Al Mohler, Calvinism, and Baptist origins by Peter Lumpkins

  I received my copy of Ministry By His Grace And For His Glory: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Nettles¹ only a few days ago and have made half the journey through the first reading. I do not plan to review the entire volume since a volume of this nature defies brevity. With over 20 different contributors writing independently of one another, one is left with either a mammoth task to accomplish or a shotgun blast so broad, it gives justice to no single author or idea. In my view, it is better to periodically offer bite-sized portions people may chew on one chunk at a time. If one is interested, Nathan Finn offers a general outline of all the chapters >>>

My initial “chunk” to chew on, then, constitutes two statements by Southern seminary president, Dr. Al Mohler. The first statement is found in Dr. Mohler’s contribution to the volume, and the second is found in the chapter by Dr. Erroll Hulse. In the Foreword, Dr. Mohler writes of his assignment as president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky:

“I was elected president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1993, charged with the task of returning the denomination’s mother seminary to her confessional commitments and theological accountability” (ix).

While no one disputes Dr. Mohler’s election as president of Southern Baptists’ oldest seminary, one must initially question whether the young Mohler (33 years old at the time) was “charged” with returning Southern Baptists’ “mother seminary to her confessional commitments and theological accountability.” Understand: the question is not whether radical changes were both desired and expected. Nor would Southern Baptists who were loyal to the Conservative Resurgence at that time question whether theological accountability was a non-negotiability.

Rather, I remain confident that Dr. Mohler’s “confessional commitments” did not mean the same to grassroots Conservatives then that it apparently meant to him. In fact, Conservative Resurgence leaders consistently resisted Calvinistic aggression by Founders Ministries. On February 17, 1982, Paige Patterson allegedly responded to a letter written to him by Ernest C. Reisinger, the human energy behind the Founders Movement. Patterson seems to have written:

It is apparent that we differ some in regard to soteriological matters – at least regarding the order of events in soteriology. What does concern me even more greatly, however, is that we are going to eventually forfeit the Southern Baptist Convention as a forum for the discussion of differences among people who have no questions about the total truthfulness of the Bible unless we stay together. I see the possibility of a rift developing between Bible-believing conservatives over the question of the extent of the commitments to Calvinistic theology. If we allow the rift to take place at this stage of the game, I am convinced that it could be all the detractors of the Bible need to wreck our effort to establish the source of truth among Baptists.

I am certain that you have no more desire to see this happen than I, but I want us always to keep before us the importance of staying together until we can win this primary battle concerning the authority of the Word of God (//link)

Evidently, Reisinger pressured Patterson on the “Doctrines of Grace” as far back as the initial stages of the Conservative Resurgence. But Dr. Patterson didn’t budge. So what significant event took place over the next ten years (from 1982-1993) which convinced Al Mohler to apparently conclude that his “charge” was to return Southern seminary to “her confessional commitments and theological accountability”? In short, to reimage Southern Baptist Theological Seminary into “ground zero” for our culture’s new Calvinism? For my part this is inexplicable given aggressive Calvinism’s failure to persuade Conservative Resurgence leaders toward embracing wholesale the theology of Boyce, Dagg, and Mell. Had Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, et al come around to embracing Founders’ theology by 1993?

Nor would grassroots Southern Baptists have thought Mohler’s assignment was to take their cherished seminary and turn it into a thoroughly “Reformed Baptist” seminary. The truth is, our issue was inerrancy. That’s it. One issue. One!  We proudly flew that flag wherever we could. We were interested in inerrancy not election, predestination, effectual call, or being born again before faith. We wanted a seminary where the Word of God was not questioned but rather assumed. Calvinism was not on the table; the authority and truthfulness of Scripture was. Albeit Dr. Mohler’s confident perception of his “charge” to return Southern seminary to her “confessional commitments and theological accountability” definitively meant re-imaging Southern seminary into an exclusively “Reformed Baptist” institution, we beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists then nor now possess yearnings for a “Reformed Baptist” seminary. If I am mistaken, somebody should produce the goods.

