What does an Arminian Baptist believe?

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

The article by Stephen Ashby also went on to say:

Here then is the Reformed Arminian understanding of how one may be found in Christ. It is simply by faith, and it is open to all. Whether there is a general atonement and a universal call, or
a limited atonement and a particular call should take into account the following passages:
• God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ 2Co 5:19
• For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men Tit 2:11
• But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself Jn 1:9
• He is the atoning sacrifice for sins, and not onlyfor ours but also for the whole world 1 Jn 2:2
•The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you,not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance 2Pe 3:9


Likewise, considering what the Bible says about salvation conditioned on faith should take into
account the following passages:
•...that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him Jn 3:15
• Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned alreadybecause he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son Jn 3:18
•Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, butwhoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’swrath remains on him Jn 3:36
•They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your household’ Ac 16:3.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,

When you do not provide any citations from Calvin's and Arminius's works to which you refer, I have no means to check out what you are saying.

When you refer to another writer's position, it behooves you to provide the quotes with bibliographical referencing. Online referencing would be a great help.

I'm not a historical theological ignoramus.

I am sorry—I assumed that you were familiar with the interpretations of Romans 7:14-25 by Calvin and Arminius. I have a basic background in historical theology and a supporting personal library, including more that 300 bound volumes on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, including several volumes on Romans 7 alone. The most recent commentary on Romans 7 alone is The “I” in the Storm by Lutheran scholar Michael Paul Middendorf, a 303 page commentary that is seriously marred because the author’s Lutheran theology trumped the accurate exegesis of the Greek text. Both Calvin and Luther adopted the interpretation of Romans 7 that was being taught by the Roman Catholic Church at the time. The Roman Catholic Church has corrected its interpretation on the basis of Protestant scholarship during the first half of the 19th century—especially the research by Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck and Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer in Germany.* The Lutheran Churches, however, have not corrected their interpretation.

In writing my posts, rather than relying upon an article or two on the internet, or upon a book or two, I rely upon a multitude of sources and many years of study.

*The Roman Catholic Church has given to us only two exegetical commentaries in English on the Greek text of Romans, those by Patrick Boylan (1934, 343 pages) and Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1993, 827 pages). The commentary by Fitzmyer is one of the very finest of all the commentaries on the Greek text of Romans.

 

[Don Maurer]

I'm not a historical theological ignoramus.

But, I've rejected its ULI (of TULIP) findings.

I am glad your familiar with history and Dort, then you will understand why the reformed community will reject your redefinition of the term "reformed."

 

[Omah1970]

While Free Will Baptists are classical Arminians in that they still hold to total depravity, Primitive Baptists definitely are not Arminians. Generally, Primitive Baptists are what one might call hyper-Calvinist in that they don't evangelize because they fear that would pose a conflict of interest with God's election.

The only other truly Arminian Baptist group is a primarily Midwestern denomination called simply General Baptists.

Ah I see my papa was just ignorantly that. Thanks for the correction my friend

 

[OzSpen]

I have a basic background in historical theology and a supporting personal library, including more that 300 bound volumes on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans

You have mentioned this several times on this forum to the point where it seems to be bragging to me.

 

[OzSpen]

I am glad your familiar with history and Dort, then you will understand why the reformed community will reject your redefinition of the term "reformed."

The contemporary Reformed = Calvinistic community may reject the understanding of Reformed Arminianism. But Jacobus Arminius did not reject such a designation as he himself was a Dutch Reformed minister. What was he? A Reformed minister and his theology was taught in a Reformed system.

Because the Reformed Arminian label is not familiar to you, that does not make it any less legitimate.

See this publication by Zondervan, 4 Views on Eternal Security. What is the third view in this book? The Reformed Arminian view by Stephen Ashby.

​

It is your perspective that is not holistically Reformed. My labelling my position as Reformed Arminian is accurate as historical theology.

Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The contemporary Reformed = Calvinistic community may reject the understanding of Reformed Arminianism. But Jacobus Arminius did not reject such a designation as he himself was a Dutch Reformed minister. What was he? A Reformed minister and his theology was taught in a Reformed system.

Because the Reformed Arminian label is not familiar to you, that does not make it any less legitimate.

See this publication by Zondervan, 4 Views on Eternal Security. What is the third view in this book? The Reformed Arminian view by Stephen Ashby.

​

It is your perspective that is not holistically Reformed. My labelling my position as Reformed Arminian is accurate as historical theology.

Oz

STEPHEN M. ASHBY, PH.D.
Philosophy, Religion
B.S., Free Will Baptist Bible College
M.R.E., Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
M.Div., Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
M.Ed., Lynchburg College
Ph.D., Bowling Green State University
Experience in Higher Education: Visiting Professor-
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College; Adjunct
Professor-Taylor University; Teaching
Fellow/Instructor of English/Assistant Professor of
Philosophy and Religious Studies-Ball State
University; Instructor of English-Liberty University
Pastoral experience: Chesterfield Free Will Baptist
Church, Indiana; First Dayton Free Will Baptist
Church, Ohio; First Free Will Baptist, Grand Rapids,
Michigan; St. John Free Will Baptist Church, South
Carolina
Publications: Four Views of Eternal Security
(contributing author), composed the Introduction for
The Works of Arminius published by Randall
House, published articles in the fields of Philosophy
and Cultural Studies
Contributor for Integrity: A Journal of Christian
Thought
Symposium and Conference Speaker
Trustee, Free Will Baptist Bible College
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College since 2002

http://www.hc.edu/files/PDF/Catalog/Faculty.pdf

 

[OzSpen]

STEPHEN M. ASHBY, PH.D.
Philosophy, Religion
B.S., Free Will Baptist Bible College
M.R.E., Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
M.Div., Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
M.Ed., Lynchburg College
Ph.D., Bowling Green State University
Experience in Higher Education: Visiting Professor-
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College; Adjunct
Professor-Taylor University; Teaching
Fellow/Instructor of English/Assistant Professor of
Philosophy and Religious Studies-Ball State
University; Instructor of English-Liberty University
Pastoral experience: Chesterfield Free Will Baptist
Church, Indiana; First Dayton Free Will Baptist
Church, Ohio; First Free Will Baptist, Grand Rapids,
Michigan; St. John Free Will Baptist Church, South
Carolina
Publications: Four Views of Eternal Security
(contributing author), composed the Introduction for
The Works of Arminius published by Randall
House, published articles in the fields of Philosophy
and Cultural Studies
Contributor for Integrity: A Journal of Christian
Thought
Symposium and Conference Speaker
Trustee, Free Will Baptist Bible College
Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College since 2002

http://www.hc.edu/files/PDF/Catalog/Faculty.pdf

Why do you do this and without comment?

What are you trying to demonstrate? That Dr Stephen Ashby who is associated with the Free Will Baptists is a Reformed Arminian or not? When you simply cite part of his CV, what are you attempting to show me on CF?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Reformed Arminianism, Reformation Arminianism, and Classic Arminianism are three names for a mistaken understanding of the teaching of Arminius in which it is falsely taught that Arminius taught the doctrine of Calvinism known as “Total Depravity.” The very small handful of people who hold to this view are apparently unaware that the doctrine of Calvinism known as “Total Depravity” is one of the “Five Points of Calvinism,” and that “Five Points of Calvinism” were a correction of The Five Articles of the Remonstrants. The third article expresses their view of the condition of the unregenerate man. The Five Articles of the Remonstrants are as follows:

1. That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, determined to save, out of the human race which had fallen into sin, in Christ, for Christ's sake and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on the same his Son and shall through the same grace persevere in this same faith and obedience of faith even to the end; and on the other hand to leave under sin and wrath the contumacious and unbelieving and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36, and other passages of Scripture.
2. That, accordingly, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for all, by his death on the cross, reconciliation and remission of sins; yet so that no one is partaker of this remission except the believers [John 3:16; 1 John 2:2].
3. That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good—nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through his Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God [John 15:5].
4. That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].
5. That those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory; always, be it understood, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ assisting them in all temptations, through his Spirit; stretching out his hand to them and (providing only that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat his aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upbuilding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christ's hands [John 10:28]. But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ, to embrace again this present world, to depart from the holy doctrine once delivered to them, to lose their good conscience and to neglect grace--this must be the subject of more exact inquiry in the Holy Scriptures, before we can teach it with full confidence of our mind.​

(From Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, volume III, as quoted in Henry Bettenson's Documents of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, pages 268-269.)

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

You didn't answer in #49 the issue I raised at #48. Why not?

 

[Omah1970]

Wow I am glad I took a step back and just waited before I came back. There is a wealth of nuggets in here by all of you. Thank you so much. I have so much to study now and can't wait. One last question are all Pentecostal Churches Arminian? Do they all believe in falling from grace? Just curious. Take care

 

[OzSpen]

Wow I am glad I took a step back and just waited before I came back. There is a wealth of nuggets in here by all of you. Thank you so much. I have so much to study now and can't wait. One last question are all Pentecostal Churches Arminian? Do they all believe in falling from grace? Just curious. Take care

I attended 3 Pentecostal colleges - one for the AoG Australia and the other A/G USA; the third was a Pentecostal Assembles of Canada college. All 3 colleges in their theology departments had teachers/professors who taught that it was possible to fall from grace and lose one's salvation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

Reformed Arminianism, Reformation Arminianism, and Classic Arminianism are three names for a mistaken understanding of the teaching of Arminius in which it is falsely taught that Arminius taught the doctrine of Calvinism known as “Total Depravity.” The very small handful of people who hold to this view are apparently unaware that the doctrine of Calvinism known as “Total Depravity” is one of the “Five Points of Calvinism,” and that “Five Points of Calvinism” were a correction of The Five Articles of the Remonstrants.

You, as an Arminian, do not endorse the doctrine of total depravity, but Jacobus Arminius did, and so do I:

“In the state of Primitive Innocence, man had a mind endued with a clear understanding of heavenly light and truth concerning God, and his works and will, as far as was sufficient for the salvation of man and the glory of God; he had a heart imbued with ‘righteousness and true holiness,’ and with a true and saving love of good; and powers abundantly qualified or furnished perfectly to fulfill the law which God had imposed on him. This admits easily of proof, from the description of the image of God, after which man is said to have been created, (Gen 1:26-27) from the law divinely imposed on him, which had a promise and a threat appended to it, (Gen 2:17) and lastly from the analogous restoration of the same image in Christ Jesus. (Eph 4:24, Col 3:10)


But man was not so confirmed in this state of innocence, as to be incapable of being moved, by the representation presented to him of some good, (whether it was of an inferior kind and relating to this animal life, or of a superior-kind and relating to spiritual life) inordinately and unlawfully to look upon it and to desire it, and of his own spontaneous as well as free motion, and through a preposterous desire for that good, to decline from the obedience which had been prescribed to him. Nay, having turned away from the light of his own mind and his chief good, which is God, or, at least, having turned towards that chief good not in the manner in which he ought to have done, and besides having turned in mind and heart towards an inferior good, he transgressed the command given to him for life. By this foul deed, he precipitated himself from that noble and elevated condition into a state of the deepest infelicity, which is under the dominion of sin. For ‘to whom any one yields himself a servant to obey,’ (Rom 6:16) and ‘of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage,’ and is his regularly assigned slave. (2 Pet 2:19)


In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man” (Arminius, J., Complete Works of Arminius, Volume 1, Public Disputations of Arminius, Disputation 11 (On the Free Will of Man and its Powers)
​

Oz

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,
You, as an Arminian, do not endorse the doctrine of total depravity, but Jacobus Arminius did, and so do I:

I think you would be advised to investigate the doctrine of Total Depravity which teaches a state of depravity far worse than the state described by Arminius. For example, please read the comments of Calvin on Romans 7:14-25 in which he teaches that fallen man’s depravity is so extremely severe that much of the depravity remains after a man is regenerated—that the regenerated man remains, until his physical death, sold into bondage to sin. Arminius, on the other hand, taught that man’s depravity is NOT so extremely severe that the depravity remains after a man is regenerated, but that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set the believer free from the law of sin and of death (Rom. 8:2). Indeed, Arminius correctly understood the man in Romans 7:22 to be fully regenerated while Calvin taught that the man in Romans 7:22 was necessarily an unregenerate man because unregenerate men, being “totally depraved,” are incapable of “delighting in the Law of God.”

Arminius wrote a 258 page (in the English translations by James Nichols and W. R. Bagnall and published by Baker Book House in The Writings of James Arminius) “dissertation” on the seventh chapter of Romans in which he compares at length the doctrine of Total Depravity taught by Calvinists, and the scriptural teaching of the unregenerate man’s depravity. On page 220 in volume two, Arminius writes on Romans 7,

(1.) I will show that, in this passage, the apostle does not speak about himself, nor about a man living under grace, but that he has transferred to himself the person of a man placed under the law.​

On page 289, Arminius writes on Romans 7:22,

Secondly, that to delight in the law of God, or, rather, to find a sort of con-delectation in the law of God after the inward man, is not a property peculiar to the regenerate and to those who are placed under grace, but that it appertains to a man placed under the law.​

To Calvin and other teachers of the doctrine of Total Depravity (even down to this day) this interpretation is a very serious error! Indeed, the primary argument put forth by Calvinists for Romans 7:14-25 to be interpreted as Paul writing of his present state is v. 22 where they write that only a regenerate man can “delight in the Law of God.”

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

You refuse to respond to the evidence I provided in #53 of Arminius's belief in Total Depravity. Giving me some quotes from his view on Rom 7, is not responding to his doctrine of Total Depravity for which I gave you evidence.

If you don't respond to what I write specifically (as in this case), I'll move on and let you try engage in conversation with someone else.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,
You refuse to respond to the evidence I provided in #53 of Arminius's belief in Total Depravity. Giving me some quotes from his view on Rom 7, is not responding to his doctrine of Total Depravity for which I gave you evidence.

