However, the son in the parable is NOT AN INFANT but a full grown man who can ask for his legal inheritance! Thus according to Winman's logic, there is no need to be born into God's family as an adult because they already are children of God, just in sin and need to be reconciled as His children to their father.
If this is what he believes, then mercy oh mercy!
However, we are leaving the subject of the OP and it is obvious why Winman is attempting to derail the OP because he has yet responded to the problems I have placed before Arminians to answer! Thus none have dared to given any direct answers to the explicit stated problems.
None can come but those "given" - Jn. 6:36-40
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Jan 19, 2014.
Page 5 of 5
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Children die as a consequence of Adam's sin, not because they have sinned. Paul clearly shows babies have not sinned in the womb, but millions of babies die in the womb every year.
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
You can't simply ignore scripture that is inconvenient to your personal doctrine. If all men sinned in Adam's loins in the garden as Biblicist believes, then Paul was wrong to say Jacob and Esau had done no evil. In Biblicist's view, both Jacob and Esau ate the forbidden fruit in the garden with Adam, and Paul would be mistaken here.
No, Paul said Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb, they had not sinned "in Adam".
Likewise, Paul said he was spiritually alive until he learned the commandments. When he learned the law he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.
Paul was absolutely NOT a Calvinist. -
Don'r you think Paul lamented over his own people the jews, willing to go to hell for them if that would save them, yet also knowing only a remant would be saved by grace of God? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Thus, the death of the animal is directly related to sin and death of that animal is the consequence of sin because "by one man sin entered into the world and DEATH BY SIN."
Again, we are departing from the OP which has nothing to do with this subject injected by Winman. -
And of course I love them, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Of course, once you realize that Calvinism is total bunk, and that God desires all persons to be saved, then you realize Paul's will was the same as our heavenly Father's will, and that God is just as loving as Paul was.
Calvinism is absolutely nonsensical, you must throw your brain in the trash to believe it's false doctrines. -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Convicted! and Winman,
If you want to discuss children, death and sin please open another thread for that. It is against the rules of BB to intentionally derail any thread and that is what you are doing.
Thank you. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Nevertheless, an innocent animal that did not sin died because of sin. Likewise, children who have not sinned die as a consequence of sin.
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Biblicist loves to pull a single verse out of the scriptures and isolate it to attempt to prove false doctrine. He objects whenever anyone introduces other scripture that easily refutes his false views.
He is no different from John Calvin himself who would punish anyone who opposed him and disagreed with him. Like father, like son. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
You can do whatever you wish. You show that you fear opposition. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
It would seem that I am simply asking you to honor the rules of the BB and not intentionally derail the OP by opening another subject that has nothing to do with the subject of this OP.
Again, I kindly ask you to please open your own thread to discuss this new topic and I will be more than happy to respond to you on that thread, but please stop derailing this thread. -
No on can/will come w/o first being drawn. Neither faction denies this. However, the rub is that our side states they will come, whereas the other side states that drawing doesn't actually mean they will come.
I was going to tie into this thread what Brother winman and I were debating, but someone apparently wants to play dictator.
Cool your jets, Brother and continue quoting yourself like you repeatedly do. I am done with this thread. Carry on!! :thumbsup: -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
At 10 pages and 96 posts, I'm closing this thread before it turns into an inferno. And yes, please do start a new thread if your comments would tend to diverge significantly from the OP.
Page 5 of 5