Disclaimer and disclosure: I am not a Calvinist, nor am I an anti-Calvinist traditionalist. Theologically, I am somewhere in the middle, and the Baptist statement of Faith and Message summarizes my beliefs accurately. I am not a theologian, and I am not writing to assess the worth of Calvinism. Rather, I was trained as a historian. I’ve taught seminary courses on the church history, missions history, and the history of evangelism. I have written/published a book on the history of evangelism and a book on the history of missions. I’m writing to counter a common criticism against Calvinism—that Calvinism is inherently anti-missions. I hope our commenters can focus on history and not lambast each other over doctrine.
The Claim
Anti-Calvinists often claim that Calvinism is inherently anti-missions and anti-evangelism. They imply that if the SBC embraces Calvinism, our evangelism and missions will decline precipitously. For example, Dr. William Estep, long-time professor of church history at Southwestern Seminary, wrote an article for the Baptist Standard (the state paper of the Baptist General Convention of Texas) in April 1997 in which he stated: “logically, Calvinism is anti-missionary. The Great Commission is meaningless if every person is programmed for salvation or damnation.” Well, what about this claim? Does it stand up under historical scrutiny?
The Facts
Calvinism derives its theology from John Calvin. So, what did he teach and do about missions and evangelism? In his commentary on Matthew 28:19 Calvin wrote this: “This is the point of the word ‘go’ (exeundi): the boundaries of Judea were prescribed to the prophets under the law, but now the wall is pulled down and the Lord orders the ministers of the gospel to go far out to scatter the teachings of salvation throughout all the regions of the earth.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, eds. D. F. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, Eerdmans Publishing, 1972, 251). That is what he wrote. What did he do? He sent evangelists and church planters throughout France, and they established the Huguenot churches. Calvin also sent a mission team to Brazil. Sadly, it was short-lived due to the persecution of the Catholic priests there, who incited the Indians to attack the mission settlement.
What about later Calvinists? Richard Baxter wrote the classic book on practical theology from the Reformed perspective: “The Reformed Pastor.” What was Baxter’s practice in regard to evangelism? According to Dr. Tim Beougher of Southern Baptist Seminary, who wrote “Richard Baxter and Conversion,” Richard Baxter went door to door throughout his town, asking each person if they had professed faith in Christ. The First Great Awakening in America was led by Theodore Frelinghuysen, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield, Calvinists all.
Missions historians call William Carey the Father of the Modern Missions Movement, and he was a Calvinist. Adoniram Judson, the great pioneer Baptist missionary to Burma, also was a Calvinist. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the Prince of Baptist Preachers, was a staunch Calvinist, yet he preached evangelistically and wrote many books on evangelism, as well as many gospel tracts. Beyond that, he was an enthusiastic supporter of foreign missions and formed a close friendship with Hudson Taylor, the founder of the China Inland Mission.
In modern times John Piper, a firm five-point Calvinist, served as the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis for many years. Bethlehem Church has been a model for local church missions, both in its support of foreign missions and inner-city missions in its locality. John Piper wrote a book, “Let the Nations Be Glad,” which has been used as a missions textbook in many seminaries. Dr. Al Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Seminary is an outspoken Calvinist. Yet, I heard him declare in a chapel service at Southern Seminary: “If your Calvinism does not motivate you to share Jesus Christ with others, then take your Calvinism and leave.”
The Conclusion
In conclusion, what can we gather from this brief historical sketch? Calvinism is not inherently anti-missions, and those who say this are mistaken. It is accurate to say that hyper-Calvinism is anti-missions. In Baptist history, there was an anti-missions movement led by Daniel Parker (circa 1820). He believed in double-predestination; that is, some people are predestined to be saved, and some people are predestined to be condemned. Therefore, he objected to missions for theological reasons. From his point of view, if the eternal destiny of all souls is predetermined, there is no point in doing evangelism or missions. He also rejected the idea of any kind of missions society. In the end, we must insist on precise language. It is incorrect to say that Calvinism is anti-missions, but it is correct to say that hyper-Calvinism is. Now, you might respond, “I know a pastor in my association who is a Calvinist, and he is not active in evangelism.” That may well be true, but I know non-Calvinist pastors who do little in evangelism. When I taught at Southern Seminary, I was walking down the hallway one day, and I student approached me. He announced, “I’m a Calvinist!” That declaration caught me by surprise, as I did not know him and had not asked him about his theology. I replied, “Very well. Be a Calvinist like Charles Haddon Spurgeon, and we’ll get along fine.”
So you went all tje way back to 1997 to support your claim? Really?
Is your implied point that in 2018 there is no appreciable segment of SBC life that believes Calvinism is anti-missions or weak in evangelism?
The 1997 reference is an example of a position that Mark claims is historically inaccurate. He supports his claim with evidence beginning in the mid 1500’s, Calvin’s time.
