See this post:
http://sbcvoices.com/r-albert-mohler-jr-answers-the-calvinism-criticism/

Southern is inevitably calvinistic as a by product, not as a conscious primary agenda. Timmy is right that Southern is a magnet for calvinism as well as a hot-bed for it. Tony and Trevin are right to point out that this does not mean Southern is trying to be a hot-bed for Calvinism. It is also true that many Calvinists are launched from Southern without being taught how to steward their convictions in a way that will promote max cooperation with others who disagree. Perhaps there should be a lecture given every year entitled: “How to not let your Calvinism become important to you than the gospel” which exploits practical WHAT TO DO and WHAT NOT TO DO type of advise from the local church trenches.

Calvinism is not the gospel. Therfore, if a preacher preaches Calvinism, he is not saying more about the core of our faith (i.e. the gospel) but wrapping skin layers around the core. I ran from Liberty to Southern precisely to avoid all the Calvinism basing and divisiveness. My “cage stage” was in large part a result of being attacked all the time. I eventually learned the skill of debate and began to make a sport out of it (bad for your spiritual health).

On the one hand, Southern is not trying to be a hot-bed for Calvinism as a matter of priority, but only as a by-product of the convictions of the leader (Al) and many of the teachers. On the other hand, Southern has a bad reputation for producing pastors who are divisive with their Calvinism.

I’m an 8 point Calvinist, but lament the spirit in which a lot of these things are being discussed. It seems that Calvinists can’t even talk about Calvinism without being divisive. Much of what I see in Reformed circles seems to point to a divisive spirit of theological snobbery and pride in argumentation. I once was blind of this sin in my own life, and am glad to now be aware of it so as to fight it.

sorry so long winded

Bradley Cochran’s last blog post..Critical Evaluation of Bonhoeffer on Discipleship (Part 2)

I’m afraid the discussion has taken on the wings of ad infinitum. Let me say a hearty thank you for the original post. You never know who might be watching the blogging going on- by all means everyone should do so in all candor and integrity.
I for one appreciate the clear disclaimer of being ground-zero for anything- I think you have done us a favor who are trying to convince the poor folks in the supporting churches that there isn’t a grand calvinist cospiracy going on. I have been struggling to regain the confidence here at FBC Richmond who had already bought deeply in the conspiracy theory and therefore the atmosphere in our church had a definite hostile bias towards the Seminary of which you speak.

God bless you. I intend to link this in some way to my blog.

John Paul Todd
e4unity.wordpress.com

John Paul Todd’s last blog post..You won’t believe who my Dentists are !

A couple of observations . . .

First, did you know the professors at SEBTS are also required to sign the Abstract? I have heard Akin talk about this at length in chapel, also.

I think Dever’s post, ‘Where’d All the Calvinists Come From,’ fits better than saying SBTS is ground zero. But, Timmy’s comments are excellent too.

However, this is the best part of the post: “We ought to define who we are as an institution by thinking of ourselves as ground zero for the cause of the gospel.” That is why I love Mohler. Same for Akin (non-5 point Calvinist). I think every self-respecting Calvinist should think that way.

kschaub’s last blog post..Sufjan and the Old Covenant

Um, if Dever did have it on the list, that would have made Collin’s term “ground zero” sound like child’s play.

The implications would have been huge.

Timmy Brister’s last blog post..Who Is Jeremiah Burroughs?

Seems to me that Mohler was using the term either idiomatically or, more likely, rhetorically, as has been suggested. I don’t see why Hansen can’t do the same legitimately.

Ben’s last blog post..Can Your Church Be Too Congregational?

Again, it is not “either/or” but “both/and”. It is absurd to argue that one of the major reasons (if not THE major reason) folks come to SBTS is not because of our Reformed soteriology. Again, no one is making the claim that if you go to SBTS you will be converted to Calvinism.

Secondly, for all you guys who are talking about SBTS being ground zero for the gospel, what do you mean that? And how is this personally evidence in your own life?

One of Scott Lamb’s critiques of Hansen’s book was,

“How terrible it would be if Calvinist soteriology got branded on the hearts of young people, only to have them choose individualism over God-glorifying commitment and dedication to the local church. Christ did not die on a cross for a conference, campus Bible study, or book publisher. He laid down his life for the church.”

But this movement is a gospel movement and centered in the local church, not just conferences or books. Has Scott not considered the church planting efforts of Sovereign Grace, Redeemer Presbyterian, and Acts 29? Has he not considered the church reform and revitalization of IX Marks and Founders? Has he not considered SBTS and other seminaries training pastors and church planters to be placed across the country and world?

Indeed, there is a God-glorifying commitment and dedication to the local church. Indeed, the most gospel-centered and gospel-driven efforts both in print and in practice can be found within this apparently not-so-impressive work of God.

Timmy Brister’s last blog post..POTW :: Lindsay the Grad