Are Calvinists being told by some bloggers that they will only be accepted in the SBC if they agree to live as second-class citizens? Bill MacKinnon, one of our regular commenters here at SBC Voices makes that point in the post he sent me a while back. He admits to being a little sarcastic in some of what he says, but he raises some really good questions.
The SBC simply must come to peace with the Calvinism issue. Calvinists are not going away, and neither are those who do not agree with Calvinism. There are certainly Calvinists who have been overly aggressive in advancing their theology. There are also some anti-Calvinist voices out there that seem committed to driving Calvinism from our Convention, or at least to define those who embrace the term Reformed as not really Baptist. One blogger publishes a constant stream of venomous anti-Calvinist screeds that would lead someone like Bill to believe the things he advances here.
So, here is Bill’s article. Read it and then tell us what you think. Can Calvinism and non-Calvinism live together happily in the SBC? Is Bill right?
Acceptable Calvinism (by Bill MacKinnon)
Well, it has finally happened. Calvinists in the SBC are finally being told to hit the road. We have felt our unwelcome for some time now but until recently no one has had the courage to simply tell us to go. I considered posting links, but let’s face it, you know where to go to find your favorite anti-Calvinist commentary.
Now of course the folks I (and you) have in mind will object, claiming that they never said that they wanted all Calvinists to leave the SBC. They will no doubt claim that they work fine with Calvinists and are even friends with some of them. Technically, I have to admit, this is true. I have not truly seen any universal calls for the exit of all Calvinists from the SBC. There are, it seems, some Calvinists who are welcome to remain. It does not take long to find out which Calvinists those are, but I thought I would do the heavy lifting, and compile all the necessary attributes of “acceptable Calvinists.”
Acceptable Calvinists do not hide their Calvinism when they are looking for a ministry position, but if and when they do find a ministry position, they must hide their Calvinism thereafter. They must by no means try to persuade anyone else of their theological position. They must not, under any circumstances, become associated with the Founders organization. They must never refer to themselves as Reformed. Reformed Baptists have been told to take a hike from the SBC.
Acceptable Calvinists should be at most, 4 pointers. Now some may argue that 4 pointers are not Calvinists at all in the truest sense of the word, but that is not a debatable point. They must not hold to limited atonement, nor should they believe that regeneration precedes faith. If anyone ever refers to you as a Dortian Calvinist, you have most certainly not been complimented, and have strayed out of the “acceptable” zone.
Acceptable Calvinists must not use the term elder, but rather the BFM approved term of pastor. They must not seek to introduce a plurality of elders into any congregation in which they serve. If they feel strongly about this, they must become Presbyterians.
Acceptable Calvinists must not abandon the altar call, nor may they call into question its effectiveness or biblical-ness. They must never disparage Charles Finney. Everyone knows that Calvinists in the main are not evangelistic, so acceptable Calvinists must work doubly hard to prove that they are soul winners. Acceptable Calvinists must also not abandon the Sinner’s Prayer, nor terminology such as “ask Jesus into your heart to be your personal Savior.”
Everyone knows that Calvinists have a tendency also to be moderationists, but acceptable Calvinists are never moderationists. Acceptable Calvinists should never enthusiastically promote their soteriology, lest they be called “aggressive”. But they may, and should, aggressively promote abstentionism.
Acceptable Calvinists must be very careful about who they listen to. Patterson? Fine. Piper, maybe. Driscoll? Absolutely not. They must never speak positively about Acts 29. They must not attend Calvinistic conferences and it would be best if they did not associate with other Calvinists at all.
Acceptable Calvinists must realize that they are a tiny minority in SBC life and must never aspire to anything more than that. They must never repeat the insidious rumor that Calvinism was once much more widespread in the SBC.
Finally, acceptable Calvinists must acknowledge that while they will be allowed to remain in the SBC, they are not truly Baptists. Baptists, we are given to understand, are not Calvinists, because Calvinism is a man-made theology and Baptist-ism is straight from the bible. Baptists are biblicists; Calvinists are not. Baptists, are disciples of Christ; Calvinists are disciples of Calvin.
Epilogue: While I have listed these things in a somewhat lighthearted (and admittedly marginally sarcastic) way, I do not believe I have taken liberties with the underlying truth of these sentiments, as I have seen them in the anti-Calvinist, anti-Reformed wings of the SBC blogosphere. The question is: What do you think?
Is Bill right? Are Calvinists being told that they will only be accepted in the SBC if they agree to live in steerage and remain in the background?
Now, it’s your turn.
There is certainly enough material on the blogosphere to support what Bill is saying here. I think there will always be dialogue and debate when we make our positions known and try to persuade others of the correctness of our beliefs.
The vitriol is usually unwarranted fear-mongering and hopefully speaks for the minority. As more and more people consider the claims of Calvinism (specifically uncondition election coupled with a strong emphasis on God’s sovereign outworking), perhaps Calvinism will have the burden of respecting a minority “We’re-not-Arminian-either” position.
But just in case, there are a few enclaves where we are safe ;-).
Yeah I read that guy’s stuff too. I get a laugh from it, kind of like I used to get from the anti-calvinist rantings from Mississippi.
The worst thing about calvinists is what some baptists say about calvinists, followed closely by what some baptists say that calvinists say or do (which they mostly don’t.
I guess if the worst thing about somebody is what others say about them, it’s pretty easy to figure out who’s wearing the black hats.
Are people confusing ‘faith’ with ‘theology’?
All Baptists are people ‘of faith’.
That is a given.
But their ‘theology’, in the words of St. Anselm of Canterbury, can be considered ‘faith seeking understanding’.
Augustine and Anselm aside, if you think about it, ‘knowledge’ in itself does seem to puff up, but it does not satisfy.
