"Everybody knows there's no real problem with aggressive Calvinism in the SBC, don't they?" Not if we believe Dr. Frank Page by Peter Lumpkins

  During the 2009 SBC, when Dr. Morris Chapman, retired President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, rehearsed the divisiveness aggressive Calvinism was causing among churches, Al Mohler tweeted an epithetical line toward the president while a bit later, Danny Akin offered an official apology to Founders Ministries for the supposed abuse they endured from Dr. Chapman. Neither did Founders Ministries waste any time attempting to discredit Dr. Chapman  (//link)  >>>

Now, however, we have Dr. Chapman's successor on public record saying virtually the same thing as did Chapman: Calvinism is a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention.

During an interview by SBC Today, Dr. Page responded to a question which could have been filled in with any number of possible issues Southern Baptists face. The single, theological issue Dr. Page chose to describe as the "greatest challenge facing the SBC" is Calvinism.

Below is the relevant part of the interview*:

"SBC Today:  What do you think are the greatest challenges facing the SBC?

Frank Page:  I think the challenges confronting the SBC today are different than they have been in decades past.  I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.  Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public.  The reason is obvious.  It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others.  At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us.  I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue. ...

Those who continue to insist that aggressive Calvinism causes/has caused no visible, negative effects in the Southern Baptist Convention need to listen very carefully to our President. Like Dr. Chapman before him, he possesses a deeply networked relationship with churches all over the convention. And, like Dr. Chapman, Dr. Page observes an unhealthy tension aggressive Calvinism is producing among our churches.

With that, I am...

Peter

*the entire interview is worthy of a thorough reading

Comments

[peter lumpkins]

Kevin,

Thanks, brother. No problem. I see your point. And you are right--PSCs cannot simplistically allow buzz words or especially incomplete answers to dictate decisions about whether a candidate's theology squares with the history of the congregation, a practice both unfair and unhelpful for all involved.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kevin]

Hi Peter –

I apologize for the offensive part of my comment (also to David). I didn’t write it for that purpose. Instead, I wanted to commend what you said—albeit with some hesitancy. What I hope for is that those who are non-Calvinists but not anti-Calvinists would move to distance themselves from anti-Calvinists. Like I said, I share in some sense your beef with unethical aggressive Calvinists.

As I said above, I don’t know of aggressive, obsessed Calvinists, because that’s not the heartbeat of SBC cooperation and of gracious debate over important doctrines that I love. With others in the SBC, I wish to extend a hand of cooperation with those who have common SBC goals.

For what it’s worth, I agree candidates for pastoral leadership at a local church should be honest with search committees or elders. One caveat I would add, and hope committees would extend, is that the candidate would be afforded an opportunity to describe their theological convictions in depth, rather than a simple yes or no on the Calvinism question.

In Christ,

Kevin

[peter lumpkins]

Kevin,

Thanks.

First, your framing your comment by opening with a question mark concerning my sincerity in what I write is offensive, Kevin. You claim of yourself, "What I believe I believe by conviction. Since I believe what I believe by conviction, I will stand by it." I have no reason to doubt this is so. Why you must open with an insult toward me (and David) is confusing. I've written almost 900 posts here since 2006. Yet you're content to swipe at me with a glib, "what you have written over the years" makes it "difficult" to accept my sincerity. Well, brother, what I've written over the years is still posted. If you've got a complaint about a particular piece I do, then register it. But to merely grease the bucket by complaining with a vague, "what you have written over the years"--implying my writing "over the years" makes me look insincere today--creates good filler but does nothing for clarity.

And, for the record, I confess as do you: "What I believe I believe by conviction. Since I believe what I believe by conviction, I will stand by it."

Second, I've been clear in my complaints about Calvinism in "what [I've] have written over the years". While I've written critiques on specific Calvinistic doctrines, I've never complained about Baptist Calvinists who hold them. Instead I've dealt with the ideas themselves. On the other hand, what I have consistently questioned in SBC life has been and is aggressive Calvinism by aggressive Calvinists. Those whom you say you "don’t know a single aggressive or obsessed Calvinist." Granted. Perhaps you do not. But I've given numerous examples, the largest pool by far coming from FM, the visionary statement of which includes an attempt to "reform" the SBC. Not only so, but apparently both Drs Page and Olson, whom I cite in the original post, as well as many here, know aggressive Calvinism up close. Hence, your not knowing them personally, while interesting--not to mention a blessing to you--is entirely irrelevant to the point of the discussion.

