The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[DHK]

I have referenced this group several times, but here it is again: http://fullgospelbaptist.org/

Baptist churches have congregational governments. As I look over this web-page:
http://fullgospelbaptist.org/html/collegeofelders.html

It really doesn't seem to be Baptist to me, even though the name "Baptist" is there. Like I said previously, just because a church has the name Baptist, doesn't mean they are.

It was hard to find a good statement of faith on the site.
Truthfully it looked like a "pray with us and give us your money site."

As far as atonement views, I still contend that it is very telling that the earliest Christians who had the same apostolic witness and scriptures that we do, held to the Christus victor view, coupled with the moral influence view, and Christus Victor was held for the first millennium.

That has as much support as baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, both of which are supported by the ECF.
Nowhere in the Bible do you find "Christus Victor."

None of the later Western, Latin views which were held by the RCC and Protestants alike were taught or believed in the earliest churches or for the first 1000 years. These later views came about because of the times in which they were promulgated -- times in which God was viewed in legalist terms: as a stern governor, a feudal lord, or an angry vengeful master.

The truths of the atonement are found in the Bible, not in history.

The CAC has "apostolic succession". My/our view of that is far different from the views of the RCC or even the EOC.

I already am in one debate on apostolic succession with a Charismatic. He believes we have apostles today because revelation may continue today and the gifts of the Spirit continue today.

There were 12 apostles. The last apostle was Matthias who fulfilled the office of Judas, as appointed in Acts chapter one. There are 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem. On them will be written 12 names, the names of the 12 apostles--12 and only 12. There is no apostolic succession. The Lord never made any provision for it. The foundation of the church is made of the prophets, the apostles, and Christ, Christ being the chief cornerstone. The church continues to be being built on that foundation, of which the prophets and the apostles are part of.

The CAC holds to the core Baptist principles. In some ways we encompass views that go beyond strictly Baptist ones (Celtic and Anabaptist), but I can affirm all the Baptist distinctives that have been referenced on the forum.

Is your government like baptist church government? Is it congregational?

If those in charge think I should stop posting in the Baptist threads, I will do that, or if I join a non-Baptist church, I will voluntarily do that.

What you do is up to you. I am just saying that not everything that calls itself Baptist is.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

new covenant theology....they teach only what is repeated in the nt is valid.they try and do away with the nt lords day/ sabbath. they lead to an antinomianism.

Oh, yes; I've heard of that.

 

[DHK]

acts 19 happened after pentecost also....they were ot saints in the nt time

And your point is???

It has plenty to do with the story.....

No it doesn't. Salvation is through Christ. It is not through Judaism. Christ died for the sins of Cornelius whether or not he was a proselyte. That has no bearing on the story. Both Jews and Gentiles need Christ. That is why Christ had to die.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Baptist churches have congregational governments. As I look over this web-page:
http://fullgospelbaptist.org/html/collegeofelders.html

It really doesn't seem to be Baptist to me, even though the name "Baptist" is there. Like I said previously, just because a church has the name Baptist, doesn't mean they are.

They are definitely Baptist; did you read everything thoroughly?

It was hard to find a good statement of faith on the site.
Truthfully it looked like a "pray with us and give us your money site."

That has as much support as baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, both of which are supported by the ECF.
Nowhere in the Bible do you find "Christus Victor."

Yes, you do. The concepts and teaching are there. What you don't find is penal substitution, an invention of Calvin and unknown until him.


The truths of the atonement are found in the Bible, not in history.

I already am in one debate on apostolic succession with a Charismatic. He believes we have apostles today because revelation may continue today and the gifts of the Spirit continue today.

There were 12 apostles. The last apostle was Matthias who fulfilled the office of Judas, as appointed in Acts chapter one. There are 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem. On them will be written 12 names, the names of the 12 apostles--12 and only 12. There is no apostolic succession. The Lord never made any provision for it. The foundation of the church is made of the prophets, the apostles, and Christ, Christ being the chief cornerstone. The church continues to be being built on that foundation, of which the prophets and the apostles are part of.

The CAC does not hold that there are apostles today. Besides, that is not what is meant by "apostolic succession."

Is your government like baptist church government? Is it congregational?

It is congregational, with bishops. Contradictory? Not with us.

What you do is up to you. I am just saying that not everything that calls itself Baptist is.

Se my answers above, in red.

 

[DHK]

They are definitely Baptist; did you read everything thoroughly?

I red as much as I could find. The site had very little about actual doctrine in which they believed.

Yes, you do. The concepts and teaching are there. What you don't find is penal substitution, an invention of Calvin and unknown until him.

This is just your opinion. Again, let me reiterate: There is no "Christus Victor" in the Bible. I don't find "Calvin" in the Bible either. These are people's names. The Bible is Scripture.

The CAC does not hold that there are apostles today. Besides, that is not what is meant by "apostolic succession."

That is contradictory. What "apostle" has succeeded from Peter til now? Who is the present one if you believe in succession.

It is congregational, with bishops. Contradictory? Not with us.

This does not indicate "congregational" to me:

Purpose

The Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship College of Ordained Elders is a body of Elders from across the country called by God to assist the Senior Pastor in their respective churches, in carrying out the assignment that God has placed on his or her life.

Their purpose is to meet the needs of the Body of Christ in whom they serve, through the preaching and teaching of Gods Word, counseling, interceding, visiting the sick, bereaved, and incarcerated. These ordained Elders perform weddings, christenings, funerals, bless homes and businesses of their local congregants.

Their ultimate purpose is to under gird the man and woman of God in prayer, tear down the enemys kingdom, and to glorify God!

The purpose of the College of Ordained Elders of the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship International is to teach and train ordained elders how to hold up the arms of their Senior Pastor, as Aaron and Hur held up the arms of Moses, that he may accomplish all that God has placed in his or her heart and in his hands.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I red as much as I could find. The site had very little about actual doctrine in which they believed.

This is just your opinion. Again, let me reiterate: There is no "Christus Victor" in the Bible. I don't find "Calvin" in the Bible either. These are people's names. The Bible is Scripture.

It is not my opinion; it is fact. The earliest churches held to Christus Victor, and this view was held for the first millennium. The earliest churches had the scriptures, and they didn't believe in penal substitution; this theory was unknown for 1500 years.

Yes, the Bible is scripture. And there is no "penal substitution" in the Bible, either.

That is contradictory. What "apostle" has succeeded from Peter til now? Who is the present one if you believe in succession.

"Apostolic succession" does not mean that there was a succession of apostles but rather a succession of bishops from the first one ordained by the apostles. This is basically the view of the RCC and EOC. I believe that monarchical bishops can be traced back only to the late second century. I hold, as well as do scholars, that in the NT, the words for "bishop", "pastor", elder", "presbyter", and "overseer" were synonymous terms for one and the same office.

This does not indicate "congregational" to me:

The CAC is not the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship. When you asked if we were congregational, weren't you asking about the CAC?

 

[MorseOp]

Saving belief and regeneration happen at the same time.

You do know that many of our Presbyterian friends from the other venue believe that regeneration can precede justification by an undetermined period of time. I do not believe that. I just cannot fathom a bunch of regenerated people walking around who are not saved.

 

[MorseOp]

But Winman is right (in what he has posted). Some Calvinists here have posted that it is possible to have a significant time lapse between the two. Many of them will use Cornelius as a Biblical example. God spoke to him, thus he was regenerated. He heard the gospel and was saved only when Peter came. Look at all the time that passed between. Can God speak to a dead person? the argument would go. Therefore he must have been regenerated but not saved.
I don't believe that, but some do, or some variation of it.

I know quite a few people who hold to that view. I think they are confusing the drawing work of the Spirit with regeneration. I have no problem with God working on a person's heart over an extended period of time to bring them to saving faith. Why cannot God use a process? I temper that with knowing that true understanding of sin and eternal life is given at the point of regeneration and justification. By "true understanding" I mean the spiritual ability to discern from God's perspective; not simply intellectual knowledge.

 

[Winman]

But Winman is right (in what he has posted). Some Calvinists here have posted that it is possible to have a significant time lapse between the two. Many of them will use Cornelius as a Biblical example. God spoke to him, thus he was regenerated. He heard the gospel and was saved only when Peter came. Look at all the time that passed between. Can God speak to a dead person? the argument would go. Therefore he must have been regenerated but not saved.
I don't believe that, but some do, or some variation of it.

Thank you DHK, I did tell the truth. Luke2427 said that he believes a person can be regenerated for "a long time" before he is saved, but did not say how long this is.

I have also posted this statement from V. A. Voorhis an assistant of R. C. Sproul in the past.

When the RSB speaks in the notes of John 3 of "infants being born again," it is speaking of the work of quickening God does in them which inclines their will to Him. In Protestantism, regeneration always precedes faith and if God quickens them, the person will surely come . . .Often, regeneration and our subsequent faith happen apparently simultaneously but logically, regeneration must precede faith. An infant’s faith may not come until years after God has worked by His Holy Spirit to regenerate him or her. Two Biblical examples of infants who were born again are seen in Psalm 22:9-10 and Luke 1:15.

source- http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm

I think most Calvinists would consider R. C. Sproul a "biblical Calvinist".

Icon is not fond of truth.

 

[MorseOp]

Thank you DHK, I did tell the truth. Luke2427 said that he believes a person can be regenerated for "a long time" before he is saved, but did not say how long this is.

I have also posted this statement from V. A. Voorhis an assistant of R. C. Sproul in the past.



source- http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm

I think most Calvinists would consider R. C. Sproul a "biblical Calvinist".

Icon is not fond of truth.

R.C. Sproul is certainly a biblical Calvinist, but he's also a Presbyterian. Presbyterians believe their baptized children are part of the visible church, and the New Covenant. They see their children as sanctified by the Holy Spirit because they have been baptized and are part of the covenant family. This is where the belief that one can be regenerate for years preceding salvation comes from. As Baptists we believe New Covenant membership is conveyed through saving faith, which is also the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I will just summerize this thread by admitting we all have different prospectives on gospel interpertations.....Duh right!

Let us recall though that in obedience to scripture, we are commanded to obey what is the greatest of Jesus' commandments, the most radical of all of his teaching: Love your enemies.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Almost forgot.....if we have to divide, why couldn't we divide over who is doing a better job of feeding widows and orphans?

Happy Columbus Day

Ciao!

 

[12strings]

Yes. Indeed, I believe they were both wrong and so did the writers of the Baptist Faith and Message. The majority of Southern Baptists today believe in a moderate or modified version of the two camps.

I believe along with the scholars who penned the BF&M that election should be understood from the 'corporate' perspective, not an overly individualized application (as is common in the more 'Western' approach).

For example, the Calvinist would argue that the individual soul was elected to become a believer; the Arminian would argue that the individual soul was foreknown to be a believer--thus elected; and this "Southern Baptist" would argue that God has elected to saved whosoever believes.

1. I'm Curious as to where you see corporate Election in the BF&M?

V. God's Purpose of Grace

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility.

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

2. Thanks also for the Adam Clarke Link on my old Corporate view of Romans 8:29 thread...I just now saw it after remembering it and searching for it. I must have missed your response earlier. I may resurect it with some follow-up questions. we'll see.

 

[Skandelon]

1. I'm Curious as to where you see corporate Election in the BF&M?

Actually, I referred to the 'writers' of the BF&M, not to the document itself, as it was probably the goal of the committee to remain somewhat neutral on such controversial matters so as to avoid causing division in the SBC.

If you read Hershel Hobbs book titled the BF&M where he expounds upon his personal views on the subject (or the work of Adrian Rodgers and others), you will see a more detailed explanation of the corporate view. I can't remember who said what, but I do recall one of them using the analogy of an airplane saying that the pilot may have a predetermined destination, but not necessarily predetermine who will or will not board the plane. Likewise, God has set a predetermined plan for all who enter Christ (whether Jew or Gentile). So, its not that God has predetermined who will or will not believe (enter), but that he has predetermined what will happen to whosoever does believe (enter). Make sense?

2. Thanks also for the Adam Clarke Link on my old Corporate view of Romans 8:29 thread...I just now saw it after remembering it and searching for it. I must have missed your response earlier. I may resurect it with some follow-up questions. we'll see.

No problem. Look forward to discussing if further if you wish.

 

[12strings]

Actually, I referred to the 'writers' of the BF&M, not to the document itself, as it was probably the goal of the committee to remain somewhat neutral on such controversial matters so as to avoid causing division in the SBC.

If you read Hershel Hobbs book titled the BF&M where he expounds upon his personal views on the subject (or the work of Adrian Rodgers and others), you will see a more detailed explanation of the corporate view. I can't remember who said what, but I do recall one of them using the analogy of an airplane saying that the pilot may have a predetermined destination, but not necessarily predetermine who will or will not board the plane. Likewise, God has set a predetermined plan for all who enter Christ (whether Jew or Gentile). So, its not that God has predetermined who will or will not believe (enter), but that he has predetermined what will happen to whosoever does believe (enter). Make sense?

THERE IT IS! The final "Make sense?" And you even used an air-plane story! :smilewinkgrin:

Yes, I do believe the view itself makes sense to me. I believe I understand the basics of what the Corporate Election view proposes. What I don't see much of is clear Biblical support for it in a way that disproves individual election.

The other very large hesitancy is that I have yet to find any proposition of corporate election before Barth...it may be there, but I haven't been able to find it in a few Internet searches.

 

[12strings]

Actually, I referred to the 'writers' of the BF&M, not to the document itself, as it was probably the goal of the committee to remain somewhat neutral on such controversial matters so as to avoid causing division in the SBC.

