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

[Grasshopper]

Well since Skypair has shown the founder(Sproul) of Calvinism to be in error and Helen has looked in her Bible and can't find Reformed Theology the issue is finally settled andthe non-Calvinist no longer have to start threads on Calvinism anymore. It is a wonderful day.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Get real, Larry. All our discussions are about "interpretation" around here. We got scripture here and still can't resolve anything.

I am real, and I have resolved it.

No, cause the imperative is to address whether there is anything we MUST do to RECEIVE faith!

That’s never really been the issue has it? There are people here who continue to say that Calvinists believe you can be saved without faith. I think many here, including now Sproul by your own citation, have put that to rest. Hopefully that won’t come up again.

Or think about this -- a Pope who has made a life out of the same thing will one day be AntiChrist! Same thing. The Pope thinks he is the Holy Spirit -- Christ living vicariously today. Do you not believe him???

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but I don’t believe the pope.

You're sayng that one's temporal position trumps the Holy Spirit??? Think that again, pls.

I am not sure what that means, so I don’t know how to respond. I have thought about it several times since reading this and am not sure what to make of your comments. They don’t make sense to me.

Let's be clear here, Larry -- I'M NOT the issue. If what I quoted are the words of Sproul, then the issue is his assertions.nnIf those weren't his words (and I invite anyone here to get the book and read for themselves), then I apologize in advance. What do you make of 1) Sproul and 2) the truth of his contentions?

I didn’t read them real closely, but if they are Sproul’s (or anyone else’s) personal testimony, what do I need to make of them? My belief is not based on Sproul. It is based on Scripture. The only thing I have read by Sproul was his excellent book entitled Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. My Calvinism came from Jesus, John, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles.

Oh, and thanks for impuning my credibility. I'm sure that will be useful to you in the future.

I didn’t impugn it. Credibility is something you earn, by demonstrating a knowledge of the subject at hand. I was simply commenting on the irony of you telling Sproul he hasn’t thought through this. Surely you can recognize the absurdity of such a charge. Whatever Sproul might believe, his record of teaching and writing most definitely confirms that he has thought through it.

 

[Blammo]

I am quite sure this post will generate a firestorm of controversy.

Nope, not so much. This was about the only line worth responding to.

 

[npetreley]

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

Because the thread started with someone famous, that's all.

 

[skypair]

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.

Absolutely. Everyone here agrees with that, archangel.

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.”

Again, we are with you. Fact of the matter is that Nicodemus COULDN'T be born from above yet. When Jesus spoke to him, He had not made the Sacrifice that was required for Nicodemus to receive regeneration.

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.

That is one issue. With some of us who have attended Calvinist churches, there never is an invitation to receive/respond Christ. It is as if that is by design and that design seems to be one of a passive "election" on man's side and an active monergistic regeneration and salvation on God's part.

As the article notes, Sproul did just the opposite. It was like he was Arminian. So was he saved or did he have to be resaved or what? That was my question.

skypair

 

[skypair]

That’s never really been the issue has it? There are people here who continue to say that Calvinists believe you can be saved without faith. I think many here, including now Sproul by your own citation, have put that to rest. Hopefully that won’t come up again.

I will admit that a good testimony does more for his credibility than his theology. I will also be careful now to try to focus on his errors and not on him as I do sense that we are undermining our leaders too readily in these last days. And so I believe much of what Sproul says -- actually pass the good stuff on to others with his name. And I'll try to address the errors of Calvin, not Sproul in the future.

I'll treat him like you treat me. Naw, that wouldn't be right.

I am not sure what that means, so I don’t know how to respond. I have thought about it several times since reading this and am not sure what to make of your comments. They don’t make sense to me.[/quote] Well, you tried to "blast" me and my theology away by comparing my internet participation with the great works of Sproul -- so I responded with maybe then you believe the Pope who has "spent his life studying and teaching these things" more than me, too.

I didn’t read them real closely, but if they are Sproul’s (or anyone else’s) personal testimony, what do I need to make of them? My belief is not based on Sproul.[/quote] Sproul is the formost scholar on Calvinism alive today. What should you make of him? He is like most Calvinists IMO. He was saved one way and teaches sotierology another. Which is the way into and out of the pasture?

I didn’t impugn it. Credibility is something you earn, by demonstrating a knowledge of the subject at hand. I was simply commenting on the irony of you telling Sproul he hasn’t thought through this. Surely you can recognize the absurdity of such a charge. Whatever Sproul might believe, his record of teaching and writing most definitely confirms that he has thought through it.

From my perspective, he hasn't thought it through for the same reason you haven't. You both stopped looking for the truth about God in a 16th century theology that, like Islam, hasn't changed since. And even then it was the near stepchild of Catholicism.

Jesus said of it that "it hath a name that liveth but art dead." There ought to be some repenting of something that Jesus didn't like but we see there hasn't, to my knowledge, been.

So why will you not be led out where the living claim that name that liveth and join those who have "kept My word and not denied My name?" IOW, invited people to repent and receive Christ? Why is it that the hyperCalvinists still don't want to send out missionaries (or at least think it is a waste)? Why is it that Calvinists deny the ability of man to, on his own behalf, believe unto salvation and faith?? Why this "monergism" that makes most men "dead little playthings" that God is going to sweep into the fire and some "dead little playthings" resucitated unconditionally so that they have irresistibly to do what God ordains. Where is Jesus, Larry??

Calvin's "covenant of grace" sounds more like the two executives $5 bet in the movie "Switching Places." They arbitrarily depose one exec and replace him with a bum (Eddy Murphy) on the street.

I mean, isn't Jesus indictment this --- that they had a name that liveth but didn't use it?? For whatever reason (and I'm imagining it has to do with theology) they didn't call on it -- weren't invited to call on it -- were drawn to a "Christian life" without having Christ -- bypassing on purpose the Gate so as not to do ANY "synergistic" act that might suggest responsibility on their side for their own salvation.

skypair

 

[mnw]

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.

So you chose to be a calvinist?

Surely you were fore-ordained to be a calvinist?

:thumbs: Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Well, you tried to "blast" me and my theology away by comparing my internet participation with the great works of Sproul -- so I responded with maybe then you believe the Pope who has "spent his life studying and teaching these things" more than me, too.

No, I was pointing out that it is absurd to say that a man who has written many published works (meaning that they meet publishing standards) has not thought through an issue. It was ironic that the charge was coming from someone who sole writing experience seems to be an internet discussion forum. It wasn’t a blast. It was an irony.

Sproul is the formost scholar on Calvinism alive today. What should you make of him?

I don’t think Sproul is the foremost scholar on Calvinism. I think Piper is much more of a scholar than him, and probably others as well.

He was saved one way and teaches sotierology another. Which is the way into and out of the pasture

I don’t think he was saved one way and teaches another. He was saved as we all are, not knowing everything.

From my perspective, he hasn't thought it through for the same reason you haven't. You both stopped looking for the truth about God in a 16th century theology that, like Islam, hasn't changed since. And even then it was the near stepchild of Catholicism.

Why would you charge that we stopped looking for truth in the 16th century? Calvinism is much older than that, as is your view, and is at the same time continually being argued for and demonstrated.

And it wasn’t the near step child of Catholicism. As Sproul pointed out, the idea of prevenient grace is Catholicism. Calvinism is a biblical issue, not a Catholic one.

There ought to be some repenting of something that Jesus didn't like but we see there hasn't, to my knowledge, been.

I repented of it about 15 years ago.

So why will you not be led out where the living claim that name that liveth and join those who have "kept My word and not denied My name?"

I have. And do.

IOW, invited people to repent and receive Christ?

I do. Every week.

Why is it that the hyperCalvinists still don't want to send out missionaries (or at least think it is a waste)?

You will have to ask hyper Calvinists. Calvinism doesn’t teach that. Calvinism has historically been a very strong missionary movement, from Calvin right on down.

Why is it that Calvinists deny the ability of man to, on his own behalf, believe unto salvation and faith??

The same reason Arminians do. The Bible teaches it.

Why this "monergism" that makes most men "dead little playthings" that God is going to sweep into the fire and some "dead little playthings" resucitated unconditionally so that they have irresistibly to do what God ordains.

It doesn’t. You simply will not accept what Calvinism actually believes, perhaps because then you wouldn’t be able to argue against it.

Where is Jesus, Larry??

In heaven, having risen from the dead and saving all who will come to him in faith and repentance, interceding for the saved, and securing us for eternity.

Calvin's "covenant of grace" sounds more like the two executives $5 bet in the movie "Switching Places." They arbitrarily depose one exec and replace him with a bum (Eddy Murphy) on the street.

Not familiar with the movie since I don’t watch many movies. I disagree with the covenant of grace because I don’t find it in Scripture.