You have Not presented ANY evidence of ANY KIND that Arminius believed in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity—but only evidence that Arminius believed in the scriptural teaching regarding the unregenerate state. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to believe in the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity and at the same believe that the man in Rom. 7:22 is unregenerate. It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE because they are TWO OPPOSING DOCTRINES! Please familiarize yourself with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity.

If you don't respond to what I write specifically (as in this case), I'll move on and let you try engage in conversation with someone else.

That would be very much appreciated because it is too difficult to discuss this issue with a man that has not studied it.

 

[twin1954]

No, Reformed needs to be understood in its Reformation context. When you use Reformed today, you mean Calvinistic. When I use Reformed today, it refers to Reformation theology and that applies to both Arminianism and Calvinism. I'm trying to be true to historical theology.

Your gay analogy is being disingenuous.

'A Reformed Arminian view' by Stephen Ashby gives a brief exposition of this Reformed position.

There are some who are not preachers but pretend theologians. A preacher speaks in the language of the people. Otherwise he sends them a confused message.

I am aware of who and what Arminius was. I am also aware of his teachings but Arminianism didn't come from Arminius as much as it did his later followers who issued the Remonstrants. (I am aware of history too )
Being concerned that historical theology be known and using terms that are not understood the way the "preacher" intends is trifling with the souls of men because its send a confused message by using terms that mean one thing to them and another to preacher. That is an old RC trick. They use words but mean something different by them.

 

[JM]

����

 

[OzSpen]

PrincetonGuy,

I think the problem between you and me is that you want me to see Arminius's Total Depravity through what you think is a Calvinistic understanding. I've presented evidence from Arminius to demonstrate that he did believe in Total Depravity, but that's not good enough for you.

I have studied this subject extensively and have concluded differently to you.

Let's call on the expert advice of a Southern Baptist professor of theology and an Arminian who teaches at George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX, Dr Roger E Olson. In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006) he wrote:

Some Reformed critics of Arminianism admit they share significant common ground with it. "Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, every aspect of human nature is tainted by sin". [1] Classical Arminians are relieved to find some Calvinists finally understanding and admitting this Arminian commitment to total depravity! [2] Arminius's own account of human fallenness could hardly be stronger if he had been a full-blown Calvinist! In his "Public Disputations" the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam's fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that

In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatum]; but it is also imprisoned [captivatum], destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. [3]
​

This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will survived the Fall intact (Olson 2006:56).
​

My view is parallel with that of Dr Roger Olson concerning the Arminian support of Total Depravity.

Why don't you call Dr Roger Olson, an Arminian and professor of theology at George W Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University, and try your line, 'It is too difficult to discuss this issue with a man that has not studied it'.

Oz

Notes
[1] Here Olson was citing Robert A Peterson & Michael D Williams, Why I am not an Arminian (IVP 2004:163), in Olson (2006:56, n 28).
[2] Olson's comment was, 'This common ground in pessimistic anthropology is overlooked or denied in most standard Calvinist accounts of Arminianism. This is clarly illustrated in Palmer's Five Points of Calvinism, where Arminianism is frequently distorted as semi-Pelagian, and in the Modern Reformation 1 (1992) issue on Arminianism, where the distance between Arminian anthropology and Calvinist anthropology is exaggerated' (Olson 2006:56, n 29).
[3] The reference is to Arminius, "Public Disputation," Works, 2:192 (Olson 2006:56, n 30).

 

[OzSpen]

There are some who are not preachers but pretend theologians. A preacher speaks in the language of the people. Otherwise he sends them a confused message.

I am aware of who and what Arminius was. I am also aware of his teachings but Arminianism didn't come from Arminius as much as it did his later followers who issued the Remonstrants. (I am aware of history too )
Being concerned that historical theology be known and using terms that are not understood the way the "preacher" intends is trifling with the souls of men because its send a confused message by using terms that mean one thing to them and another to preacher. That is an old RC trick. They use words but mean something different by them.

I've been simply explaining that the Calvinistic understanding of 'Reformed' is not accurate when it comes to understand the breadth of what Reformed means. However, if you don't like my labelling my position as Reformed Arminian, I'm happy for you to call my position that of Classical Arminianism. However, it is still a Reformed position as Arminius had a foundational influence on his followers, called Remonstrants.

However, when Arminius remained a Dutch Reformed minister until his death, his position was still within the Reformed perspective of his day - even though his views were challenged by those of Calvinistic persuasion.

I object strongly to your pejorative comment a referring to my use of language: 'That is an old RC trick. They use words but mean something different by them'. That is disingenuous to use that kind of language against me. I have excellent reasons for labelling my position as Reformed Arminian. It is NOT redefining terms. It is using terms consistent with those used by Jacobus Arminius.

Oz