# The SBC and Calvinism



## eqdj (Nov 17, 2008)

Good Read from Voddie Baucham!

HT: Tom Ascol


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 17, 2008)

Wow! What do you think, Ivan?

I like how he ends it: "Grieving over the status quo. Still holding to the Fives!"


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago. More likely at this point I suspect that even those strongly opposed to it realize that it is here to stay, although they may wish to curb its influence. There were apparently a few inflammatory remarks made at the John 3:16 conf. but overall I understand that the mood was more irenic than many would have suspected and at least some of the speakers acknowledged the Calvinistic roots of the SBC.

But there is no doubt that being an outspoken Calvinist is generally not the way to win friends and influence people in the SBC today.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

I have two things to say. 

First, Voddie Bauchman gave one of the best youth conferences I have ever been to when I was growing up. I really hung on to every word he said.

Second, I truly believe that numerous churches will soon be leaving the SBC. People are going to put up with extreme negativity and verbal persecution only for so long. There is a double standard here. 

For example at my last church my pastor told me how when he came to the church it was nearly dead because the previous pastor was a Calvinist. But when my pastor ran the church into the ground to the point that they had to sell everything and be absorbed by another local Baptist church he blamed it on the apostate church and just more proof that God was coming back soon. 

I had a brother in Christ tell me that if he saw me walking down the street, he would turn and walk the other way. I was considered useless to him.

Even our colleges are getting bad. I was told on two separate occassions from my professor that I was not allowed to discuss predestination. This blew my mind because both times we were suppose to be reading and writing about soteriology. I am not sure how other seminaries are treating Reformed guys, but Liberty ain't to nice.

If this is the type of onslaught that we are going to receive over and over again, then why stick around? I believe that the more the ARBCA gains tractions, then the more churches will leave the SBC and join.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 17, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Wow! What do you think, Ivan?
> 
> I like how he ends it: "Grieving over the status quo. Still holding to the Fives!"



I think I like Voddie! NO!! I _know_ I like Voddie!!! I think he is on target but, I, like him, still feel comfortable in the SBC. I have _ALWAYS_ been SBC. I know my way around and I have not been "tagged" although eventually I suppose it will happen. 

I have never been the kind to jump up on the table and yell at the top of my lungs, "I AM A CALVINIST!!!!" Why would I? My approach is to be biblical and to take biblical stands when appropriate. 

However, I was not voted on to the Board of Directors of the Illinois Baptist State Association. Something to do with what I believe? Don't know.



Pilgrim said:


> I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago..



I agree. There are those who are rabidly against Calvinism within the SBC, but there numbers are not great and I don't believe they are growing. What I think will happen is that the powers that be will ignore us to death. And that will be a very sad thing for the SBC. 



Chaplainintraining said:


> I truly believe that numerous churches will soon be leaving the SBC. People are going to put up with extreme negativity and verbal persecution only for so long.



Some churches might leave but I don't think a big number will. I think churches that are lead by young, innovative pastors might be more likely be the ones leaving. The SBC is trying to keep them but it may be too little, too late.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

well eventually the old guys will die off and more young guys will come in, so we could see the numbers increase.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I have two things to say.
> 
> First, Voddie Bauchman gave one of the best youth conferences I have ever been to when I was growing up. I really hung on to every word he said.
> 
> ...



Liberty is basically ground zero for anti-Calvinism. Remember it is a fundy school that only came into the SBC in the 1990's. Several colleges and seminaries are becoming more Calvinistic. Baptist churches are independent of course and can affiliate with whatever association they want provided they meet the stipulations. As for ARBCA my perception is that beyond a handful of dual affiliated SBC and ARBCA churches they are practically invisible in the South and are mainly to be found on the two coasts. There are a few more FIRE churches. None of what you said above seemed to pertain to churches leaving the SBC but rather seems to be examples of conflict within particular schools or churches. Also, I would think that the percentage of churches in the SBC that are "Calvinistic" who actually strictly subscribe to the LBCF is fairly low, which I think would preclude their affiliating with ARBCA. A lot of Calvinistic Baptists (whether in ARBCA or elsewhere) are also not 100% onboard with Voddie Baucham's views on family integration and education. In fact there was a lengthy Q & A session at the last ARBCA GA in which pastors discussed the problems with people coming in looking for "homeschooling" churches i.e. those who say homeschool or the highway. I suspect there might be difficulty in getting the education resolution passed in ARBCA as well. Similar resolutions calling for pulling children out of public schools have failed in the PCA as well.


----------



## Ivan (Nov 17, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> well eventually the old guys will die off and more young guys will come in, so we could see the numbers increase.



It's possible, but the young pastors that I'm referring to aren't Calvinist, far from it.


----------



## interalia (Nov 17, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago. More likely at this point I suspect that even those strongly opposed to it realize that it is here to stay, although they may wish to curb its influence. There were apparently a few inflammatory remarks made at the John 3:16 conf. but overall I understand that the mood was more irenic than many would have suspected and at least some of the speakers acknowledged the Calvinistic roots of the SBC.
> 
> But there is no doubt that being an outspoken Calvinist is generally not the way to win friends and influence people in the SBC today.



I am not so sure, but I have not been in the SBC for many years. I do know that I have many friends (at least 1/2 dozen) who are at NOBTS or SBS in KY seeking MDiv's or ThM's, and they are all Mohler-esque 4-pointers. Not truly Calvinist nor Reformed in my opinion, but VERY much closer than the typical SBC toleration level. Piperian theology is very popular among the younger SBC types...it's a good start.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

Maybe you guys are having a bit more faith than I am, but I just see that the Calvinist contingent in the SBC (however big or small it may be) will eventually up and leave if the SBC continues to be so anti-Calvinistic. Maybe not the ARBCA, but they will go somewhere. Baptists have a history of splitting so I cannot see why the trend would stop now.

I do agree with your assessment of Calvinistic Baptist churches not adhering to the LBC completely. I do see churches that are along the lines of MacArthur's church. They are Calvinistic, but still dispensational.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

interalia said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago. More likely at this point I suspect that even those strongly opposed to it realize that it is here to stay, although they may wish to curb its influence. There were apparently a few inflammatory remarks made at the John 3:16 conf. but overall I understand that the mood was more irenic than many would have suspected and at least some of the speakers acknowledged the Calvinistic roots of the SBC.
> ...




Speaking of Mohler, I remember when he came to Southern and cleaned house how the jrs and srs absolutely went bonkers. It was so bad that a few students actually spit on Mohler when he was handing them their diploma on graduation day.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

interalia said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago. More likely at this point I suspect that even those strongly opposed to it realize that it is here to stay, although they may wish to curb its influence. There were apparently a few inflammatory remarks made at the John 3:16 conf. but overall I understand that the mood was more irenic than many would have suspected and at least some of the speakers acknowledged the Calvinistic roots of the SBC.
> ...



I've visited the NOBTS bookstore several times in the past year. On the occasions in which I've been able to overhear the conversations of students Calvinism came up frequently and while not all of them were Calvinists, none of them were rabidly against it either. In many cases, whether the seminary graduates are Calvinistic or not, in general I think they will tend to be more knowledgeable and solid when it comes to theology, which is largely what the Conservative Resurgence was all about.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Maybe you guys are having a bit more faith than I am, but I just see that the Calvinist contingent in the SBC (however big or small it may be) will eventually up and leave if the SBC continues to be so anti-Calvinistic. Maybe not the ARBCA, but they will go somewhere. Baptists have a history of splitting so I cannot see why the trend would stop now.
> 
> I do agree with your assessment of Calvinistic Baptist churches not adhering to the LBC completely. I do see churches that are along the lines of MacArthur's church. They are Calvinistic, but still dispensational.



If the Caner types become the dominant influence in the SBC you may be right. However if men with the attitudes of Daniel Akin, David Dockery and Russell Moore (none of whom are Calvinists) characterize the future of the SBC then there will be no reason to leave unless it's due to a desire to be in an exclusively Calvinistic fellowship.

Baptists certainly do have a history of splitting, but seldom has it happened en masse. The main schism I can think of in SBC life was the Landmarkers which left and formed the ABA around 1906, although many Landmarkers remained in the SBC. I think a number of fundamentalist churches influenced by Frank Norris left during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the 1920's but I am not that familiar with that period.


----------



## interalia (Nov 17, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Maybe you guys are having a bit more faith than I am, but I just see that the Calvinist contingent in the SBC (however big or small it may be) will eventually up and leave if the SBC continues to be so anti-Calvinistic. Maybe not the ARBCA, but they will go somewhere. Baptists have a history of splitting so I cannot see why the trend would stop now.
> 
> I do agree with your assessment of Calvinistic Baptist churches not adhering to the LBC completely. I do see churches that are along the lines of MacArthur's church. They are Calvinistic, but still dispensational.



Yup. Old habits die hard, I am afraid...


----------



## eqdj (Nov 17, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago.



The antagonism may not be "growing" but is it growing louder?



DMcFadden said:


> I like how he ends it: "Grieving over the status quo. Still holding to the Fives!"



I like how he begins it, "Hyper-Calvinist? 'You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.' (Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride)"


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

I am not sure if it is growing or getting louder because I do not have a real reference point. All I know is that it is not pretty at times.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

eqdj said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not convinced that there is a "growing antagonism" toward Calvinism in the SBC. Antagonism is certainly there, but I don't know that it is growing compared to a few years ago.
> ...



your mileage may vary but my perception is that there were more inflammatory remarks made by leaders a few years ago than you see now. For example, Johnny Hunt seems to have toned down his rhetoric considerably recently. How much of that is attributable to his election as SBC President I don't know. Of course I am mainly judging from things I've seen by various seminary professors and other leaders. I can't really gauge the attitudes of church members, deacons, pastors, etc. Overall I think it's best to focus on our own churches and ministry and not be consumed by what others may be saying. But if one is encountering opposition in their church or school that's obviously a much different situation. 

The vehemence of some of the blog posts on the Calvinistic side in my opinion sometimes have a tendency to generate more heat than light as well.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

I will admit that we are no angels either.


----------



## natewood3 (Nov 17, 2008)

There is enough antagonism against Calvinism that Southwestern, New Orleans, and Midwestern seminaries all sponsored the John 3:16 conference...

Pilgrim,

Why do you say Dr. Moore is not a Calvinist? I assume you are defining "Calvinist" as one who holds to all 5 points?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 17, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> There is enough antagonism against Calvinism that Southwestern, New Orleans, and Midwestern seminaries all sponsored the John 3:16 conference...
> 
> Pilgrim,
> 
> Why do you say Dr. Moore is not a Calvinist? I assume you are defining "Calvinist" as one who holds to all 5 points?



Aren't there three SBC presidents as well? Patterson, Stanley, and the current one?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> There is enough antagonism against Calvinism that Southwestern, New Orleans, and Midwestern seminaries all sponsored the John 3:16 conference...
> 
> Pilgrim,
> 
> Why do you say Dr. Moore is not a Calvinist? I assume you are defining "Calvinist" as one who holds to all 5 points?



I never said that there wasn't antagonism, just that I'm not sure it is on the rise. It is there and will likely always be there unless the SBC becomes completely Calvinist or completely anti-Calvinist, neither of which is likely to happen. My understanding is that the John 3:16 conference was largely a response to T4G and Building Bridges. But whatever we may think of the messages at the conference, from the reports that I've seen and heard it appears that overall the conference was tamer than many would have expected given the level of rancor a few years ago, roughly up until the time of the Caner-White debate debacle. 

Yes, I mean a 5 ptr. From what I have seen Dr. Moore doesn't often address the issue, (evidently it is not a big issue for him) but I've seen and heard on several occasions where he has said he isn't a Calvinist and denies Limited Atonement. His recent message at the SBTS chapel on election aside, I can remember him denying being a Calvinist at least three times. This includes an interview on the SBC Today blog about a year ago, a time in which he guest hosted Albert Mohler's program a few months ago in which he responded to a caller's question on the issue by flatly stating he didn't believe in limited atonement, and a lecture on the subject matter of _The Kingdom of Christ_ in which he again denied the doctrine and gave an alternate interpretation of Rom. 9-11 (I think it was, but it may have been a different passage.) I think he also hinted at it in _Why I Am a Baptist_ which he co-edited with Dr. Nettles. Dr. Moore is so closely associated with Dr. Mohler that people seem to just assume he shares Dr. Mohler's Calvinistic beliefs. 

That being said there are few preachers I'd rather listen to today than Dr. Moore.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 17, 2008)

For people on the PB, folks like Moore aren't Calvinists... he'd even deny it - because he's informed... but to folks in the SBC... he sure IS a Calvinist. If he affirmed limited atonement they'd just call him a hyper-Calvinist... silly, yes... but that's how it is.

There was a lot of hostility from all sides when I was at Southern... but lo and behold, the school is still growing in spite of it! However, when I first got there some of the profs were quite outspoken about their Calvinism. By the time I graduated, things had calmed substantially. 

During my time in seminary there, folks would interview me for various church positions, and virtually always one of the first questions was, "Are you one of them Calvinists?" After that question, the interview would end abruptly. I finally stopped having interviews. 

However, I don't think that the Calvinists in the SBC will ever leave in mass unless they are forced out. The reason is that, like Erasmus, they don't think the SBC is all that bad... and they want to stick around to be "salt and light." 

Whether the Calvinists in the SBC will admit it is uncertain, but they are more committed to being _Southern Baptists_ than might be healthy... they might be loyal to a fault. This is evidenced in the fact that many of these same folks were faithfully SBC even prior to the conservative resurgency. In fact, I asked one of my profs who obtained his PhD from Southern in the mid '80s and he was talking about how tough it was to be a conservative in those days... well, I asked him, "As a conservative, what on earth drew you to a liberal school. If you wanted a liberal education, why not go to a Harvard or a Yale or a Princeton and at least get a highly esteemed name on your resume. If you wanted a solid theological education, there were many good schools you could have attended at that time which were solidly conservative. Why Southern?" His response was to look at me like, "Are you serious?" And he said, "Becuase I'm a Southern Baptist through and through." 
It is that loyalty to a denomination that has kept conservatives in the PCUSA or UMC or even the ELCA well past when they should have left. (Not saying the SBC is currently equivilant to any of those... but still...) 

So anyway, there is a good bit of old-fashioned name brand loyalty at play. That loyalty will keep the majority of the SBC's Calvinists faithfully contributing to the IMB, NAMB, etc... (even though these organizations define many points of theology in fundamentally different ways than do these Calvinists...) And many of the Calvinists in the SBC will likely continue to do so until the (unlikely to come) point in time when they're given the boot.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 17, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> natewood3 said:
> 
> 
> > There is enough antagonism against Calvinism that Southwestern, New Orleans, and Midwestern seminaries all sponsored the John 3:16 conference...
> ...




Patterson and Stanley as well as Jerry Vines have been SBC President in the past if that is the question.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 18, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> For people on the PB, folks like Moore aren't Calvinists... he'd even deny it - because he's informed... but to folks in the SBC... he sure IS a Calvinist. If he affirmed limited atonement they'd just call him a hyper-Calvinist... silly, yes... but that's how it is.
> 
> There was a lot of hostility from all sides when I was at Southern... but lo and behold, the school is still growing in spite of it! However, when I first got there some of the profs were quite outspoken about their Calvinism. By the time I graduated, things had calmed substantially.
> 
> ...



