DJC49 wrote: _____________________________ Reading the capitalized portion of the quote from JD above, once again, ABSOLUTELY SICKENED ME!!! And this supposed preacher on Saturday's does this sort of thing ALL THE TIME around here: making inflamatory remarks which cut to the very heart and bring into question the very salvation of posters who happen to have differing opinions than does he. How TOTALLY uncharitable and demeaning to a brother in Christ can this JD get by stating that: "YOU MEN DO NOT HAVE A CKUE [sic] WHY JESUS CHRIST HAD TO DIE!" HOW INSULTING!!!!!!!!! Who, JD, do you suppose you think you're talking to? A bunch of reprobate heathen? A bunch of unbelieving atheists? And you throw these uncalled for low blows ALL THE TIME, JD!!! I don't know HOW you can then go out into the world and preach the gospel with a straight face after knowing in your heart that you've scandalized your brothers in Christ all week long here on these boards. It's disgusting.
Moderator Alpha wrote: Mr. J, I would ask that you not reference another user in a derogatory manner such as "wombat". Thank you.
If you have read any of the posts between myself and the said gentleman, you would have to agree that "Wombat" is a mild term. A Wombat is not an offensive animal, it is an Australian icon, sort of cute and not at all anti-social. But it moves rather slowly, doesn't think much faster and is too stubborn to reason with. As such I thought it an apt description. That said, I will take your request to heart and will no longer refer to Mr Cure as a Wombat. I will no longer refer to him at all.
JD wrote: No, No, mr J, the proposition given to us that a man cannot call upon God because he is dead. And what is this that Jesus did not die in the same way Adam died? How did God forsake him? Does his crying out to God when he had died not dispute your contention that one must be regenerated before he can do that. He was not regenerated until he was raised from the dead. See Ro 1:1-5. So, what is your answer?
You cannot compare Christ's resurrection - where He voluntarily laid down His life and took it up again - with a dead sinner being regenerated by the Spirit of God. We are not just regenerated. There is no such thing as a "Born Again" Christian. You are either a Christian or you are not. And if you are a Christian then you are regenerated, justified and sanctified. My original question to you and to the Wombat was regarding the effects of sin. My Bible tells me that because of sin all humans are spiritually dead, unable to discern spiritual things, hate God and are unable to do or produce anything good. Is that how you would at any stage describe Jesus? Or do you not agree with what I said about sin? Obviously you don't because you believe that sinners are not really dead - merely stunned. Your comparison is a dud. Sorry. Next!
JD wrote: Mr J, I am showing from this question that you men do not have a ckue why Jesus Christ had to die and what that death means to all of us. Now I am doubting that you believe that he is totally a man.
You make accusations you have no right to make mate! Who are "you men" anyway? Christ was made like us in all things, APART FROM SIN! The sin He bore was not His own, it was ours. Jesus 100% man and 100% God, but He did not inherit our sinful nature. So He was never like we are - born in sin. If He were like us in that regard then He would need a Saviour. Can you not see what a ridiculous proposition you are making just to score a point and make yourself look clever? You refuse to answer direct questions given to you, because you have no answer. Then you come up with this unbelievable tripe. Where does it say that sin had the same effect on Him as it did on Adam. Where do "You Men" get your theology from? Peter J was right - you're all full of yourselves and not much else.
DJC49 wrote: More like: total depravity In a "nice" sorta way.
You were wrong on one point mate - there is nothing "nice" about this wombat. He is what we Aussies call a smart alec. Someone who thinks he is smart, but everytime he opens his mouth every one else falls around laughing. I won't even be bothered answering his posts anymore.
JD wrote: I want an answer to this question. How did a spiritual man call out to God? The case the calvinists have been making is that one must be regenerated before he can call on God. When our Lord Jesus Christ hung on the cross, he died spiritually first as did Adam when he sinned. from God spiritually.When that happened the world turned dark, the condition of a man who is separated Mt 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And now, here is a spiritually dead man calling upon God, something the Calvinists says he cannot do. Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? I hope they do not deny the humanity of Jesus nor minimize what took place on that cross for fallen humanity in favor of a corrupt religion. It would be more serious than any of us could imagine.
So you are equating the Saviour, who subjected Himself to the Father even unto death, with an unregenrate man who is in full-blown rebellion against God and is unable to even discern spiritual things? Interesting! Where do you get this blasphemous nonsense from?
kevin wrote: I thought this question was on the rapture. Kevin
It was Kev, but somehow every discussion on this forum gravitates back to that age old question - do we have free will or don't we? And the strange thing is, that is one argument Arminians can never win. Not without seriously ignoring, explaining away or downright twisting large parts of the Bible. But I digress - this question was on the rapture. There are currently two other discussions in progress (I use the word discussion loosely) on the Calvin-saint-or-sinner? issue. So let us get back to the Rapture. As an Optimistic Amillenialist (call me a Postie if you will) I scratch my head in amazement wondering where this whole "rapture" issue comes from. The one text that everyone keeps giving me, the one in Thessalonians, says nothing about any secret rapture and must be read back to front to fit Dispensationalist theology. So - where else in the Bible does it talk about a secret rapture?
