Are Baptists Calvinists? by Peter Lumpkins

Many of our Calvinist brothers often assume that Southern Baptists possess really only one "official" heritage--Calvinism.  Inevitably quoting as evidence  The 1689 London Confession, The 1742 Philadelphia Confession or, as Dr. Timothy George asserts in our former post, that Southern Baptists'  "earliest confession" is The Abstract of Principles, composed specifically for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1859, Calvinists assure us the truth of their claim stands beyond question  >>>

Hence, Calvinists, in my view, appear to wash the sink of any historic trace of significant non-Calvinism in Southern Baptists' earlier history.  Today's post I trust challenges that notion.

Though not well known today, Dr. Zechariah Thornton Cody (1858-1935)* stands as no stranger to either Southern Baptists in general nor to Georgia Baptists particularly.  While Alabamian by birth, Cody attended Mercer University, was ordained to ministry by the Second Baptist Church, Atlanta, GA and later received a D.D. degree from Bowden College, GA.

Dr. Cody was a sophisticated “theologian of the first rank”— according to the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists.  He studied under famed Calvinist theologian, Professor James P. Boyce, receiving his Master of Theology degree in 1887 from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. 

Dr. Cody served Southern Baptists in the South well, being appointed to various significant committees at all levels of denominational life.  He served as Vice President of the Home Mission Board in 1898 and was Pastor of several churches in the South, not the least of which was the historic First Baptist Church, Greenville, SC (1901-1911), where he gained wide popularity and earned deep respect from not only South Carolina Baptists but Baptists all over the south.

Yet for all this, perhaps Dr. Cody’s greatest contribution was, upon leaving First Church, Greenville as Pastor, becoming Editor at the Baptist Courier in SC and remained Editor of the Baptist state paper until his death in 1935.  Dr. Cody's weekly expository messages on Biblical passages paralleling the Sunday School texts stand as a wealth of learning and were highly favored among Southern Baptists.  Cody left a great legacy for all Southern Baptists.

Dr. Cody's essay below, "Are Baptists Calvinists" appeared February 16, 1911.  Being a very popular editorial, it was later published not only in Baptist World (1912) but also in Christian Union Relative to Baptist Churches, a volume of collected essays edited by James M. Frost in 1915...>>>

 

Are Baptists Calvinists

The answer to this question depends on what is meant by Calvinism.  If by it is meant all that Calvin himself taught and practiced a negative answer is the only possible one;  for Calvin believed in burning men for deadly heresy, in the union of church and state, in infant baptism and in a good many other things which have ever been rejected by all Baptists.

But these things, while taught and practiced by the Genevan, are not now considered as essential to his system; and many feel that churches can reject them and still be called Calvinistic.

The so-called "five points of Calvinism" are the essential doctrines of the system.  Men have forgotten them now but they were once as familiar as the letters of the alphabet.  They are, particular predestination, limited atonement, natural inability, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints.  Now if this is the system that constitutes Calvinism it is again very certain that Baptists are not Calvinists. 

This system can be, it is true, found in some of the older confessions of faith and it was at that time held by some Baptist churches.  It is also true that there are now many of our churches which hold some of the doctrines of this system.  All Baptist churches, so far as we know, hold to the perseverance of the saints.  But it can be very confidently affirmed that there is now no Baptist church that holds or defends the five points of Calvinism.  Some of the doctrines are repugnant to our people.  Could there be found a minister in our communion who believes in the theory of a limited atonement?

But it may be said that Calvinism is a spirit and not a system; that its essence is not to be sought in a mummified creed but in the undying spirit of freedom which it called forth.  It is difficult to say too much in praise of what Calvin has done for liberty in the modern world.  Tyranny and priest-craft died wherever his doctrines spread.  His spirit surpassed Luther's in creating the condition of freedom.  Luther freed men from the priest; but the tyrant as well as the priest went down before Calvin.

Now because freedom is also the very soul of the Baptist faith it is often said that we are Calvinists.  But is this true?  If we mistake not,  Baptist freedom is different from Calvinistic freedom.  There is one difference, which, if not apparent now, was at least in the earlier period very manifest.  Calvinists loved freedom for themselves--for the elect; Baptists loved freedom for every one.  Calvinism in that earlier day when once it became dominant, did not bestow on all men the right to the free exercise of their faith.  It was more or less intolerant.  But the Baptists accorded to others the freedom they claimed for themselves.

The difference in their spirit of freedom can, so we think, be traced to the difference in their creeds.  Both were animated with the spirit of liberty; there was much in which both were alike; it was not difficult for the two at times to look on themselves as one; but in their sources of freedom they differed. 

The doctrine of election was the chief source of freedom for Calvinists.  By it they were brought into direct responsibility to Christ who chose them.  Each individual had Christ and Christ alone for his Master.  He received his life and his orders directly from the Lord.  This, of course, lifted him above earthly authority in church and state, and commissioned him against that earthly authority when it was against Christ.

This was good so far.  But only the elect were immediately under Christ.  What about the others?  Well, the saints must rule over them!  And in this way Calvinism became conscientiously intolerant.

The Baptists derived freedom chiefly from their doctrine of the Spirit.  The Spirit as they believed was the source of authority; and the Spirit had been given, not to popes, bishops, priests and councils, but to all God's people.  He had been poured out upon all flesh. 

In this way the people became the source of authority in church and state and out of this doctrine arose our modern democracy and congregationalism.  And, since God has given his Spirit to man as man and not to some few elect men, there was a basis for that universal liberty which became the glory of Baptists which Calvinism, untaught by the Baptist faith could not attain to.

