Y
Yelsew
Guest
Is that a Calvinist or an Arminian approach?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I think it is you who seems to err in knowledge of what you speak. Your statement above reveals the common exclusivist view of a Calvinist. Only one who limits his reading to those works by, for, and about Calvinism would dare make such statements so easily refuted. Do the words "Moravian Missionaries" mean anything to you? How about the American "Great Awakening"? Can you name 10 circuit riding Calvinists from 18th and 19th century America? I can easily name 10 decidedly non-Cal ones and then keep on going.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Pappa Bear, you are very unfamiliar with what you are talking about. Your post shows a great lack of knowledge about Calvinism and evangelism. Did you know that virtually all of the early church planting works in this country were Calvinists?? Did you know that virtually all of the early foreign missionaries were calvinistic??
Will you now claim that this is true of MOST ALL Calvinists? I'll agree that there are SOME evangelistic Calvinists. But I find them few and far between, rare jems in God's jewell case. Most in my experience eventually follow the road of Calvinism to its logical conclusion, because evangelistic ministry is contradictory to the doctrines of Calvinism.Pastor Larry: We pass out tracts and invitations. We print Bibles and have mission boards and missions works.
I can't help but smile. It would serve you well to document some of the things you post before making such outrageous claims. I have a tendency to pick apart posts, myself.Pastor Larry: there are a great many knowledgeable people here who will take the time to pick apart your posts.
I know a heap of Calvinists that would be spitting like cats tossed into a pen full of dogs over that remark. First of all, Calvinists would disagree with your Ordo Salutis ... They frequently claim that the dead cannot hear. They dispute that regeneration must occur FIRST before the sinner can hear.Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
John 5:24 is a calvinist principle ... that dead hear. They are dead in their sins and they hear and come to life. That is what Calvinism teaches.
A very astute observation. I have found that many Calvinists who oppose agressive evangelistic efforts do so with the excuse that "lifestyle evangelism" is a superior method. I personally agree. Evangelism should not be a suit of clothes you put on and take off, but a constant way of life. The trouble is, I also find that Calvinist words do not match their practical application oftentimes.Originally posted by Gina L:
I think that there's a much bigger focus on "lifestyle evangelism" in the Calvinist crowd. For example, instead of going to my neighbors and saying "here's what I believe, believe it or burn in hell" I get to know them and talk to them and present the gospel as fits the situation instead of walking up and slamming them over the head with it or sticking tracts on their doors.
Not actually. I do konw what I am talking about. I do not deny that some arminians have been used by God. I do not limit my reading to Calvinists. In fact, at present, I read very little about soteriology at all. I do not have an exclusive view (though I did find myself chuckling at your descriptions in another thread you started.Originally posted by PappaBear:
I think it is you who seems to err in knowledge of what you speak. Your statement above reveals the common exclusivist view of a Calvinist.
It is not true of most arminians. I certainly don't think it is true of most calvinists. But it is true of at least as many calvinists as arminians, in my experience.Will you now claim that this is true of MOST ALL Calvinists?
If you know Calvinism, then you cannot make this statement. This is typical prejudicial, Dave Hunt style of commentary. To say that evangelism is contrary to Calvinism is to raise your hand and say, "I have no idea what I am talking about but I like the sound of my voice so I will say it anyway." There are some calvinists who are not evangelistic. There are some arminians who are the same. The doctrines of Calvinism are about evangelism. That is what the Scripture teaches.... evangelistic ministry is contradictory to the doctrines of Calvinism.
I don't know any who would. I think they would all agree with men. I know because I have talked to them. You read this through your arminian colored glasses and saw something that was not there. I was not giving an ordo salutis (although the ordo salutis you suggest can most certainly be adequately defended from a calvinistic view). I was commenting on the verse. The point is that death is no problem for salvation. Christ can overcome that.Originally posted by PappaBear:
I know a heap of Calvinists that would be spitting like cats tossed into a pen full of dogs over that remark. First of all, Calvinists would disagree with your Ordo Salutis ... They frequently claim that the dead cannot hear. They dispute that regeneration must occur FIRST before the sinner can hear.
So, since you have ordered it as "they hear and come to life," I wonder ... do *YOU* know what Calvinists believe?
A very astute observation. I have found that many Calvinists who oppose agressive evangelistic efforts do so with the excuse that "lifestyle evangelism" is a superior method. I personally agree. Evangelism should not be a suit of clothes you put on and take off, but a constant way of life. The trouble is, I also find that Calvinist words do not match their practical application oftentimes.Originally posted by PappaBear:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:
I think that there's a much bigger focus on "lifestyle evangelism" in the Calvinist crowd.....
Bro. James, it is my privilege to meet you. I have enjoyed reading your post very much and appreciate your taking the time to make it. I hope that in discussing what I perceive to be errors in what is called Calvinist doctrine, you do not feel that I am attacking you personally. But I have noticed that the subject does tend to generate a lot of heat, especially when long held and cherished beliefs begin to be shattered, having no Biblical basis in fact.Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
I'm not going to bash anyone's beliefs;... Now, I don't intend to get in a heated argument... do not bash me for being a Calvinist as I am not. I am also neither a hypercalvinist. I am a Primitive Baptist,
Please remember that I was referring to statements made by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a great Baptist Calvinist of the 19th century in London England, and as referred to by Iain Murray, the Calvinist author of "Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism." The truth is that the teaching ministries of strong Calvinists such as John Gill and William Huntington, by their opposition to the LAW, and total deliverance of responsibility from it produced great numbers of antinomian adherents. As a later successor to the pulpit of Gill, Spurgeon found it necessary to point out this evil result of Hyper-Calvinist teaching. I think the need is still great in that area, today.Regarding the "hyper-calvinists are antinomian in character" comment, ...(oftentimes people accuse us PBs of being antinomianist; far from the truth)... We are not antinomian(and I know we're not technically hyper-calvinist, but close enough).
This is interesting. You actually believe that once a man is regenerated he loses all desire for the things of the world? I thought it was Arminian/Pelagians that had problems teaching sinless perfection, but it appears I may be wrong in that regard? Was the Apostle Paul not speaking as a yet unregenerated man when he said, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."(Rms 7:25)?We believe that once regeneration occurs, the new man is born and the person no longer desires the things of the world.
Agreed! But the accusation of believing that one can save himself is one hurled by Calvinists against Non-Cals, and that rather regularly. But I have yet to meet the Christian who has even the basic smattering of Biblical knowledge who would affirm such a thing. Salvation is not by works. It is not by any work of righteousness which we have done. We are saved by His grace and mercy. But I find that normally, those who hold to fatalist views of predestinarianism are blind to the understanding that God does it, yet man is responsible to meet the conditions of repentance and faith as set forth in the Word of God. As Spurgeon said, "That God predestinates, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory, but they are not."As I said before, if it was up to me to save myself I would fail miserably just like Adam and just like everyone else.
And then ....Now, I don't intend to get in a heated argument, but I just want to make a small discussionary point.
The dead cannot hear until they are called by God.
Do you see the contradiction here? First you claim that the dead cannot hear, then you illustrate with Lazarus and specifically say that the dead "hearing his voice" are then regenerated (brought back to life). That does not quite make sense, and is contradictory. If the dead cannot hear, they cannot hear. But if they CAN hear the call of God, and are only regenerated (made alive) after that, then the dead CAN hear God's Word. In fact, if it is the call of God that regenerates, then God's words in calling them becomes the source of regeneration. Here, I can agree. But when you, inconsistent with your Biblical illustration, state that the dead cannot hear, then I have to disagree. Lazarus was dead, but Lazarus heard. Lazarus was regenerated by the the call of Christ. The sinner today is regenerated by the proclamation of God's Word (1Cor. 1:21). They are spiritually dead in sin, but yes, they can still hear, though dead, the Word of God. That is why we have such a tremendous responsibility to preach it, share it, and give its powerful soul-changing, life-giving message to all that we can.Jesus went and "called" Lazarus, just as he calls a dead sinner to life. Lazarus rose and came forth bound hand and foot in grave clothes. All of this symbolizes us in our sins(the graveclothes)coming out of death to life(hearing his voice and being renerated).
Just so that I understand you correctly, you aren't using the word "convert" meaning to save, are you? Or do you believe there can be a length of time between a person's "regeneration" and coming to faith in Christ?That is what our responsibility in spreading the gospel is; to convert those who have already been regenerated by God's command to come forth.
Amen! and Amen!I am not a Calvinist, nor have I ever been one. And, quite frankly, I do not believe what John Calvin taught. He believed in forcing people to accept his doctrine or be put to death. He doesn't even sound very Calvinist to me.
May our Lord Jesus Christ use you for His glory.God Bless each of us in endeavors to better serve Him and understand His word.
Hmmm... I am beginning to see a pattern, here. First, you claim that "virtually all" of the early missionaries were Calvinists, and now you claim that all would agree with you. Has anyone ever spoken to you about your extremes of exaggeration?Originally posted by Pastor Larry: I think they would all agree with men.
And I have spoken and dealt with them, also, my friend. I am not just shooting from the hip without some experience in this area, as you accuse.I know because I have talked to them. You read this through your arminian colored glasses and saw something that was not there.
Nevertheless, in your response you did give an order. You stated,I was not giving an ordo salutis
Now, in this same thread, Bro. James has stated that the dead cannot hear. You say they can, that they hear and THEN come to life. You gave a specific order of events. That order of events most Cals disagree with, because they do not believe that dead men can hear.John 5:24 is a calvinist principle ... that dead hear. They are dead in their sins and they hear and come to life. That is what Calvinism teaches.
Agreed. But, would you not agree that each group has its own hazardous extremes? Are you aware that those you would call "Arminians" have a reputation for being "holiness" preachers? Because of their teachings, there is the hazard that many fall into of teaching sinless living and perfection? That is not such a danger for those of the Calvinist persuasion. But antinomianism IS. As John Duncan once observed, "Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an antinomian." (as quoted in Murray, pg 68n)Originally posted by Gina L:
I would no sooner lable the whole camp that way than lable all non-cals KJVO's. There's extremists and exceptions in every belief group.
I beg to disagree. As insinuated above, those with a "holiness" background do not call people who practically apply bible passages to moral questions of living and lifestyle "legalists." The Amish, of which there are many in Ohio, would actually think that many that Calvinists call "legalists" are quite liberal! Now, between you and I, of the Cals and Non-Cals of mutual acquaintance, which are the ones predominantly against personal standards and convictions in dressing styles, amusements, imbibing spirits, and such; and which are not?Also, legalism is a cry that is coming from all directions and not at all something that can be pinned on those with calvinistic beliefs.
I believe you are right on that point.It seems to be used by ANYONE who wants to justify calling themselves a Christian while at the same time not living a lifestyle worthy of their calling.
I did. As you mentioned, you have found it to be CALS who favor the claim to "Lifestyle Evangelism," but as I stated there is little practical application to be seen in their style of life being appreciably different from that of the world. Holiness is not a normal trait of Calvinists. The fatalism of their extreme forms proscribes it.BTW can you give me a specific example of calvinist words not matching a practical application?
Agreed. But, would you not agree that each group has its own hazardous extremes? Are you aware that those you would call "Arminians" have a reputation for being "holiness" preachers? Because of their teachings, there is the hazard that many fall into of teaching sinless living and perfection? That is not such a danger for those of the Calvinist persuasion. But antinomianism IS. As John Duncan once observed, "Every unconverted Arminian is a Pelagian and every unconverted Calvinist is an antinomian." (as quoted in Murray, pg 68n)Originally posted by PappaBear:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gina L:
I would no sooner lable the whole camp that way than lable all non-cals KJVO's. There's extremists and exceptions in every belief group.
I beg to disagree. As insinuated above, those with a "holiness" background do not call people who practically apply bible passages to moral questions of living and lifestyle "legalists." The Amish, of which there are many in Ohio, would actually think that many that Calvinists call "legalists" are quite liberal! Now, between you and I, of the Cals and Non-Cals of mutual acquaintance, which are the ones predominantly against personal standards and convictions in dressing styles, amusements, imbibing spirits, and such; and which are not?Also, legalism is a cry that is coming from all directions and not at all something that can be pinned on those with calvinistic beliefs.
I believe you are right on that point.It seems to be used by ANYONE who wants to justify calling themselves a Christian while at the same time not living a lifestyle worthy of their calling.
I did. As you mentioned, you have found it to be CALS who favor the claim to "Lifestyle Evangelism," but as I stated there is little practical application to be seen in their style of life being appreciably different from that of the world. Holiness is not a normal trait of Calvinists. The fatalism of their extreme forms proscribes it. </font>[/QUOTE]Pappa: But, would you not agree that each group has its own hazardous extremes?BTW can you give me a specific example of calvinist words not matching a practical application?
