Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 03/31/2004 9:13:43 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:

I think perhaps you should all walk away from it for awhile before a bunch of you get suspended or banned.



Skip to comments.

What Is The Reformed Faith?
PCANews.com ^ | 1993 | Michael Horton

Posted on 02/24/2004 1:51:43 PM PST by Gamecock

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-415 next last
To: rwfromkansas
Ditto here...

My parents were Calvinists, and still are. In high school, I rejected Calvinism as a distortion of the free offer of the Gospel. I found teachers who agreed with me, and hardened me in my position. I was convinced that Romans 9-11 spoke to God's dispensational dealings with Israel.

In college, a cascade of factors changed my mind. Freshman year, a song off a CD I bought knocked around in my head, causing me to think -- Can God plan the ends, and not plan the means? That summer, I started a word-for-word study of Romans. Enter stage right, Free Republic.

I saw a thread titled about the Trinity. It turned out to be the middle of a debate between the Calvinists and Arminians. I plunged in, and laid it all on the line: here's why Calvinism is in error. The posters rebutted every single argument I had, and posed ones to me I couldn't answer.

In September 2001, I became a four-point Calvinist. In October, the 5th point fell into place (although my Arminian buddy claims I'm only a 4.5 pointer...), and I became a full-fledged Calvinist. Never looked back, it all makes sense.

21 posted on 02/24/2004 5:10:36 PM PST by jude24 (Would You like to Know God Personally? - http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~tjminter/4laws/4laws.ppt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; Gamecock
***Because the Bible beat me into submission until I cried "uncle".***

Not that I am proud of my stubborn streak, but I bet your beating didn't include a broken back. It was actually pretty easy, once I experientially acknowledged that the Lord is truly sovereign over all things (it was either that or curse God), to pick up a Bible and read.

Some of us reach that point by way of an Ethiopian eunuch. Some of us reach that point by way of Nebuchadnezzar and some of us reach that point by way of Jonah. Some of us shake our fist at the Father and scream out: "Is that all you got." IOW, I took the path of Hezekiah (see Isaiah 38:13).

The gentle nudging of the Bible is like the soft caress of a lover's whisper on your cheek next to a 60mph motorcycle crash.

Am I proud of my rebellion. Not for a moment, but I do cherish that hot August day more than just about any other. Besides, I'd hate to see the Lord top that as a means of gaining a man's attention without actually putting him in the grave.

Go figure!

Woody.
22 posted on 02/24/2004 6:01:50 PM PST by CCWoody (a.k.a. "the Boo!" Proudly causing doctrinal nightmares among non-Calvinists since Apr2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
>>>So, the fact that Calvin was wrong about some writings, when there was no evidence of such writings, makes the Institutes not reliable?

Well, it shows that much of his premises were flawed to begin. Had he been guided by the Holy Spirit and not hiw own will, he couldn't have trashed the writings. Take that as a big clue as to who was behind his doctrines.

His error hints at how how he depended on the intellect of himself, his immediate predecessors, and his contemporaries. If you think the Holy Spirit was behing this tremendous blunder, think again.

Now, the Church sided on the historical evidence and bet on the authenticity of the writings. Calvin bet against it, and, well he lost. Church 1, Calvin 0.

Think about it, if he got the part about the Divine orgins and Catholicty of the Church wrong, how can he credibly argue against it's doctrines? His denial of the Catholic Church was an underlying theme in his works.

How can he argue for his version of Church structure when the documents prove him wrong in the first place? Had he know the writings were authentic, his doctrines and organization of the faith would be more "Catholic". (He'd still be protestant, but his system would resemble the Catholic faith much more.)

>>This is pathetic. Calvin is somehow "bad" because later they found the writings in question due to greater scientific advances? Say that again?

This doesn't make Calvin bad, just very wrong in his idea in what the Church actually was and is.
23 posted on 02/24/2004 6:30:26 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom

No answer?

24 posted on 02/24/2004 6:35:43 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
>>That same person would believe that the Resurrection was ludicrous too.

I'm not saying the person would believe any of it. But the person could give a summary of what the scriptures say. If an athiests with some intelligence (oxymoron?) and no bias either way, could examine the scriptural evidence, I highly doubt he'd say the bible says we are justified by faith alone.

My point is that you have a filter which won't allow you to accept the evidence of James, the fact that "sola fide" is unscriptural, and that it was a doctrine of man and not God.

I don't have this filter. Show me where scripture says we are justified by Grace ALONE/ONLY and I'll buy into "sola fide"

Finally, the works that are discussed in most of the passages are actually works of the Jewish laws. Works of charity are not at issue. In fact, James points out that works of charity are in fact part of justification.

