was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, what pleases me most, is that it has not caused problems with those of the Reformed view, that are still among them. In fact, it was the one of those reformed persons who helped bring to light to the pastor, the desire of the hyper group.

I find it sad some are so high minded (and closed minded) that they don't know how to interact and worship or build up the body of Christ, with others who are not of their theological bent. Yet God has made us all different

And while no church is perfect, love is.

You never answered my question Allan:

OK so how do you deal with someone like me who completely believes in the tenants of Calvinism & whats more feels the need to learn more & more. Are you saying Doctrine has no place?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

and in another thread:

Thats right & I also hear Christ preached & As Ive said he is doing a series on Ephesians so he is using the time to preach Election.....Is there a problem with that? Or is it that your bias is he shouldn't do it at all! Ah, that's it isnt it? It shouldn't be preached at all. You can believe it if you must you pesky Calvinist, but it will be frowned upon in service or circulating amongst your theologically different brethren. So best to keep it in the closet & we promise to work around it so as not to offend you, you pesky pain in the neck Calvinist. Got it! LOL....dont ask dont tell ROFL!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No Sorry, incorrect. The College was clearly Calvinistic, NOT the SBC. I really wish 'founders' would stick to historical facts and stop trying to rewrite SBC histroy. While yes, the SBC was largely made up of Calvinistic churches, the Convention itself was NOT reformed nor was the intent of it's creation to make it so.
By the way.. I already knew it was Southerns Abstract principles

However, they were not the SBC, nor did they speak FOR nor on behalf OF the SBC.

However, here is comparison of the 1925 BF&F with that 1963 and the 2000
Link here

I guess our point of disagreement can be illustrated by a metaphor. The fountain by which the SBC churches were watered was their seminary, which is clearly Calvinist in their theology.

If I, living in the 1800s during the founding of the seminary, was voting in a pastor trained from this seminary, I would expect that the preacher at minimum hold the beliefs outlines in the Abstract of Principles. Nor would I expect that any professor of the seminary would have taught otherwise, or be allowed to have taught otherwise, without being fired.

It seems spurious to me to make me say that the seminary spoke for the SBC. Some have argued that because of the nature of the SBC it cannot be properly called a denomination. We all understand the independance of Baptist churches that are a member of the convention. Nevertheless, the founders, in the 1800s, are the builders and not the building. And the materials they built with are most certainly Calvinist teaching.

 

[Allan]

You never answered my question Allan:

OK so how do you deal with someone like me who completely believes in the tenants of Calvinism & whats more feels the need to learn more & more. Are you saying Doctrine has no place?

I don't deal with you cause I don't have to. You don't want anything to do with any church that isn't Calvinistic and anyone like you, will not come either.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't deal with you cause I don't have to. You don't want anything to do with any church that isn't Calvinistic and anyone like you, will not come either.

Allan....thank you for your level of honesty. Now we are at least dealing from a truth base. That wasn't hard was it?

 

[sag38]

EWF, I don't understand. You have stated that you want nothing to do with a non-Calvinistic church. How else is Allen supposed to respond other than the way he did? You have no room to worship with another Christian brother or sister who doesn't adhere to the DoG. That is your choice. You would be welcome in my church but you would not be welcoming to us because we are not all reformed and yet we worship together because our goal is the Great Commission and not some continual emphasis on the DoG.

 

[sag38]

In referencing the Founders site I am very much disturbed. Not so much by their obvious desire to be reformed but by their desire to take over the SBC. So, if you aren't reformed you are out.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF, I don't understand. You have stated that you want nothing to do with a non-Calvinistic church. How else is Allen supposed to respond other than the way he did? You have no room to worship with another Christian brother or sister who doesn't adhere to the DoG. That is your choice. You would be welcome in my church but you would not be welcoming to us because we are not all reformed and yet we worship together because our goal is the Great Commission and not some continual emphasis on the DoG.

