Are All Baptists Thought To Be Calvinists?

[mesue]

I see this a lot and wonder why? I neither consider myself Calvinist nor Armenian. And
Why do I have to be one or the other?
Why can't I be a Bible believing Christian?

[DeaconDean]

Not all Baptists are Calvinists. I know several who adimately deny Calvinism in any form, if that sounds right. One thing I have discussed with a friend, is that traditionaly Methodists are Arminain in beliefs. A guy I used to work with I gave a paper I wrote entitled "Once Saved, Always Saved: But is it Biblical." He told me at first when he looked at it he thought I was crazy. But he later come back to me and confided in me that once he began to read and followed the scriptures I provided, he came to the conclusion that the Methodist faith was teaching wrong. They use doctrine based on I believe it is John Wesly. I may be wrong on that. No one theology is wholely right. Calvin put to death many a people himself also. I'm a Baptist because I believe with all my heart that Baptist teachings and beliefs are the closest to actual biblical teachings. I have been a Baptist long before I ever heard of John Calvin. It's just that since going to seminary school, I believe that John Calvin got a lot of his theology correct. Perhaps not all of it is 100% correct, but a lot of it is. I'm a fundamental conservative Baptist first. But a lot of the doctrines I learned come from not only Calvin, but I also took the time to learn John Gill, Roger Whitefield, Martin Luther, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Arthur W. Pink, James Petigru Boyce, John L. Dagg, etc. I will always consider myself a Baptist first, but my theology is diverse. Did that sound right?

[arunma]

I see this a lot and wonder why? I neither consider myself Calvinist nor Armenian. And
Why do I have to be one or the other?
Why can't I be a Bible believing Christian?

That's an excellent question. I think the answer is that we can't seem to agree on what the Bible says. By God's grace we all agree on the major points, such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith. But then there are the sticky issues, one of which you have identified. The term, "Bible-believing" is a bit ambiguous. So when a person declares himself Calvinist or Armenian (or anything else), he is clearing up the ambiguity. I think that both Calvinists and Armenians are Bible-believing Christians, they simply interpret the Bible differently.

Of course any reasonable person will say that the Bible can only have one meaning. And that person would be correct. The meaning of the Scriptures can't vary from person to person. However, since we tend to disagree only on non-essential doctrines, I am content to tolerate small areas of disagreement, and let God sort it out, knowing full well that we are all saved by the blood of Christ. Some fundie Calvinists might see me as compromising, but I think that what I've said is Biblical, since it says,
I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:2-3)
So apparently it is permissible for fellow Christians to have a genuine disagreement, and still be sisters (or in Dean's and my case, brothers) in Christ.

[Matthan]

True, Bible believing Baptist are neither Calvinists or Armenian. Both are fatally flawed, scripturally speaking.

I will attempt to explain further, in greater detail, and including why both are flawed, if anyone wants the discussion.

Matthan

[DeaconDean]

So apparently it is permissible for fellow Christians to have a genuine disagreement, and still be sisters (or in Dean's and my case, brothers) in Christ.


Amen brother, how many toes have I stepped on in here?

But we can and should lift one another up in Christian fellowship and love. Building up the Body for Him.

[arunma]

True, Bible believing Baptist are neither Calvinists or Armenian. Both are fatally flawed, scripturally speaking.

I will attempt to explain further, in greater detail, and including why both are flawed, if anyone wants the discussion.

Matthan

I most certainly do want a (friendly and brotherly) discussion.

[arunma]

Amen brother, how many toes have I stepped on in here?

None of mine.

But we can and should lift one another up in Christian fellowship and love. Building up the Body for Him.

Well said, brother.

[DeaconDean]

True, Bible believing Baptist are neither Calvinists or Armenian. Both are fatally flawed, scripturally speaking.

I will attempt to explain further, in greater detail, and including why both are flawed, if anyone wants the discussion.

Matthan

That would prove interesting.

[Margim]

Saying 'all Baptists are anything' will ultimately turn out to be false.

If you ask me, there is too much diversity in the Baptist tradition to have only one sub-thread. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, has removed itself from the Baptist World Congress... so there is 30 million plus Baptists who define themselves differently from the rest for a start.

[arunma]

Saying 'all Baptists are anything' will ultimately turn out to be false.

If you ask me, there is too much diversity in the Baptist tradition to have only one sub-thread. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, has removed itself from the Baptist World Congress... so there is 30 million plus Baptists who define themselves differently from the rest for a start.

Quite true. There's a Baptist church on my campus which has the following words right on the sign: "A Liberal Church." Doesn't fit with what we thought we all knew about Baptists, does it?

[DeaconDean]

The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, has removed itself from the Baptist World Congress... so there is 30 million plus Baptists who define themselves differently from the rest for a start.

I don't want to start any quarls or disagreements, but, since you don't seem to like the SBC for withdrawing from the BWC, what is wrong with standing up for conservative Christian views?

Here is the newsletter concerning the SBC's withdrawal from the BWC:

SBC severs ties with BWA as theological concerns remain
Tuesday, Jun 15, 2004
By Don Hinkle
http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc04/photolibrary/AM022207149LO.jpg (http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc04/newsroom/hiresphoto.asp?ID=107) Patterson speaks on SBC withdrawal from BWA
Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, explains why the Southern Baptist Convention should approve the recommendation to withdraw from the Baptist World Alliance.. Photo By by Matt Miller

INDIANAPOLIS (BP)--Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting voted overwhelmingly July 15 to withdraw from the Baptist World Alliance.

The BWA is not a governing body but is a fellowship organization with headquarters in Falls Church, Va. The BWA, which includes 211 member Baptist conventions/unions, was formed in London, England, in 1905, in large part by Southern Baptists.

"We have noted, with sorrow in our hearts, a continual leftward drift in the BWA," Paige Patterson told messengers during the Executive Committee's report at SBC annual meeting in Indianapolis. Patterson is president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of nine SBC leaders named to a committee formed in 1997 to evaluate the relationship between the SBC and BWA.

The SBC study committee noted in recent years the BWA's increasingly anti-American stances, tolerance of liberal theology and disregard for its own procedures in accepting the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a member in 2003.

SBC messengers, in 2003, approved an Executive Committee recommendation to cut BWA funding in its 2004 fiscal year from $425,000 to $300,000, but to continue dialogue with the BWA toward possibly resolving the dispute. Leaders for both sides met as recently as this past spring in Nashville, but those talks failed to assuage SBC leaders' concerns.

"We have attempted ... through letters, statements of concern and appeals to the body to do something to right the direction of the BWA. We have had no reception on the part of the BWA leadership," Patterson said.

Denton Lotz, BWA general secretary, took exception to Patterson's assertion that the BWA has moved to the theological and political left.
"All of that is so relative," he told a handful of reporters in a post-vote press conference.

Lotz expressed sorrow over the SBC's vote to leave the BWA, noting that "Billy Kim [BWA president] is very sad because he has had 2,100 women deaconesses praying every morning at 5 that Southern Baptists would postpone their vote."

At an earlier press gathering after the vote, Lotz seemed to suggest that Patterson misled messengers by bringing up issues that had not specifically been discussed in meetings between BWA and SBC leaders.

Lotz referred to Patterson's remark to messengers that a key member of the BWA, the American Baptist Churches (ABC), had accepted for membership an organization -- the Evergreen Baptist Association based in Kent, Wash. -- [B]that has two churches sympathetic to practicing homosexuals.

Patterson, calling attention to the word "alliance," warned messengers: "What you are allied with, you are giving tacit -- at least -- agreement to," adding that Southern Baptists can no longer afford to give "either money or [their] name" to support an organization like the BWA.

