Featured The rise of Calvinism?

You, of course, are wrong. I can't imagine how you studied Johnson, Howell and Fuller and walked away with such nonsense. I suspect you just chose to follow men who said what you wanted to hear. Are you aware that their original journals are avaliable to the public at the SBC library in Nashville? Kinda makes ignorance a bit lazy, doesn't it.

There have been movements within Calvinism for reform since its inception. What I am speaking of has been active for about 50 years.

And of course you also seem ignorant concerning SBC doctrine. At its formation (in Augusta GA) the SBC was comprised of a very diverse group when it comes to Calvinism. Most of the churches were what is know as Free will theology (not necessarily Free Will Baptists). The leadership was moderately Calvinists (they rejected Limited Atonement).

None of the early presidents were "five point Calvinists", but Howell forward a few generations were moderate Calvinists (or as @Yeshua1 insists, 4 article Arminians).

In short, you are wrong and should study before posting. How long have you been SBC? What studies have you undertaken to qualify an opinion?

I do not understand, given that we know the churches which formed the Convention, how you could make such an utterly stupid claim. Not only that, but we have the writings of Johnson and Howell, (I am sure you obviously don't know, but they were the first presidents of the SBC) who were not "strong Calvinists"... They were moderates.

@Iconoclast, where did you study SBC history?

For a Calvinist you seem awfully unaware concerning Calvinism. I do not mean to seem rude, but until you study you really should refrain from an opinion.

In a debate one is entitled only to an opinion he or she can defend with evidence. My evidence against you is the favmct that none of the original SBC leadership affirmed Limited Atonement and that the majority of the churches comprising the SBC when it was formed were not Calvinist.


What is your evidence?

 

I do not care, @Iconoclast. That is between you and @Yeshua1.

Personally, I stand by history in stating that when founded the SBC was moderately Calvinistic in its leadership yet more diverse in the churches comprising the Convention.

You have to remember that at the time the SBC was formed the largest denomination was Methodist (Wesleyan Arminianism). At the same time you had hyper-Calvinistic anti-mision movements (Parker-ish movements). The SBC was not Calvinistic but it was also not anti-Calvinistic. Your comments were simply inaccurate. Johnson and Howell rejected Limited Atonement yet were moderately Calvinistic. Many of the churches were leaning towards free-will theology.

I do not understand your comment in light of the fact we have the testimony of the churches forming the SBC and the journals of Johnson and Howell. It just does not make sense to me as it seems you are content with propaganda over truth if it supports your agenda. That idea is foreign to me. But I was raised with and maintain a high degree if integrity even if it does not support my desires. We are different, raised differently....that's all.

 

I really would not care either way but I hate to see one group twist history. We do not have to agree with those who have gone before but we should at least be honest enough if men to respect their views and deal truthfully with history.

I have actually seen a member on another forum insisting that the ECF's were Calvinists.

He who controls the past controls the future I guess.

 

RBC Howell was a founder and the 2nd President of the SBC (although he was against its formation).

Given Calvinism's background I do not understand the push so many have to rewrite history.

 

You misread Scripture here, Iconoclast. Reexamine your theology:

Isaiah 43:19-21
“Behold, I will do something new, Now it will spring forth; Will you not be aware of it? I will even make a roadway in the wilderness, Rivers in the desert. "The beasts of the field will glorify Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people. “The people whom I formed for Myself Will declare My praise.

Apparently our salvation itself depends on a rejection of your idea in this case.

 

For edification :

William Brantley was the pastor of First Baptist in Augusta GA. As a pastor he preached against strong Calvinism, particularly and strongly against the doctrine of irresistible grace .

So who cares?

Well, he was a founder of the SBC. In fact, the SBC started in his church in Augusta GA (it is now closed and delapicated, about 5 miles from my home).

 

Yes. In fact, I know exactly to what the verse is speaking.

 

You are confused, Iconoclast.

That was not a snide comment at all. I was raised to value integrity and honesty to the point I believe we are responsible for illustrations we present as facts (something I struggle with listening to some pastors I respect).

This continued in my adult life. In the military I tryed to impart the value of honesty to my soldiers. We could deal with issues if we are honest about them.

As a father I stress this value to my son. We do our best and are honest about our actions and the result.

People make mistakes. This is OK. People disagree and understandtthings differently. That's OK. Dishonesty, however, is never OK. I am pleased that you, even though we disagree theologically, acknowledge that I have acted with integrity. I believe you also state what you believe to be true.

 

The implication here is that the exodus will be overshadowed by something new that God is planning for the present. This "new thing" effectively reverses the exodus. Whereas God caused the sea to turn to dry land to save His people from the Egyptians, now He will make paths and streams in the desert to deliver His people.

The idea is that God does not desire that Israel miss the present while they are looking back. Instead, He wants Israel to praise Him in the present for His coming provision. God’s sovereign control of nature stands in stark contrast to the inability of the idols.

 

We actually have what these people wrote. Why do you think it necessary to rely on a secondary source?????