You made an excellent exposition. You always do. Even if whatever you said was completely inaccurate, Allan's comment would still be dishonest.

It's the same thing with me. I spend a lot of time and effort to make my position know honestly anticipating some honest feedback from the opposition and they give no response. Then they give comments like the one Allan just made.

And they wonder why I accuse them of being intelligently dishonest.

And they also wonder why I point out the ridiculousness and basically humor myself with what they come out with.

And I suppose you were also those that campaigned for that rule to be implemented so that I can no longer give a clear exegesis of a passage. Noone cried about it for years when Walt cutting and pasting the WCF. But when someone needs a few posts to actually exegete the Scriptures, all of a sudden everyone cried foul played. It did not take long for SA to comply.

I agree with you, according to the Calvinist standard SA has been too tolerant of me. I have heard your complaints of allowing disenters of Calvinism to post here for a long time. Your right, I should have burned at the stake like Servetus a long time ago.

Unfortunately, SA can't simply just cut me off without getting into litigation problems. We are in the modern world of democracy, not the old Calvin state-run religion.

SA is free to do what it pleases. Unfortunately, they have no jurisdiction over the internet and unfortunately, I did not sign anything bindable that states I had to comply with anything.

Thus, the only thing I have to comply with is God's word.

But, of course, the fact that I have been complying for the last month escapes you. Now you are complaing about me using the quotes option to quote references!

Alan H wrote:
You know, Yamil, one of the things which troubles me the most concerning your posts is the fact that you always say more than you need to say, and that which is beyond necessary is usually unworthy either of reading or of response.

Alan H wrote:
You can't seem to brake free of the bondage of ridicule and scorn even for a moment can you?

Alan H wrote:
You, JD, Abigail, and a few others on these threads are very dishonest in your often over-rehearsed and repetitive misrepresentations of Calvinism.

Alan H wrote:
The greatest portion of the content of your posts ...

Linda what I enjoyed about him most is the fact that he made the passage so simple to understand and by doing so he has just proclaimed that God means what he states and states what he means.

Some points of interest:

1. Jesus makes a irrefutable distinction between fornication and adultery.

2. God instituted marriage to be a picture of Christ and the church. Just like God does not divorce us when we go and commit adultery with other Gods, so he expects the victim of adultery to be.

2. The issue of forgiveness. Now this is a point that I have not made but it is worth noting. Divorce is nothing more than a complete disregard of Jesus's command to forgive.

3. God's grace can forgive even the sin of adultery but he cannot forgive you and fill you with the fullness of his presence until one recognizes the sin for what it really is.

4. There is forgiveness for those who recognize divorce as the sin that it is. There is a curse placed upon those that teach men that divorce is justified in some instances.

In fact what makes me deadly to your theological system is that I am not afraid to be proven wrong.

R. K. Borill wrote:
I am just amazed at you guys admiration of your own abilities to prove something where no proof has been shown.

R. K. Borill wrote:
I clealy asked you "what is faith", a very short and simple question but I see no answer to the question. I tried to help you a little, but it seems that the question is bankrupt of an answer from you.

Just like the rest of the bunch; you do not have the least amount of decency to (inspite of our disagreements) be intellectually honest.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Only ad homenim reponse as usual.

R. K. Borill wrote:
As I said before, "been there, done that".

I figured that.

Since I proved to the reader once again that the Calvinist position is scripturally bankrupt, then I think I can humor you in your desperate attempt to change the subjet. Hopefully you can find a simple declarative statement to prove your view on the following topic.

R. K. Borill wrote:
If you care to move on to another subject, here is a question for you since our topic before us is Justification by faith alone:

What is faith?

It may be said that faith cannot be known except by experience, and when it is known by experience logical analysis of it, and logical separation from other experiences, will only serve to destroy its power and its charm. In your opinion is this so with you?

R. K. Borill wrote:
The last point that I think I remember that I was on with Yamil or WMI was Irresistible Grace. But like I say their favorite methods to argue is "Needling", "Ad Nauseum", and mostly "Ad Homenim". Other than that you will not get much else from them.

"For God so loved the world..."

Sometimes, I doubt that will suffice you.

If you would be honest (which you are not) before you went on the ad hominems and illogical fallacies fallacy you were still looking in the Bible to the answer to my simple question:

Where in the Bible does it state that Grace can be resisted?

I think you had enough time to stall with your red herrings. Let me try to help you out. Read the following statement slowly and allow it to sink:

It's not there.

There is nothing fallacious in asking you to share with us a verse that actually states that.

It would be fallacious if you do not have God's word as final authority, which I am starting to believe this to be true of you.

Particular means it is closed to a certain group regardless of what they do. Conditional means that it is open to anyone that meets the condition.

A sincere heart is a sure vaccine against it.

One of his sermons is from John 3:16. The title is "Particular Redemption."

Ha! There is not even a slight hint to particular redemption from John 3:16.

If he preffers to base his arguments on deductive reasoning that has no foundation on the Bible and of a misuse of logical fallacies, then I doubt that his sermons would be too impresive.

If you would had asked me to listen to his sermon before he went bezurk then I may have listened to it.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Hey "Mass", What took you so long to respond? Did you have to attend "Mass"? Regarding your response:

R. K. Borill wrote:
"Argument By Repetition" (Argument Ad Nauseam):
If you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it.

R. K. Borill wrote:
Regarding your request for Biblical pearls from me - forget it. Been there and done that! Do you think I will continue to let you trample them under foot? Grade F

I prescribe him three doses of the chill pill and one long nap. After waking up, instead of picking up the WCF, pick up the Bible.