I'm sure my denomination is closer to the truth than..."

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't know if this link will work:

Security and Assurance in Calvinism and Arminianism

Basically Calvin got his material from Augustine. Augustine believed in eternal security. He lived long before Calvin did. Thus eternal security was believed and taught for years before Calvin.

Im sorry but I know Dr. Kenny G & he is definitely an Arminian who used to teach at my brothers seminary. Anything he writes will be from that slant so I'd prefer not to read it.

 

[Jack Matthews]

3. True Baptists were never a part of Rome. They are not a denomination. There is no: The Baptist Church. They were not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation. In fact, they were persecuted by Luther, Calvin, etal.

I know there are several versions of Baptist history, including the one that likes to connect Baptists with earlier independent Christian groups. My source on that would be J.M. Carroll and The Trail of Blood. The only problem with that one is that connecting the dots, so to speak, requires a lot of speculation, without any really credible documentation. For one thing, there is quite a gap of time and space between many of the groups that get connected, and for another, many of the beliefs of some of those groups are as far off the mark from a Baptist perspective of the Christian faith as the RCC. Baptists, for the most part, reject women pastors and church leaders, and they reject a Pentecostal interpretation of the Holy Spirit, and both of those things play a dominant role in the life of many of the groups through which the history of a "preserved" church would have to go.

Documented history says that the first distinguishable "Baptist" churches appeared among English Separatists in Holland around 1609. They were the result of a brief blending of Anabaptist and Separatist theology, the latter being developed as a reaction to the disappointment over the Church of England not moving forward in theological reform after separating from the RCC. Since the Church of England had been around for 75 years at the time, it is not likely any of the Baptists who separated had been part of the RCC, so the statement that Baptists, as a movement, were never part of Rome is true. However, many people did leave the Catholic church to join Baptist churches over time. So, in terminology, though they are a part of the overall Protestant reformation, specifically, Baptists did not intend to reform either the Catholic church, nor the Anglican church from which they separated.

I believe that, along with the Protestant Reformation, Baptists were indeed a prophetic voice used by God to steer Christ's church back to its spiritual and theological roots, among others. Though influenced by the Anabaptists, I do not believe it is historically feasible to trace Baptist history and origins back through the Anabaptists, again because of the differences in theology and practice, of things which Baptists have never historically accepted.

I am not aware of any Baptist group that has formed a layer of structure that holds any ecclesiastical authority to qualify and license ministers, or conduct church business, like the Methodists or Lutherans have. As I understand it, each Baptist church, even in the more "liberal" Baptist groups, is independent, autonomous, calls its own pastors and leadership and determines its own doctrine.

It is probably something that belongs in another thread, but I believe Baptists are well into the process of losing the prophetic voice they have had since their founding.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I grew up as a conservative Presbyterian, and am now a Southern Baptist. I was a Presbyterian for 25 years, and have been a Baptist for 35 years.

I grew up as a Baptist and am now a conservative Presbyterian. I guess we took each other's place.

 

[drfuss]

Augustine did Not believe in eternal security. The quote below is from the article you referenced above. Augustine did believe in Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace up until a person becomes a Christian. But after becoming a Christian, he believed that a Christian could forfeit their salvation by stopping believing. Martin Luther was an Augustine monk and the Lutherans also believe as Augustine did.

In a sense, Augustine was a Calvinist minus eternal security.

"It is ironic that Augustine held such a strong view of sovereign grace, and yet rejected security
and assurance for the believer. There is theoretical certainty, but only in the mind of God, who
alone knows the elect. For believers there is only uncertainty, both theoretical and existential—
the former because God may not grant them the gift of perseverance and they may fall away; the
latter because, as a result, they have no assurance in this life.37
It is ironic indeed, then, that divine sovereignty was the very doctrine Augustine used to
eliminate security and assurance. God sovereignly grants or withholds perseverance from the
believer. God is sovereign, but arbitrarily so; His sovereignty offers no comfort to the believer.
“The Christian is left in a position of prayer for the gift of persevering grace, hoping with fear​

and trembling that he is one of God’s elect.”38"

Since Augustine did not believe in eternal security, does anyone know of any group or individual that lived between Augustine and Calvin that believed in eternal security or perseverance of the saints?

