Dr. Frank Cox has my Vote
On June 10, 2008 during that morning session, probably, we will have a time that the convention will elect her next President. When that time comes, I will punch my ballot for Dr. Frank Cox. Oh, my wife and my daughter, if she is elected a messenger from our church, will also punch their ballots for Dr. Cox.
I am voting for Dr. Cox for three reasons. First, I have prayed about this decision and I believe that God is leading me to vote for Dr. Cox, I believe Dr. Cox has presented himself as a man of God that desires to do what is right for the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Cox has served our convention well on the Executive Committee. He also has never been afraid to take a stand on something that he believes in. Dr. Cox, as I remember, stood and spoke at a convention when he was serving on the resolutions committee. He spoke against a Christian Education resolution and he did it with integrity. His point was that he served on his school board and was able to make changes and be light in the public school system. This was not a popular stand for him but he stood without flinching.
Second, Dr. Cox presents himself as a man that understands the issues. He clearly spoke to the Calvinism issue and he spoke clearly about the Garner Motion. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit he is articulate in his presentation. When Dr. Cox speaks to something you do not have to question when he is finished what it was he said. Dr. Cox is a man that seems to speak to the issues and is not afraid to speak to them.
Third, Dr. Cox possesses passion. Dr. Cox has a passion to reach a lost and dying world. He has presented that passion in his local church. Dr. Cox’s passion is seen in his church’s growth. Dr. Cox has allowed God to use him in the growth First Baptist North Metro in Lawrenceville, Georgia. He has been pastor since 1980 and for a pastor to have 27 years of tenure and still have a growing church has to have passion. This passion is seen in the average baptismal rate of 176 per year since 1995. Dr. Cox’s passion will serve us well as President of the Southern Baptist Convention.
There you have it. I am casting my ballot and leading my family to cast theirs as a result of prayer, presentation, and passion. I look forward to Indy.
Me also!
Did you take your wife to Biltomore? Sure wish we could have joined you!
Comment by Tim G — March 26, 2008 @ 10;48 pm
“Biltmore” - my fingers are not functioning right.
Comment by Tim G — March 26, 2008 @ 10;49 pm
Whereas I agree that Dr. Cox is very articulate, I think his responses to the SBC Today interview concerning Calvinism show that he is not as well versed in this particular topic as I would like to see from a president of the Convention. He does seem very well versed in many other topics though, and at this point seems to be the best candidate.
In particular he calls the recent Calvinist movement in the SBC “aggresive” and “hyper.” He then says that he has been divisions in some churches over these issues, with questions such as “Did Jesus Christ die for everyone?” If Dr. Cox believes that holding to the doctrine of particular redemption makes one a hyper-Calvinist, then he is clearly ignorant in regards to this topic. Clearly, as he mentions in the interview, he knows that the SBC has a long tradition of some holding to Calvinism. It is no secret that many of the greatest leaders in the history of our convention held to the doctrine of particular redemption, and would have been greatly offended by the label “hyper-Calvinist.”
As such, Dr. Cox does not seem to be opposed to Calvinists in the convention, and does not apparently share Dr. Wagner’s views that Calvinism hinders missions, which we all know to be historically false statement.
Comment by Ranger — March 27, 2008 @ 12;37 am
Brother Tim G.,
We are going on Friday.
Brother Ranger,
As one that does not consider himself to be Calvinist, I am biased in this category. However, as of this moment we only have two real candidates from which to choose. Between the two, I believe Dr. Cox is the most articulate on the issues. His view of Calvinism is more healthy then Dr. Wagner’s. While I do not agree with all of the views of Calvinism, I do not believe that Calvinist are non-evangelistic. However, just as Dr. Cox, I am aware of some churches that have had Calvinist pastors come into a church without being above board about their soteriology. The result has been one that is not very pretty. I think that is what Dr. Cox is really saying about the Calvinistic doctrines that are on the rise in the convention.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 27, 2008 @ 4;39 am
In a blog interview (http://lesliepuryear.blogspot.com/2008/03/interview-with-frank-cox.html),
Dr. Cox said, “My great concern is this new aggressive form of Calvinism that is being disruptive to some of our churches…”
and then goes on to imply that it is the “young” new pastors that are being disruptive.