If you read Hershel Hobbs book titled the BF&M where he expounds upon his personal views on the subject (or the work of Adrian Rodgers and others), you will see a more detailed explanation of the corporate view. I can't remember who said what, but I do recall one of them using the analogy of an airplane saying that the pilot may have a predetermined destination, but not necessarily predetermine who will or will not board the plane. Likewise, God has set a predetermined plan for all who enter Christ (whether Jew or Gentile). So, its not that God has predetermined who will or will not believe (enter), but that he has predetermined what will happen to whosoever does believe (enter). Make sense?

No problem. Look forward to discussing if further if you wish.

Also, Skan, if you are SBC (I didn't know you were till now)...What is your take on what would be best as far as either uniting and cooperating (Like SaturnNeptune & Tom Butler) or Separating (like EWF & MorseOP)? Which would be best:

1. SBC with lots of churches that are a mix of Cal & Non-Cal?
2. SBC with churches that are definitively either one or the other, but which cooperate for SBC goals?
3. A denominational split for the sake of peace?

 

[MorseOp]

For the record, my church is not SBC. It is an independent Reformed Baptist Church that subscribes to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, I do believe the view itself makes sense to me. I believe I understand the basics of what the Corporate Election view proposes. What I don't see much of is clear Biblical support for it in a way that disproves individual election.

Well, I hope you know that the corporate view doesn't negate the individual, we just approach the individual from the corporate perspective instead of the other way around. Make sense?

IOW, there are individuals on that plane and those individuals are predestined to adoption, sanctification and glorification. They just weren't previously predestined to become believers while the rest of humanity was left without hope, as Calvinism believes.

The other very large hesitancy is that I have yet to find any proposition of corporate election before Barth...it may be there, but I haven't been able to find it in a few Internet searches.

Well, there are quotes from early church fathers which certainly seem to support this perspective but, as I'm sure you know, the documented systematized approaches are certainly not as easy to access in those early days.

Plus, the corporate view isn't really a 'system' like Calvinism, in that it doesn't need a full discourse in order to explain away all the apparent contradictions and hard to swallow realties. It is simply a perspective shift regarding how we understand the intent of the author when speaking about predestination and election. And in this perspective there isn't much dilemma or explanations needed. Leo Garrett, in his well known Systematic Theology, wrote this on the subject:

"From Augustine of Hippo to the twentieth century, Western Christianity has tended to interpret the doctrine of election from the perspective of and with regard to individual human beings. During those same centuries the doctrine has been far less emphasized and seldom ever controversial in Eastern Orthodoxy. Is it possible that Augustine and later Calvin, with the help of many others, contributed to a hyper individualization of this doctrine that was hardly warranted by Romans 9-11, Eph. 1, and I Peter 2? Is it not true that the major emphasis in both testaments falls upon an elect people -- Israel (OT) and disciples or church (NT)?"
​

 

[Skandelon]

Also, Skan, if you are SBC (I didn't know you were till now)...What is your take on what would be best as far as either uniting and cooperating (Like SaturnNeptune & Tom Butler) or Separating (like EWF & MorseOP)? Which would be best:

1. SBC with lots of churches that are a mix of Cal & Non-Cal?
2. SBC with churches that are definitively either one or the other, but which cooperate for SBC goals?
3. A denominational split for the sake of peace?

I think a combination of 1 and 2 is fine. This tends to only become a conflict when the leader draws a hard line in the sand by attacking the opposing perspective as heretical or a 'false gospel.' I see no practical or logical reason for Calvinists to draw such lines for even by their own dogma they must admit that God has ordained such differences. And as long as Calvinists don't start promoting anti-evangelism (which is not typical in my experience) or start stirring up disunity in the body, I don't see a good reason for non-Cals to draw hard lines either.

 

[DHK]

I know quite a few people who hold to that view. I think they are confusing the drawing work of the Spirit with regeneration. I have no problem with God working on a person's heart over an extended period of time to bring them to saving faith. Why cannot God use a process? I temper that with knowing that true understanding of sin and eternal life is given at the point of regeneration and justification. By "true understanding" I mean the spiritual ability to discern from God's perspective; not simply intellectual knowledge.

In past conversations with them I have made it clear that I believe that the Holy Spirit's ministry today is to convict of sin, righteous, and judgment. But that is not good enough. The new birth must take place before salvation, and some times that new birth (regeneration) can take place a great while before the actual time of salvation. I don't see that in Scripture, but that is what some believe.
Like you I believe God can be working in a person's heart to bring that person to regeneration/salvation which are virtually simultaneous.