Jump to content

Calvary

Members
  • Posts

    869
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Calvary

  1. Deu_24:1  When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
    Deu_24:2  And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
    Deu_24:3  And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
    Deu_24:4  Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

  2. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

     

    Notice:

    Calvary and I will be representing the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position, which is also the official position of the Online Baptist Forum. There are a number of things that we agree with Pastor Totten on. We agree that there are good men who hold to both positions and that it is not necessary to separate over this issue. We also agree that the chief task given to us is to evangelize the lost world. Calvary, Pastor Totten, and I have agreed to keep this debate in a civilized manner. We have also agreed that when we get to a position where we must agree to disagree, the debate will be over. We agree that this is not about winning or losing, but about showing a clear presentation of when the rapture will occur.

     

    Thank you,

    Goodbye.

  3. I just re-read he OB doctrinal position -- so, which part of it is not accepted by a mod? Which mod?

     

    My son-in law graduated from PBI prior to '97 and doesn't have a newer copy of any textbooks. So, are you saying that no one can quote what another person wrote without managing to  ascertain as to whether a newer edition is out?

     

    It looks as if the works he re-quoted were PBI press -- so how is that talebearing? (remember that it is in print available for public purchase)

     

     

    In short -- Have a beef with him? Fine -- have at it BUT it definitely looks like you are out of line unless what is on screen and what you sought to convey didn't quite mesh.

     

     

    Old - You cant ascertain the context either, at least not on this post, I don´t know what youre bellyaching about.

     

    Calvinism is a rotten heresy and it's promoted here all the time.

     

    OB doctrinal statement includes a pre trib pre millenial position, MIke does not hold to it, though he is certainly free to choose his eschatology, this board has a stated position, so....

     

    Talebearing is repeating a lie told by someone else, it's also called gossip. Mike did not find those quotes himslef but relied upon a secondary source and fell into the trap of publickly stating a matter to be thus when it was not so, as any reading of the context of those quotes would have shown, IF HE HAD ACTUALLY READ THE MATERIAL instead of merely quoting a slanderer.

     

    I also know that Mike is not malicious about it, but I was simply making a point.

     

    God bless you Mike,

     

    calvary

  4. Mike, I have to concurr with Steve, he is spot on. I have the book you quoted, or should I say, requoted...

     

    Dr Ruckman has made clear time and time again in context exactly what he means when he uses the term "The Greek", it is a text that merely exists in the minds of Bible correcting fools as they can no more produce "The Greek" than you can. There is no such thing. If you actually read any of his books you would have known that. Stick to your own personal study and leave old Cloud out in the clouds Mike.

     

    So this is it?? No context whatsoever, no answer to me whatsoever and prOBably no apologies for slandering another Christian.

     

    Matt, this is why your site is dead. You allow blatant heretics to teach their rotten calvinism and to the praise of several here who should know better and you allow a mod to operate who does not accept the doctrinal position of this board. You either need to get a spine Matt or change the doctrinal statement.

     

    Thanks Steve, you hit right on the head.

     

    No need to find any context Mike, since that book you re quoted from someone else (which the BIble calls tale bearing or gossip) isn't available any more in that edition. That was 1970, and has since been edited down in 1997.

     

    Bye now - you stop telling lies Mike, you are a mod don't ya know!

  5. Let's first clarify which "KJV Only" meaning you have in mind:

     

    1: Ruckman-style, "the Bible was never perfect or complete until presented in the KJV 1611 version, which is perfect, and actually better than the autographs, as well as being inspired as a version. I am not of this mind. 

     

    2: Preservation KJV only: The KJV is the preserved Bible, coming directly down in a perfect manner from the inspried autographs. We don't look to the 'originals' because they no longer exist, but we believe God preserved it exactly as He would have it. I hold to this position.

     

    Why? As you said above, Jordan, one reason is the Wescott/Hort connection: a couple Anglicans who made plain that they didn't believe in the Bible, and held to many Roman Catholic doctrines, such as mariolatry.

     

    As well, there is still many unanswered questions concerning Von Tischendorf's finding of the Sinaiticus, and whether it was even an authentic ancient manuscript. Despite the arguments from a man who claimed to have personally written the so-called Sinaiticus, there qas never any testing done to dispute this. As well, the copy was badly damaged and burned, though many of the burns look very neat and orderly, almost as if done on purpose, to look like it had been cast into a fire, as the story goes. AND there are numerous scribal errors and alterations, which as any scribe would know, should disqualify it as a 'good' text.

