Conservative Evangelicals Acting Like Fundamentalists

NickImage

During the half century that I have been connected with fundamentalism, crusading anti-Calvinism has been a recurring phenomenon. The first episode that I distinctly remember occurred within the Regular Baptist movement during the 1970s. An evangelist went on a tear against a proposal that would have inserted a mildly Calvinistic statement into the GARBC confession of faith. A few years later an independent Baptist evangelist published a small book about why he disagreed with all five points of Calvinism. Unfortunately, he defined Calvinism so badly that even Calvin would have disagreed with all five points.

Crusading anti-Calvinism still pops up every now and then. About a decade ago a Baptist association in Illinois passed a couple of resolutions that misrepresented Calvinism in terms that can only be called slanderous. Then about five years ago a couple of preachers used platforms provided by the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship to deliver dire warnings against Calvinism. Crusading anti-Calvinism is alive and well within fundamentalism.

To be fair, so is irascible Calvinism. For example, the aforementioned evangelist in the GARBC reacted so shrilly because the proposed addition to the doctrinal statement could have disenfranchised the less Calvinistic churches of the Regular Baptist fellowship. His concerns were underlined by the appearance of a book that questioned the Baptist standing of non-Calvinists. While his responses were certainly excessive, they were not groundless.

Some Calvinists treat the doctrines of grace as if they are the sum and substance of the faith. They seem to believe that a denial of any of the five points constitutes a denial of the gospel itself. They love to throw around epithets like “semi-Pelagianism” and to depict their non-Calvinistic interlocutors as either incompetent or nearly heretical.

The problem is not that one person advocates Calvinism while another person opposes it. All Christians have a duty to believe what they think Scripture teaches. All have a right to explain their point of view and to persuade others to it. They even have a right to structure occasions to dwell upon their unique theologies, encouraging one another in the doctrines that they take to be scriptural.

The problem is that none of the usual sides (there are more than two) in the argument over Calvinism has the right to question the Christian bona fides of those on the other side. None of the standard positions within fundamentalism results in a denial of the gospel. None of the standard positions necessarily truncates zeal for evangelism or missions. None of the standard positions necessarily denies the sovereignty of God or the completeness of grace in salvation. Most fellowships of fundamentalists have framed their confessional statements in rather general terms when it comes to this issue. Fundamentalists have not usually thought that the differences among Calvinists and their opponents were grounds for separation.

The dispute between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists has erupted again. This time, however, fundamentalists are not the ones who are bickering. The spat is taking place among conservative evangelicals, particularly Southern Baptists.

Calvinists have been in the vanguard of the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. They have been among the foremost proponents of the inerrancy of Scripture. They have led the way in cleansing institutions of liberals and so-called moderates.

Of course, they have not done this work alone. They worked in company with other prominent conservatives, and some of those have now begun to object to Calvinism. As the liberals and moderates have been pushed out, these anti-Calvinists have become increasingly concerned about the influence of Calvinism within the convention. Their concerns have finally spilled out in a document entitled “A Statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.”

The “Statement” is as extreme as anything that fundamentalists have produced. It essentially accuses Calvinists of plotting to take over the Southern Baptist Convention. It reacts against Calvinism, not merely by denying limited atonement, unconditional election, and irresistible grace, but even by denying total depravity and (as it is usually understood) original sin. While the signatories acknowledge that each person inherits a “nature and environment inclined toward sin,” they deny that “Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.” All people who are capable of moral action do indeed sin, but they do not actually become guilty until they personally decide to sin.

Such assertions go much further than traditional Arminianism. They represent a kind of hyper-Arminian approach to anti-Calvinism that can hardly avoid provoking a response. Predictably, some Calvinists have begun to accuse the signatories of semi-Pelagianism. Also predictably, the signatories and their defenders have reacted indignantly. They are not semi-Pelagians, they insist—but even if they were (they ask), is semi-Pelagianism such a bad thing?

Some of the most interesting observations have come from Roger Olson of Baylor University, who is decidedly not in sympathy with convention conservatives. Olson has written extensively in defense of Arminianism. One of his recent books is entitled Against Calvinism, so there is little doubt about Olson’s own views. Yet he has irritated some signatories and their defenders by admitting that some of the assertions in the “Statement” actually are semi-Pelagian.

One of the most irenic evaluations has come from Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary. Mohler is a strong Calvinist who disagrees with the “Statement.” Nevertheless, he points out that the Southern Baptist Convention has been committed to a good bit of latitude on questions about Calvinism. Mohler believes that it is possible to address these questions theologically without making them into a political issue.

Fundamentalism has seen periodic eruptions both of crusading anti-Calvinism and of irascible Calvinism. As the current fracas within the SBC shows, however, these spats are not the sole provenance of fighting fundamentalists. It should be interesting to observe whether conservative evangelicals can avoid turning this dispute into a gutter brawl. Early signs are not promising, but voices like Mohler’s may yet bring sobriety to the discussion.

