« 1807 Abington Baptist Association Confession of Faith: Will history finally vindicate Southern Baptist Traditionalists? | Main | North Carolina’s Friendship Baptist Association organized in 1861 as non-Calvinistic »

Apr 22, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Scott Shaver

Also interesting to note is the size disparity in 1830 of the fledgling state baptist convention of North Carolina and a tributary from 1775, The Sandy Creek Association 50 years prior,

peter lumpkins

The same source upon which this post is based indicates that Big Ivy Association grew swiftly while French Broad grew, but grew very slowly and at points severely declined. The reason the author offered for Big Ivy's growth is, it had churches with many men who were very aggressive in evangelistic zeal...

In addition, the two associations merged again twenty years later when the issue of predestination and election had died down amongst them. Big Ivy reportedly initiated the notion that they consider the option. That would have been around or just after the formation of the SBC in Augusta. If the re-merging was to work, one of the concessions French Broad had to make to Big Ivy was to drop the confessional focus on election and predestination. They did. The new confession made strict Calvinism a non-issue.

In the face of this, we're informed by our Baptist strict Calvinist brothers and sisters that in Augusta, all the delegates who formed the SBC in 1845 were from churches that held strict Calvinism. What we're not told and must dig up on our own is that associations of Baptists like these two in NC busted apart because of strict Calvinism and came back together again only when strict Calvinism was dropped from the confessional document. That's what I mean by historical double-dealing in the original post.

Scott Shaver

And I don't see a lot of resources to the contrary forthcoming.

Lydia

These historical clips are incredible! They show that people really were wrestling with these doctrinal issues and were even willing to divide over them.

Scott Shaver

Not only "incredible" in their relevancy, unless demonstrated from other primary sources herewith not forthcoming from our neo-cal friends, irrefutable including Pete's summary.

Max

Lydia writes "They show that people really were wrestling with these doctrinal issues and were even willing to divide over them."

Sadly, another bunch of Baptists (Southern Baptists) are at that point again. Regardless of a call to unity by SBC leadership, this same doctrinal divide cannot be healed by holding hands under one big tent ... soteriological difference is just too extreme. The majority non-Calvinist SBC can say "Yes" to God's sovereignty, but "No" to divine determinism. Traditional SBC belief and practice will not allow the masses to say "Yes" to both. The French Broad vs. Big Ivy split only impacted a handful of churches and appeared to be a relatively amicable parting of the ways, except for a few accusations of heresy (same as today). An eventual division of SBC will be a tougher row to hoe for 45,000+ churches. Some say local church autonomy will protect the denomination from unraveling - I doubt it.

Scott Shaver

I don't understand how SBC "TRADS" can continue to say the issues are soteriological.

This ain't about "soteriology"cowboy and the proof's in the pudding.

Lydia

" Regardless of a call to unity by SBC leadership, this same doctrinal divide cannot be healed by holding hands under one big tent ... soteriological difference is just too extreme. The majority non-Calvinist SBC can say "Yes" to God's sovereignty, but "No" to divine determinism"

Max, The more I think about the determinism and all the mental gymnastics one has to jump through to define ANY free will in that construct, the more I think their brand of determinism cannot coexist in any productive manner with the belief that man has the "ability" to govern himself.

I see determinism as a threat to more than just a divide in the SBC. We can see people wrestling with this long after the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Bill of Rights. The construct was just did not fit reality once people threw off the shackles of the state church thinking.

Let's face it, there is so much collectivism (another form of determinism by the Philosopher kings) today that many in our country now think they need a "political" leader to tell them how to live and think. They will be taken care of financially and physically. I see the same determinism of Calvinism fitting right into that construct with the idea that people need to be told what to think spiritually. Even to the point that some in the SBC claim to hold the keys to the kingdom for the pew sitters!

Scary stuff.

Scott Shaver

Somebody please show me or explain to me how all the verbiage being exchanged between "CALS" and "TRADS" boils down to "soteriology".

I just don't get it.

The comments to this entry are closed.