Not all Calvinists are the same

[JonC]

Folks like Steaver and I have been on this board for a long time. We have been in debate after debate with cals over the years. What you think you see in your relatively short time here is far different from what we see having been over this stuff time and time again.

I have been here since 2001.

And yes, I do see more Calvinists trying to indoctrinate people and showing evidence that they themselves were indoctrinated into the theology, but not too long ago there were posts essentially declaring Calvinism itself a false religion.

It's not all of either camp but some foolish ones from both camps that deny Christ by their behavior here. Right now the pendulum is on one side, soon it will be on the other.

 

[Revmitchell]

I have been here since 2001.

And yes, I do see more Calvinists trying to indoctrinate people and showing evidence that they themselves were indoctrinated into the theology, but not too long ago there were posts essentially declaring Calvinism itself a false religion.

It's not all of either camp but some foolish ones from both camps that deny Christ by their behavior here. Right now the pendulum is on one side, soon it will be on the other.

Ok well I disagree but even that is not what you said a minute ago.

 

[tyndale1946]

I have been here since 2001.

And yes, I do see more Calvinists trying to indoctrinate people and showing evidence that they themselves were indoctrinated into the theology, but not too long ago there were posts essentially declaring Calvinism itself a false religion.

It's not all of either camp but some foolish ones from both camps that deny Christ by their behavior here. Right now the pendulum is on one side, soon it will be on the other.

I too have been here since 2001 and I agree to some extent but what I see is not just Calvinism but the interpretation within the camp itself... I.T. said on here although he embraces the points of Calvinism he is not Calvinist?... How can that be?... Just because one embraces the acronym T.U.L.I.P does that make them Calvinist?... Or is there a deeper understanding that before the acronym TULIP was coined it stood as a biblical doctrine before John Calvin saw the light of day?... Because to me when all is said and done that is the measuring stick... I wonder why the Arminian brethren have not coined a similar term for the freewill brethren?... If they have I never heard of it in the tenure since I've been on this board... Who swings the pendulum anyway?... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Ok well I disagree but even that is not what you said a minute ago.

I don't understand what you are referring to, Rev.

 

[steaver]

I too have been here since 2001 and I agree to some extent but what I see is not just Calvinism but the interpretation within the camp itself... I.T. said on here although he embraces the points of Calvinism he is not Calvinist?... How can that be?... Just because one embraces the acronym T.U.L.I.P does that make them Calvinist?... Or is there a deeper understanding that before the acronym TULIP was coined it stood as a biblical doctrine before John Calvin saw the light of day?... Because to me when all is said and done that is the measuring stick... I wonder why the Arminian brethren have not coined a similar term for the freewill brethren?... If they have I never heard of it in the tenure since I've been on this board... Who swings the pendulum anyway?... Brother Glen

My testimony is this; I began reading and studying the scriptures at age 33, 19 years ago now. Prior to this I was un-churched, un-discipled, even though I was saved at age 10.

I studied the scriptures daily, as I still do most days even until now, but then I was drinking up the Word! Couldn't get enough! It wasn't until after about two years after I started that I began getting on sites like the BB and began hearing of all of these disagreements between Christians. I had never heard of Calvinism until then.

Point is, from what I had been drinking in for those two years from the Word I never came away with an understanding that man had no choice in their receiving Jesus Christ. If there was no such thing as Calvinism or TULIP ever invented, I would to this day, after studying for 19 years, still believe that what I understand from the scriptures is that folks have a freewill choice to make.

 

[JonC]

I too have been here since 2001 and I agree to some extent but what I see is not just Calvinism but the interpretation within the camp itself... I.T. said on here although he embraces the points of Calvinism he is not Calvinist?... How can that be?... Just because one embraces the acronym T.U.L.I.P does that make them Calvinist?... Or is there a deeper understanding that before the acronym TULIP was coined it stood as a biblical doctrine before John Calvin saw the light of day?... Because to me when all is said and done that is the measuring stick... I wonder why the Arminian brethren have not coined a similar term for the freewill brethren?... If they have I never heard of it in the tenure since I've been on this board... Who swings the pendulum anyway?... Brother Glen

First, no, before Calvin the doctrines expressed as TULIP were foreign to the church as doctrinal expression (not that they were foreign to the church, but they were not spelled out as such). Limited Atonement, for example, was foreign to John Calvin simply because the scope of the atonement was a question explored after Calvin’s death (in response to James Armenius). That does not make the doctrine right or wrong, I’m just saying it was not put down as a doctrine until Dort.

