A Five Point Calvinist in a One Point Church

My hope for the following song is for Country music legend, Alan Jackson, who grew up only a few miles from where I now live, to pick it up and record it. Though it possesses religious overtones to be sure, it cannot be sung in any other genre than pure, lively  Country.  I've entitled it "A Five Point Calvinist in a One Point Church" >>>

The big explosion happened at last
    for miles the town could hear the blast
when First Baptist folk began their rebel yell
    Seems the Pastor didn't take the time
to inform them of his Doctrine Prime
    He's a Five Point Calvinist in a one point Church

(Chorus)
A Five Point Calvinist in a one point Church
    or if you desire, take the reverse
it don't matter cause the two they can't agree
    Well water and oil we know don't mix
if you want a problem you can't fix
    Combine a Five Point Calvinist and a one point Church

It all began so slow and neat
    with some small groups sitting at his feet
he began them doctrines of grace one-by-one
    one, two, three, four, five we arrive
at salvation he describes
    He's a Five Point Calvinist in a one point Church

(Chorus)
A Five Point Calvinist in a one point Church
    or if you desire, take the reverse
it don't matter cause the two they can't agree
    Well water and oil we know don't mix
if you want a problem you can't fix
    Combine a Five Point Calvinist and a one point Church

Out comes the pamphlets in much mass
    sitting in the foyer where all people pass
Old John Gill he never seems to die
    Arthur Pink is there also
telling all what they ought to know
    He's a five point Calvinist in a one point Church

(Chorus)
A Five Point Calvinist in a one point Church
    or if you desire, take the reverse
it don't matter cause the two they can't agree
    Well water and oil we know don't mix
if you want a problem you can't fix
    Combine a Five Point Calvinist and a one point Church

(I was thinking of a cool Guitar Run here)

Well I wish the story came out good
    I'd tell you that if I could
But the problem is old First almost closed
    Though most of the people soon they left
The Pastor stayed with what they kept
    Now He's a Five Point Calvinist in a Five Point Church

(Chorus)
A Five Point Calvinist in a one point Church
    or if you desire, take the reverse
it don't matter cause the two they can't agree
    Well water and oil we know don't mix
if you want a problem you can't fix
    Combine a Five Point Calvinist and a one point Church...
    Combine a Five Point Calvinist and a one point Church...
    Combine a Five Point Calvinist and a one point Church...

I trust your weekend filled with grace and light-heartedness. 

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Scott]

Peter,

You clearly have too much time on your hands!:)

[Scott]

Peter,

One more thought: You are in danger of becoming a one-note Johnny, or should I say one-note Peter? Pun intended.

[peter]

Scott,

Unfortunately, I am kinda crying in my beer, ur, uh, I mean coffee. My wife has been gone for four days and I got to missing her and thought of a country song. But quickly, my mind into depravity fell.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

[volfan007]

peter,

great song. i just wished that i could hear the music to it.

we like country music here in tn.

volfan007

[selahV]

Peter: I just finished reading your song and I could hear the melody. I could, I really could.
It makes its own kind of music. Read it real hard, Volfan.
Can't you hear it? Read the song again. Close your eyes. There, did you hear it this time? Oh forget it, I'm tired of trying to hold my breath with the one note in a Ballad I hear clearly and simply, and you can't. :) hee hee. selahV

[selahV]

Peter: you know what I adore about you? The pure honesty you have when your wife is not home and you go absolutely mad without her. She really does ground you, my friend. selahV

[perry mccall]

I love it. It is the perfect country song. It reflects the way things are and it is so powerful because it shouldn't be the way that things are:)

So, did you acquire a taste for chicory at our beloved campus? Also, Alister McGrath is going to be on campus as part of the Greer? Lectures at the end of Feb.

[AJR]

Peter,

You have quite a..er..talent there. :) Unfortunately, I think the song you sing is too true. My former Pastor kept saying we didn't have to agree on doctrine, we could agree to disagree. That sounded nice, and we tried for awhile. We know we aren't going to agree 100% on everything. Then, all the teaching began to point to Calvinism. Of course, by this time, many members had left, and many others had been to the Pastor with concerns. It seemed he decided he was going to boldly proclaim the truth (his interpretation of it) from the pulpit, week after week. Some of his sermons were really good, except when he came across scripture that didn't line up with Calvinism, then he had to twist it around to line up with Calvinism. We just couldn't support that anymore.

