Dr. Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written an article set to appear in the April issue of SBC Life. He sent out an advanced copy to the students of Southeastern, and from there it has made its way to at least one blog. In the article he addresses the drama surrounding Calvinism in our Convention, and while I find fault with some of his handling of the Doctrines of Grace, his attitude and approach to the controversy is right on. Dr. Akin is seeking to be fair, and offers good counsel when asking both sides to “tone down the rhetoric.” He rightly points out that the BFM2K allows for evangelical diversity within the convention, and that is a good thing.
He begins to lose me when he delves into history. He makes the statement, “Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught.” He does not attempt to back this up, and I suppose it falls outside of what he is trying to accomplish. If so, he should have avoided making the statement.
First, Calvin’s theology did not need systematization. Unlike Luther’s writings, Calvin’s theology was systematically arranged in one work; his magnum opus, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Second, if Dr. Akin is claiming the Canons of Dordt go beyond Calvin, I, and most in the Reformed tradition who read Calvin and his successors, would disagree. Third, to go beyond a founder does not necessitate contradicting him. Paul admittedly goes beyond the teachings of Jesus, but does not contradict them. Though the Puritans went beyond Calvin in some ways they did not cut a divergent theological path. Fourth, while “Calvinism,” or Reformed theology, traces its origin back to the man with the pointy beard, it has been refined and built upon by many others. So, for example, Reformed theology views the Sabbath more along the lines of Puritan thought than that of the Genevan Reformer’s. This does not make it corrupt-Calvinism, or hyper-Calvinism, only a more developed version of it.
Theologically I find Dr. Akin’s comments somewhat odd as well. He affirms total depravity saying,
“Every aspect of man’s being is infected with the disease of sin so that he cannot save himself, neither can he move toward God without the initiating and enabling grace of God. Man is not as bad as he could possibly be, but he is radically depraved. Most Baptists would agree on this point, at least in some measure. It is hard to deny it in light of Romans 3:9-20 and Ephesians 2:1-3 (emphasis mine).”
Not the strongest statement on depravity, but good. Of course, Wesley and others could affirm this and then appeal to “prevenient grace” which overcomes this depravity for all men without exception, enabling them to choose Christ, though not necessarily. But taken at face value, this is a decent statement.
He then makes a strong statement concerning unconditional election, but wants to claim “mystery” in what I consider an odd place. He writes, “No one is saved apart from God’s plan, and yet anyone who repents and trusts Christ will be saved. There is tension in this position, but a tension we should accept and maintain. John 6:37-47 is helpful at this point (emphasis mine).”
This issue is not an aspect of the mystery found in the tension between the sovereignty of God and responsibility of man. Total depravity establishes that no one can believe apart from divine grace, and irresistible grace explains that this grace is effective. Yes, anyone who repents and believes will be saved, but this cannot happen apart from God’s effectual grace. He points to John 6:37-47 to show the alleged mystery, but the overall context fights against this claim. There Jesus explains that no one can come to him apart from the Father’s drawing, and if any are drawn, they are raised up. This whole passage establishes the very doctrine he seems to be a little soft on.
Look, there is mystery in Scripture; in God himself! I grow weary of many in my own camp who apparently believe all things have been answered, not only in Scripture, but in the Reformed tradition. I am with Calvin when he said,
It is not right that man should with impunity pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word – revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare…
If we give due weight to the consideration, that the word of the Lord is the only way which can conduct us to the investigation of whatever it is lawful for us to hold with regard to him – is the only light which can enable us to discern what we ought to see with regard to him, it will curb and restrain all presumption.
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3 Ch. 23
I have trouble with some in the Reformed tradition, who do not heed Calvin’s words. I have been guilty of this very sin myself. But I think God has chosen to reveal how he operates in regeneration. There is mystery in how God is sovereign and has decreed all things, while men remain free moral agents who act without being coerced. This is a mystery historic Calvinism has always maintained.
His words on reprobation amount to an empty assertion and are unhelpful. I know he does not have time for this side issue, but if that is the case, why bring it up? I am tempted to write something on the topic.
In the end, I am uncomfortable with some of his doctrine, but I love his attitude. He is right when he argues that theology must begin with God and not man. His counsel for people to be honest and up front with their beliefs when candidating at churches is good. His call to be sensible in our dialogue is needed. We need more men like Dr. Akin who can make assertions, appeal to Scripture, and even correct others with gentleness and humility. I have no doubt that a theological conversation with the President of Southeastern would be profitable. This is not something we can say of all men who serve/lead at institutions of higher education.
