was TULIP/Calanism EVER essential part Of baptist Theology?

I have never maintained anything else. The majority of the churchses IN the SBC held to Calvinism. That does not mean the SBC itself held or declared any such theological stance.

this is your error.. and a consistent one at that. Please get this fact straight.
However, we don't need to return to the historical theological stance of the Convention as we still maintain it.. it NEVER held one. It has ALWAYS been neutral.

You can't even prove otherwise with providing ONE SINGLE Documemnt

Thank you for proving my point and showing that you have been flip-floppying back and forth on the issue (proven by your own posting I showed earlier). From not all, nearly all, all were, to again, not all.

 

From what i am reading thus far in this.. I have found him holding more to the facts - thus far.. that is neither a negative nor a positive but a sigh or relief thus far. I have noted his suggestion of association of leadership being Calvnists might/could be argued the Convention itself was, but he stopped short of stating it. I noted this however:

Thus even in the early era of SBC life, we see Arminianism firmly entrenched in the teaching of many of the SBC churches. So much so that Boyce and Mell make reference to the problem, for the seminary.

It is interesting however that he never actually identifies the 'root' of the SBC theologically. The closest he comes is stating the root, was basically regional (southern) and not theological. Later he does insinuate but never directly (thus far) declares the SBC as a Convention held or upheld Reformed theology. He cites that many leaders were Calvnists, but that holds no bearing on whether or not the Convention itself held to any particular theological stance. In fact the above quote necessitates it did not.

Note this statement regarding the SBC in the early 20th century:

Note that he does not say a departure from Calvinistic orthodoxy held by the SBC..

 

One interesting note however I have found in his writings.

He tries to argue that both sprinkling and immersion are biblical forms of baptism.
Also he argues that children (such as say 5 years of age) should not be baptized at all, but that the SBC practices something tantamount to 'toddler baptism', similar to infant baptism. This leaves one plausible reason we shouldn't be baptizing those who not only profess faith in Christ Jesus, but know WHY they has done it, that being - they are not really saved. That is the ONLY way it can be compared to infant baptism.

It seems I disagree with him strongly here, and know quite a few who were saved when they around 5 years of age. One woman can still remember her salvation at 5 and her brokeness over her sin! She is 92 now and still witnesses EVERYWHERE she goes about the saving power of Christ and His judgment to come. I will state however that I DO agree we need to tread carefully with children, making sure they 'understand', not only how they are saved, but WHY they say they are now saved. It is the job of the new believer to tell his story, not the person listening/questioning to tell them what to say.

His position post-sits that baptism should be determined by competency. If you can't vote, you can't be baptized. However scripture never makes such a declaration or distinction. Jesus said believer and be baptized. Faith is the reason for baptism, but church polity does not.

---------------
Just finished it... the rest of it spirals out of control with conjecture and postulation on some things occured or the SBC churches have not continued with Calvinism. You note this specifically after the discussion on baptism, and sounds much more Presbyterian that anything else. However, with respect to the SBC origins, he notes initially no theological stance stated.. but later states the SBC theological stance was Calvinist because it's leadership and first Seminary were calvinist. Forgetting apparently that Arminian churches were apart of it founding and that they were an issue even in the Seminary for the SB churches.

 

Allan,

Of course you would or should agree that the SBC was mostly Calvinist in the early days. Again, your asking me to prove something that I never asserted. I am not sure why. I have simply said the SBC was Calvinist. It was. It's theologians were, its seminaries were, its churches were.

But I will say this. I have learned some things about Baptist history from this discussion. I never once intended through the discussion to try to make you look bad. But I feel that you are trying to make me look bad. But I am not sure why. I am a learner. But I have been accused by you of being stupid, insane, and a host of other things.

But I will tell what I have learned about Baptist history and the SBC in general: it has left me feeling sick to my stomach. I don't like what I see.I have seen the SBC formed more out of a reaction to slavery issues than as a real move of God.

I have seen good, throroughly sound men of God like Carroll, Manly, Boyce, Mell, and others. And then I have seen men like Mullin sowing terrible doctrine among the churches called Soul Compentency.

I am seriously disturbed in what I have read with regard to Baptist history.

 

The author is an RTS student. I did expect him to write from his pedobaptist viewpoint.

 

No sire, it was not. Certain churches were Calvinistic (those 'certain' was in fact a majority) NOT the Convention which is all the churches that make it up. There were Arminian churches in the Convention at it's inception (agreed by Nettles and this author you just gave). The churches were not all Calvnistic in the SBC. That is the error I have been dealing with.

The SBC, as an entity, was not Calvnist (nor is Arminian today), because it never held or declared ANY specific theological view as it's own. I am asking you to prove you assertion, over and over, that the SBC (as a Convention) was Calvinist, and not that the majority of the churches were, not that it's first seminary was.

You like, Ascol and Nettles, are using a generalization of the SBC (regarding the majority of its churches and leadership) as though that made the SBC hold to a particular theological stance. It does not nor did it. The SBC was never Calvinist anymore that it is currently Arminian. Majority view does not determine the Convention's (as a whole) theological stance. Otherwise there would never have been Arminians allowed to be in the SBC to begin with, or stay if they changed, just as Cals would not be permitted to stay today. The SBC does not hold to any Specific theological stance. While it's churches might lean or even lean heavily toward one side or another.. that does not mean the SBC as a Convention of churches adheres to any one particular view.

And you have done the same to me.. and you actually did it first.
However I apologize for making you feel that way.

not just that, but it was a primary motivator initially and that part of my heritage I do not like. But the other part was for the purpose of bringing together different baptists to spread the gospel (missions) and increasing the Kingdom of God.
\

 

This I did realize from this discussion. There was no formal statement of faith to the SBC until 1925, and that, diluted enough so that a strictly Calvinist church or not so much, could agree. This, in fact, is what I found shocking. It seemed odd to me until I learned a bit more about Mulins and his line of thinking.

What we actually have to get a sense of the SBC from 1845 is the writings from seminaries, their statement(s), and I am sure other documents I haven't seen or read. I also suppose doctrinal statements from individual churches could be gathered from their records and read.

For me, I see theological education and its educators as the builders. The people are the building. The teachers are the sowers, and the people are the field. Southeastern Seminary, Mercer, et. these were clearly Calvinist in their theology. Southern so much so, that they required their professors to hold to a far more Calvinist creed than the SBC as a convention holds today.

The Particular Baptists handed down to their posterity and the world such a clear statement of their beliefs that leaves no doubt as to their positions and leaves no room for doctrines they held to be unscriptural.

It does not now appear to me that this is the legacy of the SBC from 1925 and onward. I do see, now, the distinction you are making with the convention and that of the churches and seminaries. So, far from the perniciousness you seemed to ascribe to me Allan, I was just unclear and did not make the disctinction you made.

My reading I did on this today also revealed an anti-creedal belief held by Southern Baptists from its earliest days. I found this utterly shocking. I read the source directly and it read to me like the campbellite motto, "No creed but Christ." (which, consquently, is itself a creed)

As one who would readily call himself Baptist for many reasons, I found this to be a disturbing part of the history I am a part of. At the very least, this will keep me from the SBC as an organization. I had a completely wrong conception of what the SBC is. I saw it in the same way I thought of other demoninations. But this is not the case. And it appears so because of early infuence from Mullins.

So, I do agree now. While the early life, churches, seminaries, et. were largely Calvinist, the SBC itself, which is not a church itself, adopted a creed in 1925 that leaves a lot of room. The BF&M from 1925 onward is not itself Calvinist, or Arminian, nor Socinian, nor Pelagian, et. But all such views could be held without really violating the BF&M.

While this now seems to me to be the case, it is to me a sad case. Learning this has had the same sad impact on my heart as when I learned of Billy Grahmn's slide to ecumenism.

Allan, I never had any intention to try to make you look bad. If any reader on this board felt this from what I wrote, I sincerely apologize. And if I harmed you in any way Allan, I sincerely ask your forgiveness.

 

From those men alone it's easy to see that Calvinism was dominant in the Southern Baptists of that era.

