-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do we worship the same God?
- Thread starter MB
- Start date
- Status
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
I think Darby might have been quasi Calvistic. But he was Plymouth Brethren.I give all of 'em (the Jesuits, the Reformed, and the Pentecostals) an A+ in creativity.
What scripture are you speaking about?
Did you quote scripture anywhere to support your claim?
Darby was Calvinistic (Charles Finney was a full blown Calvinist....but don't tell the Calvinists
). It's interesting who specific groups want to claim and don't want to claim. But I suppose we don't get to pick family.
Darby was Calvinistic (Charles Finney was a full blown Calvinist....but don't tell the Calvinists
It's interesting who specific groups want to claim and don't want to claim. But I suppose we don't get to pick family.
This is an oldie but a goodie: Charles Finney's Theology.
You may think Finney was a Calvinist, but his unorthodox view of harmartology and anthropology (not-to-mention his Pelagianistic revivals) makes such a claim untenable.
The irony is where Finney stood at the end. He considered himself a strict student of Jonathan Edwards (who is also not considered a "Calvinist" by many but remained very Calvinistic in his understanding).
But to be fair, most hard core Calvinists reject Edwards as a Calvinist as well. Many would reject him except for God's use for the man and his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", as that sermon deeply appeals to many Calvinists.
In terms of theology, those who reject Finney should reject Edwards, and vise versa. Their theology was almost, if not exactly, identical.
So I ask you (just to see how you stand within your own position), what do you think of Jonathan Edwards....was he a Calvinist or do you reject his theology as strongly as you would reject Finney?
Jonathan Edwards was certainly a revivalist but he was distinctly Reformed in his anthropology (man is born in sin), and his soteriology. He firmly believed in the Reformed view of predestination and election. These are things that Finney did not believe. They are not on an equal playing field theologically speaking. Admittedly, I am not an expert on Edwards. I have read his views on the doctrines I just mentioned as well as his affirming Covenant Theology. The only connection I can see between Edwards and Finney is that both had an affinity for revivalism. But even there the two men differed. Edwards believed in proclaiming the gospel and calling on sinners to repent and believe, although he understood that only those called by the Father (the Effectual Call) would do so. Finney believed otherwise. Finney emphasized decisions for Christ, not repentance from sin.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Can you think of any Scriptures that say that God will not force a man to do something?
I can think of many that show that God does as He pleases, regardless of what man wants.
I agree.
Does He convince all men, or some?
I agree.
The God of the Bible does not love each and every person that ever lived:
" The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." ( Psalms 5:5 ).
" The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: [this shall be] the portion of their cup.
7 For the righteous Lord loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.." ( Psalms 11:5 ).
" For the froward [is] abomination to the Lord: but his secret [is] with the righteous." ( Proverbs 3:32 ).
" As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." ( Romans 9:13 ).
There are a few more I could list.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I agree.
He loves His children, whom He has made righteous:
" The LORD openeth [the eyes of] the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous:" ( Psalms 146:8 )
As for giving men an opportunity to come to Him, IF He did that every second of every day of every person's life, the answer would only ever be, continually:
Romans 1:32.
Romans 3:10-18.
John 3:19-20.
Many more.
Simply putting together Psalms 5:5 and Psalms 146:8, I clearly see that He hates the wicked and loves the righteous.
I'm sorry to hear that.
I worship the God described outside and including select passages like John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 John 2:2, and about 10 others.
To me, He is far more than what a small number of select passages can do justice to.
I'll tell you what...try this:
Walk into any Baptist church that is not "Calvinistic", and ask the pastor if Psalms 5:5 is true.
I imagine you'll get a "yes, but..." answer.
Better yet, ask him..."Does God hate anyone?"
Scripture says that He does.
I have a feeling you'll get an answer other than, "yes, He does".
There's a reason He sends people to Hell, and it isn't because He loves them and they love Him.
Last edited:
I guess the distinction with Jonathan Edwards was that the idea that predestination was based on God knowing what would occur seemed closer to Arminianism than some would have preferred.
Some seem to object, but Edwards, Arminius, and Wesley are all distinctly Reformed in their theology.
Better yet can you show a verse where God did force a man to be saved'
Then show where God forced a man to be saved.
Not all will come nor will all listen.
You are wrong He loved the world so much that He died for it
Even when men hate God He loves them enough to die for them.
MB
Dave G
Well-Known Member
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.
Romans 8:29-30.
Ephesians 2:1-10.
Now...can you think of any Scriptures that say that God will not force a man to do something?
I know of nothing in God's word that states that He will not violate a man's will.
See above.
I could list others, if needed.
How about Paul, in the book of Acts?
The Lord simply stopped Paul dead in His tracks, and revealed Himself to him...against his will.
While he was on the way to persecute more Christians.
...and bring them back to Jerusalem to face the Sanhedrin.
How about Abraham?
Jacob?
David?
Noah?
Moses?
Do you know of any passages that show that a person who is saved, actually sought God while they were still dead in their trespasses and sins?
Why?
Please list the Scriptures for your conclusion, MB.
I know of many that actually answer both of those...
Why all will not come, and why all will not listen.
Then all their sins are forgiven, since His death actually made payment.
Why are some in Hell, if He died to propitiate ( make appeasement to God for ) their sins?
If they are paid for, then His justice has been served.
When was payment made, according to Scripture?
When those that were atoned for were in belief, or in unbelief?
" But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." ( Romans 5:8-11 )
Who are the "us", "we", "our", and who was reconciled by the death of His Son here, and who has received the atonement in this passage?
Hint:
There's more to His atonement for sins on the cross, than simply 1 John 2:2 and a few others.
Finally, I agree with your quote above...
I hated Him, and He loved me enough to send His Son to die for me.
The greatest love story ever told.
Last edited:
My wife is a previous English teacher and in one of the books that was required reading for all her students was... Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God... Well to make a long story short, she had some pretty nervous students, if you get my drift... Brother Glen
Another hair raiser was The Crucible, about the Salem Witch Trials
It depends on how you define Reformed. My view is more narrow than yours.
I define "Reformed" as holding a soteriology akin to the Reformed Church. But I know that definition has fallen out of favor, especially among Baptists who envy the title.
Darby and Edwards were Calvinists to the core. They would most likely reject "Reformed Baptist" as Anabaptist with a "reformed" twist. But, as they say, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" (or in this case, orthodxy is in the hands of the majority).
We all have our personal definitions, but in the end words have meaning and whether we choose to acknowledge their meaning is not relevant.
Twenty years ago the claim the Early Church taught Penal Substitution Theory would be dismissed as stupidity and the folly of fools. But today it is regarded as "history" by some. But in the end ignoring fact in favor of fantasy and recreating history to our liking changes nothing except perhaps breeding more ignorance.
It simply does not matter. I say reach the fools in their foolishness with the gospel of Christ. If they remain stupid but accept the gospel at least they are saved in their ignorance.
Perhaps a Calvinist cannot discern Scripture. Who knows? But at some level he can comprehend the gospel. And God can use that sliver of truth for His glory, just as God used Calvinists in the past - like John Finney and Jonathan Edwards. It is about God, not the men He uses.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Which is why I don't agree with him or Andrew Fuller.
God knowing "what would occur" ( instead of purposefully knowing each and every elect individual in His mind's eye, like Jeremiah 1:5 and others state ), would be the only way to explain Romans 8:29-30 while holding on to the "Arminian" doctrine of "Prevenient Grace", as I see it.
Based on the two different types of "foreknowledge"...
1) Knowing what would occur, given the correct set of circumstances....
2) Knowing the individual personally and lovingly, and working their salvation through each and every detail...beginning a work in them, and finishing a work ( Philippians 1:6 ) in those that He decided to have mercy and compassion on ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ).
To me, the first one doesn't allow God to have mercy and compassion on some ( Exodus 33:19 ), and reserve the rest for righteous judgment...showing His grace and mercy to some, and being willing to show His wrath and to make His power known to all.
It also is not really working all things after the counsel of His own will and purposes, and it is not really Him choosing, but relying on man's choice to then make His choice.
The second doesn't allow man to work for his salvation ( as it relies on nothing a man has or does ), as it is strictly a gift given by a merciful God...the objects of His mercy and grace being eternal grateful for not being cast into Hell, where we all belong.
Which brings me to a question...
Which one is truly grace ( God's efforts ), and which one allows works, or man's efforts ( Romans 11:5-6 )?
As I see it, Wesley was far from what is termed as "Reformed" ( TULIP ).
He took Jakob Hermanszoon's and other's teachings, and simply advanced them further....ending up basically agreeing with "Molinism" and the Roman Catholic Church in its view of how God saves men.
To me, what he taught was man working to gain God's favor, not God granting His favor to some and not others, as is His right.
I don't see John Wesley as understanding grace at all.
Last edited:
My understand is closer to Jonathan Edwards (and many hold he was not a Calvinst at all). But I also lean towards Anabaptist theology, so even apart from my appreciation of Edwards we would not quite agree.Which is why I don't agree with him or Andrew Fuller.
God knowing "what would occur" ( instead of purposefully knowing each and every elect individual in His mind's eye, like Jeremiah 1:5 and others state ), would be the only way to explain Romans 8:29-30 while holding on to the "Arminian" doctrine of "Prevenient Grace", as I see it.
Based on the two different types of "foreknowledge"...
1) Knowing what would occur, given the correct set of circumstances....
2) Knowing the individual personally and lovingly, and working their salvation through each and every detail...beginning a work in them, and finishing a work ( Philippians 1:6 ) in those that He decided to have mercy and compassion on ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ).
To me, the first one doesn't allow God to have mercy and compassion on some ( Exodus 33:19 ), and reserve the rest for righteous judgment...showing His grace and mercy to some, and being willing to show His wrath and to make His power known to all.
It also is not really working all things after the counsel of His own will and purposes, and it is not really Him choosing, but relying on man's choice to then make His choice.
The second doesn't allow man to work for his salvation ( as it relies on nothing a man has or does ), as it is strictly a gift given by a merciful God...the objects of His mercy and grace being eternal grateful for not being cast into Hell, where we all belong.
Which brings me to a question...
Which one is truly grace, and which one is works ( Romans 11:5-6 )?
As I see it, Wesley was far from what is termed as "Reformed" ( TULIP ).
He took Jakob Hermanszoon's and other's teachings, and simply advanced them further....ending up basically agreeing with "Molinism" and the Roman Catholic Church in its view of how God saves men.
To me, what he taught was man working to gain God's favor, not God granting His favor to some and not others, as is His right.
I don't see John Wesley as understanding grace at all.
I am keying on this sentence of your post because it is the only one that really matters.
I actually agree with your statement but even that does not offer any clarity. We often cannot even agree on the definitions of words/terms. That does not bother me all too much since I do not consider this a debate.
None of those scriptures say or even hint at forced Salvation. Your reading into scripture again What you claim about these verses is false.
You have completely failed to prove man is saved force ably. You present verses from the old testament and new yet not one case of forced Salvation.2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.
I could list others, if needed.
How about Paul, in the book of Acts?
The Lord simply stopped Paul dead in His tracks, and revealed Himself to him...against his will.
While he was on the way to persecute more Christians.
...and bring them back to Jerusalem to face the Sanhedrin.
How about Abraham?
Jacob?
David?
Noah?
Moses?
Do you know of any passages that show that a person who is saved, actually sought God while they were still dead in their trespasses and sins?
Why?
Please list the Scriptures for your conclusion, MB.
I know of many that actually answer both of those...
Why all will not come, and why all will not listen.
Then all their sins are forgiven, since His death actually made payment.
Why are some in Hell, if He died to propitiate ( make appeasement to God for ) their sins?
If they are paid for, then His justice has been served.
When was payment made, according to Scripture?
When those that were atoned for were in belief, or in unbelief?
" But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." ( Romans 5:8-11 )
Who are the "us", "we", "our", and who was reconciled by the death of His Son here, and who has received the atonement in this passage?
Hint:
There's more to His atonement for sins on the cross, than simply 1 John 2:2 and a few others.
Finally, I agree with your quote above...
I hated Him, and He loved me enough to send His Son to die for me.
The greatest love story ever told.
You must be thinking I won't check them out. What you think they say is just not there your claim is false.
MB.
Luk 7:44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.
Luk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
This passage proves we are saved by our own faith. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
MB
- Status