Search results

I haven't viewed this, but it talks about bacteria having personalities, and I thought of you...well, I thought of this conversation.

Neither did Peter claim anyone would be saved through repentance and baptism. But if he deliberately prevented Paul from preaching Paul's gospel (the only one by which we can be saved), in order to preach a non-saving gospel, Peter is responsible for damning people to hell. If the two gospels...

So you've said, but that's not what "whosoever" means. "Whosoever" means that salvation is available to those who choose to believe, not just to the elite group. That's why Gentiles were given the gospel, in spite of the Jews thinking it was just for them (the "elect").

But Peter and Paul were deciding not to go to each other's groups with their particular gospel, according to the MAD doctrine. If that's so, and Peter's gospel didn't save, then Peter was making it impossible for his group to be saved.

My dad was a Southern Baptist pastor, before we all went to the mission field for a few years when I was a child. I moved away from the SBC as an adult, trying to figure out homeschooling our kids. We ended up in a Calvinistic Presbyterian church. I can't say I was ever totally on board, but it...

You call them "humanity"?

The whosoevers are mentioned because they exist, and God loves them, you know...the world. Yet that's exactly what Paul did. Some jumped all over it, and some jumped all over Paul. But they are chosen, as you already admitted, based on the fact they believe. Therefore your sentence is correct...

I did, but you didn't understand it. God made us to be able to do stuff. We are free agents. Therefore, God does not determine everything we do, although He might have the power to do so.

Potency does not equate to agency.

Of course. But the other verse specifically says He SENT His Son INTO the world. If you're going to post about semantics, at least get them right. You were saying He "created" His only Son (through conception). Are you changing your mind? You can't send someone who doesn't exist. So if He sent...

Then it isn't "whosoever", is it.

Hey, at least he agreed with you that he's a numbskull.

Not sure who you are talking to here, but there are reasons to question what you're saying. If that bothers you, then that's on you. [1Jo 4:9 ESV] In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. That would have to...

When did He stop being "the Word"?

Then you should be ok with the call being a universal call, if belief is required to be chosen. Arminians still have some serious problems, but yes, the people who are doing the believing get to decide what they are going to believe. No, they aren't. Only for the salvation, not the believing...

I'm a little disappointed that I don't see a response I thought I posted. Hopefully I resurrect some of it. Even in free will actions of men, we are actually working against God's moving. Iow, if God (or His angels under His direction, however it would work) IS the force of gravity, then every...

You think people were reprobated before they existed and before sin occurred? ok. Huh?? How does that make sense? Isn't our "lives" everything we do in our lifetimes, including birth, death, sin, faith, etc.?

Are they the "called and chosen" before they believe? Right, but she still needed the truth of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

The Word might not have been called "Jesus", and He wasn't both God and man in eternity past. I think your point that "Jesus" only applies to the one Who is both God and man is allowed by scripture. You don't know that, but it's possible. The bolded part is concerning. You could possibly say...

Sure. The story of Simon the Sorcerer. The parable of the sower, where the seeds on stony ground sprang up quickly, then were scorched because they had no root. The letters to the churches in Revelation where Jesus said they had left their first love.