The organ was playing. The choir was in the loft. Church members were seated and still. My Bible was in hand and I was prepared to take the platform. In moments the worship service would begin. It was at this instant an elderly gentleman introduced himself to me by stating, “I am so glad you are here to preach for us today. I have looked forward to meeting you. Before you preach, though, I have one question for you. Are you a Calvinist?”

That question is not an uncommon one, but it’s a question that might be more difficult to answer than first thought. To this gentleman, I reflexively replied, “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” He smiled and responded, “I have no have idea what I meant by the question either.”

We both chuckled, then I retorted, “I’ll be happy to discuss this as much as you’d like after the service, but know that I believe in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved.” Reassured, he smiled and said “that is all I wanted to hear.”

That conversation, like so many others, reminded me of the challenge of theological labels. This seems especially so when discussing the often controversial topic of Calvinism.

The Difficulty with Labels

In the midst of the Southern Baptist Convention controversy Dr. Jerry Vines quipped, “The moderates use our vocabulary, but not our dictionary.” Similarly, when it comes to discussing Calvinism everyone seems to use the same vocabulary, but with their own dictionary. What exactly is meant by, “Are you a Calvinist?” A belief in depravity, sovereignty, providence, perseverance, election, and much more, all could prompt one to answer in the affirmative. At the same time, that question may imply adherence to fatalism, church splitting, elder rule, or even a reluctance to offer the gospel to all.

Of course, the challenge with labels is not exclusive to Calvinism. Similar difficulty arises when asked “Are you an evangelical?” In his The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Carl Trueman notes this predicament, “When asked if I am an evangelical, I generally respond with a question: What exactly do you mean by that term? In a world in which everyone from Joel Osteen to Brian McLaren to John MacArthur may be called an evangelical, I want to know into what pigeonhole that answer will place me.”[1]

When it comes to theological labels, we should do better and I believe we can. I want to suggest three principles for doctrinal discourse, especially when describing one’s own beliefs. Let’s seek to define ourselves by what is most biblical, what is most forthright, and what is most wise.

What is Most Biblical

As people who believe the Bible, the benefit of using biblical terms is obvious. God inspired his Word, not our favorite systematic theology. Not only does using biblical terms self-evidently put the conversation on a healthier, more biblical footing, but it also helps to standardize the theological dictionary.

Using biblical language also injects the conversation with an element of grace that might otherwise be lacking. It’s easier to get worked up over some dead theologian’s prose than Paul’s definition of “foreknowledge,” Jesus’ definition of “called,” and Peter’s definition of “elect.”

What is more, theological labels are often compilations of biblical terms or concepts. Thus, they inherently have more complexity—and often more baggage. I’m not suggesting we jettison expressions that don’t appear in the Bible. On the contrary, there are many theological terms that are indispensable to Christianity, including words like “Trinity” and “inerrancy” that do not appear in the Bible. Nor is it inappropriate to bundle biblical, doctrinal words and concepts into descriptive categories. The point is to make our categories as biblical as possible, and to beware of theological innovations foreign to scripture. After all, if necessary, I’d rather bear the reproach of men for a specifically biblical doctrine than for an unbiblical abstraction.

What is Most Forthright

One can be accurate without being forthright, and, the truth is, if one desires to be intentionally ambiguous, it’s not too difficult to be truthful—yet unclear. While this game might assuage the conscience, in the end it will help neither the church nor the minister that seeks to serve it.

In the pursuit of clarity and forthrightness, short answers rarely suffice. For example, theological categories often overlap, leaving a person of good conscience genuinely vexed as how to best place himself. To deny a label if one doesn’t embrace the totality of its system might be appropriate, but appear disingenuous. At the same time, to embrace the label cart blanche might in its own way be misrepresenting. Though our world—and many of our churches—are ill-equipped for an in-depth theological discussion, integrity, and the burden of leadership, often necessitates we nonetheless embark on one in order to be forthright.

Truth in advertising is a standard we expect of the world; let’s expect even more of ourselves. When it comes to a pastor’s rapport with his congregation, trust rides out of town on horseback, but returns on foot. The best way to get off to a good start is by being relentlessly biblical and forthright about one’s beliefs.

What is Most Wise

When dialoging about theological convictions, one owes it to others to be honest and forthright, but one also owes it to himself to be wise. To sign on to a label that has morphed in meaning beyond one’s own comfort zone, or has been hijacked by others altogether, may be unwise and, in its own way, misrepresentative.

