Are Baptists Calvinists, Arminians, Calminians, or, well...Baptists? by Peter Lumpkins

 Many times we stand reminded by our Calvinist family how, in so many ways, our Baptist ancestors in 19th Century America were overwhelming Calvinistic in their understanding of salvation.  We repeatedly hear of James Boyce, Basil Manly, Jesse Mercer, P.H. Mell, John Gano and a host of others who embraced classic Calvinism.  Indeed, for Calvinists, these men only represent the unified theology of that massive Baptist body who would eventually become the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845...  >>>

In addition, since so many Baptist churches, especially in the south, embraced the Philadelphia Confession of Faith--or a likeness of it--this demonstrates, at least for our strict Calvinist brothers, the unanimity of Calvinism in the churches. 

Consequently, one would think if it is true that Calvinism was so well forged in the Baptist community in the 19th century, there would be little evidence available that conflict over Calvinism existed.  What happens as one reads the record, however,  seems to suggest otherwise.

A few years ago, I was rummaging through Spencer’s history of Kentucky Baptists in the 19th century. One becomes overwhelmed at the continued fussing and fighting over Calvinism.  Contrary to strict Calvinists’ insistence that the doctrines of grace were universal, Kentucky Baptists prove otherwise.

Below is a delightful little anecdote found in Spencer‘s work (pp 276-278) which illustrates nicely some of the fuss. 

David Thurman was born in Woodford county, Kentucky, August 12, 1792. At the age of ten years, he was left an orphan and went to live with an elder brother, who put him to keeping bar in a tavern.  He was a youth of great energy, and was fond of books. He pursued his studies with the same enthusiasm that characterized him when horse racing and playing cards.

But his wild career was suddenly cut short, in his nineteenth year, by the preventing grace of God. He was overwhelmingly convicted of sin, and after a brief but agonizing struggle he found great peace and joy, in trusting in Jesus.  He was baptized by David Elkin into the fellowship of Good Hope church.  Soon after his baptism, he began to exhort his former companions in sin to repent and believe the gospel. 

Meanwhile, he studied theology under Nathan Hall, a distinguished Presbyterian preacher. In 1814 he was ordained to the ministry and was soon called to the care of Stewards Creek and Hardins Creek churches in Washington county. In the spring of 1818, he moved to what is now LaRue county, and gave his membership to Nolin church, of which Alexander McDugal was pastor.

Of this church Mr. Thurman at once became the working pastor, and, on the death of the aged incumbent, was formally called to that position. He also accepted the care of Mill Creek in Nelson county and Rhodes Creek, in Hardin county. His removal to the territory of Salem Association marked a new era in the history of that ancient fraternity.

In 1828, after a season of coldness in the churches, which had continued many months, Thurman became greatly afflicted because of the spiritual chill that pervaded the churches of Salem Association. He did not, however, diminish his labors, but increased them. Laboring from house to house, night and day, God’s presence began to be manifest among the people on Barren Run. 

The revival spread rapidly, and soon a large number were baptized at Nolin church.  During this revival, Mr. Thurman was assisted by William M. Brown, then an active young preacher. 

At Nolin church one Saturday, Mr. Thurman appeared very despondent.  There had been a long dearth, and the pastor’s heart was discouraged. He told the church that his labors had not been blessed; it probably was not the will of the Lord that he should labor among them, and advised them to procure another pastor. He sat down, and a profound and painful silence ensued.

Among the members present was the aged widow of John LaRue, after whom LaRue county was named. She was one of those noble Priscillas with whom God occasionally blesses his churches. She had sat humbly listening to every word the pastor said, until he sat down.

After a few moments of profound silence, she straightened herself up, and pointing one finger directly at the minister, said, in a strong emphatic tone:

“Brother Thurman, I’ll tell you what the matter is — Stop preaching John Calvin and James Arminius, and preach Jesus Christ.”

After a few moments, Mr. Thurman arose, with the tears streaming down his cheeks, and repeated the text:  “For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

The sermon that followed was one of thrilling power and eloquence.  A revival commenced, during which 100 persons were added to Nolin church. 

The revival influence spread rapidly over the surrounding country, and there were over 1,000 conversions wi thin the bounds of Salem Association.

Never underestimate the practical wisdom--not to mention the theological maturity--of a godly Grandma. More than she realized, she fully captured the Baptist spirit.

We are not Calvinists.

We are not Arminians.

Nor are we a combination of the two.

Our theological heritage is biblicism. We are Baptists and shall be bound to no human system of theology, Reformed or otherwise.*

With that, I am…

Peter

*For a great essay on being neither Calvinist nor Arminian, several Southern Baptist theologians have jointly written an essay entitled, "Neither Calvinists Nor Arminians But Baptists" Download NeitherCalvinistsNorArminiansButBaptists

Comments

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter, thanks for the jewel from the corridors of time. I pray this fire break out amongst us!!!

[Max]

Peter -

You've nailed the bottom-line on our current dilemma in Baptist ranks. The commandments of God have become mixed with or replaced by the teachings and traditions of men ... and Jesus told us not to do that (Mark 7:7-8). We've married strangers in the land and brought this mixture into the camp. Black and white have become gray; we've lost our way.

Theological walls separate us just as surely as rock fortresses. Clinging to our doctrinal armor, we've diluted the Truth to suit our fancy. We've become a list of "ists" in the church: fundamentalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, etc. Our labels supersede our faith.

1 Corinthians 2: 1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

I once asked a "seasoned" godly woman in church what she felt our problem was. She responded "young man, the Holy Spirit left when pretty-boy preachers came out of seminary in their three-piece suits" ... if she could only see them now! I'm glad to be simple-minded - there's not much intellectual clutter to get through for revealed Truth to take root. I am resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... for that is wisdom.

-Max

[selahV (a.k.a. hariette petersen)]

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus...amen, and amen! been saying this ever since I became a Christian. He is the Answer. The only Answer. selahV

[peter lumpkins]

Max,

Thanks for your contribution, brother. May our Lord give you wisdom as you seek to assist churches in understanding aggressive Calvinism and offering a balance to the truncated theology some are attempting to pass to us as if it were the only "Baptist" heritage.

Selahv,

You are welcome! It is a great piece, isn't it!!

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

I hope we may one day return to this biblical template. Thanks brother...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Brother Peter:

If you are talking about Southern Baptist heritage, and not General Baptist heritage (which you have attempted to blend in times past, by your citation of Smyth for SBC authority heritage), then clearly it is Calvinistic, since the creeds it endorsed officially were so (London and Philadelphia Confessions). That does not mean that the Baptists, the ones who gave birth to the SBC, did not have, at some former time, Arminian elements, especially among the laity. The fact that Alexander Campbell was able to win so many converts from among the Baptist laity was because the laity had many who were Arminian in sentiment. The SBC was created in 1845, several years after the departure of the Arminian element in Baptist churches to Cambell's movement. What remained in the SBC, after Campbell's work, was highly Calvinistic, after the manner of Gill and Fuller.

It was not until the 20th century that Arminianism again began to increase among formerly Calvinistic churches.

Your citation from Spencer only shows that there were some among the laity who felt like some Calvinistic preachers were harping too much on these doctrines. The citation does not affirm that the woman was Arminian! How did you read that into the narrative? The fact that she advised this preacher to preach Jesus and not Calvinism? That proves she was Arminian? Calvinists have often criticized other Calvinists along the same lines.

Baptist historians, like Spencer, Christian, and Benedict all affirm that the overwhelming body of Baptists were highly Calvinistic in the late 18th and earth 19th centuries.

Blessings,

Stephen

[peter lumpkins]

Stephen,

Thanks. Your words are embolden. My response follows.

“If you are talking about Southern Baptist heritage, and not General Baptist heritage (which you have attempted to blend in times past, by your citation of Smyth for SBC authority heritage)…” No, I did not. I am perfectly aware, Stephen, that whatever we may conclude from 17th-18th century Continental Baptists predates the formation of the SBC in 1845.  The difficulty I recall you acknowledging was the significant contribution of Baptist influence other than English Particular Baptists, a point I am uninterested in pursuing with you presently.

