Archive through November 17, 2001 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » Regarding Adventism as a Cult » Archive through November 17, 2001 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Nate
Posted on Friday, November 09, 2001 - 7:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Sabra, Doug, Hannah, Lydell and others, I was impressed with the spirit behind Sabra's letter to Bacchiocchi. I truly believe that authentic testimony of what God is doing in our lives is the one argument that cannot truly be discounted. Even if we do not understand every nuance of the Hebrew or Greek text, or have doctorates in Theology, we do have the Spirit of truth. Luke 11:11-13 tells us that when we ask for the Spirit, God gives Him, not deception. John tells us that the Spirit guides us into all truth. So when we tell our story of life change, we are given special power to proclaim truth. People may try to discredit us, say all manner of evil against us falsely. But the bottom line is that no one can truly take away our story. It is, in fact, what WE saw. We are witnesses! That is why Revelation 12 tells us thjat "they overcame him, (Satan) by the blood of the lamb and the word of their testimony..."

Sabra, I thought your testimony was powerful. I will be praying with you for Dr. Bacchiocchi. I do not know him, and I do not know what is going on in his heart, but if the Lord has laid on so many of us to pray for him, we can know that he is under conviction. Can you imagine what could happen if he had a Damascus road experience like so many of us have had!!! Wow!

My wife and I are praying for him each day and most of the time several times a day. We remember how wonderful it was when the veil fell from our eyes! We comment to each other pretty much every day how thankful we are for what God has done in setting us free. As I said to an elder of my former church the other day. Would God that you were where I am ... Except for my lack of a job! :) I think of how good it has been for us to be honored with such good news. Wouldn't it be cool if Dr. Bacchiocchi could find it too!?! And so many others we know!

He is going to be in our area on November 23-25. We would like to ask all of our FAF family to join us in prayer for that particular weekend in this area. There are many who are seeking truth. May God's will be done.

Love to you all,

In Christ,

Greg
Colleentinker
Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2001 - 12:11 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Sabra, I like your letter! I'll join all of you in praying for your letter to speak to Bacchiocchi. We'll also pray for the people in your area, Greg, and for him when he comes in two weeks.

Colleen
Bob
Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2001 - 10:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A good source of information about Christian doctrine, apologetics, cults, etc., is the following website:

http://www.carm.org/
This is the website of the "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry."

Be sure to read the material posted there about SDA doctrine and Sabbath vs Sunday.

For those of you who cannot get enough of on-line discussion and Biblical debate, you may want to join CARM's discussion board on Seventh-day Adventism. It looks busy!
Richardjr
Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2001 - 5:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I was really surprized by Bacchiocchi's response to Greg Taylor. Am I missing something here? Is Bacchiocchi living in the same realm of reality? He said he didn't want to defame Taylor but that was exactly what he did. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so sad.
Lynnw
Posted on Monday, November 12, 2001 - 1:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mr. Bacchiocchi was just here in the Sandy, OR area. Did anyone here him speak? I was planning to go, but couldn't get time freed up.

Lynn
Richardhardison
Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 5:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I copied Dr. Bacchiocchiís polemic into Wordperfect so I could read at my leisure and make comments if warranted. He makes a few good points, and a lot of bad. My comments are as follows (his statements are in italics):

The good Doctor makes a few statements that tend to ìpoison the well,î so to speak, and thereby cause the reader to question the veracity or intellectual capacity of the opponent. Some call this a logical error, and so it is called in forensics, or debating. When discussing scriptural matters, which calls for forensically sound argument, it is unethical and actually calls into question the credibility of the speaker. Statements such as,

ìUnfortunately, he appears to be intellectually unstable, being easily swayed by new teachings, programs, and people. This conclusion appears inevitable from reading his religious journey where he describes the fluctuations that occurred in this theological positions as a result of new developments inside or outside the church.î

ìSuch a negative attitude predisposes people to accept the so-called New Covenant Theology, promoted by former Adventists like Taylor, because it offers them a justification for rejecting what they have never enjoyed in the first place.î

ëElder Ken Coonley, President of the Carolina Conference, informed me that in 1993 when Pastor Taylor arrived at the Foster Memorial SDA church, its membership in the books stood at 419, and when he left on July 2001, it was 492, with an average church attendance of about 300 members. This means that the actual numerical growth during the eight years of his pastorate was less than 100 members. The contemporary worship style with a band often playing rocky type of music, hardly contributed to a significant church growth. ì

ìWhen I see popular charismatic preachers, like Rev. Parsley preaching like a circus clown, in crusades attended by thousands of people, I feel embarrassed for the way he profanes the Gospel.î This is an interesting assertion. Iím no fan of Parsley, but Iíve never seen him defame the gospel and Iíve probably seen more of Parsley, since I used to watch him every Sunday and attended his Church when in the training program of Ohio Dept. of Transportation, than the good Doctor.

