The SBC Plodder is back with another examination of Calvinism. I will put on my Karnak turban and predict a lively discussion. After all, I have ESP-N.
I’m a hacker and a plodder and am no different than the other fifty thousand or so SBC pastors but I do have a thirty year history with Calvinism and Calvinists and, unsurprisingly, have an opinion about it and them. To be candid, while I’m mostly ambivalent about Calvinismm, I’m decidedly wary of Calvinists. Here’s why:
1. Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant. No, they don’t have a monopoly on such but my observation is that they have acquired more of it than one would expect from their numbers. And since they have it, they are happy to share it with the rest of us – the unwashed, sub-calvinist masses.
Here’s a selection of quotes from a recent SBCVoices piece on Calvinism:
“When I consider how long I fought the Doctrines of Grace, I now wonder why. I must decrease and He must increase.”
“Why is it appealing? Maybe because it is what the Bible teaches?
Tweaking the question, why is it that now young pastors are reaching the proper interpretation of these texts?”
“…because the conservative resurgence handed us a Bible, and told us to believe all of it.”
“… as I think the teachings of Calvinism come straight from the Bible, what has led to a resurgence of Calvinism is not any psychological effect or comfort but careful biblical study.”
“…the source of the [Calvinist] resurgence remains God’s Word.”
“The evangelical Calvinists have done such a good job that they are almost the only game in town for a vibrant faith that is intellectually stimulating at the same time. Other evangelical voices have a lot of catching up to do, if they can and want to.”
I read this stuff and find it to be a nostalgic reminder of seminary hallway arguments, inevitable classroom debates, eager young theologs brimming with certainty, and adorable young calvinist polemicists waging scorched earth doctrinal campaigns. No thanks.
I’m all for defending a doctrinal position but perhaps there are Calvinists who will admit that there are other followers of Christ who are scholarly, biblical, and non-calvinist. Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?
Maybe all of those kind of Calvinists just stay off of the blogs and discussion forums.
2. I’ve been around too many churches that have been wrecked by Calvinists.
No, Calvinists don’t have a lock on wrecking churches and I certainly know many more non-calvinist pastors who have wrecked churches. The latter just don’t hurl themselves headlong into the task out of their doctrinal positions.
What is one to say when a Calvinist gains a pulpit and immediately declares that there is heresy in the church that must be rooted out, the heresy being that the church is not sufficiently Calvinist?
What is one to say when sermons begin with “God doesn’t love everyone”
or “God may choose this child for heaven and this child is not chosen and is bound for hell”? I recognize that these statements can be nuanced, and we all like to be provocative at times, but is it surprising that a Calvinist pastor can be said to divide the church over such teaching?
What is one to say when the Calvinist pastor aggressively tries to implement an elder system of church governance, and it appears to be less about biblical church polity than about the pastor installing his allies in positions of power and authority to the exclusion of all others?
3. Calvinists have been known to be less than forthcoming with search committees.
Tom Ascol, an erudite and reasonable man, blogged last year about some documents that were being distributed in Tennessee among SBC churches. Their thrust was described as ‘how to smoke out a Calvinistic pastor in your church.’
I can see where this stuff comes from.
My evidence is anecdotal and limited but in my experience Calvinist pastors have minimized their Calvinist beliefs with search committees in order to gain a pulpit. I hate to say it but this is precisely the technique some liberal pastors have employed with church committees – obfuscate, finesse, dart and weave.
No, I’m not saying what most calvinists say to a committee, but this is what some committee members have relayed to me.
I would absolutely advise any church to be thorough enough in their search process to determine a prospective pastor’s beliefs on Calvinism. I know that Calvinists generally eschew the term ‘calvinist’ in favor of other labels and descriptors. Laypeople must be savvy enough to understand the vocabulary.
If my experience with Calvinists did not include their negative impact on churches I would label this article, “Why I am annoyed with Calvinists” rather than “Why I am wary of Calvinists.” It is this last point that moves the conversation from annoying to wariness. I can do annoying pretty good myself.
If calvinism is appealing to young SBCers, a fact I do not dispute, it is repulsive in many expressions to not a small number of SBCers. Why is it that some circulate ‘calvinist smoke-out guides’ or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions? Are those who so act evil, misguided, or alarmist? Perhaps there is something concrete and important behind these acts.
Perhaps my experience is atypical and an aberration. I’d be pleased to know that is the case. If not, I’ll look askance at Calvinists but still rejoice when Christ is preached and Christ is preached by every Calvinist I know.
I love my Calvinist Brothers and Sisters. But, William, what you wrote is true.
David
“I love my Calvnist Brothers and Sisters”
Somehow I am not buying this David, beings you would love us to leave.
Debbie,
You dont know my heart. I love my Assembly of God Brothers, too….even though I really dont want to join them.
As I’ve said before Debbie….I have no problem with calvinists being in the SBC. I have a problem with the 5 pt. CALVINISTS. But, I even love them, too
David
It is none of my business who Debbie loves or does not love and none of my business who God loves or doesn’t. If God loves everybody,a statement He denies,He would love all the Demons and reprobates in Hell. I’m not buying it. Who is man to contend against God. We are less than dust in the balance. God doesn’t take orders from men on how to distribute his grace.
I was irresistibly chosen for Calvinism back in my college days. I can only wonder how many people in those days thought I was arrogant, divisive and obnoxious as I worked through the discovery of those views.
I am a moderate Calvinist by today’s standards, but I think that I would have to plead guilty in the early days of my journey to the arrogant/obnoxious accusation.
Hope it is not so true anymore.
“Calvinists can be, well, rather arrogant” I am curious how you define the difference between arrogance and direct expressions of conviction. One reason I’m as direct as I am (and a few of your examples looks like they came from my comments) is because we live in an age when hard truth is frowned upon. People are supposed to wallow in a faith neutral and broad enough to encompass everyone. Anyone who firmly holds to a definite opinion is labelled arrogant. Of your examples, only one of them bore any resemblance to what I would call arrogance – a mindset… Read more »
Chris, I appreciate your candor but I think I am familiar with arrogance. On calvinists and committees, take my word “wary” as the salient term. Let the candidate be forthcoming and let the committee be thorough.
You will recall that I have two articles on calvinism, one that is complimentary and one that is critical. I’m a balanced kind of guy, although I am aware that some SBC non-calvinists are not.
But I’m curious how your quotes are examples as arrogance. You say Calvinists tend to be arrogant, then you cite several examples. But what makes those comments arrogant? Flesh it out for me. What about the things I said are arrogant?
I don’t recall whose is whose, Chris. Perhaps to you and others these are expressions of theological certitude, correctness, and absoluteness. To me they have perhaps, possibly, maybe, the slightest pungency. Nothing personal. These were the closest examples at hand, not the most egregious.
You used them as examples of Calvinist arrogance. How are they arrogant? Not how might they slightly be considered a little possibly not good, how are they arrogant? Or am I being arrogant by asking you to tell me in clear terms how the examples you gave of people committing sin are, in fact, sinful?
Chris, may I note here that you use words and make conclusions that I did not? You also put words in my mouth (I said C “can be” arrogant, not “tend to be” arrogant), but I’ll answer your question (from below) nonetheless: those comments look arrogant to me. On all of the but the first, you might look at them from the perspective of the non-calvinists. The universe is divided into Bible believers, careful Bible students, proper Bible interpreters and, well, the converse of those. As the one comment said, you guys are the “only game in town.” That’s arrogance.… Read more »
I mentioned above that only one of the comments you quoted struck me as arrogant. It was the one you mentioned – the one about the only game in town. How ironic that it turns out that quote was by a non-Calvinist! Jim G commented below that the comment was his, and he is not a Calvinist. So that does not serve as an example of Calvinist arrogance since a Calvinist did not say it! Perhaps a note on your post correcting that mistake would be in order. And I’ll retract “tend to” and replace with “can be” but I’m… Read more »
Chris, I commented below on the final example. It shouldn’t have been included.
I expressed an opinion. You rejected it. Fair enough. If I had wanted to describe you as being a sinner, I would have used that terminology. No need to impose on me your wild conclusions derived from what I didn’t say.
So what is arrogance if not sin? An unhealthy trait? An unfortunate choice? A misguided mindset? Is it possible for a behavior to be wrong yet not be sin?
My number one objection to items such as this is how do you define “Calvinist”? Do you lump all of them together from moderates, 2 pointers, all the way to hyper-Calvinists? Southern Baptists are Calvinistic, be believe in Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints, we affirm the Predestination is in the Bible someplace, but don’t really want to deal with it. The term itself has become as ambiguous as you would like it to be. It’s become like “democrat” or “republican” where we find the most extreme cases, classify the whole lot and them take pop shots. It’s becoming… Read more »
I think William is talking about 5 pt. CALVINISTS in this piece. He’s not talking about all the different types of calvinists in the SBC.
that’s my take on it…
Dan, Do you find, in general, those who agree with 2-4 of the points call themselves, Calvinists, as a rule?
Just curious. In my experience they do not usually refer to themselves as Calvinist but will say they agree with such and such points making them a __ pt Calvinist.
