Frank wrote: Mike, my spirit was born completely and totally dead. If something is dead, then it is dead and must be made alive before it can comprehend anything spiritual. Now repenting and being born again is certainly the most spiritual thing that can happen to us. Therefore any decision or understanding we have or think we have must have come from the Spirit who drew us and gave us the spirit of truth and repentance. This truth or decision which you allude to cannot be comprehended by our carnal natures; therefore we can take no credit for it which is what you are trying to do. ---
Not so, Frank. There is no credit due if all you bring is faith. Even Calvin said that. Believing a truth conveys no credit at all to the one who believes it. If you sit in a chair trusting it will hold you, how would that be a credit to you? If the chair holds you up, all the credit goes to the chair, none to you. You would not have brought anything creditworthy, all you did was trust the chair, which alone holds you up. That's kind of how I look at it.
John Yurich USA wrote: Saint Paul gave the instructions about who is qualified to be an ordained clergy and one of the qualifications is an ordained clergy is to be a husband(man) which leaves out women from being an ordained clergy.
John, do you ask yourself why you call him Saint Paul? The Bible calls him Paul, and it calls living believers saints. Do you agree with the RCC that someone has to be dead to be made into a saint? I thought you didn't adhere to the unscriptural things in the RCC.
ladybug wrote: --- There seems to be a difference between the two words. Trusting in Christ with your very soul means you are resting on what He has done, and not some decision you have made. We do trust Him after He opens our understanding, to equate accepting Him reeks of a work man does; as though God is waiting on us to come to a decision. This is the danger of such language and it has produced tons of false converts. We dare not tell sinners they can accept Christ, we tell them the law and the Gospel and leave the saving of the soul to the One who accepts or rejects.
Ladybug, can you trust something without deciding to trust something? How does that work out, practically speaking? "Trusting in Christ means you are resting on what he has done..." The problem is this starts with the trust already existing, and does not address how you get to the point of trust. "You are resting..." is present tense. Is one overwhelmed with trust from out of the blue? Or does one hear, and believe what is heard? When that happens, was a decision made, or was it the believing somehow imposed? These are real questions.
From the news: "A panel of Democrats voted Friday to approve a final draft of the partyâs platform to promote âProgressive Democratic Values,â which apparently includes investigating energy companies who âmisledâ shareholders about global warming."
When you hear President Obama refer, as he often does, to "our values," this is what he is talking about, not American values.
George Will says if Trump wins the nomination, prepare for the end of the conservative party? I had to chuckle at that. Here's why the Will types are upset: The sillies think the repubs are a conservative party. In the smoking room world of the establishment GOP, this is what they imagine. And in their relativistic world, compared to the Democrats, some of them are. But in the real world for the most part the GOP consists of useless ruling class snobs, in it for the perks. That's what folks are riled up about about, and that is what the shielded pampered set don't understand.
Kev wrote: Mike how are you brother?The proper concept is who gives you faith? Is it just you who gives yourself faith, or is it God who gives you a heart to believe and have faith?
Doing ok Kev, thanks for asking. hope you are well also.
I guess the issue for me is, first we need determine is believing doing something or is it doing nothing? When the jailer asked "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" there was no rebuke informing him that he could do nothing. There was no theology informing him that whether or not he could be saved depended on whether or not he was elect. Why not? Rather, he was told what he must do: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Thus I take issue when someone says man does nothing. It is the jailer who believed, no one believed for him, which in practical terms, is what must be if he is gifted his believing. What he was given as a gift was the grace of the gospel. (Acts 16:32) There is no indication he was made to believe, but every indication that he simply believed. "What must I do to be saved?" The answer is the same now as it was Paul and Silas gave it to the jailer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
ladybug wrote: --- We don't accept Christ Mike, God must draw, God must regenerate, God must gift us with faith, repentance, and all that salvation entails. BTW, 'accept Christ' is nowhere to be found in Scripture. There is a command by God to repent and believe, but that doesn't say you have that ability. Preaching the whole counsel and the work of the triune God in saving sinners is sorely lacking in our day. Opinions are worthless, we need to get back to sola scriptura. The Gospel is that Christ died for sinners, that doesn't mean we add to it by manipulating them into decisions or acceptance of Him. The power to draw and save comes from the triune God and NOT man's decision/acceptance/work. All who are drawn, born again and elected unto life WILL come, they WILL believe because God has given them the ability to do so.
Ladybug, of course God saves. Salvation is of the Lord. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I'm quite sure I didn't say man saves himself, nor did I speak of ability. I did say *when* you believe the truth of the gospel of Jesus, you are accepting him, because he IS truth. That can't be argued with from scripture. We needn't complicate what is simple.
ladybug wrote: --- As for 'accepting' Christ, how important is it that we stick with biblical terminology as opposed to man's terminology? Where does the Bible state we 'accept' Jesus? We must not add to nor take from His word, also, man hasn't the ability to accept Christ. If we can't get the gospel right, we risk false converts - which we have in abundance at this present time. May we have the utmost reverence for God and His truth, as it is written.
Is this a real issue? When you believe something to be true, you have accepted the truth of it. Since Jesus said he is the truth, when you believe the truth of the gospel, which is the good news of him, you accept him. So yes, we could say the terminology is biblical. It's ok if you disagree. I accept that.
Barney Fife wrote: I read that there was a measles case in South Florida from a child that was not vaccinated. I guess if a few more children or adults get measles from this child, it won't matter much, right?
I guess if vaccination is as good as claimed, vaccinated people won't get measles. In terms of "public health" does one case constitute anything at all? One wonders why one case of measles, which was once held as a typical childhood disease, warrant a spot on CBS news. Are they tired of Zika already?
From the link: 1. "Has the state of our politics sunk so low that voters no longer expect honesty, integrity and character to be factors in deciding for whom they will vote"
2. "Voters have become so angry and cynical about the state of our government and its leaders that they no longer expect to respect them. If that is where we are, does that not say more about us then it does about them?"
The 3 issues are related but different. 1. I would say Trump is honest. At least he says what he thinks, whether we agree or like it or not. Mostly, people are judging on the basis of manner, not substance. In that regard, they would prefer someone dishonest like the president, because his dishonesty is presented pleasantly. Character confused with manner.
2. The angry cynical voters would not exist had the establishment types done their jobs. That's why Trump is GOP nominee. The complainers about him are the ones who created him. It is they who lack character.
I don't know, Jim. Real conservatives left the Republican Party a long time ago, when it became a smoking room where they could nod their heads and intellectualize about life in America, and talk about what might be done, but do nothing, and how the Democrats were confused, and how we should find common ground, even as the ground moved severely left. I can understand how Will would be uncomfortable with the boisterous sea we have now. He can't intellectualize it away.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Mike, very few people in England referred to the Bible for the reason for staying or leaving the EU. It really about money and culture ---
Exactly. Like I said the people who wanted to stay in the EU are those who get more out of it than they put in. Glad we agree. But it isn't the people who aren't referring to the Bible as reference to interpret Brexit, but the people who claim the bible as their source of truth and wisdom. How we view it should certainly take into account what the Bible says. The principle God established in Gen 3:19 applies to all, whether or not it is believed or practiced by all.