There is Hope wrote:
Not sure where you picked that up from. The reason why I have never doubted my salvation is not because of faith in my faith or faith in my belief or prayer, but it was Christ who secured my salvation on the cross of Calvary. It was the Holy Spirit who revealed to me my lost and desperate state. It was the Holy Spirit that showed me the awfulness and how wicked my heart was, eventhough I thought I was basically a very moral guy. It was that work of the Holy Spirit that gave me the grace to repent and to believe the gospel. It was God who gave me the grace to resign myself and to fall on and to finally rest on God's mercy. He changed my heart and gave me the desirte to love Him and His Word and to grow in the grace and knowledge of God. Salvation is in nothing I have done, but what Christ did for me.

However, that is a complete turnaround from you initial profession that was laced with I's rather than HE's.

There is Hope wrote:
rogerant,
Be careful when quoting Matt. 7:22, there is more to that passage, see verse 21.
Matt. 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that *** doeth the will of my Father *** which is in heaven."
What is the will of the Father?
John 6:40 "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
But lest we forget.
Phil. 2:13 "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."
No belief, no salvation.

Your testimony is laced with verbs expressing what YOU have done.

These false professors in Matthew 7 were attributing their salvation to what they have done, not in the belief of what Christ had done for them.

Back 2 Basics wrote:
Personally, I grew up... I remember raising my hand... saved when I was...When I was twelve... I came under the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I recognized... I was... I went forward..I called on God... I was baptized...I will...

I will worship, I will sacrifice, I will praise, I will surrender all, I will, I will, I will...

This is not a confession of saving faith. A confession of saving faith speaks of what Christ has done for me. Your assurance of salvation is all based upon what YOU have done and what YOU are doing.

Just like the Pharisee's, you are looking for fruit of what WE have done to be saved.

That is why we have confessions of faith, faith in Christ, and why you have fundementals that one must believe to be saved. The differece is life and death.

Back 2 Basics wrote:
So you have to be saved before you believe? Not according to Paul.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Acts 16
You are puttin the cart before the horse.

Icon O'Clast wrote that you must be regenerated BEFORE you can believe. He did not say, as you wrote, that you have to be saved before you believe.

Is this how you read the scriptures???

I have Vance's 788 page book. It is a very weak argument against Calvinism. There are better. It does not hold a candle to Lorraine Boettners, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

Back 2 Basics wrote:
And by the way - Not Armenian. Thats the polar extreme of Calvanism. Biblical Fundamentalist. Bible and Balanced!

But the polar extreme of being a CalvInist, would be Pelagianist, not ArmInian.

Back 2 Basics wrote:
So you in essense blame God for sin. Shame on you. How unChristian. Why do you twist and distort the Scriptures to fit your view.

Miguel wrote:
I've noticed that most Calvinists revert back to this type of arguement. There are so many different types of people that call themselves "Calvinists" it is inevitable that they will eventually accuse you of confusing "their Calvinism" with some other kind of Calvinism.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/WestminsterConfessionMainPage.htm

Pastor Gary Click wrote:
And your comments confirm what has been stated you you try to deny. Calvanists tend not to obey the Great Commission.

You are confusing hyper-Calvinism with "Calvinsm"

With your line of reasoning, since Calvin committed such sins in his life, therefore the doctrine of sovereign election is wrong. Using the same line of reasoning, the world would have an excuse for not believing the truths of Christianity because christians in history have committed sins and crimes.

Calvin is not the father of sovereign election. He is not the representative head or in your case "strawman" for the WCF doctrines.

Pastor Gary Click wrote:
You still haven't told me the last time you witnessed or won someone to Christ. Are you a soulwinner or not?
No frustration here. I have answered you to my satisfaction.

Just to let you know. There are just a few who blog on these forums, but many more monitor them.

Therefore, you might want to try provide a better defense for your side and answer the questions rather than changing the subject and attacking the blogger. You are letting your side down. I would think that being a pastor that you must be a well educated man and a presumed leader in theological issues. Perhaps you could exercise that leadership and humility in your debate skills.

The doctrine of free will...

And the doctrine of free grace

ENGINEER wrote:
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."Heb.9:22

Not the "SUBSTANCE" of the blood itself.

A Populist Progressive wrote:
Ahh, But NO !, j.l., You are LYING,

In plain speak, would that translate?

preacherjond. wrote:
I said I purchased and read his commentary set or did you miss that...
If I were you I would be careful how I put more confidence in a man than the Word of God.
I stand on what I said. See ya. You too DJC49.
[URL=http://www.greatpreachers.org/john_macarthur.html]]]Beware of John MacArthur[/URL]

whichversionofbibleunity wrote:
Challenge: Probably should stick to 'facts', buy a copy of Three Modern Versions A critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV, and NKJV. (Pastor Alan Macgregor Wickford Reformed Baptist Church Essex-a former Police Inspector)

Which version then would be the inspired version in France?

Or how about Germany?

Spain, Kenya, Chile, Argentina?

What is the prerequesite for determining a "Authorized Version"?

preacherjond wrote:
MacArthur teaches lordship salvation. He's a hyper-Calvinist. He denies the reality of the blood of Christ. He is a new evangelical ecumenist.

One must be careful when judging someone's servant.

Ruth wrote:
The argument Mike presents is good, but in order for me to say 'amen' I still have the following problem with this side.
Why do modern versions align itself all the time with the most liberal churches?

Neil wrote:
Please detail how Robbins misrepresented or misquoted Horton. Where was the lack of "due diligence?"
I know Horton isn't always mistaken, but he still ought to be held to account for any errors in judgment, esp. given his position as a seminary prof and a broadcaster.

And your man Robbins not only condemns Horton, he condemns other respected theologians like R.C. Sproul in the ame indirect manner.

"The basic theological and philosophical problem with organizations such as The White Horse Inn, Modern Reformation magazine, Westminster Seminary, Ligonier Ministries, Table Talk magazine, Stand to Reason radio, Summit Ministries, and Coral Ridge Ministries is not simply their failure, but their refusal to be captive to the Word of God. The “Reverend Doctors” think they are smarter – or at least more widely read – than the Holy Spirit himself, and so they promote the wisdom of men, not the wisdom of Christ"
Quote John W. Robbins