Tradition or Scripture

[Van]

Van, let me be very, very clear. I am not vilifying you. My position is informed by reading the books I listed above. I found that one needs to be careful about conflating the positions of today's Calvinists aka Primitive Baptists. Wayland deals with the split between the Fullerites and Gillites in his book. As best as I can remember, Wayland and Fuller would say potentially Jesus died as an atonement for all, and yes he desires for all to be saved. Remember William Carey went out to India under the impetus of Fuller. I refer you to the videos I linked to in my 1/21/2021 thread https://www.baptistboard.com/thread...ngs-of-andrew-fuller-or-fuller-v-gill.119458/ .

Sir, you again did not answer my questions, yet questioned my knowledge. Call it what you like, even a dog knows when it is kicked...

Particular Baptists are 5 point Calvinists. Thus not actually baptists, but baptists in name only.

Baptist - History

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Van, the problem is your narrative doesn't fit the facts of history. At least please read Wayland's Principles and Practices. Also, you're expecting me to wax eloquent on various points of Calvinism, just because I say my denominational DNA runs through the Particular Baptists. That's like expecting me to wax eloquent on the beauties of Yorkshire because my Great Grandmother came from Sheffield.

 

[Van]

Anyone can claim a narrative is wrong.

The Particular Baptists stemmed from a non-Separatist church that was established in 1616 by Henry Jacob at Southwark, across the Thames from London. In 1638 a number of its members withdrew under the leadership of John Spilsbury to form the first Particular Baptist Church.

There were two groups in early Baptist life: the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists. The Particular Baptists adhered to the doctrine of a particular atonement—that Christ died only for an elect—and were strongly Calvinist (following the Reformation teachings of John Calvin) in orientation; the General Baptists held to the doctrine of a general atonement—that Christ died for all people and not only for an elect—and represented the more moderate Calvinism of Jacobus Arminius, a 17th-century Dutch theologian. The two currents were also distinguished by a difference in churchmanship related to their respective points of origin. The General Baptists had emerged from the English Separatists, whereas the Particular Baptists had their roots in non-Separatist independency.​

 

[Yeshua1]

No.
Why, with all this vast knowledge, why not answer the questions?
Calvinists say Jesus did not die as a ransom for all. What do Particulars say?
Calvinists say God does not desire all people to be saved. What do Particulars say?
Calvinists say God did not choose for salvation through or by reason of faith in the truth. What do Particulars say?

It appears to me that no one will answer, but instead will engage in vilification. Par for the course...

Did God the father intend to have the death of Jesus pay for and atone for the sins of all sinners, yes or no?

 

[Yeshua1]

Some do!!

I do not know where any Baptist distinctive stated one must be calvinist or not a calvinist though!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's a micro branch of Calvinistic Baptists, although there is a greater proportion representing that group on this forum. However, Primitive Baptists are not the same as "today's Calvinists."

Would say majority are Calvinist Baptists, and some reformed baptists!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is very true. One might call the PBs the Historic Calvinistic Baptists as they carry on the thinking of John gill and the Anti-Missionary Baptists if I am not mistaken.

Hyper cals?

 

[Yeshua1]

Anyone can claim a narrative is wrong.

The Particular Baptists stemmed from a non-Separatist church that was established in 1616 by Henry Jacob at Southwark, across the Thames from London. In 1638 a number of its members withdrew under the leadership of John Spilsbury to form the first Particular Baptist Church.

There were two groups in early Baptist life: the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists. The Particular Baptists adhered to the doctrine of a particular atonement—that Christ died only for an elect—and were strongly Calvinist (following the Reformation teachings of John Calvin) in orientation; the General Baptists held to the doctrine of a general atonement—that Christ died for all people and not only for an elect—and represented the more moderate Calvinism of Jacobus Arminius, a 17th-century Dutch theologian. The two currents were also distinguished by a difference in churchmanship related to their respective points of origin. The General Baptists had emerged from the English Separatists, whereas the Particular Baptists had their roots in non-Separatist independency.​

The earliest Baptists were reformed and particular ones, as came out of reformed, but disagreed on water baptism and if the NC was under any Covenants of ther OT!

 

[Yeshua1]

Sir, you again did not answer my questions, yet questioned my knowledge. Call it what you like, even a dog knows when it is kicked...

Particular Baptists are 5 point Calvinists. Thus not actually baptists, but baptists in name only.

Baptist - History

Since we were the majority in the and among earliest baptists, by your logic General/free will baptists are in name only!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No.
Why, with all this vast knowledge, why not answer the questions?
Calvinists say Jesus did not die as a ransom for all. What do Particulars say?

The Lord Jesus died for all; rich and poor, male and female Jew and Gentile. He died for all those who will believe the Gospel.

Calvinists say God does not desire all people to be saved. What do Particulars say?

God takes no pleaseure in the death of the wicked; He calls all men everywhere to repent, and the one who comes to Christ will by no means be cast out.
Now, in Mark 1:5, does 'all' mean every single person? Read Luke 7:30 before you answer.

Calvinists say God did not choose for salvation through or by reason of faith in the truth. What do Particulars say?

God did indeed choose for salvation through faith. God may perhaps have other arrangements for imbeciles or those dying in infancy, but otherwise no one who does not repent and trust in Christ for salvation will be saved.

It appears to me that no one will answer, but instead will engage in vilification. Par for the course...

 

[Van]

Did God the father intend to have the death of Jesus pay for and atone for the sins of all sinners, yes or no?

What does "pay for" and "atone" mean in your doublespeak? Why do you think those in Hades and Gehenna are "paying for" their sins if Christ already paid for them. What verse or verses do you cite that say all the sins of the world have been paid for?

 

[Van]

I do not know where any Baptist distinctive stated one must be calvinist or not a calvinist though!

Personal incredulity is a well know fallacy.

 

[Van]

The earliest Baptists were reformed and particular ones, as came out of reformed, but disagreed on water baptism and if the NC was under any Covenants of ther OT!

What are your qualifications for presenting claims that differ from the ones I posted?

 

[Van]

Since we were the majority in the and among earliest baptists, by your logic General/free will baptists are in name only!

Your doctrine says Christ did not die as a ransom for all!
Your doctrine says God did not choose those who love God!
Folks that reject much of scripture are baptists in name only (BINO).

 

[Van]

Van's comments in Red
The Lord Jesus died for all; rich and poor, male and female Jew and Gentile. He died for all those who will believe the Gospel. Which is it, died for all humanity, or only all those who will believe? Doublespeak

God takes no pleaseure in the death of the wicked; He calls all men everywhere to repent, and the one who comes to Christ will by no means be cast out. Now, in Mark 1:5, does 'all' mean every single person? Read Luke 7:30 before you answer. Calvinists say all means this here but that over there. Jesus died as a ransom for all means a ransom for some. Christ drawing all people means drawing some people.

God did indeed choose for salvation through faith. God may perhaps have other arrangements for imbeciles or those dying in infancy, but otherwise no one who does not repent and trust in Christ for salvation will be saved. Here the Calvinist uses doublespeak to deny his believe in regeneration before faith. If a person is regenerated, they are saved.

Calvinists say Jesus did not die as a ransom for all. What do Particulars say?
Calvinists say God does not desire all people to be saved. What do Particulars say?
Calvinists say God did not choose for salvation through or by reason of faith in the truth. What do Particulars say?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Calvinists say Jesus did not die as a ransom for all. What do Particulars say?
Calvinists say God does not desire all people to be saved. What do Particulars say?
Calvinists say God did not choose for salvation through or by reason of faith in the truth. What do Particulars say?

One of the signs of madness or dementia is a constant repeating of oneself and ignoring or forgetting what one has just been told.

 

[Van]

One of the signs of madness or dementia is a constant repeating of oneself and ignoring or forgetting what one has just been told.

Well said. Attack and vilify. Repeat ad nauseam. Sign of madness or deflection

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Did God the father intend to have the death of Jesus pay for and atone for the sins of all sinners, yes or no?

It is the height of irony for you to ask the above. Over the years on the BB I have asked you dozens of straight-forward questions and every single time you have refused to do so. If you can't do it then don't ask anyone else to do it.

 

[Yeshua1]

What does "pay for" and "atone" mean in your doublespeak? Why do you think those in Hades and Gehenna are "paying for" their sins if Christ already paid for them. What verse or verses do you cite that say all the sins of the world have been paid for?

Have all of their sins for those you mentioned here be paid and atoned for by death of Christ then?

 

[Yeshua1]

Personal incredulity is a well know fallacy.

Can you show to us any Baptist distinctiveness that stated one cannot be a Calvinist to be a "real Baptist?"