Good point, though I don't agree whole-heartedly. And I doubt if you do either. Calvinism itself is only about 500 years old.
-
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!
If it's new it ain't true
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
No dear brother. That is not so.
The DoG can be traced back as far as Augustine easily- and I think with little difficulty back a couple hundred years further to the Apostles and then the Old testament.
I don't think anyone argues that the Doctrines of Grace started with Calvin or Luther. I think most people with any training from a reputable source whether Arminian or Calvinistic recognize that the DoG span most of , if not all of, Church History.
Let me also add another point. If me and a few friends come up with a new doctrine not found in Christian history, who is more likely to be wrong? Me or my friends or 2000 years of Church history?
It is highly more likely that I am wrong than 2000 years of history. Some of the greatest minds in history and I think I am smarter than them all.
It is highly more likely that I am wrong than 2000 years of history. Some of the greatest minds in history and I think I am smarter than them all.
So DoG is the new Trail of Blood?
When I first turned to God I was very concerned about how I would get to know Him along with where I would turn and who was right in doctrine; there were so many people saying different things about God. Soon after I opened up the Bible and God quickly showed me where I would find Truth; in His Word. The Word spoke of gaining wisdom, faith, and understanding and also warned of being deceived. I prayed that I would not to be deceived by men and this is what God’s Word wrote upon my heart as I learn and grew about following traditions and histories of men:
(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
I take history with a grain of salt…and BTW history clearly shows that major mistakes have been made, I mean just taking a look at the doctrines of Calvinism should clearly confirm this fact.
(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
I take history with a grain of salt…and BTW history clearly shows that major mistakes have been made, I mean just taking a look at the doctrines of Calvinism should clearly confirm this fact.
When I first turned to God I was very concerned about how I would get to know Him along with where I would turn and who was right in doctrine; there were so many people saying different things about God. Soon after I opened up the Bible and God quickly showed me where I would find Truth; in His Word. The Word spoke of gaining wisdom, faith, and understanding and also warned of being deceived. I prayed that I would not to be deceived by men and this is what God’s Word wrote upon my heart as I learn and grew about following traditions and histories of men:
(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
I take history with a grain of salt…and BTW history clearly shows that major mistakes have been made, I mean just taking a look at the doctrines of Calvinism should clearly confirm this fact.
This is the problem with this subject- false caricatures.
It is improper to assume that people who hold the Historic Christian Faith in high regard do not love the Word of God and are not themselves passionately devoted to the study of it.
It is improper to assume that those who love to say that they lean only on the Bible for their doctrinal development are actually Bible people. this may not be so at all. It may be- but that ANYBODY can say that and try to claim the pious high ground of super spirituality is without doubt.
I would contend that the greatest lovers of the Bible are those who seek the most aid in understanding it properly.
Those people, I think CLEARLY, would be the one's who put a high premium on what the Body of Christ has historically believed and understood and worked out concerning the truths of sacred Scripture.
BTW, almost ALL Theology professors in reputable Christian seminaries recognize the importance of historicity.
Those people, by and large, are such students of the Bible that they can READ IT IN IT'S ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.
That's REAL love for the Bible- not just unsubstantiated claim like I think we find from so many who CLAIM to need only the Bible for their doctrinal development.
You are absolutely right. I concede that Calvin himself admits that he got many of his ideas from Augustine. In essence therefore, Calvinism is simply Augustinianism. And Augustine was one of the founders of the RCC.
Calvin was a reformer. In the Reformation he wanted to reform the RCC from within--perhaps bring it back to where Augustine once had it theologically. Where does that leave Reformed theology? It has only two fountain heads: Augustine, the source for the RCC, or Calvin, the source for Presbyterianism. Logically a person would choose one of those two paths to follow, probably the latter. Baptists were not reformers. They were never of the Reformation; never a part of; but existed before it.
If the Reformed brethren are going to take their doctrine seriously and to its logical end it would seem logical that they would become Presbyterians, the true followers of Calvin, and those who espouse a more pure form of "reformed doctrine."
Yes Augustine preached the tenets of Calvinism, but he was also a Catholic.
When I first turned to God I was very concerned about how I would get to know Him along with where I would turn and who was right in doctrine; there were so many people saying different things about God. Soon after I opened up the Bible and God quickly showed me where I would find Truth; in His Word. The Word spoke of gaining wisdom, faith, and understanding and also warned of being deceived. I prayed that I would not to be deceived by men and this is what God’s Word wrote upon my heart as I learn and grew about following traditions and histories of men:
(Col 2:8) Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
(Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
I take history with a grain of salt…and BTW history clearly shows that major mistakes have been made, I mean just taking a look at the doctrines of Calvinism should clearly confirm this fact.
Benjamin,
The problem with the verses you are quoting is that I am rejecting the traditions of men as well. I am embracing traditions of God. If you are the only one to espouse a doctrine despite our 2000 year history, do you think you are more likely to be in error or church history?
Traditions of man are traditions added to the Bible, but what I am advocating is the opposite. I am advocating that theology has been faihtfully espoused throughout history and we would be foolish to not embrace it.
BTW, do you realize that your interpretation of those verses is a "tradition of man?" Rather, you should embrace the Biblical understanding that extra Biblical ideas should be rejected but that the Bible is clear and people throughout history have held to true Biblical doctrine.
Finally, the Eph verse is exactly why I advocate what I advocate. If "winds of doctrine" come and go, then the only way to keep from it is to ensure Godly and Biblical men throughout history have held to that doctrine. If I hold to a doctrine that has never been espoused, then it probably is a wind of doctrine.
seekingthetruth
New Member
I wasn't going to get involved in any more discussions in the debate forum, but I feel I must on this one.
