Featured .needs help

Laugh it up.

It simply illustrates your sloth and sloppiness.

No drama, more humor than anything. Unfortunate you do not understand...you are the source.

A normal position for you, I would assume.

Again...everything I have given you has been on point and in order.

I have shown how you piece meal posts, slice and dice, and all of this so you can throw up a smokescreen in an attempt to hide the woeful lack of familiarity with Scripture.

Right.

You're off to a great start, I am waiting for an address of what has already been posted.

God bless.

 

DC: Address these points:

Mark 1:37 says :"everyone is looking for you!"

Every single person on the earth at that time? Of course not. And it excludes the millions who had already died before that statement was made. And it excludes the billions who were not living when that was said.

Mark 5:20 : "all the people were amazed."

The same thing applies as I said above.

Mark 11:32 : "everyone held that John really was a prophet."

Ditto.

The KJV likes to use the expression "all men" --in those three passages and many more. But it really needs to be broughty to your attention that you are ignoring the context to support your man-made tradition.

Matthew 20:28 :"to give his life for many"
Mark 10:45 :"to give his life as a ransom for many"
Mark 14:24 :"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many"

You have constantly claimed that world is world.
You have claimed that everyone is everyone.
You have claimed that all men means all men.

You have consistently ignored the context where these expressions are used in various translations. So now, how do you handle the expression "for many"?

 

I see your inability forces you to appeal for support.

Not one of your buddies has yet to address the Scriptures posted.

Of course, because you have run and hidden in another thread where you can distract from what was said there, that goes without saying.

We can see your dishonesty here, as I remember clearly her spelling on this.

Here is the post:

And here is the response:

Here we see your dishonesty in quoting.

See those little arrows, those are the links that one can click on to see who is actually doing a word for word response.

I don't mind giving someone a chance to try to save face, but the fact that you are dishonest and it is so evident makes me think there is little sense in continuing this with you.

Not sure I want to deal with "queezation" you inspire.


Continued...

 

Now there you go and properly exegeted a lot of verses!! Shame on you!! That's foreign in these here parts...


:thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs:

 

I answered the "Quesation," all right."

Is there some reason you mention this and don't actually quote the response?

Here it is:

And this after quoting her own quesation.

I mean, I thought it was a nice speech myself...

This is not asking for clarification, it is a dogmatic statement:

In your wildest dreams.

It is a dogmatic statement rooted in the same fluffy theology you embrace.

Here is the OP:

You do understand the difference between a statement and a quesation, right?

Very good Iconoclast, now if you will just learn to get the tags in there.

Wait, I'm not done with you yet.

You and she both change the question.

Let's see in that in slo-mo...

The question of the OP:

The question you want the OP to ask:

And the obvious fact to everyone except for you two is...the second is not even a question.

In fact...it does not even qualify as a quesation.

If you'll just stop long enough to actually read what it is you think you are responding to, you might just see that she is giving the reason for the question. And not even that makes sense.

Why would the fact that only the saved will be saved have anything to do with the actual question of the OP...


We know what the bible says in John 3:16, so does that mean that He loves every single person? If so, and only those who get saved are those who are predestined/chosen, how is this love manifest for the not predestined/chosen?

The answer to the question was given and that was included above, in case your interested in what an answer to a question looks like.

This...

...is not a question.

And I stand by that.

Would you care to, at this time...respond to the Scripture in this post?

It's a simple concept: John the Baptist prophesies and states it very clearly...


John 1:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

How about the other one:


Salvation has always been about obedience to the Word of God, which is the Gospel in every Age. IN this Age we have the specific Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the unveiling of what the Word of God has progressively revealed over the course of History, as attested by the Writer of Hebrews, and in fact important enough that he begins His Epistle making this point:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

...?

I won't hold my breath.


Continued...

 

And she was wrong. Just like you are wrong.

Not sure how many times it has to be posted:

We know what the bible says in John 3:16, so does that mean that He loves every single person? If so, and only those who get saved are those who are predestined/chosen, how is this love manifest for the not predestined/chosen?

Understanding the question yet?

Let me try to say it another way: How is the love of God manifested for those not predestined/chosen?

The question backfires on her, though, and she gets an answer to the questions of the OP she didn't want.

Because you have trained yourself carefully at the art of self delusion?

The historicist view will do that I understand. And if you can look at Scripture and not see what is written, why would I expect anything different when you slice and dice your way through a post.

I guess maybe I would suggest you stay away from more complicated concepts.

Clearly wrong, that is crystal, lol.

Clearly not interested in debating election versus free will, but clearly not interested in testing her own doctrine with Scripture.

But here is the response I gave:

And here is your real problem, you are more interested in defending yourself, not Scripture, not Sound Doctrine.

I have shown clearly in this post that you have changed the question, you have lied about direct quotes, and that your buddies, as well as the OP...simply could not grasp the question because of the blindness you suffer in your loyalty to self and Systematic Theology.

I am guessing there is supposed to be something here?

All does mean all when it is spoken in Scripture:

Here are some verses you have consistently run from:


Ephesians 3:8-10

King James Version (KJV)

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,



1 Timothy 2:3-5

King James Version (KJV)

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;




1 Timothy 4:9-11

King James Version (KJV)

9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.

10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

11 These things command and teach.

And if you would like to continue, you are going to have to start shedding some of that sloth.

For the last time, all you need to do is copy and paste the code...

([QUOTE=Iconoclast;2223799)

...(which is the first thing you will see when hit "QUOTE") before each statement you want to quote, and after each statement copy and paste...

(/QUOTE)

...after each statement.

I see no reason to bother extending my stay for someone that hasn't bothered to learn to do this after posting so much on this forum.


God bless.

 

Brother Iconoclast....








Kudos!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

And it is clear that it is not only those who hold to limited atonement can answer. There are two threads showing that now.

Agreed:

Seeing the question yet?


God bless.

 

Could you actually point out this exegesis you speak of?

And while your at it, care to respond to any of the points made?

Or is your only contribution on this forum...

...videos?

And if you have answered any of the questions in the other threads let me know.

Cheerleaders. What a nuisance...


God bless.

 

I am just watching Brother Iconoclast beating you like you're the 'threshing floor'....

 

Rippon, let's see you address these first:

Here's the response I got:

What's so long winded about this response? Seems fairly short, and only one passage to answer.

Our next exchange, which is a portion of your response to Van:

When reviewing, I saw your response:

The next exchange was...

My response:

So that everything between us.

Who answered who, who addressed the Scripture, and who supplied a Biblical Response when asked?

Not you.

And you want to do the same thing Iconoclast is doing?

Run from those questions and points and ask more questions?

I don't think so.

So show me how those vociferously disagreeing people in Hell disagree with me.

Show me the Scripture.

I have seen enough proof-texting to last a life time, not to mention cheerleading, lol.

The ball is in your court. Time to practice a different kind of dribbling.


God bless.

 

So anytime people fix spelling mistakes in post they quote it is being dishonest? Wow I missed that one, must be in Hezekiah somewhere.
If this was a formal setting sure it would be expected that you would leave it as is and put sic in, but this is an internet forum not a college paper. Did he change what she said? Seems like a petty issue to get so worked up over.