Calvinists believe in the total inability of man to respond to God. They teach that once God grants spiritual life to a person, then they have the ability to respond to God by repentance and faith. This order is life from God, then repentance and faith.
God's Word teaches total depravity, not total inability. Those that are spiritually dead in trespasses and in sins are corrupt before a righteous and holy God. Only by responding to holy Spirit conviction and drawing by repentance and faith does one receove new life in Christ. This order is repentance and faith, then new life from God.
To the unwary, they see the buzz words repentance and faith and accept the rest of the words of Calvinists as sound doctrine.
It has been said that there is a considerable problem with Calvinism in the ABA. According to the best of your knowledge, is there a problem with Calvinism in the ABA? If so, to what extent?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bro. A.B. I donot have any personal knoledge of Calvinistic actifities now in the ABA. a few years ago there was, but that was taken care of at the Fort Worth meeting. as far as I know those who were involved pulled out of the ABA. They are still active in their own fellowship. I run across some of their publications from time to time. They seem to be active in Ar. Miss. Tx. Tn. and probally Il. that is all I know.
ReplyDeleteI came across the website of an ABA church that invited the messengers to Sunday services before the ABA meeting in Springfield. The pastor at least seemed to be full-fledged Calvinist. However, I too, am not aware of the extent that it pervades the ABA as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of the whole extent, but there is a problem of Calvinism in the ABA. It may be a "small" problem, but there is enough activity around it to cause me concern. I have dealt with some "semi-Calvinist" as well. Those that say they are 2 or 3 point Calvinists. I believe this comes from a basic misunderstanding of the terms that Calvinism uses, etc.
ReplyDeleteBro. Arch Bishop,
ReplyDeleteOn occasion I have perused this blog. I hope you and the brethren don’t mind me blogging by. Hello, to all, I pray that you are enjoying all that our Father has for you at this time.
I could not refrain from sharing this quote with you. I share it simply because I find it incongruous that you are condemning one of the tenets of the “Father of Landmarkism” himself!
“There is an order or connection in every Covenant whereby one thing goes before another, but is not the ground of the title; and this condition of connection is often mistaken for what properly is the original condition of the Covenant. For illustration: In order of the Covenant of Grace, conviction of sin, the quickening influence of the Spirit must go before repentance,-repentance before a cordial acceptance of Christ by faith,-faith before justification,-justification before sanctification,-sanctification before adoption,-adoption before glorification.”
- From Christ the Adminstrator of the Covenant; Developed in Seven Dispensations by J. R. Graves, 1883 [copyright by Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928; Reprinted 1971, Reprinted 1988 Bogard Press, pp. 126]
I may have wrongly conceived but I understand “the quickening influence of the Spirit” to be regeneration; and that before repentance and faith. The ABA is formed almost exclusively around the Landmarks of Dr. Graves. Now I know one might say it is formed exclusively on the Bible KJV bear with me please.
Why would one embrace and build an entire system of ecclesial doctrine on the tenets of Dr. Graves and repudiate his tenets of soteriology?
One more question. How is the KJV the only Bible for conservative landmarkers since it was translated by bishops in a church that was not duly authorized?
I wish to give another quote from Dr. Graves that shows that he was in fact a Calvinist.
"All men are by nature Arminians; and the absolute sovereignty of God is a doctrine hateful to the natural and depraved heart. False teachers have taken the advantage of this natural feeling, and have for ages inflamed the prejudices of Christian men and women against any exercise of sovereignty on the part of God in this Covenant, either as to his 'determinate counsels,' his electing love, or his distinguishing grace. They presumptuously and impiously assert, that, unless God extended the same grace to all the lost that he did to those who are saved, he is justly chargeable with partiality and injustice, and, if he saw fit, in the dispensation of his grace, when none would, if left to themselves, accept or desire it, and, indeed, all have rejected it, to so influence the wills of some that they would seek his grace, he is guilty of forcing some men to be saved, and others to be lost. But we know that the Omniscient God is incapable of doing wrong; and if it is plainly revealed that he passed by all the fallen angels, who will charge him with sin or wrong had he passed by all of Adam's race? How then, can he be charged with injustice, if he saw fit to save a portion of it?...
Now, will not, must not all unprejudiced Bible-read Christians agree with the following propositions?
