Dr Mohler and Dr.Patterson Debate

I respect both gentlemen very much . Dr. Patterson is a very intelligent man . And Dr. Mohler is as well . But personality-wise Dr. Mohler is more reserved . I think it will be to his disadvantage in the debate .

 

hmmm....

I would think that Mohler would be very confident...like he was predestined to win the debate.




(just seeing if humor is allowed on a Cal/Arm debate...For some reason, I doubt it is)

 

I disagree since if they are debating on election Dr. Mohler has the Biblical truth on his side. I have seen him debate on a panel consisting of a Jew, a Roman Catholic, an Episcopalian?, and perhaps a Muslim, but I am not sure. Dr. Mohler was very outspoken and the only one professing the Christian faith to defend the Biblical truths.

 

Okay , OldRegular . I hope you're right about his outspokedness . I already agree that he has the biblical truth on his side . It is strange how Reformed folks are charged with using philosophy . Yet Arminians are using philosophical arguments much of the time . " I don't think God would ... " Or , " My God wouldn't ... " Or , " How do you think I'd feel if God ..." etc.

 

I enjoy what both men bring to the table as far as knowledge, candor, the ability to articulate. It should be a grand event. Both gentlemen have a way of slicing and dicing you with their rhetoric and all the while you'll not really notice that you have been refuted like a onion being peeled back layer by layer.
Rippon, I'm not a "calvinist" nor am I a Arminian. Calvinists throw that word around just a little bit to easy. I appreciate reformed theology. I'm finding myself more in line with it's aspects. I also bet you don't like it though when folk refer to anyone that holds to a calvinistic theology as being a "hyper-calvinist".
I certainly believe there are plenty of Arminians out there just like there are some hyper calvinists. Yet on both sides there plenty of folk who aren't either.
I must admit that I see more reformed theologians and preachers that are speaking out against the ever growing slide of evanglicalism into the liberal abyss than any other group of believers. It has been that very fact that has made me start to take a harder, closer look at reformed theology.

 

Once again, God had to DRIVE Adam from the garden. If Adam's ability to choose died when he sinned, God would have just shown him the door. Adam had a will to stay in the place where he had walked and talked and had experienced a life with God as his friend. Adam did not want to go, so God DROVE him out. In Kentucky we DRIVE mules because they have a will of their own and so also Adam. It is very clear and is the ax that goes to the root of the Pontifical Augustinian Calvinbelievers hypothosis of death of choice in the garden.
Thanks -----Bart

 

ShannonL , the folks that throw around the hyper-calvinist designation are for the most part ignorant . But some do it knowing the truth anyway . I tried on another thread to get folks to open up about hyper-calvinism . But they were not interested . JW's evacuate the meaning out of a lot of biblical words and concepts , and the same goes for many Fundamentalists and evangelicals . The historical usage of the word is something they just are not concerned with . Facts are dismissed and nonsense prevails . For one to say that a holder of the 5 points is a h-c is silly . But , for me to say that most professing Christians are Arminian is in-fact true . There aren't many Amyraldians running around . Some today are more akin to the Pelagians of old . The absurd " ability limits obligation " is just an example of that . Most folks who say they are not under either nomenclature are just fooling themselves . It's just like those who say upon being asked what they believe : " Everything that's in the Bible . " Well , they may be very sincere and short of time for a good reply but a confession of faith is a good way to clarify your beliefs about some major doctrines . Of course acknowledging that creeds and confessions are subordinate to the Word of God , they do make plain your understanding of the Bible's teachings .

 

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Some discussions today remind me of Pauls exhortation to be in Christ.

I do not follow the ideology of Calvin or Arminian. And I know of no one who follows Arminian.

 

Both men are theological "Einstein's"(that is, Mohler & Patterson)

Some of you thought I was gonna say that Calvin and Armenion were "Einstein's"-----sorry, dudes, not today!!!

 

I have come to the reality that most who comment on Calvinism or Arminianism have neither read nor studied either, they simply speak of what they have heard and not what they have allowed the Holy Spirit to teach them via real study. It should be an interesting debate and a sad one. Why can't we all just be Biblist?

With Respects.

 

Okay- For some of the geniuses spoken of- Language Cop wants to know who is Armenion, number one, and number two, how does this person figure in here??? "Mohler I know, and Patterson I know, but who the heck is 'Armenion'?"
Ed

 

This sounds great. Could someone sum up how Drs. Patterson and Mohler's views on election differ or provide some links to things they've written on the subject. I'd love to read more about these guys views.

 

Having read the whole thread, I must admit it is just so edifying to see so many with such open minds to Scriptural truths, especially on the Berean - 'er I mean 'Baptist' Board, who approach this issue, like most others with such an open mind.
In His grace,
Ed

 

They're going to great lengths NOT to bill their "discussion" as a "debate."
Maybe that says something about the format. Or perhaps somone fears the word "debate" sounds too adversarial.

 

please tell me they won't be wearing wrestling tights...

 

You make a good point. The fact that God drove Adam out of the garden does not show that Adam had a free will but that he had animosity toward God, even though God had made a provisional atonement for Adams sin through the shedding of innocent blood.

The intransigence of the Kentucky mule is a perfect example of mans intransigence when it comes to accepting God's offer of Salvation. John Dagg in his Manual of Theology, page [page 322] comments on the natural man’s inability regarding salvation, as follows:

“Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible.”

Boiled down to simple terms, the truth is, if it were not for God's choice of certain to Salvation in Jesus Christ [Election] no one would be saved. We are all like that Kentucky mule. We cannot be driven, can't even be coaxed. However, our intransigence does not limit God. God the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and gives him the faith to respond to the Gospel Call. [Ephesians 1: 3-7; 2:1-10]

Again quoting Dagg [pages 277ff]: “So great is the change produced, that the subject of it is called a new creature as if proceeding, like Adam, directly from the creating hand of God; and he is said to be renewed, as being restored to the image of God, in which man was originally formed”

2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV
17. Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Dagg further notes:

“The change is moral. The body is unchanged; and the identity of the mind is not destroyed. The individual is conscious of being the same person that he was before; but a new direction is given to the active powers of the mind, and new affections are brought into exercise. The love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. No love to God had previously existed there; for the carnal heart is enmity against God. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the principle of all holy obedience; and when love is produced in the heart, the law of God is written there. As a new principle of action, inciting to a new mode of life, it renders the man a new creature. The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for he that loveth, is born of God.”

“The mode in which the Holy Spirit effects this change, is beyond our understanding. All God's ways are unsearchable; and we might as well attempt to explain how he created the world, as how he new-creates the soul. With reference to this subject, the Saviour said, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.[John 3:8, KJV] We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.[James 1:18, KJV] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God, because their knowledge of him is not connected with love. The mere presentation of the truth to the mind, is not all that is needed, in producing love to God in the heart.”

 

</font>[/QUOTE]
Ed

 

Good quotes from John Dagg OldRegular . He was a solid man . In his Manual he had very little ( maybe no ) footnotes . He just stayed right on top of the Scriptures . His Systematic was as clear and concise as could be .