JD wrote:
you deny it by saying God says Christ died for some of all men and all of some men, that he died for a few men and that he died for few men when God has nowhere said that

… I lay down my life for the sheep.
(Joh 10:15)

… JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
(Mat 1:21)

… even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Eph 5:25)

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(Isa 53:11)

… and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
(Isa 53:12)

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many…
(Heb 9:28)

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
(Joh 17:2)

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
(Mat 20:28)

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Mat 26:28)

rogerant wrote:
I am not trying to say that Arminius was "Reformed".

rogerant wrote:
He shared with the "Reformers" total depravity, substitutionary atonement, imputed righteousness,

This is not reform teaching.

Arminius said he believed in substitutionary atonement but by saying Christ died for all men he did not believe this.

This is not reform teaching

Arminius said he believed in imputed righteousness but what he believed was that "faith, and faith only, is imputed for righteousness. By this alone are we justified before God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declared RIGHTEOUS by God…"

“Arminius did not object to saying, "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us," but he did object to saying that "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness." He wanted to avoid saying that Christ's righteousness is a cloak over our unrighteousness. He believed that in the imputation of Christ's righteousness we are partakers in Christ.”

rogerant wrote:
There is a slight distinction between the Reformed Arminian view and the Wesleyan Arminian view in respect to Wesley's view of Wesleyan Perfection in sanctification.

"Deprivation - Human beings are sinful and without God, incapable (deprived) on their own of being righteous; however, they are not irredeemably sinful and can be transformed by God’s grace; God's prevenient grace restores to humanity the freedom of will.

Conditional Election - God has chosen that all humanity be righteous by His grace, yet has called us to respond to that grace by exercising our God-restored human freedom as a condition of fulfilling election.

Unlimited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement are freely available to all those whom He has chosen, which includes all humanity, "whosoever will."

rogerant wrote:
They are Reformed Arminian (Wesleyan),

Mike wrote:
Notice the progression. First chicken, then egg.

In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters, to the end of time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem…Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (see 2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God…He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God…The result of [Ribera's] work was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth …Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) followed Francisco Ribera. Through the work of these two tricky Jesuit scholars, a brand new baby was born named "Jesuit Futurism." In fact, Francisco Ribera has been called the Father of Futurism.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Dr. Phil
Sola Scriptura
Interesting exchange.
Allow me to ask, 'If God hardened Pharoah's heart (wasn't this AFTER Pharoah had first hardened his own heart against God?)

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
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.

(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) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(Rom 9:11-13)

Andrew wrote "Why would God STRIVE with people throughout the ages with His prophets of old if he had already predestinated them to Hell"

Walt wrote:
... He did not have any of Owen’s works except from volume 6 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is a tragedy. Owen takes great care in explaining Covenant Theology in his Works. ...

And besides all this, Owen has a classic treatment which destroys the Preby view of the covenants .. For example he does not view Sinai as a dispensation of the Covenant of grace, he views it as a purely legal covenant!! The linkage that the Presbys try to make between the Old and New covenants is completely destroyed by Owen!!

How then, you may ask, does Owen retain the baptism of infants? Well, interesting question and you would have to read Owen for yourself to determine that!

Walt wrote:

"....2) Baptism is a sign and seal that signifies the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. The two kinds of people to receive baptism are the elect (as in #1 above) and infants (but only through one or both covenanted and Christian Parents). We believe infants and small children are to be covenanted into the Visible Church, but there is no regeneration that takes place. Like circumcision of infants, they were part of visible chosen people of God, but circumcision was not a guarantee of regeneration or salvation."

So what is the point of this rite? And when you say the "chosen people of God", chosen in what sense? You then say they must be the children of one or both covenanted Christian parents.. where do you get this from in the scriptures? And please show each element viz. that they have to have covenanted and that they must be Christian.

Following on from that, would you then say that only the children of such parents who die in infancy are elected because they are covenant children?

Walt wrote:
....2) Baptism is a sign and seal that signifies the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. The two kinds of people to receive baptism are the elect (as in #1 above) and infants (but only through one or both covenanted and Christian Parents). We believe infants and small children are to be covenanted into the Visible Church, but there is no regeneration that takes place. Like circumcision of infants, they were part of visible chosen people of God, but circumcision was not a guarantee of regeneration or salvation.

Following on from that, would you then say that only the children of such parents who die in infancy are elected because they are covenant children?

Walt wrote:
...When I said that anyone who uses historical testimony to interpret Scripture is plain ignorant on how to interpret Scripture, it is consistent with what we agreed on above.

Walt wrote:
...you reject my views that those who have been called by God to interpret Scripture are faithful courts. In Presbyterianism, this is defined as the Session, Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly....

Walt wrote:
...You won't find a Presbyterian rejecting historical testimony as a subordinate standard, as we use them all the time as an aide and help to understanding.

Walt wrote:
..RK made a good point and I would hold to this point as well, even if it gets you three guys (ML, Uh..Oh & MurrayA) all upset over this issue at hand.

So what is the difference between archealogical evidence which has to be interpreted, and histroical evidence which is also open to interpretation!!

You do talk such drivel! You say you have read the article and agree with it, but then press for exactly the thing that is condemned by it!

Walt wrote:
....I know there is a lot of money with these new and improved manuscripts, and that all these Jewish traditions are helpful to get yourselves on track, but nothing is more preferred than using Scripture with Scripture.

The issue is about authority and how are we to understand the question of authority when it comes to the Bible?

Neither I, nor to my knowledge, Murray would deny that scripture must be interpreted with scripture. What you seem to suggest is that we must take account of no other knowledge in interpreting scripture, which is plain rubbish! And if what you say is correct then we could take it to its extreme and even argue the most ridiculous viz. that no one should study new testament greek or old testament hebrew to interpret scripture!!

Walt wrote:
....anyone who is using ....historical testimony, to interpret Scripture are plain ignorant on how to interpret Scripture..

Walt wrote:
MurrayA wrote:
"Investigation of the Jewish background to the NT, and the Gospels in particular is a necessary part of the process of interpretation."
Hmmm, interesting. This is a Roman Catholic argument to the interpretation of Scripture. ....

What you are advocating is what JD does all the time and that is called "SOLO Scriptura", not "Sola Scriptura"!

There is a vast difference between these!

If you want to learn more, read:

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html]]]Critique of Solo Scriptura[/URL]

You are also inconsistent in this, because you will allow church history to inform doctrinal discussions, why not archeological findings etc.?!

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
I do not think that is a point of disagreement with us. For if I had the room, I can systematically take you from Genesis to Revelation and demonstrate to you with simple declarative statements how God desires all men to be saved.....

I would love to see your simple declarative statements from the Old Testament that God wants every single individual ever born to be saved . Just a few uncontroversial texts please.

"so believing everything is predestinated they never see their neeed to repent"