Hey guys,
I must start this post with where I am in the SBC. I am and have always been a Non-Calvinist. I attend a Southern Baptist Seminary that is very heavily in Calvinism. This obviously puts me in an overwhelming minority at school. I have never been too shy to admit to my Calvinist classmates that I am not a Calvinist. One classmate said it me, “Then you are an Arminian?” I very quickly replied, “No.” His response was that I had to be one or the other. For the record, that is simply not true. I will adamantly reject Arminanism. I also reject Calvinism. I do not believe that either one of these stances accurately depicts the nature of God, especially in respect to salvation. With that being said, I have no problems working alongside Calvinists. I have attended Southern Seminary for 3 years now and I have enjoyed my time there.
Maybe that is why I have apparently had my head in the sand with respect to the debate of Calvinism and Non-Calvinism in the SBC. I, just for the life of me, can’t figure out why in the world we have to turn this issue into such a big deal that it could possibly, if it has not already, splinter the SBC.
The points of Calvinism have been debated for so long now, that there is no way that any new debate can come out of it. So, the question is, why are we trying? Can it be that each side believes so much so that the other is wrong and can be “won” over to the other side? I don’t know, but I do know that, as presently constituted, the SBC will never be totally one side or the other. Why does it seem that agreeing on the basic premise of the gospel is not enough anymore? Who is at fault for this hotly contested debate? More importantly, can the SBC get past this problem and the two sides coexist?
I am too young to remember the beginning of the Conservative Resurgence. I am aware that things started happening to move in this direction before 1979, but it was at this time, I was four years old, that Adrian Rogers was elected SBC President. The resurgence took hold, and it has never looked back. In 1990, I believe, Al Mohler is made President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is the Seminary that I attend, and he is still there today. I would like to point out that Al Mohler, a strong Calvinist, was given the position through the work of many men that are not Calvinist. This has to be proof, on some level, that Non-Calvinists have believed that they could work together with Calvinists.
It would take time for Al Mohler to change the direction of Southern Seminary. This is a feat that has been accomplished for sure. I would also like to say thank you to Al Mohler for the work he has done at Southern Seminary. It has been impressive, to say the least. The direction that Southern Seminary had been moving towards before Al Mohler is a direction that I, and I would imagine all Non-Calvinists, am glad has been turned from. However, now there seems to be Calvinists coming out of Southern, as well as Southeastern, that have become very staunch in their doctrine. So much so, that it would seem that they do not remember, or realize, that Non-Calvinists helped the institutions that they have graduated from get where they are. It seems to be that many in this group that are heatedly debating the Calvinism issue. I am hoping that both sides will get past themselves and their personal views of grace and election to continue to work together, as we have for so long now.
I know that this is easier said than done. We have groups of Calvinists that say things like, “We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear.” (founders) To a Non-Calvinist, that sure sounds like you want to weed out the Non-Calvinists because they are not truly Southern Baptist. Many of the “New Calvinists” call the Southern Baptists that are not Calvinist, Semi-Pelagian. We have Seminary leaders saying such things as Calvinism is the only logical answer for a young pastor. If we want to stand with Paul and the Apostles, we must be reformed(paraphrase). Those are strong words that make this into an issue that divides.Those words sure sound like they mean if you are not reformed/Calvinist then you don’t understand the true gospel, and you do not stand with the Bible. Are these people saying that Page Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Bailey Smith, Johnny Hunt, Jerry Vines, etc., are somehow less evangelistic, less gospel driven, less Christ centered, and don’t understand the Bible because they do not espouse Calvinism. Divides are quickly drawn with statements such as these. That is not to say that the Non-Calvinists have not helped to expand the divides between the two.
To me it is simple, can we agree on the basic tennants of the gospel? The answer should be a yes. Why do we have to make an issue out of how the doctrine of grace and election work? I know the Calvinists think that they are right. I also know that the Non-Calvinists think that they are right. If the two sides want to discuss differences, that is fine, but why does it have to turn into such a heated debate? Does your view of grace and election change the way you evangelize? It shouldn’t.
Serving HIm,
Bro. Joey