Search results

Translation: I'm in a corner that I can't think of a way out of. I must therefore discredit the validity of the question by calling it foolish. I don't need to explain why it's foolish, all that is necessary is for me to proclaim it foolish and the job will be done. Classic - textbook - ad...

Well, again, you're making a dispensational error here. The fact is that in the dispensation of grace, there could be no way to blot out a name that was never in the book to begin with nor does the book in question have anything to do with believers in the age of grace. BUT - that is entirely...

So, is this you conceding the point? "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." I say that it's sin that lands you in Hell and you say "No its not." and then quote a verse that says that it is. I don't get it. (I can tell that at least part of your confusion here...

Saying it doesn't make it so. I never said they were blotted out. They were never in there to begin with. Besides the verse you cite supports what I've said... "and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

But don't get the effect confused with the cause. Those who go to Hell aren't going there because their names aren't in the book of life. Their names aren't in the book for the same reason they're going to Hell. That reason is sin. If they had not sinned, there'd be no sin debt to pay, either by...

I agree with you about original sin but this seem to take it too far in the other direction. There are evil people in the world and they will go to Hell because of their evil actions. God offers redemption to those who believe based on the price paid by His Son but those who reject that offer...

Someone please tell me how Original Sin can survives the reading of this single sentence.... Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the...

Said the fool that believes the word "justice" to be meaningless when applied to God.

Then make the argument, OZOS! Don't be lazy like the most of the fools on this who can't think. If I'm wrong, then show me. Explain it to me. Make the argument! I didn't just show up on this thread and leave my post with the one sentence, "Marke is right on this one." and leave as though my...

Marke is right on this one. The traditional doctrine of original sin is a Catholic monstrosity that survived the Reformation and remains as a prominent distinctive of all Augustinian doctrinal systems including Calvinism. It is flatly false. The passages you quote in support of it are followed...

I don't believe you. If what you say is true and Calvin "used a biblical argument to substantiate his [doctrine]" then show us the argument. Show us the biblical argument that Calvin used to conclude that Christ's death is what saves the elect and that the atonement is limited only to the same...

So it took Idolator one post - one single post - to hijack the thread. Awesome! The opening post is brilliant! Just brilliant. There is only one point where I can find anything to quibble about at all.... I think you've gotten the premise and the conclusion reversed here. The Calvinist belief...

By quoting a verse that argues my side of the "debate". Not that you could call this a debate. Debate requires that both sides use logic and present rational arguments based on established premises. You are quite clearly incapable of anything approaching actual debate, nor are you even...

Thank you for conceding the debate!

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

You guys are arguing with a lunatic. Not that you didn't already know that but I thought that after 130 posts, stating the obvious might be warranted.

That a very philosophical thing you just said.

Why are you even here? Good bye.

Just the stupid ones that waste my time.

I wish we had the old smilies back! I need the :doh: smiley because I totally read your post wrong! Somehow I read it opposite and thought you had said that morality was subjective. I stand corrected. I think we are in near total agreement!