|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 6, 2007 22:11:53 GMT -5
I truly love the depth, and the urgency of the old Puritan's. They debased man and glorified God, a much needed facet of preaching today. apuritansmind.com/
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 6, 2007 23:04:18 GMT -5
What part of that site did you love?
I checked it out and it was so full of bad theology, and attacked so much biblical truth, that it deeply grieved my spirit and I had to leave it.
They destroy the bible with their horrific interpretations and slander the character of God. I don't find Calvinism to be true to the bible or to exalt God in any respect whatsoever. They completely miss the love, grace, and heart of God!
They make man out to be a victim of Adam, a cripple from birth, which man would have my pity and sympathy if such was true.
Sinners are criminals and rebels who deserve blame and punishment, not pity and sympathy.
I find the Calvinists doctrine of God and doctrine of man to be so contrary to the bible, and so contrary to my conscience, that I am amazed anyone has ever believed it.
Augustinianism and Calvinism is a heresy that has crept into the Church which has been tolerated for far too long. And because it has been tolerated it has deceived even the very elect. Many great men have fallen into it's lies.
All this may sound harsh and severe, but I believe that it is really this serious and this dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 6, 2007 23:25:48 GMT -5
Puritan's preach the wrath of God, the criminality of sin and sinners, the hatred of God, and the grace mercy and love of God better than any other theological camp I have heard, read or seen. John Owen is my favorite theologian, and has a work on limited Atonement that has yet to be refuted by anyone. I don't personally believe that doctrine, but his work "Christologia" is the greatest Christology ever written apart the the Hebrews.
Thomas Boston, and those men were masters at humbling men under their crimes. I get a daily eMail devotional called "Grace Gems" and in it there is quotes like this:
"This solemn sentence breathes out nothing but fire and brimstone, terror and horror, dread and woe! The last words that Christ will ever speak to the ungodly, will be: the most tormenting and dreadful, the most stinging and wounding, the most killing and d**ning!
Here is utter rejection: "Depart from Me—Pack! Begone! Get out of My sight! Let Me never more see your faces!"
"Depart from Me!" is the first and worst of that dreadful sentence which Christ shall pass upon the ungodly at last. Every syllable sounds horror and terror, grief and sorrow, dread and astonishment—to all whom it concerns. Certainly, the tears of hell are not sufficient to bewail the loss of heaven!" (Thomas Brooks)
and
"Rowland Hill illustrated the folly of sinners by the story of a butcher who was followed by the swine right into the slaughterhouse. As hogs do not usually go where they are wanted, it seemed a mystery how these animals were so eager to follow their executioner; but when it was seen that he wisely carried a bag of peas and beans with which he enticed the creatures onward, the riddle was solved at once. Unsuspicious of impending death the hogs cared only for the passing gratification of their appetites, and hurried to the slaughter.
And in the same manner ungodly men follow the great enemy of souls down through the jaws of hell, merely because their depraved passions are pleased with the lusts of the flesh and the pleasures of sin which the devil gives them by handfuls on the road.
Alas, that there should be such likeness between men and swine!" (Spurgeon)
No comparisons in any MG camp, or in the Ariminian camp for that matter.
Please read those quotes Jesse, and then say what you said again. The Puritan's are not your average run of the mill Calvinists that you see today. Strawmen, strawmen, strawmen, dear brother. Let me see you refute "The death of death in the death of Christ" by Owen and then I will convert to your theology.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Dec 6, 2007 23:50:49 GMT -5
Evan, isn't there a contradiction somewhere in this quote from your post? If you haven't refuted it, then why don't you personally believe that doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 0:00:59 GMT -5
Augustinianism, Calvinism, Puritianism, Edwardeanism, all deny freewill.
"Puritan's preach the wrath of God [against cripples], the criminality of sin and sinners [for being cripples], the hatred of God [against cripples], and the grace mercy and love of God [for very few]."
Calvinism teaches that:
- the wrath of God is upon us because of Adam, an event which was entirely without our knowledge and consent.
- We are criminals for sin and for being sinners, though we were born this way and couldn't help it. It's simply our nature, not our choice.
- Because we are cripples the majority of the world is under the hatred of God. God hates them for doing what they couldn't help but to do. It's like hating a black person for being born black. God hates sinners for being born sinners.
- God has grace and mercy upon us for being cripples. But this doesn't even make sense. You don't need to have grace and mercy upon someone for doing what was out of their power. That's like having grace and mercy upon someone for being born black!?!?!
- God has love for very few people, those special few that he decides to "save" from their "just" condemnation which they deserve for being born cripples, for sinning when they didn't have the ability not to sin. God loves these special few and chooses to save them while he hates the majority and chooses to reprobate all the rest.
Augustinianism, Calvinism, Puritianism, Edwardeanism, all deny freewill and that is why their entire system is a contradiction and an absurdity.
Without freewill, there can be no just wrath, no just anger or hatred, no criminality, no guilt, no deserved punishment, no obligation, no grace or mercy. Such terminology is absolutely ridiculous without freewill.
God has wrath, anger, hatred towards sinners; sinners are criminals and are guilty and rightly deserve punishment; men are under obligation to obey God; and are in desperate need of grace and mercy, all because they have a freewill and have used it to sin. Without freewill, none of these make any sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 0:45:58 GMT -5
Strawmen, strawmen, and more strawmen.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 1:35:23 GMT -5
It is a straw man to say that it is a straw man because the material presented on this website admits to the accusations that I'm making. So it is a straw man to call my argument a straw man, since I am not attack a straw man, but only what they publicly teach on their own website. But you are attacking a straw man by saying that I am attacking a straw man, because I am in fact not attacking a straw man!
And it is an ad hominem attack to call it a straw man, because you are accusing me without any reasonable or logical argument, even when the material on the website clearly teaches what I am saying. You have provided absolutely no logical or reasonable argument to prove that it was a straw man, therefore calling it a straw man is an ad hominem attack.
This makes me wonder brother if you are actually familiar with the material on this website.
This website promotes the entire TULIP. They consider Arminianism and Pelagianism heresy because it teaches freewill. And they openly deny that man has the "power of will" to choose anything other than sin. They themselves teach that men are born cripples, being victims of Adam, though they use other phrases.
QUOTES FROM THIS CALVINIST SITE: "Fallen man cannot do or work any good"
"Fallen man cannot comprehend or apprehend the good"
"Because of the original corruption, the will of man in the state of sin... is captive and servile in its way of performing them. The will is deprived of the power of willing well and takes the form of willing amiss even when the object of the willing is good." William Ames
"The good pleasure of God is an act of the divine will freely and effectively determining all things." [including all rapes, murders, molestations, genocides, false religions, and heresies] Dr. William Ames
"The system of doctrine known as Arminianism is heresy. It is an offshoot from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It has been adversely affecting the church and its doctrine for over 250 years. Men like Finney and Wesley, being the charismatic personalities they were, propagated the doctrine and resurrected the Pelagian error from the pit of hell once again to persecute the church of Christ. Today's Arminians are not necessarily the same caliber as those of old. Historic Arminianism is altogether heretical."
So again, it was a straw man argument to call my argument a straw man argument. And it was an ad hominem attack to call my argument a straw man argument.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 14:41:48 GMT -5
Dear brother,
You become very hostile very quickly. I would think that you, if you truly believe the MG doctrine, would not have to so vehemently defend all the time from every little seeming attack (I was only posting the site as I like some of the stuff, is that not allowed anymore, I may not agree doctrinally but these were great men of the faith who had many great things to say). If what you believe were the truth of God, would God then not defend it? Would God not uphold His truth? Perhaps you have a bit of doctrinal insecurity somewhere, else why would you get so hostile with me so quickly for really no reason. I thank God for the old Puritans. If it weren't for them I would still be stuck in legalistic religion trying to please God by my own performance, while at the same time only becoming more and more backslidden, critical and mean spirited. Just as a side not, that is when I believed MG theology, and Miles and Eli can attest to that truth.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 15:00:52 GMT -5
Dear Evan,
I am only hostile towards that which I believe is hostile towards the faith. I take theology, the faith, the bible very very seriously. And that which is contrary to sound doctrine is very serious. We are commanded to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints".
Saying that God determines all things and that men have lost the power of willing, is terrible theology. It confuses the entire concept of sin, righteousness, guilt, obligation, judgment, wrath, heaven, hell, conversion, the character and heart of God, etc.
TULIP is literally the exact opposite of biblical truth. It's as though the devil took five essential truths and came up with a system that is exactly opposite to them.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY: Sinners are in fact totally sinful but they are not totally unable. They are totally sinful by choice and not by birth or by necessity. They have a freewill and are using it entirely wrongly and that is why they are criminals and not cripples.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: Election is entirely conditional upon our repentance and faith. God chooses to save those who use their freewill to turn from their sin and trust in Jesus Christ.
LIMITED ATONEMENT: The atonement is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Jesus died for the sins of all men, everywhere, of all time. Because of the atonement all men can have their sins forgiven, if they repent and believe.
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: God's grace is the most resisted thing in the entire universe. Men are resisting God's grace, rejecting God's offer of salvation, yet God continues to stretch forth His hand to a rebellious and disobedient people.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: Saints must persevere unto the end to be saved but not all saints do persevere unto the end. Some men genuinely backslide and even become apostates. Some men actually do lose their salvation because they fail to meet the condition of perseverance.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 15:08:17 GMT -5
I have a serious question:
Were men like John Owen, George Whitefield, Charles Wesley, Rees Howells, Norman Grubb, George Muller, David Brainerd, Evan Roberts, etc saved or not?
That is serious question as they were all 5 point calvinists.
To be consistent with what you have said you would have to say No.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 15:14:00 GMT -5
I would suppose them all to be saved. Though it is always possible that some of them were never saved, or that some of them might have even lost their salvation.
But like I said on an earlier post, Calvinism deceives even the very elect. People who are genuinely saved can be deceived into this false theology.
I remember as a new convert I myself was deceived into believing in unconditional election for a couple months. I remember how deeply grieved the Holy Spirit was within me. And by God's grace I was delivered by such terrible views as I continued to read the scriptures and as the Spirit lead me deeper into the truth.
But just because many genuine Christians have been deceived into believing Calvinism does not mean that we should accept Calvinism as sound doctrine!! Just because it has been a lie that has believed for many years, by many people, does not mean it a lie that should be believed today by anyone!!
The question is not whether or not a person could be saved and believe in Calvinism, as I think we all agree that it's possible for the elect to be deceived. The point I'm trying to make is that Calvinism is unsound doctrine which is really contrary to the bible and we must earnestly contend for the faith.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 15:52:38 GMT -5
So what theology must we believe to be "saved" in you're book?
Brother, that worries me, and that is where cults come from.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 16:00:25 GMT -5
The essential doctrines necessary for salvation are not something that I have brought up Evan. You are bringing it up and turning this into a salvation issue. I never turned this into a salvation issue.
So really you need to answer the question, what theological system do you believe a person need to subscribe to in order to be saved? Does a person need to first become a theologian before they can be saved? Hasn't God made it simple and not complicated in order to be saved? Do we need to go to Seminary before we can be saved? Or do we need to read the entire bible through once or twice before we can be saved?
All I was saying is that Calvinism is not sound doctrine. But you are turning it into a salvation issue.
Wouldn't you agree that there are Calvinists who are saved and there are Arminians who are saved? Isn't it possible that a person could go from being an Arminian to a Calvinist, and then back and forth a few times, and still be saved during all of this??
Haven't we all changed, modified, or even switched our own theological sentiments since we've been saved?
Edwards and Spurgeon disagreed on the atonement; Finney and Wesley disagreed on holiness. All down the ages great Christians have disagreed with other great Christians. George Fox and John Bunyan disagreed. Wesley and Whitefield disputed. Wilkerson and Ravenhill had disagreements. But isn't it safe to say that they all (most likely) had a personal relationship with Jesus? Isn't that a pretty safe assumption given the fruit of their life?
It is not our theological system that saves us. Two people can have two opposite theological systems and still be saved.
The absolute essential beliefs a person needs to have in order to be saved is that grace and mercy comes through Jesus Christ upon condition of repentance and faith.
That is the only knowledge that a person needs to have in order to be converted. And then once the person is converted God will continue to lead them into all truth.
A person does not need to have a exhaustive and thorough theological system in order to be saved. A person does not need to go to seminary and become a theologian in order to be saved! A person simply needs to have the basic and fundamental beliefs of Christianity, specifically that grace and mercy comes through Jesus Christ to those who repent and believe.
We don't need to preach a theological system in order to see souls saved. We simply need to preach repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 16:31:27 GMT -5
Brother,
You said:
Consequently therefore anything that fits this category is obviously hostile to Christianity, and the men you have added that fit this criterion are the old Puritans. (Also as a side note, Finney blatantly said his view of the atonement departed from orthodoxy - hmmmm - should you not then contend against that also, as he admits it was not once delivered to the saints?)
Logically you would have to make it a salvation issue then dear brother, so yes you did make it a salvation issue.
Anyhow, I just thought I would put that website as I really like some of the stuff there. If it is that ant-Christ than delete the post dear brother.
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 16:37:47 GMT -5
Men could be genuinely converted and saved in their heart, though the systematic theology of their head is wrong.
But both Arminians and Calvinists believe in the grace and mercy that comes through the cross of Jesus Christ, upon condition of repentance and faith.
There are some things that Calvinists have said in their preaching which I agree with and enjoy. It is simply their theological system that I disagree with, abhor, and detest.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 16:41:43 GMT -5
Men could be genuinely converted and saved in their heart, though the systematic theology of their head is wrong. But both Arminians and Calvinists believe in the grace and mercy that comes through the cross of Jesus Christ, upon condition of repentance and faith. There are some things that Calvinists have said in their preaching which I agree with and enjoy. It is simply their theological system that I disagree with, abhor, and detest. Okay then, so why all of the attacks? - Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 16:44:14 GMT -5
The Ransom View, the Retributive Satisfaction View, and the Governmental View all claim to be the atonement of scripture, the "faith once delivered unto the saints". Jonathon Edwards, Albert Barnes, Charles Finney, and John Miley would not have believed the Governmental Theory if they didn't think it was biblical.
"Orthodoxy" is simply what the majority agrees with. Through out Church history, during different time periods, and amongst certain groups, each of these theories have been largely held. Each of these theories have been "orthodox" in certain times, in certain places, amongst certain groups.
The Early Church Fathers believed the Ransom View. The Calvinist Reformers believed the Retributive Satisfaction view. Many American Puritans and Methodists believed the Governmental Theory.
(Yes, many of the Puritans believed in "New England Theology" which was Edwardean Moral Government)
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 16:45:58 GMT -5
Because I don't want genuine Christians, those who are genuinely converted, to be deceived into Calvinism. Truth is very valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 16:47:33 GMT -5
PS. What Finney quote are you talking about? I've never ever read that anywhere.
People say stuff like, "Wesley denied perfection on his death bed" and "Finney said all mental philosophy was fundamental flawed" but never actually support such quotes.
It's like saying, "Jesus said he would destroy the temple".
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 16:55:58 GMT -5
There is only one truth dear brother. Sorry - Orthodoxy is not appeal to majority (which is a logical fallacy) orthodoxy is what is apostolic - and what is apostolic is not MG theology. I am sorry dear brother, truth is not relative to you're systematic theology, but truth is what is ordained of God in the scriptures. I am not a theological relativist, nor am I a Calvinist, i am really no systematic theology adherent, Jesus didn't come to give us systematic theology. In fact I believe systematic theology to actually be quite divisive and ridiculous in nature. "Theology is like an overstuffed briefcase, something always hangs out; and if you have gotten your suitcase closed, you have manipulated something somewhere" (Paul Washer).
- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 7, 2007 17:12:50 GMT -5
If "orthodoxy" or "apostolic" is whatever the bible teaches, then moral government theology is orthodox and apostolic, and Calvinism and retributive satisfaction atonement is not. If moral government theology didn't teach what my bible teaches, I never would believe moral government theology, and instead of preaching it I would be coming against it. But I preach moral government theology simply because I preach the bible.
(Though the term moral government has different meanings. There is the Edwardean kind, the Finneyism kind, the Olson kind. I am more of the Olson kind because I think Finney did teach mistaken views on foreknowledge, election, and perseverance).
And Edwards, Barnes, Finney, and Miley and many Calvinist Puritans would not have believed in any atonement theory that they did not believe was biblical. No doubt the reason that many Calvinist Puritans believed in the governmental atonement is because they believed the governmental theory of the atonement was biblical.
So if your saying that Finney said, "The governmental theory is not orthodox", by your definition of orthodox your saying that Finney said, "the governmental theory is not biblical". That's ridiculous. If it these men didn't believe it was biblical, but that the scriptures teach a different theory, they would never have believed it.
But Edwards, Barnes, Finney, Miley and many Calvinist Puritans all believed in the governmental theory because they thought it was biblical. Just as the Early Church Fathers believed in the ransom theory because they thought it was biblical.
But if "orthodoxy" means what the historical Church taught, then you are unorthodox for disagreeing with the Early Church Fathers on the atonement.
But if "orthodox" means scriptural, every proponent of the different theories claims to be orthodox because they all claim to be scriptural.
|
|
|
Post by sean on Dec 7, 2007 20:39:39 GMT -5
I thank God for the old Puritans. If it weren't for them I would still be stuck in legalistic religion trying to please God by my own performance, while at the same time only becoming more and more backslidden, critical and mean spirited. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by sean on Dec 7, 2007 20:57:46 GMT -5
I don't personally believe that doctrine, but his work "Christologia" is the greatest Christology ever written apart the the Hebrews. you should read "Looking unto Jesus" by Issaac Ambros. 700 pages glorifing Christ based on Hebrews 12:2 Amazing Book. I heard about it through Ravenhill. I was watching his revival 89 forum video. In the end he recommends three books. They were Christian in Complete Armour, Looking unto Jesus, and some book about some missionaries. I'm not sure about the third but I know the first two are written by Calvinist.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Dec 7, 2007 21:39:50 GMT -5
The third was "Fair Sunshine" by Jock Purves. This book made me weep when reading the testimonies of the old Scottish covenanters (who were calvinists) who were killed by Roman Catholics in the most brutal ways. Ravenhill was a fan of the old Puritans as well. They have a wealth of knowledge and practical, as well as spiritual and theological wisdom, knowledge and experience.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Dec 7, 2007 21:56:55 GMT -5
The idea that MG theology is wholly biblical and only derived from Scripture is such a joke - it is very ironic to hear Jesse say that he only believes MG theology because "it is what the bible teaches - if the Bible taught differently I wouldn't believe MG theology". So many of the fundamental ideas that must be true if what Jesse has expressed to me over the months is true aren't found anywhere in Scripture - like "Love isn't genuine unless it's free-will love", "God would be a sinner if He sovereignly caused sin to occur", "Choices can only be free-will and whenever the bible refers to choice, it implies the existence of the free will of the chooser", and so on. They are just ideas that the MG theologians consider self-evident, and I have never seen Jesse budge on them, or acknowledge that they are indeed ideas that come from him and other men, not Scripture. BTW, the only reason I mention you specifically, Jesse, is because you are the main one here that have discussed this with me. Jack, too, but mostly you. So I'm not singling you out
|
|
mattmahar
Full Member
`Lo, thou hast become whole; sin no more, lest something worse may happen to thee.' John 5:14
Posts: 151
|
Post by mattmahar on Jan 30, 2008 12:30:08 GMT -5
I agree with Jesse this site has a lot of bad theology which can lead people astray.
|
|