1. 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!

Was J.R. Graves A Calvinist?

Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by Mark Osgatharp, Oct 4, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Kiffen

    Kiffen Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Moises Amyrault was a Frenchman theologian who disagreed with TULIP or one might better say rededined it to fit unlimited atonement. Richard Baxter is probably the best known Amyrault and it seems Graves held to similar views. BTW I did not try to define you just...Bro. Graves [​IMG]

    Here we go again :( :rolleyes: The Canons of Dort that systemized TULIP agree with you Mark. I glad you joined us on Calvin's Team! :D OK, I am kidding with you Brother. The problem with non Calvinists is they usually read their own material and often distort Calvinism. Calvinism teaches the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in it's provision but limited in it's application -limited to those who believe. Calvinism does not deny Whosover will may Come.

    So, you believe your Baptist forefathers who wrote the 1644 London Confession, 1689 London Confession, Philadelphia Confession, Midland Confession were all heretics? and what about the 1833 New Hampshire Confession that was in Dr. Bogard's Manual?

    Anyway this thread is suppose to be about JR Graves and I don't think he was a 5 pointer but probably a 4 pointer. [​IMG]
     
    #21 Kiffen, Oct 11, 2005
  2. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not to chase too many Calvinistic rabbit trails, but I would suggest that Amyrauldianism is not synonymous with Fullerism, at least technically, although they both fall under the label (given by their enemies) of "hypo-calvinism."

    Amyrault's departure from Dort was on the extent of the atonement; there was a difference between God's desire to save, which extended to all, and his will.\

    Fuller approached the subject from the aspect of total depravity; leaning upon Jonathan Edwards' differentiation of moral and natural ability. (Which also demonstrates the deep connection between Puritan and Dissenting thought on both sides of the Pond.)

    Fuller taught that belief in Christ was a duty, and to require a duty with no corresponding ability to carry out the duty in nonsense.


    — Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy
    of all Acceptation
     
    #22 rsr, Oct 11, 2005
  3. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    A. I didn't realize I spoke so unclearly. Let me say it again: I believe that ANYONE who asserts that Christ's death will save all or denies that it is sufficient for all is guilty of perverting the gospel and is worthy of shame. I don't care who does it. As Paul said,

    "though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

    B. Not that I have an obligation to defend Bogard, Graves, the New Hampshire (or any other) confession of faith other than my own, the fact is that the New Hampshire Confession of faith explicitly states,

    "We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel (1); that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial, penitent, and obedient faith (2); and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel (3); which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation."

    Which is a square and forthright denial of the hell-spawned lie that Christ died only for the pre-selected. But you said,

    By Graves' testimony, penned late in his life, he was a "no point" Calvinist. In his own words, "not one scintilla." I quote again my original quote in this thread:

    "These will be interesting to all Baptists, and perhaps many of our churches and brethren about to organize would like to adopt them, and so hold the faith of the First Baptist Church organized on this continent. All can see there is not a scintilla of Calvinism in them. Baptists were sound, held and taught in all the faith once delivered to the saints, fifteen hundred years before Calvin was born. What he added to it is Calvinism, and that we most heartily repudiate."

    To that I say, Amen!

    Mark Osgatharp
     
    #23 Mark Osgatharp, Oct 12, 2005
  4. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am perhaps not as satisfied as to reconciling Graves' statements as some others are. I understand that there are ways that folks can understand some of these statements in ways to reconcile them with their own understanding of "Calvinism". That nevertheless does not determine what Graves meant.

    First, one thing should be clear and beyond dispute. J. R. Graves did not believe whatever he understood Calvinism to mean in 1887. He states that plainly enough.

    Second, there are ways to interpret the First Baptist Newport statement of faith to accord with one's Calvinistic beliefs. Regardless, the statement of faith is not framed as Calvinists frame such statements of faith, and it is highly unlikely that the framers of the statement could have had any "Calvinistic" intent in mind. (Btw, its terminology both theologically and grammatically make me think it is not the original from 1638.)

    Third, there are ways to interpret the statements of Graves in Seven Dispensations in accord with general provision. I was born and raised among some of the "heirs" of Graves' landmark movement - American Baptist Association affiliated churches in East Texas. I have never heard any of these preachers who could be hogtied and made to preach and explain that God only gave some of the children of Adam to be redeemed and other such terminology as Graves used in the quote I gave above.

    None of this particularly explains Graves' meaning and possible contradiction, barring finding him expressly defining his use of the term Calvinism.
     
    #24 rlvaughn, Oct 12, 2005
  5. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    I do not know of any Calvinists who would disagree with any of that. </font>[/QUOTE]I presume by that you mean that due to total depravity only the elect can believe. That's a nice little twist but I still would call that limited atonement.
     
    #25 StraightAndNarrow, Oct 29, 2005
  6. J. A. Sison

    J. A. Sison New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2024
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is the most hilarious comment I've read, but seriously contemplable. Thanks for sharing.
     
    #26 J. A. Sison, Nov 1, 2024
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...