PDA

View Full Version : What is a General Baptist?


tinytim
08-25-2007, 10:35 AM
I have been reading the minutes of our church lately, trying to get prepared for our upcoming 125th anniversary this spring...

And I keep noticing that in 1883, when our church was founded, there is a lot of talk about being a General Baptist church.

What does this mean? What is opposite a General Baptist... a Major, or Corporal Baptist? :laugh:

Seriously, what is the opposite, I am thinking a Regular Baptist, but what was the differences back then, and why were they so adament about being a General Baptist..

Also, I have found some rather peculiar things.. like one time the church voted to buy the pastor a horse an buggy... but then after raising the money and buying it, they charged the pastor rent for using it...

The pastor's salary was $25 a yr...
The rent was $5 a month!!!

HMMmmm...I hope the rest of the church doesn't read this, and get some ideas!!!

Wow.. I just hijacked my own thread in the OP!!

Ok, back on topic...
What is a general Baptist?

EdSutton
08-25-2007, 10:48 AM
The top ranking Baptist??

Above Colonel Baptists, I'd guess. :D :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

abcgrad94
08-25-2007, 10:56 AM
I think there was a thread about this recently. I believe General Baptist were more Armenian and the Particular Baptists were calvinistic.

tinytim
08-25-2007, 10:57 AM
Since this is a "General Baptist Discussion" forum... does that mean that only General Baptists can discuss here?!! lol

Sorry Bro. Bob!!!

tinytim
08-25-2007, 10:58 AM
I think there was a thread about this recently. I believe General Baptist were more Armenian and the Particular Baptists were calvinistic.

That's right!!! I remember that... I did do a search, but didn't find this topic...

Thanks....

So the opposite of a General is a Particular, not a regular...

Hmmm...

npetreley
08-25-2007, 11:23 AM
A General Baptist believes in Corporal Punishment and Private Property.

SaggyWoman
08-25-2007, 11:35 AM
A General Baptist is a Major Pain.

tinytim
08-25-2007, 11:45 AM
Hey!!! Can we court marshal Saggy?

SaggyWoman
08-25-2007, 12:24 PM
Anyone can want to court me, but not all have that privilege. hehehehehehe.

ReformedBaptist
08-25-2007, 01:19 PM
Here is some solid historical info. You can read the full article here http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pbh.htm


I am a Particular Baptist.

"Let us start with the basic premise about Baptist history: the modern Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century. This origin has been debated down through history, but our goal here is to show that our premise is closer to the true historical facts than the other positions being held. From the early 1600's, we see two major groups emerging in England that we can classify as Baptist: General and Particular Baptist."

General Baptists

This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in a “general” atonement.4 The General Baptists also had a distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

The earliest General Baptist Church was thought to be founded about 1608 or 1609. Its chief founder was John Smyth (1570-1612) and it was located in Holland. Smyth’s history begins in England where he was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1594. Soon after his ordination, his zeal landed him in prison for refusal to conform to the teachings and practices of the Church of England. He was an outspoken man who was quick to challenge others about their beliefs but was just as quick to change his own positions as his own personal theology changed. Smyth continually battled the Church of England until it became obvious that he could no longer stay in fellowship with this church. Thus, he finally broke totally from them and became a “Separatist”.

In 1609, Smyth, along with a group in Holland, came to believe in believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism which was the norm at that time) and they came together to form the first “Baptist” church. In the beginning, Smyth was on track with the typical orthodox church position; but as time passed, as was so typical, he began changing his positions. First, Smyth insisted that true worship was from the heart and that any form of reading from a book in worship was an invention of sinful man. Prayer, singing and preaching had to be completely spontaneous. He went so far with this mentality that he would not allow the reading of the Bible during worship “since he regarded English translations of Scripture as something less than the direct word of God.”5 Second, Smyth introduced a twofold church leadership, that of Pastor and Deacon. This was in contrast to the Reformational trifold leadership of Pastor-Elder, Lay-Elders, and Deacons.

Third, with his newfound position on baptism, a whole new concern arose for these “Baptists”. Having been baptized as infants, they all realized that they would have to be re-baptized. Since there was no other minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself and then proceeded to baptize his flock. An interesting note at this point that should be brought to bear is that the mode of baptism used was that of pouring, for immersion would not become the standard for another generation. Before his death, as seems characteristic of Smyth, he abandoned his Baptist views and began trying to bring his flock into the Mennonite church. Although he died before this happened, most of his congregation did join themselves with the Mennonite church after his death.

Now we turn our attention to Thomas Helwys. He had a somewhat rocky relationship with Smyth, but after Smyth began moving away from the General Baptist belief, Helwys carried on the Baptist beginnings. Helwys led his small group to England in 1611 and this was considered to be the first Baptist Church on English soil. This group held to believer’s baptism, they rejected Calvinism for a free will position (which included falling from grace), and they allowed each church to elect its officers, both elders and deacons.6 By 1624, there were five known General Baptist churches and by 1650 they numbered at least 47.7 Even though some might see the modern-day Baptist movement in this group, we must understand that the beliefs of this group are far from the reformed heritage that shaped modern-day Baptist belief.


Particular Baptists

It is often said that the Baptists in England divided over the doctrine of the atonement, but this is not a true historical reflection. Yes, it is true that the two groups held differing views on atonement and doctrine in general, but they did not divide. Rather, they emerged as two separate groups. As with the General Baptists, the Particular Baptists came out of the Separatist movement. This group emerged in the 1630's. This group was influenced by the great reformer John Calvin and held strongly to a “particular” atonement.8 The first church was thought to be founded around 1633 or 1638, according to some. Regardless of this datum, however, it is clear that by 1644 the Particular Baptists numbered at least seven churches. One amazing point about this small and very young group is that in 1644 these churches acted together to issue a confession of faith called the First London Confession of Faith. This confession preceded the widely known Westminster Confession of Faith by two years. As we will see, the present-day Baptist churches can be traced back to these early Baptists.

Although typical Baptist history is given more to the General Baptist movement, it is actually the Particular Baptists to which most modern-day Baptists owe their doctrine and practices. As one historian reminds us, General Baptists:

always represented a small part of Baptist life in England, and an even smaller part in America. Their influence upon the main currents of Baptist life in either country appears to have been slight.9

The history of the Particular Baptist movement starts with Henry Jacob (1563-1624). Although Jacob never became a Baptist, he was a basic influence to what would become the Particular Baptists. We could call Jacob a moderate Separatist. Jacob was not willing to call the Church of England the antichrist; thus, he worked continually to reform her. In 1603, Jacob signed a document that called for reform in the Church of England. This document was to be thwarted by King James I. Although Jacob did not call for separation, he did write a treatise entitled Reasons taken out of Gods Word and the best humane Testimonies proving a necessitie of reforming our Churches in England. With the publication of this book, Jacob was thrown in prison for a short time. Upon his release, he went into exile in Holland as did most of the Separatists. Even though he was reluctant to come down radically on the Church of England, he did come to make a distinction between true and false churches of the Church of England. This new mindset moved him to call for freedom to form different types of churches with alternate kinds of worship.

In 1616, Jacob was able to return to England and formed the JLJ Church, as it is known today.10 It was this church that would later give rise to Particular Baptists. This church had several debates arise in its midst about baptism, debates which led to several different breaks in the JLJ church. One such break came in 1633 when sixteen persons asked the church to let them step away from the JLJ church to form a separate church. The reasons for this break were twofold. The first was out of necessity. The JLJ church was becoming too big and in danger of being “found out” (since it was illegal to be outside of the Church of England). The second reason was cited as too much conformity to the Church of England. In 1638, another break came when six people left the JLJ church on the issue of believer's baptism, which they held to strongly. Thus, the first Particular Baptist Church can be traced to either or both of these churches.

SaggyWoman
08-25-2007, 03:19 PM
We are being serious about this???? Oh so sorry!

Bethelassoc
08-25-2007, 03:52 PM
Tinytim,

Look up information on Benoni Stinson. He founded the General Baptist churches that you see around today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Association_of_General_Baptists

David

A2J
08-25-2007, 04:18 PM
The top ranking Baptist??

Above Colonel Baptists, I'd guess. :D :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

Depends, are they 4-Star General Baptists?

