The Image of God In Herschel Hobbs

There is no such thing as "the Baptist faith" or "the historic Baptist faith." These phrases imply a creedal faith, something which Baptists have always avoided...pg 10.

Baptists always have been creedal. As James A. Smith says:

Either the opponents are unaware of Baptist history or they willfully misrepresent our history. In either case, the historical record on this matter is clear and convincing: Baptists are creedal, and we have used confessions of faith as doctrinal measuring tools in employing our denominational servants.

One might ask why Hobbs would make this gaffe. Further, Elmer L. Towns infers that a vote could be taken which would force Calvinists from the fold of the SBC. Which is the same as saying that a vote could be taken forcing Southern Baptists to adhere to the approved creed as interpreted by the party policy police.

My series on the image of God in man and the fall was intended to lead us to this point: Was Herschel Hobbs wrong and did error lead millions of Southern Baptists into the morass of doctrinal ignorance? Well, he was wrong about the Baptists not being a creedal people so there might just be some reason to doubt the dependability of other things he said concerning the faith. My last insertion of conspiracy data indicated that Hx3 was a Freemason. That leads us to even greater speculation as to his ability to discern truth. Whether he was or not a Mason, I will let others confirm. I insinuated that the dualism of Masonic teachings is similar to Hobbs.

I will be quoting out of the 1971 edition of The Baptist Faith and Message which is a commentary on the 1963 BFM, published by Convention Press, Nashville Tennessee, and authored by Herschel H. Hobbs. There have been revisions, but as of now I do not have access to them. If anyone sees where what I quote has been corrected in later editions, please inform me. If anyone has a link to online editions, it would be greatly appreciated.

This commentary was widely distributed and studied. My copy came from my former Adult Sunday School teacher and Senior Deacon who also left the SBC church from which I self-expelled. Just how many over the past half-century were affected by the doctrine contained in it is unsearchable. But, I know this for a fact: adults with whom I interacted in Sunday School and elsewhere, believed as Herschel taught. A half century before this commentary was published, Hx3's theology was the prominent influential teaching base of the SBC. In total, nearly a century worth of Southern Baptists have been indoctrinated into the Hobbsian paradigm. It should be no wonder then that the Founders' doctrines appear an intrusion into the SBC. Let's then examine The Image of God In Herschel Hobbs.

Hx3 quotes on page 17 of his commentary "It is the purpose of this statement of faith and message to set for certain teachings which we believe" from the 1963 BFM introduction, setting it up as definitional and his own commentary on it as definitional of what it means to be both Christian and Baptist. Of God's omniscience he says:

God has all knowledge. He knows all things simultaneously...immediate...does not necessarily mean that he predetermined them...

Of omnipotence:

The only limits to his power are self-imposed...cannot lie or act contrary to his...laws...

Of miracles:

...acts of God contrary to man's knowledge of natural law, but not contrary to God's knowledge of such...

pg 36-37. Hobbs completes this thought in his section on God's purpose of Grace:

In the abstract, God's sovereignty means that he can act as he will without any outside counsel of permission. But in the concrete, as taught in the Bible, God has placed certain limitations upon himself. In that sense his sovereignty must be viewd as his power to act as he wills in keeping with his own laws and according to his naure as righteousness and love, pg. 66.

Hobb's had said earlier that Deut. 6:4 denies dualism, pg. 37.

What can be noted here is that even though Hx3 denies dualism, by stating that God has erected a set of laws that he obeys he has set up a dualism within God that is no different than dualism. More precisely, God, according to this scheme has set laws and has subjugated himself to them such that they are actually outside of God as a god to whom he must give account. This I suppose was necessary for Hobbs to be able to express the image of God in man who has choice. Dualism can also be formulated as alternatives. But, free-choice as was held by Hobbs means more than just alternatives, for law speaks of that which can be violated. Thus, for Hobbs, God's freedom includes the freedom of contrary choice. It is this way: God could choose to violate his own laws but does not because of his nature. However, if it is indeed the case that God has LFW then he could. And in fact, if LFW in God is true, it must be true in all cases. As the perfection of perfections, the infinite goodness of God's nature extends to every aspect of his being. If a choice of God could be made contrary to the infinitude of his goodness, it would be less than that goodness, and consequently other than God. Therefore, laws which might be violated even though erected by God establishes another other than God to which God is subject- a god outside of God. The final analysis is that God making laws to govern himself is contrary to his infinite nature, which is good. Another way to look at this is to say that God has the power of contemplation of alternative choice which includes the ability to conceive of himself as violating the greatest good choice by opting for the lesser. The power of contrary choice in God then would necessitate an inherent ability to contradict himself. That is to say, that God is both good and evil essentially; yin and yang.

