Calvinist or Arminian?

You are right, my apologies.

 

Do not get confused by what you have stated. The "Anabaptists" (Such as Munster) had a completely different theology than the Baptist groups from which we today are descended from. Smyth and Hewlys, and the men/congregations which broke away from the Church of England, is where we can trace our beginnings. These groups, originally fully affirmed TULIP (as can be seen in the LBCF) and it was not until much later that Smith fell in with the "Anabaptists" and their doctrine.

Baptists were originally "Calvinist" in the sense of the five points. Even the break between "General" and "particular" Baptists, which happened later, was not a dispute over all five of the points, but only the single point of Limited Atonement. Later, certain groups spread further to the Arminian side of things.


There is a little book called, I believe "Baptists and the Doctrine of Election" which contains quotes from ALMOST every major figure in Baptist history, affirming the truth of Unconditional Election.

 

Link to Above

Like I said, if memory serves me right. I am sure that I have read the essence of what is quoted above elsewhere also, but I can't remember for where for sure. I have no doubt that the differences you stated are correct, but am not aware of any timeline concerning when they may have taken place.

Technically, only a person who was baptized as an infant in the RCC and then baptized by immersion as an adult was considered an anabaptist... at that time. When I called myself an anabaptist, I am automatically disqualified because I was born way too late to be one, and I was Lutheran, not Catholic.

 

At that time, ANYONE who performed believers baptism were called "Anabaptists" by their detractors. My caution to you was to keep the English Baptists, who had no connection to the movement termed "Anabaptist" by most, separate from more Arminian groups such as the Munsterites. The original Baptists were Calvnistic in their soteriology, and developed separately.

In other words, the Radical reformers (Munster etc.) are not our predecessors.

 

Robert Selph wrote this gem. I've read it over and over again after receiving my copy 15 yrs ago or so. I was given a copy along with Boyce's Abstract. They are prized parts of my library.

 

I wonder if any of you can give the title of the book, or ISBN, and where best to order this from.
I'm trying to find good writings from both Primitive Baptists and other Baptists.

 

How many different brands of Baptists are there? Looking at that number alone I wonder how many general statements could be made about C/A issues among Baptists and what they stand for.

I would suggest that what one says and does and the sides they stand on are not always in agreement theologically.

 

I find these discussions so interesting - I was raised by a Southern Baptist deacon, and I accepted Christ as my Savior at age 13. I knew nothing about where the Baptists came from, I just knew I was lost and needed a Saviour.

I am IFB now, having found the SBC to be more liberal than I am. I never knew there were differences (Calvinism, Arminianism, Particular, General, etc etc, ad nauseum) until I earned a degree at LU.

I believe in saved by grace, once saved always saved, the Bible is the Final Authority, The KJV is the closest to the Greek text, we are commissioned to "go ye therefore" and Baptism doesn't save you. What else do I need?

But it is interesting to learn these historical facts.

 

I read somewhere that there are over 40 different kins of Baptist churches--including 7th Day Baptist (there's one in my home city) and one with Catholic beliefs.

 

I choose to call my self a 'Biblicist' following neither Calvin nor Arminius but the Word of God. Sola Scripture if you will :thumbs:

 

Calling yourself a Biblicist doesn't help the discussion. We are all Biblicists here. Some of us are Calvinist Biblicists; some are non-Calvinist Biblicists; some are Arminian Biblicists. All of us appeal to scripture to support our individual views.

And it doesn't let you off the hook, either, to investigate the claims of each view. Each view is closely connected with how you present the gospel. Each of us is making claims dealing with eternal matters. One cannot remain neutral. You must be a Berean.

 

Let's talk about Baptist history

Very interesting thread. I've been studying the history of Judaism, Christianity, and the transmission of Scripture for the last 4 or 5 years. So, I appreciate the history.

This is my first post on this forum, btw. :wavey:

Baptist-Questioning

 

Welcome, BQ, we hope you enjoy your stay. BTW, I'm pretty sure the transmission of Scripture has been going on for more than 4 or 5 years. Just kidding there...

 

Johnv,

Left out a comma. Guess punctuation does really matter.