Over the past few years many in the SBC have watched the discussion concerning Calvinism and it past and future in the convention. Tom Ascol has been a stalwart leader in this area along with several others. The recent writings on the subject have a least been slightly more accurate than in the past, and the upcoming “answer to T4G” conference the old guard is putting on means there is some real discussion taking place on this issue. I have hoped and prayed over the last few years that those of us who are Calvinist would not be the red headed step children of the SBC. One day we may be accepted into the loving arms of SBC as brothers in arms, but for now I really feel that the powers that be are not willing to embrace us yet. In actuality I am afraid that this acceptance may be impossible.
It has been widely written on this blog that most of the SBC is neither Calvinist or Arminian. They are some theological science experiment gone wrong that tries to blend both theologies into one and claim to be “biblicists. They walk around like Frankenstein’s monster not exactly sure who they are and how they got here. Here at Fide-o we just called them confused. A lot of effort has gone into having the discussion and one of the great things about the past discussion is that a lot of that confusion is beginning to dissipate. One of the reasons for this is that us Calvinist have called on our opponents to at the very least be gracious enough to quote us accurately and portray what we believe accurately. This has improved somewhat although still not in all things. Another reason is that for their own integrity they have had to state what they themselves believe. This has caused many of those who reject Calvinism to realize they can’t ride the fence of sovereignty vs free will. The confusion glasses are being lifted and they are being forced to stay inconsistent or choose sides. This is driving some to a crisis over issues such as the openness of God, the nature of the atonement, and decisional regeneration. It is causing some to become more Calvinistic. However, it is also driving some to embrace full on Arminianism. While the average confused SBCer could exist side by side with the less confused Calvinist, I find it difficult to believe that many true Arminians and Calvinist are going to be able to work together. Let’s face it the Synod of Dort kind of proves that point. Maybe I am wrong, but I might prefer the confusion.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
I had an eye-opening experience last night at our community National Day of Prayer service. I prayed for our government as ones who had been “set on the throne” and established by God. I prayed, acknowledging that a sovereign God could turn the hearts of men. Of course I was followed by the local Nazarene pastor who prayed that we might not lose our salvation.
Not that this same dispute would have happened in the SBC, but it betrays a fundamental difference in starting points which affects prayer, evangelism, worship, etc.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe the confusion in the SBC keeps us from a brawl. See the SBCOuthouse post on the John 3:16 conference as evidence.
The nastiest “theological” discussion I’v ever been involved in is over this very point. I walked away with some tar and feathers but as I researched the points I disagreed with most I found that the Calvinist who had attacked most angrily didn’t know what he was talking about. The next time I engage in any theological discussion I want to make sure I know my church history and read up a little more on what Calvin actually said about things since in this case it was misrepresented and misquoted by it’s very defenders! (BTW I’m mostly Calvinist).
Some of us are apples, some of us are oranges, but in the end we are all fruit.
What? Fruit? Are we all getting to the top of the same mountain just taking different paths too?
The difference between a true Arminian and a Calvinist is that the are by nature theological opposites. It is not okay just to say they are both right. That being said this is a discussion about the nature of the gospel.
I personally think that this issue will not continue as a “lets just all get along” compromise. As each new generation of Baptist become either more Arminian or more biblical (Calvinist) then eventually one will have to leave the other. Therefore, the current battle is over who will own the SBC. Calvinists started the convention, but it will probably be Arminians who inherit it. Why? Because by nature Calvinists aren’t as tied to denominational life as are our Arminian brothers. That said, I wish that Calvanists could win over the majority of the SBC today… I am always for denominations being biblically sound. In fact, I think it would be good if Calvinist could take over every denomination and bring them back to the Bible.
“They are some theological science experiment gone wrong that tries to blend both theologies into one and claim to be “biblicists. They walk around like Frankenstein’s monster not exactly sure who they are and how they got here. Here at Fide-o we just called them confused.”
So you think that there is a problem, huh? LOL
Jack- you know, if we just taught the truth about the truth it would make us all better and we might just know what we are talking about. But, that is the crux of the problem, the majoritarian faction does not want the information exposed for fear of what it might mean, i.e. thier loss of adherents. Agree or disagree, what Scott has said is right on. Most simply do not know and have been taught not to care and now the chicken’s in the pan so to speak, all in pieces and no one wants to think about her as a hen nor to look at the pictures when she was just an egg. There’s enough for everybody to pick at, but no one is sure they want to come to dinner cuz it ain’t a potluck and they will have to eat what is put before them.
I would have to agree with the fact that in the end the divergent views will not abide one another. They are simply in opposition and cannot be reconciled in one.
Sorry to hear you got hit by anewbie, or maybe awannabe, can’t say I haven’t been there
I think part of the problem is that we strap ourselves to unfortunate language at times (i.e., “limited atonement”), which confuses the issue.
Another problem is that we often look for differences rather than similarities. For example, as a pastor I felt much more akin to my Nazarene peer who was concerned about holy living and perseverance in the faith than many of the members in my own church (who had absolutely no regard for personal holiness, they were content because they “prayed the prayer”). I certainly disagree with his view on “falling from grace,” but we were both concerned about the reality of justification and sanctification in the lives of our church members. To put it another way, we were both concerned about regenerate church membership.
The terms “Calvinist” and “Arminian” can also be misleading, depending on who you are speaking with. “Calvinist” is often equated with egregious things, such as hyper-Calvinism, fatalism, anti-missions, and so forth, whereas “Arminianism” can be slandered to mean anti-sovereignty, salvation by works, and the like. We can over-generalize and by doing so cause great harm.
