CAB wrote:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good TO THEM THAT LOVE GOD, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did FOREKNOW, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called:..
Romans 9 speaks of Esau and Jacob, that Jacob was destined, selected, not Esau. Why? Jacob LOVED GOD, and was fitted to God's purpose.
Deists believe God created the world, then left it to drift along any old way--an extreme from Calvinism; but Deism and Calvinism have much in common, a hopeless fatalism, that God is aloof and humans are helpless blobs ...
Bible teaches God always intervenes in affairs on this earth, that He knows everything, He is everywhere. I believe God picks our parents, time of birth, is always with us, answers prayer, more.
Do we love God? It's our choice.

What does this "predestinated" us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself MEAN in Ephesians 1:5?
WHEN does it happen?

Sister, I have a serious question for you that I hope will clear something up for me:

What do the following 2 verses in Ephesians 1 mean?

(v4) "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"
(v5) "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

I understand that you do not believe that they mean that God predestined certain ones to be saved, but something else.
What is that 'something else' then?
And to what are those predestined to? ... and when does this predestination happen?

I await your sincere and honest reply.

Question wrote:
Do you believe that pregnant women were spared?

2) If not, did God forget or violate his own view on the sanctity of life? Or do you think that you have a better view than God's?

Mike wrote:
If Pat were to say this to me, I would remind him Romans 5:12 speaks only of the effect of the fall on man, refer him to Romans 8, reminding him that the creation, which has no soul but is physical, also fell along with men. I would ask how is it the fall only affected man's soul, but not his body, when it brought decay to every other physical thing in the creation.

Lurker wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that it is possible to interpret almost anything in the bible so that it fits one's presuppositions even though it may be polar opposite of what God intended.
Old earthers like Pat Robertson won't have a problem with Romans 5:12. He'll just say "death" in that verse means death of the soul, not the body. You, obviously, would disagree but could you prove him wrong? No. Why not? Because the prevailing hermeneutics are fallible.

Lurker wrote:
Not making an argument for or against old earth; but it depends on how one interprets "death". Did Adam die when he ate of the forbidden fruit as God warned him?

Just something to think about.

Mike wrote:
They probably think repeating things over and over will convince others they are right.

John for JESUS wrote:
All 5 points...
I believe Jesus told the disciples to baptize in the Holy Spirit, not water.

CAB wrote:
This forum HAS to be full of paid agents, and DCJ never contributes anything but debunking. I don't ever see him posting anything of his own, and IMO he's just here to try to debunk stuff the spy agencies don't want people talking or knowing about. That's my guess.
Agent DCJ?

Calling the bluff wrote:
The Reformers were Amillennial?

Care to demonstrate from their writings?

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
I Chr 29:9 Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the Lord: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy
You know I really like Mike from NY, he is a great brother, you shouldn't try to get me to think ill of him.
If you don't think people are from heart of love, adoration, and meditation able to offer praise and honor to God because not every word they use is a recitation of Scripture, that is fine with me. You are the one putting God in a box.
God said whoso offers praise glorifies Him (Ps 50:23) and psalms are a great method to that purpose. Praising God in prayer and using Scriptural phrases is certainly edifying. Not sure what songs Job managed to sing. I acknowledge your position and say if that is what you see as God's commandment for you to obey, then you should whole-heartedly do so. If you want to look down upon me and others for not seeing your interpretation, so be it. Not terribly interested in another debate about this.

Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
God bless you.

Mike wrote:
The way he slides from McGuffey to Bush, white sheets, and robber barons is most strange. Must be he's going to audition for Dancing with the Stars.

CAB wrote:
... the thing about the stations showing us a plane melting into the building and leaving a neat plane cutout like in the Roadrunner cartoon, and the stations showed the plane going all the way through tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete and the tip of the plane emerging on the other side unscathed, and they told us Atta's passport dropping to the sidewalk.

That's obviously a stupid fake, a hoax.

CAB wrote:
20 FACTS on THE BLOOD by F. Viola

Gives life to those who consume it (John 6:53)

Considering that you are quite the hyper-literalist [the Jews literally gnashed/chomped on Stephen so as to cannibalize him], I would assume that we must (according to the text) drink the actual blood of Christ in order to have life!

Martin wrote:
What Pat Robertson needs to realize is that Christian beliefs to the unregenerate mind are all 'ridiculous,' they are all 'impossible' and 'nonsense.' Simply by affirming the truths of the Apostle's Creed, Christians already look like a 'joke' to the natural man, for whom the gospel itself is foolishness. We won't stop appearing like fools, clowns, and idiots to the mind that hates God until we deny every truth in the Bible rooted in the recognition of God's Almighty, supernatural, miracle-working power. We most certainly will not win their respect simply because we buy into theories of origins based on pure naturalism and a uniformitarian view of earth's history. What we need to tell the natural man is the most ridiculous intellectual posture to take as a rational human being is to deny the resurrection of Christ. Moreover, if Christ rose from the dead-- which is what God's Word affirms and 'many infallible proofs' corroborate-- then the most ridiculous thing is to deny Jesus' view on anything, including His view of the Old Testament and the origin of the world.

mourner wrote:
I'll pass.

mourner wrote:
You offend me sir.

CAB wrote:
Yes, indeed, the camps are built to put us in them ...

CAB wrote:
Why do some see no biggie for Jews stoning him, but are in 100% denial as to the cannibalism?

Silly stuff this "cannibalism" assertion of yours!

CAB wrote:
BTW, do you still think that the KJB is a bad translation and when it said the Jews were gnashing their teeth on Stephen causing him to lift up his eyes and see Jesus standing up from his throne looking down at him just means the Jews were grinding their teeth, not cannibalizing Stephen? They had so much control, right? So much control they then dragged Stephen out of town and stoned him to DEATH.

In all my years as a Christian; for all the sermons, preaching, and teaching I've heard; for all the Bible studies I've participated in, I have NEVER heard ANYONE make the claim that Stephen (in Acts 7) was cannibalized by his Jewish persecutors!

You are the first, my dear.

Only someone a bit "off" would hold to that interpretation and make that claim.

You will find YOUR interpretation of Acts 7 NOWHERE in ANY commentaries. NEVER in Church history has anyone claimed that Stephen was literally cannibalized.

YOU are the first!

CAB wrote:
Are you a gatekeeper for the Mossad?