Tom Ascol on the Calvinism Advisory Committee Report

Dr. Frank Page

[Tom Ascol, Executive Director of Founders Ministries, posted this article on his personal blog at We are reposting it here with permission.]

Last week Frank Page, Executive Director of the Southern Baptist Convention, released a report from the Calvinism Advisory Committee that he appointed last year. I was asked to join the committee after their first meeting. I attended the second (and last) meeting last November and participated in some email exchanges last month as the report was being finalized.

I signed the report, entitled, TRUTH, TRUST and TESTIMONY in a TIME of TENSION, acknowledging that I support it as a helpful consensus document for Southern Baptists as we continue to navigate the waters of serious doctrinal differences among us. As the name of the committee indicates, the bulk of those differences center on the biblical doctrines that are associated with what has historically been known as “Calvinism.”

There has already been much written on this document from those on both sides of the doctrinal divide. I am sure there will be much more forthcoming in the days leading up to and following its formal presentation by Dr. Page at next week’s 2013 Southern Baptist Convention in Houston. I have been asked by several people to elaborate on my published comments about the document and I am happy to do so. What I have already said is this:

Southern Baptists are a doctrinally diverse group who, by God’s grace, agree on the essentials of the faith. As this consensus document affirms, we can no longer afford to allow our doctrinal differences to obscure our substantive and vital areas of agreement. It is my prayer that as we move forward we will do so joyfully acknowledging our unity in Christ and humbly engaging areas of doctrinal disagreements while focusing our energies and passion on spreading the glorious gospel of our crucified and risen Lord to a lost and dying world.

To elaborate, there are four main reasons that I appreciate this document.

 1. It affirms important doctrinal agreements
The section on “Truth” outlines nine areas where Southern Baptists have substantive doctrinal agreement. As is true in any argument or debate, focus is often so intently riveted on differences that agreements are often overlooked or forgotten altogether. Perhaps even more often such areas of agreement are simply assumed and not properly celebrated. I am very grateful that this document does not do that, but rather highlights vital areas of doctrinal unity.

I am old enough to remember when agreement in those nine areas could not be affirmed across the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, less than forty years ago, every one of these affirmations was being contested, if not outright attacked, by someone of influence (professors, denominational workers, prominent pastors, etc.) in the SBC. To those who did not live through those days the fact that we now affirm the inerrancy of the Bible or the eternality of hell may seem passé. But to those of us who remember such vital truths being ridiculed and rejected it is no small thing to have them affirmed without reservation.

Too often we take a “snapshot” view of things rather than a “video” view and as a result we wind up with skewed judgments. If you were to take a snapshot of the life of the most spiritual Christian you know and study it in the light of Scripture, you could find thousands of spots and blemishes within the frame because even the holiest person is still stained with sin. But if you put that snapshot into a video over the last twenty years of that person’s life, a completely different picture emerges. The trajectory becomes apparent and the present is more easily evaluated in light of the past and the direction one is headed toward the future. The blemishes are still there, but the broader context causes them to be judged in light of the positive changes that have been made over time.

Do that with the Southern Baptist Convention. A snapshot of the SBC today will provide a “target-rich-environment” for fault-finders, and no honest person could contest the many blemishes that could be identified. But put today’s snapshot–or the T5 document, as Adam Harwood has mercifully tagged it–into a movie of the last 40 years of the SBC, and the doctrinal agreements that we unhesitatingly share are enough to make one weep with wonder and praise to God for how He has led this association of churches over those decades. I am grateful for our doctrinal agreements.

 2. It acknowledges important doctrinal differences
The document does not try to gloss over the real, and at points serious, doctrinal differences that exist among us. A convinced Calvinist and a convinced “non-Calvinist” (as identified in the document) interpret the Bible differently at some key points. I am convinced that the Bible teaches that God, before the foundation of the world elected specific people to be saved without any regard of what He foresaw in or about them. I also am convinced that when Jesus died on the cross, that He actually paid for the sins of those specific people and objectively accomplished their salvation and that He did not do that for everyone.

That I hold these distinctive convictions along with the common truths affirmed in the first section of the document comes as no surprise to those who know me well or who have been exposed to much of my teaching. Other members of the committee believe that election is not unconditional and eternal and believe that Christ’s death atoned for every person in the exact same way. They hold to their distinctive views while also adhering to the nine essential truths affirmed in the document.

It is obvious that we all cannot be right. At least one of us is wrong. It may be that we both are wrong. But what we both agree on is that the final bar of judgment is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. This common commitment establishes the boundaries of our dialogues, debates, arguments and contentions in our common quest to know, believe and promote the truth that God has revealed. In other words, our differences are real. But they are differences within the family. Therefore, as brethren, the discussion of our differences should be fraternal. That does not mean wishy-washy. It means vigorous, zealous, biblical, humble, loving and kind.