In answering our question, then, we would say that Baptists are not Calvinists; and while Calvinism is an honored name, yet to wear it would detract somewhat from a greater honor that properly belongs to Baptists.

With that, I am...

Peter

*or Z.T. Cody as he more often is referenced

Comments

[volfan007]

wow....i like this guy. i have never heard of him until now. and, notice that he didnt get into a and b and z, nor did he get into big, theological words and phrases that no one can understand. thanks peter for exposing me to this today. it was a blessing.

volfan007

[peter]

Volfan

You are very welcome, my Brother. A couple of things in his essay are astounding. First, that Cody studied under Boyce himself yet did not embrace Boyce's Calvinism is amazing.

In addition, him making the statement that no church "holds to or defends" the five points of Calvinism was a status among Baptist Churches in SC that must have culminated after a very long time.

That is, Calvinism must have been waning since the 1890's, perhaps even the 1880's, during Boyce's lifetime. Whatever the case, it did not happen overnight.

Second, he concludes at the end by saying to be called Baptist is superior to being called Calvinist, quite a difference from many of our Calvinistic brothers today.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

peter,

very true.

volfan007

[volfan007]

here's a quote worth reading from charles spurgeon:

"i have heard of ministers who can preach a sermon without mentioning the name of Jesus from beginning to end. if you ever hear a sermon of that kind, mind that you never hear another one from that man. if a baker once made a loaf of bread without any flour in it, i would take good care that he should never do so again; and i say the same of a man who can preach a christless gospel. let those go and hear him who do not value thier souls; but dear friends, your soul and mine are too precious to be placed at the mercy of such a preacher."

let's preach Jesus, my friends.

volfan007

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

You should check out Glen Stassen's research in back issues of Baptist History and Heritage where he shows conclusively that our heritage includes Dutch Mennonites--Anabaptists.

[Stephen]

Peter,
I am a little confused on what calvinism this man was attacking. He seems to say that if you hold to the 5 points of Calvinism then your not a baptist. This is a little fishy. One can be a calvinist and be a Baptist and one can be a Baptist and not be a calvinist. There are some Baptist that are five point arminians. These are the Free-Will Baptist. FWB are a demonination of baptist that believe you can loose your salvation.
It seems to me that the name Baptist is a theological word that designates ones ecclesiological/ sacramental views while Calvinism and Arminians are theological words that designates ones sotereriology. Volfann007 Ecclesiology is the theological study of the nature of the Church. Soteriology is the theological study of salvation. I am including these definition becuase you complained about using words that no one understands. Also, I would recommend Ericksons "concise dictionary of theology."
Stephen

[peter]

Stephen,

I trust your morning off to a great start. First, Stephen, Dr. Cody, I do not sense, was "attacking" any view or any group. Rather he simply was describing what was.

No matter the number of Calvinists at mid-century, by the latter part of the 1800's, Calvinism had very much waned throughout the South. This is what Cody is describing.

Our Calvinist Brothers in the SBC, from my vantage point, appear to sometimes possess the symtoms of what can only be called historical myopia. Cody's essay stands as a nice, little corrective lens, I'd say.

In addtion, Stephen, I'm a wee bit confused by your use of both "fishy" and "Baptist."

From the earliest periods, Baptists have had, within a "reformation" of their own, those tributaries that were Calvinist and non-Calvinist, the non-Calvinist, by the way, being the oldest.

I think that's delightfully humorous, given Founders' lament that we are not like our forefathers--Calvinist. But if we dont' stop at mid 19thC, and go back all the way, we end with the influence of Jacob Arminius. The earliest Baptists were not Calvinists:)

By the way, if folks on this thread do not know what terms are being used, they are free to c/p it into dictionary.com/wikipedia.com. For me, it is condescending to define such elementary terms as "Ecclesiology," especially while tagging someone's name to it.

May peace be yours today. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Michael,

Thank you for your comment. I have not read Stassen's papers but am very much interested.

Grace. With that, I am...

peter

[peter]

All,

One point I do not want to miss from Dr. Cody's essay is the conclusion he makes: to be called "Baptist", in his view, is much superior to being identified as "non-Calvinist", "Calvinist", "Arminian", "Reformed", etc.

Thus, for him, it seems "Baptist" was the transcending term...

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Hooray! I'm a Baptist! I knew that! But I still like to be called Christian because that is what my brothers and sisters were first called. Hey, we could call ourselves the Southern Baptist Christian Convention! Adopt the same BF&M and start battling all over again. ;) Good morning everyone! SelahV

[johnMark]

Morning Peter,

At what point should we start as far as the founding theological indentity of Southern Baptists? Baptists in general? In America? In all other countries? Does the baptist identity warrant different starting points in time? Which time period?

This seems to be the crux of the issue as far as debating who was a Calvinist and when.

I need to buy you lunch one day in this big metro-Atlanta area.

SDG,
Mark

[peter]

Mark,

Good morning, my Brother. I think your question is perceptive and surely drives the currect issue in the SBC.

If one is speaking of Baptists generally, then any cursory reading will surely see we have at least two tributaries flowing from the Reformation--Calvinist/Arminian and Anabaptist,a distinct but not separate Reformation theology (see Michael's comment above).

Yet, if one is speaking of our denominational "founding" as the SBC, my question is, Mark, did we have a "founding theological identity"? And, if so, what was it? I think we did but not the one our good Brothers at Founders suppose.

As I understand Founders--and I assume I may be mistaken--the view seems to be that because the most influential men who were at the Augusta meeting were all staunch Calvinists, that therefore we were establishing a Calvinist SBC.

To the contrary, Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism was not the issue as you well know. Slave-ownership was and some other more minor organizational issues as well.

Unfortunately for Calvinists, the SBC neither possessed nor created a Confession of Faith at our "Founding" and resisted one up until the early 20's when, they felt, they must distance themselves from Modernism.

And when they did hatch a Confession, unfortunately again for our Founders brothers view, it was anything but a staunch, old school Calvinism. While they did not boot Calvinism out of SBC heritage--which would, by the way, have been an historical disaster--they did not baptize it either as the "official" theological heritage of SBC--a heritage our Founders friends seems for us to believe.

Their view apparently was to create a theological "identity" that accomodated the various tributaries to our Baptist heritage.

And, we've done pretty well living under that document as Calvinist/nonCalvinist (including Anabaptist)for quite some time. That's one reason I think the move to embrace the AP, the 1689 Confession or its twin in Philadelphia is a mistake. Historically, it wrongly squeezes round Baptists into a square hole, draining down the sink any evidence of nonCalvinism. For them, New Hampshire was a closer distance.

Now, for lunch. It will have to be a place that serves rather good coffee:) Have a great day, Mark. With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Hey Peter and Mark: If you guys have lunch, can ya tape the conversation? I want to be a butterfly on your shoulders.
Peter, why do we have altar calls for prayer? SelahV

[Rella]

The question is "Why Does It Really Matter?" History is interesting, but I think at all times any denomination should be focused on what the Bible says. If the majority of Baptists historically agreed with Calvinism - fine, but if today a majority of Baptists don't believe in Calvinism than that's what Baptist are. All this wrangling about what Baptist are historically is just a waste of time when what needs to be decided is what do Baptist believe the Bible says today. Of course a Calvinist would say you know nothing of history if you don't know that Jesus, Paul, and the SBC have all been Calvinists.

[johnMark]

I don't know. Brother Ascol seems to have some pretty good documentation of SBC history.
http://www.founders.org/library/reform.html

And my resent purchase of the book about Georgia Baptist Convention's Jesse Mercer certainly supports early Calvinism.

Anyways...
Mark

[johnMark]

That should be "recent" not "resent" and for some reason Firefox has trouble posting here.

Anyways...
Mark

[Seth McBee]

Rella,
I think you need to be careful in your unashamed attacks on all "Calvinists"

Let me ask you, Rella, do you believe that Calvinists are your brothers and sisters in Christ?

I would agree with your comment to an extent, as far as "who cares," but this is what this post is about, the historicity of the Baptist faith, and notice, that is what Peter's blog is set up for a part of the time...it is called SBC Tomorrow...so these subjects will come up.

[Rella]

Seth, since I offend you so much how bout you ignore me? Kay? I've made general statements about Calvinists whereas you have attacked me personally and proven the generalizations. I post a scripture reference because Calvinist always ignore John 12:32 when using John 6 and you become offended by a simple reference. I then responded to your exegesis in the same way Calvinists posters did to Dr. Herschal Hobbs - bad exegesis and I get called immature, blah, blah, blah.

This post was on topic - all the insistence that the SBC is historically Calvinist is really just political wrangling and doesn't matter at the end of the day. All that matters is Scripture.

[Seth McBee]

I did not become offended by a scripture reference, I don't know where you are getting that.

I told you that just putting a Scripture reference furthers nothing. I would hope that you wouldn't walk up to a sinner and just say John 3:16 and walk away.

I would rather be attacked for what I personally adhere to or believe instead of a generalization any day.

[Rella]

I got the idea that you were offended by the Scripture reference by the fact that you keep insisting that simply posting a reference ruins the discussion of this board. No I don't go up to complete strangers and say John 3:16, perhaps I was wrong to assume that those on this board have Bibles and are capable of looking up a Scripture.

[peter]

Mark,

Hey Mark. I am quite sure Dr. Ascol has many resources on SB history. I 've seen some. By the way, do you think he stocks anything by Cody? :)

Nor am I surprised abour Mercer. The question I posed was "Did the Augusta "Founders" propose a decisive "founding theological identity" for the SBC? If so, what was it? If not, why do we assert one?

Even more problematic, it seems to me, is how Calvinism waned so quickly from SBC life, assuming it was the dominant theology.

Granting for argument sake, that the SBC was virtually Calvinist in 1845, possessed a SINGLE Calvinist seminary led by a Calvinist theologian til the late 80's with a Calvinist faculty and virtually all churches all over the south possessed Calvinist confessions--according to Tom Nettles--how, then, two decades later a Calvinist trained theologian like Dr. Cody could make the statement that no church defends or holds to the five points of Calvinism is immensely interesting to me.

Personally, I think the answer lies in the probability that we were much more diverse than our then writing theologians either knew, admitted or cared.

Later, my Brother. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Hey Rella,

Glad you are here. And I appreciate your participation. Personally, I do not think most of us are offended by Scripture--at least not doctrinally speaking. Ethically, is another matter.

And, we try to keep our conversations here running with as few "jabs" as possible.

I agree with you that what is most important is who we are now and, of course, Scripture should define who we should be. Yet, I have found that who we were plays a great part in knowing about us now. That goes for groups as well as individuals--my personal history significantly enriches my self-awareness.

Thus, that's where some of us who discuss our beginnings are coming from.

I trust your day well, Rella. With that, I am...

Peter

[Rella]

Peter, thank you. I understand and agree with what you say. From what I can tell in my limited study Baptist have been both Calvinists and non-Calvinist. Thus it is very frustrating for one side to insist that "Historically this happened so therefore we must get back to what our founder's believed." It seems to me that some people believe that if they prove that historically Baptists are Calvinists that that is simply enough to say today all Baptists should be Calvnists. History (even if anyone could look at history objectively) does not trump the Bible. I love to study history, but I don't want someone forcing an agenda on me because of how they interpret history.

