Hi Guys

alwight

alwight

New member
S.T. Ranger said:
lol...thanks, Alwight, but a welcome from an atheist will not be refused.

Isle of Wight...awesome. Must be nice to live in such a place.


God bless.
Click to expand...
Yes thanks it is.
Can I presume you are American? I found myself in Isle of Wight County VA almost by accident once, but that's not even an island?:liberals:
 
S

S.T. Ranger

New member
alwight said:
Yes thanks it is.
Can I presume you are American? I found myself in Isle of Wight County VA almost by accident once, but that's not even an island?:liberals:
Click to expand...

That's funny, because yes, I am an American, and in fact live in Virginia, lol.

So...do much fishing?


God bless.
 
S

S.T. Ranger

New member
Saved.One.by.Grace said:
Welcome stranger. Since you quoted R. C. Sproul, I suspect we'll be in agreement on many things. Even if we're not, welcome anyway.
Click to expand...


That could very well be true, but I should warn you, though I believe R.C. is one of the greatest teachers we have at this time, and most of my Theology would be found in agreement with Reformed Theology, R.C. and I differ on a few points, and I won't bore you with th...

...well, yes I will, lol.

The controversy which is centered around "free will" is where I separate myself from both a Reformed as well as Arminian view. Most Reformed would state regeneration as necessary for the natural man to place faith in Christ, whereas an Arminian view mistakenly ascribes the ability to understand the Gospel (or other spiritual things of God, basically) to the natural man.

My position, and I think I can make a pretty good case for it, is that both sides neglect Christ's teachings concerning the Comforter's Ministry which did not start until He came, most folks agreeing this would be the Day of Pentecost. Now the Lord taught that He, the Comforter, would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, clarifying concerning sin..."because they believe not on me."

So it would appear that in order for the natural man to understand the Gospel, he is reliant upon the Comforter enabling his natural mind that he might be convicted of sin, the Lord's righteousness, and understand the penalty he is under which causes him to respond to this ministry.

It is my belief that the unveiling of the Gospel came and comes through the Spirit's ministry in the hearts of men, and did not begin until He came. The disciples were told repeatedly that Christ would die for them, yet they did not understand until Baptized with the Holy Spirit (which is a salvific event which takes place at the time of regeneration.

Lastly, going back to the Reformed and Arminian view, we would have to say that if a man had to be regenerated in order to understand, then we can make a case for loss of salvation (which doctrine I reject fully). Because we know there are numerous passages that ascribe full understanding to those that are condemned, there must be an answer as to how a natural man can be charged as guilty of willingly and knowingly rejecting Christ. This would not be possible if he could not understand, and again, it is not possible for the regenerate to be made unregenerate again, any more than one can physically be unborn. The eternal union of God and man that takes place in salvation is just that, eternal, and He is our guarantee of that very thing.

Going back to R.C., few men I would rather hear teach. R.C. helps us to understand that Atheists do not have a corner on the market on logic and critical examination of the issues that separate. Quite the contrary. That we differ in certain areas makes little difference to me, and when we get to Heaven I will refrain from saying "I told you so!"

Just kidding.

This is a standard issue I test on every forum I go to, and I do this not to test others' doctrinal positions, but my own first. And the more I test it the more I am convinced that the New Covenant has to be distinguished greatly from the Covenants that came before which held the very promises brought to completion through Christ.

And sorry for getting so long-winded, and thanks for the welcome.


God bless.
 
S

S.T. Ranger

New member
alwight said:
That's quite a coincidence.
I used to scuba dive but almost no fishing, I just eat fish.:)
Click to expand...

Gotta be careful with that...so do sharks!

My heritage goes back to Ireland and Scotland (Scotch-Irish! a great uncle once made abundantly clear to me, lol). I've always wanted to visit, but figure one day I can tour for free, lol.
 
Saved.One.by.Grace

Saved.One.by.Grace

New member
S.T. Ranger said:
That could very well be true, but I should warn you, though I believe R.C. is one of the greatest teachers we have at this time, and most of my Theology would be found in agreement with Reformed Theology, R.C. and I differ on a few points, and I won't bore you with th...

...well, yes I will, lol.

The controversy which is centered around "free will" is where I separate myself from both a Reformed as well as Arminian view. Most Reformed would state regeneration as necessary for the natural man to place faith in Christ, whereas an Arminian view mistakenly ascribes the ability to understand the Gospel (or other spiritual things of God, basically) to the natural man.

My position, and I think I can make a pretty good case for it, is that both sides neglect Christ's teachings concerning the Comforter's Ministry which did not start until He came, most folks agreeing this would be the Day of Pentecost. Now the Lord taught that He, the Comforter, would convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, clarifying concerning sin..."because they believe not on me."

