Calvinist or Arminian?

[SolaSaint]

If we Baptists trace our beginnings back to the Reformation, what would you say that we followed; Calvin's doctrines or Arminian doctrines? We seem to have many in both camps today, but what about at the beginning. Or do we go back even further than the Reformation, which I like to think so, but I've never studied Baptist history enough to know.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

For the most part the C/A divison among Anglo-American Baptists arose from differing views on the extent of the Atonement. However, please remember Calvinism proper extends far beyond the Five Points of the Canons of Dort (the TULIP). As such it bears little resembalance to the way Baptists use the description.
So, to answer your question, both Calvinism and Arminianism have been represented among us.
By the mid 17th century, English Baptist were broadly divided between the General Baptists(A) and the Particular Baptists (C).

Today, descendants of the General Baptists are the Free will Baptists and the General Baptists (not to be confused with the General Baptist Conference- the old Swedish Baptist Conference).

The Particulars:
mid 18th Century: John Gill's Body of Divinity. There is no need to preach the Gospel to the non-elect. Among today's descendants are the Old Regular Baptists and the Primitive Baptists.
late 18th century: Andrew Fuller. A preacher can't know who in his audience is elect or not. His duty is to preach the Gospel. It is the duty of his audience to believe. Most of the Baptists in America are Fullerite Calvinists.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

If we Baptists trace our beginnings back to the Reformation, what would you say that we followed; Calvin's doctrines or Arminian doctrines? We seem to have many in both camps today, but what about at the beginning. Or do we go back even further than the Reformation, which I like to think so, but I've never studied Baptist history enough to know.

IMSMR, the baptists at the time of the Reformation were called anabaptists because they were people who reneged on their infant baptism in the RCC to get baptized by immersion as adults. This issue by itself would put the baptists at odds initially with Calvin, as his perception of the perseverance of the saints was based on an infant baptism. Even today, most (if not all) baptists would disagree with infant baptism. I consider myself an anabaptist as I was baptized as an infant (Lutheran) and then later baptized by immersion when I became a Christian.

Calvinism, as it is termed today takes on the definitions of it's confessor(s). Even someone who has never heard of TULIP may call themselves a Calvinist solely because they believe in OSAS. Then there are, of course, 5 pointers and even beyond that, Hyper-Calvinists. While I refuse to label myself either Calvinist or Arminian, that certainly won't stop others from doing it. :laugh:

 

[Johnv]

If we Baptists trace our beginnings back to the Reformation, what would you say that we followed; Calvin's doctrines or Arminian doctrines?

My understanding is that Baptist beliefs are neither exclusively Calvinist nor Arminian. Some, like myself, being Reformed Baptist, lean heavily Calvinist, and some lean heavily Arminian. The Baptist Distinctives themselves do not adopt one or the other exclusively.

 

[SolaSaint]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I lean towards Calvinism, but not to the extent that I'm a determinist. I leave room for the mystery of God in salvation, for this allows Him to be sovereign and allows the possibility of free will. If that makes any sense.

 

[pinoybaptist]

..............................for this allows Him to be sovereign and allows the possibility of free will. If that makes any sense.

But of course being a Calvinist, you know that the only one with true free will is the elect, regenerate believer, and not every man ?

 

[SolaSaint]

Again, I'll leave that up to God. Many places in scripture it says men have rejected Jesus, is this then free will?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Again, I'll leave that up to God. Many places in scripture it says men have rejected Jesus, is this then free will?

no. that is the unregenerate, dead-in-sin, Adamic nature.

 

[Jim1999]

Or we pray, as did Mr. Spurgeon, according to some, "Lord, save the elect and elect some more."

Both Arminianism and Calvinism is so misrepresented in modern times. The true Calvinists begin with the absolute sovereignty of God and all other doctrines must align with this.

Whilst doctrines have varied greatly down through the ages, I am landmarkist, in that I believe the baptist concepts have persisted since the New Testament. I prefer to refer to Luther's Reformation as a great reawakening of the faith once delivered unto the saints.

The purported founder of the Reformation baptists baptized himself by pouring water on his own head and called it baptism. He never did form a baptist church!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[pinoybaptist]

Or we pray, as did Mr. Spurgeon, according to some, "Lord, save the elect and elect some more."

If Mr. Spurgeon prays that way, then I would have asked him, didn't the Lord already save the elect, and that saving the final act of redemption, covering the whole number of elect in this limited span called time whose names are in the Lord's Book of Life ?

What did the cross really accomplish, according to such a prayer ?

Shouldn't the prayer be one of praise and thanksgiving for His mercy and grace to such an undeserving lot of sinners, ourselves and himself, included ?

 

[Jerome]

"I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my system of theology needed such a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, dare not, allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind; it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit ; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all this world, but ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed the Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a divine person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice. The intent of the divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work. In the atonement of Christ Jesus there is "bread enough and to spare;" even as Paul wrote to Timothy, "He is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."" ---Charles Spurgeon, Bread Enough and to Spare

 

[Jim1999]

Mr. Spurgeon believed beyond doubt in a limited atonement. The blood of Jesus was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect.

On the free will of humans, this falls under the absolute sovereignty of God in a category of theology we call the permissive will of God. God allows man to move within this area quite freely, but the condition is simply, "Thus far and no further." God sets the limit of that freedom.

