--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00160 Date: 04/19/98 From: STEWART ARNETT Time: 09:45pm \/To: MICHAEL TOWNSEND (Read 1 times) Subj: John 3:16 & God's Elect People Greetings Michael, MT> SA> Maybe not in the Greek, but the eminent translators of the KJV 1611 used: MT> SA> "For God so loved y World, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that MT> SA> whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." MT> SA> The only problem I see is the typesetters seem to have run out of MT> SA> 'v's in that part ;-) MT> It's Middle English and as such, it is conventional. ;-) as many a grave stone confirms, in England of course. MT> SA> To me, with my very meager Greek, these people who were supposed MT> SA> to be excelent Greek scholars decided it should be Whosoever so MT> SA> whosoever it is. If your Greek is proven to be more advanced than MT> SA> theirs then I might accept your translation, but currently I only MT> SA> accept it as written in this Bible and that is whosoever. This to MT> SA> me means (after consulting a couple of dictionaries, but not MT> SA> Websters) All. MT> But, the issue is: "ALL" of precisely what category. MT> The usual popular 'interpretation' of John 3:16 is to imply that the MT> "whosever believeth" means "everyone will" or "everyone can", ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ MT> both of which are totally erroneous. Pardon ??? I am of the opinion it means "ALL who believe" not "all do" MT> Everyone does NOT believe on the Son, nor CAN everyone believe on the MT>Son. Hence this does apply to my way of thinking. MT> John 3:16 does not in any way describe any scenario of "universal MT>salvation". Quite true, the gift of salvation by faith is offered to all who believe. So this means if everyone believed everyone would be given salvation, but as not everyone believes then it is not "universal salvation" is it? MT> Nor does a mere Historical knowledge of Jesus equate to Faith and MT>Believing MT> as the Scriptures define these two terms. Obviously, a knowledge of of the DOS manual does not mean I believe DOS will work for me (I use OS2 ) MT> And if we deduct from so-called "christianity" all who have nothing but MT> this mere Historical knowledge of Jesus as a historical personality, MT> then "christianity" will be much reduced in numerical size, and MT>justifiably. A but I don't believe they are included in the first place. MT> Faith, I think mostly we agree on what else you have said, or rather it isn't basis for disagreement to any large amount. Plus I have just remembered I'm on the users node for the BBS not the sysops :-(. Stewart. --- KBBS vZ.20R (#ARI-00291) * Origin: The Rock BBS Auckland New Zealand(3:772/100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00161 Date: 04/20/98 From: ROBBY DITTMANN Time: 08:14am \/To: MICHAEL TOWNSEND (Read 1 times) Subj: God's Word vs "theology" MT> This is the general revelation of God's eternal MT> existence and of His eternal MT> power and Godhead revealed by and through the Creation which He has ade MT> [ refer Genesis chapter 1 etc. ] Nice interpretation, but that's NOT what it says. Robby --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Red Shift BBS, Home of Mamoosoft! ... (770) 979-9467 (1:133/8003) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00162 Date: 04/20/98 From: ROBBY DITTMANN Time: 03:48pm \/To: MICHAEL TOWNSEND (Read 1 times) Subj: Question Michael I have a question for you. If the unelect cannot be saved no matter what, and the elect will be saved no matter what, the what is the point of evangelism? Robby --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Red Shift BBS, Home of Mamoosoft! ... (770) 979-9467 (1:133/8003) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00163 Date: 04/20/98 From: GEORGE HARPER Time: 02:07am \/To: MICHAEL TOWNSEND (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Reply MT> GH> All those messages you typed, and everyone full of YOUR interpretation MT> GH> of Scripture, MT> MT> Only in your opinion, which has a very negative value. If you are repeating others' interpretation of Scripture, you should give hem credit. If you are NOT using another's thoughts, then what you say IS *YOUR* understanding of Scripture. That is *NOT* the same as repeating Scripture, unless you pretend that YOU are the ultimate authority of what is correct and what is not. And that is all it can be - a pretense. God is the final authority, and all scripture glorifies Him. YOUR prattling merely glorifies YOU. As you say, this is MY opinion. I have seen MANY others state similar opinions about your professions. Yet, you are the ONLY one who attacks me from the standpoint of judging my beliefs to be unscriptural. Even Relatif Tuinn has not dared to challenge my beliefs in this way, nor has Robert Arie Miller. The two of them HAVE belittled me for believing, as they do ALL who