# Calvinism and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)?



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2010)

What is the current state of calvinism in the SBC? What is the ratio, roughly of course, of calvinists and arminians in the SBC? Lastly how well has the SBC asimelated these two groups?


----------



## Ivan (Jun 3, 2010)

Current state? Strong in some regions, weak in others. It's a struggle.

Hard to determine the ratio, but Calvinism is growing.

The SBC does not assimilate any groups. The SBC isn't an organization as such. It will depend on the leadership at each of the SBC institutions as to how Calvinism is accepted, rejected, tolerated or ignored. There have been a few attempts made from special groups, but I don't think anyone is really trying to do that. 

Got to go to work right now. Try to give more info later.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2010)

If the SBC isn't an orginization than what is it?


----------



## Cato (Jun 3, 2010)

A gathering of like minded Baptist Churches who are independent but meet together.

Ivan, I really like Albert Mohler who is Calvinistic & the head of Southern. Is he successful in identifying Arminian apostasy?


----------



## coramdeo (Jun 3, 2010)

I don't think there are any arminians in the SBC. At least not to their way of thinking. Everyone I have ever talked to vehemently deny it. They don't want to be lumped in with the Methodist. What that makes them, I'm not sure.


----------



## Cato (Jun 3, 2010)

Gregg, Then I stand corrected.
Thanks

PS: Im A Northerner.... dont hate me for it...LOL


----------



## Andres (Jun 3, 2010)

coramdeo said:


> I don't think there are any arminians in the SBC. At least not to their way of thinking. Everyone I have ever talked to vehemently deny it. They don't want to be lumped in with the Methodist. What that makes them, I'm not sure.


 
are you saying that they just don't like to be called arminian or are you saying you don't think anyone in the SBC ascribes to that doctrine? If you are trying to argue the latter, then I would have to disagree. From my experience (all the SBCers in my city and the ones in my family) are ALL arminians. I've never actually asked them if that's what they prefer to be called, but nonetheless they are certainly arminian in doctrine.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2010)

House surveys by SBC folks show that roughly 1/3 of seminary grads today are 5pt Calvinists with about 10% of current pastors self-identifying as Calvinists.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 3, 2010)

Andres said:


> are you saying that they just don't like to be called arminian or are you saying you don't think anyone in the SBC ascribes to that doctrine? If you are trying to argue the latter, then I would have to disagree. From my experience (all the SBCers in my city and the ones in my family) are ALL arminians. I've never actually asked them if that's what they prefer to be called, but nonetheless they are certainly arminian in doctrine.



Though there are many who are 5-pointers (and thus not Arminian), the bulk of the rest deny the possibility of losing one's salvation, so that even those who are not 5-pointers are still something other than consistent Arminians (at least in the historical sense of the Remonstrance). Most self-identify as "4-pointers."


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 3, 2010)

Andres said:


> coramdeo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think there are any arminians in the SBC. At least not to their way of thinking. Everyone I have ever talked to vehemently deny it. They don't want to be lumped in with the Methodist. What that makes them, I'm not sure.
> ...


 
Just because someone believes in election doesn't mean he's a Calvinist. Just because someone denies election doesn't make him an Arminian. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are systems of doctrine with historical definitions. It's a very bad habit in Calvinist circles to label anything non-Calvinist "Arminian." Almost no SBC people would agree totally with either Remonstrant or Wesleyan Arminianism. However, they are quite similar on several points. They call themselves "biblicists," and I would call them something like "free-willers" or "Semi-Pelagians."


----------



## Andres (Jun 3, 2010)

kainos01 said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > are you saying that they just don't like to be called arminian or are you saying you don't think anyone in the SBC ascribes to that doctrine? If you are trying to argue the latter, then I would have to disagree. From my experience (all the SBCers in my city and the ones in my family) are ALL arminians. I've never actually asked them if that's what they prefer to be called, but nonetheless they are certainly arminian in doctrine.
> ...


 
okay, I see your point, but I still would have to disagree based on the SBCers I am familiar with (excluding of course my PB brethren). Yeah, the SBCers I am familiar with are arminian to the core. I don't know if they would agree with even 1 pt.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 3, 2010)

Andres said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...


 
That surprises me. I grew up in SBC circles and always thought that "once saved, always saved!" was one of the main things (besides believer's baptism) that ties them all together. [Of course, their doctrine of "eternal security" is a pale reflection of the perserverance of the saints.]


----------



## buggy (Jun 3, 2010)

Perhaps a better way to call them would be modified Arminians. 

Why still Arminian? Arminianism is more than just "whether you can lose your salvation". The so-called "biblicist" thinks he's no Arminian because he believes in "once-saved-always-saved". But the basic tenet of Arminianism is still this - one still has enough inherent good within him to turn to God by exercising his own ability to believe, under influence by the grace of God.

