Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

DaveW

MacArthur

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Did any man who Jesus sought out, and to whom Jesus said, "Follow Me"  reject him.  Matthew,  Zaccheus, and the other disciples?  Not one.  Only the rich young ruler and he sought salvattion on his own terms. 

Mark 8:34-38 - "And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.  For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Luke 9:23-26 - "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.  For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?  For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels."

So, were all of the people that our Lord gathered unto Himself on this occasion to be viewed as His disciples?  Mark 8:34 seems to indicate that there were two categories -- (1) "the people" and (2) "his disciples."  So, unto how many of these people did our Lord give the instruction to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him?  Luke 9:23 appears to indicate "to them ALL."  So, how many of those people actually did follow the Lord?  Well if the call would result in an automatic practice of following, then why did our Lord provide a warning toward those who would not deny themselves and follow Him?

Luke 9:59-60 - "And he said unto another, Follow meBut he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.  Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."

It appears that this individual did NOT deny himself and follow the Lord as he ought to have done.

Indeed, as you have mentioned above, there is also the rich young ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

54 minutes ago, Invicta said:

As I have said often before, I do not follow Calvin, or the five points.  I just follow the scriptures as faithfully as I can.  

As I said before you have a very small God who leaves salvation to man's will.  Did any man who Jesus sought out, and to whom Jesus said, "Follow Me"  reject him.  Matthew,  Zaccheus, and the other disciples?  Not one.  Only the rich young ruler and he sought salvattion on his own terms. 

2  Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3  In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4  For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5  And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
6  When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
7  The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8  Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9  And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

How many people were at the pool? A, A great multitude.   How many did Jeasus choose (elect) to heal.  A.   One.

 

 

#1 Judas Iscariot was told to "follow me".......

#2 The Bible says the man at Siloam could not get to the pool to be healed, so Jesus did it. And Jesus healed many more people in the NT than were recorded, so who knows?. 

#3 God Almighty, the Word....spoke to the "rich young ruler" who rejected his invitation to follow him. AND.... the Bible says that Jesus "beholding him, LOVED HIM": I though you "reformed" folks believed that God doesn't love the "non-elect"???:4_6_2v:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lord also healed many who were brought to him...they came to him...he didn't go to them. Mark 1:29-34 and Mark 3:7-12

The woman who had an issue of blood (for 12 years) was healed...by her own faith (which the Lord attested to)...she was healed apart from any personal invitation or purposeful involvement from the Lord himself in the healing...Luke 8:43-48

When did the Lord choose the other 109 (?) disciples of Acts 1:15 and tell them to follow him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Mark 8:34-38 - "And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.  For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?  Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Luke 9:23-26 - "And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.  For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?  For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels."

So, were all of the people that our Lord gathered unto Himself on this occasion to be viewed as His disciples?  Mark 8:34 seems to indicate that there were two categories -- (1) "the people" and (2) "his disciples."  So, unto how many of these people did our Lord give the instruction to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him?  Luke 9:23 appears to indicate "to them ALL."  So, how many of those people actually did follow the Lord?  Well if the call would result in an automatic practice of following, then why did our Lord provide a warning toward those who would not deny themselves and follow Him?

Luke 9:59-60 - "And he said unto another, Follow meBut he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.  Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."

It appears that this individual did NOT deny himself and follow the Lord as he ought to have done.

Indeed, as you have mentioned above, there is also the rich young ruler.

Triple LIKE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Invicta said:

As I have said often before, I do not follow Calvin, or the five points.  I just follow the scriptures as faithfully as I can.

You have said this before, but some of the things you have said over the years sure sounds like it.

You certainly wouldn't be the first Calvinist who refuses to accept the name, but that doesn't change what you believe or teach.

And the post that this quote comes from, and the one following sound like straight down the line Calvinism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Alan said:

It is the Calvinist who twists the scriptures, brings out new definitions of scriptural terminology, plagiarizes the words of God, and causes confusion among brethren. It was John Calvin who, "wrongfully appropriated" the words of God, the bible, and applied them to his own system of beliefs. It was John Calvin who plagiarized the scriptures. John Calvin, and the false teachers who teach the five points of TULIP, will one day stand before God and give an account of their plagiarism.

Brethren,

I still stand by my above quote. I am not going to change a word.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking only logically through numbers.

When it comes to proof texts for calvinism compared to proofs texts for free will in the NT, there are at least five times more on the free will side.

Keeping that in mind could it be possible that proofs texts for calvinism have all along been about foreknowledge only and not selection since the overwhelming evidence sides with free will?

Just trying to understand the allure of calvinism, It is the most unjust idea I can imagine and it is the exact opposite of God's Justice documented throughout Scripture. His Justice is always based on our choices (that ratio is at least 1000:1). It only appears different on the surface on a rare occasion or two and in those cases the people hardened their own hearts initially, God just knew their hearts and used them for His Glory.

If you drill this idea of calvinism down it basically relieves man of all accountability for anything at the same time. Man is forced to believe and is unable to not persevere to perfection so no real accountability in any area.

Lucifer is a genius IMO

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered and mused about this idea of the “foreknowledge” of God.

Rom 8:(29)  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

You see, I read this as saying that God knew in times past who would be saved, and as a result of that knowledge, He chose those whom He knew would believe, to conform them into the image of His Son.

I relate that to:

Php 1:(6)  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 The conforming into the image of His Son, being the actual work that the Holy Ghost does in the lives of a saved man, throughout that man’s saved life, to make Him more like Christ. This work is a continuing work that will not be completed until the day of Jesus Christ, which I take to be the day of His Return, (When all saints will be changed), or the day that a saint leaves this earth and body to be with the Lord for ever.

I think someone else pointed out that the order of things in Romans 8:29 is fairly plain – that foreknowledge comes first, then this predestination follows, based on that foreknowledge.

I know that there are some who say that the foreknowledge is not the cause of predestination, but the result of it – that God chose certain people to be saved, and therefore He knows that they will be saved, because He has ordained it.

 

But that understanding brings me to a slight problem.

You see, the first way makes “Foreknowledge” the basis upon which one is predestinated, while the second way makes predestination the cause of the Foreknowledge.

I am pretty sure that this is the difference of understanding in interpreting this verse – the “cause and effect” is reversed, depending upon which view you hold.

I would say that foreknowledge causes predestination, whilst a Calvinist would say that predestination causes foreknowledge.

I would say that God knew who would believe, and because of that knowledge, he chose those whom He knew would believe.

A Calvinist would say that God chose (predestined) who would believe, and as a result of His choosing, He knew that those would believe.

Cause and effect are reversed from one understanding to the other.

Now, here is where I become confused:

 

1Pe 1:18-21

(18)  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

(19)  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

(20)  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

(21)  Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

 

The word “Foreordained” in this passage is the same word as “foreknow” in Rom 8:29.

Same Greek word.

 

G4267 προγινώσκω proginōskō prog-in-oce'-ko

From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

 

Now, in 1 Peter 1:20, it says that Jesus was “Foreordained” before the foundation of the world.

To take the Calvinist’s view of this word, the foreknowledge is the result of God’s choice.

 Does this mean that Jesus Christ was Messiah because God CHOSE Him to be the Messiah, or was He the Messiah from the start, and therefore God chose Him based upon that pre-known truth?

 

Which understanding of the word “Foreknow” is consistently applicable to BOTH these verses?

 

I know there have been people over the centuries that have taught that Jesus BECAME the Messiah, but I am pretty sure that view would be universally rejected by anyone coming near to this site.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Now, in 1 Peter 1:20, it says that Jesus was “Foreordained” before the foundation of the world.

To take the Calvinist’s view of this word, the foreknowledge is the result of God’s choice.

 Does this mean that Jesus Christ was Messiah because God CHOSE Him to be the Messiah, or was He the Messiah from the start, and therefore God chose Him based upon that pre-known truth?

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I've always interpreted those verses in 1 Peter to refer to Christ being foreordained as the sacrifice for our sin...not necessarily pertaining to his Messiahship (if that's a word). 

...or is that what you're also referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I've always interpreted those verses in 1 Peter to refer to Christ being foreordained as the sacrifice for our sin...not necessarily pertaining to his Messiahship (if that's a word). 

...or is that what you're also referring to?

Yeah, I wasn't entirely happy with my wording, but it is referring to Him being the Christ and all that entails. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I've always interpreted those verses in 1 Peter to refer to Christ being foreordained as the sacrifice for our sin...not necessarily pertaining to his Messiahship (if that's a word). 

...or is that what you're also referring to?

8 hours ago, DaveW said:

Yeah, I wasn't entirely happy with my wording, but it is referring to Him being the Christ and all that entails. 

As for myself, seeking to remain as close to the grammatical wording of the passage itself, I would say that it refers unto our Lord Jesus Christ as - The Christ (the Messiah), the Lamb of God (as per the grammatical construction between 1 Peter 1:19 and 1 Peter 1:20.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verse 20 says "who"

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 That means "the Word", the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, the King of Glory, the Way the Truth and the Life and the "Immanuel" was foreordained. But the Bible also says that Christ is God's "Elect". Does that mean God picked Christ out of a list of candidates? No. It means Christ had and has a purpose: a "job".. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/election

election  noun [ C/U ]

 US  /ɪˈlek·ʃən/
 
politics & government the act or occasion of being chosen for a particular job, esp. by voting:
 

elect verb

 US  /ɪˈlekt/
 

to decide on or choose, esp. to choose a person for a particular job by voting:

[ T ] We elect representatives every two years.
[ T ] She was elected to the board of directors.
[ + to infinitive ] He was invited to join them at the concert, but he elected to stay home and watch the ballgame.
 
Of course God did not "take a vote" either but "chosen for a job is what "election" is. And likewise God foreordained that his "elect" people would serve a purpose and that purpose is to live holy lives, fellowship with Him, love one another, love sinners,  tell others about Him and thereby glorify Him. And "predestination" simply means that AFTER you get BORN AGAIN, you WILL BY GOD's DESIGN and PLAN, be eventually conformed to the image of Christ through progressive sanctification AND chastisement. I'm just a simple countryboy and not very educated or smart: but why does this have to be hard?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I haven't studied it enough, but those verses in 1 Peter tell me that...

The second person of the Godhead was foreordained to...

  • be the Christ/Messiah
  • be the lamb of God; whereby, he (the second person of the Godhead) would "taste death for every man" and be the sacrifice for man's sins.

Considering that 1 Peter 1:17-21 is actually one sentence, it "appears" that the main thrust of the "sentence" seems to focus upon his salvific work...at least at this point, that's how it appears to me. :)

So, to answer the question...

11 hours ago, DaveW said:

 Does this mean that Jesus Christ was Messiah because God CHOSE Him to be the Messiah, or was He the Messiah from the start, and therefore God chose Him based upon that pre-known truth?

As I read over the question...I find myself reading back over it...and re-reading it...and going back over it...and it's giving me a brain-meltdown. Perhaps this is where a lot of those nifty Calvinist words come from? When you have a brain-meltdown, create a word for it. LOLOLOL!

...and all I can offer is this based on my own understanding...

The second person of the Godhead was foreordained to be the Christ and lamb of God (and all that those two titles entail).

...and I'm sticking with that answer.

Edited by No Nicolaitans
removed a repeated word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Calvin didn't invent predestination, Neither did Luther who taught something similar in his Bondage of the Will. In this he said that "Adam was given free will and used it to sin."  As Adam's offspring, we are only able to sin. Adam begat a son in his own image. The fall was total.

Both Calvin and Luther refer back to Augustine.   I did read that Augustine was the first who taught predestination after the apostles. I believe that Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, taught something similar.  Php 4:3  And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In England in the early 1600s in England the first Baptists were Particular Baptists.  The General Baptists came later.

 

 


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Invicta said:

15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Calvin didn't invent predestination, Neither did Luther who taught something similar in his Bondage of the Will. In this he said that "Adam was given free will and used it to sin."  As Adam's offspring, we are only able to sin. Adam begat a son in his own image. The fall was total.

Both Calvin and Luther refer back to Augustine.   I did read that Augustine was the first who taught predestination after the apostles. I believe that Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, taught something similar.  Php 4:3  And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In England in the early 1600s in England the first Baptists were Particular Baptists.  The General Baptists came later.

 

 


 

 

 

what is the context of Romans 9,10,and 11?

Hint: It's not talking about the salvation of individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Did God choose the Jews?

Yes, but not for personal salvation, but unto national honor and a special place in God's program of revealing the scriptures and bringing the Messiah into the world.

the argument in Romans 9 would be equivalent to an African who is mad at God or laying a charge at God that he is unjust because God chose for me to be born in America over him, in America there are certain blessings and privileges that Africans do not have, Just because God chose for me to have the privilege of being born in America does not mean that God chose and ordained for me to be saved over the African. However God did in his sovereignty and wisdom choose for me to be born as an American. The argument made in Romans 9 is not about God choosing salvation for specific people over others. but one of choosing certain privileges and gifts to bestow on one group over another. You will not get a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination from looking at Romans 9,10, and 11 as a whole.

If Romans 9 was in fact teaching that God chooses certain people for salvation, Why then is not all of Israel saved? After all aren't you the one implying that God chose the Jews and somehow trying to equate that to meaning that God chooses individuals for salvation to the exclusion of others? Come on now...

Edited by Jordan Kurecki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Invicta said:

 

In England in the early 1600s in England the first Baptists were Particular Baptists.  The General Baptists came later.