I preach the gospel to all humankind as if anyone may decide. That is my calling, to preach the gospel to the whole world. It is God's right to impart grace to whom He will.

Remember, theology is formed from scripture and reason based on scripture, to the best of our ability. It is not perfect. Hence, we should not limit our fellowship to only those who share our particular vewpoints. Our fellowship is in Christ and those who share His atoning work.

Many to-day base their view of the atonement on the foreknowledge of God. He knew beforehand who would accept the gospel, hence they are the elect. True calvinists have no such concept. We believe that foreknowledge is a natural attribute of an eternal God, and not a determinative factor in his redemption.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

mid 18th Century: John Gill's Body of Divinity. There is no need to preach the Gospel to the non-elect.

That is not a fair summation of John Gill's view at all.

Andrew Fuller. A preacher can't know who in his audience is elect or not. His duty is to preach the Gospel. It is the duty of his audience to believe.

John Gill would not have disagreed with the above at all.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Mr. Spurgeon believed beyond doubt in a limited atonement. The blood of Jesus was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect.

I'm not picking a debate with you at all, Jim, but I disagree with Mr. Spurgeon, although that is a very common belief about the efficacy of the Blood of the Lamb.

However, the blood of the Lamb is very specific as to the purpose for which it was spilt, to redeem the elect of God and only them, no one else.

It is not sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect.

As I stated, if there were no elect in this fallen world on which God exercised His sovereign mercy, if God had no desire to redeem anyone from the fallen race of Adam, then there will be no need for Christ to come, and there will be no need for the cross.

There won't even be a Bible to read because according to Romans 15:4 "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning ......."

 

[Jim1999]

You don't believe that Jesus died for all, but instead of some?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[pinoybaptist]

You don't believe that Jesus died for all, but instead of some?

Cheers,

Jim

Were you addressing this question to me ?

If to me, then yes, I don't believe Jesus died for all mankind, his elect are among mankind yes, and he died for all of them whether rich, poor, in-between, bond, free, white, black, king, slave, ruler, subject....

He died for many, as opposed to all, yes.

 

[Jim1999]

Then you believe in a limited atonement, a non-existant free will and an invitation to come as a falsehood or at least a deception. "the whosoever" of "whosever will may come" is untrue.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John Toppass]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I lean towards Calvinism, but not to the extent that I'm a determinist. I leave room for the mystery of God in salvation, for this allows Him to be sovereign and allows the possibility of free will. If that makes any sense.

I hope I do not lean toward Calvinism or Arminiumism. I do not need to proclaim to be a follower of men who twist and massage the scripture so that they rise up in the eyes of those who follow them. Jim Jones did this also, except he took it even farther.

I follow Christ Jesus, Son of God. God does not need some French guy or Dutch guy to come along and show us the way.

Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, no man comes to the Father except through the Son. Following another will only lead to Hell.

Neither Cauvin (Calvin) or Harmenszoon (Arminius) said anything in the scripture that was new to the true believer. It seems they did try to add their own thoughts to the scripture and it also seems they were successful.
(just look at all the folks that claim to be their followers)

It seems to me that with all the arguing and bad feeling coming out of the differences is almost cultic.

Quote or study a person, but only follow Jesus Christ.:jesus:

 

[SolaSaint]

I hope I do not lean toward Calvinism or Arminiumism. I do not need to proclaim to be a follower of men who twist and massage the scripture so that they rise up in the eyes of those who follow them. Jim Jones did this also, except he took it even farther.

I follow Christ Jesus, Son of God. God does not need some French guy or Dutch guy to come along and show us the way.

Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father, no man comes to the Father except through the Son. Following another will only lead to Hell.

Neither Cauvin (Calvin) or Harmenszoon (Arminius) said anything in the scripture that was new to the true believer. It seems they did try to add their own thoughts to the scripture and it also seems they were successful.
(just look at all the folks that claim to be their followe

It seems to me that with all the arguing and bad feeling coming out of the differences is almost cultic.

Quote or study a person, but only follow Jesus Christ.:jesus:

Amen Brother :thumbsup:

 

[pinoybaptist]

Then you believe in a limited atonement, a non-existant free will and an invitation to come as a falsehood or at least a deception. "the whosoever" of "whosever will may come" is untrue.

Cheers,

Jim

I believe in a limited atonement, correct, not the way Calvin or Calvinists do, as stated in "the blood is for all, but efficient only for the elect", not verbatim.

I believe, as I said, the blood is effective, and intended, only for the elect, period.

Free will is non-existant for the unelect. Free will is for the elect. They and only they can choose to obey, or disobey and all the commands that both Arminians and Calvinists quote in terms of blessings and cursing, obey or disobey, do this and I will do this, don't and I won't, were given to Israelites in the Old Testament, and only to Israelites, typifying and illustrating God's dealing and commands to those who are of true Israel, composed of both Jew and Gentile, in the New Testament, who will become believers, and disciples, in a gospel church, under gospel instruction.

This is borne out by the Scripture: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Romans 15:4).

And further reinforced by another scripture:

Neither let us commit fornication , as some of them committed , and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted , and were destroyed of serpents.
Neither murmur ye , as some of them also murmured , and were destroyed of the destroyer.
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come .

As for the whosoevers and whatsoevers who may come, these are those who have ears to hear, and eyes to see.

They certainly aren't every Tom, Dick, and Harry or Jane, Lucy, and Susan.