I do understand what others are saying when they say churches split over many issues. I know Calvinism isn't the only reason churches are divided. But, it is surprising how many churches are being divided over Calvinism at this time. Although I'm saddened by it all, it was a relief to find a place where people understand what you're going through. A place where others have, or are experiencing the same thing.

Thanks again, Peter, and God bless you.
AJR

[Jim U.]

I sure hope this is not the way it is! One point? What's the one point?

And, do you really believe we can't get along in the same church? I may be idealistic, but I have better hopes than that.

[peter]

Dear Jim,

Thanks for stopping by. The little song I wrote obviously is not intended literally--a bit of poetry if you will. However, neither does that mean there is no truth to it as some of the comments make clear.

As for your question about getting along, the fact is we have gotton along very well despite our feudin since the latter part of the 19th c. And, the BF&M is rubbery enough to accomodate both Calvinist and nonCalvinist.

The problem stems, unfortunately for the Calvinists, largely from aggressive Calvinists who insist on "reforming" the nonCalvinist church to 5 Point Calvinism. The result happens to be the fireworks display.

Peace to you, my Brother Jim. With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim U.]

Peter,

As to your summary, "The problem stems... from aggressive Calvinists who insist on "reforming" the nonCalvinist church to 5 Point Calvinism. The result happens to be the fireworks display."

I agree.

[Richard Coords]

While I certainly do believe in the doctrine of "Eternal Security," I do not believe that it's the same thing as the Calvinist doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints." Calvinists are Christians by *presumption*, presuming that they are "of the elect," and they are abnormally focused on this question. I have some quotes from Calvin and Spurgeon which reveals that, even in their own day, it was a preoccupation. Arminians or Non-Calvinists are Christians by *promise*, trusting in the promises of God to save those who believe in His Son.

But what REALLY throws everything into a loop, and causes the Calvinist to have no real security whatsoever, is the Calvinist doctrine of "Temporal Grace."

Ponder these two gems:

John Calvin explains: “Let no one think that those [who] fall away...were of the predestined, called according to the purpose and truly sons of the promise. For those who appear to live piously may be called sons of God; but since they will eventually live impiously and die in that impiety, God does call them sons in His foreknowledge. There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or *temporal grace*, are called so by us, but are not so to God.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.66, emphasis mine)

Calvin adds: “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom *he illumines only for a time* to partake of it; *then he justly forsakes them* on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8, emphasis mine)

[Timotheos]

I am afraid, brother-blog-host, that I must demur over the broad-brushed sentiment (for such it seems to me) expressed thus - "The problem stems, unfortunately for the Calvinists, largely from aggressive Calvinists who insist on "reforming" the nonCalvinist church to 5 Point Calvinism. The result happens to be the fireworks display."

No doubt this bold assertion will ring true some percentage of the time sparks fly upward, but I imagine the cause more often to be quite different than you suggest. Let me tie this thought to Richard's assertion that "Calvinists are Christians by *presumption*, presuming that they are "of the elect," and they are abnormally focused on this question."

Calvinist brethren I know would firmly disown such a notion as Richard flings out here. Hopefully Richard would suppose himself a Christian for the same reason all the Calvinist's of my acquaintance would - because he has come in "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

I believe we would be much closer to the truth if we stated just the opposite of Richard's little dictum - the great majority of western Christians imagine they are so simply and solely because they chose to be, and that fact (many have been taught) is not susceptible to doubt nor biblical examination. "You have changed your location in the building in response to the plea, you have raised your hand, you have prayed sincerely, you want to go to heaven and you believe Jesus died for you. You are now a Christian, never doubt it." And so it goes, with many variations upon the theme.

I wish there was more of an abnormal focus upon the question of whether or not one is elect, for we would be much closer to the actual instruction of our Bibles - "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

These verses are the favorite neglect of many in American Christendom, and consequently when a typically reformed-ish pastor (after all, they're the ones so strung up on all things pertaining to election, right?) begins to press this instruction with the sheep under his care who are unused to such fare, then you will see fireworks, my friends, and you will often discover the true state of a man's heart before God under this command.

