Was J.R. Graves A Calvinist?

[Kiffen]

I refuse to be defined either by Calvinism or Arminianism, or "Amyrault" whoever in the world he is.

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

The Bible says that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man and that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He is the Savior of the whole world, specially of those who believe.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in it's provision but limited in it's application - limited to those who believe.

Here we go again The Canons of Dort that systemized TULIP agree with you Mark. I glad you joined us on Calvin's Team! 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.

Anyone who departs from that - either by asserting that Christ's death will save all or that His death was not sufficient for all - has redefined the gopsel of Jesus Christ and is worthy of top ranks of the hall of shame. As it is written,

"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Mark Osgatharp

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.

 

[rsr]

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.

On account of this different phraseology, some writers have affirmed that men are under both a moral and a natural inability of coming to Christ, or that they neither will nor can come to him: but if there be no other inability than what arises from aversion, this language is not accurate; for it conveys the idea, that if all aversion of heart were removed, there would still be a natural and insurmountable bar in the way. But no such idea as this is conveyed by our Lord's words: the only bar to which he refers lies in that reluctance or aversion which the drawing of the Father implies and removes. Nor will such an idea comport with what he elsewhere teaches. "And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Why do ye not understand my speech? Because 'Ye cannot hear My word.'" These cutting interrogations proceed on the supposition that they could have received the doctrine of Christ, if it had been agreeable to their corrupt hearts; and its being otherwise was the ONLY reason why they could not understand and believe it. If sinners were naturally and absolutely unable to believe in Christ, they would be equally unable to disbelieve; for it requires the same powers to reject as to embrace. And, in this case, there would be no room for an inability of another kind: a dead body is equally unable to do evil as to do good; and a man naturally and absolutely blind could not be guilty of shutting his eyes against the light.

— Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy
of all Acceptation

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Kiffen:
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?

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,

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.

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

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Bible says that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man and that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He is the Savior of the whole world, specially of those who believe.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in it's provision but limited in it's application - limited to those who believe.

Anyone who departs from that - either by asserting that Christ's death will save all or that His death was not sufficient for all - has redefined the gopsel of Jesus Christ and is worthy of top ranks of the hall of shame. As it is written,

"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

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.

 

[J. A. Sison]

"I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos"

Ben M. Bogard (Bogard Press) was a Freemason, so was George Washington (1st president of the U.S).

Now what?

"What think ye of Christ?" "Who is He?"

"Let God be found true--and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James

This is the most hilarious comment I've read, but seriously contemplable. Thanks for sharing.

 

[MrW]

I do not know of any Calvinists who would disagree with any of that.

I do not know of any Calvinists who WOULD agree with that.

 

[Dr. Bob]

We will morph this entire thread to the Calvinism/Arminian site. Sorry it wasn't caught 15 years ago when we divorced any threads on Calvinism into its own chamber. Mea big gulpa.