Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

RSS Robot

Calvinism Committee Issues Report, Urges Sbc To 'stand Together' For Great Commission

Recommended Posts

That is just not true.  The first English baptists were Particular Baptists, an the 1689 and earlier Baptist confessions of faith were all Particular Baptists.  I am not a Calvinist. I just believe what the scripture says.  Freewill baptists came later,

 

That is just not true Baptists existed long before Calvin was ever born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just not true Baptists existed long before Calvin was ever born.


To be fair Calvin was early to mid 1500's and his date is mid 1600's, but I agree with your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair Calvin was early to mid 1500's and his date is mid 1600's, but I agree with your statement.

Not to mention most Baptist churches here don't know the line they are connected to, or if they are even actually connected to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just not true Baptists existed long before Calvin was ever born.

The doctrine is established by reference to Scripture, NOT to Calvin.

 

In any case, the GREAT offence of the Anabaptists was not to recognise infant baptism, and thus not to recognise the authority of the state church, whether RC, Orthodox, Lutheran or Calvinist  - or even King James' established Anglican Church.  They were all prepared to kill the baptists.

 

Baptism should NEVER be a denomination, but a practice for Gospel churches to baptise new believers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just not true.  The first English baptists were Particular Baptists, an the 1689 and earlier Baptist confessions of faith were all Particular Baptists.  I am not a Calvinist. I just believe what the scripture says.  Freewill baptists came later,

Although it is true that Particular Baptists have been around from what we'll call "the beginning", and thus, no one can historically claim that who we look to as our Baptist fore-father's heritage is indeed littered with Particular Baptists, the earliest known Baptist confession (by name) is the confession drawn up by Thomas Helwys and it is not Calvinistic.  It also pre-dates the 1689, which is pretty much just the Westminster Confession re-written for Baptists.

 

Thomas Helwys was the first permanent Baptist and founder of the First Baptist Church in England. Helwys was Arminian in theology as evidenced in his 1611 A Declaration of Faith.

 

After breaking with John Smyth in 1610, Thomas Helwys wrote A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland in 1611. Recognized by the majority of Baptist scholars as the first true English Baptist confession of the faith, the purpose of A Declaration of Faith was to differentiate the beliefs of Helwy’s congregation from that of Smyth’s.

 

Full link here:

http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Thomas-Helwys-Baptist-and-Arminian.pdf

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The doctrine is established by reference to Scripture, NOT to Calvin.
 
In any case, the GREAT offence of the Anabaptists was not to recognise infant baptism, and thus not to recognise the authority of the state church, whether RC, Orthodox, Lutheran or Calvinist  - or even King James' established Anglican Church.  They were all prepared to kill the baptists.
 
Baptism should NEVER be a denomination, but a practice for Gospel churches to baptise new believers.

While I am not a Calvinist, I agree that the doctrines commonly called "Calvinism" do indeed pre-date Calvin, and it is not fair or prudent to simply link all "Calvinists" in with Calvin specifically as he is not the originator of all of those ideas.
 
The term "Calvinism" is convenient, but not every "Calvinist" should feel required to defend Calvin specifically.  Many of the ideas we commonly call "Calvinism" were around before the reformation.  This link from the Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of the medieval monk/theologian Gottschalk who preached some particular tenents now understood to be "Calvinist" in nature.

There are many intimations from Augustine through to Calvin on some of the particulars of Calvinist Soteriology.
 

If we may believe his opponents, Gottschalk misinterpreted some difficult some passages in the writings of St. Augustine and developed a false doctrine of double complete predestination for eternal salvation and for eternal reprobation

...... There is nothing in his extant writings that cannot be interpreted in a Catholic sense. He, indeed, taught that God does not wish all men to be saved, and that Christ died only for those who were predestined to be saved...... He may have meant (and certain passages in his extant writings warrant the assumption) that, in consequence of God's foreknowing that that some menwilldie on sin, He does not wish these to be saved; and that Christ's death was of no avail to those who will be damned for their sins.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06682a.htm

 

From Gottschalk's reply to Rabanus Maurus:

 

