Just wondering,

I take it from your post that you are saying that, for Jesus, being "born again" meant receiving His glorified body. Is that correct?

Also, I got my meaning from the text, as I noted. It states a physical death, thus, a physical resurrection (with a glorified body, as you stated). That would be unlike any other person who had ever died before Him, making Him the firstborn.

Just wondering,

Whining really doesn't suit you. I saw the exchange between you two, and I would have to say that Lurker was no where near the "bullying and insults" that we see from "civilized " people like JD, Yamil, and the rest of the Arminian lot.

Remember, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Just wondering,

So are you agreeing that the quickening spoken of in the Bible is that of Jesus' physical body, and not that of a "born again" experience"?

Just wondering,

You create a definition using two verses with different contexts. However, they both point out a very important point.

Notice, 1 Peter 3:18-"being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit". Physical death, physical ressurection. It is not talking about spiritual death and being "born again".

Notice, then, Colossians 1:18, with the last point in mind; " the firstborn from the dead". Physical resurrection. He was the firstborn from the dead, inn that, He would never die again. This is different from any other person who was raised from the dead. They would have to experience physical death again. Jesus did not.

Quite obvious, don't you agree, JD?

Just wondering,

If you read Abigail's posts from the past, you will see that she repeats this lie often and willfully. She has not heeded the warning to cease doing so at the peril of her own soul (according to her own theology).

Please ignore her, as she is much like a record with a scratch; she keeps repeating the same thing.

Just wondering,

Thank you for clarifying that to DB. GLAS seems to have a way of twisting what people write. I tried to bring that out to DB.

DB, if I wasn't clear, I apologize. I agree with you completely. A also appreciate your comments and your obvious love for our Lord.

Good Night to both of you, and God bless!

Just wondering,

You show by your infatuation with yourself (patting yourself on the back for allowing God to be so sovereign) that your works based theology hasn't killed your pride.

My problem has never been with God's sovereignty. I have stated a number of times in response to you that God can do WHATEVER He pleases. My issue has been with your poorly worded, and asked to produce your kind of answer, question. You are the one who has to defend your theological bias with a question that demands your answer or a theologically wrong answer. That is deceptive and manipulative. Say what you will, you are the one with a doctrine to protect. Wouldn't you agree?

Just wondering,

Please, read my post. I wrote, "means that God is limited in His ability to create." I like you, DB. Please, don't fall into the same error as some on this site who misquote and misrepresent what others have written.

Thank you, I know you will understand

Just wondering,

Your answer to the "simple" question, ""Can God make a rock big enough that He cannot pick it up?" with a resounding "no" means that God is limited in His ability to create. Would you dare limit God in this way? Your simplistic approach to the Bible is why you are at the point you are at in your thinking.

The only important question is, "Is God sovereign enough to do as He pleases?"

The issue about contradiction came from the point that, if I answered the question, I would either have to affirm that your answer was the correct one (which I do not agree with, and could not, therefore, give as the answer) or deny that God is sovereign. I would not affirm that either.

Let me ask you a question. If man does have a free will, as you believe, would God be wrong in ever over-riding that free will? Would it be wrong for Him to ever "force" an individual in a certain direction or to a specific conclusion?

Just wondering,

I think you mean, "JW, so be it, then you shall remain" without form and void. If you can change the Bible to mean what you want it to mean, then I'm sure you won't mind me clarifying exactly what you meant to say. I know it isn't exactly the same as what you said, but I'm sure it's what you meant to say. I know you will agree.

Just wondering,

You aren't going to convince me of any of your thology because I used to hold to the gap theory at one time.

I am now a young earth creationist, and I believe that God created everything in six literal days. I believe the Bible teaches a young earth and that there was NEVER any death, disease or suffering before the fall of the FIRST created human, Adam.

I do not believe that Genesis 1 and 2 teach a restoration of the original earth, but a creation of the original earth. You can waste your time if you so desire, but I, nor anyone else, I'm sure, will be listening.

Just wondering,

Why do you insist on this three earth age thing? No one here is going to take you seriously becuase the mmajority of what you believe is not supported by the Bible, but by preconcieved ideas added into the texts.

Don't try to disprove Calvin or any other theologian with your warped ideas. You have interpreted the Bible through kevin-tinted glasses and we will not take you as a serious student of the Word.

Just wondering,

Why would you ask a question that either demands the answer you desire or makes someone deny a biblical truth? Your question, "Do you believe that God is sovereign enough to give man a free will?" would be like an atheist asking, "Can God make a rock big enough that He cannot pick it up?" No matter how you answer, it will deny some other truth. Therefore, the question is not a legitimate question. The question should simply be, "Is God sovereign?" Of course, the answer is yes and so God can do what He pleases, whether you and I like it or not! Don't you agree?

Just wondering,

Why don't you read your Bible for what it really says? Rev. 3:20 was written to THE CHURCH, not sinners! Many on here prove the truth of that verse too, since, by man's teaching they don't give Christ the glory in salvation that He alone deserves!

Just wondering,

Just wondering if you realize that the accusation you and Abigail bring of Calvinists defining Arminian to be whatever they want it to be, and your added jab of them also making the Bible to say what they want it to say can be turned to be true of people like you and Abigail.

Abigail is a target because she twists the Bible in so many errors, yet you choose to side with her when it comes to attacking Calvinists. Are you saying that Abigail's error of believing tongues is essential to salvation is less heretical than your view of Calvinists?

Does that mean her error of belieiving you can lose your salvation (even though that is directly opposite of what you AND Calvinists believe) is tolerable?

Does that mean that her understanding of absolute sanctification through OUR works is acceptable because of your opinion of Calvinists?

It's been said, "Be careful, if you lie with a dog, you will get its fleas." I don't think you want to endorse, or get, Abigail's fleas!

Just wondering,

No response?

Just wondering,

"Please be specific as how I am lying and bringing false accusations—and continue to do what I accuse others of!!"

You have repeatedly said that Calvinists don't care how they live becuase they know they are elect and don't have to worry about it. That is a misrepresentation that has been brought to your attention before. That makes you a liar and a slanderer because you willingly continue to do it.

Say what you will, your sign-off is superficial spirituality if you choose to continue with such lies. Don't you agree?

Just wondering,

"Those who teach this doctrine do not want to apply themselves to obedience but live a life of disobedience claiming imputation of Christ's righteousness."

Why do you continue in this dishonesty? By your own words, if you continue to sin by lying and bringing false accusations, you will lose the Holy Spirit, and thus, your salvation! Be careful, be VERY careful!

Just wondering,

"The understanding of the millenium is figurative." This is where so many people run into trouble. If you can just willy-nilly state what is literal and what is figurative, who sets the standard?

Do we then make figurative Jesus' statement that He "is the way, the truth, and the life"; and that no man comes to the Father but by Him? You know, maybe He was just saying that as long as He is part of a religion that it is close enough. Would you buy that?

The Bible uses figurative words when it is a figurative picture. Otherwise, we would do best to go with the literal meaning of a text. Wouldn't you agree?

P. S. I'm sure you'll pull some rabbit out of your hat that wil try to disprove my point. Give it a whirl