Why is Calvinism surging?

[Jarthur001]

I have.

And I like many others as well as those who left Calvinism were not so greatly impressed. It has truth within it no doubt. But it is a theology set forth by man and therefore has errors many errors as well. Yep, you heard me - Errors.

You want stats?
What stats are you looking for?
Stats like the fact that Calvinism declined after it increased and therefore due to their increase the Non-Cals declined and then later increased. That increase came from the teaching of those who were not Cal's and those who came from being completely Calvinistic to not so much or even not at all.

Or maybe the fact that the theology of Calvinism grew so out of whack with biblical reality it became a poison unto itself that even evangelism in it's own ranks almost died. I am speaking of it's later years and the rise of the Non-Cal position. It almost died because of it's legalism just as the non-cals almost died because their lack dilgence. One became to strict the other to not so.

Or how about the fact that both veiws have been in and throughout CHurch history. Rips views are ENTIRELY one sided on the issue and always have been since I've known him on the BB. The study of Church history through Calvinistic eyes will yield... guess what? Seeing Calvinism everywhere he looks. But that is also vise-versa and one can see that is either sides books on Church history. What is FUNNY is when one states their sides view of Church history is more correct because they are above reproach. I laugh at that. I have read Church history and done so with great care and both it and the Non-Cal view brought forth by God and used by God.

So apparently by reveiwing Church history it is apparent that God deems the Non-Cal view JUST as doctrinal in many areas as the Cal, and having error just as the Cal view as well. Yep, God uses both views because no one view gives an acturate depiction of God nor word. And you can see that through out Church history as well.

Allan,

As a person that loves church history, I would have to disagree. When the doctrines of grace is not highly held, the church is always at its lowest. ALWAYS. Calvinism was never over done, till Hyper-Calvinism was formed. If you care to show me a time when Calvinism was in force and even at a higher level then Arminianism, and its hyper free-willism I would gladly listen. Hyper-C is error that all agree with but cannot be found in the early church in any form.

Pure Calvinism is the middle ground. I know others will view this in another way. The RCC position of semi-Pelagianism is the largest held position and always has been 200 years after Augustine. The reformation did change this for a few years, but only to those outside the RCC. Even while the reformation was in full swing the RCC had a larger following and semi-Pelagianism ranked higher over all then Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

[ quote=Allan]
Rips views are ENTIRELY one sided on the issue and always have been since I've known him on the BB. The study of Church history through Calvinistic eyes will yield... guess what? Seeing Calvinism everywhere he looks.

Well it's Rippon here . Since you're calling me out I have a few words to say .

You can't resist the urge to lie about me again , can you Allan ? Your understanding of Church History is distorted . First of all you can not admit when you err . You don't know the difference between Adam Clarke and Gordon Clark . You stated that all Christians throughout Church History believed in Particular Redemption . You insist on being right when you are clearly in the wrong . You'll maintain to your dying day that Calvin's words regarding the false doctrines of Heshusius was from Calvin's Harmony Of The Gospels and not from one of his tracts .You insist that hyper-Calvinism teaches that God chose Jacob over Esau before either one sinned . You believe that Romans 9 has nothing to do with salvation . You say that when Jesus said that He came to seek and save the lost -- that it was a direct reference to Israel and did not have a broader scope . These kinds of abberant views of yours combined with your haughty and distainful attitude just do not go over so well with me .

 

[Allan]

Rippon, I had a long page of refute typed (and I know you read it)
But then I figured, why? It would do nothing but feed your pettiness here.

What you set forth is mischaracterisation, misinformation and distortion of what one has said.

I will not sink to doing this all over again. I leave my reputation and my postings to be my judge among the viewers.

Repent Rippon, it will do you a world of good.

I have cast no dispurssions on you in saying your view is one sided for we all look through our own theological glasses.

If you feel that way, I'm sorry for the afront.

 

[blackbird]

==Indeed, nothing at all is wrong with that kind of expression in worship. When we think of God, and all that He is and all that He has done, worship should be the "natural" result among those who are His. As for the surge of Calvinism in the SBC, I think there are several reasons (see if you, and others, agree and if you can add more):

1. The influence of people like John MacArthur, RC Sproul, D James Kennedy, John Piper, and Al Mohler.

2. The influence of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

3. A new focus on people like Spurgeon and church history.

4. A moving away from tradition to Scripture as the rule of faith. In this sense, the surge in Calvinism is a direct result of the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.

5. A new bread of seminary students who wish to look at these issues through a new set of glasses.

Feel free to agree, disagree, or add to this list. I think these things are all influencing the rise of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Btw, I don't think this surge will end soon. In fact, I tend to think this is only the start of something big. Will the convention split over this? I hope not and I don't think it will. However I do think at least two different camps are forming and those camps will both exist under the Southern Baptist label.

So, while I do believe it is a return to Biblical truth I think it is much more complex than that alone.

#1----disagree!!! 99.9999999% of my church members wouldn't know the guys if they were seated next to 'um!!!

