Did God predestinate the church in Pergamos in Rev 2 to disobey Him, so that He needed to correct them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're as unforgiving as you think God is.

I'm sorry... Was there something I was supposed to "forgive"?
Did some commit a transgression against me? I wasn't aware.

You know full well he meant predetermined.

Okay... So now you're presuming to tell me what I "know full well"?
When do you think you obtained your imaginary mind-reading abilities?
 
I'm sorry... Was there something I was supposed to "forgive"?
Did some commit a transgression against me? I wasn't aware.
:rolleyes:

Okay... So now you're presuming to tell me what I "know full well"?
When do you think you obtained your imaginary mind-reading abilities?
It was a simple typo on his part.
Are you honestly saying that you did not know what he meant?
 
And you are in a PUBLIC discussion forum, not a private exchange, "if you'll notice".

Yeah, I didn't mean you couldn't join in. I simply meant that you'd have to read the flow of the conversation between me and Howie in order to understand what I'm arguing. You can't just jump in on one post and play "gotcha" without understanding the actual discourse.

You should probably study it further, as it's unclear as to whether you adequately understand it or not (no offense, sincerely).

You have to realize that "negation" and "opposite" are not the same thing. This is a typical error made by beginning students of logic.

For instance, the negation of "all" is not "none", it is "not all", or "some".
The negation of "all" is "some", not "none".

And the denial of "sin nature" is NOT "sinless nature".

Ironically, I was going to share Augustine's argument with you earlier, as it seems to go against your own position.

For the benefit of the lurkers:


Pre-fallposse peccare,
posse non peccare
able to sin,
able to not sin
Post-fall unregeneratenon posse non peccarenot able to not sin
Post-fall regenerateposse non peccareable to not sin
glorified mannon posse peccareunable to sin

Uh....I get it. Again, follow the whole conversation please.
 
Yeah, I didn't mean you couldn't join in. I simply meant that you'd have to read the flow of the conversation between me and Howie in order to understand what I'm arguing. You can't just jump in on one post and play "gotcha" without understanding the actual discourse.

Um.... I DID read the entire discussion.
But thank you for the insult.

Uh....I get it. Again, follow the whole conversation please.

Um, I actually DID.
So again, thank you for the insult.
 
Um.... I DID read the entire discussion.
But thank you for the insult.



Um, I actually DID.
So again, thank you for the insult.

It’s not an insult to ask that you read the whole conversation. If you did, you’d have noticed that I agreed with Augustine’s view of human nature before the fall. And if you noticed that, you’d not have claimed that I was moving the goalposts.
 
It’s not an insult to ask that you read the whole conversation.

It is because I actually DID read the whole conversation.
There's this thing that Jesus taught in the Bible.
It's called "charity".
You should try to learn about it.

If you did, you’d have noticed that I agreed with Augustine’s view of human nature before the fall.

Actually, what I "noticed" is that you seemed to be talking out of both sides of your mouth on that point. So maybe the issue is your poor communications skills. No, that can't be it, so you have to blame me for your faults, right?

And if you noticed that, you’d not have claimed that I was moving the goalposts.

Again, maybe the issue was your poor communications skills, and not your misguided assumption that I didn't read through the thread.
 
One bad actor can ruin it for everyone.

I have had many pleasant conversations with Howie, who I “know” from many years of discussion in the SEP forum. There’s mutual respect there. And even Tom, who I’m just meeting (as it were), even though we disagree it’s been quite pleasant.

But yeah it’s not that way with everyone though, apparently. Hence my decision to simply disengage with those unable to have a reasonable conversation in a pleasant manner.

-shrug-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top