinless man ever to walk upon this earth be made sin wherein he had no sin, bear ALL the sin of mankind if the gospel does nothing to change the life of those for whom He died?

"Come, all ye weary and heavy laden [by law, works, oppression, and duty], take My yoke upon you, and I will give you rest."  Weariness is changed to being comforted.  Unrighteousness changes to righteousness.  Darkness is changed to light. The gospel is power.  Power to save, cleanse, and change sinful man.  It's the power to redeem, to justify, sanctify, and continue to work in man to change him more and more each day.

Just yesterday, one Anti-Traditionalist writes in response to a commenter who questions John Calvin's theology by his practices.  Lydia, a non-calvinist writes:

"Calvin had believers who disagreed with him imprisoned and tortured. And when a professing believer does such things, we should question every word from his pen.”

Patrick says on June 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm:

"While I’m not surprised that such drivel is posited from here, my mind is blown by the complaints raised against Calvin. Particularly given the beliefs of those raising the complaints. Do you not see that it was Luther and Calvin who actually understood the difference between law and gospel….the very thing you’re complaining about? Clearly not." Patrick, a Calvinist

So Lydia responds at June 29, 2012 at 2:07 pm:

"Do you not realize that Luther wrote about how depraved Wittenburg was AFTER the entire episode of the Reformation… all they went through… and Luther lamented the people were actually worse! Where was the life changing Gospel, friend?

You forget that Luther just wanted to “reform” the Catholic church. The Theses are all about the indulgences being sold. Seriously, how could they really understand the difference when they both went along with “compelling” belief even to the point of imprisoning/torturing people…. which you call “drivel”? Do you not see the cognative dissonance in that?"

Then Max, a Traditionalist, defends the life-changing Gospel at 4:38 pm with Scripture:

“Anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!” (2 Cor 5:17)

“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Rom 6:4)

“Put on your new nature, created to be like God–truly righteous and holy.” (Eph 4:24)

“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.” (Gal 2:20)

etc."

And now I sit here wondering.  Is there really any comment or any conversation anyone can offer to bridge the divide between Traditionalists and Anti-Traditionalists?  Even when the Trad-Statement agrees in part with teachings of reformed theology, the Trad is accused of making a fuss over nothing.  Shane Dodson, an anti-Traditionalist writes:

"The Gospel isn’t “Jesus loves everyone and died for everyone.”

Please cite book/chapter/verse in which the apostles preached such a Gospel.

The Gospel is that sin has been atoned for by Jesus Christ.

“Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.” – 1 Tim 1:15

Christians should preach the Gospel in the manner after the apostles…not denominational tradition."  Shane Dodson (Anti-Traditionalist)

Christians, my readers, friends, brothers and sisters, I believe the Gospel preached by SBC Traditionalists is "in the manner after the apostles".  However, I admit, I do not make my assertions based on my understanding of Calvin, Arminius, Anthropology, the Council of Orange, or the men in Geneva centuries ago.  I have a tough time with semantics and the complication of a simple message from Jesus.  So, I follow Jesus, and abide in Him and trust His words, none other-- which, in the scheme of things, makes my words, and those of others, pale in significance, don't you think?  selahV 

*(Braxton Hunter, PhD, Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary in Newburgh, Indiana, and former President of the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists)

**TO THOSE PASTORS who Tom Ascol alleges felt "pressured or forced to sign" the Traditional Statement on Soteriology:  How awful for you!  I'm sure this could be quickly resolved if you simply contact the site and remove your names from the list.

Comments

[Mary]

I don't think using the phrase AntiTrads is going to go over so well. Of course the people who will have a problem with it are the ones who use the term antiCavlinist.

Can you imagine what would have happened if our friend in Georgia had claimed "some people were forced to sign..."

but here I am in the flesh. Can I blame the heat?

[selahV]

Ya think? I don't see why not. We are called non-Calvinists and anti-Calvinists and we're not suppose to be offended. And when we shared our thoughts on it, they said that is what we were, so I thought that a non-trad and an anti-trad fit pretty well. sigh...see? nothing I say is good enough. And here you are a friend. selahV

[Lydia]

I had not seen that Ascol said some were forced to sign the document. That does not sound like our free church tradition at all. It does sound like Calvinist Geneva, though. :o)

[Les]

SelahV,

"When a Presbyterian reposted my comment and added his admonishment: "Nice. Not.", I first wickedly chuckled. Then I saw the error of my choice of verbiage and once again, recomitted myself to reading more than writing.

Unfortunately, some of the Anti-Traditionalists have left me wondering if there is anything I could ever say that might pass muster and scrutiny for value, worth, or theological correctness."

Well just to give Baptists credit where credit is due, I am not only a Presbyterian, I'm a Baptist too.

But to your second part here, wondering if you can ever say anything that could pass muster, I have read enough of your comments to have a pretty good idea that yes, you can.

I think that everyone, me included, involved would be better served to tone down the rhetoric. Calvinists like me should refrain from using "anti-Calvinists" to describe those who differ with us and those on the other side should refrain from using "anti-traditionalists." We need to continue to need to try to focus on the particular debate and not appear to attack the integrity or "smarts" of the person.

It won't be easy, but it is possible. I quoted Spurgeon a few days ago over at Voices. It is something I'm working on.

"As we grow in grace, we are sure to grow in
charity, sympathy, and love. We shall, as we
ripen in grace, have greater sweetness towards
our fellow Christians. Bitter spirited Christians
may know a great deal, but they are immature.

Those who are quick to censure may be
very acute in judgment, but they are as
yet very immature in heart.

