Many times in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) we hear concerns over Calvinism and how it can split a church or destroy evangelism. And just as many times the Calvinist answers that those charges are not true. But are they true? Well, theology in the hands of sinful men can do much harm to a church. Calvinism, Arminianism, or some theological combination in the hands of sinful men can all be harmful to churches.
In the SBC, we’ve just elected a new president, Johnny Hunt. I want to look at a few issues concerning Calvinism in relation to Johnny Hunt since he was just elected SBC President. He was already a prominent and notable pastor in the SBC. Bro. Hunt has been criticized by many Calvinists by what they feel have been misrepresentations by him. I’m not in disagreement and you can read Ted Olsen’s article where he lays out the concerns with some potential answers. One of those concerns is the John 3:16 Conference being held at the church Hunt pastors. One of the potential answers is that Hunt has recently said he is only really concerned about hyper-Calvinism.
Before we get into whether the concern over hyper-Calvinism is valid or not I want to point out some irony. Pastor Hunt just recently told us that he is against hyper-Calvinism not Calvinism. Being a local, I know of people who’ve been asked to leave his church due to their Calvinism. Bro. Ben tells us at this week’s pastor’s conference Hunt quoted Calvinists A.W. Pink, Charles Spurgeon and J.I. Packer. Paul Washer will be speaking at the Deeper Conference at Hunt’s church and a few months later the John 3:16 Conference will occur there. Pastor Hunt endorsed Mark Dever’s book The Gospel and Personal Evangelism. I will only mention in passing the sermon by the host of the John 3:16 Conference, Jerry Vines, that was included in a mailing to Florida baptists. A very interesting mix of events.
Should we be concerned over hyper-Calvinism in the SBC? Personally, I don’t think so. My own experience along with talking with others leads me to believe the many (most?) in SBC churches don’t really know what Calvinism or Arminianism is and some have a skewed view or misunderstanding. I do wish, however, that if there are hyper-Calvinists in the SBC they would step forward or someone would name names. Of course, my own experience doesn’t conclusively validate my belief that no real concern exists.
How about some actual statistics? A 2006 study by LifeWay Research revealed that only 10% of SBC pastors considered themselves Calvinistic. Also, the research by Ed Stetzer presented at the Building Bridges Conference should not lead one to believe the Calvinism is a cause for concern in the SBC. I might also add that Dr. Galyon’s interview with SBC presidential candidate Dr. Wagner sheds much light on Calvinism and evangelism. The statistics show that Calvinism is hardly a major problem in the SBC.
So what could be a major issue in our Convention made up of allegedly 16 million members, of which, only 6 – 7 million are present on any given Sunday? Maybe a perspective from a true Arminian will give us a path down which to look. Dr. Roger Olson in his book Arminian Theology on pages 30-31 discusses theology and American evangelical churches. He says that “most” of these churches are semi-Pelagian or Pelagian which are heretical positions. He also states his observations in an interview with Dr. Horton in Modern Reformation magazine. As much as Dr. Olson stands with his Calvinist brethren in opposition to much of the theology in today’s churches, he’s not a best friend of Calvinist theology. Could this be the real issue hindering the SBC?
I can’t help but wonder why we don’t hear much, if any, vocal opposition to Dr. Olson labeling most American Evangelical churches with these two heresies. Just as hyper-Calvinism is to Calvinism so might semi-Pelagianism/Pelagianism be to Arminianism i.e. a hyper-Arminianism, if you will. Maybe it’s time to broaden our theological scope a bit a see the true targets. Maybe the resolution on regenerate church membership can be a start in this direction…maybe. But even our new president doesn’t seem as thrilled about this resolution as shown by Timmy Brister’s quote comparison. Though I could be misunderstanding.
We do need to work together and there is nothing wrong with good, honest theological discussion. Despite any differences, I will pray that brother Hunt is a good president and that the Convention as a whole will seek to honor God and that our He will bless our work.
Blessings,
Mark
p.s. I’ve seen a few charges made around the web about Johnny Hunt’s doctorates so I want to point out that even Ravi Zacharias has a few honorary doctorates.
tagged as johnny hunt in Arminianism,calvinism,Church Issues,Southern Baptist,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman by day working to support his family while attending seminary in the off hours as he prepares for vocational ministry.
.gif "Enjoying God Through the Final Four Harry Potter Movies")
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Boy oh Boy…
Paul Washer at FBCW…wander if he is going to do anything likethis.
Nice read… Interesting about Olsen’s quote. I think that you hit the nail on the head about ignorance and I believe that most rank and file “christians” don’t know that they are holding heretical beliefs.
Grace and Peace…
ABClay
That link don’t work…
Try this one.
Sorry for the goof.
ABClay
Sirs: The late Dr. Ernest R. Campbell, my ordaining pastor and the only minister that Dr. R. G. Lee put in his will as the one he insisted upon by law as the person to preach his funeral, would say from the pulpit and person to person, “I am a supralapsarian, a hyper calvinist.” Interestingly enough, Dr. Campbell founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy (see Who’s Who in Religion, 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis, Pubs., 1977), served many good churches, had many called to preach under his ministry, won many souls to Christ, preached one revival in a country church in Georgia where one hundred souls were savingly converted. Preached one of the greatest sermons I ever heard on the Great Supper (Lk 14) as an evangelistic message. Dr. Campbell was a real theologian, on who knew and understood th subtleties of theology. Most of us are like a bunch of kids playing on the school grounds, getting our feelings hurt, smacking one another, etc. It’s just kid stuff among God’s children who are growing up. When we learn to love one another in spite of our limited understandings, then we will find ourselves much closer to that great day of the consummation, when the whole earth will be filled with His knowledge and glory as the waters cover the sea. The final awakening of the whole earth in one generation and a thousand generations will not be enough to provide Christ with te abundance of children that He should have.
The problem is that people use the term “Hyper-Calvinist” flippantly, and do not even know what the term means. They have re-invented the term “Hyper-Calvinist” to mean things it never meant, taking any existing meaning away from the word. You don't have to take my word on it, take Charles Haddon Spurgeon's. In his day the meaning of words wasn't as skewed and twisted as they have been today.
.
1.) Hypercalvinism is NOT Calvinism.
.
2.) Hypercalvinists DO NOT believe they have a responsibility to Evangelize.
.
3.) Hypercalvinists, in their worst form, DO NOT believe in a personal responsibility to repent and believe.
.
4.) Hypercalvinists DO NOT necessarily believe that all Christian will be sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
. (That is to say, that they will not, without exception, grow in holiness while here on earth.)
.
.
Now…. About Calvinism….
.
A.) Calvinists DO believe in their responsibility to Evangelize, and that it is the means that God ordains to work through, by the power of His Spirit.
.
B.) Calvinists DO believe in personal responsibility to repent and believe.
.
C.) Calvinists DO believe that all TRUE Christians will not fail to be sanctified and grow in holiness, by the work of the Holy Spirit.
.
D.) True or classical Calvinists HATE Hypercalvinism.
.
Let us get these essentials straight before we go talking about this belief and that and what so and so believes and doesn't. I know there are “Moderate-Calvinists” that disagree with what Calvinism means, and even twist the words of Calvin to match their twisted thoughts, but the Synod of Dort was clear in its statements. Let's let men like Spurgeon, John Gill, and John Dagg tell us Baptists what it means and realize that Dort systemized it, not Calvin. He wasn't even a baptist, never the less, though his words might be taken out of context, by his own statements, “TULIP” is what he believed as well.
Look to Spurgeon and find out what Hypercalvinist and Calvinist really means before you begin to speak of things you don't even understand the meaning of. Calvinists believe the tenants affirmed at the Synod of Dort.
.
1.) They believe in a responsibility to evangelize.
2.) They believe evangelism is God's appointed means.
3.) They believe in a personal responsibility to repent and believe.
4.) They believe that a truly saved person will not fail to be sanctified (grow in holiness) by work of the Holy Spirit.
.
Hypercalvinists deny any or all 4 of those things. True, or classical Calvinists HATE Hypercalvinism.
A hyper-calvinist in the technical sense of the term is a person who is a supralapsarian in his position on the order of the decrees. A peron wo holds that position can be just as evangelistic and responsible as any one else. Dr. Campbell who I cited above was a soul-winner par-excellence, a revivalist/evangelist (he once peached a revival in a rural Georgia church and had 100 converts. He also founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy, and Dr. R.G. Lee thought so much of Dr. Campbell that he specified in his will that Dr. Campbell was to preach his funeral. What most people mean by hyper-calvinist is some one who is really basically a fatalist (and it is realy just self-justification for laziness). My heart's cry to God is for a Third Great Awakening, the one that wins the whole earth in one generation and then for a thousand generations after that. And I said win, not force, compel as in love so wonderful that one wouldn't want to resist it and couldn't resist it. After all, all of us want love and the truth and the right to win by methods of the highest and greatest integrity…which is what agape love isall about.
A hyper-calvinist in the technical sense of the term is a person who is a supralapsarian in his position on the order of the decrees. A peron wo holds that position can be just as evangelistic and responsible as any one else. Dr. Campbell who I cited above was a soul-winner par-excellence, a revivalist/evangelist (he once peached a revival in a rural Georgia church and had 100 converts. He also founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy, and Dr. R.G. Lee thought so much of Dr. Campbell that he specified in his will that Dr. Campbell was to preach his funeral. What most people mean by hyper-calvinist is some one who is really basically a fatalist (and it is realy just self-justification for laziness). My heart's cry to God is for a Third Great Awakening, the one that wins the whole earth in one generation and then for a thousand generations after that. And I said win, not force, compel as in love so wonderful that one wouldn't want to resist it and couldn't resist it. After all, all of us want love and the truth and the right to win by methods of the highest and greatest integrity…which is what agape love isall about.
I disagree entirely that just because one accepts Supralapsarianism that by doing so, he automatically is a ‘hyper-calvinist’. I’m a Supra, but feel that our witness is a very important part of the means used to bring the lost elect to God. I’ve never read an authoratative source anywhere that equated the two. However, in sloppy anti-calvinist books (anything by David Hunt for example) you can find all sorts of bizarre accusations. Of course, it doesn’t make things easier when you have people who know better calling “semi-pelagianism”, “moderate calvinism” like Norman Geisler does.
Dr. Ernest Campbell whom I mentioned in previous posts and who had a Ph.D. from Bob Jones University called himself in these exact words:
“a supralapsarian, a hyper-calvinist.” I heard him do that several times from the pulpit and in person to person conersation. One of the problems I have with those who use hyper-calvinist in the pejorative sense use the expression to identify calvinists of any shade. The expression could be used of Arminians who are not concerned with evangelism or of any one who is not concerned for the good of souls and the will of God to be done in this world. Name it and defame it is a technique of brainwashing; it is simply a hindrance to getting at the truth. One can make any teaching or any representative of any truth look good or bad, depending on the instigator’s desire. However, such approach is of little, if any, real help, in determining the validity and reliability of a teaching. Consider how committed believers in Sovereign Grace Theology were the happy recipients of the First and Second Great Awakenings; their theology was the theology of those awakenings. The same theology motivated those who launched the Great Century of Missions. Turn the whole thing around and look at each doctrine of the TULIP outline along with Predestination and Reprobation as invitations, as exciting, engaging, electric, thrilling winsome, attractive, magnetic, wonderful, Christ-exalting, flexible, creative, balancing teachings.
You people are all crazy. Arguing tiny little miniscule points that don’t even make sense to most people. YOU ARE MUDDYING THE GOSPEL!! The gospel is so simple, yet YOU SPEAK IN CIRCLES AND MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT HAS TO BE!! No wonder lost people turn away from God, they see people, who profess to be Christians, constantly arguing amongst themselves, and not even able to nail down what THEY believe. How can you spread the gospel to the nations when it’s not even clear where YOU stand. It’s shameful really. Let’s talk about grace for once. How about the freedom we have in Christ to shed all of this nonsense and welcome ALL sinners into the body of Christ. It should be a wonderful, comfortable place to be. Instead, you want to make it an exclusive club for the “chosen” or “elect.” SHAME ON YOU.
The Lord protects the simple-hearted; when I was in great need, He saved me. Psalm 116:6
Baptists are always fussing. A few years ago a former President of Wake Forest Divinity School gave a lecture and amde reference to Baptists in the 1700s who were wrangling over various issues. This dissension was noted by an Episcopalian. But while those Baptists were fussin’, they were experiencing the First and Second Great Awakenings, securing religious librty, working with political statesment like Washington, Henry, Jefferson, Madison, and others, persuading General Baptists who were neither very evangelistic or very missionary to adopt particular redemption and become evangelistic and missionary, using educated and uneducated ministers together, began one of the early efforts against slavery, united the Separate and Regular Baptists, establised educational institutions like Brown, George Washington Unviersity, Furman and Mercer Universities, and launched the Great Century of Missions.
As to hypercalvinistic supralapsarianism, my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest Campbell pleaded with a relative of mine to call upon christ for salvation until tear ran down my relative’s face. None of these views about unconcern about the lost held true in my pasor’s case. Dr. Campbell once preached a revival in a rural Baptist Church in Georgia and had 100 converts. He also founded the American Race Track Chaplaincy (cf. Who’s Who in Religion. 2nd edn. Chicago: Marquis pubs., 1977). Hardly what one would expect according to the prejorative (sp?) understanding of such a theological position which suggests that there is something wanting with that underesanding, if one can cite serious cases to the contrary.
O yes, I must also point out that Jesus sought to win the woman of Canaan in Mt.15:21-28 with the idea that He was “not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and she wasn’t a Jew. Her response? She came and worshipped him. That was election, particular redemption, limited atonement. Then he used the clencher by introducing total depravity, inability, and even reprobation, when he said to her, “It is not meet to take the children’s read and cast it to dogs.” Some invitation. Some paradoxical intervention. That woman thought it was great stuff. Even a little bitty crumb of God’s bread of grace would more than meet her needs, and Jesus said to her, “Great is your Faith.” something He never said to His Apostles. Yes, Predestination, Total Depravity, Unconitional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints, and Reprobation are invitations, paradoxically intense evangelistic invitations, tat are wonderfully irresistible. thee are the doctrines of the First and Second Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions as well as the theology that brought us a government of freedoms. And these teachings are coming back as God prepares us for the Third Great Awakening, the one that wins the whole earth in one generation and every soul in it, and then continues on for 999 more generations as the Lord does not waste His breath with empty promises (I Chron.16:15). We are getting ready, perhaps, for the greatest and most wonderful time in the history of the whole earth, when God shall fulfill His promises to Abraham of a seed as innumerable as the stars of heaven, the sand of the sea, and the dust of the earth. O yes, and is the number of the redeemed in heaven a number that no man can number even if he lived for all eternity? God likes to give us some real puzzlers.
Yes, Baptists are always fussing. Maybe that’s why I see so many of us (yes, I’m Baptist, but was raised Catholic) as totally ineffective in reaching lost people. I know many Baptists who don’t even appear to have a burden for lost people. That being said, I know many more wonderful, God-serving Baptists who are constantly reaching out across the world to spread the gospel. Problem is, it only takes a few bad apples to taint the whole barrel, as we are mostly (and sometimes unfairly) held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. Regardless of what the “fussing” is all about, in the eyes of the unbeliver, those in the communities around our churches, it equals one thing = hypocrisy. Hypocrisy speaks volumes to the unbeliever without any of us saying a word…
Paul declared in I Cors.13:5 love is not easily provoked, that is, does not become enraged. In Acts 15:39 the contention was so sharp, that is, the rage was so great that Paul and Barnabas separated…all over John Mark whom Paul would later speak well of in the end of his ministry. Jesus said there must needs be offences (Mt. 18:7). Perhaps the set-tos and contratemps might serve to help us develop patience….and hypocrites are but a challenge for us to conduct ourselves as Christians regardless of what they do. Disagreements and conflicts can be treated as reasons to give up, to become disgusted or they can be treated as challenges to grow, change, develop. Whitefield and Wesley were two who disagreed, and yet Whitefield requested that his funeral, holding that he might not see Wesley in Heaven as Wesley would be so close to the throne and he so far that he would not be able to see him. Wesley preached Whitefield’s funeral and apparently uttered the same idea in reverse, meaning that he (Wesley) would not be able to see Whitefield, because the latter would be so close to the throne and Wesley so far from it that he would not be able to see him. God has a purpose in everything, and paradoxes are often the means for spiritual development.
{ 1 trackback }