1. That the Son undertook and will save all the Father, in the Covenant of Redemption, gave him to save.
2. Since all are not saved, as all evangelical Christians admit, we must conclude that all were not given to the Son.
3. That the Father, in the Covenant of Redemption, gave some of Adam's race to his Son to be redeemed."
Following those paragraphs, Graves prints out John 6:37-39,44, 17:2,6,9-12,24, 18:9, and then writes, "In the face of these express declarations, who will deny that some were given to the Son to save."
- From [i]The Work of Christ in the Covenant of Redemption; Developed in Seven Dispensations by J. R. Graves, 1883 [copyright by Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928; Reprinted 1971, Reprinted 1988 Bogard Press, pp. 95-97]
From a brother in the Lord
James E. Alderman
The reason so many "founders" of our faith have calvinistic tendancies is because they ran as far as they could from Armenian thought.
ReplyDeleteArminiasts believe that all man has a little bit of the Holy Sprit in him and he chooses and then begins to do good works.
Calvanistic teaching is that man is totally depraved (sounds familiar doesn't it) however a calvanists view of depravity is not what the Bible teaches. To the Calvanist, man is totally depraved and dead, then God chooses and the holy spirit comes into man and FORCES good works.
Since the Calvanists had the money and the printing presses thier heresy spread alot farther.
Whare is the missionary baptist in all of this? We find ourselves reading the truth of God's Word that man is dead in trespasses in sin but God reveals Himself to man and man responds in faith to what God has revealed. Salvation is wholly by grace through faith.
I personally dont know the teachings of JR Graves and really I don't have to. Sadly many are carried away with the heresies of calvinism, the TULIP doctrine is not sound biblical teaching. It is heresay and must be soundly defeated and vehemently avoided.
Now, on the Bible version issue...Bro. James I love ya and you know just as well as I do that there is not a better Bible for english speaking people that was translated from the best manuscripts.
Look forward to the replies but understand...back in the 1800's especially the late 1800's you were either an arminian or a calvinist in your theology because they were the ones with the money and the presses to print our books to defend thier point of views. Sadly, instead of letting God lead them, many just accepted what they read in a book as truth when it was really heresy.
There are brethren in the ABA that hold to the Calvinistic teaching, but I do not believe it is prevalent.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, though, Calvinism is prevalent in other Baptist associations, particularly those whose seminaries have been infiltrated by it.
I am in total agreement with Bro. Bishop's post.
Big J,
ReplyDeleteIt is great to hear from you brother! I appreciate your response but I hope to hear from Bro. Arch Bishop.
It is not my desire to debate Calvinism or Bible versions. I simply gave two quotes from one who is hailed as a hero within the confines of Missionary Baptist Churches and asked two questions. J R Graves wrote the book on “Landmarkism”! This is where Missionary Baptist teaching originates.
My first question deals with the “church truth” and the “salvation heresy” of the founder of “Landmarkism”. My second question deals with many in our day who will not come near the literature of “heretics” nor assemble with their “churches”. “Landmarkers”, if I understand correctly, do not acknowledge the Church of England as a true church. Therefore, why pay homage to this literature of heretics? Where is the “Landmark” church that sanctioned, empowered, permitted, licensed or approved the translating of the KJV?
I’ll post again my original questions…
Why would one embrace and build an entire system of ecclesial doctrine on the tenets of Dr. Graves and repudiate his tenets of soteriology?
One more question. How is the KJV the only Bible for conservative landmarkers since it was translated by bishops in a church that was not duly authorized?
From a brother in the Lord
James E. Alderman
There have been some leaders even some noteworthy names that have supplied a great work in one area and been off the wall in another area. I believe the Philadelphia Confession of Faith includes some Calvinist though Graves was not God - nor to be revered as perfect. Yet, his principles on Landmrkism are valid. I find the tenets of landmarkism Bible doctrine and therefore I gladly embrace it.
ReplyDeleteGod provided the KJV for English speaking people the most accurate to the right manuscript. These learned men were scholars far beyond any translators today in their understanding of the original languages. Everything they did in word choice, grammar, syntax had a reason. They approach the Bible as inspired - a much higher view than any I know of today that publish new translations. Some of these men were in church of England - some, but I am not sure all were. Their translation did not reflect personal bias as modern translators do.
