"11. We believe that Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, and
This clearly is not an article today's Calvinists could subscribe to. Notice it says "all may partake" and notice it does NOT say "elect infants" or "elect mentally disabled" as the London and Philadelphia Confessions state. In article 5 it says
"5. We believe that he who endures to the end the same shall be saved. Rev. 2:10; Matt 24:1
This is an article that is vague, but is calvinistic, but not strongly so. While it does describe perseverance, there is no language that says "none shall be lost" etc. For someone who didn't know, it could be interpreted as Arminian. However, we know that they weren't because the Central Association declared non fellowship of an elder for and his church for teaching "it is possible for some to fall away", Stating that these three associations were Arminian or Calvinist, without digging into their history would be a false statement. For those who simply read these articles, it is very possible that they would conclude that these associations were totally Arminian, because even they believe the believer must "persevere" to "stay saved", but their emphasis is very different from how the these Separate brethren believed in perseverance.
Said Benedict:
"The old Baptists in
New England, although, for the most part, they held with their brethren
elsewhere the doctrines of Depravity, Election, Divine Sovereignty,
Final Perseverance, etc., yet they were not in the habit of enforcing
them so strongly as were those in New York, Philadelphia, and further South."
This statement also has some issues. This is absolutely true when referring to Regular Baptists, but the Separates would never accept "enforcement" from anyone. Even a few of the Regulars were not as Calvinistic as some would make them out to be. The Ketocton Association of Regular Baptist Churches is one such example. Smith Creek Regular Baptist Church, est. 1756, is the oldest Regular church still in existence in Virginia. They applied for membership in the Philadelphia Association in 1762, but in 1765 they withdrew, along with other churches to form the Ketocton Regular Baptist Association. When they adopted their AoF, they dropped the "certain number" clause found in so many other AoF.. Article 4 of their AoF states "We believe that God, from the beginning or in
eternity, chose His people in Christ unto salvation, through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, to the obtaining
of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ; all of which are set forth and
affected through the Gospel." This is very similar to how it is phrased in the Eastern District Primitive Baptist articles. Stephen, in his second article about the Eastern District, saw that they were likely never Calvinists, at least in the predestinarian sense. But in His first article, he expressed much doubt, and said that they had indeed started out as Calvinists, but changed over time. I stressed to him that they had NEVER interpreted predestination as Calvinists do, and upon further research, he found that to be consistent with the association they split from. To his credit, he admitted such. I myself, although I'd word it differently, could subscribe to the 4th article of the Ketocton Association, the key phrase being "IN CHRIST" and "His people" rather than "certain number" of persons. I could also interpret "through sanctification" as a PROCESS decreed by God, rather than a decree of who will be saved. I cannot tell for certain how much the Ketocton Association has changed, but I can verify that now, none of their churches are Calvinist in the predestinarian sense, and are in complete agreement with my views about soteriology, and still subscribe to those AoF, as I have spoken at great length with some of their pastors. They identify as Independent, fundamental, but not KJV only, which in itself is rare, as most Independents do not belong to an association. So can anyone tell me "why" so many different strands of Baptists have "strayed" from Calvinism, if Calvinism, as defined by today's definition, was "the" orthodox Baptist position? Not only SBCers, but the Old Regulars, the Ketocton Regulars, the Uniteds, the Independents, the Separates that remained aloof from the SBC, and the Seventh Day Baptists have ALL "strayed", and yet they have had little to no contact with each other for the last 150 years. If Calvinism (defined in today's terms) was the main standard of Baptists, why have none of these groups remained faithful to it? It seems there are only two choices. Either they defined Calvinism in different terms back then, or ALL of these groups, after biblical study, have concluded that Calvinism, is not the best example of the way the gospel is to be understood. Either way, the strict Calvinist will not be happy.
Said Stephen:
Though some want to affirm that the Separate Baptists were not
Calvinists, this is not true. Certainly Backus was either a five pointer
or a four and a half pointer. It is true that the Separate Baptists
were generally "Calvinists of a still milder type." What Benedict means by this is not known.
