SBC and Calvinism

[MightyManfred]

Well, Al Mohler responded to the controversy this morning. I just wish that Dr. Mohler would have been a bit more firm & reminded his readers that Semi-Pelagianism isn't just a view "that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied," but also was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Orange (529 AD).

AlbertMohler.com – Southern Baptists and Salvation: It’s Time to Talk

Thanks for posting this. I agree - I expected a more firm response from Mohler and am disappointing to see him declare the Baptist Faith & Message to be a confession of faith. It fails to be that type of document in myriad ways.

 

[Jake]

Two ministers from the church I am a member of have signed it. I had a feeling this was coming. Ironically, there are other 5 point Calvinists on staff. This is just going to create more division over the issue in that church.

(For the record, I no longer attend the church)

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Surely, Dr. Mohler will come out with a "substantive" response. In my humble opinion, he overplayed the "gracious" card. I heard Adrian Rogers preach against every point of Calvinism, other than "P." So, to say he was not "tribal" is somewhat amazing. Founders has done a decent job responding.

 

[extolHIM]

Well, Al Mohler responded to the controversy this morning. I just wish that Dr. Mohler would have been a bit more firm & reminded his readers that Semi-Pelagianism isn't just a view "that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied," but also was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Orange (529 AD).

AlbertMohler.com – Southern Baptists and Salvation: It’s Time to Talk

I too think that Mohler, while spot on with many points, comes off as soft here. And then one of Mohler's comments troubled me too...

"It is certainly correct in denying that any person is regenerated “apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.”

In Webster's 1828, regeneration is defined as: "In theology, new birth by the grace of God; that change by which the will and natural enmity of man to God and his law are subdued, and a principle of supreme love to God and his law, or holy affections, are implanted in the heart. He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3."

Yes, faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17), but regeneration is not based on, or proceeded by our responding. That would make Ephesians 2:5 inaccurate. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he is trying to convey, but it sure sounds like he's agreeing to an Arminian belief there. Maybe he's trying to say that, when it's all said and done, if we are truly regenerated, we will have heard the word and we will have responded. If so, he probably should've stated that a little more clearly, cause as-is, it sounds like he's saying that regeneration hinges on our response.

 

[earl40]

Well, Al Mohler responded to the controversy this morning. I just wish that Dr. Mohler would have been a bit more firm & reminded his readers that Semi-Pelagianism isn't just a view "that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied," but also was condemned as a heresy at the Council of Orange (529 AD).

AlbertMohler.com – Southern Baptists and Salvation: It’s Time to Talk

I too think that Mohler, while spot on with many points, comes off as soft here. And then one of Mohler's comments troubled me too...

"It is certainly correct in denying that any person is regenerated “apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.”

In Webster's 1828, regeneration is defined as: "In theology, new birth by the grace of God; that change by which the will and natural enmity of man to God and his law are subdued, and a principle of supreme love to God and his law, or holy affections, are implanted in the heart. He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3."

Yes, faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17), but regeneration is not based on, or proceeded by our responding. That would make Ephesians 2:5 inaccurate. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what he is trying to convey, but it sure sounds like he's agreeing to an Arminian belief there. Maybe he's trying to say that, when it's all said and done, if we are truly regenerated, we will have heard the word and we will have responded. If so, he probably should've stated that a little more clearly, cause as-is, it sounds like he's saying that regeneration hinges on our response.

I see where you could be a tad troubled. Though I think he meant that regeneration always happens when the gospel is heard and believed.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Surely, Dr. Mohler will come out with a "substantive" response. In my humble opinion, he overplayed the "gracious" card. I heard Adrian Rogers preach against every point of Calvinism, other than "P." So, to say he was not "tribal" is somewhat amazing. Founders has done a decent job responding.

Don't forget that Dr. Mohler works for the SBC, so he has to be a little diplomatic considering that Calvinists are still in the minority in the SBC.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I would think that he works for the board of trustees of SBTS, but I don't know if they are independent, or appointed by the SBC. Dr. Mohler can't really hide in the weeds on this one. The synergists have called him out, by calling out Calvinist soteriorology.

 

[Pilgrim]

I would think that he works for the board of trustees of SBTS, but I don't know if they are independent, or appointed by the SBC. Dr. Mohler can't really hide in the weeds on this one. The synergists have called him out, by calling out Calvinist soteriorology.

They are definitely appointed by the SBC and the SBC owns 6 seminaries which are funded by the Cooperative Program which also funds the aforementioned foreign missions, etc. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the trustees of all SBC entities, including the seminaries, are appointed by the President of the SBC. As I understand it, that's how the conservatives took the SBC back from the liberals--electing Presidents who agreed to appoint only inerrantists. Prior to Dr. Mohler's appointment, SBTS was the most liberal seminary of them all.

He did throw out the Semi-Pelagian card. Given the nature of the SBC I'm not sure what else he could have been expected to do with a blog post. Although SBTS and SEBTS have the Abstract of Principles as their confessional statements, overall the SBC statement of faith is the Baptist Faith and Message. Those working for SBC entities have to affirm it. For the most part, the statement in question here is not necessarily inconsistent with the rather broad BF&M, which seems to me to be at best somewhat shaky on the imputation of Adam's sin. (That was clearly affirmed in the original 1925 version but was watered down in the 1963 version and carried over in 2000.) There are some Calvinists (as well as other Baptists) who could not sign the BF&M, and not simply because it doesn't affirm all 5 points.

As noted earlier, Dr. Mohler also likely suspects that time is on his side. Relatively few younger leaders signed it, although it appears to have been written by a pastor that is around 40. If the developments over the past few years are any indication, Calvinists and especially those willing to work with them would practically appear to have a hammer lock on control of the convention at this point. Even some of the revivalists that practice what many here would call decisional regeneration want no part of this statement.

The perception that the Calvinists are "taking over our convention" is why you see this reaction from these "traditionalists." No doubt, there are some who wish they could just kick Calvinists out. But I suspect at this point that they don't have anywhere close to the votes that they would need to ram through some kind of anti-Calvinist statement, especially one that would be binding in any way. Also, due to the organization of the SBC, and particularly the ownership of the seminaries, etc. any split (i.e. without one side or the other just withdrawing) would be a legal nightmare.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Another update: the Florida State Convention's newspaper featured Ascol's article. Brief and helpful.

 

[SolaSaint]

The SBC Annual meeting is next week, it will be interesting to hear what will come out concerning the document. I hope the conservatives make a stand and squash this attack of the DoG.

 

[Organgrinder]

When did the SBC become a non-calvinist denomination? Earlier posting say that it began as a Calvinist denomination. Why the change?

The first time I ever heard about Calvinism was when a local pastor moved to a new kind of church called a Reformed Baptist Church. That was in the early nineties.

It is my hope that the SBC will reform. Of course that’s not going to happen where I go to church.

 

[grizzlor]

Here is a good summary of the controversy.

Baptist Press - Statement on Calvinism sparks blog discussion - News with a Christian Perspective

 

[MightyManfred]

When did the SBC become a non-calvinist denomination? Earlier posting say that it began as a Calvinist denomination. Why the change?

The first time I ever heard about Calvinism was when a local pastor moved to a new kind of church called a Reformed Baptist Church. That was in the early nineties.

It is my hope that the SBC will reform. Of course that’s not going to happen where I go to church.

The SBC is not (yet) a denomination - which would require a somewhat monolithic structure of theology. I am not in favor of being in association with Arminian churches and lean toward leaving the SBC.