Yamil wrote:
Hi.
Since I am a firm believer in prayer, I ask that some would pray for me as I am going through a deep trial of despair. Sometimes hope can only be attained through the prayer of the saints.
This I covet.
Thanks in advance.

JD wrote:
And, as far as you recommending my permanant removal, I would remind you that I pay to be on here. I am a Plus member.

I am sure Sermonaudio will gladly refund your money.

JD wrote:
What I need to know from you fellas is if you believe the text is teaching the Messiah is a Roman instead of a Jew? Or are you teaching that the Jews destroyed the Holy city, Jerusalem? You must answer this question before we can go on because this is how the text reads.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Cut off means kille and he was cut off the very last day of the 69th week. That ended the 69th week of the prophecy but it did not begin the 70th week.
The people who destroyed the city after the 69th week were Romans. They did it before the prophecied prince came. The confirmation of the covenant by that prince begins the 70th week.

PILUT wrote:
Uh, isn't "threescore and two" weeks 62 weeks, not 69?

You are trying to cut him off during the 69 weeks, not after. That is my argument. The text says what it says.

I would encourage you to listen to a great sermon that explains where I am coming from.

"And ***AFTER*** threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27. And he shall *** CONFIRM THE COVENANT *** with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

JD wrote:
This pictured the pouring out of the Holy Ghost, who is typified as water and when he was poured out it was in such abundance that all Israel could be immersed and were commanded to be Acts 2:38 with plenty left over to immerse the gentiles as well.

By your analogy it would be by the pouring of water, totally covering, making fully wet the one being baptized.

JD wrote:
Now, if you insist that the giving of the Holy Spirit is a two-stage affair, like you are implying, you must show where the Scripture teaches that and then make the application in this affair.

Act 2:1-4 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

There you are JD, First stage, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (John 20:21-22) and stage 2, the filling of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:1-4)

"The doctrine is none other than the familiar Calvinist one of "perseverance of the saints," commonly expressed by that snidely presented query: "Are you saved, brother"?

The teaching is totally unbiblical and untraditional. In other words, it isn't Christian. Yet, many who call themselves Christian, especially in America, hold this doctrine and make it a major part of their religion. Various Baptist and Presbyterian sects hold it as revealed truth, as do countless nondenominational, independent "Bible Churches" influenced by these larger sects."

JD should know that the sin of presumption is a bunch of bunk.

1 John 5:10-13 is the passage widely used by even fundamental Baptist to give assurance of salvation.

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

"The Council Of Trent against the Protestant revolutionaries proclaims as a matter of dogmatic faith (De fide)

'For, just as no pious person should doubt the mercy of God, the merits of Christ, and the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, so every one, when he considers himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may entertain fear and apprehension as to his own grace, since NO ONE can know with the certainity of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God." (D 802)

Perhaps JD's doctrines are more in line with the Roman Catholics than we thought.

[URL=http://www.catholicism.org/apologetics-devilsdoctrine.html]]]The Devil's Doctrine —By Brother André Marie, M.I.[/URL]

"There is a doctrine so diabolical, so sinister and wicked that it deserves, in this author's opinion, a unique claim to the name "The Devil's Doctrine." This teaching is sheer poison to the soul which embraces it...It either throws the sinner into a bottomless despair for his sins, or (more often today) it forces him into another sin against the virtue of hope: the deadly sin of presumption ..."

Romans 10:10 tells us that belief comes from the heart, not in the head. One can only come to a heart belief when the heart is changed. The natural heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Something has to happen to that heart to turn it around. God literally has to break it, plow it up, till it and prepare it to receive the seed, which is the word of God.

That is what JD and his group reject, the inner working of God's power to change the heart of the sinner to bring him to repentance and faith in the gospel. When God changes the condition of the heart, the sinner will see his sins in a new light and hate the sin. He will see his utter depravity and see he has no ability to save himself and will see that Christ was his only subsitute and then saving faith comes in to play.

JD wrote:
We are not making this about me.

JD wrote:
You need to show how the text supports this. Moreover, you need to show why it doesn't since this is your claim. The inner working of God's grace (God's grace is salvation in the person of the Holy Spirit) was received later after he believed.

You are avoiding the question

So JD, do you deny that it was the inner working of the Holy Spirit in your heart to bring you to saving faith and belieing the gospel?

Scripture tells us that there is NONE righteous, there is NONE that understandeth, there is NONE that seeketh after God. That included Cornelius as well as yourself. The only reason why Cornelius was able to seek after God in the way that he did was because of the inner working of God's grace to draw him. God was in control from start to finish. I know that is a concept that is foreign to fundamental baptist. They want to be the ones in charge and control of their salvation.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Hi Lone Wolf. I saw your greeting me personally a few days ago. I hope all is well with you.
So, before Cornelius came to faith, was he being drawn by God when God was saying to send for Peter? Just a thought.

Is that the intent of your posting of the account of Cornelius to disprove that God is sovereign in the calling and salvation of sinners? All you are doing is the same as you accuse MurrayA of doing and that is discrediting the Word of God and elevating your secular humanistic philosophy.

I went so far as to list the fruits of a repentent heart when the Holy Spirit works in the heart of a sinner and all you did was mocked and scoffed at it.

Is that the fruits of a true believer JD?

I noticed you didn't bother to answer my question back to Mike.

Was it

JD wrote:
Eddy F and Lone Wolf have 8 days left to present a single verse in Scripture that says faith is the gift of God.

Mike from NY asked a good series of questions of which I answered. Perhaps you may want to give it a shot.

Mike wrote:
Are we not being distracted away from these questions by thoughts of "systems"? It is a bit curious that the questions aren't being addressed. If a system includes the answers, they should be in there someplace. How did a totally unable dead man, who did not yet have the Spirit, receive and obey instruction?

I replied
Either by:
A) Cornelius' own power and ability
B) God's sovereign power and grace

I choose B.

What is your choice?

If you isolate the text from the rest of scripture as with the dispensationalist/hyper-dispensationalist, you could conclude A.

If you take the passage in light of the whole of scripture (John 6:44), you can conclude B.