StanJ

So in other words... "don't confuse me with the facts I believe what I want to believe and nobody's going to tell me any different." With that mindset you're absolutely right and there's no use in having any discussion with you given the intractability of your beliefs. The funny thing is the Pharisees were just as intractable.

I agree and I have never really seen a True Believer and an unbeliever as best friends.

In the Bible, Believers are separated into two groups, Old Covenant Believers and New Covenant Believers. The former were under the written law and the latter are not.

Did Jesus die for sin or sinners? Did God so love sinners or did God so love the world? How can you use state with full certainty that Believers in the Old Testament were never born again? What exactly do you think the Bible means by born again? In fact the New Testament is replete with examples of Pharisees that believed. If I were you I would worry more about your judgmental attitude then whether or not the Old Testament people we're believers. You reject a lot but then again you don't have much credibility so it doesn't really bother me. You are just as wrong about your perceptions here as the Pharisees were about theirs.

How exactly can unbelievers sin if they're not under the law? If blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is the only thing that is unforgivable then obviously that means that any other sin against the holy spirit is forgivable. Do you always do everything the Holy Spirit leads you to do? If you don't, is that not sin? Rom 14:23.

Matthew 12 is very clear... if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit you're not forgiven... if you speak against the Son of God you can be forgiven... I'm not sure why this is problematic for you?

Unbelievers don't sin and if you read the example in Matthew 12, those were believers who were sinning. Jesus himself said sinning against the Son of Man was forgivable, so your conclusions here are erroneous.

Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 1 John 5:16-17 If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

The unforgivable sin is to attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan, knowing it was the Holy Spirit that performed them.

That's a different issue, because friends are not yoked and the Bible says that Jesus was a friend to sinners, in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34. Also there is 1 Corinthians 7:13-15.

What a lot of people don't get about 2 Cor 6:14 is that it is not limited to 'relationships' of a romantic nature. In the context that Paul is writing this, it is dealing with idolatry but in a broader context it is also dealing with the community or communities in Corinth. The fact is that it is ridiculous to even try to 'yoke' two different things together. If you use the example of animals you wouldn't actually be able to yoke two different sized animals. Yoking is used on the same sized animals so that they can work more effectively as one unit then they can as individuals. They would be unproductive if they were not equal in stature. Paul was simply using an agrarian law to show how ridiculous it would be for pagans and believers to try to work together to accomplish a mutual goal in the Corinthian community. When my eldest son was in his late teens he fell madly in love with a girl who was very smart and from a very well-to-do family, but she did not believe in a personal loving God, nor did her parents. I eventually had to intervene and point out to my son that in his heart of hearts he was who he was as a Christian and needed to have somebody who in their heart of hearts was in the same place that he was otherwise they would have no commonality moving forward. I'm happy and proud to say that he heeded my words and has been happily married for 11 years to a very Godly woman from a very Godly family and have two beautiful children! At the time he was very reluctant to break it up but knew in his heart of hearts that what I was telling him, and what God's word pointed out, was the only way he could look at this. The above is just one aspect of what Paul is teaching here and has applications in just about every aspect of life including business partnerships and political endeavors. As Christians, we are the 'called-out-ones', and as such we have to always keep that in the back of our minds as it relates to any aspect of our lives.

I agree LadyKay, but from what I know about this forum, this would not be practicle or enforceable, because of their limited staffing resources. At the other end of the spectrum, I've been involved with forums that have way too many rules and it just becomes impossible to have a decent discussion.

Well at least you got my point and yes if you want to deal with total depravity then let's deal with it and then move on. Repentance is a recognition of wrongdoing which includes doing a 180. The recognition comes when one is honest with themselves and honest with God. As human beings God already gave us these innate abilities which include recognizing and repenting of our sins. For God so loved THE WORLD! Not just the Elect. It's not relevant because it's not pertinent to this 'Total Depravity' thing unless you make it so. Your statement here totally leaves out the fact that people repented all the time in the Bible and obviously as most of it was in the Old Testament they couldn't have had this 'new nature' you refer to. why exactly do you think God appointed John the Baptist to be the preparer of the way if nobody can repent without being born again and you even understand what it means to be born again? I think this is enough to move on with and once we've dealt with this issue and we can move on to some of the other things you have brought up.

