Featured Does God Always Get His Way With Man?

I can relate. One time the preacher said "If you all ain't gonna listen to God's word then I might as well ...." and with that he threw his Bible up in the air. It landed over by the Christian flag if I remember right.

If he's preaching Christ and him crucified I would think that's alright.

Ky. You aren't one of those Sandemanians are you?

 

Dave, you would have been far better off if you had never heard of Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon and others like them. All your theology is filtered through these men and without them you would not even be able to formulate an opinion on God. The scriptures do not have sway over your thinking without the filter. They have taught you new complex meanings of simple words that, being applied in any other venue except religion, you would be laughed to scorn. There probably has never been a defense lawyer in the whole world who adopts Calvinism as their guide to life because it would be so silly for them to appear before the judge and admit their client is guilty because he is totally depraved and cannot do anything but evil.

One thing that bothers me about the Reformed, whether Presbyterian or Baptist, is that they are doing exactly as the Corinthians were doing. They were following men and elevating them and denying the real authority of the church in that day, the apostle Paul. He declared that he knew nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified, a statement that should make us understand that the NT doctrines and instructions to the churches was not by him, but through him. He is still the authority to this very day. Nothing has changed.

2Cor 10:8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
9 That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters.
10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.
11 Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.
12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
13 But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you.
14 For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:
15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men’s labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,
16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand.
17 But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

We discuss things on this website that are not fundamental to our salvation, but what we believe about Jesus Christ and his work and his salvation is fundamental and Paul says it is.in 1 Cor 15. He says a man can believe in vain. He says this in the context of defining the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then he tells us what vain faith is. I will not discuss it here but later will start a thread to discuss vain faith. I think this philosophy that is discussed here has produced all these new translations that all proponents of them claim they do not believe are authority in and of themselves. Read 2 Cor 10 again. This will drive you to these men of religious renown to find out what the truth is and you find out they don't know either. I do not know whose idea it was to produce 150 new English translations in the last 125 years but I would not be surprised if it is not mostly the Reformed groups. I say that because they do not believe the words without a spin on them according to my experience with them here.

 

hmm

“That the bare death of Jesus Christ without a thought or deed on the part of man, is sufficient to present the chief of sinners spotless before God.[4]”
Glasite - Wikipedia

If the above statement is in agreement with ‘the all sufficiency of The Atonement’, then I’d say we have that in common.

 

Are Primitive Baptists Sandemanians?

“No, Primitive Baptists are not Sandemanians, but they are both conservative Christian groups with some similarities:”

​

 

JD. You left out Wesley, Grantham, Baxter, and more recently Lennox, Wilson, Cooper, and Aquinas. Don't assume that I don't respect the writings of others as well as the Calvinists. Like I have said many times on here, I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in a limited atonement and I believe that a huge part of men's problems and a huge part of the Bible itself is about how we resist grace to our detriment.

As a set of guide rails to keep you from say getting into Pelagianism for example, Calvinistic theology serves a purpose, as you illustrate in your posts. I try to avoid having it affect every scripture passage I read though as some do on this site.

Indeed you don't. You probably are correct in saying that if the KJV was good enough for Paul it's good enough for us.

True. How we come to have faith, how our free will functions, how God knows the future, the extent of predestination really don't matter as to our salvation. But it is appropriate to discuss these issues on a theology website. To come on and admonish people for discussing theology on a theology thread is something I really can't explain. So you got me there.

 

Me thinks you missed my point. I did not say it is inappropriate to discuss non fundamentals here, I just opined that we do. We can disagree on those things. However, the gospel and how we get saved and the work and person of Christ is a narrow fundamental of the faith and there is a wide gulf between what most Calvinists here believes and what those who are not Reformed believes about it. Is that not true?

 

We all have that in common. The problem with the Sandemanians was that they were proud of the fact that without any emotion at all, they could come to faith because they so stressed the "bare, naked, mental act of believing" as a total explanation of saving faith. So I was just pulling your leg since you had posted a critique of @Charlie24 's post. It just reminded me of Sandemanianism, who as far as I know were completely orthodox, but caused people to think they were antinomian because of the way they expressed their beliefs.

In all seriousness, Puritan preaching could tend to be emotional. "Warm" as they called it, and they could be heavy on something they called "preparationism", which sounds a lot like the old fundamentalists getting you lost first, before you could get saved.

 

LOL Dave. How quick you are to prove my point. You read that in one of those Reformed tomes, didn't you? That is not original with you.

 

Well explain what you mean JD. I really don't see much difference at all. Maybe I'm just naive but I really believe that the people I interact with on here are truly saved brothers from @KenH to @Silverhair to @kyredneck to you. Of course we don't really know each other from Adam and some of you could be AI generated but I mean just by what is posted. We go round and round sometimes but this is a good place to do this. You start these discussions in church and someone is going to get mad real quick and the pastor will probably smack you up the side of the head. But sometimes you learn stuff on here. Even I can't read everything.

 

Glad to know you have a sense of humor. I heard that line last week at church. I thought it was a good one. In case you don't have a sense of humor though I should inform you that I carry a KJV because I like it.

 

Well, Dave, you know what I believe as an Independent Fundamental Baptist and you know the T.U.L.I.P

I read the scriptures as God himself making an everlasting, once for all time, never to be repeated, atonement by the sacrifice of his own son that takes away sin, removing that which makes God and men enemies and separates them and presenting it, the atonement, to men by first his apostles and then his preachers as a gift that we all may receive freely.

You don't think there is much difference???? Really?

 

This thread's question.
Does God Always Get His Way With Man?

I see it, it was has to be, both, a yes and a no.

 

Like I said, the confessions are helpful guidelines to keep us from getting off track. I was in a Baptist church that had, along with much of evangelicalism, drifted into an "easy believism" where we would post a chart in Sunday school with our "spiritual birthday" listed (the date and time of our born again experience) and teach nothing of the need for a pursuit of a holy life as being necessary to a Christian. That's just one example but what I'm saying is that when I started really looking into the Puritan writings I discovered a rich, experiential faith that I vaguely remembered from my pastor as a child but had been forgotten by modern Baptists.

My first introduction to Spurgeon was when I read one of his sermons posted in the "Sword of the Lord" while John R. Rice was still in charge of it. Keep that in mind if you want to slam Spurgeon, who many say was a Puritan born out of his time. I also, at a time in my younger days when I was backslidden and in trouble I stumbled upon Bridges book "The Pursuit of Holiness" which I think saved my life. Years later I looked into it again because it reminded me of Owen, and sure enough, it turns out that it basically was a Cliff notes version of Owen's "The Mortification of Sin".

So when you start connecting the dots you will find Puritan fingerprints all over almost everything in modern English speaking Christendom that is of any use - and they were overwhelmingly Calvinist. In addition to Spurgeon and Owen, I was introduced to Bunyan's "Pilgrims Progress" by a travelling IFB evangelist who constantly was saying we had to read this. Wesley and his Methodists apparently fed on the Puritan writing constantly. Yet if you read Wesley's theology, he was not Calvinist. Neither was Richard Baxter, who every Calvinist says had the best pastoral writings of anybody. Still, I am saying that we all owe much of our current understanding of Christian living to Calvinists. And for times sake I won't even begin to go into modern missions but it's the same. Calvinists front and center there too.

So to answer your question, in my opinion anyone who doesn't realize the close tie in between Calvinism, Puritans, and Baptists needs to get out more. Or - and I hate to say it because it seems to be painful to some - read some more books.

 

Right on, @DaveXR650
Anyone who wants to grow as a Christian should pull his big boy pants on and read the Puritans. Owen is hard to read, but Banner of Truth have many of his writings in simplified, slightly abridged, English. Try 'Searching our Hearts in Difficult Times' or 'Gospel Life.' 'Mortification of Sin' is an absolute must-read. Highly recommended! Also Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.

 

Did anyone say God does not reveal Himself to humanity? Nope.
Is it at issue that we were all made sinners, predisposed to sin? Nope

And you repeat you citation without indicating whether or not you are adding to the text with "There is none that [ever]understandeth, there is not that [ever] seeketh after God.

We see through a glass darkly, we do not understand enough to always follow God. We do not seek God always, such as when we are sinning.

The Bible has several passages teaching the lost seek God. Such as Romans 9:30-33 The passage also teaches the lost can understand and believe.

 

I am wondering why we need all the new prophets and apostles when we have Isaiah and Daniel and Peter and Paul. I am guessing Christianity would have no appeal to the Reformed without these guys. There is no biblical warrant for national or world pastors. Christians have local pastors and a big Bible and a resident teacher called the Spirit of God.

What I dislike about the Reformed is that you spiritualize a major portion of the Bible, I am guessing 90 percent, and have sliding hermeneutics on passages from which your TULIP is mined. There is no hope in Calvinistic doctrines because faith and hope is a tandem team in the scriptures of truth and faith is a principle that 99.3% of the population of the world cannot have by the decree of God himself. The system teaches the unfaithfulness of the Christian God. Without faith there is no hope.

This is all my opinion, of course as I have learned over time about the thinking of Calvinists and Reformed of all stripes.

 

I have posted I am not a Calvinist, so why did not indicate Reformed Theology just can't understand the power of the gospel. Are you implying [rather than clearly stating] the gospel's divine power is to supernaturally enable the lost to believe? If so, your claim is not found in scripture, but once again has been read into the text.

You cited 1 Corinthians 1:18, but did not indicate what you think it means.

Let me tell you what I think it means. Your translation has "them that perish" but the Greek grammar is in the Present, Middle, Participle form - which says the person is acting upon himself or herself, currently causing the demise. Thus if you are rejecting the gospel, your action is causing your death. No supernatural enablement is suggested. Next, your translation has "us which are saved" but the Greek grammar is in "Present, Passive, Participle" form - which says someone [God in this case] is saving the person. Again, God's independent action is not said to be dependent on the person being enabled to believe. On the other hand, our belief in the power of God, God's omnipotent power, under-girds our complete faith in and devotion to the gospel of Christ. We believe God raised Jesus from the dead.

 

Acts of the Apostles 8:31-32. 'So Philip ran to him and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, How can I unless someone guides me."'
Proverbs 11:14. 'Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.'