Arminian or Semi-Pelagian

[kyredneck]

.... in the early seventeenth century, Arminians had more in common with Calvinists than the Particular Baptists would have ....

JonC, you care to expound on that a little?

 

[Yeshua1]

This has been a good thread--hasn't had much of the usual acrimony found in Cal/Arm debates.

I agree with the distinction between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. As one who has carefully read Arminius's actual works on this issue, it is safe to say that he was NOT a semi-Pelagian (nor were the Wesleys).

many would be surprised at what John W thought on this issue...

Seems that biggest disagreement is the extent of salvation, as to whom God offers it towards , and if that grace actually gives us the faith or not to believe...

 

[convicted1]

JonC, you care to expound on that a little?

I am curious, too...

 

[JonC]

What's the 'distinction' between Calvinistic soteriology and 17th century Calvinism?

JonC, you care to expound on that a little?

I am curious, too...

I will try.

I think we agree that Reformed Baptists are Calvinists and that they ascribe to Calvinistic soteriology. Do you believe that Reformed Baptists also hold to Calvinistic ecclesiology as expressed by early Calvinism? If so, how do you reconcile Calvinistic ecclesiology with Baptist theology? If not, then the Reformed Baptists are Calvinists but not identical to the Calvinists up through the decades immediately following Beza.

We take the Doctrines of Grace and call it “Calvinism,”…and it is clearly understood in our times. But on this thread we were venturing back to the Synod of Dort and beyond. I was only saying that when we speak of Calvinism we are speaking of its soteriology (as far as I know this remains consistent to a great degree throughout Calvinistic churches). There are, of course, some Calvinists (obviously not Reformed Baptists) who reject the notion that one can reconcile Baptist theology with Calvinism. But within the context of our conversations here (this is a Baptist Board, after all) we generally speak of Calvinism divorced from many of the doctrines that formed its early identity (remember...the Lutherans coined the phrase "Calvinism" as they objected to the Calvin's views of spiritual presence vs sacramental union).

Before we get lost in the sauce, remember this issue arose within this thread simply because I pointed out that Arminanism was not a competing theology that originated and opposed Calvinism from the outside. Early Arminians differed from Calvinism in their soteriology. They maintained a Calvinistic view of secular government being an arm of the Church, of worship, of non-adorned places of worship, a Church-State union, of infant baptism...etc. What we call Calvinism today is not what would be recognizable as Calvinism closer to the Reformation. It has corrected many errors (I believe errors carried over from the RCC...or more precisely, from that worldview) and is the better for it (speaking of Reformed Baptists).

 

[Rippon]

I think we agree that Reformed Baptists are Calvinists and that they ascribe to Calvinistic soteriology.
when we speak of Calvinism we are speaking of its soteriology (as far as I know this remains consistent to a great degree throughout Calvinistic churches

Agreed.

What we call Calvinism today is not what would be recognizable as Calvinism closer to the Reformation.

But that statement of yours seems to contradict what you said earlier which I have quoted. The term Calvinism specifically is dealing with soteriology as you correctly said earlier.

 

[JonC]

I think we agree that Reformed Baptists are Calvinists and that they ascribe to Calvinistic soteriology. What we call Calvinism today is not what would be recognizable as Calvinism closer to the Reformation.

Agreed

when we speak of Calvinism we are speaking of its soteriology (as far as I know this remains consistent to a great degree throughout Calvinistic churches).

But that statement of yours seems to contradict what you said earlier which I have quoted. The term Calvinism specifically is dealing with soteriology as you correctly said earlier.

The statement only seemingly contradicts what I said earlier… perhaps due to my inability to come up with different words (I used the term “Calvinism” as the theological system known as Calvinism and as we use it to refer to Calvinistic soteriology…I apologize for the lack of clarity).

The term Calvinism as used today does specifically deal with soteriology (to us, anyway). The term Calvinism, however, has not historically referred specifically to soteriology.

 

[convicted1]

Brother JonC,


So are you saying, that in the strictest sense, truly Calvinsitic peoples are of the Prysbyterians, seeing that they are, for lack of better words, paedobaptistic covenantalists? I tend to see it that way. Our soteriology is Calvinististic, but our ecclesiology surely isn't, imo....

 

[Rippon]

The term Calvinism as used today does specifically deal with soteriology (to us, anyway). The term Calvinism, however, has not historically referred specifically to soteriology.

Okay, not to soteriology alone. Calvinism in his time (the last few years of his life when the term was used as a pejorative by some Lutherns) might have had more to do with Calvin's ecclesiology (piggybacking on Con1's comments), and his stance on the sacraments.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Okay, not to soteriology alone. Calvinism in his time (the last few years of his life when the term was used as a pejorative by some Lutherns) might have had more to do with Calvin's ecclesiology (piggybacking on Con1's comments), and his stance on the sacraments.

I don't understand....do you mean a 'sacrimental ' stance?

 

[Rippon]

I don't understand....do you mean a 'sacramental ' stance?

Yes. Calvin sought middle ground between that of Zwingli and Luther.

Zwingli is alleged to have been in favor of the memorial approach --though that is debated by some.

Luther believed that the Lord was literally present in the bread and wine of communion. His view is called consubstantiation --but it looks like transubstantiation to me.

Calvin's way was nuanced --the Lord is spiritually present in the ceremony of the Lord's supper. Apparently Calvin's treatment pleased Luther.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes. Calvin sought middle ground between that of Zwingli and Luther.

Zwingli is alleged to have been in favor of the memorial approach --though that is debated by some.

Luther believed that the Lord was literally present in the bread and wine of communion. His view is called consubstantiation --but it looks like transubstantiation to me.

Calvin's way was nuanced --the Lord is spiritually present in the ceremony of the Lord's supper. Apparently Calvin's treatment pleased Luther.

But Z had to die....that pleased Luther.:BangHead:

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Calvin sought middle ground between that of Zwingli and Luther.

Zwingli is alleged to have been in favor of the memorial approach --though that is debated by some.

Luther believed that the Lord was literally present in the bread and wine of communion. His view is called consubstantiation --but it looks like transubstantiation to me.

Calvin's way was nuanced --the Lord is spiritually present in the ceremony of the Lord's supper. Apparently Calvin's treatment pleased Luther.

So Zwingli would have been the "baptist" view?

 

[JonC]

So Zwingli would have been the "baptist" view?

On that subject…probably. Unfortunately, sometimes I think that we may be in danger of taking both the Lord’s Supper and baptism too lightly. Earlier in his life, Zwingli was closer to baptist doctrine on believer's baptism as well.

 

[Rippon]

Unfortunately, sometimes I think that we may be in danger of taking both the Lord’s Supper and baptism too lightly. Earlier in his life, Zwingli was closer to baptist doctrine on believer's baptism as well.

As I had said, I think that Zwingli's "memorial view" of communion has been overstated in the past and his works need to be reinvestigated on the matter.

Zwingli was indeed on the verge regarding believer's baptism. He had a debate with Balthasar Hubmaier in 1525/26 on the very subject of the proper candidate for baptism. It's generally agreed that Hubmaier won convincingly with a more compelling scriptural argument.