Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disscusion thread for: Does Abraham's faith disprove Unconditional Election?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Nang's latest post points out the progress to date: "We are one week into our two-week opportunity to hash over these theological differences, but instead of "hashing," all you are doing is bashing. Why?"

    Aj has yet to present any cogent arguments from Scripture to support his position. Instead he is clearly on the defensive and wastes his efforts with ad hominems versus substantive discussion. Who can blame him, for he obviously has nothing to add and prefers to stand on Nang's back hoping he can gather a few crumbs to feed from. Nang won the debate with the death blows of her previous post. Now we are witnessing the hapless AJ twitching as he gasps his last. Someone pass him some oxygen, please, in hopes that he can recover and actually discuss his position versus transparent attempts to wail on Nang's.
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; February 27th, 2008, 12:26 AM.
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?


    Comment


    • #17
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #18
        Once more, AJ's latest is a combination of personalizations and lack of exegesis, form over substance.

        Accuses Nang of deceit!
        Asks for apology?
        Actually claims he is doing 'deep diving'

        In 'More Cobbles' AJ employs the powerful exegetical technique of boldface in Scripture citations. Wow, that is 'deep diving' exegesis.
        AJ concludes with a call for deep diving!

        Note to Nang: Maybe more boldface will convince AJ? Apparently exegesis is a simply a skill in formatting text.
        Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



        Do you confess?
        Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
        AMR's Randomata Blog
        Learn Reformed Doctrine
        I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
        Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
        Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
        The best TOL Social Group: here.
        If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
        Why?


        Comment


        • #19
          I prefer a single bible verse with a bolded section to a list of references that don't say anything.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #20
            Nang's latest post here cannot be used by AJ to falsely claim once again that she is not directly dealing with the issues. Nang's restraint, by not responding to AJ's ad hominems, is an example for us all. AJ has filled his posts with personal criticisms, negative smilies, etc., yet witness in Nang's post critical attention to the topic at hand while never taking any baiting from AJ. This is exactly the behavior anyone in a serious discussion should strive to emulate.

            Kudos, Nang!
            Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



            Do you confess?
            Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
            AMR's Randomata Blog
            Learn Reformed Doctrine
            I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
            Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
            Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
            The best TOL Social Group: here.
            If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
            Why?


            Comment


            • #21
              I'll be amazed if anyone alters their position from this debate.
              Calvin: (after a long pause) I can’t tell if that’s funny or really scary.
              Anti-Death

              2024 Life by Delmar: Homosexuality legal in all states; Government healthcare with abortion; Outlawing Bible by broadcast by hate crime laws

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Memento Mori View Post
                I'll be amazed if anyone alters their position from this debate.
                Lots of people come to TOL without any idea that the debate even exists. Of course some people will be changed by what they read.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                -Bob B.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                  It is clear who is doing the heavy lifting (Nang) with Scriptural support and actual exegesis....Nang is cleaning AJ's clock Scripturally, while AJ fumbles around trying to ignore Nang's Scriptural arguments. The first person in any discussion who resorts to personal attacks is always the person on the defensive.
                  It is amazing hom many numbskulls think you are well written and make good points. It is usually by those that don't actually read the Bible.

                  In order for election of a few before the world to began to mean what you want it to mean, you have to throw out much of the Bible.

                  1. God wants all men to be saved.

                  2. God will withold blessings.

                  These are undeniable. The only conclusion you can draw is that salvation is conditional.

                  Her long essays are like atheist/philosophical drivel, with out logic and leaving out the key parts to make your point. Your act is growing old too.
                  Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                  Titus 1

                  For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

                  Ephesians 5

                  11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Nick M View Post
                    It is amazing hom many numbskulls think you are well written and make good points. It is usually by those that don't actually read the Bible.

                    In order for election of a few before the world to began to mean what you want it to mean, you have to throw out much of the Bible.

                    1. God wants all men to be saved.

                    2. God will withold blessings.

                    These are undeniable. The only conclusion you can draw is that salvation is conditional.

                    Her long essays are like atheist/philosophical drivel, with out logic and leaving out the key parts to make your point. Your act is growing old too.
                    It's interesting to see that you have closed the book on the argument when the one point which Nang has made has already been conceded.

                    The point being that all events are monergistically brought about.

                    Thousands of words have been spent on the subject, yet AJ fails to recognize the damage it does to his and apparently your position.

                    I, who am not a SupraLapsarian, but a free will theist must readily concede Nang's argument as valid.

                    Is God the source of man's faith? Are you able to defend your own position?

                    Originally posted by Nick
                    1. God wants all men to be saved.
                    Then how is it that all men will not be saved? Is God unable to accomplish His own desires?
                    His purpose was greater than suffering! GIT

                    Three! Two! One! Cue the Rooster! from Open Theism Apologetics

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                      It is clear who is doing the heavy lifting (Nang) with Scriptural support and actual exegesis, while AJ seems to be stuck trying to merely wax insubstantially eloquent and insert oblique ad hominems whenever possible. Just typical behavior for those who prefer to appeal to the masses versus dealing substantively with the subject matter. Kudos to Nang for not taking AJ's obvious baiting tactics to heart and responding in kind.

                      Nang is cleaning AJ's clock Scripturally, while AJ fumbles around trying to ignore Nang's Scriptural arguments. The first person in any discussion who resorts to personal attacks is always the person on the defensive.
                      What do you think about open theism?
                      The shadow proves the sunshine

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RobE View Post
                        It's interesting to see that you have closed the book on the argument when the one point which Nang has made has already been conceded.

                        The point being that all events are monergistically brought about.

                        Thousands of words have been spent on the subject, yet AJ fails to recognize the damage it does to his and apparently your position.

                        I, who am not a SupraLapsarian, but a free will theist must readily concede Nang's argument as valid.

                        Is God the source of man's faith? Are you able to defend your own position?



                        Then how is it that all men will not be saved? Is God unable to accomplish His own desires?
                        I love it!
                        The shadow proves the sunshine

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X