# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Arminians and being Saved

## Sola_Fide

> One of the most important issues faced by those who profess to believe the doctrines of grace (commonly called "Calvinism") is how to relate to professing Christians who reject the doctrines of grace. Should they be approached as brothers in Christ? Should we take their "conversion experience" at face value? In answering these questions, the writer would like to submit the following Three Reasons Why Arminians Are Not Saved.
> 
> *Reason Number One:* Arminians are not saved because they worship an idol. By an idol, I mean "a god who cannot save." But wait a minute, you say, don't they worship Jesus? No, as a matter of fact, they don't. They may say they worship Jesus, but the jesus they worship simply cannot save. The Pharisees said they believed in God and even convinced themselves they believed in God, but their faith was really in a god who could not save them; their faith was not in the one true God. This is obvious from the fact that when the one true God come to live among them, they blasphemed him and had him executed. The Pharisees had made an idol out of their idea of God; hence they were just as lost as those who worshiped a carved idol named Moloch. Forming an image in our brains and calling it "Jesus" is no more evidence of salvation than carving a wooden idol and calling it "God." Either way the individual is in gross idolatry. And the end of those who worship idols is to become like their idols (Psalm 115:8). Arminians have a god who is unable to turn the will of man as he pleases. They may firmly believe that he is able to move mountains, cause thunder and lightning, and ordain the stars in their courses, but he is powerless before the Almighty Human Will, and the blood of the only begotten son is shed for those who are in hell in a powerless atonement. This is not the God of the Bible (Psalm 115:3, Proverbs 1:21). This "god" is neither a just God nor a Savior (Isaiah 45:21). This "god" simply cannot save (Isaiah 45:20). This "god" is a broken staff, piercing the hand of the one leaning on it. This "god" is a lie from hell and is destined to return there. And those who follow him to the end are destined to return there with him.
> 
> What was God's complaint to apostate Israel? "... thou thoughtest that I was altogether [such an one] as thyself ..." (Psalm 50:21). Arminians have fashioned a god in their own image. They are no more saved than the Jews who had done exactly the same thing.
> 
> *Reason Number Two:* Arminians are not saved because they do not believe the truth. This is related to the previous reason but has more to do with the evidence of a person's salvation.
> 
> Any Calvinist who defends the salvation of Arminians must explain 2 Thessalonians 2:12, which says, "That they all might be damned who believe not the truth ..." Some use the excuse that Arminians believe the important, essential doctrines of Scripture. But do they?
> ...


http://www.outsidethecamp.org/three.htm

----------


## thoughtomator

Jesus saves!

He takes half damage!

----------


## Confederate

The one reason I know Sola_Fide is not saved: Pride.

 the voluntary giving of advice is a sign that we regard ourselves as possessed of spiritual knowledge and worth, which is a clear sign of pride and self-deception.
-  St. Ignatii Brianchaninov



I hope you do read the link I sent you earlier today Sola.
Article: http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecre...an-looks-west/
Thread I started on it: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...st-read-essay)

----------


## Jeremy

Why do you try so hard to divide the church?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do you try so hard to divide the church?


I guess it really depends on what you think the church is.  The Bible says that churches, even in Paul's day, were filled with false apostles who portrayed themselves as angels of light but in fact were ministers of Satan.  This is the case today.  

Satan does not deceive people with the most obviously evil works in our world, he deceives people by working through the most obviously good parts of our world.  Satan deceives people by a gospel that has all the religious sounding words, but gives some measure of glory to man for his salvation, instead of God alone.  The ministers of Satan are the pastors and priests in the churches, whose way seems like the right way.

Arminianisn isn't Christianity.  I don't think I'm dividing the church (if by church you mean "body of believers").  Arminianism is a false gospel that proposes a god that is powerless to save.  It uses the words and phrases of true religion, just like the Pharisees did, but like the Pharisees, Arminians have erected an idol in their minds that is not the God of Scripture.  A Christ who died for every single man, including those in Hell, is a Christ that cannot save.  It's not who God is.

----------


## thoughtomator

Perhaps we should be more specific: What led you to think that anyone here cares to indulge in petty disputes between obscure theological doctrines?

----------


## VIDEODROME

What people in Hell can't be saved?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Perhaps we should be more specific: What led you to think that anyone here cares to indulge in petty disputes between obscure theological doctrines?


I think this board has a great theological discussion going with several different views represented.  There are lines being drawn and people are reassessing what they believe and why they believe it.  This is good.  Furthermore, this thread in particular is not a petty dispute.  This is a discussion about what the gospel is and who God is.  

Did Christ die for all the men who will be in Hell for eternity?  What ground of assurance does a believer have in the blood of Christ to save him if this blood fails to save the vast majority of people?  Don't you see how this causes a man to look at his works as the grounds of his assurance before God?   But then, this takes glory away from God as the sole reason for salvation.

Does God alone deserve the glory for salvation, or does man deserve the glory for salvation?  Is salvation conditioned on what the sinner does, or is it conditioned on what God alone does?  These are two different gospels and there is only one that is true and saving.

----------


## thoughtomator

The problem here is that if you really want to do serious analysis, you must admit that the god you worship is not the God of the Old Testament.

----------


## Dr.3D

> What people in Hell can't be saved?


Judgement hasn't taken place yet.  There are no people in Hell.

----------


## Confederate

> There are no people in Hell.


Luke 16:22
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The problem here is that if you really want to do serious analysis, you must admit that the god you worship is not the God of the Old Testament.


Why do you say that?

----------


## jj-

Except arminians of this forum, they're saved. I'll save everybody who is a member here.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Luke 16:22
> And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.


That was a parable, a story to tell a lesson.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Judgement hasn't taken place yet.  There are no people in Hell.


That is irrelevant to the point I am making.  Whether men are in Hell now or at some future date, the issue at hand is: did Christ die for them?  And if Christ died for them, what assurance can believers have in Christ's blood, since it is so obviously powerless to save? And if Christ's blood isn't the condition of whether we are saved or not, then it is something in man.  And if that is the case, man gets the glory for his salvation.  But the Bible says that we boast in Christ alone for salvation. So which is it?

One is Christianity and the other isn't.

----------


## Confederate

> Except arminians of this forum, they're saved. I'll save everybody who is a member here.


Only Danke has that power.

----------


## Dr.3D

Oh yeah, I forgot, Sola_Fide is here to judge us now.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Did Christ die for all the men who will be in Hell for eternity? What ground of assurance does a believer have in the blood of Christ to save him if this blood fails to save the vast majority of people?


How is it an Arminian belief that God predestines an elect to salvation, but Christ's work on the cross would otherwise be sufficient for all men if they all had faith in Him? I feel like we're splitting hairs here.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Sometimes I want to hand some bibles to a lawyer and say "Here you figure this out."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How is it an Arminian belief that God predestines an elect to salvation, but Christ's work on the cross would otherwise be sufficient for all men if they all had faith in Him?


Because you are making faith itself the condition of salvation, instead of Christ's blood alone.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Because you are making faith itself the condition of salvation, instead of Christ's blood alone.


Even Jesus said one must have faith and believe to be saved.



> *Mark 16:14-16*  Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.  15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.  16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. _(NRS)_

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Even Jesus said one must have faith and believe to be saved.


Right, but saving faith is something God gives His elect people, its not something that man from himself gives to God as a payment for salvation.

We are saved by grace, through faith...and this faith is not from ourselves...it is the gift of God so no can boast.



> *
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV
> 
> For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.*

----------


## jj-

Sola_Fide, will you be saved?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide, will you be saved?


Yes, no one who trusts in Him alone for salvation will be put to shame:




> Romans 10:9-11 NIV
> 
> If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."

----------


## jj-

> Yes, no one who trusts in Him alone for salvation will be put to shame:


How do you know you will still trust in Him alone in the future? This is now, but you aren't dead yet.

----------


## loveableteddybear

> Because you are making faith itself the condition of salvation, instead of Christ's blood alone.


I never said that. Grace is the basis of salvation, not faith. Faith is the means which God makes available to us.

----------


## Jeremy

> Yes, no one who trusts in Him alone for salvation will be put to shame:


You just contradicted your thread...

----------


## Confederate

> Yes, no one who trusts in Him alone for salvation will be put to shame:


The paramount of arrogance: the fact that you are so sure that you are one of His Elect and think you have the knowledge to tell others they are not saved.

----------


## acptulsa

> Reason Number One: Arminians are not saved because they worship an idol. By an idol, I mean "a god who cannot save." But wait a minute, you say, don't they worship Jesus? No, as a matter of fact, they don't. They may say they worship Jesus, but the jesus they worship simply cannot save.


Well, that's incredibly petty.  It's also the same sort of idolatry the Armenians are accused of.  A human judge can save a murderer, but chooses not to.  Can you not see that you're accusing God of either being incapable of making such decisions, or being unjust by choosing to be blind to the facts?




> The Pharisees said they believed in God and even convinced themselves they believed in God, but their faith was really in a god who could not save them; their faith was not in the one true God. This is obvious from the fact that when the one true God come to live among them, they blasphemed him and had him executed.


There's a lesson in that somewhere, I'm sure of it...




> Reason Number Two: Arminians are not saved because they do not believe the truth. This is related to the previous reason but has more to do with the evidence of a person's salvation.


Looks to me like someone is declaring a lawyerly, twisted view of certain vague epistles Truth.  And here I thought only false prophets did things like that.  Certainly it takes a false prophet to speak for God in absolutes, knowing the whole time that God knows things they don't.  Even Paul was careful enough to avoid that devil's trap:




> Any Calvinist who defends the salvation of Arminians must explain 2 Thessalonians 2:12, which says, "That they all *might* be damned who believe not the truth ..."





> Reason Number Three: Arminians are not saved because they hate the truth.


Also incredibly petty.  So, we must hate those who hate our interpretation.  Let's see where that leads us.




> 1. We must not fellowship with Arminians...  We must treat them as unsaved... We should witness to them the true gospel of grace... (_And how are we to witness to them if we're shunning them and refusing to offer our fellowship?)_  We must be willing to exercise church discipline on those who turn out to be Arminians or consider Arminians to be their brothers in Christ.


And shall we burn them at the stake?




> I guess it really depends on what you think the church is.  The Bible says that churches, even in Paul's day, were filled with false apostles who portrayed themselves as angels of light but in fact were ministers of Satan.  This is the case today.  
> 
> Satan does not deceive people with the most obviously evil works in our world, he deceives people by working through the most obviously good parts of our world.  Satan deceives people by a gospel that has all the religious sounding words, but gives some measure of glory to man for his salvation, instead of God alone.  The ministers of Satan are the pastors and priests in the churches, whose way seems like the right way.
> 
> Arminianisn isn't Christianity.  I don't think I'm dividing the church (if by church you mean "body of believers").  Arminianism is a false gospel that proposes a god that is powerless to save.  It uses the words and phrases of true religion, just like the Pharisees did, but like the Pharisees, Arminians have erected an idol in their minds that is not the God of Scripture.  A Christ who died for every single man, including those in Hell, is a Christ that cannot save.  It's not who God is.


If you deny that Jesus was generous enough to die for sinners _simply on the chance that they would repent_, simply to _give them the opportunity,_ simply so they need not worry, when their hearts are improved, that it's too late for them, then it's _you_ who cheapens Jesus' gift and Jesus' love.  It also cannot be truth, because it contradicts your own statement that it means that Jesus cannot save.  You accuse people of believing that Jesus cannot save because He saves people He chooses not to save because they aren't worthy.

Your vision of God is a being who chooses not to be just lest people like you believe that justice is stronger and more powerful than God is.  I hope you're not creating God in your own image when you do it, because that's the most petty thing I've ever heard.  At the end of Matthew 25 Jesus describes a God who has the power to enforce justice, and the immaculate honor and character to choose to do so.  If your church considers it a sin to believe this about God, then I won't give you a chance to kick me out of that church--I shan't darken its doorway.

----------


## acptulsa

> How is it an Arminian belief that God predestines an elect to salvation, but Christ's work on the cross would otherwise be sufficient for all men if they all had faith in Him? I feel like we're splitting hairs here.





> Because you are making faith itself the condition of salvation, instead of Christ's blood alone.


Contradicting yourself _again_, I see...




> Right, but saving faith is something God gives His elect people...


If you're going to convince us that we're going to go to hell because we don't believe the exact, precise, narrowly identical way you do, could you at least come up with some beliefs you can stick to without contradicting yourself all to hell in every single thread?  Please?




> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


It always amazes me how fundamentalists always seem to get so caught up in details that they miss the fundamentals.  Jesus spent His entire mortal, earthly existence trying to help people get into heaven.  You, Sola, seem to spend your entire earthly existence kicking people out of heaven.  If that's not what you're trying to do, then you're doing it wrong.  And if that _is_ what you're trying to do, then you're as petty as the member of the country club who blackballs all the new member applicants.

----------


## Beorn

I hope people realize that Sola's views on this are way outside what the vast majority of Calvinists and reformed folks actually believe. 




> Westminster Shorter Catechism 
> 
> Q. 85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?
> A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.
> 
> Q. 86. What is faith in Jesus Christ?
> A. Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.
> 
> Q. 87. What is repentance unto life?
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I never said that. Grace is the basis of salvation, not faith. Faith is the means which God makes available to us.


Primarily, this is incorrect because the Bible doesn't say that Jesus died for every single person. 

But additionally, there are several Scriptural and logical problems with Amyraldiansim:

1.  If you say that Christ died for every man, but then God only elects men to receive the atonement, you are separating the saving grace of God from the cross.  And the Bible never makes this distinction.  Christ's atonement is EFFECTUAL only.  There is no saving grace of God apart from Christ's work on the cross.  

2.  There is absolute unity and harmony within the Trinity in the salvation of men.  Amyraldianism presents disunity.

3.  If you believe in irresistable grace, you already believe in limited atonement.  Saving grace comes from the atonement of the cross only and cannot be resisted. 

4.  The atonement is already an accomplished fact of history as the book of Hebrews says, so Jesus could not have bore the sins of the non-elect.

5.  Jesus ransomed a number of people at the cross and that ransom price was actually paid by Christs atoning death.  It is impossible that a hypothetical ransom price was paid.

6.  The notion that Jesus died for everyone and then God elects reverses the operation of God in salvation.  The Bible teaches that God elects first, and then Christ atones.


I haven't even scratched the surface with the problems of hypothetical atonement.  It's not Biblical or consistent.  Don't believe it.

----------


## PursuePeace

*A Word To The 'Elect'
By: Anne Bronte*

_You may rejoice to think yourselves secure;
You may be grateful for the gift divine --
That grace unsought, which made your black hearts pure,
And fits your earth-born souls in Heaven to shine. 
But, is it sweet to look around, and view
Thousands excluded from that happiness,
Which they deserved, at least, as much as you, --
Their faults not greater, nor their virtues less? 

And, wherefore should you love your God the more,
Because to you alone his smiles are given;
Because he chose to pass the many o'er,
And only bring the favoured few to Heaven? 

And, wherefore should your hearts more grateful prove,
Because for ALL the Saviour did not die?
Is yours the God of justice and of love
And are your bosoms warm with charity? 

Say, does your heart expand to all mankind?
And, would you ever to your neighbour do --
The weak, the strong, the enlightened, and the blind -*
As you would have your neighbour do to you? 

And, when you, looking on your fellow-men,
Behold them doomed to endless misery,
How can you talk of joy and rapture then? --
May God withhold such cruel joy from me! 

That none deserve eternal bliss I know;
Unmerited the grace in mercy given:
But, none shall sink to everlasting woe,
That have not well deserved the wrath of Heaven. 

And, Oh! there lives within my heart
A hope, long nursed by me;
(And, should its cheering ray depart,
How dark my soul would be!) 

That as in Adam all have died,
In Christ shall all men live;
And ever round his throne abide,
Eternal praise to give.

That even the wicked shall at last
Be fitted for the skies;
And, when their dreadful doom is past,
To life and light arise. 

I ask not, how remote the day,
Nor what the sinner's woe,
Before their dross is purged away;
Enough for me, to know

That when the cup of wrath is drained,
The metal purified,
They'll cling to what they once disdained,
And live by Him that died._

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I hope people realize that Sola's views on this are way outside what the vast majority of Calvinists and reformed folks actually believe.


Well, I used to call myself a Calvinist, but I can't in good conscience do that anymore because John Calvin and so many historically Calvinistic people have been wrong and contradicted the Scriptures in several ways.  I do believe in the doctrines of grace based on the imputed righteousness of Christ and the efficacious atonement of Christ, because that is what the gospel is and that is what the Bible teaches.  So, I am not a "Calvinist", I am a Christian. 

Secondly, the true gospel is the good news that salvation is conditioned on the atoning blood of Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ...alone. If a person believes that his salvation is conditioned in any way on himself, like an Arminian does, he does not believe the true gospel. One who believes in universal atonement does not believe that the only difference between heaven and hell is the work of Christ; he believes that something the sinner does makes the difference.

This is not a Christian doctrine and there is every reason that Christians should not lie to Arminians and tell them they are saved when they are not. If there are "Calvinists" who would entertain the notion that Arminians are saved, I would question his salvation as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Contradicting yourself _again_, I see...


Sir, you don't know the difference between CHRIST being the object of salvation, and our FAITH being the object of salvation.  One is the gospel that saves, the other is not a gospel at all.  One says that salvation is conditioned on God's work, and the other says salvation is conditioned on man's work.






> If you're going to convince us that we're going to go to hell because we don't believe the exact, precise, narrowly identical way you do, could you at least come up with some beliefs you can stick to without contradicting yourself all to hell in every single thread?  Please?


There is no contradiction.  The only contradiction is in your own sinful mind and because of your misunderstanding of the Bible.  The Bible is not saying that one must have a "lawerly" knowledge of salvation, but it does say that a person who has saving faith will trust in Christ alone.  This can be said several different ways, and with different levels of theological sophistication, but every saved person believes that salvation is because of Christ's blood alone by God's grace alone, not their efforts.  







> It always amazes me how fundamentalists always seem to get so caught up in details that they miss the fundamentals.  Jesus spent His entire mortal, earthly existence trying to help people get into heaven.  You, Sola, seem to spend your entire earthly existence kicking people out of heaven.


You don't know what a "fundamentalist" is and it is evident in your calling me one.  Why don't you google the word before you call me that, because I am not a fundmentalist.

If you think that Jesus' mission on this earth was to "try to get people into heaven" then you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no idea what the Bible teaches about Jesus or salvation or anything else.  Also, the Bible is not just the four gospel accounts, it is also the epistles which get into systematic doctrines that must be understood in order to properly understand the gospel accounts and Christ's mission.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> http://www.outsidethecamp.org/three.htm


...



> _Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:_

----------


## VIDEODROME

Is John Calvin in hell for his inaccurate bible interpretation?

----------


## Dystopian

Why the $#@! is this $#@! all over the front page every time that I come here?  I thought I was posting on a libertarian political forum and every time I click "new posts" I see all these retarded discussions.  Can't you take this to a different forum?

----------


## Confederate

> Why the $#@! is this $#@! all over the front page every time that I come here?  I thought I was posting on a libertarian political forum and every time I click "new posts" I see all these retarded discussions.  Can't you take this to a different forum?


Don't like it don't click, simples.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why the $#@! is this $#@! all over the front page every time that I come here?  I thought I was posting on a libertarian political forum and every time I click "new posts" I see all these retarded discussions.  Can't you take this to a different forum?


This is the religious forum.  This is a religious discussion.  Religious issues have implications even for political liberty.  No one is forcing you to click on these posts or to participate.

----------


## Dystopian

That's like saying "Don't like looking at a trainwreck, then don't look".  If something this absurd and controversial is posted on the front page then of course I have to click.  

I'm pretty sure that if I started posting threads of trollish off-topic bull$#@! then I would be banned.  But if this guy posts it under "religion" then it suddenly becomes a legitimate thread.

----------


## Dystopian

Just curious since I havent been around in a while is Sola_Fide the same person as AquaBuddha2010?

----------


## jmdrake

> You just contradicted your thread...


Sola_Fide contradicts himself at least once a week in this subforum.  On other parts of the board he's sane.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just curious since I havent been around in a while is Sola_Fide the same person as AquaBuddha2010?


Yep.

----------


## jmdrake

> I hope people realize that Sola's views on this are way outside what the vast majority of Calvinists and reformed folks actually believe.


Thank you!  I've been waiting for *somebody* to say this.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thank you!  I've been waiting for *somebody* to say this.


I'm sure it makes you feel comfortable.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide contradicts himself at least once a week in this subforum.  On other parts of the board he's sane.


But yet when I ask you to explain how you think there is a contradiction, you don't do it.  This has happened several times.  Acptulsa did not discover a contradiction in what I said, the contradiction was in his own mind and because of his own misunderstanding.  This is because not only am I defending a certain Biblical interpretation, but I am educating people like acptulsa and yourself who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.  So it should be no surprise that you may have many misunderstandings and outright confusion about what I'm talking about.  Then there is also the moral component of it.  You are enemies of the gospel because you are trying to establish your own righteousness and not submitting to the righteousness of Christ.  It should be expected that issues like justification and atonement and imputation would make no sense to you.

----------


## jmdrake

> But yet when I ask you to explain how you think there is a contradiction, you don't do it.


I have.  Gunny has.  Many others have.  At some point it's clear to any objective observer that the problem isn't the people giving the explanation but the stubborn prideful person who cannot accept it.  According to the Bible something is established by 2 or 3 witnesses.  There have been multiple independent witnesses explaining your contradiction.

Edit: But for the record, here are just some of your contradictions.

If Calvin and Luther didn't repent from believing that atonement was for every and that repentance is necessary for salvation, then they are damned to hell.  The obvious contradiction is that either repentance is necessary or it isn't.  If it isn't necessary then their repentance or lack thereof is irrelevant.

God cannot do anything that goes against His nature.  But if you think there's no way God roasts little babies for eternity because that goes against His nature you are damned for questioning God even though the Bible never says God roasts little babies for eternity.

It is impossible for someone who is in grace to fall from grace, but if someone who is in grace believes that it is possible for anyone to be saved an anyone to be lost then that person no longer believes the Pauline gospel, which is the only true gospel since Jesus and the rest of the apostles do not matter, then that person has fallen from grace.  

Falling from grace means losing your salvation....then it doesn't....then it does again.

Sola_Fide, just because you can rationalize away your contradictions in your own mind doesn't mean they aren't real.  For multiple independent observers to come to the same conclusion means that it isn't "in our minds".  I do not have the power to project my thoughts across cyberspace and implant them into Gunny or acptulsa or Jeremy, or into various others that have openly said you are contradicting yourself.  It's time for you to quit judging others and start looking at yourself.  You are the one lost and I don't only mean spiritually.

----------


## jj-

> Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
> 
> 
> Yes, no one who trusts in Him alone for salvation will be put to shame:
> 
> 
> How do you know you will still trust in Him alone in the future? This is now, but you aren't dead yet.


bump

----------


## acptulsa

> But yet when I ask you to explain how you think there is a contradiction, you don't do it.  This has happened several times.  Acptulsa did not discover a contradiction in what I said, the contradiction was in his own mind and because of his own misunderstanding.


I showed you that very contradiction right in the post you quoted, through your own quotes.  Remain blind at your own risk.




> This is because not only am I defending a certain Biblical interpretation, but I am educating people like acptulsa and yourself who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.


You are not the only person who owns a Bible.  You may own your own interpretation of it, but you are not the only person who owns the book, or has read it.




> So it should be no surprise that you may have many misunderstandings and outright confusion about what I'm talking about.  Then there is also the moral component of it.  You are enemies of the gospel because you are trying to establish your own righteousness and not submitting to the righteousness of Christ.


I am not righteous.  I don't know how I could be trying to establish my own righteousness when I am not righteous.  God is righteous; you and I are imperfect, and imperfect is not the same thing as righteous.  If you can't even read my mind, how do you expect me to believe you can read God's mind?




> It should be expected that issues like justification and atonement and imputation would make no sense to you.


But it should not be expected that you can't tell the gospels from the epistles, yet set yourself up as some kind of expert.




> Sola_Fide, just because you can rationalize away your contradictions in your own mind doesn't mean they aren't real.  For multiple independent observers to come to the same conclusion means that it isn't "in our minds".  I do not have the power to project my thoughts across cyberspace and implant them into Gunny or acptulsa or Jeremy, or into various others that have openly said you are contradicting yourself.  It's time for you to quit judging others and start looking at yourself.  You are the one lost and I don't only mean spiritually.


Of course, being wrong is no crime.  It's human.  But allowing one's misplaced pride in being granted something to cause one to encourage other people not to improve themselves and become better human beings is something else.  _Whether those people have something to gain by doing it or not._




> *A Word To The 'Elect'
> By: Anne Bronte*
> 
> _And, when you, looking on your fellow-men,
> Behold them doomed to endless misery,
> How can you talk of joy and rapture then? --
> May God withhold such cruel joy from me!_


And the goats will say, 'Lord, when did I see Thee and not comfort Thee?'

----------


## Christian Liberty

Hmm... I don't know what it is but Chris Adams seems more "calm" and lucid than Chris Duncan or Carpenter.  All that said, 2 Thessalonians 2:12 could theoretically be interpreted to mean ANY truth.  Its obvious that only certain truths are in view.  It seems obvious to me that anyone who believes in works-salvation is lost (since that's the exact heresy Paul addresses in Galatians.)  the question is whether all "Arminians" believe in works-salvation.  I'm not convinced that they all do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> the question is whether all "Arminians" believe in works-salvation.  I'm not convinced that they all do.


No that's not the question.  The same could be said for Roman Catholics.   They don't "believe" they are works salvationists, do they?  Does their belief mean they are not?  Of course not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No that's not the question.  The same could be said for Roman Catholics.   They don't "believe" they are works salvationists, do they?  Does their belief mean they are not?  Of course not.


