Overlap of Fundamentalists and Confessional Particular Baptists

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I did not know that Ole Billy conceded to have an apostate non believer! Now blunt question if I may, “just what was he thinking?”

 

[ParticularWife]

Are you familiar with the break between fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism

Yes, though a lot of this stuff I only have limited information on. Reformed Churches tend to be a bit insular, partly because some American denominations hate Calvinists and partly because we're snobby Europeans and upper middle class.

 

[John of Japan]

Yes, though a lot of this stuff I only have limited information on. Reformed Churches tend to be a bit insular, partly because some American denominations hate Calvinists and partly because we're snobby Europeans and upper middle class.

The original fundamentalists separated from theological liberals, not other conservative churches. Until the 1950s, my grandfather (Evangelist John R. Rice) had city wide meetings including Presbyterians, Methodists, even Pentecostals. He would say to the Pentecostals, "You don't talk about tongues and I won't talk about baptism, and we'll just look to see people saved. Me mentored Billy Graham in that direction until Graham decided to go along with New Evangelicalism in 1956-1957.

 

[ParticularWife]

The original fundamentalists separated from theological liberals, not other conservative churches. Until the 1950s, my grandfather (Evangelist John R. Rice) had city wide meetings including Presbyterians, Methodists, even Pentecostals. He would say to the Pentecostals, "You don't talk about tongues and I won't talk about baptism, and we'll just look to see people saved. Me mentored Billy Graham in that direction until Graham decided to go along with New Evangelicalism in 1956-1957.

I'm much more familiar with the 1930s-40s, and many of the Fundamentalist were working right along with J. Gresham Machen. However, after that point the Fundamentalists seem to have taken a more anti-intellectual, culturally separate direction while we doubled down on systematic theology.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm much more familiar with the 1930s-40s, and many of the Fundamentalist were working right along with J. Gresham Machen. However, after that point the Fundamentalists seem to have taken a more anti-intellectual, culturally separate direction while we doubled down on systematic theology.

There still is a Bible Presbyterian denomination which is fundamentalist. It was founded by Carl McIntyre, who came out of the regular Presbyterians (United Presbyterian?) with Machen, Francis Schaeffer and the others.

A mentor of mine made the point that Baptist churches are the most amenable to fundamentalism because we do not have an ecclesiastical hierarchy, because the autonomy of the local church is a Baptist distinctive. This means that a Baptist church cannot be controlled by a head office or a bishop who is saying, "You can't take that stand!"

I agree with the idea that fundamentalism is anti-intellectual if by that you mean that we reject liberal scholarship. On the other hand, if you mean that fundamentalists do not participate in or value evangelical scholarship, that is mistaken. We use evangelical texts in our schools, some of our scholars participate in scholarly meetings and write articles for theological journals. (My son has had two books and over 20 journal articles printed.) This summer my son and I will go to the Bible Faculty Summit, where fundamentalist scholars present scholarly papers and fellowship with each other. Having said that, there is an element of KJV-Only fundamentalism that does reject "the scholars" in textual criticism.

As for systematic theology, our seminaries teach it. I have 11 credits of graduate systematic theology from fundamentalist seminaries.

 

[JesusFan]

Right, he distinguished between Spurgeon's Calvinism and what he defined as Hyper-Calvinism: being cold on soul-winning. HIs clash with Donald Gray Barnhouse occurred in 1956, when Rice was the main speaker for a TEAM conference for missionaries in Japan. Barnhouse happened along, and since he was well-known they let him speak too. In one message he said something like, "If people are not saved at your mission station, do not blame yourself. Do not fret. That is not your fault. What a torment I should have if I thought the saving of souls depended upon my faithfulness! No, if God is going to save them, He will save them, and if they are lost, it is not your fault.”

This was directly against what Rice had been preaching, which is that we must obey the Great Commission, get the Gospel to everyone, and win souls to Christ (what Calvinist Spurgeon believed). That set off a back and forth between Rice and Barnhouse. And I'll just leave it there. You can imagine the rest.

Only Hyper Calvinists deny the necessity of proclaiming the gospel though, as many of the high impacts missionary movements historically were founded by " 5 point" Calvinists

 

[John of Japan]

Only Hyper Calvinists deny the necessity of proclaiming the gospel though, as many of the high impacts missionary movements historically were founded by " 5 point" Calvinists

I'll agree with you with the stipulation that Andrew Fuller was headed away from Gill and the other hyper-Calvinists in that he opened the door to said missionary movements by opposing anti-evangelism hyper-Calvinism. Then, William Carey and others were Fullerites. Later Baptist missionary movements then rejected Calvinism.

“The popularity of Andrew Fuller’s restatement of Calvinism combined with the declining interest in theology generally in the pulpits left Baptist preaching open to be radically altered by other influences among Baptists in the South and West” (Mark Dever, “The Noble Task: The Pastor as Preacher and Practitioner of the Marks of the Church,” p. 13, in Polity, ed. by Dever).