Thats Fine

 

[ReformedBaptist]

In referencing the Founders site I am very much disturbed. Not so much by their obvious desire to be reformed but by their desire to take over the SBC. So, if you aren't reformed you are out.

I imagine the early SBC founders were very much disturbed by the rise of the various forms of Arminianism that spread like leaven among their churches. I would have been.

But I would be concerned about the Calvinists. They are preaching for sure, but certainly not advocating for a centralization of the SBC. I find it interesting to follow, but I have no vested interest in it.

 

[webdog]

EW&F was saying that he is comfortable with worshipping with Christians of like mind.What's wrong with that? What is wrong with Calvinists worshipping with other Calvinists? Is there anything wrong with Arminians (those who acknowledge the term applies to them as well as those who denounce the term yet still adhere to the doctrines) worshipping with other Arminians?

Why conclude that EW&F is in a near cultic situation? Why not appreciate that the brother is happy where he is? Would you rather that he attend an Arminian church and be what is derisively called a "Calvinistic crusader"?

I am sure the spiritual meals his pastor serves are more than a rehash of T.U.L.I.P. each Sunday. His pastor more than likely serves up the entire counsel of the Word of God through the years.

EW&F hasn't said that only Calvinists are Christians,or anything remotely resembling that. There's no logical reason for your anger.

WD,you were rash and brash. It's not edifying. Show some kindness once in a blue moon. Okay?

Can't he speak for himself? I was going off his own words, some of which Jerome quoted. I don't really think you are one to call anyone out on kindness.

 

[webdog]

Actually no.....but he is on a series from Ephesians right now. You also must be on a tear about swearing right now since you seem to be the self imposed language police with Glfredericks as well. Wow, you must be so sainted that you never sin, right. I have noticed your propensity to try picking fights with every Calvinist on this board. Have you ever looked inward into your own soul. Probably not since your perfect, right.

We are taught to teach and admonish one another. I would hpe grown christian men (some pastors) would refrain from vulgarity and using God's name in vain on a christian site for the whole world to see. I never claimed to be sinless, that is a liberal tactic, a red herring to divert attention away instead of manning up and being accontable for your actions...but maybe you were just predestined to do that and are not really accountable. Sad.

 

[Allan]

I guess our point of disagreement can be illustrated by a metaphor. The fountain by which the SBC churches were watered was their seminary, which is clearly Calvinist in their theology.

No, it can't.
Secondly, the SBC was not made up of only those grads. In fact, not all in the SBC approved of the abstract articles for the school, but since there was a larger body of Calvinists than nons, it passed. However, the school did not speak to nor for the SBC's theological stance. To presume such ignores history and the very founders themselves.

However, let us also note that not more than 50 years (give or take) later, the tide turned pervasively to a Non-Calvinist view. In fact the next SBC Seminary obtained (SouthWestern 1907) was not Calvinistic. So in your logic, this is now the SBC's theological stance and has been for over 100 years, yet it is not.

Your biggest problem to overcome is that the SBC was NEVER and is never going to hold one particular theological stance. Our roots are not reformed, but it does contain it, just as it does the non-cal as well. No school of the SBC speaks to nor for the SBC's theological stance. This is noted because NO WHERE will you or I find any such assertion.

If I, living in the 1800s during the founding of the seminary, was voting in a pastor trained from this seminary, I would expect that the preacher at minimum hold the beliefs outlines in the Abstract of Principles. Nor would I expect that any professor of the seminary would have taught otherwise, or be allowed to have taught otherwise, without being fired.

With respect to the graduates, that is naive to assume they should all hold, at minimum, the beliefs outlined in the Abstracts. They should know them yes, and why the school holds to them but that does not necessitate everyone will embrace them. The fact is, and you know this as well as I do, not all hold to the views they taught from colleges they receive their instruction from.

It seems spurious to me to make me say that the seminary spoke for the SBC.

Yet that is exactly what you 'are' saying. You are saying that since the Seminary taught a Calvinistic view, the SBC was itself also Calvinistic. And that my friend, is silly.

