Free Offer?

[Pedrito]

I found an interesting website dedicated to Baptist history.

http://www.learnthebible.org/are-baptists-historically-calvinists.html
http://www.learnthebible.org/are-baptists-historically-calvinists.html
Among other things, it quotes from the Baptist historian Thomas Armitage regarding the London Baptist Confession of Faith in 1643, thus:

”By 1643, the Calvinist Baptist Churches in and about London had increased to seven, while the non-Calvinistic Churches numbered thirty-nine, forty-six in all. The English Calvinistic Churches, together with a French Church of the some faith, eight in all, issued a Confession of Faith in 1643." --History of the Baptists by Thomas Armitage, 1887, p.460.

In fact, the thought was put forward that the statement was issued to bolster the stance of those seven churches and their as yet unorthodox (within the Baptist movement) doctrine.

It would seem that Baptist church belief up until that time had been in Man's free will to choose.

(Predestinationists appear to overlook this interesting piece of history in their zeal to support their belief system.)

That being the case, and if Baptists can indeed trace their origins back to the apostolic church as stated in another thread, then the established historical teaching (non-calvinistic) at that time, must be the original apostolic understanding as well.

Later confessions of faith (e.g. The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon) containing Calvanist doctrine, appear to have had their origin in the (apparently ground breaking)1643 version.


So what is someone like me supposed to believe?

 

[JM]

Don't stop at the link above but ask Uncle Google for more info. For example, Calvinistic Baptists were the first to stress immersion, Trinitarian theology, modern missions, etc. Before that English Baptists were a mix of theological leanings which included pacifism. General Baptists would sprinkle or pour as a mode of baptism. Uncle Google will help you sort it out and it will soon become clear that Particular Baptists did all the heavy theological lifting.


Yours in the Lord.

 

[twin1954]

I found an interesting website dedicated to Baptist history.

http://www.learnthebible.org/are-baptists-historically-calvinists.html
Among other things, it quotes from the Baptist historian Thomas Armitage regarding the London Baptist Confession of Faith in 1643, thus:



In fact, the thought was put forward that the statement was issued to bolster the stance of those seven churches and their as yet unorthodox (within the Baptist movement) doctrine.

It would seem that Baptist church belief up until that time had been in Man's free will to choose.

(Predestinationists appear to overlook this interesting piece of history in their zeal to support their belief system.)

That being the case, and if Baptists can indeed trace their origins back to the apostolic church as stated in another thread, then the established historical teaching (non-calvinistic) at that time, must be the original apostolic understanding as well.

Later confessions of faith (e.g. The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon) containing Calvanist doctrine, appear to have had their origin in the (apparently ground breaking)1643 version.


So what is someone like me supposed to believe?

The fact that Mr. Armitage was brought up and for many years preached as a Methodist, extremely Arminian in theology, tells me that he was a little biased in his history.

If you are interested in Baptist history try reading, "By His grace and for His Glory" by Tom Nettles, or if you can find it "The Story of the Baptists" by Cook or even "A History of the Baptists" by John T. Christian.

 

[twin1954]

The idea that Calvinism discourages evangelism is nonsense. All of the great evangelists, William Carey, Adroniam Judson, Johnathon Edwards, George Whitefield, C. H. Spurgeon to name a few, were all Calvinists.

Those such as Billy Sunday and Moody were followers of the methods of the great heretic Charles Finney.

 

[Skala]

Election fuels evangelism.

Without election, there would be nobody who would positively respond to the gospel.

This is how the Apostle Paul felt:

2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

 

[JM]

Some Christians have a very high, and therefore unbiblical, view of fallen man.

 

[Pedrito]

Thanks to JM and twin1954 for the information provided.

I conducted a broader search on the internet, and reviewed a number of pages, including a second look at pages I had already reviewed but had not mentioned.

With respect to the ideas we have been focusing on, issues regarding two concepts seem to have been clarified well:
1. The origin of the Baptist denomination in its various forms and component organisations;
2. The issue of what is termed “Calvanism” versus “Armininism”.

1. The Baptist denomination appears to have emerged from an originally incohesive mix of movements around the beginning of the 17th century.

2. With respect to Calvanism versus Arminianism, there appear to be three camps, which are labelled: Calvanism, Ultra-Calvanism, and Arminianism.

See following posts re my current understanding (which is open to correction) of those camps.

 

[Pedrito]

Re “Calvanism”, “Ultra-Calvanism”, and “Arminianism”. (My current understanding)

The first two categories place great store in the belief that all who were and are to be saved were selected by God from the beginning, and will be saved by Him whether or not they ever hear the gospel and the name of Jesus*.

The third rejects the teaching of fixed preselection of those who are to be saved, and has concentrated from the beginning on evangelism to save as many of the lost as possible.

“Ultra-Calvanism”

Based on the doctrine of the saved being preselected by God and not needing to hear the Gospel preached to obtain that salvation, the “Ultra-Calvanists” logically concluded that preaching to (especially) the lost in heathen countries was both unnecessary and counter-productive.

A heathen who was preselected to be saved would be saved whether that person heard the Gospel preached or not.

The conclusion sits well in a rational mind. Of course, it depends on the premise of preselection (election, as commonly taught) being correct.


* See The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon, Section 10.3.

 

[Pedrito]

Re “Calvanism”, “Ultra-Calvanism”, and “Arminianism”. (My current understanding)

The first two categories place great store in the belief that all who were and are to be saved were selected by God from the beginning, and will be saved by Him whether or not they ever hear the gospel and the name of Jesus*.

The third rejects the teaching of fixed preselection of those who are to be saved, and has concentrated from the beginning on evangelism to save as many of the lost as possible.

“Calvanism”

Those who identify themselves as “Calvanists” also believe that the saved were preselected by God and do not actually need to hear the Gospel preached to obtain that salvation. However, based on the examples set by (especially) two brave gentlemen who believed they should preach anyway, they preach to the general unsaved anyway (including the heathen).

The two-phase justification for doing that preaching, as I've heard it expressed and seen it written, is: (a) Jesus told us to do it; and (b) we don't know who is preselected by God and so we have to preach to everyone we can.

It is often stated that the preselection (Election) of those who will be saved is the basis for evangelism.

In fact, Skala in Post #85 said:

Election fuels evangelism.

Without election, there would be nobody who would positively respond to the gospel.

The conflict between the concept of preselection (as stated in various Confessions* - the Elect do not have to hear the Gospel to be saved), and the need to expose the preselected ones to the Gospel, seems to be overlooked.

Skala must not have read the verse he quoted properly:

This is how the Apostle Paul felt:

2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

(Apparently Paul did not believe people could be saved without hearing the Gospel. That is in direct contrast with the Confession* below.)

Another thing is, that the preaching as it is undertaken, leads to numerous false conversions, many of which are later regretted and retracted with published bitterness because of the tricky emotional methods employed to obtain those conversions. Billy Graham's evangelistic crusades were responsible for umpteen thousands of people making “decisions” which they later regretted and were even ashamed of.

The sensible question is, are those people “once saved always saved” as they are told, or are they “false conversions because they weren't among those preselected by God for salvation”?

I submit for consideration, that the whole scenario, which leads to false conversions based on deliberately induced emotionalism, detracts from God's glory.


* For example, The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon, Section10.3.

 

[Pedrito]

Re “Calvanism”, “Ultra-Calvanism”, and “Arminianism”. (My current understanding)

The first two place great store in the belief that all who were and are to be saved were selected by God from the beginning, and will be saved by Him whether or not they ever hear the gospel and the name of Jesus.*

The third rejects the teaching of fixed preselection of those who are to be saved, and has concentrated from the beginning on evangelism to save as many of the lost as possible.

“Arminianism”

Arminianism appears to be based on the premise that God in His sovereign will has permitted individual humans a predetermined degree of free will, and that they can choose to accept the Evangelical gospel or reject it.

They also believe that a person must hear and accept that gospel to be saved. (Romans 10:13,14,17)

The term “heretic” has been levelled at such people from within the ranks of Baptistism in this thread.

I wonder if a careful reading of Paul's statements regarding his activities might place him in danger of qualifying for the same label.

The “Arminian” perspective in particular, appears to form a sound and unshakable base for preaching the Evangelical Gospel in general, and for outreach to “the heathen” in particular.

A couple of major implications will be explored in the following post.


* For example, The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon, Section10.3.

 

[Pedrito]

Re “Calvanism”, “Ultra-Calvanism”, and “Arminianism”. (My current understanding)

The first two place great store in the belief that all who were and are to be saved were selected by God from the beginning, and will be saved by Him whether or not they ever hear the gospel and the name of Jesus.*

The third rejects the teaching of fixed preselection of those who are to be saved, and has concentrated from the beginning on evangelism to save as many of the lost as possible.


Important Implications From The Previous Posts.

Of interest was JM's indicating that it was the Calvanist wing that originally instituted immersion as the only valid form of baptism. The implication appeared to be that because it was the Calvanists that did that first, then Calvanist doctrine must be correct. The two are actually unrelated.

However, were the two to indeed be related, then would we not have to acknowledge that it was not the Calvanists, but the Ultra-Calvanists, that emphasised immersion baptism, and that by the same JM implication, the Ultra-Calvanistic perspective must be the correct one?

But in reality, ought we not go back as far as we can, and accept the doctrine of the original people who practiced immersion baptism, and accept the doctrines and understandings that they revealed in their writings?

Would that not mean that we end up with the apostles, with Jesus their instructor, and with the New Testament?

If we indeed did end up there, then would we not also have to concede (if we are honest) that words and expressions used by Jesus and the apostles must be translated in line with the traditional meanings and understandings of that time, and not with new meanings from pagan philosophy applied later on?

Where might that lead, I wonder?



* For example, The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon, Section10.3.

 

[JM]

Of interest was JM's indicating that it was the Calvanist wing that originally instituted immersion as the only valid form of baptism. The implication appeared to be that because it was the Calvanists that did that first, then Calvanist doctrine must be correct. The two are actually unrelated.

That was not the implication, I was stating that Particlar Baptists did the theological leg work for the modern Baptist church...the Arminians followed their lead.

 

[JM]

to acknowledge that it was not the Calvanists, but the Ultra-Calvanists

You need to be careful in your flippant definition of Calvinism.

Calvinism Chart

1. Hyper-Calvinism
Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.

2. Ultra High Calvinism
Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America

3. High Calvinism
Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink

4. Moderate Calvinism
Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney

5. Low Calvinism
Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal

6. Lutheranism
Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt

7. American Baptist
Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers

8. Arminianism
Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists

copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry

 

[twin1954]

Pedrito, your whole rebuttal of Calvinism is based in a false definition of Calvinism. Specifically that all Calvinists believe in election and therefore believe there is no need for the preaching of the Gospel. Until you acknowledge the truth that your accusation is a falsehood you will never understand or come to a conclusion. You are in fact arguing against a straw man.

 

[JM]

Pedrito, your whole rebuttal of Calvinism is based in a false definition of Calvinism. Specifically that all Calvinists believe in election and therefore believe there is no need for the preaching of the Gospel. Until you acknowledge the truth that your accusation is a falsehood you will never understand or come to a conclusion. You are in fact arguing against a straw man.

I second that.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #93 JM stated

You need to be careful in your flippant definition of Calvinism.

He then went on to list eight (8) variations within what might be termed the Calvanistic spectrum.

They were:

1. Hyper-Calvanism;
2. Ultra High Calvanism;
3. High Calvanism;
4. Moderate Calvanism;
5. Low Calvanism;
6. Lutheranism;
7. American Baptist;
8. Arminianism.

However, in documents relating to Baptistism in the 1600's, the three terms Ultra-Calvanism, Calvanism and Arminian are commonly used. Those three broad terms are used today as well.

A clear inconsistency in JM's approach is seen when one considers his contrast of dispensationalism versus non-dispensationalism in the Dispensationalism thread. He saw no problem in lumping together the following categories into one:

• Classical Dispensationalism;
• Traditional Dispensationalism;
• Progressive Dispensationalism;
• Hyper-Dispensationalism;
• Ultra-Dispensationalism.

So it would seem that the eight (8) theological variations were introduced as an attempt to muddy the water, and draw attention away from the incompatibility of two conflicting ideas held simultaneously by many Calvanists (but not by Ultra-Calvanists):

• Elect people are saved without ever hearing the Gospel (as stated in a number of Confessions*);
• The need for evangelism so that the elect can hear the Gospel and be saved.

What the list of eight (8) variations does show is how theologians can take (and have taken) the simple yet profound, God-given Gospel message, and complicated it (distorted it) almost beyond recognition.


Also, something I have never seen defined on the basis of Scripture, is the percentage of the elect who will supposedly be saved through hearing the Gospel preached, versus the percentage of the elect who will supposedly be saved without ever hearing the Gospel.


I float the thought: Might it not be wise to:

• Turf the theologians out;
• Return to “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3);
  • As it was clearly understood by the “primitive” church before the theologians stepped in.

Just a thought.


* E.g. The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon (Section 10.3)

 

[twin1954]

In Post #93 JM stated

He then went on to list eight (8) variations within what might be termed the Calvanistic spectrum.

They were:

1. Hyper-Calvanism;
2. Ultra High Calvanism;
3. High Calvanism;
4. Moderate Calvanism;
5. Low Calvanism;
6. Lutheranism;
7. American Baptist;
8. Arminianism.

However, in documents relating to Baptistism in the 1600's, the three terms Ultra-Calvanism, Calvanism and Arminian are commonly used. Those three broad terms are used today as well.

A clear inconsistency in JM's approach is seen when one considers his contrast of dispensationalism versus non-dispensationalism in the Dispensationalism thread. He saw no problem in lumping together the following categories into one:

• Classical Dispensationalism;
• Traditional Dispensationalism;
• Progressive Dispensationalism;
• Hyper-Dispensationalism;
• Ultra-Dispensationalism.

