Search results

That doesn't address what I was trying to convey in the least. It has nothing to do with this topic. I am merely trying to put two groups on the same sheet of music. "Free-willers" and "Determinists" are speaking past each other.

Correct again.:thumbs: It is really rather simple. A Covenant vow, publically taken between two people and God, and in the face of witnesses= marriage, all else is ancillary.

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Agreed completely and correct on ALL counts !! :wavey:...My wife and I debated prior to out EVER paying the State for a "license"...Now, to avoid confusion...let's not pretend that a couple might merely "shack-up" without any PUBLIC vows made before God and man. They...

I feel certain you are correct, sir... I also feel certain I have now seen how (many) Calvinists (at least on this board).... continue creating the illusion that they post SO MUCH Scripture in support of their views....whilst pretending their detractors do not.... This is the perfect...

Because one cannot, by definition "give" a tithe...a tithe is a legal requirement, and it already "belongs" to those to whom it is rendered.....It was literally their inheritance. I would find the "pro-tithe" position more convincing if the adherents didn't equivocate between "tithing" and...

I think it is actually more simple than that...I believe this passage makes the most sense in reference to the Curse on the serpent and subsequent prophecy of a coming "seed" (Jesus Christ) recorded in Genesis 3:15....It is also well illustrated in Revelation 12..study those passages, and you...

To ANY non-Calvinst...there is no distinction between "free-will" and "libertarian free will"....BY "free-will" I think we ALWAYS mean "libertarian" free will. On the other hand: Yessir....I agree with you SOOO much more than I think you know... You will think if forward of me to say...

And despite your passion and loud mouth.....you actually know less about them than he does. It also is not "Sad" as all things are according to the sovereign purposes of God, are they not? If he doesn't understand them..(and he does) it is within God's Sovereign purview whether Winman be...

Yes...this is all true. And it doesn't demonstrate compatibilism or Calvinism at all. God is "Sovereign" yes... Man is "responsible" yes... And yet...man ALSO has "free-will"...and that is what makes him responsible. Man didn't do it merely because God "determined" or "decreed" thus...

This rendering...in NO WAY contradicts Arminian Theology...I agree 100% !!! :thumbsup: Anyone who thinks it does simply doesn't understand reasonable Arminianistic or non-Calvinist Theology at all, it is Perfectly consistent with it...the problem is, that you seem to think that because it...

Yes....and they had it afterwards too...as do you. If not....then YES...God DID "want" them to sin...but he DIDN'T "want" them too, and he did give them free will. Their capacity for being granted contra-causal freedom of volition was in no way compromised or changed...Their "nature" and...

It is absolutely the definition of "Free Will". Properly understood..."Free Will" is defined the same way whether it be possessed by a being who is good or evil, corrupted or pure. There is no denying that man has become corrupt, or that "the imaginations and intents of men's hearts are only...

There is no reason one must conclude what you said above. This "moral standard" must not transcend God in the least. It is a matter of knowing "WHO" God is, and knowing what HIS standard is (and it is the only one that matters) or is, in any sense real, and knowing that that would be counter...

You have little understanding of alternatives to Calvinism I think...These statements are simply, not in any real sense true. If someone in authority has actually "taught" you that these are true....then they were really rather irresponsible to do so:

I would like to hear what a learned Philologist would have to say about the topic of "glossalallia" as in...does it contain ANY of the normal properties of "language" that could be recognized? Know of any John? I guess you already posted here: I suppose an adherent Could argue that it...

:laugh: This scenario would be an utter non-issue if you were to simply drink your highly tannic red wines or drink your pint of Quality Belgian-monk-made micro-brews daily :smilewinkgrin:

I have to say I agree here: Unfortunately, I think that "Pride" and "arrogance" are sins which almost all men in the pulpit are (for some reason) dangerously subject to, and they must intentionally guard against it at all times....better they at least not be ignoramuses. There are a lot of...

And insinuating that non-cals on this board believe or teach such things is either dishonest or simply stupid.