We seek another kind of ‘knowing’, a ‘certitude’.
That gift of that ‘knowing’ (certitude) is the grace that does include our reason, but goes ‘beyond’ reason.
Another name for that kind of knowing is ‘faith’.
If theology is the way we try to ‘make sense’ of a faith that includes reason but goes beyond reason . . . we begin to rely on something that brings us into a realization that all of us are only permitted to see a piece of the puzzle in our limited human understanding.
But our ‘faith’ is a gift from God. It cannot be ‘classified’, ‘sorted’, ‘put in a box’, ‘labeled’, or denied.
We mustn’t confuse the faith of Christian people with ‘theology’. It’s not the same.
So we CAN share faith in Christ, even though we are somewhat limited in our theological human understandings of the fullness of that ‘knowing that includes reason, but goes beyond it’, that we call ‘faith’.
Okay, we need to quit doing this–it’s kinda scary. Before this was posted I uploaded a post that touches on some of the same stuff but from a different angle.
Anyway:
Granted my experience with churches is a bit geographically limited, but I think its more of a blog issue right now than an actual issue. I haven’t seen too much of the attitude coming from the pews.
I do know from most of what I’ve seen those who are arguing that the “reformed” baptist must go create strawmen in thier minds and posts about what a reformed baptist is (they typify them as presbyterian wannabes), argue against that, and say “see how un-baptist these people are!”
It is quite ridiculous.
I would guess, Mike, that it is indeed a regional thing. In Iowa, there has been some genuine conflict in churches and in some circles over Calvinism. In one Southern state (was it Tennessee?) there was a document being circulated to churches on how to uncover Calvinists as if they were Dutch Elm Disease and needed to be quarantined or destroyed.
I think that as Calvinists, it would be wrong to assume that the hostility and categorization is only one sided.
I’ve known some pretty obnoxious Calvinists in the cage-stage who caused a lot of damage. I’ve known Calvinists who came into a church with the agenda of “Calvinizing” the church but failed to notify the church of that agenda. The result is usually a split. There have been Calvinists who have employed intemperate and unkind language on the other side.
My question is not simply, “Will Calvinists be allowed a place?” but “Will Calvinists and non-Calvinists accept one another in the SBC?”
Dave,
“I’ve known some pretty obnoxious Calvinists in the cage-stage who caused a lot of damage. I’ve known Calvinists who came into a church with the agenda of “Calvinizing” the church but failed to notify the church of that agenda. The result is usually a split.
Dave I keep hearing this argument given as a kind of “justification” for all the Anti-Calvinist sentiment (and let’s be honest some of it approaches pure hatred) being spewed by a very vocal minority in the SBC. Yet, I wonder if obnoxious Calvinist are actually guilty of splitting more churches than obnoxious Non-Calvinist?
I do not have any data to prove this issue one way or the other… but I do know that a whole lot of Southern Baptist Churches have split over the last 100 years, and it is rare indeed that Calvinism has even been mentioned as one of the issues in the vast majority of these splits. But let a Calvinist Pastor be involved in a church split and you can be sure that the Anti-Calvinist wing of the SBC will descend like vultures crying at the top of their lungs “Calvinism splits churches”… Ok… well, what is causing all the other church splits?
Grace for the Journey,
I think Calvinists do themselves a disservice by denying that some Calvinists have been divisive.
Frankly, I think the beginning of the solution is for us all to admit that our attitudes and actions have not always been right. As long as we seek to paint ourselves as the righteous victims of the others evil (whether it is Calvinists bemoaning the cruelty of non-Calvinists or vice-versa) we will make little progress.
I think little good comes from acting as if only the other side is at fault.
And I have in fact seen the damage done by cage-phase Calvinists firsthand.
And I have a problem with pastors who have an agenda when they come into a church but do not make that agenda plain – whether Calvinist, anti-Calvinist, charismatic, whatever.
If I have any change-agendas when I enter a church I should let the church know clearly what I intend. To keep an agenda hidden is a lack of integrity.
‘cage-phase’ Calvinists
?
Dave, On the other hand I have seen the damage done by cage-phase Anti-Calvinist firsthand (repeatedly!).
I have also seen the damage done by obnoxious “Baptist Bullies” and “Church Bosses” who would burn the church to the ground before they would yield even the smallest of concessions….
That is my point: Churches are split by “obnoxious individuals” regardless of their theology. Therefore, it is unhealthful to keep suggesting that this is a greater problem among the Calvinist than any other segment of the convention when there is no evidence to back it up.
Grace for the Journey,
Greg, but since I adhere (at least in part) to the Calvinist theology, I am more concerned about holding those who share my views accountable.
I think that we have a tendency to prosecute certain things in those who disagree with us that we tend to justify in those who share our views. It is true in politics and in theology as well.
I take the other tack. I think it best if we hold our own house accountable first.
So, I try to point out the fact that certain Calvinists do great damage by their attitudes to the perception of our doctrine. Do others do the same? No question.
It’s an old joke, Christiane. It’s called cage-stage or cage-phase Calvinists. Most of us, when we discover Calvinist doctrine, we tend to become very passionate, even argumentative, trying to convince everyone else of what we have learned.
The old line is that when someone becomes a Calvinist, they should be put in a cage for the first couple of years they are a Calvinist and only let out after they have calmed down a little.
Al Mohler described such a phenomenon when he said that he has known people who would walk across the state to discuss a point of Calvinism, but would not walk across the street to share the gospel to a lost person.
My cage phase came during my college years. I spent a lot of time arguing with a lot of people about election and predestination. Lots of heat, very little light. I expended a lot of energy in those arguments. I hope I didn’t do too much damage. But I’m not sure I did that much good either.
