Reformed Church Thats Not Calvinist?

[JM]

Of course the Baptist 1611 confession and the 1651 confession were both Arminian. So Baptists have been split 50/50 since the beginning.

Thomas Helwys (author of the 1611 Confession) and John Smyth (who is often claimed to be a Baptist was really Anabaptist) were baptistic but did not believe in immersion. They poured or sprinkled. The Particular or "Reformed" Baptists rejected Helwys/Smyth's beliefs about Arminianism and baptism by 1630's, going as far as to demand the Free Will Baptists adhere to immersion and get properly baptized. (see Hercules Collins, 1691 and Did They Dip? and Baptist History Vindicated by John Christian) It can be demonstrated from history to any willing student that Helwys' theology, and that of his 1611 Confession, was in flux and Smyth was not a Baptist.

The "split" wasn't 50/50.

The split was between Arminian baby sprinklers and Particular Baptists. PB's had all of the elements that make up the Baptist church today and the Free Willer's did not.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[SeventhValley]

Actually the six principle Arminian Baptists influenced the formation of modern Baptists. The six principal Baptists formed the first Baptist conference in America. They put Bible first and confessions second. The particular Baptists copied them even amending their 1742 confession to become more like the Arminians.

 

[SeventhValley]

The first Baptist confession was Arminian,the second Calvinist,the third Arminian,the fourth Calvinist. It is a fact that Baptists have been 50/50 since the beginning.

I don't see why this is a big deal. Both have contributed to Baptist history.

The Arminians contributed to holiness,revival,and inerrancy of scripture.

The Calvinists gave us some great theologians and preachers.

Baptists are the middle ground between Presbyterians and Pentecostals.

 

[crixus]

Of course the Baptist 1611 confession and the 1651 confession were both Arminian. So Baptists have been split 50/50 since the beginning.

Thank you for that. It means that my estimation above was correct.

 

[godenver1]

Thank you for that. It means that my estimation above was correct.

Still a surprise to me, whilst I don't go around asking everyone's belief in my church I very much get the vibe we are a free will church and being a little ignorant I assumed most if not all Baptist churches were...real eye opener.

Could anyone explain molinism, is that some sort of middle ground?

 

[crixus]

Molinism? I've never even heard of the word until now. But that's the biggest problem with those so-called theologians, changing things to meet their own agenda. And leaving the actual word of God behind to be ignored.

 

[godenver1]

The most famous distinctive in Molinism is its affirmation that God has middle knowledge (scienta media). Molinism holds that God’s knowledge consists of three logical moments. These “moments” of knowledge are not to be thought of as chronological; rather, they are to be understood as “logical.” In other words, one moment does not come before another moment in time; instead, one moment is logically prior to the other moments. The Molinist differentiates between three different moments of knowledge which are respectively called natural knowledge, middle knowledge and free knowledge.

1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This knowledge is knowledge of what philosophers call counterfactuals.

3. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.

Read more: What is Molinism and is it biblical?

What is Molinism and is it biblical?

However, Molinism is not, strictly speaking, a view that can be rebutted or defended wholly on biblical grounds. The middle knowledge view is a philosophical theology that attempts to uphold both the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. This attempt is done by making subtle philosophical distinctions that make sovereignty and free will compatible. Therefore, it should be evaluated on multiple levels. It should be evaluated biblically and philosophically.

Biblically speaking, Molinists are more in line with the Arminian view. God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. However, Molinists are more philosophically sophisticated than the typical Arminian. For example, William Lane Craig avoids the criticism that God’s decisions are dependent on man’s decisions by holding that God’s middle knowledge is not derived from His knowledge of the world. Rather, God’s middle knowledge is based on His existing natural knowledge. In this way he hopes to uphold God’s perfect omniscience. So, today’s evangelical Molinists are basically philosophically sophisticated Arminians.

Read more: What is Molinism and is it biblical?

What is Molinism and is it biblical?

Btw, I only heard it for the first time recently as well (unless I wasn't really paying attention and it was mentioned)

 

[Arete]

I would simply ask you to actually study Reformed theology and Calvinism in depth, carefully, and then retract that statement. Calvinism and Reformed theology are not interchangeable terms. In fact, Calvinism was a reaction to a reaction. Calvin wrote what was essentially a rebuttal to Arminius, who wrote to rebut Reformed theology. If you believe Reformed theology and Calvinism are the same thing, you are woefully misinformed.
I would refer you to the work of Adrian Rogers, the man who single-handedly pulled the SBC back from the brink of error and destruction by removing liberalism from the SBC seminaries. He very defiantly stated why he is not a Calvinist, but why Baptists were never Calvinists either. If you don't want to read twelve pages of well-reasoned argument, then suffice to say, Rogers was in agreement with me, or more appropriately, I with him: Calvinists today don't have a clue what Calvin taught, what the Reformed movement was about, and as a result don't even preach what Calvin preached, and if they saw what Calvin preached, they'd reject it.And it is precisely what Rogers said. Which is why your next question ... ... is a moot point. If you have the Scriptures, that is all you need. I'm not saying there are not good insights available, but you can read, understand, and develop from Scripture what God wanted you to read, understand and develop without having someone from 500 years ago try to tell you what God said, particularly when he didn't get much of it right.That's a clear indication you didn't really read my post. I said much more than "Calvin taught infant baptism." Perhaps you should go back and read it, slowly this time.No. We should believe or not believe what Scripture teaches, because it is the only thing guaranteed to represent the nature, character and word of God. Get a good concordance, a Hebrew and a Greek lexicon, study inductively, and God's revelation with be amply evident to you.

So, you were rude and condescending. And that pretty much means that I won't really be interested in discussion that is only less than subtle jabs at my reading comprehension.

You did not answer my questions, which were asked in good will and without malice. You merely degraded me for asking them.

I thought Calvinist's were supposed to be the cold ones.

If I want to know more about your position, I will talk with someone who is more gracious or read. Adrian Rogers' work. Although, his work does not answer my question about the original views of the SBC. I do not care to carry on in your vein and you obviously only have disdain for mine.

I do not require a concordance. Concordances only give lexical forms without being all that helpful. I prefer original language study anyway. My Calvinist views were birthed from an original language study of Romans. I do study inductively. I came to the realization of the reality of the Sovereignty of God and total depravity of man. I knew what Calvinism was, and so I knew that I now held to it concerning soteriology, but I believe it because its biblical, not because Calvin or Augstine or any others wrote concerning it. I base my theology on the plain sense of Scripture. I was merely pointing out that t is fallacious to throw away everything one man says or writes only because of one area of disagreement.

Our final arbiter of truth should be God and his word, not because we dislike someone's stance in some other area.

Again, so much condescension. Why assume that I need to be treated like an ignorant unread barely believer?

So someone other than TBoH, please. I will not engage with this brother.

Could someone actually consider answering my question about the original views of the SBC?

 

[SeventhValley]

The SBC was organized in 1845 out of many different Baptist churches with different beliefs.

The 1925 Baptist Faith and Message Statement was the first attempt at a loose creed since the Baptist are a independent bunch and do not wish to be too tied down.

1925 Baptist Faith and Message

From the 1925 creed which reflects the revivalism of the time.

"7. REGENERATION
Regeneration or the new birth is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit, whereby we become partakers of the divine nature and a holy disposition is given, leading to the love and practice of righteousness. It is a work of God's free grace conditioned upon faith in Christ and made manifest by the fruit which we bring forth to the glory of God.

8. REPENTANCE AND FAITH
We believe that repentance and faith are sacred duties and also inseparable graces, wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God; Whereby being deeply convinced of our guilt, anger, and helplessness, and of the way of salvation by Christ, we turn to God with unfeigned contrition, confession, and supplication for mercy; at the same time heartily receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as our Prophet, Priest and King, and relying on him alone as the only and all-sufficient Saviour. "


Now the creed is more Arminian but reflects the time it was written, the SBC has always had Calvinism and Arminianism in it.

Example while the creed of the time was Arminian many SBC pastors were not. J.P. Boyce was a Pastor who was a trained theologian from Princeton seminary who was Calvinistic.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi all,

How do you find those Staunch Bible Believing Churches or Online Sermons That Teach and Preach The WHOLE Gospel and Praise and Confirm God's Sovereignty. Every time I try to find Some sort of niche on youtube or through google this is what happens

1. I Run into pure calvinist websites or youtube videos where they are holding a conference and its all calvinists.

2. I find videos or websites where the preachers sermon talks about golf, food, worldy stuff like 80 percent or more of the sermon. Not enough preaching from the bible.

I am looking for a Baptist type church that isn't calvinist but preaches and takes God's word and makes Christ so important that never does it seem like just a secular community meeting. I hear to often in sermons a self-help seminar message.

Basically if I can simplify it I am looking for a Non- Calvinist or Arminian version of Paul Washer lol. If someone can direct me to some audio, video, or way to find local churches, I would greatly appreciate it. I am not trolling or trying to start a debate I am truly seeking for what I described.

Why don't you contact Dr Roger E Olson, professor of theology, at the Southern Baptist, George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX. He's an Arminian and might be able to help. The Seminary website is at: Baylor University || George W. Truett Theological Seminary. Dr Olson wrote the book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006).

If you send me a private message, with your email address and the city/town where you live, I'll forward to a friend of mine in southern Indiana who has recently retired as a Free-Will Baptist pastor. He may be able to help.

I also recommend a read of this Southern Baptist publication that includes Southern Baptist authors who are not Calvinistic: David L Allen & Steve W Lemke (eds) 2010. Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic. These authors may be able to assist you with an answer to your question.

In Christ,
Oz

P.S. Sorry that I can't help directly from Down Under.

 

[OzSpen]

No "greatest preachers & teachers" prior to the Reformation

And Jacob Arminius was not a great preacher? Henry Thiessen, first dean of Wheaton College's graduate school must have been a flop, as is Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University's Truett Seminary. I don't think Norm Geisler is a slouch of a preacher, theologian and apologist. A W Tozer was not a failure as a preacher either.

Adam Clarke was a sound exegete; Thomas Oden is a solid theologian. John Wesley was a world-renowned preacher and leader of revival in Britain. His brother, Charles, was one of the finest hymn writers of all time with his solid theological content.

Seems like another poster is a touch on the biased side to exclude these capable Christian leaders.

 

[OzSpen]

I disagree that Arminians can call themselves reformed. The hinge that the reformation swung on, according to Luther, was the debate between monergism and synergism. In other words, the root of the reformation was a swing from synergism to monergism.

Arminians, by necessity, are synergists. Thus, how can they be considered to have been "reformed"? They're still stuck in the theology of pre-reformation.

You continue to ignore the fact that Jacob Arminius was a Dutch Reformed Minister until his dying day. He was Reformed. And so am I as a Reformed (Classical) Arminian.

Oz

 

[branchofthevine]

Historically speaking, the word Reformed was first used of the movement spreading out because of Calvin's work in Geneva, and the influence of his many editions of the Institutes.

As opposed to Lutheranism in Saxony and parts of Germany, Calvin's movement was not really the same. It was the second wave of the Reformation if you will, where he took up the reigns of Zwingli and Luther, although he wasn't the only one of importance during this time, notably Martin Bucer.

It was really after the deaths of both Luther and Zwingli that Calvin's work gained its peak of influence. Now back then it wasn't TULIP even though it has become that today. His movement was called Reformed and encompassed a giant circle of Reformation thought because it covered the essentials of what the Reformers believed including the Justification by faith alone, and not by good works, the cutting of sacraments down to 2 from 7, the issue of the Eucharist being symbolic instead of the Catholic and Lutheran positions, and the predestination of believers and the bondage of the will.


So, OP. I would say to you that it would be almost impossible to find a Reformed Church that isn't Calvinistic because the two go hand in hand historically speaking.

 

[OzSpen]

So, OP. I would say to you that it would be almost impossible to find a Reformed Church that isn't Calvinistic because the two go hand in hand historically speaking.

That is the way it has come to be recognised in Calvinistic circles, but historically that is not the way it is.

