Gary McNees wrote:


>
> Calvinism teaches that regeneration . . .

So do I.  It is the most biblical reasonable explaination of what
happens and necessarily why.
>
> > Even Arminus wrote in agreement. . . .
>
> What you have stated is not complete enough.

Of course.  But one cannot touch on every point.  My primary notation
was to reflect the fact that Arminanism is not really what Arminus held
to himself.  He may have had inklings in that direction, but he was
humble enough that he recognized that such a direction was filled with
problematic questions.
>
> I believe that everyone who
> receives Christ by faith WIIL be saved, period.
>
Do you believe prevent grace is irresistable?
> > >
>
> Augustine changed his views on salvation, free will,
> and what sets apart Calvinism when he was 63 years
> old. Before that age Augustine believe in free will,
> that Christ died for all, that anyone could be saved
> by faith in Christ. After 63 years old, he started
> teaching (with regard to soteriology) basically
> what Calvinism teaches today. No free will,
> God damns from eternity past most of mankind.
> etc. All the abomniations of Calvinism today.
>
Actually, "no free will" places grace on an infinitely higher plain
that does any  version of Pelagianism.

A point-  God does not directly damn any one.  "Directly" is the
operative word in that sentence.  Rather, by passivity, He allows
fallen men to follow the course they have volintarily (but not freely)
chosen for themselves.  In Rom 1, the Pauline discription, "gave them
over" illustrates this fact.  There is both active and  passive aspects
to the Eternal Decree.
>
> I understand what Calvinism is very well. I have studied
> it for the last 30 years. I was a Calvinist for 30 years
> I was a teaching Elder in the Presbyterian church for
> some time. So don't tell me I don't know what Calvinism
> is.
>
Well then I apologize.  However, you did not express yourself as having
such an understanding.
>
> Do you have and have you read:
>
> Calvin,
Yes
>Gill,
No
>Hodge (Both),
Often
> Van Til
Extensively
>Clark,
Which one?
>Kuyper
not directly but I know of his work
>Owen
Who hasn't?
> Buswell,
No
>Berkof
Required reading.  Not my favorate ST.
>Zanchius, Bavinck, Dabney, Grudem
again, not directly
>Raymond,
Yes
> Edwards, Luther, Shaw, Warfield, etc.
Duh!  Yet $5 will get you $10 you never made through Edwards "Freedom
of the WIll."
>
> Well I have.
>
>
> > Read "Justification" by Terretin.
>
> Territin is one of the very few that I do not have and have not read.
Actually, it is Turretin.  They have recently released "Justification"
which is a small segment taken out of his larger work.  Worth the $8 to
read.  I feel he has one of the better understandings and discriptions
of Reformational justification.
>
> But I doubt the he differs much from all the others I have
> read and listed above.
>
Much better argumentation that the others.
>
> > Read Luther's "Bondage of the Will" or even Arminius's,
> > "Public Disputations."
>
> At least I understand that Arminius opposed the
> fundamentals of Calvinism as taught in TULIP.
>
TULIP is deduced from Calvin's writings.  It is debateable whether or
not he held to "L".   At this point, I think Shedd better understands
this and defines it than anyone I've yet to read.  I agree with his
definition of "limited".
>
> If you believe TULIP as enunciated by Sproul,
> Gerstner, etc. then I know where you stand.
>
The late John H. Gerstner?  Now there's a paradoxial figure.  His
earlier writings are excellent.  But the stuff he turned out over the
last 10 yrs almost vilifies the man.  I use to refer others to him
because of historical expertise.  But then and especially, his 1991,
"Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth," which Sproul's org. resales with
glowing affirmation.  There are so **many** errors in this book that
one is hard pressed to consider his basic apology.  I completely agree
with Witmer's assessment of the book which was subtitled, "A Critique
of Dispensationalism" but "more appropriate subtitle would be 'A
Diatribe against Dispensationalism' in the dictionary definition of
'diatribe' as 'a bitter or abusive harangue.'"  [Bibsac #594]

I don't even know where to begin as far as listing all the incorrect
quotations, quotations either deliberately taken out of context or
unresearched.  Witmer's review sent him off looking into each and every
reference in Gerstners book.

It's too bad too.  It is a blemish on both Gerstner and Sproul in
support of this book of Gerstner, in respect to highly recognized
scholasticism.
>
> If you do not agree with for example Sproul,
> then I will have to try to understand how
> you differ from today's Calvinism.
>
I no longer know how to interpret Sproul.  His tape series titled
"Justification" I found to be excellent.  His "Willing to
Believe", a
short overview concerning "freewill" is also very helpful.  His tape
series and book on "Hell" was all too shallow.  Nothing compared to
Shedd's work.  When I hear him on the radio, I do not turn the channel.
His, "Ligonier Ministries" book list is to be commended.  But then
there is this thing with Gerstner's later works.  Compared to his
earlier stuff, its as if they are two different men.

I would have to say that if forced to choose between Sproul and Shedd,
Shedd would win out hands down.  Undoubtedly you have read Shedd?
BTW, where you stand on VanTil's presuppositional ethics?

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/16/04 4:17:33 PM