Dr. Patterson on Calvinism
Posted by
I am hopeful that last week’s Building Bridges conference on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention will be the beginning of an important and helpful conversation about how we can work together as Baptists, Calvinist and non-Calvinist, without any negative effects resulting from our differing viewpoints. There is so much on which we agree that it is utter foolishness to divide over these issues. Baptists who are passionate about the missionary task must never be excluded from service and leadership in our convention simply because they are in the Calvinist minority when it comes to their views on soteriology.
Unfortunately, there are some in our convention who would use this issue to create fear. They suggest that if we allow for a robust Baptist identity by defining certain secondary doctrines as being outside the mainstream among Southern Baptists, that somehow we are on a slippery slope toward the exclusion of others based on soteriology, eschatology, and the like. This is absolute nonsense, as should be obvious to every thinking person who has ever heard of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Recently, we approached Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr. Paige Patterson and asked if we could publish an article by him addressing the relationship between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. You can read Dr. Patterson’s essay by clicking here.
In this essay, Dr. Patterson points to the fact that when Baptists in England, General and Particular, separated from one another, both suffered. Many General Baptists slipped into universalism, while Particular Baptists developed a decidedly anti-missionary bent. They had, by their separation, eliminated the balancing tendency of the other, and the separation was unhealthy for both groups.
The lesson for our convention could not be more clear. As one who does not identify myself as a Calvinist, I am immensely grateful to my evangelistic Calvinist brothers in the SBC. They have caused me to be careful to present with clarity the Gospel of Jesus Christ each time I stand before God’s people. Because of the influence of these brothers, I am careful to explain that it is believing in the heart that results in a sinner’s justification, and not walking the aisle or reciting a canned prayer. My ministry has greatly benefited from these folks with whom I have clear disagreements, such as on the extent of the atonement. But that disagreement would never preclude my cooperation with them, nor in my learning from their zeal for the Gospel.
It is time for clear understandings to develop regarding these issues, in an environment free of the fear of exclusion that some would use to further their own agendas. I’m grateful to Dr. Patterson for allowing us to publish this piece, and it is my hope his contribution will help lead us in that direction.
30 Comments
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
Brother Wes,
Dr. Patterson does a great job calling our attention to the areas of agreement and then points to areas of concern. I think it does SB well to heed his approach.
Also, did you notice he gave 4 points of agreement and 5 points of caution? Only Dr. P. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:21 am
Wes,
This was a good idea to get Dr. Patterson’s input. I appreciated what he had to say. Even the folks on the other side of the aisle are in the same church!
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
That was a really good point about the Baptists in England. I never thought of it that way before.
Josh
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Wes,
Dr. Patterson is certainly aiming at unity among the churches in this article. A couple of things I noticed,…one from his dissenting list and the other from the affirming list. Both views were in the forth position of the statement.
The dissent, quote “…on the whole Baptists are Congregationalists—recognizing as they do the problems latent in congregational rule, they nonetheless believe that the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit of God in each believer means, among other things, that the congregation as a whole should be consulted and indeed determinative in the major decisions of the local church. Part of this is tied to Baptist emphasis upon the autonomy of the local church.”
This is probably one of the most misunderstood doctrines within the Baptist church. Biblical elder rule has a great deal to add to missional independence (autonomy). Somehow it is argued that autonomy is only achieved by congregational voting. I think this is a misnomer, because it is not necessarily biblical. I do think Dr. Patterson is trying to find middle ground here….but I would challenge the linking of the components of the statement.
The affirmation, quote “….absolute integrity must be the order of the day. …..I must be entirely candid with the appropriate authorities in the church. I must tell them every single aspect of my theological perspective and I must explain exactly how I will lead the church or teach my classes as the case may be. Anything less than full disclosure to the church or to an institution by which I shall be employed is a failure of integrity. This lack of integrity and full disclosure is that which disrupts churches and institutions and causes trouble that has the tendency to spill over into every aspect of denominational life.”
This was excellent. I have seen pastors from both sides of the argument sneaking into a ministry with the motive of indoctrinating a system among the hearers. That is a deathblow to the congregation….. So, this admonition of Dr Patterson should ring out among the churches in a big way!
Thanks for the post,
Blessings,
Chris
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Brother Chris,
You are correct about the last point. Because my undergraduate degree is from a university that is a partner with CBF, I have spoken to a few pastor search committees of churches that have CBF leanings. I have been upfront with them in the process. I have expressed that I understand that the church believes this way, but I will teach differently and lead the church in a direction that I feel is more biblically based. Of course I have never been presented by any of these churches, but it was because I was honest in my dealings.
It is the same with a pastor that is going to a church that may accentuate the doctrines of Grace. He should speak specifically to the doctrines he does not believe to be solidly biblical.
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I, for one, am greatly encouraged by Dr. Patterson’s article. I find him to be a man of thoughtful consideration and of great theological integrity.
He and I would be in the ‘different varieties’ of Calvinistic influences in our theologies, yet able to cooperate for the sake of the Gospel.
I remember my theological journey as I entered college and made my way through Systematic Theology. It is this very detailed and disciplined study which I believe would bring us all to a more measured approach to these issues. The lack of disciplined, intentional theological study from our pulpits today is a far more debilitating concern from my perspective than how many points we can count.
I tip my hat to our diverse SBC leadership and the strengthening of our commitment to biblical orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Good comment Scott,
Study with dependence upon the Holy Spirit is the key to understanding….we all could use a big dose!
BTW,… I see your ministry will be moving to Missouri….and Joe Stewart is your music minister, wow
I also was on the plane the other day with a business associate that knew you from the Memphis ministry.
Blessings
Chris
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I am one that is grateful for this Building Bridges Conference as it brought two views together to honestly speak. It hopefully rid us of stereotypes from both views.
I don’t think that those who warned against division concerning Calvinist or non-Calvinist were wrong. That is evident in the sermons preached by Johnny Hunt, Jerry Vines and others. It was evident in the send a CD that contained wrong information all over Florida. I do believe it was an attempt to exclude. I also believe that God is answering our prayers(and by our I mean Calvinist and non-Calvinist) in this not being a dividing point. I believe it’s God who gets all the credit for this turn around of which I am grateful, and I am also in full agreement with Dr. Patterson’s essay. I believe God is using this Conference, the men involved and even Dr. Patterson to turn things around. I pray that this is just the beginning of our unifying without conforming.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Chris,
Never saw the irony of the Joe thing until just now. Sometimes I’m a little slow…but as the Tom in the Box guys have said, this stuff is so easy “even a Calvinist can do it”
So, who was the individual from Memphis? The curiosity is just killing me. Well, sorta.
SOLA GRATIA!
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Tim: I think your comment not only insightful but I am in full agreement.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
The views and the attitudes observed from the conference and this paper do not, in my view, represent a change of attitude, but a continuation of what these men have continued to teach and preach. The greatest stereotype that has been dismantled recently is the one that has portrayed SBC leadership, the same leadership that is now being lauded for cooperation, as a villain out to rid our convention of Calvinism, cooperation and non-conformity.
So what is now being observed is the cooperation and painfully obvious loving attitudes of our current brightest and best leaders and professors in the SBC. The charges of exclusion and tyrannical rule cannot be broadbrushed across the convention, and it seems that those loudest about these charges are the ones projecting the negative stereotypes far and wide. The views I have heard espoused from the conference and papers such as the subject of this post are consistent with the views and attitudes I have been exposed to at SWBTS. The tragedy is that such dissention and angst has been thrust upon our brethren when all the while the bad guys actually weren’t actually bad guys, but the stereotypes pervaded the gossip lines and blog posts to a degree that this current shift is seen falsely as a change of attitude rather than silenced beliefs that have remained unchanged.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Scott,
That would be the Michael Heyen family. (I think he was a Union man).
-Chris
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Colin,
You are probably right….so time will tell if this initiative is lip service, posturing or if the Holy Spirit has actually created a bit of sanctification in the midst of sinners….
Stay tuned,
Blessings,
Chris
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Colin, I agree with you. When I came on the blogging scene, this was one of the main topics. I began to wonder who are these dastardly folks? Then I began to engage some of them, non-Calvie and Calvie in conversations. To be quite honest, what I discovered was amiable folk represented in each group. And I also found cantankerous folk in each group. All this goes to prove that we have amiable folk and cantankerous folk, and their soteriology is not something by which we can measure their likability. Indeed, it is how much of the person is dead and how much of the Person Himself is living in each individual. Those who allow Jesus to live supremely within them, are the more likable I think and far more likely to build bridges—such as those found from Australia to America. selahV
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Chris,
My point was that it is none of the three options you mention. It is what they believed and have been teaching for a while.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
thank you Wes, for a greatly helpful article.
Steve
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Colin,
I would not be so certain as to say that the Holy Spirit is not able to kindle the love that He has begun in our lives…
We should turn doubt into prayer,
At the moment there is at least an audience.
Blessings,
Chris
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Sister Debbie,
My anti-spam word was peace. So, was it God’s providence that I respond to you at this time or was it my choice?
:>)
Blessings,
Tim
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Chris,
You completely lost me.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Brother Colin,
I am agreeing with you….and holding out hope that even if no one intends to change any papers or their minds on this subject…..at least there are some reasonable platforms being constructed for dialogue.
And even if no one really cares to change…..there is always the absolute assurance that the Holy Spirit can effect change as He has in every occasion. So, we should continue to pray for God’s will and love each other in the process.
Blessings,
Chris
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Chris,
Yes sir. I now understand and agree. Thank you for your patience with me.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Chris,
Thanks for the info on the Heyens. And thanks for the comments in this thread.
By Grace Alone!
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Tim: Both.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Great article guys and great comments of love and understanding. Have we all been raptured?
I say amen to all of the above in the wording, spirit, and connectivity. God is good.
TG
December 4th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I just hope the music minister sings better than any SBC Today host. What a great article!
December 4th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Wes,
This paper is stunning. Dr. Patterson should put it to Mp3–perhaps preaching it in chapel–and make it available to every Southern Baptist. Here, he is at his finest.
Whoever cooked up Building Bridges committed the greatest of gaffes by not serving, on the speaker’s plate, this piece of pie.
Grace. With that, I am…
Peter
p.s. Now if only Dr. Patterson would come around to the post-trib position, we’d be doctrinally set til Jesus comes… ;^)
December 4th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Joe,
I’ve heard you sing…. that other Joe ain’t got nothin’ on ya!
Blessings,
Chris
December 5th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I once sought to reconcile predestination and free will, and thought several times that I had done it. Finally, I did understand, that philosophers smarter than I had rightly concluded that God’s sovereignty and human freedom were in fact insoluble from a human logic point-of-view. Strict Calvinism solves the problem by going with God’s sovereignty to the exclusion of human freedom. That’s at least logically consistent. Human freedom, however, is required to have a meaningful world.
You can learn something from studying the Calvinism debate. The problem comes, in my opinion, when you have overconfidence in your conclusions.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:53 am
This is a great little blog. Thank you! When I have free time, I’ll definitely try to come here for some constructive and polite dialogue on meaningful issues.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:45 am
wow…i just read dr. pattersons’ paper on this. incredible insight. i agree with peter….any building bridges conference between calvinists and non-calvinists should have included dr. patterson speaking on this paper. fantastic understanding. thanks sbc today crew for this blessing.
david