The pastor of First Baptist Church New Orleans, Dr. David Crosby, is calling for cooperation and unity amid theological diversity in the Louisiana Baptist Convention. Crosby’s recent public facebook post is a response to the issues going on at Louisiana College, owned by the Louisiana Baptist Convention. Click here to view an index of recent posts from around the country addressing the L.C. issues.
Pastor Crosby’s call for cooperation and unity could not come at a better time for the Louisiana Baptist Convention.
Facebook post written by Pastor David Crosby
I am thankful for Pastor Crosby’s bold stand against division and the spirit of un-cooperation that currently permeates Louisiana. I join others in awaiting such a call of cooperation from our Louisiana Baptist Convention Executive Director Dr. David Hankins. Dr. Hankins has previously stood for cooperation and today is a friend who can help and our man on deck. Louisiana Baptists need Dr. Hankins to join Pastor Crosby in a clarion call for unity in essentials and diversity in non-essentials. We await this strong leadership from our highest state leader.
February 8, 2013 at 10:48 am
[...] NOLA Pastor David Crosby Calls for Cooperation Amid Diversity in Louisiana Baptist Convention [...]
February 15, 2013 at 5:53 pm
[...] suggest that he is complicit with the recent events at Louisiana College? Calls for unity like those from convention leader David Crosby, pastor at FBC New Orleans, cause one to wonder if Dr. David Hankins’ silence accurately reflects [...]
April 28, 2013 at 4:50 pm
[...] on Dr. Hankins to resign. I agree with Richerson and hope that his letter begins to draw out more Louisiana Baptists concerned with Hankins’ presence and participation on the Louisiana College Board of [...]
February 8, 2013 at 10:54 am
I say “amen” to Dr. Crosby’s call for cooperation on this issue, and pray that a balance of theological perspective — reflecting both sides of our SBC heritage, Calvinist and “non” — will be allowed to be taught at Louisiana College.
February 8, 2013 at 11:58 am
Well said, Dr. Crosby. Maybe he needs to succeed Fred Luter in office.
February 8, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Of course, I meant after Fred Luter’s second term.
February 8, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for those well-worded thoughts. Amen.
February 26, 2013 at 6:47 am
Josh,
As a graduate of LC ’95 I am saddened to hear of all the problems going on there. I returned to college at age 29 and I loved LC while I was there. My religious Ed classes challenged me in my faith and I grew in the Word while I was there. I was a history major and sadly two of the three professors that I had were forced out soon after Dr A came to the school; Howell and Simpson. I had a great liberal arts education and I can tell you that when I went to grad school I could hang with the best if them from colleges and universities much more prominent than LC.
It sickens me to think that LC had become such a hateful place to study. I am also a former member of FBCNO and Dr. Crosby is a fine man who is a voice of reason and I am hoping that he and several if the board members that I know personally will be able to change LC back into the school it once was. I still have many friends and family at FBCNO and I will be there during spring break in a couple a weeks so I will talk to David and to Chuck Kelly about these things personally. It may not help but it could.
Please know that I am praying for all of you as you take on this situation and although I live in Dallas if there is anyway I can help I would be glad to do so. I am a little bit of a hellcat and not afraid to take on tough issues. Feel free to email me privately.
Blessings,
Lauren Gauthier-Bristow
May 3, 2013 at 10:49 am
Can two who totally disagree ever really work together?
I have a major problem with Calvinist stating they agree with the BF&M. They are able to do this only through redefining words and statements.
For instance, take Article II on God which says, “There is one and only one living and true God. He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe. God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections. God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience. The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.”
To Calvinists the term ‘free’ means Adam was originally free but man is no longer free in his ability to decide to accept or reject God and therefore bear the consequences.
Consider Article III on Man which says, “Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.”
Calvinist do not believe that man inherits “…a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” They believe that man is corrupt and unless God directly intervenes and chooses him to be saved he will die and go to hell – even the unborn and babies. Man has no choice in the matter because of his sinfulness.
Consider Article IV on Salvation which says in part, “Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer.”
