What does an Arminian Baptist believe?

[twin1954]

I've been simply explaining that the Calvinistic understanding of 'Reformed' is not accurate when it comes to understand the breadth of what Reformed means. However, if you don't like my labelling my position as Reformed Arminian, I'm happy for you to call my position that of Classical Arminianism. However, it is still a Reformed position as Arminius had a foundational influence on his followers, called Remonstrants.

However, when Arminius remained a Dutch Reformed minister until his death, his position was still within the Reformed perspective of his day - even though his views were challenged by those of Calvinistic persuasion.

I object strongly to your pejorative comment a referring to my use of language: 'That is an old RC trick. They use words but mean something different by them'. That is disingenuous to use that kind of language against me. I have excellent reasons for labelling my position as Reformed Arminian. It is NOT redefining terms. It is using terms consistent with those used by Jacobus Arminius.

Oz

Where did I refer to you in the post?

 

[OzSpen]

Where did I refer to you in the post?

Who is the one who has associated Reformed with Arminianism? I am the culprit. To whom else were you referring?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,
I think the problem between you and me is that you want me to see Arminius's Total Depravity through what you think is a Calvinistic understanding.

The doctrine of Total Depravity IS a Calvinist doctrine.

I've presented evidence from Arminius to demonstrate that he did believe in Total Depravity, but that's not good enough for you.

You have Not presented ANY evidence of ANY KIND that Arminius believed in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity—but only evidence that Arminius believed in the depravity of the unregenerate state. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity and at the same believe that the man in Rom. 7:22 is unregenerate. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE because they are TWO OPPOSING DOCTRINES! Please familiarize yourself with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

I have studied this subject extensively ….

Your posts indicate that the opposite is true.

Let's call on the expert advice of a Southern Baptist professor of theology and an Arminian who teaches at George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX, Dr Roger E Olson. In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006) he wrote:

Some Reformed critics of Arminianism admit they share significant common ground with it. "Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, every aspect of human nature is tainted by sin". [1]

[1] Here Olson was citing Robert A Peterson & Michael D Williams, Why I am not an Arminian (IVP 2004:163), in Olson (2006:56, n 28).
​

I am certainly not an expert on Arminius and his teaching—but I most certainly know it far better than does Roger Olson, Robert Peterson, and Michael Williams (which is not saying much!). Moreover, I do not make up my own definitions for theological terms that have a history of usage going back 400 years! The doctrine of Total Depravity IS a Calvinist doctrine. It is NOT an Arminian doctrine. Moreover, confusing the doctrine of Total Depravity with the view or Arminius regarding the state of the unregenerate and calling his view “total depravity” makes a mockery of what Calvin taught and is slanderous of what Arminius taught. As I posted above, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity and at the same believe that the man in Rom. 7:22 is unregenerate. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE because they are TWO OPPOSING DOCTRINES!

Classical Arminians are relieved to find some Calvinists finally understanding and admitting this Arminian commitment to total depravity! [2] Arminius's own account of human fallenness could hardly be stronger if he had been a full-blown Calvinist! In his "Public Disputations" the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam's fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that

In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatum]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. [3]​

Quoting Arminius out of the context of the body of his writings to make it falsely appear that he agreed with the doctrine of Total depravity is slanderous. Indeed, the doctrine of Total depravity is largely responsible for the error persisting in some parts of the Church today that in Romans 7:14-25 Paul is writing of his present condition. Regarding that view, the linguist and Bible scholar Adam Clarke wrote in his commentary of the Bible,

“It is difficult to conceive how the opinion could have crept into the Church, or prevailed there, that “the apostle speaks here of his regenerate state; and that what was, in such a state, true of himself, must be true of all others in the same state.” This opinion has, most pitifully and most shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. It requires but little knowledge of the spirit of the Gospel, and of the scope of this epistle, to see that the apostle is, here, either personating a Jew under the law and without the Gospel, or showing what his own state was when he was deeply convinced that by the deeds of the law no man could be justified, and had not as yet heard those blessed words: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Act_9:17.”

Arminius, in his 258-page A DISSERTATION OF THE TRUE AND GENUINE SENSE OF THE SEVENTH CHAPTER OF ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, very ably and at great length refutes your interpretation and explains in great detail his own understanding of the depraved (but not totally depraved) state of the unregenerate man—and CONTRASTS his view with that of the Calvinists.

This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will survived the Fall intact (Olson 2006:56).

That is exactly the problem—and the problem of Roger Olson, Robert Peterson, and Michael Williams! They quote from Arminius, severed from the body of his writings and completely ignoring his own comparison of the doctrine of Total Depravity with his view of the limited depravity of the unregenerate man (found in his dissertation on Romans 7), gives a terribly distorted view of what Arminius taught.

My view is parallel with that of Dr Roger Olson concerning the Arminian support of Total Depravity.

That is most unfortunate!

Why don't you call Dr Roger Olson, an Arminian and professor of theology at George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, and try your line, 'It is too difficult to discuss this issue with a man that has not studied it'.

If Roger Olsen would simply take the time to read Arminius’ dissertation on Romans7, he would see for an incontrovertible fact that he is severely mistaken.​

 

[Bob Carabbio]

One last question are all Pentecostal Churches Arminian? Do they all believe in falling from grace?

NO - The MAJOR DENOMINATIONS (Like the AoG, COGIC, etc) are out of the "Wesleyan Holiness" belief system, and are "Arminian". The Assemblies of God USED TO BE a "one strike and you're OUT" denomination. ONE SIN unconfessed when you die, and you BURN!!! SO back in the '60s, we all were kept busy trying to "Stay saved", and Re-dedicating", or "Re-consecrating" ourselves so that if the RAPTURE HAPPENED - we'd get to "go".

The AoG, at least, in most cases is gravitating toward a more "Moderate" position, where it's what you do "Habitually" - i.e. when you court the things of the World, and begin to neglect the things of God, your fellowship with HIM will grow cold, and distant, and what WAS "Living Faith" becomes the fading memory of having had "living faith", once, and you just drift away into spiritual oblivion.

But there ARE "Calvinist Pentecostals", and Pentecostals that teach OSAS "Sovereign Grace Ministries" (C.J. Mahaney) would be an example, and plenty of Charismatics who were reformed when they became "Spirit Filled" cling to their "Calvinist roots".

SOMEWHERE OUT THERE - there's probably a Pentecostal church that believes that you need to paint half your body Maize, and the other half Blue, and run down the street screaming "WUBBA!!!", "WUBBA!!. to be saved.

HEY!!! Westboro Baptist, and the "Phelps Clan" looks at church a LOT differently than most, but are CONVINCED they're right!!!!

 

[mikedsjr]

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.

This would be my understanding as well

 

[mikedsjr]

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.

Correct me if I'm reading way too much into this, but I'm assuming you don't care for Albert Mohler either, since Al has a lot of respect for B.B. Warfield.

The Roman Catholic Church and her teachings have greatly changed since the days of Martin Luther when the Church was in a state of sordid decay. Indeed, unlike the Protestant Reformation that was not a reformation at all but a cataclysmic upheaval that shattered the church into countless pieces, the Roman Catholic Church has recently reformed itself by returning to the study of the Bible in the original languages. This return to the original languages was spearheaded on September 30, 1943, by Pope Pius XII when he issued his encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu . The consequence of this return can be seen, for example, by comparing the only two Roman Catholic commentaries in English on the Greek text of Paul’s Epistle to Romans—the commentary by Patrick Boylan published in 1934, and the commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer published in 1993. Among the other changes in Roman Catholic soteriology due to this new emphasis on the Greek text of Romans (as opposed to the text in the Latin Vulgate) is the shift from the concept of the “justice of God” to the concept of the “righteousness of God”—and not just conceptually, but practically in the life of the believer.

I'm rather confused how you come to the conclusion that RC has changed for the better, or maybe I'm skewing your statements. Do you believe you hold to the same doctrines as Roman Catholic church to the point where you believe Roman Catholic Doctrine is something Arminians should value?

 

[OzSpen]

The doctrine of Total Depravity IS a Calvinist doctrine.

'An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism' that includes Total Depravity on the Society of Evangelical Arminians' website indicates your assessment is wrong. It is both a Calvinist and Arminian doctrine.

