Should the Baptist Board...?

[agedman]

The biblical view differs from 4 or the 5 points of the TULIP, endorsing only OSAS. The biblical view agrees with Arminianism on two points, Christ died for all mankind, and God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith. But both Cal/Arm believe our individual election occurred before creation, a bogus view, both believe in total spiritual inability until corrected by irresistible or prevenient grace, another bogus view.

No, Van.

The Blood was shed for all sin. (1 John 2:2)

The death and resurrection only benefit the believers. (Romans 6:5)

Had Christ died for all mankind, then all mankind would be redeemed.

This is a principle that the Scriptures are most secure upon.

It brings together the teaching of both John and Paul in the purest form possible.

Christ has the keys of both death and hell. But the resurrection is no benefit of those in Hell, and who will endure in the Second death Lake of Fire. (Rev. 1:18)

Your labeling items as "bogus" is just so much unnecessary and is merely puffery.

 

[Van]

No, Van.
The Blood was shed for all sin. (1 John 2:2)

The death and resurrection only benefit the believers. (Romans 6:5)
That is what I believe. God has not predetermined who can believe. Therefore Christ died for all mankind.

Had Christ died for all mankind, then all mankind would be redeemed. Twaddle
1 John 2:2 says Christ died for the sin of the whole world, all of fallen mankind.

This is a principle that the Scriptures are most secure upon.
This is your bogus view with no support anywhere in scripture. Whereas Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all can be found in scripture.

It brings together the teaching of both John and Paul in the purest form possible. Your view is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

Christ has the keys of both death and hell. But the resurrection is no benefit of those in Hell, and who will endure in the Second death Lake of Fire. (Rev. 1:18) Not at issue

Your labeling items as "bogus" is just so much unnecessary and is merely puffery.

Jesus taught our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no, and their is no mistaking my meaning, Calvinism's TULI are as bogus as a three dollar bill. I have shown these truths from scripture over and over, Matthew 23:13, 1 Corinthians 3:1 (T), James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (U), 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:4-6 (L), and again using Matthew 23:13 (I).

The biblical view differs from 4 or the 5 points of the TULIP, endorsing only OSAS. The biblical view agrees with Arminianism on two points, Christ died for all mankind, and God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith. But both Cal/Arm believe our individual election occurred before creation, a bogus view, both believe in total spiritual inability until corrected by irresistible or prevenient grace, another bogus view.

 

[agedman]

Jesus taught our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no, and their is no mistaking my meaning, Calvinism's TULI are as bogus as a three dollar bill. I have shown these truths from scripture over and over, Matthew 23:13, 1 Corinthians 3:1 (T), James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (U), 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:4-6 (L), and again using Matthew 23:13 (I).

The biblical view differs from 4 or the 5 points of the TULIP, endorsing only OSAS. The biblical view agrees with Arminianism on two points, Christ died for all mankind, and God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith. But both Cal/Arm believe our individual election occurred before creation, a bogus view, both believe in total spiritual inability until corrected by irresistible or prevenient grace, another bogus view.

Puffed up self-importance does not oblige conformity to what does not have Scripture foundation such as you pretend by presenting your view.

 

[Van]

Puffed up self-importance does not oblige conformity to what does not have Scripture foundation such as you pretend by presenting your view.

Once again they belittle the poster and dodge the position.

 

[agedman]

Once again they belittle the poster and dodge the position.

Didn't dodge at all.

These verses have been discussed with you by others and myself, and you persist in your presentation as if nothing has ever been refuted.

 

[Van]

Didn't dodge at all.

These verses have been discussed with you by others and myself, and you persist in your presentation as if nothing has ever been refuted.

That is right, your side has never refuted any of those verses which clearly show the TULI are unbiblical bogus doctrines.

Jesus taught our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no, and there is no mistaking my meaning, Calvinism's TULI are as bogus as a three dollar bill. I have shown these truths from scripture over and over, Matthew 23:13, 1 Corinthians 3:1 (T), James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (U), 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:4-6 (L), and again using Matthew 23:13 (I).

The biblical view differs from 4 or the 5 points of the TULIP, endorsing only OSAS. The biblical view agrees with Arminianism on two points, Christ died for all mankind, and God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith. But both Cal/Arm believe our individual election occurred before creation, a bogus view, both believe in total spiritual inability until corrected by irresistible or prevenient grace, another bogus view.

 

[Calminian]

That is right, your side has never refuted any of those verses which clearly show the TULI are unbiblical bogus doctrines. ....

According to many, they have. According to you they haven't. I'm not a strong Calvinist at all, but these kind of dogmatic statements just foster equally strong dogmatic statements from the other side, and start the vicious cycle.

I think you've been in this debate long enough to speak more eloquently and productively.

 

[agedman]

According to many, they have. According to you they haven't. I'm not a strong Calvinist at all, but these kind of dogmatic statements just foster equally strong dogmatic statements from the other side, and start the vicious cycle.

I think you've been in this debate long enough to speak more eloquently and productively.

He obviously has no ability, or he would have already done.

 

[agedman]

That is right, your side has never refuted any of those verses which clearly show the TULI are unbiblical bogus doctrines.

For those who are following along, this is called a lack of reading comprehension. When one uses the terms "never refuted" and yet such has continually taken place on multiple threads by numerous folks, then either it is a lack of reading comprehension or obstinacy.

Jesus taught our yes should mean yes, and our no should mean no, and there is no mistaking my meaning, Calvinism's TULI are as bogus as a three dollar bill. I have shown these truths from scripture over and over, Matthew 23:13, 1 Corinthians 3:1 (T), James 2:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (U), 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:4-6 (L), and again using Matthew 23:13 (I).

No, van.

You have not, and cannot make such a claim. It is false, and dishonest.

You have attempted to select certain single verses, taken out of context, taken away from their intended meaning and built a false view.

You compound your error by presenting such view as unchallenged.

You are wrong in both the use and the presentation.

You have been shown ample proofs, and you have been ask to recant and correct your error.

The biblical view differs from 4 or the 5 points of the TULIP, endorsing only OSAS. The biblical view agrees with Arminianism on two points, Christ died for all mankind, and God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith. But both Cal/Arm believe our individual election occurred before creation, a bogus view, both believe in total spiritual inability until corrected by irresistible or prevenient grace, another bogus view.

Again, you bluster about a "biblical view" that is without foundation other than ripping from the context verses of Scriptures.

Not a single "proof" is factually presented by you.

No, not one.

You desire, yes and no.

Well you have your No.

No, Van, the Scriptures do not support your "biblical view" despite all the bluster you may muster.

 

[agedman]

Back to the OP.

No, the BB should not shut down the C&A forum.

It does allow for a great latitude of discussion away from the "Baptist only" section.

It is a way in which both the strengths and weaknesses of presentations may be held up to the scrutiny of even the outside "Baptist" folks.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

And on that note this thread is closed.