I've adopted a new avatar to zealously promote my turn towards Reformed Charismatic theology.

All the rest of you Arminian milquetoasts can suck it. This is great fun!

T
Total hereditary depravity
babies inherit the sin of Adam and are totally depraved and therefore unable to respond to the gospel message of Christ.

U
Unconditional election
(or predestination) God had a master list of those who will be saved and those who will go to hell before creation in Gen 1:1. The list is unchangeable.

L
Limited atonement
Christ did not die for all men but only those on the "saved list"

I
Irresistible grace
God sends the Holy Spirit only those on the saved list which removes their depraved nature inherited from Adam and creates within them a saving faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit thereafter guides them directly to understand and correctly interpret the Bible.

P
Perseverance of the saints
A child of God once saved, cannot be lost.

so, are you for it or against it ?

http://www.bible.ca/calvinism.htm

so, are you for it or against it ?

I'm not sure yet, but I am willing to blow up the both of us if you dare to disagree.

http://www.bible.ca/calvinism.htm

Aviad Cohen had a link to this site. With the authority of my new found doctrine, Reformed Charismatic, I declare jihad on the infidel who has dared to discredit the beautiful teachings of Calvin, peace and blessings be upon him (I mean on Calvin, not the infidel).


In fact, I would go as far as to say that the author of this website's lack of truth is only exceeded by his lack of design. Hock patooeey.

I've adopted a new avatar to zealously promote my turn towards Reformed Charismatic theology.


Calvanisim...:rolleyes:

Limited atonement contradicts His words:

1 John 2
Christ Is Our Advocate
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.



John 1:29
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Calvanisim...:rolleyes:

Limited atonement contradicts His words:

1 John 2
Christ Is Our Advocate
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

John 1:29
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Aren't you an athiest or something? You risk your very life by challenging the teachings of Calvin (Peace and blessings be upon him, not you). May you drown in the blood of swine for your false accusations.

Aren't you an athiest or something? You risk your very life by challenging the teachings of Calvin (Peace and blessings be upon him, not you). May you drown in the blood of swine for your false accusations.

Hell no

I've stated many times I'm Christian, I just don't share the same radical viewpoints/interpretations of YZF.... Jeez is that guy poison or what?!?!?

As for Calvin.....bring him on.

Hell no

I've stated many times I'm Christian, I just don't share the same radical viewpoints/interpretations of YZF.... Jeez is that guy poison or what?!?!?

As for Calvin.....bring him on.

I think YZF is a follower of Calvin as well (Peace and Blessings be upon him, Calvin I mean, not YZF).

Oh, so you claim to be a Christian. How'd that happen, were you born that way?

http://www.bible.ca/calvinism.htm

yes, thank you, I X'ed off the site before I got the URL, oops.

Limited atonement contradicts His words:

1 John 2
Christ Is Our Advocate
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.



John 1:29
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

if john was writing to the elect the meaning of his words changes.

instead of talking about all the people of the world he is talking about the worldly sins of those jesus died for, the ones he PAID for, the ones he bought.

his property, as opposed to everybody else who was NOT sold to him for the price he paid for the chosen, the elect, the few he saved from the world, the whole world of sin.

Oh, so you claim to be a Christian. How'd that happen, were you born that way?

What kind of idiotic question is that??? You're not literally born Christian...

And why should have to defend my belief as Christ being the Savior to you or anyone else?

For your question though my beliefs line up more with Arminianism but I don't share the viewpoint of the chosen saved as does Calvinists. For me its a condition of faith, faith in Him as God and Savior. Plain and simple.

Here is a great comparison of Calvinisim and Arminianism.

Comparison to Calvinism


Ever since Arminius and his followers revolted against Calvinism in the early 17th century, Protestant soteriology has been largely divided between Calvinism and Arminianism. The extreme of Calvinism is Hyper-Calvinism and on the extreme of Arminianism is Pelagianism, but the overwhelming majority of Protestant, evangelical pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between.

