Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[AMR]

Brother AMR it was the board that you stated in an earlier post and after rereading the denial response from the forum, they gave three reasons why my application could be denied. I believed that I was denied because of number 3 but it may have been because I am not a member of my church as of yet (although I don't know how they would know that). After rereading the rules of application it does say that if you are not a member of a church you need not apply (I must have missed that). I do apologize for ranting about this as I should have kept it to myself but I was very excited to fellowship with that forum as well.

I sort of suspected this was the case and also assumed the rejection was because of church membership.

Thanks for the background.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I have not met one Arminian minded member of a Reformed Baptist church. In fact many of the people that fellowship at Reformed Baptist Churches are people that come out of Arminian churches once they realize the truth is not being preached there.

I have. Not surprised though considering some people in presby churches are Arminians as well. My favorite is when I get called a hypercalvinist for being a historic 5 point Calvinist usually by some ignorant "reformed baptist".

 

[Bryne]

How would you define hypercalvinist? What distinguishes them from a historic 5 point calvinist?

 

[Anoetos]

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who takes Calvinism too far.

More specifically it is someone who denies that the reprobate have any responsibility to believe the Gospel thought they will not. The ramifications of this are that they deny that God loves the non-elect in any sense and, in extreme cases, repudiate missions and evangelism.

They usually identify grace exclusively with God's application of the work of Christ to the elect and deny any idea of "common grace".

Yes, there are hyper-Calvinists on CF.

 

[Bryne]

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who takes Calvinism too far.

ah...but how far is too far.

More specifically it is someone who denies that the reprobate have any responsibility to believe the Gospel thought they will not. The ramifications of this are that they deny that God loves the non-elect in any sense and, in extreme cases, repudiate missions and evangelism.

They usually identify grace exclusively with God's application of the work of Christ to the elect and deny any idea of "common grace".

Yes, there are hyper-Calvinists on CF.

So...to make sure I am understanding.

Hypercalvinists teach that:

God doesn't love those who are not predestined to be saved.

We are not to bother with missionary work or evangelism.

There is no such thing as common grace.



So...what about double predestination?


I was educated in a Calvinist school...and I did not consider it to be hypercalvinist...just regular Calvinist. I was taught double predestination. Recently, I was told that this is a hypercalvinist belief. To me, it seems like a standard Calvinist belief.

 

[Anoetos]

It depends what you mean by "double predestination". Defined properly, classical Calvinists DO accept it. That is, it is not an identifying feature of hyper-Calvinism, and you have good insight because it is often presented by people who are not very careful, or are ignorant, to be exclusive to that.

Defined properly it is the belief that God's sovereignty is so meticulous that it encompasses not only the salvation of the elect, but the damnation of the reprobate. Most of the confessions are less explicit and say simply that God has elected some to salvation, but "passes over" the rest, which has the same net effect.

 

[Bryne]

It depends what you mean by "double predestination". Defined properly, classical Calvinists DO accept it. That is, it is not an identifying feature of hyper-Calvinism, and you have good insight because it is often presented by people who are not very careful, or are ignorant, to be exclusive to that.

Defined properly it is the belief that God's sovereignty is so meticulous that it encompasses not only the salvation of the elect, but the damnation of the reprobate. Most of the confessions are less explicit and say simply that God has elected some to salvation, but "passes over" the rest, which has the same net effect.

That is how I understood it.

It seems that I am running into more and more Calvinists online who hold to single predestination rather than double predestination. Is this a recent development among Calvinists?

 

[Anoetos]

Well, that is probably alright as long as God's absolute monergistic providence in the salvation of sinners is maintained. I would probably tell them that if it does, it necessarily entails some direct provision for the destiny of the reprobate.

 

[ReformedChapin]

That is how I understood it.

It seems that I am running into more and more Calvinists online who hold to single predestination rather than double predestination. Is this a recent development among Calvinists?

To be a historic Calvinist you must adhere to the Synod of Dorth which means you must adhere to double predestination. In simple terms God has predestined some to salvation and predestined some to damnation. I know this is heresy to most Lutherans but it's just our historic position. There is lots of so called Calvinist out there that hold to variations of this, frankly it's not the historic position. I know I used to call myself a single predestination Calvinist, I was wrong and I was misinformed.

I haven't seen a formal definition to hypercalvinism. I know in several past controversies hypercalvinist have been defined as those who preach that we don't need to evangelize but God will save the elect on his own. I have seen other definitions that pop up as the denial of common grace but no confession or formal church government papers. I welcome to be corrected on this though.

 

[Anoetos]

I agree with Chapin on double predestination. I also agree with him on "defining" Hypercalvinism; it's a lot like what the judge said about obscenity, "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it."

All I wanted to do was throw out a few markers, if it seemed that I was exhaustively defining it, I apologize and claim sole fault.

I do believe I read that the word was first coined to refer to those particular Baptists of Spurgeon's day who denied "duty faith"; the doctrine that even the reprobate have a "duty" to believe the Gospel though they would not.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Must be a very restrictive discussion site. One of the most restrictive ones I know, and am a member at, is The Puritan Board, but even there both views are allowed within narrow restrictions in order to preserve the peace.

Restrictive is an understatement. I can't remain in good standing on the puritan board to save my life. I'm simply not "reformed" enough for them.

I'm never going back.

To the OP, you won't find a good calvinist only discussion board. They always get wrapped up in confessionalism. There was an interesting one once called grace but it didn't survive. This forum, CARM, and the Baptist Board are really all there are unless you want to get rejected and ridiculed.

No offense to anyone here because we have a good crowd, but there are certain types of calvinists that are basically the meanest people on the internet. They don't think that anyone but "law abiding" calvinists are going to heaven and they are very divisive. Stay away from a bunch like that because it doesn't reflect the fruits of the Spirit.

 

[the particular baptist]

I haven't seen a formal definition to hypercalvinism. I know in several past controversies hypercalvinist have been defined as those who preach that we don't need to evangelize but God will save the elect on his own.

Thats pretty close. It describes many, but not all, American Primitive Baptists. That God's elect live and die as Hindus, Buddhists, Muhammadans, etc, because Christ died for them, and even though they are born again, they are ignorant of the gospel, etc. They call people like us "gospel regenerationists".

 

[the particular baptist]

I am pretty well versed in Baptist history.

Not as well as you think.

You seem to imply that in 1Corinthians 15:3-4 the gospel is the just the historical facts of the Lord's life, death, resurrection. I disagree.


For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Youre aware "according to the scriptures" is the OT. The OT teaches a particular Atonement. The Christ that "arminian-ish" professing christians has nothing in common with the Christ and His Work of the OT. They have the same name, thats about it.

In Hebrews 8 and the NC promise, God states in no uncertain terms that His people "will" know Him. The god of "arminian-ish" christians is a helpless beggar, no ? He is powerless to do anything unless the mighty will of man gives him permission. Is this how the God of the Bible makes His people "know" Him ? Some of His children know Him as sovereign and others know him as a beggar at the feet of human will ?

 

[the particular baptist]

Within God's Sovereign plan He allows error to be held, even among His people.

Hebrews 8 says differently. This is where we disagree most, i think, besides the law of Sinai.

I believe regeneration is supernatural. It is a cataclysmic event in a sinners life. The Lord Jesus is revealed in his heart. The grace of God apprehends him iand he acknowledges "Salvation is of the Lord".

I have yet to meet an "arminian-ish" professing christian that describes their "born again" experience as supernatural, as being conquered by the Lord. They grew up in church, a "christian family", they "decided" to "ask" and "invite" Jesus into their hearts.

Agree to disagree, i guess.

 

[AndOne]

Restrictive is an understatement. I can't remain in good standing on the puritan board to save my life. I'm simply not "reformed" enough for them.

I'm never going back.

Couldn't agree more... That has been my experience as well.

No offense ot anyone here because we have a good crowd, but there are certain types of calvinists that are basically the meanest people on the internet. They don't think that anyone but "law abiding" calvinists are going to heaven and they are very divisive. Stay away from a bunch like that because it doesn't reflect the fruits of the Spirit.

yep - agree with this as well...

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Couldn't agree more... That has been my experience as well.



yep - agree with this as well...

I found this interesting blog by a Pastor who parted ways with the PB back in 06.

pastorway: pastorway and the Puritan Board

 

[msortwell]

In Hebrews 8 and the NC promise, God states in no uncertain terms that His people "will" know Him. The god of "arminian-ish" christians is a helpless beggar, no ? He is powerless to do anything unless the mighty will of man gives him permission. Is this how the God of the Bible makes His people "know" Him ? Some of His children know Him as sovereign and others know him as a beggar at the feet of human will ?

Part of the problem is that we often listen to the theology of the Arminians rather than to their testimonies. I cannot count the number of times that I have heard those who profess to hold to a "free will" theology while offering a personal testimony of having "no interest in" or an antagonism for, the things of Christ, only to be brought to a place where they seemed have no choice other than to trust Him. I have to laugh to myself when they, on one hand, emphasize the need to choose Christ, but on the other freely offer that God "hit me over the head with a 2 by 4" or otherwise brought them "kicking and screaming" to faith in Him. Often their testimonies are closer to expressions of a sovereign grace experience than one that supports their expressed theological view.

 

[msortwell]

Originally Posted by msortwell View Post

Within God's Sovereign plan He allows error to be held, even among His people.

Hebrews 8 says differently. This is where we disagree most, i think, besides the law of Sinai.

I believe regeneration is supernatural. It is a cataclysmic event in a sinners life. The Lord Jesus is revealed in his heart. The grace of God apprehends him iand he acknowledges "Salvation is of the Lord".

I have yet to meet an "arminian-ish" professing christian that describes their "born again" experience as supernatural, as being conquered by the Lord. They grew up in church, a "christian family", they "decided" to "ask" and "invite" Jesus into their hearts.

Agree to disagree, i guess.

Well, in my statement that you quoted above I am most certainly correct, otherwise one of us (you or I) is NOT one of God's people . . . and your doctrine of baptism wouldn't be wrong.

 

[AndOne]

I found this interesting blog by a Pastor who parted ways with the PB back in 06.

pastorway: pastorway and the Puritan Board

Thanks for sharing this - I couldn't agree with the guy more. This statement says it all about those boards: "So there you have it. The hyper-covenantal theology that undergirds the Puritan Board is not Puritan at all! It is a theology that teaches that anyone who rejects the doctrines of grace or the doctrine of infant baptism is an apostate, not justified, reprobate, and hence, going to hell!"

He also stated this type of thinking is indicative of "federal vision."

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Thanks for sharing this - I couldn't agree with the guy more. This statement says it all about those boards: "So there you have it. The hyper-covenantal theology that undergirds the Puritan Board is not Puritan at all! It is a theology that teaches that anyone who rejects the doctrines of grace or the doctrine of infant baptism is an apostate, not justified, reprobate, and hence, going to hell!"

He also stated this type of thinking is indicative of "federal vision."

On the last point I have to disagree strongly. FV folk have been accused of a great deal (much of which I believe to be inaccurate) but what is said above is certainly not true.

I have known and do know (being from Louisiana) a fair number of FV types, including some very good friends. The FV people/Churches of which I know that have left the PCA have mostly gravitated to the CRE. The CRE is a loose group of Calvinistic Christian Churches. They allow Baptists and Presbyterian Churches into their number. You can be a credo or a paedobaptist and be a church or member of a Church in the denomination. CRE churches must hold to a Calvinistic Baptist, Reformed or Presbyterian Confession.

I have also never met an FV type that believes you must be a Calvinist to be saved.

The FV people are more covenantal and more sacramental than your average PCA Presbyterain, but they do not fit the bill above.

Kenith