Puritanism

[Van]

Anyone who believes as all Calvinists do, including Puritans, that individual election for salvation was completed before creation, must muddy the waters when it comes to "limited atonement" and preaching to those who cannot seek God or trust in Christ.

The Decoded TULIP:

T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.

U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.

L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.

I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.

P= Once saved, always saved. (The only point of the TULIP that is valid)

The Word of God:

God's word says the lost seek God. Romans 9:16

God's word says everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, thus salvation is conditional. John 3:16

God's word says Christ became the means of reconciliation for the whole world, all of humanity. 1 John 2:2

God's word says God credits our faith, rather than instilling righteous faith. Romans 4:23-25

God's word says once saved, always saved, for we shall never perish. John 3:16

 

[tyndale1946]

@tyndale1946 Do you mean that you do object to telling someone that Christ died for them? Don't be wishy washy.

Answer one question for me if a man has the love of God in him (agape love), where did he get it?... Out of the written gospel, by the preacher, by the church, by Baptism?... He got it straight from the source... The Holy Spirit... Do you mean that you do object to telling someone that Christ died for them?... I don't object to telling someone that Christ died for them, what I object to is do I know their heart?... What if the person says thanks and walks away?... Then what?... Do I make the criteria that he didn't, or do I let God handle it?... And Dave while you are at it, tell me, why these sheep in Matthew 25 don't know the Lord but he knew them and if they were church people, it would have said so... The Lord's alone elect saved children!

Matthew 25: 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

1 John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

And when those argue about who's saved and who isn't, I just show them the complete election of God and let them argue with scripture... Brother Glen

Revelation 7: 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

 

[DaveXR650]

Answer one question for me if a man has the love of God in him (agape love), where did he get it?... Out of the written gospel, by the preacher, by the church, by Baptism?... He got it straight from the source... The Holy Spirit... Do you mean that you do object to telling someone that Christ died for them?... I don't object to telling someone that Christ died for them, what I object to is do I know their heart?... What if the person says thanks and walks away?... Then what?... Do I make the criteria that he didn't, or do I let God handle it?... And Dave while you are at it, tell me, why these sheep in Matthew 25 don't know the Lord but he knew them and if they were church people, it would have said so... The Lord's alone elect saved children!

First of all, if you are really serious above where you say you don't object to telling someone that Christ died for them you will get in BIG trouble with a lot of strict Calvinists. If PB's are OK with that then I'm glad but I'm doubtful that's the case. The reason being that some PB's drift toward hyper- Calvinism. We have one guy on here who is a hyper-Calvinist who I thought was a PB. If he's not then my bad, but I won't bring up a name when he hasn't chosen to get involved.
The other thing is that then you bring up a bunch of objections that I haven't said. I agree with you on most of that. One thing I don't agree with is that if you are saying that there are people who, by doing those good deeds will be saved outside of coming to Christ by faith then I do not agree. I have heard that the Lord has an elect and some of the Primitive Baptists believe that those will be saved whether they come by faith to Christ or not. I don't agree with that if that is what you are saying.

 

[DaveXR650]

Anyone who believes as all Calvinists do, including Puritans, that individual election for salvation was completed before creation, must muddy the waters when it comes to "limited atonement" and preaching to those who cannot seek God or trust in Christ.

If the waters are muddy, they are muddy. Reducing the volumes of theology and sermons over the past 500 years to your own interpretation of an acronym that Sproul didn't even like won't make it clearer.

 

[DaveXR650]

Bad trees do not have good fruit.

But we can learn from Roger Williams, whose love for God actually showed in his love for others, including native peoples. OTOH, those who say one thing but then do another have little to offer.

Roger Williams was a fruit of Puritanism. Much of what he did was done while still a Puritan. There is a lot of debate about whether he stayed a Baptist long in terms of how we view a Baptist.

 

[JonC]

Roger Williams was a fruit of Puritanism. Much of what he did was done while still a Puritan. There is a lot of debate about whether he stayed a Baptist long in terms of how we view a Baptist.

Roger Williams ended up rejecting Puritan Theology (rejecting what made Puritan Theology different from similar theologies - like Presbyterian Theology - with the additional of rejecting infant baptism.

And the Puritans persecuted him for that.

I need to ask -

What do you believe to be the differences between Presbyterian Theology?

What, other than believers baptism vs infant baptism, do you believe is different between Baptist Theology and Puritan Theology?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yeah, baby.

Oh behave

 

[DaveXR650]

Roger Williams ended up rejecting Puritan Theology (rejecting what made Puritan Theology different from similar theologies - like Presbyterian Theology - with the additional of rejecting infant baptism.

And the Puritans persecuted him for that.

I need to ask -

What do you believe to be the differences between Presbyterian Theology?

What, other than believers baptism vs infant baptism, do you believe is different between Baptist Theology and Puritan Theology?

From what I know I think very highly of Roger Williams. But I've read little on him, and know no more that you can get listening to MLJ or reading the Library of Congress page on him. But the fact is he came from Puritanism, and did much of the work we know him for before he became a Baptist. He did not stay a Baptist and some say he ended up a "Seeker", which I am not familiar with. I understand that he was a Separatist in England and was disappointed when he came to New England and realized the Puritan's in charge there were not as Separatist as he wanted. I guess he moved from the Mass. Bay Colony to Salem, and got into trouble again because he wanted more than separation from the Church of England, he wanted separation from the church having responsibility for civil order. He also was way ahead of his time on treatment of the Indians.

If you have writings to share showing what Williams believed was wrong with Puritan theology and how it should be then I wish you would share them. Between Presbyterian theology and Puritan theology in the 1630's? Is that a trick question?

 

[JonC]

From what I know I think very highly of Roger Williams. But I've read little on him, and know no more that you can get listening to MLJ or reading the Library of Congress page on him. But the fact is he came from Puritanism, and did much of the work we know him for before he became a Baptist. He did not stay a Baptist and some say he ended up a "Seeker", which I am not familiar with. I understand that he was a Separatist in England and was disappointed when he came to New England and realized the Puritan's in charge there were not as Separatist as he wanted. I guess he moved from the Mass. Bay Colony to Salem, and got into trouble again because he wanted more than separation from the Church of England, he wanted separation from the church having responsibility for civil order. He also was way ahead of his time on treatment of the Indians.

If you have writings to share showing what Williams believed was wrong with Puritan theology and how it should be then I wish you would share them. Between Presbyterian theology and Puritan theology in the 1630's? Is that a trick question?

The biggest faults he had with Puritans theology was their ecclesiology. He came to reject a lot of Anglicanism (Puritans held Anglican Theology, desiring to continue reforming it to exclude what they believed was carried over from the RCC). He rejected their understanding of the role of government insofar as the Church and State goes. And, of course, he came to reject infant baptism (infant baptism and equating circumcision with baptism was a part of Puritan Theology....so much so that Puritans persecuted Anabaptists).

Seekers were basically non-denominational congregations. They were not a formal group.

There are issues with Williams here. The term "seeker" was used in the 17th century as an insult for people believed to be heretics. Today scholars have some doubt that they even existed. And Williams never identified himself as a "seeker".

 

[37818]

He did not stay a Baptist and some say he ended up a "Seeker", . . .

From what little there is on this, it was the accusation of his opposition. And from what I understand that Baptist church became non-Calvinistic. My understanding. I did not save my two sources.

 

[DaveXR650]

There are issues with Williams here. The term "seeker" was used in the 17th century as an insult for people believed to be heretics. Today scholars have some doubt that they even existed. And Williams never identified himself as a "seeker".

Williams seems like someone really interesting to read. I am finding different opinions on whether he truly was ever really a Baptist or that he ever really founded the first Baptist church in America. I looked and I can't find any cheap way to get a hold of any of his writings. Sometimes on Amazon the Kindle versions are almost free but I don't see that for Williams. MLJ said he thought he was a genius and probably too much of a deep thinker to really ever be able to settle in a church.

Whether he was a Baptist or not, I think the one claim Baptists can make is that they do deserve credit for finally tearing away the tendency to try to have the church rule the civil government. I sometimes wonder if when it's all said and done, the further work of the Reformation was exactly that, and that was way more important than getting rid of the vestments and ceremonies.

 

[JonC]

Williams seems like someone really interesting to read. I am finding different opinions on whether he truly was ever really a Baptist or that he ever really founded the first Baptist church in America. I looked and I can't find any cheap way to get a hold of any of his writings. Sometimes on Amazon the Kindle versions are almost free but I don't see that for Williams. MLJ said he thought he was a genius and probably too much of a deep thinker to really ever be able to settle in a church.

Whether he was a Baptist or not, I think the one claim Baptists can make is that they do deserve credit for finally tearing away the tendency to try to have the church rule the civil government. I sometimes wonder if when it's all said and done, the further work of the Reformation was exactly that, and that was way more important than getting rid of the vestments and ceremonies.

https://www.noor-book.com/en/ebooks-Roger-Williams-pdf

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What a crock. Which Primitive Baptist has attacked you for telling others about Christ? Certainly not this PB.

My beef with you has always been your wishy washy waffling, claiming to be a Calvinist while subtly putting a knife in their backs as in this post.

Again with candy coating things… why don’t you say what you’re really thinking?

