Last June, Dr. Morris Chapman, President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, constructively verbalized what many believe a long, over-due public criticism toward a markedly aggressive Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Responses varied. For example, while Dr. Al Mohler twittered an epithetical line toward Dr. Chapman...
Dr. Danny Akin offered an official apology to Founders Ministries for the supposed abuse they endured from Dr. Chapman.
In addition, Founders Ministries advocate, Timmy Brister, logged four posts critical of Dr. Chapman not only because of what Dr. Chapman did (publicly chastised an SBC Calvinist faction to which Brister belongs), but also because of what Dr. Chapman personally believes (a non-Calvinist understanding of salvation faith). At one point, Brister humorously dismissed Chapman's position as simply a "postmodern epistemological construct" (//link). I remain quite sure the odd characterization came as a complete surprise to Dr. Chapman.
More significantly, Brister made what I believed then (and now) a revealing concession in one of the comment threads. He wrote: "Soteriologically speaking, a Calvinist holds to all of the doctrines of grace, period...People may be “Calvinistic” in their theology without being a Calvinist" (//link).
What's both significant and revealing is, this assertion unravels the entire theoretical fabric of the Founders Ministries vision. If I am not mistaken in my reading of their material, Founders insists getting back to our definitive theological heritage as Southern Baptists requires a full recovery of the doctrines of grace (i.e. 5 Point Calvinism or, as more popularly verbalized presently, "recovering the gospel"). This vision is repeatedly emphasized in their writings. Indeed, the late Ernest Reisinger, founding visionary of Founders Ministries, more than once equated 5 Point Calvinism and only 5 Point Calvinism with Biblical Christianity.
If Founders vision is accurate, while being "Calvinistic" may be more laudable than being non-Calvinist, being "Calvinistic" falls woefully short in regaining our Southern Baptist heritage. Or, in Brister's words, "a [Southern Baptist] Calvinist holds to all of the doctrines of grace, period."
Unfortunately for Founders Ministries, far too many historical examples exist among Baptists in the south which pinch the loose skin on the back of their arm. Consequently, their reading of Southern Baptist history devolves to a reductionistic historical construct. For example, Francis Wayland widely recorded the decided Baptist "split" concerning Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement as far back as the early 19th century. Hence, given the above criteria, because Baptists did not hold to "all of the doctrines of grace, period," one cannot conclude Baptists were mostly or even majorly Calvinists.
In addition, Dr. Z.T. Cody, editor of The Baptist Courier (South Carolina denominational paper), answered the question, "Are Baptists Calvinists?" in an essay at the turn of the 20th century with an emphatic "No." He insisted that a church holding to the famed 5 Points of Calvinism was no where to be found, even indicating that some of the Calvinistic doctrines--though unstated, most probably Limited Atonement--were actually "repugnant to our people"!
Therefore, if 5 Point Calvinism is the gold standard as an authentic Southern Baptist heritage, I'm afraid pyrite is all Founders advocates may expect to find.
Given the trendiness we may observe among many young Southern Baptists today to uncritically wrap their arms around a popular theological ideal, I am always on the look out for reminders to those tempted to tenaciously but fallaciously insist with the Founders concerning their theory on Southern Baptist roots, taking special care to log it here.
I found yet another such reminder just before Christmas break.
Stopping to browse through a used book store, I stumbled across a history of the Coosa Baptist Association in Northwest Georgia, the oldest association in the region (//link). I had a few moments to sit a spell and peruse the volume. Very enjoyable. Much better than reading the Twilight novel series, I'm fully confident.
Unlike our low estimation--and much too often, explicit disdain--for the role of Baptist associations today, 19th century Baptists possessed a profound respect for associational work. One feature frequently found among earlier Baptist churches was to "querry" the association with a particular question, soliciting counsel and direction the church should take on a specific issue or problem. The query letter could be on any number of subjects ranging from practical matters such as how to ordain a new deacon to a doctrinal point of view or an interpretation of a biblical passage.
In line with the times comes this query from the Lookout Baptist Church to the Coosa Baptist Association in 1852*:
"Doth the 4th and 6th Articles of the Coosa Baptist Association hold forth Limited Atonement, so that a part of the human family is, and forever has been, excluded from grace and glory, according to the covenant agreement, and that the Spirit doth not strive with them to bring them to repentance so that a part of the human family is entirely left out of the covenant?"
After considering their question, the Coosa Baptist Association unanimously replied:
"Neither the Bible nor the 4th and 6th Articles refer to, or hold forth Limited Atonement, so that a part of the human family is, and forever has been excluded from grace and glory according to the covenant agreement, so that they cannot be saved, if they would: but all who will, may participate in the benefits of the atonement according to the gospel**" (pp.10, 43).
Given the non-negotiable impression that Calvinists necessarily embrace "all of the doctrines of grace, period," coupled with Founders' premise that virtually all Baptists who eventually made up the Southern Baptist Convention at its formation in 1845 were Calvinists, it seems to follow that while the Coosa Baptist Association may have been Calvinistic in 1852, they nevertheless were not Calvinists.
I love the little details of historical inquiry. They have a way about them, inevitably upsetting the ideological applecart of those who attempt to squeeze history into preconceived notions for propagandist purposes.
With that, I am...
