Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
WHY do a part two, when folks have not had a chance to reply to the first one? Above that, you did not even add a constructive criticism post using scriptures after your OP~which you did not use any scriptures there to speak of anything~JUST AS you have not here
General Discussion Forum / Re: Fauci and the beagles
« Last post by mommydi on Yesterday at 21:27:43 »
People who don't have a problem with ripping an unborn baby limb from limb won't have a problem with mad scientists ripping out the vocal chords of puppies so they can't make a noise while being eaten alive.

It's sickening to watch Democrats defend Fauci in this. Sickening.

Theology Forum / Re: Jesus' I AMs
« Last post by NyawehNyoh on Yesterday at 21:17:02 »
Mark 14:61-62 . . Again the high priest was questioning him, and saying to him: Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said: I am;

The connection between the Christ (a.k.a. Messiah) and the son of the Blessed (a.k.a. God) wasn't something new and unusual. The connection was already well-known; not just among Judaism's elite, but also among ordinary pew warmers too.

So; how did they know? Who told them that Messiah would be the son of God rather than just another nondescript son? For example:

"I said: You are all sons of the Most High." (Ps 82:6)

In a nutshell: It was believed that all kings of the Davidic dynasty were each in their turn the son of God in a special way. For example David (Ps 89:27) Solomon (2Sam 7:12-14) and all the others (Psalm 2 and Psalm 45)

NOTE: The Hebrew equivalent to Christ is mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh) which simply means anointed-- i.e. divine appointment to a throne --and isn't limited to Jewish monarchy, e.g. Cyrus (Isa 45:1)

So then, Jesus admitted that he was indeed the son of God; and by doing so laid claim to the Davidic monarchy-- not only in the presence of the high priest, but also Pilate; the Roman official governing Israel at that time.

John 18:37 . . Pilate said: You are a king, then? Jesus answered: You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born.
 Buff, would you agree that the 3000 at Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 experienced Godly sorrow as in being shown their sin and being legitimately sorrow for it. That Godly sorrow leads to repentance and repentance was exactly what they did next and were baptized. I have heard it argued here that the 3000 were born again and then they repented and were baptized BECAUSE OF remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I disagree with that. They repented and were baptized FOR or UNTO remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter’s inspired message pricked their hearts, but I agree, it was not rebirth.
Jesus believed the wayward lad in the pig pen had enough good left in him that he could do something about his predicament. He could have a change of heart, turn his life around, and return home. This is what he did when “he came to himself.” In reality, he exercised his free will!

Jesus believed this, you say? Because the prodigal son "came to his senses"? His ordeal knocked sense into him as it were.

John 6:45 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.

"Free will" is a completely worthless phrase that Scripture didn't need, and so we don't need it after it's written.
Man’s Ability Or Inability To Choose
[Part 2]

    This belief system on “free will” is so vast, so detailed, so puzzling, so mystifying, and so cluttered with theological “odds and ends” that hardly any two of its adherents can reach a rational consensus. The average Calvinist is less than virtuous with his many-sided theology. The main thrusts of the Calvinistic belief system and Jesus’ precepts and principles are truly at odds.
    One Calvinist wrote, “If you mean by free will the ability for fallen human beings to incline themselves and exercise that will to choose the things of God without the prior work of regeneration, then free will is far too grandiose a term to apply to a human being.”
    Interpretation? As per the mindset of the average Calvinist, man has a free will and can choose to do anything in his natural environment, but his free will and ability to choose ends at that point. He cannot exercise free will and choose to obey God until he is “regenerated” or born again before he can come to the Lord. If you will compare that sentiment to numerous biblical passages that teach the opposite, you will find that this dogma collides with heaven. Jesus clearly says a man may choose whether or not to obey God [John 7:17]. But how may he choose unless he is endowed with free will? He cannot.
    But is he quickened or made alive prior to his choosing to obey God? A receptive person is quickened or made alive when he hears the message of salvation. Up to that point, he is “dead”—inactive, dormant—to the things of God. But when he hears the message of salvation, he “comes alive,” or is “quickened.”  However, this does not translate into being born again. It is only the beginning of the new birth process, as “faith comes by hearing the message” of salvation [Rom. 10:17. The new birth cannot be experienced without faith, without reformation or repentance, and without complete surrender to the Lord’s injunctions.
    On the birthday of the Christian community, 3,000 people, after being quickened—“cut to the heart”—with the message of deliverance, cried out, “Brothers [that is, brother Jews], what shall we do?” Peter responded by telling them what to do [Acts 2:37-38]. You will carefully note that, even though quickened or made alive with the redemptive message, they had not yet been born again or received the forgiveness of sins.
    The unregenerate on that occasion were quickened—not born again—prior to faith and repentance, as they were made aware of their need for salvation. This quickening or awareness occurred while they were steeped in sin or “dead in trespasses,” as they had not at this point been delivered or saved. So, again, the average Calvinist confuses quickening with the new birth. They are not the same. Paul made it clear. “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” [Rom. 10:17].
    A man’s heart is opened prior to his conversion. And, yes, a man is drawn to the Father prior to his conversion. All of this action is the result of a belief in and acceptance of the message of salvation. The biblical expression “born again” is equivalent to being saved, becoming a child of God, experiencing the new birth, becoming a citizen of God’s new reign. It entails being a member of God’s household. It carries no other meaning in scripture. Being quickened prior to conversion is not the same as being born again. The two are separate, yet interwoven. Let’s clarify even more.
    Calvinists claim the sinner is like a corpse. He can do nothing. If he is of the elect, God works in him “to will and to do.” In the light of scripture, one can accept the influence of the Spirit in conversion and still conclude that a person is free to accept or reject the Gospel, to believe or disbelieve it. Remove human responsibility from the equation and you have a Bible that makes no sense. If when Jesus said “He who has ears to hear let him hear” they were not free to hear [respond], He would be talking nonsense. He was amazed at the disbelief of some because He well knew they could have and should have believed [Mark 6:6].
    But what about the Calvinist stance on “total hereditary depravity”? Let’s take the prodigal son who finally came to his senses and returned home. He was in a swine pen, far from his father, and far from home—lost, which is worse than death. At this point in the story Jesus pays a compliment to the human race in saying that the prodigal “came to himself.”
    That indicates Jesus did not believe in total hereditary depravity.  Jesus believed the wayward lad in the pig pen had enough good left in him that he could do something about his predicament. He could have a change of heart, turn his life around, and return home. This is what he did when “he came to himself.” In reality, he exercised his free will!
General Discussion Forum / Re: Fauci and the beagles
« Last post by Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Yesterday at 20:08:50 »
I don't know what you are getting at.  Are you saying that you don't have a problem with what was done to those puppies?  I do hope not.
Snoopy is a beagle.
General Discussion Forum / Re: Good Grief!
« Last post by Jaime on Yesterday at 19:51:51 »
Rella, it looks like a plastic grocery sack held in place with a rubber band around the neck
I like their solution better. Instead if erasing history, they added depth to it. Best not to forget our mistakes, but learn from them. That way we are less likely to repeat them.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10