Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

No that is your spin on that. This is what cals do. They spin things they disagree with and then try to claim it is the only way to view it when really is it nothing more than your errant presuppositions. So I will ask you,

Since when is the receiving of a gift also considered part of the giving of the gift?

 

In another thread I answered this question with Scripture examples.

You rejected the truth presented then, too.

 

Its not possible since the receiving of a gift is never considered also part of the giving.

 

I think Revmitchell has me on Ignore so I don't think he'll see this. However, you are twisting what he said. He didn't say he came to Christ BECAUSE he was more humble than anyone, he said that people who come to Christ are more humble than people who don't. In other words, humbleness is not causative, it is a reaction.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

When the receiving is not passive.

 

I see. So when a person is unconscious, "dead to the world", and a emergency rescue worker revives him, that unconscious person receiving the gift of life is participating in the revival. OK, then...

[Edited to add: I see that Aaron has changed his original post from "when the gift being given is life" to "when the receiving is not passive. Either way, my example stands.]

 

Speaking only for those who are Reformed-minded, those who come to Christ do so because they have already been regenerated. It is the work of the Holy Spirit through regeneration that enables true humility. This is in keeping with the Reformed view of the ordo salutis. The Reformed ordo salutis is:

1. Election/Predestination
2. Atonement
3. Gospel Call
4. Inward Call
5. Regeneration
6. Conversion (faith & repentance)
7. Justification
8. Sanctification
9. Glorification

 

I didn't miss it. There is perfection and then there is everything else.

 

So, your view is that it is impossible for one to receive Christ by giving Him the love and devotion due Him.

Which is directly contrary to other posts you made about this issue (should my memory not fail me).

 

Yep, to a non-Cal that's called begging the question. You've already assumed this is the way that it is and everything else flows from that.

 

Your question was:

Revmitchell had said:

It says nothing about the reason why he came to Christ, just that he was more humble.

 

It is OK to disagree with me, but please do not think that is what I have done. Reformed theology has a strong biblical case for its view on the order of salvation. If we are going to indict the Reformers, the Puritans, Spurgeon et. al, we need to do better than just accusing them of begging the question. Why? Because the main problem we have on this board is agreeing on what the other side believes. Again, it is OK to disagree. I am not asking you to believe these conclusions.

 

How is this different from the non-cal views?

Do not all views start with assumptions especially in the scientific, philosophy, theology, and medical community?

For example, do not the Scriptures state that assumptions are basic to pleasing God?

6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11).
​

Not certain the concern of your statement.

 

I didn't say they were.

 

Receiving is never passive. If someone brings me a gift in order to make it mine I must physical take possession of it, Receiving always requires and action.