John Lofton;Confused or Double Minded

NOTE- Lofton, by and large, is a good and decent fellow. The following (which will be updated) is revelatory. Part 1 is articles found on him, part 2 is my email exchange. Read carefully what is said. My emails in this color, his in purple:

PART I

Some of what H.W. Crocker III had to say in his article is—how shall I put it charitably?—seriously off-base. The Renaissance was “a great Catholic moment” that “enlightened the world by seeing it afresh with both the light of faith and the light of classical civilization”? Not exactly.
The Renaissance was a revival of anti-Christian paganism, which taught us, falsely, that we could be good without God. As for Reformation Protestantism being “pretty despairing, too, with Calvin’s belief that it would have been better for most people if they had never been born, predestined as they are for damnation,” I know of no such view ever uttered by John Calvin concerning “most people.” In fact, I deny Calvin ever said this or believed it. I could, however, be wrong. To show that I am in error, please quote a source where Calvin said this, Mr. Crocker. In addition, likening Puritanism to “Talibanism” is simply name-calling, a cheap shot that should have been edited out.

As for the assertion that the Catholic Church has been “the most ardent defender of freedom in the history of the world,” this is nonsense. In England, it was those Puritanical, Calvinistic, predestinarians whom Mr. Crocker despises who fought tooth-and-nail against the absolutist, tyrannical Tudor-Stuart doctrine of the divine right of kings. And it was these same kind of Protestants who, by God’s grace, founded this country.

Finally, the damnable doctrine of so-called free will, as believed in by Mr. Crocker: He says it is the Catholic Church that “stands alone in radical defense of man’s free will” but Reformed Protestants and Muslims believe “that eternity is already written and that man has no free will.” Well, to be sure, eternity is “already written,” which is to say already decided by God.

But, it is not true that Reformed Protestants believe “man has no free will.” What we believe is that only Christian, saved, born-again, regenerated man has free will. To speak of unsaved man, dead in his sins and trespasses, as having a will that is “free” is absurd. An unsaved person is a slave to sin, a child of the Devil (John 8:44ff). An unsaved person has only a will to sin, to evil. As Scripture makes clear, it is only when Christ sets us free that we are free. There is true freedom only where Christ’s Spirit governs. John 8:36: “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” And 2 Corinthians 3:17: “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
John Lofton
Laurel, Maryland

CR note- Remember what Lofton said and I bolded!! He admits that there is free will!!

Response:
John Lofton is not a Catholic, which is perhaps why he is as offended by the Renaissance as Luther was. But to the Catholic sensibility, art and classical civilization are not antithetical to Christianity; in fact, no positive values are antithetical to Christianity. The Catholic is not afraid of dancing, theater, literature, painting, sculpture, manners, learning that goes beyond Sola Scriptura, reason, philosophy, and even romance, the way the Puritan is.

On the question of Calvin’s despairing view of humanity, it can be found in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. One example is when he affirms “the correctness of their opinion who considered it as the greatest boon not to be born, and, as the next greatest, to die immediately; nor was there anything irrational in the conduct of those who mourned and wept at the birth of their relations, and solemnly rejoiced at their funerals.” It is also implicit obviously in his denying salvation to the majority of Christians—who were Catholics then, and had been for a millennium and a half, as well as now—let alone non-Christians. All these were predestinedly condemned as idolaters.

Likening Puritanism to Talibanism is not so very difficult when we recall that the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues, just as the Protestant reformers went charging about smashing stained glass, altars, religious murals, crucifixes, and Madonnas with rather more violence than the ACLU. Moreover, the litany of things that the Calvinists banned is lengthy (too lengthy to be reproduced here), Talibanic, and absurd; it included prohibitions on popular (harmless) entertainment, dancing, singing, being late to church, clothes color, makeup, jewelry, and church bells. The Calvinists even dictated the names (they had to come from the Old Testament) that could be given to children. In my book Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, A 2,000-Year History, I refer to Calvin’s Geneva as the first and only Christian police state: In a Catholic country, a man confessed his sins to a priest and was given penance and forgiveness; in Calvin’s Geneva, a man confessed his sins to a magistrate in a court of law and faced the death penalty if convicted of adultery, pregnancy out of wedlock, striking a parent, blasphemy, heresy, or idolatry; the Calvinist program for erasing sin was erasing the sinner. Catholic countries were free in a way that Protestant countries were not; it’s just that Protestants called Catholic freedom “pagan,” “immoral,” “corrupt,” and the fruit of the “whore of Babylon”—and some still do.

On the question of defending freedom, let us remember that it was the Catholic Church that denied the supremacy of the state over religion, and Protestants who believed the authority of the state was scriptural while the authority of the papacy was not. That is why Reformation Protestants had state-run churches. Nationalism and the long-held desire of many crowned heads to rid themselves of Church checks on their power were the lethal force of the Protestant Revolt.

The divine right of kings over the Church was a Protestant doctrine that the papacy denied. But Luther affirmed it, and the kings in England who supported the doctrine were Anglicans—it was the keynote of the Protestant Anglican program. When England was Catholic, the Church was free and independent. Catholic men like Becket, More, and Stephen Langton—the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury who, along with the barons, compelled King John to sign the Magna Carta (which Langton largely wrote)—could oppose the king in a way that later churchmen could not. After the Protestant Reformation in England, that moral check on state power was gone, because the king was head of the church, by divine right established.

The reason Cromwell’s dictatorship—and one must assume that Mr. Lofton sides with Cromwell—could not be maintained between the period of the Stuart kings was that the English people could no longer abide the Calvinist program of banning and outlawing everything in the Puritan version of sharia law—that Talibanic tendency again.

When Charles II (an Anglican married to a Catholic) assumed the throne, England breathed a collective sigh of relief—and rejoiced that it could once more enjoy horse-racing, the theater, and other “Renaissance” freedoms that Puritans despise. Merrie England, which was Catholic England, was rediscovered. England was even allowed to celebrate Christmas again, which the Cromwellians had banned as a pagan debauch, and which the Puritans of New England would ban all over again until the celebratory example of Catholics and Episcopalians overturned the Puritan prejudice. In the case of America, it is interesting that of the first ten presidents of the United States, eight were either Episcopalians (inheritors of the Church of England, which is the Protestant church closest to Catholicism in doctrine and practice) or Unitarians and Deists (barely if Christian at all). The two exceptions are Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren (Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed, respectively). There are amazing things to be found if one actually reads history rather than assuming the Whig version of history (with a born-again gloss), as Mr. Lofton seems to.
(http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/letters.htm)


Confusion Over Romans In his Guest Column “Confusion Over ‘God's Will '” (May 2006), Greg Krehbiel mangles Romans 8:28 and seriously alters its meaning. This is not a don't-worry-be-happy-whoever-you-are text as he quotes it: “God works all things for good.” The entire text reads in the New American Bible: “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

John LoftonLaurel, Maryland

Greg Krehbiel responds: My old friend John Lofton is correct that Romans 8:28 specifically refers to God's promise to work all things for the good of believers, but it is also true that God works “all things” toward a final end that is “good,” which is what I intended to convey.
(http://www.crisismagazine.com/letters.htm)


Commentary & News BriefsAugust 18, 2005Compiled by Jenni Parker ...A memo has surfaced, written by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, in which he warned the Reagan administration to steer clear of the Religious Right and also criticized a leading Christian figure. John Lofton was editor of the Conservative Digest at that time and was preparing a series of stories on the hiring practices of the Reagan administration. "I was to meet with the Attorney General William French Smith," Lofton notes, but before that happened, he says John Roberts wrote Smith a memo, instructing him "as to how to obfuscate the issue, basically -- how to answer the questions that I would raise." In the memo, Roberts advised the administration to distance itself from the Religious Right, and he went on to say that Christian leader Paul Weyrich was "no friend of ours," Lofton adds. However, he protests, "All Weyrich was trying to do, and myself and many other conservatives, was to make Reagan and his administration keep the promises they made when they were elected. That's all." The former Conservative Digest editor feels that kind of fair-weather friendship has been the predominant attitude of the GOP towards its Christian base. "We've been wined and dined before the election," he says, "but the minute they're elected, suddenly we're not one of them." Lofton says that is one reason why he is no longer working for the Republican Party. [Bill Fancher]

Praying to saints revisited By JOHN LOFTON and MITCHELL PACW A, S.J.

IN THE JULY ISSUE of This Rock appeared an article titled "The Bible Supports Praying to the Saints." The author was Mitchell Pacwa, a Jesuit who teaches at Loyola University in Chicago. He is known best to readers of this magazine for his frequent appearances on Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Television Network (his specialty is Old Testament studies) and for his debate, aired a few years ago on the John Ankerberg Show, against the late Walter Martin.The most sustained response we have received to Fr. Pacwa's article has been from John Lofton, a spirited defender of the Reformed position, a former columnist for The Washington Times newspaper, and a guest on many nationally-seen talk shows. We publish first Mr. Lofton's response, then a reply from Fr. Pacwa.

