SBC Calvinism New Statement

[William Thornton]

Timothy, I'm getting the feeling that you just don't know much about Calvinism and the SBC and are relying on outdated stereotypes.

No, I don't think so William. I was in the ABC a long time which is mostly Arminian but I studied theology under Reformed professors in college. I've read a lot of Reformed theology. I've known a lot of 5 point Calvinist over the years but most of them were independent Baptists. I didn't know any 5 pointers in the SBC when I was there. (Well maybe one.)

I don't think it isn't that I don't know much about Calvinism. I can recite TULIP and tell you quite about about Calvin's views of salvation, sovereignty, etc. And I"ve had plenty of conversations with my IB friends.

The deal is that I don't believe Calvinism fundamentally makes sense, or that it is Biblical, or that you can actually be a consistant Calvinist and be evangelistic. That being said, much of SBC Calvinism in my years there was inconsistant because it wasn't 5 point Calvinism. My experience was that the SBC folks tended to take what they liked of Calvin (eternal security being the big favorite) and ignore the parts of the theory that didn't jive with their deisre to reach people for Christ. And that never surprised me.

What surprised me is self proclaimed five pointers who also some how manage to dance on Calvins Institutes and still claim the need to be evangelistic. It doesn't make much sense theologically or even logically for that matter. So I can't see the point in believing it. Why not just read the Bible and say "whosoever belives in me shall not perish." John 3:16b ???

I'm not saying you aren't familiar with Calvinism just the New Calvinists in the SBC. They are no less evangelistic than non-Cs, which isn't saying a whole lot, and many are far more evangelistic than the average. Calvinists, inexplicably to you I suppose, are quite involved in church planting in the SBC.

You've been out of the SBC for quite some years (although listening to me probably makes you more informed than the average SBC pastor ) and don't sound as if you are up-to-date on this matter.

I'm not sure where this reactionary movement against Calvinism will go but it will probably be an expression of good old fashioned fundyism...always looking for a good excuse to fracture.

[Timothy Bonney]

You've been out of the SBC for quite some years (although listening to me probably makes you more informed than the average SBC pastor ) and don't sound as if you are up-to-date on this matter.

I'm not sure where this reactionary movement against Calvinism will go but it will probably be an expression of good old fashioned fundyism...always looking for a good excuse to fracture.

Fair enough William. And I read Blake's explanation that they are evangelizing because that it commanded of them. But that only makes sense if you don't fully believe in predestination. Most of the far right Calvinists I know believe our every action is pre-ordained. If that is the case there is no such thing as obedience to a command. We are just following our programming. In which case I was obviously predestine to be Arminian rather than Calvinist.

If I wasn't busy with Annual Conference, moving, and a bunch of other reading I'm required to do I'd think about trying to look up some articles by new Calvinists to try to figure out where they are coming from. But suffice it to say that I know enoough about Calvin's teachings to still think in their heart of hearts an evangelistically minded Calvinist really doesn't believe as much Calvin as he thinks he does or he'd just go play golf on Sunday and wait for God to save the elect. And yes, I know all of the usual Calvinist arguments that if you ARE one of the elect you'll be in church and if you aren't you might not be.

The funny thing is I've seldom known a IB Calvinist who didn't try to argue me into his views while at the same time telling me that I'm predetermined to have what ever views have or will have. It just gives me a headache.

[Gene Scarborough]

Fosdick described this kind of theology as "academic excursion without moral pursuasion."

It is an intellectual exercise in "perfectionism," in my view. The same as the "inerrant Bible" which has no connection with its historical context / no admission to any inconsistencies / no room for the Holy Spirit / no concept of "progressive revelation."

To posit perfection "in the original autographs" is a ploy since we have none of them and likely never will!

[KeithE]

Fair enough William. And I read Blake's explanation that they are evangelizing because that it commanded of them. But that only makes sense if you don't fully believe in predestination. Most of the far right Calvinists I know believe our every action is pre-ordained. If that is the case there is no such thing as obedience to a command. We are just following our programming. In which case I was obviously predestine to be Arminian rather than Calvinist.

Exactly right Tim!

Not that Calvinists are bad people (despite their own view of Total Depravity) or confused people; just stuck in a thought paradigm that they use when stating doctrine. When they are living (not theologizing) they react as non-programmed people and expect those they react with to be non-programmed as well. Inconsistent life stance vs doctrinal views.

The clever Arminian get-around (that God pre-ordains based on foreknowledge in His timelessness view of past/current/future) also misses the point. Unlike Calvinists, Arminians do have a consistent life stance vs doctrinal view, but God cannot know our free choices until they happen. Nor do I believe God knows all eventualities of nature that results from physical laws He set up. This frees God from the charge of ordaining sin or natural calamities (e.g. tornadoes).

The Open View of God says we are free to set the future on details in our lives (within constraints but normally with choices) and the future is not set in concrete for God to know until it happens. Nor are all “acts of nature” pre-knowable. God no doubt has better foresight than us humans knowing much more of the present than we do (and may even know with near certainty that certain events will happen [e.g Peter’s Denials]); but not total foresight that violates our freedom to choose. Our interconnectedness means we influence (not determine) each other with God taking in the results (mostly appalled at our selfishness, no doubt). God also influences as we listen to the Spirit and interact through prayer. The Open View makes the most sense to me.

[Gene Scarborough]

Anybody read Weatherhead's "Will of God"?

It has a great rational explaination of how God's Will works itself out in conjunction with man's choices.

[Sandy]

This is very interesting Sandy. It agrees with much of my experience with mega-churches in the midwest. I know there are exceptions. But I'm not impressed with many of these churches no matter how fine a speaker or teacher the pastor is because I don't see the transfer growth mega-church phenomenon as adding much to the kingdom of God.

I can certainly understand someone who feels they're not "getting fed" in their current church being attracted to a congregation with a pastor who has a reputation for solid, Biblical teaching. On the other hand, you would think that, after absorbing some of that teaching, people would want to go out and make disciples. But they get distracted from that by all of the programs and services the larger church offers them. And, there are a lot more excellent teaching pastors in smaller churches than most people realize, but they don't have the media attention to draw people in.

On the other hand, I don't see a lot of "adding to the Kingdom" going on anywhere these days. My wife and I led the VBS at a First Baptist Church in a small town in Missouri where we lived a couple of decades back, and we walked the streets inviting kids to VBS. We wound up with about 180 kids, and one of the older ladies in the church who helped with registration kept pointing to kids telling me they were Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and that we didn't need to "follow up" on them. What we found out was that most of those families hadn't been in church in years, some of them not at all since their kids were born. Over the course of several years, we added about 12 families to the church as a result. I got tired of being scolded for "going after" kids from "other churches," because I didn't see it that way. If someone has stopped going, hasn't been for years, and their church hasn't made an effort to contact them, find out why, and get them back, then I don't consider them belonging to the "other church."

You will please note how Christian Social Ministries has dropped off the screen of the NAMB in deference to church planting.

That gets a yawn and a "so what?" from me. I don't know why a denominational missions agency needs to work on top of what churches and state conventions should be doing in "Christian Social Ministries." I worked for what was then the HMB a couple of summers when I was in college, and learned pretty quickly that "Christian Social Ministries" was a place where denominational bureaucrats and big shot pastors with connections could get jobs for spouses, relatives, and their own kids. I did not see a lot of cooperation with the local churches, rather, what I saw was in some cases competition with what local churches were doing, and in some cases a lack of coordination that would benefit the local church ministry. I met some leaders in denominational ministries that were only marginally involved with local churches, in some cases critical of them because they weren't like the traditional churches back home in Dixieland. New church plants tend to grow faster, and are more evangelistic, than older, traditional churches and so if the denomination is going to put resources on the field, assisting in starting new churches is the most effective and efficient thing they can do. The local churches, association and state convention should be doing whatever "social ministry" needs to happen, in order to connect the people they are working with to the church.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

I totally agree with your approach with VBS! Too many are pretenders about church membership.

On the other hand, I have had people come to me wanting to join because they were griped off at something in their old church. My approach was to encourage them to go back and help solve the problem. Our church would be no more perfect than the old one. If they went back and tried and felt the same 6 months from now, then give us a try.

I totally disagree with your assessment on Christian Social Ministries. In Atlanta, my father was the first Director of Juvenile Rehabilitation for the HMB. In that capacity he was funded to go where churches and pastors could not because Juvenile crime was highly controlled from exposing the children and families coming before them. In his capacity, as Chaplain to the Fulton County Juvenile Court, he was welcomed as a person who would talk with children about spiritual needs and try to get a local church to provide a mentoring family to the child and his family. I did the same work for the Raleigh Baptist Association and Wake County Juvenile Court.

