Leaderboard

TomB, The above study on the trumpets was taken from the following link: TomB, If you would carefully study the "Trumpets" in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament, it is very clear that the7 trumpets in the book of Revelation, the trumpet in Matthew 24:31, and the "trump of God" as listed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 are for different reasons and different times. The 7 trumpets in the book of Revelation are all for JUDGMENT and not for the calling of the assembly of Jews nor for the calling of the assembly of the church. Alan

Weary Warrior, Is your music situation improving, or are you still facing the same problems? If you are interested I think I can help. Sit down with your pianist, and go through the your singing range, have her hit a note and you sing it. Tell her I need to know your highest note and lowest note in relation to middle C. When you get that, send me a list of twenty songs, and I will transpose them into a key that you can sing in.

I've always liked bluegrass music and have been to a number of big name festivals, so when I got saved it was just natural that I would turn to Bluegrass Gospel. Unfortunately, "gospel" music in just about every genre often preaches "another gospel". The first time I ever heard this song it was recorded by the Statler Brothers back in the '90s. It was written by Don Reid's son, Langdon. We (Christians) are an often untapped market in the music world. We have money that these groups want to exploit so these secular "artists" compose lyrics about that which they have little to no knowledge. Even the Statler Brothers. Sad.

I don't think it's MANDATORY that one divorce a spouse for fornication, but it's certainly not sinful to do so. I believe it's great if a couple can work out the prob & stay together, with no further transgressions, but, of course, it's not always possible, Christian or not. I know people who have gone down both paths. And I believe the non-fornicating spouse is free to marry someone else.

This is my first time on here. I’m an Australian IB Pastor’s daughter. There’s smoke everywhere over here, just by the way. My friends house burnt down the other day. One of the churches that we have had an interface with have suddenly come out as Post-Trib. If anyone knows David Cloud, he was out here just recently and did a full series of meetings with them and then found out AFTERWARDS (from my pastor brother) that they’ve been “studying” the subject of prophecy all year, and hey presto! The church is in for the guillotein. I’ve got friends in that church, and now they’re telling me they’re post-trib. It’s a bit lonely here in Australia. Most of our churches are hundreds of km apart. Apparently the States sometimes has more than one IB church in a big town! I can’t believe it! They must have more friends too then to make up for any losses. I was just wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts on a post-trib view (or pre-trib view, depending how you look at it). As far as I can see, we are not appointed to wrath (and that meaning the whole 7 year tribulation). God will keep us “from the hour of temptation” that will come upon the whole earth”.

Do American’s love Australians too? I wish we had more churches like you do. I’m a pastor’s daughter. Number eight in a line of nine children, A.C.E homeschooled, had to flee the state we lived in because child protection services were after us kids (ever heard of that? My sister put us in. Nice girl), I.B conservative Baptist, the whole bit. I love Andrew Murray, F.B Meyer, Francis Schaffer, my parents have been around for three hundred and ninety-five years (actually Dad’s in his seventies), been through every kind of church problem you can think of and met every kind of Christian nut imaginable (Pharisees included). Don’t you love those people that think even sugar’s sinful. Anyway, There are about 180 I.B churches in Australia. Most are in NSW, QLD and VIC. There are about 3 in Tasmania and 1 in Northern Territory. There are about 9 in South Australia (where I was born), 5 of which are in Adelaide city. My Dad started the first I.B church in South Australia about forty some years ago after coming back from bible college in Springfield Massouri (sorry can’t spell). He was actually raised church of Christ and had never heard of the I.Bs because there were hardly any in Australia back then. Actually there was one church called Calvary Baptist in S.A that had been going a year before he started his but he was almost the first anyway. Might aswell have been, there wasn’t anyone around. It was called Northside Baptist Church. Now my brother Simeon Western pastors the church. It wasn’t planned. There have been other pastors between Dad and him but that’s what ended up happening. We actually live in Bathurst, N.S.W now. The churches here are typically between 60-80 people. A hundred or more is considered big. Churches of 30-50 are very common also. Apart from the cities, churches are typically hundreds of KM apart. America has about 25 times the number of I.B churches as Australia. I believe you have around 9,200 or something like that. Australia has about 180 - 200 maybe that any one directory is aware of. Certainly not thousands anyway. It’s really lonely, actually. There are some hidden flowers growing in this desert. Good ones too. The sort of people that you look at and say, “Wow, why hasn’t anyone found you yet?” But Ill be honest and say that Americans are better looking than Australians I think (not that looks are everything. I’m just half asleep and thought I’d say it). Anyway, off topic. So if anyone wants to be a missionary to Australia, you can come and you can meet my family too. We’re in Bathurst, N.S.W and have about fourty-fifty people in our country church. But we have a really nice home and we’re normal by the way. The sort of people that you could talk for hours with about church problems over a cup of tea? Great isn’t it. Anyway, I hope some Americans will love Australians and I’ll be sure to love you back if you ever come. God bless.

By the way, Brother Graham (Lydia's Dad), is a nice guy and a very accomplished musician, aside from anything else. (I don't know him well - doubt he would recognise me at all, but I have met him a few times, and been privileged to hear him play. We live about 4000km away)

I’m sorry, but there’s no good news for the Christian during the tribulation. A multitude from all kindreds and tongues and nations are going to be beheaded. And just on the side? Try this. Second seal - a great world war. Third - begins the suffering of famine and inflation (the aftermath of war). Fourth seal - war results in death, but in this case it totals one-fourth of the people and living creatures. By today’s population standards, that would amount to ONE AND A HALF BILLION PEOPLE. Whoops daysy. Fifth - so many Christians slain that they can’t be numbered. Sixth - mighty earthquake, the like of which has never been experienced. It is so severe that people call on the rocks to fall on them. Seventh - introduces the Seven Trumpet Judgments, ending the first quarter of the Tribulation period and preparing for an even worse period called the “day of His [God’s] wrath.” First trumpet - one-THIRD of all trees and green grass being burned up by hail, fire, and blood cast upon the earth. Second trumpet - a great mountain of sulfur falling into the sea and destroying a THIRD-part of the sea and all living creatures in it and a third of the shipping vessels. Third - causes a great star (or meteor) called Wormword (or “bitter”) to fall on the fountains of water and a THIRD of rivers to turn bitter, resulting in the deaths of millions. Fourth - one-THIRD less sun, moonlight, and stars, extending the darkness of night. Fifth trumpet - introduces hideous demon-like creatures such as scorpions and locusts out of the bottomless pit. Not able to kill men, they torture them so badly that they “will seek death and will not find it.” Sixth trumpet - introduces two hundred million horsemen (demon spirit-like death angels), who kill one-THIRD of the people. This will occur between the fortieth and forty-second month of the first part of the Tribulation, which brings to 50 PERCENT the population that is destroyed by God before the midpoint of the Tribulation. These individuals have taken the mark of the Beast and are considered incorrigibles. Since estimates of upwards of a quarter of those living at that time still be saved under the preaching of the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7:9, it is possible that 75 PERCENT of the population 25 PERCENT by martyrdom) will have been destroyed during the first half of the Tribulation period. So horrendous, so terrible that we can’t even imagine. And all in the space of three years. No wonder God said that unless he came again that there would be no flesh left on earth. Imagine at the end of all this saying....but this isn’t God’s wrath. It’s ALL God’s wrath. No WONDER the angel said. “These are they that have come out of [THE] great tribulation”. Greek Word definite article. A mark of false doctrine is when they take a few verses and then wrench everything else in to fit. The last trump referring to the last trumpet judgment, for example. Didn’t anyone think that Revelation hadn’t even been written yet when Paul wrote that? John hadn’t had the vision yet, so how could Paul be referring to it? Revelation was A.D 96. 1 Corinthians was A.D 59. The revelation was to John for the first time. This was all completely new to John because he asked questions throughout. Thus “The Revelation”. Wouldn’t be a Revelation if he already knew about it all from Paul.

Revelation 18 notes "trumpeters" (shall be heard no more in thee), so we can safely surmise that up to that point trumpeters were heard, and that means that trumpets had to be around. But trumpets are not mentioned again in Scripture after that point, so the last trump was done away with just prior to Revelation 18:22. That would have to be "the last trump", surely. And the last mention of "horn" is in Revelation 17, but I don't think those ones "trumped" at all....... different kind of horn. I think have shown that the last trump was not one of the judgement trumpets at all, but some unknown bloke playing just before Revelation 18. I think I may have trumped you all. Unless of course the last trump spoken of is Donald - does he have a son to carry on the name, or is he "the last Trump"?

Here's another IFB perspective: https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/what_about_ruckman.php https://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Hello. Endure. What does that word mean?

Well now, you managed to push my button. No, it is not for the pastor to relegate the job to an evangelist to preach what he won't!!!!! If there is a topic or passage that a given evangelist does a better job of conveying Bible truth to folks than the pastor can, I don't have a problem with him getting a guest preacher for it. HOWEVER, if the pastor's is worried about being rebuked or voted out due to preaching Bible -- he needs to grow up, determine whether he is called of God to preach, and if so then preach because your final accountability is to God and His Word!!!!!!! NOT to give someone else the task of doing your job that you're afraid will get you "fired". The pulpit is NO place for games, church politics or "career building"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't think it's teaching works salvation in that particular line (in other places it is), they just don't know if it is by works or not. It reminds me of the song "I Can Go In", it sounds like someone running back and forth and back and forth like, "Can I go In? Can I go In?". Then they get the answer they like and they're like "OHHHHH! I can go in!!!". Guess what, man, if you waited until then to figure it out, you can't go in. However, I agree with you that this song is a little off. It seems like they are equating Calvary with Heaven, in which case, they are trying to pray their way through; which, the last time I checked, is in and of itself a work.

Let's go back to the original issue at hand, the temptation of Jesus Christ We're told: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. " (Heb 4:14-16) Jesus went through that time of temptation, as well as other temptations through His life, many which I suspect we don't know of, in order that, though God, yet He might be able to be approachable to us, having been tempted as we were. Jesus was, and is, indeed, God in the flesh; yet He is also the Son of man, fully God but fully Human, else He could not pay the price for the sin of the world. Therefore He was tempted for OUR sakes, that WE might see Him, while as God, yet also as one of us, YET without sin. Could Jesus have sinned? The jury is still out on that-personally, I believe He could have, being all man, because otherwise, what comfort can we obtain in His being tempted, yet without sin? But I will not speak that dogmatically, and am certain there is some disagreement there. But the point being, Jesus HAD to be tempted, that He might be a fitting High Priest for us. As for Satan, well, the Lord simply used him; Satan thought he was in control, but even at the end, Satan will only be able to do that which the Lord allows, and he will be stopped when the Lord deems the time for him to be stopped. There is no power but of God. I have been in this group for a long time, Totoosart, and I urge you, not to take their words as unkindness-they are all good folks, but we are all quite zealous for the Lord and His word. You are still new to Christ, in a place that is difficult for you to find good discipling-be patient and listen, because there are many, many years of walking with the Lord in this group. Be encouraged, hold tight that which is good!

How to get increase, "Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox." Proverbs 14:4

Folks, let's not forget that Totoosart is in China with no church to attend. Let's not forget his nationality. Let's not forget that he's doing the best that he can under those circumstances. He has reached out for help here time and time again. When I read some of the responses to him, it broke my heart. Like him, I read them as attacks on him instead of trying to help him. I don't know him personally, nor do I know his heart...nor do I agree with his reasoning regarding Satan. However, none of us knew it all when we were first saved. I know that I didn't. Let's not be so quick to attack. Jordan, is that how you responded to the Muslims in Africa? I watched your video. I don't think they would have been so welcoming to you had you responded to them like you have here. How about helping him instead of attacking him when he doesn't respond perfectly the first time or two. Just my two cents for what it's worth...which isn't much.

You still have failed to really interact or even seem to acknowledge the scriptures that were shared with you, are still continuing to lean upon your own flawed human reasoning. And by spreading false beliefs about Satan you are in fact helping Satan. And honestly what makes this so outrageous is your blatant disregard for the scripture you are being shown. If Satan can be allegorized and explained away then you can pretty much explain away heaven and hell and even the Gospel itself. Next thing we know you will be saying that hell is not a real place but is really just a metaphor for suffering we go through in life or something like that

" if i say Satan does not exist," You are denying the scriptures. But no one here is upset. We are just pointing out the truth in the Bible, in context. "i wish Jesus Christ would touch me and save me from this evil within me" Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. We want you to be saved too.

A precept for life, "Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life." Proverbs 4:13

Friend, this is sad. You are arguing from a position of human opinion. We have pointed out scripture over and over and yet the vast majority of your response is “I think...” my question is, on what authority does your ideas about Satan rest? Gods word is truth and it is the final authority and we are told : 2 Timothy 3:16 KJV [16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: if the Bible clearly says Satan is a being, and that Angels chose to sin, on what authority do you say otherwise? I am not trying to be unkind but I am being straight forward with you. i find it troubling that you failed to really interact or even seem to acknowledge the scriptures that were shared with you, instead you just continued to lean upon your own flawed human reasoning.

As long as your thoughts come from the Bible and are in line with what the Bible says, there should be no problem. If the way you worship the Lord is in line with the Bible, there will be no problem. But if your thoughts or the way you worship the Lord is NOT in line with the Bible, wouldn't you want to have that pointed out?

The Bible does not teach that “angels are not made to go bad, they have no choice, they are robot-like, no will, no A.I. nothing, but following the God's demands and orders.” on the contrary: Jude 1:6 KJV [6] And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. God says there are certain angels that rebelled and are in chains being held until the day of judgment.. 2 Peter 2:4 KJV [4] For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; Matthew 25:41 KJV [41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Revelation 20:10 KJV [10] And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I would say that Revelation 3, talking to the Philadelphia church, promised to be kept from that Hour, and also Chapter 4, when John goes up into heaven as a prefigure of the church rapturing out are the 2 best examples for pre trib. I see Mid trib supported by the 2 witnesses resurrecting to God mid trip, and also that the wrath of God starts mid trib, and the church is said to be spare the wrath of God. Post trib fits due to the fact that the second coming is described to be the same event as what is called the rapture, as those holding to it see God protecting the Church as he did the Jews in Egypt during the plagues. Thanks Praying LOL Confused Sad Dislike this Post Strongly Disagree

Thankyou Mr. Young and Allan. The funny thing is they have kept the distinction between church and Israel. That’s interesting about your friend deputising for Australia. There are about 180 I.B churches in Australia. Most are in NSW, QLD and VIC. There are about 3 in Tasmania and 1 in Northern Territory. There are about 9 in South Australia (where I was born), 5 of which are in Adelaide city. My Dad started the first I.B church in South Australia about forty some years ago after coming back from bible college in Springfield Massouri (sorry can’t spell). He was actually raised church of Christ and had never heard of the I.Bs because there were hardly any in Australia back then. Actually there was one church called Calvary Baptist in S.A that had been going a year before he started his but he was almost the first anyway. Might aswell have been, there wasn’t anyone around. It was called Northside Baptist Church. Now my brother Simeon Western pastors the church. It wasn’t planned. There have been other pastors between Dad and him but that’s what ended up happening. We actually live in Bathurst, N.S.W now. The churches here are typically between 60-80 people. A hundred or more is considered big. Churches of 30-50 are very common also. Apart from the cities, churches are typically hundreds of KM apart. America has about 25 times the number of I.B churches as Australia. I believe you have around 9,200 or something like that. Australia has about 180 - 200 maybe that any one directory is aware of. Certainly not thousands anyway. There is not the same “circulation of the saints” over here, so the people you keep are those you win. Church growth here is quite slow and it is not because the pastors are necessarily doing anything wrong. So your brother in the Lord needn’t feel discouraged if it is not a fast growth. I know American missionaries that have been pastoring a flock of about twenty to thirty for years. Others have more but most churches are under a hundred. When Dad came back from the States, he did what he was taught to do when doing soul winning. But he couldn’t understand why people would pray and then not be interested and not come back. It worked well in the States. He eventually worked out that the Australians don’t have the Biblical background that Americans do. Aussies are serious but there is a greater risk of “picking green fruit” over here. Also, getting them to come forward at an invitation often scared them off too. So he ended up getting them to just stand where they were f they had prayed and then sit back down. He focussed a bit more on getting them to come to church a bit and doing some home visits rather than pushing them all through too quickly. Unless they seemed really ready of course. That’s just something to watch out for. I’m very pleased with his desire to come, however. I hope we will get a chance to meet him sometime. It’s not too far fetched because like i said, there aren’t a lot of us. anyway, sorry I’m off topic. Maybe I should repost this as “evangelism in Australia” lol I’ll ask my questions in the post trib thing in a little bit. I have to run and teach piano for now.

I may have posted this in the past - but due to the number of people willing to consider socialism: How taxes work - 10 Men Go To Dinner. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: 10 MEN GO TO DINNER. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing like they do now with the present income tax structure. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 of the bill. So that is what the ten men decide to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you all are such good customers I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20". Dinner for the 10 men now costs just $80... The group still wanted to pay the bill the same way that they paid their taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the Paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everybody would get his "Fair Share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal... So, the restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill roughly the same amount; and proceeded to work out the amounts each man would pay. The fifth, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings) The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings) The eight man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings) The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings) The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings) Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings... "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10"... "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!?" "That's true", shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up... The next night the Tenth man did not show up for dinner, so the Nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half the bill! And that Boys & Girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier? With the above scenario, determined to still go out it would have to be adjusted similar to this: Determined not to do without their freebies and causing the other 5 to feel guilty for entertaining the idea that life is not free the 4 still pay $0 for a $10 meal. #5 pays $2.44 instead of $1 $6 pays $7.31 instead of $3 #7 pays $17.07 instead of $7 #8 pays $29.27 instead of $12 $9 pays $43.91 instead of $18 Total $100 just as before -- but wait! #10 left, he didn't consume a $10 meal, we have extra money -- should we divide it amongst those who paid extra for their meal? No, that is just greed on the part of the 5, give each of the 4 who got free meals $2.50 each and don't make them buss tables and earn it -- now THAT'S fair!

Seems to me folks want to debate a bunch of things here, it also seemed to me a few months ago that I lamented the fact several posters here push an agenda of their false teachings and are not open to any other opinion about it. You can see them as being manifest by always trying to post the last word. I sort of miss the forum I signed onto several years ago. We would disagree, but over all, the postings were baptistic in heir stand, the fellowship was a lot better. Now it seems to me there are only factions. Calvinism is a blight upon the faith. It is a system of twisted scriptures, out of context surmising and a complicated maze of un-biblical words like SUPRALAPSARIANISM, INFRALAPSARIANISM, and who knows what else. I can´t even pronounce that clap trap let alone find it in the Bible. I´m gonna post a few chapters from a book I´ve had for some time. Simple, scriptural and I am not looking for responses, although feel free to write whatever you want, I am not debating, I am posting scriptural truth. I for one cannot suffer the utterly false system of doctrine known as Calvinism. I personally believe that its´s adherents are unsaved. You can argue that all you want. I´m trusting Christ and His finished work on Calvary. I have never trusted in any election to be saved. The Bible never asked me to put my faith in any election, be it foreknown or predestined. The word "predestination" comes from the Greek verb "proorizo." It means, according to Vine's Expository Words on the Greek New Testament, to "mark out beforehand, to determine before, foreordain." In essence, "predestination" means that something has been predicted by God and it must and will come to pass. The word "predestinate" as translated in the KJV is found only twice; that being in Rom_8:29-30. "Predestinated" is found only twice and that is in Ephesians; once in Eph_1:5 and once in Eph_1:11. These two words do not appear in the Old Testament. We shall examine who is predestinated, what event is predestinated and when it will take place. - Max Younce

No you are wrong - I do believe in predestination, I just don't preach it the false way Calvin did. You have not shown where I misquote scripture - I may have made a mistake in quoting but I have not deliberately misquoted. But you are welcome to continue to throw around false accusations.....

My "fairly complicated theological argument" is less complicated than your post deeming it so, and your conclusion misrepresents me - I have never said a Calvinist can't be saved. I have also never said that people need to define doctrines before they can be saved. But it serves to add confusion to the subject for you to do so........ And your whole argument is about what people have said about the argument - well some of the people who have commented here are just as wrong - using their argument to somehow invalidate my words is just plain silly. Just as it is silly to try to invalidate the circular reasoning argument by showing where some else has used circular reasoning. The young man I spoke of had precisely this issue and it was entirely because of calvinism. I know this because we spoke at length about it. It is he that pointed out this circular reasoning to me. So your misrepresenting my words does not invalidate them, and your introduction of side issues and accusations does not invalidate them. People don't get saved because of calvinism - they get saved because of the Gospel. People get saved in spite of calvinism.

Well I OBviously have an inability to correctly articulate my point since you clearly do not understand what I am trying to say, and you seem intent on clarifying for everyone else. Not much point in my continuing in that light. I will have to try to figure out how to better phrase it - until then.......

Calvinists are saved without the blood of Christ. This is what my regeneration and belief thread was about. Calvinists are saved by God's choice - the blood becomes a procedural rubber stamp. In fact it is a non event for them. look at the five points in pretty much any Calvinist statement and you won't find the blood of Christ making an appearance. Look at "limited atonement" statements and the only reference to atonement is not what it does but how far it goes - and it still rarely mentions the blood of Christ. The proof of this is that there are plenty of "Reformed churches" who don't preach the Gospel at all. They preach a Catholic style works salvation. Calvinism is not all at odd with that form of works based salvation, because it doesn't need the blood of Christ. That is not biblical.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

You can't see that the system of Calvinism teaches another Gospel? Stop confusing the system, which teaches a false Gospel, with men who used the name. As I mentioned, Spurgeon taught free will far more than he taught the 5 points. Put his faithfulness and "success" down to that. Calvin would have condemned his preaching. And this fur fee of "hyper-calvinism" keeps coming up. If you look at what Calvin taught, then what men today call hyper-calvinism is simply not - it is Calvinism. But many people don't like things like "double predestination" so they step back from it in spite of it being EXACTLY what Calvin taught. Calvinism is a pernicious doctrine that leads people to hell, for it teaches salvation through God's choice, not the blood of Christ.

You asked, I gave an answer, feel free to ignore it. But remember that Calvin would have killed Spurgeon as a heretic for his teaching of free will.

What is the Gospel? 1Co 15:1-4 (1) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: What does the Gospel do? Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. How is salvation attained? Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What saves under Calvin's system? Unconditional Election: God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21). No mention of the blood of Christ, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And you won't find these things mentioned in most outlines of the five points of Calvin. They will often mention the death of Christ under “Limited atonement”, but only the fact that it isn't sufficient for all – some will say effective for all, but they twist that too. Now John, I don't know about you, but my salvation is based on the free gift of salvation through the shed blood of Christ, and was attained by me by grace through faith. Any other way of salvation is another Gospel, which is not another. Therefore to do as the Calvinist does and base salvation, not on the blood of Christ, but upon the choice of God, is another Gospel which is not another. I believe that many people amongst Calvinistic churches are fooled by the doublespeak of the Calvinist teachers, and have actually believed the surface preaching without understanding the redefinition of words that they use. But anyone who actually understands and follows Calvin's teachings, is basing their salvation on something other than the blood of Christ. And that means that they are not saved. Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Calvinists are like many other cults – they redefine words, jump through linguistic hoops, and make leaps of logic all so that they can re-understand what the Bible says. But if you base your salvation on anything other than the blood of Christ, you are not saved. And the Calvinist bases his salvation on the choice of God not the blood of Christ.

See Galatians 1:8,9

Not the way Calvin states it. Salvation is available to all men. God did not and does not choose whom He will save in Calvin's way. There is no such thing as Calvin's total depravity, nor Calvin's unconditional election, nor Calvin's limited atonement, nor Calvin's irresistible 'grace', nor Calvin's perseverance of the saints. Much of it is close but not close enough. Calvinism, or 'the doctrines of grace' as those who don't want the association put it, are a false system teaching a false Gospel. Yes, Calvin got it wrong, and his teaching leads many to hell.

Chosen for what purpose though - the important point that Calvin and his followers ignore....... No one denies that God makes choices, but the Bible clearly says that salvation is a gift offered to all men, not just a few.

''Election'' has to do with purpose or service; Angels, Israel, and even the Lord Jesus are ''elect''.

I was upset for a different reason: How dare a MAN who calls himself a preacher lie on my God like that.

I for one cannot suffer the utterly false system of doctrine known as Calvinism. I personally believe that its´s adherents are unsaved. You can argue that all you want. I´m trusting Christ and His finished work on Calvary. I have never trusted in any election to be saved. The Bible never asked me to put my faith in any election, be it foreknown or predestined. That is what I said, it is clearly my opinion, but I conclude that because I´m thinking along the lines of Dave W. I have found that in dealing with classic calvinistic theologians, they present their salvation more as a conclusion to the OBvious end of their theological system. Sure, when cornered, they claim the finished work of Jesus on Calvary, yet always lurking under the surface is their belief they are the elect, chosen in Christ since the foundation of the world. My KJB never asks me to trust in any eternal decrees, but rather to trust in the finished work of Christ who made an end to all my sin. God bless, calvary

I don't disagree with your general premise of this post, but I have never made that accusation. If I may explain my position - I believe that anyone who holds to Calvinism as Calvin intended is not trusting in the shed blood of Christ for salvation - their salvation is based on the choice of God. This is unbiblical, for the Bible never says that we are saved by God's choice, but it constantly says we are saved by the precious blood of the Lamb of God. However, I believe many people who "align with Calvin" do not really understand what Calvin believed and taught. These people might be saved because they believe the surface words without understanding the depth of Calvinism. I think that there are people in various false churches who are saved in spite of what their church teaches, not because of it. I have known people who defend Calvin who I would think are saved (I can not know another man's heart for certain), in spite of their defence of the system which teaches salvation not by faith, but by God's choice. I have also known people who defend Calvin who, by their actions and attitudes, I would think are definitely not saved (again, I can not know another man's heart but the indicators??????? ). But I have met many people who claim the name of Christ who appear by their life and actions to not know the Saviour. That is not the exclusive domain of Calvin.

"Predestination has to do with God's perfect plan and design. Concerning believers , the King James always always speaks of a collective when referring to "predestination" by using plural pronouns like "we, they, them, us, ye or you". it never refers to individuals. The "Bride of Christ" will one day be presented to Him spotless. because "She" meaning "we" will be conformed to the image of Christ, perfectly sinless, in glorified bodies. Not a single person will get the credit for this because God "predestinated" all of it before the world existed. Each individual has to believe on Jesus Christ, of his own freewill, to become a member of the "bride". This too is included in God's will and perfect design. He doesn't want rOBots to worship Him: he wants free will.

Simple, scriptural and I am not looking for responses, although feel free to write whatever you want, I am not debating, I am posting scriptural truth. The posts stand on their merit. Calvin´s Institutes are no more inspired than Max Younce Reformed theology ( another unbiblical term), Calvinism, ( another unbiblical term), I see you had no qualms about the long cut and paste from Invicta which was OBviously form a non inspired source. Typical - God bless, calvary

Instead of spamming his thread with a huge discourse on a minor point of history, why not attempt to address the substance of his posts?

CHAPTER TWO EXAMINING VERSES USED TO SUPPORT ELECTION We are going to examine some of the verses that are used to endorse the doctrine of election to salvation. It is amazing how some will pull verses out of context that clearly have to do with service and God's provision for His saints and attempt to apply these to salvation. It is unbelievable to what extremes men will go in an attempt to prove this doctrine. They extract a line or verse from the context and apply it to support their particular false teaching. Luk_4:25-29 - A Widow & A King, Chosen To Sustain A Prophet & Show God's Power “But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land. (25) But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. (26) And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. (27) And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath. (28) And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.” Luk_4:25-29 Christ made these statements while speaking in the synagogue as an illustration. Now Mr. Nettleton gives his statement concerning these verses on page 26 of his book, Chosen to Salvation: “One out of many widows was chosen, and one out of many lepers was cleansed. The result of such teaching was anger. Special mercy was shown to the widow and to the leper.” We are going to examine the Old Testament account more thoroughly and see what the real purpose of God was in directing Elijah to the widow's house. The record of Elijah going to the widow's home is found in 1Ki_17:9. When we begin with the 17th Chapter of 1 Kings, we find that there had been a famine in the land and that Elijah had been by the brook, Cherith, that is the brook before Jordan. We find out here that Elijah had been fed by the ravens, but when the brook dried up God then directed him to go to this woman's house. We are going to find out the purpose for this as it is a far cry from electing this woman, and then using this as an illustration for salvation as Nettleton has done. It is hard for me to believe that someone would do this, when in reality, the Scriptures teach that God had a purpose for sending Elijah to this widow woman. This purpose is found in 1Ki_17:9 : “Arise, get thee to Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon, and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.” The reason for this sustenance was that the brook had dried up. You will notice that in 1Ki_17:7 of this same chapter: “And it came to pass after a while, that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land.” Therefore, God had directed Elijah to go to this particular town where the widow woman lived. She was to sustain him, feed him and to water him, as this was the purpose of God. For one to apply this to salvation is unbelievable! Let us continue to read the entire story as found in 1 Kings, Chapter 17. We find that after the widow had fed Elijah and given him water, he stayed for a time. Now we pick up the story in 1Ki_17:17, “And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. (17) And she said unto Elijah, what have I to do with thee, O thou man of God? Art thou come unto me to call my sin to remembrance, and to slay my son?” (18) Perhaps the woman thought her son had been slain because of some past sin that she had committed. We do not know for sure as this is all that is given. But we find out that Elijah had prayed to God for life to be restored to her son. God had seen fit to honor Elijah's prayer as God had a purpose in restoring his life again. He, evidently, had been dead for just a short period of time. Now, the record is found in 1Ki_17:22-24 : “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. (22). And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. (23). And the woman said to Elijah, now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” (24). There was a twofold reason for God's directing Elijah to this woman's house. The first reason, of course, being that God had spoken to this woman to care for Elijah. We find this in 1Ki_17:9, in the last part of the verse: “…behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.” So we see the first purpose of sending Elijah to the widow woman was to have her sustain Elijah. Could the Lord have stated it any clearer? Nettleton cites this case as evidence and leverage to support his contention that some are elected to salvation. It would have been nice of Nettleton to have informed his readers of GOD'S PURPOSE for using the widow woman in sustaining Elijah. She could have been the only available person in the vicinity that was saved, we do not really know. Nevertheless, in spite of God's stating His purpose, Nettleton chose to use this event to support his own purpose of endorsing election to salvation. He, himself, is proof of the freewill of man. It would be inconceivable that God would direct someone to use Scripture and apply it contrary to the purpose clearly stated in His word. Again, He used the widow woman to sustain His servant, Elijah. He could have chosen anyone, but He happened to choose this woman--NOT TO SALVATION--as this has nothing to do with salvation at all. The second purpose was to prove to this woman, by the raising of her son from the dead, that Elijah was truly God's prophet. There were many miracles done in the Old and New Testaments, but this had absolutely nothing to do with salvation. Remember, the purpose of the miracle was to convince the woman that Elijah was a true prophet. Nettleton also uses Luk_4:27 as support of his doctrine of election: “And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” Let us notice the record of this that Christ quoted is found in the Old Testament in 2Ki_5:3-15. One should take time and read the whole account for themselves. In essence, we find that Naaman was a Syrian and he was a captain of the host of the king of Syria. He was a great man with his master, honorable, and a mighty man in valor but he was a leper, as recorded in 2Ki_5:1. We find out how this whole situation took place, how God worked and the reason for all of this concerning Naaman, the leper. God's purpose for healing him was to prove that there was a true God in Israel! God performed this miracle in healing the leper, to prove to all the company that was with him at that time, that only the true God of Israel could do such a thing. This He did by the prophet, Elisha. Again we emphasize that this had nothing to do with salvation whatsoever! God performed this miracle to substantiate the fact that there was only one God and that was Israel's JEHOVAH. This was the purpose of God. We find when we read on in the story and let the Scriptures speak for themselves, the purpose of God is made known. In 2Ki_5:2 we find that the Syrians had gone out by companies and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid who waited on Naaman's wife. He had taken the girl into his home and she was the maid of the house. She knew that her master was a leper and she told her mistress how he could be cured. The record is found in 2Ki_5:3 : “….Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy.” This information came to the king of Syria, who sent a letter to the king of Israel, who at that time was Jehoram. When Jehoram got the letter he made the statement, “I'm not God!” It is recorded in 2Ki_5:7 : “And it came to pass when the king of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes and said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy. Wherefore consider, I pray you…” Now when Elisha heard of this he said, “Send the man unto me,” and this is exactly what happened. We are told that Naaman came unto the house of Elisha who gave him instructions to follow so his leprosy would be cured. Here is the record found in 2Ki_5:9-10 : “So Naaman came with his horses and his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a message unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.” When Naaman heard this he became very angry because he thought Elisha would just come out of the house and put his hand over him and he would be healed. That is not the way God chose to do it. Notice 2Ki_5:13 : “And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, my father, if the prophet had bid thee to do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? How much rather then, when he saith to thee, wash and be clean?” They talked him into it and he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan River. The last part of 2Ki_5:14 tells us that he was cleansed. Then in 2Ki_5:15 the REASON for this is stated: “And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now, therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.” This was the purpose of God in sending Naaman to his prophet, Elisha. It was to be a testimony by the healing of this man, that God was truly the God of Israel. No idolistic gods could do what the true God had just done. It taxes my imagination to see someone use these Scriptures to support a false doctrine of electing some to be saved and others to be lost. Again, allow me to quote Nettleton's statement after using these verses in support of his doctrine. (Chosen to Salvation, page 26.) “One out of many widows was chosen, and one out of many lepers was cleansed. The result of such teaching was anger. Special mercy was shown to the widow and to the leper.” Also quoting, page 13 and 14 of Chosen to Salvation. “There are two things man will never understand this side of Heaven: how God could elect to save some sinners and not others…” How important it is to study the Scriptures for your-self. How contradictory Nettleton's applications are to the clear purpose of God as stated in His word. Allow me to summarize briefly the purpose of God in each event: A. Elijah sent to the widow's house. PURPOSE—“I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee.” - 1Ki_17:9 B. Elijah restores life to the widow's son. PURPOSE—“Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth.” - 1Ki_17:24 C. Elisha directs Naaman who is healed of leprosy. PURPOSE—“...Behold, now I (Naaman) know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel…” - 2Ki_5:15 The over-all scene is clearly pictured in Luk_4:14-29. Christ was raised in Nazareth as a child (Luk_2:39-40). In His ministry, He returned to Nazareth and preached in the synagogue (Luk_4:16). He is telling the Jews that he was anointed to heal the brokenhearted, preach deliverance to the captives and open the eyes of the blind (18). They ask Him to do the same miracles here in Nazareth that they heard He had done in Capernaum. Christ knew they would not believe Him, even if He did them; therefore He stated that “…No prophet is accepted in his own country (Luk_4:23-24)." To substantiate this, He uses two Old Testament illustrations, one of Elisha and the other concerning Elijah (Luk_4:25-27). In other words, the same principle was true in Old Testament times as it was in Jesus' day. “For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.” - Joh_4:44. To extract theses two illustrations used by Christ and attempt to make them support the doctrine of election to salvation is asinine! May we always take time to examine the Scriptures for ourselves. Max Younce God bless, calvary

