Did you read the OP? If this were a "Zion" discussion, I would follow with further scripture, but I'm here about the OP.
Hence...
Did you read the OP and are you submitting Galatians 3:16 as counter scripture to the OP?
The Slaying of Reformed Theology (Calvinism)
- Thread starter Evil.Eye.<(I)>
- Start date
- Status
Did you read the OP? If this were a "Zion" discussion, I would follow with further scripture, but I'm here about the OP.
Hence...
Did you read the OP and are you submitting Galatians 3:16 as counter scripture to the OP?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yeah I did, and it falsely accuses Reformers {"Calvinists") as not answering your various provocations with Scripture alone.
So I just did answer with Scripture alone, and now you are having a tizzy-fit . . that is not even rational.
IMO, you are nothing but hot air and only attempting to provoke trouble, and that is why I have reported you twice.
# Tell me what you really think
How does your scripture counter the OP? Which tenants or tenant of TULIP are you asserting?
The idea is neither of us may wall the other with complex doctrine support, but instead engage in simple back and forth discussion on the matter.
It's ok to explain yourself.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Right. Agreed.
So they are both revealing one Truth.
What is your conclusion and understanding of the one Truth being taught by both Isaiah and Paul?
(Sincerely asked . . )
Didn't they make a movie about that?
I don't know how it could be to you.
The majority that have posted are probably on your ignore list.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Gee, thanks . . .
I only counter your OP by presenting Scripture alone in discussion on one point, despite the OP's claim that Reformers do not so operate; only to have you react against the effort to do so, which decries theological hypocrisy on your part.
You would be hard put to find ANY posts in my entire history on TOL, where I quote John Calvin, Reformed commentators, or anything other than the Word of God. I just simply do not do so.
So, I resent the claims of your OP and consider your accusations to be false.
Kinda hard not to.
They are both revealing truth.
I don't see it as a single truth anymore than I see "calling my son out of Egypt" as only revealing a single truth.
When quoted in the OT, it is definitely talking about the nation of Israel (ie. plural offspring), and in the NT it is definitely talking about Jesus (ie. singular offspring).
One of those truths does not cancel out the other truth.
Nang,
I genuinely understand why you are upset with me, but I am now in a different mode.
How does Galatians 3:16 refute the OP?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Agreed.
In such biblical revelations, I look for deeper understanding of Truth, as I am sure you do, too.
IMO, the entire purpose of the Word of God, is to center upon and thereby teach us of Jesus Christ and all that He was promised to provide for His people, and how He did so, through various periods of time and history.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Galatians 3:16 was not posted to refute your OP.
It was contributed as specific response to discussion your thread produced, in order to demonstrate to you how Reformers conduct Christian discussion by relayng the truths of God.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
It means the seed are all the same.
All were/are subjected to God remaking them.
Actually both the Father and the Son remaking them/us.
Let us make man in our image, this was spoken to the son. Amen.
I agree with you that it's all about Christ. And... I agree He "ends up" with only one Bride.
However, I hold to scripture that spans all scripture as promises to literal Israel as well.
I could scripturally convey this in conjunction with Galatians 3:16 if you like and for your comfort I could utilize "election" verbiage.
But, this is not OP purpose. Is this the discussion you are starting?
I think everyone does to some extent.
Sure.
But let's be realistic ....
We both know that there are folks still not saved 2000 years after Christ's resurrection.
Now, remember the story of the beggar and the rich man in Luke 16?
And the rich man wanted Lazarus to return to the earthly living to tell his brothers to avoid what he fell into ......
And then the rich man is told .....
Luke 16:29-31 KJV
(29) Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
(30) And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
(31) And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(29) Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
(30) And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
(31) And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Now, whether one believes that has anything to do with Christ or not, the fact still remains that there are folks that have not been saved and believe yet.
We see that the OT (through what GOD does through Israel and the law) helps to understand GOD's grace of saving people that do not deserve to be saved, based on election and GOD's oath with the example of sin being taken away by a spotless substitute to taste death in their stead.
I see no reason whatsoever that GOD cannot continue to use Moses and the prophets, because if you don't even hear them, neither will you be persuaded if one rose from the dead.
Well...
That's 10 points for literal Israel discussion, but the OP remains unaddressed on a direct Scriptural level by the addresses representatives of its scriptural premises
Still... solid discussion.
Toot toot... train a-chugging.
That's 10 points for literal Israel discussion, but the OP remains unaddressed on a direct Scriptural level by the addresses representatives of its scriptural premises
Still... solid discussion.
Toot toot... train a-chugging.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Your OP purpose was to prove that Reformers do not depend upon Holy Scripture alone, to proclaim their faith.
Do with your OP premises as you will, but you will evidentually have to admit they do not truly represent Reformed apologetics, nor Reformed polemics.
- Status