Thanks for the explanation, DAVID.
In college, we were all a little bit ‘sophomoric’ at times, I’m sure. Part of the ‘maturing’ process: putting ideas, ‘new’ to a young student, into some kind of perspective takes some time;
and the young are always notably impatient at that age to share their new discoveries, which they haven’t really had time to ‘digest’ completely as yet.
Dave, of course “some” Calvinist have been divisive…. my point is that the Aggressive Anti-Calvinist use the very small percentage of Calvinist who have been divisive to falsely liable all Calvinist as aggressive while turning a blind eye to the damage done by Aggressive Non and Anti-Calvinist.
The overwhelming percentage of Calvinist I know are not aggressive and have never split a church, yet they have to constantly defend themselves against such false accusations. It kind of like all men being labeled as “potential rapist” because they all have the necessary equipment…
To me labeling all Calvinist as “potential church splitters” is both grossly unfair and unwarranted based upon the data (or lack thereof) we currently have.
Long hair on men used, of course, to be anathema in SBC churches. But when we saw we were losing that battle, you started to hear “I don’t care if he has long hair as long as he keeps it clean”, as if dirty short hair was OK.
I kind of feel like that is the attitude towards Calvinism. “I don’t care if he is a Calvinist as long as he doesn’t ____________”. As if whatever is in that blank is ok as long as it is done by non-Calvinists.
I’ve said this before, several times, but I really have the feeling that in a bizarre way, a lot of anti-Calvinism stems from the idea (real or imagined) that Calvinists are moderationists.
On a more serious note: I think Calvinism attracts people who are uncomfortable with ultra-high pressure evangelism, such as is seen in many places. When you are taught that the blood of the lost is on your hands because you didn’t witness to them when you had the chance, that makes for pretty miserable Christianity. My late friend Michael Spencer called it “wretched urgency”. But when you come to realize that the fate of the lost is not in your hands, but in God’s, that is very liberating, allowing you to share your faith with much more confidence. That is what we call “Calvinism” means to me.
“I’ve said this before, several times, but I really have the feeling that in a bizarre way, a lot of anti-Calvinism stems from the idea (real or imagined) that Calvinists are moderationists.”
I wouldn’t be surprised at least in some respects if that is true. I think that the animus toward Acts 29 by certain bloggers may be largely grounded in their moderationist position.
Good post. Accurate in its sarcasm. Guarantee there will be a response post by someone from BI sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, much of this is true at least in the SBC blogoshpere.
Still scratching my head what some non-calvinists hate about Calvinists. I’ll go out passing out gospel tracts with them any day of the week. They can tell ’em “Jesus died for you”. I’ll tell ’em “If you repent of your sins and trust Christ to save you, He will do it”. if the person responds to the gospel, I won’t even argue with my non-calvinist friend when he/she says “They made the choice to trust Christ” because I’ll know that God elected them before the foundation of the world. LOL
Well, Joe, you’ve always been one of those guys who is more of a uniter than a divider.
Huggy Bear Joe.
Hey, don’t you be channeling CB, huggy bear.
Are those who hold strongly to the principles set in the SBTS’s Abstract of Principles “acceptable Calvinists”?
Jeph, I made the correction you mentioned then deleted that comment.
As to your comment, I think that is the question we have to address.
From what little I know, this battle has always been with the SBC. While many of the Founders were Calvinists, not all were. I’m not even sure who was in the majority back then.
I think that when I was in seminary, Calvinists were such a small minority that we threatened no one. But when Calvinism began to be a force in SBC life, some have recoiled in fear.
I am not recoiling. Nor do I fear anything. However, this is just another stream of thought from a very unthreatened individual. “If God be for me, who can be against me?” “Fear not, for I am with thee, even until the end of the age.” Whether it be Paul or Apollos…just go tell. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, rejected by His own, became the payment of man’s sin, attoned for that sin, died as the perfect blood sacrifice, raised to life, ascended to the Father where He sits enthroned as an advocate for me and all who repent and believe, are born again, sealed by the Holy Spirit until that day when Jesus will part the Eastern sky, come with His reward for those whom He finds faithful and able to hear His voice. Meanwhile, He’s got a plan…and He uses us to accomplish it. And He works all things together to complete us. And I’m just a happy Christian….loving Jesus….and loving you because, well, that’s what He said to do. simple stuff to me. nothing at all to be afraid of. God is in control. selahV
Harriette: I hear the same thing you have said a lot. But that is not enough. Theology is important and discipling has to occur after salvation. It’s not enough to say Jesus, Jesus, proclaim it and end it there. Christianity is constantly learning the doctrine of scripture. Frankly I am going to disciples as a Calvinist eventually. I believe it is Biblical, I live it, and I’m certainly going to teach it, just as you are going to teach and disciples int he way you believe. So to say what you have is simply putting the inevitable aside. It’s simply not enough.
Unfortunately, I think this article is extremely accurate. Non-Calvinists are speaking about feeling “marginalized.” Being more Calvinistic than some, less Calvinistic than others, I’m way past being marginalized; I feel like Bill, that I’m not wanted in the SBC. I’ve felt this way for years.
But, I challenge non-Calvinists that want to rid the sbc of Calvinists to listen to my 2 audio sermons that were posted on SBCVoices and to tell me what was wrong, unorthodox, or un-Baptist about these sermons?
Some non-Calvinists want to hold other pastors, leaders, etc. accountable to some standard beyond the BF&M 2000. Since alcohol for example is not in the BF&M 2000, these individuals should not make it an issue. Also statistics indicate that the Southern Baptists in the pew are split about 50/50 on the issue. This is also their reasonsing against Calvinism: Since only 10% of church pastors are Calvinists (5-point), 5-pointers shouldn’t be allowed in much sbc leadership. Well, the problem is that these people must prove that churches have an issue with Calvinism, including 5-pointers. What our churches believe is irrelevant if they have not made it an essential issue through their vote. We have no right to make an essential issue what our churches haven’t. And our churches have not made anti-Calvinism an essential issue through their vote. Because anti-Calvinism is not part of the BF&M 2000, we have no right to put words in our churches’ mouths by saying “the majority is against Calvinism.” What I hear anti-Calvinists saying is “I’ve talked with many Southern Baptists across this nation, and they’re very concerned with Calvinism.” Well, how many is “many”?
I will serve alongside anyone that will affirm the BF&M 2000; and even many that don’t. I will serve, have served, and will continue to serve with my brothers and sisters in Christ who are less-Calvinist than I am; for God’s glory alone!
Jared,
You said, ”Since alcohol for example is not in the BF&M 2000, these individuals should not make it an issue. “
Southern Baptists have made being against alcohol an issue for well over 100 years. The most recent resolution was overwhelmingly passed in 2006. As a matter of fact, 59 resolutions against alcohol have been passed by the SBC since 1886. Interestingly, Southern Baptists have never passed a resolution in favor of beverage alcohol; all have been against it.
It’s one thing to say Southern Baptists are trying to push someone out. It’s another thing to say if Southern Baptists don’t change a long held, overwhelming position, they are trying to push me out.
Read the 2006 SBC Resolution, On Alcohol Use in America” here:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2011/04/2006-sbc-resolution-on-alcohol-use-in.html
David R. Brumbelow
David, I had a long comment, but there will be no fruit from the discussion. I disagree with you and your arguments. I’m not willing to engage further on the matter.
Absolutely spot on.
As a Five point reformed Anglican, I’m still searching for another Calvinist within 500 miles of me. We are so drowning in Finney’s legacy in south Texas that even the Presbyterians point fingers at me.
Bill,
You said, “I’ve said this before, several times, but I really have the feeling that in a bizarre way, a lot of anti-Calvinism stems from the idea (real or imagined) that Calvinists are moderationists.”
It does seem to many that at least in the SBC, those pushing moderately drinking alcohol as being acceptable or even biblical, are all, or most all, Calvinists.
If you and other Calvinists do not agree, I’d be interested in hearing why.
David R. Brumbelow
David R.,
I did not know that basing one’s position on the moderate consumption of alcohol upon what one finds in the Holy Scripture made you a moderate???
Greg,
Sorry, I don’t understand your point.
David R. Brumbelow
David R.,
I took your comment above to say that you think the Calvinist Position on the moderate consumption of alcohol somehow makes Calvinist Moderates???
I am simply saying that the Calvinist Position on the moderate consumption of alcohol is based upon their understanding of Scripture, and not a part of some Moderate Agenda among Calvinist.
Calling a Calvinist a Moderate is… well, … “Fighting Words” 🙂
Greg,
Thanks for explaining. Sometimes I need a lot of explaining :-).
I understand what you mean about calling a conservative Calvinist a moderate, being fighting words.
I would not call Calvinists moderates, except maybe on the issue of drinking :-).
David R. Brumbelow
David: Let’s suppose it is true, that most SBC Calvinists are moderationists also. Does it make sense to oppose Calvinism on that basis?
Bill,
I would say then it makes sense to oppose Calvinists on the issue of drinking.
But I was just interested in whether some Calvinists would disagree with the contention that those pushing moderately drinking alcohol as being acceptable or even biblical, are all, or most all, Calvinists. A number of people I’ve talked to find it curious that those pushing the issue seem to most always be Calvinists.
By the way, my favorite Calvinist on the issue of drinking:
“Next to the preaching of the Gospel, the most necessary thing to be done in England is to induce our people to become abstainers.” -Charles H. Spurgeon, 1882. Quoted in Spurgeon: Prince of Preachers by Dr. Lewis A. Drummond
“I hope they will be full of spirit against evil spirits, stout against stout, and hale against ale.” -Charles H. Spurgeon, letter to temperance society, March 19, 1884.
Charles H. Spurgeon on Alcohol: http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2010/04/charles-h-spurgeon-on-alcohol.html
David R. Brumbelow
David, the fact that near 50% of Southern Baptists do not view alcohol consumption in moderation as a sin, proves that it’s not a Calvinist issue alone. I pastored a southern baptist church in Soddy Daisy, TN that was about half in favor and half against. Very few at this church were Calvinists. It’s a result of the conservative resurgence; people are questioning what they’ve been taught; and they’re finding the total abstinence arguments to be lacking sufficient biblical evidence.
Jared,
I don’t dispute the fact that many in our churches drink, especially in churches where it is not preached and taught against. But those aren’t the ones pushing the issue in the SBC; they really don’t seem to be concerned one way or another about what Southern Baptists have said about it.
My question is about those who are “pushing the issue in the SBC.” Among those strongly for moderately drinking and even that the Bible condones such – they seem to be mostly or all Calvinists. Those who oppose an SBC resolution against alcohol, for example, seem to most always be Calvinist. If there are exceptions, I’d be interested to know about them. If this is untrue, I’d be happy to hear what you have to say.
David R. Brumbelow
Since Calvinists are this tiny minority in the SBC, I’m willing to bet that most moderationists are not Calvinists. However it may be that most Calvinists are moderationists. If that is true, and we have no data to support it, then I cannot honestly explain why. I do not see anything within reformed theology that would make one lean away from abstentionism as a Christian law. I myself hold both, but I cannot say that one is because of the other.
