SBC & Dortian Calvinism: The Waning of a View

Recently, Dr. James Leo Garrett, Southern Baptist theologian and statesman, penned a series of articles for The Alabama Baptist on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention.  Professor Garrett handled the issue both handsomely and fairly.  There were some predictable responses from Calvinist interpreters.  All in all, however, the public response remained laudable.  The Baptist Courier hosted an earlier series on Calvinism penned by a Calvinist.  That series too is very good and the Courier is to be thanked... >>>

In addition, if you're interested in a great two-part series on the influence of Calvinism in the SBC, note Baptist History & Heritage, Volume XXXI, October 1996, Number 4.  In that edition, Dr. Tom Nettles, a Dortian Calvinist, Professor of Historical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Dr. W. Wiley Richards, then (but since retired) Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Florida Baptist Theological College, offer complementary essays respectively on "Southern Baptist Identity:  Influenced by Calvinism" and "Southern Baptist Identity:  Moving Away from Calvinism".  A fine volume indeed.

I would, of course, disappoint many of my Calvinist brothers if I did not post my personal sympathy toward Dr. Richards' thesis.  Not that Dr. Nettles did not make some challenging assertions.  Rather, my point would be that it is virtually impossible to fail to note Calvinism's continued, waning influence among Baptist Churches in nineteenth century America.  In fact, beginning with Separate Baptist influence in the South in the middle of the eighteenth century and culminating with the first Convention wide Confession of Faith in 1925, Dortian Calvinism continued to lose ground.

The following essay first appeared in 1856-1857, along with dozens of others, in "The Examiner," and was written by Dr. Francis Wayland (1796-1865).  The essay also is a part of an assembled collection of pieces, bound in the book, "Notes on The Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches," reprinted by The Baptist Standard Bearer, which he penned pertaining specifically to what Baptists believe.  Wayland was among the most influential Baptists of his day as well as an academic, serving twenty-eight years as President of Brown University.

This essay entitled "Baptist Views of the Trinity, The Law, Human Depravity, The Atonement, Particular and General" illustrates nicely Dortian Calvinism's slippage during the turn of the nineteenth century.  Only the relevant portions are included.  Know also, I have taken particular care to ensure the context is not skewed. 

Dr. Wayland: 

...The belief of the Baptists in regard to the Atonement has also been singularly uniform. They have always held, that salvation by works having by sin become utterly impossible, our only hope of eternal life rests upon the obedience and death of the Mediator, Christ Jesus.

We are saved, not in virtue of what we have done, or can do, but merely and entirely in virtue of what Christ has done for us, and we become partakers of the salvation which he has wrought out for us, solely by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus.

The extent of the atonement has been and still is a matter of honest but not unkind difference. Within the last fifty years a change has gradually taken place in the views of a large portion of our brethren. At the commencement of that period Gill’s Divinity was a sort of standard, and Baptists imbibing his opinions were what may be called almost hyper-Calvinistic.

A change commenced upon the publication of the writings of Andrew fuller, especially his “Gospel Worthy of all Acceptation,” which, in the northern and eastern States, has become almost universal. The old view still prevails, if I mistake not, in our southern and western States. This however, does not interrupt the harmony which should subsist among brethren.

Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Stillman differed in opinion on this subject; the former following Fuller, the latter adhering to Gill. No two ministers however, ever lived in more fraternal intercourse, exchanging with and aiding each other, and rejoicing in each other’s prosperity, as it became the servants of one common Lord. I have known men believing the atonement to be limited, preach with great acceptance in New England  where the contrary belief prevails almost universally and the contrary has been even more frequently the case. Men in this respect, differ amicably; and it is found that when their hearts are warmed with the love of God and desire for the salvation of souls, they all preach very much alike.

It is difficult at the present day to conceive to what extent the doctrine of the limited atonement, and the views of election which accompanied it, were carried. I once knew a popular minister, who used to quote the passage, “God so loved the world,” etc., by inserting 'the elect' before 'world': “God so loved 'the elect' world,” etc. I was, in the early part of my ministry, settled in a respectable town in Massachusetts.

One of my members, a very worthy man, and the son of a Baptist minister, and reputed to be “very clear in the doctrines”-(this was the term applied to this form of belief)-had an interesting family wholly given up to worldliness. I wished to converse with them on the subject of personal religion, and mentioned to him my desire. He kindly but plainly told me that he did not wish any one to converse with his children on that subject.

