A Tale of Two Faiths

[Rippon]

DHK has posted the same old tommyrot from Cooper Abrahams that he did in the past.
C.A. is clearly outclassed by the scholarship and honesty of the following men.

Bernard Cottret: Calvin: A Biography

"Geneva, in fact, was never a theocracy...the ministry and the magistracy, were never one and the same...To sum up, Calvin did not take over the state; he was neither a commanding general nor an ayatolla." (p.159)

"The consistory therefore could not inflict any penalties; it had only limited doctrinal competence." (p.166)

"We must avoid the simplistic idea of a religious reformation controlling the civil power to erect a theocratic, indeed fundamentalist state. In fact, it was almost the opposite." (p.114)
________________________________________________________________________
McGrath Life of Calvin

"The image of Calvin as 'dictator of Geneva' bears no relation to the known facts of history." (p.119)
_____________________________________________________________
Basil Hall

...the records of Geneva show him plainly to have been the servant of its Council which on many occasions rejected out of hand Calvin's wishes..."
______________________________________________________________
J.I. Packer

"Yet all serious Calvin-scholars now know that the Calvin of legend --the slobbering ogre, the egotistical fanatic, the doctrinaire misanthrope, the inhuman dictator with a devilish god --is a figure of fancy --not fact."

 

[The Archangel]

Even the five pointers are often not consistent. No five pointer would ever go witnessing.

False. You obviously have no earthly clue what you're talking about.

After all God does all the electing, and for that matter the saving. They will be saved whether you tell anyone the gospel or not. They have to be. They are the elect of God. Calvinism is fool-proof with or without you.
It is a system that dies without any evangelistic outreach whatsoever if left to its logical outcome.

You should read Romans 10:14-17.

These recent comments of yours are, quite possibly, the stupidest things you've ever written--and that's saying something.

You want your opponents to rightly describe your position, yet you refuse to do so with us. We have told you time and time again that we--5-pointers--do believe in evangelism because the Bible commands us to do so. And, since you mentioned William Carey, you ought to know he was a 5-point Calvinist.

Your hypocrisy and asininity simply know no bounds.

The Archangel

 

[The American Dream]

I am not saying they don't. I am saying that if they take all five points to their logical conclusion they would not go out witnessing. They wouldn't have a need to.

There is a definite pattern with your posts. When it is all said and done, it really has nothing to do with the issue of where saving faith originates, or if God predestinates by decree or choice of the individual. Those can be discussed by back and forth exchanges of ideas. The term for that concept is called civil debate.

No, this goes way beyond that. Your quote above sums it all up. Post after post has shown that Presbyterians spend heavily in the area of outreach and missions. By the way, I am a Baptist. Even if they did not spend one cent, and you know this in your heart, that lumping hyper Calvinists with 5 point and below categories of Calvinists is a deliberate and mean insinuation that has no place in a Christian forum. Hyper Calvinism is not Biblical. People are not predestined to hell like they believe. People end up n the Lake of Fire because they died in their sins without Jesus Christ as their Savior. The second point of hypers is that they do not believe in outreach or missions. Ignoring the PCUSA, you know 95+% of Presbyterians support missions. Their doctrine is unbiblical and in grievous error. But then again, that should not be a new fact to you. Since you seem to know all the ends and outs of Calvinism, you know that the hypers share nothing or not much with believers of TULIP and all the various stripes of that.

The purpose of debate is to not only get a point across, but to teach. Folks change their minds all the time. I believe convicted1 is a good example. The purpose of debate is not to interject obviously false facts like the one above. That is a sign one cannot defend his or her own stances on a given issue, and has to make false statements or create strawman arguments to continue their posts because there is nothing else to say.

Another point of civil debate is to discuss the issue not the person. One might say this fact is a lie, or that is a strawman argument. One might even say a certain concept is heresy or borders on heresy. However, when the issue stops becoming the object of discussion, and the poster starts becoming the object of discussion, names like heretic, fool, and liar take the place of labeling the idea. I am sure I missed a few choice names but think that conveys the concept. In addition to the name calling, quotes like that one above shows total disrespect to the doctrine of God's sovereignty and to those who believe in it.