It is disingenuous to assert that people are pushing or are “strongly for” moderate drinking. Most of the moderationists that I have read in the SBC blogosphere are in fact teetotalers themselves. We are just as happy if people choose not to drink. And that is the point. It is a choice to be made by individuals. It is not a Christian law. I don’t know anyone who is pushing moderate drinking. What we are pushing for is good exegesis. Or at least, a decent debate. But when you get statements like: “if you take a sip of wine you might as well be mainlining heroin” then decent discussion is out the window.
David, I agree with Bill here. He summarizes my position well. I’m not pushing “moderate drinking.” Actually, I’d rather that no Christian drink; however, this is my opinion, my conscience, not Scripture. Forcing my conscience on another Christian is just as evil as getting drunk.
I’m coming against legalism, not teetotalism. Many of the articles on my blog, and on this blog have been against legalism across the board, not merely alcohol. I personally hate alcohol.
Jared,
“Forcing my conscience on another Christian is just as evil as getting drunk.”
Amen!!!
Yet another good thread hijacked by “moderationists” vs. “abstainers”
This is getting old.
There is going to be no mind changing on either side.
Move along.
Here is an historic article that I think relates to this post. It comes from the state of North Carolina where the Sandy Creek tradition was born.
From: The Biblical Recorder
Date: January 26, 1898
Editor: J.W. Bailey
Agent and Correspondent: J.C. Caddell
A brother writes to us, “The Methodist pastor at this place surprised our Baptist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian brethren at church to-day, when he told them what their churches believed. He attempted to show the difference between the doctrine of Arminius, of whom the Methodists are a branch, and the Calvinists, of whom the Baptists are a branch, as are also the Presbyterians and Episcopalians, Primitive Baptists and Catholics.
His statements were these:
(1) The Calvinists believe in Predestination.
(2)They believe in a limited atonement and not in a universal salvation: holding that none but the elect can be saved, as these are they for whom Christ died, and none other.
(3) They believe in an irresistible grace: that man is powerless to resist, there being no such thing as free moral agency.
(4) They believe that a man is first converted and then repents of his sins.
The brother sending this information desires us to state how much truth there is in them so far as they relate to the Baptists: and since the Methodist preacher went so far as to say that “we never preach these doctrines during revivals when we were trying to save souls, and that a great many join these Calvinistic churches because they like the members of a particular church and are not informed as to their doctrines,” we deem it worth while to do so.
(1) The Baptists are rightly classified as Calvinists in contrast with Arminians. The Baptists are Bible Christians, whose theology is termed Calvinistic. There are many kinds of Baptists and more kinds of Calvinists. The average Baptist is a medium Calvinist, accepting his general point of view and many of the doctrines that he defined and defended, but refused to go to his extremes.
(2) Baptists believe that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for the whole world, but that it is efficacious only to those who believe. They believe that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” They also believe His words, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15), and they say with Paul that Christ “loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). If this is limitation of the atonement make the most of it.
(3) The Baptists believe in free grace: the controversialists against them have demanded that they accept the term “irresistible grace,” and they have accepted it acknowledging the sovereign power of God. They do also believe in man’s free moral agency: but they do not pretend to explain all the mysteries of Divinity or Humanity and therefore do not claim to reconcile these positions.
(4) Baptists believe that all who are saved are saved by grace. It is incorrect to say that Baptists believe that one is first converted and then repents. Baptists hold that repentance is an effect of the Holy Spirit operating on a person in Regeneration. Conversion is the human side; Regeneration is the divine. The divine precedes the human. The Methodist brother uses the word Conversion as meaning Regeneration,–which is wrong.
Not knowing who are elected and who are not, believing that all who are elected will demonstrate it by faith and obedience in this life, the Baptists preach the Gospel to all, urging them to repent, believe and be baptized, promising them eternal life.
Hi Benji,
Cool article, but I don’t often hear of Catholics (or even Episcopalians for that matter) as Calvinists! I got a chuckle out of that.
Jim G.
Hi JIM G.
Take a look at the Catholic history of the controversial positions on determinism taken by the Thomists and the Molinists. I think you will be surprised at what you find there.
‘Determinism’ is an old, old subject that has been debated in Judaism for thousands of years, and by the Greek philosophers, also.
Aquinas and Molina brought opposing points of view concerning determinism into focus in Catholicism. The controversy between their followers became the source of Church discipline when the opposing parties were instructed not to call each other ‘heretics’.
🙂
I would say that there are some elements of Catholic teaching that agree with some of Calvin’s teaching, but firmly oppose other tenets of Calvinism.
The Catholics comment is pretty funny (although there is Augustine…who proceeded Calvin, of course). The Episcopalians articles of faith is pretty Calvinistic I think.
I, for one, am not interested in using a “well, if you are not Calvinistic, then you are not Baptist” argument (although I think we all need to try and let primary sources say what they say). However, when I see a “modern” day Baptist trying to divide being Calvinistic from being Baptist, then I have to wonder if they are reading the same history that I am reading…must have a unique translation, I guess.
Jim G,
Whoops, I was using my Dad’s laptop. The “revben” comment was from me–Benji. Sorry about that.
There was another Revben comment somewhere else. Glad you clarified.
I think I know which one you mean, Dave. That other one was my Dad…I was here (in my parents home) when he made it.
Benji,
You weren’t in your parents basement waring pj’s while blogging were you?
Sorry, I just had to ask….
Yea… yea… I know… it should read “wearing” and not “waring”… But, on the other hand perhaps blogging is “waring”???
If I hadn’t dashed off the article in a hurry, I think I would have added that Acceptable Calvinists are also pre-mil dispys. None of your post-millennial optimism around here, thank you very much. Display your 87 volumes of the Left Behind series proudly.
I honestly don’t know how many Calvinists are not dispensational, but I suspect that the majority of non-pre-millers are amongst the Calvinists.
