|
|
USER COMMENTS BY DADDY |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 3 · Found: 56 user comments posted recently. |
| |
|
|
4/16/08 12:12 PM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
I already know what Calvinists believe. So you quoting a Calvinist to support your position is nothing more than a pseudoargument.The real question is if you have any linguistical, contextual, or etymological reason to ignore the plain meaning of the word "world." The answer: no The fact is that "world" never means "elect." The only place it means "elect" is in the figment of the Calvinist's imagination. John the apostle is not an idiot, if he wanted to say elect, he could have easily said it. The Bible is not so perplexing that it needs a Calvinist to decipher the meaning. Besides for all your perverted arguments about "us" in other passages of scripture, one would think that this would open your eyes a little. John is contrasting "us" (believers) to the world (the rest of people). If you should force "world" to mean "elect" you are essentially stating that John is contrasting believers with themselves: "He not only saved the elect, but he also saved the elect." Rogerant, you have nothing to lose but everything to gain when you allow the Scriptures to be sovereign over your humanistic rationalizations. Sorry, your untruth has just been taken to the woodshed. |
|
|
4/16/08 11:32 AM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
rogerant wrote: Do you know what the word propitiation means??? It means a satisfying payment.I believe that your hangup is that you believe that the beneficiary has no choice but to accept the gift that has been offered. Unfortunately, the Bible gives no such characterization. You will be hard pressed to find a verse that states any such thing. In contrast like any other gift, propitiation can be accepted or rejected. So it's not a matter of God being paid twice, Mr. Strawman, it is a matter of whether or not a sinner will accept Jesus's death as payment or not. Now this is where my house of cards becomes a massive fortress. Jesus has propitiated the sins of the whole world. While the Calvinist would say that he is the propitiation for our sins ONLY... I john 2:2 wrote: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. Thanks for taking the bait. But I must say, your untruth has just been taken to the woodshed. |
|
|
4/15/08 4:28 PM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
David wrote: Then, did Christ's death actually save anyone or just make all men savable? Well, let's see. I am saved. So I guess he saved somebody. Noone is teaching that Jesus saves the whole world. That's an infamous Calvinist strawman often used because they cannot deal with the objection made. It is much easier for them to argue against a strawman then to argue against what the person actually states.David wrote: Did He actually satisfy His Father's wrath for sin or did God punish His Son for our sin, and us as well if we don't "let Jesus come in to our hearts."? Yes. Those who accept Jesus's propitiation will not suffer condemnation. Those who reject his propiation will have to fend for themselves.David wrote: Does that then make God unjust for now he punishes two men for the crime of one? Only if one accepts your strawman.But the fact remains that we DO NOT believe that everyone will be saved but rather that God makes salvation available to everyone. Big difference. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved."--- Romans 10:13 |
|
|
4/15/08 3:05 PM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Joseph wrote: Romans 5:18 represents two groups: 1. All men who are in Adam and condemned. 2. All men who are called in Christ unto justification of life. Paul then wrote that when the law entered sin abounded, but grace did much more abound (Romans 5:19-21), but only to those who were given the free gift of grace and justified unto life and he addresses the “beloved of God, called to be saints” through the entire epistle to the Romans. Romans 1:7 “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” There are a couple of grave errors in your hermeneutic:1. Your consistent use of eisogesis. Romans five speaks nothing of election, the called, or the like. So for you to insert "who are called" into the text may be convenient to your theological position, but it simply is nothing more than wishful thinking. 2. Simply because the book is written to Cristians does not mean that everything spoken is spoken of the Christian. There are parts in Romans that speak of hell, but I doubt that just because Romans was written to Christians that he is stating that Christians are going to hell. 3. You still ignore the main objection: You cannot have two di |
|
|
4/14/08 3:12 PM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Actually son the verse that I was making reference to was to Romans 5:19"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." If you are going to do damage to Paul's parallelism by insisting that many means few, then if you will be consistent in your parallelism then you would have to conclude that only some are sinners not all. So that if "many shall be righteous"= only a few will be saved then "many were made sinners" have to also = only a few are sinners. That's of course if you would be consistent. But I would not be surprised if you should try to have two different meanings for "many" in the same verse. But if one will accept Paul's meaning of "many" then just like he states that in Adam all are made sinners, then in Christ all can be made righteous. This is derived simply from the context. In one instance Paul states: "death passed upon all men" (v.12) in another instance he states the same truth but differently: "many be dead" (v.15) So unless you believe that not all are sinners, you have a huge problem with your hermeneutic. One cannot simply pick and choose when "many" means all and when it does not solely on one's theological preference. Sorry, your untruth has just |
