What does an Arminian Baptist believe?

[Omah1970]

Please excuse my ignorance on this but I was reading through some subjects on the Baptist forum and I notice some folk tend to lean toward arminianism especially in the reformed Baptist forum. I'm really curious I didn't know there are Baptist who don't agree on eternal security and grace etc. I thought all Baptists agreed at least on those two things 100 percent. I always thought arminianism was mostly taught in Pentecostal churches. And once again please forgive my ignorance on this subject I mean no disrespect to anyone's personal beliefs on the subject. I can tell especially in the reformed Baptist forum it's a very subject for some. Thank you

 

[JLR1300]

Well in England there were two types of Baptists. Calvinistic and Arminian. The Arminian branch mostly died out for a while. The south in America was dominated by two groups. Regular and Separate Baptists. Regular Baptists were 5 point Calvinists and Separate Baptists were 4 point Calvinists. These two groups joined together to form what became the Southern Baptist convention. By the 1920's Southern Baptists were becoming much more Arminian. After the 1980's they began moving back towards Calvinism again.
So basically from about 1930 to about 1980 Southern Baptists were mostly Arminian in that they held to 3 or 4 of the 5 points of Arminianism .... even then, most of them still held to the idea that you cannot lose your salvation.

I imagine that most of the people on the Reformed forum who are arguing for the Arminian idea that we can lose our salvation are just in there to debate others. They are just non-reformed people looking for a way to debate those who are not Arminians.

 

[JLR1300]

I realized I didn't really answer your question. Full or consistent arminians believe 5 things...

1. Man is sinful and spiritually weak. However, his is not totally unable to assist God in becoming a Christian. His sinfulness only makes him weak not powerless. The Holy Spirit needs to go part of the way in the sinner's salvation by convicting Him of sin and pointing Him toward Christ but the sinner still has the responsibility and the ability to choose Christ and believe in Him. Calvinists would say that man is so sinful that He cannot believe in Christ unless God sovereignly gives Him faith.

2. Conditional Election. Calvinists would say that God unconditionally elects certain people for salvation. In other words, they are chosen not because they have met a certain condition such as seeking God or being a good person or producing faith in Christ. God just chooses them because He is gracious and then gives them faith. Arminians say that God elects or chooses people because He knows that they are going to choose Him and have faith in Him. His choice of them is conditioned on His knowledge that they are going to choose Him. Basically they bleed all of the meaning and significance out of the concept that God chooses people. Election for them means nothing more then that they chose God... and since God is knowledgeable He figured out in advance that they were going to do that.

3. General Atonement. Arminians believe that Christ died for everyone. However, the sinner must still believe in Jesus before He is justified. Calvinists believe that Christ died only for the elect. However, the elect must also believe in Jesus before they are justified. Nevertheless, Calvinists would say that Jesus' death actually redeemed the elect whereas they say Arminians believe that He redeemed the sinner only in a potential way... providing they believe. It is debatable whether Calvin himself believed in the Calvinist position on this point.

4. Resistible grace. Arminians believe that God simply offers salvation and the Holy Spirit gently woos people toward Christ but that everyone can say no. Calvinists believe that the elect are drawn irresistibly by God and thus they cannot resist coming to Christ. The most common position among Calvinists nowadays is that God regenerates sinners prior to their coming to Christ and that is the mechanism for causing their ability to believe. Not all Calvinists believe regeneration precedes faith. Some believe that God gives faith to the elect and then Justifies them and then regenerates them. That is my view.

5. Falling from grace. Arminians believe that a true believer who is born again can later on lose his salvation by sin or unbelief. Calvinists believe that all true believers will persevere and endure in believing in Christ and some degree of holiness until the end of life and will all be saved.

I personally hold to most of the Calvinist views but not all. I believe in total depravity, unconditional election, a type of general atonement and a type of particular atonement, irresistible grace, and preservation of the saints and a certain type of perseverance as well.

 

[twin1954]

Classical Arminianism comes from the teaching of a man named Jacob Arminus. He lived in the late 1500"s to early 1600's. He was a Dutch seminary professor. His followers, after his death, came up with what is known as the Remontrances, five points that they believed were essential. They submitted it to the State of Holland. There was a council held to consider these thing called the Synod of Dort. The Synod of Dort came up with an answer which later became known as TULIP or the five points of Calvinism. JLR 1300 has pretty much given you the five points of the Remonstrances. Suffice to say that neither Arminus nor Calvin came up with either.

Later John Wesley revised the theology of Arminianism into his own theology which is what prevails today. Few today are Classical Arminians but more Wesleyan Arminians.

Now I must refer you to the fact that there is a difference between modern Arminianism and full Pelagianism. While Wesley was what is known as a semi-pelagian full Pelaginism is making inroads into modern theology.

You might want to do a little research into each of these theologies if you are really interested in understanding the differences.

 

[JM]

In 1679 the General Baptists published "An Orthodox Creed." As the foundation they used the Westminster, Savoy and London Baptist Confessions of Faith. We are just as sectarian today but it seems right, and godly, that Protestants in general stuck together against Rome. Together they were seeking to make one loud cry for the Gospel against the Roman system. That stated, Arminianism is a step toward Rome, a middle way, a compromise. Lord have mercy. Most Baptists today are General Arminian Baptists but fail to recognize their historical roots.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Omah1970]

Thank you for the responses it clears a lot of things up. To give a little background on me and were I'm coming from with this is there has been a big rift developing in my family. Most if not all of my mom's side of the family are Southern Baptists so me and my brother were raised in the Baptist church all our lives. My brother though just converted over to The Church Of God and has been on a mission to show the rest of us we are wrong on all of it when it comes to what we were raised to believe. He has even gone so far as to claim the Pentecostal church is the fulfillment of the apostolic church of today. I'm really confused about all of this and sometimes he makes me feel I'm not even saved anymore. I don't understand why him and churches like his and this is not a put down at all when I say this but how can anyone put a limitation on God's grace as if we can save ourselves and keep ourselves saved through some act of work or through our own free will. How much free will do we have as a Christian. I once heard the late Dr.Walter Martin say that once we are saved we do have free will but our free will is limited and that we can get out of Christ the day Christ gets out of God. Is this true? What is grace what does it do what does it mean in our daily lives? I asked my papa about Arminian Baptists today and he was very critical of them and said the only ones he could think of off the top of his head were the Free Will and Primitive Baptists. I don't know I've only heard of these churches in passing. What does it mean if you don't accept all five points of Calvinism but accept other points. Would they be called Calvinminians? Kind of like what they are calling the Baptist churches back home who have incorporated the spiritual gifts into there worship but still hold to other Baptist beliefs as there central doctrine they are Bapticostals. It concerns me and scares me because I've done a little search on the subject of Arminianism and Calvinism both groups are so sure they are right especially when it comes to salvation and one is accusing the other of cheap grace and I've read the Calvin's calling the Arminians grace killers both sides are convinced the other wrong and they are right. I'm scared of that mentality because someone has to be wrong and it worries what if it was the way I was raised to believe that's wrong and I'm not even saved anymore. It's scary. I've watched my brother preach and when he preaches there is so much passion and conviction in his beliefs he is preaching about. But what he is preaching about scares me. He says if you die with any sin in your life your going to hell and that it's up to you to make sure your life is cleaned up and your forgiven of your sins before you take that last breath. Is this true? There's no way I can be a perfect Christian not how he is saying we need to be. And my whole family is up in arms over it because he has become so aggressive to change there minds. It's causing carnage but I feel sorry so sorry for him at the same time because he has this zeal and desire to be a preacher and serve the Lord so I try to encourage him because he really has nobody that's supporting him but how much should I support him. Anyway thanks for letting me rant and appreciate if you all would lift me and my family up in prayer. Thank you

 

[twin1954]

Thank you for the responses it clears a lot of things up. To give a little background on me and were I'm coming from with this is there has been a big rift developing in my family. Most if not all of my mom's side of the family are Southern Baptists so me and my brother were raised in the Baptist church all our lives. My brother though just converted over to The Church Of God and has been on a mission to show the rest of us we are wrong on all of it when it comes to what we were raised to believe. He has even gone so far as to claim the Pentecostal church is the fulfillment of the apostolic church of today. I'm really confused about all of this and sometimes he makes me feel I'm not even saved anymore. I don't understand why him and churches like his and this is not a put down at all when I say this but how can anyone put a limitation on God's grace as if we can save ourselves and keep ourselves saved through some act of work or through our own free will. How much free will do we have as a Christian. I once heard the late Dr.Walter Martin say that once we are saved we do have free will but our free will is limited and that we can get out of Christ the day Christ gets out of God. Is this true? What is grace what does it do what does it mean in our daily lives? I asked my papa about Arminian Baptists today and he was very critical of them and said the only ones he could think of off the top of his head were the Free Will and Primitive Baptists. I don't know I've only heard of these churches in passing. What does it mean if you don't accept all five points of Calvinism but accept other points. Would they be called Calvinminians? Kind of like what they are calling the Baptist churches back home who have incorporated the spiritual gifts into there worship but still hold to other Baptist beliefs as there central doctrine they are Bapticostals. It concerns me and scares me because I've done a little search on the subject of Arminianism and Calvinism both groups are so sure they are right especially when it comes to salvation and one is accusing the other of cheap grace and I've read the Calvin's calling the Arminians grace killers both sides are convinced the other wrong and they are right. I'm scared of that mentality because someone has to be wrong and it worries what if it was the way I was raised to believe that's wrong and I'm not even saved anymore. It's scary. I've watched my brother preach and when he preaches there is so much passion and conviction in his beliefs he is preaching about. But what he is preaching about scares me. He says if you die with any sin in your life your going to hell and that it's up to you to make sure your life is cleaned up and your forgiven of your sins before you take that last breath. Is this true? There's no way I can be a perfect Christian not how he is saying we need to be. And my whole family is up in arms over it because he has become so aggressive to change there minds. It's causing carnage but I feel sorry so sorry for him at the same time because he has this zeal and desire to be a preacher and serve the Lord so I try to encourage him because he really has nobody that's supporting him but how much should I support him. Anyway thanks for letting me rant and appreciate if you all would lift me and my family up in prayer. Thank you

There is nothing that can tear a family apart faster than false religion. I am sorry that this is happening to yours. I would suggest that you immerse yourself in the Scriptures and seek the Spirit to strengthen you. Remember that passion and zeal doesn't make one correct. I am more than willing to try and answer any questions you might have. PM me if you want.

Pentacostalism sprang from an event called the Asuza Street Awakening I believe. It was in San Francisco I think but certainly somewhere in California in the late 1800's to early 1900's. It comes from Wesleyan perfectionism in its theology and adds the "charismata" (sp?) or spiritual gifts in as well. The holiness movement sprang from it. If I remember correctly most Pentacostals today are full Pelagians. Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy very early in church history. l think it was in the 300-400's AD.

Pelagianism comes from the teachings of an English monk during that period. He denied original sin, believed that the will of man was not stained by sin and that a man could choose good or evil without God's influence, that we could be sinless and that we could earn salvation by our works.

 

[Omah1970]

Thank you buddy I.Will pm you here soon. Thank you so much

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There is nothing that can tear a family apart faster than false religion. I am sorry that this is happening to yours. I would suggest that you immerse yourself in the Scriptures and seek the Spirit to strengthen you. Remember that passion and zeal doesn't make one correct. I am more than willing to try and answer any questions you might have. PM me if you want.

Pentacostalism sprang from an event called the Asuza Street Awakening I believe. It was in San Francisco I think but certainly somewhere in California in the late 1800's to early 1900's. It comes from Wesleyan perfectionism in its theology and adds the "charismata" (sp?) or spiritual gifts in as well. The holiness movement sprang from it. If I remember correctly most Pentacostals today are full Pelagians. Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy very early in church history. l think it was in the 300-400's AD.

Pelagianism comes from the teachings of an English monk during that period. He denied original sin, believed that the will of man was not stained by sin and that a man could choose good or evil without God's influence, that we could be sinless and that we could earn salvation by our works.

Azusa Street is in Los Angeles, California. On April 9, 1906, an African American preacher named William J. Seymour preached a sermon in the home of Richard and Ruth Asberry at 216 Bonnie Brae Street in Los Angeles. A church sprung up as a consequence and when the congregation soon became too large for the home, the congregation moved to a two-story building on Azusa St. with a stable on the ground floor and tenement housing on the second floor. The stable served as the place of worship. Supernatural occurrences became common place and the publicity regarding them spread around the world. This was not, however, the first well-documented “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” in relatively recent history. Please research earlier occurrences, such as the “Pentecostal” events at Bethel Bible College (Topeka, Kansas) late in the year 1900.

The holiness movement did NOT spring up from Pentecostalism; Pentecostalism sprang up from the holiness movement—and neither of them is or was Pelagian.

For the first 1,500 years, the Church was Arminian in its theology, and the very large majority of churches today are Arminian in their theology. The very large majority of Baptist churches around the world today reject at least one of the five points of Calvinism, and are therefore at least partially Arminian in their beliefs. Before Calvinism was introduced into our Baptist churches, they were all Arminian.

 

[twin1954]

Azusa Street is in Los Angeles, California. On April 9, 1906, an African American preacher named William J. Seymour preached a sermon in the home of Richard and Ruth Asberry at 216 Bonnie Brae Street in Los Angeles. A church sprung up as a consequence and when the congregation soon became too large for the home, the congregation moved to a two-story building on Azusa St. with a stable on the ground floor and tenement housing on the second floor. The stable served as the place of worship. Supernatural occurrences became common place and the publicity regarding them spread around the world. This was not, however, the first well-documented “outpouring of the Holy Spirit” in relatively recent history. Please research earlier occurrences, such as the “Pentecostal” events at Bethel Bible College (Topeka, Kansas) late in the year 1900.

It has been years since I did the research so I was working from an old man's memory. I don't think that I implied that there were no earlier events but that the Pentecostal movement sprang from the Asuza Street occurrence. Your more detailed account is appreciated though I suspect your reasons for it were more sinister than just giving a little more information. Given your history here it is a reasonable assumption.

The holiness movement did NOT spring up from Pentecostalism; Pentecostalism sprang up from the holiness movement

I think you confuse perfectionism with the holiness movement. Certainly perfectionism has been around in its heretical forms for a long time. B.B. Warfield wrote a whole volume on it in his works. You should know who he is. He was a professor of theology at Princeton University when it was a Calvinist school.

—and neither of them is or was Pelagian.

I am going to have to ask for proof of this assertion.

For the first 1,500 years, the Church was Arminian in its theology, and the very large majority of churches today are Arminian in their theology. The very large majority of Baptist churches around the world today reject at least one of the five points of Calvinism, and are therefore at least partially Arminian in their beliefs. Before Calvinism was introduced into our Baptist churches, they were all Arminian.

You have stated this same error before and had it overwhelmingly disproven. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a falsehood it never becomes true except in your own imagination.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It has been years since I did the research so I was working from an old man's memory. I don't think that I implied that there were no earlier events but that the Pentecostal movement sprang from the Asuza Street occurrence. Your more detailed account is appreciated though I suspect your reasons for it were more sinister than just giving a little more information. Given your history here it is a reasonable assumption.

My history of more than ten years posting to CF is a history of posting objective facts, and interpretations of the Scriptures that are not only solidly based upon them in the original languages, but interpretation that are supported by the most prominent scholars in the relevant fields.

I think you confuse perfectionism with the holiness movement. Certainly perfectionism has been around in its heretical forms for a long time. B.B. Warfield wrote a whole volume on it in his works. You should know who he is. He was a professor of theology at Princeton University when it was a Calvinist school.

No, I am NOT confusing the holiness movement, in which the Pentecostal movement blossomed, with various teachings of Christian perfectionism. B.B. Warfield and his cronies were NOT professors at Princeton University and they were NOT qualified to teach there! They taught at what is now Princeton Theological Seminary, an institution independent of Princeton University. With their departure, the Seminary grew from a third-rate school into one of the finest seminaries in the world. The truth is the truth whether it is labeled by some as conservative, liberal, or heretical.

For the first 1,500 years, the Church was Arminian in its theology, and the very large majority of churches today are Arminian in their theology. The very large majority of Baptist churches around the world today reject at least one of the five points of Calvinism, and are therefore at least partially Arminian in their beliefs. Before Calvinism was introduced into our Baptist churches, they were all Arminian.

You have stated this same error before and had it overwhelmingly disproven. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a falsehood it never becomes true except in your own imagination.

Simply calling thoroughly documented facts errors does not in any way lessen their veracity and accuracy. Furthermore, no one, over the past ten years, has ever disproved or factually discredited any of the information that I have posted—although very many persons have attempted to do so when my posting the truth discredited their theology and ruffled their feathers. Indeed, they have not been able to because I have never posted any information or any interpretation of the Scriptures that is not supported by the most prominent scholars in the relevant fields. I am not a main-stream Baptist, but I am very much a mainstream Protestant Christian who happens to be a Baptist minister and teacher. Moreover, I have an insatiable love for the truth and a heart-felt conviction that I have an obligation before God to share with others the knowledge and understanding that God, in accord with His sovereign will, chose to bless me with for that very purpose.

 

[twin1954]

My history of more than ten years posting to CF is a history of posting objective facts, and interpretations of the Scriptures that are not only solidly based upon them in the original languages, but interpretation that are supported by the most prominent scholars in the relevant fields.



No, I am NOT confusing the holiness movement, in which the Pentecostal movement blossomed, with various teachings of Christian perfectionism. B.B. Warfield and his cronies were NOT professors at Princeton University and they were NOT qualified to teach there! They taught at what is now Princeton Theological Seminary, an institution independent of Princeton University. With their departure, the Seminary grew from a third-rate school into one of the finest seminaries in the world. The truth is the truth whether it is labeled by some as conservative, liberal, or heretical.





Simply calling thoroughly documented facts errors does not in any way lessen their veracity and accuracy. Furthermore, no one, over the past ten years, has ever disproved or factually discredited any of the information that I have posted—although very many persons have attempted to do so when my posting the truth discredited their theology and ruffled their feathers. Indeed, they have not been able to because I have never posted any information or any interpretation of the Scriptures that is not supported by the most prominent scholars in the relevant fields. I am not a main-stream Baptist, but I am very much a mainstream Protestant Christian who happens to be a Baptist minister and teacher. Moreover, I have an insatiable love for the truth and a heart-felt conviction that I have an obligation before God to share with others the knowledge and understanding that God, in accord with His sovereign will, chose to bless me with for that very purpose.

I am praying and considering whether it is worth the effort to continue with you. Let those who value your opinion, which is what you are spouting, believe what they will.

All thinking people know that your so-called objective facts and interpretations are based in presuppositions that you impose on the Scriptures just as the "scholars" you claim to uphold your opinions. I find it odd that the "scholars" you use are almost, if not all, liberal in their theology and have a man centered view just as you do. It isn't very difficult to find modern "scholars" who will back up a false and natural understanding of the Scriptures.

I just don't know if your opinions are worth the effort to dispel. In all honesty your level of education neither intimidates me or impresses me. I have nothing to prove or the need to have my ego stroked.

 

[twin1954]

My history of more than ten years posting to CF is a history of posting objective facts, and interpretations of the Scriptures that are not only solidly based upon them in the original languages, but interpretation that are supported by the most prominent scholars in the relevant fields.



No, I am NOT confusing the holiness movement, in which the Pentecostal movement blossomed, with various teachings of Christian perfectionism. B.B. Warfield and his cronies were NOT professors at Princeton University and they were NOT qualified to teach there! They taught at what is now Princeton Theological Seminary, an institution independent of Princeton University. With their departure, the Seminary grew from a third-rate school into one of the finest seminaries in the world. The truth is the truth whether it is labeled by some as conservative, liberal, or heretical.





Simply calling thoroughly documented facts errors does not in any way lessen their veracity and accuracy. Furthermore, no one, over the past ten years, has ever disproved or factually discredited any of the information that I have posted—although very many persons have attempted to do so when my posting the truth discredited their theology and ruffled their feathers. Indeed, they have not been able to because I have never posted any information or any interpretation of the Scriptures that is not supported by the most prominent scholars in the relevant fields. I am not a main-stream Baptist, but I am very much a mainstream Protestant Christian who happens to be a Baptist minister and teacher. Moreover, I have an insatiable love for the truth and a heart-felt conviction that I have an obligation before God to share with others the knowledge and understanding that God, in accord with His sovereign will, chose to bless me with for that very purpose.

I am praying and considering whether it is worth the effort to continue with you. Let those who value your opinion, which is what you are spouting, believe what they will.

All thinking people know that your so-called objective facts and interpretations are based in presuppositions that you impose on the Scriptures just as the "scholars" you claim to uphold your opinions. I find it odd that the "scholars" you use are almost, if not all, liberal in their theology and have a man centered view just as you do. It isn't very difficult to find modern "scholars" who will back up a false and natural understanding of the Scriptures.

I just don't know if your opinions are worth the effort to dispel. In all honesty your level of education neither intimidates me or impresses me. I have nothing to prove or the need to have my ego stroked.

 

[JLR1300]

When a person says that for 1500 years the church was Arminian there are several problems with that view.

1. The early Church was largely influenced by Augustine and the council of orange and Augustine and the council of Orange were much more Calvinistic than Arminian. Even Thomas Aquinas continued a mostly Calvinistic line of thought as late as the 13th century. It just isn't true that the Church was always straightforward Arminian. Although it is true that many in the Catholic Church were simi-Pelegian. Besides that although people don't like to admit it, the Apostle Paul taught what would later be known as Calvinism and that is clearly what the early Christians believed.

2. So you are going to line up with Catholics on matters of theology? It may be true that the corrupt Roman Church was filled with people who weren't all Calvinists but do you really want to defend that corrupt ecclesiastic abomination? I think that if the Catholic Church teaches a thing that is probably more of a reason to reject it than to accept it. Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So they obviously believe a few things right. But to say that since the Catholics believed it we should believe it too is to my mind ridiculous. Should we also reject justification by faith alone simply because the majority in the "Chruch" did prior to 1500? So to Princeton Guy I say go ahead and join the Catholic Church then if you think they are so great. Personally I think you fit in better with them anyway. That isn't an attempt to be rude it's just my honest assessment of your proper place in Christendom.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

All thinking people know that your so-called objective facts and interpretations are based in presuppositions that you impose on the Scriptures just as the "scholars" you claim to uphold your opinions. I find it odd that the "scholars" you use are almost, if not all, liberal in their theology and have a man centered view just as you do. It isn't very difficult to find modern "scholars" who will back up a false and natural understanding of the Scriptures.

Objective facts are objective facts, and simply disliking them does not make them any less objective. One’s level of scholarship is not measured by how conservative or liberal one in his theology; one’s level of scholarship is measured by how much he has learned. I VERY SELDOM quote liberal scholars—and when I do, it is NEVER because of an agreement on my part with their theology. My theology is distinctly Christ-entered rather than Calvin centered, and I can understand why some people are offended by that.

It isn't very difficult to find modern “preachers” who will “back up” the doctrines of Calvinism, but is becoming increasing difficult to find exegetes of the Greek New Testament who find in its 27 books the doctrines of Calvinism.

Adherents to Calvinism have that right to believe as they do, but they do NOT have the right to “prove” the correctness of their beliefs by maliciously maligning people who know better.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

When a person says that for 1500 years the church was Arminian there are several problems with that view.

1. The early Church was largely influenced by Augustine and the council of orange and Augustine and the council of Orange were much more Calvinistic than Arminian.

1. Augustine was not even born until November 3, 354. Therefore, the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers could not possibly have been influenced by him. Moreover, Augustine was staunchly Arminian in his beliefs—even in the last years of his life when he wrote his Retractions. The ONLY exception was that for a time he believed that some Christians will necessarily persevere, while others will not. This view was seen by his contemporaries as an error, and up until the 16th century, the Church consistently saw it as an error. Moreover, even Calvinists see this as an error.

There were two Councils of Orange. It is the Second of these two Councils that is relevant here. It took place in 529 and its purpose was to decide if a moderate form of Pelagianism could be affirmed by the Church (the Church of Rome). This moderate form of Pelagianism taught that man’s faith for salvation was an act of free will initially unassisted by grace, but that growth in faith was a consequence of grace. The council decided against the teaching, and affirmed the Arminian views of Augustine. None of the Five Points of Calvinism are found in any known writings prior to the 16th century, but Arminian theology is found throughout the entire history of the Church.

Even Thomas Aquinas continued a mostly Calvinistic line of thought as late as the 13th century.

This statement is absolutely false!

2. So you are going to line up with Catholics on matters of theology? It may be true that the corrupt Roman Church was filled with people who weren't all Calvinists but do you really want to defend that corrupt ecclesiastic abomination? I think that if the Catholic Church teaches a thing that is probably more of a reason to reject it than to accept it. Of course, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So they obviously believe a few things right. But to say that since the Catholics believed it we should believe it too is to my mind ridiculous. Should we also reject justification by faith alone simply because the majority in the "Chruch" did prior to 1500? So to Princeton Guy I say go ahead and join the Catholic Church then if you think they are so great. Personally I think you fit in better with them anyway. That isn't an attempt to be rude it's just my honest assessment of your proper place in Christendom.

Should we toss out as heresy the doctrine of justification by faith alone simply because Roman Catholics have taught it throughout the history of their church, and staunchly and unreservedly teach it today?

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (1971) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,

The justice of God is his mercy whereby he declares guilty man innocent and makes him so. He does this, not as a result of the Law, but apart from it (v 21), not because of any merit of man, but through forgiveness of his sins (v 24)in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22-24f), No man can boast of his own holiness, since it is God’s free gift (27), both to the Jew who practices circumcision out of faith, and to the Gentile who accepts faith without the Old Testament religious culture symbolized by circumcision (29f).​

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,

These verses provide a clear statement of Paul’s “gospel,” i.e., the principle of justification by faith in Christ. God has found a means of rescuing humanity from its desperate plight: Paul’s general term for this divine initiative is the righteousness of God (21). Divine mercy declares the guilty innocent and makes them so. God does this not as a result of the law but apart from it (21), and not because of any merit in human beings but through forgiveness of their sins (24), in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22.24-25). God has manifested his righteousness in the coming of Jesus Christ, whose saving activity inaugurates a new era in human history.​

The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 4:3,

Jas 2, 24 appears to conflict with Paul’s statement. However, James combats the error of extremists who used the doctrine of justification through faith as a screen for moral self-determination. Paul discusses the subject of holiness in greater detail than does James and beginning with ch 6 shows how justification through faith introduces one to the gift of a new life in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.​

Yes, this is a Roman Catholic Bible with Roman Catholic notes published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company in New York with both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.

The late Monsignor Patrick Boylan, M.A., D.D., D. LITT., Consultor of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Professor of Eastern Languages, University College, Dublin. Formally, previously Professor of Sacred Scripture and Oriental Languages, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, in his 1947 commentary, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Translation and Commentary, writes on Romans 3:28,

He [Paul] wishes only to state that it is not a man’s fulfillment of Jewish, or other, prescriptions, that supplies the basis for his justification, but only his faith in Christ. Even in the Old Dispensation, faith was precisely as it is now, the sole means of approach to salvation.​

The Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, in his 1993 commentary on the Greek text of Romans, writes,

Paul uses anthrōpos even without the article, as in 1 Cor 4:1 and 7:1, and speaks generically and indifferently of “a human being,” making no specific reference to Greek or Jew. But his emphasis falls on pistei, “by faith,” as Kuss, Bardenhewer, and Sickenberger recognize. That emphasis and the qualification “apart from the deeds of (the) law" show that in this context Paul means “By faith alone.” Only faith appropriates God’s effective declaration of uprightness for a human being. These words repeat what Paul already said in v 20a.​

Early Christians who taught justification by faith alone include the following:

Origin
Hilary
Basil
Ambrosiaster
John Chrysostom
Cyril of Alexander
Bernard
Theophylact
Theodoret
Thomas Aquinas

 

[Awaken4Christ]

I think your going to find that Calvinism is a more specific theology in soteriology, while arminianism is going to be a mixture of things and much more broader in possible beliefs. There are some Baptists that preach free will in a soteriological sense but believe in eternal security.

