Jim Lincoln wrote: Criticism of Islam should be made mandatory --- [URL=http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Barton/11.htm]]]Inadequacy of Islam[/URL] and [URL=http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm]]]Muhammad[/URL] are good starting points.
Jim, you should think of applying for James Dobsons position at Focus on the Family.
You are on top of every christian ethic subject in the world. Don't you work? Where do you find time to do all of this blogging. You may as well get paid for it.
Mike wrote: No disagreement there, John. I found an interesting quote by Mr. Calvin about the faithless ones who reject Christ. I'm sure the flower children will find contrary ones, but this one seems to damage a petal. What do you think? "Now the mean whereby we be made partakers of our Lord Jesus Christ, is our embracing of the promises of the Gospel by true faith. For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls." Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27 The blood of Christ, the ransom for the faithless souls, too, hey? Perhaps Calvin was a 4-pointer?
Calvin is saying that those have trodden underfoot the "appointed means" of their salvation.
Christ and His ransom was the only appointed means of their salvation. He is not teaching that Christ ransomed all.
Not onnly do you read the Bible out of context, you read Calvin out of context.
DJC49 wrote: For you, regeneration is NOT synonymous with conversion. Many here see regeneration as being equivalent to being "born-again" = "the new birth" = "salvation." You do not. For you, it's synonymous with quickening et al. ... that is, something prior to "conversion."
That is correct Don. I believe that one can be given "ears to hear" long before one is preached the Gospel and is lays hold of Christ. In my case it was months apart. When God brought me to my knees to call upon Him for a sign, I had not been preached the gospel. But I asked that He reveal Himself in some way. I recognized the sign, or power of his love, and from that time on, I had a seeking heart. The Lord then moved me to the U.S. through His providence, and then brought me to a Church where I heard the Gospel.
All this, of course through His providence and means.
Why calamity came into my life, that caused me to break and pray to Him to reveal himself to me. I don't know why. It must have been because someone was praying for me, or because of sovereign purpose alone. Who knows?
Joe T. wrote: To start I will list the order of salvation: The ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification.
I don't know if I agree with that order. But this is just my opinion of the order:
I, like Cornelius, had an event in my life, that I believed drew me to look for truth in the word. I wasn't looking for Christ at that time. But God draws people through His own process.
I believe that in God's process of salvation, that He may drag people through hell during the process, then create a desire in their heart for truth, then illuminate their minds to the beauty and grace of Christ. The awakening of one's mind to truth can happen before conversion. This awakening, quickening and regeneration of one's mind to truth can come before one lays hold to the truth of the Gospel. These events are all means that God uses to bring his elect into the fold. The cause of salvation still resides however in His election
DJC49 wrote: I notice you call me "friend" and not "brother."
Nothing like the power of prayer from a faithful saint!
Welcome back brother Don!
Now back to the question. "Which issue do you think most confronts the Church of today?
I think many people are short sighted and focused upon their own small sphere to actually understand the Soverign work of our Lord on the earth today. People may think they know what issue confronts the churches in their town and on their continent, but are blind to God's work in peoples hearts outside of their own fruit tasting research labs.
What confronts the churches in my city. The mainline protestent churches have fallen away, all the evangelical churches have become legalistic communes of disensensationalists attempting to save the reprobate.
But what do they have in common. Neither of them "feed the sheep" that God sends them. None of them are focused upon a proper proclamation of "law" and "gospel". None of them are focused as the Cheribum were, on the "Mercy Seat".
But, God is at work. He is breathing life into millions of sinners around the world. China and South Korea are such recipients of His resurrecting power!
Michael Hranek wrote: DJC49 Excuse me I don't want to be unkind to you by why in the world would you post something like that to me considering the words you have posted recently? I am fine. And how is my friend? I hope you are well.
Actually Michael, if you go back 3 or 4 days, DJC has been uncharacteristically kind, supportive and nice. He has supportive to CU, John UK, Mike, and now YOU!
This change in DJC's demeanor is making me nauseous and quite concerned for his spirit. Don Fortner would call it "just plain silliness".
I will continue to pray for Don's spirit to return to him. Myabe you could help by preaching to him, it make provoke him to anger and return him to his senses!
