tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823419.post116110767726699122..comments2023-05-04T01:44:37.348-07:00Comments on Torched by an Angel: Angelzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14871276214074394558noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823419.post-34012007901438038852006-12-07T19:47:00.000-08:002006-12-07T19:47:00.000-08:00Excellent. Well worth the read.
I've learned in m...Excellent. Well worth the read.<br /><br />I've learned in my journey from semi-pelagianism to Calvinism that whenever Spurgeon is quoted to argue AGAINST Calvinism, that those who do the quoting (read: buthchering) always take him out of context.reglerjoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850185571444567195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823419.post-1162618750678194022006-11-03T21:39:00.000-08:002006-11-03T21:39:00.000-08:00Did not Dr. Caner get excited by the fact that Spu...Did not Dr. Caner get excited by the fact that Spurgeon brings up the word "arbitrary" in amplifying the meaning of the word "sovereign" which Arminians are so good at using to give the sovereignty of God a black eye? <BR/><BR/>Having read Spurgeon's passage in context, I can say he does not contradict his true Calvinist convictions in any way. Esau deserves to be hated because God arbitrarily chose to leave Esau in Adam when he arbitrarily chose to love Jacob in Christ. It is true that Esau deserved to be hated, but Esau had not yet been born, and had not done anything bad yet, but he did eternally bear the guilt of Adam, even though he had not yet been born so as to be able to inherit Adam's fallen, depraved nature which inherently deserves to be hated on the basis of its deeds. God does ordain that which deserves to be passed over, but he does it in a way in which neither God is blamable for the sinner's sin, nor is the will of the sinner violated. <BR/><BR/>I suppose I could ramble on for a while, and could probably wind up confusing myself, but I believe, having enough of the sermon to understand the context, that Spurgeon does not go astray from Calvinism, as Caner would have his uncritical readers to believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823419.post-1161625199434945672006-10-23T10:39:00.000-07:002006-10-23T10:39:00.000-07:00Thanks for the kind words. I read your insightfull...Thanks for the kind words. I read your insightfull response and return the amen right back atcha! Thanks for being my very first respondent...probably my only but hey, its a start!Angelzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871276214074394558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35823419.post-1161314898939689652006-10-19T20:28:00.000-07:002006-10-19T20:28:00.000-07:00Yup. You are right on the money, brother. I post...Yup. You are right on the money, brother. I posted about this very same thing on <A HREF="http://www.themindofmike.com/2006/10/its_the_context_dr_caner.php" REL="nofollow">MY BLOG</A>. He butchered Spurgeon's sermon just like he did Romans 9. he continues to astound....I still cannot believe that he is the president of a Seminary....<BR/><BR/>Mike<BR/>http://themindofmike.com<BR/><BR/>P.S. Loved the "BeNutz" cartoon. It is now my desktop background...Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00902805361027735043noreply@blogger.com