Irresistible Grace, John 6:37

[Iconoclast]

Ah yes!! More corporate "double speak". Look, Calvinism is continually seeking to reinvent the wheel. When the term "Irresistible Grace" was shot down, the term "effectual calling" came to the forefront. Then when "Limited Atonement" was blown to pieces, then they ushered in the term "Particular Redemption". They speak outta both sides of their mouth, if'n you ask me.

None of these terms have been shot down.Some people do not understand them is all......yall:laugh::laugh:

 

[Alive in Christ]

:sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

Well, of course.

Iconoclast is confronted with scripture, and he....sleeps.

 

[reformed_baptist]

Here is some comentary that is very good regarding regarding the extreme errors of Calvinism...

How many errors are there is this commentray?

My unbelief begins where Calvinism begins: at the “T.”

Since when does Calvinism start with the 'T' only the ignorent equate the five points of Calvinism with Calvinism. The TULIP acrostic was first presented around 1905 by Boetnerr as a summary of the teachings of the synod of Dordt which in itself was a response to thye five points of the remosntrants. The remonstrants were remonstranting aginst reformed soteriology. Hence their statements are not a full orbed positive assertion of what the Calvinist believes but rather a focused response to what the remonstrants disputed.

Calvinistic theology begins with God, or more specificially our understanding of God's sovereignty. What does the bible teach about God's soveriegnty:

1 - God can do anything - Gen 18:14, Num 11:23, Job 42:2, Ps 103:19, Dan 4:17, Jer 32:17, 27, luke 1:37, Eph 1:11

2 - God will do everything he pleases - Ps 115:3, Ps 135:6

3 - God's purposes will not be thwarted - Job 9:12, Job 11:10, Job 12:14, Job 42:2, Prov 21:30, Ecc 7:13, Isa 14:27, Isa 43:13, Lam 3:37

4 - God will not be thwarted in what he pleases - Isa 46:9-10, Dan 4:35, Rev 3:7

5 - God rules over good and bad - Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, 7, Job 2:10, Eccles 7:14, Isa 45:6-7, Lam 3:38, Amos 3:6

Then of course there is the all importnat Eph 1:11.

This view of God's proactive total control of his creation is the basis of reformed soteriology - not total depravity!

Total depravity

Simply put, Total Depravity is not a Biblical principle. Romans 5:12 states that death spread to “all men because all sinned.” Additionally, in Ezekiel 12:23 God declares through the prophet that “all souls are mine,” and “the soul that sins shall die.” The idea that we are born into or inherit sin doesn’t mesh with Bible teaching.

I guess the commentator has read Psalm 51:5 " Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." or perhaps he reads it through the lense of his traditions like he does the texts he quotes and so asserts the sin to be David's mothers!

Now here is the issues if sin and guilt is not imputed to us, how can we be made rightous by imputed rightousness?

Total Depravity also claims that man is so corrupt that he is incapable of doing any good.

Strawman! It claims nothing of the sort. Total depravity does NOT claim that man is as evilas he could be, or that he is unable to recognise the will of God, or unable of doing any good towards his fellow man. No, it simply means that men has fallen in his totality - the whole personality, intellect, emotions, affections, understanding etc of man is tainted by sin.

If that is the case, it would then be impossible for man to choose to repent. (Something we are commanded to do by the Lord).

Which is why we need regeneration. Now waht really worries me about these comments is that the writer seems to be taking a pelagian view of man.

God’s instruction is clear – repentance is essential for salvation. (Acts 2:38; 2 Peter 3:9). But if man is incapable of good, how is repentance possible? (It’s not!)

Hence we need to be saved by grace! Eph 2:8-9

Unconditional election

I cannot believe in Calvinism because it undermines so many principles outlined specifically in the Bible. In fact, the doctrine of Unconditional Election attacks the very nature of God. If God allows only the elect to be saved, and God predetermined those elect, then naturally, God also chose to condemn every soul who was not elected; effectively creating some men for the purpose of condemnation. That is not the God we read about in 2 Tim. 2:3-4. “God...who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.”

You know someone is on the wrong tract when they are telling you what you believe - or rather what you must believe. Now I cannot understand how anyone can read words like 'saved' and 'redeemed' and not seem as completed tasks, but rather as something that is potential based upon our ability to believe - but I know many people do see it that way.

No, the point is we are all deserving of hell because we are all sinners. However the doctrine of election is that God has saved many from that judgement.

One more thing I would say before moving on is that the only theological system that solves this 'problem' (if you see it as such) is open theism. Even a simple foreknowledge view lays some blame at God's feet for he has created a world in which he knew some would not believe, therefore in his creative act he condenmed people to hell.

Consider this: If God has chosen those who will be saved and Jesus died only for a select few, why does the Bible reflect such a strong need for evangelism? In Matthew 28:19, Jesus told his apostles to go into the world in preach the gospel to “all creation.” If only an elect few are to receive salvation, and those few have already been determined by God, then why evangelize? Why teach the truth? Why attempt to follow God’s path at all? Accepting the error of Unconditional Election, in effect, nullifies the ministry of Jesus and the teaching of the Bible’s inspired authors.

Again a strawmen. The bible is clear that God has appointed means. Here is a counter question, if God desire all men everywhere to be saved why does he set many people at unfair disadvantage, for example why are the people who from the day are born, to the day they die never hear the gospel?

Building upon that, the Bible is unmistakably clear about who can receive salvation. The idea of “Limited Atonement,” that the death of Jesus was only meant for a certain group of people, cannot be supported by scripture. I would first draw attention to Romans 1:16 – the gospel is the “power of God to salvation for everyone who believes...”

Cretainly all those who believe will be saved, but how can you establish scripturally that faith/ believe originates in us.

Or what about 1 Timothy 2:6 – Jesus gave himself as a ransom “for all.” Scripture is clear – Christ died for everyone!

This is universalism, if Jesus Christ has ransomed all men then all will be saved!

The error of Calvinism is definite.

Yet the commentator has not correctly articulated the teachings of Calvinism!

We can know with certainty that this doctrine is supported by neither God nor His inspired word.

So what is, pelagianism or universalism, the commentator seems to embrace both.

Because we know that, we must be able and ready to engage, inform, and persuade the followers of Calvinism. I cannot believe in Calvinism, but I certainly do believe that God desires all to know the truth!

Can I suggest to the commentator that before he tries this he actually takes the time to understand the theology of those he seesk to engage with

 

[OldRegular]

Ah yes!! More corporate "double speak". Look, Calvinism is continually seeking to reinvent the wheel. When the term "Irresistible Grace" was shot down, the term "effectual calling" came to the forefront. Then when "Limited Atonement" was blown to pieces, then they ushered in the term "Particular Redemption". They speak outta both sides of their mouth, if'n you ask me.

You really know better than that don't you. Such talk is embarrassing to the ORBC.

 

[OldRegular]

Here is some comentary that is very good regarding regarding the extreme errors of Calvinism...

Are you ashamed to reveal the source of the comments you posted?

 

[OldRegular]

More of the same shuck and jive from the Calvinists.

Do Calvinists believe what scripture teaches, i.e. Christ died for all mankind? Nope.

If Jesus Christ died for all men why are not all saved? Or do you believe they are?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Are you ashamed to reveal the source of the comments you posted?

:laugh:

I'll quote Van, from earlier in this thread, in response.....

More of the same shuck and jive from the Calvinists.

 

[OldRegular]

gather together in one the children of God

QUOTE=Skandelon;1876745]
You apparently still aren't getting my position. I'm the one arguing that God is hardening Israel (a view supported by Calvinistic and non-Calvinstic scholars alike). You are the one attempting to argue that God only hardened the leaders.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps your initial problem is assuming that I am a Calvinist!
***************************
I am not attempting to argue that God only hardened the leaders, I suggested that possibility. In fact it was more than a possibility. I call your attention to the following Scripture:

John 11:45-53
45. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
46. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
47. Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50. Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
52. And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
53. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Consider verse 45: many of the Jews .. believed on him

How many believed? I don’t know, you don’t know, and Scripture does not say. As to the validity of their belief there is no reason to assume it was different than that of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus!

Now consider verse 47: Then gathered the chief priests .. said, What do we?

and verse 48: If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation

The chief priests get involved and we see a plot begin to form. Then in verses 49, 50, & 51 the top man, the high priest gets involved: Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

In verse 53 we see the impact of the high priest and the determination of the priests to bring about the death of Jesus Christ: Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

So you see Skandelon it was not necessary that the entire nation be hardened, and Scripture shows they were not because there were true disciples of Jesus Christ. It was only necessary that some of the big guys be hardened. In fact most of Israel [the 12 tribes] were no where to be seen at this time in history, just those of the tribe of Judah with a few from Benjamin and Levi. I believe they were called Jews. I would also note that Jesus Christ was buried in the tomb of one disciple and of course there was Nicodemus who was a lot like some today. He just could not understand the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, the New Birth.

The priests thought they were saving the Jewish nation, and their own power, but not so. They ensured the destruction of the nation and the temple but their action was according to the the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God [Acts 2:23].

Now Skandelon consider the full impact of what the priests accomplished. The high priest had prophesied that Jesus Christ should die for the nation bur verse 52 tells us what the death of Jesus Christ accomplished: he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

Who were these “Children of God” to be gathered together in one? Well God does not leave us in the dark. We can look to the Gospel accorting to Matthew:

Matthew 5:9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

And then God tells us through the Apostle Paul more about His Children:

Romans 8:16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Romans 9:8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Romans 9:26. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Galatians 3:26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

So you see Skandelon that not all Israel is hardened or we would not have the 11 Apostles; Mary, Martha, Lazarus; good old Nicodemus, the 500 witnesses to the Resurrection; and just possibly even a tomb in which to bury Jesus Christ. In fact if all Israel, and that includes those called Jews, had been hardened; if no one had followed Jesus Christ, would the priests have hatched their plot to kill Jesus Christ? Do you follow me? You see how God worked everything out: He used the Jewish believers {And I suspect there were far more than I have indicated above.} to provoke the high priests so that Jesus Christ would die for you and me and all God’s Children.

Context, Context, Context: Chapter, Book, and Bible! It is all written for us who believe that we might have hope:

Romans 15:4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Hebrews 6:18-20
18. That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
19. Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
20. Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 

[MB]

Not at ALL! Are all men saved?

Of course not and the Bible and myself never make such claims. You quote right up to the good part of the chapter and neglect one of the most important parts. Like most calvinist you only see the part you can use to support your mistaken theology. Why not quote this too;
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

It says clearly that everyone that looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life.
I dare say if Calvinist could they would delete all verses that oppose there pitiful doctrines. I know you see them and still you deny it in favor of particular election which isn't even found in scripture. There fore you justify what you believe by avoiding the obvious truth.
MB

 

[Van]

Calvinistic theology begins with God, or more specifically our understanding of God's sovereignty. What does the bible teach about God's sovereignty:

1 - God can do anything - Gen 18:14, Num 11:23, Job 42:2, Ps 103:19, Dan 4:17, Jer 32:17, 27, luke 1:37, Eph 1:11

2 - God will do everything he pleases - Ps 115:3, Ps 135:6

3 - God's purposes will not be thwarted - Job 9:12, Job 11:10, Job 12:14, Job 42:2, Prov 21:30, Ecc 7:13, Isa 14:27, Isa 43:13, Lam 3:37

4 - God will not be thwarted in what he pleases - Isa 46:9-10, Dan 4:35, Rev 3:7

5 - God rules over good and bad - Deut 32:39, 1 Sam 2:6, 7, Job 2:10, Eccles 7:14, Isa 45:6-7, Lam 3:38, Amos 3:6

Then of course there is the all important Eph 1:11.

This view of God's proactive total control of his creation is the basis of reformed soteriology

Here we have a classic "prove A" and then claim "B" has been proved.

The non-Calvinism doctrine is God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. God was pleased to create mankind for the purpose of glorifying God. Therefore He endowed mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices. He then sets before us the choice of life or death and begs us to choose life. He allows mankind to operate within the limits or confines He establishes, hence we make plans but He directs our feet.

This doctrine is consistent with the innumerated points above but lets actually look at Ephesians 1:11.

"In Him,also we have obtained an inheritance,
having been predestined according to His purpose,
who works all things after the counsel of His
[decretive or permissive]will."

Calvinism says we were predestined to be put in Him, but this verse says in Him we have obtained an inheritance because the inheritance was predestined. Putting it together, after we are put in Him, we obtain an inheritance predestined for everyone put in Him.

So the verse does not support being predestined to be placed in Him, which is the false doctrine of Calvinism found no where in scripture.
In other words, the basis of reformed theology, total control or exhaustive determinism, in not found in scripture, and is best refuted by the observation that God is not the author of sin.

 

[OldRegular]

If Jesus Christ died for all men why are not all saved? Or do you believe they are?

Of course not and the Bible and myself never make such claims.

If Jesus Christ died for ALL men why is it that ALL mankind is not saved?

You quote right up to the good part of the chapter and neglect one of the most important parts. Like most calvinist you only see the part you can use to support your mistaken theology. Why not quote this too;
Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

It says clearly that everyone that looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life.
I dare say if Calvinist could they would delete all verses that oppose there pitiful doctrines. I know you see them and still you deny it in favor of particular election which isn't even found in scripture. There fore you justify what you believe by avoiding the obvious truth.
MB

Are you now restricting Salvation to those who actually saw the physical person of Jesus Christ?

 

[freeatlast]

If Jesus Christ died for ALL men why is it that ALL mankind is not saved?

Because all do not choose to be saved. It is called free will.

 

[Van]

If Jesus Christ died for all men why are not all saved? Or do you believe they are?

Does anyone believe I believe in Universal Salvation? Of course not. So this post is yet another false charge, calculated to change the subject. Salvation is not by compulsion, salvation is offered, "be reconciled to God" but only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are spiritually put in Christ by God. So reconciliation was provided to all mankind, but is "received" only by those God puts spiritually in Christ.

Calvinists repeatedly pretend this concept to too hard for them to grasp. Go figure.

 

[OldRegular]

If Jesus Christ died for ALL men why is it that ALL mankind is not saved?

Because all do not choose to be saved. It is called free will.

So! either Jesus Christ did not die for ALL mankind; or the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not effective for ALL mankind; or the free will of man is Sovereign? Which one is correct FAL?

If neither is correct why do some believe and some do not? What makes your free will better than that of others?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
If Jesus Christ died for all men why are not all saved? Or do you believe they are?

Does anyone believe I believe in Universal Salvation? Of course not. So this post is yet another false charge, calculated to change the subject.

There is no charge at, false or otherwise! I asked a simple question, actually I asked two simple questions. You ignored the first!

As for changing the subject have you responded to one verse of Scripture presented in the OP?

Salvation is not by compulsion, salvation is offered, "be reconciled to God" but only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are spiritually put in Christ by God. So reconciliation was provided to all mankind, but is "received" only by those God puts spiritually in Christ.

Where did I say Salvation is by compulsion? It is you who are making false charges.

Calvinists repeatedly pretend this concept to too hard for them to grasp. Go figure.

I suspect that most of those who believe that Doctrines of Grace sometimes wonder at the arrogance of free will?

 

[MB]

If Jesus Christ died for ALL men why is it that ALL mankind is not saved?



Are you now restricting Salvation to those who actually saw the physical person of Jesus Christ?

Not exactly. Ever hear the song about keeping your eyes on Jesus. We look on Jesus when we believe in Him. This happens with the mind's eye not physcial eyes. You do keep your eyes on Jesus don't you? You do look to Jesus when you worship or pray. You look to Jesus when trouble comes we all do that. So why do you question it?, Or try to make it seem like a physcial action.
MB

 

[OldRegular]

Can I suggest to the commentator that before he tries this he actually takes the time to understand the theology of those he seeks to engage with

It is sad to say but I believe most of those on this Forum who savage the Doctrines of Grace have no concept of what they are.

I understand some things about the claims of "free will" because, although I have always believed that Salvation was a supernatural event, I at one time thought my will played a necessary part.

It was after I understood something of myself in light of the Grace of God, and the teaching of certain Scripture, that I came to understand and love the wonderful truths of the Doctrines of Grace.

And I am not talking about TULIP; it only scratches the surface.

 

[MB]

So! either Jesus Christ did not die for ALL mankind; or the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not effective for ALL mankind; or the free will of man is Sovereign? Which one is correct FAL?

Your refusing to look at the truth of it and that's the truth. It's sort of like not being able to see the forest for the trees. You are so convinced that you are absolutely right it's almost a conceded thought. Christ died for the whole world, the Bible says so and you say that ain't so. You're in denial of the truth. You keep telling your self to redefine even the words of scripture to make it fit the nonsense you accept

If neither is correct why do some believe and some do not? What makes your free will better than that of others?

Some believe and some don't because of individual acceptance of Christ. There is nothing special about either one. God is no respector of persons. We either believe or die in hell.
MB

 

[reformed_baptist]

Van,

I always find discusion works better if people address the subject of the post they are responding to rather then going off at a tangent, as you do in your response to me, and as I will highlight in the 'meat' of my response.

I also find it is easier to talk to people about things, and reason with people if we don't use terms like 'false doctrine' for anothers position. Let me be very clear that the church has never declared calvinistic soteriology to be heresy, or even heterdoxy indeed it is at the heart of evangelical christianity, and has been has long as evangelical christainity has existed.



Red hearing 1 - An arguement not put forward being refuted

Here we have a classic "prove A" and then claim "B" has been proved.

