Search results

MUCH of this seems to be pure speculation.... that runs head on with Scripture, contradicting it. Yes, I agree: No one "chooses" God and no one gives faith to self. THAT much is Scriptural and true. But there is nothing in Scripture that says Jesus only died for a limited few or only atoned...

No, that's EXACTLY the RCC's position. It itself points to just it itself individually as the sole, authoritative (even infallible and unaccountable) interpreter. Others MAY do whatever they like but ONLY self can do this authoritatively and correctly. Luther and Calvin both repudiated self...

Actually, that's exactly one of the primary things Protestantism protests.... One of the PRIMARY issues of Luther and Calvin was the RCC insisting that Truth is a matter of the individual's understanding (self looking to self). I posted above... I think the most important marks of...

I disagree. In fact, I think one of the hallmarks of Protestantism is the PROTEST of that, the repudiation that one person, church, denomination, sect, cult can simply designate SELF alone as the sole, authoritative, infallible, unaccountable interpreter of Scripture.... it was one of Luther...

... except that Dave revealed he has nothing that indicates that Jesus didn't die for the Pharisees. See post 841 .

DAVE... You seem to be ASSUMING something the verse does not remotely say, that all those for whom Christ died are given faith. Not a single verse in the Bible that remotely supports your assumption. They are His sheep because they have faith.... Now, before you get off on that illogical...

Not one of them says, "Jesus died not die for the Pharisees" as you claimed. Not one of them says, "Jesus died only, exclusively, solely, just for a limited few." Note the amazing illogic here. If I said that Ford Mustangs are cars, does that prove that ONLY Ford Mustangs are cars? Or that...

What verse is that, please quote it.

" Yup. But the entire dogma of the "L" is completely, totally, wholly missing in the verse. The "L" is that Jesus died ONLY for the church. The verse doesn't say that, does it? The verse is entirely missing the whole dogma. It does NOT say, "ONLY." The illogic of TULIP is often so...

No one disputes that (well, a few Universalists - which grew out of Calvinism). That's not at all the issue here. The issue is WHY? Is it because Christ was neglectful, His Sacrifice limited and insufficient? OR because faith is limited in those who have it? BOTH "sides" in this fully...

Yup. Faith is a divine gift. And yup, not all have this gift. Now, how does that prove that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few - and that's why not all are saved? What verse(s) suggest that the problem is with CHRIST rather than with us? That Jesus was neglectful...

Only if faith is eliminated and regarded as irrelevant to anything. in As hyper-Calvinists are often apt to do The biblical (and Protestant) position in justification is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. As one doctrine. Note the "Sola FIDE" aspect; it's present, not eliminated...

Those two radical, unbiblical inventions in the late 16th Century - one by hyper-Calvinists and one by hyper-Arminianists - are not the only two options! Both NEED to say that because it's easy for each to rebuke the other, then both use the very illogical and silly argument that because the...

I agree. NOTHING about "Jesus died ONLY, EXLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a LIMITED few." True, God does not give faith to all but that doesn't mean ergo Jesus died for only a few. But the "L" of TULIP is NOT "Limited Faith" or "Limited Effect" it's "Jesus died only, exclusively, solely, just...

I don't see how anything in your post substantiates that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the LIMITED few .... or that He died for all. Respectfully, I don't see how anything you posted has anything to do with the issue of whether Jesus died for all or just for a few.

One more thing: Arminianists and hyper-Calvinists both illogically claim there are only two possiblities: One or the other. Both use the highly illogical argument that if they can prove the other WRONG, ergo they MUST be right because only those two options exist. It's a bit like saying...

The two positions are this: Calvinism: Christ died ONLY for a few Orthodox Christianity: Christ died for all. It's not more complicated. Traditional Christianity is NOT saying that thus all are saved (universalism came out of hyper-Calvinism) because there is another factor: Faith. But...

1. I don't claim that Jesus is the "Gingerbread man." No one does. 2. I don't claim that Jesus is speaking "metaphorically" in the Eucharistic texts. Remember: I'M the one fully accepting and believing every exact word Jesus said and Paul penned... YOU are the one insisting they should...

Again, your switching to the few times when the verb "to be" is used metaphorically does NOTHING to support your silly premise. Even here, the verb does NOT mandate some physical CHANGE from one reality fully into some different, foreign reality (via the specific process of an alchemic...

' For PAGES, you have been ridiculing me for accepting and believing what Jesus said and Paul penned: IS.... BODY.... BLOOD..... BREAD.... WINE.... FORGIVENESS. The Dogma of Transubstantiation holds that "is" should be "changed via the precise, technical, physical process of an alchemic...