Creeping Calvinism...
Christianity Today has put out some decent articles on the reawakening of Calvinism among Evangelicals, including Young, Restless and Reformed, a great look at the trend toward Reformed theology among younger Christians. Their latest article is not one of them. Titled TULIP Blooming, the focus is on the growing concern among many old school, Arminian Southern Baptist leaders about the rise of Calvinism in the SBC, especially in our seminaries. The article is too short and very shallow. If you can't do justice to a subject, you ought not bring it up. The opening story is priceless:
The pastor of First Baptist Church in Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, for 27 years, Joe Elam only encountered Calvinism once during his ministry—and it left a bitter taste in his mouth.
Though forbidden to do so, a former youth pastor at his church secretly taught predestination to teens, Elam said, sowing seeds of lingering division among several families.
"It was a wake-up call for us," said Elam, who recently led the Arbuckle Baptist Association to adopt a motion calling on the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma to rebuke Reformed theology. It sent copies of the motion to all members of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee.
"We would like to see Southern Baptists become aware that [their] money is being used to teach Calvinism in our seminaries," Elam said.
I love the tone, secretly teaching predestination as if the unnamed youth pastor were starting some cabal of young Calvinists, meeting in secret in the dark of the night, wearing black robes and chanting in dungeons lit with candles. Talk about overreaction! (I especially like that he was "forbidden" to teach predestination. Imagine forbidding someone in a pastoral role from teaching a Biblical doctrine!)
Timmy Brister responded to this assertion in the article by Southern Baptist President Frank Page:
"The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible."
Clearly that is not accurate. Those who insist that Calvinism is derived strictly from R.C. Sproul books and John Piper sermons, rather than the Bible, are either painfully ignorant or willfully and maliciously misrepresenting Calvinism. I am not sure which possibility is more disturbing in Frank Page's case. Brister makes a great point in this statement:
Of course, with Page’s argument, we are led to believe that what the Founders of the SBC believed and taught was something contrary to the Bible. As a president of the SBC, I find it remarkable that our top figure would state that our convention adhered to doctrines not founded in Scripture. Now it is apparent to all that Dr. Page has had trouble with TULIP, and that is fine if he disagrees or has differences (though I think his arguments are presumptuous and problematic). However, having trouble with TULIP should not thereby constitute trouble with Baptist history.
Precisely! To suggest that Calvinism is not based on Biblical theology (you may disagree with the conclusions, but you can't deny it's basis in Scripture), or denying that the founding fathers of the SBC were largely Reformed (as demonstrated in airtight citation by Founders Ministry) or that it leads to anti-missionary fervor (tell that to the father of modern missions and Calvinist William Carey) is ignorant. The biggest obstacle to honest discussions among Evangelicals about soteriology is the refusal by Arminians to move past empty assertions and strawmen and get down to Scripture. For Page to suggest we get back to the Bible is great advice, but not if you are dealing with presumptions that leave no room for dialogue. I came to Reformed theology not because I was brainwashed by Al Mohler and John MacArthur, but in reading the Word of God. Through the Bible my stubborn insistence on my own autonomy in salvation was shattered by the overwhelming weight of Scripture that God is Sovereign, and I am not.
3 comments:
Amen! I read this article and thought it quite interesting in the biased way in which they spoke of Calvinism.
It is interesting that they are giving the spotlight to such developments. If they were more afraid of Calvinism, they might not speak about it.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad. People like this view calvinists as some weird, scary cabal. Yet they also praise Spurgeon. There must be some sort of selective revulsion towards calvinists or something that allows preachers to praise Spurgeon, and even quote him, and yet revile calvinists.
It is truly sad. That is weird how they praise Spurgeon, and yet he was very open about Calvinism...
Post a Comment