Calvinism, Fullerism and Arminianism

[His clay]

Post #2 Article Thoughts (pt2)

"“The system of doctrine which had at that time prevailed to a considerable extent was a caricature of Calvinism, exercising under some of its points a peculiarly degrading and pernicious influence. From this he was the happy means of rescuing many of the churches, and of leading them to recognise the perfect consistency of the most elevated views of the sovereignty of Divine grace with the most extensive obligations of man to moral and spiritual duties, and the most unlimited invitations to unconverted hearers of the gospel .”" This is a quote from Andrew Gunton Fuller, Andrew Fuller's son.

I actually like this quote, and I think that it does accurately represent Andrew Fuller (the father). I agree that he critiqued the caricature of Calvinism. I agree regarding the consistency of the sovereignty of Divine grace and the responsibility of man. My paper specifically targeted this very issue. As a compatibilist, I can fully agree.

 

[His clay]

Post #2 Article Thoughts (pt3)

I can completely agree with the very next paragraph, following the quote in post #61. The issue of regeneration is in view, and I'm fully on board with that paragraph.

 

[Josheb]

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.

I see. I'm following your case now. So the research you did for your paper inclines you to Fullerism is more Arminian than Fuller or the op would let on to be. Did I understand that correctly?

Edwards -----> Fuller -----> Carey

And perhaps what goes by the moniker "Fullerism" is more accurately called "Careyism" since Carey added to his friend Fuller's views and popularized them (without proper attribution)? I say this because in my own initial (and admittedly surface) investigation of Fuller and his views, Fuller himself wholly identified with Calvin. It's sort of ironic given the previous mention of Johnson because I don't know how Johnson (or any other Dispensationalist) can claim to be Calvinist without being Calvinist-lite. The irony really sets in when the influence of Edwards and then Wesley are seen influencing Batist soteriology (and the subsequent separation of the Reformed Baptists from the soteriological majority (at least as far as Baptists go). Their emphasis n piety directly led to experientialism and that naturally (no pun intended) lends itself to the acceptance of some degree of volitionalism (small or large). And since scripture is so blatantly monergistic on much of the ordo salutis the question of faith before or after regeneration is just about the only place anyone inclined toward synergism can place the sinner's will.

However, in my reading I find the volitionalists don't do a very good job of making that case. They did/do the same thing we see everyday in this forum: the use of verses written about believers applied to non-believers. All the inferences built on that mistake prove fatal once that foundation is removed. I think that is why Arminius hypothesized a God-initiated moment of freedom from sin's influence so the sinner could make his choice for or against God and be held accountable. His own adherence to TD proved a problem but he was unwilling to shake the perceived need for volitional agency. Arminius had been Calvinist, an apologist for Calvin, having studied under Beza.

So, the op's view of Fuller as mostly-Calvinist-Calminian is reasonable, but reasonable only in that's a fair view of Fuller and not a fair view of scripture. Influenced by the Anabaptists view baptism was not a salvific sacrament and should occur only at conversion, Fuller definitely departed from the original, classic Reformed pov. His was a much greater departure from TULIP than your partial-LA and I don't think he was honest about it (again, based on my admittedly limited review of his supporters and critics). He, for example, apparently denied TD! That wasn't very Reformed of him, but, if true, it also was neither Calvinist or Arminian of him. It was Pelagian! Fuller also believed the sinner could (somehow) ask for the Holy Spirit to do what the Spirit does (although I did not find anything specifically saying the unregenerate could do so). That, too, if true, would exclude him from both Cal and Arm. I'm fairly confident Fuller trumps @ReverendRV's claim to be the most liberal Calvinist. Odd that Spurgeon liked him and once wrote Fuller was the greatest theologian of the century!


As y'all know, I'm suspicious of second- and third-hand sources so take my post lightly. Having not read Fuller in his own words, I'll reserve judgment but based on what I did read (supporters and critics both can quote mine) Fuller is not well-reconciled with scripture (forget Calvin; measure his views against scripture!) and he seemed to be challenged by his own piety (like Edwards and Wesley before him).

