“Traditionalists” – What Do You Want from Calvinists?

This ought to be fun.

Dave,

I believe that I have said that I can get along with regular ole Calvinists all day long. Others have said this, too. In fact, we did co-exist peacefully for years. I loved to Criswell preach….he was a 4 pt. Calvinist. I love to Dr. Russell Moore preach…another 4 pt. Calvinist. I use Dr. John McArthur’s Study Bible when preparing sermons. Even now, I have many, many Calvinist friends, whom I love very much. It’s not so much about Calvinism.

It’s all about New Calvinism. It’s about the attitude that some of these fellas have….harsh, arrogant, disrepectful. It’s about the way they push Calvinism in a aggressive manner. It’s about the way they make Calvinism a matter of fellowship. It’s about the way they declare anyone who’s not Calvinisitic as preaching a false Gospel….semi Pelagian; Pelagian; heretic; etc.

Also, there’s the matters of ecclesiology with some Calvinists. Elder Ruled, baptism issues, etc. For example, we had a Founders friendly Church try to join the local Association where I live. They were rejected due to thier accepting people into their membership, who were just sprinkled on top of the head, instead of being baptized. I think it was to allow Presbyterians to join without having to be baptized.

Well, that’s a start.

But Dave, I can worship and serve alongside regular ole Calvinists of the Criswell and Moore variety with no problems. I can serve the Lord and worship the Lord with the Scott Gordon type Calvinists every day of every year. And, I believe that there’s a whole lot more like me, out there, who feel the same way.

David

PS. None of what I said above was said in an angry way. It was not an attack on anyone. It was spoken out of love and concern, just sharing the truth.

This is easy for me. After 20+ years of searching, studying, seriously considering, teaching and interacting directly with many, many people on this topic, I’d only like to see one thing. I’d like to see the general, normal response of Calvinists to the “Traditionalist” view (or anything less than 5 poin) to be: “I still believe the stronger case is made for Calvinism, but I see how you can be consistent and Biblical and view it that way. Maybe you’re correct.” That’s all I want.

If that became the standard response, any issues I have are solved. If that can’t be said, then it’s hard to cooperate.

A lot less… hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, revellings, and such like.
And a lot more… love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.
See Galatians 5:19-23

Considering the current controversy with Dr. Hankins, I’d say that the real traditionalists would want the Calvinists to stop buying into the claim that these anti-Calvinists are in any way “traditional.” They are not. Traditionalists, as indicated by the BF&M, have willingly been inclusive of Calvinists without adopting any of their extremes. If Hankins’ group was actually representative of the majority, then the BF&M would have looked much like his statement, which is not inclusive of Calvinists.

I apologize for the digression.

Just subscribing to comments.

I agree with almost everything in Rick Davis’a post. With the exception of the use of traditionalists. Can we not throw a flag here and say hey fellas you used an inappropriate word choice here, because from the history I have read of the SBC there is no traditional approach to soteriology?

Also, there are a couple of things I would add to things I personally would like to see from our Calvinistic entity heads.

1. More intentional involvement of less Calvinistic brethren. The fact that we should all be able to rally around the new gospel project curriculum, was soured by the lack of differing view points on soteriology just leaves a bad taste in many people’s mouths including some Calvinist pastor friends of mine. This oversight (which strains belief) should not have happened when the men who created it are so gifted and otherwise sensitive to current issues.

2. There seems to be a more top down style of leadership with some of the Calvinists leaders we have in SBC life. Whether this comes from mega church backgrounds or the elder led ecclesiology I do not know but it makes many people uncomfortable.

I do not seek much from Calvinists just fellowship in Christ and curriculum I can use in my non calvinist but not traditional baptist church.

Love the Idea you had for these posts. God bless the SBCVoices crew!

Dave,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this influential site about such an important topic today for Southern Baptists. As a signer of Dr. Hankins’ statement, I meet the qualifications you have established.

I’ll begin with what I DON’T want. I don’t want Calvinistic Baptists to abandon their doctrinal convictions, keep quiet, or leave the SBC. I don’t want to see anyone removed, fired, or replaced. And I don’t expect anyone to sign a doctrinal statement if they can’t affirm it in good conscience. Also, I don’t expect anyone to sign a doctrinal statement which favors either side of this discussion since they serve ALL Southern Baptists. And I don’t want to see any further division or disunity over this issue. I have already heard from dear brothers and sisters who have been hurt by my signing this statement. The convention-wide discussion which this statement has prompted has been, in my view, difficult but necessary.

