In contrast the Bible betrays your position:

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Well, there you have it folks. Murray just called himself a heretic. Of course we already knew that since we have already seen him in action taking a knife to God's word.

"Where are your Dispensational scholars in the early period of the Church; in the Middle Ages; in the C16th or the C18th? Tell me!"

Try Paul
"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God"

And the whole of church history that believed in various dispensations.

Thurant you are a bonehead. The verse does not state that regeneration comes before believeing. It just makes a simple declarative statement that one must be born again. No order in play there. No first and then. No number one and number two.

Regeneration is an instantaneous act that occurs when one appropriates saving faith. What are you going to put a timeline to adoption, and justification, propitiation, and whatever other spiritual benefit we get as a result of salvation?

I think I will change the title of my book to 101 most ridiculous statments by Calvinists.
_______________________________________
"Do you NOT know any apostates, who have left the faith? IB or BB?"

Yes. It's ridiculous to state that those who are baptized as infants will be guaranteed that they will never leave the faith. Such ridiculousness can only exist in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist. And it's no different in kind to the "halfway covenant" for while the former states that he will eventually come to the faith, the other states that he is in the faith. This is not only two sides of the same coin but rather the same side of the same coin.

What are you talking about. When was the last time Richard Dawkins was published in a peer revied journal?

ISI (Science Citation Index) is the international yardstick used to assess the quality of a scientist’s work. There are two indicators:

1. The number of publications they have that are listed in ISI.
2. The number of times other scientists have cited these papers.

He only has one reference way back in 1966 and that was the year he got his doctorate.

What does it mean. Well, it means that Richard Dawkins has about the same impact in Science Citation Index as a 2nd or 3rd year postgraduate student. To give it some context if one looks up the ISI record of two Australian Professors, both aged around 60 years, neither of them a public figure, neither would be at all known in the public sphere outside their narrow field of endeavour, but within their field they are considered world class scientists.

Professor 1. 289 Publications Listed. 3,741 citations.
Professor 2. 600 Publications Listed. 3,696 citations.

What's this the Calvinist Gestapo?

Besides doing the task in front of me, I was also catching up on the post. I finally had to give up.

To answer your question:

The difference between a "creed" binding on the conscience of its members versus a "church covenant" as found in most Baptist, IFB as well as SBC churches is that church confessions do not carry any jurisdiction over other churches. Every organization has its philosphical tenets that its members abide by, otherwise it would not be an "organization" and their would not be any organization at all but outright chaos.

At that time of my life I learned that the Reformed faith believed in Calvinism. Well, if that's the truth, what did I have to fear. Unfortunately, noone since then has been able to convince me and I do not consider myself that smart. There is nothing so pathetic then a group of elitists trying to explain away simple declarative statements from Scripture as if language has no meaning at all.

Though I am not sorry that your daughter had the fortitude to run from such a perverted system, I am saddened that it has caused the strife that it did. I hope that you both can see through your differences and at the least rejoice in the fact that both of you are saved.

"Why the sudden change of mind, Yamil? I am in total agreement with your first post. There was nothing in my post which suggested otherwise."

I did not change my mind. I was simply giving an accurate description of the Calvinist's position on the subject.

I agree with your definition of Creed, but you must admit that the definition of "creed" simply is its etymological meaning. That would be like stating that "Baptism" is nothing more than immerse and that everybody that takes a dip in the pool or at the beach has been baptized.

A creed is much more than a system of beliefs. The significant difference between the two is that the latter is authoritative upon others. The doctrinal statement of a church has no jurisdiction other than within the local church. This is hardly a creed, any more than your family core beliefs systems is a creed.
______________________________________
"Personally, I think your protest is not against all "Creeds," but it is specifically against Reformed "Creeds" & "Confessions."

There is no evidence for evolution. It would not take me too long to prove that.

Cheryl, the dishes are piling up! When you get Kenny's coffee, do not forget mine!