Let me start by saying two things:
- I understand the arguments that have been made in favor of “traditionalist” as a designation for those who are Baptists but do not subscribe to the Calvinists’ so-called “Doctrines of Grace.” They have been called Arminian, but most bristle at that. They have been called anti-Calvinists and there are certainly a few of those around, but there are a lot of people who reject Calvinism but do not reject Calvinists. The most common term has been non-Calvinist. But people do not want to be known simply by what they do not believe.
- However, in spite of that, I do not like the name “traditionalist” and hope that this group will not try to establish that term as their descriptor. Both wings in this debate can claim a piece of Southern Baptist tradition. I lean to the Calvinist side, but I’m pretty traditional as well. I do not think that the name traditionalist is a good one and hope it will not gain traction.
Here are a few brief thoughts about the SBC and Nomenclature.
1) A group has the right to self-describe, if the self-description is reasonable.
Calvinists should not insist on pinning a name on the other soteriological side. Many call anyone who is not a Calvinist an Arminian or an anti-Calvinist. Those names carry pejorative meanings. There are Arminians and there are anti-Calvinists, but it not fair to call all non-Calvinists by those names.
If this group consistently uses the term traditionalist, we should probably respect that, even people like me don’t like it. My hope would be that they would come up with a different name to describe their position.
2) We ought to eschew combative nomenclature.
Too often, a name becomes a weapon with which to fight our battles. We designate ourselves not only as self-identity, but also as a subtle insult to those who hold other positions – whether intentional or not.
Several groups self-described as “majority” or “grassroots” group. By describing my group as the majority group I am essentially marginalizing those who disagree by casting them as outside the norm, as a minority opinion.
I had this problem with the tendency of some Calvinists to use the term “gospel” as a descriptor for those with Calvinistic views. If I call my view “gospel-centered” I am insinuating that those who do not hold my views are not focused on the gospel.
This is my chief quarrel with the name “traditional.” It tends to marginalize Calvinism as not really a part of the history and heritage of Southern Baptists. It is combative nomenclature and the name seems to me to carry an inherent if subtle dig at its opponents.
3) Our names should encapsulate our views accurately.
The Calvinist side has several names that describe their views. Calvinist, of course. Reformed. Sovereign Grace. Doctrines of Grace. (I have a problem with Doctrines of Grace – see point 2). They encapsulate and describe the viewpoint. The TULIP acronym is a helpful if imperfect way of summarizing views. If I say, “I’m a four-pointer” you have at least a broad outline of my views.
The desire of the signers of that document to have such a name is understandable, but I do not find the name practically accurate or theologically sound.
First of all, there are so many implications of the word “traditionalist” that I question the accuracy of the word in this case. There is a lot of baggage that attaches to the word.
Besides, we do not do theology on the basis of tradition or majority vote. We do theology on the basis of biblical interpretation.
For these reasons, I do not think that “traditionalist” is a helpful term that should gain wide acceptance in this context. Maybe its supporters can make it stick, but I doubt it and I hope not.
What Should the Term Be?
I don’t know and I guess its not for me to choose. It should encapsulate the views defined in the Hankins document without being combative or dismissive to other Baptists.
I understand the desire to get away from being described negatively as “non-Calvinists” but in my opinion, the current term “traditionalist” is not the answer.
This is the same problem with the phrasing of Yarnell, Lemke, et al. when they say we need to be “not Calvinists, not Arminians, but Baptists.” Well, we can be Calvinists and still be Baptists.
I agree Dave, using exclusive nomenclature is not helpful.
The “not Calvinists, not Arminians, but Baptists” slogan’s meaning (or intent) is “you can be Calvinists and still be Baptists but only if you keep silent about your Calvinism.” Translation: we get to promote our doctrines as much and often as possible, but if you promote yours, then you’re being “divisive.” I really do think that a concerted push-back on the part of Calvinistic Baptists is necessary. The whole “can’t we all just get along” approach isn’t going to work because the “majority/traditional” types don’t want it. Maybe the solution is for the Calvinistic Baptists to actually start behaving the… Read more »
Job,
I have long been an advocate of cooperation between the Calvinists and NonCalvinists so I’m not saying this to be a jerk. Your side is very much in the minority and to do what you have suggested is to engage in a fight that your side cannot win. The truth is that most SBC people are decidedly not Calvinist and if your side were to get extremely aggressive it would culminate into a showdown that would ultimately see the removal of all prominent Calvinists from their positions in the SBC. Increasing aggression is a bad idea.
