Why were so many baptists calvinist in the 1600's?

"In 1660 the General Baptists had already adopted A Brief Confession or Declaration of the Faith, in order to "set forth by many of us, who are falsely called Ana-Baptists to inform all men (in these days of scandal and reproach) of our innocent Belief and Practice; for which  we are not only resolved  to suffer Persecution, to the loss of our Goods, but also life it self, rather than do the same."  With this political and theological purpose in mind, why would the Assembly, or churches affiliated with it, feel a need to establish a new document?
  The answer tot his question is twofold.  First was the political reason.  Shortly after the presentation of the 1660 confession, under the leadership of Thomas Venner, the fifth Monarchists broke into rebellion and caused dissenters and especially Baptists to be looked upon with greater suspicion2 B.R.White suggests that "Fifth monarchy views were regarded as politically dangerous and that the authorities did not attempt to make any distinction between those who were relatively harmless Bible students and those who were potential or actual revolutionaries."3  This hazardous situation created a bond between the dissenting factions, and with the act of uniformity in 1662 adding Presbyterians to their ranks, an increased conglomerate of opposition led the Baptists to seek uniformity with other factions who were fighting not just against the Church of England but against the threat of Popery from King Charles II.5 In 1677 the Particular Baptist presented their 2nd London Baptist Confession.  Then in 1678 when "an ebullition of anti-Roman wrath swept through the nation:6 the General Baptist of the midlands followed what the Particular Baptist had done the year previous sand presented a creed.  The subtitle of this creed, as contrasted with the previous one, was simply, An Essay to unite and conform all true Protestants in the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion Against the errors and Heresies of the church of Rome/"
   Unity was the main purpose of the Orthodox Creed.  William H. Brackney in discussing the desire to present more mediating positions of though among General Baptists, calls it "The  capstone document of mediating confessions."7 Following the form of the Westminster Confession, and subsequently that of the Particular Baptist, was not the only way in which a sense of community with other dissenters was sought in this confession.  As Underwood says, "It's articles on Election, Reprobation, and Original Sin, and Perseverance were nothing like as Arminian in tone as John  Smyth or Thomas Helwys would have made them."8
Southwestern Journal of Theology "British Baptists" Transcribers preface pg. 127-129

We have to remember that creeds and confessions are scarcely if ever free from the tampering of political bias. We can even see this int he spread of the Baptist Faith an message 2000. Changes in wording are often ignored so long as major political factors are dealt with. In the case of BF&M2000 many quickly changed over either for the sake of the issue of inerrancy or more importantly for an official statement for traditional marriage. as many similar documents were drawn in hopes of legal protection.

Why OEC's don't get it

"So, I have finished reviewing and editing my atheist friend's book. There are a few thoughts that I have about it. I find it interesting that he seems to utilize many of the same arguments that YECs do. For example, towards the end of the book, he writes:

[Begin quote] "Here lays the problem: If Genesis is fiction, then what credibility does this leave the rest of the book? … If Genesis is no more than someone's fabrication, doesn't this falsehood destroy the rest? If parts of the Bible are false, how am I to know what parts are true?" [End quote]

YECs often make a similar argument like the one above, only from a different perspective, of course. They and my atheist friend assume that the book of Genesis was written with the intention to be read literally and as a historical narrative, but this isn't likely the case. Many early Christians (long before Darwin) read the book of Genesis allegorically and as a book of theological significance. This doesn't make the book of Genesis untrue, it just means that it (likely) wasn't written as a historical narrative. The Bible often contains allegorical stories and parables that are meant to elucidate a deeper, spiritual meaning (e.g., the prodigal son; the good Samaritan, etc.). One must read biblical passages in their historical and cultural context in order to better understand the message and determine whether it is speaking of real history or otherwise." an Old earth Christian

There are a lot of anti-Semitic presuppositions here.

As if Genesis is to be understood by gentile Christians more so than by the Jewish people. As if the Jews are not allowed to understand the Torah. Talmud p.27., (p. Chag. 2:1,“In the same manner that the letter beth is closed on all sides and only open in front, similarly you are not permitted to inquire into what is before, or what was behind, but only from the actual time of Creation.”Cohen, A., Everyman’s Talmud, Schocken Books, New York, 1975, Introduction, p. iii. Was Moses ignorant? "But because almost all our constitution, depends on the wisdom of Moses, our legislator. "
"Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did: I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and His creation of the world" Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews Preface "Therefore the child being thought worthy of a royal education and royal attendance. was not, like a mere child, long delighted with toys and objects of laughter and amusement, even those who had undertaken the care of him allowed him holidays and time for relaxaton, and never behaved in any stern or morose way to him; but he himself exhibited a modest and dignified deportment in all his words and gestures, attending dilligently to every lesson of every kind which could tend to the improvement of his mind (21) and immediately he had all kinds of masters, one after another, some coming of their own accord from neighboring countries and different districts of Egypt, and some being even procured from Greece by the temptation of large presents.  But in a short time he surpassed all their knowledge, anticipating all their lessons by the excellent natural endowment of his own genius; so that everything in his case appeared to be an [r]ecollecting rather than a learning, while he himself also, without any teacher, comprehended by his instinctive genius many difficult subjects;(22) for great abilities cut out for themselves many new roads to knowledge." C.D. Yonge The works of Philo pg. 461
Even the Platonist Philo recognized the genius of Moses

And as far as how the bible looks upon Genesis Numbers 12:⁵ And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. ⁶ And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. ⁷ My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. ⁸ With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."
Luke 16: ³¹ And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."john 5: ⁴⁵ Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. ⁴⁶ For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. ⁴⁷ But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The gentiles were plagued with platonic philosophy. Often assuming that the physical was evil and the spiritual was good.

