Calvinists should identify themselves AS CALVINISTS to pulpit committees? Why? The denomination is open to Calvinism. Calvinism has ALWAYS been present in the denomination and at points it has been the predominate view. Should Arminians have had to identify themselves 125 years ago when Calvinism was the predominate view point? R. G. Lee was a Calvinist who made Belvue Baptist Church great. Should Dr. Adrian Rogers who followed him a couple pastorates later have been up front in the pulpit committee meeting and say, "Now before you consider me, I just want you to know that my theology is the DEAD LEVEL OPPOSITE of R. G. Lee's theology,"? Should all ARMINIAN (except for the eternal security doctrine) pastors say, "Before you vote on me, I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from great Baptists like William Carey, Charles Spurgeon, W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, etc... I think you should know that my theology is VASTLY different from that of the first and largest Southern Baptist Seminary. I think you should know that my theology is VERY different from the theology of the Great Awakening which saved Baptist life in America and made Baptists one of the largest Christian movements IN America,"? Should they? If we applied this "principle" that some of you articulate about Calvinists needing to wear a scarlet "C" on their chests when they come to pulpit committee meetings; if we applied that to "noncals" for the past 150 years for pastoral candidacy- I think "non-cal" would be almost non-existent within SBC ranks. But it is a little under-handed to want to apply it NOW when two things are conveniently (for non-cals) true: #1- Arminianism is the predominate view among Southern Baptists #2- Calvinism is surging. Can you not see the almost crookedness of this "principle" non-cals claim should be applied?