John Wylie: “Increasing aggression is a bad idea.” I agree. And that is exactly why “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of the Plan of Salvation” should never have been published, and why it never should have been consented to by “over 180 signees (including some key leaders from every level of Southern Baptist life).” “What you have suggested is to engage in a fight that your side cannot win.” So your position is that the Calvinists can win without fighting? How and why? “Your side is very much in the minority” And what is the side that… Read more »
Job, First of all, thank you for your response brother. “So your position is that the Calvinists can win without fighting? How and why? ” Yes I do believe that you can win without an all out fight in the Convention. The reason I believe this is because of the great inroads that Calvinists have made in the Convention without engaging in a major fight on a Convention wide scale. You have seminary presidents, board presidents, influentional church pastors all having a tremendous impact on the SBC. If you keep on this course your influence and power in the Convention… Read more »
How many people have simply skimmed this long document and do not have see the piece that reads we are not born into sin, but are sinners(according to the document) only when we commit the act of sinning?
I think that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have been guilty of exclusivistic nomenclature – as referenced in my post. The use of “gospel” as synonymous with Calvinist was problematic.
Dave: On the other hand, since I have been vocal and have not ever hid that I am Calvinist, I am denied the use of the word Gospel, which definition is Good News, in any form. People do not take the word I am using as meaning the Gospel of Jesus Christ who came to save, but as my referring to Calvinism. That is just ridiculous. I will use words scripture uses, but folks in the SB are the ones putting twists and meanings on words that just are not there.
People read what they want to.
For the record, I wrote this last night and this morning, before Dr. Lemke posted his comment referring to this. He made a good argument for the name and recognized some of the difficulties I talked about here.
The term “traditionalist” has some merit — in the sense that I think the embracing of total depravity and perseverance/preservation while rejecting unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace describes what has been the majority/traditional opinion of Southern Baptists in my lifetime and somewhat before. (I think the “Traditional Statement” that is referenced in all this moves a little further away from Calvinism than the traditional Southern Baptists of my thinking; but that is just my opinion.) The problem with this term is that it claims all the “high ground” — like the term biblicist — leaving little to none… Read more »
The majority “opinion of Southern Baptists in my lifetime and somewhat before” is not “tradition” when we are talking about an organization that has been around for nearly 170 years. At best, it is “recent tradition.” I will grant you that if you accept 1925 as the dividing line between Calvinist and non-Calvinist in the SBC, then it gives the non-Calvinists more history: 87 years as opposed to 80. But a good chunk of that 87 years of non-Calvinist majority includes the slide into liberalism, something that they do not wish to claim as part of the “tradition”! They are… Read more »
Job,
Historically the slide into liberalism started back in the 1870’s. You do remember people like Dr. Crawford Toy right? Although today I would concede as I have stated several times before that the Calvinists do help the convention stay conservative.
Job, you seem to respond as if we are in disagreement, but we’re really not much if any. The thing with traditional is that the average living Baptist thinks however it is and has been in his memory is kind of the way it has always been. You find this mentality in all kind of areas, not just religion. Because I have studied Baptist history I know a lot of what the average fellow thinks is the way it has always been just isn’t. But I don’t think we should be that hard on the average fellow and what he… Read more »
In the other thread I mentioned as a joke that Calvinists should be granted the term “original traditionalists” in recognition of the history of the convention. But aside from that, I do think it’s worth noting that those who want to claim the term “traditionalists” are making the same mistake as those who want to monopolize the term “doctrines of grace”. It is not helpful or gracious to identify your beliefs with a term that could equally apply to others since the use of the term carries the implication that those who disagree could not fit within the name. Calvinism… Read more »
I certainly favor Conversionism to Calvinism and Transformed Theology to Reformed Theology… I doubt you even know much about that.
