Not By Works

[Desertsrose]

Hello DR Following religious strictures without faith is very much works based. It is the basis of what many consider heretical religions. Some would call them religious but lost.

Hi Magenta,

You may disagree and that's fine.

Cain did not PUSH a works based belief system which is what Dcon said. He was not teaching anything to anyone.

He went through motions required of him without a care for God and with faith only in Himself.

Call him what you will, but he did not PUSH a works based belief system.

To stay at home with his family he went through motions like any child would because their parents required them to go to church. There's no evidence of Cain pushing anything but his own wicked evil heart and his hate for God.

 

[stonesoffire]

I thought Dcon was speaking of allegorically shown to begin with Cain. It's how I took it anyway.

 

[Magenta]

Hi Magenta,

You may disagree and that's fine.

Cain did not PUSH a works based belief system which is what Dcon said. He was not teaching anything to anyone.

He went through motions required of him without a care for God and with faith only in Himself.

Call him what you will, but he did not PUSH a works based belief system.

To stay at home with his family he went through motions like any child would because their parents required them to go to church. There's no evidence of Cain pushing anything but his own wicked evil heart and his hate for God.

I did not say he PUSHED anything. I simply made the point that works without faith equals lost religion.

 

[preacher4truth]

This isn't what I've read.

What have you read????

They had conflicts, but their relationship was restored and John Wesley even presided over Whitefield's funeral.

Their relationship was severed for a time as the Wesley's continued their onslaught on Whitefield of which he was always gracious in reply. And their relationship was hardly "restored" so you'd be incorrect.

John said their fight was an irreparable breach, and he was partly correct. Whitefield had written to them on two occasions to restore fellowship, and they did not return the favor. Charles became incensed that John was softening towards Whitefield, and in turn wrote another hymnal of hymns attacking Whitefield.

Howell Harris (and John Cennick iirc) attempted to have a conference with the Wesley's and others, but they did not come after all. "The idea that entire harmony was achieved is by no means correct." George Whitefield, Vol. 2, p. 147.

Charles remained aloof from Whitefield and John only partially accepted, and this after numerous and gracious attempts by Whitefield, some which never received a response.

By the way, I am glad John had took a last attempt to behave graciously toward Whitefield after he died.

I think we all need to be careful when repeating comments like this.

You need to be careful in your veiled slander above, implying my statements aren't true.

My comments? They're documented, but you're just seeking to find something to argue about, as if I just made this up. Everything I've stated is documented. I'm not just repeating comments, so maybe you should be careful in your accusations and implications to slight me?

You're the one who needs to be careful, as can be further seen:

Because you believe in Calvinism, maybe you should follow Whitefield's example by loving those who love the Lord no matter what their doctrinal beliefs are.

There it is! I knew there was a reason for the little attack. It's because I'm a Calvinist, and because I'm a Calvinist it means I don't love others in their differing beliefs. It has to mean that, right? Or, could it be that nearly the entirety of my Christian brothers and sisters are not Calvinists?

Your assumption is most unChristian. And for the record I do have love for those who are not the same doctrinally. This is a well known fact.

I'm not a Calvinist, but I love the Lord with all my heart.

Of course, now you go to praising yourself after slighting me with false assumptions. Yes, you're so wonderful, and love the Lord with all your heart, but me, I don't love others who aren't like me, fabricate things &c. How Christ-like of you! LOL!!!!

Maybe you consider me not saved, but because you believe it doesn't make it so.

And...another attempt to cast me in a bad light and offer some not so veiled slander. That's uncalled for and should have never been stated, all you are doing is slandering me. Yes, I know you said "maybe" but the accusation is there and uncalled for.

How many times in this response have you sought to slam me? 3? 4? Too many???

The Wesley's and Whitefield came to an agreement.

What is this agreement? When did it happen? I've explained the "agreement" and there was no entire harmony ever achieved.

Perhaps this is the problem; You just cannot stand that a Calvinist actually was gracious to the Wesley's even after their malicious attacks on him via hymns, printed sermons and oral attacks on him among the saints. You just can't allow a Calvinist to actually have behaved himself above those who attack him. This is part of it right there.

Whitefield was more like the evangelist

Both he and John were evangelists. You should have known that since "you've read." Whitefield wasn't just "more like one" he was one. So was John.

and the Wesley's were the ones that discipled those who responded and were born of the Spirit.

Did they? Their "discipleship" included indoctrinating persons against other persons; Howell Harris, Whitefield, John Cennick and teaching them the false doctrine of sinless perfection. They never fully accepted Whitefield's extended olive branch.

 

[Magenta]

Of course, when I say faith, I mean a saving faith, not faith in one's self

 

[Desertsrose]

What have you read????

I left the link for you to go and read, but for anyone else who might want to read it, here's the article from Christian History Institute.

When George Whitefield left England in 1739, he was the recognized leader of the evangelical awakening, and he entrusted his thousands of followers to John Wesley’s care.WHEN HE RETURNED, in early 1741, he found that “many of my spiritual children . . . will neither hear, see, nor give me the least assistance: Yes, some of them send threatening letters that God will speedily destroy me. ”

What had happened? Wesley had preached and published on two subjects dividing the leaders: predestination (whether God foreordains people’s eternal destiny) and perfection (whether sinlessness is attainable in this life).

Whitefield met with both Charles and John Wesley in early 1741, but they could not find common ground. Wrote Whitefield, “It would have melted any heart to have heard Mr. Charles Wesley and me weeping, after prayer, that if possible the breach might be prevented.” The movement had been forever divided between the followers of Wesley and the followers of Whitefield.

Christian History asked J. D. Walsh to explain how Whitefield and Wesley met, how their conflict began, and how their relationship changed.

The relationship between George Whitefield and John Wesley, the two great leaders of the eighteenth-century revival, cannot be neatly described. Their association passed through very different stages.

DEFERENCE: OXFORD METHODISTS
Whitefield arrived at Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1732, a raw, provincial youth with a West Country accent. (He never lost it; accounts of his preaching describe his “twang through the nose” and the way he pronounced “Christ” as “Chroist.”) Whitefield had come from the tap—room of the family inn and was working his way through college, waiting on richer students. “As for my quality, I was a poor drawer” [of ale], he wrote.

Whitefield had heard of the “Holy Club” before he arrived, and after Charles Wesley kindly asked him to breakfast, he was swiftly drawn into the fellowship. It was Charles, open—hearted and emotional, rather than the steely—willed and self-controlled John, who was his chief Oxford mentor.

Whitefield spoke “with the utmost deference and respect” of the brothers Wesley, who had been to famous boarding schools and were his seniors. During a period of acute distress, Whitefield was sent for advice to John, and thanks to his “excellent advice and management,” Whitefield “was delivered from the wiles of Satan.”

This was a somewhat subservient relationship. Whitefield wrote, “From time to time Mr. Wesley permitted me to come to him and instructed me as I was able to bear it.” Whitefield deferred to John Wesley as his “spiritual father in Christ” and his letters addressed Wesley as “Honoured sir.”

PARTNERSHIP: REVIVAL TAKES OFF
In 1736 John Wesley entrusted the newly ordained Whitefield with the oversight of the Oxford methodists, while he was away in Georgia. Whitefield soon soared to national fame as “the boy preacher.” Autograph hunters besieged him. A flood of pamphlets attacked him. He was lavishly praised and compared to Moses, to David, and to Wycliffe as the “morning star” of a second Reformation. As Whitefield freely confessed, fame went to his head. He wrote one minister in 1739: “Success, I fear, elated my mind. I did not behave to you, and other ministers of Christ, with that humility which became me.”

Although Whitefield’s evangelistic success far outstripped that of his former instructor, he showed Wesley deep respect. “I am but a novice; you are acquainted with the great things of God,” he told him in March 1739. Before inviting Wesley to join him in Bristol that year, he told his converts that “there was one coming after him whose shoes’ latchett he was not worthy to unloose.”

