Search results

2 of the unclean beasts..7 of the clean beasts

Never mind.......:BangHead:

OK...I decidedly agree that the word might is definite...but so what? I still do not conclude what you are concluding. Or, rather, even if you are interpreting this verse correctly....it still doesn't prove what you think it proves. If you assume Calvinism....sure, I guess so, but it doesn't...

To prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever....Small world! I have been teaching through Genesis for 8 weeks now too! Just opened up the "sons of God" and Nephilim worm-can in Genesis 5 last week...gotta try to put the lid back on it Sunday! Thanks for posting the...

I think that is because very few Calvinists are truly honest with the gospel (as they understand it) when they share it with people...It is entirely possible that the most powerful reason I am not a Calvinist, is that IMO, they are usually lying about what they believe when they give what they...

This verse only "shows" that, as you say, if one ALREADY assumes limited atonement...if one doesn't, then, well, the verse shows no such thing. As an epistle to what are assumed to be a group of regenerate people, then, even if he is adressing the "elect" (so-called) it does nothing to deny...

If we are assuming in an irresistable act of grace...then it no doubt would be inconsistent to do so....but it is perfectly within the purview of an Arminian to pray thus. Arminians assume that God's grace is required to enable men to come to salvation. Call it "Prevenient Grace" or...

But the trap he set was to use the word "cannot".... Which is what makes this a classically dishonest and mis-representative question.

1.) First that would be nothing more than an argument from silence and therefore fallacious to begin with, as what it is essentially doing is arguing from a lack of evidence. 2.) The direct answer is no, he couldn't....but the next three verses do, which you patently ignored for obvious...

I honestly don't think that was an honest question Yeshua....you should know way better than that by now. You have heard a million different statements from a million different posters on these topics by now. Are you being facetious? deliberately obtuse? Is this a rhetorical question intended...

You could read a verse that says: "Calvinism is false"...and explain it away as not "refuting" your OP...I have no doubt.

"Individuals" as it were being addressed does nothing, and no damage whatsoever to the "corporate view" of election...none, not at all. Provided we are addressing only individuals (and the corporate view is something I am not even married to)....none of these passages negate it...Why don't you...

Neither does he....but apparently James White does. I read a few (basicallly un-related) books by White when he was younger....and his arguments basically sucked...I read an anti-KJV book he wrote..(since I am a nominally KJV only-guy)...and his entire book sucked. He based the entire thing on...

None of these statements defeat the "Corporate election" view....they just don't...I am not even a dedicated adherent of them....but they simply don't.

It easily could.......but knowing the difference would require knowledge of all types of weird and "vain philosophies" of men that you personally use all the time, but are basically ignorant of.....it is perfectly consistent with a "corporate view" as he said....but you are engaged in "vain...

I know Amy is your beloved sister...and I actually like her a lot.... I truly love the "spunk" (as it were) and I wouldn't have it otherwise. Whatever position she takes...she is a warrior not to be triffled with.....but I am not taking it easy on her, I am un-loading on her with both...