:laugh:

Bethelassoc
08-25-2007, 04:44 PM
I also would like to add the following: http://www.generalbaptist.org/

Since I live in MO, the "headquarters" is located in Poplar Bluff, if I understand correctly.

David

Baptist Believer
08-25-2007, 04:58 PM
Look up information on Benoni Stinson. He founded the General Baptist churches that you see around today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Association_of_General_Baptists

Well that's the convention of General Baptists...

As it was mentioned earlier, the distinction between views of the atonement makes Baptists either "General" (as in general atonement) or "Particular" (as in particular atonement). Particular Baptists are almost always Calvinists. General Baptists may be anything from full-blown Armenian (rarely) to softened Calvinists (often).

My own convention (one that has historically been closely associated with the Southern Baptist Convention) is called the Baptist General Convention of Texas, reflecting our beginnings as believers in a general atonement.

Bible Believing Bill
08-25-2007, 05:56 PM
I also would like to add the following: http://www.generalbaptist.org/

Since I live in MO, the "headquarters" is located in Poplar Bluff, if I understand correctly.

David
Actually david the correct web address for The General Association of General Baptists is http://www.generalbaptist.com (http://www.generalbaptist.com/) the .org address is to a site with links to General Baptist Chruches.

Tim,

I am a member of Rockford United General Baptist Church, so maybe I can shed some light on your question. Here are the basics of our Statement of Faith:


I. GOD
We believe that there is only one true, living, and eternal God and that the Godhead is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


II. THE BIBLE
We believe that the Holy Scriptures are the Old and New Testaments; the inspired and infallible Word of God and therein is found the reliable guide of Christian faith and conduct.

III. MAN
We believe that God created man in His own image to bring Him honor through obedience, and that when man disobeyed, he became a fallen sinful creature, unable to save himself. We believe that infants are in the covenant of God's grace and that all persons become accountable to God when they reach a state of moral responsibility.


IV. SALVATION
We believe that Salvation (regeneration, sanctification, justification, and redemption) has been provided for all mankind through the redemptive work (life, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession) of Jesus Christ, and that this Salvation can be received only through repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.


V. ASSURANCE AND ENDURANCE
We believe that those who abide in Christ have the assurance of salvation. However, we believe that the Christian retrains his freedom of choice; therefore, it is possible for him to turn away from God and be finally lost.


VI. CHRISTIAN DUTIES
We believe that Christians should live faithfully by serving in and through the local church, praying diligently, witnessing earnestly, practicing tolerance, showing loving kindness, giving as God prospers, and conducting themselves in such a way as to bring glory to God.


VII. THE CHURCH
We believe that the Church Universal is the body of Christ, the fellowship of all believers, and that it's members have been called out from the world to come under the dominion and authority of Christ, it's head. We believe that a local church is a fellowship of Christians, a part of the Body of Christ, voluntarily banded together for worship, nurture, and service.


VIII. THE ORDINANCES
We believe that baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances instituted by Christ to be observed by Christians only. We also believe that the Biblical mode of baptism is immersion and that participation in the Lord's Supper should be open to all Christians.


IX. THE LORD'S DAY
We believe in the sanctity of the Lord's Day, the first day of the week, and that this day ought to be observed by worshipping God, witnessing for Christ, and ministering to the needs of humanity. We believe that secular work on Sunday should be limited to cases of necessity or mercy


X. LAST THINGS
We believe in the personal return of Jesus Christ, and in the bodily resurrection of the dead. We believe that God will judge all mankind by Jesus Christ; that He will reward the righteous with eternal life in heaven, and that He will banish the unrighteous to everlasting punishment in hell.

Jerome
08-25-2007, 06:30 PM
My own convention (one that has historically been closely associated with the Southern Baptist Convention) is called the Baptist General Convention of Texas, reflecting our beginnings as believers in a general atonement.
Actually, the terms "General Association" and "General Convention" often used by national and state Baptist groups have nothing to do with belief in a general atonement.

Bible Believing Bill
08-25-2007, 06:40 PM
I have been reading the minutes of our church lately, trying to get prepared for our upcoming 125th anniversary this spring...

And I keep noticing that in 1883, when our church was founded, there is a lot of talk about being a General Baptist church.


