Subscribe via reader
Subscribe via Email
Follow via Twitter
More on the Anti-Calvinism in the SBC
November 28th, 2008 by James GrantOver the past month or so, I have posted several links to different places concerning the anti-Calvinism in the SBC and some of the foolishness going on there. Well, it simply will not stop. After several people have responded to the John 3:16 conference, some of the participants were crying out about the “live-blogging” and how it didn’t represent what was said. Well, now it turns out that some of the participants are responding. First up, David Allen responds to critics. This particular situation concerns Allen’s use of Phil Johnson’s definition of hyper-Calvinism. So Allen still doesn’t want to admit that he misunderstood Johnson or used his definitions in the wrong way. So Phil Johnson responds to Allen (again). For other issues, Timmy Brister has a summary post here, writing:
Last week, I directed you to read the words of Voddie Baucham on the anti-Calvinism in the SBC. This week I want to turn your attention to the response of Tom Ascol who addresses three recent happenings: Steve Lemke’s article in NOBTS journal (which I have addressed), David Allen’s 34-page review of Building Bridges book, and the John 3:16 Conference. Ascol has not, to this point, responded to the escalating rhetoric and tactics of the anti-Calvinist movement in the SBC, predominantly located within SWBTS, NOBTS, and Jerry Vines and Co.
Now if this wasn’t serious and actually real, it would be funny. But it is real. And it is sad. Anyone who knows much about the Reformed tradition and the various debates related to the free offer of the gospel and hyper-Calvinism know how far off the mark the anti-Calvinist of the SBC are from what is discussed in the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition. In fact, this is one of those situations where the lack of knowledge concerning another tradition is so obvious.
Which brings me to Scott Clark’s post. Dr. Clark is a professor at Westminster Seminary in California, so he is in a good position to give us an outside perspective on issues related to this. His whole post is worth reading, but note this:
I don’t expect anti-predestinarians to like my theology. I don’t expect them to agree with me, but I do reasonably expect them to be able to represent my theology accurately and to understand how I read the Scriptures and what the history of Reformed theology actually is, and what I actually confess. The amazing thing is that it is now so easy to find out what we actually believe. Indeed, it’s never been very hard. How difficult is it to read the Heidelberg Catechism? How hard is it to find out what actually happened in the Servetus case? (check out the bizarre discussion in the comments to Tom Ascol’s post!)
Indeed, it is a sad state of affairs when Southern Baptist seminary professors are unable to represent a particular theological tradition truthfully. I think the Reformed tradition can also teach us something about this in regard to the ninth commandment (see the Larger Catechism, Questions 144-145).
Posted in Calvinism, SBC | 7 Comments »
November 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hey James, thank you for the post and commentary. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for the SBC. May the Lord give us grace.
If there is any denomination that has the facility and structural components for reformational change, this is it. It is, after all, the *only* mainline denomination that repented at the structural level from theological liberalism. That change was owing to its biblical polity.
I’m hopeful, but not naively optimistic, that the massive waves of young theologically oriented and Calvinistic pastors in the SBC will be able to influence the convention away from bureaucratic protectionism toward kingdom ministry. We will see.
Blessings in Christ,
Tom
November 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Thanks for this post, James. As you know, I’m not in a great position to keep up with the “inside” stuff of the SBC, but I’m interested nonetheless.
I’m not sure I fully agree with Scott Clark’s assessment, in this way: he says:
Is it reasonable to expect non-predestinarians to understand and know a predestinarian theology? I’m not sure that is a fair expectation; I certainly don’t know (to the extent that Clark suggests above) the positions of those with whom I generally disagree. I’m not sure I could offer a well-rounded explanation of what a full-on Arminian believes and how he reads his Bible, etc. I could hit the high points, and I think I get the gist; but I’m sure I would be wrong or mischaracterize at times.
Now, Clark talks about ANTI-predestinarians, which is altogether another thing. If you are going to oppose someone, you should understand what you oppose in such a way that they aren’t offended by your representation of their position.
But I’m not entirely clear that his expectation is only for those who actively oppose– I get the sense (from this quote and from other things I’ve read of his) that he expects everyone to understand and fairly represent HIS views, even if he doesn’t always extend the same courtesy to others (I’m thinking of the Federal Vision folks, especially two years ago and more).
November 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I think that is a fair point Ed, especially as you point out concerning the broader discussions going on in the Reformed world. I don’t think we can always accurately reflect someone who we disagree with.
But I read Clark’s point in the context of the stuff going on in the SBC, especially in relation to that John 3:16 Conference. The conference was set up as a response to Calvinism. So the lectures/presentations dealt with specifically with the five points. In that context, each speaker should represent that particular view.
So for example, I wouldn’t necessarily expect the speaker on Unconditional Election to be able to speak to Limited Atonement. But these guys are seminary profs, and when they are assigned a topic, they should be able to represent it. That is what I applied Clark’s point to specifically.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Is it reasonable to expect non-predestinarians to understand and know a predestinarian theology?
Yes it is. Seminary students are expected to be able to accurately explain and differentiate. Why shouldn’t seminary professors?
The fact that most if not all of the presenters at this conference failed to do just that is bewildering and heartbreaking.
December 7th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Thank God for anticalvinism. It saves souls. Anticalvinism is the gospel of Christ because Calvinism is an antigospel.
December 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
WOW! That is helpful. I’m glad you stepped into the discussion here.
January 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Sirs: Why get all bent out of shape over some Baptist preachers letting off steam. It was Sovereign Grace people who invented all this liberalism stuff in the first place (well, Jesus did say something about being set free), and the ones fussing on the other side are awfully fearful of being infected by the original views. And why Sovereign Grace believers should be fussing doesn’t make any sense. After all, if your theology is the parent (and it is), then the other feller is the one with the problem and he is just saying so. So what else is new? We are all airheads sometimes. Lets just laugh and go on about our business. Besides, we do know that the theology of the Great Awakenings and the beginning of missions is Sovereign Grace, and its resurgence is a precursor to another, perhaps even the Greatest Awakening of all, the one which wins the whole earth by free commitments to embrace the most absurd, paradoxical theology there is. Ha! Praise the Lord!