Second……Well, there’s Calvinism and then there’s Calvinism.

Some point out that Calvinism declared believer’s baptism heresy long before it determined Arminianism unorthodox. And then there’s those who are Baptists and refer to parts of their Soteriology as Calvinism (they accept the Doctrines of Grace as defined at Dort minus what would not go with Baptist doctrine). There are some who affirm all five points, but reject TULIP (they interpret limited atonement to in truth be particular redemption), and there are some who believe TUIP is Calvinism. There are the Reformed Baptists who point out the differences between Calvinistic Baptists and Reformed Baptists (I’ve learned, for example, that J.I. Packer and John Piper would be Calvinists, but not Reformed Baptists). All I can say is “it is what it is.” They all would better off to just plainly discuss doctrine. But the problem is that many cannot (and this is not just Calvinists).

I believe in unconditional election, total depravity, particular redemption, efficacious grace, and the eternal security of the believer. But my reasons do not come from Reformed theory. I also believe in universal atonement, the free-will of the believer, and the inherent ability to respond to God. So the Calvinism-Arminianism discussion for me is a bit dull as I am in neither camp (both Calvinism and Arminianism have the same Calvinistic foundation….like I said, Baptistic theology was heresy long before Arminianism was unorthodox). So I affirm some of what Calvinists affirm, but it would be foolish to say I embrace the points of Calvinism yet am not a Calvinist. That’s just playing with words. I do not embrace the points….the conclusions maybe….but not the points because my understanding of God working there in is different.

You will find many agree with the conclusions and simply accept the theories as evidence. There are a few Calvinists on this board who are legitimately indoctrinated into their belief. Being unable to defend they attack. You will see these band together to insult, muddy and cloud any doctrine they reject, and pretty much act the fool. I think there are more Calvinists in this category simply because Calvinism does present a clear and orderly theory. That said, there are several here like Reformed, GreekTim, Rippon and Martin (and others) who do engage doctrine, at least try to maintain a Christian demeanor, and know their faith (beyond indoctrination).

I don’t know who swings the pendulum. There was a time when I felt sorry for the attacks Calvinists here endured (you were here…..I’m sure you remember the accusations of worshipping a murderer, teaching a false religion, holding a false gospel, lying to sneak in and take over churches, etc,). Now it is the other way around. There are some here who just want to fight (we call them Christian only because they say they are, but their conduct speaks differently even as they argue about God).

Anyway, you asked and I answered. I don't mean this as a discussion so please, take what you want and leave the rest.

 

[steaver]

I have been here since 2001.

And yes, I do see more Calvinists trying to indoctrinate people and showing evidence that they themselves were indoctrinated into the theology, but not too long ago there were posts essentially declaring Calvinism itself a false religion.

It's not all of either camp but some foolish ones from both camps that deny Christ by their behavior here. Right now the pendulum is on one side, soon it will be on the other.

I think the problem lies in the fact that many Calvinists, at least many on here anyways, have taken a theology and made it their religion.

Calvinism has a founder, tis why it is called Calvinism. When a Calvinist crosses over into the realm of calling a man-made theology thee very Gospel they then invite the attacks upon that kind of rhetoric. If Calvinism, i.e. TULIP, is the Gospel then each and every Christian would have to know it since Calvinism itself teaches that God must make a person believe the Gospel. If they were one in the same, then all Christians would adhere to Calvinism because that is what God would have had them understand and believe.

 

[JonC]

I think the problem lies in the fact that many Calvinists, at least many on here anyways, have taken a theology and made it their religion.

I absolutely agree. I'll emphasize that not all, and not all here, make theology a religion, but some certainly.
(Mt 7:21-23)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Calvinism has a founder, tis why it is called Calvinism

The Founder of what is called Calvinism is God the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures to teach it. The name 'Calvinism' dates back to the Synod of Dort in 1614 to distinguish it from Arminianism, but if you care to look back at the early Protestant Confessions, like the Helvetic Confessions or the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England (read Art. XVII), the Doctrine of Predestination is right there, 50 years or more before Dort.

It was also taught in England by John Wyclif and the Lollards and by John Huss in Bohemia, and the Church of Rome persecuted them for it 120-150 years before Calvin.

 

[JonC]

To be fair, Calvin rejected the name Calvinism favoring Reformed (it predates Dort and was a name Calvinists did not take upon themselves). Lutherans coined the name. And they don't follow Calvin (many have never even read his Institutes, which is unfortunate). Beza had just as much an impact (perhaps more in a way) than Calvin on the development of doctrines within the theology.

 

[tyndale1946]

The Founder of what is called Calvinism is God the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures to teach it. The name 'Calvinism' dates back to the Synod of Dort in 1614 to distinguish it from Arminianism, but if you care to look back at the early Protestant Confessions, like the Helvetic Confessions or the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England (read Art. XVII), the Doctrine of Predestination is right there, 50 years or more before Dort.

It was also taught in England by John Wyclif and the Lollards and by John Huss in Bohemia, and the Church of Rome persecuted them for it 120-150 years before Calvin.

I agree this is biblical historical doctrinal truths that many gave their lives lives to defend... Persecution unimaginable on this board... You get an eye opening experience reading Foxes Book Of Martyrs and I highly recommend it... After you read Hebrews 11 and nothing has changed... And especially the will and purpose of saving Gods people is an act of God alone by grace alone!... Brother Glen

 

[Rippon]

Jon, you said :"Baptistic theology was heresy long before Arminianism was [considered -Rip] unorthodox."

So apparently you believe that Baptists began before the 17th century? Baptists of both stripes began about a dozen years before the Synod of Dort was insession.

What is "Baptistic theology" anyway? Are you referencing certain doctrines that the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists held in common? Those "doctrines" would be rather few in number.

 

[Rippon]

The Founder of what is called Calvinism is God the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures to teach it. The name 'Calvinism' dates back to the Synod of Dort in 1614 to distinguish it from Arminianism, but if you care to look back at the early Protestant Confessions, like the Helvetic Confessions or the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England (read Art. XVII), the Doctrine of Predestination is right there, 50 years or more before Dort.

Indeed. But the first session of Dort met in Nov. of 1618.

By the way, Lambeth Articles (or Nine Articles) articulated the five propositions of Dort in a very abbreviated form in 1595. Those articles were the basis of The Irish Articles of 1615.

It was also taught in England by John Wyclif and the Lollards and by John Huss in Bohemia, and the Church of Rome persecuted them for it 120-150 years before Calvin.

Gottschalk (808-867)taught the doctrines of grace and suffered for it in prison and under torture.Talk about tenacity! His friends supported his teachings. Among his friends : Ratramnus (died in 870), Prudentius of Troyes (died in 861)and Remigius of Lyon (died in 875). Those friends all wrote on the subject of predestination in particular.

There was Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349). Known as Doctor Profundus, he was a strong predestinarian and fought against Pelagianism. And so did Gregory of Rimini (1300-1349). He was known as Doctor Acutus (sharp).

 

[JonC]

Jon, you said :"Baptistic theology was heresy long before Arminianism was [considered -Rip] unorthodox."

So apparently you believe that Baptists began before the 17th century? Baptists of both stripes began about a dozen years before the Synod of Dort was insession.

What is "Baptistic theology" anyway? Are you referencing certain doctrines that the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists held in common? Those "doctrines" would be rather few in number.

No, brother. Baptistic doctrine refers to a variety of doctrines that were associated with the Anabaptists. Baptist distinctiveness would be doctrines that are common to baptist faith but distinct from other Protestant denominations.

