Cynic

I’d vote for Oak being a fellow prone to present something of an uxorious appearance -- probably the guy on the left. (Confession: I’m cheating. I’m pretty sure I saw a more recent photo of O posted somewhere on this forum, and don’t recall there being the same level of resemblance between the fellow in that photo and the guy on the far right .)

I recently found obituaries for hymn writer Margaret Clarkson: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tory/BDA/deaths http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4236-Edith-Margare...n-1915-2008.htm Some of her hymns appear at Cyber Hymnal: http://www.hymntime.com/tch/bio/c/l/a/clarkson_m.htm Wheaton College’s website has somewhat of an overview of her life: http://www.wheaton.edu/learnres/ARCSC/exhibits/clarkson Her first words, according to the Wheaton College site, reportedly were “my head hurts,” and she lived a long life in chronic pain. She seemed to hold a strong view of the sovereignty of God: http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/o/f/ofayarso.htm Goodbye, dear lady, whose words and example have provided enrichment to Christ’s church.

Unconditional election is something that flows from the eternal self-counsel of God into redemptive history: God elects (Eph. 1:4-5), Christ redeems (Eph. 1:7) those whom God has elected, the Holy Spirit seals (Eph. 1:13) those whom God has elected and Christ has redeemed. Faith in Christ is something grounded in election (Acts 13:48) and brought about in the elect through the effectual calling of the Spirit (Eph.2:8) and the hearing of the Word. Not all those who hear the general call of the gospel have been appointed to eternal life, effectually called, and brought to true faith in Christ.

I didn’t think you could. It might give you some comfort, however, to notice that Time ranked "The New Calvinism" after "Recycling the Suburbs" in its top 10 list of purportedly world-changing "ideas."

Can you identify and provide a link to anything written by any Calvinistic theologian that indicates someone can be saved despite being non-elect?

WG, It was actually Spoudazo who offered the interpretation in question. Although I have a high overall regard for Spoudazo's post, I am not ready to endorse the subject interpretation. I am uncomfortable with my grasp of the nuances of Jesus' discourse, and I am rather clueless about the identity of those whom Jesus referred to as having come before him. I would have to spend some time considering it. There are more bad hombres than the hirelings you apparently find in your interlinear, however. In addition to the hireling, who is said to flee at the approach of the wolf, there is the thief who comes to steal, kill, destroy.

Spoudazo, Good post! It seems your choice of avatars was thoughtful and deliberate.

Jesus indicated he would deny and would say he had never known some who would cite their prophesying, casting out of demons, and performing of mighty works (in His name) to attempt to identify themselves as believers at the time of judgment. I don’t know how one can have operations of the Spirit without really being Christ’s, but there are scriptural indications that it is possible. I speculate that some people might partake in operations of the Spirit that move in the visible church or through those in ministry offices, despite the fact that some visible church members and holders of ministerial offices are unregenerate. Caiphas was a conspirator against and enemy of Christ, but he prophesied concerning Christ through what possibly was an operation of the Spirit. These are questions that touch on election, limited atonement, and some other things. I highly recommend reading "Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved, by John Piper. It is an excellent and theologically robust piece. ( http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...o_Wills_in_God/ ) There seem to be an aspect of God's will that is inviting and accepting in a general sense, and an aspect of God's will that is so in a discriminating sense. Jesus did not seem to be wooing followers in the chapter-6 section of John's gospel where he told masses following him that no one could come to Him, except the Father draw him: (John 6:44) Genuine, saving faith is brought about in the elect by the Holy Spirit through His effectual calling of them. The WCF states: “they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season." The reprobate (non-elect) might respond in some way (e.g. they can answer an altar call, pray, attend church, smile at Christians, tithe) to the general call of the Gospel, but are not effectually called, and do not have genuine faith. An illustration of the difference between the general call of the Gospel and the effectual call of the Spirit working through the Gospel is John Bunyan’s (The Pilgrim's Progress) contrast between the sounds of a chicks-calling hen that is heard throughout the barnyard and the act of the hen who subsequently goes and gathers her own to herself. We cannot see into the mind of God to know his decrees. The so-called Westminster divines recognized that “the doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care.” The doctrine can be unsettling, but it does not unsettle all people. I think it is particularly abhorrent to ex-Wayfers, many of whom seemed attracted to PFAL’s law of believing as their super-duper protector against death, disease, and natural evil, and a appropriator of salvation, health, and prosperity from a heavenly benefactor who had passively limited himself to their believing. I came to believe in unconditional election reluctantly, only after recognizing there was a clear and undeniable representation of the truth in Loraine Boettner’s (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) statement: “A further important proof that Paul taught the doctrine which Calvinists have understood him to teach is found in the objections which he put in the mouths of his opponents,—that it represented God as unrighteous: "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Rom. 9:14; and, that it destroyed man's responsibility: "Thou wilt then say unto me, Why doth He still find fault? For who withistandeth [sic] His will?" Rom. 9:19. These are the very objections which today, on first thought, spring into men's minds, in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination; but they have not even the least plausibility when directed against the Arminian doctrine. A doctrine which does not afford the least grounds for these objections cannot have been the one that the Apostle taught.” (See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.iii.html .) Calvinists irritate me sometimes with their monomania about several topics (e.g. election, predestination, limited atonement) of discussion, but I'm prone to grow irritated in my standard mode. I am concerned, nonetheless, that Reformed distinctives take up too much of the Reformed conversion that should involve much more Christology than it usually does. I recall someone (probably Boettner or Arthur Pink), however, stating that Calvinism is strong scriptural medication for folks for whom no other remedy is going to do. I don’t have knowledge about the souls of other Reformed Christians, but the statement fits well in my case.

