Featured A Passage In Which Many Calvinists Struggle

No, not all or most for that matter. In another thread, I posted that Robert Snow, Benjamin, you, Rev Mitchell, and many others have read Scripture, pondered it, and come to a different conclusion about this one issue than I, EWF, Luke, Aaron, Herald and many others. I also believe the posts to be honest and sincere. Growing up in the Presbyterian Church no doubt has some influence on me.

The gap that exists between these two groups of posters is not the same gap that exists between honest and dishonest. All of us believe God intervenes in a lost person's life and that the Lord is sovereign.

Most of all, we have respect for each other as Christian brothers and sisters in Christ. The thing that binds us together is the Person of Jesus Christ.

When the boundaries blur between honesty and dishonesty, the posts deteriorate, granted. There is something very wrong about a one issue, agenda oriented poster. (example, Song of Solomon becoming a Calvinist issue, or the subject of slavery becoming a Calvinist issue)

 

I understand now, thank you for taking the time to clear it up for me. Blessings to you.

 

Probably this is how you understand scripture as well and it's not a very good understanding.
I do not believe in the tulip deception none of it can be proved from scripture. The reason is, it didn't come from the Bible. It's nothing more than warmed over Catholicism. Augustine was a Catholic before there was Catholics. That certainly is not a good thing
MB

 

I don't how else to say it. Your views are wacky in the extreme.

According to Gerald Bonner :St.Augustine of Hippo:Life and Controversies --said "augustine's anti-Manichaean polemics were the most successful of all that he wrote." (pages 235,236)
Augustine wrote :Against the Epistle of Manichaeans. He said in that writing "the heresy of you Manichaeans.

He wrote Reply to Fautus the Manichean.

What more do you want to convince you that he left the teachings of that cult in the dust. Augustine (354-430) was converted in 386. He clearly abandoned the doctrines of that group upon his conversion. You are aware,are you not,that he wrote his famous Retractions between 426-428 just a scant few years before his death. You really need to get a grip on his life and teachings. He did not hold to the same doctrines all his life;otherwise a dishonest picture of his life would make him a free-willer throughout his life.

This Manichaean/Buddhist/Calvinist connection is so bogus and infantile. Straighten-up and fly right Doc.

 

I don't know anyone who struggles with this passage! I know quite a few (including you) that don't obey it but few that struggle with it.

 

It's a baffling thing to behold that several of you think ach will listen to your reason while you witness him twist the Word of the Living God day in and day out.

I'm certain each of you know what the word futile means and know how to define insanity.

 

Yep, I guess there is more hope for a living dog then a dead lion no matter how smelly the dog may be.

 

Augustine divested himself of Manicheanism when he was converted to the Lord. Calvin looked to Augustine as a mentor of sorts. But the Holy Scripture was his Book. Augustine's views on election and predestination are biblical.

What Roman Catholic historians do you claim I quoted?

 

He was not Roman Catholic,but a "devoted Augustinian scholar of 60 years." He was Anglician. He just passed away on May 22,2013. Give him some respect.

Well,at least you didn't charge me with worshipping him as even some so-called Calvinists do here when it comes to my appreciation of not only Augustine but Calvin,Spurgeon,Pink and others.

Bede was called the Venerable Bede,so as long as you don't attach any ugly connotations (I'm sure you have the integrity to not engage in that nonsense) I will alow your use of the word 'veneration' as long as it is in a qualified and restricted sense.

I corrected you on that score earlier in this post. See above.

What were the other Roman Catholic sources that you claim I cited?