So what is it inside a person that drives him or her to go from debate to anger? Why does the fact that some disagree with you about faith and the salvation process evoke angry responses instead of rational posts? These posts should be a reflection of what comes out of our mouths day to day. For example, if a pastor, leader of a New Testament church, talked to his congregation or delivered a sermon in the tone of some of the posts in this thread, I would guess the congregation would not put up with that very long.

 

[convicted1]

You obviously have no earthly clue what you're talking about.

The Archangel

The saying of the 21st century....


:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

[RLBosley]

Calvinist's don't witness? Really? This nonsense still?

I guess the group of mostly Calvinists I went witnessing with in Baltimore on Saturday was a figment of my imagination...

 

[Iconoclast]

False. You obviously have no earthly clue what you're talking about.

You should read Romans 10:14-17.

These recent comments of yours are, quite possibly, the stupidest things you've ever written--and that's saying something.
You want your opponents to rightly describe your position, yet you refuse to do so with us. We have told you time and time again that we--5-pointers--do believe in evangelism because the Bible commands us to do so. And, since you mentioned William Carey, you ought to know he was a 5-point Calvinist.

Your hypocrisy and asininity simply know no bounds.The Archangel

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: very shameful...a disgrace

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I am not saying they don't. I am saying that if they take all five points to their logical conclusion they would not go out witnessing. They wouldn't have a need to.

If anyone stills thinks that you have any idea what you are talking about this should make them come to their senses..get well soon.

 

[Rippon]

We have told you time and time again that we--5-pointers--do believe in evangelism because the Bible commands us to do so. And, since you mentioned William Carey, you ought to know he was a 5-point Calvinist.

Others are ignorant (uninformed )of Church History. DHK does not fall in that category. He has been presented with historical facts for the past 12 years or so here on the BB. (i've done my best with him for nearly a decade.)

DHK willfully sides with falsehoods regularly.

DHK has stated that Spurgeon "did not believe in limited atonement." He has siad Spurgeon's "position was not TULIP." He has claimed that CHS "was conflicted in his views."

He feigns ignorance that the great bulk of Christian scholars/authors/preachers/missionaries in the past 400 years have been Calvinists. DHK takes the proverbial cake.

 

[Iconoclast]

[QUOTE=Rippon;2200827]Others are ignorant (uninformed )of Church History. DHK does not fall in that category. He has been presented with historical facts for the past 12 years or so here on the BB. (i've done my best with him for nearly a decade.)

DHK willfully sides with falsehoods regularly.

DHK has stated that Spurgeon "did not believe in limited atonement." He has siad Spurgeon's "position was not TULIP." He has claimed that CHS "was conflicted in his views."

He feigns ignorance that the great bulk of Christian scholars/authors/preachers/missionaries in the past 400 years have been Calvinists. DHK takes the proverbial cake.[/QUOTE]

yes...it is premeditated :applause::applause::thumbs:

 

[DHK]

False. You obviously have no earthly clue what you're talking about.



You should read Romans 10:14-17.

These recent comments of yours are, quite possibly, the stupidest things you've ever written--and that's saying something.

You want your opponents to rightly describe your position, yet you refuse to do so with us. We have told you time and time again that we--5-pointers--do believe in evangelism because the Bible commands us to do so. And, since you mentioned William Carey, you ought to know he was a 5-point Calvinist.

Your hypocrisy and asininity simply know no bounds.

The Archangel

And yet Carey had to make a break from the "type of Calvinism" that his other "five point" Calvinist brothers held to. They didn't want him to go to field because God would elect them any way "with or without his help." According to Calvinism they were the ones that were correct in taking Calvinism to its logical conclusion. That is all I am saying.

I am not saying that there are five point Calvinists on this board who do not evangelize. I never said that. I know very well that some of your churches are very evangelistic. What I am saying is that when Calvinism is taken down its proper road then the obvious conclusion is that there is no need for evangelism, as those in Carey's day believed.

What does predestination and predetermination mean?
What does reprobation mean?
In spite of what you do God has selected some to heaven and has appointed the rest to an eternal torment in the Lake of Fire. It is a horrible doctrine, but one that Calvin (not the Bible) taught. Why, therefore, witness?

