Search results

First, the verse quoted early with all the wrong translations of repent, Number 23:19 does not say that God never changes something He said He will do. It is simply that God does do things the way a man does them. Jonah 3: "8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry...

No, God never gets caught offguard, and I never said He did, nor implied it, and there's no way you can arrange my statements to produce that conclusion. Do you agree with the Calvinist usage of God sending rain on the just and the unjust to prove He loves everybody?

Another question with a question. WHAT DID THE BIBLE SAY!

Then why doesn't Peter just use ELECT instead of ANY. "God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL SHOULD COME to repentance". I see you skipped right over THAT part where I showed all 5 uses of this term in the Bible, NONE of which fit the Calvie interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 :)

You are getting into a very bad habit of ascribing beliefs to people they don't adhere to. Here is an article I wrote on my website "HELL! Would A Loving God Send Anyone There" Now you read that and then come back and tell me that I think God is all about passing out candy canes to sinners...

NONE of the context changes what God said in CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS terms. God said HE WILL COME DOWN. This was not a reference to killing David it was a reference to Saul....coming down to find David. Saul DID NOT COME DOWN. You are failing to see the verse as written. It doesn't matter that...

You are making an argument against a premise that isn't proposed here. That is an argument against Open Theism. I do not propose Open Theism. God knows the future, and He knows ALL of it, but God does not HAVE to determine future events merely because He can see ahead of time what is going to...

If 2 Peter 3:9 is referring to ONLY believers, and all of the believers are predestinated, they will be saved no matter what, THEN WHY WOULD GOD BE CONCERNED ABOUT ANY OF THEM PERISHING? And furthermore, if this is speaking of ONLY current believers, then why would He be concerned about their...

Immutability means that God's NATURE does not change, that does not mean that perspectives do not change. I Samuel 23:11-14 CLEARLY shows a time when God stated an event would occur, and it DID NOT OCCUR because David altered the course of events by doing something different. I Samuel 23...

And here's the new thread with the conundrum! http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2005661#post2005661

I'll make this short and sweet. The Calvinists contend that God does not ever "change His mind" so to speak, regardless of all the OT passages that show that He does. But here's a conundrum for the Calvinist. The Calvinists and the Confession teach that God determines all things whatsoever...

That God would WANT and DESIRE the damnation of the unsaved, instead of judgment being a RESULT of man's free rebellion is the death-knell of Calvinism that shows a fundamentally gross caricature of the nature of God's love. This is why you never see any major discussions about the love of God...

Now that's funny right there!:laugh: But I thought you knew that man did not have anything to do with putting the blood on the door post. Everyone sat in their house and God went door to door and put the blood on the posts. Also have you read Calvenesis 22-23! Abraham didn't offer Isaac...

Although Icon's quote does not support 'particular redemption' or 'irresistible grace', it actually DOES answer at least the question of whether salvation is actual or potential. See Icon, you CAN answer without a Creed!:applause: This is NO WAY supports 'irresistible grace'. You don't get...

And yet the OP still has not gotten a direct answer to the questions and the follow up questions. Need to make some popcorn cuz this is gonna get interesting :)

Where is the sound scriptural case for the defense of the NIV, ESV, NASB, CEV, Living Bible, Good News et al... how many books have you written about the "mistakes" in THOSE Bibles while claiming you have no biased against the KJV? Give me a break. Any Bible believer with common sense can see...

And yet the TRANSLATIONS out of Hebrew and Aramaic from the OT into NT passages where the apostles translated them to Greek were what Paul referred to as Scripture. So if a translation can not be inspired, the NT was never inspired in the first because it is full of translations within itself...

Awe that's so touching. The cute part was a little creepy but you're making progress:thumbs:

...and the list could be filed under Wikipedia's "Longest List of Straw Man Statements" AH yes, the "it's refuted because I said so argument". You can't even get Mr. Arminian's first name right let alone have an accurate grasp on the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Non...

Wow, never heard that one before. That's original. Someone should make a bumper sticker out of that :)