Being upfront

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Alexander Campbell and 'Raccoon' John Smith ripped the Old Baptists apart right here in the Bluegrass early 1800s and spawned the COC.

Arminian to the hilt.

Right here in my county large 'Christian' denomination churches that first began as Baptists.

I'm reminded of an interview with a Japanese industrialist a few years ago..... he told the Americans that after the War (WW2) that Americans flooded the country with money, support & technology as well as the process of quality refinement in manufacturing. He then indicated a "Thanks" but note that we will not repeat your error in helping to make us a super power. There is no sharing of the wealth with those people. Sound familiar?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

.....................

 

[Luke2427]

I have zero knowledge of SBC (what I see I dont like) but you throw around commentary like this so do you have statistics to back this up? Where is the growth indicators?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html

http://www.traditionalbaptistchronicles.com/2012/06/new-lifeway-study-confirms-that.html

And we could go on and on...

 

[Winman]

I am no historian, but I have read there have always been General and Particular Baptists, and that in England the General Baptists dominated.

Here is an article about the state of the SBC in 1925.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...rn-baptists-strongly-calvinistic-in-1925.html

 

[Luke2427]

OK...it's "RE-surging" not merely "surging"...My, mistake, am I thus your mortal enemy? This seems to be ancillary.

No. Why would you ask?

I think Edwards described himself as "Congregationalist"...I may be mistaken.

That is correct. But Whitefield and Edwards had influence on most denominations in the colonies. the denomination that benefited most from their preaching and influence was the Baptist denomination.

As a Molinist....when you begin speaking of counter-factuals...I think you enter MY domain (not yours) and frankly...I HAVE NO CLUE!!!! I don't think we do either what might or "would" have occurred eithter.....But...I DO think that GOD DOES, and he knows it as "Fact".

Only God perfectly understands the Contingencies of Humanly freedom or what counter-factuals DO or DO NOT possess anything like a "truth-value"...unless I mis-understand your Theology...This is a statement that you maintain is not actually possible to make.

This is a distraction from the actual question. Calvinists believe that God uses means to accomplish his purposes. He uses sneaky people, he uses oblivious people, etc...

Nothing I said is inconsistent with my theology here.

MY Theology provides for the possiblility of such counter-factual truth-claims...yours (to my understanding) does not.

It is not possible- that is true. But speculation of how events would have occured is not forbidden.

We preach all of the time such scenarios for intellectual purposes only. We say things like, "Oh, friend, WHAT IF Christ did not come to this earth!?!"

Or we say, "What if that asteroid had hit your city today? Would you be ready? Would you have prepared as many people as possible?"

This is not stating that it COULD have happened. It is designed to make one think.

Presumably, all this demonstrates is that Calvinists should not have been so hasty to permit Arminians to "infiltrate" their Churches or their convention or their Association... IF, that is your position, then fine...but I won't "tit-for-tat" about it...What I'll do is possibly suggest that a peaceable dis-association is possibly in order.

What it demonstrates is that philosophies and soteriologies wax and wane from generation to generation. Had the SBC been to tightly tied to one other it might not have survived the time of waning. I submit that if it ties itself too tightly to Arminianism today- with the SBC numbers shrinking and Calvinism surging- it might not survive today.

SBC flexibility has enabled it to survive and thrive in shifting periods of time.

Of course not...I think Arminians need to be 100% honest. But, I know of few complaints by Calvinists who were caught utterly off-guard by some sneaky Arminian who infiltrated them and started preaching about "free-willism" and such....that's not precisely the discussion we are having.

Should they outlay exactly when they believe the rapture is going to occur- at the beginning middle or end... or not at all... particularly when the church has made no indication of any staunch preference one way or the other? No.

You know why? The Baptist Faith and Message embraces numerous different eschatologies- JUST as it embraces different soteriologies.

I think BOTH do...I know that Calvinists WILL ask, some Arminians simply won't KNOW to...so I would prefer they BOTH did.

You answer questions and ask questions as a candidate. You don't spend ten hours divulging every detail of your beliefs when they ALL LINE UP WITH THE SBC STATEMENT OF FAITH.

OK...debateable...as far as the general thrust of Soterilogical debate goes...but, fine...I would actually be willing to stipulate that EVERY major Spiritual and Theological advance in the Continental US was TOTALLY and completely under the guise and leadership of Calvinists if you felt like it...
I DO understand LOGIC...and EVEN if I stipulate as much (I'm willing to)...those schooled in logic know it doesn't prove anything.

Granted....Calvinists, were foolish enough to let evil Arminians take over their denomination.

No. Calvinists dried up. It wasn't because of their theology. We NEEDED a fresh group of fired up evangelists to come.

Now Arminianism is going the way of the seeker-sensitive, charismatic, Osteen, church is all about you route.

And it is dying.

Now the SBC NEEDS guys like David Platt and Mark Dever.

Yes...Naive Calvinists let Evil Arminians take over their denomination.....What does this say??
They were so busy condemning the masses to hell with their insistence that God probablistically DIDN'T elect them that they missed the warning to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves"? Because, if you let the Arminians take over YOUR denomination in such a way...I pity you, you shouldn't have.

Nobody said Arminians are evil. You know better.

By "kinda" I meant to suggest "growth" in numbers only....which is the statistic I am assuming you will point to to demonstrate this particular Calvinists' success...

Note: In my Arminian Church...and EVERY Arminian Church I've been to in my life..we don't guage "growth" as sheerly a calculation of people who have filled out the "decision-cards"...We actually know better.

My experience is the DEAD LEVEL opposite. I don't KNOW of a Calvinist who uses "decision cards". Every SBC church I've ever seen that does the Halloween Hell House and then get hundreds to sign decision cards were all HEAVILY Arminian.

I had not thought you would agree...In fact, I would think that this thread along with others you have posed suggested otherwise...

No, I mean if one HAS to leave and start over it should be the Arminians.

Calvinists should keep the seminaries, NAMB, IMB etc...

 

[Jerome]

Alexander Campbell and 'Raccoon' John Smith ripped the Old Baptists apart right here in the Bluegrass early 1800s and spawned the COC.

Yeah, that ilk were often a.k.a "Reformed Baptist" initially too.

Encylopedia of Louisville:

"During the late 1820s and early 1830s, Benjamin Allen and John Curl served as supply preachers for First Baptist Church. Their appreciation for Restorationism led to a schism (1831) As the majority, the Restorationists retained possession of the church property and records. The 1832 Louisville directory listed the "Old Baptist church" and the "Reformed Baptist Church," the latter the Restorationist congregation."

 

[Luke2427]

I am no historian, but I have read there have always been General and Particular Baptists, and that in England the General Baptists dominated.

Here is an article about the state of the SBC in 1925.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...rn-baptists-strongly-calvinistic-in-1925.html

You are correct that there have been both throughout history. What is being pointed out is that the denomination has waffled back and forth between which view in a particular age is the predominate one.

The same is true in England. At first there were ONLY General Baptists. John Smyth and Thomas Helwys were General Baptists.

Then came a man in the 1630's some 20 years later by the name of John Spilsbury who was reformed baptist.

There was no split. There were two separate streams that originiated separately.

Both flowed into the river that is SBC.

John Smyth was an ordained Anglican who came to deny infant baptism, baptized himself and then started baptizing others. That was how the Baptist movement was born.

 

[Winman]

You are correct that there have been both throughout history. What is being pointed out is that the denomination has waffled back and forth between which view in a particular age is the predominate one.

The same is true in England. At first there were ONLY General Baptists. John Smyth and Thomas Helwys were General Baptists.

Then came a man in the 1630's some 20 years later by the name of John Spilsbury who was reformed baptist.

There was no split. There were two separate streams that originiated separately.

Both flowed into the river that is SBC.

John Smyth was an ordained Anglican who came to deny infant baptism, baptized himself and then started baptizing others. That was how the Baptist movement was born.

