-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Azusa St. Revival- 105th anniversary
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
Just curious but are you also a dispensationalist Calvinist?
Luke2427 said:
Oy vey, friend this is simply wrong. Listen, I don't know who you are reading but let me encourage you to check out a few other sources that might help in your education about SBC beginnings.
Baker, Robert. ed. A Baptist Source Book. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1966.
Baker, Robert. The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607–1972. Broadman Press, 1974.
Barnes, William. The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845–1953 Broadman Press, 1954.
Garrett, James Leo Baptist Theology: A Four Century Study Mercer University Press (2009)
McBeth, H. Leon, (ed.) A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (1990)
McBeth, H. Leon, The Baptist Heritage Broadman and Holman (1987)
Torbet, Robert G. A History of the Baptists, Judson Press, 1950
This will help with your studies. You couldn't be more wrong. The SBC has always maintained a balance of Reformed and non-Reformed theology since its inception. To suggest they were "thoroughly Calvinistic" is just an error in history.
I don't know if it matters to you but, man, I've really spent some time studying this stuff and know the views. You're not in the right here. Also I'd be mindful to tender your comments towards our IFB brethren. They are good people who have done much for the Kingdom.
You automatically brand him with "this 'Trail of Blood' baloney" whereas most of us don't adhere adamantly to it as you suppose, and recognize that it has mistakes in it.
I don't think that this is Trail of Blood:
"Although I do not believe in a chain-link succession I do believe there has been a spiritual kinship of those believers down through the ages as asserted by William Kiffin (1616-1701)."
I believe his view of history is far more accurate than yours. Notice that he is a Calvinist; I am not. But he is the one that has a grasp on history. He is a pastor and a seminary professor; has been in the ministry for 31 years. Dr. Cassidy is a well-respected and very educated man. He has probably forgotten more than you will ever learn.
Just answer the question I asked. Is Tom Butler one of those "you people"? His systematic theology does not mirror yours. Most cal's don't. You are just as guilty as those you accuse, yet are blind as a bat to this fact.
Robert Snow
New Member
I have read both Christianity in Chrisis and Charismatic Chaos. They have some good points and do point out some common errors, but I still think Luke is wrong in his assessment.
The BEST book to read up on this subject is that by Mr Mcconnell, A Different Gospel, as that is written from the perspective of an Evangelical Charasmatic, and he does show why those fridge groups "allowed" by the modern pentacostalist are NOT biblical, but are cultic/heresay, and need to be "purged" out from those who hold to pentacostal teachings...
Just curious but are you also a dispensationalist Calvinist?
Oy vey, friend this is simply wrong. Listen, I don't know who you are reading but let me encourage you to check out a few other sources that might help in your education about SBC beginnings.
Baker, Robert. ed. A Baptist Source Book. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1966.
Baker, Robert. The Southern Baptist Convention and Its People, 1607–1972. Broadman Press, 1974.
Barnes, William. The Southern Baptist Convention, 1845–1953 Broadman Press, 1954.
Garrett, James Leo Baptist Theology: A Four Century Study Mercer University Press (2009)
McBeth, H. Leon, (ed.) A Sourcebook for Baptist Heritage (1990)
McBeth, H. Leon, The Baptist Heritage Broadman and Holman (1987)
Torbet, Robert G. A History of the Baptists, Judson Press, 1950
This will help with your studies. You couldn't be more wrong. The SBC has always maintained a balance of Reformed and non-Reformed theology since its inception. To suggest they were "thoroughly Calvinistic" is just an error in history.
I don't know if it matters to you but, man, I've really spent some time studying this stuff and know the views. You're not in the right here. Also I'd be mindful to tender your comments towards our IFB brethren. They are good people who have done much for the Kingdom.
You've not even made a point yet, PJ.
Provide a quote from one of those books that argues that the VAST majority of Southern Baptists in the ORIGIN of the movement were NOT Calvinists.
Then explain why Southern Seminary, the flag ship seminary of the SBC and her FIRST has in her founding documents a demand that ALL STAFF identify themselves as CALVINISTS.
It doesn't have to be a mirror.
Tom is a Calvinist. He may be a soft Calvinist and I am a rather hard Calvinist (but by no means hyper) but we are both Calvinists.