As far as darts, Peter, I certainly did not mean to throw a "dart" Scripture speaks for itself and is better than anything I can put together. Certainly I don't believe I deserved to be told not to ruin the discussion here by posting a scripture reference. How exactly does a simple scripture reference ruin a discussion or this board as was implied to me?

Blessings to you Peter!

[volfan007]

hey, what would it hurt to quote john 3:16 to a person? what would be wrong with that?

boy, this is where i have real trouble with the extreme calvinists that we have in our sbc today. they are hyper critical. they are scared they will lead a non elect to salvation. they think that you have to preach an hour sermon, or write a book to a lost man before they can really share the gospel, or lead someone to salvation.

i heard dr. nettles share one time that he was talking to a man about salvation. great so far. the man said that he wanted to get saved. great so far. well, guess what dr. nettles told this man to do? he told him to go home and read the book of romans and maybe the Lord would save him.
goooooooooooood grief!

i'm glad that paul didnt take that approach with the philippian jailor....they wouldnt have all gotten saved and baptised that nite!

i know of another extreme calvinist...who was a youth minister....who got mad that the church was putting up scripture verses on the fences leading to the churches ballfields. he said that it might lead someone to a false salvation. gooooooood grief....give me a break!

also, i know of another extreme calvinist....a five pointer obsessed with calvinism...who declared that childrens choirs shouldnt sing songs about salvation, or songs like it might make them sound like a saved person was singing to God, or something else.....good gracious! children singing praise songs to the Lord! i guess he would have had trouble with children singing Jesus loves me.

well, now that all this steam has come out of me...i am thru.

volfan007

[Rella]

Volfan, if you share John 3:16 with someone you have to go into detail about how God didn't mean "World" as in the everyone and then it would be best to not even go on to John 3:17 cause you know God didn't mean to say "that the"world" through Him might be saved." Well then it gets really confusing when we look at the places where all doesn't really mean all as in everyone but actually God meant to say "some" And hopefully you've got a good recommendation to a Calvinist seminary 'cause it's only by studying at the right seminary using the right resources that you'll actually be able to understand that all those Bible passages that seem so very clear really aren't that clear and it's at seminary where they teach you to take the ambiguous passages and use those to interpret the seemingly simple verses like John 3:16 because God really did not intend for the Bible to be simple - He really intended for all of us to go to seminary, read Hebrew and Greek, know two thousand years of church history and only then maybe you'll be allowed to pick up an actual Bible. But if you still come to the wrong conclusion than it's best to go back in time and be like the Catholics - simply allow those who are smarter and holier than you to interpret the Bible for you. And if after all that you still don't "get it" well than there's no hope for you my friend (according RC Sproul) cause you have clearly not been elected or it could just be that you're an idiot for not getting it and will be simply condescended to.

[Rella]

Sorry Peter, that was snarky, but I am getting really fed up with Calvinists telling me things like "you ruin the discussion or you're adding nothing to the discusion. Go somewhere else." I thought this was somewhat of a non Calvinist blog. Funny isn't it how a non Calvinist shouldn't post scripture references and use phrases such as "bad exegesis"

[Seth McBee]

wow...this has taken off with quite a whirlwind...I would agree that you could go up to a non Christian and actually quote the verse to them, but you should explain what this means to them. That is what we are called to do, to explain to sinners that Christ died for them and why! Look at what Ezra did for his ministry, Ezra 7:10...he taught the Scriptures and in Nehemiah 8:8 he gave the translation so they could understand what it meant.

Don't you guys agree with this? I was not meaning this for my dealings with Rella on his/her posting John 12:32. We are here to discuss things not just post Scripture references unless you are making a point. If he/she wanted to make a point and use John 12:32 to emphasize that point, then okay.

Rella,
You said: " Scripture speaks for itself and is better than anything I can put together"

well news flash for you we as Christians are called to interpret Scripture through the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. That is why we have pastors and elders and teachers. What if you pastor just stood up and said, "John 12:32, John 3:16, John 10" and then sat down...that makes no sense. That was my initial point. We differ on the meaning of John 12:32 so I wanted an explanation not just the reference, I can read it for myself...

[volfan007]

rella,

amen!

volfan007

[johnMark]

Rella,

I certainly hope you talk with unbelievers in a better manner in which you just displayed speaking to fellow believers. And you forgot about explaining to unbelievers that because you told them Jesus died for them that they could still end up in hell. Etc. etc. etc. This type of back and forth isn't too enjoyable.

Volfan,

I'm sure there are a million "I once heard so-and-so say" examples we could all give from every theological position. No theologian I know of claims perfect communication skills or even perfection in general. Unless, we come in contact with those who believe we can reach final sanctification while here on earth and it would be best that they not speak lest they refute themselves.

Peter,

Thanks for the conversation. I understand your proposed question of a founding theogical indentity. That's not a bad question, but is it the proper one? In other words, was this even a theological question in contention? Or was a position just assumed?

For example, if all the founders of the SBC agree on the doctrine of the Trinity where might we find this agreement?

The various confessions can be found here: http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/abcon.htm and certainly varying theological positions may be held. Maybe the question is how much variance? I don't know. The definition of terms also comes into play as we strive to understand those who've gone before us.

I believe the Founders Ministries is concerned with the founding theological documents and members of the SBC founders. Specifically, the Abstract of Principles. I am interested in learning more about Dr. Cody's time and writings though. I do wonder what Dr. Ascol would say about them.