 

[His clay]

I see. I'm following your case now. So the research you did for your paper inclines you to Fullerism is more Arminian than Fuller or the op would let on to be. Did I understand that correctly?

Edwards -----> Fuller -----> Carey

And perhaps what goes by the moniker "Fullerism" is more accurately called "Careyism" since Carey added to his friend Fuller's views and popularized them (without proper attribution)? I say this because in my own initial (and admittedly surface) investigation of Fuller and his views, Fuller himself wholly identified with Calvin. It's sort of ironic given the previous mention of Johnson because I don't know how Johnson (or any other Dispensationalist) can claim to be Calvinist without being Calvinist-lite. The irony really sets in when the influence of Edwards and then Wesley are seen influencing Batist soteriology (and the subsequent separation of the Reformed Baptists from the soteriological majority (at least as far as Baptists go). Their emphasis n piety directly led to experientialism and that naturally (no pun intended) lends itself to the acceptance of some degree of volitionalism (small or large). And since scripture is so blatantly monergistic on much of the ordo salutis the question of faith before or after regeneration is just about the only place anyone inclined toward synergism can place the sinner's will.

However, in my reading I find the volitionalists don't do a very good job of making that case. They did/do the same thing we see everyday in this forum: the use of verses written about believers applied to non-believers. All the inferences built on that mistake prove fatal once that foundation is removed. I think that is why Arminius hypothesized a God-initiated moment of freedom from sin's influence so the sinner could make his choice for or against God and be held accountable. His own adherence to TD proved a problem but he was unwilling to shake the perceived need for volitional agency. Arminius had been Calvinist, an apologist for Calvin, having studied under Beza.

So, the op's view of Fuller as mostly-Calvinist-Calminian is reasonable, but reasonable only in that's a fair view of Fuller and not a fair view of scripture. Influenced by the Anabaptists view baptism was not a salvific sacrament and should occur only at conversion, Fuller definitely departed from the original, classic Reformed pov. His was a much greater departure from TULIP than your partial-LA and I don't think he was honest about it (again, based on my admittedly limited review of his supporters and critics). He, for example, apparently denied TD! That wasn't very Reformed of him, but, if true, it also was neither Calvinist or Arminian of him. It was Pelagian! Fuller also believed the sinner could (somehow) ask for the Holy Spirit to do what the Spirit does (although I did not find anything specifically saying the unregenerate could do so). That, too, if true, would exclude him from both Cal and Arm. I'm fairly confident Fuller trumps @ReverendRV's claim to be the most liberal Calvinist. Odd that Spurgeon liked him and once wrote Fuller was the greatest theologian of the century!


As y'all know, I'm suspicious of second- and third-hand sources so take my post lightly. Having not read Fuller in his own words, I'll reserve judgment but based on what I did read (supporters and critics both can quote mine) Fuller is not well-reconciled with scripture (forget Calvin; measure his views against scripture!) and he seemed to be challenged by his own piety (like Edwards and Wesley before him).

"I see. I'm following your case now. So the research you did for your paper inclines you to Fullerism is more Arminian than Fuller or the op would let on to be. Did I understand that correctly?" The opposite. I think that Fuller is more Calvinistic than what the article described, but again that was my impression. And I'm currently in the process of rereading it to be more detail oriented (as opposed to my impression earlier).

Yes, I did make a connection in thought from Edwards, to Fuller, to Carey. And the purpose was to simply expose how a Calvinistic view of responsibility contributed to a huge missionary movement. I personally believe that Calvinism is profoundly empowering and motivational for missions. When properly understood, Calvinism is exactly the opposite of the critics when it comes to motivation.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I did make a connection in thought from Edwards, to Fuller, to Carey. And the purpose was to simply expose how a Calvinistic view of responsibility contributed to a huge missionary movement. I personally believe that Calvinism is profoundly empowering and motivational for missions. When properly understood, Calvinism is exactly the opposite of the critics when it comes to motivation.

It's been my observation over the last 20 or so years in Reformed/Presbyterian congregations that that end of Christianity is enormously involved in missions, especially in Asia and Africa. Sadly, so too are the Dispies. I've sponsored three immigrants from Africa. Two of them were pastors and both of them Dispensationalist. They'd never heard of Reformed theology Sproul, Schaeffer, Spurgeon, etc. It's hard to break through the allegiances to what we've been taught but God is faithful and once they started reading Reformed thinkers they didn't need my apologetics. That was, after all, how I became reformed .

I'll have to read Fuller for myself but what I found in supporters and critics leads me to think there are very real and legitimate problems and concerns. I have what I call a "10% Rule." If 10% of what I hear (whether it be left or right, up or down, Limbaugh or Maddow, Fox or NPR, Vlach or Horton) is true, then we're in trouble. I can discard most as hearsay but there's usually some foundation for the abuses. The difficulty is not being part of the problem. I noticed someone posted they liked Sproul but don't wholly agree with him. Join the club! However, among his competitors, he stands head and shoulders above the vast majority both in content and method. With the likes of him, Stott, and Packer now gone there's a void and old schools of thought (like Fullerism and the Pelagian-based Provisionism) become popular. I find reluctance to accept Calvinism (or the more generic and diverse monergism) is invariably based on some misperception or incorrect understanding of Calvin/monergism. It took me a long time to truly grasp the "mono-" aspect of monergism. It is entirely Theocentric.

So, I therefore think the op is more likely to end up as a discussion of hyper-Calvinism, orthodox monergism, and volitionalism AND I'm inclined to go one step further because so many forum participants who think themselves Arminian (or defenders of Arminianism) are really Pelagians hiding behind Provisionism and selective uses of the ECFs (like our brother @FutureAndAHope) such that, practically speaking, the discussion is really about hyper-Calvinism, orthodox monergism, orthodox synergism, and Pelagianism. Two poles or extremes, and two middle grounds. Fuller's not actually a middle ground between Calvin and Arminius (or Calvin-lite).

 

[Mr GLee]

Oops! My regrets. I gotta ago but I am not finished with these questions. My intention was to separate what is stated in scripture from what is or can be inferred. I am unaware of any verse in the Bible explicitly stating all humans' hearts are "stoney." I do not reject the premise but think its inferential nature should be acknowledged. Most of those questions are asked in a manner where a simple affirmation of the "Yes?" is all that is necessary. Only the first question requires a more substantive answer

It would seem we are born with a Stoney heart

Job prophcied in a beautiful parable the kind of power the water of the word our daily bread that falls like rain, it can create a softened heart

It's the food the disciples knew not of . . the food of the will of God working in Jesus to both hear the loving commandment and to do it to the good pleasure of the Fathers . . . . His powerful faith or labor of love,

Job 23:11-16 My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him. Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

 

[Josheb]

It would seem we are born with a Stoney heart

Job prophcied in a beautiful parable the kind of power the water of the word our daily bread that falls like rain, it can create a softened heart

It's the food the disciples knew not of . . the food of the will of God working in Jesus to both hear the loving commandment and to do it to the good pleasure of the Fathers . . . . His powerful faith or labor of love,

Job 23:11-16 My foot hath held his steps, his way have I kept, and not declined. Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him. Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me:

How about....

Ezekiel 11:17-20
"Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. When they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations from it. And I will give them one heart and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.

Or...

Ezekiel 36:22-32
"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight. For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God. Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you. I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations. I am not doing this for your sake," declares the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!"

Aren't those more veracious and effective texts? If so, then what does the New Testament say about this "new heart"? In Ezekiel 11:19 the "new heart" is associated with the giving of a new spirit within, and the ability to walk in God's statutes. When that is done those who'd previously had a heart of stone would be God's people. Does the New Testament ever report any of that ever happening? If so then the prophecy of Ezekiel 11:19 has been fulfilled and there is no reason to believe it hasn't happened and no reason to expect it will happen anew sometime in the future. It is my hope that every Christian here already knows the answers to these questions. Even if the obvious example of Pentecost is neglected, we have passages like Romans 5 telling us Ezekiel's prophecy has been fulfilled, God has been faithful, and we therefore rejoice and act accordingly.

