Are Baptists Calvinists Or Arminianists?

[BobinKy]

Found these words on the internet: Are Baptists Calvinists Or Arminianists?

Article contrasts The Five Points of Arminianism with The Five Points of Calvinism.

...Bob

 

[annsni]

Honestly, I can see right off the bat that it's a dishonest article. Let's see why:

"There are some strange things going on among Baptists today, head coverings for women, liquor in the Lord’s supper, and Baptist calling themselves Calvinist."

Not so strange since it's Biblical.

" Calvin and his followers burned Ana-Baptist at the stake. "

That is a lie. Servetus was wanted by the authorities in just about every state in Europe for his heretical teachings. Calvin tried to convert him but saw that it was useless and he turned him over to the proper authorities where there he was sentenced to death. Calvin did not burn him a the stake and actually fought to have his death sentence either turned to a life sentence or for his execution to be a more humane method such as beheading.

So, with the article starting out as such, I will not finish reading it because it's obviously going to go to whatever length it wishes to condemn a teaching of Scripture.

 

[preacher4truth]

The said preacher on that link is more proud of being a Baptist than he is of being Biblical or a Christian.

He lost me when he went to "his roots" and even prior to that when claimed and argued the practices of such persons as not being Baptist instead of arguing that it is not being Biblical (and if he did the latter I'd still disagree with him.)

It's preachers like this that make churches desire to leave Baptist off of their signs.

 

[th1bill]

Just for clarity, I am a Christian that teaches in a Baptist Church where my Church Family is A group of Sinners that have turned to become the Servant Children of God.

I do not teach any five point ideas, I teach the Bible and from these first two responses I do not feel the urge to check the link at all. When men follow men it is through the Wide Gate and that is not for me or mine.

 

[quantumfaith]

An "ironic" quote of John Calvin, not being a qualified historian, I will not make a judgement on the guilt or innocense of Mr. Calvin in the Servetus issue.

“Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day; set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” (John Calvin)

 

[preacher4truth]

Just for clarity, I am a Christian that teaches in a Baptist Church where my Church Family is A group of Sinners that have turned to become the Servant Children of God.

I do not teach any five point ideas, I teach the Bible and from these first two responses I do not feel the urge to check the link at all. When men follow men it is through the Wide Gate and that is not for me or mine.

Amen. Some have turned these doctrines into idols. The men who have been fathers of the two sides are worshipped.

Even being a Baptist turns into idolatry to some.

Of course, they who do such would never admit to this.

Truly, theology is the god of many in christendom today.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Honestly, I can see right off the bat that it's a dishonest article. Let's see why:

"There are some strange things going on among Baptists today, head coverings for women, liquor in the Lord’s supper, and Baptist calling themselves Calvinist."

Not so strange since it's Biblical.

" Calvin and his followers burned Ana-Baptist at the stake. "

That is a lie. Servetus was wanted by the authorities in just about every state in Europe for his heretical teachings. Calvin tried to convert him but saw that it was useless and he turned him over to the proper authorities where there he was sentenced to death. Calvin did not burn him a the stake and actually fought to have his death sentence either turned to a life sentence or for his execution to be a more humane method such as beheading.

So, with the article starting out as such, I will not finish reading it because it's obviously going to go to whatever length it wishes to condemn a teaching of Scripture.

Good catch Ann! :thumbs:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Bob, we gotta find you some better reading material.

Not only, as Ann pointed out, the author not exactly accurate about the Calvin/Severtus event, but he's not very accurate about the roots of Baptists either. He implies that AnaBaptists later became Baptists, but that is not the case. Today's Anabaptists are the Amish and Menonites, not us.

A fairly good link that I've found to be accurate so far:

http://www.christian-history.org/index.html

The info on there might not be totally correct in every instance (I haven't read the whole site), but its a good jumping off point for learning church history.

About the only thing the author in your link treats accurately are the 5 points of C/A and even then both are treated very simplistically. The rest is one sided opinion and not very scholarly at all. Indeed, it seems he wished to define the term "baptist" in his own terms, seperate and apart from the rest of church/religious history. Only his definition leaves a lot to be desired.

For all you Cals reading, the guy insults us so-called Arminians just as badly as he does you later on in the article!

Do a google book search on both men. You will find a good portion of both men's works out there in the public domain. Not exactly easy to read some of the translations (they date from the late 1800's to early 1900's) but you can find info that is much closer to the horse's mouth than the site you posted. You'll also find some good suggestions on more up to date books that you can purchase. (though you'll want to be watchful of the author's bias', but one must be careful of that in any "religious" book)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Bob, we gotta find you some better reading material.

Not only, as Ann pointed out, the author not exactly accurate about the Calvin/Severtus event, but he's not very accurate about the roots of Baptists either. He implies that AnaBaptists later became Baptists, but that is not the case. Today's Anabaptists are the Amish and Menonites, not us.

A fairly good link that I've found to be accurate so far:

http://www.christian-history.org/index.html

The info on there might not be totally correct in every instance (I haven't read the whole site), but its a good jumping off point for learning church history.

Thanks menageriekeeper, I really like this website. Also thank you for keeping it fair & balanced. :thumbsup:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Bob, we gotta find you some better reading material.

Not only, as Ann pointed out, the author not exactly accurate about the Calvin/Severtus event, but he's not very accurate about the roots of Baptists either. He implies that AnaBaptists later became Baptists, but that is not the case. Today's Anabaptists are the Amish and Menonites, not us.

That’s a very good point about the Anabaptist not being the root of modern Baptist. I don’t know why so many people think they are the beginings of our denomination, but they were a strange group who really only had the similarities of adult /believers baptism. They almost destroyed the Swiss reformation with their whacked out theology & (in my personal opinion) caused Zwingli to turn back to paedobaptism, when he originally was for believers baptism. Not a group I really want to be associated with.

 

[Jeffriesw]

Honestly, I can see right off the bat that it's a dishonest article. Let's see why:

"There are some strange things going on among Baptists today, head coverings for women, liquor in the Lord’s supper, and Baptist calling themselves Calvinist."

Not so strange since it's Biblical.

" Calvin and his followers burned Ana-Baptist at the stake. "

That is a lie. Servetus was wanted by the authorities in just about every state in Europe for his heretical teachings. Calvin tried to convert him but saw that it was useless and he turned him over to the proper authorities where there he was sentenced to death. Calvin did not burn him a the stake and actually fought to have his death sentence either turned to a life sentence or for his execution to be a more humane method such as beheading.

So, with the article starting out as such, I will not finish reading it because it's obviously going to go to whatever length it wishes to condemn a teaching of Scripture.

X's 2, good thoughts :thumbs:

 

[MB]

Honestly, I can see right off the bat that it's a dishonest article. Let's see why:

"There are some strange things going on among Baptists today, head coverings for women, liquor in the Lord’s supper, and Baptist calling themselves Calvinist."

Not so strange since it's Biblical.

" Calvin and his followers burned Ana-Baptist at the stake. "

That is a lie. Servetus was wanted by the authorities in just about every state in Europe for his heretical teachings. Calvin tried to convert him but saw that it was useless and he turned him over to the proper authorities where there he was sentenced to death. Calvin did not burn him a the stake and actually fought to have his death sentence either turned to a life sentence or for his execution to be a more humane method such as beheading.

So, with the article starting out as such, I will not finish reading it because it's obviously going to go to whatever length it wishes to condemn a teaching of Scripture.

I would say that depends entirely on what you read. Those who agree with Calvin are naturally going to say nice things about him and equally true those who disagreed would have reason to say bad things. What do I believe? God knows for sure whether good or bad. It isn't my place to judge him. The doctrines named for him isn't necessarily the doctrines he held as truth. For instance he wrote "the Roman Catholic Church held the keys to Salvation".
He also wrote;
"There is no Salvation apart from the church"
While they have the same Keyes to Salvation every saved man has, which is the gospel. They do not have any authority over who God will save. There is definitely Salvation apart from the RCC.
I don't believe it was Calvin who wrote the said doctrines of Grace or tulip. He may have believed in the position they interpret. Calvin was inspired by Augustine. Not God as men have told me.
MB

 

[Salty]

Are Baptists Calvinists Or Arminianists


YES

 

[BobinKy]

Bob, we gotta find you some better reading material. . . .

A fairly good link that I've found to be accurate so far:

http://www.christian-history.org/index.html

merageriekeeper...

Thanks for the link.

...Bob

 

[Tom Butler]

You would think that if one is going to write an article such as the one cited in the OP, that the author would check his spelling.

Non-Calvinists are not Armenians. They are Arminians.

And they are not Arminianists. They are just Arminians.

Sloppy research damages credibility.

 

[Rippon]

An "ironic" quote of John Calvin, not being a qualified historian, I will not make a judgement on the guilt or innocense [sic]of Mr. Calvin in the Servetus issue.

It's not a John Calvin at all, and you know it. That "quote" is so bogus it smells all the way to S.K.

 

[Salty]

Non-Calvinists are not Armenians. They are Arminians.

It was pre-destined that their name be misspelled:smilewinkgrin:

 

[annsni]

For all you Cals reading, the guy insults us so-called Arminians just as badly as he does you later on in the article!

LOL - I saw that. Both sides are heretics!! :laugh:

 

[annsni]

I would say that depends entirely on what you read. Those who agree with Calvin are naturally going to say nice things about him and equally true those who disagreed would have reason to say bad things. What do I believe? God knows for sure whether good or bad. It isn't my place to judge him. The doctrines named for him isn't necessarily the doctrines he held as truth. For instance he wrote "the Roman Catholic Church held the keys to Salvation".
He also wrote;
"There is no Salvation apart from the church"
While they have the same Keyes to Salvation every saved man has, which is the gospel. They do not have any authority over who God will save. There is definitely Salvation apart from the RCC.
I don't believe it was Calvin who wrote the said doctrines of Grace or tulip. He may have believed in the position they interpret. Calvin was inspired by Augustine. Not God as men have told me.
MB

I'd have to see the context of the quotes. I'm not sure that he believed that the RCC was the end all and be all of religion.

 

[Tom Butler]

To be clear, although I wear the label Calvinist, I am not a follower of Calvin.

I agree with many things taught by John and Charles Wesley, but I am not a Wesleyan.

Luther got some things right, with which I agree, but I am not a Lutheran.

But I agree with everything John taught, so I can comfortably call myself a Baptist.