Of course acceptable Calvinists are premill dispys. We read the Bible, Bill!
Wait a minute. If Calvinists are Premillennial, I may not have a problem with them after all :-).
David R. Brumbelow
there are a lot of Calvinist Premills, even Dispy Premill Calvinists.
We are the red-headed step children of Calvinism – they are ashamed of us, but we are out here!
Heretic…
“We read the Bible,”
Probably NIV
The reality that many non-Calvinists don’t know is that the vast majority of our Seminary professors, regardless of soteriology, are non-premillenial and non-dispensational (the latter much more so than the former – there are a number of historical premillenialists). That’s been true since I started college in 1999 (and probably much earlier) – far sooner than any Reformed movement. Sorry Dave, but Dispensationalism will likely be gone as quickly as it came. Had it not been for the Left Behind series, it probably already would be a thing of the past. By the way, that reality is a very much underreported story (unlike all the Calvinism stuff that has now been overreported in the SBC blogosphere).
Well Dave I’m not ashamed of you…..ok I am ashamed of you. 🙂
Get in line, Debbie!!
That is NOT a short line, either!
Ha ha.
The folks who started this show, e.g., Roger Williams, William Screven, Richad Furman, John Gano, Isaac Backus, Elijah Craig, Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, Peter Peterson Van Horn, Benjamin Miller, Basil Manly, Sr. and Jr., Luther Rice, William Carey, John Gill, Andrew Fuller, W.B. Johnson, Richard Fuller, A.M. Poindexter, J.P. Boyce, John A. Broadus, William Williams, B.H. Carroll, et. al. were all strong calvinistis or Sovereign Grace Believers. The Regular (that’s Particular or Limited Atonement Baptists) and the Separates agreed to unite in 1787 and not to let the fact that a few, very few of the Separates held to Christ tasting death for every man. That meant that the calvinists were liberal (not skeptical or doubtful, but willing to give a person some leeway to think the matters through and be persuaded – not forced). No Arminian was elected to the presidency of the SBC until well into the 20th century.
Recently, I submitted an article for publication in which I cited Dr. George W,. Truett who was the main speaker at the Spurgeon Centenary in 1934. He was introduced by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and he plainly said thst Spurgeon’s calvinism was the factor that made the difference in his ministry, that it was a Christ centered theology and ministry. I am not leaving SBC, I have no plans to leave. If I am put out by some, I will go join others who will ignore those pulling such a stunt. As to being Southern Baptist, I have at least one ancestor who made the History of Alabama Baptists in 1840, Elder Holland Middleton who might have been one of the officers of the court in Georgia to execute the will of Daniel Marshall. I also have other family members connected to the Craigs of Va. and the Willinghams of the Carolinas along with the Kemps and Beasleys and a host of others. They all as far as I know were Sovereign Grace people. Back then, if you were really going to be Arminian you had to join the Methodists.
In addition, I have done the research in Baptist History, and it is plain as can be who established Baptists in America and who advanced the cause. While I like General Baptists and have no axe to grind with them, the folks who launched the Great Century of Missions and experienced the Great Awakenings were Sovereign Grace people of the Baptists.
Another reason for the return of the original theology is that prayer is being made and has been for 38-50 and 60 years for another Awakening. In order to have such a visitation the right theology is needed, and that theology is Sovereign Grace. Some folks get all bent out of shape about it, but that is the truth and the primary sources will sustain that view and that view alone. The doctrines of grace are the most intensely evangelistic and invitational truths of the word of God. They are therapeutic paradoxes designed to restore responsibility to human beings, to make believers balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Like the fellow said in one associations circular letter in `1816 who had lived through the fifty years during which the Second Great Awkening occurred in Va., that it was wondrous and marvelous. Then the folks who would bring us Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope got all upset at almost losing control and went after polarizing and splitting Baptists. They will tell you the theology they hold and the one they oppose. And with that I will leave you folks to mull over doing it the old way, by hard work and research…years of it with the notecards that attest to it and of praying and preaching that will not make you popular. And I will insist that still you must be sweet and, if up set, go kick a tree. The tree never complains that it hurts, but you will. It will help you to get back to being sweet.
It really is a glorious life. That is why I always feel like rolling on the ground with howls of laughter, when I hear the atheists of this day touting their unbelief like I did when I was a teenager. But then I also weep for them. As a former Atheist I know one does not know anything about the reality f God until God shows up and then it becomes very embarrassing. Like I said, it is a glorious life, this trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ. It involves lot of suffering, but still it is wonderful and our pathways are golden.
Hey, I keep reminding myself of more.
Acceptable Calvinists do not use the ESV as their bible version of choice. All others may be deemed acceptable except of course those heretical gender neutral versions.
Acceptable Calvinists never quote Spurgeon to support their theology. Only non-Calvinists are allowed to quote Spurgeon anymore.
I actually like the ESV, but I don’t think I would be considered much of a Calvinist anyway. I am getting the feeling that I may be an “unacceptable” “unCalvinist” so I am going to go now and drink some 7UP (the uncola for those who don’t remember).
Unfortunately I’m not sure this is getting anywhere. From this post, and Mike’s subsequent post, we’ve gotten a lot of sympathy and agreement, but not much dialogue with non-Calvinists. It is still hard for me to believe: 1) that there are hordes of closet Calvinists out there just waiting for an opportunity to tear churches apart, and 2) that splitting churches is the only reason Calvinists are feared and (rightly or wrongly) do not feel welcome in the SBC.
There’s got to be something else. I listed several, based on what I’ve seen and heard. Are any of them valid? Admittedly some are tongue in cheek, but I’ve seen the complaints. Where is all the fear and angst coming from? It would be easy to relegate this to the hobby horse of a few disgruntled bloggers (and it is) but that’s not all it is, when we have entire conferences dedicated to refuting Calvinism.
