The rise of Calvinism?

[JonC]

Thankfully a post that actually understands some of the history in recent times.
There is no great movement to reform Calvinism. It is doing just fine.
These ideas more often than not are from those who think they see something everyone else has missed.
Without fail each of these fall by the wayside,as it is more of a fleshly prideful thing.
JonC commented;


I disagree in that Calvinism, correctly preached, taught, believed, and lived deals with every area of life.
There is nothing new under the sun. The word of God is totally sufficient to speak to any need or situation that arises.

The SBC was virtually completely Calvinivstic in it's origins.
Some today attempt to re-write that history to no avail.
This new traditionalist movement is such a misguided attempt as I see it. Some SBC historians have documented these truths.

You, of course, are wrong. I can't imagine how you studied Johnson, Howell and Fuller and walked away with such nonsense. I suspect you just chose to follow men who said what you wanted to hear. Are you aware that their original journals are avaliable to the public at the SBC library in Nashville? Kinda makes ignorance a bit lazy, doesn't it.

There have been movements within Calvinism for reform since its inception. What I am speaking of has been active for about 50 years.

And of course you also seem ignorant concerning SBC doctrine. At its formation (in Augusta GA) the SBC was comprised of a very diverse group when it comes to Calvinism. Most of the churches were what is know as Free will theology (not necessarily Free Will Baptists). The leadership was moderately Calvinists (they rejected Limited Atonement).

None of the early presidents were "five point Calvinists", but Howell forward a few generations were moderate Calvinists (or as @Yeshua1 insists, 4 article Arminians).

In short, you are wrong and should study before posting. How long have you been SBC? What studies have you undertaken to qualify an opinion?

I do not understand, given that we know the churches which formed the Convention, how you could make such an utterly stupid claim. Not only that, but we have the writings of Johnson and Howell, (I am sure you obviously don't know, but they were the first presidents of the SBC) who were not "strong Calvinists"... They were moderates.

@Iconoclast, where did you study SBC history?

For a Calvinist you seem awfully unaware concerning Calvinism. I do not mean to seem rude, but until you study you really should refrain from an opinion.

In a debate one is entitled only to an opinion he or she can defend with evidence. My evidence against you is the favmct that none of the original SBC leadership affirmed Limited Atonement and that the majority of the churches comprising the SBC when it was formed were not Calvinist.


What is your evidence?

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Yeshua1[/USER] has explained that moderate Calvinism us no Calvinism at all.

Y1 is not quite a spokesman on this. He offers his understanding. He can answer for himself as only he knows what he is thinking.

Only a fool would claim that all initial SBC churches affirmed Calvinism, [/QUOTE]

I have read that 95% of the churches were Calvinistic, and held Confessions of faith that affirmed it.
Non Cals do what they can to avoid this truth, but I will find those articles.
I do not think that Dr.Tom Nettles is as you say, a fool....no, not at all.

]and only an ignorant fool would claim Johnson and Howell were 5 point Calvinists as their works are readily available (my thesis was on Howell and I spent weeks rwadi f his hand written journals).

I did not mention these individuals...As a non Cal you have little credibility with your claims when it comes to these things as far as I am concerned, as those who currently try and re-write the facts.
I will seek out that writing and post it. Your sweeping general statements are your opinion and we all have one. You can post yours, and I will post mine.

Do you believe moderate Calvinism (a 3 or 4 point Calvinist) qualify as Calvinists?

My beliefs do not change the discussion here.

 

[JonC]

JonC,


Y1 is not quite a spokesman on this. He offers his understanding. He can answer for himself as only he knows what he is thinking.

I do not care, @Iconoclast. That is between you and @Yeshua1.

Personally, I stand by history in stating that when founded the SBC was moderately Calvinistic in its leadership yet more diverse in the churches comprising the Convention.

You have to remember that at the time the SBC was formed the largest denomination was Methodist (Wesleyan Arminianism). At the same time you had hyper-Calvinistic anti-mision movements (Parker-ish movements). The SBC was not Calvinistic but it was also not anti-Calvinistic. Your comments were simply inaccurate. Johnson and Howell rejected Limited Atonement yet were moderately Calvinistic. Many of the churches were leaning towards free-will theology.

I do not understand your comment in light of the fact we have the testimony of the churches forming the SBC and the journals of Johnson and Howell. It just does not make sense to me as it seems you are content with propaganda over truth if it supports your agenda. That idea is foreign to me. But I was raised with and maintain a high degree if integrity even if it does not support my desires. We are different, raised differently....that's all.

