My thoughts and questions on "Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists."

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And his book is worthy of reading. And free online.

LOL, yea free for a reason.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I disagree and would not support his views if my life depended on it.

Looks like he literally cuts Jesus out His Office of being The Savior.

That can't be good.


"Fuller continually tells his readers that it is Christ’s example in following the nature and fitness of things which ought to determine our attitude to the law and explain what the laws true motives are behind the regulating of external conduct.

"This advice, if followed, can only lead into the wildest Antinomianism.

"Fuller stresses, for instance, that nowhere was Christ expected to follow the whole law and fulfil it all for sinful man’s sake.

"On the contrary, when arguing against the position of John Milton who claimed that man must die unless:

“Some other able, and as willing, pay
The rigid satisfaction, death for death,”

"Fuller begs to differ and says:

“The law made no such condition or provision; nor was it indifferent to the Lawgiver who should suffer, the sinner or another on his behalf.

"The language of the law to the transgressor was not, Thou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf, but simply, Thou shalt die: and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished.

"The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice, but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love; not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it.

"Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ.”

"Thus the weary soul who feels the burden of his sin, is not pointed to the One who fulfilled all that man broke concerning the law but one who deviated from its letter and found its spirit above and thus beyond it.

"Fuller offers the sinner a new way which is only attainable through the right use of reason and what he calls ‘inference ‘.

"The Scriptures, indeed, he argues, never say that Christ died for anyone in particular but merely that “there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’

"This salvation does not come through any initiative of God other than His offering it to whosoever wishes to grasp out for it , inferring from what he reads in Scripture, that what was good for, say, Paul, would be also good for him.

"It is thus no wonder that Fuller claims that God’s acceptance of certain individuals is not because of any decree ‘in his mind’ but purely because the seeker grasps out and partakes of the feast spread before him.

"This is what Fuller calls human agency, which, in his theology, is always eclipsing God’s purpose."

From:

The Evangelical Liberalism ​

of Andrew Fuller.​

 

[kyredneck]

The Evangelical Liberalism​

of Andrew Fuller.​

"Aside from Primitive Baptists, few are the numbers of Christian groups in our day who do not in one way or another subscribe to the teachings of Andrew Fuller. Who was Andrew Fuller? What did Fuller teach? Why do we object to his teachings?..."

What is the Problem with Fullerism? - Elder Joe Holder

What is the Problem with Fullerism? - Elder Joe Holder. Elder Holder addresses this important topic and sheds light on the truth of Fullerism and its error.

www.littlezionpbc.org

 

[DaveXR650]

@Alan Dale Gross. This thread has been informative. Especially your last post with the article by Dr. Ella. Having sat under some Primitive Baptist preachers who were filling in, and having listened for years to a PB pastor who broadcast on the radio when I was working (I worked a lot of Sundays and had a long commute), and knowing personally some folks who currently attend the same church - I always thought Primitive Baptists were just Baptists with no musical instruments and no Sunday school. I thought some of the guys on here were just cranks and could not figure out the level of their underlying high levels of animosity. But boy, Dr. Ella really brings it out!

He's got anyone who likes Fuller as part Arminian, part Socinian, part Finneyite, and then ends by saying his gospel is blasphemous. (I guess that last statement would get him banned from this site under the rules in place.) But it certainly explains a lot. I haven't read much of Fuller, except I have in the past read "A Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation", and I have listened to Nettles talk about Fuller on Youtube.

I find him sound, from those limited sources, and recommend anyone looking for answers read the work I mentioned above. It looks to me that he builds on Edwards' views on free will, and Owen's views on saving faith as including a principle of obedience. Contrary to what has been posted, he definitely is not antinomian, and from what Nettles said the quote you posted above about how he views the law as to its internal motives is just saying that the principles and not the letter are important - much like Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount. But judge that for yourself.

But again, thanks for the thread and for posting the link by Dr. Ella. It certainly helps explain the over the top animosity of some of the posters on here as they are emulating their teachers.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

This thread has been informative.

Very cool, yes I learned a pretty big earful from it, too. I'm like you, I thought Fuller was O.K., and now I'm m seeing where his approach strips Jesus out of the Gospel message!

Here are page after page 'Anti-Fuller' articles, for references.