 

[Omah1970]

I attended 3 Pentecostal colleges - one for the AoG Australia and the other A/G USA; the third was a Pentecostal Assembles of Canada college. All 3 colleges in their theology departments had teachers/professors who taught that it was possible to fall from grace and lose one's salvation.

Oz

Thank you my friend been very curious about that.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you my friend been very curious about that.

Omah,

So what's your position on this topic? Can believers lose their salvation? If so, under what conditions?

Oz

 

[twin1954]

Who is the one who has associated Reformed with Arminianism? I am the culprit. To whom else were you referring?

I thought it was clear that I was making a statement about a teaching not one about a particular person. But if the shoe fits you may wear it.

 

[OzSpen]

I thought it was clear that I was making a statement about a teaching not one about a particular person. But if the shoe fits you may wear it.

Why are you goading me?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

'An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism' that includes Total Depravity on the Society of Evangelical Arminians' website indicates your assessment is wrong. It is both a Calvinist and Arminian doctrine.

Another false statement based upon deductive logic grounded upon a false premise. The Society of Evangelical Arminians (whoever they are) may call themselves Arminians, but by doing so they are bringing a reproach upon Arminius for he most certainly taught nothing of the sort. Their being mistaken does NOT indicate that my “assessment’ is wrong—it only means that their assessment is wrong.

Calvin (see his commentary on Romans) saw so much good in the man in Romans 7:14-25* that he not only concluded that the man was NOT totally depraved, but that he was a mature, born-again Christian—and not just any mature, born-again Christian, but the Apostle Paul himself! Arminius, (see his Dissertation on Romans 7) on the other hand, saw exactly the same goodness in the man in Romans 7:14-25*, but concluded that the man was nonetheless so severely depraved that he could NOT be a Christian, but a severely (but not totally) depraved, unregenerate Jew striving unsuccessfully to keep the Law. Therefore, Calvin and Arminius differed greatly on the doctrine of depravity in the unregenerate man, and for anyone or any society to attribute to Arminius the beliefs of Calvin is not only erroneous, but libelous.

Using with a VERY DIFFERENT meaning theological terms such as “reformed” and “Total Depravity” that have an established 400-year history of usage has caused unnecessary confusion in this thread, in some very recently published books, and in a society that calls itself The Society of Evangelical Arminians.

*AD ROMANOS
7:14-25

Rom 7:14 scimus enim quod lex spiritalis est ego autem carnalis sum venundatus sub peccato
Rom 7:15 quod enim operor non intellego non enim quod volo hoc ago sed quod odi illud facio
Rom 7:16 si autem quod nolo illud facio consentio legi quoniam bona
Rom 7:17 nunc autem iam non ego operor illud sed quod habitat in me peccatum
Rom 7:18 scio enim quia non habitat in me hoc est in carne mea bonum nam velle adiacet mihi perficere autem bonum non invenio
Rom 7:19 non enim quod volo bonum hoc facio sed quod nolo malum hoc ago
Rom 7:20 si autem quod nolo illud facio non ego operor illud sed quod habitat in me peccatum
Rom 7:21 invenio igitur legem volenti mihi facere bonum quoniam mihi malum adiacet
Rom 7:22 condelector enim legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem
Rom 7:23 video autem aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae et captivantem me in lege peccati quae est in membris meis
Rom 7:24 infelix ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius
Rom 7:25 gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum igitur ego ipse mente servio legi Dei carne autem legi peccati

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

*AD ROMANOS
7:14-25

Rom 7:14 scimus enim quod lex spiritalis est ego autem carnalis sum venundatus sub peccato
Rom 7:15 quod enim operor non intellego non enim quod volo hoc ago sed quod odi illud facio
Rom 7:16 si autem quod nolo illud facio consentio legi quoniam bona
Rom 7:17 nunc autem iam non ego operor illud sed quod habitat in me peccatum
Rom 7:18 scio enim quia non habitat in me hoc est in carne mea bonum nam velle adiacet mihi perficere autem bonum non invenio
Rom 7:19 non enim quod volo bonum hoc facio sed quod nolo malum hoc ago
Rom 7:20 si autem quod nolo illud facio non ego operor illud sed quod habitat in me peccatum
Rom 7:21 invenio igitur legem volenti mihi facere bonum quoniam mihi malum adiacet
Rom 7:22 condelector enim legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem
Rom 7:23 video autem aliam legem in membris meis repugnantem legi mentis meae et captivantem me in lege peccati quae est in membris meis
Rom 7:24 infelix ego homo quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius
Rom 7:25 gratia Dei per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum igitur ego ipse mente servio legi Dei carne autem legi peccati __________________

Who are you trying to impress?

