What is a Ruckmanite?

Anyone who engages in the Bible Versions debates will become familiar with the name of Peter S. Ruckman. Some elevate him as a demigod and others despise him as the devil. My opinion about him can be found here: The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman.

Because Ruckman is such a lightning rod, it has become a popular tactic to identify a King James Bible supporter as a “Ruckmanite.”[i]

What is a Ruckmanite?

Is there a standard definition that is useful and consistent when using the term “Ruckmanite”? Here are three explanations I found online, with one being very broad, and the other two relatively close.

• A Ruckmanite is one who follows the teachings (or most of the teachings) of Peter Ruckman and defend his divorces and cursing and such.
• A Ruckmanite is anyone who is King James Version Only.
• A Ruckmanite position is one that is hyper-dispensationalism (e.g., OT saints saved by works, etc.) and hyper-KJVOism (advanced revelation, KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew, foreign language Bible should be translated from the KJV, etc.).[ii]

Valid or not, like the wording or not, these represent explanations that I found online. I think the term “Ruckmanite” gets used in all three of those ways. Based on the comments I have read in Facebook discussion groups and elsewhere, the terminology “Ruckmanite” is undefined (i.e., it has no standard and easily recognized meaning). It means anything and everything – whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It is not worth much other than as a pejorative. (It really fits the modern secular divide-and-conquer methodology.) Calling a KJV supporter a “Ruckmanite” is the equivalent of calling a person a racist, Nazi, and such like .The term is not very useful beyond that, and should be avoided.

Is there a proper, standard, and consistent way to define a “Ruckmanite”? What are your thoughts?

---

[i] -ite is a suffix of nouns denoting especially persons associated with a place, tribe, leader, doctrine, system, etc. (for example, Campbellite; Canaanite; Hittite; Israelite).
[ii] When Peter Ruckman speaks against hyper-dispensationalism, I think he means the view that starts the church mid-Acts or later. On the other hand, those using it in reference to Peter Ruckman are pointing out his teaching of different ways of salvation in different dispensations.

So grows the Lotus

Back in May of 2014, I wrote about “Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden.” Now ten years later, I have discovered a new flower growing in the acrostical soteriological garden – the Lotus.

Apparently “LOTUS” is the brainchild of Daniel Weierbach, pastor of Open Door Baptist Church in Prattville, Alabama. According to his book LOTUS: A Free Grace Response to TULIP (Daniel Weirbach, 2024), Weierbach wanted to create a five-letter acronym, based on flower name, that would “counter” the Calvinistic acronym TULIP, point-by-point, in sequential order. Here grows the Lotus:

• Liable Depravity - Each person is liable for their own sin, but not so depraved that they can’t choose to believe in the Gospel.
• Occupational Election - Election is never unto salvation, but is to an office, position, service, or blessing.
• Total Atonement - The death of Jesus Christ was sufficient to pay for the sins of the entire world, not only the “elect.”
• Unlimited Grace – God’s grace is unlimited in the sense that it extends to all people who have to decide to receive or reject it.
• Security of the Saints -A Christian has eternal security because of the power and promise of God.

The Lotus’s weak version of depravity encapsulates the spirit of the age, and sets the flower in array against the Bible itself. I quickly lost interest in any beauty it might have.

While looking into the LOTUS, I ran across another acrostic – PROVIDE. Not a flower this time, but evidently created by Southern Baptist theologian Leighton Flowers.

• People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.
• Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
• Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
• Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
• Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
• Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
• Eternal security: For all true believers.

Provisionist Southern Baptists and Independent Baptists seem to be going of the cliff in rejecting total depravity. Regardless of any abuses of the terminology, we are totally depraved sinners whose only hope is Jesus Christ and not ourselves. Separated from God. No way back on our own. All of us. Totally. Hereditarily.

Theologically, LOTUS and PROVIDE seem to be two peas in a pod.

Hyper…ism

In religious speak, various views are often labeled some type of “hyper-ism” – Hyper-Calvinism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Hyper-Arminianism, and so on.[i] 

“Hyper…ism” can be a useful description. The English prefix “hyper” means excess or exaggeration. It comes from the Greek ὑπέρ (huper), which means over or above. Some belief systems go “over and above” what is normally described by certain theological terms, such as Calvinism or Dispensationalism. A “hyper” belief may take some point of a particular theology to excess. Hyper-Calvinism probably most generally and historically describes a view that says it is unbiblical to exhort someone to repent and believe the gospel unless the preacher has some evidence that the person so exhorted is one of God’s elect.[ii] Hyper-Dispensationalism normally describes a belief that the church age or New Testament age does not begin until sometime in the middle of the book of Acts or later. This can get really confusing because some people divide these “hyper” views into “Hyper-Dispensationalism” (church begins Mid-Acts, e.g., Acts 9 or Acts 13) and “Ultra-Dispensationalism” (church begins in Acts 28 or later).

“Hyper…ism” can be an unhelpful description, because it often has no set meaning. The meaning often is determined by its distance from or relation to the speaker or writer using the term. For example, some non-Calvinists may speak of any type of Calvinism as “Hyper-Calvinism.” A non-dispensationalist may speak of any kind of dispensationalism as “Hyper-Dispensationalism.” Such uses are usually pejorative and polemic. It is also problematic because such a description is usually used about or against someone rather than it being how a person or group describes themselves. In other words, a church or denomination will not likely say, “Oh, yes, of course we are ‘hyper…ists.” They see their view as correct, not hyper. “Hyper…ism” is describing by comparison and according to the extreme, whether correctly or not.

When used for the better, a “hyper” issue is an overemphasis on a part of the Bible or theological teaching while disregarding a corresponding part of the Bible or theological teaching. The terminology exists and cannot be avoided. Nevertheless, it is probably best used sparingly, and when using it we should carefully define what we mean.

---

[i] “Hyper-Arminianism” seems never to have gained much traction, though sometimes it might be applied to Easy-Believism, Pelagianism, Open Theism, and such like.

[ii] Additionally, one must deal with “High Calvinism” and “Low Calvinism.”

Origin of “The Great Commission”

Ever wonder who coined the term “The Great Commission” in reference to Matthew 28:18-20? Reading a piece in the Themelios journal, I noticed this account of the origin of the term:

“In all the commentaries I had used...none addressed the question...Who coined the term ‘The Great Commission’?...It turns out this passage got its summary label from a Dutch missionary Justinian von Welz (1621-88), but it was Hudson Taylor, nearly 200 years later, who popularized the use of ‘The Great Commission’. So, it seems like Welz or some other Post-Reformation missionary probably coined the term ‘The Great Commission’ and since that time, the passage has been the theme for countless mission talks and conferences...What I realized both from my exegetical work, and somewhat confirmed by this historical find, was that for the first 1600 years of the greatest exponential mission-driven expansion of the life of church, this passage was read and understood as the trinitarian foundation of ecclesiology, not as fanfare for missiology. The disciples, as the apostolic authority of the soon-to-be-empowered-Church, are called together in order to be drawn into, to be called into, the on-going mission of the triune God.”

From “The Last Word: The Great Commission: Ecclesiology,” by Robbie F. Castleman, Themelios, Vol 32, No 3, April 2007, p. 68

[Castleman mentions finding “this bit of history” in a book about the history of world missions, which belonged to a colleague of hers at John Brown University. She does not mention the name of the book. According to the Gospel Fellowship Association piece on von Welz, he was “the son of Austrian nobility…born in 1621 into a Lutheran family…migrated to Lutheran Germany. His school days were spent in the Netherlands.” Castleman may have called him “a Dutch missionary” because of his time spent in the Netherlands, coupled with where he went as a missionary, Dutch Guiana in South America.]

Unlimited Atonement

• “The doctrine that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons.” – Ron Rhodes
• “The doctrine states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception.” – Wikipedia
• “Jesus’ intent was to die for the sins of all humanity.” – ​Trevin Wax

Regarding the Christian doctrine of the atonement, I have commonly used the terms general, limited and universal. I have recently noticed that there seems to be a growing trend of using the terminology “unlimited atonement” (or it may be me just now raising my head from the sand, catching up with progress and noticing what is going on). Above are listed three definitions of “unlimited atonement,” which seem to be in substantial agreement. The common thread is that Christ’s redemptive death was for the benefit of all people. On the one hand I understand the definition. On the other hand a category that embraces everything from 4-point Calvinism to Universal Salvation seems both strange and not particularly useful to me. Despite technical difficulties about “limited atonement” there is little more than a dime’s worth of difference between the 4-point and 5-point Calvinists – while there is a million dollars’ worth of difference between the 4-point Calvinist and the Universal Salvationist. While the 4-point Calvinist and the Traditionalist/Extensivist both sit together under the “unlimited atonement” umbrella, there is more than a little difference in their positions – so much so that many on both sides will not fellowship with one another.

Some seem to celebrate the “unlimited” and “limited” differences of 4-point and 5-point Calvinists, which I find curious. One motivation, if I detect not wrongly, is to support the idea that “unlimited atonement” was and is the position of the majority of Christians. Jesse Mercer said there is only a “mere shade” of difference “unlimited” and “limited” atonement, and that difference “is only speculative.” In practical terms what difference does it make to say that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons when all of those persons will not be called and quickened to salvation, and in fact God never intended to save them (the position of 4-point Calvinism)? Much of this discussion from all sides is useless theological speculation. Trevin Wax put it this way, “The debates regarding the extent of the atonement place a foreign paradigm on the biblical text and thus inevitably bring forth answers that are skewed by our presupposed theological framework.”

Gospel issues

On July 3, 2016, Dave Miller posted on SBC Voices a writing titled "Not Everything Is a “Gospel” Issue – But Race Is!" The author apparently became frustrated and removed the post (which is one reason I chose to write here), but it has since reappeared. In the article Miller asserted, "But race, racial reconciliation, and the combating of racism in any form in the church is a gospel issue." The problem was, though, that he did not clearly define what the term "gospel issue" means.* Much of the discussion that followed centered around what a "gospel issue" is rather than the importance of "racial reconciliation and combating racism in any form in the church." Everyone who commented agreed that racial reconciliation is important and that combating racism was a crucial component of Christian theology. But  many did not agree that the terminology "gospel issue" was a useful label for the topic (or much of any topic for that matter).

The terminology "gospel issue" is used frequently on the internet (I don't hear it in regular conversations with church folks, or even with preachers). Though used frequently, it is seldom defined and done so with difficulty when attempted. It is a nebulous buzzword, without a useful acceptable meaning grasped by various sides discussing "gospel issues." Even without definition, though, it is clear that it serves an intended purpose. D. A. Carson points out that "The statement “X is a gospel issue” is simultaneously (a) a truth claim and (b) a polemical assertion attempting to establish relative importance." Even without rising to the level of definition or proof, the claim itself neverthelss establishes a hierarchy of importance and seeks to influence boundaries of Christian fellowship. If "gospel issue" does not imply that the issue is a "make or break" issue that is essential to faith and practice, then it really has no meaning or purpose at all.

Heidelblog.net suggests "a “gospel issue” is one that is essential to a right understanding and practice of the Christian life for those who believe the gospel" and D. A. Carson notes it means to refer to a category of topics "the denial of which clearly affect our understanding of the gospel adversely."

Christians need to either stop making claims "this is a gospel issue" or they need to agree on a definition of what "gospel issue" means. I recommend the former, as the term's chief function is rhetorical and polemic -- designed to lend weight to whatever topic is being discussed.**

* An online search for a definition of “gospel issue” suggests the difficulty of defining it, the problem with using it, and the subjective nature of discussion surrounding it. In the comments section of his post, Dave Miller clarified that a gospel issue is one that is fundamental to the gospel, one that undermines the gospel when denied...it means something at the heart of God’s gospel purpose...that which is fundamental to a proper understanding of the gospel. 

** From my online reading of topics classed as gospel issues, I got the impression that a primary purpose of using it is 'for "my cause" to be heard, above the others'.

The terms Traditionalist and Traditionalism

Traditionalism seems to be the “term of choice” for most Southern Baptists who hold a certain soteriological position somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism. I recently read someone mount a defense for the use of the term, claiming that it was not pejorative and that it originated with two Baptist historians, Fisher Humphreys and Paul Robertson, in their 2000 book God So Loved the World: Traditional Baptists and Calvinism – and that no one complained at the time about the word “Traditional” but understood it was meant to describe the position of most Southern Baptists. I think that is basically correct. It may be a slip of the pen to call them historians. It appears both their fields was theology rather than history, but that doesn’t make much difference to the question.

I say basically. First, as far as I know, this seems to be the origin or beginning of its common use for this subject. Also there seem to have been no large complaints initially. To the second issue, it’s just a matter of the way things are that it would have not drawn many complaints until its use became more common. But as early as 2001 (about a year after the book’s appearance), Tom Ascol referred to the phenomenon of books refuting the Reformed view of salvation and contrasting that to the view of “traditional Baptists” in the Founders Journal, Summer 2001. One should also be aware that the book did not arise in a vacuum, or that it has no polemical purpose. According to one anti-Calvinist reviewer at Amazon, Humphreys and Robertson’s book “came about because of a late night phone call from an active layperson in a Baptist church who had served on the pastor selection committee for a Baptist church, only to discover when the pastor reached the field that the new pastor was a confirmed Calvinist.” Reviewer Greg Gilbert points out that “A large portion of Prof. Humphreys’s book is devoted to a proof that the term ‘traditional Baptists’ rightly belongs to those Baptists who reject the Calvinist understanding of redemption.”

In The Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry, Fall 2008, pp.13, 52, Calvinist R. L. Hatchett wrote, “Efforts to contrast Baptist ideas with Calvinistic ideas are inherently difficult given a shared and intertwined history.” Even non-Calvinist Steve W. Lemke wrote that Robertson and Humphreys assertion that “traditional Baptists are not Calvinists” seemed “difficult to justify in light of the significant influence that Calvinists have had on Baptists through the years.”

My conclusion is that the use of “Traditional Baptist” to refer to a soteriological position is neither innocuous, irenic nor innocent -- nor is it accurate, save to those persons who only remember a half century or more of American Baptist history. It serves both pejorative and polemic purposes, even if that is not the original intent of Fisher Humphreys and Paul Robertson. Southern Baptists and others who want to define their position mediating somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism should work toward finding a better terminology upon which they can agree.

* As best I can tell, at the time God So Loved the World was published Fisher Humphreys was Professor of Divinity at the Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and Paul E. Robertson was Professor of Theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden

Several years ago I posted on Calvinism and other acrostics. Since that time I’ve noticed a few other theological acronyms blooming. Here’s some of the old and new.

The oldest and most established flower, of course, is the Tulip.
* The Five Points of Calvinism

Others that have appeared in the soteriological hot bed, though not necessarily flourished, include:

Roses
* “Roses” (an Alternative to TULIP)

Two different Daisies (one of which sounds more like a caricature of Arminian theology than a flower planted by an Arminian)
* The Five Points of Arminianism
* DAISY: The 5 Points of Arminianism

The Lily
* Malcolm Yarnell’s Lily

Lilac (an “Arminian” list also crafted by a Calvinist)
* The Poisonous Petals of the Arminian LILAC

As if Calvinism needed another, there is always the Aster:
Absolute predestination
Specific atonement
Total inability
Effectual calling
Reliable promise

Perhaps the best supported of the new acronyms is the Poinsettia, sporting many more than the traditional five petals.
* Doctrinal Statement -- “Poinsettia: a new flower in the soteriological garden”

Hapax legomenon

According to Wikipedia, a "hapax legomenon (pl. hapax legomena, though sometimes called hapaxes for short) is a word which occurs only once in the written record of a language, in the works of an author, or in a single text. If a word is used twice it is a dis legomenon, thrice, a tris legomenon." It is a "word or form that occurs only once in the recorded corpus of a given language." Hapax legomenon, in Biblical discussions, means the word appears only once in the New Testament (though this is Greek word, it's usage could apply to the Old Testament).

Adiaphoron

Adiaphoron, pl. -a (Greek language αδιάφορα "indifferent things"; German "Mitteldinge" "middle matters") was a concept used in Stoic philosophy. It latter came to refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. adiaphora: matters not of a kind that should be cause for division. See 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 regarding adiaphora.

Copied

Latin word of the day

missio dei -- a Latin theological term that can be translated as the "sending of God." "When kept in the context of the Scriptures, missio Dei correctly emphasizes that God is the initiator of His mission to redeem through the Church a special people for Himself from all of the peoples (ta ethne) of the world." (Wikipedia)

Calvinism and other acrostics

Below are several acrostics vying to replace the old standard T.U.L.I.P Calvinistic acrostic. Also included in Malcolm Yarnell's non-Calvinistic L.I.L.Y.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints

G.r.a.c.e., By an unknown author
God’s Sovereign Election
Radical Depravity
Accomplished Redemption
Called Effectually
Endurance of the Saints

Timothy George in "Amazing Grace":
Radical Depravity
Overcoming Grace
Sovereign Election
Eternal Life
Singular Redemption

Phil Johnson's outline (not an acrostic) of Calvinism based on I John 4:19 - "We love Him, because He first loved us." The outline is as follows:

• Perverseness of our fallen state - (We could not love Him first)
• Priority of God's electing choice - (He loved us first)
• Particularity of God's saving work - (He loved us)
• Power of His loving deliverance - (We love Him because)
• Perfection of His redemptive plan - (We love)

Roger Nicole suggests the following replacements (the first is not an acrostic):
Radical and Pervasive Depravity
Sovereign, Divine Election
Definite Atonement (or Particular Redemption)
Effectual, Saving Grace
Perseverance of God with the Saints
      and Gospel
GRACE is:
Obligatory (that is, indispensable)
Sovereign (in choice)
Particular (in redemption)
Effectual (in operation)
Lasting (that is, secure)

Preservation of the Saints
Absolute predestination
Specific Atonement
Total inability
Effectual Calling
(Paste can also be rearranged to "tapes", or "specific" can be changed to "limited" to then spell "Petal")

Malcolm Yarnell's The Lily:
Lord: Jesus Christ Alone
Integrity: Say what you mean, and Mean what you say
Love: The ethics of our Savior
Yieldedness: Discipleship is the Call of God upon us

Some Baptists

bapti-
(Greek: dip, immersion, dipping in water)

Anabaptist: A "rebaptizer"; From the Greek ana up, again
Antipaedobaptist: One who is opposed to the baptism of infants. Webster's Dictionary 1828; From the Greek anti + paedo
Antibaptist: One who opposes baptism. Evidently at times associated with or equivalent to “Anabaptist”, implying the opposition to infant baptism equals opposition to baptism. From the Greek anti opposite
Baptist: (caps) A member of a Christian denomination that baptizes believers by immersion; (lowercase) a person who baptizes. From the Greek baptein dip immerse, wash
Catabaptist: One who opposes baptism, especially of infants. According to Mennonite Encyclopedia, "a name used for a time (1525 and following) for the Swiss Anabaptists by Zwingli and Oecolampadius in their Latin writings." Further, "The word is actually used in essentially the same meaning as ‘Anabaptist,’ that is, rebaptizer, but carries the additional connotation of ‘anti-baptist,’ that is, attempting to destroy the true baptism.” From the Greek kata down, through, against

Credobaptist: One who believes that statement of belief in Jesus Christ is necessary before one is baptized; believers' baptism, the opposite of pedobaptist .From the Latin credo "I believe", statement of one's belief(s)

Crypto-baptist: Hidden baptist; may be used of those of other denominations who are very baptistic, those "proto-baptist" groups some consider Baptists, or the "unknown" Baptist progenitors of the present-day Baptists. Sometimes used as the equivalent of proto-baptist, q.v.From the Greek kryptein, to hide
Hemerobaptist: A Jewish sect whose adherents bathed (or washed ceremonially) every morning before the hour of prayer Webster's Dictionary 1828, et al. From the Greek hemero day
Holobaptist: A believer in baptismal immersion. From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia. (Evidently implies application of water to the entire body) From the Greek holos whole
Paedobaptist: One who practices, adheres to, or advocates infant baptism. From the Greek paido child (Also Pedobaptist)

Proto-baptist: first Baptists, pre-Baptists, "baptists before the Baptists"; a name used to refer to pre-17th religious groups that held Baptist/baptistic principles such as believers' baptism, free religious exercise, etc. -- denoting that those using the term may recognize them as precursors to the English Baptists while denying any organic connection. From Greek protos first, superlative of pro "before."
Se-baptist: Self-baptizer; According to the article on John Smyth in Christianity Today's "Christian History & Biography", "Amsterdam Separatist Richard Bernard nicknamed him [John Smyth] a 'Se-Baptist' (self-baptizer)."

A short list of some kinds of Baptists, or terms referring to Baptists, that you may encounter when reading historical and theological discussions. This is probably better than some other things we've been called!

This list made by a compulsive information gatherer might actually be useful to someone in their reading. If not, maybe you can use it for trivia!

Origin of the term "landmark"

In an earlier post, I defined Landmark ecclesiology as I see it. A reader has brought up the question of the origin of the terms "Landmark", "Landmarkism", "Landmark Baptists". I think the following is basic and fairly accurate.

Baptist minister J. M. Pendleton wrote a series of articles which appeared in The Tennessee Baptist, a periodical whose editor was J. R. Graves. These articles dealt with the "recognition" of Pedobaptist (infant-baptising) ministers, and were later published by Graves as a pamphlet titled An Old Landmark Re-Set. Pendleton and Graves agreed that Pedobaptist ministers should not be allowed to preach from Baptist pulpits. Evidently, Southern Baptists who disagreed with Graves and Pendleton on the issue of Pedobaptist ministers, took the initiative in labeling those with such convictions "Old Landmarkers". Even if so, Graves had no problem adopting and using it -- and possibly relished it. Read, for example,Graves' preface
to Old Landmarkism, What is it?, a book he wrote in 1880.

From Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia: "The origin of the term old-landmarkism was as follows: about the year 1850, Rev. J. R. Graves, editor of the Tennessee Baptist, published at Nashville, Tenn., began to advocate the position that Baptists cannot consistently recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers. For several years he found but few to sympathize with this view. Among the few was Rev. J. M. Pendleton, then of Bowling Green, Ky., who in 1854 was requested by Mr. Graves to write an essay on this question, 'Ought Baptists to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers?' The essay was published in four consecutive numbers of the aforesaid paper, and afterwards in the form of a tract. The title given to it by Mr. Graves was 'An Old Landmark Reset.' The title was considered appropriate, because there had been a time when ministerial recognition and exchange of pulpits between Baptists and Pedobaptists were unknown. This was an old landmark, but in the course of years it had fallen. When it was raised again it was called "an old landmark reset.' Hence the term 'old-landmarkism,' and of late years, by way of abridgment, 'landmarkism'."

Dictionary definitions and Bible verses may also provide context for those unfamiliar with the term as used before its adoption to describe a Baptist ecclesiology.

Landmark: "a prominent or conspicuous object that serves as a guide; something used to mark the boundary of land."

Deut 19:14 - Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.
Deut 27:17 - Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Prov 22:28 - Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Prov 23:10 - Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:

This question intersects with another point that I want to make about the two previous posts. These historical excerpts do not prove the validity of Landmark ecclesiology. One must turn to the Bible to prove or disprove it. But the excerpts do call in question the oft repeated mantra that "Landmarkism" began with Graves and Pendleton. Certainly the terminology and certain refining points of ecclesiology can be traced to them (particularly Graves), but they did not create something that at least some Baptists before them did not already believe.

Pejorative terms

"It would seem more appropriate in academic debate, and indeed a simple matter of common courtesy, to refer to positions by the terms that the representatives of those positions choose for themselves rather than by pejorative terms that they reject." -- from Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? by Wayne Grudem

Definitions of terms

One thing often done for clarity in discussion is to give definitions of terms. It should be helpful to define some of the terminology that we Christians throw around. Perhaps we do not all use the terms in the same way and it causes confusion. I will present my understanding of some of these terms and give you the opportunity to tell what you understand in them. I do not take credit for all the material below. It is from a text document I have that contains cut and pasted materials from different sources, mingled with definitions and comments of my own. At this point, I do not have sources to credit in most cases, but I hope this will make a contribution. (Where known, I will give credit)

Atonement
1. General Atonement/Redemption (Hypothetical universalism) - this view holds that Christ’s death makes provision for the salvation of all men. The atonement paid for the sins of the whole world, but each individual must appropriate that payment through faith. Unlimited redemptionists are not universalists. They do not believe that all will ultimately be saved.
2. Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption (Reformed particularism) - this view holds that the atonement is limited in scope in that Christ's death actively redeems only those for whom He particularly died (the elect).
3. Universal Atonement/Redemption (Universalism) – this view holds that Christ's death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race -- past, present, and future.

Arminian/Arminianism
Follows the teachings of Jacobus Arminius in general, and probably in particular the Articles of Remonstrance:
- God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
- Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
- Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and his followers were not Pelagians.)
- All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
- Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.
(As noted in yesterday's blog, I question whether most of those described as Arminians actually hold to “original” Arminianism.)

Calvinist/Calvinism
Follows the teachings of John Calvin in general, and probably in particular the Canon/Synod of Dort:
- that fallen man was totally unable to save himself (Total Inability)
- that God's electing purpose was not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)
- that Christ's atoning death was only for the elect (Limited Atonement)
- that the gift of faith, sovereignly given by God's Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect (Irresistible Grace)
- that those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the saints)

Modified Calvinist/Calvinism
This is a common terminology to refer to those who hold total depravity and eternal security in combination with general atonement and election conditioned on repentance and faith. It is intended to demonstrate a church/denominational/teaching with historical roots in Calvinism which has been modified over the course of a number of years.

Hyper-Calvinist/Hyper-Calvinism
Everyone that is more Calvinistic than you are! This term probably does not have a fixed meaning, but maybe most often refers to those that believe we should not command and call the sinner to come to Christ. This is sometimes applied to those who hold “Spirit regeneration” as opposed to “gospel regeneration”.