If they were elected, God would convert them in his own time; but if not, talking would do them no good, it would only make them hypocrites. He was, I believe, the last pillar of Gillism then remaining in the church." (italics mine)

 With that, I am...

 Peter

Comments

[selahV]

So...is this what some folks believe today? That according the teachings of election and predestination, there is no need to talk to anyone, but God will change the will of the elect when He is good and ready to change their will? Is the church therefore only to minister to its own body? selahV

[Debbie Kaufman]

Selah: No, it is not what is believed. A thousand times no.

Peter: I do believe I will be ignoring such posts. They serve no other purpose than to distort the reformed faith beliefs. I know not where you get your information, but you really need to invest in a different set of books with more accurate information. I could go point by point in refuting you, but not only would it take unnecessary time, but it appears to be futile. You will believe what you believe. It's just another thing to bring separation and since I belong to a church where both Calvinism and non-Calvinists listen to each other and fellowship beautifully together, I think I'll pass. The two can coincide and understand each other without contention.

[Grosey]

hahaha definitely not SelahV.
I realy love that statement "Men in this respect, differ amicably; and it is found that when their hearts are warmed with the love of God and desire for the salvation of souls, they all preach very much alike."

I think when we are best at heart, there is a zeal for winning the lost among both calvinists and non calvinists, but when not, the calvinists resort to dry intellectualism, and the non-calvinists to social work.

I personally like to do the CH Spurgeon method... scattershot from the pulpit and sending out the bird dogs to pick out those touched by the General call to repentance.
Pray for us that the word be effectual in this dry land.
Bye the way, checking my sermons on John.. do I preach like a calvinist or an arminian?

Steve

[selahV]

Grosey: I did say "is this what SOME folks believe today...", but I guess that was lost in the midst of the ludicrousy of my question, yes? selahV

[Grosey]

ohhh I see what you mean SelahV, and yes, sadly I have known some I would regard as hyper calvinists that did indeed live that way. They didn't recognise any churches for 400 miles around them as christian churches. They refused to allow their 7 kids to interact with the "out of covenant" kids at the local school (in the bush... 60 kids total in the school). The kids turned out mean, bitter and resentful of christian things altogether.
I befriended the family, one son was already saved (he was 50), and I spent years working with the others to help them get over their resentment and come to a true faith in Christ. Two couples did become christians (55 and 30) but the other 4 brothers didn't. Oh and the parents didn't want me to go interfering with the kids.. their opinion was 'if God wanted them He'd see them saved, and any influence from outside by an (get this!) 'unreformed' minister like (myself) could only be negative.'
yes, sadly there are some that are like that illustrated above.
Peter, that is a great book demonstrating the need for real God-given revival.
As always, good stuff
Steve

[peter]

My Debbie,

Does this mean you won't be buying my CD? :^) Just kidding...

Actually, Debbie, I think you already did ignore the post. I don't think you got past the first line before you fired off your comment.

If you did, it's inexplicable how someone who wrote:

"...I belong to a church where both Calvinism and non-Calvinists listen to each other and fellowship beautifully together...The two can coincide and understand each other without contention."

could have read this:

"This however, does not interrupt the harmony which should subsist among [Calvinist & NonCalvinist] brethren. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Stillman differed in opinion on this subject...No two ministers however, ever lived in more fraternal intercourse, exchanging with and aiding each other, and rejoicing in each other’s prosperity, as it became the servants of one common Lord. I have known men believing the atonement to be limited, preach with great acceptance in New England where the contrary belief prevails almost universally and the contrary has been even more frequently the case. Men in this respect, differ amicably; and it is found that when their hearts are warmed with the love of God and desire for the salvation of souls, they all preach very much alike."

At least half of the Wayland quote is given to working together and accepting one another. How did you miss that?

As for your Church embracing both, I say Amen, Debbie. IBC in Enid is to be commended and lifted up as a model for SBs.

It also should be noted that such a Church stands as an indictment to many within the Founders' movement who seem to think the acid test of Church health is theological invigoration and adherence to Dortian Calvinism--to "reform" Churches, if you please, to Five point theology.

