Is belief the hinge of our salvation?

No probs, Allan.

Even before Erickson you had variations among older Reformed theologians.

But Grudem would be more classical.

 

Believe it or not, I agree with you partly. The part I disagree on, is that one can be justified (saved) and it not be obvious. If one is not a "Child of God", according to the text, one is a Child of the Devil. A child of the devil is one who is not saved.

So, while I agree that we should not be "fruit inspectors", we also should not have to "inspect" anything. Those who are children of God, rather than of the Devil, are evident, according to scripture.

Note that there are SEVERAL times in scripture, where people are called false brethren, false apostles, etc. The Nicolatians, who are according to the Revelation are in for a lot of torment, confessed Christ, but used his Grace as an excuse to live how they wished. Paul is very clear that one who can do this, was never saved to begin with.

Can I "Look at someone" and tell if they are a Christian? Not for sure. But Matthew 18 tells me if a person is in a particular sin, and we go through the process described getting them to turn from it, that we should treat them as a "Tax Collector and a Gentile".
Now SOME would say that means we are to shun and avoid those people. But that's not what Jesus did with Gentiles and Tax collectors. He hung out with them, and tried o get them saved! That verse is telling us to TREAT them like they are unsaved, rather than like a brother in Christ> to evangelize them, and try to win them to Christ.

YES, we are to use discernment. We are not to "Believe every spirit".

 

Apparently not :laugh: or at least I didn't think the moderate position (in my understanding) was one you held

That still (to me) doesn't make any sense. Regeneration is when God gives you faith that you must then use to be saved. My main contetion has always been about what exactly how 'regeneration'works in the Calvinistic view and what actaully it does for and to the non-believer (just before he believes). As I have said earlier to be made 'alive' can only be done when one is 'in Christ' - and one can only be in Christ if one is saved.

- Anyway, I always took you for the common classical position, I guess by default since most of the Calvinists I know hold to it. That was my bad, 'sorry' about that.

No, you view hasn't, but my growth in understanding of your view is :laugh:

 

Would not the "classical" view be the one that CALVIN held?? According to John Calvin, It is through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit brings Faith about within us, which THEN brings regeneration (Institutes Book 3 Chapter 3).

That is the "classical" view. You cannot get more "classical" than the originator.

 

In all this we must ask ourselves what does Scripture teach on the whole issue.

If Calvin reflects Scripture accurately, then he's correct, and if he doesn't, he's dead wrong.

 

No, since Calvin was not the 'originator' of Calvinism as it is commonly called, or if you prefere the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines.
Not to mention that there are an asortment of his views that most Calvinists would not and do not agree with him on.

 

What can I say TCG when your right, your right.

 

Absolutely! But if were going to say "this is Calvinism" or "that" is Calvinism, we need to at least try to be accurate. Not exactly fair to call a guy wrong for something he never even taught (and actually goes against what he taught).

 

Augustine and Bucer not withstanding, it was Calvin, specifically Institutes, that brought about "Tulip".

BTW I agree> scripture was the originator of Calvinism!!

 

Actually it wasn't Calvin's 'Institutes' that brought about the T.U.L.I.P. but Calvins followers set forth the 5 points in rebutal to the 5 Remonstrants brought forth by Joseph Arminus's followers.

No, Calvinism is a theology just as Arminianism is (and any other 'isms') which is a system of understanding set forth by men regarding the Truths of the Word of God.

 

Well, if we're going on history, Jacob Arminius and esp. his followers objected to much of what Calvin wrote, so in response to the five objections (could have been more), we have the TULIP.

TULIP! Whatever that means!

 

Allan, sorry for overlapping. :laugh:

 

At least we are on the same page here :laugh: :thumbs:

 

If only our ordo salutis could have been the same. :wavey:

 

Hey, it's close. We hold to the exact same truths. We just have a difference of opinion relating to the mechanics of how those truths operate, at least in part.

 

Allan, one thing I'm sure of: God must open the sinner's heart to response to the Gospel message (Acts 16:14).

To me that is a non-negotiable.

 

Can you name one non-cal who doesn't believe this??
I know I do.

 

Not sure where your going with that one Reformed. Actually... not sure I understood it.

Let me answer what I 'think' you were saying....

I wasn't speaking of any qualifiers. Yet a qualifier does not necessarily have to be stating 'fore' in order that we might see a sequence (if indeed there is one). In relation to regeneration the qualifier is the function of Regeneration itself (because that defines its purpose) as to 'when' it transpires.

I think there is an order in which regeneration operates as do you and anyone who has been introduced to theology. I believe however that this truth is revealed squarely in answering these three questions:

.......Important
1. What is regeneration'?
.......Very important
2. What does it do?
.......And most importantly
3. How does it do this (#2) ?