Puritanism

[Van]

I have found reading the Puritans is very much like reading early Jewish (and even post-WW2 Jewish) writings. While they shared similar problems with their theology, they had a keen sense of morality and passion for the holiness of God. We can learn from them.

Bad trees do not have good fruit.

But we can learn from Roger Williams, whose love for God actually showed in his love for others, including native peoples. OTOH, those who say one thing but then do another have little to offer.

 

[JonC]

Well, I think that there were a lot of things about the first generation Pilgrims and Puritan groups in New England that would make it quite possible to end up with excesses that they may have gotten from Old Testament stories of the Israelites. I'm just guessing but you have a group of people in a wilderness they have no idea how to survive in and a belief that they are especially chosen and will be kept as long as they stay true. When half of you are in a state of starvation and there is a massive dark continent before you and you don't have so much as a flashlight I can see where the discovery of witchcraft going on could cause a violent reaction. Same with someone who causes division in you church and then has a baby stillborn that word goes around it was a "monster". I'm not excusing them but just saying that then you read where Achan's whole family needed to be killed, with the belief and community system they had, along with the stress they were under - well, I like to think I would have been above it and would have tried to stop it, but I honestly don't know.

They were a product of their time and of the Anglican Church. Many groups were above it, but you are right that we cannot look at groups apart from their environment.

This is apparent even in more recent American history with slavery. We wonder how a Christian could view another less than human because of their race. But a lot had to do with their environment.

Consider Calvin. He studied philosophy and was a humanist lawyer. Read his Institutes. It is not difficult to see how Calvin's education and worldview shaped his understanding.

We are all like that. When we read Scripture we read it from our perspective. This is natural, and perhaps somewhat unavoidable.

 

[kyredneck]

I tell anyone who will listen that Christ died for them. Why do you think most of the attacks on me come from Calvinists and Primitive Baptists?

What a crock. Which Primitive Baptist has attacked you for telling others about Christ? Certainly not this PB.

My beef with you has always been your wishy washy waffling, claiming to be a Calvinist while subtly putting a knife in their backs as in this post.

 

[DaveXR650]

Another total deflection, addressing me and not the TULIP. This is all they have, folks, falsehoods defended with falsehoods.

In summary here is the "decoded" TULIP.
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.

Notice how the poster keeps insisting that I defend his definition of the TULIP. Look. Let me briefly explain something to you. It won't help because I've tried before.
R.C. Sproul changed 3 of the letters. He's the guy to go to if you want an explanation of the TULIP. He does it well but he changed the letters. Don't blame me.
T- There is a capacity to seek God and Christ. You do not have the ability to achieve an arrival at a saving faith without the direct aid of the Holy Spirit. That includes being regenerated or born again which I don't know whether that happens slightly before you believe or right when you believe.
U- The purpose of this was to show that God is not looking for "good people" to save or for a certain race of people. It is true.
L - I do not believe that the atonement was limited in the sense that there are people who even if they came to Christ could not be saved. Neither did most Calvinist. Can you logically get to a point where if the Holy Spirit is essential for someone being saved and selective in doing that then could you logically work backwards and come up with a particular atonement? Yes. But I don't, mainly because it causes undo harm to people who cannot go through the mental gyrations to get there.
I - I believe grace is resistible. So did the Puritans. But the grace that saves you was irresistible by definition. I question the value of that one myself.
P- You didn't even state it right. No Calvinist believes it that way except the antinomians. The perseverance of the saints is the correct way to put it and then it is true.

Every one of the things above I can explain and give you reasons why I think that way. But I do not have to give you reasons why someone else thinks the way they did. Why can't you understand that. You more than anyone still on this board should be able to see that since you have a theology that as far as I know is unique. You should write a book.
One more thing I would add. I am telling you right now that I could be wrong on any of those points I made. And I am not promising that I won't change my mind since I am as fickle as the rest of you all.

 

[Van]

Confirmation bias is real. If you read scripture using the "context" of Calvinism is true, you will find support in every ambiguous phrase or verse. The "Puritans" found support for the state dictating beliefs, for infant baptism, for seeing themselves as "holier than thou" when interacting with native peoples.

 

[Van]

Notice how the poster keeps insisting that I defend his definition of the TULIP. Look. Let me briefly explain something to you. It won't help because I've tried before.
R.C. Sproul changed 3 of the letters. He's the guy to go to if you want an explanation of the TULIP. He does it well but he changed the letters. Don't blame me.
T- There is a capacity to seek God and Christ. You do not have the ability to achieve an arrival at a saving faith without the direct aid of the Holy Spirit. That includes being regenerated or born again which I don't know whether that happens slightly before you believe or right when you believe.
U- The purpose of this was to show that God is not looking for "good people" to save or for a certain race of people. It is true.
L - I do not believe that the atonement was limited in the sense that there are people who even if they came to Christ could not be saved. Neither did most Calvinist. Can you logically get to a point where if the Holy Spirit is essential for someone being saved and selective in doing that then could you logically work backwards and come up with a particular atonement? Yes. But I don't, mainly because it causes undo harm to people who cannot go through the mental gyrations to get there.
I - I believe grace is resistible. So did the Puritans. But the grace that saves you was irresistible by definition. I question the value of that one myself.
P- You didn't even state it right. No Calvinist believes it that way except the antinomians. The perseverance of the saints is the correct way to put it and then it is true.

Every one of the things above I can explain and give you reasons why I think that way. But I do not have to give you reasons why someone else thinks the way they did. Why can't you understand that. You more than anyone still on this board should be able to see that since you have a theology that as far as I know is unique. You should write a book.
One more thing I would add. I am telling you right now that I could be wrong on any of those points I made. And I am not promising that I won't change my mind since I am as fickle as the rest of you all.

LOL, what a crock!

You do not have the capacity to seek God until regenerated. That is no different than:
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.

Did anyone say God is looking for "good people?" Nope, God credits of faith of some people as righteousness.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.

Did anyone say people come to Christ under their own power? Nope, God gives people to Christ by transferring them into His spiritual body.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.

Is the Holy Spirit essential for someone being chosen for salvation? Yes, no one comes to Christ unless they have been drawn (attracted) by the Father through the gospel, the work product of those inspired by Holy Spirit.

No need to redefine "I" as not irresistible grace.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.

No need to encode eternal security with "Perseverance of the Saints," the idea is:
P= Once saved, always saved.

 

[DaveXR650]

What a crock. Which Primitive Baptist has attacked you for telling others about Christ? Certainly not this PB.
My beef with you has always been your wishy washy waffling, claiming to be a Calvinist while subtly putting a knife in their backs as in this post.

You guys first have to decide if you're Calvinists. You discard that and then pick it up. What some of the Primitive Baptists object to is trying to convince people to come to Christ. They are so Calvinistic (and I guess I have your permission for this post to say that) that they believe that you can have no influence in this because it is all determined. Some of you guys hate MacArthur's ideas of Lordship Salvation and are quite nasty in saying so as previous posts have showed.

I am a very moderate Calvinist along the lines of most Baptists who attend Reformed Baptist churches. I certainly have nothing but contempt for the Calvinists who used to come on and attack @Silverhair and @MrW and @37818 whenever they said anything that those self appointed guardians of orthodoxy objected to. It looks to me like they are gone.

For the record, I did not say the attacks were for "telling others about Christ". You made that up. What I said was that because I tell anyone that will listen that Christ died for them - that causes an unacceptable breach of orthodoxy which has gotten me in trouble with the militant Calvinists who used to be on this board. I'll let people who read this judge whether what you just did was an attack.

 

[DaveXR650]

LOL, what a crock!

Sorry. That's not a theological argument. We're all amateurs but that won't get it. And volumes have been written about the "P" not meaning "Once saved always saved". The fact that you are unaware of that speaks volumes. That may be the big one as far as the good influence the reformed have had on Baptist churches.

 

[Van]

Anyone who believes as all Calvinists do, that individual election for salvation was completed before creation, must muddy the waters when it comes to "limited atonement" and preaching to those who cannot seek God or trust in Christ.

 

[kyredneck]

For the record, I did not say the attacks were for "telling others about Christ". You made that up. What I said was that because I tell anyone that will listen that Christ died for them

For the record, the two are the same. I'll rephrase the question: Which Primitive Baptist has attacked you for 'telling anyone that will listen that Christ died for them'? There's only two of us here, so was it @tyndale1946? It certainly wasn't me.

 

[Van]

Sorry. That's not a theological argument. We're all amateurs but that won't get it. And volumes have been written about the "P" not meaning "Once saved always saved". The fact that you are unaware of that speaks volumes. That may be the big one as far as the good influence the reformed have had on Baptist churches.

Here is what this poster edited out:
You do not have the capacity to seek God until regenerated. That is no different than:
T = total spiritual inability, no capacity to seek God or trust in Christ.

Did anyone say God is looking for "good people?" Nope, God credits of faith of some people as righteousness.
U = Unconditional Election, God chose individuals before creation not based on any of their characteristics.

Did anyone say people come to Christ under their own power? Nope, God gives people to Christ by transferring them into His spiritual body.
L = Limited Atonement, Christ provides salvation only for supposedly previously chosen elect individuals.

Is the Holy Spirit essential for someone being chosen for salvation? Yes, no one comes to Christ unless they have been drawn (attracted) by the Father through the gospel, the work product of those inspired by Holy Spirit.

No need to redefine "I" as not irresistible grace.
I = Irresistible Grace, God alters and enables the elect to seek God and trust in Christ.

No need to encode eternal security with "Perseverance of the Saints," the idea is:
P= Once saved, always saved.

Note that this poster did not say "once saved, always saved" is not true? Nope, rather that volumes have been written trying to explain a distinction which is irrelevant.

 

[DaveXR650]

For the record, the two are the same. I'll rephrase the question: Which Primitive Baptist has attacked you for 'telling anyone that will listen that Christ died for them'? There's only two of us here, so was it @tyndale1946? It certainly wasn't me.

