RC Sproul give us a good account of the refuge of the lost; the prison island of autonomous free will.
John Hendryx defines for us the difference between Classical Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism. As has been discussed here before and as R.C. and John make clear, on that little island, no matter how small, the "resetting" of man to neutral, is nonetheless, Pelagianism. Whether it is a neutral beginning, or grace which enables some residual neutrality, or some gift given to reset the neutrality; whether Pelegian, semi-pelagian or semi-semi-pelagian, it results in a return to that little isla de muerta of self-righteousness where the individual is the resolving sacrifical high preist of his own salvation -his own justification and sanctification- and not Jesus Christ, the true God and Savior.
Welcome to the world of the real.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Pelagius' Island
This hit ordered by
Strong Tower
46
In the Speak-Easy
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Move Over Nelson Price
Pastor Price, you've got a legitimate challenger in the competition to put out the most outlandish, unsupported slander against Calvinism.
Worst. Post. Ever.
(Or nearly so. You'd think stuff like this would make me angry. But it just makes me tired.)
ht: Contemporary Calvinist
This hit ordered by
Gordan
3
In the Speak-Easy
Labels: Calvinism, False teachers
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Bold Face

Found at Iron Sharpens Iron. It's a nice place to visit.
This hit ordered by
Strong Tower
0
In the Speak-Easy
Thursday, August 14, 2008
There's something about Georgia...
...that seems to attract anti-Calvinists.
The state is already home to The Secret 9, Johny Hunt, William Harrell, Jerry Vines, and Nelson Price.
Now it appears we can add yet another to that list: Emir Caner!
If this keeps up, I'm gonna move back to Florida!
This hit ordered by
Machine Gun Kelley
8
In the Speak-Easy
Labels: Free-willers, SBC
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
A Nugget from "The Book of Comfort"
So, who says Reformed confessions are dry, stuffy, impractical? If you memorize only one catechism question this year, or only teach one to your children, this is a great one.
------------------
Question 1: What is thy only comfort in life and in death?
Answer: That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who with his precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto him.
- The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563
This hit ordered by
Gordan
4
In the Speak-Easy
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Evidentally
Pulpit Mag's Nathan Busenitz has given us a testament of evidentiary proofs that the Bible is reliable. Evidentially the Scripture is truth, no doubt. However, all the evidence in the world is not enough to save anyone:
"But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Our primary problem is not that we do not have enough evidence. Our problem is that without the Spirit, we are not equipped to receive it. No matter what evidence is presented it is to no avail. Except a man is born again he cannot see the kingdom. Then what evidence, what signs, will save. Jesus said that a wicked and adulterous generation seeks a sign and no sign will be given except the resurrection. And who was it that saw that first hand? There was none. Even the disciples did not behold it until after it happened. What then can we present that will ever convince anyone that he has risen? Jesus put it bluntly, "Because you have seen me, you have believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Even for Thomas, Jesus says, that faith is not found in this way. Instead, all that we come to know of evidences only affirms but can never confirm the Christian faith. I do agree with Nathan in this: that as believers we are built up in our faith by such things. I disagree, however, with the review's assertion that it is a good method of evangelism. In some ways the evidentialist approach is dangerous and no different that excitations provided by Finney's burlesque evangelism.
The confirmation of the faith is within. Not without. And though we have a testimony to the Word in print and history none of this can excite the conscience to embrace the faith. Simply it is not something that anyone takes upon themselves. As John said, it is not by man's will and Paul would say that these things are spiritually, not carnally (physically) discerned. Did it matter what God did among the children of Israel? No, it did not. If we were today to discover undeniable evidence of the death of Egypt's firstborn and of the first passover, likewise, it would not impress the dead minds of men that are fixed in repressing the truth in unrighteousness.
Contrary to evidentialism, which is just another form of sacramental instrumentalism, the Scripture assigns the remedy to the willful ignorance of the rebellious:
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
This hit ordered by
Strong Tower
8
In the Speak-Easy
Labels: Bibliology, Depravity, Evidence, Thomas Twitchell