Wouldn't you find it odd that you have a view of election that has no church tradition or historical acceptance, and only a minimal acceptance today. I know that it keeps the weaker Calvinists and Arminians that listen to him happy in his and their ambiguity, but for someone who claims to be an authority, he doesn't have hardly anything to stand on. He criticizes dispensationalism for its lack of roots in church history, but even it has more history than his flawed doctrine of election.
Maybe I'm just missing something in my studies. Are there any traces of this view in the history of the church?
Maybe I'm just missing something in my studies. Are there any traces of this view in the history of the church?