Based on faith

Van · Jun 2, 2021

Dave G said: ↑

Respectfully,
It cannot be both.
SNIP
Click to expand...

Faith is according to grace, thus yet another verse denied by Calvinism

JonC · May 9, 2022

AustinC said: ↑

A quote from CH Spurgeon.

"When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this.

I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths [the doctrines of sovereign, overcoming grace] in my own soul — when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron, and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown, on a sudden, from a babe into a man — that I had made progress in Scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, that clue to the truth of God.

One weeknight, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher’s sermon, for I did not believe it.

The thought struck me, How did you come to be a Christian? I sought the Lord. But how did you come to seek the Lord? The truth flashed across my mind in a moment — I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so?

Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, “I ascribe my change wholly to God.”"
Click to expand...

AustinC said: ↑

“Yes the Word of God is powerfully persuasive in itself, but until born again, unregenerate men cannot and will not be persuaded by it." -- John Owen
Click to expand...

AustinC said: ↑

Let's just be honest here.
Most Christians today are theologically illiterate. To read Owens takes intellectual effort and most are simply incapable of the effort. This is true with other theologians like Jonathan Edwards. Instead, people gravitate to an easy devotional read from Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, or Tony Evans. The devotionals fill an emotional void and are easy to follow.
The problem with such easy reading is that we aren't asked to exercise our theology. In becoming theologically out of shape there comes all these wolves in sheeps clothing and the sheep are too illiterate to even notice. We end up with emergent liberals like Rob Bell or open theist thinkers like Greg Boyd or fluffy nothings like Joel Osteen who simply lull people into a cozy feeling without ever knowing they are drifting toward hell. (Read the sermon to the Hebrews)
As to reading.
Go to the primary source, God's word. Observe it, question it, and interpret it. Then go to the great saints of old and see if they agree with you or if you have some wackadoodle thought that no one ever considered. If no one has that view...then I suggest you abandon it immediately. No one holds it precisely because it's wrong.
This is also where the confessions of faith come in. When we write out what we believe we measure it against the great saints of old and what they confessed. If we are confessing something never confessed before, then stop it. Go back and see what you missed because it's a sure bet you're dumber than the saints of old who wrote the confessions.
Ultimately, lone rangers today are simply arrogant people who imagine they are intellectual superiors to the saints of the past and foolishly pawn off bad theology as though it were valuable thought. A person who reads the great saints of old will recognize the puny thought of todays lone rangers and will call out the foolishness of said thought.
Click to expand...

AustinC said: ↑

Owen is not for the light reader, but he is rich in truth.
Click to expand...

AustinC said: ↑

I hadn't heard this until you bring it up here. I found this quote, which I find interesting.

I recently replied to a JW on /r/TrueChristian about how they believe that Christ is the chief angel in heaven. The infamous controversy is they believe that there is only one archangel and that it is only Christ. I brought up how Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the chief princes", and from that I noted that there must be more than one chief prince, thus there is not just one as they claim.

But when I looked at the commentaries of this verse I found something that surprised me:

John Wesley: "Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ."

John Gill: "and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes""

Geneva: "even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels."

And then I looked at the Wikipedia article for Michael, and at the Protestant section it states:

Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Trinitarian, stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”, and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father. In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)

Is Michael the Archangel the pre-incarnate Christ? : Reformed
Click to expand...

Based on faith

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator

Based on faith

Van Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JonC Moderator Moderator

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JonC Moderator
Moderator