Mission Centers were the focus of CSM and it was not a place where family members would want to minister. They were both ministries where local churches were in the wrong place and poor folks would not enter their nice doors.

After my sojourn in Juvenile Rehabilitation, the next person had a wider focus of CSM and my growing ministry to the Court failed for lack of attention. I had started a "Ministers Day in Court" program where ministers from various churches all over Raleigh signed up to be present on a given day each month. The Judge introduced them to the families present each day and invited them to talk with the minister in an anti-room. It was letting preachers know there was a real problem in Wake County that was not in newspapers for confidentiality reasons. Our big need when I left was for more involvement from black churches since about 80% of the children were black.

Your typical church is focused on local church growth over ministry. Those churches in distressed communities might have been doing something, but even they tended to serve and honor the minister rather than reach out to their distressed neighbors.

When churches become "glorified social clubs" enjoying their nice facilities and songs, it pales in comparison to Jesus walking among the poor and outcast.

That was the focus of Christian Social Ministries in its great days of yore.

[Timothy Bonney]

Sandy, I understand the "not being fed" concern. But I feel like most US Christians are over fed and under active. And I'm not talking food. We should be joining churches for how we can serve in the church not for what "feeds me." It bothers me when people join the church just because of a stellar pulpiteer.

[ET]

Sandy, I understand the "not being fed" concern. But I feel like most US Christians are over fed and under active. And I'm not talking food. We should be joining churches for how we can serve in the church not for what "feeds me." It bothers me when people join the church just because of a stellar pulpiteer.

Ding! ding! ding! Tim wins for "statement of the day"...at least in my opinion.

In my view, churches outta have a problem of TOO MANY people wanting to serve than to (seemingly) ALWAYS needing to beg for help....or to constantly rely on what seems to be a core group of folks who seem to be the ones to keep ministries running.

[Dave Roberts]

Sandy, I understand the "not being fed" concern. But I feel like most US Christians are over fed and under active. And I'm not talking food. We should be joining churches for how we can serve in the church not for what "feeds me." It bothers me when people join the church just because of a stellar pulpiteer.

Ding! ding! ding! Tim wins for "statement of the day"...at least in my opinion.

In my view, churches outta have a problem of TOO MANY people wanting to serve than to (seemingly) ALWAYS needing to beg for help....or to constantly rely on what seems to be a core group of folks who seem to be the ones to keep ministries running.

That hits home with truth. We are too consumer oriented in church to please those who come rather than responding to the needs of a world.

[Gene Scarborough]

Anyone ever serve a "softball church." I had one which was convinced their softball field was the gateway to heaven.

They were so intent on winning that they brought in ringers to be sure. Most attended church long enough to qualify to play and they would spike you and cuss the umpire!!!

It was a royal mess and ultimately fired me after 2 staff members went down in moral flames with church members.

Without saying more----was anyone in that community really fooled or impressed with the level of ministry????

[Stephen Fox]

I heard a PCA Calvinist give a grand exegesis of IISamuel 9 Sunday on the Radio about King David and his first son by Bathsheeba.

As for Baptists and Calvinism I doubt this conversation will ever jump the shark, from Russ Moore to Gene Scarborough, till somebody has the integrity to engage Marilynne Robinson in the conversation.

A good place to start is serious rumination on the recent review of her essays When I was a Child I Read; a simple google for the Christian Century.

[Timothy Bonney]

Well certainly we know that Calvinists are and can be evangelistic (why I still can't figure) but I see other subtle and damaging results of Calvinism in churches.

I've had church members come to me who have been sucked into the idea that everyone has a "time" that they will die. This comes from a naive view of predestination. So I hear people say "well it must have been her time." This then leads some people to come to me and say "why did God take my mom?" If God has given everyone a "time" they will die then it is only logical to conclude that God kills people including that lady's mom. Now there is a Calvinist mess! And I've had to deal with it in counseling more than once.

[Gene Scarborough]

Years ago I bought a number of Weatherhead's little book, "The Will of God" to help in such situations.

I have had exactly the same kinds of troubled people falsely blaming God for taking a loved one. It is part of the grief stage cited by Kubler-Ross as "Hostility." Blaming God only creates faith issues for life and Weatherhead faces it squarely as the "permissive will of God."

[Timothy Bonney]

Years ago I bought a number of Weatherhead's little book, "The Will of God" to help in such situations.