confess Christ. Relatif has attacked me as a liar - for making a claim that his next post to me proved was valid. You have yet to attempt to disprove that my beliefs are valid - you merely call names and point fingers. Isn't it time you gave evidence of WHY my beliefs are unscriptural? In which manner am I misquoting, or intentionally falsifying God's Word? it *IS* time to back up your malicious slander with facts. MT> MT> God makes His elect people ABLE TO respond. MT> MT> As is very clearly stated in the Scriptures. Where, exactly, do you find this clear statement? I've looked, and see only that God must draw us to Christ. Christ said NO ONE can come to Him otherwise. There is NO mention of only the elect being able to respond. Cite your reference, or vacate this contention. MT> GH> - yet you make so many claims that it does NOT do that for anyone ho MT> GH> disagrees with YOUR opinion. MT> MT> Nonsense. MT> You are NOT telling the Truth. MT> You are telling Lies. MT> MT> From reports, it seems that you have a reputation for telling lies. MT> Notorious, in fact. MT> MT> Here is the True position to which I always unswervingly adhere: MT> MT> 1 - It is Fact that the Scriptures are consistent throughout and that they MT> totally and exclusively self-authenticating. MT> MT> 2 - It is a sad Fact that many people because of their personal inadequaci MT> arrive at erroneous and unScriptural opinions. MT> This however is entirely attributable to their deficiencies, and it is not MT> in the slightest degree attributable to the Scriptures. This isn't a statement that those who see things differently than you are wrong? It certainly reads that way to me! Your item 2 CAN be applied as easily to you as to anyone else. You have formed or borrowed a concept of Scripture that you cannot prove to be correct, because you cannot possibly know the mind of God. And my contention is NOT with Scripture - it is with your viewpoint that only you have the right of it, and those who disagree are somehow inadequate oe deficient. THis is NOT the same as denying Scripture, because YOU don't/didn't WRITE Scripture. This same argument applies to your repeated allusions to my "blaspemous" statement about your version of the election that occurred before any/all creation. I still contend that YOUR view is blasphemy, as I did back in October. Because you DO NOT OWN God, you cannot speak for Him, which is what you are trying to do. Saying that God meant "this and so" is setting ourself up as His interpreter, and only God's Holy Spirit has that power. MT> It is YOU who, in this Conference, publicly attributed the truths of MT> the Scriptures to Satan, thus committing the unpardonable sin. THAT is a lie! I attributed YOUR "truths" to Satan. Since you did not write the Bible, I am merely calling you a tool of Satan. I referred to YOUR concept of pre-election, which is based on YOUR way of reading the same erses I read differently. THat is NOT attacking THE TRUTH, it is attacking YOUR version of the truth. And what are you doing taking the word of an avowed atheist, who showed that his claim was a lie? Have you gone into that "other conference" and read mail that is a year old? Do you KNOW, for a certainty, that I was ousted for something I said, or did? I suggest that you might choose your sources more carefully - agreeing with atheists and cultists is hardly conducive to anything more than condemning yourself to ridicule, in a conference where such are exposed as enemies of true believers. --- mil failte, caraid * Origin: mil failte from Halls Of Tara BBS 1(303)480-0195 (1:104/447) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00164 Date: 04/20/98 From: LANGSTON GOLDFINCH Time: 11:15pm \/To: ROBBY DITTMANN (Read 1 times) Subj: Question Hello Robby. 20 Apr 98 15:48, Robby Dittmann wrote to Michael Townsend: RD> saved no matter what, the what is the point of evangelism? This became the issue separating "particular" (Calvinist) from "general" (Missionary) Baptists. The former groups tended to be more isolationist and farm oriented, and did not support "missions" because of this thinking. I am also, for some reason, reminded of what the bishop-general fighting the heretic in southern France (ages ago) is to have said when asked how can we tell which are which (the "catholic" good guys from the Carthases): "Kill them all, and let God sort them out". (this is alledged, of course!) According to Jesus (if we can accept his attitude) God managed to "save" all who repented even BEFORE his own death: 1- Stories of a paralytic whose sins were forgiven (Mk. 2:1-12, par.) 2- a woman with an issue of blood whose faith saved her (Mk. 5:21-43, 3- Ninevites who repented at the preaching of Jonah and who will fare well in the final judgment (Mk. 8:11- 12, par.), 4- and blind Bartimaeus, whose faith had saved him (Mk. 10:46-52, par.); the 5- Matthew's story of two sons, one obedient