Similarities

* Total depravity – Arminians affirm with Calvinists the doctrine of total depravity. The differences come in the understanding of how God remedies this depravity.
* Substitutionary effect of atonement – Arminians also affirm with Calvinists the substitutionary effect of Christ's atonement and that this effect is limited only to the elect. Classical Arminians would agree with Calvinists that this substitution was penal satisfaction for all of the elect, while most Wesleyan Arminians would maintain that the substitution was governmental in nature.

Differences

* Nature of election – Arminians hold that election to eternal salvation has the condition of faith attached. The Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election states that salvation cannot be earned and therefore has no human conditions, and so faith is not a condition of salvation but the divinely apportioned means to it.
* Nature of grace – Arminians believe that through God's grace, he restores free will concerning salvation to all humanity, and each individual, therefore, is able either to accept the Gospel call through faith or resist it through unbelief. Calvinists hold that God's grace to enable salvation is given only to the elect and irresistibly leads to salvation.
* Extent of the atonement – Arminians hold to a universal drawing and universal extent of atonement instead of the Calvinist doctrine that the drawing and atonement is limited in extent to the elect only. Both sides (with a few exceptions among Calvinists) believe the invitation of the gospel is universal and "must be presented to everyone [they] can reach without any distinction."
* Perseverance in faith – Arminians believe that future salvation and eternal life is secured in Christ and protected from all external forces but is conditional on remaining in Christ and can be lost through apostasy. Traditional Calvinists believe in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, which says that because God chose some unto salvation and actually paid for their particular sins, he keeps them from apostasy and that those who do apostasize were never truly regenerated (that is, born again). Non-traditional Calvinists and other evangelicals advocate the similar but different doctrine of eternal security that teaches if a person was once saved, his or her salvation can never be in jeopardy, even if the person completely apostasizes.

this is just another variation of free will v. predestination.

in a christian reality there can be no slightest hint of freedom, because every bit of that reality is purposly created to conform to a plan.

this is just another variation of free will v. predestination.

Exactly.

But YZF is so fearful of hell he would jeopardize his own salvation. I believe that mini man fears hell more than he fears God....

Mark and I will always disagree on what salvation is and how to serve Him...yet he will be the first to call names and claim he is the only that will be in heaven.

Such a true 'Christian' example! Haven't learned tolerance there yet huh mark?

Lonely on earth and lonely up in heaven....anybody see a pattern here?

BTW how's that 22 year old there Marky, has she seen you for what you are and dumped you ass? :roll:

Luke 17

And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down to eat’? But will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.’”

OK Mark put up or shut up....we've all heard you rant now for a while.

What do you believe that 'duty' is that you just quoted? What is your duty to Christ? What do you think your duty is here with all of your posts?

Straight forward questions mark.....

For me its a condition of faith, faith in Him as God and Savior. Plain and simple.


I thought that it was about forming silly theories that you choose not to explain...

I thought that it was about forming silly theories that you choose not to explain...

And what are those??? Was it when I said you were sounding anti-semitic? IT sounded like that to me, or maybe I just misread your post the way you typed it.

I have never agreed with PC that members of the same group can't be racist. So whats your point?

What other 'silly' ideas are you talking about?

I fear both

Then by your own admission with this statement, you cannot be a true Christian. If your fear hell then everything that Jesus did, for you, means nothing.

Lets take this to the simplest form.

John 3

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."


By admitting that you fear hell, you are saying that what God did by giving us Jesus means nothing.

18Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

Mark there is no doubt that you believe that Christ is Lord...no doubt what so ever. Your conviction is so strong it is almost at a fault. But by saying that your fear hell, you are saying that you are not trusting in the Lord and what has been said by this passage. This is one reason why so many do not agree with the Calvinist movement. This thought is considered to be part of the 'Good News'.

I can't agree with the 'chosen' ones on the list as well as you have stated.
Did not Jesus sit at the table with sinners? That 'all are welcome' at his table? Matthew 9:10-13

Don't fear hell marky, fear Him that can destroy the soul....and thats it.


on the contrary, superhack, you came in here and were polite for a week or so, disagreed with literal reading of Genesis, and immediately started a cespool of name calling and numerous false accusations in "smacktalk"

Your sounding like a BITCH when you whine like that mini man.