So it would appear that in order for the natural man to understand the Gospel, he is reliant upon the Comforter enabling his natural mind that he might be convicted of sin, the Lord's righteousness, and understand the penalty he is under which causes him to respond to this ministry.

It is my belief that the unveiling of the Gospel came and comes through the Spirit's ministry in the hearts of men, and did not begin until He came. The disciples were told repeatedly that Christ would die for them, yet they did not understand until Baptized with the Holy Spirit (which is a salvific event which takes place at the time of regeneration.

Lastly, going back to the Reformed and Arminian view, we would have to say that if a man had to be regenerated in order to understand, then we can make a case for loss of salvation (which doctrine I reject fully). Because we know there are numerous passages that ascribe full understanding to those that are condemned, there must be an answer as to how a natural man can be charged as guilty of willingly and knowingly rejecting Christ. This would not be possible if he could not understand, and again, it is not possible for the regenerate to be made unregenerate again, any more than one can physically be unborn. The eternal union of God and man that takes place in salvation is just that, eternal, and He is our guarantee of that very thing.

Going back to R.C., few men I would rather hear teach. R.C. helps us to understand that Atheists do not have a corner on the market on logic and critical examination of the issues that separate. Quite the contrary. That we differ in certain areas makes little difference to me, and when we get to Heaven I will refrain from saying "I told you so!"

Just kidding.

This is a standard issue I test on every forum I go to, and I do this not to test others' doctrinal positions, but my own first. And the more I test it the more I am convinced that the New Covenant has to be distinguished greatly from the Covenants that came before which held the very promises brought to completion through Christ.

And sorry for getting so long-winded, and thanks for the welcome.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Since I temporarily lost Internet access at home, and I am now at work, I will be brief. I do not call myself Reformed, although I believe in many of the same things. I am a Calvinist of the TULIP variety. I refer to myself as a Fundamentalist Christian. I differ with Sproul on his end times interpretation, see John MacArthur's views more in line with my own. I differ from JM's views on the beginnings in Genesis, believing the straight Biblical interpretation by Finis Jennings Dake and others. That's it for now. Gotta go.
 
S

S.T. Ranger

New member
Saved.One.by.Grace said:
Since I temporarily lost Internet access at home, and I am now at work, I will be brief. I do not call myself Reformed, although I believe in many of the same things. I am a Calvinist of the TULIP variety. I refer to myself as a Fundamentalist Christian. I differ with Sproul on his end times interpretation, see John MacArthur's views more in line with my own. I differ from JM's views on the beginnings in Genesis, believing the straight Biblical interpretation by Finis Jennings Dake and others. That's it for now. Gotta go.
Click to expand...

Then we are likely to be very similar in our doctrine, as I too take a premillennial and futuristic view as MacArthur does.

But Sproul is good. Both are considered reformed, though they differ on some points. They are good friends from what I hear.

In a conference I listened to recently that had some notable reformed Theologians, it was interesting to hear them respond to the question "Do babies go to Hell." In short, MacArthur was the only one that answered head on as far as I was concerned, and it seemed to make the rest uncomfortable. That is another issue which comes up that makes for interesting discussion.


Gotta go myself, I have spent too much time on forums already, lol.

Again, thanks to all the welcomes, see you guys later.


God bless.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
S.T. Ranger said:
In a conference I listened to recently that had some notable reformed Theologians, it was interesting to hear them respond to the question "Do babies go to Hell." In short, MacArthur was the only one that answered head on as far as I was concerned, and it seemed to make the rest uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
I've heard MacArthur say that no baby (while still a baby) is or was ever condemned to hell, but that all babies that die are saved.
 
Saved.One.by.Grace

Saved.One.by.Grace

New member
S.T. Ranger said:
Then we are likely to be very similar in our doctrine, as I too take a premillennial and futuristic view as MacArthur does.

But Sproul is good. Both are considered reformed, though they differ on some points. They are good friends from what I hear.

In a conference I listened to recently that had some notable reformed Theologians, it was interesting to hear them respond to the question "Do babies go to Hell." In short, MacArthur was the only one that answered head on as far as I was concerned, and it seemed to make the rest uncomfortable. That is another issue which comes up that makes for interesting discussion.

Gotta go myself, I have spent too much time on forums already, lol.

Again, thanks to all the welcomes, see you guys later.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Sproul has many good videos on youtube, some of which I have posted elsewhere on this Forum. Since I believe a child begins life at conception, my wife and I believe we have two children in Heaven already. (We lost two during pregnancy ... but that's for another discussion.) It seems obvious to me too in spite of their differences, Sproul and MacArthur are friends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top