Originally Posted by Tom
I understand what you are saying.
However, somehow I believe he is using the words “calling” and “illumination” in the same way as we would use “regeneration”, not the same way “prevenient grace” is used.
He may using the words "calling" and "illumination" as substitutes for regeneration, [Linked Image]

Where does he get the "content" with which to legitimatize using those terms in that manner? It would seem he is arbitrarily defining those terms and relegating "regeneration" to the area of sanctification.

As for his disdain and/or ignoring what the overwhelming majority of Calvinists and the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms hold to, this smacks of what Keith Mathison rightly coined Solo Scriptura. When a person stands against such great testimony over 100's of years, then the onus is upon him/her to show where everyone else went wrong. Is it possible that men like Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, Watson, Berkhof, Warfield, Hodge, Sproul, et al were all wrong on this fundamental doctrine? Yes, it is possible but what are the odds, especially when they differed on other matters yet were in total agreement on this one? scratchchin

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]