Search results

Right, but what's the nature of that destruction, Davy? In different contexts, 'destruction' can mean different things. Just to name two: 1. total annihilation 2. complete ruination Those can both be understood as a destruction, but the nature of the two are very different. At any rate...

@Davy Hey! What happened to me being on your ignore list? Yeah so much for that... Grace and peace to you, Davy.

Yeah, Cain sits in the same seat as Esau. And the rich man in Jesus's parable in Luke 16:19 and following. They, and all like them, will be on Jesus's left in the final Judgment. Right. Grace and peace to you, TS.

Absolutely. No more sin, no more death. That's... yeah, "huge." To... you know, put it rather mildly... <smile> Ohhhhhhhh... boy. Well, His return is certainly in the future; we agree on that... <smile> And... the rest of God's millennium, but there may not be much, even from our...

Y'all are really... um... colorful... and bold... <smile> And... well... <smile> Grace and peace to you both.

Well, 9 through 11, when speaking of God's purpose of election, specifically, because that's the clearest and most complete exposition of it in the Bible. But it's supported throughout the Bible, and that's why I've quoted so extensively. Even in those specific chapters, Paul quotes and refers...

From above (this is important, too, but a separate thing)... Well I don't know, but no matter, really; just a brief perusal of the posts in various threads on this board regarding all kinds of subjects can be... frightening. <smile> Hmmmm... Well, I do, but only if you mean literal, regarding...

Okay I'm going to split this up, because this is important... Disagree. In the last verse of chapter 10 ~ immediately prior to 11:1 ~ Paul quotes Isaiah, who is quoting God in saying, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (from Isaiah 65:2). So, in...

I agree concerning the expression of a result of purpose, of course, and that it substitutes for the future tense. But what is being expressed by Paul here is, regarding any individual even in the past and from then going forward, the universal possibility for all of receiving God's salvific...

Sure. He may, in the sense that He can have mercy on all, but... He doesn't... He has mercy on whom He will have mercy. The word 'may,' there, KUWN, indicates discretion. He can have mercy on all, but does not... and that according to His will, of course. And as for the "everyone," it is...

Well, it depends on what you mean by this "lake of fire" and "fiery torment"... what one understands those things to be. Which I alluded to above, at least the "fiery torment." Ahhhh, Revelation 20... it causes so many so much... consternation... But that too cannot be pinned on God, of...

Hmmm... Well, of course, no one is actually tortured for all eternity... With which you agree, I know. Unless you mean "tortured" in an entirely different sense than what people commonly think of regarding torture. Not having access anymore to something desired... that could have easily...

Very well! I hope all's well that ends well. You should have... <smile> Ah, well, by the same token, you're just as guilty of that as I am; surely you would admit that. The difference is, though, in my case, I've actually been very accurate in... I mean, not "telling you what you believe,"...

Fair enough. And GodsGrace probably does, too... if she'd only understand it for what it is, but she's been very strident in repudiating it. That may be; the clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and...

It's not the quoting him that's the problem, GodsGrace, it's your wrongheaded "gleanings" ~ understandings ~ of what he said. So, yes. Your understandings of what he wrote are the problem. No matter how many times you directly quote him, you continue missing the point(s) entirely, making them...

This is excellent, Hey You. Yes, this is what I've been saying, that both are man's free will and God's sovereignty are absolutely true, and they have to be held together but at a tension, so to speak... and there has to be a resolution of the two to each other. Now, I would disagree with...

Ah the end... LOL! From above... And, "thank you" ~ in quotes ~ for falsely putting words in my mouth (and Calvin's, and all historical Calvinists). You shouldn't do so, but, like I said, you're certainly your own person. Oh, so none of the Gospels, or Romans 9, or Ephesians 1 or 2, or 1...

From above... Ah, well, through faith, but it is the work of God, by His Spirit, in us; "this is not (our) own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works," Paul says and you yourself quoted and emphasized. You're exactly right in saying faith is not a work, but you ~ and all Arminians...

From above... And I will repeat: One freely chooses the Lord's salvation in the Person of Christ ~ which is of the Lord, not of man ~ because He has been born again of the Spirit, and that is not because of ~ does not depend on, in Paul's words in Romans 9:16 ~ the will or running of man, but...

As do I. As do you. Hmmm... well in this very post of yours, you cut out comments of mine from my previous post. You said (and I quote ~ although you left it within my quote) "edited: unnecessary comments from you, as usual and to save space." I wouldn't call your comments "unnecessary," but...