As for my library, I'm afraid you are correct. It is deficient and I wish I had money to buy some more.

Though the greater problem today, it seems to me, is particularly those young Calvinists who've cut their theological teeth mainly on 'reformed' internet blogs and exclusively Calvinist websites. They appear totally unaware that Baptist history is checkered with Calvinist & NonCalvinist salvific focuses.

It is no secret that I partially began this blog as a balance to so many Baptist blogs who whistle only to the tune of Dordt. Hence, I continue to stockpile resources for NonCalvinists.

Faith today, my Debbie. And do give your Pastor my sincerest appreciation. I mean it. Any single Church body who captures what Dr. Wayland advocates, especially in this day of polarization, deserves special gratitude.

With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

GROSEY: Wow! what a story! I've heard some from others on the internet that pinch my heart, but that is truly truly sad. Do you think this is ONE of the examples of those goats to be separated who will cry out, "but Lord, we prophesied in Your name, etc.?"...and then Jesus will say, "depart from Me for I never knew you?" selahV

[Grosey]

SelahV, I would never presume to judge these folks... their main source of instruction was AW Pink, who, though such a thorough exegete and Bible commentator that he was, in his latter years,lived in self imposed exile separated from the church down the road. Did I mention that the church he separated from ( or rather wouldn't attend) was pastored by a gentleman named Duncan Campbell and his place of exile was the Isle of Lewis during the revival?
He could not find a church to fellowship with. How sad.
(oh no... an Independant Fundementalist as I have been abusively called, advocates fellowship with Presbyterians of the Free Kirk? Did I mention some of the Free Kirkers attend my evening service and occassionally preach for me from my pulpit?)
mmmm :) now there's a thought :)
Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Steve,

Thanks and especially for the anecdote. How utterly like Wayland is your personal experience.

If SB Calvinists at large were drenched with your tone, Grosey, there would be no crisis in the SBC over Calvinism.

I think I may write Dr. Ascol and see if you could be considered as a possible speaker for the Conference on Calvinism. It may be too late this year, but perhaps next year!

With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter: NOW, that would really make the conference worth attending! Grosey speaking!!! I totally agree if all Calvinists spoke with the tone (and knowledge) we hear from Grosey, then we'd have more non-Calvinists with ears that could hear. And if all non-Calvinists spoke with an equal amount of cordial tone as Grosey (and the knowledge of you, dear Peter), they too would add a greater dynamic of understanding within our convention. selahV

[Debbie Kaufman]

Do you have a readable source for that statement Steve? I have read about him and that information was never mentioned. So little is known of AW Pink biographically as he did not think so much of himself to write on himself. He was a good friend of Wade Burleson's grandfather and Wade possesses a letter written to his grandfather by AW Pink. He was influential to many Calvinists including myself. Thus why I am asking for a source. His writings are great and I possess many of them.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on Fuller, but I think that there is an argument which says that Fuller did believe in limited atonement.

The difference being that Fuller believed that the atonement was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" whereas Gill did not believe the atonement was sufficient for all.

Again, I'm not going to claim scholar status here, but if this argument is correct then I think this could seriously weaken your argument.

Also, do you have any primary resource material that shows that the seperate Baptists weakened Calvinism's influence?

Finally, I think the thing that may be missing here is that even if the argument was granted that most Baptists were not fully Dortian Calvinists in the 19th century [for arguments sake], I think it would be very difficult to argue that they were not, at the least, Calvinistic L E A N I N G in what they believed about salvation.

My how times have changed [at least from my perspective]

Today it seems that most SB's do not believe fully in ANY of the five points.

Instead they seem to believe in some "aspects" of some of those points.

They might believe that sin has affected every part of man, but not affirm total inability.

They seem to believe that Jesus died a substitutionary death [even if they might not articulate it that way] but deny that there was any securing of salvation on the cross.

They seem to believe in "once saved, always saved", but not in perseverance.

Anyway, I tried to pull up your song, but my computer is really slow.

Are you a tenor or bass?

Benji

P.S. Or baritone?

[Luke]

Peter,
Having been a student of Richard's at FBTC now Baptist Bible College of Florida, I would be partial towards him as well. If you have not read his book Winds of Doctrine, might I suggest you add that to your library as well. In it, he traces the rise and fall of Calvinism until its date of publishing.