 

[mikedsjr]

Calvin (see his commentary on Romans) saw so much good in the man in Romans 7:14-25* that he not only concluded that the man was NOT totally depraved, but that he was a mature, born-again Christian—and not just any mature, born-again Christian, but the Apostle Paul himself!

What? I don't follow you.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,


Who are you trying to impress?

?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

What? I don't follow you.

What about my post do you not understand?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,


Who are you trying to impress?

Oh! Now I believe that I understand the reason for your question—you did not understand why I quoted Rom. 7:14-25 from the Latin Vulgate. I quoted it from the Latin Vulgate because it is the version that both Arminius and Calvin had before them when they read and taught on Romans 7. They read the exact same words in Latin, but Calvin saw in those Latin words a description of the Apostle while in the state he was in at the time he wrote the words, while Arminius saw in those very same Latin words a description of a severely (but not totally) depraved, unregenerate Jew striving unsuccessfully to keep the Law. They both interpreted the passage largely upon their understanding of the depravity of an unregenerate man; and because their understanding of the depravity of an unregenerate man differed so greatly, their interpretations were 180 degrees different from each other.

The Latin words that they interpreted so very differently were the words condelector and interiorem hominem in verse 22. The problem was not that they disagreed on the meaning of the Latin; the problem was that they disagreed concerning the concepts that Paul was attempting to express in the underling Greek words (συνήδομαι and ἔσω ἄνθρωπος respectively). Moreover, and more importantly, they disagreed as to whether these concepts pertained to a born-again Christian—or to an unregenerate man. That is, they disagreed as to the nature and the severity of the depravity in an unregenerate man—and they disagreed so severely that they respectively saw the man in Romans 7:14-25 at the opposite ends of the spectrum of regeneration—and Calvinist and Arminian scholars of Romans still do today.

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

Oh! Now I believe that I understand the reason for your question—you did not understand why I quoted Rom. 7:14-25 from the Latin Vulgate. I quoted it from the Latin Vulgate because it is the version that both Arminius and Calvin had before them when they read and taught on Romans 7. They read the exact same words in Latin, but Calvin saw in those Latin words a description of the Apostle while in the state he was in at the time he wrote the words, while Arminius saw in those very same Latin words a description of a severely (but not totally) depraved, unregenerate Jew striving unsuccessfully to keep the Law. They both interpreted the passage largely upon their understanding of the depravity of an unregenerate man; and because their understanding of the depravity of an unregenerate man differed so greatly, their interpretations were 180 degrees different from each other.

The Latin words that they interpreted so very differently were the words condelector and interiorem hominem in verse 22. The problem was not that they disagreed on the meaning of the Latin; the problem was that they disagreed concerning the concepts that Paul was attempting to express in the underling Greek words (συνήδομαι and ἔσω ἄνθρωπος respectively). Moreover, and more importantly, they disagreed as to whether these concepts pertained to a born-again Christian—or to an unregenerate man. That is, they disagreed as to the nature and the severity of the depravity in an unregenerate man—and they disagreed so severely that they respectively saw the man in Romans 7:14-25 at the opposite ends of the spectrum of regeneration—and Calvinist and Arminian scholars of Romans still do today.

Citing a Latin translation from part of Romans 7 on an English language forum is a useless exercise. Could it be that you were wanting to let us know of your superior knowledge that includes reading and interpreting Latin? Could that be a possibility?

 

[mikedsjr]

What about my post do you not understand?

I don't recall anyone claiming Calvin believed no one was depraved.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I don't recall anyone claiming Calvin believed no one was depraved.

I do not recall such a thing myself, but what does that have to do with anything that I have posted in this thread?