You're welcome.:wavey:
Glad you both saw through the veiled accusations and false charges in post #12.
Today's "Calvinism"
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 17, 2012.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
Questions yes, answers few.
Everyone believes in the Soveriegnity of God, but what we believe this term means varies. Everything is predestined = Calvinism, God causes or allows all things = Non Calvinism.
Doctrines of Grace (DoG) = TULIP sometimes and TULIP plus Covenant Theology at other times. The advocates of Calvinism delight in changing the names of everything, Irresistible Grace becomes the Gift of Faith and so forth.
Lets think about the idea of separation of Church and State, a baptist distinctive. What it says is those that govern should not dictate doctrine. But what is the position as clearly and explicitly stated in the DoG? Just kidding, no position will be found, but we judge by their fruits and they are all for dictatorial elites deciding what is allowed and what is not, 180 degrees from the idea of the priesthood of all believers. You see they believe in the DoG=TULIP and therefore the Baptist idea of general atonement (Christ died for all men, not just previously elected individuals) is presented as a thorn in the side of theological unity.
Is salvation actually available to all men or has God predestined only certain individuals will be saved? Does John 3:16 mean what it says, God loved mankind and sent His Son so that anyone who believes in Him will have eternal life? Or did God create us so we are incapable of believing unless we receive the Gift of Faith.
If you review the "what we believe" statements for all the Baptist Churches, how many will explicity say, It does not matter what you do, nothing you do will alter the foreordained outcome of your life! -
I think that your last statement is right on target. -
Not being a member of a Reformed Church, I apparently mistook “Calvinism” to mean the theological system rather than merely DoG.
It’s probably a regional thing – I am exposed to many Calvinists, but I do not know any that are also Baptist (or could reconcile the two).
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here is a brief history....
http://www.abc-usa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cgvZuPqWxVU=&tabid=80 -
Are you saying that John Smyth was not a part of the English Baptists, a Separatist who left the Anglican priesthood, but was instead an Anabaptist? I had just never heard that Smyth (and I suppose Helwys and Murton also) were not actually Baptists. I guess the logical conclusion would be that the General Baptists are not really Baptists after all. But would Anabaptists still be Protestant since they predate the Reformation, and since they predate the reformation is it not also probable that Anabaptist doctrine had some influence on both sets of Baptists?
I could understand that the General Baptists came about, then the Particular Baptists were established from another group of Separatists and therefore they are unrelated groups that have some doctrine in common (one didn’t just adopt Calvinism but certainly General Baptists didn’t just throw out TULIP – especially when the Cannons of Dort occurred over a decade after the first Baptists were on the scene). But while “Congregational” and “Anabaptist” seem to go together, “Congregational” and “Calvinistic” don’t. I was just wondering how much of Calvinism carries forward into what we now seem to call Calvinism. I realize that they were both products of their time, they were influenced by what was going on, etc.
I’d also point out that Roger Williams did become a Particular Baptist (for a little while anyway ), but Baptists pre-date Williams.
And you are right, perhaps “Particular” would be more precise a term than “Reformed" or "Calvinism.” It would have saved me from asking the question.
-
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I say he had an axe to gring...because in God's providence I was able to speak to him face to face about it...some years ago at a bible conference..in Seaside heights NJ.
I like J.R.....but he is presenting one side of an issue....that has two sides.
Reformed Baptists...... are very similar to Presbyterians...because during the reformation...it was many of the reformers who recovered so many truths of the reformation...that we are thankful......anabaptists had some truth...we are thankful for that...reformers had much truth we are thankful for that....
Ana baptists had several errors.....they were persecuted....by reformers and RC churches....
RB ...attempt to take the truth from scripture ...from both sides of the issue.....the reformers had much more of the truth...doctrinally -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Presbyterians differ primarily in two areas.... the church....and how much continuity exists between the OC/NC.....
Everything else is virtually identical....but the two differences branch out and spill over into many areas of the christian life. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
reformed baptist...has to do with the place of the ten commandments in the life of a believer,and unbeliever alike..
in our day it also has to do with the nature of the church itself -
Reply to Jon C,
We believe in sovereign grace.
In other words, we teach that God is sovereign not only in general, but especially in salvation (1 Cor. 1:26-31; Eph. 1:3-11 ; Rom. 8:28-32). Salvation is by grace alone plus nothing (Eph. 2:8-10). A man is saved only when God gives him the willingness and the ability to repent and put his faith in Jesus Christ, the one who suffered the wrath of God in the place of sinners (Phil. 1:6, 29, 30; 2 Tim. 2:24, 25 ).
Note they referenced Ephesians 2:8-9 claiming it says grace alone, rather than by grace through faith. From this one statement we can discern the "T", "U", "L" and "I"
Can Covenant theology and non-baptist polity be far behind. The only thing clearly disavowed is infant baptism. -
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
It seems that this is the main thrust, Reformed position regarding salvation while. (although there seems to be different views in regards to covenant theology, I think).
Is there a difference between Perseverance of the Saints and evangelical Baptist’s position of OSAS or are they identical doctrines? -
-
-
JonC said: ↑Is there a difference between Perseverance of the Saints and evangelical Baptist’s position of OSAS or are they identical doctrines?Click to expand...
-Only those who persevere in the faith will be saved in the end, and God ensures through his spirit that all those who are truly saved WILL persevere.
Now, some OSAS people will say that perseverance is not necessary, that one could actually stop believing, but since they accepted Christ at some time in the past, they are still saved, even though they do not believe in Christ now. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJonC said: ↑Thanks Ionclast. I understand the difference in the chruch, what is the difference between their views between the continuity between the OC/NC?Click to expand...
So they say the same exists in the NT...our children should be in.....until they become covenant breakers.....
Rb believe it is no longer just physical birth that puts one in the Cog....but new birth alone....that is regenerate church membership....
that is why the new covenant is new.
It is more complicated than that...but i am short on time right now..will develop it more later on.:thumbs::thumbs: -
12strings said: ↑The end outcome is the same. Some who use "OSAS or Eternal Security" would agree exactly with Perserverance of the saints: Which says:
-Only those who persevere in the faith will be saved in the end, and God ensures through his spirit that all those who are truly saved WILL persevere.
Now, some OSAS people will say that perseverance is not necessary, that one could actually stop believing, but since they accepted Christ at some time in the past, they are still saved, even though they do not believe in Christ now.Click to expand...
I remember reading a sermon by Spurgeon (Choice Portions) where he explains that the believer may fall away, but in the end will come back because he is elect and a particular possession of God and cannot be lost. The reason I had asked is that I’ve heard “perseverance” explained in that manner. I’ve also heard OSAS churches explain that the difference is that perseverance of the saints means that believers will persevere in every situation – never “backslide.” But I take it from your comments that most, both Perseverance and OSAS, take it to mean the same – a believer will always believe. -
asterisktom Well-Known MemberSite SupporterJonC said: ↑I wondered about DoG. I figured it was Doctrines of Grace, but didn’t make the connection as pertaining to the DoG apart from the entire system of Calvinism. – Thanks, this helps.
(I like “Low-Cal” – sounds like a diet or a rap group) :)Click to expand...
I don't have the Commentary handy here (It is back in the States) or I would quote it for you. I believe one example is in the 2nd Peter 2:1 section.
Page 2 of 3