Do I actually think that Herschel thought of God having the power of contrary choice? We'll have to see next time as we examine more closely Hx3 view of the image of God in man.

Top Ten Small-Church Pastor Challenges (part one)

Lifeway has done some research lately on the particular issues faced by small-church pastors. This article at Ed Stetzer’s blog reproduces the information that recently appeared in my State’s Baptist newspaper. It lists the Top 10 Challenges that were reported by pastors of smaller SBC congregations.

I’m going to list the ten below and intersperse my comments, as a bivocational pastor of a small, rural SBC church.

1. Time.

There’s never enough of it. I’m sure this is true of all pastors, but it is particularly true for small-church pastors. There aren’t enough hours in the day. (You should hear a little whiny tone as you read the following sentence…) It is even more true for bivocational pastors.

It’s become fashionable and accepted as an axiom among exegetically-minded preachers that you should do one hour of sermon preparation for every minute you intend to preach. I generally shoot for about 30 minutes on a Sunday morning. (I know, that makes me a light-weight to all you hardcore Reformed giants out there.) But then on Sunday evenings, it’s generally closer to 40 minutes or so.

If I’m to follow the axiom here, that adds up to 70 hours worth of sermon prep time during the week, on top of 40 at my “day job,” on top of hoping to be a decent husband and father before all of that.

It’s the first time I’ve actually sat down and put numbers on it, but I’ve got to tell you, now I understand why I’m so sleepy all the time.

To be honest, I’m just an average middle-aged guy, fighting Dunlop’s Disease and watching my hair go away, and I simply can’t do all of that, not all the time. So what gets trimmed back? What suffers, time-wise? Well, sadly, all of it, except my day job, which can demand time and threaten consequences for not meeting the demand.

I don’t spend the time with my family that I’d like to spend. I don’t get enough hours of sleep every night. I don’t get enough “alone” time where it’s just me and the Lord. I don’t get enough book-time in sermon prep. I hardly do any visitation at all. I don’t get enough exercise. Yikes. What I do get is exhausted. Got plenty o’ that, thanks.

That’s the first of the ten challenges, and even as I write about it, I anticipate two responses:

1. If it’s so tough, then quit.

Answer: I’m not doing this because I want to. I’m doing this because I have to. I’m doing this because I’m commanded to. My Lord requires it. All my time is His.

2. If you know you’ve been called to it, then stop whining about it and get to work.

Answer: This hasn’t been intended as a complaint piece. I’ve tried to be humorous as I’ve discussed very real challenges. By doing so, I’m hoping to accomplish two things. One, that my fellow pastors would know they aren’t alone or strange in what they’re experiencing. And two, that we would all be reminded to pray earnestly for those who are our shepherds. They/we/I need it.

Looking for a Theological Term?

You might want to try these online resources:

Calvinist Dictonary

Arminian Dictonary

Conspiring Theories Breathe The Same Air And Inflame Passion

Having survived a near death experience hole free though a little singed I received another communication from a rat,

not a mole, but a rodent nonetheless. The information is disturbing and will serve as an appetizer to a review of the subterranean message of the commentary on The Baptist Faith and Message penned by Hx3.

I don't want to fan the flames and spread the fire of conspiracy or nuttin, but it is curious, is it not, that the dualism aspect of Hx3's theology is all so central to this mystical group?

Speaking of the Secret Nine



why is this pamphlet no longer listed as available from the NAMB? Or, is it?