Ben,

Thanks for your insights from your years at Southern, especially with regard to the professor who went to SBTS when there were better options within the SBC at that time and certainly outside of it. That kind of attachment to any denomination is unhealthy, in my opinion. Until now I've never been a member of a church that is affiliated with the SBC and I'm certainly not blind to its faults, but ultimately I decided that this was the best fit for us overall for a number of reasons. 

WRT Dr. Moore, my understanding is that Dr. Criswell was known to refer to himself as a Calvinist at times but clearly he was a 4 pointer. At that time 5 point Calvinism was probably largely unheard of in SBC life. 

Again, I'll say that if someone wants to be in a denomination that is Calvinistic by confession then they probably should get out of the SBC now because it just isn't going to happen. Likewise as you note the Calvinists aren't going to be kicked out unless a rule were somehow to be enacted that would prohibit them from teaching at seminaries, etc, which is highly unlikely. The polity of the SBC is such that local churches are relatively unaffected by what is going on at headquarters compared to a denomination like the PCUSA, but if things go south or if one is in substantial disagreement with the majority on some important issue, one is still faced with the issue of what their tithes are supporting. 

I'm certainly no prophet, but at this point it seems to me that in some respects like gender issues the SBC appears to be largely headed in the right direction while as many have pointed out here and elsewhere, the same can't quite be said of the PCA with its denominational schools and several others that are closely tied to it.


----------



## govols (Nov 18, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> eqdj said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...




Johnny Hunt has toned it down only because he has allowed others to come into "his" pulpit to do the bashing, of sorts. My church split from Johnny's 11 years ago. Heck, I attended Johnny's church for a few years and my wife was there for 10 years.

I still love the day and can remember the expressions on people's faces when Johnny Mac came to town and said that Jesus was a Calvinist. People's mouths weren't the only things that puckered.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 19, 2008)

After thinking about this for a while, I have to confess that I am baffled by some of the statements in the article linked in the OP. For brother. Baucham to write "However, the dreaded “C” word has become a death sentence in “mainstream” Southern Baptist life" as if this is a recent development strikes me as absurd. Perhaps he simply was not as careful with his words as he might have been and this isn't what he really believes. I can't help but think that his perception has at least as much to do with his acceptance by the honchos in the convention going way down as a result of his being "outed" as a Calvinist as well as the other controversies as it does with an overall growing antipathy. Is the fact that outspoken Calvinistic men aren't welcomed with open arms by denominational leaders really surprising to anyone who is familiar with the SBC? From what I understand of the SBC, Calvinism isn't any more of a death sentence in "mainstream" Southern Baptist life now than it was 40 years ago. At times in the recent past, simply being a Bible Believing Christian who thought the convention should take a stand on inerrancy and remove liberal seminary professors was met with antipathy from denominational leaders and others. There may well be a growing antipathy against Calvinism in the sense that anti-Calvinists are much more outspoken now than in years past, but that's because prior to the early activities of Founders Calvinism was practically invisible in Southern Baptist life. Why attack something that isn't a factor? 

Then he concludes by saying he is "No longer considering a future of any significance in the Convention." What kind of significance is contemplated here? Being an acclaimed conference speaker? A bestselling author published by the denominational publisher? Being welcomed into the pulpits of prominent big steeple churches? Is planting and pastoring a church a future of insignificance? Will he no longer continue in his efforts at getting the resolution calling for an exodus from public schools passed? One test of significance may be whether younger people are more familiar with him than they are with those who he thinks have relegated him to insignificance. Another is whether those with the antipathy toward Calvinism are succeeding in minimizing its influence within the convention.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 19, 2008)

I like the last paragraph alot. Good points.


----------