This doctrine of the election of the elect to salvation and the damnation of the wicked came at great cost to Calvin, leading him into doctrinal error:

It is wisely observed by Augustine, that in the very head of the Church we have a bright mirror of free election…viz. that He did not become the Son of God by living righteously, but was freely presented with this great honour, that he might afterwards make others partakers of his gifts. Should anyone here ask, why others are not what he was…if they are bent on depriving God of the free right of electing and reprobating, let them at the same time take away what has been given to Christ.

(Institutes, III: xxii, 1)
Was Christ the eternal Son of God or not? Not according to Calvin.
In fact He was "presented this honor" of being the Son. What heresy!
It is a denial of the co-eternal and oneness of the triune Godhead.
And then in typical fashion he berates anyone who dares to contradict or question the "inspired truths" that come from his imagination.
What "inspired truth" now follows--that God freely elects some to salvation while reprobating others to damnation. That is his right. His logic is based on the reasoning that Christ was given "the right" to become the Son of God.
What foolishness.

 

[DHK]

Others are ignorant (uninformed )of Church History. DHK does not fall in that category. He has been presented with historical facts for the past 12 years or so here on the BB. (i've done my best with him for nearly a decade.)

DHK willfully sides with falsehoods regularly.

DHK has stated that Spurgeon "did not believe in limited atonement." He has siad Spurgeon's "position was not TULIP." He has claimed that CHS "was conflicted in his views."

He feigns ignorance that the great bulk of Christian

Gotta' love the personal attacks on the board here. You know what that is indicative of? It is what people resort to when they don't know how to debate or don't have any response or reasonable arguments left. Your answers have already left you exposed.

Concerning Spurgeon, here is a direct quote:

"I cannot imagine a more ready instrument in the hands of Satan for the ruin of souls than a minister who tells sinners that it is not their duty to repent of their sins or to believe in Christ, and who has the arrogance to call himself a gospel minister, while he teaches that God hates some men infinitely and unchangeably for no reason whatever but simply because he chooses to do so."

That is a direct denial of reprobation at the very least, if not limited atonement at the most. It is found in his sermon:
New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 6, 28-29 preached Dec. 11, 1859.
It was statements like that, that Spurgeon was sometimes accused of "Armianianism." He often urged all unsaved to come to Christ, and with great earnestness, never giving any hint that the number for which he died was a limited number. "Whosoever will may come."
Thus: Calvinist, yes; conflicted, yes. If Calvinist, he certainly was not consistent in his Calvinism. Anyone who has thoroughly read Spurgeon can see this quite readily. Any Calvinist who has seen this will probably, out of their own pride, never admit it.

 

[Rebel]

This must indeed be the end times because I never thought I'd see supposed Baptists defending, making excuses for, praising, idolizing, and lying about a fanatical, demonic, state-church, persecuting murderer.

You are the very ones who would have suffered and died under Calvin's hands had you lived in his Geneva at the time.

 

[Rebel]

You obviously are not the least bit familiar with the historians and Calvin scholars that I listed. Why do they all have a more well-tempered view of the man? Why are you into using vile language? You can't communicate without resorting to gutter-talk. If that's how you go about your daily life that's nasty. If you just do it on forums and conduct yourself properly in your life off forums then you are a hypocrite.

Your "historical" view of Calvin is against every single one of the men that I cited. And there are plenty more who are in agreement with them.

Your "specialty in history" is seen as a sham by the kind of posts you make here.

Vile language? Gutter-talk? Nasty? No, that's what you do all the time as evidenced by your posts here. You must have been looking into a mirror when you wrote those lies about me. I have simply stated what the historical facts are about Calvin. Everything I said about him is 100% truthful.

I don't have a specialty in history. I have it in church history and theology.

You haven't answered what I wrote about earlier: What would you have said to your idol Calvin had you lived in his time and held to your Baptist beliefs? What would you have said when they were putting the torch to you? Would you have cried out, "How can you do this to me? I admire Mr. Calvin so much and highly esteem him as a man of God, even though I hold to religious liberty and believer's baptism!" -- as the flames were engulfing you.

 

[DHK]

There is a definite pattern with your posts. When it is all said and done, it really has nothing to do with the issue of where saving faith originates, or if God predestinates by decree or choice of the individual. Those can be discussed by back and forth exchanges of ideas. The term for that concept is called civil debate.

Please read ALL the posts. A great many here refuse to be civil.

No, this goes way beyond that. Your quote above sums it all up. Post after post has shown that Presbyterians spend heavily in the area of outreach and missions. By the way, I am a Baptist.

What they do and what they believe are two different things.
What is their outreach in? Is it in actual "bringing the lost to Christ," or is it more in "social causes"? See the official site of PCUSA.
BTW, which Presbyterians are you talking about? The same ones that Rippon is ranting about? According to him they are mostly apostate. So how much missions would they be involved in?
I personally watched a Presbyterian church dwindle down to a dozen or so elderly people for lack of evangelism, and then die completely closing their doors. I do speak from some experience.

Even if they did not spend one cent, and you know this in your heart, that lumping hyper Calvinists with 5 point and below categories of Calvinists is a deliberate and mean insinuation that has no place in a Christian forum.

I have defined Hyper-Calvinism by what I have read on this forum, and by what I have read in other materials. Others disagree with me because of the very same reasons--by what they have read. It is a relative term, according to what you believe. Let me give you a quote from another non-Cal.

The beliefs and teachings of John Calvin became the distinguishing characteristics of the Protestant Reformed churches and some Baptists. Calvinists are divided into several groups: the extremist, are called "Hyper" or "Five Point" Calvinists, and the "Moderate Calvinists." The Hyper and Five Point Calvinists hold to the five points of Calvinism, which are stated in the acrostic TUPLIP. The Moderate Calvinist may accept one or more of these five points, but not all. The Hyper or Five Point Calvinistic teaching of "Limited Atonement" is generally rejected by the Moderate Calvinist. Simply stated, the heart of Calvinistic theology is the view that claims that God predestined or elected some to be saved and others to be lost. Those elected to salvation are decreed by God to receive salvation and cannot "resist God's grace." However, those that God elected to be lost are born condemned eternally to the Lake of Fire, and He will not allow them be saved. The five points of Calvinism spring from this false understanding of election and predestination.

http://bible-truth.org/IsCalvinismBiblical.html
--Basically the five-pointers are the hyper-Cals according to him.
And that is what I said.
The same author, later on in his book, gives the reason why:

Why teach salvation to all the world if God is going to save the elect anyway? The Calvinist again will counter by saying that God commands us to preach the Gospel and that is God's method to reach the elect. Again this is an example of the poor reasoning behind Calvinism and, indeed, a failure in human reasoning. If the Bible teaches that we are to tell all men everywhere they can be saved by trusting in Christ Jesus and God, but in fact has limited the offer to only a select few, then we become liars and God is sending us out into the “uttermost part of the earth” with a tainted message! Please excuse the redundancy in the following statement, but it is a lie for a man to stand before an audience and preach that God will save those that hear him if they will believe and put their trust in Jesus Christ, if God has elected that some of them cannot respond! God is not the author of lies; Satan is the author of the sin of lying (John 8:44). What a gross insult to the truth and to Almighty God to make God a liar and His evangelists a party to it, though this false teaching.

It is simply a logical outcome of the five points of TULIP.

Hyper Calvinism is not Biblical. People are not predestined to hell like they believe. People end up n the Lake of Fire because they died in their sins without Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Agreed.

The second point of hypers is that they do not believe in outreach or missions. Ignoring the PCUSA, you know 95+% of Presbyterians support missions. Their doctrine is unbiblical and in grievous error. But then again, that should not be a new fact to you. Since you seem to know all the ends and outs of Calvinism, you know that the hypers share nothing or not much with believers of TULIP and all the various stripes of that.

What I know of TULIP, is that it does not lead to evangelism. I do know that there are Calvinistic churches on this board that evangelize. I never denied that. But their belief in evangelism and their belief in TULIP are contradictory. They fail to see that.

The purpose of debate is to not only get a point across, but to teach. Folks change their minds all the time. I believe convicted1 is a good example. The purpose of debate is not to interject obviously false facts like the one above. That is a sign one cannot defend his or her own stances on a given issue, and has to make false statements or create strawman arguments to continue their posts because there is nothing else to say.

I have tried to quote from factual sources. Many of them have been ignored.

Another point of civil debate is to discuss the issue not the person. One might say this fact is a lie, or that is a strawman argument. One might even say a certain concept is heresy or borders on heresy. However, when the issue stops becoming the object of discussion, and the poster starts becoming the object of discussion, names like heretic, fool, and liar take the place of labeling the idea. I am sure I missed a few choice names but think that conveys the concept. In addition to the name calling, quotes like that one above shows total disrespect to the doctrine of God's sovereignty and to those who believe in it.

I am not sure which quote you are referring to.

So what is it inside a person that drives him or her to go from debate to anger? Why does the fact that some disagree with you about faith and the salvation process evoke angry responses instead of rational posts? These posts should be a reflection of what comes out of our mouths day to day. For example, if a pastor, leader of a New Testament church, talked to his congregation or delivered a sermon in the tone of some of the posts in this thread, I would guess the congregation would not put up with that very long.

Keep in mind this is not a church but a debate board where arguments often get somewhat heated. Again, I urge you to look not at just my posts.

 

[salzer mtn]

Gotta' love the personal attacks on the board here. You know what that is indicative of? It is what people resort to when they don't know how to debate or don't have any response or reasonable arguments left. Your answers have already left you exposed.

Concerning Spurgeon, here is a direct quote:

That is a direct denial of reprobation at the very least, if not limited atonement at the most. It is found in his sermon:
New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 6, 28-29 preached Dec. 11, 1859.
It was statements like that, that Spurgeon was sometimes accused of "Armianianism." He often urged all unsaved to come to Christ, and with great earnestness, never giving any hint that the number for which he died was a limited number. "Whosoever will may come."
Thus: Calvinist, yes; conflicted, yes. If Calvinist, he certainly was not consistent in his Calvinism. Anyone who has thoroughly read Spurgeon can see this quite readily. Any Calvinist who has seen this will probably, out of their own pride, never admit it.

I was advised by a Antinomian Calvinist when I was ordering the complete set of Spurgeon sermons to only order the New Park Street pulpit as those were more doctrinal than the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. I ordered them all. I was told by this same preacher a few years ago that Spurgeon was weak in a lot of his beliefs. I do believe that Spurgeon had a burden for lost souls that very few preachers today has regardless of their denomination. There are some Calvinist of today that will give forth the call in their messages to believe, and some will not.

 

[McCree79]

Vile language? Gutter-talk? Nasty? No, that's what you do all the time as evidenced by your posts here. You must have been looking into a mirror when you wrote those lies about me. I have simply stated what the historical facts are about Calvin. Everything I said about him is 100% truthful.

I don't have a specialty in history. I have it in church history and theology.

You haven't answered what I wrote about earlier: What would you have said to your idol Calvin had you lived in his time and held to your Baptist beliefs? What would you have said when they were putting the torch to you? Would you have cried out, "How can you do this to me? I admire Mr. Calvin so much and highly esteem him as a man of God, even though I hold to religious liberty and believer's baptism!" -- as the flames were engulfing you.

Micheal Servetus was executed by the civil government of Geneva. Not Calvin. Why I do think the crime was not worthy of capitol punishment. The government of Geneva made the call under their authority, not Calvin's.

Of course this took place under the civil of the 1500's. I guess a question for us, if we were in the authorities place.....raised as them under that time.....how would we have handled an extreme heretic that launched an assault on God himself???? Servertus attacked God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As a civil government we would, if convicted, hand out the punishment that fit the crime. Of course that last statement is relative to the government issuing the punishment.

In today's U.S.A Servetus would have kept his life. Which I agree with. The Geneva execution was a product of the time and civilization it occurred in.

 

[Rebel]

Micheal Servetus was executed by the civil government of Geneva. Not Calvin. Why I do think the crime was not worthy of capitol punishment. The government of Geneva made the call under their authority, not Calvin's.

Of course this took place under the civil of the 1500's. I guess a question for us, if we were in the authorities place.....raised as them under that time.....how would we have handled an extreme heretic that launched an assault on God himself???? Servertus attacked God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. As a civil government we would, if convicted, hand out the punishment that fit the crime. Of course that last statement is relative to the government issuing the punishment.

In today's U.S.A Servetus would have kept his life. Which I agree with. The Geneva execution was a product of the time and civilization it occurred in.