Rhetorically, Patterson asked, "Why not delay this [vote] until a later time?" He answered, "We can no longer afford in this particular day, when the press for 'gay marriage' is on, to be in an alliance of any kind with denominations which support 'gay marriage' in any form or fashion."

Patterson continued, "Nor is it possible for us to be any longer in affiliation with some of the denominations of the BWA who do not believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture and regularly call it into question."

Lotz said the ABC has "a statement that says that homosexuality is inconsistent with the Christian lifestyle. So I think the American Baptists are going to want to respond to that attack, which became the basis for the delegates voting for withdrawal.

"I would be very, very sad and shocked if this speech by Dr. Patterson becomes the reason why the Southern Baptist Convention left the BWA," Lotz said. "I think the American Baptists are going to be very hurt and shocked."

About a dozen ABC regional associations around the country also have congregations that affirm homosexuals, according to an article in the Christian Century magazine on Sept. 20, 2003.

Lotz repeatedly characterized the BWA as a "conservative evangelical movement" and blamed the SBC for the estrangement, characterizing it as a "schism."

When a reporter asked Lotz what holds the BWA together, Lotz responded, "Jesus Christ. The essential oneness of Him."

Asked if Southern Baptists worship the same Jesus in light of their vote, Lotz replied, "It is a human problem."

The recommendation called for the SBC to "withdraw its membership from the Baptist World Alliance, effective Oct. 1, 2004, and encourage the Executive Committee and the Empowering Kingdom Growth (EKG) Task Force to continue studying how the SBC may establish an even closer bond of fellowship with conservative evangelical Christians around the world."

Larry Walker, an ambassador-at-large from First Baptist Church in Dallas, was the lone messenger to speak against the Executive Committee's recommendation, before messengers voted to end debate.

"To some Baptist bodies around the world, Southern Baptists are considered liberal because our ladies wear makeup and color their hair and our gentlemen do not greet each other with a kiss on the lips; yet these organizations have not pulled away for fear of their reputations being tainted by their association with us liberal Southern Baptists."

Walker said he sees the BWA as a nursery, in which the "big, strong spiritually mature Baptist giants like" Southern Baptists can aid some of the organization's smaller members. "We may not need them, but they desperately need us. We may not agree with everything they do, but is there something we can do to resolve and reconcile this relationship?"

Patterson cautioned against interpreting the SBC's action as "abdicating our position in the world," noting that the International Mission Board "will continue its ministry in far more nations than are touched in any way by the BWA." He said LifeWay Christian Resources now provides material to Baptists around the world, while all six SBC seminaries are involved in mission work with countries overseas.

Southern Baptists, Patterson said, are taking to the mission field in "unprecedented numbers," through volunteer missions. "Nothing in the world changes except that we take the money that we have been giving to the BWA and put it directly into efforts to make a difference in our world in terms of evangelism and training for our churches," Patterson said.

Wiley Drake, pastor, First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Vista, Calif., expressed support for the recommendation and called for messengers to vote on the matter.

"Our committee has done an excellent job and we need to move forward with this and sever our ties with this organization because of what has happened," Drake said. "We love everybody, but there comes a point when you have to do something out of love." His motion to end debate passed overwhelmingly and was followed immediately by the decisive vote."

http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc04/newsroom/newspage.asp?ID=29

I didn't think standing up against homosexuality was against the BWC ideas. If it is, then I guess I'm wrong too. When the world can define what is and what isn't acceptable to the church, then the church needs another reformation! But hey, it's not the first time I've been wrong. I just feel strongly in this area, and I, being an active member of the SBC, just so happen to have supported this.

[seebs]

It may be well-founded or over sincere concerns, but it's still schism.

The last time the SBC was in a schism, I think it eventually came out that, while the position they were defending was the historical norm in Christianity, it was wrong anyway.

[DeaconDean]

It may be well-founded or over sincere concerns, but it's still schism.

The last time the SBC was in a schism, I think it eventually came out that, while the position they were defending was the historical norm in Christianity, it was wrong anyway.