25 posted on 02/24/2004 6:35:59 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Why am I Reformed? Because I gave up trying to explain away passages of the Bible that conflicted with what seemed to be an inate need to claim some measure of credit for discovering and choosing Christ when others around me did not.

I remember specifically trying to witness to an atheist friend of mine. I was laying out the general scope of redemptive history and trying to explain the gospel to him. I had composed a lengthy email to send to him and wanted to run it by my mother first since I knew she had been to seminary (I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything). After she read a particular part about it, specifically the part having to do with "love and free will" she said I might want to take a look at Romans 8 in light of what I said. Now, mind you, I had not studied a lot of theology. I had read through most of the New Testament and had a basic understanding of the Gospel. I read Rom 8 and was confused. I thought "this can't be right...how is it fair for us to be predestined as to what we believe?" I firmly believed that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God, so I knew that what was written had to be the truth. So, I set my mind to work and came back to my mother. I had it all figured out. You see, God could see ahead of time who would choose Him, and so just by the very act of creating them (and thus setting into motion the cosmic chain of events leading up to that choice) He was predestining them. I was rather proud of myself for being able to grasp such a difficult concept. Mom told me to read Romans 9.

BOOM!

I felt like Paul was speaking directly to me, answering each of my objections as I brought them up. I tried very hard to come up with a way to reconcile Romans 9 with my preconceived view, but I couldn't find one. I spent a great deal of time reading through the New Testament, particularly the Epistles, trying to find something that would "explain away" these passages, but all I found were more passages along the same lines. Acts 13:48 hit me very hard. So did John 6.

I finally realized how futile and vain my efforts were, and came to the conclusion that I had no choice but to embrace what I read...that God is sovereign over men and ultimately decides who is saved and who is not.

This experience lead me to spend more time in the Word and more time reading other works. Eventually I found out that the term commonly used for the doctrines I was discovering was "Calvinism." I continue to this day to find more and more in the pages of Scripture as I discover and explore the holiness of God as revealed in His Word.

26 posted on 02/24/2004 6:43:34 PM PST by Frumanchu (God does not call the qualified...He qualifies the called.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
OK. Look, I didn't say I was a Calvinist expert.

However, I was "indoctrinated" with the Heidleburg confession during my stint with the 5 pointers. While I didn't remember the correct answer, I knew exactly where to find it.

From the confession:

Why do you say that you are righteous only by faith? A. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.

FAITH ONLY? FAITH ALONE? James Repudiates that doctrine! We could go all night into the reasons Calvinism's spinning of how works play into salvation, but we don't need to. James, contrary to the claims of this confession, solved this issue 1900 years or so ago.

Calvinism shares with Lutheranism, the "downgrading" of the book of James. While still considered scripture, James is twisted, spun, and explained away by giving other passages more promenance and importance. Like I said, scripture does not support justification by

faith alone. That's a man made doctrine. But.. I'd take it you don't accept the evidence of James. So, unless you can say "you have a very good point", let's not go round and round about this all nigh.

27 posted on 02/24/2004 6:46:43 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
Heidelberg Catechism perhaps? I am not familiar with the Heidelburg Confession that they used to "indoctrinate" you.

***Calvinism shares with Lutheranism, the "downgrading" of the book of James.***

Horse Hillary. James deals with justification before man. We humans can only declare a person to be righteous (posessing saving faith) by observing the fruit of that faith which is displayed. Paul deals with justification before God, who infallibly sees our hearts.

Note the emphasis of James 2 on "show me" "if a man says"...

28 posted on 02/24/2004 6:57:48 PM PST by drstevej (Catholic Raucus' Designated Driver)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24)

I see this as a what came first, the chicken or the egg type question. The answer, in light of the book of Genesis is the chicken. What saves us? Faith. What are works? The outward manifestation of our faith. Their works are a pretty good indication if the faith is real. (not perfect, but pretty good) One must read the totality of James 2 to understand that. Why works? Because God wants me to feed the poor, visist and pray with the ill, etc...

29 posted on 02/24/2004 7:08:00 PM PST by Gamecock (If Luther posted his 95 Theses on FR he would be banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
OK. Look, I didn't say I was a Calvinist expert. However, I was "indoctrinated" with the Heidleburg confession during my stint with the 5 pointers. While I didn't remember the correct answer, I knew exactly where to find it. From the confession: Why do you say that you are righteous only by faith? A. Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God, and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.

You just told me what Faith accomplishes. You haven't told me what Faith is, specifically as in "faith alone", as it relates to "faith" and "works".

