Calvinism, Fullerism and Arminianism

[His clay]

I'm interested in starting a discussion on Fullerism. Almost since the moment I got Saved, I have wanted there to be a Soteriology between Calvinism and Arminianism; as I've always called myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet. On and off over the years I've looked into Fullerism, but I think I'm now ready to call my liberal Calvinism; Fullerism. Because some people say Fullerism is 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinism, it's between Arminianism and Calvinism; Fuller was the middle man. But because of Reformed Baptists like Tom Nettles and their affirmations of Fullerism, I can say I'm a 5-Point Fullerite...

Some people call themselves a Calminian. Perhaps Andrew Fuller is the OG Calminian

Why should I, or shouldn't I, start calling myself a Fullerite?

What do you think about my previous question? If you would rather not get an email, then please just say so. It will definitely take longer, but I can take some time to format the paper to this forum.

 

[His clay]

I'm interested in starting a discussion on Fullerism. Almost since the moment I got Saved, I have wanted there to be a Soteriology between Calvinism and Arminianism; as I've always called myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet. On and off over the years I've looked into Fullerism, but I think I'm now ready to call my liberal Calvinism; Fullerism. Because some people say Fullerism is 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinism, it's between Arminianism and Calvinism; Fuller was the middle man. But because of Reformed Baptists like Tom Nettles and their affirmations of Fullerism, I can say I'm a 5-Point Fullerite...

Some people call themselves a Calminian. Perhaps Andrew Fuller is the OG Calminian

Why should I, or shouldn't I, start calling myself a Fullerite?

I'm unsure why you are not responding. I really do wish you well, and I certainly hope that I have not offended you. God bless.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm interested in starting a discussion on Fullerism. Almost since the moment I got Saved, I have wanted there to be a Soteriology between Calvinism and Arminianism; as I've always called myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet. On and off over the years I've looked into Fullerism, but I think I'm now ready to call my liberal Calvinism; Fullerism. Because some people say Fullerism is 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinism, it's between Arminianism and Calvinism; Fuller was the middle man. But because of Reformed Baptists like Tom Nettles and their affirmations of Fullerism, I can say I'm a 5-Point Fullerite...

Some people call themselves a Calminian. Perhaps Andrew Fuller is the OG Calminian

Why should I, or shouldn't I, start calling myself a Fullerite?

WELL HEY!!!! I ascribe PERSONALLY to Carabbianism, and as a Carabbianist, I'm very content with it as a personal systematic!!!

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm unsure why you are not responding. I really do wish you well, and I certainly hope that I have not offended you. God bless.

I'm not offended, I just got busy. I'll check in later...

 

[His clay]

I'm not offended, I just got busy. I'll check in later...

Thanks for the update.

 

[makesends]

I'm interested in starting a discussion on Fullerism. Almost since the moment I got Saved, I have wanted there to be a Soteriology between Calvinism and Arminianism; as I've always called myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet. On and off over the years I've looked into Fullerism, but I think I'm now ready to call my liberal Calvinism; Fullerism. Because some people say Fullerism is 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinism, it's between Arminianism and Calvinism; Fuller was the middle man. But because of Reformed Baptists like Tom Nettles and their affirmations of Fullerism, I can say I'm a 5-Point Fullerite...

Some people call themselves a Calminian. Perhaps Andrew Fuller is the OG Calminian

Why should I, or shouldn't I, start calling myself a Fullerite?

I haven't read much description of Fullerism, but what I have read sounds pretty self-contradictory. I don't honestly know just what he does believe. I can see why someone who believes Arminianistically would claim that Calvinism contradicts itself, if Fuller is representative of Calvinism. But I'll have to read more. Thanks for the OP and the interesting subject.

 

[His clay]

And in an entry in his diary for the 29th April, 1785, he writes, “Somewhat unhappy to see the disrelish, as I think, of one of my friends to the doctrines of sovereign grace. Oh that I may not only believe the truth, but love it!” He reckoned there were three shades of Calvinism; the high, the moderate, and the strict, and considered his own was the latter. http://huntingtonianpress.org/a-ske...ine-of-andrew-fuller-or-fuller-and-fullerism/

Perhaps this would be comparable to New Calvinism being the third kind?

After having looked at the link several times, I do not see a single primary source citation of Andrew Fuller. This is extremely dangerous. We all probably know about the game where one person says something to another, and then they keep on passing on the information down the line. Finally, the last person relays the message, and it is all distorted from the original. The is the main problem of having no primary sourcing. (1) It can lead to a fundamental misconstruction of Andrew Fuller's actual position. (2) It allows a person to say anything that he wants to say about another person. This is extremely dangerous, and it is a clear demonstration of a lack of scholarship. Any reader of the article in the link can see this by simply looking at the endnotes of the article, and you will not find a single, primary source citation of Andrew Fuller.

On a different level, when I wrote my historical paper over Hyper-Calvinism, Jonathan Edwards, Andrew Fuller, and William Carey, I wrote the paper with a mountain of primary sourcing demonstrating a clear line of thinking from Jonathan Edwards to Fuller to Carey. My thoughts about the line of thought were directly related to the primary sources, and I used secondary sources to establish the general hyper-calvinistic context of the times in which Fuller and Carey lived.

I think that the best option might be for me to summarize my paper, one page at a time. That way it will be more compressed, but it will lack the primary sourcing. It is precisely the conflict between (1) summarizing it to keep it readable and (2) citing primary sources to keep it accountable to the primary source (but also radically increasing the size, 21 pages) that leaves me in a quandary about how to proceed.

 

[ReverendRV]

I haven't read much description of Fullerism, but what I have read sounds pretty self-contradictory. I don't honestly know just what he does believe. I can see why someone who believes Arminianistically would claim that Calvinism contradicts itself, if Fuller is representative of Calvinism. But I'll have to read more. Thanks for the OP and the interesting subject.

I am beginning to think that Fullerism is what the average Southern Baptists believe; but don't know it...

 

[His clay]

So I just noticed that you can attach files to a post. Does this include a pdf? And is there a size restriction on the pdf if you can post one? I ask this because I don't want to overstep my bounds for posting in the forum.

I ask this because it is directly relevant to posting a past paper of mine. I can easily convert it into pdf form and post it. I think that it is 21 pages long + bibliography. I would be converting it from a Word document to a pdf.

I'll tag a two people that I think would be helpful on this matter.
@Josheb @Arial

 

[Josheb]

So I just noticed that you can attach files to a post. Does this include a pdf? And is there a size restriction on the pdf if you can post one? I ask this because I don't want to overstep my bounds for posting in the forum.

I ask this because it is directly relevant to posting a past paper of mine. I can easily convert it into pdf form and post it. I think that it is 21 pages long + bibliography. I would be converting it from a Word document to a pdf.

I'll tag a two people that I think would be helpful on this matter.
@Josheb @Arial

I'll read it. If it's just text (no graphics) it should not be a very big file.

 

[His clay]

I'll read it. If it's just text (no graphics) it should not be a very big file.

I think that I've given the other poster ample time to respond, and no response has been received. I'll aim to post it later today. I'll give it one more read through to correct any typos, for typos are sadly inevitable for me. But even then, my perfectionism kicks me when I see portions that I would like to reword or edit to be more concise. It's hard to post stuff that you see as needing more work. And it is very hard to let go of the perfectionism at times. Josheb, I think that you can handle it; but I'm not expecting too many others to be able to handle the section dealing with Jonathan Edwards. Perhaps, I'll be pleasantly surprised, but reading through Edwards is a tad on the bumpy side. And as always, I am appreciative of any substantive feedback others give.

 

[His clay]

I've attached the paper. I perused and edited it up till the end of the section over Jonathan Edwards. I'll mark two individuals who may wish to read it. @Josheb @ReverendRV
Others are welcome to read it as well.
The editing I did was to make the opening introduction a bit more concise and change some wording in other areas. For those who actually read the thing, thanks for taking the time to read it. I welcome any substantive thoughts in response. The paper was written for a Baptist History class. If I remember correctly, I wanted to study Hyper-Calvinism a bit more, and I realized that some prior work in a class over the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards would make the paper easier to research.

 

[Mr GLee]

Thanks, but I am going to let the op answer his questions about his views as he asserts them in his thread. I know @ReverendRV to be fully capable of speaking for himself and fully capable of articulating his own views, including his views on sources other than himself. I also know Rev to be able to self-amend and self-correct any ideas he may have as the evidence warrants. This thread is the opportunity to do exactly that.

Have you got any evidence from Fuller's own words proving that accusation?

Understand what I am asking. I'll frame this in my practice in an effort to avoid you feeling dismissed or accused. I do not generally post appeals to extrabiblical sources unless the topic of discussion is an extrabiblical source, and I do not generally participate in those discussions when I am unfamiliar with the cited source. I definitely don't offer commentary to that effect. If I don't know the source I look him/her up and do a little reading. I might even buy a book and read it while the thread unfolds so I can have an informed understanding and not solely one in which I take scripture and use it to measure assumptions made about the person or person's views being discussed.

Anyone else can, of course, take a different approach BUT do not expect me to entertain uninformed commentary, especially if and when there is no evidence to support that commentary. If unwilling, unable, or unprepared to do that then it's best to ignore my posts lest the reply be my citing the baselessness and ignorance of the post. Posters don't like when I do that.

I do not care.

If you actually know something about Fullerism then prove it, or at least evidence that knowledge with the man's own words and link the readers to the source so it can be objectively verified by all.

Thanks, I am a little snail slow

I would think it is not a salvation issue. More of how we hear who we say we do? There must be differences of opinion called heresies amongst believers. It is from where we get the word sect or denomination, tribe, family.

The kingdom of God that works within these temples not made with human hands. It does not come by us looking to what the eyes see or flesh feels the temporal things. That way he gives us his understanding of His faithfulness as it is written.

God who declares His powerful words that work in dying mankind to both give his understanding and empower us to do it to the good pleasure of the Lord as in Hyper Grace, all grace that can lift us up. .. One should preach repentance and faith to all and pray Christ the teacher may be formed in their new heart .

Part of the article offered by Mr. Clay

SummaryIn summary, hypby er-Calvinism makes the assumption that “ought” implies “ability;” this is joined to an over-emphasis upon the sovereignty of God neglecting God’s declared will in favor of His secret will. On account of natural man’s inability and God’s sovereignty in salvation, one should not offer the gospel to the unregenerate. One should not preach repentance and faith to the unregenerate. Neither should one affirm that faith is a duty, which the unregenerate person is obliged to do. Furthermore, hyper-Calvinism assumes an either/or status regarding people in relation to God’s love and providential benevolence

I would think it is not God’s declared will in favor of His secret will . God. hides the spiritual understanding giving it to the believer. You could say although as one will.

Christ in us who declares His powerful words that faithfully work in dying mankind to both give his understanding and empower us to do it to the good pleasure of the Lord as in Hyper Grace, all grace can hyper lift us up. ..

One should preach repentance and faith. . God's loving call to all, and pray Christ may be formed in their new heart. We preach he does the teaching and bringing to our memory the previous things.

 

[Josheb]

I've attached the paper. I perused and edited it up till the end of the section over Jonathan Edwards. I'll mark two individuals who may wish to read it. @Josheb @ReverendRV
Others are welcome to read it as well.
The editing I did was to make the opening introduction a bit more concise and change some wording in other areas. For those who actually read the thing, thanks for taking the time to read it. I welcome any substantive thoughts in response. The paper was written for a Baptist History class. If I remember correctly, I wanted to study Hyper-Calvinism a bit more, and I realized that some prior work in a class over the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards would make the paper easier to research.

I read the first two pages. I'll do the rest later. Tell me three things: 1) How would you like us to consider this paper in the context of this op (assuming that is the intent)? and 2) Why did you use Phil Johnson and 3) is this the Phil Johnson who works with John MacArthur? The last two queries have nothing specifically to do with the thread but I'm curious about the choice because he's an interesting "hybrid" for the paper. Was there any reason beside his authoring a book on hyper-Calvinism?

 

[Josheb]

Can we all agree "hyper-Calvinism" is a contradiction in terms, and extreme view of Calvinism that is so extreme it is not an accurate portrayal of what Calvin wrote or what monergists within the orthodox mainstream hold? Isn't that the point when using the qualifier "hyper-"?

 

[His clay]

I read the first two pages. I'll do the rest later. Tell me three things: 1) How would you like us to consider this paper in the context of this op (assuming that is the intent)? and 2) Why did you use Phil Johnson and 3) is this the Phil Johnson who works with John MacArthur? The last two queries have nothing specifically to do with the thread but I'm curious about the choice because he's an interesting "hybrid" for the paper. Was there any reason beside his authoring a book on hyper-Calvinism?

(1) The OP gives a view of Fuller that might be correct, but because of its lack of primary sourcing I am prone to doubt. It also seems overly Arminian, rather than a modified Reformed view of Fuller. I think that my paper gets us back to the primary sourcing, and it may help as a corrective to an over emphasis upon Arminian thought.
(2) His article summarized things well. His article seemed to coincide with other sources which helped me understand hyper-calvinism.
(3) Yes, I believe this is the Phil Johnson that works with John MacArthur.

I'm not sure what you mean by "authoring a book on hyper-Calvinism." All that I know of is the article I referenced. I have not followed PJ at all since writing the paper, if memory serves.

 

[His clay]

Can we all agree "hyper-Calvinism" is a contradiction in terms, and extreme view of Calvinism that is so extreme it is not an accurate portrayal of what Calvin wrote or what monergists within the orthodox mainstream hold? Isn't that the point when using the qualifier "hyper-"?

Absolutely. And I hope that your point is clearly evidenced in the paper I posted.

 

[Josheb]

(1) The OP gives a view of Fuller that might be correct, but because of its lack of primary sourcing I am prone to doubt.

I tend to agree, although I might say it is partially correct, not wholly correct.

It also seems overly Arminian, rather than a modified Reformed view of Fuller.

Can you clarify that? What, specifically, seems "overly" Arminian? (some part of one-fifth of TULIP?)

I think that my paper gets us back to the primary sourcing, and it may help as a corrective to an over emphasis upon Arminian thought.
(2) His article summarized things well. His article seemed to coincide with other sources which helped me understand hyper-calvinism.

I don't want to comment on the paper (I found good parts and bad) because that would be digressive.

(3) Yes, I believe this is the Phil Johnson that works with John MacArthur.

I've found Johnson (and MacArthur) questionable sources when it comes to Calvinism and curiously so since Johnson is supposedly an ardent subscriber of Spurgeon (but that, too, is digressive).

I'm not sure what you mean by "authoring a book on hyper-Calvinism." All that I know of is the article I referenced. I have not followed PJ at all since writing the paper, if memory serves.

I stand corrected. I was thinking of the article at the Spurgeon Archive, but I hadn't checked your link when I'd posted. Again, I don't want to get far afield of the op but if Johnson is eschatologically Dispensationalist (like MacArthur) then there are also problems with his soteriology - or inconsistencies within his own doctrines (or both) (like MacArthur). As far as the op goes, I read the list qualifying hyper-Calvinism and kept repeatedly thinking, "Yep, that's what some think is Calvinism, but that's not Calvinism!"




Clarify the "overly Arminian" for me.

 

[His clay]

I tend to agree, although I might say it is partially correct, not wholly correct.

Can you clarify that? What, specifically, seems "overly" Arminian? (some part of one-fifth of TULIP?)

I don't want to comment on the paper (I found good parts and bad) because that would be digressive.

I've found Johnson (and MacArthur) questionable sources when it comes to Calvinism and curiously so since Johnson is supposedly an ardent subscriber of Spurgeon (but that, too, is digressive).

I stand corrected. I was thinking of the article at the Spurgeon Archive, but I hadn't checked your link when I'd posted. Again, I don't want to get far afield of the op but if Johnson is eschatologically Dispensationalist (like MacArthur) then there are also problems with his soteriology - or inconsistencies within his own doctrines (or both) (like MacArthur). As far as the op goes, I read the list qualifying hyper-Calvinism and kept repeatedly thinking, "Yep, that's what some think is Calvinism, but that's not Calvinism!"




Clarify the "overly Arminian" for me.

"Clarify the "overly Arminian" for me." Absolutely, I can definitely give a bit more substance to that. Perhaps, it was just my impression from reading the link referenced in the op. I'll have to reread it to give a more detailed impression. My responses on this clarification will have "Post #2 Article Thoughts" written at the top of each. I'll just simply write post after post, while referencing quotes from the article in post #2.

 

[His clay]

Post #2 Article Thoughts (pt1)

Quote taken from Article linked in post #2.
“The withered wine-skins of outworn Calvinisms were bursting with the ferment of mens’ larger thoughts of God, and with the stronger sense of man’s self-determining moral freedom.” Quote connected to end-note 2 in the article.

The writer of the article quotes another person, who says the above. However, when a person says "self-determining moral freedom" I see somewhat of a disconnect with Fuller's actual position (or potentially a disconnect). When dealing with the primary sources, it looks to me like Fuller is not speaking of libertarian freedom; and often the libertarian freedom advocate will utilize the phrase "self-determining". However, this could be a semantic miss-perception on my part, for "self-determining" could also be colored in a more Edwardsian flavor, where the will is determined by one's highest preference, and in that way it is self-determining. However, my first impression, when reading the above quote is that of the idea of libertarian freedom.