Calvinism in the SBC

[Reader Antonius]

Greetings to all my Baptist Christian brothers and sisters in Christ!

I was baptized into the Latin rite of the Catholic Church as a baby, but due to various circumstances I was raised a Southern Baptist. Now, I was a devout Southern Baptist for much of my young life, but I never really thought of myself in denominational terms (i.e. I saw my faith as equivalent to Christianity 101). After I returned to the Catholic Church, and the process of discerning that return (I pretty much had to become a catechumen, lol), I learned that my beliefs were Calvinist, or at least held many Calvinist ideas. I then noticed that many of my Evangelical friends and family members (I am the only practicing Catholic in my family, pretty much everybody else is Baptist) also held ideas that were Calvinist. The more I thought about my past and such, the more I realized how vibrant Calvinism is within the Southern Baptist Convention (reading Lifeway pamphlets is proof enough) and, from my vantage point, American Evangelicalism as a whole.

I wanted to get some thoughts from some of the Baptists here on this. Am I wrong in my perception? If not, why is Calvinism so prevalent?

In any case, I wish everyone here a most blessed Pascha/Easter!

 

[98cwitr]

Ive never studied Calvin's teaching but am increasingly being told my theology is Calivinistic. If you read and believe the Bible cover to cover, you can't help but develop a TULIP theology.

 

[Reader Antonius]

If you read and believe the Bible cover to cover, you can't help but develop a TULIP theology.

Yes, that's the view I had for some time. Obviously I don't have that view anymore, but even still it is prevalent. This is a theme I notice among many Baptists, myself as a former included; namely, the idea that one's beliefs are just Biblical.

Of course, on the other hand, I believe as a Catholic that my beliefs are "just Biblical." I'm sure my Greek Orthodox friend would say the same about her beliefs and so on and so forth (not that we disagree on much, lol).

I guess I am working from a premise that historic Baptist theology might not have been originally Calvinistic (perhaps that's a better description?), but developed thus. Problem is that it's an area I haven't really researched, lol.

Interesting. Thanks for your input!!!

 

[phoenixdem]

Greetings to all my Baptist Christian brothers and sisters in Christ!

I was baptized into the Latin rite of the Catholic Church as a baby, but due to various circumstances I was raised a Southern Baptist. Now, I was a devout Southern Baptist for much of my young life, but I never really thought of myself in denominational terms (i.e. I saw my faith as equivalent to Christianity 101). After I returned to the Catholic Church, and the process of discerning that return (I pretty much had to become a catechumen, lol), I learned that my beliefs were Calvinist, or at least held many Calvinist ideas. I then noticed that many of my Evangelical friends and family members (I am the only practicing Catholic in my family, pretty much everybody else is Baptist) also held ideas that were Calvinist. The more I thought about my past and such, the more I realized how vibrant Calvinism is within the Southern Baptist Convention (reading Lifeway pamphlets is proof enough) and, from my vantage point, American Evangelicalism as a whole.

I wanted to get some thoughts from some of the Baptists here on this. Am I wrong in my perception? If not, why is Calvinism so prevalent?

In any case, I wish everyone here a most blessed Pascha/Easter!

Happy Easter to you as well. I'm not sure that Calvinism is prevalent today. The Churches today are in a bad situation, The Scripture itself teaches predestination and also personal responsibility regarding salvation. The Holy Bible also teaches the Sovereignty of God in the affairs of men.

The enemies of God are prevalent today. They use different ways trying to do the impossible which is to destroy the teachings of God. To discredit the Scriptures they use the name of John Calvin as a sort of monster in the night. I have never considered myself a Calvanist per se, but I do believe in the Scriptures. Many people who want to attack the Scriptures use the name of John Calvin as someone who is a heretic and say the teachings of John Calvin is heresy while the Holy Bible teaches the things that Calvin teaches. Therefore, if John Calvin is wrong, so is the Holy Bible, in their argument.