Excellent article.
Your most salient point is this, if I understand you correctly:
~ Calvinism is no more anti-missions because it has people who ascribe to it who are not evangelistic… any more than “traditionalism” is anti-missions because there are people who ascribe to it who are not evangelistic. ~
If I’m right in my understanding of your post then I could not agree more… Christians who are not evangelistic, no matter the soteriological views to which they ascribe, are being disobedient to the explicit command of Christ.
Well spoken Tarheel Dave.
I avoid the labels, personally. And I would not pen blame on a single issue, …… but there is no denying these two facts: (1) Calvinism is and has been in the top two of topics and issues facing our convention and discussed more than ever for the last decade or two. (2) we are in the steepest decline in baptisms and regular/ consistent church attendance in the history of the SBC. To not at least explore if there is a connection is called ‘leading poorly.’
OK, so explore it. There has been research on SBC baptism rates by theological position. Is your mind made up already or are you open to this question being answered by something other than opinions and anecdotes? If you have your own data, let’s see it.
I am open to it. I made my point using the research Chuck Kelley produced last January in his chapel sermon. I believe it is based off lifeway research, not opinions, and I will certainly recheck. My eyes tell me this: The church I serve, along with many others in our area, declining in baptisms and attendance is not an opinion or anecdotes. It’s fact. I’m also open to other research outlets too. Keep in mind that my original post can also greatly imply that media outlets such as this one (and others) printing articles on this subject (and others) more than articles on evangelism and soul winning may be a cause to get us off focus a bit, ……. which we know can lead to hurting our cause- winning the lost. (No offense meant. I’m a fan of this site)
Just a quick question, Shelvin. How do you think Calvinism has affected the church that you serve in? I don’t see the connection in your thinking. I am assuming you have broad influence to affect the theology that would drive your church to turn it around in attendance/baptisms.
I don’t think much in my setting because the majority of church members have no clue what that term is. Again, my point is compare the number of articles on Calvinism (or pick another hot button topic) vs evangelism/ possible evangelism helps over rage past decade. To me, the subject itself may not be the issue. Or it may be. Bottom line is we are in decline and maybe what are focusing a lot of attention on contributes.
I am unaware of baptism rates being examined on the basis of Cal/Non-Cal since 2006 when data showed the rates were about the same. Cal churches as a group baptized less people because their churches were smaller on the whole, i.e., large or megachurches were not Cal led. I suspect that if anything has changed in the last decade it is that Cals are now pastoring larger churches and baptizing more people.
…and Kelley didn’t have data other than the overall numbers of baptisms which proves nothing other than that we baptize less folks these days.
If someone wanted to study something, and didn’t mind getting skewered, they could research the rates of RE-baptisms over the past few decades. I don’t think we do as much of that as we did twenty years ago. Kinda cuts into the baptism totals when you don’t count folks two or three times over their childhood and early adulthood. The only data I’ve seen on that was for one state where 40% or so of all the baptisms in a given year were of folks who already had been baptized one or more times.
There is? All I can find is a survey about the perceptions of the impact of Calvinism on the SBC, and a response from pastors in the survey that indicated 78% say they are not Calvinist, and 8% say they are.
Baptisms in the SBC have been plateaued since the 1950s and only began to decline in the last 10 years. And this data is measured against our membership, not US population growth, FWIW.
Mark, you wrote, “Daniel Parker…objected to missions for theological reasons.” While this may be partially true, Parker’s “anti-missions” book “A Public Address to the Baptist Society…on the Principle and Practice of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions” was grounded in ecclesiological objections to the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, rather than soteriological reasons against preaching the gospel. Though Parker’s name is eternally tied to “anti-missions,” he personally planted new churches in at least three states. J. M. Carroll noted “And as a result of these various services, [Parker] over this large territory, organized, through its own efforts, nine new churches. How many churches in Texas, country or city, can show such a record?” [I’ve counted 11.]
https://archive.org/details/publicaddresstob00park
Points being: (1) be fair to Daniel Parker, and (2) often even those scored as “anti-missions” weren’t as anti-missions as they are remembered.
In the late 1990s I wrote a similar article to this one. I came to similar conclusions. Being a Calvinist is no hinderance to being earnestly evangelistic. No doubt, there are Calvinists who exist who are not as ardently evangelistic as they ought to be. This is a heart issue, not a theology issue. It is a bogeyman to ascribe to Calvinists alone any decline in conversions or baptisms in the Convention.
Calvinism Is a robust and deep theological position. According to Kuyper, it is a holistic worldview. Calvinism has produced many deep Christian scholars, pastors, and church members over the years. Note: I am not saying other theological persuasions do not also produce these strong Christians, but we are discussing Calvinism here.
