POLL: Trying to Get a Feel for Where We're at Theologically

I think there is a minor flaw in the survey. The question about covenants has a distractor in the historical covenant position, where it says "believer's baptism." I know that you included that to distinguish from other historical covenant folks, but it may confuse some. I know that most dispensationalists and progressive dispies are also believer's baptism, but there is apparently some confusion among some folks. The reason that I think this exists is that the percentage of self identified dispensationals is low compared to the percentage of pre-trib premils.

 

It has always interedted me that we identify as 1 or 2 point Calvinist rather then 4, 5, or 6 point Arminians.

 

In relation to the terms conservative, fundamentalist, etc. I would be interested in knowing how other than USA citizens answered this question. The terms have quite different meanings outside the USA.

To my mind, either one is Calvinist or not, and nothing in between counts.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'm wondering how we can have almost twice as many historic covenenters as 5 point calvinists......

I also think New Covenant Theology is common enough in Baptist circles these days to have been included as a response to the first question.

 

Yes, that's the way I see it too. All 5 points of Calvinism rely on each other for their validity, with the possible exception of the fifth point - "Perseverance of the saints" (although it is a logical conclusion to be drawn from the other four points).

Certainly you can hold to the "Perseverance of the saints" view based on the biblical witness without imposing a Calvinist structure on the Bible, as well as believe most of the others points of Calvinism without having to take them to the rationalist logical extreme of the Calvinist system.

I have a lot of appreciation for the theological emphases of 5-point Calvinism except for their doctrine of "Limited atonement". But if you can't embrace all five points of Calvinism, you shouldn't call yourself a Calvinist. (And you shouldn't automatically be labeled an "Arminian" either.)

 

Many Baptists, at the turn of the last century, adhered to a sub-lapsarian viewpoint and they termed themselves as Calvinists. I think this is why so many modern Baptists are fuzzy on theology.

The limited atonement is greatly misunderstood, but is logically in keeping with God's sovereignty.

Cheers,

Jim

 

On question 5 I choose blended music, but blended also means hymns and praise and worship.

 

Great discussion everyone!

I think it well to mention that most people don't even have a clue who Calvin or Arminius even are. I have talked to people that didn't even know that they were following the theology of J. Arminius (Am I spelling his name right?).

That leads me to a questiion...I have always been told and now taught in seminary that dispensationalism and Calvinism don't go together at least not logically anyway. But I believe Barnhouse claimed to both and I think Dr. Bob claims this title as well. I wouldn't call either of these men uninformed about theology and although I don't agree about everything, I do respect them.

So how about it Dr. Bob any answers?

 

To me John Calvin, was a mis-guided ex catholic that ran down the refromation race track, carrying the rags of catholism with him. Jacobus Arminius (please forgive the spelling), gave a knee jerk reaction to Calvin and so the debate continues. If someone calls me either, my blood starts to boil. You folks that want to line up and be identified must have an identity crisis.

Note: One of the best friends God ever gave me was a Primitive Baptist Dutch truck farmer in south Chicago Heights. He was a Holy living man that I admired and loved, gone on now. He never really knew if he was one of the elect or not. He was always worried.

Thanks for the poll although there were still some areas not covered for me.

Bart

 

I'm thinking that some people may be marking historic covenant because it says "believer's baptism only" after it, thinking that if they believe in believer's baptism, than that's where they must belong, not realizing that historic and progressive dispensational, along with my personal fave (but unforunately not included in the poll)--New Covenant, also believe in believer's baptism.

 

I agree with your conclusion, but in point of fact, the five points of Arminianism came first; they are the reason there is a five-point formula. Jan Van Harmin (aka Jacobus Arminius) was a theology professor in the Netherlands who objected to some of the teachings of the Reformed Church. After his death, some of his students put together a "remonstrance" to the Dutch Reformed Church, objecting to church teachings in five areas. (By the way, old Arminius himself would only have endorsed four of the five points, even HE believed in eternal security.) The Dutch Reformed Church, being part of a church-state union, called a governmental assembly to settle the matter (The Synod of Dordt). Rather than being tedious, let me just say that theology was not the only question on the table, there were also purely political items discussed. As a result of the meetings, which went on for some months, and stretched across 1618 and 1619, the Dutch Reformed Church published the Canons of Dordt, and executed Oldenbarnevelt (not sure about the spelling here)over the political issue. After the dust settled, the Dutch Remonstrants (followers of Arminius) went a good deal farther to the left theologically. Hugo Grotius, the father of international law, was one of their number, and he devised and taught the so-called governmental theory of the atonement.

 

The Late James Montgomery Boice was dispensational and calvinistic, as is John MacArthur.

 

I wonder if you have ever read Calvin. First of all, John Calvin did not teach "calvinism" as it is (mis)understood today, and represented (not always very well) by the Five Points (see my earlier post on their history). He went to be with the Lord in 1564, the Five Points were promulgated in 1619. I have read a lot of Calvin, not only his theology, but also his exegetical commentaries and his expository sermons. He was quite a remarkable servant of God. Starting from zero, Calvin and the other reformers had to re-invent Biblical, expository preaching, as well as the science of Biblical exegesis from the original languages. The Roman church, which did not want the Bible studied by ANYONE, had allowed both sciences to mostly disappear. Most evangelicals today are solidly calvinistic in most areas of their beliefs. Biblical inerrancy and verbal inspiration? Calvin resurrected those teachings. Elder ruled churches? Calvin again. A consistent and Biblical theology of the Holy Spirit? Again, Calvin's work is basic and seminal. Justification by faith? Along with Luther, Calvin again laid the ground work. Calvin is associated with the doctrine of election, but in point of fact, all of the major reformers except the Mennonites taught this. For Luther, if you believed in Free Will, you were Catholic. He told Erasmus, that the Roman Catholic doctrine of man's free and effective will was the real difference between Rome and Reform. Luther entitled his book to Erasmus as "The Bondage of the Will," and he said that anyone who ascribed any part of salvation to the free will of man knew nothing of Christ or of salvation--much stronger words than I would use, but then I don't have a price on MY head.

A little study of church history and reading original sources goes a long way to getting a balanced understanding of doctrinal issues.

 

Thanks Major B, finally an informed and well balance response on Calvin. I get sick and tired of people putting him down without ever reading his original writings. (*Note: Reading snippits of his writing quoted by an author who doesn't like him is NOT reading the original sources. If you think so, pick up a non-christian book that is attacking the Bible and see what they rip out of context to make the Bible look raciest, sexiest, anti-semetic, intolerant, support slavery, genecide, and ingorance).

Calvin was a giant of a man who had mistakes in his theology. There are mistakes in theology on this board as well (otherwise we would all agree!). Obviously, as Baptists, there are a few major points were we differ from Calvin and Luther, but I find more harmful theology then theirs among our own circles (I won't list a couple so as not to side track this thread.)

 

Pastor Bob,

You left off Reformed Baptist from your list

 

That was a very interesting post Major B. Thanks!

Russ <><

 

I wasn't sure about question 1. Could someone (in a few words) give me the gist of what a dispensationalist is? I have learned from this board that I am a T.P. Calvinist and a U.L.I. Arminian. So what does that make me? And don't say, "confused".