Faith. The GIFT of God. wrote: John Who does your exegesis for you? It's not the lady at the laundry again is it? What Paul is teaching in this verse is that the wisdom of the worldly men, for all their vain belief in it, is going to send them to hell. Whereas the preaching of the Word of God will be used by the Holy Spirit to save the Remnant whom God has elected unto salvation. As for your proposal quote - ""saved" is the result of "believed" I think I'll stick to the merits of Christ since, Jesus saves! - NOT the act of the sinner. Jn 8.36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. Jo 15.4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me" Stay in the vine John. He is the only way. Give Him all the glory, don't take any for yourself. Not even YOUR(?) faith.
Salvation before faith is UNBIBLICAL, and completely contrary to Reformation Doctrine. Hence, "Salvation is by Grace THROUGH FAITH"
The issue that most confronts the church today is a false "calvinism", which is built on a philosophical foundation and NOT the word of God
Calvinist Understanding wrote: OK let's change the scene slightly if thinking of Moslems makes you uncomfortable. What about the millions of unsaved in protestant churches who are religious, some of them very religious, but who nevertheless do not agree that one needs to be born again, or that one is justified by grace through faith alone and could not give a conversion testimony of any sort? They pray, they give generously to charity, the are devout, they fear God etc.
DJC49 wrote: (The 4 things which are mentioned in Acts 10:2 are things that a good Moslem would -- and could -- do, i.e., be devout; fear God; give alms; pray). If I have to explain this to you, then you're beyond hope.
Moslemâ€™s are devout to Allah, fear Allah, give alms in the name of Allah and pray to Allah, it is not to THE TRUE GOD OF THE BIBLE!
Walt wrote: .....Critical reading on one of the most important controversies during the days of the Westminster Assembly. Independency a Great Schism: Proved Against Dr. John Owen, His Apology in his Tract of Schism â€“ Daniel Cawdrey. .......Anabaptism, the True Fountain of Independency, Antinomy, Brownisme, Familisme, and the Most of the Other Errors, Which for the Time Do Trouble the Church of England, Unsealed â€“ Robert Baillie. The Divine Right of Church Government â€“ the London Ministers.
Historical lies repeated ad nauseum! The English Baptists were nothing to do with the continental anabaptists... they even stated it in their confession of faith... But Walt prefers generalisations and lies because it suits his ultra narrow presbyterianism!
Your Protestant vs RC is too easy. What I am talking about is those in the Protestant tradition who nevertheless have genuine differences of opinion on what the Bible teaches on matters like freewill etc.
So, let's take a point at a time, because I don't think you are getting my point.
"Or will you believe the lies of the Devil who hisses his lies into your soul, that Jesus' words in the Gospels are not for Christians but for Jews only, spoken in code to the Jews, too hard to understand, and best left completely alone "
Why does this have to be the devil's lies? Can it not be merely the error of sincere but misguided men? Or are men not allowed to err of themselves without ascribing every error to the devil? This is an idiotic and simplistic dualism.
No doubt those who believe in dispensationalism could equally level the charge against your Calvinism. Would that make your Calvinism the doctrine of devils?
Remember the Lord's words in Matthew 22.29; Mark 12.24 and Mark 12.27. He spoke of the men erring, not of their error NECESSARILY being devilish!!
And so we would say of your position- ye do err not knowing the scriptures!
You are straying from the point. Is every error heresy? Then can you say with absolute certainty that you do not err on any point?
I am speaking as a believer of the doctrines of grace. I believe that all believers are given light, some more clearly than others. I will not be dogmatic and go as far as to say that Arminians for instance will not be in Heaven. Do you believe that John Wesley is in Heaven? George Whitfield had no doubts, C H Spurgeon had no doubts.. you obviously do!
The danger is not that we don't believe our Calvinism. The danger is that our Calvinism makes us to arrogant and narrow minded as to think that only Calvinists will be saved. The emphasis then shifts from preaching the Gospel for salvation to making Calvinistic disciples!!
So much smoke and not even an attempt to answer the challenge.
So let me ask you again, read Wayne's post that I referred to, and see if your defintion of fornication fits.
FYI- I have no fixed views on the matter as yet. I am still thinking deeply on the whole issue, because unlike you I can see the exegetical difficulties.
Your "Oh no one can agree over this because they all have an agenda and I don't therefore my view must be right", is too absurd to need any comment. You have your presuppositions like anyone else- hence for instance your insistence that the fictional modern gifts are the genuine article.
Whether you like it or not, there are people on a genuine quest for truth, and the last thing that is needed is simplistic solutions which don't face up to the difficulties presented by the text.
The OT had a severence policy .. albeit radical - the guilty party had to be put to death. Yes granted that this not divorce per se, but it does have a bearing on the question. Someone quoted "what God hath joined together let no man put asunder". But that is the whole point -God himself commanded the adulterer to be put to death and thereby the marriage was terminated.
Is there a NT equivalent? And if so, what is it? Or are we to believe that God would grant bills of divorcement (during the period of the bethrol only, if one is to believe that this was the culture) because of their weakness and death for the offending party if proved to be an adulterer, but that for NT believers there is nothing but a indefinite sentence of suffering, even if the partner is a serial sexual offender, or perhaps even given to violence etc? And if the innocent party happens to be a pastor, and perhaps despite his best efforts, his wife proves unfaithful that not only should he suffer the shame of a divorce, but also the loss of office?
JD makes a great deal about a man who knows how to rule his own house. But how does one rule an unruly wife? Did not the Lord himself speak about Israel being as an unruly wife and Him divorcing her? Was that the Lord's fault?
"Sorry that the Scriptures do not speak for themselves in your understanding. What can I say?"
The scriptures do for the most part speak clearly. What is troubling is your way of using them and your complete inability to argue your case from them.
If you are not able/willing to reason from them (and by this I do not mean merely quoting them- I mean explain them so as to show how you are drawing the lessons and applying them) then my humble suggestion would be that you learn how to discuss and not merely pontificate before posting any more on these forums.