Just a few repsonses to your comment.

1. I would say my statement is not an assumption, but a conclusion. There seems to be a difference.

2. This is a weblog, a place where I think out loud, encourage and admonish, all in a pretty casual way. Most people seem to get that, but for the record, this is not a collection of research papers. It is just the thoughts of a pastor about Jesus, the church and culture.

3. The vast majority of historians I know, have read or spoke with draw the same conclusion; the SBC was predominantly Calvinistic at its inception. Some of these are men who would reject that brand of theology, and its place in the Convention today.

4. “Calvinistic” does not equal being thoroughly “Reformed,” but characterized by a theology that reflected – to a greater and lesser degrees – what is commonly thought of today as Calvinism.

5. Read my blog and you will see the vast majority of my admonition,correction/finger-pointing is directed toward the Reformed camp. My camp. I think we need a lot of help, a lot of change. Only when Bobby and Lemke’s remarks got some press did I feel the need to address the issue.

6. I find it amusing that you want to take issue with a side-note. The assertion you are calling into question was not the point of my article, which is why I did not feel the need to “show my work” there. But now in the comments I have done so, giving the reason why I draw the conclusion I have. Clearly it does not meet your approval, and I am okay with that.

To get a better picture of where I am coming from flip through some of the past posts. It might help you interpet me.

I appreciate the dialogue.

Prudence should encouragement me to stop here…

Still, if I present the fact that the Georgia Baptist Convention (in Georgia, where the SBC was founded over 20 years later) was originally founded as “The General Baptist Association of the State of Georgia” in June 1822, can I fill in “the blanks” with my own presuppositional statements? Such as… “the Georgia Baptist Convention was originally dominated by non-Calvinistic churches?” Or even better… “most of the Georgia churches were non-Calvinistic before the Calvinists high-jacked the convention? Certainly not!

Also, what exactly does “dominant” mean in the eye of the writer and the beholder? Fifty-one percent? Ninety-one percent? Etc.

In all fairness, perhaps your statement, “the SBC was dominated by Calvinistic churches at its inception,” is dead-on, for your details are compelling. Yet, since you have presented no ‘clear’ data, your statement is built on a good guess, and you should acknowledge that to your reader. Without someone asking for your supporting numbers, most of your readers might suppose the statistics were clear, unbiased and in your hands.

At this juncture, you may think I am nit-picking. Maybe I am.

Nonetheless, I think subjective argumentation is a problem on both sides of this unceasing theological argument. And, in my opinion, the fracas [and I believe it is often a fracas] is often more about “Who’s your daddy?” between both sides. And I don’t mean the Real Almighty Heavenly One!

The Reformed camp is currently ‘slicing the hairs’ in the comments of both Lemke and Welch. And for what it is worth and in my opinion, it could be argued that Lemke’s correlations and conclusions [if I understand correctly] may be deemed weak and premature, respectively. [Are there truly sufficient numbers out of 42,000 churches? And what about time?]

How many years has the new “Reformed” movement been at work in the U.S. (SBC) churches? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty? Is that a fair time for godly “reformation” or an adequate period to observe a trend, in order for anyone to make correlations, positive or negative?

Now, that the real or imagined hand grenade [Reformed churches will weaken the SBC...] has been thrown, and the howitzer [no, it’s the wicked non-Calvinistic churches that are killing the SBC...] has retorted, subjectively, who can truly sit in judgment of this matter? Who but God can truly (know the hearts of men and) say that all the baptisms of Reformed churches are “more genuine” and that those in un-Reformed churches are mostly suspect (strongly stated or implied by Calvinists) OR vice versa?

Left to themselves, are the Reformed churches more obediently walking in step with God and adding the elect from the white-fields at just the right pace? Or are the un-Reformed churches still being used by God for a greater (and messy as it might be) harvest of the chosen?

Both sides have their opinions. But I believe Lemke is premature in his speculations.

Nevertheless, and back to my original point. In twelve years of research I never observed anyone being allowed to make such an extrapolated leap (such as your original ‘dominant’ statement above) without prefacing it with other expressions, such as “in my opinion…,” “I believe…,” “it seems to me…,” “I think it is a fair assumption…,” “one can easily surmise…,” etc.

I have my own concerns about this C and A argument. But please remember this!!! The Reformed camp keeps telling others that the new reformation is needed to bring more godliness into the (universal) church. Well then, IN MY OPINION [for what it is worth] the Reformed camp has the greater responsibility to exemplify that godliness in how they present Christ, Truth (not their case) and deal with those in the opposite camp.

May God truly bless you, brother…

Respectfully in Christ,

Charles

Thanks for visiting my blog and engaging the conversation. I base my assertion on a a few things: here are two biggies:

1. The confessional identity of early Southern Baptists was Calvinistic. For example, the delegates at the founding meeting of the SBC in 1845 were all from churches who embraced the Philadelphia Confession (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9905/articles/george.html). The first confession drawn up by Southern Baptists, The Abstract of Principles, is clearly Calvinistic, and even the 1925 BFM reflects a Calvinism (though fading at that point) in its articles on Regeneration, Faith and Repentance, Election and Perseverance.

2. Our early Seminary, College and Convention Presidents and writing theologians were Calvinists, as were notable Convention and agency leaders: W.B. Johnson, R.B.C. Howell, Richard Fuller, Jesse Mercer, John Dagg, P.H. Mell, Basil Manly Sr. (and Jr.), James Boyce, John Broadus, F.H. Kerfoot, E.C. Dargan, J.B. Gambrel, J.B. Tidwell, B.H. Carrol.

The churches of the SBC in the late 19th century were largely Calvinistic. But this does not prove that we should be Calvinists today. It’s just our background. But this is what makes the whole anti-Calvinism rhetoric “ironic.”

Sources for all think kind of stuff? Well, you can read the sermons and books by some of these men, or check out the histories. Everything I have said here can be read in:

The Southern Baptist Convention 1845-1953 by WW Barnes.
By His Grace and For His Glory, Tom Nettles
A History of Baptists by Robert Torbet

You wrote…
“The whole thing is ironic since the SBC was dominated by Calvinistic churches at its inception.”

Really? Is that a gut feeling or statement backed by numbers? Can you point me to the data supporting this statement?

It will help me see the big picture on this matter…

Thanks,
Charles