     

    The Vaticanus manuscript, also supposedly 'discovered' by Von Tischendorf, was well-known by earlier translators and was rejected by them for its many deviations from the other extant manuscripts.   Yet, it was these two foundations of sand upon which W&H chose to build their Fawlty Towers of scripture.

     

    That's a start for now.

     

    Stop mischaracterizing Dr. Ruckman's position. I get so tired of uniformed people putting a doctrine in the mouth of a man. And it isn't just "Ruckman" he has earned his doctrates unlike many pulp mill professors in the IFB colleges.

     

    Can you please post the context of your information where, when and why he may have said the AV was better than the "originals" which no one here has ever seen yet seem to act like they exisit.....

     

    MIke, you started with " " on your opening statement, thereby atributting your statement to Dr Ruckman, I for one would like to see that direct quote from Dr Ruckman.

  6. Balaam repented of his sins, died and went to hell. He said, I have sinned. (Numbers 22:34). Saul said, I have sinned, was rejected and went to hell. (1 Samuel 15:24). Judas Iscariot said I have sinned and went straight to a bottomless pit. (Acts 1:20) Pharaoh said, I have sinned, he repented and died and went to hell. (Exodus 9:27).

     

    So repentance... is it a changed attitude or a change of heart and if it is, will it get me to heaven? Didn´t seem to work for these characters listed above.

     

    @ SoD, brother, I cannot usurp the role of the Holy Spirit.  :-)

     

    So, many teach that repentance is a turning from sin unto... Jesus. But Biblical speaking, we can turn from all kinds of stuff a never get saved. Repentance alone not mixed with faith is of no value.

    I am not so sure we ought to teach repentance as a stand alone doctrine. It is actually one of the doctrines of Soteriology. It is a part of a group of teachings that together stand upon one another, not alone or independent of one another.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  7. Calvary,

     

    re: "All citations to the effect that a partial day is still as good as a whole day will come from the very sources that cite it as definitive."

     

    So it's a good thing that that is not what I'm looking for.

     

     

     

     

    re: "Try the Nexus Index."

     

    I'm not familiar with that.

     

     

    "Whenever the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40 is brought up in a "discussion" with 6th day crucifixion folks, they frequently argue that it is a Jewish idiom for counting any part of a day as a whole day. I wonder if anyone has documentation that shows an example from the first century or before regarding a period of time that is said to consist of a specific number of days as well as a specific number of nights where the period of time absolutey doesn't/can't include at least a part of each one of the specific number of days and at least a part of each one of the specific number of nights?"

     

    As I said, you will not find any citation from anywhere. You asked for documentation, I merely stated that it most likely does not exist, and if it does, it would be not be vetted.  Perhaps you´ve forgotten what you asked for. Seems to me you are in fact looking for outside sourcing to the effect of a statement supporting the 6th day Crucifixion folks. Again, it most likely does not exist.

     

    Try Nexus Index. Or can you google? Not rocket science.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  8. Sorry OP, you still haven´t had your question answered. I would think that there probably is no literature available that would give you what you ask. All citations to the effect that a partial day is still as good as a whole day will come from the very sources that cite it as definitive. In other words, it´s a circle of citation. One writer states the claim as factual, and the next quotes the first author. There is no vetting. And then you have a construct of a fact based upon the writing of someone whose statement was never verified.

     

    Try the Nexus Index.

     

    God bless,

    calvary

  9. As repungnant as the Brider or Landmarkism position to me is, be careful that you do not label all local church only folks in that group. Most advocates of the local church only persuasion who are opposed to the idea of a universal body of Christ are not in fact Briders.
    Even some who believe that John the Baptist started the 1st Baptist Church of Jerusalem may not hold to the eschatological twistings of the Brider group.
    I hold to the Body of Christ being the saved throughout all the church age. I am a strong proponent of the local church having started 5 by Gods grace. But of the 112 or so references of the word ëkklesia in the New Testament, I think we would have a hard time forcing 5 and perhaps 6 of them into a local church framework, therefore I do in fact see a universal (though I prefer the more Biblical term Body of Christ, or the church which is His Body) idea to the assembly.
    Not all local church only advocates are Briders, in fact many are not.

