Web Resources

Gary McNees wrote:

> Bob Felts wrote:
>
> > You think you're free, but you're not. You are no more free than a
> > character in a book. Characters who have actually met the author know
> > better.
>
> Another thought Bob.
>
> Spurgeon was "converted" to TULIP long after he first believed.
>
> So also was R. C. Sproul. (He writes of this in some of his books.)
>

So was I.

> This is true also of most Calvinists I know. Most of the new members of
> the Calvinistic churches I have attended were either born to Calvinist
> parents or came out of other churches which were not Calvinistic.

Calvinists, unfortunately, sometimes have a tendency to be less
enthusiastically evangelistic than other groups.

>
> That is, I have met or talked to very very few persons who claim that they
> were converted by hearing TULIP.

TULIP is not the Gospel. I usually don't bring either up either
Arminianism or Calvinism unless someone wants to know about the
questions addressed by each.

>
> Most who finally become believers in TULIP first believed in Christ in
> Churches which are not Calvinistic, (this has been my experience - I could
> be wrong).
>
> IF what you said and I say above are both true, then all of these who
> believed in Christ, but did not believe TULIP, and "no free will," were
> actually not saved until they came to embrace TULIP!
>

I wouldn't say that at all. Very few of us are born into God's family
with a full and complete knowledge of doctrine. One can know Jesus as
Savior without knowing how pervasive an Author He is.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:


> Luther was neither the first nor the last to believe this. There's
> nothing wrong with this belief. But this "Angel of the Lord" is never
> named. So no, there is NO reason to suppose (as the JWs might) that
> this is Michael.
>
> So what Bart says is true and interesting, but might only muddy the
> waters in this thread.


More mud: In Revelation, John is directed to write to
"the angel" at the various churches. A seraph hardly
needs a written letter from John to know God's will, so
who else could "angel" mean here, except the bishop at
that church. "Angel" is always someone speaking God's
Word. So it might make sense if the "king of angels"
is the Word Himself.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

>To be clear - and restate my point -