I do affirm that the majority of Separate Baptists were not Calvinists by TODAY'S definition of the term. When Stephen says "What Benedict means by this is not known" it speaks volumes. I believe Benedict throws them in the Calvinist category, because they held to total depravity and perseverance or eternal security. Any writer of the 19th century would have definitely EXCLUDED the Separates from Arminianism. Again, how one defines the term is important. They could have (and most definitely were) at least "2 or 3 point Calvinists", but by today's standards, they would be considered Non Calvinists, with most, but definitely not all, interpreting predestination differently than 5 point Calvinists. My personal opinion is that they abandoned certain points of TULIP because many (but not all) came from the Congregational churches, which relied so heavily on Calvinism, at least in the Reformed sense, that they frowned upon revivalism, invitations, or the need to call sinners to faith in Christ. If the Separates were overwhelmingly Calvinist, why is there not one single association of them that still exists with that sentiment? There are at least 38 Separate Baptist Associations still in existence that I know of, and none could be called "Calvinist" by today's definition of the word. Yet there remains Primitive Baptists of both stripes.
In an article dealing with Calvinism on the site "Desiring God" which is a Calvinist site, Thomas Kidd says the Separates were "likely" Calvinists. However "likely" doesn't belong in an article where the writer is a supposed expert. He never gives any facts to support "likely". He also says that out of 1032 churches, 956 were Calvinist according to a "survey" done in 1793. I know the survey he speaks of, but why doesn't he name it? And even if he did, what does that prove except that most Baptists did not want to be placed in the Arminian category? I could do the same today. In fact, in a survey done in the 90's of SBC churches, two different surveys were done. One asked the question "Do you consider your church to be Calvinist?" Guess what the answer was? 90% said "yes". Are you going to tell me that 90% of SBC churches are Calvinist by today's standard? That is impossible, but 25 years ago "Calvinist" was considered as "not Arminian". When another survey was done by Lifeway, it asked "Do you believe God has chosen some to be saved, to the exclusion of others?" Guess what that survey said? 88% said "no".Kidd also says "An impression grew that the Primitive Baptists, always a smaller
presence among Baptists in America, were the true defenders of
Calvinism." I have already proved this false in my previous articles. There were MANY Primitives who would NOT defend Calvinism, and declared against it. Why does he leave you with the impression that all Primitives were Calvinists? That is simply not true. Either he wants to leave us with a false impression, or he is not as educated as he purports to be. Article 2 of the Hiwasee Primitive Baptist Association states "We believe in election according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit". This is almost the exact same wording as the Eastern District PB's. Again, we have the phrase Through sanctification of the spirit", which is interpreted by these groups as a "process". If one didn't know what to ask or look for, they might conclude that this was a Calvinist statement. But as Stephen as shown himself in his article on the Eastern District, they were very much not 5 pointers,. Neither were the Hiwassee PB's. Their origins lie in the Separate Baptist camp. In their Query Book, the Eastern Association was asked by Flat Rock Church in 1877, "Can we fellowship the doctrine known as Calvinism, or is it heresy?" (page 11) The answer was "...fellowshipping the doctrine known as Calvinism, or limited atonement, or fatalism, which we believe to be heresy, should be rejected...we do not believe God created the mass for destruction or...that God left them in their helpless state without offered mercy. And we have no fellowship with that doctrine that God foreordained all things that come to pass, even as some claim that God has predestined all the wicked acts of men, and yet holds them guilty. This compared to the teachings of Christ is a grievous error not to be tolerated by the saints of God. We believe what God has predestined will come to pass." You cannot get all this simply by reading their AoF! To make a statement this strong about Calvinism in 1877 means that the feeling MUST have been there long before this time. Remember, the question was about "fellowshipping" Calvinism, so they must have always not believed it, else why would anyone ask whether or not to fellowship it? They would definitely NOT claim to be Calvinist, nor would they claim to be Arminian! However, a historian who simply saw their AoF, might declare them as "Calvinists" of some sort. Let's also remember, that Alexander Campbell took with him quite a few Baptists who held to general atonement, and most of them were members of Regular Baptist churches. Before this, it was a Regular Baptist Association that took his church into fellowship, even though they knew he did not subscribe to the Philadelphia Confession. A second church of his was received into yet another Regular Baptist association. So it could be argued that some Regulars were not as staunchly Calvinistic as they may have appeared according to their AoF, or at least not strictly requiring it.