I commented there (and hence here as well): Why are the “churches” so slow to examine areas in which they may be wrong and disruptive themselves? Why is it that the candidate must be upfront with what he believes and not the institution?
Its sad to see that the establishment is still seen as the answer in which to form “emphasis” development.
Comment by Scott — March 27, 2008 @ 9;56 am
Brother Scott,
Why is it that the candidate must be upfront with what he believes and not the institution?
Great question. In your last statment I am not certain what you are trying to say. Could you be more specific?
Now for your question. I believe it is imperative on the candidate to express his theological beliefs without trying to fly “under the radar” so to speak. For example. When one speaks about the “Doctrines of Grace”, only astute Reformed minded theological persons will have any idea what that means particularly. A layperson here in NC, would not associate that phrase with Dortian Calvinism. However, if the candidate were to say, I believe in the Doctrines of Grace as outlined using the acronym T-U-L-I-P. Then go on to explain each of those points, no one could argue that the candidate came into the church in a less than honest way. What I am saying is that when a Pastor Search Committee says, we want a pastor that will grow our church. They do not really mean it. What they are really saying is that they want a pastor that will relate to their family and friends and if some prominent person in the community comes to the church the pastor must relate well to him. When a pastor comes into that situation with outreach methods and other stratigies new people that the church does not know will come into the church. When that happens it will be a huge dissruption. Add to that dissruption the Pastor believes that Jesus only died for the elect, and you have Johnny Bob Redneck spitting tobacco juice and saying, “dat precher lied t’us, causing he said he was vangelistic n he don’t believe the Bible says Jesus died fer da wurl.” Now the issue has moved from reaching new people to the Preacher does not believe the Bible–John 3:16.
Now, I am not saying that is what Calvinism brings, but I am saying that is how the situation is played out. Why wouldn’t it just be easier to be above board with search committees?
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 27, 2008 @ 10;18 am
Thanks, Tim. What I had hoped was to be observed in my comment was that Dr. Cox was less than amiable, in my estimation, toward new younger leadership. If the problem, so-called, with the SBC is identified as the young men coming out of seminary, then we have shot ourselves in the foot. Why would any young man coming out of seminary WANT to associate with an institution that looks down on them? And how can an institution that knows it is growing older in its pastoral ranks NOT look to the young men with fresh, vibrant, and biblically derived grounding to lead it into another season of service?
Frankly, none of the current slate of nominees seems to have this in mind.
Comment by Scott — March 27, 2008 @ 11;07 am
Tim: In your response to Scott, above, you say that you would want the candidate to say that he held to the Doctrines of Grace as outlined with the acronym TULIP.
Why not just say that you believe the same way the Apostle Paul believed about salvation?
If you have never read CH Spurgeon’s little tract, “A Defense of Calvinism” may I encourage you to do so. http://www.spurgeon.org
Bless you brother.
Comment by heath lloyd — March 29, 2008 @ 8;35 am
heath,
it’s comments like yours that causes many, many concerns about extreme calvinists and the damage they can do to a church. if you are a dortian calvinist, which it sounds like you are, why would you not tell a church that you are coming from that angle????? is your intent to decieve just so you can “get a job?”
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 29, 2008 @ 9;24 am
Brother Heath,
I do not believe that Paul, while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, placed the TULIP argument before the world. As I remember from my studies, “Doctrines of Grace” means TULIP. TULIP is the acronym that the Synod of Dort defended. Thus, it seems that you have placed a synod report on the same authority as Scripture. Also, according to your tract reference, you seem to be placing Spurgeon’s writings in the same level of authority.