“then clearly it is Calvinistic, since the creeds it endorsed officially were so (London and Philadelphia Confessions).” Well, no it is not, Stephen. If you are referring particularly to Southern Baptist heritage proper, it cannot be reduced to strictly Calvinistic influence.  You’ll be hard-pressed to find a credible historian—unless it might be some affiliated with Founders—who will offer such a truncated view, Stephen. There were many tributaries to the stream which became known as Southern Baptists. And, while the Calvinistic influence is both rich and deep—and perhaps, if one counts noses, had more advocates—strong Calvinism continued to wane throughout the 19th century, so much so, in fact, that Z.T. Cody could say at threshold of the 20th century, a five point Calvinist church could not be found anywhere.

“That does not mean that the Baptists, the ones who gave birth to the SBC, did not have, at some former time, Arminian elements, especially among the laity” They not only had “Arminian” elements but Jesse Mercer explicitly referenced them as Arminians. Nor do I understand why you would mention “especially among the laity.” Mercer said the entire Bethel Association in North Carolina had preachers who were inclined toward Arminianism. By this he was particularly speaking of preaching general atonement.

“The fact that Alexander Campbell was able to win so many converts from among the Baptist laity was because the laity had many who were Arminian in sentiment.” I doubt the Cambellite movement can be so simply explained, Stephen. There were many factors involved in the success of that movement, not just being “Arminian in sentiment.” There was an anti-missions element in the Cambellite movement, anti-creedalism which appealed very much to Separate Baptists, not to mention the desire for non-educated ministry, baptismal regeneration, nature of faith among other things.  Hence, to cite Campbell being successful among Baptists as being due to Arminian sentiment is just too neat for the messy thing it was. 

“The SBC was created in 1845, several years after the departure of the Arminian element in Baptist churches to Cambell's movement” Again, this does not follow because you’ve truncated the “Arminian element.”  But were we to grant your premise, Stephen, it could not explain the continued influence of non-Calvinism post 1845.

“What remained in the SBC, after Campbell's work, was highly Calvinistic, after the manner of Gill and Fuller.” Stephen, you’re just not being realistic. Five Point Calvinism among Southern Baptists was virtually gone by the century’s end.  Nor is it proper to label Gill & Fuller together as “highly Calvinistic.”  Fuller following J. Edwards changed the face of Calvinism completely, overturning the reign of hyper-Calvinism most notably in John Gill.  

“It was not until the 20th century that Arminianism again began to increase among formerly Calvinistic churches.” To the contrary, Stephen, Francis Wayland lamented the loss of five point Calvinism during the first quarter of the 19th century.  Non-Calvinistic Baptists continued to wax in influence while strict Calvinism waned in influence throughout the 19th century.

“Your citation from Spencer only shows that there were some among the laity who felt like some Calvinistic preachers were harping too much on these doctrines. The citation does not affirm that the woman was Arminian! How did you read that into the narrative? The fact that she advised this preacher to preach Jesus and not Calvinism? That proves she was Arminian? Calvinists have often criticized other Calvinists along the same lines” Stephen, please take note of not only what I said, but the woman in the narrative said.  Who concluded she was an Arminian? I didn’t. Nor did she just lament preachers preaching John Calvin; she also lamented them preaching James Arminius. That is the point! 

“Baptist historians, like Spencer, Christian, and Benedict all affirm that the overwhelming body of Baptists were highly Calvinistic in the late 18th and earth 19th centuries” Baptist historians like Spencer, Christian, and Benedict are much more balanced than I think you may grant.  Nor are we speaking about counting noses, Stephen. Nor have I ever suggested Calvinists were not the majority so far as numbers are concerned. That is virtually impossible to tell. What we do know is, however many Baptist Calvinists there were in 18th & 19th century America, there appears never a time when Baptist Calvinists and Baptist non-Calvinists were not arguing over the doctrines of grace. And, right or wrong, non-Calvinists won over the majority of Southern Baptists, indeed all Baptists.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Deakon]

Yes, preach Christ! But as one does, the reality of the debate will appear. Faithfulness to preach the Word will continue to add fuel to the debate because the Word can't say both things. I am a reformed, calvinistic (if you want to use that word), Southern Baptist, but only because I can't preach any other way. I'm in John 10 right now, and I'm not sure how to preach what Jesus is saying without having to "show my colors". I guess I just want to emphasize to my non-reformed friends that reformed baptists are so by the conviction that God's Word is true. I can't choose to not be a calvininist (man I hate that term) because to reject reformed thought would, in my mind, be a rejection of Christ and the Word. And it is for the same reasons that I'm a Southern Baptist. I can't faithfully preach the Word and be a Presbyterian. So by loving the Word, I end up in this strange place of feeling like I am causing division in the SBC. I think people on both sides can be a little childish and dramatic in the way they speak/type to one another, but for what it's worth, this reformed southern baptist loves the Bible, loves to lift up Jesu, and hopes you all will too. And as you preach, debate, blog, be kind; Satan is the enemy, not someone with a different view of the sovereignty of God.