…these topics are very important because they have an impact on how we approach the mission of GodSome will no doubt believe I am spending too much time on an irrelevant topic. But theological dialogue on these topics is very important because these doctrines have an impact on how we approach the mission of God. Honestly, I tire of blogs that pimp the five points every week, for there is much more to the whole counsel of God, “true religion,” and the missio dei than the synod at Dordt. But these things do matter – critically so in my estimation.
You can read Dr. Akin’s article here, download it here (scroll to the bottom and wait for the countdown), or wait for it to come out in next month’s SBC Life.
I am the Lead Pastor of Redeemer Fellowship; husband to Jen; Dad to Katherine, Elias, Madeline, and Kilian. If you're in town you can probably find me in the local coffee house or running through the neighborhoods.
{ 24 comments }
Second, if Dr. Akin is claiming the Canons of Dordt go beyond Calvin, I, and most in the Reformed tradition who read Calvin and his successors, would disagree. Third, to go beyond a founder does not necessitate contradicting him.
Each and every person that I have ever heard that discusses this does something like this:
Beza was a supralapsarian
Protestant theology became “scholastic”
Dort was a scholasticisation of Beza’s theological scholasticism.
Problems here:
(1) Dort is a response to the Remonstrance and the Opinions, not vice versa.
(2) Arminianism is admittedly derived from scholasticism. To claim one tradition is “scholastic” as if they other is not is misleading at best. The Remonstrance provoked the response of Dort, which answered it on its own terms. In other words, it is a response pegged to the terms of the object to which it is responding. Arminius borrowed heavily fromthe Scholastics.
(3) Usually those making this objection will discuss “the plain meaning of Scripture.” This is shorthand for fundamentalist hermeneutics, not for the rules of exegesis. These, it is alleged, are what makes Reformed hermeneutics “scholastic.” However, “the plain reading” of Scripture, I would argue is prone to look at Scripture through whatever the veracular of the day is; this is a recipe for a post-modern hermeneutic, for language is on a sliding scale of semantic range in living languages. Ergo, we need the rules of biblical exegesis (the GHM) to ground our understanding of Scripture’s propositions properly and not in what we think today. The fundamentalist hermeneutic is more enslaving to tradition than the GHM. The repeated use of the extensional fallacy is a prime example. Fundamentalists that believe in general atonement like to say “All means all.” Yes, it does…but all is an adverb or adjective in the English language and in all languages is a universal class quantifier. It needs a referent to be meaningful. The “plain reading” treats “all,every, any,” as if they are nouns and pronouns with a universal meaning. That’s a 20th/21st century way of reading the language, and, even then, it’s still ignorant of the basic parts of speech when it does so! The point I’m making here is that when I hear this, what I hear is the age old battle between “biblical/exegetical” theology vs. “systematic theology.” That’s the real issue here when Dort is mentioned. Those who take this route are often those who extol biblical theology over systematic. I would say, however, that we live some centuries after Dort and that exegesis has come a long way, baby, and I would say that Reformed theology’s strength is its exegesis. Non-Calvinists should read the newer standard Arminian commentaries on certain Arminian response texts like 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim. 2:4…they agree to the Calvinist exegesis.
(4) The whole line of argument regarding supralapsarianism is irrelevant to the issue. Dort and the other confessions are all infralapsarian. John Bunyan was a supralapsarian, but not a hyper-Calvinist (far from it). The logic of the supras and infras is the same: both believe in double predestination; one need not be supra to affirm equal ultimacy; both affirm total depravity, particular atonement, effectual grace, and perseverance of the saints, and the Reformed ordu salutis.
This is amusing since Calvin likely would have viewed Baptists as theological opponents to be dealt with similar to other anabaptist or radical reformers.
Anabaptists quickly left orthodoxy which got them in a lot of trouble. I doubt he would view a brother who shared his theology, but began to diverge on the issue of baptism as a heretic. Ultimately, it is irrelevant because this is not about how Calvin would feel about 21st century baptists. It is about a way of looking at the Bible (and along the way we have discussed related historical issues).
Anyway, it is not more amusing than an evangelical church embracing something like the council of chalcedon. It is a shared theology where it matters, and the Baptists that emerged in 17th century had no hesitation of speaking favorably of the theology of their paedo-contemporaries, or of Calvin or Luther.
Of course, the whole conversation probably seems absurd from the perspective of enlightened.
My guess is that Akin was referring to Francis Turretin, who made Calvin’s judgments on certain issues more definitive than Calvin himself did–thus going beyond what Calvin himself taught. Calvin knew when to stop, but Turretin and the tradition of Calvinism that he helped create often did not.
This is amusing because this comments section seems to be exactly what Joe is getting at. Kudos to him for keeping to the real issue in his comment.
What it boils down to is that Calvinists and many others in this discussion agree on the essentials of the faith; namely that Jesus died to save sinners and that we are saved by faith in Him. If we can agree on that, then why shouldn’t we be able to exhibit the proper attitude towards each other instead of jumping off the doctrinal cliff?
I grow weary of people on both sides deciding they have to “correct” each other instead of coming together as a family. It’s shameful. Shameful to us as Christians, shameful to our witness, and shameful to the Lord.
Here’s a new name for SBC president: Danny Akin. Anyone who can talk like that, if in fact he wrote that article, ought to be the kind of person who leads this denomination.
I would vote for Akin in a heartbeat. Johnny Hunt? He’s too antagonistic toward the reformed for me to vote for him.
I think there is a place for discussion and debate, but I believe we can work together in our Convention. I really do.
This is amusing since Calvin likely would have viewed Baptists as theological opponents to be dealt with similar to other anabaptist or radical reformers.
Well, considering he married an Anabaptist…
Come now, Kevin, we all know what that comment was about. The 3 of you in the Reformed Catholic movement just plain don’t like Baptists. Go ahead and say it, we won’t dislike you any less. :~)
I suggested Akin for president shortly before the Founders post blew up a couple weeks ago. In fact, I remember Ergun Caner being indignant at seeing Akin’s name raised on the foudners blog. I suggested Akin because of the irenic spirit he evidences in his article, and because he is well respected and well liked on both sides of those issues, having worked closely with both Patterson and Mohler.
Gene,
Thanks for continuing to illustrate my point. Let’s all calm down and think this through. Preferably over some bar-b-q and sweet tea.
I hope Johnny Hunt, Jack Graham, and Ergun Caner all get a copy of this essay.
Akin is a good illustration for how I view the SBC, or at least how I envision it functioning today. Despite a Reformed heritage, our Convention is NOT a Calvinistic cooperative effort. Such churches are in the minority. I do not expect our Convention to be reformed, or embrace the 1689. But I do expect the Convention to be accepting, even friendly toward, the Reformed tradition. Although Akin is not Reformed, he is not afraid of reformed theology either. He seeks to be biblical, passionate and inclusive (in a healthy way).
I have always considered the bedrock objection to the theory of evolution among Calvanists to be the doctrine of the total depravity of man. Obviously if we evolved, we are not responsible for our depravity. Our depravity would be a result of selfish genes that we inherited from reptiles and other representatives of the evolutionary tree. If we did descend from these creatures, then God, at some point, superimposed His mind, i.e. consciousness, on the mind of man and we became conscious also. As Genesis says, when we became conscious of right and wrong, we became like God. If this is, indeed, what happened, the constant war between our selfish genes and our consciousness, explains the human condition. Obviously, if this were true, a cosmic monkey wrench would have been thrown into the entire theological construct of Calvin. Evangelical scholars need to concentrate more on how they are going to defend Christian Theology against the onslaught of accumulating scientific evidence that all forms of animal life are linked through their DNA rather than whether one theologian’s construct is more true than another’s. It has been established that all species share some DNA, and the more removed a species is from humans, the more its DNA will differ. Conversely, the closer a species is to humans in form, the more its DNA will resemble our own. The DNA of chimps is 99% identical to human DNA. There is now evidence that all people living outside of Africa are descended from a small band of a few hundred individuals who migrated out of Africa about 70,000 years ago and spread throughout the world ( “National Geographic” November 2005). Just as the Mormons are trying to defend their sacred text, which claims that American indians are descendants of a lost tribe of Israel, against the DNA evidence that indians descended from Asians not Jews, evangelicals are going to have to defend their claim that humans are not connected by their DNA to other animals.
Am I the only one here that gets a headache trying to make sense of all this stuff? What is a layman who just loves Jesus, to do with all this religious debate and doctrines? Just when I think it all makes sense I read something that changes my mind.
JJ,
I would say that you should focus on cultivating a love for Christ and others. But loving God means knowing God, and knowing God involves theology/doctrine. As we study Scripture, we will be forced to interact with ideas and doctrines that are sometimes difficult. The bible has a lot to say about predestination, the atonement, faith, holiness, etc. To not do our best to understand these things is irresponsible. So, my encouragement would be seek to know God through his word and get help along the way. Hopefully your pastor can guide you theologically. If not, or additionally, there are some great books out there as well on the topic of Calvinism.
Debating Calvinism by White and Hunt – This is a book written by two guys on opposite ends of the issue. It might be the one to get. But you might prefer to check out:
Putting Amazing Back Into Grace by Horton
The Soveriegnty of God by Pink
or… you know, this could be a long list.
Anyone else want to recommend something?
The Doctrines of Grace by James Montgomery Boice would be my introductory text of choice. It’s balanced, looks at a sampling of objections, and presents a very well-formed vision for living out Calvinism. I’ve posted a review on the Amazon page for it.
Joe,
A church member of mine attends SEBTS and informed me of this article by Akin. Thanks for responding so quickly to it. I believe the article is timely. Certain men in the SBC finally see that Calvinists are serious about seeing reformation and will fight for it( In a Christ honoring way).However, I have some concerns for Calvinists.
I agree that I could support Akin over Hunt for SBC president but that is not my concern. My concern is that some calvinist really believe that we can work together with these men. I’m not saying that we can’t work with Akin. Danny is miles apart from the Caner brothers( I think). I have used Danny for conferences in the past at the churches where I served. He has always been strong on Election, Effectual Calling, Total Depravity, and perseverance of the saints and wanting to see the gospel preached with purity. I have read some blogs where some Calvinist have said that they do not want to see the SBC just become Calvinistic. I totally disagree! If one believes somthing is right personally why would you not want everyone to believe the same? I’m not saying that we should kick non calvinist out but I would like to see all leadership within the SBC embrace the doctrines of grace. Again, why would I not?
My concern about the article is that it is trying( In my opinion) to put the Convention above the truth. Though it does not say this but I believe this is really what it is about. I believe certain men see a potential blowup about Calvinism and they seem more worried about the Convention than maybe ” What’s the truth”. I sense this in some of the Calvinist blogs as well. Danny Akin is a great guy however my feeling is that there is too much save the convention mindset rather than what is the truth of these doctrines and how do they glorify God and affect mans ways!
I agree with many of the prior comments regarding the spirit in which Dr. Alin dealt with this issue in this article. I feel a need to speak up on behalf of Mr. Spurgeon though, since Dr. Akin used an extensive quote from a Spurgeon sermon at the conclusion of his paper. In spite of his warnings against any doctrine of salvation that starts with man not God, I was struck with Dr. Akin’s tendency to equate “freewill” and human responsibility. I have read many Spurgeon sermons in their entirety and portions of his sermons where he considers and deals with man’s “freewill.” I have yet to find one instance from my reading and understanding of Spurgeon’s ministry where he ever linked or equated the two concepts. Rather, Spurgeon very forcefully denounced “freewill” teaching in all its forms in sermons too numerous to refer to here. Some specimen sermons: “A Jealous God” MTP Vol. 9, Page 238; “Free Will – A Slave” MTP Vol 1, Page 695; “Self-Sufficiency Slain”, MTP Vol. 6, Page 849; “Christ’s Crowning Glory”, MTP Vol 50, Page 191; “A Testimony To Free and Sovereign Grace,” MTP Vol 33, Page 204.
I was also struck with some of the terms – some new to me – raised by the article. “Man is born with a nature and ‘bent’ toward sin.” Scripture teaches that man is a slave to sin by nature, and sets forth clearly what that means, and it is certainly much more than a natural “bent” toward sin. I’ve always considered that to be a starting point in understanding God’s sovereignty in salvation. Neither do I understand the need to talk about some “tension” and a “balance” when referring to the issue. Spurgeon never spoke of or alluded to a “tension” between God’s Sovereignty and man’s responsibility to repent and believe. They are two truths that run parallel to one another and converge, I think he said, “at the throne of Christ.” In the sermon Dr. Akin quoted a portion from, “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” MTP Vol 4, Page 591, I think that fact is made abundantly clear. In the context of the quote, Spurgeon stated: “Never be frightened at a doctrine; and above all, never be frightened at a name. Some one said to me the other day, that he thought the truth lay somewhere between the two extremes. He meant right, but I think he was wrong. I do not think the truth lies between the two extremes, but in them both. I believe the higher a man goes the better, when he is preaching the matter of salvation. The reason why a man is saved is grace, grace, grace; and you may go as high as you like there. But when you come to the question as to why men are damned, then the Arminian is far more right than the Antinomies. I care not for any denomination or party, I am as high as Hunting don upon the matter of salvation, but question me about damnation, and you will get a very different answer. By the grace of God I ask no man’s applause, I preach the Bible as I find it. Where we get wrong is where the Calvinist begins to meddle with the question of damnation, and interferes with the justice of God; or when the Arminian denies the doctrine of grace.” Spurgeon closed the sermon with these words: “Now, with regard to myself; you may some of you go away and say, that I was Antinomian in the first part of the sermon and Arminian at the end. I care not. I beg of you to search the Bible for yourselves. To the law and to the testimony; if I speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in me. I am willing to come to that test. Have nothing to do with me where I have nothing to do with Christ. Where I separate from the truth, cast my words away. But if what I say be God’s teaching, I charge you, by him that sent me, give these things your thoughts, and turn unto the Lord with all your hearts.”
Point four in the “Finding Biblical Balance” section dealt with a pastoral candidate clearly “labeling” himself. I’m not sure that I would feel as constrained to “label” myself as Dr. Akin sets forth in his fourth point. I think that a comment to the effect that you are committed to an expository ministry and to preaching the whole counsel of God and explain what that means would certainly suffice. Where Scripture teaches the sovereignty of God, election, calling and choosing in a passage, my desire would be to fully and faithfully deal with the passage. Where Scripture sets forth human responsibly and the free offer of the gospel, man’s duty to come to Christ, repent and believe, I would seek to fully deal with that passage. I see no deception or dishonesty in a person who believes firmly in historical Biblical truth in the crucial area of salvation not wanting to label himself a “5 point, committed Calvinist” and then try to explain to our generation of church folks what that means as a system of theology out of Scriptural context. Our culture is so man centered in and out of the church that those who believe in the doctrines of grace would not be “a ministry assignment that is a good fit” in most churches today. God’s people need to be taught from the Gospels, Ephesians 1, Romans 7, 8, and yes, Romans 9, and brought along in just how God sovereignty works in salvation for His honor and glory alone. In short, I don’t think anything is gained in our day by using the term man’s “freewill” when referring to how God saves His people or when dealing with the subject of our responsibility to repent and believe.
A big part of the problem I think is that some within the ranks have this twisted, distorted view of what Scripture teaches on how the Lord saves His people, and an unholy fear that to believe such teaching would kill, not enhance missionary fervor. As you know, nothing could be further from the truth. If evangelism was accomplished God’s way in our generation with the glory of God as the chief end, much of what passes for evangelism would have to go. That, I think, is a big part of the concern, probably not with Dr. Akin, but broadly within the SBC today.
Its funny but I picked up a John Calvin book called “Heart Aflame” that has been giving me insight on Psalms. So far it is great.
On the topic of Calvinism, I think I need to do a lot more reading on the subject. I don’t know much about it at all.
Most importantly, stay in the word (as you apparently are), but yeah check out a good book on the topic.
Calvin is very devotional in all his writing. Glad to hear you are enjoying him. That’s great.
Joe,
I do believe you would want to see the SBC be totally Calvinistic? Since you embrace this theologyso, Why would you not? Let me be clear that I feel the same way about Dr. Akin as you have posted. However, are you saying that for some reason if we as a convention would and could adopt the 1689 you would not be for it? Please answer this if you will? Also, please note that I’m not for as ” Charles” put it on another blog that he would love to see Calvinist kicked out of the SBC . I would want to see the SBC arminians reform in their theology but not kick them out however I would want all SBC leaders( Seminary Presidents , teachers, and the President) to embrace fully the 1689. If we don’t bad theology will pop up again and again. Do you not see even Dr.Akins view of the atonement dangerous in how it represents Christ and His work? Remember I do believe Danny is miles apart from alot of these guys and that is so good.
Scott,
I would love for all Christians to embrace Reformed thought (where it is Biblical: concerning law, covenants, soteriology, theo proper, etc). This includes our Convention leaders. So, yes in my dreams at night our Convention is confessional (in the reformed sense) and missional. But the reality is we are a very diverse body, and the majority of our churches are not Reformed. So the question is how do we move forward as a cooperative group?
Obviously we must cooperate under a more basic/baptist/evangelical confession. My hope is that when God brings revival to his people again there will be a rediscovery of Reformed thought across our Convention. Our part is to be preaching, teaching, dialoging about these things.
The 1689? I love it. But it’s not “inerrant” and I have a lot to say on the need to draw up current confessions that are reformed. I will save it for a future post.
I have problems with Akin’s views, on some subjects. Will those cause problems? I think they can, but not necessarily so. And that is what most of our churches believe.
In the end, I expect the convention to be, at least, welcoming of calvinist churches. In my case they were. I know others who have been buried because of it.
Joe,
Thanks for your response! I agree about the dreams” At night” about our convention. I hope you never thought I was questioning your passion to see reform in the SBC. Thanks for making this clearer. I have enjoyed reading your blogs at Founders. Hope we can talk sometime?
Scott, you going to the Founders Conference or the SBC? I will be at both of those. If so, let’s hang out.
Joe,
I plan on attending both! Yes, I would like to meet and chat. You need to meet Nathan White as well. Greay guy and committed to reformation!
Comments on this entry are closed.