Search results

Maybe I missed it, but where do they quote it??? I see trinitarian formulae and NT verbage to describe a doctrine ("these three are one"). But I don't see 1 Jn 5:7 quoted. After all, "these three are one" is not in question. "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" is what is at issue...

Oh Jor-dan... still waiting

I enjoy I. Howard Marshall. If your question is about the issue of Calvinism and Arminianism, I don't really read much of that stuff anyways.

Here is one of his books: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310258030/?tag=baptis04-20 If you are a postmodern Christian to the point of obscuranty (I may have made this word up), then you might be part of the emergent "conversation". Just check out the subtitle of his book: Just realized I've...

I have always found word percentage as a poor argument for authorship of any kind. Between the flexibility of an author's use of language, appropriate words for various situations, and the use of amanuenses; it is really not helpful at all, IMO.

Not anathema, just a buzz word for the Maclaren crowd. That is why Carson used "conversant" in his book title. He was playing on one of their favorite terms. It's just like "intertextual" is a buzzword for the OT in the NT crowd (like me; trying to learn to avoid it).

So I should have just said, "read the Bible," when you asked for Scriptural support? I see.

I've never taken the context to refer to congregations but to Paul and co. They were the ones appointing elders.

Where did you get his corporate election view? He would not say that salvation is not definite. His point about justification is that its emphasis is future and our works are our vindication. However, if you understand Lordship Salvation, then this is not a problem. God enables disciples to...

So was Paul pleading that the unsaved would make the right choice??? Or was it that God might save them (effectually)?

Dude, are you kidding me!?!? YOu must have me on ignore b/c I have referenced Scripture in multiple posts. Jaded much?

Rom. 10:1 is the first that comes to my mind.

Yes... And in fact, I either mis-read the OP quotation or it was edited, b/c I thought it was "help maximize the opportunity to be part of the conversation with people who are wanting to learn truth about God" in the singular. PS: I'm sure thisnumberdisconnected and I are in agreement in terms...

"conversation" is a buzz word for the Maclaren emergent crowd. nuff said

Repeat for Jordan: What quotations do you have that are convincing? Please provide the quotation and the original text if possible. What Ms evidence do you have that is convincing? Please explain.

You must not run in the right crowds ;)

I think you do. You hope for an effectual outcome, an effectual wooing. Therefore, you pray hoping for an effectual "drawing". Or would you actually say you hope God does what he says he will do (as you believe) and draw everyone? If so, then you have the same predicament as the Calvie...

New data changes a lot!!! Please provide the Ms evidence that you find so convincing. Please provide the early church fathers quotations.

To "hate on" is a colloquialism for being overly critical of something. So I can tell the difference. It is just an expression. I don't want to shut down criticism. Not at all. In fact, I would encourage it. But I have yet to see someone be critical of Wright's view (for example the NPP)...

Not I... still trying to work my way through Edwards' Freedom of the Will along w/ all the other reading and research I have to do. (so ready for my thesis & ThM to be over)