I always assumed that the doctrine of eternal security began with Calvin. But I would be happy for someone to be able to show that someone between Augustine and Calvin actually believed in eternal secuirty or perserverance of the saints. Please no hopeful (must have been) claims that cannot be established.

 

[awaken]

I know there are several versions of Baptist history, including the one that likes to connect Baptists with earlier independent Christian groups. My source on that would be J.M. Carroll and The Trail of Blood. The only problem with that one is that connecting the dots, so to speak, requires a lot of speculation, without any really credible documentation. For one thing, there is quite a gap of time and space between many of the groups that get connected, and for another, many of the beliefs of some of those groups are as far off the mark from a Baptist perspective of the Christian faith as the RCC. Baptists, for the most part, reject women pastors and church leaders, and they reject a Pentecostal interpretation of the Holy Spirit, and both of those things play a dominant role in the life of many of the groups through which the history of a "preserved" church would have to go.

Documented history says that the first distinguishable "Baptist" churches appeared among English Separatists in Holland around 1609. They were the result of a brief blending of Anabaptist and Separatist theology, the latter being developed as a reaction to the disappointment over the Church of England not moving forward in theological reform after separating from the RCC. Since the Church of England had been around for 75 years at the time, it is not likely any of the Baptists who separated had been part of the RCC, so the statement that Baptists, as a movement, were never part of Rome is true. However, many people did leave the Catholic church to join Baptist churches over time. So, in terminology, though they are a part of the overall Protestant reformation, specifically, Baptists did not intend to reform either the Catholic church, nor the Anglican church from which they separated.

I believe that, along with the Protestant Reformation, Baptists were indeed a prophetic voice used by God to steer Christ's church back to its spiritual and theological roots, among others. Though influenced by the Anabaptists, I do not believe it is historically feasible to trace Baptist history and origins back through the Anabaptists, again because of the differences in theology and practice, of things which Baptists have never historically accepted.

I am not aware of any Baptist group that has formed a layer of structure that holds any ecclesiastical authority to qualify and license ministers, or conduct church business, like the Methodists or Lutherans have. As I understand it, each Baptist church, even in the more "liberal" Baptist groups, is independent, autonomous, calls its own pastors and leadership and determines its own doctrine.

It is probably something that belongs in another thread, but I believe Baptists are well into the process of losing the prophetic voice they have had since their founding.

Another great post!! :thumbs:

 

[billwald]

During the Reformation one of the few things Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists agreed upon was that it was OK to kill Anabaptists.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Augustine did Not believe in eternal security. The quote below is from the article you referenced above. Augustine did believe in Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace up until a person becomes a Christian. But after becoming a Christian, he believed that a Christian could forfeit their salvation by stopping believing. Martin Luther was an Augustine monk and the Lutherans also believe as Augustine did.

In a sense, Augustine was a Calvinist minus eternal security.

"It is ironic that Augustine held such a strong view of sovereign grace, and yet rejected security
and assurance for the believer. There is theoretical certainty, but only in the mind of God, who
alone knows the elect. For believers there is only uncertainty, both theoretical and existential—
the former because God may not grant them the gift of perseverance and they may fall away; the
latter because, as a result, they have no assurance in this life.37
It is ironic indeed, then, that divine sovereignty was the very doctrine Augustine used to
eliminate security and assurance. God sovereignly grants or withholds perseverance from the
believer. God is sovereign, but arbitrarily so; His sovereignty offers no comfort to the believer.
“The Christian is left in a position of prayer for the gift of persevering grace, hoping with fear​

and trembling that he is one of God’s elect.”38"

Thank you for posting the facts.

Further, Augustine with his pagan past detrimentally influenced all of Western Christianity, not just Calvin. One thing that the RCC, Lutherans, Presbyterians, most Baptists, and even Wesley and the early Methodists have in common is their Augustinian influence, although it was tempered somewhat in Wesley by the Eastern influence that he received from that part of the Church of England.

I know that would cause great consternation to Baptists to realize that their overall view of man, God, sin, and salvation has the same Augustinian basis as the groups above, but it is true. The western group that mostly escaped that influence was the Anabaptists and the ancient Celtic church, before the Synod of Whitby, when Romanism took over the Celts.

Of course, in the RCC, other theologians were as influential as Augustine -- for example, Anselm and especially Aquinas.

 

[billwald]

Then after the Holy Spirit regenerates a person that person can un-regenerate himself?

 

[DHK]

Of course, in the RCC, other theologians were as influential as Augustine -- for example, Anselm and especially Aquinas.

There are two sides to the "facts" as I have already posted. It depends on which "authority" you believe. I gave you a link that showed that he did believe in eternal security, and thus the doctrine was around at that time. If you choose to reject both history and the Bible, that is your choice.

 

[DHK]

Im sorry but I know Dr. Kenny G & he is definitely an Arminian who used to teach at my brothers seminary. Anything he writes will be from that slant so I'd prefer not to read it.

Think it through.
Here is a summation of Augustine's views:

1. Absolute predestination
2. Impossibility of falling away or apostasy. (Eternal Security)
3. Man has no free will.
4. One cannot know if they are saved.
5. God commands impossibilities.
6. The supreme authority of the Roman church.
7. Purgatory.
8. Prayers for the dead.
9. The damnation of unbaptized infants and adults.
10. Sex is sinful because depravity is inherited.

http://www.eternalsecurity.us/a_historical_examination.htm

Now even if you still disagree with the above author and maintain that he did not believe in eternal security, one has to admit he did believe in purgatory. He was one of the founding fathers of the RCC, so to speak. As has been emphasized by our Catholic friends on this board, those that go to purgatory are "believers" in their minds. That is still part of their idea as being eternally secure, for eventually they will make it to heaven. Augustine does not teach that a believer will end up in Hell. He believes that all believers will go to either to heaven or to purgatory (probably purgatory). Obviously, if they have not persevered "enough" then they will simply spend a longer time in purgatory. Hell never enters into the question.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There are two sides to the "facts" as I have already posted. It depends on which "authority" you believe. I gave you a link that showed that he did believe in eternal security, and thus the doctrine was around at that time. If you choose to reject both history and the Bible, that is your choice.

You are the one who repeatedly demonstrates that you reject both history and the Bible. You get your doctrine from sources that are only a few hundred years old and ignore the 1500 years that came before. You even ignore and reject the doctrine of the first English Baptists, so how Baptist are you?

 

[DHK]

You are the one who repeatedly demonstrates that you reject both history and the Bible. You get your doctrine from sources that are only a few hundred years old and ignore the 1500 years that came before. You even ignore and reject the doctrine of the first English Baptists, so how Baptist are you?

My facts are straight. Look at it this way.
As a small child I was afraid of hell.
As I got older I was afraid of how long I would spend in Purgatory.
Our Catholic friends here continually remind us that Purgatory is for believers.
There is not a person here that would deny that Augustine did not believe in Purgatory. He did. Thus whether he forcefully taught eternal security in the same way that Calvinism or others do today is moot. The "believer" would in the very least end up in Purgatory, which would end up in heaven, and thus a form of eternal security.
He was a Catholic. I am not defending Catholic doctrine. But the thought is still there. He didn't think that believers would go straight to hell.

Obviously you know I believe that the Bible teaches eternal security, and that is my final authority completely apart from any history at all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My facts are straight. Look at it this way.
As a small child I was afraid of hell.
As I got older I was afraid of how long I would spend in Purgatory.
Our Catholic friends here continually remind us that Purgatory is for believers.
There is not a person here that would deny that Augustine did not believe in Purgatory. He did. Thus whether he forcefully taught eternal security in the same way that Calvinism or others do today is moot. The "believer" would in the very least end up in Purgatory, which would end up in heaven, and thus a form of eternal security.
He was a Catholic. I am not defending Catholic doctrine. But the thought is still there. He didn't think that believers would go straight to hell.

Obviously you know I believe that the Bible teaches eternal security, and that is my final authority completely apart from any history at all.

Good! Then stand strong by your last statement & forget the other rubbish that will always take you down the wrong road.

 

[The Biblicist]

I know there are several versions of Baptist history, including the one that likes to connect Baptists with earlier independent Christian groups. My source on that would be J.M. Carroll and The Trail of Blood. The only problem with that one is that connecting the dots, so to speak, requires a lot of speculation, without any really credible documentation. For one thing, there is quite a gap of time and space between many of the groups that get connected, and for another, many of the beliefs of some of those groups are as far off the mark from a Baptist perspective of the Christian faith as the RCC. Baptists, for the most part, reject women pastors and church leaders, and they reject a Pentecostal interpretation of the Holy Spirit, and both of those things play a dominant role in the life of many of the groups through which the history of a "preserved" church would have to go.

Documented history says that the first distinguishable "Baptist" churches appeared among English Separatists in Holland around 1609. They were the result of a brief blending of Anabaptist and Separatist theology, the latter being developed as a reaction to the disappointment over the Church of England not moving forward in theological reform after separating from the RCC. Since the Church of England had been around for 75 years at the time, it is not likely any of the Baptists who separated had been part of the RCC, so the statement that Baptists, as a movement, were never part of Rome is true. However, many people did leave the Catholic church to join Baptist churches over time. So, in terminology, though they are a part of the overall Protestant reformation, specifically, Baptists did not intend to reform either the Catholic church, nor the Anglican church from which they separated.

I believe that, along with the Protestant Reformation, Baptists were indeed a prophetic voice used by God to steer Christ's church back to its spiritual and theological roots, among others. Though influenced by the Anabaptists, I do not believe it is historically feasible to trace Baptist history and origins back through the Anabaptists, again because of the differences in theology and practice, of things which Baptists have never historically accepted.

I am not aware of any Baptist group that has formed a layer of structure that holds any ecclesiastical authority to qualify and license ministers, or conduct church business, like the Methodists or Lutherans have. As I understand it, each Baptist church, even in the more "liberal" Baptist groups, is independent, autonomous, calls its own pastors and leadership and determines its own doctrine.

It is probably something that belongs in another thread, but I believe Baptists are well into the process of losing the prophetic voice they have had since their founding.

There are two different ways to approach secular church history. You can approach it from the Roman Catholic perspective and simply accept their selectively preserved sources and interpretation as correct. If that is your choice, then consistency should lead you to embrace the Catholic faith because the Ante, Nicene, and Post-Nicene sources form a logical and theological development. If you are not Catholic it is because you have abritrarily chosen to depart at some point from this logical and theological history. It is important to note that the Reformers were Roman Catholics who did not wish to depart but simply return their present institution to what they believed was their former historical roots without abandoment of their pedobaptistic ecclesiology.

There is the Biblical approach to secular Church history. The Bible prophetically provides principles for interpreting future secular church history. It predicts a future apostasy within apostolic Christianity after the demise of the apostles. It predicts specific characteristics and doctrines of that apostasy. It predicts that the apostasy will compose and dominate the vast majority of God's professing kingdom on earth. Some characteristics of Apostate Christianity:

1. Murder of professing Christians in the name of God - Jn. 16
2. Distortion and perversion of apostolic Christianity - Mt. 5:10-12; 10:25;
3. State and church union - Rev. 17

Some of the apostate doctrines can be found in 1 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Jn. 4:1-6; Gal. 1:8-9, etc.

