• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinist or Arminian?

Tom Butler

New Member
Baptist Questioning said:
Left out a comma. Guess punctuation does really matter.

Given the welcome you received over in the other thread, you probably should dot every i and cross every t for a while.

Seriously, welcome. I think you'll find the board discussions lively but mainly civil. Occasionally one or two will get their noses out of whack, but it simply reflects how passionately they articulate their views.
 

Trailofblood

New Member
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.
I take your point. But why should we use the name of some man instead of solely make our appeal from the Word of God?

Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist because the so called 'five-points' were put together long after his death. The most contentious, at least to my mind, is limited atonement but Calvin certainly did not believe in limited atonement.
 

Tom Butler

New Member
I'm not going to get into whether Calvin changed his views on the extent of the atonement, except to say that it's not clear that he rejected definite atonement:

“I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.

You get your side's supporters and I'll get mine.

But regarding the name Calvinism, I think it was not a name our Calvinist forebears thought up. It was given to us by those who oppose Calvinism.

Same as the name Baptist. It was actually used by our enemies as an epithet.

But it is a usable shorthand that, when used, gives one an idea what is meant by it.
 

Tom Butler

New Member
Correction here.

The name Calvinism was given to a system developed by the Synod of Dort in the 17th century. It could have reasonably been called Augustinianism, since the views expressed by Calvinism had been around since Brother Augie expressed them.

Luther and Zwingli also held similar soteriology.
 

Trailofblood

New Member
I'm not going to get into whether Calvin changed his views on the extent of the atonement, except to say that it's not clear that he rejected definite atonement:



You get your side's supporters and I'll get mine.

But regarding the name Calvinism, I think it was not a name our Calvinist forebears thought up. It was given to us by those who oppose Calvinism.

Same as the name Baptist. It was actually used by our enemies as an epithet.

But it is a usable shorthand that, when used, gives one an idea what is meant by it.

have you ever read this?

Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly when he says, "Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from a participation in the benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somewhere out of the world." Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. This great absurdity, by which our monk has procured for himself so much applause amongst his own fraternity, has no weight whatever with me. John does indeed extend the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no means alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins "of the whole world." But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is "whosoever believeth in Him" that "shall not perish, but shall have eternal life." For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. Now if the possession of Christ stands in faith, and if faith flows from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to be a partaker of Christ. Indeed, the evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ to be none other than that of "gathering together all the children of God" in one by His death. From all which we conclude that although reconciliation is offered unto all men through Him, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be "gathered together" and be made "together" partakers of eternal life.

Calvin, ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD

I personally take the position that Christ died Efficaciously for the whole world but effectually only for the elect. Just wondered what your thoughts on that were.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tom Butler

New Member
I personally take the position that Christ died Efficaciously for the whole world but effectually only for the elect. Just wondered what your thoughts on that were.

I have known some Calvinist friends who hold your view. It is the view of Georgius, cited in your passage from Calvin's writing, which Calvin refutes.

However one views the issue, we can all stand with Calvin and his statement in that writing:
It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins "of the whole world." But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is "whosoever believeth in Him" that "shall not perish, but shall have eternal life."
 

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
Discussion of Calvinism as such properly belongs in a different from Baptist history.

Discussion of the history of Baptist thought and practice as it relates to Reformed soteriology certainly is fair game.
 

Rhetorician

Administrator
Administrator
To save or to make salvation possible?

I take your point. But why should we use the name of some man instead of solely make our appeal from the Word of God?

Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist because the so called 'five-points' were put together long after his death. The most contentious, at least to my mind, is limited atonement but Calvin certainly did not believe in limited atonement.

TOB,

Did "Christ Jesus come into the world to save [actually save] sinners"? Or, did he come only to make salvation possible?

That to me seems to be the question. If the latter, then is seems to me that we have a race of "sovereign sinners" as Ernie Reisinger used to say.

IMHO!!

"That is all!" :applause:
 

Rhetorician

Administrator
Administrator
Biblical Evidence Wanted or Needed?

I take your point. But why should we use the name of some man instead of solely make our appeal from the Word of God?

Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist because the so called 'five-points' were put together long after his death. The most contentious, at least to my mind, is limited atonement but Calvin certainly did not believe in limited atonement.

My dear TOB,

Please allow another follow up.

If you want Biblical evidence rather than "the name of some man" theology, then what say ye about this?

John 6, Roman 9 (of course), Ephesians 1, etc., et al.

But I am sure you have encountered these before and have some very good exegesis to help you refute them. I am willing to concede that I have some problem passages like with the I John verse that says that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Would you concede the same for the verses I listed above?

Your friend in Christ.

"That is all!"
 

RAdam

New Member
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.

Gill didn't advocate that position, neither to the Primitive Baptists of today, although those charges are nothing new. How in the world do you know when you've found the elect? Well, when you find believers in Christ you've found elect people. How do they believe in Christ unless the gospel is preached to them? Gill, and the Primitive Baptists, advocate preaching the gospel indiscriminately, then when believers are found you further instruct them through more preaching.

