Paige Patterson, the President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, encouraged Calvinists to leave the SBC.

I am a member of a Southern Baptist church. I am also a Calvinist. For those of you who belong to another denomination you may not be aware of the tension that exists between those who identify as Calvinists and those who do not. Personally I’m ok coexisting, but increasingly there is a vocal group within the Southern Baptist Convention who see Calvinism as a blight within the denomination.

First a quick definition of the terms Calvinism and Arminianism thanks to Joe Carter at The Gospel Coalition:

Arminianism — a set of doctrines, first elucidated by Jacob Arminius but based on exegesis of scripture, that concludes that unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will, yet salvation is conditioned on a person’s willingness to freely place their faith in Christ. For Arminians, the offer of grace by the Holy Spirit is resistible.

Calvinism — a set of doctrines, first elucidated by John Calvin but based on exegesis of scripture, that conclude God alone is responsible for every aspect of salvation, from beginning to end, election to glory, and man contributes nothing to it. For Calvinists, the offer of grace by the Holy Spirit is irresistible.

I was reminded of this conflict, as it’s not really all that visible in my local church, when I read about a recent chapel service at the SBC’s largest seminary – Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, TX. I was troubled by the chapel speaker’s comments, but more so by what Dr. Paige Patterson, president of the seminary, said directly after.

I know there are a fair number of you who think you are a Calvinist, but understand there is a denomination which represents that view. It’s called Presbyterian.

I have great respect for them. Many of them, the vast majority of them, are brothers in Christ, and I honor their position, but if I held that position I would become a Presbyterian. I would not remain a Baptist, because the Baptist position from the time of the Anabaptists, really from the time of the New Testament, is very different.

Prior to this over 1000 Southern Baptists (including numerous former SBC leaders and pastors) signed a “Statement on the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of Salvation.”

This tension is not unique among Southern Baptists there have been similar tensions within the Evangelical Free Church (I have served as a youth pastor and pastor in the EFCA) even though the factions have not been so organized. Also there is a detente that has taken place within the Evangelical Free Church which has taken a neutral stance on Calvinism, or the doctrines of grace, within their statement of faith. Unlike the Evangelical Free Church, the Southern Baptist Convention does take a position on eternal security so in that sense they have adopted at least one tenet of Calvinism formally.

The Baptist Faith & Message takes a neutral stand on election.

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God’s sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

The primary difference influence of Arminianism is seen when looking Article III in the Baptist Faith & Message as it deals with the Doctrine of Man.

Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. 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 inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

“Inclined toward sin” is a statement that doesn’t reflect a view that man is totally depraved.

I want to make two points here.

1. The “traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology is not actually traditional. 

The 1925 Baptist Faith & Message says this about the doctrine of man.

Man was created by the special act of God, as recorded in Genesis. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7).

He was created in a state of holiness under the law of his Maker, but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

Inheriting a corrupt nature and being “inclined toward sin” are significant differences. This change occurred in 1963. The statement on election has been virtually unchanged.

Thomas S. Kidd, professor of history at Baylor University, points out that Calvinism is not new to Baptists.

In a 1793 survey, early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1,032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 were Calvinist congregations. These were “Particular Baptists,” for they believed in a definite atonement (or “particular redemption”), that Christ had died to save the elect decisively. “General Baptists,” who believed that Christ had died indefinitely for the sins of anyone who would choose him, accounted for a tiny fraction of the whole. Even some of those, Asplund noted, believed in certain Calvinist tenets such as “perseverance in grace.”

Kidd notes there were Baptists among those who came to faith in Christ during the Great Awakening:

The Separate Baptists of New England were typically people who had been converted during the Great Awakening, often under the itinerant preaching of (Calvinist) George Whitefield or other zealous evangelicals. The Separate Baptists were almost uniformly Calvinist in their convictions, as were the pastors who led America’s Great Awakening (like Jonathan Edwards). The converts often discovered that their own churches and pastors were not supportive of the revivals, so they started meeting in “Separate” churches.

What I find interesting is that it was the Arminian Baptists who opposed the revivals happening during the Great Awakening.

Only some of the “Particular” or “Regular” Baptists associated with the Philadelphia Association of Baptists (formed decades before the Great Awakening) supported the revivals. The General Baptists of New England, wary of interdenominational cooperation, mostly opposed the new revivalism. Doing so nearly ended the Arminian (free will) Baptist influence in America for about three decades. Their numbers dwindled and some Arminians joined Separate or other Calvinist Baptist congregations.

Then if you look further back at the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith it very much embraced the Reformation view of soteriology which is Calvinistic.

Kidd noted a decline in Calvinist influence among Baptists starting in 1830. Even so, the SBC’s doctrine of man did not change until 1963. Hardly the traditional view!

2. Calvinist Baptists are not the same as Presbyterians and Reformed Christians.

The Presbyterian Church is not a natural home for Baptists who Calvinists as Patterson suggests. Being Presbyterian or being Reformed means much more than believing in the doctrines of grace.

The primary difference is over baptism. I disagree with baptizing infants. Baptizing those who have professed their faith in Christ by immersion is the biblical model. I know many, many faithful believers who attend churches that practice infant baptism who believe differently, but it is one of the reasons I can’t become a member of a Presbyterian or Reformed church.

Eschatology is another distinction. Many Presbyterians and Reformed Christians are amillennial or postmillennial. Most Baptists reject amillennialism and are typically premillennial.

Also, Presbyterians and Reformed Christians embrace Covenant theology and Baptists lean towards to dispensationalism.

Then there is the issue of church polity. Presbyterian and Reformed Churches use a presbyterian form of church government which is elder run. Not only do they have elders that oversee individual churches, but they are also under the delegated authority of a regional body of churches which is called a presbytery in the Presbyterian Church and a classis and an even broader body called a synod in the Reformed tradition.

Most Baptist churches utilize a congregational form of government. This generally means each individual church is autonomous. That is the primary difference – there is not a regional body that has any authority over an individual church whether it is delegated or not. Baptist churches (and other congregational  churches) can and do belong to different conventions, districts or associations that allows them toshare common beliefs, cooperate in joint ministry efforts and regulate clergy with other congregations. Congregations typically vote on different items during business meetings for members of the local church. Churches under the congregational system vary however with some being led by a single elder/pastor and other churches have a plurality of elders and the level of congregational involvement and decision-making varies by church.

These are not the only distinctions, but these are the major ones.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. I do not believe that Christ intended to have all of this dissension amongst His family. He never intended for man to do denominations only follow Him. If you believe in Christ and His finished work on the cross, enough with this man made foolishness. There were no Baptists or Lutherans etc amongst the disciples, only believers.

  2. Shane, it gets a little more complicated. Historically most Baptists before the 20th century were postmillenialists and the majority embraced a form of covenant theology. The trend is clearly away from dispensationalism among evangelicals in general. Many Baptists, especially those who have been influenced by the men at Southern Baptists Seminary, not only are Calvinists, but espouse New Covenant Theology or Progressive Covenantalism, as it is sometimes called. Many of those who adhere to it are amillenial

    Some Southern Baptists are also emphasizing a new form of congregational polity that has a strong elder rule.

    Even the EFCA about 10 years ago came within a whisker of dropping premillenialism from its statement of faith. Only a rearguard action from some for whom it was an essential doctrine stopped that.

    In other words the divide seems much smaller between Calvinistic Baptists and Presbyterians such as myself, than it did even a few decades ago. 🙂

  3. Calvinism did not start with Calvin. Arminianism did not start with Arminius. It goes back to Augustine, who had the position that Calvin took, and Pelageus. Pelageus took a more radical view than the Arminians. He was condemned as a heretic. But others took a position that was not as sympathetic to human free will. So, to be historically correct instead of using the popular terms, you would be either an Augustinian or a Semi-Pelagian.

      1. As a dispensational Calvinist (yes, I do use the term) I often wonder where I fit. I’m not aware of any label that fits. At least not one that is well known.

    1. The irony is that while Calvinists are happy to be called Augustinians, many Armnians deny being semi-:Pelagians.

      Also a large majority of modern Christians– including man evangelicals–don’t know if they are either. Most of those are really semi-Pelagians, although some nearly full Pelagians seem to exist as well. 🙂

  4. It is such a saddening series of events of late in the SBC. This seems to have also run it’s course over the life of the true church. The truth of the Gospel and the Glory of God found and expressed in His mercy on an utterly condemned humanity, where apart from His mercy have absolutely no hope or desire to reach out to that God, was beautifully illumined to us during the reformation in which the wonderful and sovereign work of God raised up men to bring that Light out from man’s religion and the darkness that is always the result of our great God removing His glory from them.

