Why is Calvinism surging?

[Allan]

I think it's interesting that the overwhelming majority voted that Calvinism is surging because it's Biblical.

First it is not the 'overwhelming majority' it is actually 27 to 31, so it is slightly over half, and not close to an 'overwhelming majority'.
Secondly those who voted about it being a return to biblical truth are already Calvinistic (so it is a bias view point at best). Place the same question down in the other denomination section and see what kind of responce you get. (I wouldn't really want to know the outcome of that one though) However, a better question to ask to showthe voters were NOT bias is to ask 'how many voted it is a return to biblical truth, were NOT Calvinists??' Hmmm... Maybe I missed one Also, Martin and Russell55 are the ONLY two Calvinists who voted outside the 'Return' Catagory (and yet Martin also voted in the Return Catagory as well). So do you see the biasness of the vote?

Many non-Cals voted 'these things come and go' referencing not to a fad but a biblcal view that is part of the scriptural balance maintained via both views. When one goes to far afield from truth the other grows in prominence to bring back a balance of the truth which the other began either leaving or leaving off.

SO... to bring it back to the OP - To be honest I could say it is a return to biblical truth but must qualify that statement with regard to the term 'bibilcial truth', as that which has been left out as the non-cal view point began going to far out. So a rise of the equal but opposite view is nessecary by God to bring a balance back to the church. Not so much that Calvinism IS biblical truth but that through the viewpoint of Calvinism it is bringing back to church more accountability of the truth.

 

[tinytim]

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this was mentioned...

But I feel that after looking at Church history.. a few things are apparent.

When people are living in turbulent times, Calvinism surges... it seems to help people to know that God is in control

When times are good, and in times of prosperity, Calvinism declines...

So based on this, I feel that the fact that Calvinism is making a surge depicts a culture that feels it is out of control, and needs to know that God is in control. It is a picture of a frightful people afraid of the future, and they can find comfort in this doctrine.

I chose comes and goes, based on this observation.

Not because I find in unbiblical, I actually find both stances biblical depending on perspectives, but because this is what church history has spelled out.

The turbulent times of the reformation needed Calvinism.
The prosperous times of the 20th century didn't...

Turbulent times are coming back.. the church needs to know that God is in control.

 

[Allan]

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this was mentioned...

But I feel that after looking at Church history.. a few things are apparent.

When people are living in turbulent times, Calvinism surges... it seems to help people to know that God is in control

When times are good, and in times of prosperity, Calvinism declines...

So based on this, I feel that the fact that Calvinism is making a surge depicts a culture that feels it is out of control, and needs to know that God is in control. It is a picture of a frightful people afraid of the future, and they can find comfort in this doctrine.

I chose comes and goes, based on this observation.

Not because I find in unbiblical, I actually find both stances biblical depending on perspectives, but because this is what church history has spelled out.

The turbulent times of the reformation needed Calvinism.
The prosperous times of the 20th century didn't...

Turbulent times are coming back.. the church needs to know that God is in control.

Please clarify for me some Tiny.
I doubt you are saying that when times were good and the church didn't need God anymore so it left a Calvinistic view, and when they need God again they came back.?

Please clarify since 'I KNOW' that is not what you meant though there are some who may take an opportunity to shed it as something not that you intended.

 

[Jarthur001]

First it is not the 'overwhelming majority' it is actually 27 to 31, so it is slightly over half, and not close to an 'overwhelming majority'.

I guess I should just let this one go....but this is just to easy to let slip by.
This is like being on SpinDoctors.com

Just to get under your skin some more...I'll call it a landslide.

Secondly those who voted about it being a return to biblical truth are already Calvinistic (so it is a bias view point at best).

Everyone votes with a bias at best. That is what a choice is all about. It works like this..

You pick what you deem to be the best choice or right choice from the choices you are given. You base your choice on what you believe is true. What you believe will show in your choice.

Place the same question down in the other denomination section and see what kind of responce you get. (I wouldn't really want to know the outcome of that one though)

This one I'm sure is true. "Other denominations" are not Baptist. Baptist and Presbys are the Calvinist.

