Why Did Morris Chapman Directly Take on Calvinism in the SBC? #sbc2009

Here is the transcript of Dr. Chapman's address this morning representing the Executive Committee of the SBC.

Dr. Akin from Southeastern said that it was "shameful." Dr. Mohler from Southern said that he wanted to start a recovery group for those who had to sit through it. Strong words from his fellow entity heads. Here is an excerpt:

The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty alone is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.   

Some are given to explain away the “whosoever will” of John 3:16.  How can a Christian come to such a place when Ephesians says, “For by grace are you saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8)?  I do not rise to become argumentative, or to change minds already convinced of one perspective or the other.  But I do rise to state the obvious.  Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say.

Man’s system will be inferior to God’s system now and forever. Why is it so difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain? After all, He didn’t begin to tell us everything He knows, but what we need to know to be redeemed and live righteously.  The belief that sovereignty alone is at work in salvation is not what has emboldened our witness and elevated our concern for evangelism and missions through the ages.  This is not the doctrine that Southern Baptists have embraced in their desire to reach the world for Christ. 

If there is any doctrine of grace that drives men to argue and debate more than it drives them to pursue lost souls and persuade ALL MEN to be reconciled to God – then it is no doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I am no Calvinist, but I am not hostile to Calvnists either. Some of the greatest theological influences in my life are Calvinists and I appreciate them greatly. But, I am very aware that Calvinists are in the SBC and that they are good for the SBC. We need to be able to work together - both Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.  Following Jesus is more important than pushing people away because of minor (and yes, they are minor) theological disagreements.

Here is the issue:  If you are more passionate about arguing your view of God's sovereignty and the Doctrines of Grace than you are about Jesus Christ, then we have a problem. If you are more passionate about your view of faith and man's responsibility than you are about Jesus Christ, then we have a problem. A passion for Christ will draw these two camps together and we will learn to co-exist and co-labor for the sake of the gospel. There is room for both views in a convention of churches that exalts Christ above all things and that is fueled by the power of the gospel as we live abandoned lives for God. THAT is the issue.

We have to learn to get along and stop reacting against one another and start supporting one another in the work that we are doing for the Lord.

So, why Dr. Chapman? Why do this here and now?  I am wondering if he was trying to illustrate that many of the proponents of the GCR are Calvinists and he was trying to show that Calvinists are not really Great Commission people so a GCR supported by Calvinists was an oxymoron. I know that Dr. Chapman disagrees with the GCR on the basis of Article IX which calls for a reorganization of the SBC, but could he have brought up the Calvinism issue to try and create a wedge in people's minds before the vote tonight?

I don't know. But, the GCR seems to be a steamroller that is taking over the Convention. That will be a good thing if it increases our love for Christ and causes us to spend ourselves on behalf of the lost and dying of the world.  GCR debate starts in 45 minutes. It should be interesting.

Comments

[Debbie Kaufman]

It has been turned into a Calvinist and anti-Calvinist issue. That is shameful because to me neither one has anything to do with it. It's returning to our first love Jesus Christ. It's loving one another. It's proclaiming the Gospel. Period. But it's always gets turned to be about power and politics isn't it?

[Bill]

I don't know who this guy is, but to assert that Calvinism involves saving people "without a faith response" shows either ignorance or deliberate falsity. Can anyone name a Calvinist in the SBC or anywhere else for that matter who rejects Ephesians 2:8? Shameful.

[ecrosstexas]

Bill,

I think I understand Chapman on Eph 2:8... "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God (ESV)"

So it is not that any Calvinist rejects Eph 2:8; it is that scripture and the Doctrines of Grace show us that faith is a gift from God. People don't come faith on their own. God gives us the faith.

It sounds like Chapman rejects this idea and thinks that sinners can come to saving faith on their own accord.

[Mark]

If ecrosstexas is correct, then Chapman should have addressed the non-Calvinists at the John 3:16 Conference. I believe it was Patterson who said faith is a gift from God and not something we can generate on our own. I don't recall disagreement with this position.

[James]

I think that most people would find that the origins of most calvinistic thinking is quite biblical and compatible. These verses and lines of thought he is mentioning are NOT at odds with each other. I think since we don't know, wouldn't we always want to err on the side of God's sovereignty because He does know?
I think he is making these statements based on an old stereotype of Calvinism, and one in which even John Calvin did not embrace. May God help us as we discern how to reach our communities with Christ.

[Grady Bauer]

I think his sermon was a last ditch effort to paint the GCR (for some reason associated with Calvinism) in a negative light. The BI guys...Chapman, Vines and Patterson are desperate to regain control of the SBC they almost destroyed. The thing about them is that they seem more passionate about maintaining the camp versus expanding it. The GCR guys...embraced by Dr. Hunt...are sick of the boycotts, stupid motions and the isolationist attitudes of the BI guys and as a result the BI guys are losing power and influence. It's a sad day for the BI guys and a great day for the SBC.

[Mich]

Dr Chapman is right on the money, and shame on you for trying to silence him. If a man cannot speak his conscience and beliefs then why bother having a conference? This split has been ongoing for centuries and what he's refering to is the recent Neo-Reformed Calvinism which is NOT irenic and labels all non-Calvinists as heretics. Until they realize this in simply NOT true, I don't see how Baptists can move forward in harmony and preach and live the Gospel.

[Alan Cross]

Grady,

Dr. Chapman is not BI. He has not worked with them at all. In a previous post, I stated that I saw 3 groups that are making up the present SBC: Baptist Identity, GCR, and Institutional Traditionalists. I would see Dr. Chapman in the last group. This group would consist of traditional SBCers who are non-Calvinists, but they are not BI. They also want to maintain our structures and keep the state conventions the way that they are. Most state convention executives would likely be in this category.

Mich,

I don't think that I tried to silence Dr. Chapman. I have a lot of respect for him and think that he is a good man. I was just confused as to why he took on Calvinists the way that he did. I don't think that that is productive. I am not a Calvinist, personally, but I think that the SBC is big enough for them. Asking questions concerning Dr. Chapman's very public address is not trying to silence him.

[Grady Bauer]

Alan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Grady

[thehigg]

Alan,

I didn't hear/read Chapman coming for that direction (attacking/addressing Calvinists). Interesting-I thought the sermon was rather mild from what he could have said to them.

I rather thought that he was trying (though not succeeding) to address both sides...he can't get away from his personal soteriology in good conscience, but I thought that his point was to say that both sides are "a little right and a little wrong"---that we have all allowed the question of the soteriological center of the SBC to distract us from the task of evangelism.

I thought that Jeff Crook's theme interpretation was also in this vein- doesn't matter your position, evangelize.

This is going to sound heavey-handed on my part, but I'd just like to steer the direction away from a "Bash Chapman...we really hate him." tone:
We as Southern Baptists have got to try to see the best intentions in the words and actions of others. I know that requires more grace and civility than we are used to employing, but we will never heal the wounds we have inflicted on each other and the lost population of the world (you cannot deny that our vitrolic discourse and in-fighting have played a part ion the decline in missions funds and baptisms) until we stop cutting new ones into whomever spoke the last.