# Baptist History and Calvinism



## LadyFlynt (Jan 25, 2007)

Need some help here on sources and small facts...

Baptists...before Finneyism...were 5 point Calvinists.



Been reading a baptist board and it's interesting watching them talk about the reintro of the 1599GB and some of the comments towards the Reformed...including Geneva being the "cesspool of calvinism".

BTW, I believe one clue is that the Pilgrim Baptists carried the Geneva and rejected the KJB also (?)


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 25, 2007)

This may be of some assistance. Sam Waldron, "Tulips in the Baptist Garden".

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=5220283348


----------



## caddy (Jan 25, 2007)

Tis true...

and Most discouraging....




LadyFlynt said:


> Baptists...before Finneyism...were 5 point Calvinists.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 25, 2007)

caddy said:


> Tis true...
> 
> and Most discouraging....



It's funny how a Presbyterian messed them up!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 25, 2007)

Okay, I need just some facts...I really cannot buy any new books right now, doubt these would be available at the public library...and the ppl I'm dealing with probably won't go out of their way for them. I have to deal with bits and pieces right now. I'm dealing with IFB here. The IFB consider the SBC pretty out there...so they won't be able to relate the SBC history as their own, kwim?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 25, 2007)

You know, that is hysterical. I didn't know Finney was a Presbyterian...he is lauded so greatly in the Baptist churches.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Okay, I need just some facts...I really cannot buy any new books right now, doubt these would be available at the public library...and the ppl I'm dealing with probably won't go out of their way for them. I have to deal with bits and pieces right now. I'm dealing with IFB here. The IFB consider the SBC pretty out there...so they won't be able to relate the SBC history as their own, kwim?



I'm literally walking out my door to head out of town, but saturday I'd be happy to ship you a copy of Nettle's book (mentioned above) if you'd ship it back when you were done with it. 

Unfortunately, if you're dealing with the sort of IFB's I know (i.e., KJV is more authorative than original Greek, even if meaning is lost in translation) then mere books won't help you......


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 25, 2007)

The IFB movement is almost altogether Finney's baby. They mostly split from the SBC. Finney in thier patron saint.


----------



## refbaptdude (Jan 25, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Need some help here on sources and small facts...
> 
> Baptists...before Finneyism...were 5 point Calvinists.
> 
> ...



LadyFlynt,

A couple of sources are the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 and Keech's Catechism.

http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/bc1689/1689bc00.html

http://www.covenantword.org/catechism.htm

Enjoy,
Steve


----------



## refbaptdude (Jan 25, 2007)

LadyFlynt,

Another source is:

A Primer on Baptist History by Chris Traffanstedt
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm

I hope this helps 

Steve


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 25, 2007)

Thnk you, Chris...that would be great. I'll PM you later. And thank you for the links, gents...I'll have a look at them in a bit (have to feed the man).


----------



## caddy (Jan 25, 2007)

Tis true...

and Most discouraging.... 

I'm on a Roll...




LadyFlynt said:


> You know, that is hysterical. I didn't know Finney was a Presbyterian...he is lauded so greatly in the Baptist churches.


----------



## caddy (Jan 25, 2007)

Ah yes, forgot about the Reformed Reader site! Excellent resource there.... 



refbaptdude said:


> LadyFlynt,
> 
> Another source is:
> 
> ...


----------



## Ivan (Jan 25, 2007)

What is the _IFB_?


----------



## Philip A (Jan 26, 2007)

joshua said:


> Independent Fundamental Baptist



Actually you're wrong, Josh. It's Independ_a_nt Fundam_a_ntal Bapist.
Most IFB specimen that I have run across on the internet can't spell.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 26, 2007)

Okay, it's turning out like this...my friend's hubby and mine are gonna have to talk...or not. I was advised to avoid the site when I links like this .

About the only thing they got right was the PCA FV/AA issue...and even that I don't think they understand what is going on.

Any IFBers here want to respond on a former IFBer talking with IFBers? (how's that for a tongue twister?)


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 26, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Okay, it's turning out like this...my friend's hubby and mine are gonna have to talk...or not. I was advised to avoid the site when I links like this .
> 
> About the only thing they got right was the PCA FV/AA issue...and even that I don't think they understand what is going on.
> 
> Any IFBers here want to respond on a former IFBer talking with IFBers? (how's that for a tongue twister?)



I visited that site. It smells or RUCKMAN.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 26, 2007)

Ruckman?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 26, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Ruckman?



Ruckman is the grand poobah of the KJV only movement. Do a google on him for all the sordid info. I know the man personally. To my shame I once studied under him. He teaches some of the most wild doctrines you can dream of.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 26, 2007)

Okay, we have personally moved our position back to KJVO...but not due to some of the more radical mudslinging reasons. But I get what you are saying. I'll look up Ruckman. I have told them (our friends) to feel free to lurk here.


----------



## caddy (Jan 26, 2007)

Well...the site mentioned above is definately "Out there"


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jan 26, 2007)

caddy said:


> Well...the site mentioned above is definately "Out there"



I've used them once for one topic...but you're right, they've got things so twisted. I laughed when I saw in the article damning the Reformed and the Westminster Confession (obviously they don't know WHAT a confession is, because the site owner has a confession or SOF on the site), they turned around and defended the Puritans, Baptists of Old England, and the Covenanters stating "they followed God, not Creeds". The site owner's SOF starts off with "I have no creed but Christ and the KJV" then turns and gives as his profession, a personal synopsis of each book of the Bible (severly leaving out major concepts in the process).


It's amazing that ppl believe slander and mudslinging is intelligiant, but don't take the time to actually do the work of finding out WHAT something it...particularly when they say a Confession is held above or equal to the Scriptures. Yet, these same ppl will swear by Matthew Henry (funny, because he was a calvinist), etc. The dumbing down and ignorance of these kinds of sites is astounding.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 26, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Okay, we have personally moved our position back to KJVO...but not due to some of the more radical mudslinging reasons. But I get what you are saying. I'll look up Ruckman. I have told them (our friends) to feel free to lurk here.



I'm still KJV only myself. It is the only translation I've used for 23yrs. Hard to lay it down after so long of a time. Last year I read the NKJV through twice but just couldn't get used to it. I read the NT and the 1rst 5 in the OT in my 1599 Geneva. Like it very well but still went back to the A.V. Just can't teach and old dog new tricks.


----------



## caddy (Jan 26, 2007)

True

Soapbox mentality. There are a lot of truths and good information on that site, but soooo much of it has to be sifted through with caution and a sense of wisdom and propriety. I have seen more than a few sites like this. The leader or individuals are usually very bright and gifted, but opinionated to the point of bordering on cultic personalities.

Much wisdom is needed to discern all the information one looks at or reads on these types of sites. In general, I would just avoid them. For those that might be new or immature christians ( probably not to many of those here on the PB ) I would definately steer clear.



LadyFlynt said:


> I've used them once for one topic...but you're right, they've got things so twisted. I laughed when I saw in the article damning the Reformed and the Westminster Confession (obviously they don't know WHAT a confession is, because the site owner has a confession or SOF on the site), they turned around and defended the Puritans, Baptists of Old England, and the Covenanters stating "they followed God, not Creeds". The site owner's SOF starts off with "I have no creed but Christ and the KJV" then turns and gives as his profession, a personal synopsis of each book of the Bible (severly leaving out major concepts in the process).
> 
> 
> It's amazing that ppl believe slander and mudslinging is intelligiant, but don't take the time to actually do the work of finding out WHAT something it...particularly when they say a Confession is held above or equal to the Scriptures. Yet, these same ppl will swear by Matthew Henry (funny, because he was a calvinist), etc. The dumbing down and ignorance of these kinds of sites is astounding.


