Pauline Doctrine not Calvanism nor Arminianism

[HankD]

same reason needed a Luther, in order to recapture the true Gospel message for the Church, as that Gospel was nearly buried under the false on of the RCC!

Luther IMO did not do this.

HankD

 

[JonShaff]

Nope.

Paul's use of "Children of God" in v. 8 negates your entire presupposition about the passage.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Read my edit. Thank you

 

[The Archangel]

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

 

[JonShaff]

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.

 

[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

 

[JonShaff]

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.

 

[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

 

[Yeshua1]

What Yeshua is saying is SYNERGY. God was powerless and "NEEDED" a Luther because the gospel on its own was too weak.

Luther taught FAITH ALONE you didn't have to personally do anything. The hypocrisy is he does too much. He's a catholic priest who concludes his own faith is wrong. Well did he become a catholic priest for NOT believing the catholic faith? why all the deception?

He should have been a Muslim. He would have been a Imam, Muslim priest , oh hey guys our faith is wrong don't think this how Islam works. So let ME tell yo how its suppose to work.


If he had the correct faith all along in a lineage that makes sense. But he's just a nobody who not only agrees but gets ordained.

Someone goes to ENGLAND to learn ENGLISH, Becomes a ENGLISH Teacher even and then tells those in England that is not how English is spoken at all. So to resolve this I am starting a new language Lutharish and God can thank me.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

Luther IMO did not do this.

HankD

Did not teach the true Gospel?

 

[HankD]

Did not teach the true Gospel?

He seemed to have a problem with baptismal regeneration.

Martin Luther on Baptismal Regeneration

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[Revmitchell]

I never cease to be amazed at how Synergists will butcher Romans 8:29 and come up with conclusions that scripture does not teach. The passage is not that difficult to interpret.



Synergists proudly proclaim they are literalists when interpreting scripture. You cannot tell that when they play hermeneutical gymnastics with Romans 8.

Rude and unnecessary.

 

[revmwc]

This science fiction is more weird than just plain fiction. Native American religion is pantheism dressed in mythology. What in the world gives you any indication they were awaiting the Messiah of the Bible?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Here we have:
Legend of the Flood
Long ago, perhaps in the days when Chickasaws still resided in the land of the setting sun, their Great Spirit, Ababinili, sent rain. Soon water covered all the Earth. Some Chickasaws made rafts to save themselves. Then, creatures like large white beavers cut the thongs that bound the rafts. All drowned except one family and a pair of each of all the animals. When the rain stopped and the flood began receding, a raven appeared with part of an ear of corn. The Great Spirit told the Chickasaws to plant it. The Great Spirit also told them that eventually the Earth would be destroyed by fire, its ruin presaged by a rain of flood and oil.
The Chickasaws are not the only North American Indian Tribe who has a legend of the flood. Almost every other ancient people, from the Chinese to the Mayans and Incas, had their own version which told of destruction of the world by water.

Matching the Story of Noah one family survived with all the Animals. Now given these stories why would they not have stories of a coming promised one?

 

[Reformed]

Now given these stories why would they not have stories of a coming promised one?

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.

 

[thatbrian]

Here we have:
Legend of the Flood
Long ago, perhaps in the days when Chickasaws still resided in the land of the setting sun, their Great Spirit, Ababinili, sent rain. Soon water covered all the Earth. Some Chickasaws made rafts to save themselves. Then, creatures like large white beavers cut the thongs that bound the rafts. All drowned except one family and a pair of each of all the animals. When the rain stopped and the flood began receding, a raven appeared with part of an ear of corn. The Great Spirit told the Chickasaws to plant it. The Great Spirit also told them that eventually the Earth would be destroyed by fire, its ruin presaged by a rain of flood and oil.
The Chickasaws are not the only North American Indian Tribe who has a legend of the flood. Almost every other ancient people, from the Chinese to the Mayans and Incas, had their own version which told of destruction of the world by water.

Matching the Story of Noah one family survived with all the Animals. Now given these stories why would they not have stories of a coming promised one?

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

 

[thatbrian]

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.

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.

 

[Aaron]

No man is totally and utterly depraved and in him is nothing good, there is none Righteous no not one. We are made Righteous when we accept Christ as savior.

Is it doing a good thing to accept Christ?

 

[Aaron]

The Choosing of Jacob vs. Esau is not a "Salvation Issue"

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

 

[Reformed]

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.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!