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

[Rhetorician]

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

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

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

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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

mmmmkayyyy..............
you'll have to be infinitely more creative than this to expect anyone to respond with any level of seriousness.

Phrases like "HATE the 'Sovereignty' of God", despite how fun they are for you to type, don't mean much to people who simply role their eyes in boredom at reading posts like yours.

 

[TCassidy]

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 hate to spoil your stirring of the waters, but I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist. Saved in an IFB church. Baptized in an IFB church. Married in an IFB church. Educated in an IFB seminary. Taught in an IFB Bible College, Taught in an IFB Seminary. Pastored an IFB church for 27 years and spent 45 years in IFB ministry. And thoroughly embrace the 5 points of TULIP. (With the exception of preferring E over I - Efficacious Grace rather than Irresistible Grace - which is a matter of semantics but gives a clearer understanding of that point of doctrine.)

Granted I am now attending a very conservative SBC church but that is due to an absence of IFB churches in the Valley where I live.

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.

Several such schools still take such a stand (Baptist Bible College and Seminary of Clark Summet, PA. - Now Summit University of Pennsylvania and Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary to name just a couple).

But I agree with your assessment of the vast majority of the IFBx group. Those of us with our theological roots in the FBF, GARBC, and the other groups that left the old NBC tend more toward Particular Redemption and away from the IFBx "1-2-3 pray after me" methodology characteristic of those who later separated from the SBC around the middle of the last century.

 

[TCassidy]

you'll have to be infinitely more creative than this to expect anyone to respond with any level of seriousness.

I responded with a very serious post.

Phrases like "HATE the 'Sovereignty' of God", despite how fun they are for you to type, don't mean much to people who simply role their eyes in boredom at reading posts like yours.

You are aware, are you not, that the phrase was taken from another thread which made that assertion?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I responded with a very serious post.

You did.

You are aware, are you not, that the phrase was taken from another thread which made that assertion?

Nope, I wasn't....
In a vacuum (which is where I was coming from) it sounded like little more than a rhetorical homily on:
"Non-Calvinists" "HATE" God's Sovereignty....(actually he did say that)
"Non-Calvinists" exalt man above God..blah blah blah

Gotta be honest, though, if he's a "Rhetorician" of any skill, he has to know he loses us at phrases like "Hates God's Sovereignty".

The other side officially tunes you out at that point, and can't hear a word you're saying. That just makes him an abysmally bad "Rhetorician" if that's what he styles himself.

 

[Rhetorician]

I hate to spoil your stirring of the waters, but I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist. Saved in an IFB church. Baptized in an IFB church. Married in an IFB church. Educated in an IFB seminary. Taught in an IFB Bible College, Taught in an IFB Seminary. Pastored an IFB church for 27 years and spent 45 years in IFB ministry. And thoroughly embrace the 5 points of TULIP. (With the exception of preferring E over I - Efficacious Grace rather than Irresistible Grace - which is a matter of semantics but gives a clearer understanding of that point of doctrine.)

Granted I am now attending a very conservative SBC church but that is due to an absence of IFB churches in the Valley where I live.

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.

Several such schools still take such a stand (Baptist Bible College and Seminary of Clark Summet, PA. - Now Summit University of Pennsylvania and Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary to name just a couple).

But I agree with your assessment of the vast majority of the IFBx group. Those of us with our theological roots in the FBF, GARBC, and the other groups that left the old NBC tend more toward Particular Redemption and away from the IFBx "1-2-3 pray after me" methodology characteristic of those who later separated from the SBC around the middle of the last century.

Dear Brother,

Thank you for the kind words. What is it and why did you award me with the little medal? I have been away from the BB for a while and am getting use to all the new program features. Please help me out here.

Do you find that there are many of the younger IFB gen who are Finney types? Or are there any Particular Baptists younger guys out there who frequent the BB?

Maybe, since you and I are of the same general generation you can help me with something man to man. I have always thought that the "fighting fundamentalists" of my age have fought for the five fundamentals and have used the Finney type revival and "soul winning" means; but, have lost or never had the Gospel of Grace, Particular Redemption, or the "Five Solas" of the Reformation. Can you please explain that to me. When I found the Gospel of Grace in Particular Redemption I always found that it trumped the Five Fundamentals to me? All I saw was legalism instead of the Doctrines of Grace.

