New LifeWay Study Confirms that Calvinism is Growing in the SBC


Understanding statistics and Calvinism are two good but painful things to do in Baptist life.  There have been a bunch of recent studies among pastors on Calvinism and here are some key data points.  

Among SBC pastors, 5-Point Calvinism has grown 10% per year from 2006 to 2012. (2006 LifeWay Study) (2012 LifeWay Study)



This is in stark contrast to the 2010 BARNA study which shows Calvinism is not growing amoung Protestants.  



In other words, while Calvinism is not growing in other Protestant churches, it is growing in the SBC.  The reason Calvinism is growing in the SBC is shown by the 2007 NAMB study - SBC seminaries are cranking out 5-Point Calvinists at a growing rate.   



Additionally, SBC Pastors are more likely to hold to double-predestination and limited atonement compared to protestant churches generally.  (2011 LifeWay General Protestant Study) (2012 SBC Specific LifeWay Study)



As a minor note, the 2012 LifeWay study mistakenly reports the number of Protestent Pastors who hold to  5 Point Calvinism as 32% when that's the number that say the are Reformed and the number who are 5-Point Calvinists was actual 10%.

While it's helpful to have data on Pastors, I wonder if a study will be done on regular Church Members?  In any case, these studies show the concentration and growth of Calvinism among SBC Pastors - highlighting the need for the Traditional Baptist Statement (link).

Comments

SLW said…
I wonder has this trend tracks against the decline in the SBC of baptisms, membership and attendance?
June 21, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hey SLW,

While I am sure the overall number of Baptisms and attendance is down, I am also sure there are lots of factors driving that. You may want to check out the NAMB stats (linked to above) on baptisms/attendance as it relates to Calvinist/non-Calvinist churches.

BTW, Glad to see you found the new web address. I hope that means the redirect is working as it should.

God be with you,
Dan
June 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said…
The disadvantage too is that we that are non-calvinist or arminians don't have radio programs or those that commit to radio programs don't commit to our particular theological persuasion.

The airwaves are filled with MacArthur, Sproul, Mohler (at least when he was on). Then other radio programs, and hosts blindly promote a calvinist teacher. So if one grows up hearing singularly MacArthur and Sproul, and they promote Piper there you have it. They rarely read actual source materials, so MacArthur or the Founders blog, Pyro/Phil Johnson become the sources as opposed to actually reading Arminius or in some cases Calvin.

So the aforementioned via the radio, internet and television, or books are the sine qua non.

And they so-called calvinist heroes if pressed for an honest answer the source materials are actual sources but Warfield and the like. Sorry for the tangent.
July 10, 2012 at 9:28 PM
Godismyjudge said…
I agree - a non-Calvinist radio program would be good. I am sure there are some (Michael Brown comes to mind, as well as William Lane Craig's podcasts) but more would be welcome.

God be with you,
Dan
July 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Donald Hightower said…
Sorry for the different ID's, but it's Donald Hightower a.k.a pastorhightower, fellow SBC'er and Cowboy fan etc.

Anyway, like Dr. Brown, but at times he can be a little fringey (I know it is not a word), I'm not comfortable with his comfort level of mentioning the Brownsville Revival like it was good thing.
July 24, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more