• 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!

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

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
If one has to be given faith can they really call it their faith? Calvinists pride themselves on thinking they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. If they were in fact chosen before the foundation of the world then they would be saved prior to having faith as the only ones in Christ are those that believe.

I find it odd that calvinists get so upset when the factual errors of their theology are pointed out to them.

And further to to your akin to comment, I continue to point out the errors in the calvinist view because I do want all to know the truth so as to be saved.

Calvinists seem to have no problem when they question non-calvinists faith
Being chosen before the foundation of the earth ( as the Bible says ), and being given faith do not equate to "you never have to trust in God." No one holding to the calvinistic view in this thread has exemplified pride in holding to election, the only pride I have seen is from you.

I'm not upset by so-called errors, because you haven't pointed out any, you've simply concocted in your mind what you think it is we believe. What irritates me is questioning a brother's salvation because he doesn't believe what you believe, which is what YOU did.

Again, you've pointed out no errors, but you have displayed great pride in what you believe to be the truth, which you oddly accuse Calvinists of doing. I couldn't tell from your comment that you wanted anyone to be saved, and your subsequent comments exemplify your ongoing dishonesty. Oddly enough, it is the prideful Calvinists I see being more fervent in evangelism, as opposed to the non-calvinists.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
You are not wrong. Although if you look into what the Calvinists who also preached to people you find in many a concept of invitation to come to Christ which would be quite familiar to you. Like all groups of people we constantly tend to drift and in Calvinism there is always rising up men like Fuller, the Marrow Men, Arminius, Baxter and Wesley who find that the metaphysics of strict, deterministic Calvinism needs some nuance.

So we divide up and throw bombs and pronounce curses on each otherConfused

The genesis of these disagreements goes back to Augustine and was just carried forward by Calvin , Beza etc up to this present day. It is not the calvinism requires some nuance it needs to have the factual errors pointed out.

I would not consider pointing out these errors as throwing bombs and I would not curse anyone. I am sure that all of us on this board would agree with God in His desire that all would come to repentance so as to be saved.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Being chosen before the foundation of the earth ( as the Bible says ), and being given faith do not equate to "you never have to trust in God." No one holding to the calvinistic view in this thread has exemplified pride in holding to election, the only pride I have seen is from you.

I'm not upset by so-called errors, because you haven't pointed out any, you've simply concocted in your mind what you think it is we believe. What irritates me is questioning a brother's salvation because he doesn't believe what you believe, which is what YOU did.

Again, you've pointed out no errors, but you have displayed great pride in what you believe to be the truth, which you oddly accuse Calvinists of doing. I couldn't tell from your comment that you wanted anyone to be saved, and your subsequent comments exemplify your ongoing dishonesty. Oddly enough, it is the prideful Calvinists I see being more fervent in evangelism, as opposed to the non-calvinists.

See there you go with your misunderstanding of scripture. We are chosen "in Him", if we are not in Him then we are not of the chosen and the only way to be in Him is through faith in Him. Ephesians 1:13-14

Odd that you do not disagree that you, as a calvinist, think you were saved prior to actually receiving faith from God. So by your comments you think you were chosen and then saved and then given faith. Since were all sinners what made you so special that God picked you out?

I have pointed out the errors found in the calvinistic view many times. That calvinists still refuse to see them is out of my control.

To believe the word of God is not exhibiting pride but rather a humble spirit.
 

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
I would not consider pointing out these errors as throwing bombs and I would not curse anyone. I am sure that all of us on this board would agree with God in His desire that all would come to repentance so as to be saved.
Me neither. I was just referring to the articles that were linked to where the Primitive Baptists were going after Calvinists like Fuller. I can't even imagine what they think of you. An no. All on this board do not agree that God has a desire to save everyone. Read their links.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Me neither. I was just referring to the articles that were linked to where the Primitive Baptists were going after Calvinists like Fuller. I can't even imagine what they think of you. An no. All on this board do not agree that God has a desire to save everyone. Read their links.

I don't think I am on any of their Christmas card lists. But perhaps they do pray for me if that is what it has been determined for them to do.

I can not conceive of any christian that would not want all to come to faith and be saved.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I was just referring to the articles that were linked to where the Primitive Baptists were going after Calvinists like Fuller.

You need to get your facts straight. George Ella, the author of the article, is not a PB, and Fuller is the one responsible for this split by betraying and 'going after' his fellow Calvinists in the 18th century.
 
Last edited:

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
You need to get your facts straight. George Ella, the author of the article, is not a PB, and Fuller is the one responsible for this split by betraying and 'going after' his fellow Calvinists in the 18th century.
In post 44 you put up a link to an article about what is wrong with Fullerism. In that article, which is written by a Primitive Baptist, he quotes extensively from Ella. Do you or do you not agree with Ella, who you posted.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"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?..."

