Coordinates federal policy in the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and oversight of federal programs and funds in the freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.

Coordinates federal policy in the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and oversight of federal programs and funds in the freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.

Coordinates federal policy in the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and oversight of federal programs and funds in the freely associated states of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.

gkmcnees@comcast.net wrote:

>>> I'm wondering whether you realize that "enabling" is a
>> bad thing. You probably mean "empowering".
>
> I don't care too much about political correctness.
> I used the term, "enable" because Calvinists always
> use the term "unable."
>
> And Christ said that no one is able to come unless
> God draws him.

It's not about political correctness, but about what
the word has come to mean. The meaning of a word
is only related to its etymology, it's not the
etymology itself. Just because "able" is the root
word, doesn't mean that "enable" mean "en" "able".

Enable and empower are almost the same word, but
the first has very negative connotations, while the
second has very positive ones.



>>>We are saved when when we believe, "He that believeth on
>>>the Son hath everlasting life:"
>>
>>
>> I (and others) keep asking this question, and you don't
>> answer it. Here, you make a claim, and then you cite
>> a verse which doesn't say anything like what you claimed.
>
> Uh? To dense I guess.

"Too". The verse says "he that believeth is saved".
You say "We are saved when we believe". Your sentence
has a time element in it ("when") so that your
sentence makes believing happen first and salvation
happen after (and as a consequence.) Since this is
the central issue of our discussion, you really need
to justify how you add "when" to your sentence if you
claim that the verse you cite supports you. If you
have to add to Scripture to get to your doctrine, fine.
Just don't assert that you're "following Scripture",
because you're not.


> Keep it up. God was asked "what shall I do to be saved?"
>
> God's answer is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

That's what Peter said. Jesus said "Sell all your
possessions and give the proceeds to the poor." So
which is it?

God's answer was "...and you shall be saved". That is,
"I'll do the saving here, thank you very much."


> You and Bob can argue till you are blue in the face,

Not only can we, we have.


> and I will continue to believe Christ, and not either
> of you.

As if what we're saying and what Jesus said were different.
You don't believe Christ, you believe in believing.




> John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift
> of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou
> wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
>
> This verse must be re-written for your theology to be true.