C. Rom_8:29 - The Elements of "Foreknowledge" & "Predestination" "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." The statement is heard many times, "You cannot reconcile the sovereignty of God and the free will of man." This is not true--one can understand both. The confusion exists when one does not properly understand the meaning of foreknowledge and predestination. Foreknowledge is an attribute of God's omniscience. Primarily, foreknowledge had to do with persons and places, and predestination is centered in God's purposes. Foreknowledge contains ONE element, that is, knowing what is going to happen before it takes place. In relation to people and places, it does not contain the element of bringing it to pass or making it happen. Predestination, on the other hand, is different from fore-knowledge in that it contains TWO elements: One is the prediction (His omniscience) and the other is the act of God (His omnipotence) to bring it to pass. The confusion begins when one inserts meanings into a word which it does not con-tain. Remember, keep these two words separated as to their meaning. Foreknowledge has ONE element, that of foreknowing what is going to happen. Do not add any other meanings to this word, it contains one element only! Predestination has TWO elements; one is predicting, the other fulfilling. Again, predestination is related to God's purposes, foreknowledge is related to persons and places. In Rom_8:29 we are told: "For whom he (Christ) did foreknow..." This simply states that Christ knew ahead of time every person who would trust Him as their Savior. The word carries no other element which would impede the free will of a person to make their own choice. Every Christian who would be saved is foreknown of God. We also see that every Christian is going to be the recipient of what God is going to predestinate. "For whom he did foreknow (every Christian) He also did predestinate." He foreknew every person who would be saved. His purpose is seen in predestination as we are predestinated to what? "To be conformed to the image of his son." When will we be conformed to the image of God's Son? At the Rapture, of course! In Php_3:20-21 we are told: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body." This is being conformed to the image of His Son. In 1Jn_3:2 we read: "Beloved, now are we the sons (Greek, TEKNON, children) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear (Rapture) , WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; for we shall see him as he is." Predestination becomes very clear if we do two things: One, take exactly what the Scripture says and believe it. Two, know the difference between foreknowledge and predestination and add no other elements of meaning to them. Foreknowledge has one element while predestination has two. In summary: Rom_8:29 teaches the following according to predestination: WHO: Only the saved are predestinated, not the lost. WHAT: Christians are predestinated at some future time to "be conformed to the image of His Son." WHEN: At the Rapture. Php_3:20-21, and 1Jn_3:2. - Max Younce Clear, simple and irrefutable scripture to demonstrate that Calvinism, classic or any modern hybrids are just babble and nonsense. God bless, calvary

Author Max Younce continues in his concise and direct exposé of Calvinism as a false belief system. B. Eph_1:11-12.- This Is Not Our Testimony "In whom also we have OBtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ." Notice the use of the word "we", a plural pronoun. Paul is including himself and all Christians. They have OBtained an inheritance. This identifies those who are predestinated for something as being already saved. We can see in Eph_1:12 what the Christian is predestinated to receive. What is predestinated is according to the Lord's purpose. He will also bring it to pass "after the counsel of his own will." "His own will" lets us know that God does not leave what He predestinated to be brought to pass by the volition or faithfulness of man. Therefore, we can rest assured... what God predestinated will come to pass! In summary: The saved are the recipients of being predes-tinated. It was God's purpose to do so and He will bring it to pass Himself. We are told in Eph_1:12 what is predestinated: "That we (Christians) should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ." At first glance one may think this means it is God's will that every Christian should lead a separated life, which would be to the praise of His glory. This is certainly God's will for every believer (Rom_12:1-2). However, this cannot be the meaning of this verse, if taken in context, as the fulfillment of what was predestinated. If this were true, then it has not come to pass in every Christian's life. Remember, what God predestinates will, without exception, come to pass. The reason being, every Christian is the recipient of what is predestinated. Not every Christian leads a separated life. In fact, some Christians never lead a separated life from the time they are saved until they leave this earth! To what is this referring? It has reference to the event of the Rapture when, without exception, every Christian will be to the praise of His glory. The Bridegroom (Christ) is looking in expectation for His Bride (the Church). The Church (every believer) is looking for the Bridegroom to return and so shall we ever be with the Lord. This meeting is the fulfillment of what Christ predestinated for every believer. Remember--what is predestinated must come to pass. If "to the praise of his glory" meant leading a separated life, it may not come to pass, for all Christians are not yielding their lives to God's will. Christ never leaves what He predestinates to be fulfilled by the volition of man. By the determined will and power of God, the Rapture will fulfill every qualifying aspect of His predestination, "that we should be to the praise of His glory." Good stuff folks and I hope this is a help to many of you. God bless, calvary

A. Eph_1:5 - Redemption Of The Body At The Rapture Let us begin with Eph_1:5… "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Notice who is predestinated. It can only be one of two groups: the saved or the lost. Paul identifies the children of God as the OBject of being predestinated, "Having predestinated us (plural pronoun)." This is Paul and every saved person. God did not predestinate anyone to be saved, but this teaches He predestinated something for those who are already saved. What did God predestinate for the Christian? The Scriptures are pure and simple. The Christian is predestinated unto the adoption of children (Greek, HUIOTHESIA, meaning son ship). When we trust Christ as our Savior, we become His children: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons (Greek, TEKNON, meaning-a child.) of God, even to them that believeth on his name." - Joh_1:12 We are positioned in Heaven as a son now, but we do not come to the realization of our son ship until the Rapture. The Jewish Bar Mitzvah may aid in understanding adoption and son ship. Bar Mitzvah means "a son of the commandments, or the placing of a son." When a Jewish boy reaches the age of 13, he is then considered as a adult. He is expected to accept adult religious responsibilities. It is a joyful occasion accompanied by gifts from friends and family. He is no longer considered a child, but an adult son. The word "adoption" is derived from the Greek word "huiothesia," from "huios", meaning "a son" and "thesis" "a placing." Therefore, "the placing of a son." Just as a Jewish boy is placed as an adult son on the day he reaches 13, we Christians also experience our son ship when we are placed in Heaven at the day of the Rapture. This is when we have our physical bodies redeemed for a new glorified body. It could be no clearer than stated in Rom_8:23 : "And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION, TO WIT, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY." In summary: WHO: Negative: Nowhere are the lost said to be predestinated to be saved. Positive: The saved are predestinated to receive something. WHAT: The Adoption. Rom_8:23, "the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." WHEN: At the Rapture. 1Th_4:17, 1Co_15:50-54. - Max Younce God bless, calvary That´s as clear as one could want. John Calvin´s theology is a blatantly false.

The Doctrinal Statement of the forum inlcudes: I respect the Forum statement, & I can live with it. The OP makes the statement: That post is seriously in error. "Calvinism" is a nickname applied to the doctrine of the Reformers. Calvin was writing sytematic theology, & some of his teaching was adopted by the Protestant denominations, including Presbyterian, Anglican (including the KJV translators), Independent (Congregational), Baptist & the Puritans generally. All insisted that their doctrinal statements were the teaching of inspired, inerrant Scripture. A reasoned attack on Reformed doctrine should start with an understanding of that doctrine, & statements of relevant doctrine agreed by the various denominations including Baptist, not picking out words from a theoretical discussion, nor gross mis-statements like "I have never trusted in any election to be saved" nor "I am posting scriptural truth. I for one cannot suffer the utterly false system of doctrine known as Calvinism. I personally believe that its´s adherents are unsaved." The OP is not posting "Scriptural truth" but chapters from an uninspired book. Many teachings of Calvin all here would reject, including infant baptism, church-state links, church jurisdiction over the ungodly (apart from excommunication.) We certainly regard with abhorrence the execution by fire of Servetus. I haven't read the "Institutes." OTOH, many of us have a high regard for evangelists who held Calvinistic doctrine, and preached repentance & faith in Christ alone, knowing that the Holy Spirit would take & apply the preaching of his word to awaken sinners & lead them to repentance. As the Forum statement reads: We believe the work of the Holy Spirit is to guide believers into all truth and reveal the truth contained in the scriptures to their hearts. His work also includes convicting the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement. To the mods: threads like this are deliberately divisive & unhelpful, using language intended to provoke rather than inform. I do not intend to defend nor promote "Calvinism" but misrepresentations need to be corrected.