Traditionalist Debaters?

Anthony W Brooks

It may be quizicle that I put a question mark after the title subject but I have a reason for that... Many of the greatest debaters in history are Reformed (Van Til, Bahnsen, White, Sproul, etc...) And many others are not (Craig, Lewis, Tolkhein, Aquinas), but all of these names have something in common... They aren't Southern Baptist Traditionalists.

The movement only goes back to the early 2000's and was formed as a response to the Neo-Calvinist resurgence with the Trad Statement coming out only a few years ago. The statement has only amassed a total of just over 2000 signatures making official Traditionalist Soteriology less than 1/100th of a percent of all Southern Baptists... That's tiny.

So with an almost unestablished theology, the Traditionalist Movement is producing debaters to debate their Views... Not shocking and I encourage it. The first of these debaters is Dr. Leighton Flowers of Trinity College who's first Theological debate was against the Great Dr. James White over the Soteriology of Romans 9... How brave can you be? Even though that debate didn't go over well, it set a precedent that it was possible to produce debaters.

But what I am wondering is... What about the wide variety of views within the movement itself? You have a spectrum... Some will say Dr. Flowers is too Reformed while others say Dr. Harwood is too Pelagian. Wouldn't this cause a confusion? It should. It isn't like the differences in Calvinism... We have Infras and Supras... New Calvinism and Conservative Reformed... Covenanters and non Confessionals, but there is a basic/universal agreeance on the Gospel. (I don't consider Amyraldians to be true Reformed Calvinism and won't debate the issue). Traditionalists don't have that agreeance. The papers that say what they believe aren't strict enough to create that universal belief system.

So we will see if this becomes a controversy or a shining help to this new movement.

Soli Deo Gloria!