Allan,
Most all of them clearly state..."not based on fore-seen faith"....or something like that.
You got copies of them...read them. Even SBC changed...and this is the point of the OP. They seem to be changing back to what their 1st creed read.
Other then the Freewill Baptist Creed, I could sign all of them. Things have changed over the last 100 years,,,and we are seeing them go back to where they once were.
Why is Calvinism surging?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin, Dec 26, 2007.
?
-
It is just a fad that will pass.
7.5% -
These things come and go.
28.4% -
It is apostasy
7.5% -
It is a return to Biblical truth
55.2% -
I have no clue
7.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Page 8 of 9
-
-
-
And Yes I DID show you different confessions and still you don't accept that they are similar but still distinctly different in ONE aspect, the why (if it speaks to it) -
Jarthur001 said:Allan,
Most all of them clearly state..."not based on fore-seen faith"....or something like that.
You got copies of them...read them. Even SBC changed...and this is the point of the OP. They seem to be changing back to what their 1st creed read.
Other then the Freewill Baptist Creed, I could sign all of them. Things have changed over the last 100 years,,,and we are seeing them go back to where they once were.Click to expand...
In fact I see nothing and no one saying anything in like manner but you.
Anyway brother - it was fun disagreeing with you again :) , Have a good evening James. I'm out. -
Allan said:I'm not asking for the last word James, I am and have been saying the Calvinistic veiw of election is much the same as what the Non-Cal have always held even before Calvinism defined itself more specifically through it's confessions. BUT there IS a distiction OF that election with regard as to the question of 'why'. But the why is more secondary and so not as important.
And Yes I DID show you different confessions and still you don't accept that they are similar but still distinctly different in ONE aspect, the why (if it speaks to it)Click to expand...
That's as absurd as saying that 100% of all born-again believers throughout Church History have believed in Particular Redemption ( now Limited Atonement is another matter ) . Wait , you believe this too !
Where do you come up with this stuff ? You haven't bought Skypair's manual , have you ? -
Rippon said:The Calvinistic view of election is much the same as what the Non-Cals have always held even before Calvinism was systematized ?!
That's as absurd as saying that 100% of all born-again believers throughout Church History have believed in Particular Redemption ( now Limited Atonement is another matter ) . Wait , you believe this too !
Where do you come up with this stuff ? You haven't bought Skypair's manual , have you ?Click to expand...
I still pray for your repentance, Rippon. May God grant it to you. -
You need to change your broken record . Try another tune .
Again , election is and has been taught very differently among the two quite divergent camps . Would you care to document your absurdity -- that there is no appreciable difference ? Of course if you can cite any evidence showing similar views then , and only then -- I will eat my hat . Try comparing Clarke ( the anti-Calvinist ) and Matthew Henry for example and see how far apart they are . -
Jarthur001 said:Please show me just one Baptist creed before 1872 that did not include election as viewed by all Calvinist.Click to expand...
Though I state they were fundamentally the same and only secondarily different (the why), he states they were not the same, but you say they were. He requests you please document your absurdity. He states there IS an appreicialbe difference and that they taught very differently among the divergent camps, therefore they had to believe differently about election. -
Allan said:Rippon doesn't believe you James, that the Genernal Baptists held the view of election as much the same or your contention of exactly the same as Calvinists.
Though I state they were fundamentally the same and only secondarily different (the why), he states they were not the same, but you say they were. He requests you please document your absurdity. He states there IS an appreicialbe difference and that they taught very differently among the divergent camps, therefore they had to believe differently about election.Click to expand...
Why do you try to twist things around? That is nothing but hogwash!!!
I have put to much time on this one subject not to get anywhere. At times I get tried of going around with you, because at times you will not listen. I said I was done for this reason. Forgive me as I post one more time. Please listen.
Rippon said that the non-Calvinist and Calvinist view on election is not the same!!!
I agree, they are not the same, they never have been the same, they never will be the same, not in the pass, not today, not tomorrow, never, ever ever will they ever be the same. End of story. They cannot, for one view places God as the picker, and the other view places man as the picker. I know many feel God gave over the choice to man, but they still do not see, it i man that becomes the picker
I said...Genernal Baptists had the same view of election up until 1890 as the other Baptist. I followed up and proved this to be true. They all (all that I have read) state election is not based on anything man does, nor on God foreknowing who will believe. That is a Calvinist view Allan. It is not a non-Calvinist view. Sorry you had to hear that, but it is the truth. I have given two dates 1890 and 1870, because the change started in 1870. That is to long a story to get into.
