Calvinism or Just a John 3:16 Kind of Guy I

Calvinism or Just a John 3:16 Kind of Guy Part I

Fellow SBC blogger Timmy Brister linked to a sermon telling us why it’s important to combat false representations of Calvinism within the Southern Bapitst Convention.

Note: If you want to see why it is so necessary to publicly debunk errors by Lemke and others, go to this page and listen to the “What Is Calvinism?” sermon by a “John 3:16 Baptist” (warning, you will be bombarded with falsehoods).

That page takes you to First Baptist Clinton Mississippi to the sermon page of her pastor, Dr. John Compton.  When Bro. Timmy originally posted this link the sermon “What is Calvinism?” was the first sermon, but now it’s gone.  Fortunately, I downloaded it when I first saw it and wanted to provide a quick over view.

“What is Calvinism?” Sermon Review

Dr. Compton apparently got in invite to the John 3:16 Conference in the mail.  He tells us that this conference is a “reaction to the Founders Movement.”  First, it’s the “Founders Ministries” not “movement.”  Although I can understand how one might use “movement.”  Second, I do not see the claim on the conference website that this is a reaction to the Founders Ministries.  Actually, Dr. Lemke, Provost of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the conference sponsors, stated the purpose of this conference in an email to Ed Stetzer.

This conference is intended as a majoritarian Southern Baptist response to the “Building Bridges” and “Together for the Gospel” conferences.

Compton then says that the Founders Movement wants all of the SBC to adopt the Reformed Theology of the Presbyterians.  Read the purpose of Founders Ministries yourself.  Is “Presbyterian” Reformed Theology anywhere stated as a goal?  That’s simply a broad brushing mis-characterization of any Calvinist Baptist.  Imagine what we could label each other with if we did this with every single theological position?  We’d spend all of our time re-labeling ourselves!  Besides, are Presbyterians any less Christian than Baptists?

He then goes on to talk about Frank Page’s book The Trouble With Tulip (which has been addressed here and here among other places) while informing us that he knows he’s not a Calvinist.  Also claiming that Page’s book was a refresher course for him on Calvinism.  Then, I literally laughed out loud.  This next quote was just funny, no offense.

I want you to know, John is not a Calvinist.  Will you turn to the person next to you and say, “He’s no Calvinist.”  Would you say that?  I’m not a Cal…I’m not a modified Calvinist. I’m not a Calvinist.  I’m not a hyper-Calvinist.  I’m just a John 3:16 kind of guy.

Setting Up the Sermon

Compton starts at John 3:14 continuing through v. 19 and very admirably has everyone stand for the reading of God’s word.  Concerning Calvinism, He does take us back to the 300′s mentioning Augustine and Pelagius.  This is good since so many simply stop and start with John Calvin.  He touches on Carthage and fast forwards to John Calvin and his Institutes.  He again does accurately tell us that the Synod of Dordt was a reaction to Arminians contrary to how most people think of TULIP.  This is a positive.

He then goes through a very brief Baptist history and even mentions that the Charleston Baptists were Calvinistic.  Opposing the Charleston tradition we’re told was the Sandy Creek Association which he says were “Arminian.”  This is where the deck begins to get stacked.  Compton explains the Charleston folks as emphasising predestination and higher education.  While telling is the Sandy Creekers were for missions, revivals, freedom to choose, etc.  As if the Charleston Baptists did not believe in missions and evangelism.  This is a very cleaver picture to paint which Compton may or may not mean to paint.  Let’s look at two points from the Sandy Creek Association’s statement of faith from 1816.

III. That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed

IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost. – Emphasis mine (Source)

Those positions in the Sandy Creek confession are Calvinistic and not Arminian as Dr. Compton has said.

Change in the Southern Baptist Convention

Compton asserts that after much prayer and thought, the SBC became like he is today, General Baptists.  That is, believing in missions and evangelism, etc.  Again, this is a broad brush with broken bristles.  Why is it that some of the greatest evangelists and missionaries have been Calvinist, yet Dr. Compton implies that it was the Arminian and General Baptists who believe in missions, etc.?  That’s a misrepresentation which puzzles me given Dr. Compton’s earlier accurate statements about Calvinism that others often get wrong.

Then Compton starts painting charactures of Calvinism, not by quoting Cavlinists, but by quoting Southern Baptists who are anti-Calvinists.  No argument was given only assertion.  He basically uses Dr. Yarnell’s 2006 article from SBC Life.

…but most would likely reject the view of those Calvinists who narrowly define unconditional election as double predestination. E.Y. Mullins, Herschel Hobbs, and Adrian Rogers were the three pastor-theologians who served as chairmen of the committees which created or revised the Baptist Faith and Message in 1925, 1963, and 2000. All three of these founding Confessors held views contrary to classical Calvinism. Mullins objected to the errors of Calvinists, whose doctrines are based on a “false premise” about God’s character, leading them to proceed “by a rigid logic to their false conclusions.” Mullins concluded, “God elects men to respond freely.” Hobbs decried the “error that election relates to certain individuals, with some destined to salvation and others to damnation.” Rogers, a well-known opponent of “wine and cheese” theology, wrote a pamphlet aptly titled, Predestined for Hell? Absolutely Not! (Source)

Dr. Compton then says that it is very clear for 100 years that we are not a Calvinistic, Reformed, Presbyterian Denomination.  We must again ask, WHY the misrepresentation in using these labels?  Just what does he say the SBC is?  He says we’re John 3:16 Southern Baptists.  What does that even mean?  He uses formal theological labels to say what the SBC is not, but makes up something to define what we are?  Earlier he said we are General Baptists, but General Baptists are not Southern Baptists.  Arguing by way of popular vote doesn’t make a position right or wrong.  I’m sure Dr. Compton remembers the Conservative Resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Using a position of popularity, should this not have happened?

We’re at a point now where he names Tom Nettles and Al Mohler for about the third time.  Several names are mentioned.

…like John Piper, John MacArthur, Timothy George, Donald Carson, JI Packer, RC Sproul, Tom Nettles, Al Mohler.  They want to take us back to a Presbyterian Reformed theology of Calvinism of the founding fathers of the Southern Baptist Convention…

Since when are Piper, MacArthur, Packer and Sproul Southern Baptists who want to take the Convention back to Calvinism?  What do they even have to do with Southern Baptists in this regard? Is this a subtle way of warning his church members not to listen to these men?

Next

I will be posting part II of this sermon review next.  There is so much to unpack in this 34 minute sermon.  I am trying to hit some of the major points because there is so much more that could be said.  There is so much historically that could be referenced since so much in the sermon is merely assertion.  For those who want to hear the sermon for themselves I will have a bonus for you.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

p.s. I will be at the John 3:16 Conference so if anyone wants to look me up just use my “contact me” link.

p.p.s. If anyone would like to hear an exegetical critique of the non-Calvinist Southern Baptist position you can do so here: Part 1 & Part 2.  In case anyone wonders how I felt about Adrian Rogers take a look.

About the author

Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman attending seminary in the off hours working on his M.Div. preparing for vocational ministry.

The above article was posted on October 21, 2008.