Esteemed Southern Baptist Historian, Thomas J. Nettles on the formation, decline, and comeback of the Southern Baptist Convention

 

source

In 2014, Thomas J. Nettles retired as professor of historical theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he had taught since 1997. Dr. Nettles' theological instruction spanned a full 38 years in the classroom of various theological institutions including Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Nettles is considered by many to be one of the foremost Baptist historians alive today.

Beginning early in the 1980s, two of his books, one of which was co-authored by the late L. Russ Bush, ranked a special shelf life close to my study desk. Bush, L. Russ, and Tom J. Nettles. Baptists and the Bible: The Baptist Doctrines of Biblical Inspiration and Religious Authority in Historical Perspective. Moody Publishers, 1980. Nettles, Thomas J. By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines Of Grace in Baptist Life. Baker, 1986.

The first volume became the Conservative Resurgence's first theological textbook used in recovering Southern Baptists' lost notion of biblical inerrancy, while the second volume would be used beyond the goal Conservative Resurgence architects envisioned by attempting to recover what Nettles believed was the lost notion of theological Calvinism. As I recall, Nettles (and a few others) understood that biblical inerrancy was only the first phase of what needed to take place in the convention. Phase two of the Conservative Resurgence would be a recovery of the historic doctrines of grace as preached and believed by the most prominent founders of the Southern Baptist Convention--James P. Boyce, J. L. Dagg, and W. B. Johnson to name a few. In short, the Conservative Resurgence which focused on recovering biblical inerrancy would neither work nor be complete or successful without a Calvinist Resurgence which would focus on recovering the doctrines of grace (i.e. five-point Calvinism).¹

At that time, I embraced with hardly a question the theological presumptions and consequent moorings of both volumes. The first church I was privileged to serve as pastor was a Founders-friendly church, a delightful church and one from which I gained life-long Christian friends to this day (those who know me now know that while I still stand without apology on biblical inerrancy, I no longer share the theological moorings of strict, systematic Calvinism).  

I offer this snapshot of my earlier life as a young Southern Baptist pastor simply to state I am no stranger to Tom Nettles. Like thousands of other Southern Baptists, we count him one of our teachers though we've never stepped one foot into his lecture hall. Rather we know him only through the printed page similar to the way the present Baptist generation knows either Boyce, Dagg, Mullins, or Manly. Thus, Dr. Nettles deserves to be honored for his biblical-theological scholarship, his ceaseless inquiry into Baptist history, and his undeniable passion for our rich heritage.

Below is an interview with Tom Nettles by Founders Ministries' Executive Director, Tom Ascol. Dr. Ascol serves as Senior Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida , and, along with Nettles, is one of seven original members of the Founders Conference movement beginning in 1982.

In the interview, Nettles comments upon the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845; the decline of the convention he believes begins around 1919 or so; and today's "young, restless, and reformed" community (what some call neo-Calvinists).  

It's no secret I'm personally unconvinced by Nettles' historiography which, in my view, appears to be unacceptably reductionistic; that is, I don't think Dr. Nettles' conclusions adequately address an enormous amount of historical data which seems to dilute his over-all thesis that Southern Baptists held almost universally both a robust confessionalism and a strongly Calvinistic theology up until circa 1919.

Please know I do not consider myself to be in the same scholarly category as Dr. Nettles. Indeed few Southern Baptists are (or any other Christians for that matter).  Nettles' scholarly reputation and impressive credentials remain beyond dispute. But two replies are in order.

First, I or anyone else with an inquiring mind can examine the very same primary sources Dr. Nettles can (so far as our Southern Baptist heritage is concerned). Primary and early secondary sources for Baptist history are abundantly available in libraries everywhere and even online. While one must have sufficient judicial skills to deduce reasonable inferences from the historical record, one needs only the will and directed passion to uncover a chest full of historic treasures lying around in the Baptist closet.

Second, as free church believers, Baptists cannot afford to leave either their theology or their history to the "professionals." Arguably, a significant slice of the very occasion leading to the need for a Conservative Resurgence in 1979 was the abject absence of grassroots Baptists in the academic life of the Southern Baptist Convention. This, of course, does not imply we minimize the academic role of scholarship in the development of our faith's community conscience. Rather it's to affirm that neither should we minimize the biblical role of the priesthood of the believer in the development of our faith community.      

Thus, in the weeks to come I hope to ask a few questions I think Nettles' brief historical overview raises as well as cite some sources in which he appears to inadequately address.

If you're historically interested in Calvinism's influence in the Southern Baptist Convention, it doesn't get any better than Tom Nettles--at least from the Calvinists themselves.

I hope you'll take the time to watch and/or listen to the interview below.

¹Given this presupposition, it makes perfect sense why Albert Mohler would make the following claim in Christianity Today: 'Non-Calvinist conservatives, Mohler says, "are not aware of the basic structures of thought, rightly described as Reformed, that are necessary to protect the very gospel they insist is to be eagerly shared."' In other words, absent the intellectual protection that apparently only Reformed theology might offer, the gospel cannot stand. It follows inerrancy is moot apart from Reformed theology.

Comments

[Scott Shaver]

At the risk of sounding crass, if you look up the word "reductionist" there should be a picture of Dr. Tom Nettles.

This should be interesting, thanks Pete.

[JND]

Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that Nettles' thesis were 100% correct. Wouldn't that just mean that that's one more thing our great-great granddaddies were wrong about?

What am I missing?

[peter lumpkins]

JND, I think you are essentially correct, the correctness of which is built upon the sound principle that just because our forefathers believed X, it doesn't follow we must/should believe X too. But such a principle concerns the ought not the is or, in this case, the was since we're speaking of historical happenings not contemporary ones. Pursuing what was the case about Baptist belief should not be convoluted into what ought to be the case of what Baptists believe.

[Scott Shaver]

Just goes to show you that "scholarly credentials" are like the curly tails on a pig. They're cute but they don't add any more pork. Some of these "scholars" are the most out-to-lunch people I've ever met.

[Max]

Scott writes "Just goes to show you that 'scholarly credentials' are like the curly tails on a pig."

Education does not produce one ounce of revelation.

[Max]

I do believe that is "Crystal Geyser Alpine Spring Water" which Ascol and Nettles are drinking in the video ... or "geezer" water in their case. Only scholarly geezers would toss out priesthood of the believer and soul competency as key Baptist doctrines which distinguished the SBC for over 150 years. As I said before, education does not produce one ounce of revelation.

[Lydia]

"Pursuing what was the case about Baptist belief should not be convoluted into what ought to be the case of what Baptists believe."

This is what I could never understand. The concept of SBC Founders as restoring the Gospel is, for one, a PR disaster. People can read history. You can't pretend the reason/events for the SBC founding is not embarrassing. Confederate Chaplains, pro slaver Founders, slaves as Gods plan, etc.

I am thankful the SBC evolved to embrace free will. It was a decent place in my neck of the woods before the church growth movement and the Neo Cal resurgence. Not so anymore here.

[Max]

"Confederate Chaplains, pro slaver Founders, slaves as Gods plan, etc."

Slave-holding Southern Baptists (both in the pulpit and pew) believed sovereign God was on their side in the Civil War, until early Confederate victories turned to defeat. Following the war, SBC began to not only distance itself from racial sin but the theology which was used to justify it. For the last 150 years, it has been a free church in a lot of ways. Roots just need to stay hidden while the branches flourish.

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

Nettles acknowledges the blotch of slavery as one of the issues resulting in the formation of the convention. He seems, however, to minimize its role by citing other issues leading to the SBC consequently making slave-owning equal to or no more significant than the others. I think that's entirely too mild.

More importantly, while Nettles affirms most of the founders (i.e. Boyce, Manly, Johnson, et al) embraced slavery, a belief SBs today vehemently reject, they nonetheless got the gospel right (i.e. 5-point Calvinism). This, I think strikes closely to what you're suggesting. A question the professor might want to consider is, how could the same biblical hermeneutic they employed lead to complete error on one hand (slavery) and glorious truth on the other (strict Calvinism)? Is the reason we came to different conclusions on slavery because we adjusted their method in interpreting the Bible? If so, would this adjustment account, at least in part, for strict Calvinism waning also since their hermeneutic that led to slavery was adjusted, it followed their strict Calvinism would also be adjusted?

Assuming this to be the case, it would follow then that going back to the hermeneutic that led to strict Calvinism would mean going back to the hermeneutic that led to slavery. Would this not at least make one pause?

I don't know. Just thinking out loud...

[Lydia]

"A question the professor might want to consider is, how could the same biblical hermeneutic they employed lead to complete error on one hand (slavery) and glorious truth on the other (strict Calvinism)? Is the reason we came to different conclusions on slavery because we adjusted their method in interpreting the Bible? If so, would this adjustment account, at least in part, for strict Calvinism waning also since their hermeneutic that led to slavery was adjusted, it followed their strict Calvinism would also be adjusted?"

You have read enough SBC history to know better than me the trajectory but that is what I think actually happened. I mean how wrong can you get it and continue as deterministic? So the focus to go back to SBC Founding doctrine never made sense to me.

But I have to wonder if the ecclesiology evolved, too?

When I was growing up SBC, elders was something the Frozen Chosen had. Not us. Hierarchy was a big no no.

I look at the story of my maternal grandparents who married around 1910 much older than most for that time. They had been at college and moved back to teach school and start a business. The only church in their new community was SBC. She was Methodist. They were both from a long line of Abolitionists. My grandmothers work on Romans (from classes at Moody) shows no hint of determinism at all. She was a bit of a Catherine Booth type and no way would she have felt comfortable in a deterministic church. The SBC they were part of had no elders. They were very involved with the convention, seminary and WMU hosting missionaries and such. She was no stranger to teaching men and working to shut down bars as the stories are legendary in our family. :o)

Kentucky is not always a good indicator for the South so that may be part of it. But, I do believe the decades after that horror of a war had many rethinking what they believed and most likely the generation after the war made changes from the deterministic paradigm of their grandfather's ....much like the generation after the Puritans which include some of our Founding Fathers like Sam and John Adams who were reading Law, Locke and their Bibles.

Still, I think most Calvinists today would dismiss the hermeneutic question with the tired excuse, 'they were just men of their time'. Not that their hermeneutic actually endorsed a historical human scourge on society.

[Robert Vaughn]

"...Baptists cannot afford to leave either their theology or their history to the 'professionals'."

Amen to that. And yet, for the most part, with the subject of our history we have done just that.

[Max]

"... Baptists cannot afford to leave either their theology or their history to the "professionals."

I spent a long career managing teams of professional chemists and toxicologists. One thing I discovered early on was that intellectual folks were not always very smart. In fact, many of the most highly-educated scientists that I worked with didn't have a lick of common sense! As I became more involved in SBC churches, I discovered that ivory-tower theologians and seminary professors just did not stack up with common folks who were filled with the Holy Spirit when it came to proper exegesis of Scripture. The "professionals" are just too entrenched in making sure that the jots and tittles line up with their theology, no matter how much they have to twist Scripture for it to fit.

The best Bible teachers I've had over the last 60+ years never went to college or seminary. They immersed themselves in the Word of God, entrusted their study to the Holy Spirit to teach them, and then administered spiritual life to their students. In SBC life, we have largely surrendered the ground to intellectuals and theologians who are leading us down rabbit holes, having relegated the Holy Spirit to the back pew resulting in very little revelation now coming forth in SBC ranks. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with education - I have too much - but education does not produce one ounce of revelation.

[Lydia]

Max, I can remember my PhD poly sci prof extolling the greatness of Mao like it was yesterday. I sat stunned. How could dumb old me know different?

[Scott Shaver]

Let's face it. The entire "Founders" movement came into existence to change the trajectory of the Southern Baptist Convention during a time when it was at war with itself via the shibboleths of "inerrancy".

The mission has not changed nor most of its primary players.

[peter lumpkins]

What many fail to see is the role Founders has played in hoisting so many of today's key power players into national prominence. It would be hard to name an SBC power broker among our entities who was absent from the platform of Founders Conference over the last 20 years. We can start with Al Mohler and Russell Moore.

[JND]

Peter,

Thanks for your response and to others that followed. I have, from time to time, been a bit cranky in my comments here. I appreciate the chance to participate.

Merry Christmas to all!

[Max]

Peter wrote "What many fail to see is the role Founders has played in hoisting so many of today's key power players into national prominence."

I was at a thrift shop yesterday and ran across Tom Ascol's book "From the Protestant Reformation to the Southern Baptist Convention, What Hath Geneva To Do with Nashville." I thought about spending a dollar for it to see what made Mr. Ascol tick, then laid it back down after a slimy feeling came over me.

As it turned out in recent years, Geneva has had a lot to do with Nashville!

[Scott Shaver]

Peter is right about the role of Founders in the current SBC quagmire and its power brokers.

Articles like the one just posted at Pravda by Bart Barber serve to illustrate just how far the theological bar has been lowered among otherwise astute Southern Baptists in hopes of coexisting "peacefully" with the "Founders" element of SBC life.

Since inception, when has the "Founders" element ever played the role of "peacemaker" among SBC theologs?

Even SBC rank and filers have become a strange and mixed breed over the lat 20 years. Interesting to watch.

At some point I'm looking for the primary statistical reason for folks giving up their allegiances to the SBC to be primarily that they "grew up".

[Lydia]

"What many fail to see is the role Founders has played in hoisting so many of today's key power players into national prominence. It would be hard to name an SBC power broker among our entities who was absent from the platform of Founders Conference over the last 20 years. We can start with Al Mohler and Russell Moore."

I admit I had no clue. It seems to come off as power grabbing using "correct Doctrine" as the beard.

Scott,

Bart is the Rodney King of the SBC. Let's just forget the years of deception and stealth power grabbing and pretend it never happened. Now you are a sinner if you don't go along and trust the deceptive thugs.

Why people feel compelled to go along, I will never understand. They have proved untrustworthy for crying out loud.

[Max]

Scott wrote "Even SBC rank and filers have become a strange and mixed breed over the lat 20 years."

Yep, I'm just as alarmed by hybrid Calvinists/non-Calvinists in SBC ranks as I am the New Calvinists which are coming in by the gobs. SBC hybrids are those who are willing to accept any theology as long as you don't mess with the potluck dinners. The SBC has been easy pickins' for the new reformation because multitudes of hybrids just don't care enough to challenge it. If their pastors (at 45,000+ churches) won't stand against New Calvinism, why should they bother?

[Scott Shaver]

Along that line, Max, perhaps the biblical role, work and office of pastor needs some good old-fashioned and prayerful re-examination.

And not necessarily en masse by those holding "advanced" theological degrees so much as those who seek God in Christ with their whole hearts under the Spirits guidance

[Max]

Scott, most holding advanced theological degrees rely on their intellects rather than the Spirit's guidance. Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention has been successful because the SBC masses bought the lie that those with advanced degrees must also be spiritual and therefore right. Alongside this has been a de-emphasis in SBC ranks on teaching long-held Baptist doctrines of priesthood of the believer and soul competency ... that every believer is a priest and can hear God himself. When you toss those aside as non-essentials, direction of the Church is held in the hands of a few elites.

[Scott Shaver]

Except for those of us who don't recognize "the elites" as final authority