----------



## caddy (Jan 26, 2007)

I love looking at the Different versions. NJKV and ESV being my favorites, but I have been reading through the NT with my 1599 Geneva.

I know most people will barf, but I even like looking at my Parallel NIV/Message Bible. I know it can mess up a translation _quicker than a jackrabbit on a date_ but I appreciate how some of the verses are put into context to help draw out meaning.

Best Bible Bar none: Spirit of Reformation Bible. I just wish it were ESV or KJV...instead of NIV.

 



Blueridge reformer said:


> I'm still KJV only myself. It is the only translation I've used for 23yrs. Hard to lay it down after so long of a time. Last year I read the NKJV through twice but just couldn't get used to it. I read the NT and the 1rst 5 in the OT in my 1599 Geneva. Like it very well but still went back to the A.V. Jusy can't teach and old dog new tricks.


----------



## Chris (Jan 28, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Thnk you, Chris...that would be great. I'll PM you later. And thank you for the links, gents...I'll have a look at them in a bit (have to feed the man).



I have it on the dash of my vehicle - let me know if you still want it. 






LadyFlynt said:


> I was advised to avoid the site when I links like this .




Whoever is responsible for that link is stark raving insane.


----------



## jenney (Feb 2, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> You know, that is hysterical. I didn't know Finney was a Presbyterian...he is lauded so greatly in the Baptist churches.



Not in any Baptist church of mine!


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Feb 2, 2007)

Lady Flynt, may I have the name of the Baptist Discussion board you are talking about? I would like to recommend this article by Tom Nettles which is available on the Founders Ministries site.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 3, 2007)

THis is a fairly well circulated article written by my own pastor:




THREE HUNDRED FIFTY YEARS OF CONTINUOUS BAPTIST HISTORY IN AMERICA

"Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." (Jer. 6:16)

It should be made perfectly clear that when we speak of Baptists, we are not referring to any particular Denomination, Convention, Fellowship, or Association as an outward, visible organization of churches. We intend a people, traced by their vital principles and gospel practices. History is appealed to, not as necessary to legitimacy as a church or authoritative, but merely as a demonstration of the fact that OUR DOCTRINE IS NOT NEW. Only conformity to biblical principles can constitute any assembly as a TRUE CHURCH OF Christ. We do not need, nor do we seek, an historical succession to grant validity to our church and its doctrine. The Bible is sufficient to do that for us, or any other church.

However, the testimony of history, rightly viewed, is important and useful. We feel that it is in the interest of all Christians to have a general knowledge of Church History, particularly as it traces "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." We do not believe that Baptists have any corner on God or history, but we do believe that Baptists have, under God, had an important part in maintaining the testimony of Christ in this world from the earliest times down to the present. Perhaps what follows will prove of interest and benefit to all of God's people.



THE FIRST AMERICAN BAPTIST WERE CALVINISTS

The first Baptists in America, whether at Newport or Providence, were distinctly Calvinistic in their doctrine rather than Arminian. Both Roger Williams and John Clarke were Puritan Separatists. Williams was a graduate of Cambridge, famous at that time for its Puritanical Calvinism, (The Christian in Complete Armour, Gurnall, from the Introduction by J. C. Ryle, p. xix) Some of the most renown of the Puritan writers were graduated during that same period, such as Jeremiah Burroughs, Thomas Hooker, John Cotton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, and Stephen Charnock, just to name a few. Of course, it is common knowledge that seventeenth century Cambridge was a staunch ally to Cromwell and the Long Parliament, and produced many of the divines of the famous Westminster Assembly. The worthy Westminster Confession greatly influenced the London Confession of the English Baptists, which was one with it in soteriology. (Baptist Confessions of Faith, Lumpkin, pp. 236-240)

Although we don't have exact information of Clarke's education, he exhibited such "a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew such as men seldom gained in England outside of the universities". (A Short History of Baptists, p. 293, Vedder) Concerning William's church, Vedder says, "The original members were of Puritan antecedents and Calvinists;...". (Ibid, p. 292) Of Clarke's church, the same historian gives an account of a split that occurred in 1654 or 1656, brought on by an Arminian, "Six-principle" group, the like of which had earlier caused division in William's old church. (Ibid, pp. 293, 295) A successor of Clarke as pastor, Comer, said of the original body under Clarke that they maintained "the doctrine of efficacious grace, and professed the baptizing of only visible believers upon personal profession by total immersion in water...". (The History of the Baptists, Armitage, p. 671) Efficacious grace is, of course, irresistible grace, the heart of Calvinistic teaching touching regeneration. It implies the other "four points".



