Mary Dyer: Martyr, Mother, and Mutineer!

June 5, 2013

“Understanding our day demands understanding the day before.  This means history.”
James Emery White 

On the first day of June in 1660, Mary Dyer was hanged for her religious beliefs in Boston, Massachusetts.  She left behind six children and a husband.  Like many Quakers, Baptists, and Separatists in early America, Mary Dyer was willing to stand against religious persecution even if it meant torture, banishment, or death.

One year earlier she had escaped the jaws of death as she walked to the gallows with William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson.  They were escorted to the Boston Common on October 27, 1659 by two hundred guards.  The men were hanged first.  Standing with a noose around her neck and facing the crowd, Mary learned that Governor John Endicott had stayed her execution and banished her once again from Massachusetts.  The spiritually stubborn Mary Dyer would later return.    

Years earlier, Mary and William Dyer arrived in Boston in 1635 and were members of the Puritans’ Congregational Church.  Although most people coming from England in the 1630’s shared a common belief in reformed theology, the Dyers quickly discovered the reality that, in the New World, the Puritans quickly persecuted anyone that did not adhere to their religious beliefs and practices.

In 1637, the Dyer family (along with others) moved to Rhode Island as they followed Anne Hutchinson after her trial and banishment for disagreeing with Puritan clergy. This disenfranchised group of people was befriended by Roger Williams.  Williams helped them purchase land that became the town of Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

The next year, Roger Williams was baptized by immersion and founded a Baptist Church in Providence, Rhode Island, which became the earliest known Baptist Church in America.   These early residents of Rhode Island were a mixture of religious “free church” people who wanted to live out their Christian convictions separated from a government theocracy, or the state church.   Roger Williams believed in complete religious freedom and that citizens should not be forced to pay the salary of clergymen with their tax dollars.  The Puritans believed they were promoting the one true faith in Massachusetts; therefore such, talk from Williams, Hutchinson, Dyer or any dissenting voice was intolerable.

In addition to the eventual hanging of Mary Dyer, the most insidious cruelty toward her came from then Governor Winthrop in March of 1638.   He ordered that the body of Mary Dyer’s stillborn baby be exhumed after hearing rumors of a “monstrous birth.”  With a gallery of gawkers awaiting the news, this is how he described the baby:

“It was of ordinary bigness; it had a face, but no head, and the ears stood upon the shoulders and were like an ape’s; it had no forehead, but over the eyes four horns, hard and sharp; two of them were above one inch long, the other two shorter; the eyes standing out, and the mouth also; the nose hooked upward; all over the breast and back full of sharp pricks and scales, like a thornback [i.e., a skate or ray], the navel and all the belly, with the distinction of the sex, were where the back should be, and the back and hips before, where the belly should have been; behind, between the shoulders, it had two mouths, and in each of them a piece of red flesh sticking out; it had arms and legs as other children; but, instead of toes, it had on each foot three claws, like a young fowl, with sharp talons.”

This intentional deception sought to prove to the people that God was punishing her for going against the Puritan clergy and holding to false teachings.

The Dyers returned to England along with Roger Williams and John Clarke in 1652.  After hearing George Fox preach and teach, Mary Dyer joined the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers).  The Dyer family eventually returned to Rhode Island in 1657.

The Puritans passed laws making Quakerism unlawful in Massachusetts and sought to influence the other colonies to pursue their course of action.  These new laws incensed Mary Dyer and she entered the state on several occasions to protest.  On her last entry into the state, she was arrested and hanged the next day (June 1) on Boston Common for the crime of being a Quaker in Massachusetts.

The Puritans were forced to stop executing Quakers as Charles II came to power in England. However, the persecution continued as they passed a law called the Cart and Whip Act.  This Puritan law was used against dissenters as they were tied to carts and whipped as they traveled through towns and villages until coming to the border of Massachusetts.  They were pushed across the border into other colonies and banished from the Puritan stronghold.

© Ron F. Hale, May 28, 2013

 

He has served as Pastor, Church Planter, Strategist (NAMB), Director of Missions, and Associate Executive Director of Evangelism and Church Planting for a State Convention, and now in the 4th quarter of ministry as Minister of Missions.

 

Further reading:

http://www.mass.gov/portal/government-taxes/laws/interactive-state-house/inside-the-state-house/quaker-mary-dyer.html

http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/quakers-fight-religious-freedom-puritan-massachusetts-1656-1661

http://mises.org/daily/6013/

http://marybarrettdyer.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

Christian

The phrase “the Purtians believed they were promoting the one true faith” sounds familiar today from the “reformed”. It’s too bad their “one true faith” caused them to commit murder!

