Calvinism takes Biblical Truth Too Far

[Herald]

God will and does use his word which has been my point. He uses his word even with the unregenerate man, a point which the Calvinist denies. Note there has been no real refutation of that since I last posted it. Only the typical ridicule.

My friend, it depends on what you mean by God "[using] his word even with the unregenerate man." If you expand God's word to include God being able to work in the life of an unbeliever, I would agree with that. God worked through the life of Pharaoh, even though that working was not beneficial to Pharaoh himself. God uses circumstances, along with His Word, in the process of drawing sinners to faith. But we can never lose sight of the fact that a sinner is spiritually dead and unable to spiritually appropriate the things of God.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

In Ephesians 2:1 Paul tells his Christian audience that, in their prior condition, they were spiritually dead (hence the use of the word nekros to describe "dead." nekros means dead, as in a corpse).

In 1 Corinthians 2:14 the Apostle clearly teaches that the natural man (a.k.a. the unsaved, or spiritually dead man) is not able to accept the things of the Spirit of God. Why? Because those things are spiritually appraised, and because the unsaved man lacks the Spirit of God, he is unable to appraise, or receive, them.

Can God use the Word of God, according to His purpose, in the process of calling a sinner to faith? Yes! Absolutely! But that use falls short of the sinner being able to appropriate the spiritual truth contained therein. It would be like a meat truck driving past a starving man. The starving man can only imagine what is contained inside the truck. The contents of the truck do him no good as the truck passes by. In fact, every time he sees the truck he feels the acuteness of his hunger. Much like the sinner is under conviction when the Word of God is preached. It's only when the contents of that truck are made available to him that the hungry man can appreciate them.

Praise God that He has given us His glorious Gospel, by which saints are nourished and sinners are called to repentance and faith.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have responded, as is given above.

Then you can wait for Robert Snow. I am not going to speak for him.

I've given to you the same questions.

Give the points of Calvinism, and what they truly teach, not what you think they teach.

Then prove from Scriptures they are incorrect with exegesis as per here:

I find it intriguing that those who attack Calvinism, shy away when repeatedly asked for the points of Calvinism to which they disagree, along with Scripture to boot, which is in itself a difficult (and impossible) task to accomplish. I mean, it would actually take some time and learning to do so.

Seekingthetruth, Robert Snow, DHK are among them.

Typically after a request to do so there is yet another baseless attack against teachings they are clueless about. Then come the all too familiar generalized attacks of "arrogance," "lauding ones intellect," "rejecting simple teachings," "the Bible doesn't have any verses that show Calvinism is correct" and the list goes on, with no substance to back it up of course.

Their reluctance to address the facts with substance and actual documentation stems from fear of facts, and a lack of really knowing what they are talking about, or even what they are fighting against in the first place.

I'll await the actual refutation of what they truly teach, minus the defamatory comments that are common towards the cal brothers here.

- Peace

 

[DHK]

I've given to you the same questions.

Give the points of Calvinism, and what they truly teach, not what you think they teach.

Then prove from Scriptures they are incorrect with exegesis as per here:



I'll await the actual refutation of what they truly teach, minus the defamatory comments that are common towards the cal brothers here.

- Peace

What a lark! After posting a defamatory post, you want me to answer your post without such comments. I kindly refrain from such antics. Your post was both accusatory and defamatory. You should be ashamed.

 

[convicted1]

The problem stems from what each sides thinks the usage of the word "unregenerate" means. When one becomes regenerated he/she is saved, not brought to life to believe. Jesus never taugh this.





Isaiah 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.



John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.


Regeneration brings salvation, not the ability to understand.

 

[preacher4truth]

What a lark! After posting a defamatory post, you want me to answer your post without such comments. I kindly refrain from such antics. Your post was both accusatory and defamatory. You should be ashamed.

There was absolutely nothing in my post that was defamatory, nor accusatory, it simply stated facts.

That you belly-ached about "ridicule" from others when you employ this tactic yourself, and often, is laughable.