Now Tom may not want to call himself a Calvinist. That is his right. But just because somebody doesn't like to be called something- it doesn't change the fact that it is what they are.
What you believe doesn't mirror or even resemble anything in Christian History.
That is why you have no name for your theology. No one believed this weird hodge-podge of doctrines until the IFBers came along and they haven't bothered naming it for you yet.
However, I attend Liberty University which is an IFB college (though Thomas Road did become SBC a few years ago) and Elmer Towns has given you a name for what you believe. He calls it- Biblical Dispensationalist.
It's new, its not systematized, it's a little pompous but at least one of the founders of it is giving it a name.
Last edited by a moderator:
That quote is meaningless.
ALL Christians believe that. It has nothing to do with this ABSURD idea that Baptists trace their roots to Christ AS BAPTISTS.
We ALL came out of the Catholic Church with EXTRAORDINARILY few exceptions.
The Catholic Church was all there WAS for generations. That and heretics.
Luke, it has always been the few who hold the truth, not the majority.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
As it was in the day of Christ, it was the few that were saved. The majority, who followed the traditional religion were lost.
And calling folks heretics is not new.
Heb 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy: ) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
It has never been the majority that held the common traditions that were saved, it was the few who were called heretics by the majority, who were often persecuted and killed for speaking the truth.
So, arguing that you hold the majority views that are the common traditions is not a good argument that your views are correct.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
As it was in the day of Christ, it was the few that were saved. The majority, who followed the traditional religion were lost.
And calling folks heretics is not new.
Heb 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy: ) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
It has never been the majority that held the common traditions that were saved, it was the few who were called heretics by the majority, who were often persecuted and killed for speaking the truth.
So, arguing that you hold the majority views that are the common traditions is not a good argument that your views are correct.
You really have no idea what the "spiritual kinship theory" is, do you?
You shouldn't be so ready to bounce on people as absurd and don't know what they are talking about, when you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about. Go find out what the "spiritual kinship theory," is, the theory that Dr. Cassidy says he believes in, and then you will have something to discuss; instead of just throwing names and insults at people.
Actually I am simply iterating a former point made.
Luke2427 said:
Granted significant portions of the documents from the early years of the SBC have more to do with ecclesiology than the broader topics of Reformed theology, there is still some which can be gleened.
One point is that if the VAST majority of Southern Baptists were Reformed from the start of the convention, why did the Landmarkist Movement gain ground so fast? Are we really saying that the proud theological heritage of the Reformed wasn't strong enough to hold this significant percentage of SBCers to the Convention...or Reformed theology?
A second point comes from direct quotes:
Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (which is the standard Baptist history text at all six seminaries)
"Both the order of Charleston {high church Reformed} and the ardor of Sandy Creek {low church, non-reformed} contributed to the synthesis that made up the Southern Baptist Convention." The several paragraphs explaining the two camps will show the diversity of views I inserted in the braces. pg 234
"A new trend among Southern Baptists, still small but growing, represents a resurgence of Calvinistic theology...While most Southern Baptists will not find the Calvinist form of predestination satisfying, they must acknowledge that the movement represents, to some extent, a reaction against shallow evangelism." (emphasis mine) p. 699:
Now why would this be a "resurgence" if it was held by the "VAST majority of Southern Baptists?"
McBeth, whose status amongst Baptist historians is well established, also notes, curiously against your thesis, that most Southern Baptists are opposed to the Calvinistic system.
I do think your question has been answered.
Luke2427 said:
Who here is saying that there were no Reformed individuals amongst the progenitors of the Southern Baptist Convention?
While many Baptists in ninteenth century America, and specifically the southern states, were Reformed to say "VAST majority" is untenable. I'd check out Brackney's Baptists in North America in Religion in America (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.)
I am objecting to your grossly overstated (and historically uninformed) opinion that the VAST majority of Southern Baptists are Reformed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed.
Some well-needed wisdom:
"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." —Charles Spurgeon, "Preach the Gospel"
"I am not ashamed of the denomination to which I belong, sprung, as we are, direct from the loins of Christ, having never passed through the turbid stream of Romanism, and having an origin apart from all dissent or Protestantism, because we have existed before all other sects" —Charles Spurgeon, "A Home Question"
And featured prominently on the Reformed Reader website:thumbs: homepage is another quote from Spurgeon:
http://www.reformedreader.org/
"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ"
I read about it and I think it is utterly ridiculous to claim that from the 4th century to the 17th there was almost no Christian witness on planet earth except a handful of dissenters who popped up here and there every once in a while- most of whom were heretics, BTW.
