Reformed Baptists

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm a "Reformed" Baptist and becoming more and more Reformed everyday.

Many of us refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession as a standard and the standard rejects 4 pointerism.

jm

My Baptist denomination believes that creeds and confessions of faith stifle learning and growing in Christ, and I agree with that position. Good examples of this are seminaries that require their faculty to believe in the seminaries creedal position. The obvious and inescapable result is that the faculty dare not study the Bible lest they learn that one or more points in the seminaries creed is contrary to the teaching of the Bible causing them to lose their job and their livelihood.

 

[JM]

So...you baptize by pouring or sprinkling like the other Arminian free will Baptists? The Particular Baptists, those that gave rise to the modern Baptist distinctives, didn’t baptize by immersion. It was the Particular Baptists that placed emphasis on immersion so you reject immersion based on it being, “new and novel doctrines, doctrines that were concocted by men?” Anytime you have men called by God to gather, men that are given the Holy Spirit, they will take the Bible seriously and “Calvinism” quickly becomes the norm.

Also, the Baptists before the rise of the Particular Baptists, were closer to the radical Anabaptists. John Smith even joined the Anabaptists and is enshrined in Anabaptist history as such.

It’s difficult to argue against the blessings the SBC experience when they maintained a confessional subscription. The rest is just supposition and lacks any merit. Your dogma against confessions is stifling. It runs contrary to believing in the local church and their work to build up the Saints by grounding them in a biblical theology that is also historical. The very fact that your church has a creed against creeds is strange.

Lol

jm

 

[JM]

Oh, and for the record. Those Baptists before the nasty Calvinists arrived...used CREEDS and CONFESSIONS! Plenty of them. In fact the tradition many hold to, but refuse to acknowledge due to a modernist mindset, wrote a confession in 1678 and closely follows the Westminster.

Here it is: http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/orthodox-creed.pdf

 

[Hammster]

I am an historical Baptist (before Calvinism was brought into our Baptist churches), which means that I reject all five points of Calvinism as new and novel doctrines, doctrines that were concocted by men rather than learned from the Bible.

You are so funny. I never knew you had such a sense of humor. Good on ya.

 

[JM]

Let's not forget that we all agree to abide by creeds when we joined CF.

CF supports the following as a statement of faith:


The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.


Discussions about Nicene and Trinitarian beliefs may take place in the orthodox Christians only forums, all discussions regarding non-Nicene and non-Trinitarian topics will take place in the Unorthodox Doctrinal Discussion forum. Those topics include (but are not limited to)
● Universalism
● Open Theism
● Full Preterism
● Trinitarianism
● Annihilationism
● Discussions related to unorthodox Christian religions

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean, I like how you wrote that it was a "safeguard." Confessions and creeds are still used that way today.

Peace,

jm

And they should rightfully be so.

But, I do know there are certain churches that "make"/"force" you to sign/agree/adhere/recite certain creeds as a condition for membership.

And that is what I'm against.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I am an historical Baptist (before Calvinism was brought into our Baptist churches), which means that I reject all five points of Calvinism as new and novel doctrines, doctrines that were concocted by men rather than learned from the Bible.

So I guess your over 300 years old?

You do realize that the 2nd London Baptist confession and the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist confesions are "Calvinistic"?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Oh, and for the record. Those Baptists before the nasty Calvinists arrived...used CREEDS and CONFESSIONS! Plenty of them. In fact the tradition many hold to, but refuse to acknowledge due to a modernist mindset, wrote a confession in 1678 and closely follows the Westminster.

Here it is: http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/orthodox-creed.pdf

I wonder if he is aware that in 1816, here in Sandy Creek No. Carolina, the Sandy Creek Association, constitued in 1758, issued their Confession and up on reading it, it is strickly "Calvinistic". Just a mere 74 years after the Philadelphia Baptist Associations confession.

And I wonder if he is aware that the Philadelphia Baptist Associations confession is 99% the same as the 2nd London Baptist confession of 1642 which is...Calvinistic!

Calvinism, Arminianism has been around in one form or another, since before this country was founded. The fact that the Philadelphia Baptists Associations confession is Calvinistic before this country had a "Declaration of Independance" proves it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JLR1300]

there are four positions you can have about creeds or confessions in churches.

1. A congregation can have no creed or doctrinal statement of any kind. In that situation you have freedom but no practical safeguard.

