Calvinism in Fundamentalism Circles

At Jack Hyles type/Sword of the Lord type churches, there is no calvinism.

On the other side of fundamentalism, the BJ type, more and more guys are going to seminary and as more guys go to seminary, there is more calvinism.

Also, among seminarians, there is great interest in conservative evangelicals like Piper, Mohler, MacArthur, Dever, and Mahaney. All of those guys are calvinists and younger guys are following them.

 

As many are going back to studying the bible, they are finding the same truths contained in it that many have also seen, such as B.H.Carroll,J.P.Boyce, Spurgeon, and the apostles, namely the grace of God in the gospel.

 

Yes, Calvinism is increasing among Fundamentalists. Probably the most prominent proof of this is Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, which is well known in Fundamentalist circles for being Calvinistic. And they are honest about it, and strongly support world missions, which I respect.

Concerning Central Baptist Theological Seminary, my information is that there are Calvinists on the faculty. Concerning Kevin Bauder, the president, I've never seen a public statement on it, but if he's not a five point Callvinist I'll eat my Spurgeon's The Soul Winner. (I'm fairly well plugged in on this.)

Sharper Iron is essentially run by Calvinists. I would even say crusading Calvinists, since those who are not Calvinist are often ganged up on there. (Few non-Calvinists are still on SI following their upgrade last year.) While trying to defend my evangelist grandfather last year, I was openly opposed on the thread by owner Aaron Blumer and the moderator (any bias there?), after which the thread was closed before I could answer, whereupon I asked that my name be deleted from membership.

Check out the following blog for comments on SI by a very well informed blogger: http://sharperironintheironskillet.blogspot.com/2009/09/fair-number-of-reformed-folks.html

 

John, Detroit is four-point calvinist, not five-point, though I confess I have found it hard to distinguish a practical difference in the presentations I have heard from Doran.

I know of know faculty member at Calvary who professes to be a calvinist. Calvinism is NOT the school's doctrinal position.

As to Bauder, start eating! About 1 to 2 years ago in his In the Nick of Time series, Bauder delivered a robust defense of general atonement.

John, in your grandfather's day and in his conferences, the podium was manned by men who were pastors of dynamic, growing churches and these men were not calvinists. Today, when men go to big conferences, the influential pastors who preach well, write well, and have large ministries are men who are calvinists. Consequently young men are following the pattern of success that they see.

 

Sigh. Anyone have some ketchup?

Anyway, thanks for the corrections.

Would that our fundamentalist young men would only follow the Savior and His Bible, whether it meant what is normally called "success" or "failure."

 

:smilewinkgrin:

 

Agreed. There are not many (some, but not many)who fit that description on the other side of the aisle.

No, your false consequence doesn't follow from your true premise. Young men (and some not so young) follow the Word of God. Those Calvinists who are Bible expositors get the favorable attention of the young and old alike.

 

I wish others would be honest about their Arminianism.

You had 15 posts on that thread.Couldn't you get your ideas across with that much posting?

Lou's blogs are not sources with which people should link. He's a very ill-informed guy -- especially with respect to the Lordship Controversy,Calvinism and KJV Only issues.

 

Lou is most definitely not KJV only, though he was recently accused of that on SI. And he is very well informed concerning SI itself, whatever you may think of his theology.

 

Young men are devoid of experience or perspective, so they often follow their leaders blindly and unthinkingly. That's why young men make tremendous soldiers but rarely make great generals.

 

From my observations, apparently not. Seems John was simply objecting to inflammatory rhetoric being repeated about his grandfather. After plenty of dancing around this issue, by those in opposition which reveled at the chance justify such disrespect, and whose only defense was to criticize John's humble plea to refrain from such "intemperate language" was to say that his use of the phrase "intemperate language" was on an even keel with what was said about his grandfather, as if it logical reasoning that "two wrongs would make a right" on such ridiculous pretenses. IOW's more rhetoric and then a closer of the tread while basically ending it on an attempt to make John out as a whiner.

Of course, "some" do consider this type of rhetoric as a legitimate and acceptable form of logical reasoning.

 

I had to smile when I read this. I remember from my BJU days (70s) a number of Calvinists. I tended to stay away from them, having concluded that they had somehow gone off on a tangent. I also remember them as being more avid about their views than I thought right.

But then, in the 00s (That just doesn't look right) I became - in the words of a former friend - "Mr. TULIP". This was as a result of personal study (I live in a very unReformed part of Texas). I wish now I had spent more time talking to those "weird" Calvinists.

 

As I said before, both young and older folks are attracted to expository preaching. Calvinists are more noted for than are the non-Cals.

If you want to hone in on just the under 30 crowd -- I think your argument is still weak.

 

His grandfather used some rather inflammatory language -- that's a fact. Even the mere citation of his own words are enough to bring on ire from some in the Fundamentalist camp.

One of John's major complaints was :"My only purpose on this thread has been to point out the vagueness and unfairness of Bauder's attacks."

Don't you hate it when some one is vague? It's such a potent attack menthod.

 

Expository preaching IS an attraction of the men we are speaking of. But, there are lots of people who preach expositorily. The difference is that these particular men have large churches or prominent ministries. That is what draws the young.

This statement is simply not true. There are a host of expository preachers both living and dead who were not five-point calvinists.

This statement is so typical of calvinists. It is an empty assertion with no proof, yet it is stated as though it were infallible and irrefutable. So, I'll reply to you as any kindergartener would: YOUR argument is weak!

 

1. I doubt on the same level, or disposition, and this wouldn’t change “the fact” that any argument based on “Two wrongs make a right” is still an attempt at rooting to justify on a major logical fallacy… You musta missed that point.

2. Neither is “Ire” a legitimate excuse.

3. John R Rice isn’t here to defend himself; if he was I’m sure he would still be highly regarded in the fundamentalist camp as a respected leader.

Don’t have the time or energy to pin down the argument for you in order to address just how worthless these philosophical values are concerning these “deceptive by nature rhetorical” euphemistic/dysphemistic semantics about John’s complaint.

Now, since I’ve previously noted that you’ve also reveled in your “ire” and irrational reasoning to attack John R Rice before the presence of his grandson (who probably finds it valueless to try/have to reason with you), to continue this conversation on this subject would amount to little more than feeding a troll looking to further malicious opportunities.

 

If we examine our Baptist history, we will see that it runs back to Reformed/Calvinist theology. In a congregation where people are encouraged to read their Bible, they will notice that Paul's language is quite clear on election, man's depravity and other doctrines. They will probably come to the same conclusion that Luther, Calvin,Zwingli, Beza, Knox and more came to........some of our teachers are WRONG.

 

Talk about trying to revise history!
If we examine Baptist church history without bias we clearly see that Baptists were around before the reformation and did not arise out of it.

Or.. like many in that view more came out because those teachers were WRONG.

Or for the many who never came into that view because through study and prayer they found those teachers to be wrong. Now where do we stand?