Michael Hranek wrote:
There is Hope
So! Would you have people believe when Jesus says, "Come unto me all who are weary and heavy laden...." that He was disingenuous as this promise was only for the elite few and not also for the weary heavy laden sinners who would hear His word? Are you trying to make Jesus out to be some kind of a double speaking hypocritical liar?
You know the non-elect lost whom Calvinist would call the non-elect those the Calvinsits would claim God hated before the foundation of the world to live only so God could display His glory in them by damning them to the eternal hell?
Some hope you've gotten yourself into.

Baptist generally leave off the first half of that verse.

It will be those whom the Father drew by His power (John 6:44).

DJC49 wrote:
Eph 1:4,5 "According as HE HATH CHOSEN US in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having PREDESTINATED us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

Lorainne Boettner gave a good illustration. A couple goes to an adoption agency to adopt a child to give their love to.They want to give this child their name and all of the provileges that goes with that name. Financially they had the means to adopt the entire orphanage, but chose only one. Were they unjust in choosing only one chuld while passing over all of the others? It was their name and their wealth to distribute as they wished.

Matt 20:15 "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?"

Miguel wrote:
There is Hope,
Sorry, but I'm not going to continue repeating what I have already posted every time someone wants to misconstrue it. I've already stated what I believe about all of this. If you want to continue argueing against something that I don't even believe you are welcome to, but don't expect me to continue responding.

I don't know why you are getting so defensive. I answered your two questions with scripture, now you are telling me that you don't believe what the scriptures say. I asked you a question since this is the first time I engage in this discussion with you which you refuse to answer.

If carnal sinful man can come to Christ under his own power as the Pelagian, Arminians claim, then it is up to you to provide scripture to support your stand.

Miguel wrote:
The issue is:
1) Does that mean that man is UNABLE to come to God.

Are you an exception here? From the words of the Lord Jesus Himself. Did he say that no man except Miguel.

If you did not come to the saving knowledge of Christ by the power of God, then by whose power did you come?

Miguel wrote:
2) Does spiritually dead mean he is unable to choose to come to Christ.

1 Cor. 2:14-15 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

You also claim that God looked down and saw who would be saved and elected those. Then it is no longer election of grace but by works.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Thank you Miguel and Rogerant. Good night from northern Europe.

Mercy wrote:
Faith is not in its strength, but in the object - namely the work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So, the one with little faith, or the one with strong faith can be assured of salvation.

Michael Hranek wrote:
There is Hope
Perhaps you should carefully reread the last two verses. Who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD? Why! The people of the prince who is to come.
Daniel 9
26 “And after the sixty-two weeks
Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week
He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.
And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,
Even until the consummation, which is determined,
Is poured out on the desolate.”

Even if this was Titus, he never made any kind of peace treaty with Israel.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Miguel
Perhaps it might be good to point out one doesn't have to be a "dispensationalist" to believe God Himself brings about a very real fulfullment (not symbolic) of the prophecies in the Bible but one does need to believe God knows what He is talking about and is faithful to fulfill His word.
And I have to think since you mentioned context, it is context that is the first and foremost way we should come to a honest true interpretation and application of what God Himself has said to us in the Bible.

With that in mind, let's look at the context of the prophecy of Daniel 9:27. Where in the immediate context is the antichrist even mentioned by name or even eluded to. Is he mentioned at all in the 9th chapter? Keep in mind for the personal pronoun "he" to be used it needs to be linked back to a specific individual named previously.

Doctor WOMI wrote:
I gave you two. And I have been waiting for days for your rebuttal.
Try again.

Where is there any mention of the antichrist establishing the covenant to start with in this passage?

There is no mention of any antichrist or any covenant in these two passages.

In the context of Dan. 9:27, there are two persons mentioned, the Messiah the Prince and the people of the Prince. In the original KJV 1611, the word prince is capitalized meaning the Messiah the Prince and the Prince in verse 26 are the same person. The personal pronoun in verse 27 "he" must be traced back to its nearest antecedent which is in this case, the Messiah the Prince.

