Youth in Asia wrote:
surprisingly we are having a mature conversation. It is great to have a forum to discuss such things, a moderated one at least. At the end of the day we are called to be effective preachers, America is not a church, we share the stage with so many others, but the point is, we should instead stand out like lights in this perverse generation

Backwoods Duck Farmer wrote:
Hence why I comment on SA very rarely. It's simply not the wisest use of time and mental energy.

ladybug wrote:
Sorry, I don't see that as humor. Poking fun at heresy is never humorous, free will has deluded many into thinking they're saved...John Y is the fruit of such heresy.
It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, it is tragic that someone is on the broad road and yet, they think they're saved because they exercised their free will.

My Own 2 cents wrote:
I apologize about my comment I posted, I spoke to quickly and didn't read in the whole context.
I apologize for coming off harsh. I didn't mean to.
God bless all of ya and have a nice night (or day).

Jesus NEVER forced anyone to listen to Him, He didn't need to as the Holy Spirit guided Him in His ministry. I think this sort of logic (I mentioned above) is dangerous and typically comes from those who embrace the God, guns, guts and glory business.

Backwoods Duck Farmer wrote:
And yes it would concern and offend me if I had children and a Muslim tried to convert them to Islam - but that's aside from the point because we Christians shouldn't be fair other religions and belief systems.

Youth in Asia wrote:
I think Ned Flanders is a parody of Christianity from the TV show "The Simpsons". It's something the world uses to put down christians, like the word Bible Thumper, When I became a christian, I struggled because I will now have to be associated with Ned Flanders, a character everyone laugh at. But thankfully, unbelievers are wrong on their representation of believers.

Backwoods Duck Farmer wrote:
Ned Flanders that is*

Backwoods Duck Farmer wrote:
Youth in Asia, that's one of the reasons public schools and transport shouldn't exist at all. Biblically speaking, it's not the State's responsibility to run them.

ladybug wrote:
From the article, "That He died on a cross and shed His blood for all the sins of mankind." Like his father, FG teaches falsely. Christ died for who?
"I lay down my life for the sheep." John 10:15
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many."- Mat 20:28
'All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else,..' Spurgeon

Connor7 wrote:
Not really since God gave the Philistines into David's hand, that must mean that God...God interfered with the freewill of the Philistines. Now if you're consistent with your position, what choice did Nebuchadnezzar have when God took the kingdom away from him, and in God giving him a beasts heart, and having that for seven years? It was eternally decreed that it would happen, and was not Pharaoh's very purpose for being created is that God's power would be made known?
And the non Calvinist says that God eternally desired all men to be saved, I've never met a non Calvinist who believes otherwise, however if we explore this notion...
And I've never meet a someone who could deal with the Double Jeopardy argument by John Owen. I think every Calvinist should know this argument, and I will put it quite simply: If Jesus bore the wrath of God for all of humanity, on what basis does God have for punishing any unbeliever in Hell? Doesn't that contradict the doctrine of atonement, penal sub

ladybug wrote:
'Arminianism was the false gospel of John Wesley and his followers in the eighteenth century, and of D. L. Moody in the nineteenth. It is the stock-in-trade of well nigh all the popular evangelists of this century from Billy Graham downwards. The gospel halls of the Brethren, Open and Closed, are nurseries of Arminianism. The active agents of the Faith Mission and the Salvation Army,...

ladybug wrote:
It's never about changing one's 'position'. Correcting error should always be the goal of the Christian. The 'bait' used doesn't fluctuate, salvation isn't contingent on a sinner's free will. If we mishandle God's truth, we will be held accountable. Scripture nowhere states salvation is part man's free will and part God's grace, not correcting this heresy has been tragic. There are now multitudes who assume they are saved because they did something. God help those who stop their ears to this truth and gnash their teeth at it!
"Free-will doctrine-what does it? It magnifies man into God. It declares God's purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God's will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent on human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice, it holds God to be a debtor to sinners". C.H. Spurgeon
There was a time when men of old vehemently fought against this heresy, and with good reason. How sad that it's no longer deemed important to stand against this heresy...

Man's thoughts and words (Prov. 16.1)
The wicked (Prov. 16. 4)
Even the rolling of the die (Prov. 33)

Dr. Tim wrote:
Connor I almost never answer your questions, or anyone else's on here, for the simple reason that doing so generally leads to endless disputes and I am not interested in engaging in those. That is what I meant when I said there are a few people running traplines on here; they are constantly trying to snare others into getting into fruitless theological debates. However, I will answer your questions this time. 1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Never heard of Time for Truth, and am not interested in looking it up. K?

Not the same wrote:
Seeing you keep bringing up free will let us do a quick reference on it. John 8:44 tells us man’s will is in bondage to his nature. However, if the unregenerate only do things that God predetermined they would, then you have eliminated our Lird’s clear teachings on degrees of punishment in hell
The phrase freewill , normally appearing before the word offering, as in Psalm 119:108, appears 17 times in the KJV Bible. Are you saying that a sovereign God who inspired the Scriptures made a mistake or had His sovereignty iimpugned by allowing, requesting and acknowledging such actions?

Let's lay the cards on the table.

1. Is God sovereign? Yes or No.

2. Does man have a free will? Taking into account the definition of free will, please answer yes or no.

ladybug wrote:
The bible warns of antichrist types {1 John 2:18}, 'anti' meaning 'in place of' it's no coincidence the office of popery has claimed to be the 'vicar' of Christ, 'a noun meaning [Roman Catholic Church] 1. the pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ and possess His authority in the church.' Origin of Vicar of Christ-from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vicar-of-christ
'Protestants generally suppose this adversary to be the Papal power; and some divines believe that, in a more general sense, the word extends to any persons who deny Christ or oppose the fundamental doctrines of christianity.' from http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Anti-christ
The office of popery has always sought to lead and set itself up as 'in place of' the true, living Son of God. There is not one thing biblical about the RCC: the Lord God detests false religion-https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=22012238299
Hey Watcher, I pray you too will be blessed by our great Lord, God and Savior. Looking forward to hearing back from you. BTW, you and I have similar personalities concerning getting flustered.

Kev wrote:
Yeah doing prettty well over here just busy with school all the time. Take care and God bless hope your enjoying the little one

Not the same wrote:
That is because ‘it’s” logical conclusion is your logical conclusion not what is found in the Bible. You are generalizing a specific. So called free will has nothing to do with it do please leave it out of discussion, again only you are bringing it up

Not the same wrote:
Will give a brief response here as I am still not where have time and resources. Been Watching please don’t think I am trying to be argumentative or am unappreciative of your desire to exalt God. I simply saying you are either misdefining or misapplying the doctrine of the sovereignty of God....