Is it true cals affirm a substitutionary View of Cross/While Arms/Non calls Would not

"A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism...what he did could not have been to pay the penalty,since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition." (From Arminian scholarJ.Kenneth Grider's book Arminianism in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 1984 page 80)

 

Historic Arminians saw that believing in the idea of substitutionary atonement would not fit with their system of theology. Even though Arminians today may use this terminology,it does not strictly "belong" to them...Modern Arminians are generally unaware of the history of Arminianism,and the fact that the phrases "Jesus took the place of sinners'"or "Jesus died for us" or "Jesus" death paid the penalty of sin" are "borrowed" from Calvinism. Many an Arminian will confess belief in substitutionary atonement only to change the meaning of "atonement" into something merely theoretical. (James White: The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of The Reformation And A Rebuttal To Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free --pages 233,234)

 

To say that a Calvinist cannot be trusted simply because he is a Calvinist is ludicrous.

There are facts of history. Whether one is a Calvinist or an Arminian does not change the fundamental fact.

When one, like mandym, says "Cal's view will be skewed by their often mischarachterization of view they disagree with" this smacks of saying "No Calvinist will ever get anything right." If you follow this mentality to its logical end, you would deny 2+2=4 if a Calvinist espoused the position.

This is anti-intellectual and sectism at its worst. People wonder why Arminians and Calvinists can't seem to get along--and this is why.

There is a general distrust of the Calvinists by the Arminians--and mandym's comments illustrate that perfectly.

Now, here's an interesting fact:

In writing about the Articles of Religion of the New Connexion, a confession of the General Baptists written by Daniel Taylor in 1770, blogger Jared Moore writes:

Daniel Taylor wrote this confession in response to the rationalism that had crept into the doctrines of the General Baptists. Specifically, he was responding to the spread of Socinianism and Arianism, which worked themselves out into Unitarianism and Universalism
​

Whom does Jared Moore (a 4-Point Calvinist who rejects Limited Atonement) cite? Ergun Caner. Here's the citation: Ergun Caner, “The History of the Baptists,” (Lecture 10, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, VA, 2005).

Now, say what you will about about Ergun Caner, but he is absolutely, positively no friend of Calvinism in any form. Yet, he specifically states that the English General Baptists (again, believing in a general atonement) did, in fact, degenerate into universalism (among other things).

So there, all you non-Calvinists, you have one of your own--Ergun Caner, a man who is openly hostile to Calvinism--stating what I have already said.

The Archangel

 

Herald,

I so appreciate the tone of your disagreement. I'm going to write a general post after I'm finished typing this one dealing with how I think my comments have been misunderstood.

Here is a source for you that states, specifically, that when the Particular Baptists erred, they erred towards hyper-Calvinism:

The Particular Baptists gave more attention to the training of pastors than their General counterparts, but they were still needful in this area, and suffered from a lack of leaders who could meaningfully engage with the accusations rationalism was throwing at the orthodox faith. However for them too, the main cause of decline was due to doctrinal change, although this time towards a more conservative rather than liberal stance. Many of them became hyper-Calvinist, particularly following the lead of strong London churches.

This had two effects: (1) a few drifted into antinomianism believing that the moral law was not binding for those under grace; (2) the evangelistic endeavour of many was stopped or at least blunted by their understanding of double-predestination. While previous Particular Baptists had maintained their evangelistic zeal, preachers now felt paralysed by their theology: “if Christ died not for all but only for the elect, it is useless to invite all to repent and believe in Him”. One example is given by Hoad who speaks of a pastor who was “so afraid of Arminianism and Pelagianism that he made no attempt to awaken the consciences of the unconverted lest he should despoil God of the sole glory of their conversion." C. H. Spurgoen later commented that such theology had “chilled many churches to their soul.” ("The Rise and Development of the English Baptists" by Graham Beynon available here: http://www.theologian.org.uk/churchhistory/englishbaptists.html)
​

See here (source) at section 5.2. You'll also be able to see the sources the author cites.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I'm afraid my comments might have been misunderstood. Perhaps I was not clear enough or careful enough to stave-off these misunderstandings. Let me attempt to clarify.

When I said that historically the General Baptists trended towards universalism and the Particular Baptists trended towards hyper-Calvinism, I did not intend to say that the General Baptists were, by default, Universalists and I did not intend to say that the Particular Baptists were, by default, hyper-Calvinists.

In looking at both the English General Baptists and English Particular Baptists, both groups had error creep in (which is why we must always be on guard against such things; we must learn from history). When that error crept into the General Baptists, that error generally led to universalism. Similarly, when error crept into the Regular Baptists, that error generally led to hyper-Calvinism. Both errors affected the Gospel. Both errors essentially denied the Gospel.

As a staunch 5-Point Calvinist, I can easily and happily co-labor with non-Calvinists--as long as the Gospel is not compromised. Sadly, I don't see the same willingness among Arminians in relation to Calvinists (and this is meant in broad, general terms, as there are certainly exceptions).

So, I hope that clears up some of the misunderstanding that appears to have been in some of the posts here.

Blessings in Christ,

The Archangel

 

Thank you for taking the time to clarify and offer sources.....we should all want to avoid either error.:thumbs:

 

Archangel,

Now you KNOW I am not a calvinist by any stretch, but I do not feel hostility toward the theology, my comment "No you didn't" was meant to impress the fact that it did not sound like something I would expect you to say.

 

Just for the record.

Here is a group of Baptists who are universalists which originate from a calvinistic Baptist entity:

RE: The Primitive Baptists called the "no-hellers":

Found online in the public domain at:

http://www.library.appstate.edu/appcoll/manuscript/coll116/pbuni.html

Full disclosure: While these folk are Trinitarian Universalist Baptists, in my studies I have found that this minority group within the Primitive Baptist persuasion believe no one can be saved apart from the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ. "no-heller" is somewhat of a misnomer as they do affirm it's existence but that it is temporary wherein (apparently) Christ will be acknowledged by all.

HankD

 

I am in the "non-cal" camp, and I believe that Christ had to die in my place. If not, all of us would die lost.

 

You need credible sources and should post you sources from the beginning.

 

It is not true, it is false, it is a lie, it is without merit, it is a fallacy.


Understand?

 

Who are these Individual people who believe this? How many of them are their currently? See you want to demonize those who you disagree with with your subtle unsubstantiated claims and spurious sources.

Between that and your inability to spell you continue to look foolish. You really should reconsider your agenda.

 

You, like many "cals" like to misrepresent what others believe. You like to characterize differing views based on your disagreement rather than try to honestly represent them. Your source is wrong, I know of no one who is a non call who denies penal substitution. There are most likely some but to broad brush all in this manner is just not honest. Maybe you should resolve your cal/noncal obsession.

 

There is no truth in that. I don't know of anyone who believes that Christ is not our substitute. If there are people who believe that, it could rightly be said they are heretics. I know of no Baptists that believe such a thing. And since we are all Baptists here, who are you accusing?

 

Why it's us "non-cals". God only gives them the "correct" theology, while the rest of us(non-cals) are left to our own devices to try and garner His knowledge.