[peter lumpkins]

Deakon,

I appreciate your spirit and the substance of your comment. As I've often said, it remains entirely possible Calvinists and non-Calvinists may co-exist well within the SBC. But it will not be so as long as there are organized efforts by Southern Baptist Calvinists to 'Calvinize' the SBC. Whether it's Founders, T4G, A29, TGC or now even our own CP-funded seminaries pushing 'Reformed' theology upon us, the result will be the same: intense opposition--indeed proper opposition--against the pressure to conform to 'Reformed' thinking.

With that, I am...
Peter

[darryl brunson]

Great piece Peter. Some people probably dropped their John Piper lunchbox and wet their R. C. Sproul underoos when they read that.

[Don Johnson]

Deakon,

If you preached what Jesus was saying in John 10, you wouldn't be Reformed. The only way to get Reformed theology from John 10 is by inferring words or thoughts into the text.

[Max]

Last weekend, I purchased a copy of Herschel Hobbs' "The Baptist Faith and Message" at at garage sale. I blew the dust off of it and started reading it last night. The text is a commentary on the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message. Hobbs chronicled the great labor and study that went into its preparation and review. Committee drafts were furnished to all seminary professors of the six SBC seminaries and to SBC staff responsible for handling theological writings. Following their input, the final form was given to all State paper editors for all Southern Baptists to review before convention vote. At the Convention, "the report was adopted without changing even a punctuation mark". I can only assume that the 2000 revision of the BFM received such scrutiny.

In the book's preface, Hobbs states that his work was an "effort to interpret a statement which Southern Baptist messengers in assembled session voted as comprising a treatment of those basic elements of faith generally agreed upon by Southern Baptists". In the first chapter entitled "The Rock Whence We Are Hewn", Hobbs notes that the overriding Baptist distinctive is "the competency of the soul in religion". No mention of either Calvin or Arminius in my quick glance through the book, but a lot about Jesus Christ!

Hobbs says it best "Obviously , to finite intellects, it is impossible to harmonize God's sovereignty and man's free will. But in the infinite wisdom of God there is no conflict (Rom. 11:33-36)".

-Max

[peter lumpkins]

Max,

I posted an article by Hobbs on Calvinism in the SBC originally published in The Alabama Baptist just before his death. Hobbs was, in my view, a great Baptist scholar and New Testament teacher.

Grace, brother.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Deakon]

thanks for the jab Don, but I won't debate online...

[Max]

Peter -

Thanks for referring me to Hobbs' article. I'm beginning to realize that men like Dr. Hobbs are a rare and endangered species on the current Southern Baptist landscape. However, I'm reminded that the American Eagle made a remarkable come-back.

Max

[Mark]

So let's just get along and all be 0 point Calvinists...
Signed,
The John 3:16 Conference.

(The over-emphasis on the topic is, perhaps, mutual. Time to preach the Gospel!

[Donald]

Deakon said "Faithfulness to preach the Word will continue to add fuel to the debate because the Word can't say both things."

As I learned in Dr. Akin's Hermeneutics class:

"If two biblical doctrines humanly appear to be in contradiction, (like human freedom/predestination) we must accept both (antinomy or compatibilism)."

[Joe Hussung]

Peter,

It seems disingenuous to say that Baptist are neither Calvinists or Arminian. There really is no way around it. There are points in our own Baptist Faith and Message that state Calvinistic truths, as well are intentionally ambiguous enough to allow for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists to co-exist even in disagreement. I believe that if you look at the original confession of the 1845 convention you will see that this document (New Hampshire Confession)was compiled for that very purpose.