2. A congregation can have a creed or a doctrinal statement. In that situation you have both freedom and a safegard. You have freedom because if the congregation discovers something unbiblical with their doctrinal statement they can vote to make a change in it. They have a practical safegard because when someone wants to join the church they can easily and quickly go over their beliefs to see if the person joining agrees with their doctrine. It's much less practical to go through the entire
Bible. So anyway... in this situation the church has both freedom and a safegard.

3. A congregation can have a confession or doctrinal statement which is shared by many other congregations on a voluntary basis but if a church decides that it no longer finds all of the doctrinal statement to be biblical it is free to leave the group. In this situation you still have a little freedom and a lot of safeguard. In this situation you are in a situation where it is almost impossible to do anything about it if you find something unbiblical in the confession because people are almost always unwilling to vote to leave a denomination or an association. So you have a huge safegard and a tiny, tiny bit of freedom.

4. You can have a congregation where a church has a confession and shares it with many other congregations and also has a governing body higher than the congregations to enforce it. This is like Presbyterians. In this situation you have a total and absolute safeguard and no freedom whatsoever. Even if you find something completely stupid and utterly unbiblical in the confession you can't do a single thing about it.

Now of these four concepts ... the first one is almost unworkable... the second one gives you both a safeguard and freedom to Grow and progress in the Knowledge of Christ and His word. The third one (which is like the SBC) gives you a little freedom but hinders the churches quite a bit from being open minded to the scriptures. The forth one almost completely shuts down any possiblity for growth in understanding by the church throughout the centuries except maybe on some minor side issue that was never addressed in the creed because it was of no importance in the first place.

Of the 4 the 2nd one is best, the third one is one you might have to accept in a pinch if you cannot find another church in your community. The forth one is out of the question... those people are in theological chains and are mired in the mud of tradition and have no hope for advancement and yet are full of arrogance because they feel that they have the truth and everyone else is off the historic path of truth.

 

[DeaconDean]

there are four positions you can have about creeds or confessions in churches.

1. A congregation can have no creed or doctrinal statement of any kind. In that situation you have freedom but no practical safeguard.

2. A congregation can have a creed or a doctrinal statement. In that situation you have both freedom and a safegard. You have freedom because if the congregation discovers something unbiblical with their doctrinal statement they can vote to make a change in it. They have a practical safegard because when someone wants to join the church they can easily and quickly go over their beliefs to see if the person joining agrees with their doctrine. It's much less practical to go through the entire
Bible. So anyway... in this situation the church has both freedom and a safegard.

3. A congregation can have a confession or doctrinal statement which is shared by many other congregations on a voluntary basis but if a church decides that it no longer finds all of the doctrinal statement to be biblical it is free to leave the group. In this situation you still have a little freedom and a lot of safeguard. In this situation you are in a situation where it is almost impossible to do anything about it if you find something unbiblical in the confession because people are almost always unwilling to vote to leave a denomination or an association. So you have a huge safegard and a tiny, tiny bit of freedom.

4. You can have a congregation where a church has a confession and shares it with many other congregations and also has a governing body higher than the congregations to enforce it. This is like Presbyterians. In this situation you have a total and absolute safeguard and no freedom whatsoever. Even if you find something completely stupid and utterly unbiblical in the confession you can't do a single thing about it.

Now of these four concepts ... the first one is almost unworkable... the second one gives you both a safeguard and freedom to Grow and progress in the Knowledge of Christ and His word. The third one (which is like the SBC) gives you a little freedom but hinders the churches quite a bit from being open minded to the scriptures. The forth one almost completely shuts down any possiblity for growth in understanding by the church throughout the centuries except maybe on some minor side issue that was never addressed in the creed because it was of no importance in the first place.

Of the 4 the 2nd one is best, the third one is one you might have to accept in a pinch if you cannot find another church in your community. The forth one is out of the question... those people are in theological chains and are mired in the mud of tradition and have no hope for advancement and yet are full of arrogance because they feel that they have the truth and everyone else is off the historic path of truth.

Creeds and confessions are nice. But they should never be used to bind the conscious or the believer.

Dr. Jimmy Draper once said:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.​

And Ernest Reisinger once wrote:

One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.

Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.

The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).

http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/re...goodnews02.htm

Like I said, they are nice, they say in short form, what we believe.

But I do not accept that they be used to bind a person.

And they should never be used as a requirement for church membership.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BBAS 64]

I'm a "Reformed" Baptist and becoming more and more Reformed everyday.

Many of us refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession as a standard and the standard rejects 4 pointerism.

jm

I am with my good brother here.... a 4 pointer would be known as a Christmas Calvinist as the have "No-L".

