"By and large Lutherans and Arminians have not been able to refine their position to the same extent, partly because every effort to do so has led to reasoning which is circular. A study of the written works of Arminius shows this very clearly. That it should be impossible, apparently, to break out of this circularity and to reach a final conclusion suggests that the system is basically at fault, not so much in its logical structure but in its premises.

By contrast, Calvinism does not suffer in the same way; its logic is linear and it allows the extension of understanding almost indefinitely one might say, to the limits of human reason, provided that the premises accord with Revelation.

Have a look at this chapter of Arthur Custance's book where he is looking at Perseverance. Especially the first six or seven pages, which bring an intriguing discourse on the debate with Jacob Arminius. I thought you might find it interesting.

How many unbelievers fully understand that they will be judged at all, never mind for "idle words"

If the result of judgment will be determined for every mortal based on "idle words" then ALL will be sent to hell.

Man will be judged guilty AS a sinner, or sanctified IN Christ alone.

Now let me explain for you...

The Christian has "responsibilities" to God.

The Natural sinner does not.

##Notice the little word "to"

Contender is absolutely correct below DB.

If I may add
Your
"The hyper Calvinist reject human responsibility on the part of man to repent and believe the gospel by faith"

The point is WHEN is the sinner ABLE to know/comprehend and react by repenting and believing.

Before Grace and the work of the Holy Spirit the sinner is incomprehensible of repentance for his sinful estate, - he doesn't/can't even acknowledge sin and it's implications for him in the realm of salvation etc.

The Christian has "responsibilities" to God.

The Natural sinner does not.

Pope Benedict XVI said recently that the "other" churches were not real churches.

I suppose if you judge other denominations against this expensive criteria, then YES we are not like them.

Thank God.

Your question
"What has believing the gospel unto salvation to do with "overcoming sin to make the spiritual decision to follow Christ unto salvatiion."?"

The point you've jumped ahead of in this question, is whether the sinner can believe, or not, and how he is enabled to do that.

Why is that?"

I thought we'd got rid of this Pelagian theory in the 5th century Mike?

1] We are talking about spiritual decisions only.

2] Luke 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Sinners (natural man) can respond in Love, do good and share - thus they are capable general community and relational choices and decisions.

Where they do not have a specific ability is in overcoming sin to make the spiritual decision to follow Christ unto salvation.

The TRUE Protestants - protest, they do not seek to join with the papal antichrist.

The concept you proffer has been rejected over many centuries.

Your "man as a moral being" with the ability to make the spiritual decision unto salvation without divine help is not Biblical.

Dead in sins means dead in the spiritual ability to even try to make that transition.

At enmity with God describes the status of the sinner in his natural estate, as an enemy not even considering association with God.

Your statement here actually seems paradoxical.

Whereas the sentence "Their works and words must be examined and verified by Scripture in context." The Reformed Church wholeheartedly agrees with you.

We accept the Westminster and other Reformed confessions and for example the Canons of Dort, BECAUSE we have verified their scripture doctinal basis and content.

One slight adjustment to your statement here. Sin and Satan blind the man in his natural state. This prevents him from spiritual decision making.

May I add on the term "Baptist" which has brought some to leave *THE* church.

The term Baptist, itself therefore a mind-set of those who participate in this denomination, reveals that they uphold (perhaps to highly) human involvement/cooperation/participation with God; - as significant to what (and only what) is God's church/instrument unto salvation.

The "term" excludes people therefore excludes "other" church witnesses.

The term also promotes the erroneous "necessity" of human action with God unto being "the" saved, thus endorsing the Free Will/synergist view of, - NO participation - NO salvation.

This reduces God to the ranks of participant NOT omnipotent Creator God.

However....

"The early fathers used the doctrine of the covenant in five ways:

1. To stress the moral obligations of Christianity;

2. To show God’s grace in including the Gentiles in the Abrahamic blessings;

3. To deny that Israelites received the promises simply because they were physical descendents of Abraham;

4. To demonstrate the unity of the divine economy of salvation;

5 To explain the discontinuity between the old and new covenants in Scripture.

Is that not just vanity on your part JD? Your Arminian leaning towards, God must receive your permission prior to His saving you?

Did you come over to the True Church?

The Reformed Church.

Well how about that?
Hey you guys anybody got a spare magic wand?

Mind you I can see how a Roman Catholic could finds these books acceptable. They do it all by magic too. Just ask GG.