Preaching the Sovereignty of God in Salvation

[Luke2427]

Many reputable historians acknowledge the immeasurable importance of the Great Awakening in the enabling of the 13 colonies to come together and fight for a lasting Independence.

When we say that this nation was founded on godly principles we are acknowledging the effects of the Great Awakening on America.

Now this does not mean you have to agree with the majority of the founders that God is truly Sovereign in salvation. It does not mean that you have to be a Calvinist like the pilgrims and puritans who were our nations foremost forefathers. It does not mean that you ought to be a Reformed (or Calvinistic) Baptist like the VAST majority of Baptists were for the first 100 years of this nation's existence.

But it does mean that you ought not despise the doctrines of grace that most of the founders of this nation held dear.

And more than that, it means that you ought to consider that you might be missing out on the very doctrines that God often uses to bring nations to himself.

Jonathan Edwards said:

I think I have found that no discourses have been more remarkably blessed, than those in which the doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty with regard to the salvation of sinners, and His just liberty with regard to answering the prayers, or succeeding the pains, of natural men, continuing such, have been insisted on. I never found so much immediate saving fruit, in any measure, of any discourses I have offered to my congregation, as some from these words, Rom. iii. 19. "That every mouth may be stopped;" endeavoring to show from thence that it would be just with God for ever to reject and cast off mere natural men.

God bless!

 

[Iconoclast]

Many reputable historians acknowledge the immeasurable importance of the Great Awakening in the enabling of the 13 colonies to come together and fight for a lasting Independence.

When we say that this nation was founded on godly principles we are acknowledging the effects of the Great Awakening on America.

Now this does not mean you have to agree with the majority of the founders that God is truly Sovereign in salvation. It does not mean that you have to be a Calvinist like the pilgrims and puritans who were our nations foremost forefathers. It does not mean that you ought to be a Reformed (or Calvinistic) Baptist like the VAST majority of Baptists were for the first 100 years of this nation's existence.

But it does mean that you ought not despise the doctrines of grace that most of the founders of this nation held dear.

And more than that, it means that you ought to consider that you might be missing out on the very doctrines that God often uses to bring nations to himself.

Jonathan Edwards said:



God bless!

This is correct as they saw God's purpose for the gospel to go worldwide.They desired to align themselves with these truths from the word of God.:thumbsup:

 

[kyredneck]

We should all pray for such a revival again.

I remember many years ago hearing a sermon on the radio (might have been McCarthur) stating that 65% of those involved in the development of the U.S. constitution were active, devout Calvinists, and the constitution could rightly be considered a Calvinist document. The role of Ulster Presbyterians and other Calvinists in the colonization and development of this country cannot be denied.

Found this interesting:

""If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, 'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.'"12

D'Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: "Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of James I, and landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer on the shore of Lake Leman."13

Dr. E. W. Smith says, "These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands? — the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds."14

All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above testimonies."

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty

the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, 'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.

D'Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: "Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics.

The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America,

There is much truth to these historical statements...Sometimes, with respect to secular historians (who usually agree with the above) one can't always get carried away with their observations...This is to say many of them do not have the Theological background to truly differentiate between what is "unique" to Calvinist Soteriology vs. another more "Arminianistic" one so-to-speak. Pressed for examples....some historians who make (rightly) similar statements often equivocate between any and all Sola Scriptura/ Protestant/ Salvation by grace through Faith theologies under an over-arching mantle they somewhat confusingly and generically label with the umbrella-term "Calvinist".

That being said...one should not, of course, deny the importance of truly "Calvinist" Christians in the formation of our country...We must admit the thorough-going Calvinism of the inestimable Thomas J. Jackson, Miles Standish, Peter Stuyvesant et. al.

Sometimes though...some secular Historians do not really differentiate strict "TULIP" Soteriologies from some similar ones: i.e. Confessional Arminianism. Some Historians will even equate the Methodist mantles with being "Calvinist".

 

[Van]

The assertion of the right of independent judgment in one field, say disavowing top down dominance found in Catholic churches, lit the flame to question of top down dominance found in government. Anyone who actually reads the Bible knows it preaches freedom, not slavery, persuasion, not compulsion. If all men were equal before God, why not before the Law?