ARMINIAN BAPTISTS NEVER PREVAILED BEFORE THE PRESENT ERA

True enough, the Arminian faction among Baptists made their influence felt in early Baptist history, but never became the dominant force. The strict Calvinists gained and maintained the formative influence in New England, the Middle Atlantic, and also the South, and that from the earliest periods. This came to pass much by the formation of the Philadelphia Association. This group of Baptists are traceable back to at least 1684, and in 1688 a church was formed with its first pastor being Elias Keach, son of the famous Baptist minister of London, Benjamin Keach. Of its later published Confession of Faith, McGlothlin states, "It is an exact reprint of the Assembly Confession of 1689, with the addition of the following articles, taken verbatim from Keach's Confession." (Baptist Confessions of Faith, McGlothlin, p. 279) Its Calvinism was unchanged. Concerning the tremendous influence of the Philadelphia Association, Vedder says, "From the first the New Jersey churches were members, and as the body increased in age and strength it attracted to itself all the Baptist churches within traveling distance of it, having as members churches in southern New York and Virginia. Its adoption of a strongly Calvinistic Confession in 1742 (or possibly earlier) was a turning-point in the history of American Baptists, as it ensured the prevalence of that type of theology." (Ibid, p. 306) The same author goes so far as to say, "The Association speedily became the leading body among American Baptists -- a position it has not wholly lost to this day. Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active co-operation." (Ibid, p. 306) Vedder wrote in 1907, and nobody would dare call him a Calvinistic partisan.

Kenneth Good, in his book, Are Baptists Calvinists?, does a good job of tracing the Calvinistic influence that Vedder speaks of to the Baptist Bible Union and the General Association of Regular Baptists. (pp.188-216) All the various Fundamental Baptist groups have their roots back to this same source. Whether Fundamental or Southern, most Baptist churches of our day have for their Articles of Faith but a version of the New Hampshire Confession of 1833, with certain modifications. Although The New Hampshire Confession is more moderate in tone than the Philadelphia Confession, it was drawn up precisely to combat the message of the Free Will Baptists which was becoming popular at the time in that area. (Baptist Confessions of Faith, Lumpkin, p. 360) Therefore it still retained its distinctly Calvinistic theology purposely, and that for polemical reasons. It has always puzzled me why the longest single section of that confession has always been omitted by modern day Baptists. It is article ix, "Of God's Purpose of Grace."

"We believe that Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners; that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end; that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable; that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy; that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree; that it is ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel; that it is the foundation of Christian assurance; and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves, demands and deserves our utmost diligence." (Ibid, p. 364)

It has always seemed to me that any Baptist group, wishing to stand with the mainstream of the venerable Baptist past and desiring to be true to the gospel, would be proud to include such a biblical and Baptistic statement in its Articles of Faith. In fact, if purposely done, it seems to me to be historically dishonest to have omitted it, particularly when such Articles were and are set forth as representing the historic Baptist position.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 3, 2007)

Ezekiel3626 said:


> Lady Flynt, may I have the name of the Baptist Discussion board you are talking about? I would like to recommend this article by Tom Nettles which is available on the Founders Ministries site.



Onlinebaptists.com it is an IFB site.


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Feb 3, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Onlinebaptists.com it is an IFB site.



Thank you for the link. I will check them out. I hope you get a chance to read the article I gave the link for, and I hope it aids your study.


----------