:crying:

Nothing is stopping you from starting a thread in smacktalk.....I just found a few things about your name and your baldness threads that just were begging to be posted....I would expect the same from you, you have to have a sense of humor about that.....hell there are plenty of things on the web about me...you just have to figure it out. And I'm not going to give any more clues to that!

And when you post crap like 'go get cancer' or 'you are all fools' or 'get out of here', well you are only inviting that onto yourself. When you act like you are so much better than everyone else then people want to knock you down a peg or two....especially in a forum setting. You are just as guilty of it as I am so drop it!

As for Genesis, get OVER it man, you know my stance I know yours. You seem to carry around this HATE with you, because someone doesn't share your interpretation you think they are an ENEMY....and just because I disagree with you on scripture doesn't mean that you should take it personally...quit whining....

You know this is a public forum, people are going to disagree. Take it in stride and buy some looser underwear. Geez.....

Speaking of Luke

Hatred to kindred enjoined
<Luke 14:26>

Hatred to kindred condemned
<Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29>

:peace:

again, repeating something 500 times doesn't make it true

Genesis 1-11 is a simple narrative, a child can understand it....there is no "interpretation" of the text, just willful misreading by heretics/idolaters such as yourself

yes...you're an enemy of the truth, a heretic, and hypocrite....and you can only lose

I'm trying so hard to ignore your condemnation...you so want this to be about 'winning' don't you? Your true beliefs are coming out.

Fine, lets say I lose. I go up to God and say, "you know, I totally misread your bible when it came to Genesis"

But I held firm to my belief that Christ was the Savior and I did my best to follow his footsteps.

So Mark, do you think that God is going to throw me into a lake of fire, because for what ever reason I did not follow the interpretations of others?

How about this. Lets say that my interpretation is right and you are in front of God for the same reason. Do you think that even with that same belief in that Jesus was the Savior you will perish?


Guess what, if I am wrong, or you are wrong, it doesn't matter. Jesus has our back covered if indeed it is a 'sin' to believe in the interpretation of Genesis one way or another. As long as we walk as best we can in His footsteps as our Savior, its taken care of.

And if you really don't believe this, then you really need to learn why Christ went up on the cross for us.

And what are those??? Was it when I said you were sounding anti-semitic? IT sounded like that to me, or maybe I just misread your post the way you typed it.

I have never agreed with PC that members of the same group can't be racist. So whats your point?

What other 'silly' ideas are you talking about?

Actually you called Tofu anti-semitic.

And I was refering to this: http://www.theforumlounge.com/thread8991-p2-are-humans-hard-wired-for-faith.html

yes, it DOES matter...Truth matters, it is EVERYTHING

"I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life"

how many times did Jesus say, "I tell you the truth!"


"I tell you the truth", this is in context to His spoken word....nice try there....


let me ask you something, are Mormons "covered"? Jehovah's Witness? Roman Catholics?

Man do you really need to learn a little bit about Christ's tolerance.

Actually you called Tofu anti-semitic.

And I was refering to this: http://www.theforumlounge.com/thread8991-p2-are-humans-hard-wired-for-faith.html

Eh...couldn't remember who said, just remember my first reaction was that it sounded anti-semitic. And when you grow up with a family where almost half are Jewish then you pick up on stuff quickly.

But as for my statement I still believe hat He did create the universe methodically, and planned out for us to discover....I don't subscribe to everything created as it is, in an instant, already inflated.

But as for my statement I still believe hat He did create the universe methodically, and planned out for us to discover....I don't subscribe to everything created as it is, in an instant, already inflated.

That's fine but my question pertains to God's intervention. You said that he rarely intervenes. If God is methodical as you claim then why would He intervene at all, unless He made a mistake the first time.

That's fine but my question pertains to God's intervention. You said that he rarely intervenes. If God is methodical as you claim then why would He intervene at all, unless He made a mistake the first time.