[peter]

Benji,

Thanks for the comment. Whatever Fuller *actually* argued, for purposes here, is irrelevant. Dr. Wayland understood him to be arguing *General Atonement* which, of course, he was contrasting with Gill's view. Consequently, he asserted many Baptists followed Fuller's *General* and not Gill's *Limited*.

Secondly, you carefully assert, Benji, that "the thing that may be missing here is that even if [granted] that most Baptists were not fully Dortian Calvinists in the 19th century...I think it would be very difficult to argue that they were not, at the least, Calvinistic L E A N I N G in what they believed about salvation."

You'd be surprised to know I do not necessarily disagree with you--given a couple if qualifiers.

First, if we assume that Philadelphia's Confession was nothing less than Dortian in the "doctrines of grace" it seems one is hard pressed to argue that 4p Calvinists are Dortian Calvinists. That is, 4p Calvinists were *less than* Philadelphia's Calvinism. And, if Dr. Wayland is correct that a transformation took place "over the last 50 years," we're looking conservatively at the first third of the 19thC when Philadelphia's grip began slipping.

Secondly, I did not say--or I certainly did not intend to imply--that "most Baptists were not fully Dortian Calvinists in the 19th century." Wayland gave no percentage breakdowns. Rather, it was more about "regional" emphasis if you'll note carefully again.

Nor would I doubt that they were "at least, Calvinistic leaning." But *leaning toward* Geneva is definitively not what today's Baptist Calvinists claim. Rather, it's *full Dortian Calvinism* as Dr. Ascol made perfectly clear in his papers pertaining to The Alabama Baptist series by Professor Garrett. Indeed, Dr. Ascol equated "warm, evangelical Calvinism" with the Synod of Dort. Interesting.

In the end, I really have only one point: the pair of shoes we are asked to wear by Founders today--namely, that Dortian Calvinism dominated and was virtually universal among Baptists up until the first part of the 20th century--fits much too snugly on Baptist feet. Diversity existed and sometimes, if we are to believe eminent Baptists like Francis Wayland, overwhelming numbers of Baptists rejected Philadelphia's rigid system of five point Calvinism. The final culmination was in 1925 when Baptists, who could have chosen Philadelphia or even the Abstracts of Principles of SBTS as a model for its first Confession. They did not. They instead chose the lessor, weakened Calvinism of New Hampshire as a working model for SBs' statement of faith.

Grace, Benji. With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. I honestly don't know what I am--tenor, baritone, or bass. If I guessed, I say baritone :^)

[peter]

Luke,

Thanks Luke. Actually, I have not read anything I recall by Dr. Richards outside the essay in BH&H. I shall begin saving!

Grace this afternoon. With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: I would still buy your CD. I'm not kidding, that was really nice.

Benji: They weren't kidding when they said on the posts that Peter resembles Elvis Presley in tone, that would include the pitch. :)

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

My "suspician" is that the SBC, in its early history, was a predominantly 4P denomination that allowed for flexibility, at the least, on limited atonement.

If you had to "suspect", Peter, would your voice harmonize with mine?

Benji [a baritone]

[peter]

Benji

Fortunately for us all, the messengers did not see fit to board up the walls with a "founding" Confession--my kind of Baptist.

The truth is, my voice wouldn't harmonize so well with *any* other person. In the past, I've been booed out of the choir loft. I am an incurable, poisonous leach, draining out the sound of all around me. Whatever part they sing, my voice eventually wanders over to their pitch and never recovers...Nor do they...

Debbie,

Seriously, my young sister. You are much too kind. But I do thank you for your encouragement...

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

You are right about no founding confession.

However, putting personalities aside, when Ascol states "As Timothy George has noted, every one of the 293 delegates who attended the constitutional meeting in August, Georgia in 1845 came from churches or associations that held to the Second London Confession of Faith (in some cases in its Charleston or Philadelphia expressions)", then [assuming the accuracy of Dr. George's note] it would also be true that the original SB's did have their own pro Dortian confessions.

I'm sure your listeners disagree with your overly harsh perspective on your own voice:)

Elvis is quite a compliment.

