Leaderboard

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.