Jim P

This article is a unnecessarily vicious.

My opinion,
Jim P

    Lydia

    Would you think Eichmanns trial was unnecessary,too, as it was pretty much a recitation of the entire camp experience from the Holocaust?

    Have you ever read the transcripts of what the victims endured? Do you think it is wrong to try and understand what horrors they lived through? or should folks just keep their mouths shut? A great way to keep us from facing what human being do to others. Sometimes, even as Puritans, in the Name of Christ. Calloused cold hearts.

    Hannah Arendt summed it up well, The banality of evil

Norm Miller

True, Jim P., history does reveal the viciousness of others, and that such measures were unnecessary is an understatement. — Norm

volfan007

Ron,

Very, very interesting. I always like to read history…and hopefully, learn from it.

David

Robert

We need to remember incidents like this as Baptists. We have always held to the proper separation between church and state. It is both sad and ironic that the Puritans who left England to escape religious persecution and have the right to worship freely according to their own convictions, themselves became persecutors.

You always have to beware when any particular group within a larger group, starts believing they alone have the true message, they alone are the people of God, they alone have the true gospel, etc. etc. etc..

The Puritans made this mistake and unfortunately some modern Calvinists make this same mistake. They believe their theology alone is true, that they alone have the truth. This mentality always leads to persecution when these people come into power. It also leads these people to desiring to be in power. Today they may not be persecuting people to death and banishing them as the Puritans did, but if a small group within the SBC seeks to get control and power by taking over seminaries and local churches and attacks other genuine faithful believers as “Pelagians”/heretics: how is that mentality any different?

Robert

    Christian

    You are correct!

Ron F. Hale

Jim P,
I mentioned Mary Dyer in an article about Obadiah Holmes in November, 2012. This article comes upon the anniversary of her hanging,June 1, 1660.

http://sbctoday.wpengine.com/2012/11/21/the-whipping-boy-of-baptists/

Jim P

Ron,

I’m sorry for any offense. Personally I’m not sure how detailed all history needs to be. The crucifixion of Christ was offensive but there is little detail given about it. I think most people get the message though.

Peace, Jim

Lydia

Lots of people quoting and promoting Puritans today. We need to read ALL of their history. They were needlessly cruel in order to prop up their power over people. They were cruel in “making examples” of those who dared disagree with them. Where was the Holy Spirit?

Randall Cofield

Ron,

Interesting piece. Assuming this is accurate (and I take your word that it is), the actions of these individuals were deplorable beyond words.

But I do have a couple of questions.

Are you contending that their depravity arose from their Reformed beliefs?

If so, how so?

If not, why the inclusion of this line?:

Although most people coming from England in the 1630’s shared a common belief in reformed theology, the Dyers quickly discovered the reality that, in the New World, the Puritans quickly persecuted anyone that did not adhere to their religious beliefs and practices. (emphasis added)

Grace to you, brother.

    Randall Cofield

    Sorry Ron. The only words I intended to emphasize above were “belief in reformed theology.”

      JB

      Randall, I believe you have discovered the real reason for this article.

Ron F. Hale

Randall,
Thanks for your question, I’ll share after church services tonight, however, please read the articles that I cited or google Mary Dyer; there were several new articles that have recently come out.

Ron F. Hale

Randall,

The Puritans who came to Massachusetts Bay came to set up a “city on the hill” that would show the people back in England (Europe) what a “real” Christian community could be. They used the old model; they were setting up a theocracy, a state church. With their isolation came a “turning inward.” They became suspicious of outsiders and the slightest dissenter (even their treatment to Native Americans). Yes, they were reformed in their doctrine. But, in practice, they took their religion to new levels of insanity and persecution as they hanged witches and religious dissenters; or as they drove hot irons through tongues, etc.

History hurts!

However, Baptist Calvinists do not have the model and mentality of this first generation of Puritans in America. They don’t have a sacramental system that they can use as a tool of the church & state to withhold “grace”. They don’t have a state government to enforce tax laws to pay clergy. They don’t have laws to throw people out of the kingdom/state. I see Baptists as Calvinistic, but not truly reformed (in doctrine or practice). I do not fear what Baptist Calvinists can do to me.

