I am not sure I understand you. What part of what I wrote in my previous post do you not agree with?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The rise of Calvinism?
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
- Status
I greatly admire Al Martin. That man could flat out preach.
He was.
This is my point, MM.
There has always been a "struggle" between what is taught in the seminaries, what is held by the SBC leadership, and what is held by the SBC membership (the churches). Calvinistic churches want to move the SBC closer to Calvinism. Non-Calvinistic churches want to move it away from Calvinism.
I think this is necessary to an extent, and we see the SBC leadership being disciplined or called back in on a fairly regular basis. As you point out, some of the SBC "founding" members were Calvinists, some were moderate Calvinists, others were free-will theologians.
"On the ground" we get a different picture. Anti-non-Calvinists want to make the SBC Calvinistic. Anti-Calvinists want to make it non-Calvinistic. Most people really do not care and most churches practice "liberty" on this doctrine as it reflects human understanding.
There is nothing that would prevent a Reformed Church from being a SBC member. But there is also nothing that would prevent an Arminian Baptist church from being a SBC member.
I think it diminishes the philosophy as a whole.
If you remove the T then the U and I are compromised.
If you remove the U then the T, L, I, and the P are compromised.
If you remove the L then the U and I are compromised.
If you remove the I then the U is compromised.
If you remove the P then the I is compromised.
To claim to be a Calvinist but less than a 5 point Calvinist is, IMHO, not to understand Calvinism at all. It is something else because it misses how the points work together (not that the view is wrong, but that it is not Calvinism).
Baptist Press - Clarification at SBTS
"The Southern Baptist family is made up of Calvinists and those who are not, Mohler said. 'The decision to be a Southern Baptist is the decision to work with the people' on both sides of the debate, he said. 'We should not be surprised by differences of understanding of the issues that are comfortably within the Baptist Faith and Message,' Mohler added, citing the SBC's confession of faith, most recently revised in 2000."
"Mohler noted that Southern Seminary's confession of faith, the Abstract of Principles, only requires adherence to three points of Calvinism: total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints. The other two points of Calvinism are limited (or particular) atonement and irresistible (or effectual) grace."
"Mohler said those who hold to all five points of Calvinism and those who do not are still capable of cooperating together in the Great Commission and other ministries as long as they can both affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. Both men agreed that the BF&M in its current form is sufficient for both sides of the debate. 'I need to say publicly in this conversation with you -- I do not want our Baptist Faith and Message to be any narrower than it is now,' Mohler said."
One might be able to be a so called 4 pointer, but as Dr Sproul said, would be a confused Calvinist!
if not willing to hold to all 5 points, then just stick to Faith message 2000!
I agree. But since I'm not a Calvinist I think they are all confused to an extent
.Sorry I left that a little bit vague cuz I was on the Move. Now I'm going to stop driving a little earlier so I'll I'll explain the little more .I Just a reluctance on my part on something you said but not not so much we disagree but it's more like I'd raise a question about what you said
I'll clarify in a little bit because I know we we agree quite a bit much more more than we don't agree so you know I think we're pretty much on the same page but I'll I'll explain my my reluctance and maybe an hour
I agree. But since I'm not a Calvinist I think they are all confused to an extent
I really do not agree with this thinking.
Unlike chemistry, the elements may certainly be separated and even excluded without impacting the others.
For example, as already shown by @JonC in this thread, there are presentations by folks who agreed with all but irresistible grace. They would be considered Calvinist.
I present Limited belief, but not the typically presented limited atonement. My personal view that by using the word atonement, then folks put inappropriate focus upon a single element or facet of the day of atonement rather than all aspects. As such, they inappropriately designate that which was for all into that limited, and in so doing then are obliged to conform the Scriptures to that view rather than the Scriptures modifying the view.
I think perhaps Calvinism has become the "measuring stick" because of its simplicity. If someone says they are a 4 point Calvinist then we know they reject one point and this opens the way for them to discuss a disagreement (it assumes there are 4 points if agreement).
That said, I do not understand how one could reject the I yet affirm the T, U, and P without a degree of inconsistency.
The reason there are so many so-called four-point Calvinists is because of definite (also known as particular or limited atonement) atonement. If someone believes in definite atonement then there is no logical reason why they would reject any of the other points. That is why Particular Baptists are known by that name. Definite atonement is the hinge on which Calvinism pivots. Christ died to atone for the sins of the Elect. If that is so, then how can any elect person resist the effectual call? They cannot.
Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Preservation (Perseverance) can all be held and one not hold to Irresistible grace.
This is not my view, but to allow some expressions that I have run across to explain what others may consider valid.
One can be totally incapable and because of that condition, God extends to that person for His purpose His choosing. That person "kicks against the pricks" as did Saul (Paul) and continues in rebellion. At some point, God's spirit no longer strives and turns that person over preserving them for that destiny in which they desired.
This is not uncommon in the teaching perspective of most non-cal preaching.
That is why they have to engage some prevenient / preceding grace thining.
My personal problem with the term Calvinism is that it automatically presents what may not be accurately held by that person.
I do embrace the doctrines of Grace, but I am compelled (at this point in my life) to separate the elements (facets) of the atonement and recognize some are to all and others are to those who believe.
However, when it comes to thinking of depravity, then how more depraved can one become if they are dead completely in trespasses and sin?
Or when considering election does it become a matter of solely that which is of God without regard to the human condition?
Or when pondering upon grace, conforming to that presentation that the Father's choice is according to His purpose and humankind have no authority to resist?