To some Traditionalists, a phrase I will use here, Calvinism is a cancer in the Convention, and Calvinists should be banished whenever they are found. But both groups have lived and worked side by side since the founding of the Convention. I once remarked to a friend that I did not believe Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Convention would ever be at odds with each other. The author of this article is accurate in his claims. As far as casting aspersions, let the love of Christ and the Spirit who indwells us all be our guide.
Calvinism is simply NOT anti anti-missionary. I won’t speculate as to why some think that.
We were part of a group of people who started Covenant Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, 40 years ago the 7th of October. As an already-ordained elder, I served on the first Session. When we set up the budget, we determined how much the actual operation of the church would require, and then added 50% to it. The added 50% …. 1/3 of the total budget … went to missions.
In fact, we determined how much we’d spend on missions, and then decided which mission causes we should support.
I don’t know of any SBC church that does that.
I think Baptists are under the misimpression that Calvinists have no “heart” for missions. That is false. At Covenant, we believed in missions simply because God tells us to be His witnesses, to go into all the world, etc. It’s simply a matter of obedience, and not because of any “burden” that the world is lost and going to hell if we don’t.
I like how you think. You added 50% again to the budget just for missions work. Well played sir, well played.
Mr. Cleveland,
It is a good thing that you seek to obey God’s command to evangelize. However, it is interesting you noted that you have no “burden that the world is lost and going to hell if you don’t.”
Faith comes by hearing and they cannot hear without a preacher. So, I’m confused at your statement. You don’t see it as your burden to let people hear the message?
Thank you for your interaction!
Caleb,
Your mixing up what he said.
He said that his burden was to obey Jesus who commanded him and his church to go into the world and preach the Gospel.
To soeak for him, and I aplogize in advance if I misportra yhim, he believes that God will save every last one of the lost, the elect of God. He leaves the saving of people in God’s hands. Rather he is willing to be God’s tool to reach the lost.
Now it seems *seems* to me that yur persepctive is that unless we do all we can do, some who might be saved wont be. Thus you approach witnessing from a different place than he does.
Of course, one could be burdened for humanity and still be a Calvinist. I see the sin in the world [and my own] and the hurt it causes, the pain people go through, and it is troublesome to me [not sayinganything here about brother Cleveland]. And many responses I get are like, well if thats good for you, but… It isnt our job to convert the world, just witness the truth to it.
Michael,
Thanks for your cordial reply!
I am not saying that we, as Christians, can save anyone. I am also not aware of any orthodox person who believes that they can save a lost person.
That being said, I stand by my interpretation of Romans 10. A person will not be saved unless they hear the Gospel and they will not hear unless we preach it to them.
Given my understanding of that passage, it seems as though we do (and should) have a tremendous burden to spread the Gospel to the lost. To be sure, there is a command involved. It is a matter of obedience. But that is not the ONLY reason. It is also a matter of life or death for the person who needs to hear.
Also, let me affirm that I also believe God will save every last one of the elect! I just don’t assume that the elect are those chosen arbitrarily before the foundation of the world to be saved. I do not believe that is what the Scriptures teach concerning the doctrine of election.
Thanks for your interaction!
Caleb,
He didn’t say he had no burden. Could his burden be obedience to our Lord?
Blessings.
Michael,
He said that he believed in missions “simply because God tells us to.” If he intended to communicate another reason (or burden)then I must have missed it. If he meant that the command was his burden, then that’s good. But that’s not what he said.
Paul, who certainly was obedient, seemed to have a burden that stemmed from something other than mere obedience to a command. Rom. 9:1-3 and 10:1.
Thanks!
Caleb,
Paul wasn’t speaking about his burden reaching the gentile world but rather his love for his own people.
But hey, good try.
Thanks to the commenters for sticking to the historical issue in question. I feared this post might incite a theological food fight. Yes, Tar Heel Dave, you do understand. Robert Vaughn, thanks for your cogent comment. The Baptist history books cite Daniel Parker as a significant figure in the Anti-Missions Movement of the early 19th century. So, I’ll go along with them. Personally, I believe that while Parker, did engage in local church planting, he opposed the formation of any kind of missions society (home or foreign) by Baptists in the USA. I believe his beliefs about predestination influenced this, but it is hard to say as to what degree.
Mark, I don’t disagree with you or the history books that Parker was a significant figure in the “anti-missions movement.” He was clearly opposed to missionary societies or mission boards, and that is often (usually?) what people mean by the anti-missions movement. But I think it is best to let Parker speak for himself as to why he opposed them. (And I may well be wrong, but I’d be surprised if many of those Baptist history writers, unless they wrote on Parker in detail, ever bothered to read Parker’s “Public Address.”) Taken much further, all this gets beyond the main point of your post (with which I agree), but the pro- & anti-missionary society debate is also one that doesn’t hinge on Calvinism.
There is nothing in the doctrine of double predestination that precludes missions. Whether that doctrine is how God does it, I do not think we have enough Biblical proof, depending of course n hw one defines that doctrine.