No one is denying that Paul’s writings contain principles that John Calvin placed into a system. However, what we argue is that JC stands for Jesus Christ, not John Calvin.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 29, 2008 @ 12;35 pm
volfan007: I am not a hireling; and though we have never had the pleasure of meeting one another, it is my prayer that if indeed you yourself serve as an undershepherd of God’s flock, I pray you are not a hireling either. I would never attempt to deceive anyone when speaking with a church, these are God’s people. I take my stand on God’s holy Word.
Tim: Man, what a response! To think that I would place the writings of any mere man on the level of authority with God’s precious Word is quite absurd, and I am deeply sorry if my initial response on your weblog seemed to so indicate. I pointed you to CHS because of his commitment to the Bible, as though that might be someone you and others might benefit from reading.
Please allow me,
T — total deparavity –
The fall of man has resulted in spiritual death for all men. (Gen.2:16-17; Rom.5:12; Eph. 2:1-3; Col.2:13)
Fallen man is now blind and deaf to spiritual truth. (Gen.6:5; Ecc. 9:3; Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23)
Fallen man is now under the control of Satan and in bondage to sin. (Jn8:44; Eph 2:1-2; 2 Tim 2:25-26; 1Jn3:10; 1Jn5:19; Titus3:3)
Fallen man, left in his dead state, is totally unable to repent, to believe the Gospel, or to come to Christ. (Jn6:44; Jn6:65;Rom3:9-12;Rom8:7-8; 1Cor2:14)
U — Unconditional Election
God has an elect people whom He has chosen to grant salvation. (Deut 10:14-15;Matt 24:22-24; Matt 24:31; Jn6:37-39; Jn6:65; Jn17:9; Rom 8:28-33;Rom 11:5;Eph 1:4-5; Eph 1:11; 1 Thess1:4-5;1Thess5:9; 2Thess2:13; 1Ptr1:1-2;1Ptr2:8-9)
God’s choice was not based on any forseen faith or good works. (Deut7:6-8;Rom 9:11-13; Rom 9:16; 1 Cor 1:27-29; 2 Tim 1:9)
Faith and good works are the result, not the ground of predestination. (Acts13:48; Acts 18:27; Eph1:12; Eph 2:10; Phil1:29; Phil2:12-13; 1 Thess1:4-5; 2 Thess 2:13-14; 2 Ptr 1:5-11)
L — Limited Atonement
Christ’s death is set forth in Scripture as that which actually accomplished salvation. (Rom5:8-10; 2 Cor5:18-19; Eph2:15-16Col1:21-22;Gal 3:13; Titus 2:14; Heb9:12; Luke 19:10; 1 Tim1:15)
Jesus came into the world to save the sinners whom the Father had given Him. (Jn 6:35-40; Jn10:11; Jn10:14-18; Jn10:24-29; Eph 1:3-4; Eph1:7; Eph1:13)
Jesus’ work as our Great High Priest is for those the Father had given Him, not the world. (Jn 17:1-11; Jn17:20; Jn 17:24-26; Heb2:17; Heb 3:1; Heb 9:2
Jesus’ saving work was intended to save a particular people. (Matt1:21; Jn10:11; Jn10:15; Jn10:26; Acts20:28; Eph5:25-27; Rom8:32-34; Jn15:13; Matt 20:28; Matt 26:28; Heb 9:2
Those for whom Christ died come from every tribe,tongue, people and nation of the world. (Rev5:9; Jn3:16; Jn4:42; 2 Cor 5:19; 1Jn2:1-2; 1 Jn4:14; Rom5:18; 2Cor5:14-15; 1Tim2:4-6; Heb2:9; 2Ptr3:9;
I — Irrestible Grace
(Jn 6:37; Jn6:44; Jn10:16; Rom8:28-30; Rom8:32; 1 Cor6:11; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 3:17-18; Eph1:3-4; Eph1:7; Eph1:13-14; 1 Ptr 1:2; Jn1:12-13; Rom9:16; Jn3:3-8; 1 Ptr1:31 Ptr1:23; Titus3:5; Deut30:6; Ez 36:26-27; 2 Cor 5:17-18; Jn5:21; Jn 11:14,15,25,38-44; Eph 2:1,5; Col2:13Jn 17:2
P — Perseverence of the Saints
(Jn 3:16; Jn 3:36; Jn 5:24; Jn6:47; Jn 6:51; Jn 11:25; 1 Jn5:13
In case you might be wondering, I preach the Gospel every opportunity I am given. I extend to folks every single week a public invitation. I lead our church in evangelism and mission giving and work. Why go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature if God has His elect already? Because My Lord commands us to go and preach the Gospel to every creature. “Jesus Saves” that’s what I preach, that’s what I believe, because that’s what His word declares. To Him, and Him alone, be the glory!