I did not say that they could. You need to back off and understand the context in which I wrote. I was not giving a technical ordo salutis and it is wrong of you to try to make it one. I know very well what I said and I know that you completely missed the point.Originally posted by PappaBear:
Can the dead hear the call of God prior to regeneration?
I did not say that they could. You need to back off and understand the context in which I wrote. </font>[/QUOTE]Pardon me, sir. But you specifically said,Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PappaBear:
[qb] Can the dead hear the call of God prior to regeneration?
The context of your above statement is attempting to mitigate my statements by saying that I have no idea what a Calvinist believes or teaches. Judging from the fact that in at least 3 active threads in this forum right now I can find that Calvinists DO say that the dead cannot hear, it makes it appear that you are the one who actually does not know what he is talking about regarding what Calvinism teaches. In your quote, you specified (of your own free will -- not forced by me, I might add) that it is AFTER they hear that they come to life.Pastor Larry: "John 5:24 is a calvinist principle ... that dead hear. They are dead in their sins and they hear and come to life. That is what Calvinism teaches."
The best thing for you to do would be to admit that you spoke hastily and were wrong. But the easiest thing for you to do is ignore your above remarks and move on as if there is no contradiction whatsoever to what Calvinism actually does teach.John 5:24 is a calvinist principle ... that dead hear. They are dead in their sins and they hear and come to life. That is what Calvinism teaches.
This almost seems to vary off topic. That is another thing that Cals like to do. If you pin them down and they are squirming, they like to direct attention elsewhere. But actually, this very much applies. Your statement that "the believer cannot simply live any way he wants and still be saved," actually reveals a lot about Calvinist evangelism. It makes it easy for you to claim that someone who does not persevere in agreement with you is not truly born again. One big problem with that theological view is that the line of perseverence can be drawn in so many different places. It translates into nothing more than a sham salvation of works. In what, specifically, do *YOU* (speaking for yourself, this time, as a Bible scholar and Pastor) believe a Christian must persevere? If he drops out of church attendance, does that mean he was not a true believer? If he does not persevere in his commitment to quit smoking, is he not a real Christian? Or is it a matter that if he just disagrees with a point or two of Hyper-Cal doctrine that you can determine he has not persevered and is not a Christian? Where is your Calvinist mission field located? Your description of the doctrine of perseverence seems to indicate that it is at your own doorstep.Pastor Larry: Perhaps you are unfamiliat with the fifth point, that the truly saved will perservere. That is often twisted to make is preservation, but that is not the fifth point. Heb 3, Col 1, 1 Cor 15, etc, make it very clear that the believer cannot simply live any way he wants and still be saved.
Yes, I see the difference and agree with it. Just because you preach the scripture to someone, does not mean that they will hear it with their heart. Not everyone who comes under the sound of the gospel trusts Christ.Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
[qb] You say that man is regenerated when he hears the Word. I absolutely agree with you. What the contention is that I would not say man is regenerated upon hearing the word. Notice the difference in the sentence?
Be careful Bro. James. Part of what I disagree with in speaking with Calvinists is the extreme to which they take the metaphor of death. No, it is not a physical hearing with the ears, but a spiritual hearing within. But the Calvinist will claim that men are spiritually dead, though physically alive -- and unsaved men are that. But the Word of God is powerful, and it is by the Word of God that man is regenerated. Not the physical hearing of it, but the spiritual activity. (Heb 4:12) Just as Lazarus was physically dead, and Christ physically called him, and then Lazarus physicaly responded, so it is that today the spiritually dead can hear the spiritual Words of God and respond.Bro. James Reed: it is not a literal hearing that we can hear with our physical ears. It is hearing the voice of God within our hearts. That is what I meant by the dead, who can not hear man, being able to hear God.
Problem is that Philip did not merely meet the Ethiopian Eunuch, but was divinely taken to him. If the Eunuch was already regenerated, why would Philip be needed? The passage shows that your thinking the Eunuch was already saved is fundamentally flawed, because this man does not even know of Christ, yet! Philip "preached unto him Jesus." There is salvation in no other. The effects of Philips preaching can be seen in the Eunuch's statement of faith, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Are you saying that you believe a man can be saved and NOT believe that? For it is demonstrably true that this Eunuch did not know of Christ prior to this meeting with Philip. As for his being immersed in the Scripture, he was a proselyte having been to Jerusalem for Pentecost -- reading the scripture would not be an unusual thing.Bro. James Reed: The eunuch had already been regenerated by the call of God. That is the reason he was studying the scriptures, desiring knowledge when Philip met him. Philip preached to him and that is when the eunuch experienced his conversion to the belief the scriptures. The eunuch, before Philip even arrived, was already deeply immersed in the scriptures because he was already regenerated and desiring the truth.