So, let's try again: What is "Faith", specifically as in "faith alone", as it relates to "faith" and "works"?

FAITH ONLY? FAITH ALONE? James Repudiates that doctrine! We could go all night into the reasons Calvinism's spinning of how works play into salvation, but we don't need to. James, contrary to the claims of this confession, solved this issue 1900 years or so ago. Calvinism shares with Lutheranism, the "downgrading" of the book of James. While still considered scripture, James is twisted, spun, and explained away by giving other passages more promenance and importance. Like I said, scripture does not support justification by faith alone. That's a man made doctrine. But.. I'd take it you don't accept the evidence of James. So, unless you can say "you have a very good point", let's not go round and round about this all nigh.

I do accept the evidence of James. If you understood the Calvinist meaning of Faith (or even the Lutheran, though Calvinism has been IMO more clear in it's presentation), you would understand that.

Let me ask you this: No offense meant. Honestly. Would the following statement be true?

If that is False, then you are (again) cordially invited to provide a proper definition of what, to the Calvinist, Faith is; But if the statement is True, then just say so, and I'll explain what a Calvinist means by the word, "Faith"; as it attends to "faith alone", or "faith" and "works".

What do you say?

30 posted on 02/24/2004 7:10:38 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
>>I do accept the evidence of James. If you understood the Calvinist meaning of Faith (or even the Lutheran, though Calvinism has been IMO more clear in it's presentation), you would understand that.

From my interpretation of Calvinism, works are considered "obedience" and alongside faith one is justified.

Do I belive this verions of works? No. It's just an attempt to whittle down works while focusing on faith.

Calvanism seems to argue that if you are faithful, then you must be obedient. Christ taught love more than obedience. Works out done out of obedience may still be pleasing to God, but not as pleasing as works from the heart.

An "active" obedience is required from a Christian, but IMO, it's part of faith. It *is* true that we need to actively obey God. That's not the issue.

Works, when done from the heart and out of love and charity, are not works of "active obedience." I can get my kid to do things he dosn't want to, and he's not doing it out of faith or love. He does it "actively" because he doesn't want a time out or he want's something from me. That's not love. See the difference?

I'd go on but I'm tired. I'll resume in the morning.
31 posted on 02/24/2004 8:12:41 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
From my interpretation of Calvinism, works are considered "obedience" and alongside faith one is justified.

The "alongside" is what mars your definition of Calvinism -- and Rome's understanding of Salvation.

One little word -- but what a big impact. I'll compose a full response.

Do I belive this verions of works? No. It's just an attempt to whittle down works while focusing on faith. Calvanism seems to argue that if you are faithful, then you must be obedient. Christ taught love more than obedience. Works out done out of obedience may still be pleasing to God, but not as pleasing as works from the heart. An "active" obedience is required from a Christian, but IMO, it's part of faith. It *is* true that we need to actively obey God. That's not the issue. Works, when done from the heart and out of love and charity, are not works of "active obedience." I can get my kid to do things he dosn't want to, and he's not doing it out of faith or love. He does it "actively" because he doesn't want a time out or he want's something from me. That's not love. See the difference? I'd go on but I'm tired. I'll resume in the morning.

In order to keep our terms matched, I'll use the term "obedience" as regards Faith in my response... but I'm not really understanding this dichotomy between "love" and "obedience" you're drawing, there's no real corollary in Calvinistic understanding.

I understand that outward obedience can be compelled without a matching inward love... but if someone Obeys out of a humble, desperate awe and appreciation of the salvation which has been wrought for him, how is that not a Loving Obedience? Which is Calvinism's view of the matter.

As I said, I'll put together a proper response for your consideration on the morrow. Sleep well.

best, OP

32 posted on 02/24/2004 8:52:11 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
read later
33 posted on 02/24/2004 10:13:27 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom; the_doc; CCWoody; Jerry_M; drstevej; RnMomof7; George W. Bush
What I've been getting at is this: if you want to criticize sola fide, you have to be able to define the term "Faith". If you want to understand what Protestants mean by "Faith Alone Saves", you have to understand what Faith is.

So, I'm going to go ahead and tell you what Protestants mean by "Faith Alone Saves" -- particularly Calvinists, who maintain the Reformers' doctrines most closely of the various Protestant traditions. Let's have at it.


SALVATION THROUGH FAITH ALONE

Is Salvation through Faith and Works? First, let’s examine the Roman Catholic teachings on the subject:

So, we see that the Roman Catholic teaching is quite clear: “faith is the beginning of human salvation… through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified.”

Now, then, what is the Calvinist teaching? Is Salvation through Faith Alone?

