Calvin was committed to historical church teaching, which included among other things paedobaptism and presbyterian ecclesiology. I realize that historically men have called themselves “Calvinists” (ie Spurgeon), but did not truly hold to the whole of the Institutes. How do Baptists define their understanding of “Calvin-ism”? To what extent do you actually agree with Calvin, and ow do you differ?
Thanks.

You said, So I was assuming that you wanted the “Non-Calvinist” group to come forward with something more specific than “I hold to the BFM2K, but I’m definitely not a Calvinist”.

Yes, sort of. I don’t want to think of the BFM2000 as a badge or bumper stick that, if you wear it, then that is all that counts. Personally, I think the BFM2000 is an acceptable confession, but I think at points it is poorly written or worded.

You asked, Why does the BFM2K exist then? So technically, a Latter-Day Saint church could join the SBC? Or an SBC church could become Mormon and still maintain its SBC membership?

The answer to both of those questions would be “no.” The BFM2000 works on a convention-wide level of cooperation, association, and general denominational life. However, no Southern Baptist Church is required to have it as their confession. For instance, many churches are either writing their own confession or using older confessions such as the 1833 New Hampshire Confession, 1858 Abstract of Principles, or 1689 Second London Baptist Confession.

Recently in one of our annual meetings (07 San Antonio), the issue arose over the role the BFM2000 plays in SBC life. It was notoriously called “The Garner Motion” and sought to make the BFM2000 *the* confessional consensus document of the SBC. Dr. Mohler and others stood directly against it as two of our seminaries hold to the Abstract of Principles and not the BFM2000 (Abstract is the first actual confession of Southern Baptists and is “narrower” in scope. You have to be at least a three point Calvinist to adhere to it). The issue was whether the BFM2000 was a “maximalist” document and sufficient to determine the way SBC will function as a denomination. The politics behind this had to do with the trustee system of SBC entities, particularly with the IMB who recently made policies that superseded what the BFM2000 said regarding prayer language and baptism. However, if that passed, then the BFM2000 would in effect be the “authoritative” confession trumping the Abstract of Principles elsewhere in other SBC entities. Ironically enough, Mohler was one the revising committee of the BFM2000 document and is president of SBTS who holds to the Abstract of Principles. Some have argued that the two have serious differences on matters such as Lord’s Supper and state of man. Anyway, so that’s a little background for you.

What happens on a denominational level and what happens on the autonomous, local church level are two different things. That’s a big difference than the church government of Episcopalians and Presbyterians. Consequently, my experience in traveling around Southern Baptist life is that most churches are not confessional nor are they very theologically committed outside the fundamentals of our faith. In other words, the BFM2000 does not play anywhere near the role the WCF does in the PCA, for instance.

Does that shed a little light on things?

First of all, please understand that I came to the SBC from a nominal Episcopal upbringing and to a mature Reformed understanding within the PCA, so my knowledge of internal SBC politik is minimal. But I am like Luther now, I’m here ’til they kick me out.

As to what I was getting at, you said, “The non-Calvinists have refused to positively affirm *their position* or have any labels attached to it other than those lacking historical reference or substance.”

I could imagine a “Non-Calvinist” responding glibly to you by saying that we should be able to gain a consensus around the BFM2K, that *their position* was the BFM2K.

So I was assuming that you wanted the “Non-Calvinist” group to come forward with something more specific than “I hold to the BFM2K, but I’m definitely not a Calvinist”.

Is that the case?

Second of all, you said, “we cannot assume that [the BFM2K] is a consensus document in the SBC for the simple fact that many churches today do not hold to it in theory or in practice.”

Now this I don’t understand. Why does the BFM2K exist then? So technically, a Latter-Day Saint church could join the SBC? Or an SBC church could become Mormon and still maintain its SBC membership?

Thanks for the help,
Mark

I’m not sure at what exactly you are getting at, but I’ll take a stab at it.

Regarding the Baptist Faith & Message, it affirms election and the evangelical graces of repentance and saving faith. Non-Calvinists in the SBC may or may not affirm the Baptist Faith & Message. I say that because, while some in the SBC will affirm the BF&M2000 as a “minimalist” document for cooperation, many Southern Baptist churches are not confessional to begin with. When we talk about the BF&M2000, we cannot assume that it is a consensus document in the SBC for the simple fact that many churches today do not hold to it in theory or in practice.

As I was over at Peter Lumpkin’s blog, I kept having the exact same sentiment about the amorphous term, “Non-Calvinist”.

I can just anticipate the response,
“What ever happened to the Baptist Faith and Message”?

How would you respond?

Thanks,
Mark

I’ve never met either of you. I have read comments by both of you more times than I can count. I have just concluded reading several blogs and their comment section and have to say this to both of you. THANKS.

You have been a blessings as I read your simple exchange. May your tribe increase.

First of all, I want to express my gratitude for the way in which you have responded. One of the dangers of the internet is to assume we know the person we are writing to simply because we see their name on a comment or attached to a blog post.

Regarding your comment, I simply did not know where you were coming from. Now that I see what you were trying to say, I agree with your sentiments, but more importantly, I agree with your heart to love the brethren.

I forgive you, Benji, and in the spirit of which you wrote, should I offend you, I ask that you would afford the kindness to accept my apologies as well. Thanks for commenting and displaying the kind of humility that is all-too-often missing on the blogosphere today.

I believe I bombed on how I came across. Please forgive me.

You are also right that you did not say it was the eleventh command as well. Please forgive me for that as well.

I also might have brought over assumption(s) from how others have said similar things and read that into what you were saying.

I also think you make a fair case for Ephesians 4:15.

Wow, the humiliation just goes further and further–it’s probably good for me

Allow me to explain in more detail part of what I am getting at.

My impression is that what some people mean by truth and love does not go any deeper that “be doctrinal and nice”.

But that is where I think what Christ is saying in John 13:34 transcend that. I believe His command to love based on His sacrificial example is profound doctrinal truth.

In other words, love and truth are at least so closely joined in verse 34, that I think to make a fine distinction between them would not do justice to the text.

It goes so far beyond merely being nice. It is love with an edge. It goes beyond pleasantries and not merely stealing from my brother and asks the question “how can I ‘sacrifice’ for my brother”.

Timmy, I think I may have sinned against the very command in which I was trying to advocate for.

I think I should have been more respectful towards you.

God Bless,

Benji

It seems to me that as long as you hold to three points you are more of a Calvinist than an Arminian…

Could someone explain?