There are others who say they haven't really addressed the issue personally and that God is the cause for salvation. Some Calvinists, however, would argue this could be closet arminianism, and once the question of the will of man or God's sovereign choice is asked about, they believe it is often made clear on their answer.

But lets be honest, there are those in the Baptist tradition and other traditions who hold a respect for the sovereignty of God, but don't take it to the descriptive level as Calvinists do.

I feel it is wrong to associate arminianism with all the heresies and wrong teachings in the church. I know that historically, Calvinists often make claims on the parallels of it with the Catholic church, but I feel as though this argument is often coming from a bias based on where the believer has been saved from. You'll find some of the most adamant people that assert arminianism's cause for various false doctrines are those that have come out of Roman Catholicism or a very watered down more arminian leaning church. (And some just as adamant if they have studied history, particularly England circa 1600s). That isnt to say that it isn't sometimes to blame or one part of the problem.

It has been my understanding that Baptists have stood against many heresies and false doctrines over the years, but that doesn't make them perfect.

 

[Omah1970]

I'm sorry for the late response and as well for probably causing an argument between two fellow Christians forgive me. I do want to thank you all for your responses. I have more questions to ask but I don't want to cause anymore arguing I'm very sorry that. Thank you all so much though for the responses. Take care

 

[JLR1300]

To Princeton Guy...

I feel so sorry for Martin Luther. If only he would have had your great scholarship available he would have realized that the Roman Catholic Church already was holding firmly to the doctrine of justification by faith alone and he could have avoided that unnecessary Reformation thingy. (sigh... give me a break!)

The fact of the matter is you can't fool me that easily. I went to Bible College and Seminary too and pastored many churches and have read many, many books on church history and the Reformation. I am smart enough to know that Catholics often use the same basic terms and language but attribute different meanings to them. When they talk about justification by faith most theologians know that they mean something somewhat different than what protestants mean by it.

I know enough about them to know what they are really teaching and it isn't the same thing that the protestants mean by it. I know you know that too. So are you just hoping that we are to dumb to know that? So go ahead and quote whatever Catholic stuff you want...It won't do any good because I know what they actually teach.

Also I have done more than one study on Augustine and have been to many classes and meetings about him and I can tell that you are either trying to mislead people on purpose or you just don't know what you are talking about. I wasn't born yesterday so you cannot just rewrite history and expect everyone to believe it. I have had many, many classes in Church History and do you expect me to believe that all my professors were wrong about Augustine and Catholics and the reformation and that you are right? Not a chance.

I come across people like you today in the political arena too. It is common nowadays for so-called liberal political experts and "historians" to say that America was not all that strongly influenced by Christianity in the past. They are able to convince lots of the young people of that but I was paying attention when I was in school and I have read much of what the forefathers said so I don't buy it.

I am most likely not going to keep talking to you because I have read your opinions on things before and I just think that you are so far away from the teachings of the Bible on Salvation that it is pointless. Your view in my opinion is extremely man-centered and works-centered and legalistic. I believe pure Arminianism to be just salvation by works dressed-up in theological terminology to make it look like it is in accordance with grace so that people will be fooled.

Also, when I was at Seminary it was the Greek professors there who were the most Calvinistic. The better people know the Greek the more likely they are to be Calvinistic. Of course, there are always some that just haven't been shown yet that Salvation is by grace and that grace isn't what they think it is.

 

[twin1954]

I'm sorry for the late response and as well for probably causing an argument between two fellow Christians forgive me. I do want to thank you all for your responses. I have more questions to ask but I don't want to cause anymore arguing I'm very sorry that. Thank you all so much though for the responses. Take care

I am sure that most anyone here would be willing to try and answer your questions by PM. It would be a private conversation and not subject to public debate. Though I would caution you to question anything anyone tells you, including myself, and see that it lines up with the Scriptures.