The second chunk on which to chew is from Erroll Hulse’s chapter entitled “God’s Sovereign Election” (chapter eight). Hulse rehearses Mohler’s words:

Mohler declares his indebtedness to Carl Henry and accords with Henry when he chides Southern Baptists for their “theological amnesia.” Mohler writes: “Even the opponents of Calvinism must admit, if historically informed, that Calvinism is the theological tradition into which the Baptist movement was born. The same is true of the Southern Baptist Convention. The most influential churches, leaders, confessions of faith and theologians of the founding era were Calvinists—it was not until well into the twentieth century that any knowledgeable person could claim that Southern Baptists were anything but Calvinists” (p. 136)²

Let’s briefly respond to this statement. First, the idea of “theological amnesia” amongst Southern Baptists—at least amongst those who have studied Baptist history on any level—is clever rhetoric but nonsensical and almost insulting. No one disputes Calvinism’s theological contribution to Baptists generally or Southern Baptists particularly. If so, we’d like them named. So far as I know no Baptist historical textbook has scrubbed our Calvinistic roots from our history as often implied by terms like “theological amnesia.” And, as I’ve often stated, the first book recommended to me in 1979—the first year I was introduced to theological education in Louisville—was Calvin’s Institutes. Before that, my pastor who graduated in the 50s from Southern seminary gave me his systematic theology textbook which I still have today. It’s title?  Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof. If there is amnesia, perhaps some who advocate the Founders Movement may have come in contact with it.

Second, nor is it likely that those who are historically informed will ignorantly concede that Calvinism is the “theological tradition into which the Baptist movement was born.”

Begging pardon.

Has Dr. Mohler forgotten that the first Baptists were anti-Calvinists?  In the Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles by John Smyth (1609), it reads, “that men, of the grace of God through the redemption of Christ, are able (the Holy Spirit, by grace, being unto them grace prevement [sic]) to repent, to believe, to turn to God, and to attain to eternal life; so on the other hand, they are able themselves to resist the Holy Spirit, to depart from God, and to perish forever”³. John Smyth held anything but Calvinism and apparently may have embraced some of the Remonstrant’ conclusions in “falling from grace.” Indeed it was approximately two and a half decades before a Calvinistic Baptist church showed up.

Suppose someone suggested the Conservative Resurgence was born in 2006 when Frank Page was elected as President of the Southern Baptist Convention—a full two and a half decades after Adrian Rogers was elected president of the SBC. Imagine trying to persuade Southern Baptists Frank Page’s election to the presidency was the birth of the CR. Hence, to not only suggest that Baptists were born in the theological tradition of Calvinism, but also to imply those who deny such are historically ignorant is fundamentally absurd.

Third, it is true that many--perhaps most—of the influential churches, leaders, confessions of faith and theologians of the founding era of the Southern Baptist Convention were Calvinists. What does this prove? If we determine who Southern Baptists should be by counting noses, then we should be non-Calvinists. Even more alarming is, most of the influential churches, leaders, and theologians of the founding era were also slave-owners. I wonder if we should start lifting up our founders’ moral example in arguing for slavery? Apparently not since some are touting slavery as a means to dump “Southern” from Baptists. But if our founders like Boyce, Manly, Broadus, Dagg, Mell, Mercer, and others cannot be moral models for contemporary Southern Baptists so far as slavery goes, why are we implored by Dr. Mohler and others to follow some of the founders in their rigid, stiff Calvinism?

Dr. Mohler also erroneously suggests it was not until “well into the twentieth century that any knowledgeable person could claim that Southern Baptists were anything but Calvinists.” Really?  Not according to some experts—at least in the rigid sense Dr. Mohler accepts. For example, the most recent definitive history of Baptist origins in the state of Alabama was published in 1998 by the University of Alabama Press, a history entitled Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie, written by Professor Wayne Flynt. He writes,

"No Biblical dispute shaped early Alabama Baptists so profoundly as Calvinism...Although Baptists were Calvinists in the general sense of that term, they modified the doctrine" (p.26)

"If Charleston, South Carolina provides the clearest ancestry for Calvinism, Sandy Creek, North Carolina, lays firmest claim to the revival tradition.  Ardent, charismatic, emotional, independent, Biblicist, the Sandy Creek tradition merged elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism" (p.27)

