Should Calvinists be permitted in the SBC?

[Rev. G]

No, I am not saying that all members of the Founders group are Hyper-Calvinists. However, Hyper-Calvinists tend to flock to that group. At SEBTS we are absolutly committed to world missions.... Dr. Patterson does not want our students to lose that missions minded focus, as tends to happen with Hyper-Calvinism.

"All members"? From what I know of the Founders (and without trying to sound presumptious I'd say that I know a lot), hyper-Calvinism is not welcome among the Founders. You only need to peruse through the journals, conference topics (whether national or regional), and look at the men themselves (leaders and speakers at the conferences) to know that the Great Commission is a major focus. To say that the "hypers" flock to the Founders is, I believe, erroneous. It would be like saying, for example, that liberals flock to SEBTS. They don't!! Why not? Because of the things taught, etc. The Founders are committed to world mission. Many of the Global Priority Churches of the IMB have "Founders" men as their pastors.

By the way, I heard a recording of the student forum that was held nearly two years ago (Nov. 1, 2000) by Paige Patterson at SEBTS. He made some very outlandish statements about Calvinists / the Founders, to say the least. To be quite honest, if he wants to encourage missions, he should encourage Reformed Theology. Check out your history - the leaders in evangelism and missions (pre-Finney) were of Reformed stock. Why, the "Father of Modern Missions," William Carey, is a prime example! Of course, as a "true Calvinist" he was opposed by the hyper-Calvinists. That is just one example. You could also list Adoniram Judson, John Paton, David Brainerd, Luther Rice, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, the Tennents, Frelinghuysen, Nettleton, and a whole lot of others (notice I left Spurgeon out since he has already been claimed elsewhere

). The earliest Protestant missiologists were participants at the Synod of Dort. Calvin himself heavily supported the work of missions. Find these things out for yourself, my friend, especially while you have the seminary library at your disposal.

Rev. G

P. S. (Banishment to all hyper-Calvinists!

)

Rev. G

 

[weeping prophet]

Originally posted by Rev. G:

I agree with you that we need to avoid "speculation," but I do not believe that the doctrine of sin / depravity (hamartiology), the doctrine of sovereignty (including election and predestination), perseverance of the saints, and so on are mere speculation. Rev. G[/QB

Point well taken, I would agree, but I also would have a hard time parting ways with brethern that were not of the same persuasion. Whereas a doctorine like the virgin birth would be a certain divide.

 

[Rev. G]

Agreed. I would part company with someone who denied the virgin conception, etc., but not necessarily with someone who disagreed as to the extent of sin, etc. Point very well taken and agreed upon, brother!

Rev. G

 

[Bible-boy]

Hey Rev.G,

I'll take your advice and research the Calvinist involvment in Baptist history further. However, right now I am up to my ears in studying for mid-term exams in Hebrews and General Epistles, Wisdom Lit., and Marriage and Family! How about the Sandy Creek Baptists of North Carolina, what was their leaning? The reason I said that Hyper-Calvinists flock to the Founders is that the more Hyper-Calvinist leaning students here at SEBTS seem to be the ones that are all into the Founders.

Yours in Christ

[ October 01, 2002, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Rev. G]

Bible Boy:
The Sandy Creek Tradition, while much more informal than the Charleston Tradition, was also "Reformed."

Just to help clarify things in our discussion, what is your definition of "hyper-Calvinism"?

Rev. G

P. S. (Check out the other thread dealing with a similar topic - "Were the Early Southern Baptists Calvinists?")

 

[mark]

Masons are NOT forbidden to mention the name of Jesus in their meetings. That is ridiculous .

 

[Rev. G]

Mark:

Hey brother! Think you put this on the wrong discussion board.

Rev. G

 

[Music Man]

Rev. G., I think Mark was responding to this post (#8, if I am not mistaken):

Originally posted by Ben W:
Masons are not permitted to speak about Jesus Christ at any Masonic meeting. His name is removed from any Hymn used in Lodge.

SDG,
Chris

 

[mark]

Yes, I was replying to that... sorry, I didn't see page 2....

 

[Rev. G]

No worries, mate. You all have a very interesting discussion going on about the Masonic Lodge.

Rev. G

 

[Ben W]

Head over to the other Religions / Doctrines forum and check out a post called roots of Freemasonry. Especially if you are involved in the lodge.

I once went to a Freemason introduction meeting. I was told implicitly that sharing Jesus Christ with a muslim, hindu etc is not permitted. Yes the name of Jesus is removed from hymns used in the Blue lodge.

 

[Bible-boy]

Hello RevG.,

That's funny, I used to work with a guy here at the Physical Plant at SEBTS whose nickname was Rev K.

Anyway, sorry for the delay with my response. I have been very busy with mid-terms. I would say that a hyper-calvinist is one who takes his ideas of predestination and the sovereignty of God to mean that it is pointless to witness to folks because God is going to save who He will save and He does not need us to "help" Him do it. You know, like the "good" calvinists who told William Cary to sit down, be quiet, and not to worry about witnessing to the heathen. I'm sure glad that he did not listen to them.

