A few weeks ago I reached out to Dr. Steve Gaines about the possibility of doing a question and answer blog with SBCToday. Due to us both being busy, I suggested sending these questions in the form of an email so that he could answer them as his schedule permitted. He graciously agreed to do so.
With the 2017 Southern Baptist Convention’s Annual Meeting less than a month away we are now running this “conversation” and hope, if nothing else, it will encourage you to pray for our President and for our Southern Baptist Convention.
We greatly appreciate Dr. Gaines taking the time to speak to our readers. Below are our questions and his answers.
What has been your biggest surprise about being President of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Dr. Gaines: I am surprised that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) can be so large and effective even though it is not a hierarchical, top-down organization. No national or state entity can tell any churches what to do. Yet we voluntarily choose to work together. That is amazing to me, and I am more convinced than ever that the Lord has His hand on Southern Baptists and that He has a great future for us in the years to come.
What has been your biggest blessing as President of the Southern Baptist Convention?
Dr. Gaines: My biggest blessing has been to see firsthand how vastly the Lord is working through Southern Baptists at multiple venues and levels. God is using Southern Baptists at the local church, association, state, and national levels.
I have focused on preaching. I’ve had the privilege to preach at five of our six seminaries. I have attended the board meetings of both the International Mission Board (IMB) and the North American Mission Board (NAMB). I preached to the NAMB trustees. I also attended the board meeting for GuideStone and preached to their staff, their trustees, and wives. I preached to the SBC Executive Board in Nashville. I have also preached at numerous state convention meetings and several other SBC meetings. I had the privilege of preaching several times to the State Executives at their annual meeting.
I am overwhelmed with all that the Lord is doing in and through Southern Baptists. Through NAMB, we are seeking to plant one hundred new churches every month in our largest cities across North America. The Gospel will change countless lives as those new works are launched. I am also grateful that the IMB has become stronger fiscally, and that we are once again beginning to add to the number of full time missionaries that we are sending oversees.
Though we have challenges, it is still a wonderful time to be a Southern Baptist. I believe we are poised to take the Gospel of Jesus to the world.
What is your greatest concern facing the Southern Baptist Convention?
Dr. Gaines: My concern is that we need to make prayer and soul winning greater priorities. If you love someone, you talk with them and about them. If you love Jesus, you will talk with Him (prayer) and about Him (soul winning). Sometimes I think Christians in general in America are much more focused horizontally than vertically. We are often more focused on emails, texts, phone calls, and social media than we are on reading our Bible and talking with God in prayer.
Prayer is the key to the Christian life. God blesses our lives and ministries in proportion to our prayers. While I do think most all Southern Baptists believe in the need for prayer, I am convinced that most Southern Baptists, as well as most Christians in general, do not pray as we should.
What good is a prayerless pastor, deacon, seminary president, seminary faculty member, seminary student, evangelist, or worship leader? What good is a prayerless conservative? You can be as straight as a gun barrel in your theology and just as empty as a gun barrel if you do not pray as you should.
If Southern Baptists would pray more, God would work in and through us more than He is currently.
Relating to the Calvinist/Traditionalist issue, do you think that the division will ever be bridged?
Dr. Gaines: Without question, Calvinism is increasing in the SBC. How will that affect the SBC in the years to come? I don’t know. I am not a Calvinist. I believe God loves everybody the same, Jesus died for everybody the same, and that anyone can be saved. All people will not be saved because not all will repent of their sins, believe savingly in Jesus, and call on His name by receiving Him as Lord and Savior. If someone hears the Gospel and is not saved, it is because they chose to reject Christ, not because God chose not elect them to salvation.
Many Calvinists would have a problem with what I just said. Yet, I am convinced that what I just said represents the prevailing theological beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptist laypeople. Most Southern Baptists believe that Jesus died for all people and that anyone can choose to receive or reject Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
It certainly appears that the SBC will become more Calvinistic in the years ahead, but how long that trend will last is uncertain. My prayer is that we will have both Calvinists and Traditionalists serving together to take the Gospel to the nations. But if Calvinistic soteriological becomes the predominant view taught at all of our seminaries, that would be a tragedy resulting in major division.