...and yet you continue to name call. "Christian" name-calling, it's like "Christian cuss (curse) words." Same malicious intent, different words and names. Congrats.

I described your treatment towards myself in the post. That's what's shameful, what you've done, you won't look at your own actions.

Calvinist, or non-cal, what I showed you about yourself, you're the one who should be ashamed.

But I'll pray for you about this.

Now, please address the substance and questions, not your thoughts about the one asking them. You can simply leave that part out. It's Christianity and manhood in action that way.

 

[Herald]

Regeneration brings salvation, not the ability to understand.

You are partly correct. Regeneration does bring salvation, but it also brings the ability to understand.


1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Prior to regeneration the unsaved man is incapable of understanding spiritual things. Oh, he can understand the words; but not the spiritual meaning.

A good picture of regeneration is seen in Ezekiel 36.

Ezekiel 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

This is a beautiful picture of what was once dead coming to life. But it doesn't stop there.

Ezekiel 36:27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."

Here we see understanding and obedience; all made possible because of regeneration (salvation). Prior to regeneration it is impossible for any person to walk in God's statutes or carefully observe His ordinances.

 

[DHK]

My friend, it depends on what you mean by God "[using] his word even with the unregenerate man." If you expand God's word to include God being able to work in the life of an unbeliever, I would agree with that. God worked through the life of Pharaoh, even though that working was not beneficial to Pharaoh himself.

That example is not germane to this example as Pharaoh was not trying to understand Scripture nor the things of God.

God uses circumstances, along with His Word, in the process of drawing sinners to faith. But we can never lose sight of the fact that a sinner is spiritually dead and unable to spiritually appropriate the things of God.

You need to define words. What does "dead" mean.

Ephesians 2:1

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,

And what does this mean to you? What does it mean to be dead?

1 Corinthians 2:14

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Here is the scapegoat of the Calvinist, the verse he takes out of context and makes a pre-text. It is his proof-text for his theology, but he doesn't pay attention to the overall context.
Paul is rebuking the carnal Christians at Corinth. He is giving them principles. In the beginning of the chapter he tells them that, in comparison to the false teachers that they have among them, he comes to them in meekness, not with enticing words, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. He preaches Christ crucified. He did not come in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God (vs.5).
The things that he teaches them come from God, and are revealed to him by God:

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (1 Corinthians 2:10)
--Then he goes on to say that they also can understand spiritual things because they have the Holy Spirit also. They haven't been doing this. This is a rebuke to these carnal Christians.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:11)
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. (1 Corinthians 2:12)
It is the Spirit of God that teaches a man about God (11). We have received the Spirit of God, that we might know the things that God freely gives. Again this is a rebuke because they, still being babes in Christ, had not been using this knowledge that they could have been attaining through God's Spirit.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13)
--Paul uses "we" to help the comparison along. We speak, not man's wisdom but God's wisdom (Why don't you, is the implication)?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
It is the natural man that doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God.
--Paul continues his rebuke. These carnal Christians had been acting like unsaved men. They had not been receiving the things of the Spirit of God. This verse was not given as proof-text for Calvinists to use for to prove that unregenerate men cannot understand the Bible or spiritual things. It is not teaching that as an absolute. It is a rebuke to the Corinthians to quit acting like the unsaved and carnal, and act like Christians who have the Spirit of God dwelling in you.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:15-16)
--Immediately he contrasts them to the spiritual again. It is those that are spiritual that are able to judge; to discern all things. But in the following chapter he begins by telling them how carnal they really are.

1Cor.2:14 is not an absolute statement to be used by Calvinist that demands God draw a box around man so that the man cannot do (understand spiritual things) unless the Calvinist gives God permission to allow him to do so. It is the Calvinist here that commands God. If a testimony is given like that of Hudson Taylor, where Taylor did understand spiritual things, then the Calvinist says--God must have regenerated him first. Typical. Can't deal with Scripture. You need a proof text to run to in order to defend your Calvinistic theology and then you have to keep taking it out of context.

In Ephesians 2:1 Paul tells his Christian audience that, in their prior condition, they were spiritually dead (hence the use of the word nekros to describe "dead." nekros means dead, as in a corpse).

Context defines the word. Death does not mean lifeless in the Bible. It simply means separation.

In 1 Corinthians 2:14 the Apostle clearly teaches that the natural man (a.k.a. the unsaved, or spiritually dead man) is not able to accept the things of the Spirit of God. Why? Because those things are spiritually appraised, and because the unsaved man lacks the Spirit of God, he is unable to appraise, or receive, them.

Again, you ignore context and give an absolute interpretation of that verse--the scapegoat of your theology.

 

[jbh28]

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
It is the natural man that doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God.
--Paul continues his rebuke. These carnal Christians had been acting like unsaved men. They had not been receiving the things of the Spirit of God.

So, Paul is saying that these carnal Christians were "acting like unsaved men." Which of course is the same as saying they were acting like unregenerate men. And Paul said that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. So Paul means exactly what he said. The natural (unregenerate man) cannot understand the things that are spiritual.

If a testimony is given like that of Hudson Taylor, where Taylor did understand spiritual things, then the Calvinist says--God must have regenerated him first.

1. Experience don't negate the Bible. So don't show me an experience to negate clear biblical teaching.
2. He was regenerate. You said he got saved, which means he was regenerated. Unless God is not part of the picture, God had everything to do with his salvation when he read the Scripture.

 

[Herald]

DHK,

Your post was too large to cut and paste, so I'll try to deal with it here.

You need to define words. What does "dead" mean.

I did define what dead means:

In Ephesians 2:1 Paul tells his Christian audience that, in their prior condition, they were spiritually dead (hence the use of the word nekros to describe "dead." nekros means dead, as in a corpse).

You said:

Context defines the word. Death does not mean lifeless in the Bible. It simply means separation.

Absolutely! Context reigns supreme. Unfortunately you are in error regarding what the word nekros means and the context in which it is used in Ephesians 2:1. nekros is used to describe something, or someone, that is dead. That is what the word means. thanatos would be the Greek word to describe a state of death; or lifeless. In the same chapter Paul does use a word to describe a state of being separated from God; it is the word choris and is used in 2:12:

Ephesians 2:12 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (emphasis mine)

If Paul intended to emphasize the Ephesians prior separation from God, the word choris would have been a better choice of words seeing as he used the word later in the same chapter. As it is he used a descriptive adjective, nekros; not just to point out their separation, but their completely fallen nature.

 

[psalms109:31]

Calvin believed that all men know that there is a God, even atheist but at some point denied Him. This is why all men natural as we are have no excuse, because by nature looking around us we know there is a God.

There was this 7 year old boy, natural boy not Spiritual was told that the creator of the universe loved him by a next door neighbor. That God so loved the world that He sent His Son, that He loved him.

He didn't understand the Son part, but he knew something bought the world together and he knew what love was by the love of his mother. He loved God because He loved him, but he never trusted in His Son, but the creator is who he loved. The son dying part he didn't understand at all.

He tried and tried to live right for God who he loved, but he continued to do wrong. He was 11 after continue and continue talking about sin and living right for God and he couldn't so the Father introduced him to His Son and now he finally realized he was a sinner and nothing he can do to save himself. The penalty for his sin was death and he through the gospel seen the suffering of Jesus. The Father introduced him by these words. "This is my Son in whom I am well pleased"

He gave his life to Jesus. He wanted to be baptized but the church told him that Jesus was baptized to fulfill a promise that he needed to do nothing, because he was saved by grace, he went away sad.

It wasn't until he met the girl of his life and they joined a baptist church together and got saved because he thought he wasn't save because no change in his life and baptized. This is what the boy thought that he was missing what he needed for the change to take place in his life.

It didn't change him, he read and read the Holy Bible and he couldn't understand a word of it.

A visiting pastor came and told a story that was similar to his about not understanding the Bible. His wife brought him a book called "All of Grace" and it helped more than any commentary. He said he read many of them and still couldn't help him to understand.

So the man who once was this 7 year old boy read that book and realized understanding didn't come from what he could do, but from God.

He read the gospel again through tears God opened His eyes.

You do not have to understand the scripture to believe, you have to believe by just trusting in Him over your self and He will help you understand.

Jesus basically tells us to not to believe in anything but Him, before you even learn anything from Him.

 

[preacher4truth]

Context defines the word. Death does not mean lifeless in the Bible. It simply means separation

Death in the Bible means lifeless. Provide proof that the word here in its definition does not contain "lifeless" or "inanimate." Well guess what, the definition does mean these things. Thus, you're misrepresenting Biblical definitions.

The definition of death, nekros, is not separation. Separation is part of the result of death, it is not the definition. Look up "result."

Try using the real definition, or better yet, definition period, and perhaps look up in a dictionary the word "definition" first so you know what you are doing before you start. There are online dictionaries if you don't have your "books". Here's a good one to look at: http://dictionary.reference.com/

Then after you've done this, you'll need to know the difference between "implication" and "definition."

Look up "implication" also and try to cognize what it means. You need to start with these facile building blocks and understand them, then move up a footfall at a time in order to advance in understanding. Once you then know what definition means, and can distinguish between this and implications, then go look at the definition for nekros, (not your philosphy or implications) no, what the definition itself is, or rather, what it means Biblically, not what your non-cal theology wants it to mean or imply.

You might also try a lexicon, or even an online Greek word search. This should be enough to show you what the definition is.

It's not separation.

 

[DHK]

Death in the Bible means lifeless. Provide proof that the word here in its definition does not contain "lifeless" or "inanimate." Well guess what, the definition does mean these things. Thus, you're misrepresenting Biblical definitions.

I will give you that proof. Be patient. It does not mean "lifeless."

The definition of death, nekros, is not separation. Separation is part of the result of death, it is not the definition. Look up "result."

So what are you more interested in: the process or the result. Are we going to be speaking how the brain slowly loses its capacity to function while at the same time the heart loses its power to function. If you want to talk about the "definition" of death specifically, then you are in for a long drawn out biological discussion. I am not interested in the shutting down of the bodily functions of a human being. What does it mean when the Bible says: "The wages of sin is death"? It is not speaking of the shutting down of the body until it becomes lifeless--that process. It is talking about the end result. The wages of sin is death--separation from God for all eternity. But the gift of God is eternal life--life with God for all eternity. There also is the end result of accepting God's gift.

Try using the real definition, or better yet, definition period, and perhaps look up in a dictionary the word "definition" first so you know what you are doing before you start. There are online dictionaries if you don't have your "books". Here's a good one to look at: http://dictionary.reference.com/

I believe in sola scriptura; you believe in sola dictionaria. That is fine. I will use the Bible as my authority; you can use the English dictionary as yours. As long as we have this understanding we are ok.

Then after you've done this, you'll need to know the difference between "implication" and "definition."

Not so. Remember, I get my definition from the Bible, not English dictionaries.

Look up "implication" also and try to cognize what it means. You need to start with these facile building blocks and understand them, then move up a footfall at a time in order to advance in understanding. Once you then know what definition means, and can distinguish between this and implications, then go look at the definition for nekros, (not your philosphy or implications) no, what the definition itself is, or rather, what it means Biblically, not what your non-cal theology wants it to mean or imply.

No thanks, I will stick to what the Bible teaches. It is a much better teacher then the garbled football jargon you just tried to impart. Remember, my authority is the Word of God, the Bible.

You might also try a lexicon, or even an online Greek word search. This should be enough to show you what the definition is.

I am acquainted with the Greek. The Greek isn't the problem. When you ignore context and the teaching of the Word itself then you find yourself in trouble.

It's not separation.

