Featured Equivocating Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism

See I dont understand why anyone who is a Calvinist would want to even be associated with the SBC. A true Calvinist has nothing in common with an Arminian & its forums like this that go far out of their way to prove it as fact. It just seems illogical.....help me to understand....is it a southern thing or something. Its probably a business decision (im guessing) or something to belong to (even though they are messed up), or maybe they feel that if they hit themselves in the head with a hammer & then stop, it would feel better by contrast.....just dont know.:laugh:

 

So you have documentation that refutes the claim made by the author of the OP link?

Here is some for your review.

William Screven - established the very first Baptist church in the south

Look at this article about Southern Baptists. In particular look through the third and fourth paragraphs.

"No single individual had more to do with determining the nature of the Southern Baptist Convention than W. B. Johnson." So states James M. Morton, Jr., in an article in Baptist History and Heritage." (first sentence from "Founders Ministries" found at the link attached to W. B. Johnson)

Having supplied three sources that show the foundational view of SBC came from those who held Calvinistic thinking, perhaps you can demonstrate that such was not the case in what you can document.

 

You DO realize that there is a historical divergence here regarding limited and unlimited atonement in relation to the Reformed view.

Historically, the Reformed view did not specifically or only hold to limited atonement (as is now held), this later became a focal view, though again it still was not held by all. Some of those initial or early Reformer fathers who did not hold to limited atonement were men like Luther, Melanchton, Coverdale, or Bullinger, and Bucer are just some examples of men who held that Christ's death was indeed for all men, yet applied only to the elect. Thus you can note today many of the Lutherians who are Reformed do not consider themselves 5 point Calvinists. Interestingly however Calvinism is really more an inline Presbytarian view.

Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include:
Hugh Latimer
Thomas Cranmer
Wolfgang Musculus
Benedict Aretius
Thomas Becon
Jerome Zanchius
David Paraeus
John Calvin (can be argued to 'see' this position but not necessarily hold it, IF one keeps only with his Commentaries).

Therefore the Reformed view is really more the arch or umbrella, under which a more specific view, from out of the reformed view, is defined as Calvinism. Thus it can be noted one cannot be Calvinistic if one is not a 5 pointer, however one can be understood as Reformed even if they hold to less than the 5 points (most notably 4 points, though I have heard some have tried to argue -yet vaguely for as little as 3 points)

 

No one including you has shown the the convention was predominately calvinist. There is nothing to back that claim up.

 

I have not seen such a claim. There has always been both sides in the convention

 

Who are these?

 

That's it?

 

Then you obviously didn't read the FIRST president's sermon that I linked.

You didn't read the FIRST Baptist church in the south was founded upon Calvinistic thinking.

You didn't read about the "two strains" of baptists that formed the first convention agreements.


If you don't agree with me that is fine.

But to state I haven't shown PROOF, is in fact incorrect.

Now it is YOUR turn.

Demonstrate clearly (and include FIRST HAND accounts of actual participants as I did in the links) that Calvinistic thinking was not the predominant view of the SBC just as the article the OP linked states.

 

Here is the primary difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism:

Hyper-Calvinists hold that God may save his elect independently of the gospel.
That is, the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not.

Calvinists hold that God is pleased to save His elect through the "foolishness of preaching." (I Cor 1:21)

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I have before me The Baptist,Volume 2, by Tom Nettles. Permit me to quote some snips.

Do you know of John Albert Broadus (1827-1895)?
"The people who sneer at what is called Calvinism might as well sneer at Mount Blanc. We are not in the least bound to defend all of Calvin's opinions or actions,but I do not see how any one who really understands the Greek of the Apostle Paul or the Latin of Calvin and Turretin can fail to see that these latter did but interpret and formulate substantially what te former teaches." (p.310-311)

"...Protestantism was born of the doctrines of grace,and in the proclamation of these the Reformation preaching found its truest and highest power. There are many who say now-a-days, 'But we have changed all that.' Nay,till human nature changes and Jesus Christ changes,the power of the gospel will still reside in the great truth of salvation by sovereign grace. Let the humanitarian and the ritualist go their several ways,but let us boldly and warmly proclaim the truths which seem old and yet are so new to every needy heart,of sovereignty and atonement,of spiritual regeneration and justification by faith." (p.311)

 

Quoting some more from the Tom Nettles book The Baptists.

Have any of you heard of P.H.Mell (1814-1888)?

"He gained widespread respect as 'Prince of Parliamentarians', but also enjoyed eager and attentive devotion as a deeply biblical and profoundly doctrinal preacher, particularly of the 'five points'. Among his several defences of Clvinism was sermon preached before the Georgia Baptist Ministers' Institute in 1868 where he urged his colleagues to make 'these doctrines the basis of all our pulpit ministrations'. In fact, those doctrines, the 'doctrines of grace', constituted the 'prominent themes of the ministry of our fathers'. (p.342)

 

This is nothing new.

The modernist politics and underhandedness of the SBC folks was well covered up in the past because of the lack of the "information" age technology that would allow colleges, universities, churches, boards... to dismiss folks without any backlash.

Generally folks thought that whatever was approved by the SBC or some state board was as good as gospel.

The local assemblies took the same attitude toward any recommendation for a pastorate or some other position that the local church expressed a need.

The great power wielded by the hierarchy of the folks serving on various boards that filtered down not only to the seminaries and colleges but to the very pew sitters has not diminished.

Even on this BB there has been a recent discussion of the quality and soundness of the Sunday School literature recommended by the SB. And yet, there remain those assemblies who cannot abide by any other method.


Those of you who doubt this post, look to the record of John R. Rice that JofJ is posting that shows how that Godly man reached out and was highly concerned that the local assemblies not be deceived.

 

No it is not fact. And just what is "calvinistic thinking" quite the nuance there.

 

You'll never get a straight answer about that. What you WILL find that is consistent in "Calvinist thought" is this equivocation:

1. ALL Calvinist will rush to defend something that a Non Calvinist states is at odds with the Bible.

2. When a Non Calvinist points to a particular section of a creed or quote from a Calvinist theologian that is in error, then the Calvinist will quickly point out "not all Calvinists believe that".

Reformers, DoGs et al, will claim not to be Calvinists, but are always found jumping into the debates where a Non Calvinist is SPECIFICALLY refuting CALVINISM.

One of the number one debate tactics of the Calvinist is to never allow a Non Calvinist to nail down what any Calvinist really believes or professes to believe by consistently shifting the arguments to what a Calvinist, Reformer etc.. from ANOTHER camp believes. This way, they can maintain that no Non Calvinist REALLY understands Calvinism, which is what is always resorted to as a bail-out tactic when they get pinned on defending an indefensible position.