Are there any free will baptists here?

Bill, Nicholas, David,
Thanks for filling in the blanks for me.

As a Southern Baptist, my perception is that the majority are some sort of hybrid. Most SBCers hold to a general atonement and free will, but reject the idea of apostasy, and certainly would bristle at being described as Arminian. I belong to the Particular Baptist camp, It's still a minority view among Southern Baptists, but it's spreading.

Question: Do any of you see any inconsistency in the hybrid view held by most SBCers?

 

This is not exactly accurate. Many FWB's do not believe in a "free will by nature," but in a "FREED will" by prevenient grace. This enables one to positively respond to the drawing of the Holy Spirit and ultimately the Gospel, or to continue to reject it. This is generally the view of Reformed Arminians -- and generally FWB's tend toward this view.

Wesleyan-Arminians tend toward a belief that Free Will is an inherent part of human nature.

Incidentally, I was an FWB preacher for over 17 years -- not in the denomination now though -- but feel free to ask any questions you like...

JDale

 

General Baptists and Free Will Baptists share the same history and heritage -- both tracing their roots back to a same English Separatist fellowship led initially by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys in the early 1600's. They fled to Holland to escape persecution, then Smyth joined the Anabaptists and Helwys returned to England to form the first Baptist Church and write the first truly Baptist statement of faith in 1611.

Helwys and his congregation affirmed general atonement, resistible grace and the possibility of apostasy -- thus they became known as "General Baptists." Some migrated to the US, and out of their influence, FWB's came into being in NC is 1727, and in RI in 1780....

JDale

 

FWB's are fairly strong in the South, but GB's are stronger in the Mid-West, as I recall....

JDale

 

Hi Tom:

I, too, now attend an SB church, though I remain a Reformed Arminian.

I do in fact see some inconsistency in the view of most SB's regarding freedom of will, but rejecting the possibility of apostasy. I believe 5 point Calvinism is consistent (though consistently wrong) but the typical SB positions seem contradictory.

JDale

 

Whoa, Reformed Arminian? That's a new one for me. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Would you care to elaborate?

 

Hi Tom -- I'll be glad to. Let me recommend you read the Prevenient Grace, and You Can't Lose Your Salvation threads -- I pretty extensively explain the difference between RA's and Wesleyan-Arminians there.

I am squeezed for time right now -- so I'll try to come back on this afternoon and answer any questions and elaborate more.

Blessings,

JDale

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I should perhaps have repeated what I wrote in my earlier message in this thread, where I said:

I don't know about denominations with those titles, but the two terms "General Baptist" and "Free-will Baptist" refer to aspects of doctrine, the answers to the questions, "For whom did Jesus Christ die?" and "How are sinners saved?". ​

It may have helped you to know that I was not speaking about denominations.

Perhaps you can help me with something in your message. What is a "Reformed Arminian"? I've never come across the term before, and it seems to be a contradiction in terms.

 

An RA is one who holds to a very similar view of Total Depravity as the Reformed do. And then with the ULIP - they are opposite from the Reformed positions. Conditional Election (based on foreseen faith), General Atonement, Prevenient Grace which is resistable, and possibility of forfeiting salvation. Correct me if I am wrong anywhere, JDale.

 

That's essentially right Andy.

Some years ago, some Arminian theologians sought to better identify and explain the distinctions between Arminians who followed the thoughts and influence of Jacobus Arminius himself, and those later Arminians who became known as Wesleyan-Arminians.

Sometimes the title of "Classical Arminianism" is used to identify this view -- but it has become too indistinguishable (in my view) of the differing beliefs and influences that inform the greater theological community of Arminianism.

Reformed Arminianism is based primarily on the works of Jacobus Arminius and his immediate followers, the "Remontrants," that came into being in the early 1600's in the Dutch Reformed Church. Arminius AGREED with the Reformed (and Calvinist) concept of Total Depravity. The difference was that Arminius affirmed a GENERAL Atonement (vs. Particular atonement of Reformed Calvinism); CONDITIONAL Election based on foreseen faith (vs. Unconditional election of Reformed Calvinism); the ability of humans - AS ENABLED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT through Prevenient Grace - to trust Christ to receive salvation, or reject such faith and be damned (vs. the "bondage of the will" as held by both Lutherans and particularly Reformed Calvinists); and the POSSIBILITY of Apostasy -- that a true believer MAY turn away or forfeit their faith and become finally lost (vs. Perseverance of the Saints or OSAS of Calvinism or "modified Calvinism").

Wesleyan-Arminians tend to believe one can "lose" their salvation in a number of ways including unforgiveness, persistence in sinful lifestyles, or turning away from faith, but they also tend to believe in "repeated regeneration" (that one and be saved and lost more than once -- perhaps numerous times). They also lean toward a belief that "Free Will" is inherent in human nature -- though they would agree that Prevenient Grace is still necessary for one to be saved. These adaptions to Arminianism came about from the views of holiness preached and believed by John Wesley and his followers in Methodism.

The first Baptists were "General" in their view of the atonement, and following their interaction with the Remonstrants" during their time in Holland were Arminian in their view of soteriology. this is evident in the first Baptist Confession of Faith written by Thomas Helwys and his followers who founded the first Baptist Church in England in 1611.

