The Reformed Baptists
A Fundamentalism File Research Report by Mark Sidwell
This report is intended to be a resource to help Fundamentalist Christians in studying and evaluating religious leaders and movements. It draws primarily upon materials housed in the Fundamentalism File in the J. S. Mack Library on the campus of Bob Jones University.
Although every effort has been made to provide an impartial study of the topic, this work will naturally reflect the interpretations and viewpoint of its author. This report should not be taken as representing an official statement of the position of Bob Jones University. The University's theological position is well expressed by its creed.
The staff of the Fundamentalism File would welcome any questions or comments concerning the content of this report.
First Issued: 12/18/98
Last Revised: 7/1/00
Among the various Baptist groups in North America are what are called the “Sovereign Grace Baptists” or, more commonly, the “Reformed Baptists.” As their name indicates, this group combines historic Baptist beliefs with the tenets of Reformed theology. Yet even the label group may imply too much, for the Reformed Baptists are a loose alliance of like-minded Christians, not an organized body.1 Indeed, as will be seen, one segment of the movement has repudiated the label Reformed; “Sovereign Grace Baptists” may be, in fact, a more apt inclusive label. But the title “Reformed Baptist” still seems to be more generally recognized. This diverse movement is best understood only by generalizations rather than a list of hard distinctives. But its influence is undeniable.
Calvinism and the Baptists
Reformed Baptists normally highlight the Calvinistic heritage of the Baptists. English Baptists in the seventeenth century, the ancestors of the large majority of American Baptists today, generally fell into one of two groups. The General Baptists were Arminian in tendency, their very name reflecting their belief in a general atonement, that is, that Christ died for the sins of all humanity. The Particular Baptists were Calvinistic, their name referring to their belief in particular redemption, that is, that Christ died for the purpose of redeeming His elect.
Both Arminian and Calvinistic tendencies have been present among the Baptists throughout their history, with those of both persuasions sometimes accusing the other side of not reflecting the true Baptist heritage. The Reformed Baptists understandably stress the Calvinistic aspect of Baptist history and often view themselves as preserving or reestablishing the historic Baptist position. They note, for example, that the framers of the earliest major Baptist confessions—the London Confession (1689) and the Philadelphia Confession (1742)—modeled those confessions closely on the Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith.2
Writers have spilled much ink on claims and counterclaims about the role of Calvinism in Baptist history.3 Neither side is likely to establish its position as the truth, because both Calvinistic and Arminian tendencies have been present throughout Baptist history. The nineteenth century, for example, saw the growth in America of two contrasting groups, the Arminian Free Will Baptists and the rigorously Calvinistic Primitive Baptists. The Primitive Baptists eventually fell into fatalistic forms of hyper-Calvinism.4 Baptist seminaries, especially in the South, preserved a more scholarly approach to Calvinism. The modern “Reformed Baptist” movement, however, is of twentieth-century vintage, a product primarily of the post–World War II era.
Rise of the Reformed Baptist Movement
There are two sources to the Reformed Baptist stream in America; one is distinctly American and the other, dominantly British.
Rolfe Barnard and the Ashland Conference
One factor in the growth of “sovereign grace” teaching among American Baptists is the ministry of Rolfe P. Barnard (1904-69), who came to Calvinistic views during his ministry as a Southern Baptist pastor, evangelist, and military chaplain. When he began teaching at Piedmont Bible College in the 1940s, Barnard began moving in Fundamentalist circles. However, when Barnard expressed his Calvinistic beliefs at a conference sponsored by The Sword of the Lord in Toccoa, Georgia, in 1950, John R. Rice denounced him, and many Fundamentalist churches then closed their doors to him. Nonetheless, Barnard found other churches receptive to his views. A series of successful special meetings held by Barnard in Ashland, Kentucky, led to the founding in 1954 of the “Sovereign Grace Bible Conference” in Ashland. Located at the 13th Street Baptist Church in that city under the direction of Henry Mahan, a pastor influenced by Barnard, this annual conference became a force for the Sovereign Grace movement among the Baptists.5
British Influence
Paralleling the Sovereign Grace movement born in Ashland was the import of a British revival of Calvinism. Although British Baptist (and Calvinist) C. H. Spurgeon (1834-92) serves as an inspiration to this movement, the real forerunner was probably A. W. Pink (1886-1952). Born in Britain, he became a Baptist minister and served churches in Britain, the United States, and Australia. Pink began originally as an adherent of American Fundamentalism, but through reading various Reformed and Puritan writers he became a convinced Calvinist. Pink became a prolific writer, noted for works such as The Sovereignty of God and The Life of Elijah and for his periodical Studies in the Scripture.6
Pink was little known in his own time, but his works were rediscovered during the revival of interest in Puritan studies sparked by British Bible expositor D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Finding his own study enriched by reading the Puritans, Lloyd-Jones aroused fresh interest in Puritan writings. His own preaching at Westminster Chapel in London and the publication of his sermons were partly responsible for this surge of interest. In addition, he sponsored annual conferences in Puritan studies that grew steadily in popularity and attendance, and he strongly supported efforts such as those of the Banner of Truth Trust in Britain to republish Puritan works.7
Lloyd-Jones was himself a Congregationalist, but he found a ready audience among many Baptists. British Baptists were obviously most likely to be influenced by him,8 but American Baptists also acknowledged his impact. Ron McKinney, one of the participants in the Reformed Baptist movement in America, said in 1982 that he credited Lloyd-Jones’s preaching, along with the publishing efforts he inspired, with encouraging this “resurgence” of Calvinism.9
The Carlisle Conference
The effects of this Puritan revival were eventually felt in America. The starting point for this movement in America was a meeting in 1966 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, sponsored by the Grace Baptist Church. This meeting evolved into an annual conference, soon joined by other conferences dedicated to Reformed teachings crossed with Baptist distinctives. Several churches in the Pennsylvania and New Jersey area that were associated with this meeting formed the Reformed Baptist Association. The leading representatives of this group were Walter Chantry of the Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle and Albert N. Martin of the Trinity Baptist Church in Essex Fells, New Jersey.10 Chantry became the literary spokesman for this group, notably through his controversial book Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? which excoriated the “easy-believism” of modern evangelicalism and called for a return to a Calvinistic stress on the preaching of the law in order to bring conviction and repentance.11 Martin provided an eloquent voice to the movement through his persuasive preaching in churches and Bible conferences.
Reformed Baptist Organizations and Institutions
Around these two groups—Barnard’s Ashland conference and the Carlisle conference representing Lloyd-Jones’s influence—grew an array of institutions dedicated to Reformed Baptist ideals. A voice of the movement, more closely tied to the Ashland group, was the periodical Baptist Reformation Review founded in 1972 and edited first by Norbert Ward, a layman who worked as a sound engineer for CBS Records, and then by John Zens, who later changed its name to Searching Together.12 Another influential periodical was Sword and Trowel (named for a British periodical published by C. H. Spurgeon and his successors) published by Ron McKinney.
Martin, seeing a need for ministerial training from the Reformed Baptist perspective, founded the Trinity Ministerial Academy in 1977, a ministerial training institution that did not grant degrees and sought to concentrate on education geared exclusively to preparation for the ministry.13 Discount book distributors, such as Martin’s Trinity Book Service and the Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service, began to offer Reformed titles at only a little above cost to facilitate the spread of Reformed ideas. An international rallying point was established in 1991 when British Baptist Erroll Hulse, publisher of Reformation Today, led in the formation of the International Fellowship of Reformed Baptists.14
Walter Chantry in particular promoted interchurch organizations and associations. His group first organized the Reformed Baptist Missionary Services to provide a missionary outreach for the movement. A further step was the formation of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America in 1997 with its headquarters in Lafayette, New Jersey. This association united twenty-four churches in fourteen states, and in 1999 took the Reformed Baptist Missionary Services under its umbrella.15 The ARBCA in turn supported the formation of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies in connection with Westminster Theological Seminary in California in 1998.16 All of these persons, conferences, and agencies combined to form a loose network for Reformed Baptists in America.
Reformed Baptist Distinctives
Doctrinally, Reformed Baptists are almost uniformly Calvinistic in soteriology, adhering to the traditional “five points” of Calvinism. But within this overall Calvinistic belief, there is a diversity of opinion on lesser points. Often, these differences result from a tension between what is traditionally viewed as Reformed teaching and what is traditionally thought of as Baptist teaching. These differences have in fact created splits in the movement.
