was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

If you are referring to the founders of the SBC, could you provide some references? There is much on the founders website, so links would be great.

 

My question to you JF is that if you knew all this information about Calvinist involvement & their theology etc, then why did you ask the OP Question ... was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

 

While this was addressed to Allan, I'd like to take a crack at this until he replies.

In my church, our pastor is not a Calvinist, but at least three of his deacons are. So is his choir director and so is an adult Sunday School teacher. We've had two Calvinist pastors in the past 25 years. The majority of the congregation is non-Cal. So far, it has not been a problem because none of us wants it to be. Our pastor is free to preach the gospel from the pulpit, and is free to teach Bible study classes they way he sees it. The SS teacher teaches as he is led.

Those Baptist distinctives mentioned by quantumfaith a few posts ago? We all, Cal and non-Cal, subscribe to them and are the basis for our unity.

We don't have a creed, but we have adopted the Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of doctrine and practice. The BF&M's section on election is something we all can live with.

Now, I'm sure that not every SBC church handles such diversity in the same way. And it does have the potential to be divisive.

Maybe some of you have similar situations in your churches. How do you handle us pesky Calvinists?

 

I think what some others pointed out, and seems rational to me, is that you can't pin a theological system on the broad category of "baptist" What you can do, however, is narrow your focus to the SBC, look at the founders of that group, and see what they believed from the beginning.

They were Calvinists.

 

There are disctintives that would decidedly make one "Baptist" but this would not be soteriology or eschatology as best as I can tell. It would be Baptism and Church government.

Simply, what makes the 1689 LBCF "Baptist" and the WCF not baptist? They are nearly identical creeds. But what is different? You would find the differences are with Baptism and Church government.

 

Not all were (you said so yourself previously), nor did they (those SBC reformed founders) make Calvinism or Reformed theology the main theological focus of the the SBC but allowed each church to hold it's own views and as an organization holding to a basic beliefs. Even the BF&M (old and new) is written in such a way as to be acceptable to most varied views that were not to far off base from the scriptural truths. They sought unity among the people of God (Cals and non-Cals) for the sake of the gospel and Kingdom.

 

Tom....thanks but since switching to a Calvinistic church, I get Election & Predestination & DoG preached from the pulpit each Sunday. I do not have to rub elbows with people who disagree with me on theology, rather they all agree so nobody has to dance around those issues. It's quite refreshing & Calvinists are not considered pesky in the church I go to.:godisgood:

BTW, who teaches the Calvinists the Doctrines of Grace in the church you attend?

 

I agree with your post Tom, on the issue EW&F raised. It is only an issue if one (individual or church) chooses to make it an issue. That is usually only because one group wants to be the controlling group and kick out the other.

I don't see any reason why it can't work or that is it some confusing thing. Every church I have been in it has worked well, and the churches grew in faith and love. It would seem a church that doesn't or can't has more profound issues it needs to deal with. However I will state that my mother or sending church which sent me up to the Dakota's to plant churches, almost had a church split due to come Cals trying to take over the church. This group had become Hyper Calvinistic (even laughing out loud during the baptism of a 13 year of girl because she couldn't be saved), they (4 of the ladies) told the girl just prior to coming into the church for the baptism that she can not be really saved since she is to young and that no amount of praying for mercy will save her. God will save her regardless and she just needs to go back home. They sought to remove the pastor and other leadership but was themselves confronted before the congregation.

Now why do I tell that little ditty? Because my home church does not hold a grudge against those of the reformed view even after that, as they have (till the hyper aspect came along) worshiped and grown together without any problems. Problems only come when someone desires it to be a my view only.

 

Wow. What a sad narrow minded church and approach to worshipping with your brothers and sisters. Almost cultish.

 

OK so how do you deal with someone like me who completely believes in the tenants of Calvinism & whats more feels the need to learn more & more. Are you saying Doctrine has no place?

 

Id expect a comment like that from you. You heard my description before...."Calvinistic"

Wow, maybe you would like to go tell Dr. Bob that ....he is at the ARBCA General Assembly conference as we speak.....Do you know what that is? LOL

 

How in the world can you say that WD? How can you object to EWF's post #30? Isn't that commendable instead of condemnable? Brothers and sisters worshipping in agreement -- how biblical. But no,you want to tear that up and denigrate it. Please reexamine your reckless post.

 

Im considering sending that one to Dr Bob for review. but Im not a rat so I thank you Rippon my brother for your comment.....the admonishment should suffice. Thank you brother.:thumbs:

 

"Some men purposely confine themselves to four or five topics continually. Should you step into their chapel you would naturally expect to hear them preaching, either from this, “Not of the will of the flesh, but of the will of God,” or else, “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” You know that the moment you step in, you are sure to hear nothing but Election and high Doctrine that day! Such men also err quite as much as others, if they give too great prominence to one Truth to the neglect of the others. Whatever is here to be preached, all in whatever name you please—write it high, write it low—the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible, is the standard of the true Christian! Alas, alas, many make an iron ring of their doctrines and he who dares to step beyond that narrow circle is not reckoned orthodox. God bless heretics, then! God send us more of them! Many make theology into a kind of tread wheel consisting of five doctrines which are everlastingly rotated. For they never go on to anything else." ---Charles Spurgeon, "Preach the Gospel"

 

Insight into early Southern Baptist belief:

From James B. Taylor's (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) work Virginia Baptist Ministers, published in the 1850s:

Now that's something you would never find on the so-called "Founders" site:laugh:

 

I highly doubt that that Spurgeonic rebuke applies to EW&F's church situation.

 

Nothing about my post was offensive. whats offensive to me is taking Gods name in vain so casually as you do. If your pastor only speaks about predestination each week, I think that's mighty narrow minded...and scary. The fact you only wish to fellowship with people who only agree with you also is scary and unbiblical. You can tell Dr. Bob anything you like, its irrelevant. Ftr he has stated non cals worship "another god" so I don't exactly hold him as high as you apparently do. Not only do I know what ARBCA is...my pastor is from that background.