I think it depends on which part of the country you are in. In Iowa, no way. I other states in the West and Southwest they are more open to it.
William, since you quoted me above: “…because the conservative resurgence handed us a Bible, and told us to believe all of it,” while calling me “arrogant,” I can only assume that you see uncertainty as non-arrogant. You assume a whole host of negative statements about me in order to call me “arrogant” over one sentence. Why would you even assume that I don’t believe there are “other followers of Christ who are scholarly, biblical, and non-calvinist?” Is it because I believe that the Bible teaches 4-point Calvinism?Believing something is true necessarily means that you believe others are wrong. I assume… Read more »
and then, we get a long comment that perfectly describing what William was talking about….lol
David
“Hello, kettle…I’m David the pot…you’re black.”
🙂
Jared, actually, my final two points are anecdotally driven, not stereotypical or data driven. And, I was deliberate in not grouping all calvinists together. Perhaps you missed it. I readily admit that my views are based on my experiences with calvinists. I’m entitled to that.
Debbie, it’s believable…but have a good laugh. A sense of humor goes a long way in life. And you’re right, you don’t owe me anything but Christian civility.
Bob, I’ve always appreciated your comments over the years in the blogs. I’d like for you to note that I have expressed wariness towards Calvinists, not rejection.
William, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’ll just disagree. I wasn’t arrogant in my above comment that you quoted. You’re entitled to disagree; but, I don’t see how you can prove your argument.
Hey, Plodder is entitled to his opinion. Hallelujah! 😉
I don’t believe that I have to prove, Jared, that I am wary of calvinists because of the three reasons given.
William: Why would I be civil when you write things like this. Trolls expect that too.
William,
You are right, again…it’s been my experience, as well.
DAvid
David: You keep saying this, William keeps saying this but where is the proof? You have exaggerated before so I am having a very hard time believing you.
I would request everyone read this <a href="http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c171/tomascol/page1.jpg"list that was sent around Florida last year and this same list that William erroneously believes may have merit. It’s so ridiculous and based on pure lies. It just shows the lengths Christians, I still can’t believe it but Christians, will go to in order to make a group or person look bad enough to spread fear to exclude. I know the pattern and accusations like this were used to get rid of some in the past five years. This is a move to rid the SBC of Calvinists, I would bet money.… Read more »
Sorry, that didn’t work. Click on the link to Tom Ascol post William referred to in the OP, then click on the document in the article to enlarge and read. As for Williams charge What is one to say when the Calvinist pastor aggressively tries to implement an elder system of church governance, and it appears to be less about biblical church polity than about the pastor installing his allies in positions of power and authority to the exclusion of all others? I would like proof that this is being done as well. As I stated earlier, our church has… Read more »
By the way, Tom Ascol and Founders haven’t made a peep in a year, does that bother you guys and you are seeking to make them make noise again? I don’t know that they will. And it could be because 1. You guys are not a threat. 2. Things are going well in the Convention and except for a few noisemakers like you and David, SBCToday and Peter, we are content to live in peace with other non-Calvinists and they are content to live in peace with Calvinists. So why are you rocking the boat?
David: As I was reading through Tom Ascol’s comments I ran across yours and I thought I would remind you what you said and Tom Ascol’s response to you, which I thought was good. William’s being “anecdotal” by his definition might benefit from Tom’s response too. David, you said last year: I personally know of 4 or 5 Churches in W. TN…here lately… and some of them have been large Churches….where they called a man to be their Pastor, who was an aggressive, 5 point Calvinist, who came into the Church to change the Church; and they did not know… Read more »
David, Come one now. You know you and William are making this up. The Debbie has spoken and hath declared there is no proof. If it doesn’t come up on the first page of a Google search (or as The Debbie calls it “research”, snicker) it just isn’t true. The Debbie has spoken. (/sarcasm) Ok, now I’ll end the sarcasm. I’m a 5 ponit Calvinist. I’m such a 5 pointer that I won’t let my wife plant anything but TULIPs in the garden, ‘k. But I’ve seen the after effects of one particular Calvinist pastor who came in to an… Read more »
Because you are a follower of Christ? Because I am your Christian brother?
I can’t think of better reasons than those, Debbie.
I’m just sitting back, laughing and shaking my head. This is ridiculous as the charges are ridiculous. We simply know what we believe and why, plus we are convinced that what we believe is in the Bible. Yet that is arrogant. Unbelievable. I have nothing more to say. Am I angry? A tad. No, quite a bit actually.
I might add that this is exactly what unbelievers say about non-Calvinists as well as all Christians. It’s not true when they say it and it’s not true now. I am so tired of all of this actually I don’t care what you think anymore. We’re SB get used to it and learn to live with it and I’m not going to be silent about teaching Calvinism as you are not going to be silent in teaching what you believe. Difference is I’m not asking you to be silent, just to quit being anti-Calvinist. I don’t live or teach according… Read more »
AMEN Debbie!!!
David, all of Jared’s points are as valid as the generalizations Mr. Thornton makes, based on what one has seen individuals do in the past. And then you call his dissertation as example of arrogance? Why didn’t you call Mr. Thornton arrogant? I’ve been in an SBC church for 30+ years and have yet to see a church torn apart by Calvinism. I also spent about 15 years as a Presbyterian and didn’t see any of what Mr. Thornton says there, either. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the worst things about Calvinism is what Baptists SAY… Read more »
Amen Bob. Also all I have to do is look back a mere five years to see destruction and it wasn’t from Calvinists.
Although I knew we would be next. I was right. Now call that arrogance and I may not deny it.
I can name you many, many churches that were torn apart by CALVINISTS…..many….just in my neck of the woods alone….
David, define “torn apart.” Also, tell us what these Calvinists did that is directly associated with Calvinism that “tore” their churches apart.
David, I think “multiple” would probably be a better term than “many, many”. I seriously doubt there are that many churches in rural Tennessee torn apart by Calvinism, though I bet there are some. I am one that feels called to church revitalization and recovery. I have been at 2 churches in the last few years, both have had multiple splits and multiple issues. Both have been very large churches in the past and have produced some very recognizable names in the SBC. Not a single split that those churches have experienced was around the issue of calvinism. In fact,… Read more »
If there are so many of those churches out there that have been destroyed by calvinism and/or calvinist pastors…can we get a list?
If there are “many, many” it shouldn’t be hard to get a list to verify. Right?
And one part of the Body of Christ rejecting another part of the Body of Christ is every bit as damaging as one’s human body rejecting a heart transplant. It simply ought not to happen.
If, in faith, people use their reasoning to seek understanding of the mysteries of God, some good may come of this as long as people realize that the capacity to comprehend all of the mysteries is not given to them.
That attitude makes it possible for people to consider, discuss, and dialogue about the nature of these great mysteries;
as long as they retain the humility that comes from knowing that the nature of the mystery transcends their ability to grasp it.
But just supposing someone comes along and IS arrogant and attacks you personally because of your point of view,
here is some good advice from the English metaphysical poet, George Herbert:
“IF A DONKEY BRAY AT YOU, DON’T BRAY AT HIM.”
(George Herbert)
That is very good advice because most of us think that we have got to ‘react’. Much more wisdom in keeping your dignity and letting the arrogant ones own their own behavior.
“Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgment that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?”
I’m really sad that you didn’t read my post about Calvinistic Tension Headaches. LOL.
“Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?” I’m just not sure that non-calvinists see the irony of comments like this. Of course there are arrogant Calvinists. (Ever read blogs?) Of course there are arrogant non-calvinists. (Ever read blogs or been to the SBC?) The fact that some think that arrogance is located in one theological position is a little sad, or even that a theological position is more prone to it. In fact, one could say that is a type… Read more »
Jason, In an effort to be fair to William he did say in reference to arrogance, “No, they don’t have a monopoly on such…” I’d be interested in hearing why you think this sterotype exists. For me I do think there is a certain type of…hmmm, not sure what to call it…maybe “arrogance” is the right word, that is unique to Calvinism. I’ve never heard of a cage-stage of Arminianism. But I think there is something unique that happens when someone begins to embrace the doctrines of grace. And I don’t think it’s just cultural because John Newton had to… Read more »
Yes, that is true. I think William dealt with this issue fairly well. Tough issue to tackle, and he tried to do so for the sake of balance. I appreciate his efforts.But I am still “wary” of this issue being issue #1, especially considering it isn’t unique to calvinists at all, as he admitted. In fact, none of the 3 are unique to Calvinists at all…nor, one could argue, are they most prevalent, within the SBC, among Calvinists. Disregarding the arrogance issue, I have seen more churches split by non-calvinists than calvinists. I have seen more search committees lied to… Read more »
Agreed. I couldn’t help but think of Andrew Fuller’s comments with the “splitting churches thing”: “I desire to seek both ‘truth and peace’, and so far as I can enjoy the latter without sacrificing the former, I hope it will be one chief object of my pursuit. Should what I have written be published, and should any number of persons, instead of seriously attending to evidence, take fire, call names, and set their churches in a flame–and should they after this upbraid me with having ‘stirred up divisions in the churches,’ for all or any of this I hope I… Read more »
“I’d be interested in hearing why you think this sterotype exists.” I don’t have much interaction with Presbyterians or those born and raised in calvinistic/reformed denominations, so I am not sure if the stereotype carries over to them at all. But since this stereotype exists within SBC calvinism, and that is our context, that is what I will address. There is a type of arrogance that comes with some sort of awakening and the related invigoration from study and new-found belief.These people are excited about new beliefs…and for some of them it is the first time that they have had… Read more »
Thanks for explaining and for your vulnerability here. I agree and identify with most of these.
