Featured What type of a Baptist are you?

I just saw this thread and didn't really read every response. I just wanted to throw this out. You categorize an independent fundamental Baptist as a "4 point Armenian." I hope you understand that an IFB thinks all 5 points of both Calvinism and Armenianism are wrong. If you were to draw a line from a 5 point Calvinist to a 5 point Armenian, an IFB would not be anywhere on the line. It has been my experience that Calvinists have a very narrow view of who they are and who everyone else is. I know that makes it easier to debate but it is a false dichotomy.

John R Rice (some might call him a pillar of modern day IFB movement) has a great book on this and the IFB view of Calvinism.

So, anyway, I am an independent fundamental Baptist - I am in no way a Calvinist OR an Armenian.

 

Amen!!! I feel exactly the same! Could not have said it better. I'm an IFB, and neither one of those doctrines are Baptist doctrine. I'm not sure what you Arminian/Calvinists are, but "'Baptist'' you are not, IMHO.

 

Dang, I should become an Independent Fundamental Baptist.

Anybody who recognizes that all 5 points of Calvinism and Arminianism are wrong, ain't half bad in my book

 

It is impossible to have a mediating position between the two five-pronged propositions.

 

Here I am making about my 30th correction (not of you alone Bob) of the word. It's Arminian, not Armenian. Those poor residents of Armenia are saddled with that silly designation due to poor spelling time and time again --by Arminians. ;-)

Does the title of that book start with the word "Predestined" by any chance?

A non-Arminian IFBer is hard to come by.

 

My bad, too!

Don't any of you feel bad, as I do the same thing?! I bet there are a lot of Armenian people tired of me writing about them and accusing them of being the wrong type of Baptist - LOL!

As for the question, I'd hope that I was a good Baptist, regardless of what side of the theology pool I jump from! :smilewinkgrin:

 

You are laregly uninformed about Baptist history I guess. You aren't familiar with the present scene. And you certainly are not aware of early 17th century Baptists --the General and the Particular. The former being Arminian in their doctrine and the later being Calvinistic.

 

So the fact that you adhere to credo-baptism is the most important thing for you. Your theological orientation is not a priority for you?

 

I am a this, I am a that.......Did you know there have been reports of Christians in Armenia--they are not Arminian or Calvinistic.

Where are the anti-paedo Baptists?

In the final analysis: Are you born again?

Are you sure?

Are you ready?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

BJ: Your posts have been progressively disjointed and lacking in coherence. Tighten it up --okay?

 

http://www.baptistpillar.com/article_166.html

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Doctrines/Calvinism/what_a_mess.htm

http://www.iowaprimitivebaptist.org/docs/Ten Reasons Primitive Baptists Are Not Calvinists.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJcE_kn5qcM

 

Well, that first article by John Reaves Sr. was sure filled with a lot of misinformation and lies.

First of all you must agree that lies cannot be a fair means of advancing whatever cause you may have b4l. That sinful slander about Calvin saying that "there are babies a span long in hell" is stupid in the extreme. Where is the documentation for that lie? I have discussed that stupidity since 2006 on the BB. Just concede that you were out of line. The truth will refresh your soul.

The author says that John Calvin was a priest. That is a lie. He never was a priest. He had intended to be --but never was. He gave up his benefice upon his conversion.

He quotes Spurgeon in full once which does not support his thesis. But I guess Reaves didn't know it. Then for his next Spurgeon quote he splices and dices to try and convince his readers that Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist. He goes against all evidence and it's embarrassing for him.

Then he goes on and on and the fact that Calvin was a padobaptist! Who knew! ;-)

Do you even read the links you post b4l?

 

Yes, I read everything I post. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. I stand on my statement that Calvinism/Arminianism have no place in a Baptist church. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Both are wrong. I am a born again Christian. Period. Not an ''Arminian Christian'' nor a ''Calvinist Christian''.

Do you ever post without negativity? That's one of the most telling things about Calvinists, IMHO, ......they're extremely arrogant and condescending towards people who disagree with them. I've yet to meet one, in person, or on the internet, who isn't that way. I won't dialogue with those people (you) whenever it's possible to avoid them.

 

Rippon said:

My bad. You are soooo right. And, I can't even blame auto-correct.

 

As for this article by James J. Stewart --it is shameful b4l.

Stewart can't even spell the word Arminian correctly some of the time.

He amazingly says that there is "not a dime's worth of difference between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism."

Does he know anything about Church History? Has he ever read the lives of Bunyan, Carey, Judson, Whitefield, Edwards, and Spurgeon to name a few? They were strong Calvinists with a burden for souls. It is unquestionable. They cannot possibly be put into the h-C camp. How dishonest of Stewart.

He speaks of the "demonic teaching of original sin." He also calls it "damnable heresy." Do you subscribe to his view b4l? If so, you are on the wrong track --get biblical.

It is indeed fascinating that Stewart admits that "Arminius comes closest to Biblical theology" and that he agrees "with most of the points of Arminius." We know where his sympathies lie. Are you at one with him here b4l?

 

Well, this article was by far the best of the three. The authors, Gowens and Mozingo, make their biblically based points as well as possible. Their beliefs do indeed differ from classical Reformed theogy --even of the Reformed Baptist way. But despite their differences --there is much more common ground with Calvinism than Arminianism certainly.

They believe in some form of successionism which I cannot go along with.

And they wrongly assert that "Calvin governed Geneva as a theocracy." I have gone over that ground quite extensively in the past on the BB. There is no need to rehash it now. Suffice it to say their version of history with respect to John Calvin is bogus.

 

And you know I can't get Youtube here so you or someone else will have to give me a summary of its contents.

 

Rippon:

You are just not looking in the right places. Over the years, I have gone to church and fellowshipped with 10s of thousands of them. Case in point, I went to college in the 70s at Midwestern Baptist College and attended Emmanuel Baptist Church (Dr Tom Malone, pastor). There were 10s of thousands there, alone, that were neither Calvinist nor Arminian (note, correct spelling :thumbs. I just spent a few years at Church of the Open Door (Westminster, MD). Again thousands of IFB members and none of them either Calvinist or Arminian. I work with an IFB church in Jane Lew, WV, same story. I could go on and on but, you get my point.

Are there some IFB churches that are Calvinists or Arminian? I'm sure there are. But, I'm thinking they have either started as IFB churches and drifted to the other doctrines or they just started off calling themselves something they really are not.

As Baptist4Life pointed out with his links, true IFBs really do not want to be associated with either one of these doctrines. And, whether someone in the posts got all his facts right or not is not the point. The point is, IFBs absolutely do NOT consider themselves, in any way, associated with either one of these doctrines.

Nothing against either one of these schools of thought. I have gone soul winning with people from both camps. I just happen to not be in either camp. Actually, not just camp, I'm not even in the same forest.

 

Amen! :applause:

 

When you post articles that are chockfull of lies and nasty invective yet still insist that you agree --that's when the hammer has to come down b4l. JR Sr's article is slanderlously sinful. For you to not only post it, but to admit that you read and agree with it is shameful b4l.