Featured Pauline Doctrine not Calvanism nor Arminianism

Luther IMO did not do this.

HankD

 

Read my edit. Thank you

 

I did. Nothing deals with Paul's use of "Children of God" which negates yours (and Flowers') argument.

Flowers (or Skandelon as he is known here), offers uncompelling arguments.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Well, then that's that. Nothing else to discuss here.

 

So... then you were never really here to discuss the text itself or Paul's theology. You were only here to shill for Flowers, not make your own arguments.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

LOL

Look at the verses, the Objectors, and the entirety of Romans 9-11. You are going to impose your theology onto the text instead of letting the text change your theology. It's pointless to discuss this when a person is unwilling to disregard (with their best ability) their presuppositions and biases towards the text.

 

Pot. Kettle.

The issue here, as I’ve stated, is the grammar and word usage by Paul. Your take (and Flowers’) run in contradiction to the grammar and usage of Paul.

Instead of dealing with Paul’s argument, Flowers references Galatians and other passages to import meaning onto the text of Romans 9.

So, your statement about me is demonstrably wrong.

Blessings,

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, God used men such as Calvin and Luther to be His instruments to go against and confront the false teachings of Rome, and to bring back in and rediscover the true Gospel of Christ!

 

Did not teach the true Gospel?

 

He seemed to have a problem with baptismal regeneration.

Martin Luther on Baptismal Regeneration

HankD

 

true, and Calvin had a problem with that to a lessor degree!

 

Rude and unnecessary.

 

First, it is not established these anecdotal stories are versions of the Noahic flood. Second, even if they are, they have strayed so far from the actual story to lose all meaning. And since the only truth that matters is biblical truth, you are dragging up some pretty rank pieces from the bottom of the barrel.

 

How does the above story reveal that these people know anything about the Living God?

 

They must sink to this depth in order to defend their errant views. The view that Jesus died to make salvation possible to all men (rather than the truth that Jesus saves His elect) forces them to explain how billions of people who have never even heard the name Jesus have a "fair" shot at salvation through Him.

 

Is it doing a good thing to accept Christ?

 

It's about the household of faith. Very much a salvation issue.

 

And this is why they are a hair's breath away from Universalism. According to their view, Jesus is more concerned about the possibility of saving everyone than actually saving some. Their ultimate appeal is to their own man-made construct, not biblical truth. They come up with cockamamie theories like the American Indians and a flood legend to back up their nonsense. I half believe that this is all a joke; a way to punk Monergists and get a cheap laugh. I rather it is that than actually believing this theological fantasy.

 

If one does not hold to a PST viewpoint, nor to limited atonement viewpoint, the slide towards all sorts of strange theology such as Open theism , Universalism for example will eventually seem to come into play!