Calvinism claims that God predestines some for Heaven, sent Jesus to die fr those, and will save every last one of the lost sheep.
That gives rise to the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
But Calvinism, rightly taught and believed, also prescribes believers to proclaim the Gospel to all men everywhere. For God has also said that faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word preached. Romans 10.
Since no one knows who will believe when they proclaim the Gospel, we are to proclaim it to all. We are to put the Word out there and let the Holy Spirit work on the hearts of whom He will.
One of the problems I see in the SBC is the idea that if we proclaim the Gospel, the church will grow. And yet our numbers are declining and our baptisms are down. It could be that we are not proclaiming the Gospel like we should, and by that I would incude all strands of SBC life including Calvinists. That could account for our decline but not necessarily. many if not most of us, including myself, can do a better job of consistently witnessing Gospel truth to a dying world.
And though certainly those unsaved must hear the Gospel before they get saved by faith, and thus we should be proclaiming it, our proclaiming it isn’t what saves. Rather it is God who moves on the heart and brings a person to salvation. Now the idea that God wants everyone saved does point away from that as a reason for less souls being brought into the Kingdom, Calvinists would declare that God doesn’t try and fail at anything. He doesn’t create the world and try to get all souls saved and fail [and seemingly miserably so] at saving every single person.
Since Calvinists do not believe God tries and fails, we believe that God has chosen to save some and does save these, which the Bible calls the elect, chosen by God. And he does so through the foolishness of preaching the Gospel to the world, the whole world, and from every tongue and tribe and people, God saves His own.
Thus He has given us the mission of bring the Gospel to the four corners of the earth, as well s to our own neighborhoods.
I wrote this to explain my view of Calvinism and not to disparage any other view .
Thank you! Amen.
Sir, I appreciate your articulation of your beliefs. Allow me a brief interaction.
You stated that “God does not fail at anything.” As a traditionalist, I would give a hearty amen to that! However, you make this assertion under the assumption that regeneration is effectually. This is not the understanding that Traditionalists have of the Scriptures.
We believe that God does indeed desire all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4); however, we do not believe that he desires to effectually regenerate them before they have faith. Therefore, we do not believe God tries to save people and just miserably fails. We believe he desires all men to be saved and come willingly (that implies they have the ability to admit their need and ask God to save them; this choice originates in themselves since they are the chooser) and do not need to have their wills changed in order to come to Christ asking for salvation.
Thank you for allowing me this clarification of this position.
Caleb,
Yes thank you.
Together we believe the Gospel. Amen!
Together we believe it must be proclaimed. Amen!
If you ever want to discuss our differences, email me at bygrace4012@yahoo.com
God Bless.
Sure thing, brother!
Additionally, the Reformed creeds and confessions (at least all the ones I have read – I haven’t read them all) observe the need for what we call missions today in the preaching of the Gospel to sinners in obedience to the command of God.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, the compatibilistic construct set forth in these creeds, as integral to Reformation theology, has garnered perhaps as much grief from hyper-Calvinism as it has from Arminianism. So, to confuse Calvinism as hyper-Calvinism is to miss the historic divide between them.
Brilliant piece Mark. Completely in line with the high standards of Mid-American Seminary for thorough research and documentation. Thank you for this article. I pray it will bring unity and an emphasis for us to join hands and preach the gospel around the world for the glory of God.
Thanks for your kind words. Yes, indeed. Calvinists and Traditionalists all share Acts 1:8. We all agree that the Lord commands us to proclaim and disciple the nations. So, let’s get at it. A student asked me about the effect of Calvinism on our Southern Baptist missionary force. I told him that I could not think of any effect. Now, my wife and I served 24 years with the IMB. I don’t recall ever discussing Calvinism or Arminianism with a fellow missionary. I could not tell you what any of my fellow missionaries thought about the debate. Rather, we were focused on winning folks to Christ and teaching them to be mature followers of Christ.
In looking at the SBC Job Search website, I typed in Missions in the filter keyword and discovered that out of 500 overall posts, only 5 posts were designated as such and apparently 4 were only part-time as they also had another responsibility as part of the job title …and the 1 post for Director of Missions was only a part-time position…..kind of makes me wonder about what kind of emphasis this may or may not indicate….I wondered whether or not this was what one of my seminary professors meant when he said that Missions has become a minority movement in the modern church?
Amen! “To all the world for Jesus sake, where bodies hurt and sad hearts ache….” ?
🙂
Greg is quoting the words of the Mid-America Seminary alma mater. William Thornton knows the words, too. For sure, Mid-America is all about missions and evangelism.
Mark does MABTS still castigate Cals?
( not trying to be obstinate-just curious)
I will agree that on paper, there is nothing that can be argued that Calvinism is specifically anti-missions. However, the reality is that in our American context, denominations which are exclusively Calvinist in their theology have not seen significant growth, so the actual results are lagging. For example, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) has little under 400,000 members and has been in existence since 1974. The larger, liberal Presbyterian Church USA has less than 1.5 million members and at its peak in 1958 had 2.8 million members.
