Was the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message Calvinistic enough? Mark Dever vs Tom Ascol and Tom Nettles

According to a 1996 Baptist Press article by James A. Smith, Sr., Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington, D.C., urged the revision of the Southern Baptist Convention's 1963 statement of faith while speaking at the 14th annual meeting of the Founders Conference held on the campus of Samford University, Birmingham, Ala. Smith wrote   >>>

Speaking on the topic of "Irresistible Grace," one of the five points of Calvinism, Dever asserted the 1963 version of the Baptist Faith and Message leans more toward the Roman Catholic position of salvation by works than the traditional Protestant position of salvation as a gift of grace from God.¹

Dever quoted from Article IV, section A of the statement, which says:

"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. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour."

Smith then records Dever's explanation :

"I do not hear that they are wrought by the Spirit of God. I do not hear that they are gifts given. I hear they're things that we do. I hear Schleiermacher in that 'experiences of grace,'" referring to the 19th century German theologian. "Faith is not a meritorious work of man on the basis of which God accepts the sinner," Dever said. "It is a gracious gift of God by which he converts us."  

Speaking of the 1963 statement, Dever said, "I'm not asking for it to become an exclusively Calvinistic document. I simply want it to rejoin its long line of Baptist predecessors ... and end this 30-year exile. I want it to come home and be more clearly Protestant!"

Curiously, Smith notes that in an interview with Dever he had following his speech, Dever stressed he could sign the 1963 confession "happily."

In addition, Smith reports both Tom Ascol and Tom Nettles' reaction to Mark Dever's call to change the 1963 BF&M. 

Of Ascol, Smith reports:

Although he agreed the statement could be strengthened, Tom Ascol, coordinator of the Founders Conference, said in an interview, "I see no significant purpose that could be served" by amending the confession at this time.

And, Tom Nettles is reported to have responded to Dever:

"I think that the phrase 'inseparable experiences of grace' is clearly consistent with the position that Baptists have taken on that issue in the past and, therefore, do not feel the same alarm that Mark (Dever) does. I would not issue a call for revision for the sake of that one issue," said Nettles who also serves on the planning committee of the Founders Conference.

Dever is correct the 1963 statement "is not as explicit as some former confessions," Nettles added. "I agree with the central burden of Mark Dever's concern that the confession be more bold and explicit in its articles concerning the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ," Nettles said.

If I read the Smith article correctly, while Mark Dever had grave concerns over the 1963 BF&M and called for it to be revised since it sounded more like a "works" salvation statement, he was not necessarily interested in the document becoming an "exclusively Calvinistic document." Whatever the case, Dever indicated he could "happily" sign the document.

On the other hand, neither Ascol nor Nettles appears to have questioned the 1963 statement in any significant way, Ascol indicating he saw nothing in it which called for immediate revision. Nothing was indicated by either Nettles or Ascol about the 1963 statement being much less Calvinistic than the 1925 statement. Nor was it suggested by these men that the 1963 statement reflected a pronounced Arminianism contra our supposed historic Calvinistic heritage.

My how times have changed.

We now are often lectured by our Calvinist brothers how blatantly Arminian the convention became as expressed by the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message. The 1963 BF&M is clearly much less Calvinistic than the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message we are routinely reminded. Even so, the 1963 statement apparently was not so much less Calvinistic than the allegedly much more Calvinistic 1925 statement that even the detractors could not "happily" sign their names to it. 

¹James A. Smith Sr. "Speaker calls for revision of Baptist Faith and Message" Baptist Press 7/29/96 

 

Comments

[lydia]

History is so interesting. :o)

[Louis]

What's the saying, "Where there are 3 Baptists, there are ???? opinions."

The one thing I see here, that I have addressed earlier, is that I sense no desire or energy in the Reformed camp to amend the BFM.

Despite the disagreements with the BFM (and every camp in SBC life has them), these guys could "happily" sign it.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia

Yes it is interesting...

Louis,

You mean strict Calvinists sign the 1963 BF&M with those "big signs" it points to a much less Calvinistic theology than did the 1925 statement? :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[lydia]

"The one thing I see here, that I have addressed earlier, is that I sense no desire or energy in the Reformed camp to amend the BFM."

There is no need to amend something when one can redefine the interpretation/meaning depending on the audience you are talking to at the time. Same with history. All it takes is gravitas and control of entities.

As this gets into more detail and analysis, an instructive lesson would be to go back reread the responses to the Trad statement in several venues.

Seems everything was fine until people started looking too closely and questioning.

[Louis]

Peter:

Yes. I suppose everything can be viewed on a continuum.

Lydia:

You are right. But that is how change comes anyway in most cases. The debate in SBC circles on this issue will continue into the future. Whether it results in any changes to the BFM or the AP or whatever, will have to be seen.

But for now I sense that proponents of one position or the other are arguing for their respective positions - to win hearts and minds.

I don't see any change in the official documents until and unless one side wins over or outlasts the other in a convincing way.