Tim here is some history on the General Association of General Baptists for your.

Let me say most of what I am about to say is from memory. I can't find my notes from the workshop I attended this summer on General Baptist history. If I can find it I will expand and provided citations.

In 1823 Benoni Stinson organized Liberty Church in Howell Indiana (the church is now know as Howell General Baptist Church. One of the main tenets of faith for Stinson was that "Christ tasted death for all men" You may be interested in this site ( http://www.gospeltruth.net/Hume_Stinson_atonement/hume_stinson_entiretext.htm ) for the text of a debate on atonement between Rev. Stinson and Rev. Joel Hume from 3/31/1863 to 4/4/1863.

After forming Liberty Church Rev. Stinson began to associate with other like minded churches in Southern Indiana and in 1824 the Liberty Association of General Baptists was formed. In the formative years of the denomination there was some talk and several meetings between the General Baptists of Southern Indiana and the northern Free Will Baptists. The efforts to merge seemed to fall apart due to mis-information printed in The Christian Freeman a newspaper published (I think) in Chicago. If this merger had happened I would now be a member of an American Baptist church rather than a General Baptist church. In 1870 the Liberty, Mt. Olivet and Ohio Associations met in Galletin County, IL and formed the General Association of General Baptists. The GAGB is now headquartered in Poplar Bluff, MO and has Churches all over the US, mostly in the mid-west, General Baptist International Missions has extensive missions work in Mexico, Honduras, the Philippines, and China among other areas, The General Baptist National Missions has committed to opening 160 new churches between 2006 and 2016. To date in this champaign 43 new churches have been opened.


Tim feel free to ask any questions you may have.


Bill :godisgood:

Bible Believing Bill
08-25-2007, 06:42 PM
Since this is a "General Baptist Discussion" forum... does that mean that only General Baptists can discuss here?!! lol

Sorry Bro. Bob!!!


Yes it does NOW GET OUT OF MY FOURM!

It'g gonna be lonely when all the rest of you leave so maybe I will losen the rules and let just any ole Baptist post here. :tongue3:

Bill :godisgood:

thomas15
08-25-2007, 07:12 PM
Tim,

A little off topic...

You mentioned Regular Baptist in your OP. One of my early mentors (In college 1979 salem WV) became a pastor in your group I believe--- American Baptist Churches in the USA. I, on the other hand, after years of trial and error settled into a GARBC church (General Assocaition of Regular Baptist Churches). To my American Baptist brother, I'm a ittle over the edge and to me, my American Baptist brother is a little on the liberal side.

The GARBC broke off from the Northern Baptist Convention back in the 1930s to protest liberal trends. The American Baptist Churches in the USA is basically what is left of the Northern Baptist Convention.

here is a link on the GARBC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Association_of_Regular_Baptist_Churches

GARBC churches stress the autonimy of the local group, so you can find calvinistic tendencies, but I doubt you will see much armenian doctrine. Most GARBC churches that I know are conservative/fundamental, SOME are KJVO (but the approved seminaries and colleges are not KJVO) and they are mostly dispensational. My old GARBC church in NJ did not require head coverings or dresses for ladies, short hair on men and so forth. However, they are very biblical with respect to elders and deacons, for example.

My childhood church in NJ is an American Baptist Church. This church now has female pastors which would never fly in GARBC. My American Baptist friend mentioned above likes Tony Campolo for example, GARBC folks do not like him one bit.

I'm not saying any of this to be insulting-- if anyone is ofended, I will delete this post.

Tom

Dale-c
08-25-2007, 08:36 PM
I like the two terms as good ways to separate those of calvinistic doctrine to those of free will doctrine.
I found in the thread I started that it was a very broad category that most people could adhere to on both sides without getting offended about the details.

tinytim
08-25-2007, 11:52 PM
Thanks for your replies...
And keep them coming...

What are you if you are a half Calvinist, half Armenian?

A Calmenian.... Or a Arminist....
Or a Calarm... Or OH I GOT IT>>>>

And this is Good!!!!

An ARMED CAL!!!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/7/6156109_c4d292329a_m.jpg

Bethelassoc
08-26-2007, 05:36 AM
I am a member of Rockford United General Baptist Church, so maybe I can shed some light on your question.