Robert Browne, a religious thinker, got in trouble with the Church of England and fled to Holland. He published two tracks of note, A Treatise of Reformation, and The life and manner of all true Christians.
These formulated the basic principles for the revolutionary independent movement. Brown rejected John Calvin's view that reform of the church had to wait until the state took action as an unrealistic view since the state and the church were one.

Brown returned to the church and even blasted the "Brownian" churches, but he had planted the seed, and influenced the separatists, including Brewster. And William Brewster carried that small flame to Plymouth Rock.

So while it was Brown who espoused the priesthood of believers making up the church, Calvin said everyone baptized, i.e. infants, was a member.
Talk about a clear divide between top down dictatorship and bottom up democracy!

 

[OldRegular]

Many reputable historians acknowledge the immeasurable importance of the Great Awakening in the enabling of the 13 colonies to come together and fight for a lasting Independence.

When we say that this nation was founded on godly principles we are acknowledging the effects of the Great Awakening on America.

Now this does not mean you have to agree with the majority of the founders that God is truly Sovereign in salvation. It does not mean that you have to be a Calvinist like the pilgrims and puritans who were our nations foremost forefathers. It does not mean that you ought to be a Reformed (or Calvinistic) Baptist like the VAST majority of Baptists were for the first 100 years of this nation's existence.

But it does mean that you ought not despise the doctrines of grace that most of the founders of this nation held dear.

And more than that, it means that you ought to consider that you might be missing out on the very doctrines that God often uses to bring nations to himself.

Jonathan Edwards said:



God bless!

When we deny the Sovereignty of God in Salvation how long before we deny the Sovereignty of God in any and all things.

 

[Yeshua1]

When we deny the Sovereignty of God in Salvation how long before we deny the Sovereignty of God in any and all things.

seems to be only 2 choices here!

Either God is Sovereign, or else he allowed for man to be!

 

[Skandelon]

And more than that, it means that you ought to consider that you might be missing out on the very doctrines that God often uses to bring nations to himself.

And you ought to consider, if your views are accurate, that we are only missing out on what the Lord has, for whatever reason, chosen not to reveal to us. Unless of course, you believe God has revealed it to us, desires for us to accept it, but that we are free to choose to reject his truth and thus undermine the premise that contra-causal freedom is illogical.

 

[Skandelon]

You need to also consider why God, in his sovereignty, has made it such that the vast majority of believers no longer accept your Calvinistic premise? It's not as if you can really blame them for their ignorance or rejection of these teachings, for it is all of 'God's doing' in your world view.

 

[Skandelon]

seems to be only 2 choices here!

Either God is Sovereign, or else he allowed for man to be!

Or....God in his sovereignty allowed for freedom, but is well equipped to still accomplish His ultimate purposes in, through and despite the evil of independent creatures.

 

[Iconoclast]

You need to also consider why God, in his sovereignty, has made it such that the vast majority of believers no longer accept your Calvinistic premise? It's not as if you can really blame them for their ignorance or rejection of these teachings, for it is all of 'God's doing' in your world view.

In a time or season of apostasy it often happens that many believe falsehood over truth;
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

[Skandelon]

So, Icon, now you are comparing God's reserving a remnant of Israel to take carry the message of grace to why God would reserves only some believers to the Calvinistic dogma? Really?

 

[Iconoclast]

So, Icon, now you are comparing God's reserving a remnant of Israel to take carry the message of grace to why God would reserves only some believers to the Calvinistic dogma? Really?

Your contention that the so called majority.....in our day rejects God's truth, and has their own truth does not fly. You can add up all the Joel osteen, benny hinn, rod parsley, rob tilton , et al followers you want too...but this does not change what God is actually doing.
The crowd of reprobates in mt 7:21-24 has to come from somewhere.
God preserves His elect,and His truth throughout time.....He says so:wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Your contention that the so called majority.....in our day rejects God's truth, and has their own truth does not fly. You can add up all the Joel osteen, benny hinn, rod parsley, rob tilton , et al followers you want too...but this does not change what God is actually doing.