 

[JesusFan]

I'll agree with the stipulation that Andrew Fuller was headed away from Gill and the other hyper-Calvinists in that he opened the door to said missionary movements by opposing anti-evangelism hyper-Calvinism. Then, William Carey and others were Fullerites.

They would seem to be then "5 pointers"

 

[DaveXR650]

They would seem to be then "5 pointers"

They were. And that's why you can have some overlap between the groups. I like Fuller and Spurgeon and Bonar and all the Calvinists who are evangelistic. And like I said, the Calvinistic system is a good guardrail to keep us on track so that we don't fall into the temptation of using pragmatic non-biblical methods to gain converts. And that is a big deal for sure.

Still, I have to admit that if you seriously ponder the idea that the atonement permanently and functionally guaranteed the salvation of a set group and left the other group with no possibility of having their sins atoned for you are left with an insurmountable logical problem when you also assert a true and free offer of the gospel. None of the guys I've listed above, all of whom I really like, explain that problem to my satisfaction. I don't reject them because their evangelistic and soul winning credentials are without question and their other teaching is better than anyone else's but the theology is a problem if you look at it carefully.

The other problem area is that along the same lines, you must allow for some actual free will, somewhere in the process of salvation or else it logically becomes meaningless. And here, even Owen allows for some of this. So while there can be some overlap, it depends on admitting you can't explain everything about your theology. And that goes both ways. Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with not being able to explain everything about your theology. If some scripture indicates one principle and other scripture indicates another then the theology should reflect that, which the great confessions do. But we should admit that is the case. Five point Calvinism has a couple of logical problems.

 

[JesusFan]

They were. And that's why you can have some overlap between the groups. I like Fuller and Spurgeon and Bonar and all the Calvinists who are evangelistic. And like I said, the Calvinistic system is a good guardrail to keep us on track so that we don't fall into the temptation of using pragmatic non-biblical methods to gain converts. And that is a big deal for sure.

Still, I have to admit that if you seriously ponder the idea that the atonement permanently and functionally guaranteed the salvation of a set group and left the other group with no possibility of having their sins atoned for you are left with an insurmountable logical problem when you also assert a true and free offer of the gospel. None of the guys I've listed above, all of whom I really like, explain that problem to my satisfaction. I don't reject them because their evangelistic and soul winning credentials are without question and their other teaching is better than anyone else's but the theology is a problem if you look at it carefully.

The other problem area is that along the same lines, you must allow for some actual free will, somewhere in the process of salvation or else it logically becomes meaningless. And here, even Owen allows for some of this. So while there can be some overlap, it depends on admitting you can't explain everything about your theology. And that goes both ways. Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with not being able to explain everything about your theology. If some scripture indicates one principle and other scripture indicates another then the theology should reflect that, which the great confessions do. But we should admit that is the case. Five point Calvinism has a couple of logical problems.

Its like the Trinity, as we know that it taught ion the bible, and yet none of us really cAn grasp and understand that fully. In like fashion, God is sovereign and yet we are still accountable for individual decisions, so both taught, as not into fatalism, but must accept it as in the bible.

 

[Blank]

Yes, though a lot of this stuff I only have limited information on. Reformed Churches tend to be a bit insular, partly because some American denominations hate Calvinists and partly because we're snobby Europeans and upper middle class.

Maybe because Dispensationalism made a stronghold here in America especially after 1948 when many 'prophecies' regarding Israel, came to fruition, whereas the Reformed tend to 'spiritualize' such prophecies?

 

[ParticularWife]

Maybe because Dispensationalism made a stronghold here in America especially after 1948 when many 'prophecies' regarding Israel, came to fruition, whereas the Reformed tend to 'spiritualize' such prophecies?

AMillinial and PostMil basically collapse into the same thing, and while I do believe in a literal transformation of the Earth I don't believe in 90% of Dispensational eschatology. We're also mostly partial preterists, and think half of what they're citing as evidence for an Apocalypse war in the Levant is stuff that happened about two thousand years ago.
Dispy eschatology is taught by John MacArthur who is quite influenced by Reformed theology in other ways.
I don't know how to multi quote, but John of Japan wrote:

Andrew Fuller was headed away from Gill and the other hyper-Calvinists in that he opened the door to said missionary movements by opposing anti-evangelism hyper-Calvinism.

HyperCalvinism is just a slur word people use good anyone more Calvinistic than them. The actual, properly so-called, HyperCalvinists are tiny churches almost nobody has ever heard of. The rest of them believe in promiscuous preaching of the Gospel, though we know only the elect are called. The anti-Evangelism is practically a canard, and Gill was not one of these people. It's more like non-Calvinists and low Calvinists take this to be an implication than that it actually ever happens.
I honestly think it has more to do with people just not liking the idea of God controlling everything. But he does.
Sometimes people who deny duty faith, duty repentance, common grace or the well meant offer are called HC, but such people were on the Synod of Dordt, so whatever.

