Baptists Calvinists

[proudtexan]

I have been hearing the last several years. That for the most part baptists have been Calvinistic,historically speaking. were does anybody find that.The 1689 confession was adopted from the Presbyterians, with some minor changes. The only Calvinistic baptists,from my reading are: William Carey, Charles spurgeon,andrew fuller and John Gill,maybe a few others. I would encourge some debate on this issue.

[Mickey]

Welcome to the forum proudtexan . The reformation started in 1517. The first Calvinistic Baptist movement I am aware of is the Particular Baptists and they emerged in the 1630's.

The 1689 confession was adopted from the Presbyterians, with some minor changes.

Well sir thats not true.
The Particular Baptists who numbered at least 7 churches at the time came together to form the First London Confession of Faith in 1644, PRECEDING the Westminster Confession of Faith by two years. Then in 1677, a second confession was drawn up reflecting the Westminster Confession (1647) and the Savoy Declaration (1658). It was in 1707 that the Philadelphia Baptist Association was founded. This strong Particular Baptist fellowship has had a lasting effect on Baptists in America. In 1742, this association adopted the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as its founding confession, and gave it a new name: The Philadelphia Confession of Faith.

Mike

[Mickey]

I just reread what I posted and I thought I might clarify what I meant by:

Originally posted by Refromed SSgt
Well sir thats not true.

It seems that you are thinking that the only baptist source for its Calvinistic roots is the Presbyterians?

Originally posted by proudtexan
The 1689 confession was adopted from the Presbyterians, with some minor changes.

If you think this is thier only source you are sorely mistaken. As you can see in my last post, the Baptists actually had thier first confession drafted before the Presbyterians. The 1689 confession was adopted later, yes, but that wasn't their first confession. Besides even if they did adopt--as you put it--from the Presbyterians what does that prove? I mean, are we trying to see who was a Calvinist first?

Originally posted by proudtexan
The only Calvinistic baptists,from my reading are: William Carey, Charles spurgeon,andrew fuller and John Gill,maybe a few others. I would encourge some debate on this issue.

I have heard it said that the reason you don't see many Baptist books written by the early baptist fathers is because they were in hiding for fear of their lives.

Mike

[disciple]

the american baptist movement came out of the puritan movement (from the church of england). the majority of them can be traced to the congregationalist line of the puritans (i believe it was the separatists under robert browne). in the history of baptists there was a general baptist line (mainly in england and very small...via john smyth) and a particular baptist line (mentioned above). john spilsbury rings a bell for the particular baptist line.

anyway, i would recommend reading "baptist roots in america" by sam waldron. it's located here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

some good links are here:
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstud...gy/baptism.htm
http://www.thebaptistpage.com/
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/baptists.html
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/baptist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/...6;t=000358;p=0

[wildboar]

It all comes down to how you want to define Baptist. If all you care about is believer's baptism then you end up tracing yourself through various heretical groups who denied the Trinity and so forth. If you're looking for a group which practiced believer's baptisms and held to orthodox beliefs, then you trace the Baptists to the English Separatists which had more Calvinistic roots. However there were divisions early on. I recommend the book By His Grace and For His Glory. Unfortunately there is also disagreement over what hyper-Calvinism is and so some get labeled as hyper-Calvinist(either for the wrong reasons, or because they weren't), others get labeled as Calvinsts who were really Syncretists (A. T. Robertson for example) so you always have to be careful with what you read and test the facts. History is always biased due to its very nature. The Anabaptists on the continent were certainly more Pelagian in their theology. I'm sure there were also Calvinists among them, but most of them held to the same basic error of the RCC.

[Javelin]

Just want to correct something that proudtexan said earlier. He said that the 1689 London Baptist Confession only "reflected" the Westminster and suggested that it had more substantial roots in the 1644 London Confession. The word "reflected" is far too weak. If you compare the two confessions (1689 London and Westminster) side-by-side, you will see that there is a pervasive use of identical or close-to-identical language throughout the 1689 LBCF (London Baptist Confession of Faith). There are differences, but they are more alike than different.

Also, yes, there is a historical connection between the 1644 and 1689 Confessions. Nevertheless, just because these are connected in some way does not negate the influence of Westminster on the LBCF.

Javelin

[Javelin]

A couple more Calvinistic Baptists for proudtexan:

A.W. Pink
John Bunyan
Benjamin Keach + other subscribers to LBCF

Javelin

[Mickey]

Just want to correct something that proudtexan said earlier. He said that the 1689 London Baptist Confession only "reflected" the Westminster and suggested that it had more substantial roots in the 1644 London Confession. The word "reflected" is far too weak. If you compare the two confessions (1689 London and Westminster) side-by-side, you will see that there is a pervasive use of identical or close-to-identical language throughout the 1689 LBCF (London Baptist Confession of Faith). There are differences, but they are more alike than different.

Also, yes, there is a historical connection between the 1644 and 1689 Confessions. Nevertheless, just because these are connected in some way does not negate the influence of Westminster on the LBCF.

Javelin

Actually Javelin that was me that posted that. I see your point too.

It was a while back when I posted that, but I think I remember what I was thinking at the time. I was trying to prove that there was a 'Calvinistic' Baptist confession drafted before the 1689 (the 1644), I just said it wrong. As for my word choice with 'reflect'--you are right, that is a pour word to use. Actually if I remember right I rushed that post and did not site where I got all of that info from, I cut and pasted(my bad). Thats what I get I guess.

Mike

[wildboar]

That's okay The French Confession (1559), The Belgic Confession (1561), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Second Helvetic Confession (1566), Canons of Dort (1619) came before and are better than all of em

[Javelin]

Sorry, Mike/proudtexan --- I'm kind of new to forums and this is the second time I've mixed up who said what.

All though you speak "tongue in cheek", wildboar, it is interesting to consider one particular superiority of the Continental confessions. The British Isle confessions tend to be more terse and austere. There is a spritual warmth that projects from the Continental confessions. It would be an interesting exercise to analyze this difference and see how it has affected subsequent generations. Does anyone else perceive this difference?
Javelin

[wildboar]

Javelin:

In all honesty there is a great deal I appreciate about the WCF. In many ways it is more developed than the continental confessions. In some ways however, I believe the reformed branch has had greater development following its confessions for both good and ill. There are a handful of places where I disagree with the WCF but nothing I have found in the three forms of unity that I disagree with (as long as the revision regarding the relationship between church and state is in place). I've seen coldness and warmth exhibited in both Presbyterian and Reformed churches.