Wrong to stand up against homosexality? Hum.....

Before my Baptist views start any problems in this thread, I'll withdraw.

Goodbye

[Flynmonkie]

Mesue, In my experience, yes I think that the mainstream population does believe that Calvinism is a Baptist thought. I have read it in several textbooks at college. I even posted on one arumna even used and caught. Max Weber, a sociologist seems to be the main source cited. But generally, in conversation that is the first name that comes up, and the TULIP. Especially with Catholics or other denominations I meet (those that have a clue about theology)

[arunma]

Mesue, In my experience, yes I think that the mainstream population does believe that Calvinism is a Baptist thought. I have read it in several textbooks at college. I even posted on one arumna even used and caught. Max Weber, a sociologist seems to be the main source cited. But generally, in conversation that is the first name that comes up, and the TULIP. Especially with Catholics or other denominations I meet (those that have a clue about theology)

Here's a funny fact I just learned the other day on Semper Reformanda. Apparently the Presbyterians (who define their denomination in part by Calvinism) believe that it is impossible to believe in Reformed theology and infant baptism at the same time. Oh what a tangled web we weave!

I'll give them that all of the Reformers, including John Calvin, were paedobaptists. But seeing as how Calvinism isn't the invention of John Calvin, I suppose that his views on baptism aren't all too relevant to his view on soteriology.

[seebs]

I don't know, or particularly care, what the issue is this time. I know what it was last time.

However, I have not seen much good come from schisms like this. If they're wrong, they are shutting out truth; if they're right, they are helping other people shut out truth.

Our inability to coexist and study together, even when we disagree, has been catastrophic for the faith.

[BBAS 64]

I see this a lot and wonder why? I neither consider myself Calvinist nor Armenian. And
Why do I have to be one or the other?
Why can't I be a Bible believing Christian?

Good Day , Sue

In the context of the question, just saying " I am a Bible beliving Christian" is to commit a category error.

I would sumbit that is one hold's to Calvinism or an other view of salvation, they could say they are Bible believers.

Peace to u,

Bill

[mesue]

Good Day , Sue

In the context of the question, just saying " I am a Bible beliving Christian" is to commit a category error.

I would sumbit that is one hold's to Calvinism or an other view of salvation, they could say they are Bible believers.

Peace to u,

Bill
Thank you for pointing out my error ...

[Matthan]

I have posted anotehr thread with my thoughts on Calvinism and Arminianism relative to true Bible believers. I did that rather than add a long discourse to this thread.

With respect to the comment above urging that we keep an open mind to other thought processes, I turn to Paul who, under strict influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed us to reject heretics after a couple of attempts to bring them back to God's truth.

Matthan

[Margim]

In reply to #11

I didn't state my opinion on the division, simply noted that it happened. I'm just saying that Baptists are a pretty diverse bunch, and thus stating the 'Baptist position' on anything is only going to tell a small part of the story.

[Imblessed]

Well, one thing I've figured out real quick since becoming a baptist, is that the only thing you can say that all baptists agree on is believers baptism by immersion. After that the different beliefs are staggering. I became calvinist right around the same time I start calling myself baptist, but I honestly thought that calvinism was a real minority in the baptist churches. Go figure.


I'd like to add also that I don't really have a real problem with those who consider themselves arminian, only with those who are totally opposed to any sort of calvinism and those who seek to discredit it constantly. I believe that one can be arminian or calvinistic and still be a good christian. I've just come to believe that TULIP best represents soteriology. I actually think that most people who consider themselves arminian are closer to calvinists in thought anyway, once the trees are cleared and we each see the other more clearly. :)

[JPPT1974]

I am a Baptist and that I think
That it doesn't matter what denomination
That you belong to just as long
As you worship and believe that Jesus
Is the Savior and Lord and the Messiah
Of the world and the heavens IMO!!

[eutychus]

Menno Simmons was reformed in his theology, as were his followers.

The Baptists in early America (including those that founded Rhode Island in the days of the Puritans) were reformed in their theology.

I think it's easy for us to forget that those of the reformed persuasion were the majority until the nineteenth century, especially in Baptist life. Before modernism influenced our theology.

The thing is that Baptists are diverse specifically because they are not usually a confessional people. (Of course that can be argued to pieces.)

A quote from a friend just now:
I didn't realize Baptists were labeled Calvinists, I thought they were all labeled as rolling dispensationalists that listen to southern gospel.

[Flynmonkie]

A quote from a friend just now:
I didn't realize Baptists were labeled Calvinists, I thought they were all labeled as rolling dispensationalists that listen to southern gospel.
^_^ ;) :thumbsup:

[tericl2]

I was born and raised Baptist, but I am neither Calvinist or Armenian in my soteriology. I think there is a balance between the two that most fully encompasses what scripture states.

[JimfromOhio]

Most of my life, I have been members of Baptist and AnaBaptist. I have struggled Calvinsm and Arminian. In regarding to Salvation....Reading Hebrews 6:4-6, "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance" helped me understand the balance between Calvinism and Arminian. Calvinsts will view these words differently than the Arminians, at the same time both will be "consciously" reason the verses as how they have been taught. Both do understand the verses exactly what has been taught that they mean. The bottom line is this: The meaning of the verses will appear to them so natural that they will not agree with each other. Which sadly that each will more than likely think the other a hypocrite or heresy that were taught from the devil.

Every Christian must decide whether they will us their liberty to decide on their moral decisions. We are free, but our freedom must prove a source of real temptation of this world. We are free from the chains of sin because by grace we are saved by Christ that we are forgiven. It is God's gift that we have the complete spiritual freedom and loving dependence upon one another. The mystery of our free will is too easy because when God said to Adam and Eve: "Thou shalt not eat from this tree." Here was a divine requirement calling for obedience on the part of those who had the power of choice and will. They had only ONE commandment.

The potter (God) is working with this soft, yielding clay (us). If this clay does not submit, the potter may not be able to do what I should do according to His will. The potter still could make anything except for useful and beautiful (spiritual fruitful) out of an unyielding blob of clay. If God is going to make those kinds of vessels out of clay (us), however, we are going to have to yield to the spiritual law of surrender. Give ourselves to God as a living sacrifice and let Him have us--all of us. Of course at the same time, I understand that God, just because He is almighty, needs no support from me and He is still able to do what He wills to do. Often I noticed that the providential of God leads me to what I call "coincidences" in my life which perhaps God will make sure that His wills will be done at His right time and place. There are two worlds, set over against each other, dominated by two wills, the will of man (me) and the will of God, respectively.

Whose Will have more power?

Of course, God.

He directs our lives no matter what we do.

Sovereign God is the absolute, infinite, unqualified ruler in all realms in heaven, earth and sea. God governs the world (Isa. 40:22-24), the nations (Isa. 40:15-17), and us (Proverbs 16:9). We have freewill completely and God will only interfere when needed simply because God is in control and He will allow us to have freewill only if its according to His will. The "freewill" is always subject to God's sovereignty and His divine freewill. The key is that God is ALWAYS in control even in our own freewill. All circumstances are work for heavenly good and called to His purpose. Even though we can not see the purpose for the trials we are going through, we can trust absolutely that the Lord is in control of all things. Every trial in our life is a furrow being plowed by the Lord, that we grow in faith, and learn to trust ever more confidently in the Lord.

Proverbs 16:9 In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.

Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand his own way?

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.

Romans 8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

The bottom line: I am more into Calvinism theology more than I am into Arminianism theology.

[Phileoeklogos]

I see this a lot and wonder why? I neither consider myself Calvinist nor Armenian. And
Why do I have to be one or the other?
Why can't I be a Bible believing Christian?