The Son of God Goes Forth to War
Reginald Heber (1783-1826)

The Son of God goes forth to war,
A kingly crown to gain;
His blood-red banner streams afar:
Who follows in His train?
Who best can drink his cup of woe,
Triumphant over pain,
Who patient bears his cross below,
He follows in His train.

The martyr first, whose eagle eye
Could pierce beyond the grave,
Who saw his Master in the sky,
And called on Him to save;
Like Him, with pardon on his tongue
In midst of mortal pain,
He prayed for them that did the wrong:
Who follows in his train?

A glorious band, the chosen few
On whom the Spirit came,
Twelve valiant saints, their hope they knew,
And mocked the cross and flame:
They met the tyrant’s brandished steel,
The lion’s gory mane;
They bowed their necks the death to feel:
Who follows in their train?

A noble army, men and boys,
The matron and the maid,
Around the Saviour’s throne rejoice,
In robes of light arrayed:
They climbed the steep ascent of heav’n
Through peril, toil and pain:
O God, to us may grace be giv’n
To follow in their train.

Discussion

Dr. Bauder, you state, “None of the standard positions within fundamentalism results in a denial of the gospel.” I’d like to know at what point on the Pelagian scale a denial of the gospel has occurred, and why at that point.

In the Reformation teaching of the five solas, the very first sola, “by grace alone,” is an explicit reference to the Augustinian doctrine of efficient grace. Those who hold other positions on that issue can certainly claim to be Christian, as in holding to the ecumenical creeds, but they would seem to constitute their own branch of Christianity quite distinct from the Reformational brand.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Can someone consider themselves a Calvinist w/ being ‘reformed’? If not, why not? I have always been intrigued by those who would say that it is not possible, and now I finally have the opportunity and have remembered the question, I can ask it here. :) I personally hold to all five solas, but do not consider myself to be either Covenant Theologian nor ‘Calvinist’.

As for the pelagian question - it’s been a while since I read about pelagianism, but my understanding is that pelagians deny both original sin and Federal Headship. I personally see both concepts in Romans 3 & 5.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

It appears to me that Calvinism refers mainly to the gospel (i.e. the “five points”) while being Reformed is a much broader brush that impacts your view of Israel, church polity, infant baptism, when the church began, etc. Generally speaking, you cannot be Reformed without being a Calvinist, but you can be a Calvinist without being Reformed. Many of the Dallas Dispensationalists were/are four point Calvinists.

I don’t see a difference between Covenant Theology and Reformed Theology. If there is one, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

John Uit de Flesch

[Jay] Can someone consider themselves a Calvinist w/ being ‘reformed’? If not, why not? I have always been intrigued by those who would say that it is not possible, and now I finally have the opportunity and have remembered the question, I can ask it here. :) I personally hold to all five solas, but do not consider myself to be either Covenant Theologian nor ‘Calvinist’.

As for the pelagian question - it’s been a while since I read about pelagianism, but my understanding is that pelagians deny both original sin and Federal Headship. I personally see both concepts in Romans 3 & 5.
Jay, I deliberately avoided the term Calvinist. I spoke of the 5 solas and of Reformational (Lutheran + Reformed) teaching. If the 5 solas are to be any more than empty slogans, one must approach them historically. What did the Protestant churches mean by the phrase “by grace alone”? The soteriology of the Protestant Reformation was a combination of 1) Augustine’s late theology of grace contra Pelagius and Julian and 2) Martin Luther’s teaching that man is justified (declared righteous) by faith alone apart from any internal ground of merit. There are divergences between Lutheran and Reformed teachings, but not on these foundational points.

So, if one denies original sin resulting in total depravity, monergistic regeneration through faith and/or baptism, and/or the necessity of particular efficient grace, one does not have a Protestant theology. The Lutheran “by faith alone” is built on the foundation of Augustine’s “by grace alone.” All the major figures of the Reformation - Zwingli, Bullinger, Luther, Calvin, Vermigli, Tyndale, Cranmer - and even their late medieval predecessors (Wyclif, Hus) affirmed this Augustinian theology of grace.

So, that is why I asked Dr. Bauder on what basis he decides whether a doctrine “results in a denial of the gospel.” I mean, if we were talking about the Trinity, we could refer to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as a guidepost. For Christology, we could refer to the definition of Chalcedon. For (Protestant) soteriology, what’s the reference point?

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Dr. Kevin Bauder,

Your analysis appears a little one-sided.

You say, “Calvinists have been in the vanguard of the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. They have been among the foremost proponents of the inerrancy of Scripture. They have led the way in cleansing institutions of liberals and so-called moderates.”

