Donations for the month of June


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 41
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,634
Posts51,160
Members927
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,432
Tom 3,448
chestnutmare 2,915
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,757
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 15
Pilgrim 11
John_C 2
Johan 1
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
TWU Denied Law School Accreditation
by Tom. Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:14 AM
Reformed Confessions of Faith and the Traditional Text
by Pilgrim. Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:43 AM
Messianic Judaism
by Tom. Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:29 AM
Doctrine and Philosophy
by Tom. Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:02 PM
The PCA's Slide Into the Homosexual Abyss Accelerates
by Anthony C.. Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:10 PM
John the Baptist
by Nigel J. Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:01 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Reaction to this statement #52107
Mon May 16, 2016 3:16 PM
Mon May 16, 2016 3:16 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
FL
ATulipNotADaisy Offline OP
Journeyman
ATulipNotADaisy  Offline OP
Journeyman
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
FL
Can I get a reaction to this statement?

"Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end."

Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52108
Mon May 16, 2016 3:22 PM
Mon May 16, 2016 3:22 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: ATulipNotADaisy
Can I get a reaction to this statement?

"Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end."

I don't have a problem with that statement IF it is in regard to God's eternal salvific purpose, i.e., predestination.

What do you think about the statement? grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52109
Mon May 16, 2016 4:36 PM
Mon May 16, 2016 4:36 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
FL
ATulipNotADaisy Offline OP
Journeyman
ATulipNotADaisy  Offline OP
Journeyman
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
FL
To me the statement is very general. I think it doesn't encourage an honest discussion of predestination, but rather gives credence to the view that God loves everyone and is just waiting for them to turn to him at which time He "elects" them.

Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52111
Tue May 17, 2016 1:20 PM
Tue May 17, 2016 1:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: ATulipNotADaisy
To me the statement is very general. I think it doesn't encourage an honest discussion of predestination, but rather gives credence to the view that God loves everyone and is just waiting for them to turn to him at which time He "elects" them.

Maybe I'm missing something in that statement but I don't see what might infer a universal love of God and that God is sitting on His hands waiting for some willing sinner to believe on Jesus. shrug I agree that the statement is very general, but again I don't see anything wrong/inaccurate in what it is on its face.

I'm curious to know if you found that statement in THIS ARTICLE? scratchchin Now, that's something that I had myriad problems with, even serious problems with some parts. It is typical of what is popularly called "Tolerant Calvinism", which alleges that the only real difference between Arminians (who should be more accurately deemed semi-Pelagians) and Calvinists is that Calvinists have had the advantage of better teaching. igiveup I have to wonder if what happened in 1618-19 at the Synod of Dordtrecht is even known by most of the people who were mentioned in that article, especially the author? There the unanimous conclusion was that Arminianism, which is less heretical than semi-Pelagianism, is damnable heresy. The divide between biblical Calvinism and all other religions is antithetical in nature.

IF you haven't read the article, then I would sincerely like you and all others reading this to do so and post your comment(s). grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52112
Tue May 17, 2016 2:04 PM
Tue May 17, 2016 2:04 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 61
Masschusetts, USA
G
goldenoldie Offline
Journeyman
goldenoldie  Offline
Journeyman
G
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 61
Masschusetts, USA
What exactly is a "more Calvinistic" disposition vs. a "less Calvinistic" disposition? Is a "four-point (sans Limited Atonement) Calvinist" still a Calvinist?

The original statement of this post reminds me of the tiresome and ubiquitous claim that "the Atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient for the Elect". This cop-out shifts the focus away from the DESIGN and INTENT of the Atonement. We're so used to hearing about "Limited" and "Unlimited" Atonement, but tend to forget that the difference in the way this word is used by Semi-Pelagians and Calvinists is in the noun, and not the adjective.

Dr. Keathley's second corollary "God desires the salvation of humanity" destroys Calvinism at its root. John Owen answers this "corollary" thus:

From the Death of Death, Book 4, Chapter 2, on John 3:16

Secondly, If the Lord hath such a natural affection to all, as to love them so far as to send his Son to die for them, whence is it that this affection of his doth not receive accomplishment? whence is it that it is hindered, and doth not produce its effects? why doth not the Lord engage his power for the fulfilling of his desire? "It doth not seem good to his infinite wisdom," they say, "so to do." Then is there an affection in God to that which, in his wisdom, he cannot prosecute. This among the sons of men, the worms of the earth, would be called a brutish affection.