Paul contradicts this. He says in 1Timothy 1:16 that his salvation was a pattern to them that should hereafter believe. And, the Word of God IS the word of God.Also, Paul, on the road from Damascus, was regenerated when Jesus spoke to him. Again, this is a unique experience. He heard the audible voice of Christ because Christ was physically there. For most of us, the call comes as something we feel deep inside. Paul was not preached to in order to be regenerated. All that happened was he heard the Word of God, not the word of God.
Do you see the distinction Christ makes in "hear my words" and "receiveth not my words"? That is the difference I think you and I are speaking of. In any event, It is those words that judge those who do not receive. We are born again by the word of God. Repeatedly, the New Testament testifies to the power of God's Word to regenerate lost men.John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
My respect for you has doubled! And I could not agree more with your reasoning on this matter. A man truly born again will not enjoy the things of this world. We are now the Sons of God, and as such are chastised.Now, as far as our change at regeneration, perhaps I mis-spoke. Once regeneration occurs, we desire to be holy before God, but as Paul clearly illustrates when he says he is the chief of sinners, we will sometimes fall back into our old ways. The good thing is, now we can go to God for help.
I have made several posts like that, at times. I have no doubt it was a blessing for you to rehearse the testimony of the goodness of God in the life of your brother. And I have to admit that it did me some good and cheered my heart to read it. Thank you, my brother.Anyway, I think I've gotten a little off the original topic, but I felt a desire to write that down.
Yes, I see the difference and agree with it. Just because you preach the scripture to someone, does not mean that they will hear it with their heart. Not everyone who comes under the sound of the gospel trusts Christ.</font>[/QUOTE]I suppose that I was not clear in that I did not give the definition of "hear" as used in the scripture. I am not talking of audible hearing, but of the hearing that is the 'accepting' of what is heard into ones own essence. That, I believe, is what Peter is saying. The one who hears (accepts the truth of the Word of God into one's self) is regenerated. It is by accepting the truth that one then establishes "faith". That is, what is accepted becomes and remains the reality even though it is not yet experienced. The substance of things hoped for! Living one's faith then becomes the Evidence of things not seen.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
[qb] You say that man is regenerated when he hears the Word. I absolutely agree with you. What the contention is that I would not say man is regenerated upon hearing the word. Notice the difference in the sentence?
So then, Peter is telling Christians the world over that it is by accepting the Word of God into one's own essence that one is regerated, "born again", and it is that Word of God that gives the believer the POWER to overcome the temptations to sin and repent from continuing to follow the sin nature. That power, of course is the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells the believer and enables the believer to live the new faith.[Heb 11:1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Very nice ... thanks.Originally posted by PappaBear:
Pastor Larry, I hope that you are enjoying the Thanksgiving holiday with your family as much as I am enjoying mine. I just had some delicious deer innerloin fried in butter and onions -- some of the fruits of family labor, today. MMMMmmmmmm good!
But my point is that you very easily move things around without understanding the context in which they are written, and the intent that they are desiring to communicate.[qb]The context of your above statement is attempting to mitigate my statements by saying that I have no idea what a Calvinist believes or teaches.
What I specified was nothing of the sort. I did not specify anything by that. As I said before, it was not intended to be a technical ordo salutis and it is inappropriate for you to try to make it one.In your quote, you specified (of your own free will -- not forced by me, I might add) that it is AFTER they hear that they come to life.
Unfortunately, you have shown that to be the case. I wish this weren't so. But I should not feel compelled to accept what you think I or any other calvinist should believe. You do not get to tell us what we believe. If you are wrong, we should point it out.1) You claim that the Non-Cal does not understand in the least any of the great, deep, unsearchable principles of mighty, wonderful, Calvinism as espoused by you.
Not at all. NOthing backfired. The only problem with my words is that you tried to make them say something I did not intend for them to say. That is your fault not mine. I didn't contradict what others believe.2) You assume that you speak for all Calvinists,
Which you were. You pull out this verse and act as if no CAlvinist has ever dealt with it and given a reasonable explanation of it. That is your mistake, not mine. You know good and well that that verse has been dealt with by calvinists and you should have taken the time to look up what they say about it before saying that it contradicts what Calvinism affirms. You should know better.3) One of Calvinist's dirtiest tricks, you construct your responses in the context of debate without regard to consistency. What I find most confusing about Cal Theology is its wretched inconsistency. No, you were not called upon to give a technical Ordo Salutis. The context of your remark is that you were trying to demean me and act as if I was speaking without knowledge.
[qb]It is consistent. But it was not technical. If you wanted a technical ordo salutis you should have asked. And once I explained that it was not an ordo salutis, you should have accepted that and moved on. Once again, your failure to understand does not mean I was wrong. It means you failed to understand.But your response DID include an order that is inconsistent with the proper Ordo Salutis as routinely taught by Calvinists. Once this contradiction is pointed out to you, you run to a defense of "the context of my remarks." You are indicating now that your remarks are inconsistent with what you would say IF you had been called upon to make a technical Ordo Salutis. Why must the truth for you be something that is tailor made, and not consistent all the way around?
They are regenerated when they hear. They are given understanding (hear) to which they respond (faith and repentance).[qb]Will you affirm your original statement above, or will you deny it? Do dead men hear, or not hear? Is regeneration AFTER a spiritually dead man hears, or are they regenerated and THEN can hear? Once again, your statement before was,
I did not speak hastily and I was not wrong. I did not contradict what Calvinism actually teaches.The best thing for you to do would be to admit that you spoke hastily and were wrong. But the easiest thing for you to do is ignore your above remarks and move on as if there is no contradiction whatsoever to what Calvinism actually does teach.
I was using one of your comments from another post to illustrate the shallowness of your understanding.This almost seems to vary off topic.
Not at all.That is another thing that Cals like to do. If you pin them down and they are squirming, they like to direct attention elsewhere.
And SCripture does not specifiy exactly where that line is. But it does specify a line and for you to ignore that is unwise. Agreement with me is not the standard by any means.Your statement that "the believer cannot simply live any way he wants and still be saved," actually reveals a lot about Calvinist evangelism. It makes it easy for you to claim that someone who does not persevere in agreement with you is not truly born again. One big problem with that theological view is that the line of perseverence can be drawn in so many different places.
Not at all.It translates into nothing more than a sham salvation of works.
Could be ... may not be. In the first case, 1 John 2:19 addressees that. In smoking, I would not be inclined to call that an issue of perseverance.In what, specifically, do *YOU* (speaking for yourself, this time, as a Bible scholar and Pastor) believe a Christian must persevere? If he drops out of church attendance, does that mean he was not a true believer? If he does not persevere in his commitment to quit smoking, is he not a real Christian?
Metro Detroit Michigan.Where is your Calvinist mission field located?
Not sure what this means.Your description of the doctrine of perseverence seems to indicate that it is at your own doorstep.
What I specified was nothing of the sort. I did not specify anything by that. As I said before, it was not intended to be a technical ordo salutis and it is inappropriate for you to try to make it one.</font>[/QUOTE]I notice that in your lengthy posts, you refuse to repeat your quote. Now, you claim that you did NOT specify that AFTER they hear that they come to life? Have you forgotten that quote?Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> PappaBear: In your quote, you specified (of your own free will -- not forced by me, I might add) that it is AFTER they hear that they come to life.
Pastor Larry: John 5:24 is a calvinist principle ... that dead hear. They are dead in their sins and they hear and come to life. That is what Calvinism teaches.
Originally posted by PappaBear:
You know, I love the context of John 5:24. Verse 25 even contradicts a prime Calvinist principle that all sinners are dead and cannot hear the gospel. But the BIBLE says, ...
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
And NOW IS? You mean the dead hear the voice of the Son of God, NOW?
The only problem with my words is that you tried to make them say something I did not intend for them to say. That is your fault not mine. I didn't contradict what others believe.
If you wanted a technical ordo salutis you should have asked. And once I explained that it was not an ordo salutis, you should have accepted that and moved on.
They are regenerated when they hear. They are given understanding (hear) to which they respond (faith and repentance).