I think if I had written … “Although most people coming from England in the 1630’s shared a common belief in Calvinist theology” … it would be more offensive. BTW … do you trace your Baptist heritage to Particular Baptists or the Puritans? I see a difference.

The second and third generations of Puritans were much tamer … what I am studying is: Was it forced by Charles II and other pressures … or …did they learn their lessons from all the horrible things their fathers had done before them … or was it from spiritual awakening?

Blessings!

    Randall Cofield

    Ron,

    I’m not sure I follow all you are saying here, but are we agreed the the New England Puritan’s deplorable behavior arose from a source other than their Reformed beliefs?

    In answer to your question, I’m not completely sure how I would characterize my “Baptist heritage.” Especially since I was a “non-Calvinist” for the first 20 years of my converted life.

    I do think it is problematic for any of us, regardless of our soteriological propensities, to narrow ourselves to tracing our heritage through any single group.

    We all stand in the long and variegated stream of redemptive history, and I think very few appreciate the complexity of it all. For instance, I think I owe more to the Sandy Creek stream of our heritage, and you owe more to the Charleston stream than either of us realize.

    Grace to you, brother.

    Jim P

    Ron,

    I’d like to add a thought to your above note. I feel the gist of the problem, regardless the denomination or doctrine is tradition. That point was made in Christ’s confrontation with the leaders of the Jews. They invalidated God’s Word because of their traditions, Yes, behind the loyalty to tradition is control whether state or religious. And yes, the Jews became milder after they lost their nation in 70 AD yet they did not lose their zeal for tradition.

    This will always be a potential danger for anyone who says, ‘Thus says the Lord.’

    Hope this contributes to the discussion.

    Jim P

    Scott Shaver

    Ron:

    Randall’s question: Was their depraved behavior the result of reform theology?

    The lady was obviously executed on religious charges which would of course have been a byproduct of some theological rationale … why not “reformed theology” or at least a mentality exacerbated by reformed theology.

    If for no other reason, this was the theological construct closest to the scene of the crime.

rhutchin

One notable example of religious persecution was the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Another case was the complaint against men merely for picking corn on the sabbath because they were hungry. Maybe it’s not a religious issue as much as ego and power issues. The difficulty, I think, is knowing when to stand firm to protect that which one believes and when to compromise.

    Robert

    “One notable example of religious persecution was the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Another case was the complaint against men merely for picking corn on the sabbath because they were hungry.”

    I believe that you are misinterpreting the Biblical context here. You state that the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath was an “example of religious persecution”. No it was not. The person was picking up sticks in order to build an alternative altar, one not prescribed by God, one not according to the Old Testament law. That person “picking up sticks” therefore was engaging in idolatry and so the response to him was not “religious persecution” but according to OT law some forms of idolatry (including witchcraft and sorcery) were punishable by death.

    Regarding the disciples picking up corn, the Pharisees were trying to use obedience to the law (i.e. that no work should be done on the Sabbath) in order to undermine Jesus. These two events cannot be compared at all as instances of religious persecution because the first involved obedience to the OT law (i.e. those engaging in idolatry were to be executed). That is not “religious persecution” but obedience to the OT law.

    Robert

      rhutchin

      The Bible says nothing of of what you write on the man gathering sticks. The section is introduced by this: “…those who brazenly violate the LORD’s will…blaspheme the LORD…must be cut off from the community…they have treated the LORD’s word with contempt and deliberately disobeyed his commands, they must be completely cut off and suffer the consequences of their guilt.” You have embellished it a little.

      However, the key language is “…those who brazenly violate the LORD’s will…” How many churches care about this? Many have thrown out the God of justice and replaced Him with a god of love and accommodation.

      The Puritans can be faulted for being over-zealous in their pursuit of purity but today’s church can be faulted for being under-zealous. Baptists have learned that they don’t get crucified for being under-zealous and seem to be content with that.

Ron F. Hale

Randall,

Our beliefs impact our behavior.

I challenge you to do a historical study of the beliefs and behavior of: Roger Williams (verses) those of the Puritan clergy of the Mass. Bay Colony in the 1630’s.

Look at what Williams believed about Church and State and that of the Puritans. How did they treat people based on those beliefs?

Look at how Williams treated the American Indians of his day and look at how the Puritan leaders treated those same American Indians.

Look at Williams views on bringing in the first slaves to America and that of the Puritans.

Look at how Williams treated people that disagreed with him and how the Puritans treated people that disagreed with them.

History hurts as the facts are unraveled.

    Randall Cofield

    Ron,

    So you are contending that the deplorable acts of the referenced Puritans arose from their Reformed Theology?

    Grace to you, brother.

Jason

Don’t worry about it. According to Calvin’s belief that all things were sovereignly ordained by God before the foundation of the world, the death of Mary Dyer was sovereignly ordained by God, and her executioners only his agents in execution of his plan.

Remember libertarian free will doesn’t exist. There’s only God’s will, and the only difference between hard determinists and soft determinists (aka compatibilists) is that God acts directly in the former case, and merely imbues men with the upbringing and emotional state to bring about his will in the latter.

Actually this whole “predestination” thing is a great shtick. Do whatever I think I want to do, and know that in doing so I’m really doing what God ordained in the first place? Paradise for libertines.

Of course even living a righteous life wouldn’t mean anything if God hadn’t elected me for salvation, or for even more fun, chosen for me to be one of those who might think they were elect, but were actually destined for punishment because of my ingratitude (Institutes 3.24.8). Hold on, hasn’t God preordained my ingratitude, or do I have libertarian free will about that?

I wonder if Calvinists think Mary Dyer was elected for salvation? Probably not. She was a Quaker after all, a vessel destined for destruction… an Esau, hated by God…

The confusion that arises when people try reading collectivist Biblical texts in an individualist manner is absolutely shocking. That said, the actions that certain groups will engage in to hold onto their power is pretty shocking too. That’s what you get when you have people believing they’re God’s special elect though.

    rhutchin

    “According to Calvin’s belief that all things were sovereignly ordained by God before the foundation of the world, the death of Mary Dyer was sovereignly ordained by God, and her executioners only his agents in execution of his plan.”

    The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. (Proverbs 15:3)

    Our God is in the heavens: he does whatever he pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

    It’s was God’s decision to intervene and prevent the death of Mary Dyer. God choose not to do so. Thus, God ordained the death of Mary Dyer and the Puritans became His agents to carry out her death. God was always in complete and active control of the situation.

      Norm Miller

      “Thus, God ordained the death of Mary Dyer and the Puritans became His agents to carry out her death.”
      So, if God ordains murder, it is not evil? Wow, Hutch!

        Preach

        All true martyrs died for the truth they believed was worth dying for and strongly believed those whom disagreed with them were worthy to live even if that meant living a long life in total error.

        History records more often than not, those who were put to death died for the Truth, the Lord Himself.

        Let’s examine those who raised their hand to commit murder to determine “who” in heaven was their motivation.

          Preach

          Why start with Sister Dyer, let’s begin with Abel the first martyr recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Who was more righteous, more zealous for the truth in his day?
          Now on the other hand, the murderer, in this instance his own brother Cain, was also more religious, more zealous for his “brand” of truth? This same Cain was “warned” by the Lord God before he rose up and killed his “brother” the first “prophet” recorded, of the Most High. This Cain, went on record with one of the most ridiculous religious statement ever made “Am I my brother’s keeper”.

          We later learn from the Scriptures that our suspicions about him were correct. He was of the “Wicked One” the Devil. So why did Cain murder his own brother. Because of God? No because he was of that Wicked One and his works followed him and they were evil.

          Now in the case of the Puritans, a measure and degree of evil was certainly on hand in their treatment of those who disagreed with their theology. Once again the “brand” of truth reveals hearts and minds concerning “The Truth” and those willing to die for Him.

        Robert

        Some more examples of rhutchin’s logic in action:

        “Thus, God ordained the deaths of millions of Jews during the Holocaust and the Nazis became His agents to carry out their deaths.”

        “Thus, God ordained the millions of abortions committed in the United States and the abortionist doctors became His agents to carry out their deaths”

        “Thus, God ordained the persecution, torture and deaths of the Anabaptists and the Reformers and their followers became His agents to carry out their deaths.”

        Just keep in mind rhutchin’s formula:

        “Thus, God ordained the . . . . and the . . . . became His agents to carry out their persecution, torture, deaths.

        This is really chilling stuff.

        Robert

          rhutchin

          “Thus, God ordained the . . . . and the . . . . became His agents to carry out their persecution, torture, deaths.”

          This is exactly what God did with Assyria when He used them to punish Judah. Isn’t it?

          You obviously don’t like this so why not don’t you argue against Proverbs and Psalms? Even you can’t show that the Calvinists are mistaken in their understanding of the verses I cited.

        rhutchin

        God ordains all things, whether they are good and evil. That does not change the character of these things. God has the final say in all that happens. He must because He is God.

          Robert

          You claim that God ordains all things, that is just your assertion. An assertion rejected by the vast majority of Christians whether they be Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Independents. Your assertion has been repeatedly rejected throughout church history. God having the final say in what happens is granted by all: but that is not at all like claiming that he preplans and desires for all the sins and evils to occur. If he desires for all the sin and evil to occur, in what way is he different than the devil in his character? Oh I forgot, according to you, the devil like everyone else is just a pawn in His game.

          Robert

            rhutchin

            The Bible asserts it.

            Isaiah 41
            2 Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow.
            3 He pursued them, and passed safely; even by the way that he had not gone with his feet.
            4 Who has wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

            Amos 3
            6 …shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
            7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
            8 The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?

          Preach

          The Lord exposes His heart in Gen6:6 and we see grief spilling over the balcony of Majesty on High due to the wickedness of sinful men on the earth. The word “ordain” doesn’t fit this picture nor is it an accurate description of Him. Yes, this does “fall” under the Sovereignty of God but the “fall” in the Garden of Eden, the unleashing of sin into the world, is the “fall” of man alone with deception from without, disregard for the word of God from within and old fashion disobedience at its core.

          Here is a clear portrait of the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. For it is written, “For in the day you eat you will surely die”. Now, even if there was no food except the forbidden tree, that still wouldn’t change anything. Man must obey God when there is bread or when there is no bread, when there is food or when food cannot be found. Our Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated this in the wilderness as He faced the Tempter and his temptation. Food or no food man is responsible to the known will of God. Christ said in another place, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me and to finish His work”.

            Preach

            Before the foundation of the world, our Great God put His “hand” of providence into the “glove” of all of His creation. In Heaven above, in the heavens beneath, in the earth and under the earth, whether they are thrones or dominions, principalities or powers, things seen and things unseen, all thing will work together for His glory alone. According to Roman2 his law is inscribed on the heart of those who had not the law. Nevertheless He is not the author of evil but He will be the One to bring it to an end.

            rhutchin

            “… all thing will work together for His glory alone.”

            It is God who works all things for His glory alone.

            If not, then does someone else do it? Or perhaps you propose that such things happen by chance?

            If not God who does it, then who or what?

            [Actually, God does not need to “work” all things together for His glory. All that God does naturally glorifies Him for there can be no other outcome of God’s works but God’s glory.]

      Jim P

      Continuing with your logic: The Puritans were God’s agents to put Mary Dyer to her death, like the Jews were God’s agents to put the Lord to death. And as God held the Jews act as sinful so God held the Puritans act as sinful. The Jews lost their nation the Puritans lost their religion.

      Q.E.D.

        Preach

        Rhutchin,

        [Actually, God does not need to “work” all things together for His glory. All that God does naturally glorifies Him for there can be no other outcome of God’s works but God’s glory.]

        My post said nothing about God working all things, but ye rather “all things work” together for His glory. The issue is whether He is the author of evil and the biblical answer is Not. He cannot be tempted. let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempted he any man. The divine essence of God, each attribute from our low plane, collectively, in concert with each other contribute to His Sovereignty in all matters, even in the affairs of sinful man. Evil isn’t associated in any fashion with His divine nature. In Him is no sin. Evil is subject to Him for all things are beneath Him.

        – Preach Blackman Preach

          Preach

          Even the judgment of God is known as the “strange works” of God. Throughout all of eternity there was a period before His disappointed was disturbed, His anger was aroused, and His judgment exercised. Some might venture to say because of His omniscience He was in all eternity “angry” with the wicked. His anger did not arise until it was moved or stirred by the wicked. All of His decrees, purposes and plans precede the schemes, work and labor of the wicked one and His devices.

          Listen, as our children grew up they were taught right from wrong, they were disciplined when we had knowledge of their rebellion but you know something, they would still from time to time rebel. We did not appoint them to evil we labored to keep them from evil just as our Heavenly Father does each and everyday.

          God used this same method in the Garden of Eden. Adam, according to Luke3 the Son of God, the formed Son, created by His breath when He breathed into Him the breath of life, light which is the life of man. Now God having full knowledge of good and evil created Adam not to have this knowledge. This is what God ordained or appointed etc. So what did He do, first He gave man His Word to live by. That’s what God ordained and appointed etc. Having created enough food to the point where food would never be an issue as to what would they eat. We all know the story, deception, compromise, rebellion. What Adam didn’t know God did. That in and of itself doesn’t place evil upon Him nor should we lay it at His feet as its author. His Son would die for the sins of world, a matter that went into counsel before creation and the world was placed upon the pillars of the earth.

      Robert

      Rhutchin you provide a perfect illustration here of why Calvinistic thinking is both dangerous and alarming.

      “It’s was God’s decision to intervene and prevent the death of Mary Dyer. God choose not to do so. Thus, God ordained the death of Mary Dyer and the Puritans became His agents to carry out her death. God was always in complete and active control of the situation.”

      I hope **everybody** sees the “logic” displayed here. According to rhutchin God could have intervened to prevent the death of Mary Dyer: but God chose not to. Note especially what rhutchin claims logically follows from this: Thus, God ordained the death of Mary Dyer.

      According to rhutchin’s “logic” we can look at any evil event or occasion of suffering and conclude that God could prevent it, but if it in fact happens then he chose not to prevent it. And if he chose not to prevent it, then he ORDAINED IT, He desired for it to happen. This is dangerous thinking as it makes God a person who wills and ordains every evil event, every occasion of suffering no matter how ghastly or depraved.

      If a women gets raped according to this logic, God ordained it. He could have prevented the rape, he chose not to, therefore he ordained it. A child is molested by an evil and twisted person, but God ordained it if it happened. He could have prevented it, but he chose not to, therefore he ordained it. If a woman and her children are physically and mentally abused by the husband, God ordained it. He could have prevented it, but chose not to, therefore he ordained it. And on and on with any evil and sinful choice that you bring up: rhutchin’s logic spews out the same conclusion: if it happened God ordained it, desired for it to occur.
      I work with inmates who have committed all sorts of crimes. According to rhutchin, God could have prevented them all, but chose not to, therefore he ordained them all.

      Rhutchin’s “logic” may be displayed here at a discussion forum but it utterly fails in the real world of people who actually suffer. Try sharing this logic with those who have truly suffered. It makes God into a moral monster who delights and takes pleasure in and ordains every evil that occurs. This logic totally maligns God’s character and misrepresents Him. And yet this is precisely what we can expect from professing Calvinists. It is quite simple really, if God ordains everything as Calvinists claim and want to believe, then this kind of “logic” results. Whatever evil occurs God ordained it and desired for it to happen. Because if he did not want it to happen he would not have ordained it, he would have prevented it from happening. This is very dangerous thinking and Christians need to take issue with it whenever it rears its ugly head.

      Robert

        rhutchin

        God sees all evil doesn’t He. God is omnipresent, so He is standing there even as a woman gets raped, isn’t He. Does this make God a moral monster or does it show people to be dumb for not crying out to Him to save them?

        So, is God not omnipotent? Is God not omniscient? Is not God omnipresent? Which do you propose to deny?

        If you cannot deny who God is, then explain to us how God does not ordain all things.

          Robert

          Rhutchin why do you keep making this false claim that if we disagree with your Calvinistic claim that God ordains every event, that that must mean that we deny God’s ominiscience? Deny his omnipotence, His omnipresence???????

          You have made this claim repeatedly and make it yet again here:

          “God sees all evil doesn’t He. God is omnipresent, so He is standing there even as a woman gets raped, isn’t He. Does this make God a moral monster or does it show people to be dumb for not crying out to Him to save them?”

          He is seeing everything and whatever people do they are accountable for: there is this thing called the final judgment that you seem to have forgotten. You also forget (or deny) the clear teaching of scripture that God does not intervene to prevent all evil but will bring all to account at the final judgment.

          You forget what Jesus said in the parable about the wheat and the tares. Jesus said that an evil one came and sowed the tares which were allowed to grow and exist with the wheat until the end. The angels came and asked (just as we are tempted to ask at times: why not take them out now?): Jesus responded that God would allow them both to grow together until the final harvest and only then would the separation occur. You seem to want this separation to occur now, when Jesus says explicitly that it will not occur until the final judgment.

          “So, is God not omnipotent?”

          Yes he is, and yet He does not always intervene nor does he always use his power to eliminate all evil and sin NOW.

          “ Is God not omniscient?”

          Yes he is, we have been through this with you before as well. God knowing something will happen is not at all the same as Him desiring for it to happen, or ordaining for it to happen.