[ October 03, 2002, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[Rev. G]

I would say that a hyper-calvinist is one who takes his ideas of predestination and the sovereignty of God to mean that it is pointless to witness to folks because God is going to save who He will save and He does not need us to "help" Him do it. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Good definition. We agree on the meaning.

You know, like the "good" calvinists who told William Cary to sit down, be quiet, and not to worry about witnessing to the heathen. I'm sure glad that he did not listen to them. </font>[/QUOTE]They were not "good" Calvinists, they were Hyper-Calvinists (let's go back to our "correct" definitions, here). Remember, Carey himself was a Calvinist. I'm glad he didn't listen to them either. FYI: A very good book to read on Carey is FAITHFUL WITNESS by Timothy George.

Rev. G

 

[donnA]

It is my understanding that the SBC was orignally almost totally calvinists.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by katie:
It is my understanding that the SBC was orignally almost totally calvinists.

You're right, Katie.

Ken

 

[By God's Grace]

Since Dr. James P. Boyce was the Southern Baptist Convention and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary when it started, I will allow him to speak on the issue of arminianism....This is a direct quote from his book (the one he wrote while teaching theology at SBTS)....

The sixth theory of the Atonement is that of the Arminians, who hold that Christ died, and that for sin; but only in the sense that makes it consistent for God to offer salvation to men on the ground of evangelical obedience, and not perfect legal obedience.

This theory teaches a general atonement without any application of it on the part of God. Connected with the doctrine of sufficient grace to each man, it supposes that the individual does, or does not exercise faith, and obedience, and thus secures eternal life or loses it.

The objections to this theory are:

1. “That it gives an indefinite conception of what Christ did. Either it involves no satisfaction to divine justice and to the law, or it implies universal satisfaction. In the first case, it dishonors God, in the second it forces us to hold the doctrine of universal salvation.” What is meant by the expression, that “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” if God is not justly under obligations, for what Christ did, to give salvation to all for whom he died?

2. If it be said that the object was simply to make salvation possible for all, the reply is that this is not what the Scriptures represent. They speak positively pf salvation as [rpcured, not the means of salvation; and of certain salvation, not possible salvation. “ The effects of Christ’s death are spoken of in Scripture as reconciliation and justification, (Romans 5:10, Eph. 2:16) remission of sins, (Eph. 1:7) peace (Eph. 2:14) deliverance from wrath, (I Thess. 1:10) from death, (Heb. 2:14) from the curse of the law, (Gal. 3:13) from sin ( I Peter 1:18). (Hodge’s Outline, P. 314, 1st Edition). We are spoken of as justified when ungodly.

3. This view of atonement is utterly incompatible with the Scripture doctrines of Innate Corruption, Regeneration, Election, Justification, Adoption and Sanctification. Every proof of the true doctrine on these points is an argument against it. (The Arminian theory)

4. This theory makes it possible that Christ should have died in vain.

5. This theory makes salvation partly of God and partly of man, in the most objectionable form. It represents God as permitting Christ to die that the demands of the law may be lowered.

If you think that is interesting, you should read his next section on the Doctrines of Grace.....

 

[Rev. G]

It is my understanding that the SBC was orignally almost totally calvinists.

Katie, as Ken has already pointed out, you are correct. Boyce, Broadus, Manly, Carroll, Mell, Johnson, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on and on and.... For more info., check out
www.founders.org

Rev. G

 

[Rev. G]

If you think that is interesting, you should read his next section on the Doctrines of Grace.....

By God's Grace:

You have obviously read Boyce's ABSTRACT.

Have you studied John L. Dagg's MANUAL OF THEOLOGY?

Rev. G

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You know, like the "good" calvinists who told William Cary to sit down, be quiet, and not to worry about witnessing to the heathen. I'm sure glad that he did not listen to them.

They were not "good" Calvinists, they were Hyper-Calvinists (let's go back to our "correct" definitions, here). Remember, Carey himself was a Calvinist. I'm glad he didn't listen to them either. FYI: A very good book to read on Carey is FAITHFUL WITNESS by Timothy George.

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry Rev. G,

When I used term "good Calvinists" I was employing a bit of sarcasm. Trying to be funny. I'll check the library here at SEBTS for George's "Faithful Witness." I love to read that kind of stuff that recounts the lives, hardships, and adventures of those pioneer missionaries. It makes me yern to get back out on the mission field. I have been to Hungry, Romania, and 2x to Kenya. I love Africa and her people and would return in a heartbeat. However, I also feel compelled to share the gospel in Scotland. Every Scot that I have ever met here in the U.S. tells me that they view religion, Christianity in particular, as something that is nice if it is for you but most could care less. It seems that the "Christianity" that they have been exposed to is a dead and lifeless ritual and they do not see it making a difference or change in people's lives. It is such a pity because so many of our great pioneer missionaries were Scots.

[ October 04, 2002, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

[rsr]

It is such a pity because so many of our great pioneer missionaries were Scots.

Ach!

Why is it that the Scots never took to Baptist faith? They certainly have the fractiousness required.