Last edited by goldenoldie; Tue May 17, 2016 2:05 PM.

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: goldenoldie] #52116
Tue May 17, 2016 6:27 PM
Tue May 17, 2016 6:27 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: goldenoldie
What exactly is a "more Calvinistic" disposition vs. a "less Calvinistic" disposition? Is a "four-point (sans Limited Atonement) Calvinist" still a Calvinist?

That's a sticky question because there are some variations among 4-pointers. Some of the Westminster Divines held to the "sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect" who had not embraced Amyraldianism. Personally, I don't accept any of their reasoning(s) in their defense of their position. And, obviously, the majority of the framers of the WCF didn't either. They may have been in full agreement with everything else so I wouldn't dismiss them fully, but rather I would say they were in serious error. What one of us doesn't hold to some error on something? scratchchin Without doubt, the 4-Point position is untenable given that the 5 Points are inextricably bound together. LOGICALLY if you deny any of the 5 Points, you lose all 5.

Originally Posted By: goldenoldie
We're so used to hearing about "Limited" and "Unlimited" Atonement, but tend to forget that the difference in the way this word is used by Semi-Pelagians and Calvinists is in the noun, and not the adjective.

Both sides limit the atonement. Calvinists limit the application to those whom the Father predestinated to be redeemed in Christ. All others limit the atonement in its design and efficacy, making it rest upon some 'free-will choice' of a spiritually dead sinner, which term they all reject and consequently they hold to a synergistic salvation; God does his part and man does his part. Billy Graham wrote in his book, How to be Born Again "God had done everything he can to save you. Now, it's up to you." igiveup

Originally Posted By: goldenoldie
Dr. Keathley's second corollary "God desires the salvation of humanity" destroys Calvinism at its root.

Yes, that statement was laughable. Calvinism, being the truth of God's revealed will cannot be 'destroyed'. Scripture is perspicuous in revealing that ALL that God desires WILL come to pass. IF that were not true, then there is no God. (too many biblical passages to quote, giggle).


re: John Owen...
An Exposition of John 3:16

The Atonement

For Whom Did Christ Die?

Introductory Essay to John Owen's "Death of Death in the Death of Christ"

The Old Gospel and the New


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: Pilgrim] #52119
Tue May 17, 2016 10:03 PM
Tue May 17, 2016 10:03 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
FL
ATulipNotADaisy Offline OP
Journeyman
ATulipNotADaisy  Offline OP
Journeyman
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 59
FL
No, I didn't get the statement from the article. It came from a Spring 2016 Sunday School book put out by Lifeway.

My first problem came with the author's statement, Those whom God has accepted in Christ".... Accepted???? Shouldn't that be chosen?

My second problem came with this paragraph:

"While Southern Baptists have stated their
general agreement on this doctrine, they continue to debate the specifics of what it means and how it works. Identifying Calvinism as a "second-order" doctrine, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted that "Calvinists and Arminians may disagree concerning a number of vital and urgently important doctrines or, at the very least, the best way to understand and express these doctrines. Yet both can acknowledge each other as genuine Christians." Can they? I think it depends on who they think Christ is and what He did on the cross. Did they have any part in their salvation?

My third problem is:
"Since differences over the doctrine of election can lead to "wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God's people,"31 it is a doctrine that is feared by some and avoided by others. One should approach the study of this subject with a spirit of humility toward oneself and Christian charity toward those who may hold different perspectives. True we should be humble and charitable, but we should also be willing and able to passionately defend what we believe. The go-along to get-along attitude just doesn't work here.

I was wondering why the title of the article was "Election - God's Gracious Purpose" but the article did not stick to that topic. It seems to me someone seeking direction on election would have to search further after reading the article.

Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52120
Tue May 17, 2016 10:27 PM
Tue May 17, 2016 10:27 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 5
Tennessee, USA,
soldierofChrist Offline
Plebeian
soldierofChrist  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 5
Tennessee, USA,
Quote:
It came from a Spring 2016 Sunday School book put out by Lifeway.


