There is Hope wrote:
If OT prophecies are so clear, then why is it so hard for the dispensationalist to find one verse that clearly states that the antichrist makes a peace treaty with Israel and then breaks it half way through the tribulation period.

Try again.

The fact is that if OT profecies are unclear, they are unclear NOT ONLY to the dispensationalist, BUT ALSO to the covenant theologians.

For a person to make such a irresponsible statement like God purposely makes the Scripture vague for the sincere seeker, is making it very clear that NOONE can be sure. So to hear you guys speak so dogmatically about something you confess to be vague, is quite comical.

Like I stated before, there are certain things of prophecies that are mysterious. That is because not all the details have been revealed to us. BUT the stuff that God has revealed to us are as clear as daylight to the sincere seeker.

The Calvinist will have one to believe that both the revealed and the unrevealed are purposely meant to be vague.

My humble response to that is:

LOL
God intentionally makes things vague for the sincere seeker?!?!?!

Ha!

Let me guess, only the enlightened Calvinist has the true meaning.

Right. Try again.

Miguel wrote:
My curiosity has been sparked as to what the doctor had to say.

I get that all the time.

DJC49 already failed miserably in the past, so I would not take any advice from him. I think it would be best for you to pray and think for yourself what saith the Scriptures.

I have tackled Dan 9:27 here before and I think I have done a pretty decent job. I do not remember with whom I was discussing this with, but I do recall that he had a very hard time proving from the context that "he is" refers to Jesus. The only thing he was able to do was what all Calvinists have been trained to do. Gather up a few key verses from the Bible that have nothing to do with each other, isolate them from their context, and put them all together creating a context of their own; all the while never touching the context of Daniel 9:27.

How about you give it a try. Demonstrate from me how "he is" is Jesus and after I refute your position, I will demonstrate to you how "he is" can be no one but the Antichrist.

By the way, you ignore the objection I made on the last post about your insistence to know all the terms of the contract.

Neil wrote:
I concur with "alone" here. CMT, while "fellowshipping" is certainly desirable, it is also problematic when the pastor (who is usually accountable to no one) says questionable things in his sermon. One can either challenge him & make oneself unwelcome, or stick to "safe" subjects like one's kids, health, or the weather. It is a rare pastor who sincerely appreciates constructive criticism, & a rare churchgoer who cares to discuss the sermon in depth.
The study of Scripture ought to be a corporate activity (q.v. the Bereans), rather than the monopoly of a fallible pastor. It is a medieval/Catholic conceit that Bible teaching should be left to professionals. As Tyndale said, even a plowman can do it, with a little preparation.

Do they not understand that "Pastor" is a term of endearment not of entitlement.

I think Neil hit it on the head. I try not to run my church in such a corporate business fashion.

There is Hope wrote:
Mike, the point of the argument is that God extended His grace to a particular group of people.

Even Calvinist doctrine gives evidence to this prevailing truth. That's why they fabricate the split between a general call and an effectual call.

Only in Calvinist FairyLand will a god ask all to come to heaven but make it possible for only some to enter.

But those who take the Word of God literally (and seriously), there is no need for a complicated theological system that must desperately split hairs over such things as general and effectual call. Those who allow the Word of God to state what it means and mean what it states simply can respectfully stand back and claim:

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. And it is that point that dispensationalist defend. They do not defend any such point that you infer.

...

I thought you were inferring that the sermons werea defenses of some sort for evangelistic zeal in Calvinism.

Honestly, I believe after everything is said and done, we will all be corrected in our eschatology. There is a certain mystery to unfulfilled prophecy that all of us should respect. Anyone of us that think that they have a perfect eschatology is sadly mistaken. I just happen to be that dispensationalism (although not perfect) is the most tenable.

You asked for another verse besides Daniel 9:27 that states that the antichrist makes a peace treaty and breaks it and I gave you another verse.

Now you want more specific details concerning the terms of the contract. Honestly, I do not know they exist at this point. All that the Bible reveals to us is that the the covenant gives peace to Israel for a while. All the ins and outs of the contract, the Lord has chosen not to tell us.

One cannot have it both ways.

There is Hope wrote:
I have a challenge to any Independant Fundamental Baptist or anyone who holds to dispensationalism to produce a specific reference from scripture where the Antichrist makes a peace treaty with the nation of Israel and then breaks it.
Many will claim Daniel 9:27 as the only proof passage. Is there any other place in scripture where this is to be found?

It seems that you desire another verse that supports the basic dispensational theory that the Antichrist will break the treaty. I believe that you may find that in Daniel 12:11-12. The Antichrist breaks the treaty at the same time he brings in the abomination of desolation into the temple. If you divide 1,290 days by 360 (Jewish Calendar) you will get 3.5 years.

rogerant wrote:
[QUOTE]Our position is that the value of His death was infinite, but it's scope is limited to the elect.

1. One who cannot save certain people?

or

2. One who can save all but refuses to save some?

Let's try to work from the bottom up first.