Seaton wrote:
How many times do we have to tell you Abigail - OSAS = Is NOT Calvinism!!!!

BTW, I told a person today after my sermon, that there is nothing that can separate him from the love of God.

He started to weep.

He then rededicated his life to God.

Wait a second, I thought OSAS makes everyone into Christian pagans?

"I will be honest with you. Your argument makes me think you are mentally ill!"

Seems like he needs the doctor of truth.
________________________________________

"In case you, or anyone else is wondering
what the missing names I had in mind for the five translations of the Bible are,
the answer is..."

You need to throw everyone of those away except for #4. Trust me.
_______________________________________
Donnie wrote:

"For the life of me, I don't understand that some people have a problem with something that is soooooo clear in the Scriptures."

Right. Unfortunately, he cared not to show us one verse that plainly states what he insists on us believing.

Yep and there are also passages of Israel crossing the Red Sea and taken one’s dung outside the camp, but I doubt you are able to demonstrate how any of them prove that one can lose his salvation.

It’s amazing how false theology always have to depend on off-the-wall implications from other “doctrines” to lay the foundation to their heresy rather than simple declarative statements from Scripture.
______________________________________________
Fellow Saint:
“ALl the Bible says is eternal life, not eternal security.”

Eternal security comes from eternal life. If what God gives ever ends then its no more eternal life. The kind of life that your gospel offers is an interest only loan where God gives you a loan for the payment of your sin but you have to make the payments on any sin interest you accumulate over time.

So Richard Dawkins is clearly not a research scientist at all, he is an educator. He has ONLY ONE peer reviewed paper, and NOBODY has cited it. He has no more scientific authority than a suburban school teacher.

Now moving on. You asked me to debunk evolution. Well, there are two ways one can easily do this: firstly, through an atheist standpoint; secondly from a theistic standpoint. I will do so from the harder position: the atheistic standpoint. And to show you the superiority of my position, I will easily debunk it with one solid sentence.

Here it is:

"I am sad to read that you stopped studying the WCF when you read of Infant Baptism. Like you, I have always held to "Believers Baptism", but since studying the WCF I understand better the IB Position and respect it - tho' I remain in the "Believers Baptism" camp."

Do I need to say more.
________________________________________

Lurker wrote:

"Inability to perceive the Light is not an excuse for if it..."

"This reduces God to the ranks of participant NOT omnipotent Creator God."

So I guess according to your hermeneutic, God has forced you to sin this past week. Since you really have no choice in the matter in choosing God over sin.

_______________________________________

"I began wondering what it was that drove us apart from that latter assembly, and as a result, I began studying the issue further. Soon, I discovered that it was not that "one particular element" alone, but rather, "that principle" was only "one single part of a complete system,..."

I wonder how you would explain the same loose standards and apostasy that is occurring even in the reformed camp. Just like their are Fundamental Baptists that may have loose standards, there are Reformed Churches that also have loose standards. I have some like that right here in Las Vegas.

I personally came to know SA and inquire into the Reformed movement out of a frustration of some of the things going on in my movement. The difference between I and you is that Satan was not able to take advantage of me and forsake everything I have ever believed in simply because one church decided to sell out to the world.

"JD, I answered this point several days ago, and You didn't respond. To remind you, my point was that this is the same argument as from the atheist who argues from the "good God and a wicked world" to conclude that God does not exist. It is the same argument, except that your conclusion is that Christ's rule does not exist."

Ha! Right.

Murray, that is not an answer. It's called a strawman copout. Hey you like that. Quite creative is it not?

It means that you are copping out by replacing a strawman with an answer. There is an answer to the atheist concerning there valid objection to the existince of God. And the valid answer is (ironically) what we are arguing now, that God is not ruling this world, but Satan... you know... the god of this world. Ever heard of him? If Jesus would be ruling this world, there would be no sin and its effects.

I am not sure how you answer the atheist objection, but if its simply that God allows sin to reign over holiness in his kingdom I do not blame them if they simply just laugh in your face.

If you like I can give you a close enough impression of the incident.

Now this is what I mean by a boundles hermeneutic. The antithesis to this is what Lurker calls an "absurd literalism." But instead of going on a tangent on how absurd I think his hermeneutic (as explained above and in the previous post) is, I would ask him one simple question:

And it does not state that monkey pick themselves and that the sky is blue. And your point is?
__________________________________________
"My personal life is of no relevance to the correct interpretation of Scripture. I'm thankful Jesus came to save sinners."

Yes it is. Your interpretation of Scripture is based on someone who has gone through a divorce (most likely since he has been saved) and who had to find a rationale to excuse the clear command of Scripture against it.
________________________________________
" I base this firmly on scripture that I am free to remarry."

Yeah right. The Bible gives you the liberty to break asunder what God hath put together and to break the marriage vow of "till death do us part."

What did you say in your second marriage? "Til fornication do us part."

I must've missed it. Where in Acts 2:17 does it state that the pouring of the Holy Spirit gives the women the right to usurp authority over the man?

My wife is as saved as anyone else, and I do not see her usurping authority over me.
_________________________________________
"We don't need to know history or have theological training to understand the Word of God."

Oh yeah, and let me guess. One also does not need to develop their reading comprehension skills.
__________________________________________
"His Word states that His Spirit will lead and guide in all truth."

Newsflash: That's called history and theological training.
______________________________________________
"I am not a feminist."

Yes you are. Look in the mirror.
_____________________________________________
"I could give you my credentials for my stand with Him."

Let me dissect one you have just said.

1. It is the act of beleiving (faith) that justifies. So in this instance I agree.

2. I think you misrepresented him in the second sentence. (I read some of his posts on this topic). I, like him, believe that all are born innocent. This does not mean that sin does not have any bearing on one's progeny. It does. We all are born with the propensity to sin. And we are all born with a nature that if left to himself will commit the vilest sin. But you can't condemn a person before he commits the crime. One may be a pedaphile in his heart but he will not face jailtime until he actually commits the act. I personally believe that it is some in the reform camp who fall prey to what you accuse JD of with their household salvation doctrine.

3. I have not read what JD has to say on imputation. But I believe that at the moment of salvation, Christ's righteousness is imputed to the Christian. I also believe that it has everything to do with believers. We are justified because of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Without this we have no acceptance before God.

1. You state: "It says nothing of a limited term for the covenant." And then quote Daniel 9:27 when it states: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for ONE WEEK: " My friend, your own words betray you. It is quite obvious that Daniel 9:27 indicates a limited time. Otherwise it would not restrict the covenant to one week (seven years).

2. By verse 27 the Messiah has already been cut off, so hopefully you are not suggesting that the Messiah had a seven year ministry after his death. Jesus PRONOUNCED the desolation of the temple; he did not DO it himself. It is customary in Bible prophecy for prophets to echo each other. This is called progressive revelation.

3. You skipped number three.