"Read for instance a post by Joel Beeke 12/20/07 10.28am
"It is critical to note that nowhere in Scripture is faith (or any other grace) represented as constituting some ground of merit for justification."

And to think he could have been our last President, or maybe a future one, with his "Baptist of the Year for 2007" award on the wall. I wonder if this aware is all a means to raise money?

I wonder what Baptist church he attends?

Well, after I posted the above, I did a quick google search and found this article. It answers all my questions:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e2247.htm

JD, please read your comments and tell me in english what you mean? Who is teaching this view that one cannot believe and the elect are not sinners?

If you are seriously representing that Calvinists teach this view, and hold to this doctrine, I would like to see Calvin's source document on this teaching. Perhaps you are not referring to Calvin, but someone else on the site.

I know of nobody that teaches that people cannot believe and the elect are not sinners. You might believe this is what is being taught, but since you pride yourself on rejecting all historical testimony of what Churches and Church Courts teach, beyond your local Baptist church, I'm not sure how to deal with this confusion.

http://apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieChristianLiberty.htm

http://www.covenanter.org/Antitoleration/antitoleration.htm

http://www.truecovenanter.com/anti_toleration/index.html

Chapter XX. Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience.

III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord, without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life[o].

"Remember Whitfield and Wesley disagreed on this subject but both were believers and God used them mightily in preaching the gospel."

Actually, I might have to disagree with you on this statement. From my study of both Whitfield and Wesley, I would say that Whitfield was preaching the true gospel of Christ and Wesley was preaching a false gospel.

Galatians 1-3 gives us some helpful distinctions that there is a difference.

Paul says, "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? ***Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?***"

Wesley caused more division in damage to the true gospel than anyone possibly in the history of the Christian church. His effects are spreading globally and a false gospel cannot be considered the same as a true gospel.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Christopher%20Love/FalesChristopherLifeDeathOfLove.htm

There is so much more evidence just now surfacing that will be published over the next few years on what happened during 1648-1651 and beyond, caused by Cromwell and the Independents, that will hopefully change many people's minds.

Remember when anyone says, "(because Cromwell was most liberal and believed in liberty of conscience)" to justify his murderous behavior, I would encourage you to read Rutherford and others on what they called, ***"pretended liberty of conscience"***.

Do you think that 1658-59 was still a period that could be considered after the time of Love was murdered, and Rutherford was writing this protest?

"In the last place, we do also, as ministers of the gospel, testify our dislike, that the civil powers, who now bear rule over this nation, should engross into their treasury, the legal settled maintenance of all the vacant churches into the land, and put the disposing thereof into the hands of a civil judicatory, without whose interventing approbation and warrant (notwithstanding of their being called by the congregation, and approven and admitted by the presbytery) none shall be authorized or admitted to any such vacant living or benefice, as is due to the ministry in Scotland, and that they do not allow them this approbation and warrant, until first they do declare under their hands, their purpose and resolution to live peaceably under the present government. (1.) Because this way is contrary unto the word of God."

Did you consider Cromwell an Independent or was he Angelican in your view?

Many forget about what happened to Love and almost happened to Samuel Rutherford.

"Love, a Presbyterian, obtained ordination in the Church of England after much difficulty. He would have had it easily in Scotland, but not without leaving England to live in Scotland, which he was loathe to do.

Because of his political leanings and involvements, he was arrested by Oliver Cromwell's forces for his alleged involvement with a plan to raise money for the restoration of the monarchy, a charge Love denied. He was arrested along with six other prominent ministers in London (all Presbyterians, the venerable Thomas Watson being the most noted), for treason. The rest were released after six months; Love was beheaded on Tower Hill, London on August 22, 1651."

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Christopher%20Love/ChristopherLove.htm

Murray, what date do you place the persecutions started?

Would you please remove the comments you made below about what I said? That is not what I said.

What I said was, "Goodwin and Nye provided the seeds which gave Cromwell the time with the Army" and "As I watched, however, I could not help but think about what the Erastians and Independents did to kill almost 18,000 Covenanters during the "killing times" across Scotland."

and, "...but people hate Calvin so much that they will kill as many as possible who subscribe to his teachings as we learned after the second reformation."