Mike: If you guys could give links or reference books(which is the right thing to do) I wouldn’t think I have to check Snopes.
Maybe if you started with Google instead of Snopes you wouldn’t have so many problems finding something. Isn’t Snopes more for debunking falsehoods? Just one of the google links with a simple search of the words “John Newton Calvinist arrogance” was this one.
It’s from a Newton letter often called On Controversy. It’s what God used to bring me out of my “caged-phase” of Calvinism.
Yeah, I kind of read it quickly. I wasn’t familiar with it before. I find something funny about the phrase “caged-phase.” I imagine I have probably hit that phase a few times in my theological life and it wasn’t even over Calvinism. Prayerfully, I am past it all now, but you never know I guess.
Jeff,
I know from my own heart…that often whenever I have a huge theological shift I’m so excited, many times prideful, and often a little disillusioned that I hadn’t been taught this before, that in my exuberance, youthful ignorance, etc. it’d probably be best to keep me in a cage for awhile. But I blog instead. LOL.
LOL. Oh how true that is, Mike. I have experienced that multiple times. Thankfully, I am learning to better recognize the symptoms now than I used to.
Is someone willing to say that Calvinists, on the whole, are more deceptive than non-Calvinists? Are they being taught to be deceptive in seminary? Or does Calvinism simply attract deceptive people?
And how are Calvinists tearing churches apart? Are they kicking out non-Calvinists? Or are they teaching Calvinism? Should there be a list of “things the pastor believes but must not teach”?
If someone is a rabid abstentionist, should he agree not to address the issue with a church that he has been called to pastor?
So why weren’t Calvinists shown the door during the event Dave Miller won’t let me name (I feel like I’m saying Voldemort…)?
Is it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
And now that the enemy has been dealt with, it’s back to being enemies again?
I’ve been a Southern Baptist for quite over 40 years and a convinced ‘Calvinist’ for over 10 years. I believe I’m right, or I wouldn’t believe it. However, I also believe that I could be incorrect in my interpretation of Scripture since I’m fallible. I’ve met all kinds of arrogant folks, and some Calvinists can be that, not because of what they believe, but because of who they are. As a matter of fact, if you replaced ‘Calvinist’ with ‘Fundamentalist’ in your post, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you since I grew up around more of them. I think… Read more »
I think there is a tendency to see conviction that I agree with as courageous, and conviction that I disagree with as arrogant.
In simplistic terms, the SBC is made up of Calvinists and non-Calvinists. Does anyone, anywhere, have any data at all to suggest that Calvinists…
Are more deceptive in interviews than non-Calvinists.
Are more arrogant in their beliefs than non-Calvinists.
Are less evangelistic than non-Calvinists.
Tear apart more churches than non-Calvinists.
In short, is there any negative attribute that Calvinists have in greater measure than their non-Calvinist brethren?
Before leaving this ‘atta boy,’ I scrolled through the subsequent comments. No answer to the question has been offered. I believe I could rather quickly point out that there are those on either side of this issue which make their side look horrible…and there are those who represent well their position with grace and deference. I think the establishment of straw men and ad hominems are far easier ways to ‘argue’ than to have a serious (even ‘energetic’) engagement concerning the theological issues at hand.
Yep
I find this whole post an example of Why I’m wary of all those Not-a-5-Point-Calvinists types out there. This is the same old garbage that you Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist have been spewing for the last 16+ years that I have been a pastor under constant fire in the SBC. I wonder if you might have any numbers/idea of just how many Godly Pastors have been attacked and run off from their church for daring to preach all of the scriptures, and not just John 3:16. Perhaps there is a correlation between what you call arrogance and the conviction forged in the fires… Read more »
Well, there you have it: The garbage spewing sub-calvinists against the Godly Pastors who preach all of the Scriptures. If calvinists are arrogant, Jesus was arrogant…Calvinists are with Jesus.
Alas.
William, Sub-Calvinist??? I have never once used such a word… I know of not a single Calvinist who has ever used such a word… and your use of such a word proves your Anti-Calvinist sentiments. Apparently you vies Calvinist to be “Sub-Christian” monsters… Arrogant, Deceitful, and Destructive. Most Calvinist I know do not shy away from preaching the difficult doctrines of the Bible. Can you honestly say this is true of most Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist in the SBC? Would say that most Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist in the SBC preach expositionally through books of the Bible? Some may, but most do not. Oooooooo, and YES… Read more »
Alford, I owe you lunch for making my point so plainly.
How very arrogant of you William…
That’s exactly why I’m wary of you Not-a-5-Point Calvinist types… You probably eat little children too… Despicable Monster that you are… But that’s another topic all together.
Grace for the Journey,
Greg, you are not helping the Calvinist case here.
Thanks Dave… I knew I could count on you to let me know when it was time to get back in my cage. You have to keep Calvinist Monsters on a very short leash 😉
I will agree to disagree as to whether William’s writings are thoughtful as I find them to be more divisive which does take some cunning thinking. It is certainly not based on fact, and as he self-described it, are anecdotal, which is certainly not helpful in bridging anything. Give me proof, I can buy it. Just throw stories into the air, I’m not buying it. Nor should I be expected to. For five or more years exclusion has been the name of the game, not inclusion until the last couple of years. Yet that just isn’t good enough for those… Read more »
If anyone wonders why there is a problem between Calvinists and non-Calvinists, one only needs to look at this comment stream to figure out why it exists.
Hi Dave,
I’m not sure the thread answers “why” there is a problem, though I tried to do it in what is currently the last post in this thread (that position at the end will change in short order, I am sure).
But that there is a problem, well, even a blind man could see it and a deaf man could hear it!
Jim G.
My point was that the inability to engage in decent discussion, without caricature and misrepresentation of the other side. This is all too common in blogs, but the Calvinism thing seems to bring out the worst in everyone.
Yeah, I know. I know you hold dearly to BIFF, as do I, but this might be the straw that breaks the convention’s back. I hope not, but I am afraid….
Jim G.
One needs to just look at the opening post to understand why it exists. But I think you knew that when you allowed such drivel to be posted Dave.
Dave, Thanks for posting William’s drivel. It gives me encouragement and hope to know that you will soon be posting my drivel again! 🙂 The problem between non-Calvinists and Calvinists is really the same problem between any two groups of people — an abundance of arrogance and a lack of love/charity toward those who we disagree with. When I wrote my post late last night, the comment stream here was only 53. Now nearing 200. Pretty much what I expected. William has lots of lunches to buy! No one is saying that Christians cannot be dogmatic in what they believe,… Read more »
Debbie, we have about 8 or 10 regular contributors here. Almost all of them are Calvinists. My vision for this site is that it represents a multitude of viewpoints, not just one. There are three (or more) kinds of blogs. There are personal blogs, which obviously express the view of that person. There are group, point-of-view blogs. SBC Today has become a very good blog in my opinion, under the direction of Steve Lemke and whomever else is working with them. But it is a POV blog. You tend to get the traditionalist, non-Calvinistic viewpoint. I have no problem with… Read more »
Alford’s point is valid. Wasn’t this one reason the Pharisees hated Jesus? He was dogmatic in his claims and did not mind telling the Pharisees when they were wrong. Jesus demonstrated the value of belief, of conviction, and he was hated for it. But these days, solid conviction and dogmatic belief are seen as bad things. No one is allowed to say, “I’m right and your wrong.” Anyone who dares to take such a position must be arrogant.
How do Calvinist pastors and non-Calvinist pastors handle the Lord’s Supper (it’s Biblical meaning) ?
Are they ‘united’ in their understanding of the Lord’s Supper (its Biblical meaning),
or are there important differences in their understanding ?
Christiane, No difference that I’m aware of. Of course, we do not hold to the Catholic belief of transubstantiation.
Hi Chief Katie,
Thanks for responding. I had read something about this on Trevin Wax’s blog and wanted to know more.
It is good if there are no differences that are major, because in gathering around the Lord’s Table together, the Christian bond between the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists will be strengthened, and the differences between them will become less destructive because of their ‘community’ in Christ.
I am assuming that they both accept that Our Lord is ‘spiritually’ present with them at His Table, at least.
Christiane,
There are variations in how some see the ordinances as means of grace. The classic Reformed view is that through the ordinances, God imparts grace to the believer. Thus the term sacrament is often used. Such grace is not seen as saving a person, so no one is saved through baptism or the Lord’s Supper.
Beyond that, the meaning would be very similar to most Baptists: symbolic acts demonstrating the death of Christ, new birth, and God’s grace to us.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists are Christians and they recognize that the bread and fruit of the vine are only symbols of the body and the blood of Christ. No Christians believe that the items used in the Lord’s Supper actually become the body and blood of Christ.
Chris, I owe you lunch as well.