They do not believe that man is free to choose or reject God’s offer of salvation. In fact, they don’t believe God offers salvation to all men but only to a select few which He chose before creation. Their belief on this subject, like so many others they hold, is similar to someone having a van full of children and yelling out, “Who wants an ice cream cone?” Only to respond when the children erupt in one accord that they do, “Oh, I didn’t mean all of you, I was just talking to my two kids.”
How can Calvinist claim to agree with the BF&M with a straight face? What really perplexes me is how anyone who believes otherwise could accept such a statement?
Based upon Calvinist’s beliefs I have to question whether the god they worship is the God of the Bible which leads to the next question under consideration across our Convention, ‘how can people who believe so differently ever co-minister in harmony?’
Just the opinion of an old soldier who has a lot of questions.
May 3, 2013 at 11:29 am
Dr. Tribble, there are simply more errors in your comment than I care to count. Your misunderstanding of traditional Southern Baptist monergism is truly astounding.
First, it’s nothing short of ignorance to claim that a Calvinist could not affirm the SBF&M. First, the SBF&M is nothing but a slightly revision version of the New Hamphsire Confession of Faith, adopted by Reformed Baptists. Although revised, let’s remember that the SBC’s chief “Calvinist” – Al Mohler – was on the committee that revised in 2000. Do you think Mohler, the very Calvinist that revised the BF&M could not sign it? Good grief…
Your definition of “free” in terms of “ability” is interesting (and fallacious). Free might refer to will, but not ability. I’m concerned for your credentials of orthodoxy if you don’t think that the Fall of Adam enslaved us to a nature of sin. The issue is not and has never been (among Calvinists) whether or not man is free to choose Christ. Of course man is free to choose Christ or free to do whatever his nature allows. The question is about man’s nature, not his will. Man is very much free to do anything his heart desires. No Calvinist would disagree with that.
Furthermore, to claim that Calvinists believe God does not offer his salvation to all mankind is either incredibly ignorant or a violation of the 9th Commandment. This is a straw man, torched. Shame on you. We believe in a Universal Call to salvation to all mankind and that Calvinists HAVE ALWAYS burned with the passion for missions and evangelism (good sir, would you like to compare my church’s zeal for foreign missions with yours?).
And then to suggest that Calvinists (like Spurgeon, WA Criswell, MacArthur, Boyce, Manly, and LOTTIE MOON) don’t worship the God of Scripture? Wow.
I don’t know where you received your doctorate. Regardless, get a refund.
May 3, 2013 at 11:50 am
“To Calvinists the term ‘free’ means Adam was originally free but man is no longer free in his ability to decide to accept or reject God and therefore bear the consequences.”
Not quite accurate. Adam was able to desire both good and evil whereas we are able to desire only evil. We remain fully capable of choosing anything we want, but what we want – apart from the grace of Christ – is always to do evil. Even with that, there are many kinds of evil once might perform and many things that make man’s actions sinful and God still knows what we will choose to do in the future. (As an aside, the notion that people apart from Christ choose only evil is found throughout Scripture, chiefly in Romans 3:10-18 which should in itself be enough to settle the matter).
“They believe that man is corrupt and unless God directly intervenes and chooses him to be saved he will die and go to hell – even the unborn and babies.”
The first part is clearly affirmed by the BF&M and agreed by (hopefully all) SBC folks, Calvinist or not. Clearly man is corrupt. The second part – which I’d quibble with the wording but I know what you’re getting at – is neither affirmed nor denied in the BF&M. The BF&M provides room for disagreement over the nature of election. It makes no mention at all over the fate of infants, a subject which finds a great range of views among both Calvinists and non-Calvinist. There is no one Calvinist view of what happens to children who die.
“They do not believe that man is free to choose or reject God’s offer of salvation.”
Yes, we believe man is free to accept or reject. However, we believe Scripture is clear that left to himself all will only choose to reject God, so great is sin’s corruption.
“In fact, they don’t believe God offers salvation to all men but only to a select few which He chose before creation.”