and one not, with repentance as the ground to salvation (21:28-32), 6- Matthew's parable on the last judgment, with its striking criteria (25:31-46); 7- Luke's story of a sinful woman whose many sins were forgiven (7:36-50), 8- and the story of a rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), 9- and the story of Zacchaeus, to whose house salvation came that day when Jesus visited with him (19:1-10). All these passages imply or make explicit forgiveness and salvation as effective immediately and directly in the encounter with the historical Jesus. An it was he who told us to spread this "Good News". Regards Langston --- * Origin: NOPC (504)-486-7249 N.O. LA. USA (1:396/17) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00165 Date: 04/18/98 From: MICHAEL TOWNSEND Time: 04:42pm \/To: STEWART ARNETT (Read 1 times) Subj: Call to Arms -=> 17-4-98, Stewart Arnett to Michael Townsend MT> you haven't verified your theory from the whole of Bible truth. SA> I have verified what I wrote with the whole Biblical truth, in the SA> sameway as Wesley would have. Where are the details of this "wesleyan version of biblical verification" ? Your version of John ch.8 neatly misses the point of that episode. Neither John ch.8 nor Matthew 7 prohibit all judgments without exception but certain categories thereof. This point has already been lucidly explained in thisd Conference by various people on several occasions. I suggest that your policy is motivated by a limp "soft-love" approach which refuses to call a spade a spade, retreats from all controversial issues at high speed, perfers to be innocuous and "laid-back" in its lady-like anxiety to avoid any offense to anyone at any time about anything. It's this insipid and bland approach which explains why much of what is today called "christianity" is gutless, lacking backbone, ineffective and as Jesus put it, "salt that has lost its saltiness" and therefore, to use His apt description, "fit only for the dunghill". There is no Biblical command which requires us to ignore error, heresy and the like. Instead, we are specifically required in Scripture to expose these, to rebuke them and to correct them. Your version of the Bible seems to contain only a handful of verses hacked from Matthew ch.7 and John ch.8. There are an additional 1,187 chapters in the Bible now awaiting your expert attention. SA> [I must admit I often feel like throwing stones;-)] But your deeply-indoctrinated piety and gentility always keeps you in your preferred role as a meek, polite and innocuous religious doormat ? SA> Jesus said we will be judged as we judge, You are quoting out of context. In His statement in Matthew 7, Jesus was not embargoing all judgments but a particular category. You of course will choose to overlook that fact. Your customary view on Matthew ch.7 and John ch.8 is seen for what it is; a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding particularly when we recall that the Scriptures contain numerous examples of Jesus, Peter, John, Paul, Stephen, and numerous Old Testament prophets and others all pronouncing judgment on their contemporaries. But it seems that you have a stilted misconception of these Scriptures which ignores all incidents which would threaten your policy of "soft-love". SA> ...the building up of others and the kingdom. A wise builder always demolishes the decrepit buildings and removes ALL debris and rubbish, then clears the site, before he commences to lay foundations and then build. The building of the Kingdom of God rejects all materials which are inconsistent with the Master's specifications and quality requirements. And it is very evident that many people who wave "christian" flags and labels are expert in producing many strange ideas and theories which have little or no Biblical validity and frequently are opposed to the truths of the Scriptures. All this offensive material garbage must be exposed for the ungodly unScriptural rubbish that it is before building can commence. You, it seems, prefer to build with wreckage, garbage, faulty materials without any care or regard for the high quality standards appropriate t the Kingdom of God. Your method of "building up" is to sweep all contentious issues under the carpet, pour litres of "soft-love" and sweet religious sentiment and unctuous cliches over all. It's a product of the synthetic version of "christianity" which has been popularised by Helen Steiner Rice, whose sweet religious poetry you no doubt regularly read with much relish. Christ was-is bluntly and totally intolerant of all heresies and falsehoods and ideas subversive to and contrary to Scriptural truths. There is all the precedent that is needed for an identical policy. Christ did not come come to bring peace but a sword. [ Matthew 10 ] But it seems you prefer a soft pew and sweet music. * Origin: (3:771/1560.25) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00166 Date: 04/20/98 From: MICHAEL TOWNSEND Time: 02:25pm \/To: RELATIF TUINN (Read 1 times) Subj: Inspired Scriptures Relatif, -=> 17-4-98, Relatif Tuinn to Michael Townsend -=> 9-4-98, Michael Townsend to David Justiss MT> No writings compare to the Scriptures. The Scriptures are unique. RT> Correct. RT> Most other things are feasible. Not necessarily. Many unScriptural ideas and beliefs are totally impossible; e.g. superstitions. RT> dealing intelligently with the scientific evidence, then you are RT> entitled to be ignored. - Laurie Appletoon (Evolution, 11/4/98) For example, when describing to "evolutionists" that the theory of "spontaneous creation of biological life by matter" is impossible because it is totally contrary to the proven laws of science, the "evolutionists" response is to either ridicule or filibuster or to ignore this evidence. "Evolution" is not genuine Science, but it is a religion; the religion of materialism, the deification of inert lifeless Matter, requiring blind belief by its adherents. Blind belief is necessary for "evolutionists" because only the overwhelming scientific evidence against "evolution" can only be ignored if people stubbornly or ignorantly believe in spite of the contrary evidence. Michael * Origin: (3:771/1560.25) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00167 Date: 04/20/98 From: MICHAEL TOWNSEND Time: 02:44pm \/To: STEWART ARNETT (Read 1 times) Subj: Types of Judgments Stewart, -=> 17-4-98, Langston Goldfinch to Stewart Arnrtt -=> 17-4-98, Stewart Arnett wrote to Michael Townsend SA> Jesus said we will be judged as we judge, Not "we", but only a certain category identifiable from the context of Matthew 7 and the Scriptures ad a whole, both of which you have yet to understand. Your reference is to a verse in Matthew 7 which is usually ripped out of its context by people like you with an axe to grind, and always by people who like you, judge other people for supposedly "judging". Thus they and you shoot yourselves in the foot. As is shown by the context of Matthew 7:1 etc,. Jesus didn't prohibit all judgment without exception. Paul, Peter, John, Stephen, James, Mark all made judgments as the New Testament explicitly describes. You of course have typically ignored these examples of judgments because they destroy your shallow selective quasi-exegesis. Jesus Christ also judged, and very harshly indeed. Refer to Matthew chapter 23 and ask WHY Jesus acts contrary to His teaching in Matthew 7. Therefore by YOUR defective "exegesis", the apostles Peter, James, Paul, John, and also Mark, Stephen are all inconsistent with Christ's teachings ! Add to these the Old Testament prophets; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, to name but a few. According to YOUR false "exegesis", these prophets of God were ALL also inconsistent with Christ's teachings ! Obviously, your tactic of uninformed and biased selective excerpting has exposed you as merely having a judgmental axe to grind, and you are "hoist by your own petard" [ i.e. "shooting yourself in the foot" ]. The REAL background to Matthew 7 has already been explained by several eople in earlier messages but you having but one eye, you will have missed those explanations. Deliberately perhaps. In his First Letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul stated that believers in Christ "will judge the world". Therefore, by YOUR defective "exegesis", the apostle Paul is inconsistent with Christ's teachings ! LG> You, along with others here, have experienced and then exposed his LG> style. We should call wolves by their proper names. The goldfinches are twittering from their tree-tops again. It must be spring-time. They say that the sap always rises in the spring. Now we know it to be true. KG> Jesus had no truck with the "pharisees" of his day, Obviously he has never checked out the Biblical definition of the term "pharisee". That Jewish sect ended its days almost 2,000 years ago. But this has obviously escaped his notice. He throws the term "pharisee" like confetti at anyone who challenges his superficial liberal religious prattle. And if labels are in order, he wears the label of "herodian". Michael * Origin: (3:771/1560.25) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00168 Date: 04/20/98 From: MICHAEL TOWNSEND Time: 02:39pm \/To: STEPHEN EPPS (Read 1 times) Subj: Sabellian Heresy Stephen, -=> 18-4-98, Stephen Epps to Michael Townsend SE> Help out the uneducated here: SE> What is Sabellianism? Sabellianism" is the name of the heresy which denies the existence of the eternal Three-in-One Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible and particularly the New Testament reveals three distinct Divine Persons; God the Father: God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. They are three distinct persons, and they are identical in nature and will and in characteristics though each is always a distinct Person in Hos own right. This is very briefly the Scriptural truth of what is called "the trinity"; i.e. the tri-unity of the eternal Godhead. The word "trinity" doesn't occur in the Bible but there are specific references to each of the three eternal Divine Persons of the tri-une Godhead; e.g. Matthew 3:16-17; 17:1-5; 28:16-20; Mark 1:8-12; John 1:18; 14:1-6; 16:7-16; 17:1; Romans 1:7; 2 Cor.13:14; Galatians 1:1-2; etc. The Sabellian heresy is named after Sabellius of the 3rd. century AD who promoted the unScriptural theory that the three Persons were but one Person manifesting in three differing modes. He theorised that only one Person actually existed but manifested itself as either "father" or "son" or as "holy spirit" respectively. The word "one" is in effect interpreted as a * Numerical * oneness whereas the term refers to unanimity of purpose, will and of characteristics. The term "one" in John 10:30 is a reference to this unanimity between three distinct separate but jointly and severally acting tr-unity. The Sabellian heresy, also known as "modalism", is similar to what is today called "unitarianism". The Islamic religion founded by Muhammad in the 7th. century AD has a "unitarian" flavor in its belief that the Arabiam moon-god "allah" is a sole being, although this is contradicted by "allah" supposedly having two daughters, so there must have been a "mrs."allah" somewhere, but it's wise not to ask Muslims these very awkward questions ! I hope that this helps. Best wishes, Michael * Origin: (3:771/1560.25) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 120 BIBLE Ref: F5G00169 Date: 04/19/98 From: MICHAEL TOWNSEND Time: 10:28am \/To: ROBBY DITTMANN (Read 1 times) Subj: "ALL" of God's Elect People -=> 8-4-98, Robby Dittmann to Michael Townsend MT> Your simplistic and absurd assumptions of the significance of the MT> term "ALl" totally ignores the contexts of the verses in which MT> this term occurs. "ALL" very often refers to ALL of a class, as MT> is the case in 2 Peter 3:9 and very frequently elsewhere. RD> I think we can all agree that between the passages we've been RD> discussing, we have two choices in seeking a God's intention. No, the one choice is to study what the Scriptures actually state. But that as usual will not be your first preference. RD> First, that "elect" means individuals he chose before creation to RD> follow him Who is "he" ? Be specific. Correction: Before Creation, God the Father chose certain people out of humanity to be eternally saved in Christ. Since as the Scriptures state, God is all-powerful [ omni=potent ] and His wil and purposes are always fulfilled, therefore ALL of those whom He, God the Father chose [ elected ] from before creation to be eternally saved in Christ [ Ephesians 1:3-14 ] WILL ALL be saved without any exception. The LORD Jesus Christ Himself explicitly states this truth in John 6:37; John 6:44; John 6:65; John 10:28-29, etc. Since Christ states that none of God's elect people will ever be lost [ see above Scripture references ], therefore ALL those who are not saved by the end of their physical existences are by that very fact, not of God the Father's elect people, for had they been, they would not have perished but they would have been saved in Christ Jesus. Nor is is true to say that those who are lost are lost because "they ejected an 'offer' of salvation", since the LORD Jesus Christ explicitly states in John 6:44 and John 6:65 that no one can come to Christ of their own accord; they must be drawn by God the Father. Christ thereby states that the Choice and the Initiative in salvation is solely that of God the Father. Moreover, Christ states in John 6:37 that ALL whom God the Father gives to Christ, ** All SHALL ** come to Christ. In John 6:39, Christ states that of ALL those whom God the Father gives to Christ, that NONE will ever be lost; ALL will be saved, without ANY exception. The Scriptural FACT and inspired infallible TRUTH of God the Father's predestinating election completed before creation [ Ephesians 1:3-14 ] totally destroys the theoery that "god offers salvation". God's Election is His omnipotent Divine sovereign act and will and eternally sure Purpose. God the Father's completed predestinating election needs no "offer" or any human "acceptance" to initiate or to fulfil it, and this explains why there is not a shred of Biblical evidence even hinting at any such "offer". Moreover, Christ destroys the theory that "salvation casn be rejected". [ John 6:37; 6:39; 6:44; 6:65; 10:28-29; 2 Tim.1:9 etc. etc. ] All GENUINE believers in Christ rejoice greatly in God the Father's ompleted predestinating election because thwy KNOW that THIS is the great eternally sure and irrevocable basis of their eternal salvation in their great High Priest and LORD and Saviouyr of each and ALL of God the Father's elect predestinated people; the LORD Jesus Christ; Who is the sole ever-living Head of His Church of God's elect born-anew people. We will know who are the reprobates and the unbelievers and who are still dead in their sins and who are the God-haters and Bible-haters because it is these who will pour ridicule and scorn and who will reject the Scriptural Truths and Facts of God the Father's predestinating election. Which they do. One person went so far as to describe explicit Scripture Truths; the Truths of God's election asset out in Ephesians 1:3-14 etc., as : " ...a highly-ingenious camouflage tool of the great Deceiver [Satan]. " This person is George Harper who you admire and whose theories you endorese in your message to which I now reply. So you are associating yourself with a public Blasphener and public Denier of God's Word. The Scriptures declare and Christ declares in effect that G. Harper's theory is not only unScriptural but also untrue therefore a falsehood. RD> And "all" menas "all of the elect". Second, that "all" simply means RD> "all", and that "elect" the group as a whole that would follow him The "ALL" of 2 Peter 3:9 is ALL of a class; that class being the elect people of God, as is clear from 2 Peter 3:9 and from its immediate and wider contexts, and from the whole body of Bible truth and doctrine. As well as that, plain logic proves that the "ALL" of 2 Peter 3:9 does not denote "all of the entire humam species from Adam onwards till the end of the world". These points have already been clearly explained on numerous occasions in this conference. But it seems that you are incapable of understanding the plain truths of the Scriptures. The apostle Paul described in his First Letter to the Corinthians the cause of your incapacity to understand the Scriptures. RD> Now, just look at the words "all" and "elect", without any theological RD> implications, just the words. How do we do that? Everybody grab a RD> Webster's We're not studying "websters", we're studying [ or at least I am ] the Scriptures. And Webster's won't help you because as every competent student of the Scriptures knows well, the Scriptures are their own interpreter. And the significance of the term "ALL" in 2 Peter 3:9 is very clearly God's elect people, as all competent students of the Scriptures and Genuine believers in Christ will know. You however obviously do not know this. RD> Calvin - one owrd change George - no word changes RD> Simple grammar and simle logic show that George must be right and "owrd" ? "simle" ? Simple grammar ? Since George Harper is the individual who publicly condemned the truths of the Scriptures; specifically, the truth of God's election to be: "...a highly-effective camouflage tool of the Great Deceiver [ Satan ]", your devout reliance of him as a reliable commentator on Biblical truth is a judgment on your total lack of discernment. Your preference for Webster's dictionary as a better tool for determining he truths of Scriptures instead of using the Scriptures is also illustrative. Add to this your theory that what the Bible is actually stating cannot ever be known to any member of the human species; all that any one can ever know is "interpretations", makes us wonder why you ever bother to open the Bible in the first place. RD> Calvin must be wrong It's very likely that you've never read any of his writings since by all accounts, he was one of the grerat leaders of the 16th. century leaders of the Reformation, very highly committed to the truths of the Scriptures, and even after 450 years, I am informed that he is held in very high regard as one of the great Reformation leaders of Christ's universal Church, akin to Wiclif, Luther, Tyndale, Hus, Jerome of Prague, to mention but a w. Therefore your obvious dislike for Calvin is due either to your ignorance or to blind bigotry or to a desire to be provocative or is a combination of these. Because your messages are often inconsustent with and contradicted by the truths of the Scriptures, you should learn from the example of these leaders of the Reformation who all, quite unlike you, had an exceptionally high understanding of the truths of the Scriptures. Their spiritual stature is very high after 450 years and will remain so for centuries to come. Therefore your repeated jibes at people such as these tells us only about yourself, and it shows you as a bigoted and biased and ignorant person. For your own sake you should stop exposing your ignorance of the work of great Reformation leaders such as these men, with whose spiritual stature you do not compare even in the slightest degree. And more than that, your obvious inability to understand the truths of the Scriptures is emphasised in every message that you write. Thus your "years of study" has it seems been a waste, particularly so since your opinions and your "interpretations" are denied by the teachings of the LORD Jesus Christ. So on whose side are you on ? * Origin: (3:771/1560.25)