Search results

Well, the journey has begun. I started last Sunday, but it was really more of a trial run with my 4yr old and 2 1/2 year old. They were the only ones there that week, but we've been making announcements at all of our services so hopefully we'll have a few more kids this Sunday. I'm going to...

Immediate guess: He knows a random event BOTH as a "probability" and he knows also the reality of the future event. In other words: presumably, he perfectly understands all truths relating to the "science" of probability, but he I will use the word (incidentally) knows future reality as well...

Of course, he wasn't trying to make a "Biblical case" against "Calvinism" per se...he was warning only about the perceived dangers, at least in his Point of view about what certain consequences might be...and he gave (a very limited) number of examples.....Your next objection? Then...

Well, as long as our "Calvinist brethren" will selectively edit the entirey of his sermon....we have no concrete idea what it was he was saying....it's no problem, they do it all the time....There would be far fewer of them, if they were an honest lot.

UHHHHHH.....Der.....no, the "context" was "Episcopalianism" Henry V you know, history or something, and a guy named Henry V...he be-headed wives....divorced another....blah blah....did you read my POST???? Obviously not...try again. I was lambasting the notion of accepting the ideology of a...

Yeah...or like that :laugh::laugh: Concisely put.

You have asked that particular question in about 50 million different ways, and in roughly 25 different wordings...no answer has (to my knowledge) been forthcoming....It won't happen.

Thank you 12 strings :thumbsup:... for your imput...I am hoping to learn a lot on this thread. :wavey:

So, he has made one very insignifigant mistake....basically, that of mis-reading an unintelligible post: (I personally had to read it 4 or more times to understand it, and then compare it to a later post of yours in order to understand your grammatically abyssmal post). I do not doubt 12...

While TECHNICALLY this is an informally fallacious argument....I simply cannot bring myself to disagree with it. Ughh....Osteen...really???? No, not helpful. It is not possible to: 1.) posses THAT many teeth and simultaneously 2.) be a man of God Just can't happen like that.

WOW!! Yup! :thumbsup::wavey: I need to learn to be succinct and precise like this....this about sums it up. I can actually appreciate Young's contentions here...but he is quite possibly the worst messenger on planet Earth to make them LOL :laugh:

Originally Posted by Yeshua1 2 choices on election! False dichotomy False dichotomy No, not really. Yes, he did....but what does the quantifier "by his will" mean? all choices....are a function of "will". How else would he "choose"?

Here is what I am getting so far....and anyone who knows more please chime in...There seem to be 4 possible camps: 1.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Corporate and secondarily (really by a default virtue of the former) individual 2.) "Election" is properly understood as...

That is actually a possibility....I do not think that is the case myself, of course, but you bring up a good point, even if you do sound like you are reaching a little to me :smilewinkgrin: Some things, especially about future prophecy, may indeed be better understood through the passage of...

I think if this passage is used to refer to a "Universal-Church" as you claim...then it would have to be refering to a Visisble Universal Church: such as Romanism teaches, and you reject, otherwise it makes no sense. If anyone is an "overseer" of any and/or all of the redeemed, even at any one...

As I expected...U-churchism in S.B.C. Statements of faith..is...a newer development:

I have not looked back into this....but I am willing to bet that the original S.B.C. statements contained no such statement. This is, a new development, I think. This is, in part, why I do not feel at home as a Southern Baptist as much as I used to. I read this, and personally, ask...