          “Is not God omnipresent?”

          Yes God is omnipresent he says this repeatedly in His Word (e.g. Psalm 139, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

          “Which do you propose to deny?”

          None of them. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He has always been these thngs and always will be. That is what He reveals about Himself in His Word.

          My question for you rhutchin is when will you stop making this false accusation against other Believers????

          That if another Christian disagrees with your Calvinism then that must mean they deny these attributes of God???

          “If you cannot deny who God is, then explain to us how God does not ordain all things.”

          I don’t deny who God is, I also do not deny his character as revealed in the Bible as your false theology does.

          I could take time explaining how God does not ordain all things, but it has been done with you here before and you just ignored it and kept presenting your false Calvinistic theology. So why should I do so yet again?

          Robert

            rhutchin

            God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. Nothing can happen that escapes God’s knowledge or is outside His control. As Satan could not afflict Job without first gaining God’s permission, so no person can act – whatever manner, evil or good – except by God’s permission.

            As you said, “…[God] does not always intervene nor does he always use his power to eliminate all evil and sin NOW.” It is God who decides that these things should proceed. Evil is not eliminated because God has not decided to eliminate it. Evil exists in front of God’s eyes and it is God who decides whether it will proceed.

            That does not mean that man escapes responsibility. For the heart of a man is to do evil but man can do nothing but by God’s permission.

              Norm Miller

              “As Satan could not afflict Job without first gaining God’s permission, so no person can act – whatever manner, evil or good – except by God’s permission.”
              You make quite the jump, here, Hutch. Typical illogical habit of many Calvinists. — Norm

            JB

            Robert,

            You obviously don’t agree with rhutchin’s view that God ordains everything. Can you tell me how you understand God’s omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence? If He is not ordaining everything, then what is He doing?

Ron F. Hale

Randall,

No, I’m not contending that. I have written an article(s) about their behaviors toward people, in this case, about a woman by the name of Mary Dyer.

Blessings!

Norm Miller

Yes. Sent you my cell number.

Randall Cofield

This is encouraging…

“Lottie Moon mission gifts grow to $149.3M, third-largest ever”

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=40461

Preach

When it comes to historical theology, who was found to have more of the truth of scripture in context, interpretation and proclaimation, the “murderers” or the “martyrs”? Even though the true prophets of God were few in number some of them were put to death more often. They were counted worthy to die at the hands of those who believed in some instances they did God a favor in ridding the earth of their presence. Truth has been put flight more often, banished from speech and documents more frequent and yes put to death more commonly and yet Truth lives and truth remains.

Hallelujah!

Robert Vaughn

Ron, I have enjoyed your posts about martyrs. I am saddened that most of them turn into debates about Calvinism!

Robert Vaughn

Ron, I’m posting a link here that was relevant to the “Paed-Day Someday” thread, since the comments there seem to be closed and I thought you might be interested. I mentioned there the 1977 “Documents Concerning Baptism and Church Membership: a Controversy among North Carolina Baptists.” I posted some quotes from that document HERE and thought you might be interested in them. I apologize for breaking in one this thread with it.

Ron F. Hale

Robert,
Thanks for your comment and for noticing what usually happens. The stories of the Martyars must be told!

Robert Vaughn

Yes, these stories should be told. I work with someone who often remarks that something “is what is is”. That’s true of the stories of martyrdom, whether the persecutors be Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalian, Reformers, Calvinists, Arminians or whoever else performed these atrocities. Even the “Saint” Thomas Aquinas believed that obstinate heretics should “not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death.” Many will excuse such actions because these were “men of their times”. There is no doubt that all of us are influenced by the times in which we live. But the false union of church and state spawned, nursed and prolonged these “times”. The persecuting “church” that murders the brethren looks more like the “anti-church” than those who lay down their lives for the brethren and were labeled heretics by their murderers. Perhaps the stories of the martyrs are not popular in our soft times — all the more reason they need to be heard!
1 John 3:14-16 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

On a completely different subject: I mentioned in another thread the 1977 “Documents Concerning Baptism and Church Membership: a Controversy among North Carolina Baptists.” That thread seemed to be closed so I posted a link above to where I quoted some of this document. I think that post got hung in moderation due to having a link in it and perhaps because of all the changes the site is going through. If you are interested in reading it, you can click on my name and go to my blog, then look for the June 10, 2013 post.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available