Actually, SBC Calvinists were a relatively small group among the SBC Conservatives who took back the SBC in the Conservative Resurgence (CR). Not one of the CR SBC Presidents would be considered a Calvinist, as a matter of fact, several of them signed this Statement on Salvation.

Several years ago, after the CR, a LifeWay survey showed roughly 10% of SBC pastors consider themselves 5-point Calvinist.

In addition, use of insulting terms such as hyper-Arminian and sem-Pelagian do not lend themselves to a balanced view.

If some want to see commentary from those on the Traditionalist (non-Calvinist or Moderate Calvinist) side, check out SBCToday.com

http://sbctoday.com/

“A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” can be found at my blog:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2012/06/traditional-southern-baptis…

And, of course, at SBCToday.com

David R. Brumbelow

Extreme Statement?

The following former SBC Presidents have signed “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”

Jimmy Draper, Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, Bobby Welch, Morris Chapman, Bailey Smith.

Of course, Paige Patterson is also president of SWBTS. Dr. Chuck Kelley, president of NOBTS has also signed the Statement, along with a large number of other respected SBC pastors and denominational workers.

Most who know those leaders would not consider them extreme, or the Statement extreme.

David R. Brumbelow

Actually, SBC Calvinists were a relatively small group among the SBC Conservatives who took back the SBC in the Conservative Resurgence (CR). Not one of the CR SBC Presidents would be considered a Calvinist, as a matter of fact, several of them signed this Statement on Salvation.
I think most (all?) of the resurgence happened in seminaries, though the support of SBC Presidents was a huge factor. At the seminary level, the likes of Al Mohler (Calvinist) are impossible to ignore. I’m sure it’s these leaders that KBauder is referring to.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron Blumer,

I respectfully disagree again.

The Conservative Resurgence (CR) in the SBC probably least of all occurred in the seminaries. At the time the CR began in 1979 most in the SBC seminaries were moderate to liberal, with SBTS, MWBTS, and SEBTS probably being the most liberal. SWBTS and NOBTS probably the most conservative. During the CR Al Mohler was not a seminary president; he is now president of SBTS as a result of the CR.

The CR was a grassroots movement in the SBC. While leaders like Adrian Rogers, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler, Jimmy Draper, Jerry Vines and others were crucial, they got the votes from mostly pastors of small to medium size churches. The seminaries for the most part opposed the CR. It was a result of the CR that our seminaries are now all led by presidents who believe in inerrancy.

The reason the CR occurred is that pastors and laymen went in large numbers to the annual convention, voted for conservative presidents, who then made conservative appointments that eventually filtered down to having conservative trustees at the SBC seminaries and agencies. By the way, I was there when it happened.

Some may be interested in:

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2009/08/brief-history-of-sbc-conser…

David R. Brumbelow

Pastor Brumbelow,

Thanks for interacting with my latest “Nick of Time” essay. I have recently been reading your book on Ancient Wine and the Bible, and have found it both useful and enjoyable in specific ways.

Now, as for the issues that you raise, perhaps you can help me to sort these out by answering a couple of rather simple questions.

First, you appear to object to my assessment about the role of Calvinists in the conservative resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. I actually make three statements.

(1) Calvinists have been in the vanguard of the conservative resurgence.

(2) Calvinists have been among the foremost proponents of the inerrancy of Scripture.

(3) Calvinists have led the way in cleansing institutions of liberals and so-called moderates.

Which of these propositions could be denied? But let’s put a name to this. Rather than talking about Calvinists as a generic, faceless amalgam, let’s deal with a particular Calvinist. For the sake of discussion, let’s choose Al Mohler, whose name is already mentioned in my article.

Here is my question. Which of my three statements would be untrue if applied to Dr. Mohler?

Second, you object that “the use of insulting terms like hyper-Arminian and semi-Pelagian do not lend themselves to a balanced view,” though you do not say a balanced view of what.

Of course, I did not apply the expression “semi-Pelagian” to the “Statement.” That has been done by others. I merely noted that the accusation has been made, that the signatories and their friends have objected to the term, and that at least one noteworthy anti-Calvinist believes that it fits pretty well.

Nevertheless, I did choose the term “hyper-Arminian,” not as a gratuitous jibe, but as an accurate descriptor. By it I mean that the position represented in the “Statement” is even further away from Calvinism than traditional Arminianism is. Perhaps you disagree. So here is my second question. Does the “Statement” not go beyond historic Arminianism in its denial of the effects of Adamic sin upon his posterity?

Your third objection has to do with my observation that the “Statement” is as extreme as Fundamentalist expressions of anti-Calvinism. It is hardly a response to note that some Southern Baptists do not find it extreme—nowhere did I compare it with other statements from the SBC. You may still have a point, however, which leads to my next question. Do you know of any comparable Fundamentalist statements (by comparable I mean formally articulated and signed by numbers of recognizable leaders) that are appreciably more extreme in their anti-Calvinism?

