Thinkingstuff
Active Member
think c
I answered a question of yours with no problem, and could have answered this one with no problem, but since you have avoided my request these Two times, I will discontinue any further discourse with you as of now ! This issue requires for me to know that you exactly know what I stated and why !
I just showed you using John C's statement which you said was a good explanation. I posted in what section I actually questioned which shows you why and I asked how it was different from Supralapsarian view. I started asking you questions because I never heard of the two seed view which I looked up on wiki. You said you don't hold to a major tennant of the traditional two seed view which makes me think this is your two seed view so I wanted clarification as to what you are actually talking about. I've made it clear what I understood of your view and asked a simple question and you are refusing to answer. Why? If your view is no different from a Supralapsarian view then just say so because at this point that is what it sounds like to me. I swear if you evanglize like this you would really confuse a lot of people.
It would sould a lot like this "Jesus died for your sins on the cross."
"well, how does Jesus dieing on the cross help me with my sins"
"John 3:16 says "for God so loved the world that He gave his only beggoten son so that whoso ever believes upon him will not perish but have everlasting life."
"well, How does God love me? How did he "give" his only son? in what way did he "give" his son. What do you mean by Perish? What do we have to believe about him? and how do you mean everlasting life?"
"I just told you"
"told me what to which question?"
"tell me point by point what I said."
"I have no idea what you are talking about."
"I'm not talking to you because you're just not getting it and probably aren't worth getting saved."
Honestly, that is how you are sounding to me.