Rule #1 in public discussion, use the words that people to say as a basis for shoving through your own agenda.
What this means is that you say enough stuff to merit one of my trademark Over-Analysis Smackdowns. There are certain shibboleth's that emerge that betrays a philosophical preference. When you (or anyone else) makes a claim that is indicative of this ideology, then that becomes a foundation of sorts to fill in the missing blanks. If I were to mention "pre-destination" then you could go off on an anti-Calvinist rant and would stand a good chance that your assumptions were correct.
The point being, in public discussions, it is assumed that the two will not change their minds, it is for the audience's benefit.
Whether I am saved or not due to predestination or my own free-will, whether my ultimate destination is in my hands and God's, mine alone or God's alone, there are still only two entities that could possibly decide my fate; and YOU aren't one of the two.
That kind of statement converts the idea of salvation into a superstition. Freewill vs. Grace has been debated for centuries. Up until the last generation the freewill argument had some biblical basis, now it has none. So it is no longer a question of interpretation, it is a question of Vain Imaginations vs Sola Scriptura. Like in the Highlander, "there can only be one".
Since you keep going on about this "American Religion" thing, why don't you share with us your own denomination?
That is a fallacy I don't subscribe to. In the NT there were no "denominations" since there is only one gospel. Any I object to any suggestion that the neo-evangelical movement is Christian.
Jesus Christ was the Messiah. Throughout the OT, His coming was predicted. One day He actually came as man. He fulfilled prophesy; He fulfilled the Law. Yet the Jews rejected the Son of God, the I AM because they had in mind a political king, not a spiritual one. The present day hope of the Jews for a political messiah will not save them. They have followed their nature to reject the real Messiah in preference for another that is not mentioned in Scripture. Similarly the neo-evangelical (American Religion) "church" is apostate in that they have also rejected the Messiah in Scripture and have chosen to "seek" for another that lives in a WWJD bracelet and is conjured down from heaven when people chant emotive choruses and wave their hands around to the sound of rock music and the sight of flashing stage lighting.
It is like comparing Christianity with a Mormonism, in that there is another gospel, Joe Smith had his golden plates, the American Religion has its pop-culture and self-esteem movement. To say that there is a buffet of "denominations" to pick from ignores the fact that the American Religion isn't a denomination, it is its own false religion that seeks to replace Christianity - just as Scripture prophecy has foretold.
No, it does nothing of the sort. My statement sidestepped an area where there is obvious disagreement and arrived at a conclusion that you can't disagree with. All you need to know about me is that YOU don't determine whether or not I am going to Heaven or Hell, or whether I am a Christian or not, I might add. For the 3rd time, you're making assumptions based on a faulty premise--you're bound and determined to believe that I am not a Christian. That's all well and good, but the truth of the matter is what it is and doesn't change based on your interpretation of and selective emphases on scripture.
Freewill vs. Grace has been debated for centuries.
That it has, with the quite possibly mistaken notion that it is an either/or proposition that doesn't take into account the fact that God is not bound by the constraints of Time.
Up until the last generation the freewill argument had some biblical basis, now it has none.
I hope you mean that the freewill argument (whatever that is) has changed within the last generation, because the Bible sure hasn't changed.
That is a fallacy I don't subscribe to.
Then you must not attend church, because even the "non-denominational" churches are denominational by virtue of considering themselves non-denominational. So, if you do attend church, how would we blaspheming Baptists refer to it? Because I might be interested in attending a "real" church instead of remaining in perdition. Or are you simply flatly refusing to reveal that information? Just let me know, 'cos I'll stop asking. BTW, you never addressed my question about what seminary you attended.