From what I have read, there were far more General Baptists in England than Particular.

As for the SBC, it was the same, there have always been both non-Cal and Cal Baptists, but the trend has been away from Calvinism.

"From their beginning, Southern Baptists included both Calvinists and non-Calvinists," Humphreys wrote. "In the century and a half since the convention was formed (in 1845), the trend has been away from Calvinism. Yet Calvinism never died out among Southern Baptists."

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=3531

 

[Herald]

Okay. Time to weigh in. I am not concerned about being asked whether I am a Calvinist. I am going to tell them I am a Calvinist. I do not want to deal with questions about the content of my preaching. That "battle" should be had before I am called. I do not want to pastor an Arminian church unless that church calls me after full disclosure. And trust me, I will preach the doctrines of grace without apology and without asking for permission. Caveat Emptor.

 

[Jerome]

"Let the preacher use his tongue as he wills, but by what show of right should a congregation support him while he is opposing their views of truth? There is the whole world for every earnest speaker to talk in, but for what reason is he to have possession of a pulpit dedicated to the propagation of dogmas which he glories in refuting? We have scarcely patience to expose so self-evident an absurdity. The whine concerning persecution is effeminate cant." —Charles Spurgeon, "Ministers Sailing Under False Colours"

 

[GBC Pastor]

Okay. Time to weigh in. I am not concerned about being asked whether I am a Calvinist. I am going to tell them I am a Calvinist. I do not want to deal with questions about the content of my preaching. That "battle" should be had before I am called. I do not want to pastor an Arminian church unless that church calls me after full disclosure. And trust me, I will preach the doctrines of grace without apology and without asking for permission. Caveat Emptor.

Exactly. This is just what I've been saying.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

What it demonstrates is that philosophies and soteriologies wax and wane from generation to generation. Had the SBC been to tightly tied to one other it might not have survived the time of waning. I submit that if it ties itself too tightly to Arminianism today- with the SBC numbers shrinking and Calvinism surging- it might not survive today.

This is an interesting idea. I don't wholly disagree with you...I am not committed to the idea that there should be a split in the SBC....but I don't think the world would end so to speak if it did...I think it's a suggestion worth considering.

SBC flexibility has enabled it to survive and thrive in shifting periods of time.

I think you probably have a valid point here.

You know why? The Baptist Faith and Message embraces numerous different eschatologies- JUST as it embraces different soteriologies.

It does...I am throwing out the notion that it may have not been the best idea to have a relatively ambiguous Statement. Some complain about that very thing.

Now Arminianism is going the way of the seeker-sensitive, charismatic, Osteen, church is all about you route.

I cannot deny this...while I have seen some truly Calvinist Churches inexplicably adopt the same insanity, it is without a doubt a largely "Arminian" problem.

And it is dying.

Yes.

Now the SBC NEEDS guys like David Platt and Mark Dever.

I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from more clearly... It seems to me as though you believe that certain facets of the differing Theologies lend themselves to particular strengths and weaknesses.
Whether there is logical necessity or not, a by-product of Arminianism in it's day was a sense of evangelistic urgency and fervour, whereas a by-product of Calvinism in it's day was a staid detatchment.
Similarly, a by-product of the heavy influence of Arminianism today has been our tacit Satan-worship in those infernal "Heavenly Halloweens"....and the general sanity of Calvinism is required to rein us in lest we tatoo ourselves into oblivion...

So, the general sway generation by generation is perhaps a "good" thing inasmuch as the needs are different in different eras...and that the usefulness of "Arminianism" has largely run its course and that it is time for the Calvinists to rein us back in again............
Thus, theoretically, 80 years from now, when, under the Calvinist regime, we might become staid and somewhat cold again....it will be time for some fresh Arminian fervour and fire again.

If I understand you correctly.....I think you are onto something interesting and quite valid here. I am inclined to agree with you.

No, I mean if one HAS to leave and start over it should be the Arminians.

