Michael Hranek wrote: 1. only by His own sovereign election and the supernatural work of His word and Spirit .... repentance and saving faith in Jesus Christ 2. Still for those who fail (rebellously?) to see His love for the lost and pervert His word
1. I agree thus far in your word here Michael. Question; Do you accept that the election of God took place before the foundation of the world? And, Do you agree that God's election of the individual is nothing to do with actions, volition or decisions made by said individual? 2. I suppose in a word what you are referring to here is "False Teaching"? The problem with the identification of false teaching is that the Arminian for example does not believe that his theology is actually wrong. CAB being a case in point. There are occasions when I have "corrected" some on here about the way in which they have formed their post which alludes more to man taking precedent over God or grace. Another presumptuous error is "hyper-Calvinism" for some in ignorance, simply used as an insult rather than a theological interpretation. But in truth it is actually a prescribed theological and interpretational deviation, and has a specific synopsis. Comprehension makes all the difference!
Remember as God's People WE will be persecuted by Satan's servant.
Matt 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1. No one but you is putting forth an Arminian view of the atonement 2. You have no answer to the fact that those whom you say cannot be saved
1. The Arminian heresy has been around since Jesus walked the earth. One of the observations made by those in the know is that Arminianism is rife within the churches today. It is unbiblical heresy and fallacy pure unadulterated error and is to be fought against by the followers of Jesus. (2Peter 2:1/2 refers) What I post is not only for those who debate on the thread but all who may read the posts. I serve Christ by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and sound doctrine. 2. God saves the Elect who were "Chosen before the foundation of the world" and I use the sound doctrine which the Elect will recognise. As Peter teaches "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:" God and I agree on that fact! ________________
John UK wrote: 1) sheep "come to Christ" 2) They embrace him by faith 3) Every transgression is paid for in full at Calvary
1) "Drawn" by God alone. 2) Faith is the gift of God. 3) Is that Universalism???
Michael Hranek wrote: 7 Let the WICKED forsake his way,
Notice you didn't use the New testament Michael wonder why that was???
btw I was reading that the Arminian style religious person - (who believes that the atonement made salvation possible for all BUT not necessary actual for any) - thus who include the "wicked" reprobated to hell. And thus abandon the concept that the atonement is substitutionary" Is that where you guys are today??
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Ezekiel 18:21 But if the wicked
Lurker wrote: Eze 33:11 .... I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked
I wonder why you guys didn't pick a "winner" from the NT???
btw Have you noticed the lack of "sinners" in Ezekiel??? Wonder why that is???
Now remember my original post IS CORRECT::- ""The Arminian doctrine teaches universalism thus the blood of Christ is declared by them to be ineffectual for some. This is idolatrous and blasphemous teaching. To suggest that God would spill the blood of His Son for the wicked is sheer folly and fallacy. Thus it is false religion.""
I hope for the sake of the "sinner" that your witness will know the difference between the two and be effectual.
Here are the Five Points of Calvinism called "TULIP" The Doctrines of Grace With Scripture Verses........... http://fivesolas.com/tulipscriptures.htm
For example "I. TOTAL DEPRAVITY
A. Arminian Position: Man is spiritually sick. Fallen man was seriously affected by the fall but he still has the ability to choose spiritual good. He determines his eternal destiny by either accepting or rejecting God's mercies.
B. Reformed Position: Man is spiritually dead. Because of the fall, man has become spiritually dead, blind and deaf to the things of God and is therefore unable of himself to choose spiritual good and determine his own destiny.
C. Scriptural Support for the Reformed Position
1. The fall has resulted in spiritual death to all men.
Michael Hranek wrote: I didn't want to pass up the opportunity
Michael. As I alluded to your brothers below I am really worried about the teaching and doctrines that you poor Baptists are receiving. As I have often had to correct and teach you for example when you fall back into your old popish ways, and the Baptist penchant for avoiding the Old Testament and God's Covenant etc etc.
But you and your Baptist brothers needn't worry I will stick around for your edification and bring more accurate exegesis to the threads for y'all.
Hey Ups, Found this on a truly Biblical site. Thought I would give it to you. "6. There is an unbroken record in church history of the practice of infant baptism. Although tradition is of a secondary value, it is especially important here for this reason: We know for a fact that the earliest Christians after the death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism, with the command of those who were trained by the apostles themselves. Where was the debate, assuming these immediate successors to the disciples were departing from the apostolic practice? 7. Baptism is the work of God, not man. It is not a sign of the believer's commitment to God (which would, therefore, require prior faith and repentance), but the sign and seal of God's promise to save all who do not reject their baptism by refusing to trust in Christ. For the nature of baptism, see Mark 16:16, Acts. 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Tit. 3:5. The reason these references are to those who have first believed is that the first converts, obviously, were adults when the believed, but they evidently baptized their children. The same was true of Abraham, who believed before he was circumcised, but then had his children circumcised as infants." (M.S.Horton)
John UK wrote: I did say there was no need to respond. Why do you insist on making it difficult for yourself? Observe Romans 5:8 KJV 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet **sinners**, Christ died for us. Christ died for sinners, to save sinners. This is simple theology.
