Featured The rise of Calvinism?

I understand. I'm the same way when it comes to other denominations.

I am SBC and interested in the topic, so it does matter to me. It does not matter to me what they held but that we treat what they held accurately. My thesis was on R.B.C. Howell and doctrinal issues involved in his term over the SBC (I spent weeks thumbing through his original journals...very carefully as they were falling apart). It interests me. I do not hold Howell's view, but I think that we owe it to those who have gone before to be honest (it's about history more than doctrine).

What is interesting to me is that the SBC in its leadership was moderately Calvinistic (granted, they were battling the largest denomination of the time, which was Methodist). But the churches were not typically Calvinistic at all (the concern was that they would be influenced by Methodist doctrine). When we look at it we see this same discord today. I think we can learn from history, but only if we do not try to reinvent it. This is not ancient history - we actually have the writings of these guys. Who cares what other people think when we can reference the original documents?

 

I was curious. I know this was Gill's view and I've been told that it was a popular view among Reformed scholars at a time.

 

I was a Calvinist but I never held to Covenant Theology. When my teaching ventured into Calvinism I typically taught in terms of the Doctrines of Grace and divine sovereignty. Other than mentioning that Dispensationalism was once only a Reformed doctrine and that I believe Scripture speaks in terms of covenant relationship and dispensations I never addressed either views.

 

The SBC came out of the Triennial Convention. This was the founding (the SBC was formed as it split from Northern states). Calvinism was not a distinctive. The distinctive was missions (an opposition to Primitive Baptists, particularly the anti-missions movement). The Triennial Convention stated it would take no position on slaver but this proved impossible and the SBC split forming the Northern Baptist Mission Society and the Southern Baptist Convention.

There were a range of beliefs when it comes to Calvinism. But the SBC was not founded on any of those views.

The first leader (first president) of the SBC was William Johnson. Here is what he said on the topic:

"As a Free Agent, man has life and death set before him, with the liberty of choosing the one, and rejecting the other ... As moral agents, for whom there is hope, I call upon you, then, fellow sinners to turn to the Lord ... Now, Now, O fellow sinners, you have it in your power to place yourselves under influences, that are spiritual and saving; or under influences that are carnal and damning."

Provided the R.B.C. Howell’s (the 2nd president of the SBC) comments that the SBC departs from what he considers “Calvinism” (although I believe him a moderate Calvinist in practice….he struggled against the anti-mission movement which may have colored his language).

And we know that Brantley (a SBC founder and pastor of First Baptist in Augusta Georgia where the SBC was formed) was very much opposed to the idea of Irresistible Grace.

My point is not that the SBC was “non-Calvinistic”, but it is wrong to say it was Calvinistic as well. The SBC does not prescribe such doctrines and have always been diverse when this topic comes up. Some wish that the SBC was founded on strong Calvinism (it was not) and others wish it was founded on strong free-will theology (it was not). It was (and is) comprised of churches that hold a wide view on these topics.

And thanks for your view of how "Reformed" differs from "Calvinism".

 

I would not consider myself a Calvinist, although this depends on how it is defined and who's doing the defining. . I think it would be more correct to say that there are areas where I agree with Calvinism's concluding statements but not necessarily how they arrived there. I believe that there are severe flaws in Calvinism, but the flaws are not in the logic but in evidencing its presuppositions. I agree with Edwards in his explanation of predestination (which could be stated as Calvinistic or really Reformation Arminianism, depending on how it's expressed).

I believe that human nature is such as mankind cannot contribute to their salvation.
I believe that God does not choose to save men based on any merit or good in man.
I believe that Christ died to save those who would believe.
I believe that God’s purposes will be accomplished.
I believe that whosoever believes in Christ has everlasting life.

When it comes to predestination I believe that everything is predestined to occur as God knows it will occur and that this was decreed in the act of Creation.

 

Yep. We have always been a diverse group.

 

If you are asking if they were present at Brantley’s church, I do not know. I suspect they were. I’d consider any of the pastors over the churches at the time the SBC was created to be early leaders in the SBC. But I think that calling these men “founders” is an error. The SBC was a convention of churches.

The “Founders Movement” began in 1982. I am not sure what churches are involved. They want to bring the SBC itself (not necessarily its membership but the Convention) towards what they see as a Calvinistic position reflective of its origins.

There is the “Traditionalists” who are the exact opposite. They want to move away from Calvinism to a position they see as reflective of SBC origins.

Both, of course, are wrong. We know that there were Calvinists, moderate Calvinists, and non-Calvinists in leadership and churches when the SBC was formed. Both sides are just propaganda trying to use history to support an agenda.