Your link to 'Elder Joe Holder" proves one thing: Holder has (had?) never read anything by Andrew Fuller. All his criticisms of Fuller are quotations from a chap called George Ella. I have met Ella on several occasions, heard him speak twice and had some sharp discussions with him on line. He is an Anglican (despite living in Germany) and an avid paedobaptist. He is also a hyper-Calvinist.

Fuller was one of the men who rescued the Particular Baptists from the desert of hyper-Calvinism. All the early (17th Century) Baptists, like Kiffin, Knollys, Bunyan and Keach believed in the free offer of the Gospel, and under them the Baptist cause grew mightily in England and Wales. In 1715, there were 220 Particular Baptist churches, where 80 years before there were effectively none.

From around 1720, what was at that time was called 'High Calvinism' came into many of the churches, and the growth was choked. I am reluctant to speak ill of John Gill, who did much to rescue Britain from Unitarianism, but under his ministry, his church barely saw any growth, although it was in Central London in the middle of the 'Great Awakening.' God may have blessed some of his teaching, but He did not bless his preaching. By contrast, Benjamin Beddome, who pastored a church in a tiny village called Moreton-on-the-Marsh, saw huge growth, with people walking 20 or 30 miles each way just to hear him preach. Beddome held to the 1689 Confession when many were falling away from it and making the Baptist cause in truth, "a very dunghill in society."

Andrew Fuller came 50 years after Gill, and lived in another small village called Soham. As a youth he sat under the ministry of a man called John Eve, whose preaching, according to Fuller, was "not adapted to awaken the conscience' and he 'had little or nothing to say to the unconverted."

I won't go any further lest I make this post too long, Suffice it to say that Fuller, along with John Ryland, John Sutcliffe and Andrew Pearce, supported the first modern foreign missionary, William Carey when he went to India, and brought real revival to the Baptist cause. That Fuller made some mistakes and sometimes overstated his position is undeniable, but Spurgeon thanked God for him and declared him to be the foremost theologian of the 18th and early 19th Centuries.
A good book to read on this subject is Ardent Love for Jesus by Michael Haykin (Brynterion Press; ISBN: 978 1 85049 248 1). It covers not only Fuller, but some of the men who worked alongside him.
 

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
Your link to 'Elder Joe Holder" proves one thing: Holder has (had?) never read anything by Andrew Fuller. All his criticisms of Fuller are quotations from a chap called George Ella. I have met Ella on several occasions, heard him speak twice and had some sharp discussions with him on line. He is an Anglican (despite living in Germany) and an avid paedobaptist. He is also a hyper-Calvinist.

Fuller was one of the men who rescued the Particular Baptists from the desert of hyper-Calvinism. All the early (17th Century) Baptists, like Kiffin, Knollys, Bunyan and Keach believed in the free offer of the Gospel, and under them the Baptist cause grew mightily in England and Wales. In 1715, there were 220 Particular Baptist churches, where 80 years before there were effectively none.

From around 1720, what was at that time was called 'High Calvinism' came into many of the churches, and the growth was choked. I am reluctant to speak ill of John Gill, who did much to rescue Britain from Unitarianism, but under his ministry, his church barely saw any growth, although it was in Central London in the middle of the 'Great Awakening.' God may have blessed some of his teaching, but He did not bless his preaching. By contrast, Benjamin Beddome, who pastored a church in a tiny village called Moreton-on-the-Marsh, saw huge growth, with people walking 20 or 30 miles each way just to hear him preach. Beddome held to the 1689 Confession when many were falling away from it and making the Baptist cause in truth, "a very dunghill in society."

Andrew Fuller came 50 years after Gill, and lived in another small village called Soham. As a youth he sat under the ministry of a man called John Eve, whose preaching, according to Fuller, was "not adapted to awaken the conscience' and he 'had little or nothing to say to the unconverted."

I won't go any further lest I make this post too long, Suffice it to say that Fuller, along with John Ryland, John Sutcliffe and Andrew Pearce, supported the first modern foreign missionary, William Carey when he went to India, and brought real revival to the Baptist cause. That Fuller made some mistakes and sometimes overstated his position is undeniable, but Spurgeon thanked God for him and declared him to be the foremost theologian of the 18th and early 19th Centuries.
A good book to read on this subject is Ardent Love for Jesus by Michael Haykin (Brynterion Press; ISBN: 978 1 85049 248 1). It covers not only Fuller, but some of the men who worked alongside him.
I believe Gill and his congregation financially supported Whitfield's ministry
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@DaveXR650, @Martin Marprelate

Do you agree with Andrew Fuller that the Gillite 'faction' of the Particular Baptists were/are a pile of sh*t that cause fewer people going to heaven and more people going to hell?
 