Polity is an example of such a tension. Some hold to the idea of a plurality of elders leading the church, with the pastor serving as the teaching elder. Deacons, in this system, are usually a rank of church officer below the elders. Other Calvinistic Baptists, following the pattern generally observed among American Baptists, tend more toward a church leadership consisting of a pastor and deacons. A few have moved to a loose, informal structure resembling that of the Quakers or one of the Anabaptist groups.17
Eschatology represents a point of tension between traditional Reformed thought and modern American evangelical views of prophecy. Many Reformed Baptists are staunchly amillennial, considering that view more consistent with the Reformed system. Other Calvinistic Baptists, however, particularly those influenced by dispensationalism, hold to a premillennial view, although sometimes without dispensationalist characteristics such as the distinction between Israel and the church.18
Baptist particularism is another issue. Baptists have historically been slower to join in interdenominational efforts than other groups have been. In the early 1800s, for example, the Baptists formed a separate mission agency rather than work in cooperation with the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Likewise, Landmarkism, a system holding to the scriptural superiority of Baptist teachings, has influenced many Baptists to view with suspicion cooperation across denominational lines. Among some Reformed Baptists, these tendencies remain strong. Among others, however, especially those influenced by the British revival of Puritanism, there is more stress on cooperation with other Calvinists, regardless of whether they are Baptists.19
Perhaps the major point rending the Reformed Baptist movement is the relationship of law and gospel, usually relating to the applicability of the Old Testament to Christians. Walter Chantry wrote God’s Righteous Kingdom (1980) to argue for the applicability of the moral law but not the civil and ceremonial law of Israel.20 In this Chantry represents the approach of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Banner of Truth, and related groups in stressing Puritan piety. Directly opposing him was the Christian Reconstruction movement that stressed the Puritan political vision.21
A third option, however, repudiated the Puritan approach almost entirely. Led by John Zens in the early 1980s, some came to reject the term Reformed. Although remaining Calvinistic in soteriology, they embraced an Anabaptist view of the church. They rejected the traditional Reformed view of the transformation of culture and argued that the church should be a simple, egalitarian, spiritual body. Preferring the term Particular Baptist now,22 the advocates of this view sometimes sounded much like traditional Baptists and sometimes like Mennonites who held to the five points of Calvinism.23 They sometimes referred to their position as “new covenant theology” in contrast to Reformed covenant theology and dispensationalism.24
Despite these differences, however, the Reformed Baptists hold enough in common to distinguish them from other Baptist groups. This distinctiveness is evident in some of the modern controversies arising over Calvinism among the Baptists.
Calvinism and Controversy
The revival of Calvinism in America caused some turmoil in Baptist circles, not all of which was necessarily directly related to the Reformed Baptist movement described above (although there were often some links). The debates reached such a pitch that Fundamentalist George Dollar felt constrained to warn against “crusading Calvinism” in the 1970s.25
The GARBC Controversy
Part of the impetus for Dollar’s warning came from a conflict within the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches over Calvinistic teaching. The GARBC in the mid-1970s went through a process of clarifying its Articles of Faith to take into account issues that had arisen since their original adoption in 1932. All of the articles were accepted—except one on election.
The election article was written by Ernest Pickering, at that time president of Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. He did so at the request of David Nettleton, the president of Faith Baptist Bible College in Ankeny, Iowa, and a leading spokesman for those who wished to clarify the election article. Pickering warned Nettleton that he did not think anyone could write such an article in a manner that would be acceptable to the entire association, but he agreed to try. The disagreement over the article, as Pickering had cautioned, was strong and the GARBC eventually tabled it at a meeting at Winona Lake, Indiana, in 1975. A substitute motion—asking for a vote on the article as a “testimony” rather than a binding resolution—was turned aside in favor of a motion to drop the whole question.26
The Continental Baptists
It is unclear whether the Ashland and Carlisle groups had direct influence on this controversy, save as all are expressions of a revived interest in Calvinism. One of those involved in the GARBC dispute, Kenneth Good, wrote a book titled Are Baptists Calvinists? to which he answered yes. Later, however, he wrote a sequel Are Baptists Reformed? to which he answered no. Even Good, however, was fully cognizant of the contribution of the overtly Reformed groups. How those groups were blending and changing is seen in the formation of the Continental Baptist Churches.
The Continental Baptists were an outgrowth of three “Councils on Baptist Theology” that met in Dallas (1980-82). Sponsored by Ron McKinney, editor of The Sword and Trowel, these conferences followed lines similar to those being suggested by John Zens, stressing the Baptist/ Anabaptist heritage against the overtly Reformed. When the formation of the Continental Baptists was announced, participants said that they were motivated not only by the stirrings of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention and the GARBC but also by the GARBC’s apparent stand against Calvinism in the 1970s.27 Their outlook made them more sympathetic to dispensationalist thought, being Calvinistic primarily in soteriology, and perhaps smoothed the way for some Baptists in Fundamentalist circles (with their history of dispensationalist belief) to make the transition to an overtly Calvinistic position.
Yet the group was not able to claim great success. The Continental Baptists had only about twenty churches in the late 1980s.28 Furthermore, they were afflicted early in their history by a split. The Great Lakes Association of Baptist Churches left the Continental Baptists out of fears that the group did not properly safeguard the autonomy of the local church.29
The Founders Conference
Although the Continental Baptists drew some support from Southern Baptists, an even larger and more influential Reformed movement within the SBC has been the Southern Baptist Conference on the Faith of the Founders, or “Founders Conference.” This group, by its prominence if nothing else, has influenced other Baptists of Calvinistic/Reformed bent. The idea was born at a meeting in a motel in Euless, Texas, in 1982. Seven Southern Baptists with Calvinistic leanings formulated the idea of a conference to promote their views within the convention. The following year, the first Founders Conference was held, with participants including Jimmy A. Millikin, Thomas J. Nettles, Richard Belcher, Ernest Reisinger, and Thomas Ascol. As the name implies, this group asserted that in advocating a Reformed Baptist viewpoint they were returning to the position of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention.30 Much of the literature emerging from this movement is dedicated to defending this idea of recovering the “lost” theology of the fathers of the SBC.31
The Founders Conference saw its influence grow not only through the appeal of its concepts to many Southern Baptists but also because of the influential positions that many of its adherents gained within the SBC. Prominent leaders in the movement have included R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary; Thomas Nettles, professor of church history at that school; and Timothy George of Beeson Divinity School. Acceptance of the group’s agenda has been by no means complete. In addition to the resistance of some Baptists to Calvinism, the Calvinistic resurgence has coincided with (and many times supported) the “conservative take-over” of the Southern Baptist Convention. The result has sometimes been acrimonious dispute.32
Reformed Baptists and Fundamentalism
The Reformed Baptists and their offshoots are such a diverse group that it is impossible to make across-the-board generalizations about their relationship to Fundamentalism. Some Reformed Baptist churches consider themselves to be both Reformed and Fundamentalist. They work with non-Calvinistic Fundamentalist groups and send students from their churches to Fundamentalist schools. Furthermore, the staunch conservatism associated with orthodox Reformed theology often leads Reformed Baptists to take stands on theological issues that are similar to the Fundamentalist stance on those issues, such as opposition to the Charismatic movement.33
Views vary, however, among Reformed Baptists concerning the Fundamentalist hallmark of ecclesiastical separation. Mark McCulley is critical of Fundamentalism on many points but expresses appreciation for some aspects of its teaching on separation. He asks Calvinistic Baptists critical of Fundamentalism whether they think their movement should have “no doctrine of separation?” He states, “Particular Baptists need to be more ‘thankful’ for their ‘Fundamentalistic’ heritage. They need to learn and practice Scriptural separation today.”34
Other spokesmen have expressed displeasure with separatism. Walter Chantry chides Reformed Baptists for lacking concern for Christian unity. “We are heirs of the Reformed and Fundamentalist struggle against liberalism early in this century,” he says, a fact that “has left us with a disposition to separate from anyone who differs with us on any matters of conscience.” Chantry says, “We will associate only with those who agree with the vast majority of our convictions.” He calls it “arrogant” to assume “that our little group has got it just right, or at least far more so than all other Christians on the face of this earth from whom we separate.” For Chantry, “It is to be feared that we have become accustomed to separating and starting anew until we are hopelessly splintered and isolated.” Reformed Baptists, he argues, should confess their sins of “always beginning again” and “preferring tidy isolation.” He concludes, “Reformed Baptists do have something to contribute to the world-wide church if only they could unite with one another.”35
However they view separation, Reformed Baptists, when they address Fundamentalists, tend to offer reasons for dividing more than uniting. The commitment to Calvinism often leads them to establish Calvinistic teaching as the test of Christian fellowship. They criticize Fundamentalism for its toleration of Arminianism.36 Furthermore, their staunch affirmation of Reformed teaching colors their attitude toward those who do not hold to Calvinism. They often seem to judge non-Calvinists as harshly as they would a cult or heresy.37
On the other hand, Reformed Baptists do not always seem to Fundamentalists to be sufficiently sensitive to other theological matters when a person’s Calvinistic orthodoxy is unquestioned. There is a human tendency to overlook someone else’s shortcomings when he agrees on a dearly held belief. The Reformed Baptists are not immune from this disposition. For example, the keynote speaker a the 1999 Founders Conference was Minneapolis minister John Piper of the Baptist General Conference.38 Piper is unquestionably a Calvinist and an eloquent preacher, but he is also an advocate of “signs and wonders,” the Third Wave of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements.39 Generally, Reformed Baptists personally oppose such practices,40 but the case of Piper suggests that these teachings seem to be no bar to fellowship. Fundamentalists might well ask why their toleration of Arminianism is an error, but Reformed Baptist toleration of Third Wave “signs and wonders” is not.