I am concerned that OSAS presentation to the typical Baptist is incredibly faulty in the sense that folks think all manner of sinful living does not reflect that that person was never part of the tree of life but conformed for the temporary pleasure.
Perhaps I can be convinced my thinking as it pertains to the blood needs to be modified. So far, I haven't been convinced by others' presentation of the Scriptures.
Back to the opening post for a moment. If Calvinism is on the rise, where so and how so? It would be a prideful statement for me to say that you find Calvinism being taught only in churches who take the word of God seriously. Serious study takes place for all sorts of theological positions whether or not we are in agreement with those positions. I believe Calvinism is on the rise because those that teach it are doing so by clearly presenting what the Bible has to say on predestination and election. It is the Word that is piercing hearts, not men. It must be that way. I have read more than once on the Baptist Board of individuals holding to a belief that they cannot articulate or defend. The sad part of that is that they may be correct in their stated belief but their ignorance of that belief robs them of the great joy of being convinced by scripture.
Lastly, Calvinism is not an end in itself. It is not a destination. As Baptists define it, Calvinism is a term used to describe a commonly held set of beliefs about soteriology; specifically about predestination and election. That is Calvinism through a narrow lends. Through a larger lens Calvinism branches out into other related doctrinal positions. I suppose you can say it is a path. That path is not traveled by all Christians but those that do walk its steps find their footing sure.
Lastly, Calvinism is not an end in itself. It is not a destination. As Baptists define it, Calvinism is a term used to describe a commonly held set of beliefs about soteriology; specifically about predestination and election. That is Calvinism through a narrow lends. Through a larger lens Calvinism branches out into other related doctrinal positions. I suppose you can say it is a path. That path is not traveled by all Christians but those that do walk its steps find their footing sure.
Last edited:
I agree. We can hold a lot of things, but Insofar as Calvinism (which does look at the Atonement as a single act) I think one has to depart in ways.
Personally, I think Calvinism is wrong at the start (excluding Tulip) because of its view of the Atonement.
Years ago I had a dog in the hunt. But I shot it.
I agree in part.
However, what if one separates out the elements (as the OT picture presents the day of atonement and the actual atonement in multiple faceted pictures) then the blood can be for all, yet the salvation limited to those chosen by God.
I also disagree that definite atonement is the hinge or linchpin or some other term in which presents it as ascendant. I view each as having the same weight and value, and each as needing conformed to the validity of Scriptures.
You presented, "Christ died to atone for the sins of the Elect. If that is so, ..." That that is the point. IF
What if it were not so, but that the death was NOT for the sins, but for the redemption? The resurrection for eternal life?
See, the Scriptures make more consistency if the presentation is that Christ died for the sins of the believers "not only our sins but the sins of the whole world." World - Kosmos - Creation. Every bit of it. "All authority is given ..."
Yet, the death and resurrection are for believers - those chosen and adopted by the Father by His glory and purpose.
. That just struck me as funny.
I am in a church in which is steeped in very liberal SBC thinking.
However, through consistently presenting "the Bible says," and sweetly urging folks concerning the supremacy of the Scriptures over personal preference and comfortable complacency, there is a slow movement of the assembly into the Sovereignty of God in all matters of faith and practice.
Ultimately, that is where I consider that Calvinistic believers will make a difference in their own home fellowships.
The non-cal do not present and cannot present God as the final authority as the Sovereign over all matters of faith and practice.
Rather, there must be some human agreement, human acceptance, human compliance... in such a presentation by the non-cal.
I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that although there is that seeming rise of Calvinism, there is also a continued pursuit of fluff worship and emotional presentations.
To me, it would seem that Calvinists should be galvanized into such awe resulting in a determination to bring God the honor, glory, and majesty, the worship would be on their knees in humble submission and silent reverence rather than swaying with hands raised. They would be less about the worldly influenced worship style and more about the truthful, earnest, seeking and desire for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
That time spent hearing from God was more important than praising God.
In my heart, I hear over and over, "Come out from among them and be ye separate." That passage from 2 Corinthians 6 is rarely considered in the modern assembly who are consumed with worldly sounds and pleasures and think they can be worship.
But that is merely my own opinion.
You have to know that I am unanimous in it.
However, through consistently presenting "the Bible says," and sweetly urging folks concerning the supremacy of the Scriptures over personal preference and comfortable complacency, there is a slow movement of the assembly into the Sovereignty of God in all matters of faith and practice.
Ultimately, that is where I consider that Calvinistic believers will make a difference in their own home fellowships.
The non-cal do not present and cannot present God as the final authority as the Sovereign over all matters of faith and practice.
Rather, there must be some human agreement, human acceptance, human compliance... in such a presentation by the non-cal.
I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that although there is that seeming rise of Calvinism, there is also a continued pursuit of fluff worship and emotional presentations.
To me, it would seem that Calvinists should be galvanized into such awe resulting in a determination to bring God the honor, glory, and majesty, the worship would be on their knees in humble submission and silent reverence rather than swaying with hands raised. They would be less about the worldly influenced worship style and more about the truthful, earnest, seeking and desire for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
That time spent hearing from God was more important than praising God.
In my heart, I hear over and over, "Come out from among them and be ye separate." That passage from 2 Corinthians 6 is rarely considered in the modern assembly who are consumed with worldly sounds and pleasures and think they can be worship.
But that is merely my own opinion.
You have to know that I am unanimous in it.
So one must affirm "unconditional election" to attend Southern Seminary?
- Status