Search results

Those are Calvinist views, nothing I said misrepresents them: you would have corrected them otherwise. That accurately represents Calvinism/ your "Straw Man" accusation - is an attempt at a Red Herring. Gird up thy loins now like a man :tear:

AND......you also believe that God irreparably predestined them to be BORN in a condition wherein they by their very nature are inescapably predisposed to that end, but you did not mention that factoid.... I don't know why...could not possibly guess why. Calvinists always forget that. No, he...

Yes, that is precisely what happens....everyone felt this in their heart of hearts... they really did....They were convicted by the Holy Spirit that THEY had been chosen.....it is now their purpose to take their particular place at their Heavenly Father's side... That is PRECISELY what I knew...

can't just erase my post...gotta leave something...that is stupid

I couldn't help but thinking when you said this...I hope Teeger is a Pappillon. Probably not, but, thanks for the story. Teeger is at Peace now.

Just a quick observation: As a Baptist...I am by definition...non-credal Although not inherently wrong per se.....What is with all of this incessant "catechism" ..."confessions".."historic faith" etc.....What Baptist really gives a (*&%&^ about that stuff? ICON...are you a Baptist? I assume...

Lol..and I am about 5 mos. into my understanding of Molinism...we make a fine sounding board huh. I will take 1 min. to bolster my argument about certainty not applying necessity by attempting to refute the validity of a simple Modus Ponens: This argument being essentially plagiarised from WLC's...

Now we are getting somewhere....only this is not "Calvinism" as it is used today....this implies an unlimited atonement..so far then..you have surrendered the "L" in TULIP it appears. In other words; they DUNNO...that is not an answer of any kind-they give up. 2 and 3 are indeed false...

Indeed DEEP!!!! I have always viewed it as Convicted1 does, minus this caveat... that what he dreaded MOST was not so much the physical (human part) pain and suffering...but rather that he would be separated for the first time from his position of Divinity (the 100% God part). If he BECAME sin...

So do Arminians No, he sees man as utterly depraved and incapable of a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ without a special intervention of God's Grace.. unless I am mistaken about Skan's personal views...in which event I am sorry if I misinterpret them. Is oxymoronic, there is no such...

This is SOARING rhetoric. Spurgeon was indeed GIFTED!! He also never answered the question in simple intelligible terms. I have..and have also read.. just about every collected work Spurgeon has... can you point out where he actually adresses the question posed by Skan?? Other than by saying...

Taking a stab at it...... and I am decidedly not sure positive I am correct about the OT view but. LFW is decidedly regulated to ONLY those options God allows and when he allows them, thus I don't think that who would be born is included (I may be wrong). If I am..... ughhh.... then I have more...

Thank you for your post. I stand corrected..... sorry it has taken so long to respond I have been fighting the good fight against Calvinism...although I find this thread infinitely more engaging and fruitful. I looked up some of the older threads and saw some of your responses about this...

I thought I believed in Grace until a Calvinist showed me from the Scriptures that Grace was the fourth member of the Godhead.... silly me.

How about this.... The OP poses a legitimate set of propositions... it is either valid and sound, OR it is valid, but not sound, OR it is neither valid nor sound.... Would any Calvinist like to challenge either: 1.) It's form.....suggesting it is not valid or..... 2.) Any of it's...

My mistake.

Nice plagiarism of the (non-calvinist) Dante Alighieri's work

attend...sure...they are not really ENCOURAGED to...vote....no.we usually do it after the service proper. Then again, we put as few things as possible up for a vote!

AGEDMAN: Everyone accepts this, it is also not germaine to the topic discussed. . No, accually, the topic is really about God's sense of justice, not his sovereignty. But regurgitation of Calvinistic platitudes are always entertaining. What the topic is refering to is more the part about...