In Him,

Bill

 

[JM]

I am with my good brother here.... a 4 pointer would be known as a Christmas Calvinist as the have "No-L".

In Him,

Bill

I thought a "Christmas" Calvinist got their name from Christmas Evans!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Anytime you have men called by God to gather, men that are given the Holy Spirit, they will take the Bible seriously and “Calvinism” quickly becomes the norm

My dear readers,

This post wildly contradicts church history. None of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century, and today only a small fraction of Christian churches teach all five points, and fewer that one fourth of them teach even one point of Calvinism. Of the exegetical commentaries on the individual books of the of the Greek New Testament published in the last 40 years by major publishers, only a very small fraction are Calvinistic, and those few are ultraconservative in their theology and dismiss as nonsense factual information that favors even a slightly liberal position.

In many other threads, some Calvinists have claimed that one or more of the five points of Calvinism are found in a document prior to the 16th century, and have even quoted from such a document. However, when these quotes have been read in a much fuller context, it has been consistently seen that the author of the document is NOT presenting a Calvinistic view.

The fact that none of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century is of critical importance because, if the Bible does indeed teach Calvinism, the Bible so very poorly worded that no one could understand what it teaches, even about salvation, until a man named Calvin came along and deciphered it. Furthermore, if the entire church was unable to understand the Bible for 1,500 years, what guarantee do we have that anyone today correctly understands the Bible?

 

[twin1954]

My dear readers,

This post wildly contradicts church history. None of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century, and today only a small fraction of Christian churches teach all five points, and fewer that one fourth of them teach even one point of Calvinism. Of the exegetical commentaries on the individual books of the of the Greek New Testament published in the last 40 years by major publishers, only a very small fraction are Calvinistic, and those few are ultraconservative in their theology and dismiss as nonsense factual information that favors even a slightly liberal position.

In many other threads, some Calvinists have claimed that one or more of the five points of Calvinism are found in a document prior to the 16th century, and have even quoted from such a document. However, when these quotes have been read in a much fuller context, it has been consistently seen that the author of the document is NOT presenting a Calvinistic view.

The fact that none of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century is of critical importance because, if the Bible does indeed teach Calvinism, the Bible so very poorly worded that no one could understand what it teaches, even about salvation, until a man named Calvin came along and deciphered it. Furthermore, if the entire church was unable to understand the Bible for 1,500 years, what guarantee do we have that anyone today correctly understands the Bible?

What you fail to mention is that prior to the sixteenth century was a long time known as the Dark Ages where the RCC ruled the known world and only the elite were even allowed to read the Scriptures. In fact only the elite were even able to read. So your point is moot.

More than that you ignore both Augustine and Aquinas. If you are going to argue history then actually use history.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

What you fail to mention is that prior to the sixteenth century was a long time known as the Dark Ages where the RCC ruled the known world and only the elite were even allowed to read the Scriptures. In fact only the elite were even able to read.

What you fail to mention are the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers whom it pleased God to use to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity and establish the New Testament Canon, and all of the Roman Catholic scholars up to the 16th century (and all of them since then!).

So your point is moot.

If my point was moot, numerous Calvinists would not have invested thousands of hours searching unsuccessfully for even one pre-sixteenth century document that presents a Calvinistic view of even one of the five points.

More than that you ignore both Augustine and Aquinas. If you are going to argue history then actually use history.

I have not ignored either Augustine or Aquinas—neither of whom wrote anything that supports even one of the five points of Calvinism. Proof of this fact has been posted in other threads and, besides that, all of their writing can be read on the internet.

 

[JM]

My dear readers,

This post wildly contradicts church history.

My Dear, sweet, wonderful readers...

I will not type in huge fonts to make my posts seem more impressive or important. If you are willing to spend some time reading and verifying the information posted on CF you will soon find that many will read dogmatically into history was isn't there. History proves the doctrines of grace, so does scripture, which of course is more important. For example Augustine (354-430), Prosper of Aquitaine (390-455), Gottschalk (808-867), Peter Lombard (1096-1164), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349), Gregory of Rimini (1300-1358....all taught limited atonement! PG is incorrect in his assumption.

None of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century, and today only a small fraction of Christian churches teach all five points, and fewer that one fourth of them teach even one point of Calvinism. Of the exegetical commentaries on the individual books of the of the Greek New Testament published in the last 40 years by major publishers, only a very small fraction are Calvinistic, and those few are ultraconservative in their theology and dismiss as nonsense factual information that favors even a slightly liberal position.