I say we need more than a little focus on "this question" of election - we have yet to aquit ourselves according to the Apostle Peter's plainly stated injuction, and we therefore find ourselves shortsighted, even to blindness...and it is no secret how poorly shortsighted creatures react when they stumble over the unknown.

More mercy, please.

Timotheos

[peter]

Dear Timotheos,

Good morning, my Brother. I trust you night well.

My, Timotheos, your usually filled to the brim remarks have, for some strange reason, unknown to me of course, handed to me an empty cup. I haven't the slightesst glint of:

a) why you would clump anything I write into Richard's analysis, which belongs to Richard and not to me

b) how my 'broadbrush' had anything to do with your point.

And, since you didn't deny the fireworks display that really does happen when a Calvinist, without an invitation from within, takes it upon himself to "reform' a nonCalvininst fellowship; nor did you offer demonstrative proof to the contrary, my Timotheos, I can only assume that you observe the very same 'broadbrush' as do I--though for reasons perhaps known to both of us, you do not care to admit.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Timotheos]

Gee, I made perfect sense to myself, Peter - what's the problem? :-)

My clumping of your post with Richard's thought was due, not to a confusion of thought between you both (or even agreement), but rather my perception that you both indict the same scoundrel, and it is the identity and modus operandi of said scoundrel that I attempted to address.

Your broadbrush, I think, has to a greater or lesser degree, missed its target. Hence, my discussion of election (the great calvinist shibboleth) in connection with II Peter1:10-11. Both you and Richard laid the blame for certain ecclesiastical fireworks squarely upon the pointed heads of Calvinists, to which I generally demurred.

Bad pastors of nearly all stripes will always exist and will consequently scatter the Lord's sheep, but no pastor should be thought a wolf, an ecclesiastical pyrotechnic or one afflicted with OCD for clearly, consistently and continuously bringing the sheep to graze in such pastures as II Peter 1, for example. I suggested the problem as often as not resides in the appetite of the sheep, and that is the result (or so I suppose) of selective feeding over many decades by prejudiced shepherds.

And yes, I am handy with my own broadbrush - they are so useful and dispense with work so quickly, do they not? Mea culpa. I hope I have, at least in part, covered my target. But I cannot think of that to which you say I do not care to admit...ever blind to my own inconsistencies. Help me out here, brother. Thanks, and...

Grace and peace to you,

Timotheos

[Richard Coords]

That more Christians ought to examine themselves to see if they are in Christ and living up to the calling that God has placed in their life, no one here disagrees.

This issue is whether Calvinism takes one's focus off of trusting in Christ, and turns it into trusting in an Unconditional Election.

Here, now, is the quote from Spurgeon:

Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon, recalls: “I frequently meet with poor souls, who are fretting and worrying themselves about this thought—‘How, if I should not be elect!’ ‘Oh, sir,’ they say, ‘I know I put my trust in Jesus; I know I believe in his name and trust in his blood; but how if I should not be elect?’ Poor dear creature! you do not know much about the gospel, or you would never talk so, for he that believes is elect. Those who are elect, are elect unto sanctification and unto faith; and if you have faith you are one of God’s elect; you may know it and ought to know it, for it is an absolute certainty. If you, as a sinner, look to Jesus Christ this morning, and say—‘Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to thy cross I cling,’ you are elect. I am not afraid of election frightening poor saints or sinners.” (Election, emphasis mine)

Now add into the mix, TEMPORAL GRACE, as defined by, not Richard, not Peter, but none other than John Calvin himself.

For additional quotes on this matter, you may follow the link:

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Complaints/cc_salvation.html

Or if you wish, you may also pick up a copy of the book, Why I Am Not a Calvinist, which details the same.

Grace to you Peter and Temporal Grace to you Timotheous LOL

[Timotheos]

Good Morning Richard,

You provide a fine anecdote from one of England's finest preachers, and one with which I heartily agree. No one, however, should find it difficult to judge whether or not your anecdote actually establishes the charge you bring against Calvinism. Detractors from both sides of the theological isle could undoubtedly reproduce a litany of powerful anecdotes in support of their grievances with one another. But as you note, Richard, on your impressively compendious website, we should "Focus on finding biblical truth and let the Bible speak for itself, without making assumptions." - a sentiment, I might add, of no mean irony, considering the tenor and reasoning presented there and here.

