The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Watchman Nee

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Reformed Calvinistic sense? What does that mean?</font><hr></blockquote><p> Please go to the supplied link (Calvinism) and it will explain the ONLY theology that is FULLY consistent with the ENTIRE Word of God. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]They maintain that water cannot regenerate people.</font><hr></blockquote><p> While you entertained several errors in your assessment of Baptism, I do not have the time to address them all, maybe someone else will. Please explain how people are ACTUALLY regenerated by water—BTW this is Baptismal Regeneration, which has been condemned by the Church for centuries. My Bible tells me I am regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Baptism rather comes after Regeneration. Salvation is not by works (Eph 2:8-10). Baptism is a work.<br><br>Though there were several out of context statements you made in your post (you failed to address the issue of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, you do not understand Nee in context, I said MANY gifts, which you interpreted as ALL, I asked for a biblical example and you gave me a definition from Jessie Penn Lewis, you failed to see the teaching of Nee in Lee, etc.) a more important issue I believe is at the root of our discussion. So, please do not worry about answering ALL the inconsistencies in the posts above. Please answer ONLY this one series of questions. <br><br><ul>1. How is a person born again? Be specific. <br><br>2. What is total depravity? <br><br>3. What is regeneration? <br><br>4. What is conversion?

Too many links. Perhaps you could explain it to me so even a babe in Christ could understand. Surely such things of God need not be so complicated.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]While you entertained several errors in your assessment of Baptism, I do not have the time to address them all, maybe someone else will. Please explain how people are ACTUALLY regenerated by water—BTW this is Baptismal Regeneration, which has been condemned by the Church for centuries. My Bible tells me I am regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Baptism rather comes after Regeneration. Salvation is not by works (Eph 2:8-10). Baptism is a work.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't know how water regenerates unto salvation, since I nor Nee believe this even though having accussed of such. Isn't it amazing how men make mistaken assumptions about men to puff up self for whatever reason could there as they believe they perceive reality correctly. You said there were some wrong things also, what were they?<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Though there were several out of context statements you made in your post (you failed to address the issue of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, you do not understand Nee in context, I said MANY gifts, which you interpreted as ALL, I asked for a biblical example and you gave me a definition from Jessie Penn Lewis, you failed to see the teaching of Nee in Lee, etc.) a more important issue I believe is at the root of our discussion. So, please do not worry about answering ALL the inconsistencies in the posts above. Please answer ONLY this one series of questions. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br>So some gifts are allowed to continue but others are not? Does it get confusing to pick which ones? Why do you think I dont understand Nee's context. My conscience is clear in understanding and satisfied. How did I fail to address the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is it not burial and ressurrection? I am not a Bible scholar on Christian possession, so I am not sure what would satisfy you of the hundreds of examples of men who were obsessed and and possessed in sin and thus by the evil spirit that inspires that sin. You could probably open the Bible to almost any page. I won't reply to your legalistic request of an example of laid out possession for everyone in the Bible in varying degrees has had evil influence in their lives at one point in their lives or another from obsessed activity leading to more pronounced possessed activity. The definiton by Jessie is what i agree with so in that defintion it could apply to hudreds of examples in scripture. Just open up your BIble and the concordance and pick out a sin. I don't care about Lee's teaching. I do care about Watchman Nee's teaching. YOu said I don't understand Nee's teaching yet I own all his books. What is it that you don't think I understand? You said there is inconsistencies. What inconsistencies? What do you think is the root of the problem? What problem?<br><br>1. How is a person born again? Be specific. <br><br>2. What is total depravity? <br><br>3. What is regeneration? <br><br>4. What is conversion? <br><br>Let's deal with one thing at a time. I think we have enough questions on the table already to begin adding more. I believe Calvanism is fatalistically puffed up a killer of free will, a grand deception, not unlike how pentecostals use gibberish to feel they are saved, calvanists use total depravity and limited atonement for the same purpose.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Be as it may. Then, Please kindly answer my first set of questions and explain the statement about "His IQ far exeeds anyone you have ever met in your life". Have you personally gone around and performed an IQ test of everyone and then discovered whom william (Averagefeller) has known and not known? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I answered all your questions except your latest bunch of new questions like what does salvation mean, etc?