@#1856574
"I'm pretty sure Jerry's not a true Christian."
Yet he bangs on & on about the 'Elect', and only they are predestined for salvation, but at the same time says above:
"Catholics are not Christians, but they can become real Christians if they accept the true Jesus of the Bible (as opposed to the Catholic caricature of Him) and are born again."
Which contradicts what he says. Also, sitting on the fence, re. Jack Chick: he's either 'Saved' or isn't; one can't be partially 'Saved', that's like saying that a woman is slightly pregnant.
He clearly knows jack shit about his own doctrines - which were initially codified in the Bible via the Catholics centuries ago - so he's as much a Christian as I am a Zen Buddhist.
After all, if he were a 'True Christian', and were secure in his faith, he'd have no problem in answering this question: Is the KJV is only version to be trusted, is utterly flawless in every conceivable way, and is the absolute word of your God, as authorised by a past monarch (King James I) of my country, Britain?
Is it, or isn't it?
And is said authoriser of his precious KJV & past monarch of my country, Britain, 'Saved'? Yes or No?
Remember: No 'Did you forget that the Christians don't need to prove anything to you? We don't need to care about what you think or how you feel.' excuses allowed. Answer the questions 'Is it, or isn't it, re. the KJV, and Yes or no, re. King James I being 'Saved'.
A Christian who is secure in his faith would answer those questions with no problem whatsoever.
If he doesn't, then everyone else will come to their own justified conclusions about him. That one word: Perception.