Bill, care to shed light on the name of your church? I see you use the term "United". Is this from two churches joining together?

David

P.S. - Thanks for the reminder of the .com website, I knew the .org showed church pics and that's why I went with it.

Bethelassoc
08-26-2007, 06:04 AM
I thought of another question to ask Bill:

Do all General Baptist churches line up with the General Association or are there independents?

David

Dale-c
08-26-2007, 07:29 AM
What are you if you are a half Calvinist, half Armenian?

You really can't be part of both and be consistent.
Either God is sovereign in salvation or man is.
You might differ on some details.
BUt you will fall on one side or the other of the imaginary line in the sand.

David Lamb
08-26-2007, 07:35 AM
I have been reading the minutes of our church lately, trying to get prepared for our upcoming 125th anniversary this spring...

And I keep noticing that in 1883, when our church was founded, there is a lot of talk about being a General Baptist church.

What does this mean? What is opposite a General Baptist... a Major, or Corporal Baptist? :laugh:

Seriously, what is the opposite, I am thinking a Regular Baptist, but what was the differences back then, and why were they so adament about being a General Baptist..

Also, I have found some rather peculiar things.. like one time the church voted to buy the pastor a horse an buggy... but then after raising the money and buying it, they charged the pastor rent for using it...

The pastor's salary was $25 a yr...
The rent was $5 a month!!!

HMMmmm...I hope the rest of the church doesn't read this, and get some ideas!!!

Wow.. I just hijacked my own thread in the OP!!

Ok, back on topic...
What is a general Baptist?

Unless it has a different meaning in the States, "General Baptist" is the opposite of "Particular Baptist". General Baptists are Baptists who belive that Jesus died to make salvation possible for everyone, generally. Particularly Baptists are those who believe that He died to save His people.

tinytim
08-26-2007, 12:15 PM
You really can't be part of both and be consistent.
Either God is sovereign in salvation or man is.
You might differ on some details.
BUt you will fall on one side or the other of the imaginary line in the sand.

Truth be told... I am neither...

I struggled with this for a long time, and have decided both are true...
It just depends on which perspective you look from...

From God's perspective... (in eternity) Predestination
From our perpespective... (in Time) Free will

Notice I didn't say Calvin, or Armenian... because I find flaws with both of their views...

Bible Believing Bill
08-26-2007, 01:05 PM
I thought of another question to ask Bill:

Do all General Baptist churches line up with the General Association or are there independents?

David

Bro. David, If by "line up" you mean agree with the GAGB Statement of Faith then yes we line up. If you mean are the churches controlled by GAGB, i.e. the Catholic Church, then we are independent.

Actually the churches belong to a local association, for instance my church is a member of the Northern Illinois and Iowa Association of General Baptists, and the local association belongs to the GAGB. The GAGB is run by the council of associations. The GAGB does have officers, i.e. an Executive Director, Director of National Missions, Director of International Missions, etc. who report to the council of associations. A few churches who have broken with their local association do belong directly to the council of associations.

The denomination does have min. educational requirements for Ordination as a Minister, but a local association may have additional requirements. The local association also sets educational requirements for Ordination as a Deacon. To assist with these educational requirements The GAGB uses LAMP (Leaders Advancing in Ministry Program) . Someone who is otherwise qualified to be a Minister but does not have the min. educational requirements can complete the LAMP program to meet these requirements. Any church leader may complete LAMP however the third level is geared toward those who want to pursue a full time Pastoral Ministry. Upon completion of the third level of LAMP you are also granted 12 credits toward a religious studies degree from Oakland City University if you wish to continue your education.

The churches do not receive direct financial support form the GAGB unless they are a missions church. There is a minimal membership dues for the chruch to belong to a local association, and for the local association to belong to the GAGB. The bulk of the GAGB operation funds are voluntary donations given to what is known as Unified Giving. The Unified Giving monies are the funds used to operate the GAGB, there may also be direct donations to the International, National, Women's missions, etc. as well as money directly donated to specific missions works. All of this is left up to the individual churches to decide upon the amounts that they are able to give.

Maybe someone can tell me if this is a similar way or not to how the SBC works.

Bill, care to shed light on the name of your church? I see you use the term "United". Is this from two churches joining together?

David


RUGB was originally First General Baptist Church, over the years there were a series of mergers and splits from the church and upon it's last merger the church was renamed Rockford United. Much of the chruch history is scattered so Hopefully soon I can began putting it together so that the membership will have a greater sense of our beginnings.


Bill

ReformedBaptist
08-26-2007, 02:24 PM
Truth be told... I am neither...

I struggled with this for a long time, and have decided both are true...
It just depends on which perspective you look from...

From God's perspective... (in eternity) Predestination
From our perpespective... (in Time) Free will

Notice I didn't say Calvin, or Armenian... because I find flaws with both of their views...

I have reckoned God is true and every man a liar. I gave up my struggle because I found it to be fighting against the truth of God. Man in his own nature hates the absolute soveregnty of God. It is the result of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Man wants to be the master of his own destiny. When God tells him he is a worm, less than nothing, and God does according to all His good pleasure, man gets enraged. Man does not like to think of himself as a creation, but as the Creator. When man askes, "Why have you made me thus? " God says, "Who are you O man to reply against God."

It's not what he wants to hear, but it the answer of an Almighty Sovereign God.

Tom Butler
08-26-2007, 02:59 PM
I am a reformed Southern Baptist, and I recognize that it is a miniority view among most Southern Baptists--for now, at least.

Since General Baptists hold to a general atonement, and so do most SBCers, the only difference I can find between the two is that SBCers tend to hold to enternal security, while Generals do not.

It appears to me that the General Baptists are more consistent in this area than the general atonement SBCers.

Are there other differences between the two beyond what I've observed?

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 03:17 PM
I have reckoned God is true and every man a liar. I gave up my struggle because I found it to be fighting against the truth of God. Man in his own nature hates the absolute soveregnty of God. It is the result of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Man wants to be the master of his own destiny. When God tells him he is a worm, less than nothing, and God does according to all His good pleasure, man gets enraged. Man does not like to think of himself as a creation, but as the Creator. When man askes, "Why have you made me thus? " God says, "Who are you O man to reply against God."

It's not what he wants to hear, but it the answer of an Almighty Sovereign God.

1. The first time I read Grace Unknown I hated it with a passion. In fact, I didn't even finished the book the first time.

2. But once I started looking a Scripture with God and His sovereignty at the center of it, I gave in. Since then, I have read Grace Unknown several times.

I'm an RB.

Dale-c
08-26-2007, 04:56 PM
I struggled with this for a long time, and have decided both are true...
It just depends on which perspective you look from...

From God's perspective... (in eternity) Predestination
From our perpespective... (in Time) Free will
While it is true that these are the two perspectives, and you are very much correct that these are what God believes and what man believes but let me ask you this:
Which one is the TRUE perspective?

If you look at snow with rose colored glasses and you say the snow is pink and your friend says that the snow is white because he has no glasses, who do you think is right?

Are you both right?
The snow LOOKS pink to you but it is really white. It is the glasses that are colored.

To man it seems that we have a freewill. BUt to God, it is His hand that moves us to do His will.
Which one is right?

Is God right?
Or is Man right?

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 05:20 PM
While it is true that these are the two perspectives, and you are very much correct that these are what God believes and what man believes but let me ask you this:
Which one is the TRUE perspective?

If you look at snow with rose colored glasses and you say the snow is pink and your friend says that the snow is white because he has no glasses, who do you think is right?

Are you both right?
The snow LOOKS pink to you but it is really white. It is the glasses that are colored.

To man it seems that we have a freewill. BUt to God, it is His hand that moves us to do His will.
Which one is right?

Is God right?
Or is Man right?
Dale, this is one of things about Calvinism that I have trouble understanding. When you say "God moves us to do His will", why do we still sin after salvation? We are certainly not doing God's will when we sin unless you believe that God moves us to sin.

Joseph M. Smith
08-26-2007, 05:23 PM
A small pet peeve here ... the theological position is spelled Arminian, not Armenian. Armenian is a nationality. Arminian, derived from the name Jacob Arminius, is the theological stance.

Now, of course, we do have here in Washington St. Mary's Armenian Orthodox Church. Wonder if their stance is Arminian?!:tongue3:

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 05:29 PM
Dale, this is one of things about Calvinism that I have trouble understanding. When you say "God moves us to do His will", why do we still sin after salvation? We are certainly not doing God's will when we sin unless you believe that God moves us to sin.

Amy, that is what I have been referring to as the mystery of sanctification, but in the end those whom God justified, these he also glorified (Rom 8:30). It's guaranteed.

Dale-c
08-26-2007, 05:35 PM
Amy, we sin on our own. All we would ever do is sin if left to our own wills.
It is when God has His hand in our lives that we are righteous.

In short, God causes us to do right, we cause ourselves to sin.
God at anytime can decide which He will allow us to do.
He will either allow us our will and we sin or He will override our will and we will follow Him.

Even after salvation He let's us stumble. I think that is to humble us.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 05:39 PM
Hi TC, You are of a few Calvinists on the BB that are gentle in your responses, so I feel like I can ask you questions about election.

There are verses that speak of election to be sure, but there are so many more that imply free will.

Here's just one.

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 05:44 PM
Amy, we sin on our own. All we would ever do is sin if left to our own wills.
It is when God has His hand in our lives that we are righteous.

In short, God causes us to do right, we cause ourselves to sin.
God at anytime can decide which He will allow us to do.
He will either allow us our will and we sin or He will override our will and we will follow Him.

Even after salvation He let's us stumble. I think that is to humble us.
Hi Dale,
This kind of relates to something that's been discussed on the BB, a question that I asked a while back, can a Christian commit any sin? 99% of the board said yes, but you seem to be saying that God steps in and overrides our will sometimes, so that we would not be able to commit any sin. (an example would be, can a Christian be a serial killer?) Do you believe that God steps in and stops us from certain sins?

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 05:45 PM
Hi TC, You are of a few Calvinists on the BB that are gentle in your responses, so I feel like I can ask you questions about election.

There are verses that speak of election to be sure, but there are so many more that imply free will.

Here's just one.

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

I believe that the offer of salvation is genuine but until the bonds of sin are removed, we will continue to be unwilling.

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 05:48 PM
Hi Amy, I almost forgot my manners altogether.

Another view on Matt.23:37 is that Jesus was addressing to Pharisees of verse 29ff, so the Pharisees were the ones preventing the "children" from coming to Jesus.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 05:51 PM
I believe that the offer of salvation is genuine but until the bonds of sin are removed, we will continue to be unwilling.
Why didn't He remove the bonds of sin? He said "I wanted", yet He didn't get what He wanted because they were unwilling. If He wanted to gather them, why didn't He move them to come to Him?
It seems as though He was willing to give up what He wanted in order to allow them to make their own choice.

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 06:21 PM
Why didn't He remove the bonds of sin? He said "I wanted", yet He didn't get what He wanted because they were unwilling. If He wanted to gather them, why didn't He move them to come to Him?
It seems as though He was willing to give up what He wanted in order to allow them to make their own choice.

1. Amy, I do not believe in what is commonly called "free will." Rather, I think it should best be described as human responsibility. Man is not free to do anything he desires.

2. I believe God loves all of humanity and takes no delight in the death of the wicked (Eze 18:32; 33:11).

3. But God has chosen to display his electing love on some, for reasons we would never know.

4. Therefore, I see Matt. 23:37 as a "wanted" of disposition and not decretive. Were it decretive, then everyone whom the Father has given to the Son will come (John 6:37).

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 06:37 PM
Here's another hard-saying: "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Eze 33:11). But in another place we read, "God does whatever he pleases (Psa 115:3).

1. How is it that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked? But whatever He pleases He does?

2. Then we should all embrace universalism, but Scripture will not allow to do so.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 06:46 PM
1. Amy, I do not believe in what is commonly called "free will." Rather, I think it should best be described as human responsibility. Man is not free to do anything he desires.
True

2. I believe God loves all of humanity and takes not delight in the death of the wicked (Eze 18:32; 33:11).
Agree
3. But God has chosen to display his electing love on some, for reasons we would never know.
Thinking about that. :)
4. Therefore, I see Matt. 23:37 as a "wanted" of disposition and not decretive. Were it decretive, then everyone whom the Father has given to the Son will come (John 6:37).
I'm not sure what you mean.

