The rise of Calvinism?

[Iconoclast]

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

There is no rush here JonC....Let's see what we can discover shall we?

 

[Yeshua1]

The term "Reformed" is often associated with Reformed Presbyterians. Baptists did not take on the moniker until the 1960s when the Reformed Baptist movement started at Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Prior to that, the term was rarely used. Particular Baptist was the forerunner of the American Reformed Baptist movement. The term "Reformed" among Baptists was adopted to recognize both the covenantal and confessional nature of English Particular Baptists. In this sense, American Particular Baptists share many similarities to their Reformed Presbyterian brethren. There are many Presbyterians who bristle at Baptists using the Reformed title. Baptists practice believers-only baptism. Presbyterians believe that paedo (infant) baptism is part and parcel with Reformed theology, which disqualifies Baptists from being Reformed. It is interesting that the 17th century Particular Baptists did not refer to themselves as Reformed.

Yes, that is why Calvinist or particular seems to fit better!

 

[Iconoclast]

Tom Ascol,

Tat doctrinal consensus within the SBC broke down over the next seventy five years, opening the door to widespread pragmatism and creeping liberalism by the middle of the twentieth century. Te conservative resurgence, as it has come to be called, dominated SBC life in the last two decades of that century. With the dawning of the twenty-frst century, Southern Baptists were once again firmly confessing confidence in the full authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Within that resurgent inerrancy movement, there was a growing, often undetected resurgence of confessional Calvinism.

By the early years of the twenty-first century the return to the SBC’s confessional heritage had become so widespread that it became the subject of newspaper, magazine and journal articles. It also became the target of many Arminian-leaning SBC leaders. With the emergence of the blogosphere, Southern Baptist advocates of confessional Calvinism, many of whom were in the younger, rising generation, began to push back against their attackers.

 

[JonC]

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.

Do you think that "Reformed" has a different definition outside of traditionally non-reformed churches (like Baptists)?

 

[Yeshua1]

It depends. @Yeshua1 has explained that moderate Calvinism us no Calvinism at all. Only a fool would claim that all initial SBC churches affirmed Calvinism, 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).

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

No, not in the accepted definition of that term...

 

[Reformed]

Yes, that is why Calvinist or particular seems to fit better!

The reason I prefer "Particular" is that it denotes definite atonement. I am one who believes there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. "4 pointers" are more appropriately known as Amyraldians. If someone affirms definite atonement they have no other choice but to be a full Calvinist.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Check out John Gill and Spurgeon to see how "reformed Baptists" think on theology.

 

[JonC]

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

Mine was not a re-wright. I was addressing the original sources (Brantley was the pastor of the church where the SBC began during that time period).

I apologize if that was not clear. Brantley (a SBC founder) strongly opposed Irresistible Grace. R. B. C. Howell - a SBC founder and 2nd president) strongly opposed Limited Atonement.

Who were the 5 point Calvinists that founded the SBC?

How old was Tom Ascol when Brantley and Howell wrote against strong Calvinism?

 

[Yeshua1]

The reason I prefer "Particular" is that it denotes definite atonement. I am one who believes there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. "4 pointers" are more appropriately known as Amyraldians. If someone affirms definite atonement they have no other choice but to be a full Calvinist.

I once was holding to that viewpoint when traveling away from free will Gospel, but thankfully did not stay a "confused calvinist" as think Dr Sproul called those holding to 4 of 5 points of Grace.

 

[JonC]

The reason I prefer "Particular" is that it denotes definite atonement. I am one who believes there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. "4 pointers" are more appropriately known as Amyraldians. If someone affirms definite atonement they have no other choice but to be a full Calvinist.

I agree, and this was exactly my position when I was a Calvinist. Calvinism not only includes the five points but the points work together (they are not five independent ideas).

 

[JonC]

Check out John Gill and Spurgeon to see how "reformed Baptists" think on theology.

Reformed theology holds that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

 

[Reformed]

Do you think that "Reformed" has a different definition outside of traditionally non-reformed churches (like Baptists)?

I think most non-Calvinistic Baptists link the term Reformed directly with Calvinism. Those churches that are non-Calvinist but not officially Baptists probably define it that same way. I am thinking of independent Bible churches, Pentecostal churches, Evangelical Free, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Plymouth Brethren, Grace Brethren, Church of the Nazarene et. al. Then there are the actual Reformed denominations that have their own grading system. Reformed Presbyterians and the Dutch Reformed (Christian Reformed Church) consider themselves to be "Big R" Reformed. They embrace paedobaptism, Westminster federalism (Presbyterian covenant theology) or The Three Forms of Unity, Confessionalism, and are Sabbatarians. They would look at other churches/denominations of their own tradition who do not subscribe to all of those things to be "small r" Reformed. They would consider Baptists to be Reformed wannabees.

 

[JonC]

Brantley (SBC founder) -

"And my first observation tending to obviate that difficulty, is that the grace of God as put forth and exerted in the salvation of sinners, is not irresistible. If the salvation of sinners were a matter so decided and so fixed by changeless decree, as to leave them no power of resistance, no liberty, no ability to seek and procure perdition for themselves, then the impenitent who defer all compliance with the mandate of God, are wise and commendable, because they cannot perish. An invincible necessity determines their lot, and places them beyond the possibility of ruin."

 

[JonC]

I think most non-Calvinistic Baptists link the term Reformed directly with Calvinism. Those churches that are non-Calvinist but not officially Baptists probably define it that same way. I am thinking of independent Bible churches, Pentecostal churches, Evangelical Free, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Plymouth Brethren, Grace Brethren, Church of the Nazarene et. al. Then there are the actual Reformed denominations that have their own grading system. Reformed Presbyterians and the Dutch Reformed (Christian Reformed Church) consider themselves to be "Big R" Reformed. They embrace paedobaptism, Westminster federalism (Presbyterian covenant theology) or The Three Forms of Unity, Confessionalism, and are Sabbatarians. They would look at other churches/denominations of their own tradition who do not subscribe to all of those things to be "small r" Reformed. They would consider Baptists to be Reformed wannabees.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. This makes sense to me.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

Dishonesty, however, is never OK.

Dishonesty is never okay. Glad you state that.

I am pleased that you, even though we disagree theologically, acknowledge that I have acted with integrity

Not exactly my friend. I acknowledge that even though we disagree theologically, I believe you have convinced yourself that you have acted with integrity. That however is not the focus of this thread.

. I believe you also state what you believe to be true

.

This is not saying anything is it? Who posts things that they do not believe?

 

[JonC]

"JonC,




Dishonesty is never okay. Glad you state that.


Not exactly my friend. I acknowledge that even though we disagree theologically, I believe you have convinced yourself that you have acted with integrity. That however is not the focus of this thread.

.

This is not saying anything is it? Who posts things that they do not believe?

I have not had to convince myself of my own integrity. One thing I can say, is that I have always replied honestly, even if my replies were in error. I do not claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed, there are many more intelligent and more articulate than I. But I reply honestly. That no one can deny (at least without bearing false witness). I am very careful in my replies.

And that is why saying that I believe that you believe what you state is true is meaningful. We can both be wrong without being dishonest.

That said, there is a reasonable responsibility we have when engaging a topic (like the stated views of SBC founders).

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

You, of course, are wrong.

You are welcome to your opinion.

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.

I had no Dog in this hunt. You suggested anyone who believed as I do are "foolish".
here are some of those who you are calling foolish;

CONTRIBUTORS: Dr Tom Ascol is Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL and author of the Founders Ministries Blog: www.founders.org/blog/

Matthew Barrett is a PhD candidate at the Southern Baptist Teological Seminary, Louisville, KY.

Dr Kenneth Keathley is Senior Vice President of Academic Administration and Dean of the Faculty at Southeastern Baptist Teology Seminary, Wake Forest, NC.

Dr Tom J. Nettles is Professor of Historical Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.
Ben Rogers is a PhD candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.

Cover photo by Ken Puls. Contributing Editors: Bill Ascol, Timothy George, Fred Malone, Joe Nesom, Phil Newton, Roger Nicole, Don Whitney, Hal Wynn. The Founders Journal is a quarterly publication which takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith which Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles

I like what these brothers have to say, yes.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Truth always draws out detractors....

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

Some would consider what you are speaking about is a weakening and the begins of doctrinal apostasy. You celebrate it as if it is a healthy development. Your suggestion seems to imply that Calvinism is a recent development which is quite a massive falsehood. How can you even make such a statement?
Maybe we are speaking of some "different kind of Calvinism"?
Do you have any recorded sermons from when you were preaching what you call Calvinism?
I would be interested to hear such sermons?
Do you have any written newsletters where you opened up the doctrines of grace in a way that as you alluded to, would make Spurgeon proud seeing you learned so much from His sermons?

And of course you also seem ignorant concerning SBC doctrine.

The SBC is not one of my go-to sources as I have seen much weakness in its churches for the very reasons we are discussing on the BB from time to time. I am grieved by what I have seen first hand. I travel a lot and have seen more than most people get to see firsthand.

The BFM was a compromise document and led to much inept teaching and defective persons coming in.
The fact that they obsess over numbers in attendance both in Sunday School is a fruit of misguided theology and false religious facades being erected. Is this true in all cases...of course not! Is it true in many, yes it is.

[QUOTE]At its formation (in Augusta GA) the SBC was comprised of a very diverse group when it comes to Calvinism.[/QUOTE]
It does not sound like it from what I am reading. I was not there JonC, and guess what, neither were you. For you to quote from one or two people is not going to change the over-all history.
I heard Adrian Rogers on Romans 8-9 and had no trouble seeing his many errors and spiritual lack of understanding on those issues.
He is a good speaker on many other areas, but his error was horrendous. Dr. White also has dismantled his presentations, without working up a sweat.
years from now, there will be someone pointing to him as a guiding light as you point to a few people, but they will be wrong also.

[QUOTE]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).[/QUOTE]

No, not at the outset. That is not what I have read. Are you suggesting that such men as quoted so far, have an agenda, and a professor of Church history is just making it up on the go?

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.

