Just scroll down to the bottom of the article Frank Page discusses SBC theological issues.
Many felt that Dr. Page would be a great moderate voice towards the Calvinists in the SBC despite his book The Trouble with TULIP (reviewed here). You can read an interview with Dr. Page in which he states,
I have attempted to be kind to all groups. As I have said in another interview, I have Calvinists within my church with whom I work well. One of my dearest friends in this state is a five-point Calvinist. I can work with almost anyone if they have a sweet spirit, an evangelistic heart, and a commitment to the integrity of God’s Word.
Then we come to the current article in the first link. I’m sure it’s my bias just reacing to his bias, but here goes.
Page said the current debate among Southern Baptists on the issue of Calvinism “has both healthy and negative aspects to it.”
He describes the Patterson-Mohler discussion as a positive theological debate which it was. Well, it was almost a debate. He says it was the “proper forum” and again I agree. So why not do this more often so people can see the true side of the Calvinist. Especially, since those opposing Calvinism seem to forget the long line of Calvnist missionaries as Dr. Page seems to do as we will see in a moment.
“There are some who are drawing lines in the sand and saying you cannot be a Southern Baptist and be a Calvinist. There are Calvinists who are saying we will not rest until every Southern Baptist seminary is five-point Calvinist and all the graduates are five-point Calvinists. So, you’ve got extreme division occurring,” he said.
Why this division? I wish Dr. Page would really look into this and if folks would just follow his position from the interview qouted above we’d not have this problem. Again, we see the forgetfullness of history from folks who think one cannot be a Calvinist and a Southern Baptist.
He believes the Southern Baptists are headed for “tumultuous days” as the hundreds of Calvinistic Southern Baptist seminary students graduate. I wonder if he is refering to those “tumultuous days” because of those who don’t want Calvnism at all or is he placing this potential blame on the Calvinists?
Here is the stinger with the strawman and lack of even a pragmatic look at the history of Calvinistic missionaries.
Page published in 2000 a book, “Trouble with Tulip: A Closer Examination of the Five Points of Calvinism,” critiquing Calvinism which he rejects as based on “manmade” doctrine of Reformation theologian John Calvin, rather than a Bible-based theology. Page also warns that affirmation of Calvinism in churches and denominations leads “inevitably” to diminishing commitment to evangelism.
“Inevitably to diminishing commitment to evangelism”?? “Inevitably”?? What about some of the most visible Calvinists like Dr. Ascol and the Founders movement? Dr. Mohler? How about your “dearest friend” in the state? Manmade? Do you mean the doctrines that came out of the Reformation? Like the Five Solas?
Now he did clarify almost and say,
it’s not accurate to say such is true of all advocates of Calvinism…is willing to work with such Calvinists in SBC life …is willing to appoint such persons to positions of leadership in SBC life.
I can’t understand if Calvinism is so manmade and non-evangelistic why he’d put any Calvinist in any position. I’m sorry, but Dr. Pages words just seem nuanced a bit to me. They hit me like an iron fist in a laced glove. I think we need a history lesson, less strawmen and more proper discussion on these issues.
Previous post: Sovereign Over Sovereignty?
Next post: Blog Bites: The Gospel and a Baptism
