The Calvinist Resurgence in the SBC: A Misnamed Movement
Posted by Chris Roberts on May 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am.
Subscribe to Comments.

Much has been made about the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC. More young people, and not a few older pastors, are embracing a theology of salvation that closely resembles that which was taught by John Calvin. 

The label Calvinism is a convenience. Use the word and people (sometimes) know (sort of) what you are talking about, though to my surprise I see several people claim the title Calvinist who really aren’t very Calvinistic in their thinking. But the label tends to imply something untrue: that people have studied the teachings of John Calvin and have devoted themselves to those teachings. The truth is that Calvinists are those who have studied Scripture and have drawn conclusions from Scripture similar to the conclusions drawn by John Calvin.

What we have in the SBC is not a resurgence of Calvinism but a resurgence of Scripture. Conservatives won the struggle in the 80′s and 90′s to move the denomination away from liberalism, but too many conservative pastors did little more than give lip service to the Bible, failing to use the Bible any more than the liberals. I attended a revival service several weeks ago during which the preacher talked a lot about how important the Bible is but he never once faithfully unfolded Scripture. He used a few springboard text and filled his long sermon with personal anecdotes. This can also be seen in most of the material that comes out of Lifeway. I often get angry when I look at how they handle various texts. Irresponsible, shallow, misleading, sour milk, frequently missing the point, using the word of God as a springboard to the things they want to talk about. These things happen too often in the SBC but by the grace of God this pattern just might be changing.

Again, what we have in the SBC is not a resurgence of Calvinism but a resurgence of Scripture. We have people faithfully studying the Scriptures. The end result is their theology looks like that of John Calvin. But these people are also talking about and teaching the Bible with greater faithfulness. This in itself can be a challenge to churches that are not used to well grounded biblical preaching but it is a challenge we must push through if we are to grow in the Lord.

Praise God for the resurgence of the Bible in the SBC. May it continue and may it spread.



Tags: ,
Posted in: Church.
Trackback: http://www.seektheholy.com/2009/05/14/the-calvinist-resurgence-in-the-sbc-a-misnamed-movement/trackback/.
Short link: http://tcnr.me/j258l
  • http://kennichols.org Ken Nichols

    Interesting article. I agree with your thesis. I cannot call myself a Calvinist, I haven’t taken the time to study him. But, after preaching the Bible full-time for almost three years, I now better relate to the more Reformed leaning of our brethren. Asked about my definition of Foreknowledge and its relationship to Predestination and Election, I’d probably sound more like Spurgeon than Wesley. And you’re right, this has caused issues in my church. Especially when some lifelong Baptists have developed an understanding of God that is more akin to “open theism” than a Sovereign God who knows the end from the beginning, and whose name is “I AM.”

    Praise the Lord for a resurgence of Scripture. If the inerrancy battle’s been won, let’s now discuss sufficiency! If it’s true, then it’s all we need to follow to obey God.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    “If the inerrancy battle’s been won, let’s now discuss sufficiency!”

    I really like that quote. I’ll have to remember it. That captures well what the struggle is now about.

  • http://www.heargodspeak.blogspot.com Joe Blackmon

    He used a few springboard text and filled his long sermon with personal anecdotes. This can also be seen in most of the material that comes out of Lifeway. I often get angry when I look at how they handle various texts. Irresponsible, shallow, misleading, sour milk, frequently missing the point, using the word of God as a springboard to the things they want to talk about.

    As the Cowardly Lion said “Ain’t it the truth?? Ain’t it the truth??”

  • DAshworth

    Admittedly, I’m neither Calvinist nor Arminian (from a free will-election point of view) buying into all 5 points of neither. I think there is some divine mysterious balance between human free will and predestination that we will never understand this side of eternity. I do believe that God has given us free will- the freedom to believe or disbelieve. Otherwise, if we did not have that freedom how could we possibly deserve eternal punishment?
    Also, it has been noted that election-heavy churches and denominations are more flippant about evangelism, taking the “God will sort it all out” approach, which I find cowardly and repulsive.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Dan,

    Eternal punishment is not because we do not believe. Judgment comes because we sin against God. Those who reject Jesus are already condemned because of their sin, not because of their rejection. They reject the only hope they have to be saved from the punishment their sins merit. Their punishment is just. My punishment would also be just, if God were to condemn me to Hell. The fact that I am saved is not a matter of justice, it is a matter of God’s grace. Everyone already deserves judgment because of sin, no one deserves grace regardless of belief. But God has chosen to extend his grace to some, an act of mercy none deserve so none can complain if they do not receive it, thereby enabling them to believe and put faith in Christ.

    As for evangelism, it has been noted but I’m not sure where it has been demonstrated. Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike will make all sorts of excuses to get out of evangelism. Calvinists cannot be accused of being more anti-evangelism than non-Calvinists, both groups are loaded with people who avoid this obligation. Those churches that try to use Calvinism to argue against evangelism fall into the hyperCalvinist camp and tend to be roundly condemned by Calvinists.

