Featured The rise of Calvinism?

There is no rush here JonC....Let's see what we can discover shall we?

 

Yes, that is why Calvinist or particular seems to fit better!

 

Tom Ascol,

Tat doctrinal consensus within the SBC broke down over the next seventy five years, opening the door to widespread pragmatism and creeping liberalism by the middle of the twentieth century. Te conservative resurgence, as it has come to be called, dominated SBC life in the last two decades of that century. With the dawning of the twenty-frst century, Southern Baptists were once again firmly confessing confidence in the full authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Within that resurgent inerrancy movement, there was a growing, often undetected resurgence of confessional Calvinism.

By the early years of the twenty-first century the return to the SBC’s confessional heritage had become so widespread that it became the subject of newspaper, magazine and journal articles. It also became the target of many Arminian-leaning SBC leaders. With the emergence of the blogosphere, Southern Baptist advocates of confessional Calvinism, many of whom were in the younger, rising generation, began to push back against their attackers.

 

No, not in the accepted definition of that term...

 

The reason I prefer "Particular" is that it denotes definite atonement. I am one who believes there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist. "4 pointers" are more appropriately known as Amyraldians. If someone affirms definite atonement they have no other choice but to be a full Calvinist.

 

Check out John Gill and Spurgeon to see how "reformed Baptists" think on theology.

 

I once was holding to that viewpoint when traveling away from free will Gospel, but thankfully did not stay a "confused calvinist" as think Dr Sproul called those holding to 4 of 5 points of Grace.

 

I think most non-Calvinistic Baptists link the term Reformed directly with Calvinism. Those churches that are non-Calvinist but not officially Baptists probably define it that same way. I am thinking of independent Bible churches, Pentecostal churches, Evangelical Free, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Plymouth Brethren, Grace Brethren, Church of the Nazarene et. al. Then there are the actual Reformed denominations that have their own grading system. Reformed Presbyterians and the Dutch Reformed (Christian Reformed Church) consider themselves to be "Big R" Reformed. They embrace paedobaptism, Westminster federalism (Presbyterian covenant theology) or The Three Forms of Unity, Confessionalism, and are Sabbatarians. They would look at other churches/denominations of their own tradition who do not subscribe to all of those things to be "small r" Reformed. They would consider Baptists to be Reformed wannabees.

 

"JonC,

Dishonesty is never okay. Glad you state that.

Not exactly my friend. I acknowledge that even though we disagree theologically, I believe you have convinced yourself that you have acted with integrity. That however is not the focus of this thread.

.

This is not saying anything is it? Who posts things that they do not believe?

 

JonC,

You are welcome to your opinion.

I had no Dog in this hunt. You suggested anyone who believed as I do are "foolish".
here are some of those who you are calling foolish;

CONTRIBUTORS: Dr Tom Ascol is Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL and author of the Founders Ministries Blog: www.founders.org/blog/

Matthew Barrett is a PhD candidate at the Southern Baptist Teological Seminary, Louisville, KY.

Dr Kenneth Keathley is Senior Vice President of Academic Administration and Dean of the Faculty at Southeastern Baptist Teology Seminary, Wake Forest, NC.

Dr Tom J. Nettles is Professor of Historical Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.
Ben Rogers is a PhD candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY.

Cover photo by Ken Puls. Contributing Editors: Bill Ascol, Timothy George, Fred Malone, Joe Nesom, Phil Newton, Roger Nicole, Don Whitney, Hal Wynn. The Founders Journal is a quarterly publication which takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith which Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles

I like what these brothers have to say, yes.

[QUOTE]Are you aware that their original journals are avaliable to the public at the SBC library in Nashville? Kinda makes ignorance a bit lazy, doesn't it.[/QUOTE]
Truth always draws out detractors....

Some would consider what you are speaking about is a weakening and the begins of doctrinal apostasy. You celebrate it as if it is a healthy development. Your suggestion seems to imply that Calvinism is a recent development which is quite a massive falsehood. How can you even make such a statement?
Maybe we are speaking of some "different kind of Calvinism"?
Do you have any recorded sermons from when you were preaching what you call Calvinism?
I would be interested to hear such sermons?
Do you have any written newsletters where you opened up the doctrines of grace in a way that as you alluded to, would make Spurgeon proud seeing you learned so much from His sermons?

The SBC is not one of my go-to sources as I have seen much weakness in its churches for the very reasons we are discussing on the BB from time to time. I am grieved by what I have seen first hand. I travel a lot and have seen more than most people get to see firsthand.

The BFM was a compromise document and led to much inept teaching and defective persons coming in.
The fact that they obsess over numbers in attendance both in Sunday School is a fruit of misguided theology and false religious facades being erected. Is this true in all cases...of course not! Is it true in many, yes it is.

[QUOTE]At its formation (in Augusta GA) the SBC was comprised of a very diverse group when it comes to Calvinism.[/QUOTE]
It does not sound like it from what I am reading. I was not there JonC, and guess what, neither were you. For you to quote from one or two people is not going to change the over-all history.
I heard Adrian Rogers on Romans 8-9 and had no trouble seeing his many errors and spiritual lack of understanding on those issues.
He is a good speaker on many other areas, but his error was horrendous. Dr. White also has dismantled his presentations, without working up a sweat.
years from now, there will be someone pointing to him as a guiding light as you point to a few people, but they will be wrong also.

[QUOTE]Most of the churches were what is know as Free will theology (not necessarily Free Will Baptists). The leadership was moderately Calvinists (they rejected Limited Atonement).[/QUOTE]

No, not at the outset. That is not what I have read. Are you suggesting that such men as quoted so far, have an agenda, and a professor of Church history is just making it up on the go?

I am not going by your claims. The men I have mentioned have done their homework. I will document it some more and we will see who is making "utterly stupid claims.

.

That is your opinion, but i will wait for you to produce evidence of your"Calvinism", so as to verify we are speaking of the same thing.
We asked the founder of Soteriology 101 to produce his evidence, and it has not been produced so far.

Again, that is your opinion, you are welcome to it. I do not think you know what you are talking about, that is my opinion. I rule out things that you entertain, so I believe your understanding is quite defective doctrinally.
You think what you post is peachy keen, so thats what makes a discussion interesting to those who read.
But let's stick to the topic, shall we?
You suggest:
1} I am foolish
2} I lack integrity
3} I am confused
4} I am wrong
5} I am Ignorant and lazy
6} I am ignorant of SBC doctrine
7} I am content with propaganda, etc, etc

Once again, I am not the subject of the OP. let's stick to that shall we.

Your random comments about Calvinists scrambling to reform Calvinism are ludicrous. Your suggestion that the historic theology does not speak to today's people is also way off.
Again, I defend your right to post whatever you claim, but you have not supported your claims at all. Does that nullify your opinion?


[QUOTE] My evidence against you is the favmct that none of the original SBC leadership affirmed Limited Atonement and that the majority of the churches comprising the SBC when it was formed were not Calvinist. [/QUOTE]

What a couple of people affirm, or what they lack, just like Adrian Rogers does not determine the issue, The scripture does.
The confessions that were adopted speak more than individual lack of understanding.
i will document more of it.

 

"JonC,

Now I do not feel like I can fully respond at this time. The other day I asked you about when a moderator steps into a thread, and posts, and goes back and forth...you said ...moderators do not moderate threads they are involved in, I think it was post, 108...by post 116 you said the OP. was asinine, and You who had posted in the thread closed it, so I will refrain from commenting on this post, and try and stay on the topic of the OP.
let me find those posts;

FROM post # 108;
↑Iconoclast asked;
Can a moderator do the same thing, especially if he does double duty as a poster, and then all of a sudden put his moderator hat on?
JonC replied;
No. This is why we do not moderate posts that we have engaged. This is a red herring.

8 posts later, you "seemed" to go from JonC ...[poster} to JonC moderator in the same thread you were posting in? How did this happen? Quite a red herring , eh?

Post 116;
If you claim Christ then act in a Christian manner. Stop trying to force others to drink your kool-aid.

This thread is closed. The OP was asinine to begin with. If there is any DOCTRINE that needs to be discussed then start a grown up thread.

#116JonC, Friday at 8:38 AM

Then this? Biblicist is the Biblicist, i have one of His books in the truck with me, it has his picture on it. How would I confuse him?

So...let's try and stay on the OP.
No need to give me lists of what you think about me, I think you have made that clear, as I have made ot clear right back at you. Back to the OP

 

Typical former Calvinist griping about the failures of his newfound truth to convince others.

I became Calvinist before YouTube. Calvinism was on the rise then. The reason Calvinism is rising is because of the emptiness of the alternative, and it's impotence in giving hope to those who are truly suffering. In short, Calvinism is on the rise because it is the Gospel.