 

[DaveXR650]

My beef with you has always been your wishy washy waffling, claiming to be a Calvinist while subtly putting a knife in their backs as in this post.

This is actually one of the more profound things he has said. Disagreeing with the militant Calvinists is "putting a knife in their back". So if I quote a Calvinist Puritan saying that God gives a promise that if you come to Him he will save you and then they freak out because it doesn't agree with the point that they just made that someone who says that is preaching a false gospel I'm putting a knife in their back? Or if they say that if faith is a condition then it must be a work and I say no, faith is not a work and give several examples of Calvinists saying that I'm putting a knife in their back?

This attitude gets to the heart of the problem on here as well as the subject of this thread - the excesses of the Puritans. Most people everywhere are more interested in saying something that impresses their perceived leaders or those in authority more than they really want to look at the truth. They want to increase their status in the particular group they value. I'm really sorry that some of the Calvinists on here are an embarrassment to Calvinism. Everywhere else it's called the "cage stage" but if you can't move on from it you come here I guess.

I never had any kind of alliance with the Calvinists or anyone else and I thought we were discussing theology. I didn't know about the loyalty test. I haven't seen that behavior since the 8th grade and even then it was mostly girls. But if you really don't have anything to say that's what you come up with.

 

[JonC]

This is actually one of the more profound things he has said. Disagreeing with the militant Calvinists is "putting a knife in their back". So if I quote a Calvinist Puritan saying that God gives a promise that if you come to Him he will save you and then they freak out because it doesn't agree with the point that they just made that someone who says that is preaching a false gospel I'm putting a knife in their back? Or if they say that if faith is a condition then it must be a work and I say no, faith is not a work and give several examples of Calvinists saying that I'm putting a knife in their back.

This attitude gets to the heart of the problem on here as well as the subject of this thread - the excesses of the Puritans. Most people everywhere are more interested in saying something that impresses their perceived leaders or those in authority more than they really want to look at the truth. They want to increase their status in the particular group they value. I'm really sorry that some of the Calvinists on here are an embarrassment to Calvinism. Everywhere else it's called the "cage stage" but if you can't move on from it you come here I guess.

I never had any kind of alliance with the Calvinists or anyone else and I thought we were discussing theology. I didn't know about the loyalty test. I haven't seen that behavior since the 8th grade and even then it was mostly girls. But if you really don't have anything to say that's what you come up with.

Shhhhhhh....you'll have the cage stage Calvinists come back .

 

[kyredneck]

I tell anyone who will listen that Christ died for them. Why do you think most of the attacks on me come from Calvinists and Primitive Baptists?

If you're not going to substantiate the smear then you should recant it.

We have one guy on here who is a hyper-Calvinist who I thought was a PB. If he's not then my bad, but I won't bring up a name when he hasn't chosen to get involved.

There's two here that I'm aware of that hold to the all-sufficiency of the atonement (as do the Primitive Baptists, and Gill, and other Old School Particular Baptists) which could be misconstrued as Primitive Baptists, @KenH and @Brightfame52. Are they the ones that 'attacked' you for 'telling anyone that Jesus died in their place'?

 

[DaveXR650]

If you're not going to substantiate the smear then you should recant it.

Sorry. You're not the guardian of orthodoxy either. You sure you're not a Jesuit?

There's two here that I'm aware of that hold to the all-sufficiency of the atonement (as do the Primitive Baptists, and Gill, and other Old School Particular Baptists) which could be misconstrued as Primitive Baptists, @KenH and @Brightfame52. Are they the ones that 'attacked' you for 'telling anyone that Jesus died in their place'?

And that's just trying to start something. The moderators ought to look at that.

 

[kyredneck]

Sorry. You're not the guardian of orthodoxy either. You sure you're not a Jesuit?

And that's just trying to start something. The moderators ought to look at that.

Nah, I'd just love to know what you consider to be an 'attack' on a debate forum. In reality, you've 'attacked' a whole group of Christians with your unsubstantiated smear.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sorry. You're not the guardian of orthodoxy either. You sure you're not a Jesuit?

And that's just trying to start something. The moderators ought to look at that.

Dave, you are aware of course that many Jesuits are closet queers and perhaps even pedofiles …

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you're not going to substantiate the smear then you should recant it.



There's two here that I'm aware of that hold to the all-sufficiency of the atonement (as do the Primitive Baptists, and Gill, and other Old School Particular Baptists) which could be misconstrued as Primitive Baptists, @KenH and @Brightfame52. Are they the ones that 'attacked' you for 'telling anyone that Jesus died in their place'?

I’d kinda like to hear what Dave considers are the qualifiers of Hyper Calvinists… like what makes them hyper? Too much perhaps