There seems to be a real issue with regard to SBC entity/agency heads not responding or be held accountable to the grass-roots, mom and pop Southern Baptist members. How can that be fixed?
Dr. Gaines: The SBC is built on the trustee system, which is a good and fair system. The trustees run our SBC boards and entities. The trustees do not answer to the presidents or employees of our SBC boards and entities. Rather, the trustees answer to the churches of the SBC. The presidents and all the employees of our SBC boards and entities answer to the trustees.
SBC trustees are appointed by the SBC Committee on Nominations. The Committee on Nominations is appointed by the Committee on Committees. And guess who appoints the members of the Committee on Committees? The SBC President.
That means that the SBC President has a great deal of influence over what kind of leadership we will have at all of our SBC entities and agencies. If “the grass-roots, mom and pop Southern Baptist members” want their voice to be heard, they need to elect SBC Presidents that will appoint SBC Committee on Committee members who will appoint people who share their convictions. They should attend every SBC annual meeting and vote for the SBC President who will best represent their views.
That is the best way the common folk can be heard. Complaining after the fact regarding various Convention matters might resonate with some and stir a few emotions. But real change occurs only by electing an SBC President that represents a person’s theological viewpoint.
There seems to be a desire to get younger pastors more involved in the SBC as there are obviously fewer and fewer involved. Do you think that “para-convention” organizations (TGC, 9 Marks, Text-Driven Preaching Conference, etc.) holding their own conferences/conventions hurt that effort?
Dr. Gaines: Organizations outside the SBC that influence people in the SBC are popular and they are not going away. My prayer is that all SBC pastors, regardless of age, will make the annual SBC meeting a priority.
At the end of the day, we have something that no para-church organization has. We have 6 of the largest, most influential seminaries in the world, the largest international missions organization in the world, the largest church planting organization in the world, 42 state conventions, and 46,000+ cooperating local churches. No para-church organization comes close to having what we already have. Younger pastors need to understand the great gift we have with our SBC and get involved at every level.
What is the one thing you would like for Southern Baptist Historians to remember about you 100 years from now?
Dr. Gaines: The primary call of my life is prayer. I desire that the SBC will become a house of prayer. I pray that when people say “Southern Baptists,” the first thing that comes to their mind will be: “Those are the people that pray fervently, frequently, and in faith.” If we will pray, God will bless exponentially. But if we choose not to pray, God might move on to another group that makes prayer their priority.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at soteriology 101 and is used by permission.
As previously noted, Jared Longshore posted an article entitled, “Calvinistic Southern Baptists and Theology” at Founders.org in which he addressed the chapel message of Dr. Rick Patrick at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Having once been a member of the Founders’ ministry and part of one of their church starts over a decade ago, I have great respect for these brethren and appreciate the cordial manner in which they confront these disputable matters within our convention. In that spirit, this would be a good opportunity to offer one Traditionalist’s commentary on the Founders’ initial response to Patrick’s message.
Longshore breaks down his critique into three sections of study, Patriology (the doctrine of God), Anthropology (the doctrine of man), and Missiology (the doctrine of missions). This article will cover the third of these three sections. Under the heading of “Missiology,” Longshore writes,
Finally, the chapel message claimed that Calvinists “have used the commission as God reaching the elect few from every people group,” and therefore are less concerned “to reach souls wherever they may be found.”
Christ has given his followers a clear commission to go after the lost, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19).
Calvin was so passionate about this commission that he had severe words for those who were lax in it. He did not try to target the elect, but taught the world-wide scope of Christ’s command, “The meaning amounts to this, that by proclaiming the gospel everywhere, they should bring all nations to the obedience of the faith.”
Calvinistic Southern Baptists:
Southern Baptists, who hold to the Calvinistic roots of their forefathers, possess that same hopeful and missionary spirit. That missionary fervor was indeed the very thing that brought them together. Their fervor to see God glorified in the salvation of souls motivates them to keep man-fishing even when there are no visible signs of success. This missionary resolve is seen in the Calvinistic Baptist missionaries William Carey and Adoniram Judson who labored years with no fruit, only to see abundant fruit after long and enduring faithfulness. The missionary passion of Calvinistic Southern Baptists is seen in one of those leading 293 delegates who gathered to organize the SBC. While remembering Carey, John Dagg exhorted his fellow American Baptists, “It is our duty to labor faithfully and perseveringly to bring all men to the knowledge of the truth… This commission requires us to preach the gospel to every creature; and we ought to be foremost in obeying it.”
When I was a 5-point Calvinist and a part of the Founders Ministry, I was also evangelistic. I participated in mission efforts and was as active in sharing my faith with others as I am today. In this blog and on my podcast I have regularly strived to help my non-Calvinistic brethren understand that Calvinists are not typically anti-evangelistic and that every modern day Calvinistic scholar or pastor I know of is very interested in spreading the gospel to all people. As logically inconsistent at that may appear to some, it is a verifiable fact of the matter.
This fact, however, does not negate the merit of some sound logical arguments raised against the Calvinistic belief system. There is a good reason that when believers are introduced to Calvinism their first question is typically about the necessity of evangelism. This natural reaction to the teaching of Calvinism is evidenced by the volumes of work which have been produced by Calvinistic scholars over the years to answer this objection:
“If God has unchangeably determined who will and will not be saved, then what does it matter if I evangelize or not?”
Below is a clip from an article written by a respectable Calvinist attempting to answer this common objection:
Some would see the Calvinist as holding to what is sometimes called “Theistic Fatalism.” Obviously, much different than pure “fate” type fatalism, this view would acknowledge God as the cause of all things, which is certainly true, but would then lead to a false conclusion of inactivity. And this really is ultimately what separates a Theological Calvinist from a Theistic Fatalist: the conclusion we draw based on God’s sovereignty and ordination. Fatalism leads to inactivity, while Calvinism leads to the opposite…
The Calvinist’s belief in God’s sovereign power does not lead to inactivity, but rather activity on a grand scale. And part of the reason for this is that a Calvinist believes that God not only ordains the end; but also the means. Fatalism, however is largely unconcerned with the means, holding to more of a “let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” sort of philosophy. This is much different from the result of a Calvinistic philosophy of God’s ordaining work. The Calvinist teaches that while God ordains the “end” of salvation for His elect; He also ordains the “means” of their salvation through belief in the gospel. Pure, Biblical Calvinism would lead to a vibrant form of evangelism; as I think you clearly see displayed in the New Testament by the Apostles. So the “end” and the “means” are both ordained by God. -Shane Kastler <link> (emphasis added)
It’s interesting to me that when a Calvinist seeks to defend against the charge of being a “Theistic Fatalist” he often argues “God not only ordains the end; but also the means” as if that is a point the Theistic Fatalist would in anyway deny.
That argument does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism, but in fact affirms it. For what is Theistic Fatalism if not God’s determination of the ends and every single meticulous desire, thought and action (i.e. “means”) that bring about those ends?
What do the Calvinists think this qualification is accomplishing in their effort to distinguish themselves from the Theistic Fatalist? The belief that God unchangeably causes every meticulous detail of both the ends and their given means is at the very heart of Theistic Fatalism.
Are there Theistic Fatalists out there arguing, “God doesn’t determine the means,” while the Calvinists are going around correcting them saying, “No, no, no God does control the means too?” Of course not. Both systems of thought clearly affirm God’s cause of all things, including the ends and their respective means.
So, what is the Calvinist seeking to accomplish by pointing out a common belief that they share with Theistic Fatalists?
It appears to me the only real difference between a Theistic Fatalist and a Compatibilistic Calvinist is that the latter refuses to accept the practical implications of their own claims in order to remain consistent with the clear teaching of the Bible.
In both Theistic Fatalism and Calvinism, if God sovereignly decrees for me to go witness to my neighbor He will give me the effectual desire to go witness to my neighbor. If my neighbor is one of His elect and God has unchangeably elected for me to be the means by which my neighbor comes to Christ, then logically I would have to believe that God will give me the effectual desire and the opportunity to carry out His pre-ordained plan (i.e. “God ordained the means”). If that effectual desire never comes then why couldn’t I rightly conclude it ultimately was not God’s pre-ordained plan for me to be the means through which my neighbor would come to Christ?
The only logical argument a Compatibilistic Calvinist could bring to this charge is, “That’s true but you can’t think that way!” In other words, the Compatibilist has to ignore the truth claims of his own systematic in order to live practically. His actual beliefs are untenable and must be ignored in order to remain consistent with the Biblical mandate.
NOTE: To hear studies about the effects of deterministic beliefs on practical application please listen to THIS PODCAST contrasting the teachings of Dr. Albert Mohler and Dr. John Piper.
If you go back and re-read the Calvinistic explanation posted above you will notice that there is no difference in the actual claims of the Calvinist and the Theistic Fatalist. The only difference is in how the person chooses to act in response to their commonly held belief of Divine determinism. Therein lies the problem for the Calvinist, for that choice is just as unchangably determined by God as is the choice of His elect to believe.
Did you follow that? Under the Calvinistic system, God unchangeably determines those who will accept the belief that “God not only ordains the end; but also the means.” And He determines if that believer will respond with evangelistic activity or inactivity. In other words, God decides if the believer of theistic determinism will become a hyper-Calvinist who refuses to actively participate in evangelism or a productive, obedient Calvinist like the author above.
Calvinists are known to argue, “God has ordained for His elect to be saved through the proclamation of the gospel.” But wouldn’t they likewise argue that God has ordained for the saved to proclaim the gospel when they do proclaim it and not to proclaim it when they remain disobediently inactive? After all, the author does affirm that God causes all things that come to pass, which would include the inactivity of the saints, would it not?
Think about this. If any particular Calvinist chooses to disobey God and not proclaim the Gospel when impressed to do so by the Holy Spirit, who is really responsible for that choice to disobey?
Has God, for some unknown reason, not granted the sufficient grace to convince the will of His messenger to proclaim the truth when told to do so? Or has that messenger disobeyed of his own libertarian free will? And what is the result of that disobedience? When an individual Calvinistic believer disobeys God’s command to evangelize, did any fewer elect individuals respond in faith than what God ordained? Of course not. Why? Because God ordained for that Calvinist’s disobedience with the same level of “sovereign control” as He does in ordaining for another Calvinist’s obedience.
You see, a Calvinist may argue that evangelism in general is necessary for the salvation of the elect in general, but logically speaking, your individual responsibility to evangelize any particular elect person is not necessary for the salvation of that elect person. After all, if you weren’t ordained to evangelize that elect individual, someone else was, otherwise they wouldn’t be elect.
Granted, someone (but not necessarily you) has to share the gospel with the elect in order for them to be saved. If God has ordained you to be that evangelist, then He will give you the effectual desire to do so. Thus, if you refrain from doing so you could rightly conclude that you weren’t meant to be the means for that person’s salvation. You are left with the perfect excuse for your inactivity and disobedience to God’s command: “God unchangeably ordained the means, or in this case, my lack of participation in those means.”
So the next time a Calvinist argues that “God ordains the ends as well as the means” just remember this does not avoid the charge of Theistic Fatalism but actually confirms it. In fact, their system logically affirms that the believer’s inactive disobedience is as much according to God’s ordained plan as is another believer’s active obedience. So, if and when a Calvinist becomes “hyper” or “anti-evangelistic” in his behavior, he does so by God’s decree. And so, too, if a Calvinist becomes highly evangelistic in his behavior he does so equally by God’s decree (i.e. “God ordains the means”). A consistent Calvinistic scholar cannot get around this logical fact no matter how much theological rhetoric they use to placate their opponents. The best they can do is say, “Just don’t think of of it that way,” which in essence means, “Act like what we believe isn’t true.” And to that I say, “AMEN!”
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at soteriology 101 and is used by permission.
As mentioned in Part 1, Jared Longshore, posted an article entitled, “Calvinistic Southern Baptists and Theology” at Founders.org in which he addressed the chapel message of Dr. Rick Patrick at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Having once been a member of the Founders’ ministry and part of one of their church starts over a decade ago, I have great respect for these brethren and appreciate the cordial manner in which they confront these disputable matters within our convention. In that spirit, this would be a good opportunity to offer one Traditionalist’s commentary on the Founders’ initial response to Patrick’s message. Continue reading