tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5275562068474891248..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "Abba! Father!"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41569473036409921592010-02-10T04:51:29.392-05:002010-02-10T04:51:29.392-05:00heh, here's the link
http://www.gracegems.org...heh, here's the link<br /><br />http://www.gracegems.org/Brooks/heaven_on_earth.htmANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67218902928807388172010-02-10T04:50:03.956-05:002010-02-10T04:50:03.956-05:00Edward, it was Patrick Chan who posted the blog, n...Edward, it was Patrick Chan who posted the blog, not Steve.<br /><br />you said...<br /><br /><i>Well, since the non-elect received did not receive the Spirit, and he can deceive himself, this is not much help.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean here. I think there might be a grammatical typo. Nevertheless, what do you mean by "this is not much help"? What specifically is your concern here? Of course it's not going to help the non-elect. Is it that your real complaint is the doctrine of election? Yes, it is true that both the non-elect and the elect (before their actual regeneration) can deceive themselves into believing they are regenerate. <br /><br />you said...<br /><br /><i>So, if one does not experience subjective assurance one has to wonder whether or not one is elect.</i><br /><br />And what's wrong with that? 2 Peter 1:10 says, "Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;"<br /><br />Here's a link to an online version of Thomas Brooks work <i>Heaven On Earth</i>ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56350618516943880962010-02-10T03:59:50.867-05:002010-02-10T03:59:50.867-05:00Edward Reiss said:
You keep swinging, but missing...Edward Reiss said:<br /><br /><b>You keep swinging, but missing the target. The issue is that the Calvinist approach points us to ourselves so we can have subjective assurance. You quoted "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Well, since the non-elect received did not receive the Spirit, and he can deceive himself, this is not much help. It is not even much help for the elect, as they only <i>may</i> receive subjective assurance. So, if one does not experience subjective assurance one has to wonder whether or not one is elect. So, if one is not sure one is elect--a possibility readily recognized by the various Reformed confessions--one cannot be sure of one's adoption. And to be sure one has to...well, you know.</b><br /><br />1. Hi there, Mr. Reiss. I made this post, not Steve. You mistook me for Steve in the "<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/grounds-of-assurance.html" rel="nofollow">Grounds of assurance</a>" post, the "<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/luthers-assurances.html" rel="nofollow">Luther's assurances</a>" post, and now this post. Again, I'm flattered you think so highly of my posts that you attribute them to Steve. But, alas, they're simply by a nobody like me. In any case, you'll have to blame me for the posts if you disagree with them.<br /><br />2. However, the fact that you have misattributed them not once, not twice, but thrice does cause one to seriously wonder about other things. Most importantly: whether you try and understand the substance of our posts in order to fairly represent the other side and respond accordingly, or if you're just quickly reading through them so can move onto what you've already predetermined you'll say.<br /><br />3. You keep caricaturing the Calvinist as only concerned with looking within himself, which you claim is derived from the various Reformed confessions.<br /><br />a. Which Reformed confessions are you referring to? The WCF? The LBCF? The Belgic Confession? Etc.<br /><br />b. Also, in the "Grounds of assurance" post, John Frame cites the WCF and points out three grounds for assurance: "the divine truth of the promises of salvation"; "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made"; and "the testimony of the Spirit to our adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are children of God." At best, you're only concerned with one of these grounds. You've ignored the other two. And in doing so, you've misrepresented the position.<br /><br />c. But as I've said <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/upstate-without-paddle.html" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a>, it's not as if we're beholden to the confessions merely because they're Reformed confessions. There's an exegetical foundation for the confessions, for why we subscribe to them.<br /><br />4. As such, I was attempting to move the debate onto exegetical grounds i.e. how do Lutherans handle verses like Rom 8:15-16, Gal 4:6, and others?Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48286721824425738742010-02-10T00:46:45.386-05:002010-02-10T00:46:45.386-05:00i) To begin with, you're mixing your metaphors...i) To begin with, you're mixing your metaphors. "Swinging" is a baseball metaphor whereas "targeting" is an archery metaphor (can also be used for guns and darts).<br /><br />ii) Second, for someone who keeps accusing me of missing the target, it's ironic that this is the third time you've misattributed a post to me. Methinks you need to practice your own aim.<br /><br />iii) The fact that the reprobate lack the witness of the Spirit is a red herring, as I've argued repeatedly. But, of course, you're ever incapable of presenting a counterargument. You're just a tape-recorder on replay.<br /><br />Since the reprobate are hellbound, why should the witness of the Spirit be of any help to them? Even if you deny reprobation, why do you think the hellbound should enjoy the witness of Spirit? If the hellbound every had the witness of the Spirit, then that would be a false witness. <br /><br />iv) And, par for the course, you illogically lump those who lack assurance with those who have it as though these are interchangeable experiences. <br /><br />v) I could also draw attention to other deficiencies in your analysis, but I've already done that elsewhere. All you ever do is to push the replay button on your tape-recorder. <br /><br />You've done a good job of illustrating how Lutheranism and irrationalism go together. Congratulations!stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58646503806764834572010-02-09T21:18:43.717-05:002010-02-09T21:18:43.717-05:00Steve,
You keep swinging, but missing the target....Steve,<br /><br />You keep swinging, but missing the target. The issue is that the Calvinist approach points us to ourselves so we can have subjective assurance. You quoted "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!' The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God." Well, since the non-elect received did not receive the Spirit, and he can deceive himself, this is not much help. It is not even much help for the elect, as they only <b>may</b> receive subjective assurance. So, if one does not experience subjective assurance one has to wonder whether or not one is elect. So, if one is not sure one is elect--a possibility readily recognized by the various Reformed confessions--one cannot be sure of one's adoption. And to be sure one has to...well, you know.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.com