What do I desire from Calvinists in the SBC? Two things.

1. I want to continue serving the Lord together with these brothers as co-laborers in fulfilling the Great Commission. That’s my desire.

Baptists have always been comprised of those who resist certain Reformed doctrines (of course, that’s me) and others who embrace them (that’s you). We have served the Lord together for 400 years. Back then, we were known as Particular Baptists and General Baptists. Later, we were Charleston Baptists and Sandy Creek Baptists. But because there is significant agreement on most doctrines, we have been able to serve the Lord together.

2. Please stop characterizing Calvinistic theology as the only view which is faithful to the Scriptures. When Calvinism is held up as the only viable option for serious and faithful Christians, then the implication is that if a person rejects certain tenants of Calvinism, then he is rejecting the clear teachings of God’s Word.

Because this discussion centers on our understanding of the Gospel, it is critically important. I’m not concerned with the name of the view but with its doctrinal affirmations and denials. If the theological views in Hankins’ statement are unbiblical (which some people have claimed), then there is rampant heresy within the SBC. If, however, the views in the statement are biblical and orthodox, then churches within the SBC should be able to continue to cooperate.

In my view, Hankins’ statement is an attempt to bring this discussion to the forefront. Can SOME Southern Baptists affirm a doctrine of salvation which rejects several core tenants of Reformed theology? If so, then all is well. If not, then there are much bigger problems than signatures on this pastor’s document.

Thanks again for the opportunity to be heard, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Him,

Adam

My truly Reformed friends say that I am not Reformed because I don’t believe in all 5 points.

So, I guess that entitles me to comment here.

I think that Rick and the others have said some good things.

The points that deal with who speaks at the Convention or the Pastor’s Conference or who are trustees or whether the Convention and its agencies become more or less focused on Reformed theology are not really in the hands of the so-called Calvinists.

Those decisions are left in the hands of those who are elected to be trustees and executives of the agencies or leaders of the pastors’ conference.

Also, it seems reasonable to believe that various sides to an issue will press for their friends to be nominated to and elected to leadership. I don’t think that any group should have to give that up.

So I would not expect Reformed or Non-Reformed people to pull back on seeing the Convention and its agencies be what they would like for it to be. Everyone gets just 1 vote anyway.

But Rick’s other points are dead on and I agree with them fully.

One more thing, I want Calvinists to buy me a couple of dozen, Krispy Kreme donuts every month…and, I want them to buy me all the ice cream I can eat whenever we’re together for different events…like the SBC, the TBC, etc.

David 🙂

Just signing up for the comments.

I would like Calvinists to communicate without using opaque words and phrases that actually have polyvalent meanings but are used by Calvinists with the Calvinist assumptions being unindicated in the discourse. For example:

sovereignty of God
doctrines of grace
Reformed

Many Calvinists exercise an attitude and a verbal practice that these phrases belong to their understanding only and thus they can be used only with Calvinist presuppositions. Neither the semantics of the phrases nor historical usage gives Calvinists exclusive “copyright” claim to them.
It would be better to adjectivally clarify the concepts.

the Calvinist understanding of God’s sovereignty
the Calvinist formulation of doctrines of grace
Calvinist Reformed groups, Calvinist Reformation

I think Rick and Adam have made some excellent points. Let me just add a few comments about three “pet peeves” of mine in this area:

(a) “Traditional Baptist” — This is not perfect nomenclature, but it’s hard for those of us who sometimes identify with this nomenclature to think of a better nomenclature. I had this problem recently in chatting with Kentucky Baptist Convention leaders about how to describe my dialogue on Calvinism with Dr. York in August. His was pretty easy — he is going to be the Calvinist Baptist. But then, that’s not accurate either, because there are many tenets of Calvinism that he (and indeed no Baptist) accepts. That’s why it is impossible to be fully Baptist and fully Calvinist at the same time. Baptists don’t believe in infant baptism, elder rule, etc. I have suggested the term “Calvinistic” to distinguish these, but language is often not used very precisely in these discussions.

So, how should I describe my position? My preferred term is “Baptist,” (and hence I am a signer of the “Not Calvinists or Arminians, But Baptists” statement). We would rather not have our theology defined by the framework of either Calvinism or Arminianism. And, I doubt if Dr. York would like it if I were listed as “Baptist,” as if his view weren’t Baptist. So, evidently, a modifier to “Baptist” must be added. “Traditional” is accurate only in the time frame of the last century — if you go back further in Baptist history, Baptists have swung like a pendulum between Calvinism and Arminianism, but usually somewhere in the middle and leaning to one side. It is “traditional,” however, for us who have lived a good while, and all our lives this has been the strong majority consensus. I have often used the term “majoritarian Baptists” because, indeed, LifeWay Research statistics indicate that approximately 90 percent of Souhern Baptists are not 5 point Calvinists. But that’s not a compelling term. “Mainstream Baptists” was already taken by CBF types. To claim “Baptist Identity” (which I do) suggests that Calvinistic Baptists aren’t really Baptists, which I would not want to say. So, “traditional Baptists” is a designator name that we’ll have to live with. (:-)

(b) “Arrogance” — Arrogance is the word that I hear so often from pastors commenting on young Calvinistic pastors in their association, or bloggers who suggest that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is unbiblical or exhibit poor scholarship. One well-known person told me recently, “I’m just tired of being called stupid.” Certainly, this is the case for many “Calvinazi” bloggers who are insulting, angry, and “in your face.” I’ve gotten to where I have a side avocation of trying to guess how many posts after mine it will take before the first ad hominem attack comes. It seldom gets beyond three. There is evidently (for reasons I don’t understand) an innate academic arrogance in young Calvinists. Westminster Seminary Calvinist Michael Horton in his book “For Calvinism” describes this as the “cage stage,” when young Calvinists should be locked up until they can speak respectfully to others. This has led some to accuse Calvinism of being a modern gnosticism, in that it has a secret knowledge that makes them superior to others. I’m not saying that, but when well-known Calvinistic Baptists claim that the gospel IS Calvinism, or that anyone who reads the Bible faithfully will become a Calvinist, that does come across as very arrogant — I’m right, you’re wrong, and you’re not really fully Christian until you agree with me.

As Rick and Adam have stated so well, we have no problems with Calvinists being Calvinists in Calvinist churches, or in any church. Our problems are with Calvinists who get in our face, who attack our character, who try to take over churches, and who obviously view us with disdain. That attitude, summarized as arrogance, is a large part of the problem. Most of us have many Calvinistic friends with whom we fellowship regularly. We have worked cooperatively and constructively with them for years, partnering and fellowshipping in many ways. I have brought a number of such people into our own faculty at NOBTS. They are probably the overwhelming majority of Calvinistic Baptists. But the voice of the minority is much louder, and it has created a huge perceptual problem. If Calvinistic Baptists could rein in some of these shrill voices, it would be a great step toward unity.

(c) “Caricature,” “straw man,” “boogey man” — I think I’ve come to the point that these words almost evoke a knee-jerk response when I see them in blog comments by Calvinists. The truth is, there are many Calvinisms. When traditional Baptists respond to something that a Calvinist has told them or a Calvinist author they have read, it might not be what all Calvinists believe, or even the majority of Calvinists believe. But it is what one or more Calvinist believes. We’re not making this stuff up. A Calvinist has said this, and now we’re worried that more Calvinists or most Calvinists may believe this.

To put the shoe on the other foot, I think how Calvinists address what they call the “altar call” or “the sinner’s prayer” is a caricature, a straw man argument, or a boogey man. I believe that the misuses they mention are a rare exception, not the rule. I’ve rarely seen it myself in decades of ministry. But I don’t deny that these abuses ever happen. Likewise, there are many varieties of Calvinists and they say a wide variety of things. I just did an accreditation visit at a PCUSA seminary that none of the faculty affirmed the five points of the Synod of Dort. Yet they considered themselves strongly Calvinist. So, it would be great if Calvinists would redirect their claims about being caricatured, and instead acknowledge (as did Calvinist Kenneth Stewart in his book “Ten Myths about Calvinism”) that there are many streams of Calvinism. What would be more productive is for a Calvinistic Baptist to say, “I know that you might have heard some Calvinists say this, but that is not what I’m saying. I disagree with that Calvinist perspective. Let me explain what MY view is . . .”

