Just wondering,

You said, "I believe we are in the millenium now." If we are in the Millenium now, why doesn't it line up with what the Bible has to say about this time period? You know, "beating their swords into plowshares", and "the wolf shall lay down with the lamb". In the Millenial kingdom, sickness will be healed immediately and justice will be just and swift because Jesus will be reigning from the throne of His ancestor, David. Don't you agree?

jago wrote:
Do you really see God up there biting his fingernails and wondering if anyone will accept his magnificient offer?

Are you trying to state that the only way God can have compassion is if he bites his nails or is it another one of those strawman arguments?

Just wondering,

If you will read Discerning Believers' post again, you will notice that the one "on his knees crying, begging and pleading for someone to let him save them" is the god of the Arminian, not a truly repentant sinner.

An accurate picture was given in that post of what seems to take place at many evangelistic meetings. How do I know this? Because often the evangelist is crying and begging and pleading for them to let this powerless god save them. Don't you agree?

Does he believe that he is better than everyone?

R. K. Borill wrote:
Boy Wonder,
Before you accuse someone of using "logical fallacies" which is an oxymoron, you should learn to recognize what an ad homenim argument is. It is an attack on the person and not his argument.
This is one of a number of fallacious arguments raised by Dr. Yamil. Ad homenims and "red herrings". Red herrings are smoked, salted, and dried. They stink. And when dragged across a fox's trail it throws the dogs off the track.

Why do you not simply answer the question?

Why are you able to state that one has a mental disorder and not be censored and when someone else like Dr. Yamil Luciano states it, all of a sudden it is foul play?

R. K. Borill wrote:
They prefer to walk by sight and look for truth empirically rather than propositionally.

Just wondering.

R. K. Borill wrote:
I have been reading an essay by Peter Masters entitled "The Law of a Sound Mind". It is very good. He talks about how there is a connection between false doctrine and neurosis.

JD wrote:
.... N, it could not! The text says that he was the "firstborn" from the dead. That means there was a birth taking place. And if that is enough, this could be no plainer.....

Regeneration is the new birth. The renewing of the Spirit.
Titus 3:5,6.

Christ is also called the only begotten... but clearly if you are correct then that cannot be the case.

JD wrote:
.....I read the links and they did not address our subject here. Our subject is Ro 8:29 and Co 1:18 that says Jesus is the firstborn son of God.
...Do you deny that Jesus Christ is the "firstborn" from the dead?
Was this birth his second physical birth or was it a spiritual birth or was it no birth at all?
..I want to know what firstborn means in your own understanding....

Firstborn from the dead... could merely refer to his resurrection.. he was the fist to brought back to life never to die again. It could also mean that of all that are to be raised he is the first born in the sense that he will have the pre-eminence.

JD wrote:
Walt you have "static" religion. You are stuck in a time warp. The word of God is a "living" word. Do you know what it means to be a living word? It means you cannot stick yourself in the 15th century and God never intended that.
I have always wondered why you men are so disinterested in the Scriptures and do not ever have an original thought or see no spiritual application of the scriptures. The time warp is the reason, I think.
God does not feed his people on rotting, spoiled meat...

JD ought to read what C H Spurgeon had to write to those like JD who think that they have the monopoloy of the truth when what the believe is so out of step with what the churches have believed historically.

Someone put up a link not too long along for this. See:

[URL=http://www.book-academy.co.uk/lectures/index.html]]]Commenting and Commentaries- Lectures 1 and 2[/URL]

JD wrote:
Yes you have! Your above comments suggest you are not willing to accept the meaning of firstborn as a birth and first as the first birth.
Now, it seems you and Lurker as positioning yourself to redefine regeneration in a way that calvinism will not be compromised instaed of accepting the terminology of the bible.
This is wicked and a crime against heaven and earth.
You have probably used the trem "born again". What did you mean by it?

And why have to not clarified me if I have misunderstood you?

Just wondering,

Why would you recommend a book that teaches in direct contradiction to THE BOOK?

Just wondering,

Just wondering,

Why did you quote John 3:16 and 17 and then give your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 instead of quoting it? Is it because if you don't tell us what it says that it really doesn't say it?

JD wrote:
There have been two calvs that have flat out said that Jesus is not the firstborn from the dead. From your comments here, you are the third.
....

What I was asking was for you to state clearly what you believe!

Now let me get this right.. your understanding then is that "firstborn" refers to Christ's resurrection.. am I correct?

If so, were there not others raised from the dead in the OT and also during Christ's ministry? So "firstborn" in what sense? Raised never to die again?

JD wrote:
Yes, actually I do know. That which you posted was not the extent of my argument. Jesus Christ is not only born of the Spirit, he is the FIRSTBORN of the Spirit from the dead. This makes regeneration a NT doctrine.
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn son of God from the dead?
MurrayA believes those in Ge 6 and prior were born again sons of God. How can this be?

Did he need "regenerating"? Was he dead in sins and tresspasses? Did he not have life in himself?

JD wrote:
Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow....that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This verse is one of the most oft used proof texts for calvinism in Scripture, especially when the subject is predestination.
......In simple terms, do you believe the clear statement that Jesus Christ is the firstborn son of God, born of the Spirit (In his humanity) and that all those who believe in him are subsequently born again of the Spirit and are his brethren and are sons of God because of it?
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Sin nature-the bent toward sin that is passed from generation to generation which places us under the wrath of God.

Note:Ephesians 2:3 which says that, "by nature (natural production, (lineal descent), we are the children of wrath". Don't you agree?

Just wondering,

I need to know where you are coming from. Did Jesus have a sin nature like every other man or didn't He?

Just wondering,

"I do not know if you men know this or not but Jesus Christ is as much man as anyone of us."

I have a sin nature, and so do you. Do you really want to say that Jesus was just as much man as you and I?