 

[Blank]

We're also mostly partial preterists,

Who is the 'we'?

 

[ParticularWife]

Who is the 'we'?

Most people in the Reformed tradition. Though we do not usually make eschatology a mandated belief. Almost all PreMil Dispie Calvinists are American, and that's because of the General Baptist and Scofield influence.

 

[Blank]

Most people in the Reformed tradition. Though we do not usually make eschatology a mandated belief. Almost all PreMil Dispie Calvinists are American, and that's because of the General Baptist and Scofield influence.

Maybe it's because most Reformed don't have an eschatalogical position, but rather say ..' Christ comes back...judgment...new heavens and earth...done!
It's Amil view is just not developed like it's other areas.

 

[DaveXR650]

HyperCalvinism is just a slur word people use good anyone more Calvinistic than them.

That's often true. But hyper-Calvinism is usually referring to those who believe that justification of the elect actually occurred either from eternity past or from the time when Jesus died on the cross. So if you want to take the logic far enough salvation becomes the discovery that you are elect, rather than an actual event in time. And, there can be no real "offer" of the gospel or invitation to be saved. This is a profound difference and will have an effect on evangelism.

 

[ParticularWife]

Maybe it's because most Reformed don't have an eschatalogical position, but rather say ..' Christ comes back...judgment...new heavens and earth...done!
It's Amil view is just not developed like it's other areas.

The Amillennial view, though distinct from Postmillennialism in theory, often converges with it in practice. This is evident in the similarity between Kuyperian Amillennialism and the more overt Postmillennialism of figures like Dave Chilton.

Both schools interpret the millennial reign in Revelation 20 symbolically. This 'millennium' represents the current age of Christ's rule since His ascension, exercised through the church. Both reject the premillennial idea of a future, earthly reign of Christ.

Both emphasize the 'already/not-yet' nature of the kingdom of God. Christ reigns now, but the fullness of His reign will be consummated in the future. Both agree on the eschatological realities of Christ's Second Coming: judgment, resurrection, and the eternal state. PostMil is a more optimistic (and, in my view, Biblical) view. The Reformed Churches have a tendency to be averse to charismatic and prophetic claims, most of us are cessationists and that tends to go along with not using numerology to discern the end of the world's timing.

 

[ParticularWife]

That's often true. But hyper-Calvinism is usually referring to those who believe that justification of the elect actually occurred either from eternity past or from the time when Jesus died on the cross. So if you want to take the logic far enough salvation becomes the discovery that you are elect, rather than an actual event in time. And, there can be no real "offer" of the gospel or invitation to be saved. This is a profound difference and will have an effect on evangelism.

No, Salvation occurs in time, but election is eternal. And, historically, it's the anti-missionary view that's considered HyperCalvinism. I do, by the way, affirm supralapsarian, double predestination. So do plenty of Reformed theologians of the past and present. Martin Luther and Augustine are pretty close to that, as well.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, Salvation occurs in time, but election is eternal. And, historically, it's the anti-missionary view that's considered HyperCalvinism. I do, by the way, affirm supralapsarian, double predestination. So do plenty of Reformed theologians of the past and present. Martin Luther and Augustine are pretty close to that, as well.

Sorry but it's commonly discussed as hyper-Calvinism the teaching of eternal justification. Just go over to Jordan Cooper, the Lutheran and look at his video on hyper-Calvinism. Eternal justification is no. 3 of his list of hyper-Calvinistic characteristics. You are correct in that other things also are involved, like the idea that you should only preach to those who show some signs of regeneration, and antinomian tendencies, and an anti-missionary tendency. And you are correct in that there is a tendency to call everyone a hyper-Calvinist who is more of one than you. But eternal-justification is the biggie and it is uniquely important because all the other tendencies are either denied or are explained by nuance. Only the eternal justification is maintained as a truth and defended as a truth. And it alone is denied by the Calvinist confessions like the WCF.

 

[ParticularWife]

Sorry but it's commonly discussed as hyper-Calvinism the teaching of eternal justification. Just go over to Jordan Cooper, the Lutheran and look at his video on hyper-Calvinism. Eternal justification is no. 3 of his list of hyper-Calvinistic characteristics. You are correct in that other things also are involved, like the idea that you should only preach to those who show some signs of regeneration, and antinomian tendencies, and an anti-missionary tendency. And you are correct in that there is a tendency to call everyone a hyper-Calvinist who is more of one than you. But eternal-justification is the biggie and it is uniquely important because all the other tendencies are either denied or are explained by nuance. Only the eternal justification is maintained as a truth and defended as a truth. And it alone is denied by the Calvinist confessions like the WCF.

I use the Somerset Confession, which is Baptist. I'm also a fan of Hercules Collins' catechism. But I'm aware I'm not a 1689 Baptist, though I don't object much to where we disagree.