Yet at this critical phase of the revival, young, exuberant, Whitefield took the lead, dragging behind the older, more cautious Wesley. In spring 1739 Whitefield took the momentous step of preaching outdoors—first to the grimy coalminers around Bristol, and then to the street poor of London. This turned methodism outward, from respectable Anglican societies toward the huge unchurched mass. Whitefield now pushed the reluctant Wesleys into following him as field preachers.

In 1739, as vistas of astonishing evangelistic success opened up, Whitefield and the Wesleys worked in the closest harmony, as brothers and equals. When Whitefield won converts through his amazing oratory, he relied on Wesley to help organize and instruct them.

DISCORD: FIGHT OVER GRACE
A few months later, however, the two leaders were locked in angry debate. By 1740 the infant methodist movement was split irrevocably into two camps.

It was inevitable that the issue of predestination would trouble the movement. The Wesleys were unshakable “Arminians” who denied predestination, yet the revival drew zealous recruits from areas in which Puritan Calvinism was much alive. At first, Whitefield was no predestinarian, but by the time he sailed to America in the summer of 1739, he was reading Calvinist books. Contact with fervent American Calvinists filled out his knowledge.

Even before Whitefield departed, John Wesley had decided to attack the Calvinist theory of grace. In March 1739 he not only preached but published a passionately Arminian sermon entitledFree Grace. This step was taken with great unease; only after seeking a sign from heaven and drawing lots twice, did Wesley go into battle.

John Wesley feared that Calvinism propagated fatalism and discouraged growth in holiness. Charles Wesley feared that predestination (and particularly the idea of reprobation, that God predestined some to damnation) represented a loving God as a God of hate. In his famous hymn Wrestling Jacob, he deliberately capitalized the sentence “Pure Universal Love Thou Art.”

Whitefield, who was always more irenic than John Wesley, demurred before replying. He made it clear he was no follower, but a leader, and in some respects in front of his old adviser: “As God was pleased to send me out first, and to enlighten me first, so I think he still continues to do it.” Even now, however, he recognized Wesley’s enormous talent for the nurture of souls: “My business seems to be chiefly in planting; if God sends you to water, I praise his name.”

Nonetheless, on Christmas Eve 1740 Whitefield wrote his riposte to Wesley, defending the Calvinist doctrine of grace.

The controversy was fueled when Wesley provocatively published Free Grace in America. Whitefield, when invited to preach in Wesley’s headquarters at the London Foundery, scandalized the congregation by preaching “the absolute decrees [of election] in the most peremptory and offensive manner,” while Charles sat beside him, fuming.

From 1740 the revival moved along parallel lines. Wesley’s “United Societies” were matched by the growth of “Calvinistic Methodist” societies in England and Wales. In London, Whitefield’s followers set up his Tabernacle in the same street as Wesley’s Foundery, and in rivalry with it.

COOLING: AGREEMENT TO DIFFER
By 1742 tempers were beginning to cool. Open-hearted evangelist Howell Harris worked to reunite the two parties, but he found this impossible, partly because “neither of the sides can submit to . . . the other head—Mr. Wesley or Mr. Whitefield.” Indeed, the followers of both men often proved more partisan than their champions.

Far more united the antagonists than ever separated them. Whitefield was a moderate Calvinist; he did not let the doctrine of predestination hinder him from offering grace to all, or from insisting on the need for holiness in believers. John Wesley allowed (for a time) that some souls might be elected to eternal life. When not overheated, both men saw such issues as non-essentials. At the height of the controversy, Whitefield quoted the reformer John Bradford: “Let a man go to the grammar school of faith and repentance, before he goes to the university of election and predestination.”

No merger of the two camps occurred, but there was at least reconciliation between the leaders. This “closer union in affection” continued with hiccups, but no serious interruption, to Whitefield’s death. In 1755, Charles Wesley could write happily, “Come on, my Whitefield! (since the strife is past) / And friends at first are friends again at last.”

The relationship was described by one of Wesley’s preachers as “agreement to differ.” Whitefield was welcomed to preach among Wesley’s societies. Wesley lent Whitefield one of his best preachers, Joseph Cownley, for work at the Tabernacle. Whitefield refused to build Calvinistic chapels in places that already had a Wesleyan society. Wesley agreed to the reverse. More than once Whitefield acted as mediator when the Wesley brothers fell out, notably when Charles sabotaged John’s marriage prospects to Grace Murray.

This friendship continued even though the old split was not forgotten. Writing his Short History of Methodism in 1765, John Wesley did not conceal his conviction that Whitefield and the Calvinists had made “the first breach” in the revival. Whitefield felt that the idyllic harmony of early 1739—“heaven on earth” when all were “like little children”—had been broken by Wesley’s sermon on Free Grace.

COMPLEMENTARY GIFTS
Ultimately, what eased relations between the two great leaders was Whitefield’s decision, in 1749, to abandon formal leadership of the Calvinistic Methodist societies. He thus posed no threat to Wesley as chief organizer of the revival.

Whitefield was certainly not inadequate as a pastor and organizer, but he realized his primary calling lay as a “wayfaring witness.” His determination to shuttle continually between England, Scotland, and America meant he could never, like Wesley, provide oversight for a great connection of societies.

“An itinerant pilgrim life is that which I choose,” he wrote, so he cheerfully let other pastors gather the lost sheep he had found.

Wesley, in contrast, insisted his converts be organized and built up in the faith. He resolved not to send preachers where he could not form societies, because failure to support new converts was like “begetting children for the murderer.” In Wesley’s view, the Great Awakening subsided largely because Whitefield’s converts did not receive adequate spiritual oversight.

Both Whitefield and Wesley (and the Moravians) deserve credit as Founding Fathers of the great revival. What is most striking is the providential complementarity of the two men’s gifts. More than any evangelist before him, Whitefield was given the ability to scatter the seed of God’s Word across the world. To Wesley, preeminently, was granted the ability to garner the grain and preserve it.

In 1770, the year of his death, Whitefield wrote to Charles as “my very dear old friend” and described John as “your honoured brother.” To each he bequeathed a mourning ring, “in token of my indissoluble union with them in heart and Christian affection, notwithstanding our difference in judgment about some particular points of doctrine.” On Whitefield’s death, Charles penned a noble elegy. And at Whitefield’s request, his funeral sermon was preached by none other than his former opponent, John Wesley. CH

 

[BillG]

Hi Bill and EG,


Actually you just needed to go a few verses earlier.


“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” John 22:31-32


Jesus prayed for Peter before it all happened. Jesus said that Peter would turn again.......meaning repentance - and the Lord forgives repentance. So we see it all happening before the incident even took place. And Jesus encourages him that he still has his gifting of apostleship that he was called to and that he indeed would strengthen his brothers once he repented.

Do you mean Luke 22?

Luke 22:31-34
Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial
31 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”
33 But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.”
34 Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”

But look at what Peter says in v33.

At that point in time his response in effect is saying "I will not deny you"

I am not sure he what was going to happen. And the truth is they all denied him.

Matthew 26:56
56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.

So to me I don't think Peter knew he was forgiven until Jesus restored him.

I do agree with you that Jesus gave Peter the heads up but to me he didn't see the second part of the equation and just reacted to the first part.

Either way we know we have a great redeemer and the best in the restoration business.

 

[Meggido]

What a precious lady, willing to stand up and preach to 186 women.
Amazing to see a harvest.

Amazing to see people touched and encouraged.

When the Gospel of Jesus is preached people will respond.
We all want to walk with Jesus and be like him.

God deals with us as individuals. He knows what's best for us.
It is he that conforms us to the image of Jesus, it is he that refines us through his purifying fire.
Yes we all have dross in our lives that needs dealing with, stuff that hinders our relationship.

But if we earnestly seek relationship his love, passion, compassion, correction will win the day.

Thanks Bill...

The young woman that preached last night is a former drug addict and many other things not really worth mentioning. We have been mentoring her for the last 2 years and she has been used by God mightily to destroy yokes, lift burdens and change lives....

You would not have even been able to see that in her 4 years ago....the Holy Spirit is a change of life agent and has worked in and through this young woman so much...Her testimony allows other woman to see the hope that is available to them.....