I know Dave appreciates your separating our respective positions! 8|
><>”
Traditionalist, Non-Calvinist, New Calvinist, Calvinist, Anti-Calvinist and so on have many views from many different directions, assuming they are not heretic. Like a diamond we are all on a journey through life seeing different views of the kingdom life as we grow and mature. Some stop along the way and set their landmark without exploring more. They have arrived, so to speak. You will notice their lives gradually setting like cement over the years. Scripture speaks of God’s manifold mercies, manifold works, manifold wisdom and manifold grace. Many colors are to be explored and I think the short list of… Read more »
BRUCE H. I really liked what you wrote here because I can see you have been deeply moved by the words of St. Peter: “When God is described as “incomprehensible” we cannot simply place Him in a box and say, “There you go!” We are finite up against the infinite. There is no comparison between those two? I do not like Traditionalist, or for that matter, any of the other names we want to describe ourselves. Maybe Peter had it right in how we should function among all who have the same faith yet a different view; “minister our gift… Read more »
Christiane,
Amen! And thank you for your kind words.
A poll that indicates that most Southern Baptists are not 5-point Calvinists does not justify the assumption that most would agree with the very Arminianistic extremes of Hankins’ statement. Maybe it’s time for another poll. I think that the majority do hold to unconditional election and also hold to the free will decision of the sinner, either without seeing any contradiction or accepting the mystery involved. That point alone would make the difference in 4 of Hankins’ 8 articles.
So many people reference that poll to say that there are very few Calvinists in the SBC, then point to a bunch of 4-pointers and call them Calvinists. That doesn’t make sense. Also, the poll was about whether or not a person would describe himself as a five-point Calvinist. My pastor is one and he would never describe himself as a five-point Calvinist, so even though I think we are a minority position in the SBC, I think there’s a lot more than 10% here with a Calvinistic worldview.
My suggestion to Stetzer was to ask Southern Baptists… Do you believe God regenerates the lost individual so that he can or will then repent and exercise saving faith to be saved.
I believe the overwhelming answer among Southern Baptists would be a RESOUNDING NO. All these other nuanced questions do not really mean much.
><>”
But does being in the majority necessarily mean they are right? Blacks being separated and treated differently was the majority view at one time, in the Mormon community for example, a majority believe that Satan is Christ’s brother. A majority of anything does not mean they are correct, so I believe using the Bible to defend your view and not to keep saying you are in the majority which may or may not be true. We don’t know. 200 signatures on a document when there are at least 8 million Southern Baptists doesn’t show that you are in the majority.… Read more »
Bob Hadley: “Do you believe God regenerates the lost individual so that he can or will then repent and exercise saving faith to be saved.
I believe the overwhelming answer among Southern Baptists would be a RESOUNDING NO.”
Given this, how about this suggestion:
Monergists vs. Synergists
Monergistic Baptists vs. Synergistic Baptists
P.S. I believe an earlier commenter by the name of Les on a prior thread made this suggestion.
TUAD,
Yes I made that suggestion. I still think its a good way to distinguish. It seems to me to be THE issue which settles the rest.
Mr. Hadley,
There is a website titled monergism.com which contains a wealth of information on monergism. It’s very helpful in understanding monergism and how it’s more Biblically faithful and truer to God and His Word than synergism.
That is an interesting question for sure… my guess is if that was a survey question, most would scratch their heads…
Here is an interesting question on my end… how does monergism apply to the sinner and his decisions… apart from conversion?
What about the monergism/synergism issue when it comes to sanctification?
><>”
Bob, “how does monergism apply to the sinner and his decisions… apart from conversion?” Monergism makes conversion possible. Without the action by the Holy Spirit to make the dead sinner alive spiritually, the sinner cannot respond by faith and repentance. The preacher’s call falls on deaf ears since the unregenerate sinner cannot spiritually discern the things of God. To be sure, God does not exercise the faith and repent for the sinner. The sinner exercises his faith and the sinner repents. Conversion is not monergistic. As for sanctification, that lifelong process is not monergistic. The believer is involved in the… Read more »
So, if I am understanding you correctly, monergism involves 2 choices in every Christian’s life: 1… God chooses who will and will not be saved and then for the ones He regenerates, 2… they choose to repent and they are saved. Somehow that just does not quite cut it. I am sure it is the sovereignty of God that has brought about this whole concept of monergism right… so does that also mean that God is only sovereign over 2 choices, His choice as to WHO He saves and their choice to be saved… HE is NOT responsible for sin… Read more »
Michael Horton is one of the best explanations I have heard on this subject. He says: “God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching. Nowhere in Scripture do we find a pattern of evangelism or revival in which individuals respond to the gospel by simply being zappedby the Spirit. They are always responding to the preached Word. It may be one-on-one, or in an assembly, but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead. Furthermore, even after they are converted, believers do… Read more »
Debbie,
For the record I could have said everything Horton said. He wrote, “They are always responding to the preached Word… but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead.
The point of contention is HOW they come to life… which is at the heart of my question about monergism, which you have NOT even come close to responding too, if that was the point of your post. If not, it was a nice post.
><>”
Bob, Monergism as is commonly used in theology has to do with the new birth, as I said. Monergists believe that God and God alone brings to life the spiritually dead sinner…that the spiritually dead sinner has absolutely no part in the new birth. He cannot lift one cell of any kind physically nor can he muster any aspect of his depraved heart to cooperate with God in his spiritually awakening. Once his spiritual blinders are off, he willingly and eagerly positively responds to the call of the gospel in repentance and faith. Im probably not smart enough to make… Read more »
Bob said: “For the record I could have said everything Horton said. He wrote, “They are always responding to the preached Word… but it is the Word proclaimed that gives life to those spiritually dead.”
Bob: Which of course is my point. 🙂
Bob,
If you could say everything Horton said such as,” God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching,” then you are affirming monergism.
God alone is the cause of the new birth. That’s monergism.
Welcome to the club!
Les: Which of course again, was my point. 🙂
Debbie, I should have acknowledged that. We are tracking the same. At least maybe some or most Synergists will at least represent our position properly and not accuse us of denying man’s will in conversion.
Les: You did acknowledge that and beautifully I might add. 🙂
Debbie and Les, Before one of you two sprain an ankle jumping up and down in celebration here… I said I could repeat what Horton is credited in saying IN THE STATEMENT Debbie printed… but I hate to differ with you both; as I read this statement I see no connection in this statement and monergism. Maybe that is just me. I can see how one MIGHT use some of his statements to support monergism and he may infact be supporting it… but what I read does not seem to suggest it if no one knew anything about it. That… Read more »
Bob: Michael Horton is most definitely a five point Calvinist.
Bob, Darn it. I will have to stop jumping I guess. 🙂 But in case it’s not showing up on your computer, here is what I said which tied you to monergism: “Les June 3, 2012 at 11:24 am Bob, If you could say everything Horton said such as,” God alone is the cause of the New Birth, but he calls women and men to himself through the weakness of preaching,” then you are affirming monergism. God alone is the cause of the new birth. That’s monergism.” Do you stil agree with Horton? Ask any Calvinist and he/she will tell… Read more »
Bob: I think it has been dealt with, you may not like the answers but we have been dealing with it with you for over a year now.
I will happily do it again, although I don’t know exactly what you want. I can tell you why I am a believer in monergism and not synergism.
John 1:12-13, 3: 3-8, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:13, Ezekiel 36: 26-27, 1 John 3:9, 1 Peter, 1:3, Ephesians 3:3 and 2:4 and 5 plus 4:24, 2 Corinthians 5:17, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23 and 25, John 6: 63-65, 1 John 5:1, Colossians 2:13
Framing the terms?
‘monergism’
‘synergism’
I’ve read the ‘theopedia’ definitions;
but is there anyone out there who cares to unpack these two terms for them what is ignorant?
compare/contrast/use in some sort of biblical context/etc?
As I understand it, in the beginning of Baptist history, there were two “traditional” groups: General Baptists and Particular Baptists. As I understand the position advocated by the Hankins statement, it is somewhere in between the General and Particular Baptist views, with roots that don’t go back as far in Baptist history as either one of them. What I don’t like is the unspoken pressure to identify with one group or the other. I guess my own view is closest to Dan Barnes’ Woven category, though we might even haggle about a few of the details. And, I don’t like… Read more »
As is so often the case, I agree.
I hope and believe that a strong number of us fit into this large in-between area.
?”I am not a Calvinist by choice, but because I cannot help it.” Charles Spurgeon
We make up “history” as we would like to quote it explaining what is not in the Bible – i.e. Calvinism ; and explaining away what is – serpent handling and drinking poison which was answered in part on this Blog by a Moderator as something not to do in a church “service” . Our positions need to be well thought out and adaptable by Truth to ALL audiences otherwise people will continue to leave us in droves as we argue , ” he said , she said ” about Hurtful, Hateful , Racial & Eugenic subjects our entire Country… Read more »
It seems to me Christ concentrated intentionally or otherwise , on the middle class not the Pharasees . We might do well to taylor our messages to the masses that ALL can relate to – instead of – you know – multitudes of disagreements .