Secondly, you have already stated that the individuals comprising the Churches were across the board (which everyone has to agree with) so the answer here would be both (they were both Calvinists and non-Calvinists).

But in the end if our BFM 2000 is the standard of Baptist doctrine then to be a Baptist one must actually be at least a 1 point Calvinist if one was to look at the doctrine of salvation that total inability and regeneration prior to faith and repentance are taught explicitly in that section.

Lastly, on the matter of the seminaries, could not Calvinist say the same thing about "non-Calvinistic" seminaries (pretty much all but Southern). Last time I checked CP money was given by Calvinists and non alike. And on the same topic would you have all Seminaries oust all Calvinists or just have those that believe in these doctrines to not teach them. If the purpose of a Seminary is to train students to learn what the scriptures say, they should (as long as they are in line with the BFM 2000) teach them what they believe it says. This doesn't seem to be "trying to Calvinize" everyone but just trying to faithfully proclaim the word of God within our tradition of faith.

With all of that said. I feel like these are extremely important doctrines that we should discuss but the whole point of Southern Baptist Confessions since the beginning has been that varying levels of Calvinists can gather together.

In Christ
Joe Hussung

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

Thanks. I'll be brief (maybe:^)

First, it is not disingenuous to assert that Southern Baptists are neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists. While Baptists have been influenced by both legs of Reformed, nothing follows but that we've been influenced.

Second, you'll find little if any language in the BF&M which reflects the Calvinism being promoted today among most Calvinists--especailly the Founders advocates. They stick with both the Philadelphia and London statements. Our confession is simply not High Calvinism. Period.

Third, we have no original 1845 confession. We had no convention-wide and adopted confession for the first 80 years of our existence.

Fourth, you assert, "you have already stated that the individuals comprising the Churches were across the board (which everyone has to agree with) so the answer here would be both (they were both Calvinists and non-Calvinists)." I haven't a clue to what you refer. If you're suggesting Southern Baptists have always been both Calvinists and non-Calvinists, I've never once denied such and wouldn't.

Fifth, if I understand you correctly, you suggest, total inability and regeneration prior to faith and repentance are taught explicitly in the BF&M. If I read you correctly, you are grossly mistaken, Joe.

Sixth, you ask, "on the matter of the seminaries, could not Calvinist say the same thing about "non-Calvinistic" seminaries"? What non-Calvinist seminaries? You are wrong again, I'm afraid.
Nor do the supposed "non-Calvinist" seminaries impose a rigid, Reformed agenda as does SBTS (and perhaps SEBTS is headed there)

Again, "And on the same topic would you have all Seminaries oust all Calvinists or just have those that believe in these doctrines to not teach them. If the purpose of a Seminary is to train students to learn what the scriptures say, they should (as long as they are in line with the BFM 2000) teach them what they believe it says." Two quick comments. First, I've never advocated "ousting" Calvinists. I have criticized and will continue to criticize imposing Calvinism onto students. Second, if in fact, Southern Baptists are Calvinists and non-Calvinists--with the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists being the latter--how healthy is it for one of its seminaries to impose Calvinism to the exclusion of non-Calvinism onto the student body? How is that not "calvinizing" the convention, Joe?

Finally, no one--least of all me--has argued Calvinists have no place in the SBC. If somebody wants to suggest I've made that argument, he or she can either produce my words or stop the unfounded nonsense (note: I'm not implying you made the accusation, but others continue to do so). What I have and remain committed to opposing is an aggressive Calvinism which seeks to "reform" the Southern Baptist Convention by "recovering" the "lost gospel" (i.e. The Five Points of Calvinism).

Thanks for logging on Joe.
Have a great evening...
With that, I am...
Peter

[Joe Hussung]

Peter,

disingenuous is probably over stepping and I apologize as I do about the confusion of 1845 confession. What I was referring to, and admittedly had the wrong history, was the New Hampshire which is the original document that the 1925 BFM was based off of.

If anything, to say that Baptists are neither Calvinists or Arminians is a confusion of terms. Saying that I am a Baptist tells nothing of soteriology, because of the very fact that Baptists are across the board. I agree the Founders ministry can be heavy handed about the extent of Calvinistic influence, but to say that we are not either Calvinists or Arminians but we are Baptists doesn't clarify in regards to Soteriology.

Next, I never asserted that you denied that there were both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists within Baptists life only that this should go toward the fact that we should not label ourselves as just Baptists but that as Baptists we can be both. Perhaps the issue is the mulitple choice graphic. I would say that we should replace "baptists" with southern Baptists and then instead of "none of the above" we should put "all of the above."

Next regarding the BFM 2000 and total inability, and regeneration preceding faith and repentance I would simply like you to explain what this phrase means

"Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

Even without this the point obviously still stands that if you are to be a Southern Baptist then you must believe in "perseverance of the Saints" which is distinctly reformed doctrine.

Lastly, what does "imposing Calvinism on students" mean? If professors who are Calvinistic are asked to teach on say Romans, aren't the compelled by conscience to teach it in a reformed way? And as far as aggressive Calvinism, I agree that to promote it as "The Gospel" and referring to 5-point Calvinism is unhelpful and wrong. Though as a 5-Point Calvinist think that 5-point Calvinism promotes and makes sense of the Gospel better than the alternative that does not mean that I believe that any others (who still hold to orthodoxy) do not possess the true Gospel. But we need to be able to talk about it and have healthy conversation about the issues and even attempt to persuade from both sides (which both of us would do).

Thanks for the honest conversation

In Christ
Joe Hussung

[peter lumpkins]

Joe

Thanks for the kickback. You are correct. The New Hampshire Confession (1833) was the model, so to speak, for the 1925 Confession. However, the NHC was decidedly not a hip-hip hurray for Calvinism. In fact the NHC was a decided step away from the High Calvinism of London, Philadelphia, and Charleston. Historian William Lumpkin called it “very moderate” as did McGlothlin with the descriptor “very moderately Calvinistic.” And as Garrett says in his Baptist Theology: A Four Century Baptist Study, McGlothlin questioned whether it should be called Calvinistic at all. Indeed, Garrett goes so far as to say, “one can conclude that the label “moderately Arminian” would be as accurate as the term “moderately Calvinistic” (p.132).  Hence, that Southern Baptists by-passed London, Philadelphia, Charleston, and even SBTS's Abstracts of Principles where Mullins was president and chose instead the NHC as a template cannot be explained as Southern Baptists penning primarily a Calvinistic confession in 1925 (incidentally, the 1925 BF&M explicitly makes regeneration conditioned upon faith).

Second, why is saying one is a 'Baptist' confusing? According to you, it’s because 'Baptist '“tells nothing of soteriology.”  So what?  It’s not necessarily supposed to tell you something of soteriology. Understand, however: with your logic, “Christian” is a confusing term because it tells nothing of soteriology. Neither does ‘follower-of-Jesus’. Neither does ‘Christ-follower.’ Neither does ‘disciple.’ So, we perhaps need to conclude we shouldn’t use these terms because all of them tell nothing of soteriology.

What is more, even if one uses 'Calvinist' and/or 'Arminian' what do these terms specifically tell us of soteriology?  The answer must be, for all practical purpose, nothing really. The reason is obvious: neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is, in its functional sense, monolithic beliefs. That is, there are many “Calvinisms” and “Arminianisms”. Hence, what clarity would you be referencing, Joe, if we were to use your terms? I hope you’ll read the paper entitled “Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists” written by contemporary Baptist Theologians.  It’s worth your time. 

As for my chart, well, all I can say if you don’t like my chart, make your own!;^)

You asked me to explain the following from the BF&M:

“Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ"

Be glad to.

First, I concede if that is all that is said about “regeneration” in the BF&M, your point would weigh in at a much heftier advantage. However, consider also:

“Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man… In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification” (Salvation IV, opening paragraph).

The paragraph just cited precedes the statement you quoted and offers a decidedly sweeping statement about redemption in its broadest sense, a significant part of which is regeneration. The first observation I would note is the absence of a clear definition about how we might define “regeneration.” We do know, a bit later, what regeneration includes. Yet, there is no hard definition about what regeneration is other than it obviously a) is intrinsically a part of salvation in its “broadest sense” and b) it may be implied that regeneration–including all that the term means–is the beginning of the Christian life.