She preached about the woman at the well last night....and the Holy Spirit took over and it was just awesome to see the lives changed last night....

 

[Magenta]

Either way we know we have a great redeemer and the best in the restoration business.

.Amen

 

[Desertsrose]

Do you mean Luke 22?

Luke 22:31-34
Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial
31 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”
33 But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.”
34 Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”

But look at what Peter says in v33.

At that point in time his response in effect is saying "I will not deny you"

I am not sure he what was going to happen. And the truth is they all denied him.

Matthew 26:56
56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”
Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.

So to me I don't think Peter knew he was forgiven until Jesus restored him.

I do agree with you that Jesus gave Peter the heads up but to me he didn't see the second part of the equation and just reacted to the first part.

Either way we know we have a great redeemer and the best in the restoration business.

Hi Bill,
Yes, I meant Luke. Sorry 'bout that.

I see it as Jesus letting Peter know that when he does deny him that he will repent and continue on strengthening his brothers. I see Peter denying the Lord as one of the instances of where satan tried to sift Peter as wheat.

He was one that the rest of the apostles looked up to. I was just showing that there was a repentance on Peters part. I thought there was a question as to if Peter repented and I was sharing that Jesus said he would in that scripture reference.

I'm sure he remembered the words of Jesus that when he was restored that he would strengthen his brothers. Do you think though that Peter wasn't restored until Jesus spoke with him about feeding His sheep? I think that Peter had already repented before this incidence. What do you think? Amen our redeemer lives and restores our soul!!!

 

[Meggido]

Brother. Since you hold yourself out as a Pastor or such, and since you have numerous times disregarded loving correction in applying 1 Corinthians 13, I sadly felt the need to report several of your ugly posts.

I know others may have said ugly things to you, but by presenting yourself as a minister, you should be held to greater responsibility.

Please don't react in anger and vengeance, but prayerfully consider if what I say is true.

Fair enough....but prayerfully consider Matthew 18.15-17...

 

[BillG]

Brother. Since you hold yourself out as a Pastor or such, and since you have numerous times disregarded loving correction in applying 1 Corinthians 13, I sadly felt the need to report several of your ugly posts.

I know others may have said ugly things to you, but by presenting yourself as a minister, you should be held to greater responsibility.

Please don't react in anger and vengeance, but prayerfully consider if what I say is true.

I have to be honest here PennEd.

I can't recall Megiddo saying he was a pastor or such.
He may have done.

The truth to me is that all of us have been called as ministers of the Gospel.

Yes I agree that if one leads a church then there is greater responsibility to a greater number of people than we who are not leaders of a church will walk alongside.

Leaders of a church are just as culpable of getting it wrong just as we are.

We all have an ugly side (well at least I do).
On this point and I will put myself out on a limb here. Would you report any of my posts that were ugly?

We are all called to to look past the ugly and see the beauty, that's what Jesus did.

We all need to stop beating each other up and somehow acknowledge that the majority on here are working to the same goal.

To be like Jesus and encourage each other to do so.

Not going at you brother, as you know I have liked a lot of what you have said.

Bill

 

[Meggido]

I thought Dcon was speaking of allegorically shown to begin with Cain. It's how I took it anyway.

warning, warning, warning....not an ugly post without love....just an observation and from what DCON has posted in this thread and many others...

DCON has said that the Gospel he states says that that no man has any form of personal saving faith....

DCOn states Saving faith is the gift of God, which was and is Jesus Christ's own personal faith.....it is Jesus own personal faith in what he went through that saves a person and grace was God giving us that free gift of Jesus' faith...

This is why DCON will post this verse to support this belief when others quiz him:

2 Tim 2.13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

and DCON quotes this verse without these verses that go with it:

2 Tim 2.11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]It is a trustworthy statement:For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
[SUP]12 [/SUP]If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
[SUP]13 [/SUP]If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.