Having said these things, I fear that “Calvinism” is the current bogeyman for many high-profile SBC leaders and that they are going to do everything they can to expel those who affirm the doctrines of grace from their midst.
I consider myself to be a Calvinist and a ‘Five-Pointer” as well. Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement/Definite Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints, but I do not consider myself to be a “Protestant” or “Reformed” as I prefer to refer to myself simply as a Christian or as a follower of Christ.
I really think I understand why so many, who identify themselves as Baptist, have such a hard time with “Calvinism”. Although I recognize the great contributions that those who are referred to as “The Reformers” have made to Christian scholarship in the form of a concise codification of the great doctrines of grace known as “TULIP” and the “Five Solas”, many “Baptists” myself included reject the unbiblical system of interpreting scripture developed by these “Protestant” denominations known as Covenant Theology and the false doctrine of infant baptism that has led multiplied millions of people into a Christless eternity by assuming that they are children of God by merely being born to Christian parents and being baptized as an infant.
Baptists also reject the Presbyterian form of church government as also being unbiblical as New Testament church government is congregational. I do agree with Mark Dever that although the Congregation holds preeminent authority in a local church, that does not mean that we do not recognize elders who are qualified as servant leaders, as well as deacons who are ministers of mercy.
Baptists remember that many of the heresies taught by “Protestant” denominations were held onto by the “Reformers” even as they left the false religion of Roman Catholicism. In this we can observe that the “Reformers” only took their “Reformation” to a certain level and that much still needs to be “Reformed” in the denominations that sprang from that movement.
Baptists also understand that both God’s Word and church history teach us that God is never without a witness and that true believers in Christ have always existed since the beginning of the New Covenant Age that began at the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. These believers and the biblical churches they formed pre-date the Roman Catholic Heresy and have always taught salvation by grace through faith, believer’s baptism, congregational rule and regenerate church membership.
The forerunners of those who came to be known as Baptists rejoiced when they saw Roman Catholic priests such as Luther and others leave the Roman Catholic Church and begin to embrace the Gospel of grace. Their rejoicing soon turned to mourning and grieving as it became clear that the denominations that formed out of the “Reformation” would only reform so far and held onto many Romanist heresies. That mourning also turned to horror as it became apparent that the “Reformers Religion” would be just as bloody and ruthless towards those who teach the whole truth of God’s Word in respect to the gospel of grace, believer’s baptism, congregational rule and regenerate church membership.
The blood of millions of true believers who both the “Romanist Heresy” and the “Reformers” insultingly called Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses and Ancient Waldenses and others, have been spilled by the hand of the “Reformed.” These true believers came to be known by a regular name that applied to a distinct group. These were simply called “Ana- Baptists” and gradually all other names were dropped. The word “ana” was eventually left off, and they were then simply called “Baptists.”
I think that it is impossible to divorce the “calvanist/Arminian” debate within Baptists circles from the fact that many of our Baptist brothers still hear “Infant Baptism” and “Covenant Theology” and Presbetyrian Church Government” when they hear the term “Calvanist”.
Now, I know this does not offer any solution going forward, but maybe understanding how some perceive the term “Calvanist” may help in having more fruitful discussion and debate.
Mike Hutchison-The NCT, “Five-Pointer”, Congregational rule with servant elder leadership, A-Mil/Partial Preterist/Idealist, Baptist! -Grin
Hutch you just imparted way too much knowledge on the average Baptist. I would say that maybe 1 out of 1000 that would reject Calvinistic teachings would understand any of the history you commented on.
By the way you don’t have to baptize infants to be Covenental.
I think Mike Hutchison has given us an example of what I said above. In so many ways Hutch is thinking like most of us. And by the time the average Christian works through all of this wonderful theology they are tired of the controversies; they have a distaste for endless strife among unlearned believers. They have read themselves to death; listened to a 1000 sermons. They have become bored with the debates. And most importantly they realize at the end of their journey that it’s not about the theology as much as it is about a relationship with Jesus Christ. And the more one learns theologically the more one’s faith grows and the more intimate one’s relationship with Jesus grows. And as a person gets closer to God, one finally discovers that God is not a theologian; He is the living God. When He speaks, He does not need to justify Himself. God needs no justification; it is man who needs the justification. And it is at that point that one becomes tired of any debate, any fight, any controversy where men are trying to defend God and justify God. So we just want to take our Bible and take or church and get on about the business of preaching the gospel.
Scott-
Yes, I am aware that “Reformed Baptists” adhere to CT and do not baptize infants, I am sure there are other groups as well.
I guess I spoke from ignorance about the true nature of the argument in the SBC.
It seems astonishing that people are arguing over an issue that they really do not know anything about historically or doctrinally.
That is why I am so thankful for men like you, Jason, the IDS guys, Sounds of Grace and others who teach the truth of the gospel of Christ.
Jason-
Well said. That is exactly where my wife and I are at this point.
This is a post from awhile ago, but this issue isn’t dead. I will try to stay on point.
I personally believe the biggest problem within the SBC with calvinism are the anti-calvinist. If you are in the SBC or keep up with confusion you know who they are and how they are.
I’ve said it previously, and I’ll say it again here:
The SBC should back off the calvinist and focus its attention on the Emergent Church, Purpose Driven paradigm, or even egalatarianism.
I think in the minds of some they treat calvinism like an abberant theology. And it’s not.
Fruit analogies? That’s not a-peeling.