Today's "Calvinism"

[Jerome]

Reisinger makes some very good points

Hey, thanks.....I'm going to send this to my brother

You're welcome.:wavey:
Glad you both saw through the veiled accusations and false charges in post #12.

 

[Van]

Questions yes, answers few.

Everyone believes in the Soveriegnity of God, but what we believe this term means varies. Everything is predestined = Calvinism, God causes or allows all things = Non Calvinism.

Doctrines of Grace (DoG) = TULIP sometimes and TULIP plus Covenant Theology at other times. The advocates of Calvinism delight in changing the names of everything, Irresistible Grace becomes the Gift of Faith and so forth.

Lets think about the idea of separation of Church and State, a baptist distinctive. What it says is those that govern should not dictate doctrine. But what is the position as clearly and explicitly stated in the DoG? Just kidding, no position will be found, but we judge by their fruits and they are all for dictatorial elites deciding what is allowed and what is not, 180 degrees from the idea of the priesthood of all believers. You see they believe in the DoG=TULIP and therefore the Baptist idea of general atonement (Christ died for all men, not just previously elected individuals) is presented as a thorn in the side of theological unity.

Is salvation actually available to all men or has God predestined only certain individuals will be saved? Does John 3:16 mean what it says, God loved mankind and sent His Son so that anyone who believes in Him will have eternal life? Or did God create us so we are incapable of believing unless we receive the Gift of Faith.

If you review the "what we believe" statements for all the Baptist Churches, how many will explicity say, It does not matter what you do, nothing you do will alter the foreordained outcome of your life!

 

[JonC]

What does concern me is (1) Do our primary beliefs in the things that matter align up (Trinity, Regeneration, Sanctification etc). (2) Can we tolerate one another & maybe even learn from each other?

But there was a time when Baptists and Calvinists simply didn’t get along. Are Reformed Baptists, then, Calvinists who adopted Baptist doctrine and separated from Calvinism or are they those who held to Baptist doctrine having separated from Zwingli over differences? I guess how one answers this will determine if they would call themselves “Calvinists” - even though their belief is not affected.

I think that your last statement is right on target.

 

[JonC]

Questions yes, answers few.

Everyone believes in the Soveriegnity of God, but what we believe this term means varies. Everything is predestined = Calvinism, God causes or allows all things = Non Calvinism.

Doctrines of Grace (DoG) = TULIP sometimes and TULIP plus Covenant Theology at other times. The advocates of Calvinism delight in changing the names of everything, Irresistible Grace becomes the Gift of Faith and so forth.

Lets think about the idea of separation of Church and State, a baptist distinctive. What it says is those that govern should not dictate doctrine. But what is the position as clearly and explicitly stated in the DoG? Just kidding, no position will be found, but we judge by their fruits and they are all for dictatorial elites deciding what is allowed and what is not, 180 degrees from the idea of the priesthood of all believers. You see they believe in the DoG=TULIP and therefore the Baptist idea of general atonement (Christ died for all men, not just previously elected individuals) is presented as a thorn in the side of theological unity.

Is salvation actually available to all men or has God predestined only certain individuals will be saved? Does John 3:16 mean what it says, God loved mankind and sent His Son so that anyone who believes in Him will have eternal life? Or did God create us so we are incapable of believing unless we receive the Gift of Faith.

If you review the "what we believe" statements for all the Baptist Churches, how many will explicity say, It does not matter what you do, nothing you do will alter the foreordained outcome of your life!

I guess this is my problem. It is hard for me to reconcile “Calvinism” or “Reformed” with “Baptist” because they are so historically and doctrinally opposed to each other. This is because my understanding of Calvinism is the theological system developed by Beza, based on the works of Calvin, which was largely based on Zwingli. Until Beza, most of the focus seems to have been on the nature of the sacraments, church-state, paedobaptism, etc. But now, Calvinism as a theological system is presented as dead with only its soteriological position (TULIP) surviving – in regards to “Baptist” anyway.

Not being a member of a Reformed Church, I apparently mistook “Calvinism” to mean the theological system rather than merely DoG.
It’s probably a regional thing – I am exposed to many Calvinists, but I do not know any that are also Baptist (or could reconcile the two).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But there was a time when Baptists and Calvinists simply didn’t get along. Are Reformed Baptists, then, Calvinists who adopted Baptist doctrine and separated from Calvinism or are they those who held to Baptist doctrine having separated from Zwingli over differences? I guess how one answers this will determine if they would call themselves “Calvinists” - even though their belief is not affected.

I think that your last statement is right on target.

Isnt the proper name for Reformed Baptist really Particular Baptist ..... per WIKI; The Particular Baptists were established when a group of Calvinist Separatists adopted believers’ Baptism So answer me this, whats are they particular to & when did they come on the scene? Also what is their faith confession & how did that come about. Answer those questions & then you may address your questions. Lastly, rather than focusing on Smyth, who most likely was an Anabaptist, why are you not looking at Roger Williams (where did he come from)?

Here is a brief history....

http://www.abc-usa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cgvZuPqWxVU=&tabid=80

 

[JonC]

Isnt the proper name for Reformed Baptist really Particular Baptist ..... per WIKI; The Particular Baptists were established when a group of Calvinist Separatists adopted believers’ Baptism So answer me this, whats are they particular to & when did they come on the scene? Also what is their faith confession & how did that come about. Answer those questions & then you may address your questions. Lastly, rather than focusing on Smyth, who most likely was an Anabaptist, why are you not looking at Roger Williams (where did he come from)?

Here is a brief history....

http://www.abc-usa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cgvZuPqWxVU%3D&tabid=80

Particular Baptists, from my understanding, were “particular” because of their soterilogical views (as opposed to General Baptists) and were also Congregationalists (not Reformed because they rejected Calvinism but agreed with Reformed soteriology).

Are you saying that John Smyth was not a part of the English Baptists, a Separatist who left the Anglican priesthood, but was instead an Anabaptist? I had just never heard that Smyth (and I suppose Helwys and Murton also) were not actually Baptists. I guess the logical conclusion would be that the General Baptists are not really Baptists after all. But would Anabaptists still be Protestant since they predate the Reformation, and since they predate the reformation is it not also probable that Anabaptist doctrine had some influence on both sets of Baptists?

I could understand that the General Baptists came about, then the Particular Baptists were established from another group of Separatists and therefore they are unrelated groups that have some doctrine in common (one didn’t just adopt Calvinism but certainly General Baptists didn’t just throw out TULIP – especially when the Cannons of Dort occurred over a decade after the first Baptists were on the scene). But while “Congregational” and “Anabaptist” seem to go together, “Congregational” and “Calvinistic” don’t. I was just wondering how much of Calvinism carries forward into what we now seem to call Calvinism. I realize that they were both products of their time, they were influenced by what was going on, etc.

I’d also point out that Roger Williams did become a Particular Baptist (for a little while anyway ), but Baptists pre-date Williams.

And you are right, perhaps “Particular” would be more precise a term than “Reformed" or "Calvinism.” It would have saved me from asking the question.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Particular Baptists, from my understanding, were “particular” because of their soterilogical views (as opposed to General Baptists) and were also Congregationalists (not Reformed because they rejected Calvinism but agreed with Reformed soteriology).

Are you saying that John Smyth was not a part of the English Baptists, a Separatist who left the Anglican priesthood, but was instead an Anabaptist? I had just never heard that Smyth (and I suppose Helwys and Murton also) were not actually Baptists. I guess the logical conclusion would be that the General Baptists are not really Baptists after all. But would Anabaptists still be Protestant since they predate the Reformation, and since they predate the reformation is it not also probable that Anabaptist doctrine had some influence on both sets of Baptists?

I could understand that the General Baptists came about, then the Particular Baptists were established from another group of Separatists and therefore they are unrelated groups that have some doctrine in common (one didn’t just adopt Calvinism but certainly General Baptists didn’t just throw out TULIP – especially when the Cannons of Dort occurred over a decade after the first Baptists were on the scene). But while “Congregational” and “Anabaptist” seem to go together, “Congregational” and “Calvinistic” don’t. I was just wondering how much of Calvinism carries forward into what we now seem to call Calvinism. I realize that they were both products of their time, they were influenced by what was going on, etc.

I’d also point out that Roger Williams did become a Particular Baptist (for a little while anyway ), but Baptists pre-date Williams.

And you are right, perhaps “Particular” would be more precise a term than “Reformed" or "Calvinism.” It would have saved me from asking the question.

Ah, but what about the New England Congregational Church which was the successor to the Puritans. They were "Calvinists".

 

[Iconoclast]

Reisinger makes some very good points regarding “Reformed” positions within the Baptists (I don't know about the "axe" he had to grind because I am not familiar enough with the Reformed Baptists or Reisinger). He is absolutely correct that the Reformers did not try to rebuild or remove the Catholic system, per se, but only reform the doctrine. Zwingli, Calvin, and Beza were all magisterial reformers.

While I know that the relationship between the radical reformation and English Baptists is debatable, I do see a correlation (particularly in view of Smyth’s writings – which utilizes Anabaptist articles of faith). My understanding is that Baptists owe their heritage to both the Radical Reformation and the Reformation (although I tend to view the ecclesiology more in light of the former). But looking at some posts on this forum, I was getting the impression that some held Reformed Baptists to be Presbyterians who reject infant baptism.

John Reisinger does make some good points that are important to consider.
I say he had an axe to gring...because in God's providence I was able to speak to him face to face about it...some years ago at a bible conference..in Seaside heights NJ.
I like J.R.....but he is presenting one side of an issue....that has two sides.

I was getting the impression that some held Reformed Baptists to be Presbyterians who reject infant baptism. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[/QUOTE]
Reformed Baptists...... are very similar to Presbyterians...because during the reformation...it was many of the reformers who recovered so many truths of the reformation...that we are thankful......anabaptists had some truth...we are thankful for that...reformers had much truth we are thankful for that....

Ana baptists had several errors.....they were persecuted....by reformers and RC churches....

RB ...attempt to take the truth from scripture ...from both sides of the issue.....the reformers had much more of the truth...doctrinally

 

[Iconoclast]

Yea, I know. I just don't know any other way of asking - not picking a fight (just trying to understand).

If I were picking a fight, I'd say Baptisterian .

Jon C

Presbyterians differ primarily in two areas.... the church....and how much continuity exists between the OC/NC.....

Everything else is virtually identical....but the two differences branch out and spill over into many areas of the christian life.

 

[Iconoclast]

Isnt the proper name for Reformed Baptist really Particular Baptist ..... per WIKI; The Particular Baptists were established when a group of Calvinist Separatists adopted believers’ Baptism So answer me this, whats are they particular to & when did they come on the scene? Also what is their faith confession & how did that come about. Answer those questions & then you may address your questions. Lastly, rather than focusing on Smyth, who most likely was an Anabaptist, why are you not looking at Roger Williams (where did he come from)?

Here is a brief history....

http://www.abc-usa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cgvZuPqWxVU=&tabid=80

particular ...has to do with the atonement
reformed baptist...has to do with the place of the ten commandments in the life of a believer,and unbeliever alike..

in our day it also has to do with the nature of the church itself

 

[Van]

Reply to Jon C,

I guess this is my problem. It is hard for me to reconcile “Calvinism” or “Reformed” with “Baptist” because they are so historically and doctrinally opposed to each other. This is because my understanding of Calvinism is the theological system developed by Beza, based on the works of Calvin, which was largely based on Zwingli. Until Beza, most of the focus seems to have been on the nature of the sacraments, church-state, paedobaptism, etc. But now, Calvinism as a theological system is presented as dead with only its soteriological position (TULIP) surviving – in regards to “Baptist” anyway.

Not being a member of a Reformed Church, I apparently mistook “Calvinism” to mean the theological system rather than merely DoG.
It’s probably a regional thing – I am exposed to many Calvinists, but I do not know any that are also Baptist (or could reconcile the two).

Here is a view from a Reformed Baptist Church:

We believe in sovereign grace.
In other words, we teach that God is sovereign not only in general, but especially in salvation (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Eph. 1:3-11 ; Rom. 8:28-32). Salvation is by grace alone plus nothing (Eph. 2:8-10). A man is saved only when God gives him the willingness and the ability to repent and put his faith in Jesus Christ, the one who suffered the wrath of God in the place of sinners (Phil. 1:6, 29, 30; 2 Tim. 2:24, 25 ).

Note they referenced Ephesians 2:8-9 claiming it says grace alone, rather than by grace through faith. From this one statement we can discern the "T", "U", "L" and "I"

Can Covenant theology and non-baptist polity be far behind. The only thing clearly disavowed is infant baptism.

 

[JonC]

Jon C

Presbyterians differ primarily in two areas.... the church....and how much continuity exists between the OC/NC.....

Thanks Ionclast. I understand the difference in the chruch, what is the difference between their views between the continuity between the OC/NC?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

particular ...has to do with the atonement
reformed baptist...has to do with the place of the ten commandments in the life of a believer,and unbeliever alike..

in our day it also has to do with the nature of the church itself

Honestly, all these terms are getting confusing..... I have studied both the Westminster Confessions & then the 1689 Baptist confessions & there almost alike except for Credo/Paedo Baptism Stuff. Both Reformed Baptists & Presbyterians generally are Covenant Theology & both are Elder lead....so where, besides what I pointed out, is the dividing line?

 

[JonC]

Here is a view from a Reformed Baptist Church:

We believe in sovereign grace.
In other words, we teach that God is sovereign not only in general, but especially in salvation (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Eph. 1:3-11 ; Rom. 8:28-32). Salvation is by grace alone plus nothing (Eph. 2:8-10). A man is saved only when God gives him the willingness and the ability to repent and put his faith in Jesus Christ, the one who suffered the wrath of God in the place of sinners (Phil. 1:6, 29, 30; 2 Tim. 2:24, 25 ).

Note they referenced Ephesians 2:8-9 claiming it says grace alone, rather than by grace through faith. From this one statement we can discern the "T", "U", "L" and "I"

Can Covenant theology and non-baptist polity be far behind. The only thing clearly disavowed is infant baptism.

Thanks,
It seems that this is the main thrust, Reformed position regarding salvation while. (although there seems to be different views in regards to covenant theology, I think).
Is there a difference between Perseverance of the Saints and evangelical Baptist’s position of OSAS or are they identical doctrines?

 

[JonC]

Ah, but what about the New England Congregational Church which was the successor to the Puritans. They were "Calvinists".

That’s where we tend to choose our history – Pilgrims vs. Puritans

 

[12strings]

The advocates of Calvinism delight in changing the names of everything.

-That line is unnecessary, and is not any more true of calvinists than any other group of people.

...no position will be found, but we judge by their fruits and they are all for dictatorial elites deciding what is allowed and what is not, 180 degrees from the idea of the priesthood of all believers.

-This might be true of some Calvinistic Baptists, but it is an unhelpful generalization, as there are MANY congregational Calvinistic Baptists.

 

[12strings]

Is there a difference between Perseverance of the Saints and evangelical Baptist’s position of OSAS or are they identical doctrines?

The end outcome is the same. Some who use "OSAS or Eternal Security" would agree exactly with Perserverance of the saints: Which says:

-Only those who persevere in the faith will be saved in the end, and God ensures through his spirit that all those who are truly saved WILL persevere.

Now, some OSAS people will say that perseverance is not necessary, that one could actually stop believing, but since they accepted Christ at some time in the past, they are still saved, even though they do not believe in Christ now.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks Ionclast. I understand the difference in the chruch, what is the difference between their views between the continuity between the OC/NC?

In the OT physical descendants in Israel were considered in the covenant of grace according to the padeo understanding...in that the covenant was breakable...so they say infants who receive the sign are in covenant...unless they apostatize...being covenant breakers.

So they say the same exists in the NT...our children should be in.....until they become covenant breakers.....


Rb believe it is no longer just physical birth that puts one in the Cog....but new birth alone....that is regenerate church membership....
that is why the new covenant is new.

It is more complicated than that...but i am short on time right now..will develop it more later on.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[JonC]

The end outcome is the same. Some who use "OSAS or Eternal Security" would agree exactly with Perserverance of the saints: Which says:

-Only those who persevere in the faith will be saved in the end, and God ensures through his spirit that all those who are truly saved WILL persevere.

Now, some OSAS people will say that perseverance is not necessary, that one could actually stop believing, but since they accepted Christ at some time in the past, they are still saved, even though they do not believe in Christ now.

Thanks.
I remember reading a sermon by Spurgeon (Choice Portions) where he explains that the believer may fall away, but in the end will come back because he is elect and a particular possession of God and cannot be lost. The reason I had asked is that I’ve heard “perseverance” explained in that manner. I’ve also heard OSAS churches explain that the difference is that perseverance of the saints means that believers will persevere in every situation – never “backslide.” But I take it from your comments that most, both Perseverance and OSAS, take it to mean the same – a believer will always believe.

 

[asterisktom]

I wondered about DoG. I figured it was Doctrines of Grace, but didn’t make the connection as pertaining to the DoG apart from the entire system of Calvinism. – Thanks, this helps.

(I like “Low-Cal” – sounds like a diet or a rap group)

I was surprised when I was reading Calvin's commentaries that he might qualify as one of those "Low-Cals". Have you ever read what he wrote in, say, his 1st Peter book? He had the opportunity to teach on the L of the TULIP and taught something else.

I don't have the Commentary handy here (It is back in the States) or I would quote it for you. I believe one example is in the 2nd Peter 2:1 section.