I don't see how you can claim the independence of free will without also claiming the credit for the decisions it produces. I note that you offer no opinion on the statement about virtue. I obviously posted the statement because I think anyone agreeing with it gives credit to man.
If perseverance is only for the elect, does that mean that the non elect do not persevere? Not even in their sin?
I am using perseverance as a theological term. It does not refer to sin for these purposes, but only to good. Therefore, the non elect do not persevere. In fact, they do no good at all in God's eyes.
Does that mean that there is a qualitative difference in the sin of the elect versus the non elect?
No, sin is sin. There is a quantitative difference, though.
I got some strong replies to my posting of the hyper Calvinist article by folks that really seemed to adhere to its definition. :)
I'll bet. :)
This is the idea of perseverance that Calvin mangles so badly. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we persevere. It’s not that we take the credit; it’s that if we stumble and fall and don’t get up, we will never finish the journey. If we are predestined to Heaven, then we don’t get the credit for going there.
If we refuse to go there, regardless of the Holy Spirit’s influence, then, we unelect ourselves. And at that point, unless we repent, confess our sins and ask pardon from God, we assume the status of what the Calvinists call the unelect.
The unelect can do no good in God’s eyes? Does that mean that if one practices the Beatitudes that one is automatically one of the elect?
What is the quantitative difference between elect sin and non elect sin?