Unbelief of TULIP

[robustheologian]

I partly agree with that; however, I understand synergism to be the default mode of the human heart regardless of upbringing. Synergism is akin to self-righteousness, which is the default mode of the human heart, not just a theological viewpoint. People might pass a theological quiz with perfect monergistic answers, yet they can function, to varying degrees, as synergists.

The good teaching a child in a monergistic home receives may correct his fleshly thinking, but that thinking is/was there to correct.

It's inherent in human nature, is my view.

:applause:

 

[Reformed]

I partly agree with that; however, I understand synergism to be the default mode of the human heart regardless of upbringing. Synergism is akin to self-righteousness, which is the default mode of the human heart, not just a theological viewpoint. People might pass a theological quiz with perfect monergistic answers, yet they can function, to varying degrees, as synergists.

The good teaching a child in a monergistic home receives may correct his fleshly thinking, but that thinking is/was there to correct.

It's inherent in human nature, is my view.

On that we agree. I was thinking more about the influences a child receives. But I also do not believe that children are born regenerate, so, in their unregenerate state they are certainly not Monergists in their thinking.

 

[thatbrian]

Some people never come to embrace TULIP simply because their biggest concerned in life are other acronyms, like: NBA, NFL, and NHL. . .

They have no desire for anything but milk.

 

[Iconoclast]

Some people never come to embrace TULIP simply because their biggest concerned in life are other acronyms, like: NBA, NFL, and NHL. . .

They have no desire for anything but milk.

:thumbsup::applause::applause::thumbsup:Winner

 

[tyndale1946]

Some people never come to embrace TULIP simply because their biggest concerned in life are other acronyms, like: NBA, NFL, and NHL. . .

They have no desire for anything but milk.

I think they see the first point of TULIP... And run from it!... Crying... that's not me... That's Not Me... THATS NOT ME!... Brother Glen

 

[DHK]

I think they see the first point of TULIP... And run from it!... Crying... that's not me... That's Not Me... THATS NOT ME!... Brother Glen

As you stated previously in this thread, the first point of TULIP is the foundation on which all the rest stand. Unfortunately it is not "the Depravity of Man," but rather "the Total Inability" of man, something quite a bit different than the former.
It is based mostly on a flawed interpretation of Ephesians 2:1.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
--But "dead" doesn't mean "corpse," "lifeless," as the Calvinist so often defines it. It simply means "separated," and has that meaning all throughout the Bible. A man that is dead is separated from God, whether physically or spiritually. In this case it is spiritual separation. They were spiritually separated from God. When they came to Christ, reconciled to Him, they were made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit.
It has no meaning that the spirit within was completely lifeless, only inoperable. The spirit within man can be very active. It can even join itself with demons and thus become demon possessed.

In another post, still unanswered I posted this:

To the Roman Centurion:
Matthew 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
--Where did this centurion "get his faith" from?

To the men carrying the one sick of the palsy Jesus said:
Matthew 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
--It was their faith; obviously Jesus didn't give it to them.

To the woman diseased with an issue of blood, Jesus said:
Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.
--The woman's faith.

To two blind men requesting to be healed, he said:
Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
--"their faith"--where did it come from; not from Christ.

A Canaanite woman had a daughter vexed with a demon and came to Jesus for help. Jesus first likened her to a dog:
Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
But when she continued to plead, Jesus said:
Matthew 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
--A Gentile woman had great faith according to Jesus. How did she come by this great faith? She certainly wasn't saved, or regenerated.

Paul came to Lystra and met a cripple:
Acts 14:9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
--Where did the faith come from? Paul makes no inference that it was from God.

All throughout the Bible, and especially the gospels faith is spoken of in a personal way. Jesus again and again speaks of "your faith."

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2194194&postcount=187

It is evident that man in his unsaved state can respond to God. All of the above did.
Because of this flawed premise of depravity, the Calvinist counts the response of man impossible. Thus they have a problem with the proper interpretation of Cornelius. If Cornelius is unsaved, how could he respond to God, and how could God speak to him?
Because Total Inability is flawed.

The same hold true with Adam, who died that day he ate, but still carried on a conversation with God.
Likewise Cain who murdered his brother Abel, and still carried on a conversation with God. How does this unsaved man with no evidence in his life that he was ever saved, communicate with God. Obviously Total Inability is a flawed concept.

God seeks after man. He gives man the chance to respond.
When he said to Israel these words they were not in vain:

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

 

[robustheologian]

As you stated previously in this thread, the first point of TULIP is the foundation on which all the rest stand. Unfortunately it is not "the Depravity of Man," but rather "the Total Inability" of man, something quite a bit different than the former.
It is based mostly on a flawed interpretation of Ephesians 2:1.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
--But "dead" doesn't mean "corpse," "lifeless," as the Calvinist so often defines it. It simply means "separated," and has that meaning all throughout the Bible. A man that is dead is separated from God, whether physically or spiritually. In this case it is spiritual separation. They were spiritually separated from God. When they came to Christ, reconciled to Him, they were made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit.
It has no meaning that the spirit within was completely lifeless, only inoperable. The spirit within man can be very active. It can even join itself with demons and thus become demon possessed.

In another post, still unanswered I posted this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2194194&postcount=187

It is evident that man in his unsaved state can respond to God. All of the above did.
Because of this flawed premise of depravity, the Calvinist counts the response of man impossible. Thus they have a problem with the proper interpretation of Cornelius. If Cornelius is unsaved, how could he respond to God, and how could God speak to him?
Because Total Inability is flawed.

The same hold true with Adam, who died that day he ate, but still carried on a conversation with God.
Likewise Cain who murdered his brother Abel, and still carried on a conversation with God. How does this unsaved man with no evidence in his life that he was ever saved, communicate with God. Obviously Total Inability is a flawed concept.

God seeks after man. He gives man the chance to respond.
When he said to Israel these words they were not in vain:

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.

If the above scripture is true, how can anyone who doesn't seek or understand the things of God come to Christ without God having to draw them?

 

[Reformed]

As you stated previously in this thread, the first point of TULIP is the foundation on which all the rest stand. Unfortunately it is not "the Depravity of Man," but rather "the Total Inability" of man, something quite a bit different than the former.
It is based mostly on a flawed interpretation of Ephesians 2:1.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
--But "dead" doesn't mean "corpse," "lifeless," as the Calvinist so often defines it. It simply means "separated," and has that meaning all throughout the Bible. A man that is dead is separated from God, whether physically or spiritually. In this case it is spiritual separation. They were spiritually separated from God. When they came to Christ, reconciled to Him, they were made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit.
It has no meaning that the spirit within was completely lifeless, only inoperable. The spirit within man can be very active. It can even join itself with demons and thus become demon possessed.

DHK,

I do not want to get in between you and tyndale1946, but I would like to interject in this one area.

You and I have discussed of νεκρός (nekros) in the past, and we sharply disagreed. I do not believe anything has changed in that regard. But since the matter has reappeared it is entirely appropriate to comment on it now.

From a purely exegetical point of view the work nekros in Ephesians 2:1 is very specific. It does not mean separation. If Paul meant to describe the separation of the sinner from Christ, he would have used the word χωρίζω (chorizo) as found in Romans 8:39. But Paul specifically used a word that only has one meaning - dead as in physically dead, a corpse. The diagram below provides a visual representation of how often nekros is used to refer to physical death.

https://flic.kr/p/r5Ex6g


What I believe you are doing is reading your presupposition into the text. As a Synergist you do not believe in total inability. Fine. I get that. But the use of nekros in Ephesians 2:1 is so clear that, it seems to me, like you are bending the text to your presupposition. I also have my presupposition, and I freely admit it. But I am allowing the text to speak its plain normative meaning.

One more thing. Further down in Ephesians 2 we read this:

Ephesians 2:4-7 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (emphasis mine)

New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. (1995). (Eph 2:4–7). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Paul purposefully used resurrection language to counterbalance his reference to physical death in 2:1. Christ made us alive. Christ raised us up. No longer are we spiritually dead, but now we are spiritually alive. These words pictures are not accidental. They are intentional on the part of the Apostle.

Thank you for listening.

 

[DHK]

John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

The drawing of God is not limited to just a few.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--The ones that God "draws" are the ones that respond, to his pleading, that is the gospel.
Verses like John 6:37,44 must be taken in context with the rest of the Bible. God is not a schizophrenic.

Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

These verses are also often taken out of their context. Remember that their were no chapter divisions in the originals. Chapter 8 carries on from chapter 7. In chapter 7 Paul describes his struggle between his two natures: the old and the new. Even when we are saved we still have that old Adamic nature residing in us. That is why Paul said:

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--The fleshly nature is still there. Every day it had to be conquered. With the mind he serves the law of God, but the mind must actively serve the law of God. It is a struggle, not automatic. Every time we sin we are not serving the law of God but rather the law of sin, giving in to the flesh--our carnal nature.
The carnal nature does not please God, nor can it please God. Every Christian has a carnal nature.
What does James say about the carnal nature:

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--It cannot please God; it is at enmity with God; it is the enemy of God. IOW, God hates it. This verse is written to believers, to carnal Christians.

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Another verse often taken out of context to support a pre-conceived idea.
What is the context. What is Paul talking about.
--The natural man, in context, refers to the immature carnal Christian described in the following chapter. He had not grown. He could only take milk and not meat. He was carnal as Paul labeled him.
I have given a detailed analysis of this passage here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2194689&postcount=43

Romans 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.

Quoting from the Psalms Paul never intended these to be "absolutes," but general statements.
Like Heb.9:27 "As it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment."
We know this is a general statement and there are exceptions. Elijah was an exception, and so was Enoch. Those alive at the resurrection will be exceptions.
This is a general statement about the condition of man. It is not absolute.
In general man does not seek God; that doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability.

If the above scripture is true, how can anyone who doesn't seek or understand the things of God come to Christ without God having to draw them?

The above statements are always interpreted within the framework of a pre-conceived theology, that is Calvinism, and thus the opportunity of looking at them in the proper light is never even considered. If your premise is wrong then your conclusion is bound to be wrong.

 

[savedbymercy]

As you stated previously in this thread, the first point of TULIP is the foundation on which all the rest stand. Unfortunately it is not "the Depravity of Man," but rather "the Total Inability" of man, something quite a bit different than the former.
It is based mostly on a flawed interpretation of Ephesians 2:1.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
--But "dead" doesn't mean "corpse," "lifeless," as the Calvinist so often defines it. It simply means "separated," and has that meaning all throughout the Bible. A man that is dead is separated from God, whether physically or spiritually. In this case it is spiritual separation. They were spiritually separated from God. When they came to Christ, reconciled to Him, they were made alive in Christ by the Holy Spirit.
It has no meaning that the spirit within was completely lifeless, only inoperable. The spirit within man can be very active. It can even join itself with demons and thus become demon possessed.

In another post, still unanswered I posted this:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2194194&postcount=187

It is evident that man in his unsaved state can respond to God. All of the above did.
Because of this flawed premise of depravity, the Calvinist counts the response of man impossible. Thus they have a problem with the proper interpretation of Cornelius. If Cornelius is unsaved, how could he respond to God, and how could God speak to him?
Because Total Inability is flawed.

The same hold true with Adam, who died that day he ate, but still carried on a conversation with God.
Likewise Cain who murdered his brother Abel, and still carried on a conversation with God. How does this unsaved man with no evidence in his life that he was ever saved, communicate with God. Obviously Total Inability is a flawed concept.

God seeks after man. He gives man the chance to respond.
When he said to Israel these words they were not in vain:

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Comments Invalid !

 

[robustheologian]

Comments Invalid !

SMH. This is either a 13 year old or some old bitter man who lives in the woods.

 

[robustheologian]

The drawing of God is not limited to just a few.

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--The ones that God "draws" are the ones that respond, to his pleading, that is the gospel.
Verses like John 6:37,44 must be taken in context with the rest of the Bible. God is not a schizophrenic.

These verses are also often taken out of their context. Remember that their were no chapter divisions in the originals. Chapter 8 carries on from chapter 7. In chapter 7 Paul describes his struggle between his two natures: the old and the new. Even when we are saved we still have that old Adamic nature residing in us. That is why Paul said:

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
--The fleshly nature is still there. Every day it had to be conquered. With the mind he serves the law of God, but the mind must actively serve the law of God. It is a struggle, not automatic. Every time we sin we are not serving the law of God but rather the law of sin, giving in to the flesh--our carnal nature.
The carnal nature does not please God, nor can it please God. Every Christian has a carnal nature.
What does James say about the carnal nature:

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
--It cannot please God; it is at enmity with God; it is the enemy of God. IOW, God hates it. This verse is written to believers, to carnal Christians.

Another verse often taken out of context to support a pre-conceived idea.
What is the context. What is Paul talking about.
--The natural man, in context, refers to the immature carnal Christian described in the following chapter. He had not grown. He could only take milk and not meat. He was carnal as Paul labeled him.
I have given a detailed analysis of this passage here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2194689&postcount=43


Quoting from the Psalms Paul never intended these to be "absolutes," but general statements.
Like Heb.9:27 "As it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment."
We know this is a general statement and there are exceptions. Elijah was an exception, and so was Enoch. Those alive at the resurrection will be exceptions.
This is a general statement about the condition of man. It is not absolute.
In general man does not seek God; that doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability.

The above statements are always interpreted within the framework of a pre-conceived theology, that is Calvinism, and thus the opportunity of looking at them in the proper light is never even considered. If your premise is wrong then your conclusion is bound to be wrong.

Well I disagree in that there's no way to come up with any other interpretation apart from total inability if you read the scripture I gave you in context.

John 6 is talking about those given to Jesus by the Father..not all men. So everyone will not come to Jesus because everyone has not been drawn.

And study of the translation of natural man in 1 Corinthians 2:14 one will see that it actually means those who are not spiritual. And in the context (like you said context is important) of 1 Corinthians 2, Paul makes it clear that a spiritual person is one who has received the Spirit of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

The drawing of God is not limited to just a few.

The drawing of God is to a multitude that that Father has given to the Son....
in the Covenant of Redemption.
The text is clear..All the Father gives to me shall come to me.

No more, no less

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
--The ones that God "draws" are the ones that respond, to his pleading, that is the gospel.

The only response is by those who the Spirit effectually draws....the children who are scattered worldwide.

Verses like John 6:37,44 must be taken in context with the rest of the Bible.

Yes ...God deals with man by Covenant throughout the bible.

God is not a schizophrenic.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

These verses are also often taken out of their context

.

only in your mind as everyone else understands the context.

Remember that their were no chapter divisions in the originals. Chapter 8 carries on from chapter 7. In chapter 7 Paul describes his struggle between his two natures: the old and the new. Even when we are saved we still have that old Adamic nature residing in us.

Again you are wrong having refused correction. The old man has been crucified. The struggle is with remaining sin and corruption in our members.

That is why Paul said:

No...that is what you claim he said. He said our old man has been crucified.

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

--The fleshly nature is still there.

We are in a body of flesh.....he says flesh.....

Every day it had to be conquered.

No.....it has been conquered at the cross. We are to live in light of this truth

With the mind he serves the law of God, but the mind must actively serve the law of God. It is a struggle, not automatic. Every time we sin we are not serving the law of God but rather the law of sin, giving in to the flesh

ok

--our carnal nature.

A Christian has a spiritual nature.
The unsaved are carnal in nature.

The carnal nature does not please God, nor can it please God.

The unsaved cannot please God.

Every Christian has a carnal nature.

No Christian has a carnal nature. God has given a new heart to the Christian who now has a spiritual nature.

What does James say about the carnal nature:

Nothing....he does not mention a carnal nature,he does mention the world.

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

this mentions the world.

IOW, God hates it. This verse is written to believers, to carnal Christians.

there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.

Another verse often taken out of context to support a pre-conceived idea.

that describes your whole explanation in this thread.

What is the context. What is Paul talking about.

If you knew the truth ,you would not post this error.

--The natural man, in context, refers to the immature carnal Christian

The natural man is unsaved. You suggest that which is error following the popular error of the day. The man of the flesh, even if he be a genius...is unsaved...devoid of the Spirit.

This is a general statement about the condition of man. It is not absolute.
In general man does not seek God; that doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability.

The Lord looked down to see if there were ANY..... No ,not one.

 

[DHK]

Well I disagree in that there's no way to come up with any other interpretation apart from total inability if you read the scripture I gave you in context.

John 6 is talking about those given to Jesus by the Father..not all men. So everyone will not come to Jesus because everyone has not been drawn.

Soul liberty enables us to disagree without offense.
God allows all men to be drawn to Christ; that is clear from John 12:32.
The ones that he gives are the ones that have received him, and not rejected him. God works outside of time.

And study of the translation of natural man in 1 Corinthians 2:14 one will see that it actually means those who are not spiritual. And in the context (like you said context is important) of 1 Corinthians 2, Paul makes it clear that a spiritual person is one who has received the Spirit of God.

I agree that a spiritual person is one who has received the Spirit of God. That is the teaching given in verses 12 and 13.
But go to 3:1
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Christians, "brethren" are not spiritual but rather "carnal" for they are "babes" in Christ. They are immature spiritually because:
1. They have not grown in the Word.
2. They have been involved in worldly activities--look at what the book is about: rebuking fornication, taking one another to court, divisions, divorce and marriage problems, meats offered to idols, abuse of the Lord's table, abuse of spiritual gifts, and even the denial of the resurrection.
It was a carnal church full of carnal Christians.

 

[robustheologian]

Soul liberty enables us to disagree without offense.
God allows all men to be drawn to Christ; that is clear from John 12:32.
The ones that he gives are the ones that have received him, and not rejected him. God works outside of time.

I agree that a spiritual person is one who has received the Spirit of God. That is the teaching given in verses 12 and 13.
But go to 3:1
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
Christians, "brethren" are not spiritual but rather "carnal" for they are "babes" in Christ. They are immature spiritually because:
1. They have not grown in the Word.
2. They have been involved in worldly activities--look at what the book is about: rebuking fornication, taking one another to court, divisions, divorce and marriage problems, meats offered to idols, abuse of the Lord's table, abuse of spiritual gifts, and even the denial of the resurrection.
It was a carnal church full of carnal Christians.

Before I continue I must say you do have a good argument.

I do see there being degrees of carnality and submission to the Spirit. 2:14 is referring to those without the Spirit of God at all. 3:1 is talking about those with the Spirit but who have not totally submitted their flesh to it.

 

[DHK]

Before I continue I must say you do have a good argument.

I do see there being degrees of carnality and submission to the Spirit. 2:14 is referring to those without the Spirit of God at all. 3:1 is talking about those with the Spirit but who have not totally submitted their flesh to it.

In 2:14, the word "natural" simply means "of the flesh." It is not restricted to the unsaved person. Any person can act "of the flesh." Thus the greater context of both chapters two and three include that of those Christians acting "of the flesh" or carnally.
Having said that, if my explanation is not going to convince you, we may just have to agree to disagree.

 

[robustheologian]

In 2:14, the word "natural" simply means "of the flesh." It is not restricted to the unsaved person. Any person can act "of the flesh." Thus the greater context of both chapters two and three include that of those Christians acting "of the flesh" or carnally.
Having said that, if my explanation is not going to convince you, we may just have to agree to disagree.

We will have to disagree. Being led by the Spirit is graded. 0 being without the Spirit and on up. While a Christian can be carnal, 1 Corinthians 2:14 refers to one who has not become a believer and has not received the Spirit at all. The HCSB, NIV, and NET bible translations do a good job translating this.

 

[Iconoclast]

Spurgeon

I. First, then, it is a well-known fact, and one which can be proved by the observation of every day, that THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVES NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD.

Mark, we lay this down as a rule. We do not say that the drunken or debauched natural man receives not the things of God. That is true; but we also insist upon it that the delicate and the refined natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God. I do not pick out some one case, and say the uneducated, illiterate, coarse, low-minded natural man cannot comprehend spiritual things; but all alike, the most intelligent, enlightened, and trained natural men, equally, do not, and cannot, and will not comprehend the things of the Spirit of God. Like our apostle, we take a wide range, and do not leave out one. However amiable in natural temperament, however well trained by the best parental associations, however kept in check by the most excellent position in providence, however patriotic, however self-denying, however benevolent, however estimable in an other respects, the natural man does not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God.

I

have heard persons rail at Calvinistic doctrine, who never in their lives have read a word that Calvin wrote. If you were to offer them a small treatise in which that noble system of divinity should be vindicated, they would say, "Oh! it is no doubt so dry, I should not be able to read it." Yet these learned gentlemen know what is inside a book without opening it!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.