No prayers to saints, thank you

FR. MITCHELL PACWA, S.J., undoubtedly has many talents, but, to put it charitably, the ability to accurately exegete Scripture does not, alas, appear to be among them.In your July issue Fr. Pacwa asserts that the Church does allow "praying to the saints in order to ask for their intercession with the one true God." And he says that Protestants who say the Bible denies this are "incorrect."Well, the Roman Catholic Church does, indeed, allow prayers to saints. But the Bible does not.For openers, Fr. Pacwa never says, precisely, who the saints are. The Bible does, however. The Greek word used for "saint" in the New Testament is hagios, which means those set apart, those separate, those who are holy--in other words, all Christians, all those who are saved.IN FACT, even John A. Hardon, S.J., in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary (Image Books, 1985) says, on page 390, that the word "saints" was "a name given in the New Testament to Christians generally (Col. 1:2) . . . ." This is correct. This is biblical.To be sure, Fr. Hardon adds that the word "saint" was "early restricted to persons who were eminent for holiness," those "who distinguished themselves by heroic virtue during life and whom the Church honors as saints either by her ordinary universal teaching authority or by a solemn definition called canonization."But these latter assertions are extrabiblical. No such restricted definition of "saint" is from the Bible. And Fr. Hardon cites no Scripture to support such an expanded definition--though this expanded definition is, again, indeed, the definition of the Roman Catholic Church.In explaining who the saints are, Fr. Pacwa cites John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56.

But in neither the Protestant Bible nor a Roman Catholic Bible (for example, the St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, published by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine in 1970) is the word "saint" used in these passages.Furthermore, Fr. Pacwa says that the book of Revelation (4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11) shows "the saints" doing a number of things. But this is not completely accurate. Revelation 4:10, in the already-mentioned St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible, makes no mention at all of "saints." What is mentioned are "elders"--from the Greek word presbuteros, which means "aged person." But "saints" are not mentioned. And the words "saints" and "elder" are not synonymous.

IN REVELATION 5:8 (again, in the New American Bible) the word "elders" is mentioned twice, but the word "saint" is not. There is a mention of "the prayers of God's holy people" at the end of this verse. But the allusion is to the prayers "of" these people. No mention is made of any prayers to these people.And it is here that Fr. Pacwa goes seriously awry.Fr. Pacwa says that because the saints are alive in heaven, "we believe that we can go to them to intercede for us with God. . . . [T]hey will pray for us in heaven . . . [A] saint in heaven may intercede for other people because he still is a member of the Body of Christ . . . . The Bible encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord."But the Bible does no such thing.To support his assertions, Fr. Pacwa quotes from Hebrews 12:22-24. But verse 24, again from the New American Bible, refers to Jesus as "the mediator of a new covenant." Note: Christ is called "the" mediator, not a mediator.

And in his own words following the citation of Hebrews 12:22-24, Fr. Pacwa also refers to our Lord as "the mediator," not a mediator.In fact, the only New Testament verses I can find regarding intercession are in Romans 8:26-27, in which "the Spirit" is said to make intercession for us; Romans 8:34, in which "Christ Jesus" is said to intercede for us; and Hebrews_7:25, in which "Jesus" is said to make intercession for "those who approach God through him" (again, all quotations here are from the New American Bible).

IN CONCLUSION, Fr. Pacwa, at the end of his article, seems to shift his ground. He asks the question: "Does the Bible say we should approach the saints with our prayers?" And he replies: "Yes, in two places," Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3-4. But these passages allude only to, according to the Bible he quotes, "the prayers of the saints," "the prayers of all the saints," and "prayers of the saints."Nothing is said in any of these passages about "approaching the saints with our prayers" or praying to the saints to intercede for us with God.Fr. Pacwa says: "These texts give us a way to understand how the saints offer our prayers for us." He adds: "Because the saints are so close to the fire of God's love and because they stand immediately before him, they can set our prayers on fire with their love and release the powers of our prayers."But this is adding to the Scripture, which Scripture forbids.

This is Phariseeism plain and simple--that is, substituting the words of men for the Word of God.It's not "the saints" versus "us." No way.All of us who are Christians are saints. Thus, "our prayers," as Fr. Pacwa puts it, need no saints to get to God.I repeat: Fr. Pacwa cites no specific Scripture which says that anyone intercedes for us other than "the Spirit" or "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus." If I've missed a specific Scripture, please cite it.

Sorry, but you're wrong MR. LOFTON, your letter has three difficulties: You do not understand my article in places, you limit your theology to scriptural words without thinking through their ramifications, and you do not have a sufficient Greek and biblical background. As a result you do not understand the saints.You did not grasp my use of John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56, where my point was that Christ bestows eternal life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood. Therefore the redeemed in heaven are alive in Christ, not asleep or dead, as unbelievers would claim. My purpose did not require the text to mention the saints explicitly.You limit the meaning of "saint" to a term for Christians in general. The Church does not deny this sense; we just do not confine it to Christians living on Earth. A saint who dies in the Lord does not cease to be a saint by entering God's immediate presence.

Further, if Paul asks saints on Earth for intercessory prayer, it is logical to ask the saints already in heaven to continue their intercession.YOU OBJECT WHEN I call the "elders" of Revelation 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11 "saints." Why? They are redeemed human souls, since they are in heaven, and therefore holy, since heaven can admit nothing unclean. The elders are saints. Your letter needlessly forces the term "saint" to exclude other meanings, such as "elder" and "spirits of the righteous ones made perfect."You claim that only Christ and the Holy Spirit make intercession, though 1 Timothy 2:1-2 commands everyone "to make petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings on behalf of all men." Christians on Earth--your "saints"--"pray" (synonymous with "intercede") for one another in 32 New Testament passages.Christ and the Holy Spirit intercede for us, as the Catholic Church proclaims. The official prayers of the Mass (see a sacramentary, our official Mass book) address the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit at every Mass, including feasts of Mary and the saints. Never do we pray these official prayers in the name of Mary or any other saint.Since we believe that death brings us to life with Christ, seeing him face to face and becoming like him (1 John 3:2), we still can pray and intercede for others. We are not deprived of that ministry. John saw a vision of the elders and the angels around God's throne offering incense--not ordinary incense, but the prayers of the saints, who, as you must admit, are the Christians on Earth.You are right. Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 do not portray the earthly saints making their petition to the heavenly elders and angels, but that is implied by the text since the heavenly saints and angels have earthly prayers.

I AM NOT ADDING to these passages, as you accuse, but drawing out their logical conclusions. Yes, Scripture forbids us to add to the text, but it does not prohibit us from thinking about the meaning of the text. Your limited interpretation, in fact, detracts from Scripture.Since you do not know Greek, as the telephone conversation we had demonstrated, you are unaware that the manuscripts of Hebrews 12:24 do not have the definite article "the." They simply read "mediator."What's more, accusing me of Pharisaism (not "Phariseeism") because I supposedly added to Scripture (which I did not) displays your misinformation about the Pharisees.The Catholic Church does not force its members to have any particular devotion to the saints. It recommends such devotion on the basis of Scripture and prohibits anyone from condemning proper devotion. Scripture nowhere bans asking the saints in heaven for their prayers--so, please, do not add such a man-made ban.
(file://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9011fea2.asp )

Catholics against Christian Coalition On December 9, 1995, about 400 people gathered in Boston for the Christian Coalition's "Conference on Catholics and Public Policy." Part of the Christian Coalition's "Catholic Alliance," this arm of Pat Robertson is supported by a first year budget of $1.3 million.

Even before the Christian Coalition launched its outreach to Roman Catholics, mainstream Catholics began to organize against the Christian Coalition. In Virginia, Robertson's backyard, Catholic bishops forbade the Christian Coalition from handing out voter guides in Catholic Churches. As a result, religious conservatives fared poorly in those elections last November.
A "Statement Opposing the Christian Coalition and its 'Catholic Alliance'" is attracting hundreds of signatures of Catholic organizations and individuals, including bishops. Copies of the statement are available from Catholics Speak Out at (301) 699-0042.

Explicitly Christian politics Christian Reconstructionist columnist John Lofton recently announced in Chalcedon Report that he is starting a political consulting firm to "reconstruct, to redeem politics." He said he will help candidates for public office, at all levels of government, "who want to run as explicit Christians." Lofton formerly wrote for The Washington Times.
"I want to help such Christian candidates," he said, "by writing speeches for them, position papers, and by giving them advice as how to handle the anti-Christian media, and much more." Lofton says that "for too long Christian candidates for public office have, in effect, by using mushy language about 'traditional values' and how they are 'people of faith,' failed to shine their God-given light."

Lofton believes that the two-party system has failed. "Never have more Americans, today, been so interested in a possible third-party or independent candidate." He adds, "Theocracy is not an 'idea.' It's a reality. God does rule. And this is what 'theocracy' means: Godly rule. Are you against this? I hope not."

"I predict," Lofton concluded, "that the next stage in politics is that you're going to see, by God's grace, more Christians taking an explicitly Christian/Biblical stand in what has heretofore — in modern times — been a godless area of American life. And I want to be in the forefront of that blessed effort."
(http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9601/update.html)

CR note-hmmm..that is why he quickly ski-daddled from the CP??

A good point he doeth make: Heathen Schools Regarding an item about John Derbyshire (While We’re At It, December 2003), I have what I hope is a helpful suggestion: If Mr. Derbyshire doesn’t want the commemoration of his Savior’s birth “mucked about with”—as it was at his son’s Christmas program—he should take his son out of that godless, anti-Christian public school and enroll him in a Christian school that truly honors our Savior. I’ll never understand Christian parents who place their children in heathen schools and then complain that these schools are insufficiently Christian. Weird.
John LoftonLaurel, Maryland


(http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0403/correspondence.html)


Man in Washington Washington, DC — "Today, though polls show millions of us are 'Christians,' who spend billions and billions of dollars, there is no Biblical/Christian media," according to columnist John Lofton. "There is no Biblical/Christian radio-TV network, no Biblical/Christian wire service, no such national news magazine (such as cite>Time/Newsweek)," he added.
One might respond, what about the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, World and the New American magazines? "And those that purport to be such media are a joke, but not funny," Lofton says.

Writing in the Christian Reconstructionist magazine, Chalcedon (November 1996), Lofton suggests that God has constructed an "information highway" called the Internet, "over which can go the Gospel and solidly Biblical teaching regarding all areas of life."

Lofton has appealed to conservative Christian activists that he be their "Man in Washington," a "one-man Christian/Biblical news bureau." For a fee, he plans to e-mail subscribers a weekly Biblical perspective on the news. "There is no longer any excuse," Lofton wrote, "for serious Christians having to rely on our enemies for our news." Readers interested in contacting John Lofton may do so at jlof@aol.com.
(http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9611/update.html)


PART 2


CR:

Caught part of your show, though I had to choke down on the Depraved belief as it is alien to the Bible (but believeable if you follow Calvin's dark hatred and self loathing)...

anyway,

Popular Mechanics crank can't admit defeat The Truth Will Set You Free September 13 2006
What a loser.

Rather than admit that he's wrong and we're right, the man who thinks he 'debunked' the Truth, with his empty commentary in Popular Mechanics last year, wails and whines about being compared to a Nazi.

ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/ Halliburton/ Zionist/ CIA/ New World Order/ Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals.

For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff.

Boo-hoo. Where's the beef? There is none.

Unable to admit that he was discredited because his piece lacked substance, he wants readers to believe that he was persecuted because he conducted 'research.' The man is in absolute denial and suffers from paranoid delusions. Instead of accepting the fact that 9/11 Truth theories are now mainstream, he insists we 'inflitrated the mainstream' as if through some voo-doo powers and not simply through logic and reason.

"Conspiracy theorists want to pick and choose which facts to believe," he cries. Yeah, so what? Judges do it all the time. Witnesses present evidence, the Judge decides which facts to believe and which to discard as incredible.

Then he has the nerve to characterize the mickey mouse evidence upon which the official version relies as 'a huge preponderance of evidence' and the glaring gaps that could fit a herd of elephants as 'a small handful of anomolies.' What a joke.

These anomalies include the claim that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been made by a commercial jet (but just right for a cruise missile); that the Twin Towers were too robustly built to have been destroyed by the jet impacts and fires (so they must have been felled by explosives), and more. If true, these and similar assertions would cast serious doubt on the mainstream account of 9/11. "But they're not true," he cries. And to prove it, he attacks two inconsequential quotes, which even if false, only discredit the quotes, not necessarily the underlying facts. More importantly, he doesn't come any where near the gaping holes and impossibilities in the official story that prove it's a LIE.

The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world. I couldn't agree more - the most seductive (and absurd) of which is the conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers with box-cutters collapsed three colossal buildings into their footprints by hitting them with two planes.
Give it up, Meigs - like it or not, the Truth will prevail.



Keep up the fine work Michael and John-despite differences, you guys are doing good w/show.



catholicresistence.blogspot.com


JL: Original sin is in the Bible as is the wickedness of the human heart. JL-- "Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ." -- John Calvin.

CR:True-to a certain degree, but Depraved like an animal we are not. Free will is clear throught out Bible. Otherwise, I would be out robbing, killing and fornicating. I feel like doing none of these 3, let alone fighting with it internally as if I was depraved.

I disagree w/you, but still like you John!!!!

JL:I said nothing abt being like an animal and you cannot quote one Bible verse containing the words "free will" -- NOT ONE! JL

CR:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2003/letters.htm

So, if only the "saved man" has free will, how did he chose to be "saved"? when did free will leap into him?

Is this where man has irrestible (read-forced)grace to-what is it you always say?-Choose ye this day whom you will serve!

Sounds like man chose something, not that choice was forced on him!!

BTW-how is your consulting company??

JL:No more replies until you show me "free will" words in Bible. JL-- "Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ." -- John Calvin.

CR:Gee, well I cannot find a lot directly stated-word for word-in the bible:
1. Bible
2. Trinity
3.Calvin or Luther's name
4. Irressitable grace
5.Man is deparaved
6. TULIP

BTW-if you do not now believe in Free will, well, see the email I just sent to you, from your old letter to CRISES magazine (a Neocon funded outlet BTW). You apparently did then!!!!!!

CR response 2:

John,

In YOUR statements I copied to you, you stated-without reservation-that you believed that the saved man has free will. If you will not accept it as it is not in the Bible, then why did you then??

Double minded or confused?

I will not answer further until you can show me-explicitly-in the Bible where it says:
1. Everything I am to believe has to be in the Bible
2. Where the word Trinity is found in the Bible in regards to Father/Son/H.S
3. Where the words "man is depraved" is found word for word (whether we are or are not not relevant)

I await the impossible, an anwer to these questions. If not, we know that your system of hopelessly flawed and as apologist John Martigioni once stated "Protestantism is razor thin".

Thanks

++UPDATE since 9/20/06-Message received afterward++

JL:Fine, so you admit words "free will" not in the Bible. Thank you. JL

CR:As you say "fine" I am assuming that you admit that Sola Scriptura is not biblical and that no scripture allows for the bible alone theology. Otherwise, Christ and/or his Apostles would have clearly told us so, without any ambiguities and questions.

Yes, "free will" is not a phrase in scripture, nor do the words, to my knowledge, appear together. Neither does bible, bible alone, faith ALONE, man is depraved, etc.

Thank you, I am glad we agree on a point in this stimulating talk.

Best ot you and Michael, esp as I can see you are moving to the Bible alone American Heritage Party.

As you cannot prove my point (see my last email to you) that Sola Scriptura is a biblical concept, I guess we are at an end on this topic.

JL:Excellent! Progress being made. So, since words "free will" not in Bible where are the words in the Bible that make you think man has "free will?" JL

CR:The clear indication of free will (you should look at my blog discussion on it) is clearer then the doctrine of the trinity. but, you have not answered my questions either, you are side stepping:

1. WHere in the Bible is the word "bible"?
2. Where in the Bible is the word "depraved"?
3. Where in the Bible is the words "man is depraved"?
4. Where in the Bible does it specifically say that we are to go by the Bible ALONE?
-as it is a pillar of Protestantism, it shoud be spelled out by the Apostles without question.5. Where in the bible is the word Trinity?
-this was hashed out of 3 centuries, cultimting-more or less-at Nicea.

You have not given me definitive answers on this. Also, you have not answered my question as to religious tests for immigrants.
-who is to ask them
-what standard are they to be asked
-who decides who gets in, etc

You stated more than once, including on air in your programs the quote 'Choose ye this day whom you will serve"

-sounds to me like a man is making a choice, which is clearly indicative of free will, not forced submission. IF you do not choose God, you will at death be sent to Hell. If you chose God, eternity.

Read my short post:
http://catholicresistence.blogspot.com/2006/09/man-is-not-depraved.html

Until you can answer the above numbered questions, we really cannot move forward.

I am out-of-town all next week, so I will await your responses when I return. Have a good show Saturday!!