|
|
4/14/08 1:48 PM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
What you state runs along the lines of heresy.What you are saying in fact is that death has not affected all of mankind. Paul is using Adam and Christ as representative heads of humankind. You can't state that Adam is the representative head of humankind that brought death but Christ is not. Paul clearly makes that connection between Adam and Christ. One cannot simply pick and choose which parts to accept and which parts to reject in the parallelism that Paul makes. Besides, you betray yourself. You state that verse 18 is the conclusion. I agree. But if verse 18 is the conclusion then verse 18 gives the explanantion of verse 16 NOT the other way around. Otherwise verse 18 is no conclusion at all. To add further injury verse 16 is sandwitched between two ideas. Verse twelve makes reference to "all" and verse 18 makes reference to "all." So it is quite obvious to the naked eye that "many" is subjected to the same idea. If you are going to maintain that "many" means that salvation is offered to a few, then you will have to explain how "many were made sinners" does not mean that only a few are sinners. Sorry, your untruth has just been taken to the woodshed. |
|
|
4/14/08 10:55 AM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Icon O'Clast wrote: You got more room in your woodshed? Let me know cos I got scores more where these came from.... Let me guess, not one of them declares the simple truth that God elects an elect few to heaven.I perceive that you are still in the humanistic "logical deduction" rut. Would to God that you would care more for what God's word actually states. While you hide behind the "whole of Scripture" fallacy while not showing one passage that clearly states what you believe, allow me to demonstrate to you how simple it is to allow God's word to speak for itself: I believe that God offers the gift of salvation to everyone. Below is a verse that clearly states that Romans 5:18 wrote: 18Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. See how simple it is.Sorry, I had to do it. Your untruth has just been taken to the woodshed. |
|
|
4/14/08 1:20 AM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Actually I am simply echoing what the Bible states:Isaiah 5:22 wrote: "Woe to men mighty at drinking wine, Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink." Of course I already know that you will not be able to find a text where God condones "wine" which is undoubtedly alcoholic. I already did the work for you.But then again, one has to really care what the Bible actually states. Sorry, your untruth has just been taken to the woodshed. Also, you might want to refrain from calling me a liar. Just because we disagree, does not constitute a lie. SA policy: Personal attacks or insults directed at other users will be censored. If you keep violating this rule, I am going to have to push the abuse button on you for abusing me with your ad hominems. |
|
|
4/14/08 1:07 AM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Sticks and stones.Apples and oranges. Dichotomy where a dichotomy does not exist. Pious pontifications. As I stated before, we already know that the WCF had to include the "logically deduced" clause to give Calvinism a fighting chance. But you must understand that in an age where people do not have to fear state-run religions they simply want God's word on it. Evolution can be logically deduced. Polygamy can be logically deduced. Homosexuality can be logically deduced. Virtually any perverted fancy that occurs to any single depraved heart can be logically deduced from the Bible. I encourage you to get pass your humanistic rut. Tell me when you will actually show us where in the Bible does it state that God has preordained simpll an elect few unto salvation. The problem that you have is that you preffer something that can be logically deduced over what the Scripture clearly states. Sorry, your untruth has just been taken to the woodshed. |
|
|
4/14/08 12:00 AM |
Daddy | | Taking Untruth to the Woodshed | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Icon O'Clast wrote: The argument used against drinking is always that there is the possibility of over-indulging or causing others to over-indulge. In all these things there is both legal and illegal usage. Sex is legal - between a married man and woman. According to the argument of some I must abstain from sex with my wife because it could lead someone else astray and make them a rapist. Apples and oranges. There is no such thing as legal marijuana. Neither is there any such thing as legal homicide or legal homosexuality.The liberating truth is that there is no such thing in the Bible as legal alcoholic beverages. The liberating truth is that God never ever condones alcoholic beverages. It is an undisputable fact that, wine in the scripture (and for the longest time in the English language)makes reference to both alcoholic and non alcoholic grapejuice. The context will tell us every time to which drink it speaks if we have the slightest care to what it actually states. In every instance where the context is undoubtedly refering to alcoholic beverages, it is spoken of in a negative light. Of course one would have to actually care about what the Bible states. |
|
|
|
Jump to Page : 1 2 [3] |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|