Why is Calvinism surging?

[HankD]

I don't believe Calvinism is either necessarily surging or on the rise.

Surveys and studies are subject to the forces of the predisposition and prejudice of the author and finding what we expected to find when the "research" is all done.

This could possibly be why there seems to be this so-called "surge" or "rise": wishful thinking on the part of the researcher.


One thing is true and is easily proven is that Calvinism is getting a lot of press lately.
This does not necessarily mean that it is on the rise.

What is there about it that those who adhere to it find so attractive?

IMO - It gives a simple solution to complex issues. e.g TULIP - a very handy acrostic but not necessarily an accurate representation of biblical truth.

A final thought : It bears the name of a man:

1 Corinthians 3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? ​

HankD​

 

[Rhetorician]

"John Three!"

Webdog et al!

It is always good to hear from you my dear brother!

I would take exception with what you have said. This is a "true statement and worthy of all acceptation, . . . " Calvinism is on the rise in the SBC. The Rev. Dr. Ed Stetzer of the LifeWay (SBC) Research Division has the facts and figures and data. See this web page, read his stats; or you may have to listen to the streaming audio:

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D166704%2526M%253D201042,00.html?

But JFTR (just for the record), if "Calvinism" (so called) had not been on the rise in the SBC we surely would not have had a Bible/Theology/Historical Conference sponsored by LifeWay, Southeastern Baptist Theological, and Founder's Ministries if it were not on the rise. This alone would be proof enough for most.

No offense intended to anyone who reads my post here on the BB.

FYI!

sdg!

rd

To all who have an interest:

I have one of the quotes from the above discussed conference: "You can attribute the new rise of Calvinism to 'John Three.' JOHNathan EDWARDS, JOHN PIPER, & JOHN MAC ARTHUR."

I thought this one quote spoke volumes.

sdg!

rd

 

[Brother Bob]

For the most part mega churches are non_calvinist.

continuing.....
60 percent of graduates of one of our seminaries identify themselves as five-point Calvinists.

These guys will lead in the churches of tomorrow.

They will not lead very many if all their churches are small membership and their baptisms are very few, which came from the same study you quoted. You and I both know that the numbers will rule the SBC and not Calvinism, and the numbers support the non-Calvinism theology, also in the same report you and I both quoted.

http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=23993


BBob,

 

[Allan]

For the most part mega churches are non_calvinist.

continuing.....
60 percent of graduates of one of our seminaries identify themselves as five-point Calvinists.

These guys will lead in the churches of tomorrow.

WHile it does not bother me with a rise or not. It is of note that it is only 'one' of those seminaries whos' graduates are of the 60 percentile. Guess what their main theologica thrust is? I'm not saying it is ONLY Calvinistic but it's thrust (or point of view and biblical application) is very Calvinstic. That should be a no brainer though since its' president is, many if not most of it's professors are and many of it's classes, therefore I would expect such. We see however that 40% of those students in the Seminary are not Calvinistic (in the 5 point sense). That is apparently equal to the number of those seminaries which have a non-cal thrust graduating a 30 percentile group.

It appears the numbers are actaully consistant with regard to the basic theological thrust of the Seminary.

I did note that 'apparently' none of these talk about our Universities and Colleges (unless I missed it, which is possible since I gave only a cursory view to all). What are the statics with regard to these institutions of Christian learning?

Personally I see no reason NOT to have Colleges/Semenaries that teach both without makeing them soley and only one view allowed. But hey, who am I but a servant

 

[Jarthur001]

They will not lead very many if all their churches are small membership and their baptisms are very few, which came from the same study you quoted. You and I both know that the numbers will rule the SBC and not Calvinism, and the numbers support the non-Calvinism theology, also in the same report you and I both quoted.

http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=23993


BBob,

i nor any one is claiming Calvinist are "in Control" The OP and all of my post as well as others says the Calvinist numbers has come up. Why any one would disagree...I have no idea. But study after study says this is the case.

I'm not sure they will ever be "in control". The 60% are young. They could change...they may never get a church. Who knows...the numbers may go beyond 60%. But to have 60% now....is something I thought I would never see.

 

[Brother Bob]

i nor any one is claiming Calvinist are "in Control" The OP and all of my post as well as others says the Calvinist numbers has come up. Why any one would disagree...I have no idea. But study after study says this is the case.

I'm not sure they will ever be "in control". The 60% are young. They could change...they may never get a church. Who knows...the numbers may go beyond 60%. But to have 60% now....is something I thought I would never see.

Where do you find that 60 percent James. Is it from a Calvinistic seminary or would it be from a main stream seminary???

I do not resent the 60 percent at all James and have no reason to. I just find it hard to believe it came from the main stream seminaries as a whole, but more of a particular seminar

I find it very disturbing that seminaries control the theology throughout the world. I strongly believe in getting my seminary from the Lord Himself. I knew one professor who said "sin is good", I think he was methodist, but not sure. I know that from what ever college or seminary a person comes from will just about control what theology he leaves the college with and that disturbs me. It puts man's influence way too much in control of the "word". IMO

BBob, :thumbs:

 

[reformedbeliever]

The Lifeway poll was a very narrow poll. Some say it is because of the fact that they would be afraid to post the numbers a less narrow poll would have reflected. By narrower poll, I mean one where 4 pointers would have been included. A 4 pointer is very Calvinistic. Just something to think about.

 

[Jarthur001]

WHile it does not bother me with a rise or not. It is of note that it is only ONE those seminaries whos' graduates are of the 60 percentile. Guess what their main theologica thrust is? I'm not saying it is ONLY Calvinistic but it's thrust (or point of view and biblical application) is very Calvinstic. That should be a no brainer though since its' president is, many if not most of it's professors are and many of it's classes. We see however that 40% of those students in the Seminary are not Calvinistic (in the 5 point sense). That is apparently equal to the number of those seminaries which have a non-cal thrust graduating a 30 percentile group.

It appears the numbers are actaully consistant with regard to the basic theological thrust of the Seminary.

I did note that 'apparently' none of these talk about our Universities and Colleges (unless I missed it, which is possible since I gave only a cursory view to all). What are the statics with regard to these institutions of Christian learning?

still...it is a rise.

It did surprise me that that 60% were 5 pointers. I had no idea this was the case. But non-calvinist have no fear. Things do change in time. Power is most pure when it is on the rise. Once in control, this is when corruptions begins. This is why you will see a swing back the other way in time if this Calvinism goes hyper as it did once before. Man never seems to get it right.

Also....if they do take control of the landscape, Calvinist leaders need to change too. Pink..the guy i have in my picture above handled this the best that I can tell. When in a church that did not teach Calvinism, Pinked talked about Calvinism. When in a church that held more toward Calvinism, Pink in his own words talked more about the responsiblity of man.

 

[Allan]

Where do you find that 60 percent James. Is it from a Calvinistic seminary or would it be from a main stream seminary???

I do not resent the 60 percent at all James and have no reason to. I just find it hard to believe it came from the main stream seminaries as a whole, but more of a particular seminar

BBob, :thumbs:

It is not 'specifically' a Calvinistic Seminary but one with a definate Calvinistic thrust or as I stated 'point of view and its biblical appliciation'.

It is one of the Flagship Seminaries of the SBC and therefore mainline in that sense. They are very balanced in that they do not demand adhearance to any particular view but it is geared to set forth that view as the Non-Cal does. Hey, it's only fair, not only to it's staff who have a view, but also the students.

 

[Allan]

The Lifeway poll was a very narrow poll. Some say it is because of the fact that they would be afraid to post the numbers a less narrow poll would have reflected. By narrower poll, I mean one where 4 pointers would have been included. A 4 pointer is very Calvinistic. Just something to think about.