Said Benedict:
"In my early day the Associated Baptists were all professedly Calvinistic in their doctrinal sentiments.
The term, however, was not agreeable to many, as they did not subscribe
to all the sentiments of John Calvin, but they submitted to it for
distinction sake, and in contradistinction from those whose views were less orthodox on Predestination, etc. Beside the people of our order in the associations, the Freewill and Seventh Day Baptists were then coming into notice, and they,
with but few exceptions among the Sabbatarians, were decidedly opposed
to some of the distinguishing doctrines of the Calvinistic creed.
Enough said! I totally agree. " but they submitted to it for
distinction sake", This I believe further proves my point, that terms were used not necessarily to show complete agreement with one side, but to distance themselves from the other.
Stephen said:
Not much to comment here except to say that those Baptists today who
decry predestination are condemning their own Baptist leaders of
previous times. Most Southern Baptists today are more in agreement with
the Methodists on soteriology than with their forefathers.
I do not agree with this statement. Yes many Baptists (not just SBCers) do decry Calvinism. But many do so because many Calvinists have not made it a point to distance THEMSELVES from Reformed theology. Also, what forefathers? Why do you compare Non Calvinist Baptists to Methodists, when you could just as easily compare them to the Free Will Baptists or the earliest Baptists who were Arminian like Thomas Helwys and the General Baptists? Are these not also our Baptist forefathers? What about the first seven Baptist Confessions that predate the Second London Baptist Confession by up to 78 years? Though I deny that Non Calvinist views can be rightly compared to an Arminian view, there are plenty of examples within the Baptist family to use, rather than the Methodists. I am not angry, and I know what Stephen means, but that is exactly my point. Others reading these articles may not know what he means, especially those who are not Baptist. So we must keep definitions and examples in mind when writing about history. If we are going to compare when we debate, let's keep the comparisons within the Baptist family as much as possible. In this way, we can disagree, without seeming to say that one is more or less of a Baptist because his view is different from ours. Baptist liberty is at the very heart of who we are.
"I well remember, to me, at the time, a very striking instance of this kind. A minister of another class of Baptists,
but who had rendered me essential service in my historical pursuits,
amused a large company in a public house, in which we happened to be at
the time, and which company, also, happened to be of his own way of
thinking, by repeating, evidently for my special benefit, some doggerel
verses, the chorus of which was,
“Then fill up the glass,
and count him an ass
Who preaches up predestination.”
Stephen made a response to this by saying these sentiments are true today, that many Baptists have a "bitterness of feeling" and an assailant attitude towards Calvinists. This is true I admit.. But again, until Baptists who are Calvinistic display more solidarity with their Baptist brothers than they do the Reformed and Presbyterians, then it is only going to continue. I am not saying it is right though. However, it happens quite often the other way around as well. Many Calvinists will make statements to Non Calvinsts such as "You just don't understand the gospel". Some will even make fun that we offer an invitation. Why doesn't Benedict also offer an example of the other way around such as Elder Elijah Hanks, and how his Calvinist brethren ridiculed him and railed him as an Arminian, told their churches to not hear him preach, even tho in 1815 the Cumberland Association had made a declaration that "the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to communion"? How deep the pain Elder Hanks must have felt when he said "I was
shunned and avoided by them all, as if to touch me would contaminate or
sully their purity". That same sentiment still exists in the Calvinist camp. Counter views are very important if you want to teach true history.
