Wow! R.C. Sproul's faith...

Bless you for your new church start! What an exciting ministry!

 

I don't have that book so I can't look it up. I can quote from another of Sproul's books where he tells that story. From page 179, What Is Reformed Theology?:

Now, would you please quote the whole context of the story from The Mystery of the Holy Spirit? If he does, in fact, tell the story about himself in your book, then something's fishy.

But I'd like to see the proof of it first.

 

Can I just ask what difference it makes? Does anyone really think that a personal experience by Sproul or Gerstner is relevant? Us Calvinists are Calvinists because of what Scripture teaches. When you take the Scripture as a while, in its context, you become a Calvinism. Picking and choosing and ignoring context leads to others things.

But the conversation needs to focus on the Scripture, not on someone's perspective about a story.

 

Striking isn't it? Prevenient grace, a cornerstone of non-Calvinism (unless you are Pelagian) is Romish. Yet no one wants to address that it seems. Why?

Will this finally put the rest the nonsense that Calvinists deny the necessity of faith?

Now, think about this. A guy who has made a life out of the study of the Scripture, including teaching and writing, is being told he has not thought this through by a guy whose outlet is writing anonymously on internet forum, who has been soundly refuted countless times. Oh the irony ...

 

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html

This ought to answer a couple peoples questions.

 

No problem, brother. People who are quick to call someone a liar ought to try Google. (It's so easy)

 

There you go. Very weird, because I quoted directly from Sproul as well where he tells the same story about John Gerstner, as you can see. I suppose it could have happened twice—once to Gerstner and then later to Sproul—but the language is so similar that is sure seemed to me to be about the same event.

I was indeed too quick to rush to judgment that Skypair was missing the whole context of the story or something, as it seemed the only way to explain what Sproul writes in the one book by him that I have, and have read (What is Reformed Theology?), with the bit quoted by Skypair. I never did call him a liar, however. I thought that he had misunderstood or misread (and for that I am sorry!) but never that he was lying.

 

I think some apologies are in order to skypair for calling his thread "erroneous" and his sources as false.

 

Personally, I would be very interested to know how Sproul himself explains this. For here on BB, despite the acrimony, both posters were essentially correct -- both were using their quotes in context and because of Sproul it appears they each thought the other to be misquoting.

This, to my mind, puts Sproul's own writings into question. Note, I am not questioning his salvation -- that is most CERTAINLY NOT mine to do! But I am, if what we have seen here is all correct -- and it appears to be -- questioning his accuracy at the least.

 

Skypair, et al.

OK, I don’t even know why I’m getting in the middle of this—maybe it’s because I’m tired of the non-Calvinists railing against the Calvinists. You know, most of the friction between the Arminians and the Calvinists is caused by Arminians—they just can’t seem to let it go. I would speculate why, but that would not be constructive, so I won’t do that. Now, on to my point:

Skypair wrote:

This is a great piece of Scripture; I like it very much. The phrase “Except a man be born again” is very instructive. The verb born, gennao, is in the Passive Voice.

It’s a funny thing about the Passive Voice—the subject cannot, by definition, act for himself or herself. In Greek, the Passive Voice signifies, again by definition, that the subject is being acted upon by an outside force.

So, the above quote which seems to suggest that a man can “Born himself again” in order to “see the kingdom of God” is erroneous—the rules of Greek grammar will not allow for that interpretation. A more literal translation would need to read something like—“unless a man is acted upon so as to be born again...” Interestingly enough, the phrase “Born again” can also be translated “Born from above.” The Greek is intentionally ambiguous so as to mean both. In fact, as I have argued in the past, the phrase should be read, “Born again from above.”

Now, I understand the desire to argue for the necessity for man to respond and accept Christ—I completely agree, man must accept Christ to be saved. Any good Calvinist would never suggest that man does not have to respond. A good Calvinist understands God must be the initiator and man must be the responder.

I am quite sure this post will generate a firestorm of controversy. Oh well. Let me just encourage everyone to be civil in their responses. After all, we all claim to be Christians and we MUST treat each other as such—the world is watching and judging our God by our actions (scary thought, isn’t it?).

Blessings to all (both Calvinists and Arminians)

The Archangel

 

I'll bet more seminary schools teach the opposite these days. I'd love to read about anyone famous who was convinced of reformed theology but changed his mind based on seminary or scripture.

 

Yeah, archangel, I don't know why you got into the middle of it with your accusations and a post that has nothing to do with the OP.
And you have the nerve to say that the non cal's are always "railing" against the cal's, and the friction is caused by "arminians"?
Wanted to even the field with your one post, did 'ya?

 

And why does it have to be sombody "famous"? Is this a popularity contest, or a "who's who" of the christian world?

 

Well, if I've learned anything from this thread, I suppose it's that we should assume there's a good explanation for the so similar and yet so different accounts in the two different books. I'm very curious as to what it might be, but in the meantime, I'll assume there is a good explanation.