I am not going by your claims. The men I have mentioned have done their homework. I will document it some more and we will see who is making "utterly stupid claims.

For a Calvinist you seem awfully unaware concerning Calvinism

.

That is your opinion, but i will wait for you to produce evidence of your"Calvinism", so as to verify we are speaking of the same thing.
We asked the founder of Soteriology 101 to produce his evidence, and it has not been produced so far.

I do not mean to seem rude, but until you study you really should refrain from an opinion.

Again, that is your opinion, you are welcome to it. I do not think you know what you are talking about, that is my opinion. I rule out things that you entertain, so I believe your understanding is quite defective doctrinally.
You think what you post is peachy keen, so thats what makes a discussion interesting to those who read.
But let's stick to the topic, shall we?
You suggest:
1} I am foolish
2} I lack integrity
3} I am confused
4} I am wrong
5} I am Ignorant and lazy
6} I am ignorant of SBC doctrine
7} I am content with propaganda, etc, etc

Once again, I am not the subject of the OP. let's stick to that shall we.

In a debate one is entitled only to an opinion he or she can defend with evidence.

Your random comments about Calvinists scrambling to reform Calvinism are ludicrous. Your suggestion that the historic theology does not speak to today's people is also way off.
Again, I defend your right to post whatever you claim, but you have not supported your claims at all. Does that nullify your opinion?


[QUOTE] 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. [/QUOTE]

What a couple of people affirm, or what they lack, just like Adrian Rogers does not determine the issue, The scripture does.
The confessions that were adopted speak more than individual lack of understanding.
i will document more of it.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

I have not had to convince myself of my own integrity. One thing I can say, is that I have always replied honestly, even if my replies were in error. I do not claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed, there are many more intelligent and more articulate than I. But I reply honestly. That no one can deny (at least without bearing false witness). I am very careful in my replies.

And that is why saying that I believe that you believe what you state is true is meaningful. We can both be wrong without being dishonest.

That said, there is a reasonable responsibility we have when engaging a topic (like the stated views of SBC founders).

Now I do not feel like I can fully respond at this time. The other day I asked you about when a moderator steps into a thread, and posts, and goes back and forth...you said ...moderators do not moderate threads they are involved in, I think it was post, 108...by post 116 you said the OP. was asinine, and You who had posted in the thread closed it, so I will refrain from commenting on this post, and try and stay on the topic of the OP.
let me find those posts;

FROM post # 108;
↑Iconoclast asked;
Can a moderator do the same thing, especially if he does double duty as a poster, and then all of a sudden put his moderator hat on?
JonC replied;
No. This is why we do not moderate posts that we have engaged. This is a red herring.

8 posts later, you "seemed" to go from JonC ...[poster} to JonC moderator in the same thread you were posting in? How did this happen? Quite a red herring , eh?

Post 116;
If you claim Christ then act in a Christian manner. Stop trying to force others to drink your kool-aid.

This thread is closed. The OP was asinine to begin with. If there is any DOCTRINE that needs to be discussed then start a grown up thread.

#116JonC, Friday at 8:38 AM

Also, you may be wrong about persons. Biblicist is not The_Biblicist. I think you have confused the two.

Then this? Biblicist is the Biblicist, i have one of His books in the truck with me, it has his picture on it. How would I confuse him?

So...let's try and stay on the OP.
No need to give me lists of what you think about me, I think you have made that clear, as I have made ot clear right back at you. Back to the OP

 

[Aaron]

I found this former Calvinist teacher. What do you think?

His web site: SOTERIOLOGY 101

The Lamb’s Book of Life

In short, this view of the book of life is not my view.

Typical former Calvinist griping about the failures of his newfound truth to convince others.

I became Calvinist before YouTube. Calvinism was on the rise then. The reason Calvinism is rising is because of the emptiness of the alternative, and it's impotence in giving hope to those who are truly suffering. In short, Calvinism is on the rise because it is the Gospel.

 

[JonC]

JonC,
Truth always draws out detractors....

.

You have misunderstood me, Iconoclast.

Moderators do not edit or delete posts that they are involved with. Changing it to "threads" in general is not exactly right. For example, if an interaction between you and another member (who is not me) is inappropriate then I may edit or remove that post. But I will not edit the one to which I am now responding.

Also, please learn to use the quote feature correctly. It is not a new tool do there is no excuse for its misuse.

I was speaking, for the most part, in generalizations.

The reason is that you have offered the opinions of contemporary authors to refute what others have provided of the original sources. This is never good practice (it is a logical fallacy, appealing to authority).

@Jerome provided a detailed quote from Howell (a founder and second president of the SBC) refuting the idea that the SBC was Calvinist.

I provided a direct quote from Brantley (SBC founder and pastor of the church where the SBC was formed) preaching strongly against irresistible grace.

I do not understand how you can maintain that the SBC held to "strong Calvinism" when we know for a fact it did not.

I am suggesting that you are reading into the contemporary writings (much of the SBC leadership was moderately Calvinistic, the individual churches typically were not).

I will leave it at that. The board hadms quotes from original sources stating that they do not affirm strong Calvinism and then they have quotes from a couple of contemporary authors claiming otherwise.