On "free will" (or the lack of it).

WCF
9.3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath WHOLLY lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation;[a] so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[b] and dead in sin,[c] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[d]

[a] John 15:5; Rom 5:6; 8:7.
[b] Rom 3:10, 12.
[c] Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13.
[d] John 6:44, 65; 1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:2-5; Titus 3:3-5.

4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,[a] and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[b] yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.[c]

Naturally!! He is after all a Liberal whose object in life is to reject Scripture and worship the creature and his culture.

It is a nonsense to suggest that prayer is a cause of depression. This is a satanic lie.

God has commanded us to pray, therefore to imply that this is something which depresses us and costs us dearly in our frame of mind is obvious deceit.

Prayer is not the source of depression - sin is!
Rom 7:23 "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

Prayer is a source of strength and grace to the true believer.
Psalm 27:1 The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

Isaiah 56:7 "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them JOYFUL IN MY HOUSE OF PRAYER: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for MINE HOUSE shall be called an HOUSE of PRAYER for ALL people."

NIV
Matt 18:2 He called a little child and had him stand among them.

"Jesus" is left out. This is done many times by the corrupt Greek Text of Westcott and Hort.

The MAJORITY Text continuously places the word "Jesus" in the narrative with the definite article preceding it. Thus it places him in the center of things and in command. It is doctrinally unsound for such prominence to be discarded for the word "he."

DJC49 wrote:
Both the KJV and the NIV translations of the LONE verse you cited, *pew view*, are SILENT about any future children after Jesus. Each does NOT say one way or the other. Both versions are "neutral"

The false teaching of the RCC is that Mary had no other children.
The NIV has supported this view by translating the Greek in error.
Proto-tokos is correctly defined as Firstborn, (prior in generation) this further indicates as can be seen at Col 1:15, as the head of a spiritual family. Therefore the meaning of the term correctly translated by the KJV is first - before others.

NIV
Matt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Note how the NIV has removed the word "firstborn" - Greek Prototokon.
This gives credence to the false doctrine of the RCC that Mary had no other children.

If it is then you teach the opposite is true - God hates sinners - Thus NONE shall be saved BY LOVE since ALL are sinners.

But
"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?"

Does the Lord not illustrate His love for sinners here?

"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Does the Lord not illustrate His love for sinners here?

"And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

Does Paul not teach the Love of God for sinners here?

Contender wrote:
No one has stated to witness without love.

Preacher] By the Book = Witness "God IS love"

But He doesn't love you sinner.

Sinner] But "God IS Love"
The Book you quoted says so.
Who wrote the Book?

P] Well God did.

S] And you are saying that love can't come from love?
And that is your witness?

p] No. God is also a God of Wrath.

S] So your witness is that He's angry at me.
And this comes from love?

P] No. God, wants you to come to Christ His Son, who died revealing God's love for His chosen people.

S] Am I chosen?

P] I cant tell.

S] So let me get this straight.
God IS love according to the Book He wrote.
But He doesn't love me.
And you can't tell whether He loves me or is angry with me.

And this is "YOUR" witness???

P] Yes. Will you come to the house of God?

S] Why? Does He want to reprimand me in His wrath - OR love me because I am chosen?

P] I can't tell.
But if you come with me you can worship Him with us.

S] Are you chosen?

P] We believe we are so we worship and praise Him.

S] What happens to the people who are not chosen for love, but for wrath?

P] Well they go to hell.

"Love is the Queen of the Christian graces.

It is a holy disposition given to us when we are born again by God.
It is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
True spiritual love is characterized by meekness and gentleness,
yet it is vastly superior to the courtesies and kindnesses of
the flesh.

We must be careful not to confuse human sentimentality,
carnal pleasantries, human amiability and affability with
true spiritual love.
The love God commands, first to Himself and then to others, is
not human love. It is not the indulgent, self-seeking love which is
in us by nature. If we indulgently allow our children to grow up
with little or, no Scriptural discipline, Proverbs plainly says
we do not love them, regardless of the human sentimentality and
affection we may feel for them.
True spiritual love is very difficult to exercise
because it is not our natural love. By nature we would
rather love sentimentally and engender good feelings.
Also many times true spiritual love is not received
in love, but is hated as the Pharisees hated it.

The Lone Wolf wrote:
For some reason I cannot see Jesus telling the Pharisees that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life,

The great teaching of the love of God, and the purpose and plan of God, by the Son of God, was to a ---- PHARISEE ------

JD wrote:
I just can't resist asking you this in response to your statemnet here.
"Adam and Eve had NO idea what would happen next, if they ate the fruit."
You don't think they heard God say "in the day ye eat therof ye shall surely die" and that was not suffienct knowledge to understand that they would die if they ate of it?
Maybe we should think before we post!

And of course they both knew the circumstances they were creating for their progeny the human race.

And of course they both knew what effect the original sin would have upon billions of people throughout history.

Not to mention "theology"

As I pointed out below JD the tree was called the tree of the *KNOWLEDGE* of good and evil for a reason.

Now that means prior to their eating the fruit and disobeying God; - Adam and Eve did not have this KNOWLEDGE and the consequential effect upon them and the rest of mankind and history.

JD wrote:
Pew View,
Before I respond, I need to ask you. Who are you disagreeing with, DJC49 or me? We are both saying the same thing.

JD wrote:
Thank you for the big AMEN, DJC49. Finally you agree with me on something. You have probably noticed that I have been contending with these calvinists that Adam's sin was not a moral or character failure, but an intelletual one.

Adam chose to become INDEPENDENT of God and go his own way despite the stated consequences.

Judging by Adam and Eve's immediate reaction on eating the fruit, it is not realistic to assume their act was an intellectual one, based upon knowledge and consequences.

Adam and Eve had NO idea what would happen next, if they ate the fruit.
Why do you think He called it, the tree of the "knowledge" of good and evil.

Definition of *Intellect*
"The power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge."

JD wrote:
Another question that might be asked "If he could not be tempted, why say he was?

Jesus when tempted by Satan had knowledge to enable Him to chose for God, the righteous way.

Inner temptation experienced in a "sinner" is quite different to temptation emeging from an external source.

JD wrote:
On the question, "could Jesus sin?".

If there is a question, resort to plain sense of a text and it would make no sense if we are told he was in all points "tempted" like us but without sin if he was not tempted.
Therefore, it is safe to conclude that as a man he could be tempted but as God he could not.

He was God/man, therefore the sin nature which is in us, the children of Adam, was not the same nature. The divine nature of God was in Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, which clearly is vastly different from the mortal sinner.

God does not sin.
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.(Col 2.9)

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the **likeness** of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"(Ro 8.3)

"6 O YE SEED of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth.
8 He hath remembered **HIS** covenant FOR EVER, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;
10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING covenant:"
Psalm 105.