Featured Examining some of the misguided claims of 316 Tradionalists

This is a very strange thread...

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

Yes, the resentment here of the long held traditional interpretation of John 3:16 is rather astounding. Someone must have really hit a nerve telling this devout Calvinist that the Gospel is powerful and a genuine offer that truly gives hope to "whosoever" as every common major English Bible translation reveals.

Maybe it was the question of does a Calvinist lie to their children when they put them to bed at night and tell them that Jesus loves them or do they tell them their “bible truth” that they hope they are one of the pre-selected few? ...or nailing them on half-truths as they sidestep the issue.

“If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers

Maybe it's their guilt over sinfully attempting to put darkness into the light of the Gospel for those who have mocked and scoffed their preaching?

Perhaps it was the obvious evasion and lack of transparency pointed out in the Calvinist gospel, I can only assume...

But, yes, a rather strange thread...

 

You noticed that as well .... they call them eunuchs. Then the women take over.

 

So you tell them, yes Virgina there is a ... so be good for goodness sake.

 

No, it's strange because your desire to denigrate Christians who hold different views than yourself causes you to start threads and have multiple posts wherein you talk to yourself.

Just odd.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Yes!!! “Whosoever will” is absolutely the long held interpretational view of the scripture in relation to the Gospel, …in every common major English translation Bible!!! Now, we got a bunch of New Age Calvinists attacking that interpretation and proclaiming that the Good News is only for the lucky predetermined few and is merely Bad News for all the rest whom God created only so they could spend eternity in HELL suffering for His glory!! Heck yeah, they deny this “truth” someone’s got to stand up against this nonsense and preach the light back into the Gospel, …God bless them!!

What is with this fallacious question begging stuff about "truth"?? Don’t you know people can see through this "teaching" of yours? Where have you been?? Heck yes, these people deny the Calvinist view of Total Inability and Predetermination of the Elect!!! More so they calling out these as false teachings that end in proclaiming that the Gospel is merely for the pre-selected few! Anybody ever involved with soteriological debate that has so much as a clue of the subjects up for debate KNOWS THIS!!

For the life of me, I cannot figure who you are trying to make this argument to unless this is merely your effort to reach those who have never studied these issues as you way of trying to place some presupposition thoughts in the heads of the unlearned! Is that how you formed your soteriological views? By being taught by someone with Calvinist’ blinders on who pronounced such man-made doctrines as biblical truth while being uplifted with the thoughts of being a newly inspired theologian and ready to start instructing others on your insightfulness? …nevermind.

You don’t seem to be able to stand these common objections to your soteriological system and the way you go about refuting them with question begging replies about biblical truth while apparently talking to yourself is not only looking juvenile and somewhat disingenuous but as ITL said is rather strange indeed.

I think you need to hear this Icon, trying to help you out a little here bud, but I just took over a bunch of physical therapy patients today besides running a new PT device business that looks to be getting its wings so I just don’t have the time to join in your “fun” and chase all these rabbits of yours waiting to emerge from their holes.

Anyway, I’d probably just be tempted to go right for your jugular vein and would likely make a bloody mess out your thread. Take care friend.

 

What translation are you using? I don't see any of those topics in John 3:16.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Actually I think the proper order is spirit, soul and body which was the usual order Paul described the structure of man 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and there's a reason for that...BUT...such is another subject.

So what part of man didn't suffer the effects of the fall? The part of man which Jesus even acknowledged can make good choices and be good parents to their children.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Matt 7: 9-11

My point? You're trying to justify a reasoning which says man has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to make a good decision about anything...thus your total depravity view. It's my position that we can by no means fulfill the perfection of carrying out the law...impossible with the unborn again nature. We need Christ living his life through us. One can however respond with their will to receive a higher capacity for walking in a heightened nature of LOVE, which is God. Will we allow him to take out a stony heart of flesh and give us a new one? Such is what each one can choose.