Bro. James, I gather you are not a landmarker nor use the KJV. Would you identify (briefly) what you are theologically? Do know of any Calvinists in ABA in your area? You are still in ABA?
Bro. Arch Bishop,
ReplyDeleteIt is great to hear from you brother! I hope all is well with you and yours.
I will not belabor the point but, how could Dr. Graves be so fastidiously correct in his ecclesiology and so fallacious in his soteriology? Salvation being the very beginning of coming to truth! However, I will regard your response as given.
As to the KJV, my question concerns not the veracity of the translation, I think it to be venerable, nor those that produced it. My question is in reference to the happy disposition and capacity of “Landmarkers” to receive such literature that was not sanctioned by heaven via a Landmark Missionary Baptist Church.
In your post you say …“God provided the KJV for English speaking people...” Again, I may be mistaken, but I understand “Landmarkism” to teach that what God does on earth He does through a duly authorized local visible people He Himself has commissioned aka...LMBChurches. Also, “Landmarkers” do not believe that the church which gave us such a worthy translation of God’s Word is in fact a true church.
Here I post my original question…
How is the KJV the only Bible for conservative landmarkers since it was translated by bishops in a church that was not duly authorized?
As to where I am theologically I will be glad to discuss in the future but for now I must be reticent. I think it best to have one discussion at a time. I do not, however, know of Calvinism infiltrating the ABA here in Texas for I am no longer in the ABA. I hope and trust this will not exclude me from future correspondence.
From a brother in the Lord
James E. Alderman
Interesting...I have read most all of J.R. Graves works and own most of them. I would disagree with the statement that Missionary Baptist beliefs originates from the writings of J.R. Graves. And honestly...we have "built an entire system on Graves"???
ReplyDeleteHe was influential, no doubt, and contended for the faith when many would not, but as Big J mentioned, he hasn't even read Graves and I know him as sound in the faith. Big J must be grounded in the faith because he has read the Bible, not Graves.
I don't know of any Calvinists in the East Texas area....if a person receives spiritual life before repentance and faith, then why would repentance and faith be necessary?
It's one of two ways: either God chooses who is going to be saved or He does not. If He chooses and only gives the Son some to save, why all of the "whosoevers" in the Bible (ex. John 3:16)?
Wow, I did not know JR Graves is the father of Landmark theology. It is pretty clear that Jesus used this long before Graves coined the phrase.
ReplyDeleteOne does not have to read Graves, as I have not, to come to the biblical conclusion of church perpituity. Nor does one need to read Carroll's Trail of Blood (another Calvinist). But the words of Christ should be all we need.
All that aside, calvinism is an issue within the ABA, along with new lightism, ultra dangerous easy believism, universalism, masonry and so on. I have seen all of these in ABA churches.
I also have several of Graves' books. I had never heard of the one Bro. J A quoted. Sorry you are no longer with us in ABA - what affiliation are you at present? Bro. A N and Bro. BT M made excellent points. I must confess I failed to read Bro J A closely - just skimmed it, I guess.
ReplyDeleteMy concern with the problem of Calvinism focuses on the preaching and teaching of it, even in subtle ways in A NT church. What expressions do Calvinists use in their preaching?
Brothers,
ReplyDeleteI want to say “Thank You!” for allowing me to dialog with you the past few days. I wish to go on record and say that I have asked a couple of questions simply to help us consider the “things most surely believed among us”. I believe it is good exercise for us to wrestle with the positions we take in life especially with regards to Scripture. As best I know there is no malice or ill will in my heart so please don’t receive any. Initially my blogging by was prompted by the irony that Calvinism was put in a negative light when these beliefs (Calvinism) were held by the late Dr. Graves.
As mentioned before I am satisfied with the answer of Bro. Arch Bishop gave to my first question. “There have been some leaders even some noteworthy names that have supplied a great work in one area and been off the wall in another area.”
Now…
It is not my desire to debate Calvinism or Bible versions.
My question deals with those who will not use the literature of “heretics” nor assemble with their “churches”. “Landmarkers”, if I understand correctly, do not acknowledge the Church of England as a true church. My question is in reference to the happy disposition and capacity of “Landmarkers” to receive such literature that was not sanctioned by heaven via a Landmark Missionary Baptist Church.
I’ll post again my original question and then rephrase it for purposes of clarity.
How is the KJV the only Bible for conservative landmarkers since it was translated by bishops in a church that was not duly authorized?
If “Landmarkism” is true, how can such a church build it’s entire ministry on the literature produced by a heretical church, without contradicting and compromising it’s teaching of “church authority”?
Regards,
James E. Alderman
I am curious about the questions of Calvinism here. Do you guys find it to be a bigger or more dangerous problem to ABA churches than "easy believism"?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the "easy believism" crowd is growing more rapidly. It also has much more devistating effects to the eternal soul.
I am not a supporter of the TULIP doctrine, or other calvinistic views, but as far as I can tell it has never led a person to Hell unaware. The easy believe crowd are openly searching for false professions, then baptizing them, and have unsaved people teaching their sunday schools, preaching, getting ordained etc.
Why is this tolerated? Is it because numbers matter more than souls in a statistical driven orginization?
Bro Alderman,
Are you a Geneva Bible man?
Bro. Mike. I do not know you. But you make a lot of claims aganst the Churches of the ABA. as far as I can tell you were only with an ABA Church for a few months. and left saying "You would never be a part of another ABA Church". Bro. Mike, please define " easy Believe ism" where by We may know what you are talking about. And as a matter of courtesy, where did you get your information, sinc you are not in the ABA.? Marlin Freeman.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify. I am not anti-ABA churches.
ReplyDeleteI pastored for a short time an ABA church in Oregon. I have also been a member at an ABA church in Chico Ca. When I was ordained, every ordained man who laid hands on me were pastors or deacons in ABA churches. The church that ordained me was not in the association, but nearly all of the churches we fellowshipped are ABA churches.
I have nothing against good solid churches that choose to represent themselves in the ABA. It is the bad stuff that has been creeping in and the politics that are involved in the ABA that I do not like.
As for calvinism, just about all the ABA churches I have come accross in AZ are calvinist. The ABA churches in Las Vegas are easy-believism (repeat after me) churches. I have visited them in person. It tends to be a common theme among the ReachAmerica group in the ABA to grab false professions to boost numbers.
will continue later, have to run.
I guess that was really about all I had to say. If I had anything else to add, I have forgotten what it was. But there are a number of churches in the ABA that fit into either group above. Just look through the aba books and call them and ask what they believe and they usually will not hide it. They may call it my other names to throw you off the scent, but they will usually say what they believe.
ReplyDeleteYou might try the church in Salinas California when looking for a pastor or church in the ABA that is calvinistic.
ReplyDeleteBrother AB, I would disagree with your statement that "God's Word teaches total depravity, not total inability." John 6:44 teaches total inability -- no man CAN come (inability). Man does not make an exception to this, but God does (except the Father which hath sent me draw him).
ReplyDeleteAs to there being a problem with Calvinism in the ABA, I do not know. I am not aware of any ABA preachers or churches who are Calvinists, but there a lot of preachers and churches I am not aware of. Some lean the other way, as Bro. Mike says, toward repeat after me easy-believism.
As to Graves' book, I think the proper title is The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations, but I could be wrong. Interesting when I purchased it, the Bogard Press had printed it and an ABA seminary bookstore was selling it. In it Graves states pretty clearly that God did not all to the Son to save. Bro. Alderman has pointed up a fact that most non-Calvinistic Landmarkers don't want to deal with.
That should be "In it Graves states pretty clearly that God did give not all to the Son to save."
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot that is misunderstood about Calvinism. I was most surprised when I realized that it doesn't remove free will.
ReplyDeleteI personally find the reformed doctrines of God's sovereignty, man's radical corruption, and my election to be pure biblical teaching and personally endearing. I hope that before one decides to condemn the teaching, they first study it deeply. It's an open-handed issue that shouldn't divide, but probably will.
Too much to say to articulate now, but love to discuss these precious truths, and welcome honest and civil discourse.
just to be clear the "Jason" which posted abopve is NOT Jason Hebert aka Big J. This is my dear friend, and I mean that, who sent me an e-mail from my dear reformed friend.
