I don't remember the post that you stated by natural revelation. Allow me to quote an excerpt from one of my top 5 theologians, R.C Sproul, on natural revelation.
"Natural theology is something we acquire. It is the result of either human speculation, viewing nature as a neutral object-in-itself, or of human reception of information given by the Creator in and through his creation. The second approach views nature not as a neutral object-in-itself that is mute, but as a theater of divine revelation where information is transmitted through the created order.
From the sixteenth century until the beginning of the twentieth, no Reformed theologian I know has denied the validity of natural theology derived from natural revelation. The strong antipathy in our day, to theology based on unaided human speculation has brought in its wake a widespread and wholesale rejection of all natural theology.
This departure, in part is a reaction against Enlightenment rationalism, and is a departure from historic Reformed theology and from biblical theology.
Both Roman Catholicism and historic Reformed theology embraced natural theology gleaned from natural revelation. The reason for this substantial agreement is because the Bible, which both sides regarded as a special revelation (meaning Scripture), clearly teaches that, in addition to God's revelation of himself in Scripture, there is also the sphere of general divine revelation found in nature.
Classical theology made an acute distinction between special revelation and general revelation. The two kinds of revelations are distinguished by the terms special and general because of the differences in content-scope and in the audience of each.
I dispute this more than TULIP....
Thanks for that, I do try my best. Praise and Glory be to God Alone whose illuminating Spirit renews our minds to his truth in Scripture.
And I am not saying anything contrary to this... God is the only one that can save us, reconcile us, restore us! We do not and cannot deserve anything good from him, thus, all goodness given by God is graciously given.
I am sharing with you, that unless our wills are restored, to not only understanding the things of the Spirit God, but our affections, as well, Doug. That's why there is a huge separation, between us and God, Douggy. Sinners have hearts of stone, sinners have futile minds. Their wills are in bondage to sin, as I provide a passage where Christ says all who sin are slaves to sin. Christ uses the word Slave, not if you continue in sin you will be a slave, but all who sin, are slaves to sin. Christ is exposing our fallen condition in Adam. Even Arminius understood why sinners needed to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Because sinner were Totally Depraved, the Cross of Christ, demonstrates how far we have fallen from our original state. Law needs to be preached full tilt, not water down, if there is no terror in sinner's eyes after Law is preached, then it's not being preached correctly. But to paint a rosey picture of sinners, are not totally incapacitated by sin toward the spiritual things of God. Which is why God sent a mediator to restore this relationship that was severed, making us sworn enemies.
Might want to check this...in case someone else reads this.
Sorry, for the mishap, this cold weather, has affected my pain level, and I can't focus. What I meant to say is that people tend to have faith in their faith, so salvation is subjective (looking inward), and not objective (looking outside of self to Christ for everything). This is called (Extra Nos):
Literally, “outside of ourselves”. The Latin term is often used in reference to the location or source of salvation as being completely external to the human being. In other words, to suggest that salvation is extra nos is to deny that salvation occurs on the basis of anything inherent in humans, whether a human act of the will or a human thought. Instead, salvation extra nos affirms that salvation is completely an act of God; that is, God freely and sovereignly bestows salvation upon a person.
Thanks for being gracious and respectful to me, you could've made fun of me or ridicule my comments here. I really do enjoy our theological discussions, and glad we can engage as gentlemen, thanks again for that.
Never said it did...faith believes in whatever has been accomplished by the cross. Faith extends its hands to receive what has been effectually done.
I am emphasizing that Faith is passive; meaning it receives what Saves and Redeems us. So, I remember you writing that Faith is not passive, I allow me to expand a bit, if my body allows me. Luther once wrote that Faith is a busy thing, but not in Justification. After a sinner is justified through Faith Alone, it becomes active in repentance, christian living, and good works, but all of these activities of Faith is the fruits of our Justification in Christ Alone. I hope I clarified it.
To say faith is active suggests it contributes something to salvation, which is why, dear friend, becomes a little work that is the cause of Salvation. This is not biblical teaching.
Faith does not have to be passive, and off the top of my head, I cannot recall faith/believing ever being in the passive voice biblically, or any where else.
Why do you agree? I have a request, can you be s detail as possible? I don't mind a lengthy post, because there's so much to unpack here.Thanks in advance!
Illumination, conviction, calling is not regeneration, it leads toward regeneration but is not it.
I don't understand your thought process, here Doug. Correct me if I make a mistake in accessing your position, you are not 100% in agreement with Classical Arminianism; you don't hold to regeneration; but do or maybe hold to Prevenient Grace or some sort of view of it; you deny Total Depravity in area of Total Incapacity; you don't agree with Original Sin as in Adam's Sin & Guilt being imputed to his progeny; sinners can be saved by their personal faith that is not given through God's Grace, but natural possess it inherently; Prevenient Grace in your view doesn't save anyone, sinners need to come to saving Grace, by a decision made by them in a fallen state without being renewed by the Holy Spirit? I know this is a rapid fire, please understand me, I am trying to get your position correct.
Again, I have repeatedly said that God is the only who can save, and anything he does for us is undeserved and is thus gracious. No matter what we do, we are never deserving of his gift. Even after salvation, we do not deserve his blessings.
Please excuse me redundancy, like I said before Douggy, it takes time for things to soak into this rock of a brain I have. What I don't understand, maybe I am not lucid enough in clarifying what I'm after, in my questions. But if God does the saving, I don't then why you guys can't admit then that it's by Grace Alone in that he makes us alive in Christ, while we were dead; while we were enemies, and it's in this condition that he saves us.
We need saving for reason, in that we cannot, as you said, do anything for it. But now, other question pops in my head, why can we as sinner do anything in the first, if we aren't totally incapacitated? Either sinner are totally unable to save themselves in way, or they have some kind of natural ability to offer. And if they do have something to offer, apart from Grace or possess some inherent goodness, then dear friend it's not by Grace Alone, but something owed.
I have to cut this into two parts, sorry! Part I