He said he will NEVER agree with me on this. Therefore HE said he was not teachable. That is plain enough for anyone to discern.
BTW, what IS your soteriology? Isn't it just something you kind of came up with yourself?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Explain This:
- Thread starter preacher4truth
- Start date
- Status
He said he will NEVER agree with me on this. Therefore HE said he was not teachable. That is plain enough for anyone to discern.
BTW, what IS your soteriology? Isn't it just something you kind of came up with yourself?
Must you say that on every thread? A spiritually dead people perish...spiritually alive people don't. That's the Bible, not what I say.
...everyone but you apparently. Not agreeing with you does not mean he is unteachable. It means he just doesn't agree with you, and will never. Neither will I...and I am quite teachable.
Nice underhanded blow. No more so than salvation = monergism, reprobation = synergism.
No, it isn't. EVERYONE is spiritually dead at some point and MANY of those who are spiritually dead do not perish. So that is not true.
The second part of your remark is accurate. Spiritually alive people do not perish for this reason:
"Those he called he also justified and those he justified he also glorified..." Romans 8.
This effectual call makes alive and inevitably ends up in the justification and eventual glorification of the one called.
glfredrick
New Member
Please don't kill another thead... :smilewinkgrin:
It is not logical to say, "I will NEVER believe what you say but I am perfectly teachable concerning it." That's a silly notion, isn't it?
No...it's based on the teacher and what is taught, is it not? Will you ever accept Darwinism? If not, you must be unteachable
:BangHead:psalms109:31
Active Member
Word of God
The word quickens us not to just believe, but also not to and be condemned.
God does not provide one door, but two one to life and another to destruction.
The word quickens us not to just believe, but also not to and be condemned.
God does not provide one door, but two one to life and another to destruction.
No...it's based on the teacher and what is taught, is it not? Will you ever accept Darwinism? If not, you must be unteachable
I am NOT teachable when it comes to Darwinism- hence the REASON I will never accept it!:laugh:
Web & Luke-The theological “odd couple”—I think u 2 need each other more than either of u realize-:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
They are too many to recount.
Paul was spiritually dead before he was regenerated. He did not perish.
Billions more meet that criteria as well.
Does that suffice?
preacher4truth
Active Member
Answer this if you can. Thanks.
I do not know of a time frame spelled out in Scripture.
That sermon by Art Azurdia that I sent to you addresses this marvelously well.
The effectual call IS regeneration before and unto salvation.
Romans 8 CERTAINLY teaches it.
Paul was in union with God before he was regenerated
I'm talking about having eternal life, which is to be in union with God. How many spiritually dead people are in union with God? It's a short list...less than one, and greater than -1.
Paul was in union with God before he was regenerated
I'm talking about having eternal life, which is to be in union with God. How many spiritually dead people are in union with God? It's a short list...less than one, and greater than -1.
No, no. Here's what you said:
and I did it.
Luke -- I respectfully submit you misunderstood Webdog's question.
Paul did not remain spiritually dead, did he? As opposed to, say, King Agrippa?
The one who claims salvation, but remains spiritually dead, is what Webdog is asking you to provide an example of.
Paul did not remain spiritually dead, did he? As opposed to, say, King Agrippa?
The one who claims salvation, but remains spiritually dead, is what Webdog is asking you to provide an example of.
The two are mutually exclusive- there was no reason to include the part beyond the comma for it had nothing to do with the part before the comma.
You wanted a single biblical example of someone who was spiritually dead and did not perish.
I gave it to you and you are still not satisfied. I do not know what else I can do for you.
- Status