ReplyDeleteI choose not to reveal his identity to all since he chose not too have a profile for y'all to check out. TRUE calvinism in its purest form teaches that man is as dead as a piece of wood. That God chooses to come upon him and make him alive and force him to do good works. THe "P" in the TULIP doctrine of calvanism states that the true saved will persevere until the end. All of those which, excercise thier free will and choose to not continue good works were never really saved at all.
Man is without excuse according to Romans 1, John 1 tells us that He lightened all men that came into the world, hence the scripture in I Cor. 11 which says that nature itself teaches us that it is a shame to have a long hair. How? Because God wired man with an instinct to preserve thier own life and not do stupid things...this instinct is what is bent, DEPRAVED if you will, and helps all MEN EVERYWHERE to repent and be saved.
ohh yeah...if you honestly believe that men are selected to be saved while everyone else is destined to burn in Hell, how can you explain Titus...the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men?
anyway that is my couple of cents...i look forward to more discussion on the validity (said tongue in cheek) of reformed theology from my dear Jason, the Reformed. I love ya brother but I'm not going to pull any punches...you know me...i'll call a spade a spade in love of course.
clarification from my feverish typing earlier...the wiring that God gave us helps man to realize they are a sinner which helps man look for a Savior who desires all men everwhere to be saved. sorry for not making myself clear.
ReplyDeleteActually, there is no "free-will" in Calvinism. The perseverance part refers to those who will "make it" until the end...Of course, they will have no choice in the matter because God has already ordained for it to happen that way. Consequently, those not persevering to the end, are actually lost, and have no say in that matter nor their perseverance.
ReplyDeleteCalvinism's big tenet is the sovereignty of God. Calvinists teach that if you can say "No" to God then He cannot be sovereign. However, this overlooks His permissive will.
God draws all men unto Him because any man (whosoever) can come to Him when God calls and draws. To me, that is the difference between total depravity and total inability. God draws and calls every person to salvation or whosoever will is a lie. IMO total inability gets salvation before repentance and faith, which is the reverse order. If God must give a person life before they can repent, then why Luke 13:3, 5? Although spiritually dead, man is physically alive with the ability to reponsd to GOd's call to salvation.
ReplyDeleteWouldnt a Calvinist just say that "whosoever" will is just refering to the "elect". In their mind they would think that only the "elect" would ever call upon the the Lord, therefore "whosoever" is limited to only those that could.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure. I have never dove into the Calvinist doctrine. I have never even heard what it is that TULIP supposedly stands for. It is funny though, I think every book that has ever been given to me by ABA preachers have been Calvinistic books. I am looking at one right now. "A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine" by TP Simmons. Inside the front cover it says "Systematic, Calvinistic, Baptistic, Premillennial"
I have a stack of other books here as well that all claim to be Calvinistic that were used by an older preacher at the ABA church sponsored school in Bellflower CA.
They have been up on my shelf and I have never really looked at them before.
I have come in contact with some "Reformed Baptists" here in Utah that claim to be calvinist that use the Geneva Bible. I am not sure if it says whomsoever or something else. They preach the gospel in what seems to be a very solid and sound way. They claim though that only the elect will be saved and they must be preaching the gospel in order to find those souls. I assume this is a watered down variation of Calvinism.
When I drive through Nevada from Utah to California and back, the only radio stations that i pick up are Calvinistic baptist stations that are more militant in their views.
Mike in Utah....it is sad that most systematic theology books are calvinistic the other ones are armenian in thought. However, you and I have to be able to "spit out the seeds" when it comes to systematic theology.
ReplyDeleteYou know what I mean when you eat watermelon, you have to spit out the parts that dont agree. The bible is the all sufficient rule of faith and practice.
note my first post in this thread concerning why so many were calvanist back in the day.
Interesting. I guess that is why I buy seedless watermelons.
ReplyDeleteGod gave us the only book we should ever read. If God's people stuck with only readin the Bible we would be in a lot better shape. That is why these books along all others that people give me sit in my shelf and collect dust.
Why read opinions of others, when we have the perfect word of God right at our finger tips.
In his book Commenting and Commentaries, Charles Spurgeon wrote, "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." I agree. Bro. Mike, I don't think anyone on this thread holds books up equal with the Bible. The Bible is THE ONLY INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. But we do need the counsel of our brethren as we seek understanding of the word of God. God didn't make us loners. I would think if we shouldn't read books, we shouldn't read blogs either.
