Search results

I don't want to debate with dissenters, I would like to discuss with Monergists so I can be edified. I can further explain later but now I'm in a mini sauna lol

Before, I thought, "If I love other people, I will tell them about Jesus"; now, I know that I cannot love other people, only Jesus can create love for people in me, and I should aim to abide in Him by believing His Good News, then He will glorify Himself, and that will draw others into...

What I really would like to think about is how Christ will lose none, and, related to that, no one can take me out of God's Hand. Before He saved me, He knew me, and sought me, and, now, going forward, He will not lose me--before, during, and after, it's all God Who saves. Amos 3:3 Do two walk...

That's one thing I noticed about Monergism : the fruit it yields is the right kind. Recently, considering how He chose me, not me Him, I had so much love for a sibling in Christ instead of struggling with the knowledge that I had an absence of love and a presence of hatred for this person...

Yeah, I know the arguments against Monergism, and I agree they make sense, but I don't find focusing on them to be helpful, so I was hoping to talk with a Monergist.

Well, I wanted to discuss with some people who were acquainted with "Monergism"--not that I agree with all of "Calvinism", or all of the "doctrines of grace", but my hope was/is that in discussing the topic I would/will be edified by some of those ideas (even if I didn't accept all of them...

It seemed you wanted to argue against the doctrines of grace--you were saying why you disagreed with them, it seemed. Was I mistaken in how I read what you said?

I wanted to discuss what the doctrines of grace are, to be edified, not argue about them.

Recently, I've become convinced of my need to focus more on the "doctrines of grace", as they are called--eg, "Jesus chose me, I didn't choose Jesus"--and I wanted to maybe discuss these things, and hopefully not really argue.

1. Romans 8:4 2. Yeah they were justified by grace through faith, and, as you say, that looks like a new creature who delights to do God's will, and, God is approving of that all along and ultimately on Judgment Day.

Just to clarify, simplify, I agree with your simple "Christ alone" profession--the other details do present interesting questions, but nothing that is discovered there can change the very basic "Christ alone" profession.

To object, "No, I don't do anything to justify myself," is to overlook "I was abundant in labors above them all, yet, not I, but the grace with me" : only when a person does not continue in faith is that "them" asserting themselves, "doing something", but walking in faith is not them doing it...

Well, the text says they broke faith, so to describe them as "in their faith" would not fit the language, so, obviously, the justification and peace by righteousness of faith is compromised. Anything that comes later (eg, justification being compromised by sin, but not gained, as if it is not...

1. Not in any way (it should not be taken in any way) that should cause anyone to be removed from their faith and profession of "Christ alone". 2. In the sense that they're "condemned" (not "justified") according to Ro 14:23.

No, it's Christ alone, and sin (defined in Ro 14:5,23) interrupts that relationship that is always and only a gift.

The question has been as to how to not close my eyes to Scripture (the many things I cited), and, yes, it does seem the correct answer is "Christ alone, not anything of me", at which point you're with Him, which is a good place to be, since "apart from Me, you can do nothing", and the life lived...

To clarify, when Paul says "having BEGUN by the Spirit [Grace and faith], are you now BEING PERFRCTED by the flesh [Law and works of the Law]", but, then, distinguishes the one from the other in... 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus...

In other words, they emphasize the justification of Ro 5:1, whereas others, like yourself, emphasize, as I see it, the justification of Ro 14:23 (also Ro 2, etc, etc)--we only need to work to Scripturally bridge the gap, without doing violence to either claim, which, since neither can be wrong...

Good job on your English, man!

I think it's like with science having trouble uniting quantum physics and classical physics--we know both have validity, but what we have had difficulty doing has been in uniting them. In the meantime, yeah, it's frustrating talking with people when they seem committed to being dishonest on, or...