On Gentleman Theologians and the Race For SBC President

I’ve been asked to comment on the following reply to a question posed to Dr. Frank Cox by Dr. Peter Lumpkins. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but this was brought to my attention by an SBC blogger, whose identity will remain undisclosed at his request.

Question: "There's been significant discussion among Southern Baptists concerning the Calvinist resurgence within the Southern Baptist Convention. I'm sure that you're aware of that only recently there was a conference on Calvinism, which by the way was co-sponsored by one of our seminaries and Founders Ministries. As we listen to the research from Lifeway, it suggests that we have in the Southern Baptist Convention five to ten percent of Southern Baptists who perceive themselves as Calvinists. Also, a whopping thirty percent, around thirty percent of our young seminarians who self-identify as Calvinists. By the way you need to know that when your name was first mentioned that you would be nominated as President, there were some who even labeled you as the quote-unquote anti-Calvinist candidate. What's your take on this phenomenon, Dr. Cox?"

Dr. Cox's answer: "Well, Peter, first of all, let me just say this, while others have dubbed me that way, that was never my intent, never in the equation of my willingness to allow my name to be nominated as President of the Southern Baptist Convention. That decision was made a long time ago through prayer. And the best of my knowledge of my own prayer life, God never discussed Calvinism. But let me just kind of tell you where I am on this issue. I'm Southern Baptist through and through. You know, I guess if I had to use a term to describe me, I would say that the best term would be that I'm a biblicist. I believe the Scripture. I teach the Scripture, I try to practice the Scripture to the best of my ability through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. I just believe that the Scripture teaches that man is a sinner. I know that by experience in my own life, I was born in the sin nature. I believe in the sovereignty of God's great love for us His creation that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die upon the cross for all of our sins. And when the Scripture says He died for all, I believe He died for all. I believe the Scripture tells us that the way that man is saved is through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, that shed blood on Calvary. I praise God He rose again on the third day. I believe that God has given every single one of us a free will. And so, when you talk to me about my belief system, I believe that I had a choice whether I was going to receive the atoning work of Jesus Christ or whether I was going to reject it. I teach my people...I preached last Sunday night here in our church, Romans chaper one, verse sixteen, I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation unto everyone who believes. I believe everyone has the ability to choose to believe in Jesus Christ. As a biblicist, my responsibility is this, is I'm to share that. I'm to go out and to tell a lost and dying world and to engage sinners in witnessing opportunity to put the claims of Christ out there for them to receive or reject Jesus. That's my responsibility. Here again, what I said a moment ago, I believe the gospel is for all men at all times. I'm so glad He included me. I'm so glad that I had the opportunity when my Sunday School teacher told me about Jesus. I am so glad that my parents taught me from an early age that Christ died for me. And I believe that it is God's will that none should perish but everyone should come to repentance. Will everybody come to repentance? No. They have that freedom of choice to reject. So I would say in regards to the Calvinism issue, if you're going to label me anything, label me a biblicist. I believe God's people go out and share and God's Holy Spirit does His work and I believe that any sinner has the opportunity to receive Christ as Lord and Savior. Now, this anti-Calvinism, anybody that knows me know that that does not define me. That's not who I am. Some of my dearest friends in life hold to the Calvinist view. We have great debate at times over lunch. They're not changing me, I guess I'm not changing them, but we love each other. But there is a part of this new strain of Calvinism that I see in Southern Baptist life. Calvinism has always been in Southern Baptist life. There's always been an ebb and flow of Calvinism in our convention life. At times, it would gain a little bit of strength and at times it would kind of die away. But what I see in Southern Baptist life right now is there is a thing that, I don't know for a better word, I would describe it as aggressive hyper-Calvinism or hyper-Calvinism in an aggressive form. And where it causes sometimes a division in churches, I know right after I was announced that I was going to be nominated for President of the Southern Baptist Convention, talking about emails, my emails all of sudden the load picked up greatly. Here's what I began to receive. I began to receive emails from lay people in churches and they began to ask me about my view of salvation. Did Jesus Christ die for everyone? They wanted to know that. That's important to Southern Baptist to know that their President believes that Jesus died upon the cross for everyone. And they said we're having a problem in our church. The problem we're having in our church is we've called a pastor or we've called a staff member and we didn't know they believed what they believed. And they began to share about the problems that was arising in the church, the division that was there. One of the things that I would say to any young pastor or any staff member who would hold to Calvinism, I would say to them when you are being called to a church, somewhere in that process speak up. Tell them what you believe. That church would be greatly served if that flag was raised and they had the opportunity to understand exactly what that meant. And then, if that church said well, that's not where we are, then that church has spoken and that pastor is going to save himself a lot of heartache as well. When you go into a church you need to be honest with them. If the church says that's not who we are, then praise God, the pastor has learned something and the pastor can go and find a church of like belief. The concern that I have today is this new strain of Calvinism which is really aggressive and it's causing some real division in a lot of churches. As for me, as I said, I'm not anti-anything. I'm a biblicist. Like I said, I have friends who are Calvinists and we dialog and love each other. The only concern I have is this aggressive strain that I see today that seems to gaining a little bit of strength in our convention."

The individual who emailed me has the following concerns, which I echo:

1. He makes this statement:

"I believe everyone has the ability to choose to believe in Jesus Christ." For a biblicist, this statement certainly has no biblical support. None. Nowehere in Scripture are we told that we have the ability to choose to believe in Jesus. However, in many places in Scripture, we are told that we are totally depraved by sin and, without the intervention of God, we will not choose Christ (John 1:12-13; John 6:44; Rom. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:1-9). The biblical view is total depravity of man. It is not a biblical view that man has one single shred of goodness in him and can choose Christ apart from first being regenerated by God.

The reason I second this comment, for those who know my writing, should be self-evident. Dr. Cox’s position seems muddled at best:

a. Does he affirm Universal Prevenient Grace (hereafter UPG) or does he affirm that this is an inborn ability of man? If UPG, he’s firmly in what we can call the Arminian, semi-Augustinian camp. If this is an inborn ability, then he’s placed himself firmly in the semi-Pelagian camp, and all overtures of grace are found solely in the external call. I disagree with both, but of the two, I'm far more comfortable with the former.

b. Where, pray tell, does Scripture say

i. Everybody

ii. Has a choice.

With respect to (i) Did the people living in China in the first century A.D have such a choice? If they did, then that would mean that there is another way of salvation, one that does not entail faith in Christ alone. So much for Romans 11.

Please define "choice." With respect to (ii), where does the Bible teach people have Libertarian Freedom? Like so many SBC pastors who have spoken on Calvinism, Dr. Cox says, yet again, that he’s a biblicist. Shouldn’t a biblicist be able to show us where the Bible teaches LFW?

Does Brother Frank even know what LFW is? Like so many who have gone before him, he says he’s talked with Calvinists about these things. Has he listened to them at all?

Why do I ask these questions? Simply put, if the Bible does not teach LFW, then there goes everything he has to say about people having a “choice,” for we know that he’s not a Calvinist, so he’s not affirming what Calvinists mean by “choice.” He’s using “choice” as a codeword for LFW.

Also, the very word “choice” is prejudicial. In using it, he’s inferring that we Calvinists don’t believe in “choice.” No, we don’t affirm LFW. We affirm “choice.” “Choice” does not entail LFW.

The second concern the person blogger who emailed me has is:

2. My other area of concern is the litmus test that Dr. Cox is raising. He states that he has received emails (how many?) from people asking one question: Do you believe Jesus died for all? Obviously, this is a litmus test to ferret out the five-point Calvinists. Will this be the new litmus test for missionaries, trustees, etc.? It sure sounds like it may be.

I second this concern as well. I would like to see a follow-up question from asking if this was, in fact, a litmus test.

Also, it seems muddled yet again. Calvinists can affirm that “Jesus died for all.” We simply don’t affirm that He took the guilt and sin of every person upon Himself, for, if He did, they would all be saved. We can affirm that “Jesus died for all,” in the sense that He is the one and only propitatory sacrifice for sin ever offered and that all men, if they wish to be saved, must come to God through Christ on His sole and sufficient merit. Statements like the one in 1 John 2:2 are statements of identity, not statements of intention or design that refer to the actual guilt and sin laid upon our Lord. This really isn’t difficult.