It is; but a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Thus even if I give you a rational and convincing explanation you no doubt won't accept it.

First, Physical Separation
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)
--James defines actual physical death as separation of the spirit from the body. That is all that death is: separation of the spirit from the body.
Death, in the Bible, is always separation.

Second, Spiritual Separation
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1)
The KJV certainly added a lot to this verse. Did you notice how much of the verse was italicized?
Young's says:
Also you--being dead in the trespasses and the sins, (Ephesians 2:1)
(I'll save that for another discussion)
--The point is that the Ephesians were separated from God spiritually. They were not lifeless corpses or even lifeless spirits. They were separated from God because of sin. Sin had separated them from God, as all sin does. That is why Christ had to die for sin. They needed to be reconciled to God. They were separated from God and needed to be reconciled to God. Without that reconciliation there could be no life. That reconciliation would come through the Word of God and the Spirit of God, the two agencies by which a person is born again.

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. (Isaiah 59:2)

Third, Eternal Separation
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
--I have already explained this verse. Notice that it is a contrast between eternal life and thus eternal death. God's gift is eternal life, contrasted with the wages of sin--eternal death. What is eternal death: separation from God for all eternity.
Death is always separation in the Bible.

Fourth. The Second Death
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)
Here is the scene of the Great White Throne Judgment: The Second Death. It is God's final judgment for all unsaved. Even death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. The final sentence, the final result, will be separation from God for all eternity.

Death is separation in the Bible, all the time.

There is the evidence. Do with it as you will.

 

[JesusFan]

I will give you that proof. Be patient. It does not mean "lifeless."

So what are you more interested in: the process or the result. Are we going to be speaking how the brain slowly loses its capacity to function while at the same time the heart loses its power to function. If you want to talk about the "definition" of death specifically, then you are in for a long drawn out biological discussion. I am not interested in the shutting down of the bodily functions of a human being. What does it mean when the Bible says: "The wages of sin is death"? It is not speaking of the shutting down of the body until it becomes lifeless--that process. It is talking about the end result. The wages of sin is death--separation from God for all eternity. But the gift of God is eternal life--life with God for all eternity. There also is the end result of accepting God's gift.

ALL died in Adam, ALL who are saved by God are amde alive in Christ...

First Adam brought BOTH physical/spiritual death, second one brought eternal life!

I believe in sola scriptura; you believe in sola dictionaria. That is fine. I will use the Bible as my authority; you can use the English dictionary as yours. As long as we have this understanding we are ok.

We all believe in the sole supremacy of the Scriptures, we also hold to using other study tools also!

Not so. Remember, I get my definition from the Bible, not English dictionaries.
No thanks, I will stick to what the Bible teaches. It is a much better teacher then the garbled football jargon you just tried to impart. Remember, my authority is the Word of God, the Bible.

So you would NOT use an English dictionary to look up say unknown words in the Bible? Wouldn't that be hard to understand the Word?

I am acquainted with the Greek. The Greek isn't the problem. When you ignore context and the teaching of the Word itself then you find yourself in trouble.

except that your "proof" that you keep posting here is NOT supported by the original language texts themselves, and you are forced to finding them in english versions, and you do a job of misunderstanding the full context!

It is; but a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Thus even if I give you a rational and convincing explanation you no doubt won't accept it.

We have attempted to do the same for you feom the biblical records!

First, Physical Separation
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)
--James defines actual physical death as separation of the spirit from the body. That is all that death is: separation of the spirit from the body.
Death, in the Bible, is always separation.

Second, Spiritual Separation
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; (Ephesians 2:1)
The KJV certainly added a lot to this verse. Did you notice how much of the verse was italicized?
Young's says:
Also you--being dead in the trespasses and the sins, (Ephesians 2:1)
(I'll save that for another discussion)
--The point is that the Ephesians were separated from God spiritually. They were not lifeless corpses or even lifeless spirits. They were separated from God because of sin. Sin had separated them from God, as all sin does. That is why Christ had to die for sin. They needed to be reconciled to God. They were separated from God and needed to be reconciled to God. Without that reconciliation there could be no life. That reconciliation would come through the Word of God and the Spirit of God, the two agencies by which a person is born again.

Except that the Greek/hebrew words inspired by the HS does not refer to meaning of "death" per the bilical use as you adhere to!

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. (Isaiah 59:2)

Third, Eternal Separation
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
--I have already explained this verse. Notice that it is a contrast between eternal life and thus eternal death. God's gift is eternal life, contrasted with the wages of sin--eternal death. What is eternal death: separation from God for all eternity.
Death is always separation in the Bible.

WHAT though is the direct CAUSE of that seperation? Its the fact of us being born in Adam, under both physical/spiritual death!

Fourth. The Second Death
And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11-15)
Here is the scene of the Great White Throne Judgment: The Second Death. It is God's final judgment for all unsaved. Even death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. The final sentence, the final result, will be separation from God for all eternity.

Death is separation in the Bible, all the time.

There is the evidence. Do with it as you will.

{quote] Your biblical evidence in this though has been tried, and found wanting![/quote]

 

[preacher4truth]

I will give you that proof. Be patient. It does not mean "lifeless."

You remain incorrect. That is exactly what it means by definition. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever, as your definition (not His) is not Biblical. Try sticking to the Word of God and definitions He gives.

 

[preacher4truth]

{quote] Your biblical eveidence in this though has been tried, and found wanting!

Yup. :thumbsup:

 

[Robert Snow]

First, Physical Separation
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)
--James defines actual physical death as separation of the spirit from the body. That is all that death is: separation of the spirit from the body.
Death, in the Bible, is always separation.

Clear cut scripture, too bad it goes against Calvinism's viewpoint.

Thanks DHK!

 

[preacher4truth]

Clear cut scripture, too bad it goes against Calvinism's viewpoint.

Thanks DHK!

LOL!!!

This isn't even in the same subject at hand; we're talking spiritual death, not physical. How you two have missed what is so clearly taught and how it is completely different altogether...well...nevermind. I do understand how you've missed it.

This is talking of physical death, not spiritual.

Even more error taught and another rushes in and accepts the fallacy without thinking it through.

Congrats!

 

[quantumfaith]

LOL!!!

This isn't even in the same subject at hand; we're talking spiritual death, not physical. How you two have missed what is so clearly taught and how it is completely different altogether...well...nevermind. I do understand how you've missed it.

This is talking of physical death, not spiritual.

Even more error taught and another rushes in and accepts the fallacy without thinking it through.

Congrats!

What we do if we did not have you to always come in a clear things up for us, letting any and all of us which disagree with you in even the smallest points the treasure of your wisdom. Again, I state, although I often disagree with you, sometimes in minor ways, sometimes profoundly, it is HOW you simply categorically dictate that everyone not exactly like you is simply wrong.

 

[preacher4truth]

If you can't see the clear teaching of the passage that was given by DHK, that has nothing to do with spiritual death, but is instead dealing with physical death, well, then you need more help than I've ever considered.

I know it must be embarassing to you non-cals when someone points out something so glaringly obvious that you've totally missed. Again.

Then come the cynical responses out of an embarrased and shamed heart over what you just cannot see. Fiddlesticks!!!! :thumbsup:

Yes, I came to clear things up that are glaringly obvious, and you're still oblivious to it. And you teach new Christians?

I'm a coward? Any more names? I also hide? What does that mean? I teach false doctrine? Really? Where? And you can't see the false teaching of the mis-useage of this passage? I'm amazed! No, not really, this is status-quo for you all.

Wow. Imagine if a Calvinist said that on the BB. God bless you Robert Snow.

 

[jbh28]

He's just a coward who hides behind a computer keyboard and continues to espouse his false doctrine.

Robert, I was noticing your better tone over the last week. This wasn't so much.


btw, I have plenty of Reese's left over. It was raining last night.