<br><br>Have you ever met anyone with an IQ in the top 1/50,000 or greater for that is the kind of numbers wer are talking about here here? <br><br>By the way, can we not have this petty conversation and get back to the misreadings of Watchman Nee?<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Too many links. Perhaps you could explain it to me so even a babe in Christ could understand. Surely such things of God need not be so complicated.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Well if you do not wish to read then I can not assist you (Acts 17:11). It is not complicated, just biblical. <br><br><blockquote>2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.</blockquote>As Joseph Hall once commented, “In the waters of life, the Divine Scriptures, there are shallows and there are deeps; shallows where the lamb may wade; and deeps where the elephant may swim. If we be not wise to distinguish, we may easily miscarry; he that can wade over the ford, cannot swim through the deep.... What infinite mischief hath arisen to the church of God from the presumption of ignorant and unlettered men, that have taken upon them to interpret the most obscure Scriptures, and pertinaciously defend their own sense!” <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't know how water regenerates unto salvation, since I nor Nee believe this even though having accussed of such. Isn't it amazing how men make mistaken assumptions about men to puff up self for whatever reason could there as they believe they perceive reality correctly. You said there were some wrong things also, what were they?</font><hr></blockquote><p> 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)<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]So some gifts are allowed to continue but others are not? Does it get confusing to pick which ones? </font><hr></blockquote><p> No it is not confusing for the redeemed (1 Cor 1:27-28, et. al.). Bible study is a wonderful gift God has granted us with. The Bible is not so difficult that you need a Ph.D. to understand it, nor is it so easy that you can be a lazy man and understand it. The OT says that children were to be stoned for certain offenses. Do you still stone children or was that something that was temporary in the OT? Do you set aside one day for worship? Oh, so that law still applies. The gifts, just like the law, take some studying to understand what is temporary and what remains to discern the truth.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Why do you think I dont understand Nee's context. My conscience is clear in understanding and satisfied.[quote] Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? How did I fail to address the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Is it not burial and ressurrection? I am not a Bible scholar on Christian possession, so I am not sure what would satisfy you of the hundreds of examples of men who were obsessed and and possessed in sin and thus by the evil spirit that inspires that sin. You could probably open the Bible to almost any page. I won't reply to your legalistic request of an example of laid out possession for everyone in the Bible in varying degrees has had evil influence in their lives at one point in their lives or another from obsessed activity leading to more pronounced possessed activity. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Legalistic request [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]. Giving Scriptural proof for your assertions is legalistic? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img]<br><br>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.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Let's deal with one thing at a time. I think we have enough questions on the table already to begin adding more. I believe Calvanism is fatalistically puffed up a killer of free will, a grand deception, not unlike how pentecostals use gibberish to feel they are saved, calvanists use total depravity and limited atonement for the same purpose.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Your understanding here is incorrect. You made a sweeping accusation: [color:red]Calvanism is fatalistically puffed up a killer of free will, a grand deception</font color=red> and offered nothing to support your statement. Maybe you can answer this and not be evasive: <br><br><ul>1. How many sins did Christ die for, and<br>2. how many people did He die for?[/LIST] If you do not have a proper grasp of how a person is born again, total depravity, regeneration, and conversion you will never understand the Bible or Calvinism? [color:green]But, I do find if unusual that you wish to talk about other topics and not salvation?</font color=green> [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img] This is not a good sign. <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:</blockquote></font color=blue>

The truth is that Watchman Nee was a Charismatic, only one who did not believe tongues was gibberish or a "heavenly language." Nee believed tongues to be an earthly language. Nee never spoke in tongues himself, but he did advocate "second blessing" and his writings (which I collected and read as if they were inspired during my years in the Charismatic movement) demonstrate contempt for reason and logic, as well as for "cold, dead orthodoxy" which he found so deplorable. Fed up with the unfeeling churchianity of his day, Nee was ripe for the House Church movement in China. His writings demonstrate that he never lost his contempt for organized churches. They also demonstrate a hostility to reason. Nee would have us abandon the use of our brains and "go with the Spirit" instead. His books are balderdash.<br><br>-Robin<br>

Since you didn't actualy answer any of the questions in my other response, I'll ask some here. Please step down off your soap box long enough to actually interact?<br><br>Prove Total Depravity wrong?<br><br>Prove universal atonement, then match it to limited salvation.<br><br>Youy limit the atonement as well. Can you tell me how?<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I answered all your questions except your latest bunch of new questions like what does salvation mean, etc?<br><br>Have you ever met anyone with an IQ in the top 1/50,000 or greater for that is the kind of numbers wer are talking about here here? <br><br>By the way, can we not have this petty conversation and get back to the misreadings of Watchman Nee?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Actually you never answered my first set of questions at all. Tis not a petty converstation at all. you just made some claims and assumptions without having full knowledge of the situation. Joe and others have already been pointing out to you Nee's errors that you keep denying. When asked to give scriptural examples, you call it legalistic[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]. <br>

Troy,<br><br>Why are Watchman Nee and Jessie-Penn Lewis your favorite authors? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img]<br><br>What is your religious background and why are these two authors appealing to you?<br><br><br>Wes [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br>

Troy,<br><br>howard mentioned that Nee and Lewis are both Arminians. <br><br>You replied:<blockquote>Yes of course they are as well as I, praise the Lord!!! <span style="background-color:yellow;">Just like God</span>.</blockquote>Are you following the Christ of Arminianism?<br><br>[color:blue]The Christ of Arminianism</font color=blue><br>(Freewillism)<br>Rev. Steven Houck<br><br>The Bible warns us that in the last days in which we live there will be many false Christs-those who claim to be Christ but who are imposters. Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matt. 24:4-5). We who profess to be Christians must take heed. We must be very careful that we are not deceived. Our calling is to trust, love, and follow the true Christ and Him only. We may have nothing to do with the false Christs who are so numerous in our day. <br><br>We know about the Christ of the cults and other religions. He is a good man, a prophet, the first creation of God, a great spirit, a divine idea, or even a god himself. But he is not true and eternal God. He receives his existence from another who is greater than he. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ. <br><br>We know about the Christ of Roman Catholicism. They profess that He is true God. He suffered and died for the forgiveness of sin. He arose again, ascended into heaven, and is coming again. But he is not a complete Savior. The Christ of the Roman Catholics can not save sinners without their own good works and the intercession of priests. He is not the Christ of the Bible. We are not deceived by this Christ. He is a false Christ. <br><br>There is, however, another false Christ who is much more dangerous than the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism. He has deceived people for many years and he continues to deceive millions. This Christ is so dangerous that, if it were not impossible, he would deceive the very elect (Matt. 24:24). He is the Christ of Arminianism. <br><br>This false Christ is extremely dangerous because in many ways he appears to be the True Christ. They say that he is true God, equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They say that he died on the cross to save sinners. They even say that he saves by his grace alone, without the work of man. This Christ will have nothing to do with the Christ of the cults and the Christ of Roman Catholicism. <br><br>But watch out! Be warned! The Christ of Arminianism is not the Christ of the Bible. Do not be fooled!<br><br>1. The Christ of Arminianism - loves every individual person in the world and sincerely desires their salvation. <br><br>The Christ of the Bible - earnestly loves and desires the salvation of only those whom God has unconditionally chosen to salvation. (Ps. 5:5, Ps. 7:11, Ps. 11:5, Matt. 11:27, John 17:9-10, Acts 2:47, Acts 13:48, Rom. 9:10-13, Rom. 9:21-24, Eph. 1:3-4) <br><br>2. The Christ of Arminianism - offers salvation to every sinner and does all in his power to bring them to salvation. His offer and work are often frustrated, for many refuse to come. <br><br>The Christ of the Bible - effectually calls to Himself only the elect and sovereignly brings them to salvation. Not one of them will be lost. (Isa. 55:11, John 5:21, John 6:37-40, John 10:25-30, John 17:2, Phil. 2:13) <br><br>3. The Christ of Arminianism - can not regenerate and save a sinner who does not first choose Christ with his own "free will." All men have a "free will" by which they can either accept or reject Christ. That "free will" may not be violated by Christ. <br><br>The Christ of the Bible - sovereignly regenerates the elect sinner apart from his choice, for without regeneration the spiritually dead sinner can not choose Christ. Faith is not man's contribution to salvation but the gift of Christ which He sovereignly imparts in regeneration. (John 3:3, John 6:44 & 65, John 15:16, Acts 11:18, Rom. 9:16, Eph. 2:1,Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 1:29, Hebr. 12:2) <br><br>4. The Christ of Arminianism - died on the cross for every individual person and thereby made it possible for every person to be saved. His death, apart from the choice of man, was not able to actually save anyone for many for whom he died are lost. <br><br>The Christ of the Bible - died for only God's elect people and thereby actually obtained salvation for all those for whom He died. His death was a substitutionary satisfaction which actually took away the guilt of His chosen people. (Luke 19:10, John 10:14-15 & 26, Acts 20:28, Rom. 5:10, Eph. 5:25, Hebr. 9:12, I Peter 3:18) <br><br>5. The Christ of Arminianism - loses many whom he has "saved" because they do not continue in faith. Even if he does give them "eternal security," as some say, that security is not based upon his will or work but the choice which the sinner made when he accepted Christ. <br><br>The Christ of the Bible - preserves His chosen people so that they can not lose their salvation but persevere in the faith to the very end. He preserves them by the sovereign electing will of God, the power of His death, and the mighty working of His Spirit. (John 5:24, John 10:26-29, Rom. 8:29-30, Rom. 8:35-39, I Peter 1:2-5, Jude 24-25) <br><br>As you can see, although the Christ of Arminianism and the Christ of the Bible may at first seem to be the same, they are very different. One is a false Christ. The other is the true Christ. One is weak and helpless. He bows before the sovereign "free will" of man. The other is the reigning Lord Who wills what He pleases and sovereignly accomplishes all that He wills. <br><br>If you believe and serve the Christ of Arminianism, you must recognize the fact that you do not serve the Christ of the Bible. You have been deceived! Study the Scriptures and learn of the True Christ. Pray for grace to repent and trust Christ as your sovereign Savior. <br><br><br>Wes

He is not a charasmatic and does not believe the movement that started 110 years ago. In his book God's Work of several, he declares this. He did not advocate second blessing. That is a lie. His desire for logic and reason is bar none, impeccable. He should have been a philosophy teacher. Quite a genius indeed. He does not have contempt for orthodoxy. Nee helped build the church in China. That is where he lived so that was his role to play, through houses, assemblies, everything. This is God's desire. He was not fed up with anything. He simply recognized which is God's common sense that demonations all have an angle they are pursuing and that God did not ordain denominations if the denomination is holding unto some part untruth like required water baptism or legalizing a local city or calvanism or state churches for the country or charasmatic movement or gibberish. It was all not quite right marrying church to state, even in ammelianism or false preterism as partial rapture brings together pre and post trib. He recognized tripartate man and did not believe in fallen man's view of bipartate man.<br><br>He had no problem with church organization but he had issues if as a denomination it held unto some untruth and built itself on that basis. Nee's love of reason is bar none for he had the best reason of them all, stronger and more talented than almost all, strong just like Paul in the NT. Nee emplores you to use your mind more than most. He implores you to allow your spirit to be strengthened. Can you do that? Will you let God do that for you?<br><br>Do you see what Nee teaches as oppossed to what you think he teaches?<br><br>Nee was very unassuming. Can you be just as unassuming as he was?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Actually you never answered my first set of questions at all. Tis not a petty converstation at all. you just made some claims and assumptions without having full knowledge of the situation. Joe and others have already been pointing out to you Nee's errors that you keep denying. When asked to give scriptural examples, you call it legalistic</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>What was your first questions?<br>What claims and assumptions?<br>What knowledge do you think I am missing?<br>I have corrected their view of Nee to show where they misunderstood. Having read Nee I know their claims are false. When you read Nee you don't get this indication at all they claim. When asked to give scriptural examples "I call it legalistic" why do you say that about me?

What soap box?<br>Am I not interacting?<br>Total Depravity is wrong by the simple fact that <br><br>This is the opening claim of Total Depravity<br>Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel<br><br>This opens the door to all the other errors of calvanism. The reason why this opening claim is no more complicated than this........man had free will before the fall and man had free will after fall, no matter how depraved. The problem is that man never chose God's life tipified by the tree of life. So how does man choose that life if he is locked out of the garden? simple. <br><br>God's redemptive design to bring in Christ's death on the cross, and resurrection. When that resurrection came men could then receive His life for the first time since the fall. Any time before that men never had the Holy Spirit within. <br><br>So this free will now and before and always is available to all universally, not limited at all. Limited in practice but in toto. Limited because obviously some won't accept but that never supersedes the purity of universality<br><br>So you see I don't limit the atonement. Just because in practice not all will be saved that doesnt mean salvation is not offered to all<br><br>That is why universal atonement is 100% true whereas as limited atonement is half truth and half mistake.<br><br>It's a purer and thus more peaceful thought to think in terms of universal general atonement for that is God's giving, to us all.<br><br>Otherwise it is puffed. That is that.<br>I don't know about the million and one different denominations. Nor do I have the energy to research them. I just know God's truth on this matter and if that shuts down tonnes of denominations for their calvanistic beliefs, reforming it or not, that is probably a good thing. Better to cut the eye to sin with it again.

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>

Troy,<br><br>I must say that you have spent more time deifying Watchman Nee than Christ. You have offered many disjuncted statements yet extremely few passages from God's inspired, infallible and inerrant Word to show that what you say and believe actually is what God has taught in His Word. You refuse to read any article offered to you yet you want everyone to read Watchman Nee. Those who have read Watchman Nee, and I am one, you say don't understand what he has written, and only YOU are able to correctly understand him. (we have another individual here who makes the same claim about his erroneous doctrines too!) If it is true that none here are able to correctly understand Nee, then he has failed miserably with his "genius" to communicate what he believed.<br><br>You also claim that the reason you reject the biblical doctrine of "Total Depravity" because, in your own words, "It doesn't seem right to me". Thus your preference is to reject the clear teaching of God's inspired, infallible and inerrant Word for the doctrines of men, which Christ warned about would happen as did Paul and Peter.<blockquote>2 Timothy 4:3-4 (ASV) "For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables."<br><br>2 Peter 2:1-2 (ASV) "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of."</blockquote>And, for your information, Calvinism has never taught that man's will is not "free". In fact Calvinism has stressed the biblical truth that man is indeed a "free agent". No man is forced to do anything against his will. God never violates the will of man in any situation. However, what you have failed to learn from the Spirit of the Word of God is that when Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, he DIED!. The image of God with which man was first created did not die...... but it was grossly distorted. Sin permeated all of man's being because his spiritual nature died. No longer did man have any interest or love for God. No longer did man have a desire to do that which was right in the eyes of God. But mankind was controlled by his sin nature, which was God's punishment upon him for Adam's disobedience, which He had promised would happen should Adam eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.<br><br>Man freely chooses that and ONLY that which he desires, as is the case with every creature of God. No unregenerate man will ever seek after God because he innately hates God. Isn't this what Paul clearly says:<blockquote>Romans 3:10-18 (ASV) " . . . as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."</blockquote>Again, Paul makes it crystal clear that it is God's sovereign and INITIAL work of grace in transforming, enlivening, resurrecting, creating anew the depraved nature of man which enables a sinner to even perceive his need of reconciliation because of his sinfulness. Thus, speaking to those who had been engrafted into Christ, Paul reminds them from whence they came:<blockquote>Ephesians 2:1-10 (ASV) "And you [did he make alive,] when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:-- but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly [places], in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus: for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them."</blockquote>Can you from the Scriptures.... God's inspired, infallible and inerrant Word show me where Paul erred in his understanding and thus believe what Arminianism teaches?<br><br>These things the Spirit of God has taught me and ingrained in my mind and heart. The Spirit also has shown me that Watchman Nee did not teach what He once delivered unto the Saints. He has impressed this upon my soul and taken me to the Bible, of which He Himself was the Author, and shown me the truth of God. Can you SHOW ME where in God's holy Word that what you believe is taught? Please don't direct me to your website or another website to read something of Watchman Nee. The Bible is the final and sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. Thus, as Christ did, so you also should do and open the Scriptures and show me/us where these things are taught. If you care at all about us as those created in the image of God, you will fulfill this request, as it is God's will that you do so.<blockquote>2 Timothy 2:2 (KJV) "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."</blockquote>But be forewarned that Paul also exhorted the churches and all true believers:<blockquote>1 Timothy 6:3-5 (ASV) "If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, [even] the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain."</blockquote>I await your "sound words" which come directly from the Scriptures concerning the doctrine you believe.<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]To me reformed calvanism is trying to making calvanism more ammeniable as result of it its puffiness through fatalistic selectees. </font><hr></blockquote><p> Fatalism has nothing at all to do with Calvinism. Fatalism is a false doctrine and not a biblical doctrine. Fatalism is not Calvinism—you need to look up your definitions before making sweeping “general” comments, that you “still” fail to back up with Scripture.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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 </font><hr></blockquote><p> If I did not think that the articles on this website properly interpreted the Word of God, I would not direct you to them. But, you are right the articles will not assist you in your present condition because you cannot understand them. But since, there are over a 1000 articles here and you have not read them “all” (if any) how can you condemn them? You cited:<br><br><blockquote>Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.</blockquote> But, where is your [color:red] readiness of mind</font color=red> and [color:red]searching of the Scriptures</font color=red> to disprove Calvinism. You have violated the very thing you claim to adhere too. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Calvinism is very simple for the regenerate to understand. Though I could have saved an immense amount of time by just you reading, The Five Points of Calvinism, by W.J. Seaton please simply read this:<br><br>The Bible says we are NATURALLY SINFUL: by birth [Ps 51.5] and practice [Gen 6.5]. The Scripture informs us that we are BOUND: [2 Tim 2.25]. It demonstrates to us that we are BLIND, DEAF, and DUMB [Luke 6:39, 7:22]. The Bible instructs us that we, by nature are DEAD [Rom 5.12]. It illustrates to us that we are UN-INSTRUCTABLE [1 Cor 2.14]. Thus, man is depraved. When was the last time you saw a dead man heal himself?<br><br>Some have trouble believing that God could pass by some and elect others (unconditional election). Yet, like you, they have no difficulty in trusting that God called Abraham out of the Ur of the Chaldees and left the others (unconditional election).[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] Why should God choose the nation of Israel as His "peculiar people"? Why did God choose the younger son Jacob (disregarding the customary family laws of Israel), over the elder Esau? (Rom 9.11-13). Thus, one who does not believe in unconditional election clearly does not believe the Word of God.<br><br>Whose penalty did Christ bear? Whose salvation did He acquire? There are three options:<br><br><ul>1. Christ died to [color:red]save all men</font color=red> without distinction. <br><br>If, Christ died to save all men, then, all men will be saved. If, Christ paid the debt of sin, for all men, then all men will be saved. Is unbelief a sin? Yes! If, Christ died for all the sins (including unbelief) of all men then none could ever be lost for their unbelief is atoned for!<br><br>2. Christ died to [color:red]save no one in particular</font color=red>.<br><br>Some say, Christ obtained only a [color:red]potential salvation for all men</font color=red>, although He paid the debt of our sin. Even though Christ said, “it is finished,” His work on the Cross does not become effectual until man makes a decision for Christ and is thereby saved. Thus, man becomes the author (initiator) of his own salvation. But, this is in violation of Scripture—Eph 2:8-10, et. al.<br><br>3. Christ died to [color:red]save a certain number</font color=red>.<br><br>Christ died certainly and effectually to save a specific number of hell-deserving sinners. Christ paid the debt for the elect and only them. Christ died to save a particular number of sinners; those for whom He Himself said He shed His blood: [color:blue]This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed <span style="background-color:yellow;">for many</span>, for the remission of sins</font color=blue> [Matt 26.28], that is, those [color:blue]chosen in him before the foundation of the world</font color=blue> [Eph 1.4]; those whom the Father had [color:blue]given him out of the world</font color=blue> [John 17.9]. [/LIST] If men are unable to save themselves on account of their fallen depraved nature (as proven Scripturally above), and if God has purposed to save them, and Christ has accomplished their salvation, then it logically follows that God must also provide the means for calling them into the benefits of that salvation which He has procured for them. Irresistible grace is proven from Scripture:<br><br><ul>John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.<br><br>John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.<br><br>Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.<br><br>Ephesians 1:4 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:<br><br>1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;[/LIST] Following total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and effectual calling, we have — the perseverance of the saints; Phil 1.6, John 6.39, John 10.28, Rom 5.10, and Rom 8.1.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Stoning is not of God is it? So it never ceased since it never began?</font><hr></blockquote><p> <blockquote> Exodus 19:12-13 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: There shall not an hand touch it, [color:red]but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through</font color=red>; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.<br><br>Leviticus 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: [color:red]the people of the land shall stone him with stones.</font color=red><br><br>Numbers 15:36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; [color:red]as the LORD commanded Moses.</font color=red><br><br>And there are many more. </blockquote> <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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. </font><hr></blockquote><p> I do not see any of your examples in Scripture and since you have been given ample opportunity to interact with the Scripture and failed to do so, they must not be there.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p> The will when given to Adam and Eve was perfect, but had the capacity to fall. Once fallen it was no longer perfect, but dead and unable to communicate with God, unless God choose to communicate first—simply look at Adam and Eve. Unregenerate man’s reaction to a holy God is to hide and cloth himself with his own works to hide his own sin—they make good Arminians. Only regenerate man has been given the capacity again to choose as Adam and Eve could. Thus, regeneration comes before conversion.