Anyways...
Mark

[Mary]

I was happy that someone pointed me to a "non Calvinist" blog that might be a place for discussion, but I find happening here the same thing that goes on at the Calvinist blogs. Mr/Ms Rella was attacked, responded in the exact way that Calvinists on this very site have responded and now He/She is being personally attacked and told to go somewhere esle. Rally the troops boys! A non Calvinist has dared to make comments on a blog. Someone has stepped out of their place and dared to challenge someone on their comments and their attitude! So much for there being a place where a non Calvinist is allowed to speak the way Calvinists speak all over the internet about those who disagree with them.

[Rella]

Mary, it's all cool. Some of them really don't get how insulting and condescending they are to everyone else. It's almost like a cult the way they behave. Only they have the truth, only they are allowed to make generalizations, only they are allowed to correct anyone. I'm sure one of them will come back and point out to you that they were simply trying to "correct" someone in a "biblical" manner.

[seth mcbee]

mary... you need to read the whole comment thread on the last post before saying that rella "challenged" my comment by simply putting down "john 12:32" without any explanation...again, I don't mind someone explaining a text with me...i.e. as Peter has...that was the whole reason I asked rella to stop labeling me with those Calvinists he/she has run into in the past. sorry for all this peter...hopefully we can continue our actual discussions

[Mary]

Oh gee Seth, silly me! Ain't that just like a woman to not read the thread but make a comment! You keep going on and on and on about how one scripture reference wasn't enough to continue a discussion and yet you seemed to know exactly what the point was. Let's see you used John 6:44 which says something like No can come to me (Jesus)unless the Father draws him and Rella responded with a verse which tells us exactly who gets drawn. Can it be any simpler. Instead of responding you made some nasty comment to her/him first and now instead of just ignoring someone who irritates you, you have drawn this discussion through two threads. And you know Seth I would really like to know the answer to this question too - where do you get off thinking you can tell anyone to go post somewhere else?

Rella and Volfan - more power to ya cause this whole thing has just proven to me and my husband that there really isn't a place where a non-Calvinist is going to be treated with anything other than contempt. I am through with these Calvinist blogs.

[peter]

All,

My, My. How busy the bees have been. Unfortunately, how any of about the last 20 comments has deepened our understanding not only of one another but also of dear old, Dr. Cody's essay has slipped right past me.

Some have wondered whether this is a nonCalvinist blog. Yes and No. Yes in the sense that I personally am nonCalvinist. No in the sense that only nonCalvinist ideas get a fair hand dealt out.

That is, while I am surely not perfect at it, I am intent on presenting as honestly as my biased old brain will allow me the opposing position in a fair way.

That does not mean that I will post equal numbers of each side. One is always going to find here more resources for nonCalvinists than Calvinists for the simple reason that in Baptist blogdom, Calvinism owns the block. In fact, I don't even know another nonCalvinist SBC blog. Does anybody else?

So, that said, Rella and Mary, know as nonCalvinists, you are welcome here. We've had only a few times when the conversation turned sour. Yet even granting that, I'll put our atmosphere here against anybody's as far as being cordial to one another goes.

One final thought: much of this unhealthy tone seems to have begun when a Bible reference was placed in the thread without commentary. My simple question is, so what? Indeed I would say that to any comment. If it offers, in one's view, no contribution to the dialog, why even address it?

I know I have commented on other blogs and thought I made a brillant point. No one commented back. So? What else is new?

On the other hand, I've had my own share of insults on other blogs, some pretty cutting remarks, in fact. Again, so? Just because someone writes it doesn't make it true. I am not required to answer. And that's a good thing.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. by the way, if some one hasn't read the guidelines here, click on the link. You'll like it! To my knowledge, I've only banned 3 people in six months...

[Seth McBee]

This isn't a Calvinist blog...

Responding with just listing a reference is not a response. Again, it is like you telling me that Jesus is God and me just listing Col 1:15...that isn't a response. If we see differently on a subject I would expect an adult conversation on it, which if you notice in my response to "john 12:32" I simply gave how I see it. He/she never gave me any response on how he/she saw John 12:32 where I know that someone like Peter (who is not a Calvinist) would at least share his thoughts on the subject without telling me that I am offended by Scripture...

as far as me telling him to post somewhere else, it was because this blog has really been a good place to discuss the issues with Calvinism and Arminianism without having to worry about someone coming in and saying "well, all Arminians are this way or all Calvinists are that way" Instead this blog seems to be dedicated to asking each believer, "as an (Arminian/Calvinist) what do you think about this passage or that passage. It has been very lively and very entertaining to engage in adult conversation.

Thanks again Peter for your patience; if I am causing trouble on your blog, I will be the first one to leave if you would like. This was not my intent, my intent originally was to simply answer a question by selahv that was directed towards myself.

Peace

[peter]

Seth,

Actually, I remain interested in no one "leaving" in the very same sense I wish no one to leave the SBC because he/she is Calvinist.

I would, however, lay a caution out to all of us that we're not required to be clever, cute, funny or even right for that matter when we're pecking away at our keyboards creating comments. We are required to be Christ-like toward one another even though no one knows us personally or even knows our real name.

Grace all. With that, I am...

Peter

[Rella]

You really can't stop with the insults can you Seth? Now I'm not even an adult.

Well Peter, I'll just do as you suggest and say So What!

Mary, I hope you don't give up. The non Calvinist side needs more voices out here in blogdom.

[peter]

Rella,

I think that is a good strategy.