The U.S. is presently a country of about 325 million, so the exclusively Calvinistic Presbyterian Churches have less than 1% of the country’s population on their membership rolls.
The response will be that the churches in the SBC (and other denominations, perhaps) don’t clean up their membership rolls and remove non-resident members (this has been a cause of the Founders Blog folks), still with a membership count of around 15 million, there is no comparison. Will cleaning up the membership rolls remove 12 million? Therefore, I don’t understand why there has been an effort made to have more Calvinism in the SBC, and on some level become more like the PCA when that denomination hasn’t seen growth.
There seems to be a perception that in the glory days of growth of the SBC after World War II, in the 1950’s and 60’s, the growth in the number of baptisms in SBC churches was “a mile wide and an inch deep” and therefore there was a push to have greater theological depth and thus, as a consequence, Calvinism was a part of that theological depth. However, here we are almost 40 years after the CR and having had Calvinism as a significant influence in the teaching of seminaries of the SBC, it is hard to argue that in the 1980’s and 90’s the leaders of the CR would have seen the SBC to be where it is today.
My basic argument is in the business world, people look at the results, and if something isn’t growing why try to emulate it? In the same way in the church, when one looks at the results of the exclusively Calvinistic denominations, their results pale in comparison, so why should leaders in SBC churches try to become more like the PCA?
On the other hand, one can look at the Association of Related Churches which has had enormous growth – just look at Church of the Highlands in Birmingham which has over 50,000 in attendance throughout the State of Alabama and has grown up in the bedrock of the SBC in Alabama. Maybe folks need to look at what these churches are doing and maybe emulate some of what they’re doing.
David,
The world wants preachers to itch their ears and will flock to the ones that will.
Which is why growth is a poor measuring stick for a church.
Michael, you’re making the assumption that all churches who grow do so because the pastor preaches to tickle the ears of the listeners. This can’t be said of Church of the Highlands in Birmingham. In fact, the irony is that the long term result is that the liberal mainline denominations tried to accommodate the cultural changes in society, in particular the sexual revolution, and as a result have been in a precipitous decline. In the beginning of the CR, there was a belief that by arresting the growth of liberalism being taught in seminaries, there would be greater evangelism and the SBC would grow. Now almost 40 years out from 1979, that hasn’t been the result in recent years, so some questions should be asked.
It seems like a cop out to say the church down the road must be growing because the pastor is preaching a water downed gospel. Maybe, he’s a good preacher and the people are responding to what he is teaching. Also, there might be an effective prayer ministry which undergirds the whole church.
Getting back to my original comment: We have years of data to see the fruit of different ministries, therefore, it seems illogical for the SBC to attempt to emulate the Presbyterian churches when they have experienced so little growth in the almost 250 years they have had a presence in this country. I get it that if you are taught a certain theology in seminary, you’re most likely to have a preference for Calvinism, Charismatic, or whatever classification one may wear. Yet, it would still be wise to step back and be objective and look at the actual results of different theologies being preached over time. If you can’t point out a specific fallacy in someone’s teaching and are still critical, then it seems it’s just a matter of personal preference and not because the pastor is preaching to tickle the ears of his congregation.
Another example is the Independent Baptist churches. While I can’t site a specific disagreement with their theology, one has to wonder if their rules on women’s dress as well as other restrictions you hear associated with Bob Jones University have been an impediment to their reaching people for Christ. Therefore, you have to wonder if anyone in their churches would ever stop and question many of their “rules” and see the barrier that they create in their ministry.
David,
Your argument is all over the place. You are trying to place a Convention problem at the feet of a single group of Convention people. That won’t work. Then you compare Convention people to people who are not Convention people at all. That won’t work either.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists have been in the Convention, working together, and winning the lost together, since the Convention was formed. You are right that church attendance and baptisms are down in recent years. I could probably name a half dozens good reasons for this without ever mentioning Calvinism. Your “evidence” is to argue that this decline must be the fault of Calvinism in the Convention because the Presbyterians have declined in numbers.
The decline in numbers (of baptisms and attendance) is a Convention problem. We all own it. Those few studies that have been done, I believe, have shown there is no real difference in the work and numbers in Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic churches. We are all doing about the same. It is true that among 42,000 or so churches, you can find a few standouts. But most of our churches are doing about the same. Purging the Calvinists from the Convention is not a solution. Better to look at the log in our own eye before pointing the finger at someone else.
If the problem is to be corrected, it will have to be a Convention wide effort. It will have to be a united effort. It will have to come from the heart of everyone in the Convention. We really need a Moses, a leader with a vision, and the oratory to inspire people to follow, who can lead as well as he talks. Again, the problem you mention is a Convention problem, not solely a Calvinist problem. To try and make it so, is simply passing the buck.
