• 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!

Was J.R. Graves A Calvinist?

K

Kiffen

Member
I refuse to be defined either by Calvinism or Arminianism, or "Amyrault" whoever in the world he is.
Click to expand...
Moises Amyrault was a Frenchman theologian who disagreed with TULIP or one might better say rededined it to fit unlimited atonement. Richard Baxter is probably the best known Amyrault and it seems Graves held to similar views. BTW I did not try to define you just...Bro. Graves


The Bible says that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man and that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He is the Savior of the whole world, specially of those who believe.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in it's provision but limited in it's application - limited to those who believe.
Click to expand...
Here we go again :( :rolleyes: The Canons of Dort that systemized TULIP agree with you Mark. I glad you joined us on Calvin's Team! :D OK, I am kidding with you Brother. The problem with non Calvinists is they usually read their own material and often distort Calvinism. Calvinism teaches the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in it's provision but limited in it's application -limited to those who believe. Calvinism does not deny Whosover will may Come.

Anyone who departs from that - either by asserting that Christ's death will save all or that His death was not sufficient for all - has redefined the gopsel of Jesus Christ and is worthy of top ranks of the hall of shame. As it is written,

"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Mark Osgatharp
Click to expand...
So, you believe your Baptist forefathers who wrote the 1644 London Confession, 1689 London Confession, Philadelphia Confession, Midland Confession were all heretics? and what about the 1833 New Hampshire Confession that was in Dr. Bogard's Manual?

Anyway this thread is suppose to be about JR Graves and I don't think he was a 5 pointer but probably a 4 pointer.
 
rsr

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Not to chase too many Calvinistic rabbit trails, but I would suggest that Amyrauldianism is not synonymous with Fullerism, at least technically, although they both fall under the label (given by their enemies) of "hypo-calvinism."

Amyrault's departure from Dort was on the extent of the atonement; there was a difference between God's desire to save, which extended to all, and his will.\

Fuller approached the subject from the aspect of total depravity; leaning upon Jonathan Edwards' differentiation of moral and natural ability. (Which also demonstrates the deep connection between Puritan and Dissenting thought on both sides of the Pond.)

Fuller taught that belief in Christ was a duty, and to require a duty with no corresponding ability to carry out the duty in nonsense.


On account of this different phraseology, some writers have affirmed that men are under both a moral and a natural inability of coming to Christ, or that they neither will nor can come to him: but if there be no other inability than what arises from aversion, this language is not accurate; for it conveys the idea, that if all aversion of heart were removed, there would still be a natural and insurmountable bar in the way. But no such idea as this is conveyed by our Lord's words: the only bar to which he refers lies in that reluctance or aversion which the drawing of the Father implies and removes. Nor will such an idea comport with what he elsewhere teaches. "And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Why do ye not understand my speech? Because 'Ye cannot hear My word.'" These cutting interrogations proceed on the supposition that they could have received the doctrine of Christ, if it had been agreeable to their corrupt hearts; and its being otherwise was the ONLY reason why they could not understand and believe it. If sinners were naturally and absolutely unable to believe in Christ, they would be equally unable to disbelieve; for it requires the same powers to reject as to embrace. And, in this case, there would be no room for an inability of another kind: a dead body is equally unable to do evil as to do good; and a man naturally and absolutely blind could not be guilty of shutting his eyes against the light.
Click to expand...
— Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy
of all Acceptation
 
M

Mark Osgatharp

New Member
Originally posted by Kiffen:
So, you believe your Baptist forefathers who wrote the 1644 London Confession, 1689 London Confession, Philadelphia Confession, Midland Confession were all heretics? and what about the 1833 New Hampshire Confession that was in Dr. Bogard's Manual?
Click to expand...
A. I didn't realize I spoke so unclearly. Let me say it again: I believe that ANYONE who asserts that Christ's death will save all or denies that it is sufficient for all is guilty of perverting the gospel and is worthy of shame. I don't care who does it. As Paul said,

"though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

B. Not that I have an obligation to defend Bogard, Graves, the New Hampshire (or any other) confession of faith other than my own, the fact is that the New Hampshire Confession of faith explicitly states,

"We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel (1); that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith (2); and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel (3); which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation."