If Mohler is correct that it wasn’t until well into the twentieth century that Baptists in the south were anything other than rigid Calvinists, Dr. Flynt has misread the record. While Flynt does say that Alabama Baptists were Calvinists, they were nonetheless Calvinists in the general sense of that term for the simple reason they had modified the Calvinist doctrine.  Paige Patterson allegedly implied virtually the same to Reisinger in 1981:

It would be inappropriate and dishonest for me to deny that Dr. [Tom] Nettles and Ernest Reisinger are more Calvinistically turned than I am. You would be correct in your assumption that I would reject the concept of a limited atonement as it is most frequently defined in Calvinistic theology, and would even want to be sure I heard the definitions on three others of the traditional points of Calvinism. However, if the two poles under consideration are Calvinism and Arminianism, I am certainly far more Calvinistic than anything else (//link, embolden added)

Patterson appeared to concede that, granting for argument’s sake the notorious but undesirable either/or theological polarization routinely pitched at Southern Baptists who do not identify with either Calvinism or Arminianism but Biblicism, he definitely fit Calvinism more than Arminianism. For aggressive Calvinists, this remains unacceptable as the recent essay by William “Bill” Harrell makes clear—“We are right and you must agree.”   Moreover, Flynt also speaks of the unspeakable tributary to the Baptist movement absent amongst truncated views of Baptist history visible in Dr. Nettles’ historiography—a theological mingling of Calvinism and Arminianism in the Sandy Creek tradition. For aggressive Calvinism, apparently any step from the undiluted doctrines of grace—at least the way they interpret them—is a step toward liberalism, humanism, and unorthodoxy⁴.

Nor does it seem Dr. Mohler is aware of Z.T. Cody’s provocative essay around the turn of the twentieth century. Though not well known today, Dr. Z.T. Cody (1858-1935) stands as no stranger to either Southern Baptists in general nor to Georgia Baptists particularly.  While Alabamian by birth, Cody attended Mercer University, was ordained to ministry by the Second Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA and later received a D.D. degree from Bowden College, GA.

Dr. Cody was a sophisticated “theologian of the first rank”— according to the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists.  He studied under famed Calvinist theologian, Professor James P. Boyce, receiving his Master of Theology degree in 1887 from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.

Dr. Cody served Southern Baptists in the South well, being appointed to various significant committees at all levels of denominational life.  He served as Vice President of the Home Mission Board in 1898 and was Pastor of several churches in the South, not the least of which was the historic First Baptist Church, Greenville, SC (1901-1911), where he gained wide popularity and earned deep respect from not only South Carolina Baptists but Baptists all over the south.

In an essay entitled, Are Baptists Calvinists? Cody was decisive and clear:

The so-called "five points of Calvinism" are the essential doctrines of the system.  Men have forgotten them now but they were once as familiar as the letters of the alphabet.  They are, particular predestination, limited atonement, natural inability, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints.  Now if this is the system that constitutes Calvinism it is again very certain that Baptists are not Calvinists.

This system can be, it is true, found in some of the older confessions of faith and it was at that time held by some Baptist churches.  It is also true that there are now many of our churches which hold some of the doctrines of this system.  All Baptist churches, so far as we know, hold to the perseverance of the saints.  But it can be very confidently affirmed that there is now no Baptist church that holds or defends the five points of Calvinism.  Some of the doctrines are repugnant to our people.  Could there be found a minister in our communion who believes in the theory of a limited atonement? (//link, embolden added)

Unless Dr. Mohler judges the turn of the century “well into the twentieth century” it’s hardly persuasive to argue as does Dr. Mohler that it was not until “well into the twentieth century” that any “knowledgeable person” could claim that Southern Baptists were anything but Calvinists.

Historical oversights like these can embarrass even the brightest among us. In addition, historical oversights can also blind us to our own history. Southern Baptists are and always have been a mixed breed of believers (i.e. Calvinists and non-Calvinists). Our tenacious adherence to the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local congregation creates a nightmare for those like Drs. Mohler and Nettles who apparently want to demonstrate an exclusive soteriological vision among Southern Baptists which matches their own. When will we stop denying the deep Baptist waters from which Southern Baptists emerged in the 19th century, waters deep enough and shores wide enough to carry the missionary battleship that has historically come to be known as the Southern Baptist Convention?