Amyraldian/Amyraldism
Follows the teachings of Moyse Amyraut, who, according to Curt Daniel, “posited that Christ died for all men because of universal grace. Christ died equally for all in order to provide a basis for the universal part of the Covenant of Grace. This provision was universal, but the application was particular and limited to the elect. Amyraut felt that this was the view of Calvin and the early Reformers.” This is also called Hypothetical Universalism (but the general atonement version of Hypothetical Universalism appears to be different from Amyraut's Hypothetical Universalism, in my opinion; to me, Amyraldism stands somewhere between definitions 1 & 2 in my "atonement" list above). “The theory basically is…two kinds of grace: universal grace for all men and special grace only for the elect. Because of universal grace and the universal aspect of the Covenant of Grace, it is hypothetically possible for the heathen to be saved without hearing the Gospel…in fact none of these have ever been saved because it is only through the Gospel that saving faith is given. Further, God is said to have two wills: a universal conditional will and a particular unconditional will.” The view of Andrew Fuller (Fullerism) seems to accord well with Amyraldism (or Amyraldianism) and is often so called. Fuller reasoned that on the one hand, Christ died to atone for all men; and on the other hand, as the Father saw in advance that no one would wish to accept Christ of their own free will, He only guaranteed that certain sinners would follow their inner sense of duty and repent and believe. Christ still died for all men, though His Father restricted salvation to the elect. The thought that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for only the elect” is part of this system.

Pelagian/Pelagianism
Pelagius combatted the doctrine of original sin. He and his followers framed these six doctrines for example:
1. That Adam would have died even if he had not sinned
2. That the sin of Adam injured himself, not the human race
3. That newborn children are in the same condition as Adam was before the Fall; that infants have eternal life
4. That the whole human race does not die because of Adam's death or sin, nor will it rise again because of Christ's resurrection
5. That the Old Testament Law, as well as the New Testament Gospel, gives entrance to heaven
6. That even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin.
(It should be noted that some present day “Arminians” are followers of Pelagius rather than Arminius on the ideas of original sin and depravity.)

Other terms we sometimes encounter include:

Manichaen/Manichaenism
Historical Manichaenism probably does not exist among Christians, but any form of dualism is often referred to as Manichaenism. Possibly most notable among Baptists has been/is the teachings of Daniel Parker which posited that among the human race there is a seed of God and a seed of the Devil (and that the Devil is an eternal, though lesser, being). The "elect" would be those who have the seed of God.

Fatalist/Fatalism
Some people would connect this term to those who hold to predestination. The ancient idea (of Greeks and others) is that man is a helpless creature borne along by some unknown force (destiny, fate). Some versions of absolute predestinarianism may reach a similar conclusion, but replacing fate with God.

Antinomian/Antinomianism
Antinomian comes from the Greek ‘anti’ and ‘nomos’, meaning against law. It refers to the doctrine that it is not necessary for Christians to obey the moral law. Faith frees the Christian from such obligations. Or, put another way, antinomianism is a system of doctrine that leads naturally to licentiousness. This is often charged to any who hold to eternal security, perseverance, or "once saved/always saved". It is said that such doctrine allows the Christian to do “whatever he wants.”

Sandemanian/Sandemanianism
Sandemanianism may not be specifically related to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, but it is a form of soteriological belief. Robert Sandeman taught that the faith which saves is nothing other than the "bare belief of the bare truth." Sandemanianism is the name which is usually identified with the idea that saving faith consists of "merely believing facts." It is simply "taking God at His Word" (bare belief of the bare truth).

Two related terms are:

Monergism
"This position teaches that salvation is entirely a work of God; That man can contribute nothing to his salvation and that one is saved wholly and unconditionally by grace through faith."
Synergism
"Synergism comes from two Greek words meaning 'to work together with.' So when speaking of salvation it refers to a cooperation between God and man. In other words, man works together with God to effect his salvation. There seems to be two strains of this teaching; the Semi-Pelagian form which teaches that man takes the initiative and then is helped by divine grace. And then there is the more prevalent form among evangelicals which teaches that God, the Holy Spirit, takes the first step (toward all members of the human race) but cannot effect the completion of the work of regeneration without the cooperation and consent of the sinner."

The definitions of monergism and synergism are taken from Monergism vs. Synergism by John Hendryx.