There are many Christians today who want to teach evolution and teach other things contrary to the Scriptures to discredit the teachings of God. They even want to change the meaning of the Scriptures and teach there are many different ways to interpret the Scriptures. The Holy Bible tells us there will be false teachers in the End Days. Christians need discernment today to identify false teachers from the true teachers of God.

Unfortunately, even churches that were strong in the Lord are changing from teaching the Word of God to teaching things that people want to hear. They want the world to like them and they think that teaching a social gospel is the way to do it. They don't want to look unsophisticated and foolish in the eyes of the world and forget that God teaches that the wisdom of the world is foolishness.

 

[98cwitr]

T stands for total depravity. This does not mean that all persons are as bad as they could possibly be. It means rather that all human beings are affected by sin in every area of thought and conduct so that nothing that comes out of anyone apart from the regenerating grace of God can please God. As far as our relationships to God are concerned, we are all so ruined by sin that no one can properly understand either God or God's ways. Nor do we seek God, unless He is first at work within us to lead us to do so

U stands for unconditional election. An emphasis on election bothers many people, but the problem they feel is not actually with election; it is with depravity. If sinners are as helpless in their depravity as the Bible says they are, unable to know and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them. This is what election means. It is God choosing to save those who, apart from His sovereign choice and subsequent action, certainly would perish.

L stands for limited atonement. The name is potentially misleading, for it seems to suggest that reformed people want somehow to restrict the value of Christ's death. This is not the case. The value of Jesus' death is infinite. The question rather is what is the purpose of Christ's death, and what He accomplished in it. Did Christ intend to make salvation no more than possible? Or did He actually save those for whom He died? Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.

I stands for irresistible grace. Left to ourselves we resist the grace of God. But when God works in our hearts, regenerating us and creating a renewed will within, then what was undesirable before becomes highly desirable, and we run to Jesus just as previously we ran away from Him. Fallen sinners do resist God's grace, but His regenerating grace is effectual. It overcomes sin and accomplishes God's purpose.

P stands for perseverance of the saints. A better name might be "the perseverance of God with the saints," but both ideas are actually involved. God perseveres with us, keeping us from falling away, as we would certainly do if He were not with us. But because He perseveres we also persevere. In fact, perseverance is the ultimate proof of election. We persevere because God preserves us from full and final falling away from Him.

T.U.L.I.P. Reformed Theology, James Montgomery Boice | The Reformed Reader

 

[miamited]

Hi Knight,

I'm always a bit hesitant to get into discussions of the various 'isms' of the world. Perhaps it would be better, after labeling what you believe as 'calvinism', to then explain exactly what you think that means. I often find that there are about as many 'understandings' of the 'isms' and there are of christianity. So, in order that we don't waste time with any misunderstandings, what exactly is it in the practice of the baptist denominational faith that you find to be 'calvinistic'?

Thanks and God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again Knight,

Speaking as a born again believer, I can tell you that how I see the TULIP principle, it is seriously flawed. I agree with the understanding that most have understood Calvin's position on the 'T', but beyond that I'm not in agreement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[savedfromdistruction]

Greetings to all my Baptist Christian brothers and sisters in Christ!

I was baptized into the Latin rite of the Catholic Church as a baby, but due to various circumstances I was raised a Southern Baptist. Now, I was a devout Southern Baptist for much of my young life, but I never really thought of myself in denominational terms (i.e. I saw my faith as equivalent to Christianity 101). After I returned to the Catholic Church, and the process of discerning that return (I pretty much had to become a catechumen, lol), I learned that my beliefs were Calvinist, or at least held many Calvinist ideas. I then noticed that many of my Evangelical friends and family members (I am the only practicing Catholic in my family, pretty much everybody else is Baptist) also held ideas that were Calvinist. The more I thought about my past and such, the more I realized how vibrant Calvinism is within the Southern Baptist Convention (reading Lifeway pamphlets is proof enough) and, from my vantage point, American Evangelicalism as a whole.

I wanted to get some thoughts from some of the Baptists here on this. Am I wrong in my perception? If not, why is Calvinism so prevalent?

In any case, I wish everyone here a most blessed Pascha/Easter!

It is true that many present themselves as Calvinists. However by that claim alone it is still impossible what they mean as Calvinism has taken on many levels of belief. Most likely even John Calvin did not hold what some of them say they believe. As to why they believe in Calvinism perhaps some people need someone to point to who agrees with their system of belief. Perhaps others just want to be in the mix and others like the sound of the word. Make them feel scholarly or something.
While on occasions I also am accused of being a Calvinist because of some doctrine I might explain I never claim to be one because I have never met the man, talked to him on the phone, or read any book he has wrote. All that I have is the bible and if this man read his bible and held some of views I do it is because we have the same Author.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Hmmmm....perhaps some clarification is needed.

What I meant by “Calvinistic” in Baptist Christianity, particularly as it was taught to me are things like:

· Total Depravity
· Eternal Security (“Once Saved, Always Saved&#8221
· Irresistible grace

There are no doubt other “Calvinistic” themes present, but I can’t think of anymore or their specific examples right now. The major one that stands out is the “Once Saved, Always Saved” thing and the idea of a one-time salvation event (as opposed to the idea of justification as an ongoing process). Both of these seem strong in American Evangelicalism and seem almost “dogmatic” for the SBC.

I understand well that Calvinism is an umbrella term. There is no “Calvinism” as such in the SBC since many pick & choose which parts of TULIP they are going to believe (hence the much disputed “Limited Atonement”, etc.).

What I mean is that there are Calvinist themes and ideas that are peculiar to Calvinist Protestantism present in the SBC and American Evangelicalism. This is evident to anyone familiar with Calvinism and its relation to/difference with other Christian theological systems.

 

[phoenixdem]

Hmmmm....perhaps some clarification is needed.

What I meant by “Calvinistic” in Baptist Christianity, particularly as it was taught to me are things like:

· Total Depravity
· Eternal Security (“Once Saved, Always Saved”)
· Irresistible grace

There are no doubt other “Calvinistic” themes present, but I can’t think of any or their specific examples. The major one that stands out is the “Once Saved, Always Saved” thing and the idea of a one-time salvation event (as opposed to the idea of justification as an ongoing process). Both of these seem strong in American Evangelicalism and seem almost “dogmatic” for the SBC.

I understand well that Calvinism is an umbrella term. There is no “Calvinism” as such in the SBC since many pick a choose which parts of TULIP they are going to believe (hence the much disputed “Limited Atonement”, etc.).

What I mean is that there are Calvinist themes and ideas that are peculiar to Calvinist Protestantism present in the SBC and American Evangelicalism. This is evident to anyone familiar with Calvinism and its relation to/difference with other Christian theological systems.

I believe that man cannot respond to God until the Holy Spirit enables him to do so. I believe in Once Saved, Always Saved. I also believe that when God has determined that a person will be saved, that person's salvation is assured. Christians are told to work out their salvation in fear and trembling, yet that doesn't mean that person will be lost through some action of others or even himself. I think those beliefs simply mean I believe in the Scriptures. I'm not a Calvinist or any other -ism, just a Christian.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I think those beliefs simply mean I believe in the Scriptures. I'm not a Calvinist or any other -ism, just a Christian.

Indeed. That is much how I thought while I was a Baptist.

That is something else I have noticed among many Baptists, especially members of the my own family and friends of mine (myself included!). There doesn't appear to be much attempt to name or categorize their beliefs. That is to say that the belief are not usually identified in the same way other Christian churches do. For example, in the Catholic Church we make distinctions between various differences in emphasis within our own communion. Thus we have Eastern (Catholic) theology, Thomism (after St. Thomas Aquinas), Augustinianism, and so on. It doesn't mean we believe these are separate beliefs systems or that they are in contradiction...merely that they have differing theological and hermeneutical models and emphatic points. Similar categorizations and distinctions are made within Eastern Orthodoxy and in other mainstream Protestant groups (I prefer the term "classical Protestantism").

