An indonesian girl accepted the Lord as Savior last night. I told her that she must see herself as a sinner deserving hell. I also told her that God loved her. She bowed her head and asked the Lord to forgive her of her sins and to save her.

I have not heard of anyone else getting saved any other way.

Not even the Calvinist are bold enough to witness any differently than...

What they have to do is equivocate one word with another. Every known cult does exactly this.

To the Calvinist called means unconditional election.

Of course the only place one would find such a ridiculous definition is in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.

None of the verses that DB chose, state anything about arbitrariness, God choosing some to hell, that GOd loves only a few, or any other Calvinistic idea. It only has one word: "called"

When one's definition for called can only be found within one's theological camp, then it makes their theology highly suspect.

Can anyone tell me what definition on the face of this planet (including the Bible if you should think its a dictionary) defines called as "unconditional election"?

Three Questions wrote:
Three Hard Questions (for free-will believers)

1. The love of God is demonstrated in the fact that he offers everyone the opportunity to be saved if they should place saving faith on the finished work of Christ.

2. God willed for everyone to have the same opportunity for salvation, not just a few lucky few. He is the one that willed the plan and the willed its conditions.

3. For God so loved the world. The cross makes it possible for anyone to be saved. Without it noone can ever be saved.

Now three easy Questions for Calvinist.

1. If God loves only a few, why does he simply state this simple truth in his word?

2. If God willed unconditional election, why does he not simply state it in his word?

Discerning Believer wrote:
Yamil, so I take it that you do not believe inthe imminent return of Christ to rapture his church, but that it couldn't have taken place until some 1900 years have elapsed.

derek wrote:
WOMI - sorry to butcher pastor P's name. My ancestors were a few thousand miles north of Italy, so the ability to spell some Italian names just isn't in my jeans
Would SA let you put some of his messages on here? Especially the series on demons. Most wouldn't understand though...as I don't fully. My brother would tell me things and I would just think "no way, not in the USA". But then I visited the loving city and the oppression came on me about 30 minutes outside of the city - and I wasn't even a Christian yet, and could feel it!!

Discerning Believer wrote:
Any moment? What after the fulfillement of the seven church periods. That is not at any moment Yamil. Any moment means just that "any moment". Even as a fundamentalist I was taught that there were no prophecies that needed to be fulfilled passed the destruction of the temple in 70AD before the rapture of the church. It could happen at any moment. Then here comes the dispensationalist like Larkin saying that seven church periods have to be fulfilled before the rapture can take place. Sounds like even fundamentalist are divided on this issue. The imminent return was taught in the first century, they were watching and waiting.

Never met a man that walks with God the way he does.

Discerned Believer wrote:
So did the followers of David Koresh and Jim Jones and you saw the outcome of that. Even David Cloud, whom I respect dearly, had an article that said that one of the problems that plague the IFB is "blind loyalty".
BTW, did those Catholics who you led to the Lord recently ever come to church and follow the Lord in believer's baptism and joined your church?

That's the difference between I and the Calvinist.

BTW, yes they came to believer's Baptism and are members of my church.

Just because you decided to attend a messed up Baptist church, does not mean that all Baptist churches are messed up.

Is SA having a mood swing again?

Oh, maybe its the new Java Script that they have been working on I am the guinea pig.

Nope, it did not work. I am still posting. You see.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Is that why your subjects are under bondage to comply and believe 100% what you tell them to believe and are not allowed liberty of soul and conscience to read scripture and study it for themselves?

Just because you do not seek unity in spirit in your church does not mean that others do not.

By "hidden" he means "not understood." He certainly does not mean the same "hidden" that Calvinist attributes to unconditional election.

If God is sovereign, he would have to be sovereign in his Word to.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Opposing the A_rmed I_)!@^$, the Calvinist knows that there are also more verses of scripture than John 3:16 that help us to understand the meaning of the word "world". For example:

For a pastor, you sure have a foul mouth.
________________________________________

Jago,

I do not place a microchip inside my kids brain and program them to say what I want them to say. Neither does my God do so to His children.

I happen to believe that God is so omnipotent that free will serves no threat to his sovereignty.

To the Calvinist, the sovereignty of God is simply a theological excercise. For when one really scrutinizes their faith, there is not really an area of their life where they actually place it into practice. It's only theory that allows them feel good about themselves.

It's kinda like when James state that faith without works is dead. They claim they believe something but when one looks for the practical application of their faith in their lives, they betray their very position!

DB wrote:
Mike, I'll throw out the same argument that Yamil and JD uses. Does Joshua 24:15 specifically state that you choose God for salvation or service.

What it does state is that man has the ability to choose.