No, it isn't.That is simply incorrect
No, it isn't.That is simply incorrect
All of this spam has been addressed.This is false
Three verses were presented two showed men could believe savingly
further as a reminder the original argument concerned whether the unregenerate can believe
one showed they can believe and fall away
the other two they could believe and be savedf
Again you argue against the one verse which was designed simply to show the unregenerate can believe
The original argument being simply whether they can believe
and leave unattended the other two which showed they can believe and be saved
not quite what the verse states
John 12:40 (NIV) — 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”
the verse simply shows had these men not been hardened and blinded they could have repented and be saved
Please don't claim you have addressed the verse when you speak of nothing that is actually in the verse
The point
John 20:31 (NIV) — 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
These are dead, unregenerate men, without life, unbelievers, being addressed
reading they might believe and believing they may have life
it shows
one the unregenerate can believe through reading
two these men who were unregenerate by believing can gain life
contrary to your theology which states you must be made alive to believe scripture shows you must believe to be made alive
Your theology is contradicted by scripture
Utter nonsense and a denial of the word of God. It is nothing but man-glorying humanism, the old works-salvation good ol' boys club asininity.
You don't know anything about the context, and that text doesn't support your humanistic god of "libertarian, libertarian!!!"
^^This is what you do day in and day out.^^that is pitting scripture against scripture
ROFL!!!!!!!!!The humanistic god would be the <sic> your predeterminist man's philosophy that puts God is <sic> a box that limits God to having no other choice but to predetermine us.
Ad hom^^This is what you do day in and day out.^^
Ad flom.Ad hom
The further one distances themselves from God the kookier and kookier their beliefs get.ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Boom!!!Ad flom.
Basically "kampioen" (supposed to be a rendition of "champ" which is fitting given his humanism) is rebuking God for being God. "He had no other choice than determining (being God)."The further one distances themselves from God the kookier and kookier their beliefs get.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Sorry but if you think that you do not know what pitting scripture against scripture is^^This is what you do day in and day out.^^
Well lets see your last comments concerning John 20:31 was you did not know what my point wasAll of this spam has been addressed.
Doesn't do anything to prove your claimNo, it isn't.
You guys are totally laughableFlom and exegesis are mortal enemies. He think hermeneutics was a character played by Fred Gwynne.
Boy, your sure told us Leighton, Jr., didn't you?You guys are totally laughable
If you knew anything about hermeneutics you would know allowing scripture to interpret scripture is one of the most powerful ways to interpret it.
You guys however seem to think that is pitting scripture against scripture.
You are getting yourself in a rut ManiBoy, your sure told us Leighton, Jr., didn't you?
#NowWhosAGoodBoy
Keep putting me in my place, Leighton, Jr.!!!You are getting yourself in a rut Mani
I will do my best ManiKeep putting me in my place, Leighton, Jr.!!!
#YouAreDoingAFineJob