    Looking back in history, some of the best known revivalists and missionaries were Calvinists. Consider a George Whitfield or a Charles Spurgeon or a William Carey, to offer a short list. Calvinism is no hindrance to evangelism. Sin is a hindrance to evangelism, and it holds back people on all sides of this issue.

  • DAshworth

    Thanks for the reasoned position response, Chris. It is a position with which I am familiar. I have discussed this (and debated) with a few folks in my church, and have found that those who espouse this point of view seem to have a condescending “I’ve got this all figured out” heir about them, which I see as dangerous (I’ve been there, and know the loss of the wonder of God, and ultimately the depression it causes). I am not accusing you of that, but there are those in my church that hold this point of view that seem to act this way- intentionally or not.
    As I understand the argument, it seems to me to open up some issues with the problem of evil. Where did it come from? In my view of things, I believe that free will was the vehicle upon which evil entered creation. Satan chose to be evil, the demons did also. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God (i.e. lack faith), leading to the falleness of all humanity.
    Otherwise, some questions arise. Did God create evil (I believe this to be impossible)? Did God foreknow we would fail and end up in the fallen state? Did God intend for us to be fallen? If so, for what end (I assume one would answer “for His glorification, or the glorification of His Son”)?
    These are questions that ultimately crop up when discussing with and witnessing to nonbelievers of a philosophical bent. At some point they arrive to the conclusion that if this is true, is this some sort of selfish game God is playing with us?
    I also offer this point. There is another group that says we have no free will. They are the Atheistic Materialists like Dr. William Provine and Dr. Richard Dawkins- who claim that everything is determined and that we “just dance to our DNA”. Which would ultimately mean that there is no human behavior that is unnatural, since one would not commit an act that is not determined, no matter how deviant we view it.
    Thanks again for the discourse.

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Warning: Excessively long response ahead. Hope you’re a patient reader!

    One of the things that kept me away from Calvinism for a while was the attitude of many Calvinists I had talked with. There are many very gracious Calvinists, but there are also many bullies. Calvinists don’t have a monopoly on this, but somehow the Calvinist bullies certainly seem to stick out more. In the end I just had to ignore them and go with what I saw in Scripture, praying throughout that I wouldn’t be a bully.

    The question of evil exists no matter what position one takes on free will. Calvinists (at least those of the Jonathan Edwards/John Piper variety) and non-Calvinists would agree that before the fall mankind had free will to do good and reject evil or do evil and reject good. After the fall is when things change. After the fall mankind is totally depraved. The will is still free, but with a depraved nature a fallen person no longer wills to do good, fitting the description in Genesis 6:5 that “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” A fallen, unsaved person has a will that is capable of doing good but also has a nature that does not want to do good and in fact wants to be in rebellion against God. Ephesians 2:1-3 describes this condition fairly well. Throw in Romans 3:10-12 and a host of other passages throughout Scripture and the picture is of fallen humanity that wants absolutely nothing to do with God. The will might be capable of good, but the flesh has no desire for anything good.

    As a sidenote, this captures pretty well the Calvinist position of total depravity, but it is also the position of classical Arminianism. Classical Arminianism says mankind is totally fallen, totally depraved. But God has given grace to all people to lift us out of our depravity just enough to enable us to choose whether to accept or reject Jesus Christ. Most people today really and truly are semi-Pelagian, following the old heresy. They have the idea that humanity fell with Adam and Eve but it was not a complete fall. Man’s will was corrupted but not completely so. There still remains some capacity to perform good, including the capacity for the lost person to desire and seek after God.

    That’s digressing slightly. The problem of evil before the fall remains for the Calvinist and non-Calvinist. Even given the possibility to choose good or evil, why would it ever occur to anyone to do evil? The answer for Adam and Eve is found easily enough, it occurred to them because Satan tempted them. But what about Satan? Why did Lucifer ever even consider rebellion? He experienced the highest glory of God in Heaven, saw God’s power on display in very clear ways, and yet he somehow chose to rebel? What was the origin of the possibility of rebellion in his mind? I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t tell us. It tells us that Adam and Eve were tempted to sin by Satan. We aren’t told much about Satan’s fall. John Piper says, “The most profound thing we can say about suffering and evil is that, in Jesus Christ, God entered into it and turned it for good. The origin of evil is shrouded in mystery. The Bible does not take us as far as we might like to go. Rather it says, ‘The secret things belong to… God’ (Deuteronomy 29:29). The heart of the Bible is not an explanation of where evil came from, but a demonstration of how God enters into it and turns it for the very opposite – everlasting righteousness and joy.” (50 reasons Jesus came to die, page 118)

    To the unbeliever God may well end up looking selfish. Atheist Erik Reece has a book An American Gospel in which he accuses Jesus of being an egomaniac for demanding that people leave all, even family, take up their cross, and follow and love Jesus. God demands love and worship. God demands glory. And he will get these things from us. Even the unbeliever glorifies God, whether he wants to or not. Romans 9 talks about this. This is not selfishness, though it looks that way to the world.