Jack,
Are you kin to Mack Wolford who recently died after handling snakes and being bit in a church service? http://www.ktvq.com/news/death-of-snake-handling-preacher-shines-light-on-lethal-appalachian-tradition/
Very interesting point. The N.T. mentions many things in passing, some of which we no longer practice and some of which would be impossible to execute. As Tom Wright has said, we pick up where the apostles left off: we improvise as we carry on the bussiness of the Church. A gap will always exist between what happened in the early churcch two thousand years ago and what takes place now. We must adhere to the guidelines erected in Scripture. But we mustn’t confuse the present with the past.
Here’s my comment on the divisive, heretical TSBUGP-document,
http://righteousbutnotyet.blogspot.com/2012/06/response-to-statement-of-traditional.html
I have to throw the flag on that one. You can disagree with that statement if you so desire. And I have my quarrels with it.
But heretical? Divisive is strong language, but to call it heretical is, in my view, an unwarranted insult.
How can you complain about them articulating their views against Calvinism when you are calling them heretics?
Wrong in every way.
Debbie and Les, I’m going to take your comments down, because I took down the exchange between Jim and Jeph to which it refers. If I allow your responses, I will have to let the discussion go on.
Dave, no problem at all. I understand. I saw Jeph’s link still up and assumed the full exchange was still up. I was reading the whole thing in my email inbox. Sorry about that.
Les
Dave,
What did I say that caused the deletion?
Jim G.
I assume it was me, since Jeph’s original comment is still up. It is my reply thread that was deleted. Email me if you want.
Jim G.
Jim, I already challenged Jeph’s assertion and when you responded as strongly as he did, he then responded, and then you would respond. Others then began to join in.
It would not have been a productive discussion, so I took it down.
Okay. I think I was writing mine when you posted yours. I type slower.
Jim G.
This exchange is over. Jeph, someday you will look back at the way you conversed here and be embarrassed a little. In the meantime, a little humility and brotherly love would be a wonderful thing.
But this exhange is over nonetheless.
Debbie, Although you and I often have to agree to disagree, on this we are in agreement. Your question “How many people have simply skimmed this long document and do not have see the piece that reads we are not born into sin, but are sinners(according to the document) only when we commit the act of sinning?” is completely on target. Anyone who only skimmed the article probably would not have noticed just how far off base that statement is. Even before my turn to the ‘dark side’, I was always taught that we are born sinners and scripture absolutely… Read more »
Someone help clear something up for me about the document and the BFM. The statement says, …because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell. The BFM says, Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment… Read more »
Les, It would be interesting to look over the history of this section and see how it has changed and what, if anything, it was modeled after. I think it’s helpful to remember that the current BF&M wasn’t written solely from a Reformed perspective, so there’s going to be some overlap and distiction in word choice and meaning. Just think about how the various camps understand what “foreknowledge” means. In this case, the main concern comes from this sentence: “Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.” In its most basic… Read more »
Andrew. Thanks. I can see your explanation. But I still think the wording in the BF&M may allow for their reading, “or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.” (in the denial) Now I have said several times and places that article 2 is bad. I argue for original guilt, as anyone reading over at Today can see. My comments are there in the previous post on article one. But at the same time, the uproar over article 2 may be a moot point if in fact BF&M allows for it. I don’t know. Seems muddled at best… Read more »
Yeah, I had to think long and hard before drafting that last response. At best I can say that they made allowance for it, but didn’t endorse it.
I have a hunch about this document which I have not seen articulated yet, though it may already have been elsewhere: this is more than just an attempt to draw a line in the sand. This is a shrewd political power play. What these folks have done is to create a list of trustee candidates from across the convention who are reliable on this issue in order to stem what they see as a growing tide and influence among SBC Calvinists. It has been timed to put it at the disposal of the next president (whom I’m guessing is sympathetic… Read more »
Would ‘Conventional’ fit better than ‘Traditional’? Not being a ‘conventional’ Southern Baptist probably doesn’t have the sting of not being a ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist (I can see Calvinist Southern Baptists possibly agreeing, in a sense, that they’re not conventional Southern Baptists). The time-frame of ‘Conventional’ seems to me to be more contemporary than ‘Traditional’, which takes care of how far back does the current attitudes go. Of course, in general terms, what’s conventional isn’t always what’s right, so I can see the non-Calvinists resisting that. OTOH, if you’re asking the Calvinists to show some humility, it might not hurt to… Read more »