“THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY”
Comment On The Al Mohler - Frank Stagg Debate
by Dr. R. Scott Walker

I have read with interest the debate between Frank Stagg and Al Mohler pertaining to the Abstract of Principles of my alma mater, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. As their views have unfolded, I have reflected upon what I will call the “story behind the story”.

Much of the Mohler-Stagg debate has centered around the doctrine of election and it’s influence on the Abstract of Principles at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It should be noted that from the earliest years of Baptist history there have been two schools of thought pertaining to the theological issue of election. Some Baptists, frequently called “Particular Baptists”, felt strongly that the Bible teaches election - i.e. that only those “particular” individuals whom God chooses can be saved. Strongly influenced by the Reformed theology of John Calvin - as well as English Puritanism - Particular Baptists believed that if you were of God’s elect, then nothing could prohibit your salvation. And if you were not of God’s elect, then nothing that you could do would bring you salvation.

On the other side of the issue were the General Baptists.

General Baptists were influenced by the Armenians and many Anglicans. They believed that all people had the freedom to choose or refuse salvation. God’s salvation was offered “generally” to all men and women.

This debate raged furiously among early Baptists in England. By 1660, it is estimated that there were 131 Particular Baptist churches and 115 General Baptist churches in England. As English Baptists migrated to America, the “election debate” came with them.

Baptists churches in America were initially confined to New England. By the year 1682, there were six Baptist churches in Rhode Island and two Baptist churches in Massachusetts. In 1682 the First Baptist Church of Boston voted to ordain William Screven to the ministry and to sponsor the beginning of a Baptist church in Kittery, Maine, which Screven would pastor. It is from Kittery, Maine that Baptists in the South find their origins.

Shortly after the founding of the Baptist Church in Kittery, Screven ran into trouble with the dominant Puritan Church because he refused to baptize an infant. When Screven was jailed for the “offense”, the Kittery Baptist congregation began to look for a place to migrate that offered greater religious freedom. Charleston, South Carolina seemed to be the English colony which extended the most religious toleration. Thus a significant portion of the congregation sailed in 1696 from Kittery to Charleston, bringing Baptists to the Southland. The First Baptist Church of Charleston became the first “Southern” Baptist church.

In moving to Charleston, however, the Particular Baptist/General Baptist seeds of discord sailed with the Baptist pioneers from Kittery. Over the years this dissension reached a fevered pitch and the First Baptist Church of Charleston split over the doctrine of election.

Now, to the rest of the story. James Petigru Boyce - a future founder, professor, and president of Southern Seminary - was reared in the First Baptist Church of Charleston. He felt the after-shock of the “election” debate and was molded by the Particular Baptist leanings of his church. Later, while studying at a Presbyterian school, Princeton University, Boyce was profoundly influenced by a professor, Charles Hodge, who strongly espoused the Reformed theology of election. Consequently, Boyce became a strong advocate of the doctrine of election. Evidence of this is seen in his book Abstract Of Christian Theology (1877). And, as professor and President of Southern Seminary, Boyce’s Reform views weighed heavily in the authorship of the Abstract of Principles.

However, times have changed and Baptist theology has expanded, modified, and grown. As an example, I pastored the First Baptist Church of Charleston for seven years. The “Mother Church” is no longer a Particular Baptist church espousing the Reformed or Calvinistic doctrine of election. Rather this congregation, like all Southern Baptist Churches I have known, now believes firmly in the General Baptist concept that God’s salvation is extended to all men and women and that we have the freedom to accept or reject it.

To put it bluntly, Southern Baptists in the Twentieth Century have been a missionary people totally dedicated to a daunting task of preaching a Gospel to all men and women so that they in freedom might choose to be saved. We have rejected a strong view of election. We are no longer Particular Baptists. We are not fivepoint Calvinists. And Boyce is out of step.

However, in recent years there has been a resurgence of Reformed theology among some inter-denominational evangelical Christians. This resurgence has lapped over into the Southern Baptist family. Some, such as Al Mohler, newly elected President of Southern Seminary, now feel that we need to go back and “rediscover our theological roots” by embracing the doctrine of election. Mohler and others would point to James Petigru Boyce as the wellspring of Southern Baptist theology and the Southern Seminary Abstract of Principles as the bedrock of Southern Baptist theology. However, such direction is out of step with the dominant Baptist theme of evangelism and thrusts us again into a needless controversy of a bygone generation.

I, for one, do not want to return to the 18th and l9th century debates. Having been raised by parents who were Southern Baptist missionaries and having spent my life as a Southern Baptist pastor, I have no interest in returning to a view of election which cuts the heart out of all missionary endeavors. As such, if the Abstract of Principles at Southern Seminary has a strain of the doctrine of election within it due to the influence of Boyce, I would suggest that it be modified. After all, the Abstract of Principles has never been claimed to be inerrant. The Abstract of Principles should reflect accurately pervasive Baptist beliefs. I do not perceive that the Particular Baptist doctrine of election is held by many Southern Baptists today.

However, it appears that Al Mohler intends to raise another generation of Southern Baptist pastors who will be influenced to believe in the doctrine of election in the mold of James Petigru Boyce. Through a rigid interpretation of the Abstract of Principles, Mohler is demanding that all professors at Southern Seminary sign on the line that they believe in the doctrine of election. It is my judgment that most do not.

I would urge that the trustees of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary take a long, hard look at this new direction. It is my perception that the vast majority of Southern Baptists fundamentalist and moderate alike - do not believe in the doctrine of election espoused by Reformed Theology. And if there is a movement to revive the Particular Baptists of yesterday, most Southern Baptists want no part of it. Instead we need to steer clear of yet one more controversy and get on with the task of proclaiming the Good News to all people.

April 1995