    God bless,
    calvary


  10. I'The infamous Scofield was utterly discredited by his personal life & abandonment of his wife & children. Not to mention his grossly slanted "Bible" intended to popularise Darby's dispensationalism.

    ve never used Thompson, though I hold to a preterist amil position. Matthew Henry is very good & very helpful on background & difficult passages, giving the info we need to come to an understanding.

    From the time I began serious Bible study (over 50 years ago) I have used Bibles with cross references, as they enable the study of parallel & related passages without man's comments.

    The online Blue Letter Bible is a very powerful resource, a particularly useful resource being Strong's numbering which enables definitions & word studies.


    I wasn't referring to Scofield.
  11. I have several of these Ref Bibles on your list. I have always enjoyed Dakes, and yes I know that he also taught that Jesus "became the Christ" at his baptism. But his lists are of interest, and they are many. Scofields is Scofield. I have Bullingers Companion, always have really been challenged by many of his appendices. Dr. Ruckmans Ref Bible is a fantastic resource throughout. To me, the absolute most informative cross refs and notes I have ever found. I understand many here may not appreciate that, but I am not looking for a pastor in Dr Ruckman, so I believe is greatly gifted and qualified to teach the Bible. Never have cared much for Thompson. I guess a divorced bible teacher appeals to me more than a A-mill bible :-) . Someone sent me a Ray Comfort Bible a few years ago in a Word doc. Didn't care for that one too much.
    I also have a Spanish Bible (since I pastor in Mexico) that was put out by Arturo Muñoz and the Fundamentalista. It has several articles on basics from many well known Pastors in the IFB camp here in Mexico. Men like Elmer Fernandez, Alejandro Cordoba, Azael Cocon de Jesús and others.

    God bless,
    calvary


  12. Strong's is not KJV keyed - what is that supposed to mean? It is a tool made for studying the KJV.


    It's like this:
    "New editions of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible are still in print (in 2007). Additionally, other authors have used Strong's numbers in concordances of other Bible translations, such as the New International Version and American Standard Version. These are often also referred to as Strong's Concordances.
    New editions of Strong's may exclude the comparative section (1611 KJV to 1614) and the asterisks that denote differential definitions of the same Hebrew or Greek words; due perhaps to denominational considerations, definitions may also be altered."

    "Not every distinct word is assigned a number, but only the root words."

    I am referring to the apparatus, not the listing.

    God bless,
    calvary

  13. We have the old Strong's and like it. I've heard from a lot of people that don't, though. My mom's pastor actually prefers Young's, saying that he believes it is more accurate. We don't have Young's, but I wouldn't mind having it for comparison sake.


    Strong's is not KJB keyed, Young's Analytical Concordance is in my opinion the best Concordance available. It has a great lexicon in the back that allows you to find cross refs that otherwise you wouldn't have found. By listing the verses in the KJB that a Greek or Hebrew word is found, you can find verses that shed light on other verses although they do not carry the exact English word. The Young's is keyed to the KJB. The Young's does not carry every article, therefore it is not a concise Concordance as is Strong's, but Young's Concordance was designed to be a pastor's Concordance who is using the Concordance for BIBLE study, NOT WORD studies. I have always thought that Vincent's Word Studies was about the most boring work I ever had the displeasure of using. Word studies bore down, down and then down until there is no where to go. Young's was designed for the pastor, not the layman.

    God bless,
    calvary

  14. Thank you...that was really interesting (and amazing) testimony! I really appreciate your input and advice. Do you mind if I ask what Mission Board you are (or were) with?


    I opted for local church as my "clearing house", no Mission Board. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't get one or get one. What works for some may not work for others. Take heed unto THY ministry. Much of the advice I got from a book someone gave me years ago. Don't have it any more, but it was a pastor in Oregon, Mike Miller or something like that.

    God bless,
    calvary
  15. Hi -
    I am by no means an expert, but as a church p;planting missionary (foreign field so there will be cultural diffs) I have started a few churches.

    1. Pray lots.
    2. Pray some more.
    3 Get to work on a plan that has simple defined steps.
    4. Do NOT make it complicated.
    5. Do NOT whine.
    6. NEVER complain about the difficulties in "your field" as compared to someone else.

    I would suggest that pastorj "old school" method has the best benefits and results that will encourage you.