Finally, consistent with your desire to lead a church by your personal convictions, the OP here has nothing to do with whether a man should not or could not lead a church by the convictions he holds dear. Indeed the very point of mentioning RCC and Dr. Hargrave, demonstrates this nicely. Instead, the complaint I registered, as did Professor Olson, stems from shady men having one salvific vision while a church has another, and keeping one's salvific convictions hidden.

Hope this helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Kevin]

Just a quick comment in response to this discussion. David and Peter – it’s often difficult to see how sincere your statement of brotherly cooperation with Calvinists works with what you have written over the years. However, I appreciate your response in this post and in these comments. To be honest, I don’t know a single aggressive or obsessed Calvinist. I don’t doubt their existence. I just don’t care to spend a lot of time with cage-stage Christians of any stripe – except to see them mature out of it.

Since there’s been some discussion about what aggressive, obsessed Calvinism is, let me add my two cents. What I believe I believe by conviction. Since I believe what I believe by conviction, I will stand by it. (And that is not aggressive, obsessed Calvinism.)

I expect non-Calvinist brothers to stand by their convictions. And, I will sit down with them when possible to have a spirited talk about our disagreements, because doctrine is important. (And that is not aggressive, obsessed Calvinism.)

I want to join hands with Southern Baptists for the Great Commission and other causes. But that doesn’t mean I won’t lead whatever local church I am blessed to serve in according to my convictions. (And that is not aggressive, obsessed Calvinism.)

Perhaps this will help. Real anti-non-Calvinists are the aggressive, obsessed Calvinists. On the other side, I would add that real anti-Calvinists are also problematic for the Southern Baptist Convention. I hope both of these tribes decrease.

In Christ,

Kevin

[peter lumpkins]

Jason,

You are welcome! Lord bless, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jason]

Peter,

The "smoked out" articles may have been written to help search committees, but in this particular instance in West Tennessee, it was used at my former church to test a pastor already there and to warn sister churches about their current pastors as well prospective ones. I still contend the intent is the same. One's intent is to persuade to hire a particular type of pastor and the other's intent is not to. However, I do understand your point that one written by a professor has more weight that an anonymous writing.

Also, I never meant to say that non-Calvinists were attempting to un-reform a church. I meant to say that just like David knows Calvinist pastors blackballing a non-Calvinist DOM, I know a non-Calvinist DOM blackballing a Calvinist pastor. That's what I meant by "it rubs both ways".

I have read that like David your main 'beef' is with aggressive Calvinists actively and deceptively recruiting to their held doctrines. I understand completely. My point is I have experienced aggressive non-Calvinist actively and deceptively recruiting to harm the ministry of Calvinists. It rubs me the same way that aggressive Calvinists rub you and David. I guess I'm just looking for someone to acknowledge that as legimate.

Thank you for taking the time to post my first response.

Jason

[Lmalone]

Tony, Your entire post does not pass my illiterate.Romanian peasant.test. Or can only intellectuals understand the 'truths' of Calvinist doctrine. Some club!

[Dana R]

Mary sounds like the female version of John R Rice...put some heels on girl.

[Tony Byrne]

lmalone,

Funny, if that's what Calvinists believe, but that idea does not represent their beliefs, which your "wink" may or may not be acknowledging.

They say that post-lapsarian man in his unregenerate state (not post-conversion man) is "totally depraved," or enslaved to sin. Calvinists readily grant that the regenerate have a moral liberty (or moral ability to obey) that unregenerate man does not have, due to the indwelling of the Spirit and their changed hearts/dispositions.

While this topic is admittedly a digression from the point of Peter's post above, the distinctions between man in his fourfold state, or 1) pre-lapsarian man (Adam), 2) post-lapsarian man (all unregenerate mankind), 3) post-conversion man (all believers) and 4) glorified man (resurrected believers) is important to keep in mind. It is group #2 (not group #3) that are said to be "totally depraved" or in moral bondage, in Calvinistic opinion. All other states are acknowledged to possess certain liberties that group #2 does not possess.

Now back to the topic at hand. (wink)

___________

As for the topic at hand, Page is quotes as saying this:

"I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism. Everyone is aware of this, but few want to talk about this in public. The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges which are ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue."

While it may be the case that Page thinks 1) "aggressive Calvinism" is a problem in the SBC, this quote seems rather to be focusing on 2) the "divide" between the two groups that is the problem. In other words, the difference in theological opinion is "deeply divisive," the quote indicates.

It seems that Peter interprets this to mean point #1 instead of point #2, when Peter said:

"The single, theological issue Dr. Page chose to describe as the "greatest challenge facing the SBC" is Calvinism."

I don't see that in the quote above. That may be said or implied elsewhere, but the quote is not saying that. Rather, Page seems to be focused on the problem of cooperation and unity between these often warring parties in the SBC.

See the difference, Peter? Don't get me wrong. I do know that you have some legitimate concerns over "aggressive Calvinism" in some circles, but Page's concern in the quote you provided seems to be focused on the problem of unity between the groups (#2), not fault finding with one of the groups (#1), i.e. Calvinism in the SBC.

[volfan007]

Mary and Peter are 2 sharp cookies, and I really enjoy reading the things they write. And, I totally agree with them....my beef is not with Calvinists. My beef is with aggressive, obsessed Calvinists....especially the AOC's who think that all of us Non-Calvinists dont preach a true Gospel; dont really believe in grace, nor the sovereignty of God, etc; and who are rude and beligerent.

My 2 friends, who were black balled by aggressive, obsessed Calvinists (AOG), are good, godly men, who love the Lord. The ONLY reason they were black balled by these AOG's was because they were not 5 point Calvinists.

There's the problem I have with these beligerent, rude, aggressive, obsessed Calvinists.

David

[lmalone]

I do not get why I should listen to someone who believes they remain totally depraved after salvation. (wink)

[Mary]

Austin, nice of you to ignore what you claimed to have wanted. A definition of aggressive Calvinist. You demonstrate the points I made very nicely for those at home keeping score.

Yes I am very capable of sitting down with my Calvinist brethren who join us in our Sunday School class and discuss the nuances of scripture. They don't insult me by claiming that I don't believe the Bible if I don't believe Calvinism. They don't insult my intelligence by acting as if I've somehow not reached "the university of unconditinal election" In short they have a very humble Christ-like spirit and are willing to listen and sometimes be challenged in their own beliefs. Sometimes they get to a place where they can say "I see what you're saying, but I don't agree and this is where we are." We try to reciprocate by treating them with the same respect they show us. Because I do understand Calvinism and I do see how someone finds Calvinism in the Bible. I just don't happen to agree. But my Calvinist brethren are not heretics, nor or they guilty of having lost the Gospel.

So in summary Austin, you're "I don't mean to be sarcastic but let me insult you and ignore every point you've made while I attack you" response is exactly why Frank Page and others can see as the problems of Calvinism in the SBC. "Yeah I just want to get along but let me tell you, you don't believe what Jesus and the Apostles teach, but hey no hard feelings right?"

[peter lumpkins]

Austin,

No, I said aggressive Calvinists who have a "stated agenda" can kiss my grits, which is not the same as telling Calvinists to kiss my ground corn. Did you not read what I wrote right before that? Let me refresh your memory, Austin:

"I talked to a friend [that's F-R-I-E-N-D, friend]... He's a 5P Calvinist [that's T.U.L.I.P]... And, for the record, he and I haven't the least squabble [that's as in none] with one another. I'd vote for him as President of the SBC...He could be on any board, institution, or committee...I'd support him. He can come to my church and preach [that's P-R-E-A-C-H]. I have no reservations [as in ZERO] inviting him"

I can and do make distinctions between aggressive Calvinists and Calvinists. The former can kiss my grits. The latter can sit with me and we'll eat my grits (along with eggs, bacon, tomatoes, biscuits and country gravy). Good fellowship between brothers in Christ.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Jason,

If you don't even know who wrote the "smoke out" piece--much less a professor--I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion "the intent still is the same." My point was specifically regarding a sitting professor, not an anonymous author.

BTW, the "smoke out" verbiage was added to the piece and was not a part of it. Nor was the paper about "smoking out" a present staff member. Rather, as I recall, it was a list of questions designed to assist PST/C to ask the right questions to determine if the prospective candidate was a Calvinist who was not being forthright about his theology. And, this is perfectly consistent with the undercover strategy Founders Ministries promoted since E. Reisinger.

Nor does this "run both ways" as you put it Jason. As with Matt, I'll suggest to you: when you can show there exists a definitive strategy by non-Calvinists to come into a Calvinist church under stealth so it can be Un-reformed, please bring back your evidence. I'd love to chat about that.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Austin Maddox]

Wow.... I have a CD of the GA Baptist Association minutes that I purchased from The Baptist Standard Bearer(BTW..they are Primitive Baptist) that says many years ago and I can post it some time that said something like ... They were telling the churches not to ordain a man if he did not believe in the doctrines of grace and it was clear(The five points). Things surely are different these days in SBC life...we got Peter telling us Calvinist that we can kiss his grits if we think we are changing him..be careful Peter ...God can open your eyes to the truth on this..BTW..I like Cream of Wheat better :). I can see Peter telling messengers at the association mtg or sending back a circular letter that the association can "Kiss his Grits " if we think we are going to change him. I want to say LOUDLY that I love my noncalvinist SBC brothers and sisters..lets continue to be passionate in our discussions but kind in heart. Thank you Peter and Mary for your passion ...I have "Particular brotherly love for my brothers and sisters" :).

[Jason]

"Imagine a sitting non-Calvinist professor putting up a piece telling churches why their next pastor should not be a Calvinist."

That's actually already happened. In fact, there were articles circulating in West Tennessee two years ago that encouraged churches to 'smoke out' Calvinist pastors.
Full Disclaimer: These may or may not (probably not) have been written by a professor, but the intent is still the same.

"Peter and Mary,

I could not have said what I think and feel any better myself.

BTW, I have had 2 friends of mine knocked out of DOM positions by aggressive, obsessed Calvinists. They black-balled them. The committees were all for these 2 men, but some aggressive Calvinists stopped it. And, we're talking about 2 very good, sound men, who truly love the Lord."

And I know of a DOM in West Tennessee who blackballed a Calvinist pastor.

This runs both ways....

Jason

[peter lumpkins]

Oh, btw, here’s a juicy piece by an SBTS seminary professor. Entitled, “Why your next pastor should be a Calvinist,” I think this shows well why we have problems with aggressive Calvinism. Dr. Nettles not only says this in print, he preaches it at regional conferences. Imagine a sitting non-Calvinist professor putting up a piece telling churches why their next pastor should not be a Calvinist.  Most of us know what would happen.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Matt,

I've missed your insults. Thanks for reminding me.

Now as for "my" interpretation, if you think Dr. Page was insinuating that non-Calvinism is the driving issue, then make your case. It's not non-Calvinists who have seminaries where Calvinists are not, shall we say, welcome. Nor is it non-Calvinists who, by stealth, sneak in unawares into Calvinist churches with the aim of UN-reforming them. When you can show this as a problem, please come back and we'll discuss it.

With that, I am...
Peter

[volfan007]

Peter and Mary,

I could not have said what I think and feel any better myself.

BTW, I have had 2 friends of mine knocked out of DOM positions by aggressive, obsessed Calvinists. They black-balled them. The committees were all for these 2 men, but some aggressive Calvinists stopped it. And, we're talking about 2 very good, sound men, who truly love the Lord.

Shameful.

David

[Matt]

Frank Page says:

"I think one of the issues which is a tremendous challenge for us is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism."

Peter Lumpkins interprets as:

"Calvinism is a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention."

The theology of Calvinism isn't the problem as your post implies- the problem is that those who disagree can't get along. A good example of this would be your blog.

[Max]

Austin - you said "I don't know of any calvinist who rejects the BFM 2000... I do know calvinist that believe that the BFM 2000 seems to be more general on some areas that both sides would claim that support their view." Therein lies the problem for majority (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptists! There is simply too much wiggle room in the BFM2000 to make way for differing theological views ... particularly a reformed slant that is not supported by mainstream Southern Baptists.

Russell Dilday provided a thorough analysis of the BFM2000 revision (http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html). In his report, he listed various "Troubling Factors in the 2000 Revision", and indicated that "Negative concerns about BFM2000 seem to cluster around twelve issues":

1. The deletion of the Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture.
2. The diminishing of the doctrines of soul competency and the priesthood of the believer.
3. The trend toward creedalism.
4. The diminishing of the doctrine of autonomy and freedom of the local church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit.
5. The trend toward Calvinism and mistrust of personal Christian experience.
6. The trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church tradition to a reformed evangelical identity.
7. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in marriage.
8. The narrow interpretation of the role of women in the church.
9. The "Pandora’s box" concern – a fear of repeated future revisions to include favorite opinions.
10. The trend toward including a catalogue of specific sins.
11. The false accusation of neo-orthodoxy.
12. Inconsistency.

Diminishing of the doctrines of soul competency and priesthood of the believer ... trends toward Calvinism and reformed theology ... shifting Baptist identity. Dr. Page has good reason to raise a flag on this issue, as divisive and disconcerting as that may be.

[Austin Maddox]

Mary,

Thank you for your answer. Do you believe that the doctrines of grace(The doctrines that Jesus and the apostles taught) are completely wrong as a calvinist believes ? Can you truly sit down with an open Bible and lets say show how the five points of calvinism or as I like to say what the Bible teaches are wrong ? Could you do this and remain calm and not scream somewhere in your presentation " You calvinist are killing our churches"? Let me remind you of one VERY IMPORTANT TRUTH... Noncalvinist make up majority of the pulpits across the SBC and majority of the members...SO, you guys might want to look into the mirror...Mary, that's an honest thing for me to say ...Noncalvinist have dominated the SBC for the last ??years. BTW, I want noncalvinist to stay in the SBC and work with Calvinist. I mean NO sarcasim...promise :)

[Mary]

Austin, agressive Calvinist are those who declare we've lost the gospel because we don't agree with Calvinism. Agressive Calvinist are the ones who go into churches and clean house by saying only Calvinist can teach SS, be deacons, be on committess etc etc. Agressive Calvinist are the ones who go into churches and demand that church members must sign off on church covenants that affirm Calvinism as the doctrine of the church and those who refuse are then delcared no longer members of the church. Agressive Calvinist are the ones who will declare that it's a lie that agressive Calvinism exists even though people from all over the country, from all walks of life have experienced everything I've just referenced, people who don't know each other from Adam all experiencing the same things just a little too often for it to be simply dismissed as "a few rogue Calvinist" and not a concerted effort by Calvinist to try to "reform" the convention.

Of course the Calvinist response is "give me the names, the addresses and phone numbers, mother's maiden names, ip addresses, names of first born children, complete work and housing history of those making these accusations or I just know you are all liars and "anti-Calvinist"

Aggressive Calvinist are so arrogant they cannot imagine ever that a Calvnist anywhere has ever done anything wrong in the name of Calvinism and it must be the poor fools in the pew who messed up the poor innocent Calvinist.

Aggressive Calvinist simply don't care about the victims of aggressive Calvinist and will continue to victimize those victims by calling them names such as "anti-Calvinist" and "liars"

Yeah, right Austin these issues with aggressive Calvinist are all really in our heads - we've just made up a whole bunch of stuff just to pick on the poor innocent Calvinist who've never done anything wrong.

[peter lumpkins]

Austin,

Thanks. No I do not have a problem with individual churches having a confession more Calvinistic than I might tend to be. But nothing in this post implies otherwise.

As for "defining aggressive Calvinism" I've been very clear on this site about what constitutes "aggressive Calvinism." Founders Ministries represents well "aggressive Calvinism" with their visionary thrust originally imagined by their own founder, E. Reisinger, who equated 5 Point Calvinism with Biblical Christianity. Consequently, he sought to "Reform" the SBC one church at a time, and sought such a goal via stealth. His strategy is well documented in his book available for the public to judge.

Perhaps a lessor but nonetheless apt example of "aggressive Calvinism" is Southern seminary, whose president, Dr. Mohler, has indicated more than once that "Reformed" thinking is the "only" thinking capable of protecting the gospel. I'd say that's fairly aggressive, wouldn't you? In addition, SBTS has been named "ground-zero" for the YRR by one of YRR's own insiders, indicative again of more "aggressive Calvinism".

I talked to a friend recently who is a top-tier state convention guy. He's a 5P Calvinist but cannot publicize it for fear he'll be grouped into "aggressive Calvinists" like Founders which, by the way, he wants no part of. His church loves him and he his church. I think that's the way it ought to be. And, for the record, he and I haven't the least squabble with one another. I'd vote for him as President of the SBC tomorrow. He could be on any board, institution, or committee we have. I'd support him. He can come to my church and preach. I have no reservations inviting him.

However, "aggressive Calvinists" have a stated agenda to "Reform" average church folk like me. For my part, they can kiss my grits. It ain't happin in this lifetime :^)

Yes, I wish we could just all get along. But, until "aggressive Calvinists" put their six shooters down, I'll be packing.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Austin Maddox]

Peter, aggressive calvinism should be defined. You don't have a problem with a local SBC church having its own confession of faith such as the NHC or 1689 LBC or 1644 do you ? I don't know of any calvinist who rejects the BFM 2000... I do know calvinist that believe that the BFM 2000 seems to be more general on some areas that both sides would claim that support there view. Still amazes me why we just don't open the Bible up at the SBC and have talks on what the Scriptures teach on Total Depravity(Total inability of man), Unconditional/Conditional Election, Particular/General Atonement, Effectual Calling/General Call/Gospel Call, Perseverance of the Saints, Regeneration precedes faith and etc.... . I love my noncalvinist SBC brothers and sisters.... I get frustrated with noncalvinist not knowing the difference between a hypercalvinist(Primitive Baptist) and a calvinist. I do believe that there are probably some Southwestern and New Orleans profs that know there is a difference but like to scream " Hypercalvinist" because they know it will create more attention. The problem with that is that it's poor scholarship. Can't we all just get along :)

[William]

Yep. I noticed that too...see you next month.