I have had exactly the same kinds of troubled people falsely blaming God for taking a loved one. It is part of the grief stage cited by Kubler-Ross as "Hostility." Blaming God only creates faith issues for life and Weatherhead faces it squarely as the "permissive will of God."

It sounds like a good book Gene. I've used Stephen Ministry resources to help with grief. And I also am free to tell people that not everything that happens in the world is God's will including sin, disobedience, and evil. A very strict interpretation of Calvin can lead to God being the author of evil by "permissive will." It makes an even bigger mess of the theodicy question, a tough enough question to deal with in our finite minds.

[Gene Scarborough]

I noted how earlier they claim God is the puppeteer and then try to give Him squiggle room = total inconsistency.

It is the same as the "Inerrant Bible" claiming the "original manuscripts" to be such. Every claimant is a stupid fool who knows the truth, but won't admit to it: The Bible was put together by a Committee (Church Council) and there are inconsistencies--if anyone cares to read it honestly.

What is the problem with simply saying, "We will never figure it all out and sometimes you have to take one step at at time in faith." I believe God still loves us and works out all things for good for them who love Him and trust Him.

Hurting people simply want a loving God and Minister---without us trying to explain it all.

[Timothy Bonney]

Inerrancy of unobtainable original manuscripts is yet another subject that I've never been able to grasp. Given that we work with translations and manuscripts of earlier origin but not the original, I never understood the need to place faith in something we don't have and never will.

[Sandy]

I noted how earlier they claim God is the puppeteer and then try to give Him squiggle room = total inconsistency.

It is the same as the "Inerrant Bible" claiming the "original manuscripts" to be such. Every claimant is a stupid fool who knows the truth, but won't admit to it: The Bible was put together by a Committee (Church Council) and there are inconsistencies--if anyone cares to read it honestly.

What is the problem with simply saying, "We will never figure it all out and sometimes you have to take one step at at time in faith." I believe God still loves us and works out all things for good for them who love Him and trust Him.

Hurting people simply want a loving God and Minister---without us trying to explain it all.

Your arguments here, Gene, lend a lot of credibility to the need for the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, especially if it helped get this view out of the seminaries.

It's the Bible that says God works things for good for those who love and trust him. How can you trust that statement, if you aren't sure whether or not it is something that God inspired, or whether it is just ancient Jewish superstition?

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

I have no problem saying, "The Bible is Inspired."

It is a mix of faith and history. Many of the Jewish laws and practices we do not follow so how can they be equal to Jesus' simple prescription: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself."

If you try to make the Bible into a book of science, it will fail miserably. If you let the Bible be a source of answering "why it happened in Creation," you have an approach which does not conflict with science.

So much of what CR wants us to bow to is simply their right to tell us what to do no matter what the Bible says. They pick and choose and command. That I don't buy!!!

Are you trying to tell me the Canon was not put together by a Church Council with a majority vote to include or exclude manuscripts?

[Dave Roberts]

I see today that Jerry Vines has now weighed in on this. It seems to be attracting quite a lot of interest among the SBC leadership.

http://abpnews.com/faith/theology/item/7498-vines-time-to-talk-about-calvinism

[Timothy Bonney]

Frank Page, president and CEO of the SBC Executive Committee, said he believes Southern Baptists need “a consensus accord” about the doctrine of salvation and that he intends to announce plans for putting one together at the upcoming SBC annual meeting in New Orleans.

Here is where the fight will happen. If a "consensus accord" is created it will have to be what Vine's correctly contends is the original view of Southern Baptists or it will have to be what the Calvinists want. It won't be both.

[Sandy]

Are you trying to tell me the Canon was not put together by a Church Council with a majority vote to include or exclude manuscripts?

The council that met to determine the Canon simply affirmed what had been happening in the church for at least a hundred years prior, as archaeological and manuscript evidence supports, that the early church had recognized the authoritative status of the New Testament writings with very little variation, and was copying it and using it long before the council determined its canonicity. And it wasn't a majority vote. The council was unanimous, setting forth their specific qualifications based on the writing of early church fathers, the authenticity that had to be self-evident in each manuscript, the recognized authorship, the consistency of content was all laid out and considered. This wasn't just some meeting over cookies and koolaide, this council did some serious research, and required some serious evidence.

Well certainly we know that Calvinists are and can be evangelistic (why I still can't figure) but I see other subtle and damaging results of Calvinism in churches.

