Reformed Baptists

[JM]

Now I'm confused.

What does "textual criticism" and the GNT have to do with Calvinism?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Good luck with PG Dean.

 

[DeaconDean]

If my point was moot, numerous Calvinists would not have invested thousands of hours searching unsuccessfully for even one pre-sixteenth century document that presents a Calvinistic view of even one of the five points.

How about: "A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints" by aurelius augustin, bishop of hippo, The First Book,addressed to prosper and hilary. a.d. 428 or 429

And unless I can not add or subtract, doesn't this predate John Calvin by some 1100 years?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

Now I'm confused.

What does "textual criticism" and the GNT have to do with Calvinism?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Good luck with PG Dean. I will no longer directly engage him in this thread.

For the reader:

- notice how the points being brought forward are shifting toward anti-Calvinist rhetoric
- notice how there is a concession all of a sudden for the five points, but a refusal to call them such
- notice how the the argument is similar to Roman Catholicism, and how history is understood in a Roman Catholic manner
- notice how the posts contra-confessionalism are now changed to a mere warning or caution in their use
- notice how there is nothing scholarly presented, no links for further reading and clarification, just supposition and opinion

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[DeaconDean]

P.S. Please notice that none of the five points of Calvinism appear in the Nicene Creed.

So...the Nicene Creed is the supreme standard by which everything is judged now?

And unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the so-called "Christian" church in its infantcy during the early AD 300's?

Theology per se, as what you and I disagree mainly on, even as far back as the ECF's was not a major concern. Maurice Robinson and William Pierpoint are quick to point that out. Unless it was major, majoe, like the heresy of Mercion and Tatian, theology was not a major concern.

See "The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, The Issue of Older Manuscripts, p.14

So appealing to the early infantcy of the Church, when theology was not a major concern, does not help your point.

Here, the argument from silence is not applicable.

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Of course Huss, Wycliffe, and Tyndale believed in the biblical doctrine of predestination—but that is NOT one of the five points of Calvinism! This proves that I am not the one who is mistaken.

Again, I believe you are wrong sir.

Beg pardon but does not the doctrine of "Unconditioinal Election" relate to "predestination"?

Cf.
CHAPTER 21.

OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

The doctrine of Election and Predestination. It is useful, necessary, and most sweet. Ignorance of it impairs the glory of God, plucks up humility by the roots, begets and fosters pride. The doctrine establishes the certainty of salvation, peace of conscience, and the true origin of the Church. Answer to two classes of men: 1. The curious.

John Calvin, Institues of the Christian Religion, BOOK THIRD. THE MODE OF OBTAINING THE GRACE OF CHRIST. THE BENEFITS IT CONFERS, AND THE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM IT. Chapter 21, Section 1,

Unconditional Election and Predsestination. Wow!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Now I'm confused.

What does "textual criticism" and the GNT have to do with Calvinism?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Exegetical Bible commentaries discuss what the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text says; critical Bible commentaries discuss the textual variants. Please notice that I referred ONLY to exegetical commentaries.

 

[DeaconDean]

The Nicene Creed in Greek.

Very good.

However, only a handful of us can read it.

Again, there is a problem with using the Nicene Creed.

I'll be the first to say and/or admit it says a good many things.

I'll be the first to admit that it does help establish what the early "Christian" church believed.

However, at the time it was written, there were basically only two churches, one Catholic, and one Jewish. (As can be established in reviewing what was said in the first Apostolic Council in Acts 15)

So when it says: "And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church." It meant the Roman Catholic Church, not "universal". There is no scriptural reference for "καθόλου". So when it (Nicene Creed) said "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" it can only mean one thing.

In the same group, the Nicene Creed also states: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;".

Taken on face value, as it was written in AD 325, it can mean only one thing. Faith for salvation and the forgiveness of sins does not lie in Jesus Christ. It resides in the act of baptism. And don't argue otherwise, because in plain english, that is what it says.

If you accept that, then you cannot call yourself a Baptist.

And it was very limited in what it said in the matters concerning "theology".