#2---disagree!!! Again---there's not much emphasis placed on the identification of any of the SBC's seminaries---beyond being able to name all six

#3---disagree!! See #1

#4---Agree with the first part of the paragraph!!!! The hammer hits the nail on this one!!!! Disagree with the second part of the statement!

#5---disagree!!! There's no new breed of seminary students!! A Throughbred can no more plow new ground than a Cylesdale can win the Kentucky Derby!!!!:laugh:

 

[PK]

What is that supposed to mean?
Of course it is a doctrine. Mormons have doctrine.
You may not agree with it and it may not be your doctrine but it is doctrine nonetheless.

If I were a Calvinist I would be careful putting myself into the same group as Mormons.
I agree though, they two tell me that I don't interpret the scriptures correctly.

 

[Dale-c]

If I were a Calvinist I would be careful putting myself into the same group as Mormons.
I agree though, they two tell me that I don't interpret the scriptures correctly.

actually, the free will position is what the mormons believe.

So it is you that is closer to mormonism.

All I was saying is that James said that doctrine is teachings (or beliefs) and that everything we are discussing here is doctrine, whether it is true are false.
Calvinism and free willism are both doctrines.
The question we discuss here is which is true and which is false.

 

[Martin]

#1----disagree!!! 99.9999999% of my church members wouldn't know the guys if they were seated next to 'um!!!

==Of course I am not really concerned with the average person in the pew, I am talking about the influence these teachers have on theologically informed lay people, seminary students, and preachers. Sadly the average "pew warmer" is not theologically informed enough to take a clear position on these issues. I am also concerned with the larger picture and not a small snap shot.

#2---disagree!!! Again---there's not much emphasis placed on the identification of any of the SBC's seminaries---beyond being able to name all six

==Graduates of Southern, and other schools, become the next generation of pastors and seminary professors. These people influence the theological positions of many people. If larger numbers of these folks lean towards a Calvinistic position then more people in general will start moving in that direction as a result of their teaching. I would also add to the mix what I just stated. If these seminary students are being influenced by their seminary and by teachers like MacArthur, then that increases the chances of them leaning in a more Calvinistic direction.

#4---Agree with the first part of the paragraph!!!! The hammer hits the nail on this one!!!! Disagree with the second part of the statement!

==I think the first part of the paragraph results in the second part. In my mind, they cannot be seperated.

#5---disagree!!! There's no new breed of seminary students!! A Throughbred can no more plow new ground than a Cylesdale can win the Kentucky Derby!!!!

==I, of course, take a different view. Southern Seminary has moved in a clearly Calvinistic direction and it is the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention. So there are many people graduating from Southern who have Calvinistic leanings (at the very least). These people are becoming pastors, teachers, missionaries, and professors and are influencing everyone around them (a good thing in my view). That does not include graduates from other seminaries, like myself, who are Calvinistic though their schools are not.

 

[Martin]

Hey, how come 'Martin' voted twice?

little stinker


Also, I'm currious.
Those polled about being Calvinistic, what was the criteria for being Calvinistic.
5 - pointer, 4, 3, 2 or more points? Anyone know off hand?

==Anyone can vote twice. I voted twice because I am trying to have it both ways. :laugh:

Honestly, my thinking on why this "surge" is happening is not really in order. I am not sure why it is happening but I do believe it has something to do with the conservative revival in the Convention. Of course, I could be wrong.

As for what is the criteria for being Calvinist? Your going to just love this...anyone who considers him/herself a Calvinist. I know, I know, there are many problems with that statement. However we can only go by what people claim they believe (unless we are willing to give a detailed theological exam to every person).

Signed,
the little stinker :wavey:

 

[Martin]

It is part of a larger fad called the Emerging Church. The surge will disappear when post moderns lose interest in their games.

==Considering the fact that mainstream Calvinists and Calvinist teachers such as John MacArthur, Al Mohler, John Piper, RC Sproul, and historical Calvinists such as AW Pink, George Whitefield, Spurgeon, and others are/were certainly NOT post-modern or part of the emerging doctrines I don't think your statement carries any credibility whatsoever.

 

[Martin]

The OP is based on the presupposition that it is a fact. Where are the sources confiming this fact?

==I don't know that there is "one poll" or one set of statistics that prove there is a Calvinism surge going on in the Convention. I am looking at the larger picture of events (etc) during the past year or so. There are major conferences on Calvinism in the SBC, major debates/discussions have occured at the Convention level, major seminary Presidents are addressing the issue of Calvinism, the Convention President has addressed the issue, more and more articles on the issue are appearing on Baptistpress, and the nonCalvinist reaction has been loud and getting louder in some corners. I would also point to the growing Founders movement and other such things. Look, maybe there is no "surge" of Calvinism within the Convention. Maybe what I, and others, are labeling a "surge" is actually a resurfacing of a theological block that already exists within the Convention. Maybe it has been there all along and just gone largely un-noticed. I don't know. Either way something is going on and I am trying to figure out why. Why is the surge, or resurfacing, occuring? I tend to think it has something to do with the Conservative "takeover".

 

[webdog]

==I don't know that there is "one poll" or one set of statistics that prove there is a Calvinism surge going on in the Convention. I am looking at the larger picture of events (etc) during the past year or so. There are major conferences on Calvinism in the SBC, major debates/discussions have occured at the Convention level, major seminary Presidents are addressing the issue of Calvinism, the Convention President has addressed the issue, more and more articles on the issue are appearing on Baptistpress, and the nonCalvinist reaction has been loud and getting louder in some corners. I would also point to the growing Founders movement and other such things. Look, maybe there is no "surge" of Calvinism within the Convention. Maybe what I, and others, are labeling a "surge" is actually a resurfacing of a theological block that already exists within the Convention. Maybe it has been there all along and just gone largely un-noticed. I don't know. Either way something is going on and I am trying to figure out why. Why is the surge, or resurfacing, occuring? I tend to think it has something to do with the Conservative "takeover".

Could it also be the vocal minority as is seen here? It seems like the ones who do most of the debating (the vocal ones in the debate) are calvinists and those who used to be calvinists.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

==Considering the fact that mainstream Calvinists and Calvinist teachers such as John MacArthur, Al Mohler, John Piper, RC Sproul, and historical Calvinists such as AW Pink, George Whitefield, Spurgeon, and others are/were certainly NOT post-modern or part of the emerging doctrines I don't think your statement carries any credibility whatsoever.

The first part of your statement doesn't automatically lead the the second part.

 

[Martin]

The first part of your statement doesn't automatically lead the the second part.

==No mainstream Calvinist is post-modern or part of the Emerging Church movement. In fact, many of the mainstream Calvinist teachers have been highly critical of the Emerging Church movement. Therefore to state, as you did, that the surge of Calvinism within the SBC is "part of a larger fad called the Emerging Church" is incorrect. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your statement does not even deal with the reality of the situation concerning Calvinism within the SBC.

 

[Martin]

Could it also be the vocal minority as is seen here? It seems like the ones who do most of the debating (the vocal ones in the debate) are calvinists and those who used to be calvinists.

==Could very well be. However I would point out that some of the loudest folks in this recent debate have been on the anti-Calvinism side. In fact, some of their loudness began before the current high profile debate.

 

[TCGreek]

==No mainstream Calvinist is post-modern or part of the Emerging Church movement. In fact, many of the mainstream Calvinist teachers have been highly critical of the Emerging Church movement. Therefore to state, as you did, that the surge of Calvinism within the SBC is "part of a larger fad called the Emerging Church" is incorrect. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your statement does not even deal with the reality of the situation concerning Calvinism within the SBC.

An insistence that Calvinists are somehow part of the Emerging Community displays a lack of understandings of both Calvinism and the Emerging Community.

 

[Allan]

An insistence that Calvinists are somehow part of the Emerging Community displays a lack of understandings of both Calvinism and the Emerging Community.

I whole heartedly agree.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Its cause we are so much smarter.................. :laugh:

Just kidding......... really! :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Its cause we are so much smarter.................. :laugh:

Just kidding......... really! :laugh:

Don't make me bite you. Arrrrrrrgh! :laugh:

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Investigate the professors at Bible Colleges and Seminaries to see how many are Calvinists and I think you will see why Calvinism is growing. Calvinism is growing among those being trained for ministry due to this reality. However, I do not believe it is growing much within local church memberships (yet). Church members resist it in most churches I know of. If a Calvinist pastor pushes Calvinism, he is either removed or the church members resisting his teaching are forced out or removed for divisiveness.

 

[christianyouth]

Here is a good read about the subject.

http://blog.9marks.org/whered_all_these_calvanists_come_from/

Mark Dever has done a 10 part post on his blog about this very topic. Here are his ten reasons :

1) The writings of C.H. Spurgeon
2) The influence of Martin Loyd-Jones
3) Banner of Truth publications, a ministry that reprinted old Reformed works
4) Evangelism Explosion written by Kennedy. It cleared away the misconception that Calvinism was anti-evangelism.
5) Calvinist activity in the "Inerrancy Controversy"
6) Founding of the Presbyterian Church in America.
7) The publication of Knowing God by J.I. Packer
8) The popular ministries of John MacArthur and RC Sproul.
9) The ministry of John Piper.
10) It is the rise of secularism and decline of Christian nominalism. (read the article for an explanation.)

I can say that the CH Spurgeons writings, MacArthur and Sproul all helped me greatly on these issues.

Read that link, really good articles.

Just would add, since some are questioning whether or not Calvinism is actually surging. There is an article written in Christianity Today, which is definitely not Reformed, called "Young, Restless, and Reformed" and it talks about the rise of Calvinism among young people.

added one more thing : As a Baptist, I wouldn't want to base my theology on consensus, i.e. Church history.. It's possible that for generations biblical truth could be covered up, i.e. Universal atonement and the Well Meant Offer, just as Believers Baptism was covered up for quite a long time in Church History.