    1. Canvas the area for 2 things. a) a place to meet - I think your own house is a BIG negative, and B) to get a feel for the folks
    2. Plan a blitz of propaganda.
    3. Plan a meeting in the midst of the blitz (put the time on your flyer, the palce and serve refreshements)
    4. This meeting is a "Get to know us" meeting.
    a. A short video perhaps of other ministry experience you have
    b. Various ministries you plan to execute
    c. Talk up the need for a church like yours
    d. Do NOT tell folks there is no good church in your area (nothing worse than "bashing religions" of folks in the minds of the people you desire to reach)
    e. DO Tell them that finally a church that cares, a church that loves, a church that desires to make an impact in the lives of every day people LIKE THEM is coming to town.
    f. Have an invitation @ this meeting.
    g. Recruit others to help you hand out flyers in your area.
    h. Serve food.
    i. Do NOT preach @ this meeting. MOTIVATE..., POSITIVE.... POSITIVE... POSITIVE!!
    j. Hand out more flyers - NICE FULL COLOR CARD STOCK FLYERS (do NOT go cheap on the publicity)

    HAVE A SECOND GET TO KNOW ME MEETING A FEW DAYS BEFORE YOUR GRAND OPENING
    repeat the steps of the first mtng.
    List a hundred ministries on a large white board. think BIG

    I have done this 6 times in my life, and the results are varied but sure.

    MINIMUM 10,000 flyers.

    In Campeche we handed out 8500 flyers and our 1st get to know (GTKU) mtng had around 40, the 2nd another 40, Grand Opening 107 in church.
    In Quintana Roo we handed out 10,000 flyers 1st GTKU mtng 25, 2nd 30 or so, Grand Opening 124 in church - that church plant started 3 other churches in rural areas.
    In Yucatan, we handed out 20,000 flyers 1st GTKU mtng 8 people showed!! The 2nd 5!!!???? Grand Opening 147 in church - who is sufficient for these things!?

    IMHO only, I think it better to get a bunch and work with the ones you can. Generally you have 80% of them for a year. They never were faithful to their old church and they simply won't stick with you either. But use the resources God gives you while you can. Disciplining people is a process, and I try to have at least 4 or 5 men or couples @ a time to disciple in homes. My wife has 4 or 5 ladies all the time. If you try to have one family at a time you will be in for a very slow process. 1 hour a week with 4 or 5 men or women or couples (however it works out) goes far better than one couple a week. If you cannot get the man, then send your wife to disciple the wife. If you cannot get the wife in the study, then keep after the man. Don't try to get the perfect couple that will be your right hand man for ever. Just try to disciple a few so that in 6 - 8 months you can recruit some SS teachers, Jr. Church workers etc.

    Ok, enough.

    God bless,
    God speed,
    calvary


  16. Thank you Calvary for taking the time and effort to give an answer! Your response is actually much clearer and more understandable than what I read in most commentaries.


    Thank you John. I tried to look at what you asked, How this passage applies to our lives? I'm guessing you already knew that chapter 9-11 are about the great question What relationship does the Jew now have with the church, with the promises of God and his future delaing with Jehovah.
    Alan Carr has a web site called Sermon Notebook. There you'll find hundreds of good messages. He has a series on Romans, there are 4 really good practical messages in there on this parenthetical section of Romans.
    I always prefer application to theology. ... :D

    God bless,
    calvary

  17. Romans 9:21-23

    King James Version (KJV)


    21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
    22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
    23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


    Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Romans 9:21

    Firstly, God made us as a son of Adam as we were made in the image of Adam. That placed us under a curse. As far as our responsibility is concerned that actually means nothing.
    No man can use the fact that he is born a sinner to reject Christ. Paul said, “now commandeth ALL men EVERY WHERE to repent (Acts 17).

    Notice that vs. 21 -23 does not take place in eternity as the Calvinists teach.
    “Shall the thing formed…” Nothing was formed before Genesis 1:1
    “Hath not the potter power over the clay…” There is no clay that is formed by the potter until Genesis 2:7.

    There are no eternal decrees of election or reprobation in the passage. What God makes, He makes in time, what God forms He forms in time.
    What we have in verse 20 is a fully formed vessel speaking to the potter. That vessel was formed in time, not eternity past. Notice with me some things we need to know

    First - The purpose of the vessel is never etched unchangeably in stone by the Potter. Paul speaks of vessels unto honour and vessels unto dishonor. If you couldn’t change your status from that of dishonor to one of honour that would be one thing. But what does 2 Tim 2:20, But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. IF A MAN PURGE HIMSELF from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. So your status as a vessel of either honour or no depends upon what you do with the things that defile you.

    Second - The potter can change His mind as He is forming the vessel and make another vessel. Jeremiah 18:3-4, Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: The Potter did not mar it Himself. So he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. What is the application? O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? God can take a marred vessel and make a new, better vessel out of it. The difference is obedience. Jeremiah 18:7-8, At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

    Thirdly – The potter can take a good vessel and break it and throw it in the garbage. That is what happens in Jeremiah 19:1, 10. The reason had nothing whatsoever to do with “God willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known”. It was because the vessel had forsaken God. Jeremiah 19:4, Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place…
    So when it comes to what kind of vessel God makes of us, he does it with our participation. Therefore! The sinner has no right to accuse God by saying, Why hast thou made me thus? At any time the sinner could repent and changed the God made the vessel.

    The problem with Calvinism is that he bases his theology on a supposition. He goes to verse 22 to show that God reprobates some men to Hell, and he goes to verse 23 to show that God elects some men to Heaven. The sentence of verse 22, 23, and 24 all begin with WHAT IF! What a dumb place to begin your theology! What if He didn’t!!?? Ever thought of that!?
    The Calvinist in their eagerness to rid themselves of their responsibility towards God have overlooked the fact that every vessel born on this earth is under the wrath of God until that vessel receives Christ (John 3:18,36) EVERYBODY is born a vessel of wrath.

    The real truth in this passage is in answering the question What if? We can do that later.

    God bless,
    calvary

  18. Romans 1 indisputably establishes the Biblical ("calvinistic") doctrine of total depravity, & that they are without excuse for their sin. Does it also teach that people, seeing the invisible things of God in creation, are free to repent & turn to God? Paul said to the pagan Athenians:
    24
    God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth n
    ot
    in temples made with hands;

    ......

    27
    That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be n
    ot
    far from every one of us:


    Is there, therefore, a way of salvation for repentant sinners apart from the Gospel of Christ? Is there no condemnation for those who have not heard the Gospel of Christ & therefore cannot believe in him of whom they have not heard? If the revelation of God's being in the light of creation renders mankind without excuse, must it also provide the means of salvation?

    Up to a point we can make logical deductions from Scripture, as the OP does, but our deductions MUST be constrained by Scripture. That is where the anticalvinists fail in their logic - they make their own deductions from their (mis)understanding of Reformed doctrine.

    What did Jesus mean when he said:
    Mat. 11:
    25
    At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because
    thou hast hid these things from the wise and prude
    nt
    , and hast revealed them u
    nt
    o babes.

    26
    Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

    27
    All things are delivered u
    nt
    o me of my Father: and
    no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

    28
    Come u
    nt
    o me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.


    John 6:
    44
    No man can come to me, except the Father which hath se
    nt
    me draw him
    : and I will raise him up at the last day.

    45
    It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh u
    nt
    o me.


    John 16:
    8
    And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgme
    nt
    :

    9
    Of sin, because they believe n
    ot
    on me;

    10
    Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

    11
    Of judgme
    nt
    , because the prince of this world is judged.


    The universal sinfulness of man is clear, as is his desperate need of salvation. Does sinfulness, & need, & inexcusable guilt, imply the ability to repent & believe with the Holy Spirit convincing sinners of their state? That you need to establish from Scripture if you are to make a convincing case for guilty sinners to be able to believe apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.


    I told you he teaches that regeneration is a separte act from salvation. He won't see what he just said, but there it is in black and white. That is classic Calvinism. Rubbish is what it is.

    God bless,
    calvary

  19. What action should we take when we READ warning prophecy? We, today, will not HEAR prophecy apart from Scripture.
    10
    And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.

    11
    And when he was come u
    nt
    o us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him i
    nt
    o the hands of the Ge
    nt
    iles.

    12
    And when we heard these things, b
    ot
    h we, and they of that place, besought him n
    ot
    to go up to Jerusalem.

    13
    Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready n
    ot
    to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.

    14
    And when he would n
    ot
    be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.


    Paul heard that prophecy given by the Holy Spirit, & acknowledged it. He treated it as information. His companions treated it as a "don't go on" prophecy, but finally ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. No, Paul was not sinning by ignoring Agabus' prphetic warning; he was encouraged, knowing that what they feared was in God's hands. God knew what awaited Paul, & would use the situation for Paul to preach directly to the Jewish leaders, the Roman authorities, & to the Emperor & his household, together with the believers in Rome.