Indeed, just as He [God] predestined all of the elect to life through the gratuity of the free grace of His kindness, as the pages of the Old and New Testaments very clearly, skillfully, and soberly show those seeking wisdom on this matter, so also He altogether predestined the reprobate to the punishment of eternal death, of course, through the most righteous judgment of His immutable justice. (Reply to Rabanus Maurus, Gottschalk of Orbias)

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Gottschalk's reply to Rabanus Maurus:

 

Indeed, just as He [God] predestined all of the elect to life through the gratuity of the free grace of His kindness, as the pages of the Old and New Testaments very clearly, skillfully, and soberly show those seeking wisdom on this matter, so also He altogether predestined the reprobate to the punishment of eternal death, of course, through the most righteous judgment of His immutable justice. (Reply to Rabanus Maurus, Gottschalk of Orbias)

 

6These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19A false witness that speaketh lies,

 

Six million Jews were sent to the death camps and shown no mercy or grace because one man chose them to go there.. This false doctrine makes God out to be no better than Hitler.. For those who entertain the idea of teaching this stuff to others, I'd seriously reconsider before it gets too far along.........

 

1 Timothy 4:1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention most Baptist churches here don't know the line they are connected to, or if they are even actually connected to one.

 

I have posted many articles on our history, I guess with you making this statement means you are in complete disagreement with us Baptist. No wonder your in a nondenominational church & you feel all the Baptist churches within your area are bad churches. If I disagree with the Baptist on this issue as you do I would separate from the Baptist churches too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19A false witness that speaketh lies,

 

Six million Jews were sent to the death camps and shown no mercy or grace because one man chose them to go there.. This false doctrine makes God out to be no better than Hitler.. For those who entertain the idea of teaching this stuff to others, I'd seriously reconsider before it gets too far along.........

 

1 Timothy 4:1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;.....

 

Yes, Calvinism is false doctrine, and Gottschalk was mistaken.............I only posted that in order to demonstrate that, historically, the set of doctrines we commonly call "Calvinism" have roots which run far deeper than John Calvin.  Much of Calvin's ideology was built on the writings of Augustine and even Martin Luther was far closer to possessing a "Calvinistic" point of view than modern Independent Baptists are.  I imagine some of Calvin's personal views were shaped somewhat by Luther. 

     What we commonly call "Calvinism" now was really more codified by the man who proceeded him, Theodore Beza.  Calvin stopped short of admitting to "double-predestination".  Beza had no problem with continuing the logic that Calvin expressed, and was Supra-lapsarian as well.  Personally, I do not find Infra-lapsarianism to be a logically consistent form of Calvinism.  I believe consistent Calvinism demands accession to Supra-lapsarianism and double-predestination.

Edited by Heir of Salvation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted many articles on our history, I guess with you making this statement means you are in complete disagreement with us Baptist. No wonder your in a nondenominational church & you feel all the Baptist churches within your area are bad churches. If I disagree with the Baptist on this issue as you do I would separate from the Baptist churches too.

You seem to have a serious problem with an IFB who chooses to attend a biblically sound independent church pastored by Baptists rather than attend an IFB church which has turned left. I would much rather be an IFB in a biblically sound church than be an IFB in an IFB church that was compromised.

 

Regardless of your views on the matter, I'm a Baptist so when you say "us Baptists", that includes me.

 

Yes, I've read the histories of Baptists, and some are far more accurate than others. Even with that Baptist history, how many Baptist churches in this country can trace their line back to a specific group of Baptists?

 

I have no disagreement with biblically sound Baptists, but I do disagree with false histories and will stand upon the truth even if it's not what I would prefer it to be. I've been a Bible believing IFB for decades and if being one means anything at all, it means standing upon the Word of God, not attempts to outdo the RCC in doing anything one can to claim a direct line to the Apostles. The Apostles started non-denominational churches, not Baptist churches, so one shouldn't knock all non-denominational churches just because many of the modern variety are like so many other churches in America today.

 

As you have even pointed out before, the RCC destroyed much history so it's impossible to know all the truth about the origin of Baptists. The truth is, it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have even pointed out before, the RCC destroyed much history so it's impossible to know all the truth about the origin of Baptists. The truth is, it doesn't matter.

 

I disagree with this.  Try reading America in Crimson Red.  The truth is there and published, one just has to believe the past and not the history re constructionist.  It does matter and if you knew the history you would not make a statement like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this.  Try reading America in Crimson Red.  The truth is there and published, one just has to believe the past and not the history re constructionist.  It does matter and if you knew the history you would not make a statement like that.

 

Great book! I need to reread it. Author came to our revival last July that's when I bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have a serious problem with an IFB who chooses to attend a biblically sound independent church pastored by Baptists rather than attend an IFB church which has turned left. I would much rather be an IFB in a biblically sound church than be an IFB in an IFB church that was compromised.

 

Regardless of your views on the matter, I'm a Baptist so when you say "us Baptists", that includes me.

 

Yes, I've read the histories of Baptists, and some are far more accurate than others. Even with that Baptist history, how many Baptist churches in this country can trace their line back to a specific group of Baptists?

 

I have no disagreement with biblically sound Baptists, but I do disagree with false histories and will stand upon the truth even if it's not what I would prefer it to be. I've been a Bible believing IFB for decades and if being one means anything at all, it means standing upon the Word of God, not attempts to outdo the RCC in doing anything one can to claim a direct line to the Apostles. The Apostles started non-denominational churches, not Baptist churches, so one shouldn't knock all non-denominational churches just because many of the modern variety are like so many other churches in America today.

 

As you have even pointed out before, the RCC destroyed much history so it's impossible to know all the truth about the origin of Baptists. The truth is, it doesn't matter.

 

 

Its clear that you feel all the articles I posted about the history of us Baptist is nothing but lies. And as I stated, if I believe they were lies I would never call myself a Baptist of any type & I would not have posted them. If I thought they were lies I would separate from all churches that has the name Baptist on their doors for i do not want to be part of any group that puts out lies about their self.

 

I'll help you out once again, here is where you can learn some truths about the people who go by the name Baptist, that is if your interested in our origin & history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this.  Try reading America in Crimson Red.  The truth is there and published, one just has to believe the past and not the history re constructionist.  It does matter and if you knew the history you would not make a statement like that.

I don't recall this work tracing each Baptist church in America back to the original Baptists and through all the different Baptists in between.

 

What does it matter if a church with the Baptist name can trace it's roots back to a specific Baptist church in the 1600s if that church is not biblically sound? Would not a Baptist church that is biblically sound yet hasn't traced their ancestry be more pleasing to God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its clear that you feel all the articles I posted about the history of us Baptist is nothing but lies. And as I stated, if I believe they were lies I would never call myself a Baptist of any type & I would not have posted them. If I thought they were lies I would separate from all churches that has the name Baptist on their doors for i do not want to be part of any group that puts out lies about their self.

 

I'll help you out once again, here is where you can learn some truths about the people who go by the name Baptist, that is if your interested in our origin & history.

I have never said all Baptist history is lies. What I've said is that some of what is put forth in some Baptist histories is not true and some is overstretched. Attempts to claim the Apostles were Baptists and there have been Baptist churches since the Apostles simply isn't true. Attempts to claim that different groups which existed between the time of the Apostles and the first known mention of actual Baptists were really Baptists are not sound. Many of the groups they claim to be Baptists by another name held to several unbiblical positions.

 

One can love being a Baptist and love sound Baptist churches without having to accept untruths or demanding that there must be a solid line of history that each Baptist church can follow back for 6,000 years.

 

It's also important to remember that what we call IFB has not been around that long. IFBs began with those breaking off from other churches that were going soft.

 

It's also important to note how many different "histories" of Baptists is out there and they don't agree with one another. It's also interesting to note how many different Baptist groups have a history they say speaks specifically to them and their histories build up their branch while minimizing the others.

 

Here is another Baptist history if anyone is interested:

http://bible-truth.org/BaptistHistory.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, I never said that the RCC destroyed ALL records, I did say they tried to destroy all records, as they tried to also destroy all of those who held to the same doctrine we Baptist hold to today.
 
If they succeeded, them they our foxed God, & I promise you they did not do that. There has not be a human, or group of humans in history that were able to our fox God. If, I say only if, they had, them our God would be a very weak God, that He is not.
 
Nondenominational church is a Protestant church, us Baptist are not Protestants, we did not come out of, nor were we founded after Luther came out of the RCC. Yes, there’s many Baptist out there that’s Protestant, & they look towards us about the same as you.
 
Jesus said.
 
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
 
If a Protestant church is the best anyone can do them they’re in trouble, for Jesus said those who worship Me must worship Me in Spirit & truth.
 
The history is out there for those who want it, & if they will check it out, compare it with the Bible, they will find that those whom are called Baptist are true worshipers of God & Jesus. Most people that do so are looking for contradictions, trying to prove that us Baptist stand on lies. Go searching for the truth, & God will help you find it.
 
I've given you a starting place, the rest is up to you.
 
I might add, the RCC tried to keep the Bible out of the hand of normal people, they wanted only those of the RCC to have a Bible,in doing this they destroyed many Bibles. Thank God they did not succeed. Yet you can succeed when fighting against God? No one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, non-denominational church isn't necessarily protestant. Don't forget, the first churches formed by the Apostles were non-denominational.

 

The particular church I attend now was formed as a non-denominational for the sake of complete independence and separation. At the time this church was formed in the early 1800s there was a great deal of contention within most churches, including the Baptist churches. Much of this contention had already turned from being a matter of what was and wasn't biblical, into political contentions. Contentious politics and other worldly matters were afflicting the churches so in order to be clearly separated from this and be clearly independent they formed the church without denominational title.

 

Who was the first Baptist? Where was the first Baptist church established?

 

While I love being Baptist, I don't place the name of Baptist above what Scripture calls believers, which isn't Baptist, and I accept the Word of God as being enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Who was the first Baptist? Where was the first Baptist church established?


Easy......
John. :D

At least that's what the Bible says.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy......
John. :D

At least that's what the Bible says.... ;)

:clapping: Unfortunately, I know of some Baptists who claim the Baptist church began with him and violently oppose the truth of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just check out the history, & compare it with what a New Testament is suppose to be, them you just might see the truth of this matter.

 

And I am in no way saying that every church that has Baptist on its door is a true new Testament Church, there's many Baptist Churches out there that is nothing but a Protestant Church which the one your a part of sounds to be from your statement.

Edited by JerryNumbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just check out the history, & compare it with what a New Testament is suppose to be, them you just might see the truth of this matter.

 

And I am in no way saying that every church that has Baptist on its door is a true new Testament Church, there's many Baptist Churches out there that is nothing but a Protestant Church which the one your a part of sounds to be from your statement.

Nope, nothing protestant about the church I attend. The church I attend decided to go independent and separate from the worldly direction the other churches were going, many decades before IFB churches even came into being.

 

As you point out, Baptist on the door is meaningless, it's what's taught inside that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I did not point out that Baptist on the door is meaningless! I did not ever come close to stating that! Your reading into my post that which I did no say. I did state even though a church had Baptist on its door that does not prove its a true Baptist Church. There are churches that use our name but do not hold to the Baptist distinetives proclaimed in the Holy Bible.

 

Us Baptist, that is those of us that holds to the truths our bothers & sisters have held to down though the ages, that were persecuted for doing so, who hold to the very same distinetives known as Baptist distinetives, but known by different names are still under very heavy attack in the 2,000. There is so many people who thinks one church is just as good as any other church yet Jesus tells everyone with ears to hear that the path is narrow, & strait, & few there be that enters therein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above statement ( In many points he contradicted himself) begs a question namely; Did he indeed contradict himself, or was he so intent on dealing with the subject at hand that he did not elucidate every singular point and several texts must be viewed collectively to properly construe his theology?

 

I know that if I took the time to clarify and ensure no possible misunderstanding in everything as I preached or taught (is there a difference and if so, what is the difference -- is a subject for a separate thread), it would take an hour and a quarter to preach a 10-20 minute message.

When I find it, I will show where Spurgeon did contradict himself many times on free will. It seemed the more he studied it, the more he began to digress from a total Calvinistic view of free will and in some sermons, mixed both views (his and Calvin's) in one sermon.

 

The Baptist Confession itself has a few contradictions. But that is to be expected when you elevate creeds and confessions above the Bible. Calvinists deny this, but they ultimately ALWAYS revert to the creeds or Institutes as a final resolution of any Scriptural debate because they can not defend Calvinism or Reformed Theology without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...