Now, while I have you here and am asking you questions, I would like to add a few that do not grow out of your objections.

Here is the first. You and other anti-Calvinists have tried to coopt the label “traditional” to designate your position. So I want to know from you, are the Calvinist theologians James Petigru Boyce (first president of THE Southern Baptist Seminary) and John L. Dagg (president of Mercer University) a part of the Southern Baptist Tradition or not?

Here is the second. The “Statement” says that the so-called New Calvinism “is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.” It further states that, while “most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view,” the New Calvinists are “pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement,” which can only mean that they ARE demanding the adoption of their view.

My question is, who exactly are the New Calvinists the statement is talking about, and what evidence is there that they are attempting to enforce strict Calvinism within the SBC? A cogent answer will cite names and primary sources.

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that even the Baptist Faith and Message is a purely descriptive statement. It is not applied as a test of fellowship to determine which churches can send messengers to the convention or which messengers will receive the right of franchise. In short, the Southern Baptist Convention has no particular doctrinal test that would exclude even an egregious apostate from the convention floor. This leads to my final question. How, then, do these New Calvinists plan to accomplish their dastardly takeover? What mechanism will they employ?

Brother Brumbelow, I have other questions that I would just love to ask. I hope that you appreciate my restraint in limiting myself to these few. I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to offer a few straightforward answers.

For someone like myself who has only a relatively mild interest in SBC history and politics, it would seem that this document will result in almost nothing but confusion. Similar to the old “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” it seems to have missed the mark entirely—in the sense that, rather than shedding new light on the subjects is addresses, it instead raises the issue of how to respond to those who have signed it, in light of its obvious flaws.

I appreciate Dr. Bauder’s article, but I think it would be more valuable if Dr. Bauder—or perhaps someone like Dr. Myron Houghton, who is known for very succinct writing—could address the document briefly point-by-point from the perspective of a traditional dispensationalist/balanced Calvinist who speaks with firsthand knowledge of the theological and historical issues involved.

I’m sure that some Reformed Theologians that Charlie favors have already undertaken this effort, but that would not be as helpful to those of us who do not buy wholeheartedly into Reformed Theology. It also may not be as persuasive to those who are inclined to buy into this document.

Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry

One thing that is overlooked is that the statement is actually in agreement with the BFM2000.

Malcolm Yarnell, one of the signatories and prof at SWBTS has offered a response of sort here:

http://baptisttheologians.blogspot.com/2012/06/semi-pelagianism-plea-fo… Yarnell post

Here is the BFM2000 on man:

Article 3

…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…

Now from the Traditional Statement:

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

The statement isn’t about Calvinists in general, but specifically:
We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.
Further, I have read many calvinists claim to be misrepresented. There is a rather simple solution. Agree with them that you do not believe that and move on with your life. Do you really believe there are no calvinists who teach some of their denials? None? Be careful. I can provide quotes from some calvinists who would call some of the calvinists on here arminian.

As a premillennialist, misrepresentation is part and parcel. So what. Move on and be about the Lord’s business.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

At the risk of just getting hackles up further, have to say it really is semi-Pelagian to deny the guilt of original sin. But please understand that I don’t say this dismissively.

Certainly some others do. But in the long run it’s probably not persuasive to say “idea X is false because it’s semi-Pelagian.” The persuasive power comes from the biblical case for why semi-Pelgianism is wrong on that point. (Even at church, where we happen to be studying hamartiology, I didn’t say ‘this is wrong because it came from Pelagius.’ I said ‘Here’s why Pelagius was wrong about original sin.’)

So can we be against dismissal-by-labeling, but in favor of accurate-history-by-labeling? It would be nice.

(That said, it’s true that when you put some ideas in their historical context, they do immediately get sort of tainted. But I’m for testing the ideas on their own and not chucking them because of who championed them… taint or not)

Speaking of persuasive power, this is really what has lead to the stir both in Fundamentalism and in the SBC: of late, Calvinists have simply been very persuasive, especially toward a rising generation of young leaders. The seemingly inexorable progress of the “Calvinist” perspective (speaking of accurate-history-by-labeling, can we acknowledge that Calvin did not formulate the “Calvinist” view of the guilt of original sin?) feels like an agenda to “take over” and “demand” and such.

But KBauder’s challenge in the comment above is a tough one to answer…. because “demands” are not what has been happening. What’s been happening is steady, clear, cogent articulation of Calvinist ideas. And a generation looking for more internally-consistent and meaty theology has gulped it down hungrily.

The shift has not come by wielding coercive power, and it’s not going to be effectively countered by that means either (e.g., signatures on statements).

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.