Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President to Calvinists: Leave!

[Jim]

Rude to walk out on a chapel speaker

…and also rude to accuse a group of students of bad faith by putting a “Trojan Horse” into the institution, no?

Really, Patterson, Patrick, and others who view the doctrines of grace as something that will inevitably lead to the destruction of Baptist distinctives need to apologize and walk this one back and see if they can make the case that the “bulb and bloom” is inextricably connected to infant sprinkling and a “slippery slope” of consequences like presbyterian polity and going to Gin Lane. As Aaron noted above, such a connection would have come as a surprise to Spurgeon, not to mention the Pilgrims and most Baptists into the mid 1800s. For that matter, a connection of Calvinism with Presbyterian polity would also come as something of a surprise to the Anglicans and Congregationalists.

I’m open to them making this case, but given Protestant history, suffice it to say they’ve got their work cut out for them. And I don’t even totally subscribe to the “bulb and bloom”.

Yes, it’s rude to walk out on a chapel speaker. That being said, the students are in their twenties (?) - how old is the chapel speaker? He ought to know better.

This reminds me a lot of the issues with Danny Sweatt at the FBFI conference a couple of years back.

I personally have been to way more SBC churches than IFB churches in my life, given that I was baptized at an SBC church years ago.

Until relatively recently, I never saw an “elder led” SBC church. Drinking alcohol…are you kidding??? Altar calls were given at the end of every service. Baptism was by immersion. And we had church every Wednesday night. Oh, and Lord’s supper was with grape juice. I would say the above represents the recent history of the SBC, say 1950 up to 2000.

Now, as Patrick and Patterson note, there is a strong element trying to turn Calvinist in soteriology, and bring in other elements from the Presbyterian tradition, like elder rule, alcohol use, no Wed night service etc.

It is plain as day.

So, what did Patrick say that isn’t obviously true?

“Traditionalism” is not Arminianism. It is a category of theology unrecognized by the theology textbooks, embracing the election of saints yet the personal responsibility to accept Christ. It isn’t Calvinist. It isn’t Arminian. And it isn’t a heresy.

Mark, the basic response is that while there is a correlation between the upsurge of Calvinism and the things Patrick mentions, a real theologian needs to answer how it can possibly be the cause. Patterson and Patrick simply have not done the work to do that. It’s the post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after, therefore, because) fallacy.

They can make the case if they like, but until they do, that’s what they got wrong—and it’s also a slippery slope fallacy. I’d also like to offer an alternative hypothesis; we are seeing Calvinism and the other factors at about the same time because many SBC congregants, especially young people, affirmed real Baptist distinctives, but recognized that “the Sinner’s Prayer” and “altar calls” seemed to be throwing a lot of seed on the path and among the weeds, and that a lot of the rules preached from the pulpit really aren’t Biblical imperatives.

And if this hypothesis is correct, it is an incredibly good thing that this is happening.It means people are waking up to the need for real theology.

When did “traditional” become opposite the “biblical” view as Bert and Jim are using the term? I certainly don’t agree with that distinction or label.

As for evangelism, I have attended many Baptist churches, everyone of them “traditional” in the sense that they were not Calvinist in soteriology. EVERY ONE OF THEM had weekly soul-winning activities outside of the church.

The distinction here should be “traditionalist” vs. “Calvinist”. Changing Calvinist to “biblicist” is throwing a grenade into a gas can. It is unnecessary and biased.

It is a category of theology unrecognized by the theology textbooks, embracing the election of saints yet the personal responsibility to accept Christ. It isn’t Calvinist.

What’s not Calvinist about this?

So, what did Patrick say that isn’t obviously true?

Quite a bit if this is an accurate representation of his words. At the very least, it is disputed, and in some cases, not true at all most likely.

He says, ““increasingly embrace the Presbyterian view of salvation doctrine, church government, the mode of baptism, avoidance of the altar call, the use of beverage alcohol, the approval of societal missions funding and so on.”

I don’t know what a Presbyterian view of salvation is, but Particular Baptists have existed since at least the 17th century. Calvinism has a long history among Baptists, even among Southern Baptists.

I don’t know of any Baptists embracing a Presbyterian view of church government. Baptists are, by definition, local autonomous bodies. Some apply congregationalism in different, and perhaps even suspect, ways, but that isn’t really a Presbyterian form of government per se. And some critics don’t understand a distinction between elder-led and elder-rule. The proverbial devil is in the details on that. But again, that’s not obviously true.

I don’t know of any Baptists who are sprinkling infants. You probably don’t either. I wonder if the speaker does. That certainly isn’t obviously true.

The “altar call” has a history of not going back very far in church history. It is a new invention, newer than Baptist and Presbyterians both which is not to say it is right or wrong, but there’s not clearly any point there to be made. The use of beverage alcohol seems an almost entirely modern, American issue. I am not sure what “societal missions funding” is. Perhaps the “obviously true” statement is found in the “so on,” but so far, not one specific state is “obviously true.”

In the end, SWBTS and their speakers can do as they wish and say what they want, but they shouldn’t be surprised by pushback on it. And as always, we have a duty to tell the truth about what other people believe.

[Jim]

You are making more of my chart than I intended.

I am not equating Biblicist to Calvinist (in the above chart)

My point is very simply that Baptists have traditions that are not rooted in the Scriptures

But keep in mind that you are using the term “traditionalist” to mean something different that Patterson and Patrick are above.

[Larry]

It is a category of theology unrecognized by the theology textbooks, embracing the election of saints yet the personal responsibility to accept Christ. It isn’t Calvinist.

What’s not Calvinist about this?

Larry,

Perhaps you never noticed before, but there are hoards, or a least were hoards, of Baptists that believe in election because it is a biblical term, but don’t accept the Calvinist interpretation of election that is connected with irresistible grace and limited atonement. These people also reject Arminianism, with its weird interpretations as well as the ability to lose salvation. So, there is another category that theology in general does not identify. Daniel Akin’s A Theology for the Church​ is an example of a systematic theology that develops this congruentist approach.

That didn’t answer the question. What was not Calvinist about what you said?

[Larry]

That didn’t answer the question. What was not Calvinist about what you said?

The definitions, my good friend, the definitions. Election to a Calvinist means before eternity a group was selected to receive the grace of salvation, and others, by omission or condemnation, were passed over. I and other congruentists don’t accept that.

As for personal responsibility, Calvinist say they affirm it, but believe that before regeneration people are spiritually dead in the sense that they are incapable of responding to God’s offer of salvation. That is not what I mean by personal responsibility.

So, two people can use the same words, but mean different things.

You are quite correct about the different concepts of election, and how different people can use the same terms in very different ways. I will always be grateful Dr. Fred Moritz was my Professor for Systematic Theology 3!