So it would seem that the eight (8) theological variations were introduced as an attempt to muddy the water, and draw attention away from the incompatibility of two conflicting ideas held simultaneously by many Calvanists (but not by Ultra-Calvanists):

• Elect people are saved without ever hearing the Gospel (as stated in a number of Confessions*);
• The need for evangelism so that the elect can hear the Gospel and be saved.

What the list of eight (8) variations does show is how theologians can take (and have taken) the simple yet profound, God-given Gospel message, and complicated it (distorted it) almost beyond recognition.


Also, something I have never seen defined on the basis of Scripture, is the percentage of the elect who will supposedly be saved through hearing the Gospel preached, versus the percentage of the elect who will supposedly be saved without ever hearing the Gospel.


I float the thought: Might it not be wise to:

• Turf the theologians out;
• Return to “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3);
  • As it was clearly understood by the “primitive” church before the theologians stepped in.

Just a thought.


* E.g. The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon (Section 10.3)

You twist the meaning of the 1689 LBC when you try to make it say that all Calvinists believe that the elect are saved without the preaching of the Gospel. What the section deals with is infants and those incapable of understanding the Gospel, mentally handicapped and such. For you to do so is not dealing honestly with what you are arguing against.

True, there has always been an element among Calvinists who are Hyper and believe that God saves His elect apart from the preaching of the Gospel, I was actually raised among them. But that has never been the doctrine taught generally by Calvinists nor is it Scriptural. Calvinists can preach the Gospel with more love and confidence because we know that God's elect will hear it and believe. I am an Ultra-High Calvinist and I know that the Scriptures teach that there is no salvation apart from the preaching of the Gospel.

So either quit building a straw man to tear down and deal honestly with us or quit dealing with us at all.

 

[Pedrito]

Also, note the statement from twin1954 in Post #94:

Pedrito, your whole rebuttal of Calvinism is based in a false definition of Calvinism. Specifically that all Calvinists believe in election and therefore believe there is no need for the preaching of the Gospel. Until you acknowledge the truth that your accusation is a falsehood you will never understand or come to a conclusion. You are in fact arguing against a straw man.

(emphasis added)

That is shown to be another cleverly worded misstatement, if the reader simply refers to (especially the opening statements) in Posts #88-91.

It was pointed out there that the Ultra-Calvanists and Calvanists (definitions used of Baptist perspectives in the 1600's, still appropriate today) share beliefs committed to writing in “The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon” (Section 10.3) and others like it (unless of course they don't so share?). Both believe that people can be saved without ever being exposed to the Gospel or hearing the name of Jesus.

The difference is that Ultra-Calvanists logically conclude that evangelism (especially to the heathen) is thus pointless – because the elect will be saved nonetheless. Calvanists on the other hand, evangelise anyway, choosing to ignore the fact that that activity can be seen to be pointless (unless the Confession is wrong).

So, I clearly did not state that

all Calvinists believe in election and therefore believe there is no need for the preaching of the Gospel

twin1954 knew that.

Do we therefore detect in Post #94 another example of (to use a word favoured by JM) sophistry?

It would seem so.

The technique showing itself in Post #94 is that of saying that someone stated something that they did not, then using that statement they did not make, against them.


It is worthy of note that JM (in Post #95) seconded twin1954's use of that technique. He even added a large, attention-grabbing “strawman” picture to emphatically draw people's attention away from the true fallacy.


Readers be aware.

 

[twin1954]

So, I clearly did not state that

All folks need do is go to post#89,90 and 91 to see that you very clearly and plainly say the very thing you say that you didn't.

Your whole argument is based in a lie and the fact that you know it to be so and still argue it speaks volumes.

 

[JM]

A clear inconsistency in JM's approach is seen when one considers his contrast of dispensationalism versus non-dispensationalism in the Dispensationalism thread. He saw no problem in lumping together the following categories into one:

• Classical Dispensationalism;
• Traditional Dispensationalism;
• Progressive Dispensationalism;
• Hyper-Dispensationalism;
• Ultra-Dispensationalism.

Unfortunately Dispensationalism is not a confessional movement, it’s not defined by a period of time and like a chameleon, changes according to the background it finds itself in. My criticisms of Dispensationalism are always leveled at Acts 2 Dispensationalism and the common thread that runs through Dispensational teachers like Darby, LSC, Ryrie and even MacArthur. The sin qua non of Dispensationalism (see Ryrie's work Dispensationalism Today where he defines it the same way I do) is the separation of the church and Israel into two separate peoples of God AND a falsely proclaimed “literal” hermeneutic.

Just another straw man Pedrito.

Yours in the Lord,

jm