Is repentance an aspect of faith, or is repentance a good work?

[atpollard]

Funny but when I point out how CHS supports free will everyone ignores that and says ya but you missed his last point.

WOW, I am EVERYONE!
(I feel so powerful and you did ignore his last point.)

 

[Silverhair]

If one really think on free will, would not the only One with real and absolute free will be God?

I agree with you God is the only one with absolute free will and because of the free will He is able to allow fora limited free will for His creation. We see that through out the bible. God is in control without having to be controlling.

 

[Silverhair]

False.
Try again.

Really where do you really differ from Calvin?

 

[DaveXR650]

Further to my last post, I just found this article by Michael Horton, which I think is very good: Reformed Theology vs. Hyper-Calvinism by Michael Horton

That's the best thing I've seen in all this. Thanks for putting it on.

 

[Yeshua1]

Really where do you really differ from Calvin?

Double predestination, as hold to how dr Sproul saw that, npt John c!

 

[Silverhair]

WOW, I am EVERYONE!
(I feel so powerful and you did ignore his last point.)

You think your the only one that holds to your view?

Double predestination, as hold to how dr Sproul saw that, npt John c!

Whats the code npt john c.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So by your comment we are to conclude that you agree with all the other points

What are the other points that you are accusing me of believing?
The right way of going about these things is to say, "Do you believe so-and-so?" Then I can answer "Yes I do" or "No I don't." If you would follow this simple rule it would make discussion with you much more pleasant. As it stands I don't know what on earth you're accusing me of.

 

[atpollard]

Really where do you really differ from Calvin?

Irrelevant.
It is simply a fact that Calvinism is not the ‘religion’ or the ‘church’ started by John Calvin. The Reformed movement predated the birth of John Calvin, he was one of many influential writers during his lifetime and it continued to be formed after his death. The Lutheran Church tagged reformers with the handle of ‘Calvinists’ as an insult to imply (just as you do) that those theologians that disagreed with them were following the teaching of the man John Calvin rather than scripture (like Luther and the Lutherans had).

The Synod of Dort was far more influential than John Calvin. Try quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith if you want a definitive work on Reformed Theology.

 

[Silverhair]

What are the other points that you are accusing me of believing?
The right way of going about these things is to say, "Do you believe so-and-so?" Then I can answer "Yes I do" or "No I don't." If you would follow this simple rule it would make discussion with you much more pleasant. As it stands I don't know what on earth you're accusing me of.

Martin you posted this:

>>A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Clearly there is 'common grace' shown to the elect. Whether or not one believes that it amounts to love is maybe a matter for debate.<<


Well since you you only commented on one point I take it that you agree with the other points as you did not disagree with them in your post. Remember your the one that says I do not understand your view so why would you expect me to assume that you disagree with those other points.

By the way I am not accusing you of anything, just going by your post.

 

[Silverhair]

Irrelevant.
It is simply a fact that Calvinism is not the ‘religion’ or the ‘church’ started by John Calvin. The Reformed movement predated the birth of John Calvin, he was one of many influential writers during his lifetime and it continued to be formed after his death. The Lutheran Church tagged reformers with the handle of ‘Calvinists’ as an insult to imply (just as you do) that those theologians that disagreed with them were following the teaching of the man John Calvin rather than scripture (like Luther and the Lutherans had).

The Synod of Dort was far more influential than John Calvin. Try quoting the Westminster Confession of Faith if you want a definitive work on Reformed Theology.

I have quoted the WCF & LBCF and all you get back is that there are no contradictions in the text. That is just dumb. It takes a large amount of Cognitive Dissonance to not see what is written there as a contradiction.

How can what Calvin passed down to you as biblical teaching be irrelevant. Calvinist still hold the the errant ideas that were promoted by him. And your right it was actually Augustine that brought these ideas forward from Manichaeism and then Calvin just copied them.

 

[DaveXR650]

To be fair, a non Calvinist still has the same problem logically as a Calvinist. God lets men have their own free will to choose or not choose Christ. Do we all believe that we can pray for someone to get saved and sometimes they do? If you prayed then the Holy Spirit influenced them and changed their will. If he didn't then they continue on the path to Hell. Yet God could have influenced the other person, right? Then why not. Didn't you say he loves all men equally? What about people who grow up in a bad environment or never even hear the gospel. Does the fact that God gave everyone some thing called free will really give them an equal chance at salvation? It serves no purpose to hammer at the difficulties of Calvinistic theology when 1. In the WCF and all the major confessions each point is followed by many verses in support of the teaching. You don't have to agree with them but the charge of no scriptural support is wrong. 2. Your side doesn't have any systematic theology at all so nothing can be pinned down. Well that's one way to avoid a contradiction. I think we are going to have to admit that as men when we start questioning or even defending the integrity of God we are in over our heads.

 

[JonC]

There is a Christian website run, I believe, by Phil Johnson, which states the following:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

No.1 contradicts Isaiah 55:1 and Matthew 11:28, and most especially and incontrovertibly, Mark 1:15.
No.2 follows on from it. If the Lord Jesus says, "Repent and believe," it is the duty of all who hear Him preached and all who read the words to obey them. 'God now commands all men everywhere to repent.'
No.3. I personally dislike the term 'offer' because I can't think where it occurs in the Bible in the context of the Gospel. But the Gospel is 'preached' or 'proclaimed' in the Bible and it proclaims forgiveness to all who repent and believe (Romans 9:33; Romans 10:13),
Nos. 4 & 5. We are told in the Scriptures that 'the LORD is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and full of mercy. The LORD is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works' (Psalms 145:8-9). In the N.T. we can see how that works out in practice. He 'makes His sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.' He 'is kind to the unthankful and evil' (Matthew 5:45; Luke 6:35). He 'gives to all life, breath and all things' (Acts 17:23). '... What may be known of God is manifest among [men] for God has shown it to them........ so that they are without excuse' (Romans 1:19-20, NKJV margin). He 'endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction' (Romans 9:22).

Clearly there is 'common grace' shown to the elect. Whether or not one believes that it amounts to love is maybe a matter for debate.

Thank you for providing this. I take it you agree with this definition?

It is interesting to me how different sects of Calvinism define what is "hyper".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin you posted this:

>>A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

Clearly there is 'common grace' shown to the elect. Whether or not one believes that it amounts to love is maybe a matter for debate.<<


Well since you you only commented on one point I take it that you agree with the other points as you did not disagree with them in your post. Remember your the one that says I do not understand your view so why would you expect me to assume that you disagree with those other points.

By the way I am not accusing you of anything, just going by your post.

Why don't you just read through my post #112 again and try to take it all in?

 

[DaveXR650]

It is interesting to me how different sects of Calvinism define what is "hyper"

Yes. I have a link to John Flavel, the Puritan and his definition: Eternal Justification? - Banner of Truth UK

Also, John R. Rice : "Those who believe a doctrine of God's limited love, limited grace, limited atonement, and unchangeable plan to damn millions who could not be saved, are called hyper-Calvinists".

 

[AustinC]

I have quoted the WCF & LBCF and all you get back is that there are no contradictions in the text. That is just dumb. It takes a large amount of Cognitive Dissonance to not see what is written there as a contradiction.

How can what Calvin passed down to you as biblical teaching be irrelevant. Calvinist still hold the the errant ideas that were promoted by him. And your right it was actually Augustine that brought these ideas forward from Manichaeism and then Calvin just copied them.

The bold made me laugh out loud.
atpollard and nearly everyone you label "Calvinist" go to the Bible and quote passages to you (rarely just one verse or part of a sentence like you do) showing the word of God to you. Yet, you repeatedly deny that God means what He says. You constantly look for ways where you overrule God and you use the phrase "free will" as your code for demanding authority over God.

 

[DaveXR650]

I guess if you're a Calvinist and you are at the point where every time someone says they accepted Christ all you can think of is to say "No, you really didn't", you've gone to far. On the other hand if someone says salvation is "all of God", like Spurgeon did, and all you can think of is to add " well, let's not forget our sovereign free will, without which none of this would be possible"; you're just as goofed up.

 

[Salty]

Six hour Warning
This thread will be closed no sooner that 5 pm EST / 2 pm PST ./2200 Z

 

[AustinC]

I guess if you're a Calvinist and you are at the point where every time someone says they accepted Christ all you can think of is to say "No, you really didn't", you've gone to far. On the other hand if someone says salvation is "all of God", like Spurgeon did, and all you can think of is to add " well, let's not forget our sovereign free will, without which none of this would be possible"; you're just as goofed up.

You just say "You must have been listening to Billy Graham and associates."
The phrase "accepted Christ" is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but is a term created by Arminian evangelism. God uses it to redeem some while some are misled into a false understanding that they are in control and their choice made got them some get out of jail free card.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. I have a link to John Flavel, the Puritan and his definition: Eternal Justification? - Banner of Truth UK

Also, John R. Rice : "Those who believe a doctrine of God's limited love, limited grace, limited atonement, and unchangeable plan to damn millions who could not be saved, are called hyper-Calvinists".

Thank you so much for that link. Excellent!
John Flavel ministered in Devon about 45 miles from where I live, first at Dartmouth and then, after he was ejected from the Church of England in 1662, at the village of Galmpton.

I have preached at Flavel Chapel in Galmpton.

 

[DaveXR650]

You just say "You must have been listening to Billy Graham and associates."
The phrase "accepted Christ" is nowhere to be found in the Bible, but is a term created by Arminian evangelism.

"Hence we may learn the nature of saving faith: that it is an ACCEPTING, yielding to and applying of the gospel, as such a call and invitation; which implies the hearing of the mind; i.e. the minds hearing and understanding the call; a believing of the voice, and the offer and promises contained in it, and ACCEPTING, esteeming, prizing the person and benefits invited to; a falling in of the inclination, the choice the affection, etc." That's Jonathan Edwards. Next thing you know he'll be telling us to receive Jesus as our Savior!
Yup:

"There is in the essence of justifying faith, included a receiving of Christ as a Savior from sin". Jonathan Edwards, "Concerning Faith".

I read that when Jonathan Edwards first met the local Indians and began his ministry he started by saying to them "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life". But I haven't found that yet.