Which are you?

[Revmitchell]

Again, what part of Classical Arminianism do you not agree with?

I have posted my positions many times. What i am not going to do is repost them for others to see whether or not they agree I am not an Arminian. I tell you I'm not and that should be good enough. Anyone who tries to lable me with that moniker doesn't get a response from me.

 

[rlvaughn]

Northern: as opposed to Southern. As I stated above having our roots firmly planted in the Union/Philadelphia line of descent.

I think some of the "northern-ness" of the Philadelphia "line of descent" can be skewed by later events in Baptist history. That is, many Baptists in the south have some historical connection back to PBA as well. The work of the Philadelphia Association reached north, south (e.g., the missionary journeys of Gano, Miller and Vanhorn into North Carolina), east, and west, and many early associations in different directions adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith and corresponded with the Philadelphia Association.

...having our roots firmly planted in the Union...

To which Baptist Union do you refer?

 

[rlvaughn]

The term has come to be pretty generic, but the root is in what they believed.

It seems to me that the primary historic use of "Regular Baptist" was simply another name for the Particular Baptists -- probably because they made up the great majority, in order to distinguish them from "irregular Baptists" such as Six-Principle, Seventh-Day, Open Communion, etc., and possibly some of them weren't quite as "Particular" as the majority of them. In his The Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination, in North-America (1792), John Asplund divides the "Faith and Order" of North American Baptists as (p. 47):

• Six-Principle Baptists (many of the Philadelphia Baptists held the "sixth-principle" of laying-on-of-hands after baptism, but the Six-Principle Baptists made it a test of fellowship)
• Open Communion Baptists
• General Provision Baptists
• Seventh Day Baptists
• Regular or particular Baptists

 

[Yeshua1]

And you are not a Calvinist. What are you?

Per my former favorite rock band"dazed and confused".

 

[Yeshua1]

What are you going to be next?

Hopefully Raptured/Second Coming saint, and that will rtealise that I was not right with any of those labels probably!

 

[Yeshua1]

Not really. It fits neither C or A. The major problem with it is the fact it is a compromise position that is impossible to defend. It sounds good, but gets cut down quickly in debate. You either have to be C or A. If you try to land in the middle, you get squished.

Maybe our brother is best found here?
http://evangelicalarminians.org/

 

[Yeshua1]

It will be interesting to see what the make-up of the Baptist community on this forum?

Also in the comments discuss if you changed during your life, from what to which.

Do you see a distinction between a reformed baptist/Calvinistic/Particular Baptist?

 

[Reynolds]

I have posted my positions many times. What i am not going to do is repost them for others to see whether or not they agree I am not an Arminian. I tell you I'm not and that should be good enough. Anyone who tries to lable me with that moniker doesn't get a response from me.

Well, well, you are temperamental today. I have read your posts throughout many discussions of Calvinism. I have not seen any of your views that disagree with Classical Arminianism. If I had, I would not have asked you the question. Since your bloomers are in a bunch, so be it.

 

[Mikey]

Do you see a distinction between a reformed baptist/Calvinistic/Particular Baptist?

well Calvinist is often used in reference to Soteriology and not for all what Calvin taught (reformed?) and this is how I use it.

Reformed Baptist and Particular Baptists I would consider broadly the same. With Particular Baptist used for 1600s etc, a historic term, with Reformed being a more modern word used.

 

[Yeshua1]

well Calvinist is often used in reference to Soteriology and not for all what Calvin taught (reformed?) and this is how I use it.

Reformed Baptist and Particular Baptists I would consider broadly the same. With Particular Baptist used for 1600s etc, a historic term, with Reformed being a more modern word used.

Calvinistic Baptists tend to not use any Confessions, nor to adopt full on Covenant theology...

 

[Mikey]

Calvinistic Baptists tend to not use any Confessions, nor to adopt full on Covenant theology...

Calvinistic is a broad term that they hold to TULIP but can encompasses a number of positions . So you can be Calvinistic and either be CT or Dispe it doesn't specify.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'm a 1689er.

 

[John D. Wright]

I'm a classical dispensationalist, pre-trib, pre-millenial. I believe in eternal security but I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian. I'm also not a Lordship Salvationist but that sometimes depends on who you ask for the definition.

 

[Reynolds]

well Calvinist is often used in reference to Soteriology and not for all what Calvin taught (reformed?) and this is how I use it.

Reformed Baptist and Particular Baptists I would consider broadly the same. With Particular Baptist used for 1600s etc, a historic term, with Reformed being a more modern word used.

Today, most I know that identify as Particular Baptists are Calvinists who don't like the person Calvin and do not want to identify with him.

 

[rlvaughn]

Can you in your own words explain what makes [Traditionalism] separate from Arminianism?

I won't pretend to speak for Revmitchell, but I think the main point that distinguishes modern Southern Baptist Traditionalism from Classical Arminianism is the approach to the security of the believer. Traditionalism says, "We deny even the possibility of apostasy" while CA questions whether it might be possible if one forsakes Christ and returns to the world, and they think it "must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture" through further study.

On the other hand, Classical Arminianism has a much stronger allegiance to total depravity, which appears to me to be watered down in the Traditional Statement, and doesn't reflect how it was taught to me in "traditional Baptist churches."

CA: ...man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good...

vs.

TS: ...every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin...

 

[1689Dave]

At this point in my walk with the Lord, my theological ingredients contain the following: Baptized by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ as a Trinitarian believer. I believe the first 3 of the 5 points of Calvinism reflect what scripture teaches and most of the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist confession. The church is Christ's body made up of believers only and is biblical Israel with physical Israel broken off because of unbelief. (Reattached in part through faith in Christ). Christ's kingdom is spiritual and a present reality centered in heaven where he reigns over earth from David's throne. The Schleitheim Confession (Anabaptist) is closest to New Testament ethics. It defines the Christian's, and the Church's separation from the State. On the last day the believer’s bodily resurrection, also called Israel's restoration, happens. Followed by the rapture of the living saints. Followed by the bodily resurrection of the wicked who in judgment enter hell as the universe explodes. Followed by God’s creating the new heavens and earth where we will live forever in God's Glory.

 

[Mikey]

At this point in my walk with the Lord, my theological ingredients contain the following: Baptized by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ as a Trinitarian believer. I believe the first 3 of the 5 points of Calvinism reflect what scripture teaches and most of the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist confession. The church is Christ's body made up of believers only and is biblical Israel with physical Israel broken off because of unbelief. (Reattached in part through faith in Christ). Christ's kingdom is spiritual and a present reality centered in heaven where he reigns over earth from David's throne. The Schleitheim Confession (Anabaptist) is closest to New Testament ethics. It defines the Christian's, and the Church's separation from the State. On the last day the believer’s bodily resurrection, also called Israel's restoration, happens. Followed by the rapture of the living saints. Followed by the bodily resurrection of the wicked who in judgment enter hell as the universe explodes. Followed by God’s creating the new heavens and earth where we will live forever in God's Glory.

which 3 of the 5 points do you agree with.

 

[1689Dave]

which 3 of the 5 points do you agree with.

I believe the first 3 are right. But I take exception with irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. They make faith a condition and the word the means of grace. I believe the new birth (salvation) happens before we hear the word and it is our nature to persevere in a less legalistic manner.

 

[Mikey]

I believe the first 3 are right. But I take exception with irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. They make faith a condition and the word the means of grace. I believe the new birth (salvation) happens before we hear the word and it is our nature to persevere in a less legalistic manner.

so you would see faith being part of works righteousness?

 

[1689Dave]

so you would see faith being part of works righteousness?

I believe if faith is a condition we must meet before God saves us, the gospel becomes law instead of grace. And salvation is by works instead of grace. But if God saves us through regeneration, we will believe the gospel whenever we hear it and will also seek repentance from sin and live a holy life because of the nature of the new birth. That is to say, we believe because God saved us. He did not save us because we chose to believe.