Anyway, it's just an observation. Thanks so much to everyone who has contributed thus far!

 

[realtruth101]

I think the bible is pretty clear don't follow men and their personal theology, if you call yourself a calvinist just by your confession your already in error of biblical teaching, follow Christ, as for Calvinism, I don't think Calvin was wrong per say, Its just taking a theology to its extreme side, and there by overlooking all of scripture that shows there is a missing element. I personally find there are two ditches on each side of the Christian road, and each one is the extreme opposite of the other, where by both are correct, yet both are lacking, I say the middle of the road is a biblically balanced road. Just as the book of James makes faith without works a dead faith It becomes perfectly clear, there are many things working togather, grace, faith, works, just siding with one of these is an imbalance in biblical theology, but when they are all put togather, building on eachother, into one complete form, It is a more correct picture

 

[Hammster]

It is true that many present themselves as Calvinists. However by that claim alone it is still impossible what they mean as Calvinism has taken on many levels of belief. Most likely even John Calvin did not hold what some of them say they believe. As to why they believe in Calvinism perhaps some people need someone to point to who agrees with their system of belief. Perhaps others just want to be in the mix and others like the sound of the word. Make them feel scholarly or something.
While on occasions I also am accused of being a Calvinist because of some doctrine I might explain I never claim to be one because I have never met the man, talked to him on the phone, or read any book he has wrote. All that I have is the bible and if this man read his bible and held some of views I do it is because we have the same Author.

Serious misrepresentation of why many claim to be Calvinists.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Hammster]

I think the bible is pretty clear don't follow men and their personal theology, if you call yourself a calvinist just by your confession your already in error of biblical teaching, follow Christ, as for Calvinism I don't think Calvin was wrong per say, Its just taking a theology to its extreme side, and there by overlooking all of scripture that shows there is a missing element. I personally find there are two ditches on each side of the Christian road and each one is the extreme opposite of the other, where by both are correct yet both are lacking, I say the middle of the road is biblically balanced road just as the book of James makes faith without works a dead faith It becomes perfectly clear, there are many things working togather, grace, faith, works, just siding with one of these is an imbalance in biblical theology, but when they are all put togather, building on eachother, into one complete form, It is a more correct picture

Another misrepresentation of Calvinists by someone who must not attend church.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[Hammster]

Hi again Knight,

Speaking as a born again believer, I can tell you that how I see the TULIP principle, it is seriously flawed. I agree with the understanding that most have understood Calvin's position on the 'T', but beyond that I'm not in agreement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

If you held to the 'T', you'd be reformed.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hmmmm....perhaps some clarification is needed.

What I meant by “Calvinistic” in Baptist Christianity, particularly as it was taught to me are things like:

· Total Depravity
· Eternal Security (“Once Saved, Always Saved”)
· Irresistible grace

There are no doubt other “Calvinistic” themes present, but I can’t think of anymore or their specific examples right now. The major one that stands out is the “Once Saved, Always Saved” thing and the idea of a one-time salvation event (as opposed to the idea of justification as an ongoing process). Both of these seem strong in American Evangelicalism and seem almost “dogmatic” for the SBC.

I understand well that Calvinism is an umbrella term. There is no “Calvinism” as such in the SBC since many pick & choose which parts of TULIP they are going to believe (hence the much disputed “Limited Atonement”, etc.).

Thank you for sharing with us!

The doctrine of “once saved, always saved” is actually a fairly wide spectrum of doctrines that fall under a large umbrella, and the very large majority of Baptists today believe in some form of this doctrine. The earliest Baptists separated from the Church of England during a time when the Church of England was Arminian in its theology but these Baptists separated themselves over the issue of water baptism rather than Arminian theology and therefore remained Arminian in their beliefs.

However, the new and novel “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism were at that time sweeping through continental Europe and these new and novel doctrines of Calvinism soon gained a very strong foothold in our very early Baptist churches—so much so that the late 17th century Baptist churches were, for the most part, Calvinistic. Since that time, our Baptist churches have been very gradually taking a stand against the errors of Calvinism, and today the very large majority of Baptist churches teach contrary to all five of the “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism. Consequently, they reject the notion that all true believers will “persevere” (as Calvin taught), but teach that God will “preserve” all true believers.

None of the doctrines that fall under the umbrella of “once saved, always saved” are taught in the Bible, and therefore no one “found” any of them in the Bible until a very wrong understanding of the sovereignty of God in continental Europe resulted in the five new and novel “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism. By the grace of God, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently rejected all of these incorrect teachings, as have also all of the Orthodox Churches.

Since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, very many Protestant denominations have sprung up and many of them, including a few Baptist denominations, have also consistently rejected all five of the “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism. Unfortunately, many other denominations have not rejected them.

The SBC was formed by Southerners in the United States who wrongly believed that the institution of slavery was not only fair and just, but ordained by God and endorsed in both the Old and the New Testaments. From their point of view, the “God-given right” to own slaves was much more important than the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism and hence the denomination did not take a stand on the issue. In the early part of the next century, preventing women from getting the right to vote was to them more important than the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism and hence the denomination still did not take a stand on the issue. By that time, the SBC was so staunchly diverse in its teaching on the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism that it has continued to be diverse in its teaching on that issue. Nonetheless, the churches belonging to the SBC, with very few exceptions, teach the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” in one form or another.

If the Bible really teaches the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” surely someone would have noticed that fact before the doctrine was “discovered” in the Bible by European Roman Catholic dissenters. This fact has been a thorn in the side of advocates of the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” ever since the doctrine was first conceived in the 16th century, and although many of the advocates have diligently searched through the many thousands of Christian documents composed prior to the 16th century hoping to find at least one that supports their theology, not a single one has been found. Most regrettably, however, some individuals have quoted some of these documents out of context to make it appear that they support their theology, and if you should encounter any of these quotes, I strongly urge you to read them in context to see for yourself what the documents really say.

My God bless you and your family!

 

[student ad x]

There's no "middle road" Baptist theology. Theologically, one's "ism" is either Pelagianism, synergism or monergism. The Reformed/Calvinistic Baptist "ism" is monergism.

Soli deo gloria

 

[Reader Antonius]

Hmmmm....perhaps some clarification is needed.

What I meant by “Calvinistic” in Baptist Christianity, particularly as it was taught to me are things like:

· Total Depravity
· Eternal Security (“Once Saved, Always Saved”)
· Irresistible grace

There are no doubt other “Calvinistic” themes present, but I can’t think of anymore or their specific examples right now. The major one that stands out is the “Once Saved, Always Saved” thing and the idea of a one-time salvation event (as opposed to the idea of justification as an ongoing process). Both of these seem strong in American Evangelicalism and seem almost “dogmatic” for the SBC.

I understand well that Calvinism is an umbrella term. There is no “Calvinism” as such in the SBC since many pick & choose which parts of TULIP they are going to believe (hence the much disputed “Limited Atonement”, etc.).

Thank you for sharing with us!

The doctrine of “once saved, always saved” is actually a fairly wide spectrum of doctrines that fall under a large umbrella, and the very large majority of Baptists today believe in some form of this doctrine. The earliest Baptists separated from the Church of England during a time when the Church of England was Arminian in its theology but these Baptists separated themselves over the issue of water baptism rather than Arminian theology and therefore remained Arminian in their beliefs.

