Calvinists in the SBC

While it might be true that ministry students went to presbyterrian schools (such as princeton) that's not the reason there are Calvinists in the SBC.

I think it was Broadus or Boyce who went to princeton (presb) because his dad said he'd rather him go to a good presb. school than a bad baptist (brown). So it wasn't the case that the presb. school made him calvinistic, it was rather that he was calvinistic and then chose a presb. school.

Further, the SBC descended from a group of English baptist who came to the new world. Most of these english baptsts were particular (calvinistic) baptists.

 

Early in the founding of this country all baptist were calvinists and knew their doctrines to be sound, clear and scriptural!

 

It's to bad they have strayed so now from sound, clear, scriptural doctrines.

 

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, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

—Charles H. Spurgeon​

Christian history, in the First Century, was strictly and properly Baptist history, although the word "Baptist," as a distinctive appellation was not then known. How could it be? How was it possible to call any Christians Baptist Christians, when all were Baptists?" William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia, 1881, p. 286.

 

It is ignorant statements such as this that causes division. Donna, why not start a new thread and show us how we have strayed? If you think you can.

 

Hello drfuss. If you would truly like to learn a little Baptist history, a good book is "The Baptist Heritage" Four Centuries of Baptist Witness, by McBeth. There are many more great books available. This particular one is my text book at our Baptist University, Oklahoma Baptist University.

 

are you calling me ignorant, because I am calvinist?
division, humm, sound doctrine, verses, what, not sound doctrine? I'll take division.

 

I beg your forgiveness. I assumed you were not calvinist, and as such, were saying that we do not have sound doctrine. I'm so sorry if that is not the case. In this medium it is so hard to understand sometimes. It seemed to me that you were saying calvinist have poor doctrine. I was asking for proof. Sorry again.

 

i thought that was strang based on your name

 

Forgive me sister.... again, I thought you were saying the opposite! :laugh: Where is the embarrased little smiley thing?

 

I'm sorry I edited probably while you were posting,
I wasn't clear in my original post, I they I meant to be current baptists, who are no longer calvinist.
stop appologizing, your fine

 

The very early Baptists baptized infants for a short time period.

Many of the commentaries were written by Presbyterians. So it in a sense would not surpise me to some degree.

I am convinced that the whims of religion have more to do with the trend at the time than with pure theology.

If Calvinism and Presbyterianism go together we can see where their beliefs led them. They are declining.

Some Presbyterians have moved closer to Baptist theology. Some now baptize believers by immersion.

 

Is it that big of a deal for a believer to not claim to be a Calvinist? They may not believe in election the way a Calvinist would describe...maybe they try to understand the Bible according to the way it explains salvation, not in a format that boxes up God in a nice, neat system. If you were to put my thoughts into a system, it would be very close with what a Calvinist holds to. However, I think that Calvinism has become way too controversial, on both ends. On one end, Calvinism is the devil's doctrine because of those who have lived their life arguing for proof of a flower instead of living passionately for Christ and investing their lives into others for the sake of the gospel. On the other hand, Reformed believers think of those who are not reformed as crazy armineans who think they can work their way into heaven (on the extreme side). Have any of you ever met believers who believe in salvation as by grace through faith, they believe in the sovereignty of God, but don't exactly believe it is defined the way a Calvinist defines it? By this I mean, trying to describe it so that it makes logical sense. Maybe it is a purer faith to accept that the Bible says something although it may not make sense in a system. Must we hold so strongly to a systemized theology and demand everyone to agree to it? I have many close friends on both ends, and the worst thing for people to do is allow this to decide a healthy believer versus an unhealthy believer.

 

I agree!!!

To go the next step, we ought to be more concerned with the fruit that is being produced in the life of an individual rather than a certain theological or doctrinal position. Obviously, there are certain, specific positions and doctrines that cannot be ignored and firmly held to, but the Calvinist/Arminianism debate ain't one of them.

Unity, Unity, Unity...

 

I agree that we need to have unity. When one attacks such a great theologian as Calvin, as many do on here, then that is not evidence of the type of fruit I would imagine you would expect from a Christian. I've never read Calvin's institutes or other writings, but I've heard from many respected theologians on both sides of the issues, that he was one of the greatest theologians of any time. That my friend is very much positive Christian fruit. How many Christian teachers and pastors do you think have benefited from such a great theologian? Is that fruit?

 

I would be inclined to say that there are none who are purely calvinist and none who are purely arminian. I have never seen a calvinist trust God for their food when they have money in their pocket by their calvinism. The calvinist can trust God and die of starvation if he does not eat. I have never seen an arminian do anything apart from God. Our heart beats because of God.

I choose to believe that the biblical picture is much like a cow in a field. The cow has limits where she can go within the confines of the fence, but it is her choice of which blades of grass to pick which the farmer planted and God has grown up. But it is not her choice to roam outside of the fence line unless the farmer lets her. The farmer has a choice and the cow has a choice.

It is God and man working together that produces what God wants.