Skip to main content

God Did Act First, But R.C Sproul Is Still Wrong

We agree that man is not able to save himself. Were he not affected by the Fall, he'd still need grace to attain communion with God. Don't miss that part. But it's not some fantastic insight that God must move, or no one would be saved. Sorry. It's just not.

It's a big jump from this to "God does everything" and "God only saves some people". What's the point of the gospel, then? No, seriously. Why are you a minister in the first place? You could just sit back and watch it happen. That's what "monergism" is, you know. Only one working. If you have the guts to bite the bullet, then bite it. But I don't blame anyone for not buying what you're selling.

This emotional blackmail of, "Oh, that's just your pride talking" is precisely what it is. If God alone works in salvation, then God alone is morally responsible for the bad outcome. No, he doesn't owe salvation to any man, but Christ has come as Savior. We don't need play-acts of "mercy" for a special few; we need grace and salvation.

I'm willing to look into the eyes of every single person and say, "Jesus Christ died for you." It's not a hypothetical; it's real. Before we embrace what isn't true good news anyway, maybe we should ask, "Who asked Luther and Calvin, anyway?" I'd like to believe that this question would occur to the inquisitive person, but then, I was in the bubble once, too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un