Those who look at secular church history through the spectacles of prophetic forecast see a completely different picture than the sources selected by and interpreted by Rome and interpret the source materials in light of inspired principles rather than simply embracing the uninspired, incomplete and often inaccurate source materials which internally provide sufficient materials to doubt their objective nature.

 

[Tom Butler]

For those who wonder why there are so many denominations, and even differences within denominations, here are two stories:

A traveler stopped at a cafe in a town to get something to eat. He noticed that there were two identical Baptist churches, across the street from each other.

Curious, he asked the cafe owner about it.

"Well, they had a split a few years ago. The church on this side of the street believes Pharoah's daughter found Moses in the bulrushes. The church across the street believes that's HER story."

A few miles from where I live is Mount Moriah Primitive Baptist Church. Not far away is The Original Mount Moriah Primitive Baptist Church. I don't know the history of those two churches, but it might have been like those Baptist churches I mentioned.

One church believes that the same person who washes your feet ought to dry. The other church believes a different person gets to dry.

Of such are a multiplicity of denominations and churches made.

 

[billwald]

Purgatory is a comforting doctrine because it gives a person a 2nd chance - like taking a GED test.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Purgatory is a comforting doctrine because it gives a person a 2nd chance - like taking a GED test.

Yea... thats a nice little money making racket hoax perpertrated on innocent people---like the GED.:laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

My facts are straight. Look at it this way.
As a small child I was afraid of hell.
As I got older I was afraid of how long I would spend in Purgatory.
Our Catholic friends here continually remind us that Purgatory is for believers.
There is not a person here that would deny that Augustine did not believe in Purgatory. He did. Thus whether he forcefully taught eternal security in the same way that Calvinism or others do today is moot. The "believer" would in the very least end up in Purgatory, which would end up in heaven, and thus a form of eternal security.
He was a Catholic. I am not defending Catholic doctrine. But the thought is still there. He didn't think that believers would go straight to hell.

Obviously you know I believe that the Bible teaches eternal security, and that is my final authority completely apart from any history at all.

The Bible is my final authority, too, so stop telling me that I reject it and history. I am consistently faithful to both.

 

[DHK]

The Bible is my final authority, too, so stop telling me that I reject it and history. I am consistently faithful to both.

Do you understand "neo-orthodoxy"?
It is a movement that redefines historical orthodox terminology of the Bible, either by liberal theologians who live in unbelief, or by cults who want to push their own theology. Whatever the agenda it is wrong.
When you redefine a word like "eternal" to dispense with the doctrine of the eternal damnation of the wicked, you have strayed into the liberal camp via neo-orthodoxy. These are the type of things that I object to.

As for eternal security, it is obvious that there are those that believed in it during the time of Augustine simply because belief in Purgatory was prevalent at that time. The two go together.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Do you understand "neo-orthodoxy"?
It is a movement that redefines historical orthodox terminology of the Bible, either by liberal theologians who live in unbelief, or by cults who want to push their own theology. Whatever the agenda it is wrong.
When you redefine a word like "eternal" to dispense with the doctrine of the eternal damnation of the wicked, you have strayed into the liberal camp via neo-orthodoxy. These are the type of things that I object to.

As for eternal security, it is obvious that there are those that believed in it during the time of Augustine simply because belief in Purgatory was prevalent at that time. The two go together.

Yes, I understand the term "neo-orthodoxy", and I reject it as I do liberalism, modernism, and fundamentalism.

I am not the one who has redefined "eternal". Those who translate "aion/aionios" as "eternity/eternal" are dishonest and have an agenda. "Aionios" does not mean "eternal"; it means "age", and an age is not an eternity.

This has nothing to do with "neo-orthodoxy" or liberalism but rather fidelity to the original Greek meaning of the term.

If Christians want to incorporate paganism such as Zoroastrianism into the NT because they have an agenda, this should be made known, and I am glad to do it.

I don't know why you injected this into the discussion, but since you did, I answered it.