Was J.R. Graves A Calvinist?

Perhaps J. R. Graves underwent a change in his beliefs between 1883 and 1887. I must say I am at a loss to explain it any other way. Here are some things he wrote only four years before he penned his words as editor of the Adlam book.

"All men are by nature Arminians; and the absolute sovereignty of God is a doctrine hateful to the natural and depraved heart. False teachers have taken the advantage of this natural feeling, and have for ages inflamed the prejudices of Christian men and women against any exercise of sovereignty on the part of God in this Covenant, either as to his 'determinate counsels,' his electing love, or his distinguishing grace. They presumptuously and impiously assert, that, unless God extended the same grace to all the lost that he did to those who are saved, he is justly chargeable with partiality and injustice, and, if he saw fit, in the dispensation of his grace, when none would, if left to themselves, accept or desire it, and, indeed, all have rejected it, to so influence the wills of some that they would seek his grace, he is guilty of forcing some men to be saved, and others to be lost. But we know that the Omniscient God is incapable of doing wrong; and if it is plainly revealed that he passed by all the fallen angels, who will charge him with sin or wrong had he passed by all of Adam's race? How then, can he be charged with injustice, if he saw fit to save a portion of it?...

"Now, will not, must not all unprejudiced Bible-read[ing?] Christians agree with the following propositions?
1. That the Son undertook and will save all the Father, in the Covenant of Redemption, gave him to save.
2. Since all are not saved, as all evangelical Christians admit, we must conclude that all were not given to the Son.
3. That the Father, in the Covenant of Redemption, gave some of Adam's race to his Son to be redeemed."

Following those paragraphs, Graves prints out John 6:37-39,44, 17:2,6,9-12,24, 18:9, and then writes, "In the face of these express declarations, who will deny that some were given to the Son to save."

- From The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption; Developed in Seven Dispensations by J. R. Graves, 1883 [copyright by Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928; Reprinted 1971, Bogard Press, pp. 95-97]

*Bolding is at it appears in the edition I have

 

Where does Paul say that? The closest statement that I can find to that is in 2 Thess. 2:13, but in all of the versions I checked there are some other words inserted between "chosen" and "through sanctification". If words mean anything then we ought not leave them out just because it makes proving our point easier.

 

Oh, come on. We both know why you left those words out. If "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth" refers to "chosen" then your point is made, but if it refers to "salvation" then your point is refuted. It refers to how we are saved, not why we were chosen.

I am not sure what else you would expect from one of those whom you falsely charge is "so steeped in the hell inspired philosophies of man that he would deny that Jesus Christ tasted death for every man".

 

This does look like another good possibility, and could certainly be true of not only Graves, but of all of us when we try to use too much human reasoning to try to explain the deep things of God instead of just quoting Scripture.

As far as approaching "Graves assuming he is a Calvinist", that was certainly not my case. I first read some of Graves' "Work of Christ" about 25 years ago (my note on the fly leaf indicates I bought the book in 1981), with no idea other than assuming that he was the same kind of Missionary Baptist I was. "Our" Bogard Press had printed the book, and "our" seminary bookstore was selling it.

[ October 05, 2005, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Was Graves a Calvinist? Is the Pope Catholic?

Graves was a landmarkist, who hold strongly to Calvinism. At least that is my understanding (both of Graves and Landmarkism)

 

"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

 

Such statements as He freely offered himself as a substitute to suffer and die in behalf of all men. Thus he became a perfect savior by whom all who will may be saved. All men are invited to accept Him as the savior of their souls, and to all who do so accept Him, He is the actual ground of justification and eternal life." is entirely consistent with Calvinism. No Calvinists denies Christ died for "all men" in that He was the sacrifice for all races of men . That He is the "perfect savior by whom all who will may be saved" is a Limited Atonement Statement. Christ death is for all who will believe. Calvinists of course believe they come to Christ because they are the Elect.

In fairness I have read other Graves comments and I think he might be defined as a Amyrault "Calvinist" (4-4.5 Calvinist). Amyraults either reject or redefine Limited Atonement.

 

Kiffen, that is pretty much how I have looked at Graves' Calvinism. Whether I am right or wrong I may not know. Isn't "Fullerism" pretty much the same as Amyrauldism?

 

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

 

Back to Mark's first post in this chain, and the seeming contradiction noted in some of his other writings: by "Calvinism" in "7 Dispensations" Graves meant "Hardshellism," or "Anti-Missionism" which was such a burning issue in his day. He vigorously fought the anti-mission movement just as he fought A. Campbell's schism and the general Protestant world. Nor did he approve all of J. Calvin's theology, obviously: read what he wrote against Presbyterian "baptism of infants," etc.

One may hold the sovereignty of God (as did Graves, obviously), without assuming that the infant children of at least one believing parent are part of the covenant and should be recognized as such with a "little dab" of water, or that other infant children dying are consigned to hell; one may hold divine election unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ without calling oneself a Calvinist, or subscribing to anyone's "5 points" (Calvin's or those of Arminius, or the "5 fundamentals" of more recent times, or "old Landmarkism" (which I hold in a somewhat modified form), simply by quoting Scripture directly. "System-making" is also part of original sin! The desire to "get it all in order and fixed once and for all" is part of our very human lust for power, even when clad in attractive systems of theology. Read the text first, then the commentaries; the Bible throws a lot of light on the commentaries!

Best- R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28 (Just getting in on this at the request of a friend)

 

Brother Mark - I read "7 Dispensations" and "1st Bap. Ch." nearly 50 years ago - am still convinced that Graves held sovereignty without what he would have considered "hardshellism" - death of Christ "sufficient for all, efficient for those who will believe." Unlimited capacity, targeted effect. I've used "1st Bap. Ch." in teaching Baptist history several times, recommended "7 Dispensations" to many students over the years. Hope you have a great day in the Lord - best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Hi Bro, rjvaugn. You are correct brother!