It's just a Red Herring. Just because I oppose the Calvinist's thesis does not mean that I support the antithesis to what the definition would be.

A synonym for "power" is not "ability." I think you are thinking of "authority." When the Bible states that we are dead to sin. It is not stating that we are unable to sin, but rather that sin has no authority or power over us.

_______________________________________

(half an hour later)

Ok DB. If you have not found it by now, odds are you will never find it.

Trust me.

Like I said, your definition of "death" is nothing more than a fabrication that exists only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.

Thanks for the Red Herring but are you interested in helping DB find a dictionary on the face of this universe that defines "death" as "inability"?

Now tell me. What dictionary on the face of this godless universe defines "death" as "inability"?
_______________________________________

Oh great! More Calvinists. The more the merrier.

Anyone else?

Discerning Believer wrote:
Yamil,
What abilities does a corpse have?

Do you believe that death=inability?

You are in a roll. Anymore lies.

Let's see whether you will come out on the carpet.

Yes or no?

DB wrote:
Sometimes Yamil, there are more than one topic going on at the same time and I try my best to cover them. It is not all about you Yamil there are others here as well!

Discerning Believer wrote:
I challenge you to show me where I quoted any divines as you call them or the WCF.

Discerning Believer wrote:
I change no definitions. "dead = dead"

Discerning Believer wrote:
I gave you verb tenses and how they applied to John 3:16, so there was no bailing out.

DB wrote:
I have not proudly admitted to "converting" to any theological system and challenge you to find that quote.

Walt, ask him to come over here. See how he fairs with the Weapon of Mass Instruction.

As for your copy and paste skills. We already know that you are the best. I give you props.

Discerning Believer wrote:
I admit that I am not an expert on the doctrines of grace, nor do I claim to agree with everything within its theological system, however reading scripture for what it says has shown me many things that I once held were not so.

Think about what you so proudly admitted: you have converted to a theological system that you do not understand. This is hardly illumination; it sounds more like apostasy.

Sovereignty of God? You can't even at least admit that God can save everyone if he wanted to. That's hardly a sovereign god that you have. I mean I am of the different opinion but at least I admit that if God wanted to he could have decreed unconditional election. Of course the Bible does not state that he did, but at least I can confess that he can do what he wants to do.

God's principles transcend culture. It comes down to whether we are going to allow God to mean what he states and state what he means no matter how big the cross is which one must bear.

I believe Abigail nailed it right on the money when

she wrote:
God's Word holds true regardless of circumstances. We can make all sorts of scenarios that would seem to be logical reasons to disobey God's Word.

The cycle is never ending because people do not want to be accountable for Godly character.

I have proven you wrong several times. Instead of admitting you were wrong and embracing the truth, you change the subject just like you are doing now.

I can remember a few times when I have been proven wrong here (two or three times) and I consented.

This is the difference between I and you.

Sufficient is to state that God means what he states and states what he means.

"For God so loved the world..."

There is a big difference is stating:

1. John runs.

from

2. John is running.

That, my friend is the distortion that you are imposing on John 3:16.

Unfortunately, the Bible prescribes the victim to remain unmarried. Of course, there is probably no chance for the ofender to come back and it will be a long journey, but it is a cross the victim must bear.

Such a situation which you describe sounds like something that happened before the couple was saved. Apparently, there has been years involved so if this happened while they were in church, then somebody dropped the ball somewhere.

This year, out of necessity, I have been teaching 4 English classes in the high school level. They each have their respective grammar handbook. I have yet to find such a crazy proposition as yours.

Until then, I will continue to assume that it is simply another fabrication that exists only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.

Ask your pastor. If you have a Christian school, ask your English teacher. For that matter ask any English teacher.

1. The tense has nothing to do with who is the subject. The number does. And in this case the number agrees with the subject.

2. The present tense is ALWAYS is in the active tense. So your point is frivolous at best. If you are reffering to the opposite of passive, then you have no point at all for to channge the sentence to passive tense would only make "God" passive. "Whosoever" will still remain active.

So, DB you have no point at all.

The present tense exists to make a statement of fact. In this case, one has a conditional clause beginning with "that."