Calvinism in the SBC

[the particular baptist]

Behe's Boy,

I wrote that free will was a teaching of the early church fathers and gave a number of examples. You responded:

I don't know which Bible you are reading, but the Bible is loaded with teaching on election and the free will of human beings. Only those who don't want to see it, don't see.

In Christ, Oz

Plain as the nose on your face. When it comes to being born again, there is no free-will.

John 1:12-13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The Holy Spirit

 

[AndOne]

The Canons of the Council of Orange, from which you have posted, are a refutation of the doctrine taught by Pelagius that all of Adam’s descendants were born with a depraved nature due to Adam’s sin. Arminius, in his writings, also refuted that doctrine. Moreover, NONE of the “TULIP” doctrines are found in the Canons of the Council of Orange. Furthermore, The Canons of the Council of Orange are a Roman Catholic document, and the Roman Catholic Church has NEVER agreed with ANY of the “TULIP” doctrines!

Check your history - Pelagius taught just the opposite of what you claim he did. Pelegius did not believe in the concept or original sin.

 

[JM]

yup, PG often floods you with colourful posts but he is often wrong.

 

[JM]

Some would have you believe the following;

Soteriology of the Fathers

The apostolic Fathers frequently mention that salvation was through the blood of Christ. Clement states: "Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance" (Cor. 7; cf. Cor. 23, 49; Barnabas 5). Clement's statement also seems to suggest unlimited atonement. Ignatius indicates it is faith in the blood of Christ that procures salvation (Smyrn. 6). Repentance is also emphasized (2 Clement 13; 19).
​

What else did the early church teach?

A prominent emphasis, however, is the necessity of works in salvation. In a lengthy discussion Clement emphasizes the importance of obedience in procuring salvation, indicating Lot was saved because of his hospitality (Cor. 11) as was Rahab (Cor. 12). Salvation also involves doing the will of the Father, keeping the flesh pure, and guarding the commandments of the Lord (2 Clement 8). Love is also necessary for entrance into the kingdom (2 Clement 9) as is the necessity of bidding farewell to worldly enjoyments and refusing evil lusts (2 Clement 16). Practicing righteousness is also essential (2 Clement 19).
​

Paul Enns notes very clearly;

These statements indicate a commendable emphasis on a godly walk, but at the same time confuse the salvation message and detract from the free grace of God. This is one of many doctrinal errors that surfaced very early in the history of Christian thought. [all indented quotes taken from The Moody Handbook of Theology, page 411]
​

jm

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Check your history - Pelagius taught just the opposite of what you claim he did. Pelegius did not believe in the concept or original sin.

Wow! I really messed up my first sentence in that post. My post should have read,

“The Canons of the Council of Orange, from which you have posted, are a refutation of the doctrine taught by Pelagius in which he denied that all of Adam’s descendants were born with a depraved nature due to Adam’s sin. Arminius, in his writings, also refuted that doctrine. Moreover, NONE of the “TULIP” doctrines are found in the Canons of the Council of Orange. Furthermore, The Canons of the Council of Orange are a Roman Catholic document, and the Roman Catholic Church has NEVER agreed with ANY of the “TULIP” doctrines!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Everything you said here is irrelevant my friend. My point was, monergistic soteriology existed long before the 16th century.

Monergistic theology is the very core, the root, the foundation of "Calvinism".

Further, TULIP is only 5 distinct doctrines because the Arminians first posed 5 disagreements with the reformed protestant church.

There was no such thing as "5 points of TULIP" before the Arminians turned it into 5 by their initial protest. The only thing that mattered was monergistic theology. So of course you won't find a reference to "TULIP" doctrines prior to the Arminian Remonstrance.

But as i said, all of this is irrelevant. The point is, men for thousands of years believed that we are saved because of God's mighty work, not ultimately because of some human decision.

As for it being a roman catholic document, your saying this shows an ignorance of church history my friend. Is it your belief that the RCC was and always has been the exact same as it is today? Of course not, that is silly, for we know that the reformation happened precisely because it had been changed too much over time! Hence the need for a reformation!

The council of orange was used by the Reformers to show the RCC that it had strayed from its own roots. The same church that once affirmed monergistic (God honoring) salvation eventually denied it (See Council of Trent)

The Roman Catholic Church has never denied that man’s free-will response to the ministry of the Holy Spirit is necessary for man’s salvation. The Canons of the Council of Orange are a refutation of the doctrine taught by Pelagius in which he denied that all of Adam’s descendants were born with a depraved nature due to Adam’s sin. They are NOT a refutation of the necessity of man’s free-will response to the ministry of the Holy Spirit for man’s salvation.

It is true that the soteriology of the Roman Catholic Church has been evolving, and I have posted on this subject in several threads. However, these changes to the soteriology of the Roman Catholic Church have been very recent.

These things, however, are all irrelevant to this thread which is about Calvinism in the SBC—that is, the doctrines of Calvinism that separate Calvinism from other systems of theology, that is, the five doctrines known today as the Five Points of Calvinism, ALL of which were first conceived in the 16th century as a consequence of an erroneous understanding of the sovereignty of God—an erroneous understanding of the sovereignty of God that has its roots in the debates between Pelagius and Augustine over the nature of the unregenerate man.

Pelagius denied the doctrine taught by the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers that all of Adam’s descendants were born with a depraved nature due to Adam’s sin, and Augustine vigorously defended the doctrine taught by the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. As a consequence of this intense debate, Augustine’s understanding of the unregenerate man darkened to the point where he no longer believed that the man in Romans 7:14-25 was an unregenerate Jew because, according to his new understanding of the unregenerate man, an unregenerate man could not say, “συνηδομαι γαρ τω νομω του θεου” (Latin = condelector enim legi Dei). Consequently, Augustine came to believe that Romans 7:14-25 depicts the spiritual state of Paul the Apostle and of all regenerate men. Calvin believed in this latter interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 and believed that the unregenerate man is so extremely depraved that he is unable, even with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to come to Christ upon hearing the gospel because he is incapable of faith in God prior to being regenerated.

Therefore, from Calvin’s perspective, the unregenerate man can have no part in his salvation. Salvation, therefore, must be dependent exclusively upon God and His will. It is inconceivable to me how Calvin could have believed this in view of the fact that we find in the Greek New Testament the Greek verb for believe in the imperative mood where unregenerate men are commanded to believe, that is, to have faith in Christ. Moreover, throughout the Old Testament, we read of masses of regenerate Jews having faith in God for their salvation.

The council of orange was used by the Reformers to show the RCC that it had strayed from its own roots. The same church that once affirmed monergistic (God honoring) salvation eventually denied it (See Council of Trent)

These statements is not true.

 

[JM]

unsubscribing

 

[Skala]

the five doctrines known today as the Five Points of Calvinism, ALL of which were first conceived in the 16th century as a consequence of an erroneous understanding of the sovereignty of God

Credibility...LOST!

 

[DeaconDean]

Paul Enns notes very clearly;

These statements indicate a commendable emphasis on a godly walk, but at the same time confuse the salvation message and detract from the free grace of God. This is one of many doctrinal errors that surfaced very early in the history of Christian thought. [all indented quotes taken from The Moody Handbook of Theology, page 411]
​

jm

I like your quote from Paul Enns book.

Let me quote another:

The distinction between Pelagius and Augustine was sharp. Pelagius believed man was born neutral without a depraved will, and without an inherant tendancy toward evil. He believed man had the ability to choose to serve God without any need of God's grace. Augustine believed Adam's fall had affected the entire human race so that man was throughly corrupt, his will inclined toward evil. Only the intervention of GOd's grace could save man; man was not free to choose good. Salvation was not man cooperating with God, but man was completely dependant on God's grace for salvation.

Pelagius was ultimately accused of heresy at the Synod of Jerusalem, and Pelagianism was condemned as heresy in AD 416 at the Synods of Carthage and Mileve. The Council of Ephesus also condemned Pelagianism in AD 431.

Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, Il., Copyright 1989, Chapter 28, Ancient Theology, Ancient Anthropology, p. 424-425

Let me quote another.

Robert A. Baker in his book "A Summary of Christian History" says:

In 416, Bishop Innocent condemned the movement. After his death that year, Bishop Zosimus publicaaly approved the teachings of Pelagius and Coelestius. In the following year, the North African bishops condemned the Pelagian movement. Even the Roman Emperor Honorius in Constnatinople issed an edict condemning the Roman bishop and any others holding to this heresy. Finally Bishop Zosimus of Rome changed his position and approved of the African view, ordering all western bishops to make the shift in doctrine at the same time.

Robert A. Baker, A Summary of Christian History, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tenn., Copyright 1994, Chapter 6, Roman Catholic Foundations, How Are Persons Saved?, p. 81

What was it Pelagius taught?

...man is born neutral with the ability and freedom to choose good or evil; man is not born with original sin. Because God creates each soul individually at birth, each person is born free and neutral as Adam...each person was born with a free will and the ability to choose good as well as bad. He rejected the notion that man's will had been affected by the fall of Adam.

Ibid, p. 423, 527

and the Roman Catholic Church has NEVER agreed with ANY of the “TULIP” doctrines!

It would appear that this statement is in error.

At one point, some Roman Catholic Councils agree with the notion that there was no such thing as "free-will" as designated by the decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Carthage, and Mileve, and by the Council of Ephesus.

And unless I'm mistaken, R. L. Dabney lumps "Original Sin," "Total Depravity," and "Inability of the Will" all under the heading of "Original Sin".

cf.: The Five Points of Calvinism

Paul Enns goes further to say:

Unfortunately semi-Pelagianism, which attempted to follow a mediating position, resulted. Followers of this new mediating theology stressed both the grace of God and the free will of man were operative in salvation. Man could co-operate with God in salvation because his will was weakened but not fatally injured by the fall. Semi-Pelagianism ultimately came to full fruition in the Roman Catholic church.

Ibid, p. 425

God Bless

Till all are one.