was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

[webdog]

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.

So what you agree with is the fact you should only worship with calvinists and your pastor should forfeit all biblical topics but predestination...and my post is reckless. Maybe its time for you and your buddy to re-examine your attitudes.

 

[Tom Butler]

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?

Most of us who are DoGs came to that position from personal study of the question. Our two Cal pastors somewhat reinforced our view, but it was never an in-your-face kind of preaching or teaching. And I don't remember our non-Cal pastors dealing with it directly from the pulpit.

One member and I had some long private discussions about it, but when he embraced DoG, he did it on his own. I claim no credit for his switch.

I tell you EWF, as strongly as I hold to DoG, I don't think I could ever divide my church over it. Thirty years ago, our church went through some conflict, and I vowed I'd never be part of another church fight unless it was over heresy. Our church is quite unified right now, and harmony is a precious thing. If our church ever goes majority DoG, it won't be because the Cals pushed it. I'd rather seek out an existing Cal church instead, or start such a church myself, before I'd split a church over DoG.

 

[Rippon]

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:

A snip of an article by Tom Nettles :The Rise And Demise Of Calvinism Among Southern Baptists:

"No one of trend-setting influence seriously challenged the Calvinistic hegemony before the arrival of E.Y.Mullins as President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminiary." (He became president in 1899 --Rip)

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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 thats mighty narrowminded...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 to as high as you apparently do. Not only do I know what ARBCA is...my pastor is from that background.

Be afraid, be very afraid! The Calvinists are coming!!! lol

I am with EWF on this. I would not join a church that did not hold to the doctrines of grace. But I seriously doubt his church only teaches Calvinism each week. Rather, the doctrines of grace are a part of all teaching, as they should be.

How can I speak concerning our great salvation and neglect God's grace?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

I don't think all were, but Calvinism was the main theology. One only has to read the founders to see it.

 

[Rippon]

I don't think all were, but Calvinism was the main theology. One only has to read the founders to see it.

Just take a gander at some strongly Calvinistic Southern Baptist leaders from the 19th century:

John L.Dagg (1794-1884)
Richard Furman (1755-1825)
Patrick Mell (1814-1888)
David Benedict (1789-1874)
J.B. Jeter (1802-1880)
James P.Boyce (1827-1888)
Basil Manly Jr. 1825-1892)
john Broadus (1827-1895)
Richard Fuller (1804-1876)

They wielded a lot of influence among their people.

 

[Tom Butler]

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, your story says a lot about your sending church. Those kinds of disputes could kill a church. Yours didn't ask for trouble, but confronted it when it came along. I hate power plays, but in this instance, your church had no choice. Good for them.

 

[Allan]

I don't think all were, but Calvinism was the main theology. One only has to read the founders to see it.

I agree many held it, but it was not, nor is it now, the SBC formal theological stance. The SBC has no specific theological stance and never has. It has always been open, relitively speaking.

The "founders" were not the only founders of the SBC, and there is partially where they get confused. The SBC was not set up to be Reformed, but a cooporative of churches of varied views (but still holding to the essentials and fundamentals) unifying together for the spread of the gospel and growth of the Kingdom.

 

[Allan]

Wow, your story says a lot about your sending church. Those kinds of disputes could kill a church. Yours didn't ask for trouble, but confronted it when it came along. I hate power plays, but in this instance, your church had no choice. Good for them.

Yes, what pleases me most, is that it has not caused problems with those of the Reformed view, that are still among them. In fact, it was the one of those reformed persons who helped bring to light to the pastor, the desire of the hyper group.

I find it sad some are so high minded (and closed minded) that they don't know how to interact and worship or build up the body of Christ, with others who are not of their theological bent. Yet God has made us all different

And while no church is perfect, love is.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I agree many held it, but it was not, nor is it now, the SBC formal theological stance. The SBC has no specific theological stance and never has. It has always been open, relitively speaking.

The "founders" were not the only founders of the SBC, and there is partially where they get confused. The SBC was not set up to be Reformed, but a cooporative of churches of varied views (but still holding to the essentials and fundamentals) unifying together for the spread of the gospel and growth of the Kingdom.

Ok, Allen. I am gonna ask you if you agree with the following statements. But...I am taking them from an old document. I am being ambiguous on purpose. Just want to know if you would agree with the following:

God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures.

Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life -- not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ -- in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

God originally created man in His own image, and free from sin; but, through the temptation of Satan, he transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original holiness and righteousness; whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and wholly opposed to God and His law, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God's free and special grace alone.

Saving faith is the belief, on God's authority, of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall, through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal of sinners, who believe in Christ, from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made; not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith.

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being, by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things.

Could you give your hearty AMEN! to these statements?

 

[Allan]

Ok, Allen. I am gonna ask you if you agree with the following statements. But...I am taking them from an old document. I am being ambiguous on purpose. Just want to know if you would agree with the following:


Could you give your hearty AMEN! to these statements?

Why should I?
First and primarily, this is not a document of the SBC to which other churches must agree.

However, yes, with the exception of one or two, and the wording of a couple (which could be more specific).. I have little problem whatsoever.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Why should I?
First and primarily, this is not a document of the SBC to which other churches must agree.

However, yes, with the exception of one or two, and the wording of a couple (which could be more specific).. I have little problem whatsoever.

The specifics of the statements would be clarified by Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology. These statements, which I chose for their decidedly Calvinist theoloy, was required by all seminary professors of the SBTS to accept, teach according to it, and not to teach contrary to it. It was written into their Fundamental Laws in its charter on April 30, 1858.

My point is that the SBC was clearly Calvinist.
http://www.founders.org/abstract.html

 

[Allan]

The specifics of the statements would be clarified by Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology. These statements, which I chose for their decidedly Calvinist theoloy, was required by all seminary professors of the SBC to accept, teach according to it, and not to teach contrary to it. It is written into their Fundamental Laws in its charter on April 30, 1858.

My point is that the SBC was clearly Calvinist.

No Sorry, incorrect. The College was clearly Calvinistic, NOT the SBC. I really wish 'founders' would stick to historical facts and stop trying to rewrite SBC histroy. While yes, the SBC was largely made up of Calvinistic churches, the Convention itself was NOT reformed nor was the intent of it's creation to make it so.
By the way.. I already knew it was Southerns Abstract principles

However, they were not the SBC, nor did they speak FOR nor on behalf OF the SBC.

However, here is comparison of the 1925 BF&F with that 1963 and the 2000
Link here

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So what you agree with is the fact you should only worship with calvinists and your pastor should forfeit all biblical topics but predestination...and my post is reckless. Maybe its time for you and your buddy to re-examine your attitudes.

your a class act WB. :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Actually no.....but he is on a series from Ephesians right now. You also must be on a tear about swearing right now since you seem to be the self imposed language police with Glfredericks as well. Wow, you must be so sainted that you never sin, right. I have noticed your propensity to try picking fights with every Calvinist on this board. Have you ever looked inward into your own soul. Probably not since your perfect, right.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Most of us who are DoGs came to that position from personal study of the question. Our two Cal pastors somewhat reinforced our view, but it was never an in-your-face kind of preaching or teaching. And I don't remember our non-Cal pastors dealing with it directly from the pulpit.

One member and I had some long private discussions about it, but when he embraced DoG, he did it on his own. I claim no credit for his switch.

I tell you EWF, as strongly as I hold to DoG, I don't think I could ever divide my church over it. Thirty years ago, our church went through some conflict, and I vowed I'd never be part of another church fight unless it was over heresy. Our church is quite unified right now, and harmony is a precious thing. If our church ever goes majority DoG, it won't be because the Cals pushed it. I'd rather seek out an existing Cal church instead, or start such a church myself, before I'd split a church over DoG.

Im not saying spite Tom, but if I have my druthers, Id choose the Calvinist Church & thats what I did..... I like my church like I like my Scotch.....Non Blended!

Cheers!

 

[Rippon]

So what you agree with is the fact you should only worship with Calvinists and your pastor should forfeit all biblical topics but predestination...and my post is reckless. Maybe its time for you and your buddy to re-examine your attitudes.

EW&F was saying that he is comfortable with worshipping with Christians of like mind.What's wrong with that? What is wrong with Calvinists worshipping with other Calvinists? Is there anything wrong with Arminians (those who acknowledge the term applies to them as well as those who denounce the term yet still adhere to the doctrines) worshipping with other Arminians?

Why conclude that EW&F is in a near cultic situation? Why not appreciate that the brother is happy where he is? Would you rather that he attend an Arminian church and be what is derisively called a "Calvinistic crusader"?

I am sure the spiritual meals his pastor serves are more than a rehash of T.U.L.I.P. each Sunday. His pastor more than likely serves up the entire counsel of the Word of God through the years.

EW&F hasn't said that only Calvinists are Christians,or anything remotely resembling that. There's no logical reason for your anger.

WD,you were rash and brash. It's not edifying. Show some kindness once in a blue moon. Okay?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

OK & so when my own brother, an Arminian IFB Youth Pastor went to a conference 5 years ago with his Head Pastor & sat at table for lunch (not knowing anyone) with 3 Reformed Pastors & just chatted casually about the days events; he was later berated by his boss who told him that he had no business speaking to "those people" & that God would not bless the church for his mistake. Further it became a black mark against him come review time. His unforgivable sin was merely speaking to a Calvinist & God would not bless him. So Allan, the door swings both ways.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EW&F was saying that he is comfortable with worshipping with Christians of like mind.What's wrong with that? What is wrong with Calvinists worshipping with other Calvinists? Is there anything wrong with Arminians (those who acknowledge the term applies to them as well as those who denounce the term yet still adhere to the doctrines) worshipping with other Arminians?

Why conclude that EW&F is in a near cultic situation? Why not appreciate that the brother is happy where he is? Would you rather that he attend an Arminian church and be what is derisively called a "Calvinistic crusader"?

I am sure the spiritual meals his pastor serves are more than a rehash of T.U.L.I.P. each Sunday. His pastor more than likely serves up the entire counsel of the Word of God through the years.

EW&F hasn't said that only Calvinists are Christians,or anything remotely resembling that. There's no logical reason for your anger.

WD,you were rash and brash. It's not edifying. Show some kindness once in a blue moon. Okay?

Thank you.....now there is a term I never heard "Calvinistic Crusader" ....I can guess but what is it?

 

[Jerome]

I am sure the spiritual meals his pastor serves are more than a rehash of T.U.L.I.P. each Sunday.

I get Election & Predestination & DoG preached from the pulpit each Sunday

and in another thread:

I now go to a Calvinistic Church that from the pulpit teaches me Election every week.