He who grows in grace remembers that he is
but dust, and he therefore does not expect his
fellow Christians to be anything more.

He overlooks ten thousand of their faults,
because he knows his God overlooks twenty
thousand in his own case. He does not expect
perfection in the creature, and, therefore, he
is not disappointed when he does not find it.

When our virtues become more mature, we shall
not be more tolerant of evil; but we shall be more
tolerant of infirmity, more hopeful for the people
of God, and certainly less arrogant in our criticisms.

Charles Spurgeon. Ripe Fruit, sermon #945 on Micah 7:1"

God bless. Les

[Mary]

I hope I'm your friend. First I think this is an excellent post and perhaps I should have explained what I was saying a little better.

Using antiTrad is going to be attacked as divisive and name calling and it will probably be done by the people who use the word antiCalvinist. Thus showing that these people are antiTrads because they have to apply double standards so as to find a reason to attack. Calvinists own words and get to decide who gets labeled what. So when when you turn around what they've been saying - they don't like it so much.

Just using the phrase Traditionalists is making heads explode because the Calvinists believe they own the SBC and all it's traditions, but to now show that what we really have are a group of people who are anti - against those of us who are Tradtionalists - well can heads explode multiple times?

I actually laughed when I saw the title of your post - suprised I hadn't thought of it myself that now that we have a lable for ourselves we can now put a name to those who wish to push us out of the SBC.

But please accept my apology if I gave the impression I was calling you out. I'm the last person to be doing that and it was the last thing I would do. I think everything you wrote is spot on as usual and I was simply making an observation about the grumbling that will surely occur. But grumblers cannot complain without showing their hypocrisy when the term antiCalvinist has become common and accepted.

[selahV]

Lydia, yeah...he did. And I just think it is a bit silly to say that without evidence. After all, that is what they are constantly saying to the Traditionalists. "prove it", "prove it". However, I suppose stating "facts" not in evidence is permissible as long as it is not Traditionalists doing it. You have the funniest nicknames for folks. selahV

[selahV]

Hello Les,

Welcome and thanks for dropping in. I know you are a baptist/Presbyterian. Maybe we should report you to the convention as one of the AWOL Southern Baptist that everyone is always wondering about. :) I tend to believe there are a lot of our SB people infiltrating other churches: Independent, non-denominational, general bpts., Presbyterian, Lutheran, Church of Christ, AoG, Mormons, Methodists, Episcopalian, and Catholic, etc. I know some in every group.

While I understand your concern regarding the anti-Trad label, it seemed appropriate given how many times I've read anti-calvinist and non-calvinist in describing Trads since long before the Trad statement came out and all the more still. Having been called an anti-Calvinist and repeatedly been ignored when I disagreed with the term for myself, I've determined that to the Calvinist it must not be a pejorative term. I just supposed it helps people address the issue and those we are discussing more clearly. If I were to use that term in a setting outside the blogs, most folks wouldn't know what I was talking about.

However, when "free-will" choice came up this a.m. in Sunday School, I found it quite interesting how folks quickly responded to the idea that some say we have no choice in the matter of our "elect" status and predestination. So I knew, right off, if I further explain to them what was going on in the SBC, I would have had about 50 or so signatures within moments. I decided, it might be a good idea to copy the statement and bring it to church next week.

As to growing in grace and being "kind" in the face of adversity, I already plead no-contest to using a goofy description of the mind-boggling Q & A. Spurgeon's always a great source of wisdom, though; thanks for the quote. selahV

[selahV]

Hello again, Mary, my friend.

No no, you didn't leave me wondering how you thought. I've read enough of your comments to know from whence you speak, my love. I was just being my sarcastic little self. Ha.

I do know how the "anti"-Trad may be interpreted by those who could easily be described as such. I know that some folks seem to think they have a corner-market on all words, phrases, and definitions of same. However, if non-C and anti-C are going to keep coming up in the streams when being addressed, I felt it necessary to be as clear and succinct to those who do not hold to the 10-Articles of the Trad Statement. At least I am not calling them semi-Pelagian or heretics. So, I think it's probably the way Calvies want to be distinguished from us. Time will tell, I suppose. :) selahV

[Caryn]

Well, I loved what you said and don't think you need to apologize in the first place. Let your words stand. Hope you don't take offense but I could never join a Baptist church. These SBC blogs kinda say it all. Too much inhouse fighting, bickering, debating, and trying to prove one tradition against another; one doctrine against another - what a waste of precious life. I don't frequent blogs very often anymore but the SBC writings/rants remind me why. Baptist politics = feud, feud, feud. What does it accomplish? You are wise to step away from it all. Man doesn't know everything about God. God doesn't need us to defend Him, either. jesus is our defense. In Him alone! God has already accomplished every spiritual thing for man - it's not even about us measuring up or agreeing or arguing to keep the faith. I just wanna see people get on with living life as His beloved. you know what a real heretic is? It's a Baptist trying to live *for* Jesus...think about it...when we put so much effort into, well, our "efforts" ...it's all about us, not Him anymore. Thanks for letting me rant :-)

[selahV]

hello Caryn, well my love, I really understand where you can get the impression that all we do is argue given the blogs. yuk.
sadly that is the picture a great deal of the world gets, too.

I'm grateful to attend a wonderful fellowship of Baptist Believers who have been true to the Gospel of Christ in service and love. Their generosity when I lost my son, when my husband had 5 by-pass open heart surgery, and the way they supported us through it all still humbles me to think on it. through all the dust-ups on the internet I've encountered I stand amazed at the merciful, tolerant and steadfast God we have. Thank you, Caryn for logging on. I needed to hear these words tonite. Come by and rant, anytime. selahV