Posted on 04/19/2003 7:55:27 AM PDT by Between the Lines
One cannot help noticing the interest in Calvinism lately expressed among some Baptists has prompted from others a cry of alarm. One group tends to represent the Baptist heritage as passively shaped by Calvinism, and the other wishes to deny the Calvinist (or Reformed) influence completely. The truth is somewhere in-between.
The concern for eliminating the Calvinist influence among Baptists is misguided.
Every body of believers needs to be in touch with the best of its theological tradition. For Baptists, that tradition is Reformed, or Calvinist, thought. Those who wish to look into this view need only discover for themselves the evident Calvinism of the Particular Baptist London Confession of 1644 and the even more pointedly Calvinist nature of the Second London Confession of 1677. These statements, along with the Savoy Confession and the Westmins ter Confession, evidently came from a co mmon stock of doctrinal expression. The words of the 1644 Confession and its successors are suggestive of Calvin's "Institutes" and not at all of, for instance, the early Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession. This is true not only in the ordinary sense of common vocabulary and system, but also in regard to the tone and the habitual focus. Again, one can point to the undisguised Reformed theology of John Gill, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Andrew Fuller, Isaac Backus, Richard Furman, Basil Manly Sr., James Petigrew Boyce and quite a number of others who were powerfully instrumental in the doctrinal expression of Baptists through the middle part of the twentieth century.
All this has been vigorously preached by the defenders of Calvinist theology, only they have sometimes taken an additional, and unwarranted, step further. They often assume that this put Baptists (especially Southern Baptists) right in line with the most extreme expressions of Calvinism. They assume that Baptists must be advocates of the Canons of Dort, the famous five-point Calvinism that was formulated some half- century after John Calvin himself was dead. Or they align Baptists with the hard-edged Calvinism of early New England Puritan thought. In fact, the Reformed thought that most influenced Baptists, especially in the South, was one that had been softened and moderated by Scottish Common Sense philosophy and by the Baptists' own insistence upon the competence of believers to respond in faith to the gospel.
Interestingly enough, along with this Calvinism moderated by Scottish Presbyterians and Baptists of the American South came a real openness to the strongest and best of Christian thinkers from other traditions. The great Broadus, who set the standard for intelligent and heart-felt preaching among Baptists, remembered with gratitude that the advanced students of Boyce, the founder of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, read from Turrettini (a moderate Reformed thinker) and Thomas Aquinas. E.Y. Mullins, Southern Seminary's president for the first quarter of the 20th century, could adapt Schleiermacher's insights to a basically Reformed worldview.
Some worry about an "aggressive Calvinism" on college campuses. I worry more about a fundamental resistance to any vigorous kind of theological thinking. For the life of me, I cannot see that college campuses are about to be overrun by Calvinists--aggressive or otherwise. If there is genuine theological study going on, which in fact there is, then it is a matter for which we might be grateful. I am concerned about aggressive relativism in ethics and religion; I am concerned about aggressive nihilism in the moral life of college students; I am concerned about aggressive addictions and aggressive sexually transmitted diseases; I am concerned about aggressive indifference in the formation of the intellect among students.
But aggressive Calvinism? I haven't seen that yet. And I do find, however, among our best students an appreciation for the ordered, energetic, biblical teachings of John Calvin and some of his followers. To reject this rich tradition by pretending it has nothing to do with Baptist history would be wasteful and wrongheaded. To confuse the distinctive Baptist form of this tradition with its most radical historical expressions is to miss the Baptist genius that reshaped Calvinism in a way that proved fruitful for the aspiring denomination of Baptist Christians in America.
Laissez faire theology, which forgets its debt to thinkers of the past, may do for a period of time. In fact, that has mostly been the state of things since World War II, after which careful theological teaching was submerged in denominational boosterism and a cult of personality, with results that we have sadly lived with these past two decades. The atheological approach to church life leaves us narrow-minded and unimaginative, merely reciting the prejudices we have gathered like lint over the past 50 years; while a well- wrought theological tradition keeps us alive to conversation partners from every Christian generation, providing a foundation of substance for our mission and our ministry. As P.T. Forsyth once wrote, "The non-theological Christ is popular; he wins votes; but he is not mighty; he does not win souls; he does not break men into small pieces and create them anew."
A.J. Conyers is professor of theology at Baylor University's George W. Truett Theological Seminary in Waco
Sure I do! There are many who are not saved who believe that. That's why I post this, for those who might be lurking.
Also, believe it or not, some Christians still have that idea floating around inside their minds.
Pay Lay Ale!
Some thoughts on "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it":
Apostasy has been the rule throughout human history, not the exception.
In my view, the gates of hell prevail against those who have to go there after this life and stay there, just as the locked and secured gates of an earthly prison prevail against those who try to escape that way.
Those who are built upon the Rock will withstand the storms and tempests of this life, will overcome the world, and will not have to live in hell in the next life. They are His Church. Thus, the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.
It is also interesting to read in context the four verses in the Doctrine and Covenants that contain the words "church" and "wilderness". After the ancient apostles "fall asleep", the tares choke the wheat and drive the Church into the wilderness. In the latter days, the Lord calls His Church out of the wilderness and sends laborers into His vineyard for the last time.
Even if populations are destroyed by civil wars, or dwindle in unbelief, or otherwise apostatize, there are at least four (John and the Three Nephites) who have remained on the earth all this time, bringing souls unto Christ.
(By the way, the one who posted #116 thinks I am responding, and thinks that I call the poster's replies persecution. The poster needs to try again. But on the larger issue, why should I cooperate with modern-day Pharisees who falsely accuse day and night and seek to put us perpetually on trial under any pretext possible? Would you cooperate with that kind of thing directed at your faith?)
If this were true, why are they invisible to our eyes?
Even Paul said........
1 Corinthians 9:22-23
22. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
23. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Paul did.
He never shied away from a challenge to what he believed in. He went to prison, rather than be silenced.
You've called your 'tormentors' modern-day Pharisees who falsely accuse; but they, OTOH, feel that they are trying to get you to look at your own organizations writings: to see the inconsistancies in them.
Interesting indeed.......
Is there any evidence of this happening?
I'm not asking for "cooperation", I'm asking for a straight answer. Do you, White Mountain, believe that persecution as you define it should be illegal?
Do you? Yes, or no? One word will do.
Maybe they aren't.
Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
If not, why not?
Why do you agree with the passages that teach belief is something one does toward salvation but do believe those which teach baptism is something one does toward salvation?
Do you also have a problem with confession or repentance or "reciting the sinner's prayer" as something one does toward salvation?
If that were their motivation, our replies would make a difference, but experience shows there is no point in replying, though I do reply, from time to time, anyway. They merely recycle the same old accusations in order to keep their accusation machine running day and night. They abandon the truth in order to do that. It's a natural-man thing.
It sounds like they keep asking the same questions trying to get an answer to them, instead of an answer to something that wasn't asked.
Are you willing to do so?
Sorry, not a good answer....
These are MEN, not angels, according to the LDS teaching.
John 6:23-69
23. Then some boats from Tiberias landed near the place where the people had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks.
24. Once the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and went to Capernaum in search of Jesus.
25. When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?"
26. Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
27. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."
28. Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
30. So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31. Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "
32. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34. "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread."
35. Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.
36. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
37. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
38. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
39. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
40. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41. At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."
42. They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, `I came down from heaven'?"
43. "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered.
44. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
45. It is written in the Prophets: `They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
46. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
47. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
48. I am the bread of life.
49. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.
50. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.
51. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53. Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
57. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."
59. He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61. Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?
62. What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63. The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
64. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
65. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66. From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67. "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
This has come up a number of times on threads where you and I were posting. Maybe this will jog your memory:
People have said that the creeds are merely summaries of Scripture. I have replied that creeds consisting of nothing but Scripture verses would be much better summaries. They also would not be controversial -- no one would have been burned at the stake on their account.
I have said that the problem with these uninspired creeds is that people lift them up above Scripture and say, "Accept these creeds or be cut off." Centuries ago it was by burning at the stake. That had the effect of riveting the creeds upon the minds of the general public, lest they suffer the same fate. Today people claim to cut others off from Christianity and salvation, which is blasphemy, because only God does that.
I have said that most of the phrases in the creeds are fine. The unBiblical zingers that are tossed in there are not.
I have said that my main issue with the Nicene Creed (the principal zinger) is the homoousios (same substance) phrase, usually translated: "of one being/substance with the Father". That was put in there, over the objections of those who said it was unBiblical, to leave the outvoted Arians no leg to stand on. It was a big lurch away from Scripture in one direction in order to keep the Arians from lurching away from Scripture in another direction, as they supposed.
I notice you provide nothing to support such a statement. Yes, it is a good answer. Hebrews 13:2, along with the rest of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, is LDS teaching.
It does no good to reply to you guys. I'm losing interest, Elsie. You can do better than this. I am not interested in the same old nonsense, if that is what you are going to post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.