Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes, if you can't verbalize it coherently, it is nonsensical. Basic grammar mjrhealth.mjrhealth said:Me writing nonsense??
StanJ said:Jun2u, copying and pasting someone else's thoughts, means absolutely nothing to me or others who don't support your opinion, which apparently you cannot do yourself. This thread has already established that SE is not supported and that man does have the ability to know good from evil. Your inculcation into the RT perspective is just that, and doesn't mean it is fact, just brain washing.
Apparently, you're not interested in the different baptism experiences testified to in the NT.StanJ said:There is only ONE baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6 show the experience, which Jesus promised in John 14:16, 26, 15:26, & 16:7.
I'm not concerned about how far apart if was, only that you actually had the experience as depicted in Acts.
Then do so and don't usurp others for your opinion, or can't you articulate one? I would much rather read that then opinions of others who are NOT on this site.Jun2u said:We should be like the Bereans who searched out scriptures, or those whom God sent out to teach and edify the church (Eph 4:11-12), or those who search scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit Pr 25:2
This thread or any other thread may support many things but it does not mean the end results are in one accord with Jesus. After all, it is only opinions as you've said.
Only a true child of God know who bears good or bad fruit by their spirits.
There were two, but now there is only one that Eph 4:5 refers to, and that is the Holy Spirit. Paul told us about the two different ones in Acts 19:4, but that doesn't mean they still exist, or at least should.Zachary said:Apparently, you're not interested in the different baptism experiences testified to in the NT.
Baptized into the church ... by the Holy Spirit
Baptized in water (full immersion would be nice) ... by man
Baptized with the Holy Spirit ... only by Jesus Himself
Baptized by fire ... only by Jesus Himself
These are 100% guaranteed Scriptural (NT) ... but you aren't interested, right.
Do you prefer the doctrines of men over the Scriptures?
We’ve already discussed my lack of the English language command on another thread and it seems this is the only way you can get back at me when you’re frustrated. I’ve copied and pasted the article, “Monergism vs. Synergism” yes, because the writer articulated the subject better than I could. The contents of the article was not only were my sentiments exactly, but because the writer was Biblically correct. Besides, the article was intended for WW.StanJ said:Then do so and don't usurp others for your opinion, or can't you articulate one? I would much rather read that then opinions of others who are NOT on this site.
.
That's right, but sound opinion with the proper dividing of God's written word is what this site is all about.
How can you know and recognize the fruit while you are still blind?Yes, a true believer will know and recognize the fruit. I see it all the time.
As I said, if you can't articulate it yourself how can you possibly shows others it is factual. As you have never articulated yourself as to WHAT your mother tongue is I was left to my own assumptions based on your bad English. Maybe I was wrong, maybe you're just lacking in grammatical knowledge. FYI, ANY writer who holds up monergism over synergism is already starting from a negative position, and I'm not going to go over the same old ground with someone who is obviously is swayed by the doctrine and NOT the Bible. Soteriology is the heading these fall under, and as such, the words themselves don't even find their applicability in scripture. God through Jesus is the one who provides salvation, and we as sinners either choose to accept who Jesus is and make Him our saviour, or we choose not to. It is as simple as that and does not require words that don't really depict the reality of the issue.Jun2u said:We’ve already discussed my lack of the English language command on another thread and it seems this is the only way you can get back at me when you’re frustrated. I’ve copied and pasted the article, “Monergism vs. Synergism” yes, because the writer articulated the subject better than I could. The contents of the article was not only were my sentiments exactly, but because the writer was Biblically correct. Besides, the article was intended for WW.
There are many scholars out there who copy each other’s work. Take yourself for instance, if you were really smart as you said you were, then you wouldn’t have been swayed by a wrong doctrine like Synergism.
It is not sound opinion that’s important rather what “thus sayeth God”!
How can you know and recognize the fruit while you are still blind?
Aaaaaah, I'm dealing with a cessationist ... wonderful, just great.StanJ said:There were two, but now there is only one that Eph 4:5 refers to, and that is the Holy Spirit.
Paul told us about the two different ones in Acts 19:4, but that doesn't mean they still exist, or at least should.
Jesus said through the cross he would "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32).1. THAT GOD MUST DRAW AN INDIVIDUAL TO COME TO JESUS. JOHN 6:44.
This verse teaches God's grace in drawing people and Jesus' power to preserve those who trust him. It does not teach limited atonement.2. JESUS SAID, “ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME WILL COME TO ME AND I WILL HAVE
LOST NONE OF THEM BUT RAISE IT UP ON THE LAST DAY. JOHN 6:39
The point of this verse (and the entire first three chapters of Romans) is to show the necessity of the Gospel. Man cannot save himself through works of the law but can be saved by grace through faith. If anything, this section teaches the opposite.3. THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NO NOT ONE, THERE IS NONE THAT SEEK AFTER GOD
NO NOT ONE. ROMANS 3:10-12
Nope....try again. The day the Holy Spirit ceases to be here is the day the great tribulation starts.Zachary said:Aaaaaah, I'm dealing with a cessationist ... wonderful, just great.
We also need to read IN context, to see that John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles specifically.Wormwood said:This verse teaches God's grace in drawing people and Jesus' power to preserve those who trust him. It does not teach limited atonement.
I’m not denying we are to read scriptures in its’ context but if our interpretation is incorrect, it does not matter, it is still flawed.StanJ said:We also need to read IN context, to see that John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles specifically.
The Holy Spirit is here ... whether cessationism is correct, or not.StanJ said:Nope....try again. The day the Holy Spirit ceases to be here is the day the great tribulation starts.
That's right, and it's less likely to be erroneous if we maintain the context. Both verses you quote are about the Apostles, so in that regard Jesus' comments are not transferable to ALL.Jun2u said:I’m not denying we are to read scriptures in its’ context but if our interpretation is incorrect, it does not matter, it is still flawed.
If indeed John 6:37-39 applies to the Apostles only, as you claim, then you are making Jesus to be a liar!
BECAUSE…
In His Priestly Prayer to His Father in John 17, Jesus said ALL that the Father gave Him had He kept and lost none, except the son of perdition, which was Judas, also an Apostle.
Yes, I agree, context in understanding or interpreting of scriptures is very essential.
To God Be The Glory
That's right, and so I can't be one if I believe He is here and will only leave when Jesus returns. Same with His gifts, so I have no idea how you arrived at your erroneous conclusion.Zachary said:The Holy Spirit is here ... whether cessationism is correct, or not.
Sorry, you lost me ... what erroneous conclusion?StanJ said:That's right, and so I can't be one if I believe He is here and will only leave when Jesus returns.
Same with His gifts, so I have no idea how you arrived at your erroneous conclusion.
The one you made, which you've obviously lost track of because of your style of trying to be a smart aleck.Zachary said:Sorry, you lost me ... what erroneous conclusion?