I’m blessed to be in an SBC church that has a healthy contingency of people who are soteriologically Reformed, including our Minister of Education. We have many who are not Reformed, but we all seem to get along well. If I did find myself unwelcome, I would simply go into exile on the mission field where I probably belong anyway. 🙂
There is another reason why new Sovereign Grace ministers among Southern Baptists have a time presenting their case. One, there are few examples on which to model a ministry of Sovereign Grace Evangelism today. Two, Even some of the really good ones presenting the case today do not know the best ways and methods. Three, they are not teaching Sovereign Grace Evangelism. I approached one leader of a seminary about teaching such a course, and I never heard any more from him after that discussion. The issues of the doctrines of grace can be put in the most positive light. E.g., Predestination, Total Depravity/Inability, Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints, and Reprobation are all – and each and every one of them – invitations to sinners to be saved on God’s terms. They are in themselves offers of the gospel…even the most totally opposite sounding truths are invitations to salvation though some are admittedly fearful in some instances.
I can never forget, when I read this statement by Dr. Eusden in his introduction to his new translation of William Ames’ Marrow of Divinity, “Predestination is an invitation to begin one’s spiritual pilgrimage…” I applied that to a message bearing this title, The Hardest Text in the Bible. Roms. 9:13 is an invitation to accept God on His terms. We are invited to receive God who does not think like we do, love like we do, nor act like we do. Later, I worked it out that all of the doctrines of grace were invitations. It helped to read where Jesus said to the woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and “It is not meet to take the children’s breat and to cast it to dogs.” She was not a Jew and yet she worshipped Him. She even agreed that she was a dog, an image of reprobation if every there was one.
The book of Jonah also provided me with insight into the fact that a message of total condemnation and no invitation could actually be the message of hope and deliverance. “Forty days, and Nineveh will be overthrown.” The preacher did not want the people of that city spared, but he expected God to do exactly that…even with a message that offered no hope. I should point out that that text and the king of Nineveh’s question, “Who can tell?” plus the question of a fellow from the mountains of eastern Kentucky, the wisest man I ever met, “Have you ever thought about the fact that every last soul on earth in one generation could be the elect of God?” completely demolished by eschatology. If an unconditional prophecy of judgment could serve another purpose (as that text does, namely, to convert that whole city), then so could some of the stern statements of the NT. It is but a short step from an unconditional announcement of judgment that involves the purpose to bring a people to repentance to the idea that perhaps God’s prophecies and doctrines could have the very opposite effect than what they declare….effects more consonant with what we believe about His nature and yet respectful of His Holiness and Justice as well.
There is also the matter of therapeutic paradoxes. Could it be that the doctrines of grace are Divine paradoxes involving the purpose of restoring a sense of responsibility for the sinner’s conditin to the sinner and for crying out to God for mercy on such helplessness? That is my condition. Also I should add that there is coming a revolution in the study of Revelation. Recently I read where someone recognzied that some of those terrible judgments in that book could be parodies on Roman justice and law. I have also read where Charles Alexander, a Baptist minister of Great Britain 40-50 years ago, had found help in Alexander Cruden’s remarks about the War of Armageddon, being a spiritual war on the mountain of the Gospel. His writings were very helpful to my way of thinking.
And then as to my conversion which involved Jesus actually appearing to me and knocking at m heart’s door. When you are an atheist and say there is no God, and He shows up (it was either a vision of a hallucination, and I prefer to believe it was the former). I saw with my eyes open, Jesus standing some 8-12 pews or more in front of me, looking at me, with an arm raised like he was knocking at a door, and He was looking at me. My desire after that was to get out of that place, and I left after the service, determined to tell no one. But before I arrived home, He opened my mind so that I determined to tell my mother. That night, setting at her knees and weeping, under conviction, I asked Him to forgive me of my sins and felt the burden lifted off of my heart.
Now I know Spurgeon says Rev. 3;20 cannot be used for evangelistic purposes, but it wa so used by the Lord in my case. Later, I would find an 80 page sermon by the Puritan, David Clarkson, on that text as an invitation to sinners. More than that I would find a whole volume of sermons (John Flavel) on the text, all directed toward inviting sinners to Christ. I would find a reference in Broadus’ biography of J.P. Boyce about the latter preaching an evangelistic sermon on Rev. 3:20. Within the past few years, I found two sermons on the text by J.P. Boyce’s pastor in Boyce’s childhood, Both apparently directed to urging sinners to do the impossible and open to Christ. I refer to Basil Manly, Sr., the fellow who was the real father of Southern Seminary and, ultimately, of all our seminaries.
O by the way, I noticed that Christiane does not mention that Luther and Calvin drew a good deal of their material from Augustine. And she gives away the case, when she admits that faith is a gift. Still even faith requires knowledge and facts.