Reformed Arminianism is best explained in the works of Dr. Stephen Ashby, Dean of the Graduate School at Hillsdale FWB College in Okalhoma, and Matt Pinson, President of FWB Bible College, Nashville, Tennessee. Also, the later writings of LeRoy Forlines and Dr. Robert Picirilli are valuable in understanding RA.

Several books I would recommend: (1) Four Views of Eternal Security edited by Matt Pinson -- Steve Ashby gives the RA viewpoint; (2) A Handbook for Free WIll Baptists by Matt Pinson -- excellent for its historical presentation of the development of RA; (3) The Quest for Truth by LeRoy Forlines; (4) Grace, Faith and Free Will by Robert Picirilli; (5)Another valuable book is the new Arminian Theology by Roger Olson, a professor at Baylor Divinity School, I believe, who does an excellent job pointing out many fallacies in Calvinist critiques of "Classical Arminianism." While Olson does not directly address the difference in RA's and WA's, it is still one of the best overviews of how SO many Calvinists treat (or MIStreat) Arminian theology.

Hope this helps....

JDale

 

JDale, I probably would agree that some Calvinists misportray the "Classical Arminian" position, because most of the non-Cals they come in contact with are not Classical Arminian but closer to Pelagianism, and so their arguments are usually directed towards the latter. A big difference between the Classical Arminian position and the everyday semi-Pelagian position is that CA's deny that free will is inherent in fallen man. Most American Evangelicals would have a conniption against such a thought.

 

I'm not sure I desire to bust up in yet another 'Free-Will vs. Calvinist' debate... :laugh:

But I just wanted to say that it is my understanding that John Wesley didn't believe the 'free-will to choose' was 'inherent in human nature' as much as Prevenient Grace was an 'universal act of God's Salvific calling to fallen human nature'. I believe this is a big enough distinction to bring up. I also might assert that this is a distinction with 'reformed Arminians'. I've read Classic Arminianism and I'm certainly not confident to assert that Classic Wesleyan Free-will'ism and Classic Arminianism are synonymous.

I am certainly not trying to come off as authoritative on this distinction but I just thought it might be interesting to bring up for the discussion.

 

I would tend to agree with you on that AT.

JDale

 

That makes sense Bound...I certainly wouldn't accuse Wesley of semi-pelagianism for believing in "inherent free will," so if the alternative he proposed was prevenient grace as "a universal act of God's salvific calling to fallen human nature," then discussing the nuances of that could be enlightening

JDale

 

"John Wesley and his followers in Methodism" believed in total depravity just as Arminius did. I cannot imagine where anyone familiar with Wesley's writings could get a different idea. A hundred years after Wesley's death, Pelagianism was showing up in Methodism, along with liberalism and other heresies, but the orthodox in Methodism to this day know that Pelagianism is a heresy. In no way is it the "Wesleyan Arminian" position.

I don't think Arminius ever affirmed that, but I'll gladly accept a citation from his writings that shows he did.

 

drfuss: I understand Classical Calvinism, but what is Classical Arminian and who defined it?

 

drfuss: After thinking about it, I didn't intend my above question to be so wide open. A better question would be: How is Classical Arminian different from Reformed Arminian?

 

Two clarification PD -- and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding:

(1) Wesley and those who immediately followed him did in fact hold to Total Depravity, just as did Arminius and Calvin. It took several generations - as you point out - for pelagian influence to creep into Methodist circles. I suppose I would believe Methodism is more predisposed to this concept due to their emphasis on the holiness message in that time -- but I'm not CERTAIN that's the case. I do know, however, that in my experience semi-pelagian views are more likely to be found in Methodism or its Pentecostal/Charismatic children...

(2) Arminius never said definitively that he believed in the possibility of apostasy -- and even his followers the "Remonstrants" simply left it at "this is an issue deserving further study and consideration" at the Synod of Dort. It didn't matter -- the Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed CHurch declared them heretics anyway. Within a generation or two, however, most Arminians reached the doctrinal conclusion of the Possibility of Apostasy -- and in fact our Baptist forebears, after interaction in Holland with the Remonstrants -- declared their conviction of the possibility of apostasy in Thomas Helwys declaration of faith in 1611 -- the first baptist statement of faith.

JDale

 

Doc:

I'm not sure it is! That's just it -- Wesleyans have claimed they are "classical," yet those who follow the original understanding of Arminius also make the claim. In the theological environment of our day, it is a term open to interpretation -- its ambiguous.

JDale

 

Who misunderstood?

You are correct. When an Arminian (holiness or otherwise) becomes a heretic, it is in the Pelagian direction. Nevertheless, as I pointed out and as you conceded, that says nothing about "John Wesley and his followers," who were not liberals or heretics.

By Calvinist standards, they were heretics. And certainly most Arminians came to believe in conditional security. But it is incorrect, so far as I know, to say that Arminius affirmed it.

Most American evangelicalism today, it seems, is essentially Arminian: they believe in general redemption. Sometimes they are accused of inconsistency when they also believe in OSAS. Such an accusation is illogical. To claim that regeneration is irreversible says nothing about whether it was received volitionally in a synergistic event.