This is simply not true. Aside from hyper-Calvinists, which as Jared wrote before should be considered an extreme and excluded case, all Calvinists believe in the universal call of the gospel, that God has made a good offer to all people to come to him. As I told Walt the other day, every person on this planet can be saved and ever person has been offered salvation and if anyone at all accepts Christ, he will be saved. The problem is not the offer. The problem is not what God has done. The problem is man chooses sin.
“Only to respond when the children erupt in one accord that they do”
This is an extreme misrepresentation of Calvinism, to put it mildly and nicely. Calvinism teaches nothing of the sort. All who call out for salvation will be saved. God turns no one away. The problem is on our end – we will never call out for salvation. This is what makes election all the more gracious – God takes us and changes our corrupt wills, giving us hearts that beat for him. This is why we find Jesus at different times saying things like “you did not choose me but I chose you” in John 15:16.
“Based upon Calvinist’s beliefs I have to question whether the god they worship is the God of the Bible”
By which you must mean you have to question whether Calvinists are even Christians? I can certainly understand opposition to sharing a denomination with non-Christians, but I think the charge ridiculous since the Bible so clearly teaches what we affirm, as I hope I have briefly shown you.
May 3, 2013 at 5:37 pm
I agree with JS. Too many errors or mischaracterizations to count.
May 3, 2013 at 4:31 pm
“…As I told Walt the other day, every person on this planet can be saved and ever [sic] person has been offered salvation and if anyone at all accepts Christ, he will be saved. The problem is not the offer. The problem is not what God has done. The problem is man chooses sin…”
If God does not elect to provide His special grace to the sinner, per Calvin that sinner has no chance of salvation and is bound for hell. I agree that the problem is not what God has done. It is what God refuses to do per Calvin. I can understand Dr. Tribble’s frustration with those who believe in an arbitrary and capricious God, but I believe that we can work together so long as Calvinists heartily support our missions effort.
May 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm
Walt,
You said, “I can understand Dr. Tribble’s frustration with those who believe in an arbitrary and capricious God,”
I would be frustrated in such a person too. Problem for you and the good dr. is that “arbitrary and capricious” defines not the true God and certainly no Calvinists believes God is arbitrary and capricious. That reference is a figment of your imagination.
Les
May 3, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Les: If God does not enable every sinner to have the free will capacity to accept or reject Christ then that is being arbitrary. Further, “irresistible grace” takes away man’s free will and makes Christians robots. I do not believe I am a robot as I believe that God would have allowed me to resist Christ had I so chosen.
May 3, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Walt,
I man no disrespect, but it almost seems like some of you who believe in libertarian free will are near idolizing it. It’s almost as if having a free will is the chief end of man.
Anyway, as to your first sentence, says who? Walt? Again, you want to make man’s so called free will determinative. But you can’t do it scripturally..
And robots? I’m no robot and neither are you. The reason God’s saving grace is irresistible is because of the beauty and magnificence of Christ to your spiritual eyes and my spiritual eyes, because He removes the scales and opens our hearts (see Lydia in the NT).
Walt He didn’t need you to be a robot. He only needed to change your rebellious heart and you rushed to the Living Saviour!
May 3, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Yes, God enabled me and according to you refused to so enable others by lifting the scales from their eyes. While I am grateful I pity those poor people whom God refused to elect according to Calvin.
May 3, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Walt,
Yes, God enabled me and according to you refused to so enable others by lifting the scales from their eyes”
Not quite. Yes, God enabled you. I’m glad to see you admit that. Some non-Calvinists won’t admit what they know in their hearts is true.
Second, none of what I’m saying is “according to me.” The scriptures teache that God chose some before the foundation of the world to some day in His appointed time open their hearts so they can understand the glorious gospel in a saving way. Others that He did not choose will perish in their own stubborn rebellion and get what they (and we all) deserve for being in rebellion to our creator.
“While I am grateful I pity those poor people whom God refused to elect according to Calvin.”
