Dave wrote:

It's high time we discern the spirits, and Mark those that push their own works based salvation and works they think keep them there.
As displayed often on here they are allowed to spew forth just a little of their gospel, another Gospel, before you know people get sucked in and give them further platform.

Observer wrote:
[URL=https://freedomtofollowjesuschrist.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/12274621_1213752385342930_4577882618908032094_n.jpg]]] Which Jesus do you follow? [/URL]

Observer wrote:
[URL=https://freedomtofollowjesuschrist.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/12274621_1213752385342930_4577882618908032094_n.jpg]]] Which Jesus do you follow? [/URL]

Observer wrote:
[URL=https://freedomtofollowjesuschrist.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/12274621_1213752385342930_4577882618908032094_n.jpg]]] Which Jesus do you follow? [/URL]

Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords. The Centurion was approved because of his great faith because of his testimony of who Jesus was:

Matthew 8
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Among Christians of all ages and of varying shades of doctrinal emphasis there has been fairly full agreement on one thing: They all believed that it was important that the Christian with serious spiritual aspirations should learn to meditate long and often on God.

Let a Christian insist upon rising above the poor average of current religious experience and he will soon come up against the need to know God Himself as the ultimate goal of all Christian doctrine. Let him seek to explore the sacred wonders of the Triune Godhead and he will discover that sustained and intelligently directed meditation on the Person of God is imperative. To know God well he must think on Him unceasingly. Nothing that man has discovered about himself or God has revealed any short cut to pure spirituality. It is still free, but tremendously costly. "That Incredible Christian", 135.

John Yurich USA wrote:
...
Nobody can decide when they will become Born Again. It is the mighty work of the Holy Spirit prompting one to embrace Jesus as their Lord and Savior. And thus a sinner does not have the executive power to decide when to become Born Again. Nothing can be done to effect the new birth.

Observer wrote:
Wrong answer, but nice try.
Try reading my questions again, and this time try using your thinking head.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Born Again means that one has embraced Jesus as their Lord and Savior, asked Him for forgiveness of sins and trusts entirely in Him alone for salvation.

Observer wrote:
What does it mean to be "born again" John? Can you decide when you're going to be born again? How you're going to be born again? etc
Can you do anything to effect the new birth? Do you, a sinner, have the executive power to decide?

Lurker wrote:
John,
I see my comment was poorly written and could lead to a wrong conclusion. It wasn't my intent to suggest what you concluded. However, there are those who appeal to the OT to prove man has freewill in the NC age. But the outcome of that covenant should prove that man's will was not free to choose and sustain the good and reject the evil.
Under the first covenant terms, choices were presented to God's people; choose this and live or choose that and die. Also under the first covenant, the Jews ruled over God's people and taught them to err. In time all Israel broke the covenant and were cast off as a people.
The NC remedied the faults of the first. God took the kingdom away from the Jews and set His own risen Son on His throne to rule over His people as King and High Priest. The choices were taken away from the people and given to the Son in His purpose of election. A faithful preacher was sent to ensure that His laws of love were written on the hearts of His people so they would never fall away again.
A change in covenant administration is what happened.

John UK wrote:
What puzzles me though, is your claim that under the old covenant mankind has a free will, yet it disappeared, say, from Acts 15 onwards. What happened?
Just asking.

I see my comment was poorly written and could lead to a wrong conclusion. It wasn't my intent to suggest what you concluded. However, there are those who appeal to the OT to prove man has freewill in the NC age. But the outcome of that covenant should prove that man's will was not free to choose and sustain the good and reject the evil.

Under the first covenant terms, choices were presented to God's people; choose this and live or choose that and die. Also under the first covenant, the Jews ruled over God's people and taught them to err. In time all Israel broke the covenant and were cast off as a people.

The NC remedied the faults of the first. God took the kingdom away from the Jews and set His own risen Son on His throne to rule over His people as King and High Priest. The choices were taken away from the people and given to the Son in His purpose of election. A faithful preacher was sent to ensure that His laws of love were written on the hearts of His people so they would never fall away again.

Lurker wrote:
John,
I skimmed through the article and I'd caution you to be very careful. What I found noticeably absent is any mention of the difference in administration between the first covenant and the new covenant. Sure there are texts which teach freewill under the first covenant economy but that age and administration is past. The NC has as its cornerstone God's purpose of election; to call out the sheep from the goats in mercy. To carry forward freewill theology from the first covenant to the new is to deny God His purpose of election and degrade His mercy to a commodity which can be accepted or rejected at will.
Just saying, bro.

What puzzles me though, is your claim that under the old covenant mankind has a free will, yet it disappeared, say, from Acts 15 onwards. What happened?

Ladybug wrote:
John 1:29 KJV
(29)  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.----what did Christ accomplish by sacrificing Himself? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCsrKPjlcyM

Lurker wrote:
I see them as polar opposites.

Bro, one is seen as the cause and the other as the effect.

So take for instance Romans 5.13, 14

The issue is those that died between Adam's fall and the giving of the Law to Moses. Verse 13 says that sin cannot be imputed where there is no law and yet verse 14 then goes on to state that nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses.

Since death is the wages of sin, whose sin was the cause of their death if not their own? Their own could not be imputed to them because there was no law!

These verses are of course expanding on verse 12 which reads:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Look also at verses 17-19

v17 - death reigned because of Adam's sin
v18 - Judgement fell upon all men because of his offence
v19 - His disobedience made us sinners

Anyways, I know you don't want to discuss this, so I will stop here.

I just thought I would explain how the 2 are not polar opposites any more than us being accounted righteous by imputation of Christ's righteousness and then made righteous by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Observer wrote:
Hey bro Lurker
In systematic theology these are one and the same thing, so no need to argue over anything.

Probably a good thing I haven't signed on to anyone's systematic theology then as I see them as polar opposites.

. . .

John,

I skimmed through the article and I'd caution you to be very careful. What I found noticeably absent is any mention of the difference in administration between the first covenant and the new covenant. Sure there are texts which teach freewill under the first covenant economy but that age and administration is past. The NC has as its cornerstone God's purpose of election; to call out the sheep from the goats in mercy. To carry forward freewill theology from the first covenant to the new is to deny God His purpose of election and degrade His mercy to a commodity which can be accepted or rejected at will.

Lurker wrote:
I deny the imputation of Adam's transgression to his progeny but agree all are born with Adam's propensity to commit sin.

In systematic theology these are one and the same thing, so no need to argue over anything.

_________________

Brothers and sisters

Are we seeing the step by step dismantling of John UK's cherished theological position which he claims to have espoused for so many years?

First it was particular redemption, now he is questioning man's inability.. wow! Why does he not spare us all the pain of reading all this stuff and just admit his secret arminianism. His secret semi-pelagianism has been evident in many of his posts because he is desperate to want to believe that man can actually make a difference in their own salvation. After all, how else can God be sincere to all in the gospel command to repent and believe if they were not capable of doing so, right?

Eph 4.14 ....be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive

BTW Have any you denied the universal preaching of the Gospel?!

Bro Frank,