The Calvinist Presbyterian Dr. D. James Kennedy defines Saving Faith thusly: "What is saving faith? I think we can say that it is the response of the whole soul to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. That means it involves our mind, our heart, and our will. Our intellect, our emotions, and our volition are all involved in our soul, and it is the yielding of that soul to Christ."

So we see that, to the Calvinist, Faith by definition incorporates three crucial facets:

And of this Faith, the Westminster Shorter Catechism declares: ” Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and receive by faith alone.”

Thus, while the Calvinist would say that Saving Faith is a Vital Faith; no mere intellectual assent to Christ’s Lordship but a loving submission of Heart thereto. Good Works are the inevitable outworking of this Saving Faith (for a Faith which includes a Reverently Obedient Volitio is demonstrated in its performance of Good Works), but we are Saved through this Faith Alone – a depraved thief, who truly possesses this Saving Faith for even single moment at the point of death, is immediately and completely Justified without the outworking of a single Good Work of his obedient Volitio.

It is important to note, at this point, that the Calvinist view is specifically anathematized by the Council of Trent:

This is unfortunate for Rome -- in fact, it is devastating. For as the Apostle Paul declares, we are Justified by Saving Faith itself apart from Good Works.

And this is the Calvinist definition of Saving Faith, the definition of the Bible – the Knowing, Assenting, Submissive Faith which Justifies a Man, in and of itself, apart from Good Works.

But in clear contradiction to the Epistle to the Galatians, the Roman Catholics have said that Faith “begins” salvation but must cooperate with Good Works in order to Justify. Thus, they reveal their definition of “Faith” as being a “faith” to which Good Works must be added in order to Justify.

In doing so, they have brought down the Condemnation of James not upon Protestants – but upon the Lords of the Roman Catholic Church. For if the Roman Catholic Definition of the “Faith” which “begins” salvation according to the Decrees of Trent, is a “faith” to which Good Works must be added in order to Justify, then their “faith” is by definition the very same Dead Faith which James condemned!

They claim that their “faith” does alone “begin” Salvation, and that to it Good Works must be added in order to Justify. But if theirs is a “faith” which begins alone, and to it Good Works must be added –- then how can such a “faith” even "begin" salvation as they claim, when being alone at the beginning of salvation and requiring "cooperation" with Good Works in order to Justify, it is a Dead Faith from the beginning?

Instead, James gives us a ringing endorsement of the Calvinist Definition of Faith – a vital, Saving Faith which Justifies apart from Good Works (Galatians 2:16) and is shown in its outworking of Good Works (James 2:18), the very same Biblical Definition of Faith which Rome anathematized in Canon 24 of the Council of Trent.

By promulgating a False and Un-Salvific definition of “faith” which “begins” salvation “alone” (being Alone, it is a Dead Faith and can begin no salvation, James 2:17) and which must “cooperate” with Good Works in order to Justify (even though true Saving Faith does Justify apart from Good Works, Galatians 2:16), and by anathematizing the True and Biblical definition of Saving Faith which Justifies apart from Good Works (Galatians 2:16) and is shown in its outworking of Good Works (James 2:18), Rome has led BILLIONS astray. And she has persecuted and killed the Reformers and preachers of righteousness whom God sent to the vineyard to warn her of her sins.

Rome must Repent of her sins immediately. She must rescind the false teachings of Chapters 8 & 10 of Trent and recant the false anathemas of Canons 24 and 32 of Trent. She must repent of her false teachings and false anathemas and proclaim publicly to all the True and Biblical definition of Faith as taught by Christ and Paul and James and the Reformers and the Faithful Remnant of God throughout the ages, a Saving Faith which Justifies apart from Good Works (Galatians 2:16) and is shown in its outworking of Good Works (James 2:18), and repent her persecutions of the Reformers and preachers of righteousness whom God sent to warn her of her sins.

The Sins of Rome in this matter are grievous. They are damning.

She must not continue in them for a moment.


best, OP

34 posted on 02/24/2004 11:08:26 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thank you for the explanation of what faith means to you. It was a great eye-opener for me.
35 posted on 02/25/2004 12:38:49 AM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; ultima ratio; TotusTuus; Tantumergo; NYer; Desdemona; american colleen; sinkspur; ...
Very well done, OP.

A PING to a few of the Catholic Raucus for their consideration.
36 posted on 02/25/2004 5:06:52 AM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Wow...OP, you are a tough act to follow. (I hope you don't mind if I steal that post for later use.) Here's my (hopeleseely ineloquent) testimony:

I was of the free-will bent for many years, but during a spiritual crisis (I wonder where that came from, hmm?) I actually started reading the scripture and discovered that God was not the "doting father" that I had imagined Him to be, but was presently in absolute, unwavering control of the entire universe-even of the salvation of men. I grappled with God over this for about a year (and gave my Arminian pastor fits), but then the Lord reached down and touched my wife with unexpected, unasked-for salvation and healing (it was like a lightning bolt in our lives that changed everything-I'm not even sure I can explain it). Looking for a name for this new kind of unsought grace, I called an old friend of mine who had once told me about something called "Calvinism". During that chat, I realized that I was "Reformed".

37 posted on 02/25/2004 5:30:05 AM PST by jboot (Faith is not a work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; MarMema; 1stFreedom; drstevej; jboot; Gamecock
I personally think there is a serious miscommunication when Christians talk about grace and works. As I see it there are three types of people; 1) those who say you’re saved by God’s grace and you WILL do good works because of the Holy Spirit, 2) those who say because of God saving grace you DESIRE to do good works through the Holy Spirit, and 3) those who say you’re saved BECAUSE you are doing good works.

Groups who hold the #1 and #2 perspectives would agree it is Christ’s redemptive work at the cross that has saved us. The #3 crowd would say that “Yes, but you must also do …”. Most of us would agree (and should agree) #3 is apostasy.

At the risk of oversimplifying the doctrinal and theological issues (and the perspectives are enormous) Arguments #1 and #2 are essentially saying the same thing. #1 being you’re saved so you WILL do good works. #2 being you’re saved so you DESIRE to do good works. While I now tend to believe Argument #1 and think the scriptures support this position, I see nothing which would indicate apostasy with Argument #2.

The problem, IMHO, is that Argument #2 is often argued using the same verses and sounds very much the same as someone who commits apostasy (Argument #3). It sounds like one is saying that you are saved by doing something. It’s this seemingly inconsistency that drives the Calvinists “saved by grace” crowd crazy.

To be fair, I argued Argument #2 for 30 years and never saw any inconsistencies although I would NEVER have said it was anything other than Christ’s work at the cross that saved me. On the other hand, coming over to the Calvinist side I understand that, while I continue to want to serve Christ, if I do any “good” works it is only because of Him who works through me.
38 posted on 02/25/2004 6:29:08 AM PST by HarleyD (READ Your Bible-STUDY to show yourself approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; NYer; Salvation; american colleen; Desdemona; Catholicguy; drstevej; ...
So, I'm going to go ahead and tell you what Protestants mean by "Faith Alone Saves" -- particularly Calvinists, who maintain the Reformers' doctrines most closely of the various Protestant traditions.
OP, having read your post, I see what is seemingly a good foundation for a debate.   It may very well gain for you what you'd like to get out of it, and I hope it will.  For me, a Catholic, I feel compelled to point out that my church, that is, the CHURCH of THE APOSTLES (the authors of TRADITION with the Holy Spirit's guidance -- you know keys, Peter), The Bride of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is where literally billions¹ have placed their trust as to having the right answers to the questions which we ask in order to lead us to Him.  

Hopefully you can appreciate a non-apologetics thought about your commentary (even if it is not what you were looking for).  I wish I had more time to read, and participate in subsequent posts, but the day's tasks beckon.  FReegards!

¹ I, and a number of other FReepers are included in that tally :-)
39 posted on 02/25/2004 6:38:43 AM PST by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Because the Bible beat me into submission until I cried "uncle".

Yes, the hounds of heaven were after me even before I knew Him. I hated God and the Church so badly, but had an inexplainable desire to understand the scriptures. I puzzled over them for two year with no luck until I heard that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It took a year before I understood the basics of His Blood and Atonement. It took 25 more years before I understood some of the Totality of my depravity and desperate situation in need of Christ. Our Lord Jesus was right when he said to the rich young ruler "Why do you call me good, no one is good but God alone". The rich young ruler did not know He was addressing God.

I have no goodness. Goodness comes from God alone, there would be no goodness on this earth if it were not for God's intervention. God is so good he even planned answers to my prayers before the foundation of the earth. The things God must have to do to get a prayer through me!

After 30 years of looking at the scripture, I see it ever truer than I ever imagined, I cannot exhaust it. It is inerrant as Christ Himself. It had to beat on me too until it broke through that this life is nothing in comparison to an Eternity with the Love of Christ.

Friends, Take in and eat the Word of God. It is bread indeed, you cannot exhaust it, bury it, chisel it, sing it, do whatever you have to get it into your heart and mind. The benefits are limitless.

40 posted on 02/25/2004 6:43:36 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-415 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson