was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

You never answered my question Allan:

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?

 

Thats right & I also hear Christ preached & As Ive said he is doing a series on Ephesians so he is using the time to preach Election.....Is there a problem with that? Or is it that your bias is he shouldn't do it at all! Ah, that's it isnt it? It shouldn't be preached at all. You can believe it if you must you pesky Calvinist, but it will be frowned upon in service or circulating amongst your theologically different brethren. So best to keep it in the closet & we promise to work around it so as not to offend you, you pesky pain in the neck Calvinist. Got it! LOL....dont ask dont tell ROFL!

 

I guess our point of disagreement can be illustrated by a metaphor. The fountain by which the SBC churches were watered was their seminary, which is clearly Calvinist in their theology.

If I, living in the 1800s during the founding of the seminary, was voting in a pastor trained from this seminary, I would expect that the preacher at minimum hold the beliefs outlines in the Abstract of Principles. Nor would I expect that any professor of the seminary would have taught otherwise, or be allowed to have taught otherwise, without being fired.

It seems spurious to me to make me say that the seminary spoke for the SBC. Some have argued that because of the nature of the SBC it cannot be properly called a denomination. We all understand the independance of Baptist churches that are a member of the convention. Nevertheless, the founders, in the 1800s, are the builders and not the building. And the materials they built with are most certainly Calvinist teaching.

 

I don't deal with you cause I don't have to. You don't want anything to do with any church that isn't Calvinistic and anyone like you, will not come either.

 

Allan....thank you for your level of honesty. Now we are at least dealing from a truth base. That wasn't hard was it?

 

EWF, I don't understand. You have stated that you want nothing to do with a non-Calvinistic church. How else is Allen supposed to respond other than the way he did? You have no room to worship with another Christian brother or sister who doesn't adhere to the DoG. That is your choice. You would be welcome in my church but you would not be welcoming to us because we are not all reformed and yet we worship together because our goal is the Great Commission and not some continual emphasis on the DoG.

 

In referencing the Founders site I am very much disturbed. Not so much by their obvious desire to be reformed but by their desire to take over the SBC. So, if you aren't reformed you are out.

 

Thats Fine

 

I imagine the early SBC founders were very much disturbed by the rise of the various forms of Arminianism that spread like leaven among their churches. I would have been.

But I would be concerned about the Calvinists. They are preaching for sure, but certainly not advocating for a centralization of the SBC. I find it interesting to follow, but I have no vested interest in it.

 

Can't he speak for himself? I was going off his own words, some of which Jerome quoted. I don't really think you are one to call anyone out on kindness.

 

We are taught to teach and admonish one another. I would hpe grown christian men (some pastors) would refrain from vulgarity and using God's name in vain on a christian site for the whole world to see. I never claimed to be sinless, that is a liberal tactic, a red herring to divert attention away instead of manning up and being accontable for your actions...but maybe you were just predestined to do that and are not really accountable. Sad.

 

No, it can't.
Secondly, the SBC was not made up of only those grads. In fact, not all in the SBC approved of the abstract articles for the school, but since there was a larger body of Calvinists than nons, it passed. However, the school did not speak to nor for the SBC's theological stance. To presume such ignores history and the very founders themselves.

However, let us also note that not more than 50 years (give or take) later, the tide turned pervasively to a Non-Calvinist view. In fact the next SBC Seminary obtained (SouthWestern 1907) was not Calvinistic. So in your logic, this is now the SBC's theological stance and has been for over 100 years, yet it is not.

Your biggest problem to overcome is that the SBC was NEVER and is never going to hold one particular theological stance. Our roots are not reformed, but it does contain it, just as it does the non-cal as well. No school of the SBC speaks to nor for the SBC's theological stance. This is noted because NO WHERE will you or I find any such assertion.

With respect to the graduates, that is naive to assume they should all hold, at minimum, the beliefs outlined in the Abstracts. They should know them yes, and why the school holds to them but that does not necessitate everyone will embrace them. The fact is, and you know this as well as I do, not all hold to the views they taught from colleges they receive their instruction from.

Yet that is exactly what you 'are' saying. You are saying that since the Seminary taught a Calvinistic view, the SBC was itself also Calvinistic. And that my friend, is silly.

Um, again.. you ignore the FACT that not all the founders were Calvinistic, and some in the SBC were against the Abstracts. Yet since the SBC did have more Calvinists than Non-Cals at the time, it passed. But again, not 50 years later the next seminary was not Calvinistic.

However, the historical truth is that the SBC has NEVER held to any specific theological position. That is just one mountain you can not move.

 

It has nothing to do with honestly or pretending that I was being evasive or not honest in the first place. You question is bating and the fact is, I would not have to deal you or others who hold to your view as you will not come among us. I have been dealing with the truth from the start and not deviated from it yet.

 

RB.. they FOUNDED the SBC WITH the Arminians (as you call them). The Calvinists did not found the SBC and then others came in.. it was founded with both reformed and non-reformed churches from the start. Get your facts straight brother.

 

I disagree....my question was an honest & open attempt to understand. If thats your perception, I hope Ive set you straight. Anything else?

 

Allen,

Just going to have to disagree with you. Plus you seem a bit upset, so I will stop discussing the point.

I think this statement from the reformedreader is far more fair than your assessment.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/hbd.htm

 

Oweeee, big Christian man we got here taking cheap shots. Pathetic attempt actually. Try again later after you give your brain a rest. :smilewinkgrin:

Maybe ask your wife for some help:thumbs:

 

Not upset in the slightest.

You can disagree all you desire, but you are still incorrect.

Name once in the entire SBC history, where we declared any one theological stance. You can't and that is a historical fact. It was not created for that purpose, it has not been modified to contain such a purpose.

The SBC was founded by both Cals and non-Cals alike, and that is another historical fact you can't get around. And while I agree the larger portion was Calvinistic that does not negate the other portion who was decidedly not. So when you speak of the founders you are speaking of BOTH Cals and non-Cals, not just Calvinists.

Additionally, the NH Confession was held by non-Cals.. so to try to state it as being a 'diluted form of Calvinism' is silly. Another point is that the SBC modified the Confession somewhat as well. While one could see the wording in various ways, one has only to remember that the Confession was worded for just that kind of purpose. So as to be inclusive of the varied Baptist beliefs and not exclusive.

Here is the Preamble for the 1925 BF&M
The report of the Committee on Statement of Baptist Faith and Message was presented as follows by E. Y. Mullins, Kentucky:

 

Did you even read what I wrote? Well, I actually didn't write it, it was from the reformedreader website.

I know the SBC has modifed itself over time. Historically, they were Calvinists. Now, not so much.

Here is a good article by Tom Ascol http://www.founders.org/journal/fj19/article1.html

These are some of my favorite excerpts:

Allen, now go back and look whose name is attached to the preamble of the1925 BF&M document...E.Y. Mullins.

This last bit sounds like what you suggest...

I agree with this statement from Ascol, which I have been asserting:

 

Yet AGAIN, you ignore historical FACTs for historic revisioning.

Also it doesn't matter who's name is on the preamble.. it is written in such a way so that as either theological group can agree with it, and it was voted to be accepted by the SBC body.

Second, the SBC was NOT Calvinistic. Check your history not the revisionists. It NEVER, not once EVER, has claim ANY theological position. That is where you keep coming up short. Just because a large portion of the churches were Calvinistic did not and has never made the Convention Reformed in doctrine. To be such means that the Convention adheres to Calvinistic teachings and doctrines. It never has made any such declaration nor has it required any of its churches to do such.

Most of what you quote regards early baptists in general NOT SBC. And is it any wonder most were Calvinistic since they typically and forcibly chased off other baptist preachers.

Again, Historical facts
1. the SBC was FOUNDED with and by both Cals and Non-Cals.
2. Never has the SBC declared ANY theological stance as it's own
3. No BF&M ever made the reformed view as it's core beliefs but was made to be inclusive of both views and not exclusive to one view.
4. Even during the vote to confirm the Abstracts for Southern, there was opposing votes in the SBC. This speaks specifically to the fact that the SBC was not Calvinistic, though many churches within it were.

You can't get around these these historical facts, nor can anyone else. If someone claims the SBC was Calvinistic it only proves either they know only what they were told to believe, or that they trying to revise some parts of Church history. The Founders, were both Calvinists AND non-Cals. So to claim the 'founders' were Calvinistic, is a statement of ignorance at best and a willful deception at worst.