All the ELECT please stand up

[GodsGrace]

Yes. At least three (if not four) of the points of the Remonstrants are practically Calvinistic.

Could you please list the three points of Remonstrants that are practically Calvinist?

 

[Nancy]

Could you please list the three points of Remonstrants that are practically Calvinist?

I just looked it up, a new one on me! Here are their 5 points and, at least there is UNLIMITED atonement and not LIMITED! Yay! So, at least with this-we know anybody who receives His gift of grace can be saved.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610

Article 1.
[Conditional Election - corresponds to the second of TULIP’s five points, Unconditional Election]
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2.
[Unlimited Atonement - corresponds to the third of TULIP’s five points, Limited Atonement]
That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3.
[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]
That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Article 4.
[Resistible Grace - corresponds to the fourth of TULIP’s five points, Irresistible Grace]
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).

Article 5.
[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

"The Articles of the Remonstrants" are adapted from Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996, pp 545ff.

 

[GodsGrace]

I just looked it up, a new one on me! Here are their 5 points and, at least there is UNLIMITED atonement and not LIMITED! Yay! So, at least with this-we know anybody who receives His gift of grace can be saved.

The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, 1610

Article 1.
[Conditional Election - corresponds to the second of TULIP’s five points, Unconditional Election]
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son before the foundation of the world, has determined that out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath and to condemn them as alienated from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that does not believe the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2.
[Unlimited Atonement - corresponds to the third of TULIP’s five points, Limited Atonement]
That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3.
[Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity]
That man does not posses saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is necessary that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, and will, and all his faculties, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me you can do nothing.”

Article 4.
[Resistible Grace - corresponds to the fourth of TULIP’s five points, Irresistible Grace]
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to the extent that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements that can be conceived must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, since it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Spirit (Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places).

Article 5.
[Assurance and Security - corresponds to the fifth of TULIP’s five points, Perseverance of the Saints]
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, as a result have full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no deceit or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of neglecting grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full confidence of our mind.

These Articles, thus set forth and taught, the Remonstrants deem agreeable to the Word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.

"The Articles of the Remonstrants" are adapted from Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1996, pp 545ff.

Hi N, thanks!
Been busy these past few days.

So it looks like ALL FIVE are not in agreement with the 5 of TULIP....
I wonder what @Enoch111 was talking about re the three?

Let's see if he replies....
To me they all look good.

I'm not sure I agree with unconditional security,,,
It seems like one could fall away...then we're told they were never saved to begin with....I don't like to argue this too much except with those that believe they could live as they want and still be saved...this could not be biblical.

 

[Nancy]

Hi N, thanks!
Been busy these past few days.

So it looks like ALL FIVE are not in agreement with the 5 of TULIP....
I wonder what @Enoch111 was talking about re the three?

Let's see if he replies....
To me they all look good.

I'm not sure I agree with unconditional security,,,
It seems like one could fall away...then we're told they were never saved to begin with....I don't like to argue this too much except with those that believe they could live as they want and still be saved...this could not be biblical.

Agreed. I used to believe OSAS, but even then I was kind of, not in total agreement, ha! I have not been following this thread...I'll have to go back to see what Enoch said.
Have a great day! Well, night for you!

 

[GodsGrace]

Agreed. I used to believe OSAS, but even then I was kind of, not in total agreement, ha! I have not been following this thread...I'll have to go back to see what Enoch said.
Have a great day! Well, night for you!

See post 939.

2:15 pm here.
Still day !
We're 6 hours ahead of you.

 

[Nancy]

See post 939.

2:15 pm here.
Still day !
We're 6 hours ahead of you.

Yes, I know you are 6 hours ahead, that is why I'm surprised you are still on here, lol. Go get some sleep woman!
I will check out post 939...

 

[Kermos]

The Doctrines of Grace is a misnomer. It actually means the Doctrines of Sovereignty. The focus is primarily on the sovereignty of God, not the grace of God which extends to all humanity.

Woe to free willers who say that the work of the freewiller's grace leads to the freewiller obtaining God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-10)!

Prior posted 'woe to you free willers' (in this thread)

Proofs of Freewiller's Distortions of Scripture includng the Lord Jesus' words of "you did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) (in this thread)

 

[Enoch111]

Woe to free willers who say that the work of the freewiller's grace leads to the freewiller obtaining God's grace

Woe to those who pervert the true Gospel of Grace. See Galatians 1.

 

[Kermos]

Woe to those who pervert the true Gospel of Grace. See Galatians 1.

Well written, Enoch111! You aptly demonstrate how freewillers pervert grace. See Enoch111 that grace is "unearned love" that God chooses people by God's grace [Galatians 1:4, Galatians 1:15] as opposed to how freewillers think they choose God by the freewillers grace thus freewillers oppose the words of Jesus Christ when He said "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

 

[Nancy]

You covered it.

It is interesting to me that Arminius died a Calvinist (his view had been determined to be orthodox but was challenged again....but he died before the articles). Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory.
Oh........keeping it

Hello John,
You say that Jacob Arminius died a Calvinist. And, I think that is kind of a complicated question/statement?

This is from a very good, short article from Arminius the Calvinist - The Scriptorium Daily

Here is some of it:

"Arminius a Calvinist? What’s next, Luther a Catholic, Laud a Puritan, Ratzinger an Anglican, and D.A. Carson Emergent? That way lies madness.

But the fact is, for historical purposes, it’s actually a pretty difficult question, and we have to be careful when talking about the actual, historical Arminius. Richard Muller took up this whole complicated question in a recent article in the Westminster Theological Journal, entitled Arminius and the Reformed Tradition (WJT 70 (2008): 19-48). His essay is (as readers of Muller would expect) comprehensive and nuanced, and is likely to be the last word on the subject.

Speaking of lat words, here is how Muller wraps up his consideration of the question:

In conclusion, was Arminius Reformed? The answer remains mixed: in terms of his theological training, churchly allegiance, pastoral charge, and by stated subscription to confessional standards, namely the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, he was Reformed. Certainly, also, he was Reformed in the generic or colloquial sense of being of the Protestant rather than of the Roman faith. By documentable theological conviction, however, he placed himself outside the Reformed understanding of the confessions of the Dutch Reformed churches, as it had been established in earlier debates both in the Netherlands and elsewhere. He was not schismatic nor was he a vociferous opponent of the confessions. Rather, he sought revision, namely, a revision that would render the documents broader in definition and consistently less specific on controverted points of doctrine. Given that his own teachings on predestination were neither fully published until the year before his death nor condemned by synodical decision until a decade later, there is a rather technical sense belonging to church order in which one can argue that Arminius was Reformed, albeit dissident, until the day he died."

Apparently, he did not have many "Churchly" choices back in the late 1600's, and I found this history pretty compelling as well "in terms of his theological training, churchly allegiance, pastoral charge" Compelling in the way that his association with his training, etc...seem to scream that he was indeed a Calvinist. My belief is that he was not at all a Calvinist in his doctrines.
JMHO

 

[John Caldwell]

Hello John,
You say that Jacob Arminius died a Calvinist. And, I think that is kind of a complicated question/statement?

This is from a very good, short article from Arminius the Calvinist - The Scriptorium Daily

Here is some of it:

"Arminius a Calvinist? What’s next, Luther a Catholic, Laud a Puritan, Ratzinger an Anglican, and D.A. Carson Emergent? That way lies madness.

But the fact is, for historical purposes, it’s actually a pretty difficult question, and we have to be careful when talking about the actual, historical Arminius. Richard Muller took up this whole complicated question in a recent article in the Westminster Theological Journal, entitled Arminius and the Reformed Tradition (WJT 70 (2008): 19-48). His essay is (as readers of Muller would expect) comprehensive and nuanced, and is likely to be the last word on the subject.

Speaking of lat words, here is how Muller wraps up his consideration of the question:

In conclusion, was Arminius Reformed? The answer remains mixed: in terms of his theological training, churchly allegiance, pastoral charge, and by stated subscription to confessional standards, namely the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, he was Reformed. Certainly, also, he was Reformed in the generic or colloquial sense of being of the Protestant rather than of the Roman faith. By documentable theological conviction, however, he placed himself outside the Reformed understanding of the confessions of the Dutch Reformed churches, as it had been established in earlier debates both in the Netherlands and elsewhere. He was not schismatic nor was he a vociferous opponent of the confessions. Rather, he sought revision, namely, a revision that would render the documents broader in definition and consistently less specific on controverted points of doctrine. Given that his own teachings on predestination were neither fully published until the year before his death nor condemned by synodical decision until a decade later, there is a rather technical sense belonging to church order in which one can argue that Arminius was Reformed, albeit dissident, until the day he died."

Apparently, he did not have many "Churchly" choices back in the late 1600's, and I found this history pretty compelling as well "in terms of his theological training, churchly allegiance, pastoral charge" Compelling in the way that his association with his training, etc...seem to scream that he was indeed a Calvinist. My belief is that he was not at all a Calvinist in his doctrines.
JMHO

What I mean is that when Arminus died his theology had been determined by the counsel to be within orthodox Calvinism. He remained a professor within the Calvinistic church until he died. After his death his views were considered to be outside of Calvinism.

In other words, it was after Arminius died that Calvinism determined the doctrine of the Remonstrants to be outside of Calvinism. What changed was not Arminius (he was dead) but Calvinism through the debate.

But I see your point. If Calvinism includes the Canons of Dort then we can look backwards and see that neither James Arminius or John Calvin are technically Calvinists.

"Reformed" covers a lot if you consider it to be pertaining to the Protestant Reformation. Technically, not only are Calvinists reformed but so are Lutherans and Methodists.

 

[Nancy]

What I mean is that when Arminus died his theology had been determined by the counsel to be within orthodox Calvinism. He remained a professor within the Calvinistic church until he died. After his death his views were considered to be outside of Calvinism.

In other words, it was after Arminius died that Calvinism determined the doctrine of the Remonstrants to be outside of Calvinism. What changed was not Arminius (he was dead) but Calvinism through the debate.

But I see your point. If Calvinism includes the Canons of Dort then we can look backwards and see that neither James Arminius or John Calvin are technically Calvinists.

"Reformed" covers a lot if you consider it to be pertaining to the Protestant Reformation. Technically, not only are Calvinists reformed but so are Lutherans and Methodists.

Yes, and Amen, I suppose we could say that any protestant is "reformed" really, lol.

"After his death his views were considered to be outside of Calvinism."
Yes, and it was what, 8 or 9 years after his death?

Even though, the 5 points of TULIP are not at all what I read in Gods Word, there was a 2.5 year period that, despite the pastors Calvinism, (Which, he never preached on, but after awhile, I recognized his omission of many Armenian views as well as throwing a few other Calvinistic beliefs that were vague but...he was only at the Church for about 6 months before I started going there. I knew I would have to leave eventually, and I also knew it was when I heard the sneakiness that certain doctrines being brought in became apparent to me. I spoke with him before leaving and, he knew I was not a proponent of Calvinistic doctrine within a month of me going there...we had a meeting shortly after I started going there. Now, one of my brothers (sibling), is still attending there...sporadically though...is starting to question...I NEVER tried to influence him, I simply prayed. Thinking he will not be long for that Church...it is not a warm place, by no means...sad really.
Thanks for replying, seems we are on the same page!
In Him,
nancy

 

[Kermos]

Woe to you free willers because you attempt to abscond with some portion of the glory of your salvation; on the other hand, regarding God's glory - thus says the Lord, "I am YHVH, that is My name, I will not give My glory to another" (Isaiah 42:8)!

Prior posted 'woe to you free willers' (in this thread)

Proofs of Freewiller's Distortions of Scripture includng the Lord Jesus' words of "you did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) (in this thread)

 

[Enoch111]

freewillers oppose the words of Jesus Christ when He said "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

You cannot take this verse out of context and claim that it speaks of unconditional election. Christ definitely chose each one of His apostles (to whom those words were addressed), but as far as the offer of grace, it is to all humanity.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17) This corresponds to John 3:15-17. And God never contradicts Himself.

Calvinists simply cannot accept plain BIBLE FACTS.
1. All human beings are sinners.
2. All humanity needs a Savior.
3. Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
4. God commands all men everywhere to obey the Gospel.
5. God commands the Church to preach the Gospel to every creature.

That's how simple it .

 

[GodsGrace]

Woe to free willers who say that the work of the freewiller's grace leads to the freewiller obtaining God's grace (Ephesians 2:8-10)!

Prior posted 'woe to you free willers' (in this thread)

Proofs of Freewiller's Distortions of Scripture includng the Lord Jesus' words of "you did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16) (in this thread)

Well written, Enoch111! You aptly demonstrate how freewillers pervert grace. See Enoch111 that grace is "unearned love" that God chooses people by God's grace [Galatians 1:4, Galatians 1:15] as opposed to how freewillers think they choose God by the freewillers grace thus freewillers oppose the words of Jesus Christ when He said "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16).

Oh for goodness sakes.
How many times must we go thru this.....
Get a commentary...do something....
and stop repeating the same old mistake.
John 15:16 is referring to the Apostles.
JESUS CHOSE THE APOSTLES.

But YOU Chose GOD.

 

[John Caldwell]

Yes, and Amen, I suppose we could say that any protestant is "reformed" really, lol.

"After his death his views were considered to be outside of Calvinism."
Yes, and it was what, 8 or 9 years after his death?

Even though, the 5 points of TULIP are not at all what I read in Gods Word, there was a 2.5 year period that, despite the pastors Calvinism, (Which, he never preached on, but after awhile, I recognized his omission of many Armenian views as well as throwing a few other Calvinistic beliefs that were vague but...he was only at the Church for about 6 months before I started going there. I knew I would have to leave eventually, and I also knew it was when I heard the sneakiness that certain doctrines being brought in became apparent to me. I spoke with him before leaving and, he knew I was not a proponent of Calvinistic doctrine within a month of me going there...we had a meeting shortly after I started going there. Now, one of my brothers (sibling), is still attending there...sporadically though...is starting to question...I NEVER tried to influence him, I simply prayed. Thinking he will not be long for that Church...it is not a warm place, by no means...sad really.
Thanks for replying, seems we are on the same page!
In Him,
nancy

I think we are on the same page - great minds think alike .

When it comes to Calvinism I do not begrudge anyone their understanding. I have learned from people on both sides of that aisle. I do have a bit of an issue when people feel their duty is to convert me to their understanding. I think we are called to much greater thangs than that.

 

[Nancy]

I think we are on the same page - great minds think alike .

When it comes to Calvinism I do not begrudge anyone their understanding. I have learned from people on both sides of that aisle. I do have a bit of an issue when people feel their duty is to convert me to their understanding. /QUOTE]

Ditto. And there are many very good authors who are Calvinists. Cannot dismiss all of their writings...as long as we are secure in our faith I think we're good

 

[Kermos]

You cannot take this verse out of context and claim that it speaks of unconditional election. Christ definitely chose each one of His apostles (to whom those words were addressed), but as far as the offer of grace, it is to all humanity.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17) This corresponds to John 3:15-17. And God never contradicts Himself.

Calvinists simply cannot accept plain BIBLE FACTS.
1. All human beings are sinners.
2. All humanity needs a Savior.
3. Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
4. God commands all men everywhere to obey the Gospel.
5. God commands the Church to preach the Gospel to every creature.

That's how simple it .

Behold the sequence that Lord Jesus used:

"you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16)

"I chose you out of the world" (John 15:19)

Lord Jesus is referring to salvation in both John 15:16 and John 15:19.

There is more to this, because Lord Jesus said:

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20)

Since John chapters 13 - 17 include a single supper encounter, this means that John 15:16 and John 15:19 are words for all of God's children; in other word, the Lord Jesus' words in John 15:16 and John 15:19 apply to all believers in all time.

Now, Revelation 22:17 is clearly about the consummation of the Christ with the Bride of Christ; furthermore, Lord Jesus said "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), os only those under the authority of Lord Jesus can come. In Revelation 22:17, notice that "whosoever will" is absent, "The Spirit and the bride say, 'Come.' And let the one who hears say, 'Come.' And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost", and so it goes in the Greek manuscripts.

John 3:15-17 contain the word "believe", and Lord Jesus clearly states where this believe/faith sources when He said "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29); therefore, you cannot believe on the Lord Jesus Christ apart from the work of God.

Armenians cannot understand scripture because Armenians do not believe the Word of God.

 

[Kermos]

Oh for goodness sakes.
How many times must we go thru this.....
Get a commentary...do something....
and stop repeating the same old mistake.
John 15:16 is referring to the Apostles.
JESUS CHOSE THE APOSTLES.

But YOU Chose GOD.

Hear the Word of God, GodsGrace, and stop relying on the traditions of men that lead to destruction (Mark 7:8, Colossians 2:8, 2 Timothy 3:13). See my previous post in which the Word of God shames your outright denial of the Word of God, as well as this post much earlier in this thread "The Audience, Salvation, And 'I chose you' Words of Lord Jesus In John 15:16 and John 15:19 Post" which has been available for you to read.

The Lord Jesus' words stand "you did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16), and anybody who claims otherwise does not believe the words of Lord Jesus, and the Lord Jesus said this about people that do not believe the word of His "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell - and great was its fall" (Matthew 7:26-27) and "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words" (John 14:23-24).

I did not choose Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus chose Me. I am eternally grateful for His wonderful, loving work!

You claim to have chose Jesus; therefore, you claim ot do exactly that which He said you cannot do; therefore, your claim is consistent with not believing His words.

 

[farouk]

I think we are on the same page - great minds think alike .

When it comes to Calvinism I do not begrudge anyone their understanding. I have learned from people on both sides of that aisle. I do have a bit of an issue when people feel their duty is to convert me to their understanding. I think we are called to much greater thangs than that.

I do appreciate the five points, but I do like to get them directly from Scripture rather from logic and endless argument...