Which is a square and forthright denial of the hell-spawned lie that Christ died only for the pre-selected. But you said,

Anyway this thread is suppose to be about JR Graves and I don't think he was a 5 pointer but probably a 4 pointer.
Click to expand...
By Graves' testimony, penned late in his life, he was a "no point" Calvinist. In his own words, "not one scintilla." I quote again my original quote in this thread:

"These will be interesting to all Baptists, and perhaps many of our churches and brethren about to organize would like to adopt them, and so hold the faith of the First Baptist Church organized on this continent. All can see there is not a scintilla of Calvinism in them. Baptists were sound, held and taught in all the faith once delivered to the saints, fifteen hundred years before Calvin was born. What he added to it is Calvinism, and that we most heartily repudiate."

To that I say, Amen!

Mark Osgatharp
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am perhaps not as satisfied as to reconciling Graves' statements as some others are. I understand that there are ways that folks can understand some of these statements in ways to reconcile them with their own understanding of "Calvinism". That nevertheless does not determine what Graves meant.

First, one thing should be clear and beyond dispute. J. R. Graves did not believe whatever he understood Calvinism to mean in 1887. He states that plainly enough.

Second, there are ways to interpret the First Baptist Newport statement of faith to accord with one's Calvinistic beliefs. Regardless, the statement of faith is not framed as Calvinists frame such statements of faith, and it is highly unlikely that the framers of the statement could have had any "Calvinistic" intent in mind. (Btw, its terminology both theologically and grammatically make me think it is not the original from 1638.)

Third, there are ways to interpret the statements of Graves in Seven Dispensations in accord with general provision. I was born and raised among some of the "heirs" of Graves' landmark movement - American Baptist Association affiliated churches in East Texas. I have never heard any of these preachers who could be hogtied and made to preach and explain that God only gave some of the children of Adam to be redeemed and other such terminology as Graves used in the quote I gave above.

None of this particularly explains Graves' meaning and possible contradiction, barring finding him expressly defining his use of the term Calvinism.
 
S

StraightAndNarrow

Active Member
Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Bible says that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man and that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He is the Savior of the whole world, specially of those who believe.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in it's provision but limited in it's application - limited to those who believe.

Anyone who departs from that - either by asserting that Christ's death will save all or that His death was not sufficient for all - has redefined the gopsel of Jesus Christ and is worthy of top ranks of the hall of shame. As it is written,

"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Click to expand...
I do not know of any Calvinists who would disagree with any of that. </font>[/QUOTE]I presume by that you mean that due to total depravity only the elect can believe. That's a nice little twist but I still would call that limited atonement.
 
J

J. A. Sison

New Member
Bro. James said:
"I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos"

Ben M. Bogard (Bogard Press) was a Freemason, so was George Washington (1st president of the U.S).

Now what?

"What think ye of Christ?" "Who is He?"

"Let God be found true--and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James
Click to expand...

This is the most hilarious comment I've read, but seriously contemplable. Thanks for sharing.
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
We will morph this entire thread to the Calvinism/Arminian site. Sorry it wasn't caught 15 years ago when we divorced any threads on Calvinism into its own chamber. Mea big gulpa. :)
 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
rlvaughn said:
I have never heard any of these preachers who could be hogtied and made to preach and explain
Click to expand...

rlvaughn said:
that God only gave some of the children of Adam to be redeemed
Click to expand...

Jesus says a lot, in John 17, about His Mission where, "He should Give Eternal Life to as many as Thou hast Given Him".

1; These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2; As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that He should Give Eternal Life to as many as Thou hast Given Him, 3; And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4; I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5; And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6; I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7; Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8; For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9; I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10; And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11; And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12; While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13; And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14; I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15; I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16; They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17; Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18; As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

Then, we begin thinking ALSO about what Jesus just said, where He Reveals, "I Sanctify Myself",

Who are the; "they", in John 17:19, where Jesus says He Sanctifies Himself, "for their sakes,?

19; "And for their sakes I Sanctify Myself, that "they" also might be Sanctified through the Truth".

Looking back at 17:9; "they", are the "them" & "they" are those whom God the Father had Given Jesus to die for and Redeem;
"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for "them" which Thou hast Given Me; for "they" are Thine".

And looking ahead also to 17:24, Jesus said He Sanctified Himself, for "they" "whom" the Father Gave Him, to Sanctify and Redeem;
"Father, I Will that "they" also, "whom Thou hast Given Me", be with Me where I Am;
that they may behold My Glory, which Thou hast Given Me: for Thou Lovedst Me before the Foundation of the World.

When Jesus says, I Sanctify Myself", "for their sakes", Jesus is describing Redemptive Work, and
Jesus is still talking about "those the Father has Given Me", who are the ones with whom Jesus has the Concern
"that "they" also might be Sanctified through the Truth", which is where God Sets them Apart, or Sanctifies them,
as the Result of Jesus' Work of Redemption He Accomplishes FOR "THEM", TO GRANT THEM ETERNAL LIFE.

Then, once Christ Begins our Sanctification, He Infallibly Brings it to Pass, as we see this in John 6:37;
"All that the Father Giveth Me shall Come to Me; and him that Cometh to Me I Will in No Wise Cast Out".

In sum, Jesus Sanctified Himself for "all that the Father gave Him" that they they also might be Sanctified.
It does not get any clearer than that. (John 17:9, 19, 20 & 24);

con't.
 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
MrW said:
I do not know of any Calvinists who WOULD agree with that.
Click to expand...
Again, Jesus says a lot, in John 17, about His Mission where, "He should Give Eternal Life to as many as Thou hast Given Him".

1; These Words Spake Jesus, and Lifted up His Eyes to Heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come;
Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2; As thou hast Given Him Power over all flesh, that He should Give Eternal Life to as many as Thou hast Given Him,

3; And this is Life Eternal, that they might know thee the Only True God, and Jesus Christ, Whom thou hast Sent.

4; I have Glorified Thee on the Earth: I have Finished the Work which thou Gavest Me to Do.

Jesus Finished the Work God the Father Gave Him to Do, which was to Sanctify Himself in Obtaining Eternal Life,
in order to Redeem and Sanctify and Give Eternal Life to as many as God the Father had Given Him to die for, as their Redeemer.

Mathew 1:21; "thou shalt call His Name JESUS: for He shall Save His people from their sins".

God there, in Matthew said that Jesus was Going to, "Save His people from their sins".

Which means what? Jesus was going Save His specific people that God had Given to Him to Redeem, by dying for "THEIR SINS".

That is what it says there in Matthew.

Who was Jesus Going to Save? "His people".

How was Jesus Going to Save "His people"? By Giving His Perfect Sanctified Life to Redeem "His people FROM THEIR SINS".

Jesus died to Redeem the sins of "His people", who were His "sheep".

That is what we see further, in John 10, where the Bible Reveals that Jesus is The Good Shepard,
WHO WILL DO EXACTLY WHAT JESUS SAYS THERE HE WILL DO;

"I Lay Down My Life for the sheep."

WHEN JESUS CHRIST SPECIFICALLY REFERED TO WHO HE LAID DOWN HIS LIFE FOR,
JESUS SAID HE DIED FOR "THE SHEEP".

WHEN JESUS LAID DOWN HIS LIFE AND DIED, WHO DID JESUS SAY THAT HE DIED FOR? "THE SHEEP".

REMEMBER WHAT JESUS SAYS, IN John 10:11; "I Am The Good Shepherd: The Good Shepherd Giveth His Life for the sheep."

THAT'S WHAT HE SAYS.

Are you going to have to wait for Him to Tell you that, Himself?, because He actually already did, right here, in John 10;

John 10:11; I Am The Good Shepherd: The Good Shepherd Giveth His Life for the sheep.

12; "But he that is an hireling, and not The Shepherd, whose own the sheep are not,
seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

13; "The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14; "I Am the Good Shepherd, and Know My sheep, and am known of Mine.

15; "As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: and I Lay Down My Life for the sheep.

16; "And other sheep I Have, which are not of this Fold:
them also I Must Bring, and they shall hear My Voice; and there shall be One Fold, and One Shepherd.

17; "Therefore doth My Father Love Me, because I Lay Down My Life, that I Might Take it Again.

18; "No man taketh it from Me, but I Lay it Down of Myself.
I have Power to Lay it Down, and I have Power to Take it Again.
This Commandment have I Received of My Father."

Then, we have the Blessing of seeing the remaining verses, in John 17,
where Jesus mentions you and I that are Saved right there in the Bible plain as day,
when He says that He is Praying to God for, "them also which shall believe",

20; Neither Pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their Word;

21; That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, Art in Me, and I in Thee,
that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast Sent Me.

22; And the Glory which Thou Gavest Me I have Given them; that they may be one, even as We are One:

23; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be Made Perfect in one;
and that the world may know that Thou hast Sent Me, and hast Loved them, as Thou hast Loved Me.

24; Father, I Will that they also, whom Thou hast Given Me, be with Me Where I Am;
that they may behold My Glory, which Thou hast Given Me: for Thou Lovest Me before the Foundation of the World.

25; O Righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee: but I have Known Thee, and these have known that Thou hast Sent Me.

26; And I have Declared unto them Thy Name, and Will Declare it:
that the Love wherewith Thou hast Loved Me May be in them, and I in them.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
rsr said:
Not to chase too many Calvinistic rabbit trails, but I would suggest that Amyrauldianism is not synonymous with Fullerism, at least technically, although they both fall under the label (given by their enemies) of "hypo-calvinism."
Click to expand...

Somebody please explain to me what is "hypo-calvinism". Is this the same discombobulated Fullerite Calmanianism that @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 espouse?
 
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
kyredneck said:
"hypo-calvinism"
Click to expand...

New thread: I came across this plain spoken explanation of What "Hyper-Calvinism" is, unless you were kidding about the "Hypo" thingy.

I believe this brother does an extremely good, succinct job of explaining exactly what "Hyper-Calvinism" is.

What is a hyper-Calvinist? How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?

What is a hyper-Calvinist? Is that what you are being accused of? When does Calvinism go wrong? How do we sustain our strong Calvinistic convictions — to the nth degree! — without slipping into hyper-Calvinism?” (The Transcript, or Audio is available at this link). "Let me state the...
www.baptistboard.com

Baptist History Homepage's

Extensive list of links to:
everything you ever wanted to know about Andrew Fuller,
but were afraid to ask...:

ANDREW FULLER - BRITISH BAPTIST MINISTER.
...


kyredneck said:
Is this the same discombobulated Fullerite Calmanianism that @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 espouse?
Click to expand...
I don't know just what @Martin Marprelate and @DaveXR650 espouse,

however, "Hyper-Calvinism", would be one giant leap in the direction away from Arminianism,
on then through Calvinism and back out the other side, going away from Calvinism, also,
in the extreme opposite direction from Arminianism.

"Hyper-Calvinism", is actually what you believe, there in Lexington, KY, isn't it, kyredneck?

I really hate to hear of anyone espousing either Arminianism, or its diametrically opposite belief, "Hyper-Calvinism", *

and then, there's this crazy idea of some religious belief you come up with,
as somehow supposed to be a combination of Arminianism and Calvinism:

kyredneck said:
Fullerite Calmanianism
Click to expand...

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to get off here and go into mourning, now.

Only to come back WITH FIRE IN MY BONES!!, I HOPE...

