To me reformed calvanism is trying to making calvanism more ammeniable as result of it its puffiness through fatalistic selectees. I adhere to Acts 17.11 not a website new theology of reformed calvanism so that means I search the scriptures not the reformed website. You might have that mixed. You should be able to explain to a child in Christ simply forthcomingly like an open book instead of asking one to read over a hundred pages for the answe to a simple question. What if I had an IQ of 70 and could only read one sentence an hour. Then by virtue only smart people could be saved. Doesn't seem righteously fair to me.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Nee believed in the Arminian "baptism in the Holy Ghost." I have already shown you “some” of what that belief entails historically. If you refuse to accept the history of a particular belief there is not much one can do. I could ask it another way: Was Nee an Arminian or Calvinist (I am giving Nee the benefit of the doubt here—he is closer to a mystic than anything)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Baptism to Nee is burial and resurrection, that is all. If that is Armenian baptism then Nee agreed with it. Otherwise he did not. I quoted Nee on this from God's Work under "Instance 1". It is clear. Why do you claim Nee believe something different? Do you have additional information? I don't care about the history of a particular belief. I compare about the truth of scripture, as Nee got it right, I will agree with him and so I have it as we both agree with scripture that baptism is burial in clear conscience 2 Tim 1.3<br><br>Oh, I thought you were referring to the gift of tongues of languages has ceased or the gift of knowledge or wisdom etc. Certainly such things as stoning have ceased though I am not so sure that is qualified as a gift. Stoning is not of God is it? So it never ceased since it never began?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Legalistic request . Giving Scriptural proof for your assertions is legalistic? No, once again for the third time my request is a Biblical request. One Scripture is all I am asking. What the problem is that you have Original Sin confused with Demon Possession. Do you know what Original Sin is? Do you understand the meaning of Total Depravity? Please do not confuse the issue by adding obsession to the mix. Our concern is only possession.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Yes. When you could easily yourself pick through hundreds of examples. For the Bible throughout shows sin and its possession with a believer and non-believer. To show just one example of hundreds to prove such a point seems legalistic to me. Demon possession is an extreme of possession. It is still possession. Total depravity seems wrong to me because it says we lose our free will to choose God. I don't believe that. And that is why I don't believe in calvanism. As you know various Christians and old testament men of God had varying degrees of possession even so bad as to call extreme cases demonically possessed. To which case of possession you consider to be more or less possessed in men who sin so that such obsession turns into the degree of possession and demon possesion is open to debate. Perhaps it would be better if you find the case that you think would be the most aggregious case and then I could comment on the degree of its possession.<br><br>If Calvanism says our free will is not independent then that is why I say it puffed up. Because only God giving us perfect will is unpuffed. A will that is only chosen by God and not other wills is not God given true free will. Each of Calvins points are puffed on this sole basis of killing the free will and saying "God picked me but he didn't pick you". armenianism says "God chose me, but he will choose you too IF YOU ACCEPT HIM." Amen.<br><br>