Once again you rewrite history to suit yourself.

There was a division into "particular" and "general" baptists, but neither of them were "original Baptists " in England. 

Indeed, the only reason there are these two separate designations is show that there were two opposing views - in other words, there would be no reason for the designation "particular" if there was nothing to distinguish from, ie. those who were "general". Prior to this separation there were just "Baptists".

As far as predestination is concerned, once again you try to rewrite history by saying Augustine was the first since the apostles to teach it.

Predestination is a Bible doctrine, but not the way Augustine redefined it, and not the way Calvin taught it.

After all, Augustine was a mystic and philosopher, upon whom Calvin, a Catholic philosopher, based his works.

Why would anyone want to follow the writings of a murderer who started a copy of the catholic church, and who based his theories on the writings of a mystic philosopher, who redefines terms as he wishes, for the purposes of promoting his own ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read what I actually said that I had read that Augustine was the first, then said that Clemment taight it.  Stop twisting my words.

 

 

11 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Why would anyone want to follow the writings of a murderer who started a copy of the catholic church, and who based his theories on the writings of a mystic philosopher, who redefines terms as he wishes, for the purposes of promoting his own ideas?

Yes, Paul was a murderer but I follow him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Invicta said:

If you read what I actually said that I had read that Augustine was the first, then said that Clemment taight it.  Stop twisting my words.

 

 

Yes, Paul was a murderer but I follow him.

Not twisting your words - anyone can read what you said and what I said, and I am comfortable with that.

And I will point out that Paul did not murder anyone after he was saved, whilst Calvin murdered people WHILE HE LED HIS CHURCH AS POPE.

Someone is deliberately misrepresenting here, and it is not me.

To slander the Apostle Paul like that to defend a murderer and false teacher is an abominable thing.

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS I said I don't follow Calvin, but I do have a book of some of  his commnetaries, although I vave not read a great deal of it, I did read a comment he made on Ephesians, that when we consider the claims of Christ and thee claims of Christ, even a ten year old boy could see that the pope is antischrist.  What a ten year old could see in Calvins's day, many can not see today.

I also once borrowed a biograhy of Calvin from the library.  Because some peple in our then church mentioned him but didn't seem to know a great deal about him.  I can't remember much about what they said, but one thing, that was that Calvin wanted to be buried in an unmarked grave as he didn't want anyone to rever him.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Invicta said:

AS I said I don't follow Calvin,

You have said this several times, and yet you defend him, even to the point of slandering the Apostle Paul to do so, you support those who ARE calvinists when they come to attack on this site, you state things in the same terms as Calvinists, and you make statements that promote the Calvinist definitions of Bible terms.

You keep saying you are not a Calvinist, but you sound a lot like one.

And I don't know that I have ever met a Calvinist who didn't initially refuse to acknowledge his true position.

 

But if you say you are not, then we are forced to accept it...........

 

Can't help thinking...... if it swims like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck...................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Invicta said:

If you read what I actually said that I had read that Augustine was the first, then said that Clemment taight it.  Stop twisting my words.

 

 

Yes, Paul was a murderer but I follow him.

I can't help it, I have to revisit this......

 

How absolutely disgraceful to compare the pre-salvation sins of Paul with the active leadership activities of Calvin.

Yes, Paul was responsible for the killing of Christians, and he personally desired letters from the leaders of the Jews to give him authority to hunt down Christians wherever he found them.

Act 9:1-5
(1)  And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
(2)  And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
(3)  And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
(4)  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
(5)  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
 

BUT THESE THINGS WERE BEFORE HE WAS SAVED!!!!!!

Calvin on teh other hand was responsible, both directly in some cases, and indirectly in other cases, of causing the death of men whom he considered to be heretics.

John Calvin argued:

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”

That he was involved in such actions is hardly surprising considering the above statement.

AND THESE THINGS WERE WHILST HE WAS A LEADER OF HIS NEW CHURCH.

I hesitate to say after he was saved, because the only record I have of anything like a salvation testimony, is not a salvation testimony.

But the biggest difference, and the thing that makes the statement of Invicta so reprehensible, is that Paul's actions were before he was saved, the action's of Calvin were while he was the leader of his church.

To even think of comparing the two, one the actions of an unsaved man who then got saved, and the other the actions of a man who was leading a church, is the height of misrepresentation, and shows how far a man will go to lift up Calvin - even to the depths of discrediting and slandering an Apostle of God, so as to present a murderous false teacher in the best light he can.

I say this is a foul and desperate action of a man who is committed to promoting a false teacher.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 39 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...