was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

No matter how many times you assert what you think is fact Allen, doesn't make it so. Since I am not a church historian, I looked to those doing that kind of work, like Ascol and Nettles. They don't agree with you any more than I do.

I don't want to get around any historical facts. But all you have done is stated things. Start giving some verifiable reference. At least something other than your opinion. I prefer primary sources, but not all such sources are online.

Now this,

Yes, of course it matters. That statement was drafted in 1925. Did I miss something? Are you saying the SBC was founded in 1925! lol

No. Ascol is correct. Mullins waffled and pandered to make people happy. And all that really resulted was the fall-out now seen in SBC churches. It's high time that the wood, hay, and stubble Mullins built with be burned up. Let's build with precious stones, gold, and silver.

Maybe you should sit down and read Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology. That old SBC preacher might teach ya a thing or two.

 

My mistake, the article I was using was by Tom Nettles. The Rise & Demise of Calvinism Among Southern Baptists. - Tom Nettles

 

It's high time that the wood, hay, and stubble Mullins built with be burned up. Let's build with precious stones, gold, and silver.

What do you mean by this statement? I do hope you are not being ugly towards those churches and individuals in the SBC who are not full blown DOGers.

 

Curious...how old are you? Odd...you claim to like Scripture, but not Colossians 3:16 apparently, nor Exodus 20:7. You might want to shelve reformed doctrine and go back to the basics of the faith.

 

I mean that I do not believe the Mullins built with good materials. Arminianism in its various forms is wood, hay, stubble. It will not endure because it is not biblical.

 

So, you are being ugly. At least you are willing to admit it. But, I will still say shame on you!!!!

 

Why not guess.....:tongue3:

Ohhh, Mr High & Mighty.....heres a clue....sticks & stones.......Ha Ha Ha

 

Great! Then prove me wrong and I'll apologize and shut my mouth.

Name one SBC document, letter, meeting, ANYTHING whereby the SBC (prior to 1925 and the revised NH Confession) stated or implied the Abstract Principles of Southern Seminary were also considered their BF&M. confession, creed, whatever.

See, while you are no church historian, I love the subject and what you miss in your one sided reading (reformed only) is what Ascol and Nettles DON'T specifically say and though they don't say it they do not deny it either. Neither of them deny there were non-Cal baptists in the original formation of the SBC, they just don't talk it but stay focused on the majority (which I agree was reformed).. in fact it is one of the issues sometimes asked by Calvinistic baptists when looking back at the formation of the SBC. Why didn't they make it for the Reformed baptists only? If the Abstract WAS the considered BF&M then how did it leave it's standard of Reformed doctrine so quickly in just 50 years (or less) to a Non-Cal view whereby the next Seminary built was NOT Reformed, nor the next build just 10 or so years later - nor the one after that. Are we to deduce the teaching at Southern were that pathetic. Oh no, not even I would make that accusation. Or maybe the preaching of the reformed pastors just not good enough. Again, I would not make such an accusation either. So what happened?

Again, your problem is that history does not agree with you. What or better, all you have is Ascol and Nettles citing that since the majority of the early leadership of the SBC was Reformed, and the Seminary was such as also, that 'must' mean the SBC was reformed in it's theological stance. Again, there is NO historical evidence to make any such assertion or connection. While it might have had leanings toward a reformed view due to a majority being reformed, the SBC neither gave nor declared ANY specific theological stance as a Convention and THAT is your problem! It NEVER declared, nor alleged any specific theological stance, and STILL hasn't to this day.

It is the same for today. Though our Leadership in non-Cal, and the majority of our Seminaries are non-Cal, that does not in itself state the SBC has declared a specific theological stance regarding the Convention. You can't have it one way for the early Convention and say it isn't so now. It never 'was' so and isn't so now.

Another point is that not all the Cals of that time were in fact 5 pointers either, like the Calvinists of present day. Some were even of Amyraldism (4 point Calvinism). And many varied in their ideas of evangelism and mission.. to do it or not!

Hmmm, fact is.. you have only regurgitated what you have read from certain and only Reformed writers. You made the claims back on post #45, now back it up. It should be fairly easy with to do. I'm only asking for one, just one book, document, letter, ect.. that says the Abstract Principles of the Seminary are the BF&M, or Confession, Creed, whatever.. of/from the SBC itself - from it's inception and prior to 1925.

You will understand better why there IS NOT any such declaration when you grasp why the SBC was formed in the first place.

No it doesn't matter, and your ignorance on this is getting tiring. I never made any such indication that the SBC originated in 1925 but that up till THEN there was no specific Confession or Creed or BF&M.. it was open to all baptists of every flavor, AS LONG AS they held to the essentials of our faith, and reformed doctrine was not that standard.

Get over yourself and your delusions of grandeur. Mullins was not the reason the reformed view fell out among Baptists. The truth can not continue to be suppressed and will always come out and THAT is why it fell out among Baptists. No one theological construct in entirely right. When Calvinism get's to high and mighty, God brings in the Arminian/Non-Cal view to correct it. Yet when the Arminian/Non-Cal view begin to fall away, Calvinism comes back. God has always used both types of views to keep His church from getting to caught up on itself and it's cleverness to box God in.

