Overlap of Fundamentalists and Confessional Particular Baptists

[John of Japan]

AMillinial and PostMil basically collapse into the same thing, and while I do believe in a literal transformation of the Earth I don't believe in 90% of Dispensational eschatology. We're also mostly partial preterists, and think half of what they're citing as evidence for an Apocalypse war in the Levant is stuff that happened about two thousand years ago.
Dispy eschatology is taught by John MacArthur who is quite influenced by Reformed theology in other ways.
I don't know how to multi quote, but John of Japan wrote:

HyperCalvinism is just a slur word people use good anyone more Calvinistic than them. The actual, properly so-called, HyperCalvinists are tiny churches almost nobody has ever heard of. The rest of them believe in promiscuous preaching of the Gospel, though we know only the elect are called. The anti-Evangelism is practically a canard, and Gill was not one of these people. It's more like non-Calvinists and low Calvinists take this to be an implication than that it actually ever happens.
I honestly think it has more to do with people just not liking the idea of God controlling everything. But he does.
Sometimes people who deny duty faith, duty repentance, common grace or the well meant offer are called HC, but such people were on the Synod of Dordt, so whatever.

Hyper-Calvinism in church history is usually defined as the doctrine of refusing to present Christ to lost sinners. Almost all of my Baptist history books present Gill as a hyper-Calvinist.

You point out that hyper-Calvinist churches are tiny. That is because they do not proclaim the Gospel to sinners. I have read that Gill would not even look at a visitor in his church for fear that the person might then think they were elect. That's hyper-Calvinist.

“Hyper-Calvinism was developed in one section of the Particular churches, and everywhere proved a blighting doctrine. The London Association, formed in 1704 by delegates from thirteen churches, deemed it necessary to condemn the Antinomian perversion of Calvinism—regarding its action, however, not a judicial decision, but the deliberate opinion of a representative body of Baptists. The ablest and most learned of the Baptists of this time, John Gill, cannot be absolved from responsibility for much of this false doctrine.”
Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), 239-240.

“Many of his books were replies to attacks on high or hyper-Calvinism, which he held.”
John Gill entry in J. D. Douglas, Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992), 272.

“And yet, with all his ability, he was so high a supralapsarian, that it is hard to distinguish him from an antinomian. For example, he could not invite sinners to the Savior, while he declared their guilt and condemnation, their need of the new birth; and held that God would convert such as He had elected to be saved, and so man must not interfere with His purposes by inviting men to Christ. Under this preaching His church steaily declined, and after half a century’s work he left but a mere handful.”
E. Wayne Thompson and David L. Cummins, This Day in Baptist History, quoting from Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1993), 489.

“From Tobias Crisp and John Gill, the Particular Baptists absorbed hyper-Calvinism, a sterile ultraconservatism that caused their churches to wither.”
H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 152.

 

[JesusFan]

Hyper-Calvinism in church history is usually defined as the doctrine of refusing to present Christ to lost sinners. Almost all of my Baptist history books present Gill as a hyper-Calvinist.

You point out that hyper-Calvinist churches are tiny. That is because they do not proclaim the Gospel to sinners. I have read that Gill would not even look at a visitor in his church for fear that the person might then think they were elect. That's hyper-Calvinist.

“Hyper-Calvinism was developed in one section of the Particular churches, and everywhere proved a blighting doctrine. The London Association, formed in 1704 by delegates from thirteen churches, deemed it necessary to condemn the Antinomian perversion of Calvinism—regarding its action, however, not a judicial decision, but the deliberate opinion of a representative body of Baptists. The ablest and most learned of the Baptists of this time, John Gill, cannot be absolved from responsibility for much of this false doctrine.”
Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907), 239-240.

“Many of his books were replies to attacks on high or hyper-Calvinism, which he held.”
John Gill entry in J. D. Douglas, Who’s Who in Christian History (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1992), 272.

“And yet, with all his ability, he was so high a supralapsarian, that it is hard to distinguish him from an antinomian. For example, he could not invite sinners to the Savior, while he declared their guilt and condemnation, their need of the new birth; and held that God would convert such as He had elected to be saved, and so man must not interfere with His purposes by inviting men to Christ. Under this preaching His church steaily declined, and after half a century’s work he left but a mere handful.”
E. Wayne Thompson and David L. Cummins, This Day in Baptist History, quoting from Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1993), 489.

“From Tobias Crisp and John Gill, the Particular Baptists absorbed hyper-Calvinism, a sterile ultraconservatism that caused their churches to wither.”
H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 152.

He though did produce a useful systematic theology of the Christian faith, as long as one see take way his hyper views as being too much at times

 

[JesusFan]

AMillinial and PostMil basically collapse into the same thing, and while I do believe in a literal transformation of the Earth I don't believe in 90% of Dispensational eschatology. We're also mostly partial preterists, and think half of what they're citing as evidence for an Apocalypse war in the Levant is stuff that happened about two thousand years ago.
Dispy eschatology is taught by John MacArthur who is quite influenced by Reformed theology in other ways.
I don't know how to multi quote, but John of Japan wrote:

HyperCalvinism is just a slur word people use good anyone more Calvinistic than them. The actual, properly so-called, HyperCalvinists are tiny churches almost nobody has ever heard of. The rest of them believe in promiscuous preaching of the Gospel, though we know only the elect are called. The anti-Evangelism is practically a canard, and Gill was not one of these people. It's more like non-Calvinists and low Calvinists take this to be an implication than that it actually ever happens.
I honestly think it has more to do with people just not liking the idea of God controlling everything. But he does.
Sometimes people who deny duty faith, duty repentance, common grace or the well meant offer are called HC, but such people were on the Synod of Dordt, so whatever.

Much of these depends on who is defing the term though, as someone like a Norman Geisler defined hyper cal as any 5 pointer, while Bpatist theologian Milliard Erickson saw that as being any holding to more then 3 points of grace

 

[JesusFan]

I use the Somerset Confession, which is Baptist. I'm also a fan of Hercules Collins' catechism. But I'm aware I'm not a 1689 Baptist, though I don't object much to where we disagree.

What ways do you you disagree with the 1689 Conferssion then?

 

[John of Japan]

He though did produce a useful systematic theology of the Christian faith, as long as one see take way his hyper views as being too much at times

All agree that he was a brilliant scholar for the day in which he lived.

 

[John of Japan]

Much of these depends on who is defing the term though, as someone like a Norman Geisler defined hyper cal as any 5 pointer, while Bpatist theologian Milliard Erickson saw that as being any holding to more then 3 points of grace

Aye, the definition is the rub.

 

[Blank]

AMillinial and PostMil basically collapse into the same thing, and while I do believe in a literal transformation of the Earth I don't believe in 90% of Dispensational eschatology. We're also mostly partial preterists, and think half of what they're citing as evidence for an Apocalypse war in the Levant is stuff that happened about two thousand years ago.
Dispy eschatology is taught by John MacArthur who is quite influenced by Reformed theology in other ways.
I don't know how to multi quote, but John of Japan wrote:

HyperCalvinism is just a slur word people use good anyone more Calvinistic than them. The actual, properly so-called, HyperCalvinists are tiny churches almost nobody has ever heard of. The rest of them believe in promiscuous preaching of the Gospel, though we know only the elect are called. The anti-Evangelism is practically a canard, and Gill was not one of these people. It's more like non-Calvinists and low Calvinists take this to be an implication than that it actually ever happens.
I honestly think it has more to do with people just not liking the idea of God controlling everything. But he does.
Sometimes people who deny duty faith, duty repentance, common grace or the well meant offer are called HC, but such people were on the Synod of Dordt, so whatever.

I find partial preterism a difficult pill to swallow especially in the light of such passages...

Deuteronomy 28:64-65 NASB95
Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. [65] Among those nations you shall find no rest, and there will be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul.

Ezekiel 36:19-20,23-27,33,36 NASB95
Also I scattered them among the nations and they were dispersed throughout the lands. According to their ways and their deeds I judged them. [20] When they came to the nations where they went, they profaned My holy name, because it was said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD; yet they have come out of His land.' [23] I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. [24] For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. [25] Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. [26] Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. [33] 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will be rebuilt. [36] Then the nations that are left round about you will know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted that which was desolate; I, the LORD, have spoken and will do it."

Either that, or the Lord doesn't keep His promises.

Ezekiel 38:8 NASB95
After many days you will be summoned; in the latter years you will come into the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste; but its people were brought out from the nations, and they are living securely, all of them.

These are prophecies of the Jews having been scattered after 70AD, were regrouped back into their land after centuries of persecution.

 

[ParticularWife]

Aye, the definition is the rub.

I just don't care what people label it. I will tell people I'm a hyperCalvinist just to make that clear. Their labeling of ideas isn't important to me. I do not debate people, and I'm not that interested in convincing anyone or anything. Not my job.
I'm about as interested in debating preterism online as I am performing my own dental surgery. It's a complete waste of time in my experience.
In fact, I'm unfollowing this thread. I said what I have to say on it, and don't have any interest in these tangents.