 

[Jerome]

Testimony of real Founder James B. Taylor (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) debunks the claims of Nettles (of the mis-named 'Founders' faction of contemporary Southern Baptist Calvinists):

Writing in the 1850s, Taylor reported that

"the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature"

Taylor traveled all across the South and would know.

 

[Jerome]

Another real SBC Founder wrote in 1846:

"Neither can we submit to be classed with those who, after casting off some of the shackles of Catholicism, denominated themselves Reformed churches. We call not our churches reformed, because we believe them no better than their predecessors. . . .we are not Protestants, nor Dissenters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers, but what we have been in all ages, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

 

[JonC]

Testimony of real Founder James B. Taylor (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) debunks the claims of Nettles (of the mis-named 'Founders' faction of contemporary Southern Baptist Calvinists):

Writing in the 1850s, Taylor reported that

"the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature"

Taylor traveled all across the South and would know.

I really would not care either way but I hate to see one group twist history. We do not have to agree with those who have gone before but we should at least be honest enough if men to respect their views and deal truthfully with history.

I have actually seen a member on another forum insisting that the ECF's were Calvinists.

He who controls the past controls the future I guess.

 

[JonC]

SBC Founder, R. B. C. Howell wrote in 1846:

"Neither can we submit to be classed with those who, after casting off some of the shackles of Catholicism, denominated themselves Reformed churches. We call not our churches reformed, because we believe them no better than their predecessors. . . .we are not Protestants, nor Dissenters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers, but what we have been in all ages, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ."

RBC Howell was a founder and the 2nd President of the SBC (although he was against its formation).

Given Calvinism's background I do not understand the push so many have to rewrite history.

 

[JonC]

There is nothing new under the sun.

You misread Scripture here, Iconoclast. Reexamine your theology:

Isaiah 43:19-21
“Behold, I will do something new, Now it will spring forth; Will you not be aware of it? I will even make a roadway in the wilderness, Rivers in the desert. "The beasts of the field will glorify Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people. “The people whom I formed for Myself Will declare My praise.

Apparently our salvation itself depends on a rejection of your idea in this case.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

That idea is foreign to me. But I was raised with and maintain a high degree if integrity even if it does not support my desires. We are different, raised differently....that's all.

This kind of snide comment is unfortunate. I have seen your "high degree of integrity" in action...
I am sure you view yourself as the paragon of virtue, JonC, but you are not the focus of the OP.
I will find the source material. I do not keep it on speed dial...
It was quite different than your version....

 

[Jerome]

Baptists did not take on the moniker until the 1960s when the Reformed Baptist movement started at Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Actually, Primitive and Campbellite Baptists went under the name "Reformed Baptist" before separating into their own distinct denominations. And then for much of the twentieth century the name was used by a holiness group in the Northeast and Canada, the Reformed Baptist Alliance. In the 1960s that group merged into the Wesleyan Church, freeing up the name to be taken up by this latest group that you mention.

Tom Chantry, who grew up in the Carlisle, Pa. church you mention, has a website explaining the brief history of this latest 'Reformed Baptist' iteration:

ChantryNotes • Reflections on Reformed Baptists' History

 

[Iconoclast]

You misread Scripture here, Iconoclast. Reexamine your theology:

Isaiah 43:19-21
“Behold, I will do something new, Now it will spring forth; Will you not be aware of it? I will even make a roadway in the wilderness, Rivers in the desert. "The beasts of the field will glorify Me, The jackals and the ostriches, Because I have given waters in the wilderness And rivers in the desert, To give drink to My chosen people. “The people whom I formed for Myself Will declare My praise.

Apparently our salvation itself depends on a rejection of your idea in this case.

I know exactly what the verse is speaking of JonC. Do you?

 

[JonC]

For edification :

William Brantley was the pastor of First Baptist in Augusta GA. As a pastor he preached against strong Calvinism, particularly and strongly against the doctrine of irresistible grace .

So who cares?

Well, he was a founder of the SBC. In fact, the SBC started in his church in Augusta GA (it is now closed and delapicated, about 5 miles from my home).

 

[JonC]

I know exactly what the verse is speaking of JonC. Do you?

Yes. In fact, I know exactly to what the verse is speaking.

 

[Iconoclast]

Testimony of real Founder James B. Taylor (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) debunks the claims of Nettles (of the mis-named 'Founders' faction of contemporary Southern Baptist Calvinists):

Writing in the 1850s, Taylor reported that

"the view now generally adopted by the Baptists [is] that the atonement is general in its nature"

Taylor traveled all across the South and would know.

We are sure you are an objective source Jerome as you love all things Calvinistic.
Can you show how anything he said answers Dr.Nettles specifically.
Have you read Dr.Nettles on this?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes. In fact, I know exactly to what the verse is speaking.

What do you think it teaches JonC?

 

[JonC]

JonC


This kind of snide comment is unfortunate. I have seen your high degree of integrity in action

You are confused, Iconoclast.

That was not a snide comment at all. I was raised to value integrity and honesty to the point I believe we are responsible for illustrations we present as facts (something I struggle with listening to some pastors I respect).

This continued in my adult life. In the military I tryed to impart the value of honesty to my soldiers. We could deal with issues if we are honest about them.

As a father I stress this value to my son. We do our best and are honest about our actions and the result.

People make mistakes. This is OK. People disagree and understandtthings differently. That's OK. Dishonesty, however, is never OK. I am pleased that you, even though we disagree theologically, acknowledge that I have acted with integrity. I believe you also state what you believe to be true.

 

[JonC]

What do you think it teaches JonC?

The implication here is that the exodus will be overshadowed by something new that God is planning for the present. This "new thing" effectively reverses the exodus. Whereas God caused the sea to turn to dry land to save His people from the Egyptians, now He will make paths and streams in the desert to deliver His people.

The idea is that God does not desire that Israel miss the present while they are looking back. Instead, He wants Israel to praise Him in the present for His coming provision. God’s sovereign control of nature stands in stark contrast to the inability of the idols.

 

[JonC]

We are sure you are an objective source Jerome as you love all things Calvinistic.
Can you show how anything he said answers Dr.Nettles specifically.
Have you read Dr.Nettles on this?

We actually have what these people wrote. Why do you think it necessary to rely on a secondary source?????

 

[Reformed]

Makes me want a drink . I miss the idea that Calvinists simply affirmed Calvinism (as a whole) and Particular Baptists were Baptists who affirmed a Calvinistic soteriology. Gone are the days of simple terms, I fear.

Simple is easier but it is not always better. But complicated presents its own set of problems. Personally, I think the American Reformed Baptist movement complicated something that already had a long-lasting legacy. I am more and more becoming satisfied with following in the steps of my Particular Baptist forefathers. That does not mean I think today's Reformed Baptists should stop developing scholars and "doing" theology. But if you check out the 1689 Federalism website I linked in post #36 you will find out that much of their scholarship and theological work is driving them back to the 17th-century. A lot of the heavy work was done by the signatories to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith as well John Bunyan, John Gill, and even the non-Baptist John Owen. John L. Dagg was America's was most notable contribution to Particular Baptist theology. Charles Spurgeon was better known for his preaching but his theological prowess was second to none.

 

[Iconoclast]

For edification :

William Brantley was the pastor of First Baptist in Augusta GA. As a pastor he preached against strong Calvinism, particularly and strongly against the doctrine of irresistible grace .

So who cares?

Well, he was a founder of the SBC. In fact, the SBC started in his church in Augusta GA (it is now closed and delapicated, about 5 miles from my home).

So here we go;
Tom Ascol weighs in;
Teological Debate Within the Family Tom Ascol

The debate over Calvinism and Arminianism has been ongoing for four hundred years. The theological issues involved in the debate, of course, extend back much further. Those who take God’s Word seriously have sometimes come down far apart in their understanding of the nature of God’s sovereignty and grace and, more specifically, His sovereignty in grace. There was a great theological consensus on this issue at the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention.


The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, published in 1689, was the most infuential confession among Baptists in America in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (often distributed in the forms used by the Philadelphia or Charleston Baptist Associations).


This confession is thoroughly Calvinistic and was particularly influential among Baptists in the southern United States. As Timothy George has noted,

“Each of the 293 ‘delegates,’ as they were then called, who gathered in Augusta to organize the Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] in 1845, belonged to congregations and associations which had adopted the Philadelphia/Charleston Confession of Faith as their own.”

Oopps....this does not agree with your re-write does it?

lets see what else we can find