I know that there are a lot of people who are happy about Frank Page’s election to the SBC presidency. It is true that the bloggers played a major role in this year’s election, and it could be said that the “establishment” met their match. But I for one still feel like a step-child in my denomination. Let me be clear, I appreciate and practice the cooperation within the SBC among Calvinists and Arminians in the Great Commission. But I do not accept the “confused position” that was thrown around this week when some Baptist claim to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Say that you wish to cooperate, that’s fine, but please don’t insult our theological intelligence.
- “Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a Calvinist. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not Arminian.” – Frank Page [HT. Founders]
And I will not forget these words that my denomination’s president wrote about me (a Baptist Calvinist) in his book entitled “Trouble with the Tulip”:
“The downside of this resurgence (of Calvinism) is that many people are falling into a trap set long ago. Manmade doctrines always fail. When any person or person begins to adhere to the teachings of one person, they join the company of many others who have made this serious mistake. It is most grievous to see a large number of individuals accept without question the doctrine of John Calvin in regards to salvation.” (P. 73-74)
“If one does follow the logic of Calvinism, then a missionary or evangelistic spirit is unnecessary. If irresistible grace is the truth, then there is no need to share Christ with anyone, since those persons whom God has elected are irresistibly going to be drawn into His kingdom anyway. If one studies the pages of history, one will see that Calvinistic theology (Five Point) has encouraged a slackening of the aggressive evangelistic and missionary heartbeat of the church. All too often, this precious spirit of concern and urgency is replaced by a cold, logical, haughty spirit.” (P. 74-75)
Page expressed his belief that “God has foreordained the ‘how,’ not the ‘who.’” Those foreordained in Christ become the chosen elect people of God, he added.
The bottom line is, I still believe that theology is more important than methodology, more important than practicalities, more important than anything. Why? Because something forms and dictates one’s methodology and practice. In my opinion, our theology should be that which formulates our methodology, practices, life-style, philosophies, world-view, etc. Theology is the most important issue. I remember some other Arminians who thought that methodology trumped theology… yes, in fact we call them Methodist today.
Nevertheless, may God bless Dr. Page and the SBC.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
I am right with you on the leadership issues and I have many of the same concerns brother.
I praise the Lord that there is not any bashing going on. If I were Al Mohler I would have really thought about saying “I believe in election because I believe and am concerned with what the entire Bible says.” But that is not his nature, he is a gracious man and I praise God for him.
We need to keep looking to a wonderful, Sovereign God who is really in charge of the SBC.
Jason,
My delight in Page’s win is not indicative of my endorsement of Frank Page. If you look at what I have recent in the last month, I have been very hard on Frank Page including a series of posts called “Trouble with PAGE: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Frank Page.” Also, Page, though he differs with us theologically, everything I have heard and said about him is that he is very kind and gracious man, much different than those from the old guard. So in that sense I am hopeful, not so much to have a Calvinist president, but one who will not follow in the same suit as those in the past. Page is fine with us disagreeing with him and he with us (from what I can tell). So the concerns of course are still there, and the things he said about Calvinism will only receive increased scrutiny since he is now the president.
Those who say that they are neither Calvinists or Arminians is fallacious as you have stated, but that is subsequent to the greater challenge that faces us in the SBC – getting back to the Bible. AD FONTES!
You have to be either Calvinist aor Armenian?
there is no third way? or fourth or fifth?
Amen to that David, either Calvinist or Armenian. I wonder what some SBC leaders have meant in the past that the Baptist Faith and Message is not an Armenian document? Okay, then what is it?
Jason –
I have been watching this process from the sidelines, and must confess that I knew nothing about Dr. Page’s background and teaching. Many thanks for this post, both for the information given and the intregrity in which it was presented.
Ryan, thanks for your comments and reminder of who is in charge.
Timmy, thanks for your comments as well. I do agree with what you are saying. I just wanted to remind everyone that nothing has changed theologically in the leadership of the SBC. Our president is a nice Christian man and a wonderful pastor, yes, but he also went as far as to write a book against us. Did he need to do that?
David, thanks for the questions. The answers to your questions are simply, yes you are either Calvinist or Arminian, and no there is no other options. Now, in recent decades there was a movement within Arminianism to not deny “eternal security.” That group was primarily known as the Fundamentalists within the SBC. This group was vital in our ability to remain conservative in our evangelicalism but missed the boat on much theology. There are also commonly referred to as 4-point Arminians.
Don’t confuse this group with 4-point Calvinists who believe in a universal atonement, that Christ died for everyone without exception. 4-point Calvinist still believe in sovereign election and reprobation, total depravity, and the efficacious calling of grace (irresistable grace). So there really is no “middle” camp between Arminianism and Calvinism, just versions within the two camps. I would encourage you to read my short post entitled “Different Kinds of Calvinist” and the several posts on Universal Prevenient Grace. I think the confusion will be cleared up for you.
Jason,
I had a visiting seminary instructor who was Southern Baptist and said that the only part of T.U.L.I.P. he believed in was some of the T, some of the U and all of the P. Perhaps he was called a 2 or 2.5 pointer. I am sad to say that this was Richard Land of the Religious and Ethics Department of the SBC. That was seven years ago, so he may have changed some of his views by now. How is something like this possible and still hold to belief in the Calvinistic Baptist Faith and Message?
Something worth pointing out maybe is the motion made about the use of confessional statements such as the Abstract and Principles and the BF&M in our seminaries (in particular SBTS and SEBTS). Also, another motion was made to examine Calvinism in the SBC. Obviously, there are many who are concerned with Calvinism and its growing influence in the SBC.