By attributing the pronoun as meaning the antichrist, you are calling Jesus the Antichrist and the mediator of the New Covenant the Antichrist.

DJC49 wrote:
There is Hope,
Even good Calvinists such as John MacArthur have been seduced by this aberrant, non-historical interpretation of Daniel 9:27.
This futurist interpretation is one which the Church NEVER subscribed to prior to the early 1800's since which time Dispensationalism has foisted many follies upon the Church.
And how the Dispensationalists try to buttress their Great Tribulational beliefs by superimposing Daniel 12:11-12 upon Daniel 9:27 is yet more of their Scriptural legerdemain.

DJC49 wrote:
Daniel 9:24-27 is exclusively concerned with the 1st Advent of Christ and has nothing whatsoever to do with the totally artificial construct the Dispensationalists fabricate about some future "peace treaty" made between the Antichrist and Israel during the 7 years of the Great Tribulation.
For a proper treatment of this passage in Daniel (specifically Dan 9:27), listen to this sermon entitled: [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2110813080]]]Who Confirmed the Covenant, Christ or Antichrist?[/URL]
Cross-reference Hebrews 9 with Daniel 9:27 as to Who makes the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.
HE shall confirm THE Covenant ... not some rinky-dink "peace treaty."

Mike wrote:
Indeed, There is Hope. And yet was it not required that the Israelites believe/obey what Moses relayed to the elders, to paint the doorposts with the blood, that the destroyer would pass over them? Israel was chosen, but they still had to do something, obey. They had to "come under" the blood to be saved.

Do you remember when God told Moses to tell the children of Israel to sprinkle the blood on the door post of their houses and then the death angel came, he would pass over them when he saw the blood. Who was this intended for, everybody in general or the children of Israel?

God in His sovereignty chose to withhold His saving grace from the Egyptians. Did that make Him a mean God, in no wise. His covenant was intended and extended to whom He pleased and for His good pleasure.

I think these Arminian types miss that point. The blood of Christ accomplished what it was intended for and extended to whom it was intended. If as the Arminians contend that it only made salvation available and possible, it in essence didn't save anyone because the blood wasn't the atoning agent, man's actions was.

Doctor WOMI wrote:
We can only know what has been revealed to us in Scripture. What has been revealed to us is that a
peace treaty between Israel and the Antichrist will exist .
That point can be easily proven.

Doctor WOMI wrote:
I would be interested to know of what exactly he stated that created a fire for evangelism.

Doctor WOMI wrote:
The Fundamental question is not the nature of the contract, but if the Bible states that the contract will exist between the Antichrist and Israel. To the latter, I say a yes.

Michael Hranek wrote:
There is Hope
I am quite aware of and oppossed to easy believism and false professions of faith and so are others.
But don't let the errors and abuses of some leave you wide open to an entire different set of error
God's promise stands
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!"

If you get a chance, look up William McCrea's message on

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=62208185468]]]When God Says, "That's Enough"[/URL]

and Ian Paisley's message on [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11280053920]]]Repentance[/URL]

You'll be pleasantly suprpised and refreshed by these two sermons. You may rethink some of your views on the Calvinistic/Reformed preachers.

Michael Hranek wrote:
...and some holding to Calvinistic/Reformed Theology show too well the only change they have is their religion and not actually the new birth which radically changes a wretched lost hell deserving sinner into a new creature.

Michael Hranek wrote:
There is Hope
I would think you already know the correct answer.

I agree that their are Calvinistic / Reformed churches that do preach the gospel and invite sinners to flee to Christ. Those are the scriptural ones. They hold to the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man to repent and believe the gospel. They also hold that only those who are regenerated by the Holy Spirit will savingly respond to the gospel. They hold that salvation is of the Lord plus nothing, whereas Arminians hold that God can only attempt to save sinners but man is the ultimate completer of his own salvation, thus being his own savior. God cannot save them unless He gets their cooperation and permission. Arminians deny that God enables them to savingly come to Christ but that they are fully capable in and of themselves to do so.

Where do you stand on these issues?

Let me just add

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.