Why is it that Calvinists say that Calvinism goes all the way back to the Old Testament, but deny that the Baptist faith goes back past the Reformation?
Yes, I agree that the "denomination" of Baptists started in the 16th century, but the "faith" of Baptists goes back to the time of Jesus, and it was never interrupted. god preserved the faith thoughout history no matter how few followers it had. It wasn't called Baptist, but it was the same faith.
Also, "if it is new it aint true" is always true, then why are these people Baptists if they believe the Baptist faith is just 500 years old?
And I don't agree with the idea that despensationalism is a new idea. I believe it is taught in the Bible. I believe that there are two theological distinctions between the Church and the Jews, and that Darby didn't invent the idea, he just clarified the biblical teachings of it.
Besides, if the New Testament Church was non-existent for 1200 years as the reformers claim, then who was there to expound on the issue? I mean, if it was totally gone as you say, then how could it "evolve'?
John the cultist
spell check...grrrrrrrrr
Why is it that Calvinists say that Calvinism goes all the way back to the Old Testament, but deny that the Baptist faith goes back past the Reformation?
Yes, I agree that the "denomination" of Baptists started in the 16th century, but the "faith" of Baptists goes back to the time of Jesus, and it was never interrupted. god preserved the faith thoughout history no matter how few followers it had. It wasn't called Baptist, but it was the same faith.
Also, "if it is new it aint true" is always true, then why are these people Baptists if they believe the Baptist faith is just 500 years old?
And I don't agree with the idea that despensationalism is a new idea. I believe it is taught in the Bible. I believe that there are two theological distinctions between the Church and the Jews, and that Darby didn't invent the idea, he just clarified the biblical teachings of it.
Besides, if the New Testament Church was non-existent for 1200 years as the reformers claim, then who was there to expound on the issue? I mean, if it was totally gone as you say, then how could it "evolve'?
John the cultist
spell check...grrrrrrrrr
Last edited by a moderator:
The early "churches" followed the teachings of the Apostles, in general. I don't see a Church, as is commonly held until the 4th century when Constantine made Christianity a state-religion, introduced paganism, and out of it all the Catholic Church was born. But there were always churches that remained true to the Word of God. Paul started over 100 churches in three missionary journeys, but never a denomination.
DHQ, where do you get these things? First, you are going off topic but secondly you are espousing a genetic fallacy and a strawman argument in one post. I know you hate us and our doctrine, but please at least get the facts right and use proper logic.
and don't hijack this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many misconceptions in this post.
First, I do not know of one reformer who claims that the church was non-existent for 1200 years. Can you give me a citation? They will say that it was tremendously overshadowed by the Catholic Church, but it still existed.
Darbyism was invented by Darby. The citations he and his followers use either misunderstands Covenant Theology and the role they play, misunderstands the historic pre-mill position, or uses the word "dispensation" as "evidence" of their view.
I don't deny there have been Baptistic churches in history. I do deny the trail of blood or other things that try to link one church to another all the way back in an unbroken line. I do not think believer's Baptism is a necessity for the church to believe and still be a true church. Yet, there is evidence of many times throughout history of Baptistic churches.
No baptists you'd have in your church existed before the Reformation.
If you are referring to Anabaptists, I do not think there is any conclusive evidence that they existed before the Reformation. The Southern Baptist Convention recognizes that it is progeny of the Protestant Reformation. I imagine, though I am not certain, that the Northern Baptists were Protestant too. Which means that IFB trace their roots, not to some mysterious, unsubstantiated prereformation group- but to the Protestant Reformation since they broke off from Northern and Southern Baptists.
Diversity is not condemned by holding in very high regard the Historic Christian Faith. What is condemned is new doctrine which has no historicity.
Like KJVO for example.
EVERYBODY was Catholic for the first several hundred years of Church History.
Catholic just means universal or one.
To that end we are STILL catholic. We are part of the ONE Body of Christ- the universal Church which Christ came to build and against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.
In that ONE CATHOLIC BODY are Baptists, IFB, Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc...
What many people do is mistake the word "catholic" for the Roman Catholic Church as she is today and as she has been since a few hundred years before the Reformation.
That is a mistake. It is not accurate to think that way about the word "catholic".
We don't use it any more for good reason- but we ought to understand what it has historically meant.
Most of the posters are Calvinists, I agree. But the OP was very strongly worded about doctrine not being in line with the historic church. I am simply stating the facts, that Calvinism as we know it today is not any older than 500 years. It does not fit within the time frame of the OP, and would be considered one of those new doctrines that should be rejected. If you want a fair playing field, then that should be considered on the same plane as premillennialism and other such doctrines that are being discussed.
That is an excellent point. Very well said.
Tradition is not bad unless it is not biblical.
Gathering on the Lord's Day is a tradition. Should we abandon it? Of course not- because it is not a tradition of men; it is a tradition of God.
Excellent point. Historicity of doctrine identifies it as one that DOES NOT BLOW IN AND OUT.
HISTORICITY is SUPPORT for a doctrine not being a wind of doctrine.
The fact is that if your doctrine, like KJVO, has just blown in- it is the essence of what the Ephesians passage condemns.
You have a very poor outlook if not totally wrong view of both church history and Baptist history. "We ought to understand what it has historically meant."
That's true. A little study of church history on your part would do wonders for you.
You are not stating any facts. In fact you just stated that Calvinism is Augutinianism which means it HAS to be older than 500 years.
You seem to not be able to differentiate between the presence of diversity within the Historic Christian Faith and new doctrines.
This is where you err.
Diversity is to be expected until "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ::
Ephesians 4
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
- Status