Romans 5:1-5
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

2 Corinthians 3:3
It is clear that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

According to Paul, if a person has had his or her heart circumcised by the Spirit then he is a Jew and being a Jew has nothing to do with the Law, bloodline, or geo-political nation-state status. Paul, a Jew and a Jewish leader taught by the foremost Jewish teachers of his day, said so, and he said so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who had transformed his heart just as Ezekiel had promised would one day happen.



So, as I said, I do not dispute the premise. I simply want an accurate view, one based solely and firmly on scripture.

 

[Mr GLee]

Aren't those more veracious and effective texts? If so, then what does the New Testament say about this "new heart"? In Ezekiel 11:19 the "new heart" is associated with the giving of a new spirit within, and the ability to walk in God's statutes. When that is done those who'd previously had a heart of stone would be God's people. Does the New Testament ever report any of that ever happening? If so then the prophecy of Ezekiel 11:19 has been fulfilled and there is no reason to believe it hasn't happened and no reason to expect it will happen anew sometime in the future. It is my hope that every Christian here already knows the answers to these questions. Even if the obvious example of Pentecost is neglected, we have passages like Romans 5 telling us Ezekiel's prophecy has been fulfilled, God has been faithful, and we therefore rejoice and act accordingly.

I understand all of scripture to be veracious and effective texts.The work of God making our hearts soft began with Abel the first prophet sent as apostle / martyr with the living water of the word of God.

Pentecost did not begin the work of Ezekiel it restored the government of our invisible, King of kings (sola scriptura )

 

[Josheb]

I understand all of scripture to be veracious and effective texts.The work of God making our hearts soft began with Abel the first prophet sent as apostle / martyr with the living water of the word of God.

Pentecost did not begin the work of Ezekiel it restored the government of our invisible, King of kings (sola scriptura )

Jesus has never not been King.... AND King over all other kings.

 

[His clay]

I'll have some time today to do some reading and commenting upon the article provided in post #2. @ReverendRV

 

[His clay]

Post #2 Article Thoughts (pt3)
"Also his constant breaking of his vows made him conclude that there was no truth in him. He was made to feel that he was “an odious lost sinner standing in need of both pardon and purification.”" This is profoundly critical. Seeing yourself as a SINNER in desperate need of God's grace for your eternal soul is utterly critical for salvation. One must first be lost in order to be found. One must be sick and in need of the physician before the physician's healing is properly valued and appreciated. Properly seeing and understanding one's fallen condition is a critical prerequisite for seeing and understanding the saving activity of God. Paul spent a great deal of time in Romans 1:18-3:20 establishing man's fallen condition before he taught the Romans about faith and Christ's work on the cross. @ReverendRV

 

[Mr GLee]

Jesus has never not been King.... AND King over all other kings.

jesus Christ represents the King of king jesus the Son of man

Jesus has never not been King.... AND King over all other kings.

Yes Jesus the Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God is King of earthly kings and Lord of earthly lord But not Jesus the Son of man dying mankind .

Earthly kings in Israel the foundation of all of paganism (out of sight out of mind (no invisible Holy Father the abomination of desolation

Dying human form in the place of unseen eternal things of Christ's powerful faith Removing the authority of our invisible head .The time of the first century reformation came during the first century restoring the order of judges no outward fleshly representative of our eternal King.

God is not dying mankind as us.

 

[Josheb]

jesus Christ represents the King of king jesus the Son of man

Jesus has never not been King, and King over all other kings (real or imagined).

Yes Jesus the Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of God is King of earthly kings and Lord of earthly lord But not Jesus the Son of man dying mankind .

Jesus the Son of Man dying mankind commanded the elements of creation, the demons who'd not kept their proper abode, and human disease. Jesus the logos of God who is God made flesh, Jesus "the Christ the anointing of God," and Jesus "the Son of man dying mankind" are not mutually exclusive Jesuses.

If Jesus is God then there has never been a fraction of a moment anywhere in creation where he is not always and everywhere sovereign almighty king. All scripture says he laid aside when he took on the form of a bondservant was his claim of equality (Php. 2). Nothing else.

Earthly kings in Israel the foundation of all of paganism (out of sight out of mind (no invisible Holy Father the abomination of desolation

Dying human form in the place of unseen eternal things of Christ's powerful faith Removing the authority of our invisible head .The time of the first century reformation came during the first century restoring the order of judges no outward fleshly representative of our eternal King.

God is not dying mankind as us.

Irrelevant.

 

[His clay]

Post #2 Article Thoughts (pt4)

Near the end of the section dealing with natural and spiritual births a statement is made. The author uses the words "effectual calling". It was in a portion where Andrew Fuller was lamenting not coming to Christ sooner, and the author of the article critiques this as not properly understanding God's sovereignty. Effectual calling comes when God wills it and not a moment sooner or later. This is certainly true, from God's perspective. But from the human perspective, Andrew Fuller is experiencing a bit of introspective hind sight. Hind sight is notoriously problematic because it often falsely assumes a level of knowledge from the future upon the past (had I known what I know now, I would have . . .). People often kick themselves for hindsight knowledge and often forget where they were really at, at the moment of their prior decision.

I agree with the author to a point. God works when He works and at the appointed time, but I also agree that we often have our limited perspectives. I do think that we often needlessly kick ourselves for our stupid decisions later in life. I know that I've made dumb decisions at times, and I relive my stupidity in embarrassment in my mind at times. So it is important to remember that while hindsight is sometimes 20/20, I did not have that level of knowledge when I made the past decision. Point being: both are true. We have our limited perspective; and God has the perfect perspective. But we can't kick ourselves for not knowing God's secret will when looking backward.

Also, the use of the words "effectual calling" lends more weight to the scales, which leans the scale further in the direction of a Calvinistic author. Perhaps, I misread the article. I'll keep reading it, for I am far from done.
@ReverendRV

 

[His clay]

Post #2 Article Thoughts (pt5)

"“We had no power to do things spiritually good; but as to outward sins, we had power both to obey the will of God and disobey it.” The matter of the drunkard came before the church, and he was excluded (excommunicated). But the abstract question of the power of sinful men to do the will of God, and to keep themselves from sin became a burning issue with some of the leading men in the church."

First, according to the article, Fuller appears to be making a distinction between the external action and the internal bent.
Second, the phrase, "we had the power both to obey the will of God and disobey it," gives me some concern. Granted, this phrase is connected to the outward action. Further, this is with respect to a professing believer. My main issue pertains to the wording, which seems to indicate a libertarian understanding of the will. However, the exact nature of this "power" may be with respect to physical ability, mental ability, etc. However, if it is a power to make an uncaused choice that can be otherwise, then it is libertarian freedom, and Fuller read Edwards (perhaps not before the account in the article) and at least later his view of choice-making would be more nuanced (provided that we give the article the benefit of the doubt with regards to accuracy).

Libertarian freedom fails to be an adequate model for understanding human choice-making because it is

1. Incoherent
   1. It fails the law of identity
   2. It commits the reification fallacy, if indeed nothing causes the will to be.
   3. It fails to be the substance of character or responsibility due to the chance problem.
   4. If self-caused, then it cannot be otherwise, unless the self can be other that what it is (see 1.1.).
2. It fails explicit scriptural metaphysical statements.
   1. Heb 1:3 eliminates human ultimacy.
   2. Col 1:16-17 eliminates human ultimacy.
   3. Acts 17:24, 25, 28 eliminates human ultimacy.
   4. 1 Cor 8:6 eliminates human ultimacy.
   5. Romans 11:36 eliminates human ultimacy.
   6. God's perfect, self-sufficient knowledge is a barrier to do other than what God knows.
   7. etc.
3. It fails real life scenarios.
   1. The conduct of online libertarian freedom advocates contradicts their own ability to do otherwise.
   2. One cannot just believe as true and follow what they absolutely know to be untrue.
   3. Even our quickest choices are made for reasons.
   4. etc.