I am puzzled at the exception you take with Calvin over his coinage and use of the term "temporal grace," while "prevenient grace," as employed by men like Adrian Rogers, apparently suffers from you no such exception. Selectivity of this kind betrays the stated objectivity of your site and has the effect of neutering your arguments, a point which hopefully will not continue to escape you.

But make no mistake, I am not advocating for "temporal grace" any more than for "prevenient." They are both descriptive attempts to understand and explain one's theology. Neither is ultimately persuasive, as, say, these words are persuasive - "...who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

My hope, as is I trust yours, Richard, is in the power of God to save and keep through faith my salvation which is ready to be revealed in the last time. Such things as temporal and prevenient grace are of much lesser concern to me, and therefore much less needful of a defense.

Grace and peace to you,

Timotheos (Timothe-ous, as you spelled it in your last comment, would be rendered "one who honors gods" (plural), verses "one who honors God." Of the many things that I am not, polytheist is one. :-)

[peter]

Dear Timotheos (did I spell that right?:)

Good day, my friend. I am glad you and Richard are conversing. One thing, however, just puzzles me to no end, Timotheos. I hardly took a wink last night. Here it is:

For over six months, you and I have had numerous exchanges--and reacall, six months is an almost eternity when measured in internet time.

Yet, for all the excahnges we've had, I cannot remember once when we falied to communicate with one another. Not agree, mind you...but communication no less. But this last exchange is the exception, I have to admit. Now our record is a cazillion to one.

Here is the point, the one point and the only point you cited I made: '"The problem stems, unfortunately for the Calvinists, largely from aggressive Calvinists who insist on "reforming" the nonCalvinist church to 5 Point Calvinism. The result happens to be the fireworks display."'

Now I thought it was a rather clear "broadbrush" In fact, it was so clear that Jim, who raised the issue concurred. He responded: "I agree."

But you, my dear Timotheos, after "clumping" the assertion to one of Richard's points in his dialog with you, proceed to demonstrate it's falsity by:

a) making it one of a myriad of other examples of "bad pastors" who "scatter sheep"

b)suggesting it missed its target--neither of which, by the way, made false my assertion.

From my standpoint, an assertion is not proven false by another assertion or a hundred of them.

So, I state it once again in another form, forgetting the old and making all things new:

when a Calvinist pastor, comes in by stealth to a nonCalvinist church and, unilaterally begins a "reform" toward Calvinism--a "reform" which the Church neither asked for nor expected--and consequently, major conflict arises, I say, at least from where I sit, the "reforming" Pastor holds the smoking gun in his hand, no one else.

And, unless, Timotheos, you can offer me demonstration to the contrary, I think my "broadbrush" hits quite accurately, in fact, its target.

Grace today. With that, I am...

Peter

[AJR]

Peter,

Thank you, again you cut to the core of the problem. As I read many of the Calvinist blogs, I see where many of them want to insinuate that stories like mine aren't really true. Someone is just out to get the Calvinists. A conspiracy to make them look bad. I think there is a conspiracy, but it's Calvinists trying to change the doctrines of churches behind the scenes, so to speak. It's really nothing short of underhandedness to me. I have read where some Calvinists say they have been run out of their church, but, from what I can tell, it's been for causing division in a non-Calvinist Church, by trying to push Calvinism. Once again, I see a twisting of the truth.

Thanks again, Peter, for helping us non-theologians understand what we know, but can't put into theological words. God bless you.

AJR

[Timotheos]

Indeed you did spell Timotheos right, Peter, and thank you. Of course, I am not picking on Richard for spelling as he did - that little "u" can sneak in easily enough. I suppose I should just sign off with "Timothy" and be done with it, but the name in its mother-tongue is fascinating and encouraging to me. It is always a goal to pursue.

Ok, I am glad to concede the "clumping" faux pas. We will leave it off of the discussion. I don't want you to have to carry Richard's burden, and did not intend that by citing him.

Your broadbrush was clear, and as you have detailed the scenario with the stealth Calvinist pastor whose intent is to produce five horns upon every sheep's head in his newly, but deceptively, acquired fold, we are both agreed on the potential cause and display of fireworks. There now, are ya happy? :-)

I am sure there are actual scenarios which answer point by point to the one you describe. Admittedly, in my own limited experience over the last 18 years, I know of none, but my ignorance is surely beside the point.

Where I think your broadbrush misses its target is in your portrayal of the scenario. There are almost always more pieces to this puzzle, and while such a scenario as you paint is easily reprehensible and worthy of condemnation, I would contend that, more often than not, this is not the situation at all as it is commonly played out.

My views on election, foreknowledge, predestination, calling and regeneration would be thought calvinistic by some, but I did not come to them, nor do I hold to them because they have been systematized or described as calvinistic, and I am generally unwilling to engage the issues from that platform. I do not care one whit if anyone under my ministry becomes a calvinist. Ultimately, I had rather they not. I do strongly desire to make disciples who understand and love each of the these biblical teachings as much as any other, even if we are not fully agreed in our understanding of them.

If I were to go into many, many SBC churches as a pastor and teach biblically, charitably, patiently and faithfully on those topics as they arose from exposition, sparks would no doubt fly...and perhaps a little fur as well. And Calvinism - coercive or otherwise - would not be the cause, either materially or formally. I think Paul understood the real dynamic in his exposition of Romans 9-11 (to pick one well known example), and this understanding is reflected in the objections which he both raises and answers, particularly in chapter 9.

So, although your scenario as it stands may well indict a calvinistic pastor's insincere, uncaring methodology, Scripture itself is more likely the flash point in a Christendom whose sensibilities have been increasingly formed in antipathy to what has now, of late in the churches history, been variously called "Calvinism."

I so hope this is a clearer post, even if we do not see the issue from the same perspective, Peter. Grace to you,

Timotheos

[peter]

Timotheos,

Thanks for the response. And, we will leave it with you summing it up for us.

One thing though which you may not remember. The reason I mentioned spelling your name properly is that I myself did the same thing to you months ago by making you, by implication, a gods'-idolator in falsely but sincerely misspelling your name exactly as Richard has done.

Peace. With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. hence, no conspiracy exists:)

[peter]

AJR,

Thank you AJR. I'm grateful that something here assists some of our folk who may be taken back by a system of theology with which they are not familiar and, unfortunately, leaves them comfused at best and hurt at worst.

One advantage I may possess--though I understand fully, I surely am no scholar nor an authority on any subject, to my knowledge, not to mention Calvinism--is that I've lived in Calvinists' neighborhood for years. I've walked their streets and know quite a few of their faces when we meet.

I know more than one of their dialects and can hear sometimes the subtle accents that particularize the various regions--say, like one knows a southerner when one hears them speak.

I hope, as time goes by, more nonCalvinists will find some resources here to help them not squash Calvinism, which, by the way, is virtually impossible; rather to understand Calvinists. If that can be done, I will be satisfied.

Grace to you, AJR. With that, I am...

Peter

[Timotheos]

Gracias, and have a lovely weekend and Lord's Day.

[Richard Coords]

In terms of TEMPORAL GRACE...

Let me caution those Calvinists who are rightly horrified by Calvin’s doctrine of Temporal Grace. He did not advance this doctrine because he was a mean old troll who lived under a bridge, who liked to spin tales about God predestining cruelty. Calvin taught this doctrine because he was trying to plug a hole in a sinking ship, or at least that is my take on the matter. Calvin is in need of an explanation for passages such as Matthew 7:21-23 where the perishing, those who are being condemned to Hell, who did miraculous things that spiritually dead people are not supposed to be able to do according to Calvinistic doctrine of Total Inability. Calvin’s answer for such instances is a temporary grace. Now if a Calvinist wishes to toss aside this doctrine like an old pair of shoes, he’d better have another pair handy, or else his doctrine will be walking on hot coals.

[Timotheos]

What ship would that be, Richard?

