Are all Baptists Calvinists?

[Hupomone10]

Hi. I'm not technically a Baptist at the moment, but I have considered going to a Baptist church again. I would like to know, are all Baptists Calvinists? Most seem as if they are, so I'm wondering about that.

The fact that you have to ask this question is a sad testimony to the inappropriate amount of attention that has been given to this subject. As you can see by some of the posts, the rabbit trail onto extreme views has already started, and along with it the exclusive attitudes that are often exhibited from the extremes of both sides, Calvinist and arminian.

You will be glad to know that most Baptists live in the more moderate form of Calvinism that doesn't even bring it up and talk about it. And most of these Baptists will be as I am, much more interested in talking with you about some of the truths Baptists believe and practice that lead to one's being able to live moment by moment a dynamic overcoming Christian life, rather than the ABC's of the faith which most of Calvinism and Arminianism deals with.

Blessings,
H.

Please don't judge us by our extremes

 

[Hupomone10]

Hi. I'm not technically a Baptist at the moment, but I have considered going to a Baptist church again. I would like to know, are all Baptists Calvinists? Most seem as if they are, so I'm wondering about that.

Baptists are diverse, mostly due to the fact that they believe in the local church concept instead of having a hierarchy dictate to them everything they must believe.

Having said that, in general it can be said that they are more Calvinist than Arminian if you know the differences there.

Once you study a little about Calvinism, you will understand more of what gets posted here on the Baptist forum. The biggest difference of opinion seems to me to be between the 5-Point Calvinists and the 4- and below.

Some mistakenly believe that we are split 50-50 on Calvinism and arminianism, but this will show that at least in the largest Baptist denomination, this is not the case. Keep in mind this is referring to 5-point calvinists, not calvinists as a whole:

 

[branchofthevine]

ah, hello everyone, I don't mean to butt in on this cool debate and all that jazz, but may I if you all are willing or individually willing to read this than awesome or something. Since this is the internet and stuff I don't mean to try and force anything on anyone or try to beat down anyone's argument because that would be silly.

However, much emphasis is placed on theology and many people are really focused on Calvinism and Arminiaism (or however you spell it). See I wasn't brought up in
a) a Baptist Church
and
b) a place where these theological groups were debated

so I really have a different perspective I guess from most people or at least some people.
Theology is made up of two root words from koine Greek

θεος and λογος

θεος means God in its lexicon form (the form that you would see in the dictionary)
and
λογος mean word in its lexicon form

Theology literally means God-word or more simply God's word or the word of God

now let us look at Hebrews 4:12 for a second

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

see theology isn't something you learn in your head, and it isn't knowledge which you can use to argue with against people of opposite theologies either in person or on the internet.
Theology is first and foremost and only a tool to help the Christian live a life pleasing to God. Honestly Calvinism isn't the full truth and there are parts of Calvinism which are wrong and should not be believed, and the same is true of any theological theory like Calvinism and Arminianism etc. There is truth in each side and until Christians stop being so stubborn and needing to hold onto one school of thought instead of thinking for themselves and believing truth regardless whether it is apart of any school, this endless arguing and debating (which is not profitable and unifying but rather harmful and dividing) will not stop.

It is necessary to have correct theology but it is sinful to make theology the focus of your Christian walk. if you live to get all the correct theology and to win debates about theology and be known as a theological genius than you are missing the point of Christianity and walking in sin.

Having the correct theology is important and necessary but it is not the MOST important thing in the Christian life. Correct theology should be used as a helping tool so you can grow more in Christ and lead a life that is pleasing to Him.

Basically this means loving people where they are at. It means doing the "I don't have to's" of life. It means serving others in humility and love so as to plant seeds in them so Christ can make them grow.

This is shown by our words that we speak, our volunteering to help the brothers as well as the people around like (social justice as it were) and also in the normal everyday activities and behaviours.

ah, I am sermonizing, sorry sorry. I guess I'll leave it here to be, but I hope people here will think about what they believe and really try to run after God's truth no matter what theological school of thought includes it in its statements or whatever.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

good post.

 

[3rdHeaven]

Wonder what the percentage of 4.5 pt Calvinists are?

 

[Hammster]

ah, hello everyone, I don't mean to butt in on this cool debate and all that jazz, but may I if you all are willing or individually willing to read this than awesome or something. Since this is the internet and stuff I don't mean to try and force anything on anyone or try to beat down anyone's argument because that would be silly.

However, much emphasis is placed on theology and many people are really focused on Calvinism and Arminiaism (or however you spell it). See I wasn't brought up in
a) a Baptist Church
and
b) a place where these theological groups were debated

so I really have a different perspective I guess from most people or at least some people.
Theology is made up of two root words from koine Greek

???? and ?????

???? means God in its lexicon form (the form that you would see in the dictionary)
and
????? mean word in its lexicon form

Theology literally means God-word or more simply God's word or the word of God

now let us look at Hebrews 4:12 for a second

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

see theology isn't something you learn in your head, and it isn't knowledge which you can use to argue with against people of opposite theologies either in person or on the internet.
Theology is first and foremost and only a tool to help the Christian live a life pleasing to God. Honestly Calvinism isn't the full truth and there are parts of Calvinism which are wrong and should not be believed, and the same is true of any theological theory like Calvinism and Arminianism etc. There is truth in each side and until Christians stop being so stubborn and needing to hold onto one school of thought instead of thinking for themselves and believing truth regardless whether it is apart of any school, this endless arguing and debating (which is not profitable and unifying but rather harmful and dividing) will not stop.

It is necessary to have correct theology but it is sinful to make theology the focus of your Christian walk. if you live to get all the correct theology and to win debates about theology and be known as a theological genius than you are missing the point of Christianity and walking in sin.

Having the correct theology is important and necessary but it is not the MOST important thing in the Christian life. Correct theology should be used as a helping tool so you can grow more in Christ and lead a life that is pleasing to Him.

Basically this means loving people where they are at. It means doing the "I don't have to's" of life. It means serving others in humility and love so as to plant seeds in them so Christ can make them grow.

This is shown by our words that we speak, our volunteering to help the brothers as well as the people around like (social justice as it were) and also in the normal everyday activities and behaviours.

ah, I am sermonizing, sorry sorry. I guess I'll leave it here to be, but I hope people here will think about what they believe and really try to run after God's truth no matter what theological school of thought includes it in its statements or whatever.

One, you pulled Hebrews 4:12 out of context.

Two, it's okay to debate theology. It doesn't mean that it all we do.

Three, while there are certainly parts of any theology which are incorrect, if we were convinced of those parts we would change.

Four, why should we listen to you?

 

[DeaconDean]

It is necessary to have correct theology but it is sinful to make theology the focus of your Christian walk. if you live to get all the correct theology and to win debates about theology and be known as a theological genius than you are missing the point of Christianity and walking in sin.

Having the correct theology is important and necessary but it is not the MOST important thing in the Christian life. Correct theology should be used as a helping tool so you can grow more in Christ and lead a life that is pleasing to Him.

I disagree.

Having a correct theology is vital.

If you follow some groups "theology" then you can "work" yourself into salvation.

Likewise if you follw some groups "theology", the only "work" that get you salvation is Christ's finished work on the cross.

Theology is vital. Follow thw wrong one, and you'll be just like the people who stand before Christ and say:

"Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" -Mt. 7:22 (KJV)

Only to hear Christ say:

"I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -Mt. 7:23 (KJV)

My .02 worth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[strelok0017]

I believe that theology is of vital importance but putting it before love is very, very bad. It can lead to people killing new Christians with their theology knowledge and those new Christians might turn away from God because of that. I know, proper theology doesn't do that and it is true but the last thing we want to do is throw stones at others and tell them that they are elect if they survive a hit. I'm not talking about anyone here, I haven't seen this sort of use of theology on Christian Forums yet but I know that it is what hyper-Calvinism does. Calvinism? Yes. Hyper Calvinism? A big no.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think all Baptists are innocent of the horror that Calvin inflicted on Michael Servetus. If not, then they are as guilty as he was of having his hands in this murder. Did Jesus say love each other, love your enemies or did he say do a Calvin on someone? I can not believe that people are so ignorant of the horrors of the Christian history's shameful misaligned campaigns through their theologies against someone else's. Come on, where is the common sense of obeying Jesus over what another person would say for us to do?

Lets examoine what Michael Servetus actually taught shall we?

"He denies the immortality of the soul, maintaining that the soul of man is mortal, like his body.

He rejects infant baptism as an invention of the devil. Babies, he says, are not born in sin, and therefore have no need of baptism. People do not commit mortal sin until they are twenty years old.

He says that to believe in three distinct Persons of the Trinity is to make of God a devil with three heads. He describes those who believe in the Trinity as Trinitarians and atheists.

He says that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God through all eternity - that He was not the Word made flesh. Jesus, he claims, did not become the Son of God until He was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. Those who maintain that Jesus Christ existed before that time he describes as believers in fantasy and sorcery.

He not only upholds his heretical blasphemies as truth, but he insults those who do not agree with him. He calls the German Reformer Melanchthon a man without faith and a son of the devil. As for John Calvin, minister of the word of God in this Church of Geneva, this Servetus has defamed the true doctrines of Calvin, uttering all the injuries and blasphemies which it is possible to invent."

http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carr...hurst/1-4.html

Truly, this is a man to be admired and followed after.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hupomone10]

While not all baptists are Calvinists, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith is Calvinistic in nature. Some baptists still adhere to what our baptist ancestors believed. Others do not.

Correct. And nothing wrong with being Calvinistic in nature. Presbyterians are Calvinistic in nature, but they are wrong in their infant baptism. I do not base my beliefs on ancestors, but I do take them into consideration. My beliefs are influenced by them, but I do not adhere to them when I see Scripture in disagreement with them.


But since we're talking ancestors:

Justin Martyr wrote:
God wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness (Dialogue CXLI).

Irenaeus:
God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God.... Man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will in whose likeness man was created (Against Heresies, XXXVII)

Clement of Alexandria:
We have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men (Stromata, 4.12).

Tertullian:
I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power.... Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance (Against Marcion, 2.5).

Jerome:
It is in vain that you misrepresent me and try to convince the ignorant that I condemn free will. Let him who condemns it be himself condemned. We have been created, endowed with free will (Letters, 133).

John Chrysostom:
God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; he does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing (Homilies on Genesis, 19.1).

All is in God's power, but so that our free will is not lost.... It depends therefore on us and on Him (On Hebrews Homily, 12).

Early St. Augustine:
Free will, naturally assigned by the creator to our rational soul, is such a neutral power, as can either incline toward faith, or turn toward unbelief (On the Spirit and the Letter, 58).

I do not base my beliefs on early church fathers either, but I do take them into consideration.

 

[Hupomone10]

Wonder what the percentage of 4.5 pt Calvinists are?

The division in the article of the graphic I included picks 5-point as the division for a reason. And if you are familiar at all with discussions on the Baptist forum and soteriology forum, you are aware that it is at the 5-point mark that all the divisiveness originates and is propagated.

If you take away the factors of irresistible grace, limited atonement, and regeneration precedes faith, there would be very little argument on this forum at all.

Some would say this is evidence the 5-pointers are right; some would say it's just evidence they are exclusive and divisive. I'm saying neither, just making the observation.

H.

 

[Hupomone10]

I don't think a Baptist church would be right for me, after reading some of the replies. Thanks.

Considering your response below, in another thread, I think you're right.

Showing any skin aside from the face or hands is a sin. Christian women should keep covered at all times lest they tempt us. A good burkha would be a nice choice to keep brothers from stumbling.

If you're serious, we don't need that here. If you're just being a scoffer, we don't need that here.

H.

 

[branchofthevine]

One, you pulled Hebrews 4:12 out of context.

Two, it's okay to debate theology. It doesn't mean that it all we do.

Three, while there are certainly parts of any theology which are incorrect, if we were convinced of those parts we would change.

Four, why should we listen to you?

Paul quotes the old Testament out of context all them time, so does the author of Hebrews.

and on the fourth, I am no reasons why anyone should listen to me. If you don't want to listen to me, than don't. Simple as that.

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Lets examoine what Michael Servetus actually taught shall we?

"He denies the immortality of the soul, maintaining that the soul of man is mortal, like his body.

He rejects infant baptism as an invention of the devil. Babies, he says, are not born in sin, and therefore have no need of baptism. People do not commit mortal sin until they are twenty years old.

He says that to believe in three distinct Persons of the Trinity is to make of God a devil with three heads. He describes those who believe in the Trinity as Trinitarians and atheists.

He says that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God through all eternity - that He was not the Word made flesh. Jesus, he claims, did not become the Son of God until He was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. Those who maintain that Jesus Christ existed before that time he describes as believers in fantasy and sorcery.

He not only upholds his heretical blasphemies as truth, but he insults those who do not agree with him. He calls the German Reformer Melanchthon a man without faith and a son of the devil. As for John Calvin, minister of the word of God in this Church of Geneva, this Servetus has defamed the true doctrines of Calvin, uttering all the injuries and blasphemies which it is possible to invent."

http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carr...hurst/1-4.html

Truly, this is a man to be admired and followed after.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The idea of controlling these blasphemies against the standards of the Church by killing people like Servetus is against the standards of the Church (especially Jesus' teaching of his last great command: to be known as his by our love for one another.) Murderers are not going to be able to enter the Kingdom of God. You must love your enemies. Forget the mental exercises in justifying disobedience to Jesus on account as such that the end justifies the means. Jesus' law is to love each other and your enemies. To do otherwise is in jeopardy of Hell. How do you reach Servetus by showing that he is right, that you don't follow the Lord Jesus by burning him at the stake? I believe in Jesus because of his great love and wisdom. I see neither in the actions of the Calvinists towards those who opposed them. I don't have to believe the signs from God for his son to believe in him. I understand Christ and God's will. His great love that I accept and follow is all that I could give to a blasphemer. If you shun a blasphemer, you can still love him. Shunning is effective, but you can even do so with love and understanding. This isn't possible with the murder of burning someone alive. We are to let God judge and do any revenge. We should be vessels of hope and prayer. Even shunning would be with great care, even love & understanding (being gentle). Jesus told us to be known by our love for one another (including loving our enemies). Don't ever forget who we follow. It isn't theology, church doctrine or a leader, but it is Jesus' word and the Father whom he and the Holy Spirit has shown us.

 

[His_disciple3]

I may have responded to this thread already, but let me say no, not all baptists are calvinist, in the area That i am in only Primitive baptist are calvinist

 

[DeaconDean]

The idea of controlling these blasphemies against the standards of the Church by killing people like Servetus is against the standards of the Church (especially Jesus' teaching of his last great command: to be known as his by our love for one another.) Murderers are not going to be able to enter the Kingdom of God. You must love your enemies. Forget the mental exercises in justifying disobedience to Jesus on account as such that the end justifies the means. Jesus' law is to love each other and your enemies. To do otherwise is in jeopardy of Hell. How do you reach Servetus by showing that he is right, that you don't follow the Lord Jesus by burning him at the stake? I believe in Jesus because of his great love and wisdom. I see neither in the actions of the Calvinists towards those who opposed them. I don't have to believe the signs from God for his son to believe in him. I understand Christ and God's will. His great love that I accept and follow is all that I could give to a blasphemer. If you shun a blasphemer, you can still love him. Shunning is effective, but you can even do so with love and understanding. This isn't possible with the murder of burning someone alive. We are to let God judge and do any revenge. We should be vessels of hope and prayer. Even shunning would be with great care, even love & understanding (being gentle). Jesus told us to be known by our love for one another (including loving our enemies). Don't ever forget who we follow. It isn't theology, church doctrine or a leader, but it is Jesus' word and the Father whom he and the Holy Spirit has shown us.

And yet, God in the "Law" required a murderer to be punished in the only fashion acceptable, to be killed.

And if the murderer fled to a town of refuge, they were allowed refuage until the high priest in that town died. Then they were required to leave the city, and in that time, the victims family could wait for them to leave and kill them and it was perfectly acceptable to God.

If a murder happened, and no killer was found, according to OT Law, the city had to provide one, guilty or not.

Paul says:

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." -Rom. 13:7 (KJV)

Down through the ages, man has not only been subject to God, but he is also subject to mans laws, disobey them:

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." -Rom. 13:2 (KJV)

I don't have a problem with the Council of Geneva sentencing him to death. He was warned not to come, and he did anyway.

In my humble opinion, he got what he deserved.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[twin1954]

And yet, God in the "Law" required a murderer to be punished in the only fashion acceptable, to be killed.

And if the murderer fled to a town of refuge, they were allowed refuage until the high priest in that town died. Then they were required to leave the city, and in that time, the victims family could wait for them to leave and kill them and it was perfectly acceptable to God.

If a murder happened, and no killer was found, according to OT Law, the city had to provide one, guilty or not.

Paul says:

"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." -Rom. 13:7 (KJV)

Down through the ages, man has not only been subject to God, but he is also subject to mans laws, disobey them:

"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." -Rom. 13:2 (KJV)

I don't have a problem with the Council of Geneva sentencing him to death. He was warned not to come, and he did anyway.

In my humble opinion, he got what he deserved.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I guess we have to reject Elijah as well because he put to death all the prophets of Baal after the Mt. Carmel encounter. Oh yeah and David too because he murdered Uziah in order to take his wife. Not to mention Paul who was consenting to the death of many believers. The whole arguement is ludicrous.

 

[DeaconDean]

I guess we have to reject Elijah as well because he put to death all the prophets of Baal after the Mt. Carmel encounter. Oh yeah and David too because he murdered Uziah in order to take his wife. Not to mention Paul who was consenting to the death of many believers. The whole arguement is ludicrous.

You know, it is fuuny. People want to point to Servetus and his execution in an attempt to discredit john Calvin, and Calvinism, while at the same time totally ignoring the acts of the other Reformers.

Luther called for attacks on German peasants and wrote an angry tract against the Jews, called ‘On the Jews and their Lies'. Zwingli, the Reformer of Zurich, supported the execution by drowning of the Anabaptist leader, Felix Manz. Sir Thomas More, England 's Catholic Lord Chancellor, presided over the execution of those he viewed as “heretics” in England during the reign of Henry the VIII. Each country of Europe in the sixteenth century felt that defending its religious views involved taking strong measures against those who disagreed. Toleration and acceptance of doctrinal differences were simply not sixteenth-century concepts.

Source

Lets look back at history.

It is strange that this incident should bring such odium upon Calvin and another example of the hatred of orthodox Christianity that it has. The facts are that mass executions were carried out in other places throughout this time. After the Peasants' War in Germany, after the siege of Munster, during the ruthless period of Roman Catholic dominance in Elizabethan England. Even as late as 1612 the authorities in England burned two men who held views like those of Servetus at the behest of the bishops of London and Lichfield. Thirty-nine people were burned at the stake for heresy between May of 1547 and March of 1550. The 16th century was not a time of great tolerance of heresy in any place in Europe.

Furthermore, Servetus was the only individual put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin's lifetime. Strange indignation it is that men focus upon this one and virtually ignore the hundreds executed in other parts of the world.

Further still, it must be remembered that Calvin's role in this entire matter was only that of expert witness at the trial. The idea that Calvin was "the dictator of Geneva" is utterly unfounded in fact. Calvin was never allowed to become a citizen of Geneva. He was technically among the habitants — resident legal aliens who had no right to vote, no right to carry weapons, and no right to hold public office. A habitant might be a pastor or teacher if there was no Genevan citizen who was qualified for the position. This is why Calvin was allowed to be pastor of the church there. But he was always denied access to the decision-making machinery.

The only place where Calvin could have exerted significant influence was in the Consistory. But the Consistory was completely bypassed in this entire matter by the council apparently in an effort to demonstrate that they were far more concerned for holiness and purity than Calvin (and some of the people) had thought. They sought thus to shut Calvin out of this matter as much as possible.

Why then all the outrage at Calvin? Simply because of who he was and what he taught. The world can live with Romanism and Arminianism, it cannot abide the truth of the Reformed faith. For this reason Calvin and Calvinism have been the enemies of the world and will be till the world ends.

Calvin vs. Servetus, by J. Steven Wilkins

Ever heard the phrase "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out!"

This phrase has been attributed to Marines, the Rangers, and other SpecialForces groups.

Actully, this is a variation of a phrase uttered by Abbot Arnaud Amaury, head of the Cistercian Order. He reportedly told confused crusaders who could not distinguish between Catholics and Albigensians [Cathars] to "neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet" roughly translated "Kill them all. God will know his own." Estimates from the time, including Catholic sources, claim anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 men women and children were killed in this massacre, although this is certainly an exaggeration as the total population of Beziers was likely no more than eight or nine thousand.

Source

Yet no one says anything about this.

People want to attempt to discredit Calvinism by always, always bringing up the topic of Servetus.

Fact is, he got what he deserved.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Hammster]

Paul quotes the old Testament out of context all them time, so does the author of Hebrews.

And you are neither, so I would suggest you cease from doing so, unless you are inspired.

and on the fourth, I am no reasons why anyone should listen to me. If you don't want to listen to me, than don't. Simple as that.

Really? You posted but don't have anything worth considering? But obviously you wanted me to listen to you.

If you have a point, make it and defend it.