Against Duty-Faith

The law is not of faith

againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com

 

[DaveXR650]

, I thought Fuller was O.K., and now I'm m seeing where his approach strips Jesus out of the Gospel message!

I didn't get that from what I have read but I haven't read him all that much. The only thing I would say is that for me personally, I have to have a true offer of the gospel to those who hear it or I simply cannot accept the theology. My background knowledge is more in Puritan era Calvinists and the American Edwards but I think I can prove that most of them believed in such an offer, even guys like Owen.

I noticed that some of the PB's don't even like the idea that when the gospel goes out, it is for the purpose of finding and bringing in those who are elect. That in itself is too extreme for me and I was astounded to see where that was even objected to. I think I could pick Dr. Ella apart pretty easily but I have no desire to try, and no desire to go into Fuller enough to check out what else may be wrong with him. You only have time for so much reading, even for a retired loafer.

I'm strictly an amateur in theology but there are a couple of things I believe. 1. The work of the Holy Spirit is essential and by that I mean more than the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the word, or else no one will be saved. 2. Our inability is real, but it is moral in nature and therefore blamable. Therefore our will, to the extent that is free naturally, is also evil and the Calvinistic claim that we naturally cannot on our own get right with God is valid. 3. I think that although this supernatural grace is essential for us to be saved, it must be resistible, at least in some cases, otherwise the warnings of even very serious Calvinistic preachers to not resist this grace would be of no purpose. I know what the confessions say, and I know what the explanations are for this discrepancy, but I don't buy it because I also know what the same guys preach. In other words, I do not believe that on our own, after evaluating even a completely true gospel message, we can, without direct action by the Holy Spirit, come to Christ in a saving way. But I think we may have the possibility at least of messing that up.

I think if you discuss these issues with anyone who will discuss your thoughts rather than start bomb throwing, you will discover that at some point you get down to this: A person going through the process of discovering the knowledge of God and the way of salvation will at some point realize that they are in a fix and that this is important and they will perceive a desire to attempt to obtain pardon and forgiveness. Where and how the Holy Spirit works in all this is the question. Any group that short circuits all this with a pre determined outcome and ridicules any process or chain of events however understood, as even happening, because the elect have already been saved is outside of what I would even want to discuss.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

it’s not even up to you then if you are incapable to discuss it. This forum is a continuing for discussion and controversy…that’s what we do on a daily basis and generally fosters the growth of knowledge.

So you consider bretheren that believe that they are sanctified before the foundations of the world as “Bomb throwers” …. Well add me to your list because I’m a Primitive Baptist and that is a primary doctrine for us that has far reaching consequences relating to the placement of our eternal salvation. Grace is another important (primary) doctrine that we fervently believe. Maybe you need to study PB doctrine before dismissing us out of hand.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Very cool, yes I learned a pretty big earful from it, too. I'm like you, I thought Fuller was O.K., and now I'm m seeing where his approach strips Jesus out of the Gospel message!

Here are page after page 'Anti-Fuller' articles, for references.

Against Duty-Faith

The law is not of faith

againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com

At last, the lightbulb is on! Knowledge illuminates and we grow.

 

[JonC]

I disagree with the claim that Calvinists believe that "all souls are naturally born into life" as this is too general a claim.

Calvinists may believe that God chose out of a fallen race to save some via a rebirth (Infralapsarianism).

BUT it is very important when looking at the role of Calvinism in the formation of Orimitive Baptist doctrine not to ignore Calvinistic movements that held a different view (specifically Supralapsarianism and reprobation). In some circles it was argued that evangelism was sinful as it had the potential to cause the believer to oppose God. These Calvinists looked at natural men as belonging essentually to two races - the elect and non-elect.

It was this influence that led Daniel Parker (from Dickson TN, BTW.....I lived there for awhile, nice place) to develop a "two seed" doctrine.

Point simply being the OP is too narrow in defining the Calvinistic view. Many Pesbyterians held the two-race idea long before Primitive Baptists were formed.

 

[DaveXR650]

it’s not even up to you then if you are incapable to discuss it. This forum is a continuing for discussion and controversy…that’s what we do on a daily basis and generally fosters the growth of knowledge.