Still a cooperative effort between God and Man, to some extent.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 3, 2010)

I would agree that they are _foundationally _Arminian, no doubt; their doctrine of sin is insufficient (excluding those who hold to Calvinist soteriology). And I am not saying that the "four-pointers" are really only one step (or point) away from being Calvinist. I was merely saying that they often consider themselves to be four-pointers, thinking that is the proper "biblicist" response to the "extremes" of Calvinism.


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 3, 2010)

2007 Survey of Calvinism and SBC Leadership


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 3, 2010)

Andres said:


> kainos01 said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...



Most of them don’t. If they say they do, then they redefine it on their own terms, just as with the fifth point in which many SBC folks call “once saved always saved.” We can continue even with the other four points and how they redefine it if you like. 

We need to be careful not to allow confusion categories. Many SBCers will say, “am not a Arminian, am not a Calvinist, am a Christian and am biblical.” Having a biblicist approach is different then the type of predestinatarian doctrine that is held. In a sense mixing up the how a meal is fixed with the meal itself. The meal being the doctrine.


----------



## KMK (Jun 3, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> 2007 Survey of Calvinism and SBC Leadership


 
How can people say 'yes' to "God's Grace Is Irresistible" and then say 'no' to "God Chooses and Calls People"?


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 3, 2010)

It is also a category error in the sense that both Arminians and Calvinists deal with specific issues that are narrow and a subset of Christianity compared to the term Christian which has a large umbrella or a board series of issues, not just with election. And like it or not all Christian systems will have a doctrine of election, because it is biblical.


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 3, 2010)

KMK said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > 2007 Survey of Calvinism and SBC Leadership
> ...


 
The same people who got C's in Theology class..


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2010)

I for one do not believe that you can be a four point calvinist, calvinism is a system of biblical doctrine that logically flows from one another. More on topic is there hardline division in the SBC on this issue or does everyone get along pretty well?


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jun 3, 2010)

Most in the SBC Church I belong to would not classify themselves by either term (Cal/Arm) they would call themselves Bible believers. Most would be ready to throw down if you called them a Calvinist and argue till the cows come home. But I believe some of their "theology" would line up with Calvinism a lot closer than it would Arminianism. They just grossly misunderstand just was Calvinism is and what it is not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> What is the current state of calvinism in the SBC? What is the ratio, roughly of course, of calvinists and arminians in the SBC? Lastly how well has the SBC asimelated these two groups?


 
It depends. When people are praying for God to convert people, it's strong. When they engage in theology and say that He can't convert them, it's weak.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 3, 2010)

In my experience, the knowledge that most broad evangelical laypeople have of Calvinism is spotty, often misinformed, and based on caricatures. When even educated people such as Geisler misrepresent the position, it only adds to confusion by pastors and lay people.

If you actually documented the "theology" of most American Christians, my guess is that you would get a tangled skein of yard that could not be unraveled or straightened out.

Consider the recent statement by the Speaker of the House:



> ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.”
> 
> “And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.
> 
> “Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith.


.

Try unscrambling that one; I dare ya.

When it comes to prayer, American evangelicals pray like Calvinists, believing that God hears and is able to answer.

When it comes to evangelism, American evangelicals tend to rely upon gimmicks and psychological techniques that would make Finney blush.

In the area of Christology, many American evangelicals default to an implicit docetism.

Calling today's American evangelicals semi-pelagians would be a counsel of generosity.

Most of all, broad evangelicalism and American Catholicism are too often comprised of a miscellany of inconsistent, ill-thought through, and downright contadictory strands that mix and match in the "best" tradition of American voluntarism. Fox's Bill O'Reilly proudly brands himself an observant Roman Catholic. Yet, it is a rare week where he does not resort to "karma" as his explanation of why bad things happen to bad people. Recently, he embarrassed a guest by asking her directly: "This is just karma. You believe in Karma don't you. I certainly do." The attorney/Fox regular hemmed and hawed and tried to change the subject from karma to the behavior in question. 

One of my Baptist employees recounted his experience at church last night. He took his daughter to a children's program and stayed for the service. The associate pastor for youth at his church was concluding his sermon and preparing to officiate at a baptism (yes, the "youthish" service is on Wednesday in the main church worship center and includes the whole enchilada of church, including baptism, all done in a high decibel rock form). The sermon was part of a series on the Song of Solomon, featuring fairly "candid" and graphic advice to the married, the unmarried, and the young people. As he prepared to conclude the service, the pastor gave an altar call, invited people to accept Christ, and suggested that when he got into the baptistry, if anyone wanted to identify with Jesus, they could come join him and he would baptize them on the spot (adults, teens, or children with or without their parents present or consenting???). Evidently, prior to serving in this evangelical Baptist mega church (NOT SBC), he was on staff in a Restorationist congregation. So a little of the baptismal regeneration theology of the Campbellites that explained why the former church gave that kind of "invitation," now gets introduced through the side door into a congregation that would be horrified to be compared to the Campbellites. My guess is that the associate pastor did not understand why the Restorationist mega church insisted on baptizing immediately or why this evangelical Baptist mega church did not. But you must pardon him. He graduated from my seminary alma mater!

My guess is that many SBC folks are probably not far from the average broad evangelical people. Ask them if they are Calvinist or Arminian and they will likely shrug their shoulders and announce that they are Calminians.


----------



## jonjordan (Jun 3, 2010)

KMK said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > 2007 Survey of Calvinism and SBC Leadership
> ...


 
Lack of any theological education, not merely poor grades in theological education. My experience in a Reformed (5 point) SBC church is that once people hear clear, direct, Calvinistic teaching from the pulpit on a weekly basis they are very receptive to a truth that they may have grown up being told not to believe. 

As far as the scope of the SBC as a whole, it has been interesting to see that the more popular figures within the denomination seem to be Calvinist (Akin, Chandler, Stetzer, etc). This may not be a great representation of the SBC as a whole but it will be interesting to watch over the years to come.


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 3, 2010)

jonjordan said:


> Lack of *any* theological education, not merely poor grades in theological education.



No. Seminary grads were the ones surveyed.


----------



## KMK (Jun 3, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> jonjordan said:
> 
> 
> > Lack of *any* theological education, not merely poor grades in theological education.
> ...


 
That's why I am assuming there is a theological explanation for the apparent dilemma.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2010)

To put it point blankly one can be a 3 point calvinist in the SBC. They can make it sound like a 4 pointer but they deny the perseverance of the Saints and are so anti-nomian it is pathetic. Once you have prayed the prayer you are in and it doesn't matter if you ever have had a conversion that matters. You could be Brittany Spears and still be a SBC congregate. Go figure. Yes, they may call you to repentance but you are still in. Even if you deny Christ is Lord. That is the SBC. I was a member in the SBC. I still love the SBC. It has many good qualities when they are biblical. But the Churches I know have wondered from their moorings. READ BOYCE.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2010)

I would also like to add that a point that preaching from one of the Five Points of Calvinistic Preaching does not make a solid Church. There is a whole bible and I am Covenantal. I do know of Baptist churches that don't believe in evangelism. God will draw is their explanation but they forget there is water involved.


----------



## Ivan (Jun 4, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> I for one do not believe that you can be a four point calvinist, calvinism is a system of biblical doctrine that logically flows from one another. More on topic is there hardline division in the SBC on this issue or does everyone get along pretty well?


It depends on a lot of things. I haven't had any problems. I am irenic by nature so I can get along with most people. Some within the SBC would like to have a witch hunt and dispel all Calvinists (the Caners). Others are supportive although not Calvinists (Akin). Some are closet Calvinists and others are ardent proponents of the theology. 

It’s truly a mixed bag. Officially, the stance of most is that we are to be tolerant of one another. If things continue in the direction they are going I think there will be a day of reckoning, but most of that is only significant in the South. Frankly, no one really cares about Southern Baptists outside the South, whether Calvinist or otherwise. 

So, to answer your question, no there is no hardline division.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2010)

Ivan said:


> . Frankly, no one really cares about Southern Baptists outside the South, whether Calvinist or otherwise.
> 
> So, to answer your question, no there is no hardline division.



This is not experience here in Indy. So I figure it is geographical.


----------



## Kiffin (Jun 4, 2010)

KMK said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > jonjordan said:
> ...



Maybe the explanantion goes something like this: "If the Gospel is explained faithfully and the one being _evangelized_ understands the Gospel fully and totally, he has no choice but to except the free gift of salvation that God is drawing him to--it is irresistible. God does not elect men to salvation but puts the responsibility on people to communicate the Gospel effectively to stir their hearts."


----------



## Ivan (Jun 4, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > . Frankly, no one really cares about Southern Baptists outside the South, whether Calvinist or otherwise.
> ...


 
Well, then again, I don't run with the big dogs, purposely. Extremely boring. One of the big issues at the annual meeting next week in Orlando is a re-channeling of funds to "mission" states in the East, the Midwest and the West. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## KMK (Jun 4, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Kiffin said:
> ...


 
But that is not the doctrine of the Irresistibility of Grace. The researchers asked these seminarians whether they agreed with the 'I' of TULIP. Is it possible that seminary professors are deliberately misrepresenting Calvinism? Obviously the seminary professors _understand_ Calvinism (regardless whether they agree) or they wouldn't be professors in the first place. Right?


----------



## Cato (Jun 4, 2010)

SBC then appears to be Cradle to Grave & they are big on forgiving ..... Hmmmm
And of course, they continue to grow while Reformed religion continues to shrink.
I will have to study this much more. Im sure down south they are a force as the Catholics are up here in the Nothhhh


----------



## Ivan (Jun 4, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> SBC then appears to be Cradle to Grave & they are big on forgiving ..... Hmmmm



Not sure what this means.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2010)

Ivan said:


> Cato The Elder said:
> 
> 
> > SBC then appears to be Cradle to Grave & they are big on forgiving ..... Hmmmm
> ...



Sounds like he is taking a swipe at antinomianism which is heavy in the SBC.


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 4, 2010)

Ivan said:


> Some within the SBC would like to have a witch hunt and dispel all Calvinists (the Caners).


 
How ironic that it is the same Ergun Caner that is currently having his back ground investigated for lying by his own Liberty University. A perfect spokesman to try to weed out Calvinism, don’t you think?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Some within the SBC would like to have a witch hunt and dispel all Calvinists (the Caners).
> ...



I know Calvinist's who are liars also. I have been guilty. Had to repent also. Sorry.


----------



## NB3K (Jun 4, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > What is the current state of calvinism in the SBC? What is the ratio, roughly of course, of calvinists and arminians in the SBC? Lastly how well has the SBC asimelated these two groups?
> ...



It's funny you say that. I was telling my wife last night the same thing. Everyone is a calvinist when they engage in intercessiory prayer. Then when you tell them that it is not of will of man but of God, their pride gets intangled, because they really think they madde the first move toward God.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 5, 2010)

Well thanks for all the info everyone. So what I can gather is this there is no real sharp division in the SBC on this issue? If so than how does it manage to go about this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> ...My guess is that many SBC folks are probably not far from the average broad evangelical people. Ask them if they are Calvinist or Arminian and they will likely shrug their shoulders and announce that they are Calminians.


 
Very insightful post Dennis. I didn't quote the whole thing due to length but you place your finger on the real issue.

I joked earlier but my experience, serving in an SBC Church, is that most people don't care or have a clue.

Increasingly, in every communion, the doctrinal distinctives that would even give shape to something like "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" are lost on people. Most are concerned about "inner life" and, if Pelosi wasn't on the wrong end of a political dividing line, hordes of American Evangelicals would be quoting her gnostic gibberish and noting with great delight how great it is to have Christians in public service.

Move away from certain "strongholds" and I've found most SBC folk to be pretty ambivalent about many of the things that distinguish them. In my more surly days, I wrote this article about what I saw in 2006 with the Franklin Graham Festival: http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/08/01/02.14.44

I think most people's choice of Churches today is really kind of like choosing an ice cream flavor. I found myself joking to my boss yesterday about how discordant something was by using the analogy "...that's like Roman Catholics and Protestants..." and then I had to stop short because I realized I couldn't draw any analogy that wouldn't seem anachronistic in today's society where both Roman Catholics and Protestants see each other as having a vital "inner life".

This may seem to be off-topic from the OP but it is not. I remember many people in my Church in Okinawa who did not see a discernible difference between themselves and their Roman Catholic friends in terms of "spirituality". I was surprised to learn (and quite humble) that one woman who listened to me teach over several months made that turn and learned the difference because she learned of a Gospel outside of her.


----------



## BenjaminBurton (Jun 8, 2010)

There is a sharp division but it's mostly geographical. In my area, most of the bigger churches are going to be more Calvinist (influence of Southern Seminary). A lot of churches I've been in don't really talk about it. Missions and evangelism takes the stage over the debating but I have sat under some solid teaching but I'm sure not all sentiments were shared by the congregates.


----------



## alb1 (Jun 8, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> Well thanks for all the info everyone. So what I can gather is this there is no real sharp division in the SBC on this issue? If so than how does it manage to go about this?



It's kind of two fold, yes there is a sharp division in the SBC over Calvinism , but
by its own rules for membership the SBC cannot be divided over Calvinism. Just read the preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message:

With the 1963 committee, we have been guided in our work by the 1925 "statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life . . . ." It is, therefore, quoted in full as a part of this report to the Convention: 

(1) That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us. They are not intended to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

(2) That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future, Baptists should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

(3) That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so. 

(4) That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience. 

(5) That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life. 

Baptists cherish and defend religious liberty, and deny the right of any secular or religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches. We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God."


----------