Mike wrote: Rogerant, I have to disagree with your conclusion. The right or power to receive is not speaking of receiving Christ, but of those who have received Christ having the right to become sons of God. The liberty or authority to become sons of God comes from receiving Christ. "Exousia" would seem to confirm it, imo.
Nice squirming Mike
Here is what you posted:
But as many as received him, *to them* gave he power... Notice the past tense "received," the prior occurrence of "received" to the giving of the power? To whom was given this power? To "them," to those who "received him."
V13 reinforces the truth that the new birth is of the Lord, but it does not reinforce the idea that power was given that the many could receive.
All over your post at 12:42 P.M. you interpreted "power" to mean ability or strenght, not right or privelage.
Mike wrote: John 1:12,13 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." But as many as received him, *to them* gave he power... Notice the past tense "received," the prior occurrence of "received" to the giving of the power? To whom was given this power? To "them," to those who "received him."
Sorry Mike but you need to get out your concordance. The word "power" in verse 12 is the word Exousia 1849, not Dunamis 1410.
Dunamis speaks of "strength power, ability. It is the word that we get the word dynamite!
Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power (dunamis)of God unto salvation"
Exousia means, power of choice, or liberty to do as one pleases. The ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
It is the same word that is used in Romans 9:21 "Hath not the potter power (exousia) over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"
John UK wrote: These men were quite obviously whole-Bible men and, although willing to read the words of other men and learn from them, yet took the scriptures only (sola scriptura) for their doctrine.
Just FYI: Do you at all recognize the air of arrogance in those who consider themselves as open minded, as whole Bible men, or led by the Spirit, and believe that they themselves, to the exclusion of all others who hold to a definite consistent SYSTEMATIC method of interpretation, as being hyper, those who hold to extreme views, or those who worship men or doctrines?
We who hold to a firm method or structural framework of Biblical interpretation as ascribed to by saints that have gone before us and humble ourselves to this methodology as being Biblical, are not hyper nor reprobate who have gone after another God.
Being consistantly charged as not being WHOLE BIBLE MEN, or as WORSHIPPING CALVIN, HYPER OR EXTREME by those who proudly proclaim THIS is what "I" believe, is hardly the confession of a humble saint.
PS. Bishop Ryle of the Church of England who would have humbled himself to The Thrity Nine Articles, would also have something to say about those who like to fly by the seat of their own pants.
Mike wrote: And so death passed upon all men. Why? "for that all have sinned." (Rom 5:12) Now where I don't have clarity is, did we actually inherit his specific sin? All have sinned seems to say all have sinned their own sins.
Again, this whole subject must relate back to "Union with Christ" and "Being IN Christ"
All people were seminally inherient "In Adam". (Federal View) Adam was the federal head, or representative head. Adam's sin was imputed to all men, not because all men sinned (Realist View).
Adams one sin of disobedience, was charged to (or imputed to) all his seed. BUT, likewise, Christ's one act of obedience,(His death on the cross) imputed righteousness abounded to "many" who were "in Christ" by the Spirit of God. So all of His "seed", the many, received Christ's righteousness.
Thus, those who died from Adam to Moses, died because of Adam's sin, because, sin is not imputed when there is not law. Romans 5:13. Nevertheless men died, before they received the law. Sin can not be imputed to those who did not have the law, unless of course, some one else's sin is imputed to them. That sin was Adams. Not a realized sin in man, "after Adam".
lamp shining wrote: Just not true! God works within the framework of order which He has created.
No I am sorry but you are wrong if you are claiming to be any type of being Calvinist. Whether being a 1 point or 5 point Calvinist. Calvin and Owen never taught the 5 points of Calvinism. Calvin taught "UNION IN CHRIST"
Therefore, an effectual atonement. Therefore, salvation at the cross. Not at the point of realization or proclamation of salvation. Christ's death appeased God's wrath.
If you don't believe this, you can not believe in any type of any theology that referrers to being Calvinistic in any resemblance at all. Therefore you, or are anyone else, including CU that tries to distinguish salvation apart from any other time than at the cross, can not claim to have any unity with Calvin.