For example, a century ago the title “Fundamentalist” was a helpful descriptor, simply referring to one who embraced the fundamentals of the faith. Yet, now it conjures up images ranging from Islamic jihadists to abrasive, Bible-thumping preachers. While in a historical sense, I am a fundamentalist, I’m disinclined to sign up for that label because of what it implies culturally and temperamentally. Though I know the history and technical meaning of the term, prudence demands I qualify it, or avoid it altogether.

If someone else has hijacked the term or loaded it with freight you never intended, to embrace it might not only be unwise, but downright foolish. Instead be forthrightly biblical and not foolishly sign on to a label that was divorced from its true meaning long ago.

Conclusion

Theological conversation is most always good, but it can be improved when it takes place on higher ground. To conceal one’s theological convictions is at once disingenuous and cowardly, and no self-respecting minister should be either. Rather, let’s be Bereans, studying the Scriptures and articulating our convictions in ways that are most biblical, most forthright, and most wise.

Listen to me in silence, O coastlands;
Let the peoples renew their strength;
Let them approach, then let them speak;
Let us together draw near for judgment. (Isaiah 41:1)

“Let the people renew their strength” (Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, January 2, Evening)

All things on earth need to be renewed. No created thing continueth by itself. “Thou renewest the face of the year,” was the Psalmist’s utterance. Even the trees, which wear not themselves with care, nor shorten their lives with labour, must drink of the rain of heaven and suck from the hidden treasures of the soil. The cedars of Lebanon, which God has planted, only live because day by day they are full of sap fresh drawn from the earth. Neither can man’s life be sustained without renewal from God. As it is necessary to repair the waste of the body by the frequent meal, so we must repair the waste of the soul by feeding upon the Book of God, or by listening to the preached Word, or by the soul-fattening table of the ordinances. How depressed are our graces when means are neglected! What poor starvelings some saints are who live without the diligent use of the Word of God and secret prayer! If our piety can live without God it is not of divine creating; it is but a dream; for if God had begotten it, it would wait upon him as the flowers wait upon the dew. Without constant restoration we are not ready for the perpetual assaults of hell, or the stern afflictions of heaven, or even for the strifes within. When the whirlwind shall be loosed, woe to the tree that hath not sucked up fresh sap, and grasped the rock with many intertwisted roots. When tempests arise, woe to the mariners that have not strengthened their mast, nor cast their anchor, nor sought the haven. If we suffer the good to grow weaker, the evil will surely gather strength and struggle desperately for the mastery over us; and so, perhaps, a painful desolation, and a lamentable disgrace may follow. Let us draw near to the footstool of divine mercy in humble entreaty, and we shall realize the fulfilment of the promise, “They that wait on the Lord shall renew their strength.”

James P. Boyce’s “Three Changes in Theological Institutions” served as the founding rationale for Southern Seminary, and it continues to shape the denomination’s efforts in theological education. In his proposed “Three Changes,” Boyce advocated an abundant ministry  and a well-learned ministry , but his third change, an orthodox ministry, is the most self-evidently necessary to Southern Baptists—then and now. To this end, Boyce argued the new seminary should be established with a confession of faith and must be resolutely bound to its maintenance and adherence.

Confessions of faith are as old as the church itself. Peter’s declaration that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” was a confessional statement, and our Lord’s approval of Peter’s declaration was itself a confessional commitment. In fact, the history of the church is a history of defining and defending orthodoxy, and over the centuries Baptists churches, associations, and conventions have consistently expressed themselves through confessional formulations as well. Indeed, Baptists are a confessional people, and Boyce in his “Three Changes” sought to strengthen and guard that confessionalism.

Boyce’s Concern for a Doctrinally Sound Ministry

By 1856, when Boyce delivered his “Three Changes,” European institutions had long since succumbed to theological liberalism, as had much of Northern Protestantism. Yet for Southern Baptists, Boyce perceived the two most pressing theological concerns to be Campbellism and Arminianism, and he argued the new seminary should guard against these twin errors through a “declaration of doctrine.”[1]

Boyce noted both the spread of Campbellism, with its unhelpful insistence on “no creed but the Bible,” and the encroachment of Arminianism could be defended against by a doctrinally sound ministry, produced by a doctrinally sound seminary. Hence, the preservation of sound doctrine was nonnegotiable. Boyce viewed this stewardship with moral urgency, arguing, “A crisis in Baptist doctrine is evidently approaching, and those of us who still cling to the doctrines which formerly distinguished us, have the important duty to perform of earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. Gentlemen, God will call us to judgment if we neglect it.”[2]

In order to rightly defend the faith and avoid God’s judgment, Boyce argued the new seminary should, from its inception, be accountable to an abstract of doctrine, stating, “The adoption of an abstract of doctrine is but the means taken by a Church to meet these obligations. Perceiving the probability, that at some time such questions must arise, she acts beforehand, when her judgment is perfectly cool, when there are no outward circumstances to warp it, and when she can patiently examine the word of God, and know if these things be so. The time of trial is not the time for legislation.”[3]

The Focus is on the Faculty

For Boyce, the focus of accountability rested on the faculty, and priority one was ensuring its members were doctrinally sound. He argued, “This it is that should make us tremble, when we think of our Theological Institutions. If there be an instrument of our denominational prosperity which we should guard at every point, it is this. The doctrinal sentiments of the Faculty are of far greater importance than the proper investment and expenditure of its funds, and the trusts devolved upon those who watch over its interests should in that respect, if in any, be sacredly guarded.”[4]

Boyce seemed to foresee—almost prophetically—the doctrinal challenges Southern Seminary would face in the twentieth century. He specifically cautioned against any loosening of the professor’s confessional commitment, writing, “His [the faculty member’s] agreement with the standard [Abstract of Principles] should be exact. His declaration of it should be based upon no mental reservation, upon no private understanding with those who immediately invest him into office.”[5]

Confessional Integrity and the Toy Controversy

If Boyce were to grant a faculty member a secret exception to the Abstract of Principles, he would have done so for Crawford Howell Toy. Toy, the fifth signer of the Abstract of Principles and the first not to be one of the seminary’s founders, enjoyed the respect and personal affection of Boyce and Broadus.

Toy, who drank deeply from the wells of Julius Wellhausen while studying at the University of Berlin, introduced the higher-critical method of interpretation, and its theological conclusions, into the classroom. Toy’s colleagues, especially Boyce and Broadus, repeatedly confronted Toy, calling him to repentance and exhorting him to return to orthodoxy. Toy’s theological recalcitrance left Boyce no option but to seek his removal from the faculty. As Broadus noted, “Duty to the founders of the institution and to all who had given money for its support and endowment, duty to the Baptist churches from whom its students must come, required [Boyce] to see to it that such teaching should not continue.”[6]

In C. H. Toy, the necessity of confessional integrity, the need for institutional stability, and the often-confusing potion of personal affection all intersected. So fond was Boyce of Toy that when he accompanied Toy to the Louisville railway station for his final departure from the seminary and the city in which it resided, Boyce lifted his right arm, and exclaimed: “Oh, Toy, I would freely give that arm to be cut off if you could be where you were five years ago, and stay there.”[7] Even with such great personal affection, in the end, Boyce gave Toy no succor, and his resolve for confessional integrity held steady.

A Doctrinally Sound Ministry for Today

Writing to Basil Manly, Jr. on October 1, 1888—a mere two months before Boyce’s death—Boyce reflected on the Toy controversy, “I greatly rejoice in the certain triumph of the truth. I feel that nothing but our own folly can prevent the success of the Seminary. If we keep things orthodox and correct within and avoid injudicious compromises while we patiently submit and laboriously labor, we shall find continuous blessing. So much do I feel this that I look back on my life’s work without any apprehension of future disaster.”[8]

In spite of Boyce’s confidence, the decades following his passing marked Southern Seminary’s slow, and typically deft, drift from its confessional heritage. A drift eventually paralleled, to a greater or lesser extent, by all six Southern Baptist Seminaries, most especially Midwestern and Southeastern. At its founding, Midwestern Seminary’s trustees deliberated between the Abstract of Principles and the Baptist Faith and Message as its doctrinal statement, eventually choosing the latter. Yet, the first signatory to its Articles of Faith was Ralph Elliott, whose commentary, The Message of Genesis, plunged the seminary—and the entire denomination—into one of the most spectacular theological controversies in the history of the SBC.

In the aftermath of the Conservative Resurgence, whereby all the SBC’s entities have been recovered, one can enjoy a false confidence, a misplaced assurance. Just as Boyce celebrated Southern Seminary’s promising future in the aftermath of the Toy controversy, so it is easy now to reflect on the Conservative Resurgence and conclude that past theological recovery guarantees present institutional health and future confessional faithfulness. Theological fidelity cannot be assumed; rather it must be intentionally cultivated, carefully guarded, and resolutely insisted upon.

From Toy to Elliott, to more contemporary examples, we are reminded that a confession of faith is only as good as the willpower of those entrusted to enforce it and the personal integrity of those who sign it. The ever-present witness of our own denominational history reminds us that vigilance must be maintained.

Conclusion

In 1950 Ellis Fuller wrote to Miss Lucy Boyce, the last living daughter of the Boyce family, reflecting, “We must wake up Boyce’s name and put it upon the lips of students and faculty members because of what the name has meant, means now, and will continue to mean to Baptists throughout the world.”[9] Indeed, Fuller was right, and as we heed his counsel to awaken Boyce’s name, may the church be blessed with a more abundant, well-learned, and doctrinally sound ministry.

Part I // Part II // Part III // Part IV

John 15:4: Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.

“Abide in Me” (Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, March 9, Evening)

Communion with Christ is a certain cure for every ill. Whether it be the wormwood of woe, or the cloying surfeit of earthly delight, close fellowship with the Lord Jesus will take bitterness from the one, and satiety from the other. Live near to Jesus, Christian, and it is matter of secondary importance whether thou livest on the mountain of honour or in the valley of humiliation. Living near to Jesus, thou art covered with the wings of God, and underneath thee are the everlasting arms. Let nothing keep thee from that hallowed intercourse, which is the choice privilege of a soul wedded to THE WELL-BELOVED. Be not content with an interview now and then, but seek always to retain His company, for only in His presence hast thou either comfort or safety. Jesus should not be unto us a friend who calls upon us now and then, but one with whom we walk evermore. Thou hast a difficult road before thee: see, O traveller to heaven, that thou go not without thy guide. Thou hast to pass through the fiery furnace; enter it not unless, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, thou hast the Son of God to be thy companion. Thou hast to storm the Jericho of thine own corruptions: attempt not the warfare until, like Joshua, thou hast seen the Captain of the Lord’s host, with His sword drawn in His hand. Thou art to meet the Esau of thy many temptations: meet him not until at Jabbok’s brook thou hast laid hold upon the angel, and prevailed. In every case, in every condition, thou wilt need Jesus; but most of all, when the iron gates of death shall open to thee. Keep thou close to thy soul’s Husband, lean thy head upon His bosom, ask to be refreshed with the spiced wine of His pomegranate, and thou shalt be found of Him at the last, without spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Seeing thou hast lived with Him, and lived in Him here, thou shalt abide with Him for ever.

“Continue in prayer”  (Charles H. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, January 2, Morning)

Colossians 4:2: Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving.

It is interesting to remark how large a portion of Sacred Writ is occupied with the subject of prayer, either in furnishing examples, enforcing precepts, or pronouncing promises. We scarcely open the Bible before we read, “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord;” and just as we are about to close the volume, the “Amen” of an earnest supplication meets our ear. Instances are plentiful. Here we find a wrestling Jacob—there a Daniel who prayed three times a day—and a David who with all his heart called upon his God. On the mountain we see Elias; in the dungeon Paul and Silas. We have multitudes of commands, and myriads of promises. What does this teach us, but the sacred importance and necessity of prayer? We may be certain that whatever God has made prominent in his Word, he intended to be conspicuous in our lives. If he has said much about prayer, it is because he knows we have much need of it. So deep are our necessities, that until we are in heaven we must not cease to pray. Dost thou want nothing? Then, I fear thou dost not know thy poverty. Hast thou no mercy to ask of God? Then, may the Lord’s mercy show thee thy misery! A prayerless soul is a Christless soul. Prayer is the lisping of the believing infant, the shout of the fighting believer, the requiem of the dying saint falling asleep in Jesus. It is the breath, the watchword, the comfort, the strength, the honour of a Christian. If thou be a child of God, thou wilt seek thy Father’s face, and live in thy Father’s love. Pray that this year thou mayst be holy, humble, zealous, and patient; have closer communion with Christ, and enter oftener into the banqueting-house of his love. Pray that thou mayst be an example and a blessing unto others, and that thou mayst live more to the glory of thy Master. The motto for this year must be, “Continue in prayer.”