Belief in the Absolute Sovereignty of God and the Absolute Depravity of Man

[thatbrian]

I can't figure out if people are unable or unwilling to understand Calvinism.

Inability would mean that they simply lack the intellectual resources, as in a low IQ. That might account for some, but certainly not many. This is not difficult to understand.

Unwilling would mean that even after being corrected, they still misrepresent facts. That's equivalent to lying. Again, that might explain some but there can't be that many intentionally dishonest Christians.

What other explanation could there be for people who continue to misrepresent the Calvinist position?

 

[thatbrian]

Exactly. God is sovereign. That means that no one controls Him. It does not mean He chooses to control every minute aspect of everything.

False dichotomy.

 

[utilyan]

Thanks for stopping by and expressing your concerns. Remember your are loved of the Father. I John 3.1

rd

Thanks for your response. Not everyone could say what you just said to any stranger. Someone one may insist God doesn't love everyone. Some even put up different tier levels like a lessor "common" love that is not love at all. Even a "spiritual" love.

But if your certain God loves me, Sincerly. I hope yours is the majority of Calvinism.

 

[robycop3]

Hello to all:

I was wondering if I could "stir the waters" a little by putting forth an assertion; that most Independent Fundamentalist Baptists I have been around (and admittedly that is a narrow scope); hate the Absolute Sovereignty of God in choosing in salvation and Absolute Sovereignty of Man when defined by someone who is a strict Particular Redemptionists; i.e.,T-U-L-I-P.

I propose that it is because:

1. They do not believe in the sovereignty of god but the "sovereignty of sinners" because of their high view of man tantamount to those who hold to "modernism" of the 1920s. This is expressed in the so called "free will of man" to choose God when he has his own capricious spirit.

2. They do not believe in the absolute depravity of man, for they think and really do believe that they can choose God at their time and place not His. They also rebel against the depraved mankind doctrine because (some not all) believe they really are good in some sense. They do not need to be on the Baptist Board but probably need to be on a Methodist Board where they believe in some level of personal holiness and perfectionism.

If they really did believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God and absolute Depravity of Man they would repent and become some kind of Particular Redemptionists either Reformed or Baptistic. Or if they ever saw God in his splendor and glory and how that magnified their absolute separation from Him in our sin; we too would call for the rocks to fall on us and cry aloud for mercy.

The arguments we have (IMHO!), should not be over the fundamentals but over "What is the Gospel?"

Excuse me, I am only ranting in R. C. Sproul's absence.

I have said too much now and will take more heat probably than I have shown light.

My humble opinion. Take it or leave it.

rd

If God had wanted robots incapable of the slightest sin, and who automatically loved & served Him, He could easily have made them. Instead, He made beings with the FREE WILL to serve Him or not. After all, 1/3 of the angels WHO HAD ACTUALLY SEEN HIM chose to follow Satan in rebellion against Him.

And I don't believe God made anyone whose destiny was to automatically go to hell with no chance for salvation.

 

[rlvaughn]

So, there are many of us who still cling to the old Particular Baptist stance, in stark contrast to the IFBx groups who have adopted Finnyism, hook, line, and sinker...

From an historical standpoint, then, would you say that some of the Northern Fundamentalist line maintained the doctrine of Particular Redemption without interruption from the past to the present? I have never been aware of any of the Southern line who did (but then again, there are many things of which I am not aware).

1. They do not believe in the sovereignty of god but the "sovereignty of sinners"...

To the general tenor of your post, I have often expressed it in non-theological terminology this way. A belief that:
Man is doing what he will, and God is trying to do what he can.

 

[David Kent]

Someone on an IFB board said : I believe in absolute Free Will. But he believes in OSAS. I replied that if he believed in absolute free will, he must also believe that his free will would allow him to later not be saved.


1. Sovereign Ruler of the skies!
Ever gracious, ever wise!
All my times are in Thy hand,
All events at Thy command.

2. His decree, who formed the earth,
Fixed my first and second birth;
Parents, native place and time,
All appointed were by Him.

3. He that formed me in the womb,
He shall guide me to the tomb;
All my times shall ever be
Ordered by His wise decree.

4. Times of sickness, times of health,
Times of penury and wealth;
Times of trial and of grief,
Time of triumph and relief.

5. Times the tempter's power to prove,
Times to taste a Savior's love:
All must come, and last and end,
As shall please my heavenly Friend.

6. Plagues and deaths around me fly,
Till He bids I cannot die:
Not a single shaft can hit
Till the God of love thinks fit.

7. O Thou Gracious, Wise and Just,
In Thy hands my life I trust:
Have I somewhat dearer still?
I resign it to Thy will.

8. May I always own Thy hand
Still to the surrender stand;
Know that Thou art God alone,
I and mine are all Thine own.

9. Thee, at all times, will I bless;
Having Thee, I all possess;
How can I bereaved be,
Since I cannot part with Thee?

 

[Reynolds]

False dichotomy.

Maybe in your mind.

 

[thatbrian]

Maybe in your mind.

It's time for you to join your buddies. Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[Rhetorician]

Wait? What? Who is saying I am being put on an ignore list? Thanks, I think?

rd

 

[Reynolds]

It's time for you to join your buddies. Welcome to the ignore list.

Thanks, life is more peaceful without your nonsense.

 

[Rob_BW]

Wait? What? Who is saying I am being put on an ignore list? Thanks, I think?

rd

I don’t believe anyone was putting you on ignore.

 

[thatbrian]

Wait? What? Who is saying I am being put on an ignore list? Thanks, I think?

rd

Not you. I responded directly to someone else, and if you didn't see their posts, it's likely because they are on your ignore list.

 

[Felipe Rios]

Hello to all:

I was wondering if I could "stir the waters" a little by putting forth an assertion; that most Independent Fundamentalist Baptists I have been around (and admittedly that is a narrow scope); hate the Absolute Sovereignty of God in choosing in salvation and Absolute Sovereignty of Man when defined by someone who is a strict Particular Redemptionists; i.e.,T-U-L-I-P.

I propose that it is because:

1. They do not believe in the sovereignty of god but the "sovereignty of sinners" because of their high view of man tantamount to those who hold to "modernism" of the 1920s. This is expressed in the so called "free will of man" to choose God when he has his own capricious spirit.

2. They do not believe in the absolute depravity of man, for they think and really do believe that they can choose God at their time and place not His. They also rebel against the depraved mankind doctrine because (some not all) believe they really are good in some sense. They do not need to be on the Baptist Board but probably need to be on a Methodist Board where they believe in some level of personal holiness and perfectionism.

If they really did believe in the absolute Sovereignty of God and absolute Depravity of Man they would repent and become some kind of Particular Redemptionists either Reformed or Baptistic. Or if they ever saw God in his splendor and glory and how that magnified their absolute separation from Him in our sin; we too would call for the rocks to fall on us and cry aloud for mercy.

The arguments we have (IMHO!), should not be over the fundamentals but over "What is the Gospel?"

Excuse me, I am only ranting in R. C. Sproul's absence.

I have said too much now and will take more heat probably than I have shown light.

My humble opinion. Take it or leave it.

rd

I'm not a Calvinists and I completely disagree with your statement. You are making too many assumptions. Don't build your case on assumptions.

 

[Felipe Rios]

this is false. The premise is in error due to an errant definition of the sovereignty of God.

Amen

 

[Rhetorician]

Bro. Rios,

Do you know the difference between what you call a "Calvinist," someone who is Reformed, and someone who believes in Particular Redemption?

I do not baptize babies....

I do not think that State and Church should be together....

I do not believe in a Presbyterian form of church government...

So how can I be a "Calvinist?"

Just asking?

rd

 

[David Kent]

l suppose that anyone who says they are not reformed must be unreformed i.e. back in the dark ages.

 

[Rhetorician]

I'm not a Calvinists and I completely disagree with your statement. You are making too many assumptions. Don't build your case on assumptions.

Bro. Rios,

Dear Brother, I do believe that a closer reading of the Biblical text would prove that God is absolutely sovereign in all things as Paul said in the verse I quoted in Ephesians above.

No quarrel with you just trying to point you to a text one either has to deal with or ignore. Sometimes the Biblical texts do a great deal of violence to what theology we hold personally when we come to it.

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

I'm not a Calvinists and I completely disagree with your statement. You are making too many assumptions. Don't build your case on assumptions.

Bro. Rios dear sir,

It is an assumption that Ephesian 1:11 that says God works all things after the counsel of his own will?

Does "all things" mean ALL THINGS? or no?

You either have to ignore the text or deal with it. Granted it is hard to deal with, nonetheless it is there.

No offense intended.

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

l suppose that anyone who says they are not reformed must be unreformed i.e. back in the dark ages.

Bro.

Please explain this I am not sure what you mean here?

rd

 

[Reformed]

So how can I be a "Calvinist?"

A Calvinist is typically used to describe anyone who holds to TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and Perseverance of the Saints). A Calvinist can be Baptist, Presbyterian, Plymouth Brethren, and even some Methodists.