Benji

[Grosey]

As again my integrity is abused by Mrs. Kauffman:
Iain Murray's biography of AW Pink,
Dr. Richard P. Belcher :
"Any one familiar with Pink's life knows that he struggled constantly concerning the will of God for his life. Should he Pastor? Should he pursue an itinerant ministry? Should he devote his time fully to ministry through his pen? Or should he seek to combine several of these ministries? The truth is that he tried all of the above ministries, sometimes with much ambivalence and uncertainty. Finally in his later years he did devote his life fully to a writing ministry, living in virtual seclusion in far-away Stornaway, Scotland on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides until he died in 1952. "

http://richbarry.followers.net/New_RBP_Books.AW_Pink_Books

The dates for the Hebrides Revival:

http://www.members.aol.com/thewaycm/revival/hebredies.html

Steve

[Byroniac]

I think it's important to keep in mind that affirming all five points of Calvinism does not require the negation of means which God has ordained in the Scriptures to irresistibly "grace" the elect into salvation. :) In fact, Calvinism, properly understood, should exclude such an idea from our mindset. It's possible, I suppose, that some elect could be converted without means, which is what I think happened with John the Baptist in the womb when he was filled with the Holy Spirit. However, his was truly an exceptional case which I believe has not and will not be repeated. Simply put, God has ordained the means of Gospel preaching to win the elect, and that is what we should focus on. I believe that election rests upon complete predestination by God, but I'm willing to acknowledge that truth is a mystery which cannot be known beyond the revelation of it given in the Scriptures. I'd rather focus on preaching repentance and faith, and tell people they must forsake sin and trust Christ to be saved: there is salvation in no other!

[Grosey]

Amen!!! Byron Amen!!
Its a whole lot mroe fun, and knowing they are predestined often takes the anxiety out of it...

I once got sooo tongue tied after presenting the gospel to a couple that I asked them "did you understand what I said?"
They said "yes, it was perfectly clear"
I said "well explain it to me, because I got pretty confused there." They gavfe me the gospel back clearly and perfectly.
I triped over my tongue again and asked "OK do ya want to do this thing?"
they said yes and came through that day to a real faith in Christ.
Man am I glad I believe in the Sovereignty God who makes up for human weaknesses.

Steve

[Debbie Kaufman]

Steve: I am sorry if you thought this was questioning your integrity. I had just not heard this before. I always ask for proof of a statement so that I can read it for myself. I do the same thing with doctrine and scripture. It's the Berean in me. I have learned something I did not know.

[Debbie Kaufman]

http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2006/09/aw-pink-and-spartanburg-sc.html

[Byroniac]

Amen, Steve. I'm so glad salvation isn't up to us. That doesn't excuse of our responsibility to preach and defend the gospel. And I'm so thankful that God worked that way in your life, and indeed, in all of His children.

[selahV]

Grosey: help me out, please. before an elect is saved and regenerated, is he accountable for his depravity? And before I am accused (with proper reason) of hijacking this thread. I am going to go post this question on my blog of questions. come on by and help me out.
http://selahvtoday.typepad.com/selahvsquestions
Thanks. selahV

[Richard Coords]

Hey Peter,

You quoted: "I once knew a popular minister, who used to quote the passage, 'God so loved the world,' etc., by inserting 'the elect' before 'world': 'God so loved "the elect" world,' etc."

Is "the world" to be understood differently at John chapter 17?

If not, then let's make the following (similar) substitutions:

“I have given them Your word; and the [elect] world has hated them, because they are not of the [elect] world, even as I am not of the [elect] world. I do not ask You to take them out of the [elect] world, but to keep them from the evil one. They are not of the [elect] world, even as I am not of the [elect] world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the [elect] world, I also have sent them into the [elect] world.” (John 17:14-18)

[Grosey]

Hi there SelahV,
Time lag kills much discussion!
I think there have been interesting statements from various individuals on that question. Did I say here sometime back that something I read by Bunyan lead me to concluude that he viewed the elect as justified in Christ before the foundation of the world?
Its been some years since I read a lot of his books..can't remember which one said that.
Personally...
I think its Ephesians 2:1 and Romans 5 that answer that question
Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins ..4 But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, 5 made us alive with Christ even though we were dead in trespasses. By grace you are saved!
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would say that it is at the moment of faith that we are actually justified.

What did Bunyan mean? I think he was viewing it as "in a sense".. that because God cannot look upon sin, He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.

But that which was potential becomes actual at the moment of faith.