[Richard Coords]

If you read the post, the ship was Total Inability, sinking because of Matthew 7:21-23, thus necessitating the doctrine of TEMPORAL GRACE in order to patch the hole. You couldn't see this?

[Richard Coords]

If you want to offer a different explanation for Matthew 7:21-23, then you have my attention.

[Timotheos]

Richard,

Forgive me, friend, for not being able to discern the identity of your "ship" on the post to which you refer. You cover numerous points in this one post, and what may be obvious to the author is not always so to the reader.

Are you equating the phrase "total inability" with "total depravity?" This would be helpful to know. Thanks.

Timotheos

[Richard Coords]

Timotheos,

You seem like a gracious fellow, so I am glad to answer your question.

I do not equate TD with TI. Arminianism affirms TD while denying TI, and explains that the solution TD is Prevenient Grace.

In terms of Matthew 7:21-23, the question is how were "the perishing" able to perform miracles, which the Lord did not dispute. What He disputed, is whether He knew them, and that being in the "Ginosko" sense of "to know." To Calvin, it seems, that the solution is that they are given a grace that enables them to have the moral ability to do so, though while remaining spiritually dead, in terms of the indwelling. If you have another take on the matter, I'd be very interested in hearing it.

If you are willing, I have an important question concerning Election that really needs attention from competent Reformed Brethren such as yourself. I have read from many Calvinist brothers that Ephesians 1:4 means that "the elect" are chosen "to become" in Christ. I have asked, in whom were these elect, in order to become chosen in Christ? Calvin seemed to answer that it is those who are eternally hidden in God. James White explains that God the Father gave him to the Son, from eternity past. From these statements, and many others, I have inferred that Calvinistic Election is first and foremost, in the Father, for an eternal flock of the Father, with the result that the Father gives these of His own, to His Son, in order that they may become His. Some Calvinists have rejected my inference, while others have affirmed it. But I do not have any Reformed "authors" in which to cite, that either affirms or denies it. Again, is Calvinistic Election primarily an In the Father Election with the result that these "elect" are chosen "to become" in Christ? Why, or why not? Some who deny it, say that they were given BY God. I agree, but when a father of the bride gives his daughter away in marriage to the groom, she is "in her father" in the sense of her father's family. So are "the elect" in the Father, in this same sense? Why or why not? My next stop will be to visit a kind Calvinist Pastor friend of mine, in whom I had wished to avoid the controversy of this subject.

[Timotheos]

Thanks, Richard, for the qualification on your distinction between TI and TD. I would agree they are not equal in terms of meaning, and that is important in how the Matthew passage is understood.

For me, there are a few well established points from the passage:

1. These folks were never "known" by the Lord. Never. They were never "in" and then somehow "out" again. These folks are not Christ's.

2. That these people are involved in the spiritual activities described is also indisputable. Christians are not the only group of people in life who believe in, and have access to, the unseen realm. Acting in Jesus' name does not mean that He either is responsible for, or approves of, what they are doing. Jesus makes this crystal clear.

3. These people are not interested in the will of God as Jesus describes it in vss. 24-27. They are more like Simon the sorcerer or the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19 than the disciples, or the Philippian jailer or Lydia.

4. These people are lawless and practice "lawlessness." They are in no way, shape or form, disciples, in spite of their "spiritual" abilities.

With regard to your more speculative question inferred from other calvinist statements, I might ponder that a bit longer before I attempt an answer. I am also preparing for an overseas trip to Bangladesh and India, and I am going to have to curtail my blogging to prepare for my departure. Perhaps when I am back in mid February, I might give more attention to that issue.

Grace and peace,

Timotheos

[Richard Coords]

Timotheos,

May God bless you in your trip to Bangladesh and India.

I agree with you on all 4 points of your explanation of Matthew 7:21-23. However, I did not see in your passage, a description as to how they arrived at the ability to do these three amazing things. In addition, we might suppose that the good Samaritan did something truly good in God's sight, though not to the extent of meeting God's perfect standard of holiness. In each example, and of many more, Calvin was faced with having to explain their apparent ability, in one capacity or another, in the face if total inability apart from Regenerative Grace, and hence his explanation of Temporary Grace.

God bless you on your trips,
Richard Coords