John,
I am at fault for not making my point more clearly. So I will make it in bullet points:
1. My main point is that churches which have had an exclusively Calvinistic theology have not had as much growth over time as those that don’t. The most striking evidence is the PCA has 400,000 members as compared to around 15 million in the SBC. Those are facts and not my opinion. The challenge is how do you prevent having an exclusivist theology over time when seminaries are producing pastors who have one theology over another? In other words, if 80% of your graduates are Calvinist, or Traditional, or Charismatic, the other 20% probably won’t have much influence.
2. Why not seek to have a theology and ministry which are Biblically sound to bear the most fruit? In the business world, people look at the results, I’m not as confident that those leading seminaries necessarily do.
3. There a lot of causes being discussed on these blogs from the Calvinist/Traditionalist debate, to the MeToo movement in seminaries, to racial reconciliation and social justice, to changing the name of the SBC to Great Commission Baptists, it makes for interesting discussion, but it often overlooks the big picture. I see churches – some in the SBC and others that aren’t who are growing. The key is they don’t seem to focus on the issues that consume the debate here. The ones which are in the SBC have less identity with it starting with the fact that Baptist often isn’t in their name.
4. The bigger challenge facing the SBC and all evangelical churches is the reality that when youth enter college age, their connection with the church ends – Statistics say 5 out of 6 kids who are in church youth ministries will drop out of church in their college years and are not returning in their early adult years at the rates they did in the past. The focus of the debates here – social justice, racial reconciliation, who voted for Donald Trump, women’s role in the SBC, etc., none of this will impact the challenge of young adults leaving the church.
5. I disagree with your point that the SBC needs a Moses to inspire the churches – the SBC is too diverse – the disagreement on this blog are evidence of that. It’s hard to see how one pastor will be pleasing to every constituent group. (Look at the controversy over Steve Gaines attending a meeting at the White House). Each individual church needs to have their own initiative to reach their particular community with its own demographic and economic reality. Each church needs to have an effective prayer ministry to undergird their vision for reaching their community.
6. The SBC historically occupied a unique, what I would call a middle ground on the theological landscape of Evangelical American Christianity. While fundamental Biblically, is didn’t embrace the legalism of the Independent Baptists and Charismatics and it wasn’t exclusively Arminian or Calvinist, either.
David,
I appreciate you dealing with my post. I understand we have some disagreements, but the tone of your post is cordial, and I appreciate that. If it not clear already, let me expose my own bias. I am wholeheartedly a Calvinist, 5 pointer. I have been most of my adult life. In my younger days I had many friends among the Founders group, and still share a great affinity for those folks. During my lifetime, I have pastored a mission church, a GARBC church, three Southern Baptist churches and an independent Reformed Baptist church. So, there is that, on the table, any cloaks are now off.
1. I am not exactly certain what you are trying to say in your first point, unless it is just that the Presbyterians never achieved the numbers the SBC did. That may have as much to with culture and demographics than with theology.
2. You say “why not have a theology and ministry which are biblically sound …” which is nearly saying explicitly that Calvinist is not biblically sound. In this, your bias becomes clear. Calvinism is attractive to many exactly because it is deeply biblical and offers more than the shallowness that is prevalent in modern preaching and discipleship curriculums. Calvinism’s main draw is that it puts God on high and makes man totally dependent on God in every way. When Martin Luther was given a copy of Calvin’s Institutes, he read it and declared “Here is a writing with hands and feet!” You will not find much support for a claim that Calvinism is unbiblical.
3.This particular debate is about Calvinism, and so I don’t think your third point is relevant. I will add this as an aside, Calvinistic churches spend very little time preaching Calvinism per se. They are doing, pretty much, the same thing everyone else is doing. It is true that if a particular point of theology is raised then it is taught from the Calvinist viewpoint, but Calvinism is a worldview, it is much bigger and broader than simply the five points. Most Calvinists do not bother much with these kinds of debates. We believe what we believe and goon about our business. But we will stop for the occasional debate if someone goes out of the way to kick sand in our face.
(Continued)
4. Your fourth point is about a problem that has been identified for years. That is the loss of faith, or the defection of young people when they enter college or the workforce. This issue has nothing to do with Calvinism directly, and much to do, I think, with our discipleship programs in our churches as we prepare young people to leave our churches as they transition into adulthood.
5. My point about Moses seemed eloquent to me when I wrote it. Perhaps I could have done better. This is the point I was trying to make. We live in a rough world right now. It is filled with bad people. Even those who live in the public eye and who should know better, are vicious people. There is no common heritage that people acknowledge. There is no common decency. People mistake accusations for arguments. Something done as a youth, or even a family member can ruin a person. It is a rough world. We (Christians, Southern Baptists) need to avoind making enemies of people who are not our enemies. We need unifiers. That is what I was trying to say about Moses. We are all indwelt by the same Holy Spirit. All of us. Calvinists and non Calvinists lived in harmony in the early years of the Convention. Other people have made these same points far more eloquently than I can.
Again, I appreciate you interacting with my post.
David,
Don’t you believe God builds His church?
I do.
And I trust Him to do it.
He asks us to obey Him and we do and sometimes we don’t.
I just don’t believe that God would leave the eternal destiny of those He loves to fickle humans and their on again of again obedience.
You failed to answer about which type of church you were a member of. But the group you mentioned, that fast growing group, ARC, from what I have read, does not have sound theology. A main idea, according to their own website, is that the church members are there to serve the pastor, and they are never to question his vision.
Your idea that the church should adopt whatever practice builds membership the greatest is what opens up the people to leaders who will replace sound doctrine with whatever builds up numbers.
The goal of the church is not numbers but faithfulness to the Lord. If He blesses them with numbers, praise His holy name. And if He doesn’t bless them with numbers, praise His holy name.
David,
Actually I made no such assumption.
It seems you have an axe to grind.
Are you a member of and attend a SBC church? Or do you attend an ARC church?
David,
You seem to equate numerical growth as a necessarily good thing.
The truth is it could be a good thing, and in fact, it could be a very good thing.
And any church preaching and teaching sound doctrine and growing is a wonderful thing.
But we know from the Scriptures, yea from the Gospels, that many times sound doctrine drives people away.
Even the Lord had many leave when they didn’t like the truth He was telling them. John 6
David – “We have years of data to see the fruit of different ministries . . .”
IMO, the merits of Calvinism and Traditionalism have to assessed against Scripture and not “years of data” unless it is assumed that Biblical faithfulness ALWAYS results in growth. There were a lot of faithful messengers rejected in the Bible.
Thanks for a good discussion Mark. Like you, in my 30 years serving as an IMB missionary I do not recall much mention of Calvinism or Armenianism. The emphasis was always on missions and evangelism. I am also not a theologian so my question concerns the need for precise language as you mentioned.
What is the difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist? Does every Calvinist accept all five points of the TULIP? Most Southern Baptist have little problems with 3 points, but Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace present problems depending on how they are defined.
Does limited atonement mean Christ did not die for all. If so, is there a reason to witness to those who cannot be saved since his atonement does not cover them? If grace is irresistible, is there any reason to witness to those who are going to be saved regardless? I have heard Calvinist say they Go and witness because it is commanded but it does not change who will be saved or lost. Is there any such thing as free will involved in salvation?
I have friends who call themselves Calvinist and I know they are evangelistic and support missions just as those examples you gave, therefore do Calvinist and Hyper Calvinist define these two points differently.
It is because I do not have a good answer to these questions that I usually do not join in discussions on Calvinism vs Armenianism.
By hyper-Calvinist, I mean someone who emphasizes double predestination. That is, some people are predestined to be saved and some are predestined to be lost. For that reason hyper-Calvinists believe there is no point in evangelizing or doing missions. For example, you may recall that in 1792 William Carey suggested that the Northhampton Baptist Association discuss foreign missions. John Rylands, Sr., stood and rebuked him: “Sit down, young man, I say sit down. If God chooses to save the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine.” There are small Baptist denominations found in eastern Kentucky, the Regular Baptists and Old Regular Baptists that do not believe in doing any kind of evangelism or missions. They reject these because of their strong belief in double predestination. (I realize that different people would answer Ron differently, but he asked me.)
Mark,
The Hypers dont believe in missions. true. But not simply because of double predestination. One could believe in that doctrine and not be hyper. One hyper group, based in Michigan believed that all non-C’s were lost, and if you believed a non-C could be saved, you were lost even though you were a 5 pointer. Thus they believed Spurgeon was lost. Hyper means one takes a tenet and over emphasizes it to the detriment of all other tenets one holds.
Ron,
Not every Clavinist believes the same thing. So the answers I give are my own [and many others as well] but certainy there re those who are C’s who disagree.
“Does limited atonement mean Christ did not die for all.”
Yes.
Let me ask you, did God know who would be saved before He created?
If so, then He knew for whom the death of Jesus would save and who it would not.
“If so, is there a reason to witness to those who cannot be saved since his atonement does not cover them?”
Yes.
First, because we do not know who the elect are. We are to witness to the whole world, because God has ordained the proclamation of the Gospel as the mens to save the lost children, and because He will save people out f every tribe, and tongue, and nation.
” If grace is irresistible, is there any reason to witness to those who are going to be saved regardless?”
Is there any reason for me to witness? Or you to witness? Yes of course, because God has graciously allowed us to participate in His redeeming of His people. But if we fail to, someone else will. The Gospel will reach all the lost.
” I have heard Calvinist say they Go and witness because it is commanded but it does not change who will be saved or lost.”
True. Also true are the reasons mentioned above. From man’s perspective we know not how many will be saved or out of a crowd which will believe. But from God’s perspective the number is set. God infallibly knows the future and always has. God has always known by name who would be savd and who would be lost. One doesn’t have to be a Calvinist to hold to that. One has to believe that God knows all things, and then it is obvious.
In that theme, since God knows by name who will be saved, does He send His Son to sufffer and die for thse who will never believe? Why? Even if one does not believe that God elects, one ccould grasp that the Atonement is Limited because God does everything with purpose. Jesus died for those that will believe [or had already] and paid for their sins while those who never believe suffer and die for their own.
” Is there any such thing as free will involved in salvation?”
Calvinists hold to a Compatible idea if free will. S the amswer is yes. Given that understanding.
Scripturally, the Bible tells us that people are blind to the Gospel, for example Rom. 1, Eph 4, John 9. We read this in 2nd Cor. 4:3-6…
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
Ron,
I ran out of room and dint finish with your free will question.
Coming to Christ involves both the will and the heart. One must believe from the heart. Romans 10
Our wills dont dictate to our heart, rather from our heart we choose and decide the important things in life, certainly the decision if we shoud surrender our lives to the one called Jesus. Thus the “WHY” question is important.
Why did I, or why did you, surrender to Jesus as Lord? Why does anybody?
Choice leads to action, even internal action. So we choose to surrender to Jesus, we act on that choice by confession and profession and baptism. But why do we choose Jesus. Why did you? Why does anybody?
The answer is because you believed. I believed. We choose Jesus because we believe He is the crucified risen LORD OF All.
But why do we believe it? Do we believe everything we hear? Ofc ourse not.
Do we have other people rising from the dead as examples? Nope
In fact, in 1st Cor. 1, we are told that the perishing think the Gospel foolishness.
Yet once we were like them, lost in sin, and yet we believed.
Why?
And thatpassage gave in 2nd Cor. 4 tells us.
It tells us that the perishing are blind to the Gospel truth unless God opens the eyes of the heart so that they see and live.
So why did you and I believe? God showed Himself in Christ to us, demonstrated to iyr hearts His love while we were yet sinners, and we knew the truth of the Gospel by faith. And we desired Him. So we believed by surrendering ourself to Him.
Thanks Michael. All very helpful.
Ron,
Good questions. I am glad you asked them.
A hyper-Calvinist is someone who crosses the line from Calvinism into heresy, and I use that word deliberately. Hypers (I will use this as a shorthand), as someone else noted, believe if you are not a Calvinist you are not saved. There was a website once that was filled with this kind of writing. They had a “Heterodoxy Hall of Shame” where they would list people who “thought” they were Christians, but were found wanting by the group who owned the website. Believe it or not, Calvin himself was listed there. Calvinists believe they have a full, and biblical theology that glorifies God, but no Calvinist claims that only Calvinists are Christians. If you meet someone who says that, they are a hyper.
In my humble opinion, all Calvinists accept all five points. Those who are called four pointers are called “Amyraldians” after Moises Ameralt, who developed the theology that rejected the limited atonement doctrine. Three pointers are Arminians with a better theology than most. (said in jest).
Limited atonement means that Christ actually died for the sins of his chosen (elect) people. Since he is God, his death is sufficient for the whole human race, but it is effective for Christ’s sheep. Another phrase for this is “particular redemption.” God has declared that the way of salvation is through the hearing of the gospel. The way the sheep are called to Christ is through gospel preaching. And, we are commanded to go in the Great Commission. Therefore, we go.
Charles Spurgeon once said if God would paint a stripe down the back of every elect person he would go around London lifting up men’s coattails. But God does not do this, so we spread the seed (the gospel) as far and as wide as we can and leave the results in God’s hands. Who is, or is not, elect, it not our worry. Marcus Aurelius (not speaking as a Christian, but it is a good quote) said, “I do what is mine to do. The rest does not concern me.”
I hope this answered a few of your questions.
Yes, thanks John.
I’m a little surprised, after more than 500 years have passed, that there are modern concerns about the evangelistic and missions motivation of people who hold to any kind of Protestant Reformation theology, including Calvinism. As far as the modern American missions movement goes, the Presbyterians of several stripes have had a long and extensive presence on the international scene and the more “liberal” branches met with a high level of success in the far East, particularly Korea and in China before the 1940’s, and in places like Nigeria and the Congo in Africa.
Ever since I first stumbled on blogs and message boards outlining the Calvinist vs. Traditionalist conflict in the SBC, I’ve been wondering why this is an ongoing argument that results in bad feelings and harsh language. What communication goes to the mission field, when it seems like the pastors within the denomination can’t get along.
Lee,
There doesnt have to be bad feelings and harsh comments, note Calb’s and my interchanges.