Search results

Go read it again Luke. You intepret my words just about as well as you interpret scriptures. The difference is I KNOW my intent and you still think you know my intent better than I do, as you go on to say... You are clueless as to what is at my core, Luke. If I hadn't explained my intent OVER...

Was Satan's stated intent 'to become like God' not something? Did it not have an origin? Please explain.

Oh, so not only do you admit to misquoting me but now you can read my mind and tell me what my intent is? :laugh: My intent is to say exactly what I said, which WAS NOT, as you implied, that non-calvinists don't have any positive affirmations of faith, but only are anti-Calvinists. The fact...

Ok, now you just aren't reading my posts. Please follow along...I agreed with you on that point, which you would know if you were reading my post. My point was that its power is NOT solely based on that fact otherwise any testimony (even extra-biblical testimony) would carry the same...

Plus, if all the power is in the original event, that would presume that extra-biblical accounts which testify to those original events actually carry the same weight as the inspired scriptures, which of course is absurd. You must understand that the words themselves are brought to us BY GOD...

That is like saying words are not powerful because of its words. Or water is not wet because it is water. The kerygma is words and it is powerful, period. So the words don't have any power in your view, only the events that they testify to have any power? John 1:7: He came as a witness to...

I bet I've called out more of those in my own "camp" than you have those in yours...but whatever, you are going to see things the way you want to see them. Just do a search for the word anti-Calvinism and find where I said that. You quoted me as if I said that and I didn't. You need to...

You said, "We should discuss whether the 'gospel; was because 'we could not understand' or whether it is what it purports to be in Scripture -- the kerygma of 'good news' of what Christ has actually done." As if those are mutually exclusive. They aren't. The gospel is the means of revealing...

Oh Really? Let's look as C. Hodges teaching on the subject, shall we: There is no grace in accepting a pecuniary satisfaction. It cannot be refused. It ipso facto liberates. The moment the debt is paid the debtor is free; and that without any condition. Nothing of this is true in the case of...

In the post you received an infraction you called P4T a liar, which is something we have been told not to allow. It was reported and I snipped it and politely gave you a warning, which didn't even take any points. Here Webdog refers to your view as 'ignorant' which yes can come across a bit...

I think a better, more complete understanding is this: "A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)." So, take the last time you lied. Was that act an expression of your...

Oh, but the Trinity, the eternal existence of God and infinite attributes as they relate to finite creatures DOES make logical sense? Really? Using only logical reasoning explain to me how God came to choose to save you? How does God come to make any choice for that matter? How does God...

And sense all of us agree that he has chosen us then we should all agree with this verse. Again, nothing we disagree with here unless you take 'ordained' to mean 'individually preselected to irresistibly save me and have me live in him.' AMEN!

Shame on you, Luke. You have just accused me of not being a Christian. I challenge you to provide a single quote where I even come close to this conclusion. Debate my actual words, not your straw-man. What is the difference between dead faith and living faith according to James? What is the...

Here is the passage: 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older...

People typically do vacate a thread that has been closed for over a week. :rolleyes: But as I told you in that thread, I'll remind you again, "... the 'essential element' of Pelagianism (man is born good/and seeks God on his own) is not being affirmed in the quotes you provided..." You...

This is very well stated Winman. I would like to know how a Calvinist reconciles this.

According to the correct biblical understanding of 'elect,' yes. But, not according to the way Calvinists define it, no, but why would I do that since I reject the premise that God individually preselects certain individuals?

:thumbs: Even if they would study some of 'their own' Calvinistic scholars such as AA Hodge, C Hodge, Shedd, Dabney and the like they would better understand the universal sufficiency of the atonement....hey, and maybe even believe it and still wouldn't even have to give up their "Calvinism"...

Read more carefully...I didn't say I didn't read them, I said "respond." Just because I see something I disagree with doesn't make me obligated to respond to it, especially when I know enough about the person to know what they mean. As I explained before, much of the problems would be solved...