I never meant to imply that God makes mistakes...how can He...He is God!

I think this is where you misread my point....and the point is not 'silly' at all.
Lets take the last 2000 years after Christ. Can you prove or give proof to any event where God has intervened? Just playing the other card here to make a point.

So it really boils down to faith then....and if God stepped in every time then there really would not be faith as we know it. So God has intervene rarely in order to preserve faith. Can you give any other reason then....is the point 'silly' to you now?

Please forgive the use of the word "silly." Just trying to get your attention.

As for your point, I think that the only thing that can be fairly identified as an intervention by God (I'll just call this a miracle) is when something happens that is, as we know it, physically impossible. Personally, I don't know of any instances when this has happened in the last 2000 years so I lean towards the notion that it hasn't.

I think that miracles are often confused by events that are statistically unlikely. At least that's the rationale I would ascribe to if I believed in what you are proposing

or perhaps you need to learn about God's intolerance for false doctrine, heretic

Man you just so want to brand me as a heretic don't you. Which I am not....you are like a scab that needs to be picked off.

But you have so twisted this passage to fit your viewpoint it isn't even funny...and you have it all wrong.

You think Christ is about intolerance...I believe he is about tolerance, and there are more people that share that interpretation then your inflexible standpoint. And I wont fall into your little childish game of turning this into intolerance for doctrine...I meant tolerance for your fellow man, and you know it. Nice try to divert to condemn me instead of the issue at hand, wont work this time little man.

lets look even further to John 3

John 3:17
17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

You house of cards is falling there marky!

God specifically sent Christ for tolerance, not intolerance or condemnation.

There is no way you can refute this!

anyone who does not hold to sound doctrine is rejected, the epistles are clear about this


not loved and cherished as a misled child, but rejected as a cracked bowl.
not instructed, punished.
because the point is NOT instruction, correction, it is punishment.
not punished to teach, punished as revenge.

does that sound like "tolerance" of false doctrine?

Listen pal, we are talking tolerance of man and his actions, not of 'tolerance' of doctrine...its worthless even addressing any of your posts because you can never read anything correctly, even when it is SPELLED out for you.

The rest of that passage has nothing to do with tolerance, which was the focus of discussions.

Man you are a broken record, single minded.... You show nothing of Christ and his path with what you do here. I'm convinced the only reason you post is so that you can regurgitate passages....you worship yourself and your knowledge, that I am sure of.

How about doing some reflection on why you continue to act like this, and condemn persons, even when what they say is the truth.

not sure where the "cracked bowl" terminology is coming from

the potter who makes his creations for his purposes, including to throw at the wall just because he likes the sound of shattering pottery.

or the screams of people having their skin burned off.

What kind of idiotic question is that??? You're not literally born Christian...

And why should I have to defend my belief as Christ being the Savior to you or anyone else?

Because the faith you claim, requires you to do so. See 1 Peter 3:15:

15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Unless you don't believe Peter. What is it then, Mr. 95whitepep? Are you free to never defend your faith, or are you required to do so?

The great Calvin would agree to defending his faith and doctrine (Peace and blessings be upon him).

judging by the methods of the creationists, attacking another persons faith IS defending your faith.

although how the "gentleness and respect" bit is interpreted to mean 'venomous spite' is beyond my poor abilities.

Hermeneutics and Exegetical study.

You're all worthless and weak because you don't apply Hermeneutics and Exegetical study to your arguments. Let's consider the "election" and "whosoever will" doctrines. You can find countless verses to support both dotrines in the translations we use today. But they cannot work together. One is right and the other is wrong.

Let's take a look at the MOAWWV (Mother Of All Whosoever Will Verses) , John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Wow, sure does look like anybody can be saved. Let us focus our attention to John's "whosoever". This word in greek is "pas". What are the definitions of pas? One definition is: individually, each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything. This seems to go well with the idea of "whosoever will". But, there exists another definition for pas which is: collectively, some of all types.

Now lets try to put the puzzle together. "Election" and "whosoever = all" does not fit. Hmm. Let's try the second definition.

