Charles,

I am not avoiding your questions. My pastor is in London for two weeks and I am covering most of the bases in his absence. Perhaps it would be better if you and I correspond through email.

I find the example texts themselves to be problematic, it could easily be that the Israelites remember that in Numbers 12-14 God told them He was giving them the land of Canaan and they ‘chose’ not to believe in Him and ended up spending an extra forty years in the desert.

In Numbers, God specifically told them he was giving them the land of Canaan, they decided to not follow suite and they did not get the land, at least not at that point.

So using times when the Israelites followed God and got what He said they would get needs to balanced with when God told them they would get something but because they didn’t follow His words or believe in those words they did not get what God said.

God said one thing, but because of the Israelites actions, God did not do what he said he would do. In this instance, Israels actions appear to be causing a reaction from God, so our actions could have an outcome, though I would agree they don’t change in the least bit God’s ultimate plan.

I attend a very good SBC but I can’t seem to get the pastor to tell me if he is a Calvinist or not. He says we’ll know all about it in heaven.

I want to understand why pastors won’t commit, esp SBC pastors.. One of my pastors said that he certainly was not Arminian and after a long answer he said he had trouble with two of the five points in TULIP. They are good pastors and it is a good Church.

However I am a strong Calvinist non-compatibiilist and very evangelistic (supra) and I can stay in a Church as long as they will allow me. I am bold about my Calvinism. I was raised a Wesleyan-pentecostal.

When I come across a belief as your Church’s I wonder how open they are to Calvinist and specifically how someone like yourself adapts to it.

It states “..from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior.” It neither allows nor demands faith following new birth. It states it clearly, the new birth follows trusting Christ.

Brian has a struggle with hyper-Calvinism, a worn out strawman. I have a struggle with hypo-Calvinism and their free offer. It is a genuine struggle and I am looking for perspectives.

You say that the statement “allows trusting Christ to precede being born again. It does not demand it.

Jeff

Your Church’s belief states: “It is the privilege of all who are truly born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior.”

This is not a reformed position rather a position that allows trusting Christ to precede being born again.

Since your Church believes man is “totally unable to please God” what is your Church’s position as to how a person comes to trust in Christ?

Okay, I’ll rephrase it: According to Calvinism, it does matter what you do in order to fulfill God’s predetermined plan, but you cannot frustrate or control this plan — so, in a way, you do not control what you do. It will happen because God will change hearts/desires/wills to fulfill his plan. Now, I don’t agree with this, and I find it highly problematic, but it is the, by far, dominant Reformed position.

S&S,

I agree with you on Bavinck, not surprised that Schreiner would say the same, but I couldn’t say about Turretin (Heppe has been my main guide to the Reformed scholastics, so I’m thinking about Polanus, J. H. Heidegger, etc.). Regardless, this is an almost impossible issue to pinpoint theologians on, since many prefer a sort of dialectic both/and.

“This is Calvinism — it is as clear as day in the Princetonians, in Edwards, in the Westminster Standards, and in 17th century Reformed orthodoxy.”

Actually, Bavinck would definitely side with Jeff on this one. Same with Thomas Schreiner, and I’m pretty sure Turretin would as well. Ends through means even if the means are ordained as well. Free and yet determined.

Kevin,

I am not talking of secular fatalism but the common misunderstanding of God’s sovereignty in election. Grudem says that an objection of fatalism is based on the incorrect idea of a “system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. . . . no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained” (Systematic Theology, 674). So I am not speaking of blind fate but a passive resignation that says “que sera, sera.”

I agree that what will happen will happen because of the predetermined plan of God. At the same time, part of that predetermined plan is the means to reach that end, or “secondary processes” as you say. I don’t think it is wise to use the word “regardless” when discussing these issues.

Bethyada,

I had the same thoughts as I awoke this morning and then I read your comment. Compatibilism deals with the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s will. However, the issue of man’s responsibility, which I address in the post, naturally follows this discussion and follows closely. That is the point compatibilists make from the Gen 50, Acts 4, and Isaiah 10 passages. The issues are joined but there are fine distinctions.

That’s what I was intending to say, in spite of however it came across the first time =).

God (the Holy Spirit) regenerates the believer first and foremost- salvation is entirely a gift of God.

-ACR