As to how, I might mention Dr. Gene Spurgeon. Back in the fall of ’58 we entered East Texas Baptist College together, where we soon met up with some students who were enamoured with the doctrines of Sovereign Grace (they said little of Calvin or Augustine, bcause, like most Baptists, they drew their doctrines from the meaning of the words in the NT. E.g., No man can come, means no man is able, means man is impotent to come, to respond). We both rejected them at the time..even though I had heard them preached as a child – I did not remember it). A few years later, after study and agony, I came slowly to a belief in these teachings. First one, then another, and etc. In the mid 60s Dr. Spurgeon, and I met at Lincoln University in Mo. I told him, I had changed my views of those teachings. He had not. Then he went out and won a 20 year old young lady to Christ. When she responded so readily to his presentation of the Gospel, he asked her why. She said, “O! It was so wonderul, that I could not resist it!” He said, “When she said that what you had said about grace being irresistible popped into mymind.” I asked, “Well, did you change you mind?” “No,” he said, “but I am thinking about it.: About 40 years later, he changed his mind. Somewhere around that time, he found out from a genealogist that he was kin to the original C.H. Spurgeon. So wonderful, one can’t resist it. That stuck with me all of those years. I don’t thnk any one can have any idea what it means to an atheist to have Jesus show up, knocking at your heart’s door, looking you in the eye. It is intimidating, to say the least, and it makes you feel guilty as all get out. I can also remember crying, feeling the burden, and then while I prayed, asking His forgiveness, I could feel a burden lifted off my heart that I didn’t even know I had had until that moment. Then I cried tears of joy.
As someone who has been told by our new Pastor that my family and I (along with a couple of other families) “will have a difficult time being productive members of this congregation” because we are “calvinist” this post hit really close to my heart. I think Mr. MacKinnon hit the nail on the head. We have been members of this congregation for 3 yrs and I have not yet had a single conversation with any other member about calvinism but yet I am seen as a threat. They have tolerated us as long as we keep our mouths shut, but the new Pastor seems determined to “clean house”.
“”yet I am seen as a threat””
I can’t speak for your particular situation, it might be quite different. But, if someonw perceives that someone else perceives them as a threat, there’s usually a reason.
If one is really NOT a threat, then it might be helpful to open up some better communication. It does seem to me that you have already firmly established an “us vs. him” attitude toward the pastor so some kind of confrontatin seems inevitable — unless someone does the Christian thing and steps outside of self-interest to mend an obviously broken relationship.
This battle that seems to be brewing in regard to Calvinism just doesn’t sound right to me. I think it is something other than a difference in theological perspective, and therefore I see it as very potentially harmful.
But, then again, what do I know.
Yes Frank what do you know because your last line couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact the word ridiculous comes to mind.
Frank: Read Justin’s comment. I daresay Reformed Baptists would agree with his statement.
I have had the same experience. A few weeks after my pastor found out I was a Calvinist, we heard an anti-Calvinism sermon from the pulpit. When we got to Romans 9 in men’s bible study (which I teach), he came with an armload of books, ready to refute my Calvinistic interpretation. (in fact, I drew up a chart and compared and contrasted different views)
This was a good man and a conscientious pastor. But there is no doubt that he saw my Calvinism as a threat. Ironically, he would later go back to school at SBTS.
Debbie,
Of course, I know you are much smarter than I am. If you think that the fight for control based upon one’s view of Calvin’s theology is a godly thing, well you are certainly welcome to your opinion.
My opinion–and again, I’m certainly not as sharp spiritually as you are–is that making Calvinism a divisive issue in SBC life is unhealthy and will diminish our cooperative efforts.
I certainly respect your right to your own opinion.
I am a Missouri Baptist Convention pastor. I am also a member of the Executive Board for the MBC. I am the founding pastor of my church that I planted 8 years ago and it was started from the very beginning as a Reformed MBC/SBC church. I do not hide my Reformed views and I preach from the pulpit Reformed doctrine.
I chose to be an MBC/SBC affiliated church and I am looked at in my community and my state as a second rate citizen. I have found that most people in the SBC have no clear understanding of Reformed theology. Usually they attribute some form of hyper-Calvinism to their understanding of Reformed theology.
I dare say that my church witnesses more in our community than most non-reformed churches. I have men and women every week who are out in the streets proclaiming regeneration through Christ Jesus. We regularly baptize new converts and preach the whole counsel of God unashamedly. I am not ashamed of my belief in Reformed theology and believe it to be an accurate understanding of the Scriptures. I have many Armenian brothers in Christ and love them dearly.
My belief in Reformed theology is not a test of fellowship for me. As long as we agree on the fundamentals, we will enjoy one another in Christ.
Reformed theology is no threat to the SBC. It can only solidify our belief in the infallible, sufficient Word of God.
Greg,
If I had a penny every time “I” misspelled a word in the blogosphere, I’d be…. 🙂
Say, why not adopt particular redemption/limited atonement, because it will in the end win more souls than a general atonement. I have heard ministers who are under the impression that saying “Christ died for your sins” to every sinner will win that individual. Well, our Lord said to one sinner, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and she was not even a Jew. Still she thought that was good enough reason to worship Him. Then when He introduced inability and reprobation, she used it as a reason to draw His greatest commendation, “Great is your Faith.” I know of General Atonement folks who do not believe there will be many won to Christ, and yet I believe in a particular redemption/limited atonement ending in a multitude in Heaven from a 1000 worlds perhaps that no one can number. YOU FOLKS EVERY HEAR OF A THERAPEUTIC PARADOX, A TRUTH DESIGNED TO ACCOMPLISH THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT STATES? It is sort of like telling a person to smoke more in order to get that person to quit smoking…Folks whose lives have been utterly ruined by sin seem to prefer to hear about the Sovereign who has control of all more than just that He loves everybody and is helpless before their omnipotent wills. It is a comfort to find out that God is in control, and it gives passion to effort to win others…to those who understand it.(aCTS 18:9,10).
A 1000 worlds???
I want to be kind but there is so little here that makes sense…
I echo John – 1000 worlds?
If you want to read into Jesus’ words, James, why not read the obvious…we Gentiles are up the creek without a paddle.
The rest…well, I’ll just leave it alone.
Jim G.
Dr. James,
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Luke 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Jesus initial ministry was directed to the nation of Israel, but He was to be the Savior to all races of people. There is no particular redemption implied in that at all, and the proof is that many of the lost sheep of the house of Israel did not accept him.