Allan, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings, but that is the cold hard truth. Baptist were Calvinist to some degree all the way to 1890. They all agreed on the MAIN point that being election. Then SOME changed their views. Did I show you the 1st SBC statement on election? And for that matter, you need to read the 1st few statements by SBC on mans depravity. That changed as well.
As I said before Genernal Baptists took issue with Calvinist view of the atonement. Now I can understand that. I disagree with them, for you know how I see it. If you read those early creeds you will find a 3 or 4 point Calvinist view. Genernal Baptists of that day were not non-Calvinist, for they believe the main point where the line is drawn. That line is...Election. If you do not believe election is by God, you are not a Calvinist. ELECTION IS BY GOD. ......is the view of a Calvinist..3 points...4 points...and 5 points. -
Jarthur001 said:Allan,
Why do you try to twist things around? That is nothing but hogwash!!!
I have put to much time on this one subject not to get anywhere. At times I get tried of going around with you, because at times you will not listen. I said I was done for this reason. Forgive me as I post one more time. Please listen.
Rippon said that the non-Calvinist and Calvinist view on election is not the same!!!Click to expand...
I agree, they are not the same, they never have been the same, they never will be the same, not in the pass, not today, not tomorrow, never, ever ever will they ever be the same. End of story.Click to expand...
They are SIMILAR to those of Calvinistic view (even BEFORE 1890) but distinctly DIFFERENT.
The view a person or group has on the Atonement typically determines their view of the 'why' God elected. But as to the when it happened and how it came about (By God, according to the counsil of God, for the purpose and pleasure OF God) is the same as the Calvinists EVEN NOW.
I said...Genernal Baptists had the same view of election up until 1890 as the other Baptist. I followed up and proved this to be true.Click to expand...
And I SHOWED here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1157045&postcount=135
where there are many General Confessions that dissagree with you INCLUDING the Somerset Confession using your own quote! So no, you proved nothing of the sort. And are still in contention with Rippons point of those BEFORE 1890
They all (all that I have read) state election is not based on anything man does, nor on God foreknowing who will believe. That is a Calvinist view Allan. It is not a non-Calvinist view. Sorry you had to hear that, but it is the truth. I have given two dates 1890 and 1870, because the change started in 1870. That is to long a story to get into.Click to expand...
Allan, I'm sorry to hurt your feelings, but that is the cold hard truth.Click to expand...
Baptist were Calvinist to some degree all the way to 1890. They all agreed on the MAIN point that being election. Then SOME changed their views. Did I show you the 1st SBC statement on election? And for that matter, you need to read the 1st few statements by SBC on mans depravity. That changed as well.Click to expand...
Election has ALWAYS been that God chose HOW He would save and When it was determined and through out Baptist history ALL mainline views have agreed. They differed in the secondary 'why' aspect. -
Allan said:They differed in the secondary 'why' aspect.Click to expand...
Please tell why. -
Jarthur001 said:From a non-calvinist view of election....
Please tell why.Click to expand...
It is a secondary aspect ONLY in light of mechanics of election. Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.
That is election, is it not?
So the 'why' is secondary with regard to the mechanics of election but is synonymously primary as to the reason of and for election.
Why did God elect a people from those who rebelled and now were enemies at best with God? Because He loved some of them? Did He love His plan and purpose more than His creation? If His election WAS based on love, then what was it that God loved of some and not others that He would pass them over and not save them?
That is what I have been taught as a Non-Cal through both SBC and Independant Baptist Churches I was apart of growing up and in school. As I have always stated - God decrees in conjunction with His knowledge.
BUT.. to get back to the OP ... Do you think the rise of Calvinism is do to a Calvinistic understanding of election? :) -
I think it's interesting that the overwhelming majority voted that Calvinism is surging because it's Biblical.Click to expand...
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
along with "The Sovereignty of God".
Not that any of these concepts are or are not necessarily true.
But what did we do for 15 centuries before Calvin showed up?
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;HankD
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, (or Calvin), or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
-
Allan said:Why?
It is a secondary aspect ONLY in light of mechanics of election. Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.
That is election, is it not?
So the 'why' is secondary with regard to the mechanics of election but is synonymously primary as to the reason of and for election.
Why did God elect a people from those who rebelled and now were enemies at best with God? Because He loved some of them? Did He love His plan and purpose more than His creation? If His election WAS based on love, then what was it that God loved of some and not others that He would pass them over and not save them?
That is what I have been taught as a Non-Cal through both SBC and Independant Baptist Churches I was apart of growing up and in school. As I have always stated - God decrees in conjunction with His knowledge.
BUT.. to get back to the OP ... Do you think the rise of Calvinism is do to a Calvinistic understanding of election? :)Click to expand...
God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting. -
Jarthur001 said:In other words...you would disagree with this...(knowing the key word)
God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.Click to expand...
That God decreed His determined will to be and knew those of (later) Faith, in no way differs here (an earlier quote of mine) from what I just posted in this thread.
1. God still determined that salvation was to be through faith. Man didn't get any say.
2. God still determimed who would be saved (those of faith) and man didn't get any say.
3. God did not seek man's input (what He should do, where, why, and how).
4. Therefore man contributed nothing TO his election in the above sense. -
Allan said:No, I don't.
That God knew those of Faith and decreed His will to be, in no way differs here (an earlier quote of mine) from what I just posted in this thread.
1. God still determined that salvation was to be through faith. Man didn't get any say.
2. God still determimed who would be saved (those of faith) and man didn't get any say.
3. God did not seek man's input (what He should do, where, why, and how).
4. Therefore man contributed nothing TO his election in the above sense.Click to expand...
And this would be the point Allan...so take note.
Calvinist WOULD disagree. Got it??
God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.Click to expand...
So...we do not agree on election.
as rippon has said...
as I have said...
:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: -
Jarthur001 said:And this would be the point Allan...so take note.
Calvinist WOULD disagree. Got it??Click to expand...
Your statement in quotes above...we do not agree with. The creeds before 1890 do not agree with that quoteClick to expand...
Do you affirm that God did not know who those of faith are to be?
So...we do not agree on election.Click to expand...
Just curious though James, would you sign off on this statement:
Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.Click to expand...
as rippon has said...Click to expand...
Again , election is and has been taught very differently among the two quite divergent campsClick to expand...
as I have said...Click to expand... -
Allan said:No. What did you disagree with in post which stated God determined it all and man had no input. :)
Please elaborate what they disagree with since nothing you have set forth stands in contrast to what I set forth. God did not elect 'based on foreseen faith'. God determined and man didn't get any say. So I'm curious, to what are you against in those statements?Click to expand...
God knowing they WILL believe the truth and what He knows they will do He predestines or decrees that their choice to BE... for accepting or rejecting.Click to expand...
God knows because God choose who He would open their eyes to the truth, not as you said above based on who believes, but based on who he chooses, and this choice is decreed by Him.Click to expand...
My statement is based in Gods choice alone. He know for He caused it. Get it?
Do you affirm that God did not know who those of faith are to be?Click to expand...
You haven't said WHY we are supposedly disagreeing about election and haven't shown where any confession set forth by either of us why my statements would violate what is set forth in them. :BangHead:Click to expand...
Just curious though James, would you sign off on this statement:
For the sake of argument, it seems likely that you would have considered the statement, but (presumably) since you knew it was a non-Cal writting it you needed clarification and asked 'But why'?Click to expand...
Election is the fact of God chosing/electing to Himself a people whereby we as a people had no say in the matter as to the method (faith) and the means (gospel) of salvation. Therefore man contributed nothing to his election nor did God seek mans input. He determined salvation was to be through faith that it might be by grace and all those of faith (future) were known to Him (at that time). And that it was done from the foundation of the world for His own purpose, plan, and good pleasure.Click to expand...
Incorrect. You and Rippon are NOT saying the same thing. He stated:
Again , election is and has been taught very differently among the two quite divergent campsClick to expand...Click to expand...
Wake up man. Look...call it non-Calvinist if you want. In the end, it is a Calvinist statement. For countless times over....all Baptist creeds before 1890, no matter who wrote them, shared a Calvinist view on election. Your statement does not cut it and is not Calvinist. You feel General Baptists is non-Calvinist. They were non-calvinist on the atonement, that is clear to see from their creeds. However....now get this....please write it don't....this is key......ALLAN>>>please look at this>>>>>> On election the General Baptists were Calvinist!!!!<<<<<<<please look at this.
Non-calvinist and Calvinist do not agree on election. never have...never will.
General Baptists do.....for they WERE Calvinist before 1890, other then the atonement. Get it?
Things changed. Got it?
Your statement on election would not fly back then.....by General Baptists or Particular Baptist. Particular stood for Particular Atonement. General stood for General Atonement. ELECTION WAS THE SAME WITHIN BAPTIST!!!!!!!!!
This made them 4 point Calvinist!!!! Get it?
So...why did Rippon say both sides never agreed? Why do I agree with him?
Because non-calvinist never agreed on election. But the other side was outside of Baptist. Wesley was NOT BAPTIST. You wrote a Wesley type of statement on election.
Nowadays....many baptist DO AGREE with your statement now. But this was not the case before 1890. Get it?
