Calvinist or Arminian?

[rsr]

A reminder that this forum is for discussion of history, not a debate on whether Calvinism (or its alternatives) is correct. That discussion belongs in the theology forum.

 

[pinoybaptist]

A reminder that this forum is for discussion of history, not a debate on whether Calvinism (or its alternatives) is correct. That discussion belongs in the theology forum.

You are right, my apologies.

 

[Havensdad]

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.

Do not get confused by what you have stated. The "Anabaptists" (Such as Munster) had a completely different theology than the Baptist groups from which we today are descended from. Smyth and Hewlys, and the men/congregations which broke away from the Church of England, is where we can trace our beginnings. These groups, originally fully affirmed TULIP (as can be seen in the LBCF) and it was not until much later that Smith fell in with the "Anabaptists" and their doctrine.

Baptists were originally "Calvinist" in the sense of the five points. Even the break between "General" and "particular" Baptists, which happened later, was not a dispute over all five of the points, but only the single point of Limited Atonement. Later, certain groups spread further to the Arminian side of things.


There is a little book called, I believe "Baptists and the Doctrine of Election" which contains quotes from ALMOST every major figure in Baptist history, affirming the truth of Unconditional Election.

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Do not get confused by what you have stated. The "Anabaptists" (Such as Munster) had a completely different theology than the Baptist groups from which we today are descended from. Smyth and Hewlys, and the men/congregations which broke away from the Church of England, is where we can trace our beginnings. These groups, originally fully affirmed TULIP (as can be seen in the LBCF) and it was not until much later that Smith fell in with the "Anabaptists" and their doctrine.

Baptists were originally "Calvinist" in the sense of the five points. Even the break between "General" and "particular" Baptists, which happened later, was not a dispute over all five of the points, but only the single point of Limited Atonement. Later, certain groups spread further to the Arminian side of things.


There is a little book called, I believe "Baptists and the Doctrine of Election" which contains quotes from ALMOST every major figure in Baptist history, affirming the truth of Unconditional Election.

...The term Baptist comes from the Greek word βαπτιστής (baptistés, "baptist," also used to describe John the Baptist), which is related to the verb βαπτίζω (baptízo, "to baptize, wash, dip, immerse"), and the Latin baptista, and is in direct connection to "the Baptizer," John the Baptist.

The term Baptist as applied to the Baptist churches is a modification of the term Anabaptist (which means rebaptizer, though the Anabaptists ever disavowed that they practiced rebaptism and baptized those who were baptized in infancy because they considered infant baptism a nullity)..[2]

The English Anabaptists were called Baptists as early as 1569.[3]. The name Anabaptist continued to be applied to English and American Baptists up to the 19th century at least. Into the 19th century the term Baptist was used as a general epithet for churches which denied the validity of infant baptism, including the Campbellites, Mennonites, Brethren and others which are not normally identified with modern day Baptists[4]

Link to Above

Like I said, if memory serves me right. I am sure that I have read the essence of what is quoted above elsewhere also, but I can't remember for where for sure. I have no doubt that the differences you stated are correct, but am not aware of any timeline concerning when they may have taken place.

Technically, only a person who was baptized as an infant in the RCC and then baptized by immersion as an adult was considered an anabaptist... at that time. When I called myself an anabaptist, I am automatically disqualified because I was born way too late to be one, and I was Lutheran, not Catholic.

 

[Havensdad]

Link to Above

Like I said, if memory serves me right. I am sure that I have read the essence of what is quoted above elsewhere also, but I can't remember for where for sure. I have no doubt that the differences you stated are correct, but am not aware of any timeline concerning when they may have taken place.

At that time, ANYONE who performed believers baptism were called "Anabaptists" by their detractors. My caution to you was to keep the English Baptists, who had no connection to the movement termed "Anabaptist" by most, separate from more Arminian groups such as the Munsterites. The original Baptists were Calvnistic in their soteriology, and developed separately.

In other words, the Radical reformers (Munster etc.) are not our predecessors.

 

[TomVols]

There is a little book called, I believe "Baptists and the Doctrine of Election" which contains quotes from ALMOST every major figure in Baptist history, affirming the truth of Unconditional Election.

Robert Selph wrote this gem. I've read it over and over again after receiving my copy 15 yrs ago or so. I was given a copy along with Boyce's Abstract. They are prized parts of my library.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Robert Selph wrote this gem. I've read it over and over again after receiving my copy 15 yrs ago or so. I was given a copy along with Boyce's Abstract. They are prized parts of my library.

I wonder if any of you can give the title of the book, or ISBN, and where best to order this from.
I'm trying to find good writings from both Primitive Baptists and other Baptists.

 

[SolaSaint]

TomVols and Havensdad, thanks for the book suggestion. I will have to add them to my library. God Bless and Merry Christmas.:love2:

 

[rsr]

The "Anabaptists" (Such as Munster) had a completely different theology than the Baptist groups from which we today are descended from. Smyth and Hewlys, and the men/congregations which broke away from the Church of England, is where we can trace our beginnings. These groups, originally fully affirmed TULIP (as can be seen in the LBCF) and it was not until much later that Smith fell in with the "Anabaptists" and their doctrine.

Baptists were originally "Calvinist" in the sense of the five points. Even the break between "General" and "particular" Baptists, which happened later, was not a dispute over all five of the points, but only the single point of Limited Atonement. Later, certain groups spread further to the Arminian side of things.

As the Squire has pointed out, there was an early bifurcation of the Baptists into Generals and Particulars.

Smyth and Helwys represented the General stream of thought (the earliest of which we have good records), and it could hardly be said that they were five-pointers.

Leaving aside Smyth (whose attempt to unite with the Waterlander Mennonites muddies the historical waters), Helwys' statements of faith represent, in broad terms, General Baptist soteriology, and accepted total depravity, affirmed election (though without specifying its exact nature) and rejected irrestistible grace and preservation/perseverance. A few of the highlights:

That men may fall away from the grace of God, and from the truth, which they have received and acknowledged, after they have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come. And after they have escaped from the filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein and overcome. That a righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish. And therefore let no man presume to think that because he has, or had one grace, therefore he shall always have grace. But let all men have assurance, that if they continue unto the end, they shall be saved: Let no man then presume; but let all work out their salvation with fear and trembling. (A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland, 1611)

Helwys dealt at greater length with election in A Short and Plain Proof by the Word and Works of God that God's Decree Is Not The Cause of Any Man's Sin or Condemnation (1611):

If our Savior Christ's words were not feigned words then he would have gathered the children of Jerusalem together who would not be gathered and so he would have have them believe in him when they would not. And yet that that hold this fearful opinion hold that God would not have some men, yes, most men believe, but has decreed their condemnation. Though the Holy Ghost says (Acts 1.30) that "now God admonishes all men everywhere to repent." Yet those of this opinion that hold God has decreed some to reprobation say he would not have all, but some to repent. If they would speak plainly and not halt between opinions, they must say that God would have some to be unbelievers, and wicked, and disobedient. This is the highest blasphemy ...

Furthermore, this opinion does exceedingly diminish and lessen that great work of grace wroght by Christ's redemption. It makes Christ a particular, private redeemer for some private men. ...

The Generals preceded the Particulars by about three decades and outnumbered the Particulars for many years. Ultimately they all but vanished in Britain, largely because of weak Christology that made them prey to Unitarianism.

Thus, to ask if the early Baptists were Calvinists (or Calvinistic), one must ask "Which Baptists?" That said, I think you will find that the forebears of most American Baptists were generally Calvinistic, an orientation that prevailed (with the exception of the Free Will Baptists) until the last century.

 

[SolaSaint]

Thus, to ask if the early Baptists were Calvinists (or Calvinistic), one must ask "Which Baptists?" That said, I think you will find that the forebears of most American Baptists were generally Calvinistic, an orientation that prevailed (with the exception of the Free Will Baptists) until the last century.

I believe this also, thanks for the post.

 

[gb93433]

How many different brands of Baptists are there? Looking at that number alone I wonder how many general statements could be made about C/A issues among Baptists and what they stand for.

I would suggest that what one says and does and the sides they stand on are not always in agreement theologically.

 

[dcorbett]

I find these discussions so interesting - I was raised by a Southern Baptist deacon, and I accepted Christ as my Savior at age 13. I knew nothing about where the Baptists came from, I just knew I was lost and needed a Saviour.

I am IFB now, having found the SBC to be more liberal than I am. I never knew there were differences (Calvinism, Arminianism, Particular, General, etc etc, ad nauseum) until I earned a degree at LU.

I believe in saved by grace, once saved always saved, the Bible is the Final Authority, The KJV is the closest to the Greek text, we are commissioned to "go ye therefore" and Baptism doesn't save you. What else do I need?

But it is interesting to learn these historical facts.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Further, as there were two families of Anglo-Baptist thought (General and Particular). the two have over the centuries interbred with each other. Nothing wrong with that mind you, but it does mean that except for the Gillites and the Free Will Baptists the lines have been blurred.

 

[Jon-Marc]

How many different brands of Baptists are there? Looking at that number alone I wonder how many general statements could be made about C/A issues among Baptists and what they stand for.

I would suggest that what one says and does and the sides they stand on are not always in agreement theologically.

I read somewhere that there are over 40 different kins of Baptist churches--including 7th Day Baptist (there's one in my home city) and one with Catholic beliefs.

 

[SolaSaint]

This has nothing to do with denominational differences, but I used to live in a town of about 4 thousand people where within 5 miles there were 6 SBC churches. There was even a 2nd Baptist of ______, and a 2nd Baptist of East______. Can you believe that?

 

[Trailofblood]

I choose to call my self a 'Biblicist' following neither Calvin nor Arminius but the Word of God. Sola Scripture if you will :thumbs:

 

[Tom Butler]

I choose to call my self a 'Biblicist' following neither Calvin nor Arminius but the Word of God. Sola Scripture if you will :thumbs:

Calling yourself a Biblicist doesn't help the discussion. We are all Biblicists here. Some of us are Calvinist Biblicists; some are non-Calvinist Biblicists; some are Arminian Biblicists. All of us appeal to scripture to support our individual views.

And it doesn't let you off the hook, either, to investigate the claims of each view. Each view is closely connected with how you present the gospel. Each of us is making claims dealing with eternal matters. One cannot remain neutral. You must be a Berean.

 

[BaptistQuestioning]

Let's talk about Baptist history

Very interesting thread. I've been studying the history of Judaism, Christianity, and the transmission of Scripture for the last 4 or 5 years. So, I appreciate the history.

This is my first post on this forum, btw. :wavey:

Baptist-Questioning

 

[Johnv]

Welcome, BQ, we hope you enjoy your stay. BTW, I'm pretty sure the transmission of Scripture has been going on for more than 4 or 5 years. Just kidding there...

 

[BaptistQuestioning]

Welcome, BQ, we hope you enjoy your stay. BTW, I'm pretty sure the transmission of Scripture has been going on for more than 4 or 5 years. Just kidding there...

Johnv,

Left out a comma. Guess punctuation does really matter.