Fuller didn't simply advocate preaching to all, he advocated adding things never a part of the Baptist church before then, changing the commonly held belief on atonement, and found middle ground between arminianism and calvinism.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Straight from the horse's mouth:

John Gill, The Doctrine of Predestination [emphasis added]
This doctrine is said to agree very ill with the truth and sincerity of God, in a thousand declarations, such as these, Ezekiel 18:23, 32:32; Deuteronomy 5:29; Psalm 81:12; Acts 17:30[God. . .now commandeth all men every where to repent]; Mark 16:15 [Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.] (Predestination Calmly Considered, pp. 31, 33). To which I reply, that some of those declarations, concern the Jews only, and not all mankind; and are only compassionate inquiries and vehement desires after their civil and temporal welfare: and at most only shew what is grateful to God, and approved of by him, and what was wanting in them; with which they are upbraided, notwithstanding their vain boasts to the contrary. Others only shew what is God’s will of command, or what he has made the duty of man; not what are his purposes man shall do, or what he will bestow upon him; and neither of them suggests any insincerity in God, supposing the doctrine of reprobation. The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes; but as yet, it has never been brought to all the individuals of human nature; there have been multitudes in all ages that have not heard it. And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men I utterly deny; nay, I deny they are made to any; no, not to God’s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit; much less are they made to others wherefore this doctrine is not chargeable with insincerity on that account. Let the patrons of universal offers defend themselves from this objection; I have nothing to do with it; till it is proved there are such universal offers, then Dr. Watts’s reasoning on that head, will require some attention; but not till then.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"I remember saying something on this subject on one occasion in a certain Ultra-Calvinistic place of worship. At that time I was preaching to children and was exhorting them to pray. I happened to say that long before any actual conversion I had prayed for common mercies, and that God had heard my prayers. This did not suit my good Brethren of the superfine school! And
afterwards they all came round me professedly to know what I meant, but really to cavil and carp according to their nature and practice.
“They compassed me about like bees. Yes, like bees they compassed me about!” After awhile, as I expected, they fell to their usual amusement of calling names. They began to say what rank Arminianism this was! And another expression they were pleased to honor me with, was the title of “Fullerist”—a title, by the way, so honorable that I could heartily have thanked them for appending it to what I had advanced!" --Charles Spurgeon, The Raven's Cry
 

RAdam

New Member
Straight from the horse's mouth:

John Gill, The Doctrine of Predestination [emphasis added]

What did you prove? Gill believes the gospel should be preached to all. He denies that there is a universal offer applied to all men. I agree with him, because he is right. Christ doesn't offer salvation to someone He didn't make provision for.

The problem is people have misunderstood Gill for ages. They misunderstand him because that view his theology through the corrupted lenses of post-Fuller Baptist theology. Prior to Fuller, the particular baptists believed that Christ died for the elect only. Fuller brought Calvins "sufficient for all, effecient for the elect" ideas to the baptists, and so when people read Gill or someone today deny that eternal salvation is offered to every single person on earth, they call them hyper-calvinists, anti-evangelistic, antinomian, etc. I fully believe the gospel should be preached to all men, I believe that ministers should go wherever the Spirit of God leads them, I believe that believers should be careful to maintain good works, etc.
 

SolaSaint

Well-Known Member
What did you prove? Gill believes the gospel should be preached to all. He denies that there is a universal offer applied to all men. I agree with him, because he is right. Christ doesn't offer salvation to someone He didn't make provision for.

The problem is people have misunderstood Gill for ages. They misunderstand him because that view his theology through the corrupted lenses of post-Fuller Baptist theology. Prior to Fuller, the particular baptists believed that Christ died for the elect only. Fuller brought Calvins "sufficient for all, effecient for the elect" ideas to the baptists, and so when people read Gill or someone today deny that eternal salvation is offered to every single person on earth, they call them hyper-calvinists, anti-evangelistic, antinomian, etc. I fully believe the gospel should be preached to all men, I believe that ministers should go wherever the Spirit of God leads them, I believe that believers should be careful to maintain good works, etc.

Great post RAdam. I couldn't said it any better.:wavey:
 

bound

New Member
Does anyone presume that God is 'trapped' in time? Is time, as we mortals experience it, before God that He acts within it as we, who are 'in time' do?
 

SolaSaint

Well-Known Member
No I don't, We invented time didn't we? The Omnipresence of God removes Him from the dimension of time doesn't it?
 

bound

New Member
No I don't, We invented time didn't we? The Omnipresence of God removes Him from the dimension of time doesn't it?

Well if we agree that time is simply a measure of change then I think we can both agree that God is not part of it. With that said, if God is not 'within' time then we must come to a better understanding of His Predestination as something 'other than' hard or soft determinism.
 

SolaSaint

Well-Known Member
I always surrender to Isaiah 55:8-9 when it comes to trying to explain God's sovereignty with man's free will. Call me a chicken, but these verses tell me a lot. Sometimes I feel we must trust God and that He is all-knowing and we aren't.
 
Top