Nevertheless, the founders, in the 1800s, are the builders and not the building. And the materials they built with are most certainly Calvinist teaching.

Um, again.. you ignore the FACT that not all the founders were Calvinistic, and some in the SBC were against the Abstracts. Yet since the SBC did have more Calvinists than Non-Cals at the time, it passed. But again, not 50 years later the next seminary was not Calvinistic.

However, the historical truth is that the SBC has NEVER held to any specific theological position. That is just one mountain you can not move.

 

[Allan]

Allan....thank you for your level of honesty. Now we are at least dealing from a truth base. That wasn't hard was it?

It has nothing to do with honestly or pretending that I was being evasive or not honest in the first place. You question is bating and the fact is, I would not have to deal you or others who hold to your view as you will not come among us. I have been dealing with the truth from the start and not deviated from it yet.

 

[Allan]

I imagine the early SBC founders were very much disturbed by the rise of the various forms of Arminianism that spread like leaven among their churches. I would have been.

But I would be concerned about the Calvinists. They are preaching for sure, but certainly not advocating for a centralization of the SBC. I find it interesting to follow, but I have no vested interest in it.

RB.. they FOUNDED the SBC WITH the Arminians (as you call them). The Calvinists did not found the SBC and then others came in.. it was founded with both reformed and non-reformed churches from the start. Get your facts straight brother.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It has nothing to do with honestly or pretending that I was being evasive or not honest in the first place. You question is bating and the fact is, I would not have to deal you or others who hold to your view as you will not come among us. I have been dealing with the truth from the start and not deviated from it yet.

I disagree....my question was an honest & open attempt to understand. If thats your perception, I hope Ive set you straight. Anything else?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Allen,

Just going to have to disagree with you. Plus you seem a bit upset, so I will stop discussing the point.

I think this statement from the reformedreader is far more fair than your assessment.

HARMONY OF CALVINISTIC BAPTIST CONFESSIONS OF FAITH

First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644/1646)

Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833/1853)

Abstract of Principles (1859)

Baptist Faith and Message (1925)

These five historic Calvinistic Baptist Confessions of Faith are considered to be in essential harmony and all agree on Calvinistic soteriology. Although it is true that the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 and the Statement on Baptist Faith and Message of 1925 could be accused of containing only a diluted form of Calvinism, all the basic tenets of Calvinism strictly considered are present. The difference perhaps, is that you must look for Calvinism in these two confessions, rather than be confronted by it. Historically these two confessions have been used by many churches which are not Calvinistic, or which may only hold to "eternal security."

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/hbd.htm

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We are taught to teach and admonish one another. I would hpe grown christian men (some pastors) would refrain from vulgarity and using God's name in vain on a christian site for the whole world to see. I never claimed to be sinless, that is a liberal tactic, a red herring to divert attention away instead of manning up and being accontable for your actions...but maybe you were just predestined to do that and are not really accountable. Sad.

Oweeee, big Christian man we got here taking cheap shots. Pathetic attempt actually. Try again later after you give your brain a rest. :smilewinkgrin:

Maybe ask your wife for some help:thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Allen,

Just going to have to disagree with you. Plus you seem a bit upset, so I will stop discussing the point.

I think this statement from the reformedreader is far more fair than your assessment.

http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/hbd.htm

Not upset in the slightest.

You can disagree all you desire, but you are still incorrect.

Name once in the entire SBC history, where we declared any one theological stance. You can't and that is a historical fact. It was not created for that purpose, it has not been modified to contain such a purpose.

The SBC was founded by both Cals and non-Cals alike, and that is another historical fact you can't get around. And while I agree the larger portion was Calvinistic that does not negate the other portion who was decidedly not. So when you speak of the founders you are speaking of BOTH Cals and non-Cals, not just Calvinists.

Additionally, the NH Confession was held by non-Cals.. so to try to state it as being a 'diluted form of Calvinism' is silly. Another point is that the SBC modified the Confession somewhat as well. While one could see the wording in various ways, one has only to remember that the Confession was worded for just that kind of purpose. So as to be inclusive of the varied Baptist beliefs and not exclusive.