ìMy intent is not to defame Pastor Taylor in any way, but rather to examine the validity of his allegations against the Adventist Church and his reasons for rejecting the Sabbath.î I think the above statements give the lie to this statement.

ìBesides the Sabbath, the second major stumbling block for Pastor Taylor is the prophetic role of Ellen White. Pastor Taylor writes: ëWe have come to the conclusion from our research that she is not reliable as a prophetic voice.íî

Ellen White is not a ìProphetic Voiceî in the sense of being a seer. I havenít seen any prophecy of hers that came true. She can be considered a ìprophetî in the sense of speaking prophetically as Nathan did to David about Davidís adultery with Bathsheeba. The question, however, remains, is she a reliable prophetic voice even in that sense? While some of her writing makes good points, her writing is so shot through with non-biblical nonsense that she canít be relied upon in anything. I find it ironic that during her life she was a consistent embarrassment to the SDA, so much so she was exiled to Australia for a number of years, yet the SDA reliance on her is just as bad as any staunch Calvinistís reliance on ìThe Institutes,î which are equally unbiblical.

"Ellen White clearly, knowingly and extensively copied from other sources while claiming that she was NOT doing so except in a few rare cases. Some estimates of her borrowing are as high as 80%. Even the Desire of Ages, my favorite EGW book, has, according to a church sponsored study, 'no significant line of thinking that is original' to her." Sorry, this has been shown to be factual. She ìborrowedî extensively without citing her source which is the definition of plagiarism. Veltman was a hired gun and his ìscientificî study, particularly since the facts are against him, must be disregarded.

We do not reject 1 Chronicles because it was largely copied from "the records of Samuel the Seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer" It would not be our place to reject the Chronicles as that was the place of the ìGreat Synagogueî Under Ezra after the return from Persia/Babylon. The Great Synagogue regarded it as inspired history and so was retained. The difference is that the author(s) of Chronicles said where they got their material, EGW did not.

In 2 Peter 1:21 we find ìfor prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.î this disagrees with the good Doctor when he says, Those who fault Ellen White for using information from other authors, ignore that most of the information contained in the Bible was NOT communicated by God directly. This is true only in the historical books, e.g. Chronicles, kings, Judges. The majority of scripture, however, teaches lessons in living a holy life and, as such, is doctrinal in nature. Even Psalms falls into this category as most are songs of worship. I defy him to show otherwise.

It is a known fact that the writers of the synoptic Gospels used sources containing information about the life and teaching of Christ. Unfortunately these sources were lost and we cannot establish the extent of literary dependency of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. New Testament scholars have long debated this question, known as the "Synoptic Problem." We do not reject the Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because of their literary dependency upon other sources. The synoptic problem is largely a creation of men who engage in speculative theology instead of biblical theology. In the case of Matthew he was an eyewitness and there is no ìliteraryî dependence involved with the book of Matthew.

God does not encourage laziness by providing information already available in other sources. This helps us to understand why Ellen White spent countless hours seeking for the historical accounts of the events she had seen in vision. She recognized her limitations. When the revision was done of THE GREAT CONTROVERSY in 1911, she thanked the scholars who made the necessary corrections. I have reasons to believe that if she was alive today, she would appreciate
any additional corrections competent scholars could offer to her writings.
What other evidence is needed to show she was uninspired in the sense of 2 Peter 1:21? Biblical writers had no need to be ìcorrectedî by scholars as what they wrote was directly inspired by God who is not fallible.

My guess is that people who devote their time and efforts to discredit Ellen White, or the Bible writers for that matter, most likely have a problem in accepting their admonitions. This is an unwarranted conflation of two sources of writing that are so different in character that Ellen White would probably blush at including her in the same group. His association of the two is absurd.

Before I proceed further I want to say Iím aware of the statements of Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16. I keep a ìsabbathî as I like to dedicate Sunday to worship, prayer and Bible study. I donít feel any compulsion in doing so, I feel an intense desire to do so because in so doing Iím drawn nearer to the Lord who died for me.