No, I haven't said that. Let me repeat what I did say;

This view of God's proactive total control of his creation is the basis of reformed soteriology.

Where do I say in those words that if I prove the sovereignty of God I prove Calvinism? No it is true to say that if one has a reformed understanding of God's sovereignty then the 5 points make sense and logically flow out of that understanding - but I am not even argueing that here! I was simply asserting that the commentator misrepresents the starting point of Calvinists, and then I went on to state what the starting point of Calvinism actually is.

Red Hearing 2 - Jumping to conclusions rather then reading what is being said

The non-Calvinism doctrine is God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. God was pleased to create mankind for the purpose of glorifying God. Therefore He endowed mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices. He then sets before us the choice of life or death and begs us to choose life. He allows mankind to operate within the limits or confines He establishes, hence we make plans but He directs our feet.

And you can explain how that fits with every scripture I referenced can you please?

This doctrine is consistent with the innumerated points above but lets actually look at Ephesians 1:11.

Yes please - before we do though may I just point out that I was citing Eph 1:11 in reference to God's sovereignty and not predestination so nothing you have written is remotely relevant to the point I was making

"In Him,also we have obtained an inheritance,
having been predestined according to His purpose,
who works all things after the counsel of His
[decretive or permissive]will."

Calvinism says we were predestined to be put in Him, but this verse says in Him we have obtained an inheritance because the inheritance was predestined. Putting it together, after we are put in Him, we obtain an inheritance predestined for everyone put in Him.

I am sorry but not only is that conclusion irrelavant to the topic at hand, it is also convoluted beyond degree. for example where do you draw the conclusion that it is the 'inheritance' that is predetermined and why would Paul even need to make such an arguement?

The point I was making from the vesre is that God works all things according to the purpose of his will not just somethings, but all things, hense all things that happen, happen because they are worked by him, and they are worked by him according to the purpose of his will.

So the verse does not support being predestined to be placed in Him, which is the false doctrine of Calvinism found no where in scripture.

Really? I guess the early church, and reformers, the puritans, and the generations since were reading a book other then the Bible then?

Tearing down a view without putting anything in its place

So which view to hold and how do you establish it from scripture? You see I notice that earlier you mentioned this;

Therefore He endowed mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices. He then sets before us the choice of life or death and begs us to choose life.

This concept of man's will and his freedom to choose is spoken of where in the bible? This sounds very philosophical to me! It also sounds like Pelagianism, would I be right in that statement or have I misunderstood you perspective?

The origin of evil

In other words, the basis of reformed theology, total control or exhaustive determinism, in not found in scripture, and is best refuted by the observation that God is not the author of sin.

Again, a statement that shows ones ignorence of reformed theology that you might suggest this is what we teach or what we believe, let me direct you to chapter 3 of the baptist confession of faith that clearly refutes this strawman. The truth is, until the introduction of open theism, the reformed faith is the only system that resolves the problem of evil.

It was the growth of various Arminian and semi-pelagian philosphies that raised the question again, and the creeping arminainism of a teaching of God have a permissive will that has crept into some reformed circles in the last century or so that has muddied these waters again!

Whilst we are on th subject perhaps you will explain your views on the origin of evil in our world? Do you for example believe evil just is? Do you believe it took God by surprise when evil occured? You see, the reality is, once you start to bring charges like this against God only the position of the open theist remains above the charge because if God knew evil would occur in the world he was about to create, and he created it anyway, he has sovereignly ordained that evil will occur - now you might be a open thiest for all I know, but otherwise your own theology, what ever it might be, still makes God cuplable if the follow this line of reasoning, or there is another power in the universe that rivals God? Which do you believe?

now, can we get back to my response rather then pursueing these red hearings

 

[reformed_baptist]

It is sad to say but I believe most of those on this Forum who savage the Doctrines of Grace have no concept of what they are.

And to be fair, many of us do not fully understand our opponents positions either. The truth is I know what I believe better then anyone else does, and they know whet they believe better then I do - so we are all likely to err if we try and draw and conclusions and logical ends of other people's theologies

I understand some things about the claims of "free will" because, although I have always believed that Salvation was a supernatural event, I at one time thought my will played a necessary part.

It was after I understood something of myself in light of the Grace of God, and the teaching of certain Scripture, that I came to understand and love the wonderful truths of the Doctrines of Grace.

Thnaks for the share

And I am not talking about TULIP; it only scratches the surface.[/QUOTE]

Indeed it is, indeed it is