I don't know how else to say it Allan. -
Jarthur001 said:You statement is based on "they that believe" and what He "knew they will do".
My statement is based in Gods choice alone. He know for He caused it. Get it?Click to expand...
My statement NOT ONCE said God chose them BECAUSE they would beleive, but that God chose salvation to be THROUGH FAITH and knew all those of faith.
Election is not based on mans choice to have faith and that is why God chose them. Election is based solely on fact of God's choice that salvation woud be through faith, and at the same time knew all who would be. YOUR NOT GETTING IT. God didn't look down time to find out and then say 'that's a good idea'. God chose to save through faith, and knew all who would believe.
don't be silly. He know because he choose. You say He choose because of who believes. Get it?Click to expand...
You are saying this is a non-Calvinist statement. I say it is a Calvinist statement.Click to expand...
It is clear it is not the same as your statement. Notice it is based on GOD, not what man does. Election is not based on who believes...this statement clearly says this.Click to expand...
SO..I could agree with this statement. It is not worded the way I would word it. But it says nothing wrong.Click to expand...
But it says nothing about foreknowing is the base of election...which is what parts the two sidesClick to expand...
Hello Allan,
Wake up man. Look...call it non-Calvinist if you want. In the end, it is a Calvinist statement. For countless times over....all Baptist creeds before 1890, no matter who wrote them, shared a Calvinist view on election.Click to expand...
Your statement does not cut it and is not Calvinist.Click to expand...
SO..I could agree with this statement.Click to expand...You feel General Baptists is non-Calvinist. They were non-calvinist on the atonement, that is clear to see from their creeds. However....now get this....please write it don't....this is key......ALLAN>>>please look at this>>>>>> On election the General Baptists were Calvinist!!!!<<<<<<<please look at this.Click to expand...
Non-calvinist and Calvinist do not agree on election. never have...never will.Click to expand...
General Baptists do.....for they WERE Calvinist before 1890, other then the atonement. Get it?Click to expand...
They were more like 2 or maybe 3 point Calvinistic at best.
I can not find ONE sourse that states the General Baptists were Calvinists or 4 point Calvinists - other than from you.
Wiki- states:
Baptists were first identified by the name General Baptists in 17th century England. They were called General Baptists because they believed in a general atonement — holding that the death of Christ made salvation possible for any persons who voluntarily exercise faith in Christ. These churches were Arminian in tendency and held the possibility of falling from grace.
...
"Many of the Particular Baptists also effectively sat out of the revival, being especially sceptical of Wesley due to his Arminianism" [1]. Wesley's Arminianism posed no problems for General Baptists.Click to expand...
Here : http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/baptist.htm
Baptists in the twentieth century have predominantly leaned toward the more Arminian theology of the General Baptists,Click to expand...
The True Baptist Trail
by Chris Traffanstedt
Early Baptists
General Baptists
This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in a “general” atonement.4 The General Baptists also had a distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. ...
Now we turn our attention to Thomas Helwys. He had a somewhat rocky relationship with Smyth, but after Smyth began moving away from the General Baptist belief, Helwys carried on the Baptist beginnings. Helwys led his small group to England in 1611 and this was considered to be the first Baptist Church on English soil. This group held to believer’s baptism, they rejected Calvinism for a free will position (which included falling from grace), and they allowed each church to elect its officers, both elders and deacons.6 By 1624, there were five known General Baptist churches and by 1650 they numbered at least 47.7 Even though some might see the modern-day Baptist movement in this group, we must understand that the beliefs of this group are far from the reformed heritage that shaped modern-day Baptist belief.Click to expand...
So the General Baptists are not considered part of the Reformed heritage, at least according to one partially reliable (wiki) and two Reformed sourses.
General Baptists DID NOT only have a problem with the Reformed position of Atonement but did in fact tend toward many Arminian views. But since they were not specifically Arminian, that would bring them into a very real Non-Cal position (depending on the specific beliefs of the churches).
This made them 4 point Calvinist!!!! Get it?Click to expand...
So...why did Rippon say both sides never agreed? Why do I agree with him?
Because non-calvinist never agreed on election. But the other side was outside of Baptist. Wesley was NOT BAPTIST. You wrote a Wesley type of statement on election.Click to expand... -
James,
To continue this is really pointless right now since we are going round robin and it has taken the thread WAY OFF COURSE :)
I applogize Martin and to others for that.
It has been good and fun while frustrating to me. But I expect that somewhat from our debates. Have good evening James. May our Lord continue to richly bless you according to His purpose and Love.
Page 8 of 9