Comment by Heath Lloyd — March 30, 2008 @ 4;01 pm
heath,
you didnt answer my question. since you are a dortian calvinist, why would you not inform the church that you were considering? why would you not give the church the choice…ooops…excuse me….the option of then saying whether they wanted a dortian calvinist or not? many churches would not want a dortian calvinist to be thier pastor, if they knew where he was coming from. and, i know of some dortian calvinists who have gone into churches without informing them….and it led to much, much, much trouble. so, why would you not tell a church where you stand on such a controversial viewpoint?
david
Comment by volfan007 — March 30, 2008 @ 4;30 pm
Brother Heath,
Just one question, because I do not feel like, nor do I have the time, to have a back and forth over TULIP. If God’s Grace is Irrestible, why did the rich young ruler reject it? If God’s Grace is Irrestible, why did Pilate not accept it when his wife informed him of who Jesus was? If God’s Grace is Irrestible, why did Agrippa tell Paul, “almost you have persuaded me”? If God’s Grace is Irrestible, why was the sorcerer in Acts able to reject it?
I understand that you will probably say, ‘because they were not elected’, but that is exactly what we are trying to get Dortian Calvinist to here. You are stuck in a system and you do not seem to honestly deal with the Scripture without you system.
Blessings,
Tim
Comment by Tim Rogers — March 30, 2008 @ 5;25 pm
Scott:
Dr. Cox did not even imply that young pastors were the ones being disruptive. Les was the one who asked about the young leaders in his question. But in his reply, Dr. Cox did not mention anything about young pastors. In fact, it seems that Dr. Cox widened the scope to ALL pastors who do not disclose their convictions about Reformed theology upfront and then blindside a church later. Please hear me, I am not saying that Reformed theology is the agent of disruptions, the disruptions come when Reformed theology is brought in through the back door and then sprung on a church. It would be the same for a non-Reformed pastor to not disclose his convictions to a Reformed church and for him to than try and change the church’s long-held beliefs. It just rocks people’s worlds and causes dissension.
In the question immediately preceding the Calvinism question, Dr. Cox was asked about his major emphases if elected. He said that his fourth major emphasis will be on young leaders. He said, and I quote, “I believe we must include more of our younger leaders to be involved in the work and ministry of the convention. I will be looking for those who are committed to who we are as a convention, who are serving their churches well and who are evangelistic and mission minded. We need seasoned leadership and at the same time we need to include these rising young leaders in the work. Our leadership must represent who we are as Southern Baptists.” That does not sound like the voice of one who is blaming young pastors for anything.
Comment by Jon — April 11, 2008 @ 10;55 am
[...] already know of three people that have been announced as candidates for the position. Frank Cox, as I have already stated, is the person that will receive my vote when that opportunity arises. Frank Cox, Bill Waggoner, [...]
Pingback by SBC Presidential Nominations « Southern Baptist In NC — May 6, 2008 @ 11;05 am