Search results

I love Walz in the Elmer Fudd get-up. That's perfect!

Who are you talking to? You should use the "reply" and "quote" features so that it doesn't look like you are talking to the air. Or use the "@username" feature to direct it to somebody without reply or quote.

That's the whole point of what I said: Without God's Spirit, one cannot understand and accept God's wisdom. Iow, you end up accepting a different understanding of God's wisdom, a false understanding. So what is that spirit of God? Isn't it a desire to know what He is trying to tell us, rather...

Not that part...the part where you say that some people were doomed to hell before the foundation of the world.

Only, I think, if you don't read it with too many preconceptions about what it's going to tell you.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/good-news-conservatives-finally-feel-safe-enough-discuss/ I'm more than a little curious how Trump's popular vote totals went down so much between 2020 and 2024. Some of the talk in 2020 was that a program was inflating both totals based on an algorithm...

That's not what happened to Cornelius. Acts 10:2 KJV — A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Of course no one can be saved without God's gift of Jesus Christ. Are you saying there's another way?

My journey was more "through" reformed circles rather than "from" them. But I also believe the reformed ideas make more sense than the Baptistic ones about how God could know our eventual decision(s). Edit: I should add that I think Open Theism is closer to Reformed thought than Baptist in...

In other words, your doctrine makes our life on earth of no account...just like Calvinism. It seems like you are stuck trying to refute Calvinism without a reasonable alternative. Of course all people are condemned to death, but it's because of Adam's sin and the consequences that come from...

I haven't viewed this, but it talks about bacteria having personalities, and I thought of you...well, I thought of this conversation.

Neither did Peter claim anyone would be saved through repentance and baptism. But if he deliberately prevented Paul from preaching Paul's gospel (the only one by which we can be saved), in order to preach a non-saving gospel, Peter is responsible for damning people to hell. If the two gospels...

So you've said, but that's not what "whosoever" means. "Whosoever" means that salvation is available to those who choose to believe, not just to the elite group. That's why Gentiles were given the gospel, in spite of the Jews thinking it was just for them (the "elect").

But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.

My dad was a Southern Baptist pastor, before we all went to the mission field for a few years when I was a child. I moved away from the SBC as an adult, trying to figure out homeschooling our kids. We ended up in a Calvinistic Presbyterian church. I can't say I was ever totally on board, but it...

You call them "humanity"?

The whosoevers are mentioned because they exist, and God loves them, you know...the world. Yet that's exactly what Paul did. Some jumped all over it, and some jumped all over Paul. But they are chosen, as you already admitted, based on the fact they believe. Therefore your sentence is correct...

I did, but you didn't understand it. God made us to be able to do stuff. We are free agents. Therefore, God does not determine everything we do, although He might have the power to do so.

Potency does not equate to agency.

Of course. But the other verse specifically says He SENT His Son INTO the world. If you're going to post about semantics, at least get them right. You were saying He "created" His only Son (through conception). Are you changing your mind? You can't send someone who doesn't exist. So if He sent...