Search results

Marke is right on this one. The traditional doctrine of original sin is a Catholic monstrosity that survived the Reformation and remains as a prominent distinctive of all Augustinian doctrinal systems including Calvinism. It is flatly false. The passages you quote in support of it are followed...

I don't believe you. If what you say is true and Calvin "used a biblical argument to substantiate his [doctrine]" then show us the argument. Show us the biblical argument that Calvin used to conclude that Christ's death is what saves the elect and that the atonement is limited only to the same...

So it took Idolator one post - one single post - to hijack the thread. Awesome! The opening post is brilliant! Just brilliant. There is only one point where I can find anything to quibble about at all.... I think you've gotten the premise and the conclusion reversed here. The Calvinist belief...

By quoting a verse that argues my side of the "debate". Not that you could call this a debate. Debate requires that both sides use logic and present rational arguments based on established premises. You are quite clearly incapable of anything approaching actual debate, nor are you even...

Thank you for conceding the debate!

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

You guys are arguing with a lunatic. Not that you didn't already know that but I thought that after 130 posts, stating the obvious might be warranted.

That a very philosophical thing you just said.

Why are you even here? Good bye.

Just the stupid ones that waste my time.

I wish we had the old smilies back! I need the :doh: smiley because I totally read your post wrong! Somehow I read it opposite and thought you had said that morality was subjective. I stand corrected. I think we are in near total agreement!

You're so full of stupidity that it's a waste of time to even talk to you.

Why won't you read the opening post? Is it because I've asked you to? Is it because you want to waste both your time and mine? Read it or go away!

I should point out, for the sake of clarity, that I was only saying that marke's form of argument was tautological and was not attempting to say that the statement "God is good" is a tautology. An attribute of a thing is not the thing itself but marke's form of argument seemed to be implying...

I'm pretty sure you didn't understand the point of the question. It's called Euthyphro's Dilemma. It's only been a subject of philosophical significance for a few thousands years and one that has direct bearing on whether Christianity (or any other monotheistic religion) is true or false so...

No it doesn't assume any such thing. It assumes that God is rational, nothing else. And yes, it is not possible for God to declare devils to be saints. It would be a contradiction. He could no more do that then He could declare cubes to be spheres. He could turn a cube into a sphere but that...

I fully understand why such discussions make a difference but no such discussion is possible when people aren't willing or capable of getting more than an inch deep into the subject and blow anything and everything anyone says off with flippant stupidity like "only God can fix it"...

Yeah, which is why no one here is advocating a fiat monarchy where the king's word is law. Thanks for contributing exactly nothing to the discussion! So what? They're in power aren't they? They were put in power by means of duly constituted popular vote and those who voted for them like their...

Saying it doesn't make it so - even if you happen to be right. Why can God not declare wrong to be right? Why? Read the open post for the answer.

Have you read the opening post? If not, it would be helpful if you would do so. That way we can be talking about the same thing without wasting each other's time. Clete