I have seen the effect it can have on Christian education, at least, on Christian schools. The school I currently work for is affiliated with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which has been influenced to a degree by Calvinist theology, though perhaps to a lesser entent than Southern Baptists. But there is a very strong Reformed tradition here in Western Pennsylvania, including some large, independent, non-denominational churches, and a lot of Presbyterians who have left the PCUSA for either the Reformed Presbyterian Church or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. We have board members from both, and it affects us in subtle ways when it comes to disciplinary action and admissions. The idea of sovereign God, limited atonement, irresistable grace and unconditional election certainly point us in some interesting directions.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

The Canon inclusion required certain hurdles:

Written by an Apostle (few were actually written by their hand--rather a follower's hand)
In agreement with the Apostle's Creed--man made cognitive statement by majority vote.
Approved by all the churches---another hand raise vote by the church devotees

All of these indicate a strong hand of man and church in the process which gives us our current Canon. I find most interesting material in the non-Canonical writings and the Gnostic Gospels.

Remember: When Paul said "all scripture," he was not referring to our Bible---rather all "writings" in circulation in his day and long before the Canon came into existence!

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The "consensus accord" is a waste of time. Maybe it serves to calm the storm for a brief moment. But long-term, it's not really a solution.

The major argument put forth by these "Traditional Southern Baptists" is that - playing off of Bill Leonard's Grand Compromise thesis - there's been an unspoken agreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The agreement is essentially that Calvinists know their place and don't step out of line.

Well, Calvinism is on the rise, Calvinist leaders are increasingly influential and hold prestigious positions in the denomination. And now, these traditionalists are ticked off and complaining.

I sympathize with the Calvinists because these "Traditionalists" are really coming across as arrogant youknowwhats

All that said, isn't this just fundamentalism at its finest? Doctrinal purity is the cornerstone of fundamentalism. A public fight is how that purity is secured and defended. For the most part, these "Traditionalists" represent the Old Guard. They are the ones who instigated the "Conservative Resurgence." Now, their 40-55 year-old sons with their many myths and romanticized view of the 1980s are stepping up to do battle and defend the power and control that their elders secured.

Just further proof that - for these leaders - the past was about power and control and the present must be about maintaining power and control (although they are a little late to the scene here).

To a certain extent, this debate is a distraction. Fighting over Calvinism is just an excuse to fight, IMO. That's fundamentalism.

[Dave Roberts]

The "consensus accord" is a waste of time. Maybe it serves to calm the storm for a brief moment. But long-term, it's not really a solution.

The major argument put forth by these "Traditional Southern Baptists" is that - playing off of Bill Leonard's Grand Compromise thesis - there's been an unspoken agreement between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. The agreement is essentially that Calvinists know their place and don't step out of line.

Well, Calvinism is on the rise, Calvinist leaders are increasingly influential and hold prestigious positions in the denomination. And now, these traditionalists are ticked off and complaining.

I sympathize with the Calvinists because these "Traditionalists" are really coming across as arrogant youknowwhats

All that said, isn't this just fundamentalism at its finest? Doctrinal purity is the cornerstone of fundamentalism. A public fight is how that purity is secured and defended. For the most part, these "Traditionalists" represent the Old Guard. They are the ones who instigated the "Conservative Resurgence." Now, their 40-55 year-old sons with their many myths and romanticized view of the 1980s are stepping up to do battle and defend the power and control that their elders secured.

Just further proof that - for these leaders - the past was about power and control and the present must be about maintaining power and control (although they are a little late to the scene here).

To a certain extent, this debate is a distraction. Fighting over Calvinism is just an excuse to fight, IMO. That's fundamentalism.

BDW, I like you analytical style. Two points to add. The SBC has always been influenced by Calvinism, but it has never been purely Calvinist (aka Synod of Dort Clavinist). Some of the new SBC Calvinists have pursued the study of Calvinism until they would endorse the Dort approach, or at least that is coming out when some of the new SBTS and SEBTS graduates get to churches in VA and NC. They then set out to purify the church's understanding based on their Dort perspectives. This is putting fear and trembling into the old guard who had created a theological compromise that drew from both the Calvinist and Arminian streams of revivalism and basically had taken the evangelistic approach taught by the Billy Graham Schools of Evangelism. Pure Calvinism finds part of its opening as the personal evangelism approach of the 1950's through 1970's is no longer working. This conflict does not at all surprise me, given the SBC's new doctrinal purity push. It will be hard to keep from having continuing squabbles given the temperment of those in charge.