As one on the inside whom I know to be quite knowledgeable (and whom I now trust a great deal!) about your own faith and practice, help a brother out here if you will please. This has always behooved me since the days when I was a bus pastor and heard Jack Hyles and others of that ilk do their soul winning gymnastics, screaming, and ranting / raving!!

Any help will be appreciated I am sure.

Please do not get the above foray wrong. I am still a Fundamentalist with a capital F. But I am not a "fighting fundy" since I have found the Gospel of Grace in Particular Redemption.

My two cents worth that I know will be cut to pieces, especially at this particular forum.

rd

 

[Rhetorician]

Pardon the double quote, still learning all the bells and whistles.

rd

 

[TCassidy]

I have always thought that the "fighting fundamentalists" of my age have fought for the five fundamentals and have used the Finney type revival and "soul winning" means; but, have lost or never had the Gospel of Grace, Particular Redemption, or the "Five Solas" of the Reformation.

I agree. And one of the things I find amusing about those who style themselves as "fighting fundamentalists" is that they don't realize the term was popularized among Baptists by the three fold descriptive categories in the book "A History of Fundamentalism in America" by my friend, teacher, and mentor, Dr. George W. Dollar and published by BJU Press around the 1970s. Those categories were "Militant Fundamentalism" which the Hyles crowd interpreted as the "Fighting Fundamentalism" of "Fighting Bob Schuler" of Passadena, California. A Methodist. "Moderate Fundamentalism." And "Modified Fundamentalism."

They seem to have failed to understand what "militant" means.

I have searched my bible but I can't find where we Christians have been given the ministry of condemnation. All I could find is that we have been given the ministry of reconciliation.

Please do not get the above foray wrong. I am still a Fundamentalist with a capital F. But I am not a "fighting fundy" since I have found the Gospel of Grace in Particular Redemption.

I describe myself as being Fundamental but not a Fundamentalist - a term co-opted by the proponents of isolationism while calling it "separation" - secondary or even tertiary.

I will still fight for the "the faith once delivered to the saints," but only in the "earnestly contend" manner.

My two cents worth that I know will be cut to pieces, especially at this particular forum.

The hazards of posting on the Baptist Board.

 

[Reformed]

Since I've lived in Central Florida for a less than 3 years, I still remember the number of Baptist churches I vetted. The IFB churches in this area are pretty much hostile towards the doctrines of grace. Most of them are akin to Tom's description of the IFBx group (not sure what the "x" designation means).

These churches give verbal assent to God's sovereignty, but they redefine it to allow for a synergistic schema. Total depravity is a non-sequitur. They believe man is fallen but not completely fallen. They believe there is a divine spark in the sinner that can respond to Gospel. It is this "divine spark" that they consider to be free choice/will. Obviously, those churches were never serious contenders for my membership. They really are the rule where I live, not the exception.

 

[TCassidy]

(not sure what the "x" designation means).

"Extremist."

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Since I've lived in Central Florida for a less than 3 years, I still remember the number of Baptist churches I vetted. The IFB churches in this area are pretty much hostile towards the doctrines of grace. Most of them are akin to Tom's description of the IFBx group (not sure what the "x" designation means).

These churches give verbal assent to God's sovereignty, but they redefine it to allow for a synergistic schema. Total depravity is a non-sequitur. They believe man is fallen but not completely fallen. They believe there is a divine spark in the sinner that can respond to Gospel. It is this "divine spark" that they consider to be free choice/will. Obviously, those churches were never serious contenders for my membership. They really are the rule where I live, not the exception.

YUP!!!!
Preaching regularly in Central Florida!
And, no Church I'm preaching in will qualify as a "serious contender" for your membership then...I'm sure we can live with that.
Thanks be to God, who is Sovereign in all things and has elected of his wisdom and grace who (for his own glory) has not allowed you to come to my area and preach your semi-gnostic heresy:
God's Sovereignty be praised!!!

I will, by God's Eternal, Sovereign Will and Decree, on Christmas Eve, be preaching the gospel from one of God's Baptist pulpits in the Central Florida area, he has chosen...and you will not.

God be praised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The title of my message is "Zacharias Vs. Mary"!
You should come, and hear God's Word extolled on Christmas Eve from one of God's Central Florida Baptist Churches
And, we ABSOLUTELY don't want your membership at all

 

[Reynolds]

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

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

 

[Jerome]

Charles Spurgeon, The Heavenly Rainbow

God, in His absolute sovereignty, never does violence to any of His other attributes

God has been pleased to assure you that He is love—that He is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. Now, whatever sovereignty may decree, you may rest assured that the decree will be in consonance with the fact that God is full of mercy, grace and truth.

I know some of you set up the decree of God like a huge monster before you. You paint a horrible picture, as though the visage of Him that speaks to you from heaven were cruel and pitiless. But that picture is drawn by your perverse imagination—it is not God’s portrait of Himself, for He says, “As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dies, but had rather that he would turn unto Me and live.”

God wills not the death of a sinner, but had rather that he should turn unto Him and live! So He, Himself, assures us and, sovereign as He is, yet He still remains both just and gracious forever—and let us not doubt it for a moment!

 

[Reformed]

"Extremist."

Well, there's plenty of them around!

 

[Rhetorician]

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

Dear Brother Reynolds,

Brother, then please give us (me) a good interpretation of Eph. 1:11:

Eph 1:11

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

This was quoted from the Blue Letter Bible King James Version. In respect of R.C. Sproul who said, "There is not one rebel atom in any of God's universe."

But I am not sure the Apostle Paul meant all things here.

Now that is a Sovereign God. But I am sure that the "free will of man" can do what he wants when he pleases. Forgive me, sarcasm is so not nice. But then again that is a rhetorical tool.

rd

 

[Reynolds]

Dear Brother Reynolds,

Brother, then please give us (me) a good interpretation of Eph. 1:11:

Eph 1:11

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

This was quoted from the Blue Letter Bible King James Version. In respect of R.C. Sproul who said, "There is not one rebel atom in any of God's universe."

But I am not sure the Apostle Paul meant all things here.

Now that is a Sovereign God. But I am sure that the "free will of man" can do what he wants when he pleases. Forgive me, sarcasm is so not nice. But then again that is a rhetorical tool.

rd

Its simple unless you try to put words in my mouth. Free will? Free will of man is an illusion. Man has freedom to do what God allows Him to do. Is that free will? How much does He allow man to decide? However much He allows man to decide is totally His decision and under His control.

 

[thatbrian]

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

Yes. The Apostle Paul gave us good reason to agree with that statement. We are united by the gospel, not fundamentalism.

 

[utilyan]

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 PROPOSE IT MIGHT BE BECAUSE:


I know a few baptist non-Calvinist. They just hate evil when they see it.

It is a spiritually fascist doctrine. It serves no purpose educationally if God is just a puppet master trying to point to who? himself?

We need God to be good,no kidding. No one created themselves, you would need God to make mistakes too.

A sole purpose to let everyone know who is the top bully of the playground?

What sort of a person watches 2 children drown, decides to save 1 and let the other one know he's lucky he's not the one he LET drown.

Oh and it gets better he has the "RIGHT" to watch you both drown, His "PLEASURE" to watch you suffer.

God is expected to be evil, narcissistic, megalomaniac.

Typical calvinist says : OH how SHOCKING, ,what a SURPRISE, that God would even bother to SAVE any of this wretched filth called humanity.

The INSULT TO GOD being that We should expect GOD to be heartless unforgiving jerk. And you guys are oh so surprised its a MIRACLE God loves anything.

False humilty or flat out evil, pick one.

You can name ANYBODY, would be better at the job of being God then the Calvinist God.

I saw this horror movie called "SAW" its got a few sequels.....That villain is a SAINT compared to the Calvinist view of God. I can debate the innocence of anyone a lot easier. I got a better case for anyone of you to be God, because I'm pretty confident none of you could be so sick.


This will be a battle of HOW DOES POWER shows KINDNESS vs HOW DOES KINDNESS SHOW POWER.

God is LOVE, Evil looks to power first. They call kindness, mercy, love as weakness.

If you are just a crowd pleaser, guy who caves into peer pressure, always telling folks what they want to hear, never questions evil orders... it is what it is. They don't care about the mercy of others.

 

[Rhetorician]

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

rd