    To borrow from Piper again, he says that God does not break any of his own commands. That includes the command to love God and to have no idols before him. God loves himself and God upholds himself before the world, calling on all people to worship himself. Just as we are to call on others to worship him. Some people today seem to be bothered by the notion that God would be focused on himself. But what would it mean if God esteemed something as more worthy of focus than himself? God loves his creation, but he created humans to glorify him, not the other way around. And it should be this way because he is God and he is the one worthy of being uplifted and glorified.

    Again to touch on free will regarding your last paragraph, Calvinists (at least those who are a little better read) don’t say we have no free will. Before the Fall mankind was able to choose between good and evil and had the capacity to desire both. After the Fall mankind continues to be able to choose between good and evil but now desires only to do evil. The flesh is corrupt and the flesh guides the thinking of fallen people. In Christ, Christians have the ability to choose between good and evil and have the capacity to desire both. We can choose to follow the flesh or follow the Spirit, thus the repeated exhortations to be in the Spirit rather than walking in the flesh. Fallen people do not have the Spirit and cannot please God, they can only walk in the flesh in sinfulness. Only by the Spirit can we desire and do that which is pleasing to God. (There are other reasons why a fallen person can only do evil but I’ll not stray too far into that territory.) So as Christians we continue to struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. But we await that which comes next. In Heaven we will have the ability to choose to do good or evil but we will only have the capacity to desire to do good. The flesh will be taken away, removing all fleshly desire from us. This is how we know there is no sin in Heaven, how we know the fall won’t happen again. Our will remains just as free but our capacity or desire for evil is going to be completely removed.

    Now, behind this is another issue. I have been speaking strictly from the human end of things. Behind all of that is what God is doing with his creation. I believe we have free will but I am also somewhat deterministic in that I think everything is determined by God, even evil acts. This “comment” is already much too long so I really can’t explore that highly provocative statement at this point but I’ll offer one major proof text. The greatest sin ever committed took place under the plan and intention of God. The murder of the Son of God was God’s will. He willed that this sin take place, and he willed it so that we might be saved. Note Acts 4:26-28, particularly verse 28, to see that the crucifixion of Jesus was something God planned and predestined to take place. This does not make God responsible for human sin, it does not remove human responsibility for the sinful acts we commit, but it does show God at work guiding all of human history according to his will. A lot of people strongly dislike the notion of God controlling history but this should be a source of great comfort for believers. We know he is working out all things according to his perfect plan. There are no accidents, it is all being shaped and guided by God and in the end it will all be used for good.

    So I have free will, but God remains sovereign over all things and can (and does) control the dictates of my will to bring about his plan. If that sounds somewhat confusing it’s only because it is. Someday perhaps God will make all of this clear.

  • Joe

    Chris Roberts,

    I like your response. I don’t think it was long enough, because I sense you have much more to say and in greater detail. Please keep preaching this way. The Doctrines of Grace incorporate the whole Gospel. It is really hard to recognize the Gospel in an Arminian (man-centered) appeal to the flesh.

    Joe

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Joe,

    You exaggerate a bit. I have no great quarrel with those who disagree about Calvinism. Obviously I think them wrong, but on the essentials we say the same thing. The content of the gospel message remains the same, the difference is in the finer details. I think those details important, but nowhere near so important that one is justified in saying the Arminian interpretation of Scripture makes the gospel almost unrecognizable.

    And to repeat a pet peeve, I hate the phrase “Doctrines of Grace” as a reference to Calvinism. It presumes (as too many Calvinists presume) that Calvinism somehow has a monopoly on the notion of God’s grace. I do believe Calvinism contains a better, more biblical understand of God’s grace but that doesn’t mean non-Calvinists deny grace. We agree that all is by God’s grace. We differ some on just how that all works out.

  • Joe

    Chris,

    I did not mean to offend you with so many things I should not have written. However, I was not referencing Calvinism with the phrase “Doctrines of Grace.” I am a Baptist, not a Calvinist. I am wrong for using the phrase “Arminianism.” Perhaps this confused you. A better way to attempt to say what I mean is simply that it is difficult to preach a Gospel focused on Christ while attempting to interject man into the central theme.

    I do not think I misunderstood your article and your subsequent comments. I did very much enjoy them. Apparently I have misunderstood your intent. I will refrain from entering a comment into this blog from now on.

    Joe

  • http://www.seektheholy.com/ Chris Roberts

    Joe,

    No offense, I’m just not fond of the expression “doctrines of grace” to refer to this theological system. As for the terms, Baptist and Calvinist are not mutually exclusive. Baptist refers to denominational identity, Calvinist refers to theological identity. I do not agree with everything John Calvin said. I am a Baptist so right off you can know I disagree with Calvin on the infant baptism issue.

    The theological system I’ve been discussing is Calvinism. Many people refer to this system as the doctrines of grace.