Unity in Mongrelism

Ergun Caner has recently posted again about the multiple streams issue among Baptists. He speaks of Baptisttheology.org as "a site that is an invaluable resource for those who study the history of Free Church groups such as the Anabaptists and Southern Baptists. Any group that holds to believer’s baptism and congregational polity has a rich history of dissent, against Catholic and Protestants alike. We were not a part of the “Reformation,” but rather went much further, becoming known as the “Radical Reformation.”"

Then later he states, "Doesn’t that sound familiar? The one thing I have learned from being a Baptist for over twenty years is that we are like a mongrel dog– our breeding has been a mix of many different types. We are a mixed breed. Get ten Baptists in a room, the saying goes, and you will find twenty opinions."

Aside from trying to imply that Southern Baptists and Anabaptists are the same thing, aside from the fact he has declared war on Calvinism and that it will not be tolerated at Liberty, doesn't this just sound great? Baptists are just a bunch of confused dogs as if "Free Baptists" and "particular Baptists" should have the ability to just mix together. He goes so far as to link Particular Baptists as being of the radical reformation. I have no doubt that many thought that of the Particular Baptists, but that was due to the fact that Particular Baptists were often accused of being "general Baptists” or as Caner likes to call them, Free Baptists.

There is a huge gulf that exists between Particular Baptists and General Baptists. The General Baptists of England have self imploded on their often heretical views. Their impact on history is becoming less recognized and scholarship (according to an article by James Renihan) is beginning to write more about the Particular Baptists.

Caner is correct that Baptists of differing views have come together. In a personal email, Dr. Renihan explained to me that the New Hampshire Confession, although looking Calvinistic, was worded very carefully so that Arminian Baptists of northern New England would be able to agree together with Calvinistic Baptists on a single Confession. Therefore I agree with Caner that there is a mongrel in Evangelicalism. This is the problem when Creeds unite men without having any substance. Unity in name only is no unity at all.

From the preface Caner quotes:

"We have also in this our Confession of Faith, laboured to avoid the dangerous Rocks of Pelagianism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, and the Remonstrants."

What is ironic is the missing semi-Pelagianism position. So basically lets labor to avoid any extreme while embracing the semi-Pelagianism position. Yet isn't semi-Pelagianism the exact fundamental issue between the Reformers and Roman Catholics? It is a sad state when RC apologists know this only too well and have taken advantage of many ignorant Evangelicals of which Caner remains.

Caner quotes from the Baptist Creed of 1679 Article Ten:

ARTICLE TEN ON REPROBATION

WE do believe, that known unto God are all his Works from Eternity. Therefore he foresaw Adam’s fall, but did not decree it, yet foreseeing it in his eternal Counsel and Wisdom, did Elect and chuse Jesus Christ, and all that do or shall believe in him, out of that fallen Lump of Mankind. And hath manifested his Love and Grace by Jesus Christ, (his Elect, or beloved Son) through the Gospel means, to all; and hath given us his Word and Oath, to assure us that he desires not the death of the Wicked, but rather that they repent, or return to him and live; and if any do perish, their destruction is of themselves.

Here we have a wide open door to Open-Theism. God has not in fact decreed all things. It was not God's purpose for Adam to fall. Adam fell and God only knew about it because He gained knowledge of the future from some external source? God knowing that perhaps Billions of men would reject Him and burn in hell for no purpose decided to create them anyway?

I would love to ask the writers of this Creed if the cross was just a big cosmic accident. Of course they would be glad to give the typical answer of God knew it would happen, therefore God somehow made it happen. I simply do not see how any of this is Scriptural.

My hope and prayer is that Baptist churches would recognize that resorting to vague or ambiguous Creeds is not going to bring unity. The great Particular Baptist Creeds should be recognized again as being able to be specific where necessary and giving liberty where necessary. True unity comes with sound Biblical doctrine.