tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post5927186962533914101..comments2023-07-22T04:24:08.498-04:00Comments on Controversial Calvinism: Whose (sic) afraid of R.T. Kendall?Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-58875244124224958752010-05-07T23:22:33.478-04:002010-05-07T23:22:33.478-04:00Thanks for your kind words, Eric, and for taking t...Thanks for your kind words, Eric, and for taking the time to respond on the blog.<br /><br />I agree whole-heartedly that the scriptures, and not Calvin, are the only standards for true doctrine. But Calvin was certainly one of the best expositors of the word of God that the church has ever had. So I make no apology for taking the time to understand his writings. This is especially important when, as I believe, he is being misunderstood in some important respects.<br /><br />Regarding Gerety's citations of Calvin, they prove 1) that Calvin did not hold to universal salvation, which I agree with; 2)that there is a doctrine of election, which I agree with; and 3) that the benefits of Christ's redemption are given only to the elect, which I agree with. Having proved only propositions that I agree with, I don't see how Gerety's quotes are in any way proof against my thesis. In fact, I think it shows a misunderstanding of my thesis to propose those quotes from Calvin as proof against something I've said. So I must respectfully disagree with you, Eric.<br /><br />Regarding labels, I find them convenient and sometimes historically important. In particular, the label "hyper-calvinist" has a meaning, though that meaning is often distorted by both Arminians and Calvinists. <br /><br />Thanks again for your kindness, Eric, and the Christian tone of your comment.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-61915365750228825762010-05-07T14:48:58.869-04:002010-05-07T14:48:58.869-04:00Hello and good day! I just want to say thank you ...Hello and good day! I just want to say thank you for your contribution to this vast ocean of vigorous theological discussion. You have a well written, educated approach and more people in the evangelical community should be as committed and passionate as you in knowing and loving God and his precious word. So, thank you for your contribution.<br /><br />First, I want to say that I completely agree that Calvin codified a myriad of ruminations regarding the Atonement within his voluminous writings. <br /><br />Even though I do firmly hold to Particular Redemption and to the idea that impetration and application are inseparable in the sovereign purposes of God in his sovereign choice of the elect to salvation, I just want to say that I don’t believe proving or disproving Calvin’s stance on this would change what I humbly believe the Bible teaches. Of course, this discussion is for another time. <br /><br />I do want to interact with a statement you made in your post. You said, "Some of my readers will have already spotted the problem in Gerety's proof texts: they are all irrelevant to the question." Respectfully, I do not believe they are irrelevant at all since Gerety's proof texts help support and work hand in hand with the reformed premise that "necessary application" is a benefit included in impetration and all of these statements by Calvin, in my opinion, comfortably support this premise. Arguing that Calvin makes statements in line with scripture that seem to broaden the extent doesn't negate the argument that Calvin embraced the former premise in his writings. If he did indeed support this premise, then I think it is reasonable to postulate that Calvin rightly taught that all men where the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense but that all men were not intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. I often times struggle with even wanting to have my theology labeled after another human as it can at times feel so restricted and in need of clarification. I do not consider myself a believer in LA because of logical deduction (though reason and logic are a part of everyone’s hermeneutical approach. I believe it because scripture interprets scripture and I see the fruition of this doctrine within the pages of God’s word. <br /><br />I do want to be very careful to remain prayerfully open to the Holy Spirits illuminatory guidance as I search the scriptures daily. Humility and unity in the Gospel of Christ is so important. <br /><br />Last, on a side note, I know full five pointers are often accused of being "hyper-Calvinists"; however, I actually detest that label very much and believe we should be laboring endlessly for the cause of Christ in furthering the Gospel in a lost and dying world. Faith and Repentance for the remission of sins should be preached endlessly without distinction to all people.<br /><br />-PeaceEric Gloverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16621101093134302170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-47370038883871630242009-04-29T12:44:00.000-04:002009-04-29T12:44:00.000-04:00Wait ... you're saying that we can know that Kenda...Wait ... you're saying that we can know that Kendall's analysis of Calvin's doctrine of faith is wrong because he has said something positive about ___________??<br /><br />And, if we apply the same reasoning to your comment, Anonymous, we know that what you say is false because your works show you to be a speaker of evil.<br /><br />I'm going to delete your comment just because I don't allow kooks here.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-50022446603392111272009-04-23T10:22:00.000-04:002009-04-23T10:22:00.000-04:00Quite right ... though, to be fair, this could pro...Quite right ... though, to be fair, this could probably be said for any element of Christian doctrine. :-)Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82776175389307051732009-04-22T16:51:00.000-04:002009-04-22T16:51:00.000-04:00Good posts here. There seem to be nearly as many d...Good posts here. There seem to be nearly as many different opinios about the truth of the atonement, as there are calvinstic chiefs. Probably to every doctrinal issue explained and aptly defined by one reformed scholar there is another one at hand that direclty contradicts him.a helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.com