Already have, and in fact I have found quite a few errors in his writings, though I pretty much knew what they were to begin with. However I would suggest, instead of dropping back to your old habit of tossing in your ad hominems and actually deal with the subject matter. So far.. as you state is - well he said such and such.. yet where is the proof that what 'he said' is true?

You, like other (Ascol and Nettles) are confusing the facts. Just because the majority of the Convention holds to a specific theological view does not necessitate nor dictate said view is the declared position and view of the Convention as a whole.

 

I think I'll stick with actual church historians. If you have issues with the actual scholarship of Nettles and Ascol perhaps you should publish something in a scholarly journal. Do some actual research and get it published.

Otherwise its just your interpretation and you may be the one guilty of revisionism. I assume you read the article by Nettles. It was well-sourced.

Since my ignorance is "tiring" you out, why don't you stop? lol

We will wait with anticipation from you a little more than some armchair history.

But hey, why bother...why would you want to spend anymore time on me who you have characterized as:

1. Self-absorbed and conceited ("get over yourself")
2. Insane (delusions of grandeur)
3. Ignorant

And, of course, illogical as you accused me of ad hominem argumentation.

 

LOL.. Come on RB.. one, JUST ONE statement, document, book, letter, ect.. from the SBC (not revisionists) that state the Abstract Principle of Southern Seminary were considered (at that time and prior to 1925) their Confession, Creed, BF&M.. If you can't then keep quiet.

And apparently you can't do it any more than Nettles or Ascol could.
All I am asking for is JUST ONE. Come on, you claim they have done such scholarly work, all you have to do is cite ONE instance from their work where the SBC advocated, declared, or insinuated that the Abstracts were to be considered the SBC's Faith and Message or Confession.

Still waiting...

 

Allen,

You tell me why I should spend five more seconds with you. You have personally attacked me calling me ignorant, insane, and self-absorbed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

To the general reader,

From the references from Dr. Nettle's paper, the following are interesting observations that someone interested in SBC history might want to look into:

 

One more quick point brother.. have you heard of the Conference "Building Bridges". <--- here is a summary view of that conference.
In that, in the second section this is what played out (Nettles was involved) regarding a discussion on SBC History:

In the summary above please note the Nettles does not contradict him about non-cals being apart of the SBC origins.

You can find most all the conference here

 

Youve got grit kid....I like that!

Jesus Alone Saves- Praise God

Regards
Steve D.

 

In other words, you can't find anything Thought so.

Note, yet again, no where do they or anyone else for that matter, cite the SBC, as a convention, holding to the reformed view. It speaks of the SBC in a general sense (individual churches of the SBC) holding primarily to a reformed view. There is a VAST distinction here. The SBC was never created to be nor ever declared it's theological stance was Calvinistic/Reformed. THAT was left up to the churches to decide the theological view they would hold to but it was not dictated, mandated, nor declared to be specifically Reformed in it's theology as a Convention. The Convention was created for and with specific purposes, and that is why it had and has more than just Calvinists (or even just 5 point Cals) in it.

 

1. because you can't stand to be wrong even if you are.
2. because it was YOU who attacked me. My statement basically telling you to get off your high horse and condescending attitude was a direct reflection of your posting TO me. The shame rests squarely upon your lips/fingers.

The term ignorance has nothing to do with calling you names but is describing your understanding of SBC history. Ignorance simply means lacking knowledge, learning or information.

Lastly, my requests still stands:

 

I have zero problem with being wrong. You have grossly misjudged me and mischaracterized me. I have never attacked you Allen. It appears to me, and others, than when it was suggested that the SBC was originally Calvinist, you got upset.

I have no feeling of condensention towards you. I choose to avoid the word ignorance because of its very negative connotation. Since you find it to be a neutral word, then I can say that you are careless with language and rather ignorant of the use of words in both denotative and connotative manners.

But, I would actually choose not to word something that way because the word ignorance connotes stupidity, rather than just a lack of information.

Your request will go unanswered. And justly so. I never presented an argument that the SBC had calvinist creeds. I presented the correct argument that the founders of the SBC were nearly all Calvinists. To this you agreed.

I also showed that the SBC has departed from its historic beliefs because of the work of Mullins. This is also factually true and proven. Your reponse was to slander me by calling me ignorant and insane. And then to ask me to prove a point I never made.

Perhaps you are not happy with the facts of history. P.H. Mell, Boyce, B.H. Carroll, and hosts of others were Calvinists. I have no problem with many Baptists in history not being Calvinists, such as John Smyth.

I do find the following statement unbelieveable to be coming from an SBC president regarding Calvinism within the SBC:

"The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible." -Frank Page

One would want to say to Mr. Page...well, that is what your Southeastern grads are doing...and are returning to the doctrines of grace that your founders taught in Southern Seminary from the beginning.

