Were the first Baptists Calvinists or Arminianists?

[SonofMatthew]

Who were the first Baptists and were they calvinist or arminianists ?

 

[Winken]

Who were the first Baptists and were they calvinist or arminianists ?

http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistorigins/baptistbeginnings.html

 

[JM]

The first Baptists took a while to really sort out their theology. There were two groups made up of Arminians that used pouring and sprinkling to baptize and Calvinist that were insistent on full immersion. As many of you know John Smyth, one of the founders of the Baptists, thought the Mennonites were essentially the same denomination, they were Arminian and used pouring to baptize, he eventually joined them. The Free Will / Arminian Baptists followed the Calvinists and baptized by full immersion creating what we now know as the modern Baptists.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[FreeinChristJesus]

Free will

 

[JM]

Free will

You were predestination to post that.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I grew up Southern Baptist; Calvinist at foundational level.

 

[DeaconDean]

To be honest, they were both.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

To be honest, they were both.

Deacon, seeing there are over thirty different 'flavors' (denominations) of "Baptists'" - and I'm not sure that counts the Westboro bunch - I'd probably agree with you.

My post was strictly about the Southern Baptists; and there's probably some congregations of that denomination I haven't attended. Nor do SoBaps require strict adherence to a central theological or doctrinal authority. (They didn't up until lately, at least.)

 

[DeaconDean]

Deacon, seeing there are over thirty different 'flavors' (denominations) of "Baptists'" - and I'm not sure that counts the Westboro bunch - I'd probably agree with you.

My post was strictly about the Southern Baptists; and there's probably some congregations of that denomination I haven't attended. Nor do SoBaps require strict adherence to a central theological or doctrinal authority. (They didn't up until lately, at least.)

The "First" Baptists were actually "Anabaptists".

But, by the same token, there were both Arminian and Calvinist Baptists in the Americas by the time the first Calvinist CoF was written.

Please take note that the Philadelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 is nearly identical to the 2nd London Confession of 1689.

And there is no mistaking, both are Calvinistic.

Arminian Baptist may trace their roots to around 1685.

"These repressive measures were quite unavailing; Anabaptist sentiments continued to increase among the Puritans, and in addition, immigrants began to come who had been Baptists in the old country. John Myles, who, as we have seen, was the founder of the first Baptist church in Wales, was one of the victims of the Act of Uniformity, and soon after it went into effect he and a number of the members of the Ilston church came to the new world and at first settled at Rehoboth. Here, in 1663, they organized a Baptist church, which was in 1667, removed to a new settlement, named Swansea, it memory of the city near which they had dwelt in Wales This church, the first formed in the Massachusetts colony, has had an uninterrupted existence to this day. A became its origin, it was a strongly Calvinistic body, but second Swansea church was formed in 1685 that was strongly Arminian."

Short History of Baptists

But if you want to get strickly to So. Baptists, they didn't really exist until around 1858. With the formation of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Greenville So. Carolina, now located in Kentucky.

The "un-official" CoF for So. Baptist was the "Abstract of Principles of 1858" by James Petigru Boyce.

So, as far as what I said previously,

To be honest, they were both.

Is true.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[HantsUK]

In England, the earliest Baptists date back to the late 1500's / early 1600's. The official date given is 1611, which is the (re-)start of the congregation in London led by John Smyth. There were also other groups around England formed about the same time, including Lincoln, Coventry, Sarun (Salisbury), and Tiverton (official founding: 1607), areas where Protestants from the Netherlands settled.

Very few records now exist, with early records being 'lost' during 'times of troubles' (it is not safe to keep written records or documents when you are a member of an illegal group that is suffering persecution, and could face punitive fines or be sold into exile as slaves). In England the early C17 was a time of political turmoil and religious persecution. Being a Baptist (or any other religious group other than Anglican or non-practicing Anglican) was considered subversive; punishable by imprisonment, punitive fines, or even deportation.

These early Baptists desired to worship God according to their understanding of Scripture, as led and guided by the Holy Spirit. This meant, at that time, outside the Established Church. Issues, such as baptism and membership being only for believers, or how baptism should be performed, are really just secondary issues that result from one's understanding and interpretation of Scripture.

I suspect that the General Baptists grew out of congregations started by Flemish immigrants who would not have had much allegiance to the Anglican Church, and believed that Christ should be the head of the church, not the King (or Queen) of England. As they gained converts amongst the Native English, these congregations grew and planted new congregations.

Later in the 1600's, another stream that became the Particular Baptists, formed from Puritans who found that they were unable to remain within the Anglican Church.

I suspect whether you became a General Baptist or a Particular Baptist depended on which flavour of Baptist happened to be in your town. It took many more years before the General and Particular Baptists merged (1891), forming what is now the Baptist Union of Great Britain.

In answer to the to the OP "were they calvinist or arminianists ?" I think this misses the point. The earliest Baptists believed that you should be following Scripture, with the local congregation being for believers.

 

[OzSpen]

Deacon, seeing there are over thirty different 'flavors' (denominations) of "Baptists'" - and I'm not sure that counts the Westboro bunch - I'd probably agree with you.

