Featured Puritanism

As long as several posters to not hold people who sidetrack discussions with petty personal insults, our discussions will bring disrepute upon the ministry of Christ.

Reformed Baptists experienced more interest among many Baptists recently, but this occurred at a time when Reformed Theology itself was within a significant decline and experiencing movements from within to approach theology more biblically. ​

Hard to find evidence to that trend toward enlightenment on our Baptist Board.
I have yet to met a Reformed Advocate who agrees that one or more doctrines of the TULIP are flawed

 

"...(the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement appears to lead straight to all five points)."

Four of the five points are obviously false, easily demonstrated false by multiple passages from God's word.

Scripture describes the Lost seeking God time and time again, thus the "T" is fiction. Even Psalm 14 describes those who had sought God as a refuge.
In answer to the Question, what must we (the lost) due to work the works of God (obtain salvation) Jesus said we must believe in the One God sent. See John 6:28-29 Just one of many passages teaching God chooses believers for salvation.
And of course God desires that all people be saved, that is why Christ provided the means of salvation to everyone when He laid down His life as a ransom for all.

I could go on but it is pointless as no one every addresses the truth of these passages, only denial that they mean what they say.

 

@Van . I'm not sure what you're saying above. But this gets into what I was trying to tell Jon earlier. Within groups of people, like Englishmen in the 1600's and us now, these movements have multiple factions and forming and reforming of alliances. You can't just say Puritans had their enemies the Baptists and Presbyterian because there was movement within and among these groups all along. To your question, like I said in post #8, I think it was, there were two very specific reasons I like Puritan theology. Neither involved the TULIP. The TULIP is the question because many folks did move into reformed churches because of the internet driven arguments driven I think by James White and R.C. Sproul. Since the early 2000's I have noticed more sophisticated arguments and a higher level of debate coming from non-Calvinists and Arminian theologians.

Also, the idea of penal substitution does not depend upon 5 point Calvinism in order to be true.

 

What you tend to do is redefine what you insist the opposition has to believe and then refute THAT. That won't work. R.C. Sproul in his book "Chosen by God" changed 3 of the TULIP letters to better define them. He's allowed to do that. If you want to set up a definition to argue against that you have made up then go ahead but if you want to argue with Sproul, or just me, you either respond to what WE say or there can be no discussion. It's like Jon deciding what Puritan theology is to him and then brilliantly attacking it as if anyone else cares.

 

The idea of Penal Substitution is a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement.

It is the idea that Christ only provided for the removal of specific sins of specific people, rather than providing the means of salvation for all people.

 

You are attempting to change the well published definitions of the TULIP. Good Luck with that.

T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.
U = Unconditional Election, God choose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.
P= Once saved, always saved.

 

T= Total depravity.
U= Unconditional election.
L= Limited atonement.
I= Irrisistable grace.
P= Perseverance of the saints.

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Points-Calvinism-Defended-Documented/dp/0875528279

 

Pointless distinctions without a difference

TULIP: 5-Point Calvinism Explained

In summary:
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.
P= Once saved, always saved.

 

All the fundamental Baptists I know and a lot of non-Calvinists on this very board agree with penal substitution. This is what I'm talking about. You guys set up an argument for you to refute. That way you don't have to deal with what people are actually saying.

 

And you speak in generalities, but do not state where the view I explicitly expressed misses the mark.

The idea of Penal Substitution is a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. It is the idea that Christ only provided for the removal of specific sins of specific people ​

 

The five points of Calvinism : defined, defended, documented : Steele, David N : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

No. I'm telling you that if R.C. Sproul in the definitive modern work that was directly responsible for the popular resurgence of Calvinism brings up certain nuances to the TULIP you have no right to insist the you set up your opposition the way you choose and then argue against that. There will be no meaningful engagement if you do that. If a Calvinist theologian says that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved you have no right to say that they can't say that because of the "L" as defined by you. Yet non-Cals do that all the time on here. It's not true and it's not what the Calvinists preach.

 

Once again, the ploy of saying individuals hold differing views, so you cannot address the published and well accepted views. Nonsense.

 

What if the "specific people" are the exact same people who hear the gospel and freely come to Christ. And what if all the people who hear the gospel and reject it according their own free choice are it turns out, the same as those who Christ did not atone for their sins? And what if this has been consistently preached and taught by Calvinists for 500 years and people who hate it and them refuse to even acknowledge that that is indeed the way it is taught continue to use straw man arguments?

 

No. The only "ploy" is not letting you define an argument the way you want and then get stuck refuting your own ridiculous view. Just like Jon does with Puritan theology. You're not allowed to discuss it unless you discuss the things he brings up even though it's not what they were all about.

 

Again, no answers, just more questions and generalities.
Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all. You deny this basic truth.

 

Liberals attack the meaning of words, which is an attack on truth.
My view is stated, you have no expressed view except that my view is "ridiculous."

And so it goes with the defenders of falsehood.

In summary:
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.
P= Once saved, always saved.

God's word says the lost seek God.
God's word says everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life, thus salvation is conditional.
God's word says Christ became the means of reconciliation for the whole world, all of humanity.
God's word says God credits our faith, rather than instilling righteous faith.
God's word says once saved, always saved, for we shall never perish.