What is it about a church-state union that you and some others can't understand or won't admit? When church and state are united, the civil and religious are tied together.

And I guess I need to keep repeating what I wrote before: "I have said it before and will say it again: The Anabaptists lived in the same time as Calvin and shared the same culture, yet they did not persecute and murder other Christians. They recognized that these things were not what Jesus taught. So, Calvin and other persecutors can't be excused. Calvin was in favor of persecution and putting others to death because of their beliefs. Just because it was lawful does not mean it was right. The same applies to abortion; it's legal, but it's still murder..."

 

[McCree79]

What is it about a church-state union that you and some others can't understand or won't admit? When church and state are united, the civil and religious are tied together.

And I guess I need to keep repeating what I wrote before: "I have said it before and will say it again: The Anabaptists lived in the same time as Calvin and shared the same culture, yet they did not persecute and murder other Christians. They recognized that these things were not what Jesus taught. So, Calvin and other persecutors can't be excused. Calvin was in favor of persecution and putting others to death because of their beliefs. Just because it was lawful does not mean it was right. The same applies to abortion; it's legal, but it's still murder..."

Are you against all forms of capital punishment carried out by government?

 

[Rebel]

Are you against all forms of capital punishment carried out by government?

I don't see how that's relevant to our discussion. Aside from my view, the point that is relevant is this: In a united church-state system, the government is the secular arm of the religious authorities, and the religious authorities, the "Church", is the religious arm of the government.

That's why all the Magisterial Reformers were persecutors and murderers, including Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. They sanctioned and approved of persecution, torture, and killing of religious dissenters. The Anabaptists were almost wiped out by the state churches -- Roman Catholic and Protestant. And Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli approved of it and participated in it. Luther by his words sanctioned it. If you doubt it, research it. And yet Luther was not nearly as bad as Calvin.

It is simply astounding to me to see supposed Baptists defending such. Our spiritual ancestors were persecuted, mutilated, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered by state churches. Like I said, this must be end times.

 

[Protestant]

What is Saving Faith

DHK wrote:

What is "saving faith"? Show me this phrase used in the bible? Is there even one mention of it?

Cooper P. Abrahams III wrote:

Salvation and eternal life in heaven is a free gift of God. It is not a process by which a person merits salvation by good works, church membership or any act of man. It is instantaneously received by the believer when he exercises saving faith in Jesus Christ. ["http://bible-truth.org/doctrinalstatement.html"]

Although DHK cannot find any evidence of the expression ‘saving faith’ in his Bible, apparently his rabid anti-Calvinist mentor and spiritual soul mate, Abrahams, can.

A CONCISE SUMMARY OF SAVING FAITH

I write this for the benefit of Pastor DHK and others on this board who have difficulty grasping this essential Christian doctrine.

1. Saving faith is the gift of God to sinners. It is a saving grace.

2. It must be God’s gift because saving faith is spiritual. Man is carnal and carnal cannot produce spiritual.

3. This fundamental truth is evinced when Jesus explains the absolute necessity that Nicodemus must be ‘born again’ of the Spirit. If carnal wisdom could believe on Christ, surely Nicodemus (the wisest teacher in all Israel) would qualify. Yet he did not.

4. Saving faith is faith that justifies. (Romans 5:1) Those who are justified are saved. Therefore, faith that justifies is saving faith.

5. Saving faith is a grace given to the Elect. (Titus 1:1)

6. The Elect are those whom God the Father has predestinated to be effectually called unto saving faith which justifies:

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:

7. Note that the sequence does not verbally include ‘saving faith.’ The Holy Spirit has intentionally omitted notice of ‘saving faith’ in order to teach us that saving faith is a grace of God which accompanies the effectual calling of the Elect.

8. In the same way that the Elect do not call themselves to justification, they do not produce saving faith. The calling comes from God, justification comes from God, and everything else in-between which is necessary unto justification comes from God. That would include regeneration by the Spirit, repentance and saving faith which justifies.

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, shows His Elect the things which are Christ’s.

All the graces needed for salvation, including saving faith, are Christ’s to give.

The Elect understand that their faith was Christ’s to give, not theirs to give Christ.

He is the author of their faith.

To God alone be the glory!

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you [the Elect] into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [the Elect]
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. [the Elect]