Conclusion
In summary, the label Reformed Baptist encompasses
a variety of views. The Reformed Baptists are united in their
adherence to Calvinistic theology, although they differ in
their views of the details of that theology. They are clearly
within the pale of orthodox Protestantism and espouse a complete
rejection of liberalism. However, among the matters they disagree
about is the question of ecclesiastical separation. On that
matter, Fundamentalists must evaluate Reformed Baptists on
a case-by-case basis, for no consensus exists among them either
for or against the separatist position.
Notes
1 For general, brief introductions to the Reformed Baptists, see H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), pp. 770-76; J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of American Religions, 6th ed. (Detroit: Gale, 1999), p. 490; T. J. Nettles, “Reformed Baptists,” in Dictionary of Baptists in America, ed. Bill J. Leonard (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 233; Mark McCulley, Studies in History and Ethics (Malin, Ore.: Searching Together, 1983), pp. 21-26; Frank Mead and Samuel Hill, Handbook of Denominations, 10th ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), p. 74; and David Scott, “A Survey of Particular Baptists: Their Origins, Doctrines, Dissension and Revival,” Baptist Reformation Review, Spring 1974, pp. 23-24.
2 The development of the London Confession is discussed in R. Philip Roberts, “The 1677/89 London Baptist Confession of Faith: A Soteriological Study,” Baptist History and Heritage, 31, no. 4 (1996): 57-67.
3 A good example of such discussions is found in the Summer 1997 issue of The Founders Journal, a periodical dedicated to promoting Calvinism among Southern Baptists. William Estep, a well-known Baptist historian opposed to Calvinistic tendencies, condemns that theology in “Doctrines Lead to ‘Dunghill’ Prof Warns” (pp. 6-9). Replying to Estep in that issue were Tom Ascol, “Do Doctrines Really Lead to Dunghill?” (pp. 1-5); R. Albert Mohler, “The Reformation of Doctrine and the Renewal of the Church: A Response to Dr. William R. Estep” (pp. 10-13); and Roger Nicole, “An Open Letter to Dr. William R. Estep” (pp. 14-16). Note also the following companion articles in Baptist History and Heritage 31, no. 4 (1996): Thomas J. Nettles, “Southern Baptist Identity: Influenced by Calvinism,” pp. 17-26; W. Wiley Richard, “Southern Baptist Identity: Moving Away from Calvinism,” pp. 27-35. For a discussion outside the Southern Baptist context, see Kenneth H. Good, Are Baptists Calvinists? (Oberlin, Ohio: Regular Baptist Heritage Fellowship, 1975). One of the most exhaustive treatments, although from the Calvinistic viewpoint, is Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986).
4 It is interesting to note that Norbert Ward, one of the leaders of the Reformed Baptist resurgence, was from a Primitive Baptist background but modified his stance because, as one observer put it, he thought that system “could not speak to the modern world” (McBeth, p. 773). For a modern Reformed Baptist view of the Primitive Baptists, see Scott, pp. 18-23.