My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in some manner independent of faith in Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith, with which all authentic Reformed churches would have significant and fundamental levels of agreement, posits the possibility of elect unbelievers only in the cases of “elect infants, dying in infancy” and “other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Following are several chapters from the Westminster Confession of Faith (source: http://opc.org/wcf.html ) where people can read actual statements concerning doctrinal issues that are being misrepresented (I have emphasized some statements): For those wanting to discover the doctrinal characteristics and systematic theological flavor of Reformed theology, I recommend the following: The Westminster Confession of Faith The Belgic Confession The London Baptist Confession of 1689 Also, http://www.monergism.com has many Reformed resources.

Thanks, Geisha! I have heard of Tozer somewhere along the line, but know nothing about him. I saved the link, and plan to give his work a look.

Geisha, I cannot really give you a definitively “Reformed perspective” on the thousand-year reign. To begin with, Reformed folks vary in their eschatological views, though they seem (presently at least) predominately to be amillennialists or postmillennialists. Secondly, although I lean very heavily towards amillennialism, there are a number of unconsidered and undefined elements in my own eschatological views. I don’t mind trying to answer some of your questions, but you might try posting a question to the website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church at http://opc.org/contact_handler.php?contact...estion=theology . The one question I posted there was assigned to a professor of systematic theology, who answered the substance of the question correctly. and who was even quite candid in comments questioning the breadth of acquaintance with the issue among the Reformed ministerial community. The http://www.two-age.org site is amillennial. Amillennialism is characterized, of course, by the belief that there will not be a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth, maintaining rather that Christ is now reigning from heaven. I came across something by Vern Poythress indicating amillennialsts have had varying emphases and views across history, but some recent amillennial theologians whom I think are serious Christian believers and biblical scholars who have enlightened the eschatological conversation are Geerhardus Vos, Meredith Kline, and Richard Gaffin – though I reject a number of things (e.g. the “framework hypothesis”) maintained by Kline.

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. – Matthew 16:27-28 (ASV) Mark, From the present historical vantage point, some fundamental assumptions, and a broad consideration of other scriptural passages, some of us infer that the Lord is speaking both of something that was temporally distant and something that was temporally rather near. I do not think you can identify any people who heard Jesus speak, and who are now more than 1900 years old. I do not think, furthermore, you would consider those who sleep in Christ to qualify as people who have not tasted of death in any wise. I also do not think you can offer a plausible notion of what the Lord is saying in a way that is really consistent with your apparent assumptions. While Matthew 16:27-28 is a passage that might be initially difficult for all, interaction with it and/or similar passages seems to be something that reveals the teachings and theology of some to be shipwrecked. Full preterists, for instance, wildly maintain that Christ returned, that all biblical prophesy was fulfilled, and that the resurrection of the dead occurred in 70 A.D. John Schoenheit and some others (e.g. Albert Schweitzer), on the other hand, have engaged in commentary that ostensibly portrays Jesus as possessing false expectations about the timing of eschatological events, and erring in some eschatological statements. The kingdom of God both has come and is yet to come. Citing scriptures that indicate the kingdom of God to be future does not carry your argument. Doing so supports a non-controversial point (i.e. that the kingdom of God is scripturally referred to as a future eschatological event). Your challenge is to interact with scriptures that indicate the kingdom of God is a present reality.

I notice what I posted seems much the same as John Piper's view (posted by Geisha), though the www.two-age.org folks possibly give more emphasis to the present kingdom reality.

(deleted -- double post)

I am trying to stay away from posting at Grease Spot (in part to concentrate on developing content at my website), but I recommend that anyone interested in some convincing commentary concerning the age to come -- and whether Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God or whether the Kingdom of God is yet to come -- read the following short articles: http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/eschatology.htm http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm The first coming of Christ was an eschatological event (1 Cor. 10:11). Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of God and presently reigns as King. The Kingdom has been established spiritually, and the redemptive benefits of Christ’s work transmitted by the person of the Holy Spirit to those who are Christ’s. This kingdom will be established visibly on Earth, however, at a future eschatological event. Those who have been redeemed by Christ are in the kingdom -- NOW (Colossians 1:13)

1. I do not hold that theology and Christology are "simple." 2. I am theologically and Christologically intolerant, though I am not intolerant to the same degree about every subject. 3. Why not be intolerant? a. Theological and Christological relativism or apathy is a spiritual disaster. b. Epistemological relativism is a philosophical heresy. 4. YOU are making an issue of my intolerance? HAH!

I do not recall ever maintaining Unitarians – or agnostics or atheists, for that matter – generally are “too stupid” to “see it.” I actually figure Unitarians and atheists range intellectually and ethically from gifted and functionally sensitive humans (in non-theistic matters) to intellectually somewhat other-than-honest-or-gifted little fellows who live in chronic irritation and/or have some never-reachable desire to attain and exert their manhood.

I figure their psilanthropic teachers and polemicists could do some rather Christ-less expositions and moralizing from biblical passages, and carry on a pseudo-hermeneutical boogie till the break of day.

Happy Birthday, Shell!

Thomas, Thanks for your words and your posts. You brought an offering of Lutheran hymns that I had not read or heard. For reasons I do not want to bring up in this thread, however, I have been avoiding posting at GSC, and possibly will return, following this post, to reading-only status for an indefinite period. My purpose in starting this thread was to acquaint (and draw in a few other folks to acquaint) ex-Wayfers with a broader sampling of Christian hymns than the selections of the TWI songbook. My exposure to Christian hymns, though broader than the TWI experience, is obviously quite narrow, compared to yours. You have an extensive knowledge of hymnody (which is something that probably goes with being an educated church music director). I will post what will probably be my final links for this thread. Links to audio files should appear near the top center of the web pages for which I have provided URLs. The audio files are not midi files, but are hymn performances by what seems, to my ears, to be a talented choir. Some hymns have appeared previously in this thread, though some, I think, have not. Thanks, again, Thomas, for your erudite input and participation in this thread. Some hymns: “I Greet Thee Who My Sure Redeemer Art,” (Strasbourg Psalter -- sometimes attributed to John Calvin) http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...re-redeemer-art “Holy, Holy, Holy,” (Reginald Heber) http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/holy-holy-holy “Alleluia, Sing To Jesus,” (William Dix) http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...a-sing-to-jesus “Thine Be The Glory,” (Edmund L. Budry) (Aka: "Thine Is The Glory") http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/thine-be-the-glory “And Can It Be,” (Charles Wesley) http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/and-can-it-be “We Come O Christ To You,” (Margaret Clarkson) http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...o-christ-to-you “All Glory, Laud And Honor,” (Theodulph of Orleans) http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...-laud-and-honor ***** George, It has been pleasant trying to name a few hymns and guess a few authors -- as well as interesting trying to enlighten a few liberals -- with you. Adieu

"Alan [sic] Ginsberg"? A desire to consume alcoholic beverages and/or illegal drugs with a NAMBLA member and literary (and possibly practicing) pederast seems a rather low (not to mention icky) aspiration, even for one of the left-of-center denizens of GSC’s political forum -- though I figure it is attributable to a trendily-pluckish anti-establishment mindset and some biographical ignorance about Ginsberg. As for me, I'd probably go for swilling Heinekens with Cornelius Van Til or V8 juice with Meredith Kline. Rather than do something that would imply recognition of the likes of Allen Ginsberg as socially tolerable, however, I'd opt for eating pretzels with and/or listening to a lecture on Russian literature or epistemology from Dan Quayle.

Well, I guess you folks should credit me for having sensitivities and a level of compassion superior to Geisha’s: I haven’t spent a nanosecond praying for your sorry asses.

An informative answer to your question is probably going to venture into speculation rather than be restrained to exegesis. At the following link, however, is one interesting, though somewhat speculative view: http://www.leithart.com/2005/05/27/noahs-nakedness Disclaimer: Although I find this view interesting, I will not presently endorse it.

Characteristics of a true church (audio discussion of various views) http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_Whi...?bcd=10/26/2008 Church directories Presbyterian and Reformed http://www.naparc.org/directories.html Reformed Baptist http://www.farese.com/rbcd/ Reformed Theology in Brief http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/lor_boettner...sthegospel.html Theological Resources http://www.monergism.com

Happy Birthday, Ex10!