Chris, I owe you lunch as well.
Do you guys see the point here?
Not yet, no. Please spell it out. I’m still wondering how it is arrogance to say, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” As for the above comment, I’m not saying non-Calvinists are not Christlike. I’m saying that Jesus was hated because he held convictions and stated them plainly even if they went against the claims of the Pharisees. What you call arrogance in Calvinists looks more like the kind of conviction held by Christ. Many non-Calvinists hold similar convictions, and I’m sure there are many points of doctrine about which you would hold such conviction. I’m not saying this trait is… Read more »
What’s so ironic is that when a 5 pt. CALVINIST is dogmatic, he’s like Jesus telling the Pharisees when they were wrong. But, if a Non 5 pointer is dogmatic, then THEY are the Pharisee!!!!! for beliving in what they believe so dogmatically.
lol
Did someone call non-calvinists pharisees here? I missed that.
One of the ironies of debating with postmodern people is they will dogmatically deny the possibility of dogmatic truth. That they are being dogmatic doesn’t diminish the fact that they voice opposition to dogma.
In this case, the fact that someone dogmatically states a belief that Calvinists are arrogant doesn’t diminish the fact that what they oppose is not Calvinist arrogance (since none of the examples provided actually show any arrogance) but Calvinist dogmatism.
I have no problem with people being dogmatic, but I do have a problem with dogmatic claims of arrogance against dogmatism! 🙂
Dogmatism can be a very unlovely thing, and even the best of Sovereign Grace believers can speak or act in an unloving manner. However, having said that and having seen many examples of such folly across my 53.5 years as a Christian and nearly 50 years as a believer in these truths, I can say that it often comes as a shock to some calvinists to find out that these teachings must inevitably humble the people who believe them. Sooner or later, they will have to get off of their high horses. Suggest the modern group has yet to be… Read more »
I’ve heard forms of this quote variously attributed (mostly to Mark Dever) and think it is fitting:
Also remember, narrative does not make normative. I could probably have guessed the content of this article from its title alone. Don’t know why these same accusations/exaggerations/imaginations had to be written again.
So, Todd, are you and Mark Dever thus saying that all non 5 pointers are not believing “what the Bible says?”
If I believe the Bible says X on a given issue, and you believe the Bible says Y on that issue, we cannot both be right. One of us is wrong. One of us does not believe what the Bible says. In the case of Calvinism, either the Calvinist or the non-Calvinist does not believe what the Bible says. It is not an error of simple denial but is a case of misunderstanding. But whatever the reason, someone is not believing what the Bible says on this given issue. Of course that does not mean the Calvinist or non-Calvinist gets… Read more »
So, Chris, I’ll put that down as a “yes, you non 5 pointers dont believe the Bible.”
Thanks.
David
It means that non-Calvinists believe that on some points Calvinists don’t believe what the Bible says, and vice versa.
The terms are certainly not the most helpful, but as they are the terms you used, I went with them. More precise would be to say that on some points, non-Calvinists get the Bible wrong. I’m sure you believe that on some points, Calvinists get the Bible wrong.
Hey William, You sure stirred up a hornet’s nest! Ever throw a rock at a hornet’s nest? I remember doing that as a kid. The hornets always knew where the rock came from. :0) Anyway, the last quote in your list near the beginning of your post was mine – the one about Calvinists almost being the only game in town. For the record, I did not say it in triumph. I said it with a touch of sadness. There needs to be more than one vibrant voice in Evangelical Christianity. I’m not critiquing or criticizing. I just wanted to… Read more »
Sorry. My mistake. It is therefore unfair for me to include it in the list but only Dave Miller can fix it.
No prob. :0)
As I have commented in the past (not on sbcvoices), the doctrines of grace directly address a pride issue for me. I’m on the bright side intellectually and to the extent that coming to Christ were to be an act of intellect, I would be able to take pride in my decision to accept Christ. That’s why Eph 2:8-9 are so important to me. So that I cannot boast. And that only really works as a passage if you accept the thoroughness of sin-induced depravity. The rest of the five points follow from there. Irresistible grace is more of an… Read more »
“But my dad is a staunch opponent of Calvinism and his very simple explanation why is that they seem focused on the intellectual scheme and promote that scheme instead of first and foremost lifting up Jesus Christ so that he can draw all unto himself.” This is what worries me. Drawing people to Calvin. Even indirectly by using terms such as Reformed, DOG, etc, which ultimately point to Calvin. Why even mention his name ever? I am so glad you do not do that when you teach and think it is very wise. If Calvinism is what Jesus taught, then… Read more »
Labels can be helpful (or hindrances) to identify belief. The term “Baptist” is not an idol but helps give people some idea of what I believe. The same with other terms such as dispensationalist, amillennialist, cessationist, continuationist, etc etc. So Calvinism, Reformed, whatever, are labels that help identify what a person believes.
I don’t know many calvinists that mention Calvin or the term calvinism.
So, I don’t share your fear of him being a idol. In fact, he is rather inconsequential in the scheme of things. His name only comes up in these type of debates, not in sermons or discussions within the church family.
Seriously, go listen to sermons by “calvinists”…see how often they use the term. Rarely, if ever. The only time I hear the term is on blogs and in sermons trying to root out the “evils of calvinism in the SBC”.
Ah the continuing joy of my iPhone “deproving” (rather than improving) my diction and spelling. Please read around the more obvious gaffes in that last comment. Teach me to type a long comment with a virtual keyboard!!
Brother William, I have contemplated over a period of 12 hours whether to enter this comment thread. After seeing my friend volfan getting grief I decided I should not enter, but could not let it rest as I saw the thread continue. First, I would not assess the Calvinist, old or new, as arrogant. Their position is one that they believe to be clearly held in Scripture. While I would disagree with their positions, I understand their staunch approach. While I do not hold myself up to being an authority on the matter of Scripture I do believe that some… Read more »
Thanks Tim. My earlier complimentary piece on Calvinists made the same points about Calvinists in your second paragraph.
Tim, Rather than lump the SBC Calvinists in with the Moderates by saying that they have picked up where the Moderates left off, why not conclude that, if two groups as wildly different in their theology as the SBC Calvinistis and the Moderates agree on some weaknesses among SBC non-Calvinists, then there may be some truth in their criticisms. Also, I don’t think that it is true that most SBC Calvinist pastors and churches accept non-baptists into their membership. That may be true of neo-Calvinists generally outside the SBC, but I do not think that it is a fair criticism… Read more »
I think this is an important point. I do believe that Calvinism attracts less emotional, and more intellectually oriented people. It is hard to write that without making it sound like we think non-Calvinists are a collection of emotionally flighty doofuses. Perhaps we should look at our relationship this way. We balance each other. One of my best friends is extremely emotional, and not at all prone to thinking things through (although he is not dumb). I think; he reacts. I often say together we make one good Christian. I am the head and he is the heart. And yes,… Read more »
Bill, your first point is absolutely correct. When I was a Presbyterian (3 different denom’s of them), most all the members I knew were familiar with the Westminster Confession. Since I’ve been a Baptist, I’ve met few members who’ve ever even seen a BF&M, let alone studied it.
What are we Baptists so proud of?
“What are we Baptists so proud of?”
I would hope that we focus on scripture and not man made documents.
Tim,
I think your second paragraph is one worthy of discussion, aside from the linking of mindset to the moderates.
Perhaps a better way to frame that discussion would be around the Charleston and Sandy Creek Associations and their different areas of emphasis as the SBC came together. That would serve better historically and theologically, IMO.
I think it is a valid observation and one worthy of fleshing out a bit.
*That should be “second point”…third paragraph.
As someone who would probably come down as a 3.5-4 pointer, I think there is much wisdom that Calvinists can learn from a post like this (as well as from the previous post by William as well). For starters, coming out guns-blazing at a post like this only serves to show that there’s a reason why there is a stereotype in the SBC of Calvinists being divisive or argumentative or arrogant. Second, while yes there are some people on a witchhunt for Calvinists (I think of the letter for smoking out a Calvinist circulating in regions of Tennesee…no offense, but… Read more »
Well said, Josh.
I think we all ought to pay to put this on a billboard outside every church:
“Third, inerrancy and infalliblity are reserved for Scripture, not for our interpretation of Scripture.”
My question is why, when a Calvinist is involved in a church split/problem, their Calvinism is to blame; BUT in nearly every other case of church split, it is not the (I say psudo because no true Baptist believing in some form of perserverance/OSAS can be a true arminian) but other issues that cause the split? At seminary I heard stories from godly professors about church splits and fights they have delt with, and you know. Not one of them had to do with whether or not the pastor was Calvinist, or Arminian, or Molinist, or whatever. Generally speaking, most… Read more »
A person can be an Arminian and believe in eternal security. Wesleyan Arminians believe salvation can be lost, but classical Arminians can believe in eternal security. Arminius himself held to perseverance.
Jim G.
Arminius wrote 5 points (Subsequently, the 5 points of Tulip came in response to the remonsterous). Point 5 was:
“that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.”
So I believe Jim, you are mistaken.
