Calvinism in Fundamentalism Circles

And yet there are those, whom both sides of the fence, agree they do much justice to church history without much if any bias. Thus the issue isn't such a 'major' one.

Why would you assume I am speaking or claiming 'kinship'? Honestly, did I state or give the impression that was my view?
And with that I am now making the assumption you are refering to the 'Trail of Blood' view. No, I am speaking specifically of those baptists, for example - the Welsh Baptists, who were around prior to/before the Reformation. I could reference the ana-baptists and their being in existance for over a 1000 years, and yes I do know they had some views that were different or distinct to them, however with them, I see nothing different from many of our baptist churches today.

Remember that baptists hold to varied views of theology though we know that some do not hold to a few of the same principle views, but even today not all baptists hold to the full listings of beliefs. Yet even that list expands and retracts depending on the specifics looked for.

Funny, these are the primary views and at least a few other that are typically listed that make a group considered to be baptist.
What you give is the foundation beliefs for being baptistic but not all the views we typically see. The other aspects/views added only show them to be much closer to what 'we' percieve is more baptist. Yet what we 'percieve' as being 'more baptist' is actaully a slightly vague and relitive listing depending on what is being looked for.
Can we say all those who hold to the name 'baptist' are really baptist? According to what list? This is my point.

Here is a short short discription of Baptists as well as an acrostic of it from wiki:

Or this site on baptist distinctives by the SBC, "What makes a Baptist a Baptist"

As such your above is a good rule of thumb for showing any group compared to it as being or not being baptistic by nature regardless of their name.


This is probably enough to cite just now.

Yes, and typically shown to be inaddiquate.

I agree.
Yet those churches who have been seperate from the Roman Catholic Church have always maintianed certain views and beliefs that are distinctly different from them..

I'm not sure what why you stated "even an angry exhortation " since I don't speak with you much and my exhortations, the majority of time, are civil and kind.

 

Fundamentalists, by and large, both living and dead are/were not known for their expository preaching.

Yet you made an assertion in the first place! You're funny.

 

So every person who is deceased is off-bounds. We are not allowed to criticize anyone who has passed away.Is that your rule? Have you violated that rule a few times on the BB?

I don't disagree with you at all here.

I wish you could write more understandable English.

I have reveled in my ire?!

So to counteract what you think is wrong on my part you proceed to sin up a storm in response.

 

Rippon, here is the first statement I made on this thread. I assume that this is what you are referring to:

I will grant that this is an assertion, but it is not an empty one. I could not say it if it were falsifiable. Here is your opportunity to show that there IS calvinism in that brand of fundamentalism. I'll watch for your reply.

You also say that fundamentalists are not known for their expository preaching. While that is true is Hyles/SotL fundamentalism, it is not true in other facets of fundamentalism. Seminaries like Calvary, Detroit, and Central (both of them) have trained many men who are faithful expositors.

 

Nope -- that's not the assertion I was referencing. I was even remotely speaking of Jack Hyles and SOTL type churches.(And if you take a gander you'll see what I mean.)

In post #5 you said:'Young men are following the pattern of success that they see."

In post #11 you said;"Young men are devoid of experience or perspective, so they often follow their leaders blindly and unthinkingly."

Also in post #11 you were discussing Fundamentalism of yesteryear when "the podium was manned by men who were pastors of dynamic,growing churches and these men weren't Calvinists."

Now"when men go to big conferences, the influential pastors who preach well,write well and have large ministries are men who are Calvinists."

That's true. But you have argued against yourself. Young men are inexperienced and lack a sense of perspective and often follow their leaders blindly you told us. You can't have it both ways. Are you confessing that young men who went to hear the non-Calvinistic preachers with dynamic, growing churches really were blindly following them? Or are non-Calvinistic young men immune to that sort of mentality? Do you think only Calvinistic young men are subject to those weaknesses?

You yourself said that today Calvinistic pastors who preach and write well are developing a following among young men. These Calvinistic preachers have thriving,growing churches -- I thought you liked that when the preachers are non-Cals. You are being quite inconsistent.

In the closing part of post #16 you said some rather rude things which were completely uncalled for. And since you're memory wasn't up to snuff in that you couldn't even reference your own assertion in context -- I think you should apologize.

I had said, "by and large." Obviously there are exceptions. But Calvinistic preachers are known for being more expository than the non-Cal variety.

 

No, I think that young men generally are subject to looking for successful people and trying to mimic them. There is nothing wrong with that, per se, except that pastors of large churches, whether they be calvinists, non-calvinists, arminians, or whatever, have feet of clay. Many of the ministries that were successful and much mimicked 30 years ago no longer exist today and the same thing will happen to the prominent ministries that are being followed today. Young men who follow after old men are apt to be disappointed in the old men at some point.

I said the exact thing that you had said in the previous post. I said "Your argument is weak" and I gave no evidence for saying it. This is exactly what you had said and done to me. I said that this is the way kindergarteners argue and that I would join you in the style if that is the way you want to argue.

So you don't like my evaluation of young men and the weakness in the way they think and you don't like my evaluation of kindergarteners and the way they argue. I better spare you any description of the three common habits of infants!

 

Yes, that applies to the latter two -- which are Calvinistic. Again, the point I had made before.

 

And that is exactly wrong. If anyone places hope and confidence in men they are indeed going to be disappointed.It's not the men, but the theology behind the men. Preachers who are expositional aren't relying on personal appeal and dynamic deliveries. Calvinism isn't immune to the cult of personality -- but in non-Cal fundamentalism, especially in the past -- style ruled and biblical substance was lacking.

Did I say that your assertion was so typical of an arrogant non-Calvinist? Of course not.

You were confused and had thought I was talking about Jack Hyles and TSOTL.

 

Rippon, I said

In reply, you said

Then you said

So, you said almost verbatim the same thing I said, but described my statement as "exactly wrong". I think my work is done here.

 

Swaimj

I had said :"It's not the men, but the theology behind the men. Preachers who are expositional aren't relying on personal appeal and dynamic deliveries."

The focus should be on the message -- not the men. The Fundamentalist preachers of the past are deceased now. If what they left behind is primarily their dynamic personalities -- their legacies will not continue.

On the other hand, ministries which are expositional do not depend on the personal appeal of the speaker. When MacArthur, Sproul,Dever and other more Calvinistic preachers pass away -- the "movement" won't die with the mortals who proclaimed the message. The message will continue on with vitality.

 

Rippon, this is a nice theory and is true in a sense. The true faith will continue somewhere with somebody until Jesus comes. And it is certainly true that the preachers you name are expositional. Two observations:

The young men following these famous preachers HAVE NOT thought through the consequences of the theological system they are currently buying into. That CANNOT HAVE because they are not old enough to have. They have not put it to the test in real life and real ministry, and when they do they MAY find that it comes up short.

If the five-point brand of calvinism is so fool-proof, then I ask you, what happened the five-point calvinists in New England from 400-500 years ago? What happened to their churches? (Can you say Unitarianism) What happened to the schools they started? (Harvard and Yale are certainly bastions of truth for the gospel today, right?) And what happened to the holiness of living that they preached? Holding to the five points DOES NOT guarantee that the next generation will hold to the truth.

 

I modified your words to make it clear.

That's some special ability you have to make all those generalized determinations. And really:"The theological system they are currently buying into" is really a bunch of sour grapes on your part.

You have the right to hold to a wrong theory if you wish.

Calvinism is not a mere attachment to the so-called five points. That's one of the problems you have -- thinking that that truncation is Calvinism. It's a bit more full-orbed than that as I have repeated so often on the BB.

Five hundred years ago?! Calvinism as expressed by the Pilgrim Fathers in New England almost 400 years ago was a spiritually healthy thing.

Yes, nearly two centuries later many people coming from a heritage of Calvinism left the faith.

Are you aware that most of the General Baptists (i.e. Arminian) of England became Unitarian by 1750 or so?

Harvard became liberal due to Arminian influences in the 1690's.So it had half a century with a strong Calvinistic stand. By the way, did you know that the first President -- Dunster became a Baptist and had to leave that institution in 1654?

Yale held to a strong Calvinistic stand for almost a century. Ezra Stiles who died in 1795 held the institution firm till he died. The next President bought too much into New England theology for my taste -- though he was a capable and godly man -- Timothy Dwight.

I answered that foolishness earlier.

 

Could you name some unbiased, objective historians who do justice to Baptist history, in your view?

 

As I has said before, the latter two are Calvinistic which doesn't help your case. Could you please provide some names of current and notable non-Calvinistic Bible expositors?

 

Rippon, why are you asking me this? Earlier on this thread, when you thought I was saying that you must not think there are ANY non-calvinist expositors,you said

If you already know of "exceptions", then you don't need a list from me. Why don't you list the ones you already know about since you said there are exceptions and if I can think of any more, I'll add them.

 

I didn't want to make an absolute statement -- just a generalized observation.

I don't have any such list. But surely you could furnish a list of non-Calvinistic living pastors. As you said -- there are a host of em'.

Again, to make it clear and defined -- give me names of notable,living,Fundamental,expository, Arminian, (er ah -- non-Calvinistic) American pastors. I will await your list with baited breath.

 

And I await your list of exceptions. No need for me to tell you things that you already know.

 

So, the list must be of "notable" pastors? Drop off the "notable" and head into one of many IFB churches across this country whose pastor fits this description. Just because pastors that fit this bill aren't publishing books and making big names of themselves does not mean they don't exist. I am preached to by one every Sunday.

 

Friends:

Among the few Christians in Laos, the 'Calvinistic' orientation has caused some confusion. Some of the misunderstanding is due to the reality that most of our religious materials are in English, which is not the primary language for the majority of the Christians here.

Most Christians living in this environment can't afford the theological divide that the Calvinists bring forth. In fairness the Calvinists are not the only ones adding to the confusion here, since there are also many sectarians.

The solution, for us in Laos, is the small Bible fellowships, where we balance our living according the precepts of the Bible. We have decided that the Bible is textually inerrancy and we await the Savior's return to guide us.

The flavor of the small house churches invariably has become Bible-centered, but non-denominational theologically. Hence, there is splintering which occurs when 'new' Christians are exposed to doctrinal views outside of the basics, which lead to long divisive debates that distract from our survival as a whole and breaks up the small gatherings.

 

You are not paying attention. I had already told you I had no such list in my post #36. I do not know. I have maintained that by-and-large, non-Calvinistic,Fundamental pastors are not expositional in their preaching. I know all Fundamental,non-Calvinistic pastors are not of the Danny Sweatt type. But they are not known for solid doctrinal preaching.

Obviously there must be some exceptions to this general rule. I asked you to give me a list of some notable examples. You had made the claim that there are a host of them -- so naming a few shouldn't be such a problem for you. It's your task -- not mine. Prove me wrong if you can.

In the Reformed camp of today I can think of a number of pastors who are expositional.

Ligon Duncan,Joel Beeke, Philip Tyken, Paul Washer, Tim Keller, John Weaver, Joseph Pipa, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, Sinclair Furguson and Dr. Michael Barrett come to mind. And the list could extend to scores of others who I haven't listened to yet.