WHile I would agree brother, a great many Calvinists would not. I know 'a few' of the people at Founders and more specifically blogs sites that support them who would consider a person a Calvinist ONLY if the held the initial 5 points. Anything less would not be a true Calvinist.

We see that on the BB as well. Many here will say the very same thing, if they do not adhere to the basic 5 principles which are the bare minimum they would not be considered a Calvinist. Calvinistic, MAYBE...(depending on those who seek puritism of the Theologic view) but even then they are considered (much like Spurgeon by other Calvinists) as a mongrel dog. Half breed so to speak.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

I have heard pastors here locally blame Southern Seminary for the rise of Calvinism. I think we need to be very careful with such statements. Many of the people going to Southern Seminary are Calvinistic before they ever walk on the campus. So it is not like the seminary is creating them in some Calvin mold. I have taken classes at Southern and I have not had one professor bring up Calvinism to try and influence anyone. The times it has been addressed is when students specifically ask the professors their beliefs. And the professors I have heard address it are not all 5 pointers either.

 

[Jarthur001]

I have heard pastors here locally blame Southern Seminary for the rise of Calvinism. I think we need to be very careful with such statements. Many of the people going to Southern Seminary are Calvinistic before they ever walk on the campus. So it is not like the seminary is creating them in some Calvin mold. I have taken classes at Southern and I have not had one professor bring up Calvinism to try and influence anyone. The times it has been addressed is when students specifically ask the professors their beliefs. And the professors I have heard address it are not all 5 pointers either.

I have taken classes there myself. I agree that it is not forced, or it was not in the classes I took. They present all mainline doctrines from all sides. The professors I had were not 5 pointers.

 

[Rhetorician]

"Calvinist" Before it was "Cool!"

Gentlemen et al,

Allow me to relate an anecdotal story if I may.

Following on the heels of the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" there were many who came into our seminaries. I say "our seminaries" meaning all of those who have had an influence from the "new theological perspective." (Please forgive the use of this term for this discussion only). I mean Mid America, Luther Rice, Criswell College, Beeson Divinity, etc.

Many who came to one of these seminaries were under the tutelage of men and movements like Timothy George, Tom Nettles, Tom Ascol, the Founder's Ministries, et al. What they found was that the former SBC hierarchy had not put out much "meat" theologically speaking, therefore when they began to hear of the "historic SBC Doctrines of Grace" espoused they took to it right away.

Some of us were at places like MABTS in the early to mid 80s just as the Resurgence happened. Some were also "Calvinists" before "Calvin was cool." Many, who were young then, knew what it meant to be a "historic Southern Baptist" meaning we had already been reading: Gill, Edwards, Fuller, Dagg, Mell, Johnson, Broadus, Boyce, and others. Some are just now or in the last few years have begun to read these "Baptist heroes."

My observation as one who lived through both the "Conservative Resurgence" and the present Calvinistic debate is this: When these young men came to the seminaries and found some good, solid, Baptistic, theological base; they bolted to the "Doctrines of Grace" en mass. There may not have been as many as I think but there is a goodly number just the same. Some stayed. Some came back. Some moderated. But now some (maybe a lot) are back teaching and "carrying on the tradition" as we see it.

Before the resurgence there seems to have been a "theological vacuum." The Doctrines of Grace and the resurgence seem to have been either contemporaneous or the old "chicken and egg" question. I, from my vantage point, cannot tell which is the case.

Either way, the "genie was out of the bottle" so to speak. And the "Conservative Resurgence" is probably symbiotic with the new rise of the "Doctrines of Grace," so-called.

There were ones of us around who were "Calvinists" before "Calvin was cool."

FWIW!

sdg!

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

Good Insight!!

Although, I am not a Calvinist, I think it is a return to what they see as a Biblical doctrine. This is not an argument between Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. This is - well, ought to be - a disagreement among people who have many more agreements than disagreements.