@tyndale1946 is always nice. You're just you. There are a couple on here who I think are PB's who get really mad at my enthusiasm for what we call Lordship Salvation. They have slammed Paul Washer and MacArthur on that. I don't really think it's appropriate to bring in names in that way when they have not asked to be in this debate. What puts you in that position I would ask. Also, then I'm assuming that it is indeed OK in your mind to tell everyone who will listen that Christ died for them? If so, good. I think there are a couple more PB's on here but who knows, people say things but usually don't declare.

Like I said, the militants on here were Calvinists, and it seems they are gone! The one's who got pretty angry about the Lordship Salvation I thought were Primitive Baptists but no, I am not going to mention names unless they want to come on and get involved. You have probably been the most obnoxious because you can't seem to contribute anything to the discussion but just make little quips like you did in post 3 and 4. I just don't see the use. I don't mean to offend but why would you do that?

 

[DaveXR650]

P- You didn't even state it right. No Calvinist believes it that way except the antinomians. The perseverance of the saints is the correct way to put it and then it is true.

From post 144.

Note that this poster did not say "once saved, always saved" is not true? Nope, rather that volumes have been written trying to explain a distinction which is irrelevant.

Read this yourself and then determine whether Van either can't read or refuses to acknowledge what anyone else says, prefering to go off arguing with himself.

Let me briefly explain something to you. It won't help because I've tried before.

From early in post 144. Told you.

 

[tyndale1946]

For the record, the two are the same. I'll rephrase the question: Which Primitive Baptist has attacked you for 'telling anyone that will listen that Christ died for them'? There's only two of us here, so was it @tyndale1946? It certainly wasn't me.

For the record Dave I'm the reigning PB on here, I joined when there were no PB's... If kyredneck didn't say it, I didn't either... PB is in my blood and for those want to know I'm 3rd generation PB... Salvation is up to God alone, he is in the Salvation business... kyredneck and I are not... Neither is anyone on here... That's PB doctrine!... Take it or leave it!... Brother Glen

 

[DaveXR650]

@tyndale1946 Do you mean that you do object to telling someone that Christ died for them? Don't be wishy washy.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't really think it's appropriate to bring in names in that way when they have not asked to be in this debate

But it's appropriate for you to smear with a broad brush 'Calvinists' and 'Primitive Baptists' who have supposedly attacked you for telling anyone who will listen that Christ died in their place with no substantiation?

You don't have to name names, just provide links to some posts where you've been 'attacked' for doing this. I'd love to see what you consider to be an 'attack'.

 

[37818]

This thread is about Puritanism. Not really about attacking what one disagrees. with.

 

[Van]

From post 144.

Read this yourself and then determine whether Van either can't read or refuses to acknowledge what anyone else says, preferring to go off arguing with himself.

From early in post 144. Told you.

Yet another nothing burger.

Calvinism agrees with eternal security, once saved always saved. Full Stop

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I'm glad you do. Seriously. But this thread which I thought was going to be some light hearted fun (at the Puritan lack of fun) somehow turned into a real slam on them. MLJ, Sinclair Ferguson, and George Whitfield loved the Puritans.


Fortunately, if you have time, the sermon by Spurgeon is still up in the Spurgeon Archive. It's sermon 393, written in 1861. You would get the impression that it was about the true abusive nature of Puritanism unless you already knew Spurgeon's views of the Puritans. In that case you might go read it. And you will find that it is about suffering and staying strong even in bad times. In Spurgeon's way, and one of the reasons people respect him, he didn't overlook his own camp when pointing out persecution. But there is far more in that sermon than Puritan persecution, including the persecution they received in England and Bunyan specifically is mentioned by name. That sermon has far more praise for Puritans than criticism and it could be misleading to pull one quote out of it.

It is worth reading just to see how broad minded Spurgeon was as he praises Puritans, Quakers, Baptists and Anabaptists, anyone who actually follows and loves Christ. Spurgeon had used the story of the Baptists in New England to show what persecution does. By 1861 the Baptists had become the largest group in America.

Both George Whitfield and MLJ were confirmed Calvinist Methodists and both were spiritual fathers of the Welsh Methodists. Neither man ever put the Puritan's ahead of the pack regarding severe lifestyle or political influence. Both would have closer to Presbyterian and early Methodists.

And Sinclair Ferguson is a devout Scottish Presbyterian pastor and professor at Westminster theological seminary. His go to guy, besides Christ is Samuel Rutherforda Scottish Presbyterian pastor and theologian & one of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly… story short, Rutherford was in direct conflict with regarding both church discipline and church government.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Both George Whitfield and MLJ were confirmed Calvinist Methodists and both were spiritual fathers of the Welsh Methodists. Neither man ever put the Puritan's ahead of the pack regarding severe lifestyle or political influence. Both would have closer ties to Presbyterian and early Methodists.

And Sinclair Ferguson is a devout Scottish Presbyterian pastor and professor at Westminster theological seminary. His go to guy, besides Christ is Samuel Rutherforda Scottish Presbyterian pastor and theologian & one of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly… story short, Rutherford was in direct conflict with regarding both church discipline and church government.