John UK wrote: If one asked him, "Where are you going?" he would have replied, "I am fleeing from the wrath to come." But if the questioner pressed him as to where he was going, he would have replied, "I am not sure where to go, and I am looking for help in this matter."
As I stated before. This process of trying to determine the order of salvation from historical book of Acts is worthless. IT IS A HISTORICAL BOOK!
Those who read the book of Acts to determine the doctrines of salvation, the doctrines of liturgy, the doctrine of Baptism, the doctrine of the Lords Supper etc. are misguided.
Paul did not build his doctrines of grace and salvation from Chronicles and Kings!
When was Cornelius saved?
AT THE CROSS!
Read Ephesians chapters one and two!
Those who were "In Christ" were saved at the cross in 33 A.D.
You were placed "In Him" at the cross. Salvation did not come to Cornelius in Acts 10! The proclamation of Cornelius's salvation was proclaimed in Acts 10. If you believe that you were saved when you came to faith in Christ, then you have saved yourself. Not God saving you! You can not even claim to be even a one point Calvinist if you think that Cornelius was not saved until Acts 10!
John UK wrote: Oh I like these easy questions. No, of course not! Let me give you the simple facts about man in his natural state being incapable of responding to the gospel and is quite dependent on being chosen unconditionally and Jesu specifically dying for his sins and in time calling him through his spiritual earhole and justifying him on belief in Christ, and continually preserving until he takes his place in heaven, and then throughout eternity. Come on pew view, let's be adventurous. Let's be all out for Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!
Is there a single living soul out there that can pin down this fellows position on effectual calling? Is there anyone here that can actually identify with 95% of his beliefs? 80%? I am somewhere between 20%-80% sure of what he believes concerning this. Is there anyone else out there as confused as I am where this dude stands?
Joe T. wrote: This is a wonderful example that Christ knows who are His sheep. "And he [Jesus] must needs go through Samaria." (John 4:4). Although the Samaritan woman may not have been converted before Jesus met her because she had five husbands, Cornelius on the other hand had the approbation of God. This is a different set of circumstances in the example you provided.
One should take note here: The samaritans worshipped a combination of the jewish religion and the 5 pagan God's of Samaria that they married themselves to after their return from the Assyrian dispersion. Thus the referrence to the 5 husbands, to whom none were really her husband. Thus, the woman was a spiritual aldultress as were the Samaritans. She did not worship the true God even in sense of the OT economy. But Cornelius did know the OT God as revealed in the OT economy.
DJC49 wrote: AT WHAT POINT IN TIME was he saved. Was he saved prior to us reading about him in Acts 10:1? Was he saved before or during the preaching of Peter in Acts 10:34-43? Or was he saved after Peter's Gospel message was finished (afterward being baptized)?
My opinion on when Cornelius was saved
In the mind of God, before the foundation of the world when He wrote Cornelius's name in the Book of Life with the rest of the elect.
In actual time, he was saved when Christ gave up His spirit, just after he claimed "IT IS FINISHED"
When did the Holy Spirit quicken Cornelius to faith in the redeemer; before he met Peter.
When did the Holy Spirit illuminate Cornelius's mind to the knowledge that the man Jesus Christ was the promised messiah; when Peter preached the word to him.
When was the assurance of Cornelius's salvation "in Christ" PROCLAIMED; was in Acts 10.
Veritas wrote: If people would spend half the time reading their Bible that they did arguing think of how much more united the Bride of Christ could be...
Perhaps if people would spend some time in some dialogue pertaining to the truths of scripture rather than having their heads in the sand and attempting to silence those desire to debate, there would be more unity.
I am sure that there are others including myself that benefit from the due diligance that one undergoes in studying the Bible to share the hope that resides within us.
If it had not been for debate, the RCC would still rule, not the gospel.
Joe T. wrote: Cornelius was receptive to the words of Peter and being regenerate or born of the Spirit, he could accept those spiritual teachings and believe Christ to be the Messiah. He was saved and the outward profession of his belief in Christ was a manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, whereby it could be said that he shall be saved and was saved. All praise be to God!
Welcome to the cat fight Joe!
May I ask what church you attend in Calgary? You can email the answer to me if you like.