Your local library will probably have a service called interlibrary loan or something along that lines. If you want to see how wrong PG is on the matter visit your library and request, "Pillars of Grace: AD. 100-1564" by Steve Lawson. It is a the second volume in a series. One reviewer aptly describes it, "Lawson takes great pains to trace the history of the preaching of the doctrines of grace, all the way from the Early Church Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr), through the venerable pens of men like Augustine and Anselm, and ultimately to the Magisterial Reformers (Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin). Lawson adequately demonstrates that the preaching of the Sovereignty of God is by no means an aberrant teaching, confined to the peripheries and fringes of extremists, but rather is in fact the heartbeat of generations of orthodox evangelicals."

In many other threads, some Calvinists have claimed that one or more of the five points of Calvinism are found in a document prior to the 16th century, and have even quoted from such a document. However, when these quotes have been read in a much fuller context, it has been consistently seen that the author of the document is NOT presenting a Calvinistic view.

Simply untrue.

PG disagrees with what the author wrote, what they meant, and reinterprets it to suit his need to support his views. We must also remember that systematic theology was eclipsed by mysticism making it easier for PG to tug at the lose ends of earlier theological writings. Mystical experience was preferred over theological and doctrinal study, the emphasis shifted after the 4th century as profane history teaches. A shift in emphasis to PG means it wasn't taught or believed, but this is a faulty assumption on his part. The doctrines of grace became clear AFTER Luther, when people started to read the scriptures and reject the theology of Rome...which, by the way, is remarkably similar to the theology PG posts in the Baptist forum.

The fact that none of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century is of critical importance because, if the Bible does indeed teach Calvinism, the Bible so very poorly worded that no one could understand what it teaches, even about salvation, until a man named Calvin came along and deciphered it. Furthermore, if the entire church was unable to understand the Bible for 1,500 years, what guarantee do we have that anyone today correctly understands the Bible?

PG is engaging in An anachronism:


which means, "(from the Greek ἀνά ana, "against" and χρόνος khronos, "time"), is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. The most common type of anachronism is an object misplaced in time, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material/textile, a plant or animal, a custom or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain.

An anachronism may be either intentional or unintentional. Intentional anachronisms may be introduced into a literary or artistic work to help a contemporary audience engage more readily with a historical period, or for purposes of rhetoric, comedy or shock. Unintentional anachronisms may occur when a writer, artist or performer is insufficiently aware of differences in technology, customs, attitudes, or fashions between two different historical eras." Wiki

Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale all taught and believed in, before Calvin, predestination. This proves PG is mistaken. Luther was Augustinian before Calvin. This demonstrates PG's timeline of events is a mess. Oh, wait...Augustine was before Calvin as well!

From the time of Augustine until the time of the Reformation very little emphasis was placed on the doctrine of Predestination. We shall mention only two names from this period: Gottschalk, who was imprisoned and condemned for teaching Predestination; and Wycliffe, 'The Morning Star of the Reformation,' who lived in England. Wycliffe was a reformer of the Calvinistic type, proclaiming the absolute sovereignty of God and the Foreordination of all things. His system of belief was very similar to that which was later taught by Luther and Calvin. The Waldensians also might be mentioned for they were in a sense 'Calvinists' before the Reformation, one of their tenets being that of Predestination. source

​

See what I mean.



jm

 

[JM]

What you fail to mention are the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers whom it pleased God to use to formalize the doctrine of the Trinity and establish the New Testament Canon, and all of the Roman Catholic scholars up to the 16th century (and all of them since then!).

PG, you are treading dangerously close to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox with your view of councils yet, you reject Creeds and Confessions? You are contradicting yourself. Councils do not formalize or settle the canon.

If my point was moot, numerous Calvinists would not have invested thousands of hours searching unsuccessfully for even one pre-sixteenth century document that presents a Calvinistic view of even one of the five points.

Already dealt with.

I have not ignored either Augustine or Aquinas—neither of whom wrote anything that supports even one of the five points of Calvinism. Proof of this fact has been posted in other threads and, besides that, all of their writing can be read on the internet.

Sites run by anti-Calvinists or Fundies? (you know with the huge fonts in multi-colorful displays)...are not considered scholarly. lol

jm

 

[PrincetonGuy]

My Dear, sweet, wonderful readers...

History proves the doctrines of grace, so does scripture, which of course is more important. For example Augustine (354-430), Prosper of Aquitaine (390-455), Gottschalk (808-867), Peter Lombard (1096-1164), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349), Gregory of Rimini (1300-1358....all taught limited atonement! PG is incorrect in his assumption.