Statements from the last section under “Trust” and the first section under “Testimony” address this well.

“We affirm the responsibility of all Southern Baptists to guard our conversation so that we do not speak untruthfully, irresponsibly, harshly or unkindly to or about any other Southern Baptist. 


 “We affirm the responsibility and privilege of every Southern Baptist to advocate his or her doctrinal convictions. We affirm that theology should be honored and privileged in our conversations and cooperation. We also affirm that theological and doctrinal debate can be a sign of great health within a denomination that is devoted to truth and is characterized by trust.” I am grateful for our honest acknowledgements of our differences.

3. It attempts accurately to represent positions
The committee was made up of convinced Calvinists, those who are convinced that Calvinism is, at least in the main, wrong, and those who wouldn’t mind being described as holding to Calvinistic views that are modified. Arriving at agreement on definitions and descriptions was challenging. I have been somewhat amused by some of the complaints I’ve seen about language the document uses to describe various theological positions. Assumptions have been made that it was “the other side” that chose certain labels or phrases when, in fact, just the opposite happened.

 There is no doubt that if the document had been crafted by only those who are in agreement on doctrines in question that it would read differently. Though I was not involved in the nitty-gritty hammering out of the final wording I feel fairly confident that no one person on the committee would choose to say things exactly the way the document does at various points. But the process was fair and considerate.

To my knowledge everyone involved in the effort was very conscientious that no one’s views be inaccurately portrayed. Again, there are points at which I use different language to describe my personal views than what is found in the statement. But I realize that the statement is not seeking to represent only my personal views at those points. I am grateful for the genuine desire to represent doctrinal positions accurately.

4. It accomplishes the committee’s agenda and reflects a spirit of honest engagement
The one meeting I attended in Nashville was characterized by open, honest exchanges over topics that are potentially very volatile. No one was muzzled nor was anyone or any view favored. There were moments of tense conversation interspersed with light-hearted banter. Above all there was a sense of respect for all who were at the table and a palpable desire to remember that our words were being spoken before the face of the God whom we all love and desire to honor.

As such, that meeting provided a wonderful model for how such conversations can and should be held. I wish that some of my friends on both sides of the Calvinism debate could have experienced it because they seem to think that having such a civil, God-honoring conversation with brethren with whom you disagree is either not possible or profitable. I found my participation to be both.

We have all heard it and even said it but the Calvinism Advisory Committee proved it once again: It is always far more beneficial to talk face-to-face with your doctrinal “opponent” than it is to address them in writing. The latter has its place and can be valuable, but for understanding your disputant’s views, nothing works better than sitting down and talking directly to each other. I hope that there will be more of this kind of personal engagement in the future. I am grateful for the spirit of love and humility that characterized the effort that went into this document.


Southern Baptists owe Dr. Frank Page a debt of gratitude. Some questioned the wisdom of creating the Calvinism Advisory Committee last year, citing numerous reasons why such an effort was doomed to fail and perhaps even make things worse. It did not fail, unless success is defined only in terms of some utopian ideal of exact agreement on every point of theology. But by any reasonable, fair-minded measure, the committee’s work has resulted in a consensus document that can help Southern Baptists move forward in the unity we do have in the gospel as we continue to sharpen and refine each other with challenges in those areas of disagreement. I, for one, look forward to pursuing such efforts of cooperation and refinement in the future. There are still billions of unreached people in the world and Southern Baptists are part of the band of believers to whom the message of salvation has been entrusted. It is a sacred stewardship. My prayer is that we will be able to

Share this post:

16 Responses to “Tom Ascol on the Calvinism Advisory Committee Report”

  1. Pardon my confusion, but was T5 written by Calvinists only? The document says that these issues threaten to divide, but seemingly we have 2 documents now. T5 and Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation. Are we in fact divided because we have 2 documents that say 2 different things? I see the statement on salvation as refuting calvinism, and T5 as trying to patch things up. Any thought?

  2. It is easy to get confused when trying to track this issue within the SBC, so I understand completely! The Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptists Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation was written and promoted by non- and anti-Calvinists within the SBC last year. It provoked a lot of attention and response (including a series of posts by me that was turned into a e-book, available through Founders Press). Dr. Frank Page appointed an Advisory Committee last year after the annual meeting of the SBC. The T5 statement is the result of their work and is what I have commented on in this post. That committee sought to address the Calvinism issue in an even-handed way, which is reflected, I believe, in the T5 statement. This is a consensus document. It should be noted that the primary author of the Traditional Statement was on the committee, as were several of the signers of that statement.

    I know this doesn’t clear up all the confusion, but I hope it helps!

  3. Tom, I’m grateful that God has appointed you & others to stand in the gap to speak the truth regarding the gospel of God’s grace. Thank you for your sacrifice to the honor of Christ.

  4. Thanks, brother, for your encouraging words. These are encouraging days. I am grateful for your long-time fellowship in the gospel. Let’s keep pressing on!

  5. Dr. Ascol,

    The committees report did not directly address the previous call of the Traditionalists to radically abandon the Augustinian theological framework (even though that framework has been shared by both Calvinsts and Arminians). Such an extreme measure would be disastrous in my opinion. Dou you think that the Report will quell such rash extremes? (For examples of this call, see Dr. Hankins’ paper, “Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: Toward a Baptist Soteriology”, Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, Spring 2011, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 87-100,

    Ken Hamrick

  6. Tom: I’m not sure why you weren’t invited to be on the committee to start with. Why did they wait until after the first meeting to ask you? Founders Ministries is one of the major reasons our convention is having theological discussions of this nature.

    Thanks for your thoughts on the issue and for your contribution to the effort.

    David Roberts – @_David_Roberts

  7. Ken,

    I hope the document will help curb some of the more extreme arguments that have been posited in recent history. I believe if we remember what we do have in common that it will help us speak humbly and respectfully about the things about which we still disagree. Time will tell.

    However, we can’t forget that this document has no authority to impose its views on anyone or any entity. It is advisory only. The fact that people of such disparate perspectives were involved in the construction of the document should go along way in giving pause to extremists who might want to continue to argue for the elimination of opposing views.


  8. David,

    I have no information at all on the process whereby the committee was formed. There will be an open forum on Monday before the SBC at the Executive Committee’s booth in the Exhibitor Hall. Perhaps that question will be addressed at that time.

    Press on!

  9. The part of this statement that I find interesting is the section “moving forward,” which says in part: “Our entities should be places where any Southern Baptist who stands within the boundaries of The Baptist Faith and Message should be welcomed and affirmed as they have opportunities to benefit from, participate in, and provide leadership for those entities.” In my view, that is manifestly not the case, at least in terms of being welcome to provide leadership, at quite a number of SBC entities, including some affiliated with the signatories. I am curious to see if this represents a real change in sentiment or is only window dressing.

  10. Paul,

    It will be interesting. Some of our entities have written requirements beyond the BFM so it is understandable that they should require those requirements to be met.

    Again, the document has no authority. It is merely advisory.


  11. I don’t really follow what goes on in the SBC, so when I recently saw that a “Calvinism report” was being released, I expected it to be critical; after all, Reformed thought is still a significant minority in the modern American church.

    But I have to say, I’ve been pleasantly surprised with this. It seems to be working towards unifying the Church around the essential doctrines of the faith, and encouraging all of us to work together to fulfill the Great Commission.

    The Doctrines of Grace are very important, but this issue should not keep Christians from ministering together for the evangelization of the lost and bringing the world under the dominion of Christ. I see the report as a blessing.

  12. Thanks for your encouraging comments on this issue. While the report is encouraging, I fear that it doesn’t represent the views of those that are making Calvinism a divisive issue within the SBC. I wish they would draft a document that Baptist college presidents would sign saying that they won’t fire professors just because they are Calvinists.

  13. One of the most encouraging things about the report is the wide-ranging, public views of the members of the committee that signed it. Some of the most vocal critics of Calvinism were on the committee along with some of the most vocal critics of the “Traditionalist” statement (including yours truly).

    Given our Baptist polity, it would be impossible for a document to be produced that would have any authority for Southern Baptist colleges (which are usually owned by state conventions).

    As I have said previously, my hope for this document is that it points the way forward for Southern Baptists who are genuinely interested in trying to find common ground for gospel cooperation.

  14. While I rejoice in seeing an effort to move beyond the vitriol that has accompanied discussions of soteriology within the SBC of late, I am confused about the agreement on this point of Tension:

    “We agree that God loves everyone and desires to save everyone, but we differ as to why only some are ultimately saved.”

    I do not think it is true that God desires to save everyone; I think it’s clear in the Scriptures that some people are predestined to be left to their sins and perish eternally therein. God is not wishing they would be saved but unwilling to do so. He desires that all the elect be saved and will insure that this is the case.

    I am eager to see how this plays out next week at the convention.

  15. Just a short note for all readers and concerned folks regarding Biblical doctrine and theology. Any system which denigrates the Attributes of God and seeks to make them palatable and more like the “image of man” is certainly false and heretical doctrine. You can’t have a clear perception of the attributes of God and think man has anything to do with his redemption nor keeping it nor even securing it! All powerful, All knowing, etc., present to us a God who can accomplish anything He wishes to accomplish for His glory and in terms of salvation can create and do anything He so chooses in order to accomplish such in the heart of a lost, dead, bound in sin sinner! If your system makes Him impotent in any manner you are way off base and so far removed from knowing HIM and HIS character and work you need to begin again from the initial start! And that is I can do nothing without HIM. And that means NOTHING!


Leave a Reply