Good questions. I'm really not happy with any of the answers I've gotten on this subject, and its probably something I'm going to have to spend a lot of time praying through before I can make definitive statements.

I once asked my dad about this and he pointed out that "Arminians don't think faith is a work."  As I thought about it, I wasn't really happy with that answer, and you've put the finger on why.  Because anyone can argue that anything isn't a work... so what?

However, the major difference is that faith is the direct means by which Christ's righteousness is imputed.  So, while faith isn't a condition of salvation, it is the means by which the conditions of salvation (perfect righteousness) are credited to our account.  Faith is literally the means by which we are saved.  You can't say that about baptism, circumsicion, or any other "work" you can come up with.  Now, I obviously agree with you that faith is God-given and not generated by man, but that's irrelevant to the "works" question.

I really just don't know...  This isn't an easy subject by any means...

Just wondering, and I know you don't like to talk about yourself much, but did you believe that Arminians were unsaved as soon as you came around to a belief in the doctrines of grace?  Or was there a period of time when you believed that some Arminians were Christians while still believing in the doctrines of grace?  Does your church know where you stand on this?  Do they agree with you?

----------


## Kevin007

there are saved and unsaved in every denomination, despite the false teachings- ex Catholics. I know many Catholics who are born again, DESPITE their Church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> there are saved and unsaved in every denomination, despite the false teachings- ex Catholics. I know many Catholics who are born again, DESPITE their Church.


We aren't talking about churches.  We're talking about individuals.  Armininaism is a doctrinal system, not a denomination.  

Beyond that, I don't really know what to say to you about this particular subject.  If you believe in Arminianism I'd like to talk to you about that.  But as for the claim in the OP, I'm not really sure.

----------


## eduardo89

> there are saved and unsaved in every denomination, despite the false teachings- ex Catholics. I know many Catholics who are born again, DESPITE their Church.


I know plenty of Protestants who have been born again, *because* of the Church and Sacrament of Baptism. We are born again through baptism (Titus 3:5), and there is only one baptism (I Corinthians 12:13), so everyone who has a valid Trinitarian baptism is born again (Romans 6:3-4) and a member of the Church. Sadly, Protestants decide to break that perfect communion they have with the Church at the time of their baptism and live their life in a sort of schism, rejecting the Church, shunning the Truth and putting their salvation in grave jeopardy. That doesn't mean they aren't born again, though. All who have been baptised are born again, baptism is more than just a symbol of our faith as clearly expressed in John 3:5 and Galatians 3:27.

----------


## Brett85

> I know plenty of Protestants who have been born again, *because* of the Church and Sacrament of Baptism. We are born again through baptism (Titus 3:5), and there is only one baptism (I Corinthians 12:13), so everyone who has a valid Trinitarian baptism is born again (Romans 6:3-4) and a member of the Church.


Does that mean that someone can't be saved through a deathbed confession?

----------


## eduardo89

> Does that mean that someone can't be saved through a deathbed confession?


There is always hope to be saved! Until your last breath you can be saved!

----------


## Terry1

> There is always hope to be saved! Until your last breath you can be saved!


Amen!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know plenty of Protestants who have been born again, *because* of the Church and Sacrament of Baptism. We are born again through baptism (Titus 3:5), and there is only one baptism (I Corinthians 12:13), so everyone who has a valid Trinitarian baptism is born again (Romans 6:3-4) and a member of the Church. Sadly, Protestants decide to break that perfect communion they have with the Church at the time of their baptism and live their life in a sort of schism, rejecting the Church, shunning the Truth and putting their salvation in grave jeopardy. That doesn't mean they aren't born again, though. All who have been baptised are born again, baptism is more than just a symbol of our faith as clearly expressed in John 3:5 and Galatians 3:27.


Only a Roman Catholic could look at a verse that says men are saved "not by righteous things they have done" and conclude that men are saved by righteous things they have done (getting baptized).

Baptismal regeneration is an abominable heresy.  Here is Titus 3:5 explained: http://vintage.aomin.org/NotByWorks.html

----------


## Deborah K

Three Reasons Why Calvinism is a False Teaching:

1.  God is not a puppet-master controlling everyone's move, including Satan's.
2.  God did not create us, just to condemn us.
3.  Christ did not die on the cross for only a select number of people.

Parsing certain Bible verses, and using twisted logic does not change the above.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know plenty of Protestants who have been born again, *because* of the Church and Sacrament of Baptism. We are born again through baptism (Titus 3:5), and there is only one baptism (I Corinthians 12:13), so everyone who has a valid Trinitarian baptism is born again (Romans 6:3-4) and a member of the Church. Sadly, Protestants decide to break that perfect communion they have with the Church at the time of their baptism and live their life in a sort of schism, rejecting the Church, shunning the Truth and putting their salvation in grave jeopardy. That doesn't mean they aren't born again, though. All who have been baptised are born again, baptism is more than just a symbol of our faith as clearly expressed in John 3:5 and Galatians 3:27.


Only a Roman Catholic could look at a verse that says men are saved "not by righteous things they have done" and conclude that men are saved by righteous things they have done (getting baptized).

Baptismal regeneration is an abominable heresy.  Here is Titus 3:5 explained: http://vintage.aomin.org/NotByWorks.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Three Reasons Why Calvinism is a False Teaching:
> 
> 1.  God is not a puppet-master controlling everyone's move, including Satan's.
> 2.  God did not create us, just to condemn us.
> 3.  Christ did not die on the cross for only a select number of people.


1.  The puppet analogy does not work.  Puppets don't have wills, men do.  It's not analogous.   But God certainly does control every molecule of existence, including Satan.  Go to the Verses The Destroy Arminianism thread to see the verses that show this.

2.  God created the pots prepared for destruction so that the objects of His mercy would truly understand how wonderful grace really is.  This is at the end of Romans chapter 9.

3.  


> Revelation 5:9
> 
> ... because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.


Jesus did not redeem and purchase every single man, He redeemed and purchased men from every nation.  Universal atonement refuted.

----------


## Terry1

> 1.  The puppet analogy does not work.  Puppets don't have wills, men do.  It's not analogous.   But God certainly does control every molecule of existence, including Satan.  Go to the Verses The Destroy Arminianism thread to see the verses that show this.
> 
> 2.  God created the pots prepared for destruction so that the objects of His mercy would truly understand how wonderful grace really is.  This is at the end of Romans chapter 9.
> 
> 3.  
> 
> Jesus did not redeem and purchase every single man, He redeemed and purchased men from every nation.  Universal atonement refuted.



*Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord*

  Repent!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Joshua 24:15
> And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord*
> 
>   Repent!


Right.   * If it seems evil for you to serve the Lord*, then *choose any idol you want.*

----------


## eduardo89

> Only a Roman Catholic could look at a verse that says men are saved "not by righteous things they have done" and conclude that men are saved by righteous things they have done (getting baptized).


We do not save ourselves through baptism, it is not through our own works, but by the grace given us by the Holy Spirit. Our works do not save us, we are saved solely by grace.

----------


## moostraks

> Right.   * If it seems evil for you to serve the Lord*, then *choose any idol you want.*


Which would then mean one is by default to be able to serve Him first. So all means all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We do not save ourselves through baptism, it is not through our own works, but by the grace given us by the Holy Spirit. Our works do not save us, we are saved solely by grace.


Regardless, Titus 3:5 says "not by righteous things we have done".  

This all goes back to the issue of justification.   Justification is something GOD does and GOD accomplishes for His people.  

Justification is not something that man works out in the sacraments.  This is the error of Rome.

----------


## Terry1

> Right.   * If it seems evil for you to serve the Lord*, then *choose any idol you want.*


As long as they are not (venerated/respected) in the *same way* one worships the Lord---then God is the ONLY ONE who is able to judge the hearts of men---not you.

*Romans 14:
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.*

----------


## Deborah K

Just more twisted logic, easily refuted.  However I'm not inclined to get into circular arguments with a supposed non-Calvinist.  quack-quack.

----------


## Brett85

> There is always hope to be saved! Until your last breath you can be saved!


But how can someone on their deathbed be saved if they haven't been baptized?  I thought you just said that Baptism is a requirement to be saved?

----------


## Terry1

> But how can someone on their deathbed be saved if they haven't been baptized?  I thought you just said that Baptism is a requirement to be saved?



TC--a suggestion here--do an in-depth biblical study on the phrase "born again"---this I believe _will_ lead you to the truth.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But how can someone on their deathbed be saved if they haven't been baptized?  I thought you just said that Baptism is a requirement to be saved?


Much like their "outside the church there is no salvation" dogma, they've watered that one down with "baptism of desire" as well.

Its ludicrous, don't waste your time.

----------


## eduardo89

> But how can someone on their deathbed be saved if they haven't been baptized?  I thought you just said that Baptism is a requirement to be saved?


Did the thief on the Cross need to be baptised?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> TC--a suggestion here--do an in-depth biblical study on the phrase "born again"---this I believe _will_ lead you to the truth.


It should lead you to the truth too.  You think man makes himself born again.  That's backwards.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Did the thief on the Cross need to be baptised?


Baptismal regeneration refuted.

----------


## Terry1

> It should lead you to the truth too.  You think man makes himself born again.  That's backwards.


I've never said that.

----------


## eduardo89

> Much like their "outside the church there is no salvation" dogma, they've watered that one down with "baptism of desire" as well.
> 
> Its ludicrous, don't waste your time.


This just goes to show how you don't understand the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church." What it means is, in the words of the Fourth Lateran Council: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." The theological basis for this doctrine is founded on the beliefs that (1) Jesus Christ personally established the one Church; and (2) the Church serves as the means by which the graces won by Christ are communicated to believers.

Luther and Calvin both agreed with it:




> Therefore he who would find Christ must first find the Church. How should we know where Christ and his faith were, if we did not know where his believers are? And he who would know anything of Christ must not trust himself nor build a bridge to heaven by his own reason; but he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people; one must hold to them, and see how they believe, live and teach; they surely have Christ in their midst. For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation.





> beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for
> http://www.reformed.org/master/index...ks/institutes/


The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church . . . is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." 


With regards to baptism by desire, this has been taught for ages. Martyrs who die for the faith are considered to have been baptised by blood through their sacrifice.

----------


## Brett85

> Did the thief on the Cross need to be baptised?


No, so doesn't that refute the doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This just goes to show how you don't understand the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church." What it means is, in the words of the Fourth Lateran Council: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." The theological basis for this doctrine is founded on the beliefs that (1) Jesus Christ personally established the one Church; and (2) the Church serves as the means by which the graces won by Christ are communicated to believers.
> 
> Luther and Calvin both agreed with it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church . . . is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." 
> 
> ...


Well, I disagree with both Luther and Calvin, but that aside, were they talking about the Catholic Church?  I doubt it...

----------


## Nang

> However, the major difference is that faith is the direct means by which Christ's righteousness is imputed.


I would differ with this, and say faith is the gift by which Christ's imputed righteousness is *known.
*






> So, while faith isn't a condition of salvation, it is the means by which the conditions of salvation (perfect righteousness) are credited to our account.  Faith is literally the means by which we are saved.


I disagree.

The "means" by which any sinner is saved, is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  It was in His suffering, death, that forensic justification was achieved, and in His resurrection that the salvation of His people was made sure.

The grace of God provides these same justified souls with the gift of faith to *know* and believe what Christ has done in their stead.

". . . Assent ("faith") is not the cause of eternal life. . Assent, instead of being the cause, is the result of the Spirit's regenerating activity.  The unregenerate mind is enmity against God.  People do not believe because they are not part of the chosen flock; they cannot believe because God has blinded their eyes.  Therefore, regeneration must, absolutely, precede assent.  For this reason assent or belief is the life that the Spirit gives..  A dead man can neither will nor believe; therefore God must first regenerate a man and give him life that is necessary for voluntary assent.

This life of faith is a life of sanctification.  Sanctification is a work of God's grace by which He renews His image in the regenerated subject.  This process of sanctification takes place basically through an increase of knowledge (see I Peter 1:3).

Jesus very pointedly said, 'The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.' (John 6:68) and 'You are already clean because of the theology I have spoken to you.'  (John 15:3), and 'Sanctify them by Your truth; Your word is truth.'  (John 17:17)  Hence it is knowledge of and assent to the Bible that advances Christian life."

Gordon H. Clark, _"What is Saving Faith?"
_
Paul taught:  ". . I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes ("assents"), for the Jew first and also for the Greek.  For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed (made *known*) from faith to faith as it is written, 'The just shall live by faith.'"  Romans 1:16-17

The point of this being, is that faith is not something the sinner does, but faith is what the sinner *knows* and assents to, in his mind/will.  And this knowledge continually grows into more knowledge, in the sanctified life, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit who is sent to lead justified souls into all truth.

This is where I disagree with the OTC.  They believe for genuine salvation, the regenerated sinner must know all there is to know immediately upon being born again.  I say, indeed regeneration causes the born again sinner to know and believe that Jesus Christ has done for them what they could not do for themselves, by His forgiving work on the cross.  Regenerated sinners *know* immediatly by the grace of God that they have been justified and their sins have been paid.  But this knowledgeable assent (faith) continues to learn and grow and mature, by the guidance of God's Spirit, to conform that new creature into the image of Christ.

