Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President to Calvinists: Leave!

….I doubt you’d find many Presbyterians of any association/denomination that would agree with everything in all 46 or however many volumes Calvin wrote….but if I’m a fan of the little guy with the stuffed tiger, maybe I can be a Calvinist. :^)

Patterson said:

if I held that position I would become a Presbyterian. I would not remain a Baptist, because the Baptist position from the time of the Anabaptists, really from the time of the New Testament, is very different.”

An argument about who has legitimate claim to a “label.” It seems I’ve heard that argument somewhere else, very recently … where was it? Oh, well. I’ve gotta run - I don’t want to be late for my Convergent meeting.

You should read some of the debates on the internet about whether Calvinism refers to Reformed Theology as a whole, or just the Doctrines in Grace. It gets very interesting at times because there are those among the Presbyterian/Reformed brethren who insist. That a Calvinist(ic?) Baptist is not a Calvinist because they reject infant Baptism and a few other denominational distinctives. It can be quite informative.

Yes, I’ve read some of that!

heard it called True Reformed(abbreviated as TR of all things). This sounds like a worthwhile filing to discuss. I hope it picks up as much steam as the BJU/Drinking/Convergence threads.

I wish Patterson would have been more careful in his comments about the label and what it means. It seemed rather careless. Definitely inaccurate.

Dr. Al Mohler, President of SBTS in Louisville, and Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS, have had their differences about Calvinism over the years. They agreed to disagree but get along in 2006 (per Baptist Press News: “Patterson urged Southern Baptists not to follow the example of the English Baptists who divided over the issue [Calvinism] “.

Then there was a “blue ribbon” committee report in 2013 which included this statement: “We deny that the main purpose of the Southern Baptist Convention is theological debate. We further deny that theological discussion can be healthy if our primary aim is to win an argument, to triumph in a debate, or to draw every denominational meeting into a conversation over conflicted issues. Of more significance to our life together than any allegiance to Calvinism or non-Calvinism should be our shared identity as Southern Baptists.” Both Dr. Paige and Dr. Mohler were on this committee and signed the report.

My SBC cooperating Church is not Calvinistic and our older son’s SBC cooperating Church is Calvinistic. SBC cooperating Churches are much like independent baptist but agree to follow the Baptist Faith and Message statement of faith (our church incorporates it into our much longer constitution and statement of faith). I am not sure why Dr. Patterson has stirred things up again. Maybe he felt pushed into it by something - Calvinism has been a burr under his saddle for a long time. I wish that he would not have said what he did.

Never heard of C. H. Spurgeon I guess?

[Aaron Blumer]

Never heard of C. H. Spurgeon I guess?

Maybe he’s only ever read the Sword of the Lord version of CH Spurgeon :)?

Back to a serious note, as I mentioned before these remarks by Patterson are inexcusable. I realize that he isn’t a big fan of Calvinism, but to claim that a Baptist that holds to the five points is going to bring in Presbyterian(which is different than Elder-led congregationalism in Reformed Baptist circles) church government, and infant baptism(these comments might have been the other guy that spoke at chapel and the wording is more vague in the article but Im guessing these are what were meant) is sheer anti-calvinist propaganda. I expect better from Patterson, whether he made those particular remarks or allowed them to stand without correction.

I would dare say that a certain portion of YRR in SBC churches do cause division, but I would have hoped that a more measured “since the closest representations we have to pure Calvinism are the Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Reformed churches, we hope that all of our members learn to discern between the doctrines of grace and other doctrines preached by Calvin.” Or something like that. But sad to say, sometimes we fundagelicals don’t do “measured” very well, myself included at times.

(one other thing; my first comment pillages something Spurgeon noted in a sermon about hyper-Calvinists….so that is not original to me, except for the crack about Calvin & Hobbes, of course)

Before you overreact to Paige Patterson’s comments, check yourself to make sure you haven’t said things like:

-If you aren’t a Calvinist (or maybe an Arminian) then you are a heretic semi-Pelagian

-The true gospel is Calvinist

-Any clear reading of the gospel of John leads to Calvinism

…Things like that.

See, you can be just as dogmatic as him!

[Bert Perry]

I would dare say that a certain portion of YRR in SBC churches do cause division, but I would have hoped that a more measured “since the closest representations we have to pure Calvinism are the Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Reformed churches, we hope that all of our members learn to discern between the doctrines of grace and other doctrines preached by Calvin.” Or something like that. But sad to say, sometimes we fundagelicals don’t do “measured” very well, myself included at times.

(one other thing; my first comment pillages something Spurgeon noted in a sermon about hyper-Calvinists….so that is not original to me, except for the crack about Calvin & Hobbes, of course)

[Mark_Smith]

Before you overreact to Paige Patterson’s comments, check yourself to make sure you haven’t said things like:

-If you aren’t a Calvinist (or maybe an Arminian) then you are a heretic semi-Pelagian

-The true gospel is Calvinist

-Any clear reading of the gospel of John leads to Calvinism

…Things like that.

See, you can be just as dogmatic as him!

I can almost go with with what Mark is saying here—being a confessed dogmatic person myself—but I think what Patterson is doing goes beyond what Mark describes. Mark is describing some statements that really could be made by many people subscribing to the doctrines of grace, especially those in the “cage” stage. If you really believe the whole bulb and bloom, the major one that you’d hesitate to say would be the first about being semi-Pelagian. I am personally at least 80% there myself. Get me my cage—some of y’all know I need it, no? :^)

(let’s be honest; dogmatism is great in the service of the truth, no?)

That said, Patterson is not just stating what he believes, but is rather suggesting that those who believe in the doctrines of grace ought to hit the exits—we would infer, at least in a case where we’re talking about Biblical church discipline—that he’s saying that the bulb and bloom is so out of step with Scripture that he cannot have fellowship with them. Violation of the Fundamentals or solas, really.

So my take is that Patterson is 100% OK if he simply says that he disagrees with (some of?) the doctrines of grace held by YRRs and others (thanks, Andrew), and even if he suggests that they ought inexorably to lead to other Presbyterian/Reformed distinctives. However, just as I don’t think many YRRs would subscribe to Mark’s first example, I don’t think that he’s done the work to demonstrate this, let alone that this ought to be a barrier to fellowship. Hence the uproar.

[Mark_Smith]

Before you overreact to Paige Patterson’s comments, check yourself to make sure you haven’t said things like:

-If you aren’t a Calvinist (or maybe an Arminian) then you are a heretic semi-Pelagian

-The true gospel is Calvinist

-Any clear reading of the gospel of John leads to Calvinism

…Things like that.

See, you can be just as dogmatic as him!

I agree with a lot of what Bert has said Mark, But also consider…

Re: your list

1). I don’t regard those who do not subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace(or 5-point Calvinism as it’s also called. Bert is correct. Most Calvinists who do that sort of thing are in the “cage stage”. Most who do not grow up in a Presbyterian/Reformed Baptist background and gain a new exposure to Calvinism and come to agree with/believe it go through it.

2). For any to regard Calvinism as “the True Gospel”, nowhere in Scripture do we find that belief in those doctrines aare a requirement for Salvation. I’m aware of some statements made by Spurgeon(probably others), that “Calvinism is a nickname for the Gospel. In the context of Spurgeon’s theology as a whole, he was regarding anyone who said “Salvation is of the Lord” is a Calvinist(not an exact quote, but there are enough Spurgeon sites on the internet where one can find the exact quote and source. That is also a very broad definition of Calvinist because Arminians affirm it as well.).

Regarding the Gospel of John and Calvinism, I direct you to John 6:37, and John 10:27-29. It is reasonable to understand why Calvinists uinterpret these passages as teaching some of the beliefs of 5-point Calvinsim.

And on the matter of Church/Baptist history, Patterson’s statements are inexcuseable for him to make given that he has a Th.M and a Ph.D From New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and is the President of a seminary. He might not have majored in the field of Church History, but he should have studied enough of it during the pursuit of his education that he should know better than to make some of those statements. Bert’s analysis of those statements is correct.

“What we call Calvinism is the doctrine of Paul, developed by Augustine and systematized by Calvin.”

John A Broadus, Lectures on the History of Preaching, 1876. page 81.