Here is the Preamble for the 1925 BF&M
The report of the Committee on Statement of Baptist Faith and Message was presented as follows by E. Y. Mullins, Kentucky:

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE

Your committee beg leave to report as follows:

Your committee recognize that they were appointed "to consider the advisability of issuing another statement of the Baptist Faith and Message, and report at the next Convention."

In pursuance of the instructions of the Convention, and in consideration of the general denominational situation, your committee have decided to recommend the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, revised at certain points, and with some additional articles growing out of present needs, for approval by the Convention, in the event a statement of the Baptist faith and message is deemed necessary at this time.

The present occasion for a reaffirmation of Christian fundamentals is the prevalence of naturalism in the modern teaching and preaching of religion. Christianity is supernatural in its origin and history. We repudiate every theory of religion which denies the supernatural elements in our faith.

As introductory to the doctrinal articles, we recommend the adoption by the Convention of the following statement of the historic Baptist conception of the nature and function of confessions of faith in our religious and denominational life, believing that some such statement will clarify the atmosphere and remove some causes of misunderstanding, friction, and apprehension. Baptists approve and circulate confessions of faith with the following understanding, namely:

1. That they constitute a consensus of opinion of some Baptist body, large or small, for the general instruction and guidance of our own people and others concerning those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely conditions of salvation revealed in the New Testament, viz., repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.

2. That we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality or infallibility. As in the past so in the future Baptist should hold themselves free to revise their statements of faith as may seem to them wise and expedient at any time.

3. That any group of Baptists, large or small, have the inherent right to draw up for themselves and publish to the world a confession of their faith whenever they may think it advisable to do so.

4. That the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Confessions are only guides in interpretation, having no authority over the conscience.

5. That they are statements of religious convictions, drawn from the Scriptures, and are not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or investigation in other realms of life.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Not upset in the slightest.

You can disagree all you desire, but you are still incorrect.

Name once in the entire SBC history, where we declared any one theological stance. You can't and that is a historical fact. It was not created for that purpose, it has not been modified to contain such a purpose.

The SBC was founded by both Cals and non-Cals alike, and that is another historical fact you can't get around. And while I agree the larger portion was Calvinistic that does not negate the other portion who was decidedly not. So when you speak of the founders you are speaking of BOTH Cals and non-Cals, not just Calvinists.

Additionally, the NH Confession was held by non-Cals.. so to try to state it as being a 'diluted form of Calvinism' is silly. Another point is that the SBC modified the Confession somewhat as well. While one could see the wording in various ways, one has only to remember that the Confession was worded for just that kind of purpose. So as to be inclusive of the varied Baptist beliefs and not exclusive.

Here is the Preamble for the 1925 BF&M
The report of the Committee on Statement of Baptist Faith and Message was presented as follows by E. Y. Mullins, Kentucky:

Did you even read what I wrote? Well, I actually didn't write it, it was from the reformedreader website.

I know the SBC has modifed itself over time. Historically, they were Calvinists. Now, not so much.

Here is a good article by Tom Ascol http://www.founders.org/journal/fj19/article1.html

These are some of my favorite excerpts:

The earliest Baptist in America, Roger Williams, was a decided Calvinist and built his theory of religious liberty on his commitment to total depravity, unconditional election, effectual calling, perseverance of the saints, and definite atonement. Those who persecuted men over matters of conscience were guilty of an Arminian, popish error of free will, as if it lay in the power of a man's will to believe evangelically simply because the magistrate threatens him with punishment if he doesn't.

First Baptist Church of Boston, established by Thomas Gould with the help of Particular Baptists from England, played a major role in the establishing of Baptist life in the South. .... The power and influence of this confession continued for many years. Three of the most notable pastors of the church were Oliver Hart, Richard Furman, and Basil Manly.

