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.
This essay is by Dr. Kevin T. Bauder, who serves as Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). Not every professor, student, or alumnus of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.
I personally hold to all five solas, but do not consider myself to be either Covenant Theologian nor 'Calvinist'.
. How about St. Augustine in 90 Minutes by Paul Strathern or On Augustine by Sharon Kaye? I've already requested both books. 
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.