So you consider bretheren that believe that they are sanctified before the foundations of the world as “Bomb throwers” …. Well add me to your list because I’m a Primitive Baptist and that is a primary doctrine for us that has far reaching consequences relating to the placement of our eternal salvation. Grace is another important (primary) doctrine that we fervently believe. Maybe you need to study PB doctrine before dismissing us out of hand.

I posted after reading the link that Alan put up called "The Evangelical Liberalism of Andrew Fuller". Sorry, but it is full of bomb throwing, unsubstantiated claims. I don't consider that brethren who have a high view of predestination as "bomb throwers" but those, like the writer of that paper who throw bombs are bomb throwers. Specifically, he called the rest of us everything from Arminians, Socinians and antinomians and ended with saying that our doctrine is blasphemous. That's bomb throwing and I don't care if it offends your denominational pride. Did you even read the article?

Maybe you need to study PB doctrine before dismissing us out of hand.

That's the problem. I am reading it.

 

[37818]

I think a needed explanation.
Why PB are NOT Calvinist.
A 5 minute video.

I am neither.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I posted after reading the link that Alan put up called "The Evangelical Liberalism of Andrew Fuller". Sorry, but it is full of bomb throwing, unsubstantiated claims. I don't consider that brethren who have a high view of predestination as "bomb throwers" but those, like the writer of that paper who throw bombs are bomb throwers. Specifically, he called the rest of us everything from Arminians, Socinians and antinomians and ended with saying that our doctrine is blasphemous. That's bomb throwing and I don't care if it offends your denominational pride. Did you even read the article?

That's the problem. I am reading it.

I am so sorry that they called you names and disregarded your beliefs. Perhaps you now have some understanding as to the Primitive Baptists ever present defense as to our own people being called the same and our doctrines being callled blasphemous… kinda upsetting isn’t it. Perhaps that’s why we are called HARD SHELLS LOL!

I have a question to ask you, feel free to answer it or disregard it as you feel fit. Question: a child dies in childbirth. So where does the child’s soul go to? Is it heaven, hell, limbo (generally a Catholic response)? Please use scripture to justify your answer.

 

[DaveXR650]

@37818. Thanks for putting up the video. It's a little confusing, that he makes a video explaining the differences between Calvinists and PB's, and starts with affirming the TULIP. Then, at the 3 minute mark he makes an issue of the "P" as meaning once saved always saved as opposed to the perseverance of the saints, which to me would mean they do not affirm the "P" in TULIP. Also, there was no mention of justification from eternity, which someone else had mentioned earlier, and is considered to be a classic mark of hyper-Calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I think a needed explanation.
Why PB are NOT Calvinist.
A 5 minute video.

I am neither.

Well I am a PB and we have history prior to Calvin. It is also safe to say that we are not Calvinist nor are we Protestants but distinctively Old School Primitive Baptists ( which will require extensive knowledge & study to understand us ). Personally this is not the forum to define & discuss the particulars.

 

[37818]

@37818. Thanks for putting up the video. It's a little confusing, that he makes a video explaining the differences between Calvinists and PB's, and starts with affirming the TULIP. Then, at the 3 minute mark he makes an issue of the "P" as meaning once saved always saved as opposed to the perseverance of the saints, which to me would mean they do not affirm the "P" in TULIP. Also, there was no mention of justification from eternity, which someone else had mentioned earlier, and is considered to be a classic mark of hyper-Calvinism.

Yes, these issues need to be dealt with one at a time.

 

[37818]

Well I am a PB and we have history prior to Calvin. It is also safe to say that we are not Calvinist nor are we Protestants but distinctively Old School Primitive Baptists ( which will require extensive knowledge & study to understand us ). Personally this is not the forum to define & discuss the particulars.

The fact you are PB is very important here. And as I stated to @DaveXR650 issues need to be dealt with one at a time.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am so sorry that they called you names and disregarded your beliefs. Perhaps you now have some understanding as to the Primitive Baptists ever present defense as to our own people being called the same and our doctrines being callled blasphemous… kinda upsetting isn’t it. Perhaps that’s why we are called HARD SHELLS LOL!