I don't know that they do "HAVE" to....I just simply wouldn't fear a peacable parting of ways IF that were the wisest course of action. I am not committed to the notion that it is the wisest course of action. I speak in sheerly Theoretical terms.

(editted to add):
Honestly...I am just being cautious of any attitude of Unity for it's own sake and at ANY cost....That seems to be the driving influence of our day and I loathe it. I know you would in NO way support such a notion: This is why I keep insisting that the "split" option remains open...I am not committed to the idea that it is the best course of action by any means.

 

[saturneptune]

Being up front covers many different areas besides the same, old tired subject of Calvinism and Arminianism. The local church usually has a pulpit committee that asks questions before presenting the candidate before the church, then the church asks questions and votes. That is when all these issues should be clearly understood. In all of the pastors I have seen come and go from our church, I never recall Calvinism or Arminianism being a question or an issue. We have people that believe both ways and it has not affected church unity one bit. It seems to be an issue isolated to a small minority on this board that seems to insist on discord.

If it were an issue, then the questioning process would solve the problem. For example, if a local church practices open communion, and a pastoral candidate practices closed and will try to change the church bylaws, the interview is over. There is no reason for surprises after a local church calls a pastor.

 

[convicted1]

Why would an Arminian want to pastor a Calvinistic church, and why would a Calvinist want to pastor an Arminianistic church? I, being an Arminian, wouldn't take a pastorship of an Calvinistic church until I let them know full well how I view the word of God. If they felt comfortable with me, and vice versa, then fine. But as Brother Herald stated, I too, would preach the free will of man, and would not ask for their permission. I would also preach God's sovereignity, as well.

A lot of times, if a church with a differing view of their prospective pastor(s), if they choose to go that route, things could get messy in the long term. Church isn't about one being an Arm or Cal, but rather, a CHRISTian, seeking God's face, and doing what He has commanded us to do, and that is to preach the gospel, and make disciples. It is a place to worship Him, and to present the gospel to the lost, whereby they can be saved.


So I would take a pastorship of a Calvinistic church if I felt comfortable with them and vice versa, and I would be up front with my beliefs. I would not come in and do things covertly, but openly.

 

[convicted1]

Being old, and tired of the pastors I have seen come and go from our church........

Brother, I didn't know you felt this way.....BTW, "cut and paste" is quite a fun hobby.......:laugh: :wavey: :love2: :tongue3:

 

[Crabtownboy]

However, should SBC leaders be going around using their power and influence to TURN churches AGAINST Calvinist pastoral candidates?

They should be taught by WHOM?

[/QUOTE]

You have convinced me that Calvinist is a mistaken theology. And in my additional readings I am becoming convinced that parts of Calvinism is Gnostic in origin.

Blessings.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

They should be taught by WHOM?

You have convinced me that Calvinist is a mistaken theology. And in my additional readings I am becoming convinced that parts of Calvinism is Gnostic in origin.

Blessings. [/QUOTE]

It goes beyond Gnosticism. To understand Calvinism, it is instructive to study the pagan background of its precursor, Augustine.

This man influenced both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology, and also Lutheranism, all of which I am adamantly opposed to.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And in my additional readings I am becoming convinced that parts of Calvinism is Gnostic in origin.

Blessings.

That... is laughable. And thanks- I always like to start my mornings with humor.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That... is laughable. And thanks- I always like to start my mornings with humor.

Actually it is tragic that so many are following Gnostic beliefs and do not realize they are doing so.

There have been posts on this BB that basically have said:

"I can't wait until I die. My spirit will be free from this old body, free from this world!"

Separation the spiritual from the material is straight out of Gnostic beliefs.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It goes beyond Gnosticism. To understand Calvinism, it is instructive to study the pagan background of its precursor, Augustine.

This man influenced both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology, and also Lutheranism, all of which I am adamantly opposed to.

Yes, you are correct. Augustine was active within a Gnostic group and he brought some of their beliefs into his "Christian" theology. Calvin was a great admirer of Augustine and picked up on those Gnostic beliefs, not realizing them for what they were and are.