A group of Southern Baptists has issued a statement pushing back against the prominent strain of Calvinism in the denomination:
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
Albert Mohler, who identifies with the more Calvinist Southern Baptists, responds:
I could not sign the document. Indeed, I have very serious reservations and concerns about some of its assertions and denials. I fully understand the intention of the drafters to oppose several Calvinist renderings of doctrine, but some of the language employed in the statement goes far beyond this intention. Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will — understandings that virtually all Southern Baptists have denied. Clearly, some Southern Baptists do not want to identify as either Calvinists, non-Calvinists, or Arminians. That is fine by me, but these theological issues have been debated by evangelicals for centuries now, and those labels stick for a reason.
And Justin Taylor points us to an Arminian response by Roger E. Olson (who is not, it should be noted, a Southern Baptist). The notable civility of the discussion so far—a civility which is not inconsistent with firmness in defending and debating the truth—suggests that unity in service of the gospel will prevail over discord. All of us concerned for biblical truth can learn from the example of our Southern Baptist brothers.
June 11th, 2012 | 10:45 am
Well they seem so eager to distance themselves from Calvin that they’ve rejected the doctrine of Original Sin.
“We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”
The idea that man is born without guilt or sin would indicate that these men have rejected the teachings of both the Reformation and the historic Latin church. Bad idea.
June 11th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
Dear Matthew,
We may learn from the Southern Baptists in some respects, perhaps. But then there is the case of William Dembski being forced by his (Southern Baptist) seminary to recant his statement that Noah’s flood did not cover the entire earth. This is in several ways worse than what the Roman Inquisition did in forcing Galileo to recant: (a) In Galileo’s day, there was actually not yet conclusive evidence that the earth moved. (b) Cardinal Bellarmine admitted that if there were a real proof that the earth moved then “the Scriptural passages that appeared to teach the contrary” would have to be interpreted in a different way. (c) We are living 400 years after Galileo, and such blunders are much less excusable.
It is really astonishing that the seminary forced Dembski to recant and that he acquiesced. It is ironic given the fact that Baptists have historically been opposed to creeds and hierarchies. But now the SBC has developed its own magisterium, and it seems to function a great deal less intelligently than the Roman one of 400 years ago.
Steve
June 12th, 2012 | 8:08 am
Let us pray that these discussions continue to provide to the world an example of Christian character. And all could learn a lot by looking at Wesley’s example when writing to those he disagreed with
As an example of a gracious Calvinist responding to one of the ‘new’ ones, see this video link [note the 'time' mark]
http://sdcougar.startlogic.com/blog/?p=179
June 12th, 2012 | 1:43 pm
In his views on original sin and human nature, Thomas Aquinas has also long been suspected of a sort of “semi-Pelagianism” (which, of course, he himself denies in his writings). May I be pardoned for asking if in this new document, the Baptists drafters themselves are possibly moving toward a more spacious, more catholic, orthodoxy?
June 16th, 2012 | 9:42 am
[...] A recent debate among Southern Baptists over Calvinism prompted Matthew Schmitz to celebrate the civility of the discussion and Roger Olson (one of those praised by Schmitz) to consider the meaning of [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact