General Call or Free Offer?

[the particular baptist]

...how can it be good news if The Gospel both saves and damns ?

2Corinthians 2:14-17

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.



This passage speaks for itself.

By the way, i mis-clicked the poll. My answer according to 2Corinthians 2:14-17 the general proclamation of the gospel.

 

[JustAsIam77]

LOUIS BERKHOF​

(20th Century American Presbyterian Theologian)​

"We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance…The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation of all those who accept Christ by faith. This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion. Moreover it is contingent on a faith and repentance such as can only be wrought in the heart of man by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each one… It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonise the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately… " (Systematic Theology BOT p.397-398)​

LORRAINE BOETTNER​

(20th Century American Presbyterian Theologian. Famous for his definitive work on Roman Catholicism)​

"The decree of election is a secret decree. And since no revelation has been given to the preacher as to which ones among his hearers are elect and which are non elect, it is not possible for him to present the Gospel to the elect only. It is his duty to look with hope on all those to whom he is preaching, and to pray for them that they may each be among the elect. In order to offer the message to the elect, he must offer it to all; and the Scripture command is plain to the effect that it should be offered to all. Even the elect must hear before they can believe and accept, Romans 10:13-17" (Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Eerdmans p.285)​

[URL="http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/g...alvinists.html"]http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/g...alvinists.html​

[/URL]

Thank you for the quotes, especially Boettner, one of my favorite authors.

 

[JM]

Common grace has nothing to do with salvation. It has to do with allowing the reprobate to live for awhile without punishment.

It only saves the elect who believe it. It damns the reprobate further because he rejects it even in the face of being told the outcome.

Yup.

 

[JM]

2Corinthians 2:14-17

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

This passage speaks for itself.

Good point.

 

[JM]

Again, denying that the Gospel is an offer does not mean we deny the free proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[the particular baptist]

Again, denying that the Gospel is an offer does not mean we deny the free proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[cygnusx1]

2Corinthians 2:14-17

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.



This passage speaks for itself.

By the way, i mis-clicked the poll. My answer according to 2Corinthians 2:14-17 the general proclamation of the gospel.

it isn't the Gospel that damns men , its sin and Gods Law . The Good News isn't bad news (ever) the seed sown by the sower is the same , the effect is different sure , depending upon the ground being prepared .

The same sun that softens hardens .

 

[cygnusx1]

Having compassion on reprobates isn't in opposition to God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

we might be getting somewhere , so you agree that God has comapssion on reprobates ? how ?

when you desire a family member to be saved , say for example your Mum and Dad , do you pray "Lord save them" ? Do you desire them saved even if you think God desires them damned ?

If you think God has some desire to save them , then you can be assured when you pray you are INLINE with the will of God .

But if you doubt when praying , then expect nothing ....

If you believe God doesn't in any way desire the salvation of your parents then you are in fact at war with God , you desire something He is opposed to.

Lastly , if you pray not knowing Gods will , you hope He will save , then how can you hope He will save when He might just as well have no desire to save ? where is the assurance ? where is the compassion ?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

we might be getting somewhere , so you agree that God has comapssion on reprobates ? how ?

when you desire a family member to be saved , say for example your Mum and Dad , do you pray "Lord save them" ? Do you desire them saved even if you think God desires them damned ?

If you think God has some desire to save them , then you can be assured when you pray you are INLINE with the will of God .

But if you doubt when praying , then expect nothing ....

If you believe God doesn't in any way desire the salvation of your parents then you are in fact at war with God , you desire something He is opposed to.

Lastly , if you pray not knowing Gods will , you hope He will save , then how can you hope He will save when He might just as well have no desire to save ? where is the assurance ? where is the compassion ?

We're not omniscient so we don't know the end results and have no right to judge a person because we don't know enough. So we pray for everyone to be saved. We have compassion on all men hoping they are elect.