With that, I am…

Peter

¹Thomas K. Ascol and Nathan A. Finn editors, Founders Press, 2011, $29.95 Hardback. At a chapel service at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on November 10, Dr. Nettles was presented the debut copy by Tom Ascol, director of Founders Ministries

²We assume Hulse has rightly quoted Mohler since no source is specifically cited for Mohler’s words. It could be vol. three of Nettles’ work mentioned on the previous page but one cannot be sure

³Baptist Confessions of Faith, William L. Lumpkin, pp.100-101; in 1610, “A Short Confession of Faith” was produced by the “Helwys party”also bearing Arminian or “General Baptist” tendencies

⁴see Reisinger’s clear view here

Comments

[lmalone]

"Should we have 50% reformed teachers and 50% non reformed?
"

IMHO, this will not work for the simple reason that the NC 50% sincerely believe the other non NC 50% are not theologically minded.

[mary]

Steve Evans, no I don't think 50/50 nonReformed/Reformed is a good idea - if the SBC is majority nonReformed why should it be equal representatiion?

The problem isn't do you have reformed v nonreformed professors, the problem is are the seminaries allowed to take one view and teach it as THE biblical view, THE correct view over the other? Al Mohler seems to believe that he can decide to take over a seminary and that HE will decide what is the TRUTH for the seminary over what the majority of the SBC believes. It's as Peter stated so well above - we're in the same mess we were in when the liberals were in attempting to take over. A few men coming in and deciding to take the entire SBC into a direction opposing the majority view of the SBC.

There is an agenda to reform the SBC. Anybody still denying that is denying reality. The question now becomes will all those Calvinists who claim to want unity and claim that oh no we don't want to get rid of the nonCalvinist in the SBC - where are they? Are they going to start denouncing what Al Mohler and Co are doing at Southern? Are they going to stand with those of us who want to see changes with how the seminaries are being run?

Regarding Mohler, Driscoll and Mahaney. I don't want some mealy mouth statement from Mohler that Driscoll sometimes goes too far, but he's a good guy mostly. Mark Driscoll has an obsession with sex and now his obsession with sex has led him to believe that God is giving him "visions" of sexual violence. Mark Driscoll is a hero to the YRR of the SBC and Al Mohler should be leading that group which he's helped indoctrinate through the years. CP monies were used to bring Driscoll to at least Southeastern against the wishes of Southern Baptist - the man is a misogynist, nobody who speaks about their wife in public the way Driscoll has in demeaning terms can claim to have any respect for women. No one in the SBC shold have anything to do with this man - certainly not our so-called "leaders"

Now "Apostle" Mahaney has been running a cult. Evidence has been posted all over the internet about the abuses going on in SGM through the years. Mohler along with Mark Dever are now trying to censor the evidence against Mahaney by attacking people trying to bring the evidence to light. Dever is said to have told his congregation not to read anything against Mahaney.

It's astounding that when a man is accused of embellishing his resume/past and happens to be a nonCalvinist that volumes are written all over the internet and yet a man like Mahaney who now is being accused of protecting sexual predators in his cult but because he's a Calvinist he's protected by silence. If Driscoll and Mahaney were nonCalvinist Al Mohler and Mark Dever would be looking for jobs because of their protection of these men.

The SBC should have nothing to do with anything to do with either of these two men. And yes that includes Acts 29 as long as Driscoll is in charge. Driscoll should not be in charge of anything anywhere.

[mary]

lmalone, you get the point exactly re Driscoll. The YRR is a monster - if you come out against one of their idols you would get wailing and gnashing (sp Eileen???) Mohler being a political animal doesn't want to tick off his base of support by going against their idol.

[Steve Evans]

Mary, I was only saying that it would be a good start to have a 50/50 split. I agree wholeheartedly that the overwhelming majority of the SBC is non-calvinist. I desire to be considered a baptist not a calvinist of arminian. So, no disagreement with you on aforementioned opinion.