What I am referring to are doctrines that existed prior to Baptist denominations and prior to the Synod of Dort. These include autonomy of the local church, believers baptism, and a separation of church and state, . Reformed theology in general and Calvinism in particular (since this is the topic) considered Baptistic doctrine heresy (before the seventeenth century) to include specific doctrines that are shared by Baptists. Baptists are indebted not only to the scholarship of our Reformed forefathers, but also from the scholarship and reformation of those who sought to bring the Reformation closer to biblical truth (if you are interested, a study of early Baptist creeds highlights a kinship between Baptist doctrine and both the magisterial and radical reformers).


https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/Baptistic doctrine

 

[Rippon]

Baptistic doctrine refers to a variety of doctrines that were associated with the Anabaptists.

That's a unique take. Historical theology would differ from that understanding.

There are more differences than commonalities between Anabaptists and Baptists.

 

[Revmitchell]

Persecution unimaginable on this board...

What? Good grief some folks need to actually learn what persecution is. What a ridiculous claim.

 

[Internet Theologian]

What? Good grief some folks need to actually learn what persecution is. What a ridiculous claim.

That's not what he was claiming, that it happens on this board, he is claiming that the persecution he referenced would be unimaginable.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Jon, you said :"Baptistic theology was heresy long before Arminianism was [considered -Rip] unorthodox."

So apparently you believe that Baptists began before the 17th century? Baptists of both stripes began about a dozen years before the Synod of Dort was insession.

Brother Rippon,

I believe the Baptist people have always been among us from the time of John the Baptist, though be it known by different names throughout history and not under the name "Baptists".. Paul wrote, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages" (Ephesians 3:21). This verse can't be true if Baptist churches haven't always been "throughout all ages" and the only "church" was the Roman Catholic church up until the time of the Reformation.

 

[JonC]

That's a unique take. Historical theology would differ from that understanding.

There are more differences than commonalities between Anabaptists and Baptists.

That's fine, brother. Let's just take a moment to look at my statements, history, and your reply.

First, your reply. I never stated that there were more commonalities between Anabaptists and Baptists. I agree with you here. Baptists are not Anabaptists. Most Baptists who seek a direct link beyond doctrinal contributions with Anabaptists ignore huge theological differences. Anabaptists are not Protestant. They are not products of the Reformation per se while Baptists faith is indebted to the Reformers.

If you care to discuss the topic, I'm game. But I don't really know why you put this here. Baptists are closer to Reformed churches than they are to Anabaptists. This is a given, brother. What I am talking about are three doctrines that they had in common. Which brings us to the second point - weighting my claims with history.

I. I listed three distinct beliefs of Anabaptist theology.

Anabaptist on Believers Baptism –“ Baptism shall be given to all those who have learned repentance and amendment of life, and who believe truly that their sins are taken away by Christ, and to all those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (Schleitheim Confession, 1527)

Anabaptist on Separation between Chruch and State – “The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian's is according to the Spirit; their houses and dwelling remain in this world, but the Christian's are in heaven; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian's citizenship is in heaven” (Schleitheim Confession, 1527)

Anabaptist on Autonomy of the local church – It is the office of the pastor to “read, to admonish and teach, to warn, to discipline…and in all things to see to the care of the body of Christ, in order that it may be built up and developed, and the mouth of the slander be stopped. This one moreover shall be supported of the church which has chosen him” (Schleitheim Confession, 1527)

Historicall Anabaptist theology incorporated all three doctrines I listed. Now we need to examine Reformed theology, specifically Calvinism, and see if they reject or accept these doctrines.

2. I said that Reformed theology, specifically Calvinism, rejected those three baptistic doctrines as heresy.

Calvin on Church and State - John Calvin certainly believed in a separation of civil government and spiritual government. But he objected to our concept of separation between Church and State. Addressing specifically this doctrine (specifically Anabaptists and their doctrine regarding the role of civil authority), Calvin writes that the object of civil government includes “that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people…. in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men.” (Calvin, Institutes, Ch. 20).

Calvin on Believers Baptism - Calvin condemned the Anabaptist for requiring belief before baptism. “For when they cling so desperately to the order of the words, insisting that because it is said, "Go, preach and baptize," and again, "Whosoever believes and is baptized," they must preach before baptising, and believe before being baptized, why may not we in our turn object, that they must baptize before teaching the observance of those things which Christ commanded, because it is said, "Baptize, teaching whatsoever I have commanded you?” (Calvin, Institutes, Ch. 16).

Calvin on local church government - Calvin’s ecclesiology differed greatly from the Anabaptist and their view of autonomy of the local church. I do not think it necessary to quote Calvin here, particularly as this is covered through several chapters. But if you doubt Calvin rejected an autonomous local church then I will direct you to chapter four of the Institutes (for ease I’m sticking to this one reference).

So those three doctrines were held by Anabaptists and condemned by Calvinism Now all we have to do to see if my post was indeed historically accurate is determine if Baptist theology incorporates those three things.

3. I said that Baptist churches have a distinctiveness within Protestant denominations because of a few doctrines. I listed three: Believers Baptism, Separation of Church and State, and the autonomy of the local church.

A Baptist view of baptism - “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament…Those who actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to , our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects for this ordinance.” (London Baptist Confession, 1689)

A Baptist view of the local church - “To each of these churches thus gathered, according to the Lords’ mind as declared in His Word, He has given all the power and authority which is in any way required for them to carry on the order of worship and discipline which He and instituted for them to observe.” (London Baptist Confession, 1689)

Separation of Church and State – “God….. hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the sword, for defence and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.” (London Baptist Confession, 1689)

4. Conclusion: Does historical theology differ from what I have stated?

a) I stated that “baptistic theology was heresy long before Arminianism was considered unorthodox.”

This is absolutely true. I quoted John Calvin (who was dead by the time Arminianism was considered unorthodox) condemning on no uncertain grounds that believers baptism is heresy.

b) I stated that “Baptist distinctiveness would be doctrines that are common to Baptist faith but distinct from other Protestant denominations.”

This is also true. Protestants are “children” of the Reformation, including Baptists. Those doctrines that form what makes us different from Reformed churches (here I mean the traditional meaning…..Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.) may have come from the radical reformers (so we have a debt there as well) pale in comparison to our debt to Martin Luther. We are Protestants to the core, but within our faith there are doctrines that make us Baptist. This is what denominations are, brother.

c) The only other thing I can think of is the definition of “baptistic doctrine.” I used it to refer to Anabaptist and not Baptist doctrine. The reason is that….well…it means “any of various doctrines closely related to Anabaptism.” Those three doctrines are definitely “baptistic doctrines” as the Schleitheim Confession demonstrates (particularly as I was gathering them from Anabaptist confessions and then comparing them to Baptist confessions).

So this also is true. Perhaps you confused my use of baptistic with baptist? I am not one to claim that Baptists existed prior to the Reformation (or even during the Reformation). Too many people want to write their own histories. I am not one of them.

Anyway, Rippon, I beleive that I have adequately defended my statement (which was an off the hand comment, but nonetheless one I believe accurate). If you would like to discuss any aspect of my reply, please let me know. We may disagree, but at least we won't disagree in ignorance.

 

[Rippon]

Jon: You expalined yourself exceptionally well in post 59. I understand your positionn now and agree for the most part. Your term "Baptistic Theology" threw me off. I get it --you weren't trying to say Baptist Theology. However, I would still be hesitant to use the term theology here. The word 'theology' is too broad-based. Those three principles are rather limited for an expression of Faith.

Besides, immersion wasn't even mentioned. From what I can tell full immersion baptism didn't happen until around 1641.

Also, you said Methodists are Reformed. I really don't think so. Now M-L-J came from a Calvinistic-Methodist background. But that was an exception to the rule. It was primarily Calvinistic in the 18th century and centered in Wales.

Looking around in America today --can any Methodist Church be considered even remotely Calvinistic?