Biblyon wrote:
"should not perish" illustrates the alternative...

Biblyon wrote:
Thus "loved the world" never implied that *ALL* could be saved.

Biblyon wrote:
"whosoever believeth" is qualified by the Christ crucified,

Biblyon wrote:
...This only applies to the act of God, hence "gave His only begotten Son"

You may want to reconsider who is doing the forcing. You will need to resolve your mounted eisogesis on top of major grammatical blunders before you lecture anyone on forcing.

With all there linguistic knowledge and inspite of their personal belief, their scholasticism still forced them to translate "world" as "world."

The Calvinist handbook wrote:

The Bible states:

Acts 7:51 wrote:
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, YE DO ALWAYS RESIST the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

The dehvastating truth is that NO WHERE in the Bible does it state that the Holy Spirit is irrisistible.

Now is the reader suppose to accept a simple declarative statement from God's word or is he suppose to make sense out of your convulted, redefining, revisionist, who-cares-about-the-laws-of-language, reinterpretation?

John 3:16 wrote:
"For God so loved the world..."

Which one do you use?

Calvinist Revised Version wrote:
"For God so loved the elect..."

Anonymouse wrote:
Yamil,
keep smiling buddy !
SA would be poorer without you. Any chance of getting your sermons on here?

Noone was addressed.

Other's think I'm of the devil, a quack (lol now that's a good one), a not-worthy-to-be-a-pastor, etc. I've heard them all. Yet, I do not see their posts deleted.

I think Calvinism is a mental disease. It's my personal opinion. You have yours about me, I have mine about your position.

You have serious issues. In your quest to quickly find another ad hominem, you clumsily disregarded what Abigail said verse what she was quoting.

Just Wondering wrote:
Weapon, in judging Wayne M. for a divorce that happened BEFORE he was saved, are you saying that we are to hold sinners to the same standard as saints? And if you are, does that mean we are to hold it against them after they are saved, even though God has forgiven them? Were you a drunk or a drug user before you were saved? What sin should we hold over your head? Just wondering!

As I said before whatever happened to Wayne and his ex is between him and God. I am sure whatever he did when he was unsaved is under the blood now.

In fact I was refuting divorce way before he came into the picture and gave us all his dirty laundry.

The question in hand is not whether or not Wayne\'s sin is forgiven, but rather does God endorse divorce. I and God\'s word say no. My opponents and their existentialism say yes.

Jesus loves your unconverted wife and he desires her to go to heaven with him.

That\'s why I said that whatever happen between Wayne and his ex is between him and God.

The discussion here should be (I hope) what does God state.

As usual the kinds of Walt, since they can\'t refute the dehvastating truth, are left with ad hominems. Of course he can speak about how the \"whole of scripture\" but yet, he finds it difficult to find one verse that clearly states his position.

Only in the F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist will God state that he hates something and then turn around and excuse it.

My God is not that complicated. He means what he states and states what he means.

Yes, it may be better for you to take it out of SA. If you try to to bring in that kind of nonsense in here, it will only be exposed as the most ridiculous ball of self-contradiction that it really is.

Trust me, I understan why Walt would like to take it out from this context. If I were him facing me, I would do the same thing.

Nevertheless that is not what was my question. The issue here is not why you had a bad marriage. Whatever occured between you and your ex is between you and God and I am sure that there is sufficient blood on the throne to forgive both parties. Your personal experiences is irrelevant to the topic at had. The issue is what does the Bible state concerning divorce.

Now let\'s try that again:

Now Wayne what part of...

\"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth.\"

They make it up as they go even if it means contradicting themselves in the same post.

lol

The F_anciful L_and of the Calvinist.

You guys can't even come up with your own ad hominems that you have to continuously plagiarize mine.

Reminds me of a playground argument between kids:

"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."
"No you are."

For the life of me, I can't understand why Christians refuse to call "sin" sin and realize that God can and wants to forgive it. In this Laodicean age, it seems that people want to take it an extra notch and call good evil and evil good. They will even with one mouth, say that God hates divorce and with the same breath state that he allows it under certain conditions.

At least the honest thing to do is to do away with the traditional vows. I mean why commit a double sin (breaking a promise before God and committing adultery) by stating "'til death do us part" and/or "for better or worse" when you know full well that you have no intention in living up to the promise?

Now Wayne what part of...

"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth."

Walt wrote:
Is seems to me that Paul just approved of a lawful divorce???? "but and if she depart..." I thought Yamil and others said no divorce was lawful...What's Up With This?

It's just simple English folks. Paul makes very clear his position on divorce:

I Corinthians 7:39 wrote:
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

It can't get any more clearer than that. Now if Paul were a Calvinist, I can understand why he would contradict himself. But we all know that he is not.
______________________________________

Wayne,

Nothing that the Doctor of Truth can't remedy:

In the same chapter Paul only gives two options for the victim of a divorce: (1) remain unmarried or (2) seek to reconcile with the offending party.

I Corinthians 7:10 wrote:
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

I Corinthians 7:39 wrote:
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.