ReplyDeleteBig J, you wrote, "note my first post in this thread concerning why so many were calvanist back in the day" which is: back in the 1800's especially the late 1800's you were either an arminian or a calvinist in your theology because they were the ones with the money and the presses to print our books to defend thier point of views. Do you have any proof that only Calvinists and Arminians had money to print books?
It seems that the Holy Spirit would reveal the same things to every man concerning scripture. It is the man himself that gets in the way and why we get so many different opinions on scripture.
ReplyDeleteIf you get 10 different men from 10 different backgrounds together and give them the same bible, they would come up with the same conclusions if you were to leave out the opinions of other men.
I have never seen a different outcome. When I go door knocking or just talking with strangers about scripture. I never ever have to tell them what I believe about the Landmarkism, but show them what scripture says and just ask them what does that mean. Every time without exception, they all come to the conclusion that the church was started by Christ during His ministry, that the church must have been in existance in all ages since it was started and there must be a true church on earth today.
It has nothing to do with my opinion, because I do not give it to them. It is because it is clearly shown in scripture. The same goes for baptism.
If you give a person a KJV and ask them to read it without any pre-conceived notions or helps from others, they will come out with baptist beliefs every time.
But you throw in works of man and we mess it all up.
Bro. Vaughn I dont have any documented proof...I know that Baptist were vehemently persecuted, even here in America, for thier/our beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThat is why most history we have concerning baptists has been written by our enemies.
Calvanistic thought and Arminian thought had become the new thing and, I BELIEVE (big type for important words because I beleieve doesn't hold up to anything does it) these teachings were so prevalent that the BIG money publishers with the capital and cash on hand printed this literature.
Do you know of any good baptist theology books from the 1800's or even any from today? We use Thiessen Lectures on Systematic theology but Thiessen was a Calvinist and you have to be able to interpret the Scriptures FIRST because they are the only words that really matter!
Bro. Mike, I don't want to go further down this road, since it moves away from Arch Bishop's subject; but I am surprised that you can find 10 people in America that have no preconceived notions about the Bible and Christianity.
ReplyDeleteBig J, there is no doubt that Baptists were a mostly persecuted people pretty much up until the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. But I think it is also fairly well documented that the majority of early American Baptists were "Calvinists". For a persecuted "Calvinistic" Baptist, try Obadiah Holmes, beaten with many stripes. His theology can be found in Baptist Piety: The Last Will & Testimony of Obadiah Holmes, Obediah Holmes/Edwin S. Gaustad (Editor).
I think systematic theologies are overrated. Nothing wrong with trying to find all the Bible says in a particular subject, but we are tempted to fudge here and there to make it all fit in a nice neat system that suits us. I notice God didn't do it that way. Dagg's Manual of Theology and Treatise of Church Order is, I believe, considered the first Baptist systematic theology. I have neither read or used it extensively, nor know anything about Thiessen that I could make a comparison.
My name is Jason Roshto and I'm the Jason that Big J didn't want to be confused with. I live in Sheridan,Ar. I maticulated through LMBIS, Minden.
ReplyDeleteThere's alot I'd like to add to the discussion, but I'm afraid my brain moves faster than my fingers do. Nevertheless, as a new Calvinist, I'd love to share the beauty of what I've learned. I'm not trying to persuade anyone here. I would just like friendly discourse on an apparently "hot" topic, and to share my journey with you. I believe this is an open-handed issue as both sides of the aisle believe and teach salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ of scripture. Anyone interested can contact me through facebook. I hope to hear from you soon.
Jason Roshto,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure we can say that both sides believe and teach salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Now, probably everyone on this blog teaches that, but I'm not sure that ALL Calvinists do. Or at least not the way, we commonly use these terms. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Just a thought.
Jason Roshto,
ReplyDeleteI do not do the facebook thing, but would love to hear more. My email is straitgatebc@yahoo.com
Bro Mike Faulkner
Calvinist tendencies may come from Calvinist books - not just systematic theologies, but commentaries - I would guess most preachers have 1 or more books in their library by a Calvinist. One common one is A. W. Pink. Would anyone care to list others?