Therefore he is accountable for his sin from the moment that.. wait for it.. the moment that he was in Adam when he sinned! :) Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
I would be one of the few that feel that the federal view of the origin of sin does not overshadow what is termed Augustine's view of concuspience.

That is that somehow we were all in Adam when he sinned and so we are held culpable for Adam's sin.
Otherwise it is unjust of God to enact the death penalty upon us for Adam's sin.

Steve

[volfan007]

i just believe that God chose to save me from eternity past...planned to save me and conform me to the image of His Son...and will keep me saved forever. yet, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He earnestly and sincerely desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. and, whosoever will may come, and whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. and, there have been people that the Lord wanted to save, but they would not.

how do those things fit together? we're not told.

david

[Richard Coords]

David,

"I just believe that God chose to save me from eternity past."

Conditionally, or unconditionally, that is the question? Does that make me Shakespeare?

In other words, does God unconditionally choose to bestow salvation, or does God conditionally choose to bestow salvation "in Christ"? That's why I always point out that Eph 1:4 states that we were chosen in Christ, rather than stating that we were chosen "to be" in Christ. I add that if you check Ephesians chapter 1, you will find 11 references to "in Christ" (or combinations thereof) in the first 13 verses. Hence, Ephesians 1 is an elaborate presentation of everything that we have "in Christ." I've said it many times. I believe that the essense of Calvinist Election is an "in the Father" election, which flows downhill to His Son, in order "to be" given to His Son, in order "to be" chosen in Christ. Hence, I feel that such an election circumvents John 14:6. I do not believe that the Bible teaches that I was "secretly" eternally mediated to the Father, or else the Lord's mediation at Calvary was pure pagaentry, rather than a genuine saving act. That's the case that Arminian, Robert Shank, lays out.

[Debbie Kaufman]

A good read concerning John Bunyan and his view would be "Grace Abounding To The Chief Of Sinners."

http://www.ccel.org/b/bunyan/abounding/grace_abounding.txt

[volfan007]

richard,

the Father chose to come to us. He chose to save us, not based on anything about us, but all because of His grace.

david

[volfan007]

oh, richard, btw, i believe that God desires to save every person on this planet...every person who has ever been born. and, i believe that man has to choose whether to respond to the call of God for salvation, or not.

so, i dont know what that makes me theologically, but i prefer the term...biblicist. i just try to believe the bible, and i dont try to make the bible fit into a system, or into my theological box.

david

[Richard Coords]

David,

To me, the essense of Calvinism is this:

Elective Grace predetermines Regenerative Grace which results in Persevering Grace.

The general idea of Calvinism is that God had a people, i.e. the alleged, "eternal flock of the Father," whom God had eternally given to His Son in order to belong to Him, and that these alone, He has purposed to save, while "passing by" the rest (Preterition), which Martin Luther taught that God had created "by necessity."

My contention is that if there existed an "eternal flock of the Father," then it is those who are "in Christ," who are chosen in Christ, whom the Father did foreknow, and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. So that's why I like Arminianism, offering a Christocentric Election, whereas Calvinism (I believe) is a Father-centric Election. Consider Calvin's quote, in relation to my assertion:

“First he points out the eternity of election, and then how we should think of it. Christ says that *the elect always belonged to God*. God therefore distinguishes them from the reprobate, *not by faith*, nor by any merit, *but by pure grace*; for while they are far away from him, he regards them ***in secret as his own***.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.393)

That statement is why I left Calvinism.

[Richard Coords]

David,

Allow me to ask these two questions:

Question #1: If God has predetermined to unconditionally save, only a select number of people, then how can He genuinely desire the salvation of the rest? (I'm not saying that you believe this, but merely ask the question.) To me, Calvinism calls into question, the integrity of God's own statements concerning all men. Hence, for some, it's a matter of "for God so loved the [elect] world."

Question #2: Do you believe that you had a right-standing with God, before the foundation of the world, and most especially, before Calvary?

