Search results

The very onus and point of this thread is to spew bile and vicious insult...this is sick. And an Administrator jumps in on the fun. Why wouldn't he? I mean it's a non-Calvinist being unnecessarily insulted...fair game right? It's fun and games to single out one BB member....who is...

Oh...O.K. then...that explains everything. :rolleyes:

. I would love to hear two things: 1.) What you think the Premises are 2.) Which specific "Biblical truths" it denies The argument was always about "Calvinism" if that fails to apply to your position....then one wonders why you are debating it....either you ARE a Calvinist, or you are...

O.K. Let's try again then....and merely from your own words, and in this singular post:

I also agree with this post....The Bible teaches..."In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.." That is actually all it says...It then goes on to say..."And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters...et. al." While I personally believe that this is to be understood...

There could have been....therefore, since the Bible does not say, one cannot be dogmatic. (Theoretically, it could have been 68 Trillion Years, and I defy any Hovind sycophant [this is what we have here] to demonstrate otherwise). That being said...I am a YEC...I think 6-7k years...and I do...

Simply not true....One can classify themselves faithfully as an "Arminian" and agree with none of these....

Classical Arminianism simply does not "require" a belief that Salvation can be either forfeited or lost...This is simply not true. It is fair to say that one can be an Arminian and believe that Salvation can be lost or forfeited....It is also fair to say the one can be an Arminian and believe...

As reasonably as I can, I think there has been a failure on the part of many Baptists (and similar groups) for about 30 years....This is twofold...Many have been told that if they merely "A.B.C." then their "fire insurance" is purchased for free. That is not true...that is false. Too many...

Probably not then...you do you.

You have simpy not understood a word I have said....not a word. I am also not surprised, as you were pre-disposed not to. That is fine. You do you.

You should have simply waited for me to respond to your previous post, wherein I would simply have said that I generally agree with your conclusion and that that was basically all I was contending to begin with....But, no....the Straw man....This will be posted....repeatedly. You have accused...

WOW!!!!! Biblicist...listen to yourself...You just posed your own argument....literally, your own personal argument here: And then you somehow ascribed it to ME, and then used it to attack anthing I might say...Here: The Biblicist

They are not two "others"...they are one and the same....and they are not understood in precisely the same sense as the "seed of the woman" (as physical). As Christ is whom you mentioned. They refer to all of the children of the devil...Their "Father". It also possibly refers to the...