However, a better question to ask to showthe voters were NOT bias is to ask 'how many voted it is a return to biblical truth, were NOT Calvinists??'

This would not show non-bias. People vote .....well....ok....just read what I wrote above.

Hmmm... Maybe I missed one

You missed 6.
3 of the "no clues" meant to vote "biblical truth", and 3 "apostasy" meant to vote a "fad."

Also, Martin and Russell55 are the ONLY two Calvinists who voted outside the 'Return' Catagory (and yet Martin also voted in the Return Catagory as well).

Please tell me how you can vote more than one time?

So do you see the biasness of the vote?

Yes. But I also see the biasness in this post.

Many non-Cals voted 'these things come and go' referencing not to a fad but a biblcal view that is part of the scriptural balance maintained via both views.

How do you know this was non-calvinist? but you are right about one thing. This meant they did not vote for a fad. But you for got to say...they also showed their bias. we all do Allan.

When one goes to far afield from truth the other grows in prominence to bring back a balance of the truth which the other began either leaving or leaving off.

Are you talking about the "fad" people or the "other denominations"? Wait...it was the no clue people right? Yes even they have a bias of some type. Did the bias make them vote as they did? We all are shaped by what we know to be true or better...what we think we know to be true. Part of not being sure is they have 2 or more options. If I stand before a red tie and a black tie and do not know which one to pick, I cannot make up my mind because I see good or bad in both. If it were not the case, and I saw the most good only in one, that choice is made and then I can no longer say I have not a clue.

SO... to bring it back to the OP - To be honest I could say it is a return to biblical truth but must qualify that statement with regard to the term 'bibilcial truth', as that which has been left out as the non-cal view point began going to far out.

Your honest statement shows your bias-ness.

So a rise of the equal but opposite view is nessecary by God to bring a balance back to the church.

I'm sorry....but we do not know why God allows this....or even caused this.

Not so much that Calvinism IS biblical truth but that through the viewpoint of Calvinism it is bringing back to church more accountability of the truth.

It is too!! Calvinism is the truth...just get use to it.

Ok...i just showed my bias.

 

[StefanM]

The turbulent times of the reformation needed Calvinism.
The prosperous times of the 20th century didn't...

Surely you jest.

WW1, Great Depression, WW2, Cold War, Energy Crisis, Vietnam, etc.?

Doesn't sound like a walk in the park to me.

 

[Allan]

Everyone votes with a bias at best. That is what a choice is all about. It works like this..

You pick what you deem to be the best choice or right choice from the choices you are given. You base your choice on what you believe is true. What you believe will show in your choice.

That is my point. No question given is without some bias when answered, unless the questions are neutral neither favoring one side or the other.

This one I'm sure is true. "Other denominations" are not Baptist. Baptist and Presbys are the Calvinist.

Incorrect, Baptists are Not Calvinists - check your history. Their are some who are and some who are not, but historically speaking the first person historically, John Smyth (1618) who was an English Baptist church that had organized in Holland. He was in no way Calvinistic, nor the one after him, or after him. So Baptists if anything, Historically were Non-Cals. But I believe both views hold truth and later some of that truth came in through Calvinism.

You missed 6.
3 of the "no clues" meant to vote "biblical truth", and 3 "apostasy" meant to vote a "fad."

No, I missed none. Tally the numbers James. Another was just added some time last night to make it 28 to 31.

Please tell me how you can vote more than one time?

That is what I asked, and told Martin he was a little stinker for doing so
He seems to think anyone can, but I must be left out of the loop.

How do you know this was non-calvinist?

Look at the names.

Are you talking about the "fad" people or the "other denominations"? Wait...it was the no clue people right?

Look back at some of the posts and others I have gotten to know their own views on subject. Plus those I don't, it would be the only logical view left (IMO) if it is not a fad, apostacy, nor the ONLY true biblical truth. But I know what the majority of them considered it.

Yes even they have a bias of some type. Did the bias make them vote as they did?

There is nothing inherently wrong our bias, but I was showing that those who presume it to be a return to 'biblical truth' are all Calvinistic. As I said, the way it is worded will keep Non-Cals (who even affirm many of the biblical truths of Calvinism) them from marking it because the question in the positive because it is NOT the only theoligical system of truth.

Your honest statement shows your bias-ness.

I know, I do not prefer to have one over the other.

I'm sorry....but we do not know why God allows this....or even caused this.

You bet! It was going to far from a biblical perspective and God brought it back.

Calvinism is the truth...just get use to it.

Seriously I would James, if it weren't for all those pesky flaws, assumptions and presumptions
If it weren't for those, I would be most staunch Calvinist since John Gill

 

[Jarthur001]

Incorrect, Baptists are Not Calvinists - check your history. Their are some who are and some who are not, but historically speaking the first person historically, John Smyth (1618) who was an English Baptist church that had organized in Holland. He was in no way Calvinistic, nor the one after him, or after him. So Baptists if anything, Historically were Non-Cals. But I believe both views hold truth and later some of that truth came in through Calvinism.

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

 

[Allan]

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

Why not before 1872? Your talking about over 200 years time between John Smyth and then.

And did those creeds you refer to after 1872 come from any General baptists or just the Particulars?

 

[Jarthur001]

Why not before 1872? Your talking about over 200 years time between John Smyth and then.

And did those creeds you refer to after 1872 come from any General baptists or just the Particulars?

?????

reread what I posted Allan
++++++++++++++

Also John Smyth was pre-Baptist

++++++++++++
as to General and Particular....

In the Midlands in 1655, General Baptists far outnumbered their Calvinistic Brethren. The General Baptist Confession of 1651 had been signed by members of thirty congregations of the area, but when the Particular Baptists met in 1655 to constitute their Midland Association, there were but fourteen of their churches in the eight counties, and only seven of them were as yet willing to associate.

1655 Midland Confession of Faith
(Various Churches of the Midlands in England)


4th. That though Adam was created righteous, yet he fell through the temptations of Satan; and his fall overthrew, not only himself, but his posterity, making them sinners by his disobedience; so that we are by nature children of wrath, and defiled from the womb, being shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin. Psalm ii.13; Romans v.12-15.

5th. That God elected and chose, in His Eternal counsel, some persons to life and salvation, before the foundation of the world, whom accordingly He doth and will effectually call, and whom He doth so call, He will certainly keep by His power, through faith to salvation. Acts xiii.48; Ephesians i.2-4; II Thessalonians ii.13; I Peter i.2, etc.

Now read each General Baptists confession up till 1890 and you will find about the same thing

 

[Allan]

?????

reread what I posted Allan
++++++++++++++

I was simply asking, why not include any creeds and or confessions that might be BEFORE that time from the General Baptists

Also John Smyth was pre-Baptist

++++++++++++

Though a few might call him pre, many historians consider John Smyth as a founder of the modern Baptist. Truth is I haven't read one but I'm sure it is out there somewhere.

In the Midlands in 1655, General Baptists far outnumbered their Calvinistic Brethren. The General Baptist Confession of 1651 had been signed by members of thirty congregations of the area, but when the Particular Baptists met in 1655 to constitute their Midland Association, there were but fourteen of their churches in the eight counties, and only seven of them were as yet willing to associate.

And your point is?
Secondly that isn't the whole quote now is it

John Smyth Short Confessions of Faith XX Articles 1609"

(8) That the grace of God, through the finished redemption of Christ, was to be prepared and offered to all without distinction, and that not feignedly but in good faith, partly by things made, which declare the invisible things of God, and partly by the preaching of the Gospel.

(9) That men, of the grace of God through the redemption of Christ, are able (the Holy Spirit, by grace, being before unto them grace prevement) to repent, to believe, to turn to God, and to attain to eternal life; so on the other hand, they are able themselves to resist the Holy Spirit, to depart from God, and to perish for ever.

This Confession found its way into John Cotton's hands in America, and it appears to have been referred to by English General Baptists as late as 1651. - Reformedreader.com (English Seperatist - Baptist Confessions)

However with due regard to your quote:

In the Midlands in 1655, General Baptists far outnumbered their Calvinistic Brethren. The General Baptist Confession of 1651 had been signed by members of thirty congregations of the area, but when the Particular Baptists met in 1655 to constitute their Midland Association, there were but fourteen of their churches in the eight counties, and only seven of them were as yet willing to associate.

It is importan not to leave the quote hanging as to WHY the Generals signed on to this cofession:

Two principal factors led to the formation of the Midland Association in 1655. One was the general trend among Baptists at that time toward associating. In promoting this trend the London churches took the lead, and they evidently were concerned with the beginnings of the organization in the Midlands. That Daniel King, who undoubetedly was leading the Midlands churches to associate, belonged to that circle is shown in a book of his published in London in 1650. In this book, A Way to Sion, which was an exposition of Baptist teaching, the Epistle Dedicatory was signed by four prominent London leaders. Probably at the suggestion of the London churches, he was by 1655 giving much of his time to buyilding up associations of churches in various parts of the country. The other factor promoting the organization of the Association was the great activity of the Quakers in the Midlands in 1654 and 1655.

It is quite apparent those churches who signed on did so NOT because they agreed with its full theological veiw (for they did not and thus the term "General") but because or better, for 'associating' (unity) with one another. Also it is appartent they did not read the fine print either.

8th. That all men until they be quickened by Christ are dead in trespasses -- Ephesians ii.1; and therefore have no power of themselves to believe savingly -- John xv.5. But faith is the free gift of God, and the mighty work of God in the soul, even like the rising of Christ from the dead -- Ephesians 1.19. Therefore consent not with those who hold that God hath given power to all men to believe to salvation.

So the General Baptists signed a Confession that states they can no longer associate with other General Baptists. So much for reading

I'm not sure what your wanting since General Baptists didn't make a bunch of creeds or confessions like the Particulars did. Another Confession (revised or more explict) is the 1611 Confession of John Smyth. Set forth is two from before the time you requested. However the fact IS, the General Baptists DID NOT hold to election in the Calvinistic sense because they did not view Christ death was only for a group of people but for every man. This was more the core differences though other arguments could be made.

Yet we must remember the General Baptists were not as creedal as the Particulars so there were few. Historically it can be surmised that due to NOT making Confessions we see the more liberal views creeping and some times walk in.

 

[Jarthur001]

Secondly that isn't the whole quote now is it

John Smyth Short Confessions of Faith XX Articles 1609"

This Confession found its way into John Cotton's hands in America, and it appears to have been referred to by English General Baptists as late as 1651. - Reformedreader.com (English Seperatist - Baptist Confessions)

Allan,

The Confession you posted was the "John Smyth Personal Confession".
He was a "seperatist" when this was wrote.

And you tell me to check my history. :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

A few creeds for you to look at....only that which deals with election is shown.

The Philadelphia Confession, 1742

Chapter 10

Of Effectual Calling

Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;2 enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God3 taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6

This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all forseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature,7 co-working with His special grace; the creature being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,8 he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.9

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit,10 who worketh when and where, and how He pleaseth;11 so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit;12 yet, not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will, nor can truly come to Christ; and therefore cannot be saved:13 much less can men that receive not the Christian religion be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess.14

Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association 1758


IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.

1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith



III. We believe that, before the world began, God did elect a certain number of men unto everlasting salvation, whom he did predestinate to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of his own free grace, and according to the good pleasure of his will: and that, in pursuance of this gracious design, he did contrive and make a covenant of grace and peace with his Son Jesus Christ, on the behalf of those persons, wherein a Saviour was appointed, and all spiritual blessings provided for them; as also that their persons, with all their grace and glory, were put into the hands of Christ, and made his care and charge.

1806 Mississippi Baptist Association Articles of Faith



4. We believe in the everlasting love of God to his people; in the eternal unconditional election of a definite number of the human family to grace and glory.

New Hampshire about 1833,

Of God's Purpose of Grace We believe that Election is the eternal purpose of God, according to which he graciously regenerates, sanctifies, and saves sinners (46); that being perfectly consistent with the free agency of man, it comprehends all the means in connection with the end (47); that it is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, being infinitely free, wise, holy, and unchangeable (48); that it utterly excludes boasting, and promotes humility, love, prayer, praise, trust in God, and active imitation of his free mercy (49); that it encourages the use of means in the highest degree (50); that it may be ascertained by its effects in all who truly believe the gospel (51); that it is the foundation of Christian assurance (52); and that to ascertain it with regard to ourselves demands and deserves the utmost diligence (53).

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1858
V. ELECTION

Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life - not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ - in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.

 

[psalms109:31]

mercy

Quote:
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 1858
V. ELECTION

Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life - not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ - in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.


This is basically an uncomplete thought, because foreseen sight is biblical. This comes from the canon's of Dort. I thought it was beautiful until I came accoss this statement.

We have not merited anything it is God who chose to save those who are meek and humble who trust in the name of the Lord

 

[psalms109:31]

meek and humble

Just be meek and humble and trust in Jesus and these men can't take away your salvation, because God promisses you that He will keep you.

Don't make excuses why not to come to Jesus, you just come and Jesus will in no wise cast you out, because you are what the the Fathers has given to the Son

 

[Allan]

Allan,

The Confession you posted was the "John Smyth Personal Confession".
He was a "seperatist" when this was wrote.

And you tell me to check my history. :laugh:

Yes, I still say to check it. :laugh:

This Confession found its way into John Cotton's hands in America, and it appears to have been referred to by English General Baptists as late as 1651. - Reformedreader.com (English Seperatist - Baptist Confessions)

Especially since the General Baptists didn't hardly make any confessions because they saw no real need to, up till about the American General Baptists.

But other confessions such as A SHORT CONFESSION OR A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF FAITH, 1691 (written by Thomas Collier who founded not a few Particular Baptist Churches but later went General and took many of those churches with him)

The Somerset Confession of 1691

THE COALHEAVER'S CONFESSION, 1745

ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE NEW CONNEXION, 1770

But the two most notable General Baptist Confessions are the Standard of Confessions of 1660 and the Orthodox Creed of 1678.
However, with due regard for the Orthodox Creed here is a quote as follows from English Baptist General Confessions.

THE ORTHODOX CREED, 1678 (currently not available)

The example of the Particular Baptists in publishing a new confession was closely followed by the General Baptists when, in 1678, they drew up their so-called "Orthodox Creed' to "unite and confirm all true Protestants in the fundamental articles of the Christian religion...." Additional inspiration for the Creed lay in the desire to refute the Hoffmanite Christology which Matthew Caffyn, a General Baptist messenger, was preaching Kent and Sussex, and in the fear of a return of popery to England.

The Creed was not published in the name of the General Assembly but of a group of the more earnestly orthodox General Baptist churches of the Midlands, in the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Oxford. On Jan. 30, 1678, fifty-four Messengers, Elders, and Brethren met "in the name of many baptized Christians or congregations in the several counties." The Creed is supposed to have been particularly the work of Thomas Monck, a farmer and a Messenger in Buckinghamshire, who in 1673 had published A cure for the cankering error of the new Eutychains.

Theologically, in keeping with its unionistic purpose, the Confession approaches Calvinism more closely than any other General Baptist confession. This disposition is particularly evident in the articles on "Predestination and Election" (IX), "Perseverance" (XXXVI), and "The Invisible Church" (XXXIX). Perhaps, indeed, the Creed is principally noteworthy as an early attempt at compromise between the two great systems of theology, thus anticipating the work of Andrew Fuller and others of the latter eighteenth century.

No General or Non-Cal has ever denied Predestination nor Gods election and that BOTH are according to God's sole perogitive. We differ and always have on the Mechanics NOT the immutable truth.

 

[Allan]

A few creeds for you to look at....only that which deals with election is shown.

Please don't tell me you are assuming any of these were General Baptist Confessions.

Come on James, research brother research. These are ALL Calvinistic, with the exception of the Primitive Baptist which hold to the Sovereign Doctrines of Grace just not Calvinism. Thus for all intents and purposes ALL are Calvinistic

 

[Jarthur001]

:BangHead: :BangHead:

Allan,

My point is and always has been about election!!!

as said in this post long ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1156634&postcount=127

Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.

Yes, I still say to check it. :laugh:

Especially since the General Baptists didn't hardly make any confessions because they saw no real need to, up till about the American General Baptists.

They had just as many...you just need to know where to look. But it is clear you don't get it. General Baptist was general in the atonement...not election. This holds true as I said from the start up till 1870s.

You will find a Freewill Baptist Creed before this date, but they were very small in the beginning

But other confessions such as A SHORT CONFESSION OR A BRIEF NARRATIVE OF FAITH, 1691 (written by Thomas Collier who founded not a few Particular Baptist Churches but later went General and took many of those churches with him)

The Somerset Confession of 1691

this is the election statement from Somerset Confession 1691

CHAP. XX.

Of Election.

Concerning election we believe, not as some who express themselves after this manner, in these words, y the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated or fore-ordained to eternal life, thro' Jesus Christ; and that these angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly, and unchageable designed, and their number so certain, and definite that it cannot be either increased or deminished.

2. And affirmatively we believe, that the infinitely wise and holy God, suitable to his name and nature, did elect or choose unto himself from eternity, and (merely of his own good pleasure) out of the whole body and bulk of mankind, an entire species, or sort of men, namely those that in time do believe, and sincerely obey him, patiently continuing in the way of well doing unto the end.

3. We believe this election to be in Christ Jesus, of God;s eternal purpose and grace, before the foundation of the world.

4. We do believe that God's electing grace doth extend itself to the whole number of the godly in all nations throughout all ages, under the various dispensations, under which they live.

I rest my case.

THE COALHEAVER'S CONFESSION, 1745

Allan,
election proper is not even covered in this confession. The only thing close is this statement, which I 'm sure you do not believe.

I believe, that if the words "everlasting destruction, tormented for ever and ever, eternal damnation, &c."have no other meaning than a limited time, that "eternal life, everlasting love, everlasting salvation, and shining in the glory of God's kingdom for ever and ever," must have a limited time also; and the everlasting God, the eternal God, who lives for ever and ever, may cease to exist at some certain period too. The words which aver the eternal existence of God, fix the eternal salvation of the elect, and the everlasting doom of the damned; therefore, If this goal delivery for devils could be proved, there is nothing certain; for the very kingdom of heaven might be moved. - A ground of hope in the depths of hell would make the pillars of heaven tremble.

I rest my case again.

ARTICLES OF RELIGION OF THE NEW CONNEXION, 1770

The word elect and election is not address in this AT ALL!!!

Again..I rest my case.

But the two most notable General Baptist Confessions are the Standard of Confessions of 1660 and the Orthodox Creed of 1678.
However, with due regard for the Orthodox Creed here is a quote as follows from English Baptist General Confessions.

Notice the Standard of Confessions 1660 as it address election....

VII. That there is one holy Spirit, the pretious gift of God, freely given to such as obey him, Ephes. 4. 4. Acts 5. 32. that there by they may be throughly sanctified, and made able (without which they are altogether unable) to abide stedfast in the faith, and to honour the Father, and his Son Christ, the Author and finisher of their faith; 1 Cor. 6. 11. There are three that bear record in Heayen, the Father, the Word, the holy Spirit, and these three are one; which Spirit of promise such have not yet received, (though they speak much of him) that are so far out of Love, Peace, Long-suffering, Gentleness, Goodness, Meekness, and Temperance, (the fruits of the Spirit, Gal. 5. 22, 23.) as that they breath out much cruelty, and great envy against the Liberties, and peaceable living of such, as are not of their judgment, Though holy as to their conversations.

VIII. That God hath even before the foundation of the world chosen, (or elected) to eternal life, such as believe, and so are in Christ, John 3. 16. Ephes. 1. 4, 2 Thes. 2. 13. yet confident we are, that the purpose of God according to election, was not in the least arising from fore-seen faith in, or works of righteousness done by the creature, but only from the mercy, goodness, and corn passion dwelling in God, and so it is of him that calleth, Rom. 9. ii. whose purity and unwordable holiness, cannot admit of any unclean person (or thing) to be in his presence, therefore his decree of mercy reaches only the godly man, whom (saith David) God hath set apart for himself, Psal. 4. 3.

I rest my case...again

what do you have next????....:laugh:

Things change big time after 1890.

 

[Jarthur001]

Please don't tell me you are assuming any of these were General Baptist Confessions.

Come on James, research brother research. These are ALL Calvinistic, with the exception of the Primitive Baptist which hold to the Sovereign Doctrines of Grace just not Calvinism. Thus for all intents and purposes ALL are Calvinistic

not all were calvinist...but most.

I'm just showing all of them.....all that I have ever read before 1870 had a calvinist view of election. The ones you posted...the ones I posted. ALL OF THEM!!!

No research needed. I did mine last month. I wrote on this subject last month. This is why I'm sure of this.

But I also know so much about church history, that I know one cannot know it all.

so...I'll wait and see what you got. So far....not so good Allan.

 

[Allan]

My point is and always has been about election!!!

James, Election has never been a contention with regard to it's fact and that is was done by soley by God for His purposes and pleasure. The difference between the two groups was with regard to the 'why' NOT the 'When and How'.

However the election to which you are assigning is not the same election they contend. Yes, both agree that God elected before all things according to His good pleasure and purpose.

HOWEVER, the distinction with regard to that election is disctinct but not with regard to the truth that it happened but rather the mechanics AND THAT is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

So we will see them declare the same truth about election with regard to 'when and the how' but they seperate (when defined) on the 'why'. You can see this in the Somerset Confession 1691

CHAP. XX.

Of Election.

Concerning election we believe, not as some who express themselves after this manner, in these words, y the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated or fore-ordained to eternal life, thro' Jesus Christ; and that these angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly, and unchageable designed, and their number so certain, and definite that it cannot be either increased or deminished.

2. And affirmatively we believe, that the infinitely wise and holy God, suitable to his name and nature, did elect or choose unto himself from eternity, and (merely of his own good pleasure) out of the whole body and bulk of mankind, an entire species, or sort of men, namely those that in time do believe, and sincerely obey him, patiently continuing in the way of well doing unto the end.

Notice #1 is about when and how, but #2 defines the 'why' which is distinctly different than the Calvinistic version regarding the why.

So as shown in your own post they are the same in with regard to the truth of the 'when and how' but not the why!
Therefore you case does rest, but only in the dead sense

Both views of election is bound up in our views of Atonement.

 

[Allan]

not all were calvinist...but most.

I'm just showing all of them.....all that I have ever read before 1870 had a calvinist view of election. The ones you posted...the ones I posted. ALL OF THEM!!!

No research needed. I did mine last month. I wrote on this subject last month. This is why I'm sure of this.

But I also know so much about church history, that I know one cannot know it all.

so...I'll wait and see what you got. So far....not so good Allan.

You are confused that any biblical truth IS Calvinistic. Point in fact it is not. It is truth that both sides claim and is so seen as immutable. The biblical view of election which Non-Cal and Cal hold is not Calvinistic nor Non-Cal in nature but simply biblical.

And Yes, all the confessions you stated were Calvinistic, except for the one that was Primitive Baptist who declare themselves Not Calvinists but hold strengently to the Doctrines of Grace.

Please note one of those confessions who did not hold to the Soveriegn Doctrines of Grace.