Socinianized Arminianism

[MB]

Socinianized Arminianism is not Arminian, I would agree. It is a movement that runs from Calvinism into mans logic as has others have shown. 1st stop is Arminianism and then a mix of both Socinian and Arminian doctrines then into Socinian proper.

I disagree according to there doctrine of divine appointment to Particular election

"Socinians held views rooted in rationality only and rejected orthodox teachings on the Trinity and on the divinity of Jesus, as summarised in the Racovian Catechism. They also believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen), and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible; and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience. They are to be differentiated from Arians, who believed in a preexistent Christ. The Socinians held that the Son of God did not exist until he was born a man."
quote above taken from wickipedia:

Its much the same as going the other to the other extreme into Hyper-Calvinism. This has been shown in more then one history book to what happens and not something I have made up. Now you may not like it, but that is in fact what has happened in the past.
[/quote
I have no doubt that some Arminians have changed their doctrines, but to call them Socinian-Arminians is just plain wrong. As far as Calvinism there are few if any left. The majority of Calvinist have never even read John Calvin, and don't wish to be called such. The term "Hyper Calvinist" Is the attempt to re-label other Calvinist because of a few extremes.

Not just now, it always has been. But again I set that aside in the OP if you care to read it.
And if you would take the time to read the OP you would know I never said Armenian did not believe in the trinity. I don't know how you keep missing this. However, they do have the same Soteriology views. This you cannot deny.

I never said you did however the socinians did not believe in the trinity.
My point is the Label. IMHO seems the op suggest that you were speaking about all Arminians because you did not differentiate any difference between those who have turned to Socinianism and those who have not.

In the beginning yes...you are right. In fact what was it?....48 of the 1st 50 schools were founded and ran by Calvinist? Some of the best schools. What you fail to admit is that it is when they rejected Calvinism and open their doors to Arminian views, is when they also fell into Socinianized Arminianism.

It seems to me that Harvard and Yale both have dropped the ball all together on religion. The point that they became tolerant of Arminianism was most likely because they may had been loosing a lot of donations from the Arminian parents and figured they were loosing money because of there hard nose Calvinism only approach.
Don’t blame Arminianist for the down fall of Calvinism. Arminianism came out of Calvinism and I disagree with both. Some Arminianst believe they chose Christ and Calvinist are on the other end of the extreme They believe they were chosen which is true but they believe it was particular leaving others to doom. I believe man doesn’t choose like the Calvinist although I also believe that Christ died on the cross so that everyone might believe. Not everyone will be saved because of rebellion. Not everyone comes to the light because they love the darkness.
Something you should think about seems the reformed are spitting in Calvin's face and heading right back to the Pope. Two very large forums like this one are ecumenical and very Catholic Calvinist. Catholics are those universalist you mentioned. Arminians are too. Myself I'd rather die than be a Catholic.

Point taken. Yet there are clear times in history when man has done the wrong thing and God has removed the blessing. Yet man never learns and will keep returning to the old mud hole when they could be in a coffee shop.
Yes. And these were from outside the church. Most of the cooling that comes within the church, is when the church focus of salvation turns into "saving as many as you can, before its to late" with no regard for doctrines. When this happens man thinks it is man that saves and not God.

The door to our church is always open to anyone who might be saved. We do wish to see as many saved as possible before the end. It has never been my wish to leave anyone with out the chance to hear the gospel. The Salvation of others is high priority although we do know that it is God who gives the increase and if anyone is saved it's because of His work not ours. We give God all the glory because he lives our lives for us.

.
I know of no Calvinist that is so simple to claim this. Please state your source.

Other Calvinist boards.

.
I have no idea what you mean here.
Socinianism limits no one. I have no idea why you would say such things. Socinianist are Universalists. They clame all will be saved in the end. This shows the next step down from Arminian hold doctrine.

Not according to the quote I provided from wickipedia as a definition of Socinianism

.
Universalists believe God will save ALL of mankind and God died for ALL of mankind.

True they do any Catholic knows that.

.
No, but the fact remains they are joined in the doctrine of salvation.

I don't believe that at all. Most who believe in Christ are saved. There are some who believe but refuse to submit these hold the truth and refuse the righteousness of God.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
This is about sinners who know the truth and will not submit to God.
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
What do you know sinners can know about Salvation and never be saved.

.
No ...they call themself Augustinian Catholic.

Agustinian Catholics are Calvinist. However the reformed are not

.
yes
That is a rather silly statement and has nothing to do with the subject

Well since labeling every Arminian a Socinian, the op is also about labels and the problems they present. Seems ridiculous to lump every believer who happens to be Arminian with socinians
MB

 

[Jarthur001]

Its much the same as going the other to the other extreme into Hyper-Calvinism. This has been shown in more then one history book to what happens and not something I have made up. Now you may not like it, but that is in fact what has happened in the past.
[/quote
I have no doubt that some Arminians have changed their doctrines, but to call them Socinian-Arminians is just plain wrong. As far as Calvinism there are few if any left. The majority of Calvinist have never even read John Calvin, and don't wish to be called such. The term "Hyper Calvinist" Is the attempt to re-label other Calvinist because of a few extremes.

I never said you did however the socinians did not believe in the trinity.
My point is the Label. IMHO seems the op suggest that you were speaking about all Arminians because you did not differentiate any difference between those who have turned to Socinianism and those who have not.

It seems to me that Harvard and Yale both have dropped the ball all together on religion. The point that they became tolerant of Arminianism was most likely because they may had been loosing a lot of donations from the Arminian parents and figured they were loosing money because of there hard nose Calvinism only approach.
Don’t blame Arminianist for the down fall of Calvinism. Arminianism came out of Calvinism and I disagree with both. Some Arminianst believe they chose Christ and Calvinist are on the other end of the extreme They believe they were chosen which is true but they believe it was particular leaving others to doom. I believe man doesn’t choose like the Calvinist although I also believe that Christ died on the cross so that everyone might believe. Not everyone will be saved because of rebellion. Not everyone comes to the light because they love the darkness.
Something you should think about seems the reformed are spitting in Calvin's face and heading right back to the Pope. Two very large forums like this one are ecumenical and very Catholic Calvinist. Catholics are those universalist you mentioned. Arminians are too. Myself I'd rather die than be a Catholic.

The door to our church is always open to anyone who might be saved. We do wish to see as many saved as possible before the end. It has never been my wish to leave anyone with out the chance to hear the gospel. The Salvation of others is high priority although we do know that it is God who gives the increase and if anyone is saved it's because of His work not ours. We give God all the glory because he lives our lives for us.

Other Calvinist boards.

Not according to the quote I provided from wickipedia as a definition of Socinianism

True they do any Catholic knows that.

I don't believe that at all. Most who believe in Christ are saved. There are some who believe but refuse to submit these hold the truth and refuse the righteousness of God.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
This is about sinners who know the truth and will not submit to God.
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
What do you know sinners can know about Salvation and never be saved.
Agustinian Catholics are Calvinist. However the reformed are not

Well since labeling every Arminian a Socinian, the op is also about labels and the problems they present. Seems ridiculous to lump every believer who happens to be Arminian with socinians
MB

the OP

Socinianized Arminianism is said to be the main factor that killed the evangelistic effort of the Great Aweaking in New England. Do we see traces of Socinian (I'm not speaking of Trinity views but evangelistic views) teaching in Arminian churches of today that has once again lead to many weak churches we find today?

I'm not sure why you will not read the OP. This thread is and always has been about evangelistic views and if it helps or hurts the gospel.

 

[JustChristian]

Don’t blame Arminianist for the down fall of Calvinism. Arminianism came out of Calvinism and I disagree with both.

MB

If we're talking about Baptists, Calvinism came AFTER Arminism.

Early Baptist

General Baptists
This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in a “general” atonement.[4] The General Baptists also had a distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

The earliest General Baptist Church was thought to be founded about 1608 or 1609. Its chief founder was John Smyth (1570-1612) and it was located in Holland. Smyth’s history begins in England where he was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1594. Soon after his ordination, his zeal landed him in prison for refusal to conform to the teachings and practices of the Church of England. He was an outspoken man who was quick to challenge others about their beliefs but was just as quick to change his own positions as his own personal theology changed. Smyth continually battled the Church of England until it became obvious that he could no longer stay in fellowship with this church. Thus, he finally broke totally from them and became a “Separatist”.

Particular Baptists
It is often said that the Baptists in England divided over the doctrine of the atonement, but this is not a true historical reflection. Yes, it is true that the two groups held differing views on atonement and doctrine in general, but they did not divide. Rather, they emerged as two separate groups. As with the General Baptists, the Particular Baptists came out of the Separatist movement. This group emerged in the 1630's. This group was influenced by the great reformer John Calvin and held strongly to a “particular” atonement.[8] The first church was thought to be founded around 1633 or 1638, according to some. Regardless of this datum, however, it is clear that by 1644 the Particular Baptists numbered at least seven churches. One amazing point about this small and very young group is that in 1644 these churches acted together to issue a confession of faith called the First London Confession of Faith.

 

[MB]

If we're talking about Baptists, Calvinism came AFTER Arminism.

Early Baptist

General Baptists
This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in a “general” atonement.[4] The General Baptists also had a distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

The earliest General Baptist Church was thought to be founded about 1608 or 1609. Its chief founder was John Smyth (1570-1612) and it was located in Holland. Smyth’s history begins in England where he was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1594. Soon after his ordination, his zeal landed him in prison for refusal to conform to the teachings and practices of the Church of England. He was an outspoken man who was quick to challenge others about their beliefs but was just as quick to change his own positions as his own personal theology changed. Smyth continually battled the Church of England until it became obvious that he could no longer stay in fellowship with this church. Thus, he finally broke totally from them and became a “Separatist”.