5 On Barnard and the Ashland group, see John Thornbury, “Evangelist Rolfe Barnard, 1904-1969,” Reformation Today, September-October 1978, pp. 2-13 (also published as the introduction to Sermons of Evangelist Rolfe Barnard, comp. Eulala Bullock [Greenville, S.C.: n.p.], 1982); John Thornbury, “The Bible Conference in Ashland,” Banner of Truth, September 1968, pp. 11-13; and Amy Greene, “Sovereign Grace Baptists’ Roots Are in Calvinistic Resurgence of ’50s,” Baptists Today, 18 October 1991, p. 3. There seems to be some dispute about the exact time and place of Barnard’s break with Rice; Thornbury puts it in “the late forties” at Greenville, Mississippi (“Evangelist Rolfe Barnard,” p. 11) and Nettles at Toccoa “Falls,” Georgia in 1949 (“Reformed Baptists,” p. 233). However, Barnard is listed as a speaker at a Sword conference in Toccoa, Georgia, in 1950 (advertisement, Sword of the Lord, 30 June 1950, p. 3; “Editor’s Notes,” Sword of the Lord, 28 July 1950, p. 5), and this is likely the occasion of the clash.
6 See Iain H. Murray, Arthur W. Pink: His Life and Thought (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1981), and Letters of A. W. Pink (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1978).
7 See Iain Murray, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The Fight of Faith, 1939-1981 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1990); Iain Murray, “The Story of the Banner of Truth Trust,” Banner of Truth, November 1993, pp. 15-23; and the introduction to The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1987).
8 See, e.g., Wayne A. Detzler, “Britons Wed Baptist Ecclesiology with Reformed Theology,” Christianity Today, 4 April 1980, pp. 50, 52, which describes the profound impact Lloyd-Jones was having on British Reformed Baptists at the end of his career.
9 “Calvinistic Baptists Ready to Organize,” The Presbyterian Journal, 28 July 1982, p. 4.
10 Melton, p. 490; McBeth, pp. 771-72.
11 Walter Chantry, Today’s Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1970).
12 On the history of the Baptist Reformation Review, see McCulley, pp. 27-34. For a sketch of Zens’s career, see Norbert Ward, “Editorial,” Baptist Reformation Review, Winter 1977, p. 1.
13 See “Trinity Ministerial Academy Prospectus,” Baptist Reformation Review, Winter 1977, pp. 4-14.
14 “Invitation to Unity for Reformed Baptists,” Founders Journal, Summer 1991, p. 28. See the IFRB’s website, http://www.rbc.org.nz/ifrb/ifrb.html.
15 See Melton, p. 479, and the ARBCA website, http://www.puritanhope.com/arbca/. On the association of Reformed Baptist Missionary Services with the ARBCA, see “Reformed Baptist Vision at Los Angeles Convention,” Banner of Truth, May 1999, pp. 6-7.
16 See “The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies,” Banner of Truth, June 1998, p. 10, and the IRBS website, http://24.4.21.26/arbca/institute.htm#Costs.
17 Scott, p. 24; see also Kenneth Good, Are Baptists Reformed? (Lorain, Ohio: Regular Baptist Heritage Fellowship, 1986), pp. 290-301; several articles in the Summer 1978 issue of Baptist Reformation Review; and John Zens, “Food for Thought On: Building Up the Body—One Man or One Another?” Baptist Reformation Review, Second Quarter, 1981, pp. 10-33.
18 Kenneth Good discusses the disputes over eschatology in connection with Spurgeon’s views (Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 32-34). He also sees no basic contradiction between dispensationalism and Calvinistic thought, considering dispensationalist discontinuity between Israel and the church to be a historic Baptist emphasis (pp. 278-79).
19 Kenneth Good represents the tendency among some Calvinistic Baptists to reaffirm Baptist particularism as well as the historical perpetuity of their beliefs, albeit on a theological rather than a historical basis. See Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 212-14, 323-33. Good says that many Reformed Baptists are “better classified as ‘Immersed Presbyterians’ than ‘Baptists’” (p. 10).
20 Walter Chantry, God’s Righteous Kingdom (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1980).
21 See Kevin Craig’s review of Chantry in Baptist Reformation Review, First Quarter, 1981, pp. 32-38.
22 Cf. Good, Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 51 52, 75.
23 The development of Zens’s views is traced in McCulley, pp. 29-33. McCulley cites several articles by Zens tracing the change in views; note especially “Is There a Covenant of Grace?” Baptist Reformation Review, Autumn 1977, pp. 43-52. See also John Zens, “A Review Article of God’s Righteous Kingdom,” Baptist Reformation Review, First Quarter, 1981, pp. 19-31. These issues are also discussed in Good, Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 60-62, 268-74.