KK - the James texts made Luther very wary. He didn't want to include James in the canon. The doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone (sola fide) was such a foundational issue in the Reformation that any hint of works was shied away from. But Luther did not understand James' point. Paul argues that justification is either 100% grace or 100% works. The second you add 1% works, grace disappears, and vice versa. James does not disagree with Paul - he just takes it one step further. The evidence of your justification by faith can only be demonstrated by what you do - ie, your works. As Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." This is echoed by John when He refers to the believers as those who kept the testimony of Jesus Christ, AND kept the commandments of God (Rev 12:17, 14:12). To be justified is as important and vital as to be regenerated. You cannot even seperate them. Those who are regenerated are justified AND sanctified. Those are the 3 things everyone needs from the moment of conception (Ps 51), to be made alive (regenerated), made right with God (justified) and made clean so His Spirit can dwell in you (sanctified). Isn't that beautiful?
Lisa wrote: [URL=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/heresies_of_calvinism.htm]]]http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/h..[/URL]
I suggest strongly that you do your research before posting this vitriolic diatribe. Calvin held no public office in Geneva and had no political influence. Your website gives no substantiated references whatsoever. The reformation was the movement that brought Christianity out of the godless darkness of Rome. There are branches of Christianity which differ on Millenial and baptism viewpoints. None of those things are 100% clearly nailed down in Scripture. Dispensationalism is a very new, man made heresy. The only thing the Bible clearly teaches without variation is the Sovereignty of God in all things - including election and salvation. I believe in covenantal infant baptism and what is called the 5 points of calvinism. Not because Calvin taught them but because the Bible teaches them. You want to disagree, that is fine. But that does not give you the right to slag off at someone who gave his life for the service of the Lord. Shame on you. Your attitude betrays that you may have the wrong kind of spirit.
The Cure wrote: That's the truth. If you do not want to here it, then do not come out with a lie. Especially me. I am a corporeal lie detector. I find it interesting how you want to have an intellectual discussion but you refuse to consent to the rules of an intellectual discussion. It seems to me that this another game of the Calvinist having all the questions but none of the answers.
I get the distinct impression that you really have nothing positive or enlightening to offer. I will therefore quit confusing you with questions and will respond to your future posts with nothing more than a quiet chuckle to myself.
JD wrote: Sin is the transgression of the law. The wages of sin is death!
Very true on both counts. Now tell me what did sin do to man - meaning, what is our condition because of sin? Are we slightly damaged? Seriously damaged? Has our nature changed because of it? Does it render us sick? Very sick? Nigh unto death?? I ask this because your view on salvation is dependent on your view on sin. If you have a deficient theology on sin you will never have a sufficient understanding of salvation. That is why JC Ryle's welknown book "Holiness" begins with the topic of sin. Then again, Ryle may not be so well known in your cirlces. Unfortunately, he is a (gasp!)Calvinist. Have a go. Nice attempt so far.
The Cure wrote: So, I take it from your response that you really do not have a rebuttal to my post on Romans 10:9 on faith being a condition for salvation. I told you that the Calvinist has all the questions but none of the answers. So the best you can do is to change the subject to foreknowledge. Before I give you another answer, may I ask how many times you will be changing the subject?
The subject is foreknowledge mate. Are you sleep-deprived? I answsered your faith response by telling you that faith is a gift. Now I know you don't have the answer to my question. Try answering this one (before you go off on another tangent) - WHERE DOES FAITH COME FROM?
JD wrote: Where are the questions? I will give them a shot.
Only in several previous posts on several different threads. What do you believe about sin, it's effects, in what condition is man because of it? Not hard - untill you try to find Scriptural support. But give it a shot. Cure ran out of shots.
Cure - now I know you have not read Calvin. At best you have read books about Calvin. No doubt written by someone with your Biblical knowledge and your debating skills. In Calvin's Institutes Book III Ch 23.7 he gives his outline on reprobation - that is - the flip side of election. He acknowledges it is "A dreadful decree", but inescapable because it is Biblical. As to High Calvinist - that term does not exist. There is something called hyper calvinism, but it is even more of a heresy than Arminianism. It is not most of what we have today, it is a small group who are not worthy of the name Calvinist. The true Calvinist is evangelical and believes in the universal offer of the gospel. You can find this explained in the Canons of Dort Ch II Art.5 JD - You claim to answer questions but you throw out almost as many red herrings as Cure. Someone please tell me, what is your definition of sin and its effects. Simple question. Asked it many times, got lots of meaningless responses. No answers. Perhaps you do not have one. Now that I could believe. What I can't believe is your endless evasions of the truth.
Cure - you obviously don't know the WCF. I never quoted it. As I said before, you get Bible texts and reply by throwing out red herrings. Now answer me this - what does "foreknow" mean to you in the context of that verse? Is it to have cognitive awareness of? To foresee? To predict? Or to forelove? And don't give me any of that bovine excrement JD gave about what Mormons believe - cos with that simple statement he has put himself in LaLa land as far as Biblical theology is concerned. Cure - don't dribble - give me your definition, in plain English, with proof texts. Anything else is a waste of everybody's time, especially mine.
Dear Cure ( Can't Understand Reasonable Edification). Yes, I am new to the forum. But I have already deduced that you write responses without even reading what you are responding to. I did ask you a simple question, but maybe there were not enough small words. I will try again, please untie your brain first, you may need it. What is your definition of sin, it's effects and the condition of man because of it? Please substantiate (sorry, word too big). Please show me the Bible texts from where you got your answers.
Just to put the recent speculation to rest - Peter J is someone I know and we correspond regularly. I have asked him to continue in the debates and he told me he has received emails asking him this also. Some years ago there was a reformed journal in Australia in which a certain Icon O'Clast wrote articles. I do not know if this is the same person. And I assure you, we get all the support we need from the Bible, the Canons of Dort, the Reformed Confessions, the writings of great theologians and the countless sermons of faithful preachers.