I mean, isn't Jesus indictment this --- that they had a name that liveth but didn't use it??

Not against Calvinism. Calvinism is about Jesus.

For whatever reason (and I'm imagining it has to do with theology) they didn't call on it -- weren't invited to call on it -- were drawn to a "Christian life" without having Christ -- bypassing on purpose the Gate so as not to do ANY "synergistic" act that might suggest responsibility on their side for their own salvation.

I think you are, as you say, “imagining” things. What you have described here is not Calvinism.

The question is, Why do you persist in this? You have been here long enough to know better. Why misrepresent the gospel that we preach?

 

[Pastor Larry]

So you chose to be a calvinist?

Yes.

Surely you were fore-ordained to be a calvinist?

Yes

Sorry, couldn't resist.

No worries. It's an old tired joke that long ago stopped getting laughs. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Calvinism and choosing. It's unfortunate that it continues.

Man's choices are not in contradiction to God's fore-ordaining. Man's free choices are perfectly consistent with that.

 

[Rippon]

SP , R.C. Sproul is not one of the foremost scholars on Calvinism alive today . Sproul is a popularizer of Calvinism . He is an evangelist/pastor/teacher/author . But even he would not think of himself as a scholar -- or Calvinistic scholar . Try to get familiar with true scholars of that realm like Paul Helm , Richard Muller , James Packer and Allister McGrath . B.B. Warfield ( died in 1921 ) was quite the Calvinistic scholar -- read some of his materials . You need to get edumacated boy ! They'll learn ya !

 

[pinoybaptist]

Why is it that the hyperCalvinists still don't want to send out missionaries (or at least think it is a waste)?

First, nobody but God sends out missionaries. The last ones, on Scriptural record, that God sent out were Paul, Silas, and Barnabas, and company, circa Acts.
These all went to churches that were already extant, or groups of believers needing to be organized into churches.

None of them went out for the express purpose of "winning" souls, as in getting them eternally saved.
They did go out to get those who will listen to the gospel, and obey gospel instruction, saved from false teaching, false practices, and false doctrines.

So to send missionaries out in order to get people saved, in the eternal sense, IS a waste of time, money, and effort because you cannot add one single soul to those whom God has already redeemed in Christ.

And that is basically the purpose of most of today's missions: get people saved from hell and the judgment of God. Either Christ has already done that, or His death on the cross, and resurrection from the grave, amounted to zero results.

 

[skypair]

I don’t think Sproul is the foremost scholar on Calvinism. I think Piper is much more of a scholar than him, and probably others as well.

Hmm. I didn't know that. I've heard of Piper but thought he was dead. Thanks.

I don’t think he was saved one way and teaches another. He was saved as we all are, not knowing everything.

That is a very good response. I agree with you to the extent that we really come as "children" to salvation and "don't know the half of it." BUT to me, he has "changed the rules" for everyone else believing in Calvin's formulation. Why not stay with the "simplicity that is in Christ Jesus?"

Why would you charge that we stopped looking for truth in the 16th century?

Calvin was 1500's right? Augustinianism, from which Calvin got a lot of his theology, is older. Is that what your comment means?? Cause my main point is it hasn't changed in 500 years -- not that it didn't exist before that.

And it wasn’t the near step child of Catholicism. As Sproul pointed out, the idea of prevenient grace is Catholicism. Calvinism is a biblical issue, not a Catholic one.

I take this position because Catholicism "bled over" in the notions of 1) the Eucharist, 2) the state religion, 3) the replacement of Israel by the church, adn many others.

I repented of it about 15 years ago.

Well, maybe you did but your theology needs to IMO.

I have. And do.

And I believe YOU. But do you see the indictment of Sardis? Do the Presbies repent and teach afresh claiming the name of Christ for salvation? I'm not talking about believing but about receiving.

You will have to ask hyper Calvinists. Calvinism doesn’t teach that. Calvinism has historically been a very strong missionary movement, from Calvin right on down.

Yes, I've heard of it -- in the same manner as the Catholics. Persecute those who won't "convert" by the power of the state. Do you know where passports came from? Churches were willing to support local citizens but not outsiders who might not even believe as they did. Hence, until you joined the local church, you needed a passport to prove you wouldn't be "on the dole" at the new locality.

It doesn’t. You simply will not accept what Calvinism actually believes, perhaps because then you wouldn’t be able to argue against it.