I don't mind at all that the PB's say such things. But you made it seem like my problem was that I cannot bear to hear that PB' believe that you are sanctified from the foundation of the world when just to set the record straight, I was pointing out the venomous article that had been posted. Read the article. It is venomous bomb throwing. Does it surprise me? Not really. Owen says some things about Arminians that are pretty bad, Wesley has a sermon against Calvinism that is downright nasty, Flowers just put up a video comparing God's overcoming grace to picking up a girl in a bar. We apparently are a nasty species. By the way, we indeed are sanctified from the foundation of the world in the sense that there is an election of individuals who are known to God before they are even born. In other words, God seems to have always known that he was going to separate out some people from the mass of yet to be born sinners, to effectively work their salvation.

I have a question to ask you, feel free to answer it or disregard it as you feel fit. Question: a child dies in childbirth. So where does the child’s soul go to? Is it heaven, hell, limbo (generally a Catholic response)? Please use scripture to justify your answer.

I say heaven, but it's hard to find explicit verses. I base my views on David's writing about his son with Bathsheba who died at birth. I also look at Jesus's personal interaction with little children, which makes me think Jesus would rather spend time with them than with adults like you and me.
I also believe the atonement would have covered infants who did no sin of their own even if there is actual guilt on all of us in Adam. Think about what Jesus said about just offending one of these "little ones". Calvinists get mad at me when I say that the idea of infant baptism came mainly from pressure to do something for babies, especially since in most of history 1/2 to 2/3 of children born never reached adulthood. They had an overly stern view of God and election and were scaring people in their congregations. It seems from what little I have read that PB's do not teach such a thing and that is one area where I would agree with them, as well as most Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, regular Baptists, almost everyone - infants who don't survive long are saved - all of them.

 

[37818]

---

---

The New Testament documents present the first century faith and practice from which we as Baptist profess to profess with disagreements on details. Local churches being autonomous.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Primitive Baptists believe in the Triune God, i.e., that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three, yet one, and equal in power. They are effectual in the eternal salvation of all of those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.



The Primitive Baptist people differ from all others in their belief regarding eternal salvation. There can be no doubt that all people need salvation. The Bible refers to the dead in trespasses and sins; yet there are no degrees of death. None are willing or able to save themselves from this lost and ruined condition. Rather, in God's eternal love, He chose, elected, and predestinated the eternal salvation of multi-millions of persons. Only God knows the number and yet their particular names were recorded in Heaven before God created the world. "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world," (Eph. 1:4.)



Jesus came to earth, suffered and died for those chosen ones, and redeemed them from the awful curse of sin. The Holy Spirit calls, regenerates, and gives the New Birth, sometime during their life on earth. The Holy Spirit is always effectual, calling all of God's chosen people wherever they may be, regardless of whether they have heard the Gospel or read the Bible.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't mind at all that the PB's say such things. But you made it seem like my problem was that I cannot bear to hear that PB' believe that you are sanctified from the foundation of the world when just to set the record straight, I was pointing out the venomous article that had been posted. Read the article. It is venomous bomb throwing. Does it surprise me? Not really. Owen says some things about Arminians that are pretty bad, Wesley has a sermon against Calvinism that is downright nasty, Flowers just put up a video comparing God's overcoming grace to picking up a girl in a bar. We apparently are a nasty species. By the way, we indeed are sanctified from the foundation of the world in the sense that there is an election of individuals who are known to God before they are even born. In other words, God seems to have always known that he was going to separate out some people from the mass of yet to be born sinners, to effectively work their salvation.

I say heaven, but it's hard to find explicit verses. I base my views on David's writing about his son with Bathsheba who died at birth. I also look at Jesus's personal interaction with little children, which makes me think Jesus would rather spend time with them than with adults like you and me.
I also believe the atonement would have covered infants who did no sin of their own even if there is actual guilt on all of us in Adam. Think about what Jesus said about just offending one of these "little ones". Calvinists get mad at me when I say that the idea of infant baptism came mainly from pressure to do something for babies, especially since in most of history 1/2 to 2/3 of children born never reached adulthood. They had an overly stern view of God and election and were scaring people in their congregations. It seems from what little I have read that PB's do not teach such a thing and that is one area where I would agree with them, as well as most Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, regular Baptists, almost everyone - infants who don't survive long are saved - all of them.

I rely on Gods grace to determine this. Genesis 18:25. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?