Michael Hranek wrote:
Minnow
Kindly do not put words in my mouth, thank you very much.
I'm not going to argue the Sovereignity of God with you. I am well aware of what Jesus says and I believe Him. I believe in the Sovereignity of God, just not the abuse of it and the abuse of what my Savior has said by some Calvinists, or anyone else for that matter either.
What I reject is salvation through Calvinism as if no one comes to the Father but through the 5 points of TULIP Calvinism and anyone who dares to believe in Jesus Christ isn't good enough for some of these "experts in Calvinism" who act like they have the right to lord it over others,
....why when they act like this they remind me of of the Roman Catholic false religion its Popes and their inquistions.

Lance Eccles wrote:
Unless you do something to merit the graces that Christ has obtained for you, you can cross heaven off your list.

A)It would not be grace or graces which are gifts given without merit. "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Mike wrote:
There seems to be some disagreement from Preacher who said "The Bible calls him dead in sin, unable to discern spiritual things, unable to even see the kingdom before regeneration, let alone enter"
Which is it? Unable to discern spiritual things? Or "when they knew God, they glorified him not.." God is Spirit. Can they know what they cannot discern?

Mike wrote:
Thus have the words been spoken. What do these words mean? On the one hand this so-called corpse-dead unable man can in no way discern any spiritual things, cannot see, hear, understand, and does not care about sin or salvation. On the other hand he must somehow be able to discern God, who is a Spirit, in order that he may care enough to hate Him. There is a big problem here. Yet some have no problem with it. Now there is some twisting!

rogerant wrote:
Sorry Dr. Phil: But I apparantely used poor choice of expressing myself. I believe that God's predestination and plan of particular atonement is just, Holy, gracious and worthy of our greatest praise. I meant to say, that in my natural sense "according to the flesh" of fairness and right and wrong it "seems" cruel. But He says, man's ways are not My ways. I accept the teaching, and I thank God's grace that I believe, and I always think, "why me". I, now as a christian and that I understand soverign grace, see the beauty, the wisdom and the Glory of God, and yes, I wonder, why would God save any of us. I do not think that God can be properly worshipped apart from the proclamation of predestination AND particular atonement. I do not believe that you can truly understand the bible properly untill you accept these two great truths. Once you do, the book opens all the mysteries of God's revelation to your spirit.

rogerant wrote:
I think that predestination is unfair and seems cruel. But I have to humble myself to the scriptures and accept Him and worship Him for who He is. When Paul says: "But indeed oh man, who are you to reply against God" Paul is not saying, "I am sorry but you have misunderstood me", he is rebuking us for judging God's sovereigns choice. We must accept Him for who He is.

just wondering wrote:
Why argue and take sides with either party? Neither McCain nor Obama are born again Christians. Those who are born again really have much praying to do, we have NO candidate to choose from, nor have we had in past elections. The time has come for the body of Christ to pray much, stand firm in the faith, and preach the gospel, in season or out of season {we should have been doing this all along, but sadly, many have fallen into a 'lukewarm' state}.

rogerant wrote:
I am in agreement with everything that you have said. I do not know what you have difficulty in what I had written.

rogerant wrote:
If it is hard to turn whosoever into a exclusive word like elect, then it would equally be hard to turn it into a universal word like everyliving creature born.
The applicable word or meaning then would be, that God's expressed love is not exclusive to the "Jews" only, but now He is expressing his love to the Greeks, Romans, Gentiles or "all nations will be blessed through Him". for before His death, "Salvation is of the Jews"

Mike wrote:
Doesn't matter. It is the structure of the sentence that restricts the sequence. It is the ones who have received him that have been given the power, however you view power, to become sons of God. I don't see how the meaning of power, whether permission, or right, changes that. The believing/receiving of "him" precedes the giving of that power. And I didn't say power meant ability anyway.

jago wrote:
Thank you to those who tried to help with an explanation of the differences in the first 3 options.
If anything you have left me more confused. Wasn't the council of Dort refuting arminianism when it came up with its 5 points of calvinism, yet some here have said that they were both reformed. I do not understand how this could be.
The first option doesn't seem to even be an option and yet nearly half the respondents voted that way.

Redefinition of theological terms or equivocal usage of theological terms have been the tactic of Satan since the time that the serpent said to Eve: "Yea, Hath God said, Ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?"

Michael Hranek wrote:
DJC49
And just how did Jesus treat these "evil men" who were/are in the world?
And what is the one prayer request Jesus made of His disciples that the Father would send....?
And what is the Great Commission and why did Jesus give it?
Do you really expect lost fallen wretched sinners to believe in Jesus Christ if they get ahold of this systematic theology or if this systematic theology gets ahold of them, that tells them they are totally unable to ask God for mercy for their sins if they are not one of the elect, that He won't hear them but has created them and predestinated them to be damned and burn in hell forever.?

preacherjond. wrote:
Yep. Nothing like the good ole shroud to keep the faithful going-- further into idolatry.

"Sky - what a scowl of cloud
Till near and far,
Ray on ray split the shroud:
Splendid - a star!"

Mike wrote:
The will is free, else it is not the will at all.

It is more accurate to say that the will (of man) WAS free. However, when Adam sinned his will being a part of him went with him into sin. Adam willfully sinned. It remains in the children of Adam until they are regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit by grace.

Vigilante wrote:
Jim, why do you insist on attempting to defend your religion with scripture?

MurrayA wrote:
I think we need to understand that NASA justifies its funding allocation by the search for extra-terrestrial life. NASA is very much involved in the SETI programme, and its space probe equipment is geared toward that end.
Integral to this object is the search for water: the evolutionary belief that al you need is a conglomeration of the right chemicals, and then - just add water! When one adds water, hey presto...life!!! You don't believe me? Then listen to the rhetoric!
So it's not just the media which gets on to the life-on-other-planets bandwagon; it's NASA itself.
Hence they will get excited when some lowly organic compound is found - and you will then hear "the building-blocks of life" mantra. The same goes for discovery of water.

reason wrote:
From Dictionary.com
vigilante:
"member of a vigilance committee," 1856, Amer.Eng., from Sp. vigilante, lit. "watchman," from L. vigilantem (see vigilance). Vigilant man in same sense is attested from 1824 in a Missouri context. Vigilance committees kept informal rough order on the frontier or in other places where official authority was imperfect.

"summarily": done without delay or formality: quickly executed

"For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward." Isa 52:12