was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

your a class act WB. :laugh:

 

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.

 

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!

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

and in another thread: