Featured My personal search for answers

There are so many problems with your premise here, where to begin?

Well, I will begin with one of the most ridiculous points in your accusation that 'Calvinists worship angels'. Really? You know better than that (I hope).

Now to conditional election. Election is conditional upon who, man? So a man jumps through the right hoops and God chooses that man 'conditionally'? If so the God you speak of must be a 'respecter of persons' and salvation is no longer a gift, but a reward.

 

Join me in my discussion of "the carnal mind set" in Romans 8. I think if you are truly a "biblicist" and objective in your treatment of God's word then you will examine my interpetation of this passage and either agree with me or point out something that is wrong. I am certainly open to any error in my interpretation of scripture. You will discover that I am truly a "Biblicist" in my treatment of God's Word. I cordially invite you to particapte in that discussion as we are looking at the very crux of the doctrine of grace.

 

You say you are searching for answers and I've read your OP twice and see no question. Ask a question, a specific question.

 

Such a genuine heart felt Christian response, no wonder the poor fella didn't want to post anything.

 

No problem with searching for answers. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it ... and that includes asking questions.

But even Biblicist interprete what they read. A person cannot read and come to a conclusion without intrepreting.

My guess is that the average Baptist man does not know what the word Arminianist or Arminianism means.

I like that quote.

Good reply.

 

Do you know any Calvinist that verbally worship angels or set up an altar to angels or prays to angels or even acknowledges angels as objects of worship?

What if I took the scripture passage that talks about "will worship" and claimed that you guys are into "will worship"????? How would you respond?

Col. 2:23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

Yeah, I saw plenty of unsupported accusations but no questions! Can't really provide answers if there are no questions.

 

Aren't you the champion of the Scripture, poor, and oppressed.

 

Welcome to the BB.

It is my hope that you will find edification in the threads that guide your thinking.

As Paul said, accept as precious metal that which is according to the Word of God and trash the rest.

Here is are suggestions when following a thread.

See what Scripture is posted, and when is it used in the most consistently literal way.

See what Scripture is posted that in the context of that verse supports what a poster is addressing.

When you discern there is error, don't neglect to post the problem to seek clarification and/or state a different point of view.
​

"Iron sharpens iron" and often in a thread two views will be left on the table for the readers to make their own determination as to the real truth - to accept one side or the other, or to reject all sides.

Remember that the Scriptures are the final authority.

Not human philosophy and schemes.

One other point.

I have yet to met a Calvinistic thinking believer who does not lift up the Word of God far above Calvin. In fact, most reject some of what Calvin taught.

 

Just ads reminder: there are more options than just Calvinism or Arminianism.

 

Calvarminism? :laugh:

 

Actually that would be the Catholics/Arminians! :laugh:

Where do people come up with this stuff?????

 

You know Amy, I am presenting irrefutable contextual based evidence of both total depravity and total inability in my thread on Romans 8:7-8 and the "carnal mind" set and not a single one of these fellas will dare enter into that debate because they know they have to demonstrate the immediate context does not demand those conclusions and they know they cannot do it!

I have cordially invited the poster whose looking for answers but asks no questions but only makes accusations to join me. Nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole! I can't even get them to show why my contextual analysis is wrong even though I beg and invite them to participate. Well maybe this preachinJesus poster will show up and reveal where I am wrong in my contextual analysis????:jesus:

 

He's waiting and hoping for a back and forth all night long to fill in his lonely day. I won't fulfill his hopes. :wavey:

Stilllearning gave his arguments (accusations) or has 'brought it' so it's time for him to elaborate on his assumptions and prove them. I call him on what he said and figure he's big enough to defend his assumptions. I highly doubt that he can furnish proof for any of them.

I post my rebuttal one more time:

I still await answers.

 

I can't enter the discussion due to orders or I would That subject was already exhausted in another thread and your view on that was thoroughly debunked. Perhaps make another thread so that topic isn't so obvious

 

'...not a single one of these fellas'? You've drummed up a singular invitation to one to join in your thread and have made it into a plural invitation all on your own.

Thus your expanding your premise to others is unfounded and is a pretense on your part and you act as if you've befuddled many.

Frankly you haven't.

Your invitation was to one, no need to pretend it was to many and as if many can't answer you. Stick to facts without the sensationalism on your part. :thumbs:

 

The OP didn't say that Calvinist worship angles. Read it again fellas! You all are reading your own hatred into this man's text. He said what the Calvinists do is CLOSE to what is said about "worshiping of angels" in Colossians because he's comparing that to the worship of a man (Calvin).

Good night learn to at least make accurate accusations if you are going to step all over the guy.:wavey:

 

I'd say regardless of the debates between Biblicist and I and who thinks who is right, he has provided FAR BETTER attempts at defending his position than you EVER HAVE at defending any of yours. Now I completely and totally disagree with many of his views and have aggressively argued against them, but in the context of making an ACTUAL effort to debate, Biblicist EMBARRASSES YOU.

 

I challenge anyone to go back to that thread and see whose position was really debunked. You took a position contrary to the context as you demanded that the unregenerate man could do what the regenerated man could not do (Rom. 7:18-20) EXCEPT by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). The regenerated man in Romans 7:18-20 could not by his own will power overcome the power of indwelling sin/the fallen nature but only overcome by the power of the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 8:9-13). However, your theory was that the unregenerated man COULD overcome what is described as the "carnal mindset" in Romans 8:7.