My post was strictly about the Southern Baptists; and there's probably some congregations of that denomination I haven't attended. Nor do SoBaps require strict adherence to a central theological or doctrinal authority. (They didn't up until lately, at least.)

Professor Roger Olson of the Southern Baptist George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX is an ardent promoter of Arminianism.

President Al Mohler Jr of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville KY, is a promoter of TULIP Calvinism.

The Baptist Church in which I was raised in Qld., Australia was a 1-point Calvinist (eternal security).

Therefore, there were Arminians and Calvinists in the roots of the Baptists and they remain today. I regularly attended a Baptist Church in Hervey Bay, Qld., Australia and I asked the pastor, 'Are you a TULIP Calvinist?' He denied it with some vigour.

Oz

 

[DeaconDean]

Deacon, seeing there are over thirty different 'flavors' (denominations) of "Baptists'" - and I'm not sure that counts the Westboro bunch - I'd probably agree with you.

My post was strictly about the Southern Baptists; and there's probably some congregations of that denomination I haven't attended. Nor do SoBaps require strict adherence to a central theological or doctrinal authority. (They didn't up until lately, at least.)

To be honest, one of the earliest So. Baptist churches was in Sandy Creek No. Carolina.

The Sandy Creek Association was originally formed in 1758. But it wasn't until 1816 that they issued a CoF.

It reads:

"Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association


I. We believe that there is only one true and living God; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, equal in essence, power and glory; and yet there are not three Gods but one God.

II. That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of faith and practice.

III. That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.

IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.

V. We believe that there will be a resurrection from the dead, and a general or universal judgment, and that the happiness of the righteous and punishment of the wicked will be eternal.

VI. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful persons, who have obtained fellowship with each other, and have given themselves up to the Lord and one another; having agreed to keep up a godly discipline, according to the rules of the Gospel.

VII. That Jesus Christ is the great head of the church, and that the government thereof is with the body.

VIII. That baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of the Lord, and to be continued by his church until his second coming.

IX. That true believers are the only fit subjects of baptism;, and that immersion is the only mode.

X. That the church has no right to admit any but regular baptized church members to communion at the Lord's table."

Source

Just reading the above "bolded" sections, the first So. Baptist group were "Calvinist" in their convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

All of the SoBap churches (congregations) I've joined have taught the essentials of Calvinism, but not - usually - using the "Tulip" format as such. I've visited some (usually while traveling) seemed Calvinist - although not by official label - or were very quiet about being otherwise.

At the same time, I am not aware of that stance being a 'litmus test' for membership. No one ever asked me as such AS A REQUIREMENT for membership. It has come up in several discussions (I never thought to keep a record).

Then again, most of the congregations of which I have any knowledge are rather conservative in social conduct, politics and financial matters. I wonder a bit regarding such thought in some of the congregations in California and have no idea about congregations in New York City.

And, individual members are not surveyed prior to membership. All that is required is a personal encounter/relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

 

[DeaconDean]

All of the SoBap churches (congregations) I've joined have taught the essentials of Calvinism, but not - usually - using the "Tulip" format as such. I've visited some (usually while traveling) seemed Calvinist - although not by official label - or were very quiet about being otherwise.

At the same time, I am not aware of that stance being a 'litmus test' for membership. No one ever asked me as such AS A REQUIREMENT for membership. It has come up in several discussions (I never thought to keep a record).

Then again, most of the congregations of which I have any knowledge are rather conservative in social conduct, politics and financial matters. I wonder a bit regarding such thought in some of the congregations in California and have no idea about congregations in New York City.

And, individual members are not surveyed prior to membership. All that is required is a personal encounter/relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

There are no churches, Arminian or Calvinist that I know of that require any member to subscribe to one viewpoint or another as a requirement for membership into a church.

My posts were directed to the historical viewpoint of Baptists in America.

I'm Calvinist, make no excuses for it, that is my conviction and I'll stand by it.

If I go to a church that preaches and teaches Arminianism, rest assured I'll not come back or join.

That is the good thing about Baptists. As you said, and I can point it out, the 1925 Southern Baptist F&M has a clause that allows one to disagree with their principles yet remain Baptist.

Again, all my answers to you were from a "historical" viewpoint of Southern Baptists. And as history has shown, Southern Baptists have trended towards Calvinism.

Is an adherence to Calvinism a requirement? No.
Is Calvinism the only viewpoint for Southern Baptists? No.
Should adherence to Calvinism be a requirement for membership in a Southern Baptist church? No.

Are there churches that teach 5 point Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P) Yes!

Are there churches that teach 4 point Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P) Yes!

Are there churches that teach 3 point Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P) Yes!

Are there churches that teach 5 point Arminism (C.U.R.E.D) Yes!

Are there churches that teach 4 point Arminism (C.U.R.E.D) Yes!

Are there churches that teach 3 point Arminism (C.U.R.E.D) Yes!

Teaching a 5, 4, or 3, point anything is the churches and congregations own choice.

The only group of Baptists that I am aware of that do have a strict adherence to anything are the Landmarkers.

I will say this though, read all the historic Baptist confessions and they all agree on one thing. Church membership.

God Bless

Till all are one.