According sovereignty to him is not what pleases him, believing him is what pleases him.
Believing him when He says He's sovereign thus pleases him. Q.E.D.
I can not follow this logic...but....thanks for the tune!
So the logic of the irresistible summons in the future you don't understand, you only disagree with the logic of the irresistible summons here?
As long as the future's unyielding, it's ok. It's the unyielding present you disagree with?
Do events have an impact on your future or not?
I cannot judge the heart of any man and I am glad it is not I who assigns men to hell.
You have now shown a serious ignorance of Calvinism and Scripture on this point. I don't have to look at your heart to recognize the lack of facts you're displaying. Calvinists weren't the ones judging your heart.
But you were judging ours.
Apparently your assessment is the reverse of your judgment.
It's likely this isn't the first error in judgment you've made.
You're the one who's saying we're following a false Gospel. And according to Scripture, that's not simply a dangerous place to be. That's a non-salvific place to be.
Who's deceiving themselves about making assignments? You are, JDS.
These men you have mentioned are all calvinists from the reformation. You did not mention anyone previous to Calvin. Luther is not even among your selection. But I can judge what men say and I judge that all these men are preaching or have preached a doctrine (TULIP) that is not true. I do not doubt their sincerity and dedication but I do question their understanding.
You just assigned yourself the arbiter of truth. You're not.
You are a prime example of one who has been taught to read the scriptures in an attempt to make them agree with reformation doctrine and ignore the plain statements that are made, or twist them to your own ends. I know that from just reading a few of your posts.
Amazing. You accuse Calvinists of being judgmental, then with "just reading a few" posts, you're being judgmental.
Get the log out, JDS.
You're a prime example of one who has been taught to read the Scriptures to make them agree with Enlightenment doctrine and ignore the plain statements that are made, or twist them to your own ends.
Augustine is said to be the father of the Roman Catholic Church and his writings the chief motivations for Calvin. This makes me ask the question; Jas 3:11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet [water] and bitter? 12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
Never have I heard the phrase that Augustine is the father of the Roman Catholic Church.
He was a bishop on another continent.
Rome diluted his position and dissolved into semi-Pelagianism as a theology long before the Reformers discovered Augustine.
And then you'd have to extend your assertion to Rome never being a true church, either. "Get the log out" seems to apply very well in this case. How did Paul address the church at Rome?
I am sorry Mickey, but if your posts are supposed to show faith as the gift of God in the context of salvation from sin, you have missed the boat. One need only to consider the whole context and see that Paul is speaking to Phillipian Christians in your first passage,
Oh, so Paul can state that the Philippians are given faith by God as a show of salvation, but no one else is given faith.
I'm sorry, I didn't consider this some miraculous gifting of faith to the Philippians for their salvation, while the rest of us common multitude must somehow work it up ourselves. I thought "God works in you" was meant for us as well as the Philippians.
Forgive me my interpretation.
So is everything in Scripture just a special case and God doesn't work this way, now?
27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me.
This needs no interpretaion.
You tell me what parts aren't generally applicable in the same situation as the Philippians.
And then tell me why God would give the Philippians faith, and not give others faith,
as indications of their salvation.
And then tell my why God has two paths to salvation: one in which He gives faith, the other in which He expects us to make faith on our own.
It needs no interpretation. It carries my point.
I am not sure how you were applying the other verses.
I'm not sure how you could reach the conclusions you did about the first one. Except as I've described above.
My goal is to challenge your doctrines and expose them as error by examining them in light of the truth of scripture. It is not my intent to purposely provoke you to anger with my challenges, but bluntness and candor is the best rule at times.
Your goal, bluntness, and candor have all failed, as they don't reflect the truth of Scripture.