Again, not Calvin or me. This is not according to Calvin. It’s according to the scriptures we learn that, though none is deserving and therefore cannot boast, some receive grace and mercy. The elect don’t get what they deserve…that’s mercy. The elect get what they do not deserve…heaven, adoption into His family. That’s grace.
The rest, and sadly as you note, get what they deserve and do not get what they dont deserve.
SDG!
May 3, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Calvin and you have such an interpretation of Scripture. I thank God it is not mine as I could not love one who refused to enable belief and thus consigned them to hell before they were born.
May 3, 2013 at 11:05 pm
Walt,
I’m happy to associate myself with Calvin, Spurgeon, Warfield, Jim Boice, James P Boyce, D. James Kennedy, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey and Lottie Moon to name a few in addition to Calvin.
But at the end of the day, it’s all SDG.
Les
May 3, 2013 at 11:14 pm
Walt,
I am torn between warning you and correcting you. Correcting you because of your continued obstinance and foolish refusal to listen. You play the fool with your particular method of disagreement. It has gotten tiresome and your arguments wildly unsubstantiated and repetitive.
Warning you because, despite your clear failure to understand what we say about God and about Scripture, you nonetheless declare so plainly that the God we serve is not a God you could love. You align yourself against the God of the Bible while claiming to act in his service. That is a very, very dangerous position to take.
May 4, 2013 at 8:19 am
Is your warning equally to all traditionalists who reject determinism and free will? If so, why would you want to fellowship with us?
Calvinism is a bigger problem to the faith than most people realize, it’s survival alone has been a bane to Christianity. If it were ever to swell to a majority situation, it would mean the end of sound doctrine. Biblical understanding would plummet to a degree rivaling the Dark Ages. It needs to be shown for the hypocritical, contradictory, ignorance of scriptures that it is.
But Calvinists tend to win alot of scholarly debates. Why? Because many Calvinists are scholars, and their opponents are often your backyard run-of-the-mill pastor. That is about to change. Calvinists weave a very sticky web when they debate, and their unwitting opponents will walk right into it. How they do it is by coming up with their own terms and definitions to scriptures in their monologues, and then getting their opponents to agree to them, thus they are ensnared in the Calvinist trap. To effectively debate a Calvinist you have to nip it in the bud, strike at the very root and core of their arguments by showing that their own terms and definitions are not scriptural, and that their lingo and interpretations are heretical.
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/loveoneanothe//calvinism.html
May 4, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Walt,
My warning is not about simple disagreement, but about emphatic statements along the lines of, “I could not love one who refused to enable belief and thus consigned them to hell before they were born.” While your summary there is not particularly accurate, what you mean is you could not love the God proclaimed by Calvinists. You are not simply saying we are wrong, you are saying if we are right you would not want to be a Christian because you could not worship such a God. This is quite a problem since what we proclaim is what Scripture reveals, which would indicate that by your own words you do not want to worship the God of the Bible.
This runs somewhat in the opposite direction of what Tribble said earlier when he seemed to say Calvinists are not Christians since he says we do not worship the God of the Bible. What you say is if we were right, you would not want to be Christian. Both positions are quite problematic.
May 4, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Res ipsa loquitur
May 5, 2013 at 8:33 am
Walt,
Did I misunderstand you in some way?
May 4, 2013 at 8:23 am
Well there we have it. The heresy word. Heck, I thought the so-called Traditionalists said it’s the Calvinists who throw that word around.
Walt in your opinion are we who hold to the Reformed faith heretics?
May 4, 2013 at 8:28 am
Walt, the guy you quoted had this to say as well,
“Come with me, as I show how these doctrines of devils are dangerous to the true message of the gospel of Christ, I don’t mince words about it.”
Calvinism is listed as one of these “doctrines of devils [that] are dangerous to the true message of the gospel of Christ.”
Do yu agree with the guy you quoted?
May 4, 2013 at 8:38 am
He is equating eisegesis with satanic influence. I would not have worded it so strongly but I do agree with his absolute rejection of Calvinism as scriptural.
May 4, 2013 at 8:43 am
“I would not have worded it so strongly but I do agree with his absolute rejection of Calvinism as scriptural.”
