Apparently some Calvinists find Page's willingness to work with Calvinists compromising:
Prior to the convention, Founders Ministries Executive Director Tom Ascol posted a review of Page's book on his Internet blog. Ascol praised the "gracious" tone of Page's book, but he questioned his expressed commitment to work with -- and appoint to SBC committees -- committed Calvinists. Kindness and civility are commendable, but theological convictions cannot be ignored, he insisted.
"Is Page saying that he is willing to work with people who follow 'manmade doctrines,' whose religion is 'without biblical support,' whose theological convictions mean 'there is no need to share Christ with anyone' and encourage 'a slackening of the aggressive evangelistic and missionary heartbeat of the church?'" Ascol asked in his blog entry.
"I would not work with such people, and I would not want a president of the SBC who would either. . . . If Dr. Page genuinely believes what he has written about Calvinism, then no amount of kindness can justify his willingness to work with the kinds of people described in his book!"
The next time the SBC has a debate over Calvinism, I suggest that Frank Page and Tom Ascol be the debaters. That discussion is not likely to be as "collegial" as was the debate between Mohler and Patterson.
Posts
4 comments:
That is a very interesting spin by Tom Ascol.
When I first read Page's comments regarding Calvinism, I confess, I was upset. Not because I thought they were true (of course not), but I thought they were below him. They are below anyone.
[I have to forbid myself from going into a tangent and ranting about how Calvinist are normally more missional minded than most. SPURGEON!...I'll exercise that little fruit called 'temperance'. But I digress.]
Tom Ascol's questions are right on the mark. If Frank Page really believes that Calvinistic doctrines are 'man-made' or that they murder evangelistic zeal (I know, my labeling), then he SHOULD be faulted for working with those type of Christians. Those types of Christians are to be rebuked, not condoned.
Sorry for the rant. Thanks for the venue.
awaiting the hope,
Adam
protestant pub
I have a quick question, that quote you have within your post, where did it come from? I looked upon Tom Ascol's blog and I can't seem to find it. I am dense sometimes though (and mostly blonde), so it could be somewhere in huge bolded print and I would still miss it.
awaiting the hope,
Adam
I find this whole Calvinism thing strange in some ways, especially given other emphases that I heard in the SBC this year. Perhaps this will pass, but I, too, would like to hear the debate you suggest.
If you believe that the bible is God's infallible word. Then Calvinism can not be right. John 3:16 is right or it’s wrong if it’s wrong then the entire Bible is wrong. And friend I know its not. Now that’s just 1 verse but there are more. God is not willing that any one should go to hell we either except or deny God.
Post a Comment