    Paul comments to Timothy on his situation:
    3
    I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day;

    No, he was not troubled by a supposed sin of rejecting God's warning through Agabus. "If only I had turned back...."
    11
    Whereu
    nt
    o I am appoi
    nt
    ed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Ge
    nt
    iles.

    12
    For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am n
    ot
    ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed u
    nt
    o him against that day.


    8
    Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

    9
    Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even u
    nt
    o bonds; but the word of God is n
    ot
    bound.

    10
    Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also
    ob
    tain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.


    Paul knew he was in the Lord's will, & was able to stand firm. Where were the doubters?
    16
    At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may n
    ot
    be laid to their charge.

    17
    N
    ot
    withstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Ge
    nt
    iles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

    18
    And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me u
    nt
    o his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.


    And to the Philippians:
    12
    But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened u
    nt
    o me have fallen out rather u
    nt
    o the furtherance of the gospel;

    13
    So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all
    ot
    her places;

    14
    And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confide
    nt
    by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear.


    20
    According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in n
    ot
    hing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.

    21
    For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.


    No, no regrets, not a sin. He knew his God. Other prophecies have been used by the Lord's people to flee according to God's warning. The Jerusalem Christians headed Jesus' Olivet prophecy, & fled the city before the destruction. Also David, as cited in another thread:
    10
    Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy serva
    nt
    hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake.

    11
    Will the men of Keilah deliver me up i
    nt
    o his hand? will Saul come down, as thy serva
    nt
    hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy serva
    nt
    . And the Lord said, He will come down.

    12
    Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men i
    nt
    o the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up.

    13
    Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah
    .....


    The argument in the other thread was that God's will was overruled by David leaving the city. Nonsense - it was a warning prophecy for David to heed - & escape the evil hand of Saul. David was anointed as the next king.



    A warning carries a conditional phrase, like IF... you do this or IF you do that THEN...
    A perfect Bible example is that of Cain and God's WARNING to him in Genesis 4.

    Sounds as if you still smart over the simple example of a man overriding God's decree by simply exercising his free will.

    You and I do that on a daily basis. Believe it.

    There is no will of God that forces a man to do anything, much less recieve the pardon of sins through Jesus Christ.
    Typical calvinist hack.

    God bless,
    calvary

  20. If you are saying that God works in the hearts of men to lead them to Him, then I agree. BUT I do not believe that it is only the hearts of certain "chosen" people that God decides to work with. He works in the hearts of EVERY humane being ever born through the glory of creation, His Word, His messengers, etc (read Romans) but we have the God given ability to choose to listen or not, to believe or not, to follow or not and to obey or not.


    Hey brother. Covenant man is saying that the Holy Ghost regenerates you BEFORE you can obey Romans 10. Get it? True Reformed, Calvinism, or classic reformed theology places regeneration before salvation due to their chronology of events. According to the Calvinists (sorry for labeling Covenant, but it is what it is) you are dead in sins, a dead man therefore cannot call upon the Lord unless he has been quickened, hence, regeneration of and by the H.S must occurr prior to the awakened conscience, mind, heart, etc ... can "call upon the name of the Lord"

    He'll deny this of course. But that's it in a nutshell. Typically the reformed class don't like their positions being boiled down to a simple analysis like that.

    One of the clearest Biblical examples of free will overiding the decrees of God is found in David. 1 Samuel 23 David inquires of God to find His will on a matter. "Will Saul come down, as thy servant heard?" The Lord said "He will come down". (And he did come down)
    David inquires, "Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?"
    God says, THEY WILL deliver thee up.

    They don't. They didn't. David simply used his free will and changed the outcome. Which is what sinners do every day on both sides of the coin. Some deny God's eternal decrees about the destiny of a sinner by repenting and recieving Christ. Others deny God's will by rejecting His love and forgivenenss and thereby end up in hell, which was never His will for them. So, man's free will acts and violates God's will daily.

    To the reformed their error lies in equating God's eternal decress, the sovereignity of God and His will as all a concrete, inflexible unthwartable action. Thus, the "Irresistible Grace" nonesense. The "predestinated unto... " foolishness. And most notably, the idea that the unregenerate cannot inquire of the Lord, cannot have any understanding of their condition prior to regeneration or any ability to of their own accord to fleee to the loving arms of a God who desires to save them.


    Too bad this thread went the way of another usless debate on "Calvinism"

    God bless,
    calvary
  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...