Well we already knew that you reject Calvinism as scriptural. But you do NOT believe that Calvinism is heresy, correct?
Brother just a gentle admonition. Be careful who you quote in these discussions. It appeared that you were approvingly quoting that person in agreement with his words. Let Calvinist do something like that and he woud be castigated forever and ever, even if he walked it back as it seems you are doing.
Les
May 4, 2013 at 8:56 am
Les: “Heresy” is a loaded word that I am loathe to use about those whom I know to be fellow believers. Others are not so reluctant about what they believe is imposing man-made doctrine on Scripture and I see their point although I think it extreme. I believe that we can strongly disagree about determinism yet cooperate so long as Calvinists strongly support missions. As Jerry Falwell said, “The more I witness the more people I find who were predestined to be saved.”
May 4, 2013 at 9:01 am
Walt,
“I believe that we can strongly disagree about determinism yet cooperate so long as Calvinists strongly support missions.”
I would twaek part of what you said this way and make it mine,
“I believe that we can strongly disagree about monergism/synergism yet cooperate so long as non-Calvinists strongly support missions.”
And as I’m sure you know, some of the strongest and most used of God in missions and evangelism throughout history have been Calvinists. I mentioned a few last night above.
May 4, 2013 at 9:08 am
Walt,
Let me say something else. Now I know tthere are strongly worded opinions and statements on both sides of ths debate. There are indeed soem Calvinists who have made disaring remarks about non-Calvinists and have used very strong words to characterize their brothers who disagree. Same for non-Calvinists (see some of the comments at Peter’s site and SBC Today for examples).
That said, it does seem to me that the animosity and bordering on hatred for the other side’s doctrine is much stronger on the non-Calvinist side. The rhetoric is much more supercharged by the non-Cs in general. For many their almost (and maybe true) hatred of Calvinism comes out in their words and the emotins are much more volatile.
It seems to me more Calvinists just remain calmer and the non-Cs explode everywhere due to their deep disdain for Calvinism.
Cs seem more willing to cooperate than non-Cs.
I could be wrong and maybe I’m seein thru bias. But just my observations.
Les
May 4, 2013 at 12:20 pm
Chris can put any non-C to shame with the insults and the “my way or the highway” mentality.
May 4, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Walt, I have to respectfully disagree. Two particular regulars at Peter’s blog far and away can out insult anyone I know. They’re not bad people. But they seem to be so blinded by hatred of all things Calvin that they can’t seem to help themselves.
May 5, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I regret that but can understand their visceral reaction as they (I) think that Calvinism belittles God’s character and mercy. I have a niece who was raised in a Christian family but rejects Christ, giving as her excuse, “I just wasn’t chosen.” Perhaps this will help you understand my strong negative reaction to Calvinism.
May 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Walt,
So you think your unbelieving niece is the standard by which Calvinism should be evaluated and her rejection of Christ justifies all sorts of nastiness?
May 5, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Of course not. I told her that Scripture does not teach Calvinism and that she has the free will to accept or reject Christ and thus her eternal fate is entirely her own responsibility. I merely note that Calvinism is perceived by unbelievers as unfairness on God’s part and harms witnessing. But personal insults such as you make are unnecessary and uncalled for by either side.
May 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Walt,
Where did I insult you?
May 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm
I can’t remember due to my “foolish refusal to listen.” I have no intention of going back over your posts here and at other blogs. It means nothing whatever to me.
May 4, 2013 at 6:41 pm
I am curious Walt. Do you think that we will be able to sin in the eternal state of the new heaven ans new earth? If not, will we be robots? If so, will someone sin ? Just curious.
May 5, 2013 at 12:19 pm
JV: God will remove the presence of sin when we are glorified. I think that God will perform a type of control when He wipes the tears away from our eyes.
There is a dear friend whom I have been trying to win to Christ for 40 years. He is a secular Jew who is now 89 years old. I can’t even fathom the Father saying to me that my attempts were not successful because he was not elected.