Search results

.........

You are neither inept, nor particularly argumentative. Also, you are aware of this.

That's the main theme of the Reformation...and it's an incredibly myopic, hyper-Westernized, humanistic (classical humanism...which is a good thing basically) and short-sighted view. It's not the main theme of the N.T. The main theme of the N.T. is at least as much the Gospel of the Kingdom as...

Sure, sometimes. That is true of every Theological system, they have also shown that when they DO clearly and accurately elucidate Calvinist teaching, Calvinists pretend that they don't really understand it. It's a tired argument and no one is falling for it anymore. It makes Calvinists look...

My friend, you have missed the entire point completely, I'm afraid. The post was a response to the continuous pretense that non-Calvinists don't understand or articulate Calvinism properly Let me quote the initial post I made: "Everyone knows what Calvinists believe, it isn't that esoteric...

I presented an argument, above, you are not interested in hearing anything you don't already think, so, it is lost on you. Others can and will appreciate it. You say that because you are preconditioned like a Pavlovian dog to say it. You suffer from nothing akin to curiosity. You would have...

It is a more or less accurate statement. 1.) Mystery Religions are known for esotericism 2.) The Scripture takes a dim view of Mystery Religions 3.) The gospel is simple and meant to be understood and is not at all esoteric. 4.) What mystery there was in the gospel was intentionally cleared up...

You are certainly correct here, I just don't think we need spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for professors to insist we memorize what it cost $.25 a week in Awana to learn. Indeed, but we can do that without the aid of Bible Colleges or Seminary. I paid for their knowledge (in my mind)...

Because every time someone does, Calvinists tweek their articulation of their beliefs just sufficiently enough that even though it is fundamentally the same and logically suggests the same unavoidable ends, it doesn't represent your preferred verbiage. Therefore, it is like nailing jello to a...

More or less fact. The gospel is amazing for its simplicity, esotericism is for the Mystery Religions. Scripture takes a rather dim view of them.

Everybody knows what the "Doctrines of Grace" folks believe. Every time someone states them accurately, you simply nuance a term in the most irrelevant way and then group up to affirm the new definition. That argument is tired and stupid. The logical priority of the events in question was...

That's irrelevant to his critique..... Maybe you are both wrong. Either way, his critique requires an answer.

This was way too informative and meaningful an answer to anything Robycop can handle.... He just wants to trash the KJV............or the KJVO (he doesn't really differentiate). Responding in any intelligent manner to any thread is wasted on him. Kudos for knowing something of what you are...

Didn't do Scripture Memorization in Seminary. Seminaries usually don't and shouldn't spend time on that. They are there to give you the skillsets you can't acquire on your own, not the ones you can. Also, as unpopular as it will be to suggest it, rote memorization of passages of text you don't...

True, and the Scriptures do not speak of a "fall" or "natures". Agreed. I don't think they are contradictory statements, (there are models which can help us explain how those are both true) but, yes, they are both true. Yes.... And "Pelagianism" isn't a thing....at least biblically. And poor...

I don't say this lightly, and I know my views are less than unwelcome in this debate but....what if.... We disabused ourselves of the slavery imposed by systematizing Theology and simply stopped worrying about "natures" and the consequences of "the fall" and other unbiblical representations of...

The Septuagint translated "Nephelim" as "Gigantes".... You need to justify that statement with some serious research. While I do think that "Nephelim" and "Gigantes" are not perfect equivalents...(often true with any language translation). The translators at the time simply disagreed with you...

That doesn't mean there weren't giants there. There were giants later, and the text tells us there were. Og, King of Bashan, was undoubtedly a giant. I don't think EVERY word out of their mouth was false. Who cares anyway? Simply put, it isn't a particularly problematic passage either way.

That there were giants there? Sure, why not? David defeated a giant, hundreds of years later, why not believe giants were there then? The point isn't whether there were Nephilim or not, the point is that Yahweh was going to fight their battles for them, giants or not. The spies didn't have to...