What is a "Traditionalist" Baptist...

[utilyan]

To me, that's a common mis-conception.

Study today's Roman Catholic doctrine and I think that you will find that "Molinism" ( codified in roughly 1550 or so by Luis de Molina ) and "Semi-Pelagianism" / "Wesleyan Arminianism" walk hand in hand.
In other words, the RCC teaches "free will" doctrine...not "God's will" doctrine.

Then study today's "Traditionalism", and except for eternal security, I happen to believe that its core doctrines more resemble "Molinism" than not.

"Calvinism" is definitely not Roman Catholic, unless you link Augustine of Hippo ( an early church "father" that is claimed by them ) to John Calvin.
Then you'll have to answer the question of where Augustine derived his doctrines from, as many of his viewpoints were upheld in the 2nd Council of Carthage against the teachings of Pelagius.

So...
Many people agreed with much of what Augustine had to say back then, which presents the same ( or similar ) scenario that we now face right here on this board.

Another point of fact:

Most of "Calvinism's" doctrines were condemned as heresy at the Council of Trent in 1563, and pronounced as accursed.
How do you explain that if it was so close to being "Catholic"?

As for true "Reformed" theology, it includes quite a bit that many "Particular Baptists" do not hold to, such as infant baptism and a-millennialism. The true "Reformed" position, in its every doctrine, is best fitted to the Presbyterian churches today.

Dunno where you got the idea that individual election was ever Roman Catholic, unless you're referring to Augustine.
But then I've never read him, either...so please explain to those of us who read Scripture and see "Calvinism" in it, how we're getting it from the teachings of both John Calvin and the Roman Catholic Church, when they have historically taught things so far apart as to be nearly unrecognizable during the past 500 years.

Once again, I think you really should reason through the emotion in your responses, MB.

Catholic doctrine from the past 1,500 years is actually 180 degrees out from "Calvinism".
The only things that even look close are infant baptism and a-millennialism, which I understand the RCC teaches both.


May God look upon you with favor, sir.

We teach God's Will is Free Will, Free Will is not obstacle to God's will..

You are insisting God can will and do absolutely everything he wants as long as he submits to the REAL GOD---> Calvinist Philosophy.


If any Calvinist here had a lick of regeneration/sanctification of their common sense. They wouldn't be bickering about people not understanding.


Watch this testimony this is what makes sense. Fast forward to 1:34

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I write only as an observer of the intramural SBC debate on this topic here on Baptist Board. As I read the debate, Traditionalist refers to the classic Fullerite application of Calvinism held by the majority of Baptists after 1800. (Please see Notes on the Priniples and Practices of Baptist Churches, Francis Wayland, 1859 on Amazon Kindle for .99 USD). It really didn't matter for a good hundred and fifty years, as the Gillite Calvinists pretty much stayed in the Primitive Baptist organizations. However, in the last 30+ years, there arose a reaction to and repudiation of the revivalism/evangelism that started with Charles Finney. As is true in many cases, the pedulem swung to what many see as a extreme position.

As for the SBC and slavery, Wayland was in the thick of the debate in the 1830s. So, please see NPPBC. Initally, the question wasn't so much slavery per se. It was some churches in the north ans mid-west didn't like the idea of supporting slave holding missionaries on the frontier (in 1830 that would be Arkansas, Texas, ect.)

 

[Iconoclast]

Augustine wrote your doctrine and it's not found in scripture. I'm not Arminian I only follow the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Arminians came out of Calvinism and I consider both to be heretical. It's more than obvious you simply don't know what you are talking about.
MB

Really...explain what Jesus was teaching in Jn.6:37-44 as you only follow the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

 

[MB]

Yeah...of course....it isn't you who doesn't know what they are talking about...... #sarcasm

See what I mean. Augustine wrote Catholic doctrine and reformers reformed it.The fact you don't know this shows how much you really know.Calvin even wanted to be Pope.
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

See what I mean. Augustine wrote Catholic doctrine and reformers reformed it.The fact you don't know this shows how much you really know.Calvin even wanted to be Pope.
MB

And again, more ignorance if you think the Catholic Church of Augustine was the same as it was at the time of the Reformation or even now. By the way, you realize that by your standards we must also disregard Paul. He also wrote Catholic doctrine.

 

[MB]

And again, more ignorance if you think the Catholic Church of Augustine was the same as it was at the time of the Reformation or even now. By the way, you realize that by your standards we must also disregard Paul. He also wrote Catholic doctrine.

Paul wrote most of the new testiment He did not write Catholic doctrine.What Paul wrote is truth and Catholic doctrine is centered around a man called Pope who claims to be In Christ Stead. IOW he is taking the place of God. So you still don't know what you are talking about.. Catholics believe everyone will be saved eventually. I never said they are the same. The reformation started over indulgences. Not Doctrine.
MB

 

[Revmitchell]

The reformation started over justification by faith not indulgences

 

[MB]

The reformation started over justification by faith not indulgences

Not According to the History I was taught. That's not to say you are wrong. The school I went to never ever spoke about doctrine.
MB.

