Reformed Arminian

[discipulo]

3. How and where do "Methodists tie this belief to their paedobaptism practice as well"? I'm not sure what you are using "this" to refer to. Honestly, most Methodists have no answer to why they are paedobaptists.

There is actually a Welsh branch of the Calvinistic Methodist Movement

that pretty much became the Presbyterian Church of Wales

which finds its roots in the XVIIIth century Methodism and even had a direct influence from George Whitefield.

But developed from there to become Confessional:

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales of 1823

Covenantal:

Article 9 Of the Covenant of Works.

It pleased God to condescend to enter into covenant with the first man, Adam

Article 13. Of the Eternal Covenant of Grace.

And stands for paedobaptism:

Article 38. Of Baptism.

(…) All who profess themselves believers, and their infant children, have a scriptural right to this ordinance.

As may seen on link below

Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists (1823)

This confession may provide the answers you request.

Hoping this may be useful.



.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . . Now I understand it much better, because the Remonstrant article on depravity was not so close to Pelagius.

So it is through a universal, rather than a particular, concept of prevenient grace

that they reach their concept of universal enablement – all are able to believe.

And that, is truly Pelagian! . . .

I would merely emphasize what Mr. Plauger mentioned above -- that Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is supernaturalistic, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. (This is pointed out by B.B. Warfield in his Plan of Salvation)

Semi-pelagianism is naturalistic in saying that we cooperate with God's grace by natural free will which was not lost in the Fall. Arminianism says that we are totally depraved by the Fall, but God's grace has universally restored man's free will such that he is enabled to respond to and cooperate with God's grace unto salvation. Total depravity becomes almost a shell game with them.

 

[discipulo]

I would merely emphasize what Mr. Plauger mentioned above -- that Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is supernaturalistic, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. (This is pointed out by B.B. Warfield in his Plan of Salvation)

Semi-pelagianism is naturalistic in saying that we cooperate with God's grace by natural free will which was not lost in the Fall. Arminianism says that we are totally depraved by the Fall, but God's grace has universally restored man's free will such that he is enabled to respond to and cooperate with God's grace unto salvation. Total depravity becomes almost a shell game with them.

Thank you brother, I just picked that small powerful little book from Warfield

If you notice on the board with the order of the Decrees - the Remonstrant

are side by side with the Pelagian on the same section on the right

under the title – Naturalistic

What are your thoughts on this?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:28:09 EST-----

Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is supernaturalistic, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. (This is pointed out by B.B. Warfield in his Plan of Salvation).

I use the word Remonstrants - as B B Warfield does too, because they are the direct followers of

Jacobus Arminius, being Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius, …

But you are the Calvinist Franciscus Gomarus,

you surely are acquainted with these bunch of guys


Mea culpa - Warfield doesn't use the word Arminian

on the board but - Remonstrant - being Naturalistic

While placing Wesleyan on the Supernaturalistic side.

Yet, through the book also places the Arminian,

such a big umbrella now anyway, as a Supernaturalistic system.

No wonder we get confused

But it's important to keep that in mind. Thank you.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . . Warfield doesn't use the word arminian,

but places John Wesley on the Supernaturalistic side,

so surely that’s what you mean.

And it's important to keep that in mind. Thank you.

Yes, I was equating Wesleyan with Arminian. In looking at my old copy, Warfield does indeed put the Remonstrance under naturalistic and Wesleyan under supernaturalistic. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TsonMariytho]

I find a several of assertions here that beg for proof and/or further explanation as to why you believe they are true.

1. "The Methodists presume of all people what many Presbyterians presume of their children ..." Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two? The Methodists base their presumptions on an unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace, whereas the Presbyterians base theirs on a biblical doctrine of covenant.

I suppose this is not the proper thread for me to explain why I regard both to be unbiblical.

Regardless, when you say "Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two", that echos my statement: "There are obviously some important differences".

2. Are you implying that regeneration comes from the use of intermediate human means?

Of course God can work regeneration upon a human spirit whenever he chooses to. However, the only kind of which we are able to recognize the fruits, is that which evidences itself in reception to the gospel message -- which we all insist is delivered exclusively through human means.

3. How and where do "Methodists tie this belief to their paedobaptism practice as well"? I'm not sure what you are using "this" to refer to. Honestly, most Methodists have no answer to why they are paedobaptists.

I'm sure it is true that many rank and file Methodists, just like their Presbyterian counterparts, "have no answer"; but denominationally, again just like Presbyterians, their theologians present multiple answers, some of them conflicting with scripture and with each other.

Interestingly, Methodists sometimes make a similar argument from the Abrahamic Covenant to justify their paedobaptisms. They believe that a child enters into covenant with God.

For a discussion of infant baptism that mentions both "preventing (prevenient) grace" and the above mentioned covenantal spin from the context of the Wesleys' writings (i.e. worship directives by John, and hymns by Charles), see American Methodist Worship by Karen Tucker, pp. 89ff.

4. Are the similarities only superficial and intriguing because you assume that covenant children and paedobaptism are somehow connected to prevenient grace?

In both cases, they presume a work of (some kind of) regeneration upon certain people, and they assume that it happens even though the Word of God has not been preached to these people via human means. It's interesting from a more strict evangelical perspective.

If no prophet has yet been sent to say "Dry Bones, hear the Word of the LORD", do we normally assume that the bones have joined together, gained flesh and sinews, and are standing up on their own*? No. So it's something of a theologican curiosity to me that some denominations make such presumptions.

* To be fair, the Methodists differentiate between this spiritual quickening and "Regeneration" with a capital "R", which at least John Wesley restricted in normal circumstances to the administration of baptism (see reference above). But as a Calvinist, I must see their theology through glasses they'd prefer me not to look through, because to me a human spirit is either dead (unregenerate) or living (regenerate).

You have painted with a broad brush here and I'd be interested in where the finer lines and borders occur in what you are saying.

I'm afraid you must be disappointed with my explanation, as I doubt the parallel is nearly as interesting to you as to me.

 

[Whitefield]

I find a several of assertions here that beg for proof and/or further explanation as to why you believe they are true.

1. "The Methodists presume of all people what many Presbyterians presume of their children ..." Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two? The Methodists base their presumptions on an unbiblical doctrine of prevenient grace, whereas the Presbyterians base theirs on a biblical doctrine of covenant.

I suppose this is not the proper thread for me to explain why I regard both to be unbiblical.

Regardless, when you say "Isn't there a fundamental and radical difference between the two", that echos my statement: "There are obviously some important differences".

2. Are you implying that regeneration comes from the use of intermediate human means?

Of course God can work regeneration upon a human spirit whenever he chooses to. However, the only kind of which we are able to recognize the fruits, is that which evidences itself in reception to the gospel message -- which we all insist is delivered exclusively through human means.



I'm sure it is true that many rank and file Methodists, just like their Presbyterian counterparts, "have no answer"; but denominationally, again just like Presbyterians, their theologians present multiple answers, some of them conflicting with scripture and with each other.

Interestingly, Methodists sometimes make a similar argument from the Abrahamic Covenant to justify their paedobaptisms. They believe that a child enters into covenant with God.

For a discussion of infant baptism that mentions both "preventing (prevenient) grace" and the above mentioned covenantal spin from the context of the Wesleys' writings (i.e. worship directives by John, and hymns by Charles), see American Methodist Worship by Karen Tucker, pp. 89ff.

4. Are the similarities only superficial and intriguing because you assume that covenant children and paedobaptism are somehow connected to prevenient grace?

In both cases, they presume a work of (some kind of) regeneration upon certain people, and they assume that it happens even though the Word of God has not been preached to these people via human means. It's interesting from a more strict evangelical perspective.

If no prophet has yet been sent to say "Dry Bones, hear the Word of the LORD", do we normally assume that the bones have joined together, gained flesh and sinews, and are standing up on their own*? No. So it's something of a theologican curiosity to me that some denominations make such presumptions.

* To be fair, the Methodists differentiate between this spiritual quickening and "Regeneration" with a capital "R", which at least John Wesley restricted in normal circumstances to the administration of baptism (see reference above). But as a Calvinist, I must see their theology through glasses they'd prefer me not to look through, because to me a human spirit is either dead (unregenerate) or living (regenerate).

You have painted with a broad brush here and I'd be interested in where the finer lines and borders occur in what you are saying.

I'm afraid you must be disappointed with my explanation, as I doubt the parallel is nearly as interesting to you as to me.

Thank you for your explanation. You have given me a clearer understanding of the dots you were connecting. However, in #2, I wonder what exclusive human means were being used in Acts 9:1-9.

It is my conclusion that within Arminian/Wesleyan understanding about paedobaptism there is a humorous irony. With their emphasis on free-will, one would think they would be credobaptists. My theory as to why Methodists practice paedobaptism is more due to their inheritance of a Reformed thread via their Anglican roots. The knowledge of covenant baptism has disappeared but the practice remains. When I point this out to my Methodist colleagues, they have no answer but "we've always done it"; they cannot answer why.

 

[TsonMariytho]

However, in #2, I wonder what exclusive human means were being used in Acts 9:1-9.

Re: Saul/Paul's conversion:

Yes, this example of miraculous special revelation is a counter-example to the pattern I asserted is the normal case. But the transmission of the Word in the "normal case" has to start somewhere!

The apostles and prophets are in a different category than the rest of us. We believe that the Spirit of God directly inspired the apostles and prophets who form the foundation of the Church, with of course Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate as the chief Cornerstone -- who again, personally taught the apostles, a distinction today's ministers should not claim.

So I would categorize Paul as one of the beginnings of that human means which God typically uses to bring his life-giving Word to the rest of the world. The rest of us read it in the human-transmitted Bible, or hear it as preached by human ministers, such as yourself, who faithfully transmit God's Word to your hearers. But you didn't make your message up -- you got it from apostles/prophets like Paul, who got it directly from the Source.

 

[Whitefield]

However, in #2, I wonder what exclusive human means were being used in Acts 9:1-9.

Re: Saul/Paul's conversion:

Yes, this example of miraculous special revelation is a counter-example to the pattern I asserted is the normal case. But the transmission of the Word in the "normal case" has to start somewhere!

The apostles and prophets are in a different category than the rest of us. We believe that the Spirit of God directly inspired the apostles and prophets who form the foundation of the Church, with of course Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate as the chief Cornerstone -- who again, personally taught the apostles, a distinction today's ministers should not claim.

So I would categorize Paul as one of the beginnings of that human means which God typically uses to bring his life-giving Word to the rest of the world. The rest of us read it in the human-transmitted Bible, or hear it as preached by human ministers, such as yourself, who faithfully transmit God's Word to your hearers. But you didn't make your message up -- you got it from apostles/prophets like Paul, who got it directly from the Source.

I don't disagree with what you say. I guess, I choked on the word "exclusive". I prefer, with you, the word normal means, but I always want to be open to those special situations where God can intervene to save his elect. Referring to Acts 9 reminds of a conversation I once had with a man who said that "God woos us and never forces himself upon us. It's not like he uses a baseball bat to get us into the kingdom of heaven." I pointed him to Act 9 and said, "Looks like a Louisville Slugger to me!"

 

[TsonMariytho]

Lance / Whitefield, I only just viewed your profile and realized that you are currently serving as a (Reformed) ordained pastor in the UMC. I feel a little bit embarrassed at having presumed to lecture you on the subject of Methodist theology, and certainly appreciate your gracious interaction.

 

[Prufrock]

It is my conclusion that within Arminian/Wesleyan understanding about paedobaptism there is a humorous irony. With their emphasis on free-will, one would think they would be credobaptists. My theory as to why Methodists practice paedobaptism is more due to their inheritance of a Reformed thread via their Anglican roots. The knowledge of covenant baptism has disappeared but the practice remains. When I point this out to my Methodist colleagues, they have no answer but "we've always done it"; they cannot answer why.

You might be interested to know that I knew of several credobaptist methodists (if such a thing makes sense) in my general area many years ago (I came out of the UMC) -- although, I'm pretty sure they were Free Methodists.

 

[Whitefield]

Lance / Whitefield, I only just viewed your profile and realized that you are currently serving as a (Reformed) ordained pastor in the UMC. I feel a little bit embarrassed at having presumed to lecture you on the subject of Methodist theology, and certainly appreciate your gracious interaction.

No need to be embarrassed. It helps me to have other analyze these things with me. As others explain how they connect their dots it helps me examine how I connect my dots, and it helps me understand those around me who don't even know what the dots look like.

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 02:34:30 EST-----

It is my conclusion that within Arminian/Wesleyan understanding about paedobaptism there is a humorous irony. With their emphasis on free-will, one would think they would be credobaptists. My theory as to why Methodists practice paedobaptism is more due to their inheritance of a Reformed thread via their Anglican roots. The knowledge of covenant baptism has disappeared but the practice remains. When I point this out to my Methodist colleagues, they have no answer but "we've always done it"; they cannot answer why.

You might be interested to know that I knew of several credobaptist methodists (if such a thing makes sense) in my general area many years ago (I came out of the UMC) -- although, I'm pretty sure they were Free Methodists.

Those credobaptist Methodists are usually called "Bapthodists" .. a humorous label they even use on themselves.

 

[Prufrock]

Those credobaptist Methodists are usually called "Bapthodists" .. a humorous label they even use on themselves.

Ha, I've never heard that one before.