Mercy wrote:
"The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him; the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked." 1 John 2:3-6

We as Christians keep, or hold steadfast his commandments. We hold them dear to our hearts, we believe they are truth, that they are good for us and they are Holy. But practically we don't keep (obey) them. We fail every day.

Mercy wrote:
Rogerant and DJC,
No, I do not hold to RC views, but to Reformed Theology.

Your views are not Reformed, they are somewhere between Wesleyan Perfectionist and infused Roman Catholic doctrines of justification and sanctification.

For Reformed view of the christian experience in sanctification and who is the struggling person in Romans 7 I recommend that you read John Gill's exposition of Romans 7:14-25 at the following link.

Mercy wrote:
The Holiness of God is an attribute distinct to His Being, and how awesome is it that He gives us of His nature? He makes us holy, and w/o Holiness, no one will see the LORD.
b] I claim no authority in understanding all that the Rom 7 passage speaks of.

The protestant doctrine of justification is that Christ's righteousness is imputed (or charged to) the believer. This is an objective work of God.

Mercy wrote:
I give testimony of what God has done in my life, and I have great compassion for those who struggle. My only desire is to encourage others in the LORD, concerning their walk.

In our salvation we are provided victory over the bondage of sin that impairs our ability to believe in Christ. We are also granted a "Positional" standing of being declared not guilty of our sin because of our union with Christ.

However, we are still "Practically" sinful, and our flesh is still conditionaly sinful.

As for having a desire to encourage others in the Lord concerning their walk. Your view will lead those who struggle as Paul does in Romans 7 to be snuffed out.

Mercy wrote:
He sounds really distressed, doesn't he? Conflicted to the nth degree.
What more can I say?
What say you, Rogerant?

You however do not appear to be going through this same struggle.

One thing that I have learned is that the closer you get to knowing the Holiness of God, the more knowledge of your own habitual sinfulness is exposed.

Mercy wrote:
DJC,
Did you remove chapter 8 of Romans from the Bible that you use for these discussions????

Mercy wrote:
No, my view of total depravity is not weak, but I don't have to prove that to you, and I'm not a gnostic.

How do you reconcile verse 25 with the doctine of total depravity if it is Paul's state before regeneration? If verse 25 is Paul's preconversion experience, then his mind is not depraved, just his body.

THAT IS GNOSTICISM

Mercy wrote:
RA,
Would you not agree that a sinner comes under conviction - struggles with sin - BEFORE he is converted?
Could this not be the struggle that Paul is describing?

Are you trying to tell me that in Paul's MIND, in his unregenerate state, served the law of God? But in the FLESH, the law of sin?

This is Gnostic teaching. The idea that the mind was not corrupted by sin, but that the flesh was corrupt.

The mind of an unbeliever is evil, hostile to the law of God.

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.

The carnal mind is not warring against it's members. They are in total unity.

Mercy wrote:
DJ, I listened. . .The struggle that he describes is the struggle that one has BEFORE salvation, though he says it is the Believer's experience.
Remember Pilgrim in Pilgrim's Progress?
He carried his burden until he got to the cross, and then it fell off his back.
The problem with most teaching on Rom 7 is the break for Chptr 8. It should be read without the break. It should be looked at as "this is what I was dead in trespasses and sins," and "this is what I am now - alive in Christ." The Spirit bears witness to the change.

All of the verbs in Romans 7 are in the "present indicative" tense! Not in the "past indicative". Then Paul changes the tense as he does in all of his letters with the word "Therefore" in Romans 8:1

Those who are not saved, do not have this struggle. That is why Paul thanks Christ at the end of verse 24:

DJC49 wrote:
[Please note that I did NOT say "THINGS", but rather OT PROPHECIES]
Wonderful, WOMI!
If you are correct and OT prophecies are NOT vague and ambiguous and are as clear as a bell,

fuzzy logic wrote:
Challenge me on the facts. What part of my statement that Bush became president due to a ruling by the supreme court in 2000, incorrect?

Are you some kind of guru that you know this for a fact? Bush gave us the Patriot Act.

I thought that it was up to the state legislature that decided the electoral vote process, not the Supreme Court? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that it was not appropriate for the state appeals court to over rule the circuit court judges ruling? In other words, wouldn't it be the circuit court judges fault?

And doesn't the electoral college power reside within the state legislature jurisdiction?

Mike wrote:
Rogerant,
You have more understanding of conservative and liberal in the American context, than many Americans do.

Quincy MaGoo wrote:
Conservative is defined as - Disposed to preserve existing

Your definition of conservative is Short Sighted. A conservative in an American context is: Someone who believes in a conservative interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, as the founding fathers intended. A liberal wants to interpret the Constititution in light of the changing times. They believe that it is a living breathing document. In other words, man's knowledge is progressing as times change. Liberals do not recoginize that man's rights are inaliable. That they reside outside of man's opinion, but are readily accepted by man, as they derive from God.

Liberals are the ultimate "free willers", and will not be bound by the laws of an unchanging God.

Mike wrote:
Indeed, There is Hope. And yet was it not required that the Israelites believe/obey what Moses relayed to the elders, to paint the doorposts with the blood, that the destroyer would pass over them? Israel was chosen, but they still had to do something, obey. They had to "come under" the blood to be saved.

Mike wrote:
You say there does not appear to be anything here that says God makes it impossible to come to Him.
According to Ch3:7, they are allowed to pass by, followed by being ordained to dishonor. Considering that God is sovereign and omnipotent, is not choosing to allow them to pass by in fact making it impossible for them to come to Him, since all power in it is in His hands and none in theirs?

3. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners that none may expect pardon without it.

4. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation, so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.

5. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particularly.

Michael Hranek wrote:
this is true although a Biblical Fundamentalist may express it in different words.

No, you are not allowed to express it in UN-biblical Fundie words. It says what it says. That God PASSED over the non-elect. With your line of reasoning we would have to say that God made it impossible for the world to call on Him that had never heard the Gospel.

God was not actively making it impossible for anyone. But man was actively rejecting God's common grace.

And as for preaching the gospel to the world, read chapter 15.

1. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.

Michael Hranek wrote:
No, you are misrepresenting the Calvinistic/Reformed possition expressed in the WCF that God makes it impossible for the non-elect to come to Him and be saved because He so choose to hate them He sovereignly ensures their damnation in the day of judgment.

Chapter 3:7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to PASS BY, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

Mat 11:25-26; Rom 9:17-18, 21-22; 2 Tim 2:19-20; 1 Pet 2:8; Jude 1:4.

There does not appear to be anything here that says that God makes it impossible to come to Him. It says that He allows them to PASS BY.

But I know you won't admit that you are wrong, because you are a dishonest man.

Michael Hranek wrote:
No, you are misrepresenting the Calvinistic/Reformed possition expressed in the WCF that God makes it impossible for the non-elect to come to Him and be saved because He so choose to hate them He sovereignly ensures their damnation in the day of judgment.

Alright, post it for me! I want you to post the material from the WCF that supports what you just posted.

Where in the WCF does it say that God makes it impossible for the non-elect to come to Him?

You are a liar! I am sick and tired of you misrepresenting and misstating our positions for us.

These passages are all written in the passive tense.