24 See Fred Zaspel, New Covenant Theology and the Mosaic Law (Pottsville, Pa.: Word of Life Baptist Church, 1994); and Fred Zaspel, The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law (Hatfield, Pa.: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1991). It is not clear, however, whether this author considers himself part of the Reformed Baptist movement.
25 George Dollar, The Fight for Fundamentalism (Sarasota, Fla.: George W. Dollar, 1983), pp. 99-104. For discussion of a dispute over Calvinism within another Fundamentalist organization, see Daniel L. Turner, Standing Without Apology: The History of Bob Jones University (Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1997), pp. 240-42.
26 For an overview of this controversy, see Paul N. Tassell, Quest for Faithfulness (Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 1991), pp. 284-91. For the Calvinistic side, see David Nettleton, Chosen to Salvation: Select Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election (Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular Baptist Press, 1983), pp. 147-57; and Rembert Byrd Carter, “Calvinistic Baptist Confessions Are a Landmark,” Keystone Baptist, September/October 1991, pp. 1-2. For the anti-Calvinist side, see Robert L. Sumner, “GARBC Revives Calvinism Issue!” The Biblical Evangelist, 8 June 1984, pp. 1, 6-12. See also Myron J. Houghton, “Divine Sovereignty and the GARBC,” Faith Pulpit, September 1992, for an attempt to mediate the dispute.
27 See “Calvinistic Baptists Ready to Organize,” p. 4; McBeth, pp. 772-73; McCulley, pp. 24-25; and Good, Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 61-62.
28 McBeth, p. 773. The differences between the Continental Baptists and more overtly Reformed groups are noted in “Reformed Southern Baptists Lay Groundwork in Memphis,” The Presbyterian Journal, 24 August 1983, p. 6; and Good, Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 61-62.
29 See Good, Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 64-65, 314-15.
30 On the history and nature of the Founders Conference, see T. J. Nettles, “Southern Baptist Conference on the Faith of the Founders,” Dictionary of the Baptists in America, p. 253; Thomas K. Ascol, “An Attempt at Self-Identification,” Founders Journal, Spring 1992, pp. 1-4; Thomas Ascol, “Different Name, Same Purpose,” Founders Journal, Winter 1998, pp. 1-3; “Reformed Southern Baptists Lay Groundwork in Memphis,” pp. 5-6; and Edward E. Plowman, “Choosing Calvinism,” World, 19 June 1999, p. 39. See also the Founders Ministries website, http://www.founders.org.
31 See the articles by Tom Nettles, Timothy George, R. Albert Mohler, and Ernest C. Reisinger in Founders Journal, Winter/Spring 1995; Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory; and Robert B. Selph, Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle, 1988).
32 An overview of the dispute is found in Pamela H. Long, “Southern Baptists Debating Calvinism’s Influence,” Baptists Today, 20 November 1997, p. 4. Note also the materials cited in note 3 from William Estep and the responses to Estep for an example of the sometimes heated level at which the dispute is conducted.
33 See, for example, Walter Chantry, Signs of the Apostles: Observations on Pentecostalism Old and New (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1973).
34 McCulley, pp. 41, 43.
35 Walter J. Chantry, “Are We Obsessed with Separatism?” The Gospel Witness, 22 March 1990, p. 11.
36 See Good, Are Baptists Reformed? pp. 42-43, 55-59.
37 See John Zens, “An Analysis of George W. Dollar’s A History of Fundamentalism in America,” Baptist Reformation Review, Autumn 1974, pp. 36-47. Although some of his disagreements seem to be with Dollar’s presentation and personal interpretations, Zens does highlight the differences that some Reformed Baptists perceive between themselves and Fundamentalism. See also David M. Surpless, “My Dear Fundamentalist,” Baptist Reformation Review, Summer 1977, pp. 31-39.
38 See World, 19 June 1999, p. 19.
39 See John Piper, “Signs and Wonders: Then and Now,” http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3505/signwonder.html.
40 See, e.g., Walter Chantry, “Powerfully Misleading,” Eternity, July-August 1987, pp. 27-29.