Where do you stand?

I hold to the Biblical Fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Fundamentalism is linked to extremism in any branch of religion. It is easy to go off on tangents when you divert from theocentricism to man-centered theological systems.

Who is Arminium mostly associated with?
Who is Calvinism mostly associated with?

They are associated what man thinks of God and not what God thinks of Himself.

Since God is not the author of confusion but man is, it was never his divine will to have so many different theological systems. It is when man got involved did things get so fouled up.

All of us are influenced in some way or another and thus all of us have presuppositions in approaching the Word of God.

I didn't specifically say convinced of the mind which is how you took it. Maybe I should have been more specific and said the heart as well of the mind. The key to my point was the inner working of the Holy Spirit is necessary in the work of conversion.

Actually the quote I gave was from Louis Berkhof. I waited to reveal the author until I read your response.

The points I brought forward was that of Jonathan Edwards as well, which you rejected.

Do you agree with the following:

Regeneration

"2. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TERMS. These terms carry with them several important implications, to which attention should be directed,

(a) Regeneration is a creative work of God, and is therefore a work in which man is purely passive, and in which there is no place for human co-operation. This is a very important point, since it stresses the fact that salvation is wholly of God.

(b) The creative work of God produces a new life, in virtue of which man, made alive with Christ, shares the resurrection life, and can be called a new creature, "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them," Eph. 2:10.

You still didn't answer my question but danced around it.

BTW: "Can a person whose mind is darkened, whose heart is evil, who hates God and is at enmity with God just wake up one day and decide that he is going to believe God and rend his own heart for the sins he has committed against a holy God? And if he can just change his heart that easily - why do we have the Holy Spirit- and why is the work of conversion attributed to God, when it is the person who has done it?"

I have held to that same belief and have stated that more than one here on SA.

Man doesn't arbitrarily wake up and decide to get saved. He must first be convinced of his sin by the Holy Spirit, he must be convinced by the Holy Spirit that his eternal damnation is a just and righteousss act of God for his sinful and willful disobedience to God. He must be convinced by the Holy Spirit of his need for salvation and that it is only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ that he can have mercy and atonement for his sin.

I once asked the question, if a man is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he is born again, given a new nature, a new heart and a new life, why then should he repent and believe the gospel? He would be already saved.

Don't you find it interesting that so many people want to endoctrinate us in this one man's theological system, other than the Scripture alone, and calls us cults.

I guess they have no confidence that a sovereign God can give believers the Holy Spirit to teach and guide them into all truths.

I concede will grant you that point, let's try the ASV of 1901 instead.

Wouldn't you contend that the church did quite well from 1611 to the 1880's with the KJV and has the church improved doctrinally and in conformity to the Holiness of Christ since then?

I know we are getting off subject of the Law, but it may still apply.

As a reformer and a Calvinist, (I am assuming you are, if not, my apologies) do you hold that the Geneva Bible of 1560 and 1599 were flawed translations as well as the KJV of 1611?

What bible translation was the most significant in the growth of the Christian church since the reformation, the KJV/Geneva or the NIV?

The problem with many so-called Greek scholars is that they do not submit to the authority of the Word of God, they simply seek to correct what God really should have said.

Art: "Repentance like Faith is a Gift of God."

That was not what I asked.

I think what Murray is getting at is that the word "evangelize" is misused to mean "evangelizing the lost".

Since the word means to proclaim, bring, declare, we don't declare the lost, we declare the gospel message to the lost.

I know it sounds like he is spliiting hairs, but in this case I think he is correct.

In what way Arthur?

In what way does one reject the sovereignty of God by believing that when a man is convicted of the Holy Spirit of sin and must repent and believe the gospel? Notice the key word, the Holy Spirit does the convicting through the preaching of God's word to the ears and hearts of the sinner.

Since God commanded all men everywhere to repent, his sovereignty is not threatened because he expects obedience.

He set the conditions of salvation, not man.

Have you met His condition?

Have you ever repented of your self righteousness and placed your faith and trust in God's satisfactory and subsitutionary payment for your sin debt in the person of Jesus Christ?

These guys may have been great theologians, but they are not around to join us.

It is like the dispensationalist challenging you to debate Scofield.

Even our old nemesis Walt was more gracious than that.