Please remove what you said that I said below. I NEVER SAID the independents were haters of Calvin's teachings. I NEVER SAID the Presbyterians and Independents were at each others throats and in regard to what the Erastians and Independents did is not a subject for this thread.

I can tell already you are a dishonest person without disclosing your name and making allegations of what I stated, and I if you want to get into a public debate on the topic let me know if you are a Pastor, an Elder or some sort of Scholar. I want to read your materials before I get into this information.

Who is said to have believed? Those who were appointed! Notice why it is that Lydia believes the gospel:

Acts 16:13-14 (NASB) And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."

Yes, I have read all their arguments that were published by the assembly against the Presbyterians, and have perhaps the only copy of the document completely "retyped" in e-text that I'm aware. It needs to be professionally edited and type set, and published. I hope to have it done this year.

I'm sure you have another opinion, and all I ask is that you give me some time to publish the materials before you come for my head. I used to be a flaming Independent until I read the arguments.

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue02/c_vs_s.htm

I've watched the argument on here for the past couple days but it is almost unwise to get back into the same facts and proofs.

As I watched, however, I could not help but think about what the Erastians and Independents did to kill almost 18,000 Covenanters during the "killing times" across Scotland. If you search Covenanters on YouTube there are some interesting video's there done by researchers in Scotland.

"David W. Bercot, an Anglican priest and an attorney, graduated from Stephen F. Austin State University and Baylor University School of Law. He is the author of Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up and is a member of the North American Patristics Society."

Some interesting comments from a few of the readers who make excellent points:

"And among the many citations of Tertullian in the book, there is no information about when they were made (before or after his conversion), so the profane reader is given some texts of Tertullian saying that prophecy ceased with the apostolic times in the entry "prophecy" and the opposite in the entry on "montanism". So another problem is that one cannot make much with all these citations taken out of their context. Profane readers are being mislead if they think that they learn much with such a book, they will rather grossly misinterpret the citations and build erroneous views." and

http://apuritansmind.com/HistoricalTheology/PatristicPeriod.htm

You will now begin posting quotes from Catholic dictionaries as fast as you do Scripture passages.

You are bluring the distinction between the ideas of free will, free agency and (what the theologians call) "the power of contrary choice."

Justin Martyr was absolutely consistent to what Calvinists teach when he concluded the passage you quoted, "I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault."

Again, Abigail, posting a bunch of quotes from Arminian web sites, or Catholic dictionaries is as foolish as you posting a bunch of Scripture passages without understanding what you are saying, or what the author is saying.

This must be an enormous heartbreak for any family, and I expect this has really hit you after these discussions. What can one say? I will try to share some hope.

As you know DB, it all boils down to Amazing Grace. As you might have seen with Abigail's posts, she believes that there is no original sin passed unto those born, but only a sin nature. She believes that we all have a perfect free will until we "choose" to sin, and infants cannot "choose" to sin without the knowledge of sin. They have to reach the age of accountability and before this point they are totally innocent and free from sin. This is the Pelagian, Arminian, Wesley and Finney error based upon Roman Catholicism.

However, this view would guarantee your great nephew based upon his innocent and sinless soul, as it is likely he did not know what sin meant and could commit no actual sin, and since original sin was not passed through natural generation from Adam he is guaranteed heaven.

Those quotes come from Wikipedia. Are you sure they are right? Who was the Wikipedia author, do you know?

Pelagius was not in agreement with the early church fathers on free will, according to Wikipedia. The Council of Orange made its ruling clear on the issuel, not Jerome (Roman Catholic monk).

"Pelagius' Doctrines of Sin and Grace

Pelagius believed in the power of the human will. "If I ought, I can." "As often as I have to speak of the principles of virtue and a holy life, I am accustomed first of all to call attention to the capacity and character of human nature and to show what it is able to accomplish; then from this to arouse the feelings of the hearer, the he may strive after different kinds of virtue." He denied Original Sin inherited from Adam, and affirmed that all men now have the power not to sin. Adam's sin merely set an ill example and many have been quick to follow."

http://www.aplacefortruth.org/creeds6.htm