I'm glad you are here. Grace to you. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Mark,

Actually, my Brother, I was responding to your first comment which phrase "founding theological indentity" is yours. Thus, I asked if the Founders possessed one, what was it? If not, why assert one?

As for the an "assumed position", it's surely not out of the question that the Founders assumed "Calvinism" as universally accepted. And, Mark, you seem to suggest evidence for such by an analogy with the Trinity as assumed.

Two things in response: First, no Baptist Confession, to my knowledge, has ever posited nonTrinitarianism. Do you know of one? Thus Trinitariansim IS universal to Confessional Baptists.

Secondly, just the opposite may be stated about Calvinism/nonCalvinism. That is, while Trinitarianism was universal ,we possess Baptist Confessions from Arminian to mild Calvinist to high Calvinism.

That being so, it seems just as probable that the working assumption of the Founders was recognition of the diversity of Baptist heritage rather than simply Calvinism.

Who's right? I don't know. They didn't tell us. They created no Confessional document for us to examine.

Finally, it seems to me to be over-stretching to argue that the "Founders" of the SBC who were all Calvinists somehow were "creating" or "founding" a Calvinist body of believers.

In addition, the appeal to the Abstract of Principles as a "founding" document of the SBC, when, if fact, it was a creation of mostly James Boyce as a guide for SBTS is, at least for me, another unproven assertion.

Just because the seminary used it, it does not at all follow that all SBC churches either agreed with it or would accept it as a convention.

In addition, Mark, if the AP was so influential, why was it dissed along with the 1742 Philly Confession that Dr. Nettles has suggested was practically universal in southern churches, when Baptists later began to formulate a Confession? They rather turn to New Hampshire which is a much softer Calvinist expression as a model.

These questions plague those of us who simply do not buy the wares our Calvinist Brothers at Founders are selling. I remain unsure why we simply cannot continue under the BF&M which is "rubbery" enough to accomodate some healthy diversity--even Calvinists and nonCalvinists alike.

Thanks Mark for commenting here. With that, I am...

Peter

[Timotheos]

Good Evening Peter,

It would be not too much of a stretch, I think, to suggest that the confessional moorings of the founding Seminary of the SBC - the father (or mother, as you will) of future SBC leaders, pastors, theologians, etc., - represent the confessional, doctrinal stance of the convention as a whole. Would we expect otherwise?

Would a founding educational institution of a new convention teach to a minority or a contrary position of said convention? Or, to put it another way, would a convention commission a seminary to train its people contrary to its own doctrinal confession? Particularly in view of the known doctrinal commitments of those charter conventioneers?

That seems a bit of an over reach, in my humble O-pinion...

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[selahV]

EVERYONE: 2 Corinthians 5:18.

PETER: Thank you for the license you give in discussion threads. I usually try to stay on topic, but I threw in my question because it was off topic on another site and was told to go to someone else with my question. So I knew you'd let me ask it here, even if it was a dumb question that everyone else knew the answer to. The host felt I'd already had it answered before by many others. And maybe I had, but I hadn't gotten it yet. I'm a bit slow. You know me Peter, I like direct answers to direct questions and so often when I ask a question on Calvinist-dominated sites, I get links, books to read and more questions. (Although some are dialoging via email with me now and I appreciate that. You know who you are.) I have been grateful for Seth and Stephen and Timotheos as they have really tried to answer my questions. I even had PTL (short initials) come over to my site to chat a spell. I don't agree with all of them. I don't have to. But they were kind enough to offer their thoughts to me without accusations, pious attitudes or condescention (sp?). That said, I know that some Calvinist have greatly offended and hurt Volfan's spirit. I can only assume the same has been true for Mary and Rella and many others whom I have spoken with.

let me say this. I have people who have knowingly, purposefully cussed me out, called me a liar, accused me of being a thief and multiple other things. Sometimes it was because I am a Christian. Were they Calvinists? No. Did it hurt? Yes. Did I respond in kind? No. Did I want to? Yes. Did I have to ask God to forgive me for thinking evil upon them even though I didn't act upon that evil? Yes. Why? Because it was wrong and was eating me up. So I went to the cross where Jesus is lifted up and let Him have it. He took it and I am free of guilt, shame and bitterness.

SETH: Thank you for being so kind to attempt an answer to my question. I still haven't had anyone tell me directly if Calvinists believe that an elect is already saved but doesn't know it. I think that, for me, I guess I'm just dumb enough to think that requires a yes or no answer. But Dr. Ascol has been teaching me that answering questions requires me to consider 6 different messages a person is trying to convey when they talk to one another. That makes it quite hard to understand what a person is saying--just as it was for you to try and discern what Rella meant by the simple scripture reference.

When Rella posted John 12:32, I didn't know who he/she was posting it to,(there was no salutation) so I looked it up. (Rella could've been addressing me for all I knew).

To me it meant what it said, if Jesus is lifted up, He'll draw all men to Himself. Simple. But then I am a Christian. So I suppose if I were to be addressing a blog-crowd who were discussing Madonna, that would be a bit strange to find in a thread.

To you, my dear Seth, it obviously held another meaning. I am glad for the discussion, though it has been far more heated than I think was necessary. I understand that the Calvinists view "all" differently. But I'm not at all sure where all the verses are that "all" apply. So I am grateful for the distinction you made Seth. Given the discussion since Rella typed in John 12:32, I suppose one could assume it was directed at you. But still we have no way of really knowing. Had you ignored the post, I wonder what would have happened. ???
This is the momma in me talking now, Seth.

MARY: I want to encourage you to stay with us here. I have been treated in various ways by others on other blogs. I've even had my friend and brother, Volfan, whom I have never met, wonder what I meant by a comment. I cannot recall the comment at the moment, something about Volfan being Volfan. Which meant nothing other than he is who he is. I love him because he is, not because of something I want him to be, expect him to be, or suppose he is already.

While we might feel it unfair to be "attacked" as some put it, we can look at our own and see the same attitudes and actions directed at Calvinists. It is written in cyberland everywhere. When my children were growing up, they constantly argued. It was always the "other one" who started the fight. We all know that it takes two to argue.

I could choose to crawl inside a hole and forget all about this stuff but I think it has merit to discussion. Why? Because Peter has started a blog to address both sides of the issue. I respect Peter. I have respected him for a very long time. I know from whence he came. Despite the blog that dumped a group of comments of his into a caldron of demonization and misrepresentation of who he is, Peter moved on and kept being kind, as gracious as he could be under the scrutiny of public viciousness. While we can all probably share our war stories, I don't think any of us can compare our wounds to our Lord's. Thus we should be willing to reconcile and move on. Isn't that part of why He suffered and died?

I agree with Rella. When I find a particular person irritating to me or one who is baiting me, or treating me in a manner I would not be able to counter-argue in a Christlike manner, I ignore them. Sometimes a quick response is the worst response. I saw what was said on this thread this a.m. and I thought about responding then, but didn't have time.

I had to clean one of my son-in-law's (I know it should be son's-in-law..but I hate it that way), houses today. They were closing on it and I had to finish it. While I cleaned, I noticed multiple things that the various contractors did to the house. Cleaning things gets ya up close and personal with flaws and imperfections. It was really sad.

The plumbers failed to leave the drain-catch-basket in the kitchen sink. The electricians stepped through the master-bedroom ceiling and didn't bother to tell anyone. One of the painters saw it happen. The carpenter built a drawer so close to the other that you couldn't open it because it hit the other knob.

Grouting was left smeared all over tile by tilesetters. The brand new whirlpool tub was filled with gunk. Mud was left all over windows by the drywallers. Glue was dripped all over the highgloss countertops by the counter-guys. I could go on and on.

I was the clean-up gal. My husband is the detail man. We go in after the highly paid contractors and clean up their leavings. I don't like it. It would be much easier to clean up a dusty house with a bit of sawdust in the cabinets and stickers on the windows. But people are who they are and no matter what they know, they still leave stuff behind for others to do.

We have some great great theologians who have given us what they thought was their best interpretations of God's Holy Word. We have founding fathers of all faiths who have left this world with more questions than answers. We have 66 books compacted into one we try to understand and follow. And we have a Lord who died to attone for our "leavings", leaving behind a Spirit to guide, teach and comfort us. And right at this very moment, we have a Heavenly Father who knows exactly who it was who threw the first jab, the motive behind the jab and the impact the jab would have on others.

In two hundred years, when seminary students are going through our archives, they will probably laugh and cry.

I ask you all. Let's just play nice and listen to each other. Even if we don't agree. Someone somewhere has to be the one who shows courtesy and kindness BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I have not "had it" with anyone. I will continue this race till the Lord calls me home. May God add His blessings to my feeble attempt at 2 Cor.5:18. SelahV

p.s. someone on another site scoffed at my sharing what "Lord, I'm Coming Home" meant to me when I was lost and walked the aisle. They poked great fun at the song and those who would get a warm feeling about it. I'm sure some had a great laugh at my expense. I don't care. Jesus told me, blessed are they who are persecuted for my namesake...". I admit I wanted to toss one of my favorite Proverbs at them, but the Lord checked that by pushing on the other end of the board in my eye. It hurt! SelahV

[selahV]

PETER: Thank you in advance for forgiving me of my weakness of verbosity. SelahV

[mary]

SelahV, well said and thank you for your words of encouragement. Peter has also been very kind and as I told him I'm simply too addicted to the internet to give it up! So I should be more careful to not make such rash statements as "I'm leaving, nobody likes me, I'm just gonna eat worms while I have a pity party."

Let me attempt to answer your question for you SelahV as I understand it.

Is an Elect person saved and just doesn't know it? The Calvinist answer as I understand it:

.. an elect person is not saved until they are regenerated, effectually called and then converted. Which is all the work of God. Salvation is a certainty. Nothing will prevent it from happening because God sovereinly controls all events. So not saved until that time God has decided they will be saved.

[peter]

Timotheos

I appreciate your input. The answer, of course, is that what you suggest is a possible theory about what went on. Yet theory it remains because we don't possess a Confessional document by which to judge.

In addition, Timotheos, I question dubbing any institution "our father" or "mother" of our theology. Our heritage came not so much from educational halls of learning as thru martyr's blood, preachers sitting in jail and families thrice "baptized" in ponds only the third dunking they were kept under til drowned--the ultimate baptism, I'm told.

Thus, we are definitively not a top-down people but a priest-hood of all people people.

You ask: "would a convention commission a seminary to train its people contrary to its own doctrinal confession?" I fear I must press again, Timotheos, what Confession? Did the SBC in 1845 produce a Confession or not? If so, what is it? If not, why assume they did? Moreover, why assume that it would be in line with The Philly Confession rather than say New Hampshire as the latter Confession was?

And, why, if the AP was so universally accepted, was it not even considered when Baptists were debating the question about a Confession toward the end of the first quarter of the 20th C?

These questions seem to be significant, at least to me, if one is to be persuasive that Baptists were universally Calvinistic even before the end of the 19th C.

It must also be remembered that even though Churches possess written Confessions, it simply does not follow that Churches practised those Confessions, a phenomenon, by the way, I've heard many times lamented at Founders. Consequently, even if, given Dr. Nettels recent suggestion that all GA Baptist Churches probably held to the 1742 Confession in earlier days, Confessions of individual Churches could be produced, it remains a theory, Timotheos, and nothing more.

Cody interestingly studied under Boyce but could within a decade or so be saying publicly no church holds or defends the five points of Calvinism, even that it was "repugnant" to them.

For me, this is absolutely facinating. My curiosity is stirred, quite frankly, and I hope to study this a little more thoroughly.

Have a great evening, Timotheos. With that, I am...

Peter

[Joe]

Peter,

I am one who has lurked in the shadows of your blogging endeavor since its inception, and, while I have not commented, I have appreciated the patience and respect reciprocated by all (well, most) participants.

Until today. Today I was thrown back into the cafeteria and hallways of seminary listening to people bicker back and forth with heated emotion. Yes, it is important for healthy dialogue and discussion…but the dialogue was far from respectful.

This blog is not hidden from the world. It is on the internet for the whole World Wide Web to read. Let us behave in such a way that readers around the globe can only scratch their heads and marvel at the love we have for one another.

Thank you for stepping in and clarifying the rules for this blog once again. I have the luxury of disappearing once again into the shadows, to wrestle with my thoughts, or the dogs, whichever bark the loudest. (My money is on the dogs…the youngest one…)

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

You know, as a former Southern Baptist (still a Baptist and still from the South, but no longer of the SBC), this all sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me. I can remember not too long ago when one would be hard pressed to fill a living room with all the 5-point Calvinists in the SBC! Now, it is the intellectual veneer on the fundamentalist bureacracy.

I am a student of Baptist history and I can tell you that extreme versions of both Arminianism and Calvinism have, in the past, been very detrimental to Baptist life. 18th C. Britain is a great example--just after the Act of Toleration gave a little breathing room to Baptists and other non-Anglicans. The General Baptists (Arminian--and the very first Baptists, you know) started adopting universal salvation, then some became attracted to Unitarianism and other heresies and they nearly died out. But a more revivalistic form of Arminianism was born when Dan Taylor, originally a Methodist, formed the New Connexion General Baptists.
Meanwhile, the Particular (Calvinist) Baptists became hyper-Calvinist and nearly died out, too. If not for the evangelical revisions in Calvinism introduced by Andrew Fuller (which led to the formation of the Baptist Mission Society), they would likely have disappeared, too.

Recovery of the Anabaptist strand of Baptist origins, it seems to me, prevents problems like ultra-Arminian rationalism or hyper-Calvinism.

Wesley and Whitefield were close friends--this seems to have escaped the Calvinist/Arminian divide in the SBC. I only fear that this will spill over to other Baptist groups--and believe me, American Baptists have enough on our plates without this!

[selahV]

PETER: Do you think alot of the insurgence of the 5-point Calvinist doctrine is due, in part, to (a)the large mega-churches seeking to get bigger instead of mothering little churches? (b)Or because of seminary teachings? (c)Or it is faddish and one wants to be different and go against the stream? (d)Or an the inclusive exclusive mindset? (e)Or God's way of shaking the Salt-shaker? (f)Or all of the above? (g)none of the above?

I've been thinking alot about this and reading all these posts, and especially the last from Michael Westmoreland-White. (Don't you love his last name? I love that! I'd like to have mine changed to Bariette-Bartlett) And what has meandered about in my brain most of my wakeful night, is why? Why do we have this resurgence? Has Calvinist lain dormant in SBC life and been surpressed?

I heard mention of Calvin when we were in Seminary Village, but no great dialog or anything similar to a debate. I might have heard more had I actually attended more classes instead of working in a printing-shop to help put Bob through school and spent more time with the Bob's books than the kids' homework, and at your apartment singing gospel songs.

But I've just been wondering what sandpit my head has been stuck in for 30 years? Where was I when you were a 5-point Calvinist?

I know, lotta questions. But I trust you to sift through the rhetorical and get to the nitty-gritties. God bless you my Peter! I've been thinking more and more about your two-day journeys and where they keep taking us. SelahV

[-jk]

Peter,

As you say, SBC Calvinists have cornered the internet market. Thanks for doing your part to correct this imbalance, for carving out a niche that is hospitable to non-Calvinists and non-combatants. It is thoughtful, thought-provoking, and good-natured. Keep it up!

[mary]

SelahV, if I may post my opinion of your questions to Peter - the current "reformation" in the SBC I believe is in reaction to the "liberals" who tried to take over the convention in the 70's-80's. You may recall there was a time when we had in the convention those who actually questioned the Bible's inerrancy. One speaker, and I don't remember who - said something to the effect "it's just a book after all." Al Mohler had a great quote when he said something like it's better for us to be talking about these issues (Calvinism) rather than the gay marriage issue which is where we were heading. BP Press has alot of interesting articles on Calvinism and the SBC if you haven't checked it out. Not really deep stuff, but some good things none-the-less.

[-jk]

SelahV and Mary, a few other possibilities for the attraction of Calvinism:

(h) a prodigious amount of Calvinist literature, providing consistent interpretations and arguments, (i) the testimony of many truly godly men, past and present (j) the satisfying internal logic of the system, (k) the comfort of having answers to questions which might otherwise be ambiguous, (l) a reaction against contemporary anti-intellectualism, (m) a reaction against contemporary semi-Pelagianism, (n) the fact that Calvinists are generally on the "right side" of issues such as inerrancy and complementarianism, and (o) the satisfaction of holding the belief system that is said to give God the glory, as opposed to non-Calvinism which is said to be "man-centered".