tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114074350575963710..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: P.H. Mell and John L. Dagg Vs. Ergun Caner -Paige Patterson-HyperCalvinistic Baptizer-The Rise of Romanism in the SBC?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90645956753267341462010-05-30T09:02:31.346-04:002010-05-30T09:02:31.346-04:00Most Baptists say they are calminianists--like 4 p...Most Baptists say they are calminianists--like 4 points calvinists, including Paige Patterson.Gerejahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01480838964193768720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140815698093739132006-02-24T16:14:00.000-05:002006-02-24T16:14:00.000-05:00I agree, we affirm eternal security or any doctrin...I agree, we affirm eternal security or any doctrine on the basis of exegetical conclusions.<BR/><BR/>However, it is massively inconsistent to affirm a doctrine like the security of the believer while exegeting *other* Scriptures assuming LFW. This is what makes the affirmation of the security of the believer illogical for the one who affirms LFW while denying monergisitic regeneration and irresistible grace.<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, they "take God at His word" for the security of the believer. On the other, they insert disjunctions in the text of Scripture on the very Scriptures that they need to underwrite the other set.<BR/><BR/>In so doing, the confound a necessary and a sufficient condition. The texts stating the security of the believer are necessary, just a decree establishes the certainty of an event...but without the ones on the underwriting concepts, they are insufficient to establish their case, just as a decreed means is a sufficient condition for x.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com