Having said that I also want to point out that he makes some good points. Fírinstance,


Ultimately the spiritual vitality of a congregation is reflected in the victorious daily life of its members, Do the members live a clean lifestyle, abstaining from alcohol, drugs, and
intemperate practices? Do they treat their family members with respect? Do they honor their marriage vows of faithfulness till death shall part them? Are they committed to bring up their children in the fear and love of God? Do they dress modestly, decently and with reverence, especially in God's sanctuary? Do they worship God in the beauty of holiness with appropriate sacred music? These are some of the biblical criteria to determine the spiritual vibrancy of a congregation. A visiting observer can hardly establish by the external appearance alone, whether or not its members are spiritually vibrant.
He makes a good point here. Read James 2:14-26. Faith brings changes in a person. What is on the inside will show on the outside. Many try to hide sin behind grace, as though the Lord will pat them on the back at the judgement and congratulate them on their foresight in buying ìfire insuranceî so any sin they commit after they originally come to him will simply be brushed under the table. Many people call those who teach that we must live a lifestyle of repentance ìlegalisticî or that they teach ìsalvation by worksî which is simply a way of attacking the teacher rather than the doctrine the same way that a Calvinist thinks they can end an argument by calling someone Pelagian. Grace does change, but it is manifested before the world by a changed life. Read in Acts about Paul after the damascus road experience and youíll see what I mean.

Those churches which best recognize the services people want and succeed in providing them, grow and sometimes become mega-churches with thousands of members. This method of church growth raises serious questions, because the mandate of the Church is to give people what they need, and not necessarily what they want. AMEN!

Churches committed to teach Biblical moral principles may grow slowly, but their influence will be widely felt. Let us never forget that when Christianity was a moral minority it turned the Roman world upside down. By contrast, when it became an immoral majority it turned biblical truths upside down. This also is a truism.

Like their OT counterpart, the New Testament writers exhort believers to acknowledge sin in their lives and overcome it by God's grace. For example, John writes: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9). The assurance of salvation comes to us, not merely by confessing our sins, but primarily by experiencing the cleansing power of God's grace, which enables us to overcome the sins that we have confessed. Also true.

Contrary to Pastor Taylor's accusations, Ellen White did not misunderstand the Gospel of grace. Like Paul, John, and the rest of the NT writers, she understood that the Good News of the Gospel, consists not only in the payment of the penalty of our sins at the Cross, but also in the power to overcome sin in our daily life. For example, she writes: "All who receive Christ as a personal Savior are to demonstrate the truth of the Gospel and its saving power upon the life. God makes no requirement without making provision for its fulfillment. Through the grace of Christ we may accomplish everything that God requires" (COL 301). Charles Finney expressed this admirably well, which has also been quoted favorably by Southern Baptists such as Adrian Rogers, ìwhere God commands he gives the ability.î The ability comes from the power we receive when we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit.


None of the good points Dr. Bacchiocchi makes cancels the ad hominem arguments he makes. In my opinion his efforts to ìdisproveî Pastor Taylor suffers serious damage by this failing. His slavish defense of EGW also damage his credibility. I hope he does a better job in the other two installments. I'm not holding my breath as he shows all the weaknesses of a defensive polemicist.

Richard L. Hardison
Sherry2
Posted on Thursday, November 15, 2001 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The arguments to defend EGW always end up to the same spot...tear down the Bible in the sense that it's compared to her writings, and the conclusion constantly drawn is therefore if you trust the Bible, you must trust her writings. That is the amazing thing. Defame the Word so she can stand. Instead of seeing if she stands true to the Word of God. That is such a sad thing.
Sabra
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 8:21 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well, he wrote back, quite a short, condemning letter, as expected, thanking me for my "lengthy" letter and telling me to read the Bible and understand how "confused" I and others are about the Sabbath. I wrote back a short reply stating that the condemnation wasn't necessary, what about receiving your brother who is weak in faith-oh, that is the one who eats only vegetables...(I did say that in a moment of flesh-walking, shame on me) then I said that I have a sincere burden for souls while his only burden is to condemn, belittle and refute anyone who doesn't agree with him. This is not the christian love I have come to know since leaving the SDA church and I praise the Lord everyday for delivering me from legalism and control. Told him he has been shown the truth, whether or not he accepts it is his decision, I would keep him on my prayer list. He wrote back a very insincere: "Thank you for your gracious letter, may the Lord continue to bless you in His wisdom and grace." What a sad person! I feel my part has been done, he know the scriptures better that I do and has rejected the love, so apparently the dillusion is already upon him. God help this lost organization.
Sabra
Richardhardison
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 9:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The good doctor seems more interested in a day than in the condition of the soul. If the soul is right the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest because the person will be sensitive to the leading of the Spirit and will obey that leading. The rest will take care of itself.

Richard L. Hardison
Sabra
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 11:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The good doctor's cult worships the sabbath and forgets to focus on worshipping the creator. You're absolutely right about the Holy Spirit. I asked one Adventist to consider just preaching the gospel and letting the Holy Spirit take care of the character once the soul has been saved! There's that circle of--the law-- which came first? The sabbath or the christian? Hello, the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, doesn't this make it clear? There was no sabbath before man. OK, let the veil be lifted......aaahhhhh, now I see.

Just trying to sow the word,
Sabra <><
Lydell
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 2:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually Sabra, the truth is that he DOESN'T know the scriptures better than you do. He knows words on paper, twisted and distorted to match up to what he wants to say. YOU are the one who knows the scripture best. And why is that? Because you have allowed the Spirit to breathe life into them to allow them to say what the Lord intended for them to say. Soooo, how many years of his life has Bacchiocchi wasted non-"studying the scriptures"? Interesting isn't it?

Pooo, I'm running out of time here. I was reading in Romans this morning and just really was struck with how it has been so warped by SDA teaching. Too bad you can't get them to sit down and read it straight through from chapter 3 on in one sitting laying aside the canned teachings of Ellen.

It all ties together so beautifully...it is not works, it is not an act of the flesh, not what family you were born into but is God's Spirit placed in us making the changes from within to eventually come out in changed behavior. They have it totally the other way around---put that new believer on a rack and lets stretch him out to fit our image of a Christian and we'll just ignore that the mind and heart haven't experienced the changes from renewal yet. At least they'll look good and we won't be challenged to love them inspite of themselves while they are learning growing!
Doug222
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lydell,
I couldn't agree more with your assessment of the book of Romans. It was one of those books that I used to hate reading because it appeared to have so many contradictions. I often asked myself, why doesn't Paul just come out and say what he is trying to say, instead of speaking in circles. Then one day, the Spirit lead me through a study of the book from beginning to end. To me, it is the most thorough and systematic argument for the gospel in the entire Bible. It has now become one of my favorites. I praise God that "when it pleased Him," the veil was removed from my eyes. Its not totally gone, and sometimes I have to stop and analyze my thinking, but its definitely a work in progress.

In His Grace

Doug
Colleentinker
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 3:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doug, I understand what you mean by feeling like Paul was talking in circles. I used to feel frustrated by much of the New Testament because it seemed to contradict what the Old Testament said. I am so thankful to see how the two fit together, to see that the New illumines the Old, that everything about the Old Covenant was a shadow pointing to the reality. Even the city of Jerusalem, the center of the nation of Israel, was a shadow pointing to the reality of the heavenly Jerusalem. Have any of you noticed Revelation 21 where it describes the Holy City as a bride, and one of the seven angels tell John the Holy City is the bride of the Lamb? Wow--the New Jerusalem is us! God's people are the New Jerusalem where God dwells! Whatever the physical reality of a city may be is hinted at but is still shadowed. We can know, though, that God will dwell with us forever.

I continue to stand in awe of how the Bible reveals Jesus, and of how it all fits together without forcing the pieces. Praise God for lifting the veil!

I also will continue to pray for Bacchiocchi. When a person finally experiences the rest of Christ and the security of his salvation and his love, the 7th day loses its lustre. Nothing is ever the same again!

Praise God!
Colleen
In_his_service
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 6:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin Luther, who I admire as a man who had to be inspired by the Spirit (because the church had completely lost sight of the doctrine of justification by grace, through faith) said that the book of Romans and Galations were so important that if possible, every Christian should commit them to memory. He used to have them read to him every week. If you study the great reformers, that had one thing in common, they all discovered the pure "milk" of the Gospel in Romans. As an Adventist I was always taught that Romans was a book of mistery and very difficult to understand. PHOOEY! It is a fantastic book, meant to be read in context and in it's entirety. Same with Galations. The commentary's on both books by Luther make great reading.
Richardhardison
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 8:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Back in '97 I spent a goodly bit of time at the Marietta, Ohio SDA church studying Romans with them. I found it interesting that they had the same understanding of the book as most Wesleyans do. There are some out there that aren't slavishly devoted to low view of scripture.

Richard L. Hardison
Doug222
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh how many times have I heard the oft quoted (or shall I say misquoted) verse, "for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law." Romans 2:13. Taken by itself, one could make a fairly sound argument that the law (or the keeping thereof) is the standard by which we are all judged. Only when you read the passage in context do you realize that Paul was not talking about law keeping at all. Instead he was showing how all have sinned, and unless a person keeps the law flawlessly, he/she is condemned, and therefore has no basis for boasting. I thank God for introducing me to contextual study of scripture.

Richard, I notice something that you do fairly often that I'm curious about. Maybe I am alone in this, but I guess I don't understand the significance of whether one has a Calvinist or a Wesleyan understanding of scripture. It seems to me (and I will readily admit this comes from one who is not highly educated in this area)that to identify myself as a "disciple" (follower) of any particular school of thought, runs the risk of allowing an earthly authority (rather than the Holy Spirit) to define my interpretation of scripture.

This is a sincere question to which you may have a very good answer. What is the significance of establishing one as having a Weslyan, Calvinist, Lutheran, etc. orientation. How is that different from the Corinthian Church which was divided over the teaching of Paul, Apollos, and Peter? Is this contrary to the teachings of Paul, who cited his own example in Galatiians, where he said that when it pleased God to reveal his Son to Paul, that he (Paul) did not consult any man, but immediately went to the desert.

Hopefully my question is clear enough. As I saidd earlier, I am sincerely seeking an answer to the above questions and am not looking for an arguement or a debate. Maybe this is an area that I need to become more versed in. If so, please advise.

In His Grace

Doug
Windmotion
Posted on Friday, November 16, 2001 - 11:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The book that gave me the clearest understanding of Romans is Max Lucado's "In the Grip of Grace," if anyone is interested, it is a very good book.
Sherry2
Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2001 - 1:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks for that suggestion, Windmotion. I still struggle with Romans. Sometimes I get it, and other times I see it as I saw it as an SDA. Maybe that book would be of help.

Good discussion going on....:)
Doug222
Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2001 - 5:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Windmotion,
I too have read Max Lucado's book. It is excellent! I especially liked his analogy of the four brothers. Chuck Swindoll also has a set of four study guides on the book of Romans. They cost $5 each. You can get them at his web site, www.insightforliving.org.

Doug
Richardhardison
Posted on Saturday, November 17, 2001 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doug, that's no problem to answer.

John Wesley is the prince of the Arminian school of soteriology, where one can recant or return to sin such that one can lose salvation. Calvin taught a system where if accepted you must accept that God caused sin, that only those who are "effectually" called can be saved (as opposed to whosoever will) and those effectually called must repent as they have no choice in the matter, and those who are so called will never fall away.

Both schools agree that if one is saved then you will exhibit the changed life as witnessed by your actions. The current "once saved, always saved" school is descended from Calvin, but this school has far more in common with Charles Finney, who taught once saved, always saved.

To boil it down as most like to teach it, Calvinism consists of 5 points and is usually abbreviated as TULIPS, T-total depravity, no one come to God on their own, U-unconditional election, the person is called regardless of condition and the election can never be terminated no matter what sin they commit, L-limited atonement, christ died only for the elect, not for the world, I-irresistable grace, if God wants you he calls you and you are forced to yield, you have no choice, P-perseverance of the saints, if God calls you, you will endure to the end.

All these points can be found on a number of websites claiming to show how biblical the system is. I slogged through Calvin's Institutes, which I downloaded from www.ccel.org, and for a logical mind his book is a tough slog. It is filled with nonsense, illogic and defamation of God. If Calvin is right God is the author of sin, whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall not be saved, only those who are predetermined as the elect, no matter how much sin you commit after you first repent will ever cost your salvation, even if you never repent of the sin you commit, and there is no way you can be assured of salvation until you stand before the final judge.

The remonstrants presented a different system to a synod of the Dutch reformed church in response to each of the five points, James Arminius (real name Jacob Harmon - it was common for Theology profs to latinize their names) had produced his sytem after years of study which was directly opposed to TULIPS at every point but the last, 1. election conditioned on personal faith, 2. universal atonement, 3. inability of men to exercise saving faith without universal prevenient grace of God 4. sufficiency of Grace, 5. possibility of lapse from grace. The 5th point was added by the remonstrants as Harmon was not sure if one could lapse from grace and the matter needed more study. The leader of the remonstrants was executed and the rest exiled from Holland for heresy.

Arminianism reached it full bloom under the teaching of John Wesley, Robert Fletcher, and Adam Clarke (who succeeded Wesley as leader of the Methodist movement). Calvinism has seen repeated rebirths and sharp declines over the years. Operationally, most Calvinists are actually Finnian, or "assured Arminians" as the staunch Calvinists like to call them.

That's it in a nutshell. Hope I didn't overwhelm you.

Richard L. Hardison

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration