The Next President of the Southern Baptist Convention by Peter Lumpkins

I had a conversation with a good friend yesterday on the phone. One curiosity we discussed concerned what can only be described as an odd silence on nominees for president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Making it harder to predict is the even odder platform for the pastor's conference...

via peterlumpkins.typepad.com

Recall this? How influential is neo-Calvinism in the SBC right now? Take a look at the Pastor's Conference platform, and gifts to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Then, draw your own conclusion.

With that, I am...
Peter

Comments

[Micah]

What's your conclusion?

[Tim Rogers]

Great word, Brother.

[mike]

who cares? I'm a non-Calvinist who welcomes my thoroughly reformed brethren with open arms. It's not about defending the intricate details of your soteriology - those are "in-house" debates. the truth is that the most evangelistic, fired-up-for-God, zealous proclaimers of Christ that I've personally known were both staunch Baptist Calvinists. It humbles me that I'm not even a Calvinist yet I've never matched their zeal for sharing the gospel. And so what about gifts? We should be free of scrutiny when we support an orthodox, passionate, fired-up institution like SBTS. And I say this as a loyal grad of MBTS, the best seminary in the world!

[Matt Svoboda]

I am pretty sure a report came out some time back that 30% of SBC seminary grads considered themselves Calvinists... That is significant when you realize only about 10% of SBC pastors currently call themselves Calvinists. It is quite an increase.

We will see the real effects of their influence in 20 or so years. The SBC is becoming more calvinistic because its future leaders are more calvinistic then they have been in possibly forever.

I dont know all the speakers, but I count 7 calvinists... Is that your count?

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

I think the people you mention are better described as neo-Reformed instead of neo-Calvinist. IMHO, the issue is not as much Calvinism as it is being more "reformed" than baptist.

Just a thought. See ya in FL!

Les

[peter]

Mike,

The position you embrace unfortunately remains the fruit of a wandering SBC generation.

With that, I am...
Peter

[A.M. Mallett]

I have a hard time understanding why anybody would expect sensible Baptists to stay put in churches that are commandeered by unorthodox and heterodox Calvinists?

[chadwick]

Peter:

Have you looked back at the SBC Pastors' Conference History Books? What will you find: The overwhelming presence of Arminian/FreeWill/ButSomeHowClinging2thePoftheTULIP kinda 'influence.'

--chadwick (one word/two syllables/not CW)

[mike]

Care to explain? It sounds like you're saying that the idea that Calvinists and non-Calvinists can coexist is a sign of having wandered off. I couldn't disagree more.

[peter]

Chadwick,

Yes.

Mike,

Nope; I surely am not.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

So Mike is not a Calvinist, yet embraces his evangelistic Calvinistic brothers within the SBC, and he's considered part of an unfortunate "wandering generation"? And those students at SBTS to whom he refers (and others) who affirm a very historic SBC confession -- The Abstract of Principles (not to mention the BFM)-- are labeled as unorthodox and heterodox? Very indicative of the current SBC climate, and very sad.

[peter]

Dr. Gaylon,

It would do you well, as it would Mike above, to inquire, "and just what do you mean, 'wandering generation'?" before you draw your slick conclusions.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Mr. Lumpkins,

Please tell us, then, what you mean precisely by your comments. Of course, the meaning of calling Calvinists unorthodox and heterodox (as A. M. has done) is quite plain, isn't it? Hard not to draw "slick conclusions" from those clear statements.

[A.M. Mallett]

Dr. Gaylon, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have actually earned your doctorate credentials.
The doctrines behind TULIP are certainly unique to the Calvinist faith and not considered a reflection of orthodox teaching. The 2nd council of Orange as an example declared the teaching of reprobation to be anathema. The council of Arles addressed and identified several errors that are encompassed within the Calvinist faith. The implication of making God the author of sin has been addressed many times. I can think of fewer false teachings than hard determinism that go so close to blaspheming the LORD and denigrating his goodness and revealed character.
So, yes, the Calvinist distinctives are very much unorthodox and heterodox in several respects. That might strike you as harsh but unlike Paul, I am not wishing to cut anything off of you.

[Dr. James Galyon]

A.M.,
Your snide comment reflects the sad condition of which I mentioned. Since the context of this comment thread centers upon the SBC, then "unorthodox" and "heterodox" should center upon those terms as related to SBC life -- including its confessions of faith. Therefore, I mentioned the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith & Message. If you want to have a detailed discussion regarding orthodoxy and heterodoxy in the Church as a whole, then surely you must confess that Baptists are unorthodox/heterodox for their views. But this discussion regards SBC life in particular. Calvinism is neither unorthodox or heterodox when regarding its history and confessions.

[mike]

well you can at least tell me why you consider me to be the fruit of a wandering generation? what did you mean by that? obviously it appears to be very negative to my embracing of calvinist brothers and sisters, but you said that was not the case when i asked you about it. so, care to clarify. why am i the fruit of wandering generation, and what did you even mean by wandering generation? and i'm being sincere, promise. - mike

[A.M. Mallett]

Dr. Galyon,
I have no interest in limiting the scope of unorthodox teachings and heterodoxy to satisfy your particular agenda. Such is not defined strictly within the realm of ecclesiastical dogma. If a promoter of the doctrines unique to Calvinism e.g. TULIP introduces them into the church organization, it would be entirely appropriate to consider that as an intrusion of heterodoxy into the church. That matters not whether the church is SBC, IBC, ABC or XYZ.
I would take the stance that when Calvinists introduce such teachings into the church format, they be regarded as heterodox and such moves be discussed openly as such.
You can consider that snide if you wish but don't mistake my detest for the minority of Calvinist doctrine to be a harbinger of my regard for Calvinists in general. For 90% or so of our doctrine, we have no qualms between Calvinist and general Baptists or Arminians. The gross error comes into play with the unique distinctive of the Calvinist represented by determinism or emphasis on foreordination.