I need to add here that what is striking is, in no sense whatsoever is regeneration–either explicitly or implicitly–suggested to mean a spiritual resurrection from the dead as our Calvinist brothers insist upon. Such must be read into, definitively not out of the confession.

Moving on to the section you quote, I cannot fully agree that our faith & repentance is definitively positioned as a response to God’s work of regeneration.  Several reasons present themselves why I must dissent from the view you’ve stated:

a) To assert that repentance and faith is a response to regeneration wrongly assumes that repentance and faith stand in a demarcated position to regeneration. This does not seem to be the case. Repentant faith is a part of regeneration. How then can it be a response to regeneration? On the other hand, however, if you will look closely at the confession, you will see that repentant faith is a response to the “conviction of sin” wrought by the Spirit. This makes perfect sense, at least to me. I know prima facie what it means to respond through repentance and faith to conviction of sin. Thus, it seems, rather than suggesting that our faith & repentance are responses to God’s work of regeneration it is more consistent with what our confession states if we view our faith & repentance as a response to the conviction of sin within God’s work of regeneration.

b) Most devastating to the view that regeneration is the cause that precedes the effect of repentant faith is what’s stated elsewhere in the confession. Under the section on the Holy Spirit we’re instructed of the Spirit’s deity; His inspiration for inscripturation and His illumination for interpretation. We furthermore confess His exaltation of Christ, His conviction of men’s sins, His calling men to Christ, and His effecting regeneration.

Then, we confess these words:

“At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ” (C. God the Holy Spirit).

Were we to accept the view you suggest along with our Calvinist brothers’ view that regeneration precedes faith, making it is the cause that precedes the effect, we have either,

a) a blatant contradiction or

b) we strangely confess that, a regenerated person–prior to their expressing repentant faith in Christ– is baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Honestly, I do not like either of those options. And , while I concede my way of viewing the BF&M may not be the only way, I think it presents a better option than either of the above.

Besides all this, Joe, do you honestly think Adrian Rogers (chair), Jerry Vines, and an entire host of other non-Calvinists on the 2000 BF&M would have placed a doctrine in the confession they strictly, unequivocally denied?

As for the “perseverance of the saints” you are incorrect. It is not strictly a “reformed” doctrine. But understand, there are even different nuances of this doctrine.

Finally, you entirely miss my point about the seminaries, Joe. The SBTS itself has imposed a decidedly strong Calvinism.  SWBTS doesn’t make reformed doctrine a criteria. Nor does its president insist that only “Reformed” structures of thought are able to protect the gospel as does SBTS's president, a theological kick in the teeth to 90%+ of all Southern Baptists were one to ask me. In a real sense, we're right back to where we started prior to the Conservative Resurgence. Similar to the Inerrancy issue, we have a situation in at least one of our seminaries where it insists on teaching precisely what 9 of 10 Southern Baptists do not themselves embrace--robust, aggressive Calvinism.

Additionally, if you believe that 5-Point Calvinism *is not* the “lost gospel” then surely you are obliged to resist calvinizing the convention wherever you see it. For my part, I’ve been writing on this issue over 5 years. And, the calvinazation continues.

Have a good evening.

With that, I am…

[Joe Hussung]

Peter

I never said that it was a "hip-hip hurray" for Calvinism. Only said that it was Calvinistic. The reason for it's moderation was so that varying degrees of Calvinists could co-exist in the same Churches and organization (I believe to be a honorable thing as do you).

Secondly, if you go back and check I never said that "Baptist" is a confusing term I said that stating that you are "not a Calvinist or Arminian but Baptist" is confusing because one term speaks to an entirely different set than the other two. Calvinism and Arminiasm specifically speak to Soteriology, and divine election where the term "Baptist" speaks more to Ecclesiology and Church Polity. But I will definitely will read the mentioned article.

Thirdly, I think your reading the BFM 2000 incorrectly but at the very least if P is taught that is 1 out of 5 points, and to my knowledge it is ambiguous on the other 4 meaning that to be in line with the BFM 2000 you must at least adhere to 1 point Calvinism.

Fourthly, by your own admission the Abstracts are a highly Calvinistic confessional statement. Is Mohler to simply throw it out (something that he has no authority to do)? No doubt he is a 5-pointer but can he truly ignore the principles the institution was founded on?

Lastly, I agree that we are in the same boat that we were before the GCR, however I would say that the reason is not because Southern is not in line with the rest of the 90% of the Convention. No one, you included can say that because if 90% of the Convention was against the Gospel you and I would not wish Southern to be liberal. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of institutions within the SBC that are as aggressively anti-Calvinistc as Southern is Calvinistic, and yet I hear no complaint from you on those terms. What I say is let Southern be Southern, it's confession is Calvinistic and therefore the professors should adhere to that confession as well as the BFM 2000. As for the others I would expect a non-Calvinistc professor at NOBTS or at SWBTS or anywhere else for that matter to be faithful to their statements and to explain the text of scripture in the way that they see it as well. If we would have Southern disregard the Abstracts then where does it stop to who can, and can't teach?
But Mr. Lumpkins you would be kidding yourself if you think that the aggression on keeping the convention clear of 5-point Calvinism is not as equally vocal a movement than 5-point Calvinism is.

Let's just let it stand. If asked to proclaim the truth, give it willingly wherever you fall on this matter.

You may think that "the calvinazation continues" but so does the non-calvinazation.

In Christ
Joe Hussung

[peter lumpkins]

Joe,

First, please keep in mind the distinction between my words and yours. I did not say you said the NHC was a “"hip-hip hurray" for Calvinism.” Those were my words about the NHC which you cited in the first place. Nor does your suggestion that the reason the NHC’s very moderate Calvinism was so that "varying degrees of Calvinists could co-exist in the same Churches and organization” hardly follow from what’s thus far been stated. I honestly don’t know why you’d make that statement at this juncture.

Second, you stated “to say that Baptists are neither Calvinists or Arminians is a confusion of terms. Saying that I am a Baptist tells nothing of soteriology.”

Third, I conceded I am no authority on the BF&M. But I do know that the history of the BF&M has not a scintilla of “regeneration precedes faith” nomenclature concerning it. Mullins (the chief author of the 1925 BF&M) surely did not hold to such a view (and the 1925 confession explicitly reflects this). Nor did H. Hobbs (1963); nor did Rogers (2000). Nor can it be maintained that just because the discussion of regeneration precedes the discussion faith & repentance in the BF&M, therefore, it follows the authors meant to suggest regeneration precedes faith in experience. Not that you’re arguing this. However, others do argue that the literary structure supposes an experiential structure, I assure. Nor would such a reading that regeneration precedes faith as I showed be consistent with other parts of the confession. How you handle those issues is your business but they are issues

Fourth, no it does not follow one must adhere to “1 point Calvinism” if one holds to the perseverance of the saints (whatever a “one point” Calvinist is supposed to be. Try convincing the Calvinist community you are a “one-pointer” and see how far you’ll get. Indeed it is difficult nowadays to get them to accept you if you deny just one point much less four!). Such wrongly assumes non-Calvinism to inherently imply non-perseverance of the saints. Even so, none of our confessions concerns themselves with the TULIP. Period. TULIP is never mentioned, assumed, implied, or alluded to.

Fifth, well, no I did not suggest the Abstracts were a “highly Calvinistic confessional statement.” I referenced the “High Calvinism of London, Philadelphia, and Charleston.” When I referenced the AP, I said that the 1925 committee overlooked “even SBTS's Abstracts of Principles where Mullins was president and chose instead the NHC as a template cannot be explained as Southern Baptists penning primarily a Calvinistic confession in 1925.” In fact, the AP is not explicitly High Calvinism. Garrett calls it “moderately Calvinistic.” Hence, I’m wondering what follows pertaining to your questions about Mohler.

Sixth, you’re going to have to demonstrate your assertion that “there are plenty of institutions within the SBC that are as aggressively anti-Calvinistc as Southern is Calvinistic”, Joe.  I’m all ears.  Let’s hear it.

Finally, I am uninterested in letting anything lie. We have an overt attempt to Calvinize the SBC from the top down. I will not remain silent. I will continue. And, those like yourself who are content to have it the way it is, be my guest. But as long as I have a voice, I will use it.

Thanks for the chat. I do want the evidence you mentioned about the aggressive anti-Calvinist institutions we ssupport as Southern Baptists.  You said there were “plenty.” I just need a few.

With that, I am…

Peter