    When we reject the plain truths of His word, particularly His glory in salvation, does not God show us He removes His glory, His lampstands, His truth’s, the illumining work of discernment from them (Rev 2-3)? Do we not see how brothers from the past fought tirelessly to forewarn the church of this in England and Europe as the “downgrade” became more and more evident? Look at that result today! Europe is an absolute wasteland of a people who have “No knowledge or fear of God” and the apostate, ecumenical road right back to Rome is dead and lost. Why?

    Let’s look at the word of God revealed from the very mouth of our Lord in Luke 8:18 as He pronounced the same judgement on His beloved but apostate Israel Luke 8:18 18 “Take care then how you hear, for to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.” The Holy Spirit also warned the church in Romans 11:22 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

    Why will she be cut off? Because of man centered religious pride and elevation of himself instead of fear, reverence and submission to the clear truths of God’s sovereign decretive will. The true church is clearly building the false apostate church that we see in 2 Tim 3,4 & 2 Thes 2. We have churches full of man centered unbelievers worshipping, leading through deacon rotations and election from a voting mixture of weak believers and blind, carnal unbelievers left perfectly comfortable through weak, man centered teaching and preaching.

    He will call His people out of her (Rev 17&18) but she will require a serious wakeup call to hear His voice…how clear and sad it is that we are well on this course.

    Prayerfully hopeful in the Lord and saddened just like those who trust and believe God’s word as they saw it unfolding before their very eyes!

    1. An important extract and historical event, particularly given the irony of these SBC leaders using the analogy of the “Trojan Horse” when the Jesuits and Papist used the term “Poison Pill” as a reference to the Arminianism found in 1628 in their effort to destroy the Protestant movement and return all back to Rome – an extract and a link to the complete treatment:

      Certain it is, that Arminius himself was sensible, how greatly the doctrine of predestination widens the distance between Protestantism and Popery. “There is no point of doctrines (says he) which the Papists, the Anabaptists, and the (new) Lutherans more fiercely oppose, nor by means of which they heap more discredit on the reformed churches, and bring the reformed system itself into more odium; for they (i.e. the Papists, & etc.) assert, that no fouler blasphemy against God can be thought or expressed, than is contained in the doctrine of predestination.”7 For which reason, he advises the reformed world to discard predestination from their creed, in order that they may live on more brotherly terms with the Papists, the Anabaptists, and such like.
      The Arminian writers make no scruple to seize and retail each other’s arguments, as common property. Hence, Samuel Hoord copies from Van Harmin the self same observation which I have now cited. “Predestination (says Samuel) is an opinion odious to the Papists, opening their foul mouths, against our Church and religion:”8 consequently, our adopting the opposite doctrines of universal grace and freewill, would, by bringing us so many degrees nearer to the Papists, conduce to shut their mouths, and make them regard us, so far at least, as their own orthodox and dearly beloved brethren: whence it follows, that, as Arminianism came from Rome, so “it leads thither again.”

      If the joint verdict of Arminius himself, and of his English proselyte Hoord, will not turn the scale, let us add the testimony of a professed Jesuit, by way of making up full weight. When archbishop Laud’s papers were examined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that prelate’s own hand: “March, 1628. A Jesuit’s Letter, sent to the Rector at Bruxels, about the ensuing Parliament.” The design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall here subjoin: “Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s (of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke’s chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and carefull in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke:–OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME. The Arminians and projectors, as it appeares in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments.”9

      The full article:

      1. And another interesting and related piece to add to these is a paper written by a Roman Catholic apologist who very interesting argues for, and strongly agrees with the Arminian origins being found in Rome. From the article title and header:

        Intellectual Property: The Catholic Scholastic Provenance of Jacobus Arminius’ Prevenient Grace Theology
        12 May 2011
        The following is a paper presented to Dr Kenneth Melchin for THO 4108, Grace and Christian Existence, on the topic of the Roman Catholic Scholastic underpinnings of the theology of Jacobus Arminius, 16th-17th century Reformed theologian.

        Please read:

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Christ’s Call

In church today, my family and I attended Grace Church on the…

Jesus on Jesus (Part I)

What does Jesus have to say about Himself? A walk through the Gospels we can see that Jesus claims to be God in numerous ways, here is part 1 of Jesus on Jesus.

Secular History vs. Sacred History

Last Sunday I preached on Ephesians 3:1-13 in my discussion on how…

Do Not Forsake Me, O LORD (Psalm 38)

A Psalm of David, for the memorial offering. 38:1 O Lord, rebuke…