No, Page should not have written the book, especially since it is so full of errors. But as Tom Ascol pointed out, it was written with the same vitriolic and hyperbolic attitudes of other SBC leaders who are anti-Reformed. He has stated his position, and Calvinists have the right to respond. Ultimately, if everyone comes to examine the Scripture without controlling biases, people will see the biblical support for Calvinism and likely agree with it. The problem today is that the main outlet of information on Calvinism in the SBC is by those who absolutely cannot stand it. Obviously, they can’t and won’t describe or define it correctly. Herein is the real problem I think.
It is interesting. Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel also claims that he is neither Calvinist or Arminian, yet he endorses Dave Hunt’s books disputing Calvinism.
I try to not label people around here at Fide-O, but one thing I am certain of even if he is not. Chuck Smith is a flaming Arminian.
“God has foreordained the ‘how,’ not the ‘who. Those foreordained in Christ become the chosen elect people of God,”
Finally, some common sense.
Except by this, he means that God foreordained a plan, not a people, but the Scripture says that people (he chose US in Him before the foundation of the world…) as well as a plan. Those who believe are those foreknown in Christ. Dr. Page affirms that they are elected because they believed. Not one line of Scripture says such a thing. Persons believe because they are elected.
Genembridges–
You put the emphasis on the wrong word…”God chose us in CHRIST before the foundation of the world.” It is through Christ, the eternal Logos of God, that God has chosen to unite that which God has created to Godself.
My dad was a Calvinist preacher in the SBC for 40 years. I grew up on Calvinism. In the early 60s I went with my dad to preach on the street in Ft Worth and later in Silver City, NM. He also took me to the jail house and later I had my own jail ministry. He took me to Mexico where we built churches and where he would preach in Spanish the Sovereignty of God. The Calvinism I grew up with and my Calvinism today is very evangelistic and mission minded.
Not to be disrespectful, but how does the election of Page (or for that matter, any of the other recent past presidents) make a difference in the personal lives of Baptists? I don’t see any impact any particular president has had on Baptist faith and practice. Each president seems to be a reflection of “what is”, not “what is to be.”
Lets remember that this Calvinism is nothing new. If you were to go back in the history of the church that is all you would find was Calvinists. I just cannot understand what all this uproar in the convention is about. I guess if the majority of them want to go against history that is up to them, but I don’t think it is that smart-stupid actually! If you are a Calvinist you have history on your side, maybe not the SBC, but history. I would rather side anyday with God and history.
God has His remnant, we will not go away. He will use us through the denominational cultus of Baptistism! There is always next year.
servingHim said, “I don’t see any impact any particular president has had on Baptist faith and practice.“
The SBC president exercises influence through appointments to key positions that do have a lasting impact on the convention. It was by a steady grassroots-driven election of theologically conservative presidents over a period of years that the SBC turned from their past liberal slide back to a strong inerrantist position, and more theologically conservative in general. E.g., their election influenced who/what was taught in their seminaries & colleges, which in turn influences the churches in which seminary-trained men are placed to lead & shepherd. Another example of their influence would be the BF&M 2000.
DISCLAIMER: I’m speaking as a non-SBC guy, an outsider, but one who somewhat understands the history of the conservative resurgence…probably the guys here can give more clarity.
Thanks bulldog for connecting all the dots for me. I guess I wrongly assumed pastor search committees seek men of God’s choosing and if the seminaries produced liberal graduates, they simply would not be called. Pretty naive view, I’m sure.
I’m a member of a Baptist church, which is a member of SBC, but I’ve never paid too much attention to what happens at the convention level.
Lets remember that this Calvinism is nothing new. If you were to go back in the history of the church that is all you would find was Calvinists. I just cannot understand what all this uproar in the convention is about. I guess if the majority of them want to go against history that is up to them, but I don’t think it is that smart-stupid actually! If you are a Calvinist you have history on your side, maybe not the SBC, but history. I would rather side anyday with God and history.
You should convert to orthodoxy. They’ve been around the longest.
You could convert to Wesleyian theology, but they haven’t been around as long.
Jason said:
“The bottom line is, I still believe that theology is more important than methodology, more important than practicalities, more important than anything. Why? Because something forms and dictates one’s methodology and practice. In my opinion, our theology should be that which formulates our methodology, practices, life-style, philosophies, world-view, etc. Theology is the most important issue. I remember some other Arminians who thought that methodology trumped theology… yes, in fact we call them Methodist today.”
I found these categories to be interesting, Jason. You seem to associate theology with theory alone. Could you have said have said “theory” instead of “theology” above to make your point? Methodology and practice are indistinguishable from theology, as you know. If theology is, as William Ames said, the doctrine of right living to God, then such theology/practice dichotomies are improper but understandably common. However, if we use the term “theory,” then people might think we are talking about uncertain ideas or mere speculation. That word doesn’t have the best of connotations to capture the distinction.
Even the methodology and practice of Arminians is bad theology because it stems from bad thinking. Right methods and/or practice must be related to right motives, and the motive for evangelism is the glory of God in all things, not PRIMARILY to see people get saved. Also, as the Great Commission seems to indicate, we are to evangelize with a view to making disciples. Teaching and instruction is inseperable from sound evangelistic practice, but this is seriously lacking in many Baptist circles. They “evangelize” but don’t teach. They do not systematically expound the scriptures, thus their people are not mentally transformed. If Frank Page’s people were exposed to regular and indepth doctrinal expositions, he couldn’t get away with what he’s saying about Calvinism. Page’s own lack of careful thinking can be seen in that he associates logic with coldness. If one starts to logically criticize Page’s remarks, then we are being “cold.” He’s now insulated from critical analysis in a “nice and warm” cocoon of nonsense.