Sonnet
New member
You haven't established that you are to be the one 'serving'.
Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
You haven't established that you are to be the one 'serving'.
Am I NIG? yet you did retort the same to me.
And that concerns a choice that can only be made by the individual:
Deuteronomy 30:19 KJV
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
The choices of life and death are in you to choose from, (but Calvinism denies it). If therefore you choose death, your offspring will be viperous children of death; but if you choose life then your offspring will be of an elohim seed, (Malachi 2:15), of life and light, (because testimony is spirit).
Sonnet
New member
The op stands PPS. I would listen to genuine attempts to explain why it might be erroneous.
God's Truth
New member
The op stands PPS. I would listen to genuine attempts to explain why it might be erroneous.
I don't believe you would know the truth if you heard it.
Sonnet
New member
Quite possibly.
Yes, that's all that happened.
We like to reserve the ECF (Exclusively Christian Forum) as a place where Christians only can discuss without cults and non-believes butting in or trying to debate the issues.
Now IF a cult member or non-believer wasn't familiar with Christian belief and wanted to sincerely ask us what we believed on a certain issue, they would be allowed to do so in the ECF.
But they are not supposed to use the ECF to debate or argue against any Christian belief.
And by "Christian" I mean what is normally called mainstream Christianity.
Belief in:
the uncreated deity of Christ.
the death and resurrection of Christ
saved by grace
etc.
Cults like JWs and Mormons are not considered "Christian" here.
So they post in the general "Religion" forum, and stay out of the ECF (Exclusively Christian Form).
And Calvinists are only allowed to use the forum by the thin hair of their chinny chin chin (for some don't consider them Christians, though we do share some core beliefs).
Even so, TOL tries not to be too overly strict about it.
Sooooo, moving your thread to the proper forum was just a courtesy for TOL's exclusive Christian members to not have their exclusive forum cluttered with threads by non-Christians.
Wasn't no rebuke and no infraction was given.
Everybody just calm down or we're gonna have to start mocking ya for being sissy drama queens.
Sonnet
New member
Yes, that's all that happened.
We like to reserve the ECF (Exclusively Christian Forum) as a place where Christians only can discuss without cults and non-believes butting in or trying to debate the issues.
Now IF a cult member or non-believer wasn't familiar with Christian belief and wanted to sincerely ask us what we believed on a certain issue, they would be allowed to do so in the ECF.
But they are not supposed to use the ECF to debate or argue against any Christian belief.
And by "Christian" I mean what is normally called mainstream Christianity.
Belief in:
the uncreated deity of Christ.
the death and resurrection of Christ
saved by grace
etc.
Cults like JWs and Mormons are not considered "Christian" here.
So they post in the general "Religion" forum, and stay out of the ECF (Exclusively Christian Form).
And Calvinists are only allowed to use the forum by the thin hair of their chinny chin chin (for some don't consider them Christians, though we do share some core beliefs).
Even so, TOL tries not to be too overly strict about it.
Sooooo, moving your thread to the proper forum was just a courtesy for TOL's exclusive Christian members to not have their exclusive forum cluttered with threads by non-Christians.
Wasn't no rebuke and no infraction was given.
Everybody just calm down or we're gonna have to start mocking ya for being sissy drama queens.
Fair enough. Perhaps the rules might want clarifying?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
The op stands PPS. I would listen to genuine attempts to explain why it might be erroneous.
I already did. You frame election as "before" for a timeless God.
God's eternity is a durative present that is not flanked by past and future. There is no "before" for God.
All expressions are Incarnational terms.
The rules are flexible and not exhaustive. simply because you can't satisfy everyone.
It is to the discretion of the mods and admins.
But let's be real clear at the get-go ........
This site belongs to Knight, to run as he sees fit.
You are his guest here.
Every post you make here belongs to Knight, not you.
The TOL management has the right to move threads or posts, delete threads or posts, or ban anyone they want to without having to give an explanation at all.
Let me remind everyone of a part of the agreement they had to agree to in order to join here as a member .....
| The owners of TheologyOnline reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason. By agreeing to our terms you grant TheologyOnline and it's owners the right publish and or re-publish any content that you post on these community forums. All members of this community participate at the pleasure of the TheologyOnline staff and your participation can be terminated for any reason at any time. You do not have the right to NOT be offended on these forums. We have a diverse group of members and we do not control the things they post (within reason) including things that might offend you. |
Just a heads-up for the newbies, the TOL tradition has been to mock those that whine about a mod decision.
We're just waitin' in the shadows to pounce on cry babies!
(Heads-up over)
:carryon:
Sonnet
New member
I don't affirm as you suggest. Any sense of before-ness is from our perspective.
Sonnet
New member
IGNORED BY PPS - #2086:
Thanks for this.
I am just looking at 1 Corinthians 15:27:
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Literal English:
all things indeed He has put in subjection, under the feet of him. when however it might be said that all things have been put in subjection, [it is] evident that [is] excepted the [one] having put in subjection to him all things.
I can't see any article there - and if we compare this to Romans 5:18, which you said was anarthrous, I'm not really seeing any difference:
Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Literal English:
so then, as by one trespass, to all men to condemnation, so also by one act of righteousness, to all men to justification of life.
I'm also wondering why you left out Romans 5 which you said included examples of articular pas.
Thanks for this.
I am just looking at 1 Corinthians 15:27:
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Literal English:
all things indeed He has put in subjection, under the feet of him. when however it might be said that all things have been put in subjection, [it is] evident that [is] excepted the [one] having put in subjection to him all things.
I can't see any article there - and if we compare this to Romans 5:18, which you said was anarthrous, I'm not really seeing any difference:
Therefore as by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Literal English:
so then, as by one trespass, to all men to condemnation, so also by one act of righteousness, to all men to justification of life.
I'm also wondering why you left out Romans 5 which you said included examples of articular pas.
Cross Reference
New member
You declare it was said by me. You lie . . .and that you should already know..
Cross Reference
New member
Cross Reference
New member
Enough. He taught at an Episcopalian seminary in Philadelphia a few years back.
Cross Reference
New member
Cross Reference
New member
Did I say you were a Calvinist?
Ah well, never mind . . .
Pay him no mind. He makes a habit of stating untrue things.
When it comes to any "before-ness" concerning Yeshua they have eliminated it from their "infallible" texts, (it used to be in Luke 3:22, and in Codex Bezae only may it still be found even though most modern translations refuse to note this fact). However the author of Hebrews reveals that the full decree from the Father to the Son, quoted from Psalms 2:7 in Luke 3:22, was still assumed as common knowledge to the reader when the epistle to the Hebrews was penned, (see Hebrews 1:4-5). But of course if there was indeed any time within time when the Father said to the Son, "This day have I begotten thee", then it clearly follows that, "Houston, Trinity has a problem: eternal Son doctrine is down for the count." What is also alarming is how the author of Hebrews clearly puts his comments in the context of inheritance while everyone knows the old doctrine they tried to snuff out was called the adoptionist view, (and it was well known because it was the first century Messianic Jewish position). I understand this was not what your comments were about but it does have much to do about "before-ness" and "non-before-ness" from a slightly different perspective.