What role could envy play in the salvation process?

[Skandelon]

All this talk about "stepping outside" of one's theological perspective is nothing more than the latest fallacy provided by our beloved Skandelon. Do you really think that you can project your own weakness in searching out rival theological positions to the whole of Calvinism? Really? Why is it that your debate always turns to how "stupid" or how "silly" the rest of us are for not grasping the great truth that you alone have figured out? Pride, much?

Yes, pride, a lot. You?

Let's compare how many Calvinists on this board have made claims about how we don't understand them (like you just did earlier) to how many times non-Calvinists have made that claim. I bet you all out number us on that "pride count" 3 to 1.

Prophetic...

I know! And I didn't even know you when I wrote that. I must be prophetic, but don't be so hard on yourself, you can change even though I prophesied otherwise...or can you? :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

I understand very well, thank you. I made it clear in my post above that I was not speaking about regeneration. If I spaced the OP and missed that part, and you are ASSUMING that I am speaking of regeneration, then I guess that is on both of us, but I have been clear that the issue is not regeneration, but effectual call.

Do you disagree that there are components to salvation such as election, effectual call, regeneration, adoption, faith/repentence, sanctification, perseverence, and glorification? And, do you disagree that each of these can and must be dealt with in turn, not conflated?

Did you read the article I linked? He was showing that Calvinists typically equate the effectual call with regeneration. Did you agree or disagree with that and why?

 

[webdog]

What was that about not taking up an argument? Thought so...

What are you talking about? Why do you speak in riddles? I replied to your "cause you know better". I honestly have no idea what you are getting at.

Your second response...Are you asking a question, making a statement to garner a response...or what? What "argument" is in that statement? I also have two sick kids with the flu, so if you think I'm evading something, rest assured I'm not. I'm not one to shy away from a discussion on here.

 

[webdog]

But I don't believe we have "different gods." I believe we are brothers. But if I believed the things that you, Skan and others attribute to Calvinism, I couldn't help but to take that stance.

I'm glad you don't believe that...but why is that the case only from our side? I've had Dr. Bob refer to my "god" on numerous occasions, so your side is not immune to thinking like that.

 

[Skandelon]

But I don't believe we have "different gods." I believe we are brothers. But if I believed the things that you, Skan and others attribute to Calvinism, I couldn't help but to take that stance.

My brother and my best friend are Calvinistic. I love them both dearly, but having believed what they believed I understand why they believe it. They are not evil. They mean well. They really believe they are teaching what the scripture teaches on this subject. They are sincere.

Obviously, I believe they are sincerely wrong. Why? I think they have honestly misunderstood the intent of the authors of scripture. Specifically in regard to Romans 9, Eph. 1 and John 6. If not for these 3 chapters I doubt we would even have this controversy. Now before you jump on me, I'm NOT saying those are the ONLY passages you claim to support your views. I'm just saying these are the foundational passages that give rise to the misunderstanding in the Calvinistic system.

These passages all can very clearly be understood from a non-Calvinistic perspective, but MANY new young Calvinists who are converted after reading a Piper book have NO idea as to how non-Cal scholars even address these passages. If they did, I think many of them wouldn't have been so easily convinced. Just my perspective.