Replies

This post should have had a courtesy ping

I think the longer mom posts, the more accurate my original description of the hardened calvinists becomes. Even to the point, that if you don't completely disavow any and all of the biblical text that teaches freewill, and then believe in predestination to the degree that she does... you worship a different God than her.

I did not say that (as I do not believe that ) , I said it could be argued . And I think it could. If we define God by His nature or Characteristics or nature then you deny immutability (as taught in the Bible) and omniscience (knowing all things past present and future ) as taught in the Bible then we can argue we have different gods

That's where these discussions always go. And the next phase is that we aren't really saved because we don't accept the calvinist doctrine in the manner that they believe.

That is a lie from the pit of hell KJ, show me where I have ever said another Christian was unsaved. You owe me an apology

I have never said it was necessary to be a Calvinist to be saved .. That is another lie.

It seems your best arguments against the immutability of God is to slander Calvinists and me in particular

And yes that is the last refuge of Arminians when they are shown the truth with Scripture. If you do not like the message attack the messenger . The fact you failed to ping me is proof that you knew you were lying .

I made that statement early in this thread and it torqued them that I would even think such. But when it's all said and done, my statement was accurate.

Your statement , unless you can back them up are slanderous lies. I expect that you will produce those posts or apologize publicly

Here's the deal from my perspective. I love the debate. It's fascinating to me. I was thinking your posts were great and then I was thinking Kj's posts were great too. It is a healthy debate. But when you guys start with the "you are twisting scripture" and the "your god is not trustworthy" stuff then you ruin it. You are both very well versed in Scripture and seem to be very faithful Christians. This theological point, while fascinating and important, is not a matter of heaven or hell. The Bible also speaks about how we are to treat one another.

Again, I love both of your posts. There is a lot of truth in all of them. I just don't like it when it becomes personal or hurtful. It is probably unintentional, but that's the way it reads to me.

Failed to ping you? I pinged you on the post before it. And I did them at roughly the same time? Take your kj worships a different god statement and Take a hike.

In my opinion you do twist scripture to make it fit the calvinist doctrine. But you know I think that. John 3:16 is a classic example. You and your buddies read that to say that "whosoever" means whosoever god has called to believe in him. You know, the scripture doesn't say that... but that's what you read into it to make the doctrine fit.

Same as your take on the sermon on the mount. The fact that the bible says the crowd was amazed at how he taught them with such authority, and not like the scribes means little to you. You would continue to state that Jesus was teaching only the elect there..... even though there were no saved believers in the crowd (including his disciples).

It's about reading the text with a presupposed meaning. And maybe I shouldn't use the word twisted... but to me that's what it is.

My original statement was that there are two seemingly opposing doctrines that co-exist, hand in hand, both fully functional and valid. I think that to deny either of those is twisting the scripture to make it fit in a nice little package so that we simple minded humans can believe that we fully understand it.

That's just my opinion.