Featured Calvinism and the SBC (a 2013 discussion between Hankings and Mohler)

Are you suggesting that there are Armenians who aren't Arminian? And visa versa?

 

And auto correct makes it wrong every time.

 

Where we likely disagree is in regard to corporate election. Unless, by corporate, you are referring to the whole body of Christ, I will likely disagree with the notion of infant baptism as a corporate "holding tank" until confirmation. Such a concept is not supported in the church.

Beyond that, we may likely find agreement. I recognize God's covenant of grace as the overarching umbrella to all other covenants.

 

Your discussion with James is remindful of the book of Job. Job and his friends had a nice, neat theology of God all set-up...and then disaster hit...and their concept of God was turned around. God has a way of doing that to us.

 

Why would someone argue against that? It's obvious that God is active. He holds the entirety of Creation in His hands and directs it all. A passive God is never to be found in scripture.

 

James, your cryptic comments are of little value and humorous to only yourself. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

By corporate/individual election, I believe all three must be emphasized, and maybe defined/clarified.

First, election. I don't believe election refers in the least bit to being saved from hell, coming to faith in Christ, or even chosen for service. Election refers specifically to being chosen as a joint-heir with Christ, chosen to be predestined to an inheritance.

Corporately, "we" (all believers) have been chosen as heirs of God. Predestined to an inheritance among the saints.

Individually, however, not every believer will qualify.

While "we" are children of God through faith, some will become sons through being led by the Holy Spirit. Distinction must be drawn between a child and a son.

Again, I'm happy do get scripture into it and hash it out, but not in this thread.

 

These two comments seem non-sensical.

 

Context:

I said I have never "MET" a Calvinist who was a theologian.

GreekTim even quoted me. Then he turned around and said that shows I haven't "READ" much theology

So I simply commented that he must not understand what "MET" means

It's not cryptic if you're following along - AND if you pay attention to the EXACT words I'm using.

 

Start a thread and let's hash it out

 

Except I was commenting on philosophers and theologians in your comment. Every theologian worth his salt deals in the realm of philosophy on some level. If you are unaware of this, then you've not read much theology.

 

I know.
But without that critical inclusion of the word "met" you assessed that I possibly haven't read much theology.

 

There is no contradiction as per the position of God, just us, due to our finite mind and understanding!

 

Again, no. You said in #74, "LOL... The only problem is that philosopher does not equal theologian." The problem with that is that theology needs and makes use of philosophy. And most philosophers dabble in the realm of theology, at least natural theology. For you to not know that tells me you have read little theology, at least theology that has substance. It's ok, I tend towards biblical studies and biblical theology too.

 

But did you place that statement in the context of post #71 ?

Where I said of my short exchange with Hankins:
"Of course, he disagreed. He seems to think that philosophy is the epitome of deep, substantive study"

 

Sure it's cryptic. You change the context of the conversation and expect others to notice your play on words.

 

That's okay. You strike me as a person who is not honest.

 

Like maybe I didn't write in post #71....

"As a matter of fact, GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE ORIGINAL POST, I took Hankins to task on this issue only a couple of days ago. I told him it's a shame that people will go to Seminary, and waste all this time and money getting a doctorate, and have nothing to show for it other than philosophical meandering

Of course, he disagreed. He seems to think that philosophy is the epitome of deep, substantive study."

Yeah, I changed to context of the conversation, and on top of that left no clues for anyone, right?

Honestly, I'm through if all you want to do is character assassination. I've been intentionally not responding in a manner which would make you curl up in a closet and cry.

That sort of restraint is no small feat for me.

 

Absolutely right: no one or no thing can control God. No one controlled Him when He said "Jerusalem Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee....but thou would not". No one controlled Him when His Spirit dealt with Felix as the man "reasoned of temperance, righteousness and judgement" but then chose to put it off. God's design and choice is to give men the choice to accept Him or reject the drawing of His Holy Spirit on their hearts. The word "sovereign", by any definition, isn't in the King James Bible. I reject it. The Bible says that God is the Almighty: and the command to "choose life" or suffer His consequences is part of His Almighty design.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:8