When it was originally written, there were no scripture references given to back up what they said. Since AD 325, they have been added.

I'll admit that "Calvinism" as a full-blown set of theology cannot be found in its entirety in first millennia and a half.

But there are traces of it as far back as AD 160 in Tertullian's writtings which are similar to "total depravity" of Calvinism. (cf. De anima, xli, Apol., xvii, De testimonio, v-vi)

By the same token, full-blown Arminianism cannot be shown to exist in its entirity until the 1500's also. Although there are like Calvinism, bits and pieces here and there.

T.U.L.I.P. (five points of Calvinism) verses C.U.T.P.C. (five points of the Remonstrance) is strickly a personal conviction.

Scripture can and is used to support both sides.

I just happen to believe and support the five points of Calvinism. You on the other hand, support the other.

And no arguing from either one of us negates the fact that both Arminianism and Calvinism were fully being taught a number of years before there was an offical demonination called "Baptists".

So for to say:

I am an historical Baptist (before Calvinism was brought into our Baptist churches),

Is simply untrue.

Were there not "Particular" and "General" Baptists early in America?

If so, your argument does not hold water.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And unless I'm mistaken, wasn't the so-called "Christian" church in its infantcy during the early AD 300's?

Since when was a 300 year old man an infant?

Theology per se, as what you and I disagree mainly on, even as far back as the ECF's was not a major concern. Maurice Robinson and William Pierpoint are quick to point that out. Unless it was major, majoe, like the heresy of Mercion and Tatian, theology was not a major concern.

See "The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, The Issue of Older Manuscripts, p.14

So appealing to the early infantcy of the Church, when theology was not a major concern, does not help your point.

Here, the argument from silence is not applicable.

Everyone who has actually read the Ante-Nicene and subsequent Fathers of the Church knows that they, in very many places, explicitly taught the very opposite of what is taught in the five points of Calvinism, but they did not teach defensively on these issues because what would have been an opposing view had not yet been conceived.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Again, I believe you are wrong sir.

Beg pardon but does not the doctrine of "Unconditioinal Election" relate to "predestination"?

Cf.
CHAPTER 21.

OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

The doctrine of Election and Predestination. It is useful, necessary, and most sweet. Ignorance of it impairs the glory of God, plucks up humility by the roots, begets and fosters pride. The doctrine establishes the certainty of salvation, peace of conscience, and the true origin of the Church. Answer to two classes of men: 1. The curious.

John Calvin, Institues of the Christian Religion, BOOK THIRD. THE MODE OF OBTAINING THE GRACE OF CHRIST. THE BENEFITS IT CONFERS, AND THE EFFECTS RESULTING FROM IT. Chapter 21, Section 1,

Unconditional Election and Predsestination. Wow!

God Bless

Till all are one.

Let us not confuse these three doctrines. The doctrines of predestination and election are taught in the Bible; the doctrine of unconditional election is NOT taught in the Bible.

 

[DeaconDean]

Since when was a 300 year old man an infant?

I never said a man 300 years old was an infant.

I said the "church" at the time of the Nicene Creed was in its infantcy.

Everyone who has actually read the Ante-Nicene and subsequent Fathers of the Church knows that they, in very many places, explicitly taught the very opposite of what is taught in the five points of Calvinism, but they did not teach defensively on these issues because what would have been an opposing view had not yet been conceived.

how do you explain Tertullian?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Let us not confuse these three doctrines. The doctrines of predestination and election are taught in the Bible; the doctrine of unconditional election is NOT taught in the Bible.

So you believe.

I believe differently.

Cf. Romans 9.

So explain to me what are the "conditions" for election.

One only becomes "elect" after salvation?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Nicene Creed in Greek.

Very good.

However, only a handful of us can read it.

Again, there is a problem with using the Nicene Creed.

I'll be the first to say and/or admit it says a good many things.

I'll be the first to admit that it does help establish what the early "Christian" church believed.

However, at the time it was written, there were basically only two churches, one Catholic, and one Jewish. (As can be established in reviewing what was said in the first Apostolic Council in Acts 15)

So when it says: "And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church." It meant the Roman Catholic Church, not "universal". There is no scriptural reference for "καθόλου". So when it (Nicene Creed) said "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" it can only mean one thing.

In the same group, the Nicene Creed also states: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;".

Taken on face value, as it was written in AD 325, it can mean only one thing. Faith for salvation and the forgiveness of sins does not lie in Jesus Christ. It resides in the act of baptism. And don't argue otherwise, because in plain english, that is what it says.

If you accept that, then you cannot call yourself a Baptist.

And it was very limited in what it said in the matters concerning "theology".

When it was originally written, there were no scripture references given to back up what they said. Since AD 325, they have been added.

I'll admit that "Calvinism" as a full-blown set of theology cannot be found in its entirety in first millennia and a half.

But there are traces of it as far back as AD 160 in Tertullian's writtings which are similar to "total depravity" of Calvinism. (cf. De anima, xli, Apol., xvii, De testimonio, v-vi)

By the same token, full-blown Arminianism cannot be shown to exist in its entirity until the 1500's also. Although there are like Calvinism, bits and pieces here and there.

T.U.L.I.P. (five points of Calvinism) verses C.U.T.P.C. (five points of the Remonstrance) is strickly a personal conviction.

Scripture can and is used to support both sides.

I just happen to believe and support the five points of Calvinism. You on the other hand, support the other.

And no arguing from either one of us negates the fact that both Arminianism and Calvinism were fully being taught a number of years before there was an offical demonination called "Baptists".

So for to say:



Is simply untrue.

Were there not "Particular" and "General" Baptists early in America?

If so, your argument does not hold water.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Just for the record, I disagree with almost everything written here. My time is very limited, however, so I will address only one part of it. I wrote and DeaconDean quoted, “I am an historical Baptist (before Calvinism was brought into our Baptist churches).” The words in parentheses define my use of the word ‘historical.’ Particular and General Baptists rose up later.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

how do you explain Tertullian?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Tertullian aggressively taught against false teachings of his day. He did not teach against the concepts expressed in the five points of Calvinism because those concepts were not conceived until the 16th century.

 

[DeaconDean]

Just for the record, I disagree with almost everything written here. My time is very limited, however, so I will address only one part of it. I wrote and DeaconDean quoted, “I am an historical Baptist (before Calvinism was brought into our Baptist churches).” The words in parentheses define my use of the word ‘historical.’ Particular and General Baptists rose up later.

Again, history disagrees with you.

When were "Baptists" founded?

Around 1612?

The five points of Calvinism were taught when?

We don't know for sure, but since the five points of the Remonstrance were issued in the 1600's, and it was on account of Calvinism, we know for sure both were taught before the Baptist denomination.

Particular Baptists trace their roots back to the 1630 in England.

General Baptists trace their roots to the late 16th, early 17th century.

Care to recant your statement?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Tertullian aggressively taught against false teachings of his day. He did not teach against the concepts expressed in the five points of Calvinism because those concepts were not conceived until the 16th century.

Here I turn to John Gill:

