Featured To the Calvinists here: what part of Non cal theology Bothers you the Most?

P4T, you know what a tag team is?

 

You bet kyredneck! :thumbs:

perhaps they can get together and produce a sequel

 

That's right. For the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

This world was created for the purpose of the Cross. Any noncalvinistic thought has to deny that fact to preserve its validity.

 

Let's see, you give 2 thumbs up to Mike's Hard Lemonade which is an alcoholic beverage and now you are passing out references to secular movies. Your "superior spiritually" is such a shining example! Can't wait to see what's next.

 

Actually it's more along the lines of a ventriloquist and his dummy . HOS is a bonafide troll and anyone he begins to be 'chummy' with should become automatically suspect also.

 

I agree with you 100%. I give them the just and fitting moniker 'Bobbsey twins' to go along with them and their shared errant theology.

 

2 Pees In a Pod

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/4836hitlereugeniopacelli.jpg

 

And the pharisees referred to him as a winebibber. Scripture doesn't condemn the use of alcohol, only neo-pharisees do. You continue the tradition.

 

So because the PHARISEES accused Jesus of something, that makes it true? Get a clue about Bible interpretation, it was an ACCUSATION, not a Biblical axiom about Christ. Unbelievable that you approve of a statement made by Pharisees against Christ.

And scripture doesn't condemn the use of moderate WINE. It is clearly against STRONG DRINK and Drunkenness, and don't try selling a bridge in Okie by claiming that someone "socially drinks" hard liquor.

So now you condone liquor, promote secular heathen movies, scheme with racists (KY), and defend the Pharisees against Jesus. Please tell me more about how "spiritual" you are, this is getting interesting. I'm making coffee and popcorn for this one.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I think that's the gist of it. Being a Molinist, you're familiar with middle-knowledge. For those who may not be, it's the concept that God not only knows all things as they are, he also knows all things as they would be if conditions were different or changed. One biblical example is in Matthew 11:20-24. God is not bluffing or exaggerating or guessing when he informs Chorazin that Tyre and Sidon would've repented if they had seen the signs that Chrorazin saw. He is speaking the truth because he knows perfectly what would've happened.

This affects creation in that He knows exactly what each creature will do perfectly. Additionally, He knows exactly what those creatures would do in other circumstances. In light of these facts, it seems that, at least at some level, creation is causation.

 

Scripture doesn't condemn the use of alcohol, only neo-pharisees do.

 

It is amazing that you responded to the issue about alcohol, and ignored the issue about you siding with the Pharisees about Christ. I guess that proves what's more important to you.

Now for your lesson about alcohol, because AA apparently isn't helping you (not that it could),

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Prov 20:1

"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!" Isaiah 5:11

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" Eph 5:18

" For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation." 1 Thess 5:7-8

Got the hint yet? There's more if you still need help

 

You continue to slander and misrepresent. Your walk is inconsistent with NT theology.

Scripture doesn't condemn the use of alcohol, only neo-pharisees do.

 

I was part of this type of fundamentalism once; the Bob Jones, Word of Life, Pensacola, Tennessee Temple brand of fundamentalism. Neo-Pharisee is right. The issue isn't whether one engages in Christian liberty. The real issue is fundamentalist arrogance.

 

Two Scriptures

Quote from post by dr-ach:

"Now this verse only says what you say it doesn't say if you read a presuppostional stance into the text. But what does 2 Peter 3:9 actually say?

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Now does this verse only mean that God is not willing that ONLY THE ELECT should not perish? That would be impossible because in the very next clause it says "but that all should come to repentance". So the end of the verse is about those who have not came to repentance which means that the subject of this verse are those who are not saved.

And what then does it say about those who have not come to repentance? That the Lord is NOT WILLING (by determination or plan) that ANY should perish"

Now what does Ezekiel 33:11 say?

" Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?"

Furthermore, if God eternally decreed the damnation of sinners to hell, THEN WHY WAS HELL ONLY ORIGINALLY CREATED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS??" ​

First Peter:

Peter is NOT writing to heathens - but to the brethren. He is writing not to the unsaved, but the saved. He is also NOT discussing salvation but the return of Christ.

Therefore the verse in question MUST be read in THAT context to derive the correct interpretation.

Peter is not stating that all will be saved.

Peter is not stating that even some will be saved.

Peter is in fact holding to the same thinking the Lord Jesus Christ expressed when He stated, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out."

Peter is reminding the believers that when the last person that the Father has given to the Son to save is saved, He will return.

Any other rendering of the verse will ultimately lead to universalism.

Second Ezekiel:

This is not a verse about salvation, but of God urging HIS people to quit sinning. Think of Paul encouraging the people to degraded the Lord's table and were now "asleep."

Ezekiel is quoting God.

God is making a statement about Himself - He does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.
God is stating what does please Him - the His children stop sinning.

The universal-istic thinker's desire to use this verse and apply it to all the heathen to prove a point shows a great weakness in understanding the character and nature of God.

 

Professing Christians that claim to be more spiritual than everyone else do not side with the Pharisees against Christ.

 

:laugh::laugh::thumbsup:

 

Professing Christians don't call others names....Morons to be exact.

 

Although I was once a BBFI pastor, I do not consider myself in any fashion a fundamentalist by their interpretation. I do however adhere to true fundamentalist tenets of the faith.

As far as the KJVO cultists within them, their neo-pharisaism, hateful-spiritedness towards others who don't follow their man-made traditions, foolish preaching on their bibliolatry, politicking via personality worship, and a horrendously shallow theology &c -- I am glad to say I was never a part of any of that mess.

Let's just say moving from the NE to the MW put me in the midst of this neo-pharisaical sect. I never saw any of this where I was saved. It is rampant in these parts.

- Blessings

 

In all actuality it is you who have called me the same as they did Christ. I've never uttered such a slander.

He is right, you are blind guides. You cannot even begin to see your problem without divine aid and mercy.