[Dr. James Galyon]

A.M.,

Since you do not desire to limit the scope of unorthodox teachings, then I suggest you read the Canons of the Synod of Orange (AD 529) carefully. Though you quote them in favor of your position, they clearly uphold an Augustinian view of total depravity and overcoming grace. Of course, the canons also speak of the "grace of baptism" (as opposed to "free will"), something with which Baptists take issue. As far as determinism goes, the historic Calvinistic confessions affirm both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The issue of reprobation/double predestination is debated within Calvinistic circles, so attempting to apply them to all Calvinists is unwarranted.

[A.M. Mallett]

Dr. Gaylon,
I have little issue with the Augustinian aspect of depravity and I am well acquainted with Orange. I am not sure what you wish to accomplish by pointing out such. Did you have the allusion that I am a Pelagian? With regard to overcoming grace, perhaps you are not as familiar with non-Calvinist doctrine as you might suppose. Arminius, perhaps the greatest Reformed theologian of his time, offered the following comments regarding grace and free will.

Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace. That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word "grace," I mean by it that which is the grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration. I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good. It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the actions, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co-operates lest we will in vain. It averts temptations, assists and grants succor in the midst of temptations, sustains man against the flesh, the world and Satan, and in this great contest grants to man the enjoyment of the victory. It raises up again those who are conquered and have fallen, establishes and supplies them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. This grace commences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it.

I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins. And I add to this — that teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to divine grace, provided he so pleads the cause of grace, as not to inflict an injury on the justice of God, and not to take away the free will to that which is evil.

I do not perceive what can be further required from me. Let it only be pointed out, and I will consent to give it, or I will shew that I ought not to give such an ascent. Therefore, neither do I perceive with what justice I can be calumniated on this point, since I have explained these my sentiments, with sufficient plainness, in the theses on free will which were publicly disputed in the university.

The issue of sovereignty is not a matter of affirming or denying. It is instead how such is defined and applied to one's theological view. All devout Christians, Baptist and otherwise (including I suppose Calvinists to some degree) ascribe to the sovereignty of God.
As for the matter of reprobation or double predestination, the only question that need be resolved is how illogical can the Calvinist become in furthering his compatibalist ruse in order to avoid the heinous implications of his determinism.

I recommend you become more familiar with the theology of non-Calvinists and less dependent on the commonly dispensed phrases of hardshell Calvinists. I was half expecting to see "doctrines of grace" tossed out there for good measure.

As an aside, this is not personal. This is the internet where every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jimmy White can state anything they wish and almost get away with it.

[Michelle]

There is soooo much I don't understand about Calvinism...try as I may.

Can someone who understands this better please explain to me how Calvinist believe man can have both free will and God has sovereignty (as they define it)?

How can one believe in Calvinism and NOT believe God is the author of sin, if God's sovereignty causes everything?

I see no logic in this. I just don't get this and whenever I ask questions to my Calvinist friends, they just keep giving me circular reasoning and declaring everything a mystery.

[Dr. James Galyon]

A.M.,
I have not alluded to you as a Pelagian, not even implicitly, so I'm uncertain as to why you raise the question. I raised the point about the Augustinian nature of Orange because it relates directly to the "T" and "I" in TULIP. I'm very familiar with non-Calvinist doctrine and with Arminius himself (who was certainly no Pelagian). It seems your greatest concern on this particular thread is castigating Calvinism and Calvinists as fatalistic heretics, so I will leave you to it. Thank you for the interaction.

[peter]

Michelle,

I appreciate your query. Know it is one which many from one side of the "debate" or other will take you up on your quest and confidently point you to this site or that, this book or that, this man or that which will definitively answer your questions for you. May I say, run for your spiritual life from the simplistic solutions peddled by overly-zealots for their theological cause.

My reasoning is simple. Great minds--the greatest minds in the Christian church--wrestled no less than do you concerning the questions you've posed. And, in their wrestling, some wiggled through as Calvinists; others made non-Calvinism a theological home.

In that light, continue to ask your questions but stay close to Scripture.

Not desiring to sound preachy, Michelle, but pose your questions to Scripture...lean on Scripture...let Scripture form your mind...give in to no man...let the Word of God comfort your soul...let the Word of God construct your mind...let the Word of God convict your heart...let the Word of God capture your singular loyalty. Be a Biblicist in the best sense of the word.

As you then read the works of others, your Scripturally informed mind and heart will better serve you in rightly discerning truth mixed with error in the fallible works of human beings.

Grace, Michelle.
With that, I am...
Peter

[Dr. James Galyon]

Michelle:

Like Peter, I encourage you to pose your questions to Scripture. He has been wise in doing so. I do not desire to give you a "simplistic solution," of which he has warned. Rather, I tell you (as a "Calvinist") that Calvinism does not teach that God is the cause of everything. Rather, there are some things which He brings about actively (He is the direct cause) and other things which He permits to occur (He is not their cause).

For example, the Lord did not cause Joseph's brothers to sin against him, yet their sin was both permitted (they utilized free will) and used by God for good (He is sovereign). Is there mystery and tension in this? Certainly. Can it be explained fully? No, and this is why we wrestle with the Scriptures in our attempt at being Biblicists.

I hope this helps, I hope you'll wrestle with all the texts, and I hope the journey will deepen your love for God and others.