« Formerly homeless man and Liberty graduate publishes Christmas Book | Main | Was the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Calvinistic enough? Mark Dever vs Tom Ascol and Tom Nettles »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kyle B. Gulledge

Good post. Thank you and Dr. Harwood for continuing to shine the light on this issue.


Wonder if the "unity" committee, which includes Mohler, ironically, is asking these questions or is he busy marginalizing people as he threatened would happen after the Trad statement.


This is an interesting post.

It is an interesting debate among theologians that should continue.

I like Dr. Harwood's writing and he has a good mind.

I do not agree with his prescription - that SBTS issue clarifications.

SBTS has had the AP since its founding. SBTS has been viewed to be in the Southern Baptist family with the SBC's adoption of the BFM starting in 1925 and coming forward.

So SBTS's embrace of the AP precedes the BFM. The Convention's adoption of the BFM and embrace of Southern simultaneously, AP and all, is chalked up to one of those moments in denominational history that folks are not happy about.

What to do about it now?


I am not going to do anything, and I do not know any Reformed persons who plan to do anything about it.

The Convention will not do anything about it because the only options available to it are to not send funds to Southern and to elect Southern's trustees. The former will not happen. The later will happen, but will not have much affect.

Until then, I am glad that this is being discussed.

Adam Harwood


Thank you for highlighting my recent essays. My goal in raising this issue is to facilitate a peaceable discussion which might result in greater clarity among Southern Baptists on this theological difference.

Your post helps raise awareness among fellow Southern Baptists. I appreciate it. I regret that I may not be able to interact tonight with your readers. (I'll attend one of my children's school programs tonight and return to a stack of final exams which require grading before noon tomorrow.)


Thanks for your kind remarks.

My Nov. 29 essay resulted from a SBTS professor's presentation on inherited guilt. In that earlier essay, I asked about the relationship between the AP and BFM.

Today's essay isn't about the AP. Rather, today's essay attempts to demonstrate that the SBTS faculty exposition of the BFM (a document on the SBTS web site) may be at odds with the BFM itself. If the SBTS published interpretation of the BFM conflicts with the BFM, then it seems that one of those documents will need to be revised.

The primary point of today's essay is revealed in its thesis: "Does Southern Seminary have an institutional commitment to a theological position which is not affirmed in the BFM and excludes many Southern Baptists?"


In Him,

Ben Simpson

Peter, you are really perfecting the meta-blog as of late. Keep up the work!

Dr.Harwood has certainly risen to the forefront as one of the leading "Traditionalist" theologians. This is a conversation worth having, but I'm not sure if Dr Schreiner and Dr Mohler will enter the debate. Perhaps they'll let Harwood tire of riding his hobby horse first.

Adam Harwood


Thanks for your note. I've not suggested that anyone enter a debate. In what way would that be profitable? Rather, I've asked that a theological position published by one of our SBC institutions be clarified.

If by "hobby horse" you mean theological inquiry, then no. If the Lord wills, I'll ride it until this issue is resolved in the SBC.

Ben, we may differ on certain theological positions but we are brothers for whom Christ shed His precious blood. You, me, Mohler, Schreiner, Lumpkins... we're all brothers.

In Him,


"The Convention will not do anything about it because the only options available to it are to not send funds to Southern and to elect Southern's trustees. The former will not happen. The later will happen, but will not have much affect."

There has to be funds to send. We are already hearing the same tired worn out admonitions from Ezell speaking to pastors in Knoxville not to be "cranky" in affirming NAMB's new direction. This is the typical false dichotomy: If you disagree with me, you are cranky and therefore sinning by implication. It is the refuge of tyrannical thinking. It is all they have. I hope people in the SBC do not fall for it but I suspect too many in a certain age group have already been indoctrinated and are not trained as independent thinkers.



Thanks for the clarification, which I should have perceived more clearly.

I do not know how faculty statements like this are generated or produced. Maybe a modification will be in the future.

Also, I do not agree with the statement that believing in the non-reformed view is unorthodox.

My own thinking on this is that there are NT verses indicating universal guilt by virture of Adam's act.

But I would add that I do not know how God treats infants and the mentally incapacitated. I am sure that He is just in all of this dealings, so I trust Him.

I cannot find sufficient warrant to say that all infants go to heaven and that all of the mentally disabled go there, too.

I can say that all such persons are received by God who is just, and that He deals with them in a just way. We just don't know how or what he does.

Adam Harwood


Thanks for your comments. It's a pleasure to engage with you on this important and often sensitive topic.

In Him,

The comments to this entry are closed.