Now that you've got the word "sinners" in your brain cell - Go back and identify the word which I used in the original post. Remember we Presbyterians stick to the Bible.
The Arminian doctrine teaches universalism thus the blood of Christ is declared by them to be ineffectual for some. This is idolatrous and blasphemous teaching. To suggest that God would spill the blood of His Son for the wicked is sheer folly and fallacy. Thus it is false religion.
The Arminian reasoning behind this fiction is to bring God and Christ down - whilst they raise man up to divine level that they might boast of saving themselves. This of course is blatant idolatry and follows the path of Roman Catholicism and their salvation by works.
Arminianism is the seed of Liberalism. Liberalism is the church who ditched the Bible. Arminianism is the church who led the way to misinterpreted, misconstrued and mistranslated Bible religious hypothesis.
Arminianism is the opposite of Calvinism. Calvinism obeys and serves the whole counsel of God - The complete Bible. As CHS stated Calvinism IS the Gospel.
Arminianism is free will for man. Arminianism is free sin to dominate man. Arminianism is the Religion of Doubt. Doubt of the Lord and doubt of salvation. Arminian human concept of free will can be seen in Roman Catholicism and Jehovah's Witness theology - This of itself demonstrates its heretical origins.
All 5 points wrote: I believe that Mr. Rutherford taught differently then this comment above ... No man knows the heart of another man. God alone knows the heart
I am surprised that you would think that Rutherford or any Reformed Christian would think differently. The excerpt you quoted above your post comes from Matt 7:21-23. And as Christ finishes at verse 23 "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." What do you think Jesus was saying - If not they are the unsaved?
God can read the heart of man and man cannot read the heart, which tells us that God knows more about us than any mortal can ever know. This also teaches that God knows His elect - And we can never know who is elect.
This brings us to the invisible church on earth, invisible to mankind but visible to God. John 10: 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. Christ's "sheep" believe. Christ's "sheep" hear the voice of the Lord. Christ's "sheep" follow Jesus. The rest go to hell.
Christ's "sheep" which HE refers to are the Elect of God.
Michael Hranek wrote: And another thought is that when God Himself speaks of His people being holy to Him it is in the context of them being His own special treasure
But don't forget Michael there are many who call Him Lord, Lord and cannot really mean it. Roman Catholics, Arminians, Free willers, Wesleyans et al Cannot be Elect of a Sovereign God. They haven't received the truth of T.U.L.I.P. and obviously come up with fallacy instead of Bible doctrine. So the "people of God" are a particular people whom God and Christ "know" (Mat 7:23) and know them to be Holy and His own.
Jesus states::- John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.
Regarding this article and "Christians reject idea of waiting for marriage" (adultery) - These are nominal Christian and probably come from Arminian style churches.
DJC49 wrote: Question: The Roman Catholic church baptizes babies also. Are their peado-baptisms as efficacious as Presby peado-baptisms when it comes to those babies' salvation? Why or why not?
If the parents of the child are Covenanted with God then God recognises the baptism. Papists are not in Covenant with God. If the child of papists grows up to be one of God's elect then he will be baptised as an adult.
Baptist discrimination of the child of Covenanted parents, on the basis of Arminian statement, is a rejection of God's command and will.
Mike wrote: Looks like the Southern Baptist Convention might have to change its name accordingly. How about the Non-Specific Regional Iced Tea and Warm Milk Convention?
Sounds as though they've already thought about it Mike ....
Quote from article.... "Their restlessness isnâ€™t new. The 168-year-old Southern Baptist Convention â€” the countryâ€™s largest Protestant denomination with some 46,000 cooperating U.S. churches and over 4,800 field personnel worldwide â€” was asked to consider changing its name at least seven times between 1965 and 2004, said spokesman Roger Oldham."
Aaawwww poor Bapty's are all confused about "baptism"
Haven't I been telling y'all about that for months?
Hows about this for the Baptist denomination....
"""Association of churches who reject the Covenant of God, reject His command to include their seed and all because they yearn for deep water dunking and an arminian style verbal validation ceremony"""
Alternatively you could always return to the Scripture teaching and doctrine, and the terms of the Covenant of Grace as Abraham was instructed by the Lord.
The Record wrote: Baptism Is Mentioned In The Historic Authorized English King James Version Of The Historic Authorized Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek Version Of The Holy Bible (aka The Textus Receptus); And, Yet Historic Biblical Scholar Have Known For Centuries That Baptism Is IMMERSION; And Not Pouring, Sprinkling, Splashing &-Or Tinkling. So, Who Isn't Celebrating The Proper Form/Mode/Means Of Baptism Here ?
Now come on Record. That old record of suggesting the all wet dunking is Biblical is long broken.
The Presby's are correct in their reading and exegesis of Scripture. Effusion (pouring) or sprinkling is Biblically correct for baptism always has been too. Nothing in Scripture says you have to wet every bit of the person. On No!
Now remember to celebrate the birth of Christ. The Scriptural example of this is that heaven itself did. Remember. 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. Luke 2. Now that is worth celebrating
Also the time of year to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus is just 'CALLED' Easter. Don't worry about it, just celebrate it.