Has the light gone on yet?

"Election" and "whosoever = some of all types" fits perfectly. See why your arguments suck. Who's doing their homework?

Can I get an Amen?

Now, if you all agree that "whosoever will/pas" does not always mean everybody can get in, I'll be handing out our improvised explosive devises so that we can martyr ourselves for the cause of Calvin. Peace and Blessings be upon him.

judging by the methods of the creationists, attacking another persons faith IS defending your faith.

although how the "gentleness and respect" bit is interpreted to mean 'venomous spite' is beyond my poor abilities.

May you be hacked to pieces by machete flailing pet monkeys of Calvin's disciples (Peace and Blessings be upon him).

Because the faith you claim, requires you to do so. See 1 Peter 3:15:



How does the faith I claim require that? Somewhere you've got it all wrong about my faith...

Hermeneutics and Exegetical study.

You're all worthless and weak because you don't apply Hermeneutics and Exegetical study to your arguments. Let's consider the "election" and "whosoever will" doctrines. You can find countless verses to support both dotrines in the translations we use today. But they cannot work together. One is right and the other is wrong.

Let's take a look at the MOAWWV (Mother Of All Whosoever Will Verses) , John 3:16.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Wow, sure does look like anybody can be saved. Let us focus our attention to John's "whosoever". This word in greek is "pas". What are the definitions of pas? One definition is: individually, each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything. This seems to go well with the idea of "whosoever will". But, there exists another definition for pas which is: collectively, some of all types.

Now lets try to put the puzzle together. "Election" and "whosoever = all" does not fit. Hmm. Let's try the second definition.

Has the light gone on yet?

"Election" and "whosoever = some of all types" fits perfectly. See why your arguments suck. Who's doing their homework?

Can I get an Amen?

Now, if you all agree that "whosoever will/pas" does not always mean everybody can get in, I'll be handing out our improvised explosive devises so that we can martyr ourselves for the cause of Calvin. Peace and Blessings be upon him.


Do you think that Jesus came here for only a select few???
It would have to be the first definition that is applied here.

"God so loved the world..."

Doesn't mean

"God only loves the select few...."

No your homework sucks and you make wild speculations about everyone so that you can persecute for their faith....are we getting a clone here of someone? Jeez. Your choice of definition is wrong and it is clear as day that this passage is taking about the world, i.e. mankind in whole. Sorry you fail because you are not taking this in context.

Calvin is dead....sitting alone in his room in heaven. You can join him when you die, but I don't think that he will want you in his room.

How does the faith I claim require that? Somewhere you've got it all wrong about my faith...

Did you read the verse? It clearly says to be prepared to give a reason. How can you argue this? If you are a follower of Christ you have to. No question about it. What is it that you don't understand?

Calvin is dead....

When I first saw this statement, I nearly detonated myself for allowing my eyes to view such blasphemy against most beloved Calvin, (Peace and Blessings be upon him),

and then I saw the rest of the statement and took my finger off the trigger.

sitting alone in his room in heaven. You can join him when you die, but I don't think that he will want you in his room.

Did you read the verse? It clearly says to be prepared to give a reason. How can you argue this? If you are a follower of Christ you have to. No question about it. What is it that you don't understand?


And I have already answered my position on my faith....what part of that do you not remember?
You just took it all wrong, and wanted me to defend against your misunderstanding....get the point now? You set up a false assertion and want me to defend it? I have better things to do with my time....but if you must go back and read and you will see my stance....

When I first saw this statement, I nearly detonated myself for allowing my eyes to view such blasphemy against most beloved Calvin, (Peace and Blessings be upon him),

and then I saw the rest of the statement and took my finger off the trigger.

Hmm...mistake number two on your part.

So do you have that Calvin bumper/windshield sticker of him praying at the cross?

http://www.visittex.com/images/calcross.jpg

Do you think that Jesus came here for only a select few???
It would have to be the first definition that is applied here.

"God so loved the world..."

Doesn't mean

"God only loves the select few...."