Particular Baptists
It is often said that the Baptists in England divided over the doctrine of the atonement, but this is not a true historical reflection. Yes, it is true that the two groups held differing views on atonement and doctrine in general, but they did not divide. Rather, they emerged as two separate groups. As with the General Baptists, the Particular Baptists came out of the Separatist movement. This group emerged in the 1630's. This group was influenced by the great reformer John Calvin and held strongly to a “particular” atonement.[8] The first church was thought to be founded around 1633 or 1638, according to some. Regardless of this datum, however, it is clear that by 1644 the Particular Baptists numbered at least seven churches. One amazing point about this small and very young group is that in 1644 these churches acted together to issue a confession of faith called the First London Confession of Faith.

Intresting history although I too believe what Calvinist call Arminianism existed long before Jacobus Arminius in that man has from the beginning believed that Salvation had something to do with what he did. However Calvinist are correct that Salvation is all of God though it is not particular. Christ said;
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
There is nothing particular about "ALL" The whole world was chosen when He died for it. There is only one thing keeping men from being saved and that's rebellion.
MB

 

[Rippon]

Intresting history although I too believe what Calvinist call Arminianism existed long before Jacobus Arminius in that man has from the beginning believed that Salvation had something to do with what he did. However Calvinist are correct that Salvation is all of God though it is not particular. Christ said;
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
There is nothing particular about "ALL" The whole world was chosen when He died for it. There is only one thing keeping men from being saved and that's rebellion.
MB

So you are saying that the Lord had no in particular in mind when He did His cross-work. You are saying that He had no intention of specifically laying down His life for certain ones ?! But the Bible declares that He did die for, in the place of , in the stead of the Church, the sheep . He did not die for an indiscriminate number . He died for certain ones -- the elect alone. He is their High Priest. Non-Cals have to agree that the ones whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life are the only ones who shall be saved and are destined for glory.I'm sorry that I am so 'particular' about this.

"The whole world was chosen" ?! No, the "chosen" does not represent everyone past present and future . The chosen are the elect -- they are one and the same. Scripture is quite against your novel view.

John 12:32 has to be reconciled with John 6:37,39,44 and 65. All those who are drawn are the ones given by the Father to the Son.Except by the gift of the Father no one may come to the Lord. The drawing is always toward completion. Everyone thus drawn is savingly united with the Lord. No one drawn is lost.Drawing is not tugging .The 'power' of their will can not thwart the design of the Lord.If by the phrase "I shall draw all to Myself" means universal salvation that is quite wrong. If by drawing you mean less than being savingly united with the Lord you are quite wrong.

 

[MB]

So you are saying that the Lord had no in particular in mind when He did His cross-work.

He had the whole world in mind.

You are saying that He had no intention of specifically laying down His life for certain ones ?!

The Bible say's He layed down His life for the world. Jn 3:16 and;
1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

But the Bible declares that He did die for, in the place of , in the stead of the Church, the sheep . He did not die for an indiscriminate number . He died for certain ones -- the elect alone.

He did die for the elect and because the whole world's sins can be forgiven because of what He did the whole world has been chosen and the majority of scripture says so. No where does scripture ever say that God chooses to save only some but says he died that the whole world might be saved

He is their High Priest. Non-Cals have to agree that the ones whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life are the only ones who shall be saved and are destined for glory.I'm sorry that I am so 'particular' about this.

This would be another argument because Names will be stricken from the Lamb's book of life.

"The whole world was chosen" ?! No, the "chosen" does not represent everyone past present and future . The chosen are the elect -- they are one and the same. Scripture is quite against your novel view.

I don't have a novel view. I have a biblical view one, that you very apparently do not have.

John 12:32 has to be reconciled with John 6:37,39,44 and 65. All those who are drawn are the ones given by the Father to the Son.Except by the gift of the Father no one may come to the Lord. The drawing is always toward completion. Everyone thus drawn is savingly united with the Lord. No one drawn is lost.Drawing is not tugging .The 'power' of their will can not thwart the design of the Lord.If by the phrase "I shall draw all to Myself" means universal salvation that is quite wrong. If by drawing you mean less than being savingly united with the Lord you are quite wrong.

Those scriptures in Jn 6 are not in contradiction of Jn 12:32 only your perception of them are. There is not one scripture in all of the Bible that states a difference between men, unless you happen to be Jewish. Rom 1:16 Rom.10:12 and col 3:11. Election doesn't insure Salvation for us and it didn't for the Jew either. Your Augustinian view is your problem. Why not take God's word for it instead.
MB