This same commitment to experiential Calvinism is seen in the ministry of Basil Manly, who was pastor of this same church from March of 1826 through November 2 of 1837, part of which time James P. Boyce, founder and first president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was a lad in the church. His sermon entitled "Divine Efficiency Consistent with Human Activity," preached in 1849 in Alabama captures the spirit which was dominant in the churches in those days.

Georgia Baptists, just as clearly as those of South Carolina, embraced the devotional, experiential Calvinism expressed in the Baptist Confession of Faith. In 1839, a Brother C. Collins was upset because of the bad influence a recent Methodist protracted meeting had among the Baptists. Some of his own brethren complained about his preaching saying, "there was too much election in it, the doctrine was too strong." He called for the Christian Index, a Baptist newspaper in Georgia, to "put something into the Index on doctrinal points" because there appeared to be "a great falling off among the Baptists from the doctrines they once held."

In a study of Southern Baptist theology entitled Winds of Doctrine, W. Wiley Richards locates the origin of Calvinism's decline in the middle half of the nineteenth century. His thesis is interesting but his evidence is ambivalent.[18] Only slight, isolated, and idiosyncratic declines from Calvinism entered Southern Baptist theology prior to the 20th century. No one of trend-setting influence seriously challenged the Calvinistic hegemony before the arrival of E. Y. Mullins as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1899.

Allen, now go back and look whose name is attached to the preamble of the1925 BF&M document...E.Y. Mullins.

Though Mullins's doctrinal positions reflected some characteristically Calvinistic emphases, he hesitated to identify himself with either Calvinism or Arminianism as a system, preferring to "adhere more closely than either to the Scriptures, while retaining the truth in both systems."[25] Mullins's chosen approach made him more anthropocentric than theocentric and eventually eroded any meaningful emphasis on God's sovereignty.

This last bit sounds like what you suggest...

I agree with this statement from Ascol, which I have been asserting:

Southern Baptist beginnings were self-consciously and vigorously Calvinistic. This is reflected in the confessions, the associations, the preachers, and the theologians.

 

[Allan]

Did you even read what I wrote? Well, I actually didn't write it, it was from the reformedreader website.

I know the SBC has modifed itself over time. Historically, they were Calvinists. Now, not so much.

Here is a good article by Tom Ascol http://www.founders.org/journal/fj19/article1.html

These are some of my favorite excerpts:



Allen, now go back and look whose name is attached to the preamble of the1925 BF&M document...E.Y. Mullins.



This last bit sounds like what you suggest...

I agree with this statement from Ascol, which I have been asserting:

Yet AGAIN, you ignore historical FACTs for historic revisioning.

Also it doesn't matter who's name is on the preamble.. it is written in such a way so that as either theological group can agree with it, and it was voted to be accepted by the SBC body.

Second, the SBC was NOT Calvinistic. Check your history not the revisionists. It NEVER, not once EVER, has claim ANY theological position. That is where you keep coming up short. Just because a large portion of the churches were Calvinistic did not and has never made the Convention Reformed in doctrine. To be such means that the Convention adheres to Calvinistic teachings and doctrines. It never has made any such declaration nor has it required any of its churches to do such.

Most of what you quote regards early baptists in general NOT SBC. And is it any wonder most were Calvinistic since they typically and forcibly chased off other baptist preachers.

Again, Historical facts
1. the SBC was FOUNDED with and by both Cals and Non-Cals.
2. Never has the SBC declared ANY theological stance as it's own
3. No BF&M ever made the reformed view as it's core beliefs but was made to be inclusive of both views and not exclusive to one view.
4. Even during the vote to confirm the Abstracts for Southern, there was opposing votes in the SBC. This speaks specifically to the fact that the SBC was not Calvinistic, though many churches within it were.

You can't get around these these historical facts, nor can anyone else. If someone claims the SBC was Calvinistic it only proves either they know only what they were told to believe, or that they trying to revise some parts of Church history. The Founders, were both Calvinists AND non-Cals. So to claim the 'founders' were Calvinistic, is a statement of ignorance at best and a willful deception at worst.