Of course I missed you! You were almost as good a punching bag as Z Man is.geoff said:but but but.. I REALLY want to
Didnt you miss me? I know you did.
BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Bob delivers a smashing blow to the settled view in the ring
Bob delivers a smashing blow to the settled view in the ring
It's OK Shimei. Don't let the "our little evil god plans every baby rape and murder crowd" get you down - they are getting thier little Greek philosophy hinnies whipped in the ring and they know it. The truth will always win - lets just hope the greek pagan philosophers can't continue to get their lies out and keep sending multitudes to hell!
Bob delivers a smashing blow to the settled view in the ring
Shimei said:
It's OK Shimei. Don't let the "our little evil god plans every baby rape and murder crowd" get you down - they are getting thier little Greek philosophy hinnies whipped in the ring and they know it. The truth will always win - lets just hope the greek pagan philosophers can't continue to get their lies out and keep sending multitudes to hell!
Livewire
New member
Regarding Dr. Lamerson's comment:
There are many issues within the church today that are debated by using nothing more than proof texts. Does this usually help to make progress in sorting out these issues? Not really. Each side genuinely feels that he has used the best possible biblical evidence to support his beliefs. When this happens it should be an indicator that something more is needed. Dr Lamerson and Bob Enyart could throw verses at each other till the cows come home and it would get this issue no where. Sometimes deeper study is needed to get to the heart of the matter. God is not the author of confusion. He doesn't purposely put seemingly contradictory verses in the bible. Sometimes we have to dig a little deeper.
Somewhere along the line, verses were interpreted differently than what was simply stated, i.e. God said "Now I know" but He really already knew and if God said "It never entered my mind" it was really already there. For the sake of argument, even if this were true, wouldn't you think that giving scripture a totally opposite meaning at least deserves to be investigated to see if this is the correct way to interpret it? I would think that big time banners should be going off if people are suggesting that one should do this to at least see if they are on the right track. And one way to see if one is on a the right track is to investigate the origins of interpreting verses in such a way which is what Bob did in his last post and I find it very discouraging that Sam refused to even acknowledge it.
There are many issues within the church today that are debated by using nothing more than proof texts. Does this usually help to make progress in sorting out these issues? Not really. Each side genuinely feels that he has used the best possible biblical evidence to support his beliefs. When this happens it should be an indicator that something more is needed. Dr Lamerson and Bob Enyart could throw verses at each other till the cows come home and it would get this issue no where. Sometimes deeper study is needed to get to the heart of the matter. God is not the author of confusion. He doesn't purposely put seemingly contradictory verses in the bible. Sometimes we have to dig a little deeper.
Somewhere along the line, verses were interpreted differently than what was simply stated, i.e. God said "Now I know" but He really already knew and if God said "It never entered my mind" it was really already there. For the sake of argument, even if this were true, wouldn't you think that giving scripture a totally opposite meaning at least deserves to be investigated to see if this is the correct way to interpret it? I would think that big time banners should be going off if people are suggesting that one should do this to at least see if they are on the right track. And one way to see if one is on a the right track is to investigate the origins of interpreting verses in such a way which is what Bob did in his last post and I find it very discouraging that Sam refused to even acknowledge it.
Being elect does not equal being saved (despite what Calvinists assume).Dave Miller said:(BTW, election is not just a Calvinist word, the only difference is that Calvinists say that
election comes from God, OV'ers think they gain election through their own personal
piety, er, I mean, "justified by their faith.")
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
I've been keeping up on this debate, but I may have missed some things. Has anyone noticed if Sam L. has tried to alleviate himself from his self contradiction over how to determine a conditional prophesy or not?
Here’s a link to a post I made exposing the self-contradiction by Lamerson.
Click here.
post number 176.
I think that promoting and not self-correcting a self-contradiction in a debate is self-defeating.
Here’s a link to a post I made exposing the self-contradiction by Lamerson.
Click here.
post number 176.
I think that promoting and not self-correcting a self-contradiction in a debate is self-defeating.
geoff
New member
Right Idea,
I started listening, then realised that you were arguing as though there are only 2 views, saying things like "if you dont believe this, then you must believe this" - and of course, I believe neither. So I gave up. Sounds like you have been listening to Enyart too much.
I started listening, then realised that you were arguing as though there are only 2 views, saying things like "if you dont believe this, then you must believe this" - and of course, I believe neither. So I gave up. Sounds like you have been listening to Enyart too much.
ApologeticJedi
New member
Turbo said:
I think it is interesting that someone on here pointed out that the vast majority of the elect in the Bible, went to hell. If true (and I believe that person made a good effort to prove it) then our natural understanding of verses that use the word "elect", "called", and "chosen" needs to be re-evaluated.
- Status