[peter lumpkins]

Peter Lumpkins

[volfan007]

richard,

i guess i would answer you that i reject the fatalism of the tulip theory. i'm not a five point calvinist. i believe that God desires to save every person who has ever been born, and He is working in this world to bring every person to salvation... according to the light they have shed on them. in other words, i beleive that every person can be saved.

now, richard, i dont believe that the Lord is surprised about anything that happens in this world, nor is He bound by time and space like we are. of course, God is eternal. He knew me as one of His own before the world was ever created, yes. but, that does not negate that He desires that all men be saved. nor does it mean that people cant be saved out there. they can....down here in time and space.

election, predestination, sovereignty of God are heavenly words. they are God's way of looking at things.

choice, responsibility of man, etc are earthly terms about such things. they are looking at it from mans perspective...down here on earth.

i know that this might not fully answer your question, and i'm sure that some reformed guys could jump in here and out debate me. and, this may all seem very simplistic. but, i just try to believe the bible. i think that theologians sometimes try to think so deep that they miss it.

david

[selahV]

David and Richard, Good evening fellas!

Sometimes when I study what other folks think about what God is and God offers and God provides, my brain shorts out. And since Jesus tells me I should love the Lord with all my heart, soul, body AND MIND, I'm prone to let go of alot of stuff and rest in Him for the answers I don't need to know anyway.

I get going round and round chasing some doctrinal tail and never catching it. It's just so much easier to rest in the Truth of Christ's words as I read them in the Bible. And I do know I take the simplistic view that God so loved the world--all of it that He gave His life for it so that we could spend an eternal life with Him if we would simply believe in, adhere to, rely upon Him and all He did and will do for us.

I'm not cut out to be a theological scholar--just a little donkey of a homemaker who loves Jesus and would sit at His feet if He came calling, after I served Him a great bowl of homemade chicken soup. And I really do like my relationship with Jesus. Don't know how I fall into anyone's system. I truly don't. But I know how I rest in Christ's. selahV

[Joe Stewart]

Thanks for your balanced perspective and this from someone living near Wayland's namesake.

[peter]

All,

The thread has been interesting to observe as it unfolds. It demonstrates that it may be virtually impossible to speak of one petal of the 'tulip' without speaking of others.

Mr Wayland reveals in his essays--and I will post some more of this in the future--that however firmly Baptists leaned toward Calvinistic soteriology in 19th century America, they were far from settled on at least one of the 5 Canons of Dort, namely Limited Atonement.

Given that, it seems an historical overstretch to speak of 'Dortian' Calvinism dominating Baptist theo-landscape until the first part of the 20th century as our Founders' brothers seem to advocate.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. Some sample passages from Wayland's work online can be found here

[Richard Coords]

David,

That was an excellent answer. There's not a bit of it that I disagreed with.

[Richard Coords]

David,

I need for you to clarify only one sentence:

"He knew me as one of His own before the world was ever created, yes."

I inferred that you meant it from the standpoint of His foreknowledge of you being in Christ.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Question: What does the Bible say God's attributes are?

[Debbie Kaufman]

Question #2: What does the entire chapter of Ephesians 1 say?

[peter lumpkins]

Debbie,

I do not think you will get many takers on your questions. Not that either cannot possess a response. Rather, I think both are simply much too general.

For example, to attempt a rehearsal of Scriptural assertions about what is revealed about God's attributes could be a hefty little comment, do you not agree? Or, to post a running commentary on Ephesians 1-23 seems much too broad to me.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter,

I think the original Articles of Faith of the local Southern Baptist church that I belong to might be consistent with my "suspician".

The first pastor of this church went to the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and was ordained in the Sandy Creek Association.

Alot of the content in these articles is taken from the New Hampshire, but there is a good amount of material included in it that is not a part of the New Hampshire.

The church started in 1894.

You can view these articles of faith here if you are interested:

http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/nc/lenoir/church/newhope.txt

[peter lumpkins]

Benji

I trust you on what the founding AF of your church says. But frankly, you could point to 10,000 similar examples and it would not disturb my one and only suggestion: Founders' thesis that Dortian Calvinism ruled the theological roost in the 19th C is seriously challenged by Francis Wayland on one end and Z.T. Cody on the other.

Unless we redefine Dortian Five Point Calvinism to a much weaker four point Calvinism, Founders' claims remain jepardized.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Debbie Kaufman]

No Peter, I do not agree. But if it's too much for you, I'll give you that. :)

[volfan007]

richard,

the Lord not only knew that i would be saved, but He knew me as one of His one before the world began. God is eternal.

richard, this does not negate the choice of man.

david