However, the new and novel “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism were at that time sweeping through continental Europe and these new and novel doctrines of Calvinism soon gained a very strong foothold in our very early Baptist churches—so much so that the late 17th century Baptist churches were, for the most part, Calvinistic. Since that time, our Baptist churches have been very gradually taking a stand against the errors of Calvinism, and today the very large majority of Baptist churches teach contrary to all five of the “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism. Consequently, they reject the notion that all true believers will “persevere” (as Calvin taught), but teach that God will “preserve” all true believers.

None of the doctrines that fall under the umbrella of “once saved, always saved” are taught in the Bible, and therefore no one “found” any of them in the Bible until a very wrong understanding of the sovereignty of God in continental Europe resulted in the five new and novel “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism. By the grace of God, the Roman Catholic Church has consistently rejected all of these incorrect teachings, as have also all of the Orthodox Churches.

Since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, very many Protestant denominations have sprung up and many of them, including a few Baptist denominations, have also consistently rejected all five of the “TULIP” doctrines of Calvinism. Unfortunately, many other denominations have not rejected them.

The SBC was formed by Southerners in the United States who wrongly believed that the institution of slavery was not only fair and just, but ordained by God and endorsed in both the Old and the New Testaments. From their point of view, the “God-given right” to own slaves was much more important than the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism and hence the denomination did not take a stand on the issue. In the early part of the next century, preventing women from getting the right to vote was to them more important than the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism and hence the denomination still did not take a stand on the issue. By that time, the SBC was so staunchly diverse in its teaching on the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism that it has continued to be diverse in its teaching on that issue. Nonetheless, the churches belonging to the SBC, with very few exceptions, teach the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” in one form or another.

If the Bible really teaches the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” surely someone would have noticed that fact before the doctrine was “discovered” in the Bible by European Roman Catholic dissenters. This fact has been a thorn in the side of advocates of the doctrine of “once saved, always saved” ever since the doctrine was first conceived in the 16th century, and although many of the advocates have diligently searched through the many thousands of Christian documents composed prior to the 16th century hoping to find at least one that supports their theology, not a single one has been found. Most regrettably, however, some individuals have quoted some of these documents out of context to make it appear that they support their theology, and if you should encounter any of these quotes, I strongly urge you to read them in context to see for yourself what the documents really say.

My God bless you and your family!

Whoa, what an AWESOME post! Thanks so much brother!! My question was answered and more, lol.

God's rich blessings on you and your's as well!!

I am worried thought that you might have caused a bit of a rustle with the post, but I suppose you knew that might happen.

In any case, thanks to EVERYONE for their input and taking the time to share with me. Even though I'm Catholic today, I have great affection for my Baptist brothers and sisters. It was in the SBC that I gained my love of Scripture, good preachin', and loving fellowship.

I found all of that here, just by discussing on this forum, lol.

Peace be with everyone, and I wish everybody a blessed Pascha. Though we may disagree on a lot, the one thing on which we base out ultimate hope is the common faith:

He is Risen! AMEN!!

 

[desmalia]

There's no "middle road" Baptist theology. Theologically, one's "ism" is either Pelagianism, synergism or monergism. The Reformed/Calvinistic Baptist "ism" is monergism.

Soli deo gloria

Exactly. People get so hypersensitive these days about labels, as if being a Calvinist somehow means following Calvin as some sort of pope or something. One could just as well call themselves Augustinian, or Paulian, or oh ya, Christian and the doctrines themselves are just the same.

As for the SBC, from what I understand, it was grounded in the doctrines of grace, but over the years became heavily influenced by the likes of Finney, Wesley, etc. and wandered into a more Arminian/Semipelagian camp. However as of late many SBCs are reforming and embracing their roots once again. I'm incredibly encouraged to see this. There are no SBCs in my area, and at least 99% of the Baptist churches within five hours of me are quite anti-Calvinist. It can be easy to get discouraged living in that environment. However, there is a reformation underway in the world today and I am excited and comforted by it.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Our (SBC affiliated) church has always tilted toward Augustian theology.