Well considering yourself neither is a bit irrelavant really, I'm fairly certain that John Calvin didn't consider himself a Calvinist, or did Jacob Arminius consider himself an Arminian, but you can see how that point kind of makes itself

Well we don't have to be either one, but when you boil it all down, you normally are one or the other or a bit of both. That's the problem with having beliefs, they tend to define what we "believe".

Well you are a Bible Believing Christian, and so are all Calvinists and Arminians, it's hard to throw the Bible out of the discussion, and I've never heard of a Calvinistic Buddhist or a Arminian Taoist.

It has been my observation that many folks that profess to "just" believe the Bible could not define Calvinism or Arminanism, but upon examination they are one or the other, most lean towards Arminianism even if they don't know what it is.

Hey, why no mention of Pelagianism? I'm sure their are many around, but for some reason they never identify themselves as such.


Why do many people consider Baptists to be default Calvinists? They are un/misinformed, they learn Baptists generally hold to Eternal Security and equate that with Calvinism.


I have heard all Baptists are right handed, it must be true.......................

[eldermike]

I believe that Calvinism itself is not well understood. We tend to use semantics in pace of the heart and ears when discussing our tenants of faith with each other. This drives many away from adopting labels.

[MrJim]

Menno Simmons was reformed in his theology, as were his followers.


^_^

Yeah, um, do you have anything to back this statement up? I've never heard anything even remotely close to this. Please don't put Simons and Calvin in the same category. Neither would like it:doh:

In fact, Calvin wrote a diatribe against the anabaptists, forget what the work was called, but it's pretty caustic.

[IisJustMe]

There has been a lot said on this thread about the Southern Baptist Convention churches, so I'll not belabor the point. I am a member of a Southern Baptist church, a denomination that has taken a steadfast stand for biblical literalism, against homosexuality, and "experiential faith" as expressed by many of our charismatic/pentacostal brethern in ever-increasing fervancy over the last several years. I approve heartily of all these things.

But to stand two Southern Baptists side by side, for example, would be an exercise in futility, because you wouldn't find the level of common ground you might expect. There would be for most part complete agreement on the basic tenets of doctrine, of course. But how that is put into practice, what the application of biblical truth looks like in a typical Christian life, even what version of the Bible to use on a regular basis, would be open for discussion, and most likely, disagreement.

It is impossible to say any two Baptists will agree that they are basically Calvinist, literalist, even pretrib/premillenial. By the way, the SBC is decidely not Calvinist as a denomination, though there may be individual congregations that would view themselves as such. The same kind of disparity within a single church could be found in any two Presbyterians, any two Lutherans (try comparing a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran and a Missouri Synod Lutheran), or even any two Catholics. The understanding of a denominational position is as diverse as the number of people of that denomination you could ask.

The disparaging remarks I've seen on this thread about people being "Bible believing Christians" borders on sinful. The fact is, many modern Christians place their faith in their church and not in Christ. The remarks of that type I've seen bear that out, though I'm not saying that was the intent or the opinion of the poster who said something. I could be comfortable in a Presyterian Church of America congregation, or a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. I'd just have to swallow my tongue when they baptized a baby. I could even be at ease in some American Baptist Churches, mostly here in the Midwest where biblical truth is still largely upheld, instead of being shoved aside for political correctness. I have enjoyed worship in a couple Free Methodist services, where the preaching and fellowship is as biblical as I've seen anywhere.

The point is, don't judge a book by its cover. I'm equally certain I could walk into an SBC congregation somewhere I wonder what on earth possessed me to think of going in. What we believe about God is not found in the physical plant of a church organization. It is found in our hearts, and among those we find who share our view of faith in Jesus Christ, God the Son, Savior of the world and Lord of our lives.

[TheUltimateWarrior]

I see this a lot and wonder why? I neither consider myself Calvinist nor Armenian. And
Why do I have to be one or the other?
Why can't I be a Bible believing Christian?

Thats what Calvinists are.