No your homework sucks and you make wild speculations about everyone so that you can persecute for their faith....are we getting a clone here of someone? Jeez. Your choice of definition is wrong and it is clear as day that this passage is taking about the world, i.e. mankind in whole. Sorry you fail because you are not taking this in context.

Mr. 95WhitePep, I appreciate you looking into this, but do you agree or not that there are many verses which support the doctrine of election? I'm not saying you need to agree with election as whole. Are we together?


Also, I looked up kosmos which is the greek word John used, here are some definitions from Strong's lexicon:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

And I have already answered my position on my faith....what part of that do you not remember?
You just took it all wrong, and wanted me to defend against your misunderstanding....get the point now? You set up a false assertion and want me to defend it? I have better things to do with my time....but if you must go back and read and you will see my stance....

OK maybe there's a misunderstanding. I offer to you an olive branch, but with my other hand on my dagger of Calvinistic jihad. Your original statement was "And why should have to defend my belief as Christ being the Savior to you or anyone else?" and to that I was responding that the bible says you have to defend your position. It is a good thing to defend your position. It's engaging and could lead to better understanding.

Mr. 95WhitePep, I appreciate you looking into this, but do you agree or not that there are many verses which support the doctrine of election? I'm not saying you need to agree with election as whole. Are we together?


Also, I looked up kosmos which is the greek word John used, here are some definitions from Strong's lexicon:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars,
'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)
b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

Well if we take the last definition, of believers only, then anyone who believes that Christ is the Savior, shall be saved. By your own post then, Calvinism is wrong, its not a predetermined number but a choice.

So do you have that Calvin bumper/windshield sticker of him praying at the cross?

No but I like this one of the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon:

Well if we take the last definition, of believers only, then anyone who believes that Christ is the Savior, shall be saved. By your own post then, Calvinism is wrong, its not a predetermined number but a choice.

I was thinking about 8 but not 8b in particular. At any rate, do you agree that there are verses supporting the election doctrine or not?

No but I like this one of the Prince of Preachers, Charles Spurgeon:


FIRE!!!!!


LOL (and I mean 'Love our Lord')

but we know this: God loves humanity, but He loves the Elect far more, and He loves His Son the most, because the Son has always been with God and is fully Divine


Interesting distinction made here.

God loves His Son. We know this because Jesus is seated at His right hand.

God loves the elect. We know this because they are destined for the Kingdom of Heaven.

God loves the rest of humanity. We know this because they will all soon burn in Hell?

God's priority of glorifying Himself by showing forth His wrath is balanced by His compassion for fallen human beings

God does not need to glorify himself...He is selfless....thats why He died on the cross for us.

Unlike you who wants to think God as such, you are projecting a human concept onto Him....such a frail understanding of the human mind you have there marky...

Your 'world of fools' now includes yourself.

actually, check that

you don't understand John 3:16, either....that much is well documented here


I think and I know that I believe it better than you, deceiver.
You are so hollow.....

wow you sure dodged that bullet to the head

once again I demolished your lame argument

No you haven't. :rolleyes:

All you did was post specific events of God being glorified. But nothing in any of your examples STATE that God wants to glorify himself all the time.

Big difference.

Why would God need to glorify himself? In your quotes I believe that Jesus did this to set an example for us, not for Him.

You have proved NOTHING!

God IS self obsessed...the best scholars all acknowledge that....



Post your links then the YZF, put up or shut up... obsession is a human trait.
Lets see your scholars.

I want to see where it is that God glorifies himself directly......btw I know where he does indirectly...but he is not self obsessed as you claim.

State me one passage in the the bible that states
"God glorifies Himself when...."

i just like the global flood issue...or you will divert the topic


I posted several local flood links moron, you're just to stupid to remember them.
Its you with your bi-polar, pick and choose mentality, that diverts topics.
Is that why the girl you were dating dumped you? Did she see how F'n mental you are?



or make another thread in smack talk


Ahh, boo-hoo, you crying little BITCH.

that's a good point, ark man, and I don't claim to be able to resolve that issue

God's priority of glorifying Himself by showing forth His wrath is balanced by His compassion for fallen human beings

well, since God glorifies Himself by wrath, AND also by compassion, why would both be necessary? If either one glorifies God, then why is the other needed?

