|
|
USER COMMENTS BY DR. YAMIL LUCIANO |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 19 · Found: 391 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
7/23/07 12:00 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
(This survey is no longer available) |
|
|
Abigail,I understand that Lurker is playing the devil's advocate, but I do not think that JD meant a put down by telling you that your understanding is defficient. BTW, your understanding is indeed lacking of the term "firstborn." Both my camp and the Reformed camp (though we may adamantly disagree with the Calvinism issue) would have to say that upon reading your post, that you indeed do not understand what the term means. You should not take offence to that but see it as an opportunity to learn. I prescribe you a clas with JD. |
|
|
7/20/07 4:29 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
JD, There is no prescription for him. He's a lost case. The only thing that can help him now is regeneration. _______________________________________Contender, read the passage again. Nothing about God saving one and condeming another. There is such a thing as election other than the soteriological election. You would not get a local newspaper and at the first appearance of the word automatically assume that it is speaking of unconditional election. There is also no reason why you should treat the Bible with any less integrity by applying your theological bias at the very appearance of the word. It's called the immediate context. Ever heard of it? I prescribe you some extra-powerful reading glasses. _______________________________________ Now, since I do not believe that you are totally a lost case, allow me to give you some specialized therapy. Where in Romans 9 does it say that God predestined Esau unto eternal damnation? |
|
|
7/20/07 11:42 AM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Las. Vegas NV | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Alan wrote:"You make a very good point. I think it is essential first to establish who the "us" is in "us-ward." Well stop wishing and start presenting a case silly. So far you have not done a good job. Ignoring all the rules of language to make your case is quite disingeneous. I notice that everyone is now ignoring the devastating truth and leaping towards JD's hermeneutical error. I want to go on record of saying that I disagree with his analysis. The jews are not even mentioned in the immediate context, and for the same reason the "forcing of the elect into the passage" should be rejected, so shall the "jewish verses gentile view" should be rejected. Besides the grammatical blunder which the Calvinists refuse to correct, besides the heremeneutic blunder of adding the elect when the elect is not even mentioned in the whole chapter, the question still remains: Why would God threaten the destruction of the elect when he predestined them to eternal life? What is he taunting us like Edward's caricature of God holding a spider over a fire? |
|
|
7/19/07 7:36 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Sorry to break it to you Bravo, but its just not one database. Its an international database for PEER-REVIEWED journals.I still do not consider him a scientist. Besides, anyone that believes that his dad is an ape is no scientist at all. But if you want to defend somebody that has a fanatical hatred towards God then I guess you have that liberty. I choose to call him a dummy. I guess we are even, for he would say the same thing about me and 98% of the world who believes in deity. The only difference between I and him is that I am right and I will not burn in hell for it. Now I are you going to get to your defense of evolution or are you going to insist on Scratching an atheists rear end? Until then, I prescribe you with Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. |
|
|
7/19/07 1:40 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
DB, once again you refuse to deal with the objections made and give a fly-bye comment, a strawman at that.I doubt that God is constantly saving me from eternal damnation. I do not know what you believe, but he only had to save me once. If you care to read the context, you will discover that it is not about the Christian receiving forgiveness, but the ungodly receiving forgiveness. The Christian is not in danger of facing the wrath of God, it is the ungodly. For you to insist that the passage in question reffers to the elect is to say that the elect are in danger of judgement! Why would God desire the elect not to perish if they were never in danger of perishing? Calvinism is one big knotted up ball of contradiction. Again, DB no matter what you would like to believe, you can't just ignore all the rules of grammar and force the Scriptures to say something that it does not say. I prescribe you a good dose of English 101. |
|
|
7/19/07 12:25 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
(This survey is no longer available) |
|
|
"Be sure and tell that to John when you see him. Apparently he didn't know that. "Well if he was a Calvinist who believe that the rules of language can be made up according to one's theological whims, then you may be right. But I doubt you can even prove that. _______________________________________ "For the record, yes, I consider the addition of [men] in John 12:32 an error which changes the meaning of the passage." So much for the doctrine of preservation. According to Lurker, one can never have an infallible Bible so long as words are added. It is evident that he only speaks one language. And if he spoke another language, I would hate to hear his rugged translation. Then you have a bunch of Calvinists conspiring against the very system that they believe. Ha! You also have Lurker, as the final authority, telling us what italicized words are valid and which ones are not. Yet, one can take all the italicized words out of the Bible and the Calvinist would be in a worst Scriptural bankruptcy, for with all the words that they have now, they cannot muster up a simple declarative statement that states that God only loves a few or that he only will save an arbitrary few. They would have a tougher time finding one with a Bible with less words! |
|
|
7/19/07 12:02 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
"Are you then saying that "usward" is also referring to the ungodly in the previous verse as well. I don't think so." Well DB it makes no sense for God to desire the righteous to repent does it? What type of people is the Lord being merciful to in I Peter? It's really not as complicated as you would like it to be. Regardless of what you believe, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you must follow grammatical rules. You can't just ignore all the rules of grammar and force the Scriptures to say something that it does not say. I notice it is your habit to ignore the objections made and give a fly-bye remark to ignore the devastating truth. I prescribe you another dose of English 101. |
|
|
7/18/07 4:42 PM |
Dr. Yamil Luciano | | Curing Theological Diseases | | | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Going to the beginning of a book to determine the context of a verse towards the end of a book is hardly the IMMEDIATE context. You are reffering to the REMOTE context.The immediate context is right there (and always there) within the same chapter, a few verses before and a few verses ahead: "but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" How you are able to give an indefinte pronoun definite meaning is a mystery within itself. If "any" and "all" are merely the elect then the judgment proclaimed in the previous versus are also for the elect. Talk about contextual havoc. If Peter wanted to reffer to the elect he surely would have not used an indefinite pronoun to demonstrate this. He would had simply stated it. I am afraid that Calvinist ignore the simple declarative truths staring them at the face for looking under every rock and crack to deny what is plainly stated. I prescribe you a good dose of English 101. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|