Should Calvinism Be Kicked Out of the SBC?

Hey guys, it's Keith Foskey. Well, the SBC 24 has come to a conclusion, and I have some things

I want to talk about. But before I do that, I want to remind you just of a couple of important things about the show. One, we are sponsored by tinybibles .com,

so if you're interested in a tiny Bible that makes your muscles feel big, get yourself a tiny

Bible at tinybibles .com. Also, don't forget about our shirts. We have cool swag over at our store, and the link is below.

This is one of my favorites. It says, I hope it was a blast for them, because it was certainly a blast for me. Well, today we're going to be talking about the recent

SBC goings -on. Of course, that is the Southern Baptist Convention, and there were a lot of weird things that happened this year.

There was a Formula One racing car that was on display for some reason. There was a lady who gave a really odd sort of Zionist prayer.

You can look that up if you want. David Allen trying to convince us that the Nicene Creed isn't somehow

Orthodox or something we should believe in, even though it's been pretty much the standard for 1 ,700 years.

A lot was going on. The one thing that got my attention, though, was one of the messengers brought to the floor a very interesting idea.

I move that the messengers of the 2024 SBC Annual Meeting request that the trustees of our entities, including our seminaries and all our boards and commissions, explain how

Calvinist slash Reformed Theology is compatible with the

Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and consider eliminating the teaching and promotion of Calvinist slash

Reformed Theology from all SBC entities, and report their findings and any resulting action steps to the 2025

SBC Annual Meeting. Thank you. Is there a second? Please give a copy of your motion to the page.

All right, so we had not only a motion to investigate whether or not

Calvinism is in line with the Baptist Faith and Message, but there was also the suggestion that it be eliminated from all

SBC entities. Now, I do have to mention there is one guy there that just is great.

He hopped in and threw up that nice smile. I don't know who he was, but he knew what was up, and he knew he was going to be seen on camera.

So if you go back and watch it, you can see the guy in the background giving that eyebrow. I commend you, sir.

But I thought I would talk about today just how, when we talk about the subject of Calvinism and the

SBC, certainly there are many people in the Southern Baptist Convention that don't believe in Calvinist doctrines.

But that does not mean that, number one, Calvinist doctrine has not been a part of the

SBC from the beginning, and that's one of the things I'm going to show on today's program is that it has, but also that doesn't mean that it's not consistent with the

SBC today. And that's what the man was trying to argue, that it's not consistent with the current

Baptist Faith and Message. Well, there's a lot that we could debate about that. I think the Baptist Faith and Message is a wide -open document, and I think it was written with that intentionality, that it would be allowed to have people who were on both sides of this theological fence, whether they be on the

Calvinist side or the non -Calvinist side. And I know that men like Al Mohler, who are a ton more intelligent than I am, are able to support the

Baptist Faith and Message and say that they themselves are Calvinist. Now, some people say there's no way you can do that, there's some people say that you can.

I'm willing to say I'm not an expert on the Baptist Faith and Message, but I am willing to also point out that the

Southern Baptist Convention didn't begin with the Baptist Faith and Message. The Southern Baptist Convention began a long time ago, and I wanted to go back and share with you something that is really important as far as the history of the

Southern Baptist Convention, and that is this book right here. This is called The Abstract of Systematic Theology.

This book was written by a man by the name of James Pettigrew Boyce, and if you're not familiar with Dr.

Boyce, I want to just share with you how he's introduced in this book in the publisher's introduction, which tells about him and tells about this particular work.

It says in the publisher's introduction, "...the republication of this abstract of systematic theology is a tribute to one of the great

Christians and theologians in American Church history. Its author might be called the

Forgotten Baptist. James Pettigrew Boyce, the principal founder of the first Southern Baptist seminary now located in Louisville, Kentucky.

He may not be as well known as John Broadus and Basil Manley," and you would know them from Broadman Press.

That's where the name comes from, John Broadus and Basil Manley. "...he may not be as well known as John Broadus and Basil Manley Jr.,

but both of these men considered Boyce their spiritual leader. This, in and of itself, is a tribute to him."

So if you don't know who James Pettigrew Boyce is, he was the first president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, which is now in Louisville, Kentucky, and he wrote

The Abstract of Systematic Theology, which is basically a systematic theology textbooks, and it's one of my favorite.

It's very helpful. I think it strikes a good balance in many areas where hyper -Calvinism sometimes can go in one direction, or a lack of clarity on other issues can go in another direction.

I think James Pettigrew Boyce did a good job of being very clear, and he did so in this book.

And what I wanted to do, I've got several pages marked here, I just want to share with you some of the things that were believed and taught by the first president of the

Southern Baptist Convention. And some of you may say, well that doesn't matter, that was 200 years ago. What matters is what's going on right now.

I understand the argument, but let me counter that by simply saying, if you're saying that the

Calvinists don't belong in the Southern Baptist Convention, what you're saying is you really don't care about your history at all.

What you're saying is that a convention, a gathering of churches, a grouping of churches, which does allow for local church autonomy, and does allow for distinctions on certain things, can't allow for a distinction on this, and Calvinism should be removed.

That's a bridge too far, and it's a dangerous thought. I don't know why it was even considered to be brought up,

I don't know who this man is, and I'm not saying anything against him personally, I'm sure he's a great man and a great guy, but at the same time, bringing this up in front of the people, this is foolish.

And the people who seconded it, this is not the direction you guys should even be considering, even if you disagree with Calvinism.

We can't have a little bit of disagreement on this area. We can't look at our history and say, hey guys, there's been differences on this, and come on, let's at least be honest and say kicking out the

Calvinists is really not something that should even be on the table. So let's just very quickly, as I said,

I've got a few pages marked here. I wanted to share this with you. First page I marked was simply the Table of Contents.

This is such a great systematic theology. It goes over things that often, you know, today people don't even want to talk about, such as God's immutability and God's justice,

God's holiness, going over here to the subject of the fall of man, the effects of Adam's sin, the headship of Adam, Christ in the

Old Testament. This is just such a wonderful book and such an important book, and I definitely recommend it to you if you don't currently own it.

Yes, it's an older book. No, it's not as easily accessible as some of the newer modern systematic theologies, but it's great.

I want to turn right now over to page 215. If you have the book, you can look at it. This is the chapter 8, which begins on the decrees of God.

On the decrees of God. All right, what does it say? The decrees of God may be defined as that just, wise, and holy purpose or plan by which eternally and within himself he determines all things whatsoever that come to pass.

Sounds very much like the 1689 Confession, as well as the Westminster Confession. God has decreed all things that come to pass.

This is something that was believed and taught by the president of the first Southern Baptist Convention.

I turn to the next page only because my favorite part of the book is right here on page 116.

This is when he describes the word decree. In fact, I know a lot of people have difficulty with the idea of God having a decree, and what

Boyce says here is so brilliant. Just pay attention. He says, the term decree is liable to some misapprehension and objection because it conveys the idea of an edict or some compulsory determination.

Purpose has been suggested as a better word. Plan will sometimes still be more suitable.

The mere use of these words will remove from many some difficulties and prejudices which make them unwilling to accept this doctrine.

They perceive that in the creation, preservation, and government of the world, God must have had a plan, and that that plan must have been just, wise, and holy, tending both to his own glory and the happiness of his creatures.

They recognize that a man who has no purpose nor aim, especially in important matters, and who cannot or does not devise the means by which to carry out this purpose, is without wisdom and capacity and unworthy of his nature.

Consequently, they readily believe and admit that the more comprehensive and at the same time, the more definite is the plan of God, the more worthy it is of infinite wisdom.

Indeed, they are compelled to the compulsion, or excuse me, to the conclusion that God cannot be what he is without forming such a purpose or plan.

You see, this was Boyce in his brilliant way saying, okay, some people don't like the word decree.

We get it. It's a difficult word. It's difficult to consider that God has decreed all things. Well, let's step back.

Do you believe that God has a purpose in all things? Well, that's what we mean when we talk about the decree. Does God have a plan for all things?

Yes, then that's what we mean, and if those words make you more comfortable with this doctrine, then use those words.

But what a pastor's heart here, and also again, what a brilliant theologian to consider the fact that, hey, we're using words that might be a little uncomfortable.

So let's talk about these words, and let's look at these words, and let's consider how it might be that we can adjust just a little the words we're using to help us understand better what we're actually saying.

So again, this is a brilliant book. Going on, I want to jump over. I've got a few more to look at. I don't want to make this video too terribly long.

I like the fact that he addresses the headship of Adam, and he talks about the fact that we are in Adam, and Adam's sin actually affects us.

So I just want to read to you just this first section here. It says, "...the Scriptures teach that the fall of Adam involved also that of his posterity."

This is a true, definite understanding of what we would call original sin and the imputed guilt of Adam.

He's saying that. He's saying, "...in the covenant under which he sinned, he acted not merely as an individual man, the sole one of his kind, or one isolated from all others of his kind, but as the head of the race for his posterity as well as himself.

The condition of mankind shows that they have all participated with him in the evils which resulted."

And so he goes on to talk about this, the facts of Adam's, as to who he was, the facts of his descendants, and that Adam not only is the head of the human race, but he says here, the federal head.

He says, "...the Scriptures teach that this is due not merely to his natural headship, but to a representative or federal headship, because of which his act of sin may justly be considered as theirs, and they may be treated as though they had themselves done that act, each man for himself."

What's that saying? That's saying when Adam sinned, he sinned on our behalf. His guilt is then our guilt, and it's as if we did the sin.

And so you may disagree with this. You may not agree with this doctrine, but you can't say that's not purely in line with Calvinistic teaching.

And so again, James Boyce is teaching something that is consistent with Calvinist teaching.

All right, moving on, we're going to jump over here. I've got a few more, as I said, to look at. This is on the doctrine of regeneration, and it talks about the doctrine of regeneration regarding its antecedents.

All right, what does that mean? Antecedent is something that comes before. So he's talking about what comes before.

Is it regeneration, or is it faith? And this is a huge question among those who would debate the subject of Calvinism.

What precedes what? Does regeneration cause faith, or is faith what causes regeneration? And he discusses the different views.

That's what's, again, great about this book, is he goes through, he discusses different views on the subject, but this is what he says.

He says, "...wherever the appropriate truth is at the time present, its relation is almost that of producing cause, for the prepared heart at once receives the truth.

Hence, as this is so generally the case, they have been usually regarded as contemporaneous, and by some even as identical.

But that regeneration is the invariable antecedent is seen."

What is he saying? He's saying that when we talk about regeneration and faith, when we talk about regeneration and conversion, which comes first?

Are you converted then regenerated, or do you get regenerated and then converted? He's saying some people see them as contemporaneous, and they do happen at the same time.

But there's a logical priority between faith and repentance, or I'm sorry, between regeneration and faith, or regeneration, and in this case, he's using the word conversion.

So again, the subject of does faith precede conversion? Well, according to James Pettigrew Boyce, he's saying that, according to his theology, it does.

Again, a Calvinistic view of faith and regeneration. Now, I want to go back here because this is an awesome part of the book.

I'm gonna hold up. Maybe you can see it. I don't know if it'll actually work. This is a catechism. Oh my goodness!

Man, I know so many Baptists would just bristle at the idea of a catechism, but guess what?

This is a catechism of Bible doctrine that was written by the professor of systematic and polemic theology at the

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, James Pettigrew Boyce, and when you're looking at this catechism, it's one, it's very accessible.

The first question of the catechism, what book have we that teaches about God? Answer, the

Bible. Number two, by what other name is it known? Answer, the

Scriptures. Number three, into what two parts is it divided? Answer, into the

Old and New Testaments. So this is a very simple, very accessible catechism, but I wanted to just point out the fact that when you start looking through this catechism, if you're asking the question, okay, does this teach, is this a

Calvinistic document? The answer is absolutely. And so where do we find that?

Well, we find that in sections like the section on election. What name is given to those whom

God effectually calls to salvation? Answer, they are called the elect or the chosen ones of God.

Why are they so called? Because God, before the foundation of the world, chose them unto salvation through Christ Jesus.

Number three, did God make this choice because he foresaw that these people would be pious and good?

Answer, he did not, for the goodness and piety of any are due to the influence of the

Spirit. Number four, was it then because he foresaw that they would believe? Answer, on the contrary, it is through his choice that they are, through his choice, that they are led to believe.

Number five, what then was the ground of that choice? Answer, his sovereign will. This is just, again, there's no doubt, and if there's any doubt in your mind that this man was a

Calvinist, there shouldn't be. This man was clearly Calvinistic, and I have one more spot that I'm gonna jump to, and then

I'm gonna bring it to the end, and that's this. The abstract of principles. The abstract of principles is a small document, and it is basically a condensed version of what's in this book.

Again, this book is the abstract of systematic theology, but what's in this abstract of principles is basically the fundamental laws of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In fact, I want to read here, this is what it says. The following is an excerpt from the Fundamental Laws of the

Seminary, written into its charter on April 30th, 1859. Every professor of the institution shall be a member of a regular

Baptist Church, and all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered by such acceptance as engaging to teach in accordance with, or not contrary to, the abstract of principles herein laid down.

And that was the abstract of principles as we have them here.

And again, the abstract of principles, only 20 statements, but these 20 statements clearly and firmly are statements which affirm that God is sovereign over salvation.

They affirm Calvinistic doctrines. In fact, I'll read just a couple here. This is number eight on regeneration.

Regeneration is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins, enlightening their mind spiritually and savingly to understand the

Word of God and renewing their whole nature so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God's free and special grace alone.

Election is God's choice, eternal choice rather, of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ, in consequence of which choice they are called, justified, and glorified.

And again, I encourage you to read this document and understand that to this day

I believe every professor of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has to say that they will teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, that document.

So these are just some thoughts I had when I saw that man ask that Calvinism be expelled from the SBC. Brother, again,

I don't know who you are, and I would never say an evil word against you because I'm sure you're a fine man, but on this issue, you're dead wrong, and those who seconded it are dead wrong.

Calvinism is at the heart of the history of the SBC and should continue to be so.

One, because it's the truth of the Word of God, but two, also is because it's founded in your history.

So I encourage you to continue to pray for the Southern Baptist Convention. I have many friends who pastor Southern Baptist churches, and they're solid men of God, and they want to see

God's Word proclaimed, and so do I. And so I pray for the SBC, I pray for those churches that are in the

SBC who are seeking to follow the Word of God, and I pray that whether you're on the Calvinistic side or the non -Calvinistic side, we can learn to understand that we can be brothers in Christ and disagree on this, but you ought not try to ignore history, and you ought not try to say that you can't coexist within the same convention.