ReplyDeleteCharles Spurgeon
ReplyDeleteJ. L. Dagg
John Gill
Roy Mason
Roger Williams
John Clarke
Obadiah Holmes
Jesse Mercer
I've gone round and round discussing this with Calvinists (long-term). The problem is they have SO much you have to disprove, your arguments are spread VERY thin. You don't usually get an entire week to focus direct hits and tear it down point by point. They won't let you get there. They keep throwing up wild rabbit chases. It is this reason I've never convinced a Calvinist of ANYTHING.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I have learned. They don't have an answer as to why God created all men. They cannot honestly say God created all men for the purpose of fellowship with Him. Their answer boils down to the same answer they give on most of any question to which they don't know the answer. "God is sovereign, so we have no right to question Him" or some fashion of this statement.
Basically, when you ask them a question to which they have no answer such as, "Why did God create all men?" or more specifically "Why did God create the men He is going to send to Hell?", their boiled down, base answer is "I don't know."
Our answer, however, is that God created all men to choose Him (in fellowship, friendship, love, etc.). This is the only logical answer as to why or how He could create men who choose Hell. If He did not offer them the choice, they could not CHOOSE Him. They have no answer.
As a matter of fact (this is NO attack on them at all, just a true statement I found in study), their god is no different than the god of the Islamic faith. He picks and chooses who shall go to paradise and who shall go to everlasting torment. When I read the Koran, it actually shocked me how STRIKINGLY similar the god of the Koran and the god of TULIP Calvinism are.
Before people get their feelings hurt, the god of the Koran is loving, kind, respects the "people of the book" such as Jews and Christians, and does not condone murder of innocents, except when it is in His sovereign choice to which the mainstream Muslims and Muslimahs will say "Who are we to question Allah?"
Isaac Backus
ReplyDeleteJohn Leland
J. P. Boyce
R. B. C. Howell
J. H. Grime
J. B. Moody
H. Boyce Taylor
Andrew Fuller
William Carey
Thanks for the list and thanks to Bro JC for his participation. I am suprpised no one has mentioned Hodge or Richard Baxter.
ReplyDeleteI recently addressed this issue in depth (over 4,000 words in the 7 - 10 consecutive posts I gave) on Brother R.L. Vaughn's page Music and Ministry under a post titled something about God's pleasure versus man's free will. After ALL of that, I remembered a scripture that really sums up man's free will and to me, proves it beyond shadow of doubt. The majority of Calvinists will tell you that when God calls out to a man to be saved, the man can not resist. It's in the TULIP somewhere. Anyway, the verse I remembers totally shatters this entire argument with truth and solves it for me. This verse proves men can resist God, they can resist His call to be saved, and they can choose Hell even though He wants desires them to go to Heaven.
ReplyDeleteRomans 13:2 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.""
Just an update on me!
ReplyDeleteI have made some great changes in thought and philosophy over the past few weeks. I have now become a lot more pro-ABA churches and backing off a bit from many of the unaffiliated works I have championed in the past. There are great churches and not so great churches on both sides. But I no longer see the unafilliated churches as the superior group.
I have resigned as missionary to Utah, and am planning on moving my membership back to the ABA church where I had my membership before.
My family is also praying about selling the house in Utah and moving to somewhere in the south where we might be able to be around many of the ABA churches and hopefully be able to unite with a church there.
Brother Merritt, I'm sure you are right about Baxter and Hodge. I didn't mention them since they're neither Baptists nor in my library. Other famous non-Baptist Calvinists whose works may be in Baptist libraries are Jonathan Edwards and D. Martin Lloyd-Jones. And the well-known John Bunyan -- a "good Calvinist" but not so good a Baptist. Among more modern writers are John McArthur and Iain Murray. Back to the Baptists:
ReplyDeleteJohn Brine
John A. Broadus
Benjamin Cox
William Gadsby
Benjamin Keach
Patrick H. Mell
J. C. Philpot
Recently deceased or still living
Tom Ascol
Philip Bryan
Wayne Camp
D.A. Carson (not positive he is Baptist, but think so)
Milburn Cockrell
Claude D. Cole
R. Lawrence Crawford
Mark Dever
Nathan Finn
John R. Gilpin
Wayne Grudem
A.A. Harris
Forrest L. Keener
V. C. Mayes
Oscar B. Mink
Albert Mohler
G. Holmes Moore
Tom Nettles
Ron Pound
Curtis A. Pugh
John Piper
Bob L. Ross
J.C. Settlemoir
Sam Waldron
Greg Welty
Greg Wilson
Hershael York
Bro. Mike, may God bless you and yours during this time.