Those of Reformed (Classical) Arminian persuasion, like myself, are found in many denominations. For example, Dr Stephen M. Ashby was teaching at Asbury Theological Seminary, where there is a Wesleyan emphasis, when he wrote this chapter (he is now at Ball State University). Dr Ashby contributed the chapter, 'A Reformed Arminian View' of eternal security in this book: J Matthew Pinson (gen ed) 2002. Four Views on Eternal Security. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Ashby begins his article,

A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a Presbyterian pastor in the city where I work. Upon hearing that I had graduated from a Calvinist seminary, he waited for the appropriate moment and said, "So you are one of those rare birds who was educated in Reformed thought ... but just didn't get it." My response was, "Oh, I'm very Reformed; in fact, I call myself a Reformed Arminian." To which he laughed incredulously and said, "That's the first time I've ever heard of that."
No doubt, many people who might pick up this book will ask themselves, "What is Reformed Arminianism?" The answer that that question is simple: It is the view of Jacobus Arminius himself. Arminius always considered himself to be Reformed, right up until his death. And there were many within the Dutch Reformed movement who held his approach to theology. Of course, given the popular usage of the term Reformed today - it is probably not surprising that my Presbyterian friend reacted so strongly to the thought of Reformed Arminianism. However, if we get beneath the surface of handy and well-worn labels and compare the actual substance of the views held by those within my community with views typically thought to be Reformed, it will become clear that this is not a contradiction of terms but an accurate description (Ashby 2002:137).

Jacob Arminius, as a Dutch Reformed minister, considered himself Reformed to his dying day. Those who are Reformed Arminian are spread throughout various denominations. So historically, Arminius was Reformed before the time of his followers, The Remonstrants, and he was not Calvinistic.

For many years I've been associated with a Baptistic denomination that includes Calvinistic, Reformed Arminian and Wesleyan Arminian pastors.

This misunderstanding of the breadth of understanding of 'Reformed' is acknowledged by a Calvinist, R C Sproul,

In the perennial debate between so-called Calvinism and Arminianism, the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures, not unlike collective Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Calvinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated (R C Sproul 1997. Willing to Believe. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, pp 125-126).

So I'm not surprised that you make this statement that 'it would be almost impossible to find a Reformed Church that isn't Calvinistic'. Sproul described this as an example of how 'the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures'.

In Christ, Oz

 

[MrJim]

No "greatest preachers & teachers" prior to the Reformation

And Jacob Arminius was not a great preacher? Henry Thiessen, first dean of Wheaton College's graduate school must have been a flop, as is Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University's Truett Seminary. I don't think Norm Geisler is a slouch of a preacher, theologian and apologist. A W Tozer was not a failure as a preacher either.

Adam Clarke was a sound exegete; Thomas Oden is a solid theologian. John Wesley was a world-renowned preacher and leader of revival in Britain. His brother, Charles, was one of the finest hymn writers of all time with his solid theological content.

Seems like another poster is a touch on the biased side to exclude these capable Christian leaders.

Key word here is "prior"....:o

 

[OzSpen]

.

 

[OzSpen]

Key word here is "prior"....:o

How do we know that these church fathers were not great preachers?

See 'Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill' (Society of Evangelical Arminians).

We know that John Chrysostom had the reputation of 'the golden mouth' as a great preacher and he was closer to Arminius in his theology on free will. See, 'Free will in Saint John Chrysostom'.

 

[MrJim]

How do we know that these church fathers were not great preachers?

See 'Church Fathers on Foreknowledge and Freewill' (Society of Evangelical Arminians).

We know that John Chrysostom had the reputation of 'the golden mouth' as a great preacher and he was closer to Arminius in his theology on free will. See, 'Free will in Saint John Chrysostom'.

Yo Oz~ I think you missed the sarcasm in my response to skala...I'm on your side here

 

[Albion]

Jacob Arminius, as a Dutch Reformed minister, considered himself Reformed to his dying day.

I don't see that this makes any difference. I know Lutherans who insist that, as Lutherans, they are Catholics and others who insist that they're the only real Protestants. It seems that everyone is determined to describe himself in the way that he wants to think of himself, whether or not it's true.

 

[SeventhValley]

In a way Baptists are just reflecting church history. You have Augustine and John Cassian both great theologians working from different angles. In the writings of Justin Martyr you can see him debating free will vs predestination and that is second century.

This is a debate that goes on and on. The traditional Anglicans combine both streams of thought and that is what the SBC has been doing.

I love Wesley but I also love Johnathan Edwards. I have been struggling with this for a while but maybe I am not meant to pick one or the other as both are great Christians.