Despite the interesting and significant theological nature of this question, I don't see it as being high on anyone's agenda. Again, that is not to knock or disparage the discussion here in any way. It's just a perception I have about things.

So Mohler is on (and may have lead) the last BFM committee. He and Adrain Rogers were good friends, despite the strong difference of opinion on this question. I heard Adrian speak in Chapel at SBTS not too long before he died. I suspect if Adrian were living, he'd be invited back warmly and often.

Such is SBC life.

I think that is a good thing, and I hope it can be maintained.

[lydia]

"So Mohler is on (and may have lead) the last BFM committee. He and Adrain Rogers were good friends, despite the strong difference of opinion on this question. I heard Adrian speak in Chapel at SBTS not too long before he died. I suspect if Adrian were living, he'd be invited back warmly and often"

Louis, I have been around Christian marketing circles for way too long to buy into what you are selling above. It would be foolish for men in that stratosphere to be anything but "good friends" in the SBC public square. That is not where the fight for power takes place and you know it.

ARogers would not go to SBTS and preach that Calvinism is the "doctrine of demons" no more than Mohler would go to Bellevue and preach that New Calvinism is the only place people who want to see the nations rejoice for Christ, can go.

The key is gaining control of entities and Mohler is winning hands down putting his fellow travellors and loyalists in pivotal positions. For him to be on the "unity" committee after his very public divisive words is what I would call blindness by the SBC leadership and chutzpah by Mohler, himself.

Actually, "in your face", is more like it. He should have been censored and disciplined for proclaiming that some should be marginalized and hinting they were heretics. But instead, he is rewarded.

His biggest problem is yet to come from a strictly PR pov.
. His association with,protection of and promotion of CJ Mahaney, lead Aposlte of the shepherding cult, People of Destiny now known as SGM.

Even to the point of moving to Louisville, after first escaping to the arms of Mark Dever, the to Louisville so he could plant a church near the seminary.

.

[Louis]

Lydia, I believe that most people in the SBC prioritize issues, and that they things that united Mohler and Rogers were greater than the things that divide them. If Rogers were living, that would still be the case.

They would make their respective cases, but would still be friends on the basis of what unites them, not divides them.

Most people in the SBC get that.

So, there's no mystery as to why most people in the SBC continue to reward Mohler. They like him.

They apparently like Mohler and what he has done more than they dislike him.

The association with Mahaney may hurt, or it may just fade.

You know what I heard about Russell Moore? People have been saying that he will replace Land. That may become a place for him for a while, but I have heard that is not the dream job.

Given your knowledge in these things, can you tell me what it is?

[Tim Rogers]

Louis,

If Rogers were living, that would still be the case.

If Rogers were living we would not be embroiled in this debate.

[Lydia]

"Lydia, I believe that most people in the SBC prioritize issues, and that they things that united Mohler and Rogers were greater than the things that divide them. If Rogers were living, that would still be the case.

They would make their respective cases, but would still be friends on the basis of what unites them, not divides them.

Most people in the SBC get that."

I can see your point but I was referring to public faces. The famous airport meeting was read about in a book years later. I was also referring to how things work in that stratosphere generally. I was using AR as an example. I know little about him. But I would be curious how Mohler could be friends with someone who fits into a group he has publicly stated should be marginalized. Not sure how that works. Is there a sort of Christian way to say, 'Hey I insulted you publicly, but I want to be friends in public, too"? Perhaps you could school me on such techniques as I am not sure how that works while one wants to be taken seriously?

I am also curious how he can state that NC is the only place to go if one wants to see the nations rejoice for Christ and not have reservations about the non NC leaders of the SBC. Or, the pew sitters who pay his salary whom he has declared do not want to see the nations rejoice for Christ if one takes his statement to it's logical conclusions. Perhaps his greatness lies in the fact he is willing to condescend to be friends with them?

I think you might have inadvertently made the case there is a lot pretension and disingenuousness in our leadership.

"So, there's no mystery as to why most people in the SBC continue to reward Mohler. They like him. "

Which reduces Christianity to a popularity contest. And cult of personality which is rampent these days.

"They apparently like Mohler and what he has done more than they dislike him."

When we are to the point we prefer SBC employees who have proclaimed that other leaders should be marginalized who do not agree with his Determinist doctrine, then basically we should take stock of who we are, as a group, in Christ.

"The association with Mahaney may hurt, or it may just fade."

I am sure that is being dealt with and as you implied, more and more people don't really care about such associations and probably agree with them. It is a hard hearted position. Chilling for our future.

"You know what I heard about Russell Moore? People have been saying that he will replace Land. That may become a place for him for a while, but I have heard that is not the dream job.

Given your knowledge in these things, can you tell me what it is?"

I would think your tenure on the SBTS Foundation Board would give you more inside knowledge. It would seem such a move would probably be a cut in pay for him without the gravy train of speaking gigs and double dipping at Highview.

I do know some Christian businessmen here are not real impressed with Moore especially after his blogging lecture to BP on the Gulf Oil Spill. There are some things that people in Ivory Towers who have no real world experience should just keep mum about and this could be a form of ignorance about "Christian" ethics.

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

How are you. It's been too long. And, I'm not really wanting to wade into this particular debate. But I do have an honest question. You said referring to Al Mohler and Adrian Rogers,

"But I would be curious how Mohler could be friends with someone who fits into a group he has publicly stated should be marginalized."

I've seen you make that kind of broad sweep about what Mohler said, as if he was saying he wants to marginalize everyone who disagrees with him.

I looked back at the quote from him where that "marginalize" word was used. Here it is:

"This conversation will marginalize those whose influence should be marginalized — those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists from each other."

How would "...those who have a party spirit, who play into tribalism, or who want to divide Southern Baptists from each other" apply to Adrian Rogers?

Now I am fully aware that you care not for Mohler as a SBC leader and I know many of the public reasons you have indicated that. So respectfully I don't need you to go into all that.

But it seems to me that Mohler was targeted on who he thought should be marginalized and I don't see how that would include people like AR.

Can you help me out?

Thanks Lydia.

[Louis]

Tim Rogers:

That is an interesting thought. I had not thought about it before you said it.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that.

[Louis]

Lydia:

The answer to all of your questions is that I did not use pretension, personality contest, or hard hearted.

You have reached judgments about why those descriptions are apt. I don't share those judgments, and apparently most in the SBC do not either. They simply see things differently and don't reach the conclusions that you do, which I believe are heart felt on your part. I know that you think they should, which is how we all feel about our own opinions - they should be everybody's!

Since you don't claim to have any insights on Dr. Moore's trajectory, I will leave you in suspense.

How about those "some Christian businessmen?"

Some people have lots of opinions.

[Lydia]

Les, I look at a persons words and actions. Mohler is one to talk about 'tribes'. He has been the leader of the the YRR divisive tribe in the SBC. He talks out of both sides of his mouth, often, depending on the audience. And I continue to be amazed at how his words must be parsed for us. I know the party line is to spin words and not take ALL his words and actions over the last 8 or so years into consideration. I stopped playing those games a few years back. Those who want to see it will see it. Many who see it, will pretend it is not there for the sake of some false unity or for the sake of a job or because they are afraid of looking mean. Heaven forbid anyone utters a negative truth.

My hope is for a free church once again where we stop with the cult of personality stuff. We have quite enough gurus. More Jesus, please.

Louis, Cult of personality is a powerful, alluring thing. Humans love to align themselves with those in movements they see as powerful and truth. And it allures many. Numbers should never be our guide. It is not that hard to garner followers as many are easily drawn to follow "great men". I have seen several mega church built on such thinking. And there is always an element of cult of personality involved. And it ain't Jesus.

personally I don't care if I am the only person in the galaxy who sees through Mohler. Or Mahaney his BFF, or Driscoll our Acts 29 church planting partner for several years until he became too embarassing.

I am sure there are great things in store for Russ Moore. :o)

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

I didn't really expect an answer. I thought it appropriate to ask though. As my comments above point out, you have taken Mohler's words out of their context (more than once), especially as related to Adrian Rogers.

But what could you do really? Divert? Or admit I was right in what I said and implied in my questions? You chose to divert and go back to tribalism. Total dodge, except for your perceptions about how Mohler acts. His words speak for themselves in this case. Your perceptions of his acts are, well, your perceptions.

Good to catch up again.

Les

[:Lydia]

"I didn't really expect an answer. I thought it appropriate to ask though. As my comments above point out, you have taken Mohler's words out of their context (more than once), especially as related to Adrian Rogers."

No Les, I took his comments out of YOUR perceived context. Since MOhler has been extremely divisive, admonishing others for tribalism is about as hypocritical as one can get. Of course, you do not agree he has been divisive. I would not expect you to.

Keep in mind, I am thinking of MOhler's words and actions over at least an 8 year period. You cannot discount his divisive tribal words with T4G/YRR/GC audiences. Well, you can but I cannot. Either he is consistent or he is not.

Rogers was just an example because of his gravitas and non Calvinistic beliefs.

The absolute worst thing that could happen to Mohler is if some of the leadership actually stood up to him. Won't happen, though and Mohler knows that all too well.

[Les Prouty]

Thanks Lydia for the exchange. Have a blessed day in Jesus.

Les

[lydia]

"Have a blessed day in Jesus."

Is there any other kind? :o)

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

Ha ha! You got me there. There is no other kind. I find myself using sometimes. It is a quite commonly used phrase by the pastors and Christians in general in Haiti. "Have a blessed day in Jesus." "I love you in Jesus." "I love you brother." "How are you my brother."

Anyway, when I'm there and then when I come back their phraseology sort of sticks with me. They have an incredible consciousness of Jesus and it comes out in their conversation and greetings, etc.

So, my sister, have a blessed day in Jesus.