Faith. The GIFT of God. wrote:
See Charlie Spurgeon's post below John.
snigger, snigger..

Spirit is spirit."
Spirit first.
Born Again.
Only then will God's gift's of faith and repentance work.
Then human responsibility.
John you must stop trying to pinch a bit of the glory for yourself.

You are a hypercalv, holding to a false gospel

Charlie Spurgeon had a great many things to say of people like you. And guess what? None of them were very nice!

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"

ON TOPIC

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Are you implying that Cornelius was also aiming at salvation by works?

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.

Mike wrote:
What does "fatally injured" mean these days?

AntiVaticanistAmerican wrote:
And, NO, They Weren't CARELESSLY PLAYING "with pipe bombs" ! The Teenage Friends "had been BUILDING pipe bombs." !

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 – 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 – Robert Baillie.
The Divine Right of Church Government – the London Ministers.

You may hide under any number of monikers on here but your embittered spirit will always be evident in all your mind numbing and irrelevant posts.

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.

Can you say you do not err on any matter? Are you perfect?

There is a madness in your thinking

"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!

Thurant

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!

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.

Abigail,

Visions and prophecy today are also extra-biblical, but you appear to have a place for them.

Commentaries only seek to explain the Bible. Wayne is not placing them on the same level as the Bible, just questioning how so many commentators could possibily have missed what to you is so clear.

And your statement is absurd too because if you were that concerned about not using extra-biblical reference materials, then why bother consulting all the dictionaries? Are they inspired?

If you really want to help define fornication, then deal with what Wayne last wrote, viz.:

"If you don't believe my understanding of the definition of fornication, consider this:

"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." 1 Cor.5:1

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?

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.