One would reasonably think that more glory comes in compassion, in the face of sinful human nature....so why will more people burn than fly?

God's primary motive for everything He does is to bring glory to Himself

Again, this doesnt add up. If God's primary motivation is for glory, why the two paths? Think of it this way--if it glorifies God to burn people for eternity, why not burn ALL?? There must be something more that comes from saving a few--more glory, perhaps? And if more glory comes to Him from compassion, then why burn the majority?

I just shake my head....no....I laugh out loud at your ongoing ignorance and incredible arrogance, when you understand essentially nothing about the Bible, except John 3:16 and a few sound bites from liberal websites

therein lies your problem--you place understanding the Bible above actually following what is commanded in the Bible.

to show the extremes of God



"mercy triumphs over judgment"...God does delight in compassion, but God also has pleasure in demonstrating His wrath, which results in reverence

well, if "mercy triumphs over judgment", then God showing His wrath takes away from His glory. If mercy triumphs, then showing mercy instead of wrath would bring more glory....

Romans 9

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

which goes right back to the "free will" thing....but thats another story.

Last time I recall, the scripture also said "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son...."

For God so loved the WORLD, not just the chosen few. Tell me, what kind of being delights in taking those whom He loves and making them suffer?

mankind is free to choose their sin, they are not free to choose God....an absolutely irrefutable Biblical principle

did you or did you not just post scripture that states:

It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

In that light, man does not have free will to do anything that affects their outcome with God.....

and we've been over this, there are priorities to God's love....God loves His Son first and foremost, then the angels and Elect, then the world of men

once again youre off on a tangent--I never asked you about God's order...I said that God loved the world enough to give His son.....try addressing what was actually said to you next time.

that's right...but man is free to choose the type of sin they engage in

WHICH MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER....ALL SIN IS EQUAL IN THE EYES OF GOD, REMEMBER??

To God, a lie and a murder are both sin. To God stealing a loaf of bread and stealing $10,000 are both the same thing. SIN IS SIN. So, choosing which sin MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Again you are made of fail. Stop trying to go off on a tangent and just address what is said already--youre not helping your cause one bit.

it was over your head

it wasnt over my head, dumbass, it was entirely tangental and not relevant to what I said. Try again, loser

psycho jonnie babble
brainwashed marky spew

I'm not like you, superhack, I don't post random links...I could post scripture passages all day long supporting my case, I already posted John 12

Man you fail again. I ask for any creditable reference and you can't provide one.
Thats because your standpoint is as imaginary as your 22 yr old girlfriend.

:roll:


Does this mean that we wont see anything ever again from your YEC answers in genesis site?!?!?! Thank God!

psycho jonnie babble

its only "babble" all of a sudden because you cant wrap your brain around the fact that what I said comes directly from scripture, and thus you have no intelligent answer for it.

Dont bitch about "babble", the notion that all sin is identical is scriptural---so thanks for telling us that you think the bible is "babble".

as usual, you failed to comprehend my point

we are free to choose our sin, we are not free to choose God, God must choose us

the only "freedom" we have is more vice....in other words, nothing in our power can result in justification

well, that is most definitely a huge change in your position, now isnt it? Not too long back, when it was said that free will did not exist when it comes to following God, you went against that like no tomorrow...and now, you are saying the same exact thing I have said all along....

I've always stated that "free will", when it comes to justification before God, is a misnomer

"by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified"

How does this compare to the great commission?

good question

the way I look at it, you don't know who the Elect are, so you have to treat everyone as if they could be one of them, even though it seems impossible

So, youre saying that Jesus commanded the faithful to go out and baptize a bunch of people, most of which will never find God?

baptism only followed a profession of faith

yes, but that profession came from human lips, didnt it? Like nowadays for example--how many people profess Christ to be their true Lord? How many of them are telling the truth?