Is this what you honestly believe? Do you actually think that the above listed individuals are even remotely signifigant as far as the Theological counter-argument to Calvinism is? Do you actually think Skan and others who disagree with your ideology are actually influenced by the Theology of the above individuals? Would Joel Osteen even KNOW what this thread is even about?!! Humorously....it was a dyed-in-the-wool confessional Presby who initially introduced me to Osteen, and it took roughly 5 mins. of reading his material and hearing him speak to recognize he was full of it. I don't think you do actually believe that. I think this is just a low and shameless blow.

 

[Van]

Add on

The assertion of the right of independent judgment in one field, say disavowing top down dominance found in Catholic churches, lit the flame to question of top down dominance found in government. Anyone who actually reads the Bible knows it preaches freedom, not slavery, persuasion, not compulsion. If all men were equal before God, why not before the Law?

Robert Browne, a religious thinker, got in trouble with the Church of England and fled to Holland. He published two tracks of note, A Treatise of Reformation, and The life and manner of all true Christians.
These formulated the basic principles for the revolutionary independent movement. Brown rejected John Calvin's view that reform of the church had to wait until the state took action as an unrealistic view since the state and the church were one.

Brown returned to the church and even blasted the "Brownian" churches, but he had planted the seed, and influenced the separatists, including Brewster. And William Brewster carried that small flame to Plymouth Rock.

So while it was Brown who espoused the priesthood of believers making up the church, Calvin said everyone baptized, i.e. infants, was a member.
Talk about a clear divide between top down dictatorship and bottom up democracy!

"Robert Browne was the first leader of the English separatist movement in the time of Elizabeth I. This movement grew out of the Puritan protest, but it was far more extreme. The Puritans were just lobbying for change in the national church; some wanted a little less Catholic-style ritual, some wanted a whole reorganization of the church. The separatists were so disenchanted with the national church that they left it and set up their own illegal underground congregations. In fact, they rejected the very idea of a state church that incorporated every person and enforced its religion by law. They believed that true churches should only be for people who join of their own free will, and restricted to the genuinely holy." (Intro from this article: http://www.chinstitute.org/index.php/eras/reformation/browne/

 

[Iconoclast]

Is this what you honestly believe? Do you actually think that the above listed individuals are even remotely signifigant as far as the Theological counter-argument to Calvinism is? Do you actually think Skan and others who disagree with your ideology are actually influenced by the Theology of the above individuals? Would Joel Osteen even KNOW what this thread is even about?!! Humorously....it was a dyed-in-the-wool confessional Presby who initially introduced me to Osteen, and it took roughly 5 mins. of reading his material and hearing him speak to recognize he was full of it. I don't think you do actually believe that. I think this is just a low and shameless blow.

You can think whatever you want.Here is the statement I was responding to:

You need to also consider why God, in his sovereignty, has made it such that the vast majority of believers no longer accept your Calvinistic premise?

Where is this vast majority of "believers". Where do you find them? The list of mega church "pastors" believe they havea building full of believers.

Of course their theology is garbage,That is not the issue. The statement implies that the supposed majority who skan claims "no longer hold calvinistic premises"......is bogus. They never held it to begin with.

So what is skan saying???? Jesus said multitudes of religious persons will be sent into hell. Who are these people...only roman catholic, and cult members?

A low blow is the non stop attack upon God's truth which stands despite ALL who openly and shamelessly will defend all manner of error instead of the truth.
God has determined the exact number of those who at any given time hear the Shepherds voice. It is not determined by poll numbers, or by chance, or by the will of man.:wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You can think whatever you want.Here is the statement I was responding to:



Where is this vast majority of "believers". Where do you find them? The list of mega church "pastors" believe they havea building full of believers.

Of course their theology is garbage,That is not the issue. The statement implies that the supposed majority who skan claims "no longer hold calvinistic premises"......is bogus. They never held it to begin with.

So what is skan saying???? Jesus said multitudes of religious persons will be sent into hell. Who are these people...only roman catholic, and cult members?

A low blow is the non stop attack upon God's truth which stands despite ALL who openly and shamelessly will defend all manner of error instead of the truth.
God has determined the exact number of those who at any given time hear the Shepherds voice. It is not determined by poll numbers, or by chance, or by the will of man.:wavey:

OH.....you are decidedly more confused than I might have thought. Who is mentioning "Mega-Church" Pastors??? Aren't John Piper and Mark Driscoll BOTH "Mega-Church" Pastors??? HMMM??? Is John MacArthur??? Erwin Lutzer?

Skan is not referencing "Mega-Church" in any way....he is merely referring to the average Bible-believing non-Calvinist Church member in the bulk of the Western World.

Where are they found?? Anywhere where there is a confessionally "Bible-believing" Church...The truth is...most of them are no more Calvinistic than the man in the moon is. What do you mean with:

Where do you find them?

Everywhere dude...every frikkin where...they are too numerous to mention...Go to the average Baptist Church anywhere your truck will take you, and there is a 90% chance they do not hold to determinist dogma as you do. It isn't an issue of "Mega-Churchism" it's an issue of "average Baptist Church-ism". This may be immaterial to you, as you are an adherent of the confessions of infant-baptizers, Presbyterians and Anglicans....but to actual "Baptists" around here (which you are not)...It matters

And

A low blow is the non stop attack upon God's truth

No...it isn't actually...You must stop helping yourself to any definition of any word at will. You do this with your "self-will" vs. "free-will" distinction which does not exist. A "low-blow" is actually a cultural idiom unique to the Western World wherein they refer to the practice of punching illegally in the sport of boxing lower than the rules of the sport decree. By creating a "guilt by association" by throwing Skan in with the likes of Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Robert Tilton...et. al. You are engaged in slanderous and pathetic attacks on a fellow brother and Bible-believer...It is, as I said..."LOW" like, you know, worms are low.

 

[Skandelon]

Icon, I think you missed the point, which is becoming all too typical and thus causing me to suspect your diversions are intentional.

I was merely pointing out that any fall off from the popularity of Calvinism must have been according to God's design if Luke's premise is correct, which is something he doesn't seem to accept in his OP. It has nothing to do with the Benny Hinns and Joel Olsteens of the world, except to say, "Why did God make them like that, He should have done better work, huh?"

 

[Allan]

There is much truth to these historical statements...Sometimes, with respect to secular historians (who usually agree with the above) one can't always get carried away with their observations...This is to say many of them do not have the Theological background to truly differentiate between what is "unique" to Calvinist Soteriology vs. another more "Arminianistic" one so-to-speak. Pressed for examples....some historians who make (rightly) similar statements often equivocate between any and all Sola Scriptura/ Protestant/ Salvation by grace through Faith theologies under an over-arching mantle they somewhat confusingly and generically label with the umbrella-term "Calvinist".

That being said...one should not, of course, deny the importance of truly "Calvinist" Christians in the formation of our country...We must admit the thorough-going Calvinism of the inestimable Thomas J. Jackson, Miles Standish, Peter Stuyvesant et. al.

Sometimes though...some secular Historians do not really differentiate strict "TULIP" Soteriologies from some similar ones: i.e. Confessional Arminianism. Some Historians will even equate the Methodist mantles with being "Calvinist".

One must also acknowledge the historic hostility and overt aggressive behavior against anyone who did not hold to their kind of .. theology. It wasn't that such views were not in our country, nor that those who did not hold to Calvinistic view did not stand in both agreement and opposition to our countries enemies.. why we see this religious view as a prominent part of American history is because those who weren't Calvinistic in their theology were run out of town and sometimes killed. You can find this even with many of Reformed Baptist pastors, as Baptist was seen by many then as a cult or false religious view.

Deleted.. there is no real point to the rest of what I wrote.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, I think you missed the point, which is becoming all too typical and thus causing me to suspect your diversions are intentional.

I was merely pointing out that any fall off from the popularity of Calvinism must have been according to God's design if Luke's premise is correct, which is something he doesn't seem to accept in his OP. It has nothing to do with the Benny Hinns and Joel Olsteens of the world, except to say, "Why did God make them like that, He should have done better work, huh?"

Any decline would be the judgement of God.It has always been that way in biblical history. I did not miss"the point".

It has nothing to do with the Benny Hinns and Joel Olsteens of the world, except to say, "Why did God make them like that, He should have done better work, huh?[/

Sin has made them like that.Do you always have to find a way to blame God for mans sin?