The only thing that makes it difficult is for those who feel a need to use the atonement’s scope as a warrant to believe, as if the scope of the atonement provides the warrant for the sinner’s conversion – but that’s hyper-Calvinist logic. I’ve said this before, in hyper-Calvinism, men are told that they have no warrant to believe unless they can discern how they are “elect,” in some subjective sense, and this is no different in principle from Arminianism's presupposition that ability limits responsibility. Notice that Dr. Cox speaks of his childhood in which he was taught Jesus died for him. Here we have a classic case of a man repudiating hyper-Calvinism but buying into hyper-Calvinist thinking. The only difference is that the warrant is placed not on a subjective sense of election but upon a subjective sense of assurance that “Jesus died for me.”

3. I have a few other concerns. Dr. Cox seems to be using the same script that many others have used. Yet again, we read about the ogre of a dishonest pastoral candidate. Yet on the other hand, he infers that there are “hyper-Calvinists” who want to push their Calvinism on the rest of us. I’m reminded of what Tom Ascol has stated in the past on this. These men can’t have it both ways. We’re told that if we don’t lay all our cards on the table, we are “dishonest,” but when we’re honest we’re told we’re “hyper.”

Perhaps the problem lies not in the candidates but the theological ignorance that we find in SBC churches. Take a look at the Sunday School literature Lifeway produces. It’s next to useless. I’ve had to teach from it myself, and I have to say it doesn't teach anything that would challenge anybody to grow. Note to Lifeway: people have to rewrite your Sunday School material so it is even usable. Where is Richard Furman, he who would question the children on the Shorter Catechism used by FBC Charleston? Where are the days when Baptists actually understood the issues when it came to Calvinism or non-Calvinism? Where are the days when a man could teach on the 3 Offices of Christ in the run-up to Easter and at least part of the class knew what you were discussing?

4. What about all those Calvinist churches that were coopted by non-Calvinists? In a different age, would Brother Frank feel differently? FBC Woodstock’s founding documents are clearly of a Calvinist bent, yet you don’t find anybody criticizing Johnny Hunt or the past leadership of his church for coopting that church.

One of the complaints Pastor Search Committees seem to have is the allegedly uninformative language used by Calvinists when interviewed by these committees. Well, aren't terms like "choice," and "biblicist," just as uninformative? It seems to me that if the problem, or at least part of the problem, is the use of vague, uninformative terminology, then there's just as much guilt on the other side of the aisle, if not more. Words like "choice" and "biblicist" are only "informative" if one begs the question with respect to their definition. Ever notice that the same people who complain about the use of such language to a search committee are the same ones who use it when giving an interview or discussing theology? Isn't being interviewed by SBC bloggers leading up to the election a sort of "pastor search?"

5. The term “biblicist” is “racist” insofar as the inference is that if you self-identify as a “Calvinist” or “Arminian” or “Non-Calvinist,” or “Amyraldian,” you aren’t a “biblicist.” Honestly, this sort of fast and loose use of language needs to stop.

6. The term “hyper-Calvinist” is used, yet again. If Brother Frank knows of any real hyper-Calvinists in the SBC he should name and expose them. This, by the way, brings up another pet-peeve of mine these days. It seems to be becoming popular to not name names, as if this is the gentlemanly thing to do. I’ll simply say this: Honestly, read 2 Timothy.

7. Dr. Cox yet again talks in vague terms about this “aggressive strain” of Calvinism in the SBC. Honestly, he (and the others who talk about it) really need to do more than talk about “an aggressive strain.” What do they mean by this? Are they referring to Tom Ascol and Founders? If not, to whom are they referring? How many times does Tom Ascol, who, you know, speaks for the organization, have to say that, while he would love it if every SBC church embraced the Doctrines of Grace, Founders does not exist, nor does he desire, for that to happen. Rather, he is more concerned that they get the gospel right.

8. Apropos 7, does Dr. Cox feel the same way about Johnny Hunt and the litany of speakers at the Bailey Smith Conferences who preach vehement anti-Calvinist sermons? What about Brother Bobby, the current immediate past president of the SBC who used his own church newsletter to attack Calvinists and Calvinism?

Oh, and for the record, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I could really care less who is elected SBC president this year, as long as (a) the election isn’t as free as a Cuban election, as in years past, (b) the new SBC president doesn’t use his position as a means to attack the Reformed / Sovereign Grace wing of the Convention, and (c) he doesn’t use his position to further narrow the parameters of cooperation within the Convention.

While we’re on that subject, did anybody else catch this line?

That decision was made a long time ago through prayer. And the best of my knowledge of my own prayer life, God never discussed Calvinism.

I wonder, did this conversation occur through a private prayer language? If not, what sort of “impressions” did God provide? I’ll simply point readers to Steve’s words to JP Moreland about this sort of thing.

Personally, I find it rather ironic that there will folks who will vote for Dr. Cox who will then stake out a cessationist view on spiritual gifts and PPL. This sort of subjective “God told me to run for SBC President” talk needs to stop too. How exactly does one verify one’s subjective impressions that God spoke to you through prayer to run for SBC President? That’s called bibliomancy. It reminds me more of divination than PPL. Will those who raised concerns over PPL please be consistent? Indeed, how is using this method to decide if you should run for SBC president functionally any different than a hyper-Calvinist thinking he has to subjectively discern whether or not he is elect in order to find a warrant to believe and therefore convert? Answer: it's not! Will the real hyper-Calvinist please stand up?!

The SBC underwent a “Conservative Resurgence” in the 80’s and 90’s. Kudos to the SBC. As a byproduct, one would have hoped that the Convention’s leadership would begin doing a better job modeling the characteristics of good theologians. I agree with Michael Spencer’s comments a few weeks ago in that regard:

Regular, Nashville published, fully Cooperative, SBC saved, trained and ordained authors? Not many. In fact, there were very, very few. A relatively empty shelf of significant influences and books, so to speak.

The subjects of my evedropping efforts were two students discussing Redeemer Presbyterian pastor Tim Keller’s new apologetics book. Keller, the rising star of the PCA and of conservative evangelicalism in general, has written the kind of book Southern Baptists have largely failed to write or promote in the last fifty years. Apologetics is just one area where the shelf of Southern Baptists is largely empty.

I don’t doubt that some Southern Baptist writers have written apologetic materials in the past, but for whatever reason, these materials passed quickly into oblivion, exerting little influence over the denomination that produced them. They are just one category of writing, thinking, teaching and publishing that find Southern Baptists largely awol. Aside from books on church growth, evangelism and the “popular” level of devotional literature, Southern Baptists have shown little interest in making major contributions to the evangelical conversation, including areas that it would seem SBCers would have taken up their pens and addressed.

It’s no surprise that Beth Moore and Rick Warren are the first two Southern Baptist writers you’ll see in most bookstores. It’s no surprise that Presbyterians are writing and publishing the books that SBC ministers in training are reading for their theology. It’s a sad fact that a younger Southern Baptist in the process of spiritual and ministerial formation would have to dig deep to find resources from his/her own tradition, even on areas as prominent as the Lord’s Supper. (Some of these areas have been addressed recently, usually by SBC Calvinist authors.)...

Southern Baptist dearth of formative resources is a serious problem. Try to deepen your devotional life using resources written in the SBC. Try to learn church history or understand Baptist history in its Anabaptist stream. Try to find serious reflection on the pastorate. The shelf is strangely, even embarassingly, empty, and it’s not surprising that younger, intellectually curious Southern Baptists are going to denominations and influences far outside of the Baptist family and the Baptist “ethos” to find formative, helpful resources.

And as I go out the door….does Lifeway, Broadman and the SBC’s publishing arms need to look at this issue more seriously? I know Beth Moore sells, but is it a good thing that there seems to be a bias against publishing serious Southern Baptist work? Is there really such a dearth of good writing in the SBC that our young people MUST be formed by non-Southern Baptists in their journeys?

Looking at some of the folks who have served as SBC president over the past few years and their churches, I see the same problem, only in a different way. The SBC still seems enamored with “theology that sells” with respect to their choice of Convention leadership. Where are the Gentleman Theologians like Broadus, Mell, Boyce, Johnson, Williams, the 2 Manly’s, and so on? The Convention President should be a model for other SBC leaders. He should be a Gentleman Theologian, in this age when Baptists are recovering, one would hope, the gospel, church discipline, and wading into deeper theological water. He doesn’t need to be Calvinist, he just needs to demonstrate something more than the intellectual confusion than we see here.