Well first off, I didn't reject original sin because you never broached it, you talked about sin nature and that's what I responded to. We're not going to get very far if you keep reframing your thoughts after I respond to them. It would probably be better if you proof read what you want to post before you actually post it to make sure you're conveying what you're actually wanting to? I appreciate you quoting parts of Romans 5 but the fact is it must all be read and understood together, not as separate points to support a single concept, but in its entirety to convey the thoughts that Paul was teaching. Paul was drawing parallels between the Old Testament / Covenant and the New Testament / Covenant. In verse 14 Paul shows that there are people that did not sin but they still suffered the consequences/ repercussions of the fall. As far as the "no one is righteous" verses, it appears you don't really understand the context that Paul used them in Romans 3, nor how they were being used in the Old Testament. Never-the-less, they are not applicable to what I was addressing you about. As far as repentance is concerned, I don't know why you're bringing up this lexical lesson because I did not address it, but repentance is not only a change in behavior, precipitated by a change in direction, it is also agreeing with God that what you have done is sin. It's not 'either way', it's the way I explained it in response to your assertion. Glossing over it like this is is not very conducive to productive discussion and makes me think you're either not understanding what is being said or don't want to admit to it? As far as Grace is concerned, I completely understand what the Bible says about it, just not why you brought it up or made this unwarranted 'dissertation' about it? I think it will be much more productive if we just address each other's posts succinctly rather than wander off into minefields of scripture. Have you heard of the old expression, 'Cutting off your nose to spite your face'? Let's just try to deal with one issue at a time, shall we?

No he did not. Not anymore, but if you're asking was I like Paul described himself in Romans 7, the answer is yes. I think you'll find if you actually read all of Christian theology, that this is not a factual statement. Off the top of my head I would say Adam and Enoch would refute your assertion here, along with John the Baptist. We don't inherit a sin nature, we have a carnal nature which needs to be born again. There is nothing enigmatic about it and the fact that God tells us to repent means that we are capable of doing so. Why would Peter make the declaration he did in Acts 2:38 if not 'every one' of those people were capable of doing so? Apparently you have adopted scripture to fit your predispositional bias rather than read scripture to form your doctrinal position which is the proper way to learn God's word as Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:15. The former way is called eisegesis, and the latter way is called exegesis.

That is not what John 3:16-21, 6:44 & 20:31 teaches. God doesn't force anybody. Redemption is for 'whosoever' will accept it!

https://withchristianeyes.net/2013/02/03/against-calvinism-a-counterpoint-book-by-roger-e-olson/

I'm not sure what you think these verses say but try reading Revelation 22:10

In fact, Revelation is not sealed so I'm not quite sure why you would think that scripture is sealed?

Sadly in my opinion what you're conveying here is perception, not experience. I would have to say your personal definition has come about by misinformation. It's not about focusing on speaking in tongues, it's about receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and experiencing the initial evidence of that baptism. No different than charismatics do. How many actual services have you attended in a Pentecostal Church and where are these churches? Sadly many cults use the word Pentecostal in their name but that doesn't make them Christian just as cults that use Jesus Christ in their name doesn't make them Christian. It appears to me that your perception of Pentecostals is based more on social media rumours, than it is on facts, and I would exhort you to inform yourself as to the reality of most Pentecostal churches. You would do best to experience a service in one of the following denominations; AOG, COG, or Foursquare.

What you are stating here is analogous to saying that the majority of an iceberg is what you see and that is not the case. The World does not care about Christians who do it right, the World only cares about Christians who do it wrong and it's so funny how the world is always telling Christians they do it wrong even though they have no idea how to do it right. Also, FYI, the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements are not synonymous with one another, they are two different movements, the former was born out of the Roman Catholic's Duquesne University in the late 1960s, and the latter was born out of Azusa Street in 1906 from the Methodist Holiness movement. Paul was speaking about the return of Jesus Christ not about the completion of the Bible as we know it. His writings in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14 are paramount in understanding how the Holy Spirit functions in our lives and in the corporate life of the church. There is no scriptural basis whatsoever that supports the cessation of the gifts identified in Paul's writings and in fact are set as a spiritual precedent five times in the book of Acts.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html Read and learn something.

Gen 1:1 BTW, I find your avatar a tad offensive.

You're absolutely right, this has nothing to do with Biblical hermeneutics but in a way biblical hermeneutics has much to do about this issue and that is if you read the Bible properly and in context you won't come up with this type of conspiracy. What will or won't happen at the end of the world is not an issue with me because I won't be here to experience it. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia; He does not support unbridled capitalism, Marxism, or Marxist versions of liberation theology. Francis maintains the traditional views of the church regarding abortion, euthanasia, contraception, homosexuality, ordination of women, and priestly celibacy. He opposes consumerism, irresponsible development, and supports taking action on climate change, a focus of his papacy with the promulgation of Laudato si'. In international diplomacy, he helped to restore full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

Not in any great degree Giller. There definitely is a lot going on in Revelation but my mind is not one that works well with symbology and as such I get quickly disinterested and stuff I can't really understand. I know that there is a lot conjecture about Babylon The Great. One is about the name, for which I've read the following; http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/mystery-as-a-title.html and the other is about the identity in the following here; http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/one-or-two-babylons.html Other than that I have no real opinion or perspective.