I had to stop reading right there... Because that is the problem! But no seriously, I read the rest of what you wrote and you were driving the nail right in the coffin. Great post's from the both of you. Soli deo gloria.

Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52121
Tue May 17, 2016 10:35 PM
Tue May 17, 2016 10:35 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: ATulipNotADaisy
My first problem came with the author's statement, Those whom God has accepted in Christ".... Accepted???? Shouldn't that be chosen?

yep BigThumbUp

Originally Posted By: ATulipNotADaisy
My second problem came with this paragraph:

"While Southern Baptists have stated their
general agreement on this doctrine, they continue to debate the specifics of what it means and how it works. Identifying Calvinism as a "second-order" doctrine, Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, noted that "Calvinists and Arminians may disagree concerning a number of vital and urgently important doctrines or, at the very least, the best way to understand and express these doctrines. Yet both can acknowledge each other as genuine Christians." Can they? I think it depends on who they think Christ is and what He did on the cross. Did they have any part in their salvation?

As I have mentioned before, this is paradigmatic "Tolerant Calvinism" which is diametrically opposed to HISTORIC, biblical Calvinism, vis a vis... The Canons of Dordt. Arminianism back then, and much more so now with the widely accepted semi-Pelagianism was at odds with some of the doctrines affirmed in the Belgic Confession. Consequently, they submitted a remonstrance listing 5 of their major disagreements, the rebuttal of which has become the infamous "Five Points of Calvinism". There was no possible compromise then by either party and there can be no compromise now or ever. If one does not embrace historic, confessional Calvinism then one embraces de facto a different god, a different Jesus, a different spirit, a different gospel and a synergistic/works salvation. This is simply the fact of the matter and no amount of hedging, skirting around, ignoring, distorting, etc., ad nauseam all under the guise of being 'loving' can change the truth that ONLY by grace alone is anyone reconciled to God and justified in Christ's atoning blood, which Calvinism ALONE teaches. I cannot acknowledge anyone who heartily embraces those doctrines which are antithetical to what is known as Calvinism, the Doctrines of Grace, the Reformed Faith, et al as a Christian. And let me be 100% clear on this matter... intellectually assenting to the doctrines of Calvinism doesn't mean one is infallibly saved either. I have known too many 'intellectuals' who could articulate the doctrines who were far from the kingdom of God.

Originally Posted By: ATulipNotADaisy
My third problem is:
"Since differences over the doctrine of election can lead to "wrongful argumentativeness and divisiveness among God's people,"31 it is a doctrine that is feared by some and avoided by others. One should approach the study of this subject with a spirit of humility toward oneself and Christian charity toward those who may hold different perspectives. True we should be humble and charitable, but we should also be willing and able to passionately defend what we believe. The go-along to get-along attitude just doesn't work here.

Simply put, I agree with the late Dr. John Gerstner who rightly stated that the real problem is not the doctrine of predestination/election but rather the doctrine of Total Depravity. For if the doctrine of Total Depravity is true, which it incontrovertibly is, then Unconditional Election is the ONLY WAY anyone could be saved. He went on to say that when the Spirit of God brings upon you a true conviction of sin and you realize just how far gone you actually are, then you'll be just like Martin Luther... You'd believe in Unconditional Election even if wasn't in the Bible. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: goldenoldie] #52154
Tue May 24, 2016 9:43 AM
Tue May 24, 2016 9:43 AM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 5
St. Louis MO.
BereanMe Offline
Plebeian
BereanMe  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 5
St. Louis MO.
Hello Everyone,
Since being introduced to the Doctrine of Grace I have studied much on what happened at the Synod of Dordtrecht, not that it takes a whole lot to see, but when I was first asked to read it. I did't know what was going on confused However my continued reformed study helped me understand exactly what happened and when I want to show that Arminianism is not only error but heretical. I often refer a person to the Synod of Dort. As Pilgrim said, many don't know about this and many have forgotten. That is why I feel Church History should be taught often in every Christian Church. This is my first reply to a post here on the Highway:-) I'm excited to grow and learn with you all.

Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: BereanMe] #52155
Tue May 24, 2016 12:24 PM
Tue May 24, 2016 12:24 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA


Thanks for jumping in and sharing your thoughts. grin

I am in total agreement with your conclusion about what happened at the Synod of Dordt, i.e. that Arminianism was not only found to be an error but heretical... damnable heresy. FYI I did my thesis on the Synod of Dordt, aka: The Quinquarticular Controversy of 1618-19. And let us not be remiss in realizing that what is now the 'popular view' being taught by the vast majority of evangelical churches is far worse than what the Remonstrants set forth at Dordt. What is being taught and believed today is semi-Pelagianism. R.C. Sproul Sr., wrote an informative article relating to this subject which you can read here: The Pelagian Captivity of the Church. BigThumbUp


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52158
Tue May 24, 2016 1:57 PM
Tue May 24, 2016 1:57 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 226
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 226
NJ/PA
I found this to be an interesting quote...

As by nature we are prone to fall into evil, we have need of various helps to help us in the fear of God. Unless our faith is repeatedly encouraged, it lies dormant; unless it is warmed, it grows cold; unless it is aroused, it gets numb. ~ John Calvin

On the flipside, I sometimes feel Calvinists have a higher standard of a post-presumption, true conversion than Brother Calvin ..... I understand our walk will show our intent and there is a discipline and obedience component tht transcends any type of attempt to work or earn salvation, but some high Calvinists have sin sniffing tendencies.... Which stinks cause we are yet sinners, are we not?

Last edited by AJ Castellitto; Tue May 24, 2016 1:58 PM.
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: ATulipNotADaisy] #52159
Tue May 24, 2016 1:59 PM
Tue May 24, 2016 1:59 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 226
NJ/PA
Anthony C. Offline
Enthusiast
Anthony C.  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 226
NJ/PA
I do love RC Sproul....

On a side and related note, I see different stages of belief....actually, not stage in order but in saving or no.... I think all 3 are necessarily experienced

1. The belief that God exists and we are sinners

2. The knowledge that I am a sinner and am deserving of eternal judgement

3. The knowledge that in me lies no good thing and I place my life and all that I am on the mercy and grace on the Object of mercy/grace...And I keep turning and depending on Him for strength and forgiveness.....

At the end of the good fight, election will be finalized, at least from our finite perspecrive but I don't worry about election, to me it's good news! Not for just me, but for all sinners....there would be no hope without it

Last edited by AJ Castellitto; Tue May 24, 2016 2:21 PM.
Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: Pilgrim] #52163
Tue May 24, 2016 4:58 PM
Tue May 24, 2016 4:58 PM
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 5
St. Louis MO.
BereanMe Offline
Plebeian
BereanMe  Offline
Plebeian
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 5
St. Louis MO.
Hi Pilgrim,
I read that very interesting article when my Dear Sister Patrice posted it on FB! I was so excited about it, I read it 3 times!!! I have come to love Church History I'm excited everyday that God in His Sovereignty has kept us all the way til now!!! I get really excited.... I was baptist until November of 2015...If you can believe a baptist who has always felt that babies should be baptized from birth!...well I think some did and maybe still do. I Love Luther even though I have come to find that because he was roman catholic his theology was not what ours is today, but he made a very brave stand and we are still standing today because of it. Soli Deo Gloria!!!

My Quote:
Erasmus attacked the pope in his belly, but I have attacked him in his doctrine! ~Martin Luther

Re: Reaction to this statement [Re: Anthony C.] #52164
Tue May 24, 2016 5:17 PM
Tue May 24, 2016 5:17 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,432
NH, USA
1. What is "a higher standard of post-presumption, true conversion"?

2. What is a "high Calvinist"?

There is nothing inherently wrong with the Puritans, IMO. In fact, they should be read far more than they are today, if they are read at all. What you might be reacting to is the MISUSE and/or DISTORTION of what the Puritans wrote, e.g., on sanctification.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 4 guests, and 130 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Micki Bowman, Nigel J, wischnotes, Dutch Michael, Ray
927 Registered Users
Shout Box
June
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
766,449 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.057s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 2.9903 MB (Peak: 3.3000 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-06-18 07:44:31 UTC