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.
I hope you mean that the freewill argument (whatever that is) has changed within the last generation, because the Bible sure hasn't changed.
True, the Bible hasn't changed, it also never taught free-will salvation. But the arguments for "free-will" have changed dramatically. Who, other than a handful of Methodists agree with the five points of the Remonstrants? A decade ago, it was "Choose Christ", now the soteriology has changed to mean "Choose to not reject Christ". IOW, it is borrows from Rome the idea that sincerity in a belief system is what saves you. (Mother Theresa big advocate of that concept, her religion of choice was Roman Catholicism) The new free-will says that one actually has to choose to reject Christ before salvation can be lost. That is miles from the teachings of Jacob Arminius or the rank heresy of Pelagius. My point in saying so, is that I have yet to find someone who can make a cogent argument from Scripture for "free-will". Usually it is a handfull of eisegetical interpretations of a handful of passages that requires a dogmatic interpretation of vague words: (ie. "kosmos" can only mean one out of eight possible definitions, and that is "every person without distinction" despite the numerous passages that don't need any wresting to contradict it)
I have yet to see anyone explain, through Scripture how a person who loves sin, hates God, hates righteousness, doesn't understand Scripture, considers it foolish, doesn't seek after God, is spiritually dead, and would rather be crushed by rocks than bow the knee to God is supposed to be in a "seeking relationship" that results in them "choosing to love God". Without spiritual regeneration, this is impossible. But it works today if one just throws away the Bible and straps on the WWJD bracelet while chanting "Praise Choruses" to this character only identified as "Him".
Why I brought up the Free Will Theorists who define the American Religion, is that the philosophy of Free Will Theism is damaging. You don't see the OPC/PCA/RPC flavors of presbyterianism handing out WWJD bracelets. They don't dilute church teaching in order to attract those who hate church teaching. (I am not a presbyterian, BTW)
Then you must not attend church, because even the "non-denominational" churches are denominational by virtue of considering themselves non-denominational.
Double-speak may work for you, but I don't care for it. I fail to see how "A = NOT A" can be true, as in a non-denominational is a denomination. Actually the word "non-denominational" has been hijacked to mean "independant" or "open to whatever". What does a baptism service look like in a non-denominational "church"? They immerse the covenant child in a vat of water and claim regeneration? The eucharist: Transubstantiation, or Zwinglian? Music: Psalmtry or Hip-Hop? with or without musical instruments? Soteriology: pelagian or calvinistic? Eschatology: Dispensational, Classical Pre-Mil, Amil, or Post-Mil? Creation or Theistic Evolution? Do they have an catechisms? Follow any of the creeds or confessions? What type of church government: Congregational, papist, elder board, pastoral or presbyterian?
A "non-denominational church" is either a Do-It-Yourself brand of renegades, or really has no doctrinal statement. Thus if one stands for nothing, they will fall for WWJD.