Critical Response to The Traditionalist Statement: Part 1 (Preamble)

By Mark W. Christy

This article is the first in a series designed to carefully consider the theological position against Calvinism taken by those who have signed what is called A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation (released in 2012). In short form, this document is commonly known as the Traditionalist Statement (TS) among Southern Baptists. Among Calvinists, this document has had many detractors who have unhesitatingly published articles, blogs, videos, etc. attacking it from all angles. In response, David L. Allen, who affirms and defends TS, dispels such criticisms as poorly drawn inferences and implications at best and mischaracterizations at worst.[i] Despite his defense, which may be warranted in the case of some critical responses, one should remember that a theological statement like TS should be published in such a way that the meaning is clear, precise, and readily discernible. In other words, any implications and inferences which clearly arise from the content therein should indeed be addressed (and if true, the TS should be edited and revised) less this document be guilty of stirring up needless dissension instead of promoting engaging discourse so as to promote unity among the Southern Baptists.

In the Preamble, the framers of the TS present themselves as representatives for the majority of Southern Baptists, but fail to offer sufficient proof to support their claim. Among those who are familiar with the Southern Baptists, many would affirm that the laity (if not the clergy themselves) struggle to offer reasoned responses on even the most fundamental doctrines in the BFM2000. For those who can, among these an even smaller group can ground their responses in Scripture. Irrespective of this claim, broad-based support for any doctrinal position or theological system is hardly sufficient to affirm the biblical fidelity of one’s views. Otherwise, Martin Luther should have been silenced in his efforts to light the fires of reformation that eventually birthed denominations like the SBC.

Along with claiming majority support, the framers of TS assert that their view is the historical position of Southern Baptists (minus an admitted few, a very few, detractors). In support of this view, Eric Hankins informs his readers that “Calvinism has never been the dominant voice” with the SBC.[ii] Their assertion, however, is done in such a way so as to bolster their view without giving their readers a complete historical assessment. Relying on just the last century, they maintain as follows, “While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism.”[iii] This admission and assertion is extremely misleading for several reasons.

First, the SBC started in 1845 and the vast majority of its early leaders were firmly rooted in Calvinistic Theology for at least the first 70 years. This truth is well-documented by Thomas J. Nettles’ By His Grace and For His Glory.[iv] Second, the early editions of the BFM along with BFM1925 were thoroughly Calvinistic, so their mention of BFM1925 suggests serious scholarly oversight at best.

Second, many of the early Baptist (SBC) catechisms were at least cautiously Calvinistic. For example, The Sunday Board published 10,000 copies of J. P. Boyce’s Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine in 1864 (revised 1878) during the height of the Civil War.[v] Upon examining this work, Thomas J. Nettles and Steve Weave rightly conclude that it is thoroughly Calvinistic and demonstrate their confidence by providing their readers with a copy of the original catechism.[vi] Another catechism, A Catechism of Bible Teaching, was written Boyce’s contemporary John A. Broadus. Commissioned by both the American Baptist Publication Society and the Sunday School Board, Broadus takes a theological position that is “thoroughly Baptistic and cautiously Calvinistic”.[vii]

This concludes the discussion on the TS Preamble. Going forward, this series will cover all parts (as needed) of TS. The next article in this series will have the same title but say Part 2.

[i]David L. Allen, “The Current SBC Calvinism Debate: Observations, Clarifications, and Suggestions,” Anyone Can be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology, eds. David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016), 7.

[ii]Eric Hankins, “Savability: Southern Baptists’ Core Soteriological Conviction and Contribution,” Anyone Can be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology, eds. David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Harwood (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016), 12.

[iii]“A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation,” Available at: http://www.trinitybaptistreformed.org/files/Download/SBC%20Against%20Calvinistic%20Soteriology.pdf. This statement can be found on many sites across the internet. If the link gets broken, one can simply search for the document elsewhere.

[iv]Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986).

[v]Thomas J. Nettles and Steve Weaver, Teaching Truth, Training Hearts: The Study of Catechisms in Baptist Life, rev. ed. (Cape Coral: Founders, 2017), 231

[vi]Ibid., 233-254

[vii]Ibid., 255-257. A copy of this catechism can be found in the following pages.