This is why pages ago DCON told Stephen63 a person could even deny Jesus Christ and still be saved....because it is not the deniers perosnal faith that saves him, but the gift of Faith from God, which Jesus' own perosnal faith, which saves you....This is why he also says that OT saints were saved the same way we are...because saving faith is not perosnal and to be exercised on a perosnal basis unto perosnal belief, but it is a gift from God, and it is Jesus' own personal faith that saves you...

giving that consideration, it would be a no brainer than to speak as he does that Cain was a work for it guy who had faith in his own works...it is a no brainer then to go on and on that no matter what you do, even deny Jesus and you will be OK...because Jesus faith has to complete what it started....

He cites Peter, yet fails to see Peter was under the Old Covenant ,when he denied Jesus...the New covenant enforces that if you deny him he will deny us....Just as Jesus said through Paul above in 2 Tim 2.12 and also himself in Matt 10.33-
[SUP]33 [/SUP]But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.


If it was all Jesus faith then he never had to die.....This theology was taught in many seminaries decades ago....and in some it still is....this theology disregards the Old Covenant....and places personal saving faith solely on Jesus....and for me, this disregards Bible truth, that God has given every man a measure of perosnal saving faith...and most importantly that Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God...

 

[BillG]

Hi Bill,
Yes, I meant Luke. Sorry 'bout that.

I see it as Jesus letting Peter know that when he does deny him that he will repent and continue on strengthening his brothers. I see Peter denying the Lord as one of the instances of where satan tried to sift Peter as wheat.

He was one that the rest of the apostles looked up to. I was just showing that there was a repentance on Peters part. I thought there was a question as to if Peter repented and I was sharing that Jesus said he would in that scripture reference.

I'm sure he remembered the words of Jesus that when he was restored that he would strengthen his brothers. Do you think though that Peter wasn't restored until Jesus spoke with him about feeding His sheep? I think that Peter had already repented before this incidence. What do you think? Amen our redeemer lives and restores our soul!!!

I think i would say yes and no.
I think in the first instance Peter never realised that he would have something to repent off, because he wasn't going to deny him as Jesus said he would.

Truth is Satan did sift Peter and out of fear when he saw what was going on he fell.

Yes there was repentance after that point. He wept bitterly and was ashamed. He even run to the tomb.

To me I think it's intersting, Jesus says 3 times "Do you love me" this equates to 3 denials.

But also to me when Jesus said "Feed my sheep" Peter knew he was forgiven and then went from Phileo to Agape.

To me that is when he knew his repentance was accepted as such. Godly repentance.

 

[Magenta]

I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian. Somebody once mentioned a third position that I looked into just to see what the word meant. Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance. I have not researched it enough to discover how aligned I am with it beyond that simple statement, which I agree with. I do agree with some of the TULIP petals. I have not recently counted how many. Calvinism seems to get discussed here more than Armenianism.

I know I am saved and I know it is by the grace and mercy of God and the everlasting love He has for us beyond anything I ever could have done to merit it. That love was borne out to us by the sacrificial shedding of Christ's righteous blood on the cross at Golgotha, where He paid the sin debt, that any who believe on Him may attain to life ever after, for He is the author and giver of life, and holds the keys to both life and death. In Him we live and move and have our being. None of my works had any power to save me. I was a seeker for many years before I was able to lay down my opposition to Him. By the grace and mercy of God He has chosen to spare me from the fate I deserved

 

[Magenta]

To me I think it's intersting, Jesus says 3 times "Do you love me" this equates to 3 denials.

But also to me when Jesus said "Feed my sheep" Peter knew he was forgiven and then went from Phileo to Agape.

To me that is when he knew his repentance was accepted as such. Godly repentance.

Some say the three times being questioned were given also to help atone for the three denials, not that Peter's inability to speak of love in the same sense as Jesus did were denials in and of themselves Or is that what you meant?

 

[preacher4truth]

Where's your apology for your slanderous implications?????

I left the link

Yes, Google-ology. Not from books you've read, just an Google expert in 1 minute.

I'm going by the actual statements and letters. Their relationship was never restored to harmony.

Furthermore, your language and accusations toward me remain un-Christian, and frankly are implied lies. You're hatred for Calvinists is noted.

And I just took you off ignore a day or two ago for such behavior in the past...lol. Un-Christian behavior. Still.


Well, back you go there is no profitable engagement with those who imply slander on others.

 

[stonesoffire]

I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian. Somebody once mentioned a third position that I looked into just to see what the word meant. Molinists hold that in addition to knowing everything that does or will happen, God also knows what His creatures would freely choose if placed in any circumstance. I have not researched it enough to discover how aligned I am with it beyond that simple statement, which I agree with. I do agree with some of the TULIP petals. I have not recently counted how many. Calvinism seems to get discussed here more than Armenianism.

I know I am saved and I know it is by the grace and mercy of God and the everlasting love He has for us beyond anything I ever could have done to merit it. That love was borne out to us by the sacrificial shedding of Christ's righteous blood on the cross at Golgotha, where He paid the sin debt, that any who believe on Him may attain to life ever after, for He is the author and giver of life, and holds the keys to both life and death. In Him we live and move and have our being. None of my works had any power to save me. I was a seeker for many years before I was able to lay down my opposition to Him. By the grace and mercy of God He has chosen to spare me from the fate I deserved

hmm..I'm a molinist. Never heard of this but will look at that too. Got lots to research.

 

[stonesoffire]

warning, warning, warning....not an ugly post without love....just an observation and from what DCON has posted in this thread and many others...

DCON has said that the Gospel he states says that that no man has any form of personal saving faith....

DCOn states Saving faith is the gift of God, which was and is Jesus Christ's own personal faith.....it is Jesus own personal faith in what he went through that saves a person and grace was God giving us that free gift of Jesus' faith...

This is why DCON will post this verse to support this belief when others quiz him:

2 Tim 2.13
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

and DCON quotes this verse without these verses that go with it:

2 Tim 2.11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]It is a trustworthy statement:For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
[SUP]12 [/SUP]If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
[SUP]13 [/SUP]If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.





This is why pages ago DCON told Stephen63 a person could even deny Jesus Christ and still be saved....because it is not the deniers perosnal faith that saves him, but the gift of Faith from God, which Jesus' own perosnal faith, which saves you....This is why he also says that OT saints were saved the same way we are...because saving faith is not perosnal and to be exercised on a perosnal basis unto perosnal belief, but it is a gift from God, and it is Jesus' own personal faith that saves you...

giving that consideration, it would be a no brainer than to speak as he does that Cain was a work for it guy who had faith in his own works...it is a no brainer then to go on and on that no matter what you do, even deny Jesus and you will be OK...because Jesus faith has to complete what it started....

He cites Peter, yet fails to see Peter was under the Old Covenant ,when he denied Jesus...the New covenant enforces that if you deny him he will deny us....Just as Jesus said through Paul above in 2 Tim 2.12 and also himself in Matt 10.33-
[SUP]33 [/SUP]But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.


If it was all Jesus faith then he never had to die.....This theology was taught in many seminaries decades ago....and in some it still is....this theology disregards the Old Covenant....and places personal saving faith solely on Jesus....and for me, this disregards Bible truth, that God has given every man a measure of perosnal saving faith...and most importantly that Faith comes from hearing and hearing from the Word of God...

Am not questioning what you are saying here...but can you produce those statements? I came into this later than others. And if true...we could hash them out with scripture. But, not by offense. Even if others offend, we can choose how we respond.

 

[Magenta]

Am not questioning what you are saying here...but can you produce those statements? I came into this later than others. And if true...we could hash them out with scripture. But, not by offense. Even if others offend, we can choose how we respond.

The part we play is repentance unto salvation. I doubt very much that DCon denies that. We grow in our faith which is placed in Jesus Christ, and His work on our behalf, to bring us out from under the penalty accorded by the law, which Jesus fulfilled on our behalf. The contention thereafter always seems to be, do works henceforth save us, or keep us saved? It seems we all agree that we are saved to do good works. The issue then becomes one of certain people claiming they do good works and others don't, as if they knew! They see resting in Christ as dong nothing. Some even claim to be sinless, and will say if any still sin they are not saved.