San Jose John wrote:
It's much more fun to discover truth first by yourself, using your own Bible than to wait for some confession to teach you

Yet sadly some folk despite their grand testimonies of Bible learning and despite their Bible alone beliefs never come to an understanding of many basic Bible truths neither can they adequately explain what they believe. C H Spurgeon saw the need for a catechism 'a great safeguard against the errors of the times'. Those in error have more chance of being challenged by reading the 1689 Confession of Faith with scripture proofs than they may ever have in many an average modern-day Bible believing 'evangelical' church.

[URL=http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/spurgeon.html]]]Spurgeon's catechism[/URL]

'Spurgeon sought to recover and reclaim the middle ground, or biblical path, between a man-centered Arminianism on the one side and a deistic Hyper-Calvinism on the other. The Prince of Preachers believed this catechism walked in that narrow way.'

[URL=http://www.corkfpc.com/biblestudies3.html]]]Basic Bible TRUTH[/URL]

And DJ: Do I have to spoonfeed you? Can you not read between the lines?? That is why it is so exasperating dealing with you. So now back to Roger.

Here's your homework. Count how many Scriptures TH used in support of RT (twisted or not). Then count the number of references to GC. I'm sorry but I don't merit that much attention. (I'm certain you agree.) He spent the first 1/3 of sermon attacking me for attacking? pot & Kettle anyone? Or beam & splinter?

My sermon did not stand/fall on the one error that I would concede, Calvin as the originator. Calvin still refined/defined & popularized it.

Any other names I mentioned were public figures and only mentioned incidentally to identify them with RT so our people knew to beware. Or Again, they were historical figures.

BTW - I wouldn't be promoting Augustine or the baby baptizing Luther either. If thats the best argument against Calvin's part, it doesn't help you.

You just can't stand to be challenged. That is what you find insulting. You should always be willing to reexamine you beliefs in light of Scripture.

DJC49 wrote:
In response to the *Graceamazing* challenge for Gary Click to respond and refute Pastor Trevor Hammack's sermon: "A Response To The TULIP Wilts" ...
These are the facts:
Pastor Trevor Hammack's sermon ["A Response To The TULIP Wilts"] was initially mentioned in the post of 10/12/08 6:32 AM by *backtobasicsapplied*.
Since that post, "Pastor" Click has made 3 posts.
They include his posts of:
10/12/08 9:32 AM
10/12/08 8:37 AM
10/12/08 7:27 AM

DJ: Thanks for proving what has been said over and over again. You simply misrepresent the truth in every way. It's one thing to have a genuine disagreement. (Roger is usually civil. Hope was always civil.) But I'm trying to discern if you are just lying or denying. You even list the post. Let me help you. Look 3 paragraphs up. Right after I asked if that was you. (I know you saw that part). Why do I have to keep wasting my limited space repeating and defending the obvious?

Graceamazing wrote:
Over to you Pastor Gary...

And I am truly grateful to be the focal point of each of you. It suggests that the Holy Spirit has struck a nerve, which is not a bad thing.

Mike and I have once again provided ample Scripture to you folks to refute and subtantiate points made. I'm sorry, but you don't get to dimiss Scripture you dont like. One thing for certain that we have not done is quote catechisms, confessions and those who profess themselves to be wise but are fools with darkened hearts (Romans 1:22) who liken God to man and limit His love and redeeming power.Let God be God. We have stuck with the Scriptures and attempted to exegete them for you.

As for personal attacks, my sermon was not laced with personal attacks. I held public figures accountable for false doctrine which is my responsibility. (acts 20:28-31)And I attacked certain false ideology which is my God given responsibility (1 Tim 4) I will, with God's help, continue to refute the tradition of Calvinism vs. Biblical Fundamentalism (Mt. 15:9)

Are you saying that those who "fall away" or "Backslide" are just giving evidence that they were never in among the "elect?"

Or are you saying that saved people can and do commit sins which grieve teh Holy Spirit?

Or somewhere inbetween?

Amen Mike!

Roger: Thanks for sharing your testimony.

However, you do seem to be attributing love to be a noun inapprpriately.

Also: I can genuinely understand why it would be hard to God both loving people and sending them to hell. That is difficult to comprehend. But you need to realize that He is the Judge. A just Judge does what is right regardless of his love for the guilty.

DJ? Is that you? I am flattered that I would gain such a response. I listened to the first 5 minutes and will finish when I have more time.

I will say that former Calvanists have appreciated my comments as well as Mike's.