Featured Which are you?

I have posted my positions many times. What i am not going to do is repost them for others to see whether or not they agree I am not an Arminian. I tell you I'm not and that should be good enough. Anyone who tries to lable me with that moniker doesn't get a response from me.

 

I think some of the "northern-ness" of the Philadelphia "line of descent" can be skewed by later events in Baptist history. That is, many Baptists in the south have some historical connection back to PBA as well. The work of the Philadelphia Association reached north, south (e.g., the missionary journeys of Gano, Miller and Vanhorn into North Carolina), east, and west, and many early associations in different directions adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith and corresponded with the Philadelphia Association.

To which Baptist Union do you refer?

 

It seems to me that the primary historic use of "Regular Baptist" was simply another name for the Particular Baptists -- probably because they made up the great majority, in order to distinguish them from "irregular Baptists" such as Six-Principle, Seventh-Day, Open Communion, etc., and possibly some of them weren't quite as "Particular" as the majority of them. In his The Annual Register of the Baptist Denomination, in North-America (1792), John Asplund divides the "Faith and Order" of North American Baptists as (p. 47):

• Six-Principle Baptists (many of the Philadelphia Baptists held the "sixth-principle" of laying-on-of-hands after baptism, but the Six-Principle Baptists made it a test of fellowship)
• Open Communion Baptists
• General Provision Baptists
• Seventh Day Baptists
• Regular or particular Baptists

 

Per my former favorite rock band"dazed and confused".

 

Hopefully Raptured/Second Coming saint, and that will rtealise that I was not right with any of those labels probably!

 

Maybe our brother is best found here?
http://evangelicalarminians.org/

 

Do you see a distinction between a reformed baptist/Calvinistic/Particular Baptist?

 

Well, well, you are temperamental today. I have read your posts throughout many discussions of Calvinism. I have not seen any of your views that disagree with Classical Arminianism. If I had, I would not have asked you the question. Since your bloomers are in a bunch, so be it.

 

Calvinistic Baptists tend to not use any Confessions, nor to adopt full on Covenant theology...

 

I'm a 1689er.

 

I'm a classical dispensationalist, pre-trib, pre-millenial. I believe in eternal security but I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian. I'm also not a Lordship Salvationist but that sometimes depends on who you ask for the definition.

 

Today, most I know that identify as Particular Baptists are Calvinists who don't like the person Calvin and do not want to identify with him.

 

I won't pretend to speak for Revmitchell, but I think the main point that distinguishes modern Southern Baptist Traditionalism from Classical Arminianism is the approach to the security of the believer. Traditionalism says, "We deny even the possibility of apostasy" while CA questions whether it might be possible if one forsakes Christ and returns to the world, and they think it "must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture" through further study.

On the other hand, Classical Arminianism has a much stronger allegiance to total depravity, which appears to me to be watered down in the Traditional Statement, and doesn't reflect how it was taught to me in "traditional Baptist churches."

vs.

 

At this point in my walk with the Lord, my theological ingredients contain the following: Baptized by immersion in the Name of Jesus Christ as a Trinitarian believer. I believe the first 3 of the 5 points of Calvinism reflect what scripture teaches and most of the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist confession. The church is Christ's body made up of believers only and is biblical Israel with physical Israel broken off because of unbelief. (Reattached in part through faith in Christ). Christ's kingdom is spiritual and a present reality centered in heaven where he reigns over earth from David's throne. The Schleitheim Confession (Anabaptist) is closest to New Testament ethics. It defines the Christian's, and the Church's separation from the State. On the last day the believer’s bodily resurrection, also called Israel's restoration, happens. Followed by the rapture of the living saints. Followed by the bodily resurrection of the wicked who in judgment enter hell as the universe explodes. Followed by God’s creating the new heavens and earth where we will live forever in God's Glory.

 

I believe the first 3 are right. But I take exception with irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. They make faith a condition and the word the means of grace. I believe the new birth (salvation) happens before we hear the word and it is our nature to persevere in a less legalistic manner.

 

I believe if faith is a condition we must meet before God saves us, the gospel becomes law instead of grace. And salvation is by works instead of grace. But if God saves us through regeneration, we will believe the gospel whenever we hear it and will also seek repentance from sin and live a holy life because of the nature of the new birth. That is to say, we believe because God saved us. He did not save us because we chose to believe.