So, Justification achieved by Christ is forensic, learned by regeneration, and developed through a sanctified life.  Being born again by the Spirit is just the beginning of knowledge and assent to God's Truth (Holy Scriptures) which is Sanctification.

Faith is not the "means" of either, but the learning and assent to these saving activities and truths of God.

Faith is not gained by human means or activity of any sort, but solely by God's grace that reveals truth in order to give them knowledge of Jesus Christ, and what He has done for them.


Sola_Nang

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm not sure if we disagree or if I'm just using different terminology than you.

I would agree that regeneration precedes faith.  However, when God regenerates a man, he gives the man faith.  It is at this moment that Christ's righteousness is imputed.  For this reason, we can correctly tell a person to "believe the gospel and you will be saved" (obviously the gospel must first be explained.)  My point was that faith is inseparably connected to salvation in a way that no other work, such as baptism, church attendance, the Lord's Supper, evangelism, or whatever else is.  I am not teaching that man's acceptance before God is BASED on his faith.

Just to be clear, do you believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed "in time" at the moment that faith is given, or do you believe in eternal justification?  (I do not believe in eternal justification.)

Ignoring OTC's other beliefs, what are your thoughts on the article in the OP?  I don't know that I agree with it but I can't really put my finger on why not (well, except for the last part, which I can refute fairly easily.)

----------


## Nang

> The idea is further affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 that "the visible Church . . . is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no *ordinary* possibility of salvation."


Yes, the *ordinary* means of salvation is the teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is found within the visible churches.  However, extraordinary means are not impossible, else the divines would have stated "the *only* possibility of salvation is within the churches."

I was saved by extraordinary means, by personal reading of the Word of God at home . . . which resulted in my seeking out a visible church.

----------


## eduardo89

> Yes, the *ordinary* means of salvation is the teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is found within the visible churches.  However, extraordinary means are not impossible, else the divines would have stated "the *only* possibility of salvation is within the churches."


Yes, I agree. The ordinary path to salvation is through the visible Church, but the Church has always taught that there are exceptions to that, the extraordinary cases, for example of martyrs who die for the faith. This does not mean they were saved outside the Church, which is both visible and invisible. 




> I was saved by extraordinary means, by personal reading of the Word of God at home . . . which resulted in my seeking out a visible church.


You are not saved until the day you die.

----------


## eduardo89

> No, so doesn't that refute the doctrine of baptismal regeneration?


No, it just means that God can save by any way He wishes. The ordinary form of regeneration is through baptism, but God is not limited to just saving people that way.

----------


## Nang

> I'm not sure if we disagree or if I'm just using different terminology than you.


It is different terminology, only to be careful to not make belief a work.  




> I would agree that regeneration precedes faith.  However, when God regenerates a man, he gives the man faith.


Agreed.




> It is at this moment that Christ's righteousness is imputed.


I would say it is at this moment that Christ's imputed righteousness becomes *known* and assented to.





> For this reason, we can correctly tell a person to "believe the gospel and you will be saved" (obviously the gospel must first be explained.)  My point was that faith is inseparably connected to salvation in a way that no other work, such as baptism, church attendance, the Lord's Supper, evangelism, or whatever else is.


Agreed.




> I am not teaching that man's acceptance before God is BASED on his faith.


Good, for all acceptance of sinners by God is based upon the righteousness and works of Jesus Christ, alone.

Solus Christus!




> Just to be clear, do you believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed "in time" at the moment that faith is given, or do you believe in eternal justification?  (I do not believe in eternal justification.)


Neither.  I believe both Justification and the Imputation of Righteousness occurred in time when Christ suffered and died on the cross.  Our death sentences were executed upon Him, to legally satisfy the Law of God.  Both Justification ("forgiveness, pardon") were legally rendered at the time.  And Christ resurrected to prove that all propitiation for our sins was achieved.




> Ignoring OTC's other beliefs, what are your thoughts on the article in the OP?  I don't know that I agree with it but I can't really put my finger on why not (well, except for the last part, which I can refute fairly easily.)


I need to go back to read that link.  I saw it last evening when on my IPad, and it would not download it.  In fact, I cannot even post to RPF from my IPad for some reason.  Will get back to you on that . . .

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes, the *ordinary* means of salvation is the teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is found within the visible churches.  However, extraordinary means are not impossible, else the divines would have stated "the *only* possibility of salvation is within the churches."
> 
> I was saved by extraordinary means, by personal reading of the Word of God at home . . . which resulted in my seeking out a visible church.


What do you mean by "the divines"?  Surely you don't think the people who wrote the Westminster Confession were divine? 




> You are not saved until the day you die.


Well, you certainly are not saved yet (Galatians 1:8-9. ) The Bible says the gospel is the POWER OF GOD unto salvation for ALL who believe it (Romans 1:16-17.)  You continually deny this because [mod delete] and still dead in your sins.  We have explained this to you numerous times, but you can't deal with the plain words of the text because your church has enslaved you.  Come out of her, lest you share in her sins (Revelation 18:4.)

----------


## Nang

> You are not saved until the day you die.


LOL!  Says you!

The Holy Spirit has sealed me, anointed me, and guaranteed my salvation unto everlasting life.  Ephesians 1:13-14; II Corinthians 1:21-22; II Corinthians 5:5

----------


## Nang

> What do you mean by "the divines"?  Surely you don't think the people who wrote the Westminster Confession were divine?


That was simply the title given to Preachers, Pastors, and Elders of the Reformed churches back in the 17th century.  No, it did not denote deity of any sort.

----------


## Brett85

> The Holy Spirit has sealed me, anointed me, and guaranteed my salvation unto everlasting life.  Ephesians 1:13-14; II Corinthians 1:21-22; II Corinthians 5:5


How do you know that you're one of the elect?

----------


## moostraks

> What do you mean by "the divines"?  Surely you don't think the people who wrote the Westminster Confession were divine? 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you certainly are not saved yet (Galatians 1:8-9. ) The Bible says the gospel is the POWER OF GOD unto salvation for ALL who believe it (Romans 1:16-17.)  You continually deny this because you are wicked and still dead in your sins.  We have explained this to you numerous times, but you can't deal with the plain words of the text because your whore church has enslaved you.  Come out of her, lest you share in her sins (Revelation 18:4.)


Whore church comment should put you on vacation again. You are over the top.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, you certainly are not saved yet (Galatians 1:8-9. ) The Bible says the gospel is the POWER OF GOD unto salvation for ALL who believe it (Romans 1:16-17.)  You continually deny this because *you are wicked* and still dead in your sins.  We have explained this to you numerous times, but you can't deal with the plain words of the text becaus*e your whore church* has enslaved you.  Come out of her, lest you share in her sins (Revelation 18:4.)




I guess you've learned nothing from your previous ban.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is different terminology, only to be careful to not make belief a work.


OK.  Ultimately I agree with what you're saying, as I clarified.  But I'm trying to be careful with how I word it because of verses like Acts 16:31.  Paul didn't tell the jailer "Well, you don't have to do anything to be saved because Christ already died to save a certain group of people and belief is just the natural result of having already been saved."  While that statement isn't completely false, it would be completely confusing to someone outside the faith, so God in his mercy gave us a clearly identifiable basis on which we can tell the regenerate from the unregenerate (faith.)






> I would say it is at this moment that Christ's righteousness becomes *known* and assent to.


OK, If Christ's righteousness was applied at the moment of the crucifixion, how were we ever under God's wrath? And, how was Moses even able to talk to God, how did he not spend his entire life under God's wrath?  The way I would explain this is because God is outside of time, and we're not.  Thus, it is not unjust for God to impute Christ's righteousness on Old Testament saints chronologically before Christ actually died, and it is not unjust for God to wait to impute Christ's righteousness onto the unregenerate elect until they are regenerated even after Christ's death.  Now, this is not to say that there is ever ANY possibility that anyone Christ purchased with his blood will not be saved, but it is to say that since God works outside time, he can impute righteousness on people at any point that he wishes, whether chronologically before or after Christ's death actually happened, and in each individual case he does so at the moment he gives a person faith.

Of course, I'm not generally this precise when I share the gospel with people.  I generally just tell that Christ came and died to redeem sinners and if they repent of their sins and trust in Christ's finished work they will be saved.




> Good, for all acceptance of sinners by God is based upon the righteousness and works of Jesus Christ, alone.


Ephesians 2:8-9 is coming to mind here.  We are accepted BASED on the righteousness and works of Jesus Christ alone.  But those verses also tell us that we are saved THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ.  Thus, we can accurately say that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Muslims, atheists, and the like are currently not saved, not justified, because they don't believe.  If Christ died for them, they WILL believe at some point, and WILL be saved, and we do not know for certain whether any given person will be saved or not.  But we do know that those who don't believe the gospel are not YET saved or justified.  Would you agree or disagree with this?





> Neither.  I believe both Justification and the Imputation of Righteousness occurred in time when Christ suffered and died on the cross.  Our death sentences were executed upon Him, to legally satisfy the Law of God.  Both Justification ("forgiveness, pardon") were legally rendered at the time.  And Christ resurrected to prove that all propitiation for our sins was achieved.


I actually responded to this above.  I probably should have responded here, but I already typed it so see above




> I need to go back to read that link.  I saw it last evening when on my IPad, and it would not download it.  In fact, I cannot even post to RPF from my IPad for some reason.  Will get back to you on that . . .


Thanks

----------


## Nang

FF - give me the OTC link again, please.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That was simply the title given to Preachers, Pastors, and Elders of the Reformed churches back in the 17th century.  No, it did not denote deity of any sort.


OK, fair enough, I figured not and just wanted to make sure.



> I guess you've learned nothing from your previous ban.


In other words you can't actually refute it  At any case, I removed one of the words from the second part because the Revelation text speaks for itself.  That said, calling you wicked is consistent with Romans 3:10-11 and Romans 3:23 and so I stand by it.  If they want to ban me, they can.

----------


## eduardo89

> How do you know that you're one of the elect?


How does she know her sect isn't just the modern day version of Arianism, or Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, or any other of the countless heresies that have been denounced by the Church over the centuries? They all had a their interpretations of Scripture to back up their beliefs. What makes Calvinists any different from them? How are Calvinist suddenly right and the rest of Christianity, which has been believing the same thing since the days of the Apostles, wrong?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How does she know her sect isn't just the modern day version of Arianism, or Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, or any other of the countless heresies that have been denounced by the Church over the centuries? They all had a their interpretations of Scripture to back up their beliefs. What makes Calvinists any different from them? How are Calvinist suddenly right and the rest of Christianity, which has been believing the same thing since the days of the Apostles, wrong?


There has always been a remnant, eduardo.




> FF - give me the OTC link again, please.


The entire OP is the OTC article, but its also here: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/three.htm

----------


## eduardo89

> There has always been a remnant, eduardo.


Proof. Show me evidence of a continuous remnant from the Apostles until the Reformation who believed in:

1) Sola Scriptura
2) Sola Fide
3) Deny baptismal regeneration

----------


## Terry1

> LOL!  Says you!
> 
> The Holy Spirit has sealed me, anointed me, and guaranteed my salvation unto everlasting life.  Ephesians 1:13-14; II Corinthians 1:21-22; II Corinthians 5:5


No one is eternally saved in this life.  We have the "assurance as long as we abide in Christ"---if you fall away and stop abiding in Christ for too long without repentance by returning to God---only God knows the hearts of men and when they won't return---He then cuts them off permantly.  John 15:5--Hebrews 6:4

Jesus was not perfected until after his resurrection---neither can mankind be eternally secure in this life until---after they have died the first death.

*Luke 13:32 
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected

*

*Therefore--you are only SEALED in this life AS LONG AS YOU ABIDE IN CHRIST.  That is your assurance of eternal security in the next.  

**Ephesians 4:30 
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.*

Because if you do "grieve the Holy Spirit" while you are *under that same seal of protection*---this is what will happen. 


*Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Hence--that "BRANCH OF THE TRUE VINE" will be cut off and burned because it withered and died while on the Vine--they are CUT OFF AND BURNED.



*

*John 15: I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
*

----------


## Nang

[QUOTE=FreedomFanatic;5471382]





> OK, If Christ's righteousness was applied at the moment of the crucifixion, how were we ever under God's wrath?


By nature, we were children of wrath, until regenerated in time.  Ephesians 2:1-3  

We are still by nature, sinners deserving hell, but Christ has made us alive by gifting us with knowledge (faith) in Him.  Eph. 2:8-10




> And, how was Moses even able to talk to God, how did he not spend his entire life under God's wrath?  The way I would explain this is because God is outside of time, and we're not.  Thus, it is not unjust for God to impute Christ's righteousness on Old Testament saints chronologically before Christ actually died, and it is not unjust for God to wait to impute Christ's righteousness onto the unregenerate elect until they are regenerated even after Christ's death.  Now, this is not to say that there is ever ANY possibility that anyone Christ purchased with his blood will not be saved, but it is to say that since God works outside time, he can impute righteousness on people at any point that he wishes, whether chronologically before or after Christ's death actually happened, and in each individual case he does so at the moment he gives a person faith.


Too complicated.  O.T. saints were gifted with knowledge (faith) in God's promises of a Savior, just as N.T. saints are gifted with knowledge (faith) in the Savior's fulfillment of same promises.  Moses was regenerated to life and knowledge just like any other believer.  The works of Christ were achieved *in the fullness of time.  * No need to go further with speculations about time.






> Ephesians 2:8-9 is coming to mind here.  We are accepted BASED on the righteousness and works of Jesus Christ alone.  But those verses also tell us that we are saved THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ.


We are saved by grace.  This grace included the eternal decree of God to save an elect people in Christ before the foundation of the world.  Ephesians 1:3-4.  Then in the fullness of time, justification and imputation of righteousness were achieved by Christ in time, and regeneration is worked by the HS in each elect persons' lifetime. . . through knowledge (faith) of all these wondrous works of God.





> Thus, we can accurately say that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Muslims, atheists, and the like are currently not saved, not justified, because they don't believe.


Correct.  God is still blinding their eyes.  They are given no *knowledge* of God.




> If Christ died for them, they WILL believe at some point, and WILL be saved, and we do not know for certain whether any given person will be saved or not.  But we do know that those who don't believe the gospel are not YET saved or justified.  Would you agree or disagree with this?


Agreed.

----------


## Terry1

> By nature, we were children of wrath, until regenerated in time.  Ephesians 2:1-3  
> 
> We are still by nature, sinners deserving hell, but Christ has made us alive by gifting us with knowledge (faith) in Him.  Eph. 2:8-10
> 
> 
> 
> Too complicated.  O.T. saints were gifted with knowledge (faith) in God's promises of a Savior, just as N.T. saints are gifted with knowledge (faith) in the Savior's fulfillment of same promises.  Moses was regenerated to life and knowledge just like any other believer.  The works of Christ were achieved *in the fullness of time.  * No need to go further with speculations about time.
> 
> 
> ...


What is "FAITH" Nang?  And please---learn how to use the quote function.

----------


## Nang

From the OTC article, with which I am in agreement:

" . . loving the truth and giving _all_ glory to the only living and true God _is_ necessary. Arminians do exactly the opposite when they try to reserve some of that glory for themselves; it is not a 'sincere misunderstanding of gospel doctrine' but a determined _rebellion_ against the only living and true God and a stench in his nostrils."

This is the same approach taken by Gordon H. Clark that I quoted in my earlier post.  *Knowledge of truth* (faith) is necessary to assent to the gospel of Christ, which follows as a result of regeneration.  Changing the truth to retain decisional regeneration or baptismal regeneration, is *denial of truth,* which all Pelagians do (RCC, EO, Arminians, cults, etc.)

Why they have him on their list (along with so many other sound Christian theologians), is beyond me.

I think by their contrariness, they think they are proving to be especially pious or holy or something, which refutes grace, too.

Sigh . . .

----------


## Terry1

> From the OTC article, with which I am in agreement:
> 
> " . . loving the truth and giving _all_ glory to the only living and true God _is_ necessary. Arminians do exactly the opposite when they try to reserve some of that glory for themselves; it is not a 'sincere misunderstanding of gospel doctrine' but a determined _rebellion_ against the only living and true God and a stench in his nostrils."
> 
> This is the same approach taken by Gordon H. Clark that I quoted in my earlier post.  Knowledge of truth (faith) is necessary to assent to the gospel of Christ, which follows as a result of regeneration.
> 
> Why they have him on their list (along with so many other sound Christian theologians), is beyond me.
> 
> I think by their contrariness, they think they are proving to especially pious or holy or something, which refutes grace, too.
> ...


Explain what you believe "FAITH" is Nang.  You keep inserting the word "faith", with no knowledge as to what it's function is in the believer.  Give us an explanation of "faith" please.

----------


## Kevin007

> Yes, I agree. The ordinary path to salvation is through the visible Church, but the Church has always taught that there are exceptions to that, the extraordinary cases, for example of martyrs who die for the faith. This does not mean they were saved outside the Church, which is both visible and invisible. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You are not saved until the day you die.*




the Bible disagrees!

*Acts 16:30-31*New International Version (NIV)

30 He then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be *saved*?

31 They replied, *Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved*you and your household.

----------


## Terry1

> [/B]
> 
> the Bible disagrees!
> 
> *Acts 16:30-31*New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 30 He then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be *saved*?
> 
> 31 They replied, *Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved*you and your household.


OSAS is Calvin's doctrine Kevin and is not biblical.

No one is eternally saved in this life. We have the "assurance as long as we abide in Christ"---if you fall away and stop abiding in Christ for too long without repentance by returning to God---only God knows the hearts of men and when they won't return---He then cuts them off permantly. John 15:5--Hebrews 6:4

 Jesus was not perfected until after his resurrection---neither can mankind be eternally secure in this life until---after they have died the first death.

Luke 13:32 
 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected



Therefore--you are only SEALED in this life AS LONG AS YOU ABIDE IN CHRIST. That is your assurance of eternal security in the next. 

Ephesians 4:30 
 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Because if you do "grieve the Holy Spirit" while you are under that same seal of protection---this is what will happen. 


Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 Hence--that "BRANCH OF THE TRUE VINE" will be cut off and burned because it withered and died while on the Vine--they are CUT OFF AND BURNED.

----------


## Nang

> Explain what you believe "FAITH" is Nang.  You keep inserting the word "faith", with no knowledge as to what it's function is in the believer.  Give us an explanation of "faith" please.


I have already defined faith here.

----------


## Terry1

No flesh and blood is eternally secure in this life.  God will not honor nor eternally secure flesh and blood and it will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  While we are in the human state of flesh and blood---we have the assurance of salvation ONLY AS LONG AS WE ABIDE IN CHIRST---BECAUSE FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT BE PERFECTED IN THIS LIFE.

We only perfect through Christ/faith as long as we abide in Christ in this life.

----------


## Terry1

> I have already defined faith here.


Where? I must have missed that.

----------


## Nang

> No flesh and blood is eternally secure in this life.  God will not honor nor eternally secure flesh and blood and it will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  While we are in the human state of flesh and blood---we have the assurance of salvation ONLY AS LONG AS WE ABIDE IN CHIRST---BECAUSE FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT BE PERFECECT IN THIS LIFE.



You evidence a lack of faith in the saving grace of God.

----------


## eduardo89

> [/B]
> the Bible disagrees!
> 
> *Acts 16:30-31*New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
> 
> 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you *will be* saved—you and your household.”


Thank you for proving that final salvation is a future even.t

Yes, salvation needs faith. But salvation is not by faith. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith and works inspired by the Holy Spirit. Faith without works is dead, works without faith dead. Faith and works are inseparable, but they both depend wholly on grace. We can do no supernatural good without God's grace. We cannot believe without grace, we cannot have faith without grace, we cannot do good works without grace.

----------


## Nang

> Where? I must have missed that.



Heh . . . blind as a bat, indeed  . . .  

HERE!

----------


## Terry1

> You evidence a lack of faith in the saving grace of God.


Then please explain faith Nang---third time I've asked you now.

----------


## eduardo89

> How does she know her sect isn't just the modern day version of Arianism, or Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, or any other of the countless heresies that have been denounced by the Church over the centuries? They all had a their interpretations of Scripture to back up their beliefs. What makes Calvinists any different from them? How are Calvinist suddenly right and the rest of Christianity, which has been believing the same thing since the days of the Apostles, wrong?





> There has always been a remnant, eduardo.





> Proof. Show me evidence of a continuous remnant from the Apostles until the Reformation who believed in:
> 
> 1) Sola Scriptura
> 2) Sola Fide
> 3) Deny baptismal regeneration


bump for FF. This should be easy for you to prove, otherwise what makes your beliefs any different than the heresies denounced by the Church over the centuries? What makes your believes the truth and the rest of Christianity wrong?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> From the OTC article, with which I am in agreement:
> 
> " . . loving the truth and giving _all_ glory to the only living and true God _is_ necessary. Arminians do exactly the opposite when they try to reserve some of that glory for themselves; it is not a 'sincere misunderstanding of gospel doctrine' but a determined _rebellion_ against the only living and true God and a stench in his nostrils."
> 
> This is the same approach taken by Gordon H. Clark that I quoted in my earlier post.  *Knowledge of truth* (faith) is necessary to assent to the gospel of Christ, which follows as a result of regeneration.  Changing the truth to retain decisional regeneration or baptismal regeneration, is *denial of truth,* which all Pelagians do (RCC, EO, Arminians, cults, etc.)
> 
> Why they have him on their list (along with so many other sound Christian theologians), is beyond me.
> 
> I think by their contrariness, they think they are proving to be especially pious or holy or something, which refutes grace, too.
> ...


To be clear, I completely agree with you that its ridiculous.  But I can tell you why.

Gordon Clark once made a statement that said "An Arminian may be a regenerate Christian, in fact, if he is truly a Pelagian attending an Arminian church, he must be a saved man."  OTC takes this as Clark "Speaking peace" to Arminians, and thus they use 2 John 9-11 to declare him lost.

There are a number of issues with this.  First of all, 2 John 9-11 is talking about the gnostic heresy, not the Arminian heresy.  Second of all, 2 John 9-11 does not say that the "peace-speakers" are lost, while they are clearly sinning the passage does not say they are lost.  Third of all, they believe that Old Testament passages that reference "peace-speaking" affirm their case, but they do not, because those passages are talking about those prophets who claimed Israel would not be destroyed in war with Babylon.

I think its a kind of intellectual elitism on their part.  Its like "oh, we can create this irrefutable set of syllogisms with some weak proof texts from scripture and then declare anyone who has a different interpretation as being lost".  I know they don't say it that way, but that's the image I get.  

Thinking that an Arminian is or is not regenerate has nothing to do with whether or not you are regenerate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> bump for FF. This should be easy for you to prove, otherwise what makes your beliefs any different than the heresies denounced by the Church over the centuries? What makes your believes the truth and the rest of Christianity wrong?


I can't prove it.  So what?

----------


## eduardo89

> I can't prove it.  So what?


Then why claim that there has always been a remnant that has believed what you believe?

Answer this post then:



> How does she know her sect isn't just the modern day version of Arianism, or Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, or any other of the countless heresies that have been denounced by the Church over the centuries? They all had a their interpretations of Scripture to back up their beliefs. What makes Calvinists any different from them? How are Calvinist suddenly right and the rest of Christianity, which has been believing the same thing since the days of the Apostles, wrong?

----------


## Terry1

> Heh . . . blind as a bat, indeed  . . .  
> 
> HERE!



Let's look at what you said here:




> I would differ with this, and say faith is the gift by which Christ's imputed righteousness is *known.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> ...


If you believe that "faith is nothing more than a "gift" that needs no works to back it up---then explain these scriptures here:



*"WORKS OF FAITH"*

*1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:


Matthew 16:27 
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

John 14:12 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me,

John 5:36 
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me

John 7:3 
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

John 8:39 
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham

John 9:4 
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work

John 10:25 
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:32 
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 10:37 
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Acts 26:20 
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


*DEAD WORKS UNDER THE CURSE OF THE MOASIC LAW.*

*Romans 3:27 
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 4:2 
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God

Romans 4:6 
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 9:11 
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Romans 9:32 
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Romans 11:6 
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 13:12 
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Galatians 2:16 
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be 
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Ephesians 2:9 
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
*
*
GOD WILL JUDGE ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO DID BOTH "WORKS OF FATIH" AND "DEAD WORKS OF THE OLD LAW".*

*Revelation 20:12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.



*

----------


## Todd

Pretty bold to go around and proclaim who and who is not actually "saved".   

I find most Christians struggle with their own salvation and often times can't even tell if they are saved themselves.  How are they figuring they know others are?  

Slippery slope.

----------


## Nang

No thank you Terry.

You want to discuss works, not faith, and I am not interested.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then why claim that there has always been a remnant that has believed what you believe?
> 
> Answer this post then:


Because I can read the Bible.  And the Bible teaches that there will always be a remnant who believes the truth.  Thus, there was a remnant who believed the same gospel message that I believe, even if we don't know with certainty who those people were.

----------


## Nang

Noah's family of 8 were example of a* remnant,* saved by God from the universal judgment of the flood.

----------


## Terry1

> No thank you Terry.
> 
> You want to discuss works, not faith, and I am not interested.


But you want to discuss everything else, but those scriptures that clearly and blatantly oppose your reformed doctrine.  I find that very sad that you are so unwilling to acknowledge the truth.

*Joshua 24:15 
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*

----------


## eduardo89

> Because I can read the Bible.  And the Bible teaches that there will always be a remnant who believes the truth.  Thus, there was a remnant who believed the same gospel message that I believe, even if we don't know with certainty who those people were.


So where is that remnant that believe what you believe? Where were they before Calvin? How do you know you follow the same teachings of this remnant? Do you have a single piece of evidence that this remnant has existed the way you claim it has?

----------


## Nang

> But you want to discuss everything else, but those scriptures that clearly and blatantly oppose your reformed doctrine.  I find that very sad that you are so unwilling to acknowledge the truth.



I acknowledge God's truth.  That is the basis for my faith.

I do NOT acknowledge your version of truth.  I place no faith in Terry.

----------


## Terry1

> I acknowledge God's truth.  That is the basis for my faith.
> 
> I do NOT acknowledge your version of truth.  I place no faith in Terry.


Repent----

*Joshua 24:15 
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So where is that remnant that believe what you believe?


Why do I have to know where they were?




> Where were they before Calvin?


Who said anything about Calvin?




> How do you know you follow the same teachings of this remnant?


All the same teachings?  I probably don't.  I'm not an infallible interpreter (For the record, neither is your church.)  The same teachings about the gospel?  Because the teachings are very clear.



> Do you have a single piece of evidence that this remnant has existed the way you claim it has?


Well, the Bible discusses it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remnant_(Bible)

----------


## Terry1

And Nang runs away from the truth again because she can not refute what scripture is clearly saying about faith without works is dead.  James 2:17


If you believe that "faith is nothing more than a "gift" that needs no works to back it up---then explain these scriptures here:



*"WORKS OF FAITH"*

*1 Thessalonians 1:3 
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:


Matthew 16:27 
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

John 14:12 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me,

John 5:36 
But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me

John 7:3 
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

John 8:39 
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham

John 9:4 
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work

John 10:25 
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:32 
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 10:37 
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 10:38 
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Acts 26:20 
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


*DEAD WORKS UNDER THE CURSE OF THE MOASIC LAW.*

*Romans 3:27 
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Romans 4:2 
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God

Romans 4:6 
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Romans 9:11 
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Romans 9:32 
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Romans 11:6 
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 13:12 
The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

Galatians 2:16 
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be 
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Ephesians 2:9 
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
*
*
GOD WILL JUDGE ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO DID BOTH "WORKS OF FATIH" AND "DEAD WORKS OF THE OLD LAW".*

*Revelation 20:12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.



*[/

----------


## eduardo89

> Why do I have to know where they were?


Because you claim they exist and are not the Church. Show me a single shred of evidence that they exist and have always taught and believed what you believe.




> Who said anything about Calvin?


Because your innovative ideas began popping up with him.




> All the same teachings?  I probably don't.  I'm not an infallible interpreter (For the record, neither is your church.)  The same teachings about the gospel?  Because the teachings are very clear.


If the teachings are so clear, then why did it take 1500 years after the Church was founded for them to appear? Were Christians really that stupid for 15 centuries that they couldn't clearly read the Bible?




> Well, the Bible discusses it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remnant_(Bible)


Neither verses quoted there support what you are claiming.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If the teachings are so clear, then why did it take 1500 years after the Church was founded for them to appear? Were Christians really that stupid for 15 centuries that they couldn't clearly read the Bible?


Well, most people were illiterate back then, a perfect opportunity for wicked men to take advantage of them and teach them a false gospel that benefited the false teachers.

----------


## Nang

> Repent----
> 
> *Joshua 24:15 
> And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*



S_F exegeted this verse several time for you, but you are very stubborn.

But there is more for you to read, that will reveal the end of this sorry event.

After Joshua said he would serve the Lord, the men of Shechem also declared they would too.  Joshua 24:21-24

However, Joshua knew they could not "choose" the Lord and truly put away their pagan gods, despite their profession of doing so, so Joshua made a marker for their claim they would obey and serve God.  Joshua 24:24-25

Now read further into the historical event into the book of Judges, to see what came of this false, fake, and wicked claim by the men of Shechem to serve God . . .

Judges 9:1-57 records the failure of the men of Shechem to live up to this vow; culminating in this:
*
"And all the evil of the men of Shechem, God returned on their own heads, and on them came the curse of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal."*  Judges 9:57

If I were you, I would never, ever again use the supposed "choice" of the men of Shechem as example of free-will ability to obtain salvation from the Lord.  You make a mockery of God and His word by doing so, and make a fool of yourself, for not knowing the entire truth.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, most people were illiterate back then, a perfect opportunity for wicked men to take advantage of them and teach them a false gospel that benefited the false teachers.


So every single priest, monk, and literate person was evil and wicked and was part of a grand conspiracy to teach a false gospel? Or maybe you're just grasping at straws because your theology has no antecedent whatsoever in the history of Christianity before the 1500s.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> S_F exegeted this verse several time for you, but you are very stubborn.
> 
> But there is more for you to read, that will reveal the end of this sorry event.
> 
> After Joshua said he would serve the Lord, the men of Shechem also declared they would too.  Joshua 24:21-24
> 
> However, Joshua knew they could not "choose" the Lord and truly put away their pagan gods, despite their profession of doing so, so Joshua made a marker for their claim they would obey and serve God.  Joshua 24:24-25
> 
> Now read further into the historical event into the book of Judges, to see what came of this false, fake, and wicked claim by the men of Shechem to serve God . . .
> ...


Plus rep.  Appreciate the clarification from you and Sola.

----------


## Deborah K

> So every single priest, monk, and literate person was evil and wicked and was part of a grand conspiracy to teach a false gospel? Or maybe you're just grasping at straws because your theology has no antecedent whatsoever in the history of Christianity before the 1500s.


And who do these people think were the guardians of the Word before their offshoot of a religion sprang up?

----------


## eduardo89

> And who do these people think were the guardians of the Word before their offshoot of a religion sprang up?


FF's answer is "the remnant." Which he has admitted he has zero evidence that a group has existed before the 1500s which believed what he believes, let alone a continuous group existing which taught and believe what he believes.

----------


## Deborah K

> Well, most people were illiterate back then, a perfect opportunity for wicked men to take advantage of them and teach them a false gospel that benefited the false teachers.


And so you actually think it was God's plan to condemn all those 'poor mislead people' for 15 centuries?  How can you NOT see how arrogant that is?

----------


## Deborah K

> FF's answer is "the remnant." Which he has admitted he has zero evidence that a group has existed before the 1500s which believed what he believes, let alone a continuous group existing which taught and believe what he believes.


Calvinism seems to be synonymous with conjecture.

----------


## Kevin007

> Thank you for proving that final salvation is a future even.t
> 
> Yes, salvation needs faith. But salvation is not by faith. Salvation is by grace alone, *through faith and works* inspired by the Holy Spirit. Faith without works is dead, works without faith dead. Faith and works are inseparable, but they both depend wholly on grace. We can do no supernatural good without God's grace. We cannot believe without grace, we cannot have faith without grace, we cannot do good works without grace.


no, not of works, lest any man should boast. You cannot do anything to help God save you. Only Jesus saves, He does not need your "help". It is either grace or works. You cannot mix them both. Law and grace do not fit.

You will be saved... yes.. when..? when you believe on Jesus Christ.

----------


## Nang

> FF's answer is "the remnant." Which he has admitted he has zero evidence that a group has existed before the 1500s which believed what he believes, let alone a continuous group existing which taught and believe what he believes.


See:

http://protestantism.co.uk/background.html

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

From the time of Abel, God has revealed a lineage of people who received His covenant promises of grace.  All those saints listed in Hebrews Chapter 11, are but a few.  God has always possessed a faithful remnant of men, who knew and trusted the Word of God.

----------


## Terry1

> S_F exegeted this verse several time for you, but you are very stubborn.
> 
> But there is more for you to read, that will reveal the end of this sorry event.
> 
> After Joshua said he would serve the Lord, the men of Shechem also declared they would too.  Joshua 24:21-24
> 
> However, Joshua knew they could not "choose" the Lord and truly put away their pagan gods, despite their profession of doing so, so Joshua made a marker for their claim they would obey and serve God.  Joshua 24:24-25
> 
> Now read further into the historical event into the book of Judges, to see what came of this false, fake, and wicked claim by the men of Shechem to serve God . . .
> ...



That explanation won't fly Nang because that verse was as much written to mankind today as all of the others you cite back as well.  Nice try..

Every single scripture that refutes you---you have to pervert and corrupt--LOL

I could tell you just the same that all of those you cite were speaking to the people of that time as well.  We could do that all day long while Nang and Sola claim that none of it was meant for us today--how ridiculous.

Repent----

*Joshua 24:15 
 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
*

----------


## eduardo89

> no, not of works, lest any man should boast. You cannot do anything to help God save you. Only Jesus saves, He does not need your "help". It is either grace or works. You cannot mix them both. Law and grace do not fit.


I agree. We cannot be saved by our works. We are saved solely by the grace of the Cross. Our good works are impossible with grace. Grace is necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin, and to persevere.

It is only by grace that we are saved.

----------


## Deborah K

> See:
> 
> http://protestantism.co.uk/background.html
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm
> 
> From the time of Abel, God has revealed a lineage of people who received His covenant promises of grace.  All those saints listed in Hebrews Chapter 11, are but a few.  God has always possessed a faithful remnant of men, who knew and trusted the Word of God.


Please name the lineage then. From the time of Christ until Calvin.  Otherwise, this is just more conjecture.

----------


## Nang

> That explanation won't fly Nang because that verse was as much written to mankind as all of the others you cite back as well.  Nice try..
> 
> Repent----
> 
> *Joshua 24:15 
>  And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
> *



Yes, that scripture is meant for all men, and it is  meant to warn​ sinners they cannot simply fake a "choice" to serve the Lord, apart from His grace.

God is not mocked.  He knows the heart of every man.

People can claim they choose and accept God, but unless God chooses them (like He chose Joshua & Caleb) they will perish in their sins.

----------


## eduardo89

> Please name the lineage then. From the time of Christ until Calvin.  Otherwise, this is just more conjecture.


Or give just 3 examples. In 1500 years it should be easy to find 3 examples of this remnant. I'm not even asking for a continuous lineage, it can be three isolated examples.

----------


## Nang

> Please name the lineage then. From the time of Christ until Calvin.  Otherwise, this is just more conjecture.



Read the links I provided . . .

----------


## Nang

> Or give just 3 examples. In 1500 years it should be easy to find 3 examples of this remnant. I'm not even asking for a continuous lineage, it can be three isolated examples.



Read the links I provided . . .

----------


## eduardo89

> Read the links I provided . . .


How about you answer the question?

----------


## Deborah K

> Read the links I provided . . .



Those look to be names of forefathers to Protestantism.  That isn't exactly a lineage exclusive to Calvinism since the history of Protestantism belongs to ALL Protestants, not just Calvinists.

----------


## Terry1

> Yes, that scripture is meant for all men, and it is  meant to warn​ sinners they cannot simply fake a "choice" to serve the Lord, apart from His grace.
> 
> God is not mocked.  He knows the heart of every man.
> 
> People can claim they choose and accept God, but unless God chooses them (like He chose Joshua & Caleb) they will perish in their sins.


buh awwwwwwwww!!!---You people are clones of each other with regards to anything saying what it's actually saying in the word of God.  "All" doesn't mean all, world doesn't mean world, dead doesn't mean dead and now again Nang---What is he saying to those people with regard to whom they choose to serve?  You claimed there was no such scripture with the word "choose" regarding salvation that existed---I revealed to you otherwise.

Again----what is he telling these people Nang?


*Joshua 24:15 
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.*

----------


## eduardo89

> Or give just 3 examples. In 1500 years it should be easy to find 3 examples of this remnant. I'm not even asking for a continuous lineage, it can be three isolated examples.


no answer?

----------


## Terry1

I'll make it easy for you here Nang.  He's telling them either choose the Lord or not choose Him---IT IS THEIR CHOICE!  Yes we do have a choice in the matter of our salvation.

And this is what you were refuting and are vehemently opposed to is our "CHOICE".  God is not a tyrannical dictator---He's perfectly willing to allow you the freedom to choose heaven or hell--God or satan.  This is our perfect freedom He has given us here in this life and it's a test to see who will overcome.  Revelation 3:5

*He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.*

If God didn't give us a choice---then there would be nothing for you to "overcome" now would there?  There wouldn't be any reason to test our faith or resist temptation either would there Nang?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So every single priest, monk, and literate person was evil and wicked and was part of a grand conspiracy to teach a false gospel? Or maybe you're just grasping at straws because your theology has no antecedent whatsoever in the history of Christianity before the 1500s.


Did I use words like "every single"?  No, I didn't.

In an era with large amounts of illiteracy, and an established church that was obviously corrupt and controlled most of the governments of the world, its not surprising at all that there would have been few who were teaching the truth and that those people would not be remembered.  I also do not deny that some of these people may have been inside the visible Catholic church.  




> Or give just 3 examples. In 1500 years it should be easy to find 3 examples of this remnant. I'm not even asking for a continuous lineage, it can be three isolated examples.


Clement immediately comes to mind.  I have to leave soon, but I'll look up his quote later (erowe posted it on here one time.)

----------


## TER

> And who do these people think were the guardians of the Word before their offshoot of a religion sprang up?


