For All you Calvinists, and otherwise

True that... Jacob Arminius was a student of Calvin's successor, Theodore Beza. His intention was to clarify the points of Calvin, but there was a lot of political pressure that caused some issues with the way his theology is now understood. the TULIP was actually written in response to Arminius, not the other way around.

The Arminianism of most on this board is the Wesleyan form, which points more toward Pelagianism than does classical Arminianism, but all that gets blurred, as does the distinctions between the biblical Reformed doctrines versus the heretical hyper-Calvinist doctrines.

Just to be square -- Pelagianism is heretical as is (on the opposite side of the spectrum) hyper-Calvinism. Between are orthodox expressions of Christian faith that are largely a matter of semantics and leanings to or away from the utter sovereignty of God versus the free will of man.

One more note... I've argued for some time that we should be as done with the terms (and strict doctrines) of both Calvinism and Arminianism. Neither really deals completely with the biblical texts, and both use the Scriptures against the other position -- something that IS heretical. God is not divided, nor are His Scriptures!

Brothers and Sisters, we need to repent of this division of God and His Word! Can we not start a new move that is biblical, and set behind us the 400+ year old doctrines that do not get to the heart of the whole Scripture?

 

The OLD Southern Baptists used to make a clear distinction between regeneration and gospel conversion as the Primitives still do today.:

http://www.founders.org/journal/fj02/article2.html

Excerpts:

"In many Christian circles today experiencing "regeneration" (or "being born again") is simply something that happens when a person "makes a decision to accept Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Savior." Now it is certainly true that Jesus is the Savior, and that he saves sinners on a personal level. However, the idea that the experience of regeneration is a decision which every sinner ought to make and indeed every sinner can make is an idea which is seriously defective."

"James P. Boyce (first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Kentucky): "It is not strange, therefore, that they [i.e. regeneration and conversion] are often confounded. Yet, after all, the Scriptures also teach that regeneration is the work of God, changing the heart of man by his sovereign will, while conversion is that act of man turning towards God with the new inclination thus given to his heart" (Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 374)."

"John A. Broadus (distinguished professor of New Testament and successor to Boyce at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary): "1. Q. What is meant by the word regeneration? A. Regeneration is God's causing a person to be born again. 9. Q. Does faith come before the new birth? A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes" (taken from Broadus' A Catechism of Bible Teaching, reprinted in A Baptist Treasury, pp. 67-68)."

"John L. Dagg (first writing Southern Baptist theologian; president of Mercer University in Georgia): "In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect. . . . But, in his own time and manner, God, the Holy Spirit, makes the word effectual in producing a new affection in the soul: and, when the first movement of love to God exists, the first throb of spiritual life commences" (A Manual of Theology, pp. 277, 279)."

"B. H. Carroll (founder and first president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas): "The true scriptural position [concerning regeneration] is this: There is, first of all, a direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the passive spirit of the sinner, quickening him or making him sensitive to the preaching of the Word. In this the sinner is passive. But he is not a subject of the new birth without contrition, repentance and faith. In exercising these he is active. Yet even his contrition is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance is but a response to the Spirit's conviction, and the exercise of his repentance and faith are but responses to the antecedent spiritual graces of repentance and faith." Carroll goes on to state that "repentance and faith are fruits of regeneration" (An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 4, p. 287)."

"The truth concerning the Bible doctrine of regeneration is the same today as it was when God the Holy Spirit taught it to the inspired writers of Holy Scriptures, and as it was understood by our Baptist forefathers who labored to the glory of God in the name of Jesus Christ within the confines of the Southern Baptist denomination. But then, that should not surprise us, because truth does not change. If the rank and file of Southern Baptists today do not embrace and impart the Bible doctrine of regeneration as set forth in this brief survey, then it must be either that they have not been taught or that they refuse to be taught."

"Those who have not been taught need to be instructed. We must do all we can to teach this glorious truth to them for two reasons: 1) Their spiritual well-being depends upon a right understanding of this truth. 2) The task of mission and evangelism cannot truly advance apart from a proper understanding of this truth. Those, however, who refuse to be instructed in this way need to be identified as having forsaken the biblical and historic Southern Baptist understanding of this essential doctrine. Whether in the pulpit, the class room, the agency administrative office, or the trustee board room, it must be acknowledged that there has been a violation of doctrinal integrity when men (and/or women) teach an aberration of this vital subject concerning the new birth."

 

Ironically, the newest Southern Baptists are back to embracing that theology, and are being taken to task for it by all the other Baptists who've drifted in their theology. Of course, the discussion has been ongoing for 400+ years and I doubt that we'll settle it here in this thread or on this board.

 

Needless to say, I would not attend a church that holds to reformed theology regardless of whether or not they are Baptist.

If fact, I am currently listening to a two hour video in which a former Primitive Baptist pastor discusses the error of Primitive Baptist doctrine. Check it out:

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5943967/15468873

I know you will not agree, but that is alright, unlike some I still count you as a brother in Christ. We just see things differently.