Tertullian appears from many passages in his writings to have understood the doctrine of original sin, both with respect, to the imputation of it to men unto condemnation, and the derivation of a corrupt nature from it; whereby not only man is become filthy and impure, but having lost the image of God, is also impotent to, every thing that, is spiritual and heavenly. We call Satan, says he,[1] “the angel of wickedness, the artificer of every error, the interpolator of every age; by whom man from the beginning being circumvented, so as to transgress the commands of God, was therefore delivered unto death, exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suae etiam damnationis traducem fecit, hence he has also made the whole kind, or all mankind, which springs from his seed, infected, partaker of his damnation.” And in another place,[2] having mentioned John 3:5, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; that is, says he, he will not be holy. Ita omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recensetur, “every soul is reckoned so long in Adam until it is re-reckoned, or reckoned again, or renewed in Christ; so long unclean, as long as not recounted, sinful indeed because unclean, receiving its own disgrace from its society with the flesh. What crime,” says he,[3] “before that of impatience was committed, is imputed to man? He was innocent, the nearest friend to God, and the husbandman of paradise? but when he once gave way to impatience, desinit Deo sapere, desinit caelestia sustinere posse, he ceased to be wise to God, he ceased to be able to bear heavenly things.” There are indeed some passages[4] in this writer which seem to countenance the doctrine of free will, and are alleged by Dr. Whitby[5] on that account; but in these he is to be understood of the natural liberty of the will, which he defended against the Basilidians and Marcionites, and of the power and freedom of the will, about things natural and moral, with which man was at first created, wherein lay the image and likeness of God in man; but Tertullian could never think that this is to be found with man now as then, since he affirms[6] that “the image of God was destroyed by the sin of our first parents; ‘and it is abundantly manifest, that this writer so held free will as that he believed it was subject to the grace of God; his words are these,[7] “An evil tree will not yield good fruit, if it is not engrafted; and a good one will' yield evil fruit, if it is not dressed; and stones will become the children of Abraham, if they are formed into the faith of Abraham; and a generation of vipers will bring forth fruit to repentance, if they spit out the poison of malignity; haec erit vis divinae gratiae potentior utique natura, habens in nobis subjacentem sibi liberam arbitrii, potestagem, quod autexousion dicitur, this will be the power of divine grace, more powerful truly than nature, having free will in us, which goes by the name of autexousion, subject to itself.”

ENDNOTES:

[1] Tertullian. de Testimon. Animae, c. 3, p. 82.

[2] Ibid. de Anima. c. 40, p. 342.

[3] De Patientia, c. 5, p. 162.

[4] Adv. Marcion. 1. 2, c. 5 & 6, p. 457, 458; Exhort. Cast. c. 2, p. 665; de Monog. c. 14, p. 686.

[5] Discourse, etc. p. 96, 346, 348; ed. 2. 95, 337, 339.

[6] De Cult. Foemin. 1. 1, c. 1, p. 170; adv. Marcion. 1. 2, c. 5, p. 456.

[7] Anima, c. 21, p. 324.

Source

Sorry friend.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Here I cite Gill again as he shows from Irenaeus the same thing:

Irenaeus is expressly for the corruption of human nature through the sin of Adam, which he calls[1] antiqua serpentis plaga, “the old plague, blow, or wound of the serpent,” from which men cannot be saved otherwise than by believing in Christ. He says,[2] that “we offended God in the first Adam, not doing his commandment, and which we had transgressed from the beginning;” and that Eve[3] was the cause of death to herself and to all mankind;” and that man “will be justly condemned,[4] because being made rational, amittitm veram rationem, ‘he has lost true reason,' and lives irrationally, is contrary to the justice of God, giving himself up to every earthly spirit, and serves all pleasure.” Also he affirms,[5] that “we lost in Adam will to the image and likeness of God.” Now a very considerable part of this lay in man's free will to that which is good, and therefore this must be lost by sin; and what free will to that which is spiritually good can there be thought to be in man naturally, who, is said by, Irenaeus[6] to be lignum aridum, a dry tree, which cannot bring forth fruit unless the voluntary rain of the Spirit descends from above upon it? The weakness of human nature is proved by this writer from Romans 7:18; his words are these;[7] “who (Christ) saved them, qia per seipsos non habebanti salvari, ‘because they could not be saved by themselves;'” wherefore Paul declaring the infirmity of man, says, “I know that in my flesh dwells no good thing;” signifying that non a nobis sed a Deo est bonum salutis nostrae “not of ourselves, but of God, is the blessing of our salvation.” The inability, yea. the impossibility of attaining to the true knowledge of God, without divine teaching, is plainly asserted by him,[8] when after citing some passages in Isaiah, as, “I am God, and before me there is no Savior,” etc. he says, “Neither diversely, nor haughtily, nor in a boasting manner, does he say these things, but because impossible erat since Deo discere Deum, ‘it was impossible to learn the knowledge of God without him,' he teaches men by his Logos, or Word, to know God.” And elsewhere he observes,[9] the bondage state of man by nature, and that immortality and eternal glory are not of himself, but are the pure free gift of God; “Man, says he, “who was before led captive, is taken out of the power of the possessor, according to the mercy of God the Father,” who has pity on his own work, “and restoring it, gives salvation to it by the Word; that is, by Christ; that man may experimentally learn that non a semeteipso, sed donatione Dei accepit incorruptelam, not of himself, but by the gift of God, he receives immortality.” It is true indeed that Irenaeus frequently makes mention of man's free will, and says,[10] that God made him free from the beginning that all have a power to do good, or not I and, that God still preserves the will of real free, not only in works, but even in believing which passages are produced by Dr. Whitby,[11] and others, and may be reconciled to what Irenaeus elsewhere asserts, by observing, that in some of them he speaks of free will as man was possessed of it when first created and in others of the natural liberty of the will, which, in all actions good and bad, is preserved free; and in none does it appear more so than in spiritual actions, and even in believing, in which men are influenced and assisted by the grace of God. Besides, it is one thing to say, that man has a free will to do spiritual actions, to believe, and the like, from the strength of grace given by God; and another thing to say that man has a free will and power to do that which is good, and to believe from the mere strength of nature; the former we allow of, the latter we deny, and which can never be proved to be Irenaeus' meaning, for that would be to contradict himself.


