Slave of Christ. Husband. Father of two. Particular Baptist. I have determined to know nothing except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Joined March 2010
- Tweets15.1K
- Following2.6K
- Followers1.8K
- Likes38K
Credo Calvin retweeted
This is an AI reproduction of Curt Daniel’s new chart (on pp. xxvii–xxviii) comparing Mainline Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. Sorry about the size. Too much information is pushed into a tight space.
Hey @SteadfastBibles and @CambUP_Religion, any chance we could ever see a collaboration to make the Pitt Minion, Clarion, and Aquila in the LSB translation?
Whoever has friends over there who can set up a meeting between the two, do it!
This is still true. The use of this term earns you a block.
I don’t care about your theological indignation towards what you think Calvinism entails; if you use this term you don’t deserve a seat at the table of discussion.
Screenshot this and go cry in a corner. Here I stand.
Oh no!
Anyway…
Don’t get it twisted. Blake blocked me a while back (check the date on the second screenshot that I snapped back when it happened) because I said he was not fit to give advice on raising children because he is not a father. I’m sure he unlocked me just to post this little jab and not look like a hypocrite.
But I will keep him blocked because his opinions on theology have proven to be one of the worst I’ve ever seen on this platform, and that says a lot considering how low the bar is around here.
This is your brain on rabid and wild-eyed anti-Calvinism. This dude would rather go to hell and be separated from God for an eternity than believe in God as affirmed by Calvinism.
So, regarding @ManCity, if we live in a just society then the starting point of punishment should be restitution of all they stole, plus more.
4 then it shall be, when he sins and becomes guilty, that he shall return what he took by robbery or what he got by extortion, or the deposit which was entrusted to him or the lost thing which he found,
5 or anything about which he swore falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full and add to it one-fifth more. (Lev. 6:4–5a)
Along with this, their titles between 2010 and 2018 should be stripped. In fact, even their titles after 2018 should be stripped as well since it would be hard to argue that they could see the success they saw since 2018 without the cheating they committed in the 2010-2018 years. @EddyEkofo, I'm sure you could agree with this.
This ignores the distinction between the Decretive function of God’s will and the Preceptive function of God’s will.
New standing policy.
This kind of response to an attempt at good-faith dialogue will get you blocked. If you delete your account and then make a new one after a few months away then that one will get blocked too.
A point of clarification here regarding the question.
It is rather loaded in a sense. God’s drawing doesn’t “fail.” It is more proper to speak of “calling” as two distinct types of calling, a general one and an effectual one. And even then, the general call doesn’t “fail.” God simply chooses for that general calling to not be effectual. There is no attempt at calling only to be thwarted and fail, in other words.
But regarding the idea of these two callings in Scripture, we know that the way different authors use the term in is different. When Matthew describes Jesus using the term “called” (Matt. 22:14), He is speaking of a general call, made to all around. But Paul, by contrast, uses the term differently. When Paul speaks of “calling,” he is speaking of something effectual.
Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called (Rom. 1:1)
among whom you were also are the called (Rom. 1:6)
To all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints (Rom. 1:7)
God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist (Rom. 4:17)
God… works together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28)
and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified (Rom. 8:30)
not because of works but because of Him who calls (Rom. 9:11)
Even us, whom He called… from among Gentiles (Rom. 9:24)
For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29)
Paul, called as an apostle (1 Cor. 1:1)
To the church of God… called as saints (1 Cor. 1:2)
God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His son (1 Cor. 1:9)
God… set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace (Gal. 1:15)
These examples can be multiplied over and over again.
But for a more explicit and direct answer, just look at 1 Cor. 1:22–24.
22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22–24, LSB)
What is the difference here between the person who sees the gospel of Christ as the power and wisdom of God? It is in verse 24. “To those who are the called.” That is the effectual call. That is effectual grace. If every single person is given this exact same type of grace then every single person would see the gospel of Christ as the power and wisdom of God, and no one would see it as a stumbling block or foolishness.
Oz, efficacious is the better word, I'll use it, no issues.
But the substance is what my post named. Dort says God works so the elect are "certainly, infallibly, and effectually" converted, bending the will to faith in a way that cannot fail. Whatever you call it, for the elect the grace cannot finally be refused. That is the claim.
So the question it turns on: where does Scripture give two drawings, one that can fail and one that cannot? John 6 gives one, and defines it, "taught of God" (6:45). Then men who held the scriptures refused that teaching to His face (5:40).
The second drawing, the one that cannot be refused, is what the system adds to protect the first.
The text gives me one, and it gets resisted.
Did you read the essay?
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but plead with him as a father (1 Tim 5:1). Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger (Eph 6:4).
Yet how many of us are guilty of treating others harshly & provoking others to anger? We should take these exhortations more seriously.
Yea, hath God said?
Listen to me:
You were never born guilty due to the fall of Adam.
You were never born condemned, deserving of hell, unworthy, or a wretch.
Jesus never mentioned the fall of Adam and never taught any theology of original sin or total depravity.
You were born human with a heart capable of divine love and capable of missing the mark.
Your identity is that of a child of God and you have been born in his image.
God has created you just as you are and he loves you!
Jesus has invited you into his kingdom and to an abundant life.
Jesus was sent to perfectly reveal the love, character, and kingdom of God and calls us to live and to love according to his way, his truth, and his life!
This is quite possibly the weakest reason I’ve ever seen for someone to block me. I’ve been blocked for being a jerk, I fully admit. But I don’t think I was out of line here at all.
I have to wonder how many others who responded with correction were blocked? @JimmyParker87 @ThePastorBurris, did he block you guys?
Just because you phrase the question a certain way doesn’t mean people must answer it in that way, especially when they have legitimate reasons not to. I’ve seen your responses to people who say both are important and do not want to place one above the other.
You act like a jerk and act as if they can’t read the question, when their answer shows they certainly did read it as intended. They just answered in such a way to also correct the hidden assumption within the question.
This is similar to Spurgeon being asked which is more important to the Christian life, prayer or Bible reading and his response was “which is more important to breathing, inhaling or exhaling?”
The point is that both are equally as important. One can also argue, contrary to what you’ve told other people, that personal scripture reading and mediation is absolutely commanded in scripture. The difference is that corporate worship parameters are more explicitly laid out.
This is wild. When the Papists are accused of idolatry they all go up in arms. But when a cartoonist depicts God the Father holding a rosary, indicating that He is praying to Mary, they seemingly don’t care.
This is what pure blasphemy looks like.
Many young theologians, within all denominational perspectives, would benefit from taking this advice.
“Just as the author’s act cannot be morally neutral, neither can interpretation be ethically neutral. This should be obvious... Deliberately misconstruing a text to misrepresent its author is a morally reprehensible act; it is a kind of lying, a ‘bearing false testimony.’”
"Thus, the reader communes with the author's ideas. Even if the reader criticizes or rejects those ideas, he first attempts to understand , or set up in his own mind thoughts analogous to, those of the producer of the text. He aims for a 'meeting of meaning" with the author."