 

[Particular]

See what I mean. Augustine wrote Catholic doctrine and reformers reformed it.The fact you don't know this shows how much you really know.Calvin even wanted to be Pope.
MB

LOL
Now you are claiming Augustine wrote the Bible. Shake my head, that's funny.

 

[Particular]

Not According to the History I was taught. That's not to say you are wrong. The school I went to never ever spoke about doctrine.
MB.

Whatsamatta U

How'd you enjoy it? [emoji16]

 

[Reformed1689]

Paul wrote most of the new testiment He did not write Catholic doctrine.What Paul wrote is truth and Catholic doctrine is centered around a man called Pope who claims to be In Christ Stead. IOW he is taking the place of God. So you still don't know what you are talking about.. Catholics believe everyone will be saved eventually. I never said they are the same. The reformation started over indulgences. Not Doctrine.
MB

Again, your ignorance is showing....

 

[Reformed1689]

The reformation started over justification by faith not indulgences

Actually it did start with the indulgences and Luther writing his 95 theses. However, as it continued, the main thrust became Justification by Faith Alone. Granted, the two items go hand in hand.

 

[Particular]

The reformation started over justification by faith not indulgences

Actually it did start with the indulgences and Luther writing his 95 theses. However, as it continued, the main thrust became Justification by Faith Alone. Granted, the two items go hand in hand.

This depends on when you determine the start of the Reformation.
It was Luther's grasp of Justification by Faith that led to his recognizing indulgences as wrong. This in turn resulted in the 95 thesis. So...you both may be correct.

 

[Reformed1689]

This depends on when you determine the start of the Reformation.
It was Luther's grasp of Justification by Faith that led to his recognizing indulgences as wrong. This in turn resulted in the 95 thesis. So...you both may be correct.

That's why I say they go hand in hand. But the 95 Theses, particularly the translation of them into the common language is what set off the firestorm.

 

[Van]

...and why do they dislike the Particular Baptist position?
I'm leaving this here for Traditionalist Baptists to share how their beliefs contrast with a Particular Baptist. The Particular Baptist holds to the 5 points of Calvinism as expressed in response to the Remonstrants.
How are the two Baptist camps different and similar?

As shown by several posters, the Baptist view very early represented two opposing views, Christ died for everyone - the General Atonement View - and Christ died for the supposedly previously chosen Elect - the Particular Atonement View.

Traditional Baptists then share some Arminian doctrine, Christ died for everyone, and God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith, but believe in OSAS. They believe in "Soul Liberty" where individuals are able to understand and respond to the gospel. So by the numbers:

Traditional Baptists do not believe the Fall resulted in Total Spiritual Inability or if it did, then God overrode the affect with Prevenient grace.
Traditional Baptists believe in Conditional Election.
Traditional Baptists believe in General Atonement
Traditional Baptists believe we choose to believe rather than are compelled by irresistible grace.
Traditional Baptists believe once we are saved, we are always saved, Eternal Security.​

 

[Reformed1689]

Conditional Election.

This should tell you all you need to know. Conditions mean that the man has to meet some sort of requirement. In other words, he has to do something. What does doing something equal? Works.

 

[Van]

No need to debate the Traditional views, Lord knows the Calvinists disagree with many of them.

 

[OldArmy]

This should tell you all you need to know. Conditions mean that the man has to meet some sort of requirement. In other words, he has to do something. What does doing something equal? Works.

Oh bother.... *sigh* Belief is not a work.

A person believes something based on evidence, it may be correct or incorrect, but beliefs aren't works.

Works are doing something to gain something, be it favor, honor, status, etc.

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh bother.... *sigh* Belief is not a work.

A person believes something based on evidence, it may be correct or incorrect, but beliefs aren't works.

Works are doing something to gain something, be it favor, honor, status, etc.

Correct, man initiated faith is choosing to do something to gain favor, honor, status, etc.

 

[Dave G]

Belief is not a work.

Sure it is.
It's a work of God:

" Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." ( John 6:28-29 ).

Notice that they ask him according to man's wisdom and a desire to do something for God...
Jesus answers them according to spiritual wisdom, and replies that belief is a work of of the Lord.

Several times throughout this chapter, the Jews are asking Him questions, with Him replying not directly according to what they're looking for, but spiritually ( John 6:63 )...
He answers most of the Jews in parables, because they are "without"...outside the body of Christ:

" And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them." ( Mark 4:11-12 ).

God hides Himself from those He does not want to reveal Himself to, and reveals Himself to those He wishes ( Matthew 11:27 ).
For example:

" And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." ( Matthew 16:16-17 ).

A person believes something based on evidence,

Belief on Jesus Christ is not based on evidence.
It's based on faith in His word ( Hebrews 11 ).
Through faith we believe...every word of God ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

True faith does not need physical evidence...
It rests in God telling someone something that's not visible to the senses.

Christ dying for our sins is not based on physical evidence...it's based on the belief of His words.
There are no photos, no written accounts of the crucifixion outside of the Bible.

Therefore, the only evidence is His word...
The wellspring of life.

Works are doing something to gain something, be it favor, honor, status, etc.

Exactly.

Believing to gain salvation would be making it into a work.
Believing because one is saved, now that is grace.