Search results

The immediate answer is sure...absolutely...and I would have no problem with it. But, the Bible would still then be ordering us to accept an absurdity. If God wants us to believe an obvious absurdity, then sure, I don't care, I'll do whatever he wants since he is indeed God after all, and if...

From possibly the most underrated band (in the States at least) in modern history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjn3pJS74g0&feature=related

He will not...... He will likely simply encourage you to "read" your Bible...and subsequently feel superior for having done so, even though this verse ALONE is sufficient and inarguable proof that his "sex=marriage" notion is false. Maybe he will argue that she lived with him, but had no...

Not at all. That isn't the issue. I simply think it false. I used to have a major problem (for instance) thinking that "Eternal" damnation or punishment is (in my limited mind) "fair" or "just" (as many do) but it still doesn't stop me (or others) from believing in it, because the Bible...

Not like you think....Only a Calvinist would think that anyone is interested in petitioning for a "redress" of any grievances...We don't have these (so-called) "grievances" because we don't think your Theology is sound. Thus, we have nothing whatsoever to complain about. :wavey: IF, the...

What in the WORLD does all this have to do with either the OP or my post??? Did you simply not understand what Craig said? or with what I said? It appears you have no idea what we are suggesting to you. This response honestly sounds like it came pre-packaged in a can and is utterly...

From WLC: I agree with him on this. This is one of many reasons that I find Calvinism to be untenable....There is one and only one real agent in the Reformed schema. Regardless of one's way of parsing words, there is only one causal agent in the Universe in that schema, and that is God...not...

I have Bill....I know where your thinking comes from, as you are not the first person to ever pose this idea...I have heard this before, as I am sure Aaron has, and most others on here. You are not the first one to pose this idea to most of us. An encouragement to "read my Bible" on this is...

If you are going to call someone's post "imbecilic", Icon....next time, attempt to do it in a sentence which makes sense. Testy, testy....don't take it so seriously. I will give your Philosophers this much at least, they wouldn't attach unrelated sentence fragments to a statement when they are...

And...re-iterrated by Plain and Simple.... Icon has finally admitted the truth....Calvinist Theologians are inspired...as though it wasn't patently obvious to us all....that "confessions" are synonymous with all inspired Scripture.....Obey the catechism....Obey the decrees of His...

Thank you for your quote...I find it interesting...I will post my objections. I think this is a wonderful topic, worthy of discussion, which, might be reasonably disagreed upon by believers...so, for the sake of discussion...my rejoinder: Decidedly true..but, I think it has little to do...

Not entirely accurate....the Bible does not suggest that Physical Death followed automatically from or as a consequence of his "Spiritual" Death....He did INDEED die, (Spiritually) that very day...but this passage works against your reformed assumptions, because your Calvinism rests too heavily...

I agree with you completely....Except for this of course: By which, I mean, that I simply don't think these things follow, nonetheless: I think that a more Reformed View usually would hold to the "impeccability" (and they usually do). Although I believe they could consistently be reformed...

I am ostensibly a "trichotomist"....which is to say, that there are those unique facets of mankind which are not shared by those same animals which posses the "breath of life"....In Genesis 1:20 God speaks of the nephesh or "breath of life" which signifies the being of "higher" animal forms...

Without links, the question can't really be answered....although I DECIDEDLY don't believe in "tongues" as a charismatic might use the term...they aren't "heretics" for believing in it....Didn't we all flirt with it in our teens or early twenties a little about the same time we were...

I believe in the "peccability".....I suppose that I can accept the possibility that I am mistaken, but I don't think so. If he COULD not sin, then he was simply not really tempted in any meaningful sense as far as I can tell, nor can he empathize in any real way with our temptations as that...