Michael Hranek, my rebuke was for you getting on a pedastal about the unnecessary arguing and then taking a dig at Calvinists. People who do not understand the total depravity of man are the ones who see themselves as better than they really are. I know that I am absolutely unworthy of the precious blood of my dear Redeemer. I know that I would not have even responded to Him if He had not quickened me by His Spirit to respond to that great display of love. I know full well that I deserve nothing but Hell. Unlike the free-will people, all of the glory goes to my Savior because my salvation is all of Him, from beginning to end. I pray that you may realize the same some day.
The Body, I'm assuming that you're meaning is that you don't agree with the doctrines of grace either. I honestly believe that this is not an issue of whether or not a perason is saved, but rather, a matter of being able to fully understand what was accomplished on the cross and what it means for me today. I don't believe we can have full assurance of salvation or that we can fully understand all that Christ did on our behalf without understanding these truths.
The Body, yes, I consider Michael Hranek a brother in Christ. Having said that, I also consider "the other 2", I'm assuming you mean JD and Yamil, as brothers, as well. However, I consider all 3 to be in error when it comes to the sound doctrine of the grace of God as given in the doctrines of grace. Maybe hypocrite was to harsh a word, but you got my point.
The Body, no, I do not agree. Theology is important, unless you choose to be ecumenical. If that is the case, then you should throw all of your doctrine out the window and just "get along because it's all about Jesus". It sounds so spiritual, but it is dead wrong. Just read the epistles. Every one was written because of the need for a sound theology.
Michael Hranek, you criticize everyone for debating this and then you write, "to make sure their faith is in Jesus Christ and the blood He willing shed for them and not merely a faith they're elect". There's a word for people like you, "hypocrite"!
JD, then God is a liar according to you, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14. The mystery Paul is speaking of here is the message of the gospel, as hidden from the eyes of those who crucified Christ. He says, if they had known, they would not have crucified Him. The gospel was a mystery in the OT and up until the time of Jesus' resurrection. To make it anything more than that in the 1 Cor. 2 passage is to add to the context. Gotta go! Off to prayer meeting (yes, we still have one!)
JD, and you mix and match scripture to make it say what you wish. You are no better than those you condemn! Say what you will, your nonsense is just as much a "crock" and "plain denial" as any of those you try to "teach". You may consider my (Christ's) doctrine "silly", but your's is flat out heretical. Rejoice in your Roman Catholic, works based, man glorifying, hell sent doctrine if you wish, but you will not be the last one laughing!
JD, it's absolutely mind boggling how you can take two completely unrelated verses and make them fit together! Let me give you a hint; just because verses contain the same word does not mean that they necessarily go together. Actually, Psalm 119:130 backs up the doctrines of grace position because a person cannot really understand the true meaning of God's words without them being illuminated by the Holy Spirit. This, inturn, brings light and understanding. By your interpretation of these verses you posted, every single person (saved and unsaved) has the same understanding of who Jesus is. My Bible tells me that the natural man cannot (not "will not") understand the things of the Spirit. Why, because he is spiritually incapable of understanding them becuase he is DEAD in trespasses and sin. You pride yourself on your ability to exegete and apply scripture. Try using context. It really is quite useful.
RK, first of all, I am not, never have been, and never will be, a Roman Catholic. Second, you didn't answer the questions, does your church meet every day since you believe in the regulative principle, and third, what is wrong with using it as an opportunity to share the gospel? Are you afraid to answer? Are Yamil and JD right when they say you have all of the questions but none of the answers? Please, just answer the questions.
Two questions for those so adamantly oppossed to celebrating our Lord's birth; What could possibly be wrong with God's people gathering together for worship? (In Acts it says they met daily. For you sticklers out there, does your church meet daily?); and; Doesn't this time of year give us an excellent "open door" to share the gospel? You folks need to quit being so stodgy (?) and use the opportunity for worship and witnessing!
RK-If you will notice, you are the one who said that faith is "intellectual assent". I was quoting you, so don't try to blame me for your inability to communicate. If you didn't mean what you said, just say so. We can accept that and go on.
RK-"Faith is intellectual assent to the truth of God's Word revealed through his Son Jesus Christ." If faith is merely intellectual assent to the truth, then there are a lot of christian's out there, even though they may not live it. I believe faith to be much more than that: ex. I can have "faith" (intellectual assent) to the truth that a chair will hold me if I sit in it. However, I am not showing true "faith" (comparable to saving faith) until I actually sit in that chair. We must be sure that we define our terms accurately, and my example is biblical; just ask James; "faith without works is dead (useless, worthless, without effect).
I agree with JD. terry evans has nothing to add to these discussions and seems to make a joke out of everything. Grow up or go away! You continued to display it throughout the posts after that. You call JD demon possessed and get away with it!