• Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 205 other followers

  • Calendar

    June 2005
    M T W T F S S
    « May   Jul »
  • Usually Kind Reader Interaction

    moodyfastlane on Parenting is a Boring Ble…
    expastor2014 on Focus on the Preached One, not…
    Lori on I am Rachel Dolezal
    godcentered on I am Rachel Dolezal
    Dave on I am Rachel Dolezal
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Quote of the Week

Finally someone has said it! For the full context see the fascinating thread on SharperIron. The “quote of the week” (a new thing that I have started this week and plan to continue for at least a week) is from Dr. Kevin Bauder in response to — well, I think you’ll gather what he was responding to. Read the quote here….

Incidentally, I do not take seriously the ebullitions of those who insist that they are neither Calvinistic or Arminian—including the diatribe of the writer whom you mention [John VanGelderen]. The dividing line between Calvinism and Arminianism runs through unconditional election. Affirm that election is personal and is not conditioned by foreseen faith and you are a Calvinist (or at least “Calvinistic”). Make election impersonal or condition it upon God’s foresight and you are Arminian. Only a failure of integrity or nerve will keep a Christian from embracing the label that accurately describes his position. This tendency becomes especially obnoxious when someone insists that he is simply a “Biblicist”—as if any of the parties really intended to adhere to a theological system that he knew was unsupported biblically. What makes a person either Calvinistic or Arminian is not adherence to a system, but the conclusions that he draws (ostensibly from the Bible) on the question of unconditional election. [emphasis mine]

~ Dr. Kevin Bauder on SharperIron’s thread titled
“Charles Grandison Finney: Part One — Finney’s System”



2 Responses

  1. Beautiful.

    As has been often noted, if any one of the points can be independantly proven, all must of necessity follow; which makes the system to rock-solid, since each can be independantly proven!
    However, Dr. Bauder has really hit the nail on the head with his focus on personal, causative election- affirm it, and you must affirm at least three other points (I suppose I can be sympathetic toward those who still shy from the “dreaded ‘L”); reject it, and you must reject at least three others (I suppose it wouldn’t be logically inconsistent to still affirm Perseverance).
    What I find particularly frustrating is a supposed-affirmation of Depravity while repudiating Unconditional election. If unregenerate man cannot choose God (which is the historic understanding of Total depravity), then nothing BUT an unconditional election COULD be behind anyone’s salvation.
    Anyways, way to draw the line Dr. Bauder!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: