SBC and Calvinism

Why don't you save the more to come. These snippets are hard to address without the context, but most of them from what I can tell even in their snippet form are wrong. I've studied for two years with Richard Muller (assuming that's the Muller from the snippet in the OP), and he certainly would not identify his views with the snippet that mentions him. In fact, he thinks there's good reason to say that many Baptists are thoroughly Reformed despite having a different view of baptism (he doesn't like or use the term "calvinist"). He would also reject the notion that any particular eschatology is necessarily associated with Reformed theology. One major figure, a Brackel, advocated premillennialism in his commentary on Revelation. He would probably also point out that the Reformed tradition (along with many other Christians) moved away from a sacramental view of the Lord's Supper in the eighteenth century to the point that John Nevin was attacked by other Reformed believers in the twentieth century for claiming that Calvin held such a view.

I go to a Reformed school (CRC) and there is much talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus here, while that's anecdotal, I would assume that others have had similar experiences who have encountered Reformed believers of any major denomination, especially the PCA.

Baptist history includes both General and Particular Baptists, and this is not controversial.

I could go on and refute every other snippet but I have neither the time nor the desire. Did Dave Hunt write this?

 

It is absolutely true that most Baptists moved away from a sacramental view of Communion within the first century or so of the movement. It might also be pointed out that Baptists never identified one particular eschatology that perfectly conformed to their soteriology (whether Arminian or Calvinist).

What can be conclusively determined is that the first "Baptists" were lead by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, who as English Separatists fled England in 1609 for the Netherlands. WHile in the Netherlands, they rubbed shoulders with both the Anabaptists and the large and growing theological movement known as "the Remonstrants," followers of Jacobus Arminus, founder of Arminianism.

When this "Baptist" group split (no, that's one characteristic Baptists have never changed) in 1611, Smyth remained in the Netherlands and joined the Anabaptists, but Helwys lead a small group back to England where they founded the first Baptist Church in Spitalfield.

Just before they departed from Holland, Helwys penned what could accurately be called the first Baptist Confession of Faith, entitled "A DECLARATION OF FAITH OF ENGLISH REMAINING AT AMSTERDAM IN HOLLAND." The short confession is decidedly Arminian in nature, affirming the General Atonement, Conditional Election based upon Faith, and the possibility of apostasy (falling away or departing from true faith), along with Believers Baptism, and affirmation of religious liberty.

After returning to England, Helwys, who was a champion for religious liberty, was arrested by King James I (of KJV Bible fame) and spent almost 4 years in prison, where he died in 1616.

The first Calvinist Baptists (not Reformed, as the Smyth/Helwys movement were descended from English Puritans and Separatists and so were Reformed themselves, as were the Dutch Remonstrants) are not known of certainly to have existed until a generation later, in the 1630's. Within a few decades, however, the "Particular" [Calvinist] Baptists had overtaken General [Arminian] Baptists in number. This happened for a number of reasons, which need not be explored in a limited summary of history.

Hope this helps a bit!

JDale

 

Yes, yes Baptist history includes both General and Particular Baptists and this is not controversial. I never said that Particular Baptists were first on the scene and of course the Anabaptists preceded the General Baptists.

Perhaps the snippet in the OP is benign, but it seems to me that the author (whoever it is) is trying to make hay that the first English Baptists were not "Calvinistic." That much is true, but you are correct that within a generation there were plenty of Particular Baptists, and they have a richer history than their General Baptist counterparts. It's hard to make sense of snippets, so perhaps my point there was unnecessary.

 

Skypair your response doesn't surprise me. I wouldn't proudly claim General Baptist history because they quickly went the way of Unitarianism and lost influence in England not long afterwards.

I'll only make one last point here. Muller and many others don't like the term Calvinist because it falsely assumes that Calvin was the chief codifier or even more erroneously the inventor of Reformed theology.

I don't see the need to dignify the content of anything else here with a response. I went against my better instincts to "participate" in this thread and I already regret it.

Have a good Lord's day.
BJ

 

I'm not sure Particular Baptists had a "richer" history than General Baptists. Certainly they were more numerous after a few decades -- but there were a number of reasons for that. General Baptists had to face a host of obstacles, some to which Particulars were immune. Most notable was the wrath and condemnation that the Particulars poured upon the Generals, falsely charging them with Papism, Pelagianism and a number of other false charges of heresy. That happened to the early General/Free Will Baptists in the American Colonies as well.

Sometimes it is not numerical growth that produces a "richer" history, but the trials a people are forced to go through that refines them like gold. How much richer, then, can a people be?


JDale

 

Brandon:

With due respect, that seems a little condescending. Why would you not participate in a thread such as this, or "dignify the content...with a response." SP has brought up some important issues, which not everyone agrees with. Of course reaction and discussion is in order.

As to the General Baptists in England, they actually had an initially strong movement throughout most of the 17th century. But by the 1700's, they began a long, slow side into apostasy -- though it might be noted that not ALL General Baptist Churches in England fell away into Unitarianism.

And, in the United States, the General Baptists (and their direct descendents the Free Will Baptists) were established early and flourished in the 18th & 19th centuries as a theologically orthodox movement. Again, they faced more of a threat from theological attack and proselytizing by Particular Baptists than anyone else. Particulars of that era were notorious for infiltrating General and Free Will churches and subverting them doctrinally (and that has changed COMPLETELY in our day ). Yet, Generals and Free Wills survived, and theie theology contributed as much or more to the evangelistic and revivalistic impulses of early Southern Baptists than did European style puritanical Calvinism.

It is worth noting that much of the "apostasy" or falling away from orthodox theology in the early American churches was to be found in the New England states, mostly among congregations that began as thorough-going Calvinists (Congregationalists, Reformed, Presbyterian, etc.). These churches often fell into unitarianism and universalism in the 17th & 19th centuries.

I suppose it's a good thing Calvinists didn't throw out the Calvinist baby with the heretical bathwater, as they seem so hasty to do with their Reformation brothers the Arminians!

JDale

 

Yes indeed! And it might even be appropriate to return to the old European practice of burning the heretics at the stake! After all, Calvin and Zwingli demands such extremism in the defense of the truths they discovered. Amen?



JDale

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I think this amount of sarcasm is appropriate for responding to the oft repeated (ad nausium) calumny against Calvin.

 

I'm quite glad for the laughing icon -- otherwise there is nothing in the post to convince me you are kidding!

JDale

 

Care to roast some marshmellows of the crackling carcasses of the Arminian heretics RB?

JDale

 

My apologies Dr. Bob! I should have included the laughing smiley icon to illustrate that I understood your sarcasm -- and appreciated it!

Anyone who can employ sarcasm must indeed be gifted by God! Which would of course be evidence that I, an Arminian, am "elect" in Christ.

JDale

 

Not really...probably make them taste bad.