Irenaeus violently opposed a Gnostic alternative creation theory than that of the bible.

Chapter IV.-Those Persons are Deceived Who Feign Another God the Father Besides the Creator of the World; For He Must Have Been Feeble and Useless, or Else Malignant and Full of Envy, If He Be Either Unable or Unwilling to Extend External Life to Our Bodies.

1. Those persons who feign the existence of another Father beyond the Creator, and who term him the good God, do deceive themselves; for they introduce him as a feeble, worthless, and negligent being, not to say malign and full of envy, inasmuch as they affirm that our bodies are not quickened by him. For when they say of things which it is manifest to all do remain immortal, such as the spirit and the soul, and such other things, that they are quickened by the Father, but that another thing [viz. the body] which is quickened in no different manner than by God granting [life] to it, is abandoned by life,-[they must either confess] that this proves their Father to be weak and powerless, or else envious and malignant. For since the Creator does even here quicken our mortal bodies, and promises them resurrection by the prophets, as I have pointed out; who [in that case] is shown to be more powerful, stronger, or truly good? Whether is it the Creator who vivifies the whole man, or is it their Father, falsely so called? He feigns to be the quickener of those things which are immortal by nature, to which things life is always present by their very nature; but he does not benevolently quicken those things which required his assistance, that they might live, but leaves them carelessly to fall under the power of death. Whether is it the case, then, that their Father does not bestow life upon them when he has the power of so doing, or is it that he does not possess the power? If, on the one hand, it is because he cannot, he is, upon that supposition, not a powerful being, nor is he more perfect than the Creator; for the Creator grants, as we must perceive, what He is unable to afford. But if, on the other hand, [it be that he does not grant this] when he has the power of so doing, then he is proved to be not a good, but an envious and malignant Father.

The Pagans and not Christians had established a billions of years and a big bang
"Rigveda (10.121) also mentions the Hiranyagarbha (literally, golden embryo/womb/egg) that existed before the creation. This metaphor has been interpreted differently by the various later texts. The Samkhya texts state that Purusha and the Prakriti made the embryo, from which the world emerged. In another tradition, the creator god Brahma emerged from the egg and created the world, while in yet another tradition the Brahma himself is the Hiranyagarbha.^{[19]"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution
"} Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
" Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.^[9] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."^[10] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism. According to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.^[11][12]" 

Christians who argue against creationism typically have a void as they only want to argue for a liberty to loosen interpretation.
Last night I watched Apologist Tyler Vela toward the end of his debate when asked his views on evolution he claimed to be agnostic.  This is particularly depressing as he spent well over an hour getting his atheist opponent to define his worldview and claiming victory by the explanatory of the Christian worldview.  Only losing this point because a worldview is ONLY complete if it can answer the question of Origins, sadly Tyler even admitted he did not even have confidence in the Kalaam cosmological argument. And while this put a smile on his opponents face, it certainly healed the previous wounds of doubt in his worldview.

The universe is not expanding?
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
" In the space around us, on Earth, in the Solar System and our Milky Way Galaxy, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, that is the brightness per unit area, remains constant.
In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding Universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. Thus in this theory, the surface brightness decreases with the distance. In addition, the light is stretched as the Universe expanded, further dimming the light.
So in an expanding Universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times dimmer surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
But that is not what observations show, as demonstrated by this new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics D.
The scientists carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. They chose the most luminous spiral galaxies for comparisons, matching the average luminosity of the near and far samples.
Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical.
These results are consistent with what would be expected from ordinary geometry if the Universe was not expanding, and are in contradiction with the drastic dimming of surface brightness predicted by the expanding Universe hypothesis."http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html

  "You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer. (Robert Roy Britt, Space.com, April 2, 2003 interviewing Roberto Ragazzoni concerning the article “The Lack of Observational Evidence for the Quantum Structure of Space time at Planck Scales,” The Astrophysical Journal, April 10, 2003, co-authored by Massimo Turatto and Wolfgang Gaessler).

   If the universe is not expanding the big bang cosmology falls apart. Thus not giving evolution a timeframe to operate from. The red shift would be then interpretted as making the earth in a unique position destroying the copernican principle and pointing to God's design.
However, the reductionists OEC interprettors only know redux and have no desire to seek scientific truth. Instead lulling Christendom back to the dark ages. After all what does peer review have to do with Jerusalem?
These Progressive christians are blind to the law of non contradiction. They think they are a bridge but as the continents drift; the bridge is falling down.