* What has to happen is that those who hold to Arminianism might have to have God sit them still
while some of us say that they place an unjustified imbalance that leans Unscripturally
toward the error of man thinking they may obtain a Divine Spiritually Eternal Salvation, without having any Divine Spiritual Capability

and then where the "Hyper-Calvinist" places an unjustified imbalance that leans Unscripturally
toward the error of man thinking they may obtain a Divine Spiritually Eternal Salvation,
without having the Means and Instrumentality of God's Word Preached, to Convict them of having Offended their Holy Creator God,
and their Need of a Savior and specifically involving The Message of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection IN THE GOSPEL,
that The Holy Spirit then Bares Witness with, in the realm of the lost soul's heart and soul, below conscience level,
and then Grants the sinner THE NEW BIRTH, with Repentance from their sins that they now know personally Crucified Jesus
and are Given Faith, Trust, and Belief IN THE SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST, THAT WHEN JESUS DIED, WAS BURIED, AND ROSE AGAIN,
JESUS WAS RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD, FOR THEM, PERSONALLY, AND THEREFORE GOD THE FATHER ACCEPTED JESUS' PAYMENT
FOR THEM TO NOW BE A PARTAKER OF THE DIVINE NATURE AND BE IN POSSESSION OF ETERNAL LIFE,
PROMISED AND ACCOMPLISHED BY THE TRIUNE GODHEAD, ACCORDING TO THEIR ETERNAL PLAN OF SALVATION.
 
Last edited:
A

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
kyredneck said:
Not kidding, re-read the post closer. Hypo, NOT hyper.
Click to expand...
I figured they just needed to spell better. Is there supposed to be such a thing?

Guess so. Great.

What a drag it is... they say more about it in further articles, they say. I'll have to brush up, brother man.

"Does this not profane the sanctity of Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”? For what if a husband said to his wife, “I love all the other women in the world and really desire that they be married to me, but I love you more than I love them because my love for you is a special love”? What if Christ said, “I love the great harlot and wish the whore church would come to me and be married to me, but I love the church with a special kind of love”? Is this not vile? Is this not repulsive blasphemy? So, too, are we who know the love of Christ (and the love between husband and wife) nauseated at the lame attempts to put God’s love for the elect a little bit higher than God’s love for humanity in general.

'The reader is urged to recognize the seriousness of this departure from the Reformed faith. It is not a large step from belief in paradox to the heresy of Barth and Brunner or from belief in the well-meant offer to the heresy of Pelagius and Arminius. Hoeksema’s words ring true:

"...They first claimed that the Reformed doctrine of the Gospel honors the paradox, the contradiction: God wills to save all men; he wills to save only the elect. Must they, then, not preach that paradox, if they would proclaim the full Gospel, according to their own contention? ... But no; here they tacitly admit that, for evangelistic purposes, their paradoxical Gospel is not suitable. And so they propose to forget the one side of their paradox, and to present the Gospel only as a “universal and sincere offer of salvation.” And that means that they intend to limit themselves to the proclamation that God sincerely seeks the salvation of all men.

"In practice, they intend to preach an Arminian gospel.

"They are afraid of their own paradox.53

"This compromise with the false gospel of Arminianism, embracing Arminians in evangelism, and the sinister promotion of hypo-Calvinism as true Calvinism will be made clear in the next two articles on The Banner of Truth."

From: "A History of Hypo-Calvinism" by Marc D. Carpenter,

with next article here: "The Banner of Truth versus Calvinism" by Marc D. Carpenter. ​

Looks like they are doing a great work there.

Martin Marprelate said:
I have never heard of "hypo-calvinism."
Click to expand...
I hadn't ever heard of it before, either.

Looks like it is the exact opposite of:
Martin Marprelate said:
hyper-calvinism
Click to expand...
just like the hypo-thermia-type (lack of warmth/Calvinism = NO TOTAL DEPRAVITY)
vs hyper-tension-type (excess tension/Calvinism = NO HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY)
wordings mean the opposite of one another...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top