Good morning Ken. Blessed to speak with you again.
I prefer to not be called "Reformed" nor "Calvinist".
Got it. I'll try and remember that if my memory holds up.
In an article on "Reformed Baptists" on Wikipedia, there is a section entitled, "Sovereign Grace Baptists". Here is some of what it says:
' Sovereign Grace Baptists in the broadest sense are any "Calvinistic" Baptists that accept God's sovereign grace in salvation and predestination. In the narrower sense, certain churches and groups have preferred "Sovereign Grace" in their name, rather than using the terms "Calvinism", "Calvinist", or "Reformed Baptist". '
Also, it says:
' All of these groups generally agree with the Five Points of Calvinism - Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Groups calling themselves "Sovereign Grace Baptists" have been particularly influenced by the writings of John Gill in the 18th century. Among American Baptists who have revived such Calvinist ideas were Rolfe P. Barnard and Henry T. Mahan, who organised the first Sovereign Grace Bible Conference in Ashland, Kentucky, in 1954, though groups designated as Sovereign Grace are not necessarily connected to them. '
Sounds good to me. I would think that there are a few nuances besides just the name. But that's another thread.
The mention of Henry T. Mahan strikes home with me as the preacher at Grace Baptist of Ruston, Richard Warmack, heard the gospel of Christ from Henry T, Mahan back in the 1980s, and then I heard the gospel of Christ from Richard in mid-2021.
Nice
Of course, I prefer reading God's Word most of all.
Amen
So what I am reading here in your quote is that you are saying that 'faith' is not technically given but it is technically something that follows from some initial work of the Spirit. I am splitting hairs here and distinguishing between some other position that forwards that 'faith', whatever it is, is given (literally and directly). That is, that faith is the direct gift (something John Calvin says is not correct, Calvin quote below).
I think that is a distinction without a difference.
Is it really a distinction without a difference?
1) God sends the Spirit that brings light (grace) to a man. The man, being enlightened and freed from his blindness now sees his sin and need for salvation. Then (emphases on a transition of rolls), the man submits or rejects this.
I do understand that in the Reformed thought that one might need to distinguish between the General call (will never accept) and the Effectual call (cannot deny). However, assuming an Effectual call, in my #1 above, the man can be said to 'freely' come before good in faith. Especially if one holds as Calvin does that faith is coming 'empty' before the Lord. The #1 above establishes that there is a part for man, i.e., faith (which scripture frequently says this is so). And we have also upheld the phrase '
by grace
through faith and
not of works'.
2) God sends the Spirit to give light and faith to a man.
In the #2, God gives both light
and faith. Faith now is 'given' and not simply man's part that has been actualized by the enlightenment of the Spirit so then he can freely come to Him. This formulation, that has no distinction from #1 in result, does have a distinction in roles. In #1 God's call might be said to be irresistible, yet the man still is said to be free to choose (for it is his part). In #2, man has no part. Not logically anyway. #2 is a formulation that ends logically by saying that any theology saying man brings faith is works based.
It seems that John Calvin, the very foundation of Reformed thought, thought the distinction was worth making. The very foundation in which John Gill stood to do his work.
Great conversation friend.
Peace to you and your family