God displays compassion and kindness in common grace to everyone, however common grace doesn't extend to salvation. Salvation only comes by way of God's election in eternity past, God's work of regeneration, and is applied by the gift of faith and repentance in the believer. If a man wasn't elected to salvation in eternity past he cannot be saved. Nor, will he ever want to be saved. He is an eternal enemy of God, a reprobate. God doesn't revoke his own decrees nor does he waste blood and energy on fighting his own decrees. If he has decreed reprobation for a man that man is damned from eternity past. God is always on God's side.

 

[cygnusx1]

We're not omniscient so we don't know the end results and have no right to judge a person because we don't know enough. So we pray for everyone to be saved. We have compassion on all men hoping they are elect.

God displays compassion and kindness in common grace to everyone, however common grace doesn't extend to salvation. Salvation only comes by way of God's election in eternity past, God's work of regeneration, and is applied by the gift of faith and repentance in the believer. If a man wasn't elected to salvation in eternity past he cannot be saved. Nor, will he ever want to be saved. He is an eternal enemy of God, a reprobate. God doesn't revoke his own decrees nor does he waste blood and energy on fighting his own decrees. If he has decreed reprobation for a man that man is damned from eternity past. God is always on God's side.

then what grounds do you have for supposing God would want you to pray to Him to save your entire family ? why bother?

furthermore , what grounds do you yourself have for trusting in Christ if Christ is only for the elect ? How do you get saved if you didn't know you were elect ? How did you get saved if there is no general "offer" of salvation ?

At least the hyper calvinists go all the way , they recognise the point that if God has no Gospel for everyone , if the Gospel is "only for the elect" they , being eager to remain consistant look to whom they preach , they actually look to preach only to the elect (sensible sinners) and they avoid at every cost sharing the Gospel with the none-elect because , as you have said , "there is no Gospel for them" ........


the inconsistancy arises where you have men preach the Gospel to everyone and believe God doesn't have something good for everyone , there you will find a massive discrepency , the same as when you desire a person or persons saved (Romans 9) all the time thinking God wants the opposite , you want them spared but you believe God doesn't ....... Jonah had the opposite problem!

and its really no good saying , "but we don't know who are elect , we don't know who to pray for , we don't know who to preach the Gospel to " because this endeavour will be met with inner doubt and no faith , and even great conflict , it really leaves the Christian in a hopeles situation where he is left stifled and his testimony , his witness is severely compromised .

to think , God wants men to preach salvation to all indiscriminately , to pray for all men (indiscriminately) but God really only wants to save the elect and only wishes to answer your prayers on behalf of the elect makes praying and witnessing look a mockery .... it makes it look like God is asking you to do something He is not prepared to do , in fact it makes it look like God who sent out evangelists is at war with himself.

I am glad you believe in "common grace" at least you haven't gone all the way over , usually Calvinists (if they are) who deny Free-Offer also deny Common Grace.

There is a direct link between common grace and saving Grace , one is used as leverage for the other ;

Romans 2

 

[cygnusx1]

JOHN BUNYAN
(Famous 17th Century English Independent Preacher and author of Pilgrim's Progress)
"The gospel must be preached to sinners, as they are sinners, without distinction of elect and reprobate, because neither the one nor yet the other (as considered under these simple acts) are fit subjects to embrace the Gospel - for neither the one act nor yet the other doth make either of them sinners - but the Gospel is to be tendered to men as they are sinners and personally under the curse of God for sin; wherefore to proffer grace to the elect because they are elect, it is the proffer grace and mercy to them not considering them as sinners…Thus you see the gospel is to be tendered to all in general, as well to the reprobate as to the elect, to sinners as sinners: and so are they to receive it and close with the tenders thereof." (Reprobation Asserted Chapter 9 Treasury of Bunyan p.709-710 Baker House)



"The grace that is offered to sinners as sinners, without respect to this or that person, it is a sufficiency of righteousness, pardoning grace, and life, laid up in the person of Christ, held forth in the exhortation and word of the gospel, and promised to be theirs that receive it…Neither is it (the reason why the natural man does not receive the things of God) because the reprobate is not excluded in the tender, for that is universal." (Reprobation Asserted Chapter 10 Treasury of Bunyan p.710-711 Baker House)

 

[JM]

I do deny that grace is common. Grace, by it's very nature...is uncommon. What you call "common" I call divine providence or restraining grace.

SermonAudio.com - 2. Common Grace: Is it Biblical?

You cut and paste...my turn:

A Brief Answer to Common Grace

Rev. Robert Harbach

1. Brief answer to the First Point of Common Grace:
   1. In the first point, the Christian Reformed Church adopted two dogmas:
      1. The first we may call the dogma of Common Grace. It teaches that God is gracious to all men in bestowing upon them the things of this present time, such as rain and sunshine, and all earthly things. This is what Synod meant when it spoke of a grace of God to "all creatures."
      2. The second we may call the dogma of Universal Grace. According to it, God is gracious in the preaching of the gospel to all that hear. This is what Synod meant when it referred to Canons II:5 and III-IV:8 and 9, and the "general offer" of the Gospel.
   2. As to the dogma of Common Grace:
      1. The Confessions do not express themselves on this point, although they do attribute the term "common grace" to the Arminians in Canons III-IV:5.
      2. It is, however, contrary to Scripture, which plainly teaches that God hates the wicked reprobates and that He uses even the things of the present time to their destruction. See the following: Psa. 5:5; Psa. 11:5; Psa. 73:17-20; Psalm 92:5-7; Prov. 3:33; Mal. 1:2-4; Rom. 9:13; I Pet. 3:12.
      3. The truth is that grace is not in things. All things are but means which God uses to the salvation of the righteous (elect) while He uses them to the destruction and damnation of the wicked (reprobate). And, because men also use these means as rational, moral creatures, they are responsible. Things are certainly common but grace is never common.
   3. As to the theory of Universal Grace:
      1. This is surely not proven by the passages from the Confession to which the Synod of 1924 referred. Canons II:5 merely teaches the general preaching of the gospel that is particular in contents. Canons III-IV:8 teaches that what God proclaims in the Gospel is unfeigned, that it is pleasing to Him that the called should come to Him and that He promises eternal life to them that come (the elect). Canons III-IV:9 emphasizes that the guilt of not coming is wholly the sinner's.
      2. Nor is this proven by the texts Synod quoted. Romans 2:4 merely teaches that the wicked despise the goodness of God that leads man to repentance. And Ezekiel 33:11 teaches that God has pleasure in the wicked that repents, and that is always the elect.
      3. The doctrine that God is gracious in the preaching of the Gospel to all that hear the preaching of it is, however:
         1. Contrary to the Reformed Confessions which plainly teach that God is gracious to the elect only: See Canons 1:6; II:8; III-IV:10; V:8, and Rejection of Errors II:6.
         2. Contrary to Scripture: Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:13; Romans 9:16; II Cor. 2:15-16; Mark 4:11-12; Matth. 11:25-26; John 12:39-40.
2. Brief Answer to the Second Point of Common Grace:
   1. The meaning of the Second Point:
      1. The second point of 1924 does not teach that God holds the sinner in His power, so that he cannot do anything against the will and providence of God. This is plainly taught in the Bible and in the Belgic Confession, Art. 13.
      2. But the second point teaches:
         1. That there is a gracious operation of the Holy Spirit which is not regenerating on the heart and mind and will of the sinner.
         2. That this operation commenced immediately after the fall and continues all through history.
         3. That as a result there is in man a remnant of his original goodness, so that he is not as depraved as he would be without this operation.
         4. That, because of this operation, the natural man is able to live a relatively good life in this life, and do good in the sphere of the world.
   2. Objection to the Second Point:
      1. The proof adduced by Synod for this point does not hold:
         1. From Scripture the Synod quoted the following passages: Gen. 6:3; Psa. 81:11-12; Acts 7:42; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; II Thess. 2:6-7; Concerning these passages we note:
            1. Only one speaks of the Holy Spirit at all, namely, Gen. 6:3. However, the text does not speak of a restraining by the Spirit, but of a striving. This took place through the Word of God by the prophets.
            2. None of them speak of a restraint of sin.
            3. Three of them speak of the very opposite of restraint, namely, of a delivering over into sin by the wrath of God. See: Psa. 81:11-12; Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; Acts 7:42.
            4. II Thess. 2:6-7 does not refer to the Holy Spirit as is plain from the text itself.
         2. As to the proof adduced from the Confessions:
            1. Belgic Conf., Art. 13, does not speak of an influence of the Holy Spirit, but of the Providential power of God; nor of an inward restraint of sin, but the restraint of sinners and devils.
            2. Art. 36 does not speak of an influence of the Spirit but of the power of the police or magistrate.
      2. The Second Point itself is contrary to Scripture and the Confessions:
         1. To Scripture:
            1. It postulates a remnant of good in natural man, which is contrary to all those passages of Holy Writ that speak of the depravity of the natural man. For these, see the discussion under Point III.
            2. Scripture teaches directly the opposite from the main tenant of the Second Point when it declares that God delivers men over into ever greater corruption by His wrath. See: Rom. 1:24-28; Psalm 51:5.
         2. To the Confessions: Canons III-IV:4 speaks of "remnants of natural light." These remnants are not due to an operation of Common Grace. Even with these remnants, however, the natural man is still wholly depraved and incapable of doing any good even in things natural and civil.
3. Brief Answer to the Third Point:
   1. The meaning of the third point:
      1. The meaning of the third point of 1924 is not:
         1. That the natural man through the remnants of natural light that are left in him after the fall is able to distinguish between good and evil; has some knowledge of God and of things natural.
         2. That the natural man is able to see that the law of God is good for himself, and that, therefore, there is on his part an attempt to live in outward conformity with that law.
         3. That the third point does not intend to express this is evident from:
            1. The fact that the deposed ministers taught exactly this before 1924. It was this view which Synod condemned.
            2. The fact that no special influence of the grace of God is necessary to explain these things in the natural man. The confessions explain them as remnants of natural light. Synod, however, speaks of an influence of God on the natural man, whereby he is able to do civil righteousness.
            3. From the evident connection between the second and third points.
      2. But the third point teaches:
         1. That there is an influence of God, of the Holy Spirit, on the mind and will of the natural man, which is not regenerating, but improves him.
         2. That because of this influence, he is able to live a relatively good life in this world, and his works are not always sinful before God.
   2. Objections to the third point:
      1. It is contrary to the Reformed Confessions:
         1. The proof from the confessions to which Synod referred does not hold:
            1. Canons III-IV:4:
               1. Speaks of a remnant of natural light and not of an influence of God on the natural man.
               2. It emphasizes that even in things natural and civil the natural man wholly pollutes this natural light and holds it in unrighteousness.
            2. Netherlands Confession, Art. 36:
               1. Does not speak of any good that the natural man can do, but of a good order and decency which God establishes among men.
               2. Nor does it refer to an influence of God on the natural man, but to the power of the magistrates.
         2. For proof from the confessions to the contrary, see: Heidelberg Catechism, L.D. III,Q. 8; L.D. 33, Q. 91; Belgic Confession, Art. 14; Canons III-IV:1-4.
      2. It is contrary to Scripture:
         1. Synod tried to sustain the Third Point by the following passages:
            1. II Kings 10:29-30. (But Jehu saw in God's commandment a means to satisfy his own ambition, and very well executes the command--but becomes blood- guilty in doing so, and does not depart from the ways of Jeroboam (See Hosea l).
            2. II Kings 12:2 and 14:3. (At best the examples of Jehoash and Amaziah prove an attempt to live in outward conformity to the law. In the case of Jehoash this was under the influence of a godly priest.)
            3. Luke 6:33. (a proof that sinners do no good and have no reward.)
            4. Romans 2:14. (The work of the law in the hearts of the Gentiles--not the law itself.)
         2. For proof to the contrary, that is, for positive proof from Scripture that the unregenerate cannot do good, see: Psalm 14:1-3; Matt. 7:16-20; Romans 1:28- 32; and Romans 3:9-18.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now I ask that we get back to the subject.