It is also reported that, "Although only 10 percent of SBC pastors identify themselves as Calvinists, nearly 30 percent of recent seminary graduates do..." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/february/8.19.html

I am happy to see this. A return to Reformed Theology/Calvinism is a going "back to the Bible." It is also going back to what the SBC founders held and believed as evidenced by their sermons, books, and statements.

But to begin to ask me to prove these points by pointing to a creed prior to 1925 is silly. I do enjoy studying the history and progression of creeds in Church history. But I disagree with many Baptists, including some FOUNDERS of the SBC, of an anit-creedal stand, Dr. William Bullein Johnson (1782-1862) for example.

There is no creed to point to as a result, and this is regrettable. What we do have are the aforementioned documents. I thoroughly enjoy Boyce's Absract of Systematic Theology, and would have been happy to take his course in Systematic Theology. I will likely use his text in teaching my children Systematic Theology because it is so good.

May the Lord uphold His truth forever.

 

0

Oh whatever. Do I have to go back and Post your own comments for you?
Secondly, I didn't get upset in the slightest I pointed out your incorrectness.
That incorrectness was that the SBC was in founded in and on Calvinism as it's theological system as well as all the founders of the SBC being Calvinists .

No, I understand language quite well and since context determines a words usage and since I have maintained you don't understand SBC history the context fits a neutral but factual point. The fact YOU took it negatively is the issue, not my usage of it. The connotation wasn't negative as it referred to my frustration of your lack of knowledge but still holding to an incorrect view. Yet if you were offended that was not my intent and my apologies for your hurt. Yet you still seem to tossing out much vitriol toward me, for someone who states they haven't attacked me.

Only if one chooses to hold that as it's meaning.

:laugh: You're not even keeping up with your own arguments.
Note you post # 52:

(emphasis mine)
So you go from saying nearly all the SBC, to the SBC is clearly Calvinistic. Now if 'here' you wish to state, you were referencing the Founders specifically not the SBC itself.. the continue reading for your 'other' statement contradicting you new position.
And in post #45 you state the founders, not nearly all the founders were Calvinistic. In post #63 you make your statement even more plain, that all the founders, not nearly all, were Calvinists:

Here in your post #69 you give the same implication that all the founder of the SBC were Calvinists:

The fact is, some were not Calvinists who were apart of the SBC at it's inception. Then I state in post #74 (a snippet paraphrasing of my posting 73)

to which your next response to me in post #67 was: "Just going to have to disagree with you.." Then posted along with it a section from the Reformedreader.. asserting that very idea you were contending for.

Next you post in #79 "I know the SBC has modified itself over time. Historically, they were Calvninists". Clearly not in line with your newest declaration of the SBC founders (nearly all were Calvnists).

You have maintained this position all the way up till now and now you change it to 'nearly'. At least you are starting to see the light brother.

No, no no. The SBC was NEVER historically beholden to Calvinism. While the majority of the churches were, that does not mean the Convention itself (as a whole) was Calvinistic. That is the very reason no one can produce ANY documentation to support the assertion the SBC, as a Convention, held to any particular systematic theological position. To this argument neither Ascol nor Nettles nor you can provide any primary source material.

See, here you go yet again. I am the one who has maintained consistency in my argument which INCLUDES the fact that the majority of the SBC 'churches', when it was founded, was indeed Calvinistic.

See, now your flip-flopping yet again. The Founders were not all Calvnists nor where they all 5 pointers So if we go back to the SBC historical held theological position.. it is neutral on the issue systematic theological views. Declaring none of them as the Conventions theological stance. You need to get that clearly placed into your head. If I'm wrong I BEG you to prove it to me by showing me JUST ONE statement, document, book, letter, article ect.. from the SBC that state the Convention held any specific theological staance, OR that the Abstract Principle of Southern Seminary were considered (at that time and prior to 1925) their Confession, Creed, BF&M.. If you can't then keep quiet.

No, it establishes the truth of the matter. Not that, in general, SBC CHURCHES held to Calvinism, but that the Convention itself upheld those beliefs as an entity.

Yes, as well as non-Calvinists apart of the founding of the SBC.
However, guilt by association does not an argument make.

You are still left with the glaring facts.
1. Non-Cals were apart of the founding of the SBC
2. The SBC as a Convention has NEVER has declared any particular theological stance as it's own

Just because the majority of the churches within the Convention holds to a specific theological view does not necessitate nor dictate said view is the declared position and view of the Convention as a whole.

 

So, we are agreed on the marjoirty of the SBC was calvinist. That was my point, as evidenced by the SBCs seminaries, et. You have admitted the majority of the churches were.

Time for the SBC to get back to its roots...which it seems to be doing.

 

Here is a pretty good essay from an RTS student:

http://www.rts.edu/Site/Virtual/Resources/Student_Theses/Maples-Southern_Baptist_Departure.pdf

For those interested in SBC historical theology.