Search results

I'm trackin' right with ya here, Rich, but it might be a good idea to briefly and succinctly explain to Wrangler what you mean by "complete inability," because that can be understood in two starkly different ways. <smile> Grace and peace to you.

Sure I do. But you're still either completely missing or completely, intentionally ignoring the point I made (although it wasn't really me, it was... God's Word. Anyway, probably both (missing and ignoring the point I made), because one begets the other. Sure. Absolutely. But again. as I...

Hmmm... The Bible ~ the writer of Hebrews... and really God, as it is His Word, so He is the real Author ~ defines 'faith' for us, so no need to manufacture our own definition: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Assurance of...

Ah. LOL!!! Frustration. I get it. But, um... [falsetto voice] yes you doooooo... [end falsetto voice] <smile> But you don't want to, don't want to even give it a try. Well, fair enough. <smile> Grace and peace to you.

Uh, what? Do you mean "the same thing"... is "Shing" just a typo? I mean I think so... I think the problem is you're conflating some things, Wrangler. You're not understanding the difference. Or, maybe you do, but you're not understanding that you and Rich are talking about two different...

Only in a certain sense, Wrangler. As I have said ~ and I don't think, previous to now, to you, but will now ~ there is a sense in which we have been saved, but simultaneously a sense ~ a different sense ~ in which we are being saved. The latter is the sense in which we are abiding in Christ...

Ohhhhh, I think you're copping out, here, Rich. I just asked you some questions about what you believe. I think you can reply in such a way that noone, including me, would ever think you're lecturing, or speaking down your nose, or anything of the sort. And, I totally get what you're really...

And possibly incur judgments, right, Rich? As I said a few posts ago to Wrangler, God disciplines those He loves, and He can do this in a variety of ways. But it is always for our good, perhaps not in the moment, but with regard to eternity, of course. Of course, and the blessings and...

Hmmmm.... well, I hope so, but it seems not. <smile> Pish. Maybe on your part... <smile> That's most assuredly not what I said, either explicitly or implicitly. Goodness gracious. Sure He was. Absolutely. And like I said, I don't disagree with you, at least not completely... <smile> In...

Yes, but not in the sense in which you read what he says there, how you understand it. Rich is right; you are assuming that abiding equals sonship. Actually, I would say you are inadvertently equating abiding and sonship. Or, put another way, you thinking being in Christ depends on our...

Okay, but that's not what I thought you were... suggesting... You seemed to be trying to correct me and were lecturing me in... well, not in everything you said, but most, in which case you would have been... suggesting, at least implicitly... that I was wrong on... some things... which, though...

Well, we disagree, that is for sure. But regarding my "position," that's exactly what I'm saying of yours; it is contrary to Scripture. Sure. Particularly and explicitly in John 6 and 15. Right; I haven't said and am not saying anything contrary or in opposition to that, and never will. You...

Of course it is, and concerning you, Rich, it was really rhetorical, which should have been obvious, because I answered it myself,,, <smile> ...kind of in the manner of Paul in various parts of his letter to the Romans, particularly Romans 9. <chuckles> Well yes, in an elementary way... Sure...

It's ABSOLUTELY about that. And about the absolute surety, the absolute unfailing-ness of God's faithfulness... ...and the certainty that, because of the absolute surety, the absolute unfailing-ness of God's faithfulness and his work in our hearts, that, even though we who are still in this...

I'm not sure anybody is doing that, but some (maybe or maybe not including Rich) don't fully understand it correctly. I mean, what is the "incorruptible seed." Or, maybe to more correctly phrase the question, Who is the "incorruptible seed?" <smile> Ah, you know, "The Chosen" is a well-made...

Sure, no one is denying that. However, there is something that causes them to do that and that is ~ according to Hebrews 3:12 ~ an evil, unbelieving heart. The heart is what drives the will. Or, in other words, one's free will is always dictated by one's own heart. Imagine a murder trial...

Uh, wait... what? He would have understood a thing, but didn't understand? That strikes me as funny, in a way... I mean, right, he very obviously didn't understand how a person could be born again... and completely missed what Jesus was saying. Yeah, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet...

Right. Good. Just checkin'... <smile> Oh, it was. Strongly disagree. Jesus is eternal. <smile> That's from eternity to eternity. And the Israelites of old, in Old Testament times, had the prophets, who God spoke through in those days (Hebrews 1:1), to point them to the Savior to come...

John Calvin was not a murderer, and in fact did all he could to keep Michael Servetus from being burned at the stake as he was by the state. He did denounce Servetus for heresy, but heresy was a state crime in that day. The full culpability of Calvin in the execution has been the subject of...

Hmmm. Just curious, Rich, but are you insinuating here that there are some who are born again of incorruptible seed and some who are born again of corruptible seed? Grace and peace to you.