 

[JM]

the inconsistancy arises where you have men preach the Gospel to everyone and believe God doesn't have something good for everyone

Simply not true. If you read the link you provide you would have found the following:

whybother
If this non Reformed argument carried any weight, then we could also logically ask:

1) WHY BOTHER VOTING? The Bible says that the powers that be are ordained of God (Romans 13:1) God says, By Me, king's reign and princes decree justice (Proverbs 8:15) The Most High rules in the Kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever He will (Daniel 4:25) and that he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Daniel 4:35) He ordained that Tony Blair would be the British Prime Minister again after the last election, that George W. Bush would defeat John Kerry in America and Bertie Ahern, here in Ireland, would be returned to Dail Eireann. He ordained the exact number of votes each candidate would get and who would vote and who wouldn't and why they so voted and why they didn't. He ordained the exact number of die hard voters each election would have, the not so dedicated ones and the "floating voters" who judge each election and candidate on its merit. Although there were many devices in a man's heart - and there is nothing like a good hard fought electioneering campaign to bring them out - nevertheless the counsel of the LORD stood (Proverbs 19:21) and there was absolutely no chance that it would be overthrown. There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD. (Proverbs 21:30) This applies to good men getting into power and evil men - the final result is ordained of God.

Do we quit voting? Do we disenfranchise ourselves? Do we say "Why bother voting?" when the result is not only known in Heaven but also ordained? No we don't. We go out and we exercise our democratic rights, because we believe that God uses our votes to put the men whom He has ordained into power. He ordains the means as well as the end. We vote to put good men in and to keep bad men out. Our vote in itself may not amount to very much. Millions of other people with other agendas have the exact same voting power in the same election, but nevertheless, we know that every vote counts, especially when it is joined by others for the same candidate(s) Nor does it negate our responsibility to vote according to our God instructed conscience. We ought to think twice about voting for those who are determined to push through God dishonouring agendas etc., We will give an account to God where we put our "X" on voting day. But if we applied this argument against Calvinism then we would argue that it is useless to vote.

2) WHY BOTHER PRAYING? God knows what we have need of before we ask (Matthew 6:8) He declares in the most definite of language, And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. (Isaiah 65:24)

Do we quit praying? Do you cancel the prayer meeting in our church? Do we refuse to go through all that getting alone privately into the closet and struggling against the flesh and the devil and all the distractions, when God knows everything and has already ordained the outcome? Do we ignore the prayer cards of missionaries with their well ordered and specified little lists of prayer requests? Do we throw away your books like EM Bounds on "Power through Prayer" and have no regard for the great prayer warriors whose praise in the churches? No we don't. We pray because God ordains the means as well as the end. We obey the precepts to pray, noting the additional instructions like "ought always" (Luke 18:1) and "without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17) We note the great examples which are given in Scripture (Acts 12:5/2 Thessalonians 1:3) and the great promises (James 5:17) and we pray. But if we applied this argument against Calvinism then we would argue that it is useless pray.

3) WHY BOTHER SOWING? God says that the harvest will not cease (Genesis 8:22)

Do we quit ploughing the fields and sowing the seed and getting it watered and trying the keep the birds away? Do we just stand in our field or in our garden and think positively that the harvest will not cease and wait for the green shoots to appear? No, we don't. We notice that Genesis 8:22 says that seedtime and harvest will not fail. We only reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7) We read the Book of Proverbs about the satisfying lot of the diligent man and the blasted loss of the sluggard, noting that the sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. (Proverbs 20:4) We take the time to sow the seed etc., because God ordains the means as well as the end. If we scatter but a few seeds, we will reap but a few sheaves (2 Corinthians 9:6) but if we applied the argument that is applied against Calvinism, then we will smirk at those who argue that we must sow in order to reap.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I am glad you believe in "common grace" at least you haven't gone all the way over , usually Calvinists (if they are) who deny Free-Offer also deny Common Grace.

There is a direct link between common grace and saving Grace , one is used as leverage for the other ;

Romans 2

As stated before whosoever believes is elect. God has chosen to regenerate elect people during exposure to the gospel.

We who believe try to expose everyone to it. We pray for the salvation of others.

That doesn't mean everyone will be saved because there is indeed a reprobate that has no chance whatsoever of salvation under any circumstances at all because they are predestined to damnation and nothing will ever change that. God doesn't love the reprobate in a familial way at all. He has given them no grace unto salvation and he never will. They disobey as they were destined to do.

1 Peter 2:8 ESV
8 and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.


YouTube - Does God Love Everyone?

 

[the particular baptist]

it isn't the Gospel that damns men , its sin and Gods Law .

Look at it carefully without Fullerite presuppositions.

2Corinthians 2:14-17 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

God makes manifest the savor of His knowledge (the full gospel, not the will worship gospel, with no reservations) everywhere they proclaim it (as the Spirit leads, because it is God leading them, as He leads His true messengers today). For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.

All men including the elect are born in sin and under the law, but it doesnt damn the elect. And thats not all of it Paul says. He says the GOSPEL is a savor of life unto life to them that are saved and a savor of death to them that ARE perishing. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.

The gospel is to be proclaimed to all as the Spirit leads. According to Scriptural precedent the gospel is riveted only in the hearts of the spiritually hungry, thirsty, needy, burdened, heavy ladened, broken hearted, the prisoner, etc. Meaning, to those who by the grace of God are made to feel themselves spiritually bankrupt and poor.

Thanks to Fuller and his twisted duty faith teaching we have armies of empty notional professors in the world. Thanks to Fullers blasphemous teachings of the Atonement we have a world in which the vast majority of baptists are universal meaningless atonement fanatics, free will worshiping baptists.

 

[JM]

YouTube - Does God Love Everyone?

 

[cygnusx1]

slightly off topic ...


that has to be my most disliked youtube vid , saw it ages ago on this forum , real creepy guy , where is he now ? I recall someone posting he had been ousted as a preacher , was it over money or some other thing ?

btw , remember that guy who I used to argue with over these issues , he went from H - calvinist to Roman Catholic , can'r remember his name , he changed it a few times , he used to post on puritan board , wonder where he is now ?

 

[cygnusx1]

come to think of it , that video is the final straw , I'll stick with Bunyan , Spurgeon ,Pink and Calvin (and a hundred others including all the Puritans)

I am weary of Andrew Fuller bashing and all the insinuations that go with that , unemotionally unsubscribing .

 

[JM]

slightly off topic ...


that has to be my most disliked youtube vid , saw it ages ago on this forum , real creepy guy , where is he now ? I recall someone posting he had been ousted as a preacher , was it over money or some other thing ?

btw , remember that guy who I used to argue with over these issues , he went from H - calvinist to Roman Catholic , can'r remember his name , he changed it a few times , he used to post on puritan board , wonder where he is now ?

Yup, AV1611, Iosis or something like that and RJS were all the same guy. He eventually became Roman Catholic. I will admit cyg, Dr. Bob is a creepy guy...

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Dr. Bob is a creepy guy...

I agree. But he is right.

Creepy people can be right from time to time.