The Church, that is, those saints before them who were in sacramental communion with them and all the way back to the Apostles who handed down the deposit of faith.  The guardians, the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church, around the Body and Blood of Christ, in Eucharist sacramental communion with one another, in one baptism, one faith, one mind, one spirit, one body.  The Eucharist has always been the bond of unity and the center of the worship of the people of God.  When one would stray from the truths handed down before them, they woul be barred from the common Cup of the Lord so as to keep the faith pure and undefiled.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Church, that is, those saints before them who were in sacramental communion with them and all the way back to the Apostles who handed down the deposit of faith.  The guardians, the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church, around the Body and Blood of Christ, in Eucharist sacramental communion with one another, in one baptism, one faith, one mind, one spirit, one body.  The Eucharist has always been the bond of unity and the center of the worship of the people of God.  When one would stray from the truths handed down before them, they woul be barred from the common Cup of the Lord so as to keep the faith pure and undefiled.


Yeah, just keep on fellowshipping based on a common belief in the false gospel, don't worry, you've got 2000 years of tradition, going straight back to the Judaizers of Galatians 1:8-9, so you'll get to happily share in their fate if you continue on this path.

----------


## eduardo89

> Clement immediately comes to mind.  I have to leave soon, but I'll look up his quote later (erowe posted it on here one time.)


Where did Clement teach Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide? 

And where did he deny baptismal regeneration? Certainly seems he didn't...




> "Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal... This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing. Washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pg. 215)





> "Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God's, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will. But you will perhaps say, *'What does the baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible.* For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation." (Clement, "Recognitions of Clement," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155)

----------


## Nang

> no answer?



You are being whiney . . . and contrary.

If you really want an answer, do your own study.  There is no way I am going to attempt to rewrite half of Schaff
just to avoid your anticipated accusation that I have no answers.

----------


## Nang

> Those look to be names of forefathers to Protestantism.  That isn't exactly a lineage exclusive to Calvinism since the history of Protestantism belongs to ALL Protestants, not just Calvinists.





There would be no Protestants if it weren't for Calvin, Luther, Beza & Zwingli.

What are you asking for . . . a birth certificate?  

We don't have a full biological lineage for Jesse, Lot, and Abraham, either, but we know they
are of a spiritual lineage because their family evidenced faith in God.

----------


## eduardo89

> You are being whiney . . . and contrary.
> 
> If you really want an answer, do your own study.  There is no way I am going to attempt to rewrite half of Schaff
> just to avoid your anticipated accusation that I have no answers.


I have done my own study, and I know you can't come up with even 3 examples of 'remnants' of your version of Christianity in the first 1500 years of the Church. That's the point I'm trying to prove. I'm not even asking for a continuous lineage, just 3 examples. 

So that bring ups the question I posed to you before, which you ignored and FF failed to answer. 




> How does she know her sect isn't just the modern day version of Arianism, or Nestorianism, or Monophysitism, or any other of the countless heresies that have been denounced by the Church over the centuries? They all had a their interpretations of Scripture to back up their beliefs. What makes Calvinists any different from them? How are Calvinist suddenly right and the rest of Christianity, which has been believing the same thing since the days of the Apostles, wrong?

----------


## TER

> Yeah, just keep on fellowshipping based on a common belief in the false gospel, don't worry, you've got 2000 years of tradition, going straight back to the Judaizers of Galatians 1:8-9, so you'll get to happily share in their fate if you continue on this path.


Considering the fellowship goes back to the Christ, the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Nicene-Fathers, and the Post-Nicene Fathers, all the way until today, I am not concerned about any false gospel.  It thankfully leaves me more time to concentrate on prayer and overcoming my passions and sins by the grace of God.

----------


## Nang

> I have done my own study, and I know you can't come up with even 3 examples of 'remnants' of your version of Christianity in the first 1500 years of the Church. That's the point I'm trying to prove. I'm not even asking for a continuous lineage, just 3 examples. 
> 
> So that bring ups the question I posed to you before, which you ignored and FF failed to answer.


Jan Hus
John Wycliffe
The Waldensians
William Farel
Augustine of Hippo

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I guess you've learned nothing from your previous ban.


Unbunch your panties and quit calling for people's bans.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where did Clement teach Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide? 
> 
> And where did he deny baptismal regeneration? Certainly seems he didn't...


Hmm... I'm not sure if he's simply saying that refusal to be baptized indicates unbelief or the baptism actually saves.  I assumed the former until the very last sentence.  At any rate, his statement is not clear.

----------


## TER

> Jan Hus
> John Wycliffe
> The Waldensians
> William Farel
> Augustine of Hippo


The only one there who was in sacramental communion with the early Church is St. Augustine.

----------


## Dr.3D

I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a checklist of everything it takes to be saved.

I'm sure somebody can come up with the proper formula.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I just looked up Clement and it seems that we don't even know for sure that any of his writings survive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Clement

----------


## TER

> I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a checklist of everything it takes to be saved.
> 
> I'm sure somebody can come up with the proper formula.


The problem is that even if such a thing existed, people would fight against it and make up their own in order to suit their own selfish desires.

----------


## Nang

> The only one there who was in sacramental communion with the early Church is St. Augustine.


Was that the question?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Jan Hus
> John Wycliffe
> The Waldensians
> William Farel
> Augustine of Hippo


I've heard that Augustine believed in baptismal regeneration.  Is that claim true?

BTW: "Sacramental communion with the church" is irrelevant.  OF COURSE the "Church" would hate the true gospel preachers, because it was a Revelation 18:4 church...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a checklist of everything it takes to be saved.
> 
> I'm sure somebody can come up with the proper formula.



Christ's perfect atoning death, + nothing.

----------


## Nang

> I'm still waiting for somebody to come up with a checklist of everything it takes to be saved.
> 
> I'm sure somebody can come up with the proper formula.



Easy . . . just do everything that Jesus did, sinlessly like He did, and die an innocent death like He did . . . and viola!

Checklist completed and salvation accomplished!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Easy . . . just do everything that Jesus did, sinlessly like He did, and die an innocent death like He did . . . and viola!
> 
> Checklist completed and salvation accomplished!


That's impossible for mortal man.

----------


## TER

> Was that the question?


It is the answer you cant accept on account of your pride.

----------


## Nang

> Jan Hus
> John Wycliffe
> The Waldensians
> William Farel
> Augustine of Hippo


For anyone reading, who is genuinely interested in this kind of research, I also recommend the book entitled
"Marrow of Modern Divinity" by Edward Fisher.

It was written a little later than the times of the souls named above (17th century), but it gives insight into the
depth of the knowledge of grace that existed elsewhere during the Reformation in Europe.

----------


## Nang

> That's impossible for mortal man.



Bingo!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Bingo!


Alas, there seems to be no hope.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Alas, there seems to be no hope.


And that's where the good news comes in...

Christ laid down his life to accomplish redemption for those who he has chosen to reconcile to himself, and he reconciles them through their faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.

If you trust in him, you are one of his

----------


## Dr.3D

> And that's where the good news comes in...
> 
> Christ laid down his life to accomplish redemption for those who he has chosen to reconcile to himself, and he reconciles them through their faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
> 
> If you trust in him, you are one of his


So does that mean the checklist would only have one item?

----------


## Nang

> So does that mean the checklist would only have one item?



This guy is really smart . . .

----------


## TER

> That's impossible for mortal man.


That is why God became man, united our nature with His divine nature, so that by sanctifying our nature, He might send down to us the Holy Spirit Who can perfect us by God's grace, so that "we shall be like Him".  (1 John 3:2)

----------


## Nang

> I have done my own study,


And here is some more from my study of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the apostolic church:

"It is certain, in point of fact, that there was a gradual change going on more or less rapidly in the church, even from the time of the apostles, in regard to matters of doctrine, as well as government and worship.  It is not possible, with the evidence before us, to believe that the views of the apostolic fathers were in all respects precisely the same as those of the second century, or those of the second precisely the same as the third.

We can trace a progress . . and the progress is generally in an unsound direction . . in the direction of greater deviation from Scripture, of adding what Scripture wants, and of keeping back or perverting what Scripture contains. * It is not, as Papists allege, a fuller development . . a bringing out more fully and explicitly, as circumstances demanded . . of what is contained in Scripture, and was taught at least in its germs or rudiments by the apostles.*  The actual features of the progressive change are inconsistent with this theory.  

We see scriptural principles more and more cast into the background.  We see many things brought out, professed, and practiced, which not only are uncountenanced by Scripture, but are plainly inconsistent either with its express statements or with its general spirit and principles."  William Cunningham, _Historical Theology_

----------


## Nang

> That is why God became man, united our nature with His divine nature, so that by sanctifying our nature, He might send down to us the Holy Spirit Who can perfect us by God's grace, so that "we shall be like Him".  (1 John 3:2)



You skipped Justification on Christ's checklist.  How come?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So does that mean the checklist would only have one item?


Yes.

The question is what false doctrines necessarily entail not "trusting in him."  In the case of Rome, it seems really obvious to me that it does.  Arminianism I am much less certain.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You skipped Justification on Christ's checklist.  How come?


Because he doesn't believe in justification.

----------


## Terry1

> There would be no Protestants if it weren't for Calvin, Luther, Beza & Zwingli.
> 
> .


These must've been the wolves that Paul talked about that splinter the church into many corrupt denominations. Acts 20:29.

----------


## Nang

> Because he doesn't believe in justification.



Odd.  How can sinners be forgiven their sins without Christ first justifying their souls before God?

----------


## TER

> You skipped Justification on Christ's checklist.  How come?


I have not skipped it.  It is included in my statement.  Justification occured by Christ's incarnation and death on the cross, this is HOW He has_ sanctified our nature_.  You have concentrated on the justification and ignored the rest of the Gospel.  The fact that Christ has justified our nature on the cross still requires us to become sanctified by following His commandments and living to the best of our abilities a God-pleasing life of faith, love, and works so that by His mercy He might overlook our inequities, fill us with His Holy Spirit, and allow us into the Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## Nang

> I have not skipped it.  It is included in my statement.  Justification occured by Christ's incarnation and death on the cross, this is HOW He has_ sanctified our nature_.  You have concentrated on the justification and ignored the rest of the Gospel.  The fact that Christ has justified our nature on the cross* still requires us to become sanctified* by following His commandments and living to the best of our abilities a God-pleasing life of faith, love, and works so that by His mercy He might overlook our inequities, fill us with His Holy Spirit, and allow us into the Kingdom of Heaven.



Why?

No forgiveness unless we follow the Law?  Only by obeying the Law do we find forgiveness (Justification), the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and access to God in heaven?

" . . By the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified in His sight . . ."  Romans 3:20

----------


## Dr.3D

> I have not skipped it.  It is included in my statement.  Justification occured by Christ's incarnation and death on the cross, this is HOW He has_ sanctified our nature_.  You have concentrated on the justification and ignored the rest of the Gospel.  The fact that Christ has justified our nature on the cross still requires us to become sanctified by following His commandments and living to the best of our abilities a God-pleasing life of faith, love, and works so that by His mercy He might overlook our inequities, fill us with His Holy Spirit, and allow us into the Kingdom of Heaven.


Perhaps it might be a good idea to explain what "His commandments" are.

----------


## Deborah K

> There would be no Protestants if it weren't for Calvin, Luther, Beza & Zwingli.
> 
> What are you asking for . . . a birth certificate?  
> 
> We don't have a full biological lineage for Jesse, Lot, and Abraham, either, but we know they
> are of a spiritual lineage because their family evidenced faith in God.


I'm not asking for a biological lineage, just a theological one, and all you're giving me is the same thing any Protestant would claim.  So how it is that you can claim there has always been a remnant in the theological lineage to Calvinism since Christ?

----------


## TER

> Why?
> 
> No forgiveness unless we follow the Law?  Only by obeying the Law do we find forgiveness (Justification), the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and access to God in heaven?
> 
> " . . By the deeds of the law, no flesh shall be justified in His sight . . ."  Romans 3:20


St. Paul is talking about the works of the Old Covenant in this letter. Under the New Covenant, Christ has made it clear in parable after parable we are to follow Him and imitate Him in doing works of faith, charity, forgiveness, mercy, and love.  By these works, if it be well pleasing to God and according to His judgment, will we enter the Kingdom of Heaven, even at the eleventh hour.  Christ's entire ministry was one of obedience to the Father, and our charge is to be obedient to our Lord and Master in imitation of Him.  Not that we can reach Heaven on account of our mere works, but by His grace and mercy, He might fill our deficiencies and where we lack with His Holy Spirit.

----------


## Nang

> I'm not asking for a biological lineage, just a theological one, and all you're giving me is the same thing any Protestant would claim.  So how it is that you can claim there has always been a remnant in the theological lineage to Calvinism since Christ?


Are you reading all the posts in this thread?

Have you seen the links I posted giving names of faithful believers prior to Calvin?

All the spiritual remnant of God are anointed with the Holy Spirit (regenerated) and subsequently* proclaimed the same gospel of Grace* as was promised to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, the Prophets, John the Baptist, and preacherd by Jesus Christ, the Apostles, etc.