The following is not supported by any evidence, but, just suppose that the CP can be found in this symbol:

Note the handshake, universal symbol of cooperative agents, and what if CP is really code for covert police, hmmmm?

Give the Lord no Rest

As a pastor whose soteriology is solidly Reformed, I rejoice that I can evangelize without the "pressure" of having to convert anyone. With a view of the Gospel that rightly emphasizes God's sovereignty, a "successful witnessing encounter" is one in which I was able, by grace, to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ clearly. Period. Making someone convert is not my job. That is a spiritual work that only the Spirit of God can perform. I just preach. Wow, y'know, honestly that really narrows the task down to something manageable.

But here's the rub: I still earnestly desire to see conversions. I still long to see people come to Christ in repentant faith.

Let's just be honest: I get sick of merely "planting seeds" and hoping that someday, by and by, I'll see some actual fruit.

Thus the emotional dilemma for the evangelistically-minded man: I know salvation is up to the Lord; but I am impatient to see it happen.

Now, the common way in which I and my fellow Reformed pastors have comforted ourselves and one another as we encounter this dilemma, is to say that we must turn our impatience into submission and contentment. After all, that sort of willful acquiescence to the Lord's will seems quite Biblical, and Reformed. Right?

Well, the famous giant of Christian history, George Muller, says no. Consider this quote from a preacher and pastor who knew more than we ever will about living by faith alone.

The Bible assures us that in everything we do for the Lord...our labor is not in vain. We have to guard against thinking that it does not matter whether we see present fruit or not. On the contrary, we should give the Lord no rest until we see fruit. Therefore, in persevering yet submissive prayer, we should make our requests known to God. (From his autobiography, emphasis mine.)

Muller would suggest that the line of thought we are using to comfort ourselves in our fruitlessness is the very thing we need to vigilantly struggle against. It does matter, what fruit we bear, what things happen as a result of our ministries. If none are being converted, or if we are not being persecuted as our Lord promised we would be if only we were faithful, there can be only one answer.

Let us commit ourselves to fervent, persistent, and as Muller says, still submissive prayer.

On Tolerance

What is tolerance? When I was a great deal younger, it meant putting up with what you yourself did not actually agree with. For example, you tolerated the neighbour's dog barking at all hours. Or you tolerated the Monkey-Puzzle tree in the neighbours' front garden. That was tolerance. In theological circles it means that we put up with opinions with which we do not agree, in wider circles it means that we believe in religious freedom for the Unitarians, Swedenborgians and so forth.

The post-modern idea of tolerance is different. It means that you are expected to hold that all truth-claims are equally valid. So long as you hold to this, you are yourself 'tolerated'. In other words, postmodern tolerance is conditional on yourself being postmodern. Otherwise you are intolerant, and therefore not to be tolerated.

This is in fact a word-game on the level of those of Orwell's 1984. Instead of being expressly about those with whom we disagree, tolerance now refers to those with whom we in fact agree. But Hitler himself 'tolerated' those who agreed with him. Every totalitarian who is not completely insane grants freedom to those with whom he agrees. So we have gained nothing and lost much by the redefinition of tolerance.

What we plead for is the right to be wrong. THAT is tolerance, everything else is an imitation, Satan masquerading as an angel of light. Otherwise we have committed intellectual suicide and destroyed our very reason for existence.

Brothers, let us reclaim the true meaning of tolerance, before its new definition is usd to wipe us out!

Watch this

If you've never encountered the writer called Turretinfan in the blog world, you are in for a treat. This guy is a judicious writer, a careful scholar, and a wonderfully capable apologist. Don't tell him I said so, as I don't wish to be guilty of flattery...

Anyway, starting June 1, Turretinfan is going to enter into a pretty formal debate (by blog standards anyway) with a Catholic apologist on the topic of Sola Scriptura.

They've agreed to a pretty ambitious and rigorous schedule which will have them writing and posting at particular times until the end of this year, Lord willing.

Both sides of the debate will be posted at both their blogs. Here is a link to Turretinfan's blog. Do yourself a favor and visit often between now and June 1, because there is a lot to learn over there. Then strap yourself in and plan on following the debate.