ENDNOTES:

[1] Adv. Haeres. 1. 4, c. 5, p. 322.

[2] Ibid. c. 16, p. 460.

[3] Ibid. 1. 3, c. 33, p. 301.

[4] Ibid. 1. 4, c. 9, p. 326.

[5] Ibid. 1.3, c. 20, p. 282; et. 1.5, e 15, in Fragm. Graec. ad Calcem Irenaei.

[6] Ibid. c. 19, p. 100.

[7] Adv. Haeres. c. 22, p. 289.

[8] Adv. Haeres. 1.4, c. 18. p. 327.

[9] Ibid. 1.5, c. 21, p. 469.

[10] Ibid. 1. 4, c. 9, p. 326; c. 29, p. 349; c. 71, p. 416; c. 72, p. 417, 418.

[11] Discourse, etc. p. 96, 347. 348, 384; ed. 2. 95, 338, 339, 374.

Source

Sorry friend, there were traces of Calvinism in the early church, before the Nicene Creed, before AD 325.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Again, history disagrees with you.

When were "Baptists" founded?

Around 1612?

The five points of Calvinism were taught when?

We don't know for sure, but since the five points of the Remonstrance were issued in the 1600's, and it was on account of Calvinism, we know for sure both were taught before the Baptist denomination.

Particular Baptists trace their roots back to the 1630 in England.

General Baptists trace their roots to the late 16th, early 17th century.

Care to recant your statement?

God Bless

Till all are one.

My dear readers,

Late in 1611 or early in 1612, Thomas Helwys moved his small congregation of Baptists from Holland to Spitalfield, England (just outside of London). This was the first Baptist church in England and it was Arminian in doctrine and affusionist in practice.

 

[Hammster]

My dear readers,

Late in 1611 or early in 1612, Thomas Helwys moved his small congregation of Baptists from Holland to Spitalfield, England (just outside of London). This was the first Baptist church in England and it was Arminian in doctrine and afflusionist in practice.

So the error goes back a ways.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here I cite Gill again as he shows from Irenaeus the same thing:



Source

Sorry friend, there were traces of Calvinism in the early church, before the Nicene Creed, before AD 325.

God Bless

Till all are one.

My dear readers,

Some years ago, I posted in CF threads Gill’s out of context quotes in their actual context showing that Gill habitually and severely misrepresented the Church Fathers when he quoted from them in order to falsely make it appear that he had found in them evidence of Calvinist theology. I you believe that there is even the slightest possibility that John Gill is being intellectually honest in the above quoted words, please prayerfully and carefully read the works from which Gill is quoting.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So the error goes back a ways.

The error of Calvinism in our Baptist churches goes back to the 1630’s when some of our Baptist churches became contaminated. The error of Calvinism in our other churches goes back to the 1530’s.