Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President to Calvinists: Leave!

[Mark_Smith]

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.

Mark, the terms can be somewhat perjorative, but actually I think they’re instructive. For starters, “Biblicist” is not equal to Calvinist—I can’t remember when it was, but I remember Kevin Bauder being very clear on that in some of his “In the Nick of Time” columns, and for that matter I believe Doug MacLachlan makes about the same case in “Recovering Authentic Fundamentalism.” You would be right that Biblicism correlates with Calvinism to a degree, but then again, post hoc ergo propter hoc and slippery slope are indeed logical fallacies. Many in the Biblicist camp (myself included) arrived there not because of Calvinism, but rather because we felt that it was a more Biblical expression of Christian life.

So indeed, the anti-Traditionalist camp is indeed “Biblicist” in the Bauder/Maclachlan taxonomy, and given that we don’t find much evidence of Patrick’s positions outside of congregational polity and immersion by immersion prior to 1800, the Traditionalist camp is indeed holding to a variety of positions unknown to most of our spiritual forebears. And if Patrick desires that we should keep them, again, he needs to start bringing his A game instead of dabbling in logical fallacies.

Upon review of the initial document and Jim’s link, I see that my comment on Tuesday assuming this had been a second set of circumstances was in error. This is all about one chapel service on November 29, it appears. Oops!

So we would have basic logical fallacies and a serious lapse in historical reference, but not a repeated case of this.

Mark, Calvinists affirm both election and personal responsibility. You didn’t define personal responsibility so we still have no idea what you mean by that. You didn’t define what you mean by election either so we have no idea what you mean by that either. It would be interesting to know what you mean by that so we can compare notes.

In the end, it is your personal responsibility to represent the views of others accurately.

Congruentist isn’t really a theological category, so far as I know. People have believed you what appear to believe for centuries, but they weren’t called congruentists. It’s probably better to stick with recognized terminology. It helps facilitate discussion.

Many in the Biblicist camp (myself included)

Who is not in the biblicist camp? Would anyone actually claim to be outside the Bible? Of course not, which is why the term “biblicist” is meaningless. Historically, certain labels have been used as a shorthand for certain beliefs. It isn’t really helpful to deny the label if you affirm the belief it represents. It only confuses things. IMO, a lot of people reject a given label because they have no historical awareness. Others reject it out of some misguided sense to “stick to the Bible” as if others aren’t trying to do that.

[Larry]

Many in the Biblicist camp (myself included)

Who is not in the biblicist camp? Would anyone actually claim to be outside the Bible? Of course not, which is why the term “biblicist” is meaningless. Historically, certain labels have been used as a shorthand for certain beliefs. It isn’t really helpful to deny the label if you affirm the belief it represents. It only confuses things. IMO, a lot of people reject a given label because they have no historical awareness. Others reject it out of some misguided sense to “stick to the Bible” as if others aren’t trying to do that.

Agreed. I think the original impetus was to draw attention to the claim that many fundamentalists add a lot to the faith that really isn’t supported by Scripture, but you’re certainly correct that not too many people would fess up to not being, or at least trying to be, Biblical in their theology. And if you come up with a good, concise term that conveys the idea of being a theological (5 fundamentals) but not a cultural fundamentalist without impugning others, I’m all ears. Even “conservative evangelical” doesn’t quite work for me because it often does carry some of the social rules and revivalism, but simultaneously loses some of the emphasis on the fundamentals. It’s tough out here that way.

Appreciate as well Mr. Land’s comment about the Sandy Creek Baptists imparting a degree or revivalism to the SBC, but it’s simultaneously worth noting that this is still about a century too early (1750 or so) for that movement to include cultural fundamental cues. Those came in the 19th century on this side of the pond, of course. I’d say the SBC is probably about 20% Charleston today, 40% Sandy Creek, and 40% 19th century this and that. Really a great number of Baptistic and generic fundagelical churches fall into about the same bin.

Its not my problem that you have never heard of Baptists that are not Calvinist or Arminian. There are a lot of them!

I gave you a source, the theology textbook A Theology for the Church written by a lot of SEBTS faculty, but others as well. I don’t agree with everything in it.

on TULIP many years ago. I forget the name of it. It is at home in my library. It presents much of the Baptists “traditional” view that is neither Calvinist not Arminian.

“Fundamentalism has never had a united voice on Calvinism-

Arminianism issues although by and large it has been moderately

Calvinistic, probably three or four-point Calvinism. But some have been

five-point Calvinists and others outright Arminians. While there have

been provincial skirmishes on the subject, fundamentalism has never

spoken with anything like unanimity on it. Occasionally someone may

assert that fundamentalism is too Calvinistic or excessively Arminian,

but these complaints often reflect a local brush fire or a fundamentalist

turf war of some kind. Robert Delnay put the matter in proper perspective

when he wrote, ‘And wherever we [fundamentalists] find ourselves

along the line between strong Arminianism and strong Calvinism, we

have tried to treat each other with Christian grace; and even though

somebody must be in error, we have refused to divide over that matter.’

While individual fundamentalists and specific groups or institutions

may rightfully take a definitive position on certain Calvinism-

Arminianism issues, these have not achieved the status of fundamentalist

articles of faith. In terms of the movement, they are non-issues.”

http://archive.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/NonIssue.pdf [See pages 177-178]

I think we can all agree that the SBC, like many Christian denominations or voluntary associations, has a spectrum of beliefs on particular theological issues within the boundaries of that organization’s confession. I know there have always been Arminian SBC guys, and Calvinistic SBC guys. It is much the same in fundamentalism. We all need to recognize that.

This means that anytime one theological camp attempts to position itself as the “true heir” to the denomination or voluntary association, then that claim should be suspect. Of course, some people wll argue that (for example) the SBC was originally more Calvinistic. This argument is basically meaningless now, because it does not reflect the reality today. I suppose this goes back to a weak view of confessionalism.

I am not competent to speak about the SBC’s internal debates on his issue, but one thing is clear - whatever particular stand it once took on this issue, the landscape today does not reflect that original stand, perhaps because the SBC doesn’t appear to be a particularly tight confessional denomination. In other words, a loose confessionalism = diverse views on controversial topics.

[Mark_Smith]

Its not my problem that you have never heard of Baptists that are not Calvinist or Arminian. There are a lot of them!

Everyone is some level of either Calvinist or Arminian, even though they may be unaware that they are. It doesn’t seem possible for someone to declare that they are neither. An easy way to show this is to look at both the Remonstrants and the Canons of Dordt.

Most Baptists will side with one or the other on each of the points.

In 2007 I posted an article to my blog titled Calvinist or Arminian - which are you?, which shows the difference between the 2 views.

Its not my problem that you have never heard of Baptists that are not Calvinist or Arminian. There are a lot of them!

Where did you get the idea I have never heard of these Baptists? I never said that. I have heard of them. I know some of them. But I didn’t address those people, what they believe, or what they call themselves (other than pointing out that “congruentist” isn’t a theological category). So whatever you think I know or believe about these people didn’t come from me. I don’t know where it came from.

My main point here was asking what part of a particular statement of yours wasn’t Calvinist. It is, in fact, extremely Calvinistic. Your statement could, IMO, only come from someone who didn’t know what Calvinists believe or who knew and decided to say it anyway. I will assume the former. I think we have a duty to represent others in their own terms and accept what they say about themselves and then critique that if we so desire. Don’t call something “not Calvinist” when it is Calvinist.

My secondary point is that many people have no idea what the historically accepted label for their views is. I don’t have either the time or the interest in getting deeply involved in this because it doesn’t really matter to me apart from properly attributing beliefs to people who hold them. If someone chooses to reject a label that doesn’t change what they believe. But consider, for instance, the traditionalist affirmation and denial about the sinfulness of man. That is a statement that is at the very least confusable with semi-Pelagianism because appears to deny that man’s will is affected by sin in any way other than influence. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin to all humanity. Roger Olson (noted Arminian who said the John 3:16 group that denies they are Arminians are in fact Arminians based on what they say they believe) says that these people are not even Arminians yet because even Arminians believe in total depravity. I think the imputation of Adam’s sin is a major point in evangelical theology and those who deny it are in grave danger. The idea that we are not sinners until we make the conscious choice to sin raises some serious issues with Romans 5 as well as other passages. It is a gospel issue, it seems to me.

It also seems to me that your perspective is mistaken in that you believe that one can’t be something unless the person claims it or adheres to every major tenet of it. Historically, I don’t think that has been the case. Calvinists have not had to ascribe to all five points to be Calvinists for the most paret; nor have Arminians. Usually these terms have applied broadly. So someone can claim to be a traditionalist, but those of us who know will know what the historical label for their belief is. There’s really not a lot of room because God chooses individuals to be saved unconditionally and God chooses individuals to be saved condtionally. That lines divides Calvinism and Arminianism.

In the end, believe as you wish but (1) don’t accuse people of believing things they don’t believe and (2) know some of the history of theology to know where beliefs fit in historically.

Larry,

Apparently you misread what I wrote. I said there are people that believe in election and personal accountability, and who are not Calvinists.

While I could argue with you about accountability, I won’t here because it is pointless.

My point was believing in election and personal accountability does not make you a Calvinist.

[Jim]

• Those who see that one of the purposes of the church “gathered” is to evangelicize inside of the auditorium, will have evangelistic messages with invitations
• Others see that evangelism is tasked to the church dispersed

Understanding this explains most Baptist disputes [Altar calls just being one issue]

Amazed to read this tonight as I am in the process of preparing to write a blog post about the church, using the “gathered” and “dispersed” identifiers. Glad to see that I am not alone in observing that such a difference exists.

[Mark_Smith]

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.

Romans 11:5-8 speaks of the elect obtaining grace while others are blinded, so am not sure what it is that you (as a congruentist) don’t accept.

Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written:

“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

[Mark_Smith]

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.

There are 2 issues that distinguish the difference between Arminians, Calvinists, and Hyper-Calvinists - man’s responsibility to repent and believe, and, his natural ability to do so.

The Arminian believes that he is responsible and thus has the natural ability.

The Calvinist agrees with the Arminian that he is responsible but disagrees that he has natural ability.

The Hyper-Calvinist agrees with the Calvinist that he is lacking in natural ability, and thus has no responsibility. Notice Articles 24, 26, 29, and 33 in this Hyper-Calvinist doctrinal statement.

(someone feel free to chart the above)

I affirm the Calvinist view because I believe it represents the teaching of scripture most accurately.

What’s the Difference Between Arminianism, Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism?