"For God so loved the world..."

Discerning Believer wrote:
So then I take it you claim infallibility behind the pulpit.
If your subjects are not allowed to read and interpret scripture for themselves or commanded to believe 100% the way you do, you are either the Pope or a cult.

Actually its called submitting to your pastor because he watches for your soul. Unlike you, they do so out of their own free will. Believe it or not, they actually want to submit to my doctrine because they recognize the biblical truth which you deny.

God commands the local church to be of one mind. If you are not in 100% doctrinal agreement with your pastor (especially with such a polarizing issue as this) then you should move on to another church, instead of Lurking around subverting the doctrinal convictions of the pastor.

1. The 7 churches are seven literal churches.

2. The 7 churches are seven periods in history.

3. The 7 types of churches exist in every period in history.

Discerning Believer wrote:
WOMI,
Are your subjects commanded to believe 100% like you do? I have personally chosen to keep my theological beliefs out of the church. I am not a teaching elder or a ruling elder in the church, nor am I a deacon.
Are your subjects not allowed to search and read the scriptures for themselves and guided by the Holy Spirit to see what the bible says for itself, or, are they only allowed to believe what you tell them to believe.

As a fundamentalist you should've signed in your membership aplication that you will be in one mind doctrinally with your church.

I suspect that your pastor would like to know if you are not in 100% agreement with what he believes. But of course you will be content in not telling him, because Calvinists are well-known for infiltration NOT transparency.

Lurker wrote:
Derek, I sense you are not open to discuss this from scripture so I choose to not pursue it any further. May God bless your studies to your heart.

Discerning Believer wrote:
RK,
However don't be surprised if WOMI retorts that it is not deaing with salvation because the words "calleth you unto salvation" is not specifically mentioned in the text.

It must then be a matter of willful ignorance.

I suppose that if you were a politician, you would use the same liberal hermeneutic to convince the people that you are the right man. It all depends upon what one's preference is, I suppose.

God places a curse upon those that add to the Word of God, so I think I am on safer ground than you, to say the least.

Cbcpreacher wrote:
(I received what I expected from Yamil).

Cbcpreacher wrote:
Hello, everyone, and Happy New Year!
I thought I would check in to see how things were going here. It is so sad to see that JD and Yamil, in particular, are still choosing to call names and demean people. It is also sad to see that the same old nonsense is being bantered about. It breaks my heart to see so many saying others aren't saved simply because of a "tag" that you want to give one another. I notice that the most vitriolic still seem to be those opposed to Calvinism. I dare say that if those of you opposed to the doctrines of grace could, you would burn all Calvinists at the stake. Of course, that would make you just like the dreaded Calvin, who, by the way, was a sinful human being, just like the rest of us. I wish I could come back and have some civil discussion about things that really matter, but as I said, it seems things haven't changed. I'm sorry to see that. Good night, and God bless.

I doubt that's progress.

BTW, the Lutherans are winning the race, they are moving to reunite with the Catholic Church.

Weapon of Mass Instruction
signing out