Peter
*The History of the Coosa Baptist Association as Prepared by J. A. Sartain, 1936
**I voice-recorded the query and response on my Blackberry. Consequently, a few of the words break-up; yet I remain confident I've given the quotes virtually verbatim. Nevertheless, I'll check my vm against the written record when I can get access to it again.
The Coosa in the 1850s had a strong leaning toward the Landmark movement that was in progress that very year in the Cotton Grove Resolutions. In a few years, you had a strong prescence of Landmarkism due to AC Dayton being there and later moving to Perry (middle GA). The Landmarkers (i.e., Graves, Pendleton, and Dayton) had definite problems with limited atonement. Pendleton prefered "definite" atonement, Graves flirted with the moral government theory to bypass limited atonement and Dayton was more like Pendleton. Of course, these men had a strong dislike for PH Mell from about 1850 to 1870. In the 70s, Graves made his peace with Mell by renominating him as SBC President. Early Landmarkers were 4-pointers, but later ones (Bogard, ABA and Independents) frequently attacked Calvinism as death to evangelism as some do in the SBC today.
In Him,
GaBaptist
Posted by: gabaptist | 2010.01.04 at 01:00 PM
GAB,
Thanks for filling in some blanks.
Assuming prima facie your scenario of the magnificent Graves-Pendleton-Dayton influence, one may be justified in assuming that the most potent theological movement in 19th century Baptist life--The Landmark Movement--poses a significant challenge in itself to the Founders theory of a non-negotiable 5P Calvinism unshakably embedded among Baptists in the Old South.
Grace, brother.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.01.04 at 02:24 PM
G'day Peter,
I realise that your introductory remarks were just that, introductory to your true purpose of adjudicating on Brother Brister's reactionary statement about "true-blue calvinism" ("true blue" is a reference to a time long before the age of modern wachine machines and powerful laundry detergents, a time when there was a mysterious little blue bag which was stirred around in the final rinse water of the dolly tub on wash day. This bag was laundry bluing or blue, Reckitt’s blue-bags or in Australia True Blue bags were sold as penny cubes or indiviually wrapped in flannel or muslin. It had various other names over the years: Reckitt's Blue, Bag Blue, Paris Blue, Crown Blue, Laundry Blue.). True Blue 5 point calvinism it appears from his writings to be the only acceptable calvinism, a position that I would strongly disagree with, although even I could subscribe to those 5 points!
Brother Peter, I was in Louisville when Brother Morris made his speech, and I say again after reading it for the fourth time since, that it is a wonderful speech. I took no offence a this speech whatsoever and indeed was encouraged by it.
Truthfully, I was more concerned that you and I and others were more likely to be tarred (unjustly) as Baptist Identity landmarkers than that I was attacked as a calvinist. Brother Morris's statement about antimony in the matter of God's Sovereignty and human responsibility appears to have been drawn from J I Packer's defence of calvinism "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God".
I felt that any defensiveness from those hwo would recognise God's Sovereignty a litle more than most may have been an unwise over-reaction.
My thoughts on your article: Like many an otherwise good sermon, your introduction ate up your message... but mainly because it misled one to believe that the article was about Bro Morris' message rather than Bro Bristers.
Blessings bro,
Steve
Posted by: Steve G | 2010.01.04 at 03:52 PM
Peter:
You stated:
"In addition, Dr. Z.T. Cody, editor of The Baptist Courier (South Carolina denominational paper), answered the question, "Are Baptists Calvinists?" in an essay at the turn of the 20th century with an emphatic "No." "
That settles it. No more disputing. The Charleston Confession was really the Charleston Apparition! Evis ain't dead. UFO's are real. Global Warming is true.
May you and Al Gore keep up the good work setting the record straight!
Cordially,
chadwick
Posted by: chadwick | 2010.01.04 at 09:52 PM
Steve,
A delightful criticism and much appreciated. Another way of saying it is, my porch was bigger than my house! Know, however, I do live in the south where big porches for big rocking chairs remain common ;^)
And, my brother, the very reason we remain in tight fellowship--as have Southern Baptist Calvinists & non-Calvinists for over a century and a half--is the mutual respect between us concerning each others biblical-theological position. Neither doubts the 'biblicalness' of the others faith.
Since Founders has made their goal to 'reform' Southern Baptist churches which deny their version of Calvinism, there can never exist a similar spiritual cohesion. A basic about-face--or, in biblical categories, repentance--must be initiated from the southern Geneva before talks of peace have success.
Grace, Grosey. I trust your day well.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.01.05 at 05:59 AM
Dear Chadwick,
Flattery will get you nowhere!
But...
Denying history originating from your own state of service is a practice you may need to reconsider.
I trust your day filled with God's presence.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.01.05 at 06:03 AM
Thanks Oeter and you are correct... the demands to reform from the reformers is not conducive of a respect for liberty of conscience within evangelical parameters.
Blessings,
Steve
Posted by: Steve G | 2010.01.06 at 09:14 PM
ooops Peter not Otter.
Posted by: Steve G | 2010.01.06 at 09:15 PM
Peter,
Great post and great insight. While I do love my five point Calvinist brothers and sisters, and I do appreciate all they do for the Kingdom of God; I still think that they've gone to seed on Calvinism.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2010.01.07 at 07:50 AM
Thanks all.
My internet has been down for a couple of days so I was out of touch.
After receiving much encouragement via email, I placed a follow-up to this piece.
Grace.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter lumpkins | 2010.01.08 at 12:48 PM