[Steve Evans]

BTW, at our convention in South Carolina last week while voting on the GCR an Acts 29 pastor ran from one mic to one all the way across the hall to call the question and hence limit ANY debate on the GCR. I was livid because it was clearly a set up job by the convention to railroad through the vote without allowing ANY time for debate. I know, I know it's off the subject but it shows the acts 29 crowd's desire to push an agenda.

[Jerry Corbaley]

There may be useful facts in this comment stream, but it is very unpleasant to search for them. It is like coming upon a brawl in full bloom; it is hard to consider the curses of the combatants as possibly being objective enough to trust.

[mary]

Steve, I think too, and I don't know if this was your intention but it makes me think this - I used to think, well let's let Southern be the Calvinist Seminary and hold the line with the other Seminaries - we'll divvy up the seminaries in some formal custody agreement. The problem with that is it does divide us along Calvinist/nonCalvinist lines and then the CP gets messed up with people contributing to the seminaries they affiliate with. Plus the seminaries belong to the SBC not the Calvinists or the nonCalvinists - why has it ever been ok for everyone to refer to Southern as the Calvinist Seminary? It's the SBC's Seminary and should reflect and serve the SBC. It does not serve the SBC at this time.

The whole GCR thing is more of the same agenda from the elites - it's trying to cover up the activities of the elites with the idea that there are those of us who care about the Great Commission and then some of us don't if we question the elites. It's holding a shiney new object while they can continue doing what they've been doing. If we care about the GCR won't we want to cooperate with these Cavlinist organizations? The GCR and the name change is all a ruse in my opinion to bring in Acts 29 and possibley SGM so there would be more Calvinists to complete the take over.

Jerry Corbaley, what's going on in the SBC isn't pretty and it's not for the faint of heart. Facts have been presented and people can choose to deal with them or ignore them, but I think people are getting the idea about those who would try to discredit the messenger because they can't deal with the facts.

[peter]

My brother Jerry,

I do appreciate both your contribution here and patience in searching for reasonable ideas and or factual data to consider from others. Sometimes, as you well know by experience, emotive language runs rather thick on blog threads. Actually I think this one has been fairly well tame compared to some I have to wade through. Also, I think those tators that may possess too much black pepper are mostly driven by passion for the convention and not necessarily personal animosity toward any one person. At least my hope is that anyway. Even so, point accepted.

I mentioned above my yearning to throw out the question as to whether it's time for Southern Baptists to consider one confession across the board. It is only an undeveloped idea. So far as I know the only entities affected would be seminaries, for those agencies are the ones which employ others confessions other than the BFM2K. I haven't a clue what would be involved in accomplishing such. You having served as trustee on the IMB may have some insight. Also, Dr. Lemke would be a great sounding board on this question. However, it could be a fairly sensitive issue.

Grace, brother. I trust your ministry in the Islands is going well.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Jerry Corbaley]

Aloha Peter,

My concern here is for your cause, and your name, Peter.

Assuming your cause is both factual and communicable; you will raise awareness. When you raise awareness, you will have three kinds of people read your posts and your comment streams. Some will be like-minded. Some will be looking for information. Some will be opposed to you and looking at what you say through a predetermined negative bias.

You, Peter, will most certainly be consigned to the spiritual category that your comment stream tolerates. If it is radical, then you will become radical in the eyes of others. It won't matter how many disclaimers you lay before others. The flavor of the comment stream will stick to the skin of the host.

I think you deserve better.

I agree with you that passion turns up the heat of our rhetoric. It can happen to us all. The like-minded enjoy it. But those who are seeking to learn may conclude that if they happen to disagree with those who are passionate, then all the unfortunate judgmental language will be applied to them for daring to disagree.

I think you deserve better.

When those who come with a bias happen to read rough rhetoric, they are further polarized, and real understanding becomes even more difficult.

I am no better than anyone else, and what I have said here could be said on many blogs. I hope I have not offended anyone.

To those to whom I may sound offensive, let me end with this sentence. Peter's name will be affected by your choice of words; like it or not.

Your brother in Christ; hope to meet you someday.

[Barry King]

Mr Corbaley speaks the truth.

[peter]

Jerry,

I appreciate your candid words, brother. And also our brother Barry's. I shall ponder it deeply over the next few days.

With that, I am...
Peter