 

Robert, you are showing us a classical case of pendulum swing theology. You discover the excess of one system, then make a swing in the other direction as a backlash.

The pendulum concept seems to be typical among theologians also. One writes a piece of bad theology, then someone else rebuts it with some additional bad theology, and eventually the entire theological world is clogged up with bad theology -- so -- many people disavow theology all together.

But, that is wrong. There can be "good" and biblical theology, and our task is to discover what THAT is -- not change from one system to another because we've "seen things."

Of note, Benoni Stinson, founder of The General Conference of General Baptists founded his denomination (in 1823 - well before the SBC) as a recoil from the United Baptists (regular) (similar to today's Primitive Baptists, which coexisted in the same era, but had little or no dealings with each other) who were indeed "hyper-Calvinistic" to a fault. One had to "prove" that they were among the elect to participate with a local church! How one could do that, apart from being born into the church is a mystery -- and the reason that those churches never really grew much.

Stinson, thinking he was turning leftward in his theology, actually took a centrist "cafeteria-line" approach to his theology and the theology he would hand down to his newly formed denomination. They are Arminian, believe that they can loose their salvation, but that God saves "infants and idiots" (so, if one gets hit in the head and looses his faculties, he would be insured of gaining eternal life according to their theology). They also use a 'presbytery" system, loosely adopted from the Presbyterian church, for offering "credentials" to their pastors and deacons, it being made up of the deacons and pastors from associational churches.

They're a good bunch of folks, but a prime example of pendulum swing theology in action.

 

Charles Spurgeon was Calvinist, although he often said some very non-Calvinist things. From his sermon "Only Trust Him".

Spurgeon said we are to exhibit faith in Jesus while we are sinners!

Now, how in the world can a sinner have spiritual life? The wages of sin is death. Until your sins are forgiven you are spiritually DEAD.

 

From the same sermon by Spurgeon;

This is a simple analogy, Spurgeon compares salvation to a person going to a doctor to heal an illness.

Do you go to the doctor when you are already healed? Of course not, we go to the doctor in our state of illness. We place our trust in the doctor's hands and rely upon him to cure us of our illness.

And this is how it is with Jesus. We go to him while we are still sick with sin. We place ourselves in his hands and rely upon him to heal us.

Luke 5:31 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

If a person is already born again, if they already have spiritual life, they have no need to go to Jesus and trust him to heal them. That is exactly what Jesus is saying in Luke 5:31.

 

What tripe. Quantum posted some good definitions and understanding on HC.

 

So I take it the governmental theory of the atonement is mainstream calvinism? And Arminians are called "heretics" LOL

 

...............................

 

...and of course you will be backing this charge with proof?

 

Thanks for the link. These two (Ross & Garrett) are actually stating the beliefs of the Primitives fairly accurately (and of course they're placing emphasis on any sort extremism or fault they can find). Bear in mind, they are Missionary Baptists harping against the Hardshells, something they've done for decades. Nothing new here. It's an odd thing, the split between the 'missionaries' and the 'hardshells' in the early 1800s was for the most part a peaceable 'drifting apart' in most locales. The older hardshells regularly attended the younger generation's missionary services, and vice versa. It was the spinoff of the Campbellites (i.e. Church of Christ) from the Baptists that was very tumultuous. The COC had it's origins right here in the bluegrass of Kentucky.

 

Both sects (PB and COC) initially called themselves "Reformed Baptist".

 

hummmmm.

Not really. The name "Reformed Baptist" is fairly new. Albert N. Martin was one of the main founders of the movement. Please visit link below..


http://www.prbc.org/ReformedBaptist.htm

The 1698ers were Particular Baptists.

 

I have been called a Pelagian by Calvinists more than once on this forum.

Now, if I understand correctly (and maybe I don't), the big problem with Pelagianism is that it teaches unregenerate man has the ability to reach out to God within himself without enabling by God. I personally do not believe this.

What I believe is this, that unregenerate man of himself could never be saved. And the primary reason is that unregenerate man is unable to know the true God and know the Gospel of Christ without God revealing that to man.

What I believe enables the unregenerate to believe is God's word. Without God's word we would have no knowledge of the true God. We would not know how the world was created in six days, we would not have the law that exposes our sin, we could not know the Gospel that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead.

For example, look at men who grow up in isolated societies that have never heard God's word. Take men who live in the darkest jungles for instance. Do they believe in God? Yes, but they believe in a god of their own creation and imagination. Some believe the sun, moon, or stars is a god, some believe god exists in stones or trees, some believe their ancestors are gods... And man will always conceive that he can save himself through his own good works.

No unregenerate man has ever conceived of Jesus Christ unless this has been revealed to him by God. And it is this revelation that enables a man to believe.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Calvinist's love John 6:44, but almost always omit verse 45 which explains 44. Yes, we are drawn, but how are we drawn? We are drawn by the scriptures, by the word of God that reveals truth to us. From the scriptures we hear and learn of the true God, we learn of our sin, we learn of the consequences of our sin, and we learn of the remedy to our sin, Jesus Christ.

I didn't get saved because I was walking around one day hating God and then the Lord regenerated me. I was saved when I went to church and heard the preaching of God's word. It was hearing God's word that taught me of the true God, that taught me of my sin and the consequences for that sin, and taught me if I trust in Jesus my sins would be forgiven.

This is what enabled me to believe in Jesus. It is impossible to believe in Jesus if you have never heard of him. And this is exactly what the scriptures teach.

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

The scriptures teach that whosoever calls upon Jesus shall be saved. Verse 14 shows you cannot possibly call on Jesus unless you believe in him. But then very importantly it explains that it is impossible to believe in Jesus if you have never heard of him. This is what enables us to believe, the knowledge and revelation of Christ from God's word.

And Paul makes this clear a few verses later:

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Does Paul say we have to be supernaturally regenerated to have the ability to believe? No, and that is NEVER said in scripture anywhere, not once. No, Paul said faith comes by hearing the word of God.

So, I do not believe any man can be saved unless God enables that man to have faith by giving us the word of God which he can believe in.

Calvinism denies that salvation comes by simply hearing and believeing the word of God as Paul says.

That the unregenerate can hear the word of God, and that if they believe will be made alive is shown by Jesus himself.

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

 

Why would you say this when the Governmental theory can from and is traditionally taught in Arminian circles???


As to heresies..
Technically, a heresy is a novel change to a system of beliefs that conflicts with established doctrine. The Arminian system came OUT OF and CHANGED a already established Reformed Theology. So technically, to the Calvinist, the Arminian can be said to be a heresy, just as much as the Roman Church called Luthers teachings heresy.

 

Trying to understand what you are saying here. Edwards, despite some Presbyterians saying otherwise, never espoused a Governmental view; the last section in "Freedom of the Will" puts any such contentions to rest.

Ironically, the reason he was accused of such, was #1 Some of his followers went that direction, and #2 He said what Arminian baptists say today; that the atonement Christ purchased was sufficient for all. This alone was enough to make die-hard Presbyterians scream "Token atonement" at Edwards. However, he makes it very clear that Christ payed the actual cost of sin, and leaves no room for the Governmental theory.

As far as Hyper Calvinist, you must be joking. Have you never read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God? Edward makes multiple appeals to all, to repent and believe, which disqualifies him as a Hyper Calvinist.

 

The main point that Carthage made against Pelagianism was that it denied Original Sin.

CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE MAY 1, 418
Council of Carthage To Investigate Pelagianism, May 1, 418

Can. 1 “If any man says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.”

Can. 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, (Spirit) or that they should indeed be baptized (Spirit) for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam (in quo omnes
peccaverunt) has passed upon all.”

Can. 3.1 “If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized (Spirit) live in bliss (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema.” [The authenticity of this canon has been brought into question, though there is some reason to believe that it was part of the original canon listing. In some manuscripts Canon 3.2, listed below, is listed here.]
​

Can. 3.2 “If any man says that the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for the forgiveness of sins already committed, but is of no avail for avoiding sin in the future, let him be anathema.”

Can. 4 “If any man says that this grace only helps not to sin, in so far that by it we obtain a better insight into the Divine commands, and learn what we should desire and avoid, but does not also give the power gladly to do and to fulfil what we have seen to be good, let him be anathema.”

Can. 5 “If any man says that the grace of justification was given us in order that we might the more easily fulfil that which we are bound to do by the power of free will, so that we could, even without grace, only not so easily, fulfil the Divine commands, let him be anathema.”

Can. 6 “If any man understands the words of the Apostle: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,’ to mean that we must acknowledge ourselves to be sinners only out of humility, not because we are really such, let him be anathema.”

Can. 7 “If any man says that the saints pronounce the words of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ not for themselves, because for them this petition is unnecessary, but for others, and that therefore it is, ‘forgive us,’ not ‘me,’ let him be anathema.”

Can. 8 “If any man says that the saints only pronounce these words, ‘forgive us our trespasses,’ out of humility, not in their literal meaning, let him be anathema.”

 

I see...now you are redefining the very word heresy by you attaching it to Arminians and other non-cals

her·e·sy (hr-s)
n. pl. her·e·sies
1.
a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
2.
a. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
b. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

 

I don't know if you realize that Bro. Ross is a Calvinist. He operates a bookstore here that deals mainly with the works of Spurgeon. So, he isn't an Armenian.

http://www.pilgrimpublications.com/

Like I said, the main thing this Elder said at the Primitive Baptist church I attended was that it didn't matter if someone heard the Gospel or not, if they are part of the Elect, they are saved. Now, this belief may be rare even among Primitive Baptist, but I find this contrary to the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.