Said Benedict:
"But for many
years past the asperity of feeling above described has been a good deal
mollified, so that the differing men can meet together without taunting
each other with their offensive creeds. On this subject I lately
remarked to a Freewill Baptist minister, “Your side has been coming up,
and ours has been going down, till the chasm between the two parties is
by no means so great as formerly.
I for one have no issue that this happened, and we should rejoice that the ill feeling had been "mollified". We need each other to temper our views, challenge our thoughts and sharpen our swords. I have never been frowned upon or ridiculed by my Free Will Baptist brethren, and they have no issue inviting me into their pulpits, even though they jokingly call me a "Calviminian" and I jokingly call them "Free for alls, willing to trip but please don't fall". That has not always been the case with my Calvinist brethren, especially those that call themselves "Reformed Baptists".
Said Benedict:
"The
Fuller system, which makes it consistent for all the heralds of the
gospel to call upon men everywhere to repent, was well received by one
class of our ministers, but not by the staunch defenders of the old
theory of a limited atonement. According to their views, all for
whom Christ suffered and died would certainly be effectually called and
saved. These conflicting opinions caused altercations of considerable
severity for a time, among the Baptists, who had hitherto been all united on the orthodox side.
This I totally deny. Is Benedict saying there were NO General Atonement Baptists? Is he saying ALL those who may have been counted on the Calvinist side were 5 pointers? Is he saying that the "Fuller system" was NOT orthodox? If that is the case, Stephen is not orthodox, for he himself has declared "I may be a semi Calvinist or Semi Arminian DEPENDING ON HOW ONE DEFINES THE TERMS". Stephen is not the first Baptist to examine his stand. I applaud him for this. Yet some of the Calvinist brethren would say he is not "orthodox". At times Benedict writes as though Calvinism was the only standard among Baptists. This is not true at any time during our history. Also, if we are going to judge what truth is by which side has the most in numbers, then we must concede that the Catholic Church is the most true, as even now, they are three times more in number than all Protestants combined. If there were only one General Atonement Baptist church during the 50 years Benedict speaks of, they are still part of Baptist history. Stephen has also stated that he "may be a 3 pointer". He firmly believes that faith precedes regeneration which is anathema to many Calvinists, especially among the so called "Reformed Baptists. They would say Stephen is requiring a "condition" for salvation. Yet he and I are agreed on this point. I hope Bro. Stephen is proud to be "lumped in" with my side on this issue, as I am proud to be "lumped in" his side on other issues. Benedict said "John Leland, although a Calvinist, was not one of the straitest
class. Two grains of Arminianism, with three of Calvinism, he thought,
would make a tolerably good compound." This "compound" of Arminian and Calvinist thought, was rampant among the Separates. It is a "compound" I am glad to serve up. But notice how Benedict STILL puts Leland in the Calvinist tribe.
Said Benedict:
"...the old-fashioned doctrines of Predestination, Total
Depravity, Divine Sovereignty, etc., if referred to at all, must be by
way of circumlocution and implication."
"Old fashioned" according to who? Stephen has defined total depravity differently than other Calvinists do today. He has said that too many Calvinists make man out to be mere robots. I suspect that Stephen has many Baptist forefathers who would agree with his "unorthodox" view. Stephen also believes faith precedes regeneration. I know for a fact that many old Baptists also believed in faith before regeneration, as both the London and Philadelphia Confessions teach. Yet today, many, if not most Calvinists deny that fact. Benedict speaks as though Baptists of my stripe don't believe in predestination at all, and that the Calvinist alone believes in it. That too is false. Do I interpret it differently than they? Absolutely. But for a Calvinist to declare that those in my camp "deny predestination" is false.
In closing, I thank Stephen for allowing me to speak freely. He doesn't have to do that. He is gracious. He may try to "roast me" in a follow up article, or in comments to this one. If he does, I hope he doesn't burn me and only roasts me until I medium rare, as that is how I prefer to be served up. As I said in the beginning, he sees the robe as "red" while I see it as "purple" but we both (I hope) see it as GORGEOUS!
No comments:
Post a Comment