No, Dan,
Arminius did not write any points. He died in 1609, a full nine years before the Synod of Dort. His followers, called the Remonstrants, held to a position where salvation could be lost. Arminius himself never affirmed it was possible to lose salvation. He considered it, but never affirmed either way.
Jim G.
And even in the Remonstrants, point five is that the issue is undecided. They said it is possible that a person might be able to lose salvation, but it wasn’t clear from Scripture, so the Remonstrants said the matter needed further study. As for Arminius himself, I’m not sure that he ever fully resolved his ambivalence on the matter. Looking at a quote from his writings shortly before his death, he held to a kind of cooperative security, we are kept secure so long as we hold fast, but that it might be possible for those who turn back to… Read more »
You will note that I said the same about the relative numbers of church wreckers, but you ask a good question: “Why, when a Calvinist is involved in a church split/problem, their Calvinism is to blame?”
I answered it in my article, [Non-calvinist church wreckers] just don’t hurl themselves headlong into the task out of their doctrinal positions. That’s a bit of a broad generalization but the cases of calvinist church train wrecks I’m familiar with came directly out of the pastor agressively pushing calvinism. I gave examples above.
Other factors are certainly involved – immaturity, personality, and inexperience.
William, Honest question here….of course almost every church split is a bad thing…but on a scale of things, wouldn’t you rather a church split over doctrinal differences than immaturity, personality, and inexperience? Now, IMO, virtually no church split is really over doctrine. I also don’t buy that there are an alarming number of churches that have split over calvinism. Churches that split seem to split because of leadership issues. Either the pastor demands everyone follow him no matter what or deacons/committees/leaders/whatever don’t like to lose any power. It is usually a power play that grabs hold of any sort of… Read more »
I don’t see the value of a calvinist pastor splitting a church over his doctrine. I don’t buy the argument, and this is directly from my knowledge and experience with calvinist church wrecks, that a church that is not fully calvinist in doctrine needs to have heresy corrected.
So in answer to your question about rather seeing a church split over doctrine, no. Not if it is over the doctrine of calvinism vs orthodoxy but not calvinism.
I agree a church should not split over calvinism. I agree with that strongly. But may I make an observation, perhaps churches that split over calvinism do so because of the unwillingness of one side or the other to bend. It is not always the calvinist pastor’s fault…sometimes it is non-calvinist lay leadership causing the problem. Just an observation. When churches split it is not always the fault of the pastor. Perhaps he was trying to hold it together, but lay leadership got charged up by some outside force and formed a posse to eliminate the pastor. That happens too.… Read more »
I do want to comment on one of William’s points: the point of arrogance. Let me say first that I believe every Christian should proclaim what they believe with conviction. But conviction should never override love for a fellow believer. We have liberty in Christ, but we may not use that liberty as an occasion for others to stumble. Chris has said above that the nature of belief that he (or anyone else) is right necessarily entails that the opponent is wrong. Of course, he is correct here. Where I think arrogance comes in (and this is not directed at… Read more »
Jim, you stated that both Calvinism and Arminianism construct a “a biblically-based theology”. Arminianism is based on Pelagianism, both Arminianism and Pelagianism have been declared Heresy buy two separate councils on two separate occasions. I am ok with “non-Calvinists”, because most of the time, they affirm depravity and eternal security, but I can not agree that Arminianism is a “biblically based theology”.
Whoa, Dan, You do not understand Arminianism. It affirms total depravity and can (but does not always) affirm security. Arminius was a student of Calvin’s prime pupil Theodore Beza. Saying Arminianism is based on Pelagianism is a gross historical inaccuracy. I don’t know where you heard that, but whoever told you did not tell you the truth. Arminianism was “condemned” by the Synod of Dort, which was a synod of Dutch church leaders who had a lot invested in keeping a united church to keep Holland from being annexed by the King of Spain. It was as political as it… Read more »
I have read the works of Arminius, and I’ll give you that you can make a weak argument from depravety, that is someone trumped by prevenient grace, but the logical outcome of Arminan theology minimalized total depravity. As for eternal security, Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost;… Read more »
Jim,
Would you agree that the average person in our SBC churches is, by default, a semi-pelagian more than an arminian?
I would love to get your thoughts on this.
Hi Jason,
I cannot in good conscience speak one way or the other with any sense of surety. I think it is quite possible that in many churches people tend to hold what I call the “American folk religion,” which uses Christian verbiage but is very semi- or fully Pelagian. I think the problem goes much deeper than the SBC. It is present in at least every church touched by the revivalism of the 19th century. And we know that movement was spearheaded by the prince of semi-Pelagians, C. G. Finney. You may very well be right.
Jim G.
Dan,
I don’t think that Arminianism came out of Pelagianism. It is my understanding that Jacob Arminius was raised in Calvinism and began disagreeing with the Reformed positions.
Here is an interesting article Jacob Arminius: Irenic anti-Calvinist which states that charges of Pelagianism were unsubstantiated.
I have actually seen non-Calvinists disagree with quotes by Arminius because they thought it was too Calvinistic.
“I have actually seen non-Calvinists disagree with quotes by Arminius because they thought it was too Calvinistic.”
This is something that surprised me about Arminius when I read some of his works. He (and the Remonstrants) is much closer to Calvinism than to Pelagianism. There are some related implications, yes, so some comparisons are valid, but to absolutely relate the two is not valid.
Jim, But I’m still trying to determine how anything you say deals with arrogance. Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean I’m not listening. I know where the non-Calvinist argument comes from. I understand it. I am very familiar with the biblical argument for the non-Calvinist position. But I still disagree with it. There are many true things that non-Calvinists say and on those points I will voice agreement and appreciation. Even on the issue of soteriology, non-Calvinists say many true things and for that I am grateful. But on the issue of divine sovereignty over election and man’s… Read more »
I agree, Chris. The arrogance only happens when we fail to see our own blind spots and/or think our position does not have weaknesses. I am all for holding one’s position with conviction. And I am all for backing it up and arguing it with clarity and passion. But if we cannot do it in love and embrace one another as brothers at the end, we have a worse problem than who is right or wrong.
Agreed.
The most disappointing thing to me is that there are some in the SBC that want to kick out (smoke out) all of the calvinists. It’s time for us to admit that there is room for both in the SBC.
Problem: I cannot understand ‘sin nature’ and ‘total depravity’ because of the teachings of my Church about the Incarnation. How does Calvinism and Arminianism reconcile the doctrine of the Incarnation with the doctrine of ‘the total depravity of human nature’ ? Or is the Doctrine of the Incarnation not understood in the same way that Catholics and the Orthodox understand it ? This is just one area where I can’t get a handle on understanding, and I thought I would ask for more specific insight from those who know more about this from the Calvinist and Arminian points of view.… Read more »
Classical Arminianism agrees with Calvinism about human nature and total depravity – that is, we are all born guilty of sin with a corrupt nature that inclines us wholly to sin. The difference from there is that classical Arminians believe in prevenient grace whereby God elevates all people out of their state of total corruption, enabling all people to make a free-will choice to either accept or reject the grace of Christ. The Calvinist position (my position) is that while Scripture says much about the depravity of man, it says nothing about a universal awakening, elevating, or prevenient grace that… Read more »
John 12:32 “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”
Hi Christiane, Chris is correct in his explanation of Calvinist and Arminian idea of original sin. But evangelical Protestants (EP) do see the incarnation a little differently than the EO, but very similar to the RCC (using abbreviations to save space). The RCC holds to baptismal regeneration, which affirms that original sin (sin inherited all the way back from Adam) is negated at baptism. EO, in my opinion, holds to a much higher view of the incarnation than the RCC or EP. They believe, following Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, that the incarnation wrought a fundamental change in humanity,… Read more »
Thank you, Jim G.
Yes, it makes sense to me because I am looking at Calvinism through the Incarnation teachings of both eastern and western orthodoxy (EO and Catholic);
so no wonder I have difficulty comprehending it.
The EO definitely place the Incarnation up there along side of the Redemption and the Resurrection in importance to our salvation.
And this also explains why the Incarnation is not as much of a part of the teachings of evangelical Baptists.
I owe you, Jim. You have helped again. Thanks. 🙂
Hi Christiane,
The incarnation is a much-neglected doctrine in evangelical Protestantism, I’m sorry to say. I’m working on a project now that frames the doctrine of atonement on the incarnation as well as the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus did much more than “live to die, rejected and alone” as the popular contemporary hymn goes. In my opinion, we could learn a lot from the EO and even more from the Fathers they follow.
Jim G.
Interesting perspectives, but as a non-SBC guy, I wonder how much of what you have experienced is “Calvinism in the SBC” and not “Calvinism in general”? Personally, I have never seen the “Calvinist pastor takes over a church, and installs elders to create a good ‘ol boys club” (and I have seen a lot of Calvinist pastors). I have seen Calvinist pastors gather groups of people together to talk through the aspects of church governance. I have seen Calvinist pastors approach expositional sermons on Romans 8 and 9 with great care and humility. In fact, I have seen the exact… Read more »
I am addressing Calvinists in the SBC.
Jeff,
I think a lot of this “SBC Calvinist” issue is a bogeyman. I’m sure people have had run-ins with random guys. But it has been my experience that the “SBC Calvinist” is by-in-large a normal pastor, with a normal agenda, and a desire to be thoughtful and careful and faithful as a Pastor.