Does Calvinism disparage the sinner's prayer? Do they ridicule walking the aisle? Do they believe in "rebaptism?" Do you see invitations in most 5 point Calvinist churches? Are you speaking for Calvinism or for yourself? Because I am NOT trying to be argumentative, Larry. I'm trying to make sure people act on their belief in Christ by "sealing the deal" -- by repenting and receiving, not saying, "Well, I understand scripture just fine and I agree with these folks so I must be 'elect,' regenerated, and 'in need of nothing.'"

Not familiar with the movie since I don’t watch many movies. I disagree with the covenant of grace because I don’t find it in Scripture.

Thank you -- and I believe you. "Switching Places" posits that anybody can do a high-paying job even without any prior training. That would be like the "elect" who might find himself "replacing" one who has heard scripture, believes but is not "elect."

Not against Calvinism. Calvinism is about Jesus.

Have you done a study of Sardis? The indictment is there for someone that falls into that point in the church age timeline crom Ephasus to Laodicea. What do you suppose Sardis respresents?

I think you are, as you say, “imagining” things. What you have described here is not Calvinism.

I'm not alone. There are many who "warn" Sardis, Larry.

The question is, Why do you persist in this? You have been here long enough to know better. Why misrepresent the gospel that we preach?

Not that YOU preach -- that Calvin preaches. I have agreed with you for the most part and just like Sproul, many Calvinists have abandoned their first gospel for another formulation. To me, you seem like a "Jack Calvinist" (less then 5 point) trying to defend the whole enchilada. Am I wrong? Are you a 5 pointer? You sound like you believe that we play a part in our own salvation. Does that not make salvation "conditional?"

skypair

 

[skypair]

SP , R.C. Sproul is not one of the foremost scholars on Calvinism alive today . Sproul is a popularizer of Calvinism . He is an evangelist/pastor/teacher/author . But even he would not think of himself as a scholar -- or Calvinistic scholar . Try to get familiar with true scholars of that realm like Paul Helm , Richard Muller , James Packer and Allister McGrath . B.B. Warfield ( died in 1921 ) was quite the Calvinistic scholar -- read some of his materials . You need to get edumacated boy ! They'll learn ya !

Thank you, rippon. I was relying for my opinion on authors from my side of the tracks who do mention some of the names you give. And I am endeavoring to take what I have heard of them into account.

I know I need "edumacation." Maybe in retirement (7 months away!) I'll be able to take the time to do that.

skypair

 

[skypair]

First, nobody but God sends out missionaries. The last ones, on Scriptural record, that God sent out were Paul, Silas, and Barnabas, and company, circa Acts.
These all went to churches that were already extant, or groups of believers needing to be organized into churches.

Pinoy, Paul explicitly says that he did NOT go into another man's work -- he went unbelievers, not even churches.

None of them went out for the express purpose of "winning" souls, as in getting them eternally saved. They did go out to get those who will listen to the gospel, and obey gospel instruction, saved from false teaching, false practices, and false doctrines.

So to send missionaries out in order to get people saved, in the eternal sense, IS a waste of time, money, and effort because you cannot add one single soul to those whom God has already redeemed in Christ.

There's my 5 pointer! I hope you don't embarrass yourself in front of the rest of the Calvinists here. :tear: IN fact, Paul says he went strictly to spread the gospel -- NOT to baptize, etc.

And that is basically the purpose of most of today's missions: get people saved from hell and the judgment of God. Either Christ has already done that, or His death on the cross, and resurrection from the grave, amounted to zero results.

Find the "elect," right? But if they don't, God has still elected them so "no harm, no foul," right?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

I didn't know that. I've heard of Piper but thought he was dead.

Piper is the pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. He can be found at www.desiringgod.org. He has a new website but I can’t remember it. I don’t go there often.

BUT to me, he has "changed the rules" for everyone else believing in Calvin's formulation. Why not stay with the "simplicity that is in Christ Jesus?"

I think Calvinism is about this simplicity that is in Jesus.

Calvin was 1500's right? Augustinianism, from which Calvin got a lot of his theology, is older. Is that what your comment means?? Cause my main point is it hasn't changed in 500 years -- not that it didn't exist before that.

Yes, but your belief is the same. Calvinism has changed in 500 years. It has been furthered studied and refined.

I take this position because Catholicism "bled over" in the notions of 1) the Eucharist, 2) the state religion, 3) the replacement of Israel by the church, adn many others.

All of which is irrelevant, since Calvinistic soteriology involves none of those things.

Well, maybe you did but your theology needs to IMO.

I hold my theology because I repented of not believing what God said. … Seriously, my beliefs are based on Scripture. I became a Calvinist through Scripture. I did not get it from somewhere else. I had no teachers teach me, or Calvinist pastors until after I became a Calvinist.

But do you see the indictment of Sardis? Do the Presbies repent and teach afresh claiming the name of Christ for salvation? I'm not talking about believing but about receiving.

I don’t know what this means.

Yes, I've heard of it -- in the same manner as the Catholics. Persecute those who won't "convert" by the power of the state

Your history is flawed.

Does Calvinism disparage the sinner's prayer? Do they ridicule walking the aisle?

Neither of these are found in Scripture. Some Calvinistic churches practice them; some do not.

Do they believe in "rebaptism?"

No.

Do you see invitations in most 5 point Calvinist churches?

I don’t know. That is not a biblical issue.

Are you speaking for Calvinism or for yourself?

Both. What I have said is pretty mainstream Calvinism. These issues you list are things that Calvinists differ on and the Bible does not speak to so we are free to practice as we wish.

I'm trying to make sure people act on their belief in Christ by "sealing the deal" -- by repenting and receiving, not saying, "Well, I understand scripture just fine and I agree with these folks so I must be 'elect,' regenerated, and 'in need of nothing.'"

Then you agree with Calvinism, though “sealing the deal” is not the way we weould put it. We believe that people just repent and believe, just as the Scriptures say.

Have you done a study of Sardis? The indictment is there for someone that falls into that point in the church age timeline crom Ephasus to Laodicea. What do you suppose Sardis respresents?

Yes, I have studied Sardis. No, Sardis (nor any other church) represents any period of church history. We should all be aware of the sins of all seven churches because they exist in churches today.

Not that YOU preach -- that Calvin preaches. I have agreed with you for the most part and just like Sproul, many Calvinists have abandoned their first gospel for another formulation.

I never heard Calvin preach. I have read Sproul and heard him once or twice on a recording. I don’t think he has abandoned the first gospel, at least not from what I have seen.

To me, you seem like a "Jack Calvinist" (less then 5 point) trying to defend the whole enchilada. Am I wrong?

Yes

Are you a 5 pointer

Yes.

You sound like you believe that we play a part in our own salvation.

Nope. We must only believe and repent by the grace of God given to us.

Does that not make salvation "conditional?"

Nope.

 

[Humblesmith]

Norman Geisler and John Gerstner taught at the same seminary at one point, and Geisler invited Gerstner into his class to discuss their views of Calvinism. Gerstner claimed human choice was outside of human will, caused by another. So Geisler asked Gerstner 'who caused Lucifer to sin?" Gerstner didn't believe the self could make that free choice, especially since Lucifer didn't have a sin nature prior to his first sin, and he didn't want to say God caused Lucifer to sin, so he said it's "mystery, mystery." Well, it doesn't have to be a mystery.

Strong calvinism is inconsistent with reason and scripture when it claims we only have a half of a free choice (can only choose to sin), and pelagianism is inconsistent with scripture when it claims we can choose to follow God based on nothing but ourselves. Only moderate Calvinism can go between the horns of the dilemma and claim that God can work through our free choice, and enable our will with his grace. This has been taught by W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, Norman Geisler, and L. S. Chafer.

I was just reading A. W. Pink, who claims in one breath that the elect are "impelled" to believe (his word) by "the strongest motive power", but then in the other breath that they are not forced. This is a contradiction. On the other extreme, the pelagians of the world are typified by those who minimalize or outright deny the work of the holy spirit in the work of grace which is salvation. I think Shedd has my favorite explanation of the truth in his "Dogmatic Theology" which I would recommend to everyone.

 

[skypair]

Norman Geisler and John Gerstner taught at the same seminary at one point, and Geisler invited Gerstner into his class to discuss their views of Calvinism. Gerstner claimed human choice was outside of human will, caused by another. So Geisler asked Gerstner 'who caused Lucifer to sin?" Gerstner didn't believe the self could make that free choice, especially since Lucifer didn't have a sin nature prior to his first sin, and he didn't want to say God caused Lucifer to sin, so he said it's "mystery, mystery." Well, it doesn't have to be a mystery.

Strong calvinism is inconsistent with reason and scripture when it claims we only have a half of a free choice (can only choose to sin), and pelagianism is inconsistent with scripture when it claims we can choose to follow God based on nothing but ourselves. Only moderate Calvinism can go between the horns of the dilemma and claim that God can work through our free choice, and enable our will with his grace. This has been taught by W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, Norman Geisler, and L. S. Chafer.

I was just reading A. W. Pink, who claims in one breath that the elect are "impelled" to believe (his word) by "the strongest motive power", but then in the other breath that they are not forced. This is a contradiction. On the other extreme, the pelagians of the world are typified by those who minimalize or outright deny the work of the holy spirit in the work of grace which is salvation. I think Shedd has my favorite explanation of the truth in his "Dogmatic Theology" which I would recommend to everyone.

Humble -- that is good.

See, I don't think Calvies have it "broken down" correctly yet. It seems they lump the spirit in with the soul that dies when sin occurs ("The SOUL that sinneth, it shal surely die."). That would make the SPIRIT (mind, emotions, and will) BRAIN DEAD --- totally unable to process information anymore. And most of them use that very imagery, the image of Lazarus in the grave!

But that is NOT the case. Though the SOUL be dead to God ("I was alive once, but then the command came and I died."), yet the spirit still perceives evil and good just like Adam's did after eating the forbidden fruit. And when the Word comes ("sharper than any two edged sword ... even to the dividing of the soul and spirit"), it convicts the dead soul through the living spirit! Do you see that at that moment, the soul and spirit have been "divided asunder" by the Word?

So notice -- we have the dead soul, a living spirit (mind, emotions, and will), and the work of the Holy Spirit through prevenient grace (or whatever you like to call it). And that Holy Spirit is the mind, emotions, and will OF GOD HIMSELF!! Obviously, one would never expect the Spirit to commune with the flesh nor with the dead soul where the "law of self" has been established in the conscience.

skypair

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Skypair

To Skypair,

I dropped on by and found your discussion. I want to mention that not all Calvinists believe the way Sproul does concerning the New Birth:

Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, writes: “Our faith and our repentance are the work of God’s grace in our hearts. Our contribution is simply the sin for which Jesus Christ suffered and died. Would you be born anew? There has never been a person who sought for that who did not find it. Even the seeking is created by the Spirit of God. Would you know that new life? Are you tired of the emptiness and purposelessness of your life? Are you tired of the filthy rags of your own righteousness? Would you trust in someone else other than yourself? Then look to the cross of Christ. Place your trust in him. Ask him to come in and be born in you today. For Jesus came into the world from glory to give us second birth because we must--we MUST--be born again.” (Why I Believe, p.140, emphasis mine)

My brother in Law is a Calvinist, and he also believes that the new birth follows a discision for Christ. Of course, he also believes in a type of regeneration (not the new birth), in which only Calvinism's "elect" will receive Him, and upon receiving Him, receive the new birth. So Calvinists are a pretty mixed up bunch.

 

[skypair]

To Skypair,

I dropped on by and found your discussion. I want to mention that not all Calvinists believe the way Sproul does concerning the New Birth:

Calvinist, D. James Kennedy, writes: “Our faith and our repentance are the work of God’s grace in our hearts. Our contribution is simply the sin for which Jesus Christ suffered and died. Would you be born anew? There has never been a person who sought for that who did not find it. Even the seeking is created by the Spirit of God. Would you know that new life? Are you tired of the emptiness and purposelessness of your life? Are you tired of the filthy rags of your own righteousness? Would you trust in someone else other than yourself? Then look to the cross of Christ. Place your trust in him. Ask him to come in and be born in you today. For Jesus came into the world from glory to give us second birth because we must--we MUST--be born again.” (Why I Believe, p.140, emphasis mine)

My brother in Law is a Calvinist, and he also believes that the new birth follows a discision for Christ. Of course, he also believes in a type of regeneration (not the new birth), in which only Calvinism's "elect" will receive Him, and upon receiving Him, receive the new birth. So Calvinists are a pretty mixed up bunch.

AMEN, examing! Have you taken D. James Kennedy's "Evangelism Explosion" course?? I did 28 years ago and it is really helpful in witnessing!

I am thankful that there is the kind of "pressure" you refer to in the Christian community to cause Calvinists to reexamine their sotierology. Thanks.

skypair

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Skypair

To Skypair:

I have not yet read his EE book, but on your recommendation I will.