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 06:52 PM
True


Agree

Thinking about that. :)

I'm not sure what you mean.

1. If the "wanted" of Matt. 23:37 were decretive, something that God decreed to happen, then they would have come.

2. But everyone whom the Father has given to the Son comes without exception (John 6:37).

3. Therefore, though genuine, it was not decretive but dispositional, so they were unwilling.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 06:59 PM
1. If the "wanted" of Matt. 23:37 were decretive, something that God decreed to happen, then they would have come.

2. But everyone whom the Father has given to the Son comes without exception (John 6:37).

3. Therefore, though genuine, it was not decretive but dispositional, so they were unwilling.
Maybe I'm just dense, but surely if God wants something to happen, it will happen.
It doesn't make sense to me for God to say "I wanted you to come, but I didn't elect you, so therefore you are unwilling".

Why would He want them to come, but not enable them to do so?

What am I missing?

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 07:37 PM
Maybe I'm just dense, but surely if God wants something to happen, it will happen.

1. How far are you willing to take this statement?

It doesn't make sense to me for God to say "I wanted you to come, but I didn't elect you, so therefore you are unwilling".

2. God geniunely cares for all of humanity, but He has set His electing love only on some, for reasons we will never know. Beyond this explanation, I know of no other. Maybe someone else might be able to help you along.

Why would He want them to come, but not enable them to do so?

What am I missing?

3. Then there would be no hell, if God enable all of humanity to come to Him. Once enable by God, there's a 100% guarantee of coming to Jesus for salvation (John 6:37, 44, 45, 65).

4. Furthermore, it is not a matter of God's power, but rather His will.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 07:43 PM
1. How far are you willing to take this statement?



2. God geniunely cares for all of humanity, but He has set His electing love only on some, for reasons we will never know. Beyond this explanation, I know of no other. Maybe someone else might be able to help you along.



3. Then there would be no hell, if God enable all of humanity to come to Him. Once enable by God, there's a 100% guarantee of coming to Jesus for salvation (John 6:37, 44, 45, 65).

4. Furthermore, it is not a matter of God's power, but rather His will.
Thanks TC. I'm not trying to argue or be difficult. I genuinely have trouble understanding Calvinism. But I appreciate your honesty. You are right that there are many things that we can't understand.

I seem to be caught in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism. (I think) :laugh: But I would like to learn more.

menageriekeeper
08-26-2007, 07:49 PM
3. Then there would be no hell,

Pardon me for interupting with a wild hare, but this caught my eye. Without looking it up, I remember the scripture saying somewhere that Hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels. How then can you say there would be no hell?

Okay, back to your regularly schedule C/A arguement. :D

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 07:53 PM
Thanks TC. I'm not trying to argue or be difficult. I genuinely have trouble understanding Calvinism. But I appreciate your honesty. You are right that there are many things that we can't understand.

I seem to be caught in the middle between Calvinism and Arminianism. (I think) :laugh: But I would like to learn more.

I know that you are not being contentious. :thumbs:
1. Amy, I too have some unresolved issues, but the more I read the Scripture, the more and more I embrace the Doctrines of grace or Calvinism.

2. I know there are some who believe that it is a copout to say that there mysteries in the Bible. But I'm not moved. I do believe that there are difficulties in the Bible that we may never resolved (2 Pet 3:16).

3. Continue your search, my dear sister, I too was once where you are now.

Amy.G
08-26-2007, 07:53 PM
Pardon me for interupting with a wild hare, but this caught my eye. Without looking it up, I remember the scripture saying somewhere that Hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels. How then can you say there would be no hell?

Okay, back to your regularly schedule C/A arguement. :D
We're NOT arguing MK! :laugh:

We are both being very nice. :)

TCGreek
08-26-2007, 07:55 PM
Pardon me for interupting with a wild hare, but this caught my eye. Without looking it up, I remember the scripture saying somewhere that Hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels. How then can you say there would be no hell?

Okay, back to your regularly schedule C/A arguement. :D

You're right, that is another interesting debate.

menageriekeeper
08-26-2007, 07:58 PM
I'll start a separate thread. I'm going to quote you from this one.