Search results

YOU haven't proven it . . .

I already have. The ball is in YOUR court. If you believe in a perverted doctrine that was NEVER taught by the Early Church - you need to provide a defense of it. You "debate" like a child. . .

That's what I thought you' say. I've already DISproved your false doctrine. You've LOST this debate . . .

The onus is on YOU to prove the false 16th century invention of Limited Atonement. My job was to DISprove it - which I have done. You have repatedly failed to supp[ort it Scripturally . . .

Then, not only bare you a fraud - you have disobeyed a dire ct Biblical command ALWAYS be ready to give a reason for this hopr of yours (2 Pet. 3:15). Bottonm line: If you can't explain it from Scripture - then it's NOT Scriptural . . .

Because, like YOU said - it's a poor tranclation. Not ALL sins were forgiven. The price was paid for ALL sins - but only the ones who repent and trust in Christ are forgiven . . .

PROVE it.

That’s what I get for being lazy . . . However – even this flawed version doesn’t support Limited Atonement.

It is the AI version from Google. However - these other versions say the same thing . . . NIV My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...

The following verses that I have THRICE presented don't need an exegetical treatise. There is nothing "hidden" or "mystical" about them. They say plainly that Jesus paid for ALL of the sines of ALL people. It's a clear as NO explanation is necessary I've never met an adherent of the false...

I've given you Scriptural proof that Limited Atonement is a FALSE doctrine. It’s blindingly-clear that YOU are afraid to engage in this topic because the weight of Scripture is against you. You have simply rejected my evidence without providing ANY of your own. Ummmm, talk about cowardly . . ...

If you’re not prepared to defend your heresy – then just say so. The onus is on YOU because this heresy was NOT invented until the 16rg century. It was NOT taught from before that – all the way back to the Apostles. The heresy of Limited Atonement posits that only the sins of the “Elect” were...

No – that’s NOT how it works. I presented my Scriptural evidence. I bolded and underlined the pertinent parts. The onus is on YOU to disprove it. These verses clearly refute the Calvinist heresy of Limited Atonment.

That doesn't even make sense. Refute the Scriptural evidence I presented. Limited Atonement is a Calvinist heresey . . . I John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous...

Actually - not the founder - just the one of the best explainers. I would say that boh Augustine and Thomas Acquinas best explained the doctrines pof the Church. But, I wouldn't say that they invented them.

And it's too bad that YOU can't refute the Scriptural evidence I presented . . .

Limited Atonement is a heresy - not a Biblical doctrine. I John 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but...

Correction: Jesus Christ is considered the founder of the Catholic Church - not Augustine.

That's NOT what the Bible teaches us. In 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul, writing under the inspiratin of the Holy Spirit, puts Scripture and Oral Tradition on EQUAL ground: 2 Thess 2:15 "Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us." He...

The ONLY thing you’ve "firmly" established is that you read too many Jack Chick comic books and other thongs that were influenced by the heavily-debunked work of historical schlock - – The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop. He was a 19th century anti-Catholic who wrote this book as an attack on...