F.H.Kerfoot (1847-1901) is another Calvinist who adds weight to what I maintain. He wrote the following sometime between 1877-1883 while pastoring Eutaw Baptist Church in Baltimore,Maryland. This extract is taken from my book :Why I Am A Baptist edited by Tom J.Nettles and Russel D.Moore.

"And, in common with a large body of ebvangelical Christians,nearly all Baptists believe what are usually termed the 'doctrines of grace,' the absolute sovereignty and foreknowledge of God;his eternal and unchangeable purposes or decrees;that salvation in its beginning,continuance and completion,is God's free gift;that,in Christ,we are elected or chosen,personally or individually,from eternity,saved and called out from the world,not according to our works,but according to His own purpose and grace,through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth;that we are kept by His power from falling away,and will be presented faultless before the presence of His glory."

 

Amen. This is the impression I have as well, and I think Allan has agreed, that nearly all (southern) Baptists in the early days were Calvinists. I wonder if the same could be said of the Baptists in the north?

It is still a sad case to me that the SBC did not with equal ferver adopt such a clear and strong position. Do you think it is not seen in the early days because the SBC itself was not a Church, nor to act as a Presbytery? Or do you think it was the result of anti-creedal sentiments? Or something else?

 

If the TULIP was the essential part of the Baptist theology then many Baptist wouldn't be able to be a part of the Baptist church they would be exiled in hopes they will come back to the truth of the TULIP?

Matthew 18:
Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verses 21 and 35.] sins,[Some manuscripts sins against you] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[Deut. 19:15] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[Or will have been] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[Or will have been] loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

Titus 3:10
Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them.

2 Thessalonians 3:
11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. 13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.

14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.

There has to be a reason a group has to hide in little circles in the church?

Maybe we all forgot what put them there and they are trying to make a come back?

 

Brother, I forgive you and will always do so.
The above I agree with (with the exception that the fall of the majority view started with Mullins) I believe he was the vocalist of the current change already running through the SBC circles. Much like John Calvin was the vocalist (though more than that, but you get the picture) for the Reformed view that was already there just not set forth specifically.

I do however agree with you that the BF&M is TO accepting of all baptist beliefs, yet at the same time it was not designed to stand for a specific theological concept.. BUT on the same token, I believe it can be narrowed down a bit (or quite a bit more) to maintain some doctrinal integrity.

 

I would actually encourage my Calvinist brethren who may be in non-calvinist or anti-calvinist churches to speak freely of these things. And if they put you out of the synogogue, then rejoice.

 

See RB, now THIS is ignorance, in the negative sense.

 

Maybe one day communism will do the same thing in a democracy to? I love my freedom in Christ

 

Remember our view at one time was the view that was hidden in small circles. How quickly we forget our past. Both views have come and gone, being the larger and smaller depending on the Grace of God in the correction of His Church.

 

Yes it is my ignorance looking for answers for these?

 

How God will make up for the gap, but there is a middle ground where we stand in Christ united.

 

YOu are not looking for answer but to blatantly smear a theological view that you do not agree with.

And while I do not agree with some of the Reformed view, I will not seek to smear it just because I don't agree with it in total.

IF we can not do the work of the Kingdom in harmony, then yes, the minority view of the CHURCH, should leave and find or found a church speaks to their theological stance.

However, since Cals and non-Cals agree on the essentials and more specifical on the immutable truths of scripture (we do at times disagree on the some of the mechanics or how they operate)... there is clearly room for harmony and evidenced many times throughout history.

 

I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters and do not want to smear. If it wasn't for them I would be an Armenian still trying to earn my salvation trying to do good to make up for my past mistakes and not seeing my salvation complete in Christ. i wouldn't of found and gotten where I am today without God using them in my life. I wouldn't of put a ? mark with them if I wasn't asking . If I was telling them I wouldn't of put it in ? mark I do want them to give their side of the story. I am sorry if you take it as a smear and if you still look at that way.

 

OK.. my apologies to you then.
Maybe I just need to move back away from the Baptist board for bit.
I appear to be over vocal and more brash than I ever should be.

I do not mean to come across the way I have and ask for your forgiveness as well as those reading these discussions. I was entirely wrong and it is unaccaptable. This is not typcially who I am but will make no exuces for my heated statements. My apologies once again.