Search results

UUUHHH..........In this respect..............uuuhhh.........yah, it is.........you see, I understand logical debate, and Skan does likewise, and his arguments were logical and sound. he didn't conjure them out of whole-cloth, it's a version of an argument which Arminians have been levelling for...

Skan's purpose in positing his thread "The conflicted Calvinist"...was ABSOLUTELY intended to be a constructive one. It's a good one. It was worthy of discussion.

No Christian denies the "Doctrines of Sovereign Grace"...we just don't buy into all of the ancillary and self-defeating stupidity your particular form of Soteriology imports into it. We believe God is Sovereign We believe God saves by, and only by his Grace.... Therefore, since we believe...

That's your response? to publically attempt to "high-five" your fellow Calvinist.........about how you believe in the "Word of God" vs. "logic"....by all means...please publically continue this line of reasoning. Do you then admit that your position denies the applicability of "logic"? Do...

It sickens me when on this board (as a non-Calvinist) it becomes abundantly clear to me that I understand Calvinism better sometimes than adherents of the system who think themselves capable of debating the topic... I die a little inside, and I decry the lack of Soteriological knowledge about...

That isn't what is happening....One CAN "argue" with such a person...you simply can't confuse your terms when you do so. The post has NOTHING to do with "Hyper-Calvinism" nor it's logically inconsistent form regularly taught today.....That isn't the issue. It isn't a "foolish" controversy...

Study the life and teachings of the Catholic monk Gottschalk. He antedates the "reformers" and he even taught Limited Atonement. Not that it really matters to me what they mean with it being a "Catholic" doctrine, so what? Invariably, no one teaches the doctrine of say, the Trinity better or...

Icon.........I wasn't talking about the twins in the womb. And actually, if you re-read your statement: You might, in fact find the ironic humor in it that I did. Read your statement again slowly.

I do not accept this premise at all. He does not "abuse" Scripture after Scripture. While I think he is sometimes mistaken on some exegesis (we all are sometimes) he doesn't "abuse" Scripture in the least. If so, I have rarely if ever seen a Calvinist demonstrate so. Sure, I've seen many a...

OH...BTW...I don't recall Winman ever saying something so stupid like charging God as a "criminal"........Win NEVER called God a "criminal"....if you play so fast and loose with such words, what good reason can you give that any Arminian should think highly of your definition of a word like...

DING DING DING!!!! But what you are posting is properly exegeted SCRIPTURE......... Our Calvinist Brethren WILL NOT engage your VERY concise exegesis of Scripture.. They will default to your mis-understanding of the "HISTORICAL FAITH".

A post with much wisdom...:thumbs: This struck me as (personally) a very well phrased description of the quandries debated here. :thumbs:

WHOAAA....Just to referree a second. Let's see how Calvinists are treating Winman: Jonathan said (I quote) And he further challenges him here along the same lines Jonathan asks (I quote) Winman clearly denies that because He said (I quote) And: Jonathan responds thusly: (and I quote)...

Why would it "deteriorate" into such a discussion??? What exactly does the "Cal vs.non-Calvie" debate have to do with it?? You assume by your own OP that the question automatically entails the "Cal-non-Cal" debate........so I insist you tell us WHY that it entails as much..WHY would it...

Ding Ding Ding...! Here's the simple sitch...Luke isn't perfect. (I'm not either) Luke CAN be INSUFFERABLY arrogant....(I can too) Luke KNOWS he can be "arrogant"....many who curse him do so with self-important and self-righteous indignation.... Luke has apparently read C.S. Lewis's...

By "argue"....I don't mean anything insulting or personal AMY...I am saying that he IS trying to "Argue about Arguing"...it's o.k. to disagree...and I don't mean to call you a "drive-by poster" in the sense that you may have taken it. It's o.k. for us to "argue"...or pose "arguments"....it's...