speckles

yes the creeds are good tools, especially if you can find the proofs for them as well, they make a very good bible study all on their own. All the creeds or just some of them? I mean one creed says Jesus went to hell and I don't believe he did, so...that shouldn't make me a heretic??

I think hte verse about questioning everything was not actually that, but to test things...??

If there is a way to keep two residences, then you can keep the lisence from your other state. but yuo have to keep the tags and insurance there too, or it will arouse suspicion ifyou got pulled over. And you will get pulled over for a blown tag light or whatever.

My definition of a leap of faith is having a firm conviction that God wants me to do something and then doing it, even when I don't know "how" I'm going to do so. Like if God told me to go to the Congo on a mission trip. I'd take a leap of faith and get a passport and start saving money, even though I have nobody to sponsor me yet. I believe that our commitment to Christ is our first leap of faith. Cause until you actually receive Him you dont KNOW that He's real, you just might believe he is.

Finney had non heterodox writings? What is Amyraldianism?

Just because I'm not a theologian (and I'm assuming LR is not also) does not mean that we can't see that your understanding of omniscience has been modified to the point that it no longer fits within the definition understood by all branches of orthodox christianity. Biblical and orthodox understanding of omniscience includes complete foreknowledge (even if it doesn't have to include complete predestination of all things). The fact that you studied the topic for 25 years is no reason to change the definition understood and embraced by the orthodox branches of Christianity throughout history, whether I have or not. One does not have to study biology to know that there is a dead cat stinking up the yard. LR is correct, this doctrine is heresy. Yes I'm sure that it's about as diverse in it's presentation as Baptist theology is (exactly what is the current count of baptistic denominations?), however, if you claimed to be a baptist and then embraced infant baptism, anyone with half a brain would know you were not a baptist of any sort. The orthodox non calvinist understanding is that the complete foreknowledge of God does not interfere with the free agency of man, in fact most people would say that it's like the Trinity, or the incarnation (God is one, yet three....wholly God and wholly man) that it is mysterious and incomprehensible, but still true that God is completely sovereign, plans and controls and foreknows, and yet man has a will which does what he wants and that man has moral and spiritual free agency. Foreknowledge does not cause man to do anything. I can set out two bowls, one with brussel sprouts and the other with icecream and ask my child to choose. Without any further interference from me, I know my child will chose the icecream. The fact that I know this does not influence his choice at all. Nonheretical christians argue about how much of that God has predestined, but we don't argue over the fact that God knows all of our choices. well the fact is that the philosophy loving augustine was not a heretic and unfortunately you are (unless of course you dont embrace MGT and OT). Scripture does in fact say that God cannot and does not change. It even says that he does not change his mind... Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither is he the son of man, that he should change his mind: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Either he doesn't change his mind or he lies here in this verse, which contradicts the other half of the verse. I didn't see any defense of gothic issues in the posts in question (and I have no idea why it would matter...this looks like another attempt to set up a straw man, which is a logical fallacy and not kosher with the laws of fair debate), nor did I see anything which indicated her analysis was unfair. The hsitorical definitions are what they are, and you don't agree with them as they are historically understood, therefore, unfortunately, this means your doctrine is heresy.

I suppose you wanted LR to post entire pages? Who would read it? Assuming this would be true does not yet indicate that Moral Government in the sense you understand it is true. A flaming 5 point daisy Arminian would disagree with you, son. Actually it isn't simplistic to say that, because LR was using the standard definition used by the church for years and your definition of it, even if she is partially wrong, does not match them. It is a common practice for cults, heterodox groups, and neo orthodox groups to take standard Christian terminology and redefine it to include their own definition, which is incompatible with the original definition. The Church has a right to have a standard definition for atonement, imputation, ominiscience, omnipotence, and etc and your definition is not contained within. Therefore you do not believe in them. You may believe in a modification of some part of them, however you do not believe in them. Sanctification does have practical implications, and nobody is suggesting you get to "live like the devil" so I think you set up a straw man to attack. It means what was presented, that is the orthodox historical understanding.

To what are you referring, there were no links in that 3 post discussion??