----------


## Nang

> St. Paul is talking about the works of the Old Covenant in this letter. Under the New Covenant, Christ has made it clear in parable after parable we are to follow Him and imitate Him in doing works of faith, charity, forgiveness, mercy, and love.  By these works, if it be well pleasing to God and according to His judgment, will we enter the Kingdom of Heaven, even at the eleventh hour.  Christ's entire ministry was one of obedience to the Father, and our charge is to be obedient to our Lord and Master in imitation of Him.  Not that we can reach Heaven on account of our mere works, but by His grace and mercy, He might fill our deficiencies and where we lack with His Holy Spirit.



No argument about producing the fruits of Christ's Spirit, but there are no requirements under any law to be Justified and receive forgiveness of sins.

Justification comes first.  The justified shall live by faith, alone.  Faith that produces sanctified and holy living; love, and charity unto everlasting life.

----------


## Brett85

> Perhaps it might be a good idea to explain what "His commandments" are.


Luke 10:27

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself."

----------


## Dr.3D

> Luke 10:27
> 
> "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself."


Is that the law TER was referring to?  Some might be confused and think he was referring to the written laws of Moses.

----------


## Brett85

> Is that the law TER was referring to?  Some might be confused and think he was referring to the written laws of Moses.


I think that's what he was referring to, because the verse that I just quoted are the commandments Christ gave us.

----------


## Deborah K

> Are you reading all the posts in this thread?
> 
> Have you seen the links I posted giving names of faithful believers prior to Calvin?
> 
> All the spiritual remnant of God are anointed with the Holy Spirit (regenerated) and subsequently* proclaimed the same gospel of Grace* as was promised to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, the Prophets, John the Baptist, and preacherd by Jesus Christ, the Apostles, etc.


I've read the posts and I've seen your names.  Can you provide some evidence that proves they aren't names that any number of Protestant sects can claim as their own?  Because I'm just not convinced that your particular religion has an exclusive lineage (theological) dating back to Christ.  Not buyin it.  Sorry.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I think that's what she was referring to, because the verse that I just quoted are the commandments Christ gave us.


Well, He was quoting from *Deuteronomy 6:5* for the first part of that.

----------


## Nang

> I've read the posts and I've seen your names.  Can you provide some evidence that proves they aren't names that any number of Protestant sects can claim as their own?  Because I'm just not convinced that your particular religion has an exclusive lineage (theological) dating back to Christ.  Not buyin it.  Sorry.


I am a Reformed Protestant, and the names I listed are considered my spiritual "fathers and brethren."

I hold to Covenant Theology, which dates back to the garden of Eden, when God first proclaimed the gospel promises to Eve.  Genesis 3:15

If you suspect my faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, I cannot help you, and I guess we have nothing to discuss.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I wouldn't be surprised if the true Christians (note: I am not saying that only Calvinists are Christians) were rare enough back then that we don't actually remember any of them: doesn't mean they did not exist.

BTW: Looks like the mods decided to change the title of this two year old thread as well.  This is just stupid

----------


## Nang

> Well, He was quoting from *Deuteronomy 6:5* for the first part of that.



There is only one moral Law of God, first given to Adam in the garden, and republicated through Moses to the nation of Israel, and commanded by Jesus Christ.

Same Law in all of history.

The question is the old *necessity and obligation* of keeping that moral Law, which Jesus Christ perfectly and sinlessly achieved, on behalf of we sinners who could never obey the Law in perfection.

Now, we observe the Law of God out of love, gratitude and thanksgiving . . . not because we MUST obey it to be assured of everlasting life.

Formerly, the Law was kept under the Old Covenant of Works.  Since Christ, believers do the Law under the New Covenant of grace.

----------


## TER

> No argument about producing the fruits of Christ's Spirit, but there are no requirements under any law to be Justified and receive forgiveness of sins.
> 
> Justification comes first.  The justified shall live by faith, alone.  Faith that produces sanctified and holy living; love, and charity unto everlasting life.


I understand that is the Reformed position.  But it is not the orthodox faith.  Our justification by Christ's death on the cross created the conditions whereby we might become sanctified by the Holy Spirit.  Our sanctification is accomplished by God through the Holy Spirit by our growth in Christ through willfully doing works of love, charity, and mercy.  It is us aligning our will with the will of God.  Because Christ has justified our nature, we can become sanctified in our transfiguration in Christ by the Holy Spirit.  These are the wedding garments if you will or the lanters of the ten virgins.  By these, or better, how well we have conformed to the image of Christ our God, will we be judged and allowed to enter into the Kingdom and celebtrate at the Wedding Feast of the Bridegroom Christ and His Bride, the Church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I understand that is the Reformed position.  But it is not the orthodox faith.


Guess what?  We don't care?  We believe that the Orthodox Church is satanic.  




> Our justification by Christ's death on the cross created the conditions whereby we might become sanctified by the Holy Spirit.


Wrong.  Christ's death GUARANTEED that we would become sanctified, and glorified.  See Romans 8:28-35.




> Our sanctification is accomplished by God through the Holy Spirit by our growth in Christ through willfully doing works of love, charity, and mercy.


OK.




> It is us aligning our will with the will of God.


No.  God aligns our will to his, not the other way around (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2;13)



> Because Christ has justified our nature, we can become sanctified in our transfiguration in Christ by the Holy Spirit.  These are the wedding garments if you will or the lanters of the ten virgins.  By these, or better, how well we have conformed to the image of Christ our God, will be be judged and allowed to enter into the Kingdom and the Wedding Feast of the Bridegroom Christ and His Bride, the Church.


Zechariah 3:1-5 refutes your false view of infused righteousness.

----------


## Nang

> I understand that is the Reformed position.  But it is not the orthodox faith.  Our justification by Christ's death on the cross created the conditions whereby we might become sanctified by the Holy Spirit.  Our sanctification is accomplished by God through the Holy Spirit by our growth in Christ through willfully doing works of love, charity, and mercy.  It is us aligning our will with the will of God.  Because Christ has justified our nature, we can become sanctified in our transfiguration in Christ by the Holy Spirit.  These are the wedding garments if you will or the lanters of the ten virgins.  By these, or better, how well we have conformed to the image of Christ our God, will be be judged and allowed to enter into the Kingdom and the Wedding Feast of the Bridegroom Christ and His Bride, the Church.


And if you don't?  What then?  No salvation?

Then why did Jesus bother to die on the cross?

You believe in human works for righteousness, with no assurance of salvation.

 I believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ for sure salvation.

Never the twain shall meet. . .

----------


## Nang

> Guess what?  We don't care?  We believe that the Orthodox Church is satanic.  
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Christ's death GUARANTEED that we would become sanctified, and glorified.  See Romans 8:28-35.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> ...




+rep

Well said.

----------


## TER

> And if you don't?  What then?  No salvation?


If you don't what?




> Then why did Jesus bother to die on the cross?


To grant us the way to salvation.




> You believe in human works for righteousness, with no assurance of salvation.


I believe in what the Lord has commanded us to do.




> I believe in the righteousness of Jesus Christ for sure salvation.


Your understanding is complete.  Christ saves only the willing.

----------


## TER

> Guess what?  We don't care?  We believe that the Orthodox Church is satanic.


I don't expect my posts to make much of a difference to you.  They are made for the benefit of those who might listen and wish to learn what the orthodox faith is.

----------


## Deborah K

> Guess what?  We don't care?  We believe that the Orthodox Church is satanic.


Guess what?  We don't care that you don't care.  And guess what else?  We don't care that you believe the Orthodox Church is satanic.  Some of us believe that some of you are off your rockers so what's your point?

Fanatic, could you at least TRY to be decent to people who, although they believe differently than you, have established reputations and are esteemed on this forum such as Today's Epistle Reading (TER)?   You are rapidly losing your credibility around here and while I think it is wrong that you should be neg repped for your views, I would hope that you and your ilk would make some kind of an attempt to get your point across without sounding like you're God's gift to mankind.  LOL.

----------


## Brett85

> Guess what?  We don't care?  We believe that the Orthodox Church is satanic.


I'm not going to flag this, but it seems like you don't really care much about getting banned again.

----------


## Deborah K

> I am a Reformed Protestant, and the names I listed are considered my spiritual "fathers and brethren."
> 
> I hold to Covenant Theology, which dates back to the garden of Eden, when God first proclaimed the gospel promises to Eve.  Genesis 3:15
> 
> If you suspect my faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, I cannot help you, and I guess we have nothing to discuss.


I don't suspect your faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  I suspect your claims of your religion's supposed lineage (theological) back to Christ.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not going to flag this, but it seems like you don't really care much about getting banned again.


Well, I put "we believe" up front so according to what the mods have been telling me they should be OK with it.  But if not, whatever.

----------


## Nang

> I don't suspect your faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  I suspect your claims of your religion's supposed lineage (theological) back to Christ.



Heh . . . it is faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ that establishes the spiritual lineage of all the saints . . from Abel to the present day.

It is this faith that describes the eternal and invisible church body of Jesus Christ that consists of all redeemed souls, from the beginning of time to the end.

Revelation 5:9; 7:9

----------


## Christian Liberty

This topic brought this excellent quote by Charles Spurgeon to mind:




> What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; *Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.* I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works;* nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace*; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the *special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.*
> _From A Defense of Calvinism by Charles Spurgeon_


Yet, Spurgeon called people who believed "Such a gospel as he abhored" his brothers.  I can't help but be bugged by this.  I don't see any way this quote is consistent with what Spurgeon said about John Wesley and the other Arminians.

I know Sola and Nang would say that Chris Adams is correct (At least about Arminians) and Spurgeon was wrong.  I'm curious what the other Calvinists here think (I don't care whether you use the label of not if you believe the "doctrines of grace").  Is Spurgeon's quote in error, and if not, is Spurgeon in error for saying Arminians like John Wesley were his brothers in Christ?

----------


## Nang

> This topic brought this excellent quote by Charles Spurgeon to mind:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, Spurgeon called people who believed "Such a gospel as he abhored" his brothers.  I can't help but be bugged by this.  I don't see any way this quote is consistent with what Spurgeon said about John Wesley and the other Arminians.
> 
> I know Sola and Nang would say that Chris Adams is correct (At least about Arminians) and Spurgeon was wrong.  I'm curious what the other Calvinists here think (I don't care whether you use the label of not if you believe the "doctrines of grace").  Is Spurgeon's quote in error, and if not, is Spurgeon in error for saying Arminians like John Wesley were his brothers in Christ?


My opinion is that Spurgeon was more a crowd-pleaser than he was a theologian.  (He still does not deserve to be put on anyone's list!)

All I can say, is I don't consider Wesley to be my brother in the Lord, unless he had a death-bed conversion.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My opinion is that Spurgeon was more a crowd-pleaser than he was a theologian.  (He still does not deserve to be put on anyone's list!)


I like Spurgeon from what I've read.  That doesn't mean I think he's above criticism though.

That said, while I have not personally heard Spurgeon preach, I cannot imagine how someone who was a "crowd pleaser" could say things like the quote I quote above.  In general crowd pleasers preach Arminianism and Spurgeon did not.  



> All I can say, is I don't consider Wesley to be my brother in the Lord, unless he had a death-bed conversion.


I tend to agree.  I hope I'm in error but I don't really see how I could be.  Wesley didn't even just believe in Arminianism, he downright attacked Calvinism and he was clearly not ignorant of it.  I don't know enough about Wesley to state with certainty, but I have my doubts about him as well.  He's dead, so I'm not really too worried about him one way or the other, but I am concerned for the Arminians I personally know who hold to Wesleyan theology.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Sola_Fide- Chris Adams says:




> The* very fact that there is any debate over this issue indicates that the majority of professing Calvinist churches are not true churches at all.* There is often heard the plea for tolerance, _based on the mistaken notion that doctrine is of little importance._ On the contrary -- purity of the doctrine of the gospel (the doctrine of salvation, or soteriology) is an essential fruit of salvation. Being able to define "soteriology" isn't necessary; being able to state the five points of Calvinism isn't necessary; but loving the truth and giving all glory to the only living and true God is necessary. Arminians do exactly the opposite when they try to reserve some of that glory for themselves; it is not a 'sincere misunderstanding of gospel doctrine' but a determined rebellion against the only living and true God and a stench in his nostrils.


With regards to the italicized portion, I think there are some points in between "this doctrine is not important" and "those who disagree with this doctrine are not saved" (in other words, saying that someone who holds to a faulty doctrinal stance, in this case, Arminianism, might be saved is not necessarily saying that this doctrinal stance is unimportant.)  But it was the bold part that I did want to question.  Are all churches that have leaders who believe Arminians are saved false or whore churches?  And, if you would say yes, does your church agree with you on this issue, and if not, why do you still attend?

Note that I know you don't always agree with the OTC people, so you might not agree with Adams on that point, hence why I am asking you to clarify.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I just realized there's someone named "Chris Adams" who works for my college campus.  I quickly remembered that the Chris Adams who wrote this article lives in Vermont

----------

