-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is it true cals affirm a substitutionary View of Cross/While Arms/Non calls Would not
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I think it would be very unfair to say that Arminians (non-Calvinists, etc.) do not affirm a penal substitutionary atonement.
I'm not saying this theologically. Rather, I know many non-Calvinists and some 4-Point Calvinists (who reject Limited Atonement) who hold to a penal substitutionary atonement. Dr. Bruce Ware of my alma mater, Southern Seminary, is a 4-Pointer and he affirms penal substitutionary atonement--though he does admit his position requires the "double payment" of Christ's death and personal payment in Hell.
I became a Calvinist because of Limited Atonement, not in spite of it like many Calvinists. But, I think the more "required" piece of one's theology is a penal substitutionary atonement, not necessarily Limited Atonement.
Now, how does one affirm penal substitution and not a particular atonement? I don't know. But, I do know it does happen. And, I might be a Calvinist, but I am not a "Calviniser." So, I'm much more concerned that people affirm a penal substitutionary atonement than limited atonement.
The Archangel
Well said, but was the Arm view more along the side of a Moral influence/Government model?
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
I would have to do some research to refresh my memory. But, off the top of my head, I don't think so.
When the Baptist movement began, two groups quickly emerged--the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists. The Particular Baptists believed in limited atonement and the General Baptists believed in unlimited atonement.
The General Baptists eventually turned into universalists. My guess would be they had a right understanding of penal substitution and that understanding led them to their universalism. They would likely argue that Jesus died a penal substitutionary death and that death for all without exception. Therefore, there is no remaining penalty to be paid since God has now settled all accounts in Christ's death on the cross. Since there is no remaining penalty, there is no reason for anyone to go to Hell to pay for their sins.
This is precisely why many 4-Pointers readily admit the hole in their argument in rejection of limited atonement is, in fact, a double payment.
Now, how do those who reject limited atonement and Calvinism itself reconcile an unlimited and penal substitutionary atonement to eternal punishment for sin is beyond me. However, as I said before, there are many who do and they are wonderful, faithful Christians and I take them at their word that they affirm penal substitutionary atonement while not being universalists.
The Archangel
This is not correct and without foundation
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
No, it is a fact of Baptist History.
It is also a fact that the Particular Baptists tended to lean towards hyper-Calvinism.
The Archangel
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Even Wikipedia gets this right:
General Baptists slowly spread through England and into the United States, but they never seemed to command as vital an existence as the Particular Baptists. In England at least, the religious revivalism of the mid 18th century changed all that. "Many of the Particular Baptists also effectively sat out of the revival, being especially skeptical of Wesley due to his Arminianism".[1] Wesley's Arminianism posed no problems for General Baptists. However, traditionally non-creedal, many General Baptist congregations were becoming increasingly liberal in their doctrine, obliging the more orthodox and the more evangelical among them to reconsider their allegiance during this period of revival. Before this re-organisation, the English General Baptists had begun to decline numerically due to several factors linked to non-orthodox 'Free Christianity'. Early Quaker converts were drawn from the General Baptists, and many other churches moved into Unitarianism, a tendency that was replicated on a smaller scale amongst Methodists in east Lancashire (see Rev. Joseph Cooke). Another former Methodist, Dan Taylor, managed to draw together orthodox Arminian Baptist congregations throughout Yorkshire and the east Midlands to form the New Connexion of General Baptists in 1770. By 1798 the Connexion had its own Academy, which later became the Midland Baptist College, Nottingham. By 1817 it had about 70 chapels, with notable concentrations in the industrial Midlands. (source)
Since even Wikipedia gets this right, it must be understood to be "common knowledge." Again, it is a simple fact of history.
The Archangel
I'm not a particular Baptist but the blanket statements and broad brushing is quite over the top.
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
Here's a passage from A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet:
The main theological divisions among Baptists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries concerned chiefly the extent to which the atonement applied to sinners. The General Baptists taught that Christ had died for all, and followed quite generally an Arminian doctrine. There was among them, however, some confusion with respect to the trinitarian concept of God. This was due to the influence of Arian thought which was them being felt also by Anglicans and Presbyterians. In spite of their professed commitment to the proposition that all men are capable of receiving the gospel upon their own free choice, they were lacking in evangelistic zeal. This was in all probability the result of their preoccupation with the theological speculation and church organization. By 1750 they had adopted quite generally a form of unitarian teaching that explained deity as one person in three manifestations, rather than three persons in one God. This defection from orthodoxy eventuated in the withdrawal of the conservative party in 1770 to organize the New Connection General Baptists. (Emphasis mine; p. 62-63; third edition)
Again, a fact of history.
The Archangel
Last edited by a moderator:
This is not universalism. And is this source a cal?
The Archangel
Well-Known Member
convicted1
Guest
Why Brother, must you start these types of threads knowing the amount of heat, and not light, that will come out from them?
I am beginning to think that your brother is the one under the bridge in "Three Billy's Goat Gruff".
I care as should everyone since the cals view will be skewed by their often mischaracterization of views they disagree with. I have seen no facts.
I'm a Reformed "Particular" Baptist and I don't agree with your statement. Actually I don't believe anything is a "fact" without said "fact" being proven. This is, after all, the internet.
You must have gotten this from a pro-calvin/anti-everything else site. Consider your sources.
Robert Snow
New Member
This is such an insult! You must be related to Aaron.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Tom Butler
New Member
I've met a lot of Baptists in my life, and heard a lot of Baptist preachers. I do not recall a single one of them espousing any view other than substutionary atonement. This includes both Cals and non-Cals.
My circle generally includes Southern Baptists and Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. I don't know about General Baptists or Free-Will Baptists or Baptists of other stripes.
My circle generally includes Southern Baptists and Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. I don't know about General Baptists or Free-Will Baptists or Baptists of other stripes.