gpat...@bayou.com wrote:

>There are scriptures outside the canon.

This is true. Acts 20:35, Jude 14 are a couple more BUT they "are" part
of the finished canon. the 66 books that make up the Bible. Nothing can
be added to those 66 books and nothing beyond it is Holy Scripture.
There will be NO NEW Scripture until the "new scrolls" are opened
during Christ's Thousand Year Reign.

((( 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. )))

Gary McNees wrote:
> Two Calvinists, Bob and Loren, and one Lutheran, Bart, on this list
> have asserted that I do not understand Calvinism. They further assert that I
> misrepresent Calvinism, and malign Calvinism unjustly.
>
Whaaaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaaaaa!
>
> Norman Geisler entitled "Chosen But Free."
>
By his own admission he clearly stands on the side of moderate
Calvinism. Some of the subjects he discusses in the appendixes are
these: Was Calvin a Calvinist? The Origins of Extreme Calvinism; Is
Faith a Gift Only to the Elect? Double Predestination; Is Regeneration
Prior to Faith. I do not deny the fact that Chosen but Free is by far
the best presentation of the moderate Calvinist viewpoint in print.
Nor would I seek to pursuade any one away from reading it. Quite the
opposite.

Simply put, Geisler proposes that man is free but that God is
sovereign. Geisler down-plays many of the tenets of the Calvinist view.
While holding to eternal security, he argues that many other doctrines
of the system are not biblical. Though admittedly many Calvinistic
biblicists would not agree with all he writes, the book does makes for
a good reference work with its many quotes from other theologians and
the church fathers. Obviously Calvinists are mixed on the issue of free
will. Some say (rightly) the Bible never says man is free. Others argue
that man is free but God controls the events surrounding him, so that
in essence, he is not free.

((( 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. )))

>
> I declare an illegal procedure of failure to acknowldge the
permanence
> of the spirit even in the Old Testament elect.
>
Why should I. You have presented no evidence of the fact. What of
Sampson, just as a clear illustration. He was certainly "set apart"
and "called" specifically by God. Yet the Spirit did not permanently
indwell him.
>
> Not enough men on the field -- when in fact David and Abraham were
> examples of faith that same faith through the same spirit that
imputed
> our righteousness. The elect fathers of faith join us in sharing the

> promises that were spiritua