On the heels of my survey “Why Are You Reformed: Your Top 5 Reasons” (if you consider yourself Reformed and have not commented, please consider doing so), I would like to post another excerpt from Dr. Morris Chapman on what he believes to be the reason(s) for the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC. Here is what he had to say:
“The resurgence of Calvinism is largely a reaction against the shallowness of Baptist doctrinal instruction during the era of moderate-led seminaries coupled with a strong interconnection of the principle of sola scriptura (‘scripture alone’) with Reformed doctrine during the Protestant Reformation. Since the principle of sola scriptura resurfaced during the inerrancy debates of the Conservative Resurgence, it is only logical that its relationship with Reformed doctrine would also emerge. An additional reason for the resurgence of Calvinism is that a wide-open Arminianism under the guise of Open Theism must be refuted. Generally, where a heresy surfaces its closest theological polar opposites will appear and gain a relatively wide following.”
Do you agree or disagree with Dr. Chapman? Let me know what you think.
reason for the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC = literacy
I don’t think I would call those “reasons” as much as “possible contributing factors.” Also, the connection between Calvinism and a refutation of Open Theism is loose, at best. IMO, one does not have to be a Calvinist to debunk Open Theism.
This is is sort of off topic, but I have long thought that many who adpot a Cessationist position are really just over-reacting to the abuse/misuse of the “sign gifts” by those holding a Continuationist position.
However, I do not think the same logic can be applied to adopting a Calvinist position as a reaction against Open Theism.
I have to disagree with him. The factors mentioned may have (at best) contributed to people studying reformed theology but have nothing to do with the reasons why people are embracing it. I think it is being embraced because people are now studying it with an open mind and an open Bible. I would like to say more but don’t have time.
I don’t really care for the manner in which Dr. Chapman presents his argument, as it seems to imply that Calvinism is an opposite, but equally heretical teaching with regards to Open Theism. Whether or not that is his intent I do not know, but one can certainly come away with such an impression.
Besides all of that, isn’t the “polar opposite” of a particular theological error (heresy) the corresponding theological truth found in Scripture?
We Calvinists are only doing what the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence told us to do: trust the God-breathed, inerrant, and infallible Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear on God’s sovereignty.
I think he is right, to a point. There will always be “yin-yang” types of theological situations. The history of the conservative resurgence up until now is full of this. Something shows up, be it a fad or serious challenge, and almost immediately something will arrive to oppose it.
But Calvinism in the SBC seems not to have just popped into existence. It may seem to have popped into existence precisely because it does not look like anyone really thought about it until recent years. I know that when I first arrived at Southern, the Calvinistic leanings of the seminary and many of its profs never once entered my mind. Calvinism, to me, was just some esoteric theological system that I didn’t understand and wanted to study more fully at some point. And then all of a sudden I realized that I was surrounded by Calvinists! 😉
A sober reflection on such reveals that these Calvinists at Southern did not just appear out of nothing. No, they have been like a tree grown in a nursery. They likely were planted during the conservative resurgence, were slowly nurtured as sprouts and saplings by folks such as Tom Nettles, John MacArthur, Tom Ascol, and others. Then once they became young trees and answered the call to ministry, they naturally took their places in our seminaries. They’ve always been around, but many of them have finally left the nursery in preparation of going out and taking their place in the forest.
Andrew,
Nice, pithy response there. Biblical literacy does make a big difference.
Gavin and Hans,
The linkage to Open Theism I would agree is most unfortunate. The spectrum of contemporary theology runs like this:
Process Theology – Open Theism – Arminianism – Calvinism – Hyper-Calvinism – Fatalism
In this paradigm, the polar opposite to Open Theism at best would be Hyper-Calvinism. But then there is the problem in the SBC with people not being able to distinguish historical Calvinism from Hyper-Calvinism, conflating the two and dismissing them altogether (Ergun Caner even argues Calvinism is fatalism which is even worse).
Both Arminianism and Open Theism hold to libertarian free will. In fact, the most ardent defenders of Arminianism in recent scholarship have eventually become the leading voices of Open Theism (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, David & Randall Basinger, Richard Rice. etc.) This does not bode well for Arminianism. Logically and philosophically, Open Theism is more consistent and coherent than Arminianism which also a factor. But I have yet to find someone who is Reformed who became one because of a reaction to Open Theism, and the responses from my survey also reflect that reality.
Excog,
I agree with you man. The resurgence of Calvinism is not a reaction so much as it is a reflection that more and more people are reading their Bibles. In a future post, I will share my analysis on this, from the survey, and from my thoughts on the matter.
Stephen,
I woud disagree with the dialetical approach towards theological frameworks in that the “neo-Calvinism” as some would call it is not new nor is it the antithesis of the shallow Baptist doctrinal insruction of moderate-led seminaries. The seedbed of Reformed theology is a conviction that God does all things for his glory and pleasure, and that his sovereignty is over all things, including salvation. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how and why there would be those who affirm God’s sovereignty in creation but not in redemption. They would acknowledge God’s sovereignty in prayer but not in the greatest event and issue of the Christian life, namely conversion.
Next week, I will be live-blogging a conference on that very issue: the biblical view of conversion. If there is a reaction to anyting that has contributed more to the resurgence of Calvinism, it has to do with the unbiblical and pragmatic views of conversion today.
There is nothing new about the Calvinism of today. It is the theology of the Reformers, of the Puritans, of the Particular Baptists, of Edwards, of Whitefield, of Carey, of Spurgeon, and of the Founders of our Convention. It is new to an elder generation who have been brought up with the theology of Mullins, Hobbs, and Rogers. But it is not new, and it is not merely a reaction either.
Matt,
Exactly. And that is precisely what Dr. Nettles argues in his book Ready for Reformation? It is a great read (if any of you haven’t picked it up).
Tim,
Have you read Robert Webber’s “Younger Evangelicals?” He chronicles the rise of the “mega-church” and the gradual shift towards consumerism and marketing approaches in the local church, and then how “younger evangelicals” have become frustrated with the shallow, self-centered approach in many of the churches hey grew up in, etc.
Although I disagree with some of his conclusions (Dr. Webber seems to want to appeal to the Patristics over the Apostles), he does a good job of detailing why many young people are drawn to and curious about the past (in this case, the beginnings of Protestantism, specifically Reformed theology). You should check it out.
Tim,
It seems to me the reason that Calvinism is experiencing a resurgence is not due to moderate influences in Seminary, but due to the emptiness of “man-centered” doctrine and a desire to embrace “God-centered” doctrine. When I realized the Bible was God-centered and not man-centered, my natural progression was to embrace the biblical theology that is Calvinism.
Les
Gavin,
I recently picked up that book but have not read it. I will look into it as the semester ends. Thanks for pointing it to me.
Les,
Very true. Whether it is the contemporary Christian movement, the decisional regeneration emphasis, or the like, those who have become convinced that the principle character in the Bible is God Himself understand that no figure is more important in everything we do than Him and the glory that is due His name. When the redemptive history in the Bible is understood in light of God’s purpose and grace, such biblical theology will inevitably result in a Reformed (monergistic) theology (i.e. Calvinism).
Matt said:
We Calvinists are only doing what the leaders of the Conservative Resurgence told us to do: trust the God-breathed, inerrant, and infallible Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear on God’s sovereignty.
Like I was saying, Calvinists were “planted” during the resurgence and nurtured along by men such as Nettles and MacArthur. We’re only now seeing the new growth in our Southern Baptist forest. I’m not saying it is “new,” but that we’re just seeing a new generation that up until now was either overlooked or ignored. More truthfully, there is a new generation who is using the foundation built by the resurgence (which Matt succinctly nails) to think for themselves about Scripture instead of uncritically accepting everything put out there by the kingmakers.
I wonder if there would be such a “resurgence” of Calvinism if there had been no Conservative Resurgence.
Agreed, But is worth pointing out that there was a solid contingency of a Reformed community, albeit much smaller than now, before the Conservative Resurgence. But in God’s providence, there was a series of influences that developed since the early 1980s. For instance, John Piper and Desiring God Ministries became well known, Founders Ministries was started, and later Southern Seminary returned to its roots in the Abstract of Principles under the leadership of Dr. Mohler. While the Conservative Resurgence definitely paved the way for the SBC to be under the direction of sound, conservative leadership who held to the inerrancy and full authority of Scripture, we would be amiss to conclude that there were not other influences, both within and without the SBC that contributed (if not more) to the Reformed Resurgence.
But would the moderates and liberals of yesteryear have “allowed” this? Or, if there were no Conservative Resurgence, would Reformed Southern Baptists and non-Reformed but sympathetic folks like me still be Southern Baptists? Would we be in our own denomination right now (a la PCUSA/PCA)? Would Piper and Founders be as influential within the denomination? Would Mohler have lasted this long without the resurgence?
For all the talk about “leaving the SBC” that goes on, many fail to realize how good they’ve actually got it. One might say that we are “planting a new denomination” in our generation. Without the resurgence, we probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Ain’t God good?
His observation pertains only to those raised in the SBC. I wasn’t. I’m reformed because I studied. In fact, I find many in my church who are not reformed who were raised in the SBC. I don’t disagree with this observation, but I’d like to see some concrete research that gives some insight as to where the reformed Baptists currently in the SBC came from.
Stephen,
You are right, and that points needs to be made. Were it not for the Conservative Resurgence, we would be fighting heresy (real heresy, not the Falwell kind of rhetoric). We would not be debating different forms of church goverment; we would be contending for the biblical view of the church. We would not be discussing Reformed theology; we would be battling the viability of theology altogether. We could not be cooperating effetively for evangelism and missions; rather, we would be lamenting the total loss of the evangel.
So yeah, you are right. Were it not for the Conservative Resurgence, the landscape of Baptists would be very different than it is today. The talk about leaving the SBC is real, however, and I have addressed that in detail on Steve McCoy’s blog on this post:
http://www.stevekmccoy.com/reformissionary/2007/03/reasons_why_i_h_2.html
Jim,
I agree that some concrete research needs to be done. One quick statistic to consider is that Founders website in 1997 was averaging 2,000 per month. In 2007, they are averaging over 800,000 hits a month. I don’t know what percetange of increase that is over the last decade, but I’d say that’s pretty significant.
The most logical explanation is that for 30+ years Baptists have been talking about the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Evidently some people have taken them seriously. Calvinism the polar opposite to Open Theism? Gimme a break.
Scott,
The past 30 years has produced a renewed passion for the Bible and biblical theology. I would also add that the emphasis on confessionalism has also led to an increase in the Reformed Resurgence. Confessions like the Abstract of Principles and the 2nd London Baptist Confession are being read now more than every before. While our ultimate source of authority is Scripture alone, confessoins serve a key role in articulating orthodoxy, building consensus, and refuting heresy. Doctrinal precision and a passion for truth can often be found among those who have studied and appreciated the confessional history of the SBC.
Such confessions were once a catechism to train our children in foundational truths from the moment they could speak. Now they have Veggie Tales and moralistic stories that have little to do with gospel truths.
I agree with the good Doctor. Were you predestined to talk about him?
Arron,
Could you elaborate on what exactly you agree on and why? I will remain patient and hope for a more substantive comment than what you have provided.
And for the record, you fail to see the difference between talking about what a person has publicly said and talking about a person in particular. His interview is public domain and for public discourse; therefore, anything said for the public benefit is also available for public critique. Fair game. Apparently you don’t think so. If at any point you see that I have maligned Dr. Chapman or attacked him, his character, or judged him in any way, then communicate that to me, and I will be happy that you did. Such a comment would go much farther in discourse than the worn-out sarcasm you have exhibited.
Timmy:
Indeed, I was primarily thinking of biblical literacy, but I had theological literacy in view as well.
When I was studying to add a Reading certification to my Master’s degree (so that I could teach school reading programs), we learned (of course) about literacy and illiteracy, but we also learned about something called functional il/literacy. Functional il/literacy has to do, not with basic reading skills, but with the in/ability to read materials necessary to perform tasks in certain situations. Different circumstances can cause a person to be functionally illiterate. For example, I am functionally illiterate when it comes to computer programming because I am an idiot when it come to math (I’ll thank other commenters in not taking advantage of an admitted weakness).
The primary reason some people are functionally illiterate in theology seems to be due to unchecked presuppositions. This plays out in doing strictly biblical theology (in terms of exegesis), as we saw in how Ergun Caner turned Romans 9 on its head with his ‘God hated Esau for what Esau did’ statement. This plays out as well in historical theology, as Caner again demonstrated in his apparent inability to see a distinction between Calvinism and hyperCalvinism. Many critics of Reformed theology display their functional illiteracy when they read statements about evangelical Calvinism and declare “evangelical Calvinism” to be an oxymoron. Dr. Chapman demonstrates how someone can be functionally illiterate in terms of theology when examining the modern landscape, as he could easily read many accounts of people that have been persuaded of Reformed soteriology due to sola Scriptura principles together with biblical exegesis, but his presupposition (apparently, that Calvinism is based on traditions and philosophies of men rather than on Scripture) prevents him from engaging the issue according to the actual writings produced by the Reformed community. Instead, he seeks a philosophical explanation.
-SDG
Timmy,
I have an extra copy of the CD rom The Baptist History Collection. It has Cathcart on the CD plus so many other works as well. Would you rather have the CD or just the Baptist Encyclopedia ? The choice is your yours !
Scott Morgan
Scott,
Brother, whatever is least expensive for you. Anything you offer is greatly appreciated, so I will let you make the call. Thanks again man!
Timmy,
You get way more if you go with the CD rom however I’m a book man. I will put it in the mail. How about a little ” War Eagle” chant from you. The Auburn/ Alabama series is fixing to get more intense with Saban in the picture. By the way: ” How about a little love for John Gill” ! Just having fun with you.
Scott Morgan
Scott,
I don’t know if you heard about it, but there was 94,000+ at the “A” game last week in T-Town. Lots of love for Saban . . . and as usual, unreal expectations. Oh, and have you heard about the new “Albatross” – the 9,000 pound elephant who will be stomping onto Bryant-Denny turf before every game? Now that is going to be interesing to watch. I will keep my distance.
Man, I must say I haven’t read as much Gill as I have liked. I cannot love what I do not know, right? 🙂
Thanks so much man!
Timmy,
I heard about the attendance. It’s a shame that even many of the students at Southern have not been flooded with Gill. I’m reading as I’m typing the Nature of a Gospel Church by Gill. He has so much Scripture in his Commentaries and Body of Divinity. My church reads him throughly. I even had one to say:” John Owen Who ” ? I love Owen but Gill gives a Baptist correct views on the Nature of a Gospel Church. Something that Owen and the Puritans do not however I do read the puritans.
Scott
You know I kind of agree with Chapman in a way. Truth, after all, is the polar opposite of a lie.
Gavin said: IMO, one does not have to be a Calvinist to debunk Open Theism.
perhaps not, but it can’t hurt…
I think an Open Theist is little more than a consistent Arminian. Of course Mr. Brister stole my thunder.