I'm sure we'd welcome you Brother Mike. Just stick to your guns on KJV. By the way, if you want a KJV only area, the Shreveport, Bossier, Minden, Springhill, Sarepta Louisiana area is the strongest (probably). They are most likely the most conservative in the ABA. If you want a little less strict standards, move out towards Benton, AR. If you want very liberal ideology from the ABA, the further north and far west you go, or even far far east, you'll have success there. I'm sure you'll be welcome where ever you choose. Of course these are generalizations about area, but they are pretty accurate as far as generalizations go.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the welcome and the info. I have been trying to contact churches and it seems that it is small town vs bigger town and a really regional thing when it comes to "conservative" or not.
ReplyDeleteBut that is just a generalization from speaking to a reletively small sampling. It seems that a church in a town of less than 1,000 tend to hold stronger to things that are important to my family. The larger you get (townsize) the more likely it seems to try to (evolve) for a lack of a better term with society and standards.
Another question.
What of the BMA churches, they seem doctrinally sound. Do ABA and BMA churches fellowship? I have had zero experience with BMA churches in Northern Ca and Utah.
ABA and BMA churches do not fellowship (with the possible exception of a few churches). They do exchange letters, and some preachers cross over, but they don't officially fellowship.
ReplyDeleteThe BMA and ABA split from each other back in 1949-1950.
Growing up in Jacksonville, which is a hub of BMA activity (J'ville is home to the BMA's seminary plus BMA-owned Jacksonville College), I can tell you that they are very similar to the ABA. Each church has its own identity. Some are very conservative, some are more progressive.
The BMA also has a more organized associational structure than the ABA. THe BMA funds college ministries and has missionaries all over the world. Some parts of their associational structure can encroach on church sovereignty, but other than that, they get a lot of ministry done.
You do have to watch out for Calvinism in BMA churches, though, as that theology was heralded by influencial professors at Jacksonville College and the BMA seminary for some time.
I am confused. What is the difference between fellowship and exchanging letters?
ReplyDeleteThe churches from which I came from in California would not fellowship a church they would accept a letter from and would accept a letter from a church they would not fellowship. Both are taken very seriously and have meant the same thing.
Are we possibly using the term "fellowship" to mean different things?
Most likely Brother Leland means fellowship in the sense of going to associational meetings or inviting one another over for church events. That's just a guess on my part.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the big town/small down thing, this is not the case always. We have a very conservative church called Heritage MBC in Bossier City, LA where I grew up. There is also a conservative and KJV only (strong) church in the large city of Shreveport, LA called Liberty MBC. The MOST conservative churches (the ones most would call legalistic, whether they are or not) are the smaller churches. Rarely do they have more than 50 active members, so instead of looking at the size of the city, perhaps the size of the church?
I've found the general rule of thumb to be the smaller a church is, the more conservative. While this doesn't apply to all churches, it is something that can be seen. As to why, it's your guess. I would think perhaps it is easy to become so wrapped up in standing strong on the truth and not letting ANY outside influence in, that they forget about being an influence to the outside world. But anyway, if you need to know where ABA churches are, the abaptist.org web site has a directory. You go to abaptist.org, then click enter site, then click General Information, then click directories, then click Yearbook Directory, and you'll be there ready to view by state.
I object - a conservative church does not have to be a small one with 50 members or less. Neither does being conservative make one a legalist.
ReplyDeleteI said it didn't apply to all churches, and I said it was only a general rule of thumb. I am simply speaking by the experience of churches I've visited. Those that are more conservative have fewer members, and those that are liberal have more members.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I said that more conservative churches are CALLED legalistic, not they are. After all, you know liberal people would call you legalistic. This is only an observation on my part, not my personal view.
Another thing,
ReplyDeleteWho said few numbers is terrible? Jesus said few would be that find it (the narrow and small gate/path).