Replies

The Baptist Church I’m currently a member of (http://www.vailvalleybaptistchurch.org/) is uncommonly Calvinist, but it also gave me a half hour to explain the Arminian side to our Systematic Theology class, and hand our an 8 page summary. It uses the SBC Faith & Message, which allows for both sides. In arguing for the Arminian side, I do not violate agreed Southern Baptist Convention teaching.

The idea that liking the word “Eucharist” over “The Lord’s Supper” means I’ve adopted Catholic dogma and doctrine should be laughable. I would raise far more consternation in my church by arguing for using real wine in it than for using “Eucharist”.

I think some don’t realize that Baptists aren’t ‘in opposition to’ something, but are ‘for’ something - following what scripture lays out as God’s will. That is why I started studying predestination by making scripture lists of pertinent words, reading them, and then going back and reading the verses in context. I didn’t want to read too much Piper or Calvin before reading Jesus and Peter and Paul.

And that is why I don’t freak out if I agree with Catholics on a subject. I view myself as Christian, not “Not Catholic”. I’m pro-scripture, not anti-pope...although I’ve spent ample posts here over the last rejecting the idea that the Vicar of Christ is anyone other than the Holy Spirit.

For any interested in a quick review of Baptist history, from a Particular Baptist side but fairly presented, see;

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/trail.htm

The Baptist Church I’m currently a member of (http://www.vailvalleybaptistchurch.org/) is uncommonly Calvinist, but it also gave me a half hour to explain the Arminian side to our Systematic Theology class, and hand our an 8 page summary.

I haven't been able to follow the whole discussion because of time constraints. In my experience it's pretty common to have all sides of an issue discussed.

I think some don’t realize that Baptists aren’t ‘in opposition to’ something, but are ‘for’ something - following what scripture lays out as God’s will.

Great point.

I’m pro-scripture, not anti-pope...although I’ve spent ample posts here over the last rejecting the idea that the Vicar of Christ is anyone other than the Holy Spirit.

The opposition is not to an individual. The opposition is to the unscriptural claims of dominance and status over all Christians. Rather than being unified by our common faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior the RCC claims a pecking order with them at the top.

As a Born Again Christian I am in opposition to any assembly of Christians that make those claims.

A good review of Calvin/Arminius controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention can be found here:

http://timmybrister.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/a-chronological-survey-of-the-calvinism-arminianism-controversy-in-the-sbc-with-contributing-factors-30.pdf

Doctrines Lead to `Dunghill’ Prof Warns can be found here:

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj29/article1.html

LOL. Quite so, I’m sure.

Sorry, I had to drop off for a while for several things that have been disturbing my repose. :O)

Your history on Baptist is interesting. I’m always interested in the history of these things. According to the history documented at your site, John Smyth was an Anglican Priest who formed the General Baptists and later left to form the Mennonite church because he disagreed with the doctrine he established.

First, Smyth insisted that true worship was from the heart and that any form of reading from a book in worship was an invention of sinful man. Prayer, singing and preaching had to be completely spontaneous. He went so far with this mentality that he would not allow the reading of the Bible during worship...Before his death, as seems characteristic of Smyth, he abandoned his Baptist views and began trying to bring his flock into the Mennonite church. Although he died before this happened, most of his congregation did join themselves with the Mennonite church after his death.

Thomas Helwys split from Smyth’s General Baptists and formed the Baptists:

Thomas Helwys...had a somewhat rocky relationship with Smyth, but after Smyth began moving away from the General Baptist belief, Helwys carried on the Baptist beginnings....group held to believer's baptism, they rejected Calvinism for a free will position...Even though some might see the modern-day Baptist movement in this group, we must understand that the beliefs of this group are far from the reformed heritage that shaped modern-day Baptist belief.

But neither of these two groups represents the doctrine of the Baptist church today. It is the Particular Baptists that form the core belief of Baptists.

As with the General Baptists, the Particular Baptists came out of the Separatist movement. This group emerged in the 1630's. This group was influenced by the great reformer John Calvin and held strongly to a "particular" atonement.[8] The first church was thought to be founded around 1633 or 1638, according to some. Regardless of this datum, however, it is clear that by 1644 the Particular Baptists numbered at least seven churches. One amazing point...is that in 1644 these churches...issue a confession of faith called the First London Confession of Faith. This confession preceded the widely known Westminster Confession of Faith by two years. As we will see, the present-day Baptist churches can be traced back to these early Baptists.

Please note that according to your article, the core belief of the Baptist Church spawned out of the Particular Baptists and was decidedly Calvinists. It was the Particular Baptists that wrote the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644; the document that I referred to many posts ago. From the Particular Baptist grew the many Baptists including the Southern Baptists which finds their heritage in this Calvinist group. The non-Calvinist General Baptists became marginalized and exist only as a tiny fraction in the Baptist denomination.

I think that it is important to emphasize once again that it is implied in the article that the Particular Baptist placed a great deal of emphasis on the word of God from a Calvinistic perspective. Contrast this with the General Baptists (both Smyth and Helwys) de-emphasis of the word of God and diminutive status.

It doesn't surprise me that the General Baptist went so far as to 1) deny the reading of the word, 2) create doctrine that does not come from a consistent theology, and 3) ended up abscribing to some free will belief. Does any of this sound the LEAST bit familiar? (hint: RCC) The core believe of the Particular Baptist church, which would form the root of most Baptists-including SBC, was the sovereignty of God as documented in the LBC of 1644; not the free will of man. The "free will" of man is corrupt doctrine.

BTW-While I think the Westminster Confession of 1646 is more refined the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644, it did in fact precedes the WCF.