I have seen this false allegation before. Read the writings of these men and you will see for yourself that they did NOT teach the doctrine of limited atonement.

Your local library will probably have a service called interlibrary loan or something along that lines. If you want to see how wrong PG is on the matter visit your library and request, "Pillars of Grace: AD. 100-1564" by Steve Lawson. It is a the second volume in a series. One reviewer aptly describes it, "Lawson takes great pains to trace the history of the preaching of the doctrines of grace, all the way from the Early Church Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr), through the venerable pens of men like Augustine and Anselm, and ultimately to the Magisterial Reformers (Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin). Lawson adequately demonstrates that the preaching of the Sovereignty of God is by no means an aberrant teaching, confined to the peripheries and fringes of extremists, but rather is in fact the heartbeat of generations of orthodox evangelicals."

The only thing that Lawson demonstrates is his ability to misrepresent for his own benefit the words of others. The writings of Clement, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are on the internet and anyone who desires to know the truth is free to read them.

PG disagrees with what the author wrote, what they meant, and reinterprets it to suit his need to support his views.

Read the authors for yourself and interpret them yourself—and having done that, read the interpretations of them by scholars who specialize in the patristic writings of the church.

We must also remember that systematic theology was eclipsed by mysticism making it easier for PG to tug at the lose ends of earlier theological writings. Mystical experience was preferred over theological and doctrinal study, the emphasis shifted after the 4th century as profane history teaches.

This is one of the most common of the false arguments put forth by Calvinists who are fully aware that the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers never taught any of the five points of Calvinism—they did not teach them because they taught mysticism instead! The falseness of this argument is proven by the fact that the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers expressly taught contrary to the five points of Calvinism!

A shift in emphasis to PG means it wasn't taught or believed, but this is a faulty assumption on his part.

It was NOT a matter of a shift in emphasis—The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers expressly taught contrary to the five points of Calvinism from the very beginning—and the subsequent Fathers of the Church did likewise.

The doctrines of grace became clear AFTER Luther, when people started to read the scriptures and reject the theology of Rome...which, by the way, is remarkably similar to the theology PG posts in the Baptist forum.

The truth is that the five points of Calvinism were first introduced into the Church AFTER Luther, when Calvin, obsessed with his false notion of the absolute sovereignty of God, deduced from his false notion the five points of Calvinism. This, of course, required the reinterpretation of thousands of verses in the Bible in order to bring it into harmony with Calvin’s new theology. This reinterpretation required, in hundreds of places in the Greek New Testament, the violent breaking of even the most fundamental rules of Greek grammar—numerous examples of which have been posted on CF.

I have NEVER posted in the Baptist forum or any other CF forum theology that is close to distinctly Roman Catholic theology—except in order to present to my readers the true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church when other Christians have seriously misrepresented the teaching of that Church.

Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale all taught and believed in, before Calvin, predestination. This proves PG is mistaken.

Of course Huss, Wycliffe, and Tyndale believed in the biblical doctrine of predestination—but that is NOT one of the five points of Calvinism! This proves that I am not the one who is mistaken.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PG, you are treading dangerously close to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox with your view of councils yet, you reject Creeds and Confessions? You are contradicting yourself. Councils do not formalize or settle the canon.

I do not reject, and I have never rejected, creeds or confessions of faith. Indeed, I hold to the Nicene Creed,

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα
ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων·
καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Μονογενῆ,
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,
Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ,
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί,
δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·
τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν,
καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,
σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου,
καὶ παθόντα, καὶ ταφέντα,
καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς,
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς,
καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρὸς,
καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς,
οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος·
καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν·
εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν·
ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν·
προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν,
καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος. ἀμήν.

However, as I wrote in an earlier post in this thread, I am aware of the danger inherent in creeds and confessions of faith.

P.S. Please notice that none of the five points of Calvinism appear in the Nicene Creed.

 

[DeaconDean]

My dear readers,

This post wildly contradicts church history. None of the five points of Calvinism are found in any known document prior to the 16th century, and today only a small fraction of Christian churches teach all five points, and fewer that one fourth of them teach even one point of Calvinism. Of the exegetical commentaries on the individual books of the of the Greek New Testament published in the last 40 years by major publishers, only a very small fraction are Calvinistic, and those few are ultraconservative in their theology and dismiss as nonsense factual information that favors even a slightly liberal position.

Now I'm confused.

What does "textual criticism" and the GNT have to do with Calvinism?

God Bless

Till all are one.