I don’t mean to be “flame throwing” in these remarks. I’m just trying to respond to the question about what it is that “bugs” many traditional Baptists about the New Calvinism. Having said that, as I have said many times, my hope is that we can find a way through this present time and discover ways we can work more productively and constructively together for the sake of the Kingdom.

So, here’s where we are–not all Calvinists are lower-than-a-snake’s-belly meanies (though some might be) and not all non-Calvinists are backwoods biblically-illiterate bumpkins (though some might be)… and we all like ice cream and/or coffee. Now that that’s settled, can we PLEASE just get on with cooperating with each other for the furtherance of the Gospel?

I would like for Calvinists to vote against any federal, state or local legislation that would negate the Second Amendment and my right bear arms as a free citizen of the United States of America.

If you read Matt’s answer above, you see the real issue that many of us who are non Calvinist face day in and day out. Claiming to know our intentions, hearts, and thoughts when in reality they are elevating themselves to be superior. Calling us insecure and then claiming that non C’s are the one causing division? The name calling is frequent and brutal. Admit it and turn from it.

Second, I would like an admission that Founders does desire to influence and bring about the increase of the Calvinist thought in SBC life. We are not making a strawman here – the Foounders website says just that. It is disingenuous to deny this when their website declares this.

Third, as others have said, be honest with churches when being considered for ministry roles. I know of two within a short distance of me that are experiencing great conflict because the candidate was not upfront about this issue. Even though the churches should have researched more, the candidates do have an ethical obligation to bring this issue to light.

After thinking through this and trying to discern exactly what this may mean, I have determined a few things I would like to see.

If you do not want Dortian Calvinism to be referred to as Hyper Calvinism, then identify the hyper-Calvinist. We are accused of arguing against hyper-Calvinists whenever we present an argument. But our arguments are coming from what people, who identify themselves as Calvinists, say they believe.

Also, stop hiding behind “the mystery of God” argument when we place an argument before you. Anytime a debate ensues your natural argument comes back to “mystery of God”.

Another item that causes me heartburn is the way you make people identify themselves. It comes across as the “points” one has to affirm to be considered “theologically adept”. Just because I believe that all Christians will persevere and all people were born with the innate proclivity to sin does not mean I am a two point Calvinist.

It’s inevitable that Christians will have their opinions about the Bible. But Baptists and Southern Baptists must settle for a unity based upon essentials alone. That means that people who think beyond that must not attempt to standardize their ideas. They are theirs and theirs alone. That goes for both sides. Baptists have never been monolithically Arminian or Calvinist. No one should take advantage of a resurgent trend to spread it. Non-essential beliefs should remain privately held. And I maintain that most non-essential matters will keep us going in circles anyway.

“There are parts of the Bible that you don’t believe.” “I hope that one day the Holy Spirit will enlighten you as He did me.” “You can not respond to Calvinism without being divisive.” “The Gospel is Calvinism and Calvinism is the Gospel.” “You really need to get your education from (not going to name) seminary. They really teach what the gospel is all about.” “When you get more education, you will see.”
These statements came from men, young and old, that are Calvinist. They are pastors, and two of them (both men have been in the ministry for 40+ years) I have and still do look up to. I love them, but I have been hurt (and angered) by these statements, and when I get on a blog thread or read some of the statements that are coming from the Neo-Calvinist Movement I hear the same attitude. Not sure how else I am supposed to feel about it. I love Jesus. I love His Word. I want as many people to know Him as possible. I read the Bible, I study the Bible, and I preach the Bible. I am tired of being told that I don’t measure up. You can say all you want to about how that doesn’t speak for all Calvinists, and it may not, but there sure are some loud ones that it speaks for.

I want to thank all who have posted here; great insight. And, I would like to thank SBC Voices for hosting this; it is a good place for dialogue.

Most of all I want to thank my SBC Calvinists brothers or sisters who have taken the time to read this with open minds. Please know I and many others have read “Calvinists – What do you want from Traditionalists?” And I appreciate very much the comments there. I even appreciated the raw comments that came across as angry (most of us can relate to frustration at not being understood when we try to speak plainly).

As to what I want from Calvinists – I think most has already been said and said well; but the comments to which I felt most akin were the comments by Rick Patrick, Adam Harwood and Steve Lemke (and the ice cream of course – thanks David).

But I would like to add a little to Dr. Lemke’s response concerning “traditional.”

1. I hear the Calvinists voice of anger at the term “Traditional.” I would love to hear a less offensive, more accurate descriptor to our position. We didn’t use “Majority Baptist” “True Baptist” “Bible Baptist” or simply “Baptist” for those seem even more offensive; we can’t use “anti-Calvinist” or “Arminian” for those are not representative; the term “Anabaptist” would in and of itself need a further descriptor for many. The point is I think the authors tried to be accurate in the least offensive way. Yes, perhaps we could have consulted with a Calvinist for a better term but then again this is not a Calvinist document, and usually there is some misunderstandings about theological positions when Calvinists and those of our persuasion discuss theology. Further, I have not heard of a Calvinist consulting with us when using descriptors for his position (see #2).

2. Please hear our concern that we find it a tad bit hypocritical to get worked up that we would use the term “traditional” to define our position when some of you have used the terms “doctrines of grace” or “true gospel” or “sovereignty” to define your position. As if we do not affirm God’s full sovereignty, or the true gospel or the grace of God. Quite frankly, an objective theological mind would find the latter three descriptors far far more offensive than the former (because of the implications). So please think of new less offensive descriptors for your position before chastising us for our descriptor.

3. Please know we did not sign it because it had the term “traditional” in the title. The title isn’t something we would lose sleep over. The affirmations and denials are. So if you want to address the document great, but please move past the title. It’s the content to which we affixed our names.

One more item that I would request of Calvinists:

To understand that the affirmations and denials were not intended to be divisive! Using the term “divisive” is a little offensive (side note: using the positive term “unity” to oppose the signing doesn’t negate the offense) unless one showed intellectual honesty by using the same term for a SBC Calvinists group (say like Founders) or to describe those who would sign (say like Dr. Mohler) a Calvinistic document (say like T4G).

This is a theological document, by its very nature it divides; but that is not its intent (anymore than it was the intent of Dr, Mohler and those who worked on T4G), its intent is to express forthrightly and honestly our belief (just as Calvinists have done).

(Although frankly, Dr. Hankins’ document is even more forthright than most of the resent Calvinist’ documents I have read. I am not a Calvinist at all, but unless I knew the catchwords I could sign some of their new documents.
Compare the resent ones to the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). The latter is much more forthright. I am not trying to be meddlesome, but I am somewhat troubled as to why one would not simply state one’s belief. For example: “As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as the righteous judge, for former sin doth blind and harden; from them he not only withholdeth his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understanding…” (BCF (1689) chapter 5); or “Others not elected…neither will nor can truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…” (BCF 1689 chapter 10).)

As usual, I’m late in commenting. As someone who is definitely *not* Calvinist, I suppose I should be commenting on this post, but what comes to my mind is something I want from both sides: Take a week, and for your daily quiet time, meditate on I Cor 8:1-4. Particularly pay attention to verse 2. How does it affect your ability to be certain in your knowledge of theology (or anything else)? How do you take it seriously without it taking away your ability to preach the Gospel with certainty? Do you take it seriously?

I’ve got my own ideas about this section of scripture(some of which I have commented on before), but I leave it to you. I think a good understanding of what Paul’s getting to here goes a long way towards reducing the tendency towards arrogance (which to my perspective is not at *all* confined to a portion of the Calvinists – it hits some on all sides).

As long as we’re making media references, let’s just say that as an old Babylon-5 fan, I’m looking at Dave going to both the Traditionalists (or whatever you call them) and the Calvinists and asking “What do you want?”, and I’m having to resist picturing Dave as Mr Morden, minion of the Shadows.

Calvinists should not hide. Calvinists shouldn’t turn every text into a proof text. However, this is true of other theological viewpoints.

Guys, I am just sorry that it has come to this. I think this statement is simply going to cause harm. I am a church planter and pastor under 40. I know a lot of good Calvinists who will be hurt by this. … Not just 20somethings, but older guys I went to NOBTS with who have no agenda.

So, I guess the main thing I want from Calvinists is to stay in the SBC. Many of these guys have been kicked for their methodology and now they are being punched for a theology they have grounds for in the BFM2000.

I want Calvinists to respond with love and grace.