And I would not want to align myself with the Anabaptists either.
Many of them denied the deity of Christ and were opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity.
They were a tiny isolationist group whose greatest contemporary representatives sure as heck-fire are not the SBC nor the IFBs but rather the Mennonites.
IFBers are so quick to call the anabaps their spiritual kin just because they werre for religious liberty and against sprinkling infants.
I, and many thinking people, require more.
And if I have to choose between a church that sprinkles infants and one that denies the Trinity- I'll sprinkle infants.
I'd rather my baby be sprinkled in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and then when he gets older come to Christ and be saved than I had my 20 year old son be baptized in some heretical church.
Another dose of reality amidst this ranting:
"long before there were any Lutherans or Calvinists, we read [of] . . . Anabaptists. . . . Our sires were Protestants before the Protestants! They were part of a long line of men who stood firm when the mass of the Church turned this way and that!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Unbroken Line"
"long before there were any Lutherans or Calvinists, we read [of] . . . Anabaptists. . . . Our sires were Protestants before the Protestants! They were part of a long line of men who stood firm when the mass of the Church turned this way and that!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Unbroken Line"
Then what is your position? That only the RCC existed at that time (and perhaps the Orthodox from the 11th Century onward--a split from the RCC which also does not preach the gospel. Your view that there was no organization existing on earth that preached the gospel. You sound like the thread on Harold Camping--agreeing that only the Pope has the truth (except that Camping now says that only Camping has the truth).
Here is the promise of God.
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. (2 Timothy 2:19)
--The Lord knows them that are his. He never let his light go out. In every generation there were some that carried the torch of the gospel, preserved the Word, and passed it on to succeeding generations. The apostate Catholic Church never did this. They had a mission to destroy true believers and destroy the Word of God. They were apostate and have never believed in the gospel--a message of salvation by grace through faith.
That is your choice. Remember that even today that there are many types of Baptists including 7th Day Baptists, Baptists that are outright liberals (look at the American Baptist Convention), Charismatic Baptists, etc. There are many that are outside the mainstream of the various evangelical Baptist churches. That was true of the Anabaptist churches as well. My guess is that you are characterizing the Anabaptist churches with a wide brush from what you have heard from their Roman Catholic enemies. You have read about some of the heresies that some of them held but not the majority. Remember their history is found more among their enemies than among themselves.
A wild accusation found among their enemies but not among themselves.
Yes it is true that the Mennonites came out of the Anabaptists. I wouldn't deny that. But they aren't the only ones. They also have a connection to the Baptists. And their beliefs, if looked into seriously reflect the Baptists today. But you won't do any serious study of them. You will take the word of their enemies over their own testimony.
Yes, they were called Ana-Baptist, for a good reason. They believed the gospel, and then they baptized. For that they were persecuted and put to death.
Give proof that they denied the trinity before making that accusation.
You have given no reason to believe that they were heretical other than false accusation that you presumably got from RCC sources. There is no reason to believe that they denied the trinity. They did not. Where did you hear that trash.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71002
Luke might benefit from reading this exchange between Reformed Baptist and Allan. Where is Allan when we need him?
Luke might benefit from reading this exchange between Reformed Baptist and Allan. Where is Allan when we need him?
Who really cares if you came before the Roman Catholic Church, sooner or later your bound to bump into them....there on every continent & almost every corner of the earth. your so called purity does not isolate you from interaction with them. I will wager that there are more than a few of us in here that come from a Catholic background with family & relatives who still are Catholic. Do you approach them at the dinner table with your boasting that you are now of the Pure & Unadulterated? Bet that conversation will go far! :tonofbricks::laugh:
Would Anabaptists be like Father Menno Simons, Father of the Mennonite Movement who was a Catholic priest prior to becoming a Anabaptist?
"He was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest in 1515 or 1516[ at Utrecht. He was then appointed chaplain in his father's village Pingjum (1524)."