Tom,

This is a great insight. This was THE MAJOR POINT OF THE WHOLE CALVINISIM CONFERENCE @ Ridgecrest.

Get the tapes. Listen to the messages streaming. Listen and read Dr. Stetzer's research.

Calvinism is here to stay and it is not going away any time soon in the SBC.

sdg!:thumbs:

rd

 

[psalms109:31]

This just goes to show how clueless you are about what calvinism really is.
Total strawman.
Get your facts straight.

Most calvinist don't know what calvinist is.

Either I was created to believe and God is going to lead me to salvation or I was created for death and God will not lead me to life. It is easy believism.

This what I understand from listening to most calvinist. Where I go is up to God not me.

 

[Dale-c]

Most calvinist don't know what calvinist is.

Either I was created to believe and God is going to lead me to salvation or I was created for death and God will not lead me to life. It is easy believism.

This what I understand from listening to most calvinist. Where I go is up to God not me.

Once again, you do not understand calvinism, which is just a nickname for the Biblical account of the gospel.

You see one side, the divine side but you are ignoring the side of man's responsibility.
The error of both hyper-Calvinism and free willism is that it does not take into account the two sides of the coin that the Bible teaches.

IF you are truly just misunderstood, I would love to point you to a series of sermons that are online that really show both sides so well.

Here is the link:
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1575&highlight=gods+decree

 

[psalms109:31]

Once again, you do not understand calvinism, which is just a nickname for the Biblical account of the gospel.

You see one side, the divine side but you are ignoring the side of man's responsibility.
The error of both hyper-Calvinism and free willism is that it does not take into account the two sides of the coin that the Bible teaches.

IF you are truly just misunderstood, I would love to point you to a series of sermons that are online that really show both sides so well.

Here is the link:
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1575&highlight=gods+decree

Most calvinist don't see man's responsibility.

That we can be cut out for unbelief and that Jesus will disown us if we disown Him.

We must endure to the end to be saved.

God has made a promise to keep the meek and the humble who trust in the name of the Lord.

He has not promised to keep anyone else.

 

[Jarthur001]

Most calvinist don't know what calvinist is.

Either I was created to believe and God is going to lead me to salvation or I was created for death and God will not lead me to life. It is easy believism.

This what I understand from listening to most calvinist. Where I go is up to God not me.

Ok...you now own the must outrages quote of the day. Why is it that some non-Calvinist think Calvinist are tricked and it is up to them to bring them to the truth??

Most calvinist don't know what calvinist is.

Please show me the stats to prove this. Could it be that they DO know what Calvinism is...and that they hold to it, because they see it as the truth?

This what I understand from listening to most calvinist. Where I go is up to God not me

And there you have it folks. As it turns out once again it is the non-Calvinist that do not know Calvinism. :laugh:

 

[StefanM]

I have heard pastors here locally blame Southern Seminary for the rise of Calvinism. I think we need to be very careful with such statements. Many of the people going to Southern Seminary are Calvinistic before they ever walk on the campus. So it is not like the seminary is creating them in some Calvin mold. I have taken classes at Southern and I have not had one professor bring up Calvinism to try and influence anyone. The times it has been addressed is when students specifically ask the professors their beliefs. And the professors I have heard address it are not all 5 pointers either.

Sure, you'll have a few Christmas Calvinists (No "L"), but a non-Calvinist (in terms of election and soteriology) cannot endorse the Abstract of Principles.

What would be instructive is the percentage of Calvinists (either 5 point or not) who graduate from Southern. If 60% are 5-pointers, I suspect that the other 40% may include many Calvinists, even if they don't endorse all of TULIP.

 

[StefanM]

We must endure to the end to be saved.

God has made a promise to keep the meek and the humble who trust in the name of the Lord.

He has not promised to keep anyone else.

Calvinists don't disagree. That's what the P in TULIP is for...Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are the elect will endure to the end.