Arminian, General, or Free Will Baptists

There is a big difference between two people debating over how each other views things and in another case, one person pointing out to another what scripture says as its own interpreter. That is what I try to do. If you review my posts, you will find that when I offer my opinion, I qualify it as such and try to be less argumentative when dealing with opinion. I hope this explanation helps.

 

I believe the truth is that God is beyond our understanding.

We know that we are to live by God's spiritual nature and reject our sinful nature.

My question is, why is it necessary to have a perfect understanding about how God runs things? Why is this such an important matter? Is this a matter that will affect our salvation? In other words, in response to your response to me, why?

 

Tuor said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But to what ends? As FF posted, is this a topic of salvation? Does the correct or incorrect understanding of this matter affect salvation? I don't think so. All this kind of pickering does is divide (a sign of the sinful nature). Why is it so important that we must agree about things that don't have any relevence when it comes to things that save? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because it has nothing to do with your salvation does not make it a minor issue. Baptism for instance does not regenerate a person but it is a major doctrine in that one is living in disobedience without it's sign. Going to Church on Sunday want save you but I think you would agree that neglecting worship is wrong.

While I don't question the salvation of my Free Will or Arminianian Brothers and sisters, there is a major differance in the way we present the Gospel in doing Evangelism. Read a sermon by Calvinist evangelists such as Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon and compare it to the Free will evangelists such as Wesley, Sunday, Graham and one will see the differances. Why is it that in our Free Will type Baptist churches that are prominent in the SBC, ABA, IFB etc.. that only 33 percent of all Baptists attent church? Why is it that most "converts" within a year abandon the Church? Could it be because of a deficient evangelism is being done in that we are simply baptizing Goats and not seeing true conversions?

 

The examples you gave I would think are important because they deal with how we should live our lives. As for meeting on Sunday, we are to continue to meet together. It is not a must, but it is one of those things the Bible says we should do. The same goes for baptism. What I am talking about are things that have nothing to do with what we do.

As to people leaving the church, this is God's domain. The weeds are plentiful in our culture, it should be no surprise that many are choked out by them. Man does not save, God saves.

 

Tuor,

No, every believer does not have to, nor is expected to be a theologian. Remember, Jesus talked about "childlike faith," and that is why young children can and do come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. But for those who are "on fire" for the Lord, I believe the following verse applies:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

 

In the same way the Pharasees divided the word?

I believe 2 Timothy is talking about putting down herecy(ie Jesus' resurrection wasn't bodily only spiritual).

Yes we should put down herecies, such as errancy of the Bible and homosexuality is good as far as God is concerned. How about the one about Jesus being married and was actually the product of God having physical sex with Mary? All these things we should stand up against. I don't believe this scripture is talking about ripping each apart for taking one scripture to heart while someone else takes another.

We can hold our own views, do they need to be exactly the same? We are to have unity in Christ. Division for a reason other than a sinful lifestyle is unbiblical.

 

I agree completely. Two of the most devisive debates going on on this board are KJVonly and "theistic evolution." I take a defensive posture on both, defending what scripture says and teaches in the case of evolution, and what it doesn't say on the other (that there will be a perfect English translation). Those on the other side of the argument are the attackers, and for the most part, the more vile, vendictive, and sarcastic of the bunch.

As I have posted elsewhere, scripture admonishes us to avoid quarreling and arguing, but that does not nullify our duty to defend egregious attacks on biblical truths.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
Kiffin,

Those who hold to Arminianism or a very modified Calvinism are the ones who have evangelized the world. Strict Calvinism sees no need to evangelize; the doctrine of double predestination renders evangelism moot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a patently false statement on both counts.

1. Early missionaries and evangelists were extremely biblical in their theology and rejected arminianism (Carey, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Judson, etc.). It is only in the last 100 years or so that missionaries have become arminian.

2. Calvinism does not render evangelism unnecessary. God's sovereignty is what gives evangelism purpose and hope. When I share the gospel with someone and they reject it, I do not walk away wondering if maybe I said something wrong or thinking maybe if I had said something else they would have been saved. God's salvific plan uses the message of his children to save those who he elects.

Calvinism demands the communication of the word (Rom 10:14-17). In 1 Thess 1, right after Paul praises God for his election of the believers at Thessalonica he goes on to say that the election was related to that fact that gospel went out in word, power, etc. 2 Tim 2:10 Paul says that he endures all things for the sake of the elect so that they may be saved and receive eternal life. It seems that the persecution that he was undergoing was serving the purpose of furthering the word so that people might be saved. In other words, you have made a false statement. The election of God includes the means of preaching/communicating the Word.

The "doctrine" of double predestination is not held by most. I certainly do not hold it. I wonder if any on this board hold to double predestination.

 

Michael said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Those who hold to Arminianism or a very modified Calvinism are the ones who have evangelized the world. Strict Calvinism sees no need to evangelize; the doctrine of double predestination renders evangelism moot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was John Bunyan, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, David Branerd, Fuller, Carey, Judson, Spurgeon Arminians? Where were the Arminian evangelists in the first Great Awakening? Why is it that the Particular Baptists supassed the General Baptists in numbers in the 1600's though the Generals were 30 years older? Answer. The Particular Baptists evangelized while the Free Willers didn't. After Thomas Helwys there really is no General Baptist of significance in making an impact though the Orthodox Baptist Creed 1678 by the General Baptist is a fascinating document that shows a moderate Arminianism leaning to Calvinism. They however were battling Unitarianism that eventually ruined most of English General Baptist work.

It was not General Baptists that grew in America but actually Calvinist Baptists were spurred on my the First Great Awakening and with their doctrinal foundation based on Calvinist documents such as the 1742 Philadelphia Confession and the 1833 New Hampshire. Calvinist Baptists built Baptist work in America. It was begginning in the late 1800's that Baptists begin to leave the foundation that actually built Baptist work by embracing Moderate Arminianism.

 

Tuor said, "In the same way the Pharasees divided the word?"

I missed this on my first response. Actually your words are accurate. The word "rightly" is missing, and that made all the difference in the world! If you will look at the "red letters" in your Bible, Jesus had some very unkind things to say to the Pharisees in general. It is the only situation in which Jesus was not gentle. He called them: "snakes, brood of vipers, hypocrites, blind guides, blind fools. Why did Jesus "freak out" with the Pharisees? It was because they did not righly divide the truth AND did not rightly APPLY (LIVE) the truth! If it's that serious for Jesus, it ought to also be for Jesus' followers.

 

May God increase the wave of Calvinist theology! Here is a quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon:

"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what is
nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel, and nothing else."
Spurgeon, Autobiography, 168

Michael,

You said that have read much on this issue and have studied at length, but to pull out the "Calvinists aren't for evangelism" ploy is a demonstration that you have not read widely on this issue, and that you are simply shooting from the hip buzz arguments that that you have heard in your friendly confines of Arminianism.

You have also endorsed the "glow of good" argument (in the face of overwhelming Scriptural evidence to the contrary) which basically says that lost man has prevenient grace--a little good in him. Others on this board have listed verse after verse that destroy any glow of good, and I have not seen you interact with these verses in attempts to explain them. Please give us your explanation of these verses.

Chick

 

Furthermore, the term "Hyper-Calvinist" is a misnomer. Anyone that denies evangelism in the name of Calvinism is guilty of Pseudo-Calvinism. John Calvin himself was very concerned about his people and their moral condition. He trained and sent out scores of missionaries, etc.
It is a false Calvinist that denies evangelism. Calvinism is most concerned about the evangelism of the world. Read John Piper's book Let the Nations be Glad and you will see this. The reason I go witnessing is BECAUSE God is sovereign--BECAUSE God has commanded me to go out and preach the gospel to His elect.

Chick

 

Michael,

Don't call your scenerio Calvinism, call it Pseudo-Calvinism. All the Calvinists I know are evangelistically minded. What if I called a group of people who believed that they could be saved by their decision only, and that God wasn't even involved in their salvation "Hyper-Arminians"? Or calling it "Strict Arminianism" or "Arminianism going to it's logical conclusion" The true Calvinist is very concerned about God's Sovereignty, and thereby concerned about obeying God. And God has condescended to use unworthy vessels like us to preach the gospel so that His elect will respond. It is the humble privelege of the Calvinist to obey God, and do His bidding. This involves a lifetime of preaching the gospel.

Chick

 

The ball has been in your court for some time to reply to the verses Chris Temple and others have posted that destroy Prevenient Grace.

Please show how John 1:9 and Titus 2:11 prove Prevenient Grace

Chick

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Interesting that you should mention Whitefield but not John and Charles Wesley.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure why that is interesting since I was talking about evangelists who held to the sovereignty of God. The Wesley's are not in that group so I did not mention them. The fact that the Wesley's left a large denomination (and a number of very good hymns) is a side-issue. Are you suggesting we measure truth by who has the largest following? Does that make the RCC the most truthful denomination?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and those influenced by Wesleyan Evangelical Arminianism--the Holiness churches, the Pentecostals, and Charismatics--continue to grow like wildfire around the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Enough said. Any group that depends on the Holiness churhces, the pentecostals, and Charismatics for validation of its theology needs to reconsider itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hyper-Calvinism especially kills evangelism<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the post above on Hyper Calvinism as a misnomer. Those who are hyper calvinists are not biblical. The sovereignty and glory of God are at stake in this debate and you seem very close to denying both by making man the center of your theology. Piper's book Let the Nations Be Glad should immediately move to the top of your reading list. Follow it very closely with The Pleasures of God by Piper and you will begin to see the problems that are inherent in your theology.

Tonight in our Wednesday Bible Study I will teach on Rom 5:8 and the atonement for sin. There will likely be an unsaved lady here who has been here on a number of occasions and has been very interested. In fact, she cut my hair this morning and told me she would be here tonight. Don't try to tell me that Calvinists don't believe in preaching and witnessing to the lost.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]