I simply have not met the bogeyman that people always say runs rampant among the SBC.
This post and the comment stream is really obnoxious.
Your first two points can be said easily about non-calvinists as well. Your third point isnt even a real point. Churches ask that you hold to the BFM, which Calvinists do. No one fully discloses every single theological point.
This issue of search committees and being forthcoming in interviews is an interesting one. I believe in being forthcoming. I believe one must answer every question honestly and openly. To do otherwise would be unfitting of a pastor. But there are a few issues here worthy of note: 1. Church committees don’t know the right questions to ask 2. If no one asks about the issue, can you assume it is a non-issue in the church? 3. Ironically, if a calvinist were to bring it up, I’m sure many would accuse him of trying to insert it into any discussion… Read more »
Thanks for your reply. I have several people who find it amazing that I am passionate about Evangelism, even wrote a book on Evangelism. I affirm man’s responsibility, and I affirm the necessity to preach the gospel. I also affirm the doctrines of Grace (I am not a fan of the 5 points, so I don’t claim to be a “5 point Calvinist”). What I get accused of is “not believing in Evangelism” which clearly isn’t true. I really liked your point that the word Calvinist doesn’t always communicate what a person’s theology is, there are so many conceptions, preconceptions… Read more »
OK, why do you find it obnoxious that my experience with calvinists makes me wary of them?
Your first point about the same things being said about non-Cs, well, I said the same thing.
Your second point presumes knowledge you don’t have. Do you really think that churches ask that you hold to the BFM and that’s it?
A generation ago, few churches bothered with any discussion of the calvinistic beliefs of prospective pastors. Today, many feel this is essential, BFM aside.
Also, to not oppose acts of circulating things to “smoke out Calvinist pastors” is pathetic on your part. If they have to be “smoked out” it means they arent up there trying to take over their churches to convert them to Calvinism. Pastors were fired, when before that their members didnt even realize they were calvinists!
To condone acts such as this is sad and pathetic.
Amen Matt… To condone acts such as this is sad and pathetic… Perhaps even Monstrous?
Lame….a replacement for “pathetic” in case you were looking to diversify your adjectives 🙂
Many of the responses here have done little to offer an alternative to the picture painted by William. Interesting.
The more charitable response would have been: You have your 30+ years of observations and experiences and I have my own 30+ years of different observations and experiences.
No words can really discredit someone’s own personal experiences. I’ve had back-and-forths with William for 5+ years now. He’s blunt and honest and not some partisan personality with an agenda.
I find it interesting that you are compelling us to be charitable to someone who called a group of people arrogant and the destroyer of churches. Smells a little like a double standard.
Just sayin.
Christian charity should be an act of grace, Dan, even offered to miscreants like me. Calvinists are pretty big on grace, I hear. 😉
Did you actually read what I wrote? I didn’t call a group of people arrogant and the destroyer of churches. See if you can grasp what I wrote, not what you want to vent about.
See if I can grasp what you wrote? I am not looking to vent about anything, and yes I actually read it. I have 0 desire to get into a what I said vs what I meant argument, but your statement of “I didn’t call a group of people arrogant and the destroyer of churches” makes me wonder if you grasp what you wrote.
“He’s blunt and honest and not some partisan personality with an agenda.”
True dat!
Right. Not quite buying it.
OK again, Matt, I’m pathetic because I did not oppose the ‘smoke out guide’? How do you know? Can you show me where I condoned that? What I said about the smoke out guides (on Mar 7, 2010) was this: “I find Tom Ascol to be one of the more reasoned and moderate voices for calvinists on this type stuff. He and others wisely call for some self-examination, recognizing that there is a basis for churches being wary of calvinists.” Do you find Tom Ascol to be pathetic, or obnoxious because he calls form some self-examination by his calvinist colleagues?… Read more »
But you did say: “I can see where this stuff comes from.” and: “Why is it that some circulate ‘calvinist smoke-out guides’ or why have some churches cut funding to calvinist SBC institutions? Are those who so act evil, misguided, or alarmist? Perhaps there is something concrete and important behind these acts.” At the least, you spoke with understanding, if not defense, of the practice of smoking out Calvinists in the SBC. As I noted in my original comment way up above, which group is divisive in this? Which group is actively warning churches of the SBC against a particular… Read more »
I think the Calvinist verse Arminiam is the great prejudice in the SBC.
Ergo, I’m a Wovenist.
I will be the first to admit there are some obnoxious Calvinists out there, but I am not sure a post such as this is helpful, in fact it seems to be causing more division. I have been told “you Calvinists are all alike”, and it hurts when a fellow believer marginalizes you because he assumes he knows your theology becomes of someone else. Why can’t we all just get along?
“Is it a lonely search for the Calvinists who has a modicum of humility mixed with the acknowledgement that there are yet some mysteries to our faith?
Maybe all of those kind of Calvinists just stay off of the blogs and discussion forums.”
Sorta stings.
After all, you are not attacking my theology, you are attacking me.
Please show me a single syllable I have written that attacked your theology, Dan.
That is what I’m saying William. I would prefer you to attack my theology, instead you are just attacking me. We can discuss theology, it’s debatable, but instead you just took shots at people. Theology is debatable, he worth of people is not.
Dan, if you are not arrogant, open and transparent with search committees, and don’t agressively push calvinism in a church to the point of wrecking it, I haven’t attacked you at all.
If you are arrogant, stealthy with committees, and a church wrecker, I suppose I have taken shots at you.
From reading the blog, it seems that you simply stated that if I hold to Calvinistic teachings, then I am arrogant, stealthy and a church wrecker. The whole point is you are wary of Calvinists, but you praise God if we happen to preach Christ. Not a whole lot of love for an entire group of people.
William,
Dan is addressing the fact that you said that calvinists who post on message boards lack a modicum of humility. That was a personal shot.
I believe that is what Dan is saying.
{Stepping back out of the line of fire.}
Thanks Jason.
I’ll stick with that statement. I think recent experience confirms it for the most part.
Just one observation from a Calvinist Monster in his cage… This whole discussion is a page from our SBC History… This discussion might have had relevance five years ago… But today the last thing Calvinist Pastors in the SBC want to do is come to your “Traditional Baptist Church” and mount a sneak attack. In case you have not noticed, all of this attacking and rejecting of Calvinist Pastors in the SBC has had the unintended effect of creating a generation of Passionate Evangelical Calvinist that are committed to missions and church planting. So I want to say a personal… Read more »
William,
I’ll concede that this serves as an example.
I remember a story Paul Washer told in one of his sermons a while back about this very thing. He was out to dinner with a group of ministry guys (All Calvinists) and when the waiter came to get their order, he saw Paul’s bible. The waiter, with his gelled punk like hair, earrings, etc, got real excited and told Paul how he “found” Jesus and how he had searched and searched and finally “found” Jesus. He was one excited young guy. Paul noticed the stoic faces around the table because obviously the waiter was using all Free will type… Read more »
so how do I get one of these free lunches I see being handed out?
Make some of my points for me…or just show up in GA and give me a call.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXA5UOkLTyo
Paul Washer: “Calvinism is not the issue”
Look at this video again Lydia, because I agree with Paul Washer on this, but not in the way you are.
The churches I personally know of…where a 5 pt. CALVINIST went in as Pastor….unknown to the church…caused strife and division in those churches directly related to his CALVINISTS beliefs. I know of Churches where they balked at doing away with the Deacon body, in order to have an Elder board…..I know of a church where the Student Pastor was actively trying to convert the youth to 5 pt. CALVINISM…very blatantly ….and when the youth complained to their parents, then it caused a lot of uproar and problems in that church. I know of 3 other churches…fairly large ones, too…where the… Read more »
Sounds more like churches that had trouble with Calvinism than Calvinist pastors causing problems. Back to my claim, the problem in the SBC is not Calvinism, per se, but that many in the SBC want nothing to do with Calvinism.
Chris,
The problem was with both….the 5 pt. Calvinist Pastor teaching Calvinism. I’m not quite sure what the purpose is in trying to divide the 2…if that’s what caused the problem…his teaching 5 pt Calvinism,and trying to lead the church to become a Calvinist church.
David
The funny thing is that if a non-calvinist pastor went in there and tried to get them to change something structurally, and they revolted (as many do) – the assumption would not be that hsi theology had anything to do with it…or that he was even to blame at all. The people in the church would be considered “hard-hearted” and “stubborn” and “unwilling to follow the man God led there”….but on this issue, it all changes.
Jason,
In most of these churches, they had changed many things. It was not about changing something. It was clearly about Calvinism, and the Pastor not letting them know who he was right from the beginning.
I’m beginning to think that yall dont want to see this….that it’s something you’re just gonna deny no matter what evidence is brought forth. Are you? Are you that closed minded to seeing the truth, here?
The question is, did they split/have problems over the teaching of calvinism or because of other reasons, and the guy in charge was a calvinist? How do you know you got the whole story? I have seen churches split and you poll 5 people in the church and you’ll get 5 different reasons as for the split. Certainly your bias against calvinism leads you to read that into equation, present or not…consciously or not. I would love to hear the specific church names, because I am thinking about doing a little research on this issue and would love to talk… Read more »
Jason,
The strife and division was over the Pastor teaching Calvinism, and trying to convert them to a Calvinist Church. I have a friend right now, who’s going thru bad problems at his Church; because he’s trying to make them become an Acts 29 type church…
But, the problem with every church that I talked about above, was clearly the teaching of Calvinism, and trying to make the churches fit that mold…
It wasnt personal problems with the Pastor….it wasnt other things, and the guy just happened to be a 5 pt. Calvinist. It was clearly over the Calvinism.
From your perspective…”it was clearly over calvinism”. I’d imagine there are multiple perspectives in a church split…there usually are.
Hard to say without specific names and churches to verify.
I’m particularly curious about the church that wanted to get rid of deacons to replace them with elders. Most who promote elders also promote deacons – that the deacons are there to serve the church while elders are to lead the church. I’m not all that familiar with churches who believe we should have elders instead of deacons.
Chris,
I personally know of some.
David
Never heard of that either, Chris.
People aren’t being forthcoming in their committee interviews?
No…
Jason, I can give you the names of the churches. I really dont feel comfortable doing this. I know people in some of these churches fairly well, and I do not want to end up in the middle of something. I have a good relationship with them. I want to keep it that way. One of the churches was a church that I used to belong to…another one, my brother and his family belonged to it…another one, a good friend of mine belonged to it….and, all the other ones I knew people, who went there, etc. I know the man,… Read more »
Perhaps I’m just silly but why if Calvinists are the minority (and we are) and if Calvinism is bad (which apparently it is) does this brother have to be undercover in spreading this “smoking out Calvinists” article?
He just wants to warn churches, who are not 5 pt. CALVINIST, to know how to spot one…one who may not be telling them what he is during the interview process of looking for a new pastor.
Why he’s undercover…I dont know. But, that’s up to him whether to tell who he is, or not.
William,
Good, thought provoking article.
Just for the record, I know of a thriving church in my general area that was torn apart by a Calvinist pastor. That church no longer exists. Not saying all Calvinists are that way, but some are.
David R. Brumbelow
More anecdotes.
I know several churches torn apart in my area by non-calvinists.
My church has had several splits…all caused by non-calvinists.
Now what?
I don’t think that the spirit of ‘divisiveness’ is something that can be laid at the feet of Calvinists OR non-Calvinists in isolation.
I think that the spirit of ‘divisiveness’ is due to pride, that ‘mother of all sins’;
and one of the most bitter of the fruits of pride is ‘arrogance’.
If Calvinists and non-Calvinists wish to remain Christian brothers and sisters, they must maintain open respect for the sincerity of one anothers points of view;
and they must avoid being ‘prideful’ in the way that leads to the contention that divides the community and weakens it.
I believe Tom Ascol had some thoughtful and helpful articles to young calvinists who were going into the pastorate. Perhaps someone can look them up. I feel sure Ascol will get a better hearing on this than me.
Just for the record… I have some anecdotes of my own I would like to put out here. I know of several churches in my area that were torn apart (I mean literally destroyed by Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist types)… these churches went out on a limb and built big building to match the big egos of their Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist pastor only to have him cause division and bust the church before moving on. But these stores have a happy ending… after the Not-a-5-Point-Calvinist left the church busted guess who came in and put them back together? That’s right, A-5-Point-Calvinist. I have saw this… Read more »
Does anyone else have a story about a 5-Point-Calvinist healing a church instead of destroying a church?
And, once again, you dodge the fact that there are some 5 pointers, who go into churches…undercover….and it ends bad…all due to their 5 pt. Calvinism…
I also know of many churches that have been torn up by non 5 pt. calvinists…for a host of reasons. But, that doesnt change the fact that some 5 pt. CALVINISTs go into churches to convert them, and end up causing major strife and division.
That’s not what I ask David now is it… come clean… do 5-Point-Calvinist ever help bring healing to broken churches?
How about you David-007??? You appear to have your ear to the ground concerning what 5-Point-Calvinist are doing to our churches in the SBC… ever hear of a Calvinist actually do a good job of restoring a broken church?
Greg,
Nope. Honestly. No, I havent.
David
That’s odd… as often as it has happened here in NW Florida I would think you must have heard of at least one? O well, I guess sometimes we only see (or hear) what we want to see.
Greg,
Why would I know anything that’s happened in NW Florida? I live in W. TN. Dude, I would imagine that there are some churches in many states where what you said is true. OK. And? What’s that got to do with what I’ve been saying about the churches I know of…with a totally different story?
David
David, I was not asking if you knew of any churches in NW Florida that have benefited from a Calvinist Pastor… I was asking if you might know of any churches in the great state of Tennessee that have benefited from a Calvinist Pastor. What’s this got to do with what you’v been saying… Well, seeing as I am sure you would never want to be accused of not telling the whole story about the influence and effect Calvinist Pastors are having in the SBC… I think it has everything to do with what you have been saying. Fair &… Read more »
What a shock…David only sees the bad in calvinists.
That is the kind of bias that we are talking about.
That is arrogance.
That is an unloving spirit.
I am convinced that non-calvinists care more about calvinism than calvinists.
THEY are the ones making it a big deal, not calvinists.
Jason,
I was simply responding to a question from Greg. I’m sorry, but I didnt know…off the top of my head…of any churches that were having big troubles and dying, where a 5 pt. Calvinist pastor came in and helped them grow and become healthy.
Jason, Man, why would you go off on me for simply stating what I know, and dont know?
I think, again, we see what the OP was all about.
David
Greg, one Calvinist comes to mind who was called by the congregation after he was upfront with them about his positions. I believe the congregation had around 80 and wasn’t very healthy. Today, they have a few campuses and around 4000 members if I recall correctly. His name is Matt Chandler.
Mark Dever is another who comes to mind. Capitol Hill had dwindled to around 100 people when Dever was called. The Lord used him to revive the church.
Amazing… how when you start looking at the positive influence 5-Point-Calvinist are having in the SBC the good far out weighs the bad.
J.D. Greear would be another one. And Acts 29 does a lot of replants and revitalization of struggling churches though I don’t know any numbers.
I’m not sure if John Piper would count or not, but when he took about half the members were 65 or older with not much growth (I think).
A friend of mine is in the hot seat right now…in big trouble… for trying to “revitalize” a church in the Acts 29 way. The church erupted….is full of strife and division right now. I really dont see how my frriend is gonna make it.
And, yes, Greg Alford and Debbie, did you notice I said a friend of mine?
DAvid
David W.,
Does your friends situation negate all of the healthy Acts 29 church revitalizations that have taken place? Is your friends situation the exception or the rule?
No matter what anyone says you always seem to have an example which for some reason is allowed to override all others.
And David, they are “examples” that I am just not buying. It seems for every good story you have five bad ones that have no corroboration. That is my point, you have no written proof that any of this happened. I rely on proof not just stories. It can be proven that these men grew churches. It can be seen. It’s just bad form to not offer any proof to these serious accusations.
That would mean Saddleback and Lakewood are really more doctrinally correct than either of those two. Since you are measuring the spiritual by numbers.
To be fair, Lydia, he is using the criteria previously set up to determine that Calvinist churches are destructive.
Context, context, context.
‘To be fair, Lydia, he is using the criteria previously set up to determine that Calvinist churches are destructive.”
No, The context was that the Calvinist was subversive with Calvinism to get the job .
Why not put Calvinist on the CV? I don’t get it…
The Calvinist church would want to be Calvinist. That is not the destructive part. The destructive part is when someone does not make it clear up front they want to turn the church into a Calvinist one.
BTW: Does anyone happen to know if Kevin Ezell is a Calvinist?
Wrong….he was responding to Greg. Go back and read Greg’s post about calvinist’s restoring churches…which in turn was part of a larger discussion which started with comments about calvinists going in and destroying churches, where cutting attendance was one of the factors cited.
Everyone should be up front with their beliefs. That isn’t a question. I just think that is a convenient accusation to make (lying in the interview), when it may not be accurate. Maybe a pastor made clear what he believed, but the search committee didn’t understand it. This is not an issue with which many lay people are familiar. The whole “calvinists lie in interviews” thing is a weak accusation. Unverifiable, for one thing…which makes it a great cheap shot accusation. But it also ignores several weak aspects of the search process which could lead to confusion on the part… Read more »
I wonder why you fellows don’t realize that every one of the doctrines of the tulip acrostic is an invitation, the most intense, moving, motivating, attractive, wonderful marvelous, drawing, compelling in the freest sense of the word? Have you all ever read the applications and exhortations to faith that the Puritans made much of in the conclusions of their messages? And why not the courtesty that I Cors.13 inculcates?
“Wrong….he was responding to Greg. Go back and read Greg’s post about calvinist’s restoring churches…which in turn was part of a larger discussion which started with comments about calvinists going in and destroying churches, where cutting attendance was one of the factors cited.” Jason, I do so love logic. “Cutting attendance” as you term it, happens when a church splits for any reason. And this was in the context of the overarching discussion which Volfan brought up concerning subversive Calvinists. These would be churches that would have liked to be told up front the person was a Calvinist. This is… Read more »
Lydia: Why do you go to church?
Debbie, I would first need to understand what you mean by “church”. But then, that would be derailing the blog thread which I would rather not do.
Thank you for your interest, though.
Lydia said –
Wright or wrong that wasn’t in the scope of Greg’s question as I read it. He was asking about Calvinists themselves restoring broken churches not about whether it was the Calvinism.
“Wright or wrong that wasn’t in the scope of Greg’s question as I read it. He was asking about Calvinists themselves restoring broken churches not about whether it was the Calvinism.” Mark, ??? Greg brought up Calvinists restoring broken churches to counter Volfan’s point that he knows secret Calvinist who have split churches. Those are two different topics. One does not negate the other. Calvinism is the blog post topic. And I am not sure how we can seperate the Calvinism from the Calvinist. However, I will conceed that it was probably not Calvinism that was the big draw to… Read more »
I love my Armenian leaning brothers including Mr. Thornton, but interestingly enough, our brother argued against Calvinists ancedotally, via the obligatory ‘straw man’ rather than biblically. There are primarily two things I like about ‘most’ Calvinists (1) they are willing to upohold the tension readily apparent in scripture that teachs BOTH divine sovereignty in salvation AND human responsibility (2) they are willing to prefer and uphold God’s glory above man’s in the doctrines of grace. I’ve always resolved this tension in my mind simply, by following an adage I came up with some years ago that says, “When in doubt-… Read more »
Bernie, I’m of Northern European extraction, not Armenian, although I have some sympathies with their plight, particularly the Turkish Armenians.
I haven’t argued anything about Calvinist doctrine.
And why aren’t you William? That has me very curious. Why personal attacks? Calvinism is in a nutshell teaching God’s Sovereignty in everything and that God does salvation from beginning to end. It is a “I’m lost and I can’t save myself and if God condemned me right now he would be just in doing so.” It is seeing a Holy God and how next to that Holiness just how wicked we are. Calvinism teaches that when we hear the word of God we are struck into silence at the Holiness and Majesty and wonderfulness of God. We are struck… Read more »
Debbie,
?
I guess we get another example of the OP.
David
Debbie, with all respect and kindness, you said “I don’t believe there is any viable argument against any Calviist (sic) tenets.”
In that sentence you have ruled out any possibility that you could be wrong, mistaken, or uninformed. You have eliminated the possibility that you have misunderstood or have failed to properly interpret Scripture. You indicate that there is nothing that you do not now know, that you have not read, that you have yet to be exposed to, that may be brought to the discussion.
What possible reason would there be to have such a discussion with you?
William: I still believe that. If you aren’t out of change me we can still discuss. I am pretty open on what I believe. I think the problem is what the documents show that were used to “smoke out Calvinist preachers”. They are full of error on what Calvinism is. On what Calvinists believe. Once we lay out what we believe, there may be objection, but at least it is based on truth. I was not always a Calvinist, but I have always been Baptist, so I do know both views as most of us do. Most of us were… Read more »
Debbie, this reply is to your 1:24 comment to me. I appreciate your comment but if you’re forever settled in your convictions I don’t see the point. I’ve had enough discussions with calvinists, some reasonable, some not, for this lifetime. And, since we won’t be discussing calvinism in heaven 😉 that should be enough. On the opposition to calvinists being misguided, ignorant of what calvinism really is, that may be true to an extent; however, the universe of self-proclaimed calvinists (or doctrines of gracers) includes those who have preached, taught, and practiced all the caricatures. You cannot eliminate them from… Read more »
William: You are going to think me stiff necked and I am on this subject. I can’t accept as truth that which I believe to be untrue. I say this with all sincerity. On such matters I am not just issuing words when I say I believe iron clad proof. I see none. You ought to know by now that Southern Baptists are not always truth tellers. That has been the problem in our denomination as a matter of fact. I cannot accept something based on anecdotes. I know what that sounds like, but I am being honest here. I… Read more »
BTW I guess that would make me wary of anti-Calvinists wouldn’t it. 🙂
OK, Debbie, you’ve convinced me. You are stiff necked. 😉 Look, I understand your desire for proof. I don’t feel free to give names, church names, dates on this. While I would prefer that you simply say, ‘I’m reserving judgment until I get more concrete details,’ or somethign like that rather than offering that ‘Southern Baptists aren’t always truth tellers’ which might imply I’m among them, fine. I surmise that you simply haven’t been around any such situations. They exist and are pretty much as David and I have described. I don’t know that I’ve ever been put in the… Read more »
This: http://bit.ly/qs7moQ .
Debbie and others, I have given you example after example of churches that I know personally, where a 5 pt. CALVINIST Pastor came in, and tore the church up over CALVINISM. I know this was the cause. I know the Churches. I know the people. I know it was the cause. Now, Debbie, you’ve either alluded to me being a liar, or else you’ve just flat out said it more than once….I am not a liar….I may be many things….but, a liar, I am not. I’m telling you the truth. You are making false accusations about me…over and over again.… Read more »
Now, David, you can’t be telling the truth. If The Debbie can’t verify what you say with research (which to her is looking at the first page of a Google search, snicker 🙂 ) then it just CAN’T be true. The Debbie has said it isn’t true. The Debbie has spoken.
(/sarcasm)
I read it the first time and responded. We both were deleted, but you just don’t give up huh Joe? I try hard not to respond, but since you are stalking me it’s kind of hard not to. BTW my response was really good. 🙂
I’ll leave both of these up if you guys promise to end this now.
Dear Volfann007theperpetualvictim, Your examples aren’t necessarily universal. They may, in fact, be the exception not the rule. This does not mean the church split stories you offer are wrong nor that you are lying. I’m not disputing that Calvinists have not split churches. I am just not convinced that it is a wide spread problem. Piggy-backing on what Lydia mentioned above that it probably wasn’t the Calvinism of the pastor that lead to church revitalization, I’d like to point something out. It is most likely true that a Calvinist pastor who has successfully brought a church back to spiritual health… Read more »
One of the things that has surprised me here is how quickly, easily, and blithely these tales of calvinists splitting churches are dismissed.
Again, as a Calvinist, I am aware of such stories. To be fair, it would need to be said that the split came not only as a result of Calvinists but also because of the response of some people to Calvinists and Calvinism.
William,
I am really not attempting to dismiss the allegations that Calvinists have split churches. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I did say that I’m not disputing that Calvinists have not split churches. I am just not convinced that it is a wide spread problem.
I’ve not seen many people blaming non-Calvinistic theology for church splits though there are plenty that happen.
Mark,
I’d appreciate it if you’ve stop with the perpetual victim junk. It’s old. Its untrue. And, frankly, I’m tired of hearing it. It appears to just be a veiled, personal attack on me.
David
David,
How about this then – stop making yourself out to be a victim. I’m tired of that and I’m not the only person to notice it. And it is not veiled and not meant to be. It is also not a personal attack, but an observation. Even in your comment there is a plea toward victim-hood when you said, “It appears to just be a veiled, personal attack on me.”
Have a good evening.
Good morning David,
I’m sorry for the way I’ve responded to you. I offer no excuses or rationale for it. I was wrong.
In Christ,
Mark
John 15:12
David, examples with no corroboration. I believe you will say anything no matter if it is true or not to destroy. You have done it too many times before. Your not alone, others do it too. There is nothing for you to forgive.
Debbie,
You and I are thru. I will not be interacting with you, anymore. I have not lied, nor have I done anything to destroy someone. You are a liar.
David
David, To be fair, saying “I know a church” isn’t giving an example. Saying that several times isn’t giving “example after example”. Now, if you don’t feel at liberty to share the church names, I completely understand. But stating instances without giving us church names is not giving “examples”. I think you know that. For the sake of the discussion…I don’t think anecdotes prove too much. William says that calvinists have dismissed these accounts. I disagree. I think calvinists have heard these charges and they are always vague and they always deny that churches split for many factors, rarely just… Read more »
Jason, I know that Churches split for all kinds of reasons. Non Calvinist and Calvinist Pastors do things that sometimes leads to strife and division. I never said they didnt. BUT, I do know of these 6 or 7 Churches personally…3 of them are large churches…where the Pastor coming in tried to convert the Church to 5 pt. CALVINISM. That caused the strife. That is what caused the division. I know them personally. I have talked to people in the churches. I have talked to people, who know the churches very well. I have talked to the Pastors, who had… Read more »
I can see why churches do this and I have tried to explain why. Still, I hate to see a church so disenchanted with calvinism and calvinists that they automatically eliminate any calvinist from consideration. The best evidence of future conduct would be the pastor’s past record in churches.
Maybe this will all go away if we just don’t think about it right now.
“The best evidence of future conduct would be the pastor’s past record in churches.”
Exactly.
I have found that it is people that split churches (pastors or deacons or laypeople), not so much theology. Of course theology can often be a factor, even a major factor. But it usually comes back to people.
That is what I have been trying to tell David…there are more factors involved in church splits (usually) than just one thing. (I say that while not denying that some calvinists have caused church splits. That should be obvious.)