The rise of Calvinism?

[Reformed]

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.

I have never been a member of an S.B.C. church, so to me, this is much ado about nothing. Much of this thread seems like two petulant kids yelling at each other saying:

"Yes, I am!"

"No, you are not!"

In my view, the only thing that really matters is whether a doctrine is more biblical than the alternatives. Being a Calvinist, my view is plainly obvious to all. I am also a realist and understand that Calvinism, along with Covenant Theology, are a minority position among Christians in the United States. The question is whether, as the title of the opening post questions, is Calvinism on the rise? I believe it is. My hope is that the doctrines of grace continue to gain traction in all corners of Christendom because I believe they best represent what scripture teaches. However, I want to see this happen on the merits of the biblical case being made, not though bludgeoning the other person to death. No thread is a battle to the death. Or is it?

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

Did you also hold to Covenant theology then? Amd were a Calvinist, not you are ?

 

[Yeshua1]

Reformed theology holds that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?

Not that I am familiar with, as none of the Systematic theologies have read in reformed stated that!

 

[JonC]

I have never been a member of an S.B.C. church, so to me, this is much ado about nothing. Much of this thread seems like two petulant kids yelling at each other saying:

"Yes, I am!"

"No, you are not!"

In my view, the only thing that really matters is whether a doctrine is more biblical than the alternatives. Being a Calvinist, my view is plainly obvious to all. I am also a realist and understand that Calvinism, along with Covenant Theology, are a minority position among Christians in the United States. The question is whether, as the title of the opening post questions, is Calvinism on the rise? I believe it is. My hope is that the doctrines of grace continue to gain traction in all corners of Christendom because I believe they best represent what scripture teaches. However, I want to see this happen on the merits of the biblical case being made, not though bludgeoning the other person to death. No thread is a battle to the death. Or is it?

I understand. I'm the same way when it comes to other denominations.

I am SBC and interested in the topic, so it does matter to me. It does not matter to me what they held but that we treat what they held accurately. My thesis was on R.B.C. Howell and doctrinal issues involved in his term over the SBC (I spent weeks thumbing through his original journals...very carefully as they were falling apart). It interests me. I do not hold Howell's view, but I think that we owe it to those who have gone before to be honest (it's about history more than doctrine).

What is interesting to me is that the SBC in its leadership was moderately Calvinistic (granted, they were battling the largest denomination of the time, which was Methodist). But the churches were not typically Calvinistic at all (the concern was that they would be influenced by Methodist doctrine). When we look at it we see this same discord today. I think we can learn from history, but only if we do not try to reinvent it. This is not ancient history - we actually have the writings of these guys. Who cares what other people think when we can reference the original documents?

 

[JonC]

Not that I am familiar with, as none of the Systematic theologies have read in reformed stated that!

I was curious. I know this was Gill's view and I've been told that it was a popular view among Reformed scholars at a time.

 

[JonC]

Did you also hold to Covenant theology then? Amd were a Calvinist, not you are ?

I was a Calvinist but I never held to Covenant Theology. When my teaching ventured into Calvinism I typically taught in terms of the Doctrines of Grace and divine sovereignty. Other than mentioning that Dispensationalism was once only a Reformed doctrine and that I believe Scripture speaks in terms of covenant relationship and dispensations I never addressed either views.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was curious. I know this was Gill's view and I've been told that it was a popular view among Reformed scholars at a time.

Think Calvin discussed this in one of his commentaries, but do not think that he or Gill meant it as the JW do, as both were holding to full Deity of Christ!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 have held off from this debate because, as a Brit, my knowledge of SBC history is limited.
However, may I ask if James Petigru Boyce and John A. Broadus are accounted as founders or early members of SBC?

On another topic, to be Reformed is to be Calvinistic, but to be Calvinistic is not necessarily to be Reformed. If one is 'Reformed' in one's theology, one believes not only in Definite Redemption, but also in Covenant Theology and in some form of the Reformed Principle of Worship. I believe the term 'Reformed Baptist,' as it is understood today, is as recent as the 1960s. Walter Chantry and Geoff Thomas coined the term when they were Baptists studying at Westminster Seminary.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was a Calvinist but I never held to Covenant Theology. When my teaching ventured into Calvinism I typically taught in terms of the Doctrines of Grace and divine sovereignty. Other than mentioning that Dispensationalism was once only a Reformed doctrine and that I believe Scripture speaks in terms of covenant relationship and dispensations I never addressed either views.

where are you at then right now, still a Calvinist, at least as in salvation theology?

 

[JonC]

I have held off from this debate because, as a Brit, my knowledge of SBC history is limited.
However, may I ask if James Petigru Boyce and John A. Broadus are accounted as founders or early members of SBC?

On another topic, to be Reformed is to be Calvinistic, but to be Calvinistic is not necessarily to be Reformed. If one is 'Reformed' in one's theology, one believes not only in Definite Redemption, but also in Covenant Theology and in some form of the Reformed Principle of Worship. I believe the term 'Reformed Baptist,' as it is understood today, is as recent as the 1960s. Walter Chantry and Geoff Thomas coined the term when they were Baptists studying at Westminster Seminary.

The SBC came out of the Triennial Convention. This was the founding (the SBC was formed as it split from Northern states). Calvinism was not a distinctive. The distinctive was missions (an opposition to Primitive Baptists, particularly the anti-missions movement). The Triennial Convention stated it would take no position on slaver but this proved impossible and the SBC split forming the Northern Baptist Mission Society and the Southern Baptist Convention.

There were a range of beliefs when it comes to Calvinism. But the SBC was not founded on any of those views.

The first leader (first president) of the SBC was William Johnson. Here is what he said on the topic:

"As a Free Agent, man has life and death set before him, with the liberty of choosing the one, and rejecting the other ... As moral agents, for whom there is hope, I call upon you, then, fellow sinners to turn to the Lord ... Now, Now, O fellow sinners, you have it in your power to place yourselves under influences, that are spiritual and saving; or under influences that are carnal and damning."

Provided the R.B.C. Howell’s (the 2nd president of the SBC) comments that the SBC departs from what he considers “Calvinism” (although I believe him a moderate Calvinist in practice….he struggled against the anti-mission movement which may have colored his language).

And we know that Brantley (a SBC founder and pastor of First Baptist in Augusta Georgia where the SBC was formed) was very much opposed to the idea of Irresistible Grace.

My point is not that the SBC was “non-Calvinistic”, but it is wrong to say it was Calvinistic as well. The SBC does not prescribe such doctrines and have always been diverse when this topic comes up. Some wish that the SBC was founded on strong Calvinism (it was not) and others wish it was founded on strong free-will theology (it was not). It was (and is) comprised of churches that hold a wide view on these topics.

And thanks for your view of how "Reformed" differs from "Calvinism".

 

[JonC]

where are you at then right now, still a Calvinist, at least as in salvation theology?

I would not consider myself a Calvinist, although this depends on how it is defined and who's doing the defining. . I think it would be more correct to say that there are areas where I agree with Calvinism's concluding statements but not necessarily how they arrived there. I believe that there are severe flaws in Calvinism, but the flaws are not in the logic but in evidencing its presuppositions. I agree with Edwards in his explanation of predestination (which could be stated as Calvinistic or really Reformation Arminianism, depending on how it's expressed).

I believe that human nature is such as mankind cannot contribute to their salvation.
I believe that God does not choose to save men based on any merit or good in man.
I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe.
I believe that God’s purposes will be accomplished.
I believe that whosoever believes in Christ has everlasting life.

When it comes to predestination I believe that everything is predestined to occur as God knows it will occur and that this was decreed in the act of Creation.

 

[Yeshua1]

The SBC came out of the Triennial Convention. This was the founding (the SBC was formed as it split from Northern states). Calvinism was not a distinctive. The distinctive was missions (an opposition to Primitive Baptists, particularly the anti-missions movement). The Triennial Convention stated it would take no position on slaver but this proved impossible and the SBC split forming the Northern Baptist Mission Society and the Southern Baptist Convention.

There were a range of beliefs when it comes to Calvinism. But the SBC was not founded on any of those views.

The first leader (first president) of the SBC was William Johnson. Here is what he said on the topic:

"As a Free Agent, man has life and death set before him, with the liberty of choosing the one, and rejecting the other ... As moral agents, for whom there is hope, I call upon you, then, fellow sinners to turn to the Lord ... Now, Now, O fellow sinners, you have it in your power to place yourselves under influences, that are spiritual and saving; or under influences that are carnal and damning."

Provided the R.B.C. Howell’s (the 2nd president of the SBC) comments that the SBC departs from what he considers “Calvinism” (although I believe him a moderate Calvinist in practice….he struggled against the anti-mission movement which may have colored his language).

And we know that Brantley (a SBC founder and pastor of First Baptist in Augusta Georgia where the SBC was formed) was very much opposed to the idea of Irresistible Grace.

My point is not that the SBC was “non-Calvinistic”, but it is wrong to say it was Calvinistic as well. The SBC does not prescribe such doctrines and have always been diverse when this topic comes up. Some wish that the SBC was founded on strong Calvinism (it was not) and others wish it was founded on strong free-will theology (it was not). It was (and is) comprised of churches that hold a wide view on these topics.

And thanks for your view of how "Reformed" differs from "Calvinism".

Individual churches are Calvinistic or free will, but the denomination itself could not be, as we Baptists hold to individuals having the right to interpret the scriptures for ourselves!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The SBC came out of the Triennial Convention. This was the founding (the SBC was formed as it split from Northern states). Calvinism was not a distinctive. The distinctive was missions (an opposition to Primitive Baptists, particularly the anti-missions movement). The Triennial Convention stated it would take no position on slaver but this proved impossible and the SBC split forming the Northern Baptist Mission Society and the Southern Baptist Convention.

There were a range of beliefs when it comes to Calvinism. But the SBC was not founded on any of those views.

The first leader (first president) of the SBC was William Johnson. Here is what he said on the topic:

"As a Free Agent, man has life and death set before him, with the liberty of choosing the one, and rejecting the other ... As moral agents, for whom there is hope, I call upon you, then, fellow sinners to turn to the Lord ... Now, Now, O fellow sinners, you have it in your power to place yourselves under influences, that are spiritual and saving; or under influences that are carnal and damning."

Provided the R.B.C. Howell’s (the 2nd president of the SBC) comments that the SBC departs from what he considers “Calvinism” (although I believe him a moderate Calvinist in practice….he struggled against the anti-mission movement which may have colored his language).

And we know that Brantley (a SBC founder and pastor of First Baptist in Augusta Georgia where the SBC was formed) was very much opposed to the idea of Irresistible Grace.

My point is not that the SBC was “non-Calvinistic”, but it is wrong to say it was Calvinistic as well. The SBC does not prescribe such doctrines and have always been diverse when this topic comes up. Some wish that the SBC was founded on strong Calvinism (it was not) and others wish it was founded on strong free-will theology (it was not). It was (and is) comprised of churches that hold a wide view on these topics.

And thanks for your view of how "Reformed" differs from "Calvinism".

Thanks for this, but you don't seem to have answered my question. Are James Petigru Boyce and John A. Broadus accounted as founders or early members of SBC?
Also, perhaps you could also tell me after what or whom the 'Founders' Movement' is named?

 

[JonC]

Individual churches are Calvinistic or free will, but the denomination itself could not be, as we Baptists hold to individuals having the right to interpret the scriptures for ourselves!

Yep. We have always been a diverse group.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have held off from this debate because, as a Brit, my knowledge of SBC history is limited.
However, may I ask if James Petigru Boyce and John A. Broadus are accounted as founders or early members of SBC?

On another topic, to be Reformed is to be Calvinistic, but to be Calvinistic is not necessarily to be Reformed. If one is 'Reformed' in one's theology, one believes not only in Definite Redemption, but also in Covenant Theology and in some form of the Reformed Principle of Worship. I believe the term 'Reformed Baptist,' as it is understood today, is as recent as the 1960s. Walter Chantry and Geoff Thomas coined the term when they were Baptists studying at Westminster Seminary.

Think that there are many more calvinistBaptists then RB, as those would be holding to reformed Sotierology mainly, but may or may not hold to anything else. Also, RB all would hold to a Confession of faith, normally 1689 LCBF, while Calvinist Baptists tend to just hold to scriptures alone.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would not consider myself a Calvinist, although this depends on how it is defined and who's doing the defining. . I think it would be more correct to say that there are areas where I agree with Calvinism's concluding statements but not necessarily how they arrived there. I believe that there are severe flaws in Calvinism, but the flaws are not in the logic but in evidencing its presuppositions. I agree with Edwards in his explanation of predestination (which could be stated as Calvinistic or really Reformation Arminianism, depending on how it's expressed).

I believe that human nature is such as mankind cannot contribute to their salvation.
I believe that God does not choose to save men based on any merit or good in man.
I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe.
I believe that God’s purposes will be accomplished.
I believe that whosoever believes in Christ has everlasting life.

When it comes to predestination I believe that everything is predestined to occur as God knows it will occur and that this was decreed in the act of Creation.

Do you agree with Calvinistic understanding of salvation proper?

 

[JonC]

Thanks for this, but you don't seem to have answered my question. Are James Petigru Boyce and John A. Broadus accounted as founders or early members of SBC?
Also, perhaps you could also tell me after what or whom the 'Founders' Movement' is named?

If you are asking if they were present at Brantley’s church, I do not know. I suspect they were. I’d consider any of the pastors over the churches at the time the SBC was created to be early leaders in the SBC. But I think that calling these men “founders” is an error. The SBC was a convention of churches.

The “Founders Movement” began in 1982. I am not sure what churches are involved. They want to bring the SBC itself (not necessarily its membership but the Convention) towards what they see as a Calvinistic position reflective of its origins.

There is the “Traditionalists” who are the exact opposite. They want to move away from Calvinism to a position they see as reflective of SBC origins.

Both, of course, are wrong. We know that there were Calvinists, moderate Calvinists, and non-Calvinists in leadership and churches when the SBC was formed. Both sides are just propaganda trying to use history to support an agenda.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have held off from this debate because, as a Brit, my knowledge of SBC history is limited.
However, may I ask if James Petigru Boyce and John A. Broadus are accounted as founders or early members of SBC?

On another topic, to be Reformed is to be Calvinistic, but to be Calvinistic is not necessarily to be Reformed. If one is 'Reformed' in one's theology, one believes not only in Definite Redemption, but also in Covenant Theology and in some form of the Reformed Principle of Worship. I believe the term 'Reformed Baptist,' as it is understood today, is as recent as the 1960s. Walter Chantry and Geoff Thomas coined the term when they were Baptists studying at Westminster Seminary.

A.N.Martin was also very active in teaching and preaching these truths available on sermonaudio.
There were conferences where we could hear these truths preached and taught.
I was able to hear these men preach and teach often in Montville, and Carlisle.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you are asking if they were present at Brantley’s church, I do not know. I suspect they were. I’d consider any of the pastors over the churches at the time the SBC was created to be early leaders in the SBC. But I think that calling these men “founders” is an error. The SBC was a convention of churches

Thank you. If I'm not mistaken, J.P. Boyce was the founder and first Principal of the Southern Baptist Seminary. He produced the first Abstract of Principles which all members of the faculty were required to sign
abstract of principles contents
I draw readers' attention to Article V.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have never been a member of an S.B.C. church, so to me, this is much ado about nothing. Much of this thread seems like two petulant kids yelling at each other saying:

"Yes, I am!"

"No, you are not!"

In my view, the only thing that really matters is whether a doctrine is more biblical than the alternatives. Being a Calvinist, my view is plainly obvious to all. I am also a realist and understand that Calvinism, along with Covenant Theology, are a minority position among Christians in the United States. The question is whether, as the title of the opening post questions, is Calvinism on the rise? I believe it is. My hope is that the doctrines of grace continue to gain traction in all corners of Christendom because I believe they best represent what scripture teaches. However, I want to see this happen on the merits of the biblical case being made, not though bludgeoning the other person to death. No thread is a battle to the death. Or is it?

Well Reformed I agree in part.
When people move from a scriptural base and try to find a portion of history as a refuge there is a reason for that.
If one person struggles with the I in tulip, another with the L, someone else with the T. It does not diminish the biblical teaching as a whole.