Are Southern Baptists Calvinists?

Dr. Albert Mohler “The Reformer,” President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, the Calvinist flagship of Southern Baptist seminaries, published “Why All Southern Baptists are Calvinists.” According to Dr. Mohler, “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.” I posted two comments on the SBC Voices site, when Brandon Smith published his post on Dr. Mohler’s assessment. The following were my two comments (though I added to them only slightly), posted in the comments section (and I am grateful for my comments being published, as well as those of other Arminians):

1. I cannot get over this statement: “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.” This is embarrassing for Dr. Mohler. He has demonstrated that he has neither read Arminius [I made this comment having read Arminius on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture], nor taken care to read Arminian ministers who followed him regarding the inerrancy of God’s word (e.g. John Wesley, Fletcher, Watkins, William Burt Pope, Adam Clarke, Miley, and a host of modern Arminians who advance the truth of the inerrancy of God’s word — visit the Society of Evangelical Arminians site).

Anyone who has ever read Arminius’s “On the Authority of Scripture” would never utter any semblance to Dr. Mohler’s comment.Moreover, he has equated and confused (to say nothing of redefined) inerrancy with exhaustive determinism: “We really do believe,” argues Dr. Mohler, “that God can work in such a way that the human will wills to do what God wills that will to do. And that is exactly why we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.” This is tantamount to Charles Spurgeon’s error in stating, “Calvinism is the Gospel, and nothing else.” Jesus is the Gospel, brothers and sisters, not Calvinism. God’s Word is inerrant,, not the Calvinist’s interpretation of it. The lengths to which some Calvinists will tread in order to substantiate Calvinism in Southern Baptist life is very telling. May God grant us mercy, grace and peace.

2. As an aside, while stating, “Agreeing with conditional security, for example, will certainly remove you from Baptist doctrine in and of itself,” how do you explain Dale Moody, formerly of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who rejected unconditional security, or inevitable perseverance of the saints? Or maybe I should ask what your opinion of him is, considering his rejection of perseverance and his being a Southern Baptist. [Believe it or not, there are some Southern Baptists who do not adhere to Perseverance, though they are certainly the minority.]

Assuming that we are correctly understanding and interpreting Dr. Mohler’s comments, what we find in his statements is another unfortunate example of the Calvinizing of Southern Baptists by some Calvinists within the SBC who promote a Calvinistic agenda, such as Founders Ministries, among others. Perhaps what they want Southern Baptists to believe is that, in order to be a consistent Southern Baptist, one must be a Calvinist. But many five-point Calvinists (of the Presbyterian or Reformed stripe) confess that one cannot be a Southern Baptist and truly Reformed (in spite of hosted conferences, such as The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel, which feature Presbyterians and Calvinist Southern Baptists, and which exclude Arminians from ministering in or speaking at their conferences). Dr. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas, quoted at length here comments:

In spite of the challenges to Baptist identity that a zealous strain of Calvinism may present, some Baptists are convinced that they can remain Baptist while also being truly Calvinist. But, although such Baptists — and some capable and virtuous ones at that — have tried to combine Reformed soteriology with Baptist ecclesiology, the combination may ultimately prove unstable. As Richard Muller has argued, from the Reformed perspective, the two belief systems are incompatible. For Muller, being Calvinist is not only about the five points of the Synod of Dort. Being Reformed, which is the same as being Calvinist, entails accepting that tradition’s whole way of being Christian. Calvinism includes, among other things, the de-emphasizing of personal decisions for Christ, infant baptism, and a healthy working relationship between church and state. Muller, a highly respected Calvinist theologian, may be correct. In the end, it is impossible to be at once both truly Reformed and truly Baptist, especially when the local church is considered.¹

While sincere believers may disagree over what constitutes a Calvinist or being Reformed, we cannot underestimate the affect which Calvinism is having upon Southern Baptists. We need to be reminded of the intense persecution which Anabaptists endured by Zwingli, Luther and Calvin, being counted as unregenerate heretics. Why? Because this was a theological war, not merely an ideological or philosophical one. We need to be reminded why Anabaptists rejected Reformed teaching.

We need to be reminded that Baptist roots are historically Arminian in nature, not Reformed or Calvinistic. As it stands, many Calvinist Southern Baptists are merely Presbyterians who immerse (and some Baptist Calvinists such as John Piper are willing to admit those who were sprinkled as infants as members of his Baptist church without being immersed, though his church rejects Piper’s willingness to do such).²

Why all Southern Baptists are Calvinists, according to Dr. Mohler, is due in part not only to the truth of inerrancy, but also to substitutionary atonement (which many Classical, historic Arminians hold), the omniscience of God (which all Classical, historic Arminians hold), and the eternal security of the believer (which all Classical, historic Arminians hold).

Regarding the latter, all Arminians, including Arminius himself, confess that a believer, because he or she is trusting in and is in union with Christ Jesus, is eternally secure ipso facto. Belief in (trust in and union with) Christ Jesus secures the believer. The issue of “falling away” is reserved for those who do not abide in Christ (John 15:1-6). The believer is secure in Christ. Those who apostatize have absolutely no assurance of salvation, nor should they (contra the theological errors of Charles Stanley).

Former Southern Baptist professor Dale Moody rejected Dr. Mohler’s assertion in his own day, as do other Southern Baptists presently (though Moody had his own theological demons with which to contend). Holding to or rejecting the doctrine of perseverance, as is maintained by Calvinists, does not make one a Southern Baptist (e.g. there are Methodists who hold to perseverance).

Dr. Mohler and some other SBC Calvinists are arranging secondary issues into primary aspects of what makes a Southern Baptist. If this persists among Southern Baptist churches, within time, either most or all Southern Baptists will be Calvinists, or there will be a mass exodus of believers from Southern Baptist churches. Let us pray that neither will be manifested.

__________

¹ Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “The Potential Impact of Calvinist Tendencies upon Local Baptist Churches,” in Whoseover Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 232. See also Richard A. Muller, “How Many Points?” in Calvin Theological Journal 28, no. 2 (1993): 425-26.

² Yarnell writes: “Those influences exercised by Calvinism’s ancient church concept and acceptance of the Augustinian innovations may include an increase in conversations about the universal invisible church; an increase in ecumenical relationships, including close cooperation with ministers and churches espousing Reformed polity, as opposed to singular commitment to the local churches; and in increase in conversations about cultural relevancy and cultural transformation alongside a decrease in emphasis upon religious liberty.

"Those influences exercised by the aristocratic preferences of Calvinism may involve adoption of the multiple elders model as opposed to a single pastor model; and, going one step further, the diminishing of congregational governance in favor of elder rule.

"Those influences exercised by the antinomian impulses of Calvinism may include admission of members on the basis of infant baptism and/or baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and the opening of Communion to those who have not submitted to baptism according to the Lord’s command and the apostles’ witness. Finally, related to all four tendencies is a potential increase in conversations about speculative doctrine alongside a decrease in evangelistic practices, such as the decline of invitations at the end of the worship service” (232).