Last edited:

DaveXR650

Well-Known Member
@DaveXR650, @Martin Marprelate

Do you agree with Andrew Fuller that the Gillite 'faction' of the Particular Baptists were/are a pile of sh*t that cause fewer people going to heaven and more people going to hell?
I don't even know if he said that. I'm not that familiar with Gill, and was hoping to find out about Primitive Baptists on this thread. I know some PB's, and have sat under some preachers from PB churches and frankly don't find them to be objectionable like the articles some of you guys put up. I've read Gill a little, and find him to be pretty good.

Like I said earlier, the only Fuller I have read is "The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation". I became a Calvinist because of discovering the immense value of the Puritan literature for practical guidance on living as a Christian. I have always had somewhat of a problem with some of the deterministic philosophical aspects of Calvinism and was delighted to find some Calvinists, even staunch Calvinists like John Owen, who seemed to believe in some type of what we would call an "offer" or invitation of salvation. I had mainly looked at Edwards sermons, and John Owen, and Bunyan, and the Marrow controversy, but also Spurgeon. I've only read the one work of Fuller.

Maybe it's just me (although apparently it's not) but I have to have some kind of genuine offer of salvation to everyone who hears the gospel or else I cannot fully embrace that system. If that demands logically, an amount of free will that exceeds what Calvinists and PB's believe then that is too bad as far as I am concerned. But there is much value in Calvinist, especially Puritan, writings and the Calvinist theology has a lot of value. There is more going on than just a provision of information, even if the information is inspired.
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
I stated just what any honest calvinist would say. They were saved prior to them having any faith as God had to give them the faith they claim to have after they were saved. Am I wrong it that?

Loraine Boettner
"A man is not saved because he believes in Christ, he believes in Christ because he is saved
To the extent that as far as God is concerned, it happened "before the foundation of the world":

“Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Eph 1:3-6 NKJV)

But that doesn't mean belief if considered unnecessary. Far from it. That is where you seem to greatly misunderstand the doctrines of grace. I believe those doctrines, but I have never, ever, thought that they take away the requirement to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't know them all personally, but I doubt if anyone on the Baptist Board who believes the doctrines of grace thinks that those doctrines removes the need to believe on the Saviour.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
@DaveXR650, @Martin Marprelate

Do you agree with Andrew Fuller that the Gillite 'faction' of the Particular Baptists were/are a pile of sh*t that cause fewer people going to heaven and more people going to hell?
Fuller actually said, according to Michael Haykin, that had the situation continued with the Baptists for much longer, they should have become a very dunghill in society. I was not living at that time (though judging by your avatar, perhaps you were), so I cannot judge the truth of what he said. I also note your fatalism showing again. Apparently, during the years 1715 and 1753, the number of Particular Baptist churches decreased from 220 to around 150 ( Haykin quoting contemporary sources), but the Unitarians and Quakers were growing, although, of course, so were the Anglicans. Make of that what you will.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I was not living at that time (though judging by your avatar, perhaps you were)

Your adolescent smarm is impressive, Martin.

I also note your fatalism showing again.

Fatalism - no one, not one soul, is going to hell on account of any act of commission or omission on my part. Christ placed no such burden on any of us. Not even those under the yoke of the law had that burden. Keep your Fullerism, I had plenty enough of it growing up.
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
Examine yourself brother. Your commanded to love the bretheren… even those you would normally hate.

I do not hate anyone on this board. I do disagree with their theological views that some hold. Would you not agree that pointing out those theological errors is the correct thing to do?

It is because I am concerned with their eternal salvation that I point out those errors. Would you do any less?
 

Silverhair

Well-Known Member
To the extent that as far as God is concerned, it happened "before the foundation of the world":

“Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.” (Eph 1:3-6 NKJV)

But that doesn't mean belief if considered unnecessary. Far from it. That is where you seem to greatly misunderstand the doctrines of grace. I believe those doctrines, but I have never, ever, thought that they take away the requirement to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't know them all personally, but I doubt if anyone on the Baptist Board who believes the doctrines of grace thinks that those doctrines removes the need to believe on the Saviour.

The DoG have removed faith as a requirement as they have a person saved prior to trusting in God. Remember it is your calvinists theologians that say God has to give you faith and this after you are saved.

The calvinist theology has it backwards from what we see in scripture. You are holding to a man-made theology that has it's roots in pagan philosophy. How many times have you seen on this board that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. Everyone else would be damned with no hope of salvation. That theology flies in the face of scripture.

I do not question the faith of anyone on this board but I do question the theological views that they present.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I do not hate anyone on this board. I do disagree with their theological views that some hold. Would you not agree that pointing out those theological errors is the correct thing to do?

It is because I am concerned with their eternal salvation that I point out those errors. Would you do any less?
It’s Gods job to provide, not any human being.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Maybe it's just me (although apparently it's not) but I have to have some kind of genuine offer of salvation to everyone who hears the gospel or else I cannot fully embrace that system.

I assure you anyone who visits or attends a PB church will hear the gospel, and, there's always 'an invitation' (short to the point) to anyone who wishes to have a home in the church.
 
Top