[URL=http://sa-devastating-truths.blogspot.com/]]]Just wondering needs to stop wondering and read his Bible[/URL]
[URL=http://sa-devastating-truths. Nevertheless for Kenny\\\'s sake (since he is the man that he claims he is) I have my response on the other side of this link. Maybe someone may want blogspot.com/]]]Lurker accused us of not having integrity. So I gave a response that demonstrated the lack of integrity in Calvinism as a whole. SA did not like it too much. So guess what happened. [/URL]
[URL=http://sa-devastating-truths.blogspot.com/]]]For Kenny\'s sake(since he is the grown man that he is) I have my response on the other side of this link.[/URL] [URL=http://sa-devastating-truths.blogspot.com/]]]Maybe someone can tell me exactly what wrong thing was said that broke SA policy. Or maybe it was just merely another SA mood swing[/URL]
I personally do. You may have a hard time relating to it since you are all the way over there in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist and I am all the way over here in reality.
Thanks for waiting for me. After I answer your question, maybe you can tell me why after I showed you from the Bible that God DOES indeed change (contrary to your statement) why you changed subjects so abruptly. Now, to answer you question:
I believe that in the same fashion that God unconditionally elected me unto full time Christian service to be a light in Las Vegas, he has unconditionally elected Israel to be his special people to be a light unto the other nations. This is clearly stated in the Abrahamic Covenant.
You have already stated that their election had nothing to do with salvation so I do not understand how it would prove the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election without falling prey to the usual error of equivocation. It's the apples and oranges problem again.
The dehvastating truth is that God did not unconditionally elect anyone in the OT unto salvation and neither did he in the NT.
For you to use that as an example of the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election, you would have to prove that national Israel was saved as a whole.
First Fallacious argument: Sorry R.K Borrill you can't have it both ways. Only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist can you do that. You can't state that you do not need the Bible to clearly state what you believe because you are depending on your deductive reasoning and then try to convince everyone that you have the Bible on your side.
The only thing you have on your side is what every other false religionist has: a complicated system of self-contradictory deductive reasoning.
Second fallacious argument: I have not seen you nor any of your Calvs actually give an original exegesis. The best you can do is cut and paste from the divines. I and JD gleefully do so. Last time I gave you guys a 16-post refutation of your position which was nothing more than pure exegesis. The only rebuttal I got was a string of ad hominems.
If you trully want to be like Jesus than you would forsake your man-worshiping deductive reasoning and appeal to the Scriptures alone. That my friend we are all waiting for.
Now allow me to give you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is:
So where in the Scripture can you find that Grace is irrisistible?
R. K. Borill wrote: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "Absence of evidence" has been one of your arguments all along.
Actually you are wrong. JD has not just concluded that he is right based on the absence of evidence. He has done what you have failed to do: provide the evidence. His has not been disproven with a more tenable theory. Even you have admitted that you do not need any evidence but rather abstract theory. You stated that you do not need to provide a Scripture verse to prove your thesis, but rather deduct your thesis from other other perverted interpretations that you still will not prove.
You can't prove one perverted interpretation from another perverted interpretation. Since you are focusing on logical fallacies, I will tell you that you would be breaking all the rules of logic taking this approach.
The rules of logic dictate that you have to start from a demonstratively provable fact. This you have not done. Intellectually honest deductive reasoning starts from a provable fact not an intangible theory.
I have yet to hear any of you start on such a premise.
Thanks for waiting for me. After I answer your question, maybe you can tell me why after I showed you from the Bible that God DOES indeed change (contrary to your statement) why you changed subjects so abruptly.
Now, to answer you question:
I believe that in the same fashion that God unconditionally elected me unto full time Christian service to be a light in Las Vegas, he has unconditionally elected Israel to be his special people to be a light unto the other nations. This is clearly stated in the Abrahamic Covenant.
You have already stated that their election had nothing to do with salvation so I do not understand how it would prove the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election without falling prey to the usual error of equivocation. It's the apples and oranges problem again.
The dehvastating truth is that God did not unconditionally elect anyone in the OT unto salvation and neither did he in the NT.
For you to use that as an example of the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election, you would have to prove that national Israel was saved as a whole.
R. K. Borill wrote: You are looking for the exact words "Grace cannot be resisted"? This is trying to make the scriptures say what you want them to say.
Did you forget that it is your statement not mine. So I think you may want to look in the mirror.
I believe that God loves the world. I can give you a simple declarative statement from Scripture that validates that.
I believe that God desires all to be saved. I can give you other simple declarative statements that state that.
I can go on, and on. You may sinceerly believe in your position, but if you do not have a simple declarative statement from Scripture then at the very least it proves that your position bilically is in the most weakest position compared to mine.
R. K. Borill wrote: Some doctrines from scripture must be logically deduced.
Yes. That's the same approach that evolutionists and every false philosphy's take. It is the one difference between theory and fact.
But you do prove what I had always said: Calvinism is based purely on deductive reasoning not on what the Scriptures actually state.
This is also why you guys have a hard time with exegesis and have so much fun in eiesogesis.
R. K. Borill wrote: I believe the Bible alone is the Word of God. If you look at the verses of scripture that I quoted that is what the Bible says.
Well, its good to know that you at least agree with me. As demonstrated in my previous posts, I doubt other Calvinist would make the same claim. Nevertheless, its nice to have a Calvinist once in a while who actually thinks for himself.
Now tell me. You admit that although the Spirit can be resisted; saving grace cannot.
Where in the Bible does it state that grace cannot be resisted?
I Thessalonians 4:16 wrote: we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds.
Seems pretty clear to me unless you believe that clouds are on the ground. Murray believes in a Bible found in the bottom of a trash bucket and that has more variations within its own family of corrupt texts than verses that agree, so I would not be surprised if he believed exactly that.
It sounds that the objectors sound like the people in 2 Peter.
2 Peter 3:3-4 wrote: knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4and saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
11/25/07 5:17 PM
11/22/07 3:56 AM
