The "T" in TULIP - refuted in one verse.

[Theo1689]

You understood what he wrote. Everyone did.

Maybe when James White finally gets his degree..... He can help.

So since you can't successfully attack Calvinism, you resort to personal attacks on people who aren't even part of the discussion?

Thanks for the admission.

 

[TomFL]

Your entire methodology is fallacious.

You can't simply quote one single verse and categorically claim, "This doctrine is false".
What you're doing ignores the other 31,000 verses in the Bible.

Calvinists (and the ECF's) didn't simply "invent" the doctrine of Total Depravity out of whole cloth. They got it from THE BIBLE. And so you have to address THOSE verses as well!

The standard response is, "If it disagrees with my verse, then you must be interpreting it wrong".
But that's fallacious as well, since we can simply point to the TD passages and say, "If your interpretation of Matt. 11:23 contradicts those, then YOUR interpretation of Matt. 11 must be wrong!"

Look, if you think TD is Biblical, if you think you're able to keep the entire law perfectly, then good for you! You can believe whatever you want. And fortunately for you, you don't have to have all your doctrines perfectly correct in order to be saved.

But we have seen, read, and studied Matt. 11:23 (and every other verse of the Bible) ten million times, and you haven't convinced us that TD is wrong.

Sorry.

Total depravity and Total inability are not the same thing

Total inability was clearly shown to be error by a number of verses which you do not address

BTW it was multiple verses

 

[Theo1689]

Total depravity and Total inability are not the same thing

Total inability was clearly shown to be error by a number of verses which you do not address

BTW it was multiple verses

Why do I need to "address" them?
I already believe them!

 

[TomFL]

Why do I need to "address" them?
I already believe them!

A bald claim with no backing

If there was any truth in your claim you would exegete them showing they were consistent with total inability

But you don't and seek an easy way out because you cannot do so

 

[Theo1689]

A bald claim with no backing

I said I believe the verses, and you respond with, "A bald claim with no backing"?

Are you calling me a liar?

If there was any truth in your claim you would exegete them showing they were consistent with total inability

Why would I waste my time, when you simply reject what I say, and then insult me by name-calling, such as calling me a "liar"?

But you don't and seek an easy way out because you cannot do so

Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time, when you refuse to invest YOUR time.

When I ask you to demonstrate how any verses allegedly "contradict" Reformed theology, you simply respond with, "it's pretty obvious", which is nothing but a worthless cop-out.

 

[TomFL]

I said I believe the verses, and you respond with, "A bald claim with no backing"?

Are you calling me a liar?

Not calling you anything, Just noting you are unable to back up your words with anything resembling exegesis

Why would I waste my time, when you simply reject what I say, and then insult me by name-calling, such as calling me a "liar"?



Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time, when you refuse to invest YOUR time.

When I ask you to demonstrate how any verses allegedly "contradict" Reformed theology, you simply respond with, "it's pretty obvious", which is nothing but a worthless cop-out.

You waste your time offering bald denials and claims

and it would be obvious if you actually read or interacted with any verse provided instead of just offering knee jerk denials

There are threads where you replied multiple times without ever doing anything more than what we see above

 

[zerinus]

Yes and that would include limited Atonement

What would include Limited Atonement?

they were not in fact saved

Who were not saved?

And had they been saved then all that is supported is

there is an atonement for those that are saved

No idea what you are talking about.

Nothing at all supporting limited atonement.

I never said it did. I am arguing against Limited Atonement, not for Limited Atonement.

The Logic does not support your claim

I see no logic coming out of your argument. I haven't a clue what you are taking about from start to finish.

 

[Theo1689]

Not calling you anything, Just noting you are unable to back up your words with anything resembling exegesis

I have no need to.
I have no desire to "convince" you of anything.
And you're not willing to accept the truth anyway, so that's why I don't waste my time trying.

Please take the chip off your shoulder...

 

[SeventhDay]

Nothing is stated about God regenerating them

You have to assume what is not stated

God can work in someone with out regenerating him and thus is not a new spiritual creation and can not spiritual hear and spiritually hearken to God.

God can work in a new spiritual creation quickened out of death who can spiritually hear and hearken to God who is Spirit.

One who is natural walks in the flesh.

One who is spiritual who pleases God walks in the Spirit.

Nothing complicated about this is there?

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[SeventhDay]

What would include Limited Atonement?

Who were not saved?

No idea what you are talking about.

I never said it did. I am arguing against Limited Atonement, not for Limited Atonement.

I see no logic coming out of your argument. I haven't a clue what you are taking about from start to finish.

Limited atonement makes a mockery of Jesus atonement which is for all of humanity, To teach limited atonement is to deny Jesus atonement and one's faith in Jesus, the Messiah. I would not go that route!

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[TomFL]

God can work in someone with out regenerating him and thus is not a new spiritual creation and can not spiritual hear and spiritually hearken to God.

God can work in a new spiritual creation quickened out of death who can spiritually hear and hearken to God who is Spirit.

One who is natural walks in the flesh.

One who is spiritual who pleases God walks in the Spirit.

Nothing complicated about this is there?

God bless you,

SeventhDay

The doctrine of total Inability holds one must be regenerated before they can believe

If someone can believe without regeneration the doctrine is false

It's that simple

 

[SeventhDay]

The doctrine of total Inability holds one must be regenerated before they can believe

If someone can believe without regeneration the doctrine is false

It's that simple

Yes, one who is spiritually regenerated accepts the good news message! God is not calling the old man who is dead in trespasses and sins to himself. In fact the old man is buried with Christ in his death thus who is God calling to himself?

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[TomFL]

I have no need to.
I have no desire to "convince" you of anything.
And you're not willing to accept the truth anyway, so that's why I don't waste my time trying.

Please take the chip off your shoulder...

Take the chip off your own shoulder

and try actually addressing something for a change

instead of simply wasting time with bald denials

BTW you have no grounds to call something the truth when you do nothing to prove it

 

[TomFL]

What would include Limited Atonement?

Who were not saved?

No idea what you are talking about.

I never said it did. I am arguing against Limited Atonement, not for Limited Atonement.

I see no logic coming out of your argument. I haven't a clue what you are taking about from start to finish.

An unlimited atonement requires Christ to have offered a sacrifice for those who would not believe and be saved

Had those discussed repented and believed they would not qualify as those who did not believe thus have no

bearing at all on the question of unlimited atonement

 

[SeventhDay]

An unlimited atonement requires Christ to have offered a sacrifice for those who would not believe and be saved

Had those discussed repented and believed they would not qualify as those who did not believe thus have no

bearing at all on the question of unlimited atonement

No, God changes the person and that is who God is saving. Jesus did not die for someone who could not and would not belive in Jesus as a sin offering to atone for his sins. That would be foolhardy and redundant.

Jesus discuss the natural or carnal man who walks in the flesh who disbelieve in Jesus who is their Savior and states that they in their present state are under condemnation which all are unless God makes a change in their mind and heart. That is what Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the world means. Jesus is saving the new spiritual creation quickened out of death and the old Adam is put away.

There is no such thing as a limited atonement in quality or scope and can be found no where in the scriptures and the lake of fire is part of God's atoning grace.

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[TomFL]

No, God changes the person and that is who God is saving. Jesus did not die for someone who could not and would not belive in Jesus as a sin offering to atone for his sins. That would be foolhardy and redundant.

Jesus discuss the natural or carnal man who walks in the flesh who disbelieve in Jesus who is their Savior and states that they in their present state are under condemnation which all are unless God makes a change in their mind and heart. That is what Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the world means. Jesus is saving the new spiritual creation quickened out of death and the old Adam is put away.

There is no such thing as a limited atonement in quality or scope and can be found no where in the scriptures and the lake of fire is part of God's atoning grace.

God bless you,

SeventhDay

You are citing your theology and not addressing any verses

 

[Theo1689]

Take the chip off your own shoulder

and try actually addressing something for a change

I have no desire to be your pawn.
I have no "chip" on my shoulder.

instead of simply wasting time with bald denials

If you don't like how I respond, you are perfectly capable of (1) ignoring my posts, and (2) choosing not to respond to me.

However, telling me what to do is against the rules.
You'd do well to remember that.

BTW you have no grounds to call something the truth when you do nothing to prove it

Sorry, I don't take orders from you.
Get over yourself.

 

[TomFL]

I have no desire to be your pawn.
I have no "chip" on my shoulder.



If you don't like how I respond, you are perfectly capable of (1) ignoring my posts, and (2) choosing not to respond to me.

However, telling me what to do is against the rules.
You'd do well to remember that.



Sorry, I don't take orders from you.
Get over yourself.

A typical response

Never addresses the evidence

but always has something to say

 

[SeventhDay]

You are citing your theology and not addressing any verses

Oh. the explanation is important not just siting of verses that any one can take out